The Co-ordinated Work of the Partnerships

The following provides a summary of the work specifically co-ordinated and undertaken by the partnership.

In line with changes to review processes as outlined within Working Together 2018, the LSCP agreed guidance for undertaking Rapid Reviews and the commissioning of Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews. This led to the creation and development of the LSCP Review Advisory Group (RAG), chaired by the Independent Chair who oversee notifications and associated review processes.

Multi-agency Reviews

Since the introduction of these processes there have been two Serious Child Safeguarding Incidents notified by the Local Authority to the National Child Safeguarding Review Panel, resulting in two Rapid Reviews following the deaths of two babies under the age of 1 year. The outcomes of these Rapid Reviews concluded that appropriate learning was identified which could be disseminated in a timely manner and that the commissioning of a Child Safeguarding Practice Review was not recommended in either case. This was endorsed by the National Child Safeguarding Review Panel.

Following the first Rapid Review the process and guidance was reviewed and amended accordingly to learn from the new process and to implement any identified changes. This has resulted in amending Terms of Reference for the RAG with clear lines of accountability and timely approaches for learning to be imbedded from lessons learned.

Within the last year the LSCP has continued to progress its ongoing reviews, including the publication of a Serious Case Review (SCR) in October 2019. The RAG has also requested other review processes in relation to incidents whereby, although not notifications, there has been some potential learning, both in relation to good practice and areas for improved practice. These have included case discussions and audits.

Within all of the ongoing review processes a number of learning points have been identified:

• Understanding of court procedures and powers
• Appropriate use of the LSCP Professional Concerns Resolution Process to reduce professional conflicts and encourage professional curiosity, and ensure drift in the process does not occur
• Understanding and use of dynamic risk assessments
• Importance of understanding the rational for decision making
• Understanding and implementation of the Think Family, Work Family Approach
• Keeping children and young people informed of situations and listening to their views
• Importance of supervision and support for staff
• Importance of multi-agency, restorative conversations
• Listening to, and taking into account the feelings and wishes of parents and carers
• Engaging men in assessments
• Innovative ways of working / engaging with families during the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Increased risk, or feelings of risk, to victims of domestic violence following the end of a violent or abusive relationship.

Learning points continued to be captured on “Learning from Multi-agency Review Sheets” which are held on the LSCP website and disseminated to partners to consider in relation to their own practice, policies and procedures and training. Learning is also disseminated through briefings, training and the LSCP Bulletin.

Leeds uses a proactive approach to the Joint Targeted Area Inspection (JTAI) and benefits from a well-developed and effective multi-agency strategic group aligned to the national programme to undertake shared reflection, audit and improvement planning.

This approach has delivered a wide range of benefits from improvements to practice with individual children identified through multi-agency case audits; to improvements in services such as developing a set of multi-agency practice principles to support best practice in all aspects of work and in particular where the child or young person has mental health needs.

Recognition, Assessment and Response to Neglect Evaluation

In addition to work in relation to the LSCP priorities work has continued to support the ongoing focuses of the LSCP, including an evaluation of the city’s response to neglect. The aim of the evaluation was to demonstrate what impact there has been on outcomes, and the quality of life of children, young people and families.
This evaluation identified 82 children from 42 families who were on a Child in Need Plan under the category of neglect. 

Key findings:

• The neglect experienced by the children and young people was described as low level ongoing neglect, that was a persistent feature in some of these families and not intentional on the part of the parent. Low level neglect can be described as where the children’s needs are not being met by a parent or carer but may not be obvious to professionals
• Parental risk factors were identified in 78% of families which included parental mental health, substance misuse, domestic violence and learning disability
• The single risk factor identified in 36% of families related to parental mental health. In 33% of families they experienced more than one risk factor, the most common factor identified in these families was related to domestic violence
• For a number of the families the neglect experienced by the children and young people was linked to poverty. 48% of the children and families in this review lived in areas that have neighborhoods that are ranked amongst the most deprived nationally
• 18 of the children and young people identified for this evaluation were in secondary school. This raises the question of whether the neglect regarding older children is being identified and addressed appropriately. As highlighted in recent JTAI learning, the neglect of older children sometimes goes unseen
• Attendance was an issue that was identified in 12 (32%) of the children. Despite this, educational neglect (which may include carers failing to comply with statutory requirements regarding school attendance) was identified as a type of neglect in five children and young people. For educational professionals the long term impact of this on the child’s future was highlighted
• There was a clear focus on outcomes in all the cases reviewed and a multi-agency approach was taken to ensure that all the needs identified were being addressed.

The findings from this evaluation raise a number of questions about how, as a city, we respond to and tackle neglect. A number of challenges have been set to the key strategic boards in the city as a result of these findings. The findings from this evaluation have also been presented to the city’s Early Help Board and integrated into their action plan.

An Overview of Child Deaths in Leeds

During 2018, new national guidance was issued regarding both safeguarding arrangements and Child Death Overview Processes (CDOP). National leadership for the child death review process was transferred from the Department for Education to the Department of Health and Social Care in July 2018. Chapter 5 of Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) contains a framework for the two statutory child death review partners (the local authority and the CCG) to make arrangements to review the deaths of children.

In October 2018 the, “Child Death Review: Statutory and Operational Guidance (England)” was issued combing best practice with statutory requirements that must be followed. By setting out key features of the process, it aims to standardise the outputs of the child death review process, thereby enabling thematic learning whilst providing child death review partners the flexibility to make arrangements as they see fit in order to meet the statutory requirements under the Children Act 2004.

During 2019-20 the current Leeds CDOP has continued to function as previously. It comprises of two separate Panels, a Neonatal Panel (for babies aged 0-28) days and an Older Children Panel (for children 28 days up until the 18th birthday), which each bring together appropriate experts from a range of sectors. In the year 2019-20, the CDOP met on 12 occasions (4 Neonatal Panels, 8 Older Children Panels) and reviewed 79 deaths (46 neonatal cases and 33 older cases).

There were 59 reported deaths in 2019-20 of Leeds resident children aged under 18 years old, a slightly higher figure than the previous year, when there were 57 deaths.

However it is not possible to discern a clear trend. The pattern fluctuates, varying from a high of 71 deaths in 2009-10 to a low of 41 deaths in 2013-14. The key findings below show the deaths reviewed by the CDOP during 2019-20 and, to allow more context, also includes deaths reviewed prior to this period.

For 2019-20, key findings in relation to neonatal deaths include:

• From 2008 the predominant categories of death were ‘Perinatal / neonatal event’ (69%) and ‘Chromosomal, genetic and congenital anomalies’ (29%)
• Smoking continues to be a profound risk factor for neonatal death. The rate of maternal smoking identified in cases reviewed in 2019-20 was 28%
• Consanguinity was identified in 11% of all neonatal deaths reviewed in 2019-20 (6% overall years).

Since 2012 onwards:

• Over-representation of mothers and babies from ethnic backgrounds other than White British. This was most marked for women of Asian Pakistani backgrounds, but was also a feature for mothers and babies of Black African backgrounds
• This pattern has been noted in previous CDOP annual reports, and appears to be a persistent pattern, which fits with the national picture. In the 2016-17 CDOP annual report, a specific analysis of CDOP data for ethnicity was included which highlighted high parity and high body mass index (BMI) as prominent risk factors for women of Asian backgrounds; and late booking and high BMI as prominent risk factors for women of African and Caribbean backgrounds
• Cousin marriage increases the risk of a birth disorder (6%) compared to unrelated couples (3%), and most of this increase is linked to genetic conditions which may cause death or long term disability. Since 2012, 5% of all neonatal deaths were from inherited conditions linked to cousin marriage. In most of these cases, there was no known history of genetic conditions in the family prior to the death of the baby, so they were not amenable to prevention via timely genetic counselling. The majority were therefore classified as having no modifiable factors present
• Early booking for maternity care (before the 12th completed week of pregnancy) s considered a quality standard, and women booking later are likely to be at higher risk. In 2019-20, 7% of cases reviewed featured late booking. In the cohort of women experiencing neonatal deaths since 2012, 9% booked late. The 2016-17 analysis of CDOP data by ethnic group showed that women of African and Caribbean backgrounds were much more likely to book later
• Smoking is a profound risk factor for neonatal death. The rate of maternal smoking identified in cases reviewed since 2012 is 21%
• Obesity is a known risk factor for neonatal death. Around 1 in 5 pregnant women in Leeds are obese (21% with a BMI over 30). 21% of mothers whose babies died neonatally were obese. Moreover, the 2016-17 analysis of CDOP data in relation to ethnicity highlighted high maternal BMI as a more prominent risk factor among women of Asian (53%) and African and Caribbean (45%) backgrounds. This finding was fed into a health needs assessment of maternal nutrition undertaken by LCC Public Health and has informed a developing programme of work with maternity services and other partners to address maternal nutrition in these groups
• 17% of all neonatal deaths since 2012 reviewed by the Panel were considered to have modifiable factors. For Category 8: ‘Perinatal/neonatal event’, 20% were considered to have modifiable factors.

2019-20, key findings in relation to deaths of older children included:

• The predominant categories of deaths were: ‘Chromosomal, genetic and congenital anomalies’ (15%), ‘Sudden unexpected, unexplained death (12%), ‘Malignancy’ (9%) and ‘Trauma’ (6%)
• Approximately 3% of deaths among older children were from inherited conditions linked to cousin marriage. None of these deaths would be amenable to prevention through genetic counselling and intervention in families where genetic disease was already known to be present in the family
• The largest number of deaths was in babies between 28-364 days old (24%), and in children aged 1-4 years (18%). Fewer deaths occurred in the older age groups
• 60% of all older cases were considered to be modifiable and 6 recommendations were made in relation to these cases (outlined at point 6 of this report).

Since 2012 onwards:

• Trauma was a prominent cause accounting for 54 deaths (13%) since 2012, of which 22 were related to road traffic injuries, around half being pedestrians and a quarter passengers. 65% of the road traffic deaths were considered to have modifiable factors
• Since 2012, 32 Leeds babies have died suddenly and unexpectedly in their sleep, without an established underlying medical cause. Actual numbers fluctuate between 3 and 9 each year. 16 of these babies had one or more modifiable risk factors present (50%). The most prominent risk factor was household smoking (56%), bottle feeding (69%) and co-sleeping (81%). Drug and alcohol intake by parents on the night of death was present in 69% of these cases. It is not possible to ascertain any trend in this type of death because the numbers are small
• Children from all non-white ethnic backgrounds, comprised just 16% of all older child deaths, although these groups comprise of 19% of the population
• Of the 292 deaths of older children reviewed since 2012, 107 (37%) were considered to have modifiable factors. The national figure for modifiable factors is 27% which includes both neonates and older children. The corresponding figure for Leeds deaths (neonates and older children) since 2012 is 29%, suggesting that classification by the Leeds CDOP aligns closely with national classification. The greatest potential for prevention among Leeds deaths, as described above, lies with sudden unexpected deaths of babies and road traffic injuries.

The greatest potential for prevention among Leeds deaths, as described above, lies with sudden unexpected deaths of babies and road traffic injuries. A more in-depth report about why children die in Leeds and our response can be referenced within the LSCP CDOP Annual Report.

Was not Brought Approach

The ‘Was not Brought’ approach is an innovative approach that considers children who miss health appointments where traditionally the term “did not attend” had been used. In changing the terminology from “did not attend” to “was not brought” health care practitioners have been encouraged to reflect upon a child’s ability to attend the health appointment without appropriate adult support and consequently consider what missing the appointment might mean for the child, as well as what additional steps should be taken to assess the risk of harm.

During 2019/20 continuing work between the LSCP, LSAB, Safer Leeds and the CCG Safeguarding Team resulted in a broadened “Was Not Brought” approach to consider all people who may require support in making or attending any appointment, and how the cancellation or non-attendance should spark professional curiosity for practitioners.

A joint set of “Was Not Brought” principles were developed and launched in July 2020. The launch was timely with regards to supporting safeguarding during the Coronavirus pandemic where the potential for people not accessing appointments was higher.

LSCP Sub Groups

The section below provides an overview of the work undertaken by the LSCP Sub Groups, they all have clear Terms of Reference and are attended and chaired by partners. The work of the following sub groups are referenced in other sections of the annual report:

• The Risk and Vulnerability Strategic Sub Group
• Secure Settings.

Student LSCP

The LSCP are supported by a group of students who have volunteered to provide a young person’s voice and opinion to the work of the LSCP. The role as a Student LSCP member is varied and acts as a ‘voice and influence’ for other young people, making sure their views are considered within the LSCP decision making processes.

The students have worked on a variety of projects throughout the year, including continuing to work whilst in lockdown and completing all of the projects they identified as a priority.

The group’s accomplishments can be found in a video version of their Annual Report.

Multi-agency Safeguarding Operational Group

The Multi-agency Safeguarding Operational Group (MASOG) oversee and ensure the effectiveness of the Child Protection Medical Service (CPMS) within the pathway of safeguarding assessments of children and young people in Leeds.

This group has representation from the Police, Children and Families service, CCG, LCH and LTHT. Its objectives are to:

• To oversee the operational aspects of child protection medical pathways across agencies
• To be assured of the effectiveness and outcomes of the multi-agency child protection medicals
• To be assured that children and families have access to timely and appropriate support
• To be assured that perpetrators are effectively managed, including where the perpetrator may be a child
• To gain the views of children, young people and families to drive improvements to the child protection medical process.

The MASOGs current work has been to monitor referrals into the child protection medical service especially during COVID-19 to be assured that children at risk are being identified appropriately.

Policy and Procedures

The LSCP Policy and Procedure Sub Group continues to provide a co-ordinated multi-agency approach to safeguarding practice through the development, review and updating of policies and procedures for use by professionals across the partnership. This is further supported by regional procedures across West Yorkshire which, where appropriate, provide a consistent and co-ordinated response on a regional basis.

There is a clear timeline for the revision of policies locally and regionally ensuring that they are up to date, fit for purpose and reflective of the Leeds approaches to working with children and young people in order to ensure safe and appropriate responses to concerns. In addition revision of policies may take place as a result of an identified need from local review processes or implementation in practice, which identifies the need for review or amendments.

The following local procedures have been reviewed and revised by the LSCP within 2019/20:

• Think Family, Work Family
• Safeguarding Children and Young People from the Threat of Violent Extremism
• Interpersonal Violence and Abuse (IPVA) in Young People’s Relationships
• Multi-agency Procedure for Professionals Requesting Child Protection Medicals Pathway
• Recording of Meetings and Conferences by Parents
• Working Restoratively to Safeguard Children and Young People
• Professional Concerns Resolution Process
• Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Flowchart
• E-Safety Guidance
• Bruising in Immobile Babies and Children.

Following the writing or revision of a policy, partner agencies are informed and sent the policy along with a Joint Framework for Dissemination and Implementation outlining their responsibilities with regards to implementing the policy within their own agency.

In addition the following West Yorkshire protocols have been reviewed and revised:

• Child Exploitation: Policy, Procedures and Guidance
• Initial Child Protection Conferences
• Fabricated or Induced Illness
• Child Abuse and Information Communication Technology
• Children from Abroad, including Victims of Modern Slavery, Trafficking and Exploitation
• Harmful Sexual Behaviour
• Parents with Learning Disabilities.

And the following West Yorkshire Policies have been developed:

• Interpersonal Violence and Abuse (IPVA) Young People’s Relationships West Yorkshire Practice Guidance
• Pre Birth Assessment.

Learning and Development Sub Group

The LSCP provided a wide ranging multi-agency learning and development offer for practitioners during 2019-20:

• A training programme of three core and eight specialist and additional courses, briefing sessions covering 12 different topics. 1365 practitioners attended these sessions.
• A specialist workshop on Child Neglect by Emeritus Professor Jan Horwath and a specialist on Poverty and Neglect by Professor Brid Featherstone. A total of 204 practitioners attended these events
• A Child Criminal Exploitation Event, launching the new Child Exploitation Risk Identification Tool. 86 practitioners attended this event
• A bespoke session was commissioned by the LSCP in partnership with Safer Leeds & LSAB on Analytical Report Writing. 24 delegates attended with positive feedback
• In partnership with Safer Leeds and LSAB the LSCP delivered the Thematic Learning from Review sessions, focussing on sharing learning from four reviews which all had a key focus on Domestic Abuse. In 2019-20 10 sessions were delivered to 177 practitioners (a total of 18 sessions delivered since October 2018 and 374 delegates attending)
• A regional event on “Contextual Safeguarding” with keynote speaker Dr Carlene Firmin. This was attended by 64 delegates of whom 21 were from Leeds
• Regional “Pornography, Sex Pressures and Social Media” workshop delivered by Brook. 17 Leeds practitioners attended.

Training attendance remained high with 78% of practitioners booking a session attending. Of those who booked but did not participate, 12% withdrew in advance and 10% did not attend. Attendance rates have increased since the previous year, however non-attendance has remained static at 10%, indicating less people are withdrawing from sessions rather than an improvement in non-attendance. When removing those who withdrew in advance, attendance rises to 89%, however so does non-attendance to 11%.

The majority of session bookings are from the Third Sector (38% - 28.3% Third Sector turn over £250k / 9.7% Third Sector turn over under £250k). Other significant levels of attendance are from LCH (19%), Private Sector (11%) and education (9%).

Delivery of training sessions continued to be support by the LSCP Multi-agency Training Pool, including nine new trainers. 71% of agencies delivered to or above their quota of training days, a significant increase from the previous year. Where agencies were unable to meet their quota this has been discussed with the training co-ordinator, and where appropriate support and measures have been put in place. The commissioning of a private training provider to deliver on behalf of the Third Sector and Private agencies has significantly supported the training programme and allowed agencies to realistically meet their own quota without additional days to cover these areas.

The charging policy brought in a total of £32,000 during 2019-20 which supported the commissioning of the private training company and the provision of masterclasses / specialist speakers.

Sudden Death In Childhood (SUDIC) Strategic Reference Group (SSRG)

The SSRG are made up of partners that respond to the sudden and unexpected deaths of children and infants. This group ensures that such death are fully investigated and follow guidance laid out in the multi-agency guidelines for care and investigation by the The Royal College of Pathologists and endorsed by The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Quality Assurance and Performance Management

The LSCP Performance Management Sub Group (PMSG) collects and analyses data from a range of partners and this acts an early warning system. Data is monitored on a quarterly basis and will highlight where data falls out of acceptable parameters. This may include monitoring the timeliness of child protection systems such as whether reviews are undertaken on time, the number of children coming on or off plans through to identifying why children attend the hospital emergency departments.

The performance data used is based on scorecards that were first developed in 2011/12 in light of statutory guidance at the time, the Children’s Safeguarding Performance Information Framework (CSPIF) and Munro recommendations. Reviews of the data have been undertaken with amendments made to some of the data sets used.

During 2019 the PMSG has carried out a number of audits and evaluations related to safeguarding.  These audits support the partnership in understanding the effectiveness of support provided to children and families and also understand front line practice and the context in which they work in.

Alongside this the group considers performance data provided by partners relating to:

• Identification and assessment of need
• Vulnerable children and young people
• Children and young people’s mental health
• Offences against children and young people.

The purpose of this data is to consider trends and performance that may require further scrutiny or investigation which further informs the BSU in seeking and providing assurances.

LSCP Education Reference Group (ERG)

The ERG is currently chaired by a primary school head teacher. It brings together representatives from across different education establishments to support the development and co-production of a safeguarding assurance, improvement and development to improve the welfare and safety of children and young people.
In recognition of the importance of early years in establishing good foundation pre-education, and the importance of strong transition into education from 2019/20 the remit of the group has broadened to include representatives from this sector.

The group also monitors school returns of the S157/175 of the Education Act to ensure that education providers are compliant.

Risk and Vulnerability Strategic Group (RVSG)

This group aims to further protect children from all forms of exploitation and sits within the Multi Agency Child Exploitation framework. The Risk and Vulnerability action plan is structured around the RVSG strategy and LSCP priorities and sets out how its agenda of protecting children from exploitation will be achieved. It provides details of how partners will work together to effectively tackle child exploitation and sets out what needs to be undertaken and how we will know when this is achieved.

The Multi-agency Child Exploitation (MACE) Framework describes Leeds arrangements when responding to the challenge of children vulnerable to exploitation, including: child sexual exploitation (CSE); those children who go missing; and other forms of abuse such as child criminal exploitation (CCE), modern slavery and trafficking.

This framework has 3 specific multi-agency functions:

• Bronze Group: focusses on responding to emerging cases of exploitation and works with professionals to ensure risks don’t increase and the child is fully protected. It also looks at responding to perpetrators ensuring that they are managed appropriately
• Silver Group (LSCP Risk and Vulnerability Subgroup – RVSG): The RVSG strategy outlines a focused approach and a robust multi-agency response towards prevention, early identification and intervention of children and young people, and the proactive targeting, disrupting and prosecuting of individuals or groups who seek to exploit, abuse and harm children
• Gold Group: monitor progress against the strategy and action plan and provide overall leadership in relation to contextual safeguarding within the city.

The Bronze Group MACE meeting continues to report to the Silver Group, providing data trends related to exploitation. The LSCP review into the current Bronze Group MACE meetings was completed in April 2020 and identified that at present MACE meetings were too focused on the individual child and there needs to be more of a focus on sharing and linking up information on ‘spaces and places’ as well as peer groups and perpetrators. This is an area for improvement and work is currently being undertaken to identity how the Bronze Group can work more effectively. 

In addition to the Bronze meetings, Partnership Intelligence Management Meetings (PIMMs) are an information and intelligence sharing meeting between the police and Children’s Social Work Service which meets three times a week. All information, intelligence and concerns about children missing and at risk of exploitation are channeled to the meeting by the police. The meeting is led by a Social Work Team Manager and a police detective lead for child exploitation. They co-ordinate timely and proportionate responses to vulnerable children and young people including signposting active cases to lead professionals, and ensuring referrals to Children’s Social Work Service are made where there is known or suspected significant harm.

Police data has provided a basic profile of offenders:

• Most are male, White British, UK nationality and aged from 10-29
• Offender ages have expanded into the 40s and 50s. In the previous year’s data, Asian Pakistani was recorded as highest, more recently White British is numerically highest
• An inference is that for the younger end this type of offending is just another part of the criminal lifestyle
• Higher likelihood of prior convictions in other areas
• The older the offender the more long term link to this type of criminality for the sexual gratification.

Leeds Children’s Social Work Services snapshot data from July 2020 demonstrates that of the 575 children who were identified as being at risk of exploitation, 76% were aged 15-17 years old. Numbers of children at risk began to increase significantly in the 12 -13 years old.

Younger children were more likely to be identified as being as low risk whereas older children were more likely to be identified as high risk. For children who were identified as high risk, 15 years old was the biggest age category.

The above highlights the importance of preventative work with primary school age children and children in early teens to prevent risks escalating as they grow older.

The majority of the children at risk of exploitation were White British (69%). The next biggest category was Any Other Mixed Background (6%). It is known that child exploitation affects all groups in society and The Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that ‘boys from black and minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to be vulnerable to harm from criminal exploitation’.
Exploitation may be hidden in BAME communities for various reasons and the need to explore how these communities can be better supported in relation to exploitation will be a priority for the RVSG during 2020/21.

Headlines of exploitation in Leeds:

• This is a highly complex area of work involving all partners, statutory services, early help, families and communities. Significant progress is being made in relation to practice, process, systems and learning
• A shift in the Leeds profile as systems have been developed to enable data capture and reporting of different forms of exploitation
• Understanding, knowledge and practitioner confidence continues to increase around Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
• It is essential that there is a continued focus on Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) to ensure children at risk of this receive the best possible support
• LSCP social media campaigns around exploitation continue to reach large numbers of young people and enable them to access both information and support
• An area for further improvement is required to ensure that all children who are experiencing or vulnerable to exploitation are supported in their transition into adulthood
• Preventative work for younger children and young people identified at low risk or emerging risk is crucial to prevent the risks increasing. We are confident that the Bronze Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) meetings and the Early Help Hubs partnership work will be significant  in this area
• A greater focus needs to be on disrupting and convicting perpetrators. All agencies need to become more confident in sharing data and intelligence with the police on perpetrators in order to achieve this
• Research highlights that children on reduced timetables, who are excluded or who are NEET are more vulnerable and the link between these issues and child exploitation remain clear
• Data demonstrates that children in Leeds who are known to be at risk of exploitation are predominately White British, however exploitation occurs within many different ethnic minority communities and it may be that exploitation is ‘hidden’ in some BAME communities, creating greater challenges to reporting
• Third Sector organisations such as BASIS and Getaway Girls provide valuable services to support transitions and the reduction of harm for adolescents and young adults.

Review of Vulnerability and Risk Management Plans

Vulnerability and Risk Management Plans (VRMP) are plans put in place when a child is identified as being at either high or medium risk of exploitation. The plan brings together professionals to support and protect children and identify what needs to be put in place to reduce risk and improve outcomes for the child. The Gold MACE Group commissioned an audit looking at VRMP to ensure that they remain effective and responsive to children’s needs.

The audit reviewed 65 VRMPs and concluded that they are effective in either reducing risk or preventing risks from escalating. Where risks had decreased, social workers highlighted several different factors that contributed to this. Social Workers felt that good communication between professionals and a joint sense of ownership of the case meant that risks were managed well. Information sharing between professionals meant that they were able to respond quicker to situations and more effectively.

Education was mentioned in a number of cases as being significant in reducing the risks. Social Workers felt the VRMP had led to a better and more focused relationship between the education provider and parents as well as other professionals and in some cases the young person had been able to re-engage with education.

The Safe Project (Safe and Free from Exploitation team based within Leeds Children and Families services) was also felt to be significant in a number of cases in reducing risks. This was either through providing support to parents so they felt empowered to protect their child better or through direct work with the young person which enabled them to understand the risks and protect themselves better.

However, the audit highlighted a number of opportunities for improvement:

• At present, the process around VRMP’s in relation to children at risk of CSE seems to be more effective than CCE. In comparison reviews are more likely to take place on time and risks are more likely to decrease to ‘low’ for CSE cases as well as the child being more likely to engage with the process. This is likely to reflect that knowledge and understanding around CCE is relatively new and procedures and training have only recently been adapted to include CCE. It is positive that the extensive work that has been undertaken related to CSE over the past few years resulted in greater awareness that has led to effective management of CSE. We anticipate the same approach will be achieved with CCE
• The VRMP audit identified that in some cases having multiple plans around the child can be confusing and not always an effective use of professionals’ time. Therefore, further thought and discussion is needed related to CIN, CPP and LAC plans and how they work alongside VRMP plans.
• There was clear evidence of key professionals being invited to VRMP meetings and effectively contributing to plans however, there are opportunities to consider other agencies that may be able to contribute to assessments
• Child and parent engagement with the process is an important factor in ensuring the VRMP is effective and that risk are jointly managed. The Safe Project undertake a significant role in promoting this engagement. The audit highlighted a small number of parents not engaging in the VRMP process. Although parents are always encouraged to engage in the protection of their children some parents may choose not to engage for a variety of reasons
• What is clear from engagement with social workers and is supported by wider research is that a good relationship with the young person is one of the key factors in reducing risk. However, in some cases this has been difficult to achieve and compounded when a child does not recognise the risks, they are distrustful of professionals or are regularly missing.

The findings from this audit are being addressed through a task and finish group and monitored through the Risk and Vulnerability Strategic Sub Group.

Missing Children

Children who go missing from home or care are also at a higher risk of exploitation and those children who are at a higher risk of exploitation will have more missing episodes.

Missing from Home police reports continue to fall as do recorded Missing from Home investigations down 19.7% and 33.9% respectively during 2019-20.  This represents an ongoing success in respect of the partnership’s working arrangement and the Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) meeting framework, as well as the impact of the Hospital Absconder and Truancy policies that have been implemented and seen a reduction in demand, allowing the partnership to focus on identified risk.

The co-location of a CSWS team leader responsible for ‘children at risk of exploitation’ at Elland Road has greatly enhanced joint working. The daily sharing of information on those children missing and those found has enabled risk assessment and support of these young people and their families.

The police Missing from Home Co-ordinators have worked with partners to introduce new processes and problem solve repeat locations and cases. This has contributed to a sizeable reduction in the number of missing people, including children, thereby reducing risk and allowing partners to focus immediate response to the highest risk cases.

Leeds closely monitor the children who are missing each week. Where a child has been missing repeatedly, partners arrange vulnerability meetings with the social worker / parents / health / education and any partner that is involved in the family and a reporting strategy is created and a plan. 

West Yorkshire police data demonstrates that in Leeds there were 2,493 occurrences of a child going missing. 690 occurrences involved a child in care. 505 occurrences involved a child who was assessed as being at risk of CSE.

The Return Interview Service offers an independent Return Interview to children who are Looked After and those without any involvement from Children’s Social Work Service. The following evidences under 1,200 interviews last year with the distinct number of young people missing was 1,027 with 55% being Male. Although more males were reported missing, females account for over half of all the missing episodes (54%) meaning that although less individual females are reported missing, they are more likely to be reported more than once.

Around 32% of the missing episodes were for young people identified as being children who are looked after, this represents around 150 young people, accounting for around 750 missing episodes.

Whilst primary push and pull, along with primary risk and vulnerability data is available for all return interviews (even those declined), the data is much more accurate for the 1,188 interviews that actually took place. The main push and pull factor for young people was that they wanted to see or spend more time with their friends, which accounts for almost a third of cases. This could include going to a friends after school without informing a parent / carer or wanting to stay out or sleep over at a friends without asking parents / carers.

Other reasons such as arguments in the home are also very prominent, these tend to be arguments between parent / carers and the young person themselves, but can also include siblings. Quite often young people can’t explain or remember what the arguments were about, feeling they were probably over something minor.

Whilst the most common push and pull factors are important in order to understand the general pattern / trend, it’s the push and pull factors such as being pressured by an adult (or others) and domestic abuse which are most concerning, therefore making sure those young people receive the right support is essential. Where young people are reported missing more frequently and / or have more serious risk and vulnerabilities identified such as CCE / CSE, substance misuse, radicalisation etc. they tend to have an allocated Social Worker or be known to other services such as Youth Justice and there are robust plans in place which information from return interviews can inform / influence.

Approaches for Children at risk and returned:

• Where there are high risk cases Leeds have co-ordinated substantial resources to finding people as quickly as possible
• Children’s services provide additional funding for the Return Interview Service and an independent Return Interview offer has been extended to all children
• West Yorkshire Police are currently leading a task group to consider the processes for Return Interviews across the West Yorkshire local authorities and to work towards a consistent approach and ensuring best practice
• The Return Interview service hosted focus groups to look qualitatively at the experience of Return Interviews and being missing during 2019.

Transitions for Children’s to Adult services: Young people at risk of child sexual exploitation.

A review undertaken by the LSCP and the Adult Safeguarding Board considered the transitional arrangements for young people that have been identified as at risk of sexual exploitation was completed during 2019/20. The review identified two main pathways into adult services; the Directions Panel and the Transitions Panel. 

The Transitions Team is made up of social workers and nurses who work citywide to provide specialist advice, guidance and support to young people between the ages of 14 and 25 with a wide range of disabilities and or complex health needs. They also support the families, parents and carers during the transition from childhood into adulthood. The team works closely with children’s and adult’s social workers, education providers, health professionals and voluntary sector providers to develop the support that a young person requires to be met as an adult. The plans developed take into account all aspects of the young person’s life, care and support needs so that they can make choices to reach their full potential and increase independence. To be eligible for support the young person needs be aged between 14 and 25, live in within the Leeds boundary and have; a diagnosed disability’ an allocated social worker from children’s social work service who has identified that the young person may have care and support needs from adult services, a Statement of Special Education Needs or and Education Health Care Plan.

The audit identified that these arrangements are strong and transitions for young people are good. Clear pathways are in place and multi-agency responsibilities are understood.

The Directions Panel is a multi-agency solution for engagement post 18. The panel was developed following discussion amongst social care professionals in regards to care leavers and those of care leaving age who have been identified as being vulnerable to many issues including sexual exploitation and who historically have been difficult to support and in many cases may not be Care Act eligible. The panel allows for ongoing discussion in regards to the individuals identified and as a result can monitor, signpost and be ready to engage with those in need, particularly where there is risk of crisis. Work is currently ongoing to review these arrangements.

The Children’s Society highlight how for young people who are children in need or on CPPs, there is no expectation in law or guidance that the support that they receive will be available if they continue to struggle when they turn 18. If the young person is looked after they have access to additional services and they can receive more support once they turn 18, however very few young people who are at risk of sexual exploitation or who have experienced it at the age of 16 and 17 are entitled to leaving care support, even when they are the subject of a CPP, CIN plan or a child at risk of sexual exploitation plan.

Nationally, there is growing concern that young people entering adulthood experience a ‘cliff edge’ in terms of support. We know harm and its significant effects, do not stop at 18 and consequently there is a need to ensure ongoing provision of support, either because harm continues into adulthood or because they need help to recover from the impact of harm suffered.

In light of this the BSU have developed and currently building on discussions with Adult Social Care and Leeds Community Safety Partnership to seek endorsement for CSE Transition as a priority issue for safeguarding partners to address. Our approach is to apply this holistically across the wider safeguarding agenda, in order to initiate an effective response to emerging threat to children and young people.
We have recommended a joint task and finish group of safeguarding partners with a clear remit and timescale, to develop local arrangements and implement recommendations. The aim is to ensure stronger transition arrangements in the older age group (17-18) that continue to remain at risk of exploitation as they transition into adulthood.

COVID-19 and the impact on safeguarding

In response to the unfolding global pandemic the UK government announced in March 2020 national restrictions on movement, working arrangements and the closure of education and early years provision for a number of children and young people. These initial restrictions spanned a period of four months with localised restrictions continuing. Within West Yorkshire localised restrictions were some of the strictest within the country impacting on how children and young people accessed education and how services operated.

The LSCP worked with partner agencies to understand these impacts and gain assurance in relation to how children and young people were being supported, and how services were adapting to ensure that children, young people and families continued to be seen.

Initially weekly meetings were undertaken with key statutory partner representatives chaired by the LSCP Chair, along with LSCP representation at other COVID-19 focused meetings. Fortnightly discussions were also held with Wetherby YOI to understand how they had responded to the restrictions, the impact of these and gain assurance.

Key issues which identified during this period included:

• A decrease in contacts to the Front Door as a result of children and young people not being seen as much
• Increase in mental health concerns for children and young people including feelings of isolation, worries about the virus and worries about the impact of the pandemic on families (employment, money etc.)
• Increase in requests for support for families including food parcels and support with regards to supporting children’s education at home including access to technology
• Impact on staffing levels (sickness, redeployment, caring for dependents) and overall staff wellbeing.

The LSCP also identified examples of innovative ways of working with services and individuals adapting to ensure that the most vulnerable children, young people and families were seen, and that support and statutory services continued.

Many agencies have reported and identified the adoption of different and innovative ways of working which could continue in the future. Professionals have reported greater involvement in multi-agency meetings held online as practitioners have not had to factor in travel and family involvement in some instances also increased due to the online approach.

However, the impact in working in such an intensive, but potentially isolated way has been recognised and agencies are considering how to achieve the right balance. There remains a good will to build on the positive ways of engaging with professionals and families which this report will report on next year. The impact of the pandemic is continuing to be monitored by the BSU across the LSCP. The LSCP undertook a process of assurance looking at the city’s response to COVID-19 in August 2020. A summary of this work can be found in Appendix 3.