To receive Report No 199/2016 from the Director for People.

Report No. 199/2016 was received from the Director for People.

Mr Fowler presented the report, advising members that it contained statistics that needed careful interpretation.  The key source of information on school safeguarding came from an online survey completed by schools in September.  These findings are checked by triangulation with other indicators. 

Care should be taken in interpreting the data as:

·         14 extra schools completed the survey this year, so simple comparisons could not be made with previous years (this year the survey was sent not just to all Rutland schools, including independents, but also to schools outside the county where Rutland children had been placed;

·         Several new questions had been added for which no data were available from previous years;

·         The questions had been summarised for this report for the sake of brevity – in some cases, the full question needs to be read to understand the response;

·         Readers should not see 100% response as the ideal in all cases.  For example, whilst 100% of schools may have taken part in “Prevent” training last year, readers should not expect all schools to take part in Prevent training the following year.  

Mr Fowler indicated that whilst the section of the report dealing with the survey would need further elaboration, the areas of concern and recommendations for action were identified.  A more detailed list of actions would follow. 

During discussion, the following points were noted:

a)    Members noted that the report showed clear evidence of improvement in safeguarding and asked how many of the training assessments were mandatory.  Officers advised that this depended on the nature of the training - some were constant and mandatory and some were cyclical.  Mr Fowler advised that further information could be provided regarding which were mandatory and to indicate the relevant time frame for each. 

b)    As the report covered varying areas of safeguarding members requested the report to be weighted, possibly using a traffic light system.

c)    The report did not take account of the autumn training; it may be possible to provide an update at the February meeting.

d)    Members asked how significant the issue of young carers was in Rutland.  Officers advised that schools were invited to nominate a Young Carers Champion who were in turn invited to attend a training session on how to identify and support young carers.  It was noted that not all schools put a nominee forward and so the numbers were thought to be under reported.  A strategy had been developed with a Barnardo’s champion and an awareness campaign was being launched in January 2017.  Dr O’Neill advised that a written update note would be provided to the next panel meeting.  Ms Caffrey later advised the panel that based on the 2011 census the following number of under 25’s were reported as providing unpaid care:

                      i.        144 reported 1-19 hours

                    ii.        9 reported 20-19 hours

                   iii.        11 reported over 50 hours

Mrs Youngman asked officers why statistic on the availability of child protection policy was not 100%.  Officers indicated that the question in the survey was not simply about the availability of the policy but what the school had done to inform parents on its availability.  The survey question was, “have you informed parents that the child protection policy is available to view on request”.  Furthermore, officers advised that whilst some schools had answered the question positively, others had not responded, thus lowering the statistic percentage.

e)    Mrs Youngman further asked why films aimed at raising awareness of social media, for example Kayleigh’s Love Story, was only aimed at secondary school when it could also affect those in their last year at primary school (Year 6)?  In response, officers indicated that the film was being rolled out to relevant age groups and their parents, feedback from screening was being gathered and the impact assessed. 

f)     The increase in the number of missing children being reported was queried by members.  The officer reported the procedures by which these children are identified and dealt with.  The increase in 2015-16 is a feature of the criteria used in recording these pupils.  When a child is identified as missing by both the school and the School Inclusion Development Officer this case is recorded, whatever the reason.  In the last year three cases involved service children whose parents had not notified the school or LA as they were moved out.  Two others related to children whose parents had chosen to home educate them without notifying the school or LA.  All cases were resolved within 24 hours. 

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the Report.

2.    That Dr O’Neill would, if the autumn training had altered the figures as per item c), produce an updated Safeguarding in Schools report.