Menu
Council meetings

Agenda item

Multi-agency response to child exploitation

To follow on 8 March due to pre-election rules on publicity.

 

Decision:

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

 

Minutes:

Witnesses

Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People
Sara Rahman, Director of Families, Quality and Commissioning
Maleeka Dachi, Safe Space Manager

 

Key points from discussion

4.1.    The Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) arrangements replaced the Concern Hub in 2022. Its structure comprised operational, tactical and strategic fora intended to safeguard children from extrafamilial harm, including criminal exploitation, sexual exploitation and radicalisation.

4.2.    A dedicated team, Safe Space, worked with children at high risk of exploitation, although MACE could support children engaged with other services. Contextual responses went beyond supporting specific children and also included upstream work with communities and partners to prevent exploitation.

4.3.    MACE enabled the identification and redress of bias in services and prevention of disproportionality in outcomes.

4.4.    The Youth Justice Board reviewed data to identify disproportionality and how it could be prevented through early intervention.

4.5.    There were cases where victims of childhood exploitation went on to exploit other vulnerable people. National Referral Mechanism decisions made by the local pilot panel were subject to ratification by the Home Office, which had a high threshold. If there was not sufficient evidence that, at the time of a referral, the person was a victim of modern slavery, they would not receive a positive conclusive grounds decision. In such cases, other paths would be followed, such as the allocation of a social worker or referral to a partner agency. Council services adopted a child-first approach and understood that children’s behaviours were contributed to by prior experiences.

4.6.    Good progress was being made with the implementation of the Child Lilo case review recommendations. The broader picture was that the numbers of children requiring statutory social care interventions, entering care, being excluded from school, in the criminal justice system or involved in serious violence were reducing. However, failures nevertheless did and could occur.

4.7.    A theme in the Child Lilo case review, and other similar cases elsewhere, was the disconnectedness of the response to his needs. The Integrated Adolescent Safeguarding Service had since been formed to provide a single response to children with safeguarding concerns and greater connectivity with education services developed.

4.8.    A greater awareness of neurodiversity as a potential risk factor of exploitation – a feature of the Child Lilo case – was also being developed. Services were also seeking to understand and meet children’s needs early, regardless of whether they had received a formal diagnosis.

4.9.    Missing education was common theme among children about whom there were safeguarding concerns. The Integrated Adolescent Safeguarding Service was to work closely with education settings.

4.10. The Child Lilo case had also highlighted how adverse childhood experiences affected children’s functioning, particularly for children with additional needs. The mental health of children who had such experiences required support in order to prevent them being exposed to violence or exploitation.

4.11. Existing participation groups were used to capture children’s voices. At individual level, children’s voices were recorded by children’s services staff in assessments and plans; however, there was a challenge of collating those insights so their themes could inform strategic planning.

4.12. Children received personal plans to support multi-agency working in relation to the risks they faced. For example, the local schools network might be made aware of certain risks; or where risks related to a child’s housing, children’s services would liaise with housing services and the Police to ensure the child and their family were safely accommodated.

4.13. Any child with a positive reasonable or conclusive grounds NRM decision, their parents/carers and social workers could be supported by the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service.

4.14. The courts could not conclude their proceedings before a defendant’s NRM case was determined. Local youth courts had requested a meeting to better understand the NRM process and how it interacted with criminal proceedings.

4.15. Young people, parents/carers and professionals could raise complaints regarding the MACE using the Children and Young People’s Services complaints process. Complaints data were monitored weekly. Young people could also raise concerns and day-to-day issues with their workers so they could be addressed promptly. 

4.16. The indicators of vulnerability in the report did not necessarily equate to risk. They helped professionals consider the circumstances around a young person. For the purpose of a pre-MACE referral, ‘family breakdown’ meant children not residing with their birth parents. 

4.17. The MACE was not used for individual case management (which was conducted via traditional safeguarding processes such as strategy meetings) and was not intended to target individual children. Its purpose was to help partners consider how to improve their practice or social conditions and what specific interventions would reduce the risks faced by children and improve their outcomes. There was strong anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practice and a culture of accountability across the partnership.

4.18. Not all young people receiving support from the Integrated Adolescent Safeguarding Service interacted with the MACE.

4.19. Exploitation for the purposes of MACE was defined in pan-London guidance.

4.20. No system similar to the Think Family application used in Bristol was used in Lewisham.

ACTIONS

1.    Director of Families, Quality and Commissioning to provide the number of complaints re the MACE received since its formation, and the number of those upheld.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

 

Supporting documents: