Agenda item

The Committee has requested to receive the annual report for 2024/25 of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Partnership.

Cllr Sean Gaul, Cabinet member for Children and Young People, Lisa Lyons, the Director of Children’s Services, Annette Perrington, Interim Deputy Director: Education, and Laura Gadjus, Business Manager, have been invited to present the report and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Sean Gaul, Cabinet member for Children and Young People, Lisa Lyons, Director of Children’s Services, Carol Douch, Assistant Director Safeguard Quality Assurance Partner, Annette Perrington, Interim Deputy Director: Education, Jessie Dobson, Service Manager: Adolescence and Prevention, and Delia Mann, Deputy Director Children’s Social Care, were invited to present the report and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Cabinet Member introduced the annual report emphasising safeguarding’s complexity and the Partnership’s commitment to supporting all children, especially those at risk, with oversight from the Independent Scrutineer. The Partnership’s focus on driving meaningful action was highlighted. The Assistant Director Safeguard Quality Assurance Partner presented the finalised report, detailing the ‘working together’ arrangement, recent leadership changes for improved accountability, and strengthening governance. Priority actions included multi-agency work on exploitation and neglect, and preparing for Families First changes.

The Committee raised the following questions and comments:

·       New screening tools for identifying neglect had only recently been introduced, so evidence of improved outcomes was not yet available. The tools were more concise and covered a broader range of neglect indicators, including emotional, educational, and medical needs. Practitioners across social care, health visiting, and schools were trained in using the Graded Care Profile 2, with usage tracked through performance reports. A home conditions tool was also introduced to standardise assessments. Development involved input from paediatricians and schools, and effectiveness would be monitored over the next year using key performance indicators across agencies and referral points.

·       How the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements were being embedded consistently across all organisations within the partnership, with a particular focus on how the partnership was addressing the issue of child-on-child exploitation. The Assistant Director Safeguard Quality Assurance Partner stated that arrangements aligned with national guidance, prioritising performance and quality assurance through multi-agency audits. Schools also played a crucial role, with positive engagement across the system and a commitment to scrutinising concerns and good practice. The Partnership worked with community safety groups, reviewed national research, and had a structured approach to early identification of vulnerability, particularly for children missing education. While child-on-child exploitation was not a major issue in Oxfordshire, vigilance remained, with specialist teams and ongoing initiatives supporting a wider group of children.

·       Members raised concerns about online exploitation and mobile phone use among children. The Assistant Director for Safeguarding highlighted strong collaboration with schools, including data sharing on missing children and multi-agency panels involving school safeguarding leads. The vulnerability of children not attending school was discussed, with emphasis on early identification and graduated support. Concerns about parental awareness led to calls for a county-wide campaign to educate and empower families. The complexity of digital safeguarding was acknowledged, with rapid technological change requiring support for both parents and children.

On mobile phone bans, it was noted that some authorities had introduced restrictions in schools, which improved safeguarding on-site. However, children not in school remained more vulnerable. National evidence suggested smartphones should not be unsupervised before age 14, yet very young children were often seen with them. The Committee concluded that, while banning phones could help, broader strategies were needed to address digital risks effectively.

The Director of Children’s Services joined the meeting at this stage

·       How the strategic voice of children, families, and communities was incorporated into safeguarding, with particular interest in how the voice of the child was heard in practice. The Director of Children’s Services emphasised the importance of the child’s voice in safeguarding, starting with early intervention and extending to social care. Tools such as the "Mind of My Own" app enabled children to communicate directly with professionals, and children were encouraged to take part in meetings and reviews. Experiences of children in care were used to improve practice and resources. The Assistant Director Safeguard Quality Assurance Partner noted that a dedicated role ensured children’s voices influenced strategic decisions.

·       The Oxford University Hospitals Trust (OUH) was no longer a direct member of the Partnership following the transition from a board to a partnership. The Director of Children’s Services explained that the former safeguarding board had been replaced by a strategic safeguarding partnership, as required by law. This Partnership was led by three strategic safeguarding leads: the Chief Executive of the County Council, the Chief Executive of the Integrated Care Board, and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. OUH continued to participate through involvement in subgroups and provided assurance through the health system.

·       Whether youth groups and churches were involved in safeguarding and youth hubs. The Director of Children’s Services explained that the reorganised adolescent service now integrated youth support and exploitation response, improving local partnerships. Community organisations and youth voice were central to this work. For example, Blackbird Leys Youth Hub offered universal access and targeted programmes on exploitation and decision-making. The hub model acted as a one-stop shop, shaped by young people’s input, aiming to deliver meaningful impact through integrated services and community engagement.

·       Whether the reported decrease in the number of children subject to child protection plans was necessarily a positive outcome, or if it could indicate that some children were being missed. Officers explained that decisions around child protection interventions were made on a multi-agency basis and that Oxfordshire operated a family safeguarding model, which typically resulted in lower numbers of child protection plans due to greater early intervention and support for families. It was stated that, while the lower numbers were viewed as positive, there was no complacency, and regular audits and reviews were conducted to ensure the right children were being supported at the right level.

·       The Chair supported presenting serious case reviews to the scrutiny committee, in public or private as needed, for transparency and learning. Previous cases like Bullfinch and Jacobs had shaped local practice, notably with excluded children. Officers agreed to present future reviews, noting timing depends on ongoing legal issues, and highlighted that committee scrutiny supports accountability.

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

·       Members to be provided with a list of safeguarding resources.

·       Data related to self-harm to be included in the next annual report.

·       The new safeguarding strategy to be brought to the committee once written.

·       The effectiveness of new screening tools should be specifically addressed in the next annual report.

The Committee AGREED to an observation about the importance of public accountability and the visibility of safeguarding and to a recommendation under the following heading:

·       That the Council should consider how best to deploy a sustained, smart educational campaign to support parents, particularly regarding online threats.