Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation 3

3

Critical local multi-agency safeguarding partnerships are still not working well enough, which risks those vulnerable...

Recommendation
Critical local multi-agency safeguarding partnerships are still not working well enough, which risks those vulnerable adolescents that need support and help falling through the gaps. While in some places multi-agency safeguarding partnerships may work well, in other places, sadly, they do not. In May 2022 the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found multi-agency safeguarding arrangements “are not yet fit for purpose everywhere” and are more fractured and fragmented than they should be, with weak links between the leadership and the front line risking vulnerable adolescents that need support and help falling through the gaps. The three statutory partners—police, health and local authorities—have a shared and equal duty to protect children and young people. We are concerned that if no one is solely responsible, the buck will be passed. We note that education is not a statutory partner and that the independent review of children’s social care has already recommended that schools be named as a fourth safeguarding partner. The Department for Education tells us it is continuing to improve multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and it considers that professional curiosity and good quality leadership across the three partners are key. It tells us it works area by area to understand where there are risks and has recently restructured to bring its regional focused teams together. However, the Independent Children’s Social Care Review found the existing mechanisms for independent scrutiny to be ‘relatively weak’ and it is not clear to us how the Department knows where to focus its support. Recommendation: Government should set out within six months how it plans to improve the way multi-agency safeguarding partnerships work.
Government Response

A response document is linked to this report, dated 30 May 2023. Response attribution to this recommendation has not been verified. Read the response document ↗