Report reveals poor communication between safeguarding boards and health organisations

Communication channels between local safeguarding children boards (LSCB) and partner agencies – particularly doctors and independent health care organisations – are “relatively weak”, according to a new report.

Research commissioned by the former Department for Children, Schools and Families has found that LSCB’s communication with GPs and independent healthcare providers was rarely good.

A survey of 85 LSCBs showed that only 11 had “well developed” communications with doctors, while 34 had “some extent” of dialogue and 40 were found to have either communication to a “limited extent” or not at all.

A similar picture emerged when a further survey of 49 LSCBs revealed that 29 lacked any contact with independent health providers.

“Effective communication channels between the LSCB and partner agencies are essential,” the report said. Findings reveal, however, that generally these links and mechanisms, to ensure the effective dissemination of information to inform operational practice, were relatively weak.

Out of 90 LSCBs just 15 had well developed links with faith groups and only 10 out of 73 boards had good communications with state schools.

But the report also praised LSCB chairs for providing “strong leadership” and securing broad membership and agency representation.

It added that representatives on LSCBs are “largely of sufficient seniority” to speak for their organisation with authority, commit their organisation on policy and practice matters, and hold their organisation to account.

Earlier this month, Andrew Povey, leader of Surrey County Council and member of the Department for Education ministerial advisory group, wrote to government claiming that LSCBs do little to improve outcomes for children and young people, as they are excessively regulated.

But Ray Jones, professor of social work at Kingston University, and head of the Centre for Inquiries and Reviews, which advises LSCBs, health trusts and councils, warned that scrapping the boards would be short-sighted because the agencies represented on LSCBs will all be making cuts and therefore there would be an “even stronger requirement for anything that helps professionals to work together”.