BSAB Annual assurance statements 2016-17
Introduction
When partner agencies sign the memorandum of understanding this includes making a commitment to provide a statement to board each year, givingsome indication of how they have delivered their safeguarding responsibilities during that period.This report gives a brief analysis of the annual assurance statements submitted to Board by partner agencies covering the year 2016-17.
The reporting template
The current template of the annual statement is consciously kept as simple as possible in order to reflect the wide variety of settings and circumstances in which partners operate and deliver their safeguarding responsibilities. It is built around 6 core questions which partners are then free to answer in as much (or as little) detail as they see fit. A blank template is attached to this report.
The completed statements are intended to be public facing, primarily so that both the public, and other partner agencies, can see and understand the different ways safeguarding is being applied in practice across the city. In assurance terms, they are therefore definitely not intended to represent a detailed scrutiny or audit process, nor are they acting as a tool to identify areas where partners are subsequently told they must improve their standards or change their practice – that responsibility, where necessary, lies with commissioners and regulators of services.
Taken together the statements do however begin to give a broad brush assurance picture of the kind of activity being undertaken by partners in the city, and the kind of structures and resources they have in place to meet their safeguarding responsibilities.
Uptake
In total 28 assurance statements were received, from the following agencies:
- Birmingham City Council - Assessment and Support Planning – Social Care & Health)
- Birmingham City Council - Place Directorate
- Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust
- Birmingham Cross City CCG and Birmingham South Central CCG
- Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust
- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust
- The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- West Midlands Police
- West Midlands Fire Service
- Advocacy Matters
- Accord Housing Association
- Alzheimers Society
- Bethphage
- BVSC
- Clouds End
- Disability Resource Centre
- Focus Birmingham
- Forward Carers
- Healthwatch Birmingham
- Midland Care UK
- Nehemiah UCHA
- New Servol
- Optima
- Probation Service
- Sense
- St Andrew's
- Trident
The Board does, of course, have considerably more than 28 agencies currently signed up as partner agencies. There are two reasons for the shortfall in completion:
(a)Some partners failed to complete a statement, despite being requested and reminded to do so.
(b)Otherpartners signed the memorandum of understanding at some stage after April 17, and will therefore not have been requested to complete one for the year 2016-17
The agencies who did complete a statement this year ranged from statutory bodies employing in excess of 9,000 staff, to third sector organizations employing only a few staff or volunteers. They included both commissioners and providers of services, but all touching on the lives of a very diverse range of citizens, in a very broad range of ways.
Overview of responses
A summary spreadsheet of the key points from each statement has been compiled by the board support team and is attached to this report for reference, and the intention is that each individual statement is published on the board website for anyone to read in detail at their leisure. However, some key points to note on each question area:
Your organization
As noted above, statements were received from a diverse range of organisations, with broad client reach, all running different types of services. This is gradually beginning to better reflect the broad range of the Board’s growing partnership, certainly as compared to a previous focus (pre-Care Act and board remodeling) on only a relatively narrow range of statutory agencies. Next year should in turn give a substantially broader range of agency response.
Listening and acting on the voice of citizens.
There was a wide range of process descried - including user forums, handbooks, customer surveys and so on - but very few examples that capturedor articulated exactly what citizens had actually said. Therefore, in terms of priority 1, we are still quite poorly placed as board. Effectively the assurance statements tell us what we already know – that a range of partners are talking to a range of people in the city, in a vriety of different ways but we are not effectively capturing the substance of that discussion, nor seeing many concrete examples of how that has changed and shaped practice.
Assurance
There were a wide variety of governance processes described, particularly in larger organisations. This included safeguarding committees, sometimes with user representation, that feed into executive boards, local safeguarding networks, monitoring of key performance indicators, quality systems and so on. Smaller organisations tended, not surprisingly, to describe nothing like this, but instead tended to frame assurance as meaning that a safeguarding policy and staff training programme was in place.
Case examples.
This is perhaps the most effective way of gaining some kind of assurance oversight, since the one thing that all partner organisations have in common – accepting that will they have different structures, resources and functions – is people. If we can gain concrete examples of the applications of safeguarding principles in practice across settings then not only do we gain a broader picture of assurance but we also create a learning climate wherebyall partners better understand each other’s roles and functions and there is a better awareness of the pathways and options open to them. Whilst there were certainly some good case examples given, unfortunately several forms did not actually give a concerete exampleor instead spoke only in very generalized or very brief terms. Someon the other hand were more detailed and actually quoted users verbatim - these give far more of a flavor of what safeguarding is actually about, made the form come alive, and make safeguarding something real, rather than an abstract concept. Supporting partners to develop their ability to capture and tell the user story should therefore be a priority ambition for the board.
Partnership working and safer communities
The partnership meetings were generally valued as a means of meeting other providers and exploring how agencies fit together in the city. For example, some made reference to then going on to establishing links with the fire service, or becoming aware of the existence of supporting adults panels.
Where do you think the gaps are?
Several agencies noted how encouraged they were to be involved in a much broader partnership, and endorsed the board’s approach. Some of the ongoing gaps noted included:
- Adult and child services need to work better together
- The scrutiny of unregulated accommodation
- Difficulty in finding suitable accommodation for vulnerable groups
- Inconsistencies in ‘thresholds’ and communication between LA and referring agencies
- Uncertainty about where does domestic abuse fit?
- Fear of making a mistake leading to either inaction or disproportionate action
- Inconsistency in understanding mental capacity
- Engaging with the public about safeguarding (not just the statutory safeguarding bit)
- Genuinely embedding MSP
- More widespread access to non-statutory advocacy
- Hidden communities that do not engage or met criteria for social care
Conclusions and areas for consideration
- These are assurance statements only in the sense that, taken alongside the reports coming from the S&G committee, and the information coming out of partnership meetings, they contribute to an emerging picture of how effectively the partnership is beginning to work in the city. They therefore need to be seen and read alongside other intelligence and data as this system wide picture begins to be pulled together. The statements do not, individually and in themselves, give substantial assurance about any given partner, since they are a self-assessment that has been checked by no one.
- We need to be sensitive to the risk of equating how well (or how poorly) an annual statement is completed with how well (or how poorly) safeguarding responsibilities are actually being delivered in practice. There is not a direct correlation.
- The reporting templateitself is extremely simple, however like any template itwill need to be kept under review as to whether it is suitable, meets its intended outcome, and is fit for purpose.
- We will need all partners to complete an annual statement going forward, and therefore need to establish proactive and effectivesystems for requesting the statements, maintaining contact details, tracking compliance, so that reminders and prompts etc can be built into the process.
- It may be beneficial to run some kind of session with partners sharing what ‘best practice’ might look like when completing an assurance statement. Particularly so when trying to capture user voice and experience rather than describing process or structure.
- Linked to the above, we need to consider whether reciprocal arrangements for peer audit/support might help in compiling these statements. Not as a scrutiny exercise after the event, and certainly not with any element of grading or scoring, but simply as an alternative perspective or sense check and constructive challenge before submission.
- Finally, we need to publish these statements as individual documents on the board website; ideally alongside their logo, and alongside any other supporting evidence or case examples or ‘postcards’ each organization may wish to supply about their work. This has several benefits: (a) it encourages an incremental and ongoing approach to each partner sharing what they are doing around safeguarding, on their own terms rather than simplyviewing assurance as an annual exercise (b) it encourages organisations to take full ownership of their role as partners in supporting the delivery of the 4 board priorities, and it effectively says to them, ‘Use the space to tell the public, and each other, what you do’, and then (c) from an assurance perspective, it then allows any party, where necessary, to challenge across agencies if there is evidence that an organization is not actually doing what it claims it does.
Joe Martin
BSAB vice chair
November 2017
PARTNER AGENCY ANNUAL STATEMENT
This is a public facing statementexplaining how you have delivered your safeguarding responsibilities as an organisation during 2016-2017.
Your statement will be published on the BSAB website, alongside the statementsof other partner agencies.
- YOUR ORGANISATION
- LISTENING AND ACTING ON THE VOICE OF CITIZENS
- ASSURANCE
- CASE EXAMPLES
Please do not add any identifiable information for individuals as this would breach the Data Protection Act
- PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND SAFER COMMUNITIES
- WHERE DO YOU THINK THE GAPS ARE?
Completed by:
Organisation:
Chair/Chief Executive sign off:
Date: