Setting

Lara Patel, Director of Children’s Services, Reading Council Jackie Yates, Chief Executive Officer, Reading Council Rachael Corser, Chief Nursing Officer, Integrated Care Board Matthew Barber, Police and Crime Commissioner Jason Hogg, Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police Gabriel Amahwe, Regional Probation Director David Goosey, Independent Scrutineer

p.1

Dear Reading Local Safeguarding Partnership

p.1

Joint targeted area inspection of Reading

This letter summarises the findings of the joint targeted area inspection (JTAI) of the multi-agency response to children who are victims of domestic abuse in Reading.

p.1

Joint targeted area inspection of Reading

This inspection took place from 10 to 14 March 2025. It was carried out by inspectors from Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP).

p.1

Context

This inspection focused on the multi-agency response to unborn children and children aged 0 to 7 years who are victims of domestic abuse. Our evaluation of strategic arrangements in the local area took a broader look and considered the multi-agency response to children of all ages.

p.1

Context

The inspectorates recognise the complexities in providing a multi-agency response to children and families when there is more than one victim and where there may be risks in addition to domestic abuse. Consequently, risk assessment and decision- making have several challenges for partners, not least that the impact on the child is sometimes not immediately apparent.

p.1

Context

This joint inspection of the multi-agency response to children who are victims of domestic abuse will highlight the significant challenges to partnerships in improving practice. We anticipate that these JTAIs will identify learning for all agencies and will contribute to the debate about what good practice looks like.

p.1

Headline findings

This inspection identified significant weaknesses in the multi-agency approach to prevention, help and support for children and their families who are victims of domestic abuse in Reading. Too many children and their families who are victims of domestic abuse experience significant delays in their needs and risks being fully understood and addressed. While there are elements of practice that are having a positive impact for children, there remain serious and widespread weaknesses in the multi-agency strategic and practice response to domestic abuse. Berkshire West Safeguarding Children Partnership (BWSCP) recognised a year ago, following a report by the independent scrutineer, that a stronger understanding was required of the prevalence and profile of domestic abuse, to improve the pathways for children who are victims of domestic abuse. Since then, very little progress has been achieved. Practice is not consistently and routinely based on a good enough

p.2

Headline findings

understanding of children’s needs and the risks to them. Many children who are victims of domestic abuse do not get the service they need at the right time and decision-making is too often delayed and based on partial information.

p.2

Areas for priority action

◼ Shortfalls in the multi-agency strategic safeguarding partnership leading to systemic weaknesses in multi-agency safeguarding practice. These include inconsistent information-sharing between partners resulting in delays for children, poor-quality risk assessments that fail to address the experiences and needs of children and often weak decision-making for children.

p.2

What needs to improve?

◼ How well children’s voices are listened to and the experiences of individual children who have been exposed to domestic abuse are acted on by practitioners across the partnership. ◼ How effectively professionals challenge and escalate concerns about children that are not receiving an adequate response. ◼ The timeliness of strategy and other safeguarding meetings relating to children’s well-being and the involvement of all relevant safeguarding partners when concerns arise. ◼ The timeliness and consistency of information-sharing about risks, needs and plans for children. ◼ How well thresholds of need are understood across the partnership to meet children’s needs and minimise risks. ◼ Practitioners and managers’ understanding of the importance of consistent consideration of the cumulative impact on children from repeated incidents of exposure to domestic abuse. ◼ How well the Safeguarding Children Partnership is informed by comprehensive

p.2

What needs to improve?

detailed relevant data to sufficiently understand the experiences of children who are victims of domestic abuse and the prevalence of the issue in their area. ◼ The effectiveness of commissioning of support services for children and their families based on a clear understanding of local need. ◼ The oversight and effectiveness of multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC). ◼ The effectiveness of strategic governance arrangements to ensure priorities are set and aligned with the other strategic partnerships, with a focus on those children subject to domestic abuse.

p.3

Strengths

◼ Family help and children’s centres provide a valued multidisciplinary response for vulnerable children and their families who are or may be victims of domestic abuse. This makes a positive difference to their lives. ◼ The multi-agency vulnerable people pre-birth panel identifies risks for unborn children and offers early protective interventions and assessments pre-birth. Regular review of these unborn babies’ circumstances allows the partnership to give early support and consider interventions to reduce risks. This includes a valued specialist midwifery team, which provides additional support to families pre- and post-birth. ◼ Health professionals have good access to support from the specialist domestic abuse nurse, who provides advice and input to support families who are experiencing domestic abuse.

p.3

Main findings

Children who are victims of domestic abuse benefit from experienced family workers in the family help service. They complete comprehensive and insightful assessments with children and families. Parental history is well understood and takes account of current parenting behaviours. Children’s voices are mostly included in assessments through creative direct work and observation. The input of partner agencies supports a holistic evaluation of children and families’ needs, which provides a good basis for building effective plans for children receiving support from the early help service.

p.3

Main findings

Children’s centres based in local communities in Reading provide a valued multidisciplinary response for vulnerable children and their families who are, or may be, victims of domestic abuse. Parents are offered a range of universal and targeted group programmes, as well as one-to-one work programmes that parents, including new fathers, value. This work impacts positively and reduces risks for many children at this early point of intervention. The One Reading Partnership Hub provides a safe space for families who are victims of domestic abuse to seek advice about how they can be best supported. The partnership hub offers consultation and facilitates multi- agency meetings which help practitioners to be reflective and curious about historic and cumulative risk, to reduce the impact of domestic abuse. This impacts positively on outcomes for children.

p.3

Main findings

When children’s level of risk escalates to the point where a statutory response becomes appropriate, some practitioners across different agencies experience difficulties in making or having referrals accepted by the Children’s Single Point of Access (CSPoA). This delays much-needed help for these children and families. As a consequence, risks and needs often escalate further for children. For a small number of children who required a statutory response, professionals have been so concerned when referrals have not been accepted by children’s social care that they took individual action to protect children. These children would have been at risk of significant harm had those professionals not acted.

p.4

Main findings

Once children are accepted for referral, social workers in the CSPoA, supported by domestic abuse practitioners, then respond in a timely way. Parental consent is appropriately overridden when there are child protection concerns and timely multi- agency safeguarding checks are completed with partner agencies. There is insufficient recognition, however, that risk can still exist or escalate when adults separate. Referral outcomes are not consistently communicated to partners by social workers in the CSPoA.

p.4

Main findings

Information held by different agencies about child and adult victims and perpetrators is not systematically shared or drawn together by the network of professionals involved with children. As a result, professionals do not always have a holistic and coherent overview about how best to support individual children and manage risks. A range of barriers contribute to this. This includes the police not sharing previous domestic history or relevant information that is held on the police national computer (PNC) with children’s social care unless multi-agency safeguarding checks are formally requested, or a child protection strategy meeting is held. Police share details of all domestic abuse incidents, which are reviewed by a support officer in the MASH to make sure they are relevant for child social care. However, this review does not lead to any additional information that the police held being shared. Therefore,

p.4

Main findings

partner agencies only receive the information regarding the child and family provided by the initial attending officer. Police do not consistently document parental consent. Pertinent information is not shared by children’s social care with early years providers prior to a child attending the provision. Also, general practitioners are not consistently informed of the outcomes of child protection conferences, which means they are not fully aware of risks to child and adult victims of domestic abuse.

p.4

Main findings

The quality of social work assessments is inconsistent. While some stronger assessments explore critical risks and needs well, barriers to effective multi-agency work negatively impact on the quality and consistency of many assessments and plans. Ineffective coordination between agencies means progress with plans is delayed for many children and they do not get the help they need.

p.4

Main findings

The individual needs of children in families who are victims of domestic abuse are not consistently considered in assessments. This means family dynamics and the impact of abuse for individual children are not fully understood or addressed. The impact of changes in the lives of many children are not fully understood, which means that there is insufficient understanding of the child’s lived experience and the needs and risks they face in their daily life. There is considerable variability in how effectively practitioners engage with younger children, which impacts on practitioners’ understanding of children’s experiences and needs. Insufficient exploration by professionals of the backgrounds and histories of families results in the impact of cumulative harm caused by domestic abuse not being well recognised, understood or addressed across the partnership.

p.5

Main findings

Practitioners have limited understanding and consideration of many children’s ethnicity, cultural and religious needs, meaning that children’s unique identities are not sufficiently recognised. The response to children who are at risk from ‘honour’- based violence, including before birth, is inconsistent and leaves some unprotected. There is a limited appreciation of the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse and who have additional special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) or specific communication needs and may communicate distress through their behaviour.

p.5

Main findings

When children may be at risk of significant harm, many experience considerable delays in safeguarding processes, such as child protection strategy and core group meetings, being completed. Consequently, risks are not understood and addressed by professionals at the earliest opportunity and mitigating action to reduce risks is not timely for too many children.

p.5

Main findings

When domestic abuse is reported to the police, the investigation is promptly allocated to the most appropriate person. The highest-risk cases are investigated by specialist officers. Effective initial enquiries ensure that opportunities for evidence- based prosecutions are increased. In the majority of investigations, sufficient lines of enquiry are followed. Officers regularly consider different ways of helping to protect child and adult victims through bail conditions and domestic violence prevention notices.

p.5

Main findings

The majority of health practitioners recognise the impact of domestic abuse and the importance of identifying and supporting children. They show some professional curiosity, but inconsistent use of the ‘think family’ approach means that some health assessments are not holistic and do not capture the true lived experience of that child. Health professionals respond promptly to immediate needs and make appropriate referrals to services that support families who are victims of domestic abuse. However, access to some support services is delayed due to waiting times.

p.5

Main findings

Multi-agency forums to protect children through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), MARAC and multi-agency tasking and coordination (MATAC) meetings are in place. Once accepted into the process, MAPPA is mostly used to good effect to manage domestic abuse perpetrators. MARAC is well attended, but children’s voices are not clearly reflected and there is insufficient assurance that actions are leading to better outcomes for children.

p.6

Main findings

MATAC and the ‘Drive’ project aim to reduce risks to adults and children where domestic abuse is a factor by working with serial perpetrators. In addition, the police have commissioned a conditional cautioning scheme for lower-risk offenders. While there are options to address perpetrator behaviours at all levels of risk, practitioners across the partnership lack sufficient awareness of the full range of services available to address perpetrator behaviours, or to support children and adults experiencing domestic abuse. This creates a barrier to child and adult victims receiving timely and effective support. The police force takes too long to make domestic violence disclosures (DVDS or Clare’s Law). When a disclosure is made, the force does not routinely share that information with its partner agencies. There are a broad range of service providers for victims of domestic abuse particularly for adults, which include

p.6

Main findings

direct or group work to help develop their insight into domestic abuse. Waiting lists delay interventions at the right time for some families.

p.6

Main findings

Probation services persistently follow up requests for information from children’s social care, with a strong focus on promoting the safety of children. When perpetrators are released from prison, additional protective licence conditions to mitigate the risks of domestic abuse are used. Probation practitioners continue to identify and assess the risks posed by individuals whose supervision is suspended due to the ‘Reset’ arrangements, which ensure that people on probation have supervision reactivated when risk increases. The Reset team attends partnership meetings, and their work goes beyond what has been nationally directed. However, due to significant staffing shortfalls, perpetrators of domestic abuse experience significant delays in being able to access probation interventions. This creates false confidence, as partners assume that interventions in multi-agency plans for children, which reduce the risks of domestic abuse, are being completed when they are not.

p.6

Main findings

Across the partnership, the voice of the child and the impact on them of domestic abuse is inconsistently captured, and too often professional attention is focused on adults rather than children. While there are examples of stronger practice, such as the use of advocates for children in child protection conferences, professionals frequently fail to adequately represent children, including those who are very young, unborn or have additional needs. The introduction of a multi-agency pre-birth panel impacts positively on identifying early protective support and assessments before a child’s birth. Regular reviews of progress enable partners to further consider interventions and actions necessary to reduce risk.

p.6

Main findings

Schools speak positively about the support they receive to help them keep vulnerable children in education when they are at risk of suspension or exclusion. The education partnership board has established a stronger relationship with schools. The safeguarding engagement group and network of designated safeguarding leads are well established and have enhanced engagement and focus on children, such as the development of Operation Encompass. When schools receive information about incidents of domestic abuse, they respond appropriately, but many children do not benefit as police do not always promptly send the information to schools and the detail is limited. This restricts schools’ ability to give children appropriate support when they need it.

p.7

Main findings

BWSCP is based on a tripartite local authority structure. It has experienced significant changes in leadership over recent years, which has impacted its effectiveness. Over the last year, leaders have focused on governance of the children’s safeguarding partnership. While this focus on governance has been necessary and appropriate, there has not been enough focus alongside this on multi- agency strategy, planning and actions to meet the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse.

p.7

Main findings

BWSCP does not receive the quality of detailed data it needs to sufficiently understand the experience and prevalence of children who are victims of domestic abuse in Reading. A quality assurance framework has been created with a data dashboard, which members scrutinise. The value of this is limited, as it does not utilise data from the police or health services. During this inspection, it became evident to leaders that some of this data was available and shared in other strategic forums but not shared with BWSCP.

p.7

Main findings

The approach to learning by BWSCP partners is not sufficiently systematic, structured and embedded. Some audit activity has taken place in response to incidents or complaints. Individual agencies have their own internal audit processes. Some joint- learning initiatives exist, but they are not sufficient to provide oversight of multi- agency practice and to drive consistent and sustained change across the partnership. The partnership had not undertaken any multi-agency audits of the experiences of children who are victims of domestic abuse prior to this inspection. This lack of comprehensive oversight means that leaders did not anticipate the scale of failings found at this inspection.

p.7

Main findings

The safeguarding partnership priorities have not been sufficiently focused on outcomes for children. Draft strategic objectives, which set domestic abuse and other child-focused priorities, are in the process of being agreed by the partnership. The priorities of other local strategic partnerships in the area are not aligned, and do not support work to address the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse. Examples include the lack of data-sharing across partnerships, the community safety partnership not identifying domestic abuse as a priority for the community safety partnership, and the domestic abuse board being primarily adult focused. This undermines the ability of the safeguarding partnership to protect children who are victims of domestic abuse.

p.7

Main findings

Commissioning services to meet local need is rightly recognised by leaders as an area that requires development. Leaders in the safeguarding partnership do not have sufficient oversight of the commissioning budget, and there is a lack of coordination in statutory responsibilities across the different partnerships to ensure a child focus on commissioning. The partnership’s evaluation of the profile of domestic abuse and how it impacts on young children is limited. While there are some services that provide important support for adult and child victims of domestic abuse, the design of services is not informed by children and families or research and intelligence that is evidence based.

p.8

Main findings

Learning and development have been identified as priorities by the local partnership. Designated domestic abuse training is available to staff through individual agencies. The partnership does not have sufficient oversight to ensure that the right practitioners attend this training. Neither does it measure the impact of domestic abuse training to ensure that practitioners are confident and competent in the work they undertake. With high turnover in the workforce and high caseloads, particularly in children’s social care, some staff find it hard to prioritise training.

p.8

Practice study: highly effective practice

Assessment practice and work within the family help service are strengths. Practitioners across the partnership work well together through multi-agency meetings, where discussions take place to support children and their families stepping out of statutory involvement to family support. These discussions include how partners can support plans, for example pastoral support in schools and referral to voluntary sector organisations for various programmes to prevent domestic abuse.

p.9

Practice study: highly effective practice

Family help assessments are timely and report comprehensively on risks children face from domestic abuse. Family help workers have received training on domestic abuse assessment, MARAC and domestic abuse, as well as trauma- informed approaches. Practitioners use a variety of approaches and tools to understand children’s experiences and seek their views. Observations of very young children inform assessments where they are too young to verbally express themselves. For one young child, practitioners showed cultural competence and worked closely with the family’s community. Practitioners ensured they understood the family’s language, religion and culture to support safety planning effectively. Safety planning included the family, nursery and health visitor. This helped to ensure that the safe parent was able to safely take their child to and from nursery free from any risks associated with domestic abuse.

p.9

Practice study: priority action

Children in one family had witnessed and experienced domestic abuse from several perpetrators over a prolonged period of time. When a relationship started between the mother and a new partner, the children experienced further violence in the family home. The police attended and referred their concerns to children’s social care. A strategy meeting of professionals involved with the family was delayed. This meant that immediate decisions were not informed by a comprehensive overview of the current and historical information known by all professionals involved with the family.

p.10

Practice study: priority action

When the strategy meeting was held, the probation service was not invited to attend or asked to share information. As a result, information was not shared about the perpetrator, who was on licence following their release from prison for an assault on a previous partner. Probation held significant information that would have given professionals a clearer insight into the risks to the children. Probation only became aware of the perpetrator’s assault on the mother when they were subsequently notified by the police through a routine arrest and notification list. Probation immediately reviewed the risk and instigated an immediate recall of the perpetrator to prison.

p.10

Practice study: priority action

Once the immediate risk was removed, professionals did not use this as an opportunity to assess and respond to the family, who were all victims, and to hear the experiences of the children. Some of the children were unable to verbalise their experiences, but there were clear behavioural indicators that the children had experienced trauma. Some of the children had additional needs and the impact of these was not fully understood. Specialists involved with the family, who had a better understanding of the children’s communication needs, were not asked to share the best way to communicate or understand the children’s views.

p.10

Practice study: priority action

The local authority is fully aware of weaknesses in practice for these children and is taking action.

p.10

Next steps

We have determined that Reading Council is the principal authority and should prepare a written statement of proposed action responding to the findings outlined in this letter. This should be a multi-agency response involving the individuals and agencies that this report is addressed to. The response should set out the actions for the partnership and, when appropriate, individual agencies. The local safeguarding partners should oversee implementation of the action plan through their local multi- agency safeguarding arrangements. Lara Patel should send the written statement of action to ProtectionOfChildren@ofsted.gov.uk by Wednesday 13 August 2025. This statement will inform the lines of enquiry at any future joint or single-agency activity by the inspectorates.

p.10