Casey savages Rotherham CSE response: the key failings

Her report concluded that the south Yorkshire authority is “not fit for purpose” and is “in denial” about serious and ongoing safeguarding failures.

Casey uses the 154-page document to answer several key questions posed by the government relating to the current state of the authority. Here, CYP Now runs through the conclusions for each of them.

1. Is the council taking steps to address past weaknesses and does it have the capability to do so?

Inspectors found that the “overall culture, the lack of a shared strategic vision, the complexity of partnership structures and the lack of strong political and managerial leadership” at Rotherham Council were “severely inhibiting its ability to tackle failings and lead the transformation of the borough”.

They concluded that the council is failing and does not have the capacity to address past weaknesses, but indicates that improvements have been made since the authority's new director of children's services, Ian Thomas, took over in January.

“The council has taken some steps to address past weaknesses and in the last few weeks there has been an improvement in pace,” the report states.

“We note that an improvement board has been jointly established by the council and the Local Government Association to provide oversight, support and challenge.”

2. Is the council taking steps to address weaknesses in children’s services and its work on CSE and does it have the capacity to continue to do so?

Inspectors found that frontline teams trying to deal with CSE still lack strategic direction, management support and resources.

"Despite its profile and the supposed political priority CSE has been afforded, prevention and outreach strategies, efforts to protect children and young people, and work to pursue offenders are all inadequate," the report said.

"There is no clarity of purpose and agencies are critical of each other’s way of working rather than agreeing on an effective joint approach.

"CSE is still seen as a social care issue rather than a corporate issue requiring the combined effort of many council services, and those of key partners such as schools, health and the police, to combat it effectively."

3. Did Rotherham take and continue to take sufficient steps to ensure only ‘fit and proper persons’ are permitted to hold a taxi licence?

Inspectors found that Rotherham has not taken, and still does not take, sufficient steps to ensure only fit and proper persons are permitted to hold a taxi licence.

"As a result, it cannot provide assurances that the public, including vulnerable people, are safe," the report said.

Serious weaknesses and concerns that were uncovered included that the licensing service appeared to have few written policies.

Although there was clear documentation around procedure, there was no indication of what serious concerns around the activities of a licensed driver should prompt action, such as immediate suspension of a driver.

An audit of a selection of complaints made against taxi drivers found that 86 per cent of investigations were inadequate.

"There seems to be a propensity for informal resolution of complaints, giving the trade the benefit of the doubt and not following up all lines of enquiry including the evidence of complainants," the report states.

4. Does the council undertake sufficient liaisons with other agencies?

Inspectors concluded that while the quantity of liaisons between various organisations is sufficient, the quality is not.

“The current structure is ineffective and is not delivering desired outcomes,” the report said.

“There are too many boards, too much duplication of effort and too much talking with little visible impact on services or action on the ground.

“There is no corporate management assessing whether the partnerships are effective and no co-ordination of activity.

Inspectors found that the local safeguarding children board (LSCB) "hived off" CSE into a sub-group which did not link back to other work on wider community safety issues.

"Until very recently, CSE has not been given the priority and visibility it required," the report added.

"As a result, there have been significant lost opportunities for all partners to actively tackle the issue of CSE across all local public services, including health, policing and the criminal justice system; as well as through services like licensing, housing, adults and neighbourhoods in Rotherham Council itself."

5. Does the council take appropriate action against staff guilty of gross misconduct?

Although the council did follow its own procedures, these did not always ensure that it takes appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct.

The report said that while the resignations of former chief executive Martin Kimber and former director of children's services Joyce Thacker have given the council the chance for a fresh start, it means "no-one has been held to account for the serious failures Professor Jay identified".

Inspectors reviewed staff disciplinary, grievance and severance case files, concluding that severance payments and compromise agreements were used too often, sometimes instead of hearing grievances or disciplinary cases.

6. Does Rotherham cover up information and silence whistleblowers?

Inspectors concluded that Rotherham Council goes to “some lengths” to cover up information, and silence whistleblowers.

“It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others,” the report said.

“We’ve all been made aware of the (whistleblowing) procedure, but no-one dares ever use it, because if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and they would be bullied out of the organisation,” one whistleblower told inspectors.

An example of information being "covered-up" was given in the form of a serious case review (SCR) of 17-year-old Laura Wilson who was murdered by her boyfriend Ashtiaq Ashgar in Rotherham in October 2010.

Inspectors concluded that an "extensively redacted" SCR, which was published in May 2012, "minimised" CSE factors in her case.