Summary of a review investigating the sexual abuse of seven boys (unrelated) who were looked after by their local authority at different times after September 1999, focusing particularly on the barriers that discourage children (including when they become adults) from disclosing their abuse. The perpetrator was a foster carer who was subsequently imprisoned for 13 life sentences. The foster carer and his wife had been de-registered in 2006 following the disclosure that he had invited a foster child to view pornographic material. Points of learning included the importance of encouraging children to express their views and wishes, particularly at important points of transition; the importance of developing trusting relationships and communication with vulnerable children; and ensuring that investigations responding to inappropriate sexual behaviour are jointly planned from the outset. A full overview report has also been published.
      
 Title:  A serious case review 'DN11': the executive summary LSCB: Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board Author: Peter Maddocks Date of publication: 2012  This case review report was deposited by the publishing LSCB(s) with the national SCR repository, a partnership between the Association of Independent LSCB Chairs and the NSPCC.  This report is available online via the NSPCC Library Catalogue. Copyright of this report remains with the publishing LSCB(s) listed above.                           Page 1 of 16          Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board      A Serious Case Review  ‘DN11’  The Executive Summary     July 2012     Page 2 of 16  Index 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................3 1.2 Rationale for conducting the serious case review.................................................3 1.3 Communication and contact with the children subject of the review.......................4 1.4 Details of the timescale and conduct of the serious case review .............................5 Former Foster Carers ............................................................................................7 Looked After Children ...........................................................................................8 Wider issues to consider........................................................................................8 Agency specific issues ...........................................................................................9 1.5 Summary of the serious case review .................................................................9 1.6 Good Practice ...............................................................................................9 1.7 The summary of the events examined by the review..........................................11 1.8 Key themes from the review..........................................................................13 1.9 Key areas for learning...................................................................................14 1.10 Recommendations ......................................................................................15 Recommendation one.........................................................................................15 Recommendation two.........................................................................................15 Recommendation three.......................................................................................16 Recommendation four ........................................................................................16 Recommendation five .........................................................................................16   Page 3 of 16  1.1 Introduction  1. The serious case review examines the circumstances of the exceptional and very grave sexual abuse of unrelated boys who were looked after by the local authority at different times after September 1999.   2. The perpetrator (FC1) was a longstanding married white male foster carer who is now imprisoned for 13 life sentences having pleaded guilty to over 50 offences. In addition to the seven children who are the subject of this serious case review, a further ten children, who had not been looked after, disclosed sexual abuse that led to FC1’s conviction.   All of the children are white boys from English speaking homes.   1.2 Rationale for conducting the serious case review  3. Although FC1 was convicted in relation to the abuse of sixteen children, for the purpose of this serious case review, the focus is on seven looked after children who were placed with FC1 and FC2 in their capacity as approved foster carers. Six of the subject children made complaints of sexual abuse that resulted in criminal charges. The seventh provided information that was treated as evidence of bad character. Although the abuse of all the children is equally serious the purpose for undertaking a serious case review is described in national guidance1.  4. In this particular case, the NSCB has conducted the review because children have been harmed as a result of being subjected to sexual abuse whilst being looked after by the local authority. It is for this reason that it is the seven looked after children who are the focus and the subjects of the review.   5. The serious case review has examined a great deal of detailed information from several agencies; nine of those services provided comprehensive individual management reviews in accordance with national guidance and local standards. The police also provided information about their criminal investigation that included evidence from the interviews they completed with FC1 and the statements provided by the young people.   6. This detailed work has not identified an occasion when evidence in the form of disclosures by children or from other sources could have identified FC1’s criminal activity before 2010 and when he was no longer a foster carer.   7. FC1 and FC2 were de-registered as foster carers in 2006. This had followed the disclosure that FC1 had invited a foster child to view pornographic material.  This information was investigated under the appropriate procedures of the Nottinghamshire                                         1 Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010;  chapter eight.  Page 4 of 16  Safeguarding Children Board (NSCB) and involved the relevant services including the police and children’s social care services.   8. The decision to de-register FC1 and FC2 meant that no further children were placed with FC1 or FC2 after 2006.    9. None of the children2 who were abused had felt able to disclose their abuse until FC1 was no longer a foster carer and then only after the death of his wife FC2 in 2010. The first disclosure that led to the prompt investigation and prosecution of FC1 was made by a young person who had never been looked after by FC1 or by the local authority in any other setting.   1.3 Communication and contact with the children subject of the review  10. As part of the planning and conduct of the serious case review, careful thought has been given throughout to the communication with the seven children, several of who are now in their twenties and the youngest are now in their adolescence.   11. Six of the children received a personal visit on behalf of the panel together with a letter explaining the purpose and work of the serious case review. The person making that visit was drawn from either the police or children’s social care and was based on who had the better contact with specific young people. The seventh young person was content to receive his letter by post and did not want a personal visit from either the police or Children’s Social Care (CSC).   12. The letter invited each of the young people to meet with the independent author of the overview report and a representative of the NSCB. SCRP were concerned to ensure that all these contacts were handled with great sensitivity and that none of the young people were placed under any pressure to contribute to the review if they did not feel able to do this. For that reason, no other contact or follow up was made during the review.  13. All of the young people are being contacted again at the conclusion of the review. They will be offered an opportunity to receive written information and to meet with the author and a representative of the NSCB. Contact will be maintained with all the young people; some of this reflects ongoing statutory support and help.  14. The barriers that discourage children (including when they become adults) from disclosing their abuse is one of the key lines of enquiry for this review. The sexual abuse                                         2 The term child, children and subject children is used throughout this report to emphasise that at the time the FC1 committed his offence all of his victims were young. The use of the term child in this executive summary and the main overview report is intended to remind and emphasise that at the time of the events taking place all the subjects were children who should have expected trusted adults such as a foster carer to keep them safe.  Given the fact that the offences span a period of several years, many of the ‘subject children’ are now young men.  Page 5 of 16  of children is an insidious and secret form of abuse. Abusers will use a range of methods and techniques to hide their abuse and prevent their victims disclosing it.   15. FC1 used a variety of techniques to prevent the children he sexually abused from disclosing any information that could have led to his detection before the first disclosure that led to his conviction. Once the first disclosure was made, this enabled the police and children’s social care services to respond promptly and it encouraged other children to provide information.   16. The fact that the abuse involved a man sexually abusing and in some of the cases raping boys is a particular factor explored in the analysis of the main overview report. Sexual abuse of any child is very damaging with long lasting consequences; for young boys who are abused by an adult male, it can have particular significance in terms of them being able to tell somebody about what has happened, and is exacerbated when the abuser should be a trusted adult. Chapter three of the overview report provides a summary of relevant research and studies.   17. The final chapter of the overview report includes reference to two other serious case reviews and an independent report related to sexual abuse by a foster carer (one of these had adopted the child) in other parts of England.  1.4 Details of the timescale and conduct of the serious case review  18. The serious case review was commissioned by Mr Chris Few, the independent chair of the NSCB, on the 19th May 2011. A serious case review panel was convened comprising of representatives as listed below. The chair of the NSCB asked an independent lay member of the NSCB to participate in the work of the panel to provide additional independence and challenge to the discussion and analysis.   Position Organisation Group Manager Safeguarding and Independent Review and Quality Assurance Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) NSCB Business Manager NSCB NSCB Development Manager NSCB Service Director Children’s Social Care, NCC Service Director Education, Standards and Inclusion, NCC Operations Manager Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Futures Consultant Paediatrician and Designated Doctor NHS Nottinghamshire County Designated Nurse Safeguarding Children,  NHS Nottinghamshire County  Page 6 of 16  Position Organisation Superintendent Nottinghamshire Police Manager CAFCASS Deputy Director Quality and Governance NHS Nottinghamshire County Deputy Director of Nursing  Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) Associate Director of Social Care Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust (NHCT) Head of Service Out of area YOS Lay Member NSCB  19. In line with national requirements for the completion of serious case reviews two persons independent of any of the services involved were appointed to chair the serious case review panel and author the overview report.  20. Ann Domeney was appointed in June 2011 as the independent chair for the serious case review panel. She is a former Deputy Director of Children’s Social Care Services for a large county council in England.  She is a qualified and General Social Care Council (GSCC) registered social worker with over twenty five years of experience of social care with children and families. She was Head of Social Care for Children and Families for over nine years in two local authorities. She has considerable experience of both contributing to and chairing serious case reviews.   21. Peter Maddocks was appointed in June 2011 as the independent author for the overview report and this executive summary. He has over thirty-five years experience of social care services the majority of which has been concerned with services for children and families. He has experience of working as a practitioner and senior manager in local as well as work with national government services and the voluntary sector. He has a professional social work qualification and MA and is registered with the GSCC. He undertakes work throughout the United Kingdom as an independent consultant and trainer and has led or contributed to several service reviews and inspections in relation to safeguarding children. He has undertaken agency reviews and provided overview reports to several Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) in England and Wales. He led a national review of fostering arrangements that contributed to the development of the national programme, Quality Protects. He has also chaired fostering as well as adoption panels and acted as the agency decision maker for the approval of foster carers.   22. The following agencies had contact with the family at various times. As will be seen two of these agencies are based outside of Nottinghamshire. Contact was made with the respective LSCBs for those areas to engage their participation in the review process. All  Page 7 of 16  agencies conducted management reviews of their agency’s actions and decision making which contributed to the overview report’s analysis and findings;  a) CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) b) Out of area Youth Offending Service3 c) Nottinghamshire Children, Families and Cultural Services   (NCFCS) Social Care4 d) NCFCS Education Standards and Inclusion Service e) NHS Nottinghamshire County – GP Services f) Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust g) Nottingham Futures (advice, information and guidance service  commonly referred to as Connexions) h) Nottinghamshire Police i) Rotherham and Doncaster and (NHS) South Humber Foundation Trust (RDaSH)  23. In compliance with national guidance a health overview report was provided on behalf of the various health services that contributed to the review.  The overview report for the entire serious case review was presented to the Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board in December 2011.   24. The chair of the NSCB agreed to a short extension to the submission of the serious case review reports to the Department for Education and Ofsted in recognition of the complexity of material covered in this review and to ensure appropriate quality assurance had been completed taking account of the Christmas and New Year period. This short delay and the circumstances were communicated to the Department of Education and Ofsted.   25. All of the report authors, together with the overview author, were required to collate information and provide analysis in response to several key lines of enquiry identified by the panel and agreed by the NSCB. The key lines of enquiry, which are additional to the terms of reference set out in national ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010’’ guidance were;   Former Foster Carers  26. Identify and evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the approval process, the support and supervision of FC1 and FC2, the provision and take up of training and the fostering review process.  Is there evidence of information sharing and multi-agency working in these areas?  Indicate whether practice in this area was in accordance with local and statutory guidance in place at that time.                                         3 The Youth Offending Service was involved with one of the young people. 4 This IMR covers services provided by the fostering team who had the most contact with FC1 and FC2; the team provided supervision and support to the carers. The IMR also covers work by the young people’s social workers who were responsible for oversight of planning and support for individual young people.   Page 8 of 16   27. Identify and evaluate how any concerns about the behaviour of, and care by, the foster carers were analysed, understood and responded to by professionals and agencies (including concerns about non-co-operation and possible abuse).  Indicate whether these concerns were dealt with in accordance with local and statutory guidance in place at that time.  28. Identify and evaluate the response to the specific concerns raised in 2006 which resulted in the de-registration of FC1 and FC2.  Indicate whether these concerns were dealt with in accordance with local and statutory guidance in place at that time.  Looked After Children  29. Identify and evaluate the frequency, nature and quality of professionals’ contact with the children and specifically whether they were seen alone.  30. Identify and evaluate the extent to which the views of the children were ascertained, heard, recorded and responded to appropriately by professionals.   31. Identify and evaluate how concerns raised by children (if there were any) were responded to, including whether information about those concerns was shared with other professionals  32. Identify and evaluate the extent to which birth parents, family and the young person, contributed to the planning and reviewing of services.  This should include, where appropriate, the placement choice and how their contribution impacted on the outcomes for that child.   33. Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of multi-agency working, including Looked After Reviews and compliance with local and statutory guidance in place at that time.    34. Were the services provided sensitive to the needs and vulnerabilities of the child?   Wider issues to consider  35. Was practice sensitive to the gender, racial, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of those involved?  Were there any issues of disability of the child and family, and were they explored and recorded?  36. Were assessments and decisions made in an informed and professional way? Did actions accord with assessments and decisions made? Were appropriate services offered/provided?   Page 9 of 16  37. Were senior managers and other organisations and professionals involved at points in the case where they should have been? Was there sufficient management accountability for decision making?   38. Whether current working practices could be changed to increase the likelihood of children disclosing abuse in the future.  Agency specific issues  39. Police; Information gathered by the police during the most recent investigation should be reviewed and any information relevant to the key lines of enquiry identified above should be made available to the Serious Case Review Panel (SCRP).   40. Children’s social care should make enquiries to establish whether existing foster carers, including FC1 and FC2, were reviewed when revised processes for approval were introduced.  41. Children’s social care should review all information that they hold about looked after children that have been placed with FC1 and FC2. Any issues or key points identified should be included within their Individual Management Review (IMR). They should also make recommendations to the serious case review panel (SCRP) about the inclusion of any additional subjects. Similarly children’s social care should review all information that they hold about other children abused by FC1, who were known to them, for the same purpose.   1.5 Summary of the serious case review  42. The serious case review panel identified several examples of good practice.  1.6 Good Practice  43. The serious case review panel aimed to be very challenging of services with a view to achieving good learning from their examination of events through hindsight. Several examples of good practice were identified by the review. These examples included;  a) Providing an additional social care professional to work with one of the children to help encourage him to share his feelings and to talk with a trusted adult; b) The evidence of very impressive practice with regards to communicating with birth parents and families.   c) The sensitive planning by fostering staff and the children’s social workers regarding placement choice for some of the children when they had to move between placements.   Page 10 of 16  d) Examples of the children and young people being asked about what they wanted in a placement or family when talking about long term placements.   e) Efforts were made for the children to be provided with consistent carers both for their full time placements and support care placements, wherever possible.  f) A social worker spoke directly with one of the boys about why he did not want to go to stay with FC1 and FC2.  Despite this opportunity to discuss what was happening when he was in placement with them he did not say anything of significance with regards to being sexually abused whilst there. g) There were good examples of child focused confidential health provision being offered by the school nursing service, GPs and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) workers. It is evident even in the period before 2005 that children were being seen alone and offered the opportunity to discuss issues in confidence. h) CAMHS services for some of the children offered extensive individually tailored support for young people where they were seen alone and allowed opportunities to express fears, wishes and feelings in depth. Child friendly techniques were employed such as drama therapy, art therapy and life story work.   i) Nurses routinely made personal introductions to the child and their carers together with other professionals who might be working with the child. j) There was concerted effort by education welfare staff to make links with other agencies, share concerns and instigate an intervention in regard to one of the boys in particular. k) Medical records of looked after children were requested by fast track by receiving GP practices and should be routine practice. l) There was good communication with dental services by the school nurse to facilitate access to dental care.   m) One of the boys attended a medical with his best friend; good attention was paid to issues of confidentiality and being sensitive to his decision to involve a best friend. n) The drama therapy work was a particular example of good practice in the CAMHS work.  44. The IMRs, with the exception of CAFCASS and the NHCT, have identified recommendations to implement learning for their specific services as a result of the review. The health overview author has also provided recommendations to support work across the collective health community. All of these recommendations are collated into an integrated action plan.  Progress against these actions will be monitored by the NSCB or relevant LSCB for those agencies not based in Nottinghamshire.   45. Although none of the services identify any occasion when a professional could have identified the abuse being committed by FC1, a number of the authors do provide  Page 11 of 16  reflection about the way in which some of the children’s behaviour changed and was noticed by people including foster carers and teaching staff.   46. There is clear evidence that individual practitioners across several services made concerted efforts to talk with children. This recognised the complexity of need for some of the children. At no time did a child disclose FC1’s abuse until 2010.  1.7 The summary of the events examined by the review  47. FC1 and FC2 were approved as foster carers by the local authority from 1982 until 2006 when they were de-registered.  FC1 and FC2 were a childless couple and had little or no previous experience of looking after children before their approval as foster carers. It is acknowledged that many children are successfully fostered by individuals and couples who have not had children and is therefore not meant to imply that childlessness was an indicator of concern in this case.  48. The assessment of FC1 and FC2 more than complied with the national standards and regulations that applied at the time; several aspects of the local practice exceeded the historical standards and requirements. FC1 and FC2 were the subjects of appropriate reassessments as required by subsequent legal changes and the introduction of revised national standards.  49. The support and reviewing arrangements for FC1 and FC2 generally complied with and could exceed relevant national and local standards.  The fostering service responsible has been assessed by the regulator as providing a good service; this signifies that it is doing significantly more than the legal minimum required. It was noted by the panel that the records of some important activity such as some annual reviews as well as the original fostering assessment had gaps; although this deserves attention in the relevant IMR it is not a factor in the overall management and oversight or the conclusions of the review generally.   50. During the initial placements the supervising staff and children’s social workers provided suitable oversight of the placement arrangements and took appropriate action to address identified areas of development with FC1 and FC2; an example was in their management of children’s behaviour.   51. FC1 and FC2 were reluctant to take up training opportunities and to participate in foster carer support networks despite regular encouragement from their supervising social workers. It is acknowledged that this reluctance would not be accepted under current arrangements for foster carers. Some aspects of their care routines in early placements were insensitive and did not reflect advice and guidance. They showed some unwillingness to develop their own safe caring practices although they had a framework of guidance and advice from professional staff.  Page 12 of 16   52. For the majority of the time FC1 and FC2 provided short term and respite placements. They were increasingly used to provide support for children placed with longer term carers as well as responding to short term needs. Some of the looked after children who were abused by FC1 had been looked after for several months and had more complex needs.  53. No evidence has been identified to confirm that FC2 was aware of FC1’s sexual abuse of children. The abuse apparently occurred when FC2 was not at home or with FC1. FC2 had an evening job for several years.  54. In 2006 the long term foster carer of a child who was not abused overheard a conversation that indicated that FC1 had invited a looked after child to view a pornographic video and had invited another to also watch a pornographic video. This conversation was appropriately reported to the supervising social worker and led to an investigation that resulted in FC1 and FC2 being deregistered as foster carers. No further placements of children were made.  55. The process to investigate the allegation that FC1 invited a child to watch pornography in 2006 was underpinned by Inter-agency Child Protection Procedures. Whilst there are elements of the process adopted that could have been managed differently the panel did not hear any information that would support a conclusion that had the enquiries into the incident in 2006 been managed in another way a different outcome would have resulted. This position is further supported by the findings of the Ofsted  inspection of Fostering services in October 2011 which concluded that arrangements to keep looked after children safe were good and that any allegation made by a child or young person was investigated in line with safeguarding procedures.  56. It is important to note that FC1 and FC2 did not foster again following the initial allegation and that the Council took appropriate action in deregistering FC1 and FC2 as foster carers.   57. Appropriate consideration was also given to the protection of other children who were not looked after by the Local Authority.   58. The panel also considered whether the response to another similar allegation   would be different if it was made in 2011. IMR authors noted a number of improvements in inter-agency working that would indicate a joint investigation response would now be undertaken.  59. In 2010 FC2 died. She had poor health for a number of years. After FC2 died a child who had not been looked after by the Local Authority made the first disclosure of sexual abuse. This led to a criminal investigation and the subsequent conviction of FC1.   Page 13 of 16  1.8 Key themes from the review   60. Without the disclosure made in 2010 there had been no previous opportunity to know about FC1’s criminal abuse. The research evidence that has been collated with the panel for the purpose of the review confirms that the sexual abuse of children is seriously under reported. It is a particular problem for boys who are sexually abused by other males.   61. The research summarised in chapter three of the main overview report describes several barriers for children who have suffered sexual abuse; amongst the most significant are being able to trust another person enough to tell them about what has happened or is happening; a fear of not being believed or taken seriously; children also worry about losing control of the information.   62. For boys who are abused, the problems are further compounded by other concerns that include a fear of being branded as ‘gay’ or feeling un-masculine. This was considered to be an important factor for several of the children who came from communities that had very defined and traditional cultural and social understanding about men and reflected a local industrial heritage of manual work and physical strength.  63. Other factors that prevent children from disclosing their abuse is their degree of understanding about what is happening; for some younger or less mature children, their knowledge about what is abusive behaviour has not yet developed (one of the children referred to discovering that the abuse was wrong during subsequent sex education).   64. Research also describes the range of behaviours exhibited by the perpetrators of sexual abuse; in this case it ranged from making some of the children feel ‘one of the boys’ whilst others described intimidation and fear.  65. Although none of the boys made disclosures, some of the IMR authors were able to reflect with hindsight the extent to which some of the children’s behaviour could be seen as symptomatic of abuse. This is borne out by the research evidence again, as well as the statements made by some of the boys to the police.   66. The large numbers of children placed with FC1 and FC2 over the years meant that coordination of information about the behaviours of children with the details of carers was not routine; in other words, the changed behaviour of some of the children could not be easily linked with specific placement and therefore patterns could not be discerned and was not available to the investigating team in 2006.   67. The panel also examined evidence from investigations in other areas of the UK including two other serious case reviews that have concerned the sexual abuse of children by a foster carer.  Themes to emerge from that work included foster carers who became  Page 14 of 16  established and trusted with a reputation for forming relationships with children. Although the 2006 investigation ensured that FC1 and FC2 did not foster children again, with hindsight it could be seen that FC1 was able to present himself as a foster carer who had made a serious ‘foolish mistake’ regarding pornography rather than something far more sinister.   1.9 Key areas for learning  68. This serious case review will not repeat recommendations previously made to the NSCB. For example, significant work is taking place in regard to support for vulnerable children in education and the local authority are implementing a major strategy for their looked after services.  69. A considerable range of learning has been identified through the review and is addressed in the IMRs and the overview reports.   70. Some of the most important points of learning from the review identified through the IMRs and from examining other reviews and research are;  a) The importance of continuing to encourage children to express their views, wishes and feelings and particularly at important points of transitions such as movements between placements; b) The importance of appropriately trained professionals having the skills, experience and workload capacity to spend time with vulnerable children developing relationships of trust and open communication; c) Ensuring that when responding to information that suggests inappropriate sexual behaviour, the investigations are jointly planned from the very outset and that particular care is given to managing potential mindsets towards trusted adults who have been known for many years; d) Maintaining minimum standards and expectations with foster carers in terms of the training and participation in support and development and their safe care practices; e) Recognising that children who become looked after, especially at older ages, may have significant needs as a result of attachment difficulties, experience of neglect and abuse that makes them more vulnerable; when social workers have to take action to remove children from their families, this can create a barrier for the children being able to trust the social worker; this highlights the potential value of having access for example to appropriately prepared and supported independent persons; f) Vulnerable children need access to good quality schools and educational provision that has the capacity of responding to complex and at times challenging behaviour;  Page 15 of 16  g) The importance of staff and carers having appropriate levels of understanding about how poor or challenging behaviour can be symptomatic of abuse that may not just be related to historical information already known to the professionals; h) The risks that can be associated with children in placements for short periods of time; the value and importance of children’s carers, parents or professional staff reporting and discussing any changes in behaviour that is noticed;  i) The sexual abuse of children and male abuse of boys in particular have lasting consequences on the emotional and mental health of children; the majority of abused children will never disclose their abuse and may require support as adults from a wide range of services that may include mental health and substance misuse.   71. Many changes have occurred at both the local and national level since the events that are examined by this review. For example, the introduction of new oversight and co-ordination arrangements through the local authority’s designated officer (LADO) provides additional oversight and guidance when concerns are raised about the behaviour of trusted adults. The strategic function of the LADO also ensures that learning is co-ordinated across relevant settings including social care, schools and youth organisations where adults are in close contact with children. Further changes have also taken place in CSC and the police as a result of the response to inspections and previous reviews.   1.10 Recommendations   72. Having considered the overview report, the Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board and the local agencies have agreed to take the following action to improve future practice. This action is in addition to the agency action plans being implemented by services as a result of their individual management reviews.   Recommendation one  The Director of Children’s Services should provide information to the Nottinghamshire Corporate Parenting Panel on the  availability and use of advocacy arrangements and independent people for looked after children and whether any further development of such arrangements are required as a result of this review.  Recommendation two  The Director of Children’s Services should provide a report to the Nottinghamshire Corporate Parenting Panel describing if any further action is required for the management and oversight of short term or respite care placements for children.   Page 16 of 16   Recommendation three  The Director of Children’s Services should ensure that an appropriate briefing is provided to the Children in Care Council with a view to consulting that council and other children and young people about how their views, wishes and concerns are included in the annual review of foster carers. Consultation should also include any additional suggestions for encouraging children and young people to raise concerns if and when this occurs. The outcome should be reported to the Nottinghamshire Corporate Parenting Board.  Recommendation four  A summary of the key learning from this review as it relates to the needs of men who have been sexually abused and may require help and support should be provided to the members of the Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Adults Board (NSAB).    Recommendation five  The Director of Children’s Services should provide information to the Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board regarding any ongoing contact with the children and young people who were abused by FC1 and the arrangements for future follow up and consultation. Consideration should be given to any additional and independent sources of support including counselling that may be required  An action plan has been developed in response to these recommendations. This describes clear arrangements for improving practice and the expected timescales for completing this work.  Implementation of the actions above and those in IMRs will be monitored through the NSCB Standing Serious Case Review Subgroup. The impact on local practice of these actions, and actions already taken by agencies, will be evaluated by the NSCB Performance and Quality of Subgroup. Actions that relate to agencies located in other LSCB areas will be monitored by the LSCB responsible for that area.    Signed  Chair of the NSCB July 2012  