Recipient

Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 27 Apr 2018•Latest report 27 Apr 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Other public body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Southwark Safeguarding Children Board, now represented here by Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership.

    Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Katy Roberts · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Katy Roberts, who was aged 16, was under the care of CAMHS at SLAM when she died; the inquest concluded that her death was suicide. The report describes concerns that changes to her care plan were not confirmed in writing, that there was no clear route to challenge or appeal them, and that written routes for seeking help in emergencies and non-emergencies were not clearly communicated.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to expressly communicate in writing all routes for raising concerns and seeking help

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Failure to expressly communicate in writing all routes by which, to raise concerns and seek help on a non-emergency or emergency basis. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a clear route or opportunity to challenge or appeal Care Plan changes

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Failure to provide a clear route or opportunity to challenge or appeal these changes to the Care Plan. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Southwark Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate in writing a Care Plan and changes to it

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Failure to communicate in writing a Care Plan and changes to it. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026