Joint inspection of services to protect children and
young people in the Fife Council Area
April 2009
Contents
Page
Introduction
1
1.
Background
2
2.
Key strengths
3
3.
How effective is the help children get when they need it?
4
4.
How well do services promote public awareness of child
protection?
7
5.
How good is the delivery of key processes?
8
6.
How good is operational management in protecting children
and meeting their needs?
13
7.
How good is individual and collective leadership?
15
8.
How well are children and young people protected and their
needs met?
18
9.
What happens next?
19
Appendix 1 Indicators of quality
20
Appendix 2 Examples of good practice
21
How can you contact us?
22
Introduction
The Joint Inspection of Children’s Services and Inspection of Social Work Services
(Scotland) Act 2006, together with the associated regulations and Code of Practice,
provide the legislative framework for the conduct of joint inspections of the provision
of services to children. Inspections are conducted within a published framework of
quality indicators, ‘How well are children and young people protected and their needs
met 1?’
Inspection teams include Associate Assessors who are members of staff from
services and agencies providing services to children and young people in other
Scottish local authority areas.
1
‘How well are children and young people protected and their needs met?’. Self-evaluation using
quality indicators, HM Inspectorate of Education 2005.
1
1. Background
The inspection of services to protect children2 in the Fife Council area took place
between October and November 2008. It covered the range of services and staff
working in the area who had a role in protecting children. These included services
provided by health, the police, the local authority and the Scottish Children’s
Reporter Administration (SCRA), as well as those provided by voluntary and
independent organisations.
As part of the inspection process, inspectors reviewed practice through reading a
sample of files held by services who work to protect children living in the area. Some
of the children and families in the sample met and talked to inspectors about the
services they had received.
Inspectors visited services that provided help to children and families, and met users
of these services. They talked to staff with responsibilities for protecting children
across all the key services. This included staff with leadership and operational
management responsibilities as well as those working directly with children and
families. Inspectors also sampled work that was being done in the area to protect
children, by attending meetings and reviews.
As the findings in this report are based on a sample of children and families,
inspectors cannot assure the quality of service received by every single child in the
area who might need help.
Fife is situated on the east coast of Scotland. It covers 1,325 kilometres and lies
between the River Tay to the north and the River Forth in the south. Fife has
retained the same council boundaries through consecutive local government
reorganisations. Fife Constabulary, NHS Fife and Fife Council have the same
administrative boundaries. The main towns in Fife are Glenrothes, Kirkcaldy,
Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath and St Andrews. The administrative centre is
Glenrothes.
With a population of 358,930, Fife is the third largest local authority in Scotland.
Unemployment rates in 28% of council wards are more than twice the national
average. In 2006, the percentage of the population under 18 years was 20.8%
which was slightly higher than the national figure of 20.5%. The incidence rate of
domestic abuse in Fife in 2006 was higher than Scotland as a whole. At the end of
2007, 496 children had been referred for child protection enquiries representing an
increase of 63% over the previous year. This was significantly higher than increases
in comparator authorities3 at 11.1% and nationally at 13.6%.
2
3
2
Throughout this document ‘children’ refers to persons under the age of 18 years as defined in the
Joint Inspection of Children’s Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006,
Section 7(1).
Comparator authorities include South Lanarkshire Council, Falkirk Council, Clackmannanshire
Council, West Lothian Council and Renfrewshire Council.
2. Key strengths
Inspectors found the following key strengths in how well children were protected
and their needs met in Fife Council area.
•
The effective help and support provided by health staff to vulnerable
pregnant women and their babies, particularly those affected by substance
misuse.
•
The extensive range of helpful material promoting awareness of child
protection in staff and the general public.
•
The increasing use of Family Group Conferences to explore all options for
children at risk of being accommodated away from home.
•
‘The Big Shout’ had created a valuable opportunity for children to contribute
to policy development and as a result the confidence and self-esteem of
those taking part had increased.
3
3. How effective is the help children get when they need it?
Children knew who to go to if they needed help. Children and families had
regular contact from staff across services. Children were helped by support
from a range of specialist services. The availability of services to support
families was inconsistent and there was no clear strategy for commissioning
or compensating for gaps. Staff responded promptly to clear and identified
risk of harm to children. They were often slow to respond when the need was
less urgent. Frequently, action did not take place until a child’s situation was
critical and problems deep-rooted. Long periods of involvement with services
did not always improve the lives of children.
Being listened to and respected
Communication between staff, children and families was satisfactory. Staff built
trusting relationships with children and families. School staff knew children well.
Health staff had regular contact with younger children and carefully observed
changes in their health and behaviour. Staff in voluntary services spent time with
children and got to know them well. Social workers had very frequent contact with
children, particularly when they were on the Child Protection Register (CPR).
However, staff did not always explain adequately the purpose of contact and families
did not always know the reasons for visits or understand why there were concerns.
Although social workers visited children frequently, insufficient time was spent with
individual children. This made it difficult to find out what children had to say about
their circumstances. When children had communication difficulties, some staff used
a range of measures to help them make their opinions known. Staff had easy
access to interpreting services and used them appropriately.
Communication with children at formal meetings was variable. At some meetings
communication was clear and effective. Time was taken to ensure that children and
families understood what was happening and they were supported to express their
opinions. However, not all staff routinely considered the views of children and
families or took time to prepare them for attendance at meetings. Some children
were not given sufficient opportunity in formal meetings to express their views.
When children and families did not attend meetings, staff did not always pass on the
views of children adequately. It was not normal practice for the chair of the meeting
or other managers to meet non-attending families and convey the decisions of the
meeting or explain what would happen next. Children’s Panel members consistently
sought the views of children at hearings. Social work staff did not always support
children sufficiently to complete Having Your Say forms.
Being helped to keep safe
The effectiveness of services to help keep children safe was satisfactory. Services
to support children and families were distributed unevenly across the area. There
was no consistent approach used across Fife to deliver parenting support. For
example, Homestart staff and volunteers supported families practically and
emotionally in several areas of Fife. In the Kirkcaldy area Barnardo’s ‘Family
Matters’ used a range of parenting approaches such as Mellow Parenting effectively.
4
Overall, a number of key services in the voluntary sector were commissioned for
delivery in specific localities, denying access to some families out with these areas
and potential removal of service if a family moved home. There was not a consistent
approach to delivering parenting support to families. Pre-school centres offered
effective support to vulnerable children. However, some children could only receive
a place outwith their home area. There was no overarching early year’s strategy.
Waiting lists for access to some services, such as The Cottage Centre, were lengthy.
Almost all child care services were not able to support families in the evening or
weekends. Social workers were unable to use home care services to support
children and families. There was no strategic approach to commissioning of services
from the voluntary sector. The Vulnerable in Pregnancy (VIP) midwives supported a
large number of vulnerable women through pregnancy and several weeks following
delivery.
Children received a wide range of informative materials from school, police and
health staff about personal safety. A variety of programmes helped raise children’s
awareness, promote their safety and help them improve relationships. Overall,
children found information on personal safety helpful. Community police helpfully
visited schools and spoke to children on a range of relevant subjects.
‘Boozebusters’ helped children understand alcohol through drama and workshops
and develop strategies to cope if misuse affected their lives. ‘Cool in School’
successfully helped children develop positive ways of managing relationships.
Children’s home circumstances were actively considered before any decision was
taken to exclude them from school. The existing council policy on educating children
at home was being updated appropriately in line with Scottish Government advice.
There were effective procedures in place for dealing with children absent from school
without explanation or reported as missing. Staff involved had a good understanding
of their roles and responsibilities.
Almost all children could identify someone outside their family they could go to for
help with a problem. They expressed confidence in guidance staff, school nurses
and community police officers. Children had access to relevant telephone numbers,
including ChildLine, which were pre-printed in homework planners. They were
confident about how to keep safe when using the Internet and mobile phones.
Children knew about the bullying policies in their schools and were clear about
approaches to resolving conflict. Parents, who responded to school inspection
questionnaires, felt staff showed concern for the care and welfare of their child,
treated them fairly and would act on a concern raised.
Some examples of what children said about keeping themselves safe.
“Ms X knows everybody. She is really good, easy to talk to and
has always got time.”
“They should put more CCTV up and have curfews.”
“Our school nurse is really kind, really nice. You know she will
understand.”
“We are always being given this kind of information at
registration.”
5
Immediate response to concerns
The immediate response to concerns was weak. When staff had concerns about
children’s safety or welfare they quickly reported their concerns to police or social
work services. Overall, social workers took immediate steps to protect children when
there were clear and identified risks. They made effective use of Child Protection
Orders to remove children to a safe place. They ensured that unborn babies who
were known to be at risk were protected as soon as they were born. However, there
were important weaknesses. Staff were often slow to respond, particularly to
children who were at risk of neglect. Situations often escalated to a crisis point
before effective action was taken. Some children experienced delays before they
received the help they needed. These children were left feeling unsafe and unsure
about what was going to happen. It was difficult to find temporary foster placements
for some children out-of-office hours. There were examples of children left for
periods in police stations until appropriate care was found. In most, but not all
cases, staff carried out checks on the suitability of relatives and friends when they
made arrangements for children to be cared for in an emergency. In a few cases,
these checks were carried out but not properly recorded. A few children remained in
circumstances which continued to place them at risk.
Meeting needs
Overall, meeting children’s needs was weak. Some children identified as at risk of
abuse or for whom concerns had been raised received effective support. They had
their needs met and as a result their lives improved. Some staff across services
worked well together to help meet children’s needs. However, some did not get the
help they needed and support for vulnerable children across the Fife Council area
lacked a coordinated approach. The immediate and short term needs of children
were met more effectively than their longer term needs. There were significant
delays in progressing plans for the longer term future of some vulnerable children.
Some children and their parents benefited in the short term from a range of support
services, including those provided by the voluntary sector. However, practice to
support families varied across the Fife Council area and the needs of vulnerable
children were not always met. Staff from different services worked skilfully together
to meet the needs of children with complex health or additional support needs.
Families who required sustained support over a prolonged period of time did not
always receive this. Support to families reduced when children were removed from
the CPR. A shortage of foster placements meant that a few children had to move
several times as suitable carers were not available or remain in situations where
their needs were not being met. Some children did not have their individual needs
met when they were part of a family group. The situations of some children did not
improve despite long periods of involvement with services.
Vulnerable children, including those whose sexual behaviour posed risks to
themselves and others, were helped effectively by specialist services, such as the
Child Support Service, educational psychologists and the Centre for the Vulnerable
Child. Some children had to wait a considerable time before receiving specialist
help. There was no Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services support
out-of-office hours, resulting in a few children being placed inappropriately in hospital
6
in an emergency and treated by psychiatric staff who worked with adults. Women’s
Aid children’s workers worked well with children affected by domestic abuse.
4. How well do services promote public awareness of child protection?
The Child Protection Committee (CPC) had developed informative materials to
promote child protection, which were widely available. Services were available
which allowed the public to report concerns about child protection at all times.
The social work Emergency Out of Hours Service (EOOHS) was not always
able to respond appropriately to reported concerns.
Being aware of protecting children
The approaches taken to raise public awareness of child protection were good. The
CPC had a clear communications strategy which gave a strong message that
‘child protection is everyone’s job...it’s our job’. This had been widely promoted and
understood by staff. A wide range of eye catching information posters and leaflets
had been produced. These were displayed prominently in public buildings and
contained helpful information, including details of important contact points. The CPC
had developed an easily recognisable logo which was visible on all child protection
publicity materials. The CPC had created an effective website which was hosted on
the Fife Council server and had links from the Fife Constabulary and NHS Fife
websites. The informative Keep yourself safe Flip Fone had been distributed to a
large number of children. There had been limited success in involving the local
media to promote child protection.
Concerns about children’s safety were reported by members of the public to staff in
all services, particularly the police and social work services. Referrals, including
those made anonymously, were given priority by police and social work staff and
followed up appropriately and in good time. Specialist family protection police
officers and social workers were available to receive concerns during office hours. In
the evenings and at weekends call handling staff in the police contact centre referred
calls about child protection to an appropriate officer. Calls to the social work EOOHS
were routed through Fife Council Services Emergency Support Line and prompt
contact was made to referrers. However, EOOHS was not always able to respond
appropriately or provide a social worker with relevant child care experience to
undertake investigations. There were no formal arrangements to ensure feedback
was given routinely to members of the public who had raised concerns.
7
5. How good is the delivery of key processes?
Services were inconsistent in ensuring the involvement of children and
families in decision-making processes affecting their lives. Children received
variable support to attend Children’s Hearings. While staff were aware of the
need to share information, significant gaps in information had impacted
adversely on the quality of risk assessment and planning for some vulnerable
children. Social work and police worked well together to investigate when a
child was at risk of abuse, but did not always involve health sufficiently early.
There were significant weaknesses in assessments of risk and need. There
was a lack of an integrated approach to planning for children. Planning for
some children’s longer term needs was delayed.
Involving children and their families
The involvement of children and their families in key processes was weak. Practice
across the Fife Council area varied significantly. Parents were routinely invited to
child protection case conferences and invitations included informative leaflets
outlining the process of the conference. Some children and families, including
extended family members, were supported well to be involved in case conferences
and other formal meetings where important decisions were made about them. They
were encouraged to participate fully and the Chairperson ensured that the views of
children and families were sought. However, families were not always prepared well
to attend case conferences and reviews, or supported effectively to contribute
meaningfully. Only a minority of children attended child protection case conferences.
Reports were not consistently discussed with children and families in advance and
were often issued to parents at meetings. Reviewing officers chairing case
conferences did not routinely meet with parents or children prior to, or after
meetings. As a result they were not prepared for them or supported to understand
the decisions made and what would happen next. When families did not attend case
conferences, there was no systematic approach to informing them of decisions.
Most children and families attended looked after children’s reviews. Staff did not
always ensure that children received sufficient encouragement and support to
participate fully in such meetings. Some children and families were not adequately
prepared or supported to attend Children’s Hearings. Procedures to have children
excused from panels were not always followed. Advocacy services were available
but their use was inconsistent. Priority was given to children who were looked after
away from home. All families with children under the age of ten at risk of being
looked after away from home, or for whom permanent plans were being considered
for their future were referred to Children 1st for a Family Group Conference (FGC).
Staff in Children 1st supported children and families well to prepare for, and
participate in, FGC meetings.
Easy to read leaflets advising people how to complain had been produced by
services. However, they were not always visible in public buildings. Information
about making a complaint about the quality of service was helpfully included on
some websites. All services had clear written policies and procedures for dealing
with formal complaints and expressions of dissatisfaction. This included timescales
for responding.
8
Most services had arrangements in place to monitor and report on trends and how
this could influence service development and review. Social work services had yet
to establish a formal mechanism for monitoring and reporting on complaints
received.
Sharing and recording information
The sharing and recording of information was weak. Almost all staff in agencies
were aware of the need to share information and of its importance in protecting
children. A joint practitioners’ and managers’ guide on information-sharing
emphasised responsibility for sharing information and gave reassurance to staff on
confidentiality. However, there was a lack of detailed support and guidance for staff
to ensure consistency in information-sharing across agencies. Some key
information, such as changes in family circumstances and children on supervision
requirements, was not always passed to all relevant staff. At times,
Information-sharing was too dependent on informal approaches and individual
relationships.
Particular features of information-sharing included the following:
•
effective information-sharing at case conferences and core group meetings;
•
improved multi-agency access to information through the 24-hour online CPR;
•
the Child Protection Messaging Alert System gave key staff improved information
on child protection investigations, registrations and de-registrations. In some
areas of health the system was not yet fully operational or effective;
•
some health and social work staff did not always understand the purpose and use
made of information and the need for the information flow to be continued
following referral;
•
sometimes school nurses did not receive information on vulnerable children or
children on the CPR;
•
some social workers delayed returning calls to colleagues from other services
wishing to discuss concerns about vulnerable children;
•
General Practitioners (GPs) were not routinely invited to attend child protection
meetings; and
•
multiple health records in different locations presented a significant challenge to
staff to ensure they had all relevant information on children for whom there may
be child protection concerns.
Recording in children’s files was variable. Social work recorded information
electronically as well as in a paper system. Recording in social work files was
organised effectively and historical information on families was included in reports.
However, the information did not provide a usable or effective summary of significant
9
events in the child’s life which could help assessment and planning. Social work
staff found the electronic recording system time consuming and unwieldy. Health
and school files lacked organisation. Overall, the Children’s Reporter’s files were
well structured and organised. Police information included a useful summary of
historical involvement with cases. There were examples where key information was
missing or incomplete in education, health and social work records.
Practice in seeking and recording the consent of service users for the sharing of
information was not well developed. Parents and families were not routinely advised
of what information was being shared about them and with whom. Staff were aware
of the need to obtain consent. Sometimes this happened verbally but it was not
recorded consistently. Parents were unsure of the information being shared about
them and their children. Recent guidance had clarified the position on disclosure of
confidential information and staff were aware of the need to inform service users
about information shared when consent had not been given.
There was effective sharing and recording of information on sex offenders. Regular
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) meetings were attended well
by police, social work and housing staff, and provided an effective forum for
exchanging information. Police officers had a good knowledge of the arrangements
for sharing information and were aware of the need to manage the information on
sex offenders effectively. Regular risk assessment meetings were held to monitor
sexually aggressive children and those not covered by the MAPPA process. Police
officers ensured information was recorded about individuals following an allegation of
neglect or abuse, ensuring relevant information was available to Disclosure
Scotland.
Recognising and assessing risks and needs
Recognition and assessment of risks and needs was weak. Staff in all services were
alert to signs that children may need help or protection. This included staff who
worked with adults and did not have a direct responsibility for children. However,
staff were often unclear about how and when to use a variety of forms available to
record and refer concerns about children. This included children who may be in
need of immediate protection. An inter-agency agreement had been reached to
carry out Initial Referral Discussions (IRDs) to gather information, conduct initial
assessments of risks and plan joint investigations. Staff in police, social work, health
and education were unsure about the purpose of IRDs and were inconsistent in how
they used this process. Social work staff did not always initiate an IRD when they
investigated concerns about a child as a single service. Police officers and social
workers worked well to gather information and plan joint investigations. They did not
always fully involve health staff at a sufficiently early stage to assist in decisions
about whether a medical examination was necessary. Child Protection Case
Conferences (CPCCs) were quickly and appropriately arranged for children who
needed them. The creation of a multi-agency screening group to consider children
for whom the police had cause for concern was being planned.
The quality of assessments of risks and needs was variable. The Child Support
Team completed thorough assessments of children who were displaying sexually
inappropriate behaviour. Barnardo’s ‘Family Matters’ completed comprehensive
10
assessments of parenting and children’s needs. Health staff used a number of
approaches to help identify children who may be in need of care and protection.
Social workers had very recently started to use an initial assessment framework for
all children and families who were referred. A small number of assessments by
social workers were of a high quality. Most did not analyse the risks and needs of
children sufficiently or present clear conclusions about the actions needed to
safeguard children. Assessments did not focus sufficiently on the risks to and needs
of individual children within a family grouping. Some overlooked the risks associated
with neglect and possible sexual abuse. School nurses did not use a standard
approach to health assessment suitable for working with children of school age.
There was no tool to assist staff in the assessment of risks associated with domestic
abuse. Social workers in EOOHS were unable to access completed assessments to
help them to carry out their own assessments in emergency situations. There were
a few children who were placed with kinship carers without sufficient assessment.
Staff in social work and police worked well together to carry out joint investigations of
child abuse. Overall, staff carefully planned joint investigations and they took good
account of the child’s age and communication needs. However, for some children
there were delays in joint investigations due to difficulties in identifying and releasing
a suitably trained social worker. This was more difficult during evenings and
weekends. There was a rota of paediatricians available to carry out medical
examinations and, where appropriate, these were carried out jointly with experienced
Forensic Medical Examiners. Children were examined in a child friendly
environment and paediatricians ensured that children’s health needs were followed
up.
Staff assessed risks and needs of children affected by parental substance misuse
without clear guidance or reference to the principles of ‘Getting Our Priorities
Right’. A public health nurse assisted staff in addictions services with assessment
of patients with dependent children. The VIP midwives identified effectively the
needs of pregnant women with problem substance misuse at a very early stage.
Together with the CPC, Fife Drug and Alcohol Team had plans to report on the
numbers of children affected by parental substance misuse. A Practitioners’
Guide to working with families affected by parental substance was under
development.
Planning to meet needs
The processes for planning to meet children’s needs were weak. Staff met regularly
to plan how best to meet children’s needs. Reviewing officers, independent of the
management of the case, chaired CPCCs, reviews and looked after children’s
reviews. However, their authority to challenge staff practice across services, and
their role in quality assurance was limited. Plans were often too broad, and did not
reflect the particular needs of individual children within the family. They did not
always give sufficient attention to what needed to improve in order to meet children’s
needs. There were delays in planning for the longer term needs of some vulnerable
children.
Clear and effective planning at CPCCs helped some children. Most CPCCs and
looked after children’s reviews were held promptly. Minutes of these meetings were
11
usually circulated in good time. Most initial CPCCs were well attended. Review
case conferences, where important decisions about de-registration were taken, were
less well attended. In a few cases only one agency was represented. Addictions
staff rarely attended child protection meetings. GPs and school nurses were not
routinely invited to meetings, leaving most school aged children without a named
health professional to take responsibility for their health needs. The quality of child
protection plans was variable. Many lacked detail, clear timescales, identification of
a lead professional responsible for progressing actions or expected outcomes for
children. For some children, plans did not reflect their individual needs. Plans did
not sufficiently set out how identified risks would be reduced.
Some children remained on the CPR for long periods with no improvement in their
circumstances. The plans for some children remained the same over time and did
not reflect changes in their circumstances. There were delays in planning to meet
their longer term needs of some children. There were delays by Children’s
Reporters in decision-making and in arranging children’s hearings. The quality of
reports provided to the Children’s Reporter was variable and they did not always
assist them to take timely decisions. Some hearings were postponed as reports
were not available for the panel to consider.
Overall, core groups took place for children on the CPR. Some parents and
extended family attended these meetings. Meetings were used to share information
and monitor developments in children and family’s circumstances. However, they
did not focus sufficiently on evaluating progress of plans and reduction in the risks to
each child. Core groups were now taking place regularly. The range of meetings for
children who may not be returning to their parents’ care were not always well
coordinated. There was no mechanism in place to ensure continuing coordinated
support for children who needed this following de-registration from the CPR.
12
6. How good is operational management in protecting children and meeting
their needs?
Services and the Child Protection Committee (CPC) had produced a broad
range of policies, procedures and strategies to guide staff in their work with
children. The collation and use of management information was inconsistent
across services. The impact of the Integrated Children’s Services Plan (ICSP)
had not been fully evaluated. Staff had little awareness of the plan and how
their work contributed to it. Services had sound systems to ensure safer
recruitment of staff. Valuable training was available to staff. The support and
management of staff holding child protection cases was variable across
services. An imaginative approach to involving children in the development of
policies was progressing well.
Aspect
Comments
Policies and
procedures
Overall, policies and procedures were satisfactory. Individual
services had appropriate and helpful child protection policies
and guidelines in place. Staff across services also used as
appropriate the CPC inter-agency child protection guidelines.
These were now due for revision and updating. The CPC had
produced a range of additional guidance and information to
support integrated working. However, some guidance for staff
lacked clarity, including guidance on information-sharing, and
significant case reviews. There was no consistent approach
to ensuring effective implementation of policies and
procedures. The impact of policies and procedures on
practice was not systematically evaluated.
Operational
planning
Operational planning was satisfactory. The Fife Children’s
Services Group had involved key partners in the development
of the ICSP since 2005. The ICSP priorities for 2008-2009
were linked to the Fife Community Plan and the Single
Outcome Agreement. Six local Children’s Services Groups
developed local plans for children in line with these priorities.
There had been regular progress reports on meeting the
priorities set out in the 2005-2008 ICSP. However, there had
been limited evaluation of the improvement in the lives of
vulnerable children. The most recent local performance
figures on protection of children were limited and did not focus
on impact and outcomes. Staff working mainly with
vulnerable children were not fully aware of the ICSP and its
relevance for their work. The use of management information
was inconsistent across services. There was no systematic
approach to using performance management information to
inform service improvement.
13
Aspect
Comments
Participation of
children, their
families and other
relevant people in
policy development
Participation of children in policy development was good. The
‘Big Shout’ effectively brought together representatives from a
range of forums, including Youth Forums, Scottish Youth
Parliament, Young People’s Panel, and Pupil Councils.
Participating children and young people came from a variety
of different backgrounds. Staff were extremely supportive of
the young people and a creative approach had established a
strong foundation for meaningful participation of children.
Children involved felt their views were taken very seriously.
There had been limited success in seeking the views of
families in their use of all children’s services. A robust and
systematic approach to the participation of service users was
yet to be fully established across all services.
Recruitment and
retention of staff
Overall, the recruitment and retention of staff was satisfactory.
Safe recruitment and vetting practices were now in place.
These took account of relevant legislation and were supported
by a range of appropriate policies. The recruitment of social
workers had improved and there were few vacancies. The
introduction of a senior practitioner grade had helped retain
staff. However, senior practitioners and staff trained for joint
investigative interviewing were unevenly spread across the
area. The impact of health visitor vacancies was reduced by
registered nurses supporting the service. Services were not
working together to minimise the impact of vacancies and
there was no joint workforce planning.
Development of
staff
Development of staff was good. Services delivered
well-planned single agency child protection training
programmes. The CPC had developed an extensive range of
multi-agency child protection training. A list and future diary of
all training courses available was easily accessible on the
CPC website. Training courses were systematically evaluated
by participants at the time. The long term impact training had
on practice had not yet been fully evaluated. Social work did
not have a central database of training and development
needs. Health staff with responsibility for child protection
cases did not always have their work reviewed effectively.
14
7. How good is individual and collective leadership?
Chief Officers and senior managers shared a vision to protect children. The
Chief Officers Public Safety Group (COPS) scrutinised child protection
carefully but did not provide sufficient strategic leadership and direction to the
Child Protection Committee (CPC) or staff working to protect children. The
vision of the CPC was clearly recognised by staff across services. The CPC
had undertaken a wide range of activity but had not monitored the
implementation or progress of agreed guidance and protocols. Chief Officers
and senior managers were committed to the principles of joint working.
Processes for quality assurance and self-evaluation had been recently
introduced. The main points for action arising from audit and evaluation
activities had not resulted in improvement plans.
Vision, values and aims
The quality of vision, values and aims was good. Collectively Chief Officers and
senior managers adopted the comprehensive vision of the CPC to protect children.
Most staff across services understood the collective vision to protect children and
how it should direct their work with vulnerable children. Fife Council promoted
diversity and supported the ‘Frae Fife’ project in significant work with young people
from ethnic minority families.
•
The Chief Executive of the Council adopted the aims and values of the CPC and
was committed to help keep children healthy, safe and living in their own
communities. Senior managers across all council services promoted child
protection as central to all work with children. Elected members had a very clear
vision that every child should be supported to keep safe.
•
Within NHS Fife the Chief Executive and senior managers shared a vision to
support child protection through services promoting the health, well being and
safety of children. They understood their individual and joint accountability for all
child protection work. Staff, including those not directly responsible for children’s
services, were aware of their responsibilities to give appropriate priority to child
protection.
•
The Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary had a strong personal vision to protect
vulnerable people in the community, particularly children, and emphasised this to
officers as core business of the force. The importance of child protection was
further confirmed as integral to community safety as one of four pillars of Fife
Policing Plan. Officers understood this expectation in undertaking their duties.
Chief Officers understood well their collective responsibilities and accountability.
Sound reporting arrangements to Chief Officers were in place. The CPC reported
directly to the COPS group. A recently formed subgroup of Fife Partnership intended
to involve members of the health board and council in scrutiny of public safety work.
The Children’s Services Group (CSG) encouraged multi-agency working through the
development of the ICSP.
15
Leadership and direction
Collective leadership and direction was weak. The COPS group had a clear
understanding of their collective responsibility to scrutinise child protection activity
and the work of the CPC. The ability of COPS to ensure there was robust scrutiny of
child protection work was hampered by insufficient performance and management
information. The group did not give collective strategic direction for child protection
services nor did it direct key priorities for child protection. Links between strategic
planning for children’s services and child protection were informal and were often
dependent on common membership of strategic groups.
The CPC had restructured to improve focus and performance. A wide range of
services were represented on the committee and helpfully included the Children’s
Rights Officer to offer the perspective of children. The CPC had undertaken a range
of activity, but this had not always resulted in intended changes or improvements in
practice across services. Agreed short term tasks were supervised well to ensure
they were completed. However, the CPC did not give sufficient direction to ensure
agreed policies and protocols were implemented across services. The effectiveness
of policies was not routinely considered. Guidance lacked clarity which led to
confusion in practitioners and inconsistency of application. There had been delays in
completing important developments such as a practitioners guide for working with
children affected by parental substance misuse.
Overall, Chief Officers gave priority to resourcing child protection and services
shared some resources to protect children. The COPS group had given priority to
funding the CPC and its support team and monies had doubled within four years.
The support team had sufficient staff and budget for awareness raising activities and
training. Several jointly supported posts were positive developments towards greater
resource sharing. The CSG had begun to monitor spending to ensure the desired
outcomes of the ICSP were met. Allocation of resources to child protection was not
always prioritised jointly or linked to clear strategies to protect children.
Leadership of people and partnerships
Individual and collective leadership of people and partnerships was satisfactory.
Chief Officers and senior managers worked together through the Fife Partnership,
COPS group and CSG and promoted a partnership approach to services aimed at
the protection of children. However, individual services continued to develop some
policies in isolation from key partners. A collaborative ethos was not yet fully
developed and services did not always consider a partnership approach.
There were limited opportunities to learn from other partners’ expertise or benefit
from combining tasks to avoid duplication. There were recent improvements in
staff’s awareness of the need to work in partnership.
Children and families benefited from some effective and well coordinated joint work
across services. In education, Joint Action Teams and School Liaison Groups
promoted joint working and ensured helpful multi-agency support was available for
children.
16
Effective working relationships between social work, education and the Children’s
Reporter resulted in a large number of looked after children, previously
accommodated throughout the country, returning to live and be educated in Fife.
Local groups in health, children’s services and child protection promoted partnership
working between services. Children’s Reporters were often unable to take part in
these multi-agency groups. Fife Domestic Abuse Partnership had initiated the
helpful Children Experiencing Domestic Abuse Recovery group and the Domestic
Abuse Unit.
Partnership working with the voluntary sector was well developed. The sector was
represented on Fife CPC. Voluntary services provided effective support and help to
many children and their families. Funding for larger voluntary providers such as
Children 1st was provided on a three-yearly basis promoting continuity of service.
However, many voluntary services were locality based. There was limited
considered planning in the commissioning and provision of services in partnership
with the voluntary sector. Multi-agency screening of offence referrals to the
Children’s Reporters had successfully reduced inappropriate referrals but
implementation of this to non-offence referrals had been delayed.
Leadership of change and improvement
The leadership of change and improvement was weak. The CPC had promoted
multi-agency self-evaluation and staff had a growing awareness of its importance in
child protection practice. A series of ‘How Good is Your Practice?’ multi-agency
seminars had raised staff awareness of self-evaluation. However, Chief Officers and
senior managers across services did not give a strong enough lead on the
importance of self-evaluation in building capacity for service improvement. The CPC
had carried out a multi-agency case file audit which identified strengths and
weaknesses. This worthwhile exercise had not been followed up with improvement
actions on the areas identified as needing attention.
Social work services had carried out useful audits of cases on the CPR. These had
led to some improvements in service levels. For instance, the number and
frequency of social worker contacts with families had improved. However, the audits
had not yet focused on the actual quality of the service experienced, such as that of
contacts, risk assessments and child care plans. There were no links between this
audit work and the multi-agency case file audit carried out by the CPC. Council
services did not have systematic approaches to self-evaluation of child protection in
place.
Single agency self-evaluation had not been given a high priority. Across partner
agencies, including Fife Constabulary and NHS Fife, there was no systematic
approach to single agency quality improvement. The CPC had made some use of
joint inspection reports to benchmark performance but it was unclear what
improvements had been made as a result. A recent case review had resulted in
some confusion over procedures and the lessons learned from the process were not
clear. There was a lack of consistent quality assurance by managers to ensure that
poor and inconsistent practices were addressed and improvements made by
individuals and teams.
17
8. How well are children and young people protected and their needs met?
Summary
Inspectors were not confident that every child needing help to keep them safe from
abuse and neglect had been properly identified, assessed and protected. While
there were examples of good practice and well developed services these were not
yet consistent across the Fife Council area. Children who were clearly identified as
being at serious risk of harm were often receiving the help and support they needed.
In those cases their situation often improved as a result of the effective involvement
of services. However, the response provided to concerns was variable and there
were differences in the time taken to carry out an initial assessment of risk. As a
result some children were left in situations of risk or without adequate support.
Within the local authority area, inspectors recognised that services were improving
but key developments such as multi-agency screening of children for whom there
was concern, were not taken forward systematically. There was a need for leaders
to give greater direction to the development of integrated planning and consistent
partnership working to protect children.
Individual services and the CPC had structures in place to identify and implement
improvements in the protection of children in Fife. In doing so Chief Officers and the
CPC should take account of the need to:
•
improve the participation of children and families in key child protection
processes and ensure they are more fully involved in decision-making about their
lives;
•
improve guidance on information-sharing, related support and training and
improve consistency across services;
•
improve the processes to assess the risk and needs of individual vulnerable
children and ensure assessments are sufficiently rigorous to identify the actions
needed to protect children;
•
improve planning to meet children’s needs ensuring all children have sufficiently
detailed plans which contain arrangements for monitoring and review; and
•
ensure that Chief Officers and senior managers direct and monitor the
effectiveness of the CPC and key child protection processes.
18
9. What happens next?
The Chief Officers have been asked to prepare an action plan indicating how they
will address the main recommendations of this report, and to share that plan with
stakeholders. Within four months Chief Officers should submit to HM Inspectors a
report on the extent to which they have made progress in implementing the action
plan. Within one year of the publication of the report HM Inspectors will re-visit the
authority area to assess and report on progress made in meeting the
recommendations.
Joan Lafferty
Inspector
April 2009
19
Appendix 1 Quality indicators
The following quality indicators have been used in the inspection process to evaluate
the overall effectiveness of services to protect children and meet their needs.
How effective is the help children get when they need it?
Children are listened to, understood and
Satisfactory
respected
Children benefit from strategies to
Satisfactory
minimise harm
Children are helped by the actions taken
Weak
in immediate response to concerns
Children’s needs are met
Weak
How well do services promote public awareness of child protection?
Public awareness of the safety and
Good
protection of children
How good is the delivery of key processes?
Involving children and their families in
Weak
key processes
Information-sharing and recording
Weak
Recognising and assessing risks and
Weak
needs
Effectiveness of planning to meet needs
Weak
How good is operational management in protecting children and meeting
their needs?
Policies and procedures
Satisfactory
Operational planning
Satisfactory
Participation of children, families and
Good
other relevant people in policy
development
Recruitment and retention of staff
Satisfactory
Development of staff
Good
How good is individual and collective leadership?
Vision, values and aims
Good
Leadership and direction
Weak
Leadership of people and partnerships
Satisfactory
Leadership of change and improvement
Weak
This report uses the following word scale to make clear the evaluations made by
inspectors:
Excellent
Very good
Good
Satisfactory
Weak
Unsatisfactory
20
Outstanding, sector leading
Major strengths
Important strengths with areas for improvement
Strengths just outweigh weaknesses
Important weaknesses
Major weaknesses
Appendix 2 Examples of good practice
The following good practice example demonstrated how services can work together
effectively to improve the life chances of children and families at risk of abuse and
neglect.
Vulnerable in pregnancy project (VIP)
Community midwives identified increasing numbers of babies displaying signs of
withdrawal from maternal substance misuse. Many of the mothers had not been in
contact previously with addiction services and their substance misuse was not
known to staff during pregnancy. Child protection enquiries or assessment of risk
did not take place until after the baby was born.
VIP was developed from the drug liaison midwifery service in partnership with
addiction and social work staff. Families for whom there was concern were identified
at an early stage of pregnancy. Staff worked closely together to share information
about vulnerable women. They assessed risks and needs of families. Staff planned
well together and women had an individualised pregnancy plan to support them.
Women and their families were supported intensively by specialist health staff,
addiction nurses and social work staff from ante-natal registration until the baby was
12 weeks old. This support was extended for longer periods if required. Families
had a named worker who met with them individually, got to know them well and
coordinated support from other services. Women were helped to manage their
substance abuse. They were supported to take advantage of effective post birth
medical advice and screening. Support in parenting skills helped to improve the
relationship between mothers and babies promoting better outcomes for children.
21
How can you contact us?
If you would like an additional copy of this report
Copies of this report have been sent to the Chief Executives of the local authority
and Health Board, Chief Constable, Authority and Principal Reporter, Members of
the Scottish Parliament, and other relevant individuals and agencies. Subject to
availability, further copies may be obtained free of charge from HM Inspectorate of
Education, First Floor, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale
Way, Livingston EH54 6GA or by telephoning 01506 600262. Copies are also
available on our website www.hmie.gov.uk
If you wish to comment about this inspection
Should you wish to comment on any aspect of child protection inspections you
should write in the first instance to Neil McKechnie, HMCI, Directorate 6:
Services for Children at HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House,
Almondvale Business Park, Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
Our complaints procedure
If you wish to comment about any of our inspections, contact us at
HMIEenquiries@hmie.gsi.gov.uk or alternatively you should write to BMCT,
HM Inspectorate of Education, Denholm House, Almondvale Business Park,
Almondvale Way, Livingston EH54 6GA.
If you are not satisfied with the action we have taken at the end of our complaints
procedure, you can raise your complaint with the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (SPSO). The SPSO is fully independent and has powers to investigate
complaints about Government departments and agencies. You should write to the
SPSO, Freepost EH641, Edinburgh, EH3 0BR. You can also telephone
0800 377 7330, fax 0800 377 7331 or e-mail: ask@spso.org.uk. More information
about the Ombudsman’s office can be obtained from the website: www.spso.org.uk.
Crown Copyright 2009
HM Inspectorate of Education
This report may be reproduced in whole or in part, except for commercial purposes
or in connection with a prospectus or advertisement, provided that the source and
date thereof are stated.
22