Joint Interim Follow-through inspection of services
to protect children and young people in the
Fife Council area
May 2010
Contents
Page
Introduction
1
1.
The inspection
2
2.
Continuous improvement
2
3.
Progress towards meeting the main points for action
3
4.
Conclusion
6
How can you contact us?
7
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. The inspection
HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) published a report on the joint inspection of
services to protect children and young people in the Fife Council area in April 2009.
Working together, services within the Fife Council area prepared an action plan
indicating how they would address the main points for action identified in the original
HMIE inspection report.
Inspectors revisited the Fife Council area in February 2010 to assess the extent to
which services were continuing to improve the quality of their work to protect children
and young people, and to evaluate progress made in responding to the main points
for action in the initial report.
2. Continuous improvement
Chief Officers, the Child Protection Committee (CPC) chairperson and senior
managers across services had shown an increasing commitment to ensuring that
practice in services to protect children was of a sufficiently high standard. Services
had jointly reviewed their work to assess progress towards the main points for action
identified in the original child protection inspection. As a result further improvements
had been planned.
An evaluation had been undertaken on the way in which the Chief Officers Public
Safety Group (COPS), the CPC and partner agencies worked to create a shared
vision, values and aims for child protection work. As a result recommendations were
made to develop a more simplified version of the vision, values and aims to ensure
they were included in relevant policies and communications. This work was near
completion.
A range of quality assurance activity had informed improvement and increased
consistency of practice across services. This included comprehensive examination of
children’s case files in health and social work. Senior social work managers reviewed
individual cases at regular intervals to monitor the outcomes for individual children.
Some child protection workers in health had their responsibilities enhanced to be able
to support colleagues.
Additional monies had been provided to support continuous improvement. Examples
of this included the increase in the number of staff reviewing the progress of
children’s plans and the release of social work staff to support police in dealing with
the large volume of initial contacts with families where officers had concerns about
children.
The importance of ensuring that staff across services received support to change
practice was clearly recognised. Training involving staff from across services took
place when new policies and procedures were introduced. This had yet to be fully
evaluated.
2
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in April 2009 identified five main points for
action.
3.1 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
Significant progress had been made in improving systems to ensure children and
parents were prepared for and attended key child protection meetings. Staff worked
well to secure the full involvement of children and families in decisions about their
lives. However, some staff across services had not yet had sufficient training or
access to suitable resources to consistently apply improved practice. There were
signs of imaginative approaches to obtaining and recording children’s views.
However, this was likely to reflect the skill or interest of the individual worker rather
than routine practice.
Clear guidance had contributed to reports being available in advance of meetings.
This gave more opportunity for families to read them closely and consider the
implications of the recommendations. Although documents had been amended to
help ensure the views of children and parents were recorded prominently, practice
was variable in seeking and reporting the views of children. Questionnaires were
given to families following case conferences. The analysis of these questionnaires
had yet to make a significant improvement in monitoring of the participation of
families.
Barnardo’s Children’s Rights Service had been expanded to provide support to
children aged 5 and over to attend initial case conferences. There had also been an
increasing number of referrals to the Children’s Rights Service. This improvement in
independent support for children was a significant step but the developments were
too recent to measure their impact.
3.2 Improve guidance on information-sharing, related support and training and
improve consistency across services
Notable progress had been made to improve the quality and consistency of
information sharing. Services were working well together and a greater
understanding of each other’s responsibilities was beginning to develop. However,
some staff, including those working in addictions and mental health, did not always
understand the need to share information. An Information Sharing Protocol had been
developed by the CPC but had yet to be distributed to all staff. Although Chief
Officers had re-issued a letter to all relevant staff which explained the need for
information sharing to protect children, specific and detailed guidance was still
required.
3
Police and social work services had improved processes to share information via their
Disclosure Unit. This had a positive impact through increased efficiency and provided
better sharing of good quality information particularly in advance of child protection
meetings. There was some confusion about the status of police confidential
information which had led on occasion to inappropriate sharing with third parties.
There were improvements in the Child Protection Messaging System. However,
some health staff still experienced delays in receiving information from the system.
A plan was being developed to identify “local experts” or “coaches” to be able to
provide support and advice to colleagues on key child protection processes and
procedures including information sharing. A working group had been set up to
develop guidance and ensure lists of significant events in a child’s life were available
in all service’s files and took account of current national guidance. The group will look
at style, format, quality and quantity of data required to assist all staff in the analysis
of risk.
3.3 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;
A positive start had been made in improving the assessment of risks to individual
children. There was a shared understanding within social work and health about
the approach to be taken in assessing the risks and needs of children. However
there was not always sufficient rigour in the consideration of risks to children and
what action was needed to protect them. The need to protect children and keep
them safe was not always sufficiently prominent in an assessment of their overall
needs. Staff, across services, required further training, guidance and support in
this aspect.
The quality of assessments was improving but it remained variable. Health staff
were more consistent in their use of assessments to inform their work but these
were not carried out for all children known to be at risk of abuse or neglect. The
Children Affected by Parental Substance Misuse (CAPSM) practitioner’s guide had
been helpfully produced for a very wide audience. There was still a lack of
guidance for staff to help them to carry out more comprehensive joint assessments
of risk of children affected by domestic abuse or parental substance misuse.
Further improvement in the joint approach to assessing risks for staff working
primarily with adults was required.
The Inter-agency Referral Discussion (IRD) protocol had been reviewed and
strengthened by the CPC, but not all staff understood its purpose and how it should
be implemented. There was clarity about the need to ensure that information is
gathered and shared to contribute to an initial assessment. Within this assessment
process the contribution of paediatricians, the processes for completing the IRD
and communicating the outcomes to all parties needed to be strengthened. Some
children with unmet health needs had successfully been identified through the IRD
process. Some children, such as those experiencing neglect, who may benefit
from a comprehensive medical assessment were not always identified. A
significant reduction in referrals to the Children’s Reporter had resulted from all
4
cause for concern forms raised by police being assessed jointly by police and
social work.
3.4 Improve planning to meet children’s needs ensuring all children have
sufficiently detailed plans which contain arrangements for monitoring and
review
Foundations had been laid to improve planning to meet children’s needs and
introduce a greater focus on whether their lives had been improved. Almost all
children had an individual care plan that set out outcomes, organised around features
recognised nationally as promoting children’s well-being. Plans were clear about the
actions required to achieve these outcomes. They included timescales and allocated
responsibility for carrying out each task. Social work services had adopted the
practice that each child should have only one social work plan. A new format for the
child’s plan had been introduced which helped keep a greater focus on outcomes and
in meeting important timescales. The new child’s plan was an effective aid to panel
members in their decision making.
Although they were improving, the quality of plans was still variable. Services
intended to evaluate use of the new child’s plan which would provide a good
opportunity to develop a single document for each child with clear links to specialist
support plans. The role of team leaders in assuring the quality of work had been
emphasised. Reviewing officers also adopted a significant role in ensuring plans
helped to meet children’s needs. However, not all staff understood the
responsibilities and degree of authority held by team leaders and reviewing officers.
Services had taken action to increase appropriate attendance at case conferences.
The arrangements for meetings and who attended had been reviewed. Invitations
were sent to some staff, such as school nurses, who had not been routinely involved.
However, there were still some gaps in invitations and variable attendance.
Performance data on attendance had been gathered. Services had also adopted a
format for core group minutes that focussed on improvements in the child’s life to help
evaluate progress. However, core group meetings were not always used by all
agencies as the main opportunity for reviewing and adapting a child’s plan in
response to changing circumstances. Core group membership did not always extend
to all the key agencies that should be included.
3.5 Ensure that Chief Officers and senior managers direct and monitor the
effectiveness of the CPC and key child protection processes
Chief Officers and senior managers had taken very positive steps to direct and
monitor the effectiveness of the CPC and key child protection processes. Collectively
chief officers were giving a stronger lead and direction to child protection work. For
example, they established appropriate priorities for action in the CPC improvement
plan. The COPS group was clear in its expectation that all work and developments in
child protection should be focused on improving outcomes for children and families.
There was also a clear and growing expectation from COPS that all development
work should be taken forward and demonstrate improvement. These messages were
5
being welcomed and understood by staff. Leadership and direction for child
protection was demonstrated by the increasing visibility and active involvement of
chief officers in monitoring and supporting child protection work.
A number of encouraging steps had been taken to promote better integration of child
protection within children’s services. There were improved links between the Getting
It Right For Every Child In Fife (GRFECIF) group and the CPC. This helped to
ensure child protection was integral to children’s services planning. Local children’s
services and child protection groups were being reviewed to mirror the links at
strategic level. These developments had the potential to provide better integrated
services and improved outcomes for vulnerable children and families.
Improvements had been made to the leadership and organisation of the CPC. An
independent chairperson had been appointed who was able to dedicate time and
energy to the role. The chairperson attended meetings of COPS and was
accountable to it for the work of the CPC. The membership of the CPC had been
reviewed and appropriate adjustments made. Five new CPC working groups had
been established. These groups were still coming to terms with their remits and were
at an early stage of development. The CPC support team had been enhanced to help
take forward the improvement work plan. There was now a clear purpose to the work
of the CPC in driving improvements to child protection work.
4. Conclusion
Chief Officers and Fife CPC had responded positively to the main points for action
outlined in the inspection report published in April 2009. Strengthened leadership and
direction had provided a new energy and impetus for taking forward improvements.
Notable progress had been made in all main points for action. There was an
increasing focus on the quality of children’s involvement with child protection services
and on improving outcomes for vulnerable families. Although there had been
improvements in assessing risks to children and planning to meet their needs, further
work was required to help all relevant staff improve the rigour and quality of
assessments and care plans. Chief Officers and senior managers were aware that
there was still considerable work to be done and were supportive of an ambitious plan
to improve child protection services. This momentum should now allow important
aspects to be addressed effectively including ensuring that appropriate policies and
procedures to guide the work of practitioners are in place and complemented by
effective staff development.
Joan Lafferty
Inspector
April 2010
6
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 this inspection you should write in the
first instance to Neil McKechnie, HM Chief Inspector 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 2010
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.
7