Joint inspection of services to protect children and
young people in the Glasgow City Council area
March 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 Glasgow City Council area took
place in 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.
Glasgow City is the most densely populated Council area in Scotland. It covers 175
square kilometres and is situated on the west of the central belt covering both the
north and south banks of the River Clyde. The area served by the Council is urban
in nature. It has borders with East and West Dunbartonshire, North and
South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire Council areas.
Glasgow has a population of 580,000, with 19.2% under the age of 18 years. The
socio-economic context presents very significant challenges to those providing
services to protect children. Unemployment levels are higher and earnings lower
than the Scottish average. There is a growing community of migrant workers.
Deprivation and levels of domestic abuse and drug related offences are high. The
number of accommodated children in Glasgow is significantly higher than the
national figure.
2
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).
2. Key strengths
Inspectors found the following key strengths in
in how
how well
well children
children were
were protected
protected
and their needs met in Glasgow City Council area:

Very effective arrangements to help children keep themselves safe.

Very effective promotion of public awareness of child protection.

Recently developed local support arrangements, including Local
Management Reviews and Local Child Protection forums, for staff involved
in child protection work.

The strong vision, values and aims to guide staff involved in protecting
children.

The high priority given to child protection within the Council’s plans
modernisation
to
plans.
modernise
its services.

The strong leadership of partnership working within and across services by
Elected Members and Chief Officers.
3
3. How effective is the help children get when they need it?
Overall, children were listened to and given help to express their views. There
was a good range of support available locally for vulnerable children and their
families, particularly those on the Child Protection Register (CPR). Children at
immediate risk of harm were referred to appropriate services. Services often
responded well to children’s short term needs but success in meeting their
longer term needs was more variable.
Being listened to and respected
The extent to which children and families were listened to and respected was good.
Many children and families had contact with staff who understood their needs.
Arrangements were often made so that families could continue to receive support
from staff they knew and trusted. Most children in schools were listened to and
respected. They were confident that a trusted member of staff would listen to them
and help them if necessary. Staff in early years observed young children’s
behaviour closely and were alert to any changes. Children with communication
difficulties were helped to express their views with the support of skilled staff who
knew them well. The needs of a number of children, whose names were not on the
CPR, including looked after children, were not well understood. Some children and
families were unable to build trusting relationships with those who were trying to help
them.
Staff communicated effectively with children and families at formal meetings. They
asked for and listened carefully to their views. When families were returning to
meetings, such as case conferences, appropriate attention was given to ensuring
that the chairperson knew the family’s circumstances. At Children’s Hearings, panel
members ensured children had opportunities to speak to them without other adults
present. Some children had been helped to express their views very effectively.
However, this was not consistent. Effective use was made of interpreters for
children and families for whom English was not their first language. A few children
and families did not have enough support to help them prepare for and participate in
formal meetings. They felt anxious because they had not been given the chance to
read reports before attending. As a result they were less able to participate fully.
Being helped to keep safe
Arrangements to help children keep themselves safe were very good. Health visitors
and early years staff were quick to identify when children and families needed help.
Staff in early years and family centres helped to promote young children’s physical,
emotional and educational development. Young children and their parents were
helped to gain confidence and self esteem by the Vulnerable Twos project. This
provided strong support to families facing deprivation, parental addiction, domestic
abuse and homelessness. Families were given good advice to develop more
effective parenting skills. Programmes varied across areas and some families had to
wait for a place to become available. However, a parenting strategy was being
developed to bring about improvements. Most staff worked well with children and
families to agree the most appropriate types of help and how to provide it. Parents
and children were supported well by a range of community based projects including
4
those run by the voluntary sector. Some very vulnerable families were given
valuable emotional and practical assistance by workers who visited them at home,
sometimes more than once a day. Many children on the CPR were closely
monitored through frequent visits to their homes. Some of these visits were
unannounced.
Children had very good opportunities to learn about how to keep themselves safe.
They were provided with a wide range of interesting and relevant experiences to
promote personal safety. Schools provided strong pastoral care and ensured that
pupils had someone trusted to talk to about worries or concerns. Children had been
involved in developing the Children’s Charter. This had helped them understand
their rights to be safe and have positive relationships. Children’s understanding of
how to keep safe in various life situations was increased as a result of very effective
school personal and social development programmes. They showed good
awareness of how to keep safe within relationships and to maintain good physical
and mental health. They were aware of the risks involved in using the internet and
chatrooms. The education service had effective arrangements for monitoring
children missing from education and for supporting children educated at home.
Children were aware of ChildLine and how to contact the service. The CPC had
provided them with a pocket sized card with information and numbers to call if they
needed help. Some children also made use of INCLUDEM’s 24-hour local helpline.
Young runaways and others who frequented the city centre were supported very
effectively by a number of projects. Some of these were run by the voluntary sector.
Children were helped to feel safe in and around some schools by Campus Police
Officers. Responses to school inspection questionnaires showed that children felt
safe in school and their concerns were dealt with quickly.
Some examples of what children said about keeping themselves safe.
‘When you are on the internet, don’t give your details and don’t
say you will meet anyone’.
‘If we are worried about something, we can write it down and put it
in the worry-box and the headteacher will come and see us’.
‘The Fire and Rescue Service help us to keep safe with fireworks’.
‘The Campus Policeman keeps us safe from gangs when we are
coming to school and going home’.
Immediate response to concerns
The immediate response to concern was good. Across services, staff generally
responded promptly and effectively when specific concerns about children were
raised. There were occasional delays in the social work service responding when
concerns were shared with it. It was sometimes slow to respond to accumulating
concerns when children were experiencing neglect. There was a robust response by
5
police and other services to incidents of domestic abuse affecting children. The
police and West of Scotland Social Work Standby Service (WSSS) worked
effectively together in responding to concerns about children’s safety and welfare out
of office hours. They carried out checks on the suitability of other family members or
friends to care for children who were not able to remain at home with their parents.
Children who were assessed as being at risk and not able to remain at home or with
family members or friends were found alternative safe places to stay, for example,
with foster carers, respite carers or in residential units. In responding to immediate
concerns, children and families were usually kept well informed about what services
were doing.
Meeting needs
Overall, approaches to meeting the needs of children and families were satisfactory.
Many children and families benefited from a range of services for as long as they
needed them. Children whose names were on the CPR were generally helped by
the specialist supports and services they needed. However, some children had to
wait too long for services. Sometimes this was because there was unequal provision
across the city. Some vulnerable pregnant women and their unborn babies had their
needs identified and followed through. However, this was not the case for all.
Success in meeting children’s long term needs was variable.
Some parents affected by long term substance misuse received well considered
support from addictions workers to help them focus on the needs of their children. A
specialist health team gave one-to-one support and offered a range of activities to
promote the positive health and well being of children looked after away from home
by the Council. Some children were able to keep contact with their families through
the work of the Family Contact Centre. A team of social workers and health staff
gave valuable support to homeless families to help them cope with a range of needs.
The housing needs of the majority of children were met and most children leaving
care at age 16 were able to be placed in suitable accommodation. However, this
was not the case for all children. Some children’s health needs were not identified or
identified early enough. The school nursing service had limited involvement in
meeting the needs of individual children about whom there were child protection
concerns.
There was a range of specialist services to help children recover from abuse and
trauma. Some children displaying sexually problematic behaviours received support
from skilled staff in projects set up specifically for this purpose. Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services provided help for children experiencing mental
health difficulties. However, demand was high and prioritisation varied across
Community Health and Care Partnership (CHCP) areas. As a result some children
experienced delays before getting the help they needed. Unaccompanied asylum
seeking children received helpful support from a small team of social workers.
6
4. How well do services promote public awareness of child protection?
The Child Protection Committee (CPC) was very successful in promoting
public awareness of child protection and how to raise concerns about a child.
They had produced a broad range of attractive high quality publicity materials.
Members of the public contacted services when they were concerned about a
child and staff usually responded promptly and appropriately.
Being aware of protecting children
The promotion of public awareness of child protection was very good. A range of
attractive and easily recognisable leaflets and posters had been produced. These
were prominently displayed in public places. They included advice and 24-hour
contact numbers for anyone concerned about a child. The CPC organised
community roadshows to raise public awareness of child protection. At these an
‘infomercial’ film successfully delivered the message about everyone’s responsibility
to protect children. The CPC website was promoted very effectively. The CPC and
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) websites were both informative and
easy to use with age appropriate information and links to other helpful sites. There
was a helpful link to the ‘infomercial’. Local child protection processes and relevant
legislation were explained very clearly. An easy to use school survey was piloted
using the CPC website. This was part of a project being developed by the CPC to
gather children’s views. Strathclyde Police had developed a helpful children’s
website and a magazine which drew children’s attention to personal safety.
During roadshows, members of the public were surveyed and almost all indicated
that they were confident about what to do if they were concerned about a child. A
helpful public awareness leaflet was used for asylum seeking families to advise them
of the legal implications of leaving children unattended. Members of the public were
able to report concerns at any time. Strathclyde Police along with WSSS provided a
24-hour point of contact for anyone who wished to report concerns about a child’s
safety. Police officers and social workers received anonymous referrals and
referrals from neighbours and relatives. These were treated seriously and staff
responded promptly and appropriately. Under the direction of the CPC, Strathclyde
Police and the WSSS had worked together to improve arrangements for reporting
concerns out-of-hours. As a result, access to WSSS had improved recently.
7
5. How good is the delivery of key processes?
Staff across services shared information effectively to help keep children safe.
When children and families were present at case conferences staff worked
hard to explain things to them and involve them in discussion. Risks and
needs were not always identified early enough. Procedures to ensure that the
health needs of children were taken into account when there were child
protection concerns were not robust enough. Arrangements for some medical
examinations of children were unsuitable. Approaches to planning to meet the
needs of some individual children were too variable.
Involving children and their families
The involvement of children and their families in key processes was satisfactory.
Parents and carers often attended formal meetings such as case conferences where
important decisions were being made about their children. They were encouraged to
give their views and were assured that what they said would be taken into account.
When parents and carers did not attend, alternative arrangements were sometimes
made to involve them in the decision-making process. A helpful information leaflet
for children and families involved in child protection processes had been produced.
This explained the decision-making process and provided useful advice to prepare
them for attending child protection case conferences and reviews. However, few
children were invited to attend child protection case conferences and review
meetings. As a result they were not able to hear or take part in discussions on
important decisions about their lives. The reasons for their non-attendance were not
routinely recorded. Family Group Conferences, in the North of the city, had
successfully involved children and families in making important decisions about their
lives. At Children’s Hearings, panel members worked hard to listen to children and
encouraged them to give their views. They explained what was going to happen and
made sure that children understood this. Children were issued with Having Your Say
forms before attending Children’s Hearings. They were not always encouraged or
given help to fill these in, so they were not used effectively to give their views to the
panel. A significant number of children had to return to continued Hearings or to
early reviews as a result of delays in completing reports. The views of a few children
had been gathered using Viewpoint, an enjoyable interactive computer programme.
This was helpful in making sure that their views were heard at case conferences.
However, it was available in only a limited number of areas. Some children who
were looked after away from home in residential Children’s Units were offered
valuable advice from advocacy services provided by the Children’s Rights Service,
Who Cares? (Scotland) and other voluntary organisations. Advocacy services were
not routinely offered to all children who may have required such support.
Across services there were helpful written policies and procedures for dealing with
complaints. Leaflets on making a complaint were readily available in a variety of
languages. Complaints from service users could be made in writing, by telephone or
via websites. Timescales and appeals procedures were made clear to those making
a complaint. All services had procedures for logging complaints and monitoring
outcomes. When complaints were made, they were dealt with in line with agreed
procedures. However, in a few cases, published timescales were not met.
8
Monitoring of complaints within Strathclyde Police had recently improved as a result
of a force-wide procedure being put in place.
Sharing and recording information
Sharing and recording of information was good. Across services there was a culture
of staff sharing information with each other when there were concerns about
children. This was based on a shared understanding of staff within and across
services of their collective responsibilities to protect vulnerable children and keep
them safe. The establishment of CHCPs and the co-location of staff were beginning
to improve information-sharing. There had been recent improvements in the
management and recording of information. When staff attended meetings,
information was shared effectively.
Particular features of information-sharing included the following:








health visitors, social work and early years staff regularly shared information
about vulnerable children and families;
early years staff helpfully monitored children’s attendance and contact with
parents which they shared with health visitors and social work staff;
school staff recorded information very effectively to monitor the welfare of
children;
recent improvements in arrangements for sharing information, particularly
between police and WSSS and between the NHSGGC Child Protection Unit
(CPU) and staff in other services;
health visitors, school nurses and school staff were not always informed about
domestic abuse incidents or less serious concerns about children they were
working with;
the largely paper based filing system used by Strathclyde Police for storing
some child protection information made retrieval and sharing difficult;
feedback was not routinely provided to staff who made referrals to social
work; and
information-sharing between services about vulnerable pregnant mothers was
inconsistent.
Helpful dated lists of significant events in a child’s life were featuring increasingly in
school, early years, health visiting and social work records. There was some
inconsistency in the type of information recorded and occasional gaps in details, but
overall these were extremely helpful to staff when analysing information. Social work
records were well structured and effective use was made of an activities, contact and
observations sheet at the front of each file. Files had been reviewed and
countersigned by managers. Important information about older children who were
vulnerable, including those on the CPR, was not always recorded in school nurse
records.
Most staff were aware of the circumstances in which they needed to obtain the
consent of children and families to share information. Parents and Children
Together (PACT) referral forms provided confirmation that parents had been
informed about information-sharing arrangements and parents signed these to
confirm that they were aware of this. Hospital staff, health visitors, school staff and
9
educational psychologists advised parents that information may be shared with other
services. They obtained consent and recorded that this had been given. However,
across services, recording the consent of children and families to sharing information
was inconsistent.
Police and criminal justice social work staff shared information effectively regarding
sex offenders who may pose a risk to children. In appropriate circumstances a
member of staff from children and families social work attended meetings held under
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. There was effective communication
between police staff in Family Protection Units and those responsible for offender
management. Police staff with force-wide responsibility for family protection and
offender management were co-located in a single Public Protection Unit. There was
effective communication between the police and local authority housing department.
Additional local authority staff had recently been appointed to improve information
sharing with other housing providers.
Recognising and assessing risks and needs
Recognising and assessing risks and needs was weak. Staff across services often
recognised signs that children needed help. Public health nurses and some school
nurses completed family health needs assessments that identified risks to children.
Staff in Accident and Emergency departments routinely used a helpful checklist to
identify concerns. Staff in sexual health and addictions services made use of
appropriate risk assessment techniques. Health staff made use of helpful dated lists
of significant events in children’s lives when assessing risk. They knew who to refer
their concerns to and were confident in their use of the shared referral form.
Sometimes, when they referred accumulated concerns to social work they did not
get a prompt response. Staff in social work demonstrated an understanding of the
impact of parental substance misuse on children. Thresholds for starting child
protection procedures varied within and across areas. Health staff were not routinely
involved in initial referral discussions about children for whom there were child
protection concerns. This resulted in incomplete risk assessment in some cases.
During investigations, helpful background information was gathered by social
workers, including comprehensive health information provided by the CPU.
However, the health information was only available within office hours.
Arrangements to assess risks to unborn babies affected by parental substance
misuse lacked rigour. There was a lack of emphasis on the need to carry out
thorough pre-birth risk assessments involving all appropriate services. This resulted
in some planning meetings being delayed until after babies had been born.
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences and Non-Offence Referral Meetings
made valuable contributions to the assessment of risk posed to some children.
These approaches were being piloted in areas of the city. A new process, which
helped staff to assess progress where children were experiencing neglect, had
recently been introduced. The Vulnerable Young Persons (VYP) procedure was
effective in helping staff to assess the risks posed to young people because of their
own behaviour. The Family Contact Centre provided high quality assessment
reports to inform decisions about planning for long term fostering and adoption for
some very vulnerable children. The implementation of the Integrated Assessment
10
Framework was at an early stage and many staff were not confident in its use. Many
assessments requested by the Children’s Reporter were significantly delayed.
Suitably trained social workers and police officers carried out joint investigations
when required. Arrangements for medical examinations of children about whom
there were child protection concerns were coordinated poorly. Decisions about the
need for medical examinations did not include all relevant staff. Doctors carrying out
medical examinations were not always appropriately trained and examinations did
not always take place in a suitable facility. Children’s health needs were not always
identified or followed up. Paediatricians with child protection expertise were
available to give advice at any time, but some perceived they only provided a service
for sexual abuse examinations. Appropriate use was made of the Archway to
examine young people over 13 years who had been recently sexually assaulted.
Suitably qualified doctors undertook these examinations sensitively and followed
through ongoing health needs.
Addictions staff clearly understood the impact of parental addiction on children.
They successfully identified children affected by parental substance misuse and
knew what action to take. Some addictions staff had received training and were
using a recently introduced assessment process. This included asking questions
about children and carrying out a home visit as part of their assessment. The
process was not yet being used by all addictions staff.
Planning to meet needs
Planning to meet children’s needs was weak. Staff planned together but some plans
lacked detail and it was not always clear what changes were needed to improve
children’s lives. For most children on the CPR, progress was regularly monitored
and staff from different services worked together to make sure that decisions made
at planning meetings were fully acted upon. For other vulnerable children whose
names were not currently on the CPR, planning was less effective. There were
delays in progressing plans to help children referred to Children’s Hearings.
Priority was given to children on the CPR when assigning social workers to cases.
All children on the CPR had an assigned social worker and a child protection plan.
Case conferences were generally held on time and were chaired by a senior
manager with authority to make decisions and allocate resources. Most case
conferences were informed by assessment reports from some staff who knew the
child and family. However, staff attendance at case conferences was inconsistent.
Relevant services did not always send staff or provide reports. This meant that
plans were not informed by all relevant information. The quality of child protection
plans varied. Some set clear objectives and timescales and identified each person’s
responsibilities. Others were vague and did not define the actions necessary to
reduce risks. Delays in circulating case conference minutes resulted in occasions
where key staff were unaware of changes in plans. Helpfully, case conference
chairs had begun to distribute a note of key decisions taken, immediately after
meetings.
There were clear processes and timescales for planning to meet children’s future
needs. Social workers prioritised tasks for young children requiring adoption and
11
many children benefited as a result. Planning for older children, where
arrangements for them to return to their families were not progressing well, was less
effective. Many children looked after by the Council did not have their care plans
regularly reviewed and amended to take account of changing circumstances or lack
of progress. Some children had been looked after at home on supervision orders
made by a Children’s Hearing for a number of years, with little improvement in their
circumstances. Plans were not always made and reviewed regularly to support
young people leaving care.
Overall, core groups worked well together to implement child protection plans for
children on the CPR. However, in some cases they did not take place regularly or
were poorly attended. There was effective coordination of support for young people
at risk because of their own behaviour through VYP core groups. However,
monitoring of progress for vulnerable children who were not involved in VYP or child
protection core groups was not well coordinated. New information was not always
shared or responded to. There was effective inter-agency planning for young
children with complex disabilities and their families.
12
6. How good is operational management in protecting children and meeting
their needs?
An appropriate range of policies and procedures was in place to guide staff in
their work to keep children safe. A recent review of the Integrated Children’s
Service Plan (ICSP) and new planning structures gave an emphasis to services
for vulnerable children and families. All services demonstrated a commitment
to involving children and families in developing policies and services. In
cases of staff absence, child protection was given priority. A range of
effective training was available. Staff in most services were supported
appropriately and challenged in their work in child protection. However, some
staff did not receive regular reviews of their work and advice about workload
management.
Aspect
Policies and
procedures
Comments
Policies and procedures to protect children were good.
Appropriate multi-agency child protection policies and
procedures were in place. Helpful procedures, including
those on domestic violence and parental substance misuse,
guided staff in their work to protect children. Some
information-sharing agreements were now being developed.
The CPC had provided a lead in identifying the need for new
policies and procedures. When these were developed, they
were helpfully made available through its website and
through multi-agency training. Some work was now being
carried out to audit the effectiveness of policies and
procedures. A new procedure to improve practice in relation
to medical examinations had been introduced. The West of
Scotland Inter-Agency Child Protection Guidelines were
being reviewed. However, there had been lengthy delays.
Operational
planning
Operational planning was good. The ICSP 2005-2008 had
recently been reviewed. A revised plan drawn up by the
Council and relevant partners including the Children’s
Services Provider Forum reported progress on initiatives. It
identified lead responsibilities, included costs, set clear
timescales and took account of recent structural changes
including the setting up of the CHCPs. A new children’s
service planning structure which had been put in place gave a
high profile to services for vulnerable children and early
intervention. The Children’s Services Executive Group was in
the process of evaluating the impact of earlier initiatives.
Management information was available to staff in central
services and to those managing services locally within
CHCPs. However, its use to plan local improvements in
services was not yet systematic.
13
Aspect
Participation of
children, their
families and other
relevant people in
policy development
Comments
Participation of children and families in policy development
was good. Services were committed to seeking the views of
children and families about the services they received. Some
routinely sought feedback from users to help shape publicity
materials and programmes. Leaflets for children and parents
about the work of the CPC were produced as a result of
consultation with them. Children and young people were
involved in developing the content and design of a children’s
charter. There were many initiatives to encourage
participation in policy development. However, there was no
agreed approach across services to collect and analyse the
views of service users.
Recruitment and
retention of staff
Arrangements for recruitment and retention across services
were good. The social work service had an effective
recruitment programme in place which included a
‘grow-your-own’ approach. It had recently increased staffing.
Retention of staff had improved following reviews of the
structure of the service and staff gradings. In cases of staff
absence, all services gave priority to child protection.
Shortages of administrative staff created difficulties in
producing case conference reports and minutes. Across
services, safe recruitment policies were in place. There were
appropriate procedures for investigating allegations against
staff members.
Development of
staff
Professional competence and confidence and staff
development and training were good. All services provided
child protection training and suitable learning opportunities.
An inter-agency training programme complemented these.
The impact of training programmes on practice was routinely
evaluated. Child protection training formed part of the
induction programme for many staff. A CD-ROM had been
used effectively to raise awareness of child protection across
staff groups. Many staff were supported and appropriately
challenged by managers. However, personal development
planning was not consistently used across services. A few
staff did not receive regular review of their work in child
protection or support with workload management.
14
7. How good is individual and collective leadership?
Chief Officers and Elected Members had developed a very strong vision for
protecting children. They communicated this vision well to staff and used it to
inform the planning of services. Overall, there was effective leadership and
direction within and across services. However, arrangements for the use of
management information to improve services required further development.
Partnership working was very effective within and across services. Senior
managers across services had begun to take a more systematic approach to
self-evaluation and quality assurance.
Vision, values and aims
The vision, values and aims to protect children were very good. Through the work of
the Chief Officers’ Group (COG) and the CPC, a strong collective vision had been
agreed. Leaders across services were committed to this and communicated it to
staff at all levels. As a result staff had a clear understanding of their role to protect
children. Services placed a strong emphasis on the promotion of social and cultural
diversity and on ensuring equal opportunities.

The Leader of the Council and Elected Members were very clear about their
responsibilities for protecting children. They provided a very effective lead to
officers working in this area. The Chief Executive of the Council was highly
aware of his responsibility for child protection. His strong vision for this area
of work was closely linked to very well considered plans to modernise
arrangements for local government.

The Chief Executive of NHSGGC Health Board was very committed to
ensuring that child protection was given the highest priority within the Health
Board. He had worked hard to secure resources to improve services to
protect children and to ensure that staff at all levels were aware of their
responsibilities. He had successfully communicated his vision for keeping
children safe to the five CHCPs.

Strathclyde Police placed child protection as a very high priority.
Commanders in the three Divisions within the Council area had made very
effective arrangements for key messages about child protection to be
communicated to officers at all levels. This ensured that officers were kept
aware of their responsibilities for work in this area.
The review of the ICSP (2005-2008) identified some of the new thinking which had
been developed by the city’s leaders about the future of children’s services. The
children’s service planning structure was very effective in emphasising prevention,
early intervention and planning for vulnerable children. Glasgow’s Single Outcome
Agreement demonstrated a shared commitment to service improvement and made a
clear link between protecting children and improving life chances.
15
Leadership and direction
Overall, collective leadership and direction was good. Elected Members, Chief
Officers and senior managers were aware of the national context in relation to child
protection. Helpful recent developments, including the setting up of the Champions’
Board by the Council, ensured that the needs of vulnerable children were given a
high profile. Strong leadership and direction from the CPC and the COG identified
protecting children as a high priority. However, arrangements for assessing risks
and for planning to meet these were not robust enough. Management oversight of
these processes required to be further developed. Arrangements for overseeing the
responsibilities of CHCPs were not explicit enough.
The CPC was led well and its work was supported effectively by the Lead Officer. It
had gained the confidence of staff in all services. An Independent Chair had recently
been appointed to help strengthen its work. The CPC was given effective support by
the Core Group to progress its business and action plans. It had been influential in
directing the setting up of local Child Protection Forums and Local Management
Reviews within CHCPs. These were beginning to ensure that local as well as
city wide initiatives were promoted and supported. There was no formal strategic
link between housing providers and the CPC.
Senior managers within the Council had recognised the need to ensure sufficient
staff to support a wider range of vulnerable children than those whose names were
on the CPR. As a result, a significant number of additional children and families
social work posts had been created. The social work service was being restructured
to strengthen front line services and help meet levels of demand. Where
appropriate, the voluntary sector was involved in planning and delivering services for
vulnerable children. The newly set up Multi-Agency Resource Group and its
subgroup were intended to ensure that the purchasing of specialist placements for
individual children fully met their needs. It was too early to see the impact of these
groups.
Leadership of people and partnerships
Leadership of people and partnerships across services was very good. Elected
Members, Chief Officers and senior managers provided strong leadership and
encouragement to staff to work together for the benefit of vulnerable children.
Elected members expressed very high levels of confidence in senior managers.
Planning structures, service structures and the CPC subgroup structure promoted a
culture of working together at all levels. Benefits of the recent alignment of the
education service with the five CHCP areas were beginning to be seen. Some joint
management arrangements were at an early stage. Partnerships with housing
providers were inconsistent.
In addition to effective partnerships across services, the Council had strategic links
with the business community which were beginning to benefit vulnerable children.
The children’s panel received strong support from the Council which allowed it to
function more effectively. New structures within the education service were building
upon existing expertise to secure a team approach to the promotion of child
protection. A multi-agency task force had been set up to coordinate responses to
16
diversity issues. The morale of some health and police staff with a role to protect
children was low. Some staff felt that their work was not sufficiently valued.
The Glasgow Children’s Services Providers’ Forum which forms the planning
framework for the voluntary sector was represented on the CPC. The Council
provided helpful direction in a number of important initiatives. For example, the
Principal Officer (Child Protection) chaired Glasgow’s forum on young runaways
which included several voluntary sector organisations. The Council’s
Commissioning Team gave valued initial and ongoing support to colleagues in the
voluntary sector providing services for Glasgow’s children. However, some voluntary
sector organisations felt they were not able to make a full contribution to the work of
the CPC.
Leadership of change and improvement
Leadership of change and improvement was good. The COG, the CPC and senior
managers within individual services recognised the importance of taking a
systematic approach to quality assurance and self-evaluation in order to ensure
continuous improvement. An inter-agency self-evaluation had recently been
completed. This was done by bringing together single self-evaluations carried out by
police, health, social work, education services and the SCRA. Strengths and
weaknesses had been identified. However, the inter-agency self-evaluation was not
sufficiently robust. Too much emphasis was placed on describing services and how
they were delivered and there was limited evidence of impact and outcomes.
The CPC had a well established process for carrying out significant case reviews
and a considerable number of these had been completed. Recurring themes and
areas for development had been identified and action plans drawn up to secure
improvement. The CPC monitored the progress of these plans closely. Some
significant improvements had been achieved, for example, recording of lists of
significant events in children’s lives, implementing the VYP procedure and ensuring
that appropriate staff were invited to attend child protection case conferences. A
number of multi-agency case sampling audits had been undertaken over the last
three years. These were now coordinated by the CPC Quality Improvement Group.
Strengths and areas for development had been identified and action plans agreed.
Local Management Reviews involving health and social work managers, and more
recently education managers, had been established in each CHCP. They had
audited and reviewed practice to identify and progress areas for improvement, for
example, in staff supervision. Quality reviews had been undertaken by the education
service. As a result, consistency of practice was improving. The education service
was using the results of a recent comprehensive audit of children’s additional
support needs to assist in planning to meet needs. The health service had carried
out a wide range of audit and reviews identifying strengths and areas for
development. Across services, it was not always clear how improvement objectives
arising from such a large number of audits and reviews were being coordinated,
implemented and monitored to ensure that improvements were consistently achieved
and sustained.
17
8. How well are children and young people protected and their needs met?
Summary
Inspectors were confident that suitable arrangements were in place for services to
respond appropriately to immediate concerns about children. Most children were
aware of how to keep themselves safe and had trusted adults to help them.
Arrangements were in place for meeting the immediate and short term needs of
vulnerable children. Weaknesses in planning for individual children meant that
meeting longer term needs was more variable. There was a need to strengthen
processes for assessing risks and needs.
Elected Members, Chief Officers and the CPC have forged strong partnerships and
have successfully promoted a very strong vision for protecting children. They are
well placed to drive an improvement plan to deliver better outcomes for children. In
doing so, they should take account of the need to:
18

put in place, without delay, appropriate arrangements for the medical
examination of children about whom there are child protection concerns and
ensure that these take account of children’s ongoing needs;

ensure that health staff are involved in initial referral discussions about all
children for whom there are child protection concerns;

ensure consistency and management overview of arrangements for
identifying and planning to meet the needs of vulnerable individual children,
including unborn babies;

ensure that staff from all relevant services contribute information to inform
decision-making about vulnerable children involved in child protection
processes; and

ensure that staff and managers across services are clear and consistent
about when to initiate child protection procedures.
9. What happens next?
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 two years of this report HM Inspectors will re-visit to assess
and report on progress made in meeting these recommendations.
Clare Lamont
HM Inspector
March 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
Good
respected
Children benefit from strategies to
Very Good
minimise harm
Children are helped by the actions taken
Good
in immediate response to concerns
Children’s needs are met
Satisfactory
How well do services promote public awareness of child protection?
Public awareness of the safety and
Very Good
protection of children
How good is the delivery of key processes?
Involving children and their families in
Satisfactory
key processes
Information-sharing and recording
Good
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
Good
Operational planning
Good
Participation of children, families and
Good
other relevant people in policy
development
Recruitment and retention of staff
Good
Development of staff
Good
How good is individual and collective leadership?
Vision, values and aims
Very Good
Leadership and direction
Good
Leadership of people and partnerships
Very Good
Leadership of change and improvement
Good
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 examples demonstrated how services can work together
effectively to improve the life chances of children and families at risk of abuse and
neglect.
PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (PACT)
A key priority in setting up the five CHCPs was the local provision of integrated
health and social work services to children and families. Early years workers across
services recognised the need to ensure there were opportunities for targeted support
through a single point of access.
Multi-Agency PACT teams were established by combining family resource teams
and starting well teams. These provided local intensive support to families with
pre-five children across the city. They worked closely with Culture and Sport
Glasgow when delivering courses by sharing premises and crèche facilities.
Families received a wide range of targeted support. This included parenting
programmes, baby massage and first aid training. Positive relationships and high
levels of trust were built between families and staff across services. This helped
raise parents’ self esteem and confidence. A number of vulnerable families
benefited from a five-day residential break supported by a local nursery. This
experience provided effective role models and day-to-day support with practical
issues. These included behaviour management, establishing bedtime routines and
healthy eating. Pre-birth referrals to PACT allowed extra support to be offered early
in pregnancy and had reduced the number of babies accommodated at birth.
CAMPUS POLICE OFFICERS
Strathclyde Police identified a need to help children feel safer within their schools
and local communities. In particular it aimed to improve its engagement with a small
hard to reach group of young people and to reduce offending and anti-social
behaviour.
Campus Police Officer posts were established in nine secondary schools within the
Council area. The posts were jointly funded and recruited by Strathclyde Police and
the education service. Campus Officers Forums included education service staff and
provided opportunities to agree on local priorities for action.
Campus Police Officers played a full part in the Integrated Support Teams within
their schools. This provided valuable opportunities for them to share their knowledge
of individual children and families within the wider community with staff from other
key services. As a result, planning for vulnerable children was better informed. The
involvement of the Campus Police Officers strengthened the impact of restorative
practices in some schools. The Officers had set up a number of effective
diversionary activities including cycling clubs. These had resulted in a number of
children learning new skills, increasing their confidence and reducing offending
behaviour.
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