Joint Follow-Through inspection of services
to protect children and young people in the
Midlothian Council area
February 2009
Contents
Page
Introduction
1
1.
The inspection
2
2.
Continuous improvement
2
3.
Progress towards meeting the main points for action
3
4.
Conclusion
8
How can you contact us?
10
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 Midlothian Council area in
February 2007. Working together, services within the Midlothian Council area
prepared an action plan indicating how they would address the main points for action
identified in the original HMIE inspection report.
Inspectors carried out a joint interim follow-through inspection in the Midlothian
Council area in December 2007 to assess the extent to which services were
continuing to improve the quality of their work to protect children and young people.
A report outlining the progress made by services in responding to the main points for
action in the initial report was published in March 2008.
Inspectors revisited the Midlothian Council area in November 2008 to assess further
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
Within and across services a collective approach had been taken to improving
services to protect children and young people in the Midlothian Council area. The
review of the role of the Edinburgh Lothian and Borders Executive Group carried out
in 2007 had clarified local management responsibilities for child protection.
Following publication of the initial inspection report a number of changes had been
made in social work staff. The interim Director of Social Work had recently been
appointed Director. There had been changes in elected members of Midlothian
Council responsible for child protection and key managers and staff in the police
service. Some services, including the social work practice teams, had been
re-organised to deliver services more locally. Management responsibilities for the
multi-disciplinary integration teams had been clarified. These staff worked well
together and information-sharing had improved. However, the role and remit of
integration teams was not always understood by staff. The relationship between the
integration teams and social work practice teams was not always clear. Very good
progress was being made in developing „Getting it Right for Every Child’ approaches
through the Midlothian Assessment and Planning Staged System. The Chief
Executive and senior mangers in Midlothian Council were working more closely with
managers in neighbouring East Lothian Council and with partners in the police and
health service to share good practice and develop joint services. Agreement had
been reached to develop a joint Child Protection Committee (CPC). A joint Critical
Services Oversight Group (CSOG) and Drug and Alcohol Action Team had recently
been established. Overall, these changes had strengthened management systems
and improved the delivery of services to protect children.
2
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in February 2007 identified seven main points
for action.
3.1 Implement a strategy to raise public awareness of child protection.
Overall, good progress had been made towards meeting this main point for action.
The Quality Assurance Sub-Committee of the CPC had developed a
communications strategy and action plan. The plan outlined clear aims, objectives
and actions. Managers and staff with lead responsibility for specific actions were
identified. Timescales for completion of the actions had not been included.
Progress against the action plan was reported through the Quality Assurance
Sub-Committee to the CPC.
The CPC had produced and distributed leaflets about child protection for the
public, parents and children. Children and parents had been involved in
developing some of these. The Police had produced leaflets on vulnerable
witnesses and child protection. Child protection information cards had been sent
out in pay slips to a wide group of Council staff, reinforcing the message that child
protection was everyone‟s responsibility. Advice was also provided about what to
do if they were concerned about the safety of a child.
Child protection information had featured in the local press and on local radio to
raise public awareness. A CPC web page had been developed as part of the
Midlothian Council website. It was clear and easy to use. The website contained
helpful information about child protection, and what to do if you had concerns about
a child. It provided accessible links to other services and relevant policies and
procedures. Child protection referrals had increased. However, services had not
yet undertaken any analysis or evaluation of the effectiveness of measures taken to
raise public awareness.
3.2 Improve joint planning to meet children’s needs.
Very good progress had been made in improving joint planning to meet children‟s
needs.
Staff worked well together to help reduce risks to children. All children who were on
the Child Protection Register (CPR) had an allocated social worker. Child
Protection Case Conferences (CPCCs) were chaired by an independent person
who brought consistency and rigour to these decision-making meetings. Meetings
were well attended by most staff. A housing manager was routinely invited to
attend when families were in council housing which improved information-sharing.
Some General Practitioners (GPs) had attended recent meetings. However, most
case conferences involving school aged children did not have a health
representative present. Most staff produced written reports for meetings and these
were generally submitted in good time to be given to staff and parents. Staff were
well prepared for these meetings. Police officers often gave verbal reports. The
number of reports received from GPs had improved. The chair of the CPCC took
3
time to speak to parents before the meeting to ensure they fully understood what
was happening and to allow them the opportunity to ask questions. Children were
not routinely invited to case conferences. The independent chair ensured that staff
participated fully in these meetings. He encouraged them to express their opinions
when decisions were being made. Additional administrative support had recently
been provided to ensure that CPCC minutes were distributed promptly. A few
children had been on the CPR for too long. Social work managers were actively
reviewing their circumstances.
Core group meetings were held regularly and were generally well attended by staff
and families. Some addiction staff and school nurses did not always attend these
meetings. Children on the CPR were seen regularly by staff. Child protection plans
were reviewed and amended to take account of changing circumstances. However,
some plans were not detailed enough and expected outcomes or timescales for
action were not recorded. Nevertheless, they were helpful in ensuring actions were
progressed and effective in reducing risks to children. Most plans included
alternative action to be taken if the initial action was unsuccessful. The plans were
fully explained to parents by the social work team leader and the independent chair
of the CPCC and then reinforced by chair of the core group. Most core groups were
chaired by social workers although some health and education staff were recording
and distributing the minutes. Overall, core groups were effective in reviewing and
monitoring child protection plans and communicating a joint decision on progress
back to a review CPCC.
Families continued to receive coordinated support when children‟s names were
removed from the CPR.
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) had been used successfully by staff to enable
more children to remain at home with their parents or with other family members.
FGC was always considered when a child was at risk of being looked after and
accommodated away from home by the local authority. However, there was a
waiting list for this service.
3.3 Ensure that improvement objectives of the Child Protection Committee
(CPC) and the Integrated Children’s Services Plan are achieved (ICSP).
There had been very good progress made towards meeting this main point for
action.
The Midlothian CSOG, made up of senior managers from across services was firmly
established. It provided strong and effective leadership and direction to the CPC.
The Chief Executive of Midlothian Council had chaired the CPC for the past two
years which had strengthened the leadership role and increased support to
managers, particularly within the local authority. The Lead Officer of the CPC
provided effective support to its members. The CSOG met regularly to review the
CPC action plan and monitor improvement objectives. Management responsibilities
for child protection in Midlothian had been strengthened. Senior managers within
and across services challenged and supported each other much more effectively.
This had strengthened partnership working and there was a clearer understanding of
their collective responsibilities for keeping children safe.
4
The independent chair of CPCCs was now providing regular reports on performance
to the CPC. These included information about staff attendance at case conferences,
child protection registrations and compliance with revised inter-agency child
protection procedures. A Quality Assurance Framework had been completed.
Further improvements in gathering information on performance for managers were
being planned.
A clear and detailed planning and reporting framework had been established. It had
the potential for developing more integrated services for children. Management
responsibilities were clearly identified. A revised ICSP for children and young
people in Midlothian for the period 2008-2009 had been produced. The Council had
consulted with other services, including private and voluntary organisations, when
developing it. The ICSP outlined objectives for the development of integrated
children‟s services which were clearly linked to the Midlothian Single Outcome
Agreement and the Midlothian Community Plan (2008-2011). Key priorities for
2008/2009 had been identified. Task groups had been established to help
implement the ICSP. Each group had developed an action plan which linked
effectively to the strategic objectives of the ICSP. However, these plans were not
specific enough and lacked realistic timescales. Although not all staff were aware of
the new ICSP, practitioner groups had been set up to involve operational staff in
delivering the plan. The further development of child protection featured in the ICSP
and in the work of task groups. The Midlothian Children‟s Services Executive
provided strategic leadership and direction to the Midlothian Children‟s Services
Forum who were responsible for developing and implementing the ICSP. Both of
these groups had appropriate representation from across services, including the
voluntary sector and met regularly. The appointment of a planning manager in
children and families social work and a children‟s services planning officer had
supported senior managers in the council and partners well with these
developments.
3.4 Ensure the views of children and families are taken into account when
planning and delivering services.
Progress in ensuring that the views of children and families were taken into account
when planning and delivering services was satisfactory.
Action to improve involvement of children and families in planning and delivering
services was at a relatively early stage of development. Across services there were
some examples of consultation with children and families in the recent development
of child protection policies and procedures and in other aspects of children‟s
services. A culture of seeking and using the views of service users to improve
planning and delivery of services was beginning to be established and understood in
practice.
There was a number of examples of children and families being consulted about
their experience of services. Evaluation forms to obtain the views of staff and
parents involved in CPCCs had been introduced recently. These were to be
monitored and reviewed by the CPC Quality Assurance Sub-Committee. Children‟s
and parents‟ views were included in child protection reports. However, it wasn‟t
always clear how these were used to influence individual care plans, or to improve
5
services generally. As a result of consultation with users, health services had set up
parent support groups. Police were consulting with young people as part of their
Youth Strategy Action Plan. The Education Integration Team had set up a survey of
children and parents on “Conditions for Learning” and planned to use the information
to improve services. Children, parents and carers had been asked for their views on
the arrangements for pupils moving from primary to secondary school. The
Children‟s Reporter was promoting participation in the Scottish Children‟s Reporter
Administration national survey of children and families.
The new ICSP had the potential to provide a more coherent and planned approach
to increasing the participation of children and families. It helpfully set out an
objective to ensure that children, young people and families became active
participants in shaping services and decision-making. A key priority was the
development of a children and young people‟s consultation and participation
strategy. This was intended to ensure that all agencies involved parents and
children in planning and evaluating services more effectively. Work was underway
to make this happen.
3.5 Improve training to raise the awareness of staff within and across
services of their roles and responsibilities in child protection.
Progress in improving the provision of training to raise awareness of staff within and
across services of their roles and responsibilities in child protection was very good.
There had been significant improvements in the effectiveness and impact of the
CPC Training Sub-Committee. Training needs had been identified and a revised
training strategy and brochure for 2008-2009 produced. This provided managers
with relevant information about the availability of courses and how to access training
for their staff. Attendance at training events was monitored.
A significant number of staff from across services, including housing staff and staff
from voluntary organisations had participated in high quality and effective child
protection training. Requests for additional advanced training had been met and,
where necessary, additional courses had been developed. Multi-agency training
had improved staff understanding of roles and responsibilities and benefited joint
working. A thorough strategy to evaluate training had been developed. Information
about the effectiveness of the training was gathered and reported to all services and
to the CPC.
Personal Development Plans were not consistently used in the social work service to
identify and address the training needs of staff. However, this had not prevented
them from attending child protection training or meeting their social work registration
requirements. A specific induction training programme for children and families
social work staff had been developed recently and was now being delivered. The
CPC Training Sub-Committee, supported by the appointment of a training officer,
was committed to the ongoing provision of existing courses and to the continued
development of additional training.
6
3.6 Ensure Chief Officers monitor and review the effectiveness of the Child
Protection Committee (CPC) and key child protection processes.
Very good progress had been made towards meeting this main point for action.
The Midlothian CSOG was working well and had strengthened arrangements for
monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the CPC and key child protection
processes by Chief Officers. The CSOG had considered the findings of a Significant
Case Review and scrutinised practise issues and decision-making from that. They
ensured that the lessons to be learned were clear and that action was taken to make
improvements.
A joint CSOG with East Lothian Council and partners in the police and health
services had been formed recently. The Council Performance Review Committee
and their child protection and social work sub-committees received regular reports
on child protection activity and information on key issues such as recruitment and
retention of social work staff. Elected members challenged and supported senior
managers appropriately and a more open relationship had been established.
Communication between senior managers of Midlothian Council and elected
members had improved significantly.
The recent implementation of a new social work service information system,
Corelogic, had significant potential to improve the reporting of performance and will
link with the new Seemis information system in the Midlothian Council Education
Service. The NHS Lothian Child Protection Action Group (CPAG) monitored
improvement objectives in the health service. The Chair of CPAG provided an
effective link to the Midlothian CSOG.
3.7 Improve performance monitoring to ensure continuous improvements in
how staff carry out their work.
Very good progress had been made in improving performance monitoring to ensure
continuous improvements in how staff carry out their work.
All services were developing more rigorous reporting of management information. In
Midlothian Council there was regular monitoring of performance in departments, by
senior officers and by elected members. The social work service had completed an
extensive audit of case files. They intended to compare results of this with other
local authorities and target areas for continuous improvement, including staff training
and development. In addition, there had recently been a small multi-agency case
file audit which they hoped to roll out to a wider sample. The social work service
was continuing to use the self-evaluation framework „How good is our service?‟ to
assess the effectiveness of their practice teams and identify areas for improvement.
The chair of CPCCs regularly provided helpful management information on child
protection activity to senior managers. There was recognition that managers
required more qualitative data. The Inter-Agency Referral Discussion (IARD)
Review Group was well established. It met regularly to review the quality of the
decision-making, the action taken following the IARD and compliance with the new
inter-agency child protection procedures. The Substance Misuse Screening Group
7
had improved information-sharing and awareness of parental substance misuse
across services.
Within the social work service a range of initiatives were being developed in
response to difficulties in the recruitment and retention of staff and to support them
in their work. These included the introduction of “Supporting Front Line Staff”, a
framework to help improve staff confidence and competence. Across services there
had been a significant improvement in communication and information-sharing.
Levels of trust and confidence among staff had increased.
4. Conclusion
Overall, the collective response by services to taking action to meet the main points
for action outlined in the inspection report published in February 2007 had been
positive and effective.
Management responsibilities and arrangements for child protection had been
clarified and strengthened. There had been a significant improvement in joint
leadership and in the development of partnership working within and across
services, particularly at a strategic level and between senior and operational
managers. There has also been a significant improvement in the leadership and
direction provided by senior managers in the local authority, particularly in the social
work service. Joint planning by operational staff to meet children‟s needs had
improved. There had been significant improvement in the provision of training to
raise the awareness of staff of their roles and responsibilities in child protection.
Improvement had been made in raising public awareness of child protection. Many
of these improvements were achieved through the cooperation and support of
operational staff in police, health, education, and social work services and the
support of voluntary organisations.
The number of social work staff in Midlothian Council has been increased on two
occasions during the past two years. Senior managers, supported by elected
members, have worked hard to maintain staffing levels, but that had only been
achieved by employing significant numbers of locum social workers. Many of the
permanent social work staff were inexperienced and required a high level of support
and supervision from team leaders and managers. This placed managers and staff
under increased pressures when dealing with high workloads and complex child
protection cases. Senior managers were aware of the risks this presented and were
monitoring the position to ensure the safety and welfare of children.
The point at which social workers took action when there were concerns about
children was too variable. In a few cases the response by staff had been slow.
Managers were aware of this and taking steps to ensure improved and consistent
practice.
8
There was strong commitment from senior managers across services to continuous
improvement and the potential and capacity to improve further the effectiveness and
efficiency of child protection services in Midlothian.
Kevin Mitchell
Inspector
February 2009
9
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 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.
10