Joint Follow-through inspection of services
to protect children and young people in the
South Ayrshire Council area
June 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
7
How can you contact us?
8
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 South Ayrshire Council area in
June 2007. Working together, services in the South Ayrshire 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 South Ayrshire Council area in March 2009 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
A collective approach had been taken by Chief Officers and senior managers across
services to improve structures and services.
There had been significant changes to staffing in the local authority since the initial
inspection. A new Chief Executive had been appointed and a new joint structure
had been established across social work and education services. The Executive
Director for Children and Communities managed both services and was supported
by two new heads of service for social work and education. The stronger corporate
management team had agreed priorities across services. Senior managers across
the Council worked well together to prioritise child protection. The Chief Executive
and senior managers were very committed to supporting staff and helping them to
do their job well. Staff were given authority to take actions forward and use their
own initiative. Social workers were listened to through their practitioner’s forum and
the senior management team communicated with them regularly. A new post was
established for policy, performance and communication within the Council. This was
a positive development and should increase capacity for improvement across the
Council.
A restructuring of health services had improved communication across all
agencies. All health services were delivered and managed locally. The
Community Health Partnership (CHP) facilitator had very recently been appointed
to promote joint working between the CHP and Council. Accountability and
scrutiny arrangements within the CHP were strong with four non-executive
directors members of the CHP Board.
Protecting children continued to be a clear strategic priority for the police. This
message was disseminated to staff via e-briefings and staff meetings as well as
through training programmes. The Public Protection Unit staff had moved into
improved office facilities in Kilmarnock police office. Strathclyde Police Force
Control Strategies, which outline plans for development, were being rewritten and
had been expanded to include more explicit links to the Single Outcome
Agreement (SOA).
2
3. Progress towards meeting the main points for action
The initial inspection report published in June 2007 identified six main points for
action.
3.1 Improve the processes for assessing risk and ensure that they are
informed by all available information
Progress towards meeting this point for action was weak.
Midwives were actively identifying and gathering information about a wide range of
high risk pregnancies and alerting the child protection nurse advisor promptly.
Health visitors and school nurses identified patterns of risk through compiling dated
lists of significant events in children’s lives. When children were identified as
vulnerable there were face-to-face handovers between health visitors and school
nurses so that identified risks continued to be assessed. Child protection
coordinators in schools were working more effectively to identify child protection
concerns and to refer these to social work. Staff from health and education were
working well with social workers to share relevant information and carry out joint
assessments for the most vulnerable children.
The Authority Reporter and Children’s Panel members received information from
health services to inform their decision-making about children in need of compulsory
measures of supervision. Although there had been recent improvements, some
social work assessments of high risk pregnancies were not completed within agreed
timescales so that plans could be put in place prior to the birth. The duty system
was staffed by social workers and senior social workers who changed on a daily
basis. Procedures had recently been put in place to provide a more consistent
approach to assessing initial risks to children. Out of hours, the West of Scotland
Social Work Standby Service relied inappropriately on police conducting child
protection investigations and assessing the suitability of alternative care
arrangements when children were at immediate risk. Referrals by the standby
service to the social work duty system did not usually contain initial risk
assessments.
When children were at risk of harm, services combined their dated lists of significant
events in order to inform risk assessments. However, patterns of risk were not
always readily identified as other less significant events were also included on these
lists. Assessments identified children’s needs well but did not focus sufficiently on
risks. Assessment reports to review child protection case conferences did not
clearly identify how successful the child protection plan was in reducing risks. A
recent evaluation of the assessment model had indicated that a greater focus on
risk was required. As a result a more systematic approach and use of risk
assessment tools had been introduced. The full impact of these changes had yet to
be seen.
Children affected by domestic abuse did not always get the help they needed quickly
enough. Although health and education staff were now routinely notified risks were
not assessed using a multi-agency approach. Some General Practitioners and adult
mental health staff were reluctant to share information about children to inform risk
3
assessments. Despite recent significant improvements there were still some delays
in providing social work reports to the Authority Reporter so that children’s need for
compulsory measures of supervision could be progressed within agreed timescales.
Police were not participating in ongoing risk assessment as they did not attend
Review Child Protection case conferences.
3.2 Fully involve health staff in all child protection processes and increase the
availability of medical assessment and examinations
Progress towards meeting this point for action was satisfactory.
School nurses were much more involved in child protection processes.
Information-sharing between school nurses and education staff had improved.
School nurses were fully participating in multi-agency school meetings. They were
routinely informed when school staff made a referral to social work. They were
invited to and attended case conferences and core groups. They participated in the
completion of integrated assessment reports. A high risk pregnancy protocol had
been recently re-launched to strengthen links between maternity services, the child
protection advisor and social services. The protocol gave midwives a greater role in
identifying risk factors, sharing information and planning to protect children.
Police routinely shared information about domestic abuse incidents involving
children or pregnant women with midwives and health visitors. However, information
about school age children was not shared with health services. Health visitors and
school nurses contributed well to joint assessments of risks and needs. Detailed
lists of significant events in a child’s life were being used routinely by health staff and
these were helping to inform assessments and decision making. The Authority
Reporter received helpful information from health visitors and school nurses.
When requested, the Child Protection Advisor gathered health information from
across health services which helped to inform social workers’ initial risk
assessments. However, this was not consistently requested by social workers
during all investigations. Paediatricians were not routinely involved in the planning
of child protection investigations. Police officers and social workers decided whether
a child needed a medical examination. There were sometimes difficulties in
accessing paediatricians to carry out sexual abuse medical examinations out of
hours. This meant that children were examined by police doctors with no
paediatrician present.
3.3 Increase involvement of children and families in planning services
Good progress has been made towards meeting this point for action.
The Council have taken positive steps to involve young people in developing the
Children’s Services Plan (CSP), the SOA and in community planning. Young
people welcomed their voice being heard. The ‘Big Foot’ conference gave young
people an insight into planning and allowed them to become involved in the process
of drawing up the priorities for community planning. In addition, an elected member
had been appointed as a youth champion. He and 20 other elected members had
met with young people at a lunch to hear their views on policies and services.
4
Education, while continuing to consult with young people, had recently conducted a
survey on anti-bullying which had resulted in revised guidelines being published.
Health had consulted with young people on aspects of services, such as how to
improve their experience of child and adolescent mental health services. Hospital
services had reviewed children’s experiences as out-patients or as in-patients.
Social work had commissioned a study from the University of Stirling on the impact
of services on outcomes for young people. The results had influenced changes in
practice. The Child Protection Committee (CPC) had obtained feedback from some
young people on the support they had received when they were on the Child
Protection Register. Children and families from South Ayrshire were involved in a
nationwide survey carried out by the Scottish Children’s Reporter’s Administration
(SCRA) service to obtain the views of people who had attended Children’s
Hearings. The police service was made aware of the views of young people in the
community through community police officers and campus officers in schools.
Services did not seek the views of young people and their parents who had been
involved in child protection investigations and medical examinations in order to
develop and improve procedures and practices. Services were committed to
ensuring that the ‘child’s voice’ was heard. A start had been made to further
develop local youth action plans and other planned actions to ensure that parents
and young people continue to be involved in the development of policies and
practices.
3.4 Establish as shared vision across services and ensure this is
communicated effectively to all staff
Services have made good progress towards meeting this point for action.
A shared vision was established for children’s services and the CPC. The vision
was clear and expected outcomes were identified. The vision was developed by
consulting a wide range of staff, including voluntary service staff. The vision for
children’s services and the CPC linked well with strategic plans across services.
Clear lines of accountability were established across services. The latest SOA
was developed by all partners and children were a specific theme in the
document. Senior managers within the Council took part in staff meetings where
they discussed the vision and priorities for the Council with many staff over
lunchtime sessions. The vision had been communicated to staff through training
programmes. However, some were still unaware of the vision established by the
CPC.
3.5 Ensure Chief Officers and senior managers work more effectively together
to identify priorities and jointly plan services to protect children
Services have made satisfactory progress towards meeting this point for action
All Chief Officers were clear about the role of the Chief Officer’s Group (COG).
They understood the child protection processes very well and were well supported
by senior managers across services. Chief Officers and senior managers were
increasingly promoting responsibility for child protection across services including
fire and rescue, colleges and all council services. However, the COG was not well
5
established. Not all Chief Officers attended regularly and often delegated this
responsibility to senior managers, particularly in police and council services, who
went in their place. There was little communication between the three local
authority Chief Executives across Ayrshire and health and police Chief Officers to
discuss possible pan-Ayrshire developments.
The membership and chair of the CPC had been inconsistent for some time.
Recently a group of relevant senior managers from across a range of key services
had been identified as members of the CPC. The action plans for the CPC and
subgroups were not monitored well. The CPC had not identified which performance
data should be gathered. Some staff were unaware of the work of the CPC.
The Child Health Strategy, the CSP and SOA were integrated well. Elected
members were more fully engaged with planning processes. The South Ayrshire
Locality Forum had been established to implement the CSP. The Integrated
Children’s Service Team (ICST) had successfully promoted a more joined up way of
working across services. Their business plan supported the implementation of the
CSP although the it was still in a draft version. Staff groups were to be consulted or
involved in the draft CSP. Child protection was not well integrated into planning
processes across all council services. Limited progress had been made towards
developing the Council’s role in corporate parenting.
There were many examples of effective joint working, such as the approach taken to
keep children looked after away from home in their local area. School staff and
school nurses worked well together to develop holistic health clinics providing sexual
health support and advice. Police and education planned and worked together
successfully to establish campus police officers in schools. A new community
hospital in Girvan was being developed which will enable social workers to share
offices with other staff from across a range of services. Voluntary organisations
were fully involved in planning groups. The integration manager and Getting It Right
For Every Child (GIRFEC) team were very successfully turning strategic planning
principles into operational practice for staff. The team keep up-to-date with national
developments. Elected members received limited information about child protection
to enable them to take a sufficiently strategic view of services and planning.
3.6 Further develop self-evaluation to improve services
Services had made satisfactory progress towards meeting this main point for action.
Services monitored and reviewed decision-making within their own services, but
self-evaluation was not yet planned sufficiently well across services. Due to a
number of changes of leadership across and within services self-evaluation
remained at the early stages of development. However, in all services some
self-evaluation exercises had taken place which have had a positive impact on the
lives of children and young people.
Social work had commissioned a study by the University of Stirling on the impact of
services on outcomes for young people which was being used by the service to
evaluate aspects of its work. Self-evaluation was used to inform some social work
practice. For example, after concerns were raised around some cases, a practice
6
note was produced for children and families’ teams to standardise responses and
recordings of all referrals. SCRA and the police regularly reviewed and monitored
child protection work within their own services. Education continued to develop
self-evaluation across the service. Health had taken a number of steps to evaluate
their services. For example, they had carried out a review of health professionals’
involvement in child protection and made recommendations for discussion with
partners. They had also reviewed all child protection inspection reports across
Scotland to identify areas for development within health which could be progressed
across the health board. The interagency training programme was influenced by self
evaluation and was linked effectively to strategic priorities.
The audit subgroup of the CPC had carried out an audit of cases producing
recommendations to the committee which had led to improved procedures. The
inter-agency training programmes had been evaluated by participants which had
influenced the format of aspects of training modules. The Integrated Assessment
Framework (IAF) had been introduced and its implementation had been evaluated.
Recommendations were made for changes which were now being progressed.
Services were committed to continuous improvement and managers were ready to
become involved in more systematic and rigorous self-evaluation.
4. Conclusion
Joint planning of services to protect children was at an early stage, but senior
managers across services were committed to working together to improve services.
A shared vision for children had been established although the COG needed to drive
forward further improvements in child protection services as identified within the
CPC business plan. The CPC needed to improve monitoring arrangements to
ensure children were being protected and their needs met.
New management structures across the Council and health services were being
established and were improving joint working arrangements. The new leadership of
many of the services involved in protecting children now needed to develop a more
systematic approach to self-evaluation across and within services.
HMIE will incorporate the point for action where progress was weak into the next
joint inspection of services to protect children and young people in the
South Ayrshire Council area.
Fiona McManus
Inspector
June 2009
7
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.
8