Annual Report of the Child Protection Committee

Annual Report

Protecting

Children and Young People in

Highland.

April 2010 – March 2011

Highland Child Protection Committee Annual Report

April 2010– March 2011

Annual Report on Protecting Children and Young People in Highland CPC area

2010-11

CONTENTS

Topic

Preface from Chief Officers

Introduction

Self Evaluation

How Good Is Leadership And

Direction?

1) Leadership

Key Developments since

2009/10 self-evaluation

2) Service Planning





Guidance, Policy and

Protocols



Benchmarking



Consultation and

Stakeholder Involvement

3) People Resources



4) Partners and Other Resources



Partnership



Quality



Information Sharing



Financial Resources



Management Information



Other Resources





Partnership



Quality



Management Information

Pg Topic

1

2

4

5

5

7

8

9

9

9

11

12

13

15

15

15

15

15

15

16

16

17

17

17

18

How Good Is Delivery And

Management Of Services?

5) Service Processes



Planning and Management



Service Delivery



Review and Improvement





Planning and Management



Raising Awareness of

Child Protection Services



Review and Improvement

How Well Are The Needs Of

Children And Families Met?

6) What We Achieved



Outcomes for Children and

Families



Staff Perceptions



Community Perceptions

How Are Services Improving?

7) Effectiveness and Efficiency of

Services



Inspection



Local Inspection and

Systems Review



Ongoing Improvement

Plans

Appendices

1) Key Reference Material

2) HCPC Action Plan 2010-13

3) Outline Budget 2010/11

4) Learning from Case Reviews

5) Training Report 2010/11

6) Management Information

7) Child Sexual Abuse Position

Statement

Further Information

27

27

27

29

30

23

24

Pg

20

20

20

21

21

23

23

34

36

46

47

31

33

34

31

31

31

49

55

62

64

0


April 2010– March 2011

Preface from the Chief Officers:

1


April 2010– March 2011

Highland Child Protection Committee

Annual Report and Self-evaluation

1

st

April 2010 – 31

st

March 2011

Introduction:

Highland CPC undertook its first, broad-brush self-evaluation during the autumn of

2007 and has built upon this year on year as a partnership exercise. In April 2009 the

CPC Quality Assurance Group merged with that of Integrated Children’s Services and, in the autumn of 2009, produced a full-scale, in-depth, self-evaluation in line with the framework set out in the HMIe publication “ How Well Do We Protect

Children And Meet Their Needs?”(June 2009).

This was used to inform the HMIe joint inspection of services to protect children in January 2010. The full report

1

, published in May 2010 can be viewed on: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/HighlandSFC.pdf

In general HMIe agreed with the Highland CPC self-evaluation and, in several areas gave a higher rating. With one exception performance was rated as ‘Very Good’.

Key strengths were identified as:



Effective communication and development of trust with staff.



The wide range of support services provided to them at an early stage.



Action taken to protect children when identified as at risk of harm.



Joint approaches by managers and staff to reviewing their work to improve services.



Senior managers encouraging and supporting staff to work together well to improve outcomes.

Additionally all 3 good practice examples put forward were endorsed.

However, in terms of ‘Meeting needs and reducing long term harm’ the rating was

‘Good’.

The following issues were raised:



In a few cases, education and social work staff do not share information quickly enough when there are concerns about children.



In some cases the desired longer-term outcomes for children are unclear and there is a need to ensure that contingency plans are in place in case the original plan fails or parents are unable to improve care of their children.



Although some children and parents have benefited from independent advocacy this is not yet available for all children and families who could benefit.



Where risks are less immediate decisions about action are sometimes made without speaking directly to the person who raised the concern. Managers should ensure that staff gather full information in all cases and that the person raising the concern is kept informed of what is happening.



Medical advice on physical injury or neglect is readily available. However, some children who have recently reported sexual abuse have to wait too long to be examined because suitably trained doctors are not available outside office hours.

2


April 2010– March 2011

Two areas of improvement were agreed with HMIe. These are:



Ensuring robust initial assessment when concerns are raised about children, including less immediate concerns.



Further improving arrangements for medical examinations.

The recommendations from inspection and from local case reviews and audits inform the annual self-evaluation exercise and the chief officer review of the CPC’s rolling 3 year action plan. This is incorporated into the Integrated Children’s Services Plan 2 , which can be viewed at: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/1-childrensplan/

This annual report takes the form of a follow-up self-evaluation, describing the actions taken, both to address issues and to build on strengths, and considering the evidence for improved outcomes. In the process it provides an overview of the functions of the CPC in action.

The Scottish Government reviewed CPC functions as part of its overall review of child protection guidance in 2010. Revised national guidance was published in

December 2010: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/12/09134441/0

The CPC functions can be mapped to the HMIe child protection performance framework,

‘How Well Do We Protect Children And Meet Their Needs’

: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/hwdwpcamtn.pdf

and to the Public

Service Improvement Framework (PSIF) used by The Highland Council. http://www.improvementservice.org.uk/more-about-psif/

3


April 2010– March 2011

Self-evaluation:

This Annual Report builds on the reports and self-evaluations undertaken in previous years, and uses the self-evaluation referenced above, and its subsequent action plan as its starting point.

It is informed by key sources of evidence (See Appendix 1) from:

 further inspections of services in Highland

 local and national performance data;

 surveys of stakeholders’ and service user views;

 direct observation and auditing of practice; and

 review of a range of documentation that evidences decision making and assessment of risk.

It incorporates a number of audit activities over the last year, as referenced in Sections

4 and 6 of this report and includes reference to the final report of an ongoing analysis of the experience of children and families across the range of interventions, undertaken as part of local GIRFEC evaluation by Highlands Children’s Forum.

Much of the evidence used to inform this report was presented to Highland Child

Protection Committee and Delivery Group members at the annual review event held on 24 th

November 2010 and informed the rolling action plan for 2011 – 14.

The Annual Report is structured in line with the Public Service Improvement

Framework and equates to the 4 key HMIe questions:



How good is leadership and direction?



How good is the delivery and management of services?



How well are the needs of children & families met?



How are services improving?

It takes the form of a narrative describing the CPC functions in light of PSIF headings, followed by a description of key developments since the 2009/10 self evaluation. These should be read in association with the progress and RAG section of action plan at Appendix 2.

4


April 2010– March 2011

HOW GOOD IS LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTION?

1) Leadership:

Highland Child Protection Committee (CPC) is a multi-agency partnership working to a clear shared vision for the protection of children in Highland. Logic modelling is used to ensure that activity supports outcomes linked to the Highland Single Outcome

Agreement and relevant national outcomes set out by Scottish Government. These are outlined at the start of the Committee’s rolling 3 year action plan 3

. (See Appendix 2)

Highland CPC agreed outcomes form a major part of the ‘SAFE’ section of the

Integrated Children’s Services plan, ‘For Highland’s Children 3’ 2

: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/pdf/forhighlandschildren3.pdf

Governance arrangements for Highland CPC were reviewed in 2008 and, in 2009, the

Safer Highland Leadership Group was formed to oversee the governance of six committees contributing to public protection.

The following diagram illustrates the strategic and operational governance structure for integrated children’s services in Highland:

NHS

Highland

Board

Northern

Constabulary

3 x Area Service

Managers

Groups

THC

Housing

SW Cttee

Joint Committee for Children and Young People

Joint Chairs:

The Highland Council and NHS Highland Board

Chief Officers

Group

(Children)

For

Highland’s

&

Children

Lead

Officers

Group

FHC

Multi

Agency

Strategy

Groups

THC

ECS Cttee s i c r e m t a e g r t

Safer

Highland

Leadership

Group i t

Adult Support &

Protection opera Alcohol & Drugs

Partnership

Re

Child Protection

Multi Agency Public

Protection Arrangements services s Manag Violence against Women

Officer

Coordinators nager

remi

Youth Justice

CPC partner agencies produce their own operational plans to take single agency, contributory actions forward. These are supported by in-house meetings e.g. NHS

Highland’s Child Protection Action Group (CPAG), Northern Constabulary’s Force

Executive Group, Social Work’s Child and Family Team Managers Group,

Education’s Senior Management Team and the Voluntary Sector’s ‘Keeping Children

Safe’ steering group 4 .

5


April 2010– March 2011

This process is further enhanced by an annual review and forward planning day, supported by self-evaluation. This assists the CPC to identify specific key priorities to address identified areas for improvement 5 .

The committee is jointly funded by partner agencies, all of which operate to Best

Value principles 6 : http://ntintra1/miweb/current/performance/bv2_pathfinder_submission/bv2_pathfinde r_submission_final.doc

An outline of the annual budget

7

can be found at Appendix 3.

In addition to annual reporting to the public, each member agency produces regular information bulletins for staff and encourages more detailed communication and support through team briefings and individual supervision.

Inspections during 2010-11 consistently rated Leadership in Highland as ‘Very

Good’ 9

.

6


April 2010– March 2011

Key developments since 2009/10 self evaluation:

During 2010/11 the Safer Highland Leadership Group

10

scrutinised the outcomes models and plans of all six committees within the public protection framework and encouraged the rationalisation of support structures to eliminate duplication. In particular support for child and adult protection was integrated and support staff were charged with identifying the range of cross-cutting issues that the Leadership Group should have an overview of.

To increase accountability and stakeholder involvement, political champions were appointed for each of the six key areas of public protection.

Consideration was given to enhancing integrated working, reducing duplication of effort and developing seamless and cost effective provision across key child and adult services in Highland. It was proposed that, from April 2012, the Highland Council should take responsibility for the provision of integrated Children’s Services and NHS

Highland should take responsibility for integrated Adult Services. To this end a joint board was established to take forward ‘Pathways for Integration’ (P4I) from April

2011: http://ntintra1/p4i/

The Highland Council Quality Awards Scheme

11

, which was developed to acknowledge the contribution of staff to service development and provision, chose the multi-agency e-safety project as the best overall nomination of 2010/11.

In light of the Equality Act (2010) equalities and diversity were made key priorities for employee development and training

12

.

The review and revision of the Highland Practice Model

13

(developed from the

Getting it Right for Every Child path-finder) and of the Highland CPC Interagency

Guidelines

14

resulted in 30 road-shows being held for staff and other stakeholders across the whole of Highland.

7


April 2010– March 2011

2) Service Planning:

Highland CPC has a rolling 3 year action plan 3 based on agreed long and short-term outcomes and including improvement objectives drawn from self evaluation activity.

This is reviewed and updated annually.

The annual work plan is drawn from the rolling action plan and reviewed by the Child

Protection Delivery Group, on an ongoing basis, using a traffic light system to track progress. Exceptions are reported on at each CPC meeting

15

.

Service planning and delivery is supported by a range of policies, strategies and protocols

16

that support core values and long-term outcomes. Each partner agency has robust systems for review and document control.

Care Commission inspection of Fostering Services

17

noted good progress being made on updating policies and procedures in line with new legislation.

Highland CPC seeks to engage with its key client groups and the Youth Convener is a member of the Committee. Additionally, key actions that directly impact upon

Children and Young People are consulted upon via Highland Youth Voice and

Highland Children’s Forum.

Child Protection services are driven by national standards outlined in ‘The Children’s

Charter’ ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1181/0009923.pdf

) and relevant legislation. These are further informed by national guidance and benchmarking against best practice from research, local and out-of area case reviews and validated inspection findings. Sources regularly accessed include:



Centre for Excellence and Outcomes (C4EO)















Careknowledge

MARS/SCCPN

IRISS – Evidence informed practice portal

NSPCC CASPAR

BASPCAN

Children Scotland

Young People Now

Highland CPC has a range of performance measures incorporated into the Integrated

Children’s Service Plan, ‘For Highland’s Children 3’.

2

These are kept under review by the ICS Lead Officer Group and its Quality Assurance Group.

The Highland Council Public Performance Survey 18 regularly measures customer satisfaction with services to protect children and this information is complemented by questions in partner agency and public awareness surveys.

Recent Care Commission inspections of individual services

17

have commented positively on the provision of service information to client groups.

8


April 2010– March 2011

Key developments since 2009/10 self evaluation 4;15 :

Guidance, Policy and Protocols:

A range of policies, guidance and protocols was developed to support the implementation of new legislation and guidance, and to further develop integrated working. These include:





Highland Under-age Sex Protocol (HUSP)

MAPPA/GIRFEC Interface – protocol for management of child sex offenders within the Children’s Hearings system and managed within MAPPA: creates a single planning procedure incorporating risk management (MAPPA) and Child’s









Plan for welfare needs.

Protocol for Child’s plans for Children’s Hearings.

NHS ‘Domestic Abuse: Pregnancy and the Early Years’ protocol

Child DNA policy in Primary Dental Care NHS salaried dental service Dec 2010.

Births to known Sex Offenders – the need for a protocol was identified and a draft put out for consultation





Development of guidance on transition between child and adult services. Protocols in place between Housing and Criminal Justice Services and Children’s Services for through-care arrangements.

‘Protocol for management of child concern forms between Northern Constabulary and NHS Highland’.

The following guidelines, protocols and policies were reviewed and refreshed:



The Highland Child Protection Committee Interagency guidelines were revised in

 light of new National guidance.

The GIRFEC path-finder guidance was developed into a full Highland Practice

Model.











GIRFEC and Public Health Nursing protocol.

Highland Council SWS ‘Case Recording Policy for Social Work Service Staff’.

‘Paediatric Communications Pathway: Integrated Children’s Services.’

Management of Sex Offenders on admission to hospital.

Review of NHS Missing Family Alerts protocol and relationship to other local protocols for missing children and families.



Circulation of Clinical Governance – GP Practices NHS Circular, showing that

Child Protection is the first item under legal requirements. To be included in training for GPs.

(All documents can be accessed in electronic format via the ICS website: www.forhighlandschildren.org

)

Benchmarking:

Learning from national SCRs:

From time to time the CPC requests that partner agencies audit their current processes against the recommendations of pertinent significant or serious case reviews from other areas, and instigate action plans to address any identified issues. During 2010/11 the following SCRs were considered:



Haringey SCR recommendations for NHS were considered prior to 2010/11 and a rolling action plan agreed. In 2010 this resulted in an audit of attendance at CP

9


April 2010– March 2011

Plan meetings by GPs and Paediatricians. As a result the invite letter was updated and made clearer in terms of who/what required.



Kyrah Ishak – a general audit was undertaken against recommendations. As a result local arrangements for home educated and traveller children known to ECS were reviewed. It was suggested that cross-referencing GP records with ECS

Phoenix records might assist with identifying ‘hidden’ children. The NHS action plan includes recording child height as part of school medicals, and inclusion of growth charts in child’s plan where there are concerns.



Kristoffer Batt – Northern Constabulary ACPOS rep in relation to Care & Custody of Prisoners prepared a Force internal response to the recommendations for their

Executive. The Constabulary are also represented on the national custody forum with other Scottish Forces where such FAI reports etc are reviewed and recommendations implemented.



Henry Webster – ECS – circulated to managers in areas with high concentrations of Asian and other BME groups.



Mary – a MAPPA audit was undertaken and reassurances given that measures are in place that should prevent a similar situation occurring in Highland.



Baby AD09 – Audited against the local Baby KK action plan due to similarities in the cases. Consultant Paediatrician gave written response to CPC.



Brandon Muir - Audit of sticker flagging at Raigmore Hospital.

 Plymouth ‘Nursery Z’ – Early Years reviewing recommendations and disseminating learning.



Child Deaths in Scotland 1975-2009 – Key learning disseminated.

Local Critical Incident Reviews (CIRs):

Findings of local CIRs are detailed in Appendix 4. In addition, CIR reports have been anonymised and used to encourage reflective practice.

As a result of undertaking a local CIR, the process was reviewed. Subsequently, the

Safer Highland Leadership group requested that all CIR and SCR processes be reviewed, with a view to standardisation. In addition the debrief model, used to assist staff to review complex cases, has been evaluated and embedded in practice.

Learning from research:

The following items led to specific improvement activity:



Frequent or prolonged school absence for alleged medical reasons – short life working group established to ensure that psycho-social cases are properly

 supported through CALMS.

‘Growing Up in Scotland’ topic based research findings disseminated to inform

CP advisors and trainers.

Use was also made of Action Learning, to explore Social Audit and other QA methods, and of benchmarking.

Additionally, the CPC took note of HMIe inspection reports with gradings that exceeded Highland’s and HMIe validated examples of good practice, and considered potential for application in Highland.

10


April 2010– March 2011

Learning from Inspection:

Changes to the format of HMIe inspections has led to the publication of validated examples of good practice. Highland CPC has used these to benchmark local practice

19

. In particular, Highland CPC has benchmarked activity in relation to raising awareness and found that the majority of good practice examples, validated to date, mirror activity in Highland.

In addition, Highland CPC considered findings of inspections where other CPC areas received the grading ‘Excellent’. In 2010/11 one such report was noted. However, the difference in demographics between the two areas makes it unlikely that replication would be possible in Highland.

Consultation and Stakeholder Involvement:

During 2010/11 the CPC and its partner agencies consulted with Highland Youth

Voice

20



on a number of issues as follows:

Improving awareness of Child Protection and self referral routes.







Website content suitable for a Children & Young Person’s Child Protection page.

Developing guidance in relation to new legislation on under-age sexual activity.

Raising awareness of internet safety.

Additionally, Highland Children’s Forum 21

reported on the findings of their GIRFEC

Consultation with Children and Families - ‘It is not about money or resources. It is about empathy and intuition’, and undertook development of the ‘Participation

Framework for Children and Young People Affected by Gender Based Violence’

The Care Commission inspection of Adoption Services 17 commented positively on the opportunity given to, and taken by, adopters attending the Foetal Alcohol Syndrome conference to comment on ways in which services could improve.

A new Service Level Agreement (SLA) 22 was established, with ‘Who Cares?

Scotland’, for an enhanced advocacy service.

11


April 2010– March 2011

3) People Resources:

Highland CPC partner agencies are committed to the recruitment, retention and development of the integrated children’s workforce. Each agency has dedicated Child

Protection Advisors to support staff in dealing with child protection issues. In addition to the delivery of in-house induction programmes and training, each agency contributes staff and resources to the CPC multi-agency training group, coordinated by the CPC’s Training Officer.

Training strategy and content is regularly reviewed in light of changes in legislation, policy, practice and professional registration requirements. Training is informed by research and benchmarking of best practice

15 + Appendix 5

.

CPC partner agencies have well developed personal development programmes linked to key service and organisational outcomes. Employee Development Training

12 programmes support development at all levels, with social care awards, including sensory awareness and awareness of diversity and LGBT issues, and training at levels

2, 3 & 4 for Scottish Social Services Council Registration requirements. The

Management Development Programme is open to team and area managers. Training is also available to elected members.

Training is regularly evaluated and all case reviews include consideration of the uptake of training and application of knowledge and skills of the staff involved.

Key staff are involved in reviewing and piloting training packages.

Training packages are child centred and are designed to empower staff through promoting the development of risk assessment, analysis and decision making skills.

Partner agencies make use of staff bulletins, management and team briefings 8 , practitioner forums, road-shows and staff surveys to ensure effective two-way communication.

The CPC has a well developed system for cascading knowledge and good practice to managers and practitioners.

Highland has a multi-agency data sharing partnership that has developed clear guidance on the appropriate sharing of information

23

.

Both HMIe and Care Commission inspections have commented positively on staff development and training, including training for foster carers and adopters

1;9;17

.

12


April 2010– March 2011


A total of 4,859 staff across partner agencies received training specific to child protection. A full report is attached at Appendix 5.

A standardised version of the Programme 1 training package now means that agency staff can attend any local event and receive the same messages and material. This prevents any member of staff having to wait long periods of time for awareness raising training, or travel long distances to receive this.

128 frontline practitioners attended the annual Conference held in November 2010.

This event aimed to raise awareness of specific vulnerabilities facing children and young people, whilst providing practical tools to help build resilience and ensure the best possible outcomes for Highland’s children. A further 58 people attended the

‘Working with autism and sexually inappropriate behaviour’

seminar in December

2010.

Staff at Raigmore Hospital received training on Awareness of the Highland Practice

Model, DNA policy and elements of safeguarding, whilst training on awareness of the new Protection of Vulnerable Groups Scheme was delivered to 40 Active Schools

Coordinators. Basic awareness of child protection issues for young people aged 14 –

16 years was also delivered to 20 Day1 mentors.

In March 2011, the Training Group also delivered a specially designed two day training session to an audience of Forces personnel from across Scotland.

Under the Highland Council Employee Development Programme 111 candidates successfully completed social care awards, including sensory awareness and awareness of diversity and LGBT issues. Key priorities in 2010/11 were: Equalities and Diversity, Disability confident, and equalities training for elected members. These will continue to be priorities in 11/12 together with Support for Corporate

Improvement, development of e-learning, and Leadership at Senior Manager level.

EDP delivered 1,049 Social Work, 596 Education Culture & Sport, 397 Housing &

Property, and 4 Elected member training days in 2010/11.

Whilst it was noted that there had been considerable uptake of Child Protection training by private dental practice staff, a local Critical Incident Review led CPAG to consider the training needs of GPs in more depth. This led to a questionnaire that hilighted the need to consider CPA delivery in liaison with Practice Managers’ Group.

Training packages developed in the Argyll & Bute CHP area were modified with an additional module being developed on recording and sharing concerns.

As part of the response to HMIe concerns about the availability of out-of-hours sexual abuse forensic medical examinations, training was delivered in Highland by

MEDACS, with a paediatrician in attendance.

Additional issues addressed in 2010/11 included:





The introduction of the Community Disclosure scheme

The new legislation, national guidance and local protocol in relation to under age sexual activity. This included a Wellbeing in Sexual Health (WISH) event

13


April 2010– March 2011

 attended by 111 sexual health practitioners, with a further 7 sites video conferencing in: http://elearning.healthscotland.com/course/view.php?id=178

Specialist training for Social Work staff groups e.g. Identity and Life Story Work,

Permanence Planning and Direct Work.



Additional provision of Joint Investigative Interviewing Training courses.

The launches of both the Integrated Children’s Services’ Highland Practice Guidance and the updated Highland CPC inter-agency guidelines involved 30 road-shows for over 1,000 staff and other stakeholders across Highland

24

. The opportunity was taken to raise awareness of the Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, develop staff risk assessment skills and to note frequently asked questions to inform a FAQ section on the ICS website: www.forhighlandschildren.org

, which now contains a Training section developed and managed by the Child Protection Training Group.

14


April 2010– March 2011

4) Partners and Other Resources:

Partnership:

Highland CPC is a robust partnership with chief officer level representation and sponsorship at Chief Executive level, from the Safer Highland Leadership Group

10

.

Child protection services are delivered within the remit of integrated children’s services and the Highland Practice Model

13

.

In addition, the CPC multi-agency training forum engages with training and development staff supporting other Public Protection and Integrated Children’s

Service partners to ensure the development of training around cross-cutting themes

15

.

Highland CPC is regularly represented at the Scottish CPC Chairs’ Forum, which meets with the Scottish Executive quarterly and has a number of national task groups to progress common issues. Additionally, the Development and Training Officers belong to appropriate national peer forums and co-operate on a number of joint pieces of development work 25 . Child Protection staff and senior officers from all partner agencies maintain strong national links with peers, to enhance knowledge and inform best practice.

Through Northern Constabulary, NHS Highland and Criminal Justice Services,

Highland CPC maintains links with CPCs in Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles,

Argyll & Bute and the Grampian region. This includes the facility to commission joint training from Stirling University for delivery on their Inverness campus. The CPC has also arranged to be copied into the minutes of the North East and Central CPC Forum.

Quality:

Highland CPC is represented on the Integrated Children’s Services Quality Assurance

Group

26

. The quality of prevention, early intervention and protection services is central to the annual work programme of the group.

Quality is being embedded across Integrated Children’s Services through Child

Protection Advisors, staff supervision and reflective practice.

Quality Assurance & Reviewing Officers are employed to chair Child’s Plan and

Child’s Protection Plan meetings and assure the quality of the plans.

Information Sharing:

The Highland Information Sharing Policy is a pan-Highland policy

23

produced by the data sharing partnership and endorsed by Chief Officers. It forms the basis for all other information sharing policies and is disseminated via inter-agency training, the

Highland Practice Model and through the Integrated Children’s Services website. In addition work continues to promote and improve information sharing in relation to missing children and families.

Financial Resources:

Highland CPC is funded by contributions from Highland Council (SWS, ECS, Early

Years and Housing), NHS Highland and Northern Constabulary. Each of these organisations is signed up to Best Value and the CPC budget is managed within the

15


April 2010– March 2011 parameters of the Highland Council finance and procurement systems. An outline budget is included at Appendix 3.

Management Information:

Highland CPC has access to a range of management information, agreed with partners and collected in line with Highland data sharing partnership agreements.

Key performance measures and reporting cycles are included in the Integrated

Children’s Services Plan and approved by the Joint Committee for Children and

Young People (JCCYP). Additionally, this committee endorses the annual quality assurance plan, which includes a programme of audit and analysis.

The CPC has a protocol, agreed with the Council’s legal department and the NHS

Caldicott guardian for the sharing of sensitive information for quality assurance purposes 27 .

The CPC, through its Social Work partner, makes quarterly reports to the Chief

Executive of Highland Council and an annual return of key child protection information to Scottish Government, which is published in a form allowing a certain amount of comparison with other CPC areas

28

.

Other Resources:

The CPC has no significant assets.

CPC support staff follow Highland Council policies in respect of minimising environmental and financial impact.

16


April 2010– March 2011


Partnership:

During 2010/11 members of the CPC continued to network via regional and national groups. In particular:



The CPC invited Catriona Laird, the National CPC Coordinator, to make a

 presentation on her role and mutual cooperation.

As part of the review and revision of

‘Child Protection – A Shared Responsibility’

(1998) the lead, Gillian Buchanan, held consultation day in Inverness.

Additionally CPC members of the Quality Assurance Group met with Gillian to contribute to discussions on risk assessment and risk categories.





Police and Health colleagues met with the HMIe link inspector, Kevin Mitchell, and lead paediatrician, Dr Anna Murphy, to discuss the way forward for improving

Child Sexual Abuse medicals

The Chair of Highland Children’s Panel and the Children’s Reporter kept the CPC informed about the progress of the Children’s Hearings Review and implementation of recommendations for Children’s Panels and SCRA.





Training practice was shared between Highland and Argyll & Bute via CPAG and

CPC training officers

Highland CPC Development Officer represented Safer Highland on a National working Group considering how to improve the interface between CPCs and

Alcohol and Drugs Partnerships (ADPs)

In addition to contributing to relevant local consultations and reviews, the CPC also participated in a number of national Consultations:



Revision of National Guidance on Child protection



















Protection of Vulnerable Groups Scheme

National Guidance on Child Protection and Sexual Health

Best Practice in Handling Allegations Against Foster Carers

National Archives

Excluded Children

Responding to self harm - remitted to CAMHS

NES Competency Framework.

Developing a National Toolkit for Risk Assessment.

Vulnerable Families Pathway Project

Quality:

During 2010/11 Highland e-safety project won the Scottish Government Internet

Safety Competition award for Best Resource

29

, which could be then be used in all schools in Scotland, for its internet safety drama, and the Highland Council Quality

Awards Chairman’s Award 11

for best overall project 2010/11.

Individual partner agencies continue to embed the use of QA tools and processes.

Case reviews are being used to encourage reflective practice. The debrief model was evaluated and embedded in NHS practice and all SWS Team Managers were required to produce plans outlining improvement objectives linked to Highland Integrated

Children’s Services plan, ‘For Highland’s Children 3’ .

17


April 2010– March 2011

In March 2011 a report

30

was made to the Housing & Social Work Committee outlining a planned approach to self evaluation of Social Work Services for 2011/12.

The ICS Quality Assurance Group agreed a comprehensive thematic review process and documentation, based on HMIe inspection formats, together with a list of thematic reviews to be undertaken in 2011/12.

The following audits and evaluations

31



were undertaken during 2010/11:

Audit of Child Protection Plan Meeting invites in respect of GPs and







Paediatricians – found 1) Paediatricians consistently invited but low attendance; 2)

Invites to GPs in only 25% of cases, primarily in one area of Highland.

NHS snapshot audit of single agency Child’s Plans found key information was missing or only partially complete in a high proportion of plans. Action to address this and re-audit next year.

ECS developed a tool to audit their single agency Child’s Plans in 2011/12.

NHS electronic record-keeping tool amalgamated with generic audit tool and rolled out through CP advisors.





Audit of sticker flagging at Raigmore Hospital – following on from the recommendations of the Brandon Muir SCR

Audit of Sharing of Information via Child Concern Forms – showed that the depth of information held in Public Health records is not always sufficient. There is also an issue of storage of Child Concern Forms once received. This led to scoping the



 possibility of electronic sharing to ensure timely transmission.

Evaluation of Ross-shire MARAC pilot.

Focussed self-evaluation for review day on CSA medicals; non-engaging families;

Action Plan areas with limited progress; issues arising from revision of 1998 national guidance. Position statements were presented at the Review.

Management Information:

In February 2011 Safer Highland Leadership Group scrutinised the CPC outcomes and key performance measures, which had been revised in light of National Guidance and the annual CPC review event. Performance against these is regularly updated, as part of the monitoring of the Integrated Children’s Services plan

2

, and presented on the website: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/1-childrensplan/objectives.htm

A change of reporting dates and requirements means that Scottish Government comparator data is not available at the time of writing.

1: Child Protection Information for the Period 1 st April 2010 – 31 st March 2011

Provisional Figures

1

2

3

The No of Referrals ( 1 gender unknown both years)

The No of Children with the outcome of no further action

The No of Children subject to a

Case Conference (new)

Male

246

Female Total

2009/10

364 611

440

171

Male

2010/11

254

Female Total

372 626

434

192

18


April 2010– March 2011

4

The No of Children Registered as a result of the Case Conference

Physical Injury

Sexual Abuse

Emotional Abuse

Physical Neglect

Failure to Thrive

Not known

146

55

4

36

51

0

0

Physical Injury

Sexual Abuse

Emotional Abuse

Physical Neglect

Failure to Thrive

Not known

5

The No of Children not

Registered as a result of the

Case Conference

TOTAL 146

25

A report analysing other available data is presented at Appendix 6.

TOTAL

163

48

18

39

54

1

3

163

29

19


April 2010– March 2011

HOW GOOD IS DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT OF SERVICES?

5 Service Processes:

Planning and Management:

Child Protection is a statutory duty and services are delivered in line with legislation.

However, every effort is made to encourage feedback from children and families involved in Child Protection processes and to use this to improve the experience of these client groups.

Every child and young person has a named person in health or education (depending on age) responsible for making sure that the child has access to the right help to support his or her development and well-being, and a lead professional where there is a multi-agency Child’s Plan.

We have clear and effective systems in place to ensure information is shared

23

to protect children from harm. The child concern process initiates immediate sharing about any concerns, including child protection concerns. Ongoing audit of child concern forms

31

shows the process and decision making to be effective.

The Highland Practice Model

13

includes an integrated assessment framework that has been introduced in children’s services across all agencies. Based on all available information, including the views of the child and family, we make informed judgements about the needs of each child, including the family’s capacity to protect the child and meet needs. This assessment takes account of the child’s circumstances and his/her emotional, social and developmental needs in a holistic way as described by the ‘my world’ triangle and wellbeing indicators.

The child’s record, assessment and actions are incorporated into a single Child’s

Plan

32

. This has achieved a shared and standard means of describing and assessing need across the authority. Tools have also been developed for supporting young people in transition, including a ‘bridge’ for the assessment and Child’s Plan.

Systems are in place to enable arrangements to be made to ensure that children and families, including those with learning or communication difficulties, or for whom

English is not their first language, are able to express their views and take an active part in meetings.

A leaflet

33

informing children and their families about their right to use advocacy services is sent outwith the invitation to the Child Protection Plan Meeting, and further explored during pre-meeting preparations with key workers.

CPC inter-agency guidelines

14

include processes through which children and their families can challenge the decisions of Child Protection Plan Meetings and information is made available about how to express dissatisfaction or make a complaint. Albeit there is relatively little evidence of disagreement or conflict with families in assessment and planning processes, children and families’ dissatisfaction is taken seriously and support is given where they choose to make a formal complaint.

Complaints are investigated thoroughly and objectively. Information about the use of the complaints system are included in the Director of Social Work’s annual report 34

.

20


April 2010– March 2011

Service Delivery:

Information about accessing services for children in need and children in need of protection is widely advertised and feedback is sought in respect of improving the visibility of this information, especially for hard to reach groups

20;21

.

Staff are alert to and recognise signs that children may need help or protection from harm. If a concern about a child requires further exploration, we have the processes and skills to gather relevant information. When we receive child protection concerns about a child, we ensure someone has seen or sees them, reassures them and establishes the nature of the concern and any immediate risks.

Where children may be at risk of harm, the social worker becomes the ‘Lead

Professional’ and is required to ensure a truly integrated and multi-agency assessment, which is child-centred, and identifies personal and family strengths and pressures.

When we assess the risks to and needs of a child, we gather information from all relevant sources, including from staff involved with other family members. An electronic tool has been developed to further engage children.

There is good quality input at Child’s Plan Meetings from all agencies and relevant sharing of information between agencies. Partners communicate effectively to ensure the significance of shared information is fully understood by the recipient. There is clarity about what is fact and what is opinion. Information is stored securely and accessible to those who have a right of access. Families are provided with information about how the situation works and what information is held about them.

A record is made of consent about what information children and families are content to share in the Child’s Plan. Their views are taken into account when decisions are made about the sharing of information without their consent and they are given the reasons when this happens. We ensure that children and families are actively involved in making decisions about the help they need, unless this compromises their own safety or that of other children. Families state they feel more engaged in the process, and this is supported by local audit

21;31

.

Children and families welcome and say they benefit from effective communication with staff, and feel engaged with planning and decision-making processes

Review and Improvement:

Ongoing audit of decision making and planning for children subject to a Child

Protection Plan Meeting indicates there is well evidenced decision making, with core groups working collaboratively with children and families to monitor and help in progressing plans to meet needs.

When a Child’s Protection Plan is made, partners consider contingency actions which may help the child if the original decisions in the plan do not continue to meet the child’s needs. If the level of risk changes or there is lack of progress, the arrangements are reviewed and action is taken to help the child, amending and updating the plan where necessary.

The Integrated Children’s Services Quality Assurance Group monitors the outcomes of Child’s Plans and Child Protection service processes 31

. This informs self evaluation and review.

21


April 2010– March 2011

Where case reading indicates that service improvement is necessary, this is fed back to the appropriate service management group

4

. Additionally, Critical Incident (CIR) and case reviews (SCRs and peer debriefs) are used where it is suspected that improvements may be necessary, and improvement action plans are produced and monitored.

Follow-up letters and public performance surveys are used to gauge client and public satisfaction with services to protect children

18;31

.

The CPC rolling three year action plan is reviewed annually

5

and key priorities for joint action to improve services are agreed. In addition, each partner agency is responsible for the improvement of in-house and commissioned services

4

.

22


April 2010– March 2011


Planning and Management:

The following actions have been taken to improve the quality of Child’s Protection

Plan meetings and plans:



13 Highland Practice Model road-shows, led by Head of Children’s Services, were held to reinforce the guidance emerging from the

‘Getting it Right for Every Child’ pathfinder. These covered understanding of the model guidance and its links with the Child protection guidance. This led to the identification of frequently asked questions and a FAQ section with answers was created for the Integrated

Children’s Services website: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/5-

 practiceguidance/ These road-shows were also used to raise awareness of the Sex

Offender Disclosure Scheme 24 .

17 road-shows were held to launch revised Child Protection guidance:



 http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/2-childprotection/publications.htm

These included an exercise in the use of the Resilience Matrix, in response to HMIe recommendations

24

.

Social Work Services undertook to ensure that GPs and Paediatricians are informed of Child Protection Plan meetings and invited to attend and/or contribute to the Child’s Plan. A proforma for reports was created and is to be included with invite letter

4;15

.

Child Protection Advisors were requested to collate information on specific examples of inconsistent responses to the escalation of issues in a child’s plan.

Anecdotally there are said to be underlying difficulties in respect of thresholds, roles and responsibilities, and professional respect. Their findings will be discussed at the Children’s Chief Officer Group.

Raising Awareness of Child Protection Services:

During 2011, Highland CPC participated in a national review of public awareness of child protection. This is ongoing and should result in a suite of national child protection awareness materials.

Highland CPC undertook considerable activity to maintain awareness of services to protect children and to ascertain the views of service users, potential clients and the general public.

In addition to posters, leaflets and promotional items, the following methods were used to raise awareness of child protection issues and services:



Adverts were placed in Yellow Pages and on Yell.Com.



Child Protection was hi-lighted in Highland Council’s annual public performance newsletter to households across Highland.



A 4 page supplement was taken out in Highland Life Magazine to publicise key findings of the 2009/10 CPC Annual Report and key child safety messages.



Magazine adverts were placed in Vue cinema programme publications during school holiday periods when major children’s films were premiered.



Scenarios were run on Moray Firth Radio during saturation campaigns at key holiday times, when children and parents are more likely to be at home. These were supported by information on the MFR website.

23


April 2010– March 2011



A joint child and adult protection advert was created by LBTV and aired on the big screen at Eastgate Shopping complex, the largest in Highland, for one week in

March 2011.



Joint child and adult protection bus headliners were located on key routes across

Highland.



Adverts were placed in local newspapers’ Help supplements and Children’s charity supplements. The majority were accompanied by 150 – 300 words of editorial drawing attention to the need for action.



Press releases were put out in relation to the Scottish Offender Disclosure Scheme and Protection of Vulnerable Groups, etc. Leaflets about the Offender Disclosure scheme were also made available at information points and on-line.



A letter was sent out to parents of secondary school children advising them of the dangers of ‘sexting’ and leaflets were distributed to pupils on internet safety.

Additionally a drama was developed to engage pupils in discussion about internet safety and an e-safety website was developed for children and parents: http://highlandesafety.wordpress.com/

 Integrated Children’s Services amalgamated the former FHC and Child Protection websites to produce a new-look, streamlined single website: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/



A website was designed to assist staff with ethical decision making with regard to dealing with reports of under-age sexual activity: http://www.husp.org.uk/

 Women’s Aid ran the ‘Not Safe at Home’ event (1 st

Nov 2010), which highlighted the importance of services to women, children and young people with experience of Domestic Abuse.



The Care and Learning Alliance (CALA) created an ICT and Communications post to improve and update communications with member groups, particularly using the CALA website and social media opportunities.



Other issues covered included Trafficking awareness and the new Child

Abduction Rescue Alert.

To discover more about public awareness and use of, confidence in and satisfaction with services to protect children in Highland questions were asked both in the

Highland Council Public Performance Survey (2010) and in an awareness survey

35 undertaken during the screening of the advert at the Eastgate Centre. (Further detail is given in Section 6)

A question was also placed in Highland’s Lifestyle Survey of school pupils to gain some insight into help seeking behaviour and work was undertaken with Highland

Youth Voice and Highland Children’s Forum to consider how best to enhance engagement with children and young people, to encourage self referral.

Review and Improvement:

The processes of audit, self evaluation and review have been reported earlier in this report. Following publication of the HMIe inspection report additional improvement activities were agreed with inspectors and included in the rolling Action plan 3 . The plan is included at Appendix 2 and reports progress against the agreed actions up to

31 st

March 2011.

24


April 2010– March 2011

A report on specific activity to address the deficit in out-of-hours forensic medical examinations in relation to child sexual abuse is included at Appendix 7.

In addition to the actions specified in the multi-agency CPC action plan and those already described within this report there has been considerable additional activity to develop and improve services for children in need of early intervention and protection. These include:



Considerable work around the issue of transitions for young people in the ‘Looked

After’ system or in need of continuing support into adulthood:

- Development and launch of tools to facilitate effective transition between Child

 and adult services, including protection services.

- The inclusion of both child and adult protection clauses in contracts relating to

Activity Agreements and Self Directed Support for Young People aged 16 – 18 years.

- Employment Training scheme for school-leavers in the through care and aftercare system, with employment support from Barnardos

A report on the interface between Highland Child Protection Committee (CPC) and Highland Alcohol & Drugs Partnership(ADP)

36 was made to the national short-life working group and shows that the following issues, in relation the children affected by parental substance misuse (CAPSM) were dealt with in the 18 months to March 2011:

Young Carers’ experience of living with parental substance misuse.

Supporting the development of a Children 1 st bid and pilot project in respect of providing Family Group Conferencing services for pregnant substance misusers and CAPSMs.

Working with the Polish community in Highland to meet their information needs.

Consultation and ratification of the NHS Highland Substance Misuse and

Pregnancy Pathway.

Dissemination of the findings of a fostering and adoption report on the high level of CAPSMs coming into the LAC system.

Contributing to joint public awareness events and to a conference on vulnerabilities as risk factors in Child Protection.

A master class on Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) with Dr Raj

Mukhajee.

Consultation on the Licensing Board Policy Statement.

Work with Health Promoting Schools leads.

Dissemination of a briefing on Mephadrone and cascade of warnings in respect of dangers to drug users, etc.

Consideration of the needs of substance misusing prisoners and their children.



In line with the recommendations of a Care Commission report on Private

Fostering it was agreed that an annual report would go to the CPC from the

Director of Social Work. The Fostering Annual Return to the Care Commission

37 for 2010 shows position at Dec 31 st

2010 as:

No private foster carers approved

No applications still to be processed

No notifications of private fostering arrangements in place at 31 Dec 2010.

25


April 2010– March 2011



Within the voluntary sector:

- The Care and Learning Alliance appointed a Family Support Manager to lead

CALA family support workers and volunteers, and CALA Toddler Group

Facilitators.

-

Inverness Women’s Aid – made changes to existing universal services to provide a service to children and was successful in applying to Scottish Government for funding to create a new service. This replaces the previous children’s workers with a Family Support Worker to support the child(ren) and mother to work with the Lead Professional and Named Person in the context of a single Child’s Plan, in line with GIRFEC.

26


April 2010– March 2011

HOW WELL ARE THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MET?

6. What we achieved:

As outlined in previous sections of this report, Highland CPC has systems in place to measure the perceptions of stakeholder groups and to evaluate outcomes for children in need of protection and their families. Additionally, these perceptions and outcomes are regularly explored during external inspections.

Outcomes for Children and Families:

In April 2010

‘It is not about money or resources. It is about empathy and intuition’ 21 was published by Highland Children’s Forum. This was the final report of the Getting it Right for Every Child consultation with children and families.

A total of 24 families agreed to participate in the consultation, which covered the following topics:

1.

When concerns were first identified, how well listened to did you feel?

2.

When professionals were trying to develop a picture of what was going on to cause the concern, were you helped to identify strengths and pressures in your life?

3.

Did you feel enabled to make a contribution to the plan that was drawn up?

4.

How helpful were those plans in making things better?

5.

A main ethos behind the new approach to children’s services is that they are child centred. Child centred means a child is viewed as a child first, then as a child with support needs second. Can you describe your experience of this child centredness?

A variety of methods were used to consult with both children and parents and the results analysed and discussed.

The report noted that:

- For those children who had been or are on the child protection register, the initial time of investigation about the concerns raised was a time when the parents felt it might have been looking at the needs of the child but it was not handled in a way that was supportive of the parents. Their distress at the time was compounded by not knowing what was happening and what might happen.

No one would argue that a robust risk assessment which looks at the needs of the child first is an essential part of the response to a child protection concern and this is very much a part of the Getting it Right approach. However, it may be ultimately more child centred if the parents are given separate support at the time of the initial investigation; someone who can explain what is going on, manage parental expectations and anxiety and support the family through whatever proceedings are required. This is likely to help families be able to work with services in any subsequent plan.

- For some families whose children had been removed, there had come a time afterwards when they did feel listened to and supported and able to contribute to the child protection plans and work towards having their child living at home again.

27


April 2010– March 2011

- Most families seemed to expect services to work together. The only examples of services not working together were historical. However, the Named Person and Lead

Professional role were not often mentioned by the child or parents. Most families knew who they could speak to in order review the plan. For many families there was a different practitioner with whom the family had a good relationship and who they could speak to.

- Where assessment involved families in identifying both strengths and pressures around the triangle this has enabled the family to feel supported. Sometimes there was a perception that there was too much emphasis on the family’s past or too little focus on the needs of siblings.

- In each of the cases where social work were involved in the initial assessment, the family did not feel listened to and involved at that point; some of the families have gone on to feel more involved now. A social work assessment may make a family feel threatened and at risk of being torn apart. This would not be an easy time to ensure that parents felt supported and involved. Again advocacy for the parents might help engage them.

- Not all families seemed sure if they had a paper copy of the Child’s Plan. Families seemed to be more interested in whether the plans were actioned and appropriate than whether paper copies were shared.

- In terms of the planning, there was a mixed response regarding involvement of children and families.

- Families had more to say about the planning meetings than the actual plans.

Children’s Panels were praised for listening, but consistency in at least one panel member would be helpful. Other meetings tended to be too formal, have people present who were not directly involved with the child, used jargon and be held at a time and place that was service centred. Where this was not the case and meetings were child and family focused, families were better able to contribute.

- Most children were now experiencing improved outcomes, those who did not report improved outcomes tended to be the children on the child protection register.

- Where there was improvement for families including those on the register, there tended to be one identified person who was key to that. It was the Action for

Children or other voluntary sector support worker in quite a few cases.

The report concluded that:

The new approach of child centred practice, in dialogue with children and families, working in partnership across services and using the Getting it Right tools is liked by children and families and being listened to and feeling supported is key to enabling them to move forward.

The current experience of children and families varies in terms of this approach.

Where the new approach is used from the beginning parents have had a very positive experience of services.

28


April 2010– March 2011

Overall children and families agree that the Getting it Right approach would get it right for them, even if this is not being achieved yet.

It was noted that there are some excellent examples of good practice in this report which could inspire others.

The families made a series of recommendations for further improvement, as follows:

• Listen well and have empathy

• Don’t jump to conclusions

• Explain

• Don’t use jargon

• Provide information

• Prepare families for meetings

• Advocacy for parents in child protection

• Organise meetings to suit family

• Consider the needs of siblings

• Develop understanding of child’s needs

• Use strategies when they are agreed

• Provide some consistency

The full report is available on: www.highlandchildrensforum.org

As the HCF report was published in April 2010 many of the actions described in previous sections of this CPC Annual Report were taken to address the issues raised.

In particular, road-shows

24

were used as opportunities to engage with staff around the child protection process, use of the Highland Practice Model and, in particular, assessment and planning. Training has been reviewed and strengthened.

Staff Perceptions:

Staff were consulted about tools, information and training that would be helpful to them in improving practice confidence and competence. As a result the existing

Integrated Children’s Services and Child Protection websites have been integrated and completely revised. The new website is external to partner agency intranet sites and is therefore accessible to staff in all agencies. It will be used for all key documentation, practice guidance and toolkits: www.forhighlandschildren.org

As previously reported, over 1,000 staff members attended the road-shows to launch the revised Child Protection Guidance and the Highland Practice Model. Both involved workshops where staff had the opportunity to raise concerns and ask questions about the use of the guidance and the practice model. This resulted in the production of a FAQ section for the updated website and a change in emphasis in training on the use of the practice model.

Early in 2011 it was announced that the Highland Council and NHS Highland were to explore the possibility of complete integration of key children’s services under the auspices of a joint board, with Highland Council becoming the lead provider.

Similarly, NHS Highland would become lead provider for key Adult Services. Staff groups were involved in the initial exploration and continue to be consulted as the

Pathways to Integration (P4I) are being developed: http://ntintra1/p4i/

29


April 2010– March 2011

Community Perceptions:

The Highland Council undertakes a Public Perception Survey 18 on an annual basis. http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F898192E-90FD-4354-A804-

D6B83C072C7F/0/Item14PerformanceSurveyResults2010FinalReport.pdf

In 2010 a total of 2,354 questionnaires were sent out and 1,586 responses were received. This is considered to be a robust sample.

Findings:

 The appearance of ‘Services to protect children’ in respondents’ lists of the 5 most important services provided by the Highland Council rose from 8% in 2009 to



11% in 2010.

A quarter of those who completed the relevant section of the survey stated that they had used services to protect children.





Net satisfaction rates for services to protect children rose from 14% to 24% between 2009 and 2010, and are the highest recorded since this question was included in the survey in 2007.

Less than 1% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the way that complaints about services to protect children were handled. During 2010/11 only 6 complaints were received in relation to child protection cases and none was upheld.

Additional questions were asked in Highland CPC’s Public Awareness Survey 2011 35 .

Whilst the sample size was small there was general consistency with the larger sample used for the January 2010 survey.

Findings:

 The percentage of respondents who rated themselves as ‘very aware’ of child

 protection issues rose in all age groups except those aged 46 – 65 years.

There was an increase from 40% to 62% of respondents who claimed to have noticed Highland CPC child protection materials.



There was no significant change in levels of confidence in child protection services, with just below 80% of respondents being ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ confident in them. However, only 5.9% of respondents stated that they had ‘No Confidence’ in

 services, compared to 10.3% in 2010.

The reporting of concerns was consistent with the findings of the Highland

Council survey. Where concerns were not reported reasons given included:

- The concern was already being dealt with.

- The concern was historical and the respondent had not known, at that time, who to report it to. This would not be the case now as the respondent is very aware of what to do.

- The concern was current but the respondent had not noticed the CPC material and was unsure how to report it. This respondent was provided with relevant information at the time of the survey and promised to make the referral.

30


April 2010– March 2011

HOW ARE SERVICES IMPROVING?

7. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Services:

Inspection:

Highland was subject to a number of inspections, which included reference to Child

Protection links, during 2010/11. These included Care Commission inspections of

Fostering & Adoption, Women’s Aid Refuges and Early Years provision. In line with the ethos of light touch inspection for services that had done well in previous inspections, the Care Commission inspected 1 or 2 specific quality indicators under the heading: ‘Quality of Care and Support’ The majority were rated ‘Very Good’, with some elements rated ‘Excellent’. These inspections tended to validate the findings of the previous HMIe inspection of services to protect children. In particular, inspectors noted continuing improvement, excellent information about service provision, and an ethos and culture that empowered children and young people.

1;9;17

In addition to reporting on its earlier inspection of Services to Protect Children in

Highland, HMIe reported on a ‘Validated Self Evaluation’ undertaken with Highland

Education Directorate and an inspection of the Educational Psychology Service.

Themes included ‘Health and Wellbeing’ and ‘Getting it Right for Every Child’.

Inspectors noted that there are “strong and effective local partnerships….almost all having a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of our vulnerable young people and families”

; and also that

“Children’s Plans are clear in identifying the responsibilities and action of key partners……positive impact on the child….reduced and more appropriate referrals to social work and the Children’s Reporter….fewer children are being taken into emergency care…Overall, there are improved outcomes for children in the majority of cases.”

Despite these praises it was noted that there were still some areas in which further improvement could be made, in particular:



Further work to minimise barriers to a shared and clear understanding of the needs of children and young people.



More transparency needed re: the rationale for resource allocation.

Local Inspection and Systems Review:

Highland Care and Learning Alliance (CALA) carried out 26 Early Years partner centre Quality Assurance visits

38

during this period and commented on Child

Protection Quality Indicators for Key area 2. The same discussion is also had within

Out-of-School Quality Assurance visits. Whilst no grading was applied, CALA staff did not come across any issues. They found that, in general, all CALA Early Years staff are clear on the need for regular child protection training, for appropriate information sharing, for accurate and timely recording of information, etc.

In the autumn of 2010, a second audit was made to test the robustness of the Child

Concern System for sharing information following the introduction of generic mailboxes for Social Work Services, Education and Health together with a fixed telephone call between PPU Officers on a thrice weekly basis

31

.

Findings:

Of the 33 audited incidents leading to raising a Police Child Concern Form (CCF)

82% were with the ‘Named Person’ (NP) within 72 hours of the incident taking place.

31


April 2010– March 2011

In the majority of the remaining 18% there was the period of Police/Social Work enquiry ongoing and the NP was party to this and therefore aware of the incident prior to the receipt of the CCF.

It was concluded that the change in process to the CCF has provided a streamlined efficient method of information and response to children and young people whilst highlighting areas that require further consideration and possible changes to the guidance in place.

Feedback from the agencies involved was largely positive. However, it flagged up areas requiring further discussion:

1.

The effectiveness of the system and process is subject to consistency of staff availability and therefore there is an inherent frailty in periods of unforeseen staff absence or unexpected demand on any agency that is part of the chain.

2.

Confidence is required that relevant parties will be alerted immediately if a difficulty with the system presents itself so it can be addressed promptly and if necessary additional support put in place to ensure there is not a breakdown in the system.

3.

Police have voiced concern that Social Work Managers do not record all CCFs discussed. They feel it would be beneficial to have a database that stores information about the child(ren) as this would ensure that no information is missed when assessing a child’s needs outwith office/school hours. In the absence of a joined up IT system and the capacity to have such a database a request has been made to the Children’s Chief Officers’ Group to put in place an interim solution, utilising the Social Work Carefirst system.

4.

It is sometimes difficult to follow up on the outcome for the child/young person as a result of the CCF being raised in some cases where children were already known to social work due to the method of recording information.

5.

Where information is being sent to the NP in Health or Education for consideration of discussion with the Integrated Services Officer (ISO) the ISO is not aware of these and therefore unable to take a proactive approach.

6.

Health colleagues have indicated that they would find it beneficial to receive all

CCFs to enable, for example, School Nurses to receive a copy. Similarly it would be considered beneficial for education to receive a copy of the CCF for all children in pre-school provision.

7.

Children affected by disability are not easily identified from the CCF.

A number of small practice issues have been addressed directly with the PPU Officers and also at a meeting with the Social Work Team Managers and steps taken to address these. Recommendations for addressing issues relating to IT have been made to the

Children’s Chief Officer’s Group 39

.

As noted previously in this report protocols and guidance have been reviewed and updated as necessary. The HMIe inspection of services to protect children covered the

32


April 2010– March 2011



 effectiveness of existing activity. The review of the effectiveness of improvement actions initiated during 2010/11 will be undertaken after the appropriate time interval for embedding of change and achievement of impact.

Ongoing Improvement Plans:

As noted earlier in this report, Highland CPC holds an annual review event 5 following which the priorities for the coming year, together with any additional actions, are submitted to the Safer Highland Leadership Group for scrutiny

10

and, subsequently added to the rolling three year action plan

3

.

Additional priorities for the remainder of 2010/11 were identified as:



Review and revision of CPC inter-agency child protection guidelines in light of the updated National guidance.



Agreement and implementation of a protocol on handling allegations of under-age sexual activity

40

.







Priorities for 2011/12 were identified as:



Continuation of actions to address deficits in relation to out-of-hours forensic medical examinations in relation to child sexual abuse.

Updating of in-house Child Protection Guidance for staff in CPC partner agencies.

Updating of Child Protection Guidance for Community Groups.



Further development of joint initial assessments to support effective early intervention and support for children and families

Development of an interim solution to electronic sharing of information pending



 the introduction of a viable national system.

Updating of information for children and families about the range of support, advice and advocacy services

Development of a framework for monitoring and QA across the range of



 interventions.

Review and streamlining of protocols for Missing Children and Families.

Review and standardisation of local guidance on the conduct of serious/significant case reviews across vulnerable groups.

Audit of current processes for commissioning translation/interpretation services.

Preparation for the introduction of Visual Recording of Child Witnesses.

33


April 2010– March 2011

APPENDIX 1

Key Reference Material:

No Description

1 HMIe Joint Inspection of Services to Protect Children and Young People in the

Highland Council area – 4 th

May 2010

2

‘For Highland’s Children 3’,

3 Highland CPC rolling 3 year Action Plan with Outcomes Triangle

4 Single agency plans and minutes of planning/action/executive group meetings

5 Notes of CPC Review Day 2010

6 Best Value submission

7 CPC Budget

8 Examples of internal bulletins and briefings

9 HMIe validated Self-Evaluation of Education Services, and Inspection of

Educational psychology Services 2010.

10 Safer Highland minutes and papers

11 The Highland Council Quality Awards Scheme

12 The Employee Development Programme Annual Report

13

‘Highland Practice Model’

14

Highland interagency ‘Child Protection Policy Guidelines’

15 CPC, Delivery Group and task group minutes and papers

16

The documents listed under ‘Key Developments since 2009/10 Evaluation –

Guidance, Policy and Protocols.

17 Care Commission Inspections, including ‘Highland Council Fostering Service’ and ‘Highland Council Adoption Service’ (Both October 14 th

Women’s Aid services in Highland.

2010), plus

18 The Highland Council Public performance Survey 2010

19 Paper to JCCYP on Highland performance against validated good practice in raising awareness of child safety and protection issues.

20 Highland Youth Voice conference reports

21

‘It is not about money or resources. It is about empathy and intuition’ –

Highland Children’s Forum

22

‘Who Cares? Scotland’ Service Level Agreement

23 Highland Data Sharing Partnership Information Sharing Guidelines

24 Roadshow programmes, attendance lists and products

25 Minutes and papers of National Forums, Lead/Training Officer Groups and working groups

26

Integrated Children’s Services Quality Assurance Group minutes, papers and products

27 Highland CPC protocol for joint case file reading for QA purposes

28 Quarterly Reports to Chief Exec and Annual Return to Scottish Government

29 Scottish Government Internet safety Competition – award for Best Resource

30 Report on the planned approach to self evaluation of Social Work Services

2011/12

31 Audits and evaluations as listed

32

Child’s Plans and ‘bridge’

33 Leaflet for Children & Families attending a Child’s Plan meeting

34

Director of Social Work’s Annual report

35 Public Awareness Survey Report and publicity materials

34


April 2010– March 2011

36 Report for National Working Group on the interface between Highland Alcohol

& Drugs Partnership (ADP) and Highland Child Protection Committee (CPC)

37 The Fostering Annual Return to the Care Commission 2010

38 Reports of the Care & Learning Alliance (CALA) quality assurance visits to early years and out-of-schools provision

39

Children’s Chief Officer Group (COG) minutes and papers

40 Highland Under-age Sexual Health Protocol

35


April 2010– March 2011

APPENDIX 2

HIGHLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ACTION PLAN

2010-2013

Summary Report

36


April 2010– March 2011

HIGHLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ACTION PLAN 2010 - 2013 (v6a)

The Highland Child Protection Committee Action Plan 2010-2013 builds on the rolling 3 year work-plan and forms an integral part of the ‘SAFE’ element of Highland Integrated Children’s Services Plan – ‘For Highland’s

Children 3’.

Vision:

All Highland’s children have the best start in life; enjoy being young; and are supported to develop as confident, capable and resilient, to fully maximise their potential. Children and young people should be protected from abuse, neglect and harm by others, at home, at school and in the community.

Functions of the CPC:

The functions of a Child Protection Committee are continuous improvement , strategic planning , public information and communication . The work of the Child Protection Committee must be reflected in local practice and meet local needs. The Following lists the core business functions of Child Protection Committees and provides a working framework:

Continuous Improvement



Policies, procedures and protocols



Self-evaluation, performance management and quality assurance



Promoting good practice



Training and staff development

Strategic Planning



Communication, collaboration and co-operation



Making and maintaining links with other planning for a

Public Information and Communication



Raising public awareness



Involving children and young people and their families.

Outcomes Triangle

W e have improved the life chances for children, young people and families at risk.

•Children are safe

•Children at risk are Looked After well

•Reduce bureaucracy and number of meetings using GIRFE C processes and systems

NATIONAL OUTCOMES (NPF)

HIGH LEVEL OUTCOMES -

SINGLE OUTCOME AGREEMENT

GOVERNMENT

REPORTING –

NATIONAL

PERFORMANCE

FRAMEWORK AND

SOA’S enjoy being young and are supported to develop as confident, capable and resilient, to fully maximise their potential. Highland’s children and young people are home, at school and in the community.

Children are listened to, understood and respected.

Children and young people benefit from strategies to minimise harm.

Children and young people are helped by the actions taken in immediate response to concerns.

ICS OUTCOME

INTERMEDIATE

LEVEL

OUTCOMES

(HMIE)

PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

Confidence that young people do refer and selfrefer when they should

Involvement of children & young people in their own planning and decision making

There is a co-ordinated approach to youth involvement in policy and service development

Children and young people are aware about keeping themselves safe in their use of the internet.

Children get consistent help from people they can trust

Confidence in the positive impact of public awareness campaign

Young people get access to services that are appropriate, proportionate and timely on the basis of assessed need

Effective provision and coordination of long-term counselling and support services

Good assessment of risks and needs

SHORT

TERM

OUTCOMES

W ritten child’s plans are fit for purpose; actions described in the plan are determined by the assessment and desired outcomes

Each agency has a system to identify and record professional development needs and to feed these back into the planning mechanisms for training

S trategic and deliverable approach to quality assurance

37


April 2010– March 2011

The plan contributes to Highland’s

Single Outcome Agreement priorities :

•

Our young people are successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens

•

Our children have the best start in life and are ready to succeed

•

We have improved the life chances for children, young people and families at risk

•

We live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger

•

We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others

In line with this Agreement the following subsection contained in Section 4 of the

‘

Single Outcome Agreement 2

–

2009/11

’

is of particular relevance:

8.O Maintain good grading in Inspection reports of the Child Protection Committee inspection . However , much of the committee’s work should contribute to achieving a range of other local outcomes:



Local outcome 4.M Attitudes and behaviours towards alcohol and other drugs are changed and those in need are supported by better prevention and treatment services o Reduce the proportion of 13 and 15 year olds self-reporting using alcohol in the last week o Reduce the proportion of 13 and 15 year olds self-reporting using drugs in the last month



Local outcome 4.N The impact of poverty and disadvantage is reduced

–

All outcomes



Local outcome 5.O The cycle of deprivation is broken through intervention in early years



Local outcome 6.K Healthy life expectancy is improved especially for the most disadvantaged



The above outcomes are also reflected in Outcome 7.



Local Outcome 9.B No increase in the number of persistent young offenders

Local Administration’s Outcome targets for Children and Young People:

Young people are our future. This Administration will do all we can to foster their talents and work with them.

• to achieve full implementation of the Scottish Government’s policy of “Getting it Right for Every

Child” which will ensure that all children get the help they need when they need it, by 2008;

• to give a high priority to corporate parenting responsibilities for Highland’s looked after children including educational attainment; transition to work; further and higher education and training; support at home; more family placements and fewer children living outwith the Highlands;

• to involve young people in the decision making process and to support the continued development of Highland Youth Voice and the Scottish Youth Parliament to represent the interests of young people in the Highlands;

Legend For Action Plan:

RAG rating

B Completed

G

A

R

On course for completion to timescale

Progressing but some slippage

No significant progress

Progress not yet required

38


April 2010– March 2011

ACTION PLAN 2010-2013 HIGHLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

PRIORITY

1) Children get consistent help from people they can trust

2) Children and young people are aware about keeping themselves safe in their use of the internet.

ACTIONS i - GIRFEC guidance to include advice on handover of Named

Person or Lead

Professional responsibilities ii - Every plan specifically identifies named person or lead professional iii - Lead professional changes identified in chronology iv - Focussed approach to recruitment and retention of specialist staff and social workers. v – Focus on trusted adult for vulnerable groups vi. - Development and recruitment of staff into the post of Integrated

Services Officer vii- Develop 4 ‘How to’ guides per year following masterclasses & participant feedback. i - Complete suite of advice and guidance

TIMESCALE

Sept 2010

April 2010 subject to SG progress rate

April 2010 subject to SG progress rate

Ongoing

2010 -11

2010 -11

2010 - 13

June 2009

RESPONSIBILITIES

Head of Integrated

Children’s Services

Service Manager’s Groups

Service Manager

’ s Groups a) NHS General Manager

Women &

Children’s Services b) Head of ICS

Head of ICS and Service

Manager’s Groups

Head of ICS and Service

Manager’s Groups

CPC DO & Training

Officer and COs

E-safety group.

PROGRESS

Guidance includes this.

In place, and format being updated so

NP/LP and whether on CPR or LAC is clearer at the front.

Revised plan needs to be developed.

Expected February 2011.

Still awaiting National guidance. Local guidance to include instruction and training to emphasise this. Audit shows that most plans have serious events chronology. LP changes need to be noted in CareFirst Admin rather than serious events chronology.

Named paediatrician on the rota every weekday since January, barring 2 days covered by on call paediatrician.

Future rota planning considerably enhanced.

Social Worker vacancies addressed.

Currently full. If issues arise, will revisit.

.

Head of ICS to discuss with HCF

Recruitment of ISOs and ISCs complete.

Series of 4 one-off events mapped out for the coming year and ‘How to’ guides will be developed based on literature and participant feedback..

Autism guide due for publication

March 2011

Feb 2009 – all young people supplied with leaflets, and guidance for staff and parents/carers.

By 2012 - Revised Guidance for

Children and Young People

Professionals

Parents and Carers

Revised Policy on taking and use of images in ECS establishments

RAG

B

A

R

G

B

G

B

G

B

39


April 2010– March 2011

3) Young people involved in underage sex are protected from harm, and appropriately supported by services

4) Young people get access to services that are appropriate, proportionate and timely on the basis of assessed need ii - Rollout training programme through schools iii) A minimum of 1 teacher in every school trained to deliver esafety awareness iv) Develop an e-safety awareness slot for Safe

Highlander. v) Parents to be notified of the dangers inherent in children’s use of mobile technology and

‘sexting’.

i - Confirmation and implementation of protocol ii - Finalise and issue

Highland GIRFEC guidance iii - Finalise and issue

CP guidance i - Sustain practice change as a result of implementation of

GIRFEC

ECS and NHS staff adopt and complete

Early Interventions

Plans ii. Share the Child’s

Plan through the eCare framework via the MAS iii. Achieve access to key information in

CareFirst for PPUs and

Raigmore.

2010 – 2011

April 2011

May 2011

Dec 2010

Date to be set once national guidance available.

Implementation date for Act Dec

2010.

Sept 2010

June 2009

Ongoing

April 2010 and ongoing

June 2010

E-safety group.

E-safety group.

E-safety group.

E-safety group.

Sexual Health Protocol task group.

Head of ICS

Head of ICS with guidance task group.

NHS General Manager

Women &

Children’s Services

ECS Service Managers

Group eCare stakeholder Group eCare stakeholder Group

Dedicated Highland e-safety website established with resources, guidance and training. One day course has been designed and delivered as cascade training. Dedicated sessions delivered to groups of professionals and carers and opportunities explored with the private sector. Single point of contact in ECS but police and other support in background.

Guidance put out via web. Reported to committee in November. S2 target

2,594 pupils to receive e-safety education – 2,542 have now received this. Support also provided to LAAC.

All schools to ensure that each year group has covered E-Safety education

Safe Highlander slot across all

Highland delivery events.

Annual letter distributed to all parents of school age children. Additional publicity via Press & Journal coverage of story and Highland Life supplement.

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 enacted 1 st December 2010. National

Guidance released 3 rd December 2010.

Updated protocol to December 15 th

CPC for endorsement and adopted by

Northern Constabulary. Web resource being piloted for launch in April.

Launched in September 2010.

CP guidance published and process of dissemination complete.

Auditing under way to ensure single agency Health plans are in place.

Snapshot Audit complete

NHS Single agency plans making steady progress

Bernadette Cairns auditing the number of multi-agency Early Intervention

Plans led by Lead professionals based in Education

SWS ability to publish to MAS is ongoing (Amber). Other partners serious challenges. (Red)

Raigmore and Northern Constabulary do not see a present business benefit to

CareFirst for PPUs.

B

2009 –

2010

B

G

G

B

B

B

B

G

G

A

40


April 2010– March 2011 iv Create interim access to Child’s Plan for partner agencies.

March 2011 eCare stakeholder Group Project replaces 4iii above. G

5) Adult services are able to identify and act when a child is vulnerable and in need of support

6)

Effective provision and co-ordination of long-term counselling and support services i - Complete and act on work on GIRFEC tools in adult services

. i - Strategy for counselling and support services ii - Child’s plans include long term support needs iii - Support effective transition into adult services iv - Training of foster carers

Dec2011

Dec 2009

March 2011

March 2010 and annually ongoing.

Head of ICS

Service Manager’s Groups

& CP/TCAC Resource Mgr

Transitions COG

CPTO with Manager

Adoption & Fostering

Work on tools for use with adults in contact with children not progressed as yet – still in discussion with Scottish

Government.

This target has been dropped in favour of working with Safer Highland partners on this issue.

2008 seminar provided a focal point for awareness. Strategy outstanding.

Annual sample of Plans to be audited by CP/TCAC Resource Manager and

CPDO. Periodic auditing at local level.

Clear evidence of long term planning, but higher standard is sought.

Transition tools developed, and work on

‘the Bridge’ for the Child’s Plan complete.

Transition guidance in use.

COG and workstreams being progressed.:

1) ‘More Choices, More Chances’ – significant activity re: what should be in the plan at the point of transition.

Activity agreements improving positive destinations for young people leaving school

2) Self directed support project test site being piloted. Full project in place

3) Support Employment - Protocols in place between Housing and CJS and

Children’s Services for throughcare arrangements.

Barnardos works in place for 16 – 18 year T&A Young People also identified and prioritised for activity agreements.

Employability training scheme being developed in Highland council

Gaps in provision for accommodation and employability being identified in rural communities with possible big lottery bid

Ongoing, according to CPC training strategy.

R

A

A

B

B

G

G

B

G

41

7)

Confidence that young people do refer and selfrefer when they should

8)

Confidence in the positive impact of public awareness campaign

9)

Involvement of children & young people in their own planning and decision making


April 2010– March 2011 i - Revise processes to measure referrals from young people ii - Public campaigns to focus on young people

2010 -2011

2009 - 2011 i - Revise processes to measure public confidence ii - Roll out of revised voluntary sector

GIRFEC programme for community groups.

Iii – Voluntary sector

GIRFEC programme for community groups annually repeated and reviewed

April 2010

March 2010

Ongoing i - Complete and act on work on GIRFEC tools for engagement with children & families ii – Consider the contribution of advocacy to Child

Protection Processes and commission new

Children’s Rights service iv - Guidance for children and families about range of support, advice & advocacy services, during planning processes. v - Clear framework for monitoring and QA across range of interventions

June 2010

Sept 2010

June 2010

Mar 2011

March 2011

Dec 2010

Dec 2010

CPDO

CPDO

CPDO

KCS

KCS

QAROs and ISCs

Gillian Newman/HCF

ICS QuAG

Resource Manager LAC

&CP

CPDO & Who Cares

Scotland

ICS QuAG & COs

Manual audit demonstrates the complexity of this measure. Not realistic to continue.

Radio campaign run during Holiday periods. HYV invited to advise on best approach for further awareness raising –

SPICE event and HYV consultation events. HYV consulted on website content. New communications strategy to be produced in 2011.

THC results and Northern results now available. Survey of 294 members of the public carried out by LBV during the week 11th – 17th February 2010, analysed and reported on.

8 x 1 day sessions rolled out to vol. sector EYs groups and more planned.

New format much more effective.

Training to communities continues on a rolling basis throughout the year.

Demand remains high in all geographical areas of Highland. The programme combines CP within

GIRFEC/Highland Pathway ethos. a) Consistent use of child’s plan and regularly audited. b) Transitions electronic tool kit on

HCF website will have link on updated

FHC website. c) Response to QuARO letters audited d) Training program to target skill set for face-to-face work.

New SLA for enhanced service agreed with ‘Who Cares? Scotland’. Draft SLA nearing completion.

CPDO and WCS to work together to develop involvement. Who cares provide a range of leaflets and information to all LAC in relation to children’s rights and advocacy.

Review of mechanisms, self evaluation and continuous improvement ongoing.

Strategy outstanding. Report for JCCYP currently being produced. Report submitted and agreed by Joint committee. Framework in place and programme

G

B

B

G

G

G

A

G

G

G

G

42

10)

Good assessment of risks and needs


April 2010– March 2011 vi - Rollout of Plans for

Hearings Protocol across Highland, and extension of Protocol to include guidance on preparing children and families i - Finalise and issue

GIRFEC and CP guidance ii - Ensure suite of training for all staff involved in assessment iii – a) Ensure child concern form system is working b) Continue development and refinement of use of

Child Concern form. iv - Full rota of paediatric support v - Ensure children with multi-agency needs who require specialist health assessments are getting them through explicit pathways vi. Ensure that staff are clear about the respective roles and linkage of the Liaison

Meeting, SMG and

COG

Rollout complete

Extension by

1/9/10

Authority Reporter

SCRA

Reporter with Mhairi

Morrison and SMG

April 2010

Sept 2010

Dec 2009

Ongoing

March 2010

Ongoing (Need to audit regularly to monitor improvement

June 2009

)

Current and into

2010 -2011

2010 - 2011

Head of ICS with guidance group.

CPTO with Training Group

& additional SWS and NHS input.

Service Manager’s

Groups/QuAG

Service Manager’s

Groups/QuAG

NHS - Director Community

Care

Children’s COG

Head of ICS, COG and

SMGs

Rollout of Protocol complete.

Evaluation completed re quality of plans provided. Range of actions identified and implemented to help improve quality.

Ongoing monitoring of Plans via SMG and Reporter & SW Teams. Extension to take place once that process complete.

Latter task still needs to be completed

As above:

CPC guidance

GIRFEC guidance a) Assessment training taking place for

Social Work staff and also incorporated into multi-agency Child Protection courses. It will also form part of the training at the Spring Seminars for ICS b) Further inter-agency training being organised. Area learning sets – groups around children. Team Managers keen to lead with CPAs.

Stirling University lead professional pilot course commenced in September

2009. Level 4 training provided by

David Howe. Also awaiting outcome of current national work on risk assessment.

2 audits complete.

Clinics and emergency slots on

Mondays. Forensic paediatric service not comprehensive. Local

Paediatricians have agreed to training once this is available with Collated

Position Statement.

Significant work undertaken in relation to paediatrics and mental health – pathways developed. Impact still to be assessed and to be audited at future date.

Information prepared and restated in guidance published in September 2010.

Covered at guidance events and reaffirmed through practitioner forums.

B

G

B

B

G

G

B

B

B

A

B

R

43

11)

Written child’s plans are fit for purpose; actions described in the plan are determined by the assessment and desired outcomes i - Confirm fit for purpose summary criteria for written child’s plan ii - Rollout and evaluate impact of Plans for

Hearings Protocol:

- Process

- Quality iii – Ensure that Health assessments are accurately reflected in

Child’s Plans.

12)

There is a coordinated approach

to youth involvement in policy and service development


April 2010– March 2011

2010 – 2011

Sept 2009

Ongoing evaluation

June 2011

Head of ICS

Authority Reporter SCRA with Service Manager’s

Groups

Resource Manager CP &

LAC with LAC Nurse and

Lead Nurse CPA. i - Youth Convenor,

Highland Youth Voice, representatives of hardto-reach groups and other existing mechanisms to be actively involved in informing policy and service development – including review of membership of CPC. ii - Fully comprehensive youth participation strategy.

March 2010 and ongoing

March 2010

Chair of CPC with Safer

Highland

Head of CLL.

Criteria contained in guidance published Sept 2010.

Evaluation to date confirms systems largely effective.

Rollout of Protocol completed. Process largely effective. Significant benefits

Evaluation of quality of Plans complete on basis of information of information gathered since 1/12/08. Range of actions identified and implemented to help improve quality resulting in significant benefits. Ongoing monitoring to continue refinement of

Child's Plan

To be audited following publication of revised guidance. Planned for Easter

2011.

Aide memoir developed to assist practice.

Public Protection restructuring includes

Youth Convener membership of CPC.

September SPICE event included CP issues and HYV conference also included CP issues. Links have been strengthened and Youth Convener engaged with Training Review. HYV involved in local and national consultations in relation to Child

Protection issues.

13)

Ensure each agency has a system to identify and record professional development needs and to feed these back into the planning mechanisms for training i - Ensure each agency has a system to identify and record professional development needs and to feed these back into the planning mechanisms for training. ii – Continue to ensure an integrated approach to training across children’s services, including fully combining CP and

GIRFEC.

March 2012

Ongoing and

2010 - 11

Children’s COG

CP Training Officer,

Training Staff across agencies and COG

Strategy has been to ECS Committee and process exists in practice. Actions being followed through. Review of activities and facilities for young people went to Mid January committee 2010.

Systems exist to identify and record professional development and training needs.

NHS PDP and review processes in place through eKSF for all staff except medical. Ongoing work to input CP

Training to ATL to support training need signal and application.

This is not measurable across the

Voluntary Sector as a whole, although many organisations assess training need and access suitable training provision.

Full integration of CP and GIRFEC courses achieved and linkage with majority of other training across children’s services.

Four JIIT courses run in 2010 at the request of THC. (Green)

B

B

B

G

G

B

A

G

44

14)

Strategic and deliverable approach to quality assurance


April 2010– March 2011 i - Annual review by chief officers to identify improvement priorities for the coming year . ii -New sources of data are identified and a framework is constructed to maximise effective use of information, including impact of child protection activities on outcomes for children. iii - Strategic approach to QA across children’s services. iv - Framework to be produced building on a reflective practice approach to Quality

Assurance. Giving staff tools and positive support to build QA into normal business processes

March 2011

March 2011

(Dependent on

National development)

Dec 2010

Ongoing

Leadership Group with

CPC.

ICS QuAG (Head of ICS &

CPDO)

Head of ICS with QA colleagues.

ICS QuAG, Practitioner

Forums with Service

Manager’s Group

Review took place on 24 th November

2010.

Self Evaluation process identified additional sources of evidence and management information. Discussions identified need to monitor current national developments in respect of management information and work with

ICS QuAG and FHC LOG to integrate these into the Children’s planning mechanism once .

CPC and ICS QuAGs merged in 2009.

Strategy currently in production.Plan approved by committee and in place

Individual partner agencies continue to embed the use of QA tools and processes. This year’s Self Evaluation process and HMIe inspection confirm progress.

Recent case review used to encourage reflective practice. Debrief model evaluated and embedded in NHS practice.

All SWS TMs have been asked to produce a plan outlining Improvement

Objectives linked to FHC3.

B

A

G

G

45


April 2010– March 2011

APPENDIX 3

Outline Budget 2010 - 2011

BUDGET 2010/11

CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE (18JA011)

Budget as assigned:

£ £

Staffing & Administration costs 92,000

Training Courses & Other Activities 35,500

Awareness Raising 10,000

Publications (Guidance & Publicity updates) 2,000

Total: 139,500

Income

CCSF contribution 10,000

Education Service

Northern Constabulary

31,000

31,000

Highland Health Board

Social Work Contribution

Housing

Total:

Administrative support is provided in kind.

Staffing:

Development Officer

Training Officer

Senior Clerical Assistant

HC9

HC8/9

CA2

31,000

31,000

5,500

139,500

1.0

1.0

0.8

2.8

46


April 2010– March 2011





APPENDIX 4

Learning from Case Reviews

A Debrief Model for Staff Involved in Complex, Challenging, Child and Family and /or Child Protection Cases – Peer Review Process:

A multi-agency debrief model was developed by NHS Highland and adopted by the

CPC for use by all member agencies. The model was reviewed in February 2008. The review evidences learning from multi-agency peer review of complex cases, including evaluation of the process.



Additionally staff across agencies have been involved in reviewing the recommendations of local and prominent national case reviews, e.g. Khyra Ishak,

Kristoffer Batt, Derbyshire baby AD09 and

‘Child Deaths in Scotland 1975 -2009’

, recommending actions to address any deficiencies in Highland. Illustrative examples from case reviews are utilised during training and the reports of local reviews are anonymised for use as a practitioner discussion tools.

Lessons from local case reviews that may be of interest to other CPCs include:



The multi agency Mental Health Network should consider whether an agreed protocol should be created for transfer of information between Community Mental

Health Teams. This should include consideration of items for information which should be transferred in every case, including assessments on risk.



In complex cases where individuals move between areas regularly and sometimes unpredictably, health and social care managers should consider whether continuity of care may be better delivered by one team maintaining care responsibilities.

Where a meeting refers to both procedures such as Protection of Vulnerable Adults and Child Protection it is recommended that standard documentation is used. If necessary, meetings should be divided into sections with clear decisions being made and actions attributed to relevant professionals. Standard lines of reporting for these existing procedures should be used.

Information about Perinatal Mental Health Services is communicated more widely to ensure all relevant staff understand the arrangements.

The professional staff who are currently caring for an individual should always receive a formal invitation to contribute to relevant Child Protection and

Vulnerable Adult meetings, even if they have not been closely involved in the individuals care in the past.



When circumstances change and make it seem likely that a multi-agency decision should be amended in the light of altered circumstances, the relevant Health and

Social Care Managers should consider how to rapidly revisit the decision with the individuals involved.

47


April 2010– March 2011



In cases where an Area Team or manager has alerted Out of Hours to a situation and sought a course of action to be followed, the Out of Hours Team should always contact the relevant manager before departing from that action. The Area

Team should ensure wherever possible that Out of Hours have all the relevant detail on the case.



While staff have a professional responsibility to familiarise themselves with relevant information, when dealing with a service which is not routinely involved with a particular type of legislation, the staff who have expertise in that area should consider what additional support for other professionals might be required.

48


April 2010– March 2011

APPENDIX 5

Training Report 2010/11

1.

Introduction

2010/11 proved another busy year for the Child Protection Training Group with the introduction of the new Highland Practice Guidance (replacing original

GIRFEC Guidance) and planning towards changes in the National and local Child

Protection Guidelines.

Development of both the Safer Highland agenda, and continued integration within

Children’s Services has also impacted on the work of the training group with stronger links being forged with other training streams – Violence Against

Women, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Substance Misuse etc.

2.

Highland Child Protection Training Group

The Highland Child Protection Training Group meets four to six times per year. In

2010/11, members of the Training Group included:

Donna Munro, Child Protection Training Officer, HCPC (Chair)

Pene Rowe, Child Protection Development Officer, HCPC

Barbara Black, Child Protection Training Co-ordinator, NHS Highland

Claire Collins, Training and Development Officer, Keeping Children Safe

Kevin Thomson, Highland Council Community Learning and Leisure

Eliz MacIntosh, Training Co-ordinator, Highland Council Education, Culture and

Sport

Barbara Davis, Training Officer, Highland Council Social Work

Eddie Ross, Detective Sergeant, Public Protection Unit, Northern Constabulary

Jennifer Baughan, Detective Constable, Public Protection Unit, Northern

Constabulary.

Lisa McClymont, Clerk to the Child Protection Committee (Minutes)

3.

Training Provision

In 2010/11 the training group continued to provide both Programme 1 and 2 courses in relation to Child Protection and Getting It Right for Every Child, and

Children Affected by Parental Substance Misuse. Statistics for this training are included in Appendix 1.

Whilst the Programme 1 training remains mainly within single agency provision, a standardised version of the training package now means that agency staff can attend any local event and receive the same messages and material. This prevents any member of staff having to wait long periods of time for awareness raising training, or travel long distances to receive this.

49


April 2010– March 2011

The Training Group has also maintained a commitment to the Fostering and

Adoption Service to provide a minimum of two training sessions per year in relation to child protection.

In addition, in 2010/11 the Training Group also contributed to the delivery and development of courses in relation to Children in Distress, Violence Against

Women and Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Trainers also supported the roll out of training and awareness raising in relation to the new

Highland Practice Guidance across Highland. This resulted in the launch of the website www.forhighlandschildren.org

which contains a Training section developed and managed by the Child Protection Training Group.

In December, the training group worked with a range of practitioners to develop a

Seminar – ‘Working with autism and sexually inappropriate behaviour’. Despite inclement weather, 58 people attended this event from a wide range of agencies including Social Work, Health, Education, Police and the Voluntary Sector.

On 2 nd

and 3 rd

March 2011, the Training Group delivered a two day training session to an audience of Forces personnel from across Scotland. This included members of the Regular Armed Forces, Territorial Army, Army Cadet Force,

Army Welfare Service, Defence Estates and Army Recruitment Agencies. This training was entitled ‘Getting it Right for Forces Families’ and contained information on child protection, adult support and protection, violence against women and substance misuse. The training was unique within Scotland, specifically tailored to the needs of Forces personnel and their families, and evaluated extremely positively. A full event report is available from the Training

Office: Donna.Munro@highland.gov.uk

4.

Annual Conference 2010/11

The Conference was held on 23 rd

November 2010 in Highland Council

Headquarters, Inverness.

Targeted at front line practitioners, this event aimed to raise awareness of specific vulnerabilities facing children and young people, whilst providing practical tools to help build resilience and ensure the best possible outcomes for Highland’s children.

Specific issues addressed included:



Consultation with young people with disabilities



Supporting lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) young people



Working with young carers



Keeping children safe on-line



Supporting children and young people affected by parental issues – substance misuse, mental health and domestic abuse

Facilitators and presenters included representatives from LGBT Scotland,

Highland Children’s Forum, Health Promoting Schools, Educational Psychology

Service and Highland Young Carers. A marketplace consisting of 17 different

50


April 2010– March 2011 stands was available throughout the day and enabled attendees to learn about the wide variety of services available to children and families in Highland.

128 practitioners attended from various agencies including Health, Social Work,

Police, Education and the Voluntary Sector. The event evaluated positively, particularly in relation to the marketplace, and additional time allowed for networking during the day.

5.

Non-attendance

In 2008, the Child Protection Committee committed to reducing non-attendance at training events. At that time, there was approximately 32% non-attendance without prior notification or known reason. The Committee requested a reduction in this figure to 10% by March 2011. New procedures in how attendance is monitored and recorded, along with the introduction of charging for nonattendance (£30) has had a significant impact on attendance figures, resulting in a figure of 8% for 2010/11.

6.

Agency specific training

Training across all agencies in relation to Child Protection has increased in

2010/11.

Within Northern Constabulary, the range of provision has expanded with the introduction of the Community Disclosure scheme and new national guidance and legislation in relation to under age sexual activity.

A request from the Child Protection Committee to ensure a fully trained workforce in Joint Investigative Interviewing resulted in additional provision of

Joint Investigative Interviewing Training courses.

Within Social Work Services, the range of provision has also expanded with more specialist training made available for staff groups e.g. Identity and Life Story

Work, Permanence Planning and Direct Work.

In NHS Highland, Child Protection Advisors continue to provide support to the

NHS Training Officer in delivery of Programme 1 courses. However, the training input has significantly increased in terms of groups of staff requesting training.

This includes Dental Services, GPs and Community Paediatricians. In particular, the development of the Childsmile Project has required significant input to ensure staff are competent and confident when visiting families within their own homes.

Training within Education, Culture and Sport and the Voluntary Sector (via

Keeping Children Safe) has continued to be delivered at maximum capacity, with the focus maintained on delivery of Programme 1 training to a wide and varied workforce.

51


April 2010– March 2011

7.

Key Priorities for 2011/12

 Increased integration of training provision across Children’s Services and within Safer Highland, particularly in relation to parental substance misuse



Development of an Integrated Trainers Forum



Highland wide briefing sessions in relation to the Highland Underage Sex

Protocols

 Roll out new Programme 2 ‘Child Protection and the Highland Practice

Model’ course



Roll out Programme 2 ‘Responding to Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse’ course



Delivery of Programme 3 master classes in relation to Fabricated and Induced

Illness and Working with Difficult, Dangerous and Evasive families



Further development of a comprehensive Training Database which will support the provision of regular reports to agency representatives, Strategic

Delivery Group and HCPC Members



Work with Quality Assurance Group to further develop quality assurance processes within the training agenda

Inter Agency Child Protection Training and Awareness Raising

1 st April 2010-31 st March 2011

Training

Programme 1

Number of

Participants

Foster Carers

SSAFA/RAF Personnel

Total Number:

Programme 2

Getting It Right In CP – Identifying Concerns

Getting It Right In CP – Responding to Concerns

39

53

92

262

254

Hidden Harm – CP and Parental Substance Misuse

Getting It Right for Forces Families

Total Number:

Programme 3

Lead Professional Training

Vulnerabilities Conference

Autism Seminar

78

35

629

125

128

Total Number:

Total Trained – Interagency

Total Trained - Single Service (breakdown on following page)

Total Number of Staff trained in 2010/11

58

311

1032

3827

4859

52


April 2010– March 2011

Single Agency Training Provision – 2010/11

Northern Constabulary

Training

Community Disclosure Training

First Line Managers course

Sexual Offence Act Training

Probationary Police Officer Training

Joint Investigative and Interviewing Training*

Total

* Police and Social Workers from outwith Highland only

Social Work

Social Work and Housing Training

Number of

Participants

129

10

70

84

44

354

Programme 1 Training

Social Workers – Childrens Services

Social Workers – Community Care

Social Workers – Criminal Justice

Other Social Service Workers – Childrens Services

Other Social Service Workers – Community Care

Other Social Service Workers – Criminal Justice

SW Business Support

Housing staff

Foster Carers

Education

Health

What's my story? Who am I? Identity & Life Story workshop

Direct Work

Permanence Planning: Sally Wassell

Graduate Certificate in Child Welfare and Protection Studies -

Stirling University

BAAF PQ course - Good Practice in Permanence Planning and

Family Placement

Joint Investigative and Interviewing Training*

Total

* Highland Social Work Representation Only

NHS Highland

Training

Number of

Participants

11

17

3

76

126

12

27

13

4

4

3

12

17

24

8

3

17

377

Programme 1

Lead Professional Role for Paediatricians

Total

Number of

Participants

875

10

885

53


April 2010– March 2011

Highland Council Education Culture and Sport Training

Training

Basic Awareness in Child Protection – Teaching Staff

New Generation Head Teachers

Probationer Teacher

School Hostel

Basic Awareness for CLL Staff*

Sports Leaders - S5/6 pupils

Total

* CLL - Community Learning and Leisure

Keeping Children Safe

Training

Number of

Participants

1185

25

81

15

164

16

1486

Number of

Participants

381

222

69

53

725

Getting it Right in Child Protection – Childcare and Family Support

Staff

Getting it Right in Child Protection – CLL Staff*

Getting it Right in Child Protection – Private/Other

Personal Safety Training

Total

54


April 2010– March 2011

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

APPENDIX 6

Management Information

HMIe has compiled a list of comparator areas based on demographic information:

Angus and the Scottish Borders are rated as ‘Extremely Close’, demographically, to

Highland. Argyll & Bute, Dumfries & Galloway, and Moray are rated ‘Very Close’.

Number of Child Protection Referrals (per 1,000 of 0-15 population)

Highland

Comparator authorities

Scotland

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



The number of child protection referrals in Highland in 2010 was 611 (a decrease of

1.1% from 618 in 2009)



The comparator authorities show an increase of 15.3%, while the Scotland figures show an increase of 6.4% The rate (per 1,000 pop 0-15) is 15.6.



This is less than the comparator average rate of 16.9, and greater than the Scotland average rate of 14.8

Number of referrals resulted in a case conference (per 1,000 of 0-15 population)

7.0

6.0

Highland


Scotland

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



The number of referrals resulted in a case conference in Highland in 2010 was 171

(an increase of 21.3% from 141 in 2009)



The comparator authorities show an increase of 13.5%, while the Scotland figures show a decrease of 1.3%



The rate (per 1,000 pop 0-15) is 4.4. This is less than the comparator average rate of

6.3, and less than the Scotland average rate of 5.1

55

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0


April 2010– March 2011

Number of registrations following a case conference (per 1,000 of 0-15 population)

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Highland


Scotland

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



The number of registrations following a case conference in Highland in 2010 was 146

(an increase of 21.7% from 120 in 2009)







4.8, and similar to the Scotland average rate of 3.9

Number of de-registrations (per 1,000 of 0-15 population)

6.0

Highland


Scotland

0.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



The number of de-registrations in Highland in 2010 is 121 (an increase of 19.8% from

101 in 2009)



The comparator authorities show a decrease of 3.3%, while the Scotland figures show a decrease of 28%





56


April 2010– March 2011

Number of children on Child Protection Registers (per 1,000 of 0-15 population)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

Highland

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5


Scotland

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

TOTAL

0.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



The number of child protection registrations in Highland in 2010 was 99 (an increase of 43.5% from 69 in 2009)








Commentary:

The information above appears to show that the Highland Practice Model is working.

It is likely that the slight decrease in referrals is due to earlier intervention and that the increase in referrals resulting in case conferences (Child Protection Plan Meetings) and CP Registrations is due to better identification of child protection issues together with appropriate escalation where other Child’s Plans have failed.

Fluctuations in the number of children registered and de-registered are generally accounted for by the impact of large families, where all or most of the children are registered, in relation to the relatively small number of registrations each year.

Management Information provided by Northern Constabulary for 2010/11:

Joint Investigations by referral source

2010/11 Public Police Health ECS SWS Other TOTAL

Apr 9 4 1 0 18 0 32

May

Jun

9

13

3

3

1

0

1

1

27

19

0

0

41

36

14

4

8

6

12

105

8

5

9

8

7

2

4

5

3

0

1

2

1

35

0 0 9

0 1 14

3 0 27

0 1 15

0 2 20

0 0 12

0 0 21

0 0 11

2 3 29

7 9 222

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

2 49

5 383

22

24

40

23

43

18

33

22

57


April 2010– March 2011

Joint Investigations by referral source 2010/11

Joint Investigations by referral source 2009/10

Public

Public

Police Police

Health Health

ECS

ECS

SWS

SWS

Other

Other

Referrals of child concerns to Police by month and area. (Not all concerns will be Child

Protection concerns.)

2010/11 Inverness

Apr 33

May

Jun

28

35

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

16

26

32

23

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

TOTAL

31

19

24

26

44

337

Ross,

Cromarty

& Skye

23

Caithness &

Sutherland Lochaber

15 8

21 19

21 21

14

13

11

14

10

8

11

8

17

12

13

189

21

11

12

11

24

27

25

12

19

16

26

229

16

112

9

8

11

8

11

4

Badenoch

&

Strathspey TOTAL

12 91

4

7

8

8

86

93

56

68

7

4

3

2

5

10

74

72

3 102

73 940

91

71

86

50

Referrals to Police by month and area

Inverness

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Ap r

Jun Au g

Oct De c

Fe b

Ross,

Cromarty &

Skye

Caithness &

Sutherland

Lochaber

Badenoch &

Strathspey

58


April 2010– March 2011

Type of abuse reported by Police Division:

2010/11 Inverness

Phys neg 70

Phys Inj

Sexl Ab

127

79

Emot Ab

NOFT

Other

Unknown

TOTAL

59

0

2

0

337

Ross,

Cromarty

& Skye

20

43

91

2

0

33

0

189

Caithness &

Sutherland Lochaber

29 9

48

62

1

0

31

34

1

0

89

0

229

37

0

112

Badenoch

&

Strathspey TOTAL

11 139

26 275

18 284

2

0

8

0

15 233

1 1

73 940

Badenoch & Strathspey

Lochaber

Caithness & Sutherland

Ross, Cromarty & Skye

Inverness

0 50

Phys neg

100

Phys Inj

150

Sexl Ab

200

Emot Ab

250

NOFT

300 350 400

Other Unknown

Scottish Crown Reporters Administration:

The SCRA Online Dashboard allows comparison between up to three areas across a range of measures. Below is information relevant to Child welfare and protection.

Further comparisons can be made by visiting: http://www.scra.gov.uk/cms_resources/Online%20Statistical%20Dashboard%202010

-11.swf

59

2500

2000

1500

1000

500


April 2010– March 2011

01-APR-10 TO 31-MAR-11

Highland Trends over time:

3000

0

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

Referrals received – non offence

Referrals received – non offence

Children referred – non offence

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

2653

Children referred – non offence

2422 1926 1534

1765 1633 1393 1094

Children with CPOs

1146

896

1243

919

Children with CPOs



33 34 19 44 36

Non offence referrals are care and protection referrals to the Children’s

Reporter



CPOs = Child protection Orders

Comparator areas

Children referred – non offence / 1000 population

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

50

2010/11

Highland

Angus

Scottish Borders

Argyll & Bute

Dumfries & Galloway

Moray

SCOTLAND

45

12

36

55

47

18

44

41

17

23

56

48

27

48

36

16

19

53

50

30

44

28

16

23

61

43

31

43

23

16

26

52

26

26

39

24

17

19

52

17

24

37

60


April 2010– March 2011

Time Interval

Standard 3

Highland

Angus

Scottish Borders

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

36% 50% 44% 47%

38% 43% 44% 49%

40% 44% 43% 31%

23% 23% 28% 62%

56%

48%

39%

61%

2010/11

57%

64%

36%

77% Argyll & Bute

Dumfries & Galloway

Moray

43% 44% 43% 48%

75% 57% 75% 66%

47%

62%

54%

73%

SCOTLAND



35% 34% 39% 41% 46%

Time Interval Standard 3 represents the percentage of Social Work Reports submitted to the Children’s Reporter within 20 working days of the date of the request. The target is 75%

51%

61


April 2010– March 2011

APPENDIX 7

Child Sexual Abuse – Position Statement

Issue:

HMIe concluded that there were marked improvements in the provision of medical examinations, where there were suspicions of physical abuse, but Highland’s ability to meet the needs of those children who had alleged, recent sexual abuse was still not robust out-of-hours.

Actions:

1) Meet with HMIe inspector and Paediatric lead to explore options for service improvement, building on what is already under way and extending to involve colleagues in the Grampian region.

2) Review paediatric rota to ensure an emergency slot on Mondays to deal with incidents arising over the previous weekend.

3) Develop existing police database to ensure more robust recording of examinations

– to include breakdown of number of sexual offences against children reported outwith Mon-Fri (0900-1700hrs) – Approx 1/month.

4) Multi-agency review of Dalneigh examination suite.

5) Discuss with Clinical Director of SE Highland CHP the appointment of GPs with special interest, to enhance current availability of suitably trained medical examiners.

(Paper to June CPC)

6) Consider the use of ‘collated position statements’, where paediatrician corroborates the findings of the forensic doctor, to avoid paediatricians being called as ‘expert’ witnesses.

7) Consider the possibility of using on-call gynaecologists and paediatricians for weekend CSA examinations.

The following progress has been made:

Short Term

1) Database - monitoring ongoing



Specific incidents cited and discussed with learning captured. Consultant

Paediatrician to update colleagues on recommended timescales regarding harvesting of forensic evidence and completion of Child Protection query documentation.



Consultant Paediatrician to visit database and consider if any further fields would provide beneficial information.

2) Dalneigh Suite



NHS Infection Control Nurse and Northern Constabulary H&S Advisor have completed reports of the Suite. Recommendations include a revised cleaning regime and refurbishment ideas.

62


April 2010– March 2011



Investment required and current funding of supplies and cleaning to be included in a proposal to Child Protection Committee (CPC).



Forensic Medical Examinations – NHS Highland to continue to explore possible GP involvement in relation to salaried GPs at Dunedin Practice.

Medium Term

1) NDP – funding bid was successful and a colposcope now ordered. New Clinical

Lead now appointed for North of Scotland Child Protection Network. Will be developing governance, clinical support and guidelines. Consultant Paediatrician will be involved in this work. Action complete

2) Position Statement

Ayrshire and Arran protocol accepted by Paediatricians in NHS Highland and recognised this is the way of working in NHS Grampian also. However Northern

Constabulary colleagues unsure of credibility and await view from ACPOS.

Paediatricians thought to be the specialists and therefore responsible for interpretation of results. Procurator Fiscal also raised concerns at CPC with regard to this protocol.

Action

– no progress of position statement until clarity received

– copy of position statement to go to Procurator Fiscal

–

ACPOS guidance to be clarified

–

Availability of Paediatricly trained Forensic Medical Examiner to be considered

–

NHS Grampian to be approached for similar position statement

3) Pathway

Cannot be confirmed until Archway situation and other actions above progressed.

However current advice will be reinforced.

Longer Term

1) MEDACS review progressing. Best value completed. Senior Nurse Advisor to check on progress and ensure Consultant Paediatrician involved.

2) Archway – open referral system currently and no SLAs in place. Could still be considered as an option for Northern Constabulary but trauma and distress factors to be considered. Keep this as an option in a pathway although changes at National level may close this door.

63


April 2010– March 2011

Further Information:

Details of publications and other information about Highland CPC and its relationship to the Integrated Children’s Service Plan can be found at: http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/2-childprotection/

Further information on the activity of CPC partner agencies can be found on individual agency websites as follows:

The Highland Council - http://www.highland.gov.uk/

NHS Highland - http://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/Pages/welcome.aspx

Northern Constabulary - http://www.northern.police.uk/

Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service – www.copfs.gov.uk

Scottish Children’s Reporters Authority - http://www.scra.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

Keeping Children Safe (Umbrella group for 3 rd

sector child protection services) – www.kcs-highland.org.uk

Army Welfare Services – www.army.mod.uk/welfare-support/welfare-support.aspx

Contact Details:

Highland Child Protection Committee

Kinmylies Building

Leachkin Road

INVERNESS

IV3 8NN.

Phone: 01463 703483

64

Annual Report of the Child Protection Committee

Annual Report

Protecting

Children and Young People in

Highland.

April 2010 – March 2011

Highland Child Protection Committee

Annual Report and Self-evaluation

1

April 2010 – 31

March 2011

Introduction:

Self-evaluation:

APPENDIX 2

HIGHLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ACTION PLAN

2010-2013

Summary Report

Outcomes Triangle

Related documents

Products

Support

Annual Report of the Child Protection Committee

Annual Report

Protecting

Children and Young People in

Highland.

April 2010 – March 2011

Highland Child Protection Committee

Annual Report and Self-evaluation

1

April 2010 – 31

March 2011

Introduction:

Self-evaluation:

APPENDIX 2

HIGHLAND CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

ACTION PLAN

2010-2013

Summary Report

Outcomes Triangle

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib