Northumberland
Risk Management Group
An approach to risk assessment and risk management for
vulnerable young people.
An Evaluation
March 2011
Katinka Bryan and Victoria Hall
Senior Specialist Educational Psychologists
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 3
Contents
Page 5
About the Risk Management Group Approach
Page 7
The Risk Management Group Process
Page 9
About LGID and LIA
Page 10
About the Evaluation
Page 12
About Safeguarding
Page 14
About Risk Assessment
Page 20
Analysis of Documentation
Page 22
Observation of Multi Agency Meetings to complete
Vulnerability Checklists
Page 24
Observation of RMG meetings
Page 27
Interviews with team managers
Page 41
Practitioner Questionnaires
Page 50
Young people/Parent Carers Questionnaires
Page 52
Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 53 - Compliance to the stated RMG process
Page 55 - Awareness of RMG process, training and guidelines
provided
Page 57 - The vulnerability checklist
Page 59 - VCL and RMG meetings
Page 61 - The involvement of Young People
Page 62 - The involvement of Parents/Carers
Page 63 - The impact of RMG for managers and Practitioners
Page 65 - The impact of RMG for Young People and Parents/Carers
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 4
Page 68 - Evaluating the impact of RMG
Page 70 - RMG Development and Northumberland as a Learning
Organisation
Page 72
Self Evaluation Tool
Page 72 - Data collection
Page 73 - Young People’s Parent/Carers views on process
Page 76 - Practitioners’ views and experiences of the RMG process
Page 78 - Team Managers’ views and experiences of the RMG
process
Page 80
‘Top Tips’ for Authorities adopting the Risk
Management Group Approach
Page 82
References
Page 84
Appendices
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 5
About the Risk Management Group (RMG) Approach
The RMG is a multi-agency forum which was developed in late 2007, following the
death of a young person in Northumberland due to a self administered drug
overdose.
A subsequent Management Review of this case identified that agencies could work
in a more coordinated way to manage the risks presented by vulnerable adolescents.
Practitioners also recognised that there are a small, but significant, number of young
people in Northumberland, at any given time, who are at high risk of causing harm to
themselves due to issues related to:
 Offending,
 Substance misuse,
 (Poor) mental health,
 Lack of family support,
 Chaotic living arrangements,
 Absconding from home or care settings.
These young people are at imminent risk of significant harm without interventions
from one or a number of agencies. However they may not necessarily be considered
within child protection procedures due to their age and the extent to which they are
mediators of their own risk.
The aim of the RMG was to develop a process to achieve robust multi-agency
assessment and management of risk for, and with, these vulnerable young people
and to have close scrutiny of their intervention plans by senior management from
involved services. The RMG is chaired by a senior manager (Head of Family
Support) and is attended by managers from relevant agencies working with young
people.
The success and originality of this approach was recognised by Local Government
Improvement and Development (LGID), formally the improvement and development
agency (IDA) via Northumberland’s successful bid for a Local Innovation Award
(LIA). RMG has links with Northumberland’s Local Safeguarding Children Board
(LSCB) and has also facilitated links with neighboring authorities.
Risk assessment, planning and review tools have been developed by adapting the
'Signs of Safety' risk assessment tool and applying it to a local model of practice.
This was undertaken through a multi-agency working group involving Children's
Services, the Youth Offending Service (YOS), the Child and Adolescent Mental
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 6
Health Service (CAMHS) and the substance misuse service (SORTED). The group
facilitated a pooling of expertise to identify the key risk factors for young people in
order to develop a shared risk assessment tool.
In addition to the risk assessment tools, practice guidance for staff and managers
was developed to support the process. The guidance covers how to use the
assessment and planning tools (Vulnerability Checklists (VCL), the nomination to
RMG, the monitoring process (the RMG log) and criteria for removal from the RMG
log.
Thirty-five young people had been monitored by the RMG approach at the time of the
LIA bid. The average time a young person had spent on the RMG log and had been
monitored by the RMG was ten weeks.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 7
About the Risk Management Group Process
The RMG process was outlined by the RMG project manager in October 2010.
The RMG process can be applied to any adolescent any agency is working with. It is
applied when an agency is concerned about an individual thought to be at high or
very high risk of harm due to their own behaviour. At this point the agency’s internal
risk assessment tool is used.
The individual practitioner rates the level of risk on their agency’s tool as highlighted
in the procedures and guidance policy. If the risk is high, or very high, they inform
their service manager that day. A Multi Agency meeting (MAG) is called within 5
working days. The manager chairs this meeting while the individual practitioner
takes the role of lead professional.
The young people involved tend to be long term cases who are already known to a
number of agencies including social care. More recently new ‘acute’ cases that have
been brought to an agency’s attention have also been involved in the process. The
example given was that of ‘missing adolescents,’ usually highlighted by the police.
Agencies usually know who else to involve in MAGs as paperwork tends to be
shared between agencies. Some multi agency meetings may already have
happened in relation to single agency intervention plans. Vulnerability Checklist 1,
(VCL 1) is completed together by all at the MAG. If the risk is high or very high the
manager submits the case to RMG. An action plan is always developed after VCL1
is completed, for any level of risk.
VCL1s scoring high/very high ratings are considered by RMG, if the risk rating is
agreed the case is entered on the RMG log. It is then reviewed every 3 weeks. This
happens by the original members of the MAG meeting to complete VCL 2, passing
this onto the lead professional’s manager who takes it to the next RMG for
consideration. Cases are maintained on the RMG log until the Risk Rating falls
below high.
If the VCL1 rating is not agreed it is returned to the original MAG group to be
handled at that level within normal agency procedures.
MAGs usually happen at the beginning of a week and VCLs are forwarded on to the
project manager in advance of the next RMG meeting. VCLs are circulated to team
managers in advance of the RMG so that all involved can read the paperwork in
advance of the meeting. This practice has evolved according to need and is not
prescribed in the paperwork.
RMG meets once every 3rd Friday. Service managers receive an action list via email
on the Friday afternoon of each RMG. Minutes follow at a later date. Those at the
RMG can suggest or direct changes in the intervention plan or allocate more
resources from their own service. However RMG is not meant to replace existing
planning / intervention processes.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 8
Service managers inform all at the original MAG what the outcome of RMG meeting
has been.
As noted in the successful bid to the Local Government Improvement and
Development, RMG members feel the process and associated guidance:

Provide clear, shared definitions of the type of risk and level of vulnerability for
individual young people in the different communities within Northumberland at
the present time.

Develop a consistent approach to assessing risk across all agencies working
with adolescents.

Gain a greater understanding of 'what works' in terms of interventions to
moderate risks.

Assist frontline staff to evidence their decision making.

Identify roles and responsibilities across agencies.

Provide appropriate management oversight of cases which extends from the
individual agency level through RMG and to the Director/LSCB.

Promote the sharing of information where young people are deemed to be at
high or very high risk. (This has included sharing and using Police intelligence
to assist risk management and also with other local authorities where young
people are looked after in Northumberland.)

Provide a mechanism for funding decisions to be made - for example in
relation to accommodation.

Identify gaps in service provision within the County. The RMG has recently
been successful in a bid for £230,000 of capital funding to develop a
supported housing scheme.

Engage a very hard to reach group of complex young people.

Establish a new partnership arrangement involving the Police and Children's
Services to safeguard and monitor young people who run away from
home/care settings.

Reduced the level of risk for the 35 young people who have been through the
process to the date of the LGID bid.

Has prevented a further drug related death.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 9
About Local Government Improvement and Development, LGID and
Local innovation Awards, LIA
LG Improvement and Development (formerly the IDeA) supports improvement and
innovation in local government, focusing on the issues that are important to councils.
“We work with councils in developing good practice, supporting them in their
partnerships. We do this through networks, online communities of practice and web
resources, and through the support and challenge provided by councilor and officer
peers.” www.idea.gov.uk
The platinum level Local Innovation Awards Scheme (LIA Scheme) has been jointly
established by Communities and Local Government (CLG), and the Local
Government Association (LGA).
The aims of the scheme are to:
 Identify, acknowledge and spread innovation and excellence.
 Raise standards by promoting best practice through peer learning and knowledge
transfer.
 Improve services to make a real difference to quality of life and life chances for
individuals and communities.
 Give national recognition to local, frontline services and partnerships.
“In the present period of austerity innovation is not a luxury but a necessity.
Throughout the public sector, we know that people working at the front line are
continuously adapting to meet everyday challenges head on and creating radical
solutions to address them. The Local Innovation Award (LIA) Scheme captures
some of this creativity and pioneer spirit. Through the awards, examples have
emerged of organisations pushing traditional boundaries, and enabling customers,
partners and staff to work together to create new forms of service delivery.”
www.localinovation.idea.gov.uk
The scheme recognises, celebrates and awards partnerships who can demonstrate
that they have innovative services, ideas and ways of working that bring real benefits
to citizens. Award holders also receive a financial incentive to enhance improvement
on behalf of the sector.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 10
About the Evaluation
In July 2010 Psychological services was approached by RMG’s project manager
about providing independent evaluation of the RMG process. A project proposal
document including research methods and costs was drafted and presented to the
RMG project steering group in September 2010. This document was amended and
finalised in October 2010.
It was agreed that a solution orientated approach to evaluation would be used to
highlight areas of strength within the current RMG process and areas for learning to
inform future development of the approach, both in Northumberland and other
authorities who may adopt the approach.
The following evaluation objectives were agreed;
a)
To provide an independent evaluation of the implementation and
effectiveness of the RMG’s risk assessment, planning and review
process for adolescents in Northumberland to date.
b)
To support the development of an evaluation tool that will form part of
The RMG’s risk assessment, planning and review process for
subsequent use and use in other authorities.
c)
To highlight ‘top tips’ to receiving authorities on implementing RMG
risk assessment, planning and review process.
The evaluation was solution oriented and directed towards building on current
strengths to inform even better practice in future.
Literature on safeguarding and risk assessment was reviewed. This was used to
evaluate compliance with ‘best practice’ guidance, to inform the thinking about
RMG’s future self evaluation and to structure advice, ‘top tips’ to new authorities
taking on the RMG process.
The views of stakeholders including service managers, practitioner professionals,
young people and their cares were sought. Face to face interviews, questionnaires
and observation of practice were used as research methods to elicit the views of
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 11
individuals and professional groups and to verify compliance across services using
RMG process. Copies of questionnaires and interview schedules used are available
from the authors.
Quantitative date (to be provided by RMG’s project manager) was sought to consider
issues such as cost benefits of the RMG process and the demographics of the young
people who have been monitored by RMG.
A summary of ‘progress so far’ was written (by the research team) and presented (by
the project manager) to the RMG project steering group in January 2011. This final
written report was delivered in draft form in April 2011 and finalised in May 2011
following the RMG project manager’s request for extended review and reflection
period.
As noted this evaluation report is written from a solution oriented perspective, with
the intention of providing:




Summary of current position.
Acknowledgement of issues, including steps already taken.
Identification of strengths.
Ideas for development/Areas of learning.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 12
About Safeguarding
The term ‘safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’ is defined as:
 Protecting children from maltreatment.
 Preventing impairment of children’s health or development.
 Ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the
provision of safe and effective care, and
 Undertaking that role so as to enable these children to have optimum life
chances and to enter adulthood successfully.
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010 (WTSC 2010) details how ‘child
protection’ relates to ‘safeguarding’:
Child protection is a part of safeguarding and promoting welfare. This refers to the
activity which is undertaken to protect specific children who are suffering or are at
risk of suffering significant harm.
WTSC (2010) also sets out how organisations and individuals should work together
to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people in accordance
with, the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004.
Following the change of government in June 2010, the Munro Review of Child
Protection Part 1: A Systems Analysis (2010) and Part 2: The Child’s Journey (2011)
has indicated that child protection procedures and WTSC (2010) will be reviewed.
However the principle of agencies working together and taking part in interprofessional learning will continue to be a central theme of any new guidance.
Chapter 5 of WTSC (2010) identifies the following principles which should guide
action when managing individual cases where there are concerns about a child’s
safety and welfare.
Work to safeguard and promote the welfare of children should be:











Child centered.
Rooted in child development.
Focused on outcomes for children.
Holistic in approach.
Ensuring equality of opportunity.
Involving children and families in the process.
Building on strengths as well as identifying difficulties.
Integrated in approach.
A continuing process not an event.
Providing and reviewing services.
Informed by evidence.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 13
Safeguarding Young People: Responding to people aged 11 - 17 who are maltreated
(The Children’s Society 2010) is also particularly relevant to the work of the RMG,
given the age range RMG works with. This age group is under represented in the
safeguarding literature.
This three year study aimed to promote improved safeguarding responses for young
people aged 11-17. The study highlights the complexities of safeguarding for this
older age group. Serious Case Reviews (which take place in cases of death of, or
serious injury to, a child or young person) have shown that over a fifth of such cases
related to young people aged 11 and over (Brandon et al, 2009).
Although the focus of the work was around responses to maltreatment, the research
highlighted how young people’s own behaviour/risk taking behavior can make
professional judgment about maltreatment and risk more complex.
Issues such as the perception of risk, the reduced likelihood of child protection
responses to maltreatment and the miss held view of some that young people are
more resilient to the effects of abuse leave them vulnerable.
The differing views of young people themselves compared with adults highlighted the
importance of incorporating young people’s views into assessment and planning
processes.
Lack of services were highlighted a barrier to supporting young people.
Professionals’ perceptions of lack of capacity in Social Care Services to respond to
young people were also a barrier to referrals being made.
Pursuing multi-agency approaches including the use of Common Assessment
Framework, (CAF) and Team around the Child, (TAC) were highlighted as potentially
useful. This kind of approach was favored due to the increased autonomy it allowed
young people and the emphasis it gave to partnership working.
Study of transitions across services indicated some gaps in the network of service
provision. Although there was some positive developments noted in relation to multi
agency working it was concluded that ‘collaboration could still be strengthened.’
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 14
About Risk Assessment
This is not intended to be a comprehensive literature review but to reflect issues that
have been highlighted in Risk Assessment across a number of professional domains.
It draws mainly on guidelines developed to support practitioners and reviews of risk
assessment procedures.
What is risk assessment?
Risk assessment can be defined as “the systematic collection of information to
determine the degree to which harm (to self or others) is likely at some point in time”.
Risk Management refers to the implementation of “a set of values and principles
integrated with a set of operational procedures and supports that enables a dynamic
sensitivity to the individual’s needs, vulnerabilities and evolving behaviours
associated with risk. The purpose of these behaviours is risk minimisation and the
provision of safe, sound and supportive services” (British Psychological Society
2006).
Why risk assess?
All individuals are at some risk, risk is dynamic and can be general, specific or both.
Risk assessment cannot be performed in isolation and comprehensive risk
assessment needs to consider a broad range of factors, use information from
multiple sources and be multi agency. Morgan (2007) also notes that "Risk
assessment involves two stages. Firstly, we estimate the size of the risk. Secondly,
we consider the acceptability of that risk” the first task being actuarial the second
political.
Statutory regulations place a duty of care on Local Authorities to safeguard children
and young people. There is therefore a need to identify children and young people
who may be at significant risk and to pro-actively attempt to manage that risk. In
cases where significant harm (or death) does occur there is a need for professionals
to show that all steps were taken that could have avoided that harm (or death
occurring). As previously noted, it is not possible to reach a zero risk level so, as the
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Guidance notes “In place of
infallibility , we must put defensibility – making the most reasonable decisions and
carrying them out professionally in a way which can be seen to be reasonable and
professional” (Home Office 2006). Cases should be managed at the lowest level
consistent with providing a risk management plan that is defensible in that it can be
shown that a body of co-professionals would have done the same.
When risk is identified there is a duty of care to manage it, although, it should be
remembered that some interventions can be harmful. For example, “Psychiatric
interventions may decrease risk in one area only to increase risk in another. Risk
cannot be eliminated.” (Morgan 2007). Managing risk also involves taking risks, as
McEvoy and McGuire (2007) note “A responsible risk taking culture is open-minded
about possibilities, aware of potential bias, carefully assesses and acts upon
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 15
information, complies with the statutory regulations and communicates emergent
dangers”.
Ultimately, the goal of risk assessment is to manage risk. Criticism has been made
of many risk assessment approaches that they focus too much on the process rather
than the outcome of assessing risk (Barry 2007) The Best Practice in Managing
Risk. Principles and Evidence for Best Practice and Management of Risk to Self and
Others in Mental Health services (DoH 2007) stated “The risk management plan
should include a summary of all risks identified, formulations of the situations in
which identified risks may occur, and actions to be taken by practitioners and the
service user in response to crisis.”
‘The Concise Risk Assessment Format’ (Frith et al 2009) is an example of one risk
assessment and management format which meets with these requirements. The
authors set out to develop a model that would work in areas where multiple risks are
considered by multi-agency teams. The format set out to:






Discriminate different risk factors and influences operating on a wide variety of
different behaviours within a single format.
Summarise historical evidence succinctly, given that past history is the most
influential predictor of future behaviour.
Emphasise circumstances affecting risk, so recommendations reflect
idiographic as well as other risk factors.
Include strengths, protective factors, and attributes of staff working with the
individual amongst circumstances reducing risk.
Facilitate joint working between agencies and families through a highly
accessible format.
Be easily reviewed and amended.
The headers from the format are set out in the table below:
Risk
Past
History
Circumstances Circumstances Skills to
increasing risk and strengths develop
reducing risk
Recommendations
(actions agreed to
minimise
risk/maximise
resilience in
relation to this
risk)
Risk 1
Risk 2
The authors are clear that the format is not a substitute for the risk assessment
process itself but may compliment assessments, particularly by focussing attention
on circumstances that increase and reduce the risk identified.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 16
How is risk assessed?
There are several approaches to risk assessment which draw on different
information sources. The table below sets out these approaches and associated
strengths and criticisms.
Approaches to Risk Assessment (derived from Barry 2007).
Type of Risk
Assessment
Clinical
Judgement
Actuarial
Structured
Clinical
Judgement
Description
Criticisms Associated with
Approach
Unstructured clinical or
 Makes use of available
professional judgement
‘expertise’
drawing on information
 Lack of consistency – low
from risk factor research
inter-rater reliability
“impressionistic and
subjective”
 Difficult to replicate process
by which decision reached
 No empirical evidence of
immediate or long term
validity
 Poor predictors of future
harm
Assessors reach
 ‘Evidence base’
judgement based on
 Assessment considers
statistical information
limited factors – importance
according to set rules.
of case specific factors
Mathematical calculation
minimised
of risk, comparing key
 Role of ‘expertise’
factors about an individual
excluded/minimised
with the statistical
 greater predictive power
frequency of such risk
but no guidelines for
within a matched sample.
managing risk
 “have an air of authority
and objectivity that can
mislead people into
crediting them with more
accuracy then they
deserve” Munro 2004
Combines clinical and
 Greater involvement of
actuarial methods to
subject of risk assessment
enable both assessment
and their expertise
and management of risk.
 Combines strengths of
It includes consideration
previous two approaches
of static and dynamic risk
and minimises criticisms by
factors and a multicombining
disciplinary approach”
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 17
(DoH 2007 suggests three
parts to structured –
assessment of clearly
defined factors derived
from research, clinical
experience and
knowledge of service
user, service user’s own
view of their experience)
The construction of risk assessment tools based solely on an actuarial approach is
open to criticism. The British Psychological Society (2007) highlights “Many existing
risk assessment devices are simply lists of risk indicators or items chosen for their
perceived importance but not related to each other through any theoretical
defensible structure. Risk scores are then commonly generated by a weighted or
un-weighted summation of the indicators, two serious limitations of this approach
exist. First, this approach implies that the indicators conform to an additive
measurement model and yet this assumption is rarely tested. Secondly, the
underlying latent structure, defined by the relationships between the indicators, is
rarely made explicit so the construct validity of the resulting scores is usually
suspect”.
Risk assessment and management should also consider resilience or protective
factors. In research into factors influencing drug taking behaviours Dillon et al (2006)
note that the Ratio of risk to protection may be more important than any single factor.
The Changing Lives Review (Scottish Executive 2006a), looking at social work
practice in Scotland, encourages organisations involved in risk assessment and
management to adopt a participative, holistic and proactive approach which allows
dialogue between workers, service users and managers, with training that is ongoing
and relevant to the processes. ‘Users’ should be seen as equal partners and their
expertise on themselves drawn upon. (Barry 2007). As the BPS (2007) explains
“any risk behaviour, and associated emotions, need to be assessed and understood
in connection with the thoughts, perceptions, and interpretation an individual has
about situations, other people and their own behaviour”.
The suggestion given to psychiatrists is applicable to all “Risk Assessment should
combine actuarial approaches with clinical evaluation, and should not be seen as a
one-off duty discharged by completion of Risk Assessment forms.” (Morgan 2007).
McIvor and Kemshall (2002) identified essential and desirable criteria for risk
assessment tools in Scotland, it is unlikely that the criteria for tools in England would
be different. They identified the following factors:
Essential Criteria for risk assessment tools:

At least one peer reviewed publication on validation of the tool.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report




Page 18
Validation against a relevant population of the target group.
Based in actuarial and empirical factors contained in the research literature.
Able to differentiate accurately between high, medium and low-risk.
Has inter assessor and inter-rater reliability.
Desirable Criteria for risk assessment tools




User friendly.
Resource lean.
Easy to train staff in appropriate use.
Process of use is transparent and accountable.
Kemshall (2003) similarly, identified criteria for “defensible decision making”, which
should therefore be reflected in risk assessment/management approaches:






All reasonable steps are taken.
Reliable assessment methods are used.
Information is collected and thoroughly evaluated.
Decisions are recorded and carried through.
Agency processes and procedures are followed.
Practitioners and managers are investigative and proactive.
Risk assessment within and across different disciplines
A multi agency approach to risk assessment is generally recommended, for example
Morgan’s (2007) recommendation for Psychiatrists “Risk assessment should be
carried out within a team, allowing sharing of information and application of different
perspectives. It should not be uni-disciplinary” This is a similar conclusion to the
BPS (2007) who state “The assessment, reduction and management of risk
behaviour needs to be broad based, multi-modal and multi-disciplinary, in its
approach. It is essential clinicians take a collaborative and partnership approach to
risk”.
However, there is some concern about the transferability of approaches across
disciplines, McIvor and Kemshall (2002b) suggest risk assessment and management
procedures are usually context and agency specific and are therefore less likely to
be transferable to other situations or settings. Barry (2007) also highlights that there
are differences in way risk is perceived and assessed and managed by different
workers and managers within and between organisations.
Within organisations risk assessment may also vary dependent on the experience of
the rater. Francis et al (2006) identified that within agencies older, more experienced
workers operate with higher threshold of ‘risk’ and Gold et al (2001) identify the age
and experience of workers resulting in different assessment outcomes. This points
towards the need for a multi person approach to risk assessment with agreement
being sought between participants when rating risk.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 19
A review of approaches to risk assessment undertaken for the Scottish Executive in
2006 (Barry, M 2007) compared the risk assessment approaches used in community
care, criminal justice and child protection. The research set out to identify how risk is
defined, assessed and applied in each area, how information is shared between
agencies and the impact of organisational culture and learning impact. The review
concluded that:






Most of social work’s current accountability systems are reactive, adversarial
and stifle professional autonomy.
There is not a culture of learning from mistakes that enables confidential
reporting and discussion of near misses; likewise there is no culture of
corporate responsibility.
There is little confidence in the predictability of risk assessment tools and yet
they are becoming the priority and the focus of much worker-client contact;
tools thus tend to replace rather than inform professional judgement.
Social workers’ views of risk are largely absent from the literature and yet they
actively engage with risk on a daily basis.
Differing organisational cultures, differing definitions of risk and hierarchy of
professional expertise may deter the development of a common
understanding and language of risk.
The relationship between worker and client is paramount to effective working
and yet is being eroded by the language and politics of risk.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 20
Analysis of Documentation.
The RMG process is supported by three documents which constitute the ‘tool kit’ for
practitioners. Copies of the documents, listed below, are provided in the appendices
of this report.

Vulnerability Checklist 1 (VCL 1) the initial vulnerability check list.

Vulnerability Checklist 2 (VCL 2) the review document.

A procedural document detailing the RMG process.
These documents have been developed over time and revised in response to
feedback from those using them. The VCLs are now onto their third revision.
The VCLs utilise a four point rating scale for five areas of potential risk. These are
Health (Emotional Health, Physical Health, Sexual Health), Social and
Environmental, Substance Misuse, Offending Behaviour and Absconding. The Head
of Service, who initiated the development of the RMG process explained that multiple
risk factors are considered together to encourage a ‘systems’ approach to thinking
about risk. i.e. that many interconnected factors or systems in a person’s life impact
on the overall level of risk they face.
Sections for recording protective factors, professional assessment of risk, young
people’s view of risk and parent/carers’ view of risk are included. Prompts are
included to remind those completing the form that they should consider what they are
worried about, what is working well and what needs to happen to decrease risk and
improve safety. Rating scales of 0-10 are included in the young person and
parent/carers sections.
A section for detailing the risk management plan is also included. Guidance is given
indicating that actions, responsible agency and timescale should be included in the
plan.
VCL 2, the review document, has additional sections for a summary of issues
presenting since the last VCL and for the previous risk score.
The procedural document details key points in the process including trigger points for
initiating a multi agency meeting to complete a VCL. This is based on the score
rating on the initiating professional’s individual service risk assessment tool.
It is stressed that VCLs and the RMG process are not intended to replace the
planning and action of individual services. Rather the process is to facilitate coordination and joint service planning whenever necessary and to ensure a clear link
to, and shared responsibility with, senior managers within statutory services. This is
in line with the recommendations of the Laming report (2003) and is commensurate
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 21
with the need for a ‘spine of responsibility’ within Local Authorities as referred to
most recently in the Munro review (2011).
The Authority Risk Management Policy and Children missing from care procedure
are cited as references within this procedural document.
Current strengths
In line with the research literature described previously, the RMG process and VCL
tools appear to:





Take into account protective or resilience factors.
Be a participative, holistic and proactive approach allowing dialogue between
workers, service users and managers.
Combine actuarial approaches with clinical evaluation.
Document ‘defensible’ decision making.
Meet the desirable criteria for risk assessment tools cited by McIvor et al
(2002).
Learning and potential future development
Consideration should be given to further development of both the VCLs and the
decision making processes around defining a ‘risk rating’, this should take into
account:
 Criticism of the actuarial approach to risk assessment cited by the BPS
(2007).
 Essential criteria for risk assessment tools McIvor et al (2002).
 Consideration of providing a structured basis for recording the risk
management plan, for example adopting a model such as that used by Frith et
al (2009), with the addition of ‘success criteria’ for actions agreed.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 22
Observation of Multi-Agency Meetings/Use of Risk Assessment
Tools (VCLs)
To gain an insight and overview of how Multi Agency (MA) meetings function and
how the risk assessment tools (VCLs) are completed, two separate observations
took place in February 2011 and March 2011.
Both of the young people discussed during these observations already had VCLs
completed about them. The meetings were care team meetings during which a
review VCL (VCL 2) was completed.
In both cases the care team meetings observed were well organised and thorough.
A range of professionals were involved from health, education, social care and the
third sector. In one meeting family members were involved (mother and maternal
grandmother). At the second, a parent had been invited but had chosen not to
attend.
In neither case did the young person attend. One of the young people was attending
school following a period of very poor attendance (29% over this academic year)
while the other had expressed an interest in attending but had been told not to be her
family due to the number of people involved. Family members thought the meeting
would be over whelming for her.
Establishing a suitable venue for the meeting was an issue in relation to one meeting
where, despite the best efforts of the social care worker, it was difficult to secure a
room big enough to accommodate all participants due to the demands for space
within the wider team.
In one case the involvement of adult teams supporting the parent, who was identified
as having her own mental health needs, may have been of benefit.
In both meetings the VCL was referred to in detail towards the end of the session
and each question was considered in turn. In one of the meetings protective factors
were reconsidered in the other meeting this section was not revisited.
Some ambiguity was identified by meeting participants in relation to some of the
questions for example, the section relating to pregnancy. Professionals indicated
that their concerns had been raised with senior managers about this. The issue of
professionals’ level of concern about the extent to which high risk behavior may take
place against hard evidence of them having taken place was discussed. It was
highlighted that if level of concern about what may happen is not taken into account
this may result in a misleading ‘low score’.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 23
Current strengths
 Both meetings were well organised and had good multi agency attendance
across professional sectors.
 Although the young people did not attend the meetings, reasons were given
as to why this was the case and it was acknowledged that best practice would
indicate that their attendance or contribution in some form was required.
 Practitioners were reflective and discussed areas of perceived ambiguity in
relation to some of the questions. They had been proactive in that they had
passed their concerns on to senior managers associated with RMG. This
indicates that the management style in these services is focused on
practitioner participation and experiential learning to inform practice.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to how young people could be more included in
key meetings about their lives. Planning and reviewing progress using
‘person centered’ approaches may be of use. The timing and location of
meetings, to maximise involvement, should also be considered.
 Further detailed guidance in the form of written documentation and/or training
may be of benefit in relation to perceived ambiguities in the scoring of some
risk areas.
 Consideration should be given to the interface with adult services where
family/carer needs may be impacting on the young persons needs.
 Consideration should be given to the structure of the meetings. Given the
number of people attending the meetings it may have been beneficial if the
VCL could have been used to guide the meeting as a form of agenda,
allowing for each section to be discussed in turn reducing the need for any
repetition.
 Further to the previous point consideration could be given to practitioners
working in a specific area rating the risk in their area in advance of the
meeting, providing supporting evidence to the group for discussion. Once all
of the information is gathered at the meeting an agreed rating could be given
in each area with clear examples of behavior on the part of the young person
to support this.
 Providing a brief ‘structure’ for VCL meetings would ensure all aspects are
considered including routinely updating protective as well as risk factors.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 24
Observations of Risk Management Group Meetings
To gain an insight and overview of how the RMG functions two meetings were
observed in September 2010 and December 2010. The following observations were
made.
Prior to meeting
The RMG administrative assistant/co-ordinator circulated email confirmation of the
time, date and location of the meetings.
The Agenda and completed VCLs were circulated, any outstanding VCLs were
requested.
Changes of meeting times were circulated in advance of the meeting.
During the meeting
The meetings opened and closed within the specified time frame. On both
occasions the chair ensured a consistent pace for discussion of each case.
The agenda was used to guide discussion and additional copies of VCLs were made
available for each group member. It was clear that VCLs that had been circulated in
advance of the meeting had been read by group member.
Robust professional debate took place in relation to how VCLs were completed, what
risk ratings were given and how appropriate action planning was.
‘Good news’ as well as continuing concerns were noted in relation to each case.
Successful aspects of plans for some young people were used to inform plans for
others. Sharing of information about useful support services was apparent.
Following the meetings
Minutes and notification of the next RMG were circulated to all involved.
Additional issues
During one meeting it appeared that not all VCLs had been completed on the most
up to date pro-forma. The meeting chair indicated that they would follow up on this.
In one of the meetings it was noted that organising RMG meetings and VCL reviews
can be problematic in school holiday times if school based professionals are
involved. This requires consideration as school staff holidays are fixed.
One case discussed in one meeting was identified as ‘late to RMG’ The young
person was approaching 18 and had what appeared to be long term high risk issues
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 25
in her life. Action was planned for this young person and RMG chair indicated that
the issue of late referral to RMG would be highlighted to the key worker’s line
manager.
Members of RMG clearly found the circumstances of some cases discussed during
both observations distressing. However the discussions remained professional and
clear action was identified in each case that did required further action to enhance a
care plan or to direct a service to re-consider their contribution to the care plan.
The complexity of the cases discussed at RMG highlights the need for professional
supervision for involved practitioners. After listening to the discussions and
observing the interactions during the two target meetings I would suggest that RMG
may offer a form of professional support and supervision to group members as well
as challenge and support on practice issues.
One case at one of the observations was presented by a social care worker and line
manger from a remote. This was the first RMG meeting for these professionals.
They attended for their case only. It may have been helpful if they could have
attended for the whole meeting to gain an overview of how the meeting works and
how their case compared to others in terms of risk rating and acknowledgement of
protective factors.
The processes detailed in the documentation provided about the activities of RMG
were followed during both observations. Issues noted in relation to use of the most
up-to-date VCLs and the timely referral of young people was followed up by the RMG
chair to ensure that practice was improved for the benefit of young people.
Current strengths

The process was followed in line with the written guidance.

Any issues with use of documentation, and timelines for referrals, were dealt
with pro-actively by the meeting chair.

The professionalism of those involved was evident throughout.

The meeting offered an element of professional support and supervision as
well as an opportunity for reflection on practice issues.

Learning from individual cases was transferred to other cases.
Learning and potential future development

A clearer process for communicating which version of the VCL is ‘current’
would be beneficial.

Further proactive training of key staff and services about the use of the RMG
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 26
process may be beneficial to avoid ‘later referrals’ into the group.

A process for monitoring the rate and type of referral from geographical areas
and key services and teams may be beneficial. This would offer the
opportunity to identify any particular patterns of behaviour or risk, specific to a
geographical area. This in turn would allow for consideration of pro-active
intervention to help prevent other vulnerable young people form engaging in
similar behaviour. Monitoring would also contribute to identifying any
geographic ‘bias’ in referrals to RMG. Targeted responses in the form of
training and/or awareness raising for staff about RMG could then be planned.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 27
Interviews with Team Managers
Semi structured interviews were held with those who regularly attend the RMG
group, this involved interviewing representatives from:
Teenage Pregnancy Team
Children’s Support Team
Family Placement Team
Residential Children’s Services
Northumbria Police
SORTED – Young People’s Substance Misuse Service
Northumberland Young People Service – A Tier 3 Mental Health Outreach Service
Youth Offending Service
Long Term Social Work Team
16+Leaving Care Team
Children’s Operational Manager – Manages FACT teams
Participants were asked about the RMG process and the impact of the process being
introduced to their team. Responses were analysed into themes, with many
responses to questions covering more than one theme.
The Service Manager and Project Leader were also interviewed to inform the
development of the interview schedules used.
Awareness of the RMG process
Interviewees were asked how they first became aware of or involved with the RMG
process. Four interviewees referred to the original serious case review which had
initiated the development of the RMG process. Three further interviewees were
invited by the Service Manager to be involved in the development of the RMG
process and Vulnerability Checklists. Four interviewees were invited to join the RMG
group once it had been established and one had requested they attended the group
after learning about its purpose. Notably, three participants were aware of the RMG
through their work in previous roles, having since changed jobs.
Current Strengths

All interviewees spoke positively about becoming involved in the RMG and
valued being part of the process.
Learning and potential future development
 As some team managers are of aware of RMG via their work in previous roles
there is a need for an introduction to RMG to be embedded in the induction for
team managers of the identified services to ensure this knowledge is not only
there as an artefact of previous employment.
 One team manager requested they join the RMG group after hearing about its
work. There is a possibility that other teams may feel they should be
represented on the group, or participate in the group when specific ‘cases’ are
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 28
being monitored. There is a need for a mechanism to ensure a wider range of
teams working with young people are aware of the RMG purpose and
processes.
Compliance to stated RMG procedures
Interviewees were asked to talk through how the process is ‘applied’ with young
people they work with to explore ‘compliance’ with the RMG process documentation.
Three of the interviewees noted that their teams do not initiate the process for young
people but sit on the RMG group as they may become involved in the care package
identified for young people or are able to share information from the RMG meeting
with their team to inform their work.
The eight remaining interviewees identified trigger points for a multi agency meeting
being called to complete a VCL for a young person. Only two referred to a specific
risk assessment tool being used in their service and triggering the need for a VCL.
Other ‘triggers’ were the young person not responding to a higher level of support
put in place by the team, having ‘serious concerns about a young person’, and then
discussing these in supervision/with team manager. One participant referred to
discussing the young person with the project leader if they had these concerns.
All were clear that the concerned practitioner would convene the multi agency/care
team meeting and that the young person would be monitored by the RMG if they
scored ‘high’ or ‘very high’ on the VCL. One participant did not mention the link
between the risk score and whether it was monitored by RMG and two explained that
VCLs with a ‘medium’ risk rating could still go to RMG if there was significant
concern. One participant commented on the development of the VCL meaning there
were different versions in circulation and this caused difficulties in that different risk
ratings are reached using different versions of the form. Five participants referred to
the involvement of the young person/keeping the young person informed about the
process.
Interviewees were asked how practitioners identify who to invite to the multi agency
meeting to complete a VCL. Three participants explained they would not initiate
these meetings. Five participants suggested the multi agency meeting would be the
‘care team’ or taken from the care plan. Five participants referred to initial
assessments in their team with the young person identifying who else is involved.
Four participants referred to checking on the Integrated Children’s System (ICS)
database to see who was working with the young person. Four participants referred
to discussing with the young person or parent/carer who was involved with them and
who they thought should attend. Two participants referred to trying to ensure all of
the ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes were covered, by ensuring there was a
representative from health and education at the meeting.
As the VCL asks practitioners to consider ‘protective’ factors but does not suggest
what to consider as protective factors we asked managers about what they would
expect their team to consider as protective factors. The factors that were referred to
most commonly (by seven interviewees each) were having ‘suitable’ accommodation
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 29
and positive contact with family/carers. Seventeen other factors were identified,
many by a single interviewee each and reflecting their area of work. Two
interviewees commented that it was difficult to identify protective factors as they
depend on the individual context and protective factors for some can be complicating
factors for others.
With regard to the three weekly meetings of the RMG group, which means multi
agency meetings have to be held to review VCLs in this time frame, all participants
were positive about the three weekly time scale and five stressed the time between
meetings should not be increased. One participant noted that three weeks is ‘time to
see if actions have had an impact and short enough to ensure changes in
circumstances are monitored’ another stated that practically it would be difficult for
team managers to commit to attending a regular meeting if it were held more
frequently. Five participants also noted that the risk experienced by young people
should be monitored on a daily basis and work goes on between VCL meetings to
keep young people safe.
Interviewees were asked about what written materials/guidance they had as
managers or had made available to their teams. Six participants stated that all of
their team had access to VCLs, with two of these noting that these were kept on the
‘desktop’ of practitioners so they were readily accessible. One participant felt the
VCL was ‘self explanatory’ as it gave enough information on it. Five participants
referred to the RMG ‘process document’. One participant said they were unclear as
to whether there was any written guidance and four said there was no written
guidance, going on to explain that information is shared verbally or practice is
embedded in their work. One participant referred to having a copy of the RMG
‘leaflet’ and one participant suggested there thought there were plans to develop
training materials to use with teams including the use of the DVD which had been
created to how young people’s experiences of RMG.
Interviewees were also asked about how they ensured all practitioners in their team
take a consistent approach to initiating and following the RMG process. The most
common themes that emerged, from teams whose practitioners were regularly
involved in the process, were discussion in team meetings and in supervision.
Discussion at RMG and feedback on that discussion on how VCLs have been scored
was also highlighted as a means of ensuring consistency. One manager referred to
undertaking an informal quality audit as they have sight of all the VCLs completed
and discuss how they have been completed with the team managers they manage.
Individual interviewees suggested it would be useful to have in house training and
had arranged for the project manager to come and talk to their team again followed
by a practitioner talking to the team about their experiences of completing VCLs.
One interviewee suggested examples of scoring should be provided and guidance
on how to complete each question. Two interviewee raised concerns about some
individual questions and how to score them – particularly how much past knowledge
should be taken into account, while another noted that some VCLs do not always
provide factual evidence to support risk ratings given.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 30
Current Strengths



All participants were able to describe the majority of the RMG process or
explain clearly why they were not involved in this process and did not feel
their teams needed this knowledge.
The time scale of RMG meetings was felt to be appropriate and manageable
for managers to attend and practitioners to complete VCLs.
All managers were able to name a range of protective factors they would
expect their teams to consider.
Learning and potential future development
 The RMG procedures refer to teams using internal risk assessment tools to
identify the need for a VCL to be completed. Responses of interviewees
suggest the majority of teams on the RMG do not use this as a trigger. The
procedural documents should be changed to reflect this.
 A mechanism is required that ensures all practitioners are using the most up
to date version of the VCL.
 There could be greater consistency in ensuring that the young
person/parent/carer are asked who they feel should be attending the meeting
and whether they would like to attend (taking account of safeguarding
procedures).
 Many participants appeared not to be aware of the process document, this, or
an enhanced training document, could be more widely ‘advertised’.
 There appeared to be variability in how closely the ‘cut off’ for cases moving
up to RMG was used – this could be seen as a strength or difficulty of the
process but should be something that is considered.
 Consideration should be given to formalising supervision around VCL
completion to introduce a ‘quality control’ element.
 There was not a great consensus on what constitutes protective factors
beyond suitable accommodation and positive family links. Consideration
should be given to providing teams with information about
protective/resilience factors from the research into risk assessment in different
areas.
Introducing RMG to team members
Interviewees were asked about how the RMG process was introduced to their team
members and to new team members/trainees within teams. For six interviewees
team meetings were the main forum for sharing information about the process, while
four referred to the use of supervision. One participant referred to the team
attending a department development day where the project manager had introduced
the RMG approach. A participant also referred to a high level of support from the
manager the first time a team member undertakes a VCL. Three interviewees
explained that team members attend the RMG meeting with their team manager to
learn about the process. Two interviewees explained that the majority of the team
would not be aware of the RMG process as they would not be involved in it however
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 31
they would be informed of any actions arising or information shared at the meeting
relevant to their role.
Four interviewees expressed the view that some form of formal training or more
detailed written guidelines should be developed and that all staff should have
awareness of the process even if they are not likely to use it regularly. One of these
suggested that at least half a day would be needed for introductory training. Another
suggested that VCL/RMG training should become part of the safeguarding training
and offered at the same levels of involvement as safeguarding training.
All interviewees, who expressed a view, felt that the RMG process had been
positively received by team members, one noted especially after they saw the
benefits of it in action. The reasons given for the positive reception reflected the
teams being aware of the positive impacts managers associated with the introduction
of the RMG for themselves, team members and young people.
It was noted by two interviewees that team members initially had concerns over the
wording/scoring of some items of the VCL but this was fed back to the RMG group
and the VCL adapted to overcome these difficulties. One interviewee noted that
their team sometimes feel overlooked in the care planning phase but this situation is
improving – this is a team whose manager is represented on the RMG but whose
team are not often directly involved in VCL meetings.
Current Strengths



All managers felt confident relevant members of their team were aware of the
RMG process.
All managers, whose staff were regularly involved in the process, felt their
team had responded positively to the introduction of the RMG process.
Managers felt staff appreciated the feedback loop to the RMG which showed
them their views/ideas were being taken into account.
Learning and potential future development
 ‘Training’ appeared dependent on informal arrangements with the project
leader. Thought needs to be given to how training will develop as that post or
post holder changes.
 A two tiered training programme should be developed which ensures all
practitioners likely to come into contact with vulnerable young people have an
awareness of the process and those likely to use it regularly have the
opportunity to explore the VCL in detail and there is a chance to discuss how
the VCL is scored, increasing the validity of the tool.
 Consideration should be given to embedding VCL/RMG training/awareness
raising within the Northumberland safeguarding training. This should be
mandatory for services routinely working with vulnerable young people.
 Consideration should be given to how voluntary and community groups can
access this training.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 32
 Consideration should be given to how materials/training are provided as part
of induction for new staff, cover staff, and ‘trainees’ working with teams
temporarily.
Perceived Limitations of the RMG Process and Changes Managers have/would
suggest
Interviewees were asked about what they saw as limiting the effectiveness of the
RMG process. Three interviewees identified the degree to which young people were
willing, or able, to engage in the process and the extent to which the process was
designed to facilitate their involvement. Two identified the need to ensure that the
purpose of the RMG was understood, i.e. that it’s primary role was not case planning
and that plans should be already written and in place before going to RMG.
Other themes were identified by individual interviewees:
-
Dependent on quality of information shared.
The need for establishing a balance between providing support and not
creating dependency for young people.
Time scales being not quick enough to reflect changes in circumstances for
some young people.
Ensuring time is regularly set aside for managers to attend RMG meetings.
Ensuring consistency in risk ratings given – particularly in considering what
period of time is considered when practitioners are giving a rating.
Risk ratings not always been based on the context in which a behaviour is
happening, which may lead to services becoming involved unnecessarily.
Some of the terminology used on the VCLs is unclear, confusing medical
diagnostic labels with descriptive terms e.g. ‘mood’.
No mechanism in place for passing on feedback on quality of VCLs if the
individual practitioner/their manager has not attended the RMG meeting.
Some practitioners working with vulnerable young people being unaware of
the RMG process.
It is dependent on practitioners meeting timescales for reviewing VCLs and
having these available to discuss at the RMG.
Concern that cuts in funding may impact on interventions that can be provided
on plans and on managers being able to attend the RMG meeting.
Concern that not all feedback shared with RMG about such concerns has
been acted upon.
The interviewees were asked about how the RMG process has developed as a result
of their feedback. The following changes that had already been made were
identified:
o Changes to the items included on the VCL form e.g. Absconding now highlighted
as a significant risk factor.
o Breaking the VCL form down into specific sections.
o Introducing young people and parent/carers scaling questions.
o Ensuring practitioners are directed to capture young people’s views directly –
rather than reflecting their view of the young person’s perspective.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 33
o Practitioners being encouraged to attend the RMG and ‘talk to’ the VCL that they
have initiated/completed.
o Collecting demographic information about young person on VCL – this is
particularly relevant to safeguarding concerns where some thresholds change with
age.
Interviewees were also asked about changes they would like to see. The following
themes emerged:
Training
o Need to develop training – at awareness raising level and for those who will
be regularly using the process (it was seen as frustrating for practitioners
working with teams who did not understand the serious levels of risk involved
for those monitored by the RMG and did not prioritise these young people
accordingly).
o Need to produce written guidance.
o Ensuring commitment of all teams working with vulnerable young people.
VCL construction
o Re-looking at VCL numerical risk rating. Some categories of risk are
inherently more dangerous than others yet the risk is given equal status in the
scoring system.
o Breaking sexual health questions down and including specific questions for
males.
o Changes to terminology used, being clear about what is a ‘diagnostic
category’.
o Ensuring practitioners are directed to consider the ‘here and now’ rather than
base decisions on historic knowledge of young person’s behaviour.
Young people’s participation
o Developing involvement of young people e.g. the structure and location of
VCL and RMG meetings.
VCL/RMG process
o Considering organising RMG agenda by age of young person to enable teams
to attend only for the age groups with which they have a remit to work.
o Mechanism to ensure all practitioners are using the current VCL.
o Making attendance by social worker/lead practitioner compulsory when the
VCL they initiated is discussed.
o Considering extending use to younger age groups.
Current Strengths

The RMG is generally seen as very responsive and having a feedback loop
which allows managers/practitioners to shape its development.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report

Page 34
Many examples were shared of how the VCLs/RMG process have been
adapted as a result of practitioner feedback.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to how the perceived limitations and suggested
changes, set out above, can be addressed.
Record Keeping/Data held about RMG
Interviewees were asked about what records about RMG are held in their team. Six
responses reflected VCLs being held on individual young people’s case files. Three
responses referred to the ICS database being updated, some with electronic copies
of the VCL being attached, others by selecting RMG involvement on the drop down
menu, another referring to noting review dates and agreed actions. Two further
databases were referred to as being updated with relevant information. Two
responses indicated individual workers were emailed with actions that had been
identified for them. Two respondents referred to storing all RMG minutes and one to
storing electronic copies of all VCLs discussed at RMG. One respondent said they
had decided to store this information electronically for a year and then destroy them.
None of the team mangers whose practitioners regularly participated in the
completion of VCLs were able to identify how many VCLs their team initiated.
Current Strengths

All managers were able to identify how information from VCLs/RMGs was
stored and used.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to guidance being given to practitioners about
how to store (paper and electronic) copies of VCLs and RMG minutes,
particularly where young people being discussed may not be known to their
team.
 Consideration should be given to guidance as to what information is recorded
on ICS and who is responsible for recording this information.
 Consideration should be given to how information about which teams are
initiating/participating in VCL multi agency meetings is being recorded. This
could be an addition to the VCL form/potentially noted on ICS.
Participation of young people and their parents/carers
Interviewees were asked how many VCLs, that their team members had participated
in, reflected the young person and parent/carers views. Two responses indicated
that all VCLs would reflect the views of young people and parents/carers even if this
was to state that they did not want to participate or give their views. Two responses
indicated that they did not know but that they thought it was a ‘high proportion’ or
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 35
‘nearly all’. A further response indicated that Young people were always asked if
they wanted to be involved. One response discussed the stage of the process at
which the young person became involved, indicating that VCLs were often initiated at
crisis point, and the young person was unlikely to contribute at that stage, but that all
young people had taken part at the stage they were being monitored by RMG.
Interviewees were also asked about how their teams involved young people in the
process. Five responses suggested young people were invited to join the initial multi
agency meeting and complete the VCL. Five responses suggested practitioners met
with the young people separately, including if they did not want to attend the VCL
meeting, to seek their views and share them at the VCL meeting. Three responses
suggested the practitioner would meet with the young person after the VCL meeting
to explain what had happened and discuss the action plan agreed. One response
indicated that practitioners were expected to explain why young person’s views were
not given and to follow this up. One response cited the DVD that has been
developed as a way young people’s views have been represented.
Current Strengths

All interviewees were aware of the importance of involving young people in the
process and to have considered how this could be best achieved.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to a ‘minimal level’ of young person’s involvement
in the VCL/RMG process.
 Consideration should be given to an element of ‘quality control’ of completed
VCLs by managers being to ensure that where young people’s views are not
represented a reason is given or that practitioners are asked to actively try to
engage young people before submitting the VCL (still with in time scales that
ensure young person can be discussed at RMG).
Perceived Impact of the introduction of the RMG for team members/manager
Interviewees were asked about how the RMG process differs to how a high risk case
would previously have been handled by their team and the impact of the RMG
process for them as managers and for team members.
A wide range of positive changes were identified by those involved, these included:
o A greater understanding of the role of other teams, how to work together and
resources available.
o Better communication between teams, including more ‘fluid’ information
sharing.
o New links being initiated between teams.
o Closer working and more/better quality multi agency working.
o An increased focus on fact, not anecdote.
o More focus being given to young people’s and parent/carers’
views/perspectives.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 36
o Joint decision making.
o Shared accountability and management oversight/reassurance for managers.
o Ensuring ‘defensible decision making’/that ‘everything in power’ has been
done.
o Not working on one area of a young person’s life in isolation.
o Shared understanding of risk which lessens likelihood of practitioners
‘thresholds’ for risk increasing.
o Increased understanding of seriousness of some young people’s situations.
o Plans being considered ‘objectively’ by group, reducing influence of emotional
attachment.
o Intervention planning being more transparent, formalised and coherent.
o Common approach to recording and reporting.
o Improved use of resources.
o Sharing intervention cost between teams.
o Enabling county level funding decisions.
o Increased profile of team and status of practitioners from that team (from non
local authority team).
o Learning from plans drawn up for young people (informing future planning).
o Increasing practitioners’ confidence to work with those at risk to themselves.
These themes were identified as areas of change/positive impact for the work of
managers and practitioners. The three most common themes that emerged thinking
of the impact for managers were around:
o Improved relationships/communication with other teams, thought to be due to
an increased understanding of other teams roles and resources and having a
multi agency forum at which to discuss young people.
o Shared responsibility/accountability for plans. Not having to make decisions
in isolation and a move away from a ‘blame culture’.
o Personal impact on anxiety levels, expressed in terms of ‘support’,
‘reassurance that vulnerable people are being discussed’, ‘sleeping more
soundly’ and reduced ‘feelings of isolation’.
The managers were also asked to rate (on a ten point scale, with ten being most
positive) how supported they felt as part of the RMG process. Eight interviewees felt
this question was relevant to their role. The mean (average) rating given was 8.9 (to
one decimal place), with the range of responses being from 7.5 to 10. Managers
were also asked to select a description of the impact of RMG on how supported they
felt as a manager. All nine managers, who felt the question was relevant to them,
selected “It has made me feel more supported”.
Where appropriate, managers were also asked what would move them further up the
‘supported’ scale. The responses given were:
o Things that are outside the control of the RMG e.g. being able to remove
young people from risk, ensuring young people sign up to plans generated.
o Everyone to have training in the RMG process and all managers to recognise
the process and roles and responsibilities within it.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 37
o Having a more robust VCL and all teams’ involved in the development of the
process being acknowledged.
o Having a mechanism to ensure that the relevant people are present at VCL
and RMG meetings and ensuring consistent information sharing between
agencies.
With regards to the impact team managers saw for practitioners the three most
common themes that emerged were around:
o Feeling supported/having reassurance as responsibility for safety of young
people is shared.
o Having a standard transparent process to follow – including time scales,
ensuring actions are outcome driven, holistic assessment.
o Improved communication between teams – due to greater understanding of
each others’ roles.
Current Strengths


All of the impacts of the RMG identified were positive.
All managers (whose teams are regularly involved in RMG) felt more
supported as a manager as a result of the RMG process being introduced.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to what other community/voluntary based
organisations are working with young people and how they feel their work is
valued in relation to local authority colleagues. How can the RMG process be
used as a way of promoting joint working with community voluntary sector
groups?
 Consideration should be given to all the suggestions managers made re what
would improve how supported they feel.
Perceived Impact of the introduction of the RMG for young
people/parents/carers
Interviewees were asked about the impact they felt the introduction of the RMG had
had for the young people they work with. All responses reflected positive changes.
Common themes that emerged were:
o Young people being empowered through their active involvement, as one
interviewee stated, it “gives young people a voice and a chance to listen and
to speak”. One participant commented that young people were not always
able to attend the meetings due to their location and that the format of the
meeting may be off putting for some young people.
o Young people becoming aware that there are a team of people working on
their behalf – it was felt it was important that young people recognised this
‘concern’ even if they did not have concerns for them self.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 38
o Young people have the opportunity to hear the perceptions of practitioners
(and linked to this to disagree with them and explain their view of the
situation!).
o Young people/parents/carers seeing the structure that is being used, which
also could serve as an introduction to boundaries/rules/security for the young
people.
o Saving the lives of some young people, as one interviewee commented, for a
few young people “without the RMG would be dead”.
Additionally individual interviewees identified the following changes for young people:
o Increasing young people’s reflectiveness about their behaviour, at the end of
the process usually, when risk levels have decreased.
o Reducing offending behaviour and increasing safety for individuals.
o Having one agreed care plan and consistent messages from the people they
are working with.
o Knowing everyone in the team who they may have contact with.
o Changes in accommodation.
The Service Manager identified the following impacts for young people that had been
identified as trends at the County Level:





No further heroin related death in Northumberland, despite heroin use
increasing. There are case examples of young people who the RMG process
has helped managed their drug issues effectively.
The number of requests for, and placements, in secure accommodation has
reduced since the RMG process has been in place. This has had a large cost
(saving) implication for the county.
There was not a surge in adolescents going into the care system following
‘Baby P’ as there was in other parts of the country.
The proportion of adolescents in the care system in Northumberland is
reducing as more adolescents are having their needs met via the RMG
process and so not on child protection plans. This also has a cost (saving)
implication for the county.
An increased cost to the County in providing specialist housing, this has been
to meet a previously unmet need.
The Service Manager noted that while these trends were apparent since the
introduction of the RMG process it is not possible to show a direct causal link.
The Service Manager also noted that since the RMG process has been in place
there have been two deaths by suicide of young people. These young people were
not known to the RMG, and the RMG was not designed to have identified them,
however it does suggest that there is scope for looking at this vulnerable group of
young people and how the process benefit them. This is likely to be via the inclusion
of other ‘agencies’ such as school health/school staff.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 39
Current Strengths


All interviewees spoke positively about the impact of the RMG process for
individual young people.
The Service Manager was able to identify changes in trends in outcomes for
young vulnerable young people in Northumberland since the introduction of
the RMG.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to how multi agency and RMG meetings can
continue to be made more person centred for the young people, including
consideration to where and when meetings are held.
 Consideration is being given to broadening the group of vulnerable young
people that the RMG group is able to access, via awareness raising with other
professional groups about the process being in place.
Cost/Resourcing/Outcomes implications of RMG
Costs and outcomes impacted by the RMG process as identified by the Service
Manager have been set out in the previous section.
In addition interviewees were asked if they felt the introduction of the RMG process
had had any the cost implications for ‘managing cases’ Two interviewees suggested
they were unsure if there had been any cost implications. The remaining
interviewees identified cost implications but were not able to quantify the cost or
identify if this information was held/calculable.
Three responses suggested that RMG, at least in the short term, would increase the
cost of managing cases as more interventions were being put in place. However, all
pointed out that the costs were necessary ones and they might be preventing more
expensive interventions being necessitated in the longer term. This was also
reflected in a response which highlighted that costs are difficult to quantify as young
people’s situations are being manage pro-actively so it is difficult to measure what
won’t be needed as a result of taking a pro-active approach.
Two responses referred to the time implication for practitioners attending VCL
meetings and the manager attending RMG meetings which may take time away from
delivering intervention work. Another highlighted their team had to do less direct
intervention work with some of the individuals as a result of the multi agency plans
drawn up.
Two responses suggested the cost of managing cases was reduced, one was
unable to expand further while the other suggested this was because of shared
responsibility between the multi agency team and less replication of inputs occurring.
Three responses suggested there were fewer young people being
accommodated/fewer secure placements and another that there were fewer bespoke
out of county packages being developed.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 40
Finally, one response indicated the RMG process highlighted how costly supporting
this group of vulnerable young people is.
Interviewees were also asked about whether the RMG process had resulted in the
identification of any gaps in provision for the group of vulnerable young people and if
action had been taken as a result of this. Interviewees were unable to identify the
precise mechanism by which this had happened but felt discussions at RMG had
resulted in specific gaps being identified and resources put in place.
Eight of the interviewees referred to accommodation for this high risk group being
highlighted as a major area of concern and that funding had been applied for and
projects had been initiated to provide secure housing for vulnerable groups. Other
gaps/interventions as a result of the RMG process were identified by interviewees
as:
o Transition between children’s and adult’s services, with treatment services
being specifically identified.
o Absconding and mental health issues being identified as significant risk
factors.
o Improved information sharing between health and social care and ensuring
young people (aged 16/17) are treated as children under safeguarding
guidelines in Accident and Emergency wards.
o Defining ways of how to get support from other teams.
The RMG was set up with no additional funding. The Project Manager and Service
Manager felt there had been improvements in outcomes for young people e.g.
reducing the number of secure residential placements required for young people,
and that use of the RMG process has reduced the over all cost of managing cases
No data was presented to the evaluation team about this. No data has been
presented to the evaluation team as to the cost implications of running RMG or
implementing changes as a result of gaps in provision identified.
Current Strengths

All managers felt RMG had had an impact on service provision and/or the cost
associated with managing cases.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to what local authority performance indicators
could be use to measure impact of the RMG process. This is particularly relevant
to authorities setting up the RMG process for the first time who will have baseline
data available about current trends in those indicators that can be used as a
comparator.
 Consideration should be given as to how the impact on cost/intervention
provision can be quantified so the cost efficiency of the RMG process can be
considered.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 41
Practitioner Questionnaires
The team managers, previously identified as regularly attending the RMG group,
(with the exception of the police) were asked to distribute questionnaires to their
team members. There were 32 questionnaires returned. The breakdown of returns
from different teams is shown below:
Teenage Pregnancy Team
Children’s Support Team
Family Placement Team
Residential Children’s Services
SORTED
Northumberland Young People Service
Youth Offending Service
Long Term Social Work Team
16+Leaving Care Team
1 Response
6 Responses
2 Responses
1 Response
7 Responses
0 Responses
7 Responses
6 Responses
2 Responses
Practitioners, who gave the information, had been in their current role between 3
months to 9 years.
Practitioners were asked about the RMG process and the impact of the process
being introduced for themselves and the children/young people they work with.
Responses were analysed into themes, with many responses to questions covering
more than one theme.
Awareness of the RMG process and Compliance to stated RMG procedures
Of the 32 responses, 28 practitioners indicated they were aware of the RMG and 29
that they were aware of the VCLs.
Of the 29 who were aware of the RMG/VCL, 16 responses indicated they had seen
some form of written information, 13 had not. Of those who had seen written
information about the process, the following information was referred to:
o No detail of what information they had seen (5 responses).
o The ‘rationale for scoring’ that accompanied the VCL form (6 responses).
Further sources of information were referred to in one response each:
o
o
o
o
o
The ‘information leaflet’.
Information presented at an ‘external training event’.
Dates of meetings circulated with information about different risk categories.
Flow chart of process.
Strengths/risks matrix.
27 of the responses identified that their teams used an internal risk assessment tool
and named the tool used. Responses from the Community Support Team and the
long term social work team identified the use of the VCL and the Signs of Safety
Approach as their internal tools.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 42
Of the 29 respondents who indicated their team would use the VCL, only four
respondents (all from the Youth Offending Service) referred to scores on their
internal Risk Assessment Tool being a trigger for use of the VCL, the trigger
identified within RMG procedures.
Other triggers identified for using the VCL were, by theme:
o Young people presenting with high risk behaviours/concerns for young
peoples’ safety (10 responses).
o Young people displaying harmful behaviour and practitioner wanting multiagency support (5 responses).
o Case discussion in supervision, using VCL to identify risk level (4 responses).
o When young people are identified as ‘vulnerable’ (3 responses).
o As a basis for discussing risk with young people (2 responses).
o When directed by senior management (1 response).
o To ‘clarify’ the level of risk (1 response).
o When wanting to review and re assess progress made by young people in risk
areas (1 response).
o To identify level of risk (1 response).
Practitioners were also asked about the structure of the VCL, particularly in relation
to the coverage of potential risk factors and the inclusion of protective factors.
There were twenty six responses to the question about risk factors, twenty one
practitioners felt the VCL covered all relevant risk factor and one practitioner noted
that suggested changes had been made. Five practitioners felt the VCL did not
cover all relevant risk factors, one suggested the scoring system should be more
flexible and another that age should be a consideration in the scoring of the risk
factors.
Practitioners were asked about what they considered to be protective factors and
whether it would be useful for the VCL to provide guidance on this. There were
twenty nine responses to the guidance question and of these, twenty one felt it would
be useful to have some guidance as to what protective factors should be considered.
Twenty one responses were given to the question about what protective factors are.
Practitioners identified multiple protective factors, these were analysed into themes,
and these themes are set out below:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Stable relationships with family/friends (15 responses).
Being in employment/education or training (8 responses).
Support services being involved/in regular contact (6 responses).
Young person committed to/engaging with support services (5 responses).
Any protective factors that might mitigate risk/reduce vulnerability (not
specified) (5).
Being in suitable accommodation (4 responses).
Positive self image/high self esteem (4 responses).
Making safe choices/evidence of behaviour changing (4 responses).
Having interests/being involved in activities (3 responses).
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page 43
Case management/supervision occurring (1 response).
Intelligence (1 response).
Realistic plans for the future (1 response).
Social and emotional competence (1 response).
Self awareness (1 response).
Good Health (1 response).
People interested in young person (1 response).
Of the thirty two practitioners only seven indicated they had initiated a multi agency
meeting to complete a VCL and sixteen had participated in a VCL meeting. Thirteen
practitioners indicated that there had not been agreement on risk ratings at the VCL
meeting. While nine felt any disagreement had been resolved through discussion
other ‘solutions’ to disagreement identified were:
o Agreement to focus on young person’s needs not professional ‘agendas’ (2
responses).
o Disagreement being recorded on the VCL.
o Chair person making a final decision.
o Reviewing protective factors and then re-assessing risk.
Two responses also raised concerns about the process, and suggested a need for
training:
o There was no consensus on the RMG process.
o Participants had different understandings of risk.
Current Strengths






The majority of practitioners were aware of the RMG process and VCL
approach.
The majority of practitioners had seen some form of written information about
the approach.
The majority of practitioners were able to identify when they would use the
VCL, although this did not necessarily match with the suggested trigger from
the RMG guidance.
The majority of practitioners felt the VCL covered relevant risk factors.
The majority of practitioners were able to identify protective factors they would
consider.
Consensus on risk ratings was reached in the majority of VCL meetings.
Learning and potential future development
 There was a lack of consistency in the information practitioners had seen
about the process. Consideration should be given to how written information
can be distributed and standardised, perhaps making use of the internal
website.
 There was a range of trigger points identified for initiating the VCL, some
suggesting practitioners were using the VCL for different purposes. This is
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report




Page 44
not necessarily a negative, however consideration should be given to how the
RMG procedures should be set out to clarify the process and intended use of
VCLs.
A minority of practitioners felt the VCL did not cover all relevant risk factors.
Consideration should be given to encouraging/reminding practitioners to add
additional risk factors they have identified for individuals.
Consideration should be given to the scoring system, particularly if the use of
RMG is to be expanded to a wider age group.
The majority of practitioners felt guidance should be given about protective
factors. Consideration should be given to generating this guidance/identifying
protective factors from practitioners experience/research. It would be
important to consider differences in different domains of expertise e.g. health,
education, substance use etc.
There were some concerns about different perceptions of risk, confusion
about the RMG process and professional ‘agendas’. Consideration should be
given to how a comprehensive multi agency training programme/examples of
scoring VCLs could alleviate these difficulties.
How practitioners were introduced to the RMG process/Training in RMG
Practitioners were asked about what ‘training’ or introduction they had been given to
the RMG process. From the 29 practitioners who were aware of the RMG process,
13 indicated that they had received no ‘training’ in any form. 4 further responses did
not indicate the format of the ‘training’ they felt they had received.
The remaining 16 responses indicated a range of forms of ‘training’, they are listed
below:
o
o
o
o
o
o
‘In house’ guidance (4 responses).
Information/oversight from managers (3 responses).
Participation with VCL/RMG meetings (2 responses).
External training event (1 response).
Project manager talking at staff meeting (1 response).
Training while employed in previous role (1 response).
Current Strengths

Over a third of the practitioners were able to identify the ‘training’ they felt they
had received to introduce them to the RMG process.
Learning and potential future development
 The majority of practitioners did not feel they had received any training in the
RMG process, which highlights the need to develop this.
 There was a lack of consistency in the introduction to/‘training’ people had
received about the RMG process. Consideration should be given to creating
a training model that is likely to include levels of intensity depending on the
team’s likelihood to regularly engage with the RMG process.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 45
Participation of young people and their parents/carers
Practitioners were asked about how young people and parents/carers had been
involved in their experience of the RMG process.
Nine practitioners identified how young people had been involved in the process.
The responses were analysed into categories of involvement, with many responses
covering more than one area. These categories of involvement are set out below:
o Being involved/invited to be involved in completing VCLs (4 responses).
o Being kept up to date after meetings about what has happened/plans drawn
up (4 responses).
o Being involved/invited to be involved in reviewing VCLs (2 responses).
o Views sort by practitioner to inform VCL discussion (2 responses).
o Attending/Being invited to attend RMG meeting (2 responses).
o Being informed about RMG process (1 response).
o Being asked if they want to engage with particular interventions (1 response).
12 Practitioners said that young people had been aware of the plan that was drawn
up as a result of a multi agency VCL meeting, with 11 stating that the young person
had contributed to the plan. 10 practitioners stated the young person’s section on
the VCL had been completed by the young person.
One practitioner highlighted the difficulty of engaging young people in the process at
times and another that involvement should be meaningful not ‘tokenistic’.
Practitioner’s responses about parental involvement highlighted the following:
o Consulted with/discussions held with (5 responses).
o Involvement would be via partner agencies/not involved/Confidential service
so would not contact parents (5 responses).
o Invited to VCL meetings (3 responses).
o Invited to meetings (1 response).
o Meetings held in family home (1 response).
13 Practitioners said that parents/carers had been aware of the plan that was drawn
up as a result of a multi agency VCL meeting, with 10 stating that the parents/carers
had contributed to the plan. 10 practitioners stated the parent/carers section on the
VCL had been completed.
Current Strengths
 Practitioners, who responded, were able to identify how young people and
parents/carers had been involved in the RMG process in their experience.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 46
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to collecting more data around frequency and
nature of young person and parent/career involvement with a view to
generating a ‘best practice’ or ‘minimal’ level of expected involvement.
Perceived Impact of the introduction of the RMG for practitioners
Practitioners were asked about the impact they felt the RMG process had had on
their practice. Sixteen responses indicated that the introduction of the RMG had had
an impact on their work. Thirteen practitioners did not complete the question and
three felt the RMG had made no difference to their work.
The responses of the sixteen practitioners who felt the RMG had made a difference
were analysed for emerging themes. Many responses reflected more than one
theme, the themes identified are set out below:
o Increased multi agency working and co-ordinated support (in 6 responses).
o Provided (peer) support to practitioner/increased confidence of practitioner (5
responses).
o Focussed practitioners’ thinking/clarified situation (4 responses).
o Increased knowledge of resources/interventions available (2 responses).
o Provided management oversight/reassurance (2 responses).
o Increased information sharing between teams (2 responses).
Other themes were suggested in the responses by only one practitioner:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Improved planning.
Improved assessments.
RMG group contributing ideas and resources to plan.
Focussed teams to ‘high risk’ individuals.
Shared responsibility.
Provided clear documentation to use.
Ensures regular assessment of risk.
Two themes were also identified by a single practitioner each which could be
considered less positive if considered in isolation from other emergent themes given
above:
o Has created more work.
o Lack confidence in the process.
Practitioners were also asked to rate how supported they felt by the RMG process on
a ten point scale (where ten was most positive). Fifteen responses gave a rating.
The ratings ranged from 3 to 10 and the mean rating was 6.6.
Practitioners were also asked to categorise whether they felt ‘more supported’ or,
‘less supported’ due to the introduction of the RMG or if it had made ‘no difference’ to
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 47
how supported they felt. Seventeen responses were given, fifteen practitioners
stated they felt more supported and two that it had made no difference.
With particular reference to the impact of multi agency meetings to complete VCLs,
sixteen indicated they had participated in a VCL meeting. Of those, fifteen indicated
that they had found the multi agency meeting helpful. Practitioners were asked to
identify how the multi agency meeting had been helpful to them, their responses
were analysed into themes with many responses covering more than one theme, the
themes that emerged are set out below:
o Hearing other perspectives, including about thresholds of concern (6
responses).
o Being able to verbalise/clarify/reflect on own views (3 responses).
o Sharing information (3 responses).
o Shared responsibility, for decision making and plan (2 responses).
o Increasing awareness of resources available (1 response).
o Setting clear roles and responsibilities in plan (1 response).
o Quicker communication than emails and telephone calls (1 response).
o Identifying what is working and what isn’t and informing plan (1 response).
Current Strengths


Half of the practitioners indicated the introduction of the RMG had made a
difference to their work and identified a range of ways in which it had
impacted.
No practitioners indicated they felt less supported as a result of the
introduction of the RMG process.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to how the impact of the RMG process can be
measured and this information should be shared with practitioners.
Perceived Impact of the introduction of the RMG for young
people/parents/carers
Practitioners were asked whether they felt the introduction of the RMG process had
had an impact for the young people who have been part of the process. From
seventeen responses to the question, sixteen practitioners indicated that RMG had
made a positive impact for the young people, one felt it had not.
Respondents were asked to identify how RMG had made an impact and responses
were analysed into themes, some responses reflected more than one of the themes,
themes identified are set out below:
o Improved information sharing and multi-agency working (impact for young
person not specified) (4 responses).
o Better planning/safeguarding (3 responses).
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 48
o Resources (including accommodation) made available (3 responses).
o Young people recognising the concerns others have for them/knowing that
people care about them (3 responses).
o Management monitoring them (2 responses).
o Being more involved in process (1 response).
o Better outcomes (not specified) (1 response).
o Unable to specify (1 response).
Practitioners were also asked whether they felt the introduction of the RMG process
had had an impact on the parents/carers of the young people. From sixteen
responses to the question, fourteen practitioners indicated that the RMG had had an
impact for the parents/carers, two felt that it had not.
Respondents were asked to identify how RMG had made an impact and responses
were analysed into themes, some responses reflected more than one of the themes,
themes identified are set out below:
o Feeling more supported (3 responses).
o Information they provide contributing to planning/feeling involved in the
planning (3 responses).
o Multi agency working (impact for parent/carers not specified) (2 responses).
o Reassurance that safeguards in place/knowing their young person is safe (2
responses).
o Young people being more involved (impact for parent/carer not specified) (1
response).
o Increased awareness of process in place to support young person (1
response).
o Recognition of others’ concerns for young person (1 response).
o Clear monitoring of young person (impact for parent/ carer not specified) (1
response).
o Service to young person improving things for family too (1 response).
One response suggested that the process may be seen as intrusive by
parents/carers.
Current Strengths
 The vast majority of responses felt the RMG process had a positive impact for
young people and parents/carers.
 Most Practitioners were able to identify in general terms how the RMG
process impacted for young people and parents/carers.
Learning and potential future development
 Consideration should be given to how outcomes for this group of young
people can be measured. Local Authority Performance Indicators that may be
impacted on should be identified.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 49
 No reference was made to risk ratings reducing or protective factors
increasing. Consideration should be given to how information collated on the
VCLs is used and fed back to practitioners as a method of evaluating the
impact of plans drawn up.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 50
Young People and Parent/Carer questionnaires
Questionnaires were constructed to elicit the views of young people and their
parents/carers about their involvement in the RMG process. It was agreed that
contact would be made via the key worker of the young person at the time when they
were being monitored by the RMG. Questionnaires were therefore distributed to the
key workers for the first thirty five young people who were monitored through the
RMG process at the time they were monitored by RMG.
Unfortunately, many of the key workers were no longer involved with the young
people and were unable to make contact with them. Other young people were no
longer known to children’s services due to their age.
It was only possible to make contact with four young people via their key workers at
the time they were monitored by RMG. All four young people completed the
questionnaires. It was not possible for the key workers to get the parent/carer
questionnaires completed. All four young people who responded were female.
All four young people said they had been aware that their progress was monitored by
the RMG group. Two became aware when they were told by an individual
practitioner, one at their Looked after Review and one when they helped to complete
the VCL.
The young people were asked about how they were involved in the process. All four
said they were asked for their views by their key worker. Two were invited to multi
agency meetings and three helped to complete the VCL. Three felt they had
contributed to the action plans drawn up and three (not the same three) had been
shown a copy of the plan.
The young people were asked to rate how involved they had felt on a ten point scale
(where ten was positive). The average rating given was 8.25, with the highest rating
given being 10 and the lowest rating 7. When asked what would have increased
how involved they felt there were two responses, one stating “Not sure, I was ok”
and the other “I felt very much involved”.
Three of the young people answered the question about whether the RMG had
made a difference in their lives. The three responses were, “..more support and
help”, “I’ve stopped using heroin and have a stable place to live” and “getting support
with housing”.
When asked how the process would have to change to make a bigger difference
there were two responses, “I am ok now got as much help as I needed” and “No my
workers did everything to help me and succeeded.”
NB this is a very limited sample on which to base any conclusions
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 51
Current Strengths



The four young people contacted were positive about their experience with
RMG.
All felt their level of involvement had been appropriate.
Three were able to identify changes in their lives which they felt were due to
the RMG process.
Learning and potential future development
 Further work should be undertaken to ascertain a wider group of young
people and parent/carer views on the RMG process.
 Means for following up with young people and parents/carers should be
established when the young people as part of the RMG process to enable
these views to be sought.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 52
Conclusions and Recommendations
Strengths of the current RMG process, and how it has developed, are given along
with areas of learning/potential development for each area of the RMG process
considered by this evaluation.
The RMG stated process
Current Position and Strengths identified during the evaluation project:




The RMG process provides a participative, holistic and proactive approach to
risk assessment and risk management, allowing dialogue between workers,
service users and managers.
The RMG process fits well with the Working Together to Safeguard Children
(WTSC) 2010 principles for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of
children.
The RMG process fits well with the principles guiding the Common
Assessment Framework (CAF) and Team Around the Child (TAC) Approach
highlighted as potentially useful for the age group RMG works with by the
Children’s Society (2010) research around ‘Safeguarding Young People:
Responding to people aged 11 - 17 who are maltreated’.
The RMG process provides a basis for ensuring ‘defensible decision making,
as described in the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
(Home Office 2006).
Learning/Potential for future developments:
 Suggestions for developments to the RMG process are given in the relevant
sections of the conclusion that follow.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 53
Compliance to the stated RMG process
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project





All team managers interviewed were able to describe the majority of the RMG
process or explain clearly why they were not involved in this process and did
not feel their teams needed this knowledge.
The time scale of RMG meetings was felt to be appropriate and manageable
for managers to attend and practitioners to complete VCLs.
All managers were able to name a range of protective factors they would
expect their teams to consider.
The majority of practitioners were aware of the RMG process and VCL
approach.
The majority of practitioners were able to identify when they would use the
VCL, although this did not necessarily match with the suggested trigger from
the RMG guidance.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 There was a range of trigger points identified, by practitioners, for initiating the
VCL, some suggesting practitioners were using the VCL for different
purposes. This is not necessarily a negative, however, consideration should
be given to how the RMG procedures should be set out to clarify the process
and intended use of VCLs.
 The RMG procedures refer to teams using internal risk assessment tools to
identify the need for a VCL to be completed. Manager and practitioner
responses suggest the majority of teams on the RMG do not use this as a
trigger. Consideration should be given to the procedural documents should
be changed to reflect this.
 A mechanism is required that ensures all practitioners are using the most up
to date version of the VCL.
 There appeared to be variability in how closely the ‘cut off’ for cases moving
up to RMG was used – this could be seen as a strength or difficulty of the
process but should be something that is considered.
 Many participants appeared not to be aware of the process document.
Consideration should be given to how this, or an enhanced training document
could be more widely ‘advertised’.
 There could be greater consistency in ensuring that the young
person/parent/carer are asked who they feel should be attending meetings
and whether they would like to attend (taking account of safeguarding
procedures).
 Consideration should be given to formalising supervision around VCL
completion to introduce a ‘quality control’ element to VCLs being completed.
 There was not a great consensus on what constitutes protective factors
beyond suitable accommodation and positive family links. Consideration
should be given to providing teams with information about
protective/resilience factors from the research into risk assessment in different
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 54
areas, particularly as practitioner’s questionnaire responses suggested they
would welcome this information.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 55
Awareness of RMG process, training and guidelines provided
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project







All managers felt confident that relevant members of their team were aware of
the RMG process.
All managers, whose staff were regularly involved in the process, felt their
team had responded positively to the introduction of the RMG process.
Managers felt staff appreciated the feedback loop to the RMG which showed
them their views/ideas were being taken into account.
The majority of practitioners were aware of the RMG process and VCL
approach.
The majority of practitioners had seen some form of written information about
the approach.
Over a third of the practitioners were able to identify the information they felt
they had received to introduce them to the RMG process.
The majority of practitioners were able to identify when they would use the
VCL, although this did not necessarily match with the suggested trigger from
the RMG guidance.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 As some team managers are of aware of RMG via their work in previous roles
there is a need for an introduction to RMG to be embedded in the induction for
team managers of the identified services to ensure this knowledge is not only
there as an artefact of previous employment.
 One team manager had requested they join the RMG group after hearing
about its work. There is a possibility that other teams may feel they should be
represented on the group, or participate in the group when specific ‘cases’ are
being monitored. There is a need for a mechanism to ensure a wider range of
teams working with young people are aware of the RMG purpose and
processes.
 ‘Training’ appeared dependent on informal arrangements with the project
leader. Thought needs to be given to how training will develop as that post or
post holder changes.
 There was a lack of consistency in the information practitioners had seen
about the process. Consideration should be given to how written information
can be distributed and standardised, perhaps making use of the internal
website.
 There were some concerns expressed by practitioners about different
perceptions of risk, confusion about the RMG process and professional
‘agendas’ suggesting a lack of inter rater reliability. Consideration should be
given to how a comprehensive multi agency training programme/examples of
scoring VCLs could alleviate these difficulties.
 The majority of practitioners did not feel they had received any ‘training’ in the
RMG process and there was a lack of consistency in the introduction people
had received about the RMG process. Consideration should be given to
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 56
creating a two tiered training programme which ensures all practitioners likely
to come into contact with vulnerable young people have an awareness of the
process and those likely to use it regularly have the opportunity to explore the
VCL in detail and there is a chance to discuss how the VCL is scored,
increasing the validity of the tool.
 Consideration should be given to embedding VCL/RMG training/awareness
raising within the Northumberland safeguarding training.
 Consideration should be given to how voluntary and community groups can
access this training.
 Consideration should be given to how materials/training are provided as part
of induction for new staff, cover staff, and ‘trainees’ working with teams
temporarily.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 57
The Vulnerability Checklists
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project

The current versions of the Vulnerability Checklists have developed through
feedback from practitioners.

VCLs Encourage practitioners to take into account protective or resilience
factors for young people – although these do not directly impact on the ‘Risk
Assessment’ score achieved.

VCLs Combine actuarial and clinical evaluation approaches to Risk
Assessment.

The VCLs meet the desirable criteria for risk assessment tools cited by McIvor
et al (2002), being seen as user friendly, resource lean, easy to train staff in
appropriate use and having process of use that is transparent and
accountable.

The majority of practitioners felt the VCL covered relevant risk factors.

The majority of practitioners were able to identify protective factors they would
consider.

The VCLs are described as ‘evidence based’ as they expect practitioners to
provided factual evidence of risk in order to produce a risk rating score.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 The emphasis placed on the numerical scores obtained on the VCLs e.g.
using these scores as a trigger for monitoring by RMG means they are open
to the criticisms made of actuarial approach to risk assessment cited by the
BPS (2007). Consideration should be given to the validity of the scoring
system applied and the emphasis placed upon it.
 While, the VCLs are described as ‘evidence based’ as they expect
practitioners to provided factual evidence of risk in order to produce a risk
rating score, there is no research base for the validity of the VCL as a risk
assessment tool. The use of the term ‘evidence based’ should be carefully
considered and the different applications of the term made clear to
practitioners in Northumberland and authorities considering taking on the
RMG approach with an emphasis on the use of VCLs.
 Consideration should be given to how the ‘clinical evaluation’ elements,
protective factors identified and ratings/information provided by young people
and or parents/carers can be better acknowledged in the process or
contribute to the overall understanding of risk.
 The VCLs do not meet the essential criteria for risk assessment tools
identified by McIvor et al (2002) namely:
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
-









Page 58
At least one peer reviewed publication on validation of the tool.
Validation against a relevant population of the target group.
Based in actuarial and empirical factors contained in the research
literature.
Able to differentiate accurately between high, medium and low-risk.
Has inter assessor and inter-rater reliability.
This does not necessarily detract from the usefulness of the tool as a basis for
assessment and management of risk but consideration should be given to the
emphasis placed on the scoring system given these areas have not been
explored.
Consideration should be given to particular concerns about the VCL scoring,
identified by practitioners, which they feel have not yet been addressed in the
evolving VCLs, namely:
Re-looking at VCL numerical risk rating. Some categories of risk are
inherently more dangerous than others yet the risk is given equal status in the
scoring system.
Breaking sexual health questions down and including specific questions for
males.
Changes to terminology used, being clear about what is a ‘diagnostic
category’.
Ensuring practitioners are directed to consider the ‘here and now’ rather than
base decisions on historic knowledge of young person’s behaviour.
A minority of practitioners felt the VCL did not cover all relevant risk factors.
Consideration should be given to encouraging/reminding practitioners to add
additional risk factors they have identified for individuals.
The majority of practitioners felt guidance should be given about protective
factors. Consideration should be given to generating this guidance/identifying
protective factors from practitioners experience/research. It would be
important to consider differences in different domains of expertise e.g. health,
education, substance use etc.
There were some concerns about different perceptions of risk, confusion
about the RMG process and professional ‘agendas’. Consideration should be
given to how a comprehensive multi agency training programme/examples of
scoring VCLs could alleviate these difficulties.
The VCL contains an area for forming a risk management plan and
practitioners are encouraged to consider actions, responsible agency and
timescale. Consideration should be given to providing a structured basis for
recording the risk management plan, for example adopting a model such as
that used by Frith et al (2009), with the addition of ‘success criteria’ for actions
agreed. This would ensure interventions are closely linked to identified risks
and the context around risk behaviours are considered.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 59
VCL and RMG meetings
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project
Multi Agency VCL meetings
 VCL meetings observed were well organised and had good multi agency
attendance.
 Although the young people did not attend the VCL meetings observed
reasons were given as to why this was the case and it was acknowledged that
best practice would indicate that their attendance or contribution in some form
was required.
 Observation and questionnaire/interview data suggested practitioners are able
to identify areas of perceived ambiguity in relation to some of the questions
discussed and that they had passed their concerns on to senior managers
associated with RMG. This indicates that the management style in these
services is focused on practitioner participation and experiential learning to
inform practice.

Practitioners felt a consensus on risk ratings was reached in the majority of
VCL meetings they had attended.
RMG meetings

Observations of meetings suggested the process was followed in line with the
written guidance.

Any issues with use of documentation, and timeliness of referrals, arising at
observed meetings was dealt with pro-actively by the meeting chair.

The professionalism of those involved was evident throughout meetings
observed.

The meetings observed appeared to offer an element of professional support
and supervision as well as an opportunity for reflection on practice issues.

Observations and practitioner interviews suggest learning from individual
cases was transferred to other cases.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 60
Learning/Potential for future developments
Multi Agency VCL meetings
 Further detailed guidance in the form of written documentation and training
may be of benefit in relation to the issues noted regarding perceived
ambiguity.
 Consideration should be to the VCL could be used to structure the meeting as
a form of agenda allowing for each section to be discussed in turn, including
protective as well as risk factors, reducing the need for any repetition (as long
as this would meet the requirements of social care for a care team meeting as
many meetings serve this dual purpose).
 Consideration of how young people and parents/carers could be more
included in key meetings (including those associated RMG processes) about
their lives should be considered. Planning and reviewing progress in a person
centered way may be of use, as would considering venue and timing of
meetings.
 Consideration should be given to the interface with adult services where
family/carer needs may be impacting on the young persons needs.
 Consideration could be given to practitioners working in a specific area rating
the risk in their area in advance of the meeting, providing supporting evidence
to the group for discussion. Once all of the information is gathered at the
meeting an agreed rating could be given in each area with clear examples of
behavior on the part of the young person to support this.
RMG Meetings

Inconsistent use of a version of the VCL lead to discrepancies in risk rating.
Consideration should be given to developing a clear process for
communicating which version of the VCL is ‘current’.

Further proactive training of key staff and services about the use of the RMG
process may be beneficial in establishing consistent use across teams.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 61
The involvement of young people
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project
 All managers and practitioners were aware of the importance of involving young
people in the RMG process and appeared to have considered how this could be
best achieved.
 Managers felt the involvement of young people had improved as the process had
evolved and were able to identify the benefits of young people being involved in
the process.
 Practitioners who responded, were able to identify how young people had been
involved in the RMG process in their experience.
 The four young people contacted were positive about their experience with RMG.
All felt their level of involvement had been appropriate.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 Consideration should be given to how multi agency and RMG meetings can be
made more person centred for the young people, including consideration to
where and when meetings are held.
 Consideration should be given to setting out a ‘minimal level’ of young person’s
involvement in the VCL/RMG process (this would include providing an
explanation when no involvement is apparent).
 Consideration should be given to an element of ‘quality control’ of completed
VCLs by managers being to consider degree of young person involvement.
 Consideration should be given to collecting more data around frequency and
nature of young person and parent/career involvement with a view to generating
a ‘best practice’ or ‘minimal’ level of expected involvement.
 As acknowledged in WTSC (2010) and research ‘Safeguarding Young People:
Responding to people aged 11 – 17 who are maltreated’ (Children’s Society
2010), young people’s views often differ from those of adults, involving young
people in the RMG process and eliciting their view about it is essential in
establishing how appropriate and client centred the approach is.
 Means for following up with young people and parents/carers should be
established when the young people as part of the RMG process to enable these
views to be sought.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 62
The involvement of parents/carers
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project
 Practitioners who responded, were able to identify how parents/carers had
been involved, or why they were not involved, in the RMG process in their
experience.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 Consideration should be given to collecting more data around frequency and
nature of parent/career involvement with a view to generating a ‘best practice’
or ‘minimal’ level of expected involvement.

Means for following up with young people and parents/carers should be
established when the young people as part of the RMG process to enable
these views to be sought.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 63
The impact of RMG for Managers and Practitioners
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project

All interviewees spoke positively about becoming involved in the RMG and
valued being part of the process.

Managers responses reflected the following themes for impacts for
practitioners:
o Feeling supported/having reassurance as responsibility for safety of
young people is shared.
o Having a standard transparent process to follow – including time
scales, ensuring actions are outcome driven, holistic assessment.
o Improved communication between teams – due to greater
understanding of each others’ roles.

Mangers responses reflected the following themes in impacts for their roles:
o Improved relationships/communication with other teams, thought to
be due to an increased understanding of other team’s roles and
resources and having a multi agency forum at which to discuss young
people.
o Shared responsibility/accountability for plans. Not having to make
decisions in isolation and a move away from a ‘blame culture’.
o Personal impact on anxiety levels, expressed in terms of ‘support’ ,
‘reassurance that vulnerable people are being discussed’, ‘sleeping
more soundly’ and reduced ‘feelings of isolation’.
 All managers (whose teams are regularly involved in RMG) felt more
supported as a manager as a result of the RMG process being introduced.
 Half of the practitioners indicated the introduction of the RMG had made a
difference to their work and identified a range of ways in which it had
impacted.
 No practitioners indicated they felt less supported as a result of the
introduction of the RMG process.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 Consideration should be given to what other community/voluntary based
organisations are working with young people and how they feel their work is
valued in relation to local authority colleagues. How can the RMG process be
used as a way of promoting joint working with community/voluntary sector
groups?
 Consideration should be given to all the suggestions managers made re what
would improve how supported they feel. Namely:
o ‘Everyone’ to have training in the RMG process and all managers to
recognise the process and roles and responsibilities within it.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 64
o Having a more robust VCL and all teams’ involved in the development
of the process being acknowledged.
o Having a mechanism to ensure that the relevant people are present at
VCL and RMG meetings and ensuring consistent information sharing
between agencies.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 65
The impact of RMG for young people and parents/carers
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project

All managers interviewed were positive about the impact of the RMG process
for individual young people.

Manager’s responses reflected the following themes around impacts of the
RMG for young people.
o Young people being empowered through their active involvement, as
one interviewee stated, it “gives young people a voice and a chance to
listen and to speak”. One participant commented that young people
were not always able to attend the meetings due to their location and
that the format of the meeting may be off putting for some young
people.
o Young people becoming aware that there are a team of people working
on their behalf – it was felt it was important that young people
recognised this ‘concern’ even if they did not have concerns for them
self.
o Young people have the opportunity to hear the perceptions of
practitioners (and linked to this to disagree with them and explain their
view of the situation!).
o Young people/parents/carers seeing the structure that is being used,
which also could serve as an introduction to boundaries/rules/security
for the young people.
o Saving the lives of some young people, as one interviewee
commented, for a few young people “without the RMG would be dead”.
 Managers identified positive impact for young people
o Accommodation for this high risk group being highlighted as a major
area of concern and that funding had been applied for and projects
had been initiated to provide secure housing for vulnerable groups
(identified by 8 managers).
o Transition between children’s and adult’s services, with treatment
services being specifically identified.
o Absconding and mental health issues being identified as significant
risk factors.
o Improved information sharing between health and social care and
ensuring young people (aged 16/17) are treated as children under
safeguarding guidelines in Accident and Emergency wards.
o Defining ways of how to get support from other teams.

The vast majority of practitioner responses felt the RMG process had a
positive impact for young people and parents/carers.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 66

Most Practitioners were able to identify in general terms how the RMG
process impacted for young people and parents/carers.

The four young people contacted were positive about their experience with
RMG.

Three of the four young people contacted identified changes in their lives
which they felt were due to the RMG process.

The Service Manager Identified the following trends in Northumberland since
the introduction of the RMG process.
o No further Heroin related death in Northumberland, despite heroin use
increasing. There are case examples of young people who the RMG
process has helped managed their drug issues effectively.
o The number of requests for, and placements, in secure
accommodation has reduced since the RMG process has been in
place. This has had a large cost (saving) implication for the county.
o There was not a surge in adolescents going into the care system
following ‘Baby P’ as there was in other parts of the country.
o The proportion of adolescents in the care system in Northumberland is
reducing as more adolescents are having their needs met via the RMG
process and so not on child protection plans. This also has a cost
(saving) implication for the county.
o An increased cost to the County in providing specialist housing, this
has been to meet a previously unmet need.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 While managers were confident that there had been practicable outcomes from
the RMG approach they were unable to quantify them/did not provide data to
support them. Consideration should be given as to how the impact for young
people including costings and intervention provision can be quantified so the cost
efficiency of the RMG process can be considered.
 Consideration should be given to how outcomes for this group of young people
can be measured, including identifying relevant performance indicators from the
Local Authority.
 No reference was made by practitioners or managers to risk ratings reducing,
protective factors increasing or objectives of plans being achieved (although this
could have been assumed). Consideration should be given to how information
collated on the VCLs is used and fed back to practitioners as a method of
evaluating the impact of plans drawn up.
 Further work should be undertaken to ascertain a wider group of young people
and parent/carer views on the RMG process.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 67
 Consideration should be given to how the ‘rolling out’ of the RMG process could
lead to improved outcomes for a wider group of young people e.g. those at risk of
self harm via deliberate self harming/suicide. Thought is already being given to
expanding to involve education and wider health teams.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 68
Evaluating the impact of RMG
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project




It has been possible to evaluate practitioners’ perspectives about the impact
of the RMG for their work and for the young people and their parents/carers
that they work with.
All managers were able to identify how ‘individual’ information from
VCLs/RMGs was stored and used.
All managers felt RMG had had an impact on service provision and/or the cost
associated with managing cases but none were able to quantify this.
Northumberland have already begun to take steps to improve data collection
systems to improve evaluation and enable authorities initiating the RMG
approach to gather evaluation data.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 It has not been possible to satisfactorily evaluate concrete ‘outcomes’ for
practitioners and/or young people as a result of the RMG process due to
limited data available. This is as a consequence of evaluation processes not
being identified at the time RMG was in place. The need for evaluation
approaches is recognised and suggested tools for evaluation follow later in
this report.
 It has not been possible to satisfactorily capture the views of young people
and parents carers via the ethical method agreed to make contact with the
additional cohort. Consideration should be given to how plans for follow up
contact and longer term progress monitoring can be put in place as part of the
RMG process.
 Consideration should be given to guidance as to what information is recorded
on ICS, who is responsible for recording this information and who has access
to this information.
 The use of ICS (or similar) database already in place should be considered as
a way of being able to access demographic and outcomes data for future
evaluation.
 Consideration should be given to how information about which teams are
initiating/participating in VCL multi agency meetings is being recorded. This
could be an addition to the VCL form/noted potentially on ICS.
 Consideration should be given as to how the impact on cost/intervention
provision can be quantified so the cost efficiency of the RMG process can be
considered.
 A process for monitoring the rate and type of referral from geographical areas
may be of use in identifying particular rates of and types of risk taking
behaviour in particular areas. This information could then be shared with
other organizations/teams within the authority and beyond, to plan pro-active
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 69
interventative interventions to support young people in specific localities,
providing targeted needs lead provision.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 70
RMG development and Northumberland as a Learning Organisation
Current Position and Strengths identified through evaluation project
The evaluation project has highlighted that the RMG process is a good example of
Northumberland acting as a ‘Learning and Adaptive Organisation’ based on the
characteristics identified in the Munro Report (2011). Namely those involved with the
RMG process have demonstrated:








Openness to possibilities – understanding the different options for resource
deployment and using the resources available to them in a considered way;
The ability to collaborate – working together with one’s team, partners, and
political and corporate leaders to work on outcomes and deliver results;
Demonstrating a belief in their team and people – fostering a sense of team
and practices of team working to work enable working through others;
Personal resilience and tenacity – demonstrating the ability to see things
through and work through challenges;
The ability to create and sustain commitment across a system – aligning
people to work towards a common goal;
Displaying a focus on results and outcomes – not only inputs, outputs or
the process, and ensuring that the improvement of outcomes is the
overarching priority;
Ability to simplify – removing unnecessary complexity from systems, and also
in creating a simple, clear narrative or strategy; and
Willingness and ability to learn continuously – trying new tools and
techniques and adapting them as necessary, learning from the experience of
leadership and resource deployment.
This is demonstrated in:
 The RMG process was developed in response to a Northumberland Management
Review following the death of a young person. The organisation identified, and
acted on, the need for the services to work in a more coordinated way to manage
risks presented by vulnerable adolescents.
 Existing protocols in Northumberland i.e. The Missing Children’s’ Protocol have
been updated to reflect learning from the RMG process (now all missing
children/young people are allocated a social care worker).
 The RMG tools were developed and revised in the light of feedback from
practitioners across key services.
 Observations and practitioner interviews suggest learning from individual cases is
transferred to other cases through VCL and RMG meetings.
 Practitioners are confident in sharing observations on the process with
management and acknowledged that there is a feedback loop in place in relation
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 71
to same issues raised.
 The RMG project team have acknowledged limitations in data currently gathered
and recorded in relation to young people and the RMG process and are taking
steps to improve this e.g. considering how ICS can be used to capture
demographic and other data from VCLs.
 Northumberland continue to seek to reflect on the RMG process, for example
commissioning this evaluation project, seeking to develop training/awareness
raising and considering expanding the RMG process to apply to different age
groups and a wider group of vulnerable adolescents.
Learning/Potential for future developments
 Northumberland should aim to continue its good practice in relation to being a
learning organisation.
 Learning/Potential for future developments identified in this evaluation report
should be considered by the RMG project team/RMG group.
 The RMG project team/RMG group should maintain awareness of developments
in research and government policy which may be relevant to the RMG approach
e.g. the forthcoming further recommendations of the Munro Review.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 72
Self Evaluation Tools
Measuring Impact of RMG
Local authorities should consider the performance indicators relevant to this group of
vulnerable young people. Current trends in relation to performance on these
indicators, before RMG is put into place, can be used as a baseline to assess the
impact of the RMG process, following an Outcomes Based Accountability model.
A Value for money exercise should also be considered.
Data Collection
Local Authorities adopting the RMG approach should consider putting mechanisms
in place to collect and analyse a range of data, areas selected may be dependent on
the priorities and features of the specific authority. As such, examples of data to
collect are given, they are not intended to be an exhaustive list, neither is it intended
that Authorities would choose to collect all the data.
The data should be collected in a form that is searchable in order to enable the
authority to use it. Consideration should be given to making use of existing
databases to record this information e.g. ICS and the flexibility of these databases in
allowing searches to retrieve relevant data. A mechanism for identifying who is
responsible for updating the database is also necessary.
The following types of data should be considered:
Demographics
-
date of birth/age
gender
sexuality
ethnicity/religion
care status
location (within authority)
This will enable authorities to track the population being monitored by the RMG
process and whether this is representative of the communities they serve.
Consideration can then be given to any groups ‘under’ or ‘over’ represented and
actions that can be taken e.g. awareness raising with practitioners working with
‘under‘ represented groups, targeted interventions with ‘over’ represented groups.‘
Collation of ‘location’ information may support the development of preventative
services into specific communities and is in line with a focus on localism and the
local provision of services.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 73
Nature of risk and actions put in to manage them
-
Record of which risk area(s) young person is scoring highest in.
Record of changes in ratings for different risk areas on subsequent VCL
completions.
Record of frequency of specific interventions being put in place in VCL action
plans.
This will enable an overview of risk areas arising and inform decision making
process as to allocation of resources into preventative work in different risk areas.
Looking at which areas of risk appear to change most following RMG intervention in
conjunction with record of interventions put in place will also offer insights into which
interventions are most successful.
RMG Process
-
The length of time young person is monitored by RMG.
The number of times individual is monitored by RMG.
The sections completed on VCLs e.g. parent views/young person views
represented.
Which ‘team’ initiates VCL.
Which ‘teams’ attend multi agency VCL.
Whether an initiated VCL progresses to RMG or is managed at the team level.
Data in this area will inform quality control measures and allow exploration of what
make an effective VCL plan (by comparing interventions from plans where young
person were monitored by RMG for different time periods/number of times).
Being able to look at which teams initiate and attend VCL meetings will highlight
potential awareness raising/training issues and will help in planning of the time costs
associated with running the RMG process. It will also enable the relationship
between the Local Authority and voluntary/community sector teams to be
considered.
Young People’s/Parent Carer’s views on Process
A potential questionnaire/interview schedule to be used with young people
during/immediately after and at some time after involvement with RMG. A contact
mechanism for maintaining contact for collecting follow up data should be planned,
particularly for young people at an age where they will shortly no longer be overseen
by Children’s Services.
Demographic data sought in addition to these questions will depend on information
sought by the authority and should include enough information to track responses.
The same questions can be used with parents/carers by changing wording to direct
questions to this group.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 74
1. Are you aware that your progress was/is being monitored by the Risk
Management Group (RMG) Process?

Yes
or

No
2. If Yes how did you become aware of this?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
3. How were you involved in the RMG process?
I do not think I was involved at all.

My key worker asked for my views

I was invited to a meeting to a multi agency meeting to
complete the VCL

I was invited to the RMG meeting where my safety
was discussed

I contributed to action plans drawn up for me

The action plan drawn up for me was
discussed/shared with me

4. Please rate how involved you feel/felt in the RMG process?
I was not involved as
much as I wanted to be
0
1
2
3
I was as involved as I
wanted to be
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
How did your team make your feel involved?
___________________________________________________________________
What could your team have done to make you feel more
involved?___________________________________________________________
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 75
5. Do you think the RMG process is making/has made an impact on your life?

Yes
or

No
If Yes, what difference do you think the RMG process made?
___________________________________________________
If No, why don’t you think the RMG process made a difference?
___________________________________________________
6. What would you change about how the RMG process and how it works
with/for young people?
 I wouldn’t change anything
 I would _______________________________________________________
8. What would you say to other young people who ask about the RMG process?
_______________________________________________________________
7. Would you like to make any other comments?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 76
Practitioner’s views and experiences of the RMG process
A potential questionnaire/interview schedule to be used with practitioners. The
questions can be adapted for use to consider the initial introduction of the RMG
process or a regular review of how the RMG process is being used by practitioners.
Demographic data sought in addition to these questions will depend on information
sought by the authority and should include enough information to track responses.
For example team, role, length of time in role may be of interest depending on why
the questions are being used.
1. Are you aware of the RMG process?
Please describe the process in your own words:
What information/training have you had about the RMG process:
What changes would you suggest to the information/training you have received?
2. Please indicate your involvement with the RMG process.
I have initiated a MAG to complete a VCL

I have been invited to take part in a MAG,
to complete a VC, initiated by another team

I have had no involvement in any way

3. Do you feel the introduction of the RMG process has made a difference to:You as a practitioner?

Yes
or

No
If Yes How?
________________________________________________
Please select the statement which best describes the impact of the introduction of
the RMG process on how you feel as a practitioner?
It has made me feel more supported
It has made me feel less supported
It has made no difference to how supported I feel



Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
4. Young people?
If Yes How?

Yes
or
Page 77

No
______________________________________________________________
5. Families/carers?
If Yes How?

Yes
or

No
______________________________________________________________
6.
Was the young person involved in the RMG process? Yes/No
If Yes, how were they
involved?________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
If No, why weren’t they
involved?_____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
7. Was the young person’s parents/carers involved in the RMG process? Yes/No
If Yes, how were they
involved?________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
If No, why weren’t they
involved?_____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
8. Do you have any suggestions on how the RMG process could be improved?
Yes/No
Please give details:
______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 78
Team Managers views and experiences of the RMG process
The first checklist below, is designed to support managers in developing supervision
conversations focussed around the use of VCLs or to undertake a ‘quality control’
audit of VCLs completed by their teams. Depending on data collected as part of the
recording process adopted by the Local Authority this information could be gathered
from existing sources e.g. via a query on ICS or other database used for recording
VCLs for individuals.
Supervision/Quality Audit
Demographic Data
 All requested data completed
Young Person’s Participation
 Young person’s views section completed
 Section not completed but explanation provided for absence
 Young person consulted re participants/location/timing of multi agency meeting
 Young person invited to/attended multi agency meeting
Young person’s views on action plan generated and measure of agreement with
given
Parent/Carers Participation
 Parent/Carer’s views section completed
 Section not completed but explanation provided for absence
 Parent/Carer consulted re participants/location/timing of multi agency meeting
 Parent/Carer invited to/attended multi agency meeting
 Parent/Carer’s views on action plan generated and measure of agreement with
given
Risk Ratings/Protective Factors
 Practitioner able to provide factual evidence to support risk ratings given
 Practitioner able to provide factual evidence to support protective factor rating
given
 VCL2 includes updates on risk factors
 VCL2 includes update on protective factors
Action Plan
 Actions identified for areas of risk identified
 Actions identified build on areas of strength/resilience identified
 Roles and responsibilities for undertaking actions assigned
 Success criteria for interventions identified
 VCL2 includes evaluation/reflection of previous interventions put in place.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 79
The second checklist, below, is designed to support Managers in identifying RMG
related training needs within their teams. Items from both checklists can be adapted
into a questionnaire format.
Team development/Training Needs
 All team members are aware of RMG process and how to initiate process
 Copy of most recent documentation held centrally at _______________ or
online/shared drive at ____________________________
 All team members have up to date VCLs
 All team members have up to date process document/written guidelines
 All team members have attended awareness raising/in depth RMG training
(possibly embedded in safeguarding training)
All team members are aware of how VCLs/RMG minutes to be recorded for
individual young people
 All team members are aware of mechanisms for sharing feedback about process
to enable further development of process
Induction materials for new/temporary team members contains information about
RMG/how to access training
 Mechanism in place from feeding back from RMG in relation to specific individuals
known to the team.
Mechanism in place from feeding back ‘learning’ from RMG not related to specific
individuals
Discussion of completion of VCLs is a discussed in supervision
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 80
Top Tips for Authorities Adopting the Risk Management Group Approach
Five “Top Tips”
for Introducing and Developing RMG Practices
What is RMG?
Awareness Raising and Training
Consider establishing a community wide two tiered training approach, potentially
embedded in safeguarding training. Authority’s should consider the need for:
1. Awareness raising for all services, schools and community groups working
with 11-17 year olds. Explicit links good practice guidance should be made
e.g. CAF and TAC guidance, WTSC (2010) and Munro (2011).
2. Detailed practice guidance and training for groups actively engaged in the
RMG process. This should include areas such as how to decide on a risk
rating and how to run VCL multi-agency meetings in line with person canted
approaches. Guidance should be offered on considering
resilience/protective factors and individual and family ‘strengths’. Authority’s
should consider accrediting training and establishing demonstration of
minimum standards of competence, to be demonstrated by all parishioners
involved in completing VCLs.
Who is RMG for?
Client Centred Practices
Young people and their families/carers should be at the centre of the RMG
process. Shared ownership is more likely to result in positive outcomes for all.
RMG process and practices should be further developed and informed from
learning from Person Centred Approaches. The structure, timing and location of
meetings should be planned to reflect the needs of the young person within the
context of safeguarding considerations. Feedback from young people
parents/carers should inform practice development as a matter of course.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 81
What difference does it make?
Impact Assessment and Accountability
An outcome based accountability model could be used to establish the impact of
RMG.
Authorities’ should consider identifying performance indicators relevant to the
RMG process and establish base line data in these areas that can be compared
to post RMG intervention data. This should include tools for assessing young
people and parent/carer views before during and after RMG support.
Support planning/intervention planning documents should identify each
individual risk (acknowledging the context in which each risk is increased or
decreased) the action to be taken by who and when in response to each risk
including success criteria for that intervention. Effective capacity building
strategies leading to reduced risk should be recorded and shared.
What do you need to know?
Data Gathering and Record Keeping
Establish what data to gather from whom, when and how. E.g. demographic
information, LAC status. Link this to your own Authority guidelines and
priorities.
Establish agreed recording procedures and compatible systems allowing all
data to be drawn together centrally and analysed by key teams. E.g. consider
use of ICS and related or compatible systems.
Establish best practice guidance for RMG participants on data handling and
protection these will be dependent on, and link to, individual Authorities’
guidance.
Are you a learning organisation?
Communication and Feedback/Process Development
Authorities’ should make practitioner and participant feedback loops explicit,
promoting and demonstrating their Authority as a learning organisation, and
ensuring processes meet the needs of the communities they are designed to
serve.
Consideration should be given to developing the VCL rating process to include
more weighting towards clinical judgement and reference to strengths/protective
factors.
Communication channels should be clear and systems should be developed to
ensure all practitioners have access to the most up-to-date information (e.g. the
latest versions of the VCL and procedural guidance).
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 82
References
Barry, M (2007) Effective Approaches to Risk Assessment in Social Work: An
International Literature Review. Scottish Executive Social Research.
Brandon, M. Bailey, S. Belderson, P. Gardner, R. Sidebotham, P. Dodsworth,
J. Warren, C. Black, J (2009) Understanding serious case reviews and their
impact: a biennial analysis of serious case reviews 2005-2007. DCSF
Research Report, RR129. London: department for children, schools and
families.
British Psychological Society O’Rourke, M and Bailes, G (2006) Risk
Assessment and Management. Leicester; British Psychological Society.
Do H (2007) Best Practice in Managing Risk. Principles and Evidence for
best practice and management of risk to self and others in mental health
services.
Francis , J, McGhee J and Mordaunt E (2006) Protecting Children in Scotland:
an investigation of risk assessment and inter agency collaboration in the use
of child protection orders, Edinburgh: Scottish executive.
Frith, H , Spanswick M and Rutherford, L (2009) Managing Multiple Risks:
Use of a Concise Risk Assessment Format.
Gold , N, Benbenishty, R and Osmo R (2001) A Comparative study of risk
assessments and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child
abuse and neglect, 25 (5) 607-622.
HM government, (2010) Working Together To Safeguard children: a guide to
inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
London department for children, schools and families.
Home Office (2006)Revised MAPPA guidance London; national probation
service.
Kemshall (2003)The community management of high risk offenders. Prison
Service Journal March.
Laming (2003) The Victoria Climbie Inquiry. London Crown Copyright.
McIvor and Kemshall (2002) Serious violent and sexual offenders: The use of
risk assessment tools in Scotland, research finding s65Edinburgh Scottish
executive.
Morgan , F (2007) ‘Giving up a Culture of Blame’ Risk Assessment and Risk
Management in Psychiatric Practice. Briefing Document for the Royal College
of Psychiatrists.
Munro, E. (2010) The Munro review of Child protection part one: A Systems
Analysis. Department for Education, London Crown.
Munro, E. (2011) The Munro review of Child protection part Two: Interim
Report: the Child’s Journey Department for Education, London Crown.
Rees, G., Gorin, S., Jobe, A., Stein, M. Medford, R. and Goswami, H. (2010)
Safeguarding Young People: Responding to young people 11 to 17 who are
maltreated, The Children's Society, London.
Scottish Executive (2006a) Changing Lives: Report of the 21st Century Social
Work Review, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
www.childrenssociety.org.uk/research/safeguarding
www.idea.gov.uk
www.localinnovation.idea.gov.uk
Page 83
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Appendices
A
Risk Assessment Procedures Template
B
Vulnerability Checklist 1
C
Vulnerability Checklist 2 (Review)
Page 84
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 85
Appendix A – Risk Assessment Procedures Template
Office use only
Version No:
Date Issued:
Previously Issued:
Category:
ECM Outcome:
Authorised:
Risk Management
Procedure/Guidance
1.
Purpose
1.1
To provide practice guidance and advice in respect of
children and young people who have been identified as
vulnerable and potentially at risk of significant harm as a
result of their behaviour.
2.
Scope
2.1
This procedure applies to all staff within Children’s Services
and staff from other agencies who are working directly or
indirectly with children, young people and their families.
3.
References
3.1
Risk Management Policy
3.2
Children missing from care procedure
4.
Guidance
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Children’s Services deal with a variety of young people who
may pose certain risks to themselves or others. The
various teams and professionals that make up Children’s
Services identify and manage these risks in different ways
and use a range of risk assessment tools.
4.3
This procedure provides a framework that should be used
when individual agency risk assessments indicate that the
risk posed to or by a young person is considered to be high
or very high. The procedure is not intended to replace
individual agency procedures nor replace other actions that
workers may take to safeguard young people.
-
Role
Responsible
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
4.4
Page 86
The purpose of the procedure is to ensure that a
coordinated approach is taken when considering the level of
vulnerability of individual young people who are deemed to
be at high or very high risk and a multi agency plan
developed. This will assist front line staff to evidence their
decision making in respect of individual.
Role
Responsible
Children deemed to be at risk and ensure decisions are
made that are defensible to external scrutiny.
4.5
The procedure should also;





5

Provide clear definitions of the type of risk and the level
of vulnerability for individual young people.
Identify the nature and level of risk in case allocation
and the interventions necessary to moderate the risk.
Provide guidance for managing the different levels of
risk.
Identify roles and responsibilities.
Promote the sharing of information where children and
young people are deemed to be at high or very high
risk.
Provide appropriate management oversight.
Lead
Professional
5.1
Procedure
5.2
Individual workers who are concerned about the safety and
welfare of a child or young person should undertake a risk
assessment using their individual agency’s risk assessment
processes.
Using the following matrix the worker should, on the basis of
the risk assessment, identify the level of vulnerability of the
child or young person.
Level of
Vulnerability
Threshold
Low
-
No evidence at present to indicate
likelihood of serious harmful behaviour.
No further action required.
Medium
-
Some risk identified but consequences
not likely to result in imminent serious or
significant harm. This risk should be
managed through the normal
Lead
Professional
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 87
supervision process and agreed actions
recorded on the young person’s case file.
High
-
The risk of significant harm arising as a
result or consequence of the identified
behaviour(s) could occur at any time.
Very High
-
The risk of serious or significant harm is
imminent and the young person will
commit the behaviour(s) as soon as they
are able or the opportunity arises.
Immediate action is required and will
involve intensive multi agency support
and/or surveillance.
Role
Responsible
5.3
If any further information becomes known to the lead
professional following the initial risk assessment then the
level of vulnerability should be reviewed.
6.
Action following risk classification.
6.1
Following the identification of the level of vulnerability the
following actions should be undertaken;
Lead
Professional
Low
- The risk assessment documentation
should be countersigned by the line
manager. This document should be
included on the young persons case file.
Lead
Professional
Medium
- The risk assessment should be
discussed with the line manager within 5
working days and a risk management
plan devised that identifies actions to
manage or moderate the level of risk.
Lead
Professional
High/Very High - The risk assessment should be
discussed with the line manager that day
and a multi agency planning meeting
convened within 5 working days. This
meeting should be chaired by a team
manager. The meeting should be
minuted and identify actions to moderate
the risk, the professional responsible for
undertaking the action and timescales.
Lead
Professional/
Team
Manager
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Cases identified as high or very high risk
should be discussed with a senior
manager and reviewed as part of the
regular supervision process.
6.2
6.3
6.4
The lead professional identified within the risk management
plan will notify other agencies of the nature and level of the
assessed risk as appropriate.
Where an assessment indicates a high or very high level of
risk information should be referred to the multi agency Risk
Management Group (RMG). This information should
include the risk assessment tool and the subsequent plan
for the young person.
The Risk Management Group will consider (using RM1) the
circumstances and plans of all young people referred to it
as being at high or very high risk and will keep a central
High Risk Register.
Page 88
Team
Manager
Lead
Professional
Team
Manager
RMG
Role
Responsible
6.5
Young people will be included on this register if the
assessment of the multi agency Risk Management Group
concurs with the individual agency’s risk assessment.
RMG
6.6
A multi agency risk management plan will be maintained for
all young people whose names appear on the risk register.
This plan will identify the support services that will be or are
being provided to manage the identified risks. The plan will
also identify the agencies responsible for providing the
support and the timescales.
RMG
6.7
A copy of the plan will be provided to all agencies identified
as providing support and the plan will be reviewed on a
monthly basis until the young person is no longer
considered to be at high or very high risk.
RMG
6.8
The risk management plan is not intended to replace any
action which an individual agency may consider necessary
to safeguard and protect the welfare of a child or young
person. Rather, the plan is intended to enhance the
planning process in respect of individual children and
RMG
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 89
ensure coordinated multi agency planning is in place.
6.9
The risk management plan should be included on the child
or young persons case file.
6.10
The risk management log will be maintained by the Head of
Community Support who will keep the information in line
with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.
6.11
The RMG will seek confirmation from local authorities who
place young people in Northumberland (with the exception
of Kyloe House) where there is deemed to be a risk to self
or others that appropriate risk management strategies are
in place.
Lead
Professional/
Team
Manager
Head of
Community
Support
RMG
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 90
Appendix B
Vulnerability Checklist
This document is to be used to identify the level of vulnerability of a young person
referred to the Northumberland Risk Management Group (RMG). The purpose of
the checklist is to identify strengths and risks in relation to a young person and to
ensure that a coordinated plan is developed to meet their identified needs.
The checklist contained in the document is not exhaustive and should be used to
summarise the information held by different agencies involved with a young person.
It is intended to assist with decision making and does not remove the need for
professional judgement which should take account of factors such as the age and
maturity of the young person.
Personal Details of Young Person
First Name:
Surname:
Address:
Dob/Age:
Legal Status:
Agencies Involved
Children’s Services
Police
YOS
CAMHS
Education
SORTED
Other (name agency)
Risk Matrix
Score using the following scale:
Score
0
No apparent risk
1
Low apparent risk
2
Medium apparent risk
No history or evidence at present to
indicate likelihood of risk from behaviour.
No current indication of risk but young
person’s history indicates possible risk
from identified behaviour.
Young person’s history and current
behaviour indicates the presence of risk
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
3
High apparent risk
4
Very high apparent risk
Page 91
but action has already been identified to
moderate risk.
The young person’s circumstances indicate
that the behaviour may result in a risk of
serious harm without intervention from one
or more agency.
The young person will commit the
behaviour as soon as they are able and the
risk of significant harm is considered
imminent.
Vulnerability and Protective Factors
The check list should be completed using the scoring matrix on the first page
and the total score used to identify an indicative risk using the scale at the
bottom of this page. The identification of the level of risk should take into
account the age and level of functioning of the child as well as professional
judgement.
Section 1:
Section 3:
Emotional Health
Substance Misuse
Low Self Esteem
Low Mood
Depression
Self Harm
Severe Paranoia/Anxiety
Suicidal Intent
Suicidal Ideation
Identified Mental Health
Difficulties, i.e., ADHD
psychosis, OCD,
schizophrenic
Eating Disorder
Amphetamine
Cannabis
Cocaine/Crack
Poly Drug Use
Heroin
Ecstasy
Benzodiazepines
Solvents/Gas/Aerosols
Other (state)
Frequency
- Regular
- Occasional
Physical Health
Score using following scale
Score
3
Major care – under
Consultant
2
Moderate - regular GP
involvement
1
Minor - self-managed
or with support of
carer
0
No Physical Health
Issues
Injecting
- No
- Yes/Previously
Contact with Substance Users
- No using friends
- Some using friends
- All friends using
Family Substance Users
- No family users
- Known close family users
- Significant family misuse
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Sexual Health
Risk of Overdose
Pregnant
Commercial or Abusive Sex
Other (state)
Section 4:
Offending Behaviour
Involvement in Criminal Justice
System
Risk of Custody
Section 2:
Social and Environmental
Looked After Child / Leaving
Care
Family/Relationship Difficulties
Non School Attendance
Homelessness
Unsuitable Housing
Social Isolation
Total Score
Section 6:
Page 92
Section 5:
Absconding
Frequency of Absconding
Risk of Harm
Risk of Sexual Exploitation
Length of Abscond Episodes
Risk Level
Indicative Risk Continuum:
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
Very
High Risk
0
40/41
60/61
70/71
0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
Section 7:
Protective factors.
Summary:
Please remember to note:
 What is it that you are worried about?
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report


Page 93
What is working well? (include strengths, exceptions, resources, goals,
willingness, etc)
What needs to happen to decrease risk and improve safety.
Professional assessment of risk
Young persons view of risk
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means the problem is sorted as much as it
can be and zero means things are so bad that there needs to be some
professional help, where does the young person rate their situation at the
time of the assessment?
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Parent or carers view of risk
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 94
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means the problem is sorted as much as it
can be and zero means things are so bad that there needs to be some
professional help, where does the parents/carers rate the situation at the time
of the assessment?
0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Risk management plan
(To include actions, responsible agency and timescale.)
Completed by -------------------------------------------- Date --------------------
Countersigned (Manager) ------------------------------ Date ---------------------
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 95
Appendix C
Vulnerability Checklist Review
This document is to be used to review the level of vulnerability of a young person
referred to the Northumberland Risk Management Group (RMG).
Personal Details of Young Person
First name:
Surname:
Address:
DOB/Age:
Legal Status:
Agencies Involved
Children’s Services
Police
YOS
CAMHS
Education
Sorted
Other
Risk Matrix
Rate using the following scale:
0. No apparent risk
No history or evidence at present to indicate
likelihood of risk from behaviour.
1. Low apparent risk
No current indication of risk but young
person’s history indicates possible risk from
identified behaviour.
2. Medium apparent risk
Young person’s history and current
behaviour indicates the presence of risk but
action has already been identified to
moderate risk.
3. High apparent risk
The young person’s circumstances indicate
that the behaviour may result in a risk of
serious harm without intervention from one
or more agency.
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
4. Very high apparent risk
Page 96
The young person will commit the behaviour
as soon as they are able and the risk of
significant harm is considered imminent.
Vulnerability and Protective Factors
Section 1:
Section 3:
Emotional Health
Substance Misuse
Low Self Esteem
Low Mood
Depression
Self Harm
Severe Paranoia / Anxiety
Suicidal Intent
Suicidal Ideation
Identified Mental Health
Difficulties, i.e., ADHD
psychosis, OCD,
schizophrenic
Eating Disorder
Amphetamine
Cannabis
Cocaine/Crack
Poly Drug Use
Heroin
Ecstasy
Benzodiazepines
Solvents/Gas/Aerosols
Other (state)
Frequency - Regular
- Occasional
Injecting - No
- Yes/Previously
Contact with Substance Users
- No using friends
- Some using friends
- All friends using
Physical Health
Major (under consultant care)
(3)
Moderate (regular GP
involvement)
(2)
Minor (self-managed or with
support of carer)
(1)
No Physical Health Issues
(0)
Family Substance Users
- No family users
- Known close family users
- Significant family misuse
Risk of Overdose
Section 4:
Sexual Health
Pregnant
Inappropriate Sexual
Behaviour
Commercial or Abusive Sex
Other (state)
Offending Behaviour
Involvement in Criminal Justice
System
Risk of Custody
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 97
Section 2:
Section 5:
Social and Environmental
Absconding
Looked After Child/Leaving
Care
Family/Relationship Difficulties
Non School Attendance
Homelessness
Unsuitable Housing
Social Isolation
Frequency of Absconding
Risk of Harm
Risk of Sexual Exploitation
Length of Abscond Episodes
The check list above should be completed using the scoring matrix on page 1
and the total score used to identify an indicative risk using the scale on page
3. The identification of the level of risk should take into account the age and
level of functioning of the child as well as professional judgement.
Summary of issues since last review:
VCL Scores:
Original Score
Current Score
Indicative Risk Continuum:
Low Risk
Risk
0
Medium Risk
40/41
High Risk
60/61
Very High
70/71
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 98
Evidence (Provide evidence of any changes in your assessment of risk, for
example, positive outcomes relating to the plan in place, change in circumstances
etc)
Please remember to note:


What is it that you are worried about?
What is working well? (include strengths, exceptions, resources, goals,
willingness etc)
What needs to happen to decrease risk and improve safety.
Views of the Young Person:
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means the problem is sorted as much as it can
be and zero means things are so bad that there needs to be some professional
help, where does the young person rate their situation at the time of the
assessment?
0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Views of Parents / Carers:
Risk Management Group Evaluation Report
Page 99
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means the problem is sorted as much as it can
be and zero means things are so bad that there needs to be some professional
help, where does the parents/carers rate the situation at the time of the
assessment?
0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Risk Management Plan:
Completed by:
Date: