Safeguarding peer review

18th – 22nd January 2010

Northumberland county council

The peer team• David Taylor, Director of Children’s services,

Somerset CC• Cllr David Kirk, Lead Member for Children’s

Services, Hampshire CC• Helen Smith, Assistant Director, Child and

Family support, Cumbria CC• Sheila Hogarth, North Tyneside Primary Care

Trust• Audrey Williamson, Operational Director, Health

and Community Directorate, Halton council• Mary McVey, Improvement manager, IDeA• Carmel Gallagher, Review Manager, IDeA

The Process• Not an inspection – invited as “critical friends” • Peer review based on the established benchmark• Familiarised ourselves with the service and the

council, based on the wider document review, questionnaire, case mapping and on-site interviews and focus groups

• Visit very well organised and we have been made welcome

• People have been very open and honest: what you hear is what we’ve been told and seen and cross referenced

Issues you asked us to explore

• The consistency of core group functioning

• Developing the governance arrangements between the FACT Board and NSCB

• Engagement of partners agencies and individual membership of NSCB

The benchmark – six key areas

• Legislation and policy• Leadership, accountability and culture• Capacity and Capability• Effective practice• Performance, evaluation and

monitoring• Local Safeguarding Children Boards

and ‘working together’

Structure of presentation

We will present our findings under the benchmark headings as follows:

strengths Areas for development

Legislation and Policy

StrengthsRisk management work is an exemplar of

good practiceReview of policy on ‘vulnerable babies’ as

a result of SCR by Care TrustManaging allegations against staff –

process is very strong

However

Legislation and Policy

Areas for development• Prevention strategy is overly

descriptive and not linked to CAF and thresholds

• Agencies are ambiguous about applying thresholds to assessment of need

Leadership, Accountability and Culture

Strengths

The service is self aware and open to feedback

Committed political and managerial leadership

Cross party political support

Good management support to front line staff

However

Leadership, Accountability and Culture

Areas for development

• Some unresolved policy tensions between partner agencies

• Insufficient understanding of some members in respect of their corporate parenting/safeguarding roles

• Scrutiny needs to extend its challenge around Safeguarding

Capacity and Capability: Core Groups

Strengths

Core group process is effective

Some good practice in core groups

Areas for development

Attendance at core groups is variable

Sometimes undue pressure on social work staff

Capacity and Capability: Information Sharing and Training

Strengths

Some good multi- agency practice in relation to information sharing and integrated working

Training is valued with positive feedback from all partners

Areas for development

Some blocks between agencies on information sharing

Insufficient training capacity to meet perceived need

Effective Practice

StrengthsEvidence of learning from SCRsStaff are positive about the support

and supervision they get from their managers

Many examples of commissioning and delivering innovative practice – Fire Service and Berwick Project etc.

Effective PracticeAreas for Development

• Some partners are perceived to be risk averse

• Inconsistent feedback to professionals who refer cases

• Potential for more effective working between Adult and Children’s services

• Perceived gap between FACT and Universal Services

Performance, Evaluation and MonitoringStrengthsRobust monitoring of performance

informationUse of CAF is increasing and needs

embeddingGood evidence of participation of

young people

Performance, Evaluation and Monitoring

Areas for development Some practitioners do not

understand the relationship between CAF and other assessments

There may be a need for further rationalisation of referral points

Limited evidence of parental involvement in service development

LSCB and Working TogetherStrengthsStrong commitment from partners

with effective regular meetingsFACT newsletter – good vehicle

for communicationInternal governance structures in

NHS TrustsEffective Sub groups with

evidence of good outcomes for children

LSCB and Working TogetherAreas for development• Seen as ‘LA driven’ which may impede

engagement• No evidence of shared ownership or

solutions to rising CP numbers• Lack of visibility of schools• Relationship and reporting mechanisms

between the FACT and NSCB are not clear• Some areas of the SCR could be improved• Effective feedback from partner agencies

within their organisations is variable

Suggested Way Forward

• Formalise and codify the relationship between FACT and NSCB

• NSCB should provide multi-disciplinary leadership owning and resolving pressures currently being experienced

• FACT should commission a strategic and integrated approach to prevention

• Develop a multi agency referral process that includes a more consistent application of thresholds

Suggested Way Forward• NSCB ought to revisit the approach to

training to ensure there is adequate capacity which is effectively targeted

• Review the operational arrangements for agreeing and undertaking SCRs

• Formalise commitment of all Agencies to core group participation with the endorsement of Board members

• Scrutiny and Member Development

Opportunity for questions and clarification

What next?There is now a chance to reflect on our

conclusions

We will produce a draft letter for the authority to comment on

The final version will be agreed and issued

The council needs to provide feedback to people who contributed to the review

Thank you