Report: Child Protection Pathways Audit

Draft Report: December 2019

Compiled By:Donna Kingsley

CSCP QA & Development Officer

Background:In 2018 multi-agency workshops were held to gather front line professional’s experiences of Child Protection processes in Croydon. 5 themes (or core principles) for working together were identified. In January 2019, the (then) QAPP sub-group agreed 2 follow up actions to gain a multi-agency perspective of the impact of the workshops.

Action 1: 5 Core Principles In April 2019 all QAPP member organisations were asked use a single page tool (known as the Appendix D Activity) to evaluate their own service, to capture current good practice and areas for improvement. Due to insufficient responses, the request was repeated in June 2019.

In total, 5 agencies completed this activity:

Education (Schools, Standards, Safeguarding & Inclusion Team) Early Help Police SLaM Health (CHS)

The themes noted are captured in this report. The summary report was shared at a previous QIG meeting (copies available on request). This information was shared with the Local Authority CSC QA Team at the time, to help inform their work.

Action 2: On-line Survey50 child protection conferences (ICPC, Reviews, Pre Birth and Transfer) were identified. All conferences took place between the 4th – 15th February 2019.

In April 2019 (and again in July 2019) the survey link was sent to everyone who appeared to have been invited on either the calendar invite, or meeting minutes (454 potential respondents). Whether or not the potential respondent was actually invited or attended, the intention was that the survey was completed. The only partner with a 100% completion rate was the police. The average completion time for the survey was under 9 minutes.171 responses were received in total (38%)

Appendix A is the word version of the survey. Partners are encouraged to request the full datasheets to help inform their work or benchmark future activity (available on request).

This report selects specific areas of interest. Any areas of interest not covered in the report can be referred back to the author for further scrutiny if required.

Please note that the findings from the online survey relate to the 38% who provided feedback.

Findings:

The findings have been assigned against the 5 Themes from the Appendix D Activity.

Theme 1 – Ownership

What does good look like?A strong network around the child and family is identified early and engaged throughout.

Findings From Appendix D Activity

Understanding thresholds is still a challenge.There is good representation of multi-agency partners at relevant meetings.

Findings from On Line Survey

There were 12% of cases where the response was either “undeliverable” or “no longer working here”. This might suggest some explanation for the disconnect around whether relevant agencies are invited or not.

The police referrals inbox was responsible for 3% of these bounced invites (spam filter) – despite this, the police provided a 100% return rate for the each of the 50 surveys.

Of the people who appeared to have been invited to the meeting (ie: they were either shown on the calendar invite or minutes), most (97%) received an invite. 5 declined attending (as they did not know the child), 3 noted the short notice given, 1 noted the incorrect email on the professional invite.

86% said they had adequate time to prioritise the meeting – in response to the question of whether there was enough notice 79% of those with a yes/no opinion answered yes. However the attendance rate at conferences was 53%, partners citing capacity issues as a barrier to actual attendance. Health partners noted that unless there was a named health issue, school nurses did not routinely attend.

The most likely agency not to attend was the police (due to lack of capacity, which has since improved) and given they were the only agency to respond to every survey, the attendance rate should be treated with caution. When removing the police data, the attendance rate improves to 73%.

Other responses to whether there was sufficient notice included: ‘on this occasion, but not always’ ‘depends on the person organising it’ ‘too far ahead to know’ (shift worker) ‘2 weeks is sufficient notice’

61% of attendees agreed that there was appropriate representation at the meeting. The following chart represents which agencies were noted as missing.

SW

CAMHS

Education

NurseryFJC

Health GP

Parent

Police

Probation

Not specif

ied

2 35

3 2 2 1 1

5

1

12

Theme 2 – Dialogue

What does good look like?Direct & active dialogue to enable perspectives to be shared, information exchanged and relationships built – especially at each key decision stage.

Findings From Appendix D Activity

Insufficient sharing between partners. (conference dates/changes & minute sharing)

Some drift (actions carried over, plans not concise/clear). This is more evident when children are transitioning (area, schools or teams).

Named leads in some organisations & regular cross departmental meetings promote good practice.

Findings from On Line Survey

80% of respondents (who were expected to), provided a report. 1 noted that their report had been provided, but was not available at the meeting. 3 responded to say their report was verbal. The police provided a report for the conference in all 50 cases.

Knowledge of the Escalation Policy is variable. 51% answered “No” to the question “Are you aware of the CSCB Escalation Policy?

Of the 32 people who identified as the safeguarding lead 18 (56%) of them answered “no” to having knowledge of the Escalation Policy safeguarding.

7% of those who knew about the escalation policy also made positive comments about its use in their setting.

Theme 3 – Performance

What does good look like?Each partner is aware of the quality of its input at referrals, strategy discussions and child protection conferences; with collective performance monitored by the CSCP

Findings From Appendix D ActivityGood processes and Head of Service ownership assists to monitor performance.

Quality of referrals impacted by inconsistency and staff turnover/knowledge.

Findings from On Line SurveyThe people representing the agencies at the meetings do not appear to have an understanding of the quality of their referrals (the contact/acceptance rate) or the cohort of children on plans in their settings.

Only CSC provide regular qualitative info for the CSCP.

Some responses qualified their answers by saying they could find out if required, or that their Manager knew the answer.

One response was, that their knowledge of a child in their setting being on a plan only occurred when they attended a multi-agency audit event.

19%

77%

4%

Do you know your agency referral/acceptance rate?

Yes

No

Don’t know

65%

34%

1%

Do you know how many children in your setting are on a plan?

Yes

No

Unknown

Theme 4 - Consistent Quality

What does good look like?Standards of practice, including feedback, curiosity, joint network and challenge are maintained for the child’s journey in the system.

Findings From Appendix D Activity

Quality of meetings sometime impacted by poor timekeeping

Process inconsistency and capacity of partners reflects on quality of handovers and meetings.

Consistent language, report style and professional curiosity support consistent quality

Single Agency Audits inform training

Findings from On Line Survey

90% of those who attended a conference felt able to be honest and open about their views. A similar number (87%) felt able to challenge decisions or opinions if necessary, but 5% responded ‘not adequately’ or ‘not at all’.

Some agencies reported that their reports were not available at the meeting, or insufficient time was available prior to the meeting to review all relevant documents.

7%22%

72%

The multi-agency record was a good reflection of my agencies involvement

a little, but not ad-equately

some, but needs improvement

yes, appropriately so

In response to whether attendees felt adequately prepared for conferences, 83% said yes, appropriately so.

80% felt they were able to contribute professionally. 7% felt ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’.

This, and the data opposite about how well organisations empower their staff to feel confident, suggests some more guidance/training about role expectations at conferences would be a benefit.

There is variance in the quality of reports and the time available to read them.

5%2%

18%

75%

My organisation empowers me to be confident to attend confer-

encesa little, but not adequately

not at all

some, but needs improvement

yes, appropriately so

13%4%

31%51%

The quality of the reports at the meeting, were good

a little, but not adequately

not at all

some, but needs improvement

yes, appro-priately so

32%

15%23%

31%

There was enough time to ad-equately review the reports

ahead of the meetinga little, but not adequately

not at all

some, but needs improvement

yes, appro-priately so

Theme 5 - Feedback Theme

What does good look like?All partners are provided with timely feedback to maintain engagement and responsibilities.

Findings From Appendix D Activity

Good cross partner relationships are evident and support quality feedback

Delay in feedback/sharing info causes drift

Findings from On Line Survey

There is some evidence that the feedback mechanism about conference decisions or changes to plans is not as robust as it could be. In this audit and in other activities (eg: dataset Q2 2019-20) there are comments about the results of referrals/decisions not being known or routinely provided.

There is an expectation that attendees will arrive 30 minutes earlier to read papers. There is variance in how many attendees do this and whether the space/setting allows this (CP Chairs are often engaged in a discussion with the family in the room or the access to reports is compromised)

The evidence in this survey comes from ‘other comments’ provided and is not quantative. Examples include:

‘I know some of the cases but not all as CSC does not share all information’ ‘I was off sick” (invite not received by an alternative colleague) ‘There is a new social worker, the case was double booked’ ‘I would like professionals to arrive on time 0930 for a 1000 meeting’

Some organisations (eg:schools) have specific rules about sharing information with only relevant staff/keyworkers and only that individual may have been the person to receive information. This increases the risk of a gap in knowledge or for an organisation to fail to receive relevant information.

The process of obtaining the data for this audit was time consuming and laborious. Each survey required a manual check of both the calendar invite for that conference and an individual review of the conference minutes. There was no consistency in whether details of potential attendees would be found on one system or the other

Findings From Appendix D Activity

and the data selection assumes no other means or recording who may have been invited exists – (for example, the individual social workers/lead professional email account may have been used, which might present a different list of potential attendees).

This suggests even a well-intentioned effort to appraise the relevant partners of an update or cancellation would be difficult. When coupled with a variance in expertise and roles of those individuals carrying out the task, the opportunity for error increases.

Other Findings

Child/Family Experience

What does good look like?The child/family is at the centre. Their views and experiences are understood and inform plans. The scope of work is outcomes focused.

Findings From Appendix D Activity

More work needed to evidence the VOC in direct work and supervision

Findings from On Line Survey

In one instance, the father was wanted by police, a fact which had been available prior to the conference in the police report, but not taken into consideration. The police felt professionally compromised. The failure to read police reports ahead of a conference was noted as a ‘regular occurrence.’ Heath partners also noted instances where reports had been provided but not read/ or available at the conference.

The families experience can be compromised by delays or by failure of professionals to attend or to have read all reports prior to the conference. One example given was of the delay caused when there was no receiving social worker allocated.

When conversations in the meeting are about reports that have been submitted, but are not available, this impacts on the families expectation of the level of professionalism.

In one case, the family was not present.

Recommendations:

1. The process for inviting attendees to conferences – and the follow up communication should be reviewed to be more robust, including a mechanism for accurately reporting on who was invited and who attended.

2. Consideration should be given to consistent use of ‘safeguarding inboxes’ for all partners with an expectation they will be regularly monitored, rather than relying on individual invites to specific people.

3. There is a current training offer for those attending conferences – QIG should consider how best to promote this, including changing the delivery style/content to empower CP chairs to raise the issue of standards of reports and persistent failure to arrive in good time.

4. QIG should consider what works well to develop a culture of respectful challenge when reports are not of good enough quality.

5. Knowledge of referral acceptance rates and the cohort of C&YP on a plan in each setting should be routinely available and understood by its relevant work force, including making plans to improve its rate.

6. The Escalation Policy has been refreshed. QIG should consider how best to promote it across the wider partnership.

7. The experiences of the family at the conference should be a routine feature of the conference report. This should include commentary on the planning/delivery of the conference.

8. Use the report to influence the Child Protection Framework http://croydonlcsb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CP-Framework-

overview.pdf (QIG may have to direct who holds this work and agree a timeframe.)

Compiled By:

Name: Donna KingsleyTitle: CSCP QA & Development Officer

January 2020