2.5 CP Chair Challenge and Dispute Resolution Policy

2.5 CP Chair Challenge and Dispute Resolution Policy

To be used by Child Protection Chairs (CP Chairs)

1.0Context

Child Protection Chairs have a duty to monitor a child’s case and to resolve problems arising out of the care planning process. Challenge and resolution are an integral part of the CP chair role. Informal and formal resolution form part of the same continuum of resolution, which needs to record the achievements of resolution as well as highlighting the problems that require resolution.

Informal and formal resolution arepart of the same continuum. Ideally, resolution of problems should happen at the lowest possible level (with the social worker) and as quickly as possible. Through the process the CP chair should be able to demonstrate to children that they are taking action on their behalf and they should be able to evidence their own work in resolving the issue.

2.0Key principles

• The impact on the child of any actions (or inactions) by the local authority, should be the focus of any challenge made by the CP chair.

• This process should not be used to resolve issues relating the performance of individual members of staff – such issues should be dealt with via the Somerset County Council Individual Performance Management processIndividual Performance Management.

• Followingany discussions with the social worker or operational managers, the CP chair is responsible for recording the outcome of these discussions on the child’s record.

• Issues that are impacting on children’s welfare need to be addressed in a suitable timescale for the child and if quicker escalation through line management will lead to a better outcome for the child, the CP chair will ensure this happens.

• The CP chair, when using the Dispute Resolution Process will make reference to relevant legislation, Somerset County Council procedures and practice standards.

• When challenging operational staff, CP chairs should avoid focusing on individual staff members, and ensure that the language used is factual, professional and courteous, and clearly references relevant legislation and SCC procedures and practice standards. If the outcome for the child remains poor the CP chair should escalate their concerns regardless of resources issues.

3.0Examples of issues that should be addressed through the CP challenge and dispute resolution process:

3.1General issues

• Lack of adequate preparation for a Child Protection Conference (initial or review) (e.g. non completion/poor quality social work reports and Care Plans).

• Insufficient evidence of the child’s voice and/or inclusionof the child within the assessment, planning and review process.

• Non completion of actions agreed or a significant failure to meet timescales.

• Assessments not completed in a timely manner or are not of a good enough quality.

• Contact arrangements that do not meet the needs of the child.

• Concerns arising about health needs or provision.

• Concerns arising about education provision.

• CP chair not notified of a significant event in the child’s life.

• CP chair not in agreement with the Care Plan.

• Concerns arising from response to Child Sexual Exploitation or in relation to a young person going missing.

• Concerns that a child is not being adequately safeguarded.

3.2Not meeting statutory requirements for the child

• No allocated social worker.

• No up to date assessment.

• No up to date or poor quality Care Plan.

• Statutory visits not being completed or children not being seen alone, where appropriate, in theirhome by the social worker.

3.3Care Plan implementation

• Drift or delay in the implementation of the child’s Care Plan.

• Delay in progressing a child’s permanence plan.
• Failure to notify the CP chair of potentially significant changes to the child’s care plan.

3.4Dispute around the provision of services:

• Concern around the support being provided to a child or family.

4.0Procedure for dealing with concerns

4.1Informal Challenge (Stage 1)

4.11All concerns should initially be raised informally by direct contact, phone or email with the allocated social worker.

4.12The CP chair should speak to the social worker and/or team manager and clearly set out their concerns and what in their view needs to happen.

4.13The CP chair should seek to resolve the matter at this stage.

4.14The CP chair should then record on the child’s record (in a CP chair overview case note) what the concern was, what has been agreed and the timescale for achieving this.

4.15The CP chair should review the situation in a timely way to ensure that the agreed action has been progressed.

4.2Formal Challenge (Stage 2)

4.21Where it has not been possible for the CP chair to resolve an issue informally through the informal challenge process (stage 1) or where the agreed actions from this challenge have not been progressed, then the challenge should be made formal

4.22The CP chair should complete a Quality Assurance Challenge form on LCS, outlining the nature of their challenge, and what resolution they are seeking. They should follow up this form with a brief email to the Team Manager referring them to the LCS form for detail on the issues under challenge.

4.23The timescale for the resolution should be included on the form – no more than two weeks is suggested, but this will depend on the nature of the challenge

4.24If the CP chair is not satisfied with that the issue has been resolved via stage 2, then the matter should proceed to stage 3 – dispute

4.3Formal Dispute (stage 3)

4.31The Dispute Resolution process should only be used where it has not been possible for the CP chair to resolve an issue informally through the challenge process or where the agreed actions from this challenge have not been progressed.

4.32There are different stages to the Dispute Resolution process. The CP chair should seek to resolve any dispute at the lowest level possible.

Level 1: Operations Manager, with Strategic Manager copied in

Level 2: StrategicManager, with Deputy Director copied in

Level 3: Deputy Director

• In all cases the CP chair should exercise their discretion and judgement when considering the level at which they are challenging.

• In all cases they must set clear timescales for response which will depend on the individual circumstances of the case.

5.0Process

5.1The CP chair should update the QA service challenge form, indicating that a dispute has been launched.

5.2The form will then expand to include the Dispute Resolution element,setting out the levels of escalation outlined above.

5.3The form should be used to outline the timescales within which a response is required. It is recommended that this is a short period – around 3 days.

5.4An email should be sent to the relevant manager, referring them to the QA Challenge/Dispute form, and the resolution requested.

5.5A case note should be placed on the child’s file to state that a disputehas been raised.

5.6If the manager in question does not respond within agreed timescales then the matter should escalated to the next level of manager (see above)

5.7If the matter remains unresolved following the response to level 1 or at any other level, or if there is no response within the requested timescale, unless this is due to staff being on annual leave or sick, then the form should be updated and escalated to the next stage.

6.0Conclusion

6.1Once the matter has been concluded, the CP chair should complete the ‘Outcome of challenge’ section and ‘Key learning points’ section of the form, after which the form should be finalised. The QA Challenge form will then remain on the child’s record in the Forms tab.

6.2Learning from disputes will be discussed at monthly CP chair managers meetings and shared with the wider Operational Management group via Operations Managers meetings and Extended Operations Managers meetings (EOMMs).

6.3Performance information regarding challenges and disputes will contribute to the Quality Assurance Performance dashboard. Quantitative and qualitative information about the number and type of challenges and disputes will be analysed, via the QA management team, and shared with the wider Operational Management group to identify areas of repeat concerns which might require remedial management action.

Please see Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Challenge and Dispute Resolution Policy where there is IRO involvement.

1

Updated: April 2018