getting it right
for every child in Lanarkshire

STAGE 2 SYSTEMS CHANGE

Group 4. The Child’s Plan

The Child’s Plan is one of the cornerstones of streamlining children’s services in Scotland. The government published guidance on the Child’s Plan in 2006 which included a template for the information that should be included in a Child’s Plan (included in your pack). Previously children in complex circumstances could be the subject of numerous different plans, recording and tracking different aspects of support to them. The aim of the Getting it right for every child approach is that agencies work together to agree the content of a Child’s Plan which is relevant to all settings and circumstances. The Getting it right for every child approach is not suggesting the introduction of yet another standalone plan but requiring agencies to streamline what they do and create a template that everyone can use so that children, young people and families experience a consistent approach.

Agencies have reported confusion with the Child’s Plan in respect of existing legislation such as ASL which also provides templates and guidance. The Scottish Government has acknowledged this confusion and departments are working together nationally to make sure that all guidance is as clear as possible which includes ASL, Looked After Children, Child Protection and inspections. The Highland Pathfinder has also shared some of the early learning in respect of creating a streamlined Child’s Plan.

The Lanarkshire Partnership has also worked to try to resolve some of this confusion and has made suggestions about the content of the Child’s Plan. The task for this group is to look again at the guidance from the Scottish Government, to bring the knowledge of each of the key single agencies together and to review what progress has been achieved in Lanarkshire, confirming what will be used for testing and learning.

As a minimum, the Child’s Plan must be based on the indicators of well-being including:

·  a summary analysis of the issues and impact on the child or young person against the well-being indicators

·  the desired outcomes against the well-being indicators

·  The actions that will achieve these outcomes

·  The contingency plan if actions do not achieve the desired outcomes.

The national guidance should also be checked for the minimum requirements such as partners to the plan and the child’s view.

Each single agency will also have to check that their statutory requirements are met within any template which is agreed.

Task for Group 4: The Child’s Plan
1. Spend time carefully considering the resource materials provided, which include an excerpt from the national guidelines, the template from Highland and some of the Lanarkshire materials. Discuss and record the group’s views and responses to any of the materials provided.
NHS Highland Plan (bits we don’t like)
Introduction “not all sections will be relevant encourages old siloed working also page 5 “only when necessary” section
P3
Is Part 1 a shared data set?
The process of the assessment (analysis)
High risk isn’t noted on the front of plan / NHS Lanarkshire
Plethora of Referral forms (65+)
We found one form regarding a plan (feedback form re child protection)
CAMHS operational policy (Tier 2 only) forbids sharing of person identifiable information by fax or email / NL Paperwork
Many forms - different forms with same information directed at various meetings i.e. LAC reviews / CP reviews
Single agencies using own form to meetings i.e. different template
Integrated Assessment Framework
Duplication of core information requested
Liked Integrated Assessment Framework – clear, well laid out, not too prescriptive
Guidance notes helpful / GOPR
Are separate forms necessary?
Could IAF be adapted
Child Protection
Large amount of paperwork
LAC
Large amount of paperwork / Support for learning
- 3 different plans - not clear why?
- Lacked whole child focus
+ space to record views
+ review programme included (but not identifying outcomes)
- huge amount of forms - do you need different forms?
Positives
Strengths as well as deficits
Reviews built in (outcomes)
Identification of common data sets
Guidelines but not too prescriptive
‘Whole child focus’
Space to record child / family views
Shared language
Paperwork currently designed for target audiences – to reduce - to make general - how do we meet everybody’s needs
Do we end up with bolt-ons that make it bigger but just within one system
Do the reports need to fit specific audiences? / Negatives
Single agency opt-out (?)
No assessment of risk
Sharing of information - no email or fax
Huge amount of forms - evidence or duplication?
2. Consider and record the issues for each of the single agencies in creating and using one single Child’s Plan and how these might be resolved.
EDUCATION – HMIE driving use of CSP for Looked After Children – Possible legal issue? Guidance?
Resolution – Remove legislative blocks? Influence the consultation of revised guidance
INDIVIDUAL PLANS – Tension between ‘overview’ and individual needs
Resolution – Community Care, COORDINATED Service
Assessment and Plan NOT “a report” – needs to be clear and accessible
Where does the ‘detailed’ planning sit?
Child’s Plan high level outcomes
65 + referral forms in NHS materials but only one that looked vaguely like a plan
3. Discuss, agree and record the Child’s Plan template that will be used in Lanarkshire for testing.
Agreed Core Data Set as in Core Child Record:
1.  Is information sharing agreed?
2.  Is level of risk highlighted on front page of plan?
3.  Education stage
4.  School attended
5.  Any information of risk relating to ‘significant others’ (e.g. registered sex offenders).
Discussed various options for content and agreed on two sections below
Structure and tone
Display in portrait (not landscape)
Start with child / family strengths
Child / family views near the start
Key partners – carers at the start / professionals next
We like “trigger points in Child’s Plan” (from national child’s plan template). What might trigger?
Text boxes should stretch (is it all to link together in eCare? It needs technology)
Aim for the plan to highlight working with child, rather than planning what to do to child
Possible “My Plan” rather than “Child’s Plan” – but would this add to its effectiveness or reduce impact?
Summary analysis not full analysis
The plan should reflect that we are not just responsible for our own service but taking account of needs of others. / Minimum contents (from national discussed and agreed)
Concerns
Partners
Summary of analysis (based on IAF) = circumstances / child’s profile
Desired outcomes and milestones
What should be done?
Agreed action
Resources provided
Contingency plans
Monitoring and review
Lead professional
Child’s views
Parent / carers views
Compulsory measures?
4. Discuss and record any other issues not included in any other section, listing any areas the group could not agree upon.
Other discussion on Child’s Plan
What’s in the chronology?
Risk
Action must link all together
Outcome
Add question
Has the child got a Coordinated Support Plan
CSP would be an attachment to Child’s Plan (until this duplication is resolved by statutory changes)
Should there be a section on how plan was compiled, date compiled, who compiled
Attempt to all coordinate all meetings
LAAC / School / Child Protection / etc. with standard approach to minutes.
Participants in Child’s Plan Group
Chair = Mary Fegan
Facilitator = Ian Gault
Fiona Swift (Child and Families Social Work North, CP )
Rena McCarry (Child and Families Social Work South, CP)
Shirley Clark (NHS Lanarkshire, CP Advisor)
Maureen Scott (NHS Lanarkshire, CP Advisor)
Roma French (Learning and Leisure, NLC, Education Officer)
Marise MacLeod
Martin Egan (Head of Service, Children and Families, North)
Mark Wilson (Education Resource, SLC, Educational Psychology)
Irene Allison (Chair of Children’s Panel, North Lanarkshire).