local implementation of Working Together guidance

A survey carried out by Brook and Action on Rights for Children

February, 2007

LSCB survey summary findings

In November 2006 Brook and Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) sent a survey about local protocols on working with sexually active young people to the Chairs of all 153 Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs). We also asked respondents to provide a copy of their local protocol if this was available.

The purpose of this survey was to find out more about how LSCBs had implemented the Working Together guidance published by the Department for Education and Skills in May 2006. The survey was also supported by Children’s Commissioner,Sir Al Aynsley Green, who shared our concern that some local areas were introducing protocols requiring automatic referral of all cases of sexually active under 13s to police and social services.

As made clear by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit, local protocols requiring mandatory reporting are inconsistent with Working Together guidance, which was carefully worded to preserve professional discretion to make decisions on a case by case basis taking account of relevant risk factors. This wording was developedin response to fears raised by professionals and organisations working with young people that mandatory reporting of sexually active under 13s would deter younger and more vulnerable clients from seeking help. These concerns were based on strong evidence that worries about confidentiality are a major deterrent to young people accessing services to get the help they need.

Seventy survey responses were returned to Brook (a 46% response rate).

  • 28 supplied or indicated that they would be using a protocolthat did not comply with the Working Together guidance (13 of those 28 were LSCBs within Londonand were planning to use the pan-London protocol)
  • 14 provided a protocolthat did comply with the Working Together guidance
  • 5 provided a draft protocol that did comply with the Working Together guidance
  • 19 had not yet completed a local protocol and did not provide a draft
  • 4 provided incomplete or unclear information

Therefore of 70 LSCBs on which we have information, only 19 had a final or draft protocol on working with sexually active young people which did comply with Working Together, while 28 did not appear to comply. 26 of those that did not appear to comply do not allow professionals discretion to make decisions on a case by case basis taking account of relevant risk factors but instead have a system of mandatory reporting.

In some regions LSCBs from a number of areas have drawn up a joint protocol on working with sexually active young people. Four of the LSCBs that responded indicated that they were waiting for the South West protocol to be finalised, and three said they were waiting for the completion of a pan-Manchester protocol. We have not seen the draft South West protocol. The draft pan-Manchester protocol which we have seen does not comply.

Three examples of the contradictory guidance set out in protocols that did not comply with Working Together:

1. “There should always be a referral to Children’s social care or the police in cases involving children aged less than 13.”

(This statement is not consistent with the guidance in Working Together)

Followed, two pages later, by:

“Cases involving under 13s should always be discussed with a nominated child protection lead in the organisation, There should be a presumption that the case will be reported to children’s social care and that a strategy discussion will be held… All cases involving under-13s should be fully documented including detailed reasons where a decision is taken not to share information.”

(This statement is consistent with Working Together)

2. Cases involving under 13s should always be discussed with a nominated child protection lead in the organisation… There should be a presumption that the case will be reported to children’s social care and that a strategy discussion will be held… All cases involving under-13s should be fully documented including detailed reasons where a decision is taken not to share information.”

(This statement is consistent with Working Together)

Followed immediately by:

“The preceding paragraph makes clear that penetrative or intimate sexual activity with a child under 13 will always require a referral to Children’s Social Care and Police.”

(This statement is not consistent with Working Together)

3. Where the allegation concerns penetrative sex, or other intimate sexual activity, ‘there would always be reasonable cause to suspect that a child, whether a girl or boy, is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. There should be a presumption that the case will be reported to children’s social care and that a strategy discussion will be held…’

(This statement is consistent with Working Together, although it omits the sentence that makes it clear that professionals may decide not to refer and must keep records of that decision)

Followed immediately by:

All cases involving uner-13s must be reported to Children’s Social Care and be fully documented.

(This statement is not consistent with Working Together)

LSCB survey, summary findings, February 20071