Highland Child Protection Committee Annual Report

April 2010– March 2011

Annual Report

Protecting

Children and Young People

in

Highland.

April 2010 – March 2011

1

Highland Child Protection Committee Annual Report

April 2010– March 2011

Annual Report on Protecting Children and Young People in HighlandCPC area 2010-11

CONTENTS

Topic / Pg / Topic / Pg
Preface from Chief Officers
Introduction
Self Evaluation
How Good Is Leadership And Direction?
1) Leadership
Key Developments since
2009/10 self-evaluation
2) Service Planning
Key Developments since
2009/10 self-evaluation
  • Guidance, Policy and Protocols
  • Benchmarking
  • Consultation and Stakeholder Involvement
3) People Resources
Key Developments since
2009/10 self-evaluation
4) Partners and Other Resources
  • Partnership
  • Quality
  • Information Sharing
  • Financial Resources
  • Management Information
  • Other Resources
Key Developments since
2009/10 self-evaluation
  • Partnership
  • Quality
  • Management Information
/ 1
2
4
5
5
7
8
9
9
9
11
12
13
15151515
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18 / How Good Is Delivery And Management Of Services?
5) Service Processes
  • Planning and Management
  • Service Delivery
  • Review and Improvement
Key Developments since
2009/10 self-evaluation
  • Planning and Management
  • Raising Awareness of Child Protection Services
  • Review and Improvement
How Well Are The Needs Of Children And Families Met?
6) What We Achieved
  • Outcomes for Children and Families
  • Staff Perceptions
  • Community Perceptions
How Are Services Improving?
7) Effectiveness and Efficiency of
Services
  • Inspection
  • Local Inspection and Systems Review
  • Ongoing Improvement Plans
Appendices
1) Key Reference Material
2) HCPC Action Plan 2010-13
3) Outline Budget 2010/11
4) Learning from Case Reviews
5) Training Report 2010/11
6) Management Information
7) Child Sexual Abuse Position
Statement
Further Information / 20
20
20
21
21
23
23
23
24
27
27
27
29
30
31
31
31
31
33
34
34
36
46
47
49
55
62
64

Preface from the Chief Officers:

Highland Child Protection Committee

Annual Report and Self-evaluation

1st April 2010– 31st March 2011

Introduction:

Highland CPC undertook its first, broad-brush self-evaluationduring the autumn of 2007 and has built upon this year on year as a partnership exercise. In April 2009 the CPC Quality Assurance Group merged with that of Integrated Children’s Services and, in the autumn of 2009, produced a full-scale, in-depth, self-evaluation in line with the framework set out in the HMIe publication “How Well Do We Protect Children And Meet Their Needs?”(June 2009). This was used to inform the HMIe joint inspection of services to protect children in January 2010. The full report1, published in May 2010 can be viewed on:

In general HMIe agreed with the Highland CPC self-evaluation and, in several areas gave a higher rating. With one exception performance was rated as ‘Very Good’.

Key strengths were identified as:

  • Effective communication and development of trust with staff.
  • The wide range of support services provided to them at an earlystage.
  • Action taken to protect children when identified as at risk of harm.
  • Joint approaches by managers and staff to reviewing their work toimprove services.
  • Senior managers encouraging and supporting staff to work togetherwell to improve outcomes.

Additionally all 3 good practice examples put forward were endorsed.

However, in terms of ‘Meeting needs and reducing long term harm’ the rating was ‘Good’.

The following issues were raised:

  • In a few cases, education and social work staff do not share information quickly enough when there are concerns about children.
  • In some cases the desired longer-term outcomes for children are unclear and there is a need to ensure that contingency plans are in place in case the original plan fails or parents are unable to improve care of their children.
  • Although some children and parents have benefited from independent advocacy this is not yet available for all children and families who could benefit.
  • Where risks are less immediate decisions about action are sometimes made without speaking directly to the person who raised the concern. Managers should ensure that staff gather full information in all cases and that the person raising the concern is kept informed of what is happening.
  • Medical advice on physical injury or neglect is readily available. However, some children who have recently reported sexual abuse have to wait too long to be examined because suitably trained doctors are not available outside office hours.

Two areas of improvement were agreed with HMIe. These are:

  • Ensuring robust initial assessment when concerns are raised aboutchildren, including less immediate concerns.
  • Further improving arrangements for medical examinations.

The recommendations from inspection and from local case reviews and audits inform the annual self-evaluation exercise and the chief officer review of the CPC’s rolling 3 year action plan. This is incorporated into the Integrated Children’s Services Plan2, which can be viewed at:

This annual report takes the form of a follow-up self-evaluation, describing the actions taken, both to address issues and to build on strengths, and considering the evidence for improved outcomes. In the process it provides an overview of the functions of the CPC in action.

The Scottish Government reviewed CPC functions as part of its overall review of child protection guidance in 2010. Revised national guidance was published in December 2010:

The CPC functions can be mapped to the HMIe child protection performance framework, ‘How Well Do We Protect Children And Meet Their Needs’: and to the Public Service Improvement Framework (PSIF) used by The Highland Council.

Self-evaluation:

This Annual Report builds on thereports and self-evaluations undertaken in previous years, and uses the self-evaluation referenced above, and its subsequent action plan as its starting point.

It is informed by key sources of evidence (See Appendix 1)from:

  • further inspections of services in Highland
  • local and national performance data;
  • surveys of stakeholders’ and service user views;
  • direct observation and auditing of practice; and
  • review of a range of documentation that evidences decision making and assessment of risk.

It incorporates a number of audit activities over the last year, as referenced in Sections 4 and 6 of this report and includes reference to the final report of an ongoing analysis of the experience of children and families across the range of interventions, undertaken as part of local GIRFEC evaluation by Highlands Children’s Forum.

Much of the evidence used to inform this report was presented to Highland Child Protection Committee and Delivery Group members at the annual review event held on 24th November 2010 and informed the rolling action plan for 2011 – 14.

The Annual Report is structured in line with the Public Service Improvement Framework and equates to the 4 key HMIequestions:

  • How good is leadership and direction?
  • How good is the delivery and management of services?
  • How well are the needs of children & families met?
  • How are services improving?

It takes the form of a narrative describing the CPC functions in light of PSIF headings, followed by a description of key developments since the 2009/10 self evaluation. These should be read in association with the progress and RAG section of action plan at Appendix 2.

HOW GOOD IS LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTION?

1) Leadership:

Highland Child Protection Committee (CPC) is a multi-agency partnership working to a clear shared vision for the protection of children in Highland. Logic modelling is used to ensure that activity supports outcomes linked to the Highland Single Outcome Agreement and relevant national outcomes set out by Scottish Government. These are outlined at the start of the Committee’s rolling 3 year action plan3. (See Appendix 2)

Highland CPC agreed outcomes form a major part of the ‘SAFE’ section of the Integrated Children’s Services plan, ‘For Highland’s Children 3’2:

Governance arrangements for Highland CPC were reviewed in 2008 and, in 2009, the Safer Highland Leadership Group was formed to oversee the governance of six committees contributing to public protection.

The following diagram illustrates the strategic and operational governance structure for integrated children’s services in Highland:

CPC partner agencies produce their own operational plans to take single agency, contributory actions forward. These are supported by in-house meetings e.g. NHS Highland’s Child Protection Action Group (CPAG), Northern Constabulary’s Force Executive Group, Social Work’s Child and Family Team Managers Group, Education’s Senior Management Team and the Voluntary Sector’s ‘Keeping Children Safe’ steering group4.

This process is further enhanced by an annual review and forward planning day, supported by self-evaluation. This assists the CPC to identify specific key priorities to address identified areas for improvement5.

The committee is jointly funded by partner agencies, all of which operate to Best Value principles6:

An outline of the annual budget7 can be found at Appendix 3.

In addition to annual reporting to the public, each member agency produces regular information bulletins for staff and encourages more detailed communication and support through team briefings and individual supervision.

Inspections during 2010-11 consistently rated Leadership in Highland as ‘Very Good’9.

Key developmentssince 2009/10 self evaluation:

During 2010/11 the Safer Highland Leadership Group10 scrutinised the outcomes models and plans of all six committees within the public protection framework and encouraged the rationalisation of support structures to eliminate duplication. In particular support for child and adult protection was integrated and support staff were charged with identifying the range of cross-cutting issues that the Leadership Group should have an overview of.

To increase accountability and stakeholder involvement, political champions were appointed for each of the six key areas of public protection.

Consideration was given to enhancing integrated working, reducing duplication of effort and developing seamless and cost effective provision across key child and adult services in Highland. It was proposed that, from April 2012, the Highland Council should take responsibility for the provision of integrated Children’s Services and NHS Highland should take responsibility for integrated Adult Services. To this end a joint board was established to take forward ‘Pathways for Integration’ (P4I) from April 2011:

The Highland Council Quality Awards Scheme11, which was developed to acknowledge the contribution of staff to service development and provision, chose the multi-agency e-safety project as the best overall nomination of 2010/11.

In light of the Equality Act (2010) equalities and diversity were made key priorities for employee development and training12.

The review and revision of the Highland Practice Model13 (developed from the Getting it Right for EveryChild path-finder) and of the HighlandCPC Interagency Guidelines14 resulted in 30 road-shows being held for staff and other stakeholders across the whole of Highland.

2) Service Planning:

Highland CPC has a rolling 3 year action plan3 based on agreed long and short-term outcomes and including improvement objectives drawn from self evaluation activity. This is reviewed and updated annually.

The annual work plan is drawn from the rolling action plan and reviewed by the Child Protection Delivery Group, on an ongoing basis, using a traffic light system to track progress. Exceptions are reported on at each CPC meeting15.

Service planning and delivery is supported by a range of policies, strategies and protocols16 that support core values and long-term outcomes. Each partner agency has robust systems for review and document control.

Care Commission inspection of Fostering Services17 noted good progress being made on updating policies and procedures in line with new legislation.

Highland CPC seeks to engage with its key client groups and the Youth Convener is a member of the Committee. Additionally, key actions that directly impact upon Children and Young People are consulted upon via Highland Youth Voice and Highland Children’s Forum.

Child Protection services are driven by national standards outlined in ‘The Children’s Charter’ ( and relevant legislation. These are further informed by national guidance and bench-marking against best practice from research, local and out-of area case reviews and validated inspection findings. Sources regularly accessed include:

  • Centre for Excellence and Outcomes (C4EO)
  • Careknowledge
  • MARS/SCCPN
  • IRISS – Evidence informed practice portal
  • NSPCC CASPAR
  • BASPCAN
  • Children Scotland
  • Young People Now

Highland CPC has a range of performance measures incorporated into the Integrated Children’s Service Plan, ‘For Highland’s Children 3’.2 These are kept under review by the ICS Lead Officer Group and its Quality Assurance Group.

The Highland Council Public Performance Survey18 regularly measures customer satisfaction with services to protect children and this information is complemented by questions in partner agency and public awareness surveys.

Recent Care Commission inspections of individual services17 have commented positively on the provision of service information to client groups.

Key developmentssince 2009/10 self evaluation4;15:

Guidance, Policy and Protocols:

A range of policies, guidance and protocols was developed to support the implementation of new legislation and guidance, and to further develop integrated working. These include:

  • Highland Under-age Sex Protocol (HUSP)
  • MAPPA/GIRFEC Interface – protocol for management of child sex offenders within the Children’s Hearings system and managed within MAPPA: creates a single planning procedure incorporating risk management (MAPPA) and Child’s Plan for welfare needs.
  • Protocol for Child’s plans for Children’s Hearings.
  • NHS ‘Domestic Abuse: Pregnancy and the Early Years’ protocol
  • Child DNA policy in Primary Dental Care NHS salaried dental service Dec 2010.
  • Births to known Sex Offenders – the need for a protocol was identified and a draft put out for consultation
  • Development of guidance on transition between child and adult services. Protocols in place between Housing and Criminal Justice Services and Children’s Services for through-care arrangements.
  • ‘Protocol for management of child concern forms between Northern Constabulary and NHS Highland’.

The following guidelines, protocols and policies were reviewed and refreshed:

  • The Highland Child Protection Committee Interagency guidelines were revised in light of new National guidance.
  • The GIRFEC path-finder guidance was developed into a full Highland Practice Model.
  • GIRFEC and Public Health Nursing protocol.
  • Highland Council SWS ‘Case Recording Policy for Social Work Service Staff’.
  • ‘Paediatric Communications Pathway: Integrated Children’s Services.’
  • Management of Sex Offenders on admission to hospital.
  • Review of NHS Missing Family Alerts protocol and relationship to other local protocols for missing children and families.
  • Circulation of Clinical Governance – GP Practices NHS Circular, showing that Child Protection is the first item under legal requirements. To be included in training for GPs.

(All documents can be accessed in electronic format via the ICS website: )

Benchmarking:

Learning from national SCRs:

From time to time the CPC requests that partner agencies audit their current processes against the recommendations of pertinent significant or serious case reviews from other areas, and instigate action plans to address any identified issues. During 2010/11 the following SCRs were considered:

  • Haringey SCR recommendations for NHS were considered prior to 2010/11 and a rolling action plan agreed. In 2010 this resulted in an audit of attendance at CP Plan meetings by GPs and Paediatricians. As a result the invite letter was updated and made clearer in terms of who/what required.
  • Kyrah Ishak – a general audit was undertaken against recommendations. As a result local arrangements for home educated and traveller children known to ECS were reviewed. It was suggested that cross-referencing GP records with ECS Phoenix records might assist with identifying ‘hidden’ children. The NHS action plan includes recording child height as part of school medicals, and inclusion of growth charts in child’s plan where there are concerns.
  • Kristoffer Batt – Northern ConstabularyACPOS rep in relation to Care & Custody of Prisoners prepared a Forceinternal response to the recommendations for their Executive. The Constabulary are also represented on the national custody forum with other Scottish Forces where such FAI reports etc are reviewed and recommendations implemented.
  • Henry Webster – ECS – circulated to managers in areas with high concentrations of Asian and other BME groups.
  • Mary – a MAPPA audit was undertaken and reassurances given that measures are in place that should prevent a similar situation occurring in Highland.
  • Baby AD09 – Audited against the local Baby KK action plan due to similarities in the cases. Consultant Paediatrician gave written response to CPC.
  • Brandon Muir - Audit of sticker flagging at RaigmoreHospital.
  • Plymouth ‘Nursery Z’ – Early Years reviewing recommendations and disseminating learning.
  • Child Deaths in Scotland 1975-2009 – Key learning disseminated.

Local Critical Incident Reviews (CIRs):

Findings of local CIRs are detailed inAppendix 4. In addition, CIR reports have been anonymised and used to encourage reflective practice.

As a result of undertaking a local CIR, the process was reviewed. Subsequently, the Safer Highland Leadership group requested that all CIR and SCR processes be reviewed, with a view to standardisation. In addition the debrief model, used to assist staff to review complex cases, has been evaluated and embedded in practice.

Learning from research:

The following items led to specific improvement activity:

  • Frequent or prolonged school absence for alleged medical reasons – short life working group established to ensure that psycho-social cases are properly supported through CALMS.
  • ‘Growing Up in Scotland’ topic based research findings disseminated to inform CP advisors and trainers.

Use was also made of Action Learning, to explore Social Audit and other QA methods, and of benchmarking.

Additionally, the CPC took note of HMIe inspection reports with gradings that exceeded Highland’s and HMIe validated examples of good practice, and considered potential for application in Highland.

Learning from Inspection:

Changes to the format of HMIe inspections has led to the publication of validated examples of good practice. Highland CPC has used these to benchmark local practice19. In particular, Highland CPC has benchmarked activity in relation to raising awareness and found that the majority of good practice examples, validated to date, mirror activity in Highland.