Inter-Agency Safeguarding Training 2014 -15 – Quarter 4 Monitoring Report

Inter-Agency Safeguarding Training 2016 - 17

Quarter 1 Monitoring Report

Section One – Attendance

This report outlines the key evaluation findings and attendance data from April to June 2016, demonstrating the continued growth of the programme, its key strengths and ways in which the training is meeting the needs of the CYP workforce. The following areas are covered in this section

  • Courses Delivered
  • Course Capacity and Attendance
/
  • No Shows & Cancellations
  • Areas of Work
/
  • Clients
  • Attendance by Agency

Table 1: Quarter 1 Course Delivery (April – June 2016)

Course Title / Dates & Number of Sessions / Number of Attendees / Original Course Capacity / Attendance Rate
Fabricated or induced Illness / 14th April / 8 / 23 / 35%
LSCB Learning Event / 4th May
2 sessions / 231 / 280 / 83%
YP DASH Risk Assessment / 12th May
1 session / 8 / 15 / 53%
Assessing Competency & Effectiveness / 7th June
1 session / 12 / 20 / 60%
Introduction to CSE / 21st June
1 session / 31 / 40 / 78%
Domestic Violence & Substance Misuse / 23rdJune
1 Sessions / 14 / 15 / 93%
Total Trained - Quarter 1 / 304 / 393 / 77%
Total No Shows / 20
Total Cancellations / 29

Course take up is concernedly low at 77% compared to 88% for the previous quarter and 91% for the comparable period last year

Table 2: Quarter 1 Attendance by Course & Organisation (See following page)

1

Inter-Agency Safeguarding Training 2013 -14 – Quarter 1 Monitoring Report

Partner Agency / Total Bookings Registered / *Total Number of Attendees / Cancellations / Total ‘No Shows / Unscheduled Attendees / % Of Total Attendance for Q1
Fabricated or Induced Illness 14.04.16 / LSCB Learning Event 04.05.16 AM / LSCB Learning Event 04.05.16 PM / YP Dash Risk Asses 12.05.16 / Assessing Competency 07.06.16 / Intro to Child Sexual Exploitation 21.06.16 / DV Substance Abuse 23.06.16 / % Of Total Attendance for Q1
Leicestershire County Council / 88 / 90 / 6 / 4 / 12 / 1 / 28 / 33 / 3 / 17 / 8 / 29.6%
Leicester City Council / 99 / 101 / 15 / 5 / 22 / 4 / 55 / 35 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 33.2%
Rutland County Council / 11 / 10 / 1 / 5 / 4 / 1 / 3.3%
Hinckley & Bosworth BC / 0.0%
Blaby District Council / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0.7%
North West Leicestershire / 0.0%
Charnwood Borough Council / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0.3%
Oadby / 0.0%
Harborough District Council / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0.3%
Melton Borough Council / 1 / 1 / 0.0%
Leicestershire Partnership Trust / 38 / 28 / 7 / 3 / 1 / 14 / 13 / 9.2%
UHL / 7 / 5 / 2 / 5 / 1.6%
Clinical Commissioning Group / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0.7%
Leicestershire Police / 5 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1.0%
Leicestershire YOS / 3 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1.0%
Leicester City YOS / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0.3%
DLNR Probation Trust / 2 / 2 / 2 / 0.7%
Education - City / 4 / 4 / 1 / 3 / 1.3%
Education - County / 0.0%
Education - Rutland / 0.0%
Voluntary / 18 / 18 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 7 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 5.9%
Independent / 9 / 9 / 1 / 1 / 5 / 1 / 1 / 3.0%
Private / 26 / 24 / 2 / 1 / 5 / 9 / 6 / 3 / 7.9%
Cafcass / 0.0%
Other / 0.0%
TOTAL / 318 / 304 / 29 / 20 / 35 / 8 / 122 / 109 / 8 / 12 / 31 / 14 / 100%

1

Table 5: Quarter 1 No Shows, Cancellations & Repeat No Shows

Quarter 1 No Shows / Quarter 1 Cancellations
Total Recorded / 20 / 29
Trends by Agency & Course / Highest number of No Shows originated from:
  • Leicester City Council -25%
  • Although lower than the number of no shows for the same period in 2015-16 (34), there has been a considerable increase since the previous quarter (5)
  • Leicester City Council continues to present the highest number of no-shows
  • LSCB Learning Event–75% of total no-shows
/ Highest number of Cancellations originated from:
  • Leicester City Council– 52%
  • LSCB Learning Event–76% of total cancellations are from the event
  • The number of cancellations has doubled from the previous quarter (14) and virtually equals the cancellations for the same period last year (30)

Reasons provided / 12reasons provided for Non-attendance:
  • Sickness –58%
  • Personal/Unforeseen Circumstances- 34%
  • Other work priorities – 8%

Response rate -60%

/ 13 reasons provided for Cancellations:
  • Personal Commitments – 46%
  • Other Work Priorities – 39%
  • Staff Shortages – 15%
Response rate - 45%
0repeat No Shows during Quarter 1

Table 6: Quarter 1 - Area of Work Covered (Information from Table 7: Quarter 1 - Client Base (Information from 229 attendees)

229 attendees)

Quarter 1: Area of Work / Quarter 1: Individuals attendees work with
Leicester / 111 (49%) / Children & Young People (CYP) / 105 (46%)
Leicestershire / 88 (38%) / CYP & Parents / 37 (16%)
Rutland / 7 (3%) / CYP, Parents & Adults Who May Be Parents / 76 (33%)
Leicester & Leicestershire / 7 (3%) / CYP & Adults Who May Be Parents / 2 (1%)
Leicestershire & Rutland / 4 (2%) / Parents / 1 (0%)
Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland / 12 (5%) / Adults Who May Be Parents / 6 (3%)
TOTAL / 229 / Parents & Adults Who May Be Parents / 2 (1%)

Section Two – Training Delivery & Personal Learning: Evaluation Data

  • Pre & Post Training KSC Scores
  • Actions Identified for the Workplace
/
  • Scores for Training Delivery
  • Scores for Administration & Resources
/
  • Competency Framework

2.1 Knowledge, Skills & Confidence

Table 8: CourseAverages for Knowledge, Skills & Confidence(Pre & Post Training)

Course Title / Knowledge / Skills / Confidence
Pre / Post / Pre / Post / Pre / Post
Fabricated or Induced Illness / 2.6 / 3.6 / 2.3 / 3.5 / 1.7 / 3.6
LSCB Learning Event (combined) / 3.1 / 3.9 / 3.3 / 3.8 / 3.2 / 3.9
YP DASH Risk Assessment / 3.0 / 3.5 / 3.0 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 3.9
Assessing Competency & Effectiveness / 3.3 / 4.6 / 3.3 / 4.3 / 3.0 / 4.3
Introduction to CSE / 2.8 / 4.0 / 2.8 / 3.9 / 2.8 / 4.0
Domestic Violence & Substance Misuse / 3.1 / 4.0 / 2.9 / 3.9 / 3.1 / 3.9
Quarter 1: Average Scores / 3.0 / 3.9 / 2.9 / 3.9 / 2.8 / 3.9

2.2 Course Averages for Training/Learning Objectives& Facilitation

Table 9: Quarter 1 Course Objectives & Delivery - (5-point scale: 1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ and 5 = ‘Strongly Agree’).

Course Title / Average Scores for Training/Course Objectives / Average Scores for Learning Objectives / Average Scores for Course Delivery / Average Scores for Standard of Resources
Fabricated or induced Illness / 3.9 / 4.0 / 4.0 / 4.4
LSCB Learning Event (combined) / 3.8 / 3.8 / 3.7 / 3.5
YP DASH Risk Assessment / 4.0 / 4.1 / 4.6 / 4.1
Assessing Competency & Effectiveness / 3.9 / 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.5
Introduction to CSE / 4.7 / 4.6 / 4.8 / 4.6
Domestic Violence & Substance Misuse / 4.0 / 4.1 / 4.8 / 4.0
Quarter 1: Average Scores / 4.1 / 4.1 / 4.4 / 4.2
  • Quarterly averages show 4.1for Training and Personal Learning Objectives – which is slightly lower than the previous quarter’s average of 4.4 for training and 4.3 for Personal Learning Objectives. The data for the same period in 2015-16 showed 4.0 average for both Training and Learning
  • Scores (across 6courses)indicate participant satisfaction with all aspects of course delivery, especiallythe ‘Introduction to CSE’and the ‘Domestic Violence & Substance Misuse’ course. Lower scoreswere noted for the ‘LSCB Learning Event’specificallyreflecting the feedback in relation tothe standard of resources (i.e. not enough handouts provided and poor acoustics during speakers presenting.)

2.3 LLR Competency Framework: ‘Current Understanding’

Table 10: Quarter 1 Feedback for Competency Framework

Course Title / Average Scores Pre-event / Average scores post event
Fabricated or induced Illness / 3.1 / 4.1
LSCB Learning Event (combined) / 3.1 / 3.6
YP DASH Risk Assessment / 3.8 / 4.1
Assessing Competency & Effectiveness / 3.0 / 3.2
Introduction to CSE / 2.8 / 3.7
Domestic Violence & Substance Misuse / 3.0 / 3.9
Quarter 1: Average Scores 3.1 3.8

The average pre-and post training understanding score demonstrates an increase of .7 which is comparable to the .8 differential shown for both the previous quarter and Q1 in 2015-16

2.4 Pre-Event Administration, Resources and Facilities

Figure 1: Quarter 1Scores forFactors relating to the Training Courses

/ The most noticeable difference in the scores for this quarter compared to the previous one is for the quality of handouts that has reduced from 4.2 to 3.8

2.5 Identifying Future Actionsfor the Workplace

Table 11: Key Actions Identified by Quarter1 Participants (based on 615 comments/actions)

Category / Action 1 / Action 2 / Action 3 / Overall %age
1 - Identifying Abuse / 15 / 12 / 11 / 6%
2 - Increasing Awareness of Literature, Policies, Procedures & New Legislation / 36 / 26 / 35 / 16%
3 - Taking Specific Action: Referrals, Recording Info & Joint Working / 122 / 160 / 122 / 66%
4 - Further Learning & Cascading Learning / 28 / 23 / 17 / 11%
5 - Revising Internal Working Procedures & Practices / 6 / 2 / 0 / 1%

Section Three – 3 Month-Follow Up Evaluation

37 participants from Quarter 4 (January – March 2016) provided a 3-month evaluation response detailing their learning and skills in relation to inter-agency training attended. 164 individuals were approached equating to a response rateof 23%. This is a higher response rate than the previous quarter (15%) and considerably higher than the response rate for the same period during 2015-16 (12%)

  • ‘3-Month’ Scores for Knowledge, Skills & Confidence
  • Key ‘Follow Up’ Actions Undertaken in the Workplace
/
  • Emerging Impacts on Practice
  • Professional Challenges & Solutions

3.1 Improvements in Knowledge, Skills & Confidence

Table 12: Average ‘3-Month’ Scores for Knowledge, Skills & Confidence - Quarter 4(2015-16)

Course Title / Knowledge / Skills / Confidence
Pre-Training / Post-Training / 3 Month / Pre-Training / Post-Training / 3 Month / Pre-Training / Post-Training / 3 Month
Fabricated or Induced Illness 14.01.16 / 2 / 4 / 3.6 / 2 / 3.8 / 3 / 1 / 3.4 / 3
Assessing Competency 26.01.16 / 3.2 / 4 / 4.6 / 3 / 4 / 4.6 / 3 / 4 / 4.6
Neglect: Essential Awareness17.02.16 / 3.0 / 4.4 / 4.1 / 3.1 / 4.1 / 3.8 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 3.8
Allegations Against Adults 19.02.16 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0
Introduction to CSE 25.02.16 / 3 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 2.5 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.5
DA: Engaging Families 25-26.02.16 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 3 / 4 / 4.5 / 3 / 4 / 4
Parenting Capacity 10.03.16 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.3 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.3
DASH 14.03.16 / 3.0 / 4.0 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0 / 3.0 / 4.3 / 4.0
Working with Hostile & Evasive Families 16.03.16 / 3.0 / 3.7 / 3.7 / 3.0 / 3.7 / 3.7 / 3.0 / 3.7 / 3.7
Quarter 4 (Yr4) Average Scores / 2.9 / 4.1 / 4.2 / 2.8 / 4.1 / 4.0 / 2.8 / 4.0 / 3.9

There is a noticeable reported reduction in attendees’ perception of their knowledge, skills and confidence level at the 3-month post training evaluation for three of the sessions (Fabricated or Induced Illness; Neglect Essential Awareness; Allegations Against Adults) and for skills and confidence on the DASH course. Evaluation feedback identifies this reduction as being the result of lack of opportunity to apply the learning into practice.

3.2 ActionsUndertaken in the Workplace

Table 13:Key ‘Follow Up’ Actions Undertaken in Relation to ‘Original Actions’ Identified

3 Month Update
Action Implemented / Action Not Implemented / Action Implemented in Part
OOriginal Actions Is Identified / Identifying Abuse / 5 / 1
Increasing Awareness / 15 / 1
Taking Specific Action / 27 / 10 / 8
Further Learning & Cascading Learning / 11
Revising Internal Working Procedures & Practices / 3
Total / 61 / 11 / 9
The 3-monthdata confirms that 23% ofattendees from Quarter 4 (Year 4) have implemented at least one of their actions in the workplace. (This is based on the number of responses received and does not reflect all attendees from that period). This is a considerable increase to the previous quarter when the data received identified only 11% of attendees as having implemented an identified action in the workplace. It also demonstrates an increasing trend on the number of attendees identifying they have applied learning to workplace practice as the data from the two preceding quarters presented as 8% and 5% respectively

Table 14: Reasons for Actions Implemented/Not Implemented

Comments regarding ‘Actions Implemented’
The following comments reflect the nature of the types of actions implemented in the workplace:
  • “Creating dialogue with families around accumulative neglect which has enabled deeper understanding of its effects and what it is”
  • “It has helped me to assess where the family are within the cycle and look at how they are able to move themselves forward to make sustainable and effective changes to their circumstances”
  • “It has been useful to look at the perpetrator and see why and when they commit violence. I have been able to signpost them to the relevant organisations to get them support if they are willing to accept this
  • “Case discussed at SOS POD - the chronology proved helpful to put the situation in context. Held an SOS meeting with family and other agencies to identify areas of concern and agree safety plan, using Word and Pictures with family which was really helpful”
  • “Using open questions to get parents to open up and be honest to us professionalse.g.‘‘how are things at home?' What have you been up to this weekend? Is there any further assistance you require?’”
/ Comments regarding ‘Actions Not Implemented’
Participants identified the following reasons for not implementing their actions:
  • Lack of time to implement
  • No cases presented or chance to use tools/put learning into practice
  • Need to undertake further reading (theory) before implementation
  • Challenges remain; further preparation required before implementing
  • 68% (25) of the respondents experienced no difficulties implementing their actions. This percentage has decreased significantly compared to the 86% reporting no difficulties in the previous quarter
  • 27% (10) did experience difficulties relating to:
  • Lack of time and constraints
  • Sourcing appropriate information for actions identified
This percentage has increased significantly compared to the previous two quarters (11% and 20%)
The apparent reversal in terms of percentage of attendees reporting experiencing no difficulties/difficulties in applying learning into the workplace/practice will need to be monitored over subsequent quarters

3.3 Improvements in Understanding of LLR Competency Framework

Table 15: Understanding of the Competency Framework

The emerging effectiveness of the Competency Framework has been captured in the following feedback from 3-month respondents.

Average Scores (Based on 22 complete responses) / Supporting Roles & Learning
81%(30)of respondents stated that the Competency Framework has supported their role and identification of learning. This demonstrates an increasingly upward trend compared to previous quarters
Key examples included:
  • Refreshing knowledge of competencies
  • Identifying relevant & targeted learning opportunities.
  • Clear understanding of level of training and awareness is necessary for roles
One respondent highlighted that, although the level of work taken when completing the competency logs initially daunted them, it meantthat as they embarked on the logs, a clear picture of staff competencies emerged and gaps were identified and addressed.
Pre Training / Post Training / 3 Month Update
3 / 4 / 4

3.4 Key Outcomes & Emerging Impacts on Practice

Table 16:3 month Improvements in Inter-Agency Working, Information Sharing & Working Together

Inter-Agency Working

22% of respondents felt the training had helped to improve joint workingwhereas38% did not communicateany such an improvement.40% made no comment. These figures are lower than those of the both the previous quarter and for the comparable quarter in 2015-16.

The following are key examples of improved inter-agency working were provided:

  • Regular conversing with a range of agencies
  • Continued closer working relationships & attendance at cross-network meetings
  • Improved communicationwith other agencies regarding risk cases
  • Positive joint working across multiple agencies
/

Information Sharing

Respondents provided examples of improved information sharing in the workplace as a direct result of learning from inter-agency training. Of the 37 respondents:

19% felt that information sharing had improved within their organisation

16% felt it had improved with other professionals/organisations

 14% identified improvements in their personal working practices

The above figures show a concerning decrease from the previous quarter which showed a 46%; 21%; 39% perception of improvement of information sharing in the respective categories. The figures are also considerably less than those provided for the same period in 2015-16 which totaled 52%, 34% and 40% for the same 3 areas

The following types of information were shared:

  • Frequent communication with professionals
  • Information recording system implemented for better consistency
  • Signposting families & individuals to agencies
  • Good practice
Specific improvements included;‘Facebook campaign to highlight the dangers and early signs of grooming.’

Knowledge of Other Roles & Confidence to Work Together

27% of respondents observed improved knowledge of other roles and the confidence to work together with other agencies. This is a concerning drop in the statistic provided in the previous quarter when 71% had noted an improvement in these areas and for the same period last year when 76% had identified an improvement

Professionals described a number of methods to further their knowledge of differentroles and improve joint working:
  • Undertaking multi-agency safeguarding supervision
  • Increased awareness of other roles and agencies working together to safeguarding children and families
  • Closer working relationship with other professionals on safeguarding issues
/

Outcomes for Children & Young People

Of the 37 respondents,24% provided examples of important factorswhich may have contributed towards improved outcomes for children and young people:
  • Knowledge of other agencies, roles & responsibilities
  • Integrated working skills
  • Increased confidence to signpost to parents & individuals

Respondents undertook the following actionsto achieve outcomes:
  • Raised concerns – 22%
  • Targeted support for Parents/CYP – 22%
  • Improved communication with CYP or Professionals – 22%
  • Sharing information/Working together – 22%
  • Use of tools and new knowledge from training – 11%
Specific outcome:
‘By encouraging a more honest exchange of information about incidents a member of staff has been able to gain necessary information to support the work of a school therapist with the child.’

3.5 Professional Challenges & Solutions

Table 17: Summary of Professional Challenges & Solutions

Professional barriers in the workplace
68%of responders stated that barriers do exist and 5% did not provide an answer. Those who identified barriers provided the following examples.
  • Lack of capacity/time to attend training – 20%
  • Difficulty accessing training/ availability of training –16%
  • Difficulty prioritising training 8%
/ Potential Solutions
Half of the participants who identified barriers in the workplaceprovided potential solutions to address these barriers.
  • Increased capacity -33%
  • Prioritisingtraining – 25%
  • Increased availability of training – 25%
  • Staff development and training–17%

1