Non-Engagement of Families Who Have Been Offered

POOLE CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Non-Engagement of Families Who Have Been Offered

CiN or Partnership Plus Services.

A feature in Serious Case Reviews across Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth as well as nationally has been the lack of co-operation and/or hostile attitude of parents/carers and some older young people. When there are child welfare/protection issues, a failure to engage with the family may have serious implications and non-intervention is not an option. (LSCB Policy on Hard to Engage Families - 2015)

1. Introduction

The offer of an assessment or a supportive service under a PEHA or CiN process goes hand-in-hand with the agreement and cooperation of the parent or carer, or the child if she/he is of sufficient age and understanding. If this agreement cannot be obtained or is withdrawn, then there is no basis for services to maintain involvement, which will often lead to the case being closed or, in some situations, escalated to CP or PLO processes.

It has been recognised that withdrawing services through non-engagement can negatively affect a child, impacting on their development and resulting in poor outcomes in the short and longer term. We have seen this in Poole through audits and other quality assurance measures (such as those for repeat referrals) and also at a national level through research on issues such as chronic neglect and the effects on children being cared for by an adult struggling with addiction or mental health issues.

Non-engagement can be recognised through overt statements regarding a wish to cease involvement with services or it can be covert – i.e. through missed appointments, pretending to not be at home when a worker visits, etc.

1. Good Practice Guide
2. Preparation for Positive Engagement

It is important that all those involved with a child, young person or family that is being referred to another service does all they can to assist with positive engagement. Gaining consent to make the referral, using the Interagency Consent Form, is critical at this level. Referring agencies and those involved in the process such as the Hub and Assessment and Action Team should explain fully to the family the unmet needs and reasons for the referral as well as the service that will be offered so that the family fully understand the issues and have opportunity to ask questions, share concerns and confirm their acceptance at this stage. All relevant background and history checks should be completed to ensure the referral is appropriate. Consideration should be given to ‘three-way meetings’, joint visits and other supportive processes to try to ensure the referral progresses smoothly and that engagement is secured at the outset.

Upon receiving referrals, workers should ensure they have fully prepared for the first contact with the family, checking relevant records and discussing with the referrer as appropriate to identify any potential blocks to engagement before meeting the family for the first time.

1. Challenging Non-Engagement

As outlined above, agencies can be too quick to accept non-engagement and use this as a reason for ending involvement and closing the case. Whenever we face the situation where a service user is choosing to overtly or covertly disengage from services it is of utmost importance to assertively and actively challenge this.

We must maintain a child focus and this often means exercising a healthy degree of professional scepticism in the face of explanations or deflections from parents or carers (For example a parent may want us to believe that it was all someone else’s fault - or down to unlucky chance that the initial referral was made).

In the face of non-engagement the case must be discussed with the immediate line manager and a strategy for addressing the non-engagement issues agreed and recorded on file. Ideas such as:

• arranging unscheduled visits,
• supporting the worker with a more experienced colleague,
• inviting the parent or carer into the office to discuss the concerns,
• using another professional known to have a working relationship to get back into the family
• convening a team around the child meeting to discuss the concerns of non-engagement with other professionals with the aim of agreeing a way forward.

1. Considering the Potential Impact of Non-Engagement

When faced with non-engagement it is of utmost importance that we fully consider the circumstances of the case before deciding the best action to undertake.

The following is a list of key features to consider:

• The nature of the concerns or needs in the family.There are obvious reasons why people may be evasive or untruthful in the face of questioning by support agencies, particularly where there are issues of parental mental health, drug or alcohol misuse, domestic abuse or other ‘hidden’ risks to a child such as through emotional abuse or contact with people or situations that would put a child at risk.
• The referral history. For examplerepeat referrals around similar or related issues. In particular be aware of police reports and ASB reports which may give reason to suppose the parent/s are often misusing alcohol. Similarly we need to consider previous periods of being open to other services particularly those atPartnership Plus or Level 4 Statutory Services and whether these were satisfactorily resolved;
• The age of the child or children. It really goes without saying butyounger children are potentially at greater risk due to physical vulnerability and lack of credible ‘voice’. Older children may have been coached by parents in order to avert the attention of agencies or have become ‘institutionalised’ to accepting home conditions and it is important to consider this when listening to the child’s account.
• Any additional needs that the child may have. For instance the child may have specific health or learning needs that would increase their vulnerability. Particular attention should be paid if the parent’s issues are affecting things like attendance at medical appointments or the implementation of routines designed to help the child overcome developmental delay.
• The age of the parent or carer. Young parents don’t necessarily make bad parents; however, we know it can be hard for young parents to give up the active social life that many young people enjoy. We also know that many young people lack the maturity to understand the consequences of their decisions and how these can affect the development and/or safety of their child.
• Additional needs of the parent or carer.Does the parent understand what is required? It may be that an interpreter is required in cases where English is not the first language or an advocate where the parent has a specific learning need.

1. Making a decision – To close or escalate?

If assertive attempts have been unsuccessful in challenging non-engagement and the apparent risk to the child has increased due to the presence of one or more of the key features above in combination with the non-engagement then it will be necessary to consider if the child is at actual or possible risk of significant harm. In the case that significant harm thresholds appear to have been met then CP processes must be followed without delay.

Where continued non-engagement in a case does not lead to concerns of significant harm then the case will have to be closed by the Partnership Plus or CiN service. It is expected that the team around the child will be fully involved in this decision. In most cases this will mean that a formal professionals meeting is held to explain the reasons for closure, acknowledge any residual concerns and to ensure agencies who have continued contact with the child through Universal or Universal plus services are clear what to do should new or heightened concerns come to light.

September 2016