Scottish Government

FINDINGS

Contextual studies

Documentary analysis

Steering group minutes mainly noted decisions, without the detail of discussion, so they did not shed much light on approaches that might have been considered and rejected. However, they provided detailed evidence of the extent of involvement from a range of disciplines, and of a significant amount of consultation across departments within the Scottish Executive, as well as with external stakeholders.

Children's Charter

Children and young people who were interviewed spoke of feeling safe in school and said they would go to a teacher if they had concerns. They identified family and friends as the main people who helped keep them safe. Parents of younger children felt they could turn to family and friends for support, or to share concerns about keeping their own child safe. The health visitor was considered to be an important point of contact, as well as staff at nursery or family centre groups. Parents said they might consider contacting social work services if they had concerns about another child, but would be anxious about the results of doing this. Parents from ethnic minority communities raised the point that it should not be assumed that people were literate in their own language, and, therefore, the production of translated leaflets was not always helpful. Parents were reassured that staff who have contact with children, even on a voluntary basis, are subject to Disclosure Scotland checks. Some parents spoke of their concerns about allowing their own children to sleep over at houses where they did not know the family.

Pupils and parents had little knowledge or recall of the Children's Charter. Younger children had been in primary school at the time they received the Charter: most remembered that they had got it, but they seldom said they had read it; a few said their parents had 'put it in the bin'. Older pupils had no recollection of receiving a copy. Subsequently the Committee has taken this work much further to ensure that children and young people have a more meaningful concept of the charter (see Box 1).

Social Workers in Community Care and Criminal Justice Settings

Social workers in adult and child and family settings who received training in child protection provided feedback via course evaluation forms. These indicated that they embarked on the course with patchy knowledge of the policy context across the board. Many were not aware of the CPRP, although some were aware of the underlying principles. There was a general view that priorities from the Scottish Executive are constantly changing, with a tendency for communication to be 'top-down'. Participants expressed concern that there was a move towards integrated services without attention to the resources required to support it, and that it was difficult to work with the standards and performance indicators.

At the beginning of the course staff in criminal justice and community care settings expressed a lot of concern and anxiety about their roles and responsibilities with regard to child care and protection. From 320 comments produced in the initial activity 7 main themes emerged. These are shown in Box 2.

Following the course the feedback indicated that there were significant increases in knowledge and confidence in this area. However, our findings suggest that there is a need for more clarity about the role of social workers in adult settings for the protection of children.

Media Coverage

The analysis yielded a large number of themes which are shown in Appendix 5. The largest category focused on adult issues and legislation dealing with perpetrators and no direct or indirect links were made with the CPRP. The next largest category described a range of local initiatives such as:

• joint police/social work units in Edinburgh, Fife and Angus;
• the launch of NHS Glasgow's Child Protection Unit;
• a new multi-agency referral system for assessment in Glasgow;
• the plans for an integrated children's system in Dundee;
• child protection committee annual reports and vision statements.

Here the influence of the CPRP is evident in quotations from agencies that emphasised:

• the value of co-location for multi-agency working;
• the importance of sharing information across disciplines;
• the value of a single entry point for the public.

This category suggests that local authority and health board initiatives have been influenced by the CPRP, and their press releases incorporated reference to it.

Over the year a considerable amount of child protection coverage was sparked by incidents connected with parental substance misuse. The issues from were reprised at the time of the launch of the Herbison report into the death of Danielle Reid. Items picked up on the comment that 'social work staffing is in crisis', and links were made with Changing Lives (2). However, in all these items there was scant direct or indirect reference to the CPRP. The most direct reference was in a letter from ADSW to the Herald on 10/03/06 -

'considerable changes have been put in place by the Child Protection Reform Programme, launched in 2003. This has seen major investment in child protection committees which are leading national developments locally.'

On the other hand, in the Sunday Herald on the 12/03/06, Jack McConnell was quoted as being "infuriated" at the failure in communication between professionals.

A slew of items related to broader issues of parental substance misuse, many linked with the launch of Hidden Harm - Next Steps. Again it is very striking that few references were made to aspects of the CPRP that could be relevant to the children of parents who misuse substances. The most specific references were in two quotes in The Courier on the 09/05/06: one from Jack McConnell stating that a lot has been done to 'identify those children at risk and make the right decision on how best to give them the childhood of opportunity they deserve'; one from the opposition - 'In November, 2003, Jack McConnell pledged that this issue would be sorted out within two years … rather than improvements being made, more serious problems are being uncovered.'

However, the message was different at the release of child protection statistics in September 2006 when a rise in registrations for sexual abuse was attributed to an increase in vigilance, with coverage suggesting that this view was endorsed by the First Minister. On two occasions the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People was quoted as stating that children must 'get the help they need' - clearly part of the CPRP discourse.

The most specific references to the CPRP, and also to Getting It Right For Every Child occurred in the context of discussion about resources for the Children's Hearing system. The coverage described a system at breaking point, and referred to planned legislation to reform the system being postponed, or 'shelved', to make way for changes in the wake of the Bichard recommendations.

The other categories covered a range of issues relating to child protection where there are occasional allusions to aspects of the CPRP, including:

• the 24 hour national helpline - first described as being stalled and then as going ahead;
• pilot in Highland for a national database of all children;
• protection of children taking part in sport;
• the importance of early intervention;
• GPs to offer a 'welcome' consultation for all children in Lothian;
• reference to the role of health visitors in child protection, and the demand this places on resources.

Aspects of the CPRP did permeate print media coverage to an extent. The influence of the CPRP was most evident in items based on information from local authorities and health boards - agencies appear to have provided information to the press about local initiatives that were clearly driven by the CPRP. Coverage, in general, tended to indicate a widespread recognition of an increasing emphasis on the role of doctors, health visitors, and the police in child protection. The print press appeared not to have spontaneously made links between individual convictions or tragedies and broader policy initiatives for the protection of children. Overall, the press coverage indicated a preoccupation with issues of adult offending and the control of perpetrators and links were not drawn between the CPRP, proposals for tackling the impact of parental substance misuse, and policies for dealing with adult perpetrators of abuse.

Summary of contextual studies

• The documentary evidence from the Scottish Executive has detailed the level of commitment to the CPRP from a range of departments and from a large number of stakeholders. As a record of the project's development they provide a helpful chronology of decisions.
• The re-analysis of the study on the Charter provides just one illustration of a creative approach to the development of one of the CPRP sub-projects.
• The views of social workers provides a helpful insight into the extent to which professionals are concerned about doing the right thing for children at risk.
• The media analysis shows that aspects of the CPRP have permeated to the general public, but that more linkages between different policies could be presented to the public. The media analysis also gave an insight into the amount of activity by health boards and local authorities that was influenced by the CPRP - and also evidenced that the media can be encouraged to cover positive initiatives.

Strand A: The processes used to set up and manage the CPRP

Introduction

The aim of this strand was to examine the processes used to set up and manage the CPPR and gauge their effectiveness in engaging with stakeholders and delivering required outputs. In describing the findings for strand a and strand b we use the conventions where:

• 'almost all' means over 90%
• 'most' means 75-90%
• 'majority' means 50-75%
• 'less than half' means 15-49%
• 'few' means up to 15%.

How the policy leads saw their role in taking forward the child protection reform programme and its key objectives

Q: "How do you eat an Elephant?"

A: "A Slice at a time". ( Programme Manager)

The Child Protection Summit in 2003 brought together senior local authority, health, police and voluntary sector representatives, with Ministers and the Scottish Executive, to discuss three questions:

• What specific actions need to be taken to improve child protection?
• What am I going to do about it?
• What can the action team do to help me?

The responses were developed, under the management of the Programme Leader and the Child Protection Steering Group ( CPSG), into a detailed work plan in which key objectives were shaped into sub-projects. For each of the projects a separate project plan was initially developed in consultation with the CPSG. The internal policy leads told us that their role was mostly managerial and that they were to:

• develop the 'work plan' for the CPRP;
• recruit the professional advisors;
• oversee the work of the professional advisors;
• oversee the work of the CPSG;
• oversee the development of the CPRP and its associated projects;
• liaise with senior civil servants and ministers within the Scottish Executive about the progress of the CPRP.

IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN

Most people interpreted the key aim of the reform programme as being about the improvement of outcomes for children in child protection, rather than simply the improvement of protection processes. Implicitly the improvement of outcomes is linked to the improvement of protection services and some people identified this relationship. They more often conceptualised this, however, in terms of outcomes. For example:

This has been about improving the quality of the service…The issue will be - is that leading to better outcomes for children?… That is actually the bottom line. ( CPC Member)

The majority of those who conceptualised the key aim of the CPRP as being about the improvement of outcomes for children discussed this aim solely in relation to abused and neglected children. Therefore, the central aim of the CPRP was first and foremost conceived as being about improving the protection of children who are already in receipt of child protection services, or who have already been identified as being at risk. However, many respondents considered that the remit of the CPRP was linked to a more universal child welfare/children's services agenda which at its broadest level is concerned with meeting the needs of all children, not just those in need of care and protection. They made links with the existing and developing policy and discourses on:

• early intervention and support;
• the reduction and prevention of risk and harm;
• the reduction and prevention of abuse and neglect;
• the reduction of the numbers of children in need of protection;
• the development of early years services;
• policy initiatives in the areas of domestic abuse and substance misuse.

REDUCING THE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF PROTECTION

The majority of those respondents who identified a key objective of the CPRP as being about the prevention of harm commented that the recent rise in the numbers of children being identified as in need of protection had risen as a result of the work of the CPRP. Paradoxically, therefore, the aim of reducing the numbers of children in need of protection was seen to be linked to an increase in the apparent referral rates.

IMPLEMENTING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUDIT AND REVIEW

For the majority of those we spoke to the work of the CPRP was viewed as being focused on taking forward the findings and recommendations of 'It's Everyone's Job To Make Sure I'm Alright' (4):

my understanding of it was really implementing a lot of the findings from "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright", you know the National Audit and Review.

However, it was evident that there were elements of confusion around whether or not the CPRP was supposed to be taking forward these recommendations or not. Policy makers told us that although the CPRP was set up following the Audit and review, it was not constrained or limited by, or to, the recommendations of the Audit and Review. This understanding does not, however, appear to have been shared by all stakeholders.

RAISING AWARENESS OF CHILD PROTECTION

Almost all of the respondents considered that raising awareness of child protection issues amongst agencies, organisations, professionals and the public was consistently identified as a key objective of the CPRP. These discussions were often linked with the next stated aim.

RAISING THE PROFILE OF CHILD PROTECTION

Raising the profile of child protection issues and child protection work within relevant agencies was commented on by the majority of the respondents. Achieving this at all organisational levels within agencies was viewed as being important.

Well, to me …it really was putting the child to the centre of the activity. And making sure that that commitment went right from Chief Executive/Chief Officer level, right down to sort of operational delivery on the bottom. (Profession Representative)

IMPROVING PRACTICE

Respondents related the aims and objectives of the CPRP to the improvement of practice during the course of their interviews, discussing where relevant how various strands of work tied into improving practice.

IMPROVING THE JOINT DELIVERY OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

A few individuals made reference to improving the joint delivery of child protection services as an objective of the CPRP. Mostly, however, this was

articulated within the context of discussions about multi-agency/interagency practice. In particular, respondents talked about the role of child protection committees and multi-agency groups and how the inspection process may foster improvements in respect to multi-agency/interagency working.

ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT

A few individuals thought that an important objective of the CPRP was to improve the assessment and risk management processes for child protection and to determine how to progress responsibility and accountability:

To improve the quality of assessment, risk management for children in danger … And an even higher level kind of political objective was to test whether this could be left to the responsibility of Local Authorities and the Voluntary Sector and NHS at local level, or, whether there needed to be a more hands on Scottish Minister's accountability for what was going on. And I suppose that had been triggered by a series of fairly high profile tragedies in Scotland. ( Policy Lead)

Whether the reform programme was an effective process by which to meet the original objectives agreed by the policy leads.

Not only the policy leads, but the vast majority of all interview and focus group respondents, identified the CPRP as having been successful in meeting its key aims and objectives. On a scale of one to ten (one being the lowest) the majority of individuals whom we asked to rate the success of the CPRP placed it at seven. Almost all of the verbal comments were positive:

Well, I think actually it did meet its objectives. ( Member of Training sub-group)

I think we've delivered what we've been asked to deliver. ( PA)

In explaining why they believed the CPRP had been successful in meeting its aims and objectives respondents discussed a plethora of areas where they perceived change or improvement had occurred as a direct consequence of the work of the CPRP. A number of consistent themes emerged from these discussions.

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PRACTICE OF PROFESSIONALS

Respondents felt that the practice of professionals in all agencies and organisations, and across all sectors, had improved as a consequence of the work of the CPRP. The police and health were agencies that were often identified as having significantly improved their professional practice and working arrangements for child protection. It was felt the CPRP had been well received at the agency and practice level:

I think they've been quite well received and people have seen the sense of that direction.

However, others were more cautious in their assessment of the impact that the reform programme had had on practice:

I think it's maybe a little bit early to tell the influence on practice. I'm sure if everyone adheres to the guidelines it will have an influence on practice, but, I don't know that we are in a position just yet to really assess that effect. ( Member of training sub-group).

Generally speaking, however, most people who discussed frontline practice considered that there had been noticeable and tangible improvements.

INCREASED AWARENESS OF CHILD PROTECTION AMONGST PROFESSIONALS

We were consistently told that there had been a considerable increase in awareness amongst relevant agencies and professionals as a direct consequence of the work of the CPRP, and that people were more aware of their roles and responsibilities. For example, police representatives told us that previous to the reform programme child protection was somewhat of a "backwater" whereas it was now seen as a priority area of work:

You know that commitment really does exist within the police service now…I honestly believe, from, right from the force, Child Protection and Family Protection in general are now seen as core and critical business…I think that the Reform Programme has assisted in that.

RAISED PROFILE / PRIORITY

There was an overwhelming consensus that the profile of child protection work and the priority that child protection work is being afforded within agencies has been raised through the work of the CPRP.

Actually, I think it has raised its profile hugely, which is a very positive thing … And I think [it has] stimulated action in child protection. ( Member of training sub-group)

People commented on how child protection was now seen as a national priority and had become more of a priority within agencies and organisations than it had been previous to the reform programme:

The First Minister and The Executive were saying this was a national priority and, therefore, the agencies and organisations had to give that level of commitment…and its priority is far higher than it was two years ago. I think the Reform Programme strategically has certainly had a big influence in that, and I think the reason is priority and underscoring, that this is critical and core business. ( Profession representative)

I would say that it's definitely put Child Protection higher up on the agenda of not only Child Protection and Child Care Services, but, also because of the way it's structured, Child Protection Committee's and their accountability. I would say that Chief Executives, for instance, now have a role in Child Protection which they are very aware of, which they might not necessarily have seen as something they needed to be involved with previously. ( CPC Member)

INCREASE IN THE LEVELS OF TRAINING

The strategic training project is contributing to the awareness of the staff out in the field. ( Member of the strategic training group)

CPC members in particular, considered that the efforts they had put into developing and rolling out training within their areas had contributed to awareness raising quite considerably. Notably people told us that they thought that the training that was now given to staff who would not have been given any formal training in child protection issues previously was making a difference. Targeted training at a range of people who work with children, come into contact with children, or who have responsibility for the welfare of children in other capacities, was viewed as particularly important.

RAISED PUBLIC AWARENESS

Many respondents were of the opinion that public awareness on child protection issues had increased. In part this was attributed to awareness raising work done at the level of the CPC's. A few people commented on the work done by the Scottish Executive as contributing to raising public awareness. However, some people felt that it was difficult to directly attribute raised public awareness to the work of the Reform Programme:

Raising public awareness is an on-going process, as you know, and again, I don't know how you gauge the success of that. ( Member of training sub-group)

Others considered that the rise in public awareness was due to high profile cases involving child deaths and serious abuse and neglect that had been reported in the media during the lifespan of the Reform Programme:

But of course, there's also been an increase in public awareness due to some of the child protection situations that have hit the media. ( Member of the training subgroup)

INCREASED NUMBER OF REFERRALS

Many respondents identified an increase in child protection referrals during the period of the CPRP. There was a very small degree of musing over whether or not this meant that there had been a rise in the numbers of children being abused and neglected, but most people did not lend this line of thought much legitimacy. It is difficult to establish a cause and effect between the CPRP and the increase in referrals but individuals who commented on this issue strongly considered that it was due to the CPRP. We were also told that the number of referrals of complex cases was increasing.

The rise in the number of referrals was largely attributed to:

• Raised awareness amongst professionals of their roles and responsibilities towards the protection of children.
• Increased capacity of professionals to identify children at risk of abuse of neglect.
• Increased capacity of professionals to identify signs of abuse and neglect.
• Increased capacity of professionals to identify signs of abuse and neglect earlier.
• Professionals being more confident about making referrals.
• The general public being more willing to make referrals to suitable agencies.

Respondents also considered that by and large the referrals being made were appropriate:

What we have found is that with the majority of referrals that are made most are absolutely legitimate…It isn't that the referrals are the wrong referrals, it's just there has been an increase in referrals…In my view that can only come about because of increased awareness…I do think that things have changed in that people are much more willing to make referrals. ( Social Work Manager).

Better information sharing between agencies was also identified as a key reason for the rise in referrals. However, many people told us that the unintended consequence of this rise was that agencies were struggling to cope with the volume of referrals:

The absolute down side is, we have been extremely successful, we have generated a huge number of referrals. We have now more than double the children on the register, everybody is now squealing and squeaking. ( CPC member)

We were, therefore, being told that agencies were struggling quite considerably with dealing with the increase in referrals. However, despite this, people still considered that it was better to refer than not:

I'd much rather be up trying to face a charge … of sharing information inappropriately than I would a fatal accident inquiry. ( Children and families Service Manager)

MULTI-AGENCY PRACTICE / COLLABORATIVE WORKING

Respondents felt there had been significant improvements to multi-agency practice and increased collaborative working between agencies and organisations. They felt that child care and protection was no longer seen as the sole remit of social work agencies but rather as the responsibility of all agencies, requiring a collective response:

At this stage we've got consensus about what constitutes good quality multi-agency practice, so that's successful, that's a success in itself, just to have achieved that consensus. ( CPC chair)

Respondents offered many detailed examples of what they thought was evidence of good multi-agency practice and collaborative working:

I mean one of the things we did, for example, was we agreed as a CPC, that any single agency guidance or policy relating to child protection had to be signed off by the CPC on a multi-agency basis. And that was new because previously that would not have been possible, for example, for the NHS or for the Voluntary Sector or indeed for a Council Service to have developed a policy or a set of guidelines in relation to Child Protection unilaterally. So what we agreed, was that that wouldn't happen in the future …So all the other agencies get to see it in draft and make sure that it fits with what they require. ( CPC chair)

And using training as an example:

We're doing the same with training … we're taking a more collective approach. We've got an audit of what kind of training has been done on a multi-agency basis and, what kind of training has been done on a single agency basis … Some of the training is more appropriately done on a single agency basis, especially the low level awareness raising, consciousness raising thing that you do for front line staff. And then some of the more specialist stuff needs to be multi-agency. So we've got a kind of map now of what's been done single agency, what's been done multi-agency and also a group working on what the main needs are collectively, both single agency and multi-agency.

Overall then many people we spoke to considered that multi-agency working was improving. They often spoke enthusiastically about how other agencies were engaging with them.

IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO OTHER STRANDS

Many respondents also discussed improvement related to non-core strands of the CPRP such as:

• Domestic Violence
• Substance Misuse
• Sex Offenders
• Child Witnesses.

Active engagement in these related areas of work by members of the reform team, and by agencies and professionals more generally, was regarded as positive, and as stimulating real improvement. For example, where concerns about domestic abuse or substance misuse are being identified or presented, professionals in a range of statutory, non-statutory and voluntary agencies and organisations were now thought to be more aware of the need to systematically consider issues of child protection. In particular, professionals working in adult services were perceived to be more likely to make appropriate referrals if they were concerned about a child. People also spoke of more active engagement between child protection and criminal justice workers. For instance, the management of sex offenders is one area where connections and joint working were believed to have been strengthened not just internally within the Executive, but also amongst and between agencies.

How the makeup of the CPSG was established and the Professional Advisors selected.

For the most part it appeared that members of the steering group were 'hand picked' for their expertise and experience in particular areas and were either approached formally or informally. Members of the CPSG were very clear about what their role within the CPRP was. Generally speaking they considered that they were there to 'oversee' the CPRP in its broadest sense, to monitor and guide the specific areas of work developed to progress and implement the CPRP, and to work with those involved, both internal and external to the Scottish Executive. As one member said:

The CPSG was everyone's critical friend.

The Professional Advisors ( PAs) told us that they experienced a mixture of formal and informal recruitment procedures. Some said they went through a formal interview process, others said they were directly approached. Overall, there was a view that the process lacked transparency. There was a lack of clarity about whether the important aspects were, for example, level of seniority in their profession, possession of specific skills and knowledge, holding a particular role in their employing agency or having knowledge of policy development. PA's described a range of roles in the CPRP which are described below.

TAKING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AUDIT AND REVIEW

The confusion about the exact links between the CPRP and the Audit and Review recommendations, as described earlier, were clearly expressed by PAs. This appears to have been related to differences in the ways in which the remit of PAs was articulated to them by relevant persons within the Scottish Executive.

PROVIDING CONSULTATION, ADVICE AND PROFESSIONAL/ DISCIPLINARY EXPERTISE TO THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Overwhelmingly PAs considered that their primary function within the CPRP was to provide professional and/or discipline specific advice, consultation and expertise to the Scottish Executive on Child Protection issues. As a corollary to this, some PAs also considered and described their role as being one of representing the particular agency that they had been seconded from, and/or the provision of an agency specific perspective to the development of the CPRP and related policy:

I was brought in as a PA to, I thought, to represent a particular perspective from a particular professional background. I like to think that I continued to do that throughout the three years.

So my role was informing whatever was happening in here [the Scottish Executive] with my knowledge and background.

However, they also described some confusion about this:

…but at one point all of us were told that we didn't represent our professions. We could give an insight into our professional working but we didn't actually represent [our professions] so there was a difference in opinion if you like of how it was seen in there [the Scottish Executive].

Initially, this confusion appears to have fuelled issues of role ambiguity and confusion which made it difficult for the PAs to take their role forward. Nonetheless they clearly considered that inputting their professional perspective was an important part of their remit within the Scottish Executive and at the local level.

FACILITATING A 'LINK' BETWEEN THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE AND THE CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEES

Acting as a point of liaison between the Scottish Executive and the Child Protection Committees was considered by PAs to have been a fundamentally important part of their remit. Their 'hands on' involvement with the Child Protection Committees was described as providing a mechanism through which the CPRP would be progressed and its work delivered:

…that we would roll out the reform programmes within the CPC's and that was very much in advising, and if they didn't want to take the advice then that was entirely up to them.

The key purpose of their involvement with the Child Protection Committees was viewed as oscillating between the provision of advice on policies, procedures and guidelines, and giving feedback and advice on policy development at the local/agency level.

IMPROVING PRACTICE AND LINKING NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY

PAs from a practice background considered that part of their remit was to initiate tangible improvements to frontline practice through assisting in the development and implementation of the CPRP at both the national and local level. The work they carried out at the level of the CPCs was considered to afford a real opportunity to have a direct influence on practice. For some, improving practice was considered as one of the key objectives of the CPRP. Moreover, linking and developing the wider policy agenda at the national level, to the agency level, in order to develop frontline practice, was considered by the professional advisors to have been a fundamental part of their role with the CPRP.

ENGAGING WITH FRONTLINE WORKERS AND REPRESENTING THEIR VIEWS

Engaging with frontline workers, gathering their views, and conveying them to the Scottish Executive, was seen as a crucial role. It was not described as a function of the PA's role that was developed by the Scottish Executive per se. Rather respondents' comments suggest that this was a role that developed as the CPRP progressed. It was influenced by a sense of responsibility to the people they liaised with at the agency level:

I would also say that my role at that point then became very much a responsibility. I owed these people out there, I had consulted with them, I had given a promise that we would listen to them and I felt very strongly that having given that promise to them (quite principled that I was), I would not then say subsequently it was a façade. So we drove that through and that was very interesting because I certainly felt at times that we were being taken away from representing what people wanted out there.

The potential tension in this role was also expressed:

It was like walking a tightrope if you like, because yes I wanted to carry the Executive message forward, but I also wanted to support the people who were out there.

ENGAGING EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND ORGANISATIONS WITH THE CPRP

Liaising with a variety of agencies and organisations, whether statutory or non-statutory, in order to engage them with the CPRP, its aims, objectives and development, was clearly considered by professional advisors to have been part of their role. Most professional advisors described, in detail, their involvements and efforts to engage and work with a variety of agencies and organisations in the statutory, non-statutory and voluntary sector, in order to raise awareness of child protection issues, raise the profile of child protection and assist agencies and organisations in developing and implementing child protection policies, and procedures.

ACTUALISING THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CPRP THROUGH THE SUB-PROJECTS OF THE CPRP AND RELATED STRANDS OF WORK

Developing and implementing the work tasks of the CPRP within the various sub projects was viewed by professional advisors as their key function within the reform programme. This was evidenced by their extensive commentary on their involvements in specific strands of work.

What informed the selection by the policy leads of the particular methods for each sub-project and views on whether they worked.

The policy leads found it difficult to articulate with clarity what informed the selection of the particular methods used for each of the projects of the reform programme. Instead when asked about this people spoke, in partial detail, about what they did, rather than explaining the rationale that underpinned what they did. However, we were told in detail about how the original vision for the reform programme was developed from the outcomes of the first child protection summit and about how enormous effort was put into engaging people with the reform programme and consulting with people about various strands of work.

Consultation has emerged as one of the primary vehicles through which the work of the CPRP was developed. We received extensive commentary on the level of consultation work that was carried out. The sheer scale of the consultation exercises cannot be overstated. During an interview with one of the PAs, for example, we were told that approximately 2000 people had attended roadshows aimed at informing the development of the Framework for Standards and communication with as many of these people as possible was maintained.

The majority of people who were involved in the CPRP at the level of the Scottish Executive could articulate what informed their individual working methods in taking forward the various projects of the reform programme. The most frequently mentioned aspect of this was professional expertise. The policy leads including CPSG members, and the Professional Advisors, clearly articulated that they drew on their professional backgrounds to inform their working methods:

I think what informed it was my professional background…it was about my knowledge, experience, professionalism if you like.

CHILDREN'S CHARTER

Very few respondents offered commentary on the Children's Charter. This is perhaps because the Charter was developed by Save the Children and did not have direct input from those people we spoke to. People tended to view the Children's Charter as an aspirational document that provided clarity about what children and young people expected from child protection services and, as one commented:

Now that's not a useless exercise. ( CPC member)

However, some people were disappointed that it did not provide them with something that could be utilised at the agency and practitioner level in a concrete and meaningful way:

The Charter, I don't want to decry it too much, but at the end of the day there will be many people in the field who would ask themselves 'exactly what purpose was it that the Charter actually served', other than being, again, I say the obvious statement on the part of children, or children and young people and what they would expect from the system.

Despite this it was generally considered that the Children's Charter had been influential in focusing minds upon putting children at the centre of child protection processes and listening to children within these processes:

I do think that professionals across the board are much more willing to listen to children. ( CPC member)

THE FRAMEWORK FOR STANDARDS (QUALITY INDICATORS AND MULTI-AGENCY INSPECTION)

The Joint Inspection programme is underpinned by the Framework for Standards and Quality Indicators. Respondents expressed mixed feelings as to the operational benefits of the Framework for Standards. It is likely that this was at least partly due to the fact that the Framework, intended as a set of vision statements, was developed some time before the more detailed and prescriptive Quality Indicators.

There was a tendency to view the Framework as aspirational rather than realisable. The Framework for Standards was not considered by some to have delivered what agencies and frontline staff had expected from a strand of work which was billed as developing standards for child protection services. It was evident that people were hoping for, and indeed were expecting, something more prescriptive and something which allowed for the assessment and evaluation of services:

People were looking for much more highly prescriptive standards which you could then [use to] assess the quality of service that was being provided. ( CPC working group)

I thought people were looking for a good standards document that … could then be used as a reference for services to develop this service, to meet the standards but could also then be used as tool for self-assessment of service and [for] external assessment of services. ( CPC member)

Some felt that the end product was too vague, too broad and did not go beyond providing a vision or philosophy for standards in child protection which people felt they already held:

They were so broad brushed, that, in the real sense all they did was really just say, state what the obvious was, which was a philosophy on working, rather than actually setting benchmarks, and it's the benchmarks we need. ( CPC member)

The reform team at the Scottish Executive recognised that agencies and professionals had expected them to have developed a set of standards for practice which were measurable. For example one professional advisor said:

We had a lot of explaining to do with that as well, people looking for Standards and they got a Framework, so that was maybe a wee bit of an issue for them. But I think, quite honestly, in the format it was in, at that point, it couldn't have been anything but a Framework. I think the danger was, (and this was my interpretation), if you spell it out letter by letter and measure it then people will just work to that. If it says you do everything red, yellow or blue, you'll not do anything green, and I think that was the strength of the Framework. It meant something to anybody involved in working with Children and Families. It would mean more to certain people, then it would provide a basis where you take forward your Child Protection work. ( PA)

Despite the more critical comments, the Framework for Standards also received more positive comments. By and large, many people considered that as a basis for setting standards in relation to what constitutes good practice for frontline staff, the Framework for Standards made an important contribution. For instance:

I thought the Framework and Standards was an excellent attempt. [It] took a little bit of understanding, but it was an excellent attempt to kind of set out what needed to be done. ( Policy officer)

The Framework for Standards was clearly being used to inform practice and policy development at the local level:

To be fair we're using the Standards. I mean we actively use them everyday. We integrate the Standards, the Framework of Standards into every policy and protocol that we produce from this office, but we do that so it's clear to people that we are linking our local arrangements to National Public Policy. ( CPC member)

And it's not necessarily that the Standards have actually provided us with anything we didn't know already, but we use them, we try to actively use them because, (well, partly because), they are not entirely useless. They do provide some kind of very general framework for people agreeing some kind of consensus of what the philosophy of protecting children and young people are all about, so that in itself is good. ( CPC member)

We were also told that as a consequence of the Framework for Standards:

• frontline workers were clearer about what is expected of them in terms of standards of care;
• policy leads believed that frontline workers were clearer about the consequences of unacceptable standards of care;
• relationships between frontline workers and clients (parents and children) were more respectful and more honest;
• people were more aware of what the characteristics of good quality child protection services were or should be.

The Framework for Standards was considered to have focused people's minds on the need to improve child protection services and individual professionals and agencies were seen to be taking that seriously as a consequence. However, the development of Quality Indicators has been viewed as an extremely significant step in moving the Framework forward. For the most part, this is because people have considered that they provide a more functional tool or mechanism for assessing the quality of practice and service that people were expecting from the development of standards

I think the work that the Quality Indicators … has been more specific, and we can actually use that as a tool. ( CPC member)

Moreover the Quality Indicators have been considered to provide the potential for:

• Achieving continuous improvement in child protection services on an ongoing, long-term basis.
• Highlighting good practice, which has been considered as a good opportunity for child protection services in the light of the continual focus on 'poorer practices'.

Although not identified as a specific, separate sub-project for the purposes of this process review, many respondents discussed multi-agency inspection in the context of the Framework. This was because the development of multi-agency inspection was viewed positively by respondents as an extremely important milestone, not only for the CPRP, but for child protection services more generally. The two pilot inspections were considered invaluable in terms of the development of multi-agency inspection. The learning in how to take forward the CPRP through inspection activity was also considered to have been a useful outcome of the pilot inspections.

Most crucially, the arrival of multi-agency inspection has been viewed by some as the lever that has resulted in agencies trying to work together to improve and develop child protection services. Multi-agency inspection has been thought to have been extremely important, therefore, in terms of engendering collective responsibility and accountability for child protection services, rather than locating child protection as the sole responsibility of social work services:

…the big step there is to have collective accountability between the agencies, so to get the agencies to be able to trust each other, to be able to reflect honestly on what's going on without blame, but with accountability. ( CPC chair)

Some negative views of multi-agency inspections were also offered. Concerns were expressed about the extent to which agencies will aim to pass inspection rather than use the process of inspection to stimulate progress and change. There was a danger that people would engage in 'ticking boxes' rather than embracing inspection in the spirit of progress, development, improvement and change for the better. There was also concern that inspection had resulted in a climate of anxiety and had put staff within agencies under pressure. This was due to the enormous human resource effort, that inspection was considered to be demanding and issues with staff being unable to perform their core functions due to preparation activities.

CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE MODEL GUIDANCE

The CPC's were viewed by their members as playing a key role in the development of the reform programme at the national level and the development and implementation of the reform programme at the local level. CPC members saw their function as involving extensive partnership - working with the professional advisors to inform the development of aspects of the CPRP work programme and its implementation; and working with the Scottish Executive to inform policy development where appropriate.

Overwhelmingly the production of the guidance for CPCs was identified as a key success of the CPRP:

I would say that that particular part of it has been very successful…I think what has emerged is very good, and I think if people follow the guidance, then I think that the CPC will become much more effective than they have been in the past. ( CPC Training Co-ordinator)

I think the guidance is very good. I'm very impressed with the guidance and I think it's made a great deal of difference, because we've all been trying to implement the guidance ever since it was issued. I think the guidance was sound, and I think the guidance has moved the Child Protection Committees quite significantly. ( CPC training co-ordinator)

We were told by a few people that during the development of the guidance there were strong differences in opinion over the way in which the guidance should be developed. It was reported that a few members of the working group argued strongly for the CPCs to be put on a statutory footing in the way that Children's Safeguarding Boards in England and Wales have. It was suggested that this would prevent the guidance being treated 'optional' and would also prevent too much regional variation in interpretation of the guidance. However, we were told that:

for some reason there was a resistance in the Child Protection Reform Programme for doing that, quite where that resistance was coming from I'm not clear,…so eventually we ended up with Child Protection Committee National Guidance which was not rooted into legislative provision, which I think is a major disappointment and probably, a major own goal ( CPC guidance sub-group).

Respondents observed real benefits from there now being a more diverse mix of people at different operational levels and from different agency backgrounds participating in the CPC's. CPC's were now seen to be capitalising on the skills base of their membership in order to inform decision-making and policy development. The chief officers group was seen as invaluable and important in ensuring that child protection issues remain on the agenda at the highest level. The participation of individuals from frontline practice was also seen as crucial. As a result of the guidance people considered that:

• the roles of the CPC's were now much clearer than they had been prior to the reform programme;
• the CPC's were more effective;
• the CPC's were more organised;
• the CPC's had more influence;
• the CPC's had heightened significance.

…I also think that the way people are thinking is different because people have gone from just looking at procedures and policies to saying, 'but how does that make it better for the child?' On the first day that actually happened at a CPC I felt like standing on a table and going 'yippee!'. I genuinely think that people are saying 'how can we as a multi-agency group make it better for children?' ( PA)

CHILD PROTECTION SUMMITS

Respondents made very little mention of the two child protection summits, although policy leads did discuss the role of the first summit in informing the development of the work plan for the CPRP. There were comments about the diversity of agencies and organisations that were represented and the calibre of professionals who attended both summits. The second summit was described as having been successful, particularly in terms of the positive response to the Framework for Standards which was launched at this event.

PUBLIC AWARENESS

Those who discussed the pilot media campaign considered it to have been moderately successful. However, it was very clear that a few people viewed it as a missed opportunity. Some individuals felt the pilot should have been developed on a larger scale and that there should have been a national media awareness raising campaign on child protection. Moreover, people considered that any media campaign on child protection should be on a par with that of, for example, domestic abuse:

I think the best way of effectively raising public awareness was to advertise on TV, like they did with the domestic abuse. I certainly think that that would be the best way of raising public awareness, because everybody watches TV, not everyone reads local newspapers, or picks up leaflets or visits libraries. ( Member of the training subgroup)

Although people considered that public awareness had increased, some attributed this to negative and sensationalist media reporting of child deaths and cases of serious harm to children, rather than the work of the reform programme. Therefore, respondents suggested that a large scale, high profile public education campaign on child protection issues was still needed.

24 HOUR HELPLINE

Although it was felt to have been a good idea, the 24 hour helpline was considered to have had the potential to have been more successful and to have had more of an impact than it actually did. Some people considered that a 24 hour helpline needed to be tied into a national media campaign and that its profile needed to be raised.

I think that The Executive need to put that onto a higher status ( PA)

Generally speaking those who commented on the 24 hour helpline seem to have been of the opinion that, akin to the media campaign, it was a bit of a missed opportunity.

LETTERS OF ASSURANCE

We were frequently told that the first letter of assurance (from the First Minister) had not been well received within agencies and organisations. Specifically respondents said it had caused widespread alarm, concern and anxiety within agencies and organisations, stemming from:

• a lack of understanding about the purpose of the letter of assurance;
• a lack of clarity on what the letter of assurance was asking agencies to do;
• a degree of perplexity about why the letter of assurance had been circulated;
• confusion about how agencies and organisations were to respond to the letter of assurance.

However, despite this it was also considered to have had a huge impact upon placing child protection on the agenda at the most senior levels within agencies and organisations such as:

• Chief Constables of Police Authorities
• Chief Executives in local authorities
• NHS Chief Executives.

One PA commented:

…if there was one positive thing that came out of that for me it focused Chief Officer's attention. People had to start going into their own organisations and asking these questions, to get the answers for the Letters…As I say, the one positive thing was it focused people's attention.

The first letter of assurance was, therefore, considered to have prompted those within senior levels in relevant organisations to focus upon and begin to prioritise areas such as:

• the quality of the services that they were delivering, including the quality of professional practice;
• what services they were delivering and where there were gaps in provision;
• improving and developing the services that they were delivering;
• their relationships with other agencies and issues associated with multi-agency practice, collaboration and information sharing;
• quality assurance and the processes of quality assurance.

There was less commentary on the second letter of assurance, although it was suggested that it had caused some frustration and confusion. Respondents noted, however, that once clarification had been provided, it was clearer, more articulate and more prescriptive in what it was asking agencies to do than the first.

SIGNIFICANT CASE REVIEW

At the time this process review was conducted the strand of work relating to significant incidents and child death guidance was unfinished. Whilst people were critical of this having not been delivered within the three years they were, for the most part, quite satisfied that the outputs related to this strand of work were pending.

CHILD PROTECTION STRATEGIC TRAINING GROUP

The strategic training subgroup developed a framework for training that sets out the type and level of training required for any professional working either directly or indirectly with children. At the time that we conducted this process review the group was in the process of developing a national suite of training materials and creating a webspace that would allow easy access to these materials.

Agencies were waiting with some anticipation for this strand of work to produce accessible training tools.

I think the training material has got a long way to go, and I think that the key to improvement is training. I think that, perhaps, should have had a higher profile and, again it's simply because of what we were trying to do, what we've been involved in, I think that one of the difficulties with the training work is it's a long way off being a national resource, fit for purpose, where a whole host of materials are. I think that's a much longer term project, but, I think training's the key. ( PA)

However, it was made very clear to us that the work of the training group, and the reform programme at large, had had a significant impact upon the stimulation of training activity in the field. Respondents who discussed training told us of the enormous efforts they had put into the development and delivery of training programmes for professionals at all levels in a range of different agencies - whether lollipop person or chief executive:

So we have a whole programme of training - for multi-agencies, and health in particular, have also got a huge programme that they have undertaken and completed and they have done a lot of training like 1,000 or 1,400 staff or something like that - single agency training. We have also done training across the area... ( CPC member)

CPCs appeared to have been instrumental in co-ordinating and stimulating training activity in their respective areas. However, many people also mentioned the efforts that agencies, organisations and individual professionals were making on their own to meet training needs and address gaps in the provision of training. We were told that health and the police had made particular efforts in this respect.

However, it was also highlighted to us that the task of developing and delivering training was enormous given the sheer volume of staff within Scotland for whom training in child protection is now viewed as necessary, and the sheer scale of diversity of training need that is required.

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT

The development of integrated assessment was not identified as a sub-project of the CPRP for this study, but it was commented upon by several respondents. When respondents talked about integrated assessment they mostly communicated a degree of frustration that this work stream was not yet complete, but also their enthusiasm about the idea of integrated assessment. This is summed up by the following statements:

I think the Integrated Assessment Framework, which became part of the GIRFEC Programme, should have been delivered earlier. ( PA)

Well, we're still waiting for the integrated assessment…The integrated assessment to allow multi-agency assessment of children at risk…And we've been waiting on that for a very long time…I think everyone would welcome it so that we were all working from the same framework. ( Member of the training subgroup)

What is the evidence for success?

Evaluating the impact of the CPRP, and its key outputs upon outcomes for children, has been identified as inherently problematic. Most individuals who discussed the possibility of evaluation considered that it would be extremely difficult to capture whether changes or improvements were or were not directly related to the CPRP. Furthermore, it was considered that it would not be possible to conduct such an evaluation until agencies and organisations had been given a suitable amount of time to embed the outputs of the CPRP, with some respondents suggesting that it may not be appropriate to embark on such a project for some ten years. Other suggestions for evaluating the impact of the CPRP included a further national audit and review of child protection and continuing evaluation through longitudinal research:

I was looking for them to try and establish a research base for the reform programme from an early stage…I mean at the end of the day what we should have been doing at the end of the three years, or whatever it is now, was actually produce some benchmark data, baseline data from three years ago... and to show whether there has been any improvement or not …so I think [that was] a missed opportunity there ( CPSG member)

What Difference has the CPRP made to vulnerable children in Scotland today?

In order to harness what impact the CPRP had had, in terms of improving child protection services and outcomes for children, we asked people what difference they thought the CPRP had made to vulnerable children in Scotland today. The majority of people who responded to this question considered that the CPRP had made a real difference to vulnerable children. They felt that as a consequence of the reform programme children were more likely to:

• get the help they need;
• receive a better quality of service;
• be identified as being in need of protection;
• be identified as being in need of protection earlier;
• be referred to child protection services, relevant agencies and professionals;
• access help themselves.

Most crucially, people related these impacts to the projects of the CPRP:

I think, for me, I think, we've made things better for children. We have a Charter, and, a lot of work was done with children after it was published, we've got a Framework for Standards, we've got better Child Protection Committee's now…I think inspections as well have got a place to play. ( PA)

Many people considered that the differences to vulnerable children were attributable to the difference that the CPRP had made to professional practice:

I would expect the level of consciousness for front line workers, to know where there is significant risk, to be now better than it was previously, and, to be at a level where you would expect them to universally, to intervene. And I would expect a higher level of understanding of the respective roles of different agencies in that process, so to know who to go to, and who to consult, who to expect to help, and, in due course, and maybe already, I would expect people to have a more explicit understanding of what constitutes quality practice. ( CPC chair)

Summary of Strand A

• The professional advisors, members of the CPSG and policy makers within the Scottish Executive viewed the sub-projects of the CPRP as having been influential, particularly the Framework for Standards and the guidance for CPC's.
• Overall the findings from Strand A show that those who participated in it perceived the CPRP to have been successful in meeting its key aims and objectives. They felt it to have been successful in increasing professionals' awareness of children's needs for care and protection, in increasing public awareness, and in having lead to improvements at a national and local level. They attributed this success to the extensive work and commitment put in by staff, at all levels in all the key agencies, in taking the national policy agenda forward locally.

Strand B: The impact of the CPRP on policy and practice

Introduction

The aim of this strand was to find out whether the CPRP has influenced local and national policy and changed practice amongst relevant professionals. The data was collected through a questionnaire and focus groups.

Survey

The respondents provided a considerable amount of information about their views on child care and protection. Responses in all professions came from a range of staff including those at the frontline, managers, trainers, and staff in specialist settings. Although 373 people returned questionnaires, not all questions were answered in all questionnaires. The breakdown of responses by profession, along with abbreviations used for quotes, is shown in table 1.

Table 1: Details of numbers of questionnaire responses and code of abbreviations.

Detailed statistical analysis is not appropriate because the samples cannot be assumed to be representative, and the sample sizes vary considerably. Any apparent differences should be viewed only as tendencies. We have chosen to show the findings in different ways according to the question. For example, on some occasions we give percentages of the full sample size. Other questions were only answered if a previous question had been answered in the affirmative - in these cases the percentages are given as a proportion of the number who 'qualified' to answer the follow-on. For one key set of questions we have weighted percentages to give equal weight to each profession. Fuller details from the survey are given in appendices.

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

One of the survey questions asked respondents for descriptions of their perceived roles and responsibilities for child care and protection. These ranged from very brief restatements of the job title, such as, 'Front line Child Protection' ( s) to much fuller details about their roles, e.g. 'Assessing risk, prevention, communicating with other agencies, supporting families, acting on risk assessment to protect children' ( n).

The education staff provided the widest range of interpretations of their roles. Some focused primarily on the teaching role, with some considering teaching itself to be child care and protection because of the importance of education for the wellbeing of children and young people. Some stressed issues of health and safety. Many demonstrated considerable awareness of the need to be alert to children's wellbeing and to pass on concerns:

To ensure that they learn to the best of their abilities and to provide the best environment I can in which the education of the child can take place. ( e)

To be vigilant in the welfare of all children in class from a social, emotional and physical point of view. ( e)

Supporting young people to achieve their full potential. ( e)

Support all children at all times to promote their safety and wellbeing. ( e)

When asked about this in the survey, the majority of respondents did not feel that their understanding and interpretation of their role for the welfare and protection of children had changed over the previous year (see chart 1). 313 stated that they had a clear understanding of their agency's and their own professional role, with 41 saying they did 'to some extent' and only 4 saying they did not.

163 people ticked a number of factors they saw to have influenced their understanding of their role; the percentages of those saying this are given after each response category:

• Policy guidelines (69%)
• Internal training (60%)
• Advice from colleagues from own agency (60%)
• Practice guidelines (53%)
• Advice from manager (47%)
• Advice from other agencies (45%)
• External training (44%)
• Internal policy documents (43%)
• Inter-agency training (35%)
• Death/abuse reports and inquiries (32%)
• Self-directed learning (32%)
• External policy documents (27%)
• Media (25%)
• Professional journals (21%)
• University (17%).

The most common responses that people gave as having influenced their role were: policy guidelines, internal training and advice from colleagues from their own agency. The least popular responses were: the media, professional journals and university.

Over half said they had a good understanding of the roles and responsibilities of other agencies and professions and most of the rest said they did 'to some extent'. Training and liaison/networking were identified as the best ways to increase understanding of others' roles.

CHANGES IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Although understanding of roles may not have changed in the last year, the majority of respondents indicated changes in their own practice, the practice of their colleagues, and the practice of other agencies and professionals (see chart 2 - and appendix 4).

Chart 2: Showing the views of all professionals about their own and others' practice as percentages of the total sample (373).

There were differences between professions - social workers, nurses and police were all of the majority view that their own practice, and that of their colleagues, had improved. Those of health-medical, voluntary agency staff and reporters tended to think that it had stayed the same.

When commenting on the practice of other agencies many replied 'don't know', but social workers and police were most likely to say that it had improved. Whilst health, education and voluntary agency staff tended to say it had stayed the same, the Reporters tended to state that the practice of education and health had got better, but that that of social workers had got worse. Chart 3 shows the perceived changes for all professions.

Chart 3: Showing how each profession is perceived to have changed by others. (please put the titles at the top of the charts throughout the report)

As shown in chart 4 (see also appendix 7) The majority of respondents agreed with the more global assertions that:

• practice and policy to safeguard the welfare of children has improved;
• for children the changes to practice and policy have been for the better (see chart 4 and appendix 7).

Chart 4: Showing the views on the changes to as percentages of the total numbers of professionals - will not add up to 100% because of missing responses and rounding.

The different professions had different views about the detail of the changes. Some of the professional specific views are presented below.

Education: Respondents from education mainly attributed changes in their own practice to the following reasons (in order of importance):

• training, increased knowledge and awareness;
• more experience in this area;
• multi-agency working;
• guidelines.

It has made staff aware that it doesn't just happen to 'someone else, somewhere else', but it can happen anywhere to anyone. ( e)

Reasons given for the change in others were very varied but tended to highlight joint working and multi-agency guidelines:

I believe agencies are working more closely together now, not seeing the other agencies as 'the enemy', but as part of the whole picture. ( e)

There were some qualifications:

Would be even better with improved input from Social Work and Children's Panel. ( e)

Overall, however, the response was positive:

Much better since the new guidance/policy and publications have come into force. ( e)

Health - nursing: Reasons for improvement in their own practice and that of their colleagues fell mainly into the categories:

• training, increased knowledge and increased awareness;
• partnership and shared responsibility ;
• more experience in this area.

Have more of an understanding and acceptance of the shared responsibility held by all agencies - 'It's everybody's job'. ( n)

One nurse thought their practice had got worse, citing the impact upon the relationship with the family if child protection concerns are raised with social work:

There is a problem … in child protection whilst doing ongoing work for a family - then social work leave the situation and the relationship with the family is then difficult to maintain. n

Comments on changes in the practice of other agencies were split. Some expressed concerns about problems in the social work response:

Poor resource in social work. Children and Family Teams always underplay children's experience, [it's] very frustrating, case conference minutes take up to four months to be produced. ( n)

However, there were also favourable observations of improved communication and networks, Respondents described a cycle whereby increased awareness of the importance of multi-agency working was associated with more partnership working which, in turn, increased knowledge and awareness:

The participation with partners in managing Child Protection issues has improved my knowledge and confidence in these areas. ( n)

Overall, most agreed that the situation had improved, although some tempered this with concerns about delivery:

A great deal of investment has been made in research and evaluative work. As a result there has been a proliferation of positive policy change and a positive shift in agency priorities towards protecting children. The result is [a] tremendous increase of expectation. People at the frontline have] been working at, and beyond, full capacity for many years. Until these capacity issues are resolved, I, and many of my colleagues, feel that strategic and policy improvements will largely fail to make any significant positive impact. ( n)

Health - medical: The medical profession did not tend to observe changes in their own or colleagues' practice, although a few mentioned the positive influence of guidance, training and procedures on their practice and that of their colleagues:

The more you do it the better you get. Inter-agency working is constantly improving ( m)

One person felt practice had got worse:

...political correctness seems to take precedence over real welfare concerns. Vulnerable children are left at risk. We're left feeling impotent, frustrated & helpless. ( m)

Medical practitioners felt that the practice of other agencies had stayed the same or improved and a few comments tended to pinpoint clear policy, guidelines and training as being influential:

Inter-agency working and better communication. Ability to pass on information. ( m)

They were unwilling to make strong statements about overall changes without seeing more evidence.

Police: A range of reasons for changes in their own practice were made that did not cluster into specific categories, they included comments on training, greater awareness of local sex offenders and role awareness.

Child Protection given Higher Priority by the Force … resulted in increased awareness across the Force and better inter-agency working. Formalisation of the Child Protection Committee structure has also improved inter-agency relations. ( p)

Of those who commented on the practice of other agencies, one person was sceptical:

Basically all other agencies appear to have been told that if they are having problems dealing with their responsibilities, they should inform police and they will deal with it. [It] appears to be accepted practice now that if you tell police, the problem is no longer yours. ( p)

However, the majority commented favourably on the improved multi-agency working:

Co-location [i.e. several relevant professions being sited in the same space] allows for necessary information to be shared more effectively, allowing for issues to be debated, decisions made and more importantly managerial critical review of such decisions and actions, leading to clear accountability of managers and support to staff. ( p)

Most did not qualify their judgements about the overall situation with extra comments, but one summed up the situation thus:

Policy appears to be offering improvements, but the changes in practice alone do not ensure improvement unless there is a real increase in resources. ( p)

Reporter's Administration: Many of the questions were left unanswered in the Reporter's questionnaires and they tended not to respond to questions about changes in others' practice, but of those who added comments, five commented on problems with social work resources:

[In] social work chronic and significant shortage of staff has meant that assessments are not being carried out when they should be and cases not allocated. ( r)

Whilst one commented on improvements:

…better awareness at Social Work Department, School. And Health Visitors are more aware of things. ( r)

Comments on overall practice and policy to safeguard children and whether things were better for children, picked up again on the issues of social work practice:

Although I think things are improving in general at the very high end of children at risk, I am particularly concerned about the lack of support and supervision afforded to children subject to statutory measures and the almost complete lack of preventative work by agencies such as social work. ( r)

Social Work: Most of the reasons given for changes in practice fell into the following categories:

• training, increased knowledge and increased awareness;
• more experience in this area;
• partnership and shared responsibility;
• supervision.

For example, two social workers said:

I can identify problems more readily and act on them more confidently. I communicate regularly with my colleagues. ( s)

More experienced, increased knowledge of procedures and policies, clearer theoretical understanding of issues. ( s)

A few social workers were concerned about the practice of other agencies:

Other agencies don't always take on their own responsibilities and try to always pass on to Social Work. ( s)

They rarely do any assessment themselves but pass everything to Social Work, 'fear factor' [of] Social Work being overloaded. ( s)

However, many more identified improvements in inter-agency working, communication and sharing of information - drug agencies and housing staff were spontaneously added as having improved.

More multi-agency working/checking out rather than the expectation being the issue is solely social work's responsibility. ( s)

Inter-agency training and more awareness of 'Its Everybody's Job'... More communication between professions; less protective re sharing information if it is Child Protection. ( s)

The majority of the social workers were generally positive about the overall position, again with some reservations:

Inadequate resources in social work and excessive workloads obstruct progress. ( s)

I think there could be more efficient and effective ways of responding to a child's needs and a lot of time is wasted in red tape. ( s)

Integrated services have improved services to children. ( s)

Voluntary agency: Voluntary agency staff did not identify significant levels of change in their own or others' practice. There were some comments about training, increased awareness and policies:

More awareness training, more challenging by professionals with each other (appropriately). ( v)

Voluntary organisations [are] now more aware of Child Protection and how to deal with issues, partly due to the mandatory Disclosure Checks for all new volunteers. ( v)

Despite their overall judgement that the situation had improved, they identified some residual concerns:

Children are still being failed within the systems that are used. Children are still subjected to huge amounts of changes of accommodation when in care. Their views are rarely sought in major decisions. ( v)

I would have some concern that some young people may lose the opportunity to take appropriate risks. ( v)

Influence of different professions: As can be seen from appendix 5, the different professions had different levels of agreement with the statements. In order to check that the overall findings were not being skewed by the views of the professions with the greatest sample sizes, we equalised the influence of each profession. The results which can be seen in chart 5 show that the agreement with the statements still holds. ²

Chart 5: Showing the extent of disagreement and agreement giving equal weight to each professions' views.

CHILD PROTECTION REFORM PROGRAMME

166 (45%) of respondents said that they had heard of the CPRP, and of these, 65% understood the aims, and nearly 80% thought it had built on good practice. Ways in which respondents had heard about it, ranked in order, were:

• Internal training (60%)
• Information/advice from colleagues in own agency (43%)
• Policy guidelines (43%)
• Internal policy guidelines (34%)
• Inquiry reports (31%)
• Practice guidelines (31%)
• Inter-agency training (29%)
• Media (28%)
• External training (28%)
• Information/advice from manager/supervisors (28%)
• External policy documents (25%)
• Information/advice from colleagues in other agencies (24%)
• Self-directed learning (22%)
• Journals (14%)
• Actual or expected inspection (11%)
• University training (10%).

KEY CHANGES THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN IMPROVEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE

Box 3 shows the main suggestions for change.

Strand B

Focus Groups

Views from the focus groups meshed with those from the survey, and shed further light on some of the perceived advantages and pitfalls of the changes.

WHAT ASPECTS, IF ANY, OF LOCAL POLICY DO YOU OBSERVE TO HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE CPRP?

Most of the responses to this question focused on policies aimed at improving inter-agency working:

We've already been down the road of integrated working, and now it's a duty, we have to do it, and we've taken it on board … big time. ( e)

In one area children's services had been co-located as a part of a policy of improving inter-agency working and this was seen to have advantages, but also to have lead to a loss of some local knowledge. All areas had multi-agency strategic groups that were welcomed:

As far as policy goes, I am actually extremely happy with it. ( e)

There was some concern that there were perhaps too many different groups and that they sometimes lacked a connection with practice:

No link between those meetings and what's actually happening on the ground. ( s)

In one of the three focus group sites, participants described an integrated children's service group that was informed by a policy of prevention and could allocate resources to enable support for the families.

Participants were aware of a police policy to refer children living in households where there is domestic abuse. They also highlighted changes to child protection committees:

They've got more movers and shakers on the child protection committee. ( s)

There was some discussion about the ways in which local policy was driven by national policy:

We're just out there doing it, we don't really get involved in policy and it doesn't really get fed down to our level particularly. ( s)

A few also observed that policy was not communicated well to parents. Staff in education, in particular, noted that parents were not really aware of teachers' responsibilities for child protection:

If the referral has come from someone at the school, the parents don't seem to comprehend that you're following your procedures. ( e)

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE PRACTICE OF YOUR PROFESSION HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE CPRP?

It is perhaps a reflection of the impact of policy to increase multi-agency working that participants found it very difficult to talk about changes in their own profession's practice without reference to other professions. Most of the answers to this question focused on the advantages and problems of joint working, and on training and raised awareness. Some of the specific changes described were:

• Use of core groups, as an effective way to share information and carry out joint planning:
  • Often parents are involved in core group meetings…putting users in the centre definitely helps. (e)
• Education staff:
  • trying to do as much as they could to support children before referring them to social work
  • having better contact with the reporter
  • providing training across the board:

The training is sharper, it's more to the point, we don't just tell them how to refer any longer, we actually take them through scenario cases. (e)

• Staff in nursery settings receiving information from the police about domestic abuse incidents, and checking the child is ok:

Good practice from the police is helping, it's making me more aware - when the child comes in…perhaps a bit unkempt, or quieter than normal, or rowdier than normal - the weekend has not been a good one for them. ( e)

• Social work:
  • receiving more referrals from community safety wardens, the general public:
    
    …they're identifying themselves as neighbours, as friends, as family members. ( s)
  • compiling and keeping chronologies:
    
    it shows us the journey that the family's been on before we became involved. ( s)
  • making more of an effort to work meaningfully with other agencies.
• Police doing more sifting before referring to social work, but also sharing a lot more information:
  
  Before, we were keeping our information very much to ourselves thinking that we weren't allowed to share that information…but I notice a huge difference in that now. ( p)

Although these changes were generally described as for the better, some reservations were expressed. Health visitors were concerned that they were holding cases much longer and were acting, at times, like social work assistants. They, and other professions, were worried that the changes introduced by Hall4 (5) would cut across the child care and protection improvements. Social workers felt that the changes had lead to an increased workload:

There has been a slight change, and it's called 'panic'. ( s)

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE PRACTICE OF OTHER PROFESSIONS HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE CPRP?

All participants in all groups could identify changes in the practice of other agencies. Participants observed an increase in the rate of referrals to social work and the Reporter. Much of this increase was attributed to police referral of children living in households where there is domestic abuse, but respondents believed there had also been more referrals from health and education. By the same token, social workers observed that education and health staff were 'holding onto' cases longer and providing direct support to children and families. The reporter noted that the quality of recording from all professions could still be improved.

There was overwhelming agreement that the amount of information-sharing had rocketed. Access to information was observed to be freer and the quality of information had improved. Some of the examples cited include:

• Education staff obtaining information from health visitors and social workers about the family environment:

From education it [had] often felt as if it was a one-way street, as if we were being asked for information, and we were giving all the time and getting nothing coming the other direction…the other lane is beginning to open…( e)

• Police passing on information about domestic abuse to the Reporter, social work, and in one area the nursery sector.
• Drug services now being prepared to provide information on adult circumstances.
• School nurses providing information for education staff, especially about children with special needs.
• Health staff providing information to social work:

It's not open to interpretation, it can be hard fact about a child's weight, about a child's development, about dental appointments…it's hard evidence. ( s)

• A view that, whilst psychiatrists, CPNs and GPs might not spontaneously provide information, and that GPs did not attend case conferences, other agencies felt more prepared to ask for information:

Increased confidence to ring a GP and say 'please can you tell me about this person' and they'll say, 'no, it's confidential' and I'll say 'I need this information for child protection' and I certainly feel on much sturdier ground than I would before. ( s)

…and you just have to mention the magic word and you get a very different response. ( s)

The observed downside to this information-sharing was the danger of social work, in particular, being swamped:

The police are dumping information on the duty team. ( s)

At times we're absolutely bombarded with information…'need to know' becomes completely over the top. (s)

This view was not shared by a Reporter, who felt that it was not possible to have too much information.

Participants in all areas noted a significant change in the amount of joint working. All observed that a range of professionals were prepared to come to planning meetings, although in 2 focus group areas 2 social workers, 2 education staff and 2 nurses expressed frustration that GPs did not attend meetings and that is was hard to obtain information from them. The practical reasons why GPs may not be able to attend meetings were not explored.

Not all sharing was brokered by social work - participants described liaison between health and education staff; the police and health; the police and education; health nursing and health medical; education or health professionals and the Reporter, and consultant paediatricians and the police:

Grass-roots, coal face staff are contacting [us]…the beat bobby, the health visitor, [saying] 'let's do joint visits'. ( s)

It's obvious that there's been quite a lot of training around. ( s)

There's a clarity of different roles and a respect for everybody…people are happy for other people to take the lead…a shared professionalism. ( e)

HAS THE CPRP BUILT ON EXISTING GOOD PRACTICE?

The participants in the focus groups mainly agreed that the changes had built on good practice:

'it's taking forward existing good practice, it's sharpening minds and it's identifying areas that we could do better'. ( e)

There was some anxiety that existing good health visiting practice was being undermined by the impact of Hall4 which is understand by many at the front line to indicate a shift away from universal provision to targeted provision. There was also a suggestion that previous bad practice had become good as a result of the CPRP:

'…I think the practice was bad, it is now changing with more communication, with earlier intervention…we are moving in the right direction'. ( r)

The respondents in all focus groups were keen to describe practice that had already been good, especially attempts to work on a multi-disciplinary basis. The CPRP was clearly seen to be building on an existing momentum:

'good practice is better able to be encouraged now because there are more partners involved....' ( s)

ARE THERE INDICATIONS THAT THE CHANGES WILL LEAD TO BETTER OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN?

There was a mixed response to this question, and some of the reservations expressed earlier were expanded. Overall, the view was that the changes had lead to an increased awareness by education, police and health professionals of the needs of children for support and protection. Education and health professionals were providing support to children and families and this was putting a strain on their ability to deliver all of their services effectively. At the same time all participants described an increase in referrals to social work. These referrals were considered to be appropriate because they were not perceived to have been then filtered out of the system - instead the social workers and other professions identified a capacity problem to respond appropriately and a shortage of resources, such as foster carers. There was also some frustration that preventive work was still being marginalised, and that children that were not classified as 'child protection cases' were missing out on much-needed support.

It's like a double-edged sword, the higher the expectation, the higher [the] expectation we have of ourselves. ( s)

…a problem shared is a problem halved [but] just because we've told everyone about it and everyone's aware, it doesn't get it to go away. ( e)

We're making people more aware, we're raising awareness, we're passing on the workload, but there's no resources to allocate it, and that sometimes makes it worse, because if you train people [to alert others]…and nothing ever happens, they're going to stop doing it. ( e)

Rapid, massive increase in workload…an exponential amount of referrals. ( s)

WHAT ONE KEY CHANGE WOULD LEAD TO THE BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE TO CHILDREN IN NEED AND IN NEED OF PROTECTION?

Suggestions fell into a number of categories, mainly focused on allocation of resources. There were no specific suggestions for radical change to the fundamental principles of the system. There was some resentment about a perceived political suggestion that lack of resources was not a real issue, rather how the resources were used:

We can't work 'cleverer' …we're talking about people who've had to be flexible and innovative in practice…it's a capacity issue. ( s)

• Resources:
  • for more social workers
  • to tackle substance misuse
  • for severely disabled children
  • for more foster carers
  • directly accessible by health visitors.
• Early intervention:
  • more support for under threes
  • a swifter response to identified emerging problems.
• Family support:
  • more localised family support centres and services
  • rewards for extended family members who care for children
  • more parent education and support.
• Empowering children
  • to educate children about the need to speak out
  • more information displayed for children about how to seek help.
• Public education:
  • more information for parents about the role of education for protecting children
  • more information for the general public about the role of the reporter
  • more explanation about the role of social workers.

Summary of Strand B

Taken together, the findings from strand b show a massive rise in awareness of children's needs, including their needs for protection; and a rise in a sense of shared responsibility for not only identifying unmet needs but for helping to meet those needs. Whether professionals had specifically heard of the CPRP or not, they were clearly aware of changes in policy and practice and were largely in support of the direction of change.

The professionals' view was that this heightened awareness had widened the net of concern and identified more children in need of support and/or protection. However, there was widespread concern that the gains made as a result of the policy and practice changes were in danger of being undermined by a system that is not perceived to have the capacity to meet all of these children's needs, even with increased joint working and a sharing of responsibility.