3. Phase 1- Initial observations on Children Missing from Education (Scotland) service operation, September 2006
By September 2006 the CME(S) service consisted of the Director and a part time Administrator. Reduction had been brought about by career advancement and sickness. A new Project Officer had been appointed but had not yet taken up post. Discussions were underway about a new additional post to create linkage with the S2S Transfer System. An element of this post would be administrative. For operational reasons the service had moved its base twice within a one year period.
At a time of significant demand on the service a preliminary study into CME(S)'s procedures and operation was undertaken. Initial comments were arrived at through participation, observation, discussion and examination of case files and data bases:
Internal operating procedures
The Safe and Well handbook describes good practice in child protection and when a child/young person goes missing from education. It describes the aims of CME(S), its remit and roles and that of local authorities who maintain responsibility for local practice and procedures. CME(S)'s role is to support that responsibility. There was a perception that some local authorities, having once referred a case to CME(S) were reluctant to remain engaged. Communication breakdowns were not uncommon resulting in CME(S) taking on more responsibility than the remit required. This was done with the best of intentions to ensure the safety of children. It did however put additional pressure on the system at a time when it was operating below capacity. Little time was available for development, evaluation and planning.
The combined affects of staff change and absence, difficulties in filling posts and changes in location did not allow the service to develop as quickly and as systematically as might have been expected. For example procedural steps necessary for the tracing process had not been written down. Day to day running of the service depended solely on the presence of the Director and the Administrative Officer. When for any reason this was not possible the service was unable to fulfil its remit, cases backed up and pressure on the service increased. Desk-top procedures would have ensured that other personnel could have taken over some of the tasks in an emergency. Additionally procedures could have provided a practice baseline against which case procedures could have been evaluated.
It is to CME(S)'s credit that it continued to demonstrate considerable success in the tracing of children despite ongoing pressures.
CME(S)'s future role
CME(S)'s aims were stated as being both about policy and operation. While some policy work had been undertaken the focus of CME(S)'s work had been mainly towards its operational function. It was acknowledged that greater emphasis might be required on policy work.
As CME(S) was to become the administrator of the S2S Transfer System, monitoring the work of the School to School users directly, it was expected that CME(S) would be relocated to a site best suited to the delivery of the School to School Clearing House administrative function. This was necessary to ensure that electronic data could be stored and accessed securely out with the Scottish Government's own intranet. It was not clear at this point how operational and policy aims could be reconciled.
Interface with local authorities/ CME contacts
A considerable amount of CME(S) time was taken up by the need to check information provided by some local authorities. Many referral forms were incomplete, provided information which was later found to be inaccurate or which did not distinguish between fact and opinion.
All local authorities had been asked to provide CME(S) with the name of their designated local authority CME contact who would assist with national searches. As requested in Safe and Well, the local authority/ CME contact should if possible be the same person as the designated child protection officer. Where this was not possible, staff had to be made aware of this and the respective roles of the two people.
It was apparent that there was a huge disparity in local authority responsibilities held by the contacts. This could explain why there were differences in quality of interaction and communication as well as in the information provided. All of this impacted on CME(S)'s ability to set in motion the national search process.
Interface with local authorities, provision of information and risk assessment
In terms of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 children missing from education are "in need" and may be considered as children most requiring protection. In the best interests of the missing child the gathering and processing of quality information at local authority level is essential in risk assessing and determining the relevant course of action.
Safe and Well urged " education authorities and their partner agencies (to) develop proactive practices to assess the level of risk of families disappearing from view" and "... where a child has become missing from education, those families who know the child and family will be asked to risk assess the case……….."
Observation of practice, examination of referral forms, case files and the CME(S) data base showed considerable variation in the degree of contact between education and other authority services in seeking information or making a risk assessment. CME(S) found it necessary to routinely check the breadth of information provided, the degree of multi-agency involvement and the extent of risk assessment which had been done.
As suggested in Safe and Well, "a named person in the local authority co-ordinates the progress of local searches and is the contact person for CME (Scotland) to give and receive information" and "The named contact in the education authority will be asked by CME to confirm that local searches have been undertaken in conjunction with other local services". In some cases there was very little evidence of a co-ordinated approach. This may be why CME(S) regularly had to seek additional information from social work and/or housing staff to expand on that already provided by the local authority CME contact.
In fairness to local authorities Safe and Well does not provide specific guidance on the role and remit of the local CME named person or the standard of evidence which is required. Those regularly involved in the area of child protection are skilled in risk assessment but guidance on risk assessment in a missing from education context may be required.
Interface with other agencies
Police
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland ( ACPOS) and CME(S) had at that point been issued to all of Scotland's eight constabularies. It aimed to ensure consistency of police practice across Scotland and articulated the need for joint working and partnership arrangements with CME(S). When CME(S) had exhausted all of their own enquiries the Memorandum would be activated "without exception" and contact with a Senior Duty Officer at a Force Call Centre would result in the referral being treated as a police missing person enquiry.
Although implementation of the Memorandum was at an early stage, CME(S) had experienced inconsistency in response to their referrals and had concerns that they were being down graded by an individual force's own risk assessment procedures or by the receiving officer's unfamiliarity with the protocol.
The Memorandum of Understanding is attached as appendix 10 in the supporting papers.
Health
Information on a child is gathered and recorded at birth, first by a midwife and then by a child's health visitor. When the child enrols at school, responsibility for updating information is transferred to the school nurse or to designated education staff in nurseries, primary and secondary schools. When a child or young person registers with a GP, health information is brought together to form a medical record. This moves with the child throughout their life.
It is surprising that information received by CME(S) showed little evidence of health colleagues being routinely involved during the information gathering process at local level. In particular there seemed to be very little contact with school and community nurses, even on an informal basis.
CME(S) had reached an agreement with NHS/Child Protection Nurse Consultants who were piloting a Missing Family Alert system. When CME(S)'s own enquiries had been exhausted a search request could then be made. A Missing Family was defined by Health as one "which has disappeared from a known location within a health board area and for whom there may be concerns of significant harm for the children in respect of unmet need, vulnerability or abuse." While it was clear that the NHS system could assist CME(S) with some children it could not provide assistance for children where there was no " significant harm".
Although the agreement was highlighted in the CME(S) Newsletter, of August 2006, it also became apparent that not all local authority/ CME designated contacts were familiar with CME(S)'s involvement in the pilot initiative.
The Missing Family Alert Protocol is attached as appendix 11 in the supporting papers.
Independent schools
Although CME(S) was established to support local authorities when children go missing from education, the service also accepted referrals from the independent school sector. Agreement was reached with SCIS, in relation to the referring and tracing of children. The group was also involved in the consultation process. The launch of the S2S Transfer System would necessitate change to both Safe and Well and CME(S) procedures.
Early years
Discussion had already begun on the need for a pre-5 protocol. The Care Commission had undertaken to establish with service providers their procedures for when a child's attendance discontinued.
Diverse groups
CME(S) regularly accepted referrals for children from many diverse groups including those from Gypsy and Traveller, Migrant Worker, Asylum Seeker backgrounds as well as children in families fleeing from domestic violence or abuse. From observations and case discussions it became apparent that CME(S) was aware of the particular sensitivities associated with these groups and the resulting case complexity.
Within a short period of time CME(S) had produced Keeping in Touch- Gypsy and Traveller Children: good practice when there are concerns for Gypsy and Traveller children's safety and wellbeing if they lose contact with schools but no arrangements had been made to evaluate its effectiveness or to monitor policy implementation. Similarly a Scottish Women's Aid/ CME(S) agreement was being trialled and an information sharing agreement with NASS had been reached.
CME(S) was well aware of the many areas which would require both organisation and policy development but were restricted by staffing and time limitations.
The Keeping in Touch- Gypsy and Traveller Children: good practice when there are concerns for Gypsy and Traveller children's safety and wellbeing if they lose contact with schools is attached as appendix 12 in the supporting papers.
Non-Scottish contacts
By April 2005 more than half of the referrals to CME(S) came from other countries in the UK or were for children moving from Scotland to other parts of the UK. These referrals were particularly time-consuming, challenging and frustrating because of the service operating systems unique to these other areas. While for example it was relatively simple to establish if a young person was recorded on the Pearson Phoenix or Seemis MIS system, it was not possible to check similar systems in other parts of the UK. Neither had a protocol been established to do this.
CME(S) had succeeded in putting together a summary list of designated CME contacts in England and Wales and had contacts for the Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland. With a few notable exceptions co-operation on information exchange was inconsistent and at times poor depending solely on goodwill.
A summary of key issues "Initial observations on CME(S) operation, September 2006 key issues" is attached as appendix 1 in the supporting papers.
The key issues identified confirmed that there was a need to examine more closely:
- case work complexity;
- stakeholder views on the development of CME(S) and policy;
- local authority CME policies and procedures;
- the future role of CME(S).
As cross-border issues were having a significant impact on the workload of CME(S) the new statutory procedures for children missing education in England would also be examined to see how this might affect future working.
Written internal procedures were produced as a matter of urgency and the Domestic Abuse section was given to Scottish Women's Aid for comment.
Responding to Referrals-Guidance for CME(S) Staff, are attached as appendix 2 in the supporting papers.