|
SESSION 2002/2003 Committee for Health, Social Inquiry into Child Protection
Services in Ordered by the Committee for
Health, Social Services and Public Safety to be printed 9th October 2002 Written Submissions Part II WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 14 August 2002 SUMMARY The Ulster Community & Hospitals Trust, through the Family &
Childcare Programme, delivers Child Protection Services. These services are
part of a continuum of provision aimed at working in partnership with children
and their families in order to ensure the children reach their maximum
potential. However, the needs of the child must be paramount and on occasion
the interests of the child must supersede those of the parent. Every child whose name is placed on the Child Protection Register is
subject to a Child Protection Plan which is co-ordinated by a Social Worker.
The Social Worker, as part of that responsibility, has regular contact with
the child and family and must ensure that the Child Protection Plan is adhered
to. Social Workers use a variety of interventions with families, including
accessing more specialist services when required, and UCHT works in
partnership with voluntary providers to offer a choice of provision to
families, where possible. Working with children who may have been abused cannot happen in isolation
and the critical aspect of protecting children is through multi-disciplinary
working. This principal is emphasised throughout the Eastern Health &
Social Services Board’s Child Protection Policies and Procedures which also
state that Child Protection is everyone’s business. UCHT makes every effort
to ensure good communication between the different professionals who come
into contact with children. This is achieved through offering Multi-disciplinary
Child Protection Training, through regular liaison meetings with other
agencies and by taking the lead role in the Local Child Protection Panel and
the Domestic Violence Forum as well as having representation at Board level
within the Area Child Protection Committee and Joint Strategic Planning
groups as part of the Children Services Planning process. Evidence submitted from UCHT concentrates on the operational aspects of
delivering Child Protection Services. It details the structure within which
services are delivered and gives attention to local initiatives which respond
to assessed need. The submission highlights particular issues such as staff
recruitment and retention and the waiting lists for more specialist services
which have repercussions for Child Protection work. The submission also makes reference to various enquiries into the deaths
of children which have occurred over the past two decades pointing out that
communication difficulties were a factor in most if not all of the eventual
tragedies. Within this submission a number of key issues are emphasised under
‘general comments’ and reference is made to local research and
recommendations arising from it. 1. Introduction: 1.1 The Ulster Community & Hospitals Trust, (UCHT) is a combined acute
and Community Trust. Community services are provided to a population of
approximately 140,000 residents in the North Down Council and Ards Council
areas. The Trust also manages Lakewood Regional Child Care Centre which
provides secure and non-secure specialist child care services to the
population of Northern Ireland aged under 18. 1.2 The Health & Personal Social Services (NI) Order (1994) enabled
Health & Social Services Trusts to carry out or discharge certain key
statutory functions with the approval and on behalf of Health & Social
Services Boards. The Order retrospectively amended virtually all the relevant
legislation to make this possible. 2. Legislative Background: 2.1 Within the UCHT the Family & Childcare Programme, is responsible
for the delivery of Child Protection Services, which are underpinned by the
following legislation.
2.2 The main legislation – The Children (NI) Order 1995 has accompanying
Regulations & Guidance, which include permissions and restrictions as to
what may or may not be done and also requirements on what must be done.
Volume 6 of the Regulations & Guidance "Co-operating to Protect
Children" covers Child Protection issues and the EHSSB Child Protection
Policies & Procedures provide the framework within which agencies and
professionals who work with children should operate. They have been written
to reflect the requirements of –
2.3 The introduction to the Policy and Procedures states that: "children are vulnerable to various forms of abuse because of
their dependency and immaturity. Primary responsibility rests with parents
for the protection of children. However, when parents do not or cannot fulfil
this responsibility Trusts have a statutory responsibility and are empowered
to take legal action, if necessary, to ensure that children are protected
from abuse, neglect and exploitation. However, Child Protection is everyone’s
business…. individual agencies may have their own procedures to take account of
their management and internal liaison requirements but the EHSSB Policy &
Procedures are multi-disciplinary and must be followed by all the agencies
and individual professionals involved with children". 2.4 It should be noted that the function of Policy & Procedures is to
improve and refine systems for identifying child abuse and there is evidence
to show that this have been effective in reducing the number of children
killed non-accidentally by their parents (Prichard, C 1997, two decades of
progress.. an international review of Child Protection services). 3. Structure: 3.1 UCHT included Child Protection Services in the restructuring of the
Family & Childcare Programme in October 1999. This process arose from the
need to ensure that services reflected the changes in legislation, arising
particularly from the implementation of the Children (NI) Order 1995, which
took effect in late 1996. The structure continues to be reviewed on a
quarterly basis by Managers to confirm it remains fit for purpose and the
structure keeps evolving in response to developments in childcare practice
following Inspection Reports, Priorities for Action and locally identified
need. The most recent structural change in April 2002, was a realignment to
establish a Permanency Team. Its remit is to make certain that children who
cannot return home (in many instances due to irresolvable risks) do not
remain in the public care system. This is achieved through placement with
extended family, through the application by foster parents for Resident
Orders or through Adoption. 3.2 Trusts have written protocols regarding the arrangements for the
delegation of statutory functions which includes, among others, providing
personal social services for children in need and their families (Article 18)
and a duty to investigate "where there is reasonable cause to suspect
that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer, significant harm" [Article
66(b)]. There is a line management structure which reflects the statutory
function from the Director of Social Services, through a Programme Manager
for Family & Childcare, Assistant Principal Social Workers, Team Leaders
and Social Workers and also additionally there is a Principal Social Worker
with lead responsibility for Quality Assurance, Audit and Reviewing Officer
Duties. There are a number of teams operationally responsible for providing
various services from Early Years to Adolescent work, Looked After Children,
Fostering and Adoption, Children in Need or who are on EHSSB Child Protection
Register and subject to a Child Protection Plan. 3.3 Each Trust and/or Board is required to keep a register of every child
in its area who is considered to be suffering from or likely to suffer
significant harm and for whom there is a Child Protection Plan. The
significant harm may be due to physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse or
sexual abuse and each type of abuse can be categorised as potential, suspected
or confirmed. "Potential" or "suspected" equates with
"likely" and "confirmed" equates with "actual"
significant harm. 3.4 Within UCHT there are two Initial Response Teams, with each team
having four Social Workers and a Team Leader. The teams provide a dedicated
service through the receipt and initial assessment of referrals which are
received by the Team Leader from a number of sources. These include referrals
regarding Child Protection, however often the reason for referral is general,
and can relate to concerns about possible risks or to factors which could
lead to risk, which leaves the decision making as to the status of the
referral the responsibility of the Team Leader. Reports by the Audit
Commission (1994) and messages from research undertaken by the Dartington
Social Research Unit (1995) emphasised the failure of the system of Child
Protection and its negative impact on the children and families involved.
They stressed the need for greater concentration on children in need and the
support of their families. The introduction of the Children (NI) Order 1995
posed a significant challenge to Social Work practitioners in establishing a
new balance between protecting children and offering support to children and
families. Research studies have demonstrated the difficulties experienced
across the UK in implementing the family support provisions contained within
the legislation (Aldgate and Tunstill (1995), Colton et al (1995), SSI report
(1997), Higgins and Pinkerton (2000). There appeared to be a continued trend
for Social Work agencies to respond to increasing numbers of reported
concerns in relation to children by implementing child protection procedures
(Lindsey 1994). In tandem with this situation is the evidence to suggest that
an observable pattern existed whereby increasing numbers of referrals were
being defined as requiring a child protection response at the point of entry
to the system which, in most cases were filtered out again after the
investigation was complete (Freeman 1996) and (Jones 1996). 3.5 Consideration of these issues has spawned "the refocusing
debate" with provider agencies attempting to review policies, procedures
and risk assessment thresholds for decision making in order to better match
the service response to assessed need. Local research conducted by Spratt
(2000) demonstrated the lack of consensus among Social Work managers and
indeed the Social Services inspectorate as to what would constitute a child
protection referral. While acknowledging the potential to define more initial
referrals as ‘enquiries’ rather than ‘child protection investigations’ he
noted that the preoccupation with management of risk could incur a situation
wherein child care problems received a quasi child protection response. In
1999, John Devaney, an APSW with UCHT conducted "an evaluation of the
criteria used in decision making in Child Protection referrals" which
showed a need for greater consistency in both the categorisation of referrals
as well as the collation of statistics across Northern Ireland. 3.6 The counter argument however is that there is a growing concern that
assessing a referral as a "child in need", leading to services
based on this criteria, can lead to Child Protection being seen in isolation
from Family Support. One of the concerns noted in phase 1 of the inquiry into
the death of Victoria Climbíe in England, was that she was classified as a
Child in Need, requiring family support services, rather than a Child
Protection case. Then, a lack of review of case files – along with many other
errors – meant there was little hope of crossing the boundary between the two
once a classification was made (Community Care 21st – 27th August 2002, phase
1 of the inquiry). It appeared that when subsequent concerns were raised in
regard to Victoria which queried possible abuse, the professionals went back
to the fact that this was a Family Support case. Child Protection needs to be
seen as part of the Child Care system as a whole with continuous reassessment
of cases taking account of subsequent referrals and additional information
rather than labelling a case as "Child Protection" or "Family
Support". There is a need to see children in need of protection as part
of the wider group of Children in Need. 3.7 The philosophy underpinning the UCHT Initial Response Teams is that
the earliest possible intervention, appropriately targeted and resourced will
prevent the need for long-term social work involvement. The Team provides
information and advice and assesses the needs of children and their parents
in order to decide whether a family may benefit from ongoing Social Work
support. The Team offers support and/or services to families in the short
term to address specific issues or problems and also carries out Initial
Child Protection Investigations under the joint protocol alongside the Police
Service of Northern Ireland. The protocol requires that Social Workers are
specially trained with the Police, in joint interviewing and there is
additional separate training on video evidence. 3.8 Where it is felt there are Child Protection concerns, Child Protection
Policies and Procedures are followed and this may include a
Multi-disciplinary Case Discussion or a Multi-disciplinary Case Conference
with the latter deciding the degree of risk to a child and whether or not the
child’s name is entered on the Child Protection Register, in which case the
child will be subject to a Child Protection Plan. The Initial Response Team
normally transfers the responsibility for the Child Protection Plan to the
Trust’s longer-term Children & Families Teams. The draft Co-operating to
Safeguard Children document states that - "The use of Child Protection Procedures and the placing of a
child’s name on the Child Protection Register is likely to impose
considerable stress on the family involved. This stress may prove counter
productive to safeguarding the child. It is therefore important that
registration should only occur when the actual or likely abuse is
sufficiently serious to constitute ‘significant harm’. Given the lack of
precise criteria of what constitutes significant harm, the general rule in
deciding whether registration is justified should be whether the abuse is
sufficiently serious to justify consideration of the need for Care
Proceedings if the Child Protection Plan should prove ineffective". 3.9 There are three Children and Families Teams within UCHT. They have
five/six Social Workers and a Team Leader. It is the responsibility of these
Teams to ensure that Child Protection Plans are adhered to through
co-ordination of the various assessments and ensuring planned services are
offered and regularly reviewed. All children whose names are placed on the
Child Protection Register are reviewed at least on a six-monthly basis at a
Review Case Conference to which all of the professionals involved are
invited, as they are to the Initial Case Conferences. The average length of
registration varies from case to case although some children remain on the
Register for a number of years. John Devaney, an APSW from the Trust has been
seconded to complete his PhD. and his research is concentrating on a group of
children who have remained on the Register for lengthy periods and it is
hoped that the research will inform practice, use of resources and identify
possible factors which contribute to children remaining in what are deemed to
be situations where they are at risk. In the majority of circumstances, where
registration occurs and the Child Protection Plan cannot be implemented, the
child can become "Looked After" by the Trust. Subsequently, if the
home situation improves sufficiently so that the child is no longer
considered at risk from Significant Harm he or she can return home, in other
situations a child can remain "Looked After" for longer periods of
time and become subject to Permanency Planning. 4. Case Work: 4.1 The Trust operates an open access policy and where possible, service
users are asked to countersign records of discussions and decisions. The
records are a combination of ongoing recording of face-to-face contact,
assessments and re-assessment forms as well as Transfer and Closure forms.
The Trust is in the process of piloting the Common Assessment Framework which
has been adapted from the DHSS "Framework for the Assessment of Children
in Need and their Families". Case Conferences and Case Discussions
require reports submitted from the Social Worker who is the Case Co-ordinator
as well as reports from other relevant professionals who have knowledge of
the family. 4.2 In the analysis of information and making decisions as to future case
involvement, Social Workers rely on their knowledge of theory relating to eg;
child development, behaviourism, knowledge of parenting capacity and
motivational theory as well as theories around family dysfunction and
attachment. There is a body of research in regard to Child Abuse from various
perspectives alongside Practice Guidelines which have emerged over the years
as a result of inquiries into the deaths of children. Social Workers would be
very aware of situations where they require more expert involvement and
whenever cases do not appear to be progressing for whatever reason,
consultations are arranged with relevant specialisms. An example of this
might be where a child has been sexually abused, whilst the Social Worker
remains the Case Co-ordinator the aspect of individual therapeutic
intervention may be referred to the Child Care Centre in Belfast. Social
Workers would also be expected to keep abreast of what is considered best
practice emerging from Inspection reports and recommendations. 4.3 An aspect of professional judgement is from previous experience in
working in Child Protection and it is through this process that Social
Workers form a knowledge of what works with families and they require time
and ongoing staff development in order to relate their practice experience to
the theory and research within the field of Child Abuse. It should also be
noted that in regard to analysis of information and implementing Child
Protection Plans, the success or otherwise of the intervention relies on the
openness of the family to that intervention. The Social Worker, as the Case
Co-ordinator, must also constantly reassess the family’s situation as, whilst
general risks can be identified, the degree of risk is more difficult to
measure accurately and therefore the communication element of the Policy
& Procedures is of crucial importance. One of the major problems
identified in child abuse inquiries has been the failure of professionals to
share knowledge. Complex social problems like child abuse are often
associated with imprecise knowledge relying more on experience-based
practice; this runs counter to the evidence-based practice prevalent in
health care. Ruth Sinclair, Director of Research, National Children’s Bureau,
has argued that the changing discourse away from the medical diagnosis, from
child abuse to child protection, has shifted the balance of power within
networks away from health professionals to Social Workers and lawyers 5. Communication: 5.1 The recent Health & Social Services Board Child Protection Policy
& Procedures states that at times all those involved in children’s work
need access to specialist advice. No one agency or discipline can undertake
the complex task of protecting children on their own. The Procedures are also
clear in regard to attendance at a Case Conference and list the various
professionals who should always be invited to the Initial Case Conference and
as appropriate to the Review Case Conference. Case Conferences are required
to identify a Case Co-ordinator, usually the Social Worker, and a core group
should also be identified who are the key professionals in contact with the
family, with the expectation that they will co-operate in implementing the
plan and keep each other informed of any concerns or changes in the family
situation. The Procedures are equally clear in regard to confidentiality and
that giving information to others either for the health of the patient or the
protection of others is not a breach of confidentiality. Whilst some research
suggests that inter-agency collaboration in Child Protection can reduce
anxiety, professional fatigue and inter-agency conflict (Bennett et al.,
1982), other research (White 1989) states that without a fundamental change
in attitude and perceptions that various professionals have of each others
roles, co-operation and co-ordination between agencies cannot be achieved. 5.2 A significant number of Child Abuse Inquiries have documented that
communication difficulties were a significant factor in the eventual
tragedies. The DHSS (1982) document Child Abuse – A Study of Inquiry Reports
1973 – 1981, showed that in every report problems occurred in some aspect of
communication between individuals and agencies. The Cleveland Report
(Butler-Sloss 1988) criticised the multi-disciplinary system stating that
disagreements and failure of communication of adults should not be allowed to
obscure the needs of children. A more recent study drawing together evidence
from 40 reviews undertaken in England 1998-2001 shows that health professionals
were the key players in many of these cases and highlighted the necessity for
health professionals to work with others in protecting children (Lupton,
North & Khan 2001 Pulling Apart. The National Health Service & Child
Protection Networks). 5.3 The Policy & Procedures are adhered to in regard to communication
by ensuring that all relevant professionals are invited to Case Conferences
and Case Discussions. There is an expectation that if the professionals
cannot attend that they make contact with the Social Worker or if possible
provide a written report. It is crucial that there are representatives from
other agencies at Case Conferences both to share information but also to take
part in the decision making on Registration. Involvement in the decision making
can ensure that the professionals are agreeing to the risk to a particular
child and are signed up to the Child Protection Plan. Outside of Family &
Childcare staff, there are often difficulties with attendance at Case
Conferences by professionals, who have competing demands. The Trust employs a
Senior Nurse Advisor in Child Protection to ensure that a priority is given
within Health Visiting caseloads to children who are at risk. The Senior
Nurse Advisor attends as many Case Conferences as practicable and ensures
that in her absence a Health Visitor or School Nurse attends. The SNA
provides clinical supervision to Health Visitors in respect of all Child
Protection cases. In 2001, the Area Child Protection Committee undertook an
audit of GP input into the Child Protection Process which resulted in a
proposed proforma for information to aid Child Protection Investigations. The
key agencies which require representation at Case Conferences would be:
Health Visitors, School Nurses, School or Playgroup representatives, GP’s,
Police and Education Welfare Officers. Dependant on the individual case other
professionals with knowledge of the family will be invited. A Minute of the
Case Conference or Case Discussion is circulated to the relevant
professionals and this includes the decisions of the Case Conference and the
Child Protection Plan as well as when the Plan will be reviewed. Parents also
attend Case Conferences, and full participation at both Initial and Review
Case Conferences is actively promoted and encouraged. 5.4 Where Joint Protocol procedures are being followed, and the decision
has been made that the investigation should be undertaken by Police and
Social Services, a Strategy Discussion takes place within 24 hours from
referral unless good practice dictates otherwise. There are a number of
specific forms which require completion in regard to the various stages of
the Joint Protocol. There are liaison arrangements between Family &
Childcare Senior Managers and more senior staff within the police. Referrals
which are received from education are normally made verbally but are followed
up in writing on a referral proforma and teachers are well placed to identify
childcare concerns including possible abuse. UCHT employs a co-ordinator
specifically to oversee the day to day working of a Pastoral Care Project,
retaining contact between the School Nurse, Education Welfare Officer, Social
Worker and the school. The project ensures that problems are identified at an
early stage and agreement is reached on a way forward. UCHT worked in
partnership with the NSPCC in establishing a school counselling service in a
number of schools, covering primary, secondary and more specialist education
establishments. This initiative commenced in August 2000, following
recommendations from a steering group which involved UCHT. An audit of the
scheme highlighted the number of children living in homes where Domestic
Violence was present which resulted in a Women’s Aid worker being resourced
as part of the Ards Peninsula Surestart Project. 5.5 Some issues in regard to communication can be raised by other agencies
in the light of Human Rights Legislation and Data Protection. This can be a
particular problem around situations where there have been allegations of
sexual abuse but the alleged perpetrator has not been adjudicated through the
court system. It can sometimes lead to difficulties between various Trusts
within Northern Ireland in regard to tracking non-adjudicated offenders who
may move between different families. The draft "Co-operating to
Safeguard Children" document cites case-law (RV Devon County Council)
where it was concluded that the interests of the adult may have to be placed
second to the needs of the child, however different practices occur and each
case is open to legal challenge. Within the EHSSB a review of protocols for
transferring cases between Trusts and Boards is underway with specific focus
on the information sharing in respect of all Child Protection cases at point
of transfer. There are less difficulties when the perpetrator is an offender
under Schedule I Children & Young Persons Act 1968 particularly where he
or she is subject to the Register of Sex Offenders. In such situations Risk
Assessment Meetings involving Social Services, Probation, Police and other relevant
professionals are an expectation, using the MASRAM model (Multi-agency
Procedure re Assessment Management of Sex Offenders). 6. Linkages: 6.1 The UCHT is committed to working in partnership with children and
families and local communities. In regard to Child Protection the Trust has
spearheaded Family Group Conferencing which empowers children and families to
make decisions in their lives rather than decisions being imposed by
professionals. This method of working originates in New Zealand and involves
private family time where families can discuss their difficulties without
professionals present. They produce a family plan to resolve the current
problem identified and in partnership, usually with Social Services, agree
how to make the plan work. This has been used in Child Protection cases with
positive results with each Family Group Conference being co-ordinated by one
of a group of people trained by the Trust but who are not its employees, and
who are from a variety of backgrounds. Family Group Conferencing has been a
service provided by UCHT over the past four years. 6.2 Child Protection Case Conferences and Case Discussions called under
the Policy & Procedures are attended by parents and by young people when
they are in a position to make a contribution. The Trust would have
approximately 80% parental attendance at Case Conferences and parents are
only excluded in extreme circumstances. Leaflets have been used in the past
to explain the various systems and services within Child Protection and these
are presently being updated to more adequately reflect the present Policy
& Procedures for example a parent’s right of appeal to the decisions
regarding their child’s name being placed on the Register. The Trust also
complies with the Children Order Complaints Procedure and parents and
children are made aware of their rights under this. There are linkages with
the local communities through the Local Childcare Partnership as well as
within the Surestart Project in the Ards Peninsula. 6.3 An important aspect of linking with local communities is to raise the
profile of Child Protection and that it is everyone’s business. In the past
Community Child Protection Training has taken place and the Trust would
aspire to continuing with this training, the evaluation of previous input
would suggest that the training is best delivered in a partnership
arrangement between Trust staff and a voluntary organisation. The Trust also
has linkages with Ards Development Bureau and Network, North Down Community
Network and the East Down Rural Community Network with representatives from
the Trust on the management committees. 6.4 The terms of reference for linkages highlights linkages with children,
parents/carers and local communities and their access to information. Another
important linkage is through inter-agency collaboration in respect of the
Area Child Protection Committee which promotes within the EHSSB’s area the
welfare of children and specifically, protection from abuse and neglect,
through multi-disciplinary and interagency co-operation. There is a Trust
(UCHT) Child Protection Committee to implement locally the multi-disciplinary
Child Protection Policy and Procedures ensuring a high standard of
professional practice. The members of the ACPC are accountable to their parent
organisations. The EHSSB Children’s Services Planning Process also includes a
number of joint strategic planning groups, including a group concentrating on
Child Protection issues. 7. Workforce Issues: 7.1 The reform of Social Work training is ongoing and the British
Association of Social Workers suggests it is demanding considerable work in a
very short timescale to achieve a well developed academic and practice
curriculum for Social Work. The expectation is that Social Work training will
be at degree level with a year of protected practice. At present Social
Workers who qualify with a Diploma in Social Work can be in a position where
they have relatively little experience in Family & Childcare. This is a
particular problem in providing Child Protection Services as the majority of
Social Workers in that area are newly qualified. Child Protection work is
demanding, complex and stressful and this front line service is being
delivered by the least experienced sector of the workforce. More experienced
staff tend to move on from Child Protection Work to more specialist areas or
Social Work within adult services. The recruitment and retention of staff to
the Initial Response Teams and Children and Families Teams who deliver Child
Protection Services, has been an ongoing problem for at least the past two
years. One Children and Families Team lost four out of six Social Workers in
the past year, being replaced with inexperienced staff. A recent recruitment
drive, targeted for the end of a Social Work course, managed to elicit seven
applicants for ten vacancies. Managers have made enquiries as to the low
uptake for job advertisements and a number of reasons and explanations have
been cited as to the disinterest in Child Protection work. These range from
the level of stress through to better Terms and Conditions offered in eg;
Probation and Education Welfare. There are vacancies within teams on a
consistent basis, with existing staff having to take on responsibility for
the consequent additional workloads. Apart from inexperienced staff dealing
with high Child Protection caseloads there are issues for the continuity of
the Child Protection Plans. This has also had an impact on court related work
where staff have had less involvement over a period of time with the case than
the court appointed independent Social Worker for the child, who is there to
report to the court on the plans being made by the Trust. To summarise, there
are considerable problems emanating from staff shortages as a result of sick
leave, resignations and inability to fill vacant posts. 7.2 The Trust has long recognised the problem in regard to staffing within
Family & Childcare and has been working on a Recruitment and Retention
Strategy however there are only so many incentives that can be offered to
staff within the limited resources available. The Trust makes every effort to
ensure that staff working in Child Protection services receive appropriate
training including access to post-qualifying training. The difficulty is that
time out is required in order to undertake training as well as reasonable
caseloads which are conducive to applying the knowledge and skills. The Trust
ensures that newly qualified staff have Supervision additional to the normal
monthly Supervision and a proportion of the ongoing assessment and planning
as well as report writing falls to the Team Leader in an effort to ensure
that there is safe practice. Consultation with other Trusts, as part of
developing a recruitment and retention strategy, showed similar problems in
their Family & Childcare services. Evidence would indicate that other
Programmes of Care do not experience recruitment and retention difficulties
to the same extent. 7.3 As stated earlier, Social Workers who are seeking employment are less
inclined to choose Child Protection Work. Alongside the stresses involved in
dealing with a vulnerable section of the population there are issues in
regard to the level of violence and aggression from service users. The Trust
has been looking at a zero tolerance policy however as front-line workers
dealing with children at risk, their only safeguard is the involvement of the
Social Worker and it is almost impossible to withdraw the Social Work service
unless the threshold of significant harm can be proved to the court’s
satisfaction, in which case there is little alternative to the child becoming
"Looked After". Every effort is made within the limitations imposed
to ensure that intimidatory behaviour, verbal threats and physical violence
is kept to a minimum, the Police are informed of any situation where there is
an identified risk to Social Workers and where necessary staff can visit
homes accompanied by a colleague or a Team Leader. A Confidential Counselling
Service is also available and all situations where there is a potential for
violence are subject to a risk assessment. 7.4 The Trust has a Supervision Policy which states that all staff at
whatever level in the organisation receive Supervision at least monthly. As previously
referred to, less experienced staff would have additional Supervision
sessions. The Trust is also committed to ensuring that there are standards in
place and has invested heavily in Standard Setting and providing training
through NISW (National Institute of Social Workers) for Team Leaders in
implementing and monitoring standards. Ten days training was provided over
the past year in this area and where possible audits are carried out in
regard to implementation of standards with exceptional reporting through to
the Programme Manager in situations where standards are not being met due to
shortage of staff. Through the work of the Principal Social Worker for audit,
a number of standards were locally developed particularly with regard to
Looked After Children and Child Protection work. It is hoped by benchmarking
these key areas that outcome measures can be developed. 8. Resources: 8.1 As referred to under the workforce issues a particular concern is in
recruitment and retention of Social Workers in Child Protection work. As a
response the Trust has attempted to introduce skill mix to the Programme. Any
tasks which do not require a dedicated Social Work service are carried out by
Team Assistants who assist the Social Workers with more routine tasks. This
includes transporting children to and from parental contact, supervising
contacts where required, organising child care for families in order to
facilitate parental attendance at meetings and where possible to help with
the increased administrative duties. Waiting lists for more specialist
services have long been a concern especially for Psychology Services which
cover the need for adult psychological assessments on parental motivation to
change, child psychology services in respect of offering more specialist
therapeutic services to children and providing expert witness services for
court related work. There are waiting lists to access Child & Family
Consultation Services as well as Adolescent Mental Health Services. UCHT is
presently involved in reviewing Mental Health, Disability and Family &
Childcare services in an effort to develop a child centred approach across
these Programmes. The lack of secure accommodation also has an impact on
Child Protection as at times the young person may have been on the Child
Protection Register which has led to the increased likelihood of the young
person being at risk within the Community at large. The Trust also accesses
regionally provided services such as the Child Care Centre or the Young
Peoples Therapeutic Project in Belfast and again there can be waiting lists
for these services which has an impact on the time period within which
resolution can be provided. The particular difficulty within Child Protection
work is that as the lead role agency with the statutory responsibility staff
have to respond to assessed risk regardless of staffing levels. This has an
impact on the time available to deliver services to Children in Need and can
also delay the outcome of Child Protection Plans with Social Worker’s time
increasingly being used in crisis intervention. 8.2 The availability of substitute care provision both in residential
services and fostering is a well documented problem. In the longer term it is
to be hoped that permanency policies will ensure that the need for substitute
care can be targeted at respite provision and differentiated residential care
which meets the individual needs of the young person. The difficulties in
recruiting foster parents is being addressed by a Regional Project Team who
are conducting a needs assessment in regard to children who are Looked After
and the possibility of enhanced payments for additional fostering skills and
increases in allowances to foster carers for difficult to place young people.
It is also an aspiration that the resources currently provided to Surestart
Projects which offers a range of services to children under four and their
families will have an impact on the number of children requiring Child
Protection services. It is to be hoped that providing earlier more intensive
intervention will strengthen families and communities, reduce the number of
children referred onto the Family & Childcare Programme and consequently
lead to a reduction of the number of children on the Child Protection
Register. 8.3 Trusts are presently progressing a number of priorities for action
which impact indirectly on Child Protection Services, that is residential
care, permanency, fostering and Surestart, however none of them relate to
providing intensive family support services aimed at families where Child
Protection concerns are ongoing. The Trust has had to target its services
from the more preventive type provision to protection services. Barnardo’s
Simpson Family Resource Centre which is a contracted service provider to UCHT
realigned its services approximately two years ago, in order to take on
intensive case work involvement with families where the children are subject
to Child Protection Plans. By fast-tracking this Child Protection work it was
hoped that the length of time that an individual child’s name was on the
Child Protection Register would be shortened. To some degree this has
happened by ensuring that if the children could not remain safely at home
that there was sufficient assessments and evidence of intensive intervention
to advise the court of a need for Care Proceedings. 8.4 The Trust also submitted to the Board a proposal for a residential
facility in order again, to fast-track families where there are Child
Protection concerns, to ensure that these issues are dealt with as quickly as
possible in a situation where there is adequate monitoring provided for the
children whilst assessments are progressed. Such a residential facility would
require both Social Work, Health Visiting and Psychology input, although the
day to day assessment could be carried out by Social Care and Social Work
staff groups. 9. Lessons Learnt: 9.1 The Multi-disciplinary Training on Child Protection includes
referencing recent inquiry findings and Team Leaders in particular are in a
situation where they require a working knowledge of messages from research
and studies on Child Protection, which can be used through the Supervision
process with Social Workers, to facilitate individual assessments. Lessons
learnt from the Cleveland Inquiry (1988 Butler Sloss) led to the protocol for
joint investigation and staff are encouraged to access post-qualification
training in the area of Child Protection including the Child Care Award at
Queens University, Belfast. The difficulty remains, however, in having staff
in post long enough to complete post qualification and having replacement
staff to cover their study leave. 9.2 Social Workers and their Line Managers would ensure that lessons are
learnt on an ongoing basis eg; changes in case law and changes in practice
are cascaded to relevant staff and Team Meetings occur on a regular basis
which provide opportunities for sharing information and updating knowledge.
Family & Childcare provide a number of practice placements for students
on Social Work courses which encourages a learning culture and there is an
annual appraisal system which links to a regular audit of training
requirements providing the basis for annual bids to the EHSSB under Children
Services Training. There are practical examples where research into local need
improves service provision. The most recent example of this is in regard to
Domestic Violence. 9.3 Within UCHT, over 30% of the children on the Child Protection Register
have experienced Domestic Violence and it is a feature of registration or the
primary concern which led to registration. In a significant number of these
cases parental alcohol abuse is also a factor. In 1992, The DHSS commissioned
a research project aimed at finding more effective ways of dealing with
Domestic Violence in Northern Ireland. It identified four priorities to be
addressed in tackling Domestic Violence that is to raise public awareness, to
challenge seriously the attitudes and behaviour of perpetrators, to improve
support and treatment services for survivors and to build a clear picture of
the extent of Domestic Violence. The Regional Forum on Domestic Violence was
established to co-ordinate efforts towards achieving these aims. 9.4 Patricia Nicholl, Programme Manager for Family & Childcare in
UCHT, undertook research looking at Domestic Violence referrals across the
Trusts in the EHSSB. One difficulty she encountered was in relation to
Management Information Systems used in Trusts and she recommended they should
be reviewed in order to ensure that accurate referral information is collated
consistently across Trusts. It was also evident at the point of data
collection that many Social Work Departments were suffering serious staffing
difficulties which may have contributed to some referrals remaining
untraceable. It was further recommended that a review of the systems of
intaking, storing and retrieving referral information and Social Work records
may be required in order to eliminate this potentially very serious matter. 9.5 The study was also reflective of National and International statistics
in regard to the preponderance of male offenders and female victims. There
was a high correlation of alcohol consumption in referred instances of
Domestic Violence and it would be important to ensure that any strategy for
the management of Domestic Violence referrals involves appropriate staff from
Alcohol and Community Addictions Services who can take a child-centred
approach alongside offering therapeutic services to the adult. The range of
situations which constitute Domestic Violence appeared to be broad with a
need to look at the most appropriate way of differentiating and recording
referrals. It was clear that many assessments did not result in services and
those which did were under a Child Protection banner. There was evidence of strong
links between experiences of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse although this
is not a linear relationship. A number of recommendations were made as a
result of this research in early 2001 including the development of a
specialised Risk Assessment Framework for Domestic Violence in parallel with
the new Common Assessment Framework for Children which the Trust is piloting.
9.6 UCHT in partnership with Barnardo’s also held a workshop on the
London, Ontario Risk Assessment Framework in September 2001 and Barnardo’s
Simpson Family Resource Centre have undertaken multi-disciplinary training
within UCHT on working with Domestic Violence. 9.7 The Local Domestic Violence Forum in the UCHT also commissioned two
smaller pieces of research. The first of these was within the Ulster Hospital
setting and was conducted by Catherine Reilly, APSW, in the Social Work
Department at UCHT. She took a random sample of women attending A&E over
the year 2001, as a result of trauma. She looked at the recording made by the
medical staff which detailed clinical injuries and causes which included for
example, falling downstairs, hit with a baseball bat, attempted
strangulation. At no point were women asked if Domestic Violence was a factor
or if they had children. This information was cross-referenced with Family
& Childcare services in UCHT and South & East Belfast and with the
Domestic Violence Liaison Police Officers in those areas. A number of the
women were known either to Family & Childcare or to Domestic Violence
Police Officers and some of their children were on the Child Protection
Register. As a result of this research, recommendations have been made for
future protocols. Alongside this a bid was made to the Regional
Multi-Professional Audit Group which has provided funding to look at future
interventions and data collection. A second piece of research was undertaken
by Emma Pybus, Psychology Student on secondment to the Trust. this research
elicited the views of a small sample of female service users as to the
quality of service experienced. In December 2001-January 2002 NDA Domestic
Violence Forum tested a screening tool for Domestic Violence occurrence. The
key agencies – Women’s Aid, Police and the Initial Response Teams within the
Trust, surveyed a sample group of victims of Domestic Violence asking a
number of questions geared towards establishing trends relating to children
exposed to Domestic Violence. The aim of the project was to test a screening
tool in order to establish a database to be used to develop future services.
One of the key issues arising from this was the vulnerability of the under 8
year old group in particular who cannot develop safety strategies for
themselves. The monitoring tool is now being piloted by the Initial Response
Teams, it gives "prompt" questions to guide workers in the initial
assessment of Domestic Violence. A significant amount of work has been
undertaken to look at a safety orientated approach for women and children
living in Domestic Violence. 9.8 The Local Domestic Violence Forum also interfaces with the Trust’s
Local Child Protection Panel and both the Forum and Panel are chaired by the
Programme Manager for Family & Childcare. This interface is a key
strategic process arising from recommendations by John Devaney, APSW, from his
research on the categorisation of referrals. His research had included
looking at how Domestic Violence referrals are initially investigated. 10. General Comments: 10.1 The DHSSHPS Programme for Government has key departmental initiatives
which should benefit elements of Child Protection Services. (a) "Best Practice Best Care" includes proposals for
disseminating best practice through the Health & Social Services. It
should be noted that at present it is easier to access inquiry outcomes from
England than within Northern Ireland, although it is hoped that the DHSSPS
will distribute recommendations and lessons to be learnt from recent
inquiries in Northern Ireland, including the baby Jasmine case. (b) An information and communications technology strategy is being
developed for the Health & Social Services and Child Protection systems
require investment. This would facilitate access to information in tracking
individual children at risk as high mobility is a predisposing factor in
families where children are more likely to be abused. Information is also
required to develop future services and one of the recommendations of the
UCHT Domestic Violence Research was better Information Management Systems to
ensure referrals are tracked. 10.2 Priorities for Action refers to the need to provide the trained
workforce necessary to deliver planned improvement in residential care
provision. A similar priority is required for Child Protection Services. This
cannot be progressed without recognising and addressing the need for additional
incentives to recruit staff to this field of work in sufficient numbers.
There is also the need to retain the staff long enough to train them. UCHT
have identified and addressed the training requirements of inexperienced
staff, however on occasion all of the necessary training has been provided
only for staff to resign and join another agency. 10.3 One interview panel convened in December 2001 in UCHT resulted in no
one attending for interview. The few applicants emanating from the overall
low response rates has inevitably resulted in an enforced lowering of the
eligibility for employment criteria. This is a matter of particular concern,
as it will impact on the overall quality of the workforce available. This is
moving in a contradictory direction to the more specialist and expert nature
of the skills required in delivering an efficient and competent service. One
suggestion by the UCHT Recruitment and Retention Working Group was for the
Trust to look at regrading within teams to appoint one/two Senior
Practitioners. This would acknowledge the complexity of the work and provide
incentive to remain in this area. The Trust is aware that in some Trusts
Senior Practitioners have been appointed in the Joint Protocol and
investigative aspects of Child Protection however the ongoing nature of Child
Protection work which includes delivering to the Child Protection Plan,
co-ordinating the multi-disciplinary input, monitoring the ongoing risk and
the involvement in court work where the significant harm threshold is
reached, requires highly qualified and motivated staff. Giving evidence under
cross examination and coping with the adversarial nature of court proceedings
can be stressful and time consuming. Working within a multi-disciplinary
framework also requires skills in assertiveness and the need to be viewed by
other disciplines as a professional with equal status and knowledge-base. 10.4 Inter-agency and multi-disciplinary communication, despite numerous
inquiry recommendations, training opportunities and liaison meetings remains
a dilemma. Key factors in successful multi-disciplinary working have been
reported to be commitment and willingness, good working relationships,
leadership or drive and establishing common aims. The main constraints in
collaborative approaches include finding time and resources and the need to
clarify issues and definitions. (David Berridge, Research Matters 2002). 10.5 In families where there are child abuse concerns, there is often a
difficulty in engaging with the parents who can be unmotivated and at times
this requires legal proceedings to ensure that the child is adequately
protected. There are concerns in regard to the length of time taken for cases
to be processed through the courts. The NI Guardian Ad Litem Agency’s Annual
Report, 2000-2001 highlights the fact that during the year April 2000 – March
2001 there was an increase in the duration of some proceedings. It showed a
further increase of 47 days per case on average in comparison with the
previous year which brought the average duration of Care Proceedings to 246
days. The report pointed out that this should be a cause for concern for all
involved in public law proceedings. 10.6 Services which address issues of Domestic Violence and Alcohol
Addiction are required if any inroad is to be made to the numbers on the
Child Protection Register. There is a need for all agencies involved in child
care to have an understanding of Domestic Violence and this would extend to
personnel involved in court proceedings including the judiciary who may
benefit in some instances from awareness raising in Domestic Violence.
Alcohol Addiction Services would need to evolve to incorporate a child
centred approach alongside the present emphasis on offering support/advice
and therapeutic intervention to the adults. One suggested way forward could
be to appoint suitably qualified staff within Family & Childcare
services. 10.7 It is hoped that a Commissioner for Children may ensure that all
service provision gives recognition to possible effects on children and in
particular that there is appropriate redress when Multi-disciplinary Child
Protection working is not accommodated. 10.8 Appropriately resourced specialist services are required to
complement the statutory functions. At present Mental Health Services,
including Child Psychiatry and Psychology are difficult to access. This is
partially due to such services offering a more universalist provision which
results in waiting lists which are not conducive to assessing and
implementing programmes in cases where there are Child Protection concerns
requiring immediate involvement. In some instances where there are family
support concerns which could lead to Child Protection issues, the waiting
list results in an early referral to the service becoming more crisis driven
before the service is secured. 10.9 The DHSSPS should consider the introduction of mandatory procedures
in respect of case management and review of Children in Need cases under the
Common Assessment Framework for Children in Need. 10.10 UCHT has introduced an audit system in Child Protection Services, in
order to promote consistency of placement and decision making. The DHSSPS
could consider regional research and benchmarking of Child Protection
services which should encourage consistency. MISS MARY QUINN (A)PSW written submission by: 16 August 2002 1. The Volunteer Development Agency is the lead Agency for the promotion
and development of volunteering within N.Ireland. The Agency offers support,
information and training to organisations which involve volunteers. The
agency also has an active policy role and aims to monitor and influence
policy that affects volunteers and volunteering. 2. Our Duty to Care is a project within the Agency, with a remit to
provide support, advice, information and training to the voluntary and
community sector, on good practice for the protection of children. The
project is supported by the Department of Health, Social Services &
Public Safety. 3. The aim of the work of the Our Duty to Care project is to raise
awareness of child protection issues within the community, specifically with
organisations and individuals who volunteer to provide activities for
children and young people within the community. Most volunteers are members
of their local community and therefore awareness of the issues of protection
and safeguarding of children which are learnt in an organisational setting,
directly benefit the local community and lead to a safer, more child-friendly
environment. 4. This project does not directly provide child protection services and
this submission will not comment on statutory provision. However we do wish
to make informed comment on the issues of communication, linkages and
resources. 5. While communication and linkages appear to have improved between
professionals, through Area Child Protection Committees and Child Protection
Panels, there is still an enormous gap in communication with the local
community. In spite of current legislation focusing on supporting families,
there remains a suspicion and hostility within the community towards
statutory authorities. Our experience is that this is largely based on lack
of communication, contact and mutual understanding of roles and
responsibilities, especially in relation to social services. Opportunities to
share good practice and work together have contributed to changes in attitude
which enhance a partnership approach in protecting children, as demonstrated
in a quote from a community volunteer involved in Keeping Safe Child
Protection Awareness Raising Training – "It made me aware of what child
protection teams actually do. It makes you aware that social workers are not
just these bad people that you’re brought up to think they are." 6. In the long term, children will only be well protected if the families
and communities in which they live are safe and child-friendly. This can only
be achieved by close co-operation and understanding between communities and
those statutory authorities tasked with the responsibility of child
protection. However, there is little provision for the enhancement and
development of this partnership within the statutory structures. The
membership of Area Child Protection Committees and Child Protection Panels
includes the main statutory agencies and a number of large voluntary
agencies, but does not include representation from grassroots community
groups( See Co-operating to Safeguard Children). Some Health & Social
Services Trusts have recognised this need and do include local community
representation on Child Protection Panels, such as the North & West
Belfast Trust. This good practice should be an integral part of policy and
procedures. 7. The main focus of the work of child protection services is on
intervention when children are in need of protection. While this is entirely
necessary, a shift of focus to public education, awareness raising and
prevention strategies would ultimately reduce the need for the same levels of
intervention. An understanding of child protection issues and everyone’s role
and responsibility in safeguarding children in the community would lead to a
better working partnership between all the agencies, groups and individuals
who impact on the life of children. 8. As a result of the above, resources are also focused on intervention
work and the vital work of prevention of abuse and community development is
under-resourced. We would recommend that a higher priority should be given to
public education and to programmes which will have a long-term impact on the
quality of life for children, such as parenting programmes. 9. In summary the Volunteer Development Agency would hope that the enquiry
will give serious consideration to ways in which the wider community can be
more actively included in the provision of child protection services and to
the promotion and support of prevention programmes and the enhancement of
child-friendly communities. DEE KELLY written submission by: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Western Education and Library Board welcomes the opportunity to
make a submission to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public
Safety of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to Child Protection
Services in Northern Ireland. 1.2 The Child Protection Support Service of WELB works in close
partnership with all of the statutory agencies in pursuance of the Board’s
duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of all children within its area.
The priority objectives of the Service are:
2. CHILD PROTECTION WITHIN THE EDUCATION SECTOR 2.1 The Board’s Designated Officer for Child Protection is a member of
DOCPEG(Designated Officers for Child Protection in Education Group) which was
established to promote consistency of strategy, policy, procedures and
practice throughout the education sector. This group is inclusive of the
Department of Education, the 5 Education and Library Boards and the Council
for Catholic Maintained Schools. 2.2 DOCPEG is currently undertaking a review of the guidance contained in
Circular 1999/10 (Pastoral Care in Schools - Child Protection). The revised
guidance will take account of impending changes in education law aimed at
strengthening the current child protection arrangements within education. 3. WELB RESPONSE TO KEY ISSUES 3.1 CASEWORK 3.1.1 There is concern that schools are increasingly being asked to assess
the relative significance of presenting concerns in terms of the need for
Social Services to undertake a child protection investigation. This is
contrary to the guidance contained in Co-operating to Protect Children Volume
6 (Children (NI) Order 1995) and where categorical advice to schools has been
not to investigate. Consequently, there is need for agreement between all
partners on the range and scope of discreet preliminary enquiries and on what
constitutes investigation. 3.1.2 In many instances, schools have concerns that a family’s
circumstances are adversely affecting a pupil’s behaviour or performance in
school, or the pupils welfare in general. The school is unable to secure
support for the family from Social Services unless a child protection
referral is processed. Consequently, there is a need for proactive prevention
strategies to be undertaken as casework which if significantly resourced
could lead to a reduction in terms of reactive, investigatory work. 3.1.3 There is evident distress/concern on the part of educational
professionals who are in daily contact with children in need whose
development and welfare are perceived as being progressively undermined. They
are witnesses to the damaging effects on children of moving towards and
across the threshold for significant harm before help is available. 3.1.4 Additionally where child protection referrals are accepted, the
school’s perception in some instances is that the child’s welfare is not
noticeably enhanced. 3.1.5 The perception of professionals in education is that refocusing is
towards child protection rather than family support which runs counter to the
principles and philosophy of the Children Order. 3.1.6 There are concerns about consistency even within a single trust with
respect both to the timeliness and nature of the response by Social Services
to a presenting concern. 3.1.7 ELB services such as Education Welfare are increasingly addressing
gaps in family support services through a range of projects including:
3.2 COMMUNICATION 3.2.1 Because of their daily contact, schools play a vital role in
supporting and monitoring vulnerable children. They are often inhibited in
their supportive role by a lack of information/feedback post-referral or at
times of family crises. A protocol for the sharing of information or feedback
loop would ensure that the pastoral needs of the child are being
appropriately addressed within the school. 3.2.2 Designated Teachers/Deputy Designated Teachers are the key
professionals at school level, and continue to be supported by the Child
Protection Support Service in their evolving role and challenge. Recent
research within WELB has confirmed their increasing confidence and
professionalism and their willingness to be pro-active both in case
conferences and core-group working. The centrality of their role as active
partners in the child protection process needs to be acknowledged. The
formalisation of an information sharing protocol which is inclusive of
designated teachers would be most welcome. LINKAGES 3.3.1 Partnerships between the Board, schools, parents and the local
community are actively promoted and are considered to be an area of strength. 3.3.2 Communication with parents about the school’s child protection policy
and procedures is a DENI requirement (Pastoral Care in Schools: Child
Protection DENI 99/10). 3.3.3 Within school, there is encouragement for children to seek
support/make a complaint and this is actively promoted through the provision
of a preventative curriculum. Parents are informed that their children are
availing of such programmes. 3.3.4 Linkages with Social Services departments would be significantly
enhanced by the provision of a designated social worker to a school or group
of schools. At present, linkages are promoted by the involvement of relevant
local social work staff in designated teacher training. 3.3.5 There is strong representation from the education sector on Child
Protection Panels and on a diverse range of Children Services Planning
Groups. 3.3.6 Within WELB, good partnerships have been established with NSPCC and
Sperrin Lakeland Trust in the context of the Schools Counselling Service
Project. Early evaluations of the project have been positive and indicate a
potential for developing the Service to include a wider group of schools. 3.3.7 As an employing authority, the Board has concern about the lengthy
nature of PSNI/DPP procedures in respect of educational professionals who
have been suspended on full pay pending the outcome of child abuse
investigations. There is concern about the lack of feedback regarding
progress in such investigations and the inordinate delay, particularly at DPP
level, in expediting/making directions in such cases. This has very
significant implications for Board resources which could more appropriately
be channelled into preventative services. 3.4 WORKFORCE ISSUES 3.4.1 WELB employs a full-time, permanent advisory/support officer who
devises and delivers a wide range of training programmes for designated/
deputy designated teachers, school principals, Boards of Governors, parent
groups and the full spectrum of education sector staff whose work involves
contact with children. The support officer also represents the Board on a
range of interagency forums. 3.4.2 Within Social Services, there are significant workforce issues.
There appears to be a very high turnover of staff within the child care
discipline with the consequent problem of relatively inexperienced social
workers addressing very complex cases and carrying unacceptably heavy
caseloads. These pressures inevitably lead to stress and illness among social
work staff. A local trust has recently been involved in a work to rule in
order to highlight these issues. These workforce issues are so pressing that
the trust has recently found it necessary to devise interim priority
categories for caseload allocation. 3.5 RESOURCES 3.5.1 There is general recognition that resources across all sectors are
inadequate. 3.5.2 Resources within Social Services departments would appear to be
critically lacking. The current level of resourcing means that only the most
urgent cases are being prioritised for intervention. This has implications
for the morale of Social Services staff and perpetuates recruitment and
retention problems which can lead to a demoralising spiral. 3.5.3 The balance of resource allocation at present is disproportionately
towards Child Protection rather than preventative services. This runs counter
to Children Order principles and philosophy. 3.6 LESSONS LEARNT 3.6.1 Public inquiries/case management reviews have frequently identified
deficiencies in information sharing within and across professional boundaries
as critical failures in individual cases. The Board would highlight the need
for schools to be recognised as active partners in the child protection
process, and for schools to have confidence that their concerns about
individual children can be acknowledged and responded to at the earliest
possible stage. 3.6.2 The Board would highlight the urgent need for more effective support
for all professionals working in the area of Child Protection. By its very
nature, the work is emotionally stressful and demanding. These stresses are
further compounded by the resource issues already identified. 3.6.3 The balance between preventative and reactive services needs to be
urgently redressed. The principles and philosophy of the Children Order
relating to early intervention and family support services have not and cannot
be realised within existing resources. 4 GENERAL COMMENTS 4.1 The Board would wish to acknowledge the progress that has been made
post Children Order in developing the knowledge and skills of designated
teachers and other education sector staff in promoting and safeguarding the
welfare of children. 4.2 The Board also wishes to acknowledge the partnerships that have
developed with Social Services and PSNI personnel. through
uni-/multidisciplinary training initiatives, and children services planning
groups. 4.3 There is a need to develop specialist child protection
strategies/services for children with disabilities who are known to be highly
vulnerable to abuse and whose needs are very significantly under-represented
within current child protection services. 4.4 Child Protection Services also need to address specific issues
relating to culture and ethnicity. written submission by: 15 August 2002 CONTENTS Summary Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 The Context Child Population Section 3.0 Structural Arrangements Organisational Structure Section 4.0 The General Legislative Framework The Legal Framework to Protect Children from Section 5.0 Child Protection Services Achieving the Balance Section 6.0 Case Work Support Services Section 7.0 Communication Working Together - Information Sharing Section 8.0 Linkages Communicating with Children and Families Section 9.0 Workforce Issues Human Resources Section 10.0 Resources Funding of Family & Child Care Services Section 11.0 Case Management Reviews Number of Case Management Reviews in Section 12.0 General Comments Concluding Remarks Appendices Appendix 1 Northern Ireland Measures of Deprivation Appendix 2 Top 50 Electoral Wards within the WHSSB Appendix 3 Organisational Structures (a) WHSSB (b) Foyle Health & Social Services Trust (c) Sperrin Lakeland Health & Social Care Trust INQUIRY INTO CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES IN NORTHERN IRELAND 1. Introduction 1.1 This document describes the Structural, Legislative and Service issues
in relation to the delivery of Child Protection Services in the Western
Health and Social Services Board area. It is a composite response on behalf
of the Board and Foyle and Sperrin Lakeland Trusts to Mr Hughes’ letter of 20
June 2002. 2. The Context 2.1 It is important to consider the context within which Child Protection
Services are currently being delivered in the Western area before addressing
the specific points raised by the Inquiry. Child Population 2.2 An examination of the four Health and Social Services Boards reveals
that the Western Board has the highest proportion of children within its
population. The 1999 mid year Estimates show that 30.5% of the Board’s
population is under 18 years of age compared to the Northern Ireland figure
of 27.4%. The Board administers an area of almost 5000 square kilometers from
Limavady in the North to Enniskillen in the South. Notwithstanding the low
population density and corresponding remoteness in many areas, the Board and
the Trusts have been instrumental in implementing many excellent schemes in
promoting inclusivity. In this context the Board and the Trusts work in
partnership with the various voluntary organisations in developing services
in the community. 2.3 Five District Councils operate within the Board’s area: Derry,
Limavady, Strabane, Omagh & Fermanagh. The population of the Western Area in the age range 0 – 17 years is 84,910
and the various age groups across the District Council areas are reflected in
Table 1. Table 1: Nos and Ages of Children and Young People in each Western
District Council Area
(Source: NISRA Mid-Year Estimate) Deprivation in the WHSSB 2.4 The Programme for Government highlights that in Northern Ireland there
is one of the youngest populations in the European Union and that
unacceptable proportions of children live in conditions of poverty with over
a quarter of children coming from households dependent on Job Seekers
Allowance or Income Support. It acknowledges the close relationship between
family poverty and higher infant mortality, poor levels of general health and
increased risk of social problems. Deprivation in Northern Ireland is now
measured by the Noble Index which sets out a series of different measures (or
"domains") of deprivation. Included at Appendix 1 is a number of
the deprivation measures with their regional markings according to District
Council areas. In the league of deprivation as reflected in the Noble Index,
the most deprived area in Northern Ireland is the Strabane District, Derry
ranks third, Omagh seventh, Limavady eighth and Fermanagh eleventh. 2.5 The Child Poverty measure which is a sub-section of the Income Domain
within the Index, ranks wards according to the percentage of children under
16 in families that claim the following means tested benefits of Income
Support, Job Seekers Allowance, Family Credit and Disability Working
Allowance. The measure identifies Shantallow East in Derry as the most
deprived ward in Northern Ireland in relation to child poverty followed by
Brandywell and Creggan South ranking second and third most deprived. Appendix
2 identifies the top 50 electoral wards within the WHSSB together with their
ranking.1 Targeting Social Need, Equality and Human Rights 2.6 The Social Policy Agenda has been based on the objective of promoting
social inclusion, with emphasis on early intervention. The Equality
Legislation and the Human Rights Act 1998 have provided a statutory basis for
promoting the rights and needs of children and young people. All children
have an equal right to protection from harm and a right to the same standards
of service. Cultural factors neither explain nor condone abuse or neglect and
it is acknowledged that children from all backgrounds can be abused or
neglected. Model for Assessing Need and Supply 2.7 The current best estimate of the number of children and young people
who are in need or who are vulnerable, i.e., at risk of social exclusion were
services not to be provided is conveyed through the following diagrams
extracted from the Children’s Services Plan 2002-2005.2 Figure 1: Children & Young People who are in need, or are
vulnerable in the Western Board Children and Young People in the WHSSB Area
2.8 The approach to analysing need adopted by the Western Area Children
and Young People’s Committee over the past three years has built on
frameworks developed by Hardiker3. Level 1 represents services provided to the whole population
for example health and education. Level 2 represents support for children who are vulnerable
through an assessment of need. Services are targeted to individual children,
with parental support, and are provided in statutory and voluntary settings
for example home visiting services and community based Family Centres. Level 3 represents support to families, including children
and young people, where there are chronic or serious problems, for example
parenting difficulties, domestic violence, child protection issues. Level 4 represents support to families or individual
children and young people where there is a high degree of risk and intensive
help or long term support is required. The child’s name may be on the Child
Protection Register or the child may be Looked After by the Trust. 2.9 The aim of the higher levels of support (Levels 3&4) is to affect
the situation in the family, positively, so that the family can be supported
through Level 1 services alongside the mainstream population. Figure 2: Hardiker Grid – Continuum of Services
2.10 Social Services within each Trust provide a continuum of services, frequently
in conjunction with other agencies as reflected in the above grid. 2.11 An advantage of the Hardiker model is that it enables planners to
consider each of the levels separately, but also clearly demonstrates the
inter-dependence between the levels. An effective range of preventative
services at level 2, for example, will impact on the number of families
entering level 3. Children at level 4, requiring rehabilitation home, will be
very dependent on access to good services at levels 3,2 & 1. The Western
Area Children’s Services Plan 2002 - 2005, therefore, has approached Family
Support through the promotion of services at each level, in a co-ordinated
way. Referrals made to the Family & Child Care Programme 2.12 During the year ended 31 March 2002 the Family & Child Care
Programme in Foyle Trust dealt with 2628 referrals, i.e. 1962 Child Care and
666 Child Protection. In Sperrin Lakeland there were 79 Child Protection
referrals and 1973 Child Care referrals giving a total of 2052. It is interesting
to note that in Foyle Trust the number of Child protection referrals
accounted for 25.3% of the total referrals whereas in Sperrin Lakeland Trust
the Child Protection Referrals represented 4% of the total referrals. 2.13 The statistical data in Table 2 was supplied by Foyle and Sperrin
Lakeland Child Protection Panels for their respective areas and included in
the Western Area Child Protection Committee’s Annual Report for year ended 31
March 20024. The information has been derived from Soscare but it
is recognised that the system has many limitations. It is, however, envisaged
that the current Soscare programme will be replaced by a Person-Centred
client Information System (PCIS). Table 2 : Child Protection Data
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
