South West Sector Led Improvement Peer Challenge Gloucestershire 8 th October 2014

Peer challenge process  Swindon Borough Council undertook a peer challenge of Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)  GCC asked for the peer challenge to focus on neglect  The review looked at the impact of a recent SCR on practice across the county and focused on: o The Voice of the Child o Understanding of thresholds o Quality of Practice o Partnership working  This report gives a summary of the main findings and evidence of these under each of the key lines of enquiry.

Methodology  The review team looked at six case summaries (including some views of parents, children and partners) and received an overview of key performance data and a range of policy documents including the SCR Response Plan  The review team spent one day on site during which they talked to social workers and managers involved in the cases. They also met with three focus groups of: quality assurance and data managers, multiagency partners and operational managers

General observations about the review process  The review team recognised the commitment that GCC put into the peer challenge process  Those interviewed demonstrated commitment, care and focus on their work  The day on site was very well organised  The time scales were tight and this was reflected in the variable quality of some of the case summaries

Voice of the Child Strengths  Social workers are gathering children’s views in a range of ways using various tools to capture the voice of the child  There is evidence that social workers are using different methods of communication to get the views of children  GSCB roadshow workshops have been held for 0-5 yrs. focused on the child’s lived experience  There is a strong QA approach to participation with excellent examples of regular gathering of customer feedback to inform audits and strategic planning for example young ambassadors and young carers

Voice of the Child Areas for consideration  There was little evidence of analysis of the child’s voice to understand more about the child’s lived experience and what their daily life was like  Observations and conversations, interactions with children need to be interpreted and analysed to be meaningful and inform assessments and plans  There should be a greater emphasis on assessing the impact of long term neglect on the child’s current and future development and emotional well being as well as focusing on immediate events  There was more evidence of the voice of the older child and tools seem to be more focussed on this age range

Voice of the Child Areas for consideration  There was little evidence of people searching out more bespoke tools or RIP resources for individual children based on their likes, dislikes, preferences etc. or reflecting diversity and ethnicity issues  In the cases where parents had a learning disability, greater emphasis needs to be on the child’s lived experience. The impact of neglect on the child should be better balanced with the focus on practical support to the parent

Voice of the Child: Example In the case of SD we found evidence of work to reflect SDs voice in the assessment however the case work was dominated by her parent’s needs for support and we did not have a good understanding of how her voice was interpreted and what daily life was like for her living in that house.

Voice of the Child: Example In the case of a 3 year old child, (KP) the social worker reflected that the child was not centre stage and that the social worker found it difficult to think of how to ensure her voice and lived experiences were clear. We discussed how the health visitor and nursery could have offered observations and assessments based on their familiar tools and also any behavioural differences compared to her peers. For example, the child has a speech and language delay but a Speech and Language Therapist could have shown the SW how to use puppets etc. to draw out her communication.

Partnership Working Strengths  There is good communication and information sharing between health services and social care  There is evidence of partnership working with housing services  Co location improves information sharing and management oversight  Social workers, their managers and multi-agency partners in children’s services could describe clearly the levels of intervention guidance and the windscreen plan

Partnership Working Strengths  The multi-agency partners think that since the SCR the thresholds have been interpreted more consistently and they have had much more ‘success’ with referrals to Social Care for neglect  The SCR is known about and where staff are aware of the lessons learnt, practice has benefitted

Partnership Working Areas for consideration  There is evidence of a lack of understanding between health and social care of each other’s roles and skills and what each agency could contribute to meeting the needs of the child  Is there a lack of professional confidence in others to offer and ask for professional input?  Social workers could use the skills and resources of health visitors and others to support work with younger children  Community health staff need to be more integrated and see themselves more as partners in safeguarding

Partnership Working: Example In some cases (e.g. SD and CL) undertaking health assessments form part of plans as a matter of course but the impact of these on planning was not clear. The reviewers questioned whether School Nurses were always clear about their important role in direct work with children and supporting the social worker through their contribution to the multi agency plan

Partnership Working: Example Social workers were able to give some examples of how they had worked with housing officers for example, to gain access to property. One team described a referral from a housing officer who, when dealing with some issues, observed a child living in the house and made a referral. Is there an established expectation of housing officer’s role in working as part of the team around the child in neglect cases?

Thresholds Strengths  There was evidence that the levels of intervention guidance is embedded in practice in children’s services  Social care teams told us that they are open to challenge and see it as healthy for improving safeguarding practice and partnership working  The escalation policy and the guidance has been re launched and is known about

Thresholds Strengths  There is evidence that social workers are being encouraged to be more decisive and intervene at an earlier stage in neglect cases  Neglect training was considered to be good and evidence was provided of the impact on practice

Thresholds Areas for consideration  The partnership work with housing is not consistent, this is particularly important for neglect cases  There are high numbers of children being subject to a CP plan for a second time and it was not clear how well this is understood  Levels of Intervention Guidance needs to be shared and embedded with partners in adult services and the voluntary and community sector

Thresholds Areas for consideration  Does there need to be further analysis in step down practice to ensure consistency of threshold interpretation?  Social care managers described practice that indicated that thresholds for neglect may not be consistent across areas and teams.  Recognition of neglect in disabled children: Are special schools able to recognise and respond to Neglect?

Thresholds: Example Evidence from the multi agency focus group that two adult services (Drugs and Alcohol and Domestic Abuse) told us that their staff are not familiar with the Levels of Intervention Guidance and have not been involved in workshops and training.

Thresholds: Example In the CL case the step down decision from Child Protection to Child in Need did not appear to be informed by the impact of the emotional neglect on the child’s future. The implication of this was that there was potential for drift and/or the child returning to a Child Protection Plan.

Quality of Practice Strengths  There is evidence that some teams are using research to inform assessments  Managers and social workers find the revised supervision template helpful, it prompts them to ensure all aspects are covered in challenging cases  There were some excellent examples of reflective, management review comments, taking the child’s voice into account and decisions noted

Quality of Practice Strengths  Three out of six teams say their approach to neglect is more decisive (since the SCR) and this was evidenced by SMART outcome focused plans, clear time scales and use of contingency plans  Some staff suggested that a toolkit or framework would be useful to support assessments

Quality of Practice Strengths  Data is seen and shared by managers with their teams and is used to improve practice  Themed reports address specific issues i.e. a report highlighted where a young person did not understand what a social worker was telling them. This was addressed by the social worker modifying language and checking understanding

Quality of Practice Areas for consideration  The quality of the recording of supervision is patchy  There is not a consistent approach to the use of research amongst teams. Mention of the use of the Inform website but some managers said that support to access research had waned with the loss of senior practitioner meetings. It is hoped this will improve with the recruitment of a Principal Social Worker

Quality of Practice Areas for consideration  Some teams were far less clear about how they are working differently with neglect (since the SCR) if indeed they are  Reflective practice needs to be further embedded and consistently recorded

Quality of Practice Areas for consideration  There was little evidence in assessments of parent’s own history including how they were parented and how the analysis of this could inform planning for the child  There was some understanding of false compliance in parents but not strong evidence that practitioners have understood how to recognise this. Quality of Practice: Example In one case the social worker and manager commented on the helpfulness of the supervision template to ensure all aspects in challenging cases are covered. The recording was excellent in this example. In another example there was very, little recorded and there was evidence of a lack of management oversight. The acting ATM in contrast seemed aware and seemed embarrassed at lack of detail.

Areas for Development 1. There could be opportunities for joint learning amongst newly qualified health visitors and newly qualified social workers 2. Now that awareness has been raised training should be provided for the ‘next steps’ in working with neglect 3. The LSCB should consider the issue of neglect and disabled children

Areas for Development 4. Consider developing a framework for neglect across all agencies in Gloucestershire 5. Strengthen the links and joint learning opportunities between the pods and the wider locality agencies

Areas for Development 6. Ensure the impressive learning within the Stroud team from the SCR is extended across all teams in Gloucestershire including CP Chairs and IROs 7. Partners such as health visitors, nurseries and Children’s Centres could provide valuable support to social workers to gain the voice of younger children through their specialist knowledge, skills and tools

Swindon Borough Council Peer Challenge Team  Lucy Young, Head of Safeguarding (Lead Reviewer)  Louise Campion, Principal Officer - Health & Wellbeing  Mark Green, Integrated Service Manager  Catherine Clark, Planning & Development Manager - Safeguarding