0

An Overview Report on Children Act 2004 Section 11 Self – Assessment

June 2015

Biswas, Priti

DRAFT – V3

Table of Contents:

Introduction and background..................................................................................2Methodology..............................................................................................................3

Single agency self-assessment............................................................................3Single agency assessments scrutiny..................................................................3Challenge day........................................................................................................4Data analysis and reporting..................................................................................4

S11 Standards and Agencies...................................................................................4Standards...............................................................................................................4Agencies.................................................................................................................5

Summary findings.....................................................................................................7Overall Status........................................................................................................7

Chart 2: Distribution of Standards and RAG Scores......................................8Management Commitment responsibility and policy procedure......................8Safe workforce – recruitment, supervision and training....................................9Effective inter-agency working practice and sharing information..................10Contracting and commission.............................................................................10Learning from reviews........................................................................................12NSCB priorities – agency progress update.......................................................12

Learning from challenge day.................................................................................12Key issues...............................................................................................................12

Information-sharing arrangements....................................................................13S 11 standards for large contractors.................................................................13Elected Members.................................................................................................13Safeguarding Training........................................................................................13Lessons from reviews.........................................................................................14Visibility of Health...............................................................................................14Board advisory groups.......................................................................................15Effectiveness of NSCB........................................................................................15

Conclusion...............................................................................................................15

1

Introduction and background

Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015 states that one of the key functions of a Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) is ‘to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of what is done by the Local Authority and Board partners individually and collectively to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and advise them on ways to improve’ (DFE 2015, p-66). It further requires LSCBs to have ‘a particular focus on ensuring that those key people and organisations that have a duty under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 are fulfilling their statutory obligations about safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’.

To fulfil one of its key functions, Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board (NSCB) has been carrying out Section 11 assessment since 2010. In pursuit of excellence it has developed its approach year on year - exploring options by not only thinking of ways that can assure the Board about its partner agencies’ level of compliance in Section 11 standards, but also find ways to initiate dialogue and challenge between and among agencies. The aim of such self-assessment and challenge is to provide opportunity for critical reflection of each of the partner agencies’ own practice in order to improve working standards and practice to safeguard and ensure the welfare of children and young people in Norfolk.

Since 2010 when the NSCB carried out its first Section 11 assessment, standards have improved significantly. For some agencies the assessment has provided an opportunity to prioritise and focus on areas for improvement. During the follow up monitoring the evidence of progress was presented the agencies. While some of the partner agencies used the opportunity to improve their practice, it has not been consistent across the partnership. It was discussed at Board level that to achieve greater consistency across agencies and drive improvement as a partnership, the NSCB needs to improve its ‘challenging’ role and function.

Consequently, the 2014-15 self-assessment was planned to include a one to one challenge session of each of the partner agencies with the NSCB Independent Chair. Further details on the process is reported under methodology.

This report presents: - the process of self-assessment, including challenge sessions, - an overview of the agencies self-assessment results, - a direction of change in comparison with previous assessments; and - the outcomes of the challenge discussions with the Chair.

It further presents the common issues and contemporary risk factors in Norfolk and suggests mitigating actions to take forward.

2

Methodology

The local self-assessment tool for Section 11 assessments is designed for the Local Authorities and partner agencies to self-evaluate their own policies and programs, procedures, operational mechanisms, and activities as they relate to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children as defined in Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. However, the NSCB 2014-15 self-assessment aimed to measure not only the S11 standards and its level of compliance, but also test the progress on common priority areas of the Board. It further attempted to capture and develop a detailed picture of the single and multi-agency training status. The feedback session with the Chair offered an opportunity to not only provide Chair’s challenge towards the partner agencies but also the agencies to provide an assessment of the Board itself as a collective entity and its own effectiveness. Details of the methodology for each of the steps are provided below:

Single agency self-assessment

Each agency carried out their own self-assessment, by reviewing their policy procedures, performance data and HR information. This was completed by senior level officer(s) of each of the agencies.

Based on the past self-assessments and available evidence each agency had to determine their own RAG (Red, Amber, Green) status. RAG status, also known as the traffic light system, is an indication of agencies’ self-perceived achievements against the minimum standards under the Section 11 statutory obligations towards safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It is important to note here that this is an approximate measure and not an absolute one. Further evidence and justifications to the RAG status were also recorded/ provided by the agencies.

RAG means: organisation’s strategic and operational arrangements are

RED not in place, not operational and the organisation is not meeting minimum standards

AMBER partly in place and the organisation is partly meeting their obligations

GREEN in place, and the organisation is meeting standards

Single agency assessments scrutiny

Each of the single agency self-assessment reports were checked and triangulated with other information available to NSCB, including –

- training attendance on the NSCB training courses, - involvement and leadership roles undertaken by an individual agency in

any of the NSCB multi-agency subgroup

3

- progress made and reported on Serious Case Review and Multi-Agency Review recommendations

- any other national or regional issues/ reviews that may concern the NSCB about the relevant partner agency, i.e. sector led reports, reviews which involving specific sector/ agencies carry out some improvement work

-A single page overview sheet was prepared following a simple framework, to summarise:

o what is going well, o what are the concerns and o what needs to happen to improve the issues of concern

Challenge day

One to one discussion meetings with each of the partner agencies representatives were arranged with the Board Chair and the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer of the Board. These meetings were informal but structured to ensure open discussions and challenges on both the single agency compliance and plans as well as partners’ views and suggestions on further improving the effectiveness of the Board. The questions to the individual agencies were structured around the assessment scrutiny sheets which were prepared beforehand.

The aim of these challenge days were, via individual agencies’ reflection, to develop a collective picture of strengths as well as identify risks that may affect the safeguarding of children and young people in Norfolk.

Data analysis and reporting

The NSCB has assumed and maintained the role of a ‘critical friend’ and has undertaken an analysis of agencies self-assessed results. The rich conversation and discussion of the challenge days provided qualitative narratives and insight into the underlying causes and contexts of some of the issues raised. It has also taken into account the direction of travel in fulfilling the S11 statutory standards in comparison to the past S11 assessments in 2010 and 2012. The analysis focuses on emerging general patterns in responses that identify areas of strengths and weakness across agencies. It further focuses on a number of ‘observations’ and presents a number of suggestions for future plans.

S11 Standards and Agencies

Standards

4

1. Senior management commitment to the importance of safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare

2. A clear statement of agency’s responsibilities towards children is available for all staff

3. A clear line of accountability within the organisation for work on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children

4. Safer recruitment

5. Staff training on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children for all staff working with or, depending on the agency’s primary functions, in contact with, children and families

6. Service development takes account of the need to safeguard and promote welfare and is informed, where appropriate, by the views of children and families

7. Effective inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children

8. Information sharing

Agencies

The following list presents the agencies in Norfolk who have completed Section 11 self-assessment:

Groups AgenciesLocal Authorities Children’s Services, Norfolk County Council

Adult Social Services, Norfolk County CouncilDistrict Councils

South Norfolk District Council Broadland District Council Breckland council Norwich City Council North Norfolk District Council Great Yarmouth Borough Council Kings Lynn and West Norfolk District Council

Health Health Commissioning agencies NHS England Clinical Commissioning Group (s)

Healthcare Provider agencies Norwich Community Health and Care (NCHC) East Coast Community Health and Care (ECCH) Queen Elizabeth Hospital Trust (QEHT) James Paget Hospital Trust (JPHT) Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital (NNUH)

5

Norfolk & Suffolk Foundation Trust (NSFT) East Anglian Ambulance Trust (EAAT)

Criminal Family Justice

Youth Offending Team (YOT)Norfolk Police Authority Norfolk and Suffolk Probation Trust (NSPT)Norfolk and Suffolk Community Rehabilitation Company (NSCRC)Norfolk Suffolk CAFCASS

Contracted and voluntary sector agencies

See Annex xx

6

Summary findings

Overall Status

Charts 1 and 2 present the overall RAG distribution by agencies and by RAG rated standards. A total of 23 organisations and/or departments are presented here. Most of the partner agencies self-reported their organisation’s strategic and operational arrangements are in place and the organisations are meeting the standards, however there are some areas they have planned to improve.

Chart 1: Distribution of RAG status across agencies

Children's S

ervice

s

Adult Socia

l Care

NCHCECCH

NNUHJPUH

QEUHNSFT

Public Health

East Anglia

n Ambulance Trust

CCGs (Norfo

lk and W

aveney)

NHS England

Norwich

City Council

South NDC

Broadlands DC

Great Yarm

outh BC

North N

orfolk

DC

Brecklands D

C

King's Lyn

n BCPolic

eNYOT

ProbationCRC

CAFCASS0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Self-assessed RAG status overview by Agency

Green Amber Red

7

Chart 2: Distribution of Standards and RAG Scores

Snr. Mang co

mmitment &

leadersh

ip

Policy p

rocedures

Safe recru

itment

Training & development

Effective

practice

- engagement C

YP

Contracts

& co

mmisioning

Info sharin

g

SCRs Learning

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 80%

68%76%

60% 64%56% 56% 60%

20%28% 24%

36% 36%44% 40%

28%

0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 4%

Overall RAG status by self assessment standards

Green Amber red

It is important to note here, agencies can overestimate or underestimate without realising it, since there is no hard and fast measure in which to distinguish between the three RAG values. Summary issues from the self-assessment return and direction of travel is reported below:

Management Commitment responsibility and policy procedure

Overall, the level of compliance in terms of management commitment remains positive with a greater level of clarity by agencies about the accountability and responsibility. Policy procedures are up-to-date and in line with latest national guidance for most agencies. In the past S11 assessments a number of single agency policy documents were at draft form or had been recently developed; the 2014 assessment shows more evidence of policy being embedded and in use.

Most agencies provided evidence of internal reporting mechanisms of any safeguarding concerns and relevant policy associated with these. This is supported by quality of improvement plans and quality of evidence.

All partners clearly identified senior officers who have specific responsibilities for leading the safeguarding agenda in their respective agencies. These lead officers also play a much more engaged role in multi-agency working, supporting and contributing to the NSCB subgroups.

However, small number of agencies who either have gone or are currently going through major restructuring process have indicated shortfalls and anxiety around clarity on responsibility and policy procedures. For example, the transformation

8

rehabilitation Act has a significant impact on the Probation Services. In the past, Norfolk Suffolk Probation Services used S11 very effectively and progressed its S11 arrangements. Following the move towards the National Probation Services and the inception of the Norfolk Suffolk Community Rehabilitation Company (NSCRC) both organisations were left somewhat ‘adrift’ and confused; NPS is waiting for the national guidance to come through and NSCRC is unclear about its relationship with NSCB. These were further discussed 1:1 on the challenge day and arrangements discussed to mitigate any risks in the interim period.

Safe workforce – recruitment, supervision and training

All agencies reported and provided evidence of robust recruitment policy and processes for safe recruitment. Techniques such as ‘Warner interviews’ have been used more than before and some of the agencies have taken advantage of the safe recruitment training offered by the NSCB. The process for staff induction is clear and mostly policy documents are available to the workforce via agencies’ intranet.

There has been a noticeable change in staff supervision arrangements. In the past (2012 assessment) NSCB observed nearly half of the staff did not receive any form of supervision and among those who had received supervision about half found it not useful at all. With the health care organisations supervision was non-existent. However, 2014 self-assessment agencies have recorded a higher level of supervision practice. Although it is not possible to evidence how effective and useful these supervision sessions are to the workforce without soliciting their views, it is a move in the right direction. Uptake of the places in NSCB supervision skills training also indicates a range of agencies making use of the opportunity.

Levels of training across agencies are sporadic and of concern although not at a critical level. Training requirements for different level staff according to their involvement with children and families are evidently unclear to most partner agencies. For example, where staff have less direct contact with children on a daily basis and the level of safeguarding training requirement for such groups. There are no clear training pathways or processes for individual training needs assessment in safeguarding training. Most worryingly, a large number of partner organisations are unable to provide any training data on what their current level of compliance is and what the multi-agency training needs might be for the respective organisation on the year ahead.

A number of district councils raised the appropriateness and relevance of the training contents of NSCB multi-agency training courses in relation to district council’s workforce. Some of the agencies who are providing their in-house mandatory induction (level 1) safeguarding training, have not had these validated by NSCB and it is hard to establish the quality and consistency in learning outcomes of these sessions. Training duration is also variable anywhere from an hour to a day. The NSCB multi-agency training opportunities are not utilised consistently across the agencies. Some agencies have been taking full advantage of the opportunities and others are not utilising it at all. While questions were raised at the challenge day to a number of agencies, there was no clarity about where (if at all) the training is being

9

accessed from if not NSCB. The Board has yet to understand the true picture of the training needs of the workforce and address the gaps individually by agencies and collectively by the Board.

Effective inter-agency working practice and sharing information

This remains an area of great concern across the agencies. Despite being highlighted locally and nationally, the need for better information sharing among agencies to improve safeguards for children remains an area where most agencies feel they need to improve.

The interagency sharing remains, as before, better at the strategic level where senior level staff participate in the county level strategic partnership boards, including the NSCB. However, it is not the same across operational levels. This has been a long standing issue in NSCB partner agencies and has been highlighted in the past. However some significant improvements were reported this time.

One of the key areas of improvement was the effectiveness in receiving feedback from MASH where a contact or referral was made to Children’s Services. This was highlighted in the 2012 self-assessment as one of the key barriers to effective, multi-agency working practice. At that time all district councils and a number of health care providers expressed their frustration about how they do not receive information about the outcome of a referral they have made to the Children’s Services. It was suggested at the time that the introduction of the MASH will improve feedback to referrers. In the self-assessment 2014 it was clearly evident that the process and practice has improved significantly. District councils and health agencies this time have reported that they now receive regular feedback and feel this has improved the partnership working practice.

However, overall clarity about interagency information sharing remains a challenge among NSCB partners. Although partners reported no lack of intention, clarity about how and when to share safely and legally is unclear and frustration remains high for many. Further clarity and multi-agency arrangements are needed on how information can best be shared, especially where the ‘legal boundaries of sharing and confidentiality’ are, and how to achieve the right balance in reaching the positive safeguarding outcome for children and families without breaching boundaries. It was suggested by agencies for the NSCB to initiate multi-agency work to offer some clarity.

Among the district councils, the sharing of information and interagency working practice has reportedly improved since the District Council Advisory Group (DCAG) started to meet regularly (e.g. licensing). Nevertheless there is still a significant level of disparity and shortfalls in effective information sharing and interagency working practice which the Board will need to prioritise.

10

Contracting and commissioning

Statutory partner agencies entering into a contract arrangement with a range of voluntary and private sector organisations to deliver service on their behalf is very common. During the past self-assessments, this was highlighted by agencies as ‘the unknown’ about the level of compliance and S11 standards of these commissioned organisations.

The NSCB carried out self-assessment with a small number of voluntary sector organisations and monitored their progress for two consecutive years (2010- 2012).

However, this time each partner agency entering into contract with Children Services have completed a self-assessment of their own practice. In collaboration with ‘Momentum’ (the voluntary sector umbrella organisation), and the Children Services Commissioners, a wider self-assessment was carried out and a much better picture was captured. All Momentum members were invited as a matter of ‘good practice’ and all contracted service provider agencies were further invited by children services commissioners to complete self-assessment. A total of 35 voluntary agencies completed and submitted the self-assessment (See full list on Annex: xx).

The process has resulted in: - some specific action for certain providers, - some action for groups of commissioned service providers, - identification of support and development work that will be shared between

commissioners, NSCB & Momentum and recommendations for the future.

Although this assessment only involved the contracted providers of Children Services, a clear picture of commissioned services emerged, which is critical to the Board. A few highlighted points are listed below:

o A number of large organisations which have longstanding contractual relationship with Children Services, for instance, Brake, Mathew project etc., have good arrangements and standards in place. Smaller organisations who are members of SAFER program, and receive support with policy and training also show a good level of compliance. However, this is not consistent across all areas of service, specially a number of specialist providers e.g. Child With Disabilities

o Across the organisations there is variation in understanding of NSCB priorities and learning from SCRs. There is evidence that organisations who engage with their Local Safeguarding Children Groups (LSCG) can demonstrate a clearer understanding and are able to evidence their approach to addressing NSCB priorities.

o Multi-agency training requirement across all sectors is difficult to assess, and the current NSCB training strategy/ competency framework does not fully reflect the voluntary sector’s training requirement accurately or appropriately, despite the current levels of take-up.

11

A number of improvement actions are in place and underway to address the issues identified.

Additional issues in relation to contract arrangements with large private sector organisations was discussed at the challenge day and are reported in the next section.

Learning from reviews

This was a new area added to the self-assessment 2014-2015 and it was interpreted by the agencies with some differences. Agencies who self-assessed as green, did so based on the fact that they are committed to participate in the case reviews when needed. However there is very little or no evidence as to how agencies embed learning from such reviews and evidence improvement in practice. The agencies who happened to participate in recent SCRs do have a good understanding of the process and are able to employ some of the learning, however, agencies who have not been involved in such reviews had more limited understanding.

This became further apparent in the challenge sessions: there is good intention and commitment at senior level to take learning forward, however the Board needs to make clear its expectations following such case reviews.

NSCB priorities – agency progress update

In March 2014, the NSCB agreed its business priorities, based on a range of evidence and feedback. Priorities were identified as neglect; sexual abuse of children; and child sexual exploitation, as areas of critical vulnerability for children and young people in Norfolk, together with scrutiny of the consistency and quality of front-line practice, and hearing the voice of the child. Together these provide a focus for the work of the Board in challenging the overall pace of improvement and ensuring that there is a measurable impact on the experience and quality of service for children and young people and their families.

This self-assessment included a progress recording template to gather evidence on what initiatives have been undertaken by its partner agencies. Returns from this self-assessment are variable. The agencies who had been part of one or more priority themed task and finish groups and either leading or making a contribution to the Board’s initiatives reported noticeably higher levels of awareness. However this is not consistent, as a number of agencies did not appear to have taken any proactive action to address the priority issues. It became clear from the challenge day discussions that further clarity on the Board’s expectations of partner agencies would be helpful. Good progress was made on 2 out of 5 priority areas, e.g. child neglect and child sexual exploitation.

12

Learning from challenge day

Key issues

As stated earlier the challenge day provided a unique opportunity for open discussion on issues raised from the self-assessment for its depth and length across sector and partnership, and consult agencies on possible ways forward. It further provided opportunities for the Board Chair to seek feedback on the effectiveness of the NSCB Board itself as a collective entity and ways to improve it. The key points are highlighted below:

Information-sharing arrangements This remains an area of common emphasis, and over the years several Serious Case Reviews have put emphasis on improving information sharing. Information sharing continues to be a challenging area for most agencies. The Board may wish to make it a priority to develop necessary arrangements to ensure information is shared appropriately and any difficulties in sharing information is appropriately resolved.

S 11 standards for large contractors The Board’s expectation from the larger private sector organisations who provide services on statutory agencies’ behalf and operate at the ‘arm’s length’ of statutory agencies must be clarified. A number of District Council (DC) agencies raised concerns about monitoring standards of NORSE. Also a ‘proportionate requirement’ of safeguarding standards for small grants need to be in place. Embedding S11 criteria into all contracts which is proportionate, but effective, needs to be a priority in achieving consistent and high standards across the county.

Elected Members In the light of the recent high profile cases of historical CSA issues – it was deemed important for the Board to take proactive action which will facilitate safeguarding of children as well as protect elected members. Therefore, the chair was to initiate a discussion with the district council chief executives to explore how this can be ensured following the May 2015 elections. These should include Training and DBS checks for members as well as including safeguarding children information in members’ induction pack.

13

Safeguarding Training Greater clarity is needed about the collective expectations of the Board and its partners for sector/ agency-specific safeguarding competencies. Although there is an NSCB competency framework in place, not all agencies are either aware of this or sure how their agency fits within it. This applies to statutory and voluntary agencies alike.

While the NSCB training program is valued by some of the partner agencies who make best use of it, uptake and impact of this safeguarding training is inconsistent and unclear. Following the revision of the intercollegiate document in March 2014, there are greater efforts by acute and community health alike to offer more training for health staff, not only in traditional forms but also in alternative ways (online). However, clarity is needed as to how it fits with the NSCB training competency framework (which is based on Working Together)

There needs to be further clarity about NSCB’s expectation for the front line and non-frontline district council workforce including staff and volunteers. This may include specific safeguarding training or with focus on specific issues e.g. Domestic Violence (DV) and Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).

The level of uptake of NSCB multi-agency training is of concern. A number of DCs have extremely low or no attendance at the NSCB training over the last two years. The Board needs to establish systematically the reasons and address them appropriately via single and multi-agency initiatives.

Lessons from reviews Over the years NSBC have carried out a number of SCRs and MARs. The NSCB arranged roadshows to disseminate the learning, which were well attended and positively evaluated. However, the in-house dissemination of learning, arranged by individual agencies has not yet been systematic and consistent.

Although there is a good level of engagement across the partnership in assisting carrying out serious case reviews, the impact of learning and the evidence of improvement is yet to be evidenced. This is an area of work currently being looked at by SCRG and PIQAG.

The Board needs to lay out clear expectations not only for participating in the SCRs but also how the issues are addressed afterwards. The Board may also seek evidence of progress in the future not only from cases reviewed in Norfolk but also cases from other areas which have relevance to a particular sector/ agencies.

14

Visibility of Health

During the course of the S11 challenge discussion it was confirmed that all provider agencies currently have named doctors, nurses and midwives (as appropriate). However, it was not clear how these clinicians actively contribute to the work of the Board and the partnership working. Single representation arrangement at the Board on behalf of three health acute trusts has not been effective, as each trust has its very own set of challenges.

Absence/ delay in recruitment of the designated Doctor in the NHS designated team has been a risk to both the Board and to health professionals. However arrangements are now established for a Named GP post. Covered through a job share. Some named doctors from hospitals are reaching out to neighbouring counties for advice, which they do not feel is ideal.

Board advisory groupsTo ensure better engagement of all partner agencies and have sector wise focus on issues and concerns a number of advisory groups were formed. The District Council Advisory Group (DCAG) has been very successful in its role as confirmed by all its members. There are clear priorities and members found the group to be extremely helpful.

Health Advisory Group (HAG) has achieved a lesser degree of success, as the focus of the group has been disparate, given the range and variation in health challenges and issues. Some potential members have not yet joined the group (e.g. East Anglian Ambulance). The group itself is viewed by some members as ‘an unnecessary duplication of the clinical coordination group’ which is trying to act between the NSCB Board and health sector without being effective. The subgroup should review its membership and purpose to improve its effectiveness as a Board’s subgroup.

Effectiveness of NSCB

NSCB members expressed their satisfaction with the Board and confirmed their enhanced confidence in its leadership. Most members found the opportunity to have a one to one challenge day discussion with Chair to be extremely useful. However, on written feedback some suggested they did not feel the sessions itself actually improved their understanding of the Board’s priorities. Members suggested, in the future, it would be better if such challenge discussions are carried out in multi-agency forum.

15

Conclusion

As stated at the beginning, the NSCB Section 11 self-assessment is a step towards ensuring that the people and organisations that have a duty under section 11 of Children Act 2004 are fulfilling their statutory obligations.

This report has summarised the key findings from the section 11 self-assessment returns and outcome of the challenge days with agencies in Norfolk. While the direction of travel is positive and encouraging, there is further to go overall. Improvements can only be achieved through working together by effective information sharing, which itself is an area of challenge at present.

16