Working Together for Children: A Critical Introduction to Multi-Agency Working 9781350001169, 9781350001190, 9781350001183

Citation preview

i

Working Together for Children Second Edition

ii

ALSO AVAILABLE FROM BLOOMSBURY Early Childhood Studies, Ewan Ingleby Early Childhood Theories and Contemporary Issues, Mine Conkbayir and Christine Pascal Rethinking Children and Inclusive Education, Sue Pearson

iii

Working Together for Children A Critical Introduction to Multi-​Agency Working Second Edition Gary Walker

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

iv

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK  USA www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First edition published 2008 Second edition published 2018 © Gary Walker, 2018 Gary Walker has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-​1-​3500-​0116-​9 PB: 978-​1-​3500-​0115-​2 ePDF: 978-​1-​3500-​0118-​3 ePub: 978-​1-​3500-​0117-​6 Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Cover image © FatCamera / GettyImages Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com. Here you will find extracts, author interviews, details of forthcoming events and the option to sign up for our newsletters.

v

This second edition, like the first, is dedicated to my wife, Julie, and two children, Josh and Roseanne, for their enduring support and tolerance of my academic pursuits. Our two dogs, Oscar and Ruby, should also receive a mention for their patience in waiting for their walks until I had ‘just finished the next paragraph’.

vi

vii

Contents

Acknowledgements  ix Preface to the Second Edition  x Glossary of Key Terms  xi

Introduction  1

Part I  General Frameworks and Principles 1 What Is Multi-​Agency Work?  7 2 Key Factors in Multi-​Agency Work  23 3 Information Sharing  37 4 Multi-​Agency Assessments  51

Part II  Multi-​Agency Work in Specific Contexts 5 Children Requiring Early Help  71 6 Children in Need of Support  83 7 Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  95 8 Children in Need of Protection  109 9 Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System  129

viii

viii

Contents

10 Looked-​After Children  143

Part III  Moving Forward with Multi-​Agency Work 11 Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-​Agency Work  159 Conclusion  171 Appendix: Points to consider and suggestions for the reflective box exercises  177 Bibliography  191 Index  201

ix

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due:  to Rachel Shillington, Maria Giovanna Brauzzi and Mark Richardson from Bloomsbury, for their faith in me and their very helpful suggestions and advice; to Leeds Beckett University, for enabling me to weave the writing of the book into my regular work; to my colleagues on the Education, Childhood and Early Years team for their encouragement; and to my students for discussing and challenging ideas during seminars. Information regarding government legislation and guidance is reproduced and used in accordance with the Leglisation.gov.uk ‘Open Government Licence Version 3.0’.

x

Preface to the Second Edition

I was delighted with the general response to the first edition of this book. It seemed to fulfil my wish to create a work that addressed a gap in the market by both describing and analyzing, in one place, the legislation, processes and systems that underpin multi-​agency work in England. Students in a variety of courses have told me they found it really useful in supporting their studies, and it has been heartening also to see the book appearing on the essential reading lists of university and college courses. In this second edition, I have endeavoured to retain the accessible writing style which proved popular in the first edition, while addressing possible shortcomings of that edition. Some feedback I received suggested that by focussing on the complexities, tensions and problems that can and do arise from multi-​agency working, the book came across as somewhat depressing. While not shying away from the knotty, structural difficulties inherent in multi-​agency working in this second edition, and crucially while not also promulgating glib solutions, I have included a chapter on skills and factors to enhance multi-​agency working, in recognition of the importance of practitioners working through some of the intricacies to arrive at a positive outcome for children and families. Furthermore, I have updated the book to reflect changes in government policy and consequent changes in practice since the first edition was published in 2008. Consequently, there are several new chapters covering multi-​agency working with various groups of children, identified by category for intervention by various services. The philosophy behind the book, however, remains the same as in the first edition. Starting with the assumption that multi-​agency working is absolutely necessary for good outcomes for children, the aim of the book is to support and encourage readers to understand the nature of some of the inherent complexities of such work. This should help readers to develop a constructive and practical approach to working with children and families with a view to helping the children reach their full potential. In this sense, even if some of the detail of the legislation and guidance changes over time, the general and enduring issues covered in the book will remain relevant. While this second edition, like the first, is deliberately not heavily based on research papers nor written in an abstruse manner, I have tried to create a scholarly and accurate work. I therefore take full responsibility for the content of the book and for any errors contained within it.

xi

Glossary of Key Terms

Absolute right:  A right under the Human Rights Act 1998 that is not a qualified right, in that an absolute right should not be breached under any circumstances. For example, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone has the right to not to be tortured, and this is an absolute right. Where an absolute right clashes with a qualified right, the absolute right is upheld. For instance, a child has an absolute right to protection from significant harm, and therefore the right under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 of a parent to privacy in a family home (a qualified right) can be breached (for example by the police and a social worker entering the home) to protect a child. See also qualified right. Advocacy:  a process in which one person aims to support and uphold the rights of another person, or ensure the voice of another person is heard. Appropriate adult:  an adult who is present during the interview between the police and a child or young person who has been arrested on suspicion of a crime. This can be a parent or carer, a social worker or similar. The role of the appropriate adult is to advise the young person, ensure the interview is carried out fairly and properly, liaise between the young person and the police, and support the welfare of the young person. A young person must not be interviewed, or be asked to sign any statement in the absence of an appropriate adult. See also criminal justice system, youth offending team. Care plan:  the multi-​agency plan for a looked-​after child which provides details of the child’s living arrangements, how the child’s health, educational and leisure needs are being met, any equipment, clothing or funding the child needs, and any foreseen changes to the child’s circumstances. It is the social worker’s responsibility to ensure a care plan is completed. See also looked-​after child, personal education plan (PEP). Care proceedings:  the process whereby, often following Section 47 enquiries, a social worker attends the family court to ask for a legal order in respect of a child in need of protection, usually where the level of harm is considered to be so severe that it is not safe to leave the child at home. See also child in need of protection, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm. Child in need of protection:  a child who, under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm and who therefore has the right to be protected from that serious harm. These children have a greater level of need than a ‘child requiring early help’ and a ‘child in need of support’. They may need to be removed from the care of their parents or main carer in order to keep them safe, but may also remain living at home. See also care

xii

xii

Glossary of Key Terms

proceedings, child in need of support, child protection plan, child protection review conference, child requiring early help, core group, initial child protection conference, looked-​after child, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm, strategy discussion. Child in need of support:  a child who, under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, or whose health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, unless they receive some support. These children have a greater level of need than a ‘child requiring early help’ but not as great a level of need compared with a ‘child in need of protection’ or a ‘looked-​after child’. All disabled children are automatically classed as being in need of support. They live at home with their parents or main carers. See also child in need of protection, child requiring early help, child with special educational needs and disability (SEND), looked-​after child. Child protection plan:  the formal multi-​agency plan that follows a decision at an initial child protection conference that a child is at continuing risk of significant harm. The plan is designed to keep the child safe and provide support services to address the areas of concern. See also child in need of protection, child protection review conference, core group, initial child protection conference, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm, strategy discussion. Child protection review conference:  the multi-​agency meeting that reviews progress of the child protection plan. Each child protection review conference should consider whether or not the child needs to remain subject of a child protection plan and, if so, whether or not any changes are needed to the plan in order to keep the child safe and address areas of concern. The members of the core group usually attend this meeting. The first child protection review conference should be held within three months of the initial child protection conference, and thereafter every six months. See also child in need of protection, child protection plan, core group, initial child protection conference, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm, strategy discussion. Child requiring early help:  a child with a relatively low level of need who may be living in challenging circumstances which may hinder their health or development in some way. They live at home with their main parents or carers. See also child in need of support, child in need of protection, early help, looked-​after child, Team Around the Child (TAC). Child with special educational needs and disability (SEND):  a child who has either a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age, or who has a disability or chronic health condition which prevents or hinders them from making use of the facilities generally provided for others of the same age. These children are automatically classed as children in need of support, although support for children with SEND is organized differently compared to other children in need of support. See also child in need of support, Education Health and Care (EHC) plan, special educational needs (SEN) Support. Common assessment framework (CAF):  the assessment that is offered to children and families by staff in universal services, where a child in the family is deemed to be a child requiring early help. See also child requiring early help, targeted services, universal services.

xiii

Glossary of Key Terms

Community of practice:  the term given to a group of people with a shared interest, who set about deepening their knowledge by communicating with one another. This can lead to effective working at an individual and organizational level, and to the team building up a long-​term sense of shared identity and values. Confidentiality:  the protection of sensitive information about a person. Information is confidential where it is of a sensitive nature (for example, related to private family matters, health issues or sexual orientation) and not already lawfully in the public domain or available from a public source, or has been shared in circumstances where the person giving the information understood that it would not normally be shared with others. See also consent, information sharing, personal information, proportionality. Consent:  permission or agreement given by one person to another person to, for example, share information about them or to administer treatment. Consent must be informed, which means that the person giving the consent should understand all aspects of what they are agreeing to. Consent can be explicit (verbally or in writing) or implicit (signalled by the person’s behaviour). Parents and children who are deemed to be capable are able to give consent. See also confidentiality, information sharing, personal information, proportionality. Core group:  the relatively small group of professionals from various agencies who, following a child being made subject of a child protection plan, meet to formulate the detailed plan and decide who will take responsibility for the various elements of it. Core group membership always includes the social worker and their line manager, the parents and professionals with direct involvement with the family such as school or early years staff, and the health visitor or school nurse. See also child in need of protection, child protection plan, child protection review conference, initial child protection conference, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm, strategy discussion. Corporate parenting:  the collective responsibility of all agencies involved, directly or indirectly, with a looked-​after child in order to achieve good parenting. The idea is that everyone concerned considers looked-​after children as their own and does whatever they can to help and support them. See also looked-​after child. Criminal justice system:  The set of services and organizations and the related systems and processes, supported by government, to tackle crime and impose penalties on those who break the law. This includes the police, courts, prisons, probation service and youth offending teams. See also appropriate adult, youth offending team. Early help (or early intervention):  Intervention by staff in universal services in response to signs that a child may require support to help them overcome a problem. A  common assessment should be offered to the family. The intention of early help is to ‘nip problems in the bud’ by providing timely and relevant local services to prevent problems escalating. Early help does not only mean help provided to children in the early years; although it may include this group, early help might be provided to a child of any age. See also common assessment framework (CAF), universal services.

xiii

xiv

xiv

Glossary of Key Terms

Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan:  A multi-​agency plan put in place for children with complex needs such as special educational needs, a disability or chronic health condition. This plan is coordinated and overseen by the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) within the child’s school. See also child with special educational needs and disability (SEND), special educational needs (SEN) support. Family Group Conference:  a particular approach to child support planning, usually used for a child requiring early help or a child in need of support, which emphasizes and recognizes the strengths within families to provide solutions. The process is led by family members, who plan and make decisions for the child, with the advice and support of professionals. The idea is that this process enables families to take control of the plan. See also child in need of support, child requiring early help, family support plan. Family Support Plan:  the multi-​agency plan that emerges after an assessment of the child and family’s needs has taken place. It is usually used in relation to a child in need of support (where a statutory assessment has taken place) but might be used in relation to a child requiring early help (where a common assessment framework –​CAF –​has taken place). For a child in need of support, it may be referred to as a child-​in-​need plan. See also child in need of support, child requiring early help, common assessment framework (CAF), statutory assessment. Guidance (or national guidance):  government guidance that accompanies legislation, usually produced to provide more detail on how the law should be carried out in practice. Some guidance is statutory, meaning that the relevant services and authorities must follow the guidance. For example, the Children Act 1989 is the legislation, but in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, the relevant statutory guidance is called Working Together to Safeguard Children. See also legislation, state, statutory. Individualized barriers:  barriers to multi-​agency worked which are located within individuals and are therefore susceptible to being changed. See also structural barriers. Information sharing:  the exchange of information or data between two parties. See also confidentiality, consent, personal information, proportionality. Initial child protection conference:  the multi-​agency meeting that takes place following Section 47 enquiries, where a child is considered to be in need of protection, but a decision is made that it is safe to leave the child at home. The only decision the initial child protection conference can make –​based on whether or not the child is considered to be at continuing risk of significant harm –​is whether or not the child should be made subject of a formal multi-​agency child protection plan. See also child in need of protection, child protection plan, child protection review conference, core group, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm, strategy discussion. Inter-​agency work: can be used interchangeably with multi-​agency work, to mean at least two workers from different agencies (or services) who carry out essentially different roles and who are engaged in joint work. See also inter-​professional work, multi-​agency work, multidisciplinary work.

xv

Glossary of Key Terms

Inter-​professional or interdisciplinary work:  at least two workers from different professions or job roles, who are engaged in joint work. They may or may not be employed by the same agency. For example, a Health Visitor and a General Practitioner are employed by the same agency (Health), but a Health Visitor and a Social Worker are employed by different agencies (Health and Social Care, respectively). Can be used synonymously with multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work. See also inter-​agency work, multi-​agency work, multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work. Lead Professional:  The person from a universal service who is appointed to oversee the work that flows from a common assessment framework (CAF). They have the responsibility of coordinating the actions described in the CAF, of being a single point of contact for families, and ensuring that the other agencies deliver the services promised in the CAF. See also common assessment framework (CAF), universal service. Legislation:  a law or collection of laws produced by successive governments which often reflect the beliefs and priorities of the particular government in power at the time. See also guidance, state, statutory. Local authority:  the administrative body at a local level that provides and oversees a variety of services such as social care or housing. Looked after child (or child in care):  a child who is in the care of the local authority, either as a result of a court order or a voluntary agreement between the parents and the local authority. They usually live away from their parents or main carers, but may in exceptional circumstances live at home with their parents or main carers. See also care plan, child in need of protection, child in need of support, child requiring early help, local authority, personal education plan (PEP). Multi-​agency work:  at least two workers from different agencies (or services) who carry out essentially different roles and who are engaged in joint work. See also inter-​agency work, inter-​ professional work, multidisciplinary work. Multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work:  at least two workers from different professional disciplines or job roles who are engaged in joint work. They may or may not be employed by the same agency. For example, a Health Visitor and a General Practitioner are employed by the same agency (Health), but a Health Visitor and a Social Worker are employed by different agencies (Health and Social Care, respectively). Can be used synonymously with inter-​professional or interdisciplinary work. See also inter-​agency work, inter-​professional or interdisciplinary work, multi-​agency work. Parental responsibility:  technically, this means the legal rights, duties, powers and responsibilities a parent has for a child. In practice, it is often used to mean that whoever has parental responsibility for a child (and this can include other family members or adults other than biological parents, as well as local authority social workers) has the right to make decisions about the child’s care and upbringing.

xv

xvi

xvi

Glossary of Key Terms

Partnership:  a term that is always used positively, partnership usually refers to a situation where at least two people from different professional backgrounds work together for a shared interest or goal. Personal education plan (PEP):  the multi-​agency plan focussed on supporting the education of a looked after child. It should contain a record of the child’s educational progress, short and long term educational target, a note of how all agencies involved will support the child, and the child’s views on what will support their learning. It is the social worker’s responsibility to ensure a PEP is completed. See also care plan, looked-​after child. Personal information:  Information which could identify a living person, such as name, date of birth, address. See also confidentiality, consent, information sharing, proportionality. Proportionality:  the notion, within the information-​sharing guidelines, that when one person shares information with someone else, they should only share the information that is needed to identify the problem or support the child. The sharing of information should be proportionate and should not include unnecessary information based on speculation or ‘gossip’. See also confidentiality, consent, information sharing, personal information Qualified right:  A right under the Human Rights Act 1998 that is not an absolute right, in that a qualified right can be breached in certain circumstances. For example, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, everyone has the right to privacy, but this is a qualified right, as certain authorities, such as the police, can enter the private space of a home to arrest someone if a crime is suspected to have occurred, or if a child within the home is deemed to be in need of protection from significant harm. See also absolute right. Safeguarding children:  Although mentioned in the Children Act 1989, this is a term that since about 2003 has become more widely used in the everyday language of practitioners. In its fullest use, it is ‘safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’. The term encapsulates the prevention of harm, protection from harm and the provision of wider support for children and families. What used to be called ‘child protection’ is therefore seen now as one part of a broader agenda of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Section 47 enquiries:  the enquiries, led by the social worker, that follow a referral to children’s social care that a child is or may be suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm. The enquiries may include discussions with professionals from various agencies, interviews with the child and parents, and a medical assessment of the child. The aim is to determine the level of risk to the child. See also care proceedings, child in need of protection, child protection plan, child protection review conference, core group, initial child protection conference, significant harm, strategy discussion. Significant harm:  serious harm that a child has experienced or is likely to experience that will have a severe impact on the child’s health or development. Significant harm is categorized into four areas: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. See also child in need of protection. Social construction (of childhood):  The idea that what constitutes ‘childhood’ is socially constructed across time according to the prevailing social and cultural norms and imperatives of

xvi

Glossary of Key Terms

different time periods, rather than childhood being a universal state across history. Social construction can also be applied to other areas, such as gender (what constitutes masculinity or femininity) or criminal justice (what constitutes a crime), as ideas about these change over time. See also criminal justice system. Social exclusion:  exclusion from the mainstream rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority of people, usually as a result of poverty or some other characteristic such as lack of education or race or disability. Social housing:  housing owned by local authorities or voluntary organizations that is allocated on the basis of need, and which is rented out at affordable rates. See also local authority, voluntary organizations. Social pedagogy:  an approach to working with children with its origins in mainland Europe, and which has now been adopted by many local authorities and other organizations in England. It refers to a holistic approach to the care and education of the ‘whole’ child across services in a manner which avoids a narrow focus on one aspect, such as education. Social policy:  government policies towards social welfare and protection. They often reflect the beliefs and priorities of particular governments that create them. For example, the Children Act 1989 emphasized the importance of the ‘family’ against the ‘state’ and enshrined in law the idea and practice of minimum intervention by services in the lives of families. In doing so, it reflects the position of the then Conservative government which was in power, who developed the legislation. See also guidance, legislation, state, statutory. Special educational needs (SEN) support:  a situation in which a child is deemed to have special educational needs (SEN) and the educational setting can alone provide and coordinate the support that is required. The SEN support is therefore not multi-​agency in nature, as it only involves one agency, usually the school or early years setting. See also child with special educational needs and disability (SEND), Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. State:  in social policy, the ‘state’ is used to mean the government, with all its apparatus, legislation and policy at its disposal. For example, ‘state intervention’ in family life could mean that the police and social workers (as representatives of the ‘state’) have the right to enter a private home in certain circumstances, to protect a child. See also guidance, legislation, social policy, statutory. Statutory:  required, permitted, or enacted by statute (a law or government guidance). For example, a statutory assessment is a social care assessment which a social worker has to offer or conduct in response to a child in need of support or in need of protection. See also guidance, legislation, state, social policy. Statutory assessment:  the assessment that must be offered (as it is required under statute) where a child is deemed to be in need of support, or in need of protection. Social workers lead on this multi-​agency assessment. See also guidance, legislation, social policy, state, statutory. Strategy discussion:  the discussion that takes place, as part of Section 47 enquiries in relation to a child in need of protection, between the social worker (and possibly their line manager), the

xvii

xvi

newgenprepdf

xviii

Glossary of Key Terms

referrer if a professional (members of the public making referrals would not be party to these discussions), the police and other agencies where appropriate. The purpose of the discussion is to share information and plan the enquiries to follow. See also child in need of protection, child protection plan, child protection review conference, core group, initial child protection conference, Section 47 enquiries, significant harm. Structural barriers:  barriers to multi-​agency working that are inherent to the work, and which are not located within any individual and cannot usually be changed. See also individualized barriers. Targeted services:  services that are only offered to children who meet certain criteria, as they are more specialist services. Targeted services include, for example, educational psychology, mental health services and speech and language therapy. See also universal services. Team Around the Child (TAC):  usually used in relation to children requiring help, the TAC refers to a range of different practitioners from different services working together to support a child and their family. The members of the TAC are not part of one team, but rather come from their own professional services, and remain accountable to their own line managers, while working with each other to support the child, usually for a specified period of time, to agree, implement, monitor and review a support plan. Some local authorities use the phrase Team Around the Family (TAF) or even Team Around the Child and Family (TACF) as an alternative, and they mean the same thing as TAC. See also child requiring early help, local authority. Universal services:  services that are offered to all children who do not have to meet any criteria to use the service. Universal services include schools, family doctors and early years settings. ‘Universal’ does not necessarily mean free of charge. See also targeted services. Voluntary organizations (or voluntary sector):  organizations that are independent of government or local authority control that provide a service to meet an identified need. Any profits made are ploughed back into the organization rather than distributed to employees or shareholders. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is an example of a very large voluntary organization, although much smaller ones exist as well, often at a local level, such as foodbanks. Youth offending team:  the team of professionals from various discipline backgrounds, who are part of one team who work in the same office, and who work with children involved in the criminal justice system. The usual minimum composition is a probation officer, social worker, police officer, health professional and an education professional. It may also be called the youth offending service. See also appropriate adult, criminal justice system.

1

Introduction Parameters of the book Prior to entering a career in higher education, my working life was centred on supporting children and families in a variety of settings. I have worked with and for children, from birth to age 17, within the voluntary sector, a local authority special school, local authority children’s social care departments, health authority settings and a local education authority. These experiences have provided me with a breadth and depth of understanding which informs, and hopefully enriches, this book. My aim is for the book to be a useful and honest account which increases the reader’s understanding of the complexities of multi-​agency work. Multi-​agency working, for the intended benefit of children of families, is of course not new: teams of professionals from a variety of agencies and backgrounds have long been engaged in assessing, supporting and protecting children who find themselves in a variety of circumstances (Cheminais, 2009). The Every Child Matters programme (DfES, 2004), which applied to England, further emphasized the prime importance of multi-​agency working with and for children and families, at both strategic and operational levels. This was a major shift in practice and philosophy –​from an essentially ‘silo’ based way of working towards a fully integrated model  –​and it proved to be more complex and problematic than perhaps envisaged (Fitzgerald and Kay, 2008). Nevertheless, the expectation and enactment of a multi-​agency approach to working with families became deeply engrained in practice, and the spirit of this multi-​agency approach persists in spite of the political changes since 2010 in England, which have focused not on funding complex structures to support integration of services and new ways of operating, but upon austerity aimed at reducing the national annual deficit. This has impacted upon all services for children and families, who have had to adjust to this new age of budget cuts, and have resorted to working more closely together to find creative ways to save money, including the pooling of budgets and resources, not born out of government support for such an ideological base but from a belief within the services themselves in the efficacy of such an approach, and a pragmatic need to survive (see, for example Hastings et al., 2015). This reality underpins the need for this book. If services are to work ever more closely together, it is imperative that the inherent complexities of multi-​agency working, some of which are structural in nature and cannot be resolved, are unraveled and understood. While multi-​agency working is of course absolutely necessary for good outcomes for children (Gasper, 2010), it is vital that

2

2

Working Together for Children

readers understand the attendant complexities so that they can work towards developing practical approaches with colleagues, children and families, including the use of their own interpersonal skills. The aim of this book, therefore, is to provide, in a single volume, factual, descriptive and analytical material on the systems and processes of multi-​agency work with children and families as they exist and are developing. Readers should be able to get much relevant information about multi-​ agency work, and the evaluation of it, from this single volume. The book is an introductory text, and as such is not a detailed review of research or available literature in the area of multi-​agency work. Many of the issues I  discuss in relation to the complexity of multi-​agency working stem from my experience of working in various multi-​agency settings and as such cannot be referenced to academic literature. I have therefore had to make choices regarding the selection of material to include in the book, for which I take full responsibility. A final point worth making here is that although the details of the policy, legislation and guidance described in this book may change over time, the issues, tensions and complexities discussed are enduring, and as such are the more important aspect of the book. I have used the term ‘children’ to include all children and young people up to the age of 18, except where I am specifically referring to older children, when the term ‘young people’ is used. I acknowledge that the experiences of ‘children’ and ‘young people’ are qualitatively different; however, in order to avoid constant repetition of the clumsy phrase ‘children and young people’ I have generally used ‘children’ to refer to both. Although (for the sake of keeping the book to a manageable size) the focus is on multi-​agency systems in England, where appropriate, references are made to differences in approach in the other three countries of the United Kingdom. Detailed discussion of these is not possible, but readers are given references to follow up if they wish. Furthermore, the general principles and critical issues that arise out of a focus on England are applicable to a much wider –​even an international –​audience.

Outline of the book The book is divided into three parts. Part I –​General Frameworks and Principles –​concerns general issues related to multi-​agency work. The aim here is to provide the reader with detailed information about, and critique of, some key areas. Therefore, Chapter  1 begins by asking, ‘What is multi-​agency work?’ The history and current definitions of multi-​agency work are discussed. This includes consideration of why multi-​agency work is necessary, and the key agencies involved in such work. Chapter 2 considers ‘key factors in multi-​agency work’. This includes exploring the general functions of agencies in multi-​agency work, examining different models of multi-​agency working, as well as characteristics of good multi-​agency working and some key barriers to effective multi-​ agency working Chapter 3 examines ‘information sharing’ as it relates to multi-​agency working. This is an area than can cause professionals confusion and uncertainty. Current legislation and guidance is discussed in an attempt to clarify some of the issues involved.

3

Introduction

Chapter 4 discusses ‘multi-​agency assessments’ in detail, explaining and critiquing the national guidance. This includes the common assessment framework for children requiring early help, as well as the statutory assessment for children in need of support, or who may be at risk of significant harm and therefore in need of protection. Effective assessment of children’s needs lies at the heart of good multi-​agency practice, and therefore full coverage of this is appropriate. Part II of the book –​Multi-​Agency Work in Specific Contexts –​focuses on six areas of intervention by services in detail, and forms the central practice-​based planks of the volume. These are predicated on the idea that children have increasingly complex levels of need or vulnerability, as reflected in the national guidance on multi-​agency working, Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b). Hence, Chapter 5 discusses multi-​agency working in relation to ‘children requiring early help’ and offers an analysis of the current systems and processes designed to support the early identification of difficulties and early intervention by services in order to meet the needs of these children who are at risk of not meeting their full potential without such support. Chapter 6 covers multi-​agency working for ‘children in need of support’ as defined in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. These are children who have a deeper level of need than children ‘requiring early help’ as they are unlikely to achieve a ‘reasonable standard of health of development’ unless they receive support. The definition of a child in need of support includes disabled children, and therefore Chapter 7 is devoted to examining multi-​agency working in relation to this diverse group of children. Chapter 8 explores the complexities of multi-​agency working for ‘children in need of protection’ as defined in Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. These are children who are, or may be, at risk of ‘significant harm’ and therefore who require timely and comprehensive assessment or intervention in order to ensure their safety and well-​being. Chapter 9 examines multi-​agency working in relation to ‘children and young people in the criminal justice system’. While there are likely to be a range of services involved in supporting these young people, a particularly interesting characteristic of the main service involved, the youth offending team, is that it is a fully integrated team containing workers from a variety of professional backgrounds under one roof, and this itself raises some interesting and pertinent issues. Chapter  10 concerns multi-​agency working as related to ‘looked-​after children’, who are also known as children in care. As a result of their often traumatic pre-​care experiences and potential isolation from support networks once they enter care, these are among the most vulnerable children with whom professionals may work. Therefore a full understanding of the current systems and processes is necessary in order to maximize effectiveness of the services which aim to support these children. Part III of the book –​Moving Forward with Multi-​Agency Work –​contains Chapter 11, entitled ‘Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-​Agency Work’. While the central chapters of the book explore the complexities associated with multi-​agency working and try to offer some solutions to navigating these complexities, this final chapter is wholly devoted to a detailed discussion of how specific skills, approaches, attributes and wider factors can contribute to effective multi-​agency working and therefore to positive outcomes for children and families.

3

4

4

Working Together for Children

The conclusion to the book draws together key emerging themes and learning points from across the book, as a way of summarizing the many commonalities, complexities and contradictions that surface when different agencies work together for children.

Learning tools used in the book Reflection on practice is a theme running throughout the book. To assist readers with this, there are two types of boxes used to contain material in addition to the main body of the text. The first are information boxes, giving further factual details of particular areas related to multi-​agency work. These are marked with the following symbol:

The second type of box contains reflective exercises. These boxes are marked with the following symbol:

These have fictitious case studies, vignettes or statements. Where details of children are given, an ethnic origin is always mentioned. This is to highlight the importance of noting and considering any additional needs which might arise from the ethnic background of the child; if ethnicity was not cited, readers may make assumptions about it. Each case study or vignette is followed by questions for readers to consider. These questions are designed to stimulate reflection on the issues raised in the text, and to highlight the complexity of multi-​agency work. Appendix One of the book provides suggestions for readers to consider in trying to answer the questions. While these suggestions cannot always provide definitive answers, they will hopefully stimulate further thinking and understanding of some of the issues associated with multi-​agency work. Finally, each chapter ends with ‘further reading’ to signpost for the reader where additional reading and learning can be found. These references are annotated to help the reader navigate this reading. The final entry here in each chapter refers the reader to a more challenging academic piece of work, usually an academic journal article, to support readers in extending their thinking and understanding.

5

Part I General Frameworks and Principles

6

7

newgenprepdf

1 What Is Multi-​Agency Work? Chapter Outline Introduction What is multi-​agency work? Why multi-​agency work? The history of multi-​agency work Who might be involved in multi-​agency work? Conclusions

7 7 8 10 16 22

Introduction This chapter provides the broad context for an understanding of multi-​agency working. It begins with a full consideration of what multi-​agency working actually is and why it is considered important for the achievement of good outcomes for families. The history of multi-​agency work from its origins in Victorian times to the present day is then tracked using key legislation and social changes as focal points. Finally, the general responsibilities of some of the main agencies involved in supporting families are discussed.

What is multi-​agency work? There are various definitions of multi-​agency work available (see, for example, Percy-​Smith, 2005; Fitzgerald and Kay, 2008; Glasby and Dickinson, 2008; Morris, 2008b; Cheminais, 2009). Of these, two have been chosen. The first is that multi-​agency work is ‘a range of different services which have some overlapping or shared interests and objectives, brought together to work collaboratively towards some common purposes’ (Wigfall and Moss, 2001: 71). The second, containing a striking image, is that multi-​agency work is about ‘bringing various professions together to understand a particular problem or experience . . . In this sense they afford different perspectives on issues at hand, just as one sees different facets of a crystal by turning it’ (Clark, 1993: 220).

8

8

Working Together for Children

What all the definitions provided have in common is the idea of different workers from different agencies joining together with a shared aim of understanding, and then trying to solve or alleviate a problem. It is important to distinguish multi-​agency work from either multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work. Multi-​agency work necessarily involves the collaboration of workers from different agencies, say Children’s Social Care, Health and Education. On the other hand, multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work (the two terms are used interchangeably here) may involve the collaboration of workers from different agencies, but does not necessarily do so. For instance, as Wilson and Pirrie (2000) point out, the working relationship, in a school, between a nursery teacher, nursery nurse, learning support assistant and classroom assistant would be multidisciplinary –​they are from different disciplines –​but are all housed within the single agency of Education; indeed, they all work in the same school. Another example may include the collaboration of a general practitioner, health visitor and a hospital consultant –​they represent different professionals but within the single agency of Health. This is, therefore, an example of multidisciplinary or multi-​professional work, but not of multi-​agency working. There is a further distinction to be made: that between inter-​agency and multi-​agency work. Wilson and Pirrie (2000) engage in a helpful discussion about the terminology here (actually in relation to multidisciplinary work, but the issues are the same) and argue that the choice of prefix can be determined by three factors:  the number of workers involved, the territory involved and the extent to which new ways of working are created. Thus, for them, inter-​agency work only involves two professionals from different agencies, while multi-​agency work involves three or more. Furthermore, this work, if it is to be fully multi-​agency in nature, would have to involve the workers entering into each other’s territory or space (physically as well as culturally) and then creating or reproducing together a new and common understanding or pattern of working. Interestingly, however, the national guidance for England on Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) seems to use the two prefixes of ‘inter-​agency’ and ‘multi-​agency’ interchangeably without expanding on any further discussion or explanation. In order to navigate through this semantic discussion, and to clarify the focus of this book, the term ‘multi-​agency work’ is used throughout to mean at least two workers from different agencies who carry out essentially different roles and who are engaged in joint work to address the needs of children.

Why multi-​agency work? This may seem like a strange question to ask, but it is worth reflecting in some detail on the rationale for, and potential benefits of, multi-​agency work. The starting point is that multi-​agency work is a statutory requirement upon all agencies and all professionals who work within them. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 confers a duty on the whole local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need within their area. An expectation of multi-​agency working to support children with special educational needs and disabilities is reiterated in Section 25 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Section 22(3) of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on the local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in care within their

9

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

area. Clearly the local authority includes a number of agencies, and therefore implicit in this duty is the need for them to work together to achieve this aim. There is, however, a more direct duty placed upon agencies in Section 27 of the Children Act 1989. Under the terms of this section, if approached, agencies must respond positively to requests for help from another agency, as long as the request is in keeping with their role.

Reflections: Case study –​ Amy A social worker contacts a primary school because they are undertaking a full assessment of Amy, a white British girl aged 6. Appropriate parental consent has been gained. They ask the school to provide the following information: The child’s educational progress. The child’s social functioning in school (friendships, relationships with peers and staff). The school’s perceptions of the child-​parent relationship, based on what the school have observed of this. The family’s financial circumstances: household income and outgoings, any debts they may have, etc. 1. Based on Section 27 of the Children Act 1989, which of the assessment elements do you think the school is obliged to provide? 2. Which element do you think the school would have a right to question or refuse to do? 3. If the school does refuse to carry out any of these requests, how might they go about doing this without harming the relationship with the social worker?

This requirement to respond to requests for help has been strengthened by the introduction of the Children Act 2004. Section 10 of the Act states that agencies must make arrangements to promote cooperation between one another to improve the well-​being of children. This is a clear addition to the requirements of Section 27 of the Children Act 1989. Now, instead of, as it were, waiting around to be asked to help, agencies must proactively work with each other to see how they can forge links and create systems of working that actively and demonstrably support children and families. This is a much more robust requirement: for agencies to be actively engaged with each other for the benefit of families. While the legislation provides the impetus for multi-​agency working, one would hope that workers do not engage in multi-​agency work simply because they are told they must do so. It is much more desirable for them to see and understand the potential benefits to the children and families of so doing. There are compelling reasons related to good practice as to why professionals should engage in multi-​agency work, as discussed in a variety of works such as Percy-​Smith (2005), Fitzgerald and Kay (2008), Glasby and Dickinson (2008), Morris (2008a), Cheminais (2009), Davis (2011) and Smith (2013). These can be summarized as follows: 1. To co-​ordinate the work of those involved. For instance, if a social worker and health visitor are both involved in supporting a parent with a young child, co-​ordination may ensure that

9

10

10

Working Together for Children

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

they visit the family on alternate weeks and do not, say, both arrive at the house at the same time (unless by arrangement). Multi-​agency work can lead to sharing of resources. A social worker may plan to engage in some direct work with a child as part of an assessment, and has the time and other materials necessary, but not an appropriate venue. The child’s school may offer the use of a room within its premises to carry out this work. Multi-​agency work can lead to joint funding of projects. Under the Every Child Matters programme this became much more prevalent. Especially for complex circumstances, creative and flexible responses involving a number of different agencies offering funding can sometimes provide a solution. Professionals from different agencies can develop new knowledge and skills from one another as they share expertise and different approaches to meeting children’s needs. Multi-​agency work can lead to creative solutions to complex problems as different workers share their ideas and skills. Multi-​agency work should lead to better outcomes for children, as their holistic needs are addressed. If there are several agencies involved, the child’s educational, health, and social care needs (to name just three key areas) should be properly assessed and met.

The history of multi-​agency work Having set the scene by exploring basic definitions and concepts of, and the rationale for, multi-​ agency working, it is important now to place such work within a historical context. This is important because an appreciation of the development of a multi-​agency approach helps with the understanding of current philosophy and practice. Accordingly, the very beginnings of structured work with families can be traced back to medieval times, and centres on supporting the poor. However, such a long history is not relevant to the central tenet of this book, and therefore the historical context will begin in the Victorian era. Webb and Webb (1963) give a detailed and informative account of the history of relief for the poor in England and Wales, while Byrne and Padfield (1985) provide an illuminating summary of the sequence and context of events from before the fourteenth century, and the reader is directed to these volumes for deeper consideration. Needless to say, the history of how services in various guises developed to support children and families is complex and convoluted, and therefore a summary, based on the works mentioned above, will suffice here in order to give an overview of the key factors at play. Limited space prevents a full exploration of the differences in this history between the four countries of the United Kingdom, but brief references are made to these where appropriate. A watershed piece of legislation, which will be used as the starting point for the historical journey, is the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. This was termed the New Poor Law (as there had been a much earlier Poor Law) or the Victorian Poor Law, and it had a quite dramatic effect. The need for a new law arose because the existing legislation and structures aimed at supporting the poor were deemed unworkable as the cost of providing help for the poor rose fourfold between

11

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

1784 and 1818. The New Poor Law introduced a standardized and rigorously enforced system across the country. The central structure of this Act was the workhouse. Under the New Poor Law, what was called ‘outdoor’ relief (the provision of money, food, clothes and so on to allow people to continue to live as they chose) was restricted to the aged, sick or disabled. Able-​bodied individuals and their family, on the other hand, who applied for assistance would only be supported within the workhouse, and this was called ‘indoor’ relief (since the individual or family came indoors). Furthermore, conditions within the workhouses were deliberately made worse than those found outside in order to deter entry and to induce the poor to find work outside, even though there were many more people than jobs available, and many people were desperate to work but could not find employment.

Information: The New Poor Law A central part of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, or New Poor Law as it came to be known, was the concept of ‘lesser eligibility’. In other words, the standards of living within the workhouse were deliberately made lower than might be found outside, in order to make it less eligible (or desirable) to go inside the workhouse than stay on the outside and fend for oneself. The underlying notion of the Act was that of fostering independence and self-​reliance and reinforcing the inherent value of work. It cemented the notion of the deserving versus the non-​deserving poor, where the deserving poor (the aged, sick or disabled) were seen as being unable to help the fact that they could not work. The non-​deserving poor, on the other hand, were those able-​bodied people not in work, and the assumption was they could work, and that they were lazy for not doing so.

Unsurprisingly, many people despised the New Poor Law because it divided families who entered the workhouse, as men and women were separated. Furthermore, it humiliated those inside as idle, and they lost the right to vote (until 1918). Many people chose to take their chances outside of the workhouse, living in dire poverty as a result because there were no official channels of support unless they were demonstrably aged, sick or disabled. The psychological effect of this legislation was huge, as poverty came to be seen as the fault of the individual, the poor were viewed as ‘less eligible’ people and poverty was seen as something to be relieved rather than prevented. One can see remnants of this mindset in current UK social policy, particularly in relation to welfare benefits, where subsistence payments are kept deliberately low in order to induce claimants to find work, and where claiming benefits is seen by governments as a lifestyle choice by the claimants (Chakelian, 2015). In order to avoid the worst consequences of the New Poor Law –​either the separation of families within the workhouse or starvation levels of poverty for those who did not enter the workhouse –​many self-​help organizations began to be established. These were deliberately designed to offer help and charity to those who needed it, including those who were not eligible for ‘outdoor’ relief. These organizations were very successful, and importantly they remained independent of any government control or interference. Such was the level of need that their number grew rapidly,

11

12

12

Working Together for Children

and by 1869 the Charity Organization Society was set up to co-​ordinate their work. This society introduced: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

systematic methods to help families individual, disciplined, organized and consistent casework record-​keeping of work with families criteria on which decisions about entitlement were made monitoring of progress of the work

Here we see the beginnings of careful, methodical work with families in order to meet assessed and identified needs. While not identifiable yet as what we would recognize as multi-​agency working, this laid the foundations for modern-​day approaches to supporting children and families. The first national group of workers that could be linked to modern-​day equivalents were probation workers, which were established in the late 1800s. Their role was to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ first-​time young offenders who were brought before the courts for petty offences. The idea was to prevent the ‘merry-​go-​round’ of these children being subject to arrest, prosecution and sentencing, only to be rearrested because their circumstances had not changed, and their offending behaviour was seen as linked to these circumstances (for example, stealing because they were hungry due to chronic poverty). The aim of the work of probation officers, therefore, was to address these circumstances to prevent reoffending. It is interesting to note that the precise language here which describes the role of the probation officers is still present in Section 35 of the Children Act 1989, dealing with supervision orders (where children are deemed to be at risk of significant harm, even though they are living at home), which states that while a supervision order is in force, it shall be the duty of the supervisor to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ the supervised child. These modern-​day supervisors are social workers and their role is similar to that of the probation officers in the nineteenth century: to address the child’s social circumstances with a view to promoting their welfare and thus improving their social functioning and life chances. By 1895, medical social workers, called almoners, began to apply casework principles to medical patients. Here, the circumstances which led many people to hospital admission (poor diet, poor housing, disease and so on) were tackled in an effort to prevent repeated hospital admissions. These two sets of professionals –​probation workers and almoners –​had to work with a range of other workers (such as doctors, nurses and housing association workers) to try to meet the needs of their clients, and so the early version of multi-​agency working was born. For the next forty or so years, the status of such professions grew as the idea emerged that ‘social work’ should be a benefit to all, not a charity to a targeted few. The concept of individualism gave way to collectivism, and many liberal reforms were passed by Parliament. At the same time, there continued the steady development of voluntary groups, and some of the ‘giants’ still with us today emerged, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and Dr Barnardo’s, or Barnardo’s, as it is now called. The importance of a profession, such as social work, whose workers could link the support available to those who needed it, was further emphasized by the birth of the Welfare State in 1945, which was designed as an impetus to improve the state of the British nation, and which covered the following areas:

13

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

1. Social Security (benefits) 2. health services 3. education 4. housing 5. personal social services for physically disabled people, elderly people, mentally ill people and deprived children Here we see the real cementing of a basic concept of multi-​agency working which had begun in the late nineteenth century: a worker from one agency or group contacting another service or group in order to invoke effective support for families across a range of social needs. In January 1973, a 7-​year-​old girl named Maria Colwell was killed by her stepfather in Brighton, England, despite there having been intervention in the family from social workers and others. The inquiry and moral panic that followed led to a number of policy changes in England (Parton, 1985). Chief among these was an emphasis on multi-​agency teamwork, manifested by the establishment of the modern system for responding to concerns about children, still in force largely unaltered today. Hence, multi-​agency case conferences (now called initial child protection conferences) were introduced along with formal reviews (now known as child protection review conferences) as key decision-​making apparatuses. The intention was to ensure childcare planning was informed by accurate information, clear decision-​making, informed medical and legal advice, and authoritative intervention (Parton, 1985). A further boost to emphasising the importance of multi-​agency working was provided by the Children Act 1989. This piece of legislation emerged during the tenure of the Conservative government in England and reflects their political philosophy (see the Information Box below). The Children Act 1989 was produced ostensibly in response to a scandal which emerged in Cleveland, an industrial area in the northeast of England, in the summer of 1987, when what were seen as overzealous social workers removed children from their parents after two consultant paediatricians had diagnosed child sexual abuse. Pragnell (2002) provides a fuller account of this episode for readers who wish to find out more about it.

Information: The political context of the Children Act 1989 Burden (1998) explains that the political philosophy of the Conservative government during the 1980s, also known as neo-​liberalism, perceived the Welfare State as damaging the operation of the market system, and the state in general as capable of violating individual rights if it was not limited in its function. The events of Cleveland in England, where workers were perceived to ride roughshod over the rights of parents, were used to justify a change of approach in childcare law. The Children Act 1989 therefore reflected this ideology, emphasising the importance of the ‘family’ against the ‘state’ and enshrining in law the idea and practice of minimum intervention by services in the lives of families.

13

14

14

Working Together for Children

The Children Act 1989 is a huge piece of legislation, covering almost every aspect of the lives of children, and it is not possible to cover it all in detail here. The particular sections that are relevant to multi-​agency working will be discussed in the chapters that follow. For now, it is important to note that one of the key principles which the Children Act 1989 reinforced was that of partnership: of different services working with children, with parents and with one another to support and protect children. Hence the inclusion of the Section 27 duty upon services to co-​operate with one another which was mentioned earlier in this chapter. One of the reasons for introducing this duty was that it was believed that more effective multi-​agency co-​operation may have ameliorated what was seen as the excessive responses of workers during the Cleveland affair. The change of government in 1997 marks another watershed moment in the history of multi-​ agency working. The Labour government that took office had a diametrically opposed view of the role of the state compared to the Conservative government that preceded it. The Labour approach to social welfare was to see intervention by the ‘state’ (or representatives of it in the form of a range of workers) as beneficial to families, as evidenced in the extensive Every Child Matters programme which was initiated in 2003 (DfES, 2004). The tragic murder by her carers of a girl called Victoria Climbié in London, England, in 2000, gave the government the opportunity to justify significant action to reflect their philosophy. The inquiry that followed her death, chaired by Lord Laming (2003), led ultimately to arguably the most radical change in children’s services yet seen: the Every Child Matters programme (DfES, 2004). The argument put forward was that, as Laming himself (2003: 6) stated, it ‘is not possible to separate the protection of children from wider support to families’. Therefore, early identification of problems and early intervention to address these was seen as essential to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This was to be predicated on a more integrated approach to working with children and families in which everyone working with and for children had a duty to try to ensure that children met five shared desirable outcomes.

The five desirable outcomes for all children of the Every Child Matters programme were that all children should: 1. be healthy 2. stay safe 3. enjoy and achieve 4. make a positive contribution 5. achieve economic well-​being

Accordingly, some of the key elements of Every Child Matters were: 1. Professionals were expected to work in multidisciplinary teams based in and around schools and children’s centres. They were expected to provide a rapid response to the concern of frontline teachers, childcare workers and others in universal services.

15

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

2. Local authorities were expected to work closely with public, private and voluntary organizations. 3. Services became more integrated under a director of children’s services in each area, as part of multi-​agency children’s trusts. 4. Integrated inspections of services were introduced to judge how well services worked together to benefit children in a particular area. These changes have led to a significant shift in strategic and operational structures and systems. For example, multi-​agency safeguarding hubs (MASH) were established with local authorities to try to ensure ‘early and effective identification of risk, improved information sharing, joint decision-​ making and co-​ordinated action’ (Home Office, 2014:  1), along with multi-​agency looked-​after partnerships (MALAP), whose function is to agree and co-​ordinate the enacting of local priorities for looked-​after children. These changes had a direct impact on the practice of frontline workers, and facilitated the implementation and continuation of daily close multi-​agency relationships to support children. When the government of a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party came to power in 2010, there was an immediate shift in emphasis as far as social care, social change and multi-​agency working was concerned. Almost immediately upon taking office, the government closed down the vast Every Child Matters website. Where the focus under the Labour government had been upon investing large sums of money in additional or restructured services with the aim of tackling social exclusion and improving the life chances of those seen as disadvantaged, the Coalition government was chiefly concerned with driving down the financial deficit faced by the country (Watt, 2013). Accordingly, there was the implementation of significant cuts to local authority budgets. Any focus upon augmenting multi-​agency services was born not out of a sense of idealism, but out of a need to save money by pooling resources across services. One key area in which the government spent additional money was in education, with the expansion of the Academy and Free School programme, as the government encouraged as many schools as possible to leave local authority control and become more autonomous in terms of key decision-​making when it involved such things as the curriculum, term dates and pay and conditions for staff. These schools developed links with sponsors such as businesses, universities and community groups who are responsible for improving the performance of the school (West, 2015). The government had a very clear and strong focus upon education as the key means to improve a child’s life chances; the role of multi-​agency working in this regard was played down or ignored altogether. This is well illustrated by the change of name of the relevant government department –​from the Department for Children, Schools and Families under the previous Labour government, to the Department for Education first under the Coalition government, and then under the Conservative government which took office following the general election in May 2015. Under the Conservative government, not only did the focus upon education continue (rather than a focus upon funding a multi-​agency approach), so did the emphasis on deficit reduction, which was to be achieved chiefly by cutting the cost of public services (Thomas, 2016).

15

16

16

Working Together for Children

Despite this loss of focus by central government on the importance of multi-​agency working to tackle social exclusion, the rationale and impetus for multi-​agency working remains strong. Practitioners from all agencies who work with children and families are expected to, and continue to, cooperate with one another to achieve better outcomes for their clients. The spirit of Every Child Matters remains alive and well, even if the official endorsement of it has vanished. The extent to which these workers always share a common understanding of what constitutes ‘better outcomes’ will form part of the discussion in future chapters of this book.

Who might be involved in multi-​agency work? What follows is not an exhaustive list of every agency or professional that might work with a family. Included are some of the key and most common agencies, along with a description of their main responsibilities. This section is introductory, designed to present an overview of the agencies involved. Many of the issues and activities referred to here will be discussed in detail in later chapters. Some key references for further reading for each subsection are placed alongside each heading. An important distinction needs to be made between universal and targeted services. Universal services are offered to every child or family, while targeted ones are only offered or delivered to a specific group of children or families who fulfil certain criteria. Universal services are not necessarily free, and there may well be a charge for using them; the term simply means that the services are available for any child. Furthermore, the order in which these services are presented does not represent or imply a hierarchy.

Education (DfE, 2014b) Schools Schools are a universal service, although some parents can choose not to send their children to school, as long as they provide efficient education for their children at home or elsewhere. The compulsory age for a child to start full-​time education in England and Wales is at the beginning of the school term after the child’s fifth birthday. In Scotland, the school year begins in mid-​August and therefore children usually start school between the ages of 4.5 and 5.5 years old. In Northern Ireland, the school starting age is as low as 4, depending on the date on which the child was born. Children in all four countries are expected to receive education until the age of 16. In England, however, young people aged 16 must then do one of the following until the age of 18: 1. stay in full-​time education (school or college) 2. start an apprenticeship or traineeship 3. work or volunteer (for twenty hours or more a week) while in part-​time education or training For children below statutory school age, children’s centres or other early years settings are available. The principal role of both schools and children’s centres is to provide education and care by

17

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

implementing the national curricula and guidance for all children, from birth to 5 (DfE, 2014d) and from 5 to at least 16 (DfE, 2014b). Within schools, there can be a variety of job roles: teachers, teaching assistants, nursery nurses, lunch-​time supervisors, caretakers and learning mentors. Learning mentors are non-​teaching staff who provide a bridge across academic and pastoral support areas within schools with the aim of ensuring that pupils and students engage more effectively in learning and achieve appropriately (Halder, 2014).

Education services Within any local authority, there is likely to be a range of specialized education services. These are targeted services, which provide expert support, usually to teachers or directly to children within schools on a variety of matters to support particular groups of children who usually have special educational needs or a disability. These could include children with a physical disability, dyslexia, dyspraxia (impairment of movement), autistic spectrum disorder, hearing impairment or visual impairment. In addition, educational psychologists have a responsibility for assessing children who have been identified as possibly having special educational needs, and then supporting the education of these children. The education welfare service has a responsibility for supporting the school attendance of pupils who are of statutory school age (although many schools now have their own dedicated attendance officers employed directly by the school).

Children’s social care (HM Government, 2015b) Social workers The job role that is perhaps most closely associated with children’s social care is that of the social worker. They provide a targeted service based on need. They might be organized in various ways, into teams with different specialities across local authorities. Nevertheless, they all have a responsibility to assess and provide, or co-​ordinate the provision of, services for children who are in need of support, or in need of protection, or who are looked after by the local authority. The role of social workers and other practitioners in relation to each of these groups of children is discussed in more detail in the relevant chapters of this book.

Family support workers As well as social workers, local authorities employ family support workers, who offer targeted support according to an assessed need. These workers are usually not qualified as social workers, and they can provide a variety of support services to children and families. Job titles may vary from family aide, to outreach worker or even resource worker, and their functions can be similarly varied. Some will work directly with parents to develop parenting skills. Others will work more directly with the child, befriending them and providing enriching experiences. Others, indeed, may do both. A qualified social worker may have overall responsibility for the work, and family support workers operate closely with them.

17

18

18

Working Together for Children

Health Midwives (NCT, 2015) Midwives offer a universal service to every expectant mother. According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1976), the word ‘midwife’ means ‘with woman’. This gives a good indication of the general role of the midwife: supporting expectant mothers (and fathers where appropriate) during pregnancy, throughout labour and the postnatal period up to twenty-​eight days if required. As well as the obvious role of delivering babies, the midwife helps mothers to make informed choices about the services and options available to them, carries out clinical examinations and provides health and parent education.

Health visitors (Health Careers, 2016b) Health visitors offer a universal service to every family with children under the age of 5. They support and monitor the child’s development, and offer advice to parents on a range of issues such as feeding, sleeping, teething, immunization programmes, parenting classes, managing difficult behaviour and any special needs a child may have. Health visitors can provide information on local support groups and childcare options, or direct parents to more specialized help in response to such matters as serious illness, bereavement, domestic violence, family conflicts or disability.

School nurses (National Careers Service, 2016) Offering another universal service to all children of statutory school age, school nurses fulfil such functions as managing health conditions, health screening, implementing immunization programmes, providing health education, tackling bullying and promoting children’s emotional well-​being. They can also support teachers in delivering aspects of the school curriculum, such as personal, social, and health education and citizenship. They act as a point of contact on child protection issues. Taken together, midwives, health visitors and school nurses offer a universal health monitoring and support service to every child from before birth up to at least the age of 16.

General practitioners (Health Careers, 2016a) General practitioners, or GPs, as they are usually referred to, offer universal medical help as and when required to all children and families. They can prescribe medication to treat illnesses and conditions or refer children on for more specialized treatment as necessary. They treat the whole person by considering physical, psychological and social aspects of care. They are based in surgeries in the community but make home visits as required.

Mental health workers for adults There are a variety of mental health workers who can offer intervention to parents or carers as a targeted service for those who need it. This could include psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, psychologists, counsellors or other therapists. Some may be employed by a voluntary

19

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

organization. Broadly speaking, they can be divided into two groups: those supporting adults with some form of diagnosable mental illness (psychiatrists and community psychiatric nurses) and those helping adults with a psychological problem or a barrier to personal growth (psychologists, counsellors or therapists).

Mental health workers for children Similarly, there are a variety of mental health workers who can offer intervention to children as a targeted service for those who need it. As with adults, they can be divided into two groups: those supporting children with some form of diagnosable mental illness (child psychiatrists and community psychiatric nurses) and those helping children with a psychological problem or a barrier to personal growth (child psychologists, counsellors or therapists, such as play therapists, music therapists or art therapists).

Police (Home Office, 2016a) The police potentially respond to any situation, and therefore can be said to perform a universal duty. In general terms, their function is to prevent crime, and to protect the public, including, of course, children at risk of abuse or exploitation. They gather evidence if a criminal offence is suspected to have occurred, and refer evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. A decision is then made as to whether a case will be taken forward to court. In relation to children, the work of the police is usually associated with child protection. The scope of this is broad and includes: 1. investigating offences against children 2. youth justice commitments (safeguarding the welfare and rights of child victims, witnesses and offenders) 3. care issues (responding to emergency situations and assisting local authorities) 4. working with schools on truancy, bullying and exclusions 5. policing local concerns (including child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children through the internet) Police services have dedicated child protection units (CPU) that carry out much, but not all, of the above work. For instance, young offenders are more likely to come into contact with mainstream uniformed police or police officers specifically tasked with monitoring and supporting young offenders. Uniformed community police officers or support officers often work closely with schools. Police working within child protection units are generally non-​uniformed and specially trained officers, who nevertheless have full powers of arrest.

Youth offending teams (Home Office, 2016b) Youth offending teams (YOT) are made up of representatives from the police, probation service, children’s social care, health, education, drugs and alcohol misuse and housing officers. They offer a targeted service for those young people who are, or may be, engaged in some level of offending

19

20

20

Working Together for Children

behaviour. They respond to the needs of these young people in a comprehensive way. They identify suitable programmes to address the needs of the young person with the intention of preventing further offending. They also write pre-​sentence reports, where requested by the court, for young people who have been convicted in court. These describe the circumstances of the crime, factors involved and the risk the young person poses to the public. The court considers this report before passing sentence.

The probation service (National Probation Service, 2016) The aims of the probation service are to protect the public, reduce reoffending, punish offenders appropriately in the community, ensure that offenders are aware of the effects of crimes on victims and communities and to rehabilitate offenders. Targeted at adult men and women who have committed offences, the probation service supervises offenders in the community who are subject to a court order, or who have been released on licence from prison. Probation staff write pre-​sentence reports for adult offenders who have been convicted in court.

Social housing (Shelter, 2016) Social housing is normally provided by councils and not-​for-​profit organizations such as housing associations. It is affordable housing designed to support those on low incomes. The law requires authorities to allocate tenancies only to people included on a housing register (or waiting list) and in accordance with a published allocation scheme. It is open to authorities to decide who does or does not qualify. However, the allocation scheme must give priority (called ‘reasonable preference’) to certain specified households or individuals, for example: 1. homeless people 2. those in unsatisfactory, insecure or temporary accommodation 3. those who have a medical condition 4. those who need to live in a particular area for social or welfare reasons. This might include a child in the household attending a special school in the area, or a young person leaving care who needs to be close to people who can support them 5. those who have an urgent housing need, for example, being at risk of domestic violence or harassment.

The voluntary and community sector Through the provision of targeted resources, the voluntary and community sector has an important role in shaping and delivering services to children and families. They do this by complementing statutory services. Their work could include: 1. carrying out independent assessments of families 2. providing direct support or funding to children and families

21

What Is Multi-Agency Work?

The sector –​called the third sector because it belongs neither in the public or private sector –​ includes organizations that vary enormously in size, from small local groups staffed exclusively by volunteers, to large national charities that are household names, such as Barnardo’s or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). However, all of them are independent of government and all are self-​governing. Furthermore, their primary purpose is to promote social, environmental and cultural objectives in order to benefit society as a whole, or particular groups within it. They are not established for financial gain, and they reinvest any surpluses to further their primary objectives. The benefits of such organizations are that they can often provide localized services (which only families living in a certain area or postcode can access), and they can be seen by families who use them as less stigmatizing than local authority children’s social care services.

Parents or carers Although parents are not part of a formal agency, it is crucial not to neglect the role of parents or carers. Generally, parents or carers should be encouraged to take part in the decision-​making of any agency or agencies at whatever level considered necessary. However, here it is appropriate to mention the term ‘parental responsibility’. This is a legal term introduced in Section 2 of the Children Act 1989 and is defined as ‘all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority’ that go with being a parent. This means that parents who have parental responsibility have a duty to care for and protect their children, and that they have a right to make decisions regarding their children’s future. It is worth noting that parents who have parental responsibility do not lose this even if their children are taken into care and made subject to a care order. In this circumstance, parents technically share parental responsibility with the local authority. Only when a child is formally adopted do the birth parents then lose their parental responsibility. All parents do not, however, automatically have parental responsibility for their children. Parental responsibility is limited to: 1. all mothers 2. fathers who were married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth, or who later married the child’s mother 3. fathers registered on the birth certificate as the father 4. parents (female and male) who adopt a child or children This means that, technically, unmarried fathers and stepfathers do not have parental responsibility unless they: 1. make a parental responsibility agreement with the child’s mother, as long as she agrees. This agreement must be witnessed by the court to be valid. 2. apply successfully to the court for a parental responsibility order. There is no connection between parental responsibility and child maintenance, or child support. All parents (either by birth or by adoption) have a duty to financially support their child, whether

21

22

22

Working Together for Children

or not they have parental responsibility. Parental responsibility is also unconnected to any right a parent has over contact with the child, or regarding children living with a particular parent.

Conclusions Modern multi-​agency work –​where a number of professionals from different service disciplines work together for the common good of a child –​has a long history which reaches back to the nineteenth century. There are compelling reasons why this approach is helpful in meeting the holistic needs of children. The roles of the various agencies involved, and of key professionals within them, have been considered in this chapter. The central argument of this book is that multi-​agency work is potentially full of complexity, tensions and pitfalls. It is an analysis of these matters that forms the main content of the chapters that follow, for if workers are to engage successfully in multi-​agency work, it is important they understand the attendant complexities. The next chapter begins this process by considering the key responsibilities of agencies in multi-​agency work, models of working in partnership, and some features of positive multi-​agency working, as well as some of the key barriers that have been identified.

Further reading Allen, C. (2003), ‘Desperately Seeking Fusion:  On “Joined-​up Thinking”, “Holistic Practice” and the New Economy of Welfare Professional Power’, British Journal of Sociology 54 (2): 287–​306. This more challenging academic journal article paper argues that joined-​up thinking, while seen as necessary to provide a comprehensive service to families, can lead to the development of a welfare professional power which ultimately works against the interests of recipients of the service. Anning, A., D. Cottrell, N. Frost, J. Green and M. Robinson (2010), Developing Multi-​Professional Teamwork for Integrated Children’s Services: Research, Policy and Practice, 2nd edn, Maidenhead: Open University Press. This thoughtful book brings together lots of excellent discussions about the advantages of multi-​ agency working, as well as some of the problems that emerge when the idea of multi-​agency working is implemented in practice. Wigfall, V. and P. Moss (2001), More Than the Sum of Its Parts? A Study of a Multi-​Agency Child Care Network, London: National Children’s Bureau. This short volume is a good introduction to multi-​agency working. In describing a particular multi-​ agency project in London, England, it makes reference to some interesting wider points regarding the nature of multi-​agency working.

23

newgenprepdf

2 Key Factors in Multi-​Agency Work Chapter Outline Introduction General functions of agencies in multi-​agency work Models of multi-​agency work Characteristics of good multi-​agency working Key barriers to effective multi-​agency working Conclusions

23 23 25 27 29 35

Introduction Having considered the general background to multi-​agency working in Chapter  1, this chapter begins with a summary of the generic multi-​agency responsibilities of services engaged in such work. Two models of multi-​agency work are then described to provide an overview of how the work might be structured and conducted. Central characteristics of good multi-​agency working are then explored. The idea of multi-​agency work, where workers from different professional backgrounds meet together to plan and deliver support to children and families, sounds simple enough. However, such work is inherently more complex than might initially be considered, and this chapter therefore ends by identifying and discussing some of the key barriers to effective multi-​agency working.

General functions of agencies in multi-​agency work All agencies engaged in multi-​agency work share common responsibilities in terms of multi-​agency working (HM Government, 2015b). These shared roles are many and varied, and might vary across individual agencies. They include: 1. Monitoring children’s development and welfare where necessary. This would involve services gathering information to enable them to safeguard the child’s welfare by responding

24

24

Working Together for Children

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

appropriately in a multi-​agency arena where necessary. This might include seeking parental consent to make a referral for support from another agency, or making a formal referral to children’s social care regarding a child protection concern. Sharing information with other agencies as required. This might be reactive (responding to a request for appropriate information) or proactive (sharing information as necessary and, where needed, with appropriate consent having been gained). Liaising with parents or carers. Workers within services should discuss some initial concerns about individual children with parents or carers. There may well then be ongoing dialogue between parents and agency staff. Referring to other agencies or services as required. Professionals may gain parental consent to make a referral for support services for particular children. These support services could include health, education, children’s social care or those provided by the voluntary sector. Services may also need to make child protection referrals to children’s social care if they have some evidence the child may be at risk of significant harm. In these circumstances, workers within the referring agency have to make a judgement as to whether it is appropriate to either seek parental consent for the referral, or inform the parent that the referral is being made, or neither. If this last option is deemed appropriate, the agency will make the referral to children’s social care without the parents’ knowledge. Taking part in decision-​making. Where there are a number of agencies involved in a piece of work with a family, then all involved have a responsibility to take an active part in decision-​ making. This could include telephone conversations as well as taking part in planning or other similar meetings. Taking part in assessments. Where another agency is leading an assessment of a child, then services have a duty to take part appropriately in that assessment. This will usually involve the provision of information relating to the child that is relevant to the service’s core functions. For example, for schools and early years settings, this would be likely to include the child’s educational performance and progress, but may also include observations of child–​parent interactions at the beginning or end of the school day, or of the extent to which parents or carers engage with the school, including attendance at such events as parents’ evenings. Advocating for the child, parent or carer where necessary. Clearly, workers within services often build positive and supportive relationships with parents or carers. They may therefore have a role in acting as an advocate for them. This could range from relatively simple actions such as allowing parents to use the office telephone to make lengthy calls to a benefits agency in an effort to resolve an issue of finance, to helping parents write a letter of complaint to another service (and perhaps using the office computer for this), to supporting a parent over a particular aspect of the child’s care or welfare. For example, a school or early years setting, or health visitor, may feel it appropriate to support a parent in securing respite care from children’s social care for a child with special needs, because the professional concerned believes that it is in the child’s and the parents’ best interests that this service is provided. A further element of the advocacy role is that services should be prepared to challenge one another where necessary, if they believe the best interests of the child may be compromised by a particular decision that has been made by another agency.

25

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

Reflections: Case study –​ Jenny Jenny is 11 years old, white, British, and is in Year 6 at school. She has been in foster care for about a year, after sexual abuse by her father came to light. She is on a care order, and has contact with her mother about once every two months. She cannot live with her mother because her mother has not fully accepted the extent of the abuse, and continues to see Jenny’s father. Jenny has been maintained in her present primary school via children’s social care transport. It is January. Children’s social care has decided that they want Jenny to move to a new school at Easter to be nearer the foster placement, as the transport is proving too costly. The school is deeply unhappy with this, as Jenny is settled in school. Her Standard Assessment Task tests (SATs) are due to take place in May. Jenny would be moving to a high school near the foster placement in September. 1. How do you think the school should respond to this scenario? 2. What arguments could the school bring to bear if they decided to challenge children’s social care on this decision? 3. How can the school act as an advocate for Jenny, and maintain a positive relationship with children’s social care?

Models of multi-​agency work The way in which the various services work together to support children and families varies according to the situation. This working together is also called partnership, and various models of partnership have been suggested, as discussed, for example, by Percy-​Smith (2005) and Cheminais (2009). In the section that follows, two models of such partnership will be discussed. The first dates back to 1995 but nevertheless provides a durable framework for considering how different levels of partnership can exist and be effective, which is why it is included in this book. In this ‘Levels of Partnership’ model produced by the Department of Health (DH, 1995) four sequential levels of partnership are identified: Level 1 –​providing information –​is the most basic level of partnership and typically involves giving clear and accurate information and checking it is understood. For example, this could include a school contacting children’s social care to make a referral regarding a child experiencing neglect. Level 2 –​involvement –​is still predominately passive. It may involve, for example, receiving information or observing meetings without taking an active part in the process, especially decision-​making. To continue the example above, the social worker receiving the referral may then process this within the office, and arrange for a follow-​up visit to the family or school. Level 3 –​participation –​is seen as active involvement, for instance, contributing to discussions and decision-​making at meetings or in other arenas. Should children’s social care arrange an

25

26

26

Working Together for Children

initial child protection conference in respect of the neglected child in the above example, then those agencies, and the parents attending, could well be operating at this level of participation, as they would be expected to contribute to the decision as to whether or not the child needs to be made the subject of a formal child protection plan, according to the criteria laid down. Level 4 –​full partnership –​includes the following characteristics: 1. Shared values; partners share fundamental values –​for example, that the priority of any joint work is the welfare of the child. 2. A shared task or goal; partners have a common understanding and agreement of what the work is attempting to achieve. 3. All parties contribute resources and/​or skills; there is the opportunity for all concerned to provide positive input into the work. 4. Trust between partners; all agencies concerned have confidence in the ability of the other parties. 5. Negotiation of plans; areas of work, priorities, details of tasks to be undertaken are decided together, and no agency is left out of these discussions. 6. Decisions are made together; the direction of the work, any changes or new priorities are jointly discussed and negotiated. Once again, no agency is isolated from these decisions. 7. Mutual confidence that each partner will deliver; where agreement has been reached on which agency will perform certain tasks, all parties are confident that this work will actually take place. 8. Equality or near equality between partners; all agencies are able to contribute, and these contributions are valued by all. Contributions are not ‘weighted’, so that no agency has more prestige or kudos than others. 9. Choice in entering the partnership; all parties should join the endeavour out of a genuine desire to support the children and families concerned, and not because they may have been co-​opted or coerced into the work. 10. A formalized arrangement for agreed working; the plans, and subsequent work, should be written and formally shared and agreed upon. Formal written minutes of meetings should also be shared and agreed upon. It should be explicit as to which individual or agency has any ‘final say’, particularly where any disagreement exists between parties. 11. Open sharing of information; parties should not keep any relevant information back. If any professional is unsure on the protocol for sharing information, they should be able to ask. 12. Mechanisms for monitoring, reviewing and ending the partnership; the progress of the shared work should be formally and jointly monitored and reviewed. It should be explicit when, or to what extent, the initial goals have been achieved. A joint and –​once again –​formal decision should be made to end the partnership for a particular piece of work. This avoids the work drifting to a close with little or no clarity in respect of how successful it has been. 13. Dealing with power issues; the Department of Health model (DH, 1995) acknowledges that it is possible that some agencies may attempt –​consciously or otherwise –​to use or exert power or influence over others. A true partnership would not only accept this, but also deal with the resultant issues in an open yet robust manner.

27

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

A second model, proposed by Frost (2005), is called the Continuum of Partnership. This sees partnership as lying more on a continuous spectrum rather than having separate levels. Nevertheless, five distinct and increasingly close ways of working can be discerned as follows: 1. No partnership; the work is characterised by unco-​ordinated, free-​standing services that have little or no connection with one another. 2. Co-​operation; services work toward consistent goals while maintaining their independence. 3. Collaboration; services plan together and address issues of overlap, duplication and gaps towards common outcomes. 4. Co-​ordination; services work together in a planned and systematic manner towards shared and agreed-​upon goals. 5. Merger/​integration; different services become one organization to enhance service delivery. The Department of Health (DH, 1995) document makes a final point regarding effective partnerships, which is that partnership is not, nor should become, an end in itself. Parties concerned should not congratulate themselves for, or measure their success by, achieving a high level of effective partnership. The objective of the partnership is the welfare of the child, and only if this is clearly achieved or enhanced should the professionals involved gauge the work as a success.

Characteristics of good multi-​agency working Writing some sixteen years before the publication of the Department of Health’s guidance on partnership (DH, 1995), and even before the Children Act 1989, Stainton Rogers (1989) highlights some key principles of good multi-​agency work. Her chapter, which as we shall go on to discuss, also considers some fundamental difficulties with multi-​agency work, now appears ahead of its time, and since many of the issues she raises remain relevant, can also be described as enduring and insightful. She claims that the following are characteristics of good partnerships: 1. Clearly agreed and defined functions; all parties have explicitly agreed-​upon roles and all concerned are clear what these are, both for themselves and for others. No agency should therefore be wondering, for example, what the health visitor does when she visits the family every fortnight. The focus of the work should be shared, and be clear to all. 2. Tasks with agreed-​upon boundaries; when the focus of any work for each agency is agreed upon, it should be clear where one agency’s responsibility ends and where another’s begins. Good partnership should mean that no two (or more) agencies are inadvertently duplicating work or overstepping professional boundaries. 3. Well-​organized and established communication; all agencies involved in work with children and families should know precisely how to contact their partners. This includes knowledge of formal referral channels and mechanisms as well as how to contact individuals during ongoing work. The system for leaving and receiving messages should be clear and explained to all. 4. Well-​developed local relationships; professionals engaged in joint work should have the opportunity to meet and build relationships other than at times of crisis or intense work.

27

28

28

Working Together for Children

Local support groups, training events or other arenas should be available to foster the development of effective local relationships. If these are established, it is much more likely that other actions will flow from it: for example, referrals to another agency for support, less formal queries, attendance at planning or other meetings. 5. Overcoming ignorance and prejudice about each other; a key factor in effective partnership work is mutual respect for what the others bring to the process. This may involve each party leaving behind whatever prejudices they may have about others who are involved. These prejudices may have developed as a result of rumour or unfair or stereotypical portrayals of a profession, or through an isolated experience. For instance, social workers may be seen as gullible, woolly minded vegetarians who are always late for appointments; teachers may be viewed as lucky (and difficult to get hold of at certain times) because they finish work at 3.30 pm and have long holidays; nurses may be viewed as overworked ‘angels’ who are constantly kind and patient. Described thus, each of these is a laughable caricature; nevertheless, if even a vestige of these parodies exists, it can damage true partnership. This is because the process involved is a subtle one. If a teacher, for instance, does harbour unarticulated beliefs that social workers are well-​meaning but disorganized, then should an otherwise efficient and well-​prepared social worker happen to be late for a particular meeting, it is possible that the teacher will have their original beliefs confirmed, without these being balanced out by the weightier experiences of the social worker as rigorous and punctual. In the same vein, should a particular nurse not express total selfless and enduring devotion to their task, then a social worker who might happen to believe that nurses should possess such characteristics may feel resentful that the nurse is not acting according to their stereotype, or worse, that the nurse is somehow a failure for not displaying constant and unfailing kindness to all. 6. Defining common goals; as the Department of Health’s (DH, 1995) guidance on partnership stated, effective multi-​agency work involves all parties concerned taking time to agree to the aims of any work undertaken. In this way, all professionals involved are clear about what is trying to be achieved. 7. Using common language; good partnerships avoid the use of jargon between each other, especially if this is not explained or commonly understood. Technical words, abbreviations or other agency-​specific vocabulary should either be avoided or clearly explained. If a professional does happen to use a phrase or word that others do not understand, then an effective working partnership would enable an individual to ask what this means. For instance, if a teacher states in a meeting that a child ‘is in Year 3 of Key Stage 1 and is having differentiated sessions with the SENCO to address problems with English and Maths learning’, then others in the meeting who may not understand what the meaning or implications of this are, may feel uncomfortable asking about this. The use of technical language is particularly unhelpful if it is used to convey power or authority over others in the meeting. If, for example, a doctor or consultant reported that the child had ‘a jagged spiral fracture of the ulna’ it would be helpful if they went on to simplify this as ‘a broken bone in the lower arm’ and then commented on likely or possible causes, in the light of any explanations given. If the initial version was in letter form, and read out at a meeting, then there would be no recourse to question or clarify

29

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

the precise nature or implications of the injury, thus compounding the difficulty in attempting to reach a common understanding of the risk to this particular child. 8. Respecting different skills; effective multi-​agency work recognizes and respects the contribution of all concerned, and does not have a hierarchy. Thus, the contribution of an eminent doctor or headteacher should not outweigh the input of a health visitor or classroom assistant, especially if the latter is more likely to have detailed, day-​to-​day knowledge of the children and family. It may be that the classroom assistant may need support in expressing their views, and an effective partnership should enable this to happen. 9. Ensuring all know what the local arrangements are; effective partnership involves clarity regarding precisely how local systems work for such things as making referrals, securing appointments for paediatric assessments of children, sending and receiving minutes of meetings and other information and contacting individuals in the network. The way the term ‘partnership’ has been used in the above discussion implies a positive interpretation of it, and it is a term that is used liberally to describe aspects of multi-​agency working. However, some researchers have questioned the use of the term. For instance, Daines, Lyon and Parsloe (1990) argue, as a result of their research into four discrete projects over two years, that ‘partnership’ is unachievable, and that the word would be better replaced with the term ‘participation’, which provides sufficient challenge for agencies to achieve. For their purposes, ‘partnership’ had to include three elements: mutual support, alliance (working together, sharing the load) and control (having a voice, having some power in the service). They found little evidence, in their research, of such ‘partnership’ but many examples of ‘participation’. More recently, Cheminais (2009) has provided a rounded discussion of the concept of partnership which reflects the idea that partnership is best seen as a continuum from low to high levels of clarity, sharing and commitment.

Key barriers to effective multi-​agency work Having considered the general characteristics of good multi-​agency working, it is tempting, perhaps, to conclude that multi-​agency working is a relatively simple endeavour in which people from different professional backgrounds join together to work for the benefit of children. However, one of the key aims of this book is to explore what it is about this work that makes it so complex and intricate. A starting point is to return to the work of Stainton Rogers (1989), who also addresses the potential barriers to effective multi-​agency work (again, in a manner that puts her way ahead of her time, as these remain relevant and pressing matters). They are presented here with some interpretation of my own, including the addition of practical examples of each to help the reader contextualize them. I  have also drawn a distinction between structural barriers (those that are inherent to multi-​agency working, are not located within any individual and cannot be changed) and individualized barriers (those that are located within individuals and are therefore more susceptible to being changed).

29

30

30

Working Together for Children

Structural barriers Different core functions of agencies which may clash and compete Workers from different services have their main job to perform, in addition to any work carried out as part of a multi-​agency team. For instance, as Stainton Rogers explains, the main job of the police in any joint enquiry with children’s social care is to seek evidence of a possible criminal offence to support any future prosecution. Social workers, on the other hand, are concerned with the welfare of the child, and in assessing the needs of the child in the family environment. At times, these different functions may not sit easily beside one another. For example, part of evidence gathering may involve the police officer and social worker carrying out a joint interview with the child, who may become distressed during the interview, although police officers are trained in accordance with national guidance on interviewing child witnesses which covers how to assist children in distress (HO and DH, 1992). Nevertheless, the social worker may feel uncomfortable –​from a purely child-​ centred perspective –​being part of this process.

Different values, cultures and practices between agencies This can include agencies having different generalized perspectives and views from one another. For instance, some may link all abuse to the actions of individual ‘abusers’ while others may take a broader view, arguing that poverty and social exclusion are equally ‘abusive’ to children, and therefore that these social ills should be tackled. Furthermore, agencies are structured in vastly different ways. In the police force, for instance, the practice and culture is for officers to call their superiors ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ whereas in social work, first names are usually used. In many health settings, especially hospitals, consultants are held in very high esteem and are likely to be referred to as ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs’ or perhaps ‘Doctor’. These differences may not appear to matter in the detail of any joint work, and yet they are present in the fabric of the work. Still further, individual people within and between agencies are likely to hold differing views on such matters as how ‘childhood’ should be understood, and therefore what children need in order to have a good enough standard of health and development. This reflects what is known as the social construction of childhood, which is the idea that ‘childhood is neither universal nor natural rather it is tied close to social circumstances and cultural process’ (Norozi and Moen, 2016, p.79). Other areas of disagreement may include how harm and abuse is defined and understood, how any ‘abusers’ should be dealt with, and what the desirable outcomes are of any joint work. These differences, if not addressed, discussed and resolved, are likely to have a significant impact on the efficacy of the work.

Different and conflicting social policy or legislation Laws and social policy governing and affecting the lives of families and children are plentiful and complex. At times these may clash with one another, causing at the very least confusion, and at worst a debilitating state where different agencies can justify their action (or inaction) on the basis of legislation. Take one example: that of a single mother with three children living in a small, two-​ bedroom flat, whose children are the subject of a formal child protection plan as a result of neglect.

31

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

The assessment shows that part of the context here is overcrowding and the lack of a safe outside play area for the children. The social worker therefore supports an application for rehousing to a three-​bedroom house with a garden. Housing law states that accommodation should be allocated on the basis of ‘reasonable preference’ (Shelter, 2016) and housing providers have systems to prioritize applications. Matters which they consider include homelessness, the conditions in which the family is living, any medical conditions, the need to avoid hardship and risk of violence and threat. The family described above, therefore, may have some priority if they are adjudged by the council to be officially overcrowded, and may gain additional priority if it is accepted they need to move from the flat to a house to avoid further hardship. However, councils cannot take into account per se the fact that the children are the subject of a formal child protection plan, or that according to the Children Act 1989, or indeed Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), the best interests of the child should always be prioritized. Councils have to assess applications for accommodation on housing need alone, and while there may be some discretion to include additional priority weighting for certain circumstances, there does appear to be a clash here between, on the one hand, the palpable needs and interests of the children, and, on the other hand, the detail of housing law. This could result in a considerable wait by the family to be rehoused, a fact which could jeopardize the welfare of the children.

Individualized barriers Lack of clarity in boundaries If workers are unclear about their own role, and that of others, then this could lead to them duplicating the work of others, or giving advice that might conflict with that from a different worker. For example, if a health visitor and social worker are jointly involved in supporting a family, but neither fully understands what the other party actually does when they visit the family, this could mean that the health visitor pursues social care support strategies such as respite care, or that the social worker might give healthcare advice on the children. Both of these might be well-​meaning, but they are also likely to be ill-​co-​ordinated and incomplete. Clearly, there is a link here with the need for good and effective communication between the parties involved to try to avoid such overlaps.

Lack of clarity in lines of authority and decision-​making The benefits of multi-​agency work, where various professional perspectives are brought to bear, can be undermined if it is unclear precisely how the agencies involved arrive at major decisions about the work. Of all the agencies involved, if it is not clear, from the very beginning, which has the ultimate authority to override decisions or arbitrate where there are conflicting opinions, the result can be confusion, loss of motivation and potentially disastrous consequences for children.

Historical or current jealousies or rivalries between agencies Sometimes, agencies have a history of fraught relationships. This could be caused by a fundamental difference in outlook on a particular issue or a clash of personalities between key individuals

31

32

32

Working Together for Children

within the agencies. It might also be caused by a sense of jealousy if one agency is perceived to be performing generally ‘better’ than another. In this instance, individuals within the agency perceived or judged to be performing less well may resent the ‘better’ agency. This could manifest itself in several ways. Workers within the ‘inferior’ agency may (unconsciously or otherwise) strive to outwit or outperform the ‘better’ agency in an effort to demonstrate either that their agency is as good or better, or that the ‘better’ agency is not as good as perceived. It might also be possible that workers within the ‘inferior’ agency may deliberately attempt to undermine the work of the ‘better’ agency in order to show them as ineffective. A further reason for the origin of rivalry between agencies may be that an agency has had a poor experience with an individual within another agency. They may then label all workers within the same agency in the same way, and begin to behave according to the label which they have ascribed to the agency as a whole. An example here may help. A teacher in a school contacts children’s social care at lunch-​time by telephone with concerns about a child. The teacher cannot get through to a duty social worker until the third attempt because the line is busy. When she does speak to a social worker, the teacher feels the social worker is generally defensive and unhelpful, although the social worker does agree to speak to a manager about the case and ring the teacher back. By 4.30 pm the teacher has not received a return call, so rings the social worker back, to be told that a decision was made not to take the matter any further, and asking the teacher to arrange for the school to continue to monitor the child. The decision by children’s social care may well be the correct one, but the teacher feels unhappy with the process here, in particular the difficulty in getting hold of a social worker, then their general attitude, then the fact that the teacher had to ring the social worker back to hear the outcome. The teacher comes to the conclusion that it is a waste of time ringing children’s social care with concerns in the future unless they are very serious, as the response is likely to be similar to that which she experienced. The reason why these issues are important is that they prevent agencies from focusing on the work, and more significantly, on the child concerned. If energy and time is spent on one-​upmanship rather than on working collaboratively, then valuable resources are lost to the child.

Lack of clarity about why agencies are involved Where there are a number of agencies working together, it is imperative that they are all very clear about why they are all involved, what work they are undertaking and what they are hoping to achieve. If this clarity is absent, it could lead to confusion as to what particular agencies or individuals are doing. Assumptions, perhaps incorrect, could then be made as to what the work involves. This could lead to resentment if one agency perceives themselves as working harder than another, or if an agency does not understand or approve of the manner in which another agency is carrying out their work. For instance, if a social worker announces they are going to engage in some direct work with the children in a particular family, they have a responsibility, without betraying the confidences of the children by divulging unnecessary detail, to outline what the objectives of this work are, what it will involve, over what approximate timescale it will take place and so on. Failure to do so may lead others to conclude that the social worker is engaging in rather nebulous social interactions with the children while the other agencies do the ‘real’ work.

33

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

These tensions between agencies are discussed at a macro level by Morrison (1991). He describes, in the context of how agencies might perceive the prospects for change in clients, four distinct perceptions and attitudes agencies might hold about collaboration, and despite his model being devised in the early 1990s, it retains resonance and durability: 1. Paternalism. Here, the agency collaborates only if they approve of it, and even then does so on its terms. Collaboration is seen not as an obligation, but as a benefit the agency gives to others: the benefit of its expertise, for which recipients should be grateful. The agency may find it hard to see other agencies as having equal expertise or valid skills. Paternalistic agencies do not believe they need other agencies. 2. Strategic adversarial. Collaboration is approached with wariness, as the agency sees it involving more losses than gains. In addition, the agency may believe that other agencies will exploit the collaboration for their own ends. This could lead to a siege mentality. Collaboration is likely to become conflictual, with time spent negotiating the terms of engagement, checking what others are doing and so on. It is collaboration essentially based on mistrust. The clients themselves can become marginal to the process. 3. Play fair. Here, agencies believe that clients need and have the right to an effective multi-​ agency service. The agency tries to ensure that everyone is clear about their role and responsibilities. The agency appreciates and respects the different roles of other agencies. The agency involves clients in this process, which could potentially lead to conflict with other agencies if, say, information is withheld from parents during child protection work. 4. Developmental. This is similar to ‘play fair’ but broader. Collaboration is seen as a dynamic process to motivate staff and clients to change. Multi-​agency work is seen as organic, alive and changing, including such things as taking risks, learning from mistakes or pooling resources. The key point in discussing these four approaches is to take note of the fact that where there are differences in the expectations, practices and attitudes between agencies, unless these are acknowledged and worked through, they are likely to interfere negatively with the quality of the work with children and families. As if to illustrate the enduring nature of these barriers, several other authors have considered this central issue. For instance, Joughin and Law (2005) highlight three key barriers to effective multi-​agency work: poor communication, lack of information sharing and conflicting professional and agency cultures. They go on to say that possible solutions to these problems include the use of a ‘hybrid’ professional with experience of different agencies, and joint training of agencies to overcome their differences. While these are interesting suggestions, they raise additional questions regarding the availability and precise role of individuals with experience working for more than one agency, and about whether training is treated as something of a panacea to solve a multitude of problems. The idea that centuries of cultural identity and values within agencies can be eradicated via a day or so of joint training is perhaps naive and unrealistic, a point underlined by Coad (2008: 39), who discusses the ‘immense challenges’ that can emerge during joint training. That is not to say that joint training cannot be useful and effective; however, there is a need to be cautious about the claims that can be made for it, especially as so much may depend on the quality of the training on offer. Other works addressing some key barriers to multi-​agency working, as well as

33

34

34

Working Together for Children

clear benefits, include Percy-​Smith (2005); Davis, Davis and Glynn (2008); Fitzgerald and Kay (2008); Morris (2008a); and Smith (2013); these are worth seeking out as they make some interesting broader points about the advantages and pitfalls of multi-​agency working. Allied to the notion of barriers to effective multi-​agency work is the problem of how agencies, or individuals within them, respond to a range of moral and ethical issues which may arise. Hence, it is necessary to consider how any individual may respond, for example, to: 1. Particular individuals in the network having or using power or status. For example, a senior manager or worker from a particular agency, who is perhaps removed from the day-​to-​day running of the case, may wish to exert their opinions as to how best to proceed. This may clash with the view of those who know the situation better. 2. Structural issues in another agency, for example, staff shortages or delays which are impacting the efficacy of the work. 3. Another agency not delivering on promises which they have made. A  health visitor may have agreed to visit a family fortnightly to monitor the development of a child. However, it emerges that after six weeks no visit has yet been made. 4. Another agency doing something which others believe is wrong or against the child’s interests. Children’s social care may be adamant that maintaining children at home while being the subject of a formal child protection plan is the correct approach in a particular case, whereas others may strongly believe the children are at risk of serious harm and should be removed immediately. 5. Unreasonable demands from another agency. Individuals may find they are being asked, by another agency, to perform duties and tasks which are outside their remit, and which place pressure upon them. 6. Another agency using different legislation, as discussed above, to justify their actions, or inaction. In all of these scenarios, the difficulty is how to challenge the other agency in a manner that maintains a positive relationship with them. Often, by the very nature of the issues involved, very strong emotions are elicited by the actions described above. Particularly as many of them tap into an individual’s own morality and value base, they can easily become flash points which then serve to deepen divisions and differences between agencies. This reinforces the importance, perhaps, of the need for multi-​agency work to be guided by a very clear line of authority which can adjudicate in such instances, remove the personal element from any differences in opinion, action or emphasis, and move the work forward in a way that maintains the focus on the child.

Reflections: Case study –​ Jack Children’s social care have called an initial child protection conference to discuss a physical injury to Jack, who is 5 years old, white, British and in Year 1 at a local primary school. The injury is believed to have happened while Jack was in the care of his parents. The following individuals attend: the children’s social care social worker and

35

Key Factors in Multi-Agency Work

her manager, the class teacher and headteacher at the school, the health visitor, a police officer and the child’s parents. All agencies have written a report which they summarize at the conference. Without notice or prior warning, the headteacher also produces a hardback book and begins to list a number of ‘misdemeanours’ or concerns hitherto not mentioned to anyone else. These include Jack being late on a number of occasions, arriving somewhat dirty and dishevelled and the parents sometimes collecting him slightly late from school. The parents and other agencies are taken aback, and this produces some discussion. The headteacher suggests that the injury is the latest in a long line of concerns which he has not, however, shared with anyone else. A letter from the family’s GP is also read out. He is unable to attend the meeting. He reports routine visits to him by members of the family, and ends by saying he ‘cannot believe the parents would deliberately harm their son, because they are such pleasant people’. 1. Look at the section of this chapter titled ‘models of multi-​agency work’. At what level of partnership from the Department of Health model do you think the agencies involved in this work are operating? Remember that different agencies can be at different levels. Try to give reasons to support your answer. 2. Can you identify any elements from the list for Level 4  –​full partnership  –​in this scenario? 3. From the list of ‘barriers to effective multi-​agency work’ discussed in this chapter, choose those you think are present in this scenario. Try to be as specific as you can.

Conclusions This chapter has considered the central responsibilities of all agencies who work with each other, and with children and families. These shared responsibilities are designed to try to ensure that all professionals provide a consistent and responsive service. The two models of partnership discussed in this chapter highlight the various levels of interaction and involvement that are possible within the broad parameters of multi-​agency working. Positive collaboration shares common features which help contribute to successful outcomes, and yet key structural and individualized barriers can remain to add complexity and strain to the endeavour. Multi-​agency work takes place within a fundamentally important framework of legislation and guidance, and therefore it is to this that the book now turns, beginning with a consideration of the law and guidance on the sharing of information between staff in different services.

Further reading Atkinson, M., M. Jones and E. Lamont (2007), Multi-​ Agency Working and Its Implications for Practice: A Literature Review. Reading, CfBT Education Trust. Available online: https://​www.nfer. ac.uk/​publications/​MAD01/​MAD01.pdf (accessed 10 October 2016).

35

36

36

Working Together for Children

With the same lead author as the study above, this thorough review of literature provides very sound insight into best practice and the attendant challenges. It covers such areas as different models of multi-​agency working, the impact of multi-​agency working, factors influencing multi-​agency working and effective multi-​agency practice. Atkinson, M., A. Wilkin, A. Stott, P. Doherty and K. Kinder (2002), Multi-​Agency Working: A Detailed Study, Slough:  National foundation for Educational Research. Available online:  http://​www.nfer. ac.uk/​nfer/​publications/​css02/​css02.pdf (accessed 1 October 2016). As its name suggests, this is a lengthy but clear and rewarding account with six interesting case studies towards the end covering a range of multi-​agency teams, whose work is discussed and evaluated. Hudson, B. (2002), ‘Interprofessionality in Health and Social Care: The Achilles Heel of Partnership?’, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16 (1): 7–​17. This journal article acknowledges and discusses the difficulties associated with partnership working, but balances this with a consideration of a more optimistic outlook, based upon an empirical study of general practitioners, community nurses and social workers in northern England.

37

newgenprepdf

3 Information Sharing Chapter Outline Introduction The Data Protection Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998 Government guidance on information sharing for practitioners Conclusions

37 37 39 41 50

Introduction Information sharing, in relation to multi-​agency working, is subject to a series of complex rules. These rules often have sound aims or purposes behind them, relating to the protection of privacy, or respect for, the confidential and sensitive nature of the material under consideration. However, the very complexity of the regulations also has the potential to cause confusion and uncertainty for professionals. This chapter explores the key legislation and guidance which governs information sharing, including the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and specific government guidance in relation to sharing information and safeguarding children (HM Government, 2015a). The first two of these are huge and wide-​ranging pieces of legislation which cover every aspect of information storing and information sharing. This chapter will focus on those aspects of this legislation that are relevant to multi-​agency working. The third element to be discussed –​government guidance on information sharing (HM Government, 2015a) –​is concerned with circumstances where professionals need to share information in order to support children who may benefit from early intervention, or to protect children from harm. This guidance therefore forms the bulk of this chapter.

The Data Protection Act 1998 This Act, which came into effect in the year 2000, converts the European Data Protection Directive into UK law. As such it is applicable to all four constituent countries –​England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Information Commissioner’s Office (2017) Guide to Data Protection

38

38

Working Together for Children

provides a full account of the legislation, which is summarized in the section that now follows. Within the scope of the Act is a wide range of personal data, which includes anything that can identify a living person, such as a name. Furthermore, the Act specifically identifies certain categories of data as ‘sensitive’, such as the state of a person’s physical and mental health, their racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation and political beliefs. There are clear restrictions on those who hold personal information (which could be a private business or a local authority) as to what they may do with it and with whom they may share it. Generally, the Act requires organizations to seek explicit consent from individuals before collecting, processing or passing on ‘sensitive’ information about them. Both computerized and manual records are covered by the Act. The starting point for understanding the implications of the Act for multi-​agency working for children are the eight principles which underpin it, and which should be adhered to at all times. Individual employees can be prosecuted for unlawful action. In these circumstances, these individuals could be liable for fines of up to £5,000, which can be imposed for such misdemeanours as disclosing information about a person without their consent. This could include, for example, giving personal details to a fellow employee who does not need those details to carry out their legitimate duties, and special care must be taken with sensitive data as described above.

Information: The eight principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 Data must be: 1. fairly and lawfully processed 2. processed for limited purposes 3. adequate, relevant and not excessive 4. accurate 5. not kept longer than necessary 6. processed in accordance with the data subject’s rights 7. secure 8. not transferred to other countries without adequate protection

The implications of this are that all staff within an organization have to be cognizant of the need to observe the requirements of the Act. They need to make sure, for example, that inadvertent unauthorized disclosure of data does not occur by passing information over the telephone, or by allowing others within the office to read a computer screen. More specifically, workers should: 1. not leave people’s information on their desk when not in use 2. make sure filing cabinets are kept locked 3. not leave data displayed on computer screens, and they should make sure that computers are not left logged on and unattended 4. not give their computer password to anyone else

39

Information Sharing

5. not select a computer password that is easy to guess 6. think carefully before sending faxes or emails containing personal data It is not difficult to see how these detailed and precise expectations, coupled with the large potential fines for breach of them (for which individuals rather than organizations are liable), can lead to a culture of fear and paralysis when it comes to sharing personal information. If, say, a teacher in a school was unsure whether they should share personal data with children’s social care about a child for whom they were concerned (where parental consent to share information is not forthcoming), they may, in the spirit of conforming to the Data Protection Act 1998, choose not to do so, being fearful that they could be committing an offence for which they will personally be liable. However, it may have been appropriate to share this personal information with children’s social care in the specific circumstances of the case, and indeed could have been just the piece of a jigsaw of information which enabled swift protective action to take place for that child. Ironically, in observing what they understood to be the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, the teacher may have inadvertently caused unnecessary suffering to the child by not sharing information which might have invoked a child protection response. As we shall see later, although there are guidelines regarding the sharing of information for professionals who are worried about children, doubts and uncertainties will remain, at least partly fuelled by a fear of the consequences of sharing information inappropriately.

The Human Rights Act 1998 Similar concerns and confusions may also potentially dog the interpretation of the second major piece of legislation which impinges upon information sharing. The Human Rights Act 1998, which like the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force in 2000, is a particularly extensive statute which covers rights and freedoms which everyone should enjoy (Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006). These rights are defined as absolute, limited or qualified, depending which one is being described. The rights and freedoms contained within the Act, which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, are as follows: 1. The right to life (Article 2 –​a qualified right as there are some very limited circumstances under which the state can take away someone’s life). 2. Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 –​an absolute right). 3. Freedom from slavery and forced or compulsory labour (Article 4 –​an absolute right). 4. Personal freedom (Article 5 –​a limited right as there are circumstances under which someone can be lawfully detained). 5. The right to a fair trial (Article 6 –​an absolute right). 6. The right to protection from retrospective criminal offences; in other words, someone cannot be found guilty of an offence which at the time of the action, was not unlawful (Article 7 –​an absolute right).

39

40

40

Working Together for Children

7. The right to respect for a private and family life (Article 8 –​a qualified right as interference with this right is allowed in certain circumstances). 8. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9 –​a qualified right as the state can intervene in certain circumstances). 9. The right to freedom of expression (Article 10 –​a qualified right as the state can intervene in certain circumstances). 10. The right to freedom of association and assembly (Article 11 –​a qualified right as the state can intervene in certain circumstances). 11. The right to marry and found a family (Article 12 –​an absolute right, although the state can regulate matters related to marriage and starting a family, which includes adoption). 12. Freedom from discrimination (Article 13 –​a qualified right, as the state can make a distinction in treatment in some circumstances). 13. The right to property (Article 1 of the first protocol –​a qualified right, as the state can intervene in certain circumstances). 14. The right to education (Article 2 of the first protocol –​a qualified right, as the state can intervene in certain circumstances). 15. The right to free and fair elections (Article 3 of the first protocol –​an absolute right, although the state can regulate matters related to elections). 16. The abolition of the death penalty in peacetime (Articles 1 and 2 of the sixth protocol). Of these, the article most relevant to multi-​agency working for children is Article 8 –​the right for people to enjoy a private and family life. As we have seen, this is a qualified right, meaning that interference is acceptable in circumstances that must be justified. Closer scrutiny of some of the concepts contained within this article is useful here, and for this the document A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006) has been invaluable. A ‘private life’ includes the right to live one’s own life as is reasonable in a democratic society, as balanced against the rights and freedom of others. This includes the right to choose one’s own sexual identity, how one looks and dresses, and freedom from intrusion by the media. Furthermore, in a direct correlation with the Data Protection Act 1998, a private life includes the right of an individual to have information about them kept private and confidential. Article 8 also limits what a public authority can do which invades one’s personal body privacy, and this could include such activities as taking blood samples or performing body searches. The second part of Article 8 deals with the right to a family life. This includes the right to have family relationships recognized by law, and the rights for families to live together and to enjoy each other’s company. Interestingly, unmarried mothers are always covered by family life, while foster families may be, depending on the particular circumstances. These rights, and those relating to a private life, can only be breached if the interference with them has a legal basis, and has a clear aim in line with one of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

to uphold the laws of an individual nation to safeguard national security to safeguard public safety or the economic well-​being of the country to prevent a crime

41

Information Sharing

5. to uphold public health or morals 6. to protect the freedom and rights of others Furthermore –​and here another important concept is introduced –​any interference must be proportionate; in other words, the action must go only as far as is required to meet the aim specified under any of the list above. Breaches of the right to a private and family life, therefore, must be justifiable and must not exceed any powers or actions that are necessary to execute the requirements of the breach.

Information: The Human Rights Act 1998 –​balancing the rights of parents and children Where the state has concerns that there is a need to protect the freedom and rights of a child in a family, then the state, in the form of social workers, the police and other professionals who may be involved, can interfere with the parents’ right to a private and family life and intervene to protect the child from significant harm, even if this results in the removal of the child from that family. The rights of the parents to a family life do not override the rights of the child to enjoy protection from harm.

Government guidance on information sharing for practitioners In relation to professionals responding to concerns about children, the government has issued guidance covering issues related to the sharing of information (HM Government, 2015a). It is not coincidental that such full guidance (first issued in 2006, then updated in 2008 and updated again in 2015) was first issued after the publication of the report by Laming (2003) into the death of the child Victoria Climbié at the hands of her carers in London, England, which concluded, in relation to information sharing, that exchange of information was inhibited by the legislation, and that workers had genuine concerns that unless it was clearly demonstrated that a child was in need of protection, such information sharing would be unlawful. The effect of this state of affairs is either that information may not be shared when it should be (as in the example involving the teacher given earlier), or that concerns about children are artificially heightened. Neither of these, as Laming points out, is compatible with serving the needs of children and families. He went on to recommend that clear guidance be produced to clarify these matters. This guidance (HM Government, 2015a) begins by setting out what it calls the ‘seven golden rules’ of information sharing, addressed directly to practitioners: 1. The Data Protection Act 1998 and human rights law are not barriers to justified information sharing, but provide a framework to ensure that personal information is shared appropriately.

41

42

42

Working Together for Children

2. Be open and honest from the outset about why, what, how and with whom information will, or could be shared, and seek their agreement, unless it is unsafe or inappropriate to do so. 3. Seek advice from other practitioners if you are in any doubt about sharing the information concerned, without disclosing the identity of the individual where possible. 4. Share with informed consent where appropriate and, where possible, respect the wishes of those who do not consent to share confidential information. You may still share information without consent if, in your judgement, there is good reason to do so, such as where a child’s safety may be at risk. You will need to base your judgement on the facts of the case. 5. Consider safety and well-​being: Base your information-​sharing decisions on considerations of the safety and well-​being of the individual and others who may be affected by their actions. 6. Ensure that the information you share is necessary for the purpose for which you are sharing it, is shared only with those individuals who need to have it, is accurate and up-​to-​date, is shared in a timely fashion and is shared securely. 7. Keep a record of your decision and the reasons for it, whether it is to share information or not. If you decide to share, then record what you have shared, with whom and for what purpose. Taken together, these rules recall the need for proportionality mentioned earlier. Workers should only share the information necessary to promote the welfare of a child. For example, a health visitor concerned that a child may be suffering significant harm from neglect can share information relating to the health and welfare of the child, their development, the condition of the house and so on, but should refrain from telling the social worker receiving the telephone call that there are rumours the mother is having an affair with the milkman (unless this is in some way directly relevant to the neglect of the child). These seven rules also serve to emphasize that the decision to share information or not involves a judgement not only about whether to share, but if information is shared, how much information to share. To summarize, workers can share information if: 1. there is consent from the child or parents 2. the child’s welfare overrides the withholding of consent by the child or parent or the confidentiality of the information 3. disclosure of the information is required by a court or legal order

Confidentiality and information sharing The underlying principle throughout the guidance (HM Government, 2015a) is that the sharing of information between professionals is essential in order to both enable early intervention to help children who need additional services or to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. One of the key concepts here is that of confidentiality. Under the common law duty of confidence, there is a complex set of rules governing confidential information which professionals need to negotiate if they are to confidently interpret and implement them (HM Government, 2015a).

43

Information Sharing

Information: Confidentiality In deciding whether there is a need to share information, practitioners need to consider: 1. Is the information confidential? Information is confidential if it is of a sensitive nature, not already lawfully in the public domain or available from a public source, or has been shared in circumstances where the person giving the information understood that it would not normally be shared with others. 2. If the information is confidential, is there a public interest which would justify sharing the information? This includes the protection of children from harm, and the practitioner would need to make a judgement, if there were concerns about a child and consent to share information was not given by the parents, or it was inappropriate to seek consent, whether to override confidentiality and share the information.

Confidentiality may be breached if the sharing of confidential information is not authorized by the person who either provided it, or to whom it relates. Where the person concerned gave consent to that information being shared, then sharing it is clearly not a breach of confidentiality. However, there are circumstances in which workers can lawfully breach confidentiality –​if it is in the public interest –​although the worker concerned should seek consent to share the information, unless the very act of seeking consent is likely to undermine the detection, prevention or prosecution of a crime. Public interest includes such matters as protecting children (or adults) from harm, and preventing crime. One of the key considerations once a decision has been made to share information is proportionality: whether the sharing of information in the public interest is a proportionate response to the need to protect the public in the particular way dictated by the circumstances. The individual practitioner must weigh up the consequences of sharing the information against the consequences of not sharing the information, and make a judgement based on this. The key point to note here is there are very few absolute circumstances for the sharing of confidential information; in most cases, a judgement is required. There could well be circumstances in which a worker believes they are doing the right thing in sharing information because of, say, concerns about a child, but actually they have breached confidentiality. This is unavoidable, since it is impossible for any guidance to describe every possible circumstance in which the sharing of confidential information may be justified or not; however, the effect of this is that there is likely to remain a certain level of anxiety among workers regarding any decision to share confidential information where they do not have consent. If they have not received very clear guidance and training on this, the consequence of this is that children may be left unprotected because workers are rightly concerned that they will be disciplined or even prosecuted for breaching confidentiality. This issue relates to the second important element of the circumstances in which the sharing of confidential information is justified. This is that a practitioner needs to decide on the level of what might be called ‘evidence’ that a child needs protecting from significant harm. For instance, some practitioners may feel they need some level of physical proof, while others may decide that

43

44

44

Working Together for Children

less tangible evidence is acceptable, such as a telephone call from another professional outlining their concerns about a child, as long as the source of the information is credible. Once again, the worker should seek consent to share information, unless this places the child at increased risk of significant harm or leads to interference with any investigation which might follow. The decision whether or not to seek consent must be driven by what is best for the child. This is therefore yet another layer of understanding that professionals need to absorb and understand if they are to make effective decisions with regard to information sharing: that they need to be clear about what they are interpreting as a reasonable level of ‘evidence’ of harm, and they then need to make a judgement as to whether to share information or not, and if so, how much information they should share.

Sharing information and preventative services The national guidance mentions that information sharing ‘could ensure that an individual receives the right services at the right time and prevent a need from becoming more acute and difficult to meet’ (HM Government, 2015a: 5). The dilemma here is that as services involving practitioners from different disciplines or agencies work together to support children and families who require early intervention but who are not at risk of significant harm, these services are likely to have concerns about their ability to share information between themselves, particularly in the light of the complex legislation surrounding it. The suggested solution is that the agencies involved seek explicit consent, at the point that the family accesses any service, to share information with those other agencies involved in supporting the family. This process of seeking consent should involve the service explaining their policy on information sharing, and should be open and honest. If consent to share information is refused, this should be respected unless any of the circumstances described above justify the overriding of consent. The difficulty here is that inherent in this process is the real possibility that parents, suspicious of the motives of agencies in providing services, and equally mistrusting any service with authority, may withhold their consent to share information. Indeed, once they are approached regarding giving their consent to share information, some parents may elect to withdraw from the receipt of support for themselves and their children. In other words, the mere presence of preventative services does not guarantee a seamless transition of support and information across and between agencies and for children and families. There remains a potential clash between the desire to work with families preventatively to provide early intervention, and legislation on information sharing. The potential for clashes and contradictions, however, is not limited to the relationship between professionals and parents. As the guidance recognizes, different agencies are likely to have different standards for sharing information, covered by individual agency policies and protocols, or local area information-​sharing protocols, or even by the professional code of particular agencies (HM Government, 2015a). This serves to illustrate how complex is the maze of information sharing which workers have to negotiate: not only do they have to be aware of, and understand the implications of, national legislation, but they also need to fully comprehend their own local or single agency guidelines.

45

Information Sharing

Information: National Health Service Caldicott guardians In 1997, a report by Dame Fiona Caldicott on the transfer of patient-​identifiable information concluded that each NHS organization should have a senior manager to oversee arrangements for the use and sharing of patient information. This person was known as the Caldicott guardian. Subsequently, similar guardians were also appointed to councils with social care responsibilities. A key part of the role of the Caldicott guardian is to ensure that information sharing adheres to six principles set out in the Caldicott report: justification of the purpose for using confidential information, only using it when necessary, using the minimum required, allowing access on a strict need-​to-​know basis, ensuring everyone understands their responsibilities and ensuring compliance with the law. Since 1997, the requirements and remit of the role of the Caldicott guardian have expanded to take into account the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (DH, 2006).

The issue of consent A further concept which professionals need to fully appreciate is that of ‘consent’, a word which has so far been used without further elaboration. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that everyone understands equally what consent means or involves. The national guidance provides further information about this (HM Government, 2015a). In securing consent, it should go without saying that the agency or individual concerned should take a transparent and respectful approach, and should avoid coercion or worse still, a refusal to provide a service unless consent to share information with other agencies is given. Furthermore, consent cannot be taken as having been granted if a parent is asked to provide consent but does not respond to this request. In addition, parents have the right to withdraw consent once they have given it.

Information: What is consent? Consent must be informed. This means that the person giving consent understands why the information needs to be shared, who will see it, to what purpose it will be put and what the implications are of sharing information. Consent can be explicit or implicit. The former can be obtained verbally or in writing (although written consent is preferable). Implicit consent is valid where information sharing is intrinsic to the activity, especially where this has been explained. An example would be where a professional is discussing with parents a referral to another service, and the parents give consent for this by helping complete any necessary forms.

Children, too, have the right to give or refuse consent (General Medical Council, 2007). Those aged 16 and 17, and children under the age of 16 with the capacity to understand and make their

45

46

46

Working Together for Children

own decisions, are able to do so. This capacity is generally taken to be present in children aged 12 or over, although children younger than this may also have sufficient understanding to make a decision regarding consent. For children under the age of 16, then, this clearly involves a judgement by the worker as to whether or not the child is mature enough to: 1. understand what they are being asked 2. understand what information will be shared, the reasons for this, and the implications of sharing or not sharing it 3. appreciate or consider any alternatives open to them 4. weigh up one aspect of the situation against another 5. express a clear personal view on the issue (rather than repeat what someone else has said) 6. be consistent in their view Where a child is not able to give informed consent then a parent or other person with parental responsibility should be asked to consent on behalf of the child. Only the consent of one parent is required, which could be problematic for a worker concerned if two parents are in conflict and hold opposing views on the matter. In these circumstances, the worker would have to consider whose consent to seek. Where parents are separated, the solution is relatively straightforward, in that the worker should seek consent from the parent with whom the child resides most of the time. If parents are still together, however, and yet disagree, this decision is very difficult. Furthermore, where a competent child’s consent (or refusal to consent) clashes with the view of the parent, the child’s view overrides the wishes of the parent. Clearly, and as the guidance readily acknowledges, the above issues raise complex dilemmas (HM Government, 2015a). Some workers, for instance, place a strong emphasis on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) which in Article 12 states that ‘every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously’. The guiding force should be a worker’s own professional code, together with what they believe is in the best interests of the child. Nevertheless, it is possible that conflict between the worker and parents could arise if the worker has upheld the right of a child (particularly aged 12 or under) to consent against the wishes of the parent.

Information: The ‘Gillick’ principle for children giving consent The Gillick principle relates to the ability of children to make decisions for themselves without the consent of their parents. It stems from a case in the 1980s where a mother –​Victoria Gillick –​challenged the idea that a doctor could prescribe contraception to her daughter under the age of 16 without the consent of the mother. The case was eventually settled in the then House of Lords (the highest court in the land, whose name was changed in 2009 to the Supreme Court) and the decision was that a child under the age of

47

Information Sharing

16 could make certain decisions for themselves if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed. Such children are also referred to as being ‘Gillick competent’. The underlying principle was subsequently extended to a wide range of decisions, not just the administering of contraception, although competent children cannot refuse medical treatment if this refusal could lead to death or severe permanent injury.

Further issues related to sharing information To complicate matters further, there are circumstances under which professionals have no choice but to share confidential information. They must do so if they are required to by law. This could include, as the guidance states, situations where a person has a disease about which environmental health must be notified (there is a formal list of these ‘notifiable diseases’ which includes such conditions as rabies and yellow fever) or where a court has ordered that certain information be made available to them (HM Government, 2015a). There is no issue here of gaining consent from the person to whom the information relates: simply, the information must be shared. However, the worker concerned should inform that person that they are sharing the information, the reasons for this, and with whom they are sharing it. Once a decision is made to share information, whether by gaining consent, or by invoking public interest and overriding consent or by order of the law, there remain further considerations for professionals. The information should be shared properly, by which it is meant that: 1. Proportionality should be observed (only the information that is necessary should be shared). 2. Information should only be shared with the people who need to know. 3. Before sharing it, information should be checked to make sure that it is accurate and up-​to-​date. 4. Information should be shared securely. 5. It should be established with the recipient whether they intend to pass the information on to anyone else, and that they understand the limits of any consent which has been given. 6. The person about whom the information relates, and, if different, the person who provided the information, should be informed, where it is appropriate to do so. Furthermore, the decision to share (or indeed not to share) information should be recorded, along with details of what information was shared and with whom. Here we see the coming together of the three key pieces of legislation and guidance: the Data Protection Act 1998 principles of data processing, the Human Rights Act 1998 imperative to respect private and family life and the underpinning features of the national guidance which emphasize good practice in gaining appropriate, informed consent (HM Government, 2015a). These strands are inseparable, and practitioners need to be cognizant of all of them. As we have seen, they are complicated, and contain several uncertainties, dilemmas and occasions when the individual (even in consultation with colleagues) is called upon to make a judgement. In doing so, perhaps the best summary that can be provided is the following:

47

48

48

Working Together for Children

1. Where consent is gained from the parent or a competent child, the worker can share information. 2. Where consent is not forthcoming, or it is inappropriate to seek it, the worker, if concerned about a child, should act in good faith with the best interests of the child at the heart of what they do, and share information if they believe that is necessary to do so to either protect or promote the welfare of the child. Clear reasons for this decision should be recorded. Nevertheless, the detailed and precise expectations surrounding information sharing remain complex and convoluted for professionals to navigate, particularly in the context of large potential fines for breaching the rules. Furthermore, workers within agencies may interpret this legislation and guidance differently, and come to their own judgements and conclusions regarding the sharing of information in particular circumstances, a point reinforced by Galvani (2008) in relation to specialized services such as drug or alcohol support projects who may be wary of sharing information with social workers for fear of breaching their own strict protocols, or of damaging their therapeutic relationships with clients. The decisions of one agency may then impact on another agency, and thus undermine or compromise positive multi-​agency working. For instance, if a teacher in a school makes the judgement not to contact children’s social care regarding a child who may be at risk of harm because they do not have the consent of the parents they believe is necessary to share information, the social workers may well later take the teacher to task for this decision, especially if it transpires that the child could have been protected from harm at an earlier stage had the teacher shared the information. The social workers may then further conclude that the teacher, or indeed the school itself, is incompetent and this may then influence how they view or interact with them in the course of future work, as there may be a lack of trust or confidence. By way of illustrating the variety of contexts within which information might be shared, and some of the resulting issues and complexities, readers are invited to consider the following four scenarios, and the questions that follow them, in each of the reflective boxes.

Reflections: Case Study –​Sarah (primary school child) Sarah is 8 years old and white and British. She lives with her parents and younger sister, aged 4, in local authority housing. Sarah attends the local primary school, and her sister attends the local children’s centre. The school have had no concerns about Sarah, although they have noticed that recently she appears tired in class. Today, Sarah tells her class teacher that last night her father came into her bedroom which she shares with her sister, and stroked her thighs under her nightdress, saying how beautiful she was, and that she was his special girl. He went on to say that she should not tell Mummy he had visited her in her room as it was to be their little secret. In saying this, Sarah is matter-​of-​fact and does not appear to be distressed. 1. In terms of information sharing, what do you think the correct course of action should be? 2. Do you think the school should seek consent from parents before contacting other agencies? Try and think of specific reasons for your answer.

49

Information Sharing

Reflections: Case study –​Anisha (early years child) A health visitor supporting an Asian Pakistani mother and her 3-​year-​old daughter, Anisha, has some concerns that the mother’s depression is impacting both on her relationship with her daughter, and on Anisha’s development. Anisha’s father works long hours. The health visitor seeks and gains the mother’s verbal consent to contact the local day nursery to explain the circumstances and to arrange a place for Anisha there. 1. Do you think the health visitor can contact the nursery? 2. If so, can she share information regarding the mother’s mental health with the nursery? 3. Do you think the health visitor would also need consent from Anisha’s father before she contacted the nursery?

Reflections: Case study –​Connor (primary school child) Connor is 6, of Irish descent, and attends the primary school near where he lives with his parents on a private housing estate. He has a sister, aged 2. School staff have some concerns that Connor seems emotionally distant and disengaged. The quality of his schoolwork has begun to suffer. He is often late for school and in a dishevelled state, sometimes saying he has not had breakfast. The teacher speaks to his mother who plays down the concerns, saying that she is trying her best. The teacher discusses Connor with the teacher responsible for safeguarding and they decide to speak informally with the school nurse, who confirms she has no concerns that would justify a referral to children’s social care. However, they agree the concerns warrant a discussion with the health visitor, who is monitoring the progress of Connor’s sister. The health visitor confirms there are some low-​level concerns, and that the parents are working with her to try to improve matters. The health visitor decides not to reveal that the parents are receiving marriage guidance counselling. School staff agree to monitor Connor’s progress and report any future serious concerns. 1. In terms of sharing information, do you think the school acted appropriately here? Try to think of some reasons for your answer. 2. What issues should the school and school nurse have considered before contacting the health visitor? 3. Do you think the health visitor was correct in withholding the information regarding the parents’ relationship? Try to think of some reasons for your answer.

Reflections: Case study –​Alison (high school child) Alison is 14 years old and attends the high school near her home where she lives with her parents. She is an only child and is white and British. Her parents struggle to control her and are receiving support from a social worker over this. Alison

49

50

50

Working Together for Children

is verbally abusive to her parents and sometimes loses her temper, lashing out at them, and then leaving the house in the evening, returning late at night or the following day. Her parents are well-​meaning but ineffective and are at a loss to know how to handle her. The social worker, with the consent of the parents, contacts the school to gather their perspective. School staff are surprised to hear the situation at home is so bad, and tell the social worker that Alison’s attendance at school is around 60 per cent and that she is struggling to keep up with the work. However, they fail to tell the social worker that Alison has told a teacher in confidence that when she is out she meets up with older youths and has experimented with drugs, and has been under pressure to have sex, which she has resisted so far. 1. Do you think the school has acted appropriately here? Try to think of some reasons for your answer.

Conclusions Legislation and guidance on information sharing is complex. While workers need to be mindful of the law, in order to serve the interests of children, they also need to be able to cut through this labyrinth with clarity and keenness of purpose. If professionals are worried about a child, they should speak (appropriately) to that child, they should share information where necessary and they should be confident in defending these decisions if challenged, on the basis of serving what they perceive to be the best interests of the child. If this conviction is lacking, the danger is that professional paralysis or confusion, fuelled by fear of the consequences or uncertainty over the law, could lead to a lack of information sharing which ultimately could leave vulnerable children at serious risk of harm.

Further reading Home Office. (2014), Multi-​ Agency Working and Information Sharing Project:  Final Report. London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​ uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​338875/​MASH.pdf (accessed 10 October 2016). Based on information gathered from thirty-​seven local authorities, this government-​funded report explores how different multi-​agency models facilitate effective information sharing across services. Palmer, N. and M. Kaufman (2003), ‘The Ethics of Informed Consent: Implications for Multicultural Practice’, Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12 (1): 1–​26. This journal article, focused on social work practice, considers the importance of using informed consent to promote choice and autonomy within a multicultural context. Thompson, K. (2016), Strengthening Child Protection:  Sharing Information in Multi-​Agency Settings, Bristol: Policy Press. Using some high profile serious case reviews as examples, this book considers the complexity of information sharing across different services in relation to child protection.

51

newgenprepdf

4 Multi-​Agency Assessments Chapter Outline Introduction The common assessment framework (CAF) The statutory assessment Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

51 52 56 63 66

Introduction Assessment of children’s needs, and the extent to which those needs are being met by the child’s parents or carers, has traditionally been one of the cornerstones of social work practice. Whether the family situation is one where the child may be classed as being ‘in need of support’ as defined by Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or at risk of significant harm, as outlined in Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, a fundamental aspect of the social worker’s role is to carry out an assessment in order to determine the level of need or risk, and thereafter to help determine what the appropriate response might be. Other agencies also conduct assessments in accordance with their specific functions. For instance, in England, professionals working within other areas of the local authority have a responsibility to lead the assessment of children who may have special educational needs. This is called an education, health and care (EHC) assessment and will be fully discussed in Chapter Seven. National health service trusts or local councils employ occupational therapists who also have a clear role in assessing the needs of children with a variety of difficulties related to disability, illness or other long-​term conditions, with the aim of helping them to carry out everyday activities which are essential for health and well-​being (Health Careers, 2016c). This chapter will explore two distinct forms of multi-​agency assessment. First, the assessment required by the common assessment framework introduced in 2006 (HM Government, 2015b) for children who may require early help will be discussed. This only applies to England. In Wales, the Social Services and Well-​being (Wales) Act 2014 sets out the duty for local authorities to assess the needs of a child for care and support where it appears the child may require such care and support

52

52

Working Together for Children

in addition to that provided by the family, with a view to providing ‘a more seamless, holistic and equitable response’ (Institute of Public Care, 2012:  25). A  single approach to assessment, called the National Practice Model (Calder, McKinnon and Sneddon, 2012) is in place in Scotland. It forms a central plank of the Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) programme (The Scottish Government, 2016), and its aim is to provide the foundation for ‘identifying concerns, assessing needs and initial risks and making plans for children in all situations’ (Calder, McKinnon and Sneddon, 2012: 6). A single assessment framework has also been developed in Northern Ireland, and this is called Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS, 2011). Second, the statutory assessment required in England for children in need of support or in need of protection (HM Government, 2015b) will be described and critically evaluated. Wales has its own very similar version called the Core Assessment that is set within the context of that country’s approach (Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards in Wales, 2008). In Scotland, the assessment for children who may be at risk of significant harm is covered in the document mentioned in the paragraph above (Calder, McKinnon and Sneddon, 2012) and also within more specific guidance on child protection (The Scottish Government, 2010). In Northern Ireland, the assessment referred to in the paragraph above (DHSSPS, 2011) would capture deeper concerns about children similar to those covered by the statutory assessment in England.

The common assessment framework (CAF) According to the key government guidance that covers England, entitled Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) the common assessment framework (CAF) should be implemented when a child is identified as possibly requiring early help, in order to prevent a problem escalating into a more serious situation. The idea is that practitioners who work with children on a daily basis within the universal services (teachers, health visitors, youth workers, early years workers and so on) are in the best position to identify signs that a child may require support to help them overcome a problem. When this happens, the practitioner, or someone in their organization who is appropriately trained, will undertake the assessment in order to clarify whether or not the child would benefit from intervention, and if so, what type of support would be of help to the child. The intention is to ‘nip problems in the bud’ by providing timely and relevant local services. The reason why the approach is called the Common Assessment Framework is because it contains headings and elements which are commonly shared among professionals from different backgrounds, and so represents a standardized approach to conducting an assessment of a child’s needs and deciding how those needs should be met. While all services should train some staff in how to complete the CAF, the aim is that everyone working with children should be aware of the sorts of situations that indicate the need for a common assessment. As described in the guidance (HM Government, 2015b), children who might require early help include children who: 1. are disabled and have specific additional needs 2. have special educational needs

53

Multi-Agency Assessments

3. are young carers 4. are showing signs of engaging in anti-​social or criminal behaviour 5. are in a family circumstance presenting challenges for the child, such as substance abuse, adult mental health problems and domestic violence 6. have returned home to their family from care 7. are showing early signs of abuse and/​or neglect

Information: Numbers of children ‘requiring early help’ and ‘in need of support’ or ‘in need of protection’ The common assessment framework (CAF) is intended for those children who may ‘require early help’. It therefore covers a wide range of children who in England may number over 3 million (Ofsted, 2015). This is approximately one quarter of all children. Children in England requiring a statutory assessment because they may be ‘in need of support’ as defined by Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 number around 400,000, and those in need of protection as defined by Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 number around 50,000 (DfE, 2016a). Both of these last two groups of children have a deeper level of need compared to children ‘requiring early help’.

The process of the CAF The original guidance on the CAF produced for practitioners (DfES, 2006b) explains that the CAF consists of the following elements: 1. a simple pre-​assessment checklist to help practitioners decide who would benefit from a common assessment 2. a three-​step process (prepare, discuss, deliver) for undertaking a common assessment 3. a standard form to help practitioners record –​and, where appropriate, share with others –​the findings from the assessment In line with the statutory assessment (to be discussed fully later in this chapter) the CAF involves assessing the needs of the child across three domains: the child’s development, the parenting capacity and wider family and environmental factors. The process which then follows involves three distinct steps: Step 1: Preparation. This involves the worker recognizing potential needs and engaging in an initial discussion with the child, parents or carers as appropriate. The worker may liaise with their manager, colleagues or others, possibly those already involved with the child. One of the aims of this information sharing would be to find out whether a common assessment already

53

54

54

Working Together for Children

exists. A decision is then made whether or not to undertake a common assessment. This can only be done with the agreement of the child and/​or family as appropriate. It is entirely voluntary on the part of the family. If there are concerns regarding the child’s welfare, the worker would follow local safeguarding children procedures. Step 2: Discussion. This involves completing the assessment with the child and family, along with a statement confirming their consent. The aim of the discussion and assessment is to better understand the child and family’s strengths and needs, along with what services may be of help. Step 3: Delivery. The first step here is for the worker and family to agree what each can deliver. Secondly, there should be consideration of what may be needed from other services. Thirdly, these other services are contacted, and additional support agreed upon as appropriate. Where integrated support is required, this is referred to as the team around the child (TAC) and a lead professional is appointed. It is important to emphasize that workers cannot promise a service from another agency without consulting that agency. Once a support plan is in place, the plan should then be the subject of regular reviews, co-​ordinated by the lead professional. The role of the lead professional mentioned above requires further discussion. Briefly, their role is to co-​ordinate the actions identified in the assessment, and be a single point of contact for families being supported by more than one service (HM Government, 2015b). In practice, this is an onerous responsibility. They have a responsibility to support the family in making choices and in navigating their way through the support systems available. They should ensure that the family receives appropriate and timely services which are well-​planned and reviewed. The idea is that the lead professional role helps to ensure that professional involvement is rationalized, co-​ordinated and communicated effectively such that, ultimately, the children and families experience better support than if there were no lead professional appointed. Guidance produced for managers (CWDC, 2009: 11) states that the lead professional is one of the ‘key aspects of delivering better services to children and young people’ and as such should be properly trained and supported in carrying out the role. This is supported to a degree by research into a very similar role, that of key worker for families who have disabled children (Greco et al., 2005). This study found that outcomes varied between and within areas, and that the factors associated with better outcomes included effective management of the service, a clear definition and understanding of the key worker role, and provision of training and supervision for key workers. These findings very much support the notion that in order to build and maintain effective services to families, workers involved in the delivery of these need to be well-​managed, trained and supported. This clearly takes time, money and effective use of resources, and the use of a lead professional or similar role should never be seen as a cheap ‘short-​cut’ option.

Evaluation of the CAF Twelve local areas formally trialled the CAF and the role of the lead professional during 2005 and 2006. The University of East Anglia (Brandon et al., 2006) was commissioned to evaluate these trials. This study involved a total of 117 lead professionals, practitioners and manager respondents

55

Multi-Agency Assessments

in interviews (some by telephone) and workshops. It raised some serious questions about the process and cast something of a shadow over the claims made for the CAF by the then Labour government, who advocated enthusiastically for its efficacy. While there was general enthusiasm for the CAF and the role of lead professional in the evaluation study, there were real challenges highlighted, such as the generation of additional work. Furthermore, some services found it difficult to fully understand what a holistic assessment entails, and how to work in partnership with families. Most pointedly perhaps, in the light of the barriers to effective multi-​agency work encountered in Chapter Two, ‘anxiety and frustration was generated by lack of clarity about how the work was to be done, lack of support, and lack of join up between agencies’ (Brandon et al., 2006\; 410). In relation to the role of the lead professional, findings suggested that less than half of the participants felt well-​supported, although the majority of individuals were comfortable in the role. In particular, lead professionals found the high level of responsibility and the chairing of meetings daunting, and anxiety levels were generally high. Within this, there was little knowledge of what to do if disagreements arose. The researchers also found a reluctance to share equitably the responsibility for taking on the lead professional role, such that those who appeared confident in this role were left to take on the major share of the work. These findings, the report concludes can produce a ‘climate where bickering and professional mistrust can be rife’ (Brandon et al., 2006: 411). It seems that this research supports the message that merely ‘making’ different agencies work together does not automatically result in seamless, unproblematic high-​quality work: many of the key barriers to effective multi-​agency work seem to remain. Finally, ongoing support and multi-​agency training was seen to be essential to promoting effective work Although the research study by Brandon and her colleagues is now somewhat dated, it was included because it is an important study which raised some enduring issues related to the complexity of multi-​agency working. Indeed, more recent studies, such as that conducted by Holmes and McDermid (2016), reiterate some of the key findings of the earlier study by Brandon et  al. (2006), such as the lack of training for lead professionals to take on this complex role, a lack of skills in undertaking broad social care assessments and tension between professionals within different services in deciding who would take on the onerous task of the lead professional, with the additional workload it inevitably brought. Furthermore, additional questions regarding the whole CAF process can be identified. A second look at the list of children who, according to Working Together to Safeguard Children, may be classed as requiring early help, raises issues about thresholds of harm, and boundaries between different groups of children. The list includes children who: 1. Are disabled and have specific additional needs. The difficulty here is that all disabled children are also automatically classed as children ‘in need of support’ under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and therefore potentially entitled to a statutory assessment led by a social worker rather than a CAF. 2. Have special educational needs. The new education, health and care plan should cater for these children, rather than the CAF. 3. Have returned home to their family from care. If a child has spent some time in care, they should have a social worker, and if they are returning home, unless the difficulties have been

55

56

56

Working Together for Children

fully resolved, it is reasonable to expect a social worker to continue to co-​ordinate support for the child as a child ‘in need’ under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, rather than expect universal services to undertake a CAF. These differences in how the needs of children are understood and classified matter because they can lead to disagreement and tensions between professionals from different services. For instance, if a worker in a universal service, say, a teacher, identifies a child in their class as living in a family where there is (or may be) domestic violence, he or she may assume that the child’s circumstances mean they are at least a child ‘in need of support’ from a social worker and may indeed be a child ‘in need of protection’ from significant harm. The teacher may then contact the local children’s social care office to make a referral, only to be told by the duty social worker that they interpret the situation as being a child requiring early help, perhaps partly as a result of being mindful of the workload of colleagues. The duty social worker may suggest that the teacher carries out a CAF and thereafter takes the lead on any subsequent plan of support. This may leave the teacher feeling that their interpretation of events is not valued, and further that children’s social care has passed on work to him or her which he or she believes that the social worker should undertake. The likely consequence of this is that the teacher may well feel a sense of frustration and resentment that may itself lead to tension between the two parties.

The statutory assessment The statutory assessment should be offered to children and families where a child may be: 1. ‘In need of support’ as defined in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This means a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired without the provision of services or a child who is disabled. 2. ‘In need of protection’ as defined in Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This means a child who may be ‘suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm’. The statutory assessment is therefore aimed at children who have a deeper level of need compared to children requiring early help, and this is the reason why social workers undertake these assessments. Unlike practitioners in the universal services who complete the CAF, social workers are specifically trained in undertaking complex social care assessments. The principles and process of the statutory assessment are described in Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b). The aim of the assessment is to: 1. gather important information about a child and family 2. analyze their needs and/​or the nature and level of any risk and harm being suffered by the child 3. decide whether the child is a child in need of support (Section 17) and/​or is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm (Section 47) 4. provide support to address the child’s needs in order to improve their outcomes and make them safe.

57

Multi-Agency Assessments

As we have seen, use of the statutory assessment is envisaged as being potentially relevant to a large number of children in England (400,000 in 2016)  who are living in circumstances which may lead them to being ‘in need’ of support services from the local authority. The starting point for any assessment is usually an initial referral to children’s social care, which could come from any source: a professional, a member of the public or the family themselves. The children referred will undoubtedly have a variety of needs. Some of these will be alleviated or met by quick, short-​ term intervention involving advice or the provision of relatively straightforward services that do not require a full statutory assessment. Others, however, will require a more detailed assessment, as their needs appear to be complex, or their situation serious –​for example, children in need of protection. This would require a full statutory assessment to take place, and, although it is co-​ ordinated by the social worker, it will involve workers from other agencies to help gather and process the relevant information, as well as to deliver appropriate support or protection via the plan that should follow on from the assessment. For children ‘in need of support’, the assessment will be carried out on a completely voluntary basis with the child living at home. This means that should the parent/​s not agree to it, no assessment will be carried out, and the social worker will have no right to impose themselves on the family, although they may attempt to persuade and encourage the parent/​s to agree to the assessment in order for them to gain access to support services. The reason for this voluntary nature of the activity is that the child is not at risk of significant harm, and parents can choose not to cooperate with support services. However, for children in need of protection, action needs to be swift in order to determine the extent of any harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the child, and if so, what the appropriate response may be. A detailed exploration of multi-​agency working in relation to these specific groups of children will be carried out in Chapter Six (children in need of support), and Chapter Eight (children in need of protection). Suffice to say here that where a child is in need of protection, immediate action should be taken to protect them, and only once this has been achieved should a longer, more detailed assessment of the family’s circumstances be undertaken. This could happen with the child still living at home, living with relatives or friends or being in care. If the child has been taken into care, the main function of the assessment may well be to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation between the child and the parents, in a timescale to suit the child’s needs and in a manner which keeps the child safe. Technically, the assessment for children in need of protection is still voluntary on the part of the parents, but if they refuse to cooperate the stakes are very high, and refusal to take part is more likely to result in the child either being removed from the care of the parents, or remaining in care on a permanent basis if they have been temporarily removed, as current and future risk to the child cannot be fully determined. As has already been stated, but is worth emphasising, whether the statutory assessment is conducted in respect of a child ‘in need of support’ or ‘in need of protection’, the social worker takes the lead in co-​ordinating the completion of the assessment. Furthermore, there are certain underlying principles set out within the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b), which are that all assessments should: 1. Be child centred. This means that the child should be the main focus of the assessment. Social workers (and any other professionals involved) should guard against being distracted by other

57

58

58

Working Together for Children

2.

3.

4.

5.

issues, such as conflict between adult family members, mental health problems being experienced by a parent or housing problems. The social worker should also ensure that they undertake direct work with the child during the assessment, with the express aim of ascertaining their wishes and feelings and understanding the meaning of their experiences to them. This is clearly a laudable aim and central to both enhancing the quality of life of children in need, but also to protecting children in need of protection. It is not without its difficulties, however. The workers involved need a high level of training, skill, confidence, support and supervision to separate out the child’s distinct needs and experiences from those of the parents. Be rooted in child development. Social workers should use their knowledge of child development to inform their assessment and judgements. This includes such matters as understanding that children (including those with learning disabilities or who are disabled) have different rates of progress, that at different life stages there are different imperatives in child development and different milestones that one would expect to see reached and that the development of a particular child is a complex interplay between their experiences, their genetic inheritance or temperament, any health problems or impairment they may have, their culture and the physical and emotional environment in which they are living. As with the first point, social workers need a good level of supervision to help them process the information they receive in order to make objective decisions. Be focused on action and outcomes for children. This refers to the need for assessments to lead to clear actions being taken, focused on meeting the identified needs of the children in a timely manner. This reinforces the child-​centredness of the process, in which the interests of the child should be paramount. Be holistic in their approach. This means that the assessment should take account of the wider context in which the child is living –​their family, their community, their culture. The child should not be seen as an isolated individual; rather, the links between, and influences of, the various aspects of the child’s life should be explored and understood. This is not a new approach and the psychologist Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed what is now considered a classic model which integrates the personal, familial, cultural and structural layers of a child’s life. While the logic of this approach is compelling, there is something of a paradox and contradiction between social workers being told on the one hand that they must focus on the child and not be distracted by other factors, and on the other hand being told that taking account of wider factors is crucial to enhance understanding of the child’s situation. This reinforces once more the fact that assessment is a high-​level skill, requiring an understanding and maintenance of the delicate balance between focusing on the child and exploring the impact of wider factors upon that child. Ensure equality of opportunity. Social workers need to respect differences in bringing up children due to family structures, religion, culture and ethnic origins. Furthermore, children with specific social needs arising out of disability or a health condition should have these needs assessed and met. It is important to remember, however, that ensuring equality of opportunity does not mean that all children should be treated the same. Instead, it means that workers should embrace cultural differences to map their relevance to the child’s specific needs, and at times, to stand back from these in order to process them and separate out

59

Multi-Agency Assessments

6.

7.

8.

9.

the child’s specific needs from those of the culture in which they are immersed. For example, cultural or religious factors need to be acknowledged but not be accepted as explanations for abusive behaviour towards a child. This example serves as a reminder that professionals should guard against myths and stereotypes –​both positive and negative –​of, for example, black and minority ethnic families. To maintain a careful, evidence-​based assessment in these circumstances –​where one could add a further ingredient of a fear of being accused of racist practice if cultural factors are ignored –​is no easy task. For white workers in particular, the visceral anxiety involved may, as the book edited by Lavalette and Penketh (2014) illuminates, serve to reinforce ‘blackness’ as a problem, and therefore impinge negatively on practice. Involve working with children and their families. An underlying assumption of the statutory assessment is that the majority of parents want to do the best for their children, and that, in these circumstances, partnership between professionals and families is the key to a successful outcome. Therefore, an assessment is something that should be done with rather than to a family. It is important to acknowledge, however, that there may well be differences in how professionals can, do or should engage with different families. Build on strengths as well as identify difficulties. This means that the assessment should be balanced, identifying both the positive and negative influences. While it is important that assessments do not gloss over any difficulties, and that the impact of these on the child are fully understood, the strengths in any given situation should also not be ignored or played down. Once more, this serves to illustrate the tightrope that workers have to negotiate in order to arrive at sound judgements during and following an assessment: balancing strengths and weaknesses of the family, but not overplaying either element, and at the same time keeping a constant focus on the child. The role of supervision here is once again crucial in assisting the worker to complete this delicate and intricate task. Be integrated in its approach. Although children’s social care has the lead responsibility for their conduct, statutory assessments are, or at least should be, by their very nature multi-​ agency in character. The reason for this is that all children are very likely to have had contact with the universal services outlined in Chapter One, and that, therefore, these services will have information to offer an assessment. A further reason is that these agencies may also be required, in some cases, to provide more specialized assessments, and it is therefore best that they have been involved from the very beginning of the assessment process. As well as these clear advantages, the inherent difficulties of the multi-​agency nature of assessments should not be underestimated, and these will be addressed towards the end of this chapter. Be a continuing process, not a single event. This has two main elements to it. First, sound assessments cannot be completed in a single visit due to their complexity (especially when the multi-​agency work is factored in). Second, a form of assessment should continue through any intervention, so that plans, and progress against these plans, are continually discussed and reviewed. Certainly key decision-​making meetings should be informed by an up-​to-​date assessment of the child’s circumstances. On the other hand, this does not mean that assessments should be repeated unnecessarily or continued without any clear purpose or outcome.

59

60

60

Working Together for Children

Once again, we see here the potential for contradiction and misunderstanding by professionals –​on the one hand assessment should be continual, on the other hand it should not be intrusive –​and once more there is the need for workers to tread the tightrope between the two and hope to maintain a steady, acceptable course. 10. Lead to action, including the provision of services. This recognizes that while assessments are spoken of as a discrete process, they do and should happen alongside other helpful activities with the family. If there are obvious and speedy services which can be provided, the workers should not wait until the outcome of the assessment to provide these. In the case of children at risk of significant harm, then clearly immediate steps may need to be taken to protect them; waiting for the outcome of a multi-​agency assessment could be disastrous. There should, therefore, always be consideration of what services or intervention are needed to support the family during and after the process of assessment. 11. Review the services provided on an ongoing basis. This reinforces the ongoing nature of the assessment process. Whatever services are provided to support families or to keep children safe should be regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure they continue to be relevant and effective. 12. Be transparent and open to challenge. Assessments should be undertaken with full knowledge and agreement of parents and children (where it is appropriate to involve children in this way). Where the assessment contains information with which a parent or indeed another practitioner disagrees, this should be openly discussed, and any differences in opinion should be recorded.

The structure of the statutory assessment Statutory assessments consist of gathering information and coming to a deep understanding of three key areas, or domains (HM Government, 2015b). Each of these domains is then further subdivided into dimensions. The social worker is responsible for gathering information on all of these areas.

Domain 1: The developmental needs of the child Dimensions 1. Health: this is widely construed and includes growth and development as well as physical and mental well-​being. 2. Education: this too, should be interpreted broadly, and should cover all areas of a child’s cognitive development, including play, from birth onwards. 3. Emotional and behavioural development:  the appropriateness of the responses, demonstrated by a child in terms of feelings and actions, to parents or carers, and, as the child grows older, to others beyond the family. 4. Identity: the child’s growing sense of self as a separate and valued person. 5. Family and social relationships: the development of empathy and the capacity to place oneself in someone else’s shoes. It includes such issues as the stability and warmth of the relationship between the child and parents or carers.

61

Multi-Agency Assessments

6. Social presentation: the child’s growing understanding of the way in which their appearance, behaviour, and any impairment are perceived by the outside world and the impression that these may create. 7. Self-​care skills: the acquisition by the child of practical, emotional and communication skills associated with increasing independence.

Domain 2: The capacity of the parents to meet the needs of the child Dimensions 1. Basic care: the extent to which the parents or carers provide for the child’s physical needs, and appropriate medical and dental care. 2. Ensuring safety: the extent to which parents or carers ensure the child is adequately protected from harm or danger. 3. Emotional warmth: the extent to which parents or carers ensure the child’s emotional needs are met, and that the child is provided with a sense of being specially valued. 4. Stimulation:  the promotion of the child’s learning and intellectual development through encouragement and cognitive stimulation and the promotion of social opportunities. 5. Guidance and boundaries:  the parent’s ability to provide appropriate boundaries and to enable the child to regulate their own emotions and behaviour. 6. Stability: the provision of a sufficiently stable family environment to enable a child to develop and maintain a secure attachment to parents or carers in order to ensure optimal development.

Domain 3: Wider family and environmental factors Dimensions 1. Family history and functioning: this includes both genetic and psychosocial factors. 2. Wider family: this should be interpreted broadly to include the role not only of blood relatives but also significant associates of the family. 3. Housing: the quality of the accommodation in which the child lives. 4. Employment: the nature and impact of work in the family. 5. Income: the availability of income over time. 6. The family’s social integration: the exploration of the wider context of the local neighbourhood and community and its impact on the child and parents. 7. Community resources: the facilities and services in a particular neighbourhood, including universal services of primary health care, day care and schools, places of worship, transport, shops and leisure activities. Clearly, the social worker alone is highly unlikely to have access to all of the above information. Certainly, the parents or carers should be involved in providing some of the details. However, in

61

62

62

Working Together for Children

order for the assessment to be full and meaningful, several agencies should also contribute to it. For example, schools or early years settings should provide information for the ‘education’ dimension or perhaps on some dimensions of the parenting capacity domain as well. A health visitor, in addition to furnishing details for the ‘health’ dimension, may also have insight into the parenting capacity domain. The local housing authority could be contacted in respect of any rent arrears or other relevant matters where the family is living in local authority–​rented accommodation. In engaging these other professionals, the social worker will need to be cognizant of the issues surrounding the gaining of consent from family members for the sharing of information, details of which were explored in Chapter Two. The lengthy list of domains and dimensions is very likely to yield a large amount of detailed and rich information. The social worker will therefore need to ensure that this information is dealt with in a structured manner. The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance (HM Government, 2015b) reminds us of the importance of a number of issues related to this. It specifies that it is important that: 1. Information is gathered and recorded systematically. If this does not happen, there is scope for information to become lost, confused or misrepresented. 2. Information gathered is checked with parents and the child where appropriate. Clearly, this refers mostly to factual information regarding the family and their circumstances. Opinions or interpretations of information should be openly shared with family members but the social worker would not be expected to have them approved before including them in the final report. Nevertheless, it is important that family members have an opportunity to check the veracity of data and certain claims within the assessment report before it is shared with a wider audience. Older children should be included in this exercise at a level which is appropriate to their age and understanding. 3. Differences in views are recorded. Particularly where the social worker has a view, based on the available evidence, about a particular aspect of the family, and where the parents disagree with this view, this should be recorded in the assessment report. Clear reasons for the difference in opinions should also be logged. 4. The impact of what is happening to the child is clearly identified. In the assessment report, the social worker should, perhaps in summary form, list the clearly identifiable strengths and weaknesses of the family situation which contribute to the overall conclusion of the assessment. This is important in presenting both to the family and to other relevant professionals a balanced view of the issues which have been considered, and which impinge upon the child. Furthermore, vulnerabilities and protective factors in the child’s world should be identified. This means that the mass of information gathered needs to be properly and carefully processed. The social worker should be asking a fundamental question: ‘What does all this information mean?’ This should lead systematically to a focus on the child. The whole point and fulcrum of the assessment should be the child, and how their needs are or are not being met, how capable are the parents of meeting their needs both now and into the future and how the wider family and environmental factors impinge upon the welfare of the child. The assessment report should include very clear information and conclusions regarding the daily

63

Multi-Agency Assessments

experiences of the child, so that one fundamental question is addressed and answered: ‘What is life like for that child living in that household?’

Issues for multi-​agency working The above discussion represents what the ideal approach to, and standard of, a statutory assessment should be. However, this ideal can be compromised by a number of factors which have been explored in a publication from the Department of Health (DH, 2000) whose very title emphases the child-​centred imperative of assessments. It is called The Child’s World: Assessing Children in Need and reflects the need for assessments to explore, and reach clear conclusions about, how the child experiences their world and how these experiences impact on their well-​being and safety. Although now some years old, it contains material that remains relevant and current. The publication highlights many factors that could distract professionals from focusing on the child during the course of an assessment, grouped into four categories:  factors about the child, about the worker, about the family and about the agency. It is important that these are not presented and understood as criticisms, weaknesses or faults of the child, the family or the worker. Rather, they are real, whether tangible, conscious or subconscious and reflect the complex array and interplay of issues at work when professionals engage with human beings under stress, in difficulty or in crisis. These distracting factors require articulating, acknowledging and addressing if children are to be kept as the focus of the assessment. Responsibility for this lies not only with the professional undertaking the assessment, but also with their supervisor, to ensure that sufficient focus is given to the process during assessments as well as to any outcomes. If the former is ignored, it can make the latter shallow and dangerously meaningless. In keeping with the theme of the book, this chapter will only focus on those factors associated with agencies, and such factors, which could distract from focusing on the child, include: 1. Changes happening  –​for example, reorganization. Where an agency is going through a structural change, this can cause anxiety and stress to the worker. They may be concerned, for example, about whether their job is safe, who their new manager may be, where they may be based if they moving offices, or who their new colleagues may be. These preoccupations may prevent the worker from fully focusing on the needs of the child whom they may happen to be assessing at the time. 2. Poor inter-​agency communication. Where some of the barriers already discussed in Chapter Two are present, it can be difficult for the worker to maintain focus on the child. They may be distracted by the problems with other agencies, or simply fail to have all the necessary information with which to make an informed decision regarding the welfare of the child. 3. New legislation or policy introduced. The agency may be coping with the introduction of a major initiative which impacts on all workers. This may require a large training schedule. Where the initiative has a significant impact on practice, this can lead to anxiety among workers about ‘getting it right’, which in turn can lead to them being concerned about this,

63

64

64

Working Together for Children

4.

5.

6.

7.

perhaps at the expense of focusing on the needs of any child they happen to be assessing at the time. Cutbacks in resources. Where agencies have to make substantial savings, and therefore reduce expenditure, the worker may well be worried about the impact of this upon them. They may be concerned about their job security, or about having to take on more work if colleagues retire or are made redundant. Once again, these preoccupations may prevent them from fully focusing on the needs of the child during any assessments undertaken at the time. Staff shortages. If the agency is short-​staffed for whatever reason, this could have a knock-​on effect upon remaining individual workers. They may be placed, or feel, under huge pressure or moral obligation to fulfil the work of their absent colleagues, or they may be anxious about the levels of incomplete work. It is likely that staff shortages will lead to stress among workers, which itself may prevent them from functioning as fully as possible. High use of agency staff. Where permanent members of staff are unavailable for whatever reason, agencies may use short-​term, temporary staff employed through social work agencies to plug any gaps. While this is helpful at one level (there are individuals present to complete work), it can also cause difficulties. The permanent staff may be required to mentor them or generally support them in office procedures and so on. If there is a high turnover of agency staff, the permanent workers have to familiarize themselves with new colleagues on a regular basis. They may also be concerned about the quality of work undertaken by agency staff, if they feel that they are inexperienced or that their training is out of date. In this context, maintaining a clear focus on the child may be problematic. Functional divisions, for example, between child protection and disability services. Where an agency has separated out different functions it can cause barriers. On the one hand, it is positive that there are specialist workers, say, in disability, who can be called upon where the worker may be assessing the needs of a disabled child. However, the process can be slow, as the commitments of the specialist worker may be at odds with those of the worker undertaking the assessment. There may also be subtle differences in how the families are perceived and approached by the different workers, thus potentially causing confusion or even a split, which parents could use to demonstrate that, for instance, the worker undertaking the assessment is being harsh or unfair.

Having considered each of these many factors individually, it is important to bear in mind that it is very likely that any particular worker may well be faced with a combination of these at any one time, thus potentially exaggerating their impact upon their ability to fully focus on the needs of the child. For instance, if an inexperienced and poorly supervised practitioner, working in the context of staff shortages, is assessing a deaf child whose parents are hostile and suspicious, then there is a real possibility that the needs of the child may become lost in this maelstrom. In these circumstances, one real danger is that workers begin to make assumptions about the family, and about the needs of the child and how these are or are not being met. What is so dangerous about assumptions is that they limit further exploration. If a worker makes an assumption about a family or a child, they have the ‘answer’ and therefore do not need to seek it elsewhere. In this way, children can be left in situations which are potentially dangerous for them.

65

Multi-Agency Assessments

Reflections: Case study –​the McLoughlin family Read the following case study which contains an assessment. Consider the questions which then follow. McLoughlin family composition (all white and British) Laura (Age 26) Mother Mark (Age 6) Son Stella (Age 4) Daughter Christopher (Age 18 months) Son The family lived in a small, poorly furnished local authority flat with no safe play area outside. The area of town was not well-​served by public services. Family income was via state benefits. One night, at around 2.00 am, a member of the public found Mark wandering around the street. He had got out of the flat after the three children were left alone. The police were called and they forced entry to the flat. The children were physically unharmed, but the flat was in a very dirty and insanitary state. The children’s bed clothes were soiled with urine and faeces, and the toilet and bath were similarly infested. There was almost no food in the house. The children were taken into police protection, and children’s social care was contacted. A social worker was assigned to the case. The children were made subject to a legal order and initially placed in foster care. They then went to stay with their father who lived nearby. The social worker’s key tasks were twofold: conducting an assessment of the family, and coordinating and implementing a multi-​agency plan to support the family. This involved offering practical support to the father, Thomas, as well as supporting Laura emotionally and practically to improve her situation, with a view to the children returning to her care. A large part of this was supporting Laura in addressing her emotional needs, helping her to understand how the situation that led to the children’s removal had arisen, and what needed to be done to put things right. This was counselling-​type work which discovered that Laura’s acute depression in the preceding months had been sparked by a miscarriage which she kept secret from everyone. She also began to drink heavily. During this malaise, the toilet broke, and she did not have the energy to contact the housing department to get it fixed, and the family began using the bath as a toilet. This added to the stress and sense of overwhelming helplessness and ended up with the total neglect of the children’s physical and emotional welfare. During this work, it emerged that Laura was generally a capable parent who had temporarily failed to meet the needs of her children. She showed a great deal of determination and resilience in working towards having her children returned to her care. The assessment identified other needs which led to the following multi-​agency responses: 1. Securing full-​time nursery places for Stella and Christopher to provide opportunities for play and stimulation. 2. Securing and funding a place at the after-​school club for Mark to allow him to socialize with peers, as he took some caring responsibilities for the younger children during his mother’s period of depression. 3. Ensuring Laura had all the benefits she was entitled to. 4. A positive response to an application for rehousing.

65

66

66

Working Together for Children

5. Direct work with, and observations of, the children (individually and together) to determine their wishes and feelings. 6. Practical assistance for the children to attend health appointments. The outcome was that after four months, a multi-​agency decision was made that it was in the interests of the children to be returned to Laura’s care. The father supported this decision. Initially the children returned to live with her in the flat (restored to a good state of hygiene) but soon after the family were offered, and accepted, a three-​bedroom house with a garden that was much closer to local amenities. The children made good progress and after a further twelve months, social care involvement was no longer required. 1. Which assessment framework do you think the social worker used here –​the common assessment framework or the statutory assessment? 2. How were the children’s needs addressed? 3. How was Laura’s parenting capacity assessed? 4. What were the significant wider family and environmental factors that impinged on the family? How were they addressed, and how did this contribute to the successful outcome?

Conclusions This chapter has discussed two distinct types of assessment. The first, under the common assessment framework, can be led by a trained professional from any discipline, and is appropriate when children require early help or intervention, potentially a very large group of children. A significant issue here is how professionals make the distinction between a child requiring ‘early help’ and a child being ‘in need of support’ or even ‘in need of protection’: there is the potential here for uncertainty. Furthermore, there is a question as to whether full resources are available to meet the needs of all the children who may be identified as having additional needs. A significant moral dilemma may arise if large numbers of children and parents are led to believe support is available, and yet that support is then not forthcoming. One consequence of this is that assessments and resources might become focused on those children who professionals decide need safeguarding. The second assessment, the statutory assessment, is led by a social worker, and is appropriate where it appears a child is in need of support via the provision of extra services, or in need of protection from significant harm. It is a more detailed and specialized assessment (compared with the CAF) that is designed to build a thorough picture of the child’s needs and wider circumstances. Nevertheless, various factors can militate against this, such that the social worker needs to endeavour to maintain a clear focus on the child, and work with other agencies to reach a common understanding of the problems and how best they can be overcome.

Further reading HM Government (2015), Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-​Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children, London: Crown Copyright.

67

Multi-Agency Assessments

It is worth reading carefully this detailed government guidance and the expectations on assessment. Pages 11–​17 cover the common assessment framework, and pages 17–​28 cover the statutory assessment. Jones, C. and S. Leverett (2008), ‘Policy into Practice:  Assessment, Evaluation and Multi-​Agency Working with Children’, in P. Foley and A. Rixon (eds), Changing Children’s Services: Working and Learning Together, 124–​165, Bristol: Policy Press. This chapter within an edited book explores the relationship between how the idea behind government policy is enacted in practice. It contains an extended discussion on the common assessment framework as an example of the tensions that can arise between policy and practice. Samsonsen, V. and D. Turney (2017), ‘The Role of Professional Judgement in Social Work Assessment:  A  Comparison between Norway and England’, European Journal of Social Work, 20 (1): 112–​124. This comparative study between England and Norway discusses how too much emphasis on either procedure or on professional judgement within an assessment can be problematic, and argues that properly grounded professional judgement can be achieved by the worker fully considering their accountability and responsibility.

67

68

69

Part II Multi-​Agency Work in Specific Contexts

70

71

newgenprepdf

5 Children Requiring Early Help Chapter Outline Introduction Who are children requiring early help? Systems and processes to support children requiring early help Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

71 72 73 75 81

Introduction Although the idea of early help or early intervention to support children and parents is not new (prevention is one of the key principles of the Children Act 1989, for instance), it was given a new impetus and prominence by the introduction of the Every Child Matters programme (DfES, 2004) in England by the then Labour government. The stated aim of this far-​reaching and ambitious project was to shift the focus ‘from dealing with the consequences of difficulties in children’s lives to preventing things from going wrong in the first place’ (DfES, 2004: 2). This was to be achieved by expecting and supporting workers within the universal services (for example teachers, early years staff, health visitors, youth workers) to pick up on early signs of problems and respond quickly to address them. Within this broad approach, a particular focus was placed on supporting children and their parents in the early years. Consequently, a significant amount of money was spent by the government on developing early years centres called Sure Start children’s centres. These were to provide not only early years day provision for the children, but also services for parents, including healthcare and employment advice (Bate and Foster, 2015). The idea was that children would benefit from good quality provision and, along with the support offered to parents, this would lead to better overall outcomes for children in their later years. When the Coalition government came to power in May 2010, not only was the entire Every Child Matters programme abandoned, but the protected funding for Sure Start children’s centres was removed (Phillips, 2011). Together with further budget reductions to local authorities under the Conservative government which took office in May 2015, and led to local authorities reducing funding to support children’s

72

72

Working Together for Children

centres. Dugan (2015) reports that two-​thirds of children’s centres, some 2,300, have faced reduced funding and have therefore cut the services they offer, while several hundred centres have closed altogether. Although early years support is an important aspect of what is included in ‘early help’ it will not form part of the detailed consideration for this chapter, because the chapter focuses on multi-​agency working for the broader group of children and young people of any age who require early help. In spite of the loss of focus on Every Child Matters, the idea of early help or intervention for children has not been lost. This chapter will consider the characteristics of the group of children who are deemed to require early help, before then discussing the multi-​agency systems and processes in place to support them. The attendant issues and tensions for workers in the different services will then be discussed.

Who are children requiring early help? The official government list of the kinds of children who may come under the definition of requiring early help can be found within the guidance document Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b). This states that such children might include those who: are disabled and have specific additional needs have special educational needs are young carers are showing signs of engaging in anti-​social or criminal behaviour are in a family circumstance presenting challenges for the child, such as substance abuse, adult mental health problems and domestic violence 6. have returned home to their family from care 7. are showing early signs of abuse and/​or neglect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This is an interesting list to which I shall return later in this chapter when discussing issues for multi-​agency working. What is also worthy of noting at this point, though, is a separate list describing children requiring early help contained within a report by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 2015) which is based on their review of fifty-​six cases identified by local authorities as ‘early help’. This list includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

children whose parents are struggling to manage their children’s behaviour children with a learning difficulty, such as an autistic spectrum disorder children displaying inappropriate sexualized behaviour children who are isolated or whose parents are isolated low-​level parental mental or physical ill health which is impacting on the child vulnerable young parents children affected by bereavement children whose parents misuse alcohol children living in families where there are financial difficulties or debts

73

Children Requiring Early Help

10. parental learning difficulty which is impacting on the child 11. early neglect of children 12. housing difficulties (overcrowding and homelessness) which are impacting on the child 13. children at risk of exclusion from school 14. situations where there is poor attachment between the child and the parent 15. low self-​esteem in children This list is quite different from the previous list from Working Together to Safeguard Children, as it appears, on the face of it, to include children presenting with less serious and broader problems. Taken together, they cover a wide range of children who in England may number over 3 million (Ofsted, 2015), approximately one quarter of all children. The potential impact of the differences between these lists upon multi-​agency working will be discussed later in this chapter within the section entitled ‘issues for multi-​agency working’.

Systems and processes to support children requiring early help The key process in place for children requiring early help is the common assessment framework. This has been covered more fully in Chapter Four, so only a summary is needed here.

Information: The common assessment framework (CAF) The CAF has three steps: 1. The preparation stage: deciding whether a CAF would be helpful. 2. The discussion stage: completing the common assessment with the child and family. 3. The delivery stage: agreeing upon what support or other services may be needed. Staff within the universal services (such as schools, early years settings, health settings) carry out the CAF. Remember, the CAF is entirely voluntary, meaning that parents can decline to take part at any stage of the process (DfES, 2006b).

The system to support children requiring early help is based on the principle that workers within the universal services are best placed to pick up on early problems and respond to them in a timely and effective manner. Once a problem or potential problem has been identified, these workers, who might include teachers, early years staff, health visitors, youth workers and so on, would then approach the parent or parents to offer a common assessment as a way of more fully understanding any problems and gaining insight into what services might help address them. The common assessment is not designed for children who might have deeper needs, such as where there is risk

73

74

74

Working Together for Children

of significant harm, and this is why social workers are not involved in carrying out the common assessment. It is also worth remembering that the common assessment is entirely voluntary, meaning that although it should be offered to parents, if they decline, the professional has no authority to insist or impose themselves upon the family, although they may want to continue to discuss the problem with the parents, and continue to encourage them to undergo the assessment as a means to accessing additional support. If a parent is adamant that they do not want to take part in the assessment, or do not want any support, unless the identified problem amounts to significant harm, the professional would have no choice but to withdraw. However, assuming parents do agree, the common assessment first involves a simple pre-​ assessment checklist to ensure that the worker has correctly identified a child who might benefit from early help. The assessment itself that follows has three steps to it (DfES, 2006b). The first step is the preparation stage, in which the worker engages in an initial discussion with the parents and child, if appropriate. Further information is gathered, and a decision is then made whether or not to undertake a common assessment. The second step is the discussion stage. This involves completing the common assessment with the child and family, with the full consent of all relevant family members. The assessment covers the three domains of the child’s development and needs, the parenting capacity to meet those needs and wider family and environmental factors that impinge upon the child. The aim of the process is to understand the child and family’s strengths and needs, to identify the key areas of concern, clearly stating the child’s needs, and how best those needs might be met by a combination of parental or family support, and actions from outside agencies. The aim of the assessment is to be supportive, building upon the parents’ approaches. At every point, parents have to give fully informed consent, from agreeing to take part in the assessment, to agreeing, having had a full explanation, that information about them can be shared so that other services can be contacted to offer support. Furthermore, parents can change their mind at any point and withdraw from the process. The third step is the delivery stage, and this involves the worker and family agreeing upon what each can deliver, then discussing what help may be needed from other services. The information gained from the assessment should then feed into a clear and agreed plan, again supportive, which outlines precisely what actions or services might help resolve the situation. Finally, these other services are contacted, and additional support agreed upon as appropriate. The plan can be tweaked at this point. The plan is inherently multi-​agency in nature, and this approach is also called the team around the child (TAC). A lead professional is then appointed to co-​ordinate the work. It is important to emphasize, however, that workers cannot promise a service from another agency without consulting that agency. Once a support plan is in place, it should be subject to regular reviews. The notion of the TAC first emerged when the then Children’s Development Workforce Council (it has now been abolished) produced guidance on how services could work effectively together to support children and families (CWDC, 2009). The model that was promulgated and encouraged was of a multi-​agency service provision which ‘brings together a range of different practitioners from across the children and young people’s workforce to support an individual child or young person and their family’ (CWDC, 2009: 29). The members of the TAC are not part of one team, but rather come from their respective disciplines to work together to help a child. They remain accountable to their own line managers, but work with each other to support the child.

75

Children Requiring Early Help

However, a lead professional is appointed, and as was mentioned in Chapter Four, they have the responsibility of: 1. 2. 3. 4.

acting as a single point of contact for the family coordinating the delivery of the actions agreed upon by the TAC ensuring that progress is reviewed reducing overlap and inconsistency in the services provided

This lead professional is one of the TAC rather than a separate person outside of this network. They have their main job to perform and are acting as lead professional in addition to this.

Issues for multi-​agency working The above description of the process for early intervention is positive and optimistic: workers in the universal services will notice worrying changes or signs in the children and arrange for a common assessment to take place. This will in turn lead to a plan for multi-​agency support enacted via the team around the child (TAC), overseen by a lead professional who ensures the family receives a timely and effective service that resolves the problem and prevents it from escalating into a more serious matter. However, the reality is more complicated than that. Although the aim is to offer a seamless and wholly valuable service, many factors can prevent this from happening. Ofsted (2015), in their review of fifty-​six instances of early intervention, found a combination of good and poor practice. First, poor assessments: failed to analyse information were overly descriptive and so not clear about strengths and concerns relied heavily on one parent’s self-​reporting, with limited or no input from professionals did not consider the family’s history or the significance of the current issues focused too much on the parent and their needs rather than the impact of the parent’s difficulties on the child 6. contained limited information about the father or other partners even when they were part of the household 7. did not include the views of children 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

On the other hand, good assessments were characterized by: 1. a professional speaking to the child about their experiences and asking for their thoughts and feelings about their circumstances 2. the inclusion of consideration of brothers’ and sisters’ needs individually 3. the participation and consent of both parents 4. the family’s history informing the findings and decisions 5. the involvement of all professionals known to the family contributing to the assessment 6. the inclusion of comprehensive information

75

76

76

Working Together for Children

7. the family’s needs, risks and strengths being clearly identified 8. sound conclusions being based on good analysis of information These lists reinforce the multi-​agency issues raised by Brandon et al. (2006) referred to in Chapter Four: universal workers can perhaps lack the detailed knowledge and skills to carry out full social care assessments for which qualified social workers are trained. Where no doubt well-​meaning practitioners are conducting assessments within the busy schedule of their main jobs, and where all they have to guide them is some basic training on the common assessment process, together with their own professional background, it is not surprising that they may not be able to produce assessments and subsequent plans that are based on a detailed analysis of the problems that are properly rooted in a child-​centred approach. The same report by Ofsted (2015) identified other problems that went beyond the assessment process, and included here are the points specifically relevant to multi-​agency working. They found: 1. Thresholds not understood across partnerships and thresholds set too high, which prevented the necessary support being offered. Take for example, that children requiring early help might include those showing early signs of abuse and/​or neglect. It is not difficult to see here how workers might take very different views on how this is interpreted, based upon a number of factors such as their professional judgement, personal values of what is acceptable or good-​ enough parenting, or how busy they are and whether they are attempting to protect themselves or colleagues from additional work. It may be perfectly reasonable for a practitioner in the universal services, say, a teacher, to argue that a child experiencing any form of abuse has passed beyond the stage of ‘early help’ and requires the services of a social worker to conduct a more specialized assessment. The social worker, however, rooted in child protection work which may lie ‘at the core of their professional identity’ (Edwards et al., 2008: 53) may have a different understanding of what level of harm requires a specialized social care intervention and may dispute the teacher’s interpretation. It is easy to see how such disagreement could lead to tension and conflict between them as they attempt to argue their positions and defend their professional judgements. 2. Adherence to procedures over common sense protection of children and young people, even where there was clear evidence of concerns about abuse. This is understandable where professionals might be concerned about being criticized if they make a mistake. This may reflect a lack of confidence among workers in universal services as they enter a new sphere of working outside of their core function, such that they feel safer sticking to formalized processes. This recalls the discussion in Chapter Two on the model developed by Morrison (1991) in which he described the different perspectives agencies may hold on their role within multi-​agency work, as it may result from workers taking what he terms a ‘strategic adversarial’ approach to multi-​agency working, where they are wary of losing more than they might gain, and where a siege mentality might predominate the proceedings. 3. Poor communication and inter-​agency working, especially in relation to challenging decisions made by other agencies. This reflects one of the key barriers to multi-​agency working discussed in Chapter Two: a lack of clarity in lines of authority and decision-​making. Where

77

Children Requiring Early Help

workers lack confidence in their own decisions and judgements, or where it is not clear who should have the final say where there are disagreements, this can lead to a lack of professional challenge even where workers are unhappy with the direction the work is taking. If this is not resolved, it is likely that disquiet or resentment can build up and this can lead to poor multi-​ agency working as individuals retreat into their own ‘camps’. This in turn is likely to impact negatively on the child for whom they are all supposed to be united in supporting. Pithouse and Broadhurst (2009: 83) point out that no amount of ‘shared protocols or procedures’ will address the ‘psychological and interactional dimensions of human communication’. If the completion of a standardized form becomes a substitute for multi-​agency discussion and sharing of views, then the process is likely to be somewhat sterile and limited. 4. Workers from across the agencies lacking a suitable level of understanding of key factors relating to particular cases, such as cultural norms, mental health, legislation and domestic abuse. The Ofsted (2015) report found that specialized advice was not sought where it would have improved decisions. Once again, this may reflect a lack of specialized knowledge and skills among workers within universal services, or a lack of confidence in these professionals feeling able to contact more specialized services for support, feeling perhaps that they have to try to solve the problem on their own or with colleagues with whom they work more closely on a daily basis. 5. Delays to early help services being provided and a lack of follow-​up if a child did not take up the use of the service. This issue speaks to a bigger problem perhaps. One of the inherent difficulties in the common assessment process is that one worker meets with the family and decides what other services might be of help. They then have to make a referral to that service without first checking the capacity of that service to provide the help requested. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that there may be delays, as the service provider contacted may have a waiting list or indeed may decline to provide a service at all. On the second point regarding a lack of follow-​up if a child did not take up the use of a service: this may result from a lack of time on behalf of the lead professional or other universal worker to chase families up, as they juggle their commitments to their core job with their multi-​agency responsibilities. They may also be mindful of the law on consent which clearly states that as the help on offer is entirely voluntary, parents have the right to withdraw or decline offers of help, and to place what they think might be undue pressure upon them is unjustified or unethical. A further area where multi-​agency disagreement might arise is in the very definition of a child who might require early help. The list provided in the official national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) suggests that despite the name of ‘early help’, the child’s circumstances actually need to have reached a moderate level of concern. For example, it includes children who are not merely disabled, but who also have specific additional needs –​children who have returned home from care and children showing early signs of abuse or neglect. On the other hand, the list of examples provided by Ofsted (2015) includes broader and less serious concerns, such as where parents are struggling to manage a child’s behaviour, isolation, bereavement, housing difficulties, risk of school exclusion and a child’s low self-​esteem. These differences might also lead to conflict and tension across agencies as they decide how best to respond to the

77

78

78

Working Together for Children

various circumstances they encounter. Platt and Turney (2014) remind us that the judgement of different professionals is influenced by their experiences and values. For instance, an early years worker may decide that a child showing signs of neglect requires a referral to children’s social care. However, a social worker may decide that the level of neglect is such that it comes under the definition of ‘requiring early help’ and therefore returns the referral to the early years worker, asking them to carry out a common assessment. The early years worker may have in mind for early help the kinds of circumstances described within the Ofsted (2015) report, and finds it difficult to comprehend why she is being asked to assess a child who she believes is at risk of harm and for whom she has requested the specialized intervention of a social worker. This overlap between categories of children is a significant issue, and there are structural problems associated with it. The above example has highlighted possible confusion over where ‘early’ or ‘later’ or ‘more serious’ signs of abuse or neglect start and end. Other possible conflicts might include: 1. How children with disabilities who have specific additional needs (classed as ‘children requiring early help’ in Working Together to Safeguard Children) differ from ‘all disabled children’ (classed as the more serious ‘children in need of support’ in section 17 of the Children Act 1989). Here it is possible to see how workers could argue quite cogently and justifiably that a particular child could be fitted into either category, and how this could then lead to conflict between them, perhaps souring professional relationships. 2. The inclusion of children with special educational needs in the definition of ‘early help’ might lead some to argue that even where there are specialist workers already in place (such as an educational psychologist or specialist advisory teacher) then a non-​specialist worker from a universal service should be expected to take the lead in the work. Again, this could lead to conflict and tension across services. 3. Differences in opinion regarding whether children or young people showing signs of engaging in anti-​social or criminal behaviour should be considered as ‘requiring early help’. Some would want to argue that such youngsters are beyond ‘early help’ and require the services of more specialist workers from youth offending teams or similar, as their home circumstances are likely to be complex. 4. Differences in interpretation of the impact upon the child of family circumstances such as substance abuse, adult mental health problems or domestic violence. The definition of the more serious ‘child in need of support’ under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is a child who is ‘unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services’. It could easily be argued by staff in universal services who are aware of children living in the circumstances outlined above that these children are beyond ‘early help’ and require the more specialized assessment and intervention that a social worker could provide. They may be resentful if this is pushed back to them to carry out a common assessment under the auspices of an interpretation by the social worker that the child requires early help. Under these circumstances, the two services could engage in a game of ‘ping-​pong’, using the child as the ‘ping-​pong ball’, with the result that until someone takes responsibility, the child is left without appropriate assessment or support.

79

Children Requiring Early Help

An area worthy of further consideration is that of staff in universal services carrying out the common assessment. There are several factors that can influence their ability to carry out this role effectively, notwithstanding their own enthusiasm and good intentions. An important point made by Pithouse and Broadhurst (2009) is that the development and use of a common template for the assessment form, of joint training sessions and of standardized procedures are unlikely in themselves to lead to shared practice, especially as there is no legal obligation upon agencies to take part or respond to requests for support. Furthermore, it is worth repeating that any work carried out under the common assessment framework is done so in addition to their core function: these are busy people who are trying to fit this work into their schedule. One question is therefore whether they have sufficient time to carry out this complex and detailed work to a high standard, and some of the findings of the report by Ofsted (2015) discussed above imply that the answer may be in the negative. Another issue is that unlike social workers, staff in universal services are not specifically trained in carrying out assessments and therefore may lack detailed knowledge of how to go about this difficult work, where the needs and presenting issues of the parents have to be balanced with an unrelenting focus on the child. Staff may also lack confidence in carrying out this work, and this again may help to explain the findings in the Ofsted (2015) report, where some assessments were rather ‘tick box’ in nature and failed to identify clear actions. There may be a lack of clarity among professionals about their role within the common assessment process, and this can lead workers to over-​rely on procedural aspects of the work, reflecting another finding from the Ofsted (2015) report. A lack of support from their own managers, or from others in the team around the child may leave a worker feeling isolated, and coupled with a lack of specialized knowledge or confidence, in turn may lead to the worker doing the bare minimum to cover the requirements of the role, perhaps to avoid making mistakes. There may be a clash between practitioners’ core training in terms of their chief outlook or values and the more holistic work with children and families expected under the common assessment. For instance, a health worker may be trained in the medical model, which views parents or children as ‘patients’ who should unquestioningly accept the expertise of the ‘professional’ who ‘diagnoses’ the problem and prescribes appropriate ‘treatment’. They may therefore find it difficult to adjust to a more social model, in which parents or children are seen as equal agents in a more equal dyadic relationship in which the professional can provide advice or support but is careful to ascertain the perspectives of family members and understand their experiences and insights. Furthermore, the idea of a ‘holistic’ assessment might be more difficult for some workers to understand, as they have been trained in carrying out more specific health, education or developmental assessments. Finally, they may not be trained in how to work in partnership with families in order to avoid the assessment and support offered being experienced by family members as a kind of ‘medicine’ or ‘treatment’ that is passively received. Assessment and the provision of services should not be something that is done ‘to’ someone, but rather a process that is done ‘with’ them, treating them as equal partners in a shared endeavour. In making these points, no criticism of the individual workers is intended: it is not their fault that they have been trained for a particular career and that this subsequently colours how they see their work or how they treat parents and children. Rather the critique is aiming to highlight the inherent and structural difficulties of a system that relies on universal workers carrying out these complex tasks with minimal training. This theme

79

80

80

Working Together for Children

is well explored by White, Hall and Peckover (2009), who conclude that a range of factors influence how practitioners complete the assessments, including their specific accountabilities to their ‘home’ agency, their competence in dealing with child welfare issues, their professional knowledge, their own moral judgements about what is acceptable and the wider institutional context. The role of the lead professional is also worthy of further reflection. As Brandon et al. (2006) have highlighted, one can question whether lead professionals receive enough training and ongoing support to carry out this challenging role, as they reported a level of anxiety and frustration. Workers who appeared ‘confident’ were expected to take on the role while others opted out, leading to an unfair sharing out of the work. Lead professionals found the chairing of multi-​agency meetings difficult, again because they did not feel they possessed the necessary skills or authority, and generally found the level of responsibility daunting. These early findings were repeated in a more recent study as discussed in Chapter Four of this book (Holmes and McDermid, 2016), suggesting they are enduring issues. It is worth remembering that the lead professional is not only responsible for being the single point of contact for all, but also for ensuring that the various elements of the plan are delivered effectively. This involves a certain amount of ‘managing’ of staff in other agencies who are employed by their ‘home’ agency, and who are therefore accountable to their own line manager rather than to the lead professional. The lead professional therefore has the responsibility for a successful outcome without the power to ‘make’ colleagues in other agencies deliver the services they have offered. The lead professional is expected to challenge those from other agencies who may not be delivering what has been agreed, and there may be a lack of clarity as to whose authority has the final say: that of the lead professional or that of the line manager in the ‘home’ agency. Where disagreements arise between workers, it is also not clear how these might be resolved, as the basis of early intervention is the assumption that everyone shares a desire, enacted in practice, to co-​operate for the benefit of children. While this may be true, the kinds of factors already alluded to –​the lack of time, the impact of specialized training, the lack of specialized knowledge or skills or confidence –​are likely to impede this positive practice. The common assessment framework process itself can be questioned at a higher level. The broad sweep for assessments of families brings into focus a potentially major practical problem of how agencies offer a quality service to potentially around 3 million children. It could be argued that this is a deliberate and rather clever move by successive governments to pass responsibility for improved outcomes for children to the local level, while they themselves appear reluctant to fully tackle, for instance, the problem of child poverty which remains a major contributor to poor outcomes for children (End Child Poverty, 2014). Some professionals will be aware that under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) ‘governments must support parents by creating support services for children and giving parents the help they need to raise their children’ and under Article 27 ‘every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and social needs and support their development. Governments must help families who cannot afford to provide this’. The professional may therefore feel aggrieved if they see a shortage of resources to tackle entrenched problems relating to poverty and disadvantage which the professionals on the frontline are then expected to resolve. Furthermore, there is something of a contradiction at the heart of this process. If the completion of the CAF by families is entirely voluntary, and if other agencies can refuse to offer any additional

81

Children Requiring Early Help

services requested, then a key premise of the CAF can be questioned: early identification and prevention of deterioration can be seriously compromised by families declining to take part and/​or by agencies declining to offer help and support. Not that compulsory imposition of services upon families is desirable; rather the CAF appears to have certain inherent and fundamental difficulties in trying to meet its aim, particularly when one considers the very real and entrenched problems associated with multi-​agency working that appear to surface with its use, and when one considers that tackling child poverty may well have a much more positive impact upon the quality of children’s lives.

Reflections: Case study –​Michael Michael is 9 years old, white, British and in Year 4 of the local primary school. His parents are recreational cannabis users. His father works in a bakery nearby and his mother works part-​time in a supermarket. They live in local authority housing, which is cold and damp. In recent weeks, Michael’s attendance at school has dipped down to 75 per cent from 100 per cent and he has started to become defiant and rude to his class teacher and the headteacher. Teachers at the school have been trying to support Michael using a reward system to promote sociable behaviour, although this has had mixed results. There is a learning mentor at school working with him, and she is trained in carrying out common assessments. Michael has lost his temper and lashed out at the learning mentor, punching her on the arm. The headteacher does not want to give Michael a fixed-​term exclusion as a result of this, but equally wants to send out a strong message that such behaviour is unacceptable. 1. Do you think Michael is a child requiring early help? 2. What do you think the school staff should do next? 3. What other services might become involved? 4. What tensions or disagreements might emerge in the work?

Conclusions Early intervention is undoubtedly a good idea, against which it is difficult to argue: it is better to prevent problems occurring or worsening than to wait for a crisis before acting, or as Community Links (2011) put it, it is better to build a fence at the top of a cliff than to have an ambulance waiting at the bottom. Furthermore, the use of a ‘common’ process is helpful, as it allows everyone to share approaches, language and processes, and in theory it should lead to consistent support being experienced by families. Nevertheless, some questions remain, such as whether this is the best way to support vulnerable children, involving as it does hard-​pressed workers from universal services in additional and complex work. As the Ofsted report (2015: 29) puts it ‘at the heart…is a lack of clarity about statutory roles and responsibilities for the provision of early help. For many agencies, early help continues to appear as an add-​on rather than central to or required as part of their core

81

82

82

Working Together for Children

business of improving the life chances of children.’ It could also be argued that this process lets government off its responsibility to address structural barriers such as poverty and social inequality. Furthermore, the common assessment process does not remove the structural barriers to effective multi-​agency working such as the fact that staff in universal services lack the relevant specialized training and background to address with confidence some of the complex social problems they may face. The different perspectives of staff within the team around the child will also have a bearing on how they understand, interpret and enact their work. Where staff disagree, because there are effectively two ‘managers’ –​the lead professional and the line manager from a worker’s ‘home’ agency –​this can result in a lack of clarity in who has the final say, which itself can lead to resentment, tension and strained relationships that can affect the quality of current and future work.

Further reading Brock, A. (2011), ‘The Child in Context:  Policy and Provision’, in A. Brock and C. Rankin (eds), Professionalism in the Interdisciplinary Early Years Team:  Supporting Young Children and Their Families, 5–​38, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. This chapter within an edited book provides an excellent summary of the policy context for understanding how childhood and the relationship between families and the state have been constructed over time. It includes a very helpful table of policy milestones from 1999 to 2010 which, although focused on early childhood, situates the idea of early intervention within a broader context. Early Intervention Foundation: This website, found here, http://​www.eif.org.uk/​ ,is run by an independent charity which promotes the use of early intervention to improve the lives of children and families. The website contains a host of useful information accessible from various tabs found at the top of the homepage. Yardley, E. (2014), ‘The Value of Audit Tools in Children’s Services:  Reflections upon a Common Assessment Framework Audit’, British Journal of Social Work, 44(4): 937–​954. While this paper is focused upon an audit of the common assessment framework (CAF) within one English local authority, there is a useful and critical consideration of the broader issues related to the CAF which exposes the complexity of the processes and decision-​making involved.

83

newgenprepdf

6 Children in Need of Support Chapter Outline Introduction Who are children in need of support? Systems and processes to support children in need of support Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

83 84 85 88 92

Introduction Children or young people who are deemed to be in need of support have a deeper level of need compared to children requiring early help. As was explained in Chapter Five, the idea of professionals in the universal services responding to early signs that a child may not reach their full potential without support was governed by the importance of working preventatively to stop any problems escalating. For some children, however, their circumstances are such that they require more specialized assessment and intervention (albeit that they are not at risk of significant harm and can safely continue living at home). These children are those that are in need of support as defined in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989: see the information box below. It is important to state at this point that the category of children in need of support could include children who are ‘in need of protection’ since their health or development is likely to be ‘significantly impaired’ unless they receive help or protection. However, this may only be decided once their circumstances have been assessed. Multi-​agency support for children ‘in need of protection’ is discussed in Chapter Eight of this book. Likewise, disabled children are included within the definition of children in need of support. However, as they have particular needs and systems to support these needs, multi-​agency work for this group of children will be discussed in Chapter Seven of this book. This current chapter, therefore, will consider the characteristics of the group of children deemed to be in need of support who are not disabled, and who can continue to safely live at home, before discussing the multi-​agency

84

84

Working Together for Children

systems and processes in place to support them. The attendant issues and tensions for workers in the different services will then be discussed.

Who are children in need of support? The formal definition of children in need of support is to be found within Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Information: The definition of a child in need of support Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 states that a child is in need if: they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services by a local authority or their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired without the provision of such services or they are disabled The local authority must provide appropriate support to those they identify as ‘in need of support’. In England there are consistently around 400,000 children in need of support at any one time (DfE, 2016a).

For the purposes of this chapter, the focus will be on those children who are deemed to be unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services. This may include children living in the following circumstances (HM Government, 2015b): 1. In poverty. 2. In families where there is low level neglect, or physical chastisement or emotional harm which does not meet the threshold to be classified as ‘significant harm’. 3. In families where there is domestic violence, again where the circumstances do not meet the threshold to be classified as ‘significant harm’. 4. Where the child is acting as a carer for a parent or sibling (or other relative or person) due to either mental or physical ill health or disability of the person being cared for. 5. In families where parents are using drugs or alcohol to the extent that this is impinging upon the welfare of the child, but where this does not meet the threshold to be classified as ‘significant harm’. 6. In families where a parent has a mental health problem or a physical health problem or disability, and this is impacting upon the welfare of the child, again not to the extent to meet the threshold to be classified as ‘significant harm’. This is not an exhaustive list, and other circumstances are possible. The key defining factor for a child in need of support is that unless they receive help and support, they would be unlikely to

85

Children in Need of Support

achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development. The complexities of interpreting this criteria will be discussed later in the chapter, under the section entitled ‘issues for multi-​ agency working’. One of the key points to remember, though, is that these are children living at home; they are not deemed to be in need of protection as they are not at risk of significant harm. Furthermore, any assessment or support which is offered and provided is entirely voluntary in the sense that parents can decline such help, and workers cannot then impose themselves upon the family (unless they had reason to believe the child was at risk of significant harm).

Systems and processes to support children in need of support The starting point for offering help and support for children in need of support is usually a referral to children’s social care services (HM Government, 2015b). Anyone can make this referral: a professional such as a teacher, early years worker or a health professional, or a member of the public who is concerned about a child. Once children’s social care services receive the referral, the relevant social work team has one working day to decide the next course of action. It is possible that this team decides that the referral does not meet the threshold for the child to be classified as a child in need of support. In this case, they may either take no action, or pass the referral on to a universal service to conduct a common assessment for a child requiring early help. The social worker would also feed back to the referrer (where the referrer is a professional, not a member of the public) the decision that has been taken about the next course of action. However, assuming that the social work team agrees that the circumstances appear to point to the child potentially being a child in need of support, they will set in motion an assessment. This assessment is the statutory assessment that has been covered more fully in Chapter Four, so only a summary is needed here. It is called a |statutory assessment because the social work team has a statutory duty (in other words, it is required and expected) to offer this to the family. The parameters of the statutory assessment are described in the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b). It is worth repeating, though, that the assessment for a child in need of support can only be offered to a family, and if the parents decline it, the social worker cannot insist it goes ahead.

Information: The statutory assessment The statutory assessment gathers information about three main areas: 1. The child’s needs. If there is more than one child in the family, this information would need to be completed for each child. 2. The parents’ capacity to meet the child’s needs, and, where necessary, the parents’ capacity to change in a timescale that is meaningful to the child. 3. The wider family and environmental factors that are impacting upon the child’s circumstances, for example, family income, employment, housing.

85

86

86

Working Together for Children

A social worker leads on carrying out the statutory assessment. It is inherently a multi-​ agency assessment, due to the wide range and complexity of information being gathered. However, a social worker takes overall responsibility for ensuring the assessment is completed because their level of expertise is required in order to gather the relevant information and to process it and decide on the next step. The social worker should ensure this assessment is completed within forty-​five working days (nine weeks) of the referral having been received.

Social workers are specifically trained to carry out these complex assessments, and this is one of the key skills they possess that marks them out from other professionals in the multi-​agency arena. Teachers, for example, are trained in the key skills of facilitating children’s learning effectively and assessing children’s educational progress accurately. Social workers are trained not only how to conduct a statutory assessment, but how to interpret and process the information it yields, and then how to link the child and family with available support services and resources in the local area. This allows the social worker to gain a deep insight into the child’s circumstances in order to decide exactly what their needs are, and how best these needs can be met. It may be, for instance, that a child who at the beginning of the assessment was thought to be in need of support may emerge as a child in need of protection, and therefore a more protective approach is required than first envisaged at the start of the process. However, assuming the statutory assessment confirms the child is in need of support, the next step is for the social worker to lead on devising a support plan for the family (HM Government, 2015b). Once again, this will almost always be a multi-​agency plan, involving help and support from other services beyond children’s social care. The social worker will coordinate this work and take the lead in ensuring not only that the plan is put in place but that it is regularly monitored and reviewed. The plan that emerges is called in the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) a child-​in-​need plan. It may also be referred to as a family support plan. Different local authorities will have their own procedures about the detail of this child-​in-​need plan, but typically the first planning meeting may be expected to take place within fifteen working days (three weeks) of completion of the assessment. The social worker may well have a draft plan, based on the outcomes of the assessment, to present to the meeting. Family members should play a key role in the discussions and decisions that occur, and the aim of the meeting should be to reach a consensus on how to support the child. The family should not feel as if a plan has been imposed upon them against their will. If there is a serious disagreement between professionals and parents, this should be noted, but it is important to remember always that any support work is voluntary (since the child is not deemed to be at risk of significant harm) and so parents can choose the level of support they wish to accept. Many local authorities are now implementing a more family-​centred approach to child-​in-​need meetings. This is called the family group conference (Family Rights Group, 2012). It is a process led by the family members to plan and make decisions for the child, with the advice and support of the social worker and other professionals. The procedure is that at the beginning of the meeting, all

87

Children in Need of Support

the professionals set out the problems as they see them and describe what support they can offer. Then family members (including the child where it is appropriate, and non-​blood relatives and family friends) meet to devise the plan for the child. The default position is that the plan should be accepted unless it is deemed not to be safe for the child. The idea is that this process enables families to take control of the plan. For more information on family group conferences, see Family Rights Group (2012). However it is devised, whether via the traditional route or a family group conference, a typical child-​in-​need plan would include: the reason for the meeting the needs to be addressed the desired outcomes to be achieved with timescales attached to them. the actions and people responsible for the desired outcomes. This includes identifying which services are necessary, with timescales for these services. 5. any contingency planning as necessary 6. a summary of the main points of the meeting and decisions made 7. a date to hold the first review of the child-​in-​need plan and update as necessary (local authorities are likely to develop their own timescales, but typically it may be within twelve weeks). 1. 2. 3. 4.

When a child-​in-​need plan review meeting is held, it should consider: 1. updates since the previous meeting 2. the development and progress of the child-​in-​need plan If the original reasons for drawing up the plan have improved, the meeting can decide that the child should no longer be classified as a child in need of support. A lower level of service could then be offered, not led by the social worker, but, under the umbrella of a ‘child requiring early help’, a lead professional from a universal service could be appointed to lead a team around the child (as described in Chapter Five). Alternatively, it could be decided that progress has been so marked that no further input is needed. If the original reasons for drawing up the plan are still present, albeit that there is progress against the plan, the current services will continue to be offered (possibly with some changes to the detail of what these services provide). This may include an increased level of support if this is deemed necessary, and under these circumstances, there are likely to be more frequent reviews of the child-​in-​need plan. The final option is that the situation for the child has deteriorated such that the child is now deemed to be in need of protection, and as such, the appropriate action should be taken. This will be discussed in Chapter Eight of this book. The multi-​agency team that will usually be involved in devising, delivering and reviewing the plan is very similar to the team around the child (TAC) that was referred to in Chapter Five when discussing children requiring early help. The key difference is that the social worker will always take the lead in coordinating the child-​in-​need plan and ensuring it is reviewed. Staff in universal services will never be asked to take on this role for children in need of support. The role of the social worker is similar, however, to the role of the lead professional for children requiring early help (although the level of work is more complex), in that they should:

87

88

88

Working Together for Children

1. 2. 3. 4.

act as the key contact point for the family co-​ordinate the delivery of the actions agreed in the child-​in-​need plan ensure that progress is reviewed reduce overlap and inconsistency in the services provided

The aim of work undertaken for the child-​in-​need plan is to provide advice and support to parents to help them bring up their children, or directly to help meet the child’s identified needs. All agencies involved in the plan should contribute to providing or facilitating access to local activities, facilities and networks that are designed to directly meet the child’s needs, or to alleviate parental stress or increase parents self-​esteem, and promote parental competence and capacity to meet their child’s needs. Aspects of the plan could include: 1. Input from workers such as a health visitor or a teacher at a child’s school (providing specific advice and support). 2. The social worker making a referral to universal services such as an early years setting (for the children to attend, or to offer parental support). 3. The social worker making a referral to targeted services such as drug support agencies, counselling or mental health services, or a child development clinic. 4. The social worker contacting a local charity to secure furniture or appliances where they are needed. 5. The social worker offering some practical support to the family, such as: a. Funding for early years attendance or before and after school sessions. b. Transport to and from services and appointments (either funded by children’s social care or provided directly by the social worker). c. Direct counselling and work with parents and the child. d. Securing social care staff to support parenting in the home. e. In exceptional and carefully monitored circumstances, to provide cash to families to purchase essential items such as food or nappies.

Issues for multi-​agency working As with children requiring early help, the description of the process for offering assessment and support for children in need of support assumes a benign generosity on the part of all services, who are expected to work seamlessly together towards a coherent and fully shared goal. Nevertheless, there are inherent and enduring complexities involved in this multi-​agency work. The first issue may be in the various services actually agreeing upon who the children in need of support are, as overlap, or perceived overlap with other groups of children, is possible as different professionals may interpret children’s circumstances in different ways, or professionals may have different views about where to set the threshold for intervention for a child who may be in need of support (Jordan, 2008). One strand of identifying a child in need of support is deciding if the child is ‘unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development.’ Some social workers, for instance,

89

Children in Need of Support

may wish to ask how this differs from some children requiring early help. The list of examples of children requiring early help given in the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) includes children living in families where there is substance abuse, adult mental health problems and domestic violence. A social worker may therefore wish to argue that a child who has been referred to children’s social care is not in need of support, but requires early help, and therefore passes the referral either back to, or on to someone within a universal service (such as a teacher, early years worker or health visitor), asking them to conduct a common assessment. This in turn may cause consternation on the part of the universal worker (who may well have made the referral in the first place) who may feel strongly that the child should be classified as a child in need of support. This situation is likely to then cause tension and conflict between the relevant parties if they cannot agree on the best way forward. The social worker or worker in a universal service may be mindful of their own workload and that of their colleagues, and may be trying to act as a gatekeeper to limit their amount of additional work, and this may influence a judgement on how to interpret the child’s circumstances. The decision of the children’s social care team is final in the sense that their judgement on whether or not a child is deemed to be in need of support cannot be overturned by another agency. However, the decision can be subject to challenge and argument by others and the consequence of this could be soured relations and a legacy of mistrust and wariness that impacts upon future work. Once a statutory sssessment is underway, it is worth remembering, as was discussed in more detail in Chapter Four, that there are several factors that can affect the quality of this multi-​agency assessment. These include internal reorganization, particularly within children’s social care departments (social workers may be distracted by concerns over their jobs or role), poor multi-​agency communication or relationships that may affect the quality of the work undertaken, changes to legislation or policy which bring in new ways of working and staff shortages leading to stress and overload and possibly the rushing of work. These factors, especially where more than one appear together, could lead to a lack of focus upon the needs of the child and family. In discussing these barriers to effective multi-​agency working, it is important to remember that they tend to be structural barriers rather than individualized barriers. In other words, they are inherent to multi-​agency working and they are not the ‘fault’ of an individual, in that they do not come about as a result of an individual being deliberately awkward or difficult or lazy. Even where workers disagree over interpretations of definitions or of a child’s living conditions, these tend to arise as a result of them seeing and understanding the world in different ways because of their differing professional training or backgrounds. Some workers will be ‘generalists’ and others will be ‘specialists’. This may lead them to interpret and emphasize aspects of ‘need’ in various ways, as they will have different levels of expertise relating to the impact of the child’s circumstances upon the child’s health or development (Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe, 2015). For instance (and this will be discussed at greater length in Chapter Seven), a specialist worker for disabled children may have very strong views about the importance of not labelling all disabled children as ‘needy’, as they may believe this undermines the child’s right to equal treatment. Furthermore, workers who are supporting the social worker in delivering the child-​in-​need plan have their ‘core function’ jobs to do and so are busy with this. They may not have time to dwell on the minutiae of the details and may focus on the broader brushstroke issues, or if they are a specialist worker they may indeed focus on one narrow

89

90

90

Working Together for Children

aspect of the child’s circumstances as being particularly significant. This in turn may lead to disagreements and conflict, especially if a worker feels their concerns are overridden by a social worker who either fails to appreciate the basic failings of the situation (by focusing on certain details rather than others), or who perhaps lacks the specialized knowledge to understand the impact of a specific issue upon the child. A difference in opinion may also arise even when a social worker accepts that a child is in need of support and has completed an assessment and drafted a child-​in-​need plan to take to the multi-​ agency planning meeting. Another strand to the definition of a child in need of support is that their ‘health or development is likely to be significantly impaired’ without such support. Some workers involved in formulating or delivering the plan may have a view that the child’s circumstances amount to ‘significant harm’ and may therefore press the social worker to move the work onto a child protection footing. It may well depend upon an interpretation of the word ‘significant’ and a particular view on the point at which harm becomes ‘significant’. If the social worker disagrees with the views of other professionals with whom they are working (and again, the social worker has the final decision) then the other worker/​s may feel aggrieved and devalued, and once more this may affect the quality of subsequent work and relationships. On a similar note, workers may have varying interpretations of keywords within the actual definition of a child in need of support, perhaps as a result of their different priorities or professional outlook. For instance, what does unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development mean? At what point does something become unlikely? How is this measured, and whose measurement should prevail? What is a reasonable standard of health or development? What seems perfectly reasonable to one person may be unacceptable to another, due to very different interpretations of the situation or of the impact of the circumstances upon the child. It is not possible (or even desirable) to strictly define words such as ‘unlikely’ or ‘reasonable’ or ‘significant’. A further complication is consideration of both ‘health’ and ‘development’. Helpfully, Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 goes some way to clarifying these, stating that ‘health’ means physical or mental health and ‘development’ means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development. However, the very fact that both of these are so widely construed only serves to increase the opportunity for different professionals to reach contrasting positions in relation to the circumstances of individual children, based on what they deem to be acceptable in terms of parenting or quality of the care received by children (White, Hall and Peckover, 2009). The consequence of this is that workers who disagree cannot turn to a definitive manual or list of definitions, and therefore have to try to work through their differences in order to resolve them and work constructively together. Where this is not possible, however, due perhaps to strongly held beliefs or opinions, the result can be tension and bad feeling between the parties which will no doubt impact negatively upon the quality of the work. This is not necessarily to criticize workers who disagree: they have a duty to argue a case they believe is in the child’s best interests. There are various points in the process where these complexities that lead to disagreements about whether or not a child should be classed as a child in need of support may emerge, and they are inherent to multi-​agency working. These include the decision by social workers following a referral to children’s social care, or following a statutory assessment, the discussion on the details that should be contained within a child-​in-​need plan, and the judgement on how much progress has been made,

91

Children in Need of Support

or on the current level of risk to the child, when reviewing a child-​in-​need plan. This is when there are likely to be nuanced decisions made regarding the very detailed and complicated lives of children living in a variety of challenging circumstances. Where parties cannot agree, it is no surprise that feelings between workers can run high. A further problem that may arise relates to the fact that there are approximately 400,000 children in need in England –​a considerable number. It is reasonable to ask whether it is possible to provide a detailed and quality service to such a large group of children. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, it could be argued that successive governments have failed to systematically tackle the problem of enduring and entrenched child poverty and poor housing (End Child Poverty, 2014), factors which directly impinge upon the numbers of children being classified as in need of support, and that the government expects social workers and others to improve outcomes for children without the support of a sustained and fully funded national programme to address these major social problems. Furthermore, for children in need of support, there remains a contradiction at the heart of the process. The completion of the statutory assessment by families is rightly entirely voluntary (as there is no suggestion that the child is at risk of significant harm). The consequence of this is that without agreement of the parents there are children who are left in damaging circumstances without support, and intervention can only be imposed if the child becomes subject to, or at risk of, significant harm. While social workers and others can continue to encourage parents to accept support, if parents insist they do not wish to take up the offer of help, the professional has no choice but to retreat. This does not mean that compulsory intervention is desirable; it is simply to point out an unavoidable and inherent contradiction in the nature of the work. A final problem that remains is that when they are contacted by a social worker to help contribute to a child-​in-​need plan, other agencies can and may refuse to offer the services that have been requested, perhaps because they simply do not have the capacity to do so. Another possible scenario is that a service has agreed to contribute towards a child-​in-​need plan, but then fails to deliver on this promise. In either case, the social worker who is, after all, responsible for ensuring the child-​in-​need plan is carried out and reviewed, has limited power to ‘force’ the other service to comply. The social worker does not line manage anyone from another service, and they would need to tread carefully if they were going to challenge another professional, so as not to alienate them. If direct appeals to the professional in question prove fruitless, the social worker could approach the professional’s line manager, but this is likely to sour the relationship between the social worker and the professional. This is yet another example of a structural barrier to multi-​agency working that does not have an easy solution, and workers have to negotiate their way through it as best they can while trying at the same time to maintain positive working relationships.

Reflections: Case study –​Johnnie and Sam Dawn has two sons, Johnnie, aged 9 months, and Sam, aged 3 years. She is a single parent. The family is white and British. They live in a small flat, and a neighbour makes a referral to children’s social care expressing concern that Dawn and

91

92

92

Working Together for Children

her children rarely leave the flat and that Dawn often appears distant and unresponsive when the neighbour speaks to her. The social worker taking the call then rings the relevant health visitor who confirms that as far as she is concerned, the children are meeting their developmental milestones, that Dawn does bring them to the clinic for appointments but agrees that Dawn does seem emotionally very flat. A social worker then visits and finds the following: Dawn does not work and has a low income on state benefits. Dawn receives some support from the children’s father who visits about once a week. She also gets help from her own mother who lives nearby. Dawn appears emotionally ‘low’ and says some days she finds it hard to get up in the morning. Neither of the children attends any form of early years care. Dawn says that Sam used to attend a nursery but she stopped taking him as she felt the other mothers were judging her and Sam, for example, commenting on his clothes. She also says it is long walk to nursery across a busy road and she found this difficult. The flat is sparsely furnished but clean and tidy. It is, however, cold, and has a smell of dampness. There are some toys in the lounge, but Dawn has also put out some household items such as boxes and cardboard tubes for the children to play with. Dawn says that some mornings when she cannot get up, Sam takes it upon himself to get Johnnie up, and feeds and dresses him. 1. Do you think Johnnie and Sam are children in need of support? If so, what specific reasons do you have for this decision? 2. Who might be involved in completing a statutory assessment, and any subsequent child-​in-​need plan, if these are deemed necessary? 3. What might be the key elements of a child-​in-​need plan if this is felt appropriate? 4. Where might any disagreements arise between professionals?

Conclusions Supporting families in a structured way is clearly a good idea where a child is deemed to be in need of support. Use of a social worker’s specialized skills in carrying out an in-​depth assessment is helpful for parents and children, as it is the cornerstone of good practice. Only through a clear assessment, and the processing of the information gathered, can the holistic needs of the child be identified and fully understood. These needs can then be addressed through the subsequent child-​in-​need plan, where the social worker takes the lead in harnessing resources and services which should be aimed at alleviating situations in which the child’s health or development is being compromised. However, it needs to be remembered that the child-​in-​need plan, no matter how effective, cannot solve every problem. Persistent poverty and poor housing stock, for example, are social ills beyond the control of social workers and others, and workers may feel that they are being

93

Children in Need of Support

made responsible for trying to solve such problems on behalf of the government. Furthermore, the child-​in-​need-​of-​support process does not remove the structural barriers to effective multi-​agency working, such as the different professional training and perspectives that workers from the various agencies have, meaning that they perceive or interpret children’s circumstances in different ways. Although technically the social worker takes the lead and has the final say in decision-​making, where differences in opinion exist and cannot be resolved, this can lead to ongoing resentment which in turn may affect the quality of the relationships between workers and agencies.

Further reading Fitzgerald, D. and J. Kay (2008), Working Together in Children’s Services, London: Routledge. This accessible book covers the development of multi-​agency working, as well as the benefits and challenges provided by various approaches to multi-​agency practice. In doing so, it provides a good understanding of the issues pertinent to working with children in need of support. Frost, N. and N. Parton (2009), Understanding Children’s Social Care:  Politics, Policy and Practice, London: Sage. This well-​written book summarizes the development of children’s departments and services and in doing so provides the wider context for working with children. Reference is made to children in need of support with a chapter dedicated to considering this group along with children in need of protection. Moran, P., C. Jacobs, A. Bunn and A. Bifulco (2007), ‘Multi-​Agency Working: Implications for an Early-​ Intervention Social Work Team’, Child and Family Social Work, 12 (2): 143–​151. This journal article reports on multi-​agency working from the perspective of twenty-​nine professionals working within an early-​intervention family support team which included support for children in need of support as discussed in this chapter. Multi-​agency challenges such as different agencies using their own protocols, and issues of professional status and identity emerged from the study, while the benefits of multi-​agency working included improved mutual respect and communication, as well as a better shared understanding of when a child may have moved beyond being in need of support to being in need of protection.

93

94

95

newgenprepdf

7 Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Chapter Outline Introduction Who are children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)? Systems and processes to support children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

95 96 97 102 107

Introduction Children or young people who are deemed to have special educational needs or a disability are a subset of ‘children in need of support’ as defined in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and as discussed in Chapter Six, since this definition includes all children who are disabled. This means that, like other children in need of support, they are seen as having a greater level of need compared to children requiring early help and therefore as needing support from more specialized services, a principle which is underpinned by the Children and Families Act 2014 which emphasizes the need for an integrated approach to supporting children with special educational needs. This chapter will consider the characteristics of the group of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), most of whom will live safely at home, before discussing the multi-​agency systems and processes in place to support them. The issues and tensions arising for workers across the different services will then be discussed.

96

96

Working Together for Children

Who are children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)? The government has defined the characteristics of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) within a document called the Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015b) and another, more accessible one specially produced for parents and carers (DfE, 2014c). The Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 16), which is supported in law by the Children and Families Act 2014, states that children with special educational needs all have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision. A  learning difficulty or disability means these children have: 1. a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age or 2. a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of the facilities generally provided for others of the same age According to Sellgren (2016) there are 1.3 million children in England with special educational needs or disabilities, of which 1.1 million attend mainstream schools. The guidance (DfE, 2014c; DfE and DoH, 2015b) goes on to identify four areas under which children may require additional support: 1. Communicating and interacting. This includes children with speech, language and communication difficulties which make it difficult for them to ‘make sense of language or to understand how to communicate effectively and appropriately with others’ (DfE, 2014c: 7). It may include children with autism or Asperger’s syndrome. 2. Cognition and learning. This category includes children who ‘learn at a slower pace than others their age, have difficulty in understanding parts of the curriculum, have difficulties with organization and memory skills, or have a specific difficulty affecting one particular part of their learning performance such as in literacy or numeracy’ (DfE, 2014c: 7). It includes a wide range of children, from those with specific learning difficulties (SpLD) such as dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia, or moderate learning difficulties (MLD), severe learning difficulties (SLD), and profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) where children are likely to have severe and complex learning difficulties as well as a physical disability or sensory impairment. 3. Social, emotional and mental health difficulties. This includes children who ‘have difficulty in managing their relationships with other people, are withdrawn, or . . . behave in ways that may hinder their and other children’s learning, or that have an impact on their health and wellbeing’ (DfE, 2014c: 7–​8). These children may have underlying mental health difficulties such as anxiety or depression, self-​harming, substance misuse, eating disorders or physical symptoms that are medically unexplained. Other children and young people may have disorders such as attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder or attachment disorder (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 98). 4. Sensory and/​or physical needs. These are children with ‘visual and/​or hearing impairments, or a physical need that means they must have additional ongoing support and equipment’ (DfE, 2014c: 8).

97

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

It is important to remember that some children may have special educational needs across more than one of these categories. Furthermore, the emphasis is on educational needs and so any support should be centered on school, education and learning. A disability is described in the Equality Act 2010 as ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a long-​term (a year or more) and substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-​to-​day activities’ (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 16). This includes a physical disability as well as sensory impairments such as those that affect sight and hearing, and long-​term health conditions such as asthma, diabetes, epilepsy or cancer. All educators from early years to schools to colleges have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that they do not discriminate, directly or indirectly, against children with a disability. In addition, these establishments have to make what are called reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of children and young people with a disability and ensure that they are not disadvantaged.

Information: Reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 Reasonable adjustment for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) may take many forms but might include, for example, ensuring classrooms and other learning or social spaces are accessible to wheelchair users, or making sure there is tactile signage for visually impaired students or using induction loops for the hearing impaired. This duty is what is known as ‘anticipatory’ which means staff within these educational settings have to consider in advance not only what needs children with a disability might have but how these needs can reasonably be met.

These definitions of special educational needs and disabilities cover all children from birth to 17 years of age. Therefore, the systems and processes to support them that are discussed in the section that now follows covers non-​school based avenues as well as school-​based routes.

Systems and processes to support children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) The system is described in great detail in the Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015b) and summarized more succinctly within the guidance for parents and carers (DfE, 2014c). What follows, therefore, is an overview of this system. There are two levels of support, one for children whose needs can be met within the educational setting, called SEN support, and one for children with more complex needs, called an education, health and care (EHC) plan. Each will be discussed in turn.

97

98

98

Working Together for Children

If a parent or carer believes their child has a special educational need or disability that has not hitherto been identified, the starting point is for them to share this with a relevant professional. For those children in an early years setting or a school or college, this will mean the parent sharing this information and any concerns they have with someone in the setting. For very young children or for children who do not attend an early years setting, concerned parents should approach their GP (general practitioner) or health visitor. These professionals can provide advice and suggest sources of support, and they have a duty to inform the local authority so they, too, can consider how to support the child. It may be that it is someone within an educational setting who believes a child has a special educational need or disability. If this is the case, they have a duty to approach the parent to discuss their concerns and share ideas about what support they wish to offer. Settings are not allowed to make any special educational provision for a child without informing parents. The system for supporting the children is the same, regardless of who first identifies the need.

Information: Principles underpinning the system to support children with special educational needs or disabilities All children have a right to an education that enables them to make progress so that they: 1. achieve their best 2. become confident individuals and live fulfilling lives 3. make a successful transition into becoming an adult (DfE, 2014c: 11) In addition, staff within educational settings must: 1. have regard for the views, wishes and feelings of children and their parents 2. make sure that children and their parents and young people participate as fully as possible in decisions that affect them (DfE, 2014c: 11)

Special educational needs (SEN) support If a child is deemed to have special educational needs (SEN) and the educational setting is the appropriate place to provide and co-​ordinate the support that is required for them, then this support must be provided. It is called SEN support. This SEN support is part of what is known as the ‘graduated approach’ (DfE, 2014c: 19) and has four stages as follows: 1. Assess. The child’s circumstances are assessed so that the right support can be provided. This should include, for example, seeking information from parents, early years staff or teachers and looking at records and other information. This first assessment should be reviewed regularly so that the support provided continues to meet the child’s needs. As the child’s needs change, further advice may need to be sought from professionals such as an educational psychologist, a specialist teacher or a health professional.

99

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

2. Plan. The educational setting has to agree upon, in discussion with the parents, the kinds of support that will be provided, the intended outcomes of this support (in other words, what the benefits are to the child) and the timescale for reviewing the plan. 3. Do. The setting puts the planned support into place. The key person or teacher remains responsible for working directly with the child, and a more senior person such as a SENCO (special educational needs coordinator) or a specialist teacher help to monitor the child’s progress and work with the key person or teacher to check that the support provided is effective. 4. Review. The plan and support that has been implemented should be reviewed at the agreed-​ upon time. If any changes need to be made, parents should be fully involved in agreeing to these. This process is based on support provided by one agency, an educational setting, and it should ensure that the child receives appropriate levels of help. Where children have more complex needs that require more specialized input than that available via SEN support, this is provided under something called an education, health and care (EHC) plan, which is discussed in the next section.

education, health and care (EHC) plans EHC plans replaced statements of SEN and learning disability assessments (LDAs) when the new Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015b) was published. They should be used for children whose needs could not be met using SEN support or for children for whom existing SEN support has demonstrably failed to meet their needs. An EHC plan is inherently multi-​agency in nature, as it brings the child’s education, health and social care needs into a single document. The starting point for the EHC plan is that in the circumstances described above the following people can contact the local authority to ask them to carry out an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

the child’s parents young people over the age of 16 but under the age of 25. a foster carer (with parental consent where applicable) someone within an educational setting, including early years settings (with parental consent) another professional such as a GP, youth offending team worker, health visitor or probation officer (with parental consent)

Once this request is received, the local authority has up to six weeks to decide whether to carry out the assessment. This gives staff within the local authority time to discuss the child’s circumstances with interested people to help them make the decision. If the local authority decides not to carry out an assessment, they have a duty to let parents and relevant professionals know, and offer to help find other ways to meet the child’s needs within the setting. If the local authority decides to carry out an EHC needs assessment, in accordance with the principles mentioned above, they must ensure that parents and relevant professionals are fully involved in the process. The assessment itself should gather information from a wide variety of sources as is pertinent to the circumstances of each child. This could include: 1. school or other education staff 2. specialist teachers, such as for children with visual or hearing impairment

99

100

100

Working Together for Children

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

medical and health practitioners educational psychologists social care staff staff involved in transition planning into adulthood youth offending team staff

Once all this information has been collated and processed, the local authority will decide whether or not an EHC plan is required. If a local authority decides not to issue an EHC plan, it must inform the child’s parent or the young person within sixteen weeks from the request for an assessment. If the local authority decides that an EHC plan is needed, then the whole process of the EHC needs assessment and EHC plan development, from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC plan is issued, must take no more than twenty weeks (although there are some exemptions to this). The EHC plan itself must contain the following information across ten sections (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 161–​2): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The views, interests and aspirations of the child or young person and his or her parents. The child or young person’s special educational needs. The child or young person’s health needs as related to their SEN. The child or young person’s social care needs as related to their SEN or to a disability. The outcomes sought for the child or the young person. This should include: a. arrangements for the setting of shorter term targets by the educational provider b. preparation for adulthood and independent living The special educational provision required for the child or the young person. Any health provision required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN. Any social care provision made for a child or young person. The name and type of the school or other educational provider. The details of any personal budget for direct payment, and what particular provision and outcome is expected from this.

In addition, the advice and information gathered during the EHC needs assessment must be attached in appendices. Any provision specified in the plan must be agreed upon by relevant authorities within education, health and social care. Once the plan has been written, a draft will be sent out to the parents, and the local authority must give the parents fifteen days to respond, during which the parents have the right to meet with a member of staff to discuss the plan. Parents can, for example, request a specific school, or other setting, that they would like their child to attend. When the EHC plan is finalized, the local authority has to ensure that the special educational support specified in the plan is provided, and the health service has to ensure that the health support outlined is provided. For the social care provision specified in the plan, existing duties on social care services under the Children Act 1989 continue to apply, and this is the link with Section 17’s ‘children in need of support’ as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.

101

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

When the EHC plan is in place, the local authority has the responsibility to review it every twelve months. As before, the review has to include working with parents and the child and the relevant professionals. Reviews should consider the effectiveness of the provision and consider the progress made by the child or young person, and change any targets or intended outcomes as is considered necessary by those attending the review. The multi-​agency nature of the plan ensures joint working between local authorities, particularly the education sector, what are called health clinical commissioning groups (the bodies that determine funding for health-​related matters), and children’s social care services. In doing so, consideration should be given to: 1. the range of professionals across education, health and care who need to be involved and their availability 2. flexibility for professionals to engage in a range of ways and to plan their input as part of forward planning 3. providing opportunities for professionals to feed back on the process, and its implementation, to support continuous improvement Given the complex needs of some of the children who are the subject of an EHC plan, the range of professionals involved can look bewildering. Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe (2015: 269) provide a helpful list under the three EHC headings: 1. Education: a. school based teachers, learning support assistants, SENCOs (special educational needs coordinators), inclusion managers, safeguarding coordinators. b. educational psychologists c. bilingual support staff d. specialist provision staff, e.g., for autism, sensory impairment, physical disability 2. Health: a. general practitioners (GPs) b. specialist doctors, e.g., paediatricians c. physiotherapists d. occupational therapists e. specialist health workers, e.g., autism nurses, diabetic nurses, speech and language therapists, hearing impairment therapists f. health visitors g. midwives h. child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) staff. 3. Social care: a. social workers b. family support workers, including support for parenting or financial aid c. looked-​after-​children team staff for children in care In addition, there may also be involvement from the police, housing staff, children and family court advisory and support service (CAFCASS) staff and substance misuse support team staff.

101

102

102

Working Together for Children

Of all these, the role of the SENCO is perhaps the most crucial in determining that the EHC plan is carried out effectively, as they are in a key position within the educational setting. Tutt and Williams (2015: 79–​80) describe the key elements of this role across early years settings and schools, which include: 1. ensuring practitioners in the setting understand their responsibilities 2. overseeing the operation of the SEN policy and ensuring records are kept up to date 3. liaising with colleagues in the setting regarding specific children 4. advising and supporting colleagues 5. ensuring parents are kept informed and involved 6. liaising with professionals from other agencies and acting as the key contact in multi-​agency work Given that there are such a wide range of professionals from different agencies who may be involved, and considering the complex tasks involved in the SENCO’s role, it is not surprising that tensions and challenges will arise during the course of the work, and so it is to this that the chapter now turns.

Issues for multi-​agency working The official guidance outlined above (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 24) makes it clear that a key role for the local authority in co-​ordinating support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is to ensure that all agencies, particularly health, education and social care, work together to plan, at a strategic and operational level, what is required at the local level. This includes the provision of appropriate resources and the delivery of relevant services. While this is a laudable aim, and while services may be very keen to co-​operate in order to meet the needs of children with complex needs in their area, it is important to acknowledge some of the inherent tensions and challenges of this effort. The following discussion considers such issues within the framework of the SEND process. One of the first problems appears to be a lack of full funding to support these children, given that there are 1.3 million such children in England. Sellgren (2016: 1) reports on a survey of 1,100 school leaders which found that ‘delays to assessments, insufficient budgets and cuts to local authorities were hampering the ability to cope’ and which concludes that more funding is required to meet the demand. This is clearly a significant issue, since if there is simply insufficient funding and resources to support these children, then no amount of careful or enthusiastic multi-​agency working can be expected to fully meet their needs. A school or early years setting may have put SEN support in place for a child, and may have been working hard over some months to support a child with special educational needs. If they feel that this support is not meeting the child’s needs they should make a referral, with appropriate parental consent, to the local authority to request an EHC assessment. This request may be rejected by the local authority and the reason given may include, for example, that the child ‘requires early help’

103

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

rather than more specialized services accessed via an EHC plan. Within the descriptors of children requiring early help (HM Government, 2015b) are children who: 1. are disabled and have specific additional needs 2. have special educational needs Both of these clearly overlap with children who may qualify for an EHC assessment or even an EHC plan and this creates an opportunity for staff within different services to reach different conclusions regarding how best to support the child. A further issue may be the interpretation of a disability. The Equality Act 2010 states that it is ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a long-​term and substantial adverse effect on [the child’s] ability to carry out normal day-​to-​day activities’. The national guidance states that ‘this definition provides a relatively low threshold and includes more children than many realise: “long-​ term” is defined as “a year or more” and “substantial” is defined as ‘more than minor or trivial’ (DfE and DoH, 2015b: 16). This leaves open to interpretation exactly which children and which conditions should be included. Some staff may wish to include, for example, children with chronic inner ear infections who are experiencing both long-​term and substantial effects that are impacting upon their learning or quality of life. Others, perhaps mindful of the need to ration resources, might argue that this is not within the spirit or letter of the definition, and that there are more ‘needy’ or worthwhile’ children in the area who deserve the resources. There may be a disagreement as to who should have the final say about whether or not to include a particular condition within a definition of a special educational need or a disability, with health, education or social care workers battling it out as to who is best placed to make this decision. Whatever the process of decision-​making, and regardless of whose views are given precedence in reaching the final decision, should the local authority turn down a request from a school or setting to carry out an EHC plan, staff within the school or setting are likely to feel disappointed and undervalued and that their experience is being down-​played. The same response is likely to occur if the local authority accepts the need to carry out an EHC assessment, but decides, following the completion of this assessment, that there is no justification for an EHC plan. The local authority may expect staff in the school or setting to continue to provide SEN support essentially as a single-​ agency service, perhaps with some additional input from another service. In these circumstances, staff in the school or setting may well feel that they are unfairly taking on the major share (and cost) of the work, and that their request for support has been dismissed without sufficient justification or deep enough understanding. This could then have the effect of causing the staff to feel resentful that their knowledge and judgement of the child are being dismissed. This in turn could sour future relationships between the parties concerned. Even where a local authority decides that an EHC plan is necessary, multi-​agency problems can emerge in relation to the detail of the contents of the plan, or what factors are considered important when the plan is reviewed. Tutt & Williams (2015: 114) identify some of these as being that: 1. Services will inherently have different priorities. For example, ‘it could be the health service is more concerned with meeting the needs of a growing population of the elderly and frail than addressing the needs of the youngest population’. Therefore they may wish to play down

103

104

104

Working Together for Children

the importance of health provision for a child with special educational needs or a disability. This may gain considerable traction given the discussion above on how, for example, the definition of a ‘disability’ is open to interpretation. 2. There may be pressures on budgets, which all services may be trying to stretch. This may lead to agencies setting their own higher thresholds for intervention and support which do not accord with those expected by others. 3. There may be difficulties retaining staff within agencies, the impact of which may be to expect the remaining staff to focus support on children whom they deem to be the most worthy, again leading to decisions which contradict what other services believe are appropriate. The idea of agencies having different priorities is further discussed by Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe (2015: 272), who identify the followings challenges of multi-​agency work: 1. The ‘different purposes and aims’ of each service lead directly to them having ‘different expectations’. It stands to reason that social care services will be focused on children’s ‘welfare, safety and care’, while health services will focus on ‘physical development, diagnoses, medical interventions and support for improving health and well-​being’ and education providers upon ‘educational progress, inclusion and intellectual development’. This is right and proper:  after all, that is why these different agencies exist, to focus on the particular aspect of children’s lives. However, the consequence of this is that professionals within these agencies are likely to consider their own priorities as having different ‘weight or relevance’, and this then can lead to ‘disagreement in identifying priority targets or levels of perceived importance in professional status’ (Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe, 2015: 272). 2. Since EHC plans expect professionals to work so closely together, the potential loss of professional identification and the ‘homogenisation of roles’ is a danger. Workers who have been highly trained in specific areas of health, education or social care may be expected to work more as generalists rather than as specialists in order to meet the expectations of the EHC plan, especially if the agency has compromised on what they see as their ‘true’ focus. In other words, staff may need to suppress their expert knowledge and skills to allow them to work collaboratively to meet the requirements of a mutually agreed-​upon and deliverable plan that has been made acceptable to all by compromising on some of the deep areas of specialized need. If this happens, it can leave staff feeling confused about their true identity, and about their professional worth (Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe, 2015: 272). This may lead staff to feel uncertain about their specific role within the network of workers and ultimately to feel undervalued (Ward, 2008). 3. Perhaps in an effort, whether consciously or not, to wrestle back or maintain a sense of professional identity, staff may use agency ‘specific terminology, abbreviations or references’ (Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe, 2015: 279). The nature of EHC plans provide the opportunity for this specialized language to be used but not understood by all. This language may not be used deliberately for one-​upmanship, but instead out of habit without much conscious thought. Nevertheless, if specialized terms are not explained, it can lead to some confusion among others in the team. While these other professionals have a duty to make sure they

105

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

ask if they do not understand a particular term being used, if they lack confidence (by being newly qualified or new to the post, perhaps) they may feel inhibited in asking and thus may not really understand the issues being discussed. This situation also allows issues of status and power to emerge or be reinforced, whereby different workers engage in a kind of terminology ‘arms race’ in a bid to impress or outdo those around them. The danger of this is that the focus may be pulled away from the needs of the child. 4. The times chosen for professionals to meet to construct or review the EHC plan ‘may not be mutually convenient’, especially if a large group of professionals is involved (Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe, 2015:  279). Given the long list of potential workers who might need to become involved, which was outlined in the section above, this is a real problem. This is a good example of a structural barrier to effective multi-​agency working as discussed in Chapter Two of this book. Workers will have their own agency demands and expectations, and where they may not always be able to attend multi-​agency EHC plan meetings, this is not to blame them individually, but rather to recognize the inherent limitations upon the choices they are able to make. Where staff cannot attend meetings, they can send written reports which can be read out, and this is a reasonable compromise. However, these are of limited value, because these reports cannot be expanded upon in person, or clarified if questions arise regarding the contents of the report. An EHC plan may involve support which might be considered to benefit both the child and the parents, even though the child is the key focus of the plan. For example, the plan may include periods of regular respite care for the child. This involves short breaks whereby the child goes to stay with residential or foster carers, or whereby a carer enters the child’s home to care for the child, while the parents have a much-​needed break from the burden of caring for a child with complex needs. The idea is that this respite care allows the parents to continue to care for the child on a long-​term basis, and therefore is in the long-​term interests of the child, while also giving the child opportunities for new and stimulating activities. In these circumstances, multi-​agency disagreements may arise as to exactly who the client is: the child or the parent, or perhaps both. Some workers may take the view that if the child is not keen on leaving the house or having carers enter the home for respite care, then this should be taken seriously, as the child is the chief client and focus for the work. Others may wish to argue that it is in the interests of the child for professionals to support a respite care package, even if the child is not fully supportive of it. The alternative scenario, where parents become too exhausted to continue to care for the child on a long-​term basis, would lead to the child becoming permanently looked after in care, and this is not in the interests of the child. Clearly, at the official level, the EHC plan is focused on the child, as it would not exist if it were not for the child having the particular needs addressed within it. However, to ignore the needs of the parents, some might argue, is to jeopardize the health or welfare of the child, and therefore, they may wish to try to ensure that the parents’ interests play a more prominent role in the plan than others think is required or desirable. A further issue is that there may emerge disagreement about the balance between dependency and independence. Some workers contributing to delivery of the plan may argue that by focusing too much on the needs of the parents, the plan is fostering a sense of dependency and allowing parents

105

106

106

Working Together for Children

to abdicate their responsibility at the expense of achieving independence and autonomy, and of exercising their parental responsibility. Others, in contrast, may see this attitude as harsh, and may argue that it is impossible to expect parents to raise children with special educational needs and disabilities without more expert support and advice. In addition, the voluntary status of this work –​whereby parents have the right to be informed of any decision, and where parental consent is required before any information about them or their child is shared –​can also lead to multi-​agency friction. If, for instance, parents decline support for a child with a special educational need or a disability, some workers may see this as compromising the safety or welfare of the child, and may wish to take this forward as a safeguarding issue. However, if children’s social care services are contacted, they may take the view that unless the harm to the child is serious and significant, it is not appropriate for them to become involved on a compulsory basis, given the parents’ decision to decline the support on offer. This in turn may lead to the referring agency arguing that children’s social care is not working in a preventative way, and that it is wrong to have to wait for the child to actually experience harm (as they may believe they would) rather than for the child to be protected from this likely harm. The potential here for disagreement and lasting loss of confidence in the judgement of others is considerable. A final broader area for potential disagreement concerns how the various agencies involved may view the whole area of disability. Goepel, Childerhouse and Sharpe (2015) remind us of the two main models of disability which frame the debate about how to meet the needs of disabled people. The first model is called the medical model. Here, a special educational need or disability is seen as the result of some impairment within the individual. The ‘problem’ then is seen as being the result of individual pathology, whereby the individual needs support to ‘carry out normal day-​to-​day activities’ as it states in the Equality Act 2010. In other words, the individual has to learn to adjust to society, which itself is seen as benign. The child described as ‘disabled’ within a medical model reflects the view that they have a fixed condition caused by their particular impairment. The second model is called the social model. Here, disability is understood as a complex interplay between the child’s characteristics and a range of societal attitudes, policies and practices which serve to reinforce the disadvantage experienced by the child. In other words, under the social model, the child should not be seen as inherently impaired, but as facing many structural disadvantages to integration that should be overcome. The child described as ‘disabled’ within a social model of disability reflects the view that the child is disabled by society, rather than by their individual impairment. Under this model, society is not seen as benign, but rather as harmfully reinforcing discrimination unless it adapts to meet the needs of the disabled child. Hence, limiting or damaging practices should be challenged so that the child can fully participate in society. In relation to multi-​agency working, a key issue that may emerge is which model of disability most fits with the practices and philosophy of the various agencies that are working together on an EHC plan. Some, for example, may emphasize the child’s individual impairment while others may wish to review and challenge the policies and practices of the various settings or agencies involved. These differences in understanding and expectation could well cause disagreement and tension, especially if a worker espousing a social model of disability is perceived to be criticizing the individual efforts of another worker who is working within a medical model by focusing on supporting the child to adapt to society’s expectations. These disagreements may also be seen within the context of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the United Kingdom ratified in 2009 (United Nations,

107

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

2006). While there is not space to cover this comprehensive protocol fully, it is worth highlighting some areas relevant to a discussion on multi-​agency working. Article 7 covers children with disabilities specifically, and emphasizes that ‘all necessary measures’ should be taken ‘to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children’, and that ‘children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them…and to be provided with disability and age-​appropriate assistance to realize that right’. Furthermore, Article 4 highlights that governments should take ‘all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities’ (including children). It is not difficult to see how interpretation of these rights between professionals within different services can lead to disagreements about, for example, what ‘appropriate’ assistance consists of, or how rigorously the government has enacted laws and changes in practice to ensure that children with disabilities do not face discrimination. These are issues that are not likely to be resolved quickly and easily, and as such remain as structural barriers since they relate to availability of resources, or legislative mechanisms. For instance, if one professional felt that children with disabilities are being discriminated against by not having sufficient opportunity to partake in various activities, it is difficult to see how they could go about challenging the government for not acting on their ratification of the United Nations protocol. The more likely scenario is that they will have to negotiate with other agencies directly for them to improve their services for children with disabilities.

Reflections: Case study –​ Joseph Joseph is 4 years old and is white and British. He lives with both parents and his sister, aged 7. He has been diagnosed as having autism and cerebral palsy. He is aware of his peers and occasionally interacts with one or two particular children. He has difficulty using expressive language or stating his views directly and points, makes faces and grunts to make himself understood. He often mimics what adults ask him or say to him, using the exact tone and rhythm of the adults. He has weakness down the right side of his body and if he runs he is unsteady on his feet. He attends a local nursery and staff here have started to use the PECS (Pictorial Exchange Communication System) to help Joseph develop more sophisticated communication strategies. Joseph’s parents are very supportive of him, but exhausted by the strain of caring for him. 1. Who do you think needs to be involved in the EHC plan for Joseph? 2. What do you think should be the key elements of the EHC plan? 3. What multi-​agency problems do you think might emerge?

Conclusions For children with special educational needs and disabilities, the use of multi-​agency EHC plans is clearly a positive move to meet their complex needs. This structured approach to meeting the

107

108

108

Working Together for Children

needs of these children, and to supporting parents, if agreed by all, is likely to be experienced as helpful. The involvement of workers with highly specialized knowledge and skills brings its own benefits, as these are focused on meeting clearly identified needs. However, the EHC plan should not be seen as a panacea for solving all the problems associated with these children with complex and ongoing needs. Difficulties in multi-​agency working persist and are likely to impinge upon the efficacy of the work. If staff feel burdened by what they see as additional work in supporting a child who they feel should not really receive the level of help demanded by a lengthy EHC plan, the staff may well perform their role grudgingly. They may have conflicting demands from their ‘home’ agency and from the multi-​agency work expected by the EHC plan, and will need to decide how to prioritize these demands. Where there are more serious disagreements between workers in different agencies concerning whether or not an EHC plan should be in place, or about its contents or the route to follow when it is reviewed, then this is likely to result in ongoing difficulties between parties, during which resentment and mutual mistrust can fester in place of more positive and constructive relationships between workers in different agencies.

Further reading Abbott, D., D. Watson and R. Townsley (2005), ‘The Proof of the Pudding: What Difference Does Multi-​ Agency Working Make to Families with Disabled Children with Complex Care Needs?’ Child & Family Social Work, 10 (3): 229–​238. This research journal article reports on findings from a three-​year research project looking at the efficacy of multi-​agency services for disabled child with complex health care needs. Although now somewhat dated, the general findings –​that while multi-​agency working impacted positively upon the children’s specific needs, it appeared less effective at meeting the wider needs of the child and those of the family –​are a reminder that multi-​agency working is not a panacea for solving all problems, and the benefits and limitations need to be fully understood. Department for Education Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) website:  This government site, found here https://​www.gov.uk/​topic/​schools-​colleges-​childrens-​services/​special-​ educational-​needs-​disabilities, contains a plethora of information about the Code of Practice, and has links to sets of practice guidance for a range of professionals from education, early years, social care and health. Tutt, R. (2011), Partnership Working to Support Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, London: Sage. This clear and accessible text considers partnerships between different schools, children’s centres and support services, and uses case studies to focus on practical interventions that lead to better outcomes for children with SEND and their families.

109

newgenprepdf

8 Children in Need of Protection Chapter Outline Introduction Who are children in need of protection? Systems and processes to support children in need of protection Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

109 110 116 121 127

Introduction This chapter will consider current systems and processes based around the role of children’s social care –​and social workers in particular –​in engaging other professionals in protecting children. It will cover implications for multi-​agency working flowing from the formal definitions of abuse which all professionals are expected to use, and from the system in place for the referral of, and subsequent response to, serious concerns about children. The chapter will not consider matters related to family court proceedings –​the ultimate destination for those small numbers of cases which cannot be successfully resolved while maintaining the child within the family. As the focus is on legislation and guidance produced by the government as it applies to England, readers are referred to the following documents covering safeguarding children in the other three countries of the United Kingdom: Wales:  The All Wales Child Protection Procedures (Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards in Wales, 2008). Scotland:  The National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland (The Scottish Government, 2014). Northern Ireland: Co-​operating to Safeguard Children and Young People in Northern Ireland (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2016). Each of these sources contains similar guidance to that contained within the English version.

110

110

Working Together for Children

Who are children in need of protection? The first consideration is that of a change of language. The term ‘child protection’ or ‘protecting children’ was commonplace among professionals until around 2003. Then, as explained in Chapter Five of this book, along with the Every Child Matters programme (DfES, 2004) there came a central government emphasis on changing the language to reflect what they believed should be a much broader approach than intervening only when there was acute risk of serious harm. Thus there was a government-​led attempt to shift away from a restricted approach of ‘child protection’ towards a much broader agenda of ‘safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’. This is worth unpacking a little further. This new approach linked in with the notion of prevention: rather than waiting for the crisis, as it were, it was deemed much better to get in early and stop the crisis from happening in the first place –​hence the new terminology of ‘safeguarding children’ and ‘promoting their welfare’. One tangible example of the imposition of this new approach was that one key existing multi-​agency structure for co-​ordinating child protection activity at local level –​area child protection committees  –​were replaced by a new body called local safeguarding children boards, with wider powers and responsibilities.

Information: What is safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children? The national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) provides some answers to this question, stating that it means: 1. protecting children from maltreatment 2. preventing impairment of children’s health or development 3. ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care 4. taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes Child protection is therefore seen as one element of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

While the focus on prevention and a broader approach to child welfare is generally to be welcomed, it does carry a potential danger. To subsume ‘child protection’ within a wide interpretation of ‘safeguarding’ and to reduce it to only one of four elements of ‘safeguarding’ –​protection from maltreatment –​is to risk losing a focus on child protection. Professionals, when faced with complex family problems which may or do include child abuse, may focus on the other three elements of ‘safeguarding’ in the belief that these together override the one element concerned with ‘protection’. If they feel encouraged to take a ‘safeguarding’ approach rather than a narrower ‘protection’ approach, they will have to make decisions, for instance, about how to separate any harm they encounter from ‘impairment of health or development’ (which is not serious enough to

111

Children in Need of Protection

warrant statutory intervention) or about what constitutes care that is not ‘safe and effective’, or what examples of harm should be classed as significant, and therefore requiring of immediate protective action. Clearly, experienced professionals generally make judgements based on sound evidence and the processing of that evidence; however, if there is a further layer of processing involved, and an expectation to approach families in a broad preventative manner, this could blur the judgements regarding ‘significant’ harm, particularly where any harm is unsupported by dramatic physical evidence such as a serious injury. Nevertheless, for the purposes of responding to concerns about children, Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 is quite clear that a child is in need of protection when they are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm and the harm is attributable to a lack of adequate parental care or control. In other words, first the harm needs to be ‘significant’ because if it is not, the child will be deemed to be ‘in need of support’ as outlined in Chapter Six of this book. Second, the significant harm needs to be linked in some way to the quality of the parenting. This is in recognition that children can suffer accidents such as being knocked down by a car, or falling out of a tree, and unless there is some direct link between these accidents and poor parenting, they are not seen as child protection matters. There are no absolute criteria for judging what ‘significant’ harm is, but in doing so, consideration should be given to the: 1. 2. 3. 4.

severity of any ill treatment degree and extent of harm duration of harm frequency of harm

To assist professionals in reaching decisions as to what constitutes ‘significant’ harm, the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) provides what amounts to definitions of abuse under four categories. All agencies are expected to be familiar with these categories and definitions, and use them to classify harm to children. As these are the only categories in use, any form of abuse should be able to be catered for by them. They are reproduced here verbatim from the national guidance (HM Government, 2015b): Physical abuse: a form of abuse which may involve hitting, shaking, throwing, poisoning, burning or scalding, drowning, suffocating or otherwise causing physical harm to a child. Physical harm may also be caused when a parent or carer fabricates the symptoms of, or deliberately induces, illness in a child. Sexual abuse: involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-​penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-​contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or grooming a child in preparation for abuse (including via the internet). Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can also commit acts of sexual abuse, as can other children.

111

112

112

Working Together for Children

Emotional abuse: the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child’s emotional development. It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond a child’s developmental capability, as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning, or preventing the child participating in normal social interaction. It may involve seeing or hearing the ill-​treatment of another. It may involve serious bullying (including cyber bullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment of a child, though it may occur alone. Neglect: the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/​or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development. Neglect may occur during pregnancy as a result of maternal substance abuse. Once a child is born, neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Provide adequate food, clothing and shelter (including exclusion from home or abandonment). Protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger. Ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-​givers). Ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment.

It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child’s basic emotional needs. A point worth making immediately is that the received definitions of what constitutes child abuse change over time. This is based upon our developing awareness of what is harmful to children and upon the way children and childhood are socially constructed within society. For instance, in Victorian England it was commonplace, even encouraged, for very young children to be set to work in dangerous occupations such as mining, reflecting what Williams (1961: 60) calls the ‘dominant social character’ of the time, which believed in the inherent value of work. Furthermore, working children from poor families were seen to contribute to the financial stability of the family and to general economic growth (see Kirby, 2003). The four definitions given above have indeed changed three times since they were first introduced in 1991. Generally, they have expanded to include a wider range of activities. Some examples may be helpful here. For sexual abuse, the words ‘including prostitution’ which were present in the 2006 version of the definition have been removed from the 2015 definition. This reflects a change in the way children who are engaged in sexual exploitation are now dealt with: a move away from treating them as ‘prostitutes’ (with the implication that they may be breaking the law by soliciting and therefore be in need of a punitive response) towards treating them as ‘victims of abuse’ in need of protection. A further example is provided in the definition of emotional abuse. An addition to the 2006 version which persists in the 2015 definition, that emotional abuse ‘may involve seeing or hearing the ill-​treatment of another’, is clearly a response to evidence that children living in households where there is domestic violence suffer significant emotional harm (see, for example, Mullender et al., 2002). The final example is with regard to neglect. Additions since 2006 include that neglect ‘may occur during pregnancy as a

113

Children in Need of Protection

result of maternal substance abuse’ or from a ‘failure to ensure adequate supervision including the use of inadequate care-​givers’ Here we have neglect pertaining to unborn babies, as well as to the complex area of babysitting. This will be further discussed later under the section entitled ‘issues for multi-​agency working’. Having discussed the categories and definitions of abuse, it is necessary to consider the prevalence of such abuse. As a snapshot, on 31 March 2016, there were 50,310 children who were the subject of a child protection plan in England (DfE, 2016a). The figures (in 2015) for the other three countries of the United Kingdom were: Wales: 2,936. Scotland: 2,751. Northern Ireland: 1,969. A child protection plan is a formal multi-​agency plan, and this will be discussed in further detail below. The vast majority of the children who are the subject of child protection plans will be living at home with their parents or carers.

Information: Children who are the subject of a child protection plan The total figure of 50,310 children who were the subject of a child protection plan in England on 31 March 2016 can be broken down by category of abuse as follows: Neglect

23,150

Physical abuse

4,200

Sexual abuse

2,370

Emotional abuse

17,770

More than one category

2,810 (It is possible for children to be the subject of a child protection plan under more than one of the above categories.)

It is little surprise, perhaps, that of those children who are the subject of a child protection plan, neglect is the highest populated category, as it is often linked to poverty, and around 3.7 million children live in poverty in England (The Children’s Society, 2016). Making this link does not imply that all or most poor parents neglect their children; however, there is a correlation between neglect and poverty. This may be enhanced by an over-​surveillance of working-​class parents compared to, say, middle-​class parents who may practise forms of neglect not linked so tangibly to poverty, for instance, expecting their child to make their own way home and then stay unsupervised in the home until the parents return from work, or by substituting material goods for emotional support. It is perhaps more surprising to see emotional abuse as the second highest populated category

113

114

114

Working Together for Children

of harm. This suggests that professionals are able to separate healthy parent–​child relationships from dysfunctional ones to the extent where they can agree on which are significantly harmful to children. The total figure of 50,310 children who were the subject of a child protection plan in March 2016 may at first glance suggest that England has only a minor problem with child abuse. After all, this figure represents only 0.38 per cent of the child population of around 13 million, or 1 in every 258 children. However, this creates a false sense of security for a number of reasons. First, the figure of 50,310 is a snapshot; it does not account for all new children made the subject of a child protection plan during a given year. Second, there are around 70,400 looked-​after children, or children in care in England at any one time, and the majority of these children are living in care as a result of abuse (DfE, 2016b). As with the children made subject of a child protection plan, new children are entering the care system and leaving it throughout the year. Third, and perhaps most dramatically, the number of children suffering or at risk of serious harm may be significantly higher than those identified by child protection plans. In 1996, a seminal report was published under the title of Childhood Matters which took a much broader approach to child abuse (National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, 1996). They used a definition of abuse which contrasted with the narrow and technical definitions found in the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b), as follows: ‘child abuse consists of anything which individuals, institutions or processes do or fail to do which directly or indirectly harms children or damages their prospects of a safe and healthy development into adulthood’. The commission took contributions from over 10,000 people including a range of professionals, members of the public, children and leading experts in the field. In a nutshell, they found that abuse appears to be significantly under-​reported, such that the real figures, they estimated, might be thus: Children suffering severe physical punishment

150,000

Children experiencing sexual exploitation

100,000

Children living in low-​warmth, high-​criticism environments (emotional abuse)

350,000

Children being bullied at school at least once a week

450,000

Children living with domestic violence

250,000

Clearly, although there may some double counting here, in that the same child may be experiencing harm under more than one of these categories, these figures, if correct, put the potential number of children experiencing serious harm at over 1.3 million. This is now not 1 child in every 258, but possibly 1 in 10. Can child abuse really be that prevalent? Two examples will serve as illustrations that the answer may well be a resounding ‘yes’. A national representative study of 2,869 young people aged 18 to 24 years showed that 21 per cent of girls and 11 per cent of boys have experienced child sexual abuse, defined as acts ‘to which they had not consented or where “consensual” activity had occurred with someone 5 years or more older and the child was 12 years or less’ (Cawson

115

Children in Need of Protection

et al., 2000). This is 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys. Secondly, figures from the Department of Health (DH, 2002) indicate that the true figure for children witnessing domestic violence is not 250,000, but at least 750,000, and this is an annual figure. This equates to approximately 1 child in every 17. Less dramatically, perhaps, but still of concern, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC, 2017) estimates that for every child known to need protecting from abuse, another 8 are experiencing abuse, which makes the ratio for England about 1 child in every 29 who are suffering some form of abuse across the four categories of harm mentioned above (physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect). The Childhood Matters report points out clearly that their figures are only estimates. However, despite this, and the fact that the research was conducted in 1996, the general point is well made, and supported by subsequent studies: by employing a broader definition of harm, and by carrying out careful research, more children are potentially captured. That they are not being identified and made the subject of child protection plans may relate to issues such as a lack of resources to do anything other than take a targeted approach, over-​surveillance of working-​class families, and confusion and uncertainty as to what constitutes ‘significant’ harm rather than impairment to health or development.

Reflections: When is harm significant? Read each of the following scenarios and then consider the question that follows. ●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

A mother decides to punish her 4-​year-​old daughter for being cheeky by sending her to her room from 4.00 p.m. until the next morning with no food or interaction with her at all. This only happens once. A father hits his 7-​year-​old son with a belt on his back for hitting his younger sister. Two parents inject heroin into themselves in front of their three children aged 2, 5 and 8. The children are left to play alone for long periods while the parents are under the influence of drugs. The two older children often miss school because the parents are not awake to take them. A single mother of three children aged 2, 4 and 7 lives on benefits in an overcrowded flat. The flat is untidy and sparsely furnished. She gives her children lots of affection and plays with them. Occasionally, she gets frustrated as a result of the stresses and smacks the children or shouts at them. A girl aged 10 is scapegoated by her parents. Her two younger brothers get full meals, new toys and clothes. She is made to eat inferior meals alone, is called ‘the enemy within’ by her parents, is made to wear old and torn clothes and has few toys.

1. Which of these do you think amounts to ‘significant harm’, rather than just ‘harm’? Try to give at least one reason for your decision, based on the criteria discussed above of severity of the ill treatment, the degree and extent of harm to the child, and the duration and frequency of the harm. You might also want to consider which of the four categories of abuse any harm may fall into (physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect).

115

116

116

Working Together for Children

Systems and processes to support children in need of protection Where professionals, or indeed members of the public, do have concerns about actual, likely or potential significant harm to a child, the system for responding to this is laid out in the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b). The starting point is a referral to children’s social care. This could be a telephone call, a personal visit or an electronic means of communication. A social worker responsible for dealing with these referrals would consider the referral, probably in conjunction with a line manager. They should decide on the next step within one working day. Assuming that the decision is that the child appears to be in need of protection, further information-​gathering in the form of a timely assessment should commence.

Information: The timely assessment This is led by the social worker and should be completed as soon as possible based on the child’s needs. It involves seeing and speaking to the child, the family and a range of relevant professionals, as well as studying records about the family. A paediatric assessment of the child, conducted by a trained and experienced doctor, usually based at a hospital, may also form part of this assessment.

This assessment can have three different outcomes. First, that, despite appearances from the referral, there is no evidence of the child being ‘in need of support’ as defined by Section 17 of the Children Act, or ‘in need of protection’ as defined by Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and therefore no further action by children’s social care is required. The case may be referred for an ‘early help’ common assessment by a professional within a universal service (see Chapter Five of this book) and would then be closed by the children’s social care department. Second, that the child is ‘in need of support’, and their needs can be met by implementing the appropriate response (see Chapter Six of this book). Third, that the child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and therefore in need of protection. These decisions, and the reasons for them, should be communicated back to the referrer (if they are a professional; members of the public would not be informed). At the point where a decision is made that a child is likely to be in need of protection, a strategy discussion should take place, usually between the social worker (and possibly their line manager), the referrer, if a professional (members of the public making referrals would not be party to these discussions), the police and other agencies where appropriate. The purpose of this discussion, which ideally should be face-​to-​face, but could also be held via a series of telephone calls, is to: 1. share available information 2. agree upon the conduct and timing of any criminal investigation (where a crime is suspected to have taken place) 3. decide whether enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 should be undertaken. Section 47 enquiries are required if there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

117

Children in Need of Protection

4. If Section 47 enquiries are deemed necessary, decisions should be made as to what further information is needed, what immediate and short term action is required and whether legal action is required. In a nutshell, the strategy discussion should decide who will do what by when, and for what purpose. This could include whether there is a need for the child to receive medical treatment or a paediatric assessment. Where the need for immediate protective action is identified, then clearly this should take place. This can be very speedy: it is possible that the referral, and the full response outlined above, and any emergency action (which may result in the child being removed), can all take place within a day, sometimes within hours. This would usually involve some level of legal intervention, either by the social worker approaching the civil court (via their legal team), or by the police pursuing a criminal investigation, or both. Section 47 enquiries can have one of three outcomes. The first is that the concerns are not substantiated. In other words, the situation may have looked like one of ‘significant harm’ but no evidence of this has been found. In these circumstances, the family may be offered any services they may require under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 if the child is deemed to be a child ‘in need of support’. If the child does not reach the threshold for a child ‘in need of support’, a referral may be made to a professional in another service, with no further involvement from children’s social care. The second possibility is that the concerns are substantiated, but the child is not judged to be at continuing risk of significant harm. Here, there is evidence that the child has suffered significant harm, but there is agreement between agencies that an initial child protection conference or formal child protection plan is not required. Examples of such circumstances include where the parent has taken responsibility for the harm caused and is working with agencies to address this, where the family’s circumstances have changed, where the person responsible for the harm is no longer in contact with the child, or that the harm resulted from an isolated abusive incident, say, from a stranger, and there is no evidence that the parents were complicit in the act. This can be a difficult decision, and one which could lead to strong disagreements between agencies. Although the family should not be left bereft of support and services where required under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, there needs to be clarity regarding the child’s needs, how these will be judged to be successfully met and who will take particular roles in ensuring this is the case. The third possible outcome of Section 47 enquiries is that the concerns are substantiated, and the child is judged to be at continuing risk of significant harm. Where immediate action is needed to protect the child, this should take place as soon as possible. The child may well be removed from the care of the parents. However, it is also possible for a child to be at continuing risk of significant harm and yet remain living at home. In these circumstances, an initial child protection conference must be convened within fifteen working days (three weeks) of the date of the strategy discussion. Where one is convened, the purpose of the initial child protection conference is to: 1. share and analyse information in a multi-​agency arena 2. decide whether the child is at continuing risk of significant harm 3. decide whether the child should be made the subject of a formal multi-​agency child protection plan

117

118

118

Working Together for Children

Those invited to attend would normally include: 1. the social worker and their line manager 2. the child’s parents 3. professionals involved with the family, for example, the health visitor, midwife, school nurse, paediatrician, school or early years staff, the general practitioner, adult or child mental health practitioners and probation service staff 4. professionals with expertise in the particular type of harm suffered by the child or in the child’s condition where there is a disability or illness 5. the police involved in the investigation 6. other relevant professionals, although consideration needs to be given to avoiding the meeting becoming so large it becomes unwieldy and intimidating, particularly to parents. The child would normally not attend, unless it is deemed to be in their interests to do so. Where professionals are unable to attend, they should send a written report. The conference is chaired by an employee of the children’s social care department who is independent of the social worker involved. Most local authorities have a central team who perform such functions. Although independent of the case, since the chair works for the same organization as the social worker, it is possible that there can develop a perception, particularly if a professional from another agency disagrees with a decision of the conference, that the chair is biased towards the social worker’s position. Nevertheless, the function of the chair is to try to ensure that the conference maintains focus on the key question, which is: 1. Is the child at continuing risk of significant harm? The test here is either that there is evidence to show the child has suffered ill treatment or impairment of health or development as a result of abuse under one or more of the available four categories, and that professional judgement is that further ill treatment or impairment is likely; or that professional judgement, supported by evidence, is that the child is likely to suffer ill treatment or impairment of health or development, also as a result of physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect. If the answer to either question is ‘yes’, the child will require a formal child protection plan to co-​ordinate multi-​agency support. The category of abuse the child has suffered should also be agreed upon and noted. The conference should then also, along with seeing to other responsibilities, formulate an outline child protection plan, which includes appointing a key worker (the social worker), identifying members of the core group who will implement the plan and agreeing in principle upon key areas of work needed, with relevant timescales. It is worth explaining that use of the terms ‘child protection registration’ or ‘child protection register’ are no longer used in England. Previously reference was made to the conference agreeing to place the child’s name ‘on the child protection register’. This is now referred to as making the child the ‘subject of a child protection plan’. The reasons for this change appear to relate to a wish to emphasize the active, focused and short-​term nature of the intervention. A child’s name being on a register seems to imply a passive labelling of a situation which could continue unchecked for a lengthy period. In contrast, a child being the subject of a child protection plan suggests activity focused around their needs.

119

Children in Need of Protection

Once a child is made the subject of a child protection plan, the key worker (the social worker) takes responsibility for co-​ordinating this plan. They should ensure that the statutory assessment is completed (see Chapter Four of this book for details of this assessment). The social worker acts as the central point of contact for the agencies involved. However, it is the core group as a whole who are responsible for implementing the child protection plan.

Information: The core group Core group membership includes the social worker and their line manager, the parents, and a small group of professionals with direct involvement with the family, likely to include, as a minimum, school or early years staff, and the health visitor or school nurse. The first meeting of the core group should take place within ten working days (two weeks) of the initial child protection conference. This meeting adds more detail to the outline child protection plan and decides on who will take responsibility for the various elements of it.

The overall aims of the child protection plan include: 1. ensuring the child is safe and preventing further harm 2. promoting the child’s welfare 3. supporting the family, where it is safe to do so, to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child Within this, the plan should therefore set out: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

the specific needs of the child specific intended outcomes strategies and actions to achieve these outcomes a contingency plan should circumstances change suddenly the roles and responsibilities of professionals and family members involved how progress will be reviewed

As the work progresses, the core group should review the impact of the interventions on the child’s welfare. A key decision-​making body in this process is the child protection review conference. This is a formal meeting which has the purpose of: 1. reviewing progress against planned outcomes as identified in the child protection plan 2. ensuring the child continues to be safeguarded from harm 3. considering whether the child protection plan should continue in place or be changed The first child protection review conference should take place within three months of the initial child protection conference. Subsequent meetings should be held at least every six months as long as the child remains the subject of a child protection plan. Attendance at this meeting should mirror

119

120

120

Working Together for Children

that of the initial child protection conference; however, in practice there are likely to be a smaller number of professionals involved as reflected in the core group membership. As with the initial child protection conference, the key question for consideration in the child protection review conference is whether the child continues to be at continuing risk of significant harm. If the answer to this is ‘yes’, the child should remain the subject of a child protection plan; if ‘no’, they should cease to be the subject of such a plan. In the latter case, services under Section 17 of the Children Act should still be offered to the family if appropriate. One of the key considerations among all of this is whether the child’s needs can be met within the family in a timescale that is meaningful for the child. Putting it bluntly, professionals need to decide how long the child can wait for their parents to change. It would be absurd for a child to remain the subject of a child protection plan, where they are deemed to be at continuing risk of significant harm, for a lengthy period of time, say, a year or more. Either they cannot be at risk of such serious harm (in which case they should not be the subject of a formal child protection plan) or if they are at risk of significant harm, they should not be exposed to that risk any longer. In this case, it may be that a decision needs to be made to remove the child from the care of the parents. These decisions, due to their complexity and the strength of feeling they can elicit, have the potential to provide a further source of tension and conflict between agencies where different views are taken and held regarding the best course of action for the child. Where, at any stage, a decision is taken by children’s social care to seek a court order via the civil courts to protect a child, this is likely to have resonance for other agencies at a number of levels. The details of the various orders available are beyond the remit of this chapter; however, it is worth reiterating that a social worker has no power to remove children from parental care without first obtaining an appropriate order from the courts (except, as any member of the public has, in cases of immediate risk of serious injury or death to a child). Only one agency has the power to remove children from parental care without first seeking a court order: the police. Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, they can, where they have reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, take the child into police protection for a maximum of seventy-​two hours. They have a responsibility to inform children’s social care immediately of this, and social workers then usually take the lead in deciding on the next course of action. The key word here is ‘reasonable’, as it is not defined. The police have to make a judgement as to what is ‘reasonable cause’ and this may clash with the view of children’s social care, who then have a responsibility to pick up the case and decide on future steps. A classic example may be children left alone. The law here is fuzzy and complex, and it could be that the police, alerted to a situation, decide to remove a number of siblings aged, say, 14, 11 and 5, who have been left alone, in the belief that they are at risk of significant harm. On picking up the case, children’s social care may take the view that it was acceptable for these particular children to be left alone, and that if a blanket approach is taken that all children of similar ages should not be left alone, then many hundreds of children in the area would need to be similarly protected on a daily basis. The potential here for disagreement to surface between the two agencies is plain to see. Such differences, where there is interpretation of a family situation involving such terms as ‘reasonable cause’ and ‘significant’ harm, require careful and thorough debate if the agencies concerned are to reach a common understanding of the motives, focus and future plans of the lead agency –​usually children’s social care in cases where protecting children is central –​and so enable effective multi-​agency work to take place.

121

Children in Need of Protection

Issues for multi-​agency working One of the immediate issues is that professionals from different agencies may well have different interpretations of the definitions of abuse. Professionals will bring to their work, and to the judgements they make within it, a range of views, perceptions and experiences which are very likely to influence their interpretations of situations and evidence they encounter, and their opinions regarding the thresholds for ‘significant’ harm under each definition (Platt and Turney, 2014). For physical abuse, while every sensible-​minded person is likely to agree that many of the examples of abuse towards children given in the definition –​throwing, poisoning, burning, scalding, drowning, suffocating –​are unacceptable and need immediate action, there is a real problem with the first example given in the definition: hitting. In all four countries of the United Kingdom, it is not against the law for a parent to hit their child. In England and Wales, the Children Act 2004 retained for parents the right to use ‘reasonable chastisement’ against their children. While parents can hit their own children, they cannot hit somebody else’s child, however slight, as this would be likely to constitute an assault. Furthermore, a parent cannot hit another adult as this is also likely to constitute an assault. Therefore, the situation is that a child is unprotected by the law, in terms of being hit, if it happens to be their parent who is doing the hitting. The reason for this appears to be a view that children are the ‘private property’ of parents (rather than, say, the responsibility of the community or the society as whole) and as such, parents have certain inalienable rights over their children, including the right to hit them. Apart from the contradictory position of this law –​the smallest, potentially most vulnerable members of society have the least protection against hitting if the perpetrator of the hitting is their parent –​it also raises a question of what the word ‘reasonable’ means. There is no definition in law of this word: it is left up to professionals, alone and together where necessary, to interpret it and apply this interpretation to practical situations which they face. Immediately, therefore, we are propelled into a scenario where a professional, perhaps visiting a family alone, has to decide that the hit they have seen, or been told about, or suspect, is ‘reasonable’ according to their personal views, their experience and their understanding of what constitutes ‘significant’ harm. They may consider such questions as ‘How hard does the hit have to be to count as abuse?’ ‘Is it more about the frequency of the hitting than about how hard it is?’ ‘If a parent hits their child occasionally (even quite hard) but otherwise is warm and supportive towards them, is this better than the child never being hit, but also not receiving very much warmth and support?’ Research from the United States of America (Jent et al., 2011) suggests that while professionals from different agencies had a relatively high level of agreement when there were clear injuries to a child, their own characteristics, such as their own racial background, educational standard, and personal beliefs about the use of physical punishment, did influence their decision-​making in what was classified as abusive. Regarding sexual abuse, once again, at first glance it appears that the list of activities and examples given in the definition of sexual abuse need addressing immediately if they came to light. That is not to say, however, that there are not tensions here as well. This is particularly likely to be so when professionals try to apply the definition to young people engaged in sexual activity. Here, the moral dilemmas can be acute. The law, at one level, is clear –​there are legal ages of consent. However, many young people engage in sexual activity when younger than the legal ages of consent.

121

122

122

Working Together for Children

Information: The age of consent in the United Kingdom The age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is 16. More specific laws protect children under the age of 13 who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity, and there is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for certain acts. The law is not intended to prosecute two young people of a similar age engaging in mutually agreed-​upon teenage sexual activity.

Where sexual activity between two young people occurs, the ages, maturity, levels of consent or coercion of the two young people involved should be considered before a response is made. Decisions will need to be made as to how similar the ages need to be to be acceptable, and how mutual the sexual activity was. Remembering that ‘significant harm’ as defined in Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 must somehow be linked to parental care, the role of the parents in being aware of, complicit in or disapproving of the sexual activity may also be important in determining an appropriate response. Professionals may need to consider at what point an age gap between the parties might become unacceptable.

Reflections: Sexual activity between young people Read each of the following statements and then consider the questions that follow. ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

A girl aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a boy aged 16. A girl aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a man aged 18. A boy aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a girl aged 16. A boy aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a woman aged 18. A girl aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a girl aged 16. A boy aged 15 (under the official age of consent) is having a sexual relationship with a boy aged 16.

1. What might be some of the relevant issues that professionals working with young people on a daily basis may need to consider in responding to these scenarios, if they become aware of them? 2. Is there a difference in how professionals should respond to such instances for boys compared to girls? If so, what might lie behind this difference? 3. Should there be a difference in how same-​gender relationships are viewed? If so, what might be the reasons for this?

123

Children in Need of Protection

Physical and sexual abuse can occur, and should be responded to, following a single incident. The other two categories –​emotional abuse and neglect –​must by definition occur more than once over a period of time. This brings its own difficulties for professionals struggling to act appropriately when faced with concerns, and these are discussed in the paragraphs that follow. Emotional abuse can perhaps be the most difficult to detect, quantify and deal with. Often the issues are related to the quality and texture of the relationship between the adult and the child, and there is significant scope here for interpretation, differing perceptions or varying standards of acceptability to be at play. Parents, if faced with a suggestion that they may be emotionally abusing their child, can respond by arguing that the child is merely being oversensitive; professionals are likely to have very different ideas about what level of emotional harm is acceptable in parenting, given that it is likely to be highly unusual for them to encounter any parent who does not show some level of negative emotion towards their child. At what point does this become abusive? The definition is clear that the harm must be persistent and severe; therefore, occasional bouts of temper or shouting at children would not count as abusive if they were balanced with love, affection and support. It is the general emotional climate which professionals should assess when concerned with emotional abuse. They should ask, ‘Is the child receiving a balance of care, love and encouragement, or a balance of indifference, negativity and of being undermined?’ If the latter, the situation is likely to need attention under the definition of emotional abuse. Nevertheless, there still exists, in aspects of the definition, the opportunity for serious doubts and questions to be raised. Take parents who apply significant pressure on their children to achieve academically or in a particular sport, necessitating lengthy daily routines of practice, perhaps against the child’s wishes. Is this abusive, if it is persistent over time? Might there be a double standard at play here, with middle-​class parents perceived to be trying to ‘better’ their children receiving a more favourable response compared with working-​class parents who, say, might expect young children to help with household chores and childcare while the parents are at work? The phrase in the definition that emotional abuse may involve ‘overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning, or preventing the child participating in normal social interaction’ is equally troublesome. Might this mean that a professional may perceive that if a parent does not attend a toddler’s group with their child, or send their child to a nursery or allow them to play outside, that they are emotionally abusing them? There is an assumption here that the private family space is inherently limited and limiting, and that public space is always good. In its extreme form, limiting children’s opportunities for interaction and play can be very damaging; yet to include the above phrase in a definition of emotional abuse potentially allows state intervention into family life where parents, perhaps with sound reason, have chosen not to engage their child fully in what the state has decided is good for them. Furthermore, within this phrase, what is ‘normal’ social interaction? Who does, or should decide, what is meant by ‘normal’? Unless these questions are raised and a working solution found, the dangers are either that there develops a silent consensus among professionals around what ‘normal’ means, or that individual professionals impose their own interpretation of ‘normal’, which is likely only to obfuscate decisions about children. The key point from these examples is that if professionals feel that the definition of emotional abuse allows them potentially to draw in a wide range of behaviours, it could lead to conflict

123

124

124

Working Together for Children

between different agencies. Some referrals to children’s social care from other agencies may be considered inappropriate by social workers. Tension may also arise if a professional in the field feels strongly that the behaviour they have witnessed, and believe is catered for by the definition, is abusive, and that the social worker, taking a different position, is not taking their concerns seriously enough. These differences are likely to be particularly acute when trying to interpret harm which by its very nature is more ethereal, imprecise and nebulous than physical or sexual abuse. Like emotional abuse, to count as abusive, neglect must be persistent and serious. It is clearly not neglectful, therefore, if a parent forgets to send their child to school with a packed lunch once only, or if, due to parental illness, the care of the child takes a slight downturn for a week or two. The reason for the need to ensure that only serious matters are dealt with is to avoid professionals imposing their own values onto families: thus, for example, it could not be considered neglectful for a child to attend school with a creased uniform, shirt hanging out and shoelaces undone. If, on the other hand, the same child went to school every day with no lunch, was always hungry, dirty, smelly, had persistent infections and so on, then there is very likely to be an issue of neglect which needs addressing. However, in between these two extremes there are many grey areas. For example, take the phrase that neglect may result from failure to ‘ensure adequate supervision’ (including the use of inadequate caregivers). In its extreme form it would clearly be neglectful for young children to be left unsupervised for long periods, or for young children to be left in the care of other children or with adults who were palpably irresponsible. However, this is a complex area. There is the somewhat contradictory position that although the law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts them at risk (NSPCC, 2016). Parents, therefore, have to make a judgement about this, and the NSPCC has produced a list of factors for parents to consider. These include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

the age of the child the maturity of the child, including how they feel about being left alone whether or not the child has additional needs what might happen if siblings are left alone and they fall out with each other whether the child is able to access food and drink or use a cooker or microwave oven how the child might cope in the event of an emergency how the child might respond if the phone rang or if someone came to the door whether the child knows how to contact someone if they needed to, and if they have the relevant telephone numbers

The law on babysitting is equally vague. Once again, the law does not state an age at which young people can babysit, or indeed the youngest age at which a child should be left with a babysitter. However, where parents use babysitters, they remain legally responsible to ensure their child comes to no harm. Furthermore, under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (still in force) parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’. In light of this, the NSPCC (2016) recommends that parents ‘think carefully’ about using anyone under the age of 16 as a babysitter. Parents, therefore, are expected to make a judgement regarding the suitability of babysitters in terms of their maturity and levels of responsibility. This can be difficult as, for example, a

125

Children in Need of Protection

15-​year-​old can be more sensible and mature than a 16-​year-​old, making a decision based on age alone complicated. The implication of all of this for professionals who may encounter a wide variety of babysitters or indeed of situations where children are left alone is that they, too, will have to make a judgement, based on all the factors identified above, and on their knowledge of the parents and the particular child concerned. Equally likely to impinge on these decisions are the personal value systems and experience of the worker making the judgement. Where these clash with those of other professionals with whom they are sharing any concerns, this could lead to tensions between agencies. In and among all of these questions, tensions and issues, what needs emphasizing is that, when making decisions about whether children are suffering, or likely to suffer, ‘significant’ harm, professionals need to remember that they should take account of the four fundamental factors: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the severity of any ill treatment. the degree and extent of harm. the duration of harm. the frequency of harm.

If these are processed in a methodical manner, using the experience and knowledge of the professionals, it should be possible to reach agreement with other professionals on what level of harm they are dealing with, and what the appropriate response to that might be. Following a referral to children’s social care, there are various points at which professionals from different agencies may disagree about decisions that are made. The outcome of the timely assessment by the social worker is one such point. If another professional disagrees with a decision, either for no further action, or that a child is ‘in need of support’ rather than ‘in need of protection’, there should then follow a discussion about the case, with the aim of reaching agreement as to the appropriate course of action. Nevertheless, there is the possibility at this stage that professionals may be left feeling angry, undervalued and unheard if they feel strongly that the situation they have referred is one of ‘significant harm’, and children’s social care disagree. It is also possible that these feelings will colour their response to future difficulties they encounter, such that they may decide that next time around, when faced with similar circumstances, there is little point in making a referral. A second point where disagreement may arise is over the decision whether or not to hold an initial child protection conference. Where a professional strongly disagrees with a decision not to convene such a conference, they have the right to request one. Where children’s social care resist this pressure, the national guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2015b) states that the Local Safeguarding Children Board has a role to play in resolving these differences of opinion. There is here, then, the potential for serious tension and differences to emerge. Where a professional invokes the support of a manager to force through a decision to hold an initial child protection conference, the social worker is likely to feel disempowered and undermined, particularly as they will have to coordinate much of the work that goes along with this decision. Furthermore, where a decision goes up to the Local Safeguarding Children Board, whichever agency is on the ‘losing’ side may well also feel a sense of despair or anger which may well colour future relationships.

125

126

126

Working Together for Children

A third area of potential disagreement is the decision to leave a child deemed to be at risk of significant home at home in the care of the parents, albeit with an initial child protection conference being held. This decision can be controversial in that some agencies may feel that the child should be removed from the care of the parents as the risk of significant harm is too great. Similar difficulties may arise following a decision whether or not to make the child the subject of a child protection plan or not at the initial child protection conference, or, at a child protection review conference, whether or not the child should remain the subject of a child protection. Once more, attempts would need to be made to settle these differences, but there is a chance that certain professionals will be left feeling undermined, which could sour future interactions. A practical problem may be that workers employed in agencies other than children’s social care may struggle to attend either the initial child protection conference, or the core group meetings, or child protection review conference. It is worth remembering that for these workers, the multi-​ agency child protection work is not their core function and they will have demands and targets to meet associated with their own agency. For example, teachers are expected to ensure children in their class meet challenging educational outcomes. For these professionals, therefore, attendance at these child protection meetings may not be a priority, and they may feel that sending a written report is a proportionate and positive response to an invitation to attend a meeting, especially if the agency is experiencing staff shortages at the time. However, this can have a knock-​on effect in that others who do attend the meeting might perceive the agency or person not attending as being uninterested in the child’s plight, and this in turn might cause them to treat them with some disdain in future interactions. A wider problem that may beset multi-​agency working for children in need of protection is that the various professionals involved may have a different understanding of the causes and origins of ‘abuse’ (Stokes and Schmidt, 2011). Recalling the broad definition of abuse used by the Childhood Matters (National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, 1996) research, that ‘child abuse consists of anything which individuals, institutions or processes do or fail to do which directly or indirectly harms children or damages their prospects of a safe and healthy development into adulthood’, some workers may emphasize the role and responsibility of individual parents in the process, and see parents as making rational choices in how they raise their children. Where children are harmed, the parents here are seen as ‘bad parents’ within an individual pathology model of harm, where the response should be focused on changing individual behaviour or removing children from the harmful parental influence. In contrast, other professionals may emphasize the role of wider society in contributing to what they would argue is harm to children within a social model of harm. This could be, for example, through the generally acceptable conditions in which some families are expected to live, such as poverty or poor housing. Here, workers may place emphasis not on changing the behaviour of individual parents, but on trying to change and challenge the social conditions that are seen to undermine the efforts of parents to provide safe and effective care, and to support the parents in the difficult task of raising their children. Where these different perceptions exist in multi-​agency work, it is likely that they will lead to disagreement: first, on what the immediate response to concerns about children should be, and second, on how best to work with parents in the long-​term interests of the child.

127

Children in Need of Protection

Conclusions Child protection work is perhaps among the most difficult and challenging tasks for all agencies. The conceptual shift from ‘child protection’ to ‘safeguarding children’ involves a key role for services in the prevention of harm, where protecting children becomes just one element of a wider approach. A major potential difficulty here is that the sharp, narrow focus on child protection may be blurred as professionals consider the broader issues that impinge upon the child. Furthermore, the definitions of abuse are open to interpretation by different workers, and this can lead to different positions being adopted by individuals. Where children are the subject of formal child protection processes, multi-​agency tensions can arise as professionals hold and maintain different views regarding what is in the best interests of a particular child. Unless these differences are shared, understood and distilled, they have the potential to become running sores which can cause long-​ term damage to multi-​agency relationships.

Further reading Machura, S. (2016), ‘Inter-​and Intra-​Agency Co-​Operation in Safeguarding Children: A Staff Survey’, British Journal of Social Work, 46 (3): 652–​668. This research article reports on the results of a survey of 210 staff working within child protection services in Wales. It found a correlation between staff feeling well-​supported in their home agency, and how they then experienced the quality of co-​operation with other agencies. The key factors that contributed to positive multi-​agency working were the use of commonly understood language, the resolution of conflicts, acknowledgement of staff judgement and responsibility and supportive administrative systems. Murphy, M. (2004), Developing Collaborative Relationships in Interagency Child Protection Work, Lyme Regis: Russell House. This book is centred on safeguarding children, and considers the complexity of the task of protecting children within a collaborative network. It uses several case studies to highlight particular problems and issues. Wate, R. and N. Boulton (2015), Multi-​Agency Safeguarding in a Public Protection World 2015: A Handbook for Protecting Children and Vulnerable Adults, Brighton: Pavilion Publishing. This book, aimed at practitioners, helps to illuminate key guidance in relation to protecting children and vulnerable adults. It uses case studies to give practical examples, and to illustrate how multi-​ agency working can promote positive outcomes.

127

128

129

newgenprepdf

9 Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System Chapter Outline Introduction Who are children involved in the criminal justice system? Systems and processes for children in the criminal justice system Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

129 130 131 136 140

Introduction This chapter will consider the ways in which children and young people in England who break the law in various ways are responded to by the courts and the relevant services established to work with them. It will consider the issues related to multi-​agency working that result from these systems and approaches. The chapter is of necessity selective and cannot cover in detail every aspect of criminal justice. Furthermore, as with all previous chapters, the focus is on legislation, structures and systems in England. For the other countries within the United Kingdom, readers are referred to the following documents, for which the full reference in the bibliography contains the web link for further exploration: Wales: Children and Young People First: Welsh Government/​Youth Justice Board joint strategy to improve services for young people from Wales at risk of becoming involved in –​ or who are already in –​the youth justice system (Welsh Government and Youth Justice Board, 2014). Scotland: Whole system approach for young people who offend (The Scottish Government, 2015). Northern Ireland: Youth justice: Information on services, structures, profiles, managing youth offending and victims of crime (Department of Justice, 2016).

130

130

Working Together for Children

Who are children involved in the criminal justice system? The age of criminal responsibility in England is 10, as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland it is technically 8 years old, although no child under 12 can be prosecuted: for those children under the age of 12 in Scotland, a purely welfare approach is taken, involving social work support. The age of criminal responsibility for England is one of the lowest in the world, and this immediately raises questions regarding the tension between ‘welfare’ and ‘punishment’ in responding to children and young people who offend. Arthur (2010) charts the history of the development of a separate system for responding to children (as opposed to adults) caught up in the criminal justice system, and links this with the emergence of the notion of ‘childhood’, where children came to be understood to be qualitatively different from adults in their thinking, judgement, maturity and socio-​ emotional needs. This reinforces the notion of childhood as being socially constructed across time according to the contemporary social and cultural imperatives, rather than seeing childhood as a universal state across history (Norozi and Moen, 2016). Hence as Arthur (2010) explains, until the mid-​nineteenth century, children were perceived and treated as mini-​adults, and were expected to engage in long hours of sometimes physically demanding work just like their parents. They also faced exactly the same punishments as adults if found guilty of a crime. As attitudes towards childhood changed, influenced by emerging knowledge about how children differ significantly from adults, formal systems for dealing with children who offended also began to change. Hence, the first piece of legislation to treat children differently from adults was the Juvenile Offenders Act of 1847. This introduced quicker and more localized trials for children under the age of 14 accused of theft. Other reforms quickly followed, so that by 1857 (under the Youthful Offenders Act 1854 and the Industrial Schools Act 1857), young people who offended were seen as less responsible for their actions, which themselves were understood to be closely linked to the social circumstances in which the young people lived. While some of the punishments were by no means lenient, certainly by today’s standards, involving as they did hard labour within reformatory or industrial schools, this did signal the beginning of a new approach. As Arthur (2010) goes on to explain, the key debate was whether children and young people who offend should be, first, seen as in need of either ‘care and understanding’ or ‘condemnation’, and second, dealt with in terms of ‘welfare and support’ or ‘punishment’. By the time the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was passed, a key welfare principle was enshrined in law: children now, including those who offended, had to be treated in a way that recognized and upheld their interests. Nevertheless, the thrust of the response to young offenders remained within a ‘criminal justice’ approach, and included the development of ‘detention centres’ or ‘attendance centres’ to which young people could be sent as an alternative to prison. The next watershed piece of legislation was the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, as this introduced a raft of sentences designed to be seen as ‘treatment’ rather than ‘punishment’ and to keep young people firmly within the community and out of prison where possible. Thus community-​based supervision of young people was introduced, and furthermore, a welfare approach was very much encouraged, involving not prison staff but social workers and other local authority workers.

131

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

This general approach continued for the next thirty years or so, until a further significant development came with the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This legislation reflected the then Labour government’s attempt to take a rounded view of youth offending, in which they tried to balance a ‘welfare’ approach with a ‘punishment’ approach. One of the key mantras of the government at the time was that they were ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ (McLaughlin, Muncie and Hughes, 2001). In other words, while individuals remained responsible for their actions and would be punished accordingly, the government argued that they would also tackle some of the deep-​seated social problems that contextualized youth offending, such as poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment and so on. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced many new sentencing options, as well as an emphasis on prevention of offending in the first place, which will be discussed in the section that now follows.

Systems and processes for children in the criminal justice system Youth offending teams For the purposes of this book, it is worth noting that first among the six key principles that underpinned the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was ‘partnership and multi-​agency work’, and therefore the expectation of close working relationships between professionals from different disciplines was seen as crucial in responding to –​and meeting the needs of –​young people who had broken the law. Indeed the Act placed a duty on agencies to work together to both prevent youth offending and to try to rehabilitate young people who had offended. The Act also introduced the youth offending team (YOT) as the key coordinator of activity to reduce and respond to youth offending within local areas. Youth offending teams have various levels of responsibility towards young people caught up in the criminal justice system (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2013a). Some have changed their name to youth offending service, youth justice service or youth support service, although they all retain the following common responsibilities: 1. Assessment of young people who have offended and management of risk and safeguarding issues. 2. Supervision of young people who have been remanded to custody and those requiring support in the community, as directed by the court. 3. Provision of pre-​court interventions. 4. Supervision of young people who have been given court orders which are to be managed in the community. 5. Sentence planning for young people in custody and their supervision on release. (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2013a: 10) YOT staff therefore work with young people who get into trouble with the police or are arrested, or charged with a crime and subsequently sent to court, or who are convicted of a crime and given

131

132

132

Working Together for Children

a sentence. They work with young people to address their behaviour with the aim of preventing offending in the future.

Information: Composition of youth offending teams As a minimum, each YOT should contain one of each of the following: a probation officer a social worker a police officer a health professional an education professional In practice, many YOTs contain a range of other workers such as substance misuse workers, housing staff, youth workers or speech and language therapists. Under the teams’ statutory duty to co-​operate with other agencies, they would be expected to liaise with services such as the police, the probation service, health services, children’s services, schools and local education authorities, and relevant charities in the local area.

Abolition of ‘doli incapax’ A further significant change with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the abolition of something called ‘doli incapax’. As Arthur (2010) explains, this Latin phrase literally means ‘incapable of committing an evil act’. The presumption up to 1998 in criminal cases involving young people up to the age of 14 was that they were generally doli incapax. The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the young person was fully aware that what they were doing at the time of the alleged or proven crime was not just wrong or mischievous, but seriously wrong. This was predicated on the idea that children under the age of 15 may lack the moral judgement and maturity to distinguish between degrees of legal ‘wrong’. However, the Labour government at the time took the view that it was contrary to common sense to assume that children over the age of 10 could not distinguish between degrees of ‘wrong’ and duly abolished the defence of doli incapax for all children aged 10 and over in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This has the effect of treating all children aged 10 and over exactly the same as adults, with the presumption that these children are just as capable and mature as adults of understanding the consequences of their actions. It is perhaps no coincidence that the White Paper that preceded the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was entitled No More Excuses, and it emphasized ‘punishment and personal responsibility’ over ‘welfare’ as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Prevention The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 did, however, emphasize the need to prevent youth offending, and saw no contradiction between the ‘welfare’ and ‘punishment’ principles here. Preventing

133

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

offending would not only benefit the welfare of the young person (by protecting them from entering the criminal justice system, enhancing their general life chances and so on) but would also protect the public. Therefore, several new initiatives or orders emerged, as follows: 1. Youth inclusion programmes (YIP): These are for children aged 8 to 17, who are considered ‘at risk’ of offending, who are subject to an anti-​social behaviour order (ASBO) –​of which more later –​or who have come to the attention of the police. Attendance is voluntary, and usually lasts for a set length of time, say six months. A  multi-​agency panel identifies the young people, who are offered a range of activities designed to develop basic skills and social skills and to allow the young people the opportunity to take advantage of the mentoring on offer from positive role models. 2. Mentoring schemes: Usually accessed via the youth offending team, a mentor is a trained volunteer who befriends a young person with a view to providing a positive role model, and to offering advice and guidance to prevent offending. 3. Child curfew schemes: Local authorities and the police can apply for and implement a child curfew scheme in order to reduce perceived risk of offending in their area. The children or young people concerned have not committed any criminal act, but are usually congregating in public spaces after dark. Originally, curfews applied to children under the age of 10, but since 2001, they apply to young people up to the age of 15. If a child breaches the curfew, the local authority must follow this up, and refer the family to relevant support services. As Arthur (2010) points out, curfews have the effect of criminalizing what might be considered the normal behaviour of young people (gathering together) even where there is no evidence this leads to criminal actions. Sometimes, breach of the curfew leads to a child safety order being imposed. 4. Child safety orders: These are specifically for children under the age of 10 (the age of criminal responsibility) where the child has committed a crime which would be prosecuted if they were 10 or over, or where the child has breached a child curfew as outlined above. The local authority applies for these orders. Under the order, which lasts for three months (unless good reason is given for extending it) the child is placed under the supervision of a social worker or youth offending team officer, and the child has to comply with any requirements of the order. The idea is that the child receives appropriate support and guidance with a view to preventing further undesirable behaviour. Importantly, if the child does not respond positively, they can be made subject to care proceedings and ultimately removed from the family home. Thus children under the age of criminal responsibility are effectively being punished, even though the law states that such children should not be prosecuted. 5. Anti-​social behaviour orders (ASBO):  The local authority or the police can apply for an ASBO in respect of any child over the age of 10 who has demonstrated anti-​social behaviour likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’. The vagueness of these terms has meant that subjective interpretations are made, leaving some children at the mercy of overzealous local authorities who wish to clamp down on any behaviour of which they disapprove. If an ASBO is granted, specific and personalized restrictions can be placed upon the child or young person’s actions and movements for two years. Importantly, while the ASBO itself

133

134

134

Working Together for Children

is not a criminal imposition, if the child or young person breaches the ASBO, the breach becomes a criminal offence, punishable by a fine or up to five years’ imprisonment. Therefore it is perfectly possible that young people can be given a custodial sentence where the original behaviour was not a criminal offence.

At the police station Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), everyone under the age of 17 should be treated as children and therefore be given special consideration. The arrangements for stop, search and arrest of children and young people are very similar to those for adults, although police officers should obviously bear in mind the age and understanding of the child or young person. When a child or young person arrives at the police station, they should be given a written note setting out their rights. Parents or carers must be informed of the child’s arrest. Children and young people have the right to have an ‘appropriate adult’ present during interview. This can be a parent or carer, a social worker or similar.

Information: Role of the appropriate adult at the police station The appropriate adult’s role is to: 1. advise the young person 2. determine whether or not the interview is being carried out fairly and properly 3. help liaise between the young person and the police officers 4. support the welfare of the young person A young person must not be interviewed, or be asked to sign any statement in the absence of an appropriate adult.

Generally, children cannot be detained in a police station for longer than twenty-​four hours, although the police can apply for this to be extended. There are various possible outcomes (assuming police bail is not used to allow more time for further enquiries): 1. Youth caution (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2013b): In 2013, reprimands and final warnings which were in place up until then were abolished and replaced with youth cautions. The police will consider the young person’s history and the seriousness of the offence before deciding whether or not to issue a youth caution, and there is no artificial limit on the number of cautions that can be issued for any one young person. There is a central offence gravity matrix, which grades offences between one and four. Normally, a youth caution would be given for level two or three offences. It is a formal warning given by the police in the presence of an appropriate adult. The young person must be referred to the youth offending team. The young person does not have to declare this on future applications for education or work, and if

135

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

two years have elapsed since the caution was issued, it will not appear on future criminal record checks, unless the offence is on a list of specified offences which must always be disclosed. 2. Youth conditional caution (Ministry of Justice, 2013): These are cautions given with conditions attached, and may be given for offences considered more serious than those suitable for a youth caution, or where the young person has previous offending history. Where a youth conditional caution is issued, criminal proceedings are halted until the set conditions are met in full. If the young person does not meet these conditions, criminal proceeding can begin again. Conditions can include rehabilitation, reparation or punishment. They are designed to keep the young person out of court where possible while maintaining a rigorous response to their offending behaviour. 3. Referral to the Crown Prosecution Service for formal criminal proceedings to take place in the youth court.

The youth court A youth court is a type of magistrates’ court specially structured to hear cases for children and young people aged between 10 and 17. There is no jury, and the case is heard either by three magistrates or by a district judge. For young people under 16, a parent or guardian has to attend. Youth courts are designed to be less formal than adult magistrates’ courts, such that the magistrates speak directly to the young person and seek to encourage them to participate in the proceedings. The young person is called by their first name. Members of the public are not allowed in youth courts, although victims can attend if they wish. The court deals with such cases as theft, burglary, drug offences or other anti-​social behaviour. For very serious offences, the youth court will refer the case to the Crown Court, which is generally much more formal, although concessions such as barristers not wearing wigs and gowns can be made. Before magistrates in the youth court pass sentence, and especially if they are considering a custodial sentence, they can request a pre-​sentence report, and if they do, sentencing is adjourned by a few weeks to give time for the report to be prepared. This is usually completed by a member of the youth offending team, and includes such information as ‘an analysis of the child or young person’s reasons for committing the offence and response to it, an analysis of the factors from the child or young person’s background which have contributed to their offending, an assessment of potential risks and a proposal for sentencing’ (Youth Justice Board, 2014: 1). The idea is that this report helps the magistrates decide on an appropriate sentence that strikes the balance between maintaining the welfare of the young person, public protection and punishment.

Sentencing options The youth court (or Crown Court where appropriate) can impose a number of sentencing options as follows: 1. A discharge, which means the young person will face no further imposition, as it is believed that the experience of them being arrested and attending court has acted as sufficient punishment and deterrent.

135

136

136

Working Together for Children

2. A referral order: This is a community sentence whereby the young person is referred to a panel of workers who, with the young person, agree upon a programme of work and activities designed to divert them from offending behaviour. 3. A reparation order:  This is a community sentence whereby the young person is expected to ‘make up’ the harm they caused by their offending behaviour. This might include, for instance, repairing damage at the victim’s property, or some other form of constructive work if contact with the victim is not deemed to be appropriate. 4. A youth rehabilitation order:  This is a community sentence under which the young person is given instruction that they must do, or not do, certain things. It can last for up to three years. The kinds of activities a young person might be expected to engage with include meeting with a youth justice worker, voluntary work, attendance at a centre to take part in agreed-​upon activities, maintaining a curfew, living at a certain address, or attendance at a drug or substance rehabilitation or mental health service. Where the original offence was very serious and might have resulted in a custodial sentence, but the court decided not to impose custody, the youth rehabilitation order can include a number of requirements, such as intensive supervision and surveillance (a detailed and rigorous programme which lasts for a maximum of 180 days) or for the young person to live in foster care, if it is believed that their home circumstances contributed to the root cause of their offending behaviour. 5. A detention and training order:  This is a custodial sentence imposed for more serious offences, usually involving violence or sexual crimes. Young people aged between 12 and 17 can be given a detention and training order, and they last from between four months to two years. Half the sentence is served in custody (secure children’s homes, secure training centres or young offender institutions) and half within the community, under the supervision of a social worker, probation officer or youth offending team worker. For grave offences involving violence or sexual crimes, longer sentences than two years can be applied (usually by the Crown Court), and for murder, as part of the life sentence, the Crown Court sets the minimum amount of time to be served in custody, and the young person cannot apply for parole during this time. When they are eventually released, they are placed under supervision for the rest of their life.

Issues for multi-​agency working This complex set of arrangements for children and young people caught up in the criminal justice system, along with the inherent tension between the ‘welfare’ principle and the ‘punishment’ principle that pervades the work, inevitably brings with it a range of issues that are relevant to multi-​agency working, as discussed, for instance, by Hughes and Prior (2008). One such issue is that successful outcomes depend on the co-​operation between various independent services, over which the youth offending team has no control, and this can lead to frustration if support is not forthcoming. Another issue is that the composition of youth offending teams  –​where workers from probation, social care, the police, health and education as well as perhaps a range of other

137

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

professionals work directly alongside one another –​provides an opportunity for the different vocational backgrounds, cultures, approaches and practices to be brought into sharp relief. The key barriers alluded to in Chapter Two of this book may be emphasized, as the differences between professionals are highlighted by the close working proximity of the team members, a point which is raised by Smith (2013). The workers within the team may well be employed on different terms and conditions, including varying salary levels, and this can lead to discontentment if team members compare themselves with others and feel aggrieved that they are carrying out work of equal complexity yet are being paid less, have fewer holidays and less generous pension arrangements. Furthermore, each person may well have a different core function within the team: some focusing on welfare and support issues with regards to the young person, and some focusing instead upon public protection and punishment. At times, these may work in opposition to each other, leading to differences in opinion on how best to proceed. The justification given for an individual’s position may stem partly from their own set of professional values and their own working culture. For example, social care staff may wish to emphasize a person-​centred approach to working with young people, seeing them as unique individuals who happen to have offended, and whose behaviour is inextricably linked to their circumstances. They may see young people as having the potential to change and contribute positively to society. Police officers may instead view the young person as ‘an offender’, who has made a rational choice to offend, and who must be made to face the full consequences of their actions. These may sound like stereotypes, and individual workers within youth offending teams are likely to hold a variety of views. Nevertheless, unless these differences, if they occur, are recognised and discussed so that members of the team can agree upon a way forward, they are likely to interfere with the key aims of the team. At a deeper level, the legislation surrounding the work of the youth offending team is complex. The principles underpinning the Children Act 1989 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 may come into conflict as staff try to enact them in their work with young people. Even though both mention the welfare of the child as a significant feature of the legislation, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 emphasizes that young people must take responsibility for their actions, and must be seen to be punished. Here again, different workers are likely to be more committed to certain pieces of legislation: social workers, for example, may hold the Children Act 1989 as a key guiding piece of childcare law, and may balk at the attempts within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to remove welfare safeguards. The removal of the defence of doli incapax may provide social workers with particular difficulties if they are of the opinion that this previously acted as an important extra layer of protection for young people caught up in the criminal justice system. Other members of the youth offending team may see the abolition of doli incapax as long overdue, since it is obvious to them that young people are fully capable of understanding that their actions were morally wrong. If the child in question is aged 10, right at the lowest end of the age of criminal responsibility, these questions and perspectives may be more passionately played out, as workers may wish to implement very different approaches to rehabilitation, involving perhaps either welfare and support interventions or more punitive methods designed to shock and frighten the young person into giving up offending behaviour. A further tension that might arise within youth offending teams is the matter of how the rights of the young people are perceived. Marshall and Thomas (2011) explore some of the conflicts that exist

137

138

138

Working Together for Children

between the aims of the legislation on youth justice and child rights. For instance, the extensive use of anti-​social behaviour orders (ASBO) has meant that more young people than ever have come into contact with the criminal justice system, often for behaviour which arguably does not merit such a punitive response, including swearing or breaking windows. The overzealous response of adults who may wish to create ‘zero-​tolerance’ zones in their areas seems to have contributed to an atmosphere where the rights of the young people have been subjugated to the wishes of the adults. Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) states that ‘a child accused or guilty of breaking the law must be treated with dignity and respect’ and although technically the imposition of an ASBO is not a criminal sanction, it does raise serious questions about how young people are treated, being perhaps more likely to be propelled into the criminal justice system where ASBOs are used extensively. Individual staff with youth offending teams may hold particular views about how the balance between enforcement, control and rights is exercised, and this may lead to disagreement about how best to meet the needs of the young person while protecting the public and meeting one of the key aims of the youth justice legislation –​that of preventing offending. If some staff feel that young people’s rights are being eroded or denied at the expense of an overall strategy to ‘crack down’ on youth offending, they may feel uneasy about implementing programmes of control or punishment that result from this, especially if they feel that poorer young people are being unfairly targeted. Other staff may embrace the extensive range of projects and court disposals as an opportunity to ‘turn round the lives’ of disadvantaged youngsters who might otherwise spiral downwards into a life of crime and eventual incarceration. One person’s denial of rights could well be another person’s authorization to intervene positively in the life of a young person who deserves every chance to succeed. How these differences are played out within teams of staff who work in very close proximity could well determine the nature of relationships within the team. If the disparities are ignored, they could fester into long-​standing resentment, and it would be good practice for the staff team to discuss their views and perspectives openly with colleagues, if only to ‘agree to disagree’ where they cannot resolve the differences. These differences in how young people are seen are not limited to staff within youth offending teams. A whole range of workers will come into contact with young people who have offended, including social workers, health professionals and teachers. They may hold similarly disparate views about how the system treats the young people. As Arthur (2010: 18) points out, the welfare approach to youth offending is ‘based on the idea that experts can assess the needs of children, carry out a programme of resocialisation [sic], and end up with a healthy law-​abiding citizen who was rehabilitated, individually deterred, but not necessarily punished’. Professionals from a range of backgrounds may hold passionate views about how their expertise can support young people, and if they feel that over-​punitive responses are undermining this, they are likely to come into conflict with those other professionals who are implementing these programmes. The youth inclusion project (YIP) is a good example. As was explained earlier in this chapter, these are designed for, among others, children considered ‘at risk’ of offending. Although attendance at the project is voluntary, this could be a contentious point if certain staff involved in offering wider support to the young person feel that pressure is brought to bear on the young person to attend with veiled or more open threats of dire consequences if they do not attend. Furthermore, some workers may feel that to label a young person who has not actually committed an offence runs contrary to natural

139

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

justice, and may actually be counter-​productive if the expectation of attendance at the project leads to a kind of kudos or badge of honour which could perversely encourage further and potentially more serious offending behaviour. A similar issue is discussed by Galvani (2008) regarding how different groups of professionals might differ in their view of the need for law enforcement in respect of young people who use drugs, with some arguing for a clear implementation of the law, while others advocate for more of a ‘welfare’ approach to be taken with the young person. The perception of damaging and unjustified labelling of young people could also apply to curfews. It is worth recalling that a young person can be removed from a public place by the police simply for meeting up with other young people, and in the absence of any evidence that they have committed any criminal act. As Marshall and Thomas (2011) point out, if this was applied to other social groups, including adults, there would likely be an outcry. Staff working with young people may have views on the continuum between feelings of outrage at the wanton restriction of young people’s liberty and attendant criminalizing of normal social behaviour, and supporting a curfew as a means of ensuring young people who are at risk of being drawn into crime are kept safe. Marshall and Thomas (2011) report on the case of a young person who successfully challenged in the courts the London Metropolitan police’s imposition of a curfew by forcibly removing him to his home even though he was doing nothing wrong. Some workers who might be involved with such young people might rush to support their stance, emphasizing as they do so the young person’s rights and the importance of applying the welfare principle. Others may be reluctant to be seen to challenge the authorities, and these different positions may be another source of tension and conflict between agencies. This preoccupation by some workers with the welfare principle, and its conflict with a punishment approach, may well come to the fore when a child is made the subject of a child safety order. The key bone of contention here is likely to be that these orders apply to children under the age of 10 (remember the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old) and so effectively criminalize and punish children under the age of 10, even though the law should protect such children from such criminalization. It is likely that different workers will hold different views about whether such orders amount to labelling and punishment, or effective targeting and support of children to prevent further offending. Once again, unless any differences are articulated and processed openly and honestly there is the potential for them to cause significant conflict within the multi-​agency network. Where young people find themselves in court and either plead guilty, or are found guilty, and where a pre-​sentence report is requested before sentencing, this can act as another source of disagreement between agencies. Workers who focus on the importance of young people accepting responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and who emphasize the punishment approach over the welfare approach, may feel that pre-​sentence reports afford the opportunity to ‘go soft’ on the young person by making excuses for their behaviour in contextualizing the offence within the young person’s background and home circumstances. Other workers, in contrast, may see these reports as vital to maintaining the welfare of the young person and to ensuring the young person is seen as a vulnerable person first and an offender second. Where sentencing happens subsequent to the court receiving the pre-​sentence report, these differences in views may well then be thrown into sharp relief if one worker feels the sentence is too lenient and another feels it is appropriate,

139

140

140

Working Together for Children

especially if the former is then expected to continue to offer support to the young person within the context of them disagreeing with the court’s sentencing decision.

Reflections: Case study –​ Ryan Ryan is 14 years old, white, British and has been in local authority care for the past year. He now lives with foster carers. He is suspected of criminal damage in a local park, including kicking a park bench until it broke, and pulling up flowers and throwing them around. He has been arrested by the police, interviewed at the police station (with a foster carer present) but not yet charged. The police have released him on bail pending further enquiries. Ryan has not been in trouble with the police before. Within the past three months at school, he has had two fixed term exclusions of one day each. His father is in prison and he has fortnightly contact with his mother and two younger siblings who live with another carer. 1. Which professionals are likely to be involved in this scenario? 2. Where might the conflicts and disagreements emerge between workers from different services?

Conclusions When young people commit offences, especially those involving sexual or violent crimes, it can instil strong feelings among workers who are supporting them. Some will immediately rush to the ‘defence’ of the young person and want to emphasize the young person’s welfare needs. Others will see welfare as important but will also balance this with the seriousness of the offence and the need for young people to face the consequences of their offending behaviour. Others still will focus on the offending behaviour, the rights and needs of the victims, and will want to emphasize the need for young people to be punished, and to learn that they have to live within accepted boundaries or ultimately be removed from society, at least for a time. These different positions, and the ways in which they are enacted and articulated between professionals, can have an impact upon the nature and quality of multi-​agency relationships. Particularly where workers are in close proximity, such as within youth offending teams, these differences have the potential to cause deep divisions. Furthermore, the complexity of the legislation, coupled with the range of possible outcomes available to the police and the courts, provides further opportunity for deeply held differences in views to surface and impede relationships between workers from different services. This makes it all the more important that differences in perspective, approach and ways of understanding how best to meet the needs of the young person are aired and processed constructively, in order to avoid festering resentment and disagreement from impeding positive multi-​agency relationships.

141

Children Involved in the Criminal Justice System

Further reading Ellis, T. and I. Boden (2004), Is There a Unifying Professional Culture in Youth Offending Teams? Portsmouth:  British Criminology Conference. Available online:  https://​core.ac.uk/​download/​pdf/​ 18422808.pdf (accessed 10 October 2016). This conference paper, which reviews existing research and reports on the authors’ own study, explores the tension between the ‘care and welfare’ approach and that of ‘punishment and control’ as it manifests itself within youth offending teams, including, as they do, workers from a range of professional backgrounds. Youth Justice Board website: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, whose website is here https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​organisations/​youth-​justice-​board-​for-​england-​and-​wales oversees the youth justice system. The website is packed with publications, reports, information and statistics. Morris, R. (2015), ‘Youth Justice Practice Is Just Messy: Youth Offending Team Practitioners’ Culture and Identity’, British Journal of Community Justice, 13 (2): 47–​58. This research study examines how a shared-​practice culture with a youth offending team (YOT) can support the achievement of good outcomes for the young people with whom the team works. At the same time, the article also illustrates that such a shared culture can be difficult to achieve as members of the YOT may have different ideas about such areas as assessment of the young people’s needs and interpretation of policy.

141

142

143

newgenprepdf

10 Looked-​After Children Chapter Outline Introduction Who are looked-​after children? Systems and processes to support looked-​after children Issues for multi-​agency working Conclusions

143 144 148 152 155

Introduction In March 2016 there were 70,440 looked-​after children in England (DfE, 2016b). Approximate figures for the other three countries of the United Kingdom for the same year are: Wales: 5,660 Scotland: 15,404 Northern Ireland: 2,890 The current systems and processes in place to support these children are fundamentally multi-​ agency in nature. Where children in care have complex social, emotional, psychological or physical needs, adding perhaps to their sense of isolation or vulnerability, this multi-​agency network can also be complicated. This chapter explores these structures and processes, the benefits that can and do come from them, and some of the difficulties that may also arise, with a significant focus on the education of children in care, as this is a key issue. However, before this can be done, it is useful to provide some background information on the reasons for children being admitted into care, and the different placement types in which they live, so as to illustrate the need for a multi-​agency response to meet their varying needs.

144

144

Working Together for Children

Information: Terminology for looked-​after children ‘Looked after children’ is the official term used in the Children Act 1989. These children are also known as ‘children in care’ or ‘children in public care’. The terms are all interchangeable, and mean children who are looked after by the local authority because they are either subject to a court order or to police protection, or in care as a result of a voluntary agreement between their parents and the local authority under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (this is called ‘accommodation’).

Who are looked-​after children? Children come into care for a variety of reasons. The figures in parentheses for each of the categories that follow are taken from the Department for Education (DfE, 2016b): 1. Abuse and neglect (60 per cent). 2. Family problems (35 per cent). This includes parental illness or disability, acute family stress, family dysfunction and absent parenting. 3. Disability (3 per cent). The severity of the child’s disability necessitates them being in care in order for them to have their needs met. 4. Socially unacceptable behaviour (2 per cent). This includes children coming into care as a result of offending. These figures indicate that the vast majority of children (98 per cent) are in care through no fault of their own. This is important, as it combats something of a stereotype about looked-​after children, that they are all ‘bad’ children, bent on defying boundaries and social norms (Coram Voice, 2015). The figures also illustrate that looked-​after children are likely to have needs related to any combination of mental health issues, emotional and behavioural difficulties, physical disability or sensory impairment. That is not to say that looked-​after children are necessarily disturbed or in great need of physical care; they are a heterogeneous group and many children in care are emotionally stable, settled and capable of fulfilling their potential (Coram Voice, 2015). All looked-​after children have an official legal status, which reflects the above reasons for entering care. This can include the child being subject to: 1. A care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (60 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). The figure here clearly reflects the fact that most children are in care as a result of abuse or neglect. A care order will only be made if the court is satisfied that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, and the making of the order would be better for the child than if no order was made. A care order lasts until the child is 18 years old, unless an alternative order is made (for example, adoption) or the order is revoked. Under a care order the local authority (represented by a social worker) shares parental responsibility with the parents. This means that, for some decisions, the social worker can override the

145

Looked-After Children

2. 3. 4.

5.

wishes of the parents, but for other, perhaps major decisions about the child’s life, they would have to consult with the parents and perhaps even return to court to resolve some issues. An interim care order under Section 38 of the Children Act 1989 (a form of temporary care order lasting eight weeks). An emergency protection order under Section 44 of the Children Act 1989 (which lasts for eight days). A placement order under Section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This frees the child for adoption (8 per cent of looked-​after children are subject to these, according to DfE, 2016b, and they stay in place until the child is formally adopted). On adoption, children cease to be classed as looked after. Police protection under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 (which only lasts for seventy-​two hours) after which children’s social care need to decide the next course of action.

Under all the circumstances described in points 1 to 5 above, chief parental responsibility passes to, or remains with, the local authority until a permanent solution also resolves the question of who attains long-​term parental responsibility. 6. Accommodation under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (27 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). Accommodation is defined as that which is provided by the local authority on a voluntary basis for a period of more than twenty-​four hours. The local authority must provide accommodation for any child in need of it as a result of there being no one with parental responsibility, or because the child is lost or abandoned or because the person who has been caring for the child is prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care. Parents can request that the local authority accommodate their child, for example, because the child is beyond control of the parent. If the local authority agrees to this, on the basis that it is in the interests of the child, they provide care and accommodation in agreement or in partnership with the parents. Where a child is accommodated, any person with parental responsibility can remove the child from care at any time, without giving notice. This is the main reason why accommodation is described as voluntary:  it is a voluntary arrangement between the parents and the local authority. Accommodation is the legal status of children receiving respite care (a series of short breaks), perhaps because they have a disability or a behavioural problem which places the family under stress, and respite is seen as a positive part of a support package for the family. 7. An order by a criminal court that the child should be remanded to local authority accommodation (0.3 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). A criminal court can order that a child is remanded to local authority accommodation as an alternative to being given bail or being remanded in secure accommodation or in custody. The child will have been charged with an offence, and will be awaiting sentence or the final hearing. In these circumstances the local authority has a duty to provide accommodation, but they do not acquire parental responsibility. Nevertheless, for the period of the remand, the child is deemed to be in care. Once in care, looked-​after children can live in a variety of placements, which include:

145

146

146

Working Together for Children

1. Foster care (60 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). Foster carers are recruited and trained by fostering officers who work for children’s social care or for private or independent agencies. These fostering officers also provide ongoing advice and support to foster carers. Children can live in foster homes long term, short term or for respite care, and there are a variety of fostering schemes aimed at meeting the needs of specific children, for example, disabled children, or those with challenging behaviour. While foster carers provide day-​to-​day care on behalf of the local authority, they do not have parental responsibility for the children they foster, unless they formally acquire it through the courts. This can sometimes lead to confusion and difficulty with other professionals. If a teacher at the child’s school is unaware that foster carers do not have parental responsibility, they may ask the carer to sign consent forms for such things as school trips, where technically, the social worker (perhaps in consultation with parents depending on the circumstances) needs to approve these, unless they have expressly delegated responsibility for this to the foster carer. This issue is especially important if the trip is abroad, since there are strict rules governing children subject to care orders leaving the country, even for short periods of time. 2. Residential care (children’s homes), secure units or hostels (11 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). Children’s homes are group homes, owned by the local authority or by private or independent agencies, usually offering places for between three and sixteen children. Children can live there long term, short term or for respite care. Some homes specialize in the care of disabled children. In addition to the social worker, each child in a residential home will usually have a key worker from the home, who takes a special responsibility for individual children. Most group homes try to reproduce a family home situation as closely as possible, within the constraints of available resources, the building and the dynamics of group living. Secure units are fundamentally different from children’s homes, in that the child is held securely, in the sense they are not let off the premises unsupervised (the units usually have high perimeter fences and tight security arrangements). The site will have its own educational and health facilities. Children are placed in secure accommodation on a number of grounds. They may pose a significant risk to the safety of themselves or others. This is called the welfare grounds and comes under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. They may be on remand to secure accommodation, having been charged with a serious offence, or they may have been sentenced to a period in secure accommodation following the establishment of guilt for a serious criminal offence. A child’s stay in a secure unit is usually a temporary arrangement, the timescale for which can vary from around a month to a number of years. 3. Living with a relative or friend (16 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). The term ‘family network care’ or ‘kinship care’ is sometimes used for this arrangement. The children placed with relatives will usually be subject to a care order, although some may be accommodated. At some point during proceedings, a suitable relative (or close friend) was identified who could provide care for the child, and it was deemed in the child’s best interests to be placed with them. Family network carers, like foster carers, are formally assessed and approved, and they care for the child on a day-​to-​day basis; however, they do not have parental responsibility (although they could acquire it at a later stage if they applied through the courts and were successful). As with foster carers, and in circumstances where children

147

Looked-After Children

are placed with their parents, there needs to be certainty and clarity among members of the multi-​agency team involved with the child as to where parental responsibility lies, in order to avoid poor decisions being made. 4. Placement with parents (5 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). Some children subject to a care order may be placed with one or both of their parents. The reasons for this vary: it may be that one parent was not responsible for the harm, and therefore is being given an opportunity to parent their child away from the abusive parent, although the safeguard of an order is deemed necessary. Alternatively, it is possible that the parents’ circumstances have changed since the order was made, and it has been decided to return the child to the care of the parents because it is now deemed safe, albeit with the safeguard of the order, at least for a limited time. This arrangement is designed to be a temporary one, and if good progress is made, the case should be referred back to the courts for the care order to be revoked, upon which full parental responsibility returns to the parents. This may seem like a contradictory position –​for a child to be in care but living with their parents. However, the key to them being in care is their legal status, not where they live: in this case while the care order remains in place, the child is deemed to be in care. This can be somewhat confusing for professionals working with looked-​ after children who may be living at home with parents. Technically, parental responsibility is shared between the local authority and the parent. However, since the parent has the day-​to-​ day care, and is after all the birth parent of the child in question, professionals may be forgiven for omitting to fully consult with the social worker (as a representative of the local authority) over certain matters. This can lead to similar difficulties as those encountered with foster carers. For instance, if a parent approaches a teacher to act as a witness on a passport application form for a child, and the teacher unwittingly signs this, unaware that the social worker should be leading this process (albeit in tandem with the parent), this can lead to the possibility that a child can obtain a passport without knowledge of the social worker, with the ultimate possibility, if the deception by the parent was deliberate, that the child could be taken out of the country without the permission or knowledge of the local authority which has parental responsibility. Technically, the parent may be abducting their own child, and hence the teacher would have unknowingly have contributed to a very serious offence. 5. Placed for adoption (4 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). Where children have been freed for adoption (a legal process involving the courts), and appropriate adoptive parents have been located and approved, children can be placed with these prospective adoptive parents pending the finalization of the adoption arrangements. Clearly, this is a temporary arrangement, and once formally adopted (again, this is a legal process involving the courts) the adoptive parents gain full parental responsibility for the child, although they may require post-​adoptive support. 6. Other accommodation (4 per cent of looked-​after children according to DfE, 2016b). This includes older children living in lodgings or similar accommodation. Usually, this is in preparation for leaving care, and is part of a planned programme, with support, of independence training. Placements for looked-​after children may not always be in the immediate area from which they originate. There are usually two chief reasons for this: a specialist placement (of any sort) has

147

148

148

Working Together for Children

been located which can meet the complex needs of the child which cannot otherwise be met by the original local authority, or an appropriate relative (including a parent) has been located, but they live in a different area. These placements are termed ‘out of authority’ placements, since they are outside the boundary of the local authority which originally received the child into care. The regulations governing such placements are complex and convoluted; however, the chief issues are that the original local authority retains overall responsibility for the child, but the receiving local authority has a responsibility to assist them by perhaps taking on a portion of the regular oversight of the child, and certainly by providing education (in other words, admitting them to a local school). It has been recognized (see DfES, 2006a) that such children are among the most vulnerable of those in care, as they are often isolated from known social networks, and least supported by regular contact with the social worker who holds overall responsibility for the direction of the child’s life. Social workers in receiving authorities may well resent being asked to provide support to children whom they do not perceive as ‘theirs’, and social workers in the original authority may struggle, in terms of time and distance, to visit the child as regularly as they would wish.

Systems and processes to support looked-​after children Once a child is in care, irrespective of the reason for this, and of the placement where the child is living, they are entitled to a minimum level of support from the range of agencies involved. This is specified in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, which covers visiting requirements of those responsible for looked-​after children, as well as the various plans that should be put in place. For all looked-​after children and young people, there is a requirement for the social worker to visit them on a regular basis. The usual time interval is at least once every six weeks, although if the child or young person is in a settled long-​term placement, this can be extended. The multi-​agency support provided to looked-​after children should be recorded through two key plans: the care plan (which includes a health plan) and the personal education plan (PEP). The social worker is responsible for co-​ordinating the completion of these two plans and for monitoring progress against them, although responsibility for completion of elements of the work will be shared among the agencies involved. A relevant health professional carries out the health assessment which leads to the health plan.

Care plans Care plans should provide details on such matters as: 1. 2. 3. 4.

who the child is living with and why any plans for changes and why how the placement is meeting the child’s needs what the child’s health needs are and how they are to be met (the health plan element)

149

Looked-After Children

5. 6. 7. 8.

what the child’s educational needs are and how they are to be met what equipment or clothing is needed what hobbies the child might have or what leisure activites the child might want to do. who is going to fund anything that is needed

The health plan element of the care plan begins with a health assessment being carried out by a health professional for each looked-​after child upon entering care, and this covers the following areas (DfE and DoH, 2015a): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The child’s state of physical, emotional and mental health. The child’s health history, including family health history. The effect of the child’s health history on his or her development. Existing arrangements for the child’s health and dental care. Any planned changes to the arrangements. The role of the appropriate person, such as a foster carer, residential social worker, school nurse or teacher, and of any other person who cares for the child, in promoting his or her health.

This assessment leads to the development of the health plan, and this forms part of the overall care plan. The care plans are subject to regular multi-​agency reviews, the main purpose of which is to consider the relevance of the overall care plan rather than the details of the particular placement. The time intervals for these reviews should be: 1. Upon a new placement, or change of placement where this constitutes a significant change to the care plan, within twenty-​eight days of the placement. 2. A second review within three months of the twenty-​eight-​day review. 3. Further reviews should then take place at least every six months. In addition to the carer (which could be a key worker for children in residential care) and the social worker, these reviews should include attendance by a school or early-​years-​setting staff member, a relevant health professional, and, where appropriate, the child themselves and their parents. The meetings are chaired by an independent reviewing officer, so called because they are independent from the social work team or line management, although they are employed, like the social worker, by children’s social care departments. More professionals than those mentioned above may well be involved in the life of a child in care. If so, they will work towards fulfilling elements of the care plan and may also attend the care plan reviews. These might include: 1. specialist local authority education staff, where children in care have special educational needs or a disability 2. an education welfare or attendance officer, where there are problems of school attendance 3. youth offending team staff, where children in care are at risk of, or are involved in, offending 4. careers staff, where children in care are of the appropriate age

149

150

150

Working Together for Children

5. a variety of health staff to meet individual health needs 6. a paediatrician based in a hospital clinic, where children in care have particular health needs

Personal education plans The second major multi-​agency tool to support looked-​after children is the personal education plan (PEP) and every child in care should have one. These are deemed necessary because there remains a significant gap between the formal educational outcomes for looked-​after children and their peers not in care (DfE, 2016c). Successive governments, and many research studies over time, have interpreted this gap as a failure by those working with looked-​after children to sufficiently recognize the importance of education or to provide enough of the right kind of help and support for looked-​after children (see, for example, Jackson, 1994; Borland, 1998; Martin and Jackson, 2002; The Who Cares? Trust, 2003). Others such as Berridge (2007; 2012) and Stein (2006) have argued, on the other hand, that it may be unreasonable to expect the care system to compensate fully for the long-​term impact of early abuse and disadvantage which many looked-​after children experience. These factors may have a deeper influence upon the educational trajectory of looked-​after children than factors associated with the care system, however well-​intentioned and well-​resourced the support system may be, and independent of the effort made to offer good quality care and support. The PEP should be completed within four weeks of a child coming into care, or moving school. It should contain the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

a record of educational progress of the child short-​and long-​term educational targets a record of how all agencies will support the child the child’s views on what will support their learning

The PEP should be drawn up at a face-​to-​face meeting between: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

school or early-​years-​setting staff the carer/​s the social worker the child’s birth parent/​s (if deemed to be appropriate) the child (if deemed to be appropriate, although where possible they should be encouraged to attend)

The PEP is usually reviewed at the same time as the care plan, as most of the people attending have an interest in both plans.

Reflections: Case study –​Carlton Carlton is 11 years old, black, Caribbean and has been in care since the age of 9.  He has just moved to high school after finishing his primary education. The social worker is trying to be efficient in setting up a PEP meeting within the first

151

Looked-After Children

four weeks, as she feels under pressure to complete the PEP within the required timescale. However, the relevant teacher at the school is reluctant to go along with this, arguing that they need more time to get to know Carlton and to assess his needs if the school’s contribution to the PEP is going to be meaningful. 1. How might the school and social worker compromise in a way that allows both to meet their different requirements?

In addition to PEPs, other mechanisms to support looked-​after children, particularly with their education, are expected to be put in place under Section 52 of the Children Act 2004, and reinforced in a more recent piece of government guidance (DfE, 2014a). These include: 1. A designated teacher for looked-​after children in every school, whose role is to co-​ordinate the support within the school. 2. Prioritizing admissions for looked-​after children so they are offered a chance to attend the school of their choice, even if this means the school going over the official admission number for a given year group. 3. Using exclusions from school as a last resort. Furthermore, use of so-​called Pupil Premium Plus funding (at the time of writing £1,900 per pupil) paid to schools for each looked-​after child is designed to augment their learning. Looked-​after children under the age of 5 should have a place in an appropriate high-​quality early years provision. For older children, there should not be a move of school unless it is demonstrably in their interests. During General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) study years in particular (at the ages of 15 and 16), looked-​after children should not move school unless in exceptional circumstances. In carrying out their work with looked-​after children, whether it be focused upon educational outcomes or other areas of the child’s life, all staff and carers are expected to prioritize these children as part of their role as a ‘corporate parent’. This term was introduced in national guidance for England (DfEE & DH, 2000) and means that agencies should go out of their way to support the child in any manner they can, as if the child were their own.

Information: What is corporate parenting? Corporate parenting is the collective responsibility of all agencies involved, directly or indirectly with looked-​after children, to achieve good parenting. The national guidance (DfEE & DH, 2000) identified six principles of effective corporate parenting: 1. Prioritizing education: valuing and supporting education as a place where looked-​after children can not only achieve academically, but also develop self-​confidence and skills, receive praise and encouragement and build relationships. 2. Having high expectations: as education is seen as the passport to better life chances, all corporate parents should have high expectations for looked-​after children, which is translated into actions such as ensuring regular school attendance, securing a school

151

152

152

Working Together for Children

place without delay, providing homework and study support and behaviour support where appropriate. 3. Challenging and changing attitudes: corporate parents need to ensure that looked-​after children have equal access to education and other opportunities. This might include ensuring that they are not stereotyped into a homogenous group, nor discriminated against or bullied because of their circumstances, which can be compounded by race, disability or gender. 4. Achieving continuity and stability: corporate parents need to liaise in order to limit the number of school and placement changes, and the number of exclusions from school. 5. Early intervention and prioritizing action: corporate parents are expected to respond immediately to problems, and act upon them. They should avoid delay and drift. 6. Listening to children: corporate parents should have structures and systems to ensure looked-​after children are consulted and listened to in order to plan and deliver effective services. More recently, the Children and Social Work Act 2017 updated these to state that the principles of corporate parenting required agencies to have regard to the need to: act in the best interests, and promote the physical and mental health and well-​being, of children encourage children to express their views, wishes and feelings take into account the views, wishes and feelings of children help children gain access to, and make the best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for children ensure children are safe, and have stability in their home lives, relationships and education or work prepare children for adulthood and independent living.

These various mechanisms, plans and expectations may have laudable aims and intentions. However, merely expecting or making people work together does not ensure that it will happen, or if it does happen, that it will happen well. The traditional barriers to multi-​agency work, discussed in Chapter Two of this book, will remain to varying degrees, and might even be intensified where there is a resource available, such as the Pupil Premium Plus, to support a child’s learning. It is to these matters that the chapter now turns.

Issues for multi-​agency working One of the obvious problems may be that school and early-​years-​setting staff or health professionals may find it difficult to attend the care review meetings. They may have competing priorities, or staff cover may be unavailable or expensive to maintain. Where attendance is not possible, workers are expected to send a written report to the meeting. A further difficulty may be that unless the

153

Looked-After Children

purpose of the review is clearly shared and understood, there is a danger that the meeting will be hijacked by one professional who has a particular issue they wish to pursue, which may not be relevant to the core function of the meeting, for instance, regarding a narrow aspect of the placement. Furthermore, unless this is carefully managed by the independent reviewing officer, resentment can build such that a complaint may then be made to senior management within the relevant agency responsible –​in this example, for the placement. There may also be a perception among professionals other than those employed by children’s social care that although the independent reviewing officer is ostensibly independent, there may be a bias towards the social worker, as they are both employed by the same agency (Beckett et al., 2016). The PEP is intended to be an effective way of co-​ordinating support to enhance the education of looked-​after children. It can specify in detail what each agency or individual –​including the carer and child themselves –​will do to support the education of the child in question. In this way, individuals can be held to account at review meetings, and, for example, asked to explain why a particular action they committed to has not been carried out. Whether an agency, however, can make another agency conform is another question entirely, but if all concerned are aware that their action (or inaction) is going to be scrutinized in an open meeting, this may act as a catalyst to ensure that each party delivers what they promise in the PEP. Attendance at meetings to formulate and review the PEP may be another issue: where professionals have to balance priorities or demands on their time, or where the business of the PEP is not perceived by them to be core to their role, attendance may slip. The impact of this on the ability of those who do attend to then construct a meaningful PEP can be severe. If a face-​to-​face meeting cannot be set up within a timescale that is meaningful to the child, the PEP may be drawn up as a paper exercise, where each individual completes ‘their’ section and then passes it on to the next person. The difficulty with this is that it does little to foster understanding and shared ownership of the issues: there is little opportunity to discuss and distil ideas, to question comments made, to clarify jargon or language used. The danger here is that the process of the PEP becomes merely a paper exercise. It is not the existence of the completed form which really counts in terms of supporting the child, but the quality of the work that flows from this plan. Multi-​agency work becomes almost meaningless if it is reduced to producing reams of completed forms purporting to provide effective support, no matter how impressively these forms may be filled out. Some of these issues have been identified in research by Hayden (2005), who found that practical difficulties predominated, such as trying to make the PEP system focus on meeting the needs of children as well as practitioners, and difficulty in meeting the specified four-​ week timescale for the completion of the PEP. Disagreements between professionals may also emerge surrounding decisions by the school on pupil admissions or exclusions, perhaps based on the school focusing on the child’s troubles rather than their vulnerabilities, which clashes with the view of the social worker who is supporting that child and who is keen to ensure the child is settled in a school (Walker, 2017). A school may wish to argue that they have to balance the needs of all the pupils against the looked-​after child. They may argue that to admit a looked-​after child would unfairly drain their resources, especially if the child has particular needs (even though the school is expected to go over number to admit looked-​after children). Likewise, although fixed-​term or permanent exclusions from school should be used as a last resort, the school may argue that a looked-​after child’s behaviour presents a significant danger

153

154

154

Working Together for Children

to staff or other pupils, and the school has to balance the rights of the looked-​after child against the other pupils’ rights to be safe and learn in an uninterrupted environment, or that the looked-​after child must learn that in certain contexts some behaviours are not acceptable. The school may also put forward the argument –​for both blocking an admission or insisting upon an exclusion –​that the child’s needs would be better met elsewhere. In both of these scenarios, school staff may find themselves in conflict with social workers or carers who are rightly focused on the particular needs of the child for whom they have responsibility. This situation can then result in tension and conflict between the parties as they argue their cases in an attempt to secure the best outcome as they see it for the child, and one party can be left feeling that their knowledge and judgement as a professional is not being recognized (Walker, 2017). Use of the Pupil Premium Plus money could well be another bone of contention (Walker, 2015). Although the funding should be used for the visible benefit of individual children, a school may wish to spend this money on a generalized resource such as an additional member of staff (particularly where the number of looked-​after children in the school is high enough for the funding to amount to a significant amount) or a resource room. These kinds of resources, the school might argue, benefit the looked-​after children in a general way, as they have access to the member of staff or the resource room. However, social workers and carers may wish to see exactly how the funding is spent for the benefit of the individual child, and may argue that the child for whom they are especially responsible should visibly have the full amount spent on supporting their learning. There may be a suspicion among social workers or carers that the school is using the Pupil Premium Plus money to fund staffing as a way of reducing staffing costs from the overall school budget, rather than for the palpable benefit of the looked-​after children. If this is the case, yet again, conflict may arise as social workers, carers and school staff work to resolve these differences. Such disagreements might also emerge the other way around: schools may take exception to decisions made by a social worker about, for example, moving a child out of one school and into a different school. The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 contain a clear guiding principle regarding the avoidance of disruption to education, but these matters are open to interpretation. The social worker has the final say about this (in the same way as the school has the final say on exclusions), and may want to argue that due to a move of care placement, it is in the interests of the child to move school to be nearer the new permanent care placement, to allow the child to put down roots and to make friends in the new locality. Here, the school will need to decide whether they believe the educational needs of the child are such that they should challenge this decision. This recalls the case study example of Jenny presented in Chapter Two of this book, and the reader is directed to this (and the discussion about it in the Appendix) for further consideration of the attendant issues. The main point is that such disagreements are complex and knotty, and unless they are handled well they may well lead to significant ill feeling between parties. The way in which corporate parenting is enacted could be a further cause for conflict. Although a laudable aim, corporate parenting is not without its difficulties. Where staff are working in pressurized environments, perhaps with limited personnel and resources, prioritizing looked-​after children may involve them making some very hard choices between those children and other equally deserving and needy children who may not be in care. If, for instance, an initial child protection conference clashes with a care review for two different children, and a worker has to choose

155

Looked-After Children

between the two, they may feel that as a corporate parent, they should prioritize the looked-​after child by attending a meeting about a child who should be safe, and may well be settled and progressing well, over a meeting where a child, albeit living at home, may be at risk of significant harm. This decision, although perhaps following the expectations to prioritize those who are seen as the most vulnerable children, may not always sit easily with the moral or professional judgements of individual workers. This in turn may also cause consternation among their fellow workers who might have reached a different conclusion about which meeting should have been prioritized.

Reflections: Case study –​ Marcus Marcus has just arrived at a new school. He is in Year 3 and is 8 years old. He is a black British child who has also just entered the care system. He was removed from his parents’ care on an emergency protection order due to physical abuse. His current care placement near the new school is with white British foster carers. He was admitted to the new school after it was decided that it would be unsafe for him to remain at his previous school, due to risk of abduction by his parents. He has supervised contact with them twice a week. The new school has little educational information about Marcus, other than from the social worker who says he was ‘all right’ at his previous school. He presents as a lively, chaotic child, who finds it difficult to settle and concentrate. He is sociable, with a good sense of humour and has already made one or two friends. He likes sports and games, but at present he does not attend any after-​school clubs or activities. The social worker has explained that she will be undertaking a full assessment of the family in order to make a decision as to the recommendation at the final hearing at the family court, which is likely to be in three months’ time. She is, however, pessimistic about the possibility of Marcus returning home, due to the level of harm he suffered, and the hostility of his parents. 1. What challenges for the various services may be presented by Marcus and his situation at the moment? 2. What information will the school need before planning support? 3. Who needs to be involved in planning for educational success? 4. What actions and support systems could be put into place to promote and safeguard Marcus’s education?

Conclusions Looked-​after children are not a homogenous group. They enter care for a wide variety of reasons, live in a variety of placements and have widely differing needs. This makes the multi-​agency system, designed to support the individual circumstances of children, so crucial to implement. Nevertheless, there are inherent difficulties in achieving positive outcomes. Chief among the poor outcomes, perhaps, is the low educational attainment of children in care compared to their peers not in care. There is a wealth of research identifying some of the complex reasons for this, and

155

156

156

Working Together for Children

signaling possible ways to improve the life chances of looked-​after children. However, if looked-​ after children truly are to receive the very best in care and education, then not only are significant resources going to have to be committed, but the very real difficulties involved in bringing a range of workers together to implement the varied and complex measures need to be fully understood and overcome.

Further reading Harker, R., D. Dobel-​Ober, D. Berridge and R. Sinclair (2004), ‘More Than the Sum of Its Parts? Inter-​ Professional Working in the Education of Looked After Children’, Children & Society, 18 (3) 179–​193. This research article highlights the key factors that contribute to effective multi-​agency collaboration, as well as some of the persistent barriers that impede the efforts to support the education of looked-​after children. Stein, M. (2009), Quality Matters in Children’s Services: Messages from Research. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. This book reviews the research evidence relating to several areas of the lives of looked-​after children, and has integrated working as a core strand running through it. Walker, G. (2007), ‘Mind the Gap: A Multi-​Agency Approach to Raising the Educational Attainment of Looked After Children’. In Moss, D., P. Tomlinson, P. Jones and S. Welch (eds), Childhood: Services and Provision for Children, London: Pearson. This chapter within an edited book reports on some of the issues that emerged in one project which used a multi-​agency approach to try to raise the educational attainment of looked-​after children.

157

Part III Moving Forward with Multi-​Agency Work

158

159

newgenprepdf

11 Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-​Agency Work Chapter Outline Introduction General factors Personal attributes and attitudes Personal knowledge Personal skills General team working skills Conclusions

159 160 161 162 163 164 168

Introduction The previous chapters in this book have referred to the need for workers from different professional backgrounds and agencies to acknowledge their differences in how the children and young people with whom they work are perceived, understood and approached. Staff see their role differently compared to others, and there is a need for them to share and discuss these diverse interpretations, in a way that allows for a distillation of understanding, so that, even where they cannot agree, at least there is a professional understanding and respectful acknowledgement of the reasons why certain positions are adopted and adhered to. However, this process does not and will not happen magically, either in isolation of the wider context in which they work, or without the individuals involved employing personal and interpersonal attributes and skills. This chapter, therefore, examines what these skills and factors might be that will help contribute to effective and positive multi-​agency working.

160

160

Working Together for Children

General factors All work with and for children occurs within a broader context. The general level of resourcing and commitment at government and local authority level to the various endeavours of education, health, policing, social care and so on has an impact upon how the work is carried out, and upon which priorities are established. Within each agency, the quality of the leadership is also influential, as is their attitude towards other services with which they share responsibility for children’s outcomes. Atkinson et al. (2002) found in their extensive study that strategic leadership and drive was an important factor in facilitating multi-​agency co-​operation. This means that good leaders have a vision about how they can work well with others, and have the energy and tenacity to ensure that this vision is enacted at all operational levels. Where this includes securing effective funding and access to resources, including the sharing of resources and pooled budgets, this vision is particularly helpful in enhancing the quality of the multi-​agency work. Joint training which involves staff from different agencies is also an effective tool for facilitating multi-​agency functioning. This has to be properly valued and funded, and seen as an essential part of the work, rather than a desirable luxury. All staff that would benefit should have the opportunity to attend and so the training has to be made available to as many staff as possible within the various organizations. McColgan, Campbell and Marshall (2013) argue that to be effective, multi-​agency training must: 1. be tailored and targeted to the specific multi-​agency group 2. define the remit of multi-​agency work so there is a shared understanding 3. focus on how things work in practice rather than repeating positive rhetoric about multi-​agency work 4. focus on how flexible boundaries between services can be agreed upon and achieved 5. dispel myths about services or professionals working within services 6. challenge negative perceptions about others 7. offer bespoke training for the various staff groupings and levels of responsibility Frost (2013) also reinforces the importance of joint training in developing common understanding and good multi-​agency relationships. He goes on to identify a range of other organizational factors which contribute to this aim, including: agreeing upon common priorities across the services. the development of trust between services clear guidelines and procedures for working together a low staff turnover, where a stable and committed workforce can develop their skills and attributes 5. the co-​location of services, to facilitate deep multi-​agency functioning 1. 2. 3. 4.

These factors, together with those mentioned earlier, constitute the broader context which contributes to the quality of multi-​agency working. Within this individuals hold some responsibility, for example, for attending any training on offer. The general attributes, knowledge and skills of

161

Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-Agency Work

workers have a significant impact upon multi-​agency working, and these are explored in the sections that follow.

Personal attributes and attitudes The study by Atkinson et al. (2002) identified a commitment to the process of multi-​agency working as an important positive attitudinal factor within individuals. This is about workers personally ‘owning’ the belief in the value and worth of multi-​agency working. Part of this is a commitment to the idea and practice of teamwork as outlined in the classic work by Tuckman (1965), which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. Frost (2013) highlights respect for the roles of others as yet another attribute which contributes to positive multi-​agency working, while Fitzgerald and Kay (2008) list several others: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

the ability to challenge the views, beliefs and attitudes of others respectfully but firmly a desire to share knowledge and to be open to the viewpoints of others a problem-​solving approach empathy, patience and a supportive approach flexibility and openness to change a strong professional identity and good knowledge in one’s own discipline

This last attribute may intuitively seem to run counter to the idea of good multi-​agency working, but where individual staff are very clear about their own work, and their own place within a multi-​agency team, they can contribute with clarity and a sense of purpose to joint discussion and decision-​making more effectively than those who lack confidence in their own strengths (Frost, 2013). A recent development which is pertinent to a discussion about personal attributes in multi-​ agency working is that of ‘social pedagogy’. This is an approach to working with children which has its origins in Europe, and which has now been adopted by many local authorities and other organizations in England. Petrie et al. (2009) discuss the use of the term and profession of ‘social pedagogue’ in several countries in continental Europe, including Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Here, it refers to a holistic approach to the care and education of the ‘whole’ child across services in a manner which avoids a narrow focus on one aspect, such as education. They report on research where the staff who were trained as social pedagogues ‘often spoke of the work of the pedagogue in terms of the human person: head, hands and heart –​all three being essential for the work of pedagogy. The personal, relational approach is emphasized in students’ training and education, where ‘fostering sound pedagogic values and attitudes is seen as at least as important as the acquisition of knowledge and skills’ (Petrie et al., 2009: 4). Here the ‘head’ refers to the professionalism of the social pedagogue, where they use the theories, models and critical reflection from their training to inform their work. The ‘hands’ refer to the need to take a practical approach to problem solving, such as using certain approaches or activities to support the child. The ‘heart’ refers to the fact that the social pedagogue puts themselves in the centre of the process and acts genuinely, using their own personality to build a meaningful relationship with the child.

161

162

162

Working Together for Children

The authors also report that the qualification level of social pedagogues in many of these European countries is impressively high, with most possessing degrees following three or four years of study which focuses on developing reflective practitioners. In Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, there is a five-​year course which culminates in a Master’s level qualification. The Who Cares? Trust (2010: 1) explains that social pedagogy emphasizes that raising children is the shared responsibility of parents and society. Children are seen as capable and self-​directing, and the ‘social pedagogue works alongside them rather than dictating to them’. The quality of the relationship with the child is seen as central to the process. Social pedagogues are trained and encouraged to use the ‘self ’ to be effective, where the ‘three Ps’ are seen as essential. These are the private self (not shared with the child), the personal self (aspects of the self which are shared with the child) and the professional self (the helping, guiding and information-​sharing aspect of the role). These three working together helps to ensure that relationships between social pedagogues and children are ‘warm and close, as well as professional’ (The Who Cares? Trust, 2010: 1). Staff who are trained in this way, and who have the mindset and approach of a social pedagogue, will possess attributes and skills which can facilitate effective multi-​agency working. For example, if there is disagreement over the decision-​making for a particular child, they can remind the team of the need to maintain a child-​centred focus, and of the need to appreciate and work with the capabilities of the child. They should also be able to use their interpersonal skills to mediate between professionals who have strong disagreements, by using their counselling-​type approach and skills in reflection to enable both parties to appreciate the standpoint of the other while maintaining their particular professional perspective. They may also be able to suggest innovative ways of working with children which others have not considered, and so be instrumental in contributing to the development of a new plan for the child.

Personal knowledge In addition to the characteristics described above –​in particular having respect for others –​it has been shown that it is important for professionals to actively understand the roles and responsibilities of others (Atkinson et al., 2002; Frost, 2013). This allows for a greater degree of empathy to develop as the worker can appreciate the reasons behind the particular focus of those in other services, as well as the constraints upon them. Part of this understanding of the role of others, as Frost (2013) explains, involves: 1. Knowing what services are available and whom to contact about specific questions or problems. 2. Knowing what the correct procedures and systems are, and helping to ensure that these are understood and owned by everyone concerned. 3. Having an awareness of how the quality of multi-​agency relationships impacts upon children and young people. When individuals understand that if services are not providing effective joined-​up services to improve outcomes for children, the worker can then contribute to a review of these services, and help to change them so that they become more successful.

163

Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-Agency Work

A further layer of knowledge that is important in multi-​agency working is an understanding of how teams operate and of the stages of team development. Good team members –​and this includes members of multi-​agency teams –​understand some of the processes involved in team functioning.

Information: Stages of team development Tuckman (1965), in his now classic study, which is still relevant today, identified four stages of team development as follows: 1. Forming: Team members negotiate their place in a team. During this stage, each person is focused on their own imperatives. 2. Storming: Differences or conflict may arise as the team members vie for position and discuss how best to complete the given task. 3. Norming: Compromises are made, and goals are set and agreed upon. 4. Performing: The team works towards the agreed-​upon goals.

It is important to recognize that although Tuckman’s model is still used in modern-​day thinking about teams, it has been challenged and developed in more recent years, for example, by Gersick (1988: 32), who argues that instead of all groups passing through ‘the same historical path’, they ‘develop through the sudden formation, maintenance, and sudden revision of a framework for performance’ such that progress is stilted and uneven. Nevertheless, the general point is that where individuals have an understanding of team processes, they will be able to anticipate and recognize the various stages as they occur, and will be less likely to panic or become disheartened if, say, disagreements arise, as they will appreciate that this is a normal and even necessary element of the process of team development. They will be able to contribute to overcoming this difficult phase by offering constructive suggestions that lead to agreements about how best to proceed. In doing so, they will need to employ a range of other personal skills here and in all of their interactions with colleagues from other agencies, and so these skills are highlighted in the next section.

Personal skills One of the most important skills highlighted in the research literature is good communication (Atkinson et al., 2002; Fitzgerald and Kay, 2008; Jordan, 2008; Frost, 2013). This involves: 1. Listening: Actively taking on board what the other person is saying and responding to what they are actually saying, not what one thinks they have said. 2. Negotiating: The ability to be flexible in one’s own thinking and stance, while maintaining essential integrity. This involves being clear and firm yet responsive to a changing set of circumstances that require a willingness to alter a course of action. 3. Compromising: The ability to recognize that one’s own position may not be tenable unless it is modified, and to accept another point of view or course of action as having merit. Effective

163

164

164

Working Together for Children

workers are able to compromise while holding onto the essential and non-​negotiable aspects of their work or approach. This level of communication involves workers having the ability to be assertive, and to be confident in using their own judgement (Foley, 2008). It takes good skill to accomplish professional assertiveness and judgement without appearing or becoming unnecessarily aggressive or defensive. This involves making clear, calm assertions of how the worker sees and understands the situation or dilemma, coupled with an ability to listen and be flexible, and to maintain the focus on what the individual believes is in the best interests of the child. It is also important that individuals reflect upon how they are conducting themselves with others, and upon how they could alter their position where necessary. One aspect of this reflection which Foley (2008) highlights is an awareness of when one might be using jargon or specialized language which others may not understand. It is important that workers pause to check that others are following the conversation. Furthermore, workers need to be aware of when they might be (unconsciously perhaps) using unnecessary jargon or abbreviations in order to appear more knowledgeable and professional than others, as if this is allowed to continue unchecked, it has the potential to lead to uncertainty, confusion or even mistrust between agencies. Foley (2008) makes two more relevant points about personal skills. First, that in good multi-​ agency work, workers will gain new skills, and should see this as an important and necessary part of the work. This relies on workers being open to the experience and perspectives of others, and being willing to listen, observe and take on board new ideas. For instance, certain people in the network, say, teachers or social workers, may have particular expertise in how to engage with and speak to children in order to support them to progress either educationally or socially, and it would be important for others to learn from this. Second, effective multi-​agency workers blend ‘specialized’ and ‘generalist’ skills. This is a complex balance to achieve, and as Foley (2008: 270) points out, ‘there is tension between expertise, sharing expertise and developing expertise in sharing’. It is important, as has been pointed out by Frost (2013), that workers have a strong and clear foundation in their own professional discipline and identity. However, this should not blinker them to being able to adopt more generalist skills or to share this expertise with others. For example, an educational psychologist may have excellent knowledge and skills at assessing children with special educational needs, but if they do not have the more generalist skills of being able to communicate their conclusions clearly and succinctly, and of being able to work as part of a team, then there is a danger that their expertise will be ‘lost’ in the discussions and decision-​making process. The ability to work as a part of a team is a central plank of good multi-​agency practice, and it is therefore discussed in more detail in the section that now follows.

General team working skills As well as having knowledge of how teams operate, and of the stages of team development, effective multi-​agency workers possess or acquire good team working skills. Two of these, highlighted by Atkinson et al. (2002), seem straightforward, although may be subject to various constraints. First, effective information sharing means that those who need to know the information receive

165

Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-Agency Work

it accurately and clearly in a manner that ensures it is understood in the way the person sharing it intended it to be understood. This involves the giver of the information not making assumptions about how the information might be interpreted, but taking the time to double-​check that it has been received and processed as they intended. This may be hampered by workers being busy and rushed, and not feeling they have the time or authority to check that the information they have given has been accurately received. They may also be concerned that by checking this, they come across as patronizing and risk damaging positive multi-​agency relationships that they have striven to build up over time. Second, the ability to share resources is fundamental to good team working. This does not just include the sharing of funding (although that might be important) but also the active co-​operation to share spaces they have available, to pool their staff time and expertise or to share specialized equipment. Here, constraints may include organizational policies which prevent creative use of resources as departments strive to preserve their own budgets or autonomy. Once a clear team has been established to work with a particular child and family, it is important that they can develop effective practices. Frost (2013) argues that having agreed-​upon strategic objectives and shared aims, together with an acknowledgement of the professional diversity among team members, are fundamental to good teamwork. Smith (2013) sees a shared sense of purpose as being one of the fundamental building blocks of effective teamwork, and goes on to highlight several other characteristics of good team working, as follows: 1. Establishing a team ethos and identity: from the outset, it is important that team members are clear about why the team has been created, and how they will set about trying to achieve the goal. 2. Setting agreed-​upon ground rules: good teams agree in advance what the rules are for various aspects of the work, or for how the team will go about their work. For instance, they may want to agree that everyone will have respect for one another, but this does not mean that challenges cannot be made on the basis of clearly stated professional disagreement. 3. Agreeing upon rules for sharing information: part of setting the ground rules will need to include a specific agreement on under what circumstances different types of information can be shared, and with whom it can be shared. 4. Clarifying specific challenges: where there are particular difficulties identified in the work, good teams face these head on, and seek to clarify exactly what these challenges are, and how best to begin to tackle them. 5. Managing different accountabilities or allegiances:  it is important that team members are open and honest about where their fundamental accountability or allegiance sits, as this helps to clarify for others precisely what they can and cannot do, and the reasons for this. If this information is shared, not only is everyone in the team aware of the different allegiances and professional accountablities, but it may be possible for team members to support one another to advocate with the relevant employer for some flexibility in their role where this will contribute to good outcomes for children. 6. Negotiating between different viewpoints: good team workers recognize that different perspectives will arise and put time and effort into negotiating these different perspectives to

165

166

166

Working Together for Children

7.

8.

9.

10.

reach an agreement, or at least to have improved knowledge as to why someone holds a particular view. Mutual respect for skills and professional identity: effective team workers acknowledge the expertise and training of others as being valuable, and treat the different specialisms and identities as equal components of the teamwork so that everyone is facilitated in making an equal contribution. Developing different approaches as complementary: where specialized skills and interventions are required, good teamwork supports and values this as being necessary alongside other approaches that are being implemented. Good team workers do not see those with specialized skills as being in competition with them, but as valuable and effective team members. Mutual trust and confidence:  this comes from a combination of many of the attributes described above, and is often arrived at through hard work and perseverance. It may not be present right at the beginning of a piece of teamwork, but will emerge where team members respect one another, listen to one another and negotiate honestly with one another. Honest disagreement:  differences will inevitably arise, but the important point is that in good teamwork, these differences are not ignored or played down, but tackled in an honest, straightforward manner. Where workers do not agree with a course of action being suggested, or a decision made, they have a professional responsibility to state their objection, along with the reasons for it, and to engage in a respectful and polite discussion. This does not mean they cannot be firm and assertive, but they will need to listen to others and be prepared to compromise or negotiate, or if this is not possible, to record their opposition, stating the reasons behind it. The existence of differences in itself does not signal poor teamwork: it is what happens after this that determines the quality of the teamwork. Where these are dealt with openly, this will contribute to effective team working; only if the differences are hidden or ignored does this have the potential to lead to a fractured team where team members harbour quiet resentment and a sense of injustice.

A further point about what constitutes good multi-​agency teamwork is made by Frost (2013), who argues that good teams address issues of status and hierarchy. There will inevitably be team members with various levels of seniority, or perceived seniority, within a team working with children and families. As with general differences in perspectives, the existence of these different role levels does not itself lead to poor teamwork, but how it is dealt with is important in determining the quality of the teamwork. For example, there may be a social worker, a teacher, a teaching assistant, a psychologist and a paediatrician working in a particular team. Here, it would be important to acknowledge that the teaching assistant may hold the fewest educational qualifications, and may indeed feel somewhat intimidated by the presence of a psychologist or a paediatrician. However, good team working would allow for an acknowledgement of this and for the facilitation of the teaching assistant to have an equal role in the discussion. After all, they are likely to know the child really well if they spend several hours per day alongside them supporting their daily needs. This professional knowledge and insight should be valued just as much as that held by more senior practitioners who may have titles such as ‘doctor’ or have several letters after their name, but may lack the detailed knowledge of the child.

167

Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-Agency Work

A final interesting perspective on what constitutes good team working is provided by Foley (2008), who quotes the work of Moss and Petrie (2002) in arguing that individual and joint critical reflection on a range of broad though profound questions regarding their work will help professionals working together to reach a common understanding, or at least a respectful appreciation, of how they see the world they inhabit. Questions that a really effective team may consider and discuss include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

What do we want for our children? What is a good childhood? What is the place of children in society? Who do we think children are? What are the purposes of institutions or services or spaces for children? What is education for? What do we mean by care? (Moss and Petrie, 2002: 11).

These represent challenging and difficult questions, and it may be that in the brisk and busy environment of everyday multi-​agency working it is not possible to spend time agonizing over what might appear to be philosophical issues. Nevertheless, the general point is an important one: if different assumptions about what it is the multi-​agency team is aiming to achieve are made by individuals and then ignored in wider discussions, this has the potential to undermine effective and successful team working. Only by making explicit the underlying views of team members about often profound matters relating to children can the team work on them, discuss their relative merits and then agree upon a common way forward, even if this includes respectful disagreement. This very process, at least, should ensure that every team member feels their views are valued. Another way of conceptualizing this type of reflective teamwork is to think of it happening within ‘communities of practice’, a term coined by Etienne Wenger to mean ‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this way by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Rankin and Butler, 2011: 55). The premise is that harnessing the knowledge held by all team members in a supportive and reflective environment is the key to effective working at an individual and organizational level. By sharing concerns, the team builds up a long-​term sense of shared identity and values (including trust and a sense of belonging) which feed into the creation of benefits for the individual (such as improved knowledge and skills) and for the organization (such as greater staff satisfaction, higher retention rates and an approach that matches their strategic goals). In this sense, multi-​agency training is best seen not as a series of one-​off events, perhaps undertaken with people from different agencies who may never meet again (albeit that this model has some undoubted benefits), but as an ongoing process of professional reflection and development conducted with people who meet regularly and who get to know one another to build up a deep understanding of the common work with which they are all engaged. Within this, individuals can be encouraged to take part in critical reflection within a safe space where they may share doubts about certain approaches or decisions, and thereby acquire a range of different perspectives and ideas to help them develop their thinking and practice. There is likely to be a tension between the need for busy professionals within separate agencies to carry out their core function for their ‘home’ agency, and the desire to meet with other agency

167

168

168

Working Together for Children

staff to reflect on this work. However, rather than seeing the development of communities of practice as an added luxury, if leaders and managers understand and accept them as a necessary and powerful element of effective and good practice, then they can be facilitated and encouraged. This returns us to the point made at the beginning of this chapter: that much depends on the quality and outlook of the leadership within various agencies, which forms a significant backdrop to the work which individual staff carry out with others from different services in pursuit of their objectives.

Reflections: Case study –​Christa Children’s social care receives a referral from Christa’s school regarding an injury to the side of her head. Christa is 5  years old, white, British, and lives with her mother and stepfather. Social work enquiries reveal that both parents admit struggling with Christa’s care and that of her younger brother, Mark, aged 2 years old. Both parents are unemployed, and have been caring for their own mothers who live nearby and who both need support, one for mild dementia, and the other for chronic medical problems. The stepfather admits losing his temper and hitting Christa across the head, causing the slap mark that was noted by the school. Both parents say they would welcome some help. Due to risk of significant harm, an initial child protection conference is set up to review the situation. The social worker strives to involve the parents in this process, explaining the purpose and format of the conference. The health visitor also wants to work constructively with the parents, but is wary of them, as they have been verbally abusive towards her in the past, frightening her, and she is struggling to see why she should go out of her way to support them now when they rejected her offers of help so vehemently in the past. She feels the social worker is too sympathetic towards the parents and is not placing enough emphasis on protecting the children. She also wants the needs of the younger brother, Mark, to be fully considered and assessed. The school teacher argues that she has tried to talk to the parents about how to improve their parenting to no avail, that neither she nor anyone else from the school has time to attend the meeting, and that it is clear that what Christa needs is to be taken into care. She feels the parents will never listen to her advice so there is little point in her being involved in the process, and she argues strongly that in any case the school has no duty to work with the stepfather as he does not have parental responsibility in the eyes of the law, as he is not Christa’s natural father. 1. What issues might impede effective multi-​agency practice in this scenario? 2. What multi-​agency skills could be used by those involved to move this situation on to a more positive footing?

Conclusions This chapter began by emphasizing that the context within which multi-​agency work occurs plays a crucial role in influencing the quality and efficacy of that work. Where staff within the various services have the support of their leaders, both at the strategic level (a commitment to the notion of multi-​agency working) and at the operational level (securing funding and resources to support

169

Skills and Factors to Enhance Multi-Agency Work

effective multi-​agency practice and the development of clear multi-​agency protocols), this will have a beneficial impact upon the work. Joint training allows staff from different services to meet to share and learn together, and to better understand one another’s problems and limitations, as well as their skill sets and professional perspectives. Within this context, individuals have a responsibility to contribute to the process by acquiring or developing a positive attitude towards the idea of multi-​agency working:  a commitment to the idea and value of such an approach, as well as a strong sense of how their own role fits with others. Where staff have a clear understanding of operational aspects of multi-​agency working, this will help it become more effective. For instance, knowing what services are available locally or what the correct procedures are for referring a child to other services will help them to work efficiently and more meaningfully with others. Finally, the possession of personal skills such as good communication and interpersonal skills, the ability to negotiate, the ability to switch between their specialized skills and more generalist ones, all contribute to the ability to work as part of a team. If these characteristics can then be harnessed, with the support of leaders with specific agencies, into ongoing multi-​agency communities of practice, then this can make a real contribution to high quality multi-​agency working. It is clear, therefore, that good multi-​agency working is contingent upon a combination of the wider context and individual factors working together to create a sustained and sustainable body of committed and motivated professionals from various agencies who together can make a real difference to the quality of the lives of the children and families with whom they work.

Further reading Brock, A. (2011), ‘Perspectives on Professionalism’, in A. Brock and C. Rankin (eds), Professionalism in the Interdisciplinary Early Years Team:  Supporting Young Children and Their Families, 59–​76, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. This chapter considers the notion of professionalism within various disciplines before presenting a model of professionalism developed by the author herself. She concludes that a shared understanding of professional traits could facilitate collective professionalism, characterized by a common knowledge and value base. Rickards, T. and S. Moger (2000), ‘Creative Leadership Processes in Project Team Development: An Alternative to Tuckman’s Stage Model’, British Journal of Management, 11: 273–​283. This academic journal article provides a further challenge to Tuckman’s classic model of team development, by arguing that in order to succeed, teams need to pass through two key barriers, one seen as ‘weak’ (the interpersonal and intra-​personal factors present in the team) and one seen as ‘strong’ (the organization’s expectations and culture). Teams that pass through both barriers perform better than teams that pass through ‘weak’ barriers only, and creative leadership within the team can support this successful journey. Rixon, A. (2008), ‘Learning Together’, in P. Foley and A. Rixon (eds), Changing Children’s Services: Working and Learning Together, 205–​245, Bristol: Policy Press. This chapter reinforces the idea that by meeting together and sharing concerns, practitioners from different agencies can develop their knowledge and skills in order to better meet the needs of the children with whom they work.

169

170

171

Conclusion The starting point of this book is an appreciation that multi-​agency practice is now deeply engrained in work with children and families. Although such multi-​agency working is absolutely necessary for good outcomes for children, it comes with inherent complexities, some of which are structural in nature and cannot be resolved. Indeed, this informs the underpinning philosophy of the book, which is that in order to achieve good and effective multi-​agency working, these complexities have to be fully understood. One key aim of the book, therefore, is to highlight the nature of these complexities, not to lead to simplistic or ‘glib’ proposals for solutions but to encourage readers to better understand these complexities. Nevertheless, the book does attempt to clarify a vision for how multi-​agency working can and should support work with children in order to achieve better outcomes for them. The book began with considering the origins of multi-​agency work, which highlighted that it is impossible to separate structured work with families  –​and the legislation that guides it  –​ from poverty. The Victorian Poor Law cemented, in nineteenth-​century England, the notion of the deserving versus the non-​deserving poor. This appears to have entered deep into the collective psyche, for it remains with us today, influencing government policy towards the poor, which in turn directly impinges upon patterns and outcomes of multi-​agency work with families from all social backgrounds. Multi-​agency work is relatively easy to define and recognize, and a wide range of agencies and individual professionals can be involved. They labour within a complex and at times contradictory framework of legislation and guidance, which has the potential to cause uncertainty, confusion or conflict. Furthermore, inherent structural barriers to effective multi-​agency work transcend the individual, and can militate against effective outcomes for children and families. While some of these can be overcome by implementing sound principles of local cooperation and camaraderie, there is no doubt that some potentially harmful barriers stubbornly remain. Those closely associated with professional identity, deep cultural practices within and between agencies, and perceptions by agencies of how they see their relationships with others feature highly among these. The law relating to information sharing is a good example of the discrepancy between intended and actual outcomes in multi-​agency working. Clearly the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998 were both forged with the intention of respecting privacy, of protecting individuals from unnecessary intrusion and of achieving fairness for individuals. Nevertheless, the intrinsic complexities of both of these pieces of legislation, coupled with a fear that individuals can be

172

172

Working Together for Children

prosecuted for breaching them, can lead to uncertainty, and a defensive approach to sharing information such that information that should be shared may not be. The impact of this upon children is potentially catastrophic if the information relates to risk of harm. The question of when professionals should seek or obtain parental consent to share information with another agency is a further source of possible tension between agencies, and between agencies and parents. To combat these difficulties, professionals need access to clear, unequivocal guidance and support on the distinction between occasions when they have to share information without seeking or obtaining parenting consent, when they have to seek or obtain consent before sharing and when they are advised to, but do not have to, seek consent. Without this, misunderstandings leading to conflict between agencies, or between agencies and parents, are likely to be a regular occurrence. There will always be ‘grey areas’ where these decisions on whether or not to share information, or on how much information to share, are open to judgement and interpretation, but if the individuals involved are able to discuss these grey areas with a colleague or manager, then this should help alleviate some of the uncertainty. Some of the inherent and persistent barriers to multi-​agency working are clearly apparent when one considers the complex task of undertaking a multi-​agency assessment of a family. Statutory assessments for children who may be ‘in need of support’ or ‘in need of protection’ are led by social workers who co-​ordinate a broad process involving several agencies, all of whom have to understand their multi-​agency responsibilities and roles, together with the detailed guidance on information sharing. The common assessment framework on the other hand –​to be used where children may ‘require early help’ –​can be undertaken by a competent professional from any agency. While there are undoubtedly clear benefits of identifying obstacles to optimum development as early as possible, there is the potential for the process to undermine the professional identity of the social worker and cause anxiety for those with lead professional status in the universal services who may not have the confidence or feel they have the relevant skill set to undertake this complex task. Furthermore, factors within individual agencies, such as staff shortage, lack of resources to contribute to a multi-​agency support plan following an assessment, or contrasting legislation and policy between agencies can undermine efforts to reach a consensus view between staff from different services on how best to meet the needs of a child subject to an assessment. Early intervention for children requiring early help is clearly a sound idea, predicated as it is on the belief that it is better to prevent problems occurring or becoming exacerbated than to act only when some kind of crisis point is reached. The implementation of a common process here is supportive, but it cannot be a panacea for solving all the attendant problems and issues. For example, the use of busy professionals from the universal services to carry out this complex work, in addition to their core function, can be questioned. Some may see this as an integral part of their role and may possess the skills to carry it out with competence and authority. However, others may feel they lack the relevant specialized knowledge and skill set to tackle with confidence some of the complex social problems they may face. Furthermore, the different perspectives of staff within a team around the child (TAC) may lead to disagreements about how best to support the child. Where this happens, the existence of effectively two managers –​one from the ‘home’ agency, and the lead professional from the multi-​agency team –​has the potential to add to the lack of clarity and sense of confusion about who has the final authority to make a decision.

173

Conclusion

Where children have a deeper level of need requiring more specialized intervention, they are categorized as being ‘in need of support’ and as such are entitled to a statutory assessment coordinated by a social worker. This multi-​agency assessment is vital in identifying the range of needs as well as strengths that exist, and so provides a holistic overview of the child’s circumstances. This leads then to the development of a support plan in which the social worker takes the lead in co-​ordinating the multi-​agency input that has been identified as being required. Once again, although these are effective tools, they cannot solve every problem, such as the persistent poverty or lack of sound housing stock that many families face. Furthermore, structural barriers to effective multi-​agency working remain, such as the different professional perceptions and interpretation of children’s circumstances, or the fact that where there are deep disagreements –​although the social worker has the final say –​these differences can lead to resentment which itself can affect the quality of the relationships between workers. Children with special educational needs and disabilities are automatically classed as children ‘in need of support’. The specific multi-​agency plan –​the education, health and care (EHC) plan –​is designed to identify, assess and meet their complex needs. This structured approach, involving as it must workers possessing highly specialized skills, is designed to enhance the lives of these children. Nevertheless, as with other children ‘in need of support’, the existence of a plan does not represent a total solution to the inherent complexities of multi-​agency working. The EHC plan, with its lengthy imperatives, may lead some staff to feel burdened if they experience it as imposing additional work, particularly if they are not convinced that the level of support specified in the plan is required, or if disagreements arise between individuals from different agencies. The protection of children deemed to have suffered, or be at risk of suffering, significant harm, is perhaps the most challenging task faced by workers across a range of services. Feelings are likely to run very high where there are different perspectives regarding whether a child is at risk of serious harm (the interpretation of the definitions of abuse), or what the correct response should be (whether it is safe or not to leave a child in the care of their parents). This is unlikely to be helped by the conceptual shift from ‘child protection’ to ‘safeguarding children’, which involves a key role for services in the prevention of harm, and where protecting children becomes just one element of a wider approach to promoting children’s welfare. Within this framework, professionals’ focus may become pulled between a narrow focus on child protection and the broader issues that impinge upon the child as they struggle to decide which deserves their attention: Should they take a preventative, supportive approach, or should they take decisive protective action? If what is considered by others to be the wrong decision is made, this can have a serious impact upon multi-​ agency relationships, and unless these differences in understanding and interpretation are shared and commonly understood, they are likely to persist and deepen into long-​running fractures. Feelings can also run high when professionals are involved in working with young people involved in the criminal justice system, particularly when they have been accused of, or found guilty of, committing crimes of a violent or sexual nature. The balance between support and understanding on the one hand, and condemnation and punishment on the other, may be tested as workers argue for their particular position to be acknowledged. The existence of youth offending teams represents a potentially contradictory situation where workers from different professional backgrounds have the advantage of close proximity to develop deep working relationships and a

173

174

174

Working Together for Children

single identity within the youth justice structure, and simultaneously the disadvantage of that very close proximity exaggerating any differences that may surface as a result of team members holding or expressing disparate views about the young people, arising from the workers’ professional understanding of how best to meet the needs of the young person or how to balance this with public protection. Disagreements can also arise between professionals supporting looked-​after children. The two key plans designed to support them –​care plans and personal education plans –​contain a plethora of information, and where the long-​term welfare of a child is at stake, differences in opinion are likely to emerge about some of the details, such as what the best placement might be for the child. The plans might also expose structural barriers such as the difficulty in arranging meetings between busy professionals within social care, education, health and other agencies. Differences in professional focus may also lead to clashes. For instance, a looked-​after child may be excluded from school, with the school arguing that they have a duty to balance the needs of that child against the rights and safety of the other children. The social worker, on the other hand, may argue that the child’s welfare is being compromised by being excluded, and may feel the school has been too quick to exclude the child before trying other more creative approaches to tackling the disruptive behaviour. Similarly, how the Pupil Premium Plus funding is spent by schools can lead to resentment among other groups who may not be convinced that the money is being spent in a manner that directly benefits the specific child for whom it was intended. Once again, these differences need to be openly shared and acknowledged before there is any hope that they can be resolved. There are various ways in which effective multi-​agency working can be facilitated. It should begin and end with a commitment from leaders within the various agencies not only to the idea of multi-​agency working, but to supporting its full implementation. This means that leaders and managers need to provide strategic support by emphasizing the importance of a commitment to multi-​agency working, and enable operational levels of support by ensuring there is funding and properly resourced support to carry out effective multi-​agency working. Certainly, joint training plays a significant role here, allowing as it does staff from different services to meet to better understand one another’s roles and working lives. If this can be developed into ongoing communities of practice within which professionals can engage in safe and thoughtful critical reflection, this is likely to have a beneficial impact upon the quality of the multi-​agency working. However, even where these opportunities are provided, individuals have a responsibility to contribute to good multi-​agency working by having a positive attitude themselves towards multi-​agency working, and by using their personal skills and knowledge to facilitate and work through difficulties or differences with others to reach the most positive outcome possible. Multi-​agency work does not happen in a vacuum. The Introduction of this book highlighted the dramatic shift from a strong emphasis on the central importance of multi-​agency working represented by the Every Child Matters programme initiated in 2003 by the then Labour government to the focus instead on the central importance upon education within the context of cutting public funding (including funding for multi-​agency working) in order to reduce the structural deficit when the Coalition government took office in England in 2010. Frost (2011: 177) has characterized this as multi-​agency working moving from being ‘mainstream to oppositional’, symbolized most notably perhaps by the change of name of the relevant government department from

175

Conclusion

'Department for Children, Schools and Families' to the ‘Department for Education’. In other words, multi-​agency working now occurs not because of explicit government support and endorsement, but in spite of a lack of such encouragement. Professionals within the various services have seen and experienced the benefits of close multi-​agency working and continue to operate in this way: the ‘genie’ of multi-​agency working was let out of the bottle by the structural and attitudinal changes afforded by the Every Child Matters campaign, and it appears to be proving impossible to return it to the bottle. This book has examined multi-​agency work with children from a variety of perspectives. It has offered a critique of the relevant systems and processes in the sincere belief that unless the full extent of the complexities, difficulties and tensions associated with them are explored and understood, then the quality of any multi-​agency work is likely to be compromised. The clear benefits of multi-​agency work should not blind professionals to the real problems that persist –​problems that are inherent in the very nature of multi-​agency work. The aim of achieving a brighter future for children is more likely to be achieved if the intricacies involved in multi-​agency work are fully unravelled, processed, commonly distilled and understood. Only then –​and in spite of the structural barriers that persist –​will professionals, supported by their service leaders, be able to use their personal attributes, knowledge and skills to engage in multi-​agency work which really does have the potential to benefit children and families by improving their life chances in varying fields such as health, social care and education.

175

176

177

Appendix Points to consider and suggestions for the reflective box exercises The discussion points below may not always provide a definitive answer to the questions posed, because simple solutions are not always possible as professionals grapple with a range of dilemmas. Much of the case study discussion contains points for readers to consider as they reflect upon the case studies. Other perspectives are possible, of course, and the points below do not represent an exhaustive list of issues. It is important that workers are reflective in their work, and have a clear idea about why certain courses of action are desirable or not.

Chapter 1 Case study –​ Amy 1. Based on Section 27 of the Children Act 1989, which of the assessment elements do you think the school is obliged to provide? The school would have a duty to provide information related to the school’s core function of education. This would include Amy’s performance and progress at school, her social relationships and any observations the school may have about Amy’s relationships with her parents. 2. Which element do you think the school would have a right to question or refuse to do? The school could not be expected to provide information regarding the family’s financial circumstances, as this does not relate to their core function. 3. If the school does refuse to carry out any of these requests, how might they go about doing this without harming the relationship with the social worker? The school would need to balance their assertiveness in explaining that it is not appropriate for them to investigate the family’s financial circumstances against maintaining a positive relationship with the social worker. The school should be clear and firm but not aggressive, and should emphasize the elements that they are happy to support the social worker in completing. They should not, however, agree to carry out an inappropriate task merely to placate the social worker.

178

178

Appendix

Chapter 2 Case study –​ Jenny 1. How do you think the school should respond to this scenario? While the school has a responsibility to maintain a positive relationship with other agencies, this is overridden by their duty to act in Jenny’s best interests. They should therefore do what they think is best for Jenny. In this case, this means clearly stating their disagreement with the proposal, along with their reasons for it. 2. What arguments could the school bring to bear if they decided to challenge children’s social care on this decision? The school could cite the fact that Jenny is settled in school, and would have a natural move to an appropriate high school at the beginning of Year 7. Furthermore, she is due to sit her SATs test in May, so to move her to a new primary school in April could be disastrous, unsettling her and forcing her to negotiate the whole passage of joining a new school, forming new friends and so on just before these tests. The impact upon her results could be catastrophic. 3. How can the school act as an advocate for Jenny, and maintain a positive relationship with children’s social care? The school should consider how they raise their objections. Their focus should be the best interests of Jenny. They should state their case clearly and fully. They should emphasize the positive reasons for keeping Jenny at the school. They should avoid becoming aggressive with the social worker, stressing that this is not a personal issue, but what they see as being in Jenny’s best interests. They should offer to work constructively with the social worker to find a solution. If necessary, the school should be prepared to take the matter up with the social worker’s management, again maintaining an assertive but non-​aggressive stance and emphasizing their wish to work together to find a solution.

Case study –​ Jack 1. Look at the section of this chapter titled ‘models of multi-​agency work’. At what level of partnership from the Department of Health model do you think the agencies involved in this work are operating? Remember that different agencies can be at different levels. Try to give reasons to support your answer. Generally, the agencies appear to be around Level 3. There is active involvement via the conference, where all parties are contributing to discussions and decision-​making. The headteacher, however, appears to have a separate agenda and is not interacting with the other agencies at this level. 2. Can you identify any elements from the list for Level 4 –​full partnership –​in this scenario? It could be argued that the following are present:

179

Appendix ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

Shared values: Jack’s safety. A shared task or goal: the meeting itself. All parties contribute resources or skills: information is shared in the meeting. Decisions are made together: there was generally good attendance at the meeting. Choice in entering the partnership: there seems to be, considering the good attendance. A formalized arrangement for agreed-​upon working: the way the meeting is set up and works supports this.

3. From the list of ‘barriers to effective multi-​agency work’ discussed in this chapter choose those you think are present in this scenario. Try to be as specific as you can. The following barriers could be said to be present in the case study: ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

Different values, cultures and practices between agencies: the headteacher keeping separate notes not shared with others. A lack of clarity in boundaries: it is not the school’s role to keep a log and then use it in the way described. There should be open sharing of information. Poor communication between the school and other agencies. A lack of information sharing between the school and other agencies. The headteacher should not use the information he has about the child as some kind of ‘weapon’ to then use perhaps to compete and show that they are ‘cleverer’ than other agencies. Conflicting professional and agency cultures:  the GP did not attend but sent a letter expressing powerful positive views of the parents which have the potential to sway the meeting, especially when one considers the potential for the GP to be conferred a higher level of status due to the general standing of doctors within English culture.

Chapter 3 Case study –​ Sarah 1. In terms of information sharing, what do you think the correct course of action should be? The school needs to consider the safety and welfare of Sarah (and her younger sister) as paramount. If they believe the information Sarah has given them means that she is at risk of significant harm, they should make a referral to children’s social care, and share appropriate information. Only if Sarah’s story was palpably untrue or outrageous should they ignore it and do nothing. 2. Do you think the school should seek consent from parents before contacting other agencies? Try and think of specific reasons for your answer. Although legislation and guidance is predicated on the notion of seeking and gaining consent from parents to share information, this can be jettisoned if seeking consent would put a child at risk of serious harm, or would undermine the prevention, detection or prosecution of a serious crime. With Sarah, if the parents are contacted and their consent sought, or even if they are

179

180

180

Appendix

merely informed that a referral to children’s social care has been made, there is the possibility that the parents will destroy forensic or other evidence at the home, or take Sarah out of school immediately and potentially ‘get to her’ to change her story before formal enquiries can take place by a social worker or the police. Therefore, the school would be justified in not seeking consent from the parents, but in going straight to children’s social care with the referral based on Sarah’s disclosure.

Case study –​ Anisha 1. Do you think the health visitor can contact the nursery? The health visitor has explicit verbal consent to contact the nursery, although she would have to be certain that the mother fully understands exactly what she was consenting to (this would include certainty that she understood English). She should record in her notes the fact that such consent was given. 2. If so, can she share information regarding the mother’s mental health with the nursery? The health visitor appears to have discussed with the mother that she would share with the nursery the ‘circumstances’, so she has the mother’s implicit consent. It would be good practice, however, particularly in the light of the mother’s depression, or any possible language barriers, for the health visitor to be absolutely clear with the mother that this would include sharing the fact of her depression –​this would ensure explicit informed consent. 3. Do you think the health visitor would also need consent from Anisha’s father before she contacted the nursery? The health visitor has consent to share information and contact the nursery from the mother who has full parental responsibility for Anisha. Unless the health visitor had evidence that there was a clear difference of opinion between the mother and father on this issue, she would not need to seek approval from Anisha’s father. However, there is a complication here: due to the mother’s depression, if there are any concerns by the health visitor that the mother does not have the capacity to fully understand what she is consenting to, then the health visitor would be well advised to seek separate consent from Anisha’s father. This would also apply should the health visitor be in doubt about the mother’s ability to understand what she was consenting to, due to limited understanding of English.

Case study –​ Connor 1. In terms of sharing information, do you think the school acted appropriately here? Try to think of some reasons for your answer. The school had genuine concerns regarding Connor. The teacher spoke to his mother and then used the system within the school to seek further advice, including approaching the school nurse. They do not appear to have gone beyond their powers up to this point.

181

Appendix

2. What issues should the school and school nurse have considered before contacting the health visitor? The school and school nurse should have thought about whether the concerns amount to a possible public interest, in this case, the welfare of Connor and indeed his sister. They could, and perhaps should, have approached the mother directly to seek explicit consent to approach the health visitor. Nevertheless, in light of the previous conversation with the mother, and through acting in good faith, putting Connor’s interests first, they could justify speaking to the health visitor without such explicit consent. 3. Do you think the health visitor was correct in withholding the information regarding the parents’ relationship? Try to think of some reasons for your answer. The health visitor is fully engaged with the family and confirmed the parents are working positively with her. In deciding not to share the information that the parents are receiving marriage guidance counselling, she is respecting the parents’ confidentiality, as she does not have consent to share this sensitive information. The health visitor made a judgement that there was no public interest in revealing this information, as no real benefit to the children will flow from her sharing it. Nevertheless, it would have been equally possible for the health visitor to conclude that she should share this information under the rule of proportionality, because the information is materially relevant to the concerns about Connor. This is an example where either position or decision may be justifiable under the law, and illustrates the complexity of the judgements that professionals may be asked to make.

Case study –​ Alison 1. Do you think the school has acted appropriately here? Try to think of some reasons for your answer. School staff have to balance their duty to respect Alison’s confidentiality against a duty to promote her welfare or protect her if necessary. The school has information that suggests Alison is at risk, possibly of significant harm. She has taken illegal drugs and appears to be under some coercion to have under-​age sex with older youths (whose precise ages are unknown). In these circumstances the school would not only be justified in sharing this confidential information about Alison in the public interest but may well be criticized later if it emerges that they knew about her situation but had not shared this information when approached.

Chapter 4 Case study –​the McLoughlin family 1. Which assessment framework do you think the social worker used here –​the common assessment framework or the statutory assessment?

181

182

182

Appendix

As the case concerned child protection and significant harm, the social work conducted a full statutory assessment. 2. How were the children’s needs addressed? The children were initially protected and placed in care. Soon afterwards the positive relationship with their father was encouraged and the children were kept within the family, as they went to stay with him. Nursery places were secured for Stella and Christopher, and a place was found for Mark at the after-​school club. The social worker undertook direct work with, and observations of, the children to determine their wishes and feelings. Practical assistance was provided for the children to attend health appointments. 3. How was Laura’s parenting capacity assessed? The social worker got alongside Laura and engaged her in discussion regarding her parenting. The social worker also gathered information from their own observations and from other agencies regarding Laura’s parenting. Her ability to change, restore the flat to a good state and demonstrate commitment to her children was also being assessed throughout this process. 4. What were the significant wider family and environmental factors that impinged on the family? How were they addressed, and how did this contribute to the successful outcome? Laura was a single parent living with three young children in an overcrowded flat with no safe area for the children to play outside. The family was isolated from services and from wider family support. Income was low. These issues were addressed by the social worker advocating for Laura in respect of an application for rehousing, ensuring she received all the benefits to which she was entitled, and facilitating a placement for the children with their father. This contributed to the successful outcome by providing Laura with practical support and a long-​term aim of living in superior accommodation; in other words, it helped to lift her out of her depression. By staying with their father, the children were protected from a deep fracturing of their family relationships and were more readily able to adapt to life back with their mother. The success of the housing application helped to contribute to the longer term success.

Chapter 5 Case study –​Michael 1. Do you think Michael is a child requiring early help? It appears that Michael is experiencing various difficulties. He lives in a house that is unlikely to support his physical and health needs. His school attendance has dipped, meaning that he is missing out on important learning and socialization. His behaviour suggests that he has some anger issues. His parents’ drug use may be relevant. According to the definition of children requiring early help, a case could certainly be made that Michael fits within this category.

183

Appendix

2. What do you think the school staff should do next? If staff at school feel that Michael requires early help, they should contact the parents and offer to complete a common assessment. The learning mentor is the most likely person to carry out the assessment, as she has been specifically trained for this. If the parents are initially reluctant, the learning mentor should try to maintain a positive relationship with them, encouraging them to take advantage of the support on offer. 3. What other services might become involved? Assuming the parents agree to take part in a common assessment, other services could include the local authority housing department, the school nurse and specialist advisors from the local education authority such as a behaviour support worker. 4. What tensions or disagreements might emerge in the work? It is possible that the parents’ drug use will be a bone of contention. One worker may be sympathetic to this, believing that it is merely a lifestyle choice equivalent to smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol and that it has no bearing on Michael’s behaviour. Another worker, on the other hand, may have strong objections to it, arguing that because it is illegal, the parents should not be smoking cannabis in the house, and should be reported to the police, as it is irresponsible. Likewise, there may be conflicting views on how to deal with Michael’s aggressive behaviour: some staff may want to act supportively and work with him and his parents to address his underlying problems, while others will want the school to send out a strong and clear message that hitting an adult is unacceptable. The role of the housing office may also cause conflict, with some staff believing the housing team should be able to provide better quality accommodation while the housing team themselves may argue that they have access to very limited housing stock, and they cannot help Michael’s family jump the queue unfairly.

Chapter 6 Case study –​Johnnie and Sam 1. Do you think Johnnie and Sam are children in need of support? If so, what specific reasons do you have for this decision? Remember that to be classed as in need of support, children need to be ‘unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services’. There do appear to be some aspects of their current circumstances that could fit this description. The children’s social and educational development may be compromised by the lack of opportunity to play and mix with other children. Dawn’s low emotional state and lack of energy may also mean that the children are not receiving stimulation. The environmental conditions may also impact upon their well-​being. The lack of toys should not in itself be taken as a cause for concern;

183

184

184

Appendix

rather the children’s whole family circumstances need to be taken into account in reaching a decision about whether or not the children are in need of support. 2. Who might be involved in completing a statutory assessment, and any subsequent child-​in-​need plan, if these are deemed necessary? The social worker would take the lead, and would want to liaise with the health visitor, the nursery staff, housing staff and any other professionals who are or have been involved from a universal or targeted service, including the family doctor. The children’s father and grandmother would also be included. 3. What might be the key elements of a child-​in-​need plan if this is felt appropriate? The child-​in-​need plan would need to address the key areas of concern, including finance, housing, lack of play opportunities for the children, and Dawn’s emotional state. The plan may therefore include exploring ways to maximize Dawn’s income, applying for more suitable housing, supporting entry to an early years setting for the children and support with transport and costs for this if these were needed and a referral to mental health services for a full assessment of Dawn. 4. Where might any disagreements arise between professionals? Any difference in opinion or interpretation is likely to arise from how the various professionals perceive the risk to the children. For instance, some may believe that if Sam, at age 3, is effectively looking after Johnnie some mornings, even for a short time, this amounts to risk of ‘significant harm’ and therefore that the case should be dealt with under the ‘child protection’, rather than the ‘child in need of support’ procedures. Others may focus on Dawn’s intent, arguing that as long as she is working with the professionals and there are signs of progress, her emotional warmth towards the children and general level of parenting mean it is not appropriate to label the children as being in need of protection. At any point in the process, from the beginning of the statutory assessment through the development of the child-​in-​need plan to the review meetings, there is the opportunity for professionals to disagree about the direction of the work, and the level of perceived risk to the children.

Chapter 7 Case study –​ Joseph 1. Who do you think needs to be involved in the EHC plan for Joseph? Given Joseph’s complex needs, it is likely there will be a wide range of professionals involved, such as nursery staff (including his key worker and special needs coordinator), physiotherapist, paediatrician, occupational therapist, health visitor, social worker, speech and language therapist and educational psychologist. Parents, of course, should also be involved at every stage.

185

Appendix

2. What do you think should be the key elements of the EHC plan? The EHC plan is likely to be centred on developing Joseph’s speech and communication, learning and play opportunities, attention and concentration span, social relationships, motor skills and physical movement. Support for Joseph’s parents (probably in the form of respite care) is also likely to be a feature of the plan, along with planning for his transition to school when he turns 5 years of age. 3. What multi-​agency problems do you think might emerge? Consider the issues raised in the chapter, such as whether everyone in the professional network will agree that an EHC is required. Some may wish to argue that Joseph comes under the definition of ‘requiring early help’, since this includes children who ‘are disabled and have specific additional needs’, and they may argue that Joseph’s autism is this additional need along with his cerebral palsy. Given the number of services likely to be involved across education, health and social care, it is likely each will have their own service priorities which impact on their capacity to fully engage with the EHC plan. If the plan is agreed upon through some level of compromise between parties, those whose specialized skills are perhaps less visible in the plan may feel their professional identity is being lost and this may demotivate them. There is the potential also for specialized language to be used during discussions (for instance, PECS, the Picture Exchange Communication System, or CP for cerebral palsy), which may not be understood by all. Remember as well that staff within the various services are busy and have their own core functions within their ‘home’ service, and so may find it difficult to prioritize meetings regarding Joseph. The respite care package or the options for which school he moves on to may raise issues about the conflict between what is really in Joseph’s best interests, and different workers may have different yet strongly held views about this. Finally, practitioners may understand Joseph’s circumstances differently in terms of the medical versus the social model of disability. Some, perhaps coming from a medical model, may argue that it is wrong to manipulate the environment too much to support Joseph, as this gives him an unrealistic expectation about the ‘real’ world, while others may wish to reinforce the need to recognize that Joseph faces deep disadvantage should the environment not be changed to meet his needs.

Chapter 8 When is harm significant? 1. Which of the scenarios do you think amounts to ‘significant harm’, rather than just ‘harm’? Try to give at least one reason for your decision, based on the criteria discussed above of severity of the ill treatment, the degree and extent of harm to the child, and the duration and frequency of the harm. You might also want to consider which of the four categories of abuse any harm may fall into (physical, sexual, emotional or neglect). In trying to reach a decision, you might consider such factors as:

185

186

186

Appendix

a. The actual or potential impact on the child. This might include thinking about the age of the child, their ability to ‘escape’, or tell someone and so on. b. The duration and frequency of the harm –​is it a one-​off or does it happen many times? c. How severe is the act of harm –​what are the levels of danger to the child’s immediate and long-​term safety, health and development? d. The overall atmosphere within which the child lives. Remember, the focus should be on the impact upon the child, and you should not be distracted by factors such as the motivation of the abusers, whether they meant to deliberately harm the child or whether the abuser is trying their best (but failing) to parent adequately. It is also worth trying to pinpoint which category or categories of abuse are relevant to each scenario, bearing in mind that children can be harmed in more than ways than one (for example, they can be physically and emotionally abused).

Sexual activity between young people 1. What might be some of the relevant issues that professionals working with young people on a daily basis may need to consider in responding to these scenarios, if they become aware of them? You might want to consider issues such as whether any or all of the scenarios described might be deemed acceptable, and if so, why or why not? Professionals may need to think about a whole set of additional circumstances such as the maturity of the girl, or the exact relationship between the two people, for instance, if the boy or man was in a position of authority over the girl. If we do say that it is acceptable for young people of similar ages to engage in sexual activity, what if we increase the age of the older person? At what point would it become unacceptable? If the older person were 19, or 21 or 25? What would be the reasons for any decision based on the age difference? 2. Is there a difference in how professionals should respond to such instances for boys compared to girls? If so, what might lie behind this difference? Professionals may take different positions regarding younger boys engaging in sexual activities with older girls or women. Some may want to treat girls and boys equally in terms of deciding what is acceptable, while others may consider girls inherently more vulnerable to exploitation by older men, perhaps seeing boys as somehow fortunate to attract the attentions of older people. This may be reinforced by cultural norms which perhaps portray boys as more emotionally and sexually robust. Once again, if the age of the woman is increased, at what age would sexual contact between a 15-​year-​old boy and an older woman (of say 19, 21 or 25) be deemed unacceptable, and why might this be the case? 3. Should there be a difference in how same-​gender relationships are viewed? If so, what might be the reasons for this?

187

Appendix

Same-​sex relationships may present particular challenges for some professionals for a host of reasons, including their own moral or religious code, or perhaps a sense that young people may still be maturing into what will become their ‘final’ or enduring sexual orientation. This may mean that some professionals view same-​sex relationships as potentially more exploitative and problematic compared to cross-​sex relationships. This may be particularly pertinent when the age of the older person is increased. Other professionals may want to treat same-​sex relationships in exactly the same way as cross-​sex relationships, and this itself could become a source of tension between workers from different services.

Chapter 9 Case study –​ Ryan 1. Which professionals are likely to be involved in this scenario? Ryan will have a social worker, and his foster carers should also be considered as part of the professional network. Clearly, the police are now involved. His form tutor at school, and perhaps other significant school staff such as the head of year or special educational needs coordinator may also be involved. His father should have a probation officer, who may need to be involved in discussions regarding Ryan. There may also be a contact centre worker involved if the contact between Ryan and his mother takes place at an independent centre. In addition, it is worth remembering the universal services who will be involved, such as the general practitioner and school nurse. 2. Where might the conflicts and disagreements emerge between workers from different services? The most likely conflict will arise between those workers who will see Ryan as a vulnerable young man who has faced difficult and damaging life experiences, and whose behaviour is expressing his anger and frustration at his situation, and those workers who (while they might recognize his vulnerability) will want to emphasize the need for Ryan to take responsibility for his actions and learn that he has to conform to societal norms. This is the classic ‘welfare’ versus ‘punishment’ tension. Clearly, at the point outlined in the scenario, Ryan has not yet been charged, and this may be the opportunity for the social worker and perhaps his carers to argue for a ‘lenient’ outcome –​say, a youth caution –​if he is charged with criminal damage, on the basis that Ryan needs understanding and support over punishment. While this does seem the most likely outcome, given it would be Ryan’s first offence, there may be some workers within the network who would prefer to see Ryan given a more structured programme designed also to restrict his free time somewhat while providing support. Thus they may wish to argue that a youth conditional caution, where Ryan would be expected to attend some rehabilitation activities, would be more helpful and appropriate, or even that Ryan should attend youth court to really face the full consequences of his actions, perhaps by being made the subject of a referral order and hence being made to take part in constructive activities designed to divert him from future offending behaviour. Ultimately, of course, workers will have to accept the decision that is eventually made, either by the police or the youth court, but it may not prevent those workers

187

188

188

Appendix

who would have liked to have seen a different outcome from harbouring thoughts of disquiet or disagreement.

Chapter 10 Case study –​Carlton 1. How might the school and social worker compromise in a way that allows both to meet their different requirements? Both professionals should listen carefully to the reasons being given by the other for their position. Ultimately, the completion of the PEP is a statutory requirement upon social workers. One possible solution is to hold the meeting, with Carlton and his carer present, and agree that the main focus of targets in the PEP will be to facilitate the school in assessing his needs (bearing in mind that there should be background information from the primary school and the social worker). A further meeting could then be held in, say, three months time or sooner if needed, to compile more thorough targets. In this way, the social worker is able to fulfil their obligations, and the school can feel satisfied that their professional judgement has been listened to and acted upon, thus hopefully facilitating positive multi-​agency working.

Case study –​ Marcus 1. What challenges for the various services may be presented by Marcus and his situation at the moment? Marcus is likely to feel disorientated as he tries to make sense of the sudden changes in his circumstances. He may well react to being placed suddenly in care, and to the move of school. He is also in a transracial placement, so there is a need to address any ethnic or cultural needs associated with his ethnic origin. He may also have a general lack of trust of others and be in some distress or fear as a result of what he has experienced at home. The effects of the contact with his parents, either positive or negative, will need managing and supporting. His behaviour within school needs managing in a positive and supportive manner. There is a possibility that his parents may discover where he is currently living or attending school. The new school has very little information about Marcus. 2. What information will the school need before planning support? The new school will require information about Marcus from the previous school. This should include his previous attainment and any behavioural issues. The new school may also want to carry out their own baseline assessment. The new school will need to liaise with the social worker regarding a fuller history, and any relevant details of the care plan as this develops. They will also need details of the contact arrangements between Marcus and his parents, so they can support him beforehand and afterwards. They will also need to know how to respond should his parents

189

Appendix

turn up at the new school. They will also want to have daily communication with his current carer to ensure that they are working closely together, and of course staff at the school should be speaking directly with Marcus about his wishes and feelings. Any relevant medical information should also be shared with the school. A personal education plan meeting is the most effective way of gathering most of this information and sharpening it into a clear action plan. 3. Who needs to be involved in planning for educational success? The following people would normally be involved: the social worker; someone from the school; the current carer; the school nurse, if involved; someone from the therapeutic services; and Marcus himself. Given the level of risk and hostility, his parents would not be involved at this stage. 4. What actions and support systems could be put into place to promote and safeguard Marcus’s education and well-​being? The personal education plan and the emerging care plan (including the health plan) would coordinate the support for Marcus. These may include the school setting educational targets, as well as establishing a behaviour programme (to enable Marcus to access the learning), the use of foster home-​school diary or communication book to ensure consistency of approach, attendance for Marcus at after-​school clubs and the use of a school ‘buddy’ system to link Marcus up with friendly peers. Under the banner of health, the plans may involve access to appropriate therapy or other services to support his emotional and mental health, as well as a full health assessment. The general care plan, in addition to confirming the medium-​term plan and placement arrangements, may address issues related to his ethnic background, ensuring that these are addressed within school and the foster home.

Chapter 11 Case study –​Christa 1. What issues might impede effective multi-​agency practice in this scenario? The three key workers involved appear to reflect very different dispositions towards working with the parents to support the needs of the children. Thinking back to Chapter Two of this book, in which Morrison’s (1991) model of working with families was discussed, it is possible to plot these different professional attitudes. The social worker appears to be operating within a ‘play fair’ or ‘developmental’ approach, encouraging full participation from the parents, and taking a practical view that the stepfather, as a day-​to-​day carer for Christa, has a right to be involved, and should be considered as having equal status as a parent for the purposes of being involved in the work. The health visitor may be working within a ‘strategic adversarial’ approach, being wary of the parents as a result of her past experiences, and weighing up the potential losses and gains of her efforts. The school teacher appears to be taking a ‘paternalistic’ approach, seeing herself as having expert knowledge about parenting, for which the parents should be grateful. Her exasperation at the parents’ lack of response to her ‘expertise’ illustrates that the school believes they know best

189

190

190

Appendix

and that their superior understanding of the situation confirms their belief that Christa should be removed from the care of the parents. The school’s position is further demonstrated by them taking a narrow legalistic position about working with the stepfather, which is in contrast with the view of the social worker, who sees the stepfather as an important figure in the household. 2. What multi-​agency skills could be used by those involved to move this situation on to a more positive footing? The starting point for any successful work would be for everyone to acknowledge their positions by being critically reflective, and then to honestly share these with the other professionals. While this may be uncomfortable for a time, unless this occurs, there is likely to be little progress in agreeing upon how best to proceed. It may be helpful to begin by discussing the areas of agreement. There appear to be shared values and a shared goal in that both the professionals and parents see the need for change and support with parenting. The initial child protection conference represents an opportunity via a formal process to share information and concerns, and this could be the start of a professional dialogue. The workers need to respect one another’s views and approaches, while challenging one another on areas of disagreement. One way to do this would be to discuss and agree upon what the aim of any multi-​agency work would be, and this is likely to be keeping the children safe and putting their needs at the heart of the process. This provides a basis for any challenges: if the health visitor feels the social worker is emphasizing the parents’ rights at the expense of the welfare of the child, then this agreement about what sits at the heart of the work –​the children’s welfare –​provides a good focus for her challenge to the social worker. Similarly, if the social worker disagrees with the teacher’s dismissal of the rights of the stepfather to be involved, then they need to argue against this from a position that starts from what is best for the children. The next step would be for the team to agree upon the goals that need to be met, and this is where interpersonal and individual skills of active listening, negotiating and compromising will be important. Once these goals are established, clear ground rules and expectations on such matters as information sharing will need to be agreed upon, along with a clear sense of how each person can contribute their expertise to the process. Issues of equity and power will also need to be worked through if they are going to be seriously addressed. If anyone in the team feels they are being seen or treated as less important than another member, and this is not openly acknowledged and addressed, this could have a serious negative impact upon the effectiveness of the teamwork.

191

Bibliography

Arthur, R. (2010), Young Offenders and the Law:  How the Law Responds to Youth Offending, London: Routledge. Atkinson, M., A. Wilkin, A. Stott, P. Doherty and K. Kinder (2002), Multi-​Agency Working: A Detailed Study, Slough:  National foundation for Educational Research. Available online:  http://​www.nfer. ac.uk/​nfer/​publications/​css02/​css02.pdf (accessed 1 October 2016). Bate, A. and D. Foster (2015), Sure Start (England) Briefing Paper Number 7257. London:  House of Commons Library. Available online:  file://​/​C:/​Documents%20and%20Settings/​user/​My%20 Documents/​Downloads/​CBP-​7257.pdf (accessed 3 March 2017). Beckett, C., J. Dickens, G. Schofield, G. Philip and J. Young (2016), ‘Independence and Effectiveness: Messages from the Role of Independent Reviewing Officers in England’, Children and Youth Services Review, 71 (1): 148–​156. Berridge, D. (2007), ‘Theory and Explanation in Child Welfare: Education and Looked-​After Children’, Child and Family Social Work, 12 (1): 1–​10. Berridge, D. (2012), ‘Educating Young People in Care: What Have We Learned?’ Children and Youth Services Review, 34 (6): 1171–​1175. Borland, M. (1998), ‘Education for Children in Residential and Foster Care’, Research in Education No. 63, Glasgow: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Brandon, M., A. Howe, V. Dagley, C. Salter, C. Warren and J. Black (2006), ‘What Appears to Be Helping or Hindering Practitioners in Implementing the Common Assessment Framework and Lead Professional Working?’ Child Abuse Review, 15: 396–​413. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development:  Experiments by Nature and Design, London: Harvard University Press. Burden, T. (1998), Social Policy and Welfare, London: Pluto Press. Byrne, T. and C. Padfield (1985), Social Services Made Simple, 3rd edn, London: Heinemann. Calder, M., M. McKinnon and R. Sneddon (2012), National Risk Framework to Support the Assessment of Children and Young People, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Cawson, P., C. Wattam, S. Brooker and G. Kelly (2000), Child Maltreatment in the UK: A Study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, London: NSPCC. Chakelian, A. (2015), ‘Budget 2015: What Welfare Changes Did George Osborne Announce, and What Do They Mean?’ New Statesman, 8 July. Available online: http://​www.newstatesman.com/​staggers/​ 2015/​07/​budget-​2015-​what-​welfare-​changes-​did-​george-​osborne-​announce-​and-​what-​do-​they-​ mean (accessed 3 March 2017).

192

192

Bibliography

Cheminais, R. (2009), Effective Multi-​Agency Partnerships:  Putting Every Child Matters into Practice, London: Sage. Children Act 1989 (c.41), London: Crown Copyright. Children Act 2004 (c.31), London: Crown Copyright. Children and Families Act 2014 (c.6), London: Crown Copyright. Children and Social Work Act 2017 (c.16), London: Crown Copyright. Clark, P. (1993), ‘A Typology of Multidisciplinary Education in Gerontology and Geriatrics:  Are We Really Doing What We Say We Are?’ Journal of Interprofessional Care, 7(3): 217–​227. Coad, J. (2008), ‘Bringing Together Child Health and Social Care Provision: Challenges and Opportunities for Multi-​Agency Working’, in K. Morris (ed.), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 29–​46, Bristol: The Policy Press. Community Links (2011), ‘A fence at the top of the cliff is preferable to an ambulance at the bottom’, London: Community Links. Available online: http://​www.csrwire.com/​press_​releases/​31761-​A-​fence-​ at-​the-​top-​of-​the-​cliff-​is-​preferable-​to-​an-​ambulance-​at-​the-​bottom-​ (accessed 30 March 2017). Coram Voice (2015), Children and Young People’s Views on Being in Care:  A  Literature Review, Bristol:  University of Bristol. Available online:  http://​www.coramvoice.org.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​ Children’s%20views%20lit%20review%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 5 March 2017). Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37), London: Crown Copyright. CWDC (Children’s Workforce Development Council) (2009), The Team Around the Child (TAC) and Lead Professional: A Guide for Managers, Leeds: Children’s Workforce Development Council. Daines, R., K. Lyon and P. Parsloe (1990), Aiming for Partnership, Ilford, Essex: Barnardo’s. Davis, A., A. Davis and T. Glynn (2008), ‘Making Sense of Social Work Practice in Multi-​Agency Mental Health Services’, in K. Morris (ed.), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working:  Making a Difference, 85–​103, Bristol: The Policy Press. Davis, J. (2011), Integrated Children’s Services, London: Sage. Department for Constitutional Affairs (2006), A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 3rd edn, London: Department for Constitutional Affairs. Department of Justice (2016), Youth Justice: Information on Services, Structures, Profiles, Managing Youth Offending and Victims of Crime, Belfast:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.justice-​ ni.gov.uk/​topics/​youth-​justice (accessed 10 September 2016). DfE (Department for Education) (2014a), Promoting the Education of Looked After Children Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​ government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​335964/​Promoting_​the_​educational_​ achievement_​of_​looked_​after_​children_​Final_​23-​…pdf (accessed 4 March 2017). DfE (Department for Education) (2014b), Schools: Statutory Guidance. Available online: https://​www. gov.uk/​government/​collections/​statutory-​guidance-​schools (accessed 9 February 2016). DfE (Department for Education) (2014c), Special Educational Needs and Disability: A Guide for Parents and Carers, London: Crown Copyright. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​ system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​417435/​Special_​educational_​needs_​and_​disabilites_​guide_​ for_​parents_​and_​carers.pdf (accessed 27 May 2016). DfE (Department for Education) (2014d), Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five,

193

Bibliography

London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  http://​www.foundationyears.org.uk/​files/​2014/​07/​ EYFS_​framework_​from_​1_​September_​2014_​_​with_​clarification_​note.pdf (accessed 4 March 2017). DfE (Department for Education) (2016a), Characteristics of Children in Need: 2015 to 2016. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​564620/​ SFR52-​2016_​Main_​Text.pdf (accessed 8 March 2017). DfE (Department for Education) (2016b), Children Looked After in England (Including Adoption) Year Ending 31 March 2016. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​ attachment_​data/​file/​556331/​SFR41_​2016_​Text.pdf (accessed 8 March 2017). DfE (Department for Education) (2016c), Outcomes for children looked after by local authorities in England, 31 March 2015. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​ attachment_​data/​file/​509965/​SFR11_​2016_​SFRText.pdf (accessed 2 May 2016). DfE and DoH (Department for Education and Department of Health) (2015a), Promoting the Health and Well-​Being of Looked-​After Children: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups and NHS England, London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​413368/​Promoting_​the_​health_​and_​well-​ being_​of_​looked-​after_​children.pdf (accessed 24 October 2016). DfE and DoH (Department for Education and Department of Health) (2015b), Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 To 25 Years. Statutory Guidance for Organisations Which Work with and Support Children and Young People Who Have Special Educational Needs or Disabilities, London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​ uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​398815/​SEND_​Code_​of_​Practice_​January_​2015.pdf (accessed 27 May 2016). DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1999), The National Curriculum Handbook for Primary Teachers in England, Key Stages 1 and 2, London: Stationery Office. DfEE and DH (Department for Education and Employment and Department of Health) (2000), Education of Young People in Public Care: Guidance, London: DfEE and DH. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2004), Every Child Matters:  Change for Children, Nottingham: DfES Publications. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2006a), Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children in Care, Norwich: Stationery Office. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2006b), The Common Assessment Framework for Children and Young People: Practitioner’s Guide, Nottingham: DfES Publications. DH (Department of Health) (1995), The Challenge of Partnership in Child Protection: Practice Guide, London: HMSO. DH (Department of Health) (2000), The Child’s World: Assessing Children in Need, London: Department of Health. DH (Department of Health) (2002), Women’s Mental Health: Into the Mainstream –​Strategic Development of Mental Health Care for Women, London: Department of Health. DH (Department of Health) (2006), The Caldicott Guardian Manual 2006, London:  Department of Health. DHSSPS (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety) (2011), Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland (UNOCINI), Belfast:  Crown Copyright. Available online:

193

194

194

Bibliography

https://​www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​dhssps/​unocini-​guidance.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016). DHSSPS (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety) (2016), Co-​Operating to Safeguard Children and Young People in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Crown Copyright. Available online: https://​ www.health-​ni.gov.uk/​publications/​co-​operating-​safeguard-​children-​and-​young-​people-​northern-​ ireland (accessed 10 September 2016). Dugan, E. (2015), ‘Family Services at Risk as Thousands of Children’s Centres Face Budget Cuts’, Independent, 18 October. Available online:  http://​www.independent.co.uk/​news/​uk/​home-​news/​ family-​ s ervices-​ at-​ r isk-​ a s-​ t housands-​ of-​ childrens-​ c entres-​ f ace-​ budget-​ c uts-​ a 6699126.html (accessed 23 March 2016). Edwards, A., A. Apostolov, I. Dooher and A. Popova (2008), ‘Working with Extended Schools to Prevent Social Exclusion’, in K. Morris (ed.), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 47–​ 66, Bristol: The Policy Press. End Child Poverty (2014), End Child Poverty Response to the Child Poverty Strategy Consultation, London:  End Child Poverty. Available online:  http://​www.cpag.org.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​uploads/​ ECP%20response%20to%20Child%20Poverty%20Strategy.pdf (accessed 19 March 2017). Equality Act 2010 (c.15), London: Crown Copyright. Family Rights Group (2012), Family Group Conferences. Available online:  http://​www.frg.org.uk/​ involving-​families/​family-​group-​conferences (accessed 30 April 2016). Fitzgerald, D. and J. Kay (2008), Working Together in Children’s Services, London: Routledge. Foley, P. (2008), ‘Reflecting on Skills for Work with Children’, in P. Foley and A. Rixon (eds), Changing Children’s Services: Working and Learning Together, 247–​279, Bristol: Policy Press. Frost, N. (2005), Professionalism, Partnership and Joined-​Up Thinking, Dartington:  Research into Practice. Frost, N. (2011), ‘A Future for Interdisciplinary Professional Work: Mainstream to Oppositional?’ in A. Brock and C. Rankin (eds), Professionalism in the Interdisciplinary Early Years Team: Supporting Young Children and Their Families, 171–​180, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Frost, N. (2013), ‘Children in Need, Looked-​After Children and Interprofessional Working’, in B. Littlechild and R. Smith (eds), A Handbook for Interprofessional Practice in the Human Services, 131–​ 142, Harlow: Pearson. Galvani, S. (2008), ‘Working Together:  Responding to People with Alcohol and Drug Problems’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 105–​126, Bristol: The Policy Press. Gasper, M. (2010), Multi-​Agency Working in the Early Years: Challenges and Opportunities, London: Sage. General Medical Council (2007), 0–​18 Years: Guidance for All Doctors, Manchester: General Medical Council. Gersick, C. (1988), ‘Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development’, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1): 9–​41. Glasby, J. and H. Dickinson (2008), Partnership Working in Health and Social Care, Bristol:  The Policy Press. Goepel, J., H. Childerhouse and S. Sharpe (2015), Inclusive Primary Teaching: A Critical Approach to Equality and Special Educational Needs and Disability, 2nd edn, Northwich: Critical Publishing.

195

Bibliography

Greco, V., P. Sloper, R. Webb and J. Beecham (2005), An Exploration of Different Models of Multi-​Agency Partnerships in Key Worker Services for Disabled Children: Effectiveness and Costs, London: Department for Education and Skills. Halder, G. (2014), Learning Mentors. Available online:  https://​www.prospects.ac.uk/​job-​profiles/​ learning-​mentor (accessed 9 February 2016). Hastings, G., N. Bailey, G. Bramley, M. Gannon and D. Watkins (2015), The Cost of the Cuts: The Impact on Local Government and Poorer Communities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Hayden, C. (2005), ‘More Than a Piece Of Paper?:  Personal Education Plans and “Looked After” Children in England’, Child and Family Social Work, 10 (4): 343–​352. Health Careers (2016a), General Practice (GP). Available online:  https://​www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/​ explore-​roles/​general-​practice-​gp (accessed 9 February 2016). Health Careers (2016b), Health Visitor. Available online:  https://​www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/​explore-​ roles/​public-​health/​health-​visitor%20 (accessed 9 February 2016). Health Careers (2016c), Occupational Therapist. Available online:  https://​www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/​ explore-​roles/​allied-​health-​professionals/​occupational-​therapist (accessed 4 March 2016). HM Government (2015a), Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services to Children, Young People, Parents and Carers, London: Crown Copyright. HM Government (2015b), Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-​Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children, London: Crown Copyright. Available online: https://​ www.gov.uk/ ​ g overnment/ ​ uploads/ ​ s ystem/​ uploads/​ attachment_​ d ata/​ f ile/​ 4 19595/​ Working_​ Together_​to_​Safeguard_​Children.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016). HO and DH (Home Office and Department of Health) (1992), Memorandum of Good Practice on Video Recorded Interviews with Child Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings, London: HMSO. Holmes, L. and S. McDermid (2016), ‘The Common Assessment Framework: The Impact of the Lead Professional on Families and Professionals as Part of a Continuum of Care in England’, Child and Family Social Work, 21 (4): 530–​538. Home Office (2014), Working Together to Safeguard Children:  Multi-​ Agency Safeguarding Hubs, London:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​news/​working-​ together-​to-​safeguard-​children-​multi-​agency-​safeguarding-​hubs (accessed 10 September 2016). Home Office (2016a), The Criminal Justice Process. Available online: https://​www.police.uk/​information-​ and-​advice/​court-​service/​the-​process/​ (accessed 9 February 2016). Home Office (2016b), Youth Offending Teams. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​youth-​offending-​ team (accessed 9 February 2016). Hughes, N. and D. Prior (2008), ‘Delivering Youth Justice through Partnership Working’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 9–​27, Bristol: The Policy Press. Information Commissioner’s Office (2017), The Guide to Data Protection, Wilmslow, Cheshire: Information Commissioner’s Office. Available online:  https://​ico.org.uk/​media/​for-​organisations/​ guide-​to-​data-​protection-​2–​7.pdf (accessed 3 March 2017) Institute of Public Care (2012), Early Intervention and Prevention with Children and Families: Getting the Most from Team Around the Family Systems, Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Available online:  https://​ipc.brookes.ac.uk/​publications/​pdf/​Early_​Intervention_​and_​Prevention_​with_​ Children_​and_​Families_​June_​2012.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016).

195

196

196

Bibliography

Jackson, S. (1994), ‘Educating Children in Residential and Foster Care’, Oxford Review of Education, 20 (3): 267–​280. Jent, J., C. Eaton, L. Knickerbocker, W. Lambert, M. Merrick and S. Dandes (2011), ‘Multidisciplinary Child Protection Decision Making about Physical Abuse: Determining Substantiation Thresholds and Biases’, Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (9): 1673–​1682. Jordan, L. (2008), ‘Accessing and Using Multi-​Agency Services: The Experience of Families’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 67–​84, Bristol: The Policy Press. Joughin, C. and C. Law (2005), Evidence to Inform the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services, London: Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health. Kirby, P. (2003), Child Labour in Britain 1750–​1870, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Laming, L. (2003), The Victoria Climbié Inquiry, London: Crown Copyright. Lavalette, M. and L. Penketh (eds) (2014), Race, Racism and Social Work:  Contemporary Issues and Debates, University of Bristol: Policy Press. Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards in Wales (2008), All Wales Child Protection Procedures. Available online: http://​www.ssiacymru.org.uk/​resource/​0_​4_​Procedures.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016). Marshall, D. and T. Thomas (2011), ‘Youth Justice and Children’s Rights’, in P. Jones and G. Walker (eds), Children’s Rights in Practice, 188–​198, London: Sage. Martin, P. and S. Jackson (2002), ‘Educational Success for Children in Public Care: Advice from a Group of High Achievers’, Child and Family Social Work, 7: 121–​130. McColgan, M., A. Campbell and J. Marshall (2013), ‘Safeguarding Children and Child Protection’, in B. Littlechild and R. Smith (eds), A Handbook for Interprofessional Practice in the Human Services, 117–​130, Harlow: Pearson. McLaughlin, E., J. Muncie and G. Hughes (2001), ‘The Permanent Revolution:  New Labour, New Public Management and the Modernization of Criminal Justice’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1 (3): 301–​318. Ministry of Justice (2013), Code of Practice for Youth Conditional Cautions: Crime & Disorder Act 1998 (as Amended by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012), London: The Stationery Office. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​ uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​243443/​9780108512179.pdf (accessed 14 September 2016). Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board (2013a), Modern Youth Offending Partnerships: Guidance on Effective Youth Offending Team Governance in England, London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​ data/​file/​319291/​youth-​offending-​partnerships-​guidance.pdf (accessed 14 September 2016). Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board (2013b), Youth Cautions Guidance for Police and Youth Offending Teams, Ministry of Justice: Crown Copyright. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​354050/​yjb-​youth-​cautions-​police-​YOTs. pdf (accessed 14 September 2016). Morris, K. (2008a), ‘Conclusion’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 167–​174, Bristol: The Policy Press. Morris, K. (2008b), ‘Setting the Scene’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 1–​8, Bristol: The Policy Press.

197

Bibliography

Morrison, T. (1991), ‘Partnership, Collaboration and Change Under the Children Act’, in M. Adcock and R. White (eds), Significant Harm: Its Management and Outcome, 85–​100, Croydon: Significant Publications. Moss, P. and P. Petrie (2002), Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces:  Public Policy, Childhood and Children, London: Routledge Falmer. Mullender, A., G. Hague, U. Imam, L. Kelly, E. Malos and L. Regan (2002), Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence, London: Sage. National Careers Service (2016), School Nurse. Available online:  https://​nationalcareersservice.direct. gov.uk/​advice/​planning/​jobprofiles/​Pages/​schoolnurse.aspx (accessed 9 February 2016). National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse (1996), Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, Volume 1:  The Report, London: Stationery Office. National Probation Service (2016), About Us. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​ organisations/​national-​probation-​service/​about (accessed 9 February 2017). NCT (National Childbirth Trust) (2015), What Is a Midwife? Available online: https://​www.nct.org.uk/​ pregnancy/​role-​midwife (accessed 9 February 2016). Norozi, S. and T. Moen (2016), ‘Childhood as a Social Construction’, Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6 (2): 75–​80. NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) (2016), Home Alone. Available online:  https://​www.nspcc.org.uk/​preventing-​abuse/​keeping-​children-​safe/​leaving-​child-​home-​ alone/​(accessed 2 May 2016). NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) (2017), Statistics on Child Abuse: How Many Children Are Abused or Neglected in the UK? Available online: https://​www.nspcc. org.uk/​services-​and-​resources/​research-​and-​resources/​statistics/​ (accessed 4 March 2017). Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (2015), Early help: Whose responsibility?, Manchester: Ofsted. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​ 410378/​Early_​help_​whose_​responsibility.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016). Parton, N. (1985), The Politics of Child Abuse, London: MacMillan Publishers. Percy-​Smith, J. (2005), What Works in Strategic Partnerships for Children?, Ilford: Barnardo’s. Petrie, P., J. Boddy, C. Cameron, E. Heptinstall, S. McQuail, A. Simon and V. Wigfall (2009), Pedagogy –​ a Holistic, Personal Approach to Work with Children and Young People, Across Services, London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education. Phillips, L. (2011), ‘Sure Start Funding Must Be Ring-​Fenced to Save Children’s Centres’, Public Finance, 7 April. Available online:  http://​www.publicfinance.co.uk/​news/​2011/​04/​sure-​start-​funding-​must-​ be-​ring-​fenced-​save-​childrens-​centres (accessed 4 March 2017). Pithouse, A. and K. Broadhurst (2009), ‘The Common Assessment Framework: Effective Innovation for Children and Young People with “Additional Needs” or Simply More Technical Hype?’, in K. Broadhurst, C. Grover and J. Jamieson (eds), Critical Perspectives on Safeguarding Children, 73–​91, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Platt, D. and D. Turney (2014), ‘Making Threshold Decisions in Child Protection: A Conceptual Analysis’, British Journal of Social Work, 44 (6): 1472–​1490.

197

198

198

Bibliography

Pragnell, C. (2002), The Cleveland Child Sexual Abuse Scandal. Available online:  http://​www.davidlane.org/​children/​choct2002/​choct2002/​pragnell%20cleveland%20abuse.html (accessed 2 February 2016). Rankin, C. and F. Butler (2011), ‘Issues and Challenges for the Interdisciplinary Team in Supporting the Twenty-​First-​Century Family’, in A. Brock and C. Rankin (eds), Professionalism in the Interdisciplinary Early Years Team:  Supporting Young Children and Their Families, 39–​58, London:  Continuum International Publishing Group. Rickards, T and S. Moger (2000), ‘Creative Leadership Processes in Project Team Development:  An Alternative to Tuckman’s Stage Model’, British Journal of Management, 11: 273–​283. Sellgren, K. (2016), ‘Cash Shortage for Special Educational Needs Support’, BBC News, 2 June. Available online: http://​www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​education-​36425290 (accessed 31 October 2016). Shelter (2016), What Is Social Housing? Available online:  http://​england.shelter.org.uk/​campaigns_​/​ why_​we_​campaign/​Improving_​social_​housing/​what_​is_​social_​housing (accessed 9 February 2016). Smith, R. (2013), ‘Working Together: Why It’s Important and Why It’s Difficult’, in B. Littlechild and R. Smith (eds), A Handbook for Interprofessional Practice in the Human Services, 11–​23, Harlow: Pearson. Stainton Rogers, W. (1989), ‘Effective Co-​Operation in Child Protection Work’, in S. Morgan and P. Righton (eds), Child Care: Concerns and Conflicts, 82–​94, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Stein, M. (2006), ‘Wrong Turn’, The Guardian, 6 December. Available online:  http://​www.guardian. co.uk/​society/​2006/​dec/​06/​childrensservices.guardiansocietysupplement1 (accessed 2 May 2016). Stokes, J. and G. Schmidt (2011), ‘Race, Poverty and Child Protection Decision Making’, British Journal of Social Work, 41 (6): 1105–​1121. The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations (2010), Statutory Instrument Number 959, Children and Young Persons, England. The Children’s Society (2016), Child Poverty. Available online:  http://​www.childrenssociety.org.uk/​ what-​we-​do/​policy-​and-​lobbying/​child-​poverty (accessed 30 April 2016). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1976), 6th edn, Oxford: OUP/​Clarendon Press. The Scottish Government (2014), National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland, Edinburgh: Crown Copyright. Available online:  http://​www.gov.scot/​Resource/​Doc/​334290/​0109279.pdf (accessed 4 March 2016). The Scottish Government (2015), Whole System Approach for Young People Who Offend, Edinburgh: Crown Copyright. Available online: http://​www.gov.scot/​Topics/​Justice/​policies/​young-​ offending/​whole-​system-​approach (accessed 10 September 2016). The Scottish Government (2016), Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), Edinburgh:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  http://​www.gov.scot/​Topics/​People/​Young-​People/​gettingitright (accessed 4 March 2016). The Who Cares? Trust (2003), Education Matters, London: The Who Cares? Trust. The Who Cares? Trust (2010), Social Pedagogy –​What Is It?, London: The Who Cares? Trust. Available online:  http://​www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/​pages/​social-​pedagogy-​what-​is-​it.html (accessed 5 October 2016). Thomas, N. (2016), ‘Theresa May Defends Tories’ Economic Record’, Financial Times, 20 July. Available online:  https://​www.ft.com/​content/​f6610b6e-​ea50-​317b-​bd40-​ef587d1c6618 (accessed 3 March 2017).

199

Bibliography

Tuckman, B. (1965), ‘Developmental Sequence in Small Groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6): 384–​99. Tutt, R. and P. Williams (2015), The SEND Code of Practice 0–​25 Years:  Policy, Provision & Practice, London: Sage. United Nations (1989), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, London:  UNICEF UK. Available online:  http://​www.unicef.org.uk/​Documents/​Publication-​pdfs/​UNCRC_​ PRESS200910web.pdf (accessed 14 October 2016). United Nations (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, New York: United Nations. Available online: http://​www.un.org/​disabilities/​documents/​convention/​ convoptprot-​e.pdf (accessed 14 October 2016). Walker, G. (2015), ‘Institutional Habitus and Educational Outcomes of Looked After Children: Lessons for Teachers’, Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal, 7 (1): 51–​61. Walker, G. (2017), ‘Children Aren’t Standardized, They Are Unique:  Using Bourdieu to Expose the Complexity behind Educational Outcomes of Looked-​After Children’, International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, 6 (1): 980–​988. Ward, N. (2008), ‘Multi-​Agency Working and Partnership in Services for Adults with Learning Disabilities’, in K. Morris (ed), Social Work and Multi-​Agency Working: Making a Difference, 127–​145, Bristol: The Policy Press. Watt, N. (2013), ‘David Cameron Makes Leaner State a Permanent Goal’, The Guardian, 12 November. Available online:  https://​www.theguardian.com/​politics/​2013/​nov/​11/​david-​cameron-​policy-​shift-​ leaner-​efficient-​state (accessed 3 March 2017). Webb, S. and B. Webb (1963), English Poor Law History Part 1: The Old Poor Law, London: Frank Cass and Company. Welsh Government and Youth Justice Board (2014), Welsh Government/​Youth Justice Board Joint Strategy to Improve Services for Young People from Wales at Risk of Becoming Involved in, or in, the Youth Justice System. Cardiff:  Crown Copyright. Available online:  https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​374572/​Youth_​Justice_​Strategy_​English.PDF (accessed 10 September 2016). West, A. (2015), ‘Education Policy and Governance in England under the Coalition Government (2010–​15): Academies, the Pupil Premium and Free Early Education’, London Review of Education, 13 (2): 21–​36. White, S., C. Hall and S. Peckover (2009), ‘The Descriptive Tyranny of the Common Assessment Framework:  Technologies of Categorization and Professional Practice in Child Welfare’, British Journal of Social Work, 39 (7): 1197–​1217. Wigfall, V. and P. Moss (2001), More Than the Sum of Its Parts? A Study of a Multi-​Agency Child Care Network, London: National Children’s Bureau. Williams, R. (1961), The Long Revolution, London: Chatto and Windus. Wilson, V. and A. Pirrie (2000), Multidisciplinary Teamworking:  Indicators of Good Practice, Edinburgh: The Scottish Council for Research in Education. Youth Justice Board (2014), Use Reports: Section 5 Case Management Guidance, London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Available online: https://​www.gov.uk/​government/​publications/​use-​ reports/​use-​reports-​section-​5-​case-​management-​guidance (accessed 16 September 2016).

199

200

201

Index

A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 40 Abbott, D. 108 abduction 155 absolute right xi, xvi, 39, 40 abuse children’s disclosures of 180 definitions of 111–​12 prevalence of 113–​15 see also emotional abuse; neglect of children; physical abuse; sexual abuse accommodation 20, 31, 61, 62, 144, 145, 146, 147, 182, 183 secure accommodation 145, 146 under section 20 of the Children Act (1989) 144, 145 adoption 21, 40, 144, 145, 147 Adoption and Children Act (2002) 145 Advocacy xi, 24, 25, 165, 178 age of consent 122 Allen, C. 22 Almoners 12 Anning, A. 22 anti-​social behaviour and anti-​social behaviour orders (ASBOs) 53, 72, 78, 133, 134, 135, 138 appropriate adult xi, 134 area child protection committees 110 Arthur, R. 130, 132, 133, 138 Atkinson, M. 35, 36, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 babysitting 113, 124, 125 Barnardo’s 12, 21 Bate, A. 71 Beckett, C. 153 Berridge, D. 150, 156 Bifulco, A. 93 Boden, I. 141 Borland, M. 150 Boulton, N. 127 boundaries, professional 27, 31, 160, 179 Brandon, M. 54, 55, 76, 80 Broadhurst, K. 77, 79 Brock, A. 82, 169 Bronfenbrenner, U. 58

bullying 18, 19, 112 Bunn, A. 93 Burden, T. 13 Butler, F. 167 Byrne, T. 10 Calder, M. 52 Caldicott guardians 45 Campbell, A. 160 care order 21, 25, 144, 145, 146, 147 care plan, looked after children xi, 148, 149, 150, 174, 188, 189 care proceedings xi, 132 Cawson, P. 114 Chakelian, A. 11 change, organizational 14–​15, 63 charities 11, 12, 21, 88, 132 Charity Organization Society 12 Cheminais, R. 1, 7, 9, 25, 29 child-​centred approaches 30, 63, 76, 162 child development xii, xvi, 3, 18, 23, 30, 34, 42, 49, 53, 56, 58, 83, 84, 85 88, 89, 90, 92, 104, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 126, 149, 172, 183, 184, 186 child labour 112, 130 child protection plan xii, xiii, xiv, 26, 30–​1, 34, 113, 119–​20, 126 child protection procedures 116–​20 child protection review conference xii, 13, 119–​120 child support xiv financial 21 Childerhouse, H. 89, 101, 104, 105, 106 Childhood Matters (1996) 114, 115, 126 Children Act (1989) xi, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, 3, 8–​9, 12, 13–​ 14, 21, 27, 31, 51, 53, 55–​6, 71, 78, 83–​84, 90, 95, 100, 111, 116–​17, 120, 122, 137, 144–​5, 146, 177 events leading to 13 political context of 13 Section 17 xii, 3, 8, 51, 53, 55, 56, 78, 83, 84, 90, 95, 100, 116, 117, 120 Section 20 144, 145 Section 22 8 Section 25 146

202

202

Index Section 27 9, 14, 177 Section 35 12 Section 38 145 Section 44 145 Section 46 145, 120 Section 47 xiv, xvi, xvii, 3, 51, 53, 56, 111, 116–​17, 122 see also Section 47; enquiries underlying philosophy of 13 Children Act (2004) 121, 9 Section 10 9 Section 52 151 Children and Families Act (2014) 8, 95, 96 Children and family court advisory and support service (CAFCASS) 101 Children and Young Persons Act (1933) 124, 130 Children and Young Persons Act (1969) 130 children in care xv, 3, 114, 143, 144, 149–​50, 155 children in the criminal justice system xviii, 3, 129–​41, 173, 187 children in need of protection xi, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, 3, 17, 41, 52, 53, 56–​8, 66, 83, 85, 86, 87, 109–​27, 172, 184 children in need of support xi, xii, xiv, xvii, 3, 17, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56–​7, 66, 78, 83–​93, 95, 100, 111, 116, 117, 125, 172, 173, 183–​4 children requiring early help xi, xii, xiv, 3, 52, 53, 55, 56, 71–​82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 95, 102–​3, 172, 182, 185 children with special educational needs and disability (SEND) xii, xiv, xvii, 8, 17, 51, 55, 78, 95–​108, 149, 164, 173 children’s centres 14, 16, 48, 71–​2 children’s rights 19, 31, 41, 46, 80, 134, 137–​8, 139, 140, 154, 174 children’s social care xv, xvi, xvii, 1, 8, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 39, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 59, 65, 78, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 101, 104, 106, 109, 116, 117, 118, 120, 124, 125, 126, 145, 146, 149, 153, 168, 178, 179, 180 children’s trusts 15 Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) 74 Clark, P. 7 Cleveland, England 13, 14 Climbié, Victoria 14, 41 Coad, J. 33 coalition government 15, 71, 174 Code of Practice (2015), for children with special educational needs and disability (SEND) 96, 97, 99 see also children with special educational needs and disability (SEND)

Colwell, Maria 13 common assessment framework (CAF) xii, xiv, xv, 3, 51, 52–​6, 66, 73–​4, 85, 89, 116, 172, 181, 183 multi-​agency issues associated with 75–​81 principles of 52 structure of 53–​4 communities of practice 167, 168, 169, 174 Community Links 81 confidentiality xiii, 37, 40, 42–​3, 45, 47, 50, 181 consent xiii, 9, 24, 38–​9, 42–​4, 45–​9, 54, 62, 74, 75, 77, 99, 102, 106, 114, 121–​2, 146, 172, 179–​81 see also informed consent Conservative government xvii, 13, 14, 15, 71 Coram Voice 144 core group for implementing child protection plans xii, xiii, 118, 119–​20, 126 corporate parenting xiii, 151–​2, 154–​5 Cottrell, D. 22 court orders xi, xv, 20, 42, 47, 117, 120, 131, 138, 139, 144–​5 care order 21, 25, 144–​5, 146, 147 family court orders xi, 144–​5 youth court orders and disposals 135–​6; see also anti-​social behaviour order; supreme court; youth court Crime and Disorder Act (1998) 131, 132, 137 criminal justice system xiii, xviii, 3, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 173 crown court 135, 136 Crown Prosecution Service 19, 135 Daines, R. 29 Data Protection Act (1998) 37–​40, 41, 45, 47, 171 principles of 38 Davis, A. 34 Davis, J. 9 decision making xiv, 19, 24, 26, 32, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 54, 63, 66, 74, 85, 89, 90, 116, 118, 120, 125–​6, 155, 166, 173, 181, 184, 185, 187 clarity about processes of 31 Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) 15, 174–​5 Department for Constitutional Affairs 39, 40 Department for Education (DfE) 15, 16, 17, 53, 84, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 113, 114, 143, 144–​7, 148, 150, 151, 175 Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) 151 Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 1, 14, 53, 71, 73, 74, 110, 148 Department of Health (DH) 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 63, 115, 178

203

Index developmental needs of children 3, 18, 23, 30, 34, 42, 49, 53, 56, 58, 60–​1, 74, 78, 79, 80, 92, 104, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 126, 149, 172, 183, 184, 186 Dickinson, H. 7, 9 director of children’s services 15 disabled children xii, xiv, xvii, 8, 17, 18, 51, 51, 58, 64, 78, 84, 95–​108, 118, 144, 145, 149, 152, 173, 185 see also children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Dobel-​Ober, D. 156 Doherty, P. 35 doli incapax 132, 137 domestic violence 18, 20, 53, 56, 72, 78, 84, 89, 112, 114–​15 Dugan, E. 72 early help xi, xii, xiii, xiv, 3, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 66, 71–​82, 83, 85, 87–​9, 95, 102–​3, 116, 172, 182–​3, 185 see also children requiring early help Early Intervention Foundation 82 early years settings xvii, xviii, 16, 24, 62, 73, 88, 98, 99, 102, 184 education, health and care (EHC) plan xiv, 51, 97, 99–​ 105, 106, 107–​8, 173, 184–​5 education of looked after children 150–​2 education services 17 Edwards, A. 76 Ellis, T. 141 emergency action 117, 145, 155, emergency protection order 145, 155 emotional abuse xvi, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 123, 124, 185–​6 definition of 112 End Child Poverty 80, 91 Equality Act (2010) 97, 103, 106 equality of opportunity 58 ethnic minorities 4, 38, 58, 59, 188–​9 European Data Protection Directive 37 Every Child Matters programme 1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 71, 72, 110, 174, 175 exclusion of children from school 19, 81, 140, 151, 152, 153, 154, 174 family group conference xiv, 86, 87 family network carers 146 Family Rights Group 86, 87 family support plan xiv, 86 Fitzgerald, D. 1, 7, 9, 34, 93, 161, 163 Foley, P. 164, 167 Foster, D. 71 foster care 25, 65, 99, 105, 136, 140, 146, 147, 149, 155, 187

Frost, N. 22, 27, 93, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 174 functional divisions in agencies 24, 30, 51, 64, 76, 89, 167, 177, 185 Galvani, S. 48, 139 Gasper, M. 1 General Medical Council 45 general practitioners (GPs) xv, 8, 18, 98, 101, 118, 187 Gersick, C. 163 Gillick competence 46–​7 Glasby, J. 7, 9 Glynn, T. 34 Goepel, J. H. 89, 101, 104, 105, 106 Greco, V. 54 Green, J. 22 Guide to Data Protection (2017) 37 Halder, G. 17 Hall, C. 80, 90 Harker, R. 156 harm to children xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 3, 9, 12, 24, 30, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 66, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 96, 106, 110, 111, 112, 114–​27, 144, 147, 155, 168, 172, 173, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185–​6 see also significant harm Hastings, G. 1 Hayden, C. 153 Health Careers 18, 51 health services xviii, 18–​19, 88, 104, 132, 184 health visitors xiii, xv, 8, 9, 24, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 42, 49, 62, 88, 89, 92, 98, 99, 118, 119, 168, 180, 181, 184, 189, 190 hitting of children 111, 115, 121, 168, 183 HM Government 3, 8, 17, 23, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 62, 66, 72, 77, 84, 85, 86, 89, 103, 110, 111, 114, 116, 125 Holmes, L. 55, 80 Home Office 15, 19, 50 homelessness 20, 31, 73 House of Lords 46 housing associations 12, 20 Hudson, B. 36 Hughes, G. 131 Hughes, N. 136 Human Rights Act (1998) xi, xvi, 37, 39–​41, 45, 47, 171 independent reviewing officer role 149, 153 Industrial Schools Act (1857) 130 Information Commissioner’s Office 37 information sharing xiv, xvi, 2, 15, 33, 37–​50, 53, 116, 117, 155, 162, 164, 171, 172, 179, 179, 190 government guidance on 37, 41–​7

203

204

204

Index see also confidentiality; consent; informed consent informed consent 42, 46, 47, 74, 180 initial child protection conference xii, xiv, 13, 26, 34, 117, 119, 120, 125, 126, 154, 168, 190 purpose of 117 inspection of children’s services 15 integrated services 1, 3, 14, 15, 54, 95 inter-​agency work xiv, 8, 63, 76 see also multi-​agency work interim care order 145 inter-​professional work xv see also multi-​disciplinary work; multi-​professional work Jackson, S. 150 Jacobs, C. 93 jargon 28, 153, 164 Jent, J. 121 Jones, C. 67 Jones, M. 36 Jordan, L. 163 Joughin, C. 33 Juvenile Offenders Act (1847) 130 Kaufman, M. 50 Kay, J. 1, 7, 9, 34, 93, 161, 163 key worker role 54, 118, 119, 146, 149, 184, 189 Kinder, K. 35 Kirby, P. 112 Labour government 14, 15, 55, 71, 131, 132, 174 Laming, Lord 14, 41 Lamont, E. 36 language, use of xvi, 12, 28, 81, 104, 110, 153, 164, 185 Lavalette, M. 59 Law, C. 33 lead professional xv, 54, 55, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 87, 172 learning mentors 17, 81, 183 legislation, conflicting messages from 30–​1, 171, 172 Leverett, S. 67 Liberal Democrat Party 15 local safeguarding children’s boards 110, 125 looked after children xv, 3, 17, 101, 105, 114, 143–​56, 174 education of 150–​2, 153, 154, 155; see also personal education plans legal status of 144–​5, 147 multi-​agency support for 148 reasons for coming into care 144 terminology applied to 144 visits to 148 see also children in care Lyon, K. 29

Machura, S. 127 Marshall, D. 137, 139 Marshall, J. 160 Martin, P. 150 McColgan, M. 160 McDermid, S. 55, 80 McKinnon, M. 52 McLaughlin, E. 131 mental health workers xviii, 18, 19, 88, 101, 136, 184 Midwives 18, 101, 118 Ministry of Justice 131, 134, 135 Moen, T. 30, 130 Moger, S. 169 Moran, P. 93 Morris, K. 7, 9, 34 Morris, R. 141 Morrison, T. 33, 76, 189 Moss, P. 7, 22, 167 Mullender, A. 112 multi-​agency looked after partnerships (MALAP) 15 multi-​agency safeguarding hubs (MASH) 15 multi-​agency teams 13, 14, 30, 54, 74, 75, 79, 82, 87, 147, 161, 163, 165–​6, 167 172, 190 see also team around the child; youth offending teams multi-​agency work 7–​22, 171–​5 barriers to effectiveness of 29–​35, 63–​4, 75–​81, 88–​ 91, 102–​7, 121–​6, 136–​40, 152–​5, 167–​8, 171–​5, 179, 180–​1, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189 definitions of 7 and definitions of abuse 121 functions of agencies in 23–​4 history of 10–​16 impact of Every Child Matters on 1, 10, 14, 16, 71, 110, 174–​5 integration in 1, 3, 14–​15, 27, 54, 59, 95 models of 25–​7 reasons for 8–​10 tensions related to 2, 22, 33, 55–​6, 72, 76, 77, 78, 81–​ 2, 84, 89, 90, 95, 102, 106, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 137, 139, 154, 164, 167, 172, 175, 183, 187 those involved in 16–​22 multi-​disciplinary work xv, 8, 14 multi-​professional work xv, 8 Muncie, J. 131 Murphy, M. 127 National Careers Service 18 National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse 114, 126 National Probation Service 20

205

Index National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) xviii, 12, 21, 115, 124 NCT (National Childbirth Trust) 18 neglect of children xvi, 25–​6, 30, 42, 53, 65, 72, 73, 76, 77–​8, 84, 112–​13, 113, 115, 118, 123–​4, 144, 185 definition of 112 negotiation of plans 26, 33, 165, 190 neo-​liberalism 13 Norozi, S. 30, 130 Northern Ireland 16, 37, 52, 109, 113, 122, 129, 130 Co-​operating to Safeguard Children and Young People in Northern Ireland (2016) 109 Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) 52, 109 Understanding the needs of children in Northern Ireland (2011) 52 Youth justice: Information on services, structures, profiles, managing youth offending and victims of crime (2016) 129

Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) 134 police service 19 police station, outcomes for young people 134–​5 Poor Law, New or Victorian 10–​11, 171 Poverty xvii, 11–​12, 30, 80–​1, 82, 84, 91, 92, 113, 126, 131, 171, 173 Pragnell, C. 13 prejudices in multi-​agency work 28 prevention of harm to children xvi, 71, 81, 110, 127, 173, 179 Prior, D. 136 privacy, right to xi, xvi, xvii, 37, 40–​1, 47, 171 probation service xiii, xviii, 12, 19, 20, 99, 118, 132, 136, 187 proportionality xvi, 41, 42, 43, 181 public interest 43, 47, 181 pupil premium plus 151, 152, 154, 174

occupational therapists 51, 184 Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) 53, 72–​3, 75–​9, 81

Rankin, C. 167 referrals xvi, xviii, 24, 25, 27, 29, 45, 49, 56, 57, 77, 78, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 116–​17, 124–​5, 168, 179–​80, 184, 187 remand to local authority accommodation 145 resource cuts 1, 15, 102 respite care 24, 31, 105, 145, 146, 185 Rickards, T. 169 Rights under Human Rights Act 39–​41 see also children’s rights; privacy, right to rivalry between agencies 32 Rixon, A. 169 Robinson, M. 22

Padfield, C. 10 Palmer, N. 50 parental capacity to meet their children’s needs 53, 61, 62, 66, 74, 85, 88, 182 parental care, removal of children from xi, 13, 34, 41, 57, 65, 117, 120, 126, 133, 155, 190 parental responsibility xv, 21–​2, 46, 106, 144, 145, 146–​ 7, 168, 180 see also corporate parenting Parsloe, P. 29 partnership working 25–​7 Parton, N. 13, 93 Peckover, S. 80, 90 Penketh, L. 59 Percy-​Smith, J. 9, 25, 34 personal education plans 148, 150–​2, 153 personal information xvi, 38–​9, 41 Petrie, P. 167 Phillips, L. 71 physical abuse xvi, 111, 113, 121, 155 definition of 111 Pirrie, A. 8 Pithouse, A. 77, 79 placement of children in care 145–​8 ‘out of authority’ 148 with parents 147 with relatives 146–​7 placement order 145 Platt, D. 78, 121

qualified right xi, xvi, 39–​40

safeguarding children xiv, xvi, 15, 37, 49, 52, 54, 66, 101, 106, 109, 110, 125, 127, 173 Samsonsen, V. 67 Schmidt, G. 126 school nurses xiii, 18, 49, 118, 119, 149, 180–​1, 183, 189 schools, general role of 16–​17 Scotland 16, 37, 52, 109, 113, 122, 130 Getting It Right for Every Child (2005) 52 The National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland (2014) 109 Whole system approach for young people who offend (2015) 129 Section 47 enquiries xi, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, 111, 116–​17 secure units 136, 145, 146 Sellgren, K. 96, 102 ‘sensitive’ data xiii, 37–​8, 43, 181 sexual abuse xvi, 13, 25, 111, 112, 113, 114, 121, 123 definition of 111

205

206

206

Index shared values 26, 179, 190 Sharpe, S. H. 89, 101, 104, 105, 106 Shelter 20, 31 significant harm xi, xii, xvi, 3, 12, 24, 41, 42, 43–​4, 51, 52, 56, 57, 60, 66, 74, 78, 83, 84–​5, 86, 90, 91, 106, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116–​17, 118, 120, 121–​3, 125, 126, 144, 155, 173, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185–​6, 187 Sinclair, R. 156 smacking of children: see hitting of children Smith, R. 9, 34, 137, 165 Sneddon, R. 52 social construction xvi-​xvii, 30, 112, 130 of childhood 30, 112, 130 social exclusion xvii, 15, 16, 30 social housing xvii, 20 social pedagogy xvii, 161–​2 social policy xvii, 11, 30 social workers, general role of 17 special educational needs (SEN): see children with special educational needs and disability (SEND) special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) xiv, 28, 99, 101, 102 staff shortages 34, 64, 80, 89, 126, 172 Stainton Rogers, W. 27, 29, 30 standard assessment tests (SATs) 25, 178 statements of special educational needs 99 statutory assessment xiv, xvii, 3, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56–​63, 66, 85–​6, 90, 91, 92, 119, 172, 173, 181–​2, 184 multi-​agency issues associated with 63–​4 principles of 57–​60 structure of 60–​3 Stein, M. 150, 156 stereotyping 28, 59, 137, 144, 152 Stokes, J. 126 Stott, A. 35 strategy discussion xvii, 116, 117 supervision order 12 Supreme Court 46 targeted services xviii, 16, 17, 18, 19, 88, 184 team around the child (TAC) xviii, 54, 74, 75, 79, 82, 87, 172 The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations (2010) 148, 154 The Children’s Society 113 The Child’s World: Assessing Children in Need (2000) 63 The Scottish Government 52, 109, 129 The Who Cares? Trust 150, 162 Thomas, N. 14 Thomas, T. 137, 139 Thompson, K. 50 Townsley, R. 108 training, multi-​agency 28, 33, 55, 79, 160, 167, 169, 174

trust 26, 48, 55, 89, 108, 160, 164, 166, 167 Tuckman, B. 161, 163 Turney, D. 67, 78, 121 Tutt, R. 102, 103, 108 United Nations 31, 46, 80, 106, 107, 138 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 31, 46, 80, 106, 138 United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 106 universal services xii, xiii, xv, xviii, 14, 16, 18, 52, 56, 59, 61, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 116, 172, 187 voluntary organizations xvii, xviii, 1, 12, 15, 18–​19, 20–​1, 24 Wales 10, 16, 37, 51, 52, 109, 113, 121, 122, 129, 130, 143 Children and Young People First: Welsh Government/​ Youth Justice Board joint strategy to improve services for young people from Wales at risk of becoming involved in, or in, the youth justice system (2014) 129 Institute of Public Care 52 The All Wales Child Protection Procedures (2008) 109 Walker, G. 153, 154, 156 Ward, N. 104 Wate, R. 127 Watson, D. 108 Watt, N. 115 Webb, S. 10 welfare benefits 11 welfare state 12, 13 Wenger, E. 167 West, A. 15 White, S. 80, 90 Wigfall, V. 22 Wilkin, A. 35 Williams, P. 102, 103 Williams, R. 112 Wilson, V. 8 workhouse system 11 Working Together to Safeguard Children (2015) xiv, 3, 8, 52, 55, 56, 57, 62, 66, 72, 73, 77, 78, 85, 86, 89, 110, 111, 114, 116, 125 Yardley, E. 82 youth court 135, 187 Youth Justice Board 131, 134, 135, 141 youth offending teams xiii, xviii, 3, 19–​20, 78, 99, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140 149, 173 Youthful Offenders Act (1854) 130