Table 1. LSCB Multi-Agency Case Audit: Executive summary 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 Performance Comparison 2015/2016 2016/2017 Areas of development Areas improving for continued development Improvements in record keeping and the logistics of meetings There has been an improvement in the involvement of the right agencies in multi-agency meetings. Practitioners are appropriately engaged in these meetings and understand the information sharing protocols. The receipt of CP minutes has improved. To continue to ensure that the right agencies are involved in multi-agency meeting planning; including preparing reports or being invited to attend. Consistency in record keeping and minutes of all meetings is needed; in particular core groups. Timeliness and responsiveness of feedback from referrals to Children’s Social Work Services The receipt of feedback from referrals has improved; feedback has not been received practitioners take action to address this. Continued progress in the receipt of feedback from referrals. Continued emphasis on raising awareness of the thresholds guidance and using this in practice Practitioners have a good knowledge of the thresholds guidance, know how to make referrals and where to go to seek advice for referrals. Continued use of the thresholds guidance to support referrals. The position of agencies in gaining consent for referrals needs to be clarified Most practitioners understand the need to obtain consent. Some individual gaps seen. The needs to be clarity across all agencies about the requirements to obtain consent. Developmental work to consistently draw out the voice of the child There is progress in capturing the voice of the child and areas of good practice are identified in terms of the practitioner considering what life is like for the child. Continuous improvements are needed in gathering the wishes and feelings and there are challenges for some agencies that do not have direct contact with the child. Continued work around interventions and the impact of interventions on the child Practitioners recognise case deterioration, parental non-compliance or disguised compliance, and take action to address this. Continued work is needed in of SMART planning, contingency planning and the continual of interventions to have a positive impact on the child. assessment
used but this was not consistent across the board. Interventions There was variations in this standard across cases, although there was evidence of intervention working effectively and appropriate escalation. Impact on child was not always considered; information was presented without analysis. KLOE 6 Dispute resolution Procedures were not widely known or recognised; referred to by staff as ‘escalation’ procedures. Some staff did not know where to locate this. are benefitting the child and to look for protective factors. To raise any ongoing non-receipt of core group minutes to CSC team managers. Change in the way school nurses are involved in child protection conferences – if no health needs are identified, schools nurses will not be involved in the process. Police Information sharing The quality of information sharing was good with evidence of partnership working. Thresholds Practitioners had the knowledge to thresholds and make referrals although at times this was not well evidenced. Supervision Frequency is meeting LSCB guidance. Interventions This standard did not extend to the police. Voice of the child This was not documented in early help, CP or CSE cases. Even with training, recording the voice of the child was not met in CSE cases. There are issues around non-specialist staff and understanding the early help offer. There is a need to target non-specialist staff. MASH and case conference attendance has added to improvement. Need to help officer understand that the of the child is not just the voice; it includes a representation of the situation. Actions to be – Op sentinel, 40 second briefings, targeted MASH Improved knowledge of thresholds within social care, officers making referrals when needed, signposting and working with 3rd sector agencies e.g. NSPCC Case Conferences Improved attendance at case conferences to gain a better understanding of the child’s situation. Voice of the child An emphasis on documenting the voice of the child, different mechanisms to obtain the child’s view, and considering what life is like for the child based on their situation, e.g. their home environment.
training and supervisor reviews. Probation Information sharing S1 – the appropriate agencies are involved in multi-agency meetings. S2, S3– practitioners understand the information sharing protocols, and have contributed to meetings. Thresholds and referrals S6, S7 – practitioners know how to make appropriate referrals and understand requirements to seek consent. S10 – practitioners are of where to go to seek advice and there is evidence of regular contact with MASH. Voice of the child S11 and S12 – this is not evidenced within the case file and there are a lack of minutes in the case file to assess this. Thresholds and referrals S8 – in some cases it is not clear whether feedback has been received. Intervention S14 and s15 - Plans are not contained within the case record and there is a lack of contingency planning. Supervision S19 - Ideally supervision takes place monthly but has not taken place with regular frequency. Dispute resolution procedure Practitioners are unaware of this procedure and where to find it. Developmental training sessions focussing on case examples and serious case reviews to embed learning. Improved on accurate and evaluative case recording. Delivery and embedding of appropriate safeguarding guidance to practitioners. Seek opportunities for delivery of safeguarding related interventions. Jointly identify gaps in service provision and seek provision. Opportunity for orientation with partner agencies. Development of shared facility to hold joint supervision plans & review facility across partnership agencies (e.g. cloud based facility). SCH Information sharing There was evidence that the right agencies were involved in the case and practitioners understood the information sharing protocols.S1 relevant agencies involved S3 and S4 - SCH was not invited to CP conferences, but where social worker was Interventions S14, 15, 16 SCH officers were not involved in intervention planning. of the child Standard 12 “gathering the wishes and feeling of the child” is not consistent of the nature of the work SCH undertake, but presence of child is central to decision making. All staff to continue to receive training appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. A high number of employees are taking part in LSCB briefing seminars. Improve visibility and accessibility of all safeguarding Partners to consider SCH as an important information resource to inform inquiries, assessments, and action planning. Providing informal training or discussion sessions between practitioners on targeted issues to aid better understanding of respective obligations and constraints to agency
working and good working relationships. Thresholds were understood, practitioners know how to make referrals and supervision has taken place. Standard 14 – plans were not based on smart principles, timescales were not followed, and no contingency plan was in place. Dispute resolution procedure Standards in relation to this KLOE were unmet due to lack of knowledge about the procedure. visits and more regular visits for those settings in need of support SMBC – Education Information Sharing The relevant agencies were involved in meetings and information sharing protocols were understood (except for one case). Thresholds and referrals There was strong evidence that practitioners have the correct knowledge to apply thresholds and understood referral processes. Voice of the child There was evidence that the practitioner had considered what life is like for the child; gathering the child’s wishes and feelings was evident in the file and gathered by different agencies. Supervision Information sharing Standards 3 and 4 were not always met. The correct templates were not used by agencies to complete reports. Reports not always circulated before meetings and therefore there is little opportunity to read other agency’s reports. In half of the audits minutes were missing from files, and there was evidence that minutes had not been circulated. There is no clear template for early help cases so everyone is clear on what needs to be shared. Interventions Compliance with standards 14, 15, 16, and 17 was variable. Not all plans were written in line with SMART principles, and contingency plans were not identified. Working closely with all schools and continue to do compliance checks. Monitor and challenge practice in schools and out more visits to schools in need of support. Continue to do the annual section 157/175 audit. Attendance at annual DSL conferences DSL training for anyone involved in safeguarding casework. Updates guidance documents to be provided to schools. Targeted training Schools involvement in the Education Subgroup of the LSCB. Safeguarding work through collaboratives, SAB Broaden understanding of and remits. The need for multi-agency training events to recognise sector leads and ensure that work is not duplicated. Transparent processes and procedures. Accountability with all agencies – there is a need to challenge and advice in order to improve. Continue to learn from each other. To provide professional challenge in cases where interventions are not focussed on outcomes for the child. agency
Supervision processes are in place and offer challenge and support for practitioners. Formal supervision, 1:1s, and peer supervision take Schools in south Solihull hold advice sharing sessions. Ongoing assessment of interventions is not evident. Deterioration is not clearly addressed and therefore action is not timely. Minutes of meeting should be addressing the previous actions in place. Drift and delay was evident in some cases. Dispute resolution Schools could indicate what to do if there was a need to escalate. The procedure was shared with practitioners during the and head teacher breakfast briefings. SMBC – Early Help Information sharing Relevant partners were involved in multi-agency meetings Information sharing protocols were understood. was a mixed picture of multi-agency meeting; some had not taken place, areas of good and bad practice were evidenced. Thresholds and referrals Strong use of threshold guidance and evidence of good referrals. Understanding of the need to obtain consent. Voice of the child Strong evidence of voice of the child which Information sharing Multi-agency meeting were not always timely. Interventions There was no evidence of contingency planning for lack of progress or by family. If there was a contingency plan, this was not identified in files. Voice of the child was a lack of evidence that diversity and disability was identified, understood, and recorded. Dispute resolution Has now been shared with practitioners. Continue to use threshold guidance to ensure appropriate service provision All direct workers to undertake ‘signs of safety’ training. Consider the progress that families are making with plans and undertake contingency planning. Ensure that the voice of the child is fully understood throughout Engage, and the child remains centre of focus. Where there is from a family ways to progress situation to Co-location of Engage duty near the MASH team in Bluebell; this provides an opportunity to communicate and support good decisions. Plan to link an engage worker with each school to better relationships. Joint training with police around early help and engage Multi-agency Module 1 training to continue in supporting all agencies participation in Early Help and understanding of the early help framework. Multi-agency Groups (MAGS) to be grown and rolled out across borough/collaboratives to support practitioners within the area if they are struggling to help a family. engagement engagement
is linked to the plan and direct work with family; this is being used to shape the work. However, there is a lack of clarity about what the voice of the child encompasses. Interventions Plans were identified as SMART Supervision There is a good supervision protocol. There is room for challenge, good management oversight, and peer discussions. prevent escalation of concerns should be considered. Ensure that in cases that are not level 4 the family still receives support and planning. Collaborative Action Groups (CAGS) to be grown and take place across borough in Collaborative areas; this will help build relationships with different agencies. Engage involvement in the community; supporting and growing stronger communities. SIAS Information sharing This was identified as variable. S1 – in one case was evidence that key agencies were involved; this was evidenced in the minutes. S2 was met as was evidence that information had been shared with relevant agencies such a CSWS. S3 – evidence that the practitioner attended core groups and contributed to meetings. S4 – in 2 cases there was evidence that a record of meeting had been kept. Information sharing S1 – in 3 cases the auditor was unable to judge whether the right agencies were involved; no minutes available. S3 – there was no evidence that template was used or a report produced for multi-agency meetings. S4 – in 2 cased the practitioner was documented as attending meeting but there was no record of what was discussed or allocated actions. Minutes not always communicated to partners. Standards 5-10 were unable to be assessed as practitioners had left the service or were unavailable. Learning has been identified in terms of staff changes and clear handovers of cases/files. SIAS now has safeguarding leads across the partnership to provide daily support to employees and has updated its integrated safeguarding framework. Form strong links with Engage by referring all relevant families to the service and introducing staff training about this service; including Joint training sessions for adults’ and children’s services to increase awareness. Hold regular forums for partner agencies e.g. half day updates and networking events Easier means of communication e.g. secure emails for all relevant agencies to improve information sharing. Increase frequency of professional meetings and joint visits.
Voice of the child There is evidence that practitioners have considered what life is like for the child. This includes documentation in clinical notes of homes visits, and discussed with Mum regarding the impact of witnesses DV on the child. Supervision All employees have monthly supervision/ALS. This enables to receive peer and manager support on cases. Intervention was no evidence of a plan recorded in case notes. Case show that there was deterioration and present in cases but it was not detailed whether any action had been taken to address this. Voice of the child S11 – in one case a home visit should have been conducted to observe the child’s environment. S12 - No evidence to suggest the practitioner had gathered the child’s wishes and feelings although it is noted by the auditor that SIAS is an adult service. Supervision There was no evidence that the cases audited were bought to ALS for supervision. training on the use of the tool. Offer joint training events, such as alcohol and drug awareness to professionals in Solihull. Increase frequency of joint home visits with social work teams. Invite other professional including social care to SIAS team meetings to improve understanding and form stronger relationships. Voluntary Sector Quality of information sharing There was evidence of attendance and contribution to meetings. The relevant partners were judged to be involved. Thresholds and referrals Practitioners were aware of thresholds guidance, how to make Supervision Some practitioners felt that supervision was not challenging enough, had little reflective practice, were not frequent enough and in some not taking place at all. Dispute resolution procedure Practitioners were unaware of the dispute resolution Cases are complex for voluntary organisations due to high thresholds; therefore managers need to support their practitioners Ensure that managers are available and skilled enough to carry Understanding and defining the roles and responsibilities of different agencies to avoiding duplication. More communication with agency managers e.g. when the LSCB change its policies and procedures. Agencies allowing practitioners to think and act outside of their work with individuals.
referrals and the requirement to obtain consent. of the child Obtaining the voice of the child, and gathering wishes and feelings was assessed as having a positive outcome on the child. Interventions was evidence that plans were SMART and continually assessed. procedure and where to find this. out effective supervision. Raise awareness of dispute resolution procedure – the voluntary sector needs clarification when there is a change in policies. Voluntary sector and LSCB to consider linking procedures. The voluntary sector has its own dispute resolution procedure. Introduce mandatory training in child protection when working with adults and vice versa. Encourage practitioners to not be as rigid with their thinking; including making sure support is available for the child until specialist services become involved. Agencies should remember the voluntary sector; some families prefer to work with voluntary services.
KLOE 4: Are interventions working effectively to improve outcomes for the child/ren? What are we well? Partnership working is good so intervention plans are more aligned – especially through the MASH. are evident; they are focussed and sometimes SMART framed. Home visits and practice has changed to make the more visible in the process. Evidence that is no need to pause/delay interventions. Using the Signs of Safety tools. Pursuing professional curiosity. What needs to happen? If a professional can’t see a on their own but has concerns – they need to think about other professionals who might be able to create that opportunity. Look at creative ways to involve the in meetings and conferences. Link back to actions agreed in previous meetings – if they have not been followed actions needs to be taken. Interventions need to be with reasonable expectations Training for practitioners to recognise and understand the ways children communicate (e.g. not just through words). “Listening to Children” publication by Coram family centre has very useful advice/guidance on helping young children have a voice – practitioners to read this publication. Perpetrator training and work programs/plans with perpetrators. What are we worried about? Are opportunities being created for the child/ren to speak on their own, particularly in a formal intervention/early stage intervention? There is too much emphasis on the victims of DV. Working with the perpetrators of domestic abuse and measuring outcomes. Are we asking what the child thinks of the plan? Voluntary with services – what should be done when parent are reluctant to be involved. The capacity of staff/services Child not kept as the central focus. The impact on the child needs to be considered. Sometimes intervention is too adult-centric. Meeting often drift; there is often a loose focus and the child is often forgotten as central to the intervention. More plans need to be SMART. KLOE 5: Is supervision/management support used to aid reflective practice and to provide challenge to make a positive difference for the child? What are we well? Joint supervision Peer-to-peer supervision Supervision as a regular formalised process. What need
Child is kept the central focus of supervision. Challenging the depth of thinking. Checking/testing information sources. For example, confirming that a child has actually attended an appointment. Regular, open discussions cases involving children, and informal case discussions with colleagues and line managers. supervision may need to be increased. A guide to the supervision process in terms of safeguarding. Practitioners need to be open to change. Senior leaders access to supervision (e.g. leaders in PVI, Head teachers). Evidence of supervision on clients file when case discussion takes place and not just kept in employee’s records. Share good practice and encourage positive reinforcement. Solihull wide ACS case discussion to learning across the borough and not just within single agencies. Involvement of LSCB Learning Faculty to and disseminate learning. Review the supervision policy in CSWS. Audits of supervision and links to MA plans. Include a discussion of all CP cases on team meeting agendas. In LSCB procedures there is an expectation for ‘case learning reviews’ to take place between case conferences – but are these being used? Contemporaneous recording to keep everyone informed. What are we worried about? Is the quality of supervision, and challenge in supervision, strong enough? Having enough time for supervision – the time to prepare for, and reflect on supervision. DSLs are not always up to date with information, changes and policy. Do practitioners act on and follow up identified actions? Inconsistent quality of supervision.
KLOE 6: Are practitioners aware of the LSCB dispute resolution procedures and use these effectively? What are we well? There is clear accessible information about the procedures and process available on the LSCB website. The form and the questions are useful to promote discussion. People understand the process. Dispute resolution helps people to discuss and communicate their concerns and therefore there is less need for a formal process. Improving the knowledge and the view of other agencies. What needs to happen? Briefings of what tools are available (already taking place) – are all practitioners aware of this and is the message about this being communicated? ‘Dispute resolution’ is not embedded terminology – so this needs promoting. Wider training and dispersion of message in order to empower practitioners to be actively involved and challenge. Task all leaders and managers to take the procedure back to their agencies and share this with practitioners. Work towards an understanding of the dispute resolution procedure not as personal or defensive, but instead as encouraging conversations and challenge. More transparency and access to different social care teams. Provide or publish examples of challenging conversations that have had a positive impact. Publicising this procedure across services (e.g. newsletters). Making sure that all practitioners know that they can access the dispute resolution procedure on the LSCB website in the Practitioners’ Tool Box. What are we worried about? People do not know where to locate it. Practitioners need to use this appropriately and not for personal grievances. needs to be an understanding of the dispute resolution procedure across all sectors, e.g. the VCS. Understanding the language – ‘dispute resolution’. Inconsistent responses or conflicting information from the same agency. Appendix 3 – Solihull LSCB Case Audit Toolkit 2016-2017