Transcript Ealing Safeguarding Profile 2009

Ealing Safeguarding Children
Profile 2009-10
David Worlock
Independent Chair, ESCB
Reason for Profile Exercise
Arises from the LSCB’s quality assurance and challenge responsibilities
 The CTB partnership has the wider role of planning and delivering services.
 The LSCB is responsible for co-ordinating and ensuring the effectiveness of
what organisations do individually and together to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children.
 The LSCB should be responsible for challenging every partner of the Children’s
Trust, through the CTB, on their success in ensuring that children and young
people are safe.
 The CTB – drawing on support and challenge from the LSCB – will ensure that
the CYPP covers strengths and weaknesses in the area and what needs to be
done by each partner to improve outcomes in safeguarding.
Methodology
Explored six lines of enquiry through structured
interviews with leads managers from partner
agencies and analysis of written evidence.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Staffing related issues
Safeguarding training
Management oversight arrangements
Quality assurance
Partnership working
Governance arrangements
Partners Profiled
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Children’s Social Care (CSC)
Schools Service/ Schools (ESS)
Ealing Primary Care Trust (EPCT)
West London Mental Health Trust (WLMHT)
Ealing Hospital Trust (EHT)
Child Abuse Investigation Team (CAIT)
Borough Police (EBP)
Overview Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Openness
Partnership
Balancing priorities
Challenges ahead
1. Staffing Issues
1. Criminal Record Bureau Disclosures
All organisations must ensure they have in place safe
recruitment policies and practices, including enhanced
CRB checks, for all staff including agency staff, students
and volunteers, working with children. WT 2.9
Finding
Inadequate coverage: schools, children’s centres, WLMHT,
EHT and EPCT (Primary Care Performers – GPs, Dentists etc.)
1. Staffing Issues
2. Safe Recruitment Policy
• Ealing Council: positively integrated
• CAIT – psychological screening
• Schools – unclear / unknown
• Health sector: needs strengthening
Monitoring - limited
LSCBs should ensure that robust quality assurance processes
are in place to monitor compliance by relevant agencies
within their area with requirements to support safe
recruitment practices. WT 3.29
1. Staffing Issues
Recruitment and Work Load
1.Recruitment
Issues for all agencies: main challenges =social workers, health visitors, school
health advisors
2. Work Loads
• Goal of 15 cases for social workers
• CAIT additional resources
• Health visitors – skill-mix model
• WLMHT – to be reviewed as part of re-org.
3. Core safeguarding teams in health and ESS
4. A&E – 24 hour paediatric nursing cover, Liaison Health Visitor
2. Safeguarding Training
And the meaning of life is.....training!!
1. Training is not the same as “learning / practice
outcomes” or “outcomes for children”.
2. Safeguarding learning strategy and evaluation.
3. Specifics:
–
–
–
–
Solid models in CSC and CAIT.
Progress made by EHT, EPCT and WLMHT.
EBP??
Schools and GPs most vulnerable areas
3. Management Oversight
Supervision: A Key Issue
1. No policy / model in ESS, schools, EHT or WLMHT.
2. EPCT had model for HVs and SHAs – was not
happening in practice. Now positively turning round
with new posts. GPs main challenge.
3. CAIT and CSC clear model. Quality issue for CSC?
4. EBP – too computer based?
3. Management Oversight
Auditing of Case Records
1. Takes place in CSC, CAIT and EBP
2. No arrangements in WLMHT, EPCT, EHT and
ESS/schools.
3. Evidence of practice change?
3. Management Oversight
Other ways?
E.g. Systematic direct observation in real client
situations?
• Happens to some extent in EBP, EHT, CAIT, CAMHS
4. Quality Assurance
How can we really know how effective
safeguarding arrangements are?
1. Seeking assurance in simplicity
2. Managing the complexity – a multidimensional approach
3. QA Framework – basic frameworks in CSC,
CAIT, EBP and EPCT
4. Quality Assurance
Audit Programme
1. CSC and WLMHT have annual programmes (nb
CSC has external element)
2. EHT does audits – unclear if annual
3. EPCT developing audit programme
4. ESS, CAIT and EBP – no programme
• Do they make a difference?
• Greater co-ordination and refreshing?
4. Quality Assurance
1. Outcomes – not measured by any agency.
2. Voices of front-line staff – not systematically collated
in most agencies
3. Voices of partner agencies – some good exchange
points; not systematic - 360 degree approach?
4. Voices of children / parents – not systematically
collated (Health Related Behaviour Survey)
5. Partnership Working
1. Positive approach, marked by respect.
2. Greater scope for shared problem solving –
across all partners, within health sector?
e.g. supervision, audits
3. Strengthening role of ESCB / Sub-Groups re:
co-ordination of problem solving?
6. Governance
How do those individuals, Boards, Committees with overarching
responsibility fulfil their responsibilities effectively?
1.
With the exception of ESS, information about safeguarding does
go to relevant Management Groups, Boards and Committees in all
agencies.
2.
Does the information that goes enable adequate understanding of
the issues and provide opportunity for challenge and scrutiny?
Does this process need to be strengthened?
3.
Safeguarding Strategy / Work Plan
• WLMHT and CAIT had safeguarding strategies.
• EPCT and CSC had safeguarding work plans.
• EHT, ESS and EBP had neither (EHT’s “strategy“ is practice guidance)
Next Steps
1. Each agency to make written response.
2. Each partner to decide which governance body the
key issues / actions should be reported to.
3. Independent Chair of the ESCB to meet with Chief
Execs (or equivalent) of partner agencies each year to
review progress and safeguarding developments.
4. Profiling to be extended to other partners. Next phase
= Housing, CAFCASS, Adult Social Care, Probation.