Transcript Minimise Costs Outlay- A Practical Guide By Simon Johnson

The Children Act 2004 Challenges of Compliance
SIMON JOHNSON
Alarm SE - 1st November 2006
Topics Covered
•
•
•
•
•
Background to the Act.
Objectives.
How are objectives to be met?
Challenges presented.
How to overcome them and minimise the risk.
Victoria Climbié
“In most cases, nothing more than a manager reading a
file, or asking a basic question about whether standard
practice had been followed, may have changed the course
of these terrible events.”
Lord Lambing - Inquiry report 2003
Victoria Climbié
“This was not a failing on the part of one service, it was a
failing on the part of every service…. We cannot undo the
wrongs done to Victoria Climbié but we can seek to put
right for others what so fundamentally failed for her.”
Alan Milburn, Health Secretary January 2003
Victoria Climbié
Led directly to “Every Child Matters” programme, which
in turn led to the Children Act 2004.
At its core, the Act sets out the process for integrating
services to children so that every child can achieve the
5 Outcomes laid out in the ECM green paper.
The 5 Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being
Duties for Local Authorities Relevant Sections
Each Children`s Services Authority must make
arrangements to promote co-operation between:1. The authority;
2. Their relevant partners;
3. Other persons or bodies who engage in activities
in relation to children in that area.
Who are your Partners?
Police authority
Local Probation Board
Youth Offending Team
Strategic Health Authority and Primary Care Trust
Learning and Skills Council for England
Any notable absentee?
Schools?
The Act does not give schools specific duties to cooperate and integrate.
BUT
Sections 157 and 175 of the Education Act 2002 do
place schools under safeguarding obligations along
with duties to work alongside other local agencies.
Structural Change
From April 2006 Education and Social Care Services
for children will be brought together under a director
for children`s services.
Potential Areas of Difficulty
Local Authorities must take the lead.
Duty is the key element in achieving the whole
system change.
Children`s Trusts are being established.
BUT
Several organisations in a new partnership brings its
own risks.
What are these Risks?
Loss of data during transfer.
Lack of Central Government Guidance.
Lack of engagement of key partners.
Management of pooled budgets - overspend?
Differing cultures and perceptions of risk.
Cultural mis-alignment.
Reputational risk.
Challenges to Implementing
Co-operation
* Information sharing across and between agencies.
* Removing technical barriers to ensure secure
exchange of information.
* Removing organisational boundaries to enable
changes to take place.
* Removing cultural and professional barriers technical solutions alone will not secure change.
Co-operation
Universal reform will challenge long-standing
practice and cut across long-established
professional/organisational boundaries.
Whole system-change to be led and managed at
local level.
Making Arrangements to ensure Cooperation
Not limited to agreeing a set of processes.
Requires continuous joint working to make cooperation a reality.
The Government expects most local authorities to
have a Director of Children`s Services and lead
member for Children`s Services in place by 2006,
and all to have them by 2008.
Essential Features of
A Children`s Trust
CTs are vehicles that enable organisations to join
together in local partnership to commission and
where relevant, directly provide services for children.
They are expected to be set up in:
• Most areas by 2006
• All areas by 2008
Driver Behind Children`s Trusts
Every Child Matters:Next Steps (2004)
states that CTs are the preferred model to deliver
the 5 outcomes.
Co-operation should
not be limited to relevant Partners
Other groups should include:Children and young people themselves.
Voluntary and community sector agencies.
Childcare, culture sport and play organisations.
Families, carers and communities.
Discussion of risks and potential
problems?
Duty to Safeguard and Promote
Welfare - Section 11
“The support and protection of children cannot be achieved
by a single agency…Every service has to play its part. All
staff must have placed upon them the clear expectation that
their primary responsibility is to the child and his or her
family”.
Lord Laming in the Victoria Climbié Inquiry report, paras
17.92 and 17.93
Defined as...
Protecting children from maltreatment.
Preventing impairment of children`s health or
development.
Ensuring children are growing up in circumstances
consistent with provision of safe and effective care.
Why does the
system sometimes fail?
1. Does not always focus on child`s need - in Victoria
Climbié`s case, focus instead on needs of adults responsible
for her.
2. Senior managers have insufficient knowledge of
safeguarding and welfare issues.
3. Many staff not adequately trained in safeguarding and
promoting welfare of children.
4. Difficult for key people and bodies to share information.
Children’s Services
will need to ensure...
* Safe recruitment
* Staff Training
* Senior management commitment to the importance of
safeguarding and promoting welfare
* A clear statement of agency`s responsibilities towards
children is available for staff
* A clear line of accountability within the organisation
for work on safeguarding and promoting
* Information sharing
Near Misses and Close Calls
Managing risk and minimising mistakes in services to
children and families.
Social Care Institute for Excellence - September 2005
Increasing recognition that social care should embrace
similar approaches to risk management now adopted by
healthcare.
Report focuses on feasibility of reducing risk by:1. Identifying; and
2. Learning from near misses.
Latent and Active Failures
Latent - found deeper in the system and only visible when
they combine with other factors to create error.
Active - felt almost immediately and associated with
actions of frontline staff.
James Reason : Human Error (1990)
Swiss Cheese Model
Definitions
Incidents where:
• something could have gone wrong but has been
prevented
• something did go wrong but no serious harm was
caused
Is there scope for your local authority to implement a
near miss reporting policy, to underpin the duty to
safeguard at section 11 of the Act?
Precedents
Risk management programmes that promote learning
from adverse events and near misses were pioneered in
the aviation industry following series of crashes in
1970s and 1980s.
Carrot - staff are granted immunity when reporting.
Stick - staff face disciplinary action for not reporting.
Precedents
“Non -punitive reporting of air accidents is an essential
element of our
safety improvement programmes.”
Pierre Jeanniot, Director General, IATA, 1998
Is a near miss reporting system
workable in practice?
Barriers:1. Clear definition of a “near miss”.
2. Culture of blame is prevalent in children`s services.
3. Fosters a fear of talking about incidents that could
have, or actually did, go wrong.
4. Defensive attitude amongst staff.
Overcoming the Barriers
Encourage a culture in the social services department
that:
* encourages members to acquire, share and process
information;
* promotes openness but need to overcome the attitude
embodied in the following quote.
Overcoming the Barriers
“I think the thing about blaming is a very mixed bag
because some people say all the right things…i.e “this is
about learning and not blaming” - but the reality is
these people [the staff who make mistakes and talk about
them]… are deemed as incompetent, and they`re never
going to get promotions in this department.”
Team manager, Inner London Borough March 2005
Organisational Change
At strategic level, there are few structural mechanisms to
make it possible to learn from near misses before harm is
caused and to prevent re-occurrence.
Tackle blame culture as a pre-requisite to the
development of critical incident reporting within
children`s services.
Led by Director of Children`s Services - top level buy-in.
Practical Measures
Confidentiality - but, may hinder follow-up of a report
Reporting System should be distinct from disciplinary
body - individuals should not fear punishment for
unintended errors.
Clearly define what constitutes an error or near miss.
Ensure staff are aware of the reporting system - promote
the value of reporting to staff.
Simple/short reporting forms.
Discussion of risks and potential
problems?
Section 12
Information Database
Most contentious aspect of the Act.
Lord Laming found that better IS was a key change
needed to minimise risk to children.
S12, which came into force in January 2006, gives
Secretary of State power to enable the establishment of
one or more IS Indexes.
Information Sharing
Index should contain basic information to enable a
practitioner to:1. Verify the identity of a child with whom they have
contact;
2. Identify whether a child is getting the universal
services;
3. Establish which other practitioners are currently
involved with a child;
4. Increase ability to make contact with other practitioners.
Present Position
No reliable means by which practitioners can achieve this.
Complex undertaking and in absence of statutory
regulations or guidance, no current duty to create an IS
Index.
Would require a LA to establish:1. Data -sharing agreements with every other LA; and
2. Protocols with practitioner groups in their local area.
Information included
Name, address, dob.
Id number.
Name and contact details of any person with parental
responsibility.
Education details - current.
Contact details for those providing primary medical
services.
Information as to existence of any cause for concern.
No case information held on index.
Addressing the Risks
associated with IS Index
1. Ensure access to IS Index is controlled and limited to
approved, security checked users.
2. Monitor use of IS Index - highlight any potential
misuse for investigation.
3. Provide adequate training for users, covering use of IS
Index and IS best practice.
4. Restrict access to information about young people`s
use of sensitive services - may discourage up-take.
Compliance and Enforcement
1. Collection of performance and management data.
2. Inspections and assessment, as part of existing audit
and performance management regimes.
Appropriate and lawful use of information will be
governed by:a. Data Protection Act 1998
b. Human Rights Act 1998
c. Computer Misuse Act 1990
Other Concerns
S12 permits the rule of common law to be overridden in
relation to disclosure of information.
One off implementation Cost estimated at £224 million centrally funded.
Undermine confidentiality of professional medical, social
worker or legal advisers to children.
Is the ICT up to the task? Will Index flag up so many risk
indicators to cause information overload?
Discussion of risks and potential
problems - Case Study
Local Safeguarding Children Boards
Section 13
To be introduced by 1st April 2006 to replace ACPC.
LSCB is the key mechanism for agreeing how the relevant
organisations in each area will co-operate to safeguard
and promote the welfare of children.
Financial Implications
Councils will already have made contribution to ACPC same level of contribution should be maintained.
Bath & NE Somerset - £57K for 2005/06 plus £20k for
inter-agency child protection training.
Independence
Must have a clear and distinct identity.
Not be an operational sub-committee of the Children’s
Trust.
Board members must be people with a strategic role in
relation to safeguarding and promoting welfare.
Only those who can:1. Speak for their organisation with authority;
2. Commit their organisation on policy and practice;
3. Hold their organisation to account.
Children and Young People`s Plans
Section 17
The plan shall set out the improvements the authority
intend to make to the well-being of children in relation
to:• physical and mental health and emotional well-being
• protection from harm and neglect
• education, training and recreation
• contribution made by them to society
• social and economic well-being
Children and Young People`s Plans
Section 17
The first plan should have been published by 1st April
2006.
If a local authority has been categorised as “excellent” in
the CPA, they are not required to publish a plan.
Common Assessment Framework
A shared assessment tool for use across all children`s
services.
Aims to help early identification of need and promote
co-ordinated service provision.
Common Assessment Framework
Covers:1. Development of the child.
2. Parents and carers.
3. Family and environment.
Strategic and operational managers have responsibility
for implementation.
Common Assessment Framework
Central to the strategy of shifting focus from dealing with
consequences of difficulties in children`s lives to
preventing things going wrong in the first place.
Common Assessment Framework
Is not appropriate for the majority of children.
Aimed at children and young people with additional
needs, who are particularly vulnerable.
A generic assessment.
Common Assessment Framework
Should provide a national, common process for early
assessment to identify more accurately the needs of
children and young people.