SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN: MEASURING PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN’S SAFETY Jane Cunliffe DfES Safeguarding Group 18 April 2007

MEASURING PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN’S SAFETY Context – Local Government White Paper Progress on improving children’s safety? NSPCC research on safeguarding measurement Current indicators Themes for discussion

LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER Purpose: sweep away current clutter Commitment to reduce overall number of indicators to 200 Indicators to look at outcomes where possible Focus on important national priorities

LOCAL AREA AGREEMENTS ‘Delivery contract’ between local authority and central Government Statutory targets plus others covering priority areas – up to 53 in total against national indicators Negotiated between local authorities and regional government offices Inspected by new Comprehensive Area Assessment, separate for vulnerable children

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN? Reduced number of indicators Move to outcomes rather than processes/inputs Need to be reassured local authorities are protecting children in their area

WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE? The number of accidental injuries to children has been declining steadily. In 1979 almost 1,100 children killed (in England and Wales): in 2005, 213 children were killed By 2005, there had been a 49% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured in Great Britain in road traffic accidents compared to the average for The ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign launched in 1991 saw a reduction in the number of babies dying from SIDS from 2 in 1,000 live births to under 0.5 per 1,000 by 2003

WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE? In 2005, nearly 400,000 children required some support from children’s social care (‘children in need’) with 37% being victims of abuse or neglect 68,500 children were subject to child protection enquiries in Real extent of abuse may be higher 25% disabled children are ‘in need’ for reason other than disability Children from DE socio economic groups are 5 times more likely to die in any type of accident (including being killed in a road crash) than those in wealthier households and 15 times more likely to be killed in a residential fire

NSPCC RESEARCH Research commissioned February 2006 Main measures recommended: –Lead outcome measure: child homicides –Lead primary measure: Percentage of agencies and organisations not compliant with vetting and barring requirements –Lead secondary measure: Percentage of schools judged to be satisfactory or better on Ofsted ‘Care, Guidance and Support’ measure –Lead tertiary measure: Children’s hospital and A&E episodes classified as assault –Lead quaternary measure: Suicide and self-harm reports for looked after children and young people in the secure estate

SOME CURRENT INDICATORS Number of children adopted as a percentage of LAC Percentage of children and young people on the CPR not allocated a social worker Percentage of child protection conferences within 15 working days Re-registrations on CPR Percentage of CPR cases that should have been reviewed (and were) Percentage of initial assessments within 7 days of referral Percentage of core assessments within 35 days Stability of placement Duration on the CPR (% of children de-registered from the CPR during year that had been on the CPR for 2 or more years)

THEMES FOR DISCUSSION What effect do the current indicators have on local practice? Which indicators have a link to effective safeguarding services? Which of the current indicators could be usefully retained? What outcomes for children’s safety could be measured?

SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN: MEASURING PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN’S SAFETY Jane Cunliffe DfES Safeguarding Group 18 April 2007