1. Developing Interagency Child Protection Work: Report of a Cross Agency Audit Dr Pam Green Lister

2. Historical Context  DOH 1991 Report of Child Abuse Inquiries in 1980s  Butler Sloss 1988  Clyde 1992  DOH 1995 Messages from Research  Hammond 2001  Laming 2003  O’ Brien 2003  Scottish Executive 2005  Herbison 2006

3. Scottish Executive Policy Documents  2001 For Scotland’s Children  2002 It’s Everyone’s Job..  2003 Getting Our Priorities Right  2004 Protecting Children and Young People, Charter and Framework  2004 Hidden Harm  2005 Getting it Right for Every Child  2005 Protecting Children and Young People: Child Protection Committees

4. The Audit Aim  to analyse the effectiveness of interagency working at the early stage of the child protection process Objectives  to identify the features of interagency working where there is concern about a child before child protection procedures may have been invoked  to examine this stage of concern from the perspective of the core agencies involved  to analyse what assists the development of good interagency practice and what inhibits such practice

5. Methodology 40 children identified by GCCP where cause for concern in timeframe of 1 st August to 31 st October 2004 10 provided by Social Work, Police, Health and Education 1 child named by 2 agencies Total 39 children  Documentary Analysis of agency files  Questionnaires  Interviews

6. Documentary Analysis 1 st Stage Analysis of Referral Documentation  Health : Cause for Concern Referrals  Education: Circular 57 Forms  Police: Incident Reports and Files  Social Work : Care First and Paper Files  Total 39 2nd Stage Analysis: Cross referencing of Documentation  Police: 24 Incident Reports and Files  Social Work : 38 Care First and 30 Paper Files

7. Audit Tool  Referring agency  Date and nature of referral/ incident  Sex, ethnicity, age  Alleged perpetrator  Referral category  Registration  Summary of previous involvement  Immediate response to the referral  Post referral activity

8. Questionnaires: Education and Health  Contact with the family prior to the referral  Contact with other agencies prior to the referral  Contact with other agencies with regard to this specific referral Health : 16 health visitors 17 school nurses Education: 7 head teachers

9. Interviews 14 follow up interviews – semi structured  Discussion of the specific case  Issues in interagency work with the other three agencies  General interagency issues  Intra agency issues  What assists interagency work  Social Work ( 5), Police (3) Health (3) Education (3)

10. Findings: Documentary Analysis  Issues raised from the nature of the files made available  The immediate response by lead investigative agencies  Previous interagency activity

11. Issues Arising from Agency Files  Social Work  The advantages and disadvantages of CareFirst files  The recording of opinions and the ‘why’ question  The use of research to inform practice  Importance of explicit identification of aims, evidence base, planning and evaluation  Police  Detailed recording and monitoring  Health  Comprehensive – ‘what’ was done  Separate notes for children and parents  Importance of explicit identification of aims, evidence base, planning and evaluation

12. Factors Affecting Responses: Physical Injury Seeing the child  Immediate harm  Nature of physical injury  Current or historical 3. Medical  Presence / severity injuries  Previous exposure to examination 2. Joint interview  Communication needs  Consistency  Adult witness of abuse  Availability of JIT trained social worker  Availability of police surgeon

13. Factors Affecting Responses: Sexual Abuse Seeing the child  Allocated social worker  Receipt other services  Current or historical abuse  Nature of allegation  Alleged perpetrator outwith the home Joint interview  Factors related to seeing the child  Availability of JIT trained Social Worker Medical examination  Factors related to seeing the child and joint interview  Child accommodated

14. Factors Affecting Responses: Neglect  Child in immediate danger  Allocated social worker  Accumulation of concerns  Range of agencies providing services  Communication between workers  Different thresholds

15. Previous Interagency Activity  Currently registered3  Previously registered1  Sibling previously registered1  Currently accommodated2  Previous CP investigations5  Previous CP concerns10  Previous serious CC concerns7  No/ low level involvement10

16. Interviews: Social Workers’ Perspectives  Examples productive relationships all agencies  Health Visitors high tariff cases  JIT interviews  Head teachers regular feedback  Areas of Concern  Timescale and JIT led by police  Teachers professional responsibility  Differing thresholds health visitors  Other agencies understanding of social work legal remit  Other agencies understanding of role of reception and duty  Attendance at core groups  Legislative timescale leaving children in limbo

17. Interviews: Police Perspectives  Examples of positive co-working all agencies  Good understanding roles of police and social work  JIT training and interviewing  Health Visitors untapped resource  Head teacher – child communication difficulties  Areas of Concern  Difficulty accessing some social workers  Non JIT trained social workers in interviews  Some head teachers not understand role in CP  Legislative timescale/ Reporter response

18. Interviews: Health Visitors’ Perspectives  Examples of positive co-working all agencies  Complex child care work with Social Workers  Good liaison nursery teachers  Well organised professional case conferences  Areas of Concern  Difficult initial access to social work  Absence of qualified social worker  Patchy ongoing communication social work  Less preventative work  Lack of knowledge health visitor professional role  Lack of statutory powers health visitors

19. Interviews: Head Teachers’ Perspectives  Examples of positive co-working all agencies  Coordinated support asylum seekers  Case conferences and core groups  Co-work health visitors  Areas of Concern  Access to social workers  Less preventative work  Role of school nurses

20. Themes from Interviews  Understanding of professional role  Communication and accessibility  Continuity of contact and feedback  Informal and formal agency forums  Joint Training  Possible co-location

21. Areas for Consideration  Social Work  File organisation and index  Rationale for decisions  Reception / Duty Services / Access  JIT trained workers  Neglect cases  Review of files

22. Areas for Consideration  Police  Arrangements for JIT interviews  Staffing  Education  Reaffirmation of roles and responsibilities  Role of head teachers in joint interview

23. Areas for Consideration  Health  File organisation  Explicit rational for activity  Evaluation of files  Explicit risk assessment  Provisions of written report

24. Areas for Consideration  General Interagency  Delays in children hearing system  Panel member training  Continued interagency training  Knowledge all professional roles  Co-location  Monitoring attendance of core groups

25. References  Butler- Sloss, E. (1988). Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987, presented to the Secretary of State for Social Services by the Right Honourable Lord Butler Sloss DBE. London: HMSO.  Clyde, Lord (1992). Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney February 1991. London: HMSO.  Department of Health (1991). Child Abuse. A Study of Inquiry Reports 1980-1989. London: HMSO.  Department of Health (1995). Child Protection: Messages from Research. London: HMSO

26. References  Hammond, H. (2001). Child Protection Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Kennedy McFarlane. Commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway Child Protection Committee.  Herbison, J. (2006). Danielle Reid Independent Review into the Circumstances Surrounding Her Death  Scottish Executive (2001). For Scotland’s Children. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive  Laming, Lord (2003). The Victoria Climbie Inquiry. Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming. The Stationery Office: London  O’ Brien S. QC (2003). Report of the Caleb Ness Inquiry Commissioned by the Edinburgh and Lothians’ Child Protection Committee.  Scottish Executive (2002). It’s Everyone’s Job to Make Sure I’m Alright. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

27. References  Scottish Executive (2003). Getting our Priorities Right-Good Practice Guidance for Working with Children and Families affected by Substance Misuse. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.  Scottish Executive (2004a). Protecting Children and Young People: the Charter. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.  Scottish Executive (2004b). Protecting Children and Young People :The Framework for Standards. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.  Scottish Executive (2004c). Hidden Harm. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.