An introductory guide to the key terms and interagency ... · PDF fileThis document provides...

CES Reference Paper1st editionJune 2010

This document provides an introduction to the sources and origins of key terms and interagency initiatives in use in the Children’s Services Committees in Ireland. It is not intended to be comprehensive of all terms and initiatives relevant to CSCs at this stage, but rather a starting point which we hope will be added to with suggestions from CSC stakeholders, as the work on CSCs progresses.

An introductory guide to the key terms and interagency initiatives in use in the Children’s Services Committees in Ireland

Stella Owens

FOLD

FOLD

The Centre for Effective Services is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (company number 451580 in Ireland) and is governed by an Independent Board. The work of the Centre is supported by the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Further copies of this report are available to download from our website:www.effectiveservices.org/projects.php. Hard copies can be ordered from [email protected] (Please quote reference P016 Key Terms Reference Paper).

© Centre for Effective Services, 2010

FOLD

FOLD

The Centre for Effective Services is one of a new generation of organisations focusing on the emerging science of implementation in human services. The overarching mission of the Centre is to connect the design and delivery of services with scientific and technical knowledge of what works, in order to improve outcomes for children and young people and the families and communities in which they live. Our daily work is to provide technical and organisational expertise to support the design, implementation and ongoing review and development of evidence-informed services for children, youth and families. Our aims are:

• To promote and support the application of an evidence-informed approach to policy and practice in child, family and community services

• To promote the development of collaborative, joined up working that is outcomes-focused across research, policy and service providing organisations

• To build capacity within Ireland and Northern Ireland to take this work forward in the longer term by developing knowledge, skills and competencies. For more information about the work of the Centre please visit www.effectiveservices.org

Acknowledgements

The Centre for Effective Services would like to thank the following people who made important contributions to this document: Deirdre Fullerton and Liz Burtney of Insights Research who did background research and early drafting; Deborah Ghate and Katie Burke at CES for their helpful comments on various drafts; Aisling Gillen, National Specialist Family Support at the Health Services Executive and Elizabeth Canavan, Principal Officer, at the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

Any errors remain, of course, our own responsibility.

Centre for Effective Services2010

CentreforEffectiveServicesReferencePaperPage1of42

TableofContents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................3

TheCentreforEffectiveServices..............................................................................................................4

Originsandobjectiveofthisdocument ...................................................................................................4

Sources .......................................................................................................................................................5

Structureofthedocument .......................................................................................................................5

Section1 WorkingTogether.....................................................................................................................6

Interagencycollaboration .........................................................................................................................7

Section2 PolicyFrameworksrelevanttoworkingtogether ................................................................9

Ireland...................................................................................................................................................... 10

TheNationalChildren’sStrategy(2000) ............................................................................................... 10

TheAgendaforChildren’sServices(2007) ........................................................................................... 10

NorthernIreland ..................................................................................................................................... 11

OurChildrenandYoungPeople–OurPledge...................................................................................... 11

EnglandandWales ................................................................................................................................. 11

EveryChildMatters(2004) .................................................................................................................... 11

Scotland................................................................................................................................................... 13

GettingitRightforEveryChild(GIRFEC)(2005) ................................................................................... 13

Section3 Modelsofchildandfamilydevelopment ........................................................................... 15

EcologicalModel..................................................................................................................................... 16

HardikerModel ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Section4 Assessmentframeworks....................................................................................................... 20

FrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamilies ............................................ 21

MyWorldTriangle .................................................................................................................................. 22

FrameworkfortheAssessmentofVulnerableChildrenandtheirFamilies....................................... 24

CommonAssessmentFramework......................................................................................................... 24

IdentificationofNeeds(ION)andLimerickAssessmentofNeedSystem(LANS) .............................. 26

Section5 Specificinterventions/initiativesforinteragencyworking .............................................. 27

DifferentialResponseModel(DRM) ..................................................................................................... 28

RestorativeJustice .................................................................................................................................. 29

RestorativePractices .............................................................................................................................. 29


Section6 Dataprotectionanddatasharingprotocolsforinteragencyworking ............................ 31

DataProtection....................................................................................................................................... 32

DataSharingProtocols ........................................................................................................................... 32

TheYoungPeopleatRiskProtocol(YPAR) ........................................................................................... 33

Section7 Technicalandotherterms.................................................................................................... 34

Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 35

Indicators................................................................................................................................................. 35

Evaluation................................................................................................................................................ 36

Participation ............................................................................................................................................ 36

RiskandProtectiveFactors .................................................................................................................... 37

Section8 Bibliographyandresources .................................................................................................. 38

Introduction

The Centre for Effective Services 4

Origins and objective of this document 4

Sources 5

Structure of the document 5


Introduction

TheCentreforEffectiveServices

TheCentreforEffectiveServicesisanindependent,not‐for‐profitorganisationworkingacrosstheislandofIrelandandfundedjointlybyphilanthropyandnationalgovernmentinIreland1.TheoverarchingmissionoftheCentreistoconnectthedesignanddeliveryofserviceswithscientificandtechnicalknowledgeof‘whatworks’,toimproveoutcomesforchildren,familiesandtheircommunities.Weprovidetechnicalandorganisationalexpertisetosupportthedesign,implementationandongoingreviewanddevelopmentofevidence‐informedservices.Ouraimsare:

Topromoteandsupporttheapplicationofanevidence‐informedapproachtopolicyandpracticeinchild,familyandcommunityservices

Topromotethedevelopmentofcollaborative,joinedupworkingthatisoutcomes‐focusedacrossresearch,policyandserviceprovidingorganisations

TobuildcapacitywithinIrelandandNorthernIrelandtotakethisworkforwardinthelongertermbydevelopingknowledge,skillsandcompetencies.

In2009,theCentrewasaskedbytheOfficeoftheMinisterforChildrenandYouthAffairs(OMCYA),partoftheDepartmentofHealthandChildreninIreland,toassistwith,andadviseon,thestrategicdevelopmentofChildren’sServicesCommittees(CSCs).AthreeyearprojectplanwasagreedbetweentheCentreandOMCYAwhichoutlinesthesupportthatCESwillprovidetothecontinuingdevelopmentoftheCSCinitiative.

Originsandobjectiveofthisdocument

SincethefourChildren’sServicesCommittees(CSCs),DublinCity,SouthDublin,DonegalandLimerickCitybecameoperationalin2007,numerousdifferentmulti‐agencyinitiatives,tools,methodologies,andapproaches,eachwiththeirownterminology,havebeenemployedbyCSCs.TheOMCYAhasaskedCEStoproduceabriefdocumentwhichofferssomeexplanationanddefinitionofthedifferingtermsandconceptualframeworksrelatingtointeragencyinitiativesthatarecurrentlyinuseintheCSCs.ThisisapreliminarydocumentthatwillbeaddedtoastheworkofCSCsandCESprogresses.ItisintendedasaquickreferencedocumentforCSCstakeholders,andattemptstoprovidereaderswithasuccinctandaccessibleintroductiontotheselectedkeytermscurrentlyinuseinCSCs.ThisdocumentisnotintendedtobecomprehensiveofalltermsrelevanttoCSCsatthisstage,butratherastartingpointwhichwehopewillbeaddedtowithsuggestionsfromCSCstakeholders.

1TheAtlanticPhilanthropies,theOfficeoftheMinsterforChildrenandYouthAffairs(OMCYA),andtheDepartmentforCommunity,EqualityandGaeltachtAffairs(DCEGA).


CESwillsoonbeproducingamoreextensivereviewofkeyterms,constructsandevidencerelevanttointeragencyworkingwhichwillexploretheseandothertermsingreaterdetail.

Sources

Materialforthisdocumentwassourcedthroughgovernmentpublications,policydocuments,books,journalarticlesandotherpublishedandunpublisheddocumentsandbriefs.RelevantIrishandUKgovernmentwebsiteswerealsosearchedandGoogleandGoogleScholarsearchenginesearcheswereconductedusingalimitednumberofkeywords.Allsourcesarelistedinthebibliographyandresourcessectionattheendofthisdocument.

Structureofthedocument

Thedocumentisdividedintosevensections.Thefirstsectionisconcernedwithinteragencycollaborationandintegratedworking.SectiontwodescribesthepolicyframeworksrelevanttotheCSCinitiative.Sectionthreedescribestwomodelsofchildandfamilydevelopmentandsectionfourdocumentsassessmentframeworksrelevanttoworkingtogether.Sectionfivedefinesspecificinterventionsandinitiativesforinteragencyworkingwithsectionsixfocussingondataprotectionanddatasharingprotocols.FinallysectionsevendefineskeytechnicalandothertermsrelevanttotheCSCs.

Section 1Working Together

Interagency collaboration 7


Section1 WorkingTogether

Interagencycollaboration

Collaborationandpartnershipbetweengovernmentagenciesandorganisationshasbecomeakeyconceptunderlyinghowweprovideservicestochildrenandfamilies.Theseideasnowinformalargebodyofsocialpolicyinitiativesincludingsomestatutorydutiesofinteragencyco‐operationandanemphasisonworkingwithserviceusersandcarers.Differenttermscanbeappliedtotheconceptofagenciesworkingtogether,andmanyoftheseare(confusingly)usedinterchangeably:

• Interagencyworking:morethanoneagencyworkingtogetherinaplannedandformalway,ratherthansimplythroughinformalnetworking(althoughthelattermaysupportanddeveloptheformer).Thiscanbeatthestrategicortheoperationallevel.Itcouldinvolveplanningandworkinginparallel,butitdoesnotinvolvethecombiningofsystems,processesandteams.

• Multi‐agencyworking:morethanoneagencyworkingwithaclientbutnotnecessarilyjointly.Multi‐agencyworkingmaybepromptedbyjointplanning(theusualsenseinwhichthistermisused)orsimplybeaformofreplication,wherebyseveralagenciesworkinamoreorlessunplannedwaywiththesameclientorclientgroup.Aswithinteragencyworking,itmaybeconcurrentorsequential.Theterms‘interagency’and‘multi‐agency’(initsplannedsense)workingareoftenusedinterchangeably.

• Joined‐upworking:policyorthinkingreferstodeliberatelyconceptualisedandco‐ordinatedplanning,whichtakesaccountofmultiplepoliciesandvaryingagencypractices.Thishasbecometheunderpinningprinciple–atleastinaspiration‐ofalmostallcurrentUKsocialpolicy.

• Finally,integratedworkingiswhereeveryonesupportingchildrenandyoungpeopleworktogethereffectivelytoputthechildatthecentre,meettheirneedsandimprovetheirlives.Integratedworkingisachievedthroughformalisedcollaborationandco‐ordinationbetweenagencies(thatmayretaintheirownseparateidentities),atalllevels,acrossservices,inbothsingleandmulti‐agencysettings.Itrequirescommitmenttocommongoals,strongleadershipandmanagementandisfacilitatedbytheadoptionofcommonservicedeliverytoolsandprocesses.

• Integratedprocessesarekeytothesuccessofintegratedworkingandcaninclude:

o Informationsharingbetweenprofessionalsbasedonguidancetoensureunderstandingofwhen,whyandhowtoshareinformation

o Commondeliverytools,forexampletheCommonAssessmentFramework(CAF)inEnglandtomakeassessmentmoreefficientandreducetheriskofduplication.Italsoencouragesasharedlanguagebetweenagenciesandimprovesreferrals

o Aleadprofessionaltoensurefront‐lineservicesareco‐ordinatedandcanactasacontactpointforchildren,youngpeopleandfamilies

o Developmentofefficientdatasharingprocessesincludingexplorationofelectronicsharing.


ForCSCpurposes,‘interagencyworking’probablybestdescribeswhatCSCsaretryingtosetinplaceatthelocallevel,withaspirationstoachieveatleastsomeelementsof‘integratedworking’asstructuresandprocessesevolve.Interagencyworkingisanactivitythatcoversabroadrangeofactionsandcanbeappliedinnumerousareasandsettings.AccordingtotheChildrenActsAdvisoryBoard(CAAB)2009interagencyworkingcanbe:

• Formalorinformal:informalincludinginterpersonalcontactsandinformalchannelsofcommunicatione.g.ad‐hocmeetings,correspondenceandphonecallsorformalincludingorganisationalstructures,jobdefinitionsandinstrumentse.g.plans,agreements,contracts

• Verticalorhorizontal:verticalcaninvolvejointactionsofagenciesfromdifferent

governmentlevelsorhorizontalinvolvingthejointactionofagenciesfromdifferentsectors

• Policy,operationalorfront‐line:interagencyworkingbetweenagenciescantake

placeinrelationtostrategicorpublicpolicy,organisational/operationalorfront‐linedeliveryissues.

Tomlinson’s(2003)definitionof‘goodpractice’ininteragencyworkingadvocates:

• Fullstrategicandoperationalcommitmenttocollaboration• Anawarenessofagencies’differingaimsandvalues,withacommitmenttoworking

towardsacommongoal• Involvementofallrelevantpeople,oftenincludingclientsandtheircarers• Clearrolesandresponsibilitiesforindividualsandagenciesinvolvedincollaboration• Supportiveandcommittedmanagementofstaffinpartnerships• Flexibleandinnovativefundingmechanisms• Systemsforinteragencycollecting,sharingandanalysisofdata• Jointtraining,withaccreditationwhereappropriate• Strategiestoencourageteamcommitmentbeyondthepersonalinterestsofkey

individuals• Effectiveandappropriatecommunicationbetweenagenciesandprofessionals• Asuitable,andsometimesaltered,locationforthedeliveryofservices.

Section 2Policy Frameworks relevant to working together

Ireland 10

The National Children’s Strategy (2000) 10

The Agenda for Children’s Services (2007) 10

Northern Ireland 11

Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge (2006) 11

England and Wales 11

Every Child Matters (2004) 11

Scotland 13

Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) (2005) 13


Section2 PolicyFrameworksrelevanttoworkingtogether

Ireland

TheNationalChildren’sStrategy(2000)

TheNationalChildren’sStrategy(2000)setsoutaseriesofobjectivestoguidechildren’spolicyoverthetenyearperiodupto2010.Itseekstoestablisha‘wholechild’perspectiveatthecentreofallrelevantpolicydevelopmentandservicedelivery,andtoimprovethequalityofchildren’slivesthroughintegrateddeliveryofservicesinpartnershipwithchildren,youngpeople,theirfamiliesandtheircommunities.Thewholechildperspectivedrawsonresearchandknowledgeaboutchildren’sdevelopmentandtherelationshipbetweenchildrenandfamily,communityandthewidersociety.Itidentifiesthecapacityofchildrentoshapetheirlivesastheygrow,whilealsobeingshapedandsupportedbytheworldaroundthem.Theninedimensionsidentifiedare:physicalandmentalwell‐being;emotionalandbehaviouralwell‐being;intellectualcapacity;spiritualandmoralwell‐being;identity;selfcare;familyrelationships;socialandpeerrelationships;andsocialpresentation.TheNationalChildren’sStrategyidentifiesthreenationalgoals:Goal1‐Childrenwillhaveavoiceinmatterswhichaffectthemandtheirviewswillbegivendueweightinaccordancewiththeirageandmaturity.Goal2‐Children'sliveswillbebetterunderstood;theirliveswillbenefitfromevaluation,researchandinformationontheirneeds,rightsandtheeffectivenessofservices.Goal3‐Childrenwillreceivequalitysupportsandservicestopromoteallaspectsoftheirdevelopment.DevelopmentofanewNationalChildren'sStrategywillbeledbytheOfficeoftheMinisterforChildrenandYouthAffairs.

TheAgendaforChildren’sServices(2007)

TheAgendaforChildren’sServices,publishedin2007bytheOfficeoftheMinisterforChildrenandYouthAffairs(OMCYA),setsoutthestrategicdirectionandkeygoalsofpublicpolicyinrelationtochildren’shealthandsocialservicesinIreland.TheAgendaisaframeworkwhichappliestheprinciplesoftheNationalChildren’sStrategytotheimplementationofpoliciesthroughservicedelivery.AtthecoreoftheAgendaisthepromotionofwhatwewantforourchildren–goodoutcomes.Asawayofensuringacommonlanguageofoutcomeswithinchildren’sservices,TheAgendaforChildren’sServicesdrawstogetherthevarioustypesofoutcomesfoundincontemporarychildren’spolicyandpresentsthemasasinglelistof7NationalService


OutcomesforChildreninIreland.The7NationalOutcomesenvisionthatallchildrenshouldbe:

1. Healthy,bothphysicallyandmentally2. Supportedinactivelearning3. Safefromaccidentalandintentionalharm4. Economicallysecure5. Secureintheimmediateandwiderphysicalenvironment6. Partofpositivenetworksoffamily,friends,neighboursandthecommunity7. Includedandparticipatinginsociety.

NorthernIreland

OurChildrenandYoungPeople–OurPledge‐atenyearstrategyforchildrenandyoungpeopleinNorthernIreland2006‐2016(2006)

TheoverallpledgeofthisstrategyinNorthernIrelandistodeliveronasharedvisionforallchildrenandyoungpeopleoverthetenyearsbetween2006and2016.Thesuccessofthestrategyistobemeasuredbyimprovedoutcomesinkeyareasofchildrenandyoungpeople’slives.Theoutcomesframeworkidentifiessixoutcomes:

• Healthy• Enjoying,learningandachieving• Livinginsafetyandwithstability• Experiencingeconomicandenvironmentalwell‐being• Contributingpositivelytocommunityandsociety• Livinginasocietywhichrespectstheirrights.

Children’sServicesPlanninginNorthernIrelandisaninteragencyprocesswhichischildcentredandaimstosupportfamilies,carersandcommunities.AstatutorydutyhasbeenplacedoneachofthefourhealthandsocialservicesboardstosetupanAreaChildrenandYoungPeople’sCommitteetooverseetheinteragencyplanningofservicesforvulnerablechildrenandyoungpeopleintheirareabasedonthesixoutcomes.

EnglandandWales

EveryChildMatters(2004)

In2003,intheUK,theGovernmentpublishedaGreenPapercalledEveryChildMatters,alongsideaformalresponsetothereportintothedeathofVictoriaClimbié.Thepaperbuiltonexistingplanstostrengthenpreventativeservicesbyfocusingonfourkeythemes:

1. Increasingthefocusonsupportingfamiliesandcarers2. Ensuringnecessaryinterventionbeforereachingcrisispoint3. Addressingtheunderlyingproblemsofweakaccountabilityandpoorintegration4. Fosteringstaffmoraleandtraining.


Followingtheconsultation,theGovernmentpublishedEveryChildMatters:Thenextsteps,andpassedtheChildrenAct2004,providingthelegislativespinefordevelopingmoreeffectiveandaccessibleservicesfocusedaroundtheneedsofchildren,youngpeopleandfamilies.EveryChildMattersisanecological,integratedsystemthatiscentredonthechildandtheirfamily,servedthroughserviceco‐ordinationandsupportedthroughintegratedorganisationsandagencies.Theemphasisisonpreventionratherthancrisisintervention.ThemainaimofEveryChildMattersistoimproveoutcomesinfiveareasforchildrenandyoungpeople:

• Behealthy:physically,mentallyandemotionally,sexuallyandenjoyahealthylifestyle,freefromdrugs

• Staysafe:frommaltreatment,neglect,violence,exploitation,fromaccidentaldeathorinjury,frombullyinganddiscrimination,crimeandantisocialbehaviours,havesecurityandstability

• Enjoyandachieve:bereadyforschool,attendandenjoyschool,achieveacademically,personallyandsocially,enjoyrecreation

• Makeapositivecontribution:engageincommunity,demonstratepositivebehaviour,developpositiverelationships,self‐confidence,skillstodealwithlifeandenterprisingbehaviour

• Achieveeconomicwell‐being:engageinemployment,trainingorfurthereducation,bereadyforemployment,liveinsustainablecommunitiesanddecenthomes,haveaccesstotransportandmaterialgoods,liveinhouseholdsfreeoflowincome.

MeetingtheaimsandachievingtheoutcomesofEveryChildMattersisdependentonactiontakenbylocalprogrammes.Thisshouldbedrivenbylocalanalysisofprioritiesandmetthroughintegratedstrategyandgovernance,processandfrontlinedelivery.Thisapproachemphasisesintegrationandsharingratherthanduplicationofeffortandfragmentation.Theintegratedstrategycallsforpoolingofbudgets,jointareareviews,sharedassessmentoflocalneedsandasinglechildrenandyoungpeople’splanproducedbythelocalauthority(seeFigure1below).Figure1Integratedframework,the‘Onion’diagram

Source:EveryChildMatters,DepartmentofChildren,SchoolsandFamilies


ThisintegratedstrategyissetoutinEveryChildMatters:ChangeforChildren,andplacesa‘dutytoco‐operate’onallrelevantpartnersinthemakingofarrangementstoimprovewell‐beingandoutcomesforchildrenandyoungpeopleintheirlocalarea,throughtheestablishmentofChildren’sTrusts.DurhamChildren’sTrusthashadcontactwithsomeoftheChildren’sServicesCommitteesandtheOMCYA.

Scotland

GettingitRightforEveryChild(GIRFEC)(2005)

GettingitRightforEveryChildistheScottishGovernmentprogrammetopromoteeffectivepartnershipworkingbetweenagencies.GIRFECisthefoundationforworkwithallchildrenandyoungpeople,includingadultserviceswhereparentsareinvolved.Itbuildsonuniversalhealthandeducationservices,andisembeddedinTheEarlyYearsFrameworkandValuingYoungPeople:Principlesandconnectionstosupportyoungpeopletoachievetheirpotential.Itsetsouttodevelopallchildrenandyoungpeopleas:

• Successfullearners• Confidentindividuals• Effectivecontributors• Responsiblecitizens.

Embeddingtheinvolvementofchildrenandyoungpeopleintheplanning,designanddeliveryofpublicservicesisaprerequisitetoachievingtheseoutcomes.Moreoveratanindividuallevel,theactiveparticipationofeverychildandyoungpersonshouldbeintegraltoimprovingtheirwell‐beingacrossthenationalindicatorsofbeingSafe,Healthy,Achieving,Nurtured,Active,Respected,ResponsibleandIncluded.GIRFECdescribesthekeyprinciplesandvalueswhicheverylocalauthorityisrequiredtoadhereto,inordertoimproveoutcomesforchildrenandfamilies,intermsofchildren’sbroaderwell‐beinganddevelopment.Thekeyaspectsofthisare:

• Partnershipwithparents• Co‐ordinationofateamaroundthechild• Onesingleactionplan• TheroleofaLeadProfessionalinco‐ordinatingtheprocessofintegratedworking.


Table1showshowtheoutcomesforIrelandandNorthernIreland,EnglandandWalesandScotlandmapontooneanother,anddemonstratestheclosedegreeofsimilarityacrossthedifferentschema.Table1NationalOutcomesforIreland,NorthernIrelandandEngland&WalesandIndicatorsforScotland

RepublicofIrelandOutcomesTheAgendaforChildren’sServices2007www.omc.gov.ie

NorthernIrelandOutcomesOurChildren‐OurPledge2006www.allchildrenni.gov.uk

EnglandandWalesOutcomesEveryChildMatterswww.everychildmatters.gov.uk

ScotlandIndicatorsGettingitRightforEveryChild2005www.scotland.gov.uk

Healthy,bothphysicallyandmentally

Healthy Behealthy Healthy

Supportedinactivelearning

Enjoying,learningandachieving

Enjoyandachieve

AchievingandActive

Safefromaccidentalandintentionalharm

Staysafe

Secureintheimmediateandwiderphysicalenvironment

Livinginsafetyandwithstability

Safe

EconomicallySecure Experiencingeconomicandenvironmentalwell‐being

Achieveeconomicwell‐being

Nurtured

Partofpositivenetworksoffamily,friends,neighboursandthecommunity

Contributingpositivelytocommunityandsociety

Makeapositivecontribution

Responsible

Includedandparticipatinginsociety

Livinginasocietywhichrespectstheirrights

Includedandrespected

Section 3Models of child and family development

Ecological Model 16

Hardiker Model 17


Section3 Modelsofchildandfamilydevelopmentrelevanttoworkingtogether

EcologicalModel

TheEcologicalModelorecologicalperspectivehasitsoriginsinBronfenbrenner’sEcologicalSystemsTheoryofHumanDevelopment(1979).Itprovidesaframeworktounderstandthemultipleinfluences–orriskandprotectivefactors2‐thatimpactonchildren.AccordingtoBronfenbrenner(1989),howachilddevelopsisafunctionofinteractionsbetweentheindividualchildandhisorherenvironmentovertheperiodoftimethatthechildisdeveloping.Themodeltakesasystemsperspectiveonfamilyfunctioning,anditprovidesaframeworkforunderstandinghowcriticalfactorsthatinfluencedevelopmentnesttogetherwithinahierarchyoffourlevels:thesocio‐culturallevel(‘macro‐system’factors);thecommunity(‘exo‐system’factors);thefamily(‘micro‐system’factors);andtheleveloftheindividualparentorchild(‘ontogenic’factors).Thusthismodelismadeupof:

• Thechild,atthecentre,includingthedimensionsofhis/herdevelopment• Thehomeandfamily/carers• Thesystemsclosesttothechild,inhis/herimmediateenvironment,suchasschool,

church,play/leisure• Theinter‐relationshipsbetweenthesesystemsinthechild’simmediate

environment.Thismightincludetheparents’relationshipwiththechild’steacherandtherelationshipbetweenthechild’ssiblingsandneighbourhoodfriends

• Socialsettingsthatcanaffectthechildbutinwhichthechilddoesnotparticipatedirectlye.g.localservicessuchashealth,housing,socialservices,communityandvoluntarygroupsetc

• Thecultureandsocietyinwhichthechildliveswhichaffectthechildthroughitsbeliefs,attitudes,andtraditions.

Thethreeimportantpointsaboutanecologicalmodelarethat:

1. Itischild‐centred2. Itbeginswithafocusonthechild’sexperiencesbecausethesearethe“enginesof

development”3. Thenatureoftherelationshipsbetweendifferentsettingsisalsoincludedbecause

theyinfluencewhattheyoungchildexperiences.

2RiskandprotectivefactorsaredefinedinSection7–Technicalandotherterms


EcologicalmodelsunderpintheNationalChildren’sStrategy’s‘wholechild’perspective,EveryChildMattersinEnglandandWales,GIRFECinScotlandandtheWholeChildModelinNorthernIrelandasaframeworkforcapturingtheuniqueworldofeachchild,withthechildasanactiveparticipantinit.

HardikerModel

Inthe1990’sintheUK,buildingonanecologicalperspective,PaulineHardikerandhercolleaguesdevelopedamodeltohelpunderstanddifferentlevelsofneedwithinapopulationofchildren(Hardikeretal,1991).ThismodelisnowwidelyusedandhasbeenfoundtobeausefulplanningframeworkbyboththeUKandIrishGovernments.Themodel(seeFigure2)outlinesfourlevelsofinterventionasfollows:

Level1:referstothosemainstreamservicesthatareavailabletoallchildren—healthcare,education,leisureandarangeofotherservicesprovidedincommunities.Italsooffersthepotentialfortargetingresourcesthroughcommunitydevelopmentinitiativessuchasparentandtoddlergroups,communityhousesandwomen’sgroupswhichmaybeavailabletothewholecommunitybutparticularlytargetedatdisadvantagedcommunities.Level2:representsservicestochildrenwhohavesomeadditionalneeds.ServicesatLevel2arecharacterisedbyreferral,andfullparentalconsentandnegotiation.ExampleswouldbeBehaviourSupport,ParentingSupport,additionalEducationalservices,andsupportforchildrenwhoaredeemedvulnerablethroughanassessmentofwhattheirneedis,andviatargetedspecificservicesprovidedbyeducation,health,socialservices,lawenforcementandthevoluntarysector.Level3:representssupporttofamiliesorindividualchildrenandyoungpeoplewheretherearechronicorseriousproblems.Supportisoftenprovidedthroughacomplexmixofserviceswhichusuallyneedtoworktogetherwellinordertoprovidethebestsupport.Stateinterventioncanhaveahighprofileatthislevel.ExampleswouldbechildrenontheChildProtectionRegister,orwhohavecomebeforetheCourts.

Level4:representssupportforfamiliesandindividualchildrenoryoungpeoplewherethefamilyhasbrokendowntemporarilyorpermanently,wherethechildoryoungpersonmaybelookedafterbysocialservices.Itcanalsoincludeyoungpeopleinyouthcustodyorprisonorasanin‐patientduetodisabilityormentalhealthproblems.


Figure2:HardikerModel

Source:Hardikeretal,1991

Thestudyofpreventionsciencehasledtowideacknowledgement,thatearlyintervention(eitherearlyintheproblem,orearlyinthedevelopmentallifecourse)atLevels1and2,throughtheprovisionofbasiccaresuchasearlyyearsservices,producespositiveoutcomesandpreventstheneedforchildrenneedingspecialistservicesatalaterdate.Theaimofthehigherlevelsofsupport(3and4)istochangethefamilycircumstancespositively,sothatthefamilycanonceagainbesupportedbyLevel1services(andthereforenolongerneedspecialistservices)alongsidethemainstreampopulation.

ThusgoodgenericLevel1serviceswouldbethepreferredapproach,supportedwithpreventativeservicesatLevel2,wherebyalldifficultiesaredealtwithinmainstreameducation,healthandcommunity.Themoreneedsaddressedatlevels1and2thebetter.Level2servicesareessentiallypreventative,manyprovidedbycommunityandvoluntaryagencies.TheeffectivenessofLevel2serviceswilloftendeterminethethresholdforentryintoLevel3.Similarly,effective,intensive,targetedservicesatLevel3willaffectthresholdsforLevel4.Butchildrenincare,orinyouthcustody,orinanacutehospital,atLevel4arealsodependentonaccesstoeffectiveservicesatLevels3,2and1onthejourneybacktothecommunity.

TheHardikerModel’susecanbeextendedtoengageinpartnershipworkingwithotherstatutoryagenciesandwiththevoluntaryandcommunitysectortolocatetheirservicesalongthiscontinuum.Withamorein‐depthknowledgeoftheneedsofparents,children


andyoungpeople,thisframeworkhasthepotentialtosignificantlyinformthinkingaboutstrategicobjectives.

Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families 21

My World Triangle 22

Framework for the Assessment of Vulnerable Children and their Families 24

Common Assessment Framework 24

Identification of Needs (ION) and Limerick Assessment of Need System (LANS) 26

Section 4Assessment frameworks


Section4 Assessmentframeworksrelevanttoworkingtogether

ThedifferentassessmentframeworksdescribedinthissectionarealltheoreticallyunderpinnedbyBronfenbrenner’secologicalmodel.

FrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamilies(England&Wales)

The‘FrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamilies’wasintroducedtoEnglandandWalesin2000(DoH,2000).TheFrameworkprovidesasystematicandconsistentwayofcollectingandanalysinginformationaboutanindividualchildtoenableamorecoherentunderstandingofthechild’sworld,especiallyinsituationswhereachildisthoughttobe‘inneed’.Itisthereforesuitedtoassessmentwheretargetedresponsesmayberequired(Levels2to4inHardiker’smodel)Itguidespractitionerswhenundertakinganassessmentofachild’sneedstoaddress:

• Thechild’sdevelopmentalneeds• Thecapacityofhisorherparents/carerstorespondtothoseneeds• Theimpactofthewiderfamilyandenvironmentalfactorsonboththechildandhis

orherparents/carerswhileensuringthechild’swelfareissafeguardedandpromoted.

Thethreedomainsconstituteaframeworkwithinwhichtounderstandwhatishappeningtoachild(seeFigure3).Fromthis,clearprofessionaljudgmentscanbemade.Thesejudgmentsincludewhetherthechildbeingassessedisinneed,whetherthechildissufferingorlikelytosuffersignificantharm,whatactionsmustbetakenandwhichserviceswouldbestmeettheneedsofthisparticularchildandfamily.TheFrameworkisevidence‐basedandunderpinnedbyasetofcoreprincipleswhichmeansassessments:

• Arechildcentred• Arerootedinchilddevelopment• Areecologicalintheirapproach• Ensureequalityofopportunity• Involveworkingwithchildrenandfamilies• Buildonstrengthsaswellasidentifydifficulties• Areinteragencyinapproach• Arepartofacontinuingprocess• Arecarriedinparallelwithotheractionandprovidingservices• Aregroundedinevidence‐basedknowledge.


Figure3TheAssessmentTriangle

Source:FrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamilies,DepartmentofHealth,UK(2000)

MyWorldTriangle(GettingitRightforEveryChild‐Scotland)

GettingitRightforEveryChildinScotlandalsousestheassessmenttriangle(usedintheFrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamilies),referringtoitasthe‘MyWorldTriangle’.Thetriangleidentifiesgenericareasimportantinthedevelopmentofallchildren,whichshouldbetakenintoaccountwhenassessingchildrenandyoungpeople.ItbroadlyreflectsthedifferentdimensionsdescribedintheEcologicalModel.TheTrianglerepresentsthethreedomainsthattheassessmentshouldtakeaccountofthe:

• Child'sdevelopmentalneeds• Parents'orcaregivers'capacitiestorespondappropriately• Widerfamilyandenvironmentalfactors.

Itservesasastartingpointforconsideringwhatrisksmightbepresentinachild'slife,asexpressedintheFigure4. ThisallowspractitionersanopportunitytoidentifypossibleriskindicatorsusingtheareasprovidedbytheMyWorldTriangle.Practitionersusingthisframeworkareurgedtoconsiderwhoisbestplacedtoprovideinformationinrelationtothe


specificareasofachild'slife‐thiswillincludeotherpractitionersandservices,butalsothechildandfamily.Thefivekeyquestionspractitionersshouldconsiderare:

• Whatisgettinginthewayofthischildoryoungperson'swell‐being?• DoIhavealltheinformationIneedtohelpthischildoryoungperson?• WhatcanIdonowtohelpthischildoryoungperson?• Whatcanmyagencydotohelpthischildoryoungperson?• Whatadditionalhelp,ifany,maybeneededfromothers?

Figure4The‘MyWorldTriangle’

Source:GettingitRightforEveryChild,TheScottishExecutive

Eachdomainrelatestotheothers.Anychild'sdevelopmentissignificantlyshapedbyboththeirparticularexperiencesandtheinteractionbetweenaseriesoffactors.Somefactorslikegeneticinheritanceortemperamentareoftenthoughttobeintrinsictoindividualchildren.Others,likeparticularhealthproblemsoranimpairment,maybeamixtureofintrinsicandcircumstantial.Othersmayrelateprimarilytoachild'sculture,andtothephysicalandemotionalenvironmentinwhichtheylive.


FrameworkfortheAssessmentofVulnerableChildrenandtheirFamilies(Children’sResearchCentre,TrinityCollegeDublin‐Ireland)

TheFrameworkfortheAssessmentofVulnerableChildrenandtheirFamilies:AssessmentToolandPracticeGuidancewasdevelopedbyHelenBuckleyandcolleaguesintheChildren’sResearchCentreinTrinityCollegeDublinandJanHorwath,SheffieldUniversity(2007).Thedesignwasinformedthroughconsultationwith600practitionersandmanagersincommissioningHealthBoardsandrelatedorganisations.ItdrawssubstantiallyontheFrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirfamilies(DoHUK2000).ThekeyaimsoftheFrameworkaretohelpstandardisepracticeacrossarangeoforganisationalenvironments,throughanapproachthatisadaptabletoarangeoffamilysituationsandcircumstancesinatransparentanduser‐friendlymanner.Asetofcorevaluesemergedfromtheconsultationprocess,uponwhichtheassessmentframeworkisbased:

• Immediatesafetyofthechild• Child‐centredandecologicalapproachtoassessments• Inclusiveapproachtoassessment• Recogniseindividualneedsofallchildrenregardlessofage,gender,ethnicityanddisability

• Multi‐disciplinarypractice• Evidence‐basedpractice• Goodqualitysupervision.

Thedraftassessmentframeworkconsistsoftwodocuments:atoolandpracticeguidance.Thetoolisconcernedwiththreedimensionsofthechild’slife(theassessmenttriangle)thattheassessmentshouldfocuson:

• Child’sneeds• Parentalcapacitytomeetneeds• Familyandcommunitycapacitytoneeds.

Theassessmentalsohighlightskeyareas(ethnicity,parentaldrugmisuse,domesticviolenceetc)andindicateshowtheireffectmightbeconsideredagainstthethreedimensions.

CommonAssessmentFramework(EveryChildMatters‐EnglandandWales)

TheCommonAssessmentFramework(CAF)isakeycomponentforachievingEveryChildMattersoutcomes.Itisasharedassessmentandplanningframeworkforuseacrossallchildren’sservicesandalllocalareasinEnglandandWales.Itaimstohelptheearlyidentificationofchildrenandyoungpeople’sadditionalneedsandpromoteamoreco‐ordinatedserviceprovisiontomeetthem,particularlyintermsofuniversalservices(Level1


inHardiker’sModel).CAFtakesanecologicalapproachtoassessmentandcoversthethreedomainsoftheassessmenttriangle;developmentofthechildoryoungperson;parentsandcarers;andfamilyandenvironment.TheCAFisnotintendedforachildoryoungpersonwherethereareconcernsthattheymightbesuffering,ormaybeatriskfromsuffering,harm.TheCAFdrawsontheFrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamiliesbutitdoesnotreplacethisorotherhighlyspecialisedassessmentse.g.specialeducationalneedsassessments.ThereisworkunderwaytodeterminehowCAFshouldfitwiththeseassessmentsandcutoutduplication,butagenciesandprofessionalsneedtoagreetherelationshipbetweenCAFandotherspecialistassessmentslocally.However,theCAFmaybeappropriatetobeusedbefore,orinconjunctionwithaspecialistassessmenttohelpunderstandandarticulatethefullrangeofachild’sneeds.Itcanhelpensurethatthereferraltoaspecialistserviceisrelevantandcanbuildupacomprehensivepictureofneeds,ratherthanaseriesofpartialsnapshots.TheCAFprovidesanassessmentthatiscommonacrossservices.Itaimsto:

• Embedasharedlanguage• Supportbetterunderstandingandcommunicationsamongstpractitioners• Reducethescaleofdifferentassessmentsthathistoricallysomechildrenandyoung

peoplehaveundergone• Facilitateearlyinterventionandspeedupservicedelivery• Shiftthefocusfromdealingwithconsequencestoprevention.

Withtheconsentofthefamilyandchildorchildreninvolved,theCAFprocessinvolvescompletionofastandardassessmentformbyanyprofessionalengagingwithchildren,inasituationwherethatneedcannotbemetbytheirownagency.Theaimistoidentify,attheearliestopportunity,children’sadditionalneedsandprovidetimelyandco‐ordinatedsupporttomeetthoseneeds.Theprocessinitiallyinvolvescompletionofapre‐assessment.Thishelpsidentifychildrenwhowouldbenefitfromafullassessment.Afullassessmentaimstofacilitateamoreaccurateanddetailedpictureofachild’sneeds,leadingtomoreappropriatereferrals,earlierinterventionandareducedscaleofsubsequentspecialistassessment.Uponcompletiontheassessmentisusedbyprofessionalstoactivelybrokertheprovisionofadditionalserviceseitherfromotheruniversalservicesorbyreferraltohigher‐levelprovision.Asinglepractitioner,calledtheLeadProfessional,isnominatedastheleadandwilldeliveronthreecorefunctions:

• Actasasinglepointofcontactforthechildorfamily• Co‐ordinatethedeliveryoftheactionsagreed• Reduceoverlapandinconsistencyintheservicesreceived.


Theleadprofessionalisaccountabletotheirhomeagencyfortheirdeliveryoftheleadprofessionalfunctionsbutisnotresponsibleoraccountablefortheactionsofothers.

IdentificationofNeeds(ION)andLimerickAssessmentofNeedSystem(LANS)

AtalocallevelinIrelandtheIdentificationofNeeds(ION)projectintheNorthWest(includingtheDonegalChildren’sServicesCommittee)andtheLimerickAssessmentofNeedSystem(LANS)usedbyLimerickCityChildren’sServicesCommittee,haveadoptedsomeoftheprinciplesfromtheCAFandthe‘MyWorldTriangle’.

Section 5Specific interventions/initiatives for interagency working

Differential Response Model (DRM) 28

Restorative Justice 29

Restorative Practices 29

Co-operation and Working Together (CAWT) Outcomes for Children Project 30


Section5 Specificinterventions/initiativesforinteragencyworking

DifferentialResponseModel(DRM)

A‘differentialresponse’distinguishesbetweensituationswherechildrenareseriouslyatriskandthosewherechildrenarevulnerableandarelikelytobenefitfromamorewelfare‐oriented,therapeuticapproach.IntheUnitedStatesoverthelastfifteenyearsconcernshavebeenexpressedthatthetraditionalinvestigativeapproachtochildmaltreatmentreportswereinflexibleandfailedtoprovidesufficientservicestomeetfamilyneeds.Inaddition,thenatureofaninvestigationisintrusiveand,itisargued,lacksrespectandresponsiveness.ThedifferencesbetweeninvestigativeapproachesandaDifferentialResponseModel(DRM)werecapturedbyKaplanandMerkel‐Holguin(2008):

• Familyengagementvs.adversarial• Servicesvs.surveillance• Labellingas‘inneedofservicesandsupport’vs.‘perpetrator’• Encouragingvs.threatening• Identificationofneedvs.punishment• Continuumofresponsevs.‘onesizefitsall’.

TheDRM,whichoriginatedinMinnesotaintheUSandwhichisnowbeingimplementedin18StatesinAmerica,advocatesthatamoreflexibleapproachcanbetakenandadualpathwayofcareisavailable:aninvestigativepathwayforseveremaltreatmentcaseswherethereisaperceivedriskoffurtherabuseorpotentialforinvolvementofthejudicialsystem,oranon‐investigativeorassessmentpathway(sometimescalledalternativeresponse,familyassessmentresponse)forlowtomoderateriskcases.Thisfocusesonengagingthefamily,recognisingthestrengthsandneedsoffamilies,anddoesnotinvolveaformaldecisionaroundspecificallegations.ThecorecomponentsofDRMhavebeensetoutbyMerkel‐Holguinetal(2006)asbeing:

1. Theuseoftwoormorediscreteresponsesofintervention2. Thecreationofmultipleresponsesforreportsofmaltreatmentthatarescreenedin

andacceptedforresponse3. Thedeterminationoftheresponseassignmentbythepresenceofimminentdanger,

levelofrisk,andexistinglegalrequirements4. Thecapacitytore‐assignfamiliestoadifferentpathwayinresponsetofindingsfrom

initialinvestigationorassessment5. Theestablishmentofmultipleresponsesiscodifiedinstatute,policy,and/or

protocols6. Familiesintheassessmentpathwaymayrefuseserviceswithoutconsequenceas


longaschildsafetyisnotcompromised7. Noformaldeterminationofmaltreatmentforfamiliesinanassessmentpathway,

andservicesofferedtosuchfamilieswithoutanysuchdetermination8. Nolistingofapersoninanassessmentpathwayasachildmaltreatmentperpetrator

inthestate’scentralregistry.ThismodelisbeingpilotedinHSEDublinNorththroughtheNationalDirectorateofChildrenandFamiliesSocialServices,HSE.TheChildandFamilyResearchCentreatNUIGareactivelyengagedinevaluationofthepilotandinextractingthelearningfromtheinitiative,withaviewtodesigningamodelfornationalrollout.HSEDublinSouthWestarealsopilotingtheDifferential(orinthiscaseAlternative)ResponseModel.ItisfocusedonJobstowninTallaghtandisanactivityoftheSouthDublinChildren’sServicesCommittee.AprocessevaluationofthispilothasbeenconductedbytheChildandFamilyResearchCentre,NUIG.

RestorativeJustice

RestorativeJusticeistheprocesswherebyvictimsaregiventhechancetotelloffenderstherealimpactoftheircrime,togetanswerstotheirquestionsandtoreceiveanapology.Theprocessgivesoffendersthechancetounderstandtheimpactofwhatthey’vedoneandtodosomethingtorepairtheharm.TheaimofRestorativeJusticeistoholdoffenderstoaccountforwhattheyhavedone,personallyanddirectly,andhelpvictimstogetonwiththeirlives.TheprinciplesofRestorativeJusticeinclude:

• Adherencetotheprocess• Equalities,diversityandnon‐discrimination• Information,choiceandsafety• Agreementsandoutcomes• Organisationandpolicies.

RestorativeJusticecantakeplaceatvariouspoints:whentheoffenderhasalreadybeensentencedinprisonorinthecommunity;whentheoffenderhaspleadedguiltyincourtbutbeforesentencing;orasanalternativetoprosecutionforlessseriouscrimes.

RestorativePractices

Therestorativepracticesconcepthasitsrootsinrestorativejustice.Itsfundamentalhypothesisisthathumanbeingsarehappier,moreco‐operativeandproductive,andmorelikelytomakepositivechangesintheirbehaviourwhenthoseinpositionsofauthoritydothingswiththemratherthantothemorforthem.


Organisationsinmanyfieldsaredevelopinginnovativemodelsofrestorativepractice.Insocialwork,familygroup(welfare)conferencingorfamilygroupdecisionmakingprocessesempowerextendedfamilymemberstomeetprivately,withoutprofessionalsintheroom,tomakeaplantoprotectchildrenintheirownfamiliesformfurtherviolenceandneglect.Incriminaljustice,restorativecirclesandconferencesallowvictims,offendersandtheirrespectivefamilymembersandfriendstocometogethertoexplorehoweveryonehasbeenaffectedbyanoffenseandwherepossible,todecidehowtorepairtheharmandmeettheirownneeds.Ineducation,circlesandgroupsprovideopportunitiesforstudentstosharetheirfeelings,buildrelationshipsandproblemsolve,andwherethereiswrongdoing,toplayanactiveroleinaddressingthewrongandmakingthingsright.TheHullCentreforRestorativePracticesintheUKisprovidinginputtotheChildren’sServicesCommitteesInitiative.Co‐operationandWorkingTogether(CAWT)OutcomesforChildrenProjectCAWTisapartnershipbetweenHSEDublinNorthEastandWest,andNorthernIreland’sWesternandSouthernHealthandSocialCareTrusts,andtheHealthandSocialCareBoardandthePublicHealthAgency.CAWT’saimistofacilitatethepartnerorganisationstoworktogethertoachievethebestpossiblehealthandsocialcareoutcomesforthepopulationoftheborderarea.TheCAWTOutcomesforChildrenProjectaimstopromoteandimplementinteragencyandcrossborderoutcomesbasedplanningintheCAWTregion.Outcomesbasedplanningisaprocesstoencourageandhelppolicymakers,serviceproviders,plannersandpractitionerstoworktogetherwithlocalcommunities,toplananddeliverservicessothatbetteroutcomesareachievedforchildrenandyoungpeople.TheFrameworkforIntegratedPlanningforOutcomesforChildrenandFamilies(CFRC,2008)isacomprehensiveguideonhowtodointegratedplanningfocusedonoutcomesforchildrenandfamilies,andwasdevelopedbytheChildandFamilyResearchCentreinNUIG.Inparallelwiththis,CAWThasalsodevelopedawebbasedmappingsystemthatmapsservicesandoutcomesforchildrenandyoungpeopleinthecrossborderregionofIreland.

Section 6Data protection and data sharing protocols for interagency working

Data Protection 32

Data Sharing Protocols 32

The Young People at Risk Protocol (YPAR) 33


Section6 Dataprotectionanddatasharingprotocolsforinteragencyworking

Dataprotectionandsharingisahighlycomplexareawhich,throughtheworkoftheDataProtectionCommissioner,isconstantlybeingreviewed.HowdatasharingimpactsontheworkoftheChildren’sServicesCommitteesrequiresfurtherclarificationandthefollowingthereforeprovidesbasicinformationabouttheprimaryprinciplesandrulesunderpinningdataprotection.

DataProtection

Dataprotectionisthemeansbywhichtheprivacyrightsofindividualsaresafeguardedinrelationtotheprocessingoftheirpersonaldata.TheDataProtectionActsof1988and2003conferrightsandresponsibilitiesonthosepersonsprocessingpersonaldata.TherequirementsoftheDataProtectionActsapplytoalllegalentitiesinthisjurisdiction,whethergovernment,private,voluntaryorcharitablethatcontrolthatdata.Personaldatameansdatarelatingtoalivingindividualwhoisorcanbeidentifiedeitherfromthedataorfromthedatainconjunctionwithotherinformationthatisin,orislikelytocomeintothepossessionofthedatacontroller(DataProtectionActs1988and2003).Theeightdataprotectionrules(DataProtectionCommissioner‐website)are:

1. Obtainandprocesstheinformationfairly2. Keepitonlyforoneormorespecifiedandlawfulpurposes3. Processitonlyinwayscompatiblewiththepurposesforwhichitwasgiventoyou

initially4. Keepitsafeandsecure5. Keepitaccurate,up‐to‐date6. Ensurethatitisadequate,relevantandnotexcessive7. Retainitnolongerthanisnecessaryforthespecifiedpurposeorpurposes8. Giveacopyofhis/herpersonaldatatoanyindividual,onrequest.

DataSharingProtocols

Datasharingisanexchangeofdatabetweentwoormoreparties.ADataSharingProtocolisaformalagreementbetweenorganisationsthatare:

• Sharingpersonaldataorinformationatanindividualcaselevel• Sharingaggregatedataforplanningpurposes.

Organisationsinvolvedinprovidingservicestothepublichavealegalresponsibilitytoensurethattheiruseofpersonalinformationislawful,properlycontrolledandthatan


individual’srightsarerespected.Thisbalancebetweentheneedtoshareinformationtoprovideaqualityserviceandprotectionofconfidentialityisoftenadifficultonetoachieve.InIreland,datasharingprotocolsarebeingdevelopedbyalloftheChildren’sServicesCommitteesforthepurposesofeitherplanning(aggregatedata)orpersonaldatasharing.

TheYoungPeopleatRiskProtocol(YPAR)

AnexampleofaprotocolwhichaddressesdatasharingforbothplanningandpersonaldatasharingistheYoungPeopleatRiskProtocol(YPAR).

TheYoungPeopleatRisk(YPAR)initiative,anintegratedinteragencystructurewithstrongemphasisonvoluntarysharingofinformationbetweenstatutoryandvoluntaryserviceinNorthEastinnercityDublin,hasdevelopedaprotocolforsharinginformation.Theprotocolisaformalbutvoluntaryagreementbetweenagenciestoshareinformationandtoactcooperatively.Thesharingofinformationisforthepurposeofpromotingthewell‐beingofchildrenandisnotabreachofconfidentiality.TheprotocoldoesnotlimitorinterfereinanywaywiththestatutoryobligationoftheHSEtoprotectchildren,orwiththestatutoryobligationofAnGardaSíochánatoinvestigatecrime.However,itacknowledgesthattheremaybeparticularcaseswheretheHSEortheGardaícannotshareinformationbecauseoftheirstatutoryobligations.

Section 7Technical and other terms

Outcomes 35

Indicators 35

Evaluation 36

Participation 36

Risk and Protective factors 37


Section7 Technicalandotherterms

Outcomes

Outcomesarethechangesforserviceusersorothertargetsofchangethathappenasaresultofaninterventionorservicebeingprovided.Theoutcomesofaninterventionidentifywhatishopedtobeaccomplished,andprovideaconsistentframeworkforagenciesandgroupstoworktowardacommonendtoachievechangerequired.Outcomescanbearticulatedatmultiplelevels–atthelevelofindividuals,families,specificgroups,wholecommunitiesorpopulations,andmayoccurforserviceusers,orforservicesandagenciesthemselves.‘Soft’outcomesmayoccuraschangesinthinking,feelingsorperceptions,‘hard’outcomesaremeasurablechangesinbehaviours,attainmentorstatus.Theymayalsobeconceptualisedoverdifferingtimeframes–immediateorshortterm,mediumandlongerterm.Theylinklogicallytotheactivitieswithinaninterventionandshouldberealistic,achievableandmeasurableParticularlyinaninteragencysetting,focusingonoutcomespermitsagenciestocontributetoasharedoutcomewhileatthesametimeconcentratingonindividualorganisationalgoals.Theideaofadoptinganoutcomes‐basedapproachistoreorientorganisationsfromapositionofprimarilyfocusingoninputs(suchasresources)oroutputs(suchasthenumberofserviceusersonthebooks)toonewhereallworkisaimedattheachievementofoutcomes(measurable,positivechanges)fortheuser.

Indicators

Indicatorsaremeasureswhichpermitorganisationstoascertainthedegreetowhichidentifiedoutcomesarebeingachieved.Indicatorscannotbedevelopeduntiloutcomesaredefined.Outcomeindicatorsdescribewhetherandtowhatextentoutcomesarebeingachievedandifthingsarechangingintheintendedway.Indicatorsareimportantastheydefinetheevidencetobecollectedandenableactualresultstobecomparedwithplannedresult.Indicatorsprovideinformationontheprocessofchange,whatworksandwhatdoesn’tandhowaprogrammecanbemoreeffectiveandefficient.Usingindicatorsensuresanaction‐focusedprocess.Indicatorscanbequantitativeorqualitativeandshouldbedeterminedfromtheoutset.Itisimportantwhendeterminingindicatorsto:

• Clarifyandagreetheoutcomes:goodoutcomeindicatorsstartwithspecificoutcomestatements

• Considerthechangethatisdesiredandwordaccordingly


• Avoidbroadstatementresults• Beclearaboutthetypeofchangeimpliedandexpectede.g.whatisexpectedto

change,whoisexpectedtochangeetc.• Thinkaboutwhetherandhowthedatacanbecollected.

Usefulindicatorsaremeasurable,precise,consistentandsensitiveandcanbeindividuallevelindicators,targetorusergroupindicatorsorwholecommunityorpopulationindicators.Therearechallengestosettingindicators,includinghavingamanageablesetofindicators,feararounddevisingnewindicatorsratherthanmanipulatingoutcomestofitwithexistingindicators,focusontheindicatorsset,andtheriskofgettingboggeddownindetailratherthanconcentratingonthebroadergoalofimprovingoutcomes.Absenceofappropriateandreliabledataisalsooftenaproblem.

Evaluation

Evaluationisaprocessthatinvolvesthesystematicinvestigationofpre‐determinedquestionsusingscientificallyrobustresearchmethods.Evaluationscandescribeandassessthequalityofimplementation(processevaluations),orassesstherelationshipbetweenoutcomesforservicerecipientsandtheinputsmadebytheservice(outcomeorimpactevaluation).Aprocessevaluationinvolvesassessingwhatactivitieswereimplemented,thequalityoftheimplementation,andthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheimplementation.Processevaluationisusedtoproduceusefulfeedbackforprogramme/servicerefinement,todeterminewhichactivitiesweremoresuccessfulthanothers,todocumentsuccessfulprocessesforfuturereplication,andtodemonstrateprogramme/serviceactivitiesbeforedemonstratingoutcomes.Outcomeevaluationisasystematicprocessofcollecting,analysing‚andinterpretingdata(indicators)toassessandevaluatewhatoutcomesaprogrammehasachievedintermsofchangesovertime.

Participation

Participationcanbebroadlydefinedastheprocessofsharingdecisionsthataffectaperson’slifeandthelifeofthecommunityinwhichapersonlives(Hart,1992).Participationistheinvolvementandengagementofwidergroupsofpeopleindecision‐making,planning,servicedesignandservicedelivery.Publicparticipation:

• Isbasedonthebeliefthatthosewhoareaffectedbyadecisionhavearighttobeinvolvedinthedecision‐makingprocess


• Includesthepromisethatthepublic’scontributionwillinfluencethedecision• Promotessustainabledecisionsbyrecognisingandcommunicatingtheneedsand

interestsofallparticipants,includingdecision‐makers• Seeksoutandfacilitatestheinvolvementofthosepotentiallyaffectedbyor

interestedinadecision• Seeksinputfromparticipantsindesigninghowtheyparticipate• Providesparticipantswiththeinformationtheyneedtoparticipateinameaningful

way• Communicatestoparticipantshowtheirinputaffectedthedecision.

Oftenparticipationismodelledasaladderorspectrumrangingfromthelowestlevel,information,tothehighestlevel,empowerment.

Involvementofyouthincorporatesthesameprinciplesabovebutrequiresfurtherconsiderationinthefollowingareas:

• Differentwaystobecomeinvolved• Meaningfulengagement• Age‐appropriateactivities• Adequateresources• Activerecruitmentandtraining• Acknowledgementandrecognition• Mutualrespectandtrust• Reviewandreflection• Funandenjoyment.

Someactivitiesusedtoengagechildrenandyoungpeopleincludegames,streetsurveys,informationsessions,competitions,suggestionboxes,workshops,events,representationonBoards,actiongroups,advisorycommittees,youthcouncilsetc.Thenatureofinvolvementdependsontheassessmentofindividualsituations.

TheBradfordHealthActionZoneandBuildingCommunitiesPartnershipInitiativehasdevelopedapracticaltooltoaidorganisationsevaluatetheiractionsaroundCommunityInvolvement.The‘Well‐connected’participationtoolisbeingpilotedbySouthDublinChildren’sServicesCommittee.

RiskandProtectivefactors

Ariskfactorisanattribute,situation,conditionorenvironmentalcontextthatincreasesthelikelihoodofaparticularproblemorsetofproblemsoccurring,orthatmayleadtoanexacerbationofacurrentproblemorproblems.Aprotectivefactorisanattribute,situation,conditionorenvironmentalcontextthatworkstobufferanindividualfromthelikelihoodofadverseeffectsofaparticularproblem.

Section 8Bibliography and resources 39


Section8 Bibliographyandresources

WorkingtogetherInteragencycollaborationandintegratedworkingCAAB(2009)ALiteraturereviewofInteragencyWorkwithaParticularFocusonChildren’sServicesWRCSocialandEconomicConsultantsCAAB(2009)GuidancetoSupportEffectiveInteragencyWorkingacrossIrishChildren’sServicesTomlinson,K.(2003)EffectiveInteragencyWorking:areviewoftheliteratureandexamplesfrompracticeLGAresearchreport40.Swindon:NFER

Warmington,P.,Daniels,H.,Edwards,A.&Brown,S.(2004)Interagencycollaboration:AreviewoftheliteratureBath:UniversityofBath

Whittington,M.andWhittington,C.(2007)`What`sthepointofinterprofessionalandinteragencycollaboration?`Consultancyworkingpaper:whittingtonconsultants.co.uk.PolicyFrameworksTheNationalChildren’sStrategyGovernmentofIreland(2000)TheNationalChildren’sStrategy:OurChildren–TheirLivesStationeryOffice:Dublin

TheAgendaforChildren’sServicesOMCYA(2007)TheAgendaforChildren’sServices:APolicyHandbookTheStationeryOffice:Dublin.Availableathttp://www.omcya.ie/documentsOurChildrenandYoungPeople–OurPledgeOFMDFM[OfficeoftheFirstMinisterandDeputyFirstMinister](2006)Ourchildrenandyoungpeople–ourpledge:atenyearstrategyforchildrenandyoungpeopleinNorthernIreland2006–2016EveryChildMattersDepartmentofChildren,FamiliesandSchools(2007)TheChildren’sPlan:BuildingBrighterFuturesLondon:DCFS.

DepartmentofEducationandSkills(2004)EveryChildMatter:nextsteps.London:DfES

HMGovernment(2004)EveryChildMatters:ChangeforchildrenLondon:HMGovernment


GettingitRightforEveryChildScottishExecutive(2005)GettingitRightforEveryChildEdinburgh:ScottishExecutive.

ScottishGovernment(2009)ValuingYoungPeople‐PrinciplesandconnectionstosupportyoungpeopletoachievetheirpotentialEdinburgh:ScottishExecutive

ModelsofchildandfamilydevelopmentEcologicalModelBronfenbrenner,U.(1994)Ecologicalmodelsofhumandevelopment.InInternationalEncyclopediaofEvaluationVol32ndEd.Oxford:Elsevier

Bronfenbrenner,U.(1977)TowardanexperimentalecologyofhumandevelopmentAmericanPsychologist,32,513‐531

Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979)TheecologyofhumandevelopmentCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress

Othersources:http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php

Ghate,D.&Hazel,N.(2002)ParentinginPoorEnvironments:Stress,SupportandCopingJessicaKingsleyPublishersLondon

Hovell,M.F.,Wahlgren,D.R.,GehrmanC.(2002)TheBehavioralEcologicalModel:Integratingpublichealthandbehavioralscience.InDiClemente,R.J.,Crosby,R.&Kegler,M.(eds.).NewandEmergingTheoriesinHealthPromotionPractice&Research.Jossey‐BassInc.,SanFrancisco,California

HardikerModelHardiker,P.&Baker,M.(1995)TheSocialPolicyContextsofChildCareLondon:NSPCC.

Hardiker,P.,Exton,K.&Barker,M.(1991a)Thesocialpolicycontextsofpreventioninchildcare,BritishJournalforSocialWork,21(4).

Hardiker,P.,Exton,K.&Barker,M.(1991b)PoliciesandPracticesinPreventativeChildCareAldershot:Avebury.

AssessmentframeworksFrameworkforAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamiliesCleaver,H.,&Walker,S.(2004)AssessingChildren’sNeedsandCircumstances:TheimpactoftheAssessmentFrameworkJessicaKingsleyPublishersLondon


DepartmentofHealth(2000)FrameworkfortheAssessmentofChildreninNeedandtheirFamiliesLondon:DH.MyWorldTriangleInstituteofResearchinSocialServices(IRISS)http://www.iriss.org.uk/opencontent/assessment/triangle.html

Moray.gov.ukhttp://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file58339.pdfFrameworkfortheAssessmentofVulnerableChildrenandtheirFamiliesMurphy,C.,Buckley,H.,Horwath,J.,&Whelan,S.(2007)Usinganassessmentframework:outcomesfromapilotstudyJournalofChildren'sServices(June).

CAAB(2008)Evidencetopracticepostseminarreport.“Assessed–sowhat!”ReflectingontheapproachtoassessmentanditsbenefitsforchildrenandtheirfamiliesCommonAssessmentFrameworkEarlyidentification,assessmentofneedsandintervention:theCommonAssessmentFrameworkforchildrenandyoungpeople–aguideforpractitionerswww.cwdcouncil.org.uk/caf

Earlyidentification,assessmentofneedsandintervention:theCommonAssessmentFrameworkforchildrenandyoungpeople–Managers'andPractitioners'guideswww.cwdcouncil.org.uk/caf

Specificintervention/initiativesforinteragencyworkingDifferentialResponseModel(DRM)Kaplan,C.,&Merkel‐Holguin,L.(2008)Anotherlookatthenationalstudyondifferentialresponseinchildwelfare.ProtectingChildren23(1&2),5‐21.Merkel‐Holguin,L.,Kaplan,C.,&Kwak,A.(2006,November)NationalstudyondifferentialresponseinchildwelfareEnglewood,CO:AmericanHumaneandChildWelfareLeagueofAmerica.RetrievedOctober2,2009,fromhttp://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/protecting‐children/PC‐DR‐national‐study2006.pdfNationalQualityImprovementCentre(2009)DifferentialResponseinChildProtectiveServices:ALiteratureReviewAProjectoftheChildren’sBureauUSDHHS,ACF,ACYFOthersources:http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/BreakthroughSeries_DifferentialResponse.htm


RestorativeJusticeandRestorativePracticesSherman,L.&Strang,H.(2007)RestorativeJustice:theevidenceLondon:TheSmithInstituteInternationalInstituteforRestorativePracticeswww.iirp.orgHullCentreforRestorativePracticeswww.iirp.org/iirp/pdf/Hull.pdfCAWTOutcomesforChildrenProjectCAWT(2008)FrameworkforIntegratedPlanningforOutcomesforChildrenandFamiliesCAWTOutcomesforChildrenProjectwww.outcomesforchildren.orgDataProtectionanddatasharing

OfficeoftheDataProtectionCommissionerDataProtectionAct1988OfficeoftheDataProtectionCommissionerDataProtection(Amendment)Act2003DataprotectionCommissionerwww.dataprotection.ieCAABNationalConference(2008)TheYPARProtocol:APracticalToolfortheCo‐ordinationofInteragencyServicesfor0–18YearOldsintheNorthInnerCityofDublinPresentationDavidLittle,Co‐ordinatorTechnicalandothertermsOutcomesCAWT(2008)FrameworkforIntegratedPlanningforOutcomesforChildrenandFamilies

GovernmentofIreland(2000)TheNationalChildren’sStrategy:OurChildren–TheirLivesStationeryOffice:Dublin

OFMDFM[OfficeoftheFirstMinisterandDeputyFirstMinister](2006)Ourchildrenandyoungpeople–ourpledge:atenyearstrategyforchildrenandyoungpeopleinNorthernIreland2006–2016

OMCYA(2007)TheAgendaforChildren’sServices:APolicyHandbookTheStationeryOffice:Dublin.Availableathttp://www.omcya.ie/documents

ParticipatorytoolsFairfax,P.Green,E.Hawran,H.South,J.&Cairns,L.(2006)WellConnected.AselfassessmenttooloncommunityinvolvementfororganisationsBradford:BradfordHealthActionZoneandBuildingCommunitiesPartnership.Hart,R.(1992)Children’sParticipation:fromTokenismtoCitizenshipUnicefInnocentiResearchCentre

The Centre for Effective Services is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (company number 451580 in Ireland) and is governed by an Independent Board. The work of the Centre is supported by the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Further copies of this report are available to download from our website:www.effectiveservices.org/projects.php. Hard copies can be ordered from [email protected] (Please quote reference P016 Key Terms Reference Paper).

© Centre for Effective Services, 2010

FOLD

FOLD

The Centre for Effective Services is one of a new generation of organisations focusing on the emerging science of implementation in human services. The overarching mission of the Centre is to connect the design and delivery of services with scientific and technical knowledge of what works, in order to improve outcomes for children and young people and the families and communities in which they live. Our daily work is to provide technical and organisational expertise to support the design, implementation and ongoing review and development of evidence-informed services for children, youth and families. Our aims are:

• To promote and support the application of an evidence-informed approach to policy and practice in child, family and community services

• To promote the development of collaborative, joined up working that is outcomes-focused across research, policy and service providing organisations

• To build capacity within Ireland and Northern Ireland to take this work forward in the longer term by developing knowledge, skills and competencies. For more information about the work of the Centre please visit www.effectiveservices.org

Acknowledgements

The Centre for Effective Services would like to thank the following people who made important contributions to this document: Deirdre Fullerton and Liz Burtney of Insights Research who did background research and early drafting; Deborah Ghate and Katie Burke at CES for their helpful comments on various drafts; Aisling Gillen, National Specialist Family Support at the Health Services Executive and Elizabeth Canavan, Principal Officer, at the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

Any errors remain, of course, our own responsibility.

Centre for Effective Services2010

CES Reference Paper1st editionJune 2010

This document provides an introduction to the sources and origins of key terms and interagency initiatives in use in the Children’s Services Committees in Ireland. It is not intended to be comprehensive of all terms and initiatives relevant to CSCs at this stage, but rather a starting point which we hope will be added to with suggestions from CSC stakeholders, as the work on CSCs progresses.

An introductory guide to the key terms and interagency initiatives in use in the Children’s Services Committees in Ireland

Stella Owens

FOLD

FOLD

An introductory guide to the key terms and interagency ... · PDF fileThis document provides...

Documents

Transcript of An introductory guide to the key terms and interagency ... · PDF fileThis document provides...