Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Site Selection Report ...
Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board …...1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding...
Transcript of Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board …...1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding...
Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board
Multi-agency Case Review Audit Report
Domestic Abuse
1. Introduction and Methodology
1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding Children Board rolling programme of multi-
agency audits, this report provides an overview of the audit undertaken in the
summer of 2015 which focussed on children living with exposure to domestic abuse.
1.2 The purpose of this audit is to provide an evidenced based assessment of the
strengths and areas for development of the partnership approach to working with
children and families who experience and perpetrate domestic abuse.
1.3 In order to encompass both qualitative and qualitative data, a range of research
methods were deployed. This included the use of a structured survey to produce
factual data, a multi-agency practitioner’s event to capture the practitioner’s
perspective on the analysis of the data, a number of conversations with strategic
leads from individual agencies and direct contacts made with service users to access
customer feedback.
1.4 A random sample of eight cases was identified by the CESCB’s project Manager. The
criteria for selection was that exposure or risk of domestic abuse should be a key
factor in the case and that a selection of gender, age, ethnicity and differing
thresholds of intervention should be represented. The cases selected included 2
subject to CAF, 2 Child in Need and 4 Child Protection Plans. An outline of the cases,
including age, gender and which agencies contributed information is attached at
Appendix 1.
1.5 Once the cases were selected, partner agencies were asked to check their records to
see whether the index child, their siblings or those with parenting responsibility were
known to their agency. Auditors from each agency were asked to review records over
the previous 12 months and complete a structured questionnaire which was then
Page 2 of 18
electronically processed to provide aggregated data and contextual supporting
evidence.
1.6 The questionnaire focussed on five key areas of activity, this included:
Representing the voice of the child and family
Performance in relation to case recording
Performance in relation to planning for the child
Performance in relation to management oversight
Performance in relation to approach to domestic abuse (described as agency file
in survey)
1.7 An Independent Reviewer was appointed by the Board in order to provide objectivity
and challenge based on the analysis of the information. Once the audited data was
received and considered, the Independent Reviewer, supported by three Board
members, facilitated a seminar for practitioners to discuss how the initial analysis of
data resonated or otherwise with local practice. This proved to be a helpful forum
which generated useful debate on what assists practitioners to safeguard children
exposed to domestic violence and what the barriers are to achieving optimised
outcomes.
1.8 Of the 8 families selected, 6 mothers were spoken with directly in order to build in a
service user perspective. One parent expressed a wish not to contribute but five
others did.
1.9 Plans were made to speak to each of the strategic leads from key partner agencies,
due to time constraints, this was achieved with Education, Police, G.P, social care and
Community Health. The telephone conversations gave the opportunity for direct
feedback and discussion between the Reviewer and Strategic Lead for each agency.
2. Limitations
2.1 The agency completion of questionnaires for each case is identified in Appendix 1. It
is apparent that there is activity from some agencies that is not reflected in the
return of questionnaires.
Page 3 of 18
2.2 The return of police audits was considerably later than other agencies and because of
this police data is excluded from the numerical data. Police information was provided
after the data had been collated, however, the Independent Reviewer has considered
all data manually.
2.3 Many of the questionnaires were completed with considerable depth with well
evidenced context to support the agencies self-grading, a smaller number were
completed less thoroughly. Some agencies found parts of the questionnaire less
relevant to their services and because of this may have felt less connected to the
single agency benefits of completing to a high degree.
2.4 The seminar held for practitioners was attended by sixteen people, and this included
a cross sample of professionals across agencies. Police were not represented and
Children’s Social Care was underrepresented. Nevertheless, the group was not
dominated by any one agency and was diverse enough to apply a genuinely multi-
agency approach to debating the issues that unfolded.
2.5 The contacts with service users were with all mothers and victims of domestic abuse.
It may well have been helpful to seek a broader feedback from males in the family, in
particular, where records demonstrated that change was occurring. Undertaking
such an exercise even with one case may well provide a deeper appreciation as to
what works when seeking to work with perpetrators of domestic violence.
3. Analysis
The analysis is provided under the five key issues as identified within the audit
questionnaire.
3.1 Representing the Voice of the Child and Family
3.1.1 Almost 82% of the responses to audit concluded that there was evidence that
agencies are representing the experiences of the child and 93% that that information
is used to inform agency planning. It is clear that the need to keep children as the
focus of intervention is embedded in culture, and there is an evident focus on seeing
Page 4 of 18
and talking with children as well as using direct work techniques to assess children’s
wishes and feelings.
3.1.2 The questionnaires referenced several approaches to working directly with children,
this was particularly strong in cases where Cheshire East Family Service (CEFS) was
involved, this included using the ‘In my shoes’ programme, the ‘crystal ball’ and other
games.
3.1.3 In six of the eight cases, the children were school age. The school nurse played an
active part in the child’s plan in five of those cases, this included responding to
physical and emotional health needs. In one case, managed through CAF, the school
nurse records showed no connection to a CAF and no plan for the child, there was no
school return for this case to gather a wider context of approach.
3.1.4 Six questionnaires were returned by schools, there was evidence of good systems in
place to support children in school on a day to day basis, and of supportive
approaches to help parents and enable children access the most out of school life.
3.1.5 There was evidence of observations of children’s demeanour recorded in Social Care
records, how they showed their emotions and how they felt within their living
environment. The audit also indicated some areas of weakness in working with
children, this included some reference to superficial attempts to communicate with
children without any supporting framework or materials followed by a dismissive
recording of a child’s reluctance to talk.
3.1.6 In reviewing children’s plans and whether the agency part in the plan had
measurable milestones that reflect observed improvement in the child, there was
only a 64% compliance rate. The robustness of Child Protection Plans is a feature that
presents concern through various aspects of the audit. The extent to which plans
reflect the individuality of children and the impact of domestic abuse on the
particular child is recognised as an area that needs further developments. The wider
issues in relation to child protection plans are addressed in section 3.3 of this report.
3.1.7 The voice of the family may not be homogenous in cases where domestic abuse is a
feature and as stated this audit has not canvassed the views of men. The feedback
Page 5 of 18
from five mothers gives a mixed perspective, however, this, coupled with some of
the inputs from the IDVA service would suggest that professionals find it easier to
have empathy with women no longer in or trying to escape abusive relationships.
Four of the five women spoken to spoke of feeling ‘blamed’ for the actions of their
partner/ex-partner one stated ‘it’s not nice feeling blamed when you already feel
worthless. Three of the five said that professionals needed to listen more, look at life
from their shoes, and appreciate the emotional and psychological impact of domestic
violence and how this impacts on their energy levels and ability to build new
relationships. One woman stated ‘they don’t appreciate the pressure of domestic
violence and see it as black and white’ and ‘they want you to change the future but
he’ll never be any different’.
3.2.8 All spoke of the change in social workers but not necessarily as a negative thing. Most
said that the’ first social worker was the worst’, and this may be reflective of the
greatest point of challenge at the most traumatic time. Two women spoke about
finding it difficult to trust a male social worker, and would have preferred to have a
female. They did not feel the same about police, but this could reflect stereotypical
views of gender as to who provides protection and who provides nurture.
3.2.9 One woman spoke of feeling like a ‘case’ rather than a person and commented that
‘the social worker kept calling my children the wrong names, they thought about us
only as we are walking into a meeting’. Without exception the women indicated that
they did not routinely receive written information such as minutes and plans even
when they were asking for it.
3.2.10 One questionnaire returned by the IDVA service gave an example of having to
request that a mother and father were not expected to attend the same meeting
when the woman was extremely fearful of seeing her ex-partner. This challenge did
result in changed arrangements and at the practitioners seminar the IDVA confirmed
this was not an uncommon occurrence.
Page 6 of 18
3.2.11 Positively, all but one of the women reported that they saw the overall value of what
the multi-agency work had achieved, felt safer and more in control of parenting as a
result.
3.2 Performance in relation to Case Recording
3.2.1 88% of the samples cases were deemed to have good case recording, a chronology
present on 92% and an up to date chronology on 80%. This figure included looking at
issues such as the key contacts for the child, and the extent to which auditors were
able to understand the case from the case records.
3.2.2 For 40% of the audit however there was no evidence of analysis, this coupled with
the finding that 41% of Child Protection Plan Children’s Plans do not analyse progress
against the plan, suggests that this is weak both in practice and recording.
3.2.3 At the Practitioners Seminar, it was clear that practitioners understood the need and
value of recording, not simply from a defensive position, but in how recording
contributes to the child’s journey through services and provides a baseline from
which analysis is achieved. The weakness in analysis is likely to be linked to the
overall findings in respect of Child Protection Plans discussed at section 3.3 of this
report, and is underpinned by two assessment issues, firstly, there is no approved
risk assessment model used in assessing the risks to children exposed to domestic
abuse, and secondly, there is no shared model for assessing parental capacity to
change in order to develop a risk reduction approach.
3.2.4 The only evidence of risk assessment was the use of a Risk Indicator Checklist, which
is an adult focussed assessment, which tended to be in place when cases had been
considered at MARAC. Comparison of the case by case data, would suggest that not
all agencies are aware when cases have been considered at MARAC. The records
appeared to be consistent in health and police, but this was less evident for
Education and Children’s Social Care. Social workers in particular spoke about how
they sent information to MARAC and were frequently asked to do so, however, they
did not routinely receive the outcomes which in the view of the practitioners were
not always uploaded onto individual cases.
Page 7 of 18
3.2.5 Whilst single agency recordings are clearly individual practitioners’ responsibility and
accountable within their agency procedures, a discussion about the recording of
multi-agency meetings took place in the Practitioners Seminar. There was a
consensus that the organisation of meetings under Child Protection or higher level
Child In Need where a social worker was present, fell to social workers. Without the
benefit of administrative support in co-ordinating meetings, the social workers
advised that organising meetings that could be attended by all necessary parties was
extremely time consuming. One social worker spoke about how the planning tended
to be an automatic process of inviting key agencies rather than thinking about the
bespoke needs of the individual case or child. It was noticeable for instance, that
none of the cases had any Housing representation and that housing agencies often
have relevant information from the community of neighbours with regards to anti-
social behaviour which could be significant in the context of domestic violence. The
increase in private rented housing has had some impact of what information can be
achieved through this route, but practitioners accepted that social housing
organisations tended not to be included in planning for children and saw the value in
doing so.
3.2.6 A further issue for discussion was the recording of multi-agency meetings,
particularly core group meetings. Most of the mothers spoken to said they had
difficulty in receiving formal meetings of minutes and there was recognition amongst
multi-agency professionals that this was a task that had become problematic. Again,
there was a cultural expectation that social workers would chair and minute a
meeting, and one social worker commented that if it was not possible to record the
meeting straight away, often several meetings could have taken place in between
and this would comprise recollection of the meeting. Achieving one common set of
minutes is so important to the process of multi-agency working and to working in
partnership with parents, and there is clearly a need for some solution focussed
thinking about how as multi-agency partnerships this can be achieved, perhaps
utilising technology better. The social workers spoke of really missing a telephone
typing service that until recently they had access to.
Page 8 of 18
3.2.7 The recordings with regard to absent father and extended family showed a low level
of inclusion referenced in case files. This is perhaps unsurprising considering the
finding that other parts of the audit reflected that there was a much greater focus on
working with victims than perpetrators.
3.3 Performance in relation to Planning for the Child
3.3.1 This section of the audit survey provides some conflicting results. For example, whilst
80% of Plans were considered to be clear, 72% outcome focussed and 76% focussed
on risks and needs, this appears to be at odds with only around 60% showing how
analysis had been used to progress the plan and improve outcomes for children and
families.
3.3.2 The Practitioners Seminar discussed Child Protection Plans. Some practitioners
indicated that when a decision has been made at a Child Protection Conference that
a Plan is appropriate, there is then a rushed section in developing the Initial Child
Protection Plan to be expanded within the following ten days. The Practitioners
commented that that initial Plan was critical to determining the scope and quality of
the ongoing plan, and there was a suggestion that the first Core Group should take
place directly after the Conference and the whole plan developed at that point (one
practitioners had experienced this in a differing Local authority). This approach was
of interest to multi-agency colleagues who recognised that getting all relevant people
together in ten days is challenging but it is likely that key members are present at the
Conference and could actually save time by taking such an approach.
3.3.3 From the Practitioners Seminar, it was voiced that few practitioners had received any
training on developing a Child Protection Plan, and admitted that that they struggle
to fully appreciate to how to construct a Plan that would be considered SMART.
There was a suggestion that as part of guidance to practitioners it would helpful to
have a good example of a Plan rather than a focus on what isn’t good enough. The
discussion with the Head of Early Help and protection from Children’s Social Care
revealed a knowledge that the social work approach is impacted upon by a lack of
experiential maturity.
Page 9 of 18
3.3.4 The weakest aspect of the survey in respect of the Plan was how analysis is used to
measure the progress of the Plan, the extent to which historical information is used
to inform planning and how apparent it is whether the plan has resulted in improved
outcomes. The introduction of a model that assesses risk for children and identifies
the potential pace of change in adults would assist in greatly in each of these three
areas. The practitioners’ seminar discussed the dangers of associated with adherence
to a requirement being perceived as change in itself, this is perfectly illustrated by a
comment in one case which stated that the male had ‘successfully completed a
domestic abuse programme’ but went on to state that it had ‘not changed his
attitudes’. A common change model used to predict likelihood of change is outlined
by Prochaska and Di Climenti’s Model of Change. Using this model, a parent’s
capacity for change is assessed using the following stages:
(i) Pre contemplation not yet acknowledging there is a problem that needs
to change
(ii) Contemplation acknowledging there is a problem but not yet sure of
wanting to make a change
(iii) Preparation/determination getting ready to change
(iv) Action putting change into practice
(v) Maintenance maintaining and consolidating the changes
Critical to the effectiveness of the model is understanding that if a person relapses in
their programme of change, then the whole cycle has to be faced again. Coupled
with a consistent risk assessment tool for children exposed to domestic abuse, this
type of approach would provide a framework to help professionals to analyse the
process of change in parents to changing risk for children. The practitioners were
enthused in discussing risk and change, and recognised the need for tools to support
their practice. The use of a model based on sociological research would also mitigate
against the common pitfall of practitioners eager to see change under significant
caseload pressures to disregard indicators of disguised compliance.
3.3.5 SMART Children’s Plans require a tight multi-agency approach. This audit has
demonstrated some good formal and informal communications between
professionals such as teachers, health visitors, IDVA, and social workers, but most
Page 10 of 18
notably, it has shown a significant absence of connectivity with GPs. It is evident that
GPs are notified of Initial Child Protection Conferences, however not all records show
that minutes from Conferences have been uploaded onto GP recording systems, that
may be because they have not been received or may be because they have not been
uploaded. The audit has also revealed that unless children are subject to a Child
Protection Plan, the GP can have no knowledge that domestic abuse is an issue of
concern unless the patient s has disclosed this.
3.3.6 It was a matter of concern for the Designated Doctor that for several of the children
exposed to the risk of domestic abuse this was not known to the GP. The Designated
Doctor described the overall GP engagement with safeguarding as a work in progress
but also fears there may be a reluctance by other agencies to perceive GPs as
safeguarding partners. The Designated Doctor was unequivocal that GPs are
concerned and want to be better connected into wider safeguarding systems but
that they can only be aware of information that has actually been agreed with them.
Discussion in the Practitioners Seminar suggested that there is a need for multi-
agency professionals to see GPs as partners in safeguarding, and that they need to
include them in information sharing activity particularly when cases are managed
through CAF or Child in Need where there is not a system in place to do so.
Practitioners were also reminded that GPs often have easy access to safeguarding
history for cases, particularly where there have been several transitions between
Local Authorities which is not uncommon in families fleeing violence.
3.4 Performance in relation to management oversight
3.4.1 The vulnerabilities already discussed would suggest that there needs to be a stronger
management oversight to support practitioners to achieve smarter planning and
maximised potential for better outcomes. 65% of casework had evidence of
management oversight with 44% of staff receiving supervision as per expected
standards. The question with regard to supervision may have been skewed by the
fact that the survey asked if supervision was a minimum of 4-6 weekly but this not a
required standard for all services. The contextual data would suggest that
compliance with individual agency expectations is higher than 45%.
Page 11 of 18
3.4.2 If management oversight through supervision is reasonable, then this would suggest
that the issues outlined in this report are as relevant to first line managers as they
are to practitioners. The practitioners advised that their services have seen change at
a great pace and changes in personnel.
3.5 Performance in relation to approach to domestic abuse (described as agency file in
survey)
3.5.1 Domestic abuse rarely exists in isolation, and this audit evidences substance abuse in
several cases. There is evidence of some very protective work with women and
children, and the IDVA service provides an acute appreciation of the issues in
relation to victims. What was less apparent is how agencies worked with
perpetrators, and suggested that perhaps on occasions a male leaving a house is
seen more of a permanent solution for the woman and children than it represents.
There was for instance only 58% indication that risks to other children were
identified and 47% followed up.
3.5.2 One of the cases audited resulted in an alert to managers. In this particular case a
male returned to the family home after an enforced period of separation and
attendance at a domestic abuse programme, shortly after the return, the police were
called to assist with an episode of domestic abuse without any apparent reviewed
assessment for the children and mother who was pregnant.
3.5.3 The Practitioners Seminar talked about the risks of enforced separations, and how a
physical separation should be seen as much less significant than an emotional
separation and that removing the perpetrator does not necessarily mean that the
risk is removed. The Child Protection Plan must in such circumstances focus on work
with both victims and perpetrators, and the outcomes of both need to be fed into
assessments of risk and assessments of change.
3.5.4 The questionnaire indicated that 70% of perpetrators had been offered an
opportunity to change through support and access to prescribed programmes. The
Practitioners Seminar discussed how perpetrators need attending to, that there is a
risk that enforced separation can have far reaching consequences of escalating risk.
It was agreed that a child’s Plan needed to address the position of the perpetrators
Page 12 of 18
as well as addressing the support needs of a protective parent. Perpetrator led
agencies are not routinely involved in multi-agency planning for a child and it was
agreed that this needed to be achieved in a manner sensitive to the fact that
domestic abuse has occurred or is a risk. Multi-agency practitioners tended to see
the police as safeguarding partners at points of crisis in domestic abuse, where there
is perhaps scope to utilise police knowledge and expertise in protecting women
through anti-social and Civil Orders. One mother for instance stated that she hoped
for additional support to achieve a legal order which she thought would help her feel
safer.
3.5.5 The Practitioners were very positive about the resources available in Cheshire East in
working with domestic abuse, many reflecting that access was easier than other
positions they had held. There was good knowledge of specialist services and these
cases showed evidence of referrals for Multi-systemic therapy, Cheshire without
Abuse, Enablement Team and the Domestic Violence Hub.
3.5.6 The Practitioners Seminar also discussed the impact on professionals of working with
violent people, how personally safe they felt, and under what circumstances this
could have a personal toll. Practitioners unanimously reported feeling safe in their
workplace, with access to joint working where necessary. It was also apparent that
practitioners felt safe in multi-agency working relationships and had mechanisms in
place to manage the reality of being personally threatened when having to challenge
a violent person.
4. Conclusions and Recommendation
4.1 There are a number of positive findings from this audit, this include
Confidence that children exposed to domestic abuse are being recognised
across all multi-agency processes for working with children;
There is co-ordinated multi-agency activity in each of the selected cases
That each contributing accepts and is keen to progress their role with regard to
domestic abuse
A reflective group of practitioners able to reflect on what works well and
identify the barriers to achieving good outcomes
A generally good standard of recording reflected across all agencies
Page 13 of 18
Confirmation that practitioner feel confident and secure in their roles
4.2 The multi-agency work around domestic abuse is however compromised by an
absence of common tools and assessment methods to underpin risk assessment,
progress and change and safety planning, The Practitioners Seminar were in
agreement with these findings and keen to develop practice in this area with good
ideas as to how this coupe be achieved.
4.3 Recommendations are being monitored through the Audit & Case review group.
Ref Recommendation Action Lead Agency
DA1 The Board introduces a branded risk assessment tool for use with children exposed to domestic abuse
LSCB branded risk assessment tool to be produced for children exposed to domestic abuse
CEDAP
DA2
The Board introduces shared tools for assessing risk, motivation and change in those who harm others and ensure these are used in childrens planning
LSCB promotes shared tools for assessing risk and these are used in childrens planning.
CEDAP
DA3
Drive up standards in relation to Children’s Plans and better equip practitioners to understand what is needed
SMART planning to be a key feature in the LSCB Multi-agency training offer
Learning & Improvement
DA4 Set targets to improve the engagement of GP services; Child Protection Plans are always known to GPs
Ensure all child protection plans are sent to relevant GP practices
Safeguarding Unit
DA5 Review the Child in Need procedures ; ensuring that GPs are routinely informed of CiN
Agree process that GPs can be informed when a young person is CiN
Childrens social care
DA6
Ensure all domestic abuse multi-agency training makes practitioners consider the risks of disguised compliance and a strong focus on risk and perpetrators
Ensure disguised compliance is covered in all relevant LSCB training courses
Learning & Improvement
DA7
Review MARAC information sharing protocols in Children’s Social Care to ensure that information is shared efficiently
Social workers who attend MARAC ensure information on liquid logic identifies that the case has been through MARAC
Childrens social care
DA8 To share the results of this audit specifically with first line managers
A summary outlining recommendations is sent to out, managers and LSCB members to ensure this is disseminated.
All agencies
Page 14 of 18
Appendix 1
Case No.
Age/ gender of Child
Outline Issues
Contributions from:
1
16 F
CAF
Concerns about mothers partners alcohol abuse and domestic violence
Pattern continued for over 2 years
5 children in household, all witnessed DV and experienced police attendance on several occasion
YP has OCD and awaiting referral for psychiatric support
CSC School Family Support Team GP MCHT ECNHST DAFSU POLICE
2
5 M
CP plan in place
Mother and children moved area because of history of DV from father
3 children in household
Father and PGM seeking contact, propose that PGM will supervise although she perceives no risk, mother not in favour of contact
Mother unware of professional knowledge – concern father involved in selling drugs
CE CEFS CSC DAFSU School MCHT ECNHST GP POLICE
3
13 M
CIN plan in place
Concerns about neglect over 6 year period, mother and stepfather known to abuse alcohol
Concern that child is risk to siblings because of aggressive behaviour in home. Involved in anti-social behaviour and often missing
6 children in household
Parent not reporting child missing to police, child shows physical signs of neglect
No MFH for 3 months, Child has criminal disposal which if breached enter deeper into youth court sanctions
GP MST ECT CSC MCHT DAFSU POLICE
4
9 F
CP Plan in place
6 children in household
Mother’s ex-partner presents risk and followed family when they moved to get away from him. He is believed to have mental health issues
Frequent house moves
Believed ex-partner moved out of area and living with a previous partner (followed up by police and CSC)
CSC CWPHNSFT MCHT School ECT DAFSU POLICE
5
10 MTh F
CP plan in place
Father assaulted mother when 5 months pregnant, minimised response by both parties to professional agencies
Further incident when baby 1 month, father cannabis user
Father completed Perpetrator Programme through probation, but remained fixed in views about women
GP CSC MCHT CE Family Support Services East Cheshire NHS
Page 15 of 18
CP requires father to live away from family home, has contact away from family home.
No concerns for child in mothers care – referral made to Gateway
Trust POLICE
6
12 M
CP Plan in place – emotional harm
Child resides with mother, regular contact with father with a Court Order. Private proceedings over 4 years
Child had LD and attends a specialist school
Child Dual heritage, white and black African
GP CSC SSTPNHST Family Support POLICE
7
9 M
CIN plan in place
Referred to CSC Feb 15.
Father released from prison after 6 year sentence dealing Class A drugs. Father’s previous 2 partners have restraining orders and he has never completed any intervention re DV offences (parents relationship resumed whilst he in prison)
After initial stance of non-co-operation, agreed to reside in bail hostel pending risk assessments and attend a 40 week perpetrator course
Agreed move together, then evidence of father controlling behaviour, incident of DV – agreed to end relationship but then backtracked stating issues had been blown out of proportion
Mother pregnant
CSC ECT DAFSU MCHT School NPS POLICE
8
6 F
CAF in place since Nov 14
Five children in household, eldest three previously subject to CP plan – father not in household
Child presented with bruising at school – discrepancy between explanation of child and mother
Mother and school report management issues with the child, who is being assessed for ADHD.
MCHT CEFS GP ECNHST POLICE
Page 16 of 18
APPENDIX 2
Survey Question Aggregates:
Question
Yes
NO
Is there any evidence that your agency is meeting their requirements to represent the experience of the child
81.8
18.2
Is there evidence that the collective experience of the child is informing your agency
93
7
Does the plan and your agency part in the plan have measurable milestones that reflect observed improvement in the child
68.4
31.6
Overall grade for representing voice of child
Inadequate
5
Requires
Improvement 25
Good
70
Outstanding
0
Are key details of Child correctly recorded
83.7
16.3
Visits recorded over 6 months period
0 35.6
1-3 28.9
4-6 6.7
7+ 29.9
Is there a chronology on file
92.7
7.3
Is chronology up to date
80.5
19.5
Quality of recording
Fairly bad 4.7
Fairly good 58.1
Very good 30.2
Is there evidence of analysis in recording
60%- yes 40% no
Is there evidence if inclusion of absent father extended family where safe and appropriate
41.2 – yes 58.8 - no
29 – yes 71 - no
Overall grading for case file recording
Inadequate
2.2
Requires
improvement 28.9
Good 68.9
Outstanding
0
YES
NO
Has your agency attended relevant multi-agency meetings?
100
Is the plan: Clear
80
20
Page 17 of 18
Outcome focussed Uploaded routinely reflecting changing need Focussed on risks and needs
72.7 72.7
75.8
27.3 27.3
24.2
Are contingency arrangements clear if a plan not working
67.9
32.1
Are roles in plan clearly defined
81.8
18.2
Do CIN meetings analyse progress against the plan
58.6
41.4
Is there evidence that the plan has improved outcomes for child and family
60.7
39.3
Is historical information used to inform future planning
61.8
38.2
Overall grading in relation to planning
Inadequate
5.1
Requires improvement
35.9
Good 56.4
Outstanding
2.6
No of changes in lead professional in last 6 months
0
85.7
1-3
11.9
4-6 2.4
7+ 0
Evidence of management oversight
65.1
34.9
YES
NO
Is supervision regular
44.7
55.3
Has there been professional disagreement or escalation
11.7
89.9
Evidence of information sharing
81.8
18.2
Use of research to inform: Level or risk Impact on child Indicators of sustained change
37.8 41.7 24.2
62.2 58.3 75.8
Overall grading for management oversight
Inadequate
7.5
Requires improvement
27.5
Good
65
Outstanding
0
YES
NO
Is there evidence that: Safety of child has been priority Safety of adult been priority
83.3
64.9
16.7
55.1
Use of domestic abuse risk management tool
14.3
85.7
Page 18 of 18
Referral to MARAC where risk identified
31.8
68.2
Specialist Services Presence Evidence of co-working Invited and attending meetings Could referrals have been made earlier
69.2
78.1 67.7 24.3
30.8
21.9 32.3 75.7
Have toxic trio been considered and addressed in plan
67.7
32.4
If absent, is alleged perpetrator assessed in terms of : Contact with child and adult Risk to child and adult Influence on parenting capacity
71 75
63.3
29 25
36.7
Has history of adults informed risk assessment and capacity to change
80.7
19.3
Has alleged perpetrator been: Held to account for actions Offered support to change
62.5 69.7
37.5 30.3
Is response to challenge/support factored into decision making
80.7
19.4
Had risk by alleged perpetrator to any other linked children been: Considered actioned
58.3 46.9
47.7 53.1
Overall grading for this agency case
Inadequate
6.8
Requires improvement
27.3
Good 65.9
Outstanding
0