The Children Act 2004 - Challenges of Compliance

SIMON JOHNSON

Alarm SE - 1st November 2006

Topics Covered

• Background to the Act.

• Objectives.

• How are objectives to be met?

• Challenges presented.

• How to overcome them and minimise the risk.

Victoria Climbié

“In most cases, nothing more than a manager reading a file, or asking a basic question about whether standard practice had been followed, may have changed the course of these terrible events.”

Lord Lambing - Inquiry report 2003

Victoria Climbié

“This was not a failing on the part of one service, it was a failing on the part of every service…. We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié but we can seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her.”

Alan Milburn, Health Secretary January 2003

Victoria Climbié

Led directly to “Every Child Matters” programme, which in turn led to the Children Act 2004.

At its core, the Act sets out the process for integrating services to children so that every child can achieve the 5 Outcomes laid out in the ECM green paper.

The 5 Outcomes

• Be healthy

• Stay safe

• Enjoy and achieve

• Make a positive contribution

• Achieve economic well-being

Duties for Local Authorities - Relevant Sections

Each Children`s Services Authority must make arrangements to promote co-operation between:-

1. The authority;

2. Their relevant partners;

3. Other persons or bodies who engage in activities

in relation to children in that area.

Who are your Partners?

Police authority

Local Probation Board

Youth Offending Team

Strategic Health Authority and Primary Care Trust

Learning and Skills Council for England

Any notable absentee?

Schools?

The Act does not give schools specific duties to co-operate and integrate.

BUT

Sections 157 and 175 of the Education Act 2002 do place schools under safeguarding obligations along with duties to work alongside other local agencies.

Structural Change

From April 2006 Education and Social Care Services for children will be brought together under a director for children`s services.

Potential Areas of Difficulty

Local Authorities must take the lead.

Duty is the key element in achieving the whole system change.

Children`s Trusts are being established.

BUT

Several organisations in a new partnership brings its own risks.

What are these Risks?

Loss of data during transfer.

Lack of Central Government Guidance.

Lack of engagement of key partners.

Management of pooled budgets - overspend?

Differing cultures and perceptions of risk.

Cultural mis-alignment.

Reputational risk.

Challenges to Implementing Co-operation

* Information sharing across and between agencies.

* Removing technical barriers to ensure secure

exchange of information.

* Removing organisational boundaries to enable

changes to take place.

* Removing cultural and professional barriers -

technical solutions alone will not secure change.

Co-operation

Universal reform will challenge long-standing practice and cut across long-established professional/organisational boundaries.

Whole system-change to be led and managed at local level.

Making Arrangements to ensure Co-operation

Not limited to agreeing a set of processes.

Requires continuous joint working to make co-operation a reality.

The Government expects most local authorities to have a Director of Children`s Services and lead member for Children`s Services in place by 2006, and all to have them by 2008.

Essential Features of A Children`s Trust

CTs are vehicles that enable organisations to join together in local partnership to commission and where relevant, directly provide services for children.

They are expected to be set up in:

• Most areas by 2006

• All areas by 2008

Driver Behind Children`s Trusts

Every Child Matters:Next Steps (2004)

states that CTs are the preferred model to deliver

the 5 outcomes.

Co-operation should not be limited to relevant Partners

Other groups should include:-

Children and young people themselves.

Voluntary and community sector agencies.

Childcare, culture sport and play organisations.

Families, carers and communities.

Discussion of risks and potential problems?

Duty to Safeguard and Promote Welfare - Section 11

“The support and protection of children cannot be achieved by a single agency…Every service has to play its part. All staff must have placed upon them the clear expectation that their primary responsibility is to the child and his or her family”.

Lord Laming in the Victoria Climbié Inquiry report, paras 17.92 and 17.93

Defined as...

Protecting children from maltreatment.

Preventing impairment of children`s health or development.

Ensuring children are growing up in circumstances consistent with provision of safe and effective care.

Why does the system sometimes fail?

1. Does not always focus on child`s need - in Victoria

Climbié`s case, focus instead on needs of adults responsible

for her.

2. Senior managers have insufficient knowledge of

safeguarding and welfare issues.

3. Many staff not adequately trained in safeguarding and

promoting welfare of children.

4. Difficult for key people and bodies to share information.

Children’s Services will need to ensure...

* Safe recruitment

* Staff Training

* Senior management commitment to the importance of

safeguarding and promoting welfare

* A clear statement of agency`s responsibilities towards

children is available for staff

* A clear line of accountability within the organisation

for work on safeguarding and promoting

* Information sharing

Near Misses and Close Calls

Managing risk and minimising mistakes in services to children and families.

Social Care Institute for Excellence - September 2005

Increasing recognition that social care should embrace similar approaches to risk management now adopted by healthcare.

Report focuses on feasibility of reducing risk by:-

1. Identifying; and

2. Learning from near misses.

Latent and Active Failures

Latent - found deeper in the system and only visible when they combine with other factors to create error.

Active - felt almost immediately and associated with actions of frontline staff.

James Reason : Human Error (1990)

Swiss Cheese Model

Definitions

Incidents where:

• something could have gone wrong but has been prevented

• something did go wrong but no serious harm was caused

Is there scope for your local authority to implement a

near miss reporting policy, to underpin the duty to safeguard at section 11 of the Act?

Precedents

Risk management programmes that promote learning from adverse events and near misses were pioneered in the aviation industry following series of crashes in 1970s and 1980s.

Carrot - staff are granted immunity when reporting.

Stick - staff face disciplinary action for not reporting.

Precedents

“Non -punitive reporting of air accidents is an essential element of our

safety improvement programmes.”

Pierre Jeanniot, Director General, IATA, 1998

Is a near miss reporting system workable in practice?

Barriers:-

1. Clear definition of a “near miss”.

2. Culture of blame is prevalent in children`s services.

3. Fosters a fear of talking about incidents that could

have, or actually did, go wrong.

4. Defensive attitude amongst staff.

Overcoming the Barriers

Encourage a culture in the social services department that:

* encourages members to acquire, share and process

information;

* promotes openness but need to overcome the attitude

embodied in the following quote.

Overcoming the Barriers

“I think the thing about blaming is a very mixed bag because some people say all the right things…i.e “this is

about learning and not blaming” - but the reality is

these people [the staff who make mistakes and talk about them]… are deemed as incompetent, and they`re never

going to get promotions in this department.”

Team manager, Inner London Borough March 2005

Organisational Change

At strategic level, there are few structural mechanisms to make it possible to learn from near misses before harm is caused and to prevent re-occurrence.

Tackle blame culture as a pre-requisite to the development of critical incident reporting within children`s services.

Led by Director of Children`s Services - top level buy-in.

Practical Measures

Confidentiality - but, may hinder follow-up of a report

Reporting System should be distinct from disciplinary body - individuals should not fear punishment for

unintended errors.

Clearly define what constitutes an error or near miss.

Ensure staff are aware of the reporting system - promote the value of reporting to staff.

Simple/short reporting forms.

Discussion of risks and potential problems?

Section 12 Information Database

Most contentious aspect of the Act.

Lord Laming found that better IS was a key change needed to minimise risk to children.

S12, which came into force in January 2006, gives Secretary of State power to enable the establishment of one or more IS Indexes.

Information Sharing

Index should contain basic information to enable a practitioner to:-

1. Verify the identity of a child with whom they have

contact;

2. Identify whether a child is getting the universal

services;

3. Establish which other practitioners are currently

involved with a child;

4. Increase ability to make contact with other practitioners.

Present Position

No reliable means by which practitioners can achieve this.

Complex undertaking and in absence of statutory regulations or guidance, no current duty to create an IS Index.

Would require a LA to establish:-

1. Data -sharing agreements with every other LA; and

2. Protocols with practitioner groups in their local area.

Information included

Name, address, dob.

Id number.

Name and contact details of any person with parental responsibility.

Education details - current.

Contact details for those providing primary medical services.

Information as to existence of any cause for concern.

No case information held on index.

Addressing the Risks associated with IS Index

1. Ensure access to IS Index is controlled and limited to

approved, security checked users.

2. Monitor use of IS Index - highlight any potential

misuse for investigation.

3. Provide adequate training for users, covering use of IS

Index and IS best practice.

4. Restrict access to information about young people`s

use of sensitive services - may discourage up-take.

Compliance and Enforcement

1. Collection of performance and management data.

2. Inspections and assessment, as part of existing audit

and performance management regimes.

Appropriate and lawful use of information will be governed by:-

a. Data Protection Act 1998

b. Human Rights Act 1998

c. Computer Misuse Act 1990

Other Concerns

S12 permits the rule of common law to be overridden in relation to disclosure of information.

One off implementation Cost estimated at £224 million - centrally funded.

Undermine confidentiality of professional medical, social worker or legal advisers to children.

Is the ICT up to the task? Will Index flag up so many risk indicators to cause information overload?

Discussion of risks and potential problems - Case Study

Local Safeguarding Children Boards Section 13

To be introduced by 1st April 2006 to replace ACPC.

LSCB is the key mechanism for agreeing how the relevant organisations in each area will co-operate to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Financial Implications

Councils will already have made contribution to ACPC - same level of contribution should be maintained.

Bath & NE Somerset - £57K for 2005/06 plus £20k for inter-agency child protection training.

Independence

Must have a clear and distinct identity.

Not be an operational sub-committee of the Children’s Trust.

Board members must be people with a strategic role in relation to safeguarding and promoting welfare.

Only those who can:-

1. Speak for their organisation with authority;

2. Commit their organisation on policy and practice;

3. Hold their organisation to account.

Children and Young People`s Plans Section 17

The plan shall set out the improvements the authority intend to make to the well-being of children in relation to:-

• physical and mental health and emotional well-being

• protection from harm and neglect

• education, training and recreation

• contribution made by them to society

• social and economic well-being

Children and Young People`s Plans Section 17

The first plan should have been published by 1st April 2006.

If a local authority has been categorised as “excellent” in the CPA, they are not required to publish a plan.

Common Assessment Framework

A shared assessment tool for use across all children`s services.

Aims to help early identification of need and promote

co-ordinated service provision.

Common Assessment Framework

Covers:-

1. Development of the child.

2. Parents and carers.

3. Family and environment.

Strategic and operational managers have responsibility for implementation.

Common Assessment Framework

Central to the strategy of shifting focus from dealing with consequences of difficulties in children`s lives to preventing things going wrong in the first place.

Common Assessment Framework

Is not appropriate for the majority of children.

Aimed at children and young people with additional needs, who are particularly vulnerable.

A generic assessment.

Common Assessment Framework

Should provide a national, common process for early assessment to identify more accurately the needs of children and young people.