#DontAcceptNeglect
Neglect Strategy 2017 – 2022Launch
Supporting the prevention andreduction of neglect in Leeds
• Quantify the extent of neglect in the city
• Ensure practitioners are able to recognise neglect at the earliest opportunity and provide appropriate and timely responses
• Evaluate practice and its effectiveness in order to assure ourselves of its quality and can continuously improve
Don’t accept neglect!
Strategic Aims
Reduce the prevalence and impact of neglect within Leeds
Strategic Objectives
• Analysis of the existing multi-agency workforce development offer with regard to neglect, and uptake
• Refresh the city wide workforce development offer as required
• Increase profile of neglect through a city wide communications campaign
• 2017 LSCB Annual Conference
• Ongoing workforce development activities.
• Develop practice guidance around working with children, young people and their families where there is neglect
• Review the Early Help Practice Guidance to include providing support to neglect through Early Help
• Review the LSCB Neglect Policy and existing procedures for working with neglect
• Seek agency assurance with regards to the above and that they will review their own effectiveness on a regular basis.
• Develop a multi-agency data set demonstrating the prevalence of, and response to, neglect in the city
• Analyse the data locally and compare it with national (comparators) data and published reports and research
• Provide regular reports on findings
• Identify themes and trends, using this information to inform our service developments.
• Develop a programme of neglect themed multi-agency audits and share what we have learnt across the partnership
• Quality assure refreshed workforce development offer
• Consult children, young people and their families to find out what has helped and has made the most impact for them
• Consult with practitioners about their confidence levels, their perceptions of impact of their work and what support they may still need to do this work.
Don’t accept neglect!
What next?• Development of action plan
• LSCB Neglect Policy and Procedure reviewed and refreshed
• Development of practitioners guidance
• LSCB Annual Conference – September 2017
• LSCB training review and refresh
To be ‘SAFE’Attached & Secure
‘CHANCE’ to learn and
develop
‘LOVED’
Physical ‘CARE’
WHAT DO CHILDREN NEED?
NSPCC2 report 33% contacts due to neglect
9% children reported neglect on survey of children receiving counselling3
NSPCC report 21% increase in contacts83% contacts due to abuse
Nationally 2.2% reduction in referrals to social care
Nationally1
50% of assessments-abuse/neglect
46% CPP – neglect 17.5% CIN – neglect
Leeds1
33% of assessments-abuse/neglect
29% CPP – neglect 18% CIN – neglect
Cruelty against children reports willful acts by caregivers recorded by police, increase from 8.3% to 11.5%2
01020304050607080
physicalabuseneglect
% of children who came for child protection medicals
0123456789
Reason for LAC
no. of children
Emotional Abandonment Medical Neglect Nutritional Neglect Educational neglect Physical neglect Failure to provide supervision and
guidance
Medical Neglect› Immunisations, DNAs, Medications, Medical
Advice Nutritional Neglect
› Faltering Growth, Obesity Educational Neglect
› School Attendance, Young Carers Physical Neglect
› Food, Clothing, Shelter, Infestations Failure to Supervise
› Injuries (sunburn, animal bites, scalds), ED attendances
Drug use Maternal Nutrition Violence
› 30% DA starts in pregnancy and escalates in 35%
Antenatal Care
CHRONOLOGY of neglect to show persistent nature of abuse
MULTI-AGENCY working – information from health, education, family
HEALTH – non attendance, poor engagement, not following health advice causing or exposing to RISK
HEALTH surveillance – imms, dentist, HV, not taking to GP when advised
OBSERVATIONS: interaction between
carer & child Supervising child in
clinic Response to snacks Response to toys Too independent for
age (coping skills) Behaviour
EXAMINATION: Growth – obesity or
failing to thrive Clothes - too tight/too
loose Skin, hair, nails Thermal injury –
cold/heat Cleanliness Physical injury –
bruising/burns Illness – anaemia,
uncontrolled problems
To assess impact on well being – physical and emotional
Perry, BD and Pollard, D. Altered brain development following global neglect in early childhood. Society For Neuroscience: Proceedings from Annual Meeting,New Orleans, 1997
Risk of fatalities as high as physical abuse› Inadequate Supervision› Nutrition issues› Poor access to health care
Erodes self esteem› 123 suicide in 15-19 years and 10 suicides in 10-14
years in 20152
Pervasive & cumulative effect resulting in need for long term costly interventions› Mental health, eating disorders, self harm› Substance misuse, criminality, relationship issues
Is the parenting “good enough?”
Neglect still remains a significant concern for professionals and public
Recognition of neglect is complex and deciding on level of harm can be difficult – is it willful or is it circumstances?
Remember the long term adverse effects on child’s brain and well being
Take time to reflect on our own practices
Neglect
Steve Walker, Director of Children’s Services
Neglect • 1 in 6 assessments undertaken in Leeds and
nationally involve neglect;• Neglect is the most frequent recent for children
becoming subject to a child protection plan (45% nationally; 29% in Leeds);
• Neglect is usually due to factors that impact on parenting capacity – poverty; parental mental health or drug and alcohol issues and parental learning disability
The National Context• Between 2010/11 and 2015/16, English local authorities
cut spending by 27 per cent in real terms;• Local authority budgets have been cut by £18bn in real
terms since 2010;• This is equivalent to a fifth of spending by England’s
300-plus local authorities, whose budget for running services, from social care to road sweeping, has been reduced at twice the rate of cuts to UK public spending as a whole;
The National Context• In England, the cuts
have been much greater in proportionate terms for more deprived authorities;
• It is striking that spending on social care rose by 8 per cent in more affluent authorities, but fell by 14 per cent in more deprived areas;
THE COST OF THE CUTS: THE IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND POORER COMMUNITIES JRF 2015
The National Context
Leeds: Approach• Protected our Children’s Centres and integrated early
years services developing Best Start; • Strong local neighbourhood partnerships of schools and
services;• Worked with the CCGs to get TAMHs into all our schools
and developed MINDMATE website with young people• Invested in families – developed Family Group
Conferencing offer for families; improved our services for Kinship Carers;
Leeds: Approach
• Research;• Evidence based approaches;• Self Knowledge;• Doing the simple things better;
Allocated, Seen, Assessed, Plan, Review• Restorative Approach: High Support
and High Challenge• Investing in practice
Leeds: Approach
• Multi Systemic Therapy;• Family Group Conferencing;• Mocking Bird;• Case Managers to improve practice in proceedings;• Family Drug and Alcohol Court
Our response
• Further innovation:• Restorative Early Support Teams: strengthening
local partnerships with additional social work capacity
• Restorative Adolescent Service: new approaches to working with young people
• Centre for Excellence: sector led improvement –professional development and support
Top Related