Download - Strategic Performance Management and Quality Assurance ...croydonlcsb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CSCB... · This document sets out Croydon Safeguarding hildren’s oard quality

Practice & Performance QA 09/04/14 – Item 3a - QAF

1

Strategic Performance Management

and Quality Assurance Framework

for Croydon Safeguarding Children’s

Board

CSCB QAF Action Plan 2014 – 16

Gavin Swann

Safeguarding & Quality Assurance

CSC&FS

24th March 2014


2

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Croydon’s Safeguarding Children’s Board’s Quality Assurance Framework 3

3. The Principles Surrounding the QAF 5

4. Role of the Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board in the QAF 7

5. Priorities for the next 3 Years 9

6. Quality Assurance Framework 10

7. Data Gathering Strategy 38

8. Conclusion 39

Appendix 1: Organisational Defences

Appendix 2: Engagement with Children & Families

Appendix 3: Analytical Framework


3

1. Introduction

The safeguarding of children is highly complex; this is because of the complexities of interacting human and organisational histories and cultures, behaviours and relationships1. Effective quality assurance recognises and works with this complexity particularly focusing on human psychology and the challenges to partnership and joint working. What matters most in the quality assurance of safeguarding children is knowing about the ‘wellbeing’ outcomes achieved by children and their families; i.e. the impact on real lives – whether and in what way their lives are better and safer as a result of the various services, interventions and arrangements. The experiences of children, parents and frontline staff are an essential source of information for determining what outcomes have been achieved. There are so many dimensions to safeguarding meaning trying to quality assure everything would overwhelm the process and system. Therefore there is a need to focus on a discreet number of priorities which the Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board (CSCB) concludes are the most important. What matters is that there is a logical, evidence-based reason for choosing the particular areas based on reflection on relevant research and jointly recognised local needs from consultation with all partner agencies and children and families themselves. These priority areas are set out in the CSCB Strategy and Business Plan. We recognise in Croydon that we have only just started to develop a multiple methodology to gather data to evidence the current standard of safeguarding practices and that we have a particular focus on gathering information and experiences from children and their families. This document sets out Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board quality assurance process and framework for 2014 – 16. This is a ‘living and fluid document’ and should be referred to during every safeguarding board meeting as well as all sub-group activities and individual organisations senior and middle management meetings. This quality assurance framework has been designed by applying the theory and structure of a QAF as recommended by the London Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB: 2011).

2. Croydon’s Safeguarding Children’s Board’s Quality Assurance Framework

In order to determine what the priorities are for the CSCB it has been necessary to identify key 'Content Areas' within the Quality Assurance Framework set out below which is subdivided into the following four categories (LSCB: 2011):

1. Strategic Questions: - focuses on asking those difficult questions of the CSCB itself, mainly about the Board’s own awareness of risk and need in Croydon. This QAF further asks the Board whether the services in place actually work to ameliorate that risk / need. The final strategic question of the Board is whether future risks and needs are being identified and planned for.

2. Practice Content Areas - focuses on issues such as: Priority services, vulnerable groups of

children specific risk issues and partnership working

3. Organisational/Practitioner Content Areas - focuses on issues such as: Relationships, capacity, supervision, support, organisational culture and resources

1 See Appendix 1 which introduces the concept of organisational defences


4

4. Wider Picture Content Areas - focuses on issues such as: Poverty, housing and social deprivation

Within these content areas there are 3 types of evidence that should be considered:

1. Quantitative – This type of evidence is concerned with "How much or how many", examples are: data and trends, performance indicators and targets

2. Qualitative – This type of evidence is concerned with "how well something is done", examples are: views of practitioners, children and families; quality of assessments, case audits, mapping evidence to criteria

3. Outcome – This type of evidence is concerned with "so what", what difference has an intervention made to children and families and whether anyone is better off. Examples are: reduction / cessation in harm, increase in attendance at appointments, improved well being

The function of this QAF is to support the CSCB scrutinise local safeguarding practices across

Croydon. We need to ensure those persons who work with children or in services affecting the

safety and welfare of children have a sound knowledge of safeguarding and practice to a good

enough standard. The QAF assists the Board coordinate safeguarding practices across the borough

whilst ensuring effectiveness in particular to:

Assessing the effectiveness of the help being provided to children and families (especially

Early Help)

Assessing whether CSCB partners are fulfilling their statutory obligations

Quality assuring practice through joint audits of case files involving practitioners and

identifying lessons to be learnt

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of training including multi-agency training to

safeguard children (Working Together: March 2013)

It is noted that there is a significant amount of work to be undertaken to keep children safe in

Croydon. This work includes developing not only services and systems but supporting the learning, in

all its forms, of the Children’s workforce. This work is fluid and cyclical meaning we are continually

identifying gaps in practice, developing a strategy to sustainably meet those gaps and then testing to

ensure the new practice is maintained (as identified in Diagram A). Our initial aim is to achieve a

‘steady state’ meaning a sustained basic minimum standard of safeguarding practice is evident

throughout the Children’s Workforce in Croydon. Importantly, our medium to long term aim is to

ensure that all children in Croydon are safeguarded by a Children’s Workforce who is empowered

and confident in all forms of safeguarding practice. Our ambitions are sizeable with this QAF acting

as the vehicle to provide the CSCB with a data gathering and analytically framework to promote a

continuous learning culture. We have also had to prioritise our activities. Prioritisation has been

based on the following methodology2:

Identification of gaps in practice from the November 2013 Safeguarding Report to CSCB: ‘An

Analytical Commentary on Safeguarding Performance from April to September 2013.

Learning from local and national SCRs

2 We note that this methodology is not comprehensive. However, going forward this QAF will ensure the CSCB

will be able to prioritise based on a reliable and highly sophisticated methodology.


5

Previous quality assurance activities

Feedback from partners

Case file audits

Training needs analysis of all social workers and managers in CSC&FS3

These activities have led the CSCB via the Executive and Performance, Practice and Quality

Assurance sub-groups to identify the need to concentrate on ensuring; basic safeguarding practice is

in place across the Children’s Workforce in LBC throughout 2014 / 15. This QAF sets out how this will

be achieved whilst also concentrating on the specific outcomes which have been identified as

priorities for 2014/15, namely;

1. A need to focus on ensuring there is a consistent level of safeguarding practice across the

Children’s Workforce by focusing on a campaign entitled ‘Getting the Basics Right’

2. Reducing the numbers of children who go missing in Croydon and reducing the risks of those

who do go missing by complying with statutory guidance on children who run away or go

missing from home.

3. Developing Croydon’s response and practice to children who are subject to sexual

exploitation.

4. We also want to improve outcomes for children identified as vulnerable under one years of

age by improving the pre-birth assessment process.

The Quality Assurance Performance and Practice (QAPP) sub-group has a particular role; to drive

forward improvements in practice and performance and to assist the Board identify gaps, themes,

risks and strengths in practice. The group will act as the engine of the Board driving forward practice

improvements.

This QAF acts as a programme of improvement by detailing a forward plan, for the next thirty six

months, with specific quality assurance activities systematically integrated into the plan. This QAF is

reviewed and continually developed through a variety of inputs such as ‘feedback loops’ from all

CSCB sub-groups, the CSCB, this QAF itself as well as individual quality assurance activities and

through professional relationships and most importantly from children and families themselves.

(Appendix 2 describes the proposed methodology to engage children and families).

3. The Principles Surrounding the QAF

As a partnership we adopt a non-defensive and transparent position to the development of

safeguarding practice across the borough by developing a culture of learning about safeguarding. For

example; we need to know what all agencies are doing to further inform the safeguarding Learning

and Development Plan to reduce duplication whilst concentrating resources on need and connecting

learning. (Please contact Gavin Swann, Croydon CSC if you feel you can contribute to this plan).

We continually identify gaps in safeguarding practice and subsequently develop our practice to

narrow these gaps.

3 This QAF must be read in-conjunction with Croydon Children’s Social Care Quality Assurance Framework. See

Appendix 4. There is an intention that by 2015/16 the CSCB QAF will also incorporate other individual QAFs from partner organisations.


6

We constantly develop systems and processes so we can listen and hear the voices of children and

families’ experiences in Croydon and then develop our services accordingly. (See Appendix 2). For

example by establishing the practice of using expert groups such as; the Children’s In Care Council

and by employing care leavers to undertake surveys with families.

That continued financial rationalisation does not contribute to children in Croydon being at further

risk.

Honesty. We all openly discuss and address the anxieties we have about keeping children safe in

Croydon.

That the voluntary sector is involved throughout.

The QAF is developed and used in a planned and systematic manner.

That we encourage a ‘cross fertilisation’ of learning and resource management. For example; by

ensuring that we work closely with Adults’ Services we share knowledge and resources in training

and developing the workforce. This will also lead to greater joint working whilst integrating other

strategic and operational plans and strategies. For example; when considering the complex subject

of children missing we must factor in the strategies over challenging bullying and cyber-bullying as

both are identified as reasons why children may go missing4. Further examples include that the

strategic plans of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Children’s Partnership Plans interconnect

with the CSCB’s business plan and that individual QAFs are integrated into this QAF.

Effective quality assurance is dynamic, creative and evolving; owned and developed locally by reflective and learning organisations taking small steps. We’re all learning about how to develop an outcomes approach to safeguarding; we won’t get it right immediately; what matters is to make a start in the right direction and then creatively test out different hypotheses over how safeguarding practice can be improved. Developing safeguarding practice is a continuous cycle of improvement as identified in Diagram A.

4 Research indicates that children also go missing because of child abuse, sexual exploitation, teenage

pregnancy and where young people have questions over their sexual identity.


7

Diagram A: The Improvement Cycle

4. Role of the Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board in the QAF Working Together 2013 places the following responsibilities on LSCBs: The CSCB has a key role in achieving high standards in safeguarding and promoting welfare, not just through co-ordinating but by evaluation and continuous improvement. For example, by asking individual organisations to self-evaluate under an agreed framework of benchmarks or indicators and then sharing results with the Board. It might also involve leading multi-agency arrangements to contribute to self-evaluation reports. To evaluate multi-agency working the CSCB could perform joint audits of case files, looking at the involvement of the different agencies, and identifying the quality of practice and lessons to be learned in terms of both multi-agency and multidisciplinary practice. The CSCB should have a particular focus on ensuring that those key people and organisations that have a duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 or section 175 or 157 of the Education Act

Set standards –

including

procedures,

regulations

Deliver training,

policy, guidance,

reports to improve

practice outcomes

Monitor, audit, gather

information and feedback

Analyse and evaluate

feedback/

performance/users/

views/complaints

Identify improvements

needed in practice, policy

and procedures guidance

Improved outcomes for children

through the learning and

improvement cycle


8

2002 are fulfilling their statutory obligations about safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

This framework is designed to ensure the CSCB effectively meets these statutory requirements and compliments the CSCB Section 11 audit tool which is already in use to ensure the latter responsibility is met. Diagram 2 below summarises the CSCB role in scrutiny and challenge of performance management and quality assurance information: Diagram 2: CSCB quality assurance/performance management cycle

Individual Agency Business Objectives for

Safeguarding Children and Young People

Performance Management Performance indicators Data and Statistics Benchmarking Scorecards Survey Data etc

Quality Assurance Section 11 Audit Quality Standards Dip Sampling File Audits SCR Actions etc.

CSCB Scrutiny and Challenge

Corrective action agreed

Agency reviews priorities, agreed new targets and standards etc

Improved safeguarding outcomes for children and families

No corrective action required

Agency implements agreed actions


9

5. Priorities for the Next 3 Years

This 3 year quality assurance programme, based on the methodology set out in this framework, will ensure the delivery of the CSCB’s priorities. The CSCB will receive regular reports on progress with the quality assurance programme so it can be assured work around these priorities is delivering improved safeguarding outcomes for children and families in Croydon. (Indeed it is the QAPP sub-group’s intention to present the outcome and learning of at least one quality assurance activity to every CSCB meeting ensuring that this QAF maintains a high profile in all CSCB activities). The Local Government Improvement and Development guidance recommends that LSCBs (2011) do the following as a minimum:

Each year undertake at least one major 'Deep-dive’ review of a content area as part of a three year programme

Each year undertake at least one ‘Turning the Curve’ exercise of a content area that has previously been identified as a priority/concern and work with the Children’s Trust Board to make a difference (see Mark Friedman, ‘Trying Hard is Not Good Enough’, 2005)

Every three years commission an external peer review of a content area/collection of content areas dependent on resources and current circumstances

Diagram 3 below illustrates a suggested quality assurance timetable

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3 Continuously collected information

(eg. through adapting existing regular case auditing and business processes)

Audit of experience of frontline staff including partnership working

In-depth analysis of two priority content areas

Audit of experience of frontline staff including partnership working Statutory inspections







Statutory inspections

Statutory inspections

Peer review


10

The CSCB Strategy and Business plan for 2014-16 sets out the following areas as priority areas for review and development:

Getting the Basics Right ensuring there is a consistent minimum standard of safeguarding practice across Croydon

Compliance with the Child Protection Procedures (Getting the Basics Right) Children who run away or go missing from home, care or from education OLA and missing Improving Practice with under ones CSE / MASE Compliance with the CLA procedure (Getting the Basics Right) Neglect Mental Health Substance Misuse MASH evaluation Developing an understanding about E-Safety and Thresholds

Subsequently the QAPP sub- group has agreed the following themes as per the CSCB Business Plan: Year: Topic/Theme: 2014/15 Missing Children (includes; OLA, CSE), Improving Practice for the under ones and improving compliance with CP and LAC procedures whilst focusing on a ‘Getting the Basics Right’ campaign. 2015/16 MASH, a multi-agency audit, 2015/17 The toxic three; MH, Substance Misuse and DV (E Safety and Thresholds specifically linked to Suicide/self-harm and Anti-bullying and impact of the financial rationalisation are other topics the Board is interested in analysing)

6. Quality Assurance Framework

The table overleaf provides the detailed quality assurance activities based on the methodology described in section 1. This will essentially be used as a 'pick list' from which the 3 year plan will be developed by the Quality Assurance, Practice and Performance Sub-group.5

Index 1. Strategic Questions

a. Does the CSCB have a good understanding of the nature of safeguarding children’s

needs in Croydon?

i. Does research inform the strategic direction of the CSCB?

ii. What are the safety and wellbeing outcomes for C&F that we are trying to

achieve?

iii. What are the trends and what does this tell us?

iv. Are the DV, CSCB business plan and the CYPP coordinated/integrated with

measureable objectives and outcomes?

v. What are the service gaps?

5 QAF is fluid and will change as we identify further gaps in safeguarding practice).


11

vi. If DV identified in SCRs then has strategies, have services/practices

improved since?

vii. SCRs – are issues repeating?

b. There is a shared agreement across the local partnership over the core elements of

safeguarding practice, training and safeguarding supervision

c. What are the main services/processes to respond to that need? Have these

services/models been evaluated from a child outcomes perspective?

d. What outstanding evaluations are there and what are the plans to evaluate them,

and what is the overall evaluation strategy?

e. Organisational culture

f. Funding/rationalisation

g. Do the hidden harm strategies start with a desired outcome?

h. Do we meaningfully involve children and families in understanding the complexities

of safeguarding children in Croydon?

2. Practice items

a. CP processes

b. CP processes: Neglect

c. CP processes: Referrals and Thresholds

d. Early help

e. Domestic Abuse

f. Adult mental health and substance misuse

g. Drugs and alcohol

h. Children missing from home and care

i. Bullying

j. Children at risk of sexual exploitation

k. Pre-birth and under ones

l. Crime and secure estate

m. MASH

3. Organisational/Practitioner

4. Wider Picture Content Areas


12

Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board Quality Assurance

Framework6

Content Area Good – Quantitative Good – Qualitative Good – Outcome To Be Delivered By

1. Strategic Questions

a. Does the CSCB have a good understanding of the nature of safeguarding children’s needs in Croydon? i) Does research inform the strategic direction of the CSCB? ii) What are the safety & Wellbeing outcomes for C&F the we are trying to achieve? iii) What are the trends & what does this tell us? iv) Are the DV, CSCB business plan & the CYPP coordinated / integrated with measureable objectives & outcomes? v) What are the service gaps?

Joint Strategic Analysis 6 monthly report from CSC&FS (child’s journey) Data to be taken from: Performance Data LADO SCRs (national and local) Child Death Overview Panel Scrutiny Reports from Health, Education, Police and CSC Reports from all CSC sub-groups (especially any gap analysis from the QAPP sub-group)

6 monthly report from CSC&FS (child’s journey) Analysis of experiences following feedback from children and families Analysis of training needs and experiences of all partners who attend CPCs

The CSCB has a continually informed picture of the level of safeguarding need in LBC Evidence that that need is better identified but in the long term is reducing Improved service to the most vulnerable Early identification of the most vulnerable S.11 analysis SCRs (local and national) analysis

Year One May 14 (All) SQA Activity report to CSCB each 6 months July 14 Nov 14

6 The coordination of the QAF will be led by the Safeguarding and Quality Assurance Service (SQA) of Croydon Children’s

Social Care in close partnership with Board (ALL) members and the Quality Assurance, Practice and Performance Sub-Group

QAPP).


13

vi) If DV identified in SCRs then has strategies, services / practices improved since? SCRs – are issues repeating?

b) There is a shared agreement across the local partnership over the core elements of safeguarding practice, training and safeguarding supervision

An audit of safeguarding supervision across the partnership Feedback from staff about quality and quantity of safeguarding supervision Training curriculum All CSCB sub-groups continually feed into the development of an L&D framework

All appropriate staff trained and supervised (in safeguarding). A partnership wide safeguarding supervision policy Supervisors trained to a sophisticated level in Safeguarding

Year One MA audits Jan 15 Training needs analysis On-going throughout 2014/15 (SQA) Multi-agency conference March 2015 Bi-Monthly Safeguarding training / workshops (basics) June 2014 – on-going

c) What are the main services/ processes to respond to that need? Have these services / models been evaluated from a child outcomes perspective?

Universal Early Help (EYS, FRS etc). CIN LAC Quality performance data

A fluid evaluation and QA timetable which involves children and families

Services are regularly quality assured using a systemic and multiple data gathering strategy (See methodology)

QAF – 2014 – 16 SQA to develop and employ methodology to QA these services by March 2015

d) What outstanding evaluations are there and what are the plans to

This document acts as an evaluation and quality assurance timetable. We need to evaluate the following

Children and families are meaningfully involved in all evaluations and are also involved in the shaping of improved

There is a systematic evaluation timetable that responds to

Year One Supervision Audit May / June 2014


14

evaluate them and what is the overall evaluation strategy?

over the next two years: 1. The Early Help

Offer 2. Supervision 3. Missing

Children 4. Pre-birth

process 5. MASH 6. Annual

education audit Coupled with on-going evaluations via individual and multi-agency case file audits, CRS performance information, adoption and fostering panels. The evaluation strategy is fluid as services’ develop and as the CSCB sub-groups develop

ways of working

identified need as we learn more about services and needs S.11 analysis

(SQA) Missing / CSE evaluation / audit (September 14 SQA) MASH Evaluation (September 14 SQA) Pre-Birth (Audit SQA January 2105). Analysis of s.11 audits November 14 (ALL) Multi-Agency Audit Jan 15

e) Organisational culture

A fluid and integrated learning and development plan A multiple and fluid data gathering methodology An analytical framework that triangulates data gathered

Evidence that we are learning from partners, other boroughs and LSCBs? There is evidence of a learning and open culture to improving safeguarding in LBC Evidence we are learning from audits and evaluations with actions plans being achieved in agreed timescales Evidence there is there calm reflection and positive challenge. Evidence there is a process of continuous learning and improvement where safeguarding work is

The L&D strategies result in improved practice & improved outcomes Professionals and managers report and evidence that the L&D they receive translates to improved outcomes Data gathered from staff surveys, exit interviews, audits of supervision records S.11

March 2014

- 2016

MA Audit each year asking these questions (See above)


15

prioritised? Do leaders set the right cultural tone and role model behaviours and values? Professionals within the service are operating at the required level of safeguarding CSCB etc. have an up to date L&D training strategy & staff receive adequate training

f) Funding / Rationalisation

Joint Strategic Analysis

Do funding decisions consider the impact upon safeguarding children? Are support services funded adequately to allow staff increased time with children / families? Are all resources / partners fully involved in safeguarding? Have all low or no cost resources been identified and used to improve safeguarding outcomes?

g) Do the hidden harm strategies start with a desired outcome?

h) Do we meaningfully involve children and families in understanding the complexities of safeguarding

Number of sustainable activities where children and families are involved in evaluating services

Multiple methodology in place to gather data from C&F

The children’s workforce expect to hear the voices of children and families in every evaluation and all service design

See Appendix 2 starts in May 14


16

children in Croydon?

Content Area Good – Quantitative Good – Qualitative Good – Outcome To Be Delivered By and when

2. Practice Items

a) CP processes (This activity to include CWD)

Number of children subject to a child protection plan (rate per 10,000 population. Number of children who ceased to be subject to a CP plan in the year. % of CP plans lasting 2 years or more Number of children who are both Looked After and have a Child Protection Plan Rate of s47 enquiries per 10,000 population, and rate of conversion of s47 enquiries to Initial Child Protection Conference Number of CP Conferences to which x professional group asked to attend and contribute a report

% of CP cases which specify the desired safety and wellbeing outcomes for the child/family. % of CP case children visited and seen at required minimum times. % of visits where child seen alone. % of cases audited in which the child remained the focus of professionals’ attention. % of cases audited in which the involvement and impact of men is addressed. % of CP cases reviewed within timescales. % of cases where children and young people report they have a positive relationship with their Social Worker (SW). % of cases where parents' report they are treated well by the professionals involved. % of cases with up-to-date chronologies. % of staff carrying CP cases who are positive about the quality and safety of CP work in their service. % of Child Protection Plans that close where the CIN case also closes or

% of CP cases in which the most important desired safety and wellbeing outcomes are achieved at point of closure. % of CP cases in which the most important desired safety and wellbeing outcomes are still being achieved/maintained six, 12, or 18 months after closure. % of closed cases subsequently rereferred in the next 12 months for the same reasons. % of cases where the children and parents identified positive improvements in their safety and wellbeing as a result of the work arising from the CP plan. % of children becoming the subject of CP plans for a second or subsequent time (within 2 years),

Year One Performance Management Framework Data (weekly & monthly) Inspection Case file audit monthly Regular thematic audit Monthly CP Audit Child & Parental Survey (See Appendix 2) Staff Survey Further consultation required with CSC


17

the child becomes looked after. % of CP conferences ‘x’ professional group attended or contributed to.

and children with a previous Child Protection Plan subject to a further s47 enquiry performance

b) CP processes Neglect (This activity to include CWD)

Children becoming the subject of a Child Protection Plan for physical, mental and sexual abuse or neglect) (rate per 10,000 population) Number of children not registered with a GP Number of children missing school % children receiving immunisations at specified times % children living in Poverty Data re child wellbeing (Croydon Profile)

Poor attendance at health appointments is monitored and results in systematic professional activity to engage. Children missing education or not attending are all known to the Education Service. The local authority is aware of, and responds appropriately to, the safeguarding needs of children missing from education or not attending school. The local authority has arrangements in place to collate details of children known to be educated at home, and has in place a policy for proactively promoting the safety of those children within the limits of current legislation. There are proactive arrangements to prevent homeless children and those who move frequently going ‘off the radar’ of universal services. The impact of poverty and poor housing on the safety and wellbeing of children is understood by, and part of the assessment and care planning of,

Patterns of missed appointments improve and the health issue or concern is addressed satisfactorily The average period children are missing education or not attending school is decreasing. Those missing education or not attending school establish settled attendance in a suitable education facility within a term. Those who have been out of school or not attending are now catching up on their educational outcomes. Those young people now attending school are positive about it and report good relationships with staff The number of children in poor housing or poverty is reducing. Parents living in poor housing report that services are helping to reduce the adverse impact of that housing. Children in poverty

Year 2 Audit of health provider records to evaluate response to missed appointments QAPP & SQA – April 2015 -


18

professionals. There are local initiatives to reduce the number of children in poverty or poor housing which are having a positive impact.

and poor housing are achieving well in the five ECM outcomes.

b) CP processes Referrals and Thresholds (This activity to include CWD)

Number of referrals to the service. Number of initial or core assessments per 10,000 population. Number of initial or core assessments completed in timescale. Conversion rates by agency. Number of repeat referrals Initial case conferences held within timescale Timescales for initial core group

% of parents who said they were well treated by the service. % of professionals in partner agencies who spoke positively about the quality of the service. % of assessments reaching the organisation’s quality standards. % of cases where the referrer is given written confirmation of the outcomes of their referrals within agreed timescale. % of referrals by agency that were ‘appropriate’ in terms of agreed thresholds for children’s social care. % children and young people who felt their stories were considered seriously (and believed) when they reported them to the authorities

% of children and young people who reported they felt safer as a result of social work contact. % of parents who reported that their contact with the service was helpful. % of referrers who report the safety and wellbeing of the child improved as a consequence of referral. % of assessments that resulted in concrete improvements to the wellbeing and safety of the children.

Year One Performance management Framework Data Unannounced Inspection Child & Parental Survey Case Audits Senior Managers spending time in front line services Best Practice Panels MASH Evaluation & Audit September 14

c) Early Help

Number of CAFs completed Training needs analysis of all staff Schools Attendance Educational Attainment Data

% of CAFs specifying lead professional. % of CAFs completed by different agencies. Children missing education or not attending are all known to the Education Service. The local authority is aware

% of CAFs in which the desired outcomes for the child and family are achieved. Vulnerable CYP in Croydon are receiving a suitable education.

Year One CAF Data Case Audits Education Performance Data Case Audits Surveys


19

Number of children not receiving education Number of Early Help Assessments (CAF) Percentage of Early Help Assessments (CAFs) closed where outcomes are met Number of referrals to Family Engagement Partnership (FEP) Percentage of FEP cases closed where outcomes are met Number of families attached to Troubled Families Programme (Family Resilience Service) Number of families for whom a Troubled Families Outcome payment is achieved Number of families supported by Family Justice Centre Number of families presented to MARAC Number of cases stepped up to social care (FEP, FRS, CYPRS) Number of cases stepped down from social care (as recorded on CRS)

of, and responds appropriately to, the safeguarding needs of children missing from education or not attending school. The local authority has arrangements in place to collate details of children known to be educated at home, and has in place a policy for proactively promoting the safety of those children within the limits of current legislation. % children / parents report receiving a good quality education

Improved educational attainment of vulnerable CYP.

Annual safeguarding audit (Education Autumn term)

Feedback from children, young people and parents

d) Domestic Abuse (Additional information is need from EH in the coming weeks – SQA to

Number of CP/CIN plan cases where DA was identified as a significant risk factor in the assessment.

% of victims of DA who thought their situation was taken seriously and understood by professionals.

% of CP/CIN plan cases where victim/parent reports at closure that they feel and are safe from DA.

(Year One) Consultation with CSC Consultation with Police


20

lead).

% of CP/CIN plan cases where children and young people report that they are safe from DA and feel safe. % of these cases where there were no repeat referrals for DA within subsequent six, 12, 18 months. % of families receiving help in respect of DA where the children are doing well in terms of main areas of development eg education. SCRs & Case Reviews

Case Audits Child & Family Surveys

Domestic Abuse

Number of DA reports to police in 12 month period. Number of different families involved in reports to police in this period. Number of children involved in reports to police.

% of these families who received the following forms of help: • MARAC • Independent Domestic Violence Adviser • Initial, core assessment and CAF. % of cases quality audited by police that demonstrate the police considered the impact of the DA on the children and young people, and responded appropriately. % of DA situations attended by police where victim/children felt well treated.

% of cases where MARAC held that DA ceased. % of cases involving IDAAs where DA ceased. % of families where there have been repeat reports to police of DA. % of DA incidents attended by police, where the victim or children experienced police intervention as helpful.

Performance Data Discussion with LDAP Case Audits User Surveys

Domestic Abuse

Number of perpetrators of DA in 12 month period.

% of perpetrators accessing recognised DA programmes.

% of perpetrators completing DA programmes:

Consultation with Probation


21

Numbers of cases supervised by probation officers where DA is an issue.

% of perpetrators completing DA programmes. % of perpetrators prosecuted. % of probation cases where the risk of harm from domestic violence is assessed and planned for to a good standard.

• who are not reported for committing DA in the subsequent 6, 12, 18 months • whose partners report no further DA in the subsequent 6, 12, 18 months % of cases supervised by probation officers where DA is a known risk, in which DA does not re-occur. % of prosecutions which result in an outcome that stops the DA.

Consultation with survivors and perpetrators

e) Adult Mental Health & Substance Misuse

Number of adults receiving mental health services who have caring responsibility for children or frequent contact with children. Number of children whose parents are in receipt of mental health services. Number of cases which are open to both children’s social care and adults’ mental health services. Number of referrals to Children’s Social Care where adult mental health is a primary/significant issue. Management

% of adult mental health assessments or care plans which take account of the whole family and possible risks to children. % of children’s social care initial and core assessments which take account of the whole family and impact of adult’s mental health. % of children’s social care operational managers and staff who reported effective working relationships with professionals in adult mental health services (and vice versa). % of adult carers with mental health needs who experienced adult mental health and children’s services working well together.

% of children whose parents are receiving a mental health service who: • feel well supported by services and have the information they need • have someone to talk to/get help from in an emergency • do not feel isolated. % of cases where adult mental health is assessed as impacting aDAersely on the wellbeing and safety of a child in which at point of closure: • the aDAerse impact has ceased • the desired

Existing Data Sets SCRs & Case Reviews Case Audits Surveys Consultation with MHS Adult Mental Health & Substance


22

information How many children in the LA do we know are living with AMH? What are AMH professionals telling us about joint working with CSC & AMH services? What is the extent to which AMH feature in CP & CIN work? Do AMH services know if their service use is caring for a child? Experiences of C&F

positive outcomes for adults and children set out in the care plan have been achieved • children and parents report positive improvements. What are the safety & Wellbeing outcomes for C&F the we are trying to achieve? If AMH identified in SCRs then has strategies, services / practices improved since? What do parents, carers & children affected by AMH tell us? Is the partnership promoting ThinkFamily?

f) Adult Mental Health & Substance

Number of initial or core assessments and CAFs where mental health is a primary or significant issue. Number of mothers, with a child of specific concern to health visitors, who have depression.

% of adult carers with mental health needs who reported that their children had received the help they needed. % of children of parents with mental health needs who reported that adult mental health staff listened to and involved them, and gave them helpful information and support. % of children with CP/CIN

% of children who are young carers of parents with mental health needs who feel supported and are able to achieve five ECM outcomes. % of parents with low level mental health needs who feel supported and report positive improvements.

Consultation with MHS & CSC Case Audits User Surveys


23

plans where CPA is progressed for parent(s). % attendance of adult mental health staff (including substance misuse staff) at CP conferences/core groups. % of occasions where social worker invited to discharge meetings. % of staff in adult mental health who feel confident in parenting or family initial assessments. % of staff in children’s services who feel confident in undertaking parenting assessments where parents have mental health needs.

Adult Mental Health & Substance Misuse

Number of cases open to both the mental health trust or drug and alcohol service, and children’s social care.

% of cases evidencing ‘Think Family’ assessment and care planning practice in both services.

% of cases in which desired outcomes for parents and children were achieved.

Consultation with MHS & CSC Case Audits User Surveys

g) Drugs & Alcohol

Data from drug and alcohol services on prevalence Referrals to CSC for drug and alcohol issues Police data on alcohol related crime involving young people

Young people report less misuse of alcohol and drugs Young people report knowing where to get help and advice User feedback on effectiveness of interventions / education Case audits demonstrate evidence of effective intervention Better engagement of

Reduction in drug and alcohol health issues involving young people Reduction in alcohol related crime involving young people Increased interventions / improved access to treatment

Scrutiny of performance data Surveys / consultation Case file Audits Reports from agencies


24

problem users with intervention services

h) Children Missing from Home and Care

Number of children reported missing to police Number of children report missing to CSC Numbers of LAC missing Numbers of children missing from home Number of repeat missing Number of children who have received a police welfare check Number of children who have had an independent return home interview Numbers of OLA who have gone missing Number of residential and IFAs in LBC A RMFHC is in place Numbers of children missing education Numbers of children reported to the Missing from Care Panel Up to date list of all residential unit and IFAs in Croydon

Is there a current photo of this child on file? Is there an update risk assessment on file? Children in residential care in LBC or placed by LBC are monitored (specifically) around incidents of going missing % of children who have gone missing report they feel safer since police / CSC intervention Risk management plans for LAC are updated and acted upon Placement instability is monitored as a direct indicator of missing Senior management regularly informed about missing children. OLA receive the same service i.e. welfare check and return home interview (Link anti-bullying policy into MFH &C).

Children in residential care (including OLA) report they feel safe and well and repeat incidents of missing are reduced. All children who have a missing episode are provided a welfare check and an independent return home interview Information is made available to all young people who have gone missing on services and supports

Analysis of all return home interviews Analysis of all welfare checks Reports from police All young people with a history of missing are spoken to about the service they have received Case file audits Reports from partners in NSPCC, SaferLondon and YOT Analysis of Missing from Care Panel

i) Bullying

Statistics on incidences

Schools & organisations

Reduction in

LCC data on


25

of bullying Number of schools / organisations with anti-bullying policies / procedures

have effective anti-bullying strategies and procedures Incidents of bullying are recorded and evidence good practice

incidents of bullying Young people feel safer and less worried about bullying Victims of bullying feel better supported

bullying Audit of School policy documents & incident records Audit of YPS records Surveys / consultation

j) Children at risk of sexual exploitation

Number of referrals to CSE Teams Number of referrals to MASE Number of Section 2 Abduction orders in LBC Number of prosecutions Analysis of scale of CSE in LBC

% families and victims report receiving an effective service % children exiting CSE no longer at risk

Children report feeling say and free from CSE Parents report feeling say and free from CSE Children and parents given the increase capacity to protect themselves YPs engaged to develop survey for all LBC children (John Ruskin)

Analysis of all interviews with YPs Analysis of all welfare checks police data All young people with a history of CSE are spoken to about the service they have received Case file audits Reports from partners in NSPCC, SaferLondon and YOT User survey / feedback

k) Pre-Birth & Under Ones

Number of pre-birth assessments Number of Pre-birth

Evidence that there is an increase in earlier identification of the most vulnerable children earlier

% increase in children placed for adoption

Scrutiny of performance data


26

CPCs Number of pre-birth PLOs Number of relinquished babies Number of police protections of under ones Increase in the numbers of adoptions Increased referrals to FNP

and that intervention is appropriate and timely for the baby Evidence that the child protection process is being used effectively and in a procedurally compliant manner Increase support for vulnerable mothers such as increased use of mother and baby foster placements

% increase in planned and timely interventions % decrease, in the long term, in children aged 4 plus entering care. A reduction in delay

Case file audits Reports from agencies

l) Crime & Secure Estate

Number of young people in STC/YOI Number of acts of violence in the year Number of acts of self harm Number of incidents involving physical restraint YOT referrals to CSC Data on number of young people committing offences Data on number of young people who are victims of offences

Positive Feedback from young people in secure estate Evidence from case files that young people at risk have had appropriate intervention Evidence from case files that restraints have been carried out safely and humanely

% of young people who selfharm % of young people who report they feel safe % increase/decrease in: • acts of violence • acts of self-harm • incidents involving physical restraint Fewer crimes committed by young people Few young people being victims of crime Young people report feeling safer in terms of crime

Data from secure estate & YOT Surveys of young People Case audits


27

m) MASH % of contacts % of referrals Number of referrals which are ‘MASHed’ 100% of contacts reviewed and actioned within 24 hours

Evidence that thresholds are consistent Evidence that those children deemed at risk have had an appropriate and timely intervention Evidence that the MASH model is consistently effective in identifying risk

The ‘right’ children are being identified as being at risk The step up and step down processes are effective and bring about good outcomes

Independent evaluation Threshold Audit Report from all partners


3. Organisational/Practitioner

Organisational /Practitioner

% of parents who think that the different agencies involved in their lives work well together. % of cases demonstrating evidence of ‘good’ partnership working (by agreed criteria eg appropriate information sharing).

% of parents who are receiving help from several agencies who report the impact is positive for them and their children. % of cases demonstrating evidence of partnership working delivering positive outcomes for children and parents.

Case Audits Children and Families Surveys


% of staff within the agency that expressed concerns/positive experience of partnership working with X, Y, Z external agencies. % of staff within the agency who expressed concerns/ positive experience of partnership working with A, B, C

A Children’s Workforce who are confident and competent in safeguarding A workforce who can identify indicators of child abuse A workforce who knows how to refer when concerned

Multi-Agency Audits Staff surveys / focus groups / interviews External evaluation


28

services within the agency. % of staff who feel confident to: • challenge other professionals • escalate concerns • share information • step outside of their ‘traditional role’ • take the lead in ensuring a child’s needs are met.

about a child An increase in referrals of the ‘right’ children with an equal decrease in inappropriate referrals


Number of Whole Time Equivalent (WTE) posts: • A&E nurses • social workers carrying CP/CIN cases • social workers • social workers/managers in ‘front door’ • health visitors/managers • school nurses/managers • police PPU officers • midwifery posts/managers

% of staff time spent in face to-face contact with families/ children. % of parents/children saying they are treated with respect: • not judged • were given time • were listened to • felt cared for • were treated as an equal. % of parents and children surveyed saying that they have a positive relationship with their social worker/ health visitor/ midwife. % of CP/CIN plans in which there was one/two/three change/s of SW/HV. % of parents with a child under the age of six months who reported they had never seen a health visitor. % of posts filled by permanent/ agency

% of parents and children surveyed saying that the work of the social worker, health visitor or midwife has improved their wellbeing eg improved parenting skills, family relationships, changed behaviour or attitude.

Agency HR Records Case Audits Child & Family Surveys Staff Surveys Consultation with Health / CSC


29

staff/vacant. % filled by staff with more than three years post-qualifying experience. Number of health visitors as a ratio to weighted head of child population; school nurses as a ratio to weighted head of school population; and midwives as a ratio to new births. % of SW posts carrying CP/CIN caseloads which have been agreed as being at a level that enables effective practice to take place. % of health visitors /midwives / detectives /probation officers and CAFCASS guardians carrying caseloads (or numbers of vulnerable/high risk cases) which have been agreed as being at a level that enables effective practice to take place. % of SWs/HVs/midwives with an appropriate balance of caseload to enable effective practice to take place. % of SWs/HVs/midwives/PPU officers/CAFCASS guardians – and their operational and senior managers – who report that work


30

management arrangements enable them to have time for calm reflection during the working day.

Organisational/ Practitioner

Partnership working: how well professionals & organisations work together? What opportunities are there for staffing to build relationships? Which are the most important professional groups to focus on in the partnership in terms of safeguarding? What proportion of time do police SW, GPs, HVs spend face to face with c&f?

How can we be confident staff are developing effective relationships? Do staff have time for reflection? If so how much? Which areas require the most experienced staff? How experienced are the current staff in those areas? In terms of staffing, (locum / permanent) how do we compare with statistical neighbours? If better how did they achieve this? Gathered through annual staff surveys, management information (attendance reports CP conferences etc) and SCRs, HR information, complaints, LADO management information, exit interviews, senior managers walking the floor Which services have a

What partnership working issues were raised as causes for concern in the last 3 SCRs? What is the evidence that practice & outcomes for children are now different?


31

higher level of allegations / complaints against staff? Do those who lead in safeguarding have adequate time to focus on this?


Number of staff in post/who left in the year.

% of staff who describe their morale as good or very good. % of staff who are positive about the organisation. % of staff who believe their working environment and equipment is supportive of their work.

Evidence of consistency in practice across the partnership and children’s workforce

Staff Survey Consultation with agencies


Number of GP practices in the area.

% of practices with a nominated safeguarding lead.

PCT Records Agency HR Records Consultation with agencies


Number of staff requiring Enhanced CRB checks, HCPC registration etc.

% of staff with up-to-date CRB checks, HCPC registration etc.

A stable and well qualified social workforce

Agency HR Records Consultation with agencies


Number of staff recruited in the year. Number of staff recruited in the year where the recruitment process was audited for compliance

% of cases audited where safeguarding policy and practice was followed to a good standard

Agency HR Records Case Audits


32

with safe recruitment policy and practice.


Number of teaching staff in the schools. % of teaching staff against whom allegations were made in the year.

% of allegations in which investigations were completed within recommended timescales. % of cases in which the Investigation did identify a risk to children and where that risk was removed.

School HR Records LADO Records


Training needs analysis of workforce Number of learning inputs (e.g. a training course). Number of learning inputs that are evaluated.

% of evaluated learning inputs that resulted in: • positive learning outcomes • improved practice.

% of evaluated learning inputs that resulted in improved outcomes for children/families. L&D / QA activities result in improved practice as they are based on research based evidence Practice deficits identified in SCRs & audits are addressed and outcomes improved. Commissioned training has a demonstrable impact on practice & outcomes for children Managers & commissioners & staff know the latest messages from

Staff Survey Supervision Records Analysis of Training Evaluations Analysis of case files and performance management data to indicate practice improvement


33

research & can evidence how this impacts management practice & commissioning.


Number of staff and managers with safeguarding children responsibilities.

% reporting that they receive the right quality and quantity of learning to do a good job

Consultation with agencies Staff survey


Number of staff requiring safeguarding children training to a specific level.

% of staff who are up-to-date with their required level of safeguarding training.

Agency HR Records Section 11 Audit


34

Organisational/ Practitioner Evidence that the training and development strategy is based on the latest research What non-formal training techniques ensure managers and staff have the latest information about evidence based practice?

Number of multi-agency safeguarding training courses. Use of e-learning and other virtual solutions Access to Websites such as SCIE, HCPC, TCSW (corporate membership)

% of multi-agency training courses on which all relevant professional groups were adequately represented. On-going access to Research in Practice and other CSC and academic forums at the forefront of safeguarding practice Munro compliance Theoretical application (systemic family therapy) Group supervision Consultation practitioners

Evidence that those professionals who attended the training are practicing safeguarding to a good enough standard Good practice develops and is sustainable A Safeguarding conference each year that is current and pragmatic and address the concerns of professionals

Training Unit Records Training evaluations and analysis QA of all partners at every opportunity e.g. CPCs Multi-agency case file audits Evaluation of the L&D framework – it is fit for purpose Evaluations of systemic family therapy training and of the consultant practitioner role Specific case file audits linked to specific trainings


Number of staff qualified for more than five years.

% of staff qualified more than five years who have attended multi-agency safeguarding training in previous year.

A stable workforce that provides consistency for children

Consultation with agencies Training evaluation and analysis


Number of people in the professional group requiring safeguarding supervision e.g. number of

% of professionals within the group receiving safeguarding

% of professionals who are able to evidence how the improved practice

Consultation with agencies Staff Survey


35

social workers, midwives, GPs, DA workers.

supervision at the frequency the organisation’s policy requires. % of professionals receiving supervision who report it results in clearer thinking and improved practice. % of professionals who report being confident in exercising their professional judgment in cases. % of staff whose direct work with children/families has been observed at least once in the year by their supervisor.

arising from supervision has had a positive impact on the wellbeing of the families worked with. Front line staff have increased emotional insight into the complexities of child protection We are critical thinkers reinforced in supervision

Audit of Supervision Records


Number of staff in organisation or service area. Number of staff responding to survey. How confident are we that professionals in specialist areas (EW, fostering & adoption, leaving care, YOS) have the skills & knowledge to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns?

% of staff who experience the organisation as: • calm • safe • supportive • taking poor practice seriously. % of staff who feel valued by the Organisation % of staff who believe their ideas have helped shape services % of staff who believe any concerns they raise, including concerns about the welfare of children, will be taken seriously. % of staff who experience managers at all

HR Records Staff Survey Managers walking the floor


36

levels as being accessible.

Organisational/ Practitioner Senior management in touch with the ‘front line’

Number of assistant directors/directors/ councillors/board members. Do senior managers take a visible interest in what is happening in the front line?

% of senior leadership team who, in previous 12 months, have met with frontline staff, parents and children on: • one occasion • two occasions • three occasions.

Senior managers accompany staff on home visits Senior managers observe practice Senior managers talk to staff Senior managers meet children and families Effective practice is praised Poor practice is challenged

Agency HR Records Senior Managers Survey


Number of parents, children and young people receiving a service in the year. Number of parents/ children surveyed.

% of parents, children and young people who said they were treated well or very well by the organisation.

Consultation with agencies Child & Family Survey


Number of staff leaving in the year. Number of completed exit interviews.

% of exit interviews indicating concerns about organisational culture.

Agency HR Records


Number of frontline staff and managers in the service.

% of staff subject to formal competence process. % of those staff whose practice improves

% of staff who can demonstrate how evidence-based practice resulted in improvements to the

Agency HR Records Supervision Records Case Audits


37

% of staff /managers who can evidence: • they base their practice on a clear theoretical framework • they are aware of latest relevant research findings which they apply in their practice.

wellbeing of children

Organisational/ Practitioner Senior management in touch with the ‘front line’ Do senior managers take a visible interest in what is happening in the front line?

Number of senior managers or commissioners in the service.

% of senior managers or commissioners who can evidence they are aware of latest relevant research findings which they apply in their practice.

% of senior managers or commissioners who can demonstrate how evidence-based practice resulted in improvements to the wellbeing of children. Balance between early intervention & ‘treatment’ services Funding decisions are based on l/t research outcomes ` Individual agencies & partnerships are commissioning relevant service models which have been evaluated Managers & commissioners & staff are outward looking & have a good understanding of good practice in other areas / boroughs

Agency HR Records Supervision Records Case Audits


38


4. Wider Picture Content Areas

Wider picture

Number of households and children living in local authority area. Number of dwellings in LA area. Number of fires in domestic premises.

% of housing needs staff and housing officers who are up- to-date with their safeguarding training. % of initial and core assessments that analyse the impact of poor housing. % of parents who speak positively about the support they receive and how they are treated whilst homeless. % of families in poor condition housing which the fire service has visited or have alarm fitted.

Number or % households with children or children living in overcrowded accommodation. Number or % households with children or children living in nondecent housing conditions. Number or % households with children/children who are homeless and in temporary accommodation. % of children in temporary accommodation who are: • registered with a GP • attending school regularly • up-to-date with immunisations vaccinations. % of children in overcrowded, non-decent housing or homeless and in temporary accommodation who move to accommodation that is: • of acceptable quality • permanent • non-overcrowded during the year. % of fires in domestic premises which

Demographic Data Agency Data Case Audits User Surveys Consultation with Housing providers & fire service


39

were in poor condition. The number of children in poor housing or in poverty in reducing in Croydon Parents living in poverty / poor housing report services are helping them Children living in poverty / poor housing are achieving the 5 ECM outcomes

Wider picture

Number of children in local authority area. Number of school age children.

% of children in workless households. % of children living in poverty. % receiving free school meals.

Demographic Data LA Data Situational needs analysis 2014 - 2017

Acknowledgements Croydon CSCB would like to acknowledge London LSCB and Local Government Improvement and Development (LGID) whose guidance document 'Improving local safeguarding outcomes, Developing a strategic quality assurance framework to safeguard children' forms the basis of this framework.

7. Data Gathering Strategy (to be completed)

Questions for safeguarding board – survey?

Which of our services and safeguarding arrangements do we know have a positive impact on

the safety and wellbeing of children? Where we do not know this how can we find out?

Do we have the balance right between investment in early intervention and prevention to

reduce the likelihood of abuse with services designed to treat that abuse?

What is the impact of funding decisions upon safeguarding? What is the knock on effect of

the decisions amongst the partnership upon safeguarding vulnerable children?

What is the impact of re-organisation of safeguarding arrangements?


40

What is the balance between funding frontline and support to back room services? What is

the impact of resource decisions regarding support services on frontline services?

What additional resources / partners could support safeguarding?

Are there things that could be done to promote good safeguarding outcomes that have no

or low cost?

Peer reviews / expert group

Engaging the community

Role of Sub-groups

QA reports (CP, LAC, IV, YPs, Voice)

Statistical neighbours

QA by individual organisations

Learning and Development Unit

To ensure the partnership is promoting a learning culture that builds safeguarding wisdom,

supervisory skills (in this regard) and support the Learning & Development Unit needs to promote

the development and application of emotional, social and intellectual intelligence surrounding

safeguarding.

The L&D unit will need to ensure that the learning and development inputs have an impact on

practice and whether practice has changed and whether this has led to improved outcomes. In

particular there needs to be a drive to support the continuous development of supervisory skills

especially in relation supporting the emotional resilience of front line staff and in the identification

of more subtle indicators of concern.

8. Conclusion (to be completed)

To conclude it is important to use this document as an appeal to all partners to fully engage in the

development of a culture of quality assurance.


41

Appendix 1: Understanding Defences

It is crucial to investigate and understand the complexity of resisting forces in order to confront and

reduce resistance. Subsequently, the literature on defensive behaviour is crucial when considering

how social workers exclude fathers. Colman summarises defences by stating that:

‘More generally, it is a pattern of feeling, thought or behaviour arising in response to a perception of

psychic danger, enabling a person to avoid conscious awareness or conflicts or anxiety-arousing

ideas or wishes’. (Trevithick quoting Coleman: 2011: 389)

The theory of social defences was initially advanced by Jacques (1955) who hypothesised how

unconscious collusions developed in organisations which then misrepresented or rejected work

based events that engendered unwanted emotions. Later Jacques developed his ideas further

arguing that social and organisational defences came about because of poor organisational systems.

Although the most prominent writer on defences was Menzies Lyth (1988) in relation to health care;

Goddard and Hunt (2011), Ruch and Murray (2011) and Walker (2011) as well as many other

commentators on the social work profession, have written that social work organisations have

developed similarly highly sophisticated defences to reduce the impact of the social worker-client

relationship by denying its significance.

Psychoanalytically, it is essential and inevitable that individuals develop psychological defences to

protect themselves within the dynamic features and stresses of professional working relationships.

Covert defensive systems develop in response to child abuse and conflict which are hard to

recognise and decipher. This means unconscious processes are operating within human associations

and institutions. They act as defensive avoidance of any work, which provokes anxiety. With little

recognition of these processes, collaboration is regarded as a threat to an individual’s sense of ‘self’

and subsequently defended against.

Social workers are confronted daily with human frailty and vulnerability in circumstances that

involves uncertainty and risk and which evoke powerful emotional responses; fear, revulsion, anger

and shame. However, and as Munro wrote, the emotional impact of social work often goes

unrecognised. (2011).

Applying this theory to organisational change it can be suggested that managers and workers

employ psychological defences to avoid thinking about and engaging with change. Repeated

encounters with change especially around safeguarding can lead social workers and others in the

helping professions to experience feelings of intolerable guilt and anxiety. These feelings encourage

managers and workers to adopt defensive behaviours that protect themselves from blame,

recrimination and the consequences of failure, falling back to the narrowest of definitions of the

primary task. Many of these defences are unconscious guarding us from psychic harm whilst

distorting our perception of reality. This can lead to children and parents being depersonalised and

categorised denying the significance of the individual. Equally, workers collusively redistribute

responsibility and irresponsibility when working with change. (Whittaker: 2011, Cooper et al; 2003,

Roberts; 2002).


42

Appendix: 2 Children & Family Participation Methodology for CSC&FS and CSCB

Introduction

This brief document describes Croydon CSC&FS’ methodology to gather the views and experiences

of services to children and families directly from the users. (On top of the consultation process for

LAC and CP). This methodology is specific to Children Social Care, (although we are developing a

similar method for Early Help), it is adaptable as we learn the best ways to gather data. The

methodology so far is as follows:

Our basic data gathering activity is as follows

A 6 monthly analysis of feedback from consultation documents completed by all Looked

After children via the LAC review process

A 6 monthly analysis of feedback from consultation documents completed by children and

families who are subject to the child protection process

A 6 monthly analysis of feedback from the Independent Visitors

A quarterly analysis of feedback from Coram Voice (who advocate for LAC)

Bi-monthly feedback from Croydon’s Children in Care Council

On top of the well-established methods of feedback we are experimenting with the following

methodology in 2014:

1. We will produce a list of all closed cases in the past 12 months from CRS 2. We have developed a survey for families to complete (see attached) 3. We will mail out the survey for families 4. We will then telephone a 20% random sample (we think this will be approximately 300

children and families) of those mailed out and ask them the same questions (as attached) as we are only expecting a 10 – 15% return on activity 3. The last questions ask whether we can visit to complete an interview and we ask consent to speak to the child (subject to age).

5. Of those children and families who give consent to interview we plan to employ an ‘expert group’ to undertake the direct interviews. We think the best model will be employing care leavers to undertake this work (with training and support) over the summer.

6. The new case file audit also asks the auditor to contact the family are ask specific questions. 7. We are currently exploring how social media can further support this activity by having a QA

questionnaire attached to the Croydon Website. CRS will also be able to provide email addresses of all children and families allowing us to contact them directly with the children and family survey.

This activity will be led and coordinated via the Learning and Development Unit. (We recognise

issues of diversity and will employ a number of interpreters to complete activity 4 when necessary).

All feedback will be collated using the survey monkey methodology. An analysis will be written and

circulated to all staff in CSC & FS and the wider partnership.


43

We are also developing other activities for specific groups of missing children and children subject to

CSE for the CSCB. For example; Sarah Roberts and I will be attending two girls’ schools in LBC to

develop a survey with a group of girls asking other young women about their safety in LBC.

Appendix 3 Analytical Framework employed by CSCB to analyse QA activities Introduction The CSCB via the QAPP will analyse data via a discourse and thematic analysis methodology and comments on the use of triangulation Discourse and Thematic Analysis The analytical conceptual frameworks are drawn from the very large field of quality assurance data methodologies including:

The voices of children, families and professionals

SCRs andIMRS

Inspections

Case file, multi-agency and thematic audits

Indepdnent evaluations

Deep Dives (As identified in the CSCB QAF document dated the 24th of March 2014). Our thinking is drawn from Every Child Matters, our own professional education as well as our own social constructions. The analytical conceptual framework adopts what Walker, echoing Foucault, asserts that macro discourses (varieties of knowledge such as culture, ethics, values, political idea) are replicated in micro discourse (talk) ‘at the point of articulation’.(1988, p 55). Macro and micro discourses are discovered and examined through the analysis of conversation and word assembly. It is important to recognise the power of ‘talk in action’ in the focus group and interviewer role. Discourse analysis is used to consider ways of thinking about particular phenomena such as child protection, missing children, supervision and then place this into a political context such as safeguarding practice across complex organisations. (Ashley; 2006). For the QAF we have adopted the ten stages in the analysis of discourse as described by Potter and Wetherell (1987). Stage 1: The research questions are broadly related to construction, function and what is achieved by this construction. Stage 2: A small sample group. Stage 3: A literature search, review and critique. Stage 4: Interviews or focus groups allow for the active intervention by the researcher. Stage 5: Transcriptions. Stage 6: Inclusive categorising and coding to identify a body of instances, patterns and variances. (Identification of discourses at this stage).


44

Stage 7: The analysis studies the coding looking for patterns in the data, nuance, incongruities and areas of vagueness. Analysis then reviews function and consequence. For example; I searched for patterns of consistencies and variance through the same action. This approach developed a great deal of variability on many levels but also a great deal of uniformity. (|Further identification of discourses at this stage). Stage 8: To further validate the analytical framework, I evidence a coherence from the analytical claims in the literature review and linked these to the discourse found in the transcripts. I identify new problems and develop the concept of ‘fruitfulness’ in making sense of new kinds of discourse. (For the purpose of rigour stages 6 & 7 were reviewed in supervision). Stage 9: The report then constitutes part of the confirmation and validation procedures itself. Stage 10: I will popularize the findings to demonstrate application.

11. Triangulation is often used to indicate that two (or more) methods are used in a study in order to check the results. "The concept of triangulation is borrowed from navigational and land surveying techniques that determine a single point in space with the convergence of measurements taken from two other distinct points. The idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result.

Triangulation is a powerful technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. In particular, it refers to the application and combination of several research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon

It can be employed in both quantitative (validation) and qualitative (inquiry) studies. It is a method-appropriate strategy of founding the credibility of qualitative analyses. It becomes an alternative to traditional criteria like reliability and validity. It is the preferred line in the social sciences.

By combining multiple observers, theories, methods, and empirical materials, researchers can hope to overcome the weakness or intrinsic biases and the problems that come from single method, single-observer and single-theory studies.

Purpose

The purpose of triangulation in qualitative research is to increase the credibility and validity of the results. Several scholars have aimed to define triangulation throughout the years.

Cohen and Manion (2000) define triangulation as an "attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it from more than one standpoint.

Altrichter et al. (2008) contend that triangulation "gives a more detailed and balanced picture of the situation."

According to O’Donoghue and Punch (2003), triangulation is a “method of cross-checking data from multiple sources to search for regularities in the research data."


45

According to Erina Audrey (2013) “Triangulation also crosschecks information to produce accurate results for certainty in data collection”

Types

Denzin (1978) identified four basic types of triangulation:

Data triangulation: involves time, space, and persons

Investigator triangulation: involves multiple researchers in an investigation Theory triangulation: involves using more than one theoretical scheme in the

interpretation of the phenomenon Methodological triangulation: involves using more than one method to gather data,

such as interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents.