HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland
Briefing Paper
BRIEFING PAPER FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY ON THE PROPOSED SAFEGUARDING BOARD NORTHERN IRELAND (SBNI)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (Belfast Trust) provides services to a population of around 335,000 of whom approximately 75,200 are children and young people under the age of 18 years.
1.2 As of 30/09/09, the Trust’s Family and Child Care Service was delivering services to 4604 children and young people who had been referred/assessed as being in need under Articles 17 and 18 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. (Source: Corporate Parenting Report 01/04/09-30/09/09).
1.3 As of 30/09/09, a total of 615 children and young people were included on the Trust’s child Protection Register. (Source: Corporate Parenting Report 01/04/09-30/09/09).
1.4 Fifteen of the thirty-six most deprived wards in Northern Ireland as identified by the Noble Indicators of Deprivation are located within Belfast. Structural factors underpinning levels of deprivation have been layered and reinforced within particular communities which are characterised by chronic levels of unemployment, benefits dependency and related poverty, low levels of academic and vocational skills and associated poorer physical and mental health wellbeing.
Health and social care inequalities have been recognised as significant predisposing factors in the incidence of children in need, including levels of child protection, across and within localities.
2.0 DELIVERY OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES WITH THE BELFAST TRUST
2.1 The Belfast Way document provides the overarching framework and underpinning principles for the delivery of Children’s Services within the Trust. The provision of safe, modernising cost-effective, health and social care in partnership with communities, users and their families by skilled and motivated staff is central to the delivery of the high level outcomes of the Ten Year Regional Strategy for Children and Young People (Office of the First and Deputy First Minister 2006).
2.2 The Hardiker Model, as referenced in the Policy Proposal, has informed the Trust’s strategic development and operational delivery of children’s services.
2.3 The Trust’s Family Support Strategy seeks to maximise user and community engagement and direct involvement in the delivery of services, enhancing accessibility and promoting community cohesion and resilience. It is multi-professional and multi-agency centred, linking with local and regional initiatives including Sure Start Projects, Extended Schools, Community Safety fora, Neighbourhood Renewal and a spectrum of health promotion schemes, to promote inclusive, early interventive and accessible supports across the universal and secondary levels of need as identified by Hardiker.
2.4 Co-operating to Safeguard Children (DHSSPSNI May 2003) and the Regional Child Protection Policy and Procedures (DHSSPSNI April 2005) provide the policy and procedural framework underpinning the Trust’s delivery of child protection services.
2.5 The delivery of safe and effective universal, children in need and child protection services is a key Trust priority.
2.6 In discharging its statutory responsibilities to vulnerable children and their families, the Trust has established organisational structures which facilitate a single point of entry into the Children’s Service System at Gateway for referrals of concern with regard to children. The management of such referrals involves a multi-disciplinary/multi-agency assessment process within a reflective and systematic identification of need by Trust staff in partnership with other professionals and agencies.
The outcome of the assessment informs the pathway into the Service and requires the participation of the child/young person and parents and other agencies/professionals in addressing the domains which shape the direction and focus of service delivery.
2.6 The Trust endorses the underlying ethos and thrust of the proposed Safeguarding Board as outlined in the Policy Proposal. The Trust believes that the proposed Board offers a structure which will provide a strategic, region-wide focus on safeguarding, will require a prioritising of safeguarding issues within organisations and agencies across all sectors and will afford a structure to deliver improvements in outcomes for the childhood population.
2.7 The Trust would be concerned to ensure that there is no dilution or diminution of focus and priority afforded to child protection as a consequence of the emphasis on the broader safeguarding approach as articulated in the Policy Proposal.
2.8 The success of the proposed Safeguarding Board will be measured against whether sustained and meaningful change in agencies’ profiling and prioritising of children’s welfare is reflected in their organisational structures and core business objectives.
2.9 The Safeguarding Board will need to be able to both provide assurance about the quality of service provision to vulnerable children while communicating and engaging with the public and local communities in an informed “conversation” about the challenges of safeguarding and child protection in particular.
The Trust would wish to address the particular themes detailed in the Committee’s letter of invitation of 26/01/10.
3.0 What are the essential elements that you would like to see to ensure a fully integrated and co-ordinated response to the safeguarding of children?
3.1 The Trust has referenced a number of the core elements of a fully integrated and co-ordinated safeguarding response at 2.3 – 2.4 above.
The Trust considers that Lord Laming’s recommendations as detailed in the Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report March 2009 provides a template for the ongoing development of safeguarding services.
- Leadership And Accountability
An effective system of accountable performance management which drives improvement in the quality of services designed to safeguard and promote the welfare of children at strategic and operational levels both within and across organisations and sectors. Such a system should be predicated on relevant, measurable, qualitative indicators which demonstrably link service delivery to improved outcomes.
- Interagency Working
All organisations with responsibilities to deliver services to and all professionals working with children and vulnerable families should explicitly understand their responsibilities to children’s welfare. Organisations should ensure that arrangements are in place to facilitate exchange of information and co-ordinated actions to supports vulnerable children.
- Workforce
An appropriately trained, supported and motivated workforce is of fundamental significance in delivering responsive and effective safeguarding services.
- Improvement And Challenge
Assurance processes within and across organisations which address the quality of strategic and operational arrangements integral to the delivery of safeguarding services.
- Resources And Organisational Focus
An implicit appreciation within agencies of their responsibilities to profile and promote safeguarding as corporate priorities with the attendant cultural and organisational changes necessary to drive forward such a focus.
The availability of an appropriate resource base to enable delivery of requisite safeguarding responsibilities.
- Communication
Communication, information and engagement with local representatives and society in general to promote a reflective, measured dialogue with regard to safeguarding.
- Engagement With Local Communities And Users
The development of strong local networks of support at universal and secondary levels with accessible and inclusive services delivered by local voluntary and community groups.
- Clear pathways for referral to specialist services for children in need
In relation to children who are deemed to be in need, a single point of entry into the relevant service(s) with experienced managers and practitioners available to complete initial assessments and expedite the transfer of a child onto specialist services pathways.
4.0 Are the functions of the SBNI as outlined at chapter 3 of the Policy Document adequate?
4.1 The Trust considers that the functions as outlined in the Policy Document are adequate.
5.0 Given that one of the roles of the SBNI is to secure accountability, how can one panel member hold another to account?
5.1 The Trust recognises the complexity of multi-agency accountability processes and the central role of the Chair of the Safeguarding Board in managing the potential tensions related to individual Board members’ dual accountabilities to their own organisations and to theSafeguarding Board.
5.3 The document affirms that the accountability arrangements between the HSCB and the individual Trusts with regard to the discharge of delegated statutory functions under the Scheme of Delegation will remain unaffected by the establishment of the Safeguarding Board.
5.4 The concept of the independence of the Chairs of the Safeguarding Board and Local Panels is pivotal to the challenge function which will underpin the holding of organisations to account.
5.5 The Chairs at both regional and local levels will be required to navigate the interfaces across policy development, commissioning, establishment of priorities and resource availability and to integrate learning and development processes within the assurance arrangements.
5.6 The Trust envisages a range of reporting and multi-agency auditing mechanisms to address the performance of individual agencies and the Safeguarding Board corporately.
6.0 How representative is the proposed Panel membership: are all aspects of child protection covered?
6.1 The Trust recognises the potential difficulties related to the issue of appropriate representation across the voluntary, community and professional sectors in particular.
6.2 The document does not address the issue of representational authority across sectors as opposed to organisations.
Within this, context the issue of accountability of individual Board members representing third sector and professional bodies requires clarification.
6.3 While the emphasis on senior organisational representatives with the authority to commit their individual organisations to Safeguarding Board proposals and priorities is central to performance and delivery, it is important, in the Trust’s view, that members have sufficient operational experience and expertise in safeguarding and child protection to critically evaluate Board proposals, to reflect a strong service delivery dimension to specific policy and practice initiatives and to identify potential resource and logistical issues impacting on individual agency and collective performance.
6.4 Particularly in relation to the overview of the Case Management Review system, it is imperative, in the Trust’s view, that Safeguarding Board members have the necessary practice knowledge and appreciation of service delivery processes to critically evaluate the quality of reporting and the relevance and deliverability of recommendations.
6.5 The Trust would suggest that discrete induction, relevant training and supports should be provided to all Safeguarding Board members to ensure they have the necessary overarching knowledge base and competencies to discharge their responsibilities.
6.6 The Trust would suggest that the membership of the Safeguarding Board should be reviewed after a period of twelve-months.
6.7 The Trust would endorse the Safeguarding Board’s engagement with the Judiciary and Court Service.
6.8 The Trust would suggest that consideration be given to the inclusion of a medical representative on the Safeguarding Board.
7.0 How should the Chairperson of the local safeguarding panels be appointed and should these be well paid posts?
7.1 The Trust is mindful of Lord Laming’s affirmation of the importance of the independence of Local Safeguarding Board chairs to ensure appropriate challenge and scrutiny.
7.2 The Trust considers that the Local Safeguarding Panel will be pivotal to the effective delivery of the safeguarding agenda. Their membership should include local community representation, in the Trust’s view.
7.3 The Trust considers that the Local Panel Chair should have sufficient local profile, knowledge and status to be able to secure implicit support from key local stakeholders and to maximise networks to contribute to the establishment and development of the Panel’s remit.
7.4 The Trust would be concerned to ensure that there will be unambiguous clarity in relation to individual agency accountability arrangements with regard to service delivery vis a vis the Panel’s overarching multiagency remit.
7.5 The Trust would suggest that the Policy Proposal should provide additional clarity on the role of the Local Safeguarding Panels and should give further detail on their interfaces with the local commissioning processes (including local commissioning groups), local service delivery arrangements and their their engagement with local community and political representatives.
7.6 The Trust would welcome clarification of the proposed role of the professional advisors at Local Panel levels.
7.7 The Trust would support recruitment and remuneration arrangements in accordance with public policy appointments.
8.0 How clear is the interaction between the DHSSPS, the HSCB, Trust’s and the SBNI regarding who will have primacy on issues / policy areas and who does what?
8.1 The Trust would suggest that further clarity will be required with regard to the Safeguarding Board and Local Panels’ interfaces with policy development, commissioning, assurance /monitoring and service delivery functions at both regional and local levels.
8.2 While the Safeguarding Board has no operational responsibility, the breadth of its remit will interface with the Commissioner and RQIA’s reporting, assurance and service delivery arrangements in relation to the discharge of statutory functions, including those relating to child protection. It is clearly important that there is no ambiguity with regard to respective responsibilities and accountabilities in relation to same.
8.3 The issue of resources underpinning the delivery of safeguarding services will inevitably impact on the Safeguarding Board’s capacity to deliver across certain functions. The Trust notes Lord Laming’s position in this regard, identifying the need “to ensure consistent, appropriate levels of investment in both early intervention and statutory child protection services to meet the safeguarding needs of children and young people”. (The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report March 2009).
9.0 Should there be a legal duty on agencies to co-operate as well as well as safeguard?
9.1 The Trust endorses the principles underpinning the concept of safeguarding as outlined at 6.2 in the Policy Proposal.
9.2 Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006provides guidance for operationalising of the duty as set out in section 4 of the Children Act 2004(England) to promote the co-ordination and effectiveness of the agencies represented on Local Safeguarding Boards (LSB’s) in England.
9.3 Lord Laming commented on the vital role of LSB’s in ensuring that the mutli-agency partners in each local area were co-operating to safeguard and promote the welfare of children effectively.
9.4 In the Trust’s opinion, mandated co-operation of itself will not deliver sustained, qualitative improvement in safeguarding services. While it will drive participation and provide a framework for accountability, meaningful co-operation and enhanced performance require to be earthed in an organisational commitment to safeguarding.
The challenge for the regional and independent chairs is to optimise the opportunities of statutory co-operation to promote prioritising of safeguarding within and across agencies and sectors.
10.0 Are there any opinions that your organisation might have on serious case reviews and the single database?
10.1 Case Management Reviews offer a structure within which to critically reflect on the quality of professional practice, to identify the key learning and to detail related recommendations to improve service delivery at both uni and multi agency levels.
10.2 There have been recent criticisms of the rigour of the serious Case Management Review System in England following the death of Baby Peter Connolly. As a result, the Department for Schools and Children has initiated a series of reviews and developed related guidance to ensure more robust and consistent processes for the chairing and management of reviews.
10.3 The Trust is mindful of the DHPSS’ engagement of Queen’s University and the NSPCC to evaluate the Case Management Review (CMR) process in Northern Ireland.
10.4 In the Trust’s view, the provision of training and supports to CMR Chairs to assure their expertise and competence in managing CMRs is a central issue.
10.5 The Trust would support the current review of the CMR process and would promote the adoption of regional guidelines and standards for the management of CMR’s as part of a discrete assurance framework in relation to same.
10.6 The Trust considers that the Social Care Institute for Excellence’s Guide Learning together to Safeguard Children: Developing a Multi Agency Systems Approach for Case Reviews 2009 which profiles a structured application of a systems approach affords a useful model for completing CMRs.
10.7 The Trust recognises the potential value of a single database to facilitate appropriate professional access to and sharing of information pertaining to children in need.
10.8 There are significant resource, technical and data protection issues to be resolved at both regional and local levels to progress the operationalising of a single database.
11.0 Where do you think the SBNI should be placed?
11.1 The Trust feels that the decision to place the SBNI in the Public Health Agency is both pragmatic and appropriate in light of its responsibilities for prevention and promotion of health and social well-being.
12.0 How can potential gaps or slippage between the current Regional Child Protection Committee and newly formed SBNI be avoided?
12.1 The establishment of Regional Child Protection Committee (RCPC) has provided a vehicle for continuity of strategic focus on child protection and afforded a mechanism for the incorporation of a broader safeguarding ethos and approach into current strategic developments.
12.2 The RCPC will have a key role in facilitating continuity between the Area Child Protection Committee and the Safeguarding Board.
12.3 The Trust would suggest consideration might be given to the establishment of the Safeguarding Board on a shadow basis to enable a managed transition from the RCPC.
12.4 In light of the scale of organisational change associated with the ongoing RPA process, it is essential in the Trust’s view that the transition process is progressed on a measured basis.
13.0 Is the funding for the SBNI already defined? The Department has indicated that £750,000 of funding is supplemented with existing funds. Does this kind of arrangement work?
13.1 In the context of the overarching financial situation, the Trust would be concerned to ensure that funding for safeguarding service delivery is secured. The Trust has no capacity within its own resource base to support additional funding demands arising out of the establishment of the Safeguarding Board.
13.2 The Trust would advocate full funding on a cross agency basis of costs associated with additional requirements arising out of the operationalising of the Safeguarding Board and Local Panels. |
