STOCKPORT SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD

NEGLECT TRAINING EVALUATION REPORT 2014

[Type the document subtitle]

Helen Harrison

LSCB Training Manager

September 2014

Contents

INTRODUCTION 2

METHODOLOGY 2

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 2

Section1: About You 2

Section 2: Knowledge of Policy & Procedures 3

Section 3: Practice 8

Section 4: Training 10

CONCLUSION 13

INTRODUCTION

Neglect is a priority area for the Stockport Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB). This report provides feedback on the responses to an evaluation survey that looks at worker’s awareness of the Stockport Neglect Policy, use of the Graded Care profile and the associated resources. It therefore looks at how well the SSCB communicates its key messages as well as the effectiveness of the training.

METHODOLOGY

An online survey was created through Training Sub; it comprised 4 sections: Section 1 About You, Section 2 Knowledge of Policy & Procedures, Section 3 Practice and Section 4 training. Where possible a dropdown list of responses was supplied to aid analysis and to make it as easy as possible for respondents to complete. There were opportunities for respondents to make their own comments in free text boxes.

The survey opened on June 23rd for 2 weeks. There were 88 responses received. At the Training Sub meeting on July 14th it was agreed to keep the survey open until the end of July to try and get responses from the key voluntary organisations. The survey closed on August 4th and 94 responses had been received.

The survey was distributed via LSCB Board members and Training Sub members. It was open to any worker and not restricted to training participants. This was to give an opportunity to look at whether the training had made any difference to people’s knowledge and practice.

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

Section1: About You

Response by Organisation/ Service

The list of organisations and job roles was taken from training registers. All the organisations listed had sent workers to the SSCB Neglect/ GCP training or commissioned bespoke training. Responses were received from 14 Services/ Organisations. No responses were received from Housing, NHS Community Drug & Alcohol Service, NHS Community Mental Health Teams, NHS Midwives, Probation, Post 16 Schools/ Colleges, Independent Schools, or Academies or the Safeguarding Children Unit. The response from the voluntary sector was disappointing as only one organisation sent a response despite the survey being kept open for longer. One voluntary organisation did send an apology that they would be unable to respond.

The 94 responses were received from1 Assistant Speech & language Therapist, 1 Behaviour Support Worker, 4 Children’s Centre Leaders, 1 Children’s centre Family Worker, 1 Clinic Nurse Assistant, 2 Drug & Alcohol Workers, 6 Family Support Workers, 18 Health Visitors, 1 Paediatrician, 1 Operational Manager, 3 Pastoral Support Workers, 1 Pastoral Manager, 2 Physiotherapists, 1 Police Constable, 2 Probation Officers, 2 Rapid response Co-ordinators, 5 Speech & Language Therapists, 2 School Nurses, 1 SENCO,1 Senior Co-ordinator, 3 Senior Practitioners, 11 Social Workers, 1 Staff Nurse, 1 Support Worker, 1 Teacher, 3 Team Managers, 11 Young People’s Workers, 2 Youth Crime Prevention Workers, 1 Victim Liaison Officer,2 YOS Officers.

Section 2: Knowledge of Policy & Procedures

Information about policies & procedures is made available via the internet. The SSCB has its owen website – www.safeguardingchildreninstockport.org.uk – where workers can access the pan-Manchester procedures and any local policies – like the Neglect policy. The majority of respondents knew to look on the SSCB website. 10 health staff said they would use the health safeguarding microsite which is promoted by health in their single agency training and induction. 2 social workers and 1 team manager from Children’s Social Care and a Young people’s Worker said they would use the SMBC intranet. 1 YOS worker, 1 SfYP worker, 1 Therapy Services worker and 1 Team Manager would use the stockport.gov.uk website. The 4 people who didn’t know where to look – 2 were from Schools and 2 were from Therapy Services

The key dissemination routes for information appear to be training courses and information cascaded by managers/ colleagues. This is consistent with the information obtained from the survey results about the pan-Manchester procedures. The lack of impact of the newsletter is not surprising and with the amount of information workers receive on a daily basis the message appears to be short & snappy communications. It may be worth developing the alerts system for the SSCB website.

The questionnaire then went on to ask respondents about their knowledge of the policy – specifically when the use of a Graded Care Policy (GCP) should be considered. The policy states use of a Graded Care Profile should be considered at the following 4 points:

·  as part of a TAC plan

·  1st Review Child Protection Plan recommendation for Core group

·  3rd Review Child Protection Plan recommendation for Core Group

·  When a child is made subject to a Child Protection Plan for Neglect for a second time.

There were 3 additional questions interspersed in the survey – all of which would be good practice opportunities to consider using a Graded Care Profile but are not required by the policy

·  As part of a CAF assessment

·  Before a case can be stepped up to Children’s Social Care

·  Before a Child Protection Plan can be discontinued.

The policy requirements have been included in the SSCB Neglect & Graded Care profile workshops so that workers are aware of the policy requirements.

The number of responses each question received can be seen in the Responses’ table. The highest number of respondents (64) identified that a GCP should be completed as part of a TAC plan and the least number of respondents (25) identified that a GCP should be completed when a child is made the subject of a Child Protection Plan for neglect for a second time.

The number of options respondents chose is detailed in this table:

5 people didn’t answer the question at all only one of whom had said that they were not aware of the Stockport policy. Of the people who chose just one answer 10 said part of a CAF assessment, 5 said as part of a TAC plan, 9 said before stepping up to CSC, 1 identified the 3rd CP review point and 1 said before a CP plan can be discontinued. Only 3 people chose just the 4 answers the policy required – 2 social workers and a YOS worker. Only one of the people who chose 5 answers included the 4 policy requirements in their choice. The people who chose all 7 responses and the one person who made 6 choices all included the policy requirements. It would appear that although workers are aware of the policy they have not retained the detailed content.

The next question asked whether respondents had been prompted to use a Graded Care Profile or asked about their activity because these are the ways that use of the policy is reinforced in practice. 38 of our respondents had never been asked about using a Graded Care Profile. The remaining two thirds (64) had been prompted at least once to consider a GCP. 19 had been prompted once either by a colleague or a manager and the remainder had received several prompts. A couple of respondents said that they had been asked at training sessions.

The responses show that there is increased awareness of the Graded Care Profile and those managers & colleagues are promoting its use.

Using the document from the SSCB website ensures that the most up-to-date document is used. It is concerning that respondents are using their own saved version or the training hand-out as these are more likely to be out of date.

The SSCB website offers two versions of the Graded Care Profile – one that has been adapted to colour code the sections and add in some visual prompts and a plain text version. The questionnaire asked respondents which version of the tool they preferred to use. 63 respondents had never completed one.

Respondents’ comments about the options

Plain text version: I find descriptions more helpful than pictures

Picture version: I remember things better when they are visual

I have not completed a GCP yet but think the picture version looks most accessible

It’s more user friendly for parents

Depends on the Family: Depends on language, learning difficulties

All individuals may have different learning styles/different comprehension levels

As part of the Neglect policy a leaflet was developed for workers to use with families. It is promoted on the training.

Respondents do appear to be aware of the policy and the supporting documents. There is evidence that workers are being prompted to consider completing a Graded Care Profile.

Section 3: Practice

72% of respondents had not completed a Graded Care Profile. 26 respondents had completed one or more GCPs. The most prolific completers are a Health Visitor and a Rapid Response CAF Co-Ordinator who have both completed more than 10; a social worker and a social worker team manager have been involved in 5-10; 4 health visitors, 3 family support workers, 2 social workers and a team manager have completed between 2 and 5; 7 health visitors, 3 social workers, 1 family support worker and 1 rapid response CAF co-ordinator have all completed one GCP.

4 respondents who had not completed a Graded Care profile themselves had completed one with a colleague. 27 respondents had worked with a colleague to complete a GCP.

The Graded Care Profile is a useful tool when completed with a professional from a different specialism e.g. health visitor as this increases observations and thoughts. Also helps to build confidence to use the document.

25 out of the 26 respondents had used the GCP to help the family understand what needed to change and this was by far the most prominent use. The second highest use was to make a plan for change.

The Graded Care Profile is not a standardised assessment tool. Nevertheless respondents have found it useful for measuring family progress/ or lack of progress. 23 out of 26 respondents identified that the GCP was most useful for measuring improvement/ deterioration.

Practitioner views:

It takes time but it’s worth it. Helps to clearly highlight issues to family and other agencies

In cases of concern regarding neglect the tool is useful to do to help families acknowledge changes that need to be made to improve the quality of the child/ children.

But one practitioner was not so positive:

I find it a difficult document to implement with clients when there is conflict around the neglect. Views are generally opposing and don’t give a true reflection of home conditions. This has just been my experience when using the tool.

Practitioner’s comments:

It can also help a family see apparent areas of need and support.

Initially wary but also used to highlight positive factors within the family

Didn’t like what showing but didn’t disagree

My example is a young parent, whose house was unkempt with dirty dishes and cutlery, dirty washing in each room, the floor covered with rubbish with a young toddler so safety was an issue. The tool was a way of exploring risk with client but was felt by the client to feel judged.

Section 4: Training

To support Neglect as an SSCB priority there have been various training opportunities available. The SSCB Conference 2012 focussed on the updated Neglect policy and the updated Neglect materials that were available on the SSCB website previously referenced in Section 2. The SSCB neglect workshop has included information and an exercise on using the Graded Care Profile since 2007. The course was revised to reflect the updated policy and materials in for the 12-13 multi-agency programme and the Graded Care Profile workshop (using the same materials) was added to the programme as an update/ refresher at the same time. Bespoke service specific GCP workshops were provided as part of the EHP Service Induction programme in 2012 and have been provided for the Supporting Families Pathway service and the Youth Offending Service in 2014.

Half of the respondents had completed a multi-agency safeguarding board event - SSCB Neglect workshop (27), SSCB GCP workshop (13) and Safeguarding Conference 2012 (7) and 13 had completed a bespoke workshop for their service. A couple of people identified that they had attended the Step Up/Step Down event as their most recent training but that hadn’t covered use of the Graded Care Profile although it had been mentioned in their table activities. One person had learned about the Graded Care Profile at University and one had been trained by another Local Authority. Of the 26 people who had never attended training there were 2 responses from health staff that they had tried to attend training but it had been cancelled and it clearly irked them. They were asking for more training sessions to be provided. Checking the records for the past 3 years none of the Neglect workshops had been cancelled – one was rearranged because of low numbers - and there had been places available. One of the GCP workshops was cancelled; these had run at about 50% capacity. So it’s not clear where the communication breakdown had occurred.

Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of the training. It has been very clear that many of the delegates who attend the neglect training do so to gain awareness of the GCP and its use rather than complete one – indeed as previously mentioned about two-thirds of the respondents had not completed a GCP. Some respondents identified that it was not appropriate for their role to complete a GCP and for some school staff and other professionals who do not make home visits this is a valid view. Therefore a view on the usefulness of the training was intended to give some indication on the content and delivery of the sessions.