Joint Inspection of Services for Children at Risk of Harm in Renfrewshire ECSPB
Renfrewshire Council · 31 October 2024
Back to Education and Children's Services Policy Board — 31 October 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Page 1 of 10 To: Education and Children’s Services Policy Board On: 31 October 2024 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Children’s Services ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Joint inspection of services for children at risk of harm in Renfrewshire ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 At the request of Scottish Ministers, the Care Inspectorate is leading joint inspections of services for children and young people at risk of harm. The remit of these joint inspections is to consider the effectiveness of services for children and young people up to the age of 18 at risk of harm. The inspections look at the differences community planning partnerships are making to the lives of children and young people at risk of harm and their families. The legislative basis for the inspection is Section 115 of part 8 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. 1.2 The inspections look at the difference community planning partnerships are making to the lives of children and young people at risk of harm and their families. They take account of the full range of work including services provided by social workers, teachers, health visitors, police officers and the third sector. 1.3 Renfrewshire Council was notified on the 8th of April 2024 that our inspection would begin. A report was provided to members of this board on the 23rd of May outlining the methodology and process of the inspection process. 1.4 Within the inspection framework only one quality indicator receives a grade. Quality indicator 2.1, with reference to children at risk of harm, considers the extent to which children and young people: • feel valued, loved, fulfilled and secure • feel listened to, understood and respected • experience sincere human contact and enduring relationships • get the best start in life
Page 2
Page 2 of 10 1.5 The inspection has concluded and Renfrewshire’s Inspection report was published on the Care Inspectorate website on the 22nd of October. The report is extremely positive and the grade of Very Good has been awarded for Quality Indicator 2.1. 1.6 An evaluation of Very Good applies to performance that demonstrates major strengths in supporting positive outcomes for people. There are very few areas for improvement. Those that do exist will have minimal adverse impact on people’s experiences and outcomes. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board note the publication of the Report of a joint inspection of services for children and young people at risk of harm in Renfrewshire community planning partnership and note the Very Good evaluation for Quality Indicator 2.1. ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The joint inspection team was led by the Care Inspectorate but included representatives from Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), Education Scotland and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) and volunteer Young Inspectors. 3.2 The joint inspection process took 22 weeks as outlined below 3.3 Children at risk of harm are defined as children up to the age of 18 years who need urgent support due to being at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect. This includes children who need urgent support due to being a significant risk to themselves and/or others or are at significant risk in the community. The Care Inspectorate identify young people as children aged 13 to 17 years old. 3.4 Joint inspections aim to provide assurance on the extent to which services, working together, can demonstrate the following. 3.4.1 Children and young people are safer because risks have been identified early and responded to effectively.
Page 3
Page 3 of 10 3.4.2 Children and young people’s lives improve with high-quality planning and support, ensuring they experience sustained loving and nurturing relationships to keep them safe from further harm. 3.4.3 Children and young people and families are meaningfully and appropriately involved in decisions about their lives. They influence service planning, delivery and improvement. 3.4.4 Collaborative strategic leadership, planning and operational management ensure high standards of service delivery. 3.5 The joint inspection of services for children at risk of harm in the Renfrewshire community planning partnership area commenced on 8 April 2024 and concluded 18 September 2024. It covered the range of partners in the area that have a role in meeting the needs of children and young people at risk of harm and their families and considered the period 8 April 2022 to 8 April 2024. 3.6 During the inspection the inspection team; o listened to the views and experiences of 49 children and young people and 47 parents and carers. This included face to face meetings, telephone or video calls and survey responses. o reviewed practice by reading a sample of records held by a range of services for 60 children and young people at risk of harm. o reviewed a wide range of documents and a position statement provided by the partnership. o carried out a staff survey and received 558 responses from staff working in a range of services. o met with approximately 253 staff who work directly with children, young people and families. o met with members of senior leadership teams, committees and boards that oversee work with children at risk of harm and their families. 3.7 The report (full joint inspection report) was published on the 22nd of October. This is a very positive report which outlines key strengths in partnership working in Renfrewshire. Inspectors saw evidence that partners were effectively identifying and responding to risk. Close partnership working between professionals and across partner agencies was noted to be key to our capacity to identify harm at the earliest stage and to respond in an early and effective manner. 3.8 The inspection team found clear evidence that staff were confident in their ability to recognise and report child abuse, neglect and exploitation. The report highlights key strengths regarding our core processes including our multi-agency initial referral discussion (IRD) process and its effectiveness in identifying risk and harm and making plans to keep children safe. Our IRD process ensured that timescales were adhered to and promoted early and effective interventions when their were concerns for children’s safety and wellbeing.
Page 4
Page 4 of 10 3.9 A reassuring theme throughout the report was the positive relationships between staff and children and families, and between staff themselves. The inspectors highlighted the impact of our trauma-informed and relationships- based practice across all agencies and services. Inspectors observed nurturing and trusting relationships between staff and children across agencies and heard that children felt safer as a result. The report mentioned the views of one child who advised “staff saw them as a person rather than a problem to be fixed.” The inspectors noted this sentiment was echoed by other young people, who flet staff genuinely wanted the best for them and treated them with respect. 3.10 Our corporate approach to The Promise was recognised for its role in bringing the voice of the child into all aspects of our work and inspectors highlighted the Brothers and Sisters Policy as an example of how care experienced voices had directly led to change. 3.11 Our recently refreshed Getting it Right for every Child approach (GIRFEC), was supporting children in a range of different ways. GIRFEC policy and practice guidance was credited with giving multi-agency partners a shared language and vision for meeting the needs of our children and families. 3.12 Renfrewshire’s long-established advocacy services for children involved in protective processes was noted as a particular strength and they heard from children who said that it made them listened to and involved in their care plans. Children and young people at risk of harm were benefitting from supportive and caring relationships with staff. They were confident that their views were heard, and they felt listened to. Children, young people and their families were benefitting from well-established assessment and planning approaches. The inspectors noted that the partnership had embedded children’s rights in practice. 3.13 Our strategic leadership and governance arrangements were seen to be effective in driving forward improvements and ensuring local needs were identified and responded to in a timely manner. Staff reported that senior leaders were well known, and they felt assured that decisions being taken by leaders were helping them to do their jobs and keep children safe. 3.14 The partnership’s vision, values, and aims were well-understood and embraced by staff across all partner agencies, including the third sector. Leaders were highly visible, communicated regularly, and maintained a clear vision for service delivery and improvement for children and young people at risk of harm. The inspectors found “the intentional investment in relationships provided a collaborative culture where staff, managers and leaders worked positively together across agencies. 3.15 The report recognises the investment in staff through learning and development opportunities. Most staff indicated that participation in multi- agency training and development had improved their confidence in working with children at risk of harm. 3.16 Inspectors highlighted two areas for improvement – the availability of resources for children experiencing mental health problems. While they saw examples of good practice and children being helped to improve their
Page 5
Page 5 of 10 wellbeing, they observed that such resources were not always readily accessible. However, the inspectors highlighted recent service developments which were showing potential for improving this, namely the new CAMHS/Education liaison officer and the resources available via the REN10 website were highlighted. 3.17 The other suggested area for improvement relates to how we use the data we collate in the partnership. While inspectors noted the plethora of data we gather about our service priorities, they suggested that we need to strengthen how we use this data to identify impact for children and risk of harm. 3.18 The report highlights two good practice examples. The first is the Street Stuff approach which is a statutory and third sector partnership based at St Mirren Football Club. The inspectors found their activity-based support in schools and communities was making a positive difference in the lives of children and young people who were at risk of harm in their communities from gang affiliation, knife crime and other forms of violence and exploitation. Effective co-ordination was undertaken by partners to gather local intelligence and deliver a network of community-based supports. 3.19 The second good practice example is the Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) Team, which was established in 2017, and significantly increased the safety and wellbeing of young people at risk of exploitation. The team’s responsive approach fostered trusting and sustained relationships, ensuring all UASC held Looked After Child status, a strategic decision in Renfrewshire to offer substantial opportunities to these young people. The UASC Team adopted a rights-based approach, prioritising the young person’s views from the outset. They remained vigilant about the risk of re-trafficking and were proud that no re-trafficking incidents had occurred, attributing this success to their focused commitment and responsive support. 3.20 Quality indicator 2.1 relates specifically to how children at risk of harm • feel valued, loved, fulfilled and secure • feel listened to, understood and respected • experience sincere human contact and enduring relationships • get the best start in life 3.21 The inspectors found that services in Renfrewshire had significant positive impacts on children and young people’s experiences. They concluded: • Children and young people were being helped to keep safe in their communities. • Children and young people’s experiences of services were transforming as a result of relationship-based approaches. This was underpinned by the partnership’s work to embed the Promise. • Children’s and young people’s rights were respected. Independent advocacy was embedded and children and young people were effectively being heard and included in decisions about their lives.
Page 6
Page 6 of 10 • Children and young people were safer as a result of the support they received. A range of services were supporting recovery and beginning to improve well-being. • Children and young people’s views were increasingly informing the development and improvement in services. 3.22 The joint inspection team awarded Renfrewshire a grade of Very Good for this quality indicator. This means there are major strengths with very few areas for improvement. ________________________________________________________________ Implications of this report 1. Financial None. 2. HR and Organisational Development None. 3. Community/Council Planning None. 4. Legal Local authorities and all community planning partners have a responsibility to protect children from harm. The inspection is undertaken in line with Section 115 of part 8 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. 5. Property/Assets None. 6. Information Technology None. 7. Equality and Human Rights The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. 8. Health and Safety None
Page 7
Page 7 of 10 9. Procurement None. 10. Risk There are no specific risks identified in this report. Risk to children are identified and mitigated on a child protection planning basis. 11. Privacy Impact None. 12. Cosla Policy Position None. 13. Climate Risk None. 14. Children’s Rights The inspectors noted that the rights of children and young people were embedded in practice. This report demonstrates compliance with Article 3 (best interest of child), Article 9 (keeping families together), Article 12 (respect for children’s views), Article 19 (protection from violence), Article 22 (refugee children) and 25 (review of a child’s placement) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. List of Background Papers ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Michelle McCargo Strategic Manager Children and Justice Social Work
Page 8
Page 8 of 10 Appendix 1 2. The quality indicators What key outcomes have we achieved? How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders? How good is our delivery of services for children, young people and families? How good is our operational management? How good is our leadership? 1. Key performance outcomes 2. Impact on children, young people and families 5. Delivery of key processes 6. Policy, service development and legal measures 9. Leadership and direction 1.1 Improvements in the safety, wellbeing and life chances of vulnerable children and young people. 2.1 Impact on children and young people. 2.2 Impact on families. 5.1 Recognition and response to initial concerns. 5.2 Assessing risk and need. 5.3 Care planning, managing risk and effective intervention. 5.4 Involving individual children, young people and families. 6.1 Policies, procedures and legal measures. 6.2 Planning and improving services. 6.3 Participation of children, young people, families and other stakeholders. 6.4 Performance management and quality assurance. 6.5 Securing improvement through self-evaluation 9.1 Vision, values and aims. 9.2 Leadership of strategy and direction. 9.3 Leadership of people and partnerships. 9.4 Leadership of improvement and change. 3. Impact on staff 7. Management and support to staff 3.1 Impact on staff 7.1 Recruitment, deployment and joint working. 7.2 Workforce development and support. 4. Impact on the community 8. Resources and capacity building 4.1 Impact on the community 8.1 Management of resources. 8.2 Commissioning arrangements. 10: What is our capacity for improvement? Global judgement based on an evaluation of the framework of quality indicators
Page 9
Page 9 of 10 Appendix 2 Care Inspectorate Six-point Evaluation Scale The Care Inspectorate use the following six-point evaluation scale. 6 Excellent - Outstanding or sector leading 5 Very Good - Major strengths 4 Good - Important strengths, with some areas for improvement 3 Adequate - Strengths just outweigh weaknesses 2 Weak - Important weaknesses – priority action required 1 Unsatisfactory - Major weaknesses – urgent remedial action required An evaluation of excellent describes performance which is sector leading and supports experiences and outcomes for people which are of outstandingly high quality. There is a demonstrable track record of innovative, effective practice and/or very high-quality performance across a wide range of its activities and from which others could learn. The Care Inspectorate can be confident that excellent performance is sustainable and that it will be maintained. An evaluation of very good will apply to performance that demonstrates major strengths in supporting positive outcomes for people. There are very few areas for improvement. Those that do exist will have minimal adverse impact on people’s experiences and outcomes. While opportunities are taken to strive for excellence within a culture of continuous improvement, performance evaluated as very good does not require significant adjustment. An evaluation of good applies to performance where there is a number of important strengths that, taken together, clearly outweigh areas for improvement. The strengths will have a significant positive impact on people’s experiences and outcomes. However, improvements are required to maximise wellbeing and ensure that people consistently have experiences and outcomes which are as positive as possible. An evaluation of adequate applies where there are some strengths, but these just outweigh weaknesses. Strengths may still have a positive impact but the likelihood of achieving positive experiences and outcomes for people is reduced significantly because key areas of performance need to improve. Performance that is evaluated as adequate may be tolerable in particular circumstances, such as where a service or partnership is not yet fully established, or in the midst of major transition. However, continued performance at adequate level is not acceptable. Improvements must be made by building on strengths while addressing those elements that are not contributing to positive experiences and outcomes for people. An evaluation of weak will apply to performance in which strengths can be identified but these are outweighed or compromised by significant weaknesses. The weaknesses, either individually or when added together, substantially affect peoples’ experiences or outcomes. Without improvement as a matter of priority, the welfare or safety of people may be compromised, or their critical needs not met. Weak performance requires action in the form of structured and planned improvement by the provider or partnership with a mechanism to demonstrate clearly that sustainable improvements have been made.
Page 10
Page 10 of 10 An evaluation of unsatisfactory will apply when there are major weaknesses in critical aspects of performance which require immediate remedial action to improve experiences and outcomes for people. It is likely that people’s welfare or safety will be compromised by risks which cannot be tolerated. Those accountable for carrying out the necessary actions for improvement must do so as a matter of urgency, to ensure that people are protected, and their wellbeing improves without delay