JNC Joint inspection of services for children at risk of harm in Renfrewshire Nov 24 - m

Renfrewshire Council · 12 November 2024
Back to Renfrewshire Council Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff — 12 November 2024 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

Agenda Item .......... 
Renfrewshire Joint Negotiating Committee for Teachers 
To: Renfrewshire Joint Negotiating Committee for Teachers 
On: 12 November 2024   
Report by
Head of Education 
Joint Inspection of Services for Children at Risk of Harm in Renfrewshire
1. Background
1.1. 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.
1.2. The joint inspection process took 22 weeks as outlined below 
1.3. 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.
1.4. Joint inspections aim to provide assurance on the extent to which services, working
together, can demonstrate the following. 
1.4.1. Children and young people are safer because risks have been identified early and
responded to effectively.
1.4.2. 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. 
1.4.3. Children and young people and families are meaningfully and appropriately
involved in decisions about their lives. They influence service planning, delivery
and improvement.

Page 2

1.4.4. Collaborative strategic leadership, planning and operational management ensure
high standards of service delivery.
1.5. 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.
1.6. 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.
1.7. 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.
1.8. 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.
1.9. 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.

Page 3

1.10. 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.
1.11. 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.
1.12. 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.
1.13. 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.
1.14. 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.
1.15. 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.
1.16. 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 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.
1.17. 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.
1.18. 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

Page 4

exploitation. Effective co-ordination was undertaken by partners to gather local
intelligence and deliver a network of community-based supports.
1.19. 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.
1.20. 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
1.21. 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.
• 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.
1.22. 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.
2. Recommendation
2.1. Members of the JNC are asked to note the publication of the report on the joint
inspection of services for children and young people at risk of harm in Renfrewshire.

Page 5

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 6

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

Page 7

the provider or partnership with a mechanism to demonstrate clearly that sustainable
improvements have been made. 
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