The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two: Improving Children's Services

2.1 This chapter reviews the findings of the consultation exercise in relation to proposed changes both in legislation and within all agencies delivering children's services. The proposals aim to deliver high quality children's services that meet the Scottish Executive's broad vision for children. To achieve this the Scottish Executive propose to establish a framework through legislation, best practice, revised guidance and regulation and to continue working with children's services to make sure that the right structures, systems and staff are in place.

2.2 The consultation paper contained six key proposals intended to improve children's services. These proposals were as follows:

• Proposal 1 Publishing information for children and families about the services and support available to them and how it can be accessed.
• Proposal 2 Duty to be alert to the needs of children, to listen to them and to act to improve a child's situation.
• Proposal 3 Duty on agencies to co-operate with each other in meeting the needs of children.
• Proposal 4 Development of a single integrated assessment, planning and recording tool.
• Proposal 5 Preparation of Action Plans where a child's needs are complex or serious and need compulsory measures or multi-agency input.
• Proposal 6 The appointment of a lead professional where there is a need for co-ordinated action between agencies.

The vast majority of respondents support in principle all of these proposals. The following sections summarise the main issues raised by respondents relating to each of the proposals.

Proposal One: Families and children should know what services they can get

2.3 The consultation paper proposed that agencies should publish information for children and families about the services and support available and how it can be accessed. The objective is to ensure that all families and children are informed about the services that are available to them and how they can access these services.

2.4 There was overwhelming agreement with this proposal with over 97% of respondents who responded to this proposal saying that they agreed with what is proposed. Nearly 60% of respondents suggested further measures and these suggestions were predominantly concerned with ensuring that this proposal is implemented effectively.

The main suggestions made in this respect included:

• Providing information from single source
• Ensuring ease of access to information
• Ensuring that information is available in different formats/languages/Braille, etc.
• Ensuring that information is kept up to date
• Developing an integrated communication strategy for all children's services.

2.5 Local authorities were particularly supportive of this proposal in their submissions and many noted that effective partnership working is important to achieve the goal of integrated provision of information to children and families. COSLA stated in its submission that:

"Agencies must work in partnership to ensure that information is consistent and presented in a way that means, as far as possible, service users can access all information they need in one place. This needs to be properly resourced and backed up by a commitment from all agencies to provide adequate information."

2.6 Many local authorities suggested the need for a single source of all local information to ensure easy access for families to all relevant information on services. A substantial number of respondents suggested that the provision of information should be co-ordinated using existing structures and processes such as Community Planning Partnerships and children services planning structures. For example, South Lanarkshire Council expressed its support for the proposal and stated that the issue was already being addressed through the integrated children's services planning process but that 'more remains to be done'. The council also acknowledged that some people lack confidence in accessing services and that providing better information is only part of the solution.

2.7 Glasgow City Council notes in its submission that the establishment of Community Health and Social Care Partnerships should support a more integrated approach to the provision of information about children's services and improved access and accountability for the delivery of these services. North Lanarkshire Council states that aspects of a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of information to young people already exists e.g. through mechanisms such as Young Scot. The council also states that:

"Individuals cannot ask for services they don't know exist, or be satisfied they have received what is expected or complain when this is not delivered. However, it will be important not to overwhelm families and some area co-ordination will be required."

2.8 Voluntary organisations are also very supportive of this proposal. Many voluntary organisations noted the need to involve children in developing information and communication strategies to ensure information is accessible even to 'hard to reach' young people. Youthlink Scotland welcomes the proposal that information should be made available to children and families about the services and support that is available to them.

Youthlink takes the view that:

"… the information provided should be as accessible as possible and use language and images which young people and their families can understand and relate to."

It argues that this is particularly important given that many young people referred to the Children's Hearings system are vulnerable and face a wide range of problems.

2.9 Save the Children Scotland also supports the proposal and notes in its submission that:

"Particular attention needs to be given to the format of the information to ensure that it is age appropriate. In addition, the issue of accessibility and dissemination of information is of great importance in order to ensure that those children and families most in need of services are made aware of what is available."

Proposal Two: Duty to be alert to the needs of children

2.10 The consultation paper proposed that agencies should have a duty and responsibility to be alert to the needs of children, to listen to and record children's views, to identify children in need and to act to improve a child's situation. In particular, it was suggested that:

• 'Handovers' between professionals should be the minimum necessary to ensure access to the right services.
• Families have contact only with those professionals who are able to contribute to improving their situation.
• Families do not have to face a range of professionals at meetings who they may not know.

2.11 Over 90% of respondents agreed with this proposal with individual respondents and organisations being equally likely to be in agreement. However, many respondents said there was a need for further clarification over various aspects of the proposal and that the practical and resource implications of putting it into practice needed to be considered carefully.

2.12 There was a strong consensus amongst the children and young people who participated in the events organised by Children in Scotland that if young people need to portray their problems and views to adults, they would greatly prefer to talk to one adult who would take a written record and share it with the other people that need to know, rather than having to talk to a number of adults on a number of different occasions.

2.13 Young people identified a number of professionals who they felt could be the most appropriate person to speak to. However, there was an emphasis on selecting someone that the individual child or young person could trust and depend upon. Indeed, it was suggested that the young person themselves should be able to select the professional they feel most comfortable talking to.

2.14 Many respondents, while agreeing with the principle underlying the proposal suggested that further clarification of how it would work in practice was required. Issues where it was suggested that there was a need for more clarification included:

• The use of terminology and definitions, such as 'be alert', 'children in need'.
• Which agencies are to be included in the duty
• Individual agency responsibilities and the combined responsibilities of agencies involved in multi-agency work.
• Implications of failure to comply with duties
• How children's views will be used, especially in relation to the decision-making process.

The Association of Directors of Social Work ( ASDW) is typical of many respondents in welcoming improvement to the existing arrangements but calling for more clarity about the detail of what is proposed, particularly in relation to "local co-ordinating and monitoring mechanisms". It argues that:

"The overall objective of reducing bureaucracy needs to be adhered to and additional processes need to be guarded against."

2.15 Children in Scotland is typical of many responses from voluntary organisations in calling for greater clarity in relation to which agencies would be covered by the proposed duty. It argues that any new legislation will need to clearly define the agencies that will be subject to the statutory requirements outlined under this proposal. It also calls for more clarity and consistency in relation to the use of the term 'children in need' and argues that there would be considerable merit in evaluating the effectiveness of current use of the 'children in need' category before additional duties are placed on agencies regarding this category of children.

2.16 Many respondents, particularly national voluntary organisations state in their responses that recording children's views effectively requires particular skills. It is suggested that the duty will be challenging for many professionals and that there may be a need for extensive training. This view was echoed by the Commissioner for Children and Young People who stated in her submission that:

"To be alert to the needs of the child sensitively and meaningfully requires training and has considerable resource implications."

2.17 South Lanarkshire Council argues in its submission that there will be resource implications in implementing the proposal and that:

"Duties and responsibilities will need to be accompanied by training and indeed cultural shifts for a range of organisations."

Stirling Council also maintains that additional staff training and development would be required as well as additional resources to enable, e.g. youth leaders to undertake these duties and responsibilities as they would be regarded as front line providers of services for young people.

2.18 A number of respondents also suggested that there will be a need for clear guidance on how to seek and record children's views, in order to benefit rather than hinder the process and to ensure consistency across different agencies.

Proposal Three: Duty to co-operate in meeting the needs of children

2.19 The consultation paper proposed placing a new duty on agencies to co-operate with each other in meeting the needs of children and to establish local co-ordination and monitoring arrangements.

2.20 This proposal is designed to minimise the burden of meetings, referrals, processes, report writing, assessments and plans relating to children, young people and their families, and ensure a coherent and effective response to the needs of each child and young person. The consultation paper suggested that if a child asking for help (or anyone asking for help on their behalf) thinks that an agency has not delivered the agreed help, they should be able to use this mechanism to seek a review of the agency's handling.

2.21 Over 90% of respondents that responded to this proposal said they agreed with the principle of the proposal. However, many sought further clarification or offered comments about how the principle could be translated into practice.

2.22 Again, the main concern of many respondents is how this proposal will work in practice. In particular clarification is sought about:

• Will duties and responsibilities be statutory?
• Repercussions of non-compliance?
• Will the duties apply to voluntary organisations?

2.23 The children and young people that participated in the focus groups organised by Children and Scotland agreed that organisations need to share information with each other but only within certain conditions. The condition that was considered most important was that children and young people should be told who will be able to have access to any information they provide. Indeed, a number of the children and young people who participated in the events felt strongly that information should only be shared between professionals and organisations with their prior permission.

2.24 COSLA notes that a duty on agencies to co-operate already exists in legislation in the form of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. However, it acknowledges that this provision is under used and it may be useful to 'refresh' the duty. They also point out that:

"Many of the barriers to effective joint working are cultural and attitudinal or relate to funding issues and these will not be addressed through legislation alone."

2.25 Many local authorities and other agencies note they are already working towards co-ordination and more integrated working, which is seen as good practice. Organisations are keen to minimise bureaucracy and hope this proposal can contribute to this. A number of rural councils raise the need for a mechanism for effective joint working across geographical boundaries.

2.26 ASDW supports the need to minimise bureaucracy and notes that there is 'much to be done to reduce or prevent duplication of some areas of work'. However, it is concerned that:

"… additional responsibilities to date placed on local authorities have added layers to existing responsibilities in terms of co-ordinating and monitoring. A fundamental review and overhaul of this leading to a reduction in bureaucracy would be most welcome."

2.27 Voluntary organisations in particular comment that measures and support is required to promote joint working between voluntary and statutory agencies. Children in Scotland recognises the importance of inter-agency working to improve outcomes for children and young people and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that joint working is effective. It also argues that it will be essential to ensure that the voluntary sector is fully engaged in integrated working. However, it notes some concerns about how this will be achieved in practice and states that:

"… it is unclear how this will be achievable while ensuring that the voluntary sector retains its unique independence. The diversity of the voluntary sector in terms of size, ethos and types of service adds to the difficulty of prescribing how the voluntary sector should be involved."

Proposal Four: Single integrated assessment framework

2.28 The consultation paper proposed that the Scottish Executive, in consultation with appropriate agencies, will develop a single integrated assessment, planning and recording tool for use within a framework of co-ordinated meetings, reviews and planning. It also suggests that in time these arrangements will replace meetings about child protection, looked after children, joint assessment, youth offending and other inter-agency arrangements.

2.29 Over 85% of respondents agreed with this proposal. Individual respondents were slightly more likely to agree with the proposal than organisations but organisations were more likely to offer comments about how the proposed integrated assessment framework could be made to work in practice.

2.30 Many local authorities state in their responses that they are keen to streamline bureaucracy and reduce meetings, as long as it does not compromise the effectiveness of system. They call for flexibility to determine arrangements in order to avoid increasing bureaucracy.

2.31 Some respondents express concerns about being 'over simplistic' and argue that complex cases might lose focus if the assessment tool is too broad in scope. In response to these concerns some respondents suggest that a modular approach may be appropriate. For example South Lanarkshire Council states in its submission that:

"Although the move to integration is welcomed ... there are concerns about a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and whether a more modular approach is required."

Stirling Council expresses a similar view in its response and suggest the notion of a 'toolbox' with different tools used when required. This would mean that:

"An integrated assessment could comprise different sections/modules which could be used depending on the level of assessment required at different stages."

Other respondents suggest that the ability to undertake separate specialist assessments should be retained in particularly complex or sensitive cases.

2.32 A number of respondents suggest that there are lessons to be learnt from other joint assessments, e.g. the single shared assessment for Care in the Community services. Careful not to add bureaucracy and more assessment tools.

2.33 National organisations and voluntary organisations hold similar concerns. They seek clarity around accountability, duties and responsibilities. There is general support for an integrated framework, but some agencies are keen to avoid a one way flow of information from voluntary to statutory agencies. Voluntary agencies wish to be seen as equals in the framework with assessment procedures involving all service providers including those in the voluntary sector.

2.34 The other main comment from national organisations and voluntary organisations is the need to fully integrate child protection procedures into this work, and the need for clarity on how this will operate. For example, Youthlink suggests in its submission that there is a need for clarity about how the framework will link to child protection cases.

2.35 ASDW expresses concerns that:

"The important elements about meetings need to be preserved … and a minimum number of key people should attend to encourage participation of the child/young person and their family."

Proposal Five: Preparation of action plans

2.36 The consultation paper proposed that where a child's needs are complex, serious, require multi-agency input or are likely to require compulsory measures, an action plan must be agreed by all agencies involved and kept under review. The action plan will be the principal source of information for Reporters if the child is subsequently referred to them. Where a parent, child or young person cannot agree the action plan or they prevent a plan from being implemented, it is proposed that agencies should refer the matter to the Reporter. A Children's Hearing would then determine if compulsion is required. Where an action plan is agreed, agencies will be required to make it happen under the above duties.

2.37 The local co-ordination and monitoring arrangements should make sure that if problems arise in implementing the action plan, that individual agencies must agree ways of overcoming these problems. Referral to the Reporter for consideration by a Children's Hearing should arise only where the needs of the child are significant and are likely to require compulsory measures of supervision.

2.38 Over 85% of respondents agree with this proposal in principle although, again, individual respondents are more likely to be in agreement than organisations.

2.39 COSLA argues that there is a need to clarify the relationship between the proposed action plans and other plans concerning children.

"Clarification is needed on the relationship of this plan to a plethora of other plans already in existence relating to children, particularly Co-ordinated Support Plans, which have only just been introduced under the Additional Support Learning Act. Support the idea that there should be one plan agreed by all agencies which addresses needs of child and their family, and encompasses all relevant professionals. But would not support the idea of any additional plans being required on top of those that currently exist."

2.40 Many councils state in their submissions that action plans must link with other plans where appropriate, rather than unnecessarily creating an additional plan. The importance of interfacing with adult services is also raised a number of times. For example the Scottish Borders Council states in its submission that:

"We require to develop clear pathways between children's service and adult services and from Children Hearings to criminal justice systems."

2.41 Some councils also seek clarification on the definition of "complex/serious", and when an action plan would be required. There are also calls for clarity around what should be included in the action plan.

2.42 Many councils ask who will be the owner of the plan, who will be responsible in ensuring the plan is kept up to date and what the repercussions of failure to produce/agree the plan would be. In particular councils call for clarity regarding the respective responsibilities of the lead professional and individual agencies for delivery against the plan. For example, East Dunbartonshire Council states:

"Overall responsibility for the action plan must be clear, and in particular, the responsibility of lead professional and individual agencies for delivery against the plan."

2.43 National organisations and voluntary agencies also call for clarity around responsibilities. For example, in its response Youthlink comments that:

"… at the beginning of each case there is a need to firmly establish which agencies are expected to play a role in the action planning process."

2.44 Children in Scotland also supports the proposal but seeks further clarity about:

"… how the plans will link with other children's plans, for example, co-ordinated support plans for looked-after children."

2.45 CPACs are generally in agreement with the proposed action plan. However South Lanarkshire CPAC disgrees and states that:

"… Hearings should decide action plans they should not be decided before. They are not about rubber stamping."

Proposal Six: Appointment of a lead professional

2.46 The consultation paper proposed that where there is a need for co-ordinated action, a lead professional from amongst the agencies must be appointed. It argued that a child or young person should know who to speak to about any aspect of their action plan. The role of the lead professional would be to co-ordinate the work of agencies, monitor progress and act as an advocate for the child where necessary.

2.47 85% of respondents agreed with the proposal to appoint a lead professional, although again individual respondents were more likely to clearly support this proposal than organisations, who were more likely to offer comments or suggest additional proposals for achieving the objectives outlined in the consultation paper.

2.48 A frequent comment from all types of respondents is the need for guidance on the process and criteria of appointing the lead professional and their necessary competencies. Another common view is that the lead professional should be appointed based on the needs of an individual child. Many respondents suggest this should be carried out by consensus at the first meeting of all relevant agencies. It is noted that the role should not automatically fall to social work. ASDW expresses concerns that:

"Concern that it may be an expectation that lead professional would always be a social worker even when there may be another professional with more contact, knowledge or expertise in relation to some children in need."

2.49 Councils also call for clear guidance on the lead professional's role and responsibility. There is a strong view that the lead professional should not be responsible for other agencies fulfilling their duties. The need for accountability is a major issue for many local authorities. Highland Council for example states in its submission that:

"This requires both enormous changes in culture and commitment to inter-agency line management. If the agenda is no longer the Children's Hearings system but now Integrated Children's Services then it is important not to fudge the management and leadership requirements."

2.50 Resource implications are raised by many local authorities. In particular, many suggest the need for resources to support training and to deal with communication issues more effectively.

2.51 Participants in the focus groups organised by Children in Scotland felt strongly that their perception of feeling undervalued and not respected would be overcome if they were able to work with one adult that they knew and trusted. As one young person who participated in one of the focus groups put it:

"If you know them or can build a relationship with someone, like your key worker, then you can talk to them and tell them your views and they can support you later ... when talking to other adults."

2.52 Voluntary agencies and national organisations also note there is a need to be aware of the full resource implications for the role of the lead professional to be fully effective, especially if the lead professional is to carry out an advocacy role. Many voluntary organisations note that support and training will be required if the lead professional is appointed from the voluntary sector. There is also a strong view amongst voluntary organisations that where this happens it is vital that they are treated as equal partners through the process and be given the proper authority and support to carry out the role.

2.53 National organisations and voluntary agencies both call for clarity of the role. The consultation papers states that the lead professional will 'act as an advocate for the child where necessary'. Respondents are unclear what is meant by advocacy in this context. Many raise concern of the potential conflicts of interest if the lead professional is expected to work as advocate. They suggest that the advocacy role of the lead professional needs to be considered in light of further recommendations on advocacy generally.

Summary of Key Findings

• A substantial majority of all respondents expressed support for all of the proposals contained in the section of the consultation paper that dealt with issues relating to improving children's services.
• Many respondents emphasised the need to build upon existing good practice and existing structures and systems for developing an integrated approach towards meeting the needs of children and young people rather than introducing new structures and procedures.
• Many respondents called for greater detail about specific proposals including how they would work in practice and more clarity about the use of key terminology, e.g. 'children in need'.
• A substantial number of respondents emphasised the need for the provision of information about children's services to be tailored to the needs of all children and young people and to take account of diversity in relation to issues such as age, gender, ethnic background and sexuality.
• Many responses made it clear that cultural and attitudinal changes would be essential to achieve the objectives described in the consultation paper and that change would not simply result from structural or legislative changes alone.
• A significant number of respondents suggested that there are substantial technical, legislative and cultural barriers that need to be overcome to achieve the level of co-ordination and information sharing that is envisaged in the consultation paper.
• A significant number of respondents suggested that there were major issues about managing accountabilities across organisational boundaries that would need to be clarified if the proposals contained in the consultation paper are to be implemented effectively.

« Previous | Contents | Next »