« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4 - Outcome of consultation
General
4.1 The consultation document Getting it right for every child: Proposals for action, was published on 21 June 2005. 605 completed responses were received. 68% of these responses came from individuals and 32% were received from organisations. In addition, a total of 41 children and young people participated in a series of events organised by Children in Scotland.
4.2 This chapter aims to explain our response to the issues raised in Getting it right for every child - Proposals for action in terms of legislation and other action. More detail on responses can be found in the analysis of consultation responses published on 22 June 2006. This is available at : http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/13105254/0
Proposals for Action
Proposal One: Families and children should know what services they can get
4.3 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. Local authorities are already under a similar duty through the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Act 2004 to provide information with regard to provision made for children with additional support needs.
4.4 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.
4.5 Action we are taking: We intend to address these issues through publication of tools and resources. Information will be provided through websites and other routes of communication.
Proposal Two: Duty to be alert to the needs of children
4.6 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.
4.7 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.
4.8 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the draft Bill provides for a number of duties on agencies to promote the well-being of children and to intervene where this is appropriate. We also intend in due course to provide guidance on this issue, including a list of situations which may indicate where agencies should be alert to the possible need for support.
Proposal Three: Duty to co-operate in meeting the needs of children
4.9 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. 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 the local co-ordination and monitoring mechanism to seek a review of the agency's handling.
4.10 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.
4.11 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the draft Bill provides new duties to support agencies working together. We also intend in due course to provide guidance in this issue.
Proposal Four: Single assessment, record and plan
4.12 The consultation paper proposed that the Scottish Executive, in consultation with appropriate agencies, will develop an 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 incorporate the current arrangements for child protection, looked after children, joint assessment, community care, schools and social work, youth offending and any other inter-agency arrangements.
4.13 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 framework could be made to work in practice.
4.14 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the Bill contains provision for assessment and planning. A prototype child's record and plan will be in place by March 2007, with every child who goes to a Children's Hearing having a plan by December 2007. Work on the pathfinder programme for Getting it right for every child will inform other developments on inter-agency arrangements.
Proposal Five: Preparation of action plans
4.15 The consultation paper proposed that where a child's needs are complex, serious, require multi-agency input or are likely to require compulsory measures, a plan must be agreed by all agencies involved and kept under review. The 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 plan or they prevent a plan from being implemented, it is proposed that agencies should refer the matter to the Reporter. If a Children's Hearing is necessary, it would then determine if compulsion is required. Where a plan is agreed, agencies will be required to make it happen under the duties to act to meet the needs of children.
4.16 Over 85% of respondents agree with this proposal in principle although, again, individual respondents are more likely to be in agreement than organisations.
4.17 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the Bill contains provision for assessment and planning. A prototype child's plan will be in place by March 2007. Ministers have announced that by December 2007 a plan must be in place for every child going to a Children's Hearing as a first step to full implementation.
Proposal Six: Appointment of a lead professional
4.18 The consultation paper proposed that where there is a need for co-ordinated action, a lead professional from amongst the relevant 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.
4.19 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. Children's views were that they wanted support from someone that they know and trust.
4.20 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the draft Bill contains provision for designating a responsible person to lead collaboration. Pathfinders will develop and explore further the detail of the role of the lead professional.
Proposal Seven: Referral to the Children's Hearings system should meet significant need and compulsion tests
4.21 The consultation paper stated that agencies should reserve referral to Children's Hearings for those children with significant need and for whom compulsion is likely to be necessary. This was supported by research evidence that suggests that formal measures put in place to tackle low-level risk offending or low-level concerns about children's welfare can sometimes be counter productive.
4.22 Almost two-thirds of respondents (66%) supported the proposal, compared to 12.8% who did not. A further 21% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. Almost 40% of respondents offered suggestions as to further or different measures that might be required.
4.23 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision to change the grounds for referral to the Children's Hearing. This will be supported by related guidance in due course. It is important to emphasise the continued responsibility of the Hearings to produce the right outcomes for those who are involved in persistent or more serious offending.
Proposal Eight: Pattern of behaviour as an indicator of significant need
4.24 Under current legislation a specific incident or risk to the child may trigger a referral to the Reporter. However, where a pattern of behaviour causes concern and the individual incident on its own does not merit referral, the underlying need may not be addressed. The consultation paper proposed rewriting the grounds for referral to the Reporter so that significant need will be defined by reference to a list of incidents as indicators of need. This would allow action to be taken over behaviour which may not be significant in itself, but as part of a pattern of behaviour gives rise to concern. This pattern of behaviour may indicate a need for compulsory measures of supervision.
4.25 A significant majority of respondents (79%) supported this proposal. A similar proportion of respondents thought that the proposed action would meet the stated objectives. A small minority of respondents (17%) suggested further or different measures are required to meet the stated objectives.
4.26 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision to change the grounds for referral to the Children's Hearing. We also intend in due course to provide guidance on this issue.
Proposal Nine: Responsibility to implement any action plan agreed at a Hearing
4.27 The consultation document states that any supervision requirement will be based on the plan agreed for the child and that the plan will set out the needs, the action required to address these needs, who is going to make sure action is taken and the key milestones. It also stated that the action plan should set out contingency measures and that the Children's Hearing will have the power to amend the plan and set the review date, based on expected milestones. Any agency identified in a supervision requirement as being responsible for action will be accountable for making sure that action is taken.
4.28 Over 80% of all respondents agreed with this proposal with only 7% in clear disagreement. A third of respondents made suggestions for further or additional action required.
4.29 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision to place duties on agencies to implement actions agreed at a Hearing.
Proposal Ten: Power of the Reporter to refer cases to agencies to act on the plans and to seek reports on progress and reviews
4.30 The consultation paper proposed that if the referral to the Reporter does not meet the test criteria, the Reporter will refer the case to agencies to act on the plan and will be empowered to seek reports on progress and reviews as necessary.
4.31 The majority of respondents (71%) agreed with the proposal compared to 13% who were in clear disagreement. A similar proportion of respondents said they felt the proposal would meet the stated objectives but almost 30% of respondents suggested further or different measures that they felt were required.
4.32 Action we are taking: With the significant work taking place in planning for improved outcomes for children and duties on agencies to act positively for children, we intend that inappropriate referrals will decrease dramatically. The need for this proposal should be much less, and it does not fit with the structure proposed by the draft Bill. We have therefore decided not to progress this proposal.
Proposal Eleven: Ability of a Hearing to make an interim supervision requirement
4.33 The consultation paper proposed that pending the implementation of the proposed integrated action plans, the Children's Hearing should have the power to make an interim supervision requirement to ensure that action is taken. This could occur at any point from the Hearing first meeting with the child until a final decision is taken in respect of the referral of that child.
4.34 A majority of respondents (78%) were in favour of this proposal, with only 12.5% against and 9.5% neither in agreement or disagreement. A similarly high proportion of respondents said they felt that the proposal would meet the stated objectives, however, about a quarter of respondents made suggestions for further or different measures which they felt were required.
4.35 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision for interim supervision requirements.
Proposal Twelve: The frequency of Hearings
4.36 The consultation document proposed that the frequency of Review Hearings should be determined according to the child's needs and the 'persistence' of the child's behaviour or needs.
4.37 A majority of respondents (80%) supported the proposal, with only 8% disagreeing. A quarter of all respondents suggested further or different measures that they felt would help achieve the objectives outlined in the consultation paper.
4.38 Action we are taking: This measure does not require legislation. A detailed project plan is being worked up and following further discussion with interested parties will be implemented in 2007-08.
Proposal Thirteen: Timing of Hearings
4.39 The consultation proposed that children whose behaviour or attendance at school is a cause for concern, should not be taken out of school to attend Children's Hearings. It also proposed that there should be greater flexibility in the timing of Children's Hearings to meet the needs of children and families.
4.40 An overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour of this proposal (82%) as opposed to 9% who were against and a further 9% who were neither in clear agreement or disagreement.
4.41 Action we are taking: This measure does not require legislation. We will discuss with interested parties with a view to implementation in 2007-08.
Proposal Fourteen: Ability of Children's Hearing to adapt its procedures
4.42 The consultation document proposed that, when a Children's Hearing or other meeting is concerned that help and intervention is not leading to a positive change in a child's behaviour, a Hearing should be able to adapt its procedures as appropriate. In particular it should make sure that the child or young person is fully aware of the concern of the Hearing and the potential consequences of further such behaviour. This might include formally requiring the young person to explain why help or intervention has not resulted in improvements. If appropriate, community representatives or victims might be invited to sit in on the Hearing to reinforce that the behaviour has an impact on others, and to understand better what efforts are being made to address the child's behaviour.
4.43 A majority of respondents disagree with the proposal (51%) with just 40% in agreement. Supporters of the proposal welcome anything that empowers the Hearing to bring about change for the child. A number of individual Panel Members commented that that it is good to have a range of options when dealing with a child.
4.44 Opposition is based on two main concerns. In the first instance, there is confusion about who would represent 'the community', with many respondents arguing that the community is already represented by Panel Members. Secondly, those who oppose this believe that introducing victims and others into the process would fundamentally change the Hearings system. According to one organisational respondent there would be a "shift in the focus of the system from the child to the victim", while another commented that "the child may end up being a victim themselves". In some circumstances the distinction between "victim" and perpetrator is unclear and shifting.
4.45 Action we are taking: Combined, the legislative and practice changes in Getting it right for every child should result in fewer children going to a Hearing. Those that do will be there for more serious or persistent reasons than at present. We therefore do not intend to legislate on this proposal. Restorative justice approaches are expanding across Scotland aimed at bringing together victims and offenders, addressing the impact of offending behaviour and looking at reparation where appropriate. We are working with potential partners to look at the appropriate effective use of restorative interventions both following referral to the Reporter and in cases where referral for compulsion is unnecessary but a response is required. We shall also seek to develop further the victims information service, to provide Scotland-wide coverage of case-specific information and support. Further, we will explore how the voice of the victim can be heard and reflected in the system at all appropriate stages, but not necessarily in the Hearing room.
Proposal Fifteen: Children's Hearings need to be satisfied that action plans are realistic, likely to be effective and that all available measures to control behaviour have been considered
4.46 The consultation paper proposed to strengthen the Hearing system by ensuring that Hearings are satisfied that the plans presented to them are realistic and likely to be effective and also by ensuring that the full range of available measures to control behaviour (where this is the problem) have been considered.
4.47 A considerable majority of respondents (82%), were in agreement with this proposal, with only 9% opposed and 9% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Almost one in five respondents offered alternative or further measures that they felt would help achieve the objectives outlined in the consultation paper.
4.48 Action we are taking: The draft Bill provides for the plans being presented to Hearings to be much more focused than at present. This should allow Hearings and others to much more effectively assure themselves that action plans are realistic and likely to lead to positive outcomes for the child, as well as to scrutinise what measures were considered for the child and why certain options have been chosen.
Proposal Sixteen: Providing information about Children's Hearings decisions and outcomes
4.49 The consultation proposed that Children's Hearings should provide information to communities about the nature of decisions made and their outcomes.
4.50 A majority of respondents (62%) were in favour of this proposal. However, a substantial minority of respondents (25%) said they were opposed to the proposal. Of those who answered the second part of the question, 60% agreed that the proposal met the stated objective in comparison to 26% who thought that it did not. 43% of respondents offered suggestions for further or additional action in respect of this proposal. Those that opposed the proposal were opposed to information about individuals being provided.
4.51 Action we are taking: As part of the Getting it right for every child reform programme, outlined in Chapter 2, models and templates for information provision will be developed for use.
Proposal Seventeen: Procedures to streamline the establishment of grounds for referral
4.52 The consultation paper states that procedures will be introduced to streamline the establishment of grounds for referral where the child is too young, not sufficiently mature or the child is not able to understand the grounds, but the parents accept them.
4.53 The vast majority of respondents (86%) were in favour of the proposal, in comparison with only 5% who disagreed and 9% who neither agreed not disagreed.
4.54 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision to expedite procedures for establishing the grounds for referral where the child is too young, not sufficiently mature or the child is not able to understand the grounds, but parents accept them.
Proposal Eighteen: Greater continuity of Panel Members from one Children's Hearing to another
4.55 The consultation paper suggests that it would be beneficial if there was some continuity of Panel Members from one Children's Hearing to another.
4.56 A majority of respondents (71%) were in favour of this proposal, compared to 21% who were opposed. A further 8% neither agreed or disagreed with the proposal.
4.57 Action we are taking: This measure does not require legislation. We intend to implement this in 2007-08, following further discussion with interested parties.
Proposal Nineteen: Legal representatives
4.58 The consultation paper proposed to place a new duty on the Scottish Children's Reporters Administrator ( SCRA) to ensure the provision of legal representation for children, where this is necessary, under current criteria to protect their rights. This proposal would place the Reporter under a duty to identify those cases where a Legal Representative may be appropriate and to initiate the appointment. The business meeting or the Children's Hearing (or both) would still have the power to make an appointment if necessary, but the Reporter, acting under this duty and drawing on legal advice from within SCRA as required, should ensure a timely appointment is made.
4.59 Over 85% of respondents were in agreement with this proposal as opposed to only 5% who clearly stated that they were against the proposal. Over a quarter of respondents made comments on further or different measures that they felt were required in relation to this proposal.
4.60 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision for the appointment of legal representatives.
Proposal Twenty: Withholding information provided by the child
4.61 The rights of parents and others involved in a Children's Hearing to full information about a child can potentially lead to the disclosure of information that may place children at risk. The consultation paper proposed to legislate to enable Children's Hearings and Reporters to withhold information provided by the child when its release may place the child's welfare at risk.
4.62 Almost 90% of respondents expressed support for this proposal in their response. A similarly high proportion of respondents stated that they felt the proposal would meet the objectives stated in the consultation paper.
4.63 Action we are taking: Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision for withholding information in Children's Hearings.
Proposal Twenty One: Remove required link to local authority boundaries
4.64 The consultation paper proposed amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the requirements that Children's Panels and Children's Panel Advisory Committees be linked to local authority boundaries. The proposal states Panel Members should continue to work in their own locality as much as possible, but that removing the barriers to Panel Members sitting on Children's Hearings outside their immediate local authority would introduce flexibility into the structure of the Children's Hearings system.
4.65 A majority (58%) of respondents expressed their agreement with this proposal. However, there was a significant minority (32%) of respondents that said they were opposed to the proposal and a similar proportion expressed qualifications about their support for the proposal. Support for this proposal was strongest amongst individual respondents (62% in favour) however only a minority of organisations that responded said they were in favour of the proposal (49%). The strongest opposition to the proposal came from Children Panels and CPACs although a number of their responses did recognise the need for greater flexibility.
4.66 Action we are taking: There are already mechanisms to support the sharing of panel members ("concurrent schemes"). These are bureaucratic in nature and there have been several incidents of arrangements being ignored which has resulted in hearings having to be re-run (because members have not been appointed to the relevant local area). Therefore Part 2 of the draft Bill contains provision to allow panel members not to be restricted to their own local authority area in order to overcome difficulties with existing schemes. However, we would expect that most panel members will continue to sit solely in their home area.
Proposal Twenty Two: Modernisation of the arrangements for panel members
4.67 The consultation paper proposed improvements in, and modernisation of, the arrangements for the recruitment, training, support and monitoring of Panel Members through the establishment of either a single national body or a local authority regional structure.
4.68 There were mixed views amongst respondents about this proposal. Just over 40% of all respondents state that they would be in favour of the establishment of a national body to manage the support arrangements for Children's Panels. A further 27% of respondents favoured the establishment of a regional structure. However, a substantial minority of respondents favoured the retention of the status quo with individual local authorities maintaining their role in providing support to Children's Panels in their areas, even though this was not an option presented.
4.69 Action we are taking: This issue, and our approach to it, is discussed in Chapter 5 of this consultation.
Proposal Twenty Three: Keeping the public and communities informed and helping them understand the role of the Children's Hearing system
4.70 The consultation paper proposed that agencies keep the public and communities informed about what is being done with their concerns and help them understand that the focus is on effective action and not processing children through Children's Hearings.
4.71 There is strong support for this proposal, with 83% of respondents in favour and only 8% opposing.
4.72 Action we are taking: As part of the Getting it right for every child reform programme models and templates for information provision will be developed for use.
Specific Questions
4.73 In addition to the proposals for action, the consultation also asked a number of specific questions on aspects of the system. These are outlined below. Again, more information is available in the Analysis of consultation responses (Scottish Executive, 22 June 2006).
The recording and planning framework
Specific question 1: Is there sufficient emphasis and guidance about the child's involvement and are there sections which need strengthening to make sure that the child is at the heart of the process?
4.74 The recording and planning framework proposes measures to benefit all children and young people - not just those with additional support needs, those in need or those requiring care and protection. In doing so the Framework tries to emphasise the involvement of children.
The consultation papers asked:
"… is there sufficient emphasis and guidance about the child's involvement and are there sections which need strengthening to make sure that the child or young person is at the heart of the process?"
4.75 While a majority of respondents said they felt there is currently sufficient emphasis and guidance about children's involvement, over 40% said that this was not currently the case. A substantial proportion of respondents (almost 40%) offer suggestions about how the framework could be strengthened to ensure that children are at the heart of the process. Almost 70% of respondents commented on the "assessment triangle". While a small majority of respondents did not identify any gaps in the assessment triangle a substantial number of respondents (49%) made suggestions about how the assessment triangle could be strengthened.
4.76 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the draft Bill contains measures to consider the views of children in the decision making of agencies. In Getting it right for every child, planning is based on taking the views of the child and engaging with the child and family at every stage.
Specific question 2: Does the assessment triangle provide a common approach to working with children and their families?
4.77 The assessment triangle has been developed to provide a common approach to working with children and their families using similarly defined language and to recognise positive as well as negative factors in a child's life. In doing so it has tried to capture the child's world, and issues such as key transition points for children, and the diversity of children (including mobility, disability, faith, language, culture and ethnicity). The consultation papers asked "how well does the assessment triangle provide a common approach to working with children and their families?"
4.78 Some responses raised the question of whether the assessment triangle will provide a common approach to working with children and their families. A common concern is that, although the assessment triangle looks good in theory, the 'one-size-fits-all' model may not be individually suited to each child who comes through the system.
4.79 Action we are taking: Part 1 of the Bill contains provision for assessment and planning. Since consultation we have been working on how best to integrate assessment in the child's record and plan. A prototype child's record and plan will be in place by March 2007, with every child going to a Children's Hearing having a plan by December 2007. Ministers have announced that plans must be in place for every child by this date as a first step to full implementation.
Safeguarders
Specific question 3: Views on the role of the safeguarder
4.80 The consultation paper suggests that the Legal Representative proposal may remove the necessity of a Safeguarder being appointed. The consultation paper invited views on whether the role of the Safeguarder should be maintained and be made available to any service which requires an independent assessment of the child's best interests.
4.81 Many respondents note that they welcome the current review and state that any decision on the role of the Safeguarders should be postponed until after the outcome of research on approaches to advocacy and the voice of the child. However, where respondents have given their views, there is widespread support for retaining the role of the Safeguarder. Safeguarders are perceived to be especially useful when agencies fail to agree on an action plan or where there is a conflict between services and the family.
4.82 Action we are taking: We have concluded that the role of the Safeguarder should be retained as a transitional measure while Getting it right for every child is being implemented. We wish to review this position in 4-5 years. In 2002 Ministers gave an undertaking to the Parliament that the role, responsibilities and support for Safeguarders should be reviewed. We do not plan to pursue any substantial review of this type until it is evident whether the role of the Safeguarder is necessary in the long term in the light of development and implementation of Getting it right for every child.
Consultation with Children and Young People
4.83 Children in Scotland conducted consultation with children and young people independently on behalf of Scottish Ministers. A total of 41 children and young people participated in the events, 26 male and 15 female. The key points of that consultation were:
1. Children and young people fully support the Executive's vision of a work force working together to help children and young people who are having problems.
2. One structure does not fit all, children and young people have diverse strengths and weaknesses. There needs to be a number of options in all services.
3. For children and young people to be able to say what they think, structures need to change. Children and young people want to have one adult that they know and trust as their contact point.
4. Children and young people are not comfortable talking to groups of unknown adults.
5. Children and young people welcome the suggestion of having panel continuity.
6. The proposals on information sharing were supported on the condition that children and young people are involved in decisions over who information is shared with.
7. For those who commented, children and young people did not value the role of the safeguarder. Young people believed this position should be replaced with an adult who would advocate their views.
8. Children and young people welcomed suggestions to provide information on how the Children's Hearings system works via talks, presentations, video and e-mail, not via leaflets.
9. The idea of involving victims in the Children's Hearings system was not supported.
4.84 Action we are taking: Amongst other work, we are developing two projects:
- To involve young people in the selection of panel members
- To involve young people in the training of panel members
« Previous | Contents | Next »