Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board …...1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding...

Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board

Multi-agency Case Review Audit Report

Domestic Abuse

1. Introduction and Methodology

1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding Children Board rolling programme of multi-

agency audits, this report provides an overview of the audit undertaken in the

summer of 2015 which focussed on children living with exposure to domestic abuse.

1.2 The purpose of this audit is to provide an evidenced based assessment of the

strengths and areas for development of the partnership approach to working with

children and families who experience and perpetrate domestic abuse.

1.3 In order to encompass both qualitative and qualitative data, a range of research

methods were deployed. This included the use of a structured survey to produce

factual data, a multi-agency practitioner’s event to capture the practitioner’s

perspective on the analysis of the data, a number of conversations with strategic

leads from individual agencies and direct contacts made with service users to access

customer feedback.

1.4 A random sample of eight cases was identified by the CESCB’s project Manager. The

criteria for selection was that exposure or risk of domestic abuse should be a key

factor in the case and that a selection of gender, age, ethnicity and differing

thresholds of intervention should be represented. The cases selected included 2

subject to CAF, 2 Child in Need and 4 Child Protection Plans. An outline of the cases,

including age, gender and which agencies contributed information is attached at

Appendix 1.

1.5 Once the cases were selected, partner agencies were asked to check their records to

see whether the index child, their siblings or those with parenting responsibility were

known to their agency. Auditors from each agency were asked to review records over

the previous 12 months and complete a structured questionnaire which was then

of 18

electronically processed to provide aggregated data and contextual supporting

evidence.

1.6 The questionnaire focussed on five key areas of activity, this included:

Representing the voice of the child and family

Performance in relation to case recording

Performance in relation to planning for the child

Performance in relation to management oversight

Performance in relation to approach to domestic abuse (described as agency file

in survey)

1.7 An Independent Reviewer was appointed by the Board in order to provide objectivity

and challenge based on the analysis of the information. Once the audited data was

received and considered, the Independent Reviewer, supported by three Board

members, facilitated a seminar for practitioners to discuss how the initial analysis of

data resonated or otherwise with local practice. This proved to be a helpful forum

which generated useful debate on what assists practitioners to safeguard children

exposed to domestic violence and what the barriers are to achieving optimised

outcomes.

1.8 Of the 8 families selected, 6 mothers were spoken with directly in order to build in a

service user perspective. One parent expressed a wish not to contribute but five

others did.

1.9 Plans were made to speak to each of the strategic leads from key partner agencies,

due to time constraints, this was achieved with Education, Police, G.P, social care and

Community Health. The telephone conversations gave the opportunity for direct

feedback and discussion between the Reviewer and Strategic Lead for each agency.

2. Limitations

2.1 The agency completion of questionnaires for each case is identified in Appendix 1. It

is apparent that there is activity from some agencies that is not reflected in the

return of questionnaires.

of 18

2.2 The return of police audits was considerably later than other agencies and because of

this police data is excluded from the numerical data. Police information was provided

after the data had been collated, however, the Independent Reviewer has considered

all data manually.

2.3 Many of the questionnaires were completed with considerable depth with well

evidenced context to support the agencies self-grading, a smaller number were

completed less thoroughly. Some agencies found parts of the questionnaire less

relevant to their services and because of this may have felt less connected to the

single agency benefits of completing to a high degree.

2.4 The seminar held for practitioners was attended by sixteen people, and this included

a cross sample of professionals across agencies. Police were not represented and

Children’s Social Care was underrepresented. Nevertheless, the group was not

dominated by any one agency and was diverse enough to apply a genuinely multi-

agency approach to debating the issues that unfolded.

2.5 The contacts with service users were with all mothers and victims of domestic abuse.

It may well have been helpful to seek a broader feedback from males in the family, in

particular, where records demonstrated that change was occurring. Undertaking

such an exercise even with one case may well provide a deeper appreciation as to

what works when seeking to work with perpetrators of domestic violence.

3. Analysis

The analysis is provided under the five key issues as identified within the audit

questionnaire.

3.1 Representing the Voice of the Child and Family

3.1.1 Almost 82% of the responses to audit concluded that there was evidence that

agencies are representing the experiences of the child and 93% that that information

is used to inform agency planning. It is clear that the need to keep children as the

focus of intervention is embedded in culture, and there is an evident focus on seeing

of 18

and talking with children as well as using direct work techniques to assess children’s

wishes and feelings.

3.1.2 The questionnaires referenced several approaches to working directly with children,

this was particularly strong in cases where Cheshire East Family Service (CEFS) was

involved, this included using the ‘In my shoes’ programme, the ‘crystal ball’ and other

games.

3.1.3 In six of the eight cases, the children were school age. The school nurse played an

active part in the child’s plan in five of those cases, this included responding to

physical and emotional health needs. In one case, managed through CAF, the school

nurse records showed no connection to a CAF and no plan for the child, there was no

school return for this case to gather a wider context of approach.

3.1.4 Six questionnaires were returned by schools, there was evidence of good systems in

place to support children in school on a day to day basis, and of supportive

approaches to help parents and enable children access the most out of school life.

3.1.5 There was evidence of observations of children’s demeanour recorded in Social Care

records, how they showed their emotions and how they felt within their living

environment. The audit also indicated some areas of weakness in working with

children, this included some reference to superficial attempts to communicate with

children without any supporting framework or materials followed by a dismissive

recording of a child’s reluctance to talk.

3.1.6 In reviewing children’s plans and whether the agency part in the plan had

measurable milestones that reflect observed improvement in the child, there was

only a 64% compliance rate. The robustness of Child Protection Plans is a feature that

presents concern through various aspects of the audit. The extent to which plans

reflect the individuality of children and the impact of domestic abuse on the

particular child is recognised as an area that needs further developments. The wider

issues in relation to child protection plans are addressed in section 3.3 of this report.

3.1.7 The voice of the family may not be homogenous in cases where domestic abuse is a

feature and as stated this audit has not canvassed the views of men. The feedback

of 18

from five mothers gives a mixed perspective, however, this, coupled with some of

the inputs from the IDVA service would suggest that professionals find it easier to

have empathy with women no longer in or trying to escape abusive relationships.

Four of the five women spoken to spoke of feeling ‘blamed’ for the actions of their

partner/ex-partner one stated ‘it’s not nice feeling blamed when you already feel

worthless. Three of the five said that professionals needed to listen more, look at life

from their shoes, and appreciate the emotional and psychological impact of domestic

violence and how this impacts on their energy levels and ability to build new

relationships. One woman stated ‘they don’t appreciate the pressure of domestic

violence and see it as black and white’ and ‘they want you to change the future but

he’ll never be any different’.

3.2.8 All spoke of the change in social workers but not necessarily as a negative thing. Most

said that the’ first social worker was the worst’, and this may be reflective of the

greatest point of challenge at the most traumatic time. Two women spoke about

finding it difficult to trust a male social worker, and would have preferred to have a

female. They did not feel the same about police, but this could reflect stereotypical

views of gender as to who provides protection and who provides nurture.

3.2.9 One woman spoke of feeling like a ‘case’ rather than a person and commented that

‘the social worker kept calling my children the wrong names, they thought about us

only as we are walking into a meeting’. Without exception the women indicated that

they did not routinely receive written information such as minutes and plans even

when they were asking for it.

3.2.10 One questionnaire returned by the IDVA service gave an example of having to

request that a mother and father were not expected to attend the same meeting

when the woman was extremely fearful of seeing her ex-partner. This challenge did

result in changed arrangements and at the practitioners seminar the IDVA confirmed

this was not an uncommon occurrence.

of 18

3.2.11 Positively, all but one of the women reported that they saw the overall value of what

the multi-agency work had achieved, felt safer and more in control of parenting as a

result.

3.2 Performance in relation to Case Recording

3.2.1 88% of the samples cases were deemed to have good case recording, a chronology

present on 92% and an up to date chronology on 80%. This figure included looking at

issues such as the key contacts for the child, and the extent to which auditors were

able to understand the case from the case records.

3.2.2 For 40% of the audit however there was no evidence of analysis, this coupled with

the finding that 41% of Child Protection Plan Children’s Plans do not analyse progress

against the plan, suggests that this is weak both in practice and recording.

3.2.3 At the Practitioners Seminar, it was clear that practitioners understood the need and

value of recording, not simply from a defensive position, but in how recording

contributes to the child’s journey through services and provides a baseline from

which analysis is achieved. The weakness in analysis is likely to be linked to the

overall findings in respect of Child Protection Plans discussed at section 3.3 of this

report, and is underpinned by two assessment issues, firstly, there is no approved

risk assessment model used in assessing the risks to children exposed to domestic

abuse, and secondly, there is no shared model for assessing parental capacity to

change in order to develop a risk reduction approach.

3.2.4 The only evidence of risk assessment was the use of a Risk Indicator Checklist, which

is an adult focussed assessment, which tended to be in place when cases had been

considered at MARAC. Comparison of the case by case data, would suggest that not

all agencies are aware when cases have been considered at MARAC. The records

appeared to be consistent in health and police, but this was less evident for

Education and Children’s Social Care. Social workers in particular spoke about how

they sent information to MARAC and were frequently asked to do so, however, they

did not routinely receive the outcomes which in the view of the practitioners were

not always uploaded onto individual cases.

of 18

3.2.5 Whilst single agency recordings are clearly individual practitioners’ responsibility and

accountable within their agency procedures, a discussion about the recording of

multi-agency meetings took place in the Practitioners Seminar. There was a

consensus that the organisation of meetings under Child Protection or higher level

Child In Need where a social worker was present, fell to social workers. Without the

benefit of administrative support in co-ordinating meetings, the social workers

advised that organising meetings that could be attended by all necessary parties was

extremely time consuming. One social worker spoke about how the planning tended

to be an automatic process of inviting key agencies rather than thinking about the

bespoke needs of the individual case or child. It was noticeable for instance, that

none of the cases had any Housing representation and that housing agencies often

have relevant information from the community of neighbours with regards to anti-

social behaviour which could be significant in the context of domestic violence. The

increase in private rented housing has had some impact of what information can be

achieved through this route, but practitioners accepted that social housing

organisations tended not to be included in planning for children and saw the value in

doing so.

3.2.6 A further issue for discussion was the recording of multi-agency meetings,

particularly core group meetings. Most of the mothers spoken to said they had

difficulty in receiving formal meetings of minutes and there was recognition amongst

multi-agency professionals that this was a task that had become problematic. Again,

there was a cultural expectation that social workers would chair and minute a

meeting, and one social worker commented that if it was not possible to record the

meeting straight away, often several meetings could have taken place in between

and this would comprise recollection of the meeting. Achieving one common set of

minutes is so important to the process of multi-agency working and to working in

partnership with parents, and there is clearly a need for some solution focussed

thinking about how as multi-agency partnerships this can be achieved, perhaps

utilising technology better. The social workers spoke of really missing a telephone

typing service that until recently they had access to.

of 18

3.2.7 The recordings with regard to absent father and extended family showed a low level

of inclusion referenced in case files. This is perhaps unsurprising considering the

finding that other parts of the audit reflected that there was a much greater focus on

working with victims than perpetrators.

3.3 Performance in relation to Planning for the Child

3.3.1 This section of the audit survey provides some conflicting results. For example, whilst

80% of Plans were considered to be clear, 72% outcome focussed and 76% focussed

on risks and needs, this appears to be at odds with only around 60% showing how

analysis had been used to progress the plan and improve outcomes for children and

families.

3.3.2 The Practitioners Seminar discussed Child Protection Plans. Some practitioners

indicated that when a decision has been made at a Child Protection Conference that

a Plan is appropriate, there is then a rushed section in developing the Initial Child

Protection Plan to be expanded within the following ten days. The Practitioners

commented that that initial Plan was critical to determining the scope and quality of

the ongoing plan, and there was a suggestion that the first Core Group should take

place directly after the Conference and the whole plan developed at that point (one

practitioners had experienced this in a differing Local authority). This approach was

of interest to multi-agency colleagues who recognised that getting all relevant people

together in ten days is challenging but it is likely that key members are present at the

Conference and could actually save time by taking such an approach.

3.3.3 From the Practitioners Seminar, it was voiced that few practitioners had received any

training on developing a Child Protection Plan, and admitted that that they struggle

to fully appreciate to how to construct a Plan that would be considered SMART.

There was a suggestion that as part of guidance to practitioners it would helpful to

have a good example of a Plan rather than a focus on what isn’t good enough. The

discussion with the Head of Early Help and protection from Children’s Social Care

revealed a knowledge that the social work approach is impacted upon by a lack of

experiential maturity.

of 18

3.3.4 The weakest aspect of the survey in respect of the Plan was how analysis is used to

measure the progress of the Plan, the extent to which historical information is used

to inform planning and how apparent it is whether the plan has resulted in improved

outcomes. The introduction of a model that assesses risk for children and identifies

the potential pace of change in adults would assist in greatly in each of these three

areas. The practitioners’ seminar discussed the dangers of associated with adherence

to a requirement being perceived as change in itself, this is perfectly illustrated by a

comment in one case which stated that the male had ‘successfully completed a

domestic abuse programme’ but went on to state that it had ‘not changed his

attitudes’. A common change model used to predict likelihood of change is outlined

by Prochaska and Di Climenti’s Model of Change. Using this model, a parent’s

capacity for change is assessed using the following stages:

(i) Pre contemplation not yet acknowledging there is a problem that needs

to change

(ii) Contemplation acknowledging there is a problem but not yet sure of

wanting to make a change

(iii) Preparation/determination getting ready to change

(iv) Action putting change into practice

(v) Maintenance maintaining and consolidating the changes

Critical to the effectiveness of the model is understanding that if a person relapses in

their programme of change, then the whole cycle has to be faced again. Coupled

with a consistent risk assessment tool for children exposed to domestic abuse, this

type of approach would provide a framework to help professionals to analyse the

process of change in parents to changing risk for children. The practitioners were

enthused in discussing risk and change, and recognised the need for tools to support

their practice. The use of a model based on sociological research would also mitigate

against the common pitfall of practitioners eager to see change under significant

caseload pressures to disregard indicators of disguised compliance.

3.3.5 SMART Children’s Plans require a tight multi-agency approach. This audit has

demonstrated some good formal and informal communications between

professionals such as teachers, health visitors, IDVA, and social workers, but most

of 18

notably, it has shown a significant absence of connectivity with GPs. It is evident that

GPs are notified of Initial Child Protection Conferences, however not all records show

that minutes from Conferences have been uploaded onto GP recording systems, that

may be because they have not been received or may be because they have not been

uploaded. The audit has also revealed that unless children are subject to a Child

Protection Plan, the GP can have no knowledge that domestic abuse is an issue of

concern unless the patient s has disclosed this.

3.3.6 It was a matter of concern for the Designated Doctor that for several of the children

exposed to the risk of domestic abuse this was not known to the GP. The Designated

Doctor described the overall GP engagement with safeguarding as a work in progress

but also fears there may be a reluctance by other agencies to perceive GPs as

safeguarding partners. The Designated Doctor was unequivocal that GPs are

concerned and want to be better connected into wider safeguarding systems but

that they can only be aware of information that has actually been agreed with them.

Discussion in the Practitioners Seminar suggested that there is a need for multi-

agency professionals to see GPs as partners in safeguarding, and that they need to

include them in information sharing activity particularly when cases are managed

through CAF or Child in Need where there is not a system in place to do so.

Practitioners were also reminded that GPs often have easy access to safeguarding

history for cases, particularly where there have been several transitions between

Local Authorities which is not uncommon in families fleeing violence.

3.4 Performance in relation to management oversight

3.4.1 The vulnerabilities already discussed would suggest that there needs to be a stronger

management oversight to support practitioners to achieve smarter planning and

maximised potential for better outcomes. 65% of casework had evidence of

management oversight with 44% of staff receiving supervision as per expected

standards. The question with regard to supervision may have been skewed by the

fact that the survey asked if supervision was a minimum of 4-6 weekly but this not a

required standard for all services. The contextual data would suggest that

compliance with individual agency expectations is higher than 45%.

of 18

3.4.2 If management oversight through supervision is reasonable, then this would suggest

that the issues outlined in this report are as relevant to first line managers as they

are to practitioners. The practitioners advised that their services have seen change at

a great pace and changes in personnel.

3.5 Performance in relation to approach to domestic abuse (described as agency file in

survey)

3.5.1 Domestic abuse rarely exists in isolation, and this audit evidences substance abuse in

several cases. There is evidence of some very protective work with women and

children, and the IDVA service provides an acute appreciation of the issues in

relation to victims. What was less apparent is how agencies worked with

perpetrators, and suggested that perhaps on occasions a male leaving a house is

seen more of a permanent solution for the woman and children than it represents.

There was for instance only 58% indication that risks to other children were

identified and 47% followed up.

3.5.2 One of the cases audited resulted in an alert to managers. In this particular case a

male returned to the family home after an enforced period of separation and

attendance at a domestic abuse programme, shortly after the return, the police were

called to assist with an episode of domestic abuse without any apparent reviewed

assessment for the children and mother who was pregnant.

3.5.3 The Practitioners Seminar talked about the risks of enforced separations, and how a

physical separation should be seen as much less significant than an emotional

separation and that removing the perpetrator does not necessarily mean that the

risk is removed. The Child Protection Plan must in such circumstances focus on work

with both victims and perpetrators, and the outcomes of both need to be fed into

assessments of risk and assessments of change.

3.5.4 The questionnaire indicated that 70% of perpetrators had been offered an

opportunity to change through support and access to prescribed programmes. The

Practitioners Seminar discussed how perpetrators need attending to, that there is a

risk that enforced separation can have far reaching consequences of escalating risk.

It was agreed that a child’s Plan needed to address the position of the perpetrators

of 18

as well as addressing the support needs of a protective parent. Perpetrator led

agencies are not routinely involved in multi-agency planning for a child and it was

agreed that this needed to be achieved in a manner sensitive to the fact that

domestic abuse has occurred or is a risk. Multi-agency practitioners tended to see

the police as safeguarding partners at points of crisis in domestic abuse, where there

is perhaps scope to utilise police knowledge and expertise in protecting women

through anti-social and Civil Orders. One mother for instance stated that she hoped

for additional support to achieve a legal order which she thought would help her feel

safer.

3.5.5 The Practitioners were very positive about the resources available in Cheshire East in

working with domestic abuse, many reflecting that access was easier than other

positions they had held. There was good knowledge of specialist services and these

cases showed evidence of referrals for Multi-systemic therapy, Cheshire without

Abuse, Enablement Team and the Domestic Violence Hub.

3.5.6 The Practitioners Seminar also discussed the impact on professionals of working with

violent people, how personally safe they felt, and under what circumstances this

could have a personal toll. Practitioners unanimously reported feeling safe in their

workplace, with access to joint working where necessary. It was also apparent that

practitioners felt safe in multi-agency working relationships and had mechanisms in

place to manage the reality of being personally threatened when having to challenge

a violent person.

4. Conclusions and Recommendation

4.1 There are a number of positive findings from this audit, this include

Confidence that children exposed to domestic abuse are being recognised

across all multi-agency processes for working with children;

There is co-ordinated multi-agency activity in each of the selected cases

That each contributing accepts and is keen to progress their role with regard to

domestic abuse

A reflective group of practitioners able to reflect on what works well and

identify the barriers to achieving good outcomes

A generally good standard of recording reflected across all agencies

of 18

Confirmation that practitioner feel confident and secure in their roles

4.2 The multi-agency work around domestic abuse is however compromised by an

absence of common tools and assessment methods to underpin risk assessment,

progress and change and safety planning, The Practitioners Seminar were in

agreement with these findings and keen to develop practice in this area with good

ideas as to how this coupe be achieved.

4.3 Recommendations are being monitored through the Audit & Case review group.

Ref Recommendation Action Lead Agency

DA1 The Board introduces a branded risk assessment tool for use with children exposed to domestic abuse

LSCB branded risk assessment tool to be produced for children exposed to domestic abuse

CEDAP

DA2

The Board introduces shared tools for assessing risk, motivation and change in those who harm others and ensure these are used in childrens planning

LSCB promotes shared tools for assessing risk and these are used in childrens planning.

CEDAP

DA3

Drive up standards in relation to Children’s Plans and better equip practitioners to understand what is needed

SMART planning to be a key feature in the LSCB Multi-agency training offer

Learning & Improvement

DA4 Set targets to improve the engagement of GP services; Child Protection Plans are always known to GPs

Ensure all child protection plans are sent to relevant GP practices

Safeguarding Unit

DA5 Review the Child in Need procedures ; ensuring that GPs are routinely informed of CiN

Agree process that GPs can be informed when a young person is CiN

Childrens social care

DA6

Ensure all domestic abuse multi-agency training makes practitioners consider the risks of disguised compliance and a strong focus on risk and perpetrators

Ensure disguised compliance is covered in all relevant LSCB training courses

Learning & Improvement

DA7

Review MARAC information sharing protocols in Children’s Social Care to ensure that information is shared efficiently

Social workers who attend MARAC ensure information on liquid logic identifies that the case has been through MARAC

Childrens social care

DA8 To share the results of this audit specifically with first line managers

A summary outlining recommendations is sent to out, managers and LSCB members to ensure this is disseminated.

All agencies

of 18

Appendix 1

Case No.

Age/ gender of Child

Outline Issues

Contributions from:

1

16 F

CAF

Concerns about mothers partners alcohol abuse and domestic violence

Pattern continued for over 2 years

5 children in household, all witnessed DV and experienced police attendance on several occasion

YP has OCD and awaiting referral for psychiatric support

CSC School Family Support Team GP MCHT ECNHST DAFSU POLICE

2

5 M

CP plan in place

Mother and children moved area because of history of DV from father

3 children in household

Father and PGM seeking contact, propose that PGM will supervise although she perceives no risk, mother not in favour of contact

Mother unware of professional knowledge – concern father involved in selling drugs

CE CEFS CSC DAFSU School MCHT ECNHST GP POLICE

3

13 M

CIN plan in place

Concerns about neglect over 6 year period, mother and stepfather known to abuse alcohol

Concern that child is risk to siblings because of aggressive behaviour in home. Involved in anti-social behaviour and often missing


Parent not reporting child missing to police, child shows physical signs of neglect

No MFH for 3 months, Child has criminal disposal which if breached enter deeper into youth court sanctions

GP MST ECT CSC MCHT DAFSU POLICE

4

9 F

CP Plan in place


Mother’s ex-partner presents risk and followed family when they moved to get away from him. He is believed to have mental health issues

Frequent house moves

Believed ex-partner moved out of area and living with a previous partner (followed up by police and CSC)

CSC CWPHNSFT MCHT School ECT DAFSU POLICE

5

10 MTh F

CP plan in place

Father assaulted mother when 5 months pregnant, minimised response by both parties to professional agencies

Further incident when baby 1 month, father cannabis user

Father completed Perpetrator Programme through probation, but remained fixed in views about women

GP CSC MCHT CE Family Support Services East Cheshire NHS

of 18

CP requires father to live away from family home, has contact away from family home.

No concerns for child in mothers care – referral made to Gateway

Trust POLICE

6

12 M

CP Plan in place – emotional harm

Child resides with mother, regular contact with father with a Court Order. Private proceedings over 4 years

Child had LD and attends a specialist school

Child Dual heritage, white and black African

GP CSC SSTPNHST Family Support POLICE

7

9 M

CIN plan in place

Referred to CSC Feb 15.

Father released from prison after 6 year sentence dealing Class A drugs. Father’s previous 2 partners have restraining orders and he has never completed any intervention re DV offences (parents relationship resumed whilst he in prison)

After initial stance of non-co-operation, agreed to reside in bail hostel pending risk assessments and attend a 40 week perpetrator course

Agreed move together, then evidence of father controlling behaviour, incident of DV – agreed to end relationship but then backtracked stating issues had been blown out of proportion

Mother pregnant

CSC ECT DAFSU MCHT School NPS POLICE

8

6 F

CAF in place since Nov 14

Five children in household, eldest three previously subject to CP plan – father not in household

Child presented with bruising at school – discrepancy between explanation of child and mother

Mother and school report management issues with the child, who is being assessed for ADHD.

MCHT CEFS GP ECNHST POLICE

of 18

APPENDIX 2

Survey Question Aggregates:

Question

Yes

NO

Is there any evidence that your agency is meeting their requirements to represent the experience of the child

81.8

18.2

Is there evidence that the collective experience of the child is informing your agency

93

7

Does the plan and your agency part in the plan have measurable milestones that reflect observed improvement in the child

68.4

31.6

Overall grade for representing voice of child

Inadequate

5

Requires

Improvement 25

Good

70

Outstanding

0

Are key details of Child correctly recorded

83.7

16.3

Visits recorded over 6 months period

0 35.6

1-3 28.9

4-6 6.7

7+ 29.9

Is there a chronology on file

92.7

7.3

Is chronology up to date

80.5

19.5

Quality of recording

Fairly bad 4.7

Fairly good 58.1

Very good 30.2

Is there evidence of analysis in recording

60%- yes 40% no

Is there evidence if inclusion of absent father extended family where safe and appropriate

41.2 – yes 58.8 - no

29 – yes 71 - no

Overall grading for case file recording

Inadequate

2.2

Requires

improvement 28.9

Good 68.9

Outstanding

0

YES

NO

Has your agency attended relevant multi-agency meetings?

100

Is the plan: Clear

80

20

of 18

Outcome focussed Uploaded routinely reflecting changing need Focussed on risks and needs

72.7 72.7

75.8

27.3 27.3

24.2

Are contingency arrangements clear if a plan not working

67.9

32.1

Are roles in plan clearly defined

81.8

18.2

Do CIN meetings analyse progress against the plan

58.6

41.4

Is there evidence that the plan has improved outcomes for child and family

60.7

39.3

Is historical information used to inform future planning

61.8

38.2

Overall grading in relation to planning

Inadequate

5.1

Requires improvement

35.9

Good 56.4

Outstanding

2.6

No of changes in lead professional in last 6 months

0

85.7

1-3

11.9

4-6 2.4

7+ 0

Evidence of management oversight

65.1

34.9

YES

NO

Is supervision regular

44.7

55.3

Has there been professional disagreement or escalation

11.7

89.9

Evidence of information sharing

81.8

18.2

Use of research to inform: Level or risk Impact on child Indicators of sustained change

37.8 41.7 24.2

62.2 58.3 75.8

Overall grading for management oversight

Inadequate

7.5


27.5

Good

65

Outstanding

0

YES

NO

Is there evidence that: Safety of child has been priority Safety of adult been priority

83.3

64.9

16.7

55.1

Use of domestic abuse risk management tool

14.3

85.7

of 18

Referral to MARAC where risk identified

31.8

68.2

Specialist Services Presence Evidence of co-working Invited and attending meetings Could referrals have been made earlier

69.2

78.1 67.7 24.3

30.8

21.9 32.3 75.7

Have toxic trio been considered and addressed in plan

67.7

32.4

If absent, is alleged perpetrator assessed in terms of : Contact with child and adult Risk to child and adult Influence on parenting capacity

71 75

63.3

29 25

36.7

Has history of adults informed risk assessment and capacity to change

80.7

19.3

Has alleged perpetrator been: Held to account for actions Offered support to change

62.5 69.7

37.5 30.3

Is response to challenge/support factored into decision making

80.7

19.4

Had risk by alleged perpetrator to any other linked children been: Considered actioned

58.3 46.9

47.7 53.1

Overall grading for this agency case

Inadequate

6.8


27.3

Good 65.9

Outstanding

0

Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board …...1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding...

Documents

Transcript of Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board …...1.1 As part of Cheshire East Safeguarding...