keeping the neglected child in focus in child protection...
TRANSCRIPT
Keeping the Neglected Child in Focus in Child Protection Conferences
Helen Richardson Foster ‘Child Welfare, Children’s Rights and Family Support: Tensions and Possibilities’, 27 January 2015 [email protected]
The challenge of Child Protection Conferences
Group dynamics
Consensus
Multi-agency work
Limited research
Planning
Family participation
Right forum for analysis?
The Challenge of neglect conferences
• Multi-factorial
• Practitioner domain
• Start again syndrome
• Rule of optimism
• Incident driven
• Neglect most difficult for practitioners
• Parents more likely to be difficult to engage
Information shared
CHILD Safeguard & promote
welfare
Health
Education
Emotional/ behavioural
Guidance & boundaries
Family functioning Wider family Income Employment Community resources
Identity
Self-care skills
Social presentation
FAMILY & ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Discussion of daily life
Concerns Family engagement
Dis
cu
ss
ion
of
da
ily
lif
e
Low Historical Parents did not attend conference
High - Anti social behaviour
Safety
Intensive family work
‘Baby only’
Older children
Age
Large sibling groups
• More time
• Less time for planning
• Focus on older children with difficulties
• More practitioners
• Many reports
Representation of children’s views • Children’s participation in conferences
• Work with children prior to conference
• Representation of views in reports
Parents
Non attendance
Avoidance
Dominating needs
Naming neglect
• “I think, well, it’s better if it’s spelt out, because it’s just a word that people put their own interpretation on and I think you know it is quite hurtful to hear, you’re neglecting your kids.” (Chair 6)
Planning
• Limited time for discussion in conference
• Styles of planning styles : - parent-focused (7/14) - no concerns (3/14) - child focused (4/14)
• Roles of the Chair and the core group
References
Bell, M. 1996b. Why some conferences are difficult: a study of the professionals' experience of some initial child protection conferences. Children & Society, 10, 51-63.
Bell, M. (1999). Child Protection: Families and the Conference Process, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Brandon, M., S. Bailey, et al. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact. London, Department for children, schools and families: 146. Brandon, M., Glaser D., et al (2014) Missed Opportunities: Indicators of Neglect - What is Ignored, Why, and What Can Be Done? London: Department for Education CM 5730 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. London: The Stationery Office. Farmer, E. and M. Owen (1995). Child Protection Practice: Private risks and public remedies. A study of decision-making, intervention and outcome in child protection work. London, HMSO. Farmer, E. & Lutman., E (2012). Effective Working with Neglected Children and their Families. London, Jessica Kingsley.
References /2
Harlow, E. and S. Shardlow (2006). "Safeguarding children: challenges to the effective operation of core groups." Child & Family Social Work 11(1): 65- 72. Horwath, J. (2007). Child Neglect Identification and Assessment. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Horwath, J. (2013). Child Neglect: Planning and intervention. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Ofsted (2014) In the Child's Time: Professional Responses to Neglect. London
Ofsted (2011) The Voice of the Child: Learning Lessons from Serious Case Reviews. Manchester: Ofsted.
Ofsted (2010). Learning Lessons From Serious Case Reviews 2009–2010: Ofsted’s evaluation of serious case reviews from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. Manchester: Ofsted. The Lord Laming (2009) The Protection of Children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office.
Keeping the Neglected Child in Focus in Child Protection Conferences
Helen Richardson Foster ‘Child Welfare, Children’s Rights and Family Support: Tensions and Possibilities’, 27 January 2015
Session Overview
• Child Protection Conferences in Cases of Neglect
• Making Sense of The Child’s Lived Experience, a PhD study
• How do the findings relate to your practice?
The challenge of Child Protection Conferences
Group dynamics
Consensus
Multi-agency work
Limited research
Planning
Family participation
Right forum for analysis?
Child protection plans
• Vague actions: what is an outline plan?
• Lack of clarity regarding timescales
• Negotiable and non-negotiable
• Focus of plan: (Horwath, 2013, Harlow and Shardlow, 2006; Farmer and Lutman, 2010, Munro, 2011; Davies and Ward, 2012).
The Challenge of neglect conferences
• Multi-factorial
• Practitioner domain
• Start again syndrome
• Rule of optimism
• Incident driven
• Neglect most difficult for practitioners
• Parents more likely to be difficult to engage
Making Sense of the Child’s Lived Experience in Cases of Neglect
Background
‘the child is a person and not an object of concern’ (Dame Bulter-Sloss, CM 412, 1988 p245)
failure of workers to “assemble and analyse information …..through the eyes of the child” (Lord Laming CM 5730, 2003 4.189, p69)
…too often the focus on the child was lost; adequate steps were not taken to establish the wishes and feelings of children and young people; and their voice was not heard sufficiently. (Ofsted, 2011)
• Who shares what information about a child and their family at a child protection conference?
• To what extent is information about parenting capacity, context and issues explored in relation to the developmental needs of the child?
• What difference is there to the quality of information about individual children and their lived experience if more than one child in the family is discussed at the conference?
• How has information been obtained and presented about the child’s experience, wishes and feelings?
Research Questions
• If the child is present at the conference, to what extent are they given a voice?
• To what extent do conference members provide information about the day in the life of the child?
• What information is used to inform the content of the child protection plan?
• What promoters and inhibitors do the workforce identify in relation to maintaining a child focus?
Research Questions /2
Methodology
1. Conference data
Audio recording and documentary analysis.
Conferences with neglect as main
concern/category
14 : 3 ICPCs, 11 reviews
In 1 LSCB area
2. Interviews with conference staff
Conference chairs, managers, minute takers and their
supervisors
26: 9 chairs, 13 minute takers, 2 managers,
2 supervisors
In 2 LSCB areas
3. Focus groups
Staff from all agencies who attend
conferences
6 groups: 35 participants
In 2 LSCB areas
Conference data sample /1
Conference Type 11 reviews, 3 initial conferences Review: 3- 24 months, average of 9.5 mo
Family type: 6 ‘baby only’ conferences 5 large families of 4+ children
Family attendance: 12 mothers, 5 fathers, 3 teenage children
Practitioners: 2 - 13, average of 10
Length: 35min -2 h 8 min, average 1 h 17 min
Conference data sample /2
All previously known to Children’s Social Care
Predominantly White British
Parents: domestic violence, drug and alcohol use, mental health difficulties, learning difficulties, physical health
Children: Autism, offending
What information is shared in conferences?
Information shared
CHILD Safeguard & promote
welfare
Health
Education
Emotional/ behavioural
Guidance & boundaries
Family functioning Wider family Income Employment Community resources
Identity
Self-care skills
Social presentation
FAMILY & ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Discussion of daily life
Concerns Family engagement
Dis
cu
ss
ion
of
da
ily
lif
e
Low Historical Parents did not attend conference
High - Anti social behaviour
Safety
Intensive family work
‘Baby only’
Older children
Age
Large sibling groups
• More time
• Less time for planning
• Focus on older children with difficulties
• More practitioners
• Many reports
Exercise 1: 5 minutes
• What strategies do you have to ensure good information sharing about individual children at conferences?
• How could you incorporate more information about the child’s daily life?
Family participation in Conferences and the focus on the child
Representation of children’s views • Children’s participation in conferences
• Work with children prior to conference
• Representation of views in reports
Parents
• Practitioners’ views:
Sometimes the parents get so locked in to, particularly on initial conferences, into the battle with professionals to prove their innocence etc. that actually they don’t want to talk about the child at all so I think it’s more often the parents that divert away from the child. (Chair 3)
Parents
Non attendance
Avoidance
Dominating needs
Naming neglect
• “I think, well, it’s better if it’s spelt out, because it’s just a word that people put their own interpretation on and I think you know it is quite hurtful to hear, you’re neglecting your kids.” (Chair 6)
Exercise 2: 5 minutes
• Do the findings resonate with your experience?
• How do you manage the needs of parents whilst keeping the child at the centre of discussion in conferences?
The Child Protection Plan & Planning in Conferences
Planning
• Limited time for discussion in conference
• Styles of planning styles : - parent-focused (7/14) - no concerns (3/14) - child focused (4/14)
• Roles of the Chair and the core group
Exercise 3: 5 minutes
• Have you encountered different approaches or styles of planning in conference?
• How can you create more child-focused plans?
In Summary
Summary Exercise: 5 minutes
• What are the three main points you have gained from this morning?
References
Bell, M. 1996b. Why some conferences are difficult: a study of the professionals' experience of some initial child protection conferences. Children & Society, 10, 51-63.
Bell, M. (1999). Child Protection: Families and the Conference Process, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Brandon, M., S. Bailey, et al. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact. London, Department for children, schools and families: 146. Brandon, M., Glaser D., et al (2014) Missed Opportunities: Indicators of Neglect - What is Ignored, Why, and What Can Be Done? London: Department for Education CM 5730 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. London: The Stationery Office. Farmer, E. and M. Owen (1995). Child Protection Practice: Private risks and public remedies. A study of decision-making, intervention and outcome in child protection work. London, HMSO. Farmer, E. & Lutman., E (2012). Effective Working with Neglected Children and their Families. London, Jessica Kingsley.
References /2
Harlow, E. and S. Shardlow (2006). "Safeguarding children: challenges to the effective operation of core groups." Child & Family Social Work 11(1): 65- 72. Horwath, J. (2007). Child Neglect Identification and Assessment. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Horwath, J. (2013). Child Neglect: Planning and intervention. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Ofsted (2014) In the Child's Time: Professional Responses to Neglect. London
Ofsted (2011) The Voice of the Child: Learning Lessons from Serious Case Reviews. Manchester: Ofsted.
Ofsted (2010). Learning Lessons From Serious Case Reviews 2009–2010: Ofsted’s evaluation of serious case reviews from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. Manchester: Ofsted. The Lord Laming (2009) The Protection of Children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office.