Williamson Report: Implementation Plan
January 2009
Williamson Report Implementation Plan
| Contents | Page |
| Foreword Executive Summary Summary of Recommendations | 3 5 6 |
1 | Minister for Children | 11 |
2 | Redesigning the Children’s Executive | 13 |
3 | Independent Inspection | 16 |
4 | External Reviewing Officer | 19 |
5 | Children’s Service User Group | 21 |
6 | Contractual approach to external agencies | 24 |
7 | Future Role of Children’s Residential Homes | 28 |
8 | Redesigning Management Structure for Children’s Services | 33 |
9 | Whistle blowing Policy | 37 |
10 | Linking Greenfields, La Moye YOI with the JCPC | 39 |
11 | Out of Hours Duty Rota | 43 |
A | Training Plans | 47 |
B | Court Advisory Service | 50 |
C | Lord Laming Compliance | 54 |
|
Appendices | 58 |
i | States of Jersey Law (2005) | 59 |
ii | HSSD Organisational Structure 2008 | 60 |
iii | Proposed HSSD Structure post Williamson Implementation | 61 |
iv | Proposed Children’s Directorate Structure post Williamson Implementation | 62 |
v | Response of JCPC Chair to Williamson Report | 63 |
vi | Fostering & Adoption/ Permanence Panels | 70 |
vii | Proposed Independent Visitor & Advocacy Services | 75 |
viii | Constitution of the Independent Board of Visitors | 77 |
ix | Summary of Financial Schedule | 82 |
| | |
| | |
Foreword
“Taken as a whole, these proposals are to be welcomed. They not only address weaknesses in the child protection systems and services identified by the Williamson Report and by my own conclusions (and to a large extent by the Howard League) but also have the potential to turn Jersey services to vulnerable children and families into beacon services that could point the way to other ‘small island’ jurisdictions.”
Professor June Thoburn -Independent Chair Jersey Child Protection Committee
Response to Williamson Report Implementation Plan 17th November 2008
Executive Summary
The Williamson Report (June 2008) inquired into child protection services in Jersey, investigating the appropriateness or otherwise of policies, procedures and current practice. It concluded with eleven recommendations which are responded to in sequence in this implementation plan. In the body of the text of the Williamson report, two further areas for improvement were identified. These were staff training for those working with vulnerable children and the development of court advisory services. These issues are addressed in Recommendations A and B respectively.
During the period of development of this plan, three further sources of evidence have emerged. The first is the “Jersey Review: A Review of the Jersey Youth Justice System” conducted by the Howard League for Penal Reform (November 2008). This review followed serious concerns raised regarding aspects of practice at the Greenfield Secure Unit. Although this implementation plan is not designed to address specifically the issues raised by the Howard League for Penal Reform, there is significant overlap with Williamson’s original recommendations. As a result, this plan responds to areas identified by both parties including the development of independent inspection and the development of checks and balances in the provision of services to vulnerable children and their families. If adopted, this plan would also provide the framework that would see an end to the accommodation of sentenced children of statutory school age at La Moye Youth Offenders Institution. They would instead be accommodated at Greenfield’s Secure Unit.
However, this plan does not deal with the issue of young offenders above statutory school age remanded and sentenced to La Moye YOI, nor does it address the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) or the proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. These issues were identified in the Howard League Review but are beyond the scope of this plan.
The second source of evidence relates to the tragic death of “Baby P” who suffered fatal multiple injuries in August 2007 in the London Borough of Haringey. Although enquiries continue, it is clear that Lord Laming’s earlier recommendations arising from the death of Victoria Climbié will be emphasised following these recent events. In particular, it has already emerged that a failure to address Social Work caseload size is a significant risk factor. Social Workers in Jersey currently operate caseloads far in excess of Lord Laming’s recommendations. Ensuring that Social Work caseloads are “Lord Laming Compliant” is addressed in Recommendation C of this plan.
The third source of evidence is the twelve month report to Ministers of the Independent Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) (December 2008). In her first report, Professor Thoburn outlines the current work of the Committee and stresses the need for improved inter-agency working and independent audit. All three reports recognise the inherent risks of under-investment in child protection services yet point to the opportunity to develop world class services in Jersey. This implementation plan provides the roadmap to the development of safe sustainable services for vulnerable children and their families. The total recurrent revenue costs associated with the implementation of the plan are £5.1M with £0.8M non recurrent costs. The capital programme associated with the plan is self funding with an expected surplus of funds in the region of £0.3M. The manpower implications, which include the transfer of staff from Brig-Y-Don to the Health & Social Services Department (HSSD) are 56 full-time equivalents over three years. A fully costed financial schedule is included in appendix ix.
Summary of Recommendations
What follows is a brief summary of the Williamson recommendations and their resource implications. Full details of each recommendation are contained in the body of this plan.
Recommendation 1 |
Create the post of Minister for Children whose responsibilities should be determined following discussions about whether the scope of this role should be for all children or specifically vulnerable children and their families. |
Proposal |
The “Corporate Parent” is replaced by a single Minister, the Minister for Health & Social Services. The Minister will have designated responsibility at the Council of Ministers for services for vulnerable children and their families. For the day to day political oversight of these services, the Minister will formally delegate this function to the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services. |
Resource Implications |
There are no manpower and financial resource implications with regard to this recommendation. |
Recommendation 2 |
Redesign Children’s Executive to report to Minister |
Proposal |
It is proposed that services currently under the remit of the Children’s Executive should report to the Minister for Health and Social Services. |
Resource Implications |
There are non recurrent costs of £100,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation 3 |
Appoint external organisation to review Children’s Service on a bi annual basis |
Proposal |
Bi-annual external inspection of children’s services will be commissioned from nationally respected agencies specialising in the area of children’s services and secure provision. The first inspection will focus on residential and secure accommodation and will take place in 2009. The second inspection will take place in 2010 and focus upon Child Protection Services. Thereafter, children’s services will be subject to a rolling programme of bi-annual inspection. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £112,000, non recurrent costs of £20,000 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation 4 |
Appoint external Reviewing Officer |
Proposal |
A full-time Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) will be appointed. The IRO must be independent of the statutory ‘child protection’ and ‘looked after children’ authorities and be able to guarantee that personalised planning is provided for all children and young people. They would also provide external scrutiny of the work of children’s services generally provided in these areas. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £192,000, non-recurrent costs of £23,000 and manpower implications of 2.5FTE. |
Recommendation 5 |
Establish group representing users of remodelled Children’s Service |
Proposal |
It is proposed that a wholly independent service is established for Looked After Children, primarily (though not exclusively) for those in residential care, particularly those who do not have on-going contact with their parents. It will be dedicated to monitoring and ensuring their well being and helping them to express their wishes and feelings by encouraging self-advocacy or advocating on their behalf and reporting any cause for concern to the Independent Reviewing Officer. Health and Social Services is already in discussion with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, working towards identifying how best to support this developing group. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £176,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation 6 |
Refine contractual approach to external agencies e.g. NSPCC, Brig Y Don, The Bridge |
Proposal |
A scoping project will take place to consider the role and function of existing preventative and supportive services working in this sector. It will recommend the most efficient and effective way to develop, alter or extend existing provision to ensure that parents and children, particularly the most vulnerable, can be provided with easy to access, ‘user friendly’ support services which result in improved outcomes for children and which enable, in appropriate cases, easy transition to specialist services. It will examine arrangements for joint strategic and operational planning and make recommendations to enhance the coordination and management of services across key providers of family support services, and across specialist services including the statutory child protection agencies. It will also identify gaps in provision and prioritise areas for future service development. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £430,000 and non recurrent costs of £59,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation 7 |
Consider future role of children’s residential homes |
Proposal |
The investment in fostering and adoption services and the focus on ‘preventative’ work with young people has seen a significant reduction in the total number of Looked After Children. This has had a knock on effect on the number in residential care. The last two years have seen a reduction from 42 to 21 and further decreases are predicted. A small number of young people will continue to require residential care. It is expected that the need for residential child care beds will reduce from 29 to 15 by the end of 2009. Residential Units will therefore be configured as follows: Two 6 bedded and one three bedded residential unit will be provided. One of the 6 bedded units will be Brig-Y-Don. Consideration needs to be given to the possibility of using some of the current residential stock or seeking to release capital from the selling of these properties to allow for the purchase of another 6 bedded property. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £900,000, capital surplus of circa £400,000 and manpower implications of 17FTE. |
Recommendation 8 |
Develop a new management structure to ensure all services – Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), Youth Action Team (YAT), Youth Service and Schools contribute to wellbeing of children and young people |
Proposal |
The new Children’s Directorate will bring together all the children’s services mentioned above and will be the conduit by which all issues relating to vulnerable children and their families are managed. This represents a substantial and ground breaking development bringing together as it does children’s social care and health services under one management structure. Existing resources will be re-configured and re-aligned to create the necessary senior management structure. A Director of Social Work will join the Corporate Directorate of H&SS to work alongside the Medical Director and Director of Nursing & Governance. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £1.2M, non recurring costs of £360,000 and manpower implications of 15FTE. |
Recommendation 9 |
Develop whistle blowing policy for all staff |
Proposal |
The policy has been re-written. A suitable independent person/organisation is being sought to provide the assurance that all concerns raised by those who work for the States of Jersey are tackled in an open, timely and transparent way. The Comptroller and Auditor General, has indicated that he may be prepared to be considered for this role. Clear advice has been included in the policy about how to handle anonymous and ‘off the record’ statements. |
Resource Implications |
Achieved within existing resources. |
Recommendation 10 |
Develop a link between the Greenfields Secure Unit and La Moye Youth Offenders Wing with the Jersey Child Protection Committee to ensure that the safeguarding responsibilities are maintained |
Proposal |
The JCPC Procedures and Audit Sub-Committee, working as appropriate with the Safeguarding Children Living Away From Home Sub-Committee will be asked to make recommendations to the JCPC about safeguarding procedures. Recommendations regarding the development of safeguarding arrangements for looked after children and those in the YOI will take account of the following: 1) The need to establish a complaints system which ensures that the young people are confident that there will be no adverse impact on themselves if they make a complaint. 2) The need to ensure that young people living away from home have access to independent advice and advocacy when they require it. 3) The need to ensure that any incidents of harm are reported to the JCPC Serious Case Review Sub-Committee so that appropriate action can be taken where necessary. This will entail building on existing formal arrangements for monitoring self-harm and violent incidents between young people. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £176,000, non recurrent costs of £22,000 and manpower implications of 2FTE. |
Recommendation 11 |
Replace the present Emergency Duty system which uses the Police Service by one which uses 24 hour Health and Social Services availability |
Proposal |
The system of calls coming through the General Hospital needs to be redesigned and consideration given to whether this is more appropriately delivered via the combined fire and ambulance control room. This will provide an effective ‘filtering’ system whereby the staff ask some very deliberate and careful questions to confirm that the matter is an ‘emergency’ and that other options for dealing with the presenting situation have been adequately explored, before it is forwarded to the Duty Officer. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £163,000, non recurrent costs of £2,000 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation A |
Develop individual Training Plans for members of staff |
Proposal |
It is proposed that the training officer function currently under the Children’s Executive will be brought together with a new ‘Training Co-ordinator’ post. This will capitalise upon the joint expertise to develop a ‘training unit’ which will lead on delivering individual plans in a co-ordinated manner by liaising with team/unit managers in the respective areas. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £307,000, non recurrent costs of £2,000 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation B |
Develop a Court Advisory Service similar to CAFCASS in the UK |
Proposal |
The proposal is for the creation of the Jersey Court Advisory Service. It is recommended that the Probation Board would be the appropriate responsible body to monitor the work of the service, at least through its initial phases of separation from the existing structures and development as a ‘stand alone’ service. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £351,000, non recurrent costs of £61,000 and manpower implications of 5FTE. |
Recommendation C |
Lord Laming Compliance – Case management |
Proposal |
Ensure that Social Worker caseload size and complexity is monitored, evaluated and where necessary reduced so that staff are effectively supported in discharging their responsibilities under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. To set a target reduction in caseload size to 12 child protection and looked after and accommodated children per Children and Families social worker and ensure sufficient legal advice is available to enable Social Workers to effectively discharge their duties. |
Resource Implications |
There are recurrent costs of £1M, non recurrent costs of £200,000 and manpower implications of 12FTE. |
The Williamson Recommendations
Recommendation 1 | Create the post of Minister for Children |
| |
Resource Implications | There are no manpower or financial resource implications in relation to this recommendation. |
Recommendation
Create the post of Minister for Children whose responsibilities should be determined following discussions about whether the scope of this role should be for all children or specifically vulnerable children and their families.
Existing Structure
Current arrangements, following the recommendation of the Kathie Bull report, see the Children’s Executive reporting to a “Corporate Parent” consisting of three Ministers. These are the Ministers for Health & Social Services, Home Affairs and Education Sports & Culture.
Proposed Structure
The “Corporate Parent” is replaced by a single Minister, the Minister for Health & Social Services. The Minister will have designated responsibility at the Council of Ministers for services for vulnerable children and their families. For the day to day political oversight of these services, the Minister will formally delegate this function to the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services.
A Children’s Plan for Jersey will be crucial to ensuring that Ministries, Departments and officers work and plan effectively and fulfil agreed commitments across organisational boundaries to achieve a more integrated response to families and children in need of services across the whole network of island provision. Key agencies include Education Sports & Culture, Health & Social Services, criminal justice services, the Jersey Child Protection Committee, and independent sector service providers. A new body provisionally called the Children’s Services Board, and comprising senior manager representatives of these and other key agencies and organisations will be established with the explicit remit of implementing an agreed Jersey Children and Young People’s Plan (see Recommendation 2 for further details of proposed Plan) and supporting on-going joint planning and delivery of services. This Board will report to the Health and Social Services Minister in their role as the Minister responsible for services to vulnerable children (for details see Recommendations 2 and 8 below).
Rationale
This recommendation leaves it open as to whether Jersey should have a ‘Minister for Children’ or whether this role should be focused upon designating a minister with formal responsibilities for ‘vulnerable children, young people, and their families’. This resonates with the findings of the Howard League for Penal Reform in their document “A Review of the Jersey youth justice system” (p10). It is proposed that the formal post of ‘Minister for Children’ is not established, but that the responsibility for services for vulnerable children, young people, and their families should form part of the role specification for the Minister for Health and Social Services.
To do otherwise would be to undermine other ministries to a significant degree. ‘Children’ are the client group of the vast majority of States Departments. Education, Sports and Culture is the obvious ministry which would be severely undermined by re-designating responsibilities for children, but the reverberations would be felt further afield as well. For example, it would arguably impact on Transport and Technical Services - a ministry which has responsibilities for maintaining various amenities for young people.
Thus, a ‘Minister for Children’ could impact significantly upon the viability of these States Departments. Further, it would simply be a matter of time before those interest groups who promote the older people’s agenda would argue for a ‘Minister for Older People’ – and this again would further undermine the existing structure of ministries.
Trajectory
In order to transfer functions from one Minister (or Ministers) to another, regulations are required under Article 29 of the States of Jersey Law 2005. Those Regulations will also need to make appropriate consequential provisions to the effect, broadly, that anything done by the transferring Minister/s has effect as if done by the transferee. It is not necessary to amend each individual piece of legislation that refers to the former. The new Regulations should be sufficient and pure name changes can be done in individual legislation when the next Revised Edition of Jersey Laws is produced. However, thought should be given to whether any specific provisions are needed in the Regulations to deal with consequential issues. The draft regulations will need to be lodged for debate by the Chief Minister as identified in Article 29 (see appendix 1)
Resource Implications
There are no manpower and financial resource implications with regard to the recommendation.
Timescale: Target completion date June 2009.
Following the formation of the Council of Ministers and ratification of the implementation plan, a further three months will be required to enact the legislative changes identified above.
Recommendation 2 | Redesign Children’s Executive to report to Minister |
| |
Resource Implications | There are non recurrent costs of £100,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Redesign Children’s Executive to report to Minister
Existing Services
As identified in recommendation 1, the existing structure, following the Kathie Bull report, sees the Children’s Executive reporting to a “Corporate Parent” consisting of three Ministers. These are the Ministers for Health & Social Services, Home Affairs and Education Sports & Culture.
Proposed Services
As identified in recommendation 1, the “Corporate Parent” is replaced by a single Minister, the Minister for Health & Social Services. The Minister will have designated responsibility at the Council of Ministers for services for vulnerable children and their families.
Rationale
This recommendation is accepted and it is proposed that services currently under the remit of the Children’s Executive should report to the Minister for Health and Social Services. In principle this can be achieved fairly quickly – although there will need to be a clear delineation for those general services that provide a ‘specific’ service to the Children’s Executive, but which have other functions as well, such as the Probation and Police services which have important roles within the Youth Action Team.
Trajectory
The structure of services to vulnerable children must deliver integrated services with clear accountability to the responsible Minister. The first phase towards achieving this will be the integration of the Children’s Executive Service with the Children’s Service, currently part of Social Services. The Children’s Executive Service comprises Children’s Residential and Secure Provision and the Youth Action Team (currently reporting to the Corporate Parent). This will bring these services under common management, with direct lines of accountability through to the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Phase Two will comprise the reorganisation of Social Services to create a Directorate of Children’s Services. The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service will also form part of this new Children’s Directorate, alongside other paediatric health services, bringing together all the key service elements providing protection, support and mental health services to vulnerable children and their families. To ensure good governance, it will be necessary to internally structure these newly combined services by separating referral and assessment processes from provider services such as direct services for Looked After Children and family support. (For further detail see Recommendation 8 and Appendix iv, proposed Children’s Directorate Organisational Chart).
Working protocols will be established with key external partners, such as the States of Jersey Police and the Probation Service in order to sustain consistent and effective multi-agency and multi-disciplinary team working. Both partners play an essential role in the delivery of a co-ordinated youth justice response.
Social care and social work services for adults, which are currently part of Social Services, will be re-located as part of a broader Health and Social Services management re-structure.
Improving Health and Social Services structures by creating a dedicated Directorate to better focus and co-ordinate resources to meet the needs of vulnerable children is a crucial step. Equally essential, is ensuring a more integrated response to families and children in need of services across the whole network of island provision, including education, health services, criminal justice, the Jersey Child Protection Committee, and independent sector service providers. A Children’s Plan for Jersey will be crucial to achieving greater co-ordination and co-operation across all relevant areas. Work is underway on such a plan, which will incorporate identified outcomes, principles, priorities, high level actions, performance indicators and targets for all services. An important aspect of this work will be to take into account the views of service users, particularly children and young people, in improving and designing services for the future. The NSPCC which has considerable experience and knowledge in strategic planning of this nature has been engaged to support this process. To further develop and sustain multi-agency planning and working, a new body, provisionally called the Children’s Services Board and comprising senior manager representatives of key agencies, will be established with the explicit remit of implementing the Children’s Plan and supporting on-going joint planning and delivery of services. This Board will report to the Health and Social Services Minister as the Minister responsible for services to vulnerable children.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
- 2.1 Dependent upon the new structure, the accommodation needs of the various parts of any newly formed directorate(s) will have to be addressed. Services are under pressure within current provision and additional accommodation will be required.
- 2.2 The Fostering and Adoption Team is already exploring the feasibility of moving to the old Les Chenes building (on the Greenfield’s site) but there will be refurbishment costs involved to facilitate the move.
- 2.3 The infrastructure support to the new directorate(s) needs to be reviewed in terms of reception, finance, business manager, administration, etc.
Timescale
- Phase 1: Integration of Children’s Executive Service with Children’s Service within Social Services and development of working protocols with key partners in the delivery of current Youth Action Team services - March 2009.
- Phase 2: Refer to Recommendation 8
- Children & Young People’s Plan for Jersey - Completion June 2009
- Establish Children’s Service Board: September 2009
Recommendation 3 | Appoint external organisation to review Children’s Service on a bi annual basis |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £112,256.79, non recurrent costs of £20,270.57 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation
Appoint external organisation to review Children’s Service on a bi annual basis
Existing Services
The Children’s Services inspection regime in England and Wales has recently been reorganised. The new Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) came into being on April 1st 2007. The equivalent body in Scotland is also recently established. No arrangements currently exist between Jersey and either of these bodies to provide regular external inspection.
Like their UK counterparts, all qualified Social Workers employed in Jersey must hold valid registration with their regulatory body, the General Social Care Council (GSCC). This confirms their suitability to practice and commits them to a code of professional conduct. Social Workers in Jersey have protection of title and, as well as GSCC registration, are required to be registered under the Health Care (Jersey) Law 1995 on an annual basis.
Proposed Services
Bi-annual external inspection of children’s services will be established. Inspection services will be commissioned from nationally respected agencies specialising in the area of children’s services and secure provision. Accepted national standards and targets will be used to benchmark local services and set improvement targets, though it will be important to ensure that these standards and targets are sensitive to the realities of service provision in a small island context and the differences in legislation.
The first inspection will focus on residential and secure accommodation and will take place in 2009. The second inspection will take place in 2010 and focus upon Child Protection Services. Thereafter, children’s services will be subject to a rolling programme of bi-annual inspection.
A Governance Officer with social care expertise will be appointed to join the Governance Unit. This officer will be managed by the Director of Nursing & Governance, independent of the Children’s Directorate. This dedicated social care and protection focussed role will be established to lead regular audit (e.g. recording, staff skills mix, training and development, review of specific services between external inspections, reviewing & updating policy & procedure) and assist the Children’s Directorate in preparing for external inspection.
Rationale
A robust inspection regime can be deployed to Jersey in order that there is a clear independent inspection of the standards of service being achieved. This recommendation is reflected in the conclusions of the Howard League Jersey Review (p33 Rec. 18). Such a regime must be sensitive to the particular circumstances and context of providing public services in a small island community.
The Williamson report refers to the uncertainty and lack of decision making which inevitably follows a long period of review, stating that it is now imperative that a clear, focussed strategic direction for the Children’s Service is established. This Implementation Plan forms the first part of this process and it is important to afford services and personnel the time to concentrate upon implementing the changes and improvements identified before initiating further review and inspection. Such an approach avoids the confusion caused by the inspection of a service in transition.
Whilst it is important that island services are judged against nationally accepted standards for children’s services, there will also be a need to explore ‘best fit’ in terms of the inspection services available. For example the Scottish experience of inspection of small island services might be of advantage in the Jersey context. Jersey’s status as a separate jurisdiction and issues of scale will need to inform the process.
An essential precursor to inspection will be the development of a Children and Young People’s Plan for Jersey (recommended in the Williamson Report). The setting out of an ‘as is’ description of current services with clear improvement objectives will provide a base line and clear targets against which service improvement can be measured (see Recommendation 2)
The Director of Nursing & Governance has identified a lack of capacity in terms of the knowledge and time that the Governance Unit has to address Social Services issues. The introduction of a Director of Social Work to the Corporate Directorate to oversee the profession and a Governance Officer with specific social work focus operating as part of HSSD’s central Governance Unit will address this issue.
Trajectory
Contact has been made with both England & Wales OFSTED and the Scottish Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA). The latter have provided similar services to other jurisdictions including small islands. Their work with regard to rural and small island Scottish communities is well documented. Plans are being put in place to bring a team across from the SWIA in November 2008 to commence detailed discussions with H&SS with regard to independent inspection. Having made initial contact with OFSTED, officers from H&SS are awaiting confirmation that similar discussions can take place.
Phase 1
- Scoping project with independent review bodies in 2008.
- Appoint Governance Officer in June 2009.
- Establish programme of regular audit in 2009.
Phase 2
- Inspection of all children services completed by 2010.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
- Cost of annual inspections
- Governance Officer
Timescale - Target completion date December 2010.
- Inspection completed by 2010
- Thereafter- bi-annual
Recommendation 4 | Appoint external Reviewing Officer |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £192,000, non-recurrent costs of £23,000 and 2.5 FTE manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Appoint external Reviewing Officer
Existing Services
The Children's Service has a statutory requirement under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 to initiate formal Child Protection and Looked After Children Reviews and Conferences. These should be chaired by a highly trained and experienced individual which, in Jersey, has meant that they have come from current or previous senior members of the Services’ own fieldwork staff.
The current arrangement involves a former Senior Practitioner Social Worker being contracted to provide a limited service on two days a week. There is no dedicated administrative or secretarial support.
Proposed Services
The appointment of a full-time Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) at a team manager grade is required. The IRO must be truly independent of the statutory ‘child protection’ and ‘looked after children’ authorities and be able to guarantee that personalised planning is provided for all children and young people. They would also provide external scrutiny of the work of children’s services generally provided in these areas. Monies should be provided to ensure that appropriate training and supervisory support is available to the local officer from an appropriate source in the UK.
Additional funding will also be required to ensure that an external IRO can be brought in from Guernsey or the UK in contentious cases where there has been previous, disputed, involvement by the ‘on Island’ IRO.
Child Protection Conferences and Looked After Child Review meetings need to be arranged and organised by an administrator, independent of services that normally contribute to these meetings. This role will ensure that all meetings are appropriately minuted and an effective system is in place for amendments and/or challenges to the accuracy of any recordings to be promptly and properly adjudicated. This role will also ensure the maintenance of an accurate and up to date Child Protection Register which can be ‘questioned’ by authorised parties. Such queries will be recorded, reviewed and, if necessary, actioned.
In order to establish independence and appropriate external scrutiny, it is proposed that these new posts are created under the umbrella of the H&SS Governance Section.
Rationale
It is a principle of good governance that any potentially 'life changing' decisions are opened up to external and independent scrutiny whenever possible. The development of this new Service, monitored, directed and reporting to the Governance Section, would allow a level of independence that has not been possible to date.
The development of a centralised administrative role to sit alongside the IRO post will also ensure that all agencies can have a ‘single point of contact’ for any enquiries of children under registration and/or the timing and co-ordination of the meetings; and the management of complaints in this area.
Trajectory
The increasing demand for formal review will warrant a full time post within the next six months. It is envisaged that the post be established on a three year basis and the postholder would be regulated via the H&SS Governance Unit (i.e. outside of the management structure of children’s services). It is proposed that the reviewing officer would have responsibility both for Looked after Children and for chairing Initial Child Protection Conferences. This would bring welcome independence to both processes.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
- One full-time Team Manager post to act as Independent Reviewing Officer
- 0.5 fte External Independent Reviewing Officer for contentious cases.
- One full time administrative post
- Supervisory support from reciprocal arrangements with UK local authority
- A budget currently exists to pay for the ‘part-time’ arrangement and it is proposed that this is retained within this area to pay for support to the main IRO during periods of annual leave, sick leave, or whilst they are at conferences or on training.
Timescale –implemented by June 2009.
The existing arrangements could be moved under the ‘Governance’ section very quickly.
Establish ‘J’ Category status for IRO post by January 2009
The IRO and administrative support posts would be advertised as soon as the proposal was approved and it is likely that the administrative post could be filled relatively quickly (within three months) whilst the main IRO post may take up to six months from the establishment of J category status.
Recommendation 5 | Establish group representing users of remodelled Children’s Service |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £176,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Establish group representing users of remodelled Children’s Service
Existing Services
There is currently no Independent Visitor scheme or Advocacy Service for Looked After Children. However, a similar model of service exists in other specialist areas, notably the Mencap Self-Advocacy Service. This service currently makes a substantial contribution to supporting parents with learning difficulties involved in formal child care or child protection processes. Focus on Mental Health Advocacy Service provides a similar service to the above, but for adults using the mental health services.
The Youth Service YESS project, which though a universal advice service for young people, also has an important role to play as a user friendly accessible service with a track record of engaging with young people including those who are vulnerable and disaffected.
Also relevant to this recommendation are the recent developments under the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) in terms of monitoring and informing the future development of multi-agency child protection services via mechanisms to capture and use the ‘expert’ views of service users.
- The newly formed JCPC Safeguarding Children Away from Home Sub-Committee is working on the development of a formal ‘Looked after Children Advocate role’ for those in care or who have recently left care.
- The JCPC Procedures and Audit sub-group has within its remit the responsibility to design accessible and non-threatening ways for parents and young people to have the opportunity of feeding in their views about the child protection service and process so that the JCPC can take appropriate action to achieve change and improvement.
- The JCPC Communications sub-committee is also looking at ways of making the work of the JCPC better known in the community, with one of its aims being to encourage Jersey citizens to contribute to the task of protecting children. A website is being established which will eventually provide links to self-help and voluntary representative groups which provide help to vulnerable children and families.
Other relevant bodies include:
- An Independent Board of Visitors for Greenfields which has been established under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Regulations. The role and remit of this body is attached as Appendix viii.
- Fostering Panel: made up of independent members and those drawn from relevant disciplines. The function of this Panel is to advise on the suitability of persons who apply to become Foster Carers; consider their continuing approval following annual review or any complaint, allegation or other significant change in their circumstances; and to advise on any other matter relating to the fostering service.
- Adoption/Permanence Panel: constituted in a similar way to the Fostering Panel. This body advises of the suitability of persons who apply to be adoptive or long term foster carers; considers their continuing approval as above; considers the case of any child referred to it and makes a recommendation as to whether the child should be placed for adoption; and considers proposed placements for such children and make recommendations accordingly.
(See Appendix vi for full details of both Panels)
Proposed Services
- Establish an Independent Visitor Service for Looked after Children and an Advocacy Service for children and young people.
It is proposed that a wholly independent service is established for Looked After Children, primarily (though not exclusively) for those in residential care, particularly those who do not have on-going contact with their parents. The service will comprise a paid Manager/Co-ordinator responsible for the recruitment, training and support of a group of volunteers. This team will work within a robust safeguarding framework, and will be committed to establishing contact with those children who would benefit from regular visits with a concerned and interested adult. It will be dedicated to monitoring and ensuring their well being and helping them to express their wishes and feelings by encouraging self-advocacy or advocating on their behalf and reporting any cause for concern to the Independent Reviewing Officer (see Recommendation 4).
Fortuitously an individual with recent experience of regional management of a group of projects providing services to support children and families across the south west region of England and Wales is now working (in an unrelated field) in Jersey and is willing to provide expertise and assistance in identifying an appropriate service for Jersey.
See Appendix vii for a description of these services.
2. Support self help and voluntary groups to ensure their sustainability and facilitate their development in order that they may play a part in the improvement and development of services for vulnerable children and families who use child protection services, Looked After Children and leaving care services. Health and Social Services is already in discussion with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, working towards identifying how best to support this developing group.
Rationale
Service user groups can take a number of different forms and fulfil a number of different functions. Some support and advocate on behalf of individuals, others provide a ‘voice’ for groups of individuals with pertinent personal experience in order that they may inform the quality and development of relevant services. Both these approaches have a valuable role to play in Jersey.
Whilst it is important to ensure a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to user representation it is equally important to recognise the need for differentiated services and resources. In recognising that life experiences – whether in care or elsewhere – might have engendered reticence and anxiety, some service users will only feel confident in approaching a group made up of people who have had similar experiences to their own. Equally, Looked After Children need to be afforded the opportunity to develop trusting relationships with appropriately selected and supported individuals who are wholly independent of the statutory services.
Trajectory
A scoping project needs first to take place to identify an appropriate model of independent service for Looked After Children, bearing in mind the scale of service provided, and the need for it to be wholly independent of statutory services. The independent service’s links to care service providers need to be designed carefully in order to ensure that independence is not compromised, but equally that its work can positively influence and enhance the welfare and protection of individual children in the care system. The likelihood is that the independent service will link with the Independent Reviewing Officer, themselves distanced from key service providers, (see recommendation 4)
Discussions with the Jersey Care Leavers Association are, at time of writing, at an early stage. Work with both the Jersey and national representatives will continue in order to identify the most appropriate arrangements for supporting the development of this organisation.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
5.1 Combined Independent Visitor and Advocacy Service
Timescale
December 2008: Agree appropriate model for an Independent Visitor Scheme for Looked After Children and an Advocacy Service for children and young people.
February 2009 Develop Service Role Description, Job Descriptions as appropriate. Start process of recruitment of Manager/Co-ordinator, identifying premises etc.
June 2009 on: Recruit and train volunteers, consult with service providers.
October/November 2009: Service begins.
Recommendation 6 | Refine contractual approach to external agencies e.g. NSPCC, Brig Y Don, The Bridge |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £430,000 and non recurrent costs of £59,000 and no manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Refine contractual approach to external agencies e.g. NSPCC, Brig-Y-Don, The Bridge
Existing Services
Arrangements exist in two main parts:
- The Service Level Agreement currently in place with Brig-y-Don Children’s Home is discussed in more detail under Recommendation 7.
- A range of ‘community based family support services’, currently provided under a range of differing arrangements:
- The NSPCC ‘Pathways’ Project – wholly supported and funded through the national NSPCC organisation and working with children and families in a defined catchment area in the east of the Island.
- The Bridge – houses a range of diverse services from both the voluntary and statutory sectors, who work together in one building to support families and young people. Funding is through a wide range of arrangements with much of the core operational funding being provided through charitable arrangements. The Charity “Brighter Futures”, based at the Bridge delivers a range of programmes aimed at supporting the development of parenting skills and building self-confidence and independence skills in parents. The charity is currently wholly reliant upon fund raising activities to meet the costs of its programmes. Access to the programmes is by self referral or referral by agencies such as the Children’s Service, Health Visitors, Probation, Schools, NSPCC Pathways and the Alcohol & Drugs Service. All programmes on offer are monitored and evaluated and address three areas: relationship issues within the family; self management; and building self confidence and self worth. Since September 2007, 245 referrals have been received. At present, there are 156 active clients involved in the programmes each week. The range of programmes provided makes a significant contribution to both preventing the development of family difficulties and to the resolution of existing parenting problems. The current funding arrangements are not sustainable and will require underpinning through a service level agreement in 2010.
- Grand Vaux Family Centre – a Children’s Service provision which currently brings together a variety of family support services such as: mother and child groups; fathers’ groups; early years nursery provision for the most vulnerable (Blanche Pierre Nursery); focused group work and skills development; adolescent holiday programmes; supervised contact arrangements and many more.
- Parenting and early year’s provisions which are operated under the Education, Sport and Culture Department which have their base in the Bridge.
- Milli’s Child Contact Centre, affiliated to the national body and operating on a charitable basis within a local primary school on a Sunday morning.
Proposed Services
Future proposals will be developed by the following initiatives:
- Led by the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services, a dialogue has been established with the Brig-Y-Don charity, which is aimed at changing the role of this institution to meet the needs of a developing residential service. This is further described in Recommendation 7 below.
- Officers of the Health and Social Services Department have begun discussion with senior managers of NSPCC UK with a view to that organisation undertaking a scoping project. This will identify all relevant existing resources across the Island; and in conjunction with relevant States Departments, voluntary sector providers and other interested parties, design a framework to deliver a co-ordinated Island approach. This approach will include the planning, management, monitoring and provision of support services for children and their families. It will also provide a blue-print for the development of a number of centres in key strategic locations that will provide a range of universal and targeted services to meet the needs of children and families in the community. The outcomes of this process will form part of the Children’s Plan for the Island as identified in Recommendation 2.
The scoping project will:
- consider the role and function of existing preventative and supportive services working in this sector, including The Bridge, NSPCC Pathways, Milli’s Contact Centre, Family Support Services within the Children’s Service, and the Parenting Service, and any other relevant services provided within the voluntary and independent sectors
- recommend the most efficient and effective way to develop, alter or extend existing provision to ensure that parents and children, particularly the most vulnerable, can be provided with easy to access, ‘user friendly’ support services which result in improved outcomes for children and which enable, in appropriate cases, easy transition to specialist services.
- examine arrangements for joint strategic and operational planning and make recommendations to enhance the coordination and management of services across key providers of family support services, and across specialist services including the statutory child protection agencies.
- identify gaps in provision and prioritise areas for future service development.
Rationale
There are considerable resources already allocated in the areas highlighted and these proposals will enable the opportunity to bring them together under one cohesive plan. This will provide a more accessible ‘front door’ to services necessary to support children and families who require guidance and support. These services will also enable a smooth transition to specialist services when necessary and a smooth return back to the broader based support services when the critical causes for concern have been addressed.
Current services suffer from restrictions in one way or another, including:
- limitation of resources and funding;
- limitations of having to operate within a defined ‘catchment’ area;
- a specific service only being available in ‘one centre’ with no co-ordination or flexibility to operate elsewhere;
- similarity of roles;
- confusion for service users.
A co-ordinated service should be able to provide multiple services that take advantage of the range of funding options that would be available to them: high level ‘specialist’ and ‘targeted’ services provided using statutory funding; lower level ‘universal’ provisions provided from charitable funding streams.
The combined service would also be able to take a flexible approach to resource allocation at any one time to take account of the varying and seasonal pressures that inevitably exist in these areas of functioning.
Trajectory
The scoping project is likely to take three months from commission to report. There will be a need for considerable consultation and discussion with all partner agencies in the charitable and statutory sectors to ensure that any subsequent proposals are fully understood and supported.
This development will require high level political and chief officer support (from a range of statutory services) together with significant commitment from those currently operating in the wide ranging community provisions that would be involved.
There will also be the need to involve unions and staff representative groups in any discussions as there is a range of staff from many and varied organisations involved.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
If the recommendations which emerge suggest that better services and better value can be achieved through re-structuring management arrangements, then current funding arrangements and budgets allocated to both statutory and charitable operations would need to be reviewed and evaluated. These will be built in to new Service Level Agreement(s) that will be required of the eventual service provider(s).
6.1 Development funding to undertake a scoping project.
6.2 The Bridge has a range of services which are funded by a charitable organisation but are not viable in the long term. After full review, the appropriate services will need funding by revenue budgets and service contracts.
6.3 Milli’s Contact Centre currently receives no funding but will need a service level agreement to ensure its sustainability.
Timescale
- Agreement for ‘scoping project’ by end of December 2008.
- Scoping Project implemented January to March 2009 – report by June 2009.
- Consultation on recommendations/proposals – June to -September 2009.
- Final ‘blueprint’ by October 2009.
5. October 2009 on - implementation
Recommendation 7 | Consider future role of children’s residential homes |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £900,000, capital surplus of circa £400,000 and 17FTE manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Consider future role of children’s residential homes with a possible minor redesign of Greenfields to develop a range of services available at Greenfields
Existing Services
The Children’s Executive has responsibility for providing residential and secure care for children in Jersey. The secure facility is a purpose built unit based on the Greenfields site which opened in October 2006. It provides secure care for young people from 10 years of age up to the statutory school leaving age. Young people can be placed there on remand from the Youth Court or via a Secure Accommodation Order which is granted for welfare reasons through the Royal Court. Two other residential units at Heathfield and La Preference each provide residential care for a maximum of ten residents.
Brig-Y-Don Children’s Home, which is run by a charity and operates outside of the Children’s Executive, provides residential care for a maximum of nine children. The unit has traditionally dealt with younger (primary school age) children.
The provision of structured residential support for young people over school leaving age has been provided through a range of provisions: some young people who have been resident in one of the above units have chosen to stay there until they reach adulthood; others have been supported into hostel accommodation provided by the Jersey Association for Youth and Friendship (JAYF - a local charity with four hostels for young people who are working or are in full time education). In addition to this the Children’s Service has operated a ‘homeless young people’s hostel’ in St Mark’s Road, which provides for young people who cannot be supported in any other way.
Proposed Services
The investment in fostering and adoption services and the focus on ‘preventative’ work with young people has seen a significant reduction in the total number of Looked After Children. This has had a knock on effect on the number in residential care. The last two years has seen a reduction from 42 to 21 and further decreases are predicted.
A small number of young people will continue to require residential care. However, the emphasis of new services will be upon flexibility and, where possible, prevention of reception into care. This will involve the creation of a designated team to respond to emergency situations in the community.
Intensive Support Team
An Intensive Support Team will be available from 7.00 a.m. – 10.00 p.m. for seven days a week. These workers, alongside colleagues from other services, will have the ability to respond quickly and effectively to any assessed need in the community.
Residential Care
It is expected that the need for residential child care beds will reduce from 29 to 15 by the end of 2009. Residential Units will therefore be configured as follows:
Two 6 bedded and one three bedded residential unit will be provided.
One of the 6 bedded units will be Brig-Y-Don. This will be provided by entering into revised contractual arrangements, whereby their current building will be upgraded to provide suitable accommodation.
Consideration needs to be given to the possibility of using some of the current residential stock or seeking to release capital from the selling of these properties to allow for the purchase of another 6 bedded property.
The small three bedded residential home will deliver a flexible response to given need. This could, for instance, provide a ‘home base’ if a sibling group had to be admitted to residential care. It could also provide a ‘supported living’ arrangement for older children who require a level of independent living. The base for this unit has already been identified and can be located at the ’White House’ on the Greenfields site.
Secure Care
Greenfields will continue to provide secure care for young people of school age. A proposed change in the Law, however, would allow for young people of a similar age to be ‘sentenced’ to Greenfields from the Criminal Court. This means that young people between the age of 10 and school leaving age could be accommodated at Greenfields under the following categories:
- Subject to a Secure Accommodation Order
- Subject to a “Sentence” from the Criminal Court
- Subject to remand from the Criminal Court
Further consideration will need to be given for the provision of secure care for young people aged 16–18 years, who are currently based at HMP La Moye. However, Andrew Williamson, in his report, recommended that Greenfields should accommodate only those young people below 16 years of age. Therefore no provision has been made in this plan for the development of services for 16-18 year olds serving custodial sentences or placed on remand. The Howard League for Penal Reform report makes recommendations in this area which are outside the scope of this plan.
Care Leavers & over 16s
Provision for young people leaving care and for those over 16 years old who are homeless will be enhanced through the following initiatives:
- Discussion will take place with the Jersey Association for Youth and Friendship or another appropriate service provider on the possibility of their opening a fifth hostel. This will possibly utilise the current St Mark’s Hostel building or a similar one provided through Property Holdings. The proposed new service would work alongside the Leaving Care and Adolescent Team to support care leavers towards achieving their independence.
- The Fostering and Adoption Team will continue to work towards the development of supported lodging arrangements for care leavers and other vulnerable young people.
- St Mark’s Hostel for homeless young people, as it currently exists, will be decommissioned and its staff and financial resources utilised in a more flexible and effective way. A staff team will be retained to provide outreach support in the community, and a budget established for the spot purchase of accommodation for this client group.
- Discussion will take place with the Shelter Trust with a view to exploring their potential to develop a resource providing emergency accommodation for 16 to 25 year olds.
Residential Child Care Officers (RCCO’s)
The staff in La Preference and Heathfield Children’s Homes, Greenfields Secure Unit and St Mark’s Hostel are all Residential Child Care Officers. This pay group’s terms and conditions of employment are already under review. This will need to take account of any new or amended arrangements resulting from the above proposals. The altered and more flexible working practices will have resource implications.
Rationale
H&SS has invested heavily in fostering and adoption services over recent years in recognition that family based care is the best option for young people. This investment has seen a significant reduction in the number of looked after children requiring residential care and is expected to result in further reductions in these areas.
It is anticipated that between 20% and 25% of the Looked After Child population will require residential support over the coming years. On current numbers, this would indicate the need for residential provision for approximately 15 school age children.
There is an additional group of young people who may become homeless once they have left school and their family home is no longer appropriate, for whatever reason. Some of these young people are able to thrive in the current JAYF provisions, but others require additional levels of support. It is this latter group who would potentially benefit from any new arrangements with JAYF and the Shelter Trust.
Trajectory
Phase one will require the following:
- Vacating the White House on the Greenfields site - this will require the relocation of three staff who currently use this building for office space.
- Conclude negotiations with the Brig-Y-Don Committee.
- Enter into negotiations with JAYF and the Shelter Trust over the potential for expanding their service provision to meet some of the identified needs.
- Confirm the scope for any new legislation for the sentencing of young people to Greenfields.
- Dependent on the outcomes of current discussions regarding the future role and function of Greenfields, identify the possible building or operational changes which might be required at Greenfields or on another appropriate site, to accommodate the young people subject to custodial sentence.
Dependent on the outcome of the above, phase two would require the following:
- Move up to three young people from La Preference to the White House.
- Move any remaining young people from Brig-y-Don to La Preference.
- Commence refurbishment of Brig-y-Don as a six bedded unit.
- Purchase or refurbish appropriate property to become second six bedded unit.
- Conclude discussions and negotiations with staff and Union over amendments to terms and conditions of service of Residential Child Care Officer pay group.
- Develop new Intensive Support Team.
Dependent on the outcome and success of all the above, then phase three would require the following:
- Movement of any remaining young people from La Preference to the refurbished Brig-y-Don.
- Closure and sale of La Preference Children’s Home.
- Movement of young people from Heathfield to new six bedded unit.
- Closure and sale of Heathfield Children’s Home.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
Current resources involved in these developments:
- Grant funding to Brig-y-Don.
- The capital receipt of Heathfield and La Preference.
- Creation of Intensive Support Team.
- Applied Behaviour Analyst post to work in Intensive Support Team.
- Settling of review of terms and conditions of service of RCCO pay group.
- Refurbishment of Brig-y-Don building.
- Building renovations to the White House, Greenfields site.
- Refurbishment of Heathfields.
- Acquisition of new residential unit.
- Video link between Magistrates Court and Greenfields Secure Unit.
- Transfer of Brig-Y-Don staff to H&SS employees.
Timescale
Phase one:
- December 2008 - Re-locate staff from White House.
- December 2008 – Agree service principles with Brig-y-Don.
- December 2008 – Agree service principles with JAYF and the Shelter Trust
- December 2008 – Political decision finalised regarding possible amendments to the Criminal Justice, Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994 affecting the sentencing of young people. There may also need to be consideration of our obligations under several international conventions.
Phase two:
- January 2009 onwards- re-locate young people between residential units (including the White House at Greenfields site) as necessary.
- April 2009 – Conclude discussions with staff and Union over terms and conditions of employment for RCCO’s.
- June 2009 – Create ‘Intensive Support Team’.
- July 2009 – Purchase or refurbish second six bedded unit.
- September 2009 – Move any remaining young people from Brig-y-Don to other units and commence refurbishment of Brig-y-Don.
Phase three:
- October 2009 – New arrangements in place with JAYF, Shelter Trust, or another organisation – planned closure of St Mark’s Hostel in current form.
- January 2010 – Move young people from Heathfield to new 6 bedded unit.
- September 2010 – Complete refurbishment of Brig y Don
- October 2010 – Move any remaining young people from La Preference to Brig-y-Don.
- October 2010- Sell redundant residential homes.
Recommendation 8 | Develop a new management structure to ensure all services – Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), Youth Action Team (YAT), Youth Service and Schools contribute to wellbeing of children and young people |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £1.2M, non recurring costs of £360,000 and 15FTE manpower implications. |
Recommendation
Develop a new management structure to ensure all services – CAMHS, YAT, Youth Service and Schools contribute to wellbeing of children and young people
Existing Services
Services that currently support vulnerable young people and their families are managed in a number of different directorates across Health & Social Services (H&SS) and other States Departments. The existing directorate structure of H&SS is shown in appendix ii. Currently, Paediatric Services and the Child Development Centre (CDC) are contained within the Directorate of Medicine; Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and Psychological Services are managed within the Mental Health Directorate, the Children’s Service including child protection, home finding, residential services and family support reside within the Social Services Directorate along with fostering and adoption services and children’s special needs services. Other services supporting vulnerable children, such as the Youth Action Team and Residential and Secure Accommodation Services are managed within the Children’s Executive whilst Health Visitors and School Nursing Services are provided by the charitable organisation, Family Nursing & Home Care Inc. (FNHC). Many other services relevant to vulnerable children and their families currently reside within the Department of Education Sport and Culture and the Home Affairs Department.
Proposed Services
A new management, governance and planning structure will be devised as illustrated in appendix iii. The new Children’s Directorate will bring together all the children’s services mentioned above and will be the conduit by which all issues relating to vulnerable children and their families are managed. The new Directorate will encompass children’s social care and social work services which are currently managed within Social Services and the Children’s Executive. Thereon, in a phased programme of change these will be joined by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and the Speech and Language Therapy Service, which, though a service for all ages, works primarily with children. To these will be added all community based and acute child health services from within the Health and Social Services Department, followed by further consideration being given to how the work of Health Visitors and School Nurses (currently part of FNHC) can be more effectively integrated. Further development of children’s health services will take account of the need for specialist health, psychological and therapeutic interventions. This will include:
- Services to meet the needs of vulnerable children especially those affected by abuse and other traumatic events, family breakdown and threatened reception into care.
- Improving mental health awareness and training across all agencies working with children.
- Development of early psychological intervention in relation to infant mental health, parenting, attachment disorders and neurological development.
- Specialist learning disabilities psychology service.
- Therapeutic services including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
This represents a substantial and ground breaking development bringing together as it does children’s social care and health services under one management structure.
Existing resources will be re-configured and re-aligned to create the necessary senior management structure. One additional management post – that of Service Manager, Children’s Acute & Community Health Service will be created in order to provide the specialist leadership required to effectively plan and co-ordinate across this wide range of health services and activities, both within the General Hospital and in the community.
The social work posts within all the component parts of the new structure will then need to be reviewed and re-evaluated in order to ensure a consistency of standard, robust governance arrangements, address current recruitment and retention difficulties and ensure appropriate levels of supervision and support to staff at all levels.
Additionally, in seeking to bridge the ‘divide’ between acute hospital based services and the community, it is proposed that the role of Liaison Health Visitor is created, working under the direction of the Consultant Community Paediatrician, in liaison with the Lead Children’s Nurse, to address issues of child protection arising on Robin Ward, or as a result of children and families presenting at Accident and Emergency. This specialist role would provide specialist knowledge into these areas, and enhance continuity of care across services and out into the community.
It is also proposed that current arrangement of medical support and advice for Looked After Children, Fostering and Adoption, is developed alongside the new role of Staff Nurse, Looked After Children (LAC). This is in order to provide a dedicated service to meet the often complex health needs of this vulnerable group. The post holders will also provide guidance, support and advice on health needs and health care to residential child care staff, foster carers and others. It is proposed that a new multi-disciplinary liaison group is established to lead and co-ordinate developments aimed at improving the health of looked after children. The group would comprise senior representatives from relevant service areas including adoption and fostering, psychology, residential and secure, community paediatrics, Medical Adviser (LAC) and the LAC nurse.
The Children’s Services Directorate will liaise with other States Departments regarding such issues relating to vulnerable children and families, working within the agreed objectives of the proposed Children and Young People’s Plan via the Children’s Services Board. A Children’s Plan for Jersey will be crucial to achieving greater co-ordination and co-operation across all relevant areas. Work is underway on such a plan, which will incorporate identified outcomes, principles, priorities, high level actions, performance indicators and targets for all services. An important aspect of this work will be to take the views of service users – particularly children and young people – into account in improving and designing services for the future. The NSPCC which has considerable experience and knowledge in strategic planning of this nature has been engaged to support this process. To further develop and sustain multi-agency planning and working a new body, provisionally called the Children’s Services Board and comprising senior manager representatives of key agencies, will be established with the explicit remit of implementing the Children’s Plan and supporting on-going joint planning and delivery of services. This Board will report to the Health and Social Services Minister in their role as the Minister responsible for services to vulnerable children.
A Director of Social Work will join the Corporate Directorate of H&SS to work alongside the Medical Director and Director of Nursing & Governance. This individual will oversee the Social Work profession provided across all three operational directorates (Adult, Mental Health and Children) ensuring that governance and service standards are maintained via internal validation and external independent inspection.
Rationale
This plan gives a new coherence to the full range of services which support vulnerable young people and their families by creating a Directorate of Children’s Services. As a consequence it is deemed that a Directorate for Adult Community Services is required to assist in the delivery of community services. This Directorate will be necessary to operate in a far more effective and comprehensive manner if the older people’s agenda in Jersey is to be better managed into the future. The other structural changes are resultant upon implementation of the Williamson recommendations and represent revisions of the H&SS structure to improve synergies.
Trajectory
This will require an intensive amount of work as restructuring of directorates is a complex endeavour. Most arrangements are internal to the Department; however, negotiation will need to occur with FNHC regarding the transfer of Health Visitors and School Nurses to the new Children’s Directorate.
There will also need to be urgent consideration given to how best to address the high number of qualified social work vacancies which currently exist across all social work specialisms but particularly in children’s work.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
New Directorate Costs
The creation of the Children’s Services Directorate within H&SS will result in additional resources being required in terms of infrastructure and support service costs. Dependent on new structure, the accommodation needs of the various ‘parts’ of any newly formed directorate(s) will have to be addressed. Services are already stretched within current provision and additional office accommodation will be required.
- Service Manager Children’s Acute & Community Health Services
- Medical Adviser (LAC) – 3 (4.5hr) sessions of GP time per week
- Staff Nurse, Looked After Children
- Liaison Health Visitor
- Psychological Assessment & Therapy Services for children
- Child Protection Senior Practitioner
- Children in Care/Need Social Worker
Costs associated with planning and co-ordination across Ministries
- Cost of NSPCC support for Children’s Plan development
- Executive Officer, Children’s Services Board
Timescale
- Create Directorate of Children’s Services
Phase 1: confirm constituent parts and management structure for new Directorate of Children’s Services within the overall newly developed organisational structure for H&SS by December 2008. Renew Social Work job descriptions and submit for evaluation.
Phase 2: integration of Children’s Executive Service with Children’s Service within Social Services and development of working protocols with key partners in the delivery of current Youth Action Team services - March 2009.
Phase 3: Fully implement new management structure for Directorate of Children’s Services -June 2009.
Phase 4: Integrate Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and Psychological Assessment & Therapy Services for children and young people into Directorate of Children’s Services -August 2009
Phase 5: Integrate Paediatric Services, Child Development Service and Speech and Language Service into Children’s Services Directorate -October 2009
Phase 6: Establish arrangements with FNHC for management of Health Visitors and School Nurses - December 2009
- Co-ordination of Services across Ministries
- Children & Young People’s Plan for Jersey - Completion June 2009
- Establish Children’s Services Board: -September 2009
Recommendation 9 | Develop whistle blowing policy for all staff |
| |
Resource Implications | Achieved within existing resources. |
Recommendation
Develop whistle blowing policy for all staff
Existing Services
The current Policy on Serious Concerns provides for employees to raise concerns about issues which they believe are contrary to the public interest. Advice is given that the employee should normally raise the concern with their line manager or in more serious cases with a more senior manager or Chief Officer. It also suggests that the Chief Internal Auditor may be contacted in certain circumstances. There is no avenue for an internal appeal, but there is provision for an external referral to the appropriate Minister, a professional organisation, a legal representative or to the police.
Areas in the current policy which need to be reviewed are:
- Timescales for resolution of the concern.
- A widening of the policy to include ‘workers’ (who may not be ‘employees’)
- The inclusion of an independent, external, person/body to oversee the process.
- Advice on the handling of ‘anonymous’ and ‘off the record’ statements
The current policy would also benefit from being re-written in a clearer, more succinct style.
Legal Issues
There is no legislation in Jersey specifically to protect employees/workers who make a public interest disclosure. In the UK, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) offers protection to the whistleblower provided that the disclosure is proportionate and in relation to one of the specified subjects of public concern. This means that in the UK it would be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee who makes a protected disclosure. In Jersey there is protection against unfair dismissal, but there is a six month qualifying period which would exclude a number of individuals on commencement of employment together with any individual who is not an ‘employee’.
Proposed Services
The policy has already been re-written in a more succinct style, including indicative timescales for resolution of concerns. A suitable independent person/organisation is being sought to provide the assurance that all concerns raised by those who work for the States of Jersey are tackled in an open, timely and transparent way. The Comptroller and Auditor General, has indicated that he may be prepared to be considered for this role.
Clear advice has been included in the policy about how to handle anonymous and ‘off the record’ statements. The advice is that anonymity cannot be guaranteed and that even though an individual may not want to put their name publicly to an allegation, it will not always be possible to guarantee their wishes. They will be advised of this at the outset before they decide to proceed with their complaint. Once the updated policy has been agreed a programme of training and familiarisation will take place.
Rationale
The new whistle blowing policy will apply to all staff groups across all ministries. However, it is also important that these new arrangements encompass policies to ensure that children, young people and their families are able to come forward if they have concerns about the standards of care and professional practice which they are receiving. This has been addressed in Recommendation 5.
However, the Howard League for Penal Reform may well recommend a very specific conduit by which children in the Youth Justice System and their families are able to make representation through an independent third party, should they have grievances or problems which they do not feel are being dealt with adequately through normal political and administrative channels. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the Howard League findings in this regard.
Trajectory
Following internal consultation across States Departments for comment, the whistle blowing policy will be considered by the States Employment Board for ratification.
Resource Implications
Achievable within existing resources.
Timescale
Ratified policy in place by April 2009.
Recommendation 10 | Develop a link between the Greenfields Secure Unit and La Moye Youth Offenders Wing with the Jersey Child Protection Committee to ensure that the safeguarding responsibilities are maintained |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £176,000, non recurrent costs of £22,000 and manpower implications of 2FTE. |
Recommendation
Develop a link between the Greenfields Secure Unit and La Moye Youth Offenders Wing with the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) to ensure that the safeguarding responsibilities are maintained.
Existing Services
The JCPC is the multi-disciplinary body charged with advising the States of Jersey on child protection issues with particular respect to inter-agency and inter-professional roles. It ensures that robust arrangements are in place for services and professionals to work together effectively to provide accessible, seamless services and prompt appropriate response to child maltreatment. Within the scope of its delegated roles and tasks, the JCPC is the body which agrees and publicises strategy for multi-agency child protection processes and develops policies and procedures based on best practice. It provides training to raise awareness and support best practice. It also has a role in reviewing serious cases and unexpected child deaths in order that learning derived from studying such cases can be used to improve services and practice.
Greenfields Secure Unit currently operates under the umbrella of the Children’s Executive. The Young Offenders Institute (YOI) is operated under the Home Affairs Department. The Prison Governor or his designate, currently the Deputy Governor responsible for YOI, sits on the JCPC. However, there is currently no representative of children’s residential and secure services on the JCPC.
Proposed Services
JCPC arrangements to enhance its abilities to ensure that safeguarding responsibilities are maintained will be as follows:
- The redesign of the Children’s Executive (Recommendation 2) will lead to the operational arrangements for that body coming under the remit of an integrated Children’s Directorate within H&SS. A review of representation within the newly formed directorate should see a more direct representation from the lead manager for residential/secure services. This will create a firmer link with the JCPC, recognising the unique vulnerability of children cared for away from home.
The JCPC Procedures and Audit Sub-Committee, working as appropriate with the Safeguarding Children Living Away From Home Sub-Committee will be asked to make recommendations to the JCPC about safeguarding procedures. The Safeguarding Children Living Away from Home sub-committee is in the process of making detailed recommendations with respect to children in care and those who have recently left care, especially those in secure accommodation or custody. This will ensure that they have avenues for seeking help if they are experiencing, or are at risk of, any form of maltreatment, whether from staff, other residents, family members or others with whom they come into contact.
Recommendations regarding the development of safeguarding arrangements for looked after children and those in the YOI will take account of the following:
- The need to establish a complaints system which ensures that the young people are confident that there will be no adverse impact on themselves if they make a complaint.
- The need to ensure that young people living away from home have access to independent advice and advocacy when they require it. (see Recommendation 5)
- The need to ensure that any incidents of harm are reported to the JCPC Serious Case Review Sub-Committee so that appropriate action can be taken where necessary. This will entail building on existing formal arrangements for monitoring self-harm and violent incidents between young people. This includes monitoring the use of restraint and/or Therapeutic Crisis Interventions (TCI) between staff and young people across children’s residential care, including secure accommodation. Arrangements currently exist whereby the Therapeutic Interventions Advisor, who is a member of the H&SS Governance Team, reviews all such incidents within Children’s Homes and Secure Accommodation. It is proposed that the Advisor’s remit is extended to include notification to the JCPC of any cause for concern. An annual report for the JCPC will be produced on the use of TCI, its frequency, appropriateness, proportionality, staff awareness, training issues and any learning emerging from review and analysis of incidents. It is intended that the YOI adopt the same procedures for reporting to the JCPC.
- The need to create an effective link between the Greenfields Board of Visitors and the JCPC. This will ensure that issues of concern surrounding the welfare and protection of children at the unit are promptly notified. The Board has agreed to this arrangement, and formal links will be put in place shortly. In future, the Board will also submit a copy of their annual report to the JCPC for their review.
- The JCPC currently has no dedicated resources of its own to support its work or to ensure effective communication and co-ordination across a complex range of activities, processes and services. The following resources have been identified as being essential to the Committee’s ability to effectively fulfil its role:
- Establish Independent Chair on a permanent basis.
- Create a post of Professional Officer to the JCPC. This key member of staff will work closely with the Chair and will have oversight of the day to day work of the JCPC and co-ordinate the work of the sub-committees. They will be the contact point for all correspondence by professionals and the public. They will receive any complaints and be the first point of notification for the possible need for a Child Death Review or a Serious Case Review.
- Create post of secretary/administrative assistant to the JCPC Chair, professional officer and the existing training officer.
Rationale
Andrew Williamson, in his report, stated that Greenfields “should be extended to provide necessary services for all those under the age of 16 years”. He then went on to acknowledge that the issue of placing young people between the ages of 16-18 years were “complex”.
The Howard League for Penal Reform accepted an invitation to visit Jersey in May 2008 to look at the provision of services for young people in remand or in custody. Their report will undoubtedly have an impact on future service design.
The exact nature of any arrangements will be impacted by the final structure of the Children’s Directorate and by the final determination of the age range of the resident populations of each unit.
The JCPC has an island-wide remit for safeguarding the welfare of all children and young people and is, therefore, the appropriate body to ensure that robust arrangements are in place.
Trajectory
The JCPC Chair will enter further discussion with the bodies previously identified to develop the safeguarding links. The recruitment process for the posts described above is currently underway.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
10.1 JCPC Resources: Professional Officer to JCPC.
10.2 Secretary/Administrative Assistant.
10.3 Budget to cover costs of Independent Chair, work of sub-Committees, specialist training, communication and publications, costs of review processes:
Expenses for the work of the sub-committees not covered as part of the day to day work of those taking part, e.g. costs of providing Training Opportunities brochure. Costs associated with any specialist training events that cannot be funded by charging attendance fees. Costs associated with communications (e.g. publishing and dissemination of procedures documents, Annual Report, web-site development). Costs and other resources associated with audit, serious case reviews and complaints and expenses and fees of the Independent Chair.
Timescale
JCPC developments:
Formal link between Greenfields Board of Visitors and JCPC from January 2009
Formal link between YOI and JCPC from January 2009
Appoint Professional Officer and Administrative Assistant – by March 2009
Procedures and Audit Sub- Committee to undertake review of child protection procedures at YOI & Greenfields - by March 2009
JCPC to receive recommendations for action from Safeguarding Children Living Away from Home Sub-Committee by May 2009:
May to year end 2009: Implementation of agreed recommendations.
Recommendation 11 | Replace the present Emergency Duty system which uses the Police Service by one which uses 24 hour Health and Social Services availability |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £163,000, non recurrent costs of £2,000 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation
Replace the present Emergency Duty system which uses the Police Service by one which uses 24 hour Health and Social Services availability
Existing Services
The Children’s Service has a statutory responsibility to deal with a range of complex issues including child protection, children in care and children in need. As part of that service, it is necessary to provide a 24 hour emergency service in order to respond to extreme situations which may arise within families and put a child at risk.
The current service is provided by trained and qualified Social Workers who operate a rota for 365 days of the year. The practicalities of this arrangement mean that one Officer is assigned to do this duty each and every evening from close of business at 5.00 p.m. through to 8.30 a.m. the next morning. It also operates to cover the weekend shifts from 4.30 p.m. on a Friday to 8.30 a.m. on the following Monday. Officers taking part in the rota will already have completed their normal day time duties, the out of hours service being in addition to them completing their 37 hours work per week. The service currently relies upon a high level of good will from relevant staff.
Access to the service is through one of two routes:
- Through contacting the Police Station and asking to speak to the Children’s Duty Officer; or through the Police becoming involved in a criminal investigation, which involves a child or children, where they feel that specialist support from a Children’s Social Worker is required.
- Through contacting the General Hospital switchboard and asking to speak to the Duty Officer.
The first route is by far and away the best understood and most frequently used and, from the Duty Officer’s point of view, it is often the preferable route as there is then an element of ‘filtering’ that is done by police staff before calls are put through to Social Workers.
Access through the second route is simply that – the ‘routing’ (without asking any questions) of all calls for the Children’s Duty Officer. The Social Worker first hears of any issue when they speak directly to the client.
Proposed Services
The service required is both unpredictable and complex in its requirements. Social Workers have to respond at all times of the day and night to difficult situations. The experience of current operations identifies that they are often required to respond to live and active child protection issues, which may also necessitate a child or children being received into care in the most stressful of circumstances.
Because of the difficult nature of this working environment, it is increasingly essential that the Social Workers have the benefit of an effective ‘filtering’ system prior to their receiving calls and they also need appropriate and guaranteed access to senior staff who are able to support and advise as situations develop.
As previously stated, the current system of contact through Police Headquarters is felt to be appropriate for any calls that may come via that route. The system of calls coming through the General Hospital needs to be redesigned and consideration given to whether this is more appropriately delivered via the combined fire and ambulance control room. These staff have skills related to emergency triage. In either circumstance, enhanced and improved training for the staff receiving calls ‘out of hours’ will be necessary so that it is tailored to meet the needs of these clients. This will provide an effective ‘filtering’ system whereby the staff ask some very deliberate and careful questions to confirm that the matter is an ‘emergency’ and that other options for dealing with the presenting situation have been adequately explored, before it is forwarded to the Duty Officer.
Once such a mechanism is in place then promotional materials and internet links will be produced which explain the service and the alternative referral routes.
In line with best practice, it is imperative that an appropriately resourced and funded out of hours ‘management rota’ is established. This will ensure that a senior member of staff (Senior Practitioner or Manager) is on call for each evening or weekend shift and is guaranteed to be available to Duty Officers for support and advice. This will require the removal of Senior Practitioners from the duty officer rota and will necessitate additional staff to replace them on that rota.
Consideration also needs to be given to an appropriate means of delivering 24/7 support to a growing number of Foster Carers and Adoptive Families. They can, of course, access the Duty Officer through the methods outlined above, but the support they may require is likely to be very specific. It is in this area that Andrew Williamson’s proposal (paragraph 10.1.1) to explore the support that residential/secure services may be able to provide could be of maximum benefit. These services are already manned on a 24/7 basis and could be ‘available’ to meet this specialist need.
Rationale
Children’s Social Workers have operated the current service for many years during which time the number and complexity of calls have increased considerably. A ‘back-up’ management system has never formally existed. This situation cannot continue as it creates an unacceptable risk for clients and the Duty Officers. The issue of vulnerability of out of hours emergency duty systems were highlighted in a national report by Lord Laming in 2003, which made recommendations in response to the death of Victoria Climbié. It made specific recommendations in respect of the need for designated, qualified, officers to provide 24 hour emergency cover supported by named senior managers who would be available and accountable.
Andrew Williamson, in paragraph 10.1.1 of is report, also states that the department should “ensure [the provision of] an effective on call rota for senior managers to support the on call system”.
The situation in Jersey is unlikely to require the development of a ‘designated team’ as the UK model for this tends towards ‘stand alone’ teams which require up to six officers, and a dedicated manager (to cover the 6,652hours required); and would cost in the region of £294,000 to implement. The level of ‘activity’ on the current systems would certainly not support the need for this level of investment in a service that would be ‘dormant’ for long periods.
A ‘local’ version can be created by a re-organisation and strengthening of the current arrangements with the introduction of a management rota with modest additional staff.
The development of a ‘specialist’ service to support Foster Carers and Adoptive Families, through the existing residential/secure provisions, could also provide a cost effective and efficient support to the main service. This should ensure that only appropriate calls are forwarded to the Duty Officer.
Trajectory
Discussions will be required with hospital and fire and ambulance control in order to identify the staff and supervisors that operate the appropriate switchboard through any 24hr cycle. Those staff would need consultation, support, guidance and training so as to be effective in their new ‘filtering’ role.
This same process will be required with residential care staff so as they are fully involved in the development of the fostering and adoption support initiative.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
It is necessary to ensure that the current duty rota is sufficiently resourced to respond to predicted activity.
11.1 Additional resource for fire and ambulance control/ switchboard to provide out of hours caller response.
11.2 Additional resource for management rota.
11.3 Additional resource for duty rota.
11.4 Additional costs are in the areas of training and promotional materials to support Foster Carers and Adoptive families.
Timescale
The management rota would be created by removing Senior Practitioner Social Workers from the existing rota and by including Team and Service Managers into the new rota. The best time for this will always be at the very beginning of any year as this is when new rotas are devised and circulated.
Providing the necessary resources were available, both rotas could be in place for January 2009 and the training and support of switchboard and residential/secure staff are likely to require a three month period of consultation and negotiation with the relevant staff groups before they could be implemented.
Appropriate promotional materials would then be designed, printed and put in place once the fully developed system was ready to operate.
Further recommendations from Williamson Report A | Develop individual Training Plans for members of staff (ref: 10.10.1 & 11.9) |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £307,000, non recurrent costs of £2,000 and manpower implications of 1FTE. |
Recommendation
Design a training and development programme for the individual member of staff that is based on access to good quality supervision/mentoring and [hence, leads to] the design of a development plan for the individual rather than an annual training programme for all staff.
Existing Services
Social Services (Adult Services, Children’s Service and the Special Needs Service) currently has a training budget of approximately £70,000 which has to meet the needs of over 300 staff, of different disciplines, spread across the three service areas. A substantial proportion of these monies are invested in supporting two locally recruited individuals per annum to become qualified social workers.
Each team or unit manager identifies the training needs within their own area of responsibility. This is based upon information from individual’s supervision and Performance Review and Appraisal (PRA), together with operational training requirements such as first aid, manual handling, health & safety, etc.
The provision of training is prioritised as follows:
- Operational training issues;
- Professional training needs for employment and/or registration (examples: NVQ for residential and support staff, Post Qualifying Awards for Social Workers);
- Training needs to support recruitment (example: supporting local students on the Degree in Social Work courses);
- Individual needs in a specific area.
Other opportunities for training include:
- Health & Social Services provides support to NVQ’s but only in health related areas (not for Children & Young People award).
- Some specialist professional areas within H&SS have access to separate training opportunities (Nurses, Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists, etc).
- There is support centrally for some manual handling and Physical Intervention training needs but this is not comprehensive and still relies upon specialist staff in the operational areas to facilitate the courses.
- The Jersey Child Protection Committee has a Child Protection Trainer who provides a range of courses, for all those involved in working with children. However, this does not meet the specialist needs of those operating in front line statutory services.
- Central States Training provides an annual programme, although this is targeted at generic operational needs (Management Courses, PRA training, etc).
The Children’s Executive have their own Training Officer and a limited budget which is dedicated to delivering the programmes required across their specialist areas of residential, secure and youth justice services.
Proposed Services
Andrew Williamson has proposed a system which would require each team or unit to introduce “the Training Needs Analysis approach that has been successfully implemented in some Social Care Departments in the UK” (paragraph 10.10.2 of the Williamson Report).
He explains that “a large part of this approach is to design a training and development programme for the individual member of staff”, irrespective of their profession or area of functioning. This will take into account the needs of the service and the requirement for staff to be constantly developed in their roles.
Any new training plan needs to take account of the recently introduced statutory requirement for all Social Workers to be registered, both on the national and local registers. Registration imposes requirements upon the employer so that funding for the Post Qualification Award in Social Work is no longer optional if Jersey is to retain its ability to recruit and retain Social Workers.
The proposed plan will bring together the training officer function currently under the Children’s Executive with a new ‘Training Co-ordinator’ post. This will capitalise upon the joint expertise to develop a ‘training unit’ which will lead on delivering individual plans in a co-ordinated manner by liaising with team/unit managers in the respective areas.
This unit will require funding to purchase training packages and opportunities for staff under four defined headings:
- Staff who have a requirement for training in order to maintain their professional registration (only Social Workers at present).
- Staff from all other areas – Residential Child Care Officers, Family Support Workers, Family Centre Workers, etc.
- Professional Social Work staff who are selected for support and funding on the Post Qualification Award.
- Staff who are selected for support and funding on the Social Work degree course. This is essential in the development and maintenance of a ‘local’ pool of qualified staff to assist with recruitment and retention difficulties in these specialist areas.
Rationale
Andrew Williamson comments that “given the complex nature of much of the work undertaken by the staff of this department the individual training needs analysis approach should be considered as part of the overall drive to ensure a high standard of practice” (paragraph 10.10.2). He goes on to say in his conclusions that “there is a need to ensure these [training] programmes are coherent at the qualifying and post qualifying levels and are also individually tailored to ensure the members of staff meet the requirements for the renewal of their professional registration” (paragraph 11.9).
Recent developments, which have led to UK universities no longer seeing local applicants as resident for the purpose of subsidising course fees (Social Work Diploma/Degree and Post Qualification Award), have meant that costs in these two areas were already projected to double in the next twelve months and any resource requirement needs to take account of this fact.
Trajectory
Following the recruitment of the training coordinator, the initial task will be to develop a programme of staff development comprising:
- Training needs analysis
- Training delivery plan
- Identifying appropriate training packages
- Establish a system of evaluation and review
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
Additional funding is required for:
A.1 A Training Co-ordinator post.
A.2 A Training budget for existing staff.
Timescale
- Negotiations with JCPC over centralising training function – by end of 2008.
- Identification of location for Training Unit – by end of 2008.
- All PRA’s completed across Children’s Service and Children’s Executive – by end of 2008.
- PRA’s to be reviewed and ‘training needs’ to be identified for all staff – by end of first quarter 2009.
- Individual training plans to be in place by end of second quarter 2009.
Further recommendations from Williamson Report B | Develop a Court Advisory Service similar to CAFCASS in the UK (ref: 10.9.5) |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £351,000, non recurrent costs of £61,000 and manpower implications of 5FTE. |
Recommendation
Develop a Court Advisory Service based on the CAFCASS in the UK.
Existing Services
The Children’s and Probation Services assist the Family Division of the Royal Court in Family Court Welfare matters (separation/divorce and adoption). In relation to separation and divorce, the service is provided at two levels. Firstly, the Children’s Service attends regular Case Review Hearings (CRH) at the court in order to assist parents in agreeing future arrangements for their children, post separation. Each case review appointment involves an average of five hours of officer time, but approximately a third of cases are successfully resolved at this stage. Secondly, when agreement cannot be reached, the Children’s Service and/or the Probation Service are requested to prepare a full report. The issues in question often involve where children should live or how much contact they should have with the respective parties. These cases tend to be difficult pieces of work beset with hostility. Parties need to be interviewed both separately and in the presence of children. There are usually significant other enquiries to be made ranging from new partners, teachers, doctors and sometimes the Public Protection Unit at the SoJ Police. It is usual for the report writer to have to attend court and be cross examined. Due to the complexity and intensity of this work each report takes approximately 37 hours to complete - in effect a full week’s work.
In relation to adoption, when a child or young person is before the Court, then a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) is appointed to prepare a report making recommendations on behalf of the child. When the Children’s Service has ‘placed’ the child then a member of Probation staff completes the report. When it is a ‘step-parent adoption’ (and Children’s Service has had no previous involvement), the Children’s Service will be appointed. Again, these reports take approximately 37 hours of social worker time to complete.
CRH’s are attended by Senior Practitioner Social Workers on a rota basis and take up one day each week of officer time. Full reports take a week of main grade officer time and are allocated on a strict alternating basis between the Children's and Probation Services. It is estimated that the current combined workload is equivalent to one full-time post in each service.
Alongside these services, H&SS also provides funding to the Jersey Family Mediation Service (JFMS). This is a voluntary organisation that provides an independent intermediary service which tries to resolve complex disputes between parties, outside of the Court arena. If the dispute is solely about financial issues then the couple are charged for the service, but if it is predominantly about the welfare and care of their children, then departmental funding is required. This service works closely with the current arrangements but is also experiencing increased volumes of work.
Proposed Services
An application by the Probation Service (supported by the Children’s Service) to the Treasury and Resources Department in June this year led to the approval for an additional sum of £60,000 to be made available to the Probation Service in order to secure an additional post to support the increase in work that had been identified at that stage.
Subsequent increased demands for guardian services (see below) have led to a revision of the likely needs of this service. A new stand alone service will require appropriate resources to meet a significant increase in demand as a result of heightened awareness on the Island of children’s issues. This has led to the recognition of the importance of appropriate representation, support and scrutiny throughout all the court processes that deal with these vulnerable members of our society.
The proposal is for the creation of the Jersey Court Advisory Service. It is recommended that the Probation Board would be the appropriate responsible body to monitor the work of the service, at least through its initial phases of separation from the existing structures and development as a ‘stand alone’ service.
The service would need its own premises, a manager, social workers and admin/reception staff. It also requires appropriate funding to enable the commissioning of services from outside the island if the local practitioners were conflicted in any way in particularly contentious cases. There would also be a need for appropriate training and support funding and a mechanism for the services in Jersey and Guernsey (who already have a separate ‘Safeguarding’ service) to be mutually supportive.
Links with the Jersey Family Mediation Service would need strengthening and appropriate routes to support and fund this charity through the new service would need exploring and developing.
Rationale
In recent years there has been a significant rise in both the number of case review hearings and of full welfare reports. There has also been an increase of Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) work as the fostering and adoption initiatives have significantly increased the number of children placed locally for adoption. The introduction of the provisions of Articles 9 and 75 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (in late 2005) which allows for the appointment of a Guardian with respect to a child in ‘any proceedings’ under the Law has also had an effect on workload. Experience from the UK, when similar provisions were introduced, support the view that, once the legal system and judiciary became fully aware of the options occasioned by these articles in the Law, the demand for these services will develop even further.
This increase in work is already causing severe operational difficulties for both Services and is judged to be unsustainable. The criminal work of the Probation Service is suffering and, for the first time in recent memory, they have missed deadlines for the submission of Royal Court sentencing reports and have attracted criticism from the Law Officers Department as a consequence. It has been a significant concern to both Services that provision of core work in terms of assisting vulnerable families and children or working with offenders is being compromised by an increased workload in civil work.
Both Services also suffer from potential conflicts of interest where their prior involvement in family cases in private law (through providing this service) then compromises their ability to operate either in the Royal Court in public law care proceedings (Children’s Service) or in criminal proceedings (Probation Service). This has led to a relatively high instance of complaints from client families who struggle to understand the different roles and simply see staff as social workers irrespective of whether they are operating in their core work or as Court Welfare Officers in private law applications.
This latter issue was identified by Andrew Williamson in the relevant paragraph of his report and was one of the main reasons for his support of the development of a dedicated service which could “provide an additional level of scrutiny to a part of the Children’s Service that is often criticised and under pressure from external agencies”.
Support to the Jersey Family Mediation Service through this new initiative, would add significantly to the perception of neutrality that is a strength of the current provision.
Trajectory
Much work has already occurred between the Children’s and Probation Services with the Law Officers, the Judicial Greffe and relevant services in Guernsey. Proposals to establish a service under the Probation Board are already developing and some additional funding has been secured although more is required if this new service is to be truly effective.
Appropriate premises need to be identified and secured although, again, work has already commenced with Property Holdings to explore the availability of suitable premises within the environs of the Court buildings.
It has also been agreed that Regulations would need to be drawn up detailing the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Service, and this is something that Probation would further develop with the Law Draftsmen if the necessary funding is approved.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
B.1 1 Main grade social worker.
B.2 1 Senior Practitioner grade social worker.
B.3 1 Team Manager post.
B.4 1 Admin/reception post.
B.5 Provision of independent practitioner when conflict of interest exists.
B.6 Funding for Jersey Family Mediation Service for increased workload and development of ‘all issues’ service.
Timescale
- New job descriptions to be developed for Team Manager, Senior Practitioner and Administrative roles – by end December 2008.
- Jobs to be advertised and recruited – first quarter of 2009.
- Appropriate premises to be identified and made available – required by end of 2009
- Review of existing service arrangements with JFMS – by end December 2008.
Further recommendations C following case of “Baby P” | Lord Laming Compliance – Case management |
| |
Resource Implications | There are recurrent costs of £1M, non recurrent costs of £200,000 and manpower implications of 12FTE. |
Recommendation
Ensure that Social Worker caseload size and complexity is monitored, evaluated and where necessary reduced so that staff are effectively supported in discharging their responsibilities under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
To set a target reduction in caseload size to 12 child protection and looked after and accommodated children per Children and Families social worker and ensure sufficient legal advice is available to enable Social Workers to effectively discharge their duties.
Existing Services
One of the outcomes of the media spotlight on social services departments across the UK following the tragic death of ‘Baby P’ has been a commitment from the British Government to ask Lord Laming, who prepared an extensive report and delivered many recommendations for the improvement in services in 2003, to ‘look again’ at his recommendations and identify if they have been fully implemented in all areas.
One of the key issues that has been highlighted is the number of cases that any one social worker should hold at any one time, so as to ensure that they are able to effectively discharge their duties.
This was originally set out in general terms in Standard 3 in his report which covered ‘Allocation, Service Provision and Closure’ and stated at Recommendation 52:
‘Directors of social services must ensure that no case is allocated to a social worker unless and until his or her manager ensures that he or she has the necessary training, experience and time to deal with it properly’
The report also highlighted in a section about ‘What is expected of Councils’ at 7.2:
‘Ensure that adequate staffing and other resources are allocated to social services to enable it to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in its area. Ensure that where there are significant changes in resourcing levels or organisational structures, the associated risks are assessed’.
The work was carried forward through the production and discussion of extensive government documents like ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ and ‘Every Child Matters’ and has led to the current position where the standard being quoted is the national media is that:
‘No front-line social worker should hold more than twelve cases at any one time’.
It is acknowledged that issues like: the complexity of the case; where the case sits in terms of care planning and/or Court procedures; which ‘team’ the social worker is in and what that team’s responsibilities are (see ‘Allocation Criteria’ listed below); are all likely to have an impact. A simple analysis of the current caseload of the existing social work teams involved in case management, against the quoted standard, produces an indication of the surplus caseload that would result from introducing that standard.
Team Composition | Current Staffing | Number of Cases per worker to be ‘Laming Compliant’ | Total Caseload Capacity to be ‘Laming Compliant’ | Monthly Ave. Caseload 2007 | Balance of Cases (Plus) Minus |
Assessment & Child Protection Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 6 | 8(3) | 48 | 66 | 18 |
Senior Practitioners | 4 | 5(3) | 20 | 27 | 7 |
School Based Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 1 | 12(1) | 12 | 10 | (2) |
Senior Practitioners | 1 | 8(2) | 8 | 7 | (1) |
Child Care Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 8 | 12(1) | 96 | 143 | 47 |
Senior Practitioners | 3.5 | 8(2) | 28 | 42 | 14 |
Leaving Care Team: | | | | | |
Support Workers* | 2 | 12(1) | 24 | 22 | (2) |
Senior Practitioners | 1 | 8(2) | 8 | 13 | 5 |
TOTALS | 26.5 | | 244 | 330 | 86 |
(1), (2) & (3) : Please refer to relevant ‘Allocation Criteria’ below
Proposed Services
For the Children’s Service in Jersey to be ‘Laming Compliant’ in respect of case management, there are two key issues that need to be addressed:
1. CASELOAD ALLOCATION:
In order to establish that caseloads are of an appropriate size and are ‘compliant’ in the terms being referred to in the press, it has been necessary to carry out an analysis of the current position against a ‘Laming Compliant’ caseload and to then compare that to the ‘average monthly caseload’ for the last full year of statistical data collection (2007). This then gives a balance that can be converted into the total number of additional posts that would be required by the Children’s Service. The following calculations are made on an assumption that the additional social work resources identified in Recommendations 8 and B of the Williamson Report: Implementation Plan have been successful and are already in place.
Allocation Criteria applied to calculations:
- No front-line social worker should hold more than 12 cases at any one time.
- Senior Practitioner social workers, who generally hold the more complex cases and are required to provide both formal and informal supervision to their main grade colleagues on a regular and constant basis, should hold a reduced caseload of no more than two-thirds of that of their colleagues – 8 cases at any one time, in order that they are able to effectively discharge these additional responsibilities.
- All social workers in the Assessment and Child Protection Team (main grade and Senior Practitioners), who have to deal with both allocated cases and the assessment of all new referrals received into the Service (an average of 93 a month in 2007) should hold caseloads that are further reduced by two-thirds from their colleagues elsewhere in the Service so as to allow for these additional responsibilities: thus, 8 cases for main grade social workers and 5 cases for senior practitioner social workers.
Team Composition | Current Staffing | Caseload to be ‘Laming Compliant’ | Monthly Ave. Caseload 2007 | Balance (Plus) Minus | Additional Staff Required |
Assessment & Child Protection Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 6 | 48 | 66 | 18 | 2 |
Senior Practitioners | 4 | 20 | 27 | 7 | 1 |
School Based Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 1 | 12 | 10 | (2) | 0 |
Senior Practitioners | 1 | 8 | 7 | (1) | 0 |
Child Care Team: | | | | | |
Social Workers | 8 | 96 | 143 | 47 | 4 |
Senior Practitioners | 3.5 | 28 | 42 | 14 | 2 |
Leaving Care Team: | | | | | |
Support Workers* | 2 | 24 | 22 | (2) | 0 |
Senior Practitioners | 1 | 8 | 13 | 5 | 1 |
TOTALS | 26.5 | 244 | 330 | 86 | 10 |
* The Leaving Care Team currently utilises two ‘support workers’ (experienced but non-social work trained staff) alongside a Senior Practitioner social worker.
Conclusion:
If the Children’s Service in Jersey is to be ‘Laming Compliant’ in respect of the caseloads allocated to its social work staff, then we would need the following additional staffing resources:
4 Senior Practitioner (Social Workers) – Civil Service grade 11 posts
6 (Main Grade) Social Workers – Civil Service grade 10 posts
2. ‘IN HOUSE’ LEGAL ADVICE ON COMPLEX CASES:
The introduction of the new Children (Jersey) Law 2002, late in 2005, together with the current climate occasioned by various enquiries and reviews, has led to an unprecedented increase in the number and complexity of cases that are ‘in proceedings’ before the Family Division of the Royal Court at any one time.
The Children’s Service is currently active in 37 different applications in the Courts and the on-going volume of new referrals coming in to the Service mean that the service needs access to an ‘in house’ legal adviser who can offer support and advice from the earliest stages of complex enquiries and investigations so as to ensure the most effective outcomes.
The Law Officers have one advocate whose time is dedicated to this task but that does not allow a ‘pro-active’ stance where issues are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity and social work staff are fully supported by timely and appropriate advice, guidance and training in this most complex field.
Rationale
Following on from Andrew Williamson’s Report on child protection service in Jersey, much recent national media attention has been directed at the tragic case of ‘Baby P’ and the failings of social services in the Haringey area. This same ‘spotlight’ will inevitably be focused on local services and it is entirely appropriate that the two issues listed above are highlighted for consideration at the same time as the other Williamson recommendations.
Trajectory
Whilst it would be desirable to appoint to these posts within a short timescale it is recognised that completion of this recommendation may take up to three years due to current complexity of social worker recruitment across the United Kingdom.
Resource Implications (see appendix ix for summary of financial schedule)
C.1 Increased Senior Practitioner Social Worker Posts to deliver Lord Laming Compliant Social Work caseloads.
C.2 Increased Main Grade Social Worker Posts to deliver Lord Laming Compliant Social Work caseloads.
C.3 Increased Law Officer time to deliver legal advice to support children’s services.
Timescale
Increases in workforce of this nature need to be phased over a period of time to enable appropriate recruitment processes to take place. It is anticipated that such recruitment could be completed by the end of 2011.
Appendices
Appendix i
States of Jersey Law 2005
"29 Powers to move Ministers and to change Ministerial offices
…..
(2) The States may by Regulations –
...(c) confer functions upon a Minister;
(d) transfer all or any of the functions exercisable by one Minister to another Minister;
(3) Regulations made under paragraph (2) may contain such incidental, consequential, supplemental and transitional provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the Regulations, including provisions –
(a) for the transfer of any movable property held, any rights enjoyed and any liabilities (whether civil or criminal) incurred by the Minister in connection with any function transferred, including any such rights and liabilities in respect of which, at the time of transfer, no claim has been made or no proceedings have been commenced;
(b) for the carrying on and completion by or under the authority of the Minister to whom functions are transferred of anything commenced, before the Regulations have effect, by or under authority of the Minister from whom the functions are transferred;
(c) for the amendment of enactments relating to any functions transferred or to any Minister who is established, abolished or renamed;
(d) for the construction of enactments of the United Kingdom having effect in Jersey relating to any functions transferred or to any Minister who is established, abolished or renamed;
(e) for the construction and adaptation of any instrument, contract or legal proceedings made or commenced before the Regulations have effect;….
(4) Only the Chief Minister may lodge draft Regulations to be made under paragraph (2).".
Appendix ii
HSSD Organisational Structure 2008
Appendix iii
Proposed HSSD Organisational Structure
Post Williamson Implementation
Appendix iv
Proposed Children’s Directorate Organisational Structure
Post Williamson Implementation
Appendix v
Response of the Chairperson of the Jersey Child Protection Committee to the Andrew Williamson Inquiry into Child Protection in Jersey
Jersey
Child
Protection
Committee
Response of the Chairperson of the Jersey Child Protection Committee to the Andrew Williamson Inquiry into Child Protection in Jersey
Introduction
My letter of appointment stated that, as well as chairing meetings of the JCPC and sub-committees as appropriate I should:
‘As Chairman of the JCPC, ensure that arrangements are in place to implement any recommendations relating to multi-agency child protection arising from the Andrew Williamson Inquiry into child protection arrangements in Jersey’.
and
‘advise the three Ministers (Health and Social Services, Home Affairs, and Education, Sports and Culture) on how multi-departmental and multi-agency working with children and young adults can be improved into the future. A detailed appraisal would be timely and valuable at this particular time.’
This is my response to the Inquiry Report as Chair of JCPC with respect to the third part of the terms of my appointment. Members of JCPC have seen and had the opportunity to comment and a separate response will be submitted by the JCPC in the light of their comments. The response bears particularly on Paragraph 10.3 and 11.3 about which I was consulted, although this section goes beyond the JCPC to include the child protection service as a whole. I stress, in what follows, that the JCPC can only play a small part in ensuring that the services themselves are safe and effective, although it has an important part to play, through its members’ work in their own agencies as well as collectively, in monitoring the quality of the services, especially the specifically inter-agency aspects of child protection work.
The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry and their Interpretation
- The terms of reference were very broad, including ‘the appropriateness of the policies, advice and procedures produced by the Jersey Child Protection Committee and the Health and Social Services, Education and Home Affairs Departments’, ….’the manner in which they are followed by the departments’, and the ‘standards, experience and qualifications of staff at all levels and within all relevant departments’.
- All of these are central to the work of the JCPC. However, it appears that, following early discussions with Officers and in the light of the submissions received from the public, the broad terms of reference have been interpreted more narrowly. The main focus of the Inquiry and the Report, as with the earlier Cathy Bull report, is on older children with challenging behaviour, and the role of residential establishments, especially with reference to safeguarding and protecting the welfare of young people needing secure care. This refocusing early on in the Inquiry process appears to have happened because issues around Greenfields and the Simon Bellwood employment tribunal were being given prominence in the media and amongst civil servants and States members as the Inquiry got underway. This focus was reinforced when details came out of the police inquiry, placing residential care even more firmly in the spotlight. The increased numbers wishing to speak to the Inquiry team following the publicity around the police inquiry both delayed the Report and also may have prevented some of the evidence on wider child protection services being followed up in greater detail.
- Shortly after my appointment, it was agreed that I would be in regular contact with the Inquiry team. The Inquiry team would collect the views of anyone who wished to make a submission on any of the matters included in its terms of reference, including the functioning of the JCPC and the adequacy of multi-agency child protection processes, and immediately inform me if they received any evidence of a child having been recently significantly harmed or being currently at risk of significant harm that was not being appropriately followed up. As Chair of JCPC I would focus on the ‘policies advice and procedures’ of the JCPC and, following the report, ‘make recommendations as to how any problems identified in the Inquiry submissions could be rectified’.
- In the event, very little if any evidence was received which was specific to the functioning of the JCPC as such, and the weight of evidence was on the management and practice of Children’s social services staff and the staff coming under the remit of the Children’s Executive, especially in the residential child care sector.
- Although Children’s services staff responsible for the smooth running of the JCPC had anticipated that the Inquiry would wish to scrutinise the guidance and procedures on multi-agency child protection practice, these were not examined in detail by the Inquiry, nor, I am told, did they figure in any detail in the evidence provided.
- This has had the advantage of allowing me to get on with the ‘detailed appraisal’ referred to in the letter of appointment and to work with colleagues on the JCPC and its committees in ensuring that the JCPC has the appropriate structure and capacity to respond appropriately to any recommendations from the report.
- It was also agreed that, since Andrew Williamson and Peter Smallridge were collating any evidence with respect to the issues that had prompted the Inquiry, I would concentrate on the present functioning of the JCPC. The way in which allegations of abuse against residential child care workers had been managed in the past (para 10.3.1) quickly became part of the police inquiry and, apart from being briefed about the progress of the police inquiries, neither Andrew Williamson nor I have focused on the details. The Howard League report will comment further on the allegation that some of the containment practices at les Chenes could be considered to be abusive and I will comment following that report on any implications for the JCPC.
- A further matter that had prompted the Williamson Inquiry (10.3.1) concerned a recent Serious Case Review. It was agreed that Andrew Williamson would take any evidence relevant to this matter, from members of the public and from staff, and that I would focus with JCPC members on the development of guidelines and procedures for future reviews of serious cases. Similarly it was agreed that he would inquire into allegations of inappropriate or abusive treatment in the secure unit, and that I would not focus in any detail on safeguarding and protective services to looked after children until after the report was received.
Concerns identified by members of the public and others interviewed by the Inquiry team
- These are summarised in paras 2.10- 2.14 of the Inquiry report and also in paras 9.1, 10.1, 11.6 and11.8. In conversations with Andrew Williamson during the course of the Inquiry, I was given information on any matters of relevance to the work of JCPC and to the quality and cover of child protection work, but confidentiality was respected and details which might have identified information sources were not given. It was agreed that, unless matters that required immediate attention were raised, I would not inquire into past events but wait until the full report was received before recommending any steps to be taken with respect to any concerns identified. The advert seeking evidence appears to put the focus on residential care, and I understand that the majority of members of the public who came forward commented on services for children in care. Paras 2.10 and 2.11 appear to be focussing on risks to looked after children, although paragraph 2.11 refers to any children in respect of the matter the person had discussed, which could have been children receiving a service in their own homes.
- Specific allegations of maltreatment whilst in the care of the States were made by four young people, and these four, and any others describing abuse were referred to the police. It will be important to continue to liaise with the police so that any JCPC action can be considered once there is no risk of impeding any criminal investigation.
- I was not made aware of any submissions to the Inquiry by members of the public relevant to the serious case review referred to in para 10.3.1, although professionals raised issues that were in general terms relevant to some of the recommendations and learning points coming out of that Serious Case Review. I understand that there was some discussion between Andrew Williamson and relevant members of staff about this case, and action from the Serious Case Review was an agenda item at the December meeting of the JCPC. I looked through all the minutes of the JCPC since it was set up in 1996 and this was only the second time that the need for a Serious Case Review was identified. It is therefore not surprising that the processes, particularly for ensuring that good quality agency management reports are completed in timely fashion, are still not fully worked out. The Child Death and Serious Case Reviews and Complaints Sub-Committee of JCPC has been set up to put in place robust arrangements for deciding whether a Review should be held, its terms of reference and the parameters of the overview report and agency management reports.
- Picking up more generally from the Inquiry Report, concerns expressed by members of the public about the services provided to vulnerable children and their families were around ‘what they perceived to be unfair, or judgemental, decisions concerning parental skills or the demonstration of a lack of clarity and professionalism in the decisions regarding child welfare and family life’. (Para 9.1) ‘A significant percentage were from current or former users of the Children’s Service and they were critical of the service they had received. ….. In a significant proportion of these complaints, the main area of concern was to do with a perceived lack of effective joint working between schools, Youth Action Team, CAMHS or voluntary agencies and the Children’s Service on the Island’.
- These problems of communication between agencies appear to be related, in the eyes of those making submissions to the Inquiry, to broader issues of access and responsiveness, especially of Children’s Social Services staff. ‘A common issue that arose was the perception either by individuals or other agencies of difficulty of access to the service’ (para 11.6). (These also contributed to recommendation 11 on the out-of-hours duty service.) This may be the result of specific duty arrangements, of staff shortages or of policies to keep caseloads to manageable levels. Whatever the reason, an inevitable consequence is that at least some of those seeking assistance at an earlier stage do not receive a service until problems have become more deep-seated, and parents or those supported in the community have become alienated by the refusal of a service. There is evidence in the Report that problems around timely access to ‘in need’ services are at least in part responsible for the dissatisfaction being expressed by vulnerable families (some of whom are first or second generation victims of the abuse being investigated by the current police inquiry) and some of those in the community who seek to support them.
- The report goes on to acknowledge that there will inevitably be disagreements between professionals charged with the duty of protecting children from abuse and neglect, and those who are adjudged to be failing in some way in their parental or caring responsibilities. However, in order to ensure that parents and children receive a fair and appropriate service, it stresses the importance of a robust complaints system. Children’s social services have a complaints system, but I am not aware how frequently it is used by families and children referred for a child protection service, or whether those who complained to the Inquiry had also used the complaints system. It must be acknowledged that there are many difficulties in providing a complaints system which is trusted by members of the public, when the agency complained against has the power to remove a child. This is especially problematic in a small island community. The JCPC has not, to date, had a complaints mechanism but is in the process of setting one up and in doing so will be looking at the interface between complaints about child protection services provided by the departments and voluntary agencies and complaints about how the JCPC fulfils its functions.
- Other than around the issues of thresholds and accessibility of staff I have not been given information about deficits in the operation of the Child Protection Conference system and the operation of the Child Protection Register and other processes put in place and monitored by the JCPC. I have been impressed by the high attendance rate of parents and older children at child protection conferences. I have received some evidence that those families who are allocated to a social work caseload and have some continuity of social worker are, in the main, satisfied with the service they and their children receive.
- From my conversations with Andrew Williamson and in my role of ‘gaining a detailed understanding of the current mechanisms and structures’ as well as from recent conversations with committee members of the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association, I conclude that the JCPC and Children’s Services managers must take steps to further understand the extent of any dissatisfaction about the ways in which both the JCPC and the protective services staff relate to families who may need their services and to those in the wider community and voluntary sector who provide support and refer them for ‘in need’ and ‘protective services.
- An initial tentative conclusion is that in Jersey, as in many other parts of the UK, pressure on front line Children’s Social Services staff, especially the Assessment and Child Protection team, is such that thresholds for the provision of an ‘in need’ service have become too high. The Williamson Report and some of the reports to the JCPC, indicate that this high threshold may result from staff shortages, especially in times of sickness. This is a real problem, not easily surmounted in areas with small populations, and relates to the recommendations in the report about staff recruitment, retention, professional supervision and training.
- An inevitable consequence of high thresholds is that too many referrals that could receive a service under voluntary arrangements are dealt with unnecessarily by the formal child protection route. This more coercive route to help, especially when people had sought a service at an earlier stage, adds to the tension between workers and the parents and young people who become involved in the formal child protection services.
- The evidence given to the Williamson Inquiry points to the need to explore whether an inappropriately wide gap has opened up between the community-based preventive services (mainly provide by the voluntary sector and the youth service) and the formal child protection services provided in response to allegations of maltreatment. This is only partially filled for vulnerable families in need of additional services by the long term social work team and the Social Services family support team at the La Chasse centre. If such a gap exists (and I am not in a position to say with any certainty that it does) it is dangerous because it can mean that children who need protective services may not receive help until problems are so advanced that a satisfactory outcome is very difficult to achieve. It is also dangerous because the work of intervening in these situations involves high levels of stress and few of the rewards that come from successfully helping families, and hence contributes to high vacancy rates and sickness amongst front-line staff.
- Implementation of the proposals in the Williamson Report (10.4.7, 10.7 and 11.8) should result in clearer accountability and a more seamless and responsive child and family social care service to vulnerable families. A first step should be to look at the referral processes between the community-level family and youth services and the Social Services Department ‘in need’ and child protection services. This could start by looking at the way in which the Comprehensive Assessment Framework is being implemented on the Island, with a particular focus on engaging families and encouraging them to seek help at an earlier stage. The child and family service should be relevant to all vulnerable families and children of all ages, though specialist teams working with young families in the community and with teenagers and their parents and carers will probably be needed. Flexibility of case allocation is also important so that, wherever possible, there is continuity of social worker and duplication of workers in one family is avoided unless there is a good reason for it.
Training
- The section in the Report on training does not provide sufficient detail on the qualifications, experience and post-qualifying training of front line child protection social workers and family support staff. I am aware that social work recruitment policy requires them to be registered with GSCC, but am not clear which support, residential, supervisory and management posts are covered by this requirement. Registered social workers are required by the GSCC to practice in accordance with the GSCC Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers. There is also a Code of Practice for employers of social care workers, but I am not clear whether this forms part of the employment framework. This is linked to the recommendation in the Williamson Report on External Independent Scrutiny
- I have insufficiently detailed knowledge to comment on the other points made in this section, except to say that the protection of vulnerable children is dependent on front-line staff regularly up-dating their specialist professional as well as their inter-disciplinary knowledge and skills. I concur with the recommendation (10.10.2) that a training needs analysis (covering their specialist discipline and inter-disciplinary training needs) is essential for all those who work for a substantial portion of their time within the child protection and family support services. I recommend that it be included within the arrangements for supervision and annual appraisal.
- This individual approach should feed into a section in regularly updated departmental training plans, listing training opportunities for those working with vulnerable children and families where there may be child protection concerns. From the specific JCPC perspective, this would lead to a more effective use of the inter-disciplinary training provide under the auspicies of the JCPC, as well as providing a supportive structure for the work of the JCPC training officer.
Response to concluding comments and recommendations which bear directly on the work of JCPC
- I concur with the broad direction of the conclusions and the recommendations and will value the opportunity of commenting on detailed plans for their implementation. I comment here only on those recommendations which have a direct bearing on my own terms of reference.
- The above comments about a need for a seamless social care service for vulnerable families lead me to strongly support the recommendation for a clearer management structure for children’s social care services, with clear political and departmental accountability. I also agree that mechanisms are needed at Chief Officer and Ministerial level to ensure that the social care, health, education, leisure, youth justice and voluntary sector services work co-operatively, especially for those with multiple difficulties such as children with challenging behaviour. Since the problems for many children arise from the difficulties of their parents, links across to adult disability and adult mental health services are essential.
- If a decision is taken to appoint a Minister for Children, I consider that the focus of this appointment should be services for vulnerable children and families. Whatever is decided with respect to recommendations 1, 2, and 8 the accountability of the JCPC and reporting mechanisms within this structure need to be clear, and to provide for independence of opinion and advice to ministers and chief officers.
- I strongly support recommendation 3. I suggest that one of two inspectorates would be well-equipped to provide external quality assurance of the work of the JCPC and of the child protection services: the children’s social care division of the Office for the Inspection of Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED); or the Scottish Executive Social Work Inspection Agency. OFSTED staff are responsible for quality assuring all Serious Case Review Reports for England as well as child protection services in local authorities, youth justice and voluntary sector establishments. The Scottish Inspection Agency has a similar role but focuses more particularly on social work services, including those for adults. It also inspects local authorities in terms of what is required of them as employers of GSCC Registered Social Workers. Oversight by a body which has experience of inspecting the implementation of these Codes would assist in the recruitment of social workers who, at the moment, are less well protected than colleagues in the UK in terms of what they can expect of their employers to allow them to maintaining their Registration.
- For the reasons identified earlier, the Williamson Inquiry did not look in detail at child protection processes and practice. Given the pressure that these services have been under, it would be helpful (to staff and to ministers) to have such an ‘external audit’ conducted as soon as possible to assist with forward planning.
- I concur with the arguments in the report about a strong independent reviewing service for looked after children. More discussion is needed about how to provide this element of independence in a cost effective way for looked after children and for children and families whose cases are before the courts for civil or public law reasons (the CAFCASS service in the UK). The role and tasks have similarities to and differences from the role of the Chair of Child Protection Conferences. It may be that a small team with an element of specialism could operate from an independent base within the Island.
- Serious thought must be urgently given to building up the confidence of the people of Jersey who may need services in the staff who provide the services. Recommendation 5, the establishment of a forum or forums for those who use child protection services, is an essential first step. A JCPC sub-committee is looking specifically at the safeguarding mechanisms for children and young people in out of home care, and a looked after children’s forum is one of the possibilities they are exploring. The Jersey Care Leavers’ Association has a specific focus to support those who have left care, but its members have important messages to pass on to those caring for children currently looked after. Other self help organisations exist for different groups experiencing stress in the community. As Chair of JCPC I would greatly welcome ideas about ways of consulting parents who have been referred to a child protection service and parents of children in care about how the services can be improved.
- Robust whistle blowing procedures for staff and volunteers, and complaints procedures for those who use service, are essential to the provision of safe services that have the confidence of those who currently use services or may need them in the future.
- Recommendation 10. I welcome this recommendation. A JCPC sub-committee has already started work on reviewing the guidance and processes to ensure that children living away from home, especially those in secure accommodation or custody, have avenues for seeking help if they are experiencing, or at risk of, any form of maltreatment whether from staff, other residents, family members or others with whom they come into contact, and whether this is in person or ‘on line’.
- For the reasons given in paragraphs 13-20 about the importance of the initial response received when assistance is sought with a child and family problem, I support the recommendation that the first point of contact outside normal office hours should have a health or social care focus. Discussions will be needed about a cost effective way to achieve this which does not over-stretch front line staff.
June Thoburn
Independent Chair of JCPC
APPENDIX vi
Fostering & Adoption/Permanence Panels
Panel Functions
The main functions of the Fostering Panel are to:
- Advise on the suitability of persons who apply to be Foster Carers.
- Consider the continuing approval of Foster Carers' following their annual carer's review, any complaint or allegation or other significant changes in their circumstances.
- Advise on any other matter relating to the fostering service.
The main functions of the Adoption/Permanence Panel are to:
- Advise on the suitability of persons who apply to be adoptive or long term Foster Carers.
- Consider the continuing approval of carers’ following any review, any complaint or allegation or other significant changes in their circumstances.
- Consider the case of any child referred to it and make a recommendation as to whether the child should be placed for adoption. Panel may also consider the arrangements that the agency proposes to make for the child.
- Consider any proposed placement for a child and make a recommendation as to whether the child should be placed with the identified carers.
- Advise on any other matter relating to the adoption service.
The Membership of the Panel
The members of both panels are drawn from different disciplines and are selected on the basis of the contribution they can make to planning for the short and long term needs of children. Each panel consists of a maximum of 8 members including a chairperson, a medical adviser, 2 Social Workers from different parts of the social work department and 4 Independent Members. Independent Members may have a range of personal or professional experience of fostering and adoption or perhaps have worked with or have experience of children in another capacity.
Both the Fostering and Adoption/Permanence Panel are managed and co-ordinated by a senior member of the fostering & adoption service who offers consultancy to Social Workers, advises the panel members on policy and procedural issues and also sits as professional advisor.
Being a Panel Member
Potential members are asked to complete a brief application form outlining their skills, experience and qualifications. Potential members would then be asked to meet with the professional advisor and panel chairperson to discuss the role further.
Although panel members will have no direct contact with children they will receive comprehensive information on vulnerable children which could put children at risk if misused. This being so all applicants will be asked to provide evidence of any appropriate qualifications and supply proof of their identity. Applicants are also expected to undertake a police check and supply the names of 2 people who can give a reference as to their suitability. These must be completed before any member can take up a position on panel.
Each panel member’s performance will be reviewed on an annual basis. This will be an open and honest 2 way process giving both parties an opportunity to constructively discuss a member’s input and performance. Police checks will be renewed every 2 years. Each panel member shall hold office for a term not exceeding 3 years and may not hold office for more than 2 terms in total.
Members may resign their office at any time giving written notice.
How the Panel Runs
The panel makes its recommendation on the basis of reports circulated in advance of the meeting and through discussion with those invited to attend. Foster Carers may be invited to attend panels considering plans for children in their care and to any review of their own approval as carers. The other people attending the panel will vary depending on the situation under discussion. Where permanence plans for children are being considered the panel will want to speak to the child's Social Worker or any other professional who has a central role in work with the child.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, the panel may ask to speak to contributors separately rather than have everyone in the meeting at the same time. Panel's considering the approval or review of Foster Carers will generally only involve the carers and their Supervising Social Worker from the Fostering & Adoption team.
Applicants will be informed of the recommendation of the Panel within 24 hours of the Panel. The final decision will be made by the agency decision maker and applicants will be informed of this decision in writing within 21 days.
Quorum
A panel will only be able to make recommendations if it is seen to be quorate. A quorate panel must consist of 4 members including a chairperson and at least one Social Worker and one Independent Member.
Panels Considering the Approval of Prospective Carers
Prospective carers will always be invited to attend the panel considering their approval. They will have been fully involved in the assessment process and will have contributed to the assessment report. They will always have seen this report before it is presented to panel.
Panel members find it helpful to meet with prospective carers, to put faces to the names in the report and have the opportunity of asking questions directly. It is also hoped that by inviting applicants to the panel, the process becomes as open and transparent as possible.
Panels Reviewing Carers' Approval
Foster Carers are reviewed once a year or more often if there are significant changes in the carer's circumstances. A written review, undertaken by the carer’s supervising Social Worker will be submitted to panel for consideration. Any changes to the carer's approval must be considered by the panel and agreed by the agency decision-maker.
Again, Foster Carers are always invited to attend panel's reviewing their approval. The panel finds it useful to hear directly from the carer about their experiences, the rewards and difficulties of the task since their last review and the training and support they have had or would like to have in future.
Panels Considering whether a child should be placed for adoption.
Where a child is presented as being in need of a permanent substitute family, panel will be asked to consider a range of reports outlining the child’s history and future medical and social needs. It is important for the panel to have as full and clear a picture of the child as possible. The child’s Social Worker will attend panel to discuss the case but may also be acccompanied by the child’s current carer. As the person living with the child 24 hours a day, the carer is particularly well placed to provide information about the way that the child functions within a family and may be able to help panel decide if adoption is in the child’s best interests.
The panel may also ask what the carer's views are about the child’s needs in relation to a future family.
Panels Considering a Match for a Child with a Permanent Family
When a child is being considered for a match with a family the panel will again receive detailed information about the child and the prospective carers. The child’s Social Worker as well as a Social Worker from the fostering and adoption team will attend to discuss the pros and cons to any potential placement and give their views on the most positive match. Again, the Foster Carer may be invited to attend the panel. The carer can help to give panel members an update on the child's situation as it may be some time since the child was registered as requiring permanence.
Independent Member
Fostering & Adoption/Permanence Panels
Description of role
- To read the circulated papers carefully before the meeting and to attend the meeting prepared to raise issues and to contribute to the Panel discussion.
- To take responsibility for participating in the making of a recommendation, on each case, drawing on both personal and professional knowledge and experience.
- To attend at least 75% of Panel meetings.
- To be prepared to attend additional Panels if possible, if requested.
- To participate, with other Panel members, in advising on policy and procedural matters as required.
- To address diversity issues and promote anti-discriminatory practice.
- To safeguard the confidentiality of all information, Panel papers and Panel discussions.
- To participate in Panel induction and in Panel training.
- To participate constructively in the annual review of the Panel membership.
Person specification
Experience and qualifications
- Experience, either professionally or personally or both, of the placement of children in adoptive and foster families or of children being cared for away from their birth family.
- A social work or medical qualification will be necessary for certain panel members. The two social work members must have at least three years post-qualifying experience in child care social work, including experience of working with fostering and adoption.
Knowledge
- An appreciation of the effect of separation and loss on children.
- Awareness of the richness of different kinds of families and their potential for meeting children’s needs.
- Some understanding of the purpose and function of the Panel and of the agency which the Panel is serving, or a willingness to learn.
Abilities
1. Good listening and communication skills.
- The ability to read, process and analyse large amounts of complex data and sometimes distressing information.
- The ability to make an assessment and to form a view, based on the written and verbal information presented to Panel, and the confidence to articulate this at Panel.
- The ability to use personal and/or professional knowledge and experience to contribute to discussions and decision-making in a balanced and informed manner.
- The ability to work co-operatively as part of a multi-disciplinary team.
- The ability to attend at least 75% of Panel meetings, arriving on time, and to attend at least one training day per year.
Attitudes
- A commitment to keeping children within their own family or community where this is possible and to maintaining contact between children living in adoptive families and their birth families where this appears to be in the child’s best interests.
- A commitment to adoption as a way of meeting a child’s needs for permanence, where this appears to be in the child’s best interests.
- A valuing of diversity in relation to issues of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability and sexuality.
- An understanding of, and a commitment to, the need for confidentiality.
- A willingness to increase knowledge and understanding of issues through reading, discussion and training.
- A willingness to contribute constructively to the annual review of their Panel membership and, as required, to that of other Panel members and the Chair.
APPENDIX vii
Proposed Independent Visitor & Advocacy Services
Independent Visitor Scheme
It is envisaged that the initial provision would be that of an Independent Visitor (IV) Service for looked after children. An Independent Visitor is an independent adult who is matched to an individual young person and establishes a long-term one-to-one relationship. The model that would be used to provide this service uses trained and checked volunteers, under the direction and support of a project manager.
The proposed service would be established on a part-time basis, with a three day equivalent project manager and a small administrative support provision.
The service would comprise 12 Independent Visitors in the first year, rising to 15 for subsequent years. There would be allowances paid for food, entertainment, transport etc. although the emphasis is on the relationship rather than the activities which the Independent Visitors and young people enjoy.
Advocacy Provision
Developing from this core provision would be an Advocacy Service. This would be established under the Department of Health Standards 2002 (see below), to provide an independent and young person led service to support and champion the views and wishes of young people. This service would be well publicised and accessible, and would provide young people with a well regulated but confidential service to ensure they are not discriminated against and their views are considered appropriately. The Advocacy workers would be trained and supported volunteers, with line management provided by the existing IV project manager whose post would be extended to full time. The aim would be to establish 8 volunteer advocates available to respond to young people’s enquiries.
ADVOCACY STANDARDS
Standard 1:
Advocacy is led by the views and wishes of children and young people.
Standard 2:
Advocacy champions the rights and needs of children and young people.
Standard 3:
All Advocacy Services have clear policies to promote equalities issues and monitor services to ensure that no young person is discriminated against due to age, gender, race, culture, religion, language, disability or sexual orientation.
Standard 4:
Advocacy is well-publicised, accessible and easy to use.
Standards 5:
Advocacy gives help and advice quickly when they are requested.
Standard: 6
Advocacy works exclusively for children and young people.
Standard 7:
The Advocacy Service works to a high level of confidentiality and ensures that children, young people and other agencies are aware of its confidentiality policies
Standard 8:
Advocacy listens to the views and ideas of children and young people in order to improve the service provided.
Standard 9
The Advocacy Service has an effective and easy to use complaints procedure.
Standard 10:
Advocacy is well managed and gives value for money.
Appendix viii
GREENFIELDS CENTRE
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
INDEPENDENT BOARD OF VISITORS
CONSTITUTION OF THE GREENFIELDS CENTRE
INDEPENDENT BOARD OF VISITORS
1. The Board of Visitors should comprise of not less than five persons, of which one should be a Jurat of the Royal Court.
2. Members of the Board should be elected for a term of three years, but the terms of membership should be staggered in order that all members do not come up for re-election at the same time.
3. Members of the Board shall pay monthly visits to the Centre. The Board of Visitors will meet as a Committee every other month
4. The findings of Members of the Board who have visited the Centre in the preceding months should be discussed and the members of staff responsible for providing programmes of education and training concerning admissions, discharges and progress of those attending the centre will provide reports at the bi-monthly meeting of the Board of Visitors.
5. The Dates of the Board meetings will be established on an annual basis, together with names of the individual members visiting between panel meetings.
6. The Board of Visitors shall co-operate with the Children’s Executive and the Manager of the provision for SEBD in promoting the efficiency of the Greenfields Centre and shall enquire into and report to the Children’s Executive upon any matter into which they may ask it to enquire.
7. The Board shall –
- Immediately bring to the notice of the Manager for SEBD any circumstances relating to the administration of the Centre or the condition of any young person which appear to it to be expedient to report for his or her consideration
and
- Bring such circumstances to the attention of the Children’s Executive if it appears to the Board that the Manager has not remedied the matter that he has been notified of within such period as appears to the Board to be reasonable.
8. The Board, or the independent visitor, shall from time to time –
- Inspect the food and drink supplied to the residents.
- Visit the accommodation, inspect the provision for care and health, and ensure that there is appropriate provision for education. The manager for SEBD will be responsible for indicating to the Board, or the independent visitor, any shortcomings in the provisions. The standards expected should be clearly set out by the Children’s Executive.
- The particulars of every visit made, together with any deficiencies found during such visits, must be recorded in the Board’s record book. These should then be promptly discussed with the Manager for SEBD for action as necessary. This will be followed up at the next meeting of the Board.
9. The Board shall also discharge such other duties, following mutual agreement, as the Children’s Executive may from time to time assign it.
10. No person who is, or has been, a member of the Board shall disclose any information they hold, or have held as a member which relates to any of the homes, any officer of the homes or any resident. Other than a person or the Children’s executive as permitted under this Constitution.
11. The Board of Visitors may inquire into any issues relating to the management of the Centre and the condition of the buildings and may submit its advice and suggestions either to the management of the Centre or to the Children’s Executive.
12. The Board of Visitors shall make a report to the Children’s Executive by 31st January every year with regard to any matters which have been considered, with its advice and suggestions upon any such matters and it may make such other reports to the Children’s Executive as it considers necessary concerning any matter relating to the Centre to which, in its opinion, attention should be drawn.
13. The Independent Board of Visitors (or an individual Board member) shall hear and investigate any concern or complaint that a young person resident may make to it:-
The Visiting Board (or the individual member) shall
- Record particulars of the complaint or concern, and of its findings, and the action taken in the minute book.
- Discuss the complaint with the Manager for SEBD.
- Inform the resident of the findings via the Manager.
14. If the complaint brought to the Visitor is made against the Manager or against any member of staff then this must in the first instance, and very promptly in writing be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Board of Visitors, with a copy to the SEBD Coordinator. Current procedures for complaints against staff must be observed, and should not involve the Visitors. Visitors should not instigate any investigation or enter into any discussion with residents in these matters unless specifically empowered to do so by the Children’s Executive.
15. The Visiting Board, or any member, may inspect the residence records other than –
- Personnel records;
- Residents records;
- Security manuals or other papers that have implications for security.
16. The Visiting Board shall record particulars of any inspection of the residences other records in its minute book.
17. At least twenty-four hours notice to be given before a visit in order to provide time for the Manager to notify the young people and anyone else who would wish to see the Visitor. However, the Board of Visitors will do some unannounced visits on a regular basis. On these occasions, the residents will be informed immediately in order that they may have the opportunity to meet with the Visitor.
18. The Visitor will be met by the Manager, or an appropriate senior member of staff. A master key will be provided for the use of the Visitor.
19. A brief meeting will be held with the Manager to identify any young people who have asked to see the Visitor. Notes on each young person in residence to be provided at this time by the Manager.
20. In the presence of the Manager, the Visitor will meet the young person who has asked for a meeting:-
(a)Record the concern in the book. If this involves a complaint ensure that the complaints procedure has been followed.
(b) Record action taken in the book and follow up with the Manager at the next meeting of the Board, or before if possible. The Manager should also record the outcome in the book. The Manager should inform the young person of the outcome where appropriate. The Manager will follow up on the majority of concerns.
(c) Report to the Board at the next meeting.
Note: Do NOT become involved with issues relating to parents – these issues will be referred to and then dealt with by the Manager.
21. It is possible that in exceptional circumstances a young person may request to see the Visitor on an individual basis. Such a request by a young person to say something in confidence to a Visitor on a one to one basis must be referred by the Visitor to the young person’s external Social Worker on that day by telephone in order that the discussion can go ahead in the presence of the Social Worker. If this situation occurs out of normal working hours, contact can be made with the ‘duty Social Worker’.
22. The content of any telephone calls received by a Board Member from the parents of a young person at Greenfields must not be discussed in any detail, but should immediately be referred to the young person’s Social Worker. The Board Member should immediately contact the Manager and advise him of the situation.
23. Visitors will have free access to ALL parts of the residence and will be accompanied by the Manager. The suggested route to be taken is as follows:-
- Kitchen and dining room – diet, hygiene, menu, health and safety to be part of the check procedure.
- Visiting room – supportive of function, homely, clean, comfortable etc.
- Gymnasium
- Lounge – TV, library, house meetings etc.
- Arcade – games room.
- Education facilities.
- Medical provision. Fire alarms.
- External area.
- Bedrooms – comfortable, warm, safe and secure.
24. Check that the overall general maintenance is in good order. No graffiti etc or damage to property.
25. De-Brief. At this time questions can be raised with the appropriate staff, regarding Care and Education provision and follow up on previous visits.
26. A report of the visit to be written up in the book.
27. The visitor may wish to see the Head of Education, or indeed any member of the staff or any young person. This would need to be for a specific reason in connection with some incident or event. However, it is quite feasible that the Visitor would wish to speak to the Head of Education regarding the overall provision of education to the young people, and the progress of the young people on their individual programmes.
28. It is essential that visits are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Any temptation to discuss matters with others outside of the Board of Visitors must be resisted.
29. It is suggested that the visit may take at least two hours. The master key to be returned at the end of the visit.
Appendix ix- Financial Schedule
Williamson Report: Implementation Plan
Page of 83
gov.je