|
|
|
Paragraphs: 17.31
- 17.39 | 17.40 - 17.45
|
|
|
|
17.31
|
Having identified children and families in need of extra help and
support from the agencies, the third seminar went on to explore
how a thorough assessment of their needs should be carried out,
and how an appropriate plan of action could be put in place to meet
those needs.
|
|
|
|
17.32
|
The seminar began by examining what constitutes a good assessment
of a child's needs and what commonly prevents a good assessment
from taking place.
|
|
17.33
|
There was general agreement that the essential prerequisite of
good assessment is clearly defined and agreed objectives. Without
a clear idea of what the assessment is attempting to achieve, the
staff involved will inevitably face considerable difficulty in conducting
it in a practical and focused way. The basic aim of any assessment
of a child should be to understand the child in his or her social
situation.
|
|
17.34
|
A number of participants were also able to draw on their experience
of the assessment process to provide a number of helpful pieces
of practical guidance for general use. Some of the most useful suggestions
were:
|
|
•
|
allowing sufficient time in the assessment process to listen to
the views of the child concerned, as well as to those of the family;
|
|
•
|
information that the assessment will be based on should be collected
in a systematic way;
|
|
•
|
those conducting the assessment must be prepared not just to record
information, but to analyse it and consider its potential significance;
|
|
•
|
conclusions that are reached must be recorded so that those who
come to deal with a case at a later stage are aware of the analysis
that has already been made.
|
|
|
|
17.35
|
Three obstacles were identified as particularly significant.
|
|
17.36
|
First, the limited resources within which all the relevant agencies
are required to operate, and the resulting need to prioritise the
provision of services, means that in some cases, assessments are
focused on identifying immediate risk to the child, rather than
his or her needs.
|
|
17.37
|
Second, there is a tendency among many social workers to assess
cases as either section 17 or section 47 at an early stage of the
assessment process. The purpose of drawing such a distinction is
to attempt to ensure that the available resources are targeted at
the most serious cases. However, there are two principal problems
with such an approach. First, the majority of section 47 cases start
off as section 17 cases, and so only dealing with them when they
become serious represents false economy for social services. Second,
the rigid classification is insufficiently flexible to deal with
the wide variety of cases with which social services has to deal.
The result is that some children may not receive the services they
need because they do not fit neatly into one specific category.
|
|
17.38
|
Third, as a result of the prioritisation of cases, other services
find themselves tempted to present information to social services
in a misleading way. If it is known to the referrer that social
services are unlikely to act or to provide a service to a child
about whom they are concerned unless it is perceived that the child
is at risk of harm, then the temptation is to overstate the risks
they consider the child is facing.
|
|
17.39
|
Assessment does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it a 'once and for
all time' process. The needs of the child and the family may not
be catered for in the current range of available services. It is
frustrating to assess a child as being in need of a particular service
if that service is then unavailable to them. Where resources are
limited, the temptation is understandably to assess children according
to availability of services, rather than according to their need.
|
|
Paragraphs: 17.31
- 17.39 | 17.40 - 17.45
|
|
|
|
17.40
|
The seminar then turned to consider the respective roles of the
different agencies concerned with the care and protection of children
in the assessment process, in order to explore the extent to which
assessment is purely a social services function. While there may
be general agreement that 'assessment is everybody's business',
and should be viewed as such, it would appear that the situation
on the ground is different.
|
|
17.41
|
The reality appeared to be that assessment was seen as the business
of social services, who could call for the input of other agencies
as appropriate. It seems there is sometimes a lack of enthusiasm
among the other agencies to adopt a more active approach to assessment
with a view to establishing whether they could meet the needs of
a particular child from their own resources, without the need for
a referral or as partners in a plan of action.
|
|
17.42
|
Part of the explanation for this may be that many people outside
social services view the process of assessing a child and his or
her family as a complicated one, requiring specialist skills. This
may be true quite often, but there has been considerable success
experienced in some areas of the country by introducing a basic
initial assessment tool, which can be used by a wide range of services
that come into contact with children.
|
|
|
|
17.43
|
The seminar considered whether a basic multi-agency assessment
tool might be used more widely. In particular, consideration was
given to the question of whether the initial assessment components
of the National Assessment Framework were suitable for use across
the agencies. While a number of minor criticisms were made regarding
its length and complexity, there was strong support for the National
Assessment Framework, which was described variously as "a huge move
forward" and "a major achievement". However, while the breadth of
support was impressive, it was somewhat disappointing to hear of
the extent to which the National Assessment Framework was seen by
the other agencies as almost exclusively a social services tool.
|
|
17.44
|
In order for a variety of agencies to participate effectively in
the assessment process and make consistent use of a common tool
to assist them, some form of common training would seem to be highly
desirable.
|
|
|
|
17.45
|
There was clear evidence that staff in a whole range of agencies
felt inhibited from freely exchanging information relating to children
and families due to concerns about alleged legal restrictions on
doing so. The need for clarity was emphasised with several participants
calling for a nationally devised protocol setting out precisely
what information can be shared and in what circumstances. In addition,
wherever possible, professionals should ensure that they are passing
on material that has been validated. The indiscriminate sharing
of unchecked information can have the counterproductive effect of
presenting a misleading picture to the receiving agency, as well
as swamping it with more information than it can process effectively.
This issue was also discussed in seminar two. See paragraphs 17.27
and 17.28 for more details.
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
