|
|
|
Paragraphs: 17.18
- 17.24 | 17.25 - 17.30
|
|
|
|
17.18
|
The second seminar looked at ways of identifying, at the earliest
possible stage, those children who may be in need of help or, if
necessary, protection. It also considered how agencies can best
work together to ensure a consistent approach.
|
|
|
|
17.19
|
The seminar attempted to reach an understanding of what it was
that we should be aiming to achieve for children. The responses
supported the common objective of ensuring that each child is able
to reach his or her maximum potential. While it is plainly the case
that different agencies will have particular areas of responsibility,
and that the broad objective of reaching maximum potential comprises
a whole range of elements, it was encouraging to learn that there
was this degree of agreement.
|
|
17.20
|
Participants considered whether it was possible to achieve the
desired consistency of outcome in the absence of common thresholds
of intervention. In other words, are common definitions of need
necessary in order to ensure that all children receive the help
they need to reach their potential?
|
|
17.21
|
This is important because it is clear that there are marked variations
in both the understanding and the application of thresholds, not
only across the country, but also between different services of
the same authority. There would seem to be a number of reasons for
this, of which the most significant was said to be the availability
of resources. It was claimed that the only way in which services
can work within the limited resources allocated to them is to apply
eligibility criteria so as to control the number of children coming
through the 'front door'. In particular, one unintended consequence
of social services departments using thresholds in this way is that
other agencies, seeking to refer a child, will often frame the referral
in such a way as to prompt a response.
|
|
17.22
|
By acting in this way, the operation of the system becomes distorted.
Instead of responding creatively to the particular needs of the
individual child in an effort to achieve agreed outcomes, professionals
become preoccupied by the categorisation of children in light of
eligibility criteria. This means that not only do fewer children
receive help of an early, preventive nature, but that also the degree
of danger is sometimes exaggerated in order to secure action.
|
|
|
|
17.23
|
Some services have a better picture of both the problems and strengths
of their local community than others. But it was clear from the
discussion that there would be considerable benefit to be gained
from all the services knowing their local communities better and
by services being more accessible to the communities they serve.
Key services could do this directly themselves or involve community-based
organisations, such as voluntary and charitable organisations. Each
local authority needs to develop a strategy to achieve this and
to ensure that it happens in practice.
|
|
17.24
|
The benefits of such an approach are clear. If the analysis and
strategic planning are done effectively, then the resources of the
agencies involved can be targeted at the sections of the population
with the greatest potential need. There is also the possibility
that by using such an approach, the different agencies will be able
to complement, rather than duplicate, each other's work.
|
|
Paragraphs: 17.18
- 17.24 | 17.25 - 17.30
|
|
|
|
17.25
|
After considering how need could better be identified on a community-wide
level, the discussion turned to the identification of individual
children. A number of participants explained their approach in identifying
children potentially in need of services. It appeared that often
there is considerable variation in the way guidance is applied to
individual children - even between staff in the same agency.
|
|
17.26
|
In light of the high level of variability illustrated by this discussion,
the seminar explored how greater consistency might be achieved in
identifying children who may need a greater level of help. Four
areas in particular received detailed consideration:
|
|
•
|
the possibility of a 'common language' being developed by those
working with children and families;
|
|
•
|
whether a common referral form could be used by agencies when referring
cases to social services;
|
|
•
|
the question of whether a common assessment format could be developed
for use by those working with children and families;
|
|
•
|
whether common elements could be incorporated in the training of
all staff working with children and families. At present it seems
that such training is developed independently by each agency.
|
|
|
|
17.27
|
The discussion then turned to the critical issue of how information
collected could best be shared between agencies so that an accurate
picture of the entirety of the child's situation could be formed.
|
|
17.28
|
Central to this question is the issue of confidentiality. Some
participants had developed practical approaches to this issue, but
many said there was confusion among professionals as to when they
were allowed to share information with each other without the consent
of the child or of his or her carers. The general view seemed to
be that many professionals found that current guidelines rely too
much on individual judgement and would be assisted by clear, central
guidance on these issues, to which reference could be made by staff
on a day-to-day basis.
|
|
|
|
17.29
|
Having considered how best to use the information gained by practitioners
as a result of their contact with children, alternative sources
of information were discussed. The discussion was concerned with
obtaining information from the children themselves, from voluntary
and community organisations, and from the community-at-large.
|
|
17.30
|
There was general agreement that improvements are necessary in
the way that staff in the different services talk to children and
how staff use the information given. A range of suggestions was
made. However, a point that was returned to time and time again
was the need for a relationship of trust between practitioner and
child. Clearly, some children tend to react badly to authority and,
as said at paragraph 17.15, tend to be fearful of the consequences
of confiding in someone in a position of authority. It was suggested
that this distrust of authority means that voluntary and community
organisations are particularly important when identifying need among
children. The potential contribution of the general public was discussed,
and the general view was that the 'eyes and ears' of the community
are not used enough in the identification of children potentially
in need. It was felt that efforts should be made to encourage more
members of the public to come forward with their concerns.
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
