1.4.5 Escalation Policy |
Contents
- Introduction
- Procedure for Independent Chairs to Raise Concerns
- Recording and Communicating that a Child's Child Protection Plan has been Subject to Alerts
- The Role of the Quality Assurance Group Manager and Deputy Manager during the Management Alert Process
1. Introduction
The recent Laming report 'The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report' published on 12 March 2009 was commissioned in response to the death of Baby P in Haringey. The report contained 58 recommendations designed to ensure that the changes to the child protection system following the Climbie inquiry in 2003 are effectively implemented The report evaluates the current state of safeguarding systems for children and concludes that sufficient structures and procedures are in place to protect children. However, the report goes on to point out that it is only the robust and consistent implementation of these procedures that will keep children safe.
Bromley's current child protection and safeguarding arrangements sit within a strong framework. The 2008 external examination by OfSTED and reported in December 2008 as part of the Annual Performance Assessment inspection evaluated Bromley Children and Young People Service Safeguarding and Social Care as "good" against the safeguarding outcome.
While there is much good safeguarding practice within Bromley we need to be assured within the Safeguarding and Social Care Division that our safeguarding of children is robust and effective. Laming recognises that the performance indicators currently in use for the safeguarding of children are inadequate for the task of driving positive improvements and securing better outcomes for children. Laming stresses that "senior managers should be confident that decision making, communication and information sharing within and between each of the local services is effective in keeping children safe ... they should support and value first-line managers ensuring that management oversight of decision making is rigorous and that the lines of communication between senior managers and frontline child protection staff are as short and effective as possible."
This policy will assist both senior and front line managers in their task of ensuring the safeguarding of children, in particular some of the most vulnerable children who are subject to child protection plans.
This policy sits alongside the children's social care audit strategy and annual schedule of audit to ensure that managers at all levels are confident child protection decision making is rigorous.
Child Protection Conferences are central to the multi-agency decision making process that keeps children safe from harm. They bring together family members and those professionals most involved with the child to share and analyse the information which has been obtained about the child's developmental needs and the parental capacity to meet those needs. The conference makes judgements about the likelihood of the child suffering significant harm in the future and decides whether the child is at continuing risk of significant harm. The Child Protection Plan outlines the action required to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. It is crucial, therefore, that the social work input to Child Protection Conferences is of the highest possible standard.
To ensure that child protection conferences in Bromley are effective protection mechanisms the following action by social workers and their managers must be prioritised:
- Social work reports must be completed in time. The London Child Protection procedures state: 'The report should be provided to parents and older children (to the extent that is believed to be in their interests) at least two working days in advance of the initial conferences and a minimum of five working days before review conferences to enable any factual errors to be corrected and the family to comment on the content'. (London Child Protection Procedures 8.8.9) When the report is late, parents are deprived of the opportunity of discussing the report with the social worker, and indeed with their solicitor if they so wish. Child Protection Conferences are very significant meetings for parents and often very daunting meetings. Parents should not be expected to read the report at the beginning of the conference, observed by professionals, and especially when sometimes parents have literacy difficulties. Late reports are often not read or authorised by managers and therefore management oversight of the case is absent.
- Social workers and their managers must arrive at Child Protection Conferences on time. In exceptional circumstances if they are late it should be common courtesy to offer apologies to the parents and professionals who have been waiting for their arrival.
- The Child Protection Plan must be progressed between conferences. If recommendations have not been met the social worker must give a reasoned explanation of why this has not happened and alternative actions that may have taken place. If crucial elements of the child protection plan e.g. initiating legal proceedings have not been actioned the Independent Chair responsible for the Child Protection Plan must be kept informed between child protection meetings.
- The social worker's report to conference must be evidence based and have a clear risk analysis of the current situation and appropriate recommendations. The report must be endorsed by a manager.
- The checklists completed by Independent Chairs following conferences must be responded to by line managers to show that any concerns raised by the Independent Chairs are being addressed by managers through supervision.
Significant failures in any of the above aspects of child protection can lead to the Independent Chairs initiating the raising concerns procedure.
2. Procedure for Independent Chairs to Raise Concerns
Examples of situations where an Independent Chair might have concerns and initiate the management alert process include:
- Parents not being given a copy of the social worker's report at least two days before the conference
- The social worker's report not being available on CareFirst for the Independent Chair at least 2 working day before the conference
- Repeated absence of a manager at Child Protection Conferences
- The social worker arriving after the start time of the conference unless there is an exceptional reason
- Significant decisions of the Child Protection Plan not being carried out by the social worker
- Evidence of poor partnership working amongst agencies which has compromised the effectiveness of the child protection plan
- A social worker's report being assessed as being not of a good enough standard to contribute to effective decision making about the safeguarding of a child.
- Social worker visits to the child/ren not being within the expected timescales i.e. fortnightly unless there are exceptional reasons
- Core Group Meetings not having taken place within the prescribed timescales.
- An Independent Chair receives no response from a manager to concerns raised on the after conference feedback form.
There are five stages to the dispute resolution process. The Independent Chair has the discretion to proceed directly to stage 3 in more serious or urgent cases. The stages are:
| Stage | Manager |
| Stage 1: | Deputy Manager |
| Stage 2: | Group Manager |
| Stage 3: | Head of Service |
| Stage 4: | Assistant Director, Safeguarding and Social Care |
| Stage 5: | Director of Children and Young People Services |
If an Independent Chair is considering using the management alert process, the Independent Chair should in the first instance discuss the concerns with their line manager within the Quality Assurance Unit. If their line manager does not agree that it is an issue that meets the threshold for using the management alert process, the Independent Chair should discuss the concerns with the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Quality Assurance. If both their line manager and the Head of Service are not in agreement that the concerns have met the threshold for escalation, the Independent Chair may still choose to escalate the issue using the management alert process.
An Independent Chair must submit the relevant form (please see appendix) to initiate stages 1 - 3 of the dispute resolution process. At each of the first 3 stages, a response is required within 5 working days of receipt.
Stages 4 - 5 will be managed through a meeting, which should be chaired by the officer who has received the alert. The meeting should be independently minuted. All key personnel should be invited to the meeting. The Independent Chair does not attend the meeting but is required to provide a statement of what would be required to prevent the matter progressing to the next dispute resolution stage.
3. Recording and Communicating that a Child's Child Protection Plan has been Subject to Alerts
The Independent Chair should verbally inform the members of a Child Protection Conference of any management alerts they have initiated since the previous meeting or which they intend to initiate subsequent to the current meeting. The IRO should record details of any management alert on the relevant form in the appendix. This form should be filed in the Child Protection Conference document section of the paper file. The Independent Chair should also ensure that it is recorded in the Observations section of CareFirst that (s)he has initiated a management alert and how and when it is resolved.
The Group Manager of the Quality Assurance Unit will report on the number of management alerts that have been initiated and the timescales for resolving them.
4. The Role of the Quality Assurance Group Manager and Deputy Manager During the Management Alert Process
The Group Manager and Deputy Manager of the Quality Assurance Unit are responsible for management and supervision of the Independent Chairs.
The role of these managers during the management alert process shall be:
- To provide clear supervision to the Independent Chair, taking into consideration the issue being raised and providing feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the case being brought forward.
- To ensure that throughout the process, lines of communication remain open and clear and that the issue does not become clouded, personalised, or lost in other processes.
- To ensure that meetings take place on time and that they are present at all relevant meetings above the Group Manager level.
- To provide briefing to senior managers as to the view of the Quality Assurance Unit on the issue being raised and possible routes to resolving the issue.
- Overall, to encourage resolution prior to the issue reaching the Group Manager stage.
These guidelines are not designed to hinder or minimise concerns. However, given the impact on the Division should the management alert process reach the referral to the Director stage, it is crucial that there is clear and transparent evidence of the Independent Chair management and supervision process for senior managers, the Chief Executive, and/or members.
Click here to view Independent Chair Alert Form Stage 1
Click here to view Independent Chair Alert Form Stage 2
Click here to view Independent Chair Alert Form Stage 3
Click here to view Independent Chair Alert Form Stage 4
Click here to view Independent Chair Alert Form Stage 5
End