Children Services Workshops May 2020 Assessment and Plans 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Children Services Workshops May 2020 Assessment and Plans

2 Contents 3 Purposeful: Assessment purpose 4 Finding from Audit (as of March 2020) 5 Critical analysis 6 Planned and Focussed 7 Cumulative Harm 8 Impact of cumulative harm of neglect 9 Systemic approach 10 Assessment Analysis 11 What needs to happen 12 Analysis – conclusion- summarys 13 Outcomes 14 Example plan 15 Additional risk assessment tools

3 Purposeful: Assessment purpose Risk is Recognised; Responded to and Reduced l Assessment is specifjc and relevant to concerns at referral or identifjed during assessment. Create understanding of concerns their history; triggers and impact for each child l Assessment is proportionate to the concerns raised but suffjcient to identify any unidentifjed risks or needs l Assessment must be based on engagement and communication with children to understand their day to day experience of life in this family l Assessment must include the needs of all children in a family not just the presenting child l Remember young carers have a right to assessment of their needs arising from their young carer role. l Assessment informs purposeful plans to reduce risks and achieve better outcomes for the child within the timescale the child needs.

4 Finding from Audit (as of March 2020) Good 39% RI 44% Inadequate 17% Working well Where we need to do better l Good working together to l Update Assessments l The evaluation of the respond to child protection not always proportionate impact of the child/young concerns. to risk and informed by person’s situation on their history or research safety/wellbeing needs to l Direct work documented more be stronger l Assessment not often l Greater clarity needed describing the child’s daily l Some evidence of appropriate lived experience. on the balance between tools being used to measure the strengths and risks in l The role / perspective risk but they need more detail the child/young person’s of fathers not being situation l There was some evidence consistently assessed. of improved assessment l Some examples of l Where chronologies were processes Practitioners accepting evident it was diffjcult adult explanations without l More urgency in permanency to see how these had exploring or assessing planning in recent case records been used to inform other possibilities. and using PLO processes to assessment and decision progress plans for children. making

5 Critical analysis Explore concerns closely be directed and purposeful in seeking information about context + history and current relationships Child’s experience Clarify what needs to happen outcomes Discover needed Explore Consider difgerent perspectives Inform Plan Negotiate fathers/other Review Collaborate professionals Weigh the Bring together evidence test ideas to create Integrate alternatives against Test Revise new understanding Apply experience in family research language

6 Planned and Focussed Understanding family relationships and history is critical to understanding current barriers to problem solving and potential for change l Plan your assessment who will you consult Family/professionals. l Use a genogram and safety circles/ eco map to explore family history who’s who and when did they come together/ part l Understanding the family story will identify family beliefs some which may be self limiting some which may be strengths – experience of overcoming diffjculties in the past l Identify behaviours or people who may support the child and family in overcoming diffjculties or beliefs or behaviours or people who pose additional risk or barriers to problem solving. You may bring people who can help together in a family network meeting l CLA teams should be completing this work where reunifjcation is a possibility or with carers to achieve goals for the child’s well being, restorative trauma informed work or risk reduction.

7 Cumulative Harm l In practice, the case history is often used to establish the pattern of behaviour to predict likelihood of signifjcant harm – but not necessarily to assess the cumulative impact of events to evidence signifjcant harm. l It can help with substantiation of neglect if the accumulation of acts of omission or commission resulting in the child sufgering, or likely to sufger, signifjcant harm are identifjed and documented. l Statutory intervention may be required to prevent further harm to the child. l Cumulative harm may be caused by an accumulation of a single adverse circumstance or events, or by multiple difgerent circumstances and events l The unremitting daily impact of these experiences on the child can be profound and exponential, and diminish a child’s sense of safety, stability and wellbeing. (Bromfjeld and Miller 2007)

8 Impact of cumulative harm of neglect Type of efgect Infants 0-2 Early Childhood The School Years Development l poor/growth intellectual capacity l short stature, dirty, unkempt l severe educational defjcits: learning disabilities, poor l under stimulation l delay in learning new skills problem-solving l nappy rash, infections, hospital l learning slow and painful l poor reading, writing and maths attendances l language delay l failure to thrive Behaviour l withdrawn, lethargic, depressed l lacking social skills l disruptive/overactive in class l self-stimulating behavious eg. l either aggressive or withdrawn l desperate for attention rocking l indiscriminate friendliness l few friends l overcompensation Emotional l shame and self-doubt l no learned trust l encopresis/eneuresis l lack of coincidence and l guilt/self-blame expectation of failure l self-harming l poor self concept l disturbed eating patterns

9 Systemic approach Useful relational questions l The systemic approach to assessing considers the ‘problem identifjed person’ in a difgerent way – moving focus from the individual presenting as the problem to the problem being inter relational. l This shifts families and systems who are stuck in problem saturated stories and pathologising patterns. It helps to liberate the entire system by considering contextual factors, exceptions to the dominant discourse around the person being the problem [as it isn’t always present/changes according to people/places/other environmental factors]. l This creates a richer assessment of the young person, their family or carers and identifjed diffjculties. Asking relational questions invites a curious and collaborative and less blaming approach. Group members can engage in exploring a difgerent understanding of the diffjculties freeing up new solutions.

10 Assessment Analysis l Summarise/pull together key information l Include evidence for the judgements gathered during the assessment process made, whether this is research messages, or your own observations l Show an understanding of the emotional implications for the child/family of l Address the child’s need for permanence what has been observed. Take care in – security of knowing where they will live the language you use so that it is not l Use your professional expertise to punitive. Keep it short focussed and in provide an understanding of the family’s language that is easy for the family to current situation and the implications for understand. the child’s immediate and future safety l Provide an understanding of the day to and wellbeing. day experience of the child living in this l Judgement should be proportionate with family/placement. risk and thresholds l Make sense of the purpose of the l What do the adults/child consider as assessment/referral concerns in the risks? Capture their views. context of the family’s current situation l Consequence of no change and if taking into account historical information needed contingency plan. collected - Chronology.

11 What needs to happen Purposeful Plans l The risks and needs to be addressed for the child arise from the assessment and become the outcomes to be achieved: l ‘What do you need to see [for the child] to be satisfjed that this child is safe enough that the child protection agency can close the case?’ l Focus on outcomes for the child not attendance at services by parents [these are actions] [means not ends] l Be specifjc; measurable; achievable/good enough l Check relevance to the concerns; reason for referral to ensure relevance l Set an achievable but specifjc timescale for action/change refmecting the urgency of change for the child. l Review plans frequently and update plans as circumstances change