News

Like the woman in the 1970s’ Coca Cola TV advert proclaiming “I’d like to teach the world to sing”, so would the children’s green paper 'Every Child Matters'. It wants all professionals who work with children to sing from the same hymn sheet. One suggestion for achieving this is the development and introduction of a common assessment framework to be used by these professionals, writes Anabel Unity Sale.

The motivation is simple enough. Health visitors assess all children’s health and development until they are five – and for longer if they have special needs. In addition, children receive baseline assessments in the first year of primary and secondary school. But some children come into contact with a range of agencies – Victoria Climbié, for example, was known to 12 agencies – resulting in several assessments by different professionals asking the same questions because the core information does not follow the child.

The green paper says: “This is not only an inefficient use of resources but also alienating for the child and family who have to tell the same story to several professionals but may receive little practical help as a result.”

Andrew Christie, director of Hammersmith and Fulham’s children’s trust in London, says: “It will provide us with the vehicle and means to generate a shared assessment that can be used across all disciplines.” Christie adds that as his trust develops its plans it has become clear that a common assessment framework is one of the cornerstones of an integrated service.

"Moral panic"

Patrick Roach, assistant secretary for policy and equality at the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, also backs the move. But he warns that it could result in professionals relying on others to notice any problems before responding. On the other hand, he says: “It cannot lead to a moral panic where every red flag requires crisis intervention.”

The government aims to establish a team to draw up and develop the common assessment framework by March 2004, with a view to introducing it in September. The framework should contain all relevant information about a child so they can be assessed holistically, says Kathy Dunnett, a community nurse and Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association (CPHVA) school nursing committee member.

But is it realistic to expect a teacher, for instance, to assess child protection concerns in the same way as a social worker? For instance, the role of CPHVA’s members is often misunderstood, says Dunnett, particularly in the case of school nurses. But she is optimistic that whatever assessment is developed it would pick up on a child in similar circumstances to Victoria’s.

South Central Connexions Partnership chief executive Pamela Charlwood agrees that different professionals lack knowledge about what others do, although she emphasises this is “just a fact of life” rather than a criticism of professionals or agencies.

Holy grail

The question around a common assessment framework is whether it will improve inter-agency working. On its own it will not, says Charlwood, as improving working relationships depends on establishing clear techniques to share information. 

The lack of appropriate communication between agencies involved in Victoria’s case was one of Lord Laming’s main criticisms in his report into her death. Chris Wright, head of performance at the Youth Justice Board, is not convinced this will change with a common assessment framework: “It is a bit like the search for the holy grail. I have a considered cynicism that it will deliver.”

He is worried some staff will assume they will not need to do any of the detailed assessments that identify particular issues, such as offending, and leave it to others to pick up instead.

The green paper suggests that frontline professionals, such as pastoral staff in schools, may be best placed to discuss initial concerns with a child or parent rather than a social worker who has had no contact with them. The government needs to define what it considers pastoral, says Roach, as it is often teachers who have stepped into the breach. “The expectation on teachers has broadened and they have begun to lose sight of the essential aspects of their role – teaching and learning,” he says, adding that, with adequate training, pastoral school staff could take on more of this role.

He says any final decisions on the green paper’s ideas must not interfere with the national agreement on raising standards and tackling workloads. If pastoral school staff are to take on enhanced roles, Dunnett warns they must be given the necessary support otherwise they will feel “dumped on”.

Child care professionals should also be trained to understand each other, says Charlwood. “The more we can use a common language with a common understanding behind it, the more we can avoid tragedies.”

She cites the example of the word “urgent”, whose definition differs depending on whether you are in social services or emergency services.

Critics

Although the green paper is to be applauded for its attempt to radically improve children’s services, it is not without its critics. Wright told the green paper team he believed there was “a real danger of destabilising the very positive progress” that had been made as professionals changed their practice. He says: “Our quest for something new might take our eye off the ball. I don’t want it to deflect from what we’ve already put in place.”

The September 2004 deadline for implementing the common assessment framework is also of concern for Roach, who is unconvinced that it is enough time. Wright thinks the framework could be established, but at a push.

As with most of the green paper’s ideas, the issue of resources is paramount. There are bound to be cost implications for the IT systems used by professionals working with children, as the assessment framework is unlikely to be paper-based. None of the green paper’s recommendations will happen unless extra resources are made available, says Christie. “It has got to be funded or the implementation will be compromised and we won’t achieve the service improvements that vulnerable children need and deserve.”