Community Care logo
Loading

Email newsletter ad

You are in:   News

Good organisation and well-trained duty team staff are crucial to acting on referrals. But recent research has found a variety of practices and overstretched staff, write Claire Cameron and June Statham.

Thursday 07 October 2004 00:00

Claire Cameron is a researcher at Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education University of London, where she has been based since 1992 and gained her PhD in 1999. Between 1984 and 1992 she was a residential and then a field social worker in several local authorities. She has conducted many studies of children's and young people's services, mainly focusing on workforce issues, gender and care work, and child protection in early years services.

June Statham is a senior research officer at Thomas Coram Research Unit.   

More than a dozen opportunities to help Victoria Climbie were missed by professionals in the months before she died. The Laming inquiry identified significant weaknesses in the organisation of initial contact and reception arrangements in the social services departments that came into contact with her.

In a recent study of referral procedures, the Thomas Coram Research Unit found that the organisation and practice of referral-taking varied considerably across English local authorities. The factors that managers identified as important were the quality of the individuals taking the initial calls, supported by sufficient personnel, equipment and training resources. Clear procedures were particularly important where screening systems operated to ensure that those receiving calls can distinguish between general enquiries and concerns about a child's safety, and understand the thresholds at which different types of action are required.

The past two years had seen several changes in the organisation of duty systems, including the development of call centres. In two-thirds of local authorities, there was a screening service in place for daytime referrals, while in the others, support staff simply took messages for social workers. It could be a centralised social services duty system, where all calls went through the same number and were directed appropriately. In other arrangements, the worker had a role in decision-making and onward referral. For example, in one unitary authority, referral co-ordinators worked across children and adult services. They acted as a filter to specialist teams, took all calls, gave advice and information, and signposted callers on to other agencies. They were described as "admin people, but with access to training".

More than half of the managers reported working in a climate where members of the public and other professionals had unrealistic expectations of social services. They believed that fears of social workers taking children away from their families was one reason why they were sometimes not contacted by the public when there were concerns about a child's welfare. One respondent said the role of social services as a child supporter, not a whistle-blower, should be better promoted to assure the public that safeguarding children was everybody's business.

Another supported the idea of an emergency number equivalent to 999, dedicated to reporting concerns about a child's welfare. A common refrain was: "The biggest thing we need is more clarification about what we areÉ we are not a universal service." But promoting social services could mean being inundated with calls, each requiring detailed assessment from over-stretched teams.

Government guidance says that all referrers should be told how social services have decided to act or not on their referral, and the reasons for the decision. But less than a quarter of managers in our study said that they always provided feedback to callers. Most said they did this sometimes. But nine respondents, mainly managers of out-of-hours services, said that they rarely or never provided feedback because they expected this to be done by the day-time staff who processed the referrals.

Professionals were more likely to receive feedback than members of the public, something that other studies have also found.1 Even those respondents who said their local authority always provided feedback did so only for referrals from other agencies. Most of those who occasionally provided feedback said that concerns about confidentiality meant that they gave only limited information to members of the public or family members, and often only if specifically requested.

But there was good practice. In Cambridgeshire, all referrers received a response within 48 hours, either by letter or telephone. This included the public as well as professionals, and also applied to anonymous callers, who were invited to ring back within 48 hours to find out how their call had been dealt with.

Asked to identify ways in which duty systems and referral-taking could be improved, managers expressed concern about three main areas: staffing, organisation and equipment. One manager described duty teams as "the dying ground of burned-out social workers" and felt that there was not enough status attached to this area of work to attract good front-line staff. This was resulting in a move towards using workers without social work qualifications for front-desk duties. Problems also arose because newly qualified staff with little experience of safeguarding work constantly needed to check enquiries with team managers.

Many expressed a need for more screening staff, and more and better training to help them distinguish between types of referral and the appropriate responses. One respondent said that while the system of having referral and information assistants worked well, team managers had to have a system of checks on their quality of work. A recent article in Community Care made a similar point about the importance of training for staff in call centres.2

There were wide-ranging organisational problems, but managers were not short of ideas about how the situation could be improved. Their recommendations included: introducing more direct access to social workers, adopting clearer guidelines on the difference between a contact and a referral, and addressing problems with other agencies over sharing information and assessments.

Fast and reliable access to accurate information held about families and individuals is essential for a duty system. Efficient computer, telephone and other information-handling equipment is a key requirement for this.

But for a minority of the managers we interviewed, their information-handling systems were not working well enough. They described insufficient capacity on telephones, precarious fax arrangements, insufficient information on e-mail referrals to make adequate initial assessment decisions, and antiquated and unreliable information systems. One manager was particularly concerned about the inability of directory enquiry services to provide callers with the right number, and gave worrying examples of valuable time being lost in emergencies in which a child was at risk of harm, because callers had been directed to the wrong police or social services number.

This study highlights initial findings about the operation of duty systems: what is now needed is a more in-depth study to explore referral-taking practice in different types of front-desk arrangements, and how effective they are in safeguarding children.

Abstract

This article reports findings from a study of front-line arrangements in social services for receiving and processing information to safeguard children. The quality of staff receiving initial calls from members of the public was critical to the quality of referral-taking. Duty social workers said professionals and public alike had unrealistic expectations of what they could do. Staffing, organisation and equipment could all be improved.

About the research

Getting Help: A Survey of Reception and Initial Contact Arrangements in Social Services Departments, June Statham, Claire Cameron with Elizabeth Jones and Kim Rivers, 2004. Available at www.dfes.gov.uk/research. Seventy managers were interviewed for the study, working in 28 local authorities in London, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities and county councils, responsible for daytime and out-of-hours duty systems.

References   

1 H Cleaver, S Walker, P Meadows, Assessing Children's Needs and Circumstances: the Impact of the Assessment Framework, Jessica Kingsley, 2004. And J Thoburn, J Wilding and J Watson, Family Support in Cases of Emotional Maltreatment and Neglect, The Stationery Office, 2000 

2 N Valios and K Leason "Ring for service", Community Care, 12 August, 2004

Further information

- The Department for Education and Skills sent the key findings of the research to chief executives and directors of social services in England in July, in local authority social services letter (2004)7: Research into the Effectiveness of Different Child Protection Referral and Reception Systems.

Contact the author

The authors welcome contact by e-mail: c.cameron@ioe.ac.uk and j.statham@ioe.ac.uk

More from Community Care

Inform promo