I work for a LA as one of a team of Child Protection Conference Chairs. We are managed off-line to ensure independence. We have recently been instructed that we need to allow representatives of senior mangement to attend any conference they wish, unannounced, with no consultation with parents. This is for QA purposes
We have no issue at all with this taking place SUBJECT TO the courtesy of following our own LCSB procedures that anyone attending conference is either there because they have relevant information to share or a future role in working ith the family. Or they are there as an observer for learning purposes, with the consent of the family.We're more than happy that SMs attend for QA purposes and would value the feedback and for them to see what really happens day to day
The majority of parents have no objection to this and as we have a large number of conferences every week, we are quite confident that in any given week, we can arrange for attendance with parental consent. We can provide a choice of meetings so we are not prepared in advance. However the view taken is that senior managers are not subject to this process and can arrive at will with no need to ask parents
We feel this is in contravention of principles of respect and allowing some small degree of choice for parents caught up in a difficult, challenging and intensely personal process. We've been advised it happens in other LAs without difficulty or objection but we feel it breaches our professional ethics
Can anyone offer examples of local practice about this? It would be really helpful to hear what happens elsewhere and any views people may have re this practice
Thanks
Sallyanne: I work for a LA as one of a team of Child Protection Conference Chairs. We are managed off-line to ensure independence. We have recently been instructed that we need to allow representatives of senior mangement to attend any conference they wish, unannounced, with no consultation with parents. This is for QA purposes We have no issue at all with this taking place SUBJECT TO the courtesy of following our own LCSB procedures that anyone attending conference is either there because they have relevant information to share or a future role in working ith the family. Or they are there as an observer for learning purposes, with the consent of the family.We're more than happy that SMs attend for QA purposes and would value the feedback and for them to see what really happens day to day The majority of parents have no objection to this and as we have a large number of conferences every week, we are quite confident that in any given week, we can arrange for attendance with parental consent. We can provide a choice of meetings so we are not prepared in advance. However the view taken is that senior managers are not subject to this process and can arrive at will with no need to ask parents We feel this is in contravention of principles of respect and allowing some small degree of choice for parents caught up in a difficult, challenging and intensely personal process. We've been advised it happens in other LAs without difficulty or objection but we feel it breaches our professional ethics Can anyone offer examples of local practice about this? It would be really helpful to hear what happens elsewhere and any views people may have re this practice Thanks
Available for QA should be by request.
This is disrespectful to the "client".
Apart from the subjects, attendees should be there for input, what are SMs going to offer?
Perhaps we should consider bouncers.
needs to be done as excuse me for being rather rude, but some of you folk can be rather power mad and seem to be unaccountable.
but to do it without parents permission is wrong. If it was my family i would object and ensure they were asked their opinion. It is a shitty enough process as it is without it being a spectator sport.
....one wonders if what the motive is as the suspicion must be that you are for streamlining?
'Sallyanne' I feel that anyone employed has the right to accept being monitored / evaluated / scrutinised by their senior managers - you are, however, correct to question how this is undertaken.
Senior managers need to be satisfied that those they are responsible for are carrying out their duties satisfactorily - as a Service Manager I used to both sit in of some Supervisions and also undertake joint visits, both I hope were viewed positively.
You also raise (and it has cropped up on CareSpace before) the issue of exactly what 'Independent Reviewing Officer' means - independent of whom? Often they also carry out CP Conference Chairing and you are correct that your local Childrens Safeguarding Board needs to be fully involved in how performance is monitored - and Minutes alone will not achieve that as 'style' is also very important.
So, yes, full parental / Service User understanding and agreement needs to be obtained in advance and any such attendances ought to be infrequent unless there are reasons for concerns to be addressed by direct supervision of Chairs.
What I found more useful was attending Reviews carried out by colleagues - where discussion aftrewards could take place and we were able to learn from each other, much more positive.
Thanks for helpful replies. Yes we do fully accept need to be monitored and observed - feel there is much to be gained by this as we practice in isolation most of the time and don't observe peers - no time, we are overwhelmed with high case loads as it is! Immediate manager does observe all in team once a year at least and gives feedback in supervision which is helpful. But we always seek client's agreement
But all replies have confirmed what we believe to be the correct practice i.e to allow service users some say in the matter as it is their lives on the table. Most would probably like SMs to observe as they may see it as an additional check on SW practice - so it's very unlikely there will be many refusals.It's just the principle of consulting them that's being violated. We are challenging the decision and will if necessary get it to LCSB for a wider view
I’m a NQSW and therefore my training has led me to believe that CP conferences are independently chaired and any decision is made after a multi-disciplinary meeting and AFTER all evidence is shared. If that is so....Why do I get email s from legal and IRO, prior to conference, asking for the details of my CP Plan?
Kiera: I’m a NQSW and therefore my training has led me to believe that CP conferences are independently chaired and any decision is made after a multi-disciplinary meeting and AFTER all evidence is shared. If that is so....Why do I get email s from legal and IRO, prior to conference, asking for the details of my CP Plan?
Kiera-are you getting supervision? You should discuss and agree the plan with your team manager.
The social worker always writes a c.p plan prior to conference- it's a proposed plan. If you have called the conference, you should know what the risks are and should suggest what would reduce them. The meeting agrees/modifies the plan or not.
The Child Protection Plan may just be a 'skeleton' one prior to the decision as to whether the child will or will not be made subject to a formal CP Plan. Good practice would be to have a Plan outlined as, by calling a Conference, you clearly feel that on-going actions are required (or if called by another professional they feel that the level of risk is significant).
The assessing SW always needs to write a report to give the details of the family and why there are gounds to belive there is a risk of significant harm. That report should be shared with parents in advance - local procedures will state how many days both for Initial and Review Conference. Within this report there should be an analysis section summing up strengths and risks/concerns and may suggest whether the SW believes a CP Plan is warranted. That is NOT the CP Plan as such but should come from the outcome of S47 investiagtion and Core Assessment and present both facts and professional assessment
The multi agency meeting then considers this report as well as all other agencies reports and hears from the parents (and child if old enough to give a view)
The conference then decides whether to make a CP Plan and if so which category and shoud give outline of the Plan, which Core Group then completes in more detail
As an IRO and Chair I am required to see the report in advance otherwise it would be very hard to chair the meeting! Often i will have a discussion with the SW in advance and will always meet parents just beforehand on my own. The decision is usually made by consensus but I would have final say if not. It is not the SW who makes the decison whether or not to have a CP Plan. I am in independent in the sense that I am managed through separate channels than the SW Teams but am still employed by the Dept as is the case for most if not all LAs
Working Together and your local procedues should explain all this very clearly and like someone else said, are you not getting this all explained in supervision? This is standard procedure.......but sounds like you need to check with your manager for more guidance?
Sometimes reports are shared with Legal if there is a possibility of court action as it sums up the main issues so is a good starting point for a Legal Planning Meeting
Going back to the original posting - the fact that you are employed by the Department, albeit managed 'off-line', does raise serious issues of true independence.
Yes - true in a way. In the IRO role I'm protected to a large extent by legislation and recourse to all levels in the organisation and to CAFCASS. I am not aware of many LAs where this isn't the arrangement although there are a few freelance IROs around - but most are employed by LA within a different Directorate - we are within Quality and Safeguarding
Re the CP Chair - Working Together just recommends the Chair is not part of line management and in most cases that is the arrangement through a separate unit - but there is no legal mandate as there is for IROs. In our LA we carry out both roles so some of the independence "rubs off" from IRO to CP Chair - but as is clear from orgiinal post, this means senior managers can over ride - which they haven't and couldn't attempt to do in LAC Reviews
However we have challenged this so far successfully - agreeement given to ask parents and I had one this week where parent said No and this was respected - round One to us!
it's horrendous not to ask client permission. the rest of it is ok.
nelly: needs to be done as excuse me for being rather rude, but some of you folk can be rather power mad and seem to be unaccountable. but to do it without parents permission is wrong. If it was my family i would object and ensure they were asked their opinion. It is a shitty enough process as it is without it being a spectator sport. ....one wonders if what the motive is as the suspicion must be that you are for streamlining?
Ok....bit af a button pressed for me here I admit...I hear a lot of accusations of social workers being "power mad" and not wanting to be acountable, and I accept you apologised first!
There may be some who wish not to have their cases under scrutiny, as there are surgeons and psychiatrists but we seem to accept that because they are " proper professionals"
Are we thought to be "above ourselves" because of a failure in others to recognise our professional responsibility?
So the next time you go into the doctors for a vaginal swab, or a prostate examination, you will accept the health centre practice manager deciding to drop in and watch closely for QA purposes,without your consent being asked?
He or she may not be a qualified doctor but they are a senior manager.
Well, people's personal lives and childcare practices, particularly if they may lead to the loss of their child, are much more personal and sensitive to them than having a stranger look at their "naughty bits".
So that is the context of a professional social worker objecting in the way that they have above, to this lack of respect of the client.
They have a professional responsibility to do so.
The families must give consent , and must be asked if they consent in a way which absolutely reassures them that non-cooperation will NOT prejudice the CP review, or be seen as an part of a patern of non-cooperative attitude.
We can't have people feeling forced to consent in case they loose the good will and "benefit of the doubt" elements within the room.
You wouldn't bring Harry Redknapp on at half time.
I think it could effect the whole dynamics of the procedure.
Surely it could be argued against on best practice grounds.
Absolute no no.
Silversage - I made that exact point re doctor's exam to the SM! Think the point has now been taken - for now anyway, as the person concerned agreed not to attend after a parent's agreement was sought and they declined to give it. So SM did decide not to attend and was invited to another one instead where parent had no objections. QA achieved and no-one's rights trodden on which was all we were asking fo to begin with!
No-one in ouir team has any objections to being observed for QA purposes as we are certainly not above scrutiny and can all benefit from feedback. But as has been said - not at the expense of parents' or child's rights to privacy and respect
it's a no-brainer really, just weird that we had to take the issue up......
Shirack: You wouldn't bring Harry Redknapp on at half time. I think it could effect the whole dynamics of the procedure. Surely it could be argued against on best practice grounds. Absolute no no.
weak analogy. you wouldn't expect 'Arry to do his job without being in the ground watching the game
BUT you're right about it affecting the dynamics of the procedure. i reckon justified by benefits to QA, especially if used sparingly as an auditing tool...