1

Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Diagnostic Guidance Manual December 2016

2

Table of contents 1. Introduction and overview of CSE diagnostic process page 3 2. Basic stages in a CSE diagnostic page 4 3. The team page 10 Appendix 1 – CSE Diagnostic Lines of Enquiry page 12 Appendix 2 – Information for the CSE diagnostic page 15 Appendix 3 – Assessment of compliance with page 17 requirements of statutory guidance Appendix 4 – Case Mapping Exercise page 25 Appendix 5 – Case Records Review page 29 Appendix 6 – Practice Observation page 35 Appendix 7 – Audit Validation (Optional) page 36 Appendix 8 – Key LSCB responsibilities page 41 Appendix 9 – On-site interview programme page 42 Appendix 10 – The feedback presentation page 49 Appendix 11 – Final report page 50

3

1. Introduction and overview of CSE diagnostic process

This guidance manual is designed to help the multi-agency partnership, peer teams and managers of diagnostics to understand the ethos and aims of a CSE diagnostic and how it actually operates. A top priority is to ensure that there is a robust and systematic early support offer to assist regions and local areas in taking timely and appropriate action to address areas of concern and ensure an effective response to victims and those at risk of CSE. The fundamental aim of the CSE diagnostic is to provide the local partnership with an external view about the effectiveness of the strategic response and the quality of safeguarding practice ‘on the ground’ and areas requiring improvement. The focus of the diagnostic is the partnership response to CSE and this needs to be reflected in the planning and management of the diagnostic. There are three key principles that should be understood and accepted when considering whether to have a CSE diagnostic:

The focus of the diagnostic is on the effectiveness of the multi-agency strategic response, front line delivery of safeguarding and the quality of joint working between key agencies.

It is essential for the success of the diagnostic that the LSCB partners and the peer team work together in an open and honest manner that jointly identifies both the strengths and the areas for improvement.

The diagnostic will provide feedback based on brief engagement with the partnership and on a limited number of cases and cannot substitute partner agencies’ and the LSCB’s own quality assurance processes and continuous improvement activity.

The CSE Diagnostic is a structured and standardised process that focuses specifically upon the partnership’s responsibilities. There are a number of key strands: Self-assessment by the LSCB against LSCB responsibilities for CSE as set out in statutory guidance (please see appendix 3 for template). Review of relevant documents including CSE strategy, minutes of relevant LSCB meetings, local thresholds document, local CSE procedures and CSE related performance and quality assurance reports. Interviews with individuals from across the partnership - to explore issues raised through the documentation. Case mapping – a multi-disciplinary case mapping exercise to be conducted by LSCB partners. Case records review – this will examine front line casework practice and management. Critical review of LSCB compliance with the requirements of statutory guidance: ‘Safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation:

4

The programme may also include Audit Validation as an optional element where the LSCB want an external view about the effectiveness of their use of audit to assess and improve practice. Practice observations are another optional element of the diagnostic and will provide the LSCB with a view of current practice and the effectiveness of local arrangements, including early help hubs and MASH arrangements. The diagnostic will use the lines of enquiry set out in Appendix 1 as the method to develop feedback and recommendations for the LSCB. The main findings from these strands will be incorporated into a consolidated feedback report to the LSCB with recommendations on areas needing improvement. The feedback will also be sent to the Director of Children’s Services given their statutory responsibility to work with partner agencies to improve outcomes and well-being of children and young people. As well as the core elements described above a host LSCB Chairperson or the Director of Children’s Services may request additional themes they would like to be included in the diagnostic. These must be agreed with the LGA Diagnostic Manager at the initial set up meeting with sufficient time allowed in the programme. Moreover, peer team members must have the necessary knowledge to provide a view on these topics.

2. Basic stages in a CSE practice diagnostic

The six core strands of the diagnostic will run as distinct processes that will be brought together to provide a consolidated report to the LSCB as well as the Director of Children’s Services. The table below provides an integrated timetable for all the strands and should be read in conjunction with the detailed Appendices for each strand. Each diagnostic will have a twelve week (60 working days) lead in prior to the on-site diagnostic and the timelines detailed below will need to be strictly adhered to. Note: It is recognised that if a Local Authority and LSCB are subject to an Ofsted inspection during the preparation phase for a practice diagnostic that this will probably lead to the cancellation or postponement of the diagnostic. This is the only circumstance in which once a diagnostic has been agreed and dates set that cancellation or postponement would be agreed.

Stage Day Action

Initial enquiry. At any time but at least three months (twelve weeks) before on site stage.

LSCB indicates that it may wish to have a diagnostic. An initial discussion takes place between the LSCB Chairperson, Council DCS, partners and LGA Programme Manager/Children’s Improvement Adviser to consider whether a diagnostic is the right option, the specific focus for the diagnostic, the balance of activities in the programme, and the profile of cases to be included in the case mapping and case record review (and audit validation where this option is required). The discussion will

5

also cover proposed dates, peer team requirements including how feedback from children, young people and families will inform the diagnostic and necessary background information.

Diagnostic preparation. 10 weeks before on-site stage.

The LSCB should commence its diagnostic preparation work (i.e. the steps given below) in order to meet the timescales set out.

Agreement of focus/ key lines of enquiry for diagnostic.

At least 8 weeks before onsite stage.

The diagnostic will follow the standard themes set out in this manual. However, LSCBs will be able to determine the areas of focus that they would like the peer team to concentrate upon and request additional KLOE’s (within the broad scope and time restrictions of the diagnostic).

Case records and case mapping cases are identified by the LSCB and sent to the LGA Diagnostic Manager (also cases for selection if Audit Validation option is requested).

At least eight weeks before onsite stage.

LSCB identifies list of cases for the case record review element of the diagnostic.

LSCB also identifies and establishes

case mapping team and dates that team

will meet.

(LSCB also identifies 12 cases for

selection of 4 cases for Audit Validation

if requested).

Random cases selected for both case records review and case mapping and sent to the LSCB.

At least seven weeks before onsite stage.

LGA Diagnostic Manager to select

cases for both work elements, taking

account of any priority areas of focus

identified by the council or suggested by

other evidence such as previous

inspection or audit reports. Case

mapping commences and dates

identified for operational peer to

undertake case records review over two

(2) days prior to on-site diagnostic. The

LSCB will make arrangements for

relevant social workers and their

managers, along with multi-agency

colleagues (for each case) to be

available for interview when operational

peer is on site to compete case records

review.

6

Confirmation of peer team. At least four weeks before onsite stage.

LGA Diagnostic Manager confirms peer team members to the LSCB for the agreed dates.

Submission by the LSCB of documentation and evidence to support the critical review of LSCB compliance with statutory guidance as set out at Appendix 3. Documentation to include the Case Mapping report.

At least three weeks before onsite stage.

LSCB submit core documents as detailed in Appendix 2 to the Diagnostic Manager for dissemination to the peer team. This should include case mapping report and self-assessment. The LSCB should use the self-assessment to signpost the peer team to documents that evidence compliance.

LSCB submits final timetable for the on-site programme, list of multi-agency meetings in relation to CSE cases during the period of the diagnostic, (including initial and CP conferences, core groups, Looked After Reviews, Child in Need meetings) and any planned strategy meetings and list of CSE cases referred to MASH/Children’s Services in last 6 months as well as list of open CSE cases.

At least two weeks before onsite stage.

Council submits final timetable to the Diagnostic Manager for dissemination to the peer team. In practice, a first draft should be sent as early as possible.

Critical review of LSCB compliance with statutory guidance as set out at Appendix 3 and case records review report completed by peers and reports sent to Diagnostic Manager.

At least one week before on-site stage.

Operational Manager peer and

Diagnostic Analyst to have completed

their examination of case records,

documentation and completed reports.

They formulate ‘early thoughts’, early

hypotheses and lines of enquiry for the

peer team.

Information health check report, case records review report, council documentation, case mapping report and onsite timetable sent to peer team by Diagnostic Manager.

At least one week before on-site stage.

In practice these should be sent as early as possible.

On-site CSE practice diagnostic (3/4 days).

On-site stage. On site, information analysis/ interviews, and observation of frontline safeguarding practice and audit validation where these options are required. Feedback presentation.

7

The final consolidated feedback report

Following the on-site stage, the peer team will compile a report based on the peer diagnostic findings comprising:

An executive summary of the key issues.

Detailed evidence of strengths against each strand of the diagnostic.

Detailed evidence of areas requiring improvement against each strand of the diagnostic and areas for further consideration.

Recommendations for improvement.

Appendices containing the case record review report and individual case review templates.

Post - Diagnostic Feedback

The views of the receiving LSCB are secured through a telephone interview with the LSCB Chairperson undertaken within three months of completion of the on-site diagnostic by the LGA Programme Manager. Action Planning and Review of Impact The LSCB and its constituent partners are expected to build any areas for action arising from the diagnostic into current improvement plans. Three - six months after the diagnostic the Children’s Improvement Adviser will visit and meet with LSCB partners to discuss the progress and impact following the diagnostic.

Post diagnostic submission of Draft report to the LSCB chair and DCS by LGA.

Within 15 working days of completion of the on-site diagnostic. Upon receipt of Draft report, LSCB/DCS provide comments within 10 working days

Diagnostic Manager collates feedback report with peer team leader. Draft report subject to quality assurance procedures and sent to host council and LSCB Chair and DCS for comment within three weeks of the diagnostic. Comments received from council and LSCB and DCS within 10 working days of letter being issued and final version issued to host council, LSCB Chair and DCS and regional LGA principal adviser.

Local Action Planning. After the Diagnostic

The LSCB is expected to build any areas for action arising from the Diagnostic into its improvement plans. The LGA Children’s Improvement Adviser (or equivalent) contacts the LSCB Chairperson and DCS for post-challenge feedback

Reviewing the impact. 3-6 months after the Diagnostic.

The Children’s Improvement Adviser (or equivalent) will visit the council/LSCB to review the progress and impact following the diagnostic.

8

Confidentiality It is vital that the following principles are understood by the LSCB partners and members of the CSE practice diagnostic team and adhered to at all times. Each party shall keep confidential all confidential information belonging to other parties disclosed or obtained as a result of the relationship of the parties under the CSE diagnostic and shall not use nor disclose the same save for the purposes of the proper performance of the diagnostic or with the prior written consent of the other party. The obligations of confidentiality shall not extend to any matter which the parties can show is in or has become part of the public domain other than as a result of a breach of the obligations of confidentiality or was in their written records prior to the date of the peer diagnostic; was independently disclosed to it by a third party; or is required to be disclosed under any applicable law, or by order of a court or governmental body or other competent authority. Data protection The council, partners, LGA and CSE diagnostic team members agree that data (including personal data) as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, relating to the processing of the diagnostic, to the extent that it is reasonably necessary in connection with the diagnostic, may: (a) be collected and held (in hard copy and computer readable form) and processed by the diagnostic team and (b) may be disclosed or transferred:

(i) to the peer diagnostic team members and/or (ii) as otherwise required or permitted by law.

Feedback from children, young people and families The peer diagnostic team will use feedback from children and young people and their families to inform the diagnostic. A range of options exist as to how this can be provided and include:-

1. LSCB provides feedback from children and families that has been secured to inform ongoing service delivery

2. LSCB seeks feedback from children, young people and their families as part of the case mapping element

3. LSCB commissions a piece of work to secure feedback from children and their families e.g. from a specialist provider

4. Peer team meets directly with children, young people and their families to obtain service user feedback. To promote the child and family’s wellbeing, this will require careful management and the availability of ongoing support for the child and family as required. The LGA’s preference is to use options 1 -3 above as to secure feedback from children, young people and families.

9

Communications and publicity

The purpose of a diagnostic is to promote organisational learning and improved outcomes for children and families. In that context, the LSCB should consider communications and publicity regarding the diagnostic and its findings as early as possible. There is a standard ‘What’s it all about’ leaflet that the diagnostic manager will supply to the council to act as a basis for communications with staff. The final report will be sent to the LSCB Chairperson and Director of Children’s Services and copied to the relevant LGA Principal Adviser and Children’s Improvement Adviser. Although the final report is the property of the receiving LSCB and is not published by the LGA, its purpose is to enable improvement and learning; it is not a document intended to be kept a secret. Although untested, it is unlikely that a Freedom of Information request for the final report could be resisted. It is safest to presume from the outset that the report will be shared and plan to manage this positively. The LSCB will want to consider where and when the outcome of the diagnostic will be discussed. If the final report is to be considered by the council executive, scrutiny committee or equivalent governance bodies of NHS organisations, or the Health and Wellbeing Board, it will become a public document. There may be local media interest but pro-active PR is not recommended. In any subsequent inspection of the LSCB, Ofsted and other inspectorates (if this is a multi-agency inspection) are likely to ask to see a copy of the report and request information about any actions taken in response.

10

3. The peer diagnostic team

The LGA convenes a team to deliver each peer diagnostic. Each member of the team has a particular focus but they work together as a team to provide consolidated feedback to the LSCB. The team will be as follows:

Team member Indicative number of

days involvement

(based on 3 day

diagnostic)

Team Leader:

A senior professional with experience as an LSCB Chairperson or at assistant director level in children’s social care who will act as team leader.

Six (one day pre -

analysis, three on site,

one final report

preparation).

Diagnostic analyst (this peer will also act as operational

peer 1)

To undertake the critical review of LSCB compliance with

statutory guidance and on-site interviews etc.

Six (two day pre-

analysis, three on site,

one final report

preparation).

Operational peer 2

An operational manager/senior social work practitioner.

Usually this peer will undertake the case records review as

well as the on-site interviews etc.

Five (three days on site,

one beforehand one for

final report preparation)

* If operational peer

undertakes case record

review two additional

days (one/two on-site

and half day to write

report).

Operational Peer 3

Operational peers will include health and Police peers and

ideally voluntary sector.

Five (one day pre

analysis, three days on

site and one day for final

report preparation).

Operational Peer 4

Operational peers will include health and Police peers and

ideally voluntary sector.

Five (one day pre

analysis, three days on

site and one day for final

report preparation).

The LGA Diagnostic Manager:

An LGA diagnostic manager with experience of children’s

safeguarding peer diagnostics to organise and facilitate the

diagnostic with the council and peer team, provide quality

assurance, capture learning and support the team.

Seven days

(attendance at set up

meeting, three on site,

preparation and

collating final report with

peer team leader).

NOTE: For a large County or Metropolitan authority the on-site period can be extended to 4 days.

11

In addition, a project co-ordinator will be appointed to assist with logistical arrangements, dissemination of documentation, payment of expenses etc. S/he will not attend the on- site work.

The programme manager for the CSE diagnostic will be the current LGA Programme Manager (Children’s Services) to ensure a co-ordinated approach to all sector support requests and to deployment of peers.

The LGA Programme Manager (Children’s Services) and the Children’s Improvement Adviser will provide the quality assurance role for review of all consolidated reports prior to submission to the LSCB. It is anticipated that regular programme review meetings will be established led by the LGA programme manager.

Escalation of concerns about specific cases found by the diagnostic team during the case file review will be immediately communicated via the Team Leader to the LSCB Chairperson and Director of Children’s Services who will ensure necessary action is taken.

12

Appendix 1 - CSE Diagnostic Lines of Enquiry

1. Strategic leadership and governance How do the LSCB and partners demonstrate:

a) Systems and processes are in place to map the nature and scale of CSE. b) A clear vision which reflects the statutory responsibilities of partners and the LSCB

has been agreed. c) Priorities and activity to tackle CSE is based on a good understanding of locally

determined needs, local and national learning, all models of CSE and the specific needs of various groups e.g. boys, disabled children, children from Black and Minority Ethnic communities and those reaching 18 years of age.

d) Children, young people and families are involved in designing strategy and service provision.

e) Activity to tackle CSE is joined up across the strategic partnership including LSCB, Corporate Parenting Board, Community Safety Partnership, Health and Wellbeing Board and Adult Safeguarding Board.

f) Clear links between the delivery of CSE priorities and other safeguarding activity e.g. missing, trafficking, modern day slavery and gang violence.

g) Partners are engaged and actively working together to prevent, protect, pursue and prosecute within effective governance arrangements.

h) Effective relationships and mechanisms to hold the DCS, LSCB Chair and partners to account for work to tackle CSE are in place.

i) Concerns raised by whistleblowing or in accordance with local escalation policy are responded to.

j) Leading members and senior staff provide effective political, managerial and professional leadership for children’s services, including approach to CSE, and co-ordinate this with other partners.

k) Elected Members and Executive Bodies critically challenge and scrutinise the local response to CSE.

l) Resources and infra structure support the delivery of local CSE priorities and: a. the workforce is supported and enabled to identify and respond to CSE

including sharing information/intelligence, gathering evidence and conducting ABE interviews e.g. info sharing protocol, training, risk assessment tools and procedures.

m) An effective commissioning framework is applied across the partnership and CSE/missing, trafficking, modern day slavery and gang activity is reflected in the JSNA.

n) Accountability to the local community e.g. CSE addressed in LSCB annual report.

2. Quality Assurance and Performance Management How do the LSCB and partners demonstrate:

a) Front line staff are provided with access to guidance and specialist expertise on CSE.

b) CSE cases are tracked to monitor progress and outcomes. c) Local thresholds policy is being implemented with regard to CSE. d) Effective systems to resolve professional differences and disagreements are in

place. e) Quantitative and qualitative information is used to performance manage and develop

services provided to CSE victims and their families.

13

f) Feedback from children, young people and families about their experiences of receiving services is secured and used.

g) The impact of services provided to CSE victims i.e. immediate, short and long term outcomes.

h) Continuous learning and improvement in the local response to CSE. i) The impact of CSE training on practice. j) Gaps and areas for improvement are identified.

3. Front line safeguarding practice How do the LSCB and partners demonstrate:

a) A clear referral pathway for CSE cases, in line with the requirements of statutory guidance, is in place and understood by front line staff.

b) Children at risk of being sexually exploited are identified and supported. c) Children who are being sexually exploited, including those placed out of area, are

identified, have their needs appropriately assessed and risk robustly managed. d) Effective ‘transition’ arrangements for sexually exploited children. e) Practitioners provide a child centred and safeguarding response to victims of CSE

including appropriate use of language. f) Professional judgement is exercised to assess and analyse risk. g) The potential risks to siblings and friends of children who have been sexually

exploited are routinely considered and appropriate support services provided. h) The needs of groups of children who are more vulnerable to CSE e.g. LAC or those

missing form home/care/education are addressed. i) Enduring support to current, potential and historic victims and their families is

delivered; including to those who are witnesses in criminal proceedings and those who have reached 18 years of age.

j) Children and parents/carers participate in decision making processes. k) Perpetrators are disrupted, pursued and prosecuted. l) Effective management oversight of cases.

4. Partnership response and community engagement How do the LSCB and partners demonstrate:

a) All partners are engaged and active in preventing CSE. b) All partners are engaged in identifying and safeguarding those at risk of, or those

being sexually exploited, including children missing from home, care or education and those linked to gang members.

c) Relevant partners are engaged in disrupting and prosecuting perpetrators; d) Effective information sharing arrangements. e) Effective systems and capacity to respond to CSE e.g. lead person in each

organisation, training and CSE addressed within organisational safeguarding policies and procedures.

f) Cross border and regional collaboration. g) Engagement with the local community, voluntary groups and community and

religious leaders. h) Other service areas within the local authority are aware of CSE and the key role that

regulatory services and enforcement play in disrupting CSE and building intelligence e.g. licensing.

14

5. Impact and outcomes How do the LSCB and partners demonstrate:

a) They have agreed a set of key strategic outcome measures for CSE. b) They know their activity is having a positive impact on children at risk. c) They understand the degree to which sexually exploited children are helped, protected

and listened to. d) The strategic response and plan is informed and improved by frontline feedback. e) The voice of children and families is informing and improving CSE policy and practice. f) How leaders keep personally informed on the above and what happens as a result of

them receiving this knowledge/information.

6. Additional lines of enquiry and amendments to the standard lines of enquiry The LSCB commissioning the diagnostic should be asked to identify:

a) Any additional lines of enquiry they want the peer team to explore e.g. witness support.

b) Whether they want a particular focus on any of the standard lines of enquiry. c) Whether any of the standard lines of enquiry are not a priority for the diagnostic and

should not be pursued. This is to enable the LSCB to ensure the diagnostic is tailored to its needs.

15

Appendix 2 – Information for the CSE diagnostic The diagnostic team will use the information specified below to undertake a desktop evaluation of the Council and LSCB’s work. They will evaluate against the framework provided by the lines of enquiry and probes set out in Appendix 1 and the requirements of statutory guidance: ‘Safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation’. Documents to be reviewed:

a. Profile of current CSE cases. b. Local CSE strategy and action plan. c. LSCB CSE procedures/pathway and any associated supporting guidance/documents

e.g. risk assessment tool. d. LSCB trafficking procedures and missing protocol and any cross border protocols

with neighbouring LSCBs. e. Local thresholds document including any guidance produced in response to Working

Together 2015. f. Local Authority whistleblowing policy and any guidance on whistleblowing/escalation

produced by LSCB. g. Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. h. Community Safety Strategic Assessment. i. Health and Wellbeing Strategy and any relevant partnership plan e.g. Children and

Young People’s Plan. j. LSCB Annual Report. k. LSCB Business Plan. l. Local Authority Children’s Services Plan. m. Any evaluation of multi-agency CSE training and LSCB training strategy and plan n. Feedback from children and families who receive services designed to reduce the

harm and risk of CSE. o. CSE performance reports to LSCB from the previous 12 months and any locally

agreed CSE performance dataset. p. CSE performance reports to Police, health or Local Authority.

Executive/Board/scrutiny including evaluation of impact and outcome of CSE strategy.

q. Single and multi-agency CSE audit reports from the previous 12 months. r. Terms of reference LSCB CSE sub group and minutes from the previous 12 months. s. Terms of reference of any CSE panel and minutes from the previous 12 months. t. Structure and service specification of any CSE co-located team and job description

of specialist roles e.g. CSE Coordinator. u. Service specification of any commissioned CSE specialist service. v. Missing from home/care data from previous 12 months and data and analysis of

Welfare Return Interviews. w. Any evaluation of the delivery of PSHE (safe and healthy relationships). x. CSE communications plan and details of community awareness and engagement

activity. y. Details of any programme of activity carried out with the hospitality industry or

licensed premises, hotels, taxi drivers etc.

Fifteen (15) working days before the on-site stage the LSCB will send the LGA Diagnostic Manager those documents that it would submit to meet items (a) to (y) above and any additional documents agreed to be part of the diagnostic. The LSCB will provide hard copies of the documents in the Team Base Room. The diagnostic analyst will review and analyse those documents and use them to develop

16

an evaluation of the LSCB’s work against the lines of enquiry for the diagnostic as set out in Appendix 1. All peers are expected to familiarise themselves with the documentation. The draft report from this work should be available before the start of the on-site phase of the diagnostic and updated during the on-site diagnostic. The document review will also be used to critically review the extent to which the LSCB complies with the requirements of statutory guidance compliance. The Team Leader will ensure a summary of the findings from the document review is included in the consolidated report to the LSCB. The LSCB may commission a more detailed commentary on the documentation as an additional part of the diagnostic. During the on-site stage the Team Leader, supported by the peer team, will interview the Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children Board, Director of Children’s Services, leading members of the LSCB and other relevant personnel. One area of focus for the interviews will be on the extent to which the documentation enables them to demonstrate that they meet their local assurance requirement responsibilities – in particular, what else do they need to do to ensure they know ‘whether and how well they are safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation?’. The lines of enquiry and probes set out in

Appendix 1 will be used to structure these interviews.

17

APPENDIX 3: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTORY GUIDANCE ON CSE (DCSF, 2009) The Team Leader in conjunction with professional peers will carry out a critical review of the extent to which the LSCB complies with the requirements of statutory guidance. The outcome of the review will be recorded on the template below and the findings of the review will be included in the final report. The full guidance can be found at the following location: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-children-and-young-people-from-sexual-exploitation-supplementaryguidance Assessment criteria: Red-Yet to be addressed or at a very early stage of development; Amber – Under development, or partially achieved or Green – In place

Para What is required (DCSF Guidance wording) Summary Likely sources of evidence

Assessment

3.17 4.16

LSCBs should put in place systems to monitor prevalence and responses to child sexual exploitation within their area (see paragraph 4.16). They should start from the basis that there is a problem to be addressed in their area – this would include gathering data from Board partners and other local stakeholders. Research suggests that sexual exploitation does indeed take place in most areas across the country16. In their monitoring and evaluation of case work, LSCBs should put in place systems to track and monitor cases of sexual exploitation that come to the attention of local agencies including schools, colleges and other education organisations, health, the police, social care, housing services and voluntary and community sector organisations. It would clearly be helpful if LSCBs could share key data with one another and with national organisations to improve the evidence base on sexual exploitation and work to address it.

Mechanisms in place to collect prevalence and monitor cases of CSE.

Profile of current cases

CSE performance reports/dataset

Evaluation of impact report

Terms of Reference of any CSE panel and minutes from previous 12 months

Feedback from children, young people and families.

18

4.5 As explained in Chapter 1, every LSCB should assume that sexual exploitation occurs within its area unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Sexual exploitation should be considered in local needs assessments and, where it is a significant issue, the LSCB should help ensure it is regarded as a priority by the Children’s Trust.

Assume that CSE is present and treat it as a priority where believed to be a significant issue.

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

Community Safety Strategic Assessment

Health and Wellbeing strategy and any relevant partnership plan e.g. children and young people’s plan

LSCB Annual Report

LSCB Business Plan.

4.6 Local activity should include measures to prevent children and young people becoming exploited (see Chapter 5) as well as measures to help young people who are exploited and to take action against perpetrators.

Local activity should include preventative activity, helping those being exploited and targeting perpetrators.

CSE Strategy and action plan

Evaluation of the delivery of PSHE (Safe and Healthy relationships)

Service specifications of any commissioned CSE speciality service

Missing from home/care data and data and analysis of Welfare Return Interviews

Minutes of CSE panel

CSE performance data including prosecution data

Feedback from children, young people and their families.

19

4.7 In fulfilling their function of developing policies and procedures, LSCBs should ensure that specific local procedures are in place covering the sexual exploitation of children and young people. These should be developed in line with this guidance (in particular Chapter 6 which addresses the management of individual cases) and set out clearly the respective roles and responsibilities of local agencies and professionals. These procedures should be a subset of the LSCB procedures for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, and be consistent with local youth offending protocols. The strong associations that have been identified between different forms of sexual exploitation, running away from home, child trafficking and substance misuse should also be borne in mind.

LSCBs should have specific local procedures to cover CSE (e.g. a strategy)

LSCB CSE procedures/pathways and associated supporting guidance/documents e.g. risk assessment tool

Trafficking procedures

Missing protocol

Local thresholds document

4.8 All agencies with responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people should be involved in drawing up these procedures, including local and national voluntary child and family support agencies and national voluntary child care organisations which have a local presence. It would also be helpful to involve the Crown Prosecution Service as local procedures should include

All agencies with responsibilities for safeguarding should be involved in formation of procedures including survivors (where safe to do so) and those

Minutes of LSCB CSE sub group

CSE procedures

20

reference to disruption plans and gathering evidence for prosecutions of the perpetrators. Survivors of sexual exploitation and those who have been indirectly affected, such as parents, carers and other family members, who are willing to be involved with developing the procedures, should also be involved as appropriate. However, any direct involvement of young people in developing local procedures should be carefully managed, ensuring that children and young people’s potential needs for support and safeguarding throughout this process are adequately met and their contributions appropriately valued.

indirectly involved (parents, carers)

4.9 Local areas should continually assess how young people are being groomed for sexual exploitation and make enquiries about the other routes into sexual exploitation taking place in their area. They should amend their intervention approaches to take account of new knowledge as the models of exploitation change over time.

Areas should assess and identify patterns of exploitation (problem profiling) and amend interventions to reflect picture.

Profile of current CSE cases

CSE panel minutes

LSCB CSE sub group minutes

Missing from home/care data from previous 12 months and data and analysis from Welfare Return Interviews

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

CSE performance reports CSE

21

4.12 (incl 4.10 & 4.13)

4.12 In their function of ensuring that the training of people who work with children or in services affecting the welfare of children is provided, LSCBs should ensure that local safeguarding training includes information about how to identify the warning signs of and vulnerabilities to sexual exploitation, and covers all the issues outlined at 4.10 above (how to identify signs of sexual exploitation; how professionals can seek help and advice on this issue; how professionals can and should share information about concerns; referral routes, gathering evidence; safeguarding victims, etc.) 4.13 Local training should also help to develop an understanding of how to gather evidence which can be used effectively against abusers. Where sexual exploitation is known to exist locally, LSCBs should ensure that specialist training is available for all key professionals.

Training to include how to identify warning signs of CSE, how to report concerns, how to safeguard and how to prevent. Training should also include how to gather evidence.

Any evaluation of multi-agency CSE training and LSCB training strategy and plan.

22

4.15 In relation to their communicating and raising awareness function, LSCBs should identify any issues around sexual exploitation including those arising from the views and experiences of children and young people in their area. Guidance for the local community on sexual exploitation should include: • awareness-raising activities focused on young people •publicity for sources of help for victims • how and where to report concerns about victims and offenders • public awareness campaigns more generally.

Awareness-raising for young people, where to obtain help, how to report and more general public awareness raising.

CSE communications plan and details of community awareness and engagement activity

Details programme of activity carried out with the hospitality industry and/or licensed premises, hotels, taxi drivers etc.

4.20 LSCBs should identify a sub-group, reporting to the Board, to lead on the issue of sexual exploitation, drive work forward and ensure effective cooperation between agencies and professionals. This group could be tasked with developing and ensuring the implementation of the procedures referred to above. It should develop close working links with other sub-groups already working on linked topics such as child trafficking, e-safety or missing children.

Sub Group to be identified to lead on CSE, should include close links with other sub groups were in place (e.g. Trafficking, missing).

Terms of Reference LSCB sub group and minutes from previous 12 months

CSE strategy and action plan.

23

4.21 LSCBs should ensure that there is a dedicated lead person in each partner organisation with responsibility for implementing this guidance. They should also put in place appropriate arrangements for ensuring that work with children and young people who have been or may be likely to be sexually exploited is undertaken in a coordinated way. For example, some areas have put in place co-located dedicated units which bring together expertise from a range of agencies, while others have appointed a dedicated coordinator who can ensure a ‘virtual’ team response.

LSCBs should ensure that lead person in each organisation to implement guidance. Arrangements should also be in place for either a dedicated coordinator or co-located team (bringing expertise together).

CSE strategy

Job descriptions: specialist roles

Structure and service specification of any CSE co-located team.

4.22 LSCBs should put in place arrangements to cooperate with neighbouring areas, and other LA areas where children and young people who have been sexually exploited are believed to have lived or temporarily been present in other areas. These arrangements may be part of more general cooperative arrangements between LSCBs.

Arrangements in place for cross border working across neighbouring LA areas.

CSE strategy and action plan

Cross border protocols

Single and multi-agency CSE audit reports

Profile for current CSE cases.

4.23 LSCBs should also consider: Auditing periodically how multi-agency plans for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people, support for parents and carers and action on offenders are effectively developed and implemented in line with this guidance and Working Together (see paragraph 3.3).

Periodic audits of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

Single and multi-agency CSE audit reports from previous 12 months including self-assessments or evaluation of the capacity of partner agencies to deliver their statutory responsibilities in relation to CSE.

24

LSCB should conduct regular assessments on the effectiveness of Board partners’ response to child sexual exploitation and include in the (annual) report information on the outcome of the assessments. This should include an analysis of how the LSCB partners have used the data to promote service improvement for vulnerable children and families.

Regular assessment on the effectiveness of Board Partner’s responses to CSE and outcome reported in LSCB Annual Report.

LSCB Annual Report and any assessment of the effectiveness of Board Partners’ responses to CSE

CSE performance reports to police, health or Local Authority Executive Board/ Scrutiny

Feedback from children, young people and families

Evaluation of impact reports.

25

Appendix 4 – A case mapping exercise to be conducted by LSCB partners

Guidance for case records mapping group exercise

The case mapping group’s work should begin as soon as possible after the initial set up meeting has taken place. The final report should be submitted to the Diagnostic Manager three weeks before the diagnostic team is due to come on-site.

The task

The task of the case mapping group is to build a three-dimensional picture or ‘thick description’ of safeguarding practice, with particular attention to interfaces between different agencies and levels of the system. It is a multi-disciplinary qualitative overview rather than a single agency quantitative audit. Two kinds of question frame the work of the mapping group:

• In what way are the processes of different agencies working well or

encountering difficulties in achieving improved outcomes for children and

young people?

• What is the evidence for progress or lack of progress in creating partnerships

to promote the welfare of children?

The process

The LSCB provides the Diagnostic Manager with a list of current CSE cases (CiN/CP/LAC) who will select at least 6 cases for mapping; cases selected can be used to explore specific themes that have been agreed will be included in the scope of the diagnostic. It is important to remember that while an historical overview of long-term work is useful, for the purposes of this work, it is best to concentrate on recent multi-agency practice in relation to CSE.

The LSCB will need to identify what records are held by other agencies. Representatives from partner agencies should map the data held on their agency records and bring their ‘maps’ to the mapping group. It is essential that reports from all agencies working with the child/family are included in the group’s deliberations.

Who is involved?

The LSCB will identify six to eight sector-wide practitioners (i.e. operational staff/practitioner level 3 and 4 across the sector) to undertake the mapping work. Group members will work in pairs.

It is suggested that a third-tier officer responsible for safeguarding should lead the group.

The team should comprise at least:

• Social worker involved in assessment and care management.

• A Police Officer (Public Protection).

• A Health professional.

• An education professional.

• Third Sector professional.

The team members, working in pairs, should try to address the 15 groups of questions (see below) probably in two sessions and feed their findings into the overall group meetings.

26

The mapping group will need to provide the peer diagnostic team with their findings at least three weeks before the review team comes on site.

Defining a plan of work

At the first meeting it will be necessary to:

• To establish the various tasks.

• Select the six case records defined above and consider how best to review

these, identifying which agencies hold records relating to the particular case

• Confirm the pairs and lead responsibility for each case.

• Agree roles and who should offer guidance if difficulties are encountered.

• The first meeting may also wish to add to the guidance questions, any issues

relevant to local circumstances.

Second meeting: for a progress check and troubleshooting, and to prepare interim findings.

Third meeting: to finalise report back to peer diagnostic team (via the Diagnostic Manager) using the template below.

What kinds of questions? It is important to establish at the outset that the aim of this exercise is essentially descriptive – the questions being asked are ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions rather than ‘why’ or ‘who’ questions. Above all, the case mapping group is not interested in asking ‘Who is to blame for something not working well?’ The group should assume that some things will be going well, and some not so well. It is important that they consider all aspects. A set of questions (see below) is for use by the mapping group to help direct their focus in reviewing each case. These are not exclusive and may not be relevant in all cases.

Producing findings. The aim is to generate snapshots of partnership working. They can provide clear indicators of where improvement in practice or working relationships is needed. Where the case mapping exercise identifies ‘problems’, this should focus on ways in which processes such as information sharing can be improved. Feedback to the peer team should cover the following issues:

• Outline difficulties experienced in undertaking the task such as access to records,

changes in personnel through the life of the mapping group, inadequate

recording, lack of co-operation of partner agencies, etc.

• Identify strengths and challenges in the following areas:

▪ The effectiveness of practice (outcomes specified and achieved).

▪ Quality of interventions.

▪ Rigour of recording and management oversight.

▪ Responsiveness and timeliness of interventions.

▪ Joint working and information sharing.

▪ Impact of service provision.

▪ Accessibility of information particularly from a child or parent/carer’s

perspective.

27

The following is suggested as a template for the feedback:

1) Introduction

a) How was the exercise carried out, who was involved, who led the work?

b) How/if the cases reflect any specific themes the LSCB wises to consider?

c) Which records were accessed/ which could not be accessed?

2) Brief outline of each case to include:

a) Reason for contact/involvement.

b) Agencies involved.

c) What worked well/did not work well.

3) Which records were accessed, were they clear and up to date, were there

chronologies and contact information sheets, single/common assessments or

multiple assessments, timeliness and appropriateness of decision making, what

multi-agency planning and review meetings have taken place, who

attended/contributed, were there outcome-based plans and have these been

regularly reviewed?

4) Thematic findings, for example:

a) File/record management.

b) Information sharing.

c) Service planning.

d) Quality of service provision.

e) Children’s engagement and voice of the child.

f) Family engagement and voice.

g) Inter-agency working.

h) Participants’ observations.

i) Funding and systems.

j) Outcomes achieved.

5) Conclusions and learning points following key questions from guidance as

appropriate.

Generic questions for the case mapping group

In respect of the cases, the mapping group pairs should consider the following questions:

a) Is there clear identification of the lead professional in the case, and is there

evidence that this is clear to the child/young person and their family/carers?

b) Is there evidence of effective information sharing between partner agencies? c) How could arrangements for information sharing be enhanced? d) If the local area operates a CSE panel, how effective is the information

exchange between the panel and those directly working with the child/families? e) Is there evidence of a shared assessment of the child’s needs across partner

agencies? f) What would a child and their parent/carer say about the consistency of

response and service that they receive from partner agencies?

28

g) Is there evidence that children are seen alone, their voices heard and their wishes and feelings are considered during assessment, care planning and review?

h) Is there evidence that the parents/carers are involved and that their views and contribution are included in the development of care plans?

i) Do care planning processes look as though they are sector-wide and unified among core partners in the local sector?

j) Are the records of all agencies well kept, with up-to-date basic and case summary/chronology information?

k) Can chronologies be accessed from the integrated children’s system? l) What would a child/young person say about the case file maintenance and

clarity of the story? m) Is there evidence of effective multi-agency co-operation and care planning on

cases? n) Do risks in the case seem to be appropriately assessed (multi- agency),

recorded and acted on? o) Is there evidence of disruption and pursuit of perpetrators that is not reliant on a

disclosure by the child? p) What evidence is there that actions and plans are being explained properly to

the child/young person and their parents/carers? q) Is practice in the case driven by the outcomes sought for the child/young person

and are these specified anywhere? r) Are children and young people asked what difference the interventions have

made? s) Where a case moves across agency boundaries, or where significant costs are

associated with decision-making (e.g. out of borough provision, therapeutic support), do effective resource mechanisms/protocols exist to facilitate decisions, allow money to follow cases etc.?

t) Does the case reveal evidence of significant resource deficits in respect of workforce, budgetary or commissioning issues?

u) Do the case records reveal evidence of effective frontline practice and management?

v) Is there evidence of the provision of regular and effective supervision within the services involved with the case, but with particular reference to the lead professional?

w) Are decisions clearly recorded and signed off by senior managers? x) Is there evidence that recruitment and retention issues have any effect on the

outcome of the cases? y) Did the cases have a practitioner allocated that is/was an agency or permanent

member of staff? (Please record the number of lead professional changes in the life of the child).

z) What mechanisms are in evidence to show that the agencies involved in the child/young person’s life, are measuring the impact and difference that they are making through the services that are provided?

aa) Is there evidence that the frontline staff are aware of the particular set of performance indicators that are relevant to these cases?

These questions should be addressed by the team members working in pairs – perhaps in two sessions, each pair session being interspersed with a meeting of the tracking and mapping group to share findings.

29

Appendix 5 – Case records review

Overview and Purpose This strand will be undertaken by one member of the peer diagnostic team in advance of the peer diagnostic team being on site:

(i) An exploration and discussion of at least 6 case files, with a view to considering

frontline case management and good practice. While this exercise is not the equivalent of the Ofsted case record inspections, it would help authorities to identify key practice issues such as:

Outcome focus.

Risk assessment and management.

Evidence of the voice of the child.

Evidence of reflective thinking and analysis.

Partnership working.

Management oversight.

The peer will review the actual case records and consider the data quality, quality of assessment and direct work undertaken, and evidence of management oversight and direction. The peer will meet with the multi-agency professionals involved in the cases. The peer will provide feedback on the individual cases and a report on any trends and key issues. The LSCB will have the option to focus the selection of cases on particular groups of children where they wish to explore a particular aspect of safeguarding practice in more depth e.g. looked after children, 16-17 year olds, early help etc. or alternatively, the cases will be selected from CSE cases referred to MASH/ Children’s Services in the last 6 months and the list of open CSE cases.

The main findings from the case record review will be incorporated into the consolidated report to the LSCB with recommendations for improvement. Method The review will be conducted in accordance with the principles set out in this manual as regards personal data, data protection, confidentiality and safe staffing. It should reflect the ethos of the practice diagnostic i.e. as an early support learning and improvement process. The review of case records will be conducted by an operational peer will take place prior to the on-site diagnostic. The sample of cases will be selected at random from current CSE cases from the case list provided by the LSCB. The list of open cases provided should include:

Case record number/integrated children’s system (ICS) number.

Date of birth.

Gender.

Language.

Religion.

Case status child in care (CLA).

Child protection (CP) including dates CP plans.

Child in need (CIN).

Disability status.

Ethnicity.

30

Start date and date child first identified to be at risk of, or being sexually exploited.

Team where case held

Whether the child is currently in receipt of full time school education.

Number of episodes when the child has been missing from home or care in the last 6 months.

If the LSCB wishes to use the case records review to test out the application of local thresholds, details of contacts/referrals where CSE was a feature in the last 6 months should also be provided including the outcome of the referral. The list provided should include:-

Date of birth.

Gender.

Religion.

Language.

Disability status.

Ethnicity.

Date of referral.

Outcome of referral.

The details of the chosen files will be communicated to the LSCB 20 working days before the case records review will be completed. The cases selected will take into account, for example, gender, ethnicity, disability as well as the case status i.e. early help, CiN, CP or LAC. The Professional Peer will:

1. Examine each case record and record their findings on the Case Record Outcome Report set out in Appendix 5.

2. Then have a group discussion with the appropriate social worker, their manager and multi-agency partners to discuss each case and the peer’s observations on the case records. This will enable them to complete the final section of the Case Record Outcome Report.

3. Finally, write a covering narrative report on any trends or key issues identified from the overall examination of all the cases.

The covering narrative report and each Case Record Outcome Report will be included in the final consolidated feedback report to the LSCB.

During the discussions with social workers, their managers and multi-agency partners the peer should explore to what extent the social worker, manager and multi-agency partners:

Have a good understanding as to what is going on in the case

Have accurately assessed risks.

Place responsibility for the exploitation with the perpetrator(s).

Work in partnership and share information.

Actively engage the child and their parents/carers in decision making processes.

Provide enduring and child centred support including pre, during and post-trial.

Support parents/carers.

Tackle perpetrator activity.

Are tracking progress.

Have an outcome focus.

31

The peer may also wish to use the following questions during the discussion:

How did they focus on the child and young person?

How did they ensure they achieved the outcomes of the care plan and if they have not what did/are they doing about them?

What was their thinking?

Who did they work with?

How were they supported?

How were they challenged?

How did they overcome obstacles?

How, as required, did they escalate any professional concerns?

How did their manager know what was happening?

How did they record their work, did it reflect what actually happened, or what they thought, including safeguarding risks and concerns?

How do or are they demonstrating to others the effectiveness of what they are doing?

What do they think the child or young person would say about what they did?

What evidence, theory, and models do they use to help inform your assessment and professional judgement?

32

Appendix 5A – Typical case records review timetable

TIME Day 1 Day 2

08.30-9.00 Peer shown to base room,

introduction to systems,

domestic arrangements etc.

9.00-12.30 Peer will examine first three/four case records and record their findings on the Case Record Outcome Report (taking break as required)

Peer will examine second three/four case records and record their findings on the Case Record Outcome Report (taking break as required)

12.30-1.00 Lunch Lunch

1.00 - 2.00 Interview Multi Agency

Professionals (Case 1)

Interview Multi Agency

Professionals (Case 4)

2.00 - 3.00 Interview Multi Agency

Professionals (Case 2)

Interview Multi Agency

Professionals (Case 5)

3.15 – 3.45 Break

Break

3.45- 4.45 Interview Multi Agency

Professionals (Case 3)

Interview Multi Agency

Professionals(Case 6)

4.45-6.00 Completion of notes etc. or

interview with social

worker/team manager

Completion of notes etc. or

interview with social

worker/team manager

33

Appendix 5B – Case record outcome report

Question Response with comments

To what extent were CSE risks identified in a timely manner and have the risks been managed in accordance with local thresholds?

Have the risks to other children been considered?

To what extent are all appropriate data fields and contact details completed and up to date?

To what extent is appropriate language used in case records i.e. language places responsibility with perpetrator(s) ?

Is the level of risk re-evaluated in light of new information e.g. missing episode?

To what extent is there a good quality, multi-agency assessment, completed within appropriate timescales and is there evidence of reflective practice and analytical thinking ?

To what extent is there evidence that the child has been spoken to on their own, listened to and their views and the views of parents/carers have been taken into account in care planning ?

To what extent is there evidence of partnership working and appropriate contributions by partners to assessment, information sharing, care planning and service delivery? Is there clear evidence of a safeguarding response that is not dependent on a direct disclosure from the child ?

To what extent is there evidence that services are delivered in ways which meet the child’s needs? Does the length of time professionals are involved give the child time to share their concerns and where appropriate to disclose ?

Is there evidence of disruption and investigation of perpetrators ?

To what extent is there evidence of management oversight and direction ?

To what extent is there evidence that supervision is regular and effective ?

To what extent does the care plan explicitly address the child’s needs as a victim or young person at risk of CSE? To what extent is there evidence of

34

change and progress being achieved in the child`s timescale ?

Are care plan outcomes regularly reviewed, and is there evidence that alternative approaches are employed if outcomes are not being achieved in a timely manner ?

General Case Comments – including points arising from practitioners and manager discussions

Recommendations for improvement in practice arising from case record review

35

Appendix 6 Practice Observation This strand uses a methodology adapted from Ofsted 120011 Annex E: Evaluating the effectiveness of directly observed practice. Practice observations will be conducted by the Team Leader and one of the professional peers who may:

Observe multi-agency information sharing forums e.g. MASH or CSE Panel (peers need to draw a brief conclusion regarding how effective the forum is as a mechanism for identifying and planning for children at risk of CSE)

Observe a multi-agency planning forum e.g. strategy discussion, CiN meeting, CPC or LAC review.

The tool below should be used to record evidence during practice observations. It brings together the key relevant criteria from the Ofsted evaluation schedule. From the list of meetings provided by the LSCB, professional peers will select a number of scheduled multi-agency meetings during the period of the diagnostic for direct observation.

Case number:

CSE peer name

Criterion

Evaluation:

Attendance and participation (families and professionals including advocacy).

The focus on the child.

Quality of the communication with the child and family, evidence of relationship building and appropriate use of empathy and challenge.

Risk is identified, responded to and reduced.

Involvement of children, young people and families in the process including their understanding.

Quality of decision-making is effective and timely

Quality of assessment and help.

Quality of planning and review.

Quality of information sharing.

Effectiveness of coordination between agencies.

Consideration of ethnicity, culture, religion, language or disability.

Children, young people and their families feel they have been effectively helped.

36

Appendix 7 – Audit Validation (Optional)

Overview and purpose

This strand will examine how the LSCB uses multi-agency case audit to assess and improve the quality of practice, particularly emphasising a proper focus on the ‘child’s journey’, reflective practice, and good joint working between the key agencies The diagnostic team will audit a sample of cases and provide an overview report to answer three key questions:

I. How effective is the local audit process in assessing the quality of practice?

II. How well are audit reports used by managers?

III. What action is taken in response to audit reports?

The diagnostic team will review at least four (4) audits from a random sample of CSE cases provided by the LSCB where multi-agency audit had taken place in the previous six months. The diagnostic team will have conversations with multi-agency practitioners and their managers about the cases and prepare a report with the team’s findings.

The diagnostic team will examine the audit process itself and look at examples of completed audits, including a sample of at least four (4) audits. The diagnostic team will report its findings, including comments about how accurately the case audit has been able to assess the quality of practice in the case examples.

The diagnostic team should examine the reports received by the LSCB and managers as a result of case audits, comment on the extent to which the reports assist the LSCB and managers in driving improvement in the quality of practice, and assess the extent to which managers make effective use of the reports they receive.

Through a process of interviews with senior officers and managers and examination of written evidence, the diagnostic team should consider the extent to which timely and appropriate action is taken in response to the findings from case audit reports.

The findings from Audit Validation will be incorporated into the consolidated report for the LSCB with recommendations.

Method

The exercise must be conducted in accordance with the principles set out in this manual as regards personal data, data protection, confidentiality and safe staffing.

15 working days ahead of the on-site stage the council will provide a list of cases that have been audited on a multi-agency basis during the previous six (6) months. The Diagnostic Manager will then choose four (4) cases randomly from the list to be reviewed.

The Professional Peer leading on this strand should examine the case audit process itself and also look at examples of completed case audits. This will require the peer to look at a sample of four (4) cases that have been audited and comment on how accurately the case

37

audit has been able to assess the quality of practice in the case examples.

They will also need to have a conversation with practitioners and their managers involved in these cases and their experience and the impact of taking part in case auditing. This should be arranged with the LSCB in advance of the on-site stage (see Appendix 9 for details of timetabling). It is very important that the conversations with staff are conducted in keeping with the spirit of the peer challenge i.e. as a supportive critical friend and not as an inspector.

Wherever possible the peer undertaking the audit validation will spend one day on-site in advance of the three day diagnostic and write a report of their findings to inform the team. This will be arranged by the Diagnostic Manager in conjunction with the LSCB co-ordinator. Whilst on-site the peer must prepare a slide(s) summarising the strengths and areas for consideration of how the LSCB uses case audit to assess and improve the quality of practice. These should address the three key questions:

How effective is the local audit process in assessing the quality of practice?

How well are audit reports used by managers?

What action is taken in response to audit reports?

Following the on-site stage, the Professional Peer should prepare a written report including a summary of the main findings (i.e. the points given in the presentation with a short explanation of each) and further narrative covering points relevant to good practice guidance given below as regards local audit, management reports and action taken.

This report will be incorporated into the final consolidated written feedback.

Undertaking the Multi-Agency Audit

Undertaking multi-agency audits is more complex than auditing the records of a single agency. As a minimum the audit needs to review:

Accuracy of basic case details

Quality of assessment, analysis and care planning

Impact of the interventions

Quality of multi-agency work

Voice and participation of the child and family. The following template expects a level of detail which it may well not be realistic to expect from a multi-agency audit. The audit validation needs to consider whether whatever method the LSCB is using is sufficiently rigorous to enable the LSCB to have an accurate picture of multi-agency practice.

a) Detailed audit template – see next page

38

Practice area What to look for

Basic information The case audit should identify if basic information about the child and family has been provided on file.

This would include case details such as ethnicity of children, family relationships, the key concerns or difficulties that families are facing.

Effectiveness of current and previous interventions

The case audit should be able to identify the impact of previous and current intervention, whether it has been positive and achieved desired changes within the family. If possible the case audit should be able to identify particular factors associated with the success of any help the family have received. A good case audit should be able to separate out the contribution of both the competence of the worker involved and the actual intervention itself and how it helped.

Assessment of need and analysis – have risk and protective factors been considered?

The case audit should be able to identify clearly the risk factors that impact on the child in the family, for example, drug and alcohol abuse, missing from home/care, neglect, self-harm etc. The case audit should also be able to see if protective factors have been considered by the agencies involved. It should be possible for the case audit to identify how the risk and protective factors have been balanced to produce a good assessment which looks not only at the risks but also the child and family’s strengths and resilience. The case audit may focus on the quality of the analysis provided in assessments.

Service response

The case audit should be able to identify whether the service response has been efficient and timely. This is likely to be mainly in response to referrals to the agency and will include whether the agency acted promptly, kept the referrer informed of actions, and took appropriate action following the referral or receipt of new information.

Effective planning and review

Case audits will often look at care plans, child protection plans and other documents which set down plans for a child. The case audit should be able to identify if such plans are child centred, have clear and measurable objectives and identify who is doing what and when. The case audit should look at the timeliness and effectiveness of reviews of care plans.

Building a trusted and effective relationship

The core of good safeguarding practice, the case audit should be able to comment on the extent to which the child and family are involved in decision making and planning and the skill of the practitioner in building a relationship with the child and family. The provision of enduring support to the child/young person will be pertinent and would be expected to be considered within the case audit.

39

A child-centred approach including attention to equality and diversity

The case audit should look at whether the child has been seen alone, his or her views considered and their participation in decisions and case planning. The audit should look at evidence of practice which pays attention to a child’s individual needs, and the response to factors relating to their age, ethnicity, or disability.

Multi-agency involvement

The case audit should look at the effectiveness of multi-agency working and the impact on the case of other agency involvement including the disruption and prosecution of offenders. Communication and information sharing will be key elements which should be considered by the case audit. Specific difficulties within and between agencies should be identified in order to identify themes and patterns which may emerge across a number of cases.

Management, supervision and oversight of practice

Most agencies will require first line managers to provide evidence of supervision on the case file itself and in these instances the case audit template should include attention to supervision notes or management direction and sign off at various stages. However, the agency may use other mechanisms for checking the quality of supervision which are outside any case file audit and which should be considered. In particular, it is unlikely that any critical reflection activity will be documented on the case file but would be an important element of supervision.

Quality of case recording

The case audit should look at the standard of case recording including factors such as clarity of information, concise report writing, use of child centred language, up-to-date entries in the file, recording of basic information, and the presence of key documents for example, chronologies, risk assessments etc.

Process monitoring

There are various processes which need to operate smoothly to support good practice. In particular, child protection procedures being implemented in line with statutory guidance but also other organisational processes such as case allocation, transfer, use of threshold criteria and referral to other agencies. The case audit should consider how well these processes have been followed in any one case.

40

b) Reports received by LSCB/management? The peer should examine the reports received as a result of case audits and should consider the following factors:

1. How well have patterns and themes been identified in the case audit report? 2. How detailed is the report and does it provide concise findings which are

accessible to the reader? 3. What is the time lag between the audits being carried out and the report being

received by LSCB /management? 4. Do the reports provide a good balance between quantitative, qualitative and

outcome measures? 5. To what extent do the reports focus on quality of practice and the impact on

children and families? 6. Is it possible to identify effective interventions with children and families and the

skills of practitioners in helping children and their families to achieve improved outcomes?

7. Is it possible to identify shortfalls in practice in different parts of the service or even down to individual practitioners and if so, are there any contextual issues that should be considered, for example staff shortages or other resource issues?

8. Is good practice recognised and if so, to what level of detail? 9. Is there a clear set of recommendations in the report and are they ‘specific,

measurable, attainable, relevant and timely’ (SMART)? 10. Have case audits been directed at priority areas of concern across the

partnership?

c) Actions taken in response to case audit reports

The peer should establish the following, primarily through interview with senior officers and managers, but also by looking for written evidence of the way the whole process operates:

1. Is there evidence that recommendations have been acted on? 2. Is there a structure for regular monitoring of casework audits with follow up

checks that actions have been completed? 3. How are learning feedback loops built in to the case audit and to what extent do

the lessons from audits reach front line managers and practitioners? 4. Are there any mechanisms for receiving feedback about the service from children

and families, and if so, are they aligned with the findings from case audits?

41

Appendix 8 – Key LSCB responsibilities

The LSCB should be aware of its responsibilities when requesting a CSE practice diagnostic. These can be summarised as follows:

Identification of a Diagnostic sponsor and Diagnostic Organiser.

Attendance at an initial discussion meeting by the LSCB Chairperson, Director of Children’s Services and other Board Members including NHS and police, Diagnostic Organiser and, if possible, the lead member for children’s services.

Assurance that key personnel will be available and participate as required in each strand of the diagnostic.

Organisation of the interview schedule in conjunction with the LGA Diagnostic Manager and ensuring that people will attend – this should be completed and finalised with the Diagnostic Manager one week before the on-site stage.

Provision of all relevant the data and documentation.

Provision of a base room for the peer team for the duration of the on-site stage, including the provision of computers and appropriate refreshments.

Provision of suitable rooms for all interviews (people’s individual offices are fine for these).

Ensure that comments on the draft feedback report are returned within ten working days.

Contribute to the feedback and evaluation process.

Team base room

The council/LSCB must ensure that there is a suitable base room for the team throughout the on-site stage. This must be close to where the bulk of the on-site interviews will be held. The team will spend a considerable amount of time in this room and so consideration should be given to ensuring that it is large enough to accommodate comfortably all members of the team, equipment and has adequate light and ventilation. The room must be for the sole use of the team members, with all interviews being held elsewhere. It needs to be private and lockable, with sets of keys for team members going in and out at different times. It also needs to be accessible to the team after hours. The room will need to be equipped with the following:

Telephone

Computer with access to the internet and the council’s Intranet, email system and case records system for each of the three peers

High-speed, good-quality black and white printer

Access to a nearby photocopier

Data projector and screen (or suitably large & clear white wall)

2 x flipcharts with marker pens and replacement paper (flip charts should be able to be hung on the walls)

6 Packs of post-its (preferably two different colours)

Central meeting table providing adequate room for each person on the team.

42

Appendix 9 – On-site Programme

The on-site stage is the ‘centre piece’ of the whole diagnostic process. Its smooth operation is vital to the success of the diagnostic and requires careful planning. It is essential that during the preparation of this stage there is good liaison between the LSCB Diagnostic Organiser and the LGA Diagnostic Manager (who will advise on practicalities etc.). The timetable should be finalised no later than two weeks before the actual on-site stage commences.

Practical timetable pointers

Compiling the programme and taking into account all diary commitments of those involved, practical arrangements, etc. can be time consuming. It is strongly suggested that this work is commenced as soon as possible with a rough draft being given to the Diagnostic Manager at an early stage so that s/he can advise on any practical difficulties they can foresee. Individual interviews should be scheduled for one hour. In practice the peer team should interview for three quarters of an hour and use the remaining time to allow for crossover of teams, note writing etc. For case record review discussions including multi-agency practitioners allow one and a half hours. Parking arrangements for the team while on site should be in place. If it’s not possible for an interviewee to be on-site, a phone call may be acceptable if agreed with the Diagnostic Manager beforehand. The team will need to meet together at stages of the diagnostic to compare notes, ask for additional information, etc. Slots for this need to be built into the timetable. A ‘no surprises’ policy should be adopted throughout the diagnostic. This means the LSCB Chair, Director of Children’s Services and other Board partners should be provided with regular feedback on the key issues emerging during the on-site work and scheduled in the timetable. There should be opportunities to resolve any outstanding issues whilst the team are on-site, this may include clarification of a finding or asking if any additional information could modify the peer team view. In order to cover as much ground as possible, the timetable may include evening sessions, but be careful people aren’t too overloaded. Practicalities of transport to and from the base and the team hotel should also be taken into account. Peer teams need breaks for lunch and comfort breaks! The peer diagnostic teams will only meet individual children or groups of children and young people during the on-site stage if this is agreed part of the scope. The explicit agreement of the LSCB diagnostic organiser will be required in advance.

43

Sample on-site programme

The timetable below gives an indication of how an on-site programme may look, however, each practice diagnostic will be different and the timetable will reflect the scope agreed with the host authority. For each interview, the council/LSCB should supply name/s, job title/s and location. Peers will broadly have the following duties:

Team Leader – off site information check, on-site information check and interviews, and as required practice observation

Diagnostic analyst/Operational Peer 1 – Analysis of documentary and interviews

Operational Peer 2 – review of documentation, interviews and as required practice observation

Operational Peer 3 – review of documentation, interviews and as required practice observation

Operational Peer 4 – review of documentation, interviews and as required practice observation

LGA Diagnostic Manager – Interviews with the Team Leader or operational peers/on their own, facilitation of Focus Groups and organisation of all activities to ensure adherence to timetable.

An additional peer might be required if the audit validation option is selected A brief demonstration of the relevant ICS system at the start of Day 1 is recommended so that peers can access the system when reviewing cases, or earlier if an authority uses an E-learning protocol. The council must provide a systems facilitator at all times to assist the peers in navigating the recording system.

44

Day 1

TIME Activity Stream 1

Activity Stream 2 Activity Stream 3

08.30-10.00 Team shown to base room, domestic arrangements etc.

Team shown to base room, domestic arrangements etc.

Team shown to base room, domestic arrangements etc.

10.00-11.00 Council Chief Executive

Chair of LSCB

Director of Children’s Services

11.00-12.00 Lead Member for Children’s Services

Assistant Director of Safeguarding/Children’s Social Care

LSCB Sub-group Chairs

12.00–13.00 Chair of Scrutiny Director of Public Health

Safeguarding lead in Education

13.00–14.00 Lunch

Lunch Lunch

14.00–15.00 Practice Observation No. 1 Additional case record review from

ICS system

Additional case record review from ICS system

15.00-16.00 Licensing Manager (Taxis, Alcohol)

Police missing/CSE co-ordinator

Community Safety Manager

45

16.00-17.15 Police and CPD Focus group

Practice Observation No. 2 Voluntary Services Focus Group

17.15-18.00 Team Meeting

Team meeting Team meeting

18. 00-18.30 Day One feedback to host DCS/LSCB Chair

46

Day 2

TIME Activity Stream 1 Activity Stream 2 Activity Stream 3

9.00-10.30 Focus Group of Multi-agency Partners

Focus group Chair and members of LSCB CSE strategic sub group

Focus Group of service users

10.30-11.30

LSCB Business Manager

IROs/CPC chairpersons

Practice Observation No. 3

11.30-12.30

Chair of Community Safety Partnership

Additional case record review/audit of file from ICS system

Chair of Health and Wellbeing Board

12.30-13.15

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

13.15–14.30 Focus Group of frontline social care staff involved in CSE

Focus Group of Middle Managers involved in CSE

Health focus group

47

14.30–15.30

Principal Social Worker Additional case record review/audit of file from ICS system

Lead for Council and LSCB performance activity including audit

15.30–17.00

Education focus group Meeting with Case Mapping Group (include Chair and report writer)

Critical review of LSCB compliance with statutory guidance

17.00–18.00

Team Meeting

Team Meeting

Team Meeting

18.00-18.30 Day Two feedback to host

DCS/LSCB Chair

48

Day 3

TIME Whole Team

08.30-9.00 Diagnostic Team in base room

9.00-12.30 Diagnostic team pull findings together from evidence base

12.30 – 13.00 Diagnostic Team prepare findings and presentation (lunch included)

13.00-14.00 Draft Presentation to host DCS, LSCB Chair and other senior managers (‘dummy run’)

14.15-15.30 Presentation to selected delegates from the authority/LSCB (to include frontline staff)

49

Appendix 10 – The feedback presentation

The process and purpose The final phase of the on-site stage of the review will be a feedback presentation from the team, immediate questions for clarification etc. The structure of the presentation will be a slide for each of the bullet points below. Each of the ‘findings’ slides should be explicit regarding the good practice found and where areas requiring improvement have been identified.

Introduction to the team.

Purpose of a CSE diagnostic.

Main findings (overall messages).

Detailed evidence of strengths against each of the lines of enquiry of the diagnostic.

Detailed evidence of areas requiring improvement against each of the lines of enquiry of the diagnostic.

Case Records Review detailed findings (strengths and areas requiring improvement).

Practice observations (Optional) (strengths and areas requiring improvement).

Audit Validation (Optional) detailed findings (strengths and areas requiring improvement.

Assessment of LSCB compliance with the requirements of statutory guidance on CSE (strengths and areas requiring improvement).

Recommendations/suggestions for improvement.

50

Appendix 11 – Final report

After the on-site stage, the LSCB will be sent a draft report no later than 15 working days after the diagnostic. This should be an easy to read summary of the main findings of the diagnostic. The structure of the final report is as follows:

Introduction: short introduction.

Executive Summary: a narrative executive summary of the main review findings (followed by bullet points from ‘Main findings’ slide).

Detailed evidence of strengths against each of the lines of enquiry of the diagnostic.

Detailed evidence of areas requiring improvement against each of the lines of the enquiry of the diagnostic.

Case Records Review section: bullet points from detailed findings slide followed by a narrative summary of the main points.

Practice observations: bullet points from detailed findings slide followed by a narrative summary of the main points.

Audit Validation section: bullet points from detailed findings slide followed by a narrative summary of the main points.

Assessment of LSCB compliance with the requirements of statutory guidance on CSE: bullet points from detailed findings slide followed by a narrative summary of the main points.

Recommendations for improvement.

Closing paragraph and thanks to LSCB.

Appendices – Case Records Outcome Reports/Practice Observation outcome templates, Audit Validation report, Assessment of LSCB compliance with the requirements of statutory guidance template etc.

The Diagnostic Manager in conjunction with the peer team leader should prepare a draft of this report and submit it to the team for comment if required. The Diagnostic Manager should send the draft to the LGA Programme Manager (Children’s Services) and the LGA Children’s Improvement Adviser for quality assurance, copying also to the relevant Principal Adviser. The LSCB will submit comments on the Draft report within ten (10) working days of receipt of the report to facilitate agreement of the final version. Once all comments have been taken into account, the report will be issued to the LSCB Chairperson and the Director of Children’s Services by the LGA Diagnostic Manager. A copy will be sent to the LGA Principal Adviser and CIA.

51

Contact the Local Government Association Telephone: 020 7664 3000 Email: info@lga.gov.uk Website: www.local.gov.uk © Local Government Association, December 2016 For a copy in Braille, Welsh, larger print or audio, please contact us on 020 7664 3000. We consider all requests on an individual basis.