The programme also looked at the extent to which the voice of child was considered through a child’s journey into care. In the cases analysed for this programme, of the children’s journeys into care reviewed by practitioners, less than a third had consistent engagement and inclusion of the voice of the child (see Figure 7). Figure 7: Was the child involved in the decision making process and conversations during their journey into care? Was the child involved in the decision making process and conversations during their journey into care?
Based on the cases reviewed, older children and young people are more likely to have their opinions and wishes captured during decision- making processes, with 88% of secondary school-age children and young people having their voice heard compared to just 40% of primary school-age children (as shown in Figure 9). Figure 9: Was the child involved in the decision making process and conversations during their journey into care? Was the child involved in the decision making process and conversations during their journey into care?
100%
50%
0%
No – the child’s voice was not heard Partially – the child’s voice was heard at points but not consistently or was not included indecision making Yes – the child’s voice was heard throughout their journey into care
Under 1
1-4
5-11
12-15
16-17
52%
Age of the child when entering care
78%
No – the child’s voice was not heard
Partially – the child’s voice was heard at points but not consistently or was not included in decision making
Yes – the child’s voice was heard throughout their journey into care
30%
Summary: This evidence suggests that the barrier to earlier support is often not the absence of services, but the inability to engage families in positively receiving support. Analysis of characteristics of children in the care system indicate high proportions of children from deprived backgrounds. Evidence from case reviews also suggests a significant potential for the voice of children and young people to be more fully considered in care decisions, which in turn appears likely to contribute to a greater potential to support children and their families outside of care. What could be done differently? A key part of the move to a ‘Family Help’ model of supporting families at the Early Help or Child in Need threshold (as defined in the Government’s Families First Partnership Programme) is the introduction of a ‘Family Help Lead Practitioner’ who can be employed by any agency within the local children’s services partnership. This should in theory mean that the professional or practitioner with the strongest existing relationship with a family (or the practitioner with the greatest likelihood of forming a strong relationship) can take on this role. However, the development of Family Help models across the country are still in their early stages, with as yet very few examples of professionals from agencies outside of a local authority’s children’s social care department
systematically taking on the role. Accelerating this change and using this role in this way is intended to be an important means by which local authorities can gain the consent of parents to participate in early support. When this approach is in place, it is likely to be a significant challenge for professionals and practitioners in other agencies to take on this role. The capacity will need to be freed up to undertake this work, and these professionals or practitioners will also need to be trained and supported to be able to secure the consent of families at a higher rate than the current system delivers, as this role will be new for these staff. Partnerships will therefore need to work together to plan for how these roles can be used to best effect, and what is required in order for them to succeed. Another element of the Families First Partnership Programme – Family Group Decision Making – is also intended to support gaining parental consent. The programme stipulates that Family Group Decision Making must be offered to every family at the pre- proceeding stage before a child is taken in to care. However, the use of it across the social care pathway is encouraged. The involvement of wider family is seen as a key enabler in gaining consent, supporting families prior to coming into care, and also supporting positive exit of the care system back to the care of family networks.
As shown in Figure 8, in over 50% of journeys reviewed where practitioners felt the child’s wishes had been listened to and considered, practitioners also had a degree of confidence that the child could have been supported outside of care. This compares to just 22% of journeys where the voice of the child was not captured. Figure 8: Relationship between capturing the voice of the child and practitioner confidence in a child being supported outside of care Relationship between capturing the voice of the child and practitioner confidence in a child being supported outside of care
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes – the child’s voice was heard
Partially – the child’s voice was heard at points but not consistently or was not included in decision making
No – the child’s voice was not heard
throughout their journey into care
Practitioner assessment on whether the voice of the child was heard and their confidence in a child being supported outside of care A degree of confidence Low or no confidence
36
37
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs