Brandon report slams city’s child protection

CHILD PROTECTION services in Dundee have been severely criticised in a damning report published today. The report, prepared in the wake of the Brandon Muir case, was compiled by a team of independent assessors led by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and has raised major concerns over the effectiveness of services to protect vulnerable children in the city and meet their needs.

Of the 18 quality indicators the team looked at, nine were either weak or unsatisfactory, six were satisfactory and only three were described as good.

The report showed there were major weaknesses in the identification of children who needed protection, staff across services did not always respond quickly enough to children who were at risk of significant harm and they did not always report concerns until the child’s circumstances had reached crisis point.

The report follows the killing last year of 23-month-old Brandon Muir at the hands of Robert Cunningham, the boyfriend of the Dundee toddler’s mother.

Cunningham was jailed for 10 years for culpable homicide at the High Court in March, although he is appealing against his conviction.

The month-long inspection, which is part of a rolling programme looking at all 32 Scottish local authorities, was already under way when the trial ended.

Its results had been due to be published in September, but concern over Brandon’s death prompted the Scottish Government to order the findings to be released in June instead, with children and early years minister Adam Ingram saying a clear picture of how children’s services were operating in the city was needed as quickly as possible.

That picture is a hugely damning one which highlights “significant delays in protecting children at risk of neglect or emotional abuse, particularly those affected by parental substance misuse,” which the multi-agency Dundee Children and Young Persons’ Protection Committee has acknowledged and says it has already begun to address.

Some children, the report said, were left for too long in circumstances which placed them at risk of significant harm.

Once children were identified as being at risk of abuse, police and social workers generally took immediate action to safeguard the child and made appropriate use of child protection orders and other emergency powers.

However, weak leadership, inadequate policies and procedures and not enough social workers to respond quickly to the needs of children at risk of abuse, harm and neglect were among the problems found.

The inspectors have ordered the chief officers responsible for child protection services to prepare an action plan within four months to put into effect a series of recommendations for improvements.

Top of the list is to “improve the actions taken in immediate response to the concerns about children.”

Better assessment of risks and needs is required, along with better joint planning.

The committee has been told to beef up its leadership and direction, update its policies for staff and improve its self- evaluation processes.

Their investigation carefully examined the work of the city council, the police, the NHS, the children’s reporter and other local agencies.

The probe included looking at policies and practices and interviewing staff—both senior managers and those on the front line—along with a sample of the families who came into contact with the various services.

The inspectors had six key questions. These included—how effective is the help children get when they need it, how well do the services promote public awareness of child protection and how good is the delivery of key processes?

They also wanted to know how good is operational management in protecting children and meeting their needs, how good is individual and collective leadership and how well are children and young people protected?

The inspectors have promised to come back to Dundee within a year to see what progress has been made.

The report found that the health needs of vulnerable children, including those on the child protection register, were not always well met, while the risks to vulnerable children living in difficult home circumstances often increased when they were excluded from school or provided with part-time education.

Some voluntary services, though, were making significant improvements to children’s lives.

However, the range of services to provide early and intensive support for vulnerable families with babies and very young children did not meet demand.

Services to help school-aged children living with parental substance misuse and domestic abuse were limited.

Children experiencing severe neglect often remained too long in situations without sustained improvement in their circumstances. Many children were helped to remain in the care of other family members when their parents were no longer able to look after them. However, these family carers did not always get the support they needed.

Among the quality indicators which fell below the required standard, the immediate response to concerns was unsatisfactory, while the categories of meeting children’s needs; recognising and assessing risks and needs; effectiveness of planning to meet needs; policies and procedures; operational planning; vision, values and aims; leadership and direction and leadership of change and improvement were all said to be weak.

There were shortages in local foster care places and no respite foster carers to help vulnerable children remain at home. Some children experienced significant delays while waiting for permanent new families.

There were gaps in the range of some specialist services and children often experienced lengthy delays before receiving the help they needed.

Relevant telephone contacts for members of the public to report concerns were not well advertised.

Outside of office hours police and social workers responded to child protection concerns. However, sometimes there were difficulties in obtaining a prompt response from the out-of-hours social work service. Not all staff working out-of- office hours were trained to carry out joint interviews of children who might have been abused.

The role of the social work action team in responding to concerns about children was not widely understood and was not well publicised.

Most staff, including those working with adults, recognised when children needed help or were at risk of harm. However, not all staff were clear about when and where to report their concerns about children and this caused delays in providing the help they needed.

When children were referred to social work services, social workers did not always respond promptly or carry out an initial assessment of risk on receipt of these concerns. As a result, some children were left for too long in circumstances which could place them at risk of significant harm.

Children’s names were removed from the Child Protection Register without clear evidence that the identified risks to their safety had been reduced. Social work reports were not always submitted in time to the Children’s Reporter. Reporters’ decisions were sometimes delayed.

The report said integrated children’s plans had “limited impact on improving the lives of children in need of protection” and some policies to guide staff were out of date and inconsistent.

The participation of children and families in policy development was said to be satisfactory and some initiatives, such as The Corner young person’s advice centre and the cool2talk website were praised.

However, vulnerable children and their families had not been involved in the development of integrated plans.

The recruitment and retention of staff was largely satisfactory, but there were problems in hiring enough health visitors and “the number of social workers was not sufficient to respond quickly to the needs of all referred children.”

Across all services “staff were clear about their responsibilities to keep children safe” but a lack of direction from chief officers was causing difficulties.

There was praise for councillors, who were said to have recognised their responsibilities for child protection, but leadership of child protection was weak.

“The CYPPC made limited use of inspection reports, the work of other child protection committees or significant case reviews,” the inspectors said.

On the question of how well children and young people were protected and their needs met, the inspectors said they “were not confident that all children who were at risk of harm, abuse or neglect, and in need of protection, were identified and received the help and support they needed.”

Dundee is the last of the four local authorities in Tayside and Fife to have its child protection services inspected. Perth and Kinross has just received a glowing report, which said its services had “significant strengths.”

Fife has fared less well, with a report released earlier in the year criticising inconsistencies of approach and calling for improvements. Angus had a generally positive report in 2007 and a follow-up report released this year said “very effective” improvements had been made since.

The education inspectorate report is not the last word on child protection services in Dundee.

Peter Wilson, a former chief constable of Fife, is carrying out his own independent inquiry specifically on the Brandon Muir case, which is also the subject of a statutory significant case review.

* The co-ordinating body for child protection in Dundee is the Children and Young Persons Protection Committee, which is meant to help the various services involved to come together to decide on priorities and how to meet them.

It was set up under national guidance from the Scottish Government and there are similar committees across the country. Its members include officers from the city council’s social work, education, housing and communities departments, along with representatives of NHS Tayside, Tayside Police, the procurator fiscal and the children’s reporter.

The CYPPC has a number of functions, including raising public awareness of child protection issues.

A key part of that is providing information about where members of the public can go if they have concerns about a child and what could happen.

The overall strategic aim is ensure there is proper communication and co-operation within and between the agencies in the belief that joint working will provide better services for children and families.

According to the CYPPC, the main aim of the social work department “is to make sure that children and young people can be cared for at home.

“Removing a child or young person from home is always the last resort and will only happen if it looks like it is unsafe for that child or young person to stay there.”

The department can become involved with children and families for a variety of reasons, but it has a legal duty to look into cases where abuse or neglect is suspected. However the CYPPC’s position is that “the best outcomes for children are achieved when parents/carers and professionals such as social workers and police officers can work together.”

Children only need to be removed from home if the information gathered suggests the child or young person cannot be protected in his or her own home, the CYPPC states.