Consultation on the revised National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland

The Guidance is very comprehensive and detailed with a blend of advice, references to research as well as valuable practice guidance. The comprehensive nature of the document is welcomed but, by necessity, the guidance is therefore a very large document. We anticipate that this may be viewed by some as challenging and potentially daunting. That said, child protection understandings and practice has grown considerably. There have also been numerous developments in law, policy, research and practice as well as processes of assessment that necessitate capture within a national guidance document of this nature.
We agree that the most effective way to publish the guidance is online, which to some extent mitigates the impact of the size of the document, with the navigation hyperlinks and extensive signposting to sources of information particularly welcome. Functionality and navigability are key to accessibility and there may be additional benefit of highlighting the ease of use in the field as a PDF that is either downloaded to or accessible on practitioner mobile devices.
Overall the structure and layout of the guidance is welcomed as are appendices incorporated at the end of it. The visual maps at each chapter start and the colour coding of the narrative boxes is likewise welcome and useful. The document flows well, from context to roles and remits, to identification and intervention, concluding with detailed consideration of specific concerns.

Many of the sections are ‘an easy read’ but some examples of overly complicated language remain.

It may be helpful to acknowledge at the start of the guidance the change of tone and terminology (e.g. Child Protection Planning Meeting replacing Child Protection Case Conference), the rationale for the changes and that in some circumstances – complex investigations, sharing of intelligence and elsewhere there remains a need for professional’s only child protection meetings to help inform planning.

It would also be helpful to note that this is guidance and as such will be supplemented by the framework of policy, legislation and procedure around child protection in Scotland. Further that local multiagency partnerships and organisations should be clear on their reasons and rationale should they decide not to follow the national guidance.

The links to resources are very useful but when you click on a link it takes you out of the document (and hence you lose your place) rather than opening a second window which would be preferred as a default if possible.

The coverage of legislation and policy development in the guidance is extensive, comprehensive, helpful and up to date. The inclusion of and reference to older policy documents that are still relevant such as the Children’s Charter is also welcomed. Similarly the capture of legislation and research links via the Appendixes is also very useful.
Further integration of the principles of ‘The Promise’ throughout would be appropriate, in particular policy commitments on participation and listening to the voice of lived experience.

The section on transitions could be strengthened with a sharper focus on corporate parenting responsibilities, and protection of 16 and 17 year olds with strengthened links to adult support and protection legislation and policy and the recent passing of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Act.

There is a need to ensure integration and common language across the public protection agenda as language can have different meanings across policy areas potentially creating unintentional risk.

Overall the Guidance integrates well with the language and core components of the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) practice model, especially in relation to the early identification of need, support for families, keeping the child at the centre and ongoing promotion of national practice model. This is welcome in addressing a perception amongst some stakeholders that child protection sits out with GIRFEC and should also support participation of families within child protection processes.

It is recognised that new practice guidance on GIRFEC is both referenced and anticipated which may address the need to have GIRFEC and its tools more broadly referenced within the document. Given the debate around GIRFEC and its components there is also a need to ensure common language to help build common understandings that will inform child protection assessments and interventions.

It is recognised that part 3 sets out well the pathway in relation to child protective practice and processes and this increased clarity is generally welcomed. However, it is acknowledged that there may still be some variation in how the Guidance is interpreted and applied in practice on a local basis.

It is acknowledged in particular that describing a clear process for Initial Referral Discussion (IRD) is a challenge for the authors given the variation in practice across the country. Including IRD clearly as a core element of the child protection process is welcomed.

Being more explicit regarding the change in terminology from Child Protection Case Conference to Child Protection Planning Meeting and the rationale for the change would help avoid confusion amongst staff. It would also assist to explain what does this mean for a Child Protection Case Discussion?

The change to timescales for holding an Initial Child Protection Planning meeting from ‘no later than 21 calendar days from the notification of concern’ (National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2014) to within 28 days following the start of a child protection investigation is welcome in providing a more realistic timeframe to undertake an investigation that may better inform child protection planning.

The Assessment practices pointed to at pages 110 to 114 and 120 to 123 are fine but there is a noticeable absence of reference to the National Risk Framework and its content which reflects a number of tools and assessment pointers within this. If the latter document is now redundant it would assist to know.

No additional comment.

No comment, Integration of the Health Guidance is a good idea and helps align guidance from a single primary source.

We would amend the last sentence to; Neglect can arise in the context of systemic stresses such as poverty and can be an indicator of both support and protection needs. This better covers interventions where poverty is a factor but doesn’t dilute the need to consider the complexity of its interaction with other dynamics as not all who are poor need protected or supported. The broader contextual and structural factors are important but need to be considered relative to how families are able to negotiate these to ensure adequate care and protection or not. There is also a need to consider how they may impact upon supportive/protective interventions.

Overall it is thought that there is benefit in talking of harm and abuse as opposed to abuse and neglect when neglect is in fact a form of harm that can be abusive in character and experience. The historical separation of abuse and neglect can lead to a reluctance to include neglect within the consideration of abuse and as such this may negatively impact upon the shape and character of interventions with neglect.
Structural factors may assist understanding of circumstances, how parents/carers negotiate the pressures that poverty can create and shape the character of supportive and protective interventions put in place but this does not remove or reduce accountability for harm/abuse where neglect occurs.
Poverty can also be a consideration where there are maladaptive coping strategies through substance use, increased pressures on parental mental health, where tolerance thresholds are stretched and domestic abuse emerges. Poverty and contextual protection considerations are not solely a consideration relative to neglect.

Nothing to add.

Chief Officers Groups have senior managerial oversight of the work of the CPC’s as the multi-agency strategic planning bodies responsible for child protection. COGs require to be provided with robust assurance data and have access to specialist advice in order to carry out their functions.

It makes sense that the oversight that the COG and CPC hold provides for local application of child protection practice, learning and performance.

Use of MS Teams as a communications platform able to support Child Protection Meetings – Case Conferences/Planning Meetings, Core Groups

Comment of early sections of guidance as follows:

The use of the term “safeguarding” is not helpful.

Good focus on early support but could be stronger at points. Should explicitly state that we should try to avoid removing children from home and mention the trauma associated with this removal. We have had a focus on early intervention for many years but have not managed to implement it in a way that truly re-balances care. We still take too many children into care in Scotland. A focus on child protection should not mean risk averse practice.

At points good focus on listening to the voice of the child/family and strengths – based approach.

Needs to acknowledge how challenging reaching a “shared understanding of concerns “ can sometimes be in reality given the often different perspectives of agencies.

Good focus on the importance of family and community supports at points.

Good focus on the particular challenges of rural and island areas.

Good reference to the need for children to have “loving relationships” but need to guard against oversimplifying this. Document needs to reference the key issue of attachment more. Needs to address the complexity of “relationships” that can constitute partial love and ambivalence.

Needs to reference more the advances in technology that can strengthen information sharing etc.

Needs to reference the need for the overlaps in child and adult legislation to be rationalized.

Should say more about the rights of the unborn child and the law.

Should mention the helpfulness of child protection peer review for staff – good model used by medics.

Needs to mention the trauma of the bereavement suffered by children whose parents are victims of drug related deaths.