Warwickshire Safeguarding
Children Board
WSCB Escalation Processes
Relating To:
Referrals where the Threshold for
Intervention is Contested
Situations where there are
Concerns about Professional
Practice
Children the subject of a Child
Protection Plan exceeding 15
months and 33 months
Children the subject of more than 1
Child Protection Plan
1
Overview – An Integrated Approach to Escalated Action
Local Safeguarding Children Boards are required by government
guidance to set out the action to be taken where there are concerns
about a child’s safety or welfare, including thresholds for intervention.
This relates to concerns under Section 17 (“children in need”) and
Section 47 (“children in need of protection”) of the Children Act 1989,
and referrals that are made under either category.
Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board (WSCB) recognises that in
most circumstances, the application of the provisions of the Children Act
1989 and the four categories of harm to children set out in the
Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board Interagency Child Protection
Procedures, make it possible for professionals to refer cases
appropriately and for there to be agreement between the Children’s
Team and the referrer on the status and disposal of the referral.
However, the Board also recognises that there are situations where
disputes over thresholds emerge. In response to this, the Safeguarding
Board has issued this document, which is intended to assist
professionals in circumstances where a threshold is contested. This is
the purpose of Part 1 of this document
Similarly, the Board acknowledges that in most cases professional
practice involving the safeguarding of children in Warwickshire is of a
high standard. However, on occasions, concerns about professional
practice may be raised. These may arise in respect of the management
of a case by a Children’s Team. In other situations, a Children’s Team
may have concerns about the response of a professional colleague to a
situation involving actual or likely harm to a child. For example:
A poorly framed or constructed referral;
A failure to make a referral to the Children’s Team in a timely
way;
A failure to confirm the referral using the WSCB Child
Protection Confirmation of Referral Form;
A failure to share all the relevant information needed by the
Children’s Team to make an adequate judgement as to how the
referral should be dealt with;
A failure to otherwise discharge professional responsibilities in
relation to safeguarding children.
2
In both these circumstances, there may be a need for recourse to an
escalation process and this is the purpose of Part 2 of this document.
Government reports and Serious Case Reviews conducted in
Warwickshire show us that when children are subject to chronic child
abuse and repeated or prolonged involvement in child protection
processes, there is a danger of these complex cases “drifting”. In these
cases, the risks to children may become particularly acute and there is
an increased likelihood of a serious incident arising. The emotional and
psychological damage to these children is also likely to accumulate if
there is no demonstrable improvement in their care. To help
professionals recognise and manage these situations, WSCB has put in
place Parts 3 and 4 of this document.
To further explain the operation of Parts 3 and 4, information is provided
on the Enhanced Risk Analysis that is triggered when these aspects of
the escalation process come into play. The terms of reference
governing the circumstances in which an independent review of a case
is considered and commissioned are also set out.
Taken together, these four parts should be seen as forming an
integrated approach to escalation processes in Warwickshire.
Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board
February 2009
3
Part 1: WSCB Escalation Processes in Response to a Contested
Threshold for Intervention
Key Principle: It is every professional’s responsibility to ‘problem-
solve’. The aim must be to resolve a contested threshold at the
earliest possible stage as swiftly as possible, always keeping in
mind that the child’s safety and welfare is the paramount
consideration.
Stage 5 – Referrer and Manager raises with their WSCB
representative.
Stage 4 – Assistant Head of Service re-considers the original
referral and any further information submitted by the referrer.
Stage 3 – Referrer’s line manager or designated child protection
lead discusses with Children’s Team Operations Manager.
(Note: Stages 2 and 3 are interchangeable – 3 may come before 2).
Stage 2 – Referrer gives consideration to calling a Professional’s
Meeting involving the Children’s Team to ensure all the information
on the child is shared and agreement sought on the way forward.
Stage 1 – Dispute at point of referral – Referrer raises concern
directly with Children’s Team Duty Manager. The possibility of the
referring practitioner initiating a Common Assessment may be
considered in order to progress the situation.
4
Part 2: WSCB Escalation Processes Where There Are Concerns
about Professional Practice
Key Principle: It is every professional’s responsibility to ‘problem-
solve’. The aim must be to resolve a concern about professional
practice at the earliest possible stage as swiftly as possible, always
keeping in mind that the child’s safety and welfare is the paramount
consideration.
Professionals who have concerns about the management of a case
by a Children’s Team, which they are unable to resolve through
local negotiation, are able to use the process defined in Section
4.16 of the WSCB Interagency Child Protection Procedures:
“Situations Where A Professional Is Concerned About The
Handling Of A Case By A Children’s Team.”
In situations where a Children’s Team raises concerns about
professional practice, the following process will apply:
Stage 3 – Children’s Team notify their Assistant Head of Service
(AHOS) who may discuss with the relevant agency’s representative
on the Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board. If the agency is
not represented on the Board, AHOS may contact the head of the
agency or service concerned.
Stage 2 – Team Leader, or if deemed more appropriate Operations
Manager, raises matter with the designated or named child
protection lead for the agency concerned.
Stage 1 – Children’s Team raise their concerns directly with the
professional colleague concerned to seek a resolution.
5
Part 3: WSCB Escalation Processes Where Children Have Been The
Subject Of A Child Protection Plan Exceeding 15 Months and 33
Months (It is open to a professional to trigger 4.16 of the WSCB Interagency
Child Protection Procedures at any time should they have concerns about the
progress of a case)
36
35
34
33 Month Review At 33 months the case is referred
32 to Quality and Information Sub-
31 Committee who will either
30 (a) determine that the case is
29 progressing adequately or
28 (b) refer to NSPCC for independent
27 Month review review.
Enhanced Risk Analysis completed at review
26
25
24
23
22
21 Month review Enhanced Risk Analysis completed at review
20
19
18
17
16
15 Months- IRO’s are required to refer to
14 AHOS/POM* at 15 months to
13 ensure that plans remain on
course. Enhanced Risk Analysis completed
12 Professionals should consider
11 using the process defined in
10 Section 4.16 of the WSCB
9 Month Review Interagency Child Protection
8 Procedures: “Situations Where A
7 Professional Is Concerned About
6 The Handling Of A Case By A
5 Children’s Team”, should they be
4 unable to resolve their concerns
3 Month Review regarding the progress of a child
2 protection plan through local
1 negotiation.
Child Becomes Subject of a Child Protection Plan
* IRO – Independent Reviewing Officer; AHOS – Assistant Head of Service (Children in
Need); POM - Principal Operations Manager (Children in Need)
6
Part 4: WSCB Escalation Processes Where Children Have Been
The Subject Of More Than 1 Child Protection Plan (A professional may
trigger 4.16 of the WSCB Interagency Child Procedures at any time, should
they have concerns about the progress of a case)
Child Protection 3 Plan Start Should a child be subject to a third
child protection plan or a family
Enhanced Risk Analysis completed at Initial have three episodes of children
Child Protection Conference. becoming subject to a child
protection plan, the case will
automatically be referred to Quality
Further request for conference and Information Sub-Committee
discussed between Children’s who will either
Team Operations Manager and (a) determine that the case is
Children’s Reviewing Manager progressing adequately or
(b) refer to NSPCC for independent
review.
Child Protection Plan 2 Ceased
Child Protection Plan 2 Start
Further request for conference
discussed between Children’s
Team Operations Manager and
Children’s Reviewing Manager Plans can be escalated at any time
should the IRO* form a judgement
that the plan is making
unsatisfactory progress and that
managerial intervention is
Child Protection Plan 1 Ceased
warranted.
Professionals should consider
using the process defined in
Section 4.16 of the WSCB
Interagency Child Protection
Child Protection Plan 1 Start Procedures: “Situations Where A
Professional Is Concerned About
The Handling Of A Case By A
Children’s Team”, should they be
unable to resolve their concerns
regarding the progress of a child
protection plan through local
negotiation.
*IRO – Independent Reviewing Officer
7
The Enhanced Risk Analysis
This is referred to in Part 3 and Part 4 of the Escalation Processes, and
it should be seen as an additional component of the Warwickshire Risk
Assessment Model.
It is designed to assist members of child protection conferences when
they are considering the progress of a case after escalation processes
have been triggered.
The chair of the conference will lead this analysis and it will be updated
at subsequent child protection review meetings.
The Enhanced Risk Analysis should be utilised in discussions that take
place between the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) and Assistant
Head of Service (AHOS) or Principal Operations Manager (POM), and
taken into account by the WSCB Quality and Information Subcommittee
following referral of a case.
Components of the Enhanced Risk Analysis:
Consider the full history of the case taking into account:
The progress of the current child protection plan (if applicable);
The progress and outcome of any previous child protection
plan;
The progress and outcome of any previous child in need plan;
The progress of any previous periods of professional
intervention falling outside these plans e.g. CAF plans
The full, updated chronology of the case as provided by the
core group if there is a current child protection plan, or by the
child’s social worker if the enhanced risk analysis is being
completed at an initial child protection conference where the
child has been made the subject of a child protection plan for
the third time.
What evidence does this information provide about the prospects
for clear demonstrable and sustained change by the family in
response to professional intervention and support?
What evidence does this information provide about the likely future
outcomes for the child(ren) in terms of their safety, health and
wider development?
8
What does this indicate about the tenability of the current care
arrangements for the child(ren)?
Is further action now needed to safeguard the child(ren) and
promote their welfare, and if so, what further actions should be
taken?
Terms of Reference for an Independent Review of a Case
When a case is referred to the WSCB Quality and Information
Subcommittee under these escalation processes, one of its members
will be charged with reviewing the case and making a recommendation
to the Subcommittee as to whether it is progressing satisfactorily,
requires additional action to promote satisfactory progress, or is of such
an intractable nature that an independent review may be necessary.
The criteria that will be applied to help make this recommendation will be
consideration of:
The conclusions of the Enhanced Risk Analysis completed at the
33 month child protection review conference, or at the initial child
protection conference convened when a child is made the subject
of a child protection plan for the third time or where a family has
had three episodes of children being subject to a child protection
plan;
Whether the child(ren) are continuing to suffer significant harm;
Whether the need for a child protection plan is coming to an end
and that the reasons for this are consistent with the criteria for
discontinuation of a child protection plan set out in the WSCB
Interagency Child Protection Procedures;
Whether the current child protection plan appears to have impetus
such as a decision to initiate legal proceedings, or is showing
evidence of “drift”.
9
There will be three possible outcomes of this screening process:
The Quality and Information Subcommittee will be satisfied that a
dynamic and timely plan is in place that will achieve its objectives,
and will take no further action at this point;
The Subcommittee will come to a view about a proposed course of
action that will enable the plan to be progressed and accordingly,
request that a child protection review conference is convened as a
matter of urgency to consider the recommendations the
Subcommittee has made;
The Subcommittee will determine that the case is of such an
intractable nature, and/or that the issues raised are of such wider
professional interest, and/or that these issues are not within its
competence to resolve, that the involvement of the NSPCC in
conducting an independent review will be beneficial.
The precise terms of reference for each independent review and the
time-scale for completion will be agreed on a case by case basis by the
Quality and Information Subcommittee and the NSPCC.
This agreement will be commensurate with the complexity of the case
and the issues that will need to be considered.
The information that will need to be made available for the review to be
satisfactorily completed will be agreed by the Subcommittee and the
NSPCC.
On completion of the review report and its submission by the NSPCC,
the Quality and Information Subcommittee will consider the report and
any recommendations it makes. The Subcommittee will request that
these recommendations and any additional recommendations that the
Subcommittee sees fit to make, are considered by a child protection
review conference at the earliest opportunity.
The Subcommittee will discuss with the NSPCC author any points of
clarification or further detail that may be required.
10
The Quality and Information Subcommittee will review all aspects of this
process after one year of its operation and thereafter on an annual
basis, consulting with the NSPCC on those aspects relating to
independent review. The Subcommittee will submit a report appraising
the process to the Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board.
Warwickshire Safeguarding Children Board
February 2009
11