Executive Summary
The research took place within and between City of Edinburgh
Council and NHS Lothian, in the South West Neighbourhood
Partnership
Area.
The
qualitative
research
evaluates
10
practitioners’ perceptions of GIRFEC policy in practice and compares
the findings to other relevant studies in the literature. The
participants, drawn from statutory social work (5), mainstream
education (3) and community health visiting settings (2), were
convenient to the researcher and have experience of GIRFEC and
working in a multi disciplinary way. When approached, no midwives
were able to participate in the research.
The findings, derived from semi-structured interviews, indicates
that the participants experienced a range of benefits and a
convergence of GIRFEC policy into practice:
1. Identifying children in need at an earlier stage
2. Shared language, understanding and processes between
professional groups
3. A focus on wellbeing indicators and
4. Clarity over roles and responsibilities
The findings also, however, indicated challenges and a divergence
between policy and practice:
1. Different agency thresholds, priorities and resources
2. Separate recording materials and information systems
3. Additional workload and demand
4. Less time for face to face work
5. Difficulties identifying the right support at an early stage and
6. Differences in agency culture and leadership
Comparing the findings with the literature further highlights that the
following are likely to be contributory factors in the convergence
and divergence reported between the studies:
-
Level and type of service collaboration within and between
organisations and
-
Level of social need in an area, set against the resources
available for organisations and practitioners
1. Level
2. Type
3. Service
4. Change
5. Zone
Personal
Single
Coordination
Development
Ending
Agency
Multi
Coalition
Transition
Neutral
Integration
Transformation Beginning
Organisation Inter
Table: adapted from (1) Hothersall (2012), (2) McLean (2007 in
Lishman), (3) Howarth and Morrison (2007), (4) Anderson and Ackerman
(2010 p 246) and (5) Bridges (1991)
From the participants interviewed in the findings, GIRFEC appears
to be impacting at the personal and agency level within City of
Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian, who are operating in a multi
disciplinary way to coordinate services and work through a process
of transitional change, during an ending and neutral zone.
The Christie Report (Scottish Government 2011), GIRFEC (Scottish
Government 2008) and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland)
Act 2104, however, also require an impact at the organisational
level, for City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian to operate in a
inter disciplinary way within integrated services and work through
a process of transformational change to signal a new beginning.
From the findings recorded and analysed, it appears then that more
needs to be done to improve implementation of GIRFEC within the
South West Neighbourhood Partnership Area for the City of
Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian:
-
Join up materials, processes and recording systems
-
Reduce time spent on administration, assessments, plans
and meetings
-
Target local resources at an earlier stage
-
Ensure training is delivered by multi agencies
-
Streamline referrals and
-
Close the gaps between thresholds and remits
Summarising the findings in comparison with the literature
reviewed, the researcher concludes that whilst GIRFEC may be
convergent in policy, for it to lead to convergence in practice, a
number of key factors at a - practitioner, agency, organisation and
political level need to be considered, particular to the setting and
the individual practitioners implementing it within and across multi
disciplinary teams.
Based on the data collected and analysed and reflecting the aims,
rationale and limitations of the research, the researcher identifies A)
3 key recommendations for research within the South West
Neighbourhood Partnership Area and B) 9 further areas to be
considered by the South West Children Services Management Group
(CSMG):
A) Further academic research to:
1. Seek
a
more
representative
population
sample
by
identifying practitioners in different practice settings within
City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian including adult
services and those at senior management level in the
South West
2. Expand the research to non public services including those
in the voluntary, independent and private sectors and also
to police Scotland to understand how GIRFEC is impacting
in and on a wider range of organisations and settings in
the South West
3. Engage children and families in the research to understand
the impact GIRFEC is having on how they are experiencing
delivery of multi agency services and supports in the South
West, particular to their needs
B) Areas for consideration by the CSMG:
1. Materials – standardise, simplify and shorten GIRFEC
assessment and planning materials to reduce the time spent
on completing paper work and to align materials across
service settings
2.
Meetings
–
reinforce
the
following
two
messages:
practitioners to combine different types of planning meetings
together including siblings when appropriate to decrease the
number of meetings professionals are required to attend; and
practitioners
unable
to
attend
meetings,
provide
an
information update for named person or lead worker thus
creating a fuller picture of the child’s wellbeing
3. Recording and Sharing Information – highlight via emails
and team meetings, the information commissioner’s bulletin
(Appendix 10) regarding sharing information below the child
protection level to reduce the confusion and apprehension
between practitioners. Also create a shared electronic drive
between City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian, where
GIRFEC child plans can be saved centrally including the details
of the named person involved, to increase the effectiveness of
information sharing
4. Systems – electronically join up internal HNS practitioner
contact details and email addresses with internal City of
Edinburgh Council practitioner contact details and email
addresses, so it is easier and quicker for practitioners to
locate and communicate with each other
5. Training – identify and train health and social work
practitioners to facilitate training within their own practice
settings for staff that find it difficult to access multi agency
GIRFEC training and include reflection time as part of GIRFEC
training to explore attendees’ experiences and views on how
GIRFEC has/is likely to impact on practice
6. Resources – map and electronically publish the available
public, voluntary and independent resources and services in
the neighbourhood area for practitioners to target local
resources more efficiently
7. Referrals – streamline referral routes so practitioners can
access these neighbourhood services and resources more
expediently at a local level
8. Capacity – ensure each public sector agency has the
appropriate level of human capacity to perform core duties
alongside
any
increased
demand
from
GIRFEC
implementation. This was particularly noted in relation to the
lack of health visitors available in practice settings
9. Role of social work – move away from and expand the
narrow definition of statutory social work within City of
Edinburgh Council by also employing qualified social workers
to perform non statutory roles alongside universal services at
the local level. To be managed, however, by the local social
work manager to retain social work identity, rigour and
purpose alongside existing statutory roles and responsibilities
GIRFEC Maturity 1 2 3 4 5 1 = not getting it right for any child
and 5 = getting it right for every child.
Finally, when asked, the majority of participant’s scaled GIRFEC
maturity as 3 out of 5 with the highest 3.5 and the lowest 3. All
participants felt that their score out of 5 reflected a positive outlook
for GIRFEC in practice. These closing comments, best reflect the
feedback gained through the research across different services and
how professionals are experiencing GIRFEC policy in practice:
‘heading in the right direction just as long as it doesn’t swamp
us though!’ depute head
‘we are at the stage now where it could be called, trying to get it
right for every child’ social worker
‘before we can get it right for every child, we firstly need to get it
right for ourselves’ health visitor