The Government response to
the consultation on statutory
guidance to safeguard
children:
- Working Together to Safeguard Children
- Managing Individual Cases: The Framework
for the Assessment of Children in Need and
their Families
- Statutory Guidance on Learning and
Improvement
March 2013
Contents
Introduction
3
What was consulted on and why?
3
The consultation
5
A summary of the changes being made following the consultation
6
Chapter 1: Working Together to Safeguard Children
8
Responses to the consultation
8
The Government response
9
Chapter 2: Managing Individual Cases - The Framework for the Assessment of Children
in Need and their Families
13
Responses to the consultation
13
The Government response
16
Chapter 3: Statutory Guidance on Learning and Improvement
20
Responses to the consultation
20
The Government response
22
Annex A: Consultation responses and questions
26
Consultation responses
26
The consultation questions
27
2
Introduction
What was consulted on and why?
As part of its commitment to reform the child protection system in England the
Government launched, on 12 June 2012, a consultation on revised statutory guidance to
safeguard children.
The consultation sought views on three draft statutory guidance documents:

Working Together to Safeguard Children: draft guidance on what is expected of
organisations, individually and jointly, to safeguard and promote the welfare of
children;

Managing Individual Cases: the Framework for the Assessment of Children in
Need and their Families: draft guidance on undertaking assessments of children in
need and their families; and

Statutory Guidance on Learning and Improvement: proposed new arrangements
for Serious Case Reviews (SCRs), reviews of child deaths and other learning
processes led by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs).
Working Together to Safeguard Children
In June 2010, the Government asked Professor Eileen Munro to review the system in
England for protecting children from harm and promoting their welfare.
In her final report, A child centred system, she commented on the statutory guidance
supporting the system: Working Together to Safeguard Children.1 She argued that the
expansion of the guidance over a number of years, alongside other interventions from
Government, was hindering the use of professional judgement and led to professionals
doing things 'by the book' rather than in the best interests of children.
In response the Government committed to revising the guidance. It stated that Working
Together to Safeguard Children (Working Together) had grown to become more and
more detailed and prescriptive trying to cover all eventualities. In the Government’s view,
the length of the guidance reduces its clarity and fails to recognise that professionals who
work with children and families need to use their judgement and common sense every
day, within a clear set of legal requirements.
The revised draft version of Working Together, issued for consultation in June 2012, was
significantly shorter and sought to:
1
Department for Education (2011), The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report, London, TSO.
3

make the legislative requirements clear so all organisations know what the law
says they and others must do;

provide the essentials so all organisations understand what they should do to
provide a coordinated approach to safeguarding children; and

set out a clear, strong role for LSCBs to monitor, challenge and hold local
agencies to account.
Managing Individual Cases: The Framework for the Assessment of
Children in Need and their Families
Professor Munro also concluded that social work practice on the assessment of children
in need had become unduly distorted by national timescales, to the detriment of the
professional judgement of frontline social workers and hence the quality of assessment
for individual children.
‘For some children, a brief assessment is all that is required prior to offering
services and for others the assessment needs to be more in-depth, broader in
scope, and take longer to get a sufficiently accurate understanding of the
child’s needs and circumstances to inform effective planning. A decision
about the length and breadth of an assessment should be made at a local
level, rather than having to follow a centrally prescribed formula’.
Professor Munro (2010)
The Government accepted Professor Munro’s analysis. It believes that all children who
may be in need or at risk of significant harm should receive timely, proportionate,
transparent and high quality social care assessments with services provided as quickly
as possible to meet identified needs. The draft consultation document Managing
Individual Cases proposed that:

the assessment process should be a continuum which is built upon by
professionals from the moment a need is identified, and that help should be given
early in the process;

locally agreed frameworks for assessment should be agreed and published, based
on a set of core principles; and

the distinction between the ‘initial’ and ‘core’ assessments the related timescales
of 10 working days for the initial assessment and the further 35 working days for
the completion of the core assessment should be removed.
4
Statutory Guidance on Learning and Improvement
Professor Munro also considered SCRs which are carried out when a child dies or is
seriously harmed and abuse or neglect is known or suspected. She concluded that,
under the existing arrangements for SCRs, there was too much emphasis on getting the
process right rather than learning how to improve outcomes for children. Without being
able to explain why professionals acted or failed to act as they did, SCR
recommendations tended to take the form of admonishments to professionals of what
they ‘should’, ‘need’ or ‘must’ do in specific situations in the future. This reinforced a
prescriptive approach to practice.
Professor Munro recommended that the Government should require LSCBs to use
systems methodology when undertaking SCRs. This would provide a clear theoretical
framework for understanding professional practice in context. It would put an explicit
focus on understanding why professionals had acted in the way they did so that any
recommendations for change would be grounded in practical realities.
The Government agreed with her analysis. It believes that thorough and open processes
for learning and sharing lessons are essential to improving the child protection system
and increasing public confidence. In particular, the Government believes it is essential to
have robust processes for conducting SCRs and publishing SCR reports.
The Government therefore consulted on draft Statutory Guidance on Learning and
Improvement which set out to improve the learning processes led by LSCBs. The draft
aimed to make clear that:

SCRs must be conducted on all cases meeting the criteria in regulations;

SCRs should be conducted using systems methodology, as recommended by
Professor Munro, to provide a deep understanding of what happened in a case
and why. It also stated that SCR reports must be written in a way which enables
them to be published so that lessons can be shared nationally and locally; and

LSCBs were free to take a proportionate approach and use any learning model for
reviews so long as they followed certain principles including publication of reports.
The consultation
The consultation ran from 12 June 2012 to 4 September 2012 and received over 460
responses across the three draft documents. The consultation questions and a
breakdown of who responded can be found in the Annex. In addition, the Department for
Education (DfE) held six consultation events (in London, Liverpool, Sheffield and
Coventry) with over 130 delegates attending. Officials also attended six of the nine LSCB
regional chair meetings and held various individual meetings with interested parties
including Ofsted, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Council for
5
Disabled Children and members of the Children’s Inter-Agency Group (including the
National Children’s Bureau, Children England, The Children’s Society and NSPCC) to
gain feedback on the consultation documents. In total, across the events held and
meetings attended, we met over 550 people during the consultation period. To inform the
consultation, the Children’s Commissioner and the Office of the Children’s Rights Director
provided DfE with messages from children about the safeguarding and child protection
system. These have been considered as part of the consultation.
A summary of the changes being made following the
consultation
The Government is pleased that such a large number of organisations and individuals
took part in the consultation, and is grateful for the care and attention that people gave
when responding to the proposals. We have reflected very carefully on all the feedback
received and other evidence and have continued to work in partnership with interested
parties to develop the guidance. In the final guidance published today we have:

created a single document which brings together, from the three consultation
documents, all the statutory responsibilities on organisations and individuals to
safeguard children2;

made clearer that the needs of individual children should be at the centre of all
local safeguarding systems and made even more explicit that safeguarding is
everyone’s responsibility;

removed the distinction between initial and core assessment and the related 10
working day timescale for the completion of the initial assessments, from 15 April
2013;

retained, for the time being, 45 working days as a national maximum timeframe for
the completion of an assessment, such that it is possible to reach a decision on
next steps;

made clearer, in a number of places, specific responsibilities either for individual
organisations (such as health services) or in specific areas of practice (such as
information sharing or dealing with allegations);

strengthened the accountability arrangements for Chairs of LSCBs. In future Chief
Executives (Heads of Paid Service), rather than Directors of Children’s Services,
will appoint Chairs;
2
This document replaces Working Together to Safeguard Children (2010); The Framework for the
Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (2000); and Statutory guidance on making
arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004
(2007).
6

concluded, following piloting of the systems approach to SCRs, that more time is
needed to develop and embed new learning models. The guidance therefore does
not specify a particular systems model for reviews, but allows LSCBs the freedom
to use any learning model which is consistent with a set of guiding principles,
including the need to understand what professionals did and why; and

concluded that the concerns raised by some about publication of SCR reports
cannot be resolved through guidance alone. The Government has therefore
decided to establish a new national panel of independent experts. The panel will
provide advice to LSCBs about the application of the SCR criteria and the
requirement to publish reports. The guidance published today makes clear that
LSCBs should have regard to the panel’s advice when making decisions about
SCRs.
7
Chapter 1: Working Together to Safeguard Children
Responses to the consultation
This section covers the consultation questions 1 to 4. The Annex on page 15 sets
out the full list of consultation questions.
The aim of providing slimmed down, concise guidance in Working Together is to reduce
unnecessary bureaucracy and prescription was welcomed by many.
Given the radical nature of the proposed revisions to the guidance a majority of
responses to the consultation helpfully highlighted areas where the draft guidance could
be strengthened. Reponses to the consultation highlighted:
Approach and tone of the draft guidance

concerns raised by some respondents, including the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services (ADCS), those from the voluntary and community sector and
LSCBs, that the language used in all three consultation documents represented a
shift in tone and emphasis towards child protection and away from supporting
children in need, including disabled children;

that the guidance did not sufficiently emphasise the fact that safeguarding children
is everyone’s responsibility;

that a greater emphasis on children being at the centre of the safeguarding system
was needed; and

concerns raised by some respondents, including the Medical and Nursing Royal
Colleges, the Local Government Association (LGA) and NSPCC, that, by
separating the guidance across three documents, a valuable single source
document could be lost, risking organisations and individuals not knowing what
they must do.
Clarity of safeguarding responsibilities

that a significant majority (328 of 410 respondents) felt some key requirements
were missing from the draft, including on managing allegations (including the role
of the Local Authority Designated Officer, LADO), information sharing and training;

concerns that the legislative requirements to safeguard children had been reduced
in the draft guidance;

that around half of respondents (223 of 422) felt that the draft guidance did not
offer enough clarity on the roles and responsibilities of professionals involved in
safeguarding children, or how they should adhere to the requirements;
8

that the guidance did not include information on specific safeguarding issues such
as child trafficking, female genital mutilation and internet safety or provide links to
relevant guidance on these issues; and

that the guidance should place an expectation on the voluntary and community
sector and faith organisations to have appropriate safeguarding procedure in
place.
Role of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs)

that the accountability arrangements of LSCBs and Chairs in particular needed to
be clearer; and

that the draft guidance should be clearer on the LSCB role and be strengthened
around LSCB funding and resources, training and membership representation.
The Government response
‘We need to ensure there is clarity about who is responsible for what in child
protection. And clarity over the steps required to keep children safe’
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education
This speech is available to view on the Department for Education website.
Approach and tone of the draft guidance
Reflecting on consultation responses, including those summarised above, the
Government has created a single document that includes all the statutory responsibilities
of organisations and individuals to safeguard children. This incorporates information from
the three consultation documents and means that nobody should be in any doubt about
where to go for clarity of what they need to do to safeguard children.
The Government has always been clear that the needs of children should be at the
centre of the safeguarding system. We are also clear that safeguarding children is
everyone’s responsibility. A new introduction to the guidance states these twin
underpinning principles explicitly and we have strengthened these points throughout the
guidance. We have also worked with the Office of the Children’s Rights Director to
develop a young person’s guide to Working Together, the first time this has been done.
We are very clear that Working Together covers statutory responsibilities for
safeguarding children in need (section 17 of the Children Act 1989) and child protection
(section 47 of the Children Act 1989). Any narrowing of the language or tone in the draft
guidance was unintentional. We have redrafted the guidance to make this clear.
9
Suggestions made through the consultation that the Government was weakening
legislative requirements around safeguarding children were misplaced. There are no
legislative or regulatory changes underway. The revision of Working Together has not
changed any of the underpinning legislative framework to safeguard children. However,
as proposed by Professor Munro we have removed unnecessary centrally prescribed
guidance to create space for local innovation and professional judgement.
Clarity of safeguarding responsibilities
Since the consultation closed, we have worked with the Medical and Nursing Royal
Colleges and ACPO among others, to clarify organisational responsibilities. We have
revised the guidance so that clinical commissioning groups, police borough commanders
or headteachers know what they must do to safeguard children without having to search
through lengthy guidance.
The Government believes that it is not its role to set out in statutory guidance how
professionals should do their jobs. This should be left to the experts; those who
commission or provide services locally. The emphasis in the guidance is on trusting front
line professionals to use their own judgement and professional knowledge to meet local
needs within a clear and strong legal framework.
Nevertheless, the guidance has been strengthened in a number of areas following the
consultation. This includes the addition of further guidance on information sharing, as this
is vital to safeguard children. The Government also agrees with respondents to the
consultation that it is critical that all organisations have procedures in place to manage
allegations against people who work with children. This responsibility has been
strengthened in the final guidance and the valuable role of the LADO has been included.
The final guidance emphasises that it is the responsibility of employers to recognise that,
in order for staff to fulfil their duties in line with Working Together, they will have different
training needs and that these needs should be met. The final guidance also sets out that,
due to the important role they have in supporting children, voluntary and private sector
and faith organisations should have appropriate safeguarding arrangements in place.
The Government agrees that it is important for professionals to know where relevant
guidance has been developed to inform individual professional judgements on how to
support a child in a specific circumstance, such as children who have been trafficked or
have suffered from female genital mutilation. Given this, an Appendix of relevant internet
links to supplementary guidance has been included in the revised guidance.
Role of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs)
LSCBs have a vital job in challenging and holding local agencies to account for
safeguarding children in their local area. In response to the consultation we have
10
strengthened the accountability arrangements of LSCBs so that it will now be the
responsibility of the Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service), rather than the Director of
Children’s Services, to appoint or remove the LSCB Chair, with an appointment panel
including Board partners and lay members. This should help to ensure the independent
LSCB Chair is able to hold all local partners to account, including the Director of
Children’s Services as the senior local officer responsible for safeguarding children. To
ensure effective accountability of the LSCB, the Chief Executive, drawing on other LSCB
partners and, where appropriate, the Lead Member, will hold the Chair to account for the
effective working of the LSCB.
The revised guidance has also been strengthened so that the statutory functions of
LSCBs are outlined more clearly. This is in response to concerns raised about the lack of
clarity of the role of the LSCB generally, but also specifically in developing policies and
procedures in relation to: investigating allegations; the safety of privately fostered
children; and the action to be taken where there are concerns about a child’s safety or
welfare, including thresholds for intervention.
The guidance has also been strengthened with regard to the LSCB annual report. The
guidance is clear that it should include, for example, financial and resource contributions
from agencies. The guidance also takes forward Professor Munro’s recommendation that
this report should be sent to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council, the local
police and crime commissioner and the Chair of the health and wellbeing board. To
support effective partnership working the final guidance is clear that LSCBs should work
closely with health and wellbeing boards and the Director of Public Health to inform their
planning. It does not set out how this should happen, as it is best agreed locally.
To support LSCBs to carry out their functions, the Government has decided to
commence section 8 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. This will give a
power to the LSCB to require a person or body to comply with a request for information.
The guidance is clear, however, that the LSCB can require information only in relation to
their functions. No request should require a record holder to breach data protection
principles or other protections of confidential or personal information in a manner which
cannot be justified.
11
DfE has also provided a £150,000 grant, from September 2012, to the Association of
Independent LSCBs Chairs. The Association has a key role in improving the impact of
LSCBs and the quality of Chairs. We have specifically asked the Association to:

be a national voice for all LSCBs;

promote accountability and transparency within the child protection system,
including the quality and increased publication of SCR reports, by offering LSCB
peer advice, support and challenge; and

improve the quality and impact of LSCB annual reports so that they increase
public transparency and are used locally for maximum impact to improve child
protection.
12
Chapter 2: Managing Individual Cases - The Framework
for the Assessment of Children in Need and their
Families
Responses to the consultation
This section covers the consultation questions 5 to 7.
Local frameworks
Responses - including from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS)
(representing the 152 children’s services departments in England), the Local Government
Association (LGA), Ofsted, Action for Children and the NSPCC - revealed:

considerable support for a move towards reduced prescription and greater
autonomy for frontline professionals;

support for the new focus on the importance of professional judgement and the
space to allow local areas to develop their own frameworks;

that the requirements for the local frameworks for assessment were clear and
concise;

support from respondents for the removal of nationally prescribed timescales;

support for the emphasis on proportionate assessments based on the needs of
individual children; and

an emphasis by the ADCS on the importance of proceeding with changes quickly,
as the Government was already some way behind the initially proposed Munro
timetable.
Set against this, a smaller but significant group (less than a quarter) expressed concerns
about the proposed policy changes. This included:

concern from some disabled children’s charities, some barristers representing
children and from some health bodies that the statutory national timescales have
been important in preventing ‘drift’ in the system; and

specific concerns that the new local frameworks risked the needs of disabled
children being de-prioritised and that there was no reference to existing practice
guidance on the assessment of disabled children.
A small number of respondents, mostly barristers representing children, commented that
national timescales have assisted challenge of local authorities in individual cases where
children were not being assessed according to the nationally prescribed timescales. The
13
view of these respondents was that the current timescales for assessment should be
retained.
Just under half of all respondents were ‘not sure’ as to whether the local frameworks
would allow professionals to exercise their judgement and respond in a way that was
proportionate to the needs of individual children. A majority who answered ‘not sure’
acknowledged that the draft guidance was clear and concise and that the local
frameworks offered greater flexibility to manage cases in a more proportionate way.
Expressed concerns were:

that there may be greater demand on managers to oversee work and potentially
larger caseloads;

that there needed to be locally agreed timescales for assessment to help mitigate
against any potential for ‘drift’;

that the provision of local frameworks would create different timescales for
assessment in different areas which could be particularly challenging for those
professionals who work across local authority boundaries; and

a minority of all responses stated that, without national timescales, assessments
could be based upon resource availability which was not a proportionate response
to the needs of children and their families.
Initial and core assessments
Specific comments on the proposals to remove the distinction between the initial and
core assessments were limited. However, of those who did respond on this issue:

the majority agreed with the overall approach of having a continuum of
assessment which would allow for assessments to be proportionate to the needs
of individual children;

the majority welcomed the degree of flexibility in operating a local framework for
assessment. They were supportive of the underlying principle which allows
professionals to exercise their judgement on a case-by-case basis and gives them
the ability to manage cases in accordance with individual need. It was also
recognised that the requirement to have an on-going dialogue with children and
families and other professionals would give a focus to the need to deliver timely
assessments for all children;

a small number of respondents made clear that initial assessments have been
important in giving sufficient priority for children in need cases to be assessed.
They argued that some children may not present immediately as being at risk
(victims of trafficking, children at risk of sexual exploitation) and so by removing
the distinction between the initial and core assessments, these cases could be
14
closed too quickly. Their view was that the current ten working days for an initial
assessment gives sufficient time to investigate and make appropriate service
provision for children in need; and

a minority of responses stated that the initial assessment process had helped to
ensure that a child’s needs were met in the interim, so that they did not have to
wait for the outcome of the full assessment before services were made available to
them. They argued that the lack of any requirement to undertake an initial
assessment risked legitimising undue delay in providing services to children.
Internal review points
Responses were mixed about whether ‘an internal review point’ would prevent
unacceptable delays for children being assessed:

just under a third of respondents stated that specific timescales needed to be set
at a national level for review points;

a further third of respondents recognised internal review as an important aspect of
ensuring that assessments were completed in a timely manner;

of those who were ‘not sure’, – a further third – were mainly cautious about the
complete removal of national timescales, or the capacity for managers to
supervise caseload administration, as intended in the proposals. While some
acknowledged the advantages of less specific deadlines, they were also wary of
the potential for other activities to take priority which could lead to drift in some
cases;

those who were ‘not sure’ stressed the need for greater emphasis on regionally or
sub-regionally agreed timescales and performance measures for review; and

the majority of responses to this question stated that an internal review point
needed to be backed up with good supervision and management if drift was to be
avoided and practice was to be improved.
Other comments
A significant number of responses stated that there was insufficient reference in the draft
guidance to risk and that there should be an increased focus on the importance of
assessing risk as well as need in assessments.
There were comments made on some specifics of the drafting (from the Every Child in
Need Campaign and others including the Children’s Commissioner and some of the
Royal Colleges) that the draft guidance:

risked diluting support for some children in need by focusing more heavily on
children at risk of harm; and
15

failed to mention the requirement to have a ‘realistic plan of action’ following an
assessment.
A majority of responses endorsed the importance of robust monitoring arrangements to
manage any risk of drift and delay for children and families.
Concerns were also expressed around the current capacity of local authority children’s
social care to implement change. In particular:

how change would be implemented at a time when it was difficult to recruit social
workers and there was a lack of funding to retain or train them once recruited;

that local authority children’s social care did not have the capacity to ensure that
social workers had the opportunity to discuss every case with their manager;

how the effectiveness of services would be evaluated and inspected if timescales
and standards were removed; and

a small minority of respondents, whilst recognising a number of problems with the
current system, put forward the view that the solution should be a further
tightening of prescription and central guidance, rather than the opposite approach
being proposed.
The Government response
‘Too many children are left far too long in homes where they are exposed to
appalling neglect’ .
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education
Chapter 1 of the revised statutory guidance sets out the requirements on local authorities
and partners to provide a continuum of support to children and families from early help to
statutory assessment and support under the Children Act 1989.
It seeks to place the needs of individual children at the heart of this process, with frontline
workers able to respond flexibly, assessing need and risk rigorously and meeting those
needs in a timely and effective way. The guidance sets out the key principles and
parameters of effective assessment and service provision.
Local frameworks
The guidance requires local authorities to publish locally agreed assessment protocols
which have at their centre the importance of assessing children and families in a way that
is timely and proportionate to the child’s individual needs. The Chapter sets out what is
16
required within those protocols. Reflecting the views of respondents we will require that
protocols:

ensure that assessments are timely, proportionate to the needs of individual
children and their families and are transparent;

set out how the needs of disabled children, young carers and young offenders will
be addressed in the assessment process;

provide clarity on the contributions of all agencies and professionals that will be
undertaking assessments and providing services;

clarify how statutory assessments will be informed by other specialist
assessments;

set out how shared internal review points with other professionals and the child
and family will be managed throughout the assessment process;

set out the process and review for assessment for children who are returned from
care to live with their families;

seek to ensure that each child and family understands the type of help offered and
their own responsibilities for being involved in the assessment and the help being
provided, so as to improve the child’s outcomes;

set out the process for challenge by children and families by publishing the
complaints procedures; and

require decisions to be recorded in accordance with locally agreed procedures.
Initial and core assessments
The Government has considered carefully the views of all respondents to the
consultation concerning whether to remove the distinction between initial and core
assessments and the related 10 working day timescale for completion of an initial
assessment. In addition we have considered again the evidence from the Munro Review
and from the eight authorities currently trialling more flexible assessment approaches
(including the independent evaluation of that trial). Throughout we have taken into
consideration the views of children and families through direct contact with children and
through work we have done with people and organisations advocating on their behalf.
We have also developed an Equalities Impact Assessment assessing the possible impact
of the approach we now intend to take forward.
The Government acknowledges the concerns expressed by some respondents about the
risk of ‘drift’ with the removal of the 10 working day nationally prescribed timescale.
Overall, however, we believe the balance of argument is in favour of granting this
flexibility in order that frontline workers can better meet the needs of individual children.
The Government believes that this will drive improvements in the quality of assessment
17
and therefore in the quality of support provided to children and their families; and we
believe there are sufficient checks and safeguards in place to ensure improved services.
From 15 April 2013, therefore, the requirement to undertake separate initial and core
assessments and the related 10 working day timescale for the initial assessment will be
removed. By removing the distinction between initial and core assessments, we seek to
make the process of assessment much more of a continuum; which builds continually on
the evidence social workers and others have; which removes the need for children and
their families to have to repeat their stories; and which is proportionate to the needs of
the individual child and family.
The Government will, however, continue to monitor closely the impact of this change. In
addition to scrutiny of locally agreed protocols, evidence will be drawn from:

the revised Ofsted inspection regime focused more rigorously on social work
practice and the child’s experience from needing to receiving help;

the new local authority performance framework and the revised children in need
data (CIN) which will tell us how long children’s assessments are taking;

continuing work with the eight trial authorities;

the role of sector-led peer review and challenge; and

the strengthened role of LSCBs and related audit work to hold practitioners to
account.
Where there is clear evidence that assessments for children in need are not being carried
out in a timely way, the Secretary of State for Education may use his statutory powers to
intervene in an individual local authority.
Furthermore, having reflected on the responses to the consultation and upon the
evidence from the eight trial authorities, the Government has decided to retain, for the
present, the national requirement that assessments are completed with 45 days. The
evidence from the eight trial authorities has shown that implementing new flexibilities
takes time and careful planning. The trial authorities have developed local protocols
which address challenges of ‘drift’ in the process of assessment. Some have introduced
internal review points which are agreed with all local partners. Others have retained a
maximum timescale within their locally agreed protocols, whilst using flexibilities to
operate within that timescale. The approach being taken by the Government will replicate
this approach.
Internal review points
The Government believes that critical challenge and supervision by managers is required
to make sure that an assessment concludes in a timely way for each individual child. The
revised guidance therefore makes clear the need for social workers and their managers
18
to agree review points with children and families and the professionals to make sure that
every case is progressing at the correct pace for the child.
Other comments
The concern expressed in some of the responses about the drafting of the consultation
document diluting the focus on children in need, and disabled children in particular, is
acknowledged. This was never the policy intention and any narrowing of the language or
tone was unintentional. The sole policy intention, and one borne out by our Equalities
Impact Assessment, is that social workers are required to focus on the unique needs of
every individual child, putting in place services more quickly, including for disabled
children. The underpinning legal and regulatory position is unchanged.
Where elements of the drafting in the consultation document gave a misleading sense of
diluting our focus on children in need we have sought to address this in the revised
guidance. We have also referenced the existing guidance on assessing disabled
children’s needs (2009). The revised guidance also includes a strengthening of the
importance of risk management, again reflecting helpful comments from the consultation.
It was not the intention to remove the requirement to have a ‘realistic plan of action’
following an assessment. The revised guidance makes clear the need for a plan and sets
out the need for the assessment and the plan to focus on the outcomes for the child.
In setting out the process of assessment, the document seeks to define the parameters
of what a good assessment looks like. Research has shown that taking a systematic
approach to enquiries using a conceptual model helps to deliver a comprehensive
assessment for a child. The revised guidance refers to the conceptual model, the
Framework for Assessment, as one such model but it does not preclude local areas from
developing this model further to suit local need.
19
Chapter 3: Statutory Guidance on Learning and
Improvement
Responses to the consultation
This section covers the consultation questions 8 to 12.
There were 344 responses to the consultation questions about this document.
The responses revealed that:

there was wide support for the concept of LSCBs developing a local learning
framework underpinned by a set of guiding principles;

there was also support for changing the SCR process so that it would be less
costly and bureaucratic;

many liked the flexibility which the new guidance offered for taking a proportionate
approach to reviews and choosing a learning model which was best suited to the
case; but

just over half of respondents were not sure that the new arrangements would lead
to better learning which would help to prevent future harm to children.
Systems methodology
There was a range of views about the potential impact of the new systems methodology
for case reviews:

those who had direct experience of using the Social Care Institute for Excellence
(SCIE) systems model tended to argue that it was better than the traditional SCR
model at engaging professionals in the learning process and improving
understanding of local practice;

others expressed interest in systems methodology but said it was too early to
know whether it would lead to lessons from serious incidents being learnt more
effectively;

there were also some concerns about the need to put time and resource into
learning the new approach. These responses suggested that LSCBs need to be
able to determine how and when they move towards adopting new review models;

most respondents were unable to give a firm view on whether the new approach
would make any difference to the cost of reviews; and
20

a small number of people were concerned that the draft guidance no longer
included a requirement for LSCBs to commission Individual Management Reviews
(IMRs) from each of the agencies contributing to an SCR.
Criteria for Serious Case Reviews (SCRs)
Some respondents commented on the new, shorter description of the SCR criteria in the
guidance:

the ADCS interpreted the new wording as a broadening of the SCR criteria which
they felt would place additional burdens on local services. This view was shared
by a number of local authorities and LSCBs responding to the consultation;
however

others welcomed the shorter explanation of the SCR criteria or suggested changes
such as clarifying that SCRs should be conducted in cases of suspected suicide.
Publication of SCR reports
Respondents offered a range of views on the Government’s policy on publication of SCR
reports:

many were in favour of increased transparency and agreed that reports needed to
be shared widely in order to drive improvements in the child protection system;

this view was, however, often tempered with a concern to protect the identity of the
children and families who were the subject of SCRs; and

several respondents, including roughly one third of the LSCBs who responded,
raised concerns about the policy on publication. They suggested that it was
important to stress in the guidance that reports should be published unless there
were compelling reasons relating to children’s welfare for this not to happen.
Availability of trained reviewers
Many respondents stressed the importance of reviewers having access to good quality
affordable training to enable to conduct SCRs to an agreed national minimum standard.
They offered various suggestions for improving the skills of those involved in reviews
including:

setting up a national accreditation scheme for reviewers in conjunction with a
Higher Education Institution;

developing a national or regional list of accredited and qualified case reviewers;

devising national competences for reviewers; and

relying on quality assurance mechanisms such as peer review and challenge.
21
National learning
There was broad acceptance of the need for effective arrangements to share emerging
findings from case reviews and good practice across agencies and the wider workforce:

many respondents said that they valued the biennial SCR research programme
which has been commissioned by DfE in previous years and said that this work
should continue; and

others pointed to the need to make better use of local and regional learning
networks or to provide a mechanism for sharing lessons from SCRs on a regular
basis.
Child death reviews
There were 91 responses which offered comments on the section on child death reviews.
These responses were generally positive about the content of the draft guidance but
there were several suggestions for making the description of the required processes
accurate and more helpful, for example:

providing a clear definition of a preventable death; and

clarifying roles and responsibilities of professionals when responding to the
unexpected death of a child.
The Government response
‘I have been determined to ensure that when things do go wrong – as they
always will – we must make sure we are rigorous in analysing our errors and
clear about how everyone may learn the appropriate lessons…We need to
make rapid progress towards greater transparency.’
– Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education
This speech is available to view on the Department for Education website.
Systems methodology
The Government remains committed to implementing a new approach to SCRs which
gets to the heart of what happened and why, and how services need to improve. Having
analysed the consultation responses we acknowledge that LSCBs need time and
flexibility to try different approaches in order to find out what works best. The final
guidance therefore does not unreasonably fetter LSCBs but allows them to use any
learning model so long as they follow the stated principles for reviews. The guidance
22
does, however, highlight the benefits of using the systems methodology recommended
by Professor Munro and the principles in the guidance are designed to be consistent with
that methodology.
Criteria for serious case reviews (SCRs)
The number of SCRs initiated has been dropping significantly in recent years. Research
shows that over the two year period 2009-11 there were 184 notifications relating to
incidents which led to an SCR. This is 96 fewer than the number of incidents which led to
SCRs in the previous two year period (2007-09). Sadly this is not the result of a marked
fall in the number of serious incidents involving children. Instead it reflects LSCBs ’
decisions whether or not to conduct an SCR on an incident.
The Government has noted the concerns about the new description of the SCR criteria in
the draft guidance but does not accept that the criteria are being widened. LSCBs should
already be initiating SCRs in cases of serious harm where there is abuse or neglect if
there are concerns about how organisations worked together to protect the child. The
draft guidance simply confirmed this. It stated that LSCBs should initiate SCRs in these
cases unless there were no concerns about how organisations had worked together.
The Government believes it is reasonable to expect LSCBs to establish whether or not
there is evidence of such concerns in order to inform its decision whether or not to initiate
an SCR. We have therefore maintained the new wording in the revised guidance. The
Government has, however, accepted the comments from some respondents that there
needs to be a mention of cases of suspected suicide in the SCR criteria. This has been
added to revised guidance.
Publication of SCR reports
The Government has considered carefully the suggestion that the guidance should state
that reports should be published ‘unless there are compelling reasons relating to the
welfare of children directly concerned for this not to happen’. The Government
recognises that the impact of publication on the welfare of children directly involved in a
case is an important consideration. LSCBs need to consider ways in which the risks of
any adverse impact that may occur are carefully managed.
The Government takes the view, however, that the phrase about ‘compelling reasons’
mentioned above is no longer needed in statutory guidance. This is because statutory
guidance does not override LSCBs’ obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and
the Human Rights Act 1998. LSCBs must also comply with other legal restrictions on
publication of information, for example, court orders. Given that the general law will
continue to apply, it is not necessary for the statutory guidance to make express
reference to circumstances where there may be welfare reasons for not publishing an
23
SCR report. The final guidance sets out LSCBs’ responsibilities under the law and
reiterates that reports should be written with publication in mind.
National panel of independent experts on Serious Case Reviews
The Government remains concerned about the quality of decision making about SCRs.
As noted above, the number of SCRs initiated has been dropping significantly in recent
years.
There has also been a significant number of cases of LSCBs deciding not to publish
reports of SCRs. This is in spite of there having been statutory guidance in place since
June 2010 making clear that SCR reports should be written with publication in mind.
The Government has decided that there is a need for independent scrutiny of decisions
about initiation and publication of SCRs. From 2013 the Government will establish a
national panel of independent experts which will provide advice to LSCBs on application
of the statutory guidance on SCRs. The panel will look at decisions made by LSCBs not
to conduct SCRs on cases which might meet the criteria in regulations. They will also
advise on cases where an LSCB decides that publication of an SCR report is not
feasible. The final statutory guidance makes reference to the existence of the panel and
says that LSCBs should provide information to the panel and attend meetings on request.
Training for SCR authors
The Government agrees with respondents about the need for further action at a national
level to improve the skills of SCR reviewers. Although it is important that LSCBs develop
capacity locally to deliver good quality reviews, the Government believes that some
centralised support is justified. We have therefore decided to fund a national programme
of training for SCR authors in 2013. A contract has been awarded to a consortium led by
the NSPCC to provide this programme.
This national training programme will equip reviewers with the skills needed to produce
SCRs which:

provide a sound analysis of what happened in the case and why, and what needs
to happen in order to reduce the risk of recurrence;

are written in plain English and can be understood easily by professionals and the
public alike; and

are suitable for publication without needing to be amended or redacted.
The training will provide clarity for providers and commissioners about what a good report
looks like and how it could and should be used.
24
This work will complement the arrangements which the Government is funding through
the Children’s Improvement Board and the Association of Independent LSCB Chairs for
peer challenge and review of SCRs.
National learning
The Government has considered the ideas raised in the consultation about national
learning. We agree that a combination of approaches to national learning may be
needed. These ideas will inform further work which the Government is commissioning to
identify the barriers to learning from serious incidents. This work will begin in the first half
of 2013 and will inform options for supporting wider learning at a national level. The study
will also inform decisions about whether to commission a further round of the SCR
biennial research programme.
Child death reviews
The Government has decided that the detailed guidance on child death reviews would sit
better as a separate chapter. We have also made amendments to this section of the
guidance to clarify a number of issues including:

the definition of a preventable death as one where modifiable factors may have
contributed;

who should chair the Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP);

responsibility for determining the cause of death resting with the coroner or the
doctor and not the CDOP;

responsibilities for dealing with cases which cross LSCB borders; and

responsibilities for providing bereavement support for families and notifying them
of the outcome of reviews.
25
Annex A: Consultation responses and questions
Consultation responses
The Government received written consultation responses from:
Respondent
Number of responses
Local Safeguarding Children Board
116
The health sector
104
Voluntary and community sector
63
Local authority
61
Non-departmental body / association
24
Barrister / solicitor / law group
20
Police
20
Other
15
Consultant / adviser
14
University / FE provider
11
Social worker
9
Parent / carer
4
Trade union
3
School
2
It should be noted that we received submissions from major bodies representing many
separate organisations such as the Local Government Association (LGA), the
Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) and the Medical and Nursing
Royal Colleges. In our analysis, each of these submissions was counted as one
response and not as the number of separate organisations they represented.
26
The consultation questions
Working Together to Safeguard Children
Q1. Does the draft guidance make the essential legislative requirements clear - so all
organisations know what the law says they and others must do?
Q2.
Are any key requirements missing?
Q3. Is the guidance clear enough on what Local Safeguarding Children Boards need
to do to be effective?
Q4.
Please use this space for any other comments you would like to make.
Managing Individual Cases: the Framework for the Assessment of
Children in Need and their Families summary
Q5. Will local frameworks for assessment, which are timely and transparent, allow
professionals to exercise their judgement and respond in a way that is proportionate to
the needs of children and their families?
Q6. Do you think that having an internal review point for completing assessments
within your local framework will provide sufficient control to avoid unacceptable delays for
children? If not, how best might such control be achieved?
Q7.
Any other comments?
Statutory Guidance on Learning and Improvement
Q8. Will the new arrangements for Serious Case Reviews lead to better learning which
helps to prevent future harm to children?
Q9. What needs to happen to ensure that there are enough people who are trained
and qualified to conduct high quality Serious Case Reviews?
Q10. What arrangements should be put in place to ensure the quality of reviews and
share learning at a regional and national level?
Q11. Will the revised guidance make any difference to the cost of Serious Case
Reviews?
Q12. Any other comments?
27
© Crown copyright 2013
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or
medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email:
[email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain
permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:
www.education.gov.uk/contactus.
This document is available online at www.education.gov.uk.
28