Child Abuse Investigation Command (The Children Act 2004)

Report: 14
Date: 13 October 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on implementing the Children Act 2004 and the current impact assessment for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. On the 12 May 2004, Specialist Crime Directorate, Child Abuse Investigation Command (SCD5), presented a report on the Children Act 2004, outlining the implications for the MPS. The Children Act received Royal Assent on 15 November 2004 and statutory guidance is in the process of incremental publication. Guidance currently available for public consultation includes the new ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (statutory) and ‘Cross Government Guidance on Information Sharing’ (non-statutory).

2. Commander Smith (Territorial Policing) has now established the ‘Every Child Matters’ Programme Board and appointed a dedicated Programme Manager, Inspector Alan Hodges. A Project Initiation Document was agreed at the Board meeting held on 28 September 2005.

3. The London Child Protection Committee has not yet discussed progress on Children’s Services Authorities change programmes, primarily because it has not met since April. Whether or not this committee moves to a broader ‘safeguarding children’ agenda has yet to be established. Feedback from individual Authorities is that many are in the process of appointing Directors of Children’s Services and Lead Members for safeguarding children with some support from government appointed regional change advisors.

4. In August, members of the Programme Board met with Jane Scott, one of three Regional Change Advisors for London. This meeting was initiated by police and took some time to arrange, reflecting the ongoing difficulties the MPS has experienced in actively engaging with this agenda. However, one positive outcome is that the Programme Manager will be using networks being created and supported by the Advisors to consult senior partners and Children’s Services Authority change managers on matters pertaining to the MPS.

5. The duty to safeguard children and promote their welfare came into effect on 1 October 2005. This is a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Children Act. Statutory guidance has now been published and sets out in some detail the expectations for all statutory agencies, including the police. It is now clear that this duty is broad and will affect every area of policing. Specifically, this duty means all agencies having:

• Senior management commitment to the importance of safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare;
• A clear statement of the agency’s responsibilities towards children available for all staff;
• A clear line of accountability within the organisation for work on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;
• Service development that takes account of the need to safeguard and promote welfare and is informed, where appropriate, by the views of children and families;
• Staff training on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children for all staff working with or (depending on the agency’s primary functions) in contact with children and families;
• Safe recruitment procedures in place;
• Effective inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and
• Effective information sharing.

The timeframe for ensuring compliance with Section 11 is not specifically stated, but compliance generally will be monitored through tri-annual Joint Area Reviews, which has already started in some boroughs.

6. The Section 11 guidance also contains a chapter on the role of the police, which includes some specific expectations against which the MPS will need to benchmark activity. The main role for police in this context is the investigation of child abuse although ‘they also have a role in preventing crime against or involving children and minimising the potential for children to become victims.’ ‘The police service contribution should also include:

• Identifying vulnerable children in domestic violence cases;
• Using police powers to take children into protective custody when appropriate;
• Protecting the needs of children as witnesses or victims;
• Working with partner agencies in the criminal justice system dealing with youth offenders to divert children away from crime; and
• Working with partner agencies to educate children and young people on issues such as substance misuse and the prevention of crime.’
  (6.3 of the statutory guidance to safeguard and promote the welfare of children)

7. The Child Abuse Investigation Command has already published its statement of responsibility on the MPS Intranet and the Programme Board discussed an MPS statement at the September meeting. Section 11 compliance is but one significant area of work already identified for implementation and is a major strand in the programme of work.

8. Government is expected to confirm whether or not funds are available to support its ambitious Information Sharing and Assessment programme. This programme seeks to introduce a network of local information sharing ‘indexes’ (databases containing basic details of all children in a local area), allowing practitioners to quickly establish whether, and if so who, is currently involved with a child. Of the three ‘trailblazer’ London boroughs, only Lewisham has made a direct approach to Child Abuse Investigation Command (SCD5), and this is to support its Common Assessment Framework which is part of its LISA (Lewisham Information Sharing and Assessment) initiative. SCD5 and Lewisham Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) will shortly be attending a meeting to discuss how police can support LISA. The main imperative for the MPS at present is to develop a corporate information sharing protocol for safeguarding children. Information sharing in this area is far wider than SCD5 and will affect information flows throughout the MPS.

9. Wandsworth is the only London borough to become a formal ‘early adopter’ for government’s Common Assessment Framework initiative. This is an extended school initiative that does not directly involve police. However, the Programme Manager has already contacted Wandsworth’s Project Manager and is seeking an early meeting to establish whether, and to what extent, police can participate. Nationally, there are only two early adopters that directly involve police and the Programme Manager is establishing regular contact with both projects. The risk for the MPS (and police nationally) is that the Common Assessment Framework will be tested positively without significant police interaction. This is why the MPS is taking a proactive approach.

10. Another national initiative is the development of e-CAF (electronically enabled Common Assessment Framework, potentially linked to Information Sharing and Assessment indexes and the Integrated Children’s System). Detective Chief Inspector Angus has succeeded in securing membership on the e-CAF working group and is in a good position to monitor and influence development.

11. Having communicated an early holding position to internal and external stakeholders, Commander Smith has again written to borough commanders in September, providing guidance on critical aspects of the change for children agenda. As well as positions already alluded to; this guidance sets out the current robust MPS position in relation to the Common Assessment Framework and Lead Professional initiatives. By applying ‘best interests of children and families’ criteria, the MPS position has been clearly ascertained; police are not the most appropriate agency to act as either Common Assessment Framework assessors or Lead Professionals. This position is not only consistent with our interpretation of the ‘change for children’ agenda but also consistent with the Department for Education and Science (DfES) vision, as confirmed by senior members of the relevant DfES teams with whom we have regular contact.

12. Whilst it is relatively straightforward to assert the police position in relation to the Common Assessment Framework as assessors, there is clearly a significant police role in relation to identifying children that would benefit from a Common Assessment. This is because police are often the first agency to react to emerging concerns, particularly in relation to incidents where domestic violence has occurred. Consequently, the Programme Manager and others are in the process of establishing how police can best contribute to the Common Assessment process. Early indications are that significant changes to existing processes will be required to incorporate a pre-CAF checklist into front-line policing especially, but not exclusively, in relation to well-established ‘children coming to notice’ processes.

13. A cross-cutting requirement, probably the most significant in terms of impact on the MPS, is the requirement to ensure our workforce is ‘fit for purpose’ in relation to safeguarding children and promoting their welfare. This means that we must make sure that our personnel understand the duty to safeguard and promote welfare at all levels of interaction with children and families. It is still too early to accurately assess the resource implications for training and developing staff, but negotiations are currently taking place with the Human Resources Directorate to organise a formal performance needs analysis. The current assessment is that the resource implications will be both significant and enduring.

14. SCD5 is working with the London Child Protection Committee to develop a safeguarding children training framework for London. This will be consistent with a new SCD5 training programme currently under development and incorporate the government training materials published to support the recently distributed DfES guidance for all practitioners, ‘what to do if you’re worried a child is being abused’. The framework, in line with government expectations, will recommend that most training be delivered to multi-agency audiences, consolidating and reflecting the ‘integrated services’ ethos within the ‘change for children’ agenda.

List of abbreviations

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

DfES

Department for Education and Science

LSCB

Local Safeguarding Children Boards

LISA

Lewisham Information Sharing Assessment

e-CAF

electronic - Common Assessment Framework

C. Race and equality impact

1. The ethos of the Children Act is quite explicit, 'every child matters' irrespective of race or other social attribute. The key point is that the main area of vulnerability is age and all children should receive the services they need, including the need for protection.

2. All children must have access to the services they need irrespective of their race, culture or ethnic origin. This was an issue for Victoria Climbié and it is clear that she did not receive the services she needed because of her ethnicity (at least to some degree). There was a rule of optimism being applied and professionals were using culture to excuse or explain concerning behaviour.

3. Whilst the MPS is not responsible for developing London’s Safeguarding Children Boards, police are statutory partners and have a responsibility (as do all other agencies) to ensure that race and equality issues are considered at a strategic level. Local Safeguarding Children Boards will have a quality assurance role for safeguarding children services. Such services will be benchmarked taking into account the specific needs of the most vulnerable children. Areas such as Child Abuse through Sexual Exploitation and Child Trafficking are difficult issues and the MPS will play a significant role in developing services to prevent these abuses across London.

4. Diversity assessments will necessarily occur locally and the London Child Protection Committee will play a vital role in collating and coordinating assessments for London. It is premature for the MPS to conduct a full race and equality impact assessment as it is still working to establish its position in the emerging regime. Currently, the MPS and London Child Protection Committee are working to learn lessons from Serious Case Reviews in London and are identifying predictive factors such as immigrant families, domestic violence and mental health. The MPS is already playing a significant role in ensuring that services across London meet acceptable standards and SCD5 has established the Safeguarding Children Independent Advisory Group to assist strategic planning in a number of areas, including implementing the Children Act.

5. Children's participation is a key driver for the Act. Both Children's Trusts and Local Safeguarding Children Boards are required to consult children and young people in developing services. Clearly, the most vulnerable children will need to be consulted (e.g. children with disabilities) and the experience of the MPS in embracing diversity will prove invaluable in shaping the agenda for change.

D. Financial implications

1. The transition to Children’s Trusts and Local Safeguarding Children Boards is likely to increase requests for the MPS to contribute financially from both Borough Commanders and SCD5. The recently published draft ‘Working Together’ helpfully includes examples of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) funding arrangements. Using this as a guide, the Programme Board has recommended that MPS contributions to London LSCBs do not exceed £5,000 per annum. SCD5 have already arranged to provide £5,000 to each LSCB as well as £30,000 to the London Child Protection Committee for the financial year 2005/6. Additionally, this is the second year that SCD5 are providing £60,000 ‘partnership’ money to support pan-London or cross-borough child abuse prevention initiatives. Project Violet has successfully bid for £72,000 from this fund. Currently, SCD5 provide a financial contribution to safeguarding children partnerships on behalf of the MPS totalling £250,000.

2. However, at least two boroughs believe that the police contribution is substantially too low and have asked SCD5 for contributions of £25,000 (Enfield) and £34,000 (Harrow) as they make the transition from Area Child Protection Committees to LSCBs. Whilst these requests have so fare been refused, they are likely to be followed by similar requests from other Children’s Services Authorities and there is a real risk that such refusals may be misinterpreted as a lack of police commitment and/or cooperation.

3. The financial implications associated with Children’s Trust arrangements are harder to define and anticipate although the MPS is likely to receive requests for resources, in cash and/or in kind, to support the development of children’s services. These are likely to include requests for staff to work in multi-agency, co-located teams, this being a key element of the ‘change for children’ programme.

4. Implementation of the Common Assessment Framework will require changes to MERLIN and the development of new information sharing systems and referral procedures. These costs have yet to be ascertained. It should be born in mind however, that an officer working in information sharing in the MPS is a member of the DfES reference group dealing with the index and information sharing. This will allow the service to keep abreast of progress and influence where possible.

5. The programme of work to implement the Children Act within the MPS will require financial support. In addition to the Programme Manager (one full time Inspector), SCD5 are providing significant support equating to approximately half a Detective Chief Inspector.

6. There is likely to be significant new expenditure in developing and delivering MPS training to take into account the new duties. More detailed work, in the form of a performance needs analysis, is needed to establish these costs. It is probable that this will result in a business case for growth to the MPS Management Board in the near future.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Detective Chief Inspector Ian Angus, Specialist Crime Directorate.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback