1 / 14

The Common Assessment Framework

The Common Assessment Framework. The Swansea pilot: all singing from the same song sheet?. Key research themes from the Assessment Framework. Repeated assessment upset families Not enough information about intervention of other agencies Same conceptual framework for all children

len-vincent
Download Presentation

The Common Assessment Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Common Assessment Framework The Swansea pilot: all singing from the same song sheet?

  2. Key research themes from the Assessment Framework • Repeated assessment upset families • Not enough information about intervention of other agencies • Same conceptual framework for all children • Increased collaboration between agencies in the assessment of developmental needs • Comprehensive recording for safeguarding

  3. Systems, Systems, Systems! Key message from government • Spectrum of children needs • Info sharing and common standards • Lead professionals in multi-agency case • Move to inter-disciplinary teams • Workforce reforms – common core training • Tailored training for lead professionals • Transitional funding

  4. Piloting the common assessment framework • Informed by UK Assessment Framework • 8 dimensions for pre-referral assessment – health; education; identity; social presentation; family and social relationships; emotional and behavioural development; self care; physical and social environment. • 3 indicators: mild, moderate, and serious concern.

  5. Our research questions • Standardise processes - joined-up system? • Reduce inappropriate referrals? • Enhance joint working by trust and reciprocity? • Lead to more focused further action? • Avoid displacement to child protection?

  6. Preparing the ground • steering group of senior managers • focus groups of mixed professionals • parents involved with family support projects • young people from Swansea’s Youth Forum • views on ‘mild’ ‘moderate’ and ‘serious’ • young people and parents – consensus • professionals took longer to agree (vols v stats) • different views on smacking and on parenting

  7. Training 250 professionals • Train on history of tools, completing forms, advice • Daunting for staff who have little child care background • Referrers need to know more about what SSD can do • Parental consent problematic for some – stigma of SSD? • Needs assessment not familiar for some – SSD’s job! • Need SSD manager there to deal with queries • Multi agency hard to organise but best • 88% felt equipped to undertake assessment

  8. 12 Months Pre and Post • Children in need aged 0-9, • 12 months pre - post implementation, referrals down 7% (comparator up 37%) • Family / public referrals – decreased • No increase in child protection referrals

  9. Research Outcomes Samples matched for referrer, household and primary needs - Referral info missing before and after • Ethnicity 27% and 10% • First language 80% and 46% • Religion 94% and 85% • Parental responsibility 27% and 9% • Had always lived with parent 73% and 19% • Looked after or not 77% and 27% • Registered as ‘disabled’ 75% and 23% • CPR history 68% and 23%

  10. Pre and Post Change Parents and children’s views entered or not • Parents knew about referral 43% and 86% • Consent given by parents 24% and 83% • Parents views in referral 29% and 69% • Children’s views 4% and 5% • Knowledge of agencies involved with family • Pre- 110 references - Post- 228 references

  11. More information on needs • Education needs 13% to 51% • Parent’s capacity re child’s health needs 3% to 24% • Concerns about emotional needs 17% to 35% • Concerns about presentation 10% to 34% • Basic care 3% to 48% • Ensure safety 5% to 34% • Child’s development strengths 10% to 24% • Child’s education strengths 3% to 38% • Emo warmth- strengths 1% to 46% • Boundaries - strengths 1% to 31% • Stability – strengths 1% to 34%

  12. Does it help focus services • Reduction in advice and info only 35% to 28% • Reduction in referrals out of SSD 15% to 7% • Reduction in ‘No further action’ 47% to 38% • More cases allocated to teams 17% to 26% • Initial assessments increase 33% to 44%

  13. bad news – good news • time consuming and can raise expectations • family co-operation problematic for some • reciprocity? Feedback and communication • profs - effective to learn needs and ‘positives’ • SWkrs- starting point for identifying needs • most professionals see it as valuable to retain • Very little on the emotional / psychological

  14. In England - • The CAF part of strategy for world class workforce with qualification framework • Child and young person development • Safeguarding and promoting • Supporting transitions • Multi-agency working • Sharing information.

More Related