ARTICLES

EDITOR: PETER LANG

New Guidance Documents in Child Protection:New Messages for Schools

STEVE ADAMS, Training Co-ordinator, Derbyshire Area Child Protection Committee

Since 1999, government guidance in childprotection has been issued which embodiesa shift in practice and philosophy,sometimes expressed in the word‘refocusing’. School staff have never foundchild protection easy, but these shifts inpolicy and practice put particular demandson them. Steve Adams identifies thesedemands and the ways in which theydiffer from previous child protectionexpectations on schools. He sees realproblems for schools in the new guidance,but also suggests ways in which they maywork positively with at least some of thechanges.

Schools have never found their role in child protectioneasy. This is partly because it is a challenging field foreveryone engaged in it. For school staff, it is also that,though certainly concerned with the welfare of child-ren beyond school, they have a massive and clearlydefined task which is not child protection, namely theeducation of children. Over the years since the intro-duction of the National Curriculum, their attentionhas been called increasingly to the curriculum andaway from other concerns including pastoral care. Ithas, therefore, been important to find ways of makingchild protection clear-cut, and messages which sim-plify without falsifying the responsibilities of staffhave been useful in doing this.

In the last few years, however, since the publication ofthe Department of Health’s Child Protection: Messagesfrom Research (Department of Health, 1995), some ofthe messages which those of us training schools fortheir child protection responsibilities had foundespecially pertinent are now becoming redundant,as a sea-change washes over the whole field. This shiftis now to be found more fully worked out in WorkingTogether to Safeguard Children (Department of Healthet al., 1999) and Framework for the Assessment of Children

in Need and their Families (Department of Health et al.,2000).

Messages from Research (Department of Health, 1995),published four years after the introduction of the 1989Children Act, sought to answer the question: how ischild protection working? It brought together some ofthe research which had been produced in the pre-vious few years and included some specially com-missioned work. More importantly, it drew someconclusions from the research which have been highlyinfluential on the theory and practice of childprotection. These conclusions may be summed up asfollows:

. Most social services action concerned with S47 en-quiries focused on single incidents. Having begunwith a concern about a single incident, perhaps aninjury to a child, for instance, that incident tendedto be the focus of the work which followed andinsufficient attention was given in most cases to theother aspects of the child’s world.

. As Messages from Research (Department of Health,1995) argued, the most serious damage to childrenarises not from a single incident but from repeatedchronic, cumulative abuse or neglect, often thatcategory known as emotional abuse. If a singleincident of assault occurred in a home where thechild was loved, valued and given attention, it wasunlikely that s/he would suffer or be damaged inthe long term. However, there were often palpableand serious affects if it occurred in a home wherethere was what the authors called ‘low warmth,high criticism’.

. Messages from Research (Department of Health, 1995)also found that in more than half of the familiesreferred to child protection services, no services atall had been received. As a result, the experience ofa child protection investigation often left parentsfeeling angry, alienated and not having had theirneeds met – or indeed those of their children.

This was clearly highly unsatisfactory, and Messagesfrom Research (Department of Health, 1995) introduceda period of what became known as ‘refocusing’, ofmoving the focus of child protection away from single

R

3PASTORAL CARE – JUNE 2002

# NAPCE 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

incidents and towards the whole experience of thechild within the context of the family and the widerenvironment.

Two major shifts can be seen to have taken place, andthey can be found as the overall subtext of the tworecent Department of Health publications, WorkingTogether to Safeguard Children (Department of Healthet al., 1999) and Framework for the Assessment of Childrenin Need and their Families (Department of Health et al.,2000).

The first is that the whole child welfare task is theresponsibility of all agencies and not just that of socialservices. In the past, it was generally felt that socialservices would engage with the tasks of investigatingconcerns and securing the safety of the child. The partwhich staff working with children in other wayswould undertake was that of filtering concerns whichthey might develop while undertaking their own task– in the case of schools, that of educating children.This monitoring role was also the task of GPs, healthvisitors, nursery nurses, and so on. Once the concernhad been shared with social services, the rest of theprocess lay with them.

This never felt entirely acceptable. After all, the schoolcontinued to contain (often in every sense of the word)the child throughout the period of the investigation,any civil or criminal court action, and on into the future.School staff often felt that they could have been ofvalue further into the process if allowed to do so.

The new documentation encourages this thinking.School staff, along with staff in other monitoringagencies, are now expected to have made more en-quiries before contacting social services, which maywell involve discussing concerns with the parents. Theywill be party to the Core Assessment which will followif the child’s name is added to the child protectionregister, and will be members of a Core Group whoserole is to unpick and deliver the Child Protection Planfor a registered child, and this is likely to be ongoing.

The second shift is that Child Protection is to be seenas part of Children in Need. Thus, whereas there wasa strong tendency for child welfare to begin and endwith concerns about abuse, it is now necessary forsocial services to assess the needs of any family wherethere are felt to be children in need, if the familyrequest it. If the children are in need of protection, thismust be provided for whether or not the parents arewilling that it should. Otherwise, the permission ofparents should be sought before an assessment can beundertaken. In either case, once the immediate safetyof the child has been secured, other issues of needshould be assessed with a view to their also being met.

Within this broad context, a number of issues arise. Ineach case, a significant message which used to begiven to schools needs to be radically modified.

1. OLD MESSAGE: Child abuse was not generallythe product of deprivation; it could happen in anysocial grouping.

NEW MESSAGE: Regard the background environ-ment of the child as a key factor. (See Horwath,2000, chs. 1, 2 and 3)

The new documentation does not suggest thatabuse does not happen in middle class families, butstresses the importance of deprivation as a relevantconsideration. Most teachers have always believedthat the background of a child has a huge impact.It is important to remember, however, that abusedoes take place in all social settings, and that it isoften harder to see, harder to accept and harder toconfront in middle class families.

2. OLD MESSAGE: Procedures must be followedscrupulously: following individual judgementwas dangerous to children.

NEW MESSAGE: Use professional judgementbased on research findings when following pro-cedures. (See Department of Health/Departmentfor Education and Employment/Home Office(2000), ch. 4)

It is not possible for any set of guidelines to coverfully any possible situation which may arise. Pro-fessional judgement has been and always will be anaspect of its practise. There is also a recognition inthe new documentation that some professionalshave tended to follow checklists slavishly and with-out the use of insight or experience. This particu-larly applies to social workers’ use of the ‘OrangeBook’ (Department of Health, 1988) (which theAssessment Framework replaces), and should notbe read as meaning that teachers (or anyone else)can ignore Child Protection Procedures if theywant to. But there will be more scope and morenecessity for professional judgement in future (seebelow).

3. OLD MESSAGE: Teachers did not have to (and insome cases must not) talk to parents about theirchild protection concerns.

NEW MESSAGE: Except when the sharing of aconcern with parents may threaten the safety ofthe child, seek parental permission when sharinginformation or concerns with another agency.(Data Protection Act, 1998; Human Rights Act,1998; Department of Health, 1999, 5.6, 5.11)

This demand is perhaps the most difficult for schoolstaff to accommodate. It requires much morediscrimination than in the past as to when concernsshould and should not be shared with parents. Italso requires that teachers who may have infre-quent contact with particular parents seek to

4 # NAPCE 2002. PASTORAL CARE – JUNE 2002

discuss with them the way they treat their children.This may feel to the teacher – and almost certainlyto the parent – like inappropriate prying. There ishowever a danger that not doing so may lead tolitigation by a parent.

Basically, the guidelines require, first, that if aworker is referring a concern under S47 of theChildren Act 1989 – one which concerns actual orpossible significant harm to a child (i.e. a childprotection concern) – then s/he should inform theparents that s/he is doing so, unless to inform theparent would be likely to endanger the child; andsecondly, that if a worker intends to share anyinformation about a child or a family, other thaninformation which is being shared as part of areferral under S47 of the Children Act 1989, s/hemust obtain the permission of the parent(s) to doso. Having said this, the refusal of a parent to grantsuch permission may provide sufficient reason towarrant a S47 enquiry, and therefore allowing theschool to share the information without permission.

Failure to inform or seek permission from parentsmay be justified by reference to S1.1 of the ChildrenAct, which states that ‘. . . the child’s welfare shallbe the court’s paramount consideration’, whichmeans that as long as a worker is acting in accord-ance with what s/he perceives to be the welfare ofthe child, s/he should not be open to litigation.

The free flow of information between agencieswhich work with children will almost certainly beinhibited by the need to ask a parent for permissionto share it before doing so. At present, we are at anearly stage in this new world, and it may be thatdecisions by the courts following attempts at liti-gation may result in something of a return. Thedefence appears certain to be the fundamentalprinciple of the Children Act 1989, namely that theaction taken was in accordance with what theteacher perceived to be the welfare of the child –and that the welfare of the child is the paramountconsideration.

4. OLD MESSAGE: Schools were exhorted to shareconcerns at an early stage and not to put off con-tacting social services. A key aim of child protec-tion was a free flow of information about childrenand families about whom there were concerns.

NEW MESSAGE: Except in urgent cases (i.e. wherea S47 enquiry is expected), complete an assessmentbefore referring to Social Services (Department ofHealth, 1999, 5.7). BUT: Social Services Dept. doesthe initial assessment for a child protection re-ferral (Department of Health, 1999, 5.13)

As well as the need to consult with parents whensharing information, school staff will also beexpected to have undertaken an enquiry them-

selves before contacting social services. The ex-hortation not to investigate because it is not theteacher’s role is less clear than it was, and, as withother issues, how far to enquire into the welfare ofa child within the family will require much morediscrimination.

There are still circumstances where school staff areexpected to act rapidly. These would be urgentchild abuse concerns arising from actual injuriesand/or from allegations made by a child. Underthese circumstances, school staff should be able totell social services what the child said when askedabout the injury, for instance, but would not beexpected to undertake an assessment of the generalcare of the child within the family before referring.Indeed, the police would not wish a school to do soin a case where criminal proceedings might follow.

In this kind of case, there is an argument for askingthe advice of social services without identifying thechild concerned. Education Departments whichemploy specialist child protection staff are provid-ing a valuable resource in this respect, since aknowledge of the organization of schools will oftenbe an advantage in giving such advice.

5. OLD MESSAGE: The focus must be on the needsof children, not on the needs of parents.

NEW MESSAGE: Consider the needs of parentsin order to improve parenting capacity. The needsof all members of the family should be assessedand met where possible. (See, Horwath (2000), ch. 2)

The message that the child’s welfare is paramountstill holds, and staff should always maintain thefocus on the child. Nevertheless, Messages fromResearch (1995) did draw attention to the fact thatchildren’s interests were not served if parents wereleft alienated and resentful after child protectionintervention, particularly one which made noattempt to look at their own needs, which seemedoften to be the case. As we have seen, Messagessuggested that half the families investigated re-ceived no services at all. In addition, meeting manyof the child’s needs can only be achieved if theneeds of the family as a whole are addressed.

6. OLD MESSAGE: Schools did not have to decidewhat the appropriate response to their concernwas.

NEW MESSAGE: In order to act appropriately atthe referral stage, decide whether they are makinga S47 or a S17 referral, and whether informingparents of the intention to make a referral willrisk endangering the child.

As we have already seen, more discrimination willbe required of school staff before a referral to social

5# NAPCE 2002.PASTORAL CARE – JUNE 2002

services is made. It is likely too that there may bedisagreements between schools and social servicesreception staff as to the appropriate response to aparticular concern, leading to a school being asked,‘Have you discussed this with the parents?’ and onreceiving a negative answer being told that socialservices will do nothing until parents have beeninvolved. School staff making referrals will need tobe ready for this question. They will need to havethought through the issue of whether discussingthe particular concern with parents might beappropriate, or whether doing so might actuallyput the child in (greater) danger. Ultimately, areferral to social services backed up in writing,where the school staff are convinced that a childprotection enquiry is the only appropriate re-sponse, may be conscientiously left with socialservices to provide a response.

7. OLD MESSAGE: Once the Initial Conference wasover, their role was mainly to continue to monitor,to refer when necessary, and to attend ReviewConferences.

NEW MESSAGE: Work closely with other agencieson the delivery of the Child Protection Plan. Allagencies share responsibility for its delivery andfor the Core Assessment.

There are benefits to be gained from a moresignificant role for schools in the post-investigationstage. Other agencies may become more aware ofthe school’s role and the significance of the closeand continuing contact which staff have withpupils. They may also become more aware of theconstraints which schools work under which some-times affect their capacity to respond to childprotection demands. School staff should be ableto influence the direction of the intervention, andto become more aware of the facilities availablewithin other agencies for the support of childrenand young people.

There are times when schools have become frus-trated by the lack of continuing involvement in thefurther planning for a child who has experienceda child protection enquiry, and many schools willbe pleased to have the significance of their rolevalidated.

None of the above is wholly positive or negative, butthere is no doubt that changes in child welfare

practice will present challenges to schools. TheDepartment for Education and Employment was aparty to both documents, and if there are implicationsin terms of practice, organization or resources, thenthey will need to be made evident to government bythe school staff who grapple with them.

I am at present uncertain about the degree to whichtheir implications for schools have been understood.It is essential for the safety of children that schoolscontinue to fulfil their monitoring and referringfunctions, and are not put off by unreasonableexpectations being put upon them. After all, whateverthe changes in thinking, nothing in the new docu-ments should be understood as preventing a memberof staff with a child protection concern from contact-ing social services without delay. This is the veryminimum child protection function which a schoolmust ensure it fulfils.

References

Data Protection Act 1988 (1988) London: HMSO.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1988) Protecting Children: A Guide for

Social Workers Undertaking a Comprehensive Assessment (‘TheOrange Book’). London: HMSO.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1995) Child Protection: Messages fromResearch. London: HMSO.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/HOME OFFICE/DEPARTMENTFOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1999) Working Togetherto Safeguard Children. London: HMSO.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATIONAND EMPLOYMENT/HOME OFFICE (2000) Framework forthe Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. London:HMSO.

HORWATH, J. (ed.) (2000) The Child’s World: Assessing Children inNeed. The Reader. London: NSPCC.

Human Rights Act 1998 (1998) London: HMSO.The Children Act (1989) (1989) London: HMSO.

The views expressed here are the author’s own. They are notnecessarily shared by Derbyshire Area Child Protection Committeeor its members.

CorrespondenceSteve AdamsBirch HouseMain StreetKnivetonAshbourneDerbyshireDE6 1JHEmail address: steveadams@btinternet.com

6 # NAPCE 2002. PASTORAL CARE – JUNE 2002