Graded Care Profile

Dr Om Prakash Srivastava

Richard Fountain

Robyn Johnson

Dawn Hodson

2

Introduction

Dr Om Prakash Srivastava

3

What is theGraded Care

ProfileRichard Fountain

4

GCP:• An evidenced based assessment tool for evaluating levels

of parental care.

• Uses a graded scale to capture levels of physical and emotional care.

• Based on Maslows hierarchy of need, the tool identifies (a) commitment to care (b) ability to care (c) quality of care.

• Effective tool that identifies strengths and weaknesses; targets aspect of neglectful care.

• Provides evidence that can inform care and intervention plans.

5

Findings from the first national evaluation of the Graded Care Profile

Full report available September 2015

Robyn Johnson

6

Purpose of the Evaluation

• Obtain feedback on the GCP in order to inform the development of the tool.

• Generate picture of usage; perceptions of usefulness; facilitators and barriers to its effective use.

• Explore implementation of GCP by LSCBs and LAs

7

Methodology

• Internal and external sites throughout UK

• Mixed methods approach

• Submission of GCP data plus additional info about each case – at two time points

• 137 Time 1

• 108 Time 2 (54 GCPs)

• Interviews with LAs, trainers, practitioners, managers and parents.

8

Strengths of the GCP

• On a 5 point scale, usefulness of GCP rated as 4 or 5 in two thirds of cases (N=114).

Improved assessment process:

• Enables a more objective, evidence based assessment

• Identifies parental strengths as well as areas of concern

• “Unpacks parenting” – improved breadth and depth of assessment Identifying nature of neglect

• Promotes a child centred approach – “what is it like to be a child in that house?”

• Participative process promotes parental engagement

9

Strengths of GCP cont.

• Generates new information or formalises information already known

• Promotes parental awareness and understanding of concerns

• Promotes professionals’ understanding of nature and level of neglect

• Informs planning: In 87% of cases (N=101), GCP informed case plan at least to some extent.

• Enables more accurate and specific plans • Can act as a parenting change enabler

10

Positive Change Indicated

• Positive change measured in the majority of cases

• Qualitative evidence of positive outcomes, e.g. One family had a 20 year history with Children’s Services, with previous failed attempts to remove the children:

“…within a couple of days of him using it all four children were taken into care. I think for him being able to provide much more focused evidence to the Children’s Hearing that enabled them to remove those children from their parents’ care.” (External site)

11

Areas for Improvement• Language:

• formal/academic

• values

• Gaps:

• obesity, technology, age based limitations.

• Format:

• Traffic light reporting

• Accompanying narrative to support scores

• Historical and/or other contextual factors

• Scoring and scaling processes

• Training

12

Next Steps

Dawn Hodson

13

Next Step

• Development of GCP2

• Inter-rater reliability and validity currently underway

• Pilot GCP2

• Trainer for Trainer and accreditation model

• Implementation framework

For more details contact

dawn.hodson@nspcc.org.uk