---

Children: Databases

Answer

The Department for Education has been exploring the practicality of a new national signposting service in detail, together with relevant partners. I have recently written to Professor Eileen Munro, to ask her to consider this issue as part of her wider review into child protection, and she has agreed to take this on as part of her remit. I have placed a copy of the letter, which details some of the progress to date, and lays out the scope for Professor Munro to consider this issue, in the House Libraries.Professor Munro and I are agreed on the importance of avoiding the creation of any unnecessary demands on social workers and others at the front line. Any solution must be firmly focused on helping front-line professionals to spend as much time as possible helping vulnerable children and families.Professor Munro's interim report is due at the end of January and she will submit her final report to Ministers by the end of April 2011.Letter from Tim Loughton, dated 8 November 2010:"I am writing further to the meeting with key partners on 19 October to confirm next steps in relation to a possible national signposting service and the implications for your further work on your review of child protection.""We share the starting position set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 22 July. Frontline practitioners need to be able to provide support for the most vulnerable children when they move across local authority boundaries or access services in more than one area. Experience and research have shown the potential value of a quick and reliable means of discovering whether a child or young person has been or is the subject of a child protection plan and/or whether they are or have been a looked after child or young person. Following the roundtable discussion, we agreed that it is worth considering a national approach to these issues.""We agree that any national approach must be fit for purpose, proportionate and relate to a clear need. It must also be cost effective and have benefits for the front line of child protection. This was not the case with ContactPoint. However, while recognising that ICT can never be the whole answer to improving frontline practice, it is worth considering whether ICT might play a useful role in supporting aspects of social work and the protection of children and young people—as indeed you have pointed out in your first review report. Our next steps on a possible national signposting service must therefore be taken forward in that context.""At the end of the 19 October meeting, I drew out some clear propositions which had emerged from the discussion as a starting point for further work. If a new ICT system is the solution, or part of the solution, the children in scope should be limited to: those who are looked after; those with child protection plans; and, subject to further consideration of legal issues particularly relating to consent, those who have been the subject of section 47 investigations, it is important that any database only contains details of children known to be at risk, otherwise it could fall into disrepute. Clear criteria would also need to be in place for the removal of a child's details from the database.""As you know, the Department has already explored the feasibility of a 'national signposting system'. This work has concluded that:""such a signposting service is technically feasible""among practitioners and their representatives there is no consensus over scope and purpose, but a presumption that if it goes ahead, its coverage should be tightly defined. As I have indicated, this is the presumption that I shall make""similarly there is a range of views on the practitioners who may need access, whether direct or mediated, to a signposting system""there may be scope for improvement of existing protocols and local practice, rather than, or in addition to, a new tool""uncertainty over costs makes it problematic to commit to an ICT-based project, and to judge the value as against other possible uses of the likely resource""the relationship between use of any new ICT system and professional practice is key, with a need to align with your review's recommendations on frontline practice.""Given the discussions thus far on a national signposting service, and the stage you have reached on your review, you and I have agreed an appropriate way forward. You will consider the key underlying issues, notably:""What do practitioners need to help them to quickly identify children who are the subject of protection plans or who are looked after and who come to the notice of professionals working with them or who are presented for help by parents/carers in local services outside their home areas?""Should any other categories of children be regarded as so vulnerable that practitioners need to identify them quickly, such as those who have been looked after or the subject of child protection plans in the past, or those who have been the subject of section 47 investigations?""How effective are existing measures for supporting mobile vulnerable children, and how might they be improved, including the measures, in place across police and health services?""What new or changed processes or tools, which may include ICT solutions, would help frontline practitioners?""The interactions of 'signposting' with your review, including any possible effects of a new IT system on social work practice""and in the light of that, and of the cost-effectiveness of any ICT solution, what priority should be given to development of the kind of signposting service that has been discussed?""The Department will support your consideration by gathering evidence by a variety of means, including in-depth studies in frontline settings and other forms of stakeholder engagement, and undertaking analysis. There will be no fixed assumption that ContactPoint assets should be re-used. Issues to be considered in this work will include:""a. The use of small-scale pilots with LAs and/or busy A&Es, as well as other ways of gathering information, to clarify the scale and nature of the 'problem', model current and desirable practice and potential aids and solutions.""b. Use made currently of the current Missing Children Notifications system, and how the system could be improved. To include""(i) establishing the purpose of the system, investigating current use, its strengths, and known issues""(ii) collecting feedback from local practitioners and understanding what works/potential barriers""(iii) analysing evidence""(iv) drawing conclusions on how the system could be improved""c. Use made currently of police databases; potential for further use of these systems and the new Police National Database.""d. And specifically in case an IT solution looks desirable""(i) The nature of any such solution that would offer best value for money""(ii) which professionals should have access, directly or indirectly, and how likely are they to use it and find it useful""(iii) what data should be included, including possible inclusion of school and GP registration data as an aid to signposting""(iv) archiving and exit criteria for data in any IT system""(v) the cost profile and affordability, embodying realistic assumptions about development and operational costs and the implementation date.""I should be grateful if you would participate at the appropriate level in the governance arrangements for this work, together with Sue White and officials who support your review. The Department will not start to develop any detailed documentation required for any ICT project until after a decision is taken to proceed.""I look forward to seeing an update on progress in your January report and a final recommendation in your April report."Letter from Professor Eileen Munro:"Thank you for your letter dated 8 November confirming the next steps we agreed in consideration of a national signposting service for children known to be at risk. I am happy to incorporate this issue and its implications into my review of child protection in England and welcome your offer of support in gathering evidence to inform my recommendations.""I concur with your view that a national approach to signposting, including any potential case for an ICT-based service, should be shaped by what practitioners need to help them carry out their work to protect children. As you have highlighted, it will be important to give very careful consideration to the criteria for including children on the system and for removing their names. As you have suggested, I will work with Professor Sue White, other members of my reference group and officials working on the review, to consider what practice tools or systems are already in place which could be built upon to meet practitioners' identified needs rather than creating an unnecessary additional system. It goes without saying that the cost-effectiveness of any recommendations will be central to my thinking, particularly with regard to the wider issue my review is addressing of unnecessary bureaucratic demands on social work time.""I would ask in addition that you consider preserving some funding for the national signposting work, in order that any recommendations I am minded to make are, if necessary, supported by available resource.""As you request, I will update you on my progress in January and seek to provide you with a final recommendation in my April report."

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

34126; 521 c591-3W

Session

2010-12

Subjects

Children Databases

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk