Coronavirus (COVID-19): Children and Families Collective Leadership Group minutes - 25 June 2020

Attendees and apologies

Chair: Karen Reid

Meeting participants 

Members:

• Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES) - Douglas Hutchison
• Care Inspectorate - Helen Happer, apologies from Peter Macleod
• CELCIS, University of Strathclyde - Claire Burns
• Children’s Hearings Scotland (CHS) - Elliot Jackson
• Children in Scotland - Jackie Brock
• Child Protection Committees Scotland - Alan Small
• Coalition of Care and support Providers in Scotland (CCPS) - Annie Gunner Logan
• COSLA - Laura Caven, apologies from Eddie Folan
• Education Scotland - Gayle Gorman
• Independent Care Review - Fiona McFarlane, Thomas Carlton, apologies from Fiona Duncan
• Inspiring Children’s Futures, University of Strathclyde - Jennifer Davidson
• NHS Chief Executives - Angela Wallace
• Police Scotland - Sam McCluskey
• Public Health Scotland - Diane Stockton
• Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) - Neil Hunter
• Scottish Government - Bill Alexander, Laura Meikle, Wendy Mitchell, Kate Smith, Hugh McAloon, apologies from Iona Colvin and Ann Holmes
• SOLACE - Grace Vickers
• Scottish Social Services Council - Laura Lamb deputising, apologies Phillip Gillespie
• Social Work Scotland - Alison Gordon

Additional meeting participants:

• Lindsay MacDougall and Fiona Marshall, SG Child Protection Unit
• Bill Scott Watson, SG Deputy Director Care, Protection and Justice
• Mairi Macpherson, SG Deputy Director Creating Positive Futures
• Gita Sharkey, SG Children’s Rights and Participation Team
• Carolyn Wilson, SG Child and Maternal Health Team
• Debby Wason, Public Health Scotland
• Leadership Group secretariat: Sara Dodds and Chris Lindores

Items and actions

Note of last meeting on 18 June [paper 08/01] 

There were no amendments to the note and no further updates on the actions.    

Child protection communications campaign [paper 08/02] 

Lindsay MacDougall provided an update on Scottish Government (SG) plans for a proposed public awareness raising campaign intended to highlight the risk of harms to children. Lindsay reported that feedback from stakeholders, including some LG members, called for a stronger emphasis on support for families and there were also requests for communications to target perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Therefore the proposed campaign has been refocused, with an emphasis on encouraging families to seek support and help; and there also plans for an additional strand of work to explore targeting messages at perpetrators of domestic abuse. This update was noted by members.     

Child protection guidance [paper 08/03]

Lindsay MacDougall stated that work had been underway for over a year to revise the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland, to update the 2014 guidance to ensure it is up-to-date with latest practice and legislation. The SG had planned to go out to formal consultation on the revised guidance in April. Due to the pandemic, however, the planned consultation and engagement events were postponed and supplementary COVID guidance on child protection was published. SG has heard feedback that there’s currently a lack of capacity to engage with a formal consultation on the full, revised National Guidance and that it would be helpful to issue the Guidance in draft form so people can draw on it. Lindsay sought members’ views on whether the Guidance should be shared in draft form (likely in Autumn time), or whether consultation should be undertaken first; either a targeted consultation (which would mean publication in Spring 2021) or a full, public consultation (which would mean publication in Summer 2021). 

A number of members expressed their support for issuing the Guidance in draft: 

• Alan noted that given the current circumstances, the collective view of the Child Protection Committees is that this Guidance should be issued in draft form and be in use. He noted the new Guidance is helpful and covers areas of practice not currently covered in the 2014 Guidance
• Bill advised that he had chaired the Steering Group which oversaw the development of the new Guidance, which he noted takes account of legislative change, policy development and best practice. He added that it had been co-produced with many practitioners and managers across children’s services and it informed the supplementary COVID guidance. He expressed concern that, once the supplementary guidance period ends, we could be in a position where we revert to 2014 Guidance. He stated he is supportive of a ‘soft launch’ of the new Guidance this year and suggested practitioners could then be asked to provide reflections to inform the consultation and formal publication in 2021
• Helen stated that the new Guidance is helpful and it should go out as soon as it can, and that there would still be opportunity for further discussion/updates (as is the case with other guidance issued)
• Wendy stated that this new Guidance helpfully includes health (unlike the 2014 Guidance) and therefore supported it being issued, but noted that transparent engagement and opportunities for people to further improve it are important

A number of members favoured a formal consultation being undertaken first:

• Alison stated the new Guidance is different in scope and is more technical than the 2014 Guidance, so required full consideration before being absorbed into practice and potentially creating operational confusion. She suggested that there would be capacity for a consultation and therefore a formal consultation wouldn’t necessarily create significant delays. Alison confirmed that she will consult with Social Work Scotland members on this
• Thomas raised a concern that issuing the Guidance in draft form could lead to two forms of guidance in circulation and potential confusion
• Sam advised that Police Scotland would prefer a formal consultation process, given this is a significant revision to the Guidance since 2014

Karen asked Lindsay to undertake further discussion with Social Work Scotland and others as required and to come back to the LG to confirm plans. 

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’:

• we need to maintain the intention of increasing participation opportunities for people who may be supported by the guidance
• whichever route is decided upon, we need to ensure that families and groups representing families are able to engage in consultation
• CPC advice should be followed and SG emphasises no expectation of response or change to fit in with the revisions. Early 2021 would be more helpful and targeting.    

Actions:

• all – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot
• Lindsay MacDougall to further discuss with Social Work Scotland and others, and to provide a future update to LG on the plans. 

Engagement with children, young people and families [paper 08/04]

Mairi Macpherson noted that plans for establishing an Advisory Group to support work to engage children, young people and families (CYPF) were discussed at the LG on 4 June. Following further discussion with initial members of the Advisory Group on the 9 June, the paper sets out the next steps and recommendations across three areas: 1) leadership and representation on the Advisory Group; 2) plans for engagement with CYPF; and 3) research with CYPF. The actions and next steps set out were welcomed and there were no further comments. 

Annie conveyed a suggestion from a member that people who are responding to the many current surveys could be invited to be further engaged and involved in the development of resulting processes. In response, Mairi agreed with the importance of involving CYPF in co-design and stated that opportunities to do this would be further explored.

Additional comments on the ‘Zoom Chat’:

• Public Health Scotland are currently undertaking a survey to understand the impacts of COVID-19 on children under 8 years old
• agreement with Annie’s point - the principles of participation and engagement that the Advisory Group will be adhering to, require feedback, involvement etc
• helpful to think about how the views and experiences of CYPF are INTEGRATED into planning and design, not just heard and co-designed

Actions:

• all – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot
• Mairi and colleagues to work with the Advisory Group to progress the actions set out in the paper
• all – members to consider the invitation, made by Iona (on 9 June) to lead the work on participation and engagement going forward (with support from the SG)

Whole system approach to support for children and families [paper 08/05]

Bill stated that paper was a collective effort and aimed to provide a concise overview (so does not include all the detail provided). He advised that the intention is to have a joined-up approach across the LG and the Covid-19 Education Recovery Group (CERG) about how to meet the needs of children and families through, and out of, the crisis. The aim is to ensure that everyone who needs help, gets help that is co-ordinated, prompt and proportionate; in line with the GIRFEC approach. In particular, that this response is trauma-informed and builds on nurture principles to support CYPF to cope with the challenges and be resilient in the face of longer-term challenges. Bill invited suggested revisions to the paper before for taking it to CERG (either next Thursday or their following meeting).

Karen welcomed the work and the resulting paper, and the broad focus on the needs of CYPF. She noted that, from a local government perspective, it is important to be able to deliver on the approach set out and that there is appropriate funding. Members provided a range of comments on the paper:

• it sets out a positive way forward to address the challenges children and families are facing, so it is important to explore how we ensure it is fully supported by the LG and CERG and has a clear plan of action for making it a reality ‘on the ground’
• there is collective commitment to GIRFEC and the whole system approach, and collective work will be required to fulfil the aspirations set out in the paper. As part of that work there will be a need to consult with COSLA leaders on the plans and to build on what works locally and existing good practice/learning
• the issue of resources needs to be considered in the drafting of the paper (e.g. references to family support are included but funding is still under discussion, creative use of funding is suggested but there are limited opportunities for this)
• clarity was sought about the text relating to continuity of learning over the summer period (paragraph 44) and the related expectations for local government and others (in particular, in relation to timing and resources). Timing challenges and the need for urgency were emphasised in relation to any plans for the summer period. Local authority responsibility for provision of summer childcare was discussed. (It was noted that Education Scotland are monitoring Hub attendance including the proportion of key worker children and ‘vulnerable’ children attending)
• it was suggested that the paper could provide a more positive narrative regarding the contribution of social work to supporting ‘vulnerable’ children, children in need, and children with disabilities

it was requested that the wording (at 57.2) is made clearer in terms of what is meant by a ‘disproportionate response’. 

Following the discussion of the paper, there was a challenge to members to look at how the LG can work together to operationalise the vision set out in the paper (particularly in paragraph 8 and in the conclusions). In response, Karen stated that there is agreement with the vision in the paper, but there are issues to be addressed to make it a reality, including two key aspects of political mandate and resources. Karen asked COSLA colleagues to further discuss with Bill. 

There was also a question about the Deputy First Minister’s statement regarding the planned full reopening of schools and whether the approach set out in this paper would have enabled the wider system to respond better to a potential partial return to school? Perhaps a shared meeting of the LG and CERG would help identify improvements? CERG members stated that plans for blended learning were developed at a time when the infection rate was very high. However, as the circumstances have currently improved and clinical advice has been updated, they stated we are fortunately now in a place where we can plan for full-time learning. It was noted that this situation could still change and therefore the plans for blended learning (developed by local authorities) may still be required. The hard work by colleagues across local authorities was acknowledged and it was stated that there is a continued need to review the scientific evidence.

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’: 

• thank you for good paper, but not sure what comes at the end could be described as ‘activities’ – they read more as ‘recommendations’. Key question is what are the actions that partners agree to implement, by when, etc.?
• it would be helpful for LG to engage in a discussion about the complexities of implementation – what have been the barriers in the past and how do we overcome these now.     

Actions:

• all – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot
• Laura C and Iona and Bill to further discuss plans and issues of funding
• Laura M to follow-up on the query about continuity of learning over the summer and provide further information
• Bill to revise the paper in light of comments from members and following further discussion with COSLA and to take it to CERG (date for this agenda item tbc)

Improving holistic family support [paper 08/06]

Karen and Elspeth Hough thanked members for their contributions to date to the development of the family support recommendations. They noted that all comments have been incorporated as far as possible and that any outstanding issues will be picked up in the further development of the workstream. Karen advised that there is now a need to move to the next stages of providing the recommendations to the Deputy First Minister and developing plans to engage with CYPF. Members were invited to provide any comments at the meeting which they would like to be taken on board before the paper is finalised.

Elspeth Hough and Laura Holton were thanked for their hard work on developing the work, and for incorporating points discussed during the engagement (e.g. poverty, rights, changes to commissioning, relational and trauma-informed approaches). It was acknowledged that questions remain regarding the available funding and that there is a need for clarity on this, in order to look at how the ambition can be put into practice. 

It was noted that the medium to long-term section includes welcomed recommendations, but they would require significant work and resources to make them a reality (e.g. workforce training, supervision and coaching). It was also questioned whether there can be a recommendation that children’s services plans can become children and families’ plans, given the statutory guidance in place. In response, Elspeth noted that these are suggestions of areas to explore which would require further work longer-term, rather than recommending that these are put into operation. Elspeth stated this would be reflected in the final wording.  

Additional comments included: 

• the importance of direct engagement with CYPF and not just consultation. (It was noted that members of the third sector have offered to help with that)
• it was also noted that if income adequacy for families can be achieved then there might not be as much need for family support, as so much of the need relates to poverty
• detail re. governance, evaluation, and timescales is needed; especially given the need to maintain commitment and engagement and to progress practical actions
• the need to build on existing good practice of family support and to use data/evidence of what is working well or not, in order to build a long-term sustainable model and to make best use of investment to ensure that interventions benefit families in the way in which they’re intended. In response, Elspeth stated that good practice examples and evidence have been collated in the process of engagement which can be used to inform the development of actions
• the family support recommendations fit within the whole system approach (discussed in the above agenda item), so there is a need to align funding (especially from the SG) to that whole system
• caution is needed where funding sources are discussed, as there may be limited scope for flexibility in existing funding and may relate to decisions made at a local, rather than national level. In response, Elspeth confirmed that the wording would be amended to provide greater clarity about what was meant

Action:

• Elspeth to take on board points raised in the final drafting of the recommendations and to follow-up on points made re. governance. Further discussion will take place with LG to discuss the next steps, following feedback from the Deputy First Minister

Impact of C-19 associated measures on child and adolescent health and development [paper 08/07]

Debby Wason from Public Health Scotland (PHS) introduced the proposed research to look at the medium and longer-term impact on the health and development of CYP. This will draw on Scottish, UK and international literature and surveys undertaken during the pandemic. The intention is to draw out what is important for different groups of CYP and different age groups. The research was welcomed and it was agreed the findings would be useful. In response to questions raised, Debby advised that:

• the focus is on international studies which examine disruption to child development (including other pandemics, conflict etc.) and that the robustness of studies will be looked at
• the proposed research is intended to assess the impact on children’s health and wellbeing and inform longer-term thinking for services (rather than examine service responses to date)
• survey work undertaken with CYP during the pandemic will be drawn together and meta-analysis undertaken (if possible) to understand the overall findings

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’: 

• it will be extremely useful to see how the evidence can help us better understand what we might see particularly around child health and development, as well as where inequalities might widen
• action points 1 and 2 will be useful. Before embarking on 3, it will be helpful to review the landscape of plans of other organisations, given the plethora of research underway. That should help focus on where PHS has added value
• there is real value in this work, particularly as it looks like it will offer insights about children in Scotland for us to think further about
• it will be good to triangulate some of this data and intelligence along with routine admin data collection, as well as also identify gaps for future exploration

Actions:

• all – any further comments on the proposed research and information about relevant survey work/data collection to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: deborah.wason@nhs.net
• Debby to follow-up with Wendy re. points about children’s services in Scotland, and with Mairi/ colleagues re. links with planned work on participation and engagement. 
• Debby and Jennifer to further discuss relevant OECD work currently underway.

AOB

Next meeting will take place on 9th July (2 – 4pm).    

Action:

• all – any suggested agenda items to be emailed to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot

COVID-19 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP (LG)
NOTE OF MEETING 25 JUNE 2020
CHAIR: KAREN REID

DISCUSSION SUMMARY    ACTIONS
Note of last meeting on 18 June [Paper 08/01] 
There were no amendments to the note and no further updates on the actions.    
Child protection communications campaign [Paper 08/02] 
Lindsay MacDougall provided an update on Scottish Government (SG) plans for a proposed public awareness raising campaign intended to highlight the risk of harms to children. Lindsay reported that feedback from stakeholders, including some LG members, called for a stronger emphasis on support for families and there were also requests for communications to target perpetrators of domestic abuse. Therefore the proposed campaign has been refocused, with an emphasis on encouraging families to seek support and help; and there also plans for an additional strand of work to explore targeting messages at perpetrators of domestic abuse. This update was noted by members.     
Child protection guidance [Paper 08/03]
Lindsay MacDougall stated that work had been underway for over a year to revise the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland, to update the 2014 guidance to ensure it is up-to-date with latest practice and legislation. The SG had planned to go out to formal consultation on the revised guidance in April. Due to the pandemic, however, the planned consultation and engagement events were postponed and supplementary COVID guidance on child protection was published. SG has heard feedback that there’s currently a lack of capacity to engage with a formal consultation on the full, revised National Guidance and that it would be helpful to issue the Guidance in draft form so people can draw on it. Lindsay sought members’ views on whether the Guidance should be shared in draft form (likely in Autumn time), or whether consultation should be undertaken first; either a targeted consultation (which would mean publication in Spring 2021) or a full, public consultation (which would mean publication in Summer 2021). 

A number of members expressed their support for issuing the Guidance in draft: 
•    Alan noted that given the current circumstances, the collective view of the Child Protection Committees is that this Guidance should be issued in draft form and be in use. He noted the new Guidance is helpful and covers areas of practice not currently covered in the 2014 Guidance.
•    Bill advised that he had chaired the Steering Group which oversaw the development of the new Guidance, which he noted takes account of legislative change, policy development and best practice. He added that it had been co-produced with many practitioners and managers across children’s services and it informed the supplementary COVID guidance. He expressed concern that, once the supplementary guidance period ends, we could be in a position where we revert to 2014 Guidance. He stated he is supportive of a ‘soft launch’ of the new Guidance this year and suggested practitioners could then be asked to provide reflections to inform the consultation and formal publication in 2021. 
•    Helen stated that the new Guidance is helpful and it should go out as soon as it can, and that there would still be opportunity for further discussion/updates (as is the case with other guidance issued).
•    Wendy stated that this new Guidance helpfully includes health (unlike the 2014 Guidance) and therefore supported it being issued, but noted that transparent engagement and opportunities for people to further improve it are important. 

A number of members favoured a formal consultation being undertaken first:
•    Alison stated the new Guidance is different in scope and is more technical than the 2014 Guidance, so required full consideration before being absorbed into practice and potentially creating operational confusion. She suggested that there would be capacity for a consultation and therefore a formal consultation wouldn’t necessarily create significant delays. Alison confirmed that she will consult with Social Work Scotland members on this. 
•    Thomas raised a concern that issuing the Guidance in draft form could lead to two forms of guidance in circulation and potential confusion. 
•    Sam advised that Police Scotland would prefer a formal consultation process, given this is a significant revision to the Guidance since 2014.

Karen asked Lindsay to undertake further discussion with Social Work Scotland and others as required and to come back to the LG to confirm plans. 

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’:
•    We need to maintain the intention of increasing participation opportunities for people who may be supported by the guidance.
•    Whichever route is decided upon, we need to ensure that families and groups representing families are able to engage in consultation.
•    CPC advice should be followed and SG emphasises no expectation of response or change to fit in with the revisions. Early 2021 would be more helpful and targeting.    All – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June  to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot

Lindsay MacDougall to further discuss with Social Work Scotland and others, and to provide a future update to LG on the plans. 

Engagement with children, young people & families [Paper 08/04]
Mairi Macpherson noted that plans for establishing an Advisory Group to support work to engage children, young people and families (CYPF) were discussed at the LG on 4 June. Following further discussion with initial members of the Advisory Group on the 9 June, the paper sets out the next steps and recommendations across three areas: 1) leadership and representation on the Advisory Group; 2) plans for engagement with CYPF; and 3) research with CYPF. The actions and next steps set out were welcomed and there were no further comments. 

Annie conveyed a suggestion from a member that people who are responding to the many current surveys could be invited to be further engaged and involved in the development of resulting processes. In response, Mairi agreed with the importance of involving CYPF in co-design and stated that opportunities to do this would be further explored.

Additional comments on the ‘Zoom Chat’:
•    Public Health Scotland are currently undertaking a survey to understand the impacts of COVID-19 on children under 8 years old.
•    Agreement with Annie’s point - the principles of participation and engagement that the Advisory Group will be adhering to, require feedback, involvement etc. 
•    Helpful to think about how the views and experiences of CYPF are INTEGRATED into planning and design, not just heard and co-designed.    All – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot

Mairi and colleagues to work with the Advisory Group to progress the actions set out in the paper.

All – members to consider the invitation, made by Iona (on 9 June) to lead the work on participation and engagement going forward (with support from the SG).   
Whole system approach to support for children and families [Paper 08/05]
Bill stated that paper was a collective effort and aimed to provide a concise overview (so does not include all the detail provided). He advised that the intention is to have a joined-up approach across the LG and the Covid-19 Education Recovery Group (CERG) about how to meet the needs of children and families through, and out of, the crisis. The aim is to ensure that everyone who needs help, gets help that is co-ordinated, prompt and proportionate; in line with the GIRFEC approach. In particular, that this response is trauma-informed and builds on nurture principles to support CYPF to cope with the challenges and be resilient in the face of longer-term challenges. Bill invited suggested revisions to the paper before for taking it to CERG (either next Thursday or their following meeting).

Karen welcomed the work and the resulting paper, and the broad focus on the needs of CYPF. She noted that, from a local government perspective, it is important to be able to deliver on the approach set out and that there is appropriate funding. Members provided a range of comments on the paper:

•    It sets out a positive way forward to address the challenges children and families are facing, so it is important to explore how we ensure it is fully supported by the LG and CERG and has a clear plan of action for making it a reality ‘on the ground’. 
•    There is collective commitment to GIRFEC and the whole system approach, and collective work will be required to fulfil the aspirations set out in the paper. As part of that work there will be a need to consult with COSLA leaders on the plans and to build on what works locally and existing good practice/learning.
•    The issue of resources needs to be considered in the drafting of the paper (e.g. references to family support are included but funding is still under discussion, creative use of funding is suggested but there are limited opportunities for this). 
•    Clarity was sought about the text relating to continuity of learning over the summer period (paragraph 44) and the related expectations for local government and others (in particular, in relation to timing and resources). Timing challenges and the need for urgency were emphasised in relation to any plans for the summer period. Local authority responsibility for provision of summer childcare was discussed. (It was noted that Education Scotland are monitoring Hub attendance including the proportion of key worker children and ‘vulnerable’ children attending).
•    It was suggested that the paper could provide a more positive narrative regarding the contribution of social work to supporting ‘vulnerable’ children, children in need, and children with disabilities. 
•    It was requested that the wording (at 57.2) is made clearer in terms of what is meant by a ‘disproportionate response’. 

Following the discussion of the paper, there was a challenge to members to look at how the LG can work together to operationalise the vision set out in the paper (particularly in paragraph 8 and in the conclusions). In response, Karen stated that there is agreement with the vision in the paper, but there are issues to be addressed to make it a reality, including two key aspects of political mandate and resources. Karen asked COSLA colleagues to further discuss with Bill. 

There was also a question about the Deputy First Minister’s statement regarding the planned full reopening of schools and whether the approach set out in this paper would have enabled the wider system to respond better to a potential partial return to school? Perhaps a shared meeting of the LG and CERG would help identify improvements? CERG members stated that plans for blended learning were developed at a time when the infection rate was very high. However, as the circumstances have currently improved and clinical advice has been updated, they stated we are fortunately now in a place where we can plan for full-time learning. It was noted that this situation could still change and therefore the plans for blended learning (developed by local authorities) may still be required. The hard work by colleagues across local authorities was acknowledged and it was stated that there is a continued need to review the scientific evidence.

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’: 
•    Thank you for good paper, but not sure what comes at the end could be described as ‘activities’ – they read more as ‘recommendations’. Key question is what are the actions that partners agree to implement, by when, etc.?
•    It would be helpful for LG to engage in a discussion about the complexities of implementation – what have been the barriers in the past and how do we overcome these now.     All – further comments to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot

Laura C and Iona and Bill to further discuss plans and issues of funding.

Laura M to follow-up on the query about continuity of learning over the summer and provide further information. 

Bill to revise the paper in light of comments from members and following further discussion with COSLA and to take it to CERG (date for this agenda item tbc).

Improving Holistic Family Support [Paper 08/06]
Karen and Elspeth Hough thanked members for their contributions to date to the development of the family support recommendations. They noted that all comments have been incorporated as far as possible and that any outstanding issues will be picked up in the further development of the workstream. Karen advised that there is now a need to move to the next stages of providing the recommendations to the Deputy First Minister and developing plans to engage with CYPF. Members were invited to provide any comments at the meeting which they would like to be taken on board before the paper is finalised.

Elspeth Hough and Laura Holton were thanked for their hard work on developing the work, and for incorporating points discussed during the engagement (e.g. poverty, rights, changes to commissioning, relational and trauma-informed approaches). It was acknowledged that questions remain regarding the available funding and that there is a need for clarity on this, in order to look at how the ambition can be put into practice. 

It was noted that the medium to long-term section includes welcomed recommendations, but they would require significant work and resources to make them a reality (e.g. workforce training, supervision and coaching). It was also questioned whether there can be a recommendation that children’s services plans can become children and families’ plans, given the statutory guidance in place. In response, Elspeth noted that these are suggestions of areas to explore which would require further work longer-term, rather than recommending that these are put into operation. Elspeth stated this would be reflected in the final wording.  

Additional comments included: 
•    The importance of direct engagement with CYPF and not just consultation. (It was noted that members of the third sector have offered to help with that).
•    It was also noted that if income adequacy for families can be achieved then there might not be as much need for family support, as so much of the need relates to poverty. 
•    Detail re. governance, evaluation, and timescales is needed; especially given the need to maintain commitment and engagement and to progress practical actions. 
•    The need to build on existing good practice of family support and to use data/evidence of what is working well or not, in order to build a long-term sustainable model and to make best use of investment to ensure that interventions benefit families in the way in which they’re intended. In response, Elspeth stated that good practice examples and evidence have been collated in the process of engagement which can be used to inform the development of actions. 
•    The family support recommendations fit within the whole system approach (discussed in the above agenda item), so there is a need to align funding (especially from the SG) to that whole system. 
•    Caution is needed where funding sources are discussed, as there may be limited scope for flexibility in existing funding and may relate to decisions made at a local, rather than national level. In response, Elspeth confirmed that the wording would be amended to provide greater clarity about what was meant.      Elspeth to take on board points raised in the final drafting of the recommendations and to follow-up on points made re. governance. Further discussion will take place with LG to discuss the next steps, following feedback from the Deputy First Minister.  

Impact of C-19 associated measures on child & adolescent health & development [Paper 08/07]
Debby Wason from Public Health Scotland (PHS) introduced the proposed research to look at the medium and longer-term impact on the health and development of CYP. This will draw on Scottish, UK and international literature and surveys undertaken during the pandemic. The intention is to draw out what is important for different groups of CYP and different age groups. The research was welcomed and it was agreed the findings would be useful. In response to questions raised, Debby advised that:
•    the focus is on international studies which examine disruption to child development (including other pandemics, conflict etc.) and that the robustness of studies will be looked at
•    the proposed research is intended to assess the impact on children’s health and wellbeing and inform longer-term thinking for services (rather than examine service responses to date)
•    survey work undertaken with CYP during the pandemic will be drawn together and meta-analysis undertaken (if possible) to understand the overall findings

Additional comments on ‘zoom chat’: 
•    It will be extremely useful to see how the evidence can help us better understand what we might see particularly around child health and development, as well as where inequalities might widen.
•    Action points 1&2 will be useful. Before embarking on 3, it will be helpful to review the landscape of plans of other organisations, given the plethora of research underway. That should help focus on where PHS has added value.  
•    There is real value in this work, particularly as it looks like it will offer insights about children in Scotland for us to think further about. 
•     It will be good to triangulate some of this data and intelligence along with routine admin data collection, as well as also identify gaps for future exploration.    All – any further comments on the proposed research and information about relevant survey work /data collection to be emailed by close Tuesday 30 June to: deborah.wason@nhs.net

Debby to follow-up with Wendy re. points about children’s services in Scotland, and with Mairi/ colleagues re. links with planned work on participation and engagement. 

Debby and Jennifer to further discuss relevant OECD work currently underway.

AOB
Next meeting will take place on 9th July (2 – 4pm).    All – any suggested agenda items to be emailed to: Covid19CandF@gov.scot