Effectiveness of children's services planning guidance: consultation analysis

Effective Development of a Children's Services Plan

The first part of the consultation sought general views on the extent to which the statutory guidance assists partners in the development of Children's Services Plans.

Q1. Does the statutory guidance provided to date assist in the effective development of a Children's Services Plan?

	Number	Percentage
Yes	32	67%
No	9	19%
No response	7	14%
Total	48	100%

Just over two thirds (67%) of respondents agreed that the statutory guidance assisted in the development of Children's Services Plans. One in five (19%) did not and the remainder offered no response (14%).

Q2. What part(s) of the guidance were most helpful or least helpful? How could the guidance be enhanced to strengthen the effective development of a Children's Services Plan?

When asked which parts of the guidance were particularly helpful/unhelpful and what, if anything could be done to improve the guidance, all respondents gave a response. It should be noted that several of the comments provided to this question mirrored those made in response to later consultation questions, and several respondents used this question to provide a 'catch all' view which incorporated their feedback on the guidance overall.

Strengths of the Guidance

Many offered generally supportive comments around the structure and clarity of the document in helping to guide Plans, including the clear headings which guide the reader:

"During the 2017 drafting of the first 3-year Integrated Children's Services Plan…the statutory guidance offered a clear framework to draft the Plan. Those involved in the work welcomed the guidance which was well laid out and comprehensive."

Comments were also made that agencies were now familiar with terminology/established protocols and language used in the guidance and so it would be even easier to implement going forward.

Other highlighted strengths of the guidance included:

• that it outlines the legislative and policy context for the development of Children's Services Plans (including reference to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014); and
• that it offers explicit definition of terms throughout, in particular with regard to the responsibilities of partners and what constitutes early intervention/primary prevention (although the message to prioritise this could be strengthened).

"All parts of the guidance contribute to the provision of a clear and detailed overview regarding what is required and who should be involved in and contribute to the development of a comprehensive and inclusive Children's Services Plan."

Specific content that was particularly welcomed included:

• Section 8 - Requirements to Prepare Children's Services Plans, especially the step-by-step guide in relation to Review, Mapping, Consultation and Analysis of Population;
• Section 9 - Aims of Children's Services Plans, especially the emphasis on integrated services (although some of the additional description under each of the aims could be shortened or signposted digitally, it was suggested);
• Section 10 - Children's Services Plan Process, and the detail surrounding consultation in relation to who best to consult on the Plan and the process whereby people can participate within the consultation;
• sections that highlight that consideration should be given to services provided to adults by virtue of their role as children's parents or carers (such as parenting classes, support groups, etc.). Services that support families, including those focused on parents, play a vital role in supporting children's wellbeing and outcomes, and a comprehensive and coherent Plan should seek to ensure they are carefully considered, it was stressed;
• Appendix D, which summarises what constitutes an effective Plan; and
• explanation of links with other Statutory Plans and Reports, including reference to community planning/Community Empowerment Act.

Having the process set out in a step-by-step fashion was particularly welcomed:

"The guidance helpfully outlines the strategic planning process, from strategic assessment and analysis of need to identify a manageable and meaningful number of evidence-based key priorities, as well as a focus on outcomes, performance indicators, baselines, monitoring, review and governance."

Stressing that Plans should be underpinned by a Children's Rights framework, i.e. Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC)^[2], taking into account intersectionality and structural inequalities was also seen as a key strength of the document:

"It makes strong reference to Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), noting that GIRFEC involves both universal and targeted services to support children and young people with different types and levels of need."

More generally, comments were made that the guidance allows sufficient flexibility for local areas to tailor Plans in line with local priorities:

"…it allows local areas to have flexibility to determine priorities which are most prevalent and beneficial to their areas - recognising that one size/approach does not suit all."

"The stated commitment to not overly prescribing the practical realisation of the Plans has been positive and has allowed for adaptability within our local approach to the Plan."

Weaknesses with the Guidance

The main weaknesses identified with the guidance were length and complexity, a need for greater clarity around how Plans fit alongside other planning duties, benchmarking and putting in place better mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the guidance, especially around engagement.

Length and Complexity

Although many noted that the guidance was thorough, it was suggested it may be too lengthy and complex as a document (making in inaccessible). There was some indication that it could also be repetitive in parts, especially the 'Interpretation' and 'Introductory' sections of the document which could be streamlined. Sections 11 and 13 were also specifically mentioned as areas which could be refined with better cross-refencing or moving of some material to the Appendices:

"The guidance could be enhanced to strengthen the effective development of a Children's Services Plan by being shorter and more succinct with more explicit detail building on the information in Appendix D."

Suggestions were made that a summary level document with illustrations may be particularly helpful, as well as including checklists, templates and case study examples:

"…we would suggest that the guidance would benefit from being more succinct and visual with diagrams and flow-charts outlining suggested processes with key milestones for the development of Plans."

Others urged the development of a separate document which would be accessible to a wider (including non-professional) audience to honour and further bolster the commitment to transparency and accountability set out in the guidance:

"We strongly suggest that an Easy Read version of the guidance be made available for those who do not have statutory responsibilities but have a potential role in the planning process. The guidance could also be complemented with visuals such as flow-charts to help explain key stages within the planning process."

"We believe that the guidance, or a separate, more accessible resource, would be of interest and use to those who wish to influence the planning, design and delivery of services, including communities and the organisations representing and working with them. On that basis, we would like to see appropriate resources produced to support all groups and individuals, including children, to engage in the development of a Plan."

Linked to this were comments that the guidance, as drafted, is ambiguous about who Plans are for. Reference to Plans "telling a story" which can be understood by affected families were contradicted by comments such that the Plan should be comprehensive in its scope, it was felt. The latter may suggest that Plans are solely for a professional/practitioner audience. Clearer guidance on the main audience of the Plan would be beneficial to avoid any confusion, it was suggested.

While flexibility of the guidance was seen as a strength by many, it was seen as a weakness for a minority who suggested more clearly prescribing what was expected in terms of content. One respondent suggested that it would be helpful if there could be one section which sets out the minimum requisites which must be contained and referenced within the scope of Children's Services Plans while another suggested that more guidance on format and style was needed:

"Useful framework and reference tool to the group co-ordinating the developing of the Plan. However, the guidance was a bit vague in providing a clear steer for format and style for our Plan. In this sense the guidance could have been more simple and directive."

One respondent suggested that there was a risk that, if local partnerships follow the guidance, it may result in lengthy Plans which are inaccessible for staff as well as being inaccessible to children, young people and their families.

A few other specific comments around changes to wording were put forward. Firstly, that the document should refrain from using 'best value' as it "weakens the need for full human economic costs to be taken into consideration" when preparing a Plan. Secondly, use of the term 'children' throughout the document may, by its very definition within the guidance, exclude care leavers and thus fail to facilitate addressing their transitional needs from care to care leaver, it was suggested. References to Looked After and Accommodated Children (LAAC) could be updated to Care Experienced Children, it was suggested and there was also scope to include reference to trauma informed approaches throughout.

Cross-referencing Planning Requirements

Several comments were made that there was a need for greater consideration of how Children's Services Plans fit with other planning requirements, and for this to be more clearly explained in the guidance. It was felt that, while the guidance had been helpful to date, and was generally fit for purpose, an evolving planning landscape meant that the guidance needed to be updated to reflect this, and enable greater cohesion between different planning demands (especially Corporate Parenting Plans):

"The guidance would be more helpful in our opinion if it set out clearly the links between the Children's Services Plan (CSP) and the range of other planning requirements such as Corporate Parenting Plans; Child Poverty Action Plans, etc. It would be useful if the guidance could demonstrate that the CSP could be the overarching framework."

Several public sector respondents in particular commented on limited resources in the face of competing demands and urged cross-referencing or streamlining of requirements, if possible:

"Currently the abundance of new duties and subsequent reporting demands specifically in relation to multi partnership/agency plans e.g. Corporate Parenting Plans, Early Years Plans, Child Poverty Plans, Community/ Local Outcome Improvement Plans (LOIPs), Outcome Delivery Plans, Employability Plans, etc. means that the place for a Children's [Services] Plan is unclear. As a result of new legislation on local authorities especially, the demand on the resources of all partners at a strategic and operational level to participate in the wide range of planning requirements to prepare and deliver all of the Plans required by a wide range of legislation is very significant."

Others, including children's services providers, suggested that clearer explanation of the rationale for the myriad of reporting demands was also necessary:

"It would be a great help if the Scottish Government could provide a clearer rationale for the range of reports and plans currently required, and of their relationship to one another - not just a description."

Links to Wider Policy Landscape

The guidance should also be updated to reflect wider current policy, it was felt:

"We believe the guidance needs to more clearly connect with national practice and policy frameworks, particularly as some of these policies have emerged since the statutory guidance was written including child poverty planning and Local Outcome Improvement Plans."

This included more explicitly linking Plans to GIRFEC, the Fairer Scotland Duty^[3], Equally Safe^[4] and to government commitments to tackle child poverty, it was stressed.

Strategic Commissioning

On a related note, some comments were made that the 'strategic commissioning approach' to children's planning may be too challenging given differing budget arrangements between partners as well as the different contexts in which each local authority works. Those working in the third sector may also be susceptible to unstable funding in the future, making the approach vulnerable, it was suggested:

"…there should be an explicit focus in the guidance for Plans to focus on sustainable futures for non-statutory services that deliver key GIRFEC priorities."

Some examples of how local authorities have developed local commissioning processes in relation to the Children's Services Plan would be helpful, it was suggested, as well as more information about the strategic commissioning process and how it can be embedded into the planning cycle:

"…we believe the procurement of services could be more joined up with the planning process. Guidance on purchasing practice, in keeping with the rights-based and co-production ethos being developed with regard to children's services planning, will help ensure it reflects the priorities identified in the Children's Services Plan."

One respondent specifically suggested that it would be helpful for the guidance to reference the potential for collaboration across local authority boundaries in the preparation and delivery of Children's Services Plans. Others suggested including reference to the importance of joint strategic commissioning and how this could assist in the delivery of priorities (drawing on examples of good practice, if possible).

Benchmarking

A small number also suggested that there was a need for greater clarity around measuring impacts of the Plans and that this could be more clearly set out in the guidance:

"It would be very helpful to have a clearer, more coherent framework of outcomes to work towards and a core national data set to monitor impact. We appreciate that specific outcomes have not been set in order to allow flexibility and to recognise local needs and context, however, consideration should be given to more prescriptive outcomes as a guide."

Several others questioned the availability and quality of existing data to inform planning, and to ensure consistency of measurement between areas (especially health needs data):

"The lack of a nationally agreed data set of high-level indicators - health, education, social work, housing, wellbeing, economic measures (child poverty, positive destinations etc.), means that local partnerships cannot benchmark. Many meaningful high-level indicators exist that would be hugely useful especially for the determining local need but in the absence of a clear direction to use and importantly report on them and benchmark across the country, is a lost opportunity."

"Many meaningful high level indicators exist that would be hugely useful especially for the determining local need but in the absence of a clear direction to use and importantly report on them and benchmark across the country, is a lost opportunity."

Adding consistency to benchmarking processes and adding more uniformity to the data that are available to inform planning was welcomed:

"As a collaborative, our experience of drawing together performance data is perhaps unique and, in our view, there is potential for the use of a consolidated minimum dataset which draws on and extends the National Improvement Framework (NIF) for Scottish Education, Local Government Benchmark Framework and National Care Standards as a tool for benchmarking purposes."

Clearer identification of the different outcome measures that must be reported was urged (as well as the data required to complete risk assessments).

Compliance and Engagement

Another issue identified by a small number of respondents was the potential for guidelines and policies to be ignored at the operational level. Some suggested that there may be inconsistencies between agencies using/implementing the guidance and that there was a role for greater accountability^[5]. Related to this, there was a perceived lack of accountability and the complaints system was described by one as being insufficiently robust.

Several specifically spoke about the guidance failing to be implemented insofar as insufficient engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including children, young people and families (also discussed more in response to later consultation questions):

"Although the guidance refers to consulting with children and young people and members of the community it is important that they are involved at every stage of the preparation of any Plan. We feel that this area needs strengthened and the language used in the guidance is not as accessible as it should be."

The lack of representation in engagement activities was seen to be particularly acute in rural areas, as well as for young people with additional support needs and their families, people living in poverty, transient families, those at risk of criminality^[6] and those experiencing domestic abuse:

"…while there are examples of good practice when developing Children's Services Plans, this is inconsistent across Scotland. Members identified issues such as tokenistic engagement opportunities, a lack of joined up collaborative working, a lack of engagement with children who have experienced domestic abuse and insufficient prioritising of - and investment in - domestic abuse prevention and early intervention. While we appreciate that the statutory guidance can only go so far in engendering effective development of Children's Services Plans, there are areas in which it could be strengthened to further encourage good practice."

It is crucial, it was felt, that marginalised groups are fully involved in the development of Children's Services Plans to ensure that the needs and views of some of the most vulnerable children and young people inform local priorities and actions. Plans (and their development) should also be gender sensitive, it was stressed and case studies and examples may be useful for highlighting how a Plan can include all. Alternatively, providing examples of tools and models of engagement could help planning partners to engage more effectively with communities, including the most disadvantaged groups, it was suggested.

One organisation recommended that, while the guidance currently highlights that it is important to listen to the voices of those with lived experience, this should instead be presented as an embedded requirement.

Adding Clarity

Other suggestions for adding clarity to the guidance included:

• further detail on the requirements of other key statutory partners besides local authorities and health boards, as well as clarifying the obligation (or not) of Ministers to participate in or contribute to the preparation of Children's Services Plans;
• more detail around information sharing and updating the guidance to reflect GDPR, acknowledging the importance of respecting individuals' rights and of having a lawful basis to share personal information;
• that the guidance should reflect, reference and make links to The Independent Care Review 12 intentions as well as aligning any future guidance with the findings from the Independent Care Review, where possible;
• offering more clarity on what is meant by 'related services';
• requiring a housing contribution statement to be included in Plans;
• earlier referencing and cross-referencing of the Realigning Children's Services (RCS) programme;
• raising the profile of mental health and wellbeing in the guidance including a focus on best to facilitate and support collaborative, cross sectoral, cross organisational working to support child and adult mental health;
• raising the profile of mental health and wellbeing in the guidance including a focus on best to facilitate and support collaborative, cross sectoral, cross organisational working to support child and adult mental health;
• stressing the importance and opportunities brought through Corporate Parenting across the country and the role Corporate Parents play in relation to Children's Services (including demonstrating areas of accountability, as well as opportunity for consistency across the country in good practice);
• setting out more clearly the need to identify any gaps in evidence used to support Plans and, where necessary, for planning partners to conduct or commission further research or analysis to ensure that Plans meet the needs of all children in the local area;
• discussing transitions, setting out links to adult services and making clear the importance of their contribution to better outcomes for children;
• elevating and making more explicit the importance of youth justice as an explicit priority within Plans; and
• making reference to Children's Rights more prominent in the document. Specifically, reference to Children's Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessments (CRWIAs) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in the guidance could be strengthened (with changes to the guidance considering how the incorporation of the Rights can be embedded in public services at all levels).

"By mapping out the impact of children's rights and wellbeing against the services provided, this will not only safeguard the wellbeing of children but will also highlight any action that is required to be taken to prevent needs affecting the wellbeing and rights of children from arising. This helps to ensure that children, young people and families get the right support at the right time."

The schematic diagram was broadly welcomed but views were expressed that this maybe needed to be updated and developed further to map the current landscape of policy and legislation for planners and ensure all staff understand they have a place in the Children's Services Plan.

Some comments were made that feedback on the Plans which were submitted in the first reporting cycle may also be helpful to inform the next wave, and let authorities see how they could improve as well as making better use of best practice examples and collaboratively developed materials:

"Acknowledge the journey so far. The guidance was not the start of the planning journey for Children's Services Partnerships. There is a significant history and experience to build from- What worked well? What improvements developed? Although it may not be fitting for inclusion in the guidance itself, are there opportunities to identify and share best practice?"

"The most effective way to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of the guidance is by examining how the guidance has been interpreted by the local authorities in the production of their Children's [Services] Plan and that is the lens through which these questions have been answered."

"We think it would benefit from more examples of where good practice is currently in place, especially around the areas we continue to be most challenged by. The idea of practice materials to sit beneath the guidance may contribute to improving the planning process."

Finally, several comments were made in response to this question which urged constant refreshing of the document to reflect current policy developments and other advances (including the national commitment to reduce child poverty):

"The current guidance states that planning partners should reflect the national commitment to reducing child poverty within the Plan. The policy context for this has changed significantly since the development of the guidance and this must be reflected in any update to the guidance. We believe it is fundamental that Children's Services Plans reflect the importance of tackling child poverty, and make tangible and effective commitments to contribute to achieving these national outcomes within their local area, in line with their local child poverty action reports."