Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership

4.1 Challenge Protocol

The Challenge Protocol is intended to ensure that all practitioners carry out their roles and responsibilities appropriately to safeguard and promote the welfare of children/young people who are subject of a Child Protection Conference. This Challenge Protocol does not replace existing reporting and accountability mechanisms or processes that already exist and are in operation within and between organisations.

This protocol is not intended to prevent or delay any action that is identified by any member of staff or manager as being needed to ensure the safety and protection of a child/young person, nor should it prevent dialogue between managers, practitioners and staff about the actions that are needed. Neither does it absolve any manager or practitioner of responsibility or accountability for their actions.

A formal challenge will be initiated when a practitioner (including a social worker) or agency fails to meet the expected requirements according to the procedures outlined in Initial Child Protection Conferences Procedure and Child Protection Review Conferences Procedure.

The Conference Chair will wherever possible, discuss their concerns directly with the practitioner informing them of their reasons for enacting the escalation process. Dependent upon the seriousness of concern the Conference Chair can, in consultation with their Line Manager, make a decision to move straight to Stage 2 or Stage 3 if the concerns are such that immediate and higher escalation of the issues is required.

The Conference Chair will ensure that families are aware of any challenge escalations raised at the meeting held with them prior to the start of the Child Protection Conference.

Each stage of the escalation process is detailed below with examples of issues.

4.2 Stage 1 (Practitioners and First Line Managers)

Examples:

• Parents not being given a copy of the practitioners report;
• Where a practitioner has not submitted a report to conference within the procedural timescale and as a result has led to the conference being “stood down / delayed”;
• Where a report to conference falls below an acceptable standard and is not informed by a comprehensive assessment that identifies risks and recognises strengths;
• A practitioner has not visited the child/ren within the expected timescales as defined by the Child Protection Plan/core group;
• Core Group meetings have not taken place within the prescribed timescales or if practitioner/agency fails to attend (on more than one occasion);
• Care planning activity is not evidenced, including the lack of sufficiently detailed plans, inability to follow an evidenced based route for decisions being taken, lack of expected management oversight in the case, drift or delay in progressing the Child Protection Plan;
• In the event of a decision being made at conference that a Child Protection Plan is no longer required, and it is agreed there will be ‘step down’ to Child In Need (CiN) planning the Conference Chair will, six weeks post conference, monitor the child’s case file to check an appropriate multi-agency CiN meeting has taken place and a relevant CiN Plan is in place. If such is not evidenced, this process to be invoked at Stage 1.

Where the Conference Chair has identified a significant issue of concern or failure to comply with procedures, they will initiate a timely discussion with the relevant practitioner regarding those concerns. The Conference Chair will complete the Stage 1 Form within three working days and send it to the responsible practitioner and Line Manager for resolution.

The Line Manager has the lead responsibility for responding by completing the response section of the Stage 1 Form within 10 working days and submitting the written report to the Safeguarding Unit. In the event that no response is received within this time frame or the Conference Chair considers the response to be unsatisfactory, the Conference Chair should escalate the matter using the Stage 2 or Stage 3 challenge escalation process outlined below.

4.3 Stage 2 (First Line Manager and Middle/Senior Manager)

The issues and concerns may be similar to those raised at Stage 1 but are of greater concern or significance for the child or have not been satisfactorily resolved by agencies when originally identified by the Conference Chair. This is when it is felt that practice is significantly failing to meet the minimum statutory standards and Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership requirements or there is a safeguarding concern that can be attributed to the agency/practitioner failing in their responsibilities to the child and their family.

If the Conference Chair considers that the issues need escalating straight to Stage 2 of the procedure they should in the first instance discuss their concerns with the Safeguarding Unit Manager.

The Conference Chair will complete the Stage 2 Form within two working days and send it to the responsible Line Manager and agency equivalent for middle/Senior Manager for resolution.

The manager has lead responsibility for responding by completing the response section of the Stage 2 Form within 5 working days and submitting the written report to the Safeguarding Unit.

If the Conference Chair believes the response will provide timely resolution of the identified issues or concern they will continue to monitor for actions being undertaken. If the response fails to provide resolution the Conference Chair will progress the issues/concerns to Stage 3.

4.4 Stage 3 (Middle/Senior Manager and Head of Service or Agency Equivalent)

Stage three measures will be initiated when there are significant concerns in relation to assessment, care planning or resources that are not being allocated or provided. The child/young person’s fundamental needs and human rights are not being met. This is when it is felt that practice is significantly and persistently failing to meet the minimum statutory standards and/or Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership requirements.

At the implementation of a Stage 3 challenge, the Director of Safeguarding, Children and Families is notified by the Safeguarding Unit Manager within one working day of the concern being raised. The Safeguarding Unit Manager will complete the Stage 3 challenge form within one working day and send to the agency equivalent for middle/Senior Manager and head of service or agency equivalent.

The head of service or equivalent has lead responsibility for responding by completing the response section of the Stage 3 Form within 4 working days and submitting the written report to the Safeguarding Unit.

The Safeguarding Unit will notify the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership Business Unit that a Stage 3 challenge escalation has been raised.

All documents and actions within all three stages of the Challenge Procedure will be recorded on the child’s Social Care record within the electronic CSC file.

4.5 Stage 4 (Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership Practice Review Group)

Stage 4 will have required the Conference Chair to have exhausted Stages 1-3 and will involve notification to the “Practice Review Group” of the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership.

The Practice Review Group is multi-agency meeting which is independently chaired, formally minuted and will involve senior representatives from the key partner agencies. The outcome and findings of this meeting, including recommendations and actions will be sent to all senior agency representatives and the Safeguarding Unit who will then monitor progress and outcomes.

The number of Stage 4 Challenges will be monitored through the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Partnership Performance Management Framework.

Click here to view Practice Resolution Protocol Flow Diagram.