• contents
• keywords & contacts
• quick guide
• values
• contact us
• search

Contents

1. What is an Initial Assessment? 
2. Timescale 
3. The Process of the Initial Assessment 
4. Involving Parents in the Initial Assessment
5. Possible Outcomes of the Initial Assessment 
6. Emergency Protective Action 
7. Outcome and Feedback From Initial Assessment 
8. Practice Guidance on Initial Assessments - Ten Pitfalls and Lessons Learned from Research

1. What is an Initial Assessment?

1.1	If, as a result of a Referral, there are indications that a child may be a child in need of services to safeguard them and or promote their wellbeing then Children’s Social Work Services will conduct an Initial Assessment.
1.2	The Initial Assessment is a brief assessment to determine whether the child is in need and if so to identify whether they are a child in need of support services to promote their welfare, whether there is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering or likely to suffer Significant Harm and in need of protection or of accommodation or  whether they are a child in need of a statutory service. Children’s Social Work and partner agencies should work together to identify the nature of any services required and a decision made as to whether a further, more detailed Core Assessment should be undertaken. Where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer Significant Harm, a Strategy Discussion must be held to agree how enquires under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 will be undertaken in conjunction with the Core Assessment.
1.3	The Initial Assessment should be undertaken in accordance with the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families.
1.4	The Initial Assessment will address the following questions: What are the developmental needs of the child? Are the parents able to respond appropriately to the child’s identified needs? Do the parents/carers have the capacity to respond to the child’s needs? Are the parents able to promote the child’s health and development What impact are the family functioning and history, the wider family and environmental factors having on the parent's capacity to respond to their child’s needs and the child’s developmental progress? Is the child adequately safeguarded from any identified risks of Significant Harm and are emergency action or services required to safeguard the child’s welfare? Are any services required to promote the child’s health and development? Are there any other children in the household or elsewhere who should be included in the Initial Assessment? This includes unborn babies.

2. Timescale

2.1	This assessment must be completed within a maximum of ten working days of receipt of the referral. However, the time taken to complete the Initial Assessment may be very brief if it quickly becomes clear that there is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering or likely to suffer Significant Harm, in which case a Strategy Discussion must be held.
2.2	Any extension to this timescale must be authorised by a Children’s Social Work Services manager, and the reasons recorded, for example there may be a need to delay in order to arrange for an interpreter or avoid a religious festival. Any such decision must be consistent with the welfare of the child.

3. The Process of the Initial Assessment

3.1	The Initial Assessment should be led by a qualified and experienced social worker supervised by a highly experienced and qualified social work manager. It should be carefully planned, with clarity about who is doing what, as well as when and what information is to be shared with the parents. The planning process and decisions about the timing of the different assessment activities should be undertaken in collaboration with all those involved with the child and family. Where a Common Assessment has previously been completed, it will be built upon during the Initial Assessment. The process of Initial Assessment should involve: seeing and speaking to the child, including alone when appropriate; Where it is not appropriate to see the child alone then observations of the child’s behaviour and interaction with parents and relevant others should be used to inform the assessment seeing and meeting with parents, the family and wider family members as appropriate involving and obtaining relevant information from professionals and others in contact with the child and family; and drawing together and analysing available information (focussing on the strengths and positive factors as well as vulnerabilities and risk factors) from a range of sources (including existing records) All relevant information (including information about the history and functioning of the family both currently and in the past and adult problems such as domestic violence, substance misuse, mental illness and criminal behaviour/convictions) should be taken into account.
3.2	Where an Initial Assessment is being undertaken on a child who is new to the area or there is believed to be a possible history concern in the family, professionals from agencies such as health, Children’s Social Work Services and the police should request known background information from their equivalent agencies in the town, city, country or countries in which the child has lived. Information about who to contact can be obtained via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the appropriate Embassy or Consulate based in London (see the London Diplomatic List (The Stationery Office), ISBN 0 11 591772 1 or the FCO website).
3.3	The child should be seen by the Lead Social Worker without his or her caregivers present when appropriate, within a timescale that is appropriate to the nature of concerns expressed at the time of the referral, according to the agreed plan. Seeing the child includes observing and communicating with the child in a manner appropriate to his or her age and understanding. Children’s Social Work Services are required by the Children Act 1989 (as amended by s53 of the Children Act 2004) to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings and to give due consideration to the child’s wishes and feelings, having regard to his or her age an understanding, when making decisions about what (if any) services to provide. It is important not only to understand the child’s wishes and feelings in relation to any issue raised in the referral but also to get and understanding from the child about their general life and relationships. What do they perceive the problems or their needs to be and what do they think might help?. Interviews with the child should be undertaken in the preferred language of the child. For some disabled children interviews may require the use of non-verbal communication methods. The date when the Lead Social Worker sees the child should be recorded on the Initial Assessment Record.
3.4	It will not necessarily be clear whether a criminal offence has been committed, which means that even initial discussions with the child should be undertaken in a way that minimises distress to them and maximises the likelihood that she or he will provide accurate and complete information, avoiding leading or suggestive questions.
3.5	Interviews with family members (which may include the child) should also be undertaken in their preferred language and where appropriate for some people by using non-verbal communication methods.

4. Involving Parents in the Initial Assessment

4.1	Parents should be informed of the referral and their permission sought to share and request information with and from other agencies unless to do so would: Be prejudicial to the child’s welfare Cause concern about the behaviour of the adult concerned with the child Cause concern that the child would be likely to suffer Significant Harm
4.2	In these circumstances, a Children’s Social Work Services manager may decide to consult other relevant agencies without seeking parental consent or where parental consent is sought but not given. Any such decision must be recorded with reasons. See also Information Sharing and Confidentiality Procedure.
4.3	Where parents and family members are consulted, the worker carrying out the Initial Assessment should make it clear to them that the information provided for the assessment may be shared with other agencies and will contribute to the assessment.

5. Possible Outcomes of the Initial Assessment

5.1

The focus of the Initial Assessment should be the welfare of the child. It is important to remember that even if the reason for the referral was a concern about abuse or neglect that is not subsequently substantiated, a family may still benefit from support and practical help to promote a child’s health and development. An Initial Assessment is deemed completed once the assessment has been discussed with the child and family, and it has been viewed and authorised by the manager.

5.2

As a result of the Initial Assessment including discussion with the child and family, Children’s Social Work Services will decide one of the following: That the child is a Child In Need, as defined by the Children Act 1989 Section 17 in which case Children’s Social Work Services will work alongside partner agencies to agree the most appropriate process for intervention to support the family and parents to meet the assessed needs. Ongoing involvement may or may not involve Children Social Work services but in all such cases the initial assessment must conclude with a written plan of action and an identified lead professional. In these cases the Solihull LINCS Framework should be followed and a Team Around the Child Meeting arranged as appropriate to coordinate services and identify the Lead Professional. That the child is not a child in need, as defined by the Children Act 1989 S17 and no further action is required or where the child or family has been assessed to have outstanding needs, they can provide information and advice, sign posting to another agency. That the child is a Child in Need but there are no concerns about actual or likely Significant Harm at this time; however further assessment is required to gain a more in-depth understanding of the family in order to identify the child’s needs and to determine what services are required. In such cases it will be appropriate for Children’s Social Work to complete a Core Assessment. That the child meets the criteria for further intervention as a child in need of a Statutory Service i.e. 16+ Services, Private Fostering. In these cases the appropriate procedures should be followed and services offered in accordance with statutory legislation. That the child is a Child in Need and that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer Significant Harm. In which case Children’s Social Work Services will hold a Strategy Discussion to determine whether a Section 47 Enquiry is required as part of a Core Assessment; and consider whether any immediate protective action is required – see Section 6, Emergency Protective Action.

6. Emergency Protective Action

6.6	Where there is a risk to the life of a child or a likelihood of immediate Significant Harm, the social worker and/or Police officer must act to secure the safety of the child.
6.7	The agency taking protective action must always consider whether action is also required to safeguard other children in the same household or in the household of an alleged perpetrator or elsewhere.
6.8	Emergency action may be necessary as soon as the referral is received or at any point during involvement with children, parents or carers, where there is evidence that the risk to the child is sufficiently acute.
6.9	Responsibility for immediate action rests with Children’s Social Work Services for the area where the child is found, but should be in consultation with the local authority where the child is ordinarily resident, if different.
6.10	Immediate protection may be achieved by: An alleged abuser agreeing to leave the home The removal of the alleged abuser Voluntary agreement for the child or children to move to a safer place with or without a protective person Application for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) Removal of the child or children under Police Protection Gaining entry to the household under police powers
6.11	Children’s Social Work Services should only seek the assistance of the police to use their powers of Police Protection in exceptional circumstances where there is insufficient time to seek an Emergency Protection Order or other reasons relating to the child’s immediate safety.
6.12	Planned immediate protective action will normally take place following an immediate Strategy Discussion between Police, Children’s Social Work Services and other agencies as appropriate (including the NSPCC where involved). Where a single agency has to act immediately to protect a child, a Strategy Discussion should take place as soon as possible after such action to plan next steps.
6.13	Social workers must refer to the Children’s Social Work procedures for more detailed guidelines on applications for Emergency Protection Orders.
6.14	Legal advice should normally be obtained before initiating legal action, particularly when an Emergency Protection Order is to be sought. The social worker must also seek the agreement of her/his Team Manager/Assistant Team Manager before initiating legal action.

7. Outcome and Feedback From Initial Assessment

7.1	The parents and the child will usually be informed of the outcome of the Initial Assessment unless to do so would: Be prejudicial to the child’s welfare Cause concern about the behaviour of the adult concerned with the child Cause concern that the child would be likely to suffer further Significant Harm
7.2	Any decision not to share the outcome with the parents must be endorsed by a Children’s Social Work Services manager and recorded, with reasons for the decisions.
7.3	The outcome decision of an Initial Assessment will be endorsed by a Children’s Social Work Services manager and recorded using ICS exemplars. A copy of the Initial Assessment should be provided to the parent and to other professionals as necessary where used as supporting information to their continued involvement.
7.4	The social worker carrying out the assessment will also advise the following people/agencies of the outcome, consistent with respecting the confidentiality of the child and family and not jeopardising future action: All agencies involved with the child and family. The person/agency who made the referral.
7.5	The Initial Assessment is deemed complete once the assessment has been discussed with the child and family and the Team Manager has viewed and authorised the assessment.

8. Practice Guidance on Initial Assessments - Ten Pitfalls and Lessons Learned from Research

This practice guidance is a summary of the document ‘Ten Pitfalls and how to avoid them - what research tells us’, which was published by the NSPCC in September 2010.

Pitfall 1: An initial hypothesis is formulated on the basis of incomplete information, and is assessed and accepted too quickly. Practitioners become committed to this hypothesis and do not seek out information that may disconfirm or refute it.

Questions for Practitioners:

Am I remaining curious and inquisitive about what I am seeing and assessing?

Am I open to new information?

How confident am I that I have sufficient information upon which to base my judgements?

Do I need to add a “health warning” about the strength of evidence contained in this assessment and the implications for decision making?

Would I be prepared to change my mind about this case?

What aspects of supervision are getting prioritised at the moment? Is sufficient time being allowed for critical reflection and evaluation of my judgements and decision making?

Questions for Managers:

When was the last time I initiated the critical review of how a case was being understood, as opposed to responding only to cases that practitioners bring to me in supervision?

Am I confident that I promote a culture of openness and exchange in relation to practitioners’ anxieties and uncertainties?

Am I able to prioritise the needs of children over and above performance targets where necessary?

What are the unintended incentives of the systems and culture within my team?

Do the subheadings, boxes and instructions in the assessment forms used encourage practitioners to record unease and gaps in understanding, or do they inadvertently encourage only factual statements and assertions?

To what extent does a shared culture exist in which it is acceptable and even desirable for professionals to query each other’s assessments?

Do I enable practitioners to think through what they find and whether it makes sense?

Pitfall 2: Information taken at the first enquiry is not adequately recorded, facts are not checked and there is a failure to feedback the outcome to the referrer.

Questions for Practitioners:

Did you play back your recording of the referral to the referrer and check for accuracy, as well as agreeing actions and method for feedback?

Did you actively question the referrer to ensure you got as much information as possible and fleshed out anything that was unclear or incomplete?

Have you checked that you have extracted the most important details from all of the details provided?

If you did not check your notes against information from the referrer at the point of referral, what steps have you taken to do this subsequently?

Questions for Managers:

Is the “front-door” organised to ensure optimum conditions for the receiving and recording of information? Consider location of the fax machine, space to “hear” calls and/or opportunities for face-to-face communication.

Have I ensured the quality and effectiveness of business support?

Have I spent time with the referral team recently, used the systems I expect my staff to use and watched them using them?

Am I confident in the skill and expertise of practitioners handling initial contacts/referrals?

Do I know the error rate and is it one I can defend? Have I stimulated discussion about how errors might be meaningfully and constructively monitored within the team?

Have I considered rotating staff taking referrals to prevent unhelpful habitual practices bedding-in and to prevent boredom?

Pitfall 3: Attention is focused on the most visible or pressing problems; case history and less “obvious” details are insufficiently explored.

Questions for Practitioners:

What is the most striking feature of this situation and if it were removed, would there still be concerns?

Have I considered the presenting issue in context?

Have I carefully examined a case history or have I been tempted to ignore it?

Questions for Managers:

Is the development of the electronic recording system practitioner led?

Within the case work of my team, are we good at pulling out and recording significant life incidents in the families we work with? Does this inform and refresh the analysis of the family functioning?

Do I encourage the production and use of cumulative case summaries?

Do I feedback/input to those in charge of IT developments, regarding best organisation of electronic case files?

Am I an expert user of our social care IT systems? How can I improve my knowledge?

Does my department provide sufficient training and guidance to underpin the electronic recording system?

Pitfall 4: Insufficient weight is given to information from family, friends and neighbours.

Questions for Practitioners:

Would I react differently if these reports had come from a different source?

How can I check whether or not they have substance?

Even if they are not accurate, could they be a sign that the family are in need of some help or support?

Questions for Managers:

Am I confident that practitioners are treating referrals from diverse sources with equal priority?

Does my own behaviour in the prioritisation of referrals encourage particular biases?

Does my team provide a systematic response to anonymous referrers who may not be available for call back, such as fast tracking to a duty social worker?

Pitfall 5: Insufficient attention is paid to what children say, how they look and how they behave.

Questions for Practitioners:

Have I been given appropriate access to all the children in the family?

If parents are cooperative, what type of cooperation was it? Was it, for example, ambivalent/hostile/confrontational?

What is the child’s account of his/her situation and needs?

Have I taken full account of the child’s additional communication needs; for example, in the case of children who are deaf or disabled? Have I sought appropriate specialist expertise to facilitate communication?

If the child uses a language other than English, or a method of alternative non-verbal communication, have I made every effort to enlist help in understanding him/her?

Did the interview with the child appear coached? What is the evidence to support or refute the child/young person’s account?

If I have not been able to see a child, is there a very good reason, and have I made arrangements to see him/her as soon as possible?

How should I follow up any uneasiness about the child(ren)’s health or wellbeing?

What do I know about this child? Do I know what they enjoy, like, dislike etc?

How is the child moving, e.g. when crawling or walking?

Have I consulted other relevant/specialist practitioners who have contact with the child, to draw on his/her observations of any significant changes in the child’s wellbeing or behaviour?

Would I draw this conclusion or make this decision if the child were not disabled?

Would I have taken any further protective action if this were not disabled?

Questions for Managers:

Can I get a sense from practitioners’ verbal accounts and documents of how this child is living?

Am I sure that the social worker has actioned appropriate expert assessment - particularly in the case of children who are disabled or deaf?

Am I encouraging staff to improve their skills and confidence in seeing and speaking to children and young people with different needs and abilities?

Am I making sure that there are clear organisational messages about the priority of seeing and speaking to children and young people?

Have I asked staff if the balancing of competing demands and priorities currently feels manageable or whether they trade-off seeing and speaking to children in order to meet other priorities?

Does my department provide sufficient focus on observations and interaction with the child within the electronic record of the case?

Pitfall 6: There is insufficient full engagement with parents (mothers/fathers/other family carers) to assess risk.

Questions for Practitioners:

Do I have the confidence to challenge parents appropriately, and be honest and open about my concerns while acknowledging strengths?

What is my relationship with the parent(s) and how does this influence my assessment?

Have I spoken with, and listened properly to, those who know the parents better than I do?

Am I open to being deceived (seduced/intimidated/threatened)?

Have I unpicked and understood the difference between perceived and actual risk? If not, how can I get support with this case?

Do I know who lives in/frequents this house and have I assessed their relationship to the child/potential risk?

Have I taken steps to get to know other significant adults/absent parents who have a bearing on the child’s life?

Questions for Managers:

Is time available for effective interaction with parents?

Do I encourage practitioners to engage with parents in order to promote effective practice?

Do I check out practitioners’ feelings and perceptions of parents in supervision?

Are members of my team doing unannounced visits as a regular part of practice?

Is it safe for practitioners to acknowledge their inability to challenge parents?

Do I probe practitioners about household composition and encourage practitioners to think broadly about a child’s network?

Pitfall 7: Initial decisions that are overly focused on age categories of children can result in older children being left in situations of unacceptable risk.

Questions for Practitioners:

Have I made a robust assessment of the support that this young person has in his/her formal/ informal networks?

Am I overly optimistic about this young person’s resilience to presenting risks?

Would I treat this young person differently if he/she were a much younger child, and is that appropriate?

Have I probed this young person’s history/presentation regarding risk factors, including going missing, self-harm, suicidal ideation and signs of child sexual exploitation?

Questions for Managers:

Do I have clear criteria to identify and assess adolescent neglect?

Are local agencies working together effectively to detect adolescent neglect?

Am I using the child’s age as an ad hoc rationing criterion?

How confident am I that the signposting of adolescents to other services is effective?

What gaps exist in services for neglected adolescents and how might these be addressed?

Are the services to prevent children becoming looked after sufficiently targeted at young people? Are staff required to keep teenagers out of the looked after system at all cost?

Pitfall 8: There is insufficient support/supervision to enable practitioners to work effectively with service users who are uncooperative, ambivalent, confrontational, avoidant or aggressive.

Questions for Practitioners:

Before you visit a household, think through your safety plan; ensure someone in your team knows where, when and why you are visiting, and when to raise the alert if you are not back.

Do I feel safe approaching this household?

Do I feel safe inside this household?

If not, why not? Exactly what in the family’s behaviour and in my response made me feel unsafe?

How do the children and young people in this household appear to cope with hostility/aggression?

Am I able to voice my concerns and ask for support, both from colleagues and my manager?

How do I operate when I feel challenged or threatened? What is my coping strategy? How does this affect the families I work with? Am I aggressive, collusive, accommodating, hyper alert? Do I filter out or minimise negative information?

If I, or another professional, should go back to the household to ensure the child(ren)’s safety, what support should I ask for?

Does my manager know I am afraid and anxious?

Risk Checklist:

• Why am I undertaking this visit at the end of the day when it is dark and everyone else has gone home? (Risky visits should be undertaken in daylight whenever possible)
• Should this visit be made jointly with a colleague, other professional (e.g. health visitor or police) or manager?
• Is my car likely to be targeted or followed? If yes, it may be better to go by taxi and have that taxi wait outside the house will I complete the visit.
• Do I have a mobile phone with me or some other means of summoning help (e.g. a personal alarm)?
• Could this particular visit be arranged at a neutral venue? How might I then organise to see the family at home under safer conditions?
• Are my colleagues/line managers aware of where I am going and when I should be back? Do they know I may be particularly vulnerable/at risk during this visit?
• Are there clear procedures for what should be done if a professional does not return or report back within the agreed time from a home visit?
• Does my manager know my mobile phone number and network, my car registration number, and my home address and phone number?
• Do my family members know how to contact someone from work if I do not come home when expected?
• Have I taken basic precautions, such as being ex-directory at home and having my name removed from the public section of the electoral register?
• Have I accessed personal safety training?
• Is it possible for me to continue to work effectively with this family?

Questions for Managers:

Do I have in place and strongly support a safe practitioner policy?

How easy is it for practitioners to tell me that they are afraid or what they are beginning to be afraid of?

How alert am I to social workers avoiding direct contact with families?

Can I identify potential dangers for my staff and respond accordingly with their safety in mind?

Am I creating a supportive team environment where staff can depend on supportive colleagues?

Am I sensitive to practitioners’ emotional responses and do I respond accordingly? Can I recognise when staff are under pressure and am I able to respond to this positively?

Do we have sufficiently healthy working relationships with the police and other relevant professionals to help in cases where there is deemed to be a significant risk to practitioners?

Pitfall 9: Throughout the initial assessment process, professionals do not clearly check that others have understood their communication. There is an assumption that information shared is information understood.

Questions for Practitioners:

Am I open to being deceived?

Am I open to and curious about information?

Do I understand rules of information sharing and protocols?

Do I ever use sentences like “well I’ve told X” to alleviate my own anxiety about a case?

Do I own professional responsibility for my role, or am I over-dependant on my manager?

How can I ensure that information I have passed on has been understood?

Questions for Managers:

Is the office environment conducive to accurate and effective communication?

Do I model good practice in communication, e.g. demonstrating methods for checking understanding?

Are there adequate opportunities for staff from different agencies/professionals to get together and are these opportunities explicitly aimed at improving relationships?

Are efficient business support processes effectively supporting communication systems in the office?

Have I made clear what my expectations of good communication are?

Pitfall 10: Case responsibility is diluted in the context of multi-agency working, impacting both on referrals and response. The local authority may inappropriately signpost families to other agencies, with no follow up.

Questions for Practitioners:

Am I routinely writing to agencies to keep them informed at key points in a case, e.g. on completion of assessment, case closure or case transfer?

Am I open to discussion with partner agencies regarding concerns to children?

Am I clear and have I clarified respective roles and responsibilities with partner agencies?

Do I know colleagues working in partner agencies locally and do I understand how they work?

Questions for Managers:

Do referral processes provide opportunities for informal discussion with partner agencies?

In the overseeing of cases, am I clear about the roles and extent of involvement of other agencies?

How well do I know how key players (e.g. paediatricians) in other agencies work?

Am I feeding back to agencies at management levels when they are operating inappropriately?

Are there local agreements on the effective challenge to inappropriate referrals, while maintaining positive and effective working relationships with other agencies?

Does my department use data to analyse professional referrals in order to learn more about volume and quality, and to target where support to other agencies may be needed to bring about improvements?

How effective is child protection training and have we developed mutually respectful relationships open to challenge and discussion?

Are opportunities for joint training across agencies evaluated in terms of their impact on local referral and intervention practices?

Are staff encouraged to shadow professionals in other agencies to understand their roles and challenge barriers? Are these arrangements reciprocated?

End