Fit for the Future - Netta Maciver
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Fit for the Future - Netta Maciver



Netta Maciver, Principal Reporter, Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, ...

Netta Maciver, Principal Reporter, Scottish Children's Reporter Administration,

Session 5 - Changing Children's Services.

Getting It Right for Every Child: Childhood, Citizenship and Children's Services, Glasgow, 24-26 September 2008.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 117 115 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Fit for the Future - Netta Maciver Fit for the Future - Netta Maciver Presentation Transcript

  • Fit for the Future and for Purpose Netta Maciver Principal Reporter/Chief Executive Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration Date: 25 September 2008
  • Children’s Hearings System
    • Care and justice system for children in Scotland.
    • Deals with care and protection of children as well as offending.
    • Key principles:
    • Child’s welfare should be paramount in all decisions.
    • Child’s views should be taken into account in decisions about them.
  • Historical Context
    • Rapid rise of non-offence referrals to the Reporter (graph shows number of children)
  • Historical Context (cont’d)
    • Recognition that not all of these referrals were necessary
    • Feeling that the CHS was becoming a gateway to service provision
    • Need to allow the Reporter to concentrate on those children requiring compulsory measures of supervision
  • The Children’s Hearings System Review
    • Scottish Government Review in 2004
    • Found broad support for the principles and ethos of the CHS
    • Identified some challenges and scope for change and development of the system
  • Getting it Right for Every Child
    • Getting it Right for Every Child established some key principles
      • Every child gets the help they need, when they need it
      • Integrated, co-ordinated approach across agencies
      • Child at the centre of the system
  • GIRFEC & the Children’s Hearings System
    • GIRFEC’s fundamental principles are aligned with those of the CHS
      • CHS is the means of providing compulsory intervention where necessary
      • Children should receive help on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without the need for referral to the Reporter
      • Child is always at the centre
  • Workstreams
    • Ministerial Task Group on non-offence referrals
    • Pre-referral screening initiatives
    • Pathfinder projects
    • SCRA initiatives
    • Single agency for the CHS
  • What’s the impact locally? ▼ 24% 161 213 Perth and Kinross ▼ 15% 1,393 1,633 Highland ▼ 21% 1,495 1,893 Falkirk ▼ 22% 3,401 4,346 Edinburgh ▼ 29% 502 711 Dundee Change 2007/08 2006/07 Local Authority
  • What changes are we seeing?
    • Reduction in the rate of non-offence referrals
    • 40,204 children in 2007/08
    • However numbers of Hearings and Supervision Requirements are both up in 2007/08
    Up 4.5% Up 1% 13,219 42,302 Supervision Requirements Hearings
  • What changes are we seeing?
    • Child Protection Orders slightly down from 624 to 518 in 2007/08
    • SCRA research into CPOs in Edinburgh
      • 30% newborn babies
      • Half on child protection register
      • 52% had open referral or subject to SR
      • 87% of grounds were lack of parental care
  • So where are we?
    • Reporters dealing with increasingly complex cases, but more of the right children
    • Change in the source of referral
    • Better working practices
  • Looking forward
    • Focus on outcomes-the so what question?
      • For children who do not require compulsory measures
      • And for those who do
    • More multi-agency planning and delivery
    • Clarity around interventions
    • A single body-an administrative change or one that is more aspirational that can answer the so what question?