Dr Om Prakash Srivastava Richard Fountain Robyn Johnson Dawn Hodson NSPCC

1. Graded Care
Profile
Dr Om Prakash Srivastava
Richard Fountain
Robyn Johnson
Dawn Hodson

2. Introduction
Dr Om Prakash Srivastava
2

3. What is the
Graded Care
Profile
Richard Fountain
3

4. GCP:
• An evidenced based assessment tool for evaluating
levels of parental care.
• Uses a graded scale to capture levels of physical and
emotional care.
• Based on Maslows hierarchy of need, the tool
identifies (a) commitment to care (b) ability to care (c)
quality of care.
• Effective tool that identifies strengths and
weaknesses; targets aspect of neglectful care.
• Provides evidence that can inform care and
intervention plans.
4

5. Findings from the
first national
evaluation of the
Graded Care Profile
Full report available
September 2015
Robyn Johnson
5

6. Purpose of the Evaluation
• Obtain feedback on the GCP in order to
inform the development of the tool.
• Generate picture of usage; perceptions of
usefulness; facilitators and barriers to its
effective use.
• Explore implementation of GCP by LSCBs
and LAs
6

7. Methodology
• Internal and external sites throughout UK
• Mixed methods approach
• Submission of GCP data plus additional info
about each case – at two time points
• 137 Time 1
• 108 Time 2 (54 GCPs)
• Interviews with LAs, trainers, practitioners,
managers and parents.
7

8. Strengths of the GCP
• On a 5 point scale, usefulness of GCP rated as 4 or 5
in two thirds of cases (N=114).
Improved assessment process:
• Enables a more objective, evidence based
assessment
• Identifies parental strengths as well as areas of
concern
• “Unpacks parenting” – improved breadth and depth
of assessment Identifying nature of neglect
• Promotes a child centred approach – “what is it like
to be a child in that house?”
• Participative process promotes parental
engagement
8

9. Strengths of GCP cont.
• Generates new information or formalises information
already known
• Promotes parental awareness and understanding of
concerns
• Promotes professionals’ understanding of nature and
level of neglect
• Informs planning: In 87% of cases (N=101), GCP
informed case plan at least to some extent.
• Enables more accurate and specific plans
• Can act as a parenting change enabler
9

10. Positive Change Indicated
• Positive change measured in the majority of cases
• Qualitative evidence of positive outcomes, e.g. One
family had a 20 year history with Children’s
Services, with previous failed attempts to remove
the children:
“…within a couple of days of him using it all
four children were taken into care. I think for him
being able to provide much more focused evidence
to the Children’s Hearing that enabled them to
remove those children from their parents’ care.”
(External site)
10

11. Areas for Improvement
11
• Language:
• formal/academic
• values
• Gaps:
• obesity, technology, age based limitations.
• Format:
• Traffic light reporting
• Accompanying narrative to support scores
• Historical and/or other contextual factors
• Scoring and scaling processes
• Training

12. Next Steps
Dawn Hodson
12

13. Next Step
• Development of GCP2
• Inter-rater reliability and validity currently
underway
• Pilot GCP2
• Trainer for Trainer and accreditation model
• Implementation framework
For more details contact
dawn.hodson@nspcc.org.uk 13