assessing the risk, protecting the child: final …...• this final evaluation report summarises...

Impact and Evidence series

May 2017

Assessing the Risk, PRotecting the child

FinAl evAluAtion RePoRtEmma Belton NSPCC Evidence department

Impact and Evidence series

This report is part of the NSPCC’s Impact and Evidence series, which presents the findings of the Society’s research into its services and interventions. Many of the reports are produced by the NSPCC’s Evaluation department, but some are written by other organisations commissioned by the Society to carry out research on its behalf. The aim of the series is to contribute to the evidence base of what works in preventing cruelty to children and in reducing the harm it causes when abuse does happen.

©2017 NSPCC. Photography by Tom Hull. The people pictured are models.

3Impact and Evidence series

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

KEY FINDINGS 6

ExECuTIvE SuMMArY 8

MAIN rEPOrT 12

Chapter 1: Introduction and methodology 12Background 12

Focus of the evaluation 14

Chapter 2: Feedback on the assessment sessions 19Assessments can involve large family units and do not always include the views of the child 19

Participants are generally clear about the purpose of the assessment 20

Respondents generally felt well treated by NSPCC practitioners 21

Respondents can find it difficult talking to practitioners 23

Referrers benefit from involvement in the assessment 26

Chapter 3: Assessment reports 27Reports are commissioned for a wider range of needs and forums than initially anticipated 27

Time taken to carry out the assessments could be reduced 28

Assessment reports viewed as high quality by referrers but men and protective parents/carers do not always agree with the way their views are represented 30

Assessment reports help give a more detailed understanding of families 31

Improvements could be made to the accessibility of assessment reports 33

Reports should be shared face-to-face with men and protective parents/carers 34

Comparison to other sources of evidence 34

Assessing the Risk, Protecting the Child4

Chapter 4: report recommendations and their implementation 36

Recommendations made across a range of different areas 36

High levels of agreement with report recommendations 37

Making decisions as a result of the assessment report 38

Not all recommendations are implemented 38

Accessing further support can be difficult 39

Chapter 5: Changes for families after the assessment 41Protective parent/carers gain a greater understanding of risk 41

Children and young people learn more about keeping safe 43

Progress one year post-assessment 44

Changes in contact with children 44

Changes in risk level after the assessment 46

Changes in risk level 12-months post-assessment 47

Chapter 6: Conclusion 49Despite the difficulties of being involved in assessments, families generally feel well treated by staff 49

Assessment reports help referrers make child protection decisions 49

High levels of agreement with report recommendations but they are not always implemented 50

Assessments can facilitate child protection but will always be limited as they are a snapshot in time 51

Using multiple data sources helped overcome the limitations of the evaluation 51

Next steps with the service 52

Bibliography 53

Appendices 54Appendix 1: Results from referrer survey 54

Appendix 2: Men and protective parent/carer survey results 56

Appendix 3: Survey results for children and young people 60

Appendix 4: Recommendations made in assessment reports 62


AcknoWledgeMentsThe author would like to thank the following people for their contribution to the report:

• Practitioners in NSPCC service centres who took part in interviews about the assessment guide, obtained evaluation consent from the men, protective parents/carers and children going through the assessments, and collected data about each assessment for evaluation purposes.

• Lead administrators in NSPCC service centres who helped collect evaluation data about each case being assessed.

• The men, protective parents/carers and children who completed surveys at the end of their assessment, and the men and protective parents/carers who agreed to take part in interviews to talk in more detail about their experience of the assessment.

• Referring social workers who completed feedback surveys and took part in interviews to talk about how they used the assessment reports.

• Emma Smith and Rachel Margolis in the Evidence Department who helped with some of the interviewing, and Matt Barnard and Richard Cotmore who gave comments on earlier drafts of the report.


keY FindingsAssessing the Risk, Protecting the Child (ARPC) is an NSPCC service that assesses men who pose a sexual risk to children and are not in the criminal justice system. The service includes an assessment of the man deemed to be a risk, as well as the capacity of the non-abusing parent/carer to protect the child, and the views and wishes of the children involved. The service was delivered at nine NSPCC sites from 2011–2016.

This final evaluation report summarises the findings from the already published qualitative evaluation and integrates this with survey results and tracking data of what happens after assessments are completed. The main findings are:

• The voice of the child work was the unique aspect of ARPC, but in over a third of assessments the child’s voice was not included as they were either too young or did not feel comfortable taking part. The guide gives some suggestions about how the child’s voice can be incorporated in these circumstances, but additional guidance on how to include the child’s voice could enhance this work further.

• The majority of referrers felt that the assessment reports were of a high quality and helped them form a judgement about the actions needed to protect children. The independent nature of the reports was a key factor in their usefulness.

• Referrers, men and protective parents/carers felt that reports could be made more accessible and would find it helpful if the report author discussed it with them face-to-face. The time taken to produce reports could also be shortened.

• Although most referrers agreed with report recommendations, one-third of recommendations had not been implemented six months post-assessment, in part because the support suggested was not available locally. Some referrers would have welcomed more guidance on implementing recommendations. The development of the NSPCC Together for Childhood centres may assist in providing the post-assessment professional consultation that some referrers would have found helpful.

• Reports assess risk at one particular time-point, and the impact of child protection will be limited to family circumstances remaining the same. Risk should be managed through the lifelong safety plan and, where circumstances change, a referral may be needed to another agency for an updated risk assessment.


• The NSPCC is no longer accepting referrals into the ARPC service. This decision follows a strategic review of all of our programmes and resources available to deliver them. Consideration was given to ARPC’s fit with our new strategy and the results of this evaluation, and it was felt that greater outcomes for children could be achieved through investment in alternative programmes. The learning from the evaluation may be of use to other agencies delivering this type of work.


executive suMMARY

Background• It is believed that the majority of men who pose a sexual risk to

children are not in the criminal justice system. Without specialist input, these men have often not been assessed or treated, yet they can be living with or have contact with children.

• The responsibility for assessing risk and making decisions about protecting children in these cases falls to children’s services departments. But staff in these departments do not always have the specialist skills or knowledge to conduct such assessments.

• The NSPCC commissioned the Sexual Behaviour Unit in Newcastle to develop a good practice guide for assessing men who are not in the criminal justice system. The assessments include the views of the children, the capacity to protect of the non-abusing parent/carer and an assessment of the man deemed to be a risk.

• The NSPCC has been conducting assessments using the guide at nine service centres from 2011–2016. Following a strategic review of programmes and resources, the NSPCC is no longer accepting referrals to ARPC. However, the learning from the evaluation may be of benefit to other services delivering similar work.

Methodology • This final evaluation report summarises the results of the already

published qualitative evaluation and adds the data from surveys with men, protective parents/carers, children and referrers. It also includes data from the tracking exercise of what happens three, six and twelve months after each assessment has been completed.

• The consent rate to the evaluation was low and the tracking exercise is based on less than half the men who were assessed. However, there appeared to be little difference in the demographic profile of men consenting to the tracking exercise and those who did not.

• There was also a low response rate to each of the surveys and respondents seemed to be quite positive about the service. For men, protective parents/carers and referrers this was mitigated by the interview data, which was based on a more diverse sample. It was not possible to carry out interviews with children and young people and so their perspective is based on a small sample of cases.


Key findings

Views on the assessment sessions

• In just over a third of assessments, children had not been seen as they were either too young to take part or did not want to take part. Some teams had included observations of the child and protective parent/carer instead, but this was not set out in the guide.

• Men and protective parents/carers felt clear about the purpose of the assessment sessions, but some felt this changed over time. Children and young people were less clear about how their information would be shared and what would happen after the sessions.

• Generally, men and protective parents/carers felt well treated by practitioners, although they could find it difficult talking to staff due to the personal nature of the questions and having to remember details from their past that they wanted to forget about. Some participants felt that staff tried to make the process as comfortable as possible, but others felt pre-judged or that staff did not understand their culture or background.

• Children and young people also felt welcomed by staff and put at ease, although they found it difficult to talk about how they felt about their dad – particularly younger children. Children liked being made to feel at ease by being able to play as they talked and having drinks and snacks available.

Views on the assessment report

• Reports took an average of five and a half months to complete. Three-quarters of referrers were satisfied with the time taken to produce reports as they felt that they got a detailed report back, but they also felt that the process took too long for the families involved.

• Referrers felt that the detail in the assessment reports helped give them more understanding of the risks posed by the man and the actions needed to protect the child. Although there was a fairly high level of agreement on the report content from the men and protective parents/carers assessed, some felt their views had not been accurately presented.

• Referrers felt that the reports could be made more accessible for the men and protective parents/carers by reducing the length and making sure the language used is clear. Men and protective parents/carers could find it difficult to process the information in the reports and needed time to do this. Where report authors met to share the report with participants, this helped ensure that they


understood the content, but this practice was not happening in all teams.

Report recommendations

• There was a high level of agreement from referrers with the report recommendations. It helped that reports clearly demonstrated how the author came to those conclusions and made practical recommendations. Some referrers did not agree with recommendations as they felt that the NSPCC had different thresholds for action than those used by local authorities.

• There was also a fairly high level of agreement with report recommendations from the men and protective parents/carers. This was helped by the recommendations already being discussed in the assessment sessions before they were put in the report.

• Over half the referrers felt that the assessment report determined the actions taken with the family. For the other cases, the report confirmed the actions already suggested by other evidence, but referrers still found it useful to have this confirmed in writing.

• Two-thirds of recommendations had been implemented six months after the assessment. Sometimes, actions were not implemented by children’s services, but in other cases recommendations were no longer relevant if family circumstances had changed. Men and protective parents/carers found they were not always able to access the support suggested.

Changes after the assessment

• Protective parents/carers felt that the assessment process had given them more understanding of risk and made them more able to take action to protect their child. Referrers agreed with this, but a lower proportion felt the protective parent/carer was able to take action to protect their child.

• Children and young people felt that the sessions with NSPCC staff had helped them and that they had learnt new things about what to do if they felt unsafe. Again, a lower proportion of referrers felt that children had learnt what to do if they felt unsafe.

• One year post-assessment, half the men were no longer in contact with the NSPCC or children’s services. A third were involved in further work or treatment and new allegations had been made against two men.

• Fewer men were in contact or living with a child than had planned to be at the start of the assessment and levels of contact had not changed for many cases, suggesting the safeguards put in place at the start of the assessment were still current.


• For a third of men, there had been a change in circumstances that had impacted on their risk level. Risk had increased for a fifth of cases.

Conclusion • Reports were viewed as high quality and the detailed information

in them helped referrers make child protection decisions. Reports could be improved by making them more accessible for men and protective parents/carers, shortening the time taken to produce them and being more consistent about how risk is described.

• Over half the referrers felt that the assessment report determined the actions taken, but in other cases the report confirmed the actions suggested by other sources of evidence. Referrers still found it useful to have this confirmed in writing by someone independent.

• There were high levels of agreement with the report recommendations, but not all had been implemented six months after the assessment. Participants had not always been able to access the suggested support or their family circumstances had changed. The development of NSPCC Together for Childhood centres may help provide the ongoing support needed to families and referrers.

• The assessment reports had made an impact on child protection, but this will always be limited as the assessment is only done at one point in time and the level of input given cannot change deep-seated attitudes and behaviours. In the year post-assessment, there had been changes in circumstances for some men, which had increased their risk level, suggesting these men needed referring on for a new assessment.


MAin RePoRt

Chapter 1: Introduction and methodology

Background There are approximately 30,000 registered sex offenders in England and Wales. However, some estimates put the proportion of sexual abuse incidents that are not reported as high as 95 per cent (NCIS, 2005). As a result, it is believed that the majority of adults who pose a sexual risk to children are not in the criminal justice system. This includes persons who:

• have historical convictions (including those that predate the Sex Offences Act 1997) or are no longer subject to registration requirements

• have never been convicted of sexual offences against children but have a ‘finding of fact’ from a family court against them

• are alleged to be perpetrators of sexual abuse but have not been prosecuted due to insufficient evidence.

Without any specialist input from the criminal justice system, they have often not been assessed or received any treatment, yet they can be living with or having contact with children (Hebb, 2005, Fisher & Beech, 1998). Alongside the risk posed by the adult, it is also important to determine whether the protective parent/carer is aware of the risks posed and able to take the necessary action to protect the child. The responsibility for assessing risk and making decisions about the actions needed to protect children falls to local authority children’s services departments. However, staff in these departments do not always have the specialist skills and experience required to carry out such assessments.

Development of the assessment guide

Although the factors that need to be considered to assess sexual risk are well known (Craig et al, 2008), there are few resources available for assessing men without convictions. The NSPCC commissioned the Sexual Behaviour Unit at Newcastle to develop a good practice guide for conducting assessments on men who pose a sexual risk to children. The guide Assessing the Risk: Protecting the Child –The Assessment of


Men’s Sexual Risk in Child Protection Settings (NSPCC and Sexual Behaviour Unit, 2011) draws on existing research and best practice about carrying out assessments of men who pose a sexual risk. It also outlines how to assess the capacity of the protective parent/carer to protect the child from the alleged risk. The NSPCC added additional material to the guide about incorporating the wishes and feelings of the children at risk into the assessment – referred to as voice of the child work.

Implementation of the assessment guide

The guide has been in use in the NSPCC from 2011–2016 and was delivered from nine sites across the UK. An additional two sites started delivering the service, but later withdrew; one because of low referrals and the other due to difficulties delivering the service without experienced staff in place.

Referrals to the service are made by social workers in children’s services departments. NSPCC practitioners then carry out individual sessions with:

• the man deemed to be a risk – about eight sessions

• the protective parent/carer – about eight sessions

• the child(ren) deemed to be at risk – about six hours of direct work.

This is combined with other sources of data, for example, police or social services records, to produce an assessment report for the referring social worker. The evidence is collated in the reports to consider the risk in a family context by examining the risk posed to the child by the man assessed, the capacity of the protective parent/carer to protect the child from that risk and the wishes and feelings of the child about contact with the man being assessed. The reports contain recommendations about the actions needed to protect the child(ren) from the risk posed.

The work is usually staggered: the assessment sessions start with the man; partway through his assessment, sessions start with the protective parent or carer, and then with the child. This means that it can take around four months to complete the assessment sessions and write the report. Once the assessment has been completed, the case is then closed by the NSPCC and the referring social worker takes forward any necessary safeguarding actions.


Focus of the evaluationThe evaluation of the assessment guide has four main strands:

• Interviews with NSPCC practitioners to learn about their experience of using the assessment guide and recommendations for improvement.

• A survey and interviews with referring social workers to understand their views on the assessment reports received and how they have been used to inform child protection decision making.

• Surveys with the men, protective parents/carers and children assessed to get their views on how the assessment process was carried out, and interviews with men and protective parents/carers to understand more about their experience of the assessment and what they felt could be improved about it.

• Tracking what happens three, six and twelve months after each assessment report has been completed.

• Evaluation reports on the findings from the interviews with staff, referrers and men and protective parent/carers have already been published and are available on the NSPCC Impact and Evidence Hub (www.nspcc.org.uk/evidencehub).

This final evaluation report summarises the results from the interviews with staff, referrers and men and protective parents/carers, but focuses primarily on the results of the tracking exercise of completed assessment reports and the survey data from referrers, men, protective parents/carers and children.

Method

Questionnaires were used to get feedback from the men, protective parents/carers and children assessed, as well as from referrers. Separate questionnaires were devised for each of the four types of respondent so that the questions were tailored to the type of issues that may come up in the assessment. There were two versions of the survey for children and young people to reflect different ages and stages of development. The version for younger children had fewer questions.

NSPCC practitioners gave the questionnaires out for completion in the final session of the voice of the child work for children and at the final assessment meeting when the outcome of the assessment was shared for men and protective parents/carers. Response rates were low and feedback from practitioners was that the end of the assessment was not always a good time to administer questionnaires as the men and protective parents/carers could be feeling upset or annoyed if the assessment outcome was not what they hoped for.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/evidencehub


Practitioners were then given the option of administering the questionnaire at the end of the assessment sessions, but before the final meeting to share the assessment report. This meant the questions about views on the assessment report could not be asked, but still gave feedback on views of the assessment process. If it was not possible to ask the man or protective parent/carer to complete the survey in one of the assessment meetings, then they were given a paper copy and a stamped addressed envelope for it to be returned to the Evidence Department.

For the tracking exercise, a data collection spreadsheet was completed by practitioners to record what happened three, six and twelve months after each completed assessment report. If the man consented to information about his assessment being recorded for research purposes, then practitioners completed the three-month follow-up, which recorded where the assessment report was used, the recommendations made in the report and whether they were agreed. Practitioners already had this intelligence from their involvement in sharing the assessment report with referrers.

If the man agreed to his progress being followed up with the referring social worker, then practitioners contacted referrers to get the information to complete the six-month follow-up, which looked at whether the report recommendations had been implemented, and then also the twelve-month follow-up, which asked about any further changes since the assessment was completed.

Recruitment

All men and protective parents/carers were asked for consent to take part in the evaluation at the start of the assessment. Men were asked for consent for:

• information being collected about the reason their assessment report was carried out and the recommendations made in the report being recorded for research purposes

• their progress to be followed up with the referring social worker after the assessment report was completed

• completing a feedback survey

• taking part in an interview to discuss their experience in more detail.

Protective parents/carers were asked about consent for completing a feedback survey and taking part in an interview. For both the men assessed and protective parents/carers, consent was checked again at the end of the assessment process.


Protective parents/carers were also asked if they consented to their child(ren) being asked about completing a survey. If the protective parent/carer agreed to this, then the child(ren) was asked about filling in the survey at the end of the assessment.

All referrers were sent an email after the assessment had been completed asking them to complete a feedback survey, with a link to an online survey included in the email. Two reminder emails were sent out after the initial mailout to try and boost response rates. Initially, the survey asked if referrers would be willing to take part in an interview.

Sample

The response rate to the survey for men, protective parents/carers and children was low and much lower than the number who gave consent to complete the survey (Table 1). This was often because respondents changed their mind about taking part in the survey, or were given it to take home and complete, but then did not return it. In a third of cases, practitioners judged that it was not appropriate to ask the child to take part in the evaluation, either because of their level of distress or their level of understanding and ability to give informed consent.

This means that the views of only a small proportion of families taking part in the assessments are represented in the surveys. It also appears that those who did complete the questionnaires tended to be positive about their views of the assessments.

Table 1: Consent and completion rates to end of assessment questionnaire

Number of assessments logged with Evaluation department

Consented to complete a

questionnaire

Questionnaire completed and returned

(as a % of those consenting to the

survey)

Men 115 51 (44%) 23 (45%)

Protective parents/carers 124 60 (48%) 33 (55%)

Children and young people

68 29 (43%) Child version – 1 Young person version – 10

(83% overall)

Similarly, the response rate for the referrer survey was low (20 responses, 29 per cent response rate) and the responses suggest it is more likely to have been completed by those who felt positive about the assessment reports. It proved difficult to contact some of the referrers, who had moved post by the time the survey was emailed out.

The consent rate from the men assessed for their data to be used in the three-, six- and twelve-month follow-ups post-assessment was also low (Table 2).


Table 2: Consent and data collection rates for post-assessment follow-ups

Consent given for follow-up

Follow-up data collected

Three-month follow-up 47 (41%) 42 (89%)

Six-month follow-up 49 (43%) 35 (71%)

Twelve-month follow-up 49 (43%) 28 (57%)

Not all the cases had reached the point of the six- or twelve-month follow-up by the time of the final assessment report. Even if consent had been given, it was not always possible for the follow-ups to be completed. Sometimes, this was because the NSPCC service centre was no longer delivering the service and so there were no staff with knowledge of the case or service available to do the follow-up. In other cases, it was not always possible to get information from children’s services, often because the referring social worker had left the department.

Analysis

All the survey data was entered in SNAP (a survey design and data entry package)and then analysed in SPSS (statistical analysis software) to give frequencies for each question. The open question data was coded to give a summary of the emerging themes.

The post-assessment tracking data was analysed in SPSS. The closed questions were analysed by running frequencies and the open questions were coded to give a summary of the emerging themes.

The small sample size for both data sources limited the level of further analysis that could be done.

Qualitative interviews

The approach to conducting the qualitative interviews is outlined in each of the previous reports and summarised here for information. Telephone interviews were held with men and protective parents/carers within a couple of months of the assessment report being completed. At the start of the assessment, all men and protective parents/carers were asked about being contacted after the assessment to discuss taking part in an interview. Consent rates were fairly low and then there was further attrition between those agreeing to be contacted about an interview and those actually taking part. However, the final sample of cases was diverse and included respondents with a wide range of views on the assessment.

Telephone interviews with practitioners delivering the service were conducted in April 2014, approximately three years after the service was implemented. All practitioners were sent a screening questionnaire asking about their previous experience of assessment and the type


of assessments they had been involved in since the service was implemented. A purposive sample of practitioners was then selected for interview.

Initially, referrers were asked at the end of the survey if they would be willing to take part in an interview. As the response to the survey was low and this approach did not generate many interviews, referrers were then contacted by email and telephone instead and asked about taking part in an interview.

Limitations of the research

The survey data has been limited by low consent and completion rates and an overall small sample size. The surveys seem to have been answered by respondents who were more positive about the assessments than the eligible population as a whole. There was no difference in the profile of men and protective parents/carers who consented to complete the survey, but the surveys were anonymous so it is not possible to compare the profile of those completing the survey with those who did not. This has been mitigated to some extent by the interview data, which was based on a more diverse sample and included both positive and negative views about the assessment. However, it was not possible to carry out many interviews with children and young people who took part in voice of the child sessions, as very few protective parents/carers gave consent for their child to be approached about taking part in an interview. This means that the child’s perspective on the assessment is based on a small and limited sample.

The low response rate from the referrer survey also made it difficult to draw any strong conclusions about their views of the assessment reports received. Again, the inclusion of the interviews with referrers has helped as this was based on a more diverse sample, covering assessments on families in a range of different circumstances and reports being used in different ways to inform safeguarding decisions.

The post-assessment tracking follow-ups and surveys are based on less than half the men that were assessed. However, a comparison of the demographic profile of the men who consented to the tracking follow-ups and the surveys and those who did not shows little difference between the two groups. The only exception is that fewer men from a minority ethnic background agreed to take part, along with men with a learning difficulty or disability.

Ethics

All elements of the evaluation were approved by the NSPCC research ethics committee, which follows Government Social Research standards.


Chapter 2: Feedback on the assessment sessionsThis chapter summarises who is involved in the assessments and the views of referrers, men, protective parents/carers and children assessed on the way the assessment sessions were carried out. The assessments could involve large and complex family units and it was not always possible to speak to the children due to their young age. Participants generally felt clear about the reason for the assessment and felt well treated by staff. However, they could find some of the topics difficult to discuss and children could find it hard to talk about the man being assessed.

Assessments can involve large family units and do not always include the views of the childA unique feature of the ARPC assessments is the inclusion of the views of the child or young person. However, for the cases taking part in the evaluation, over a third (38 per cent) of children were not seen. Usually, this was because they were too young to take part in the sessions. This has been found in other research where a high proportion of children involved in family court proceedings are very young (Bishop, 2015). In families where the children were able to take part, on average two children were seen, (ranging from one to four children), and seen for an average of six sessions (ranging from one to 25 sessions).

Most of the children were seen about concerns relating to their father (61 per cent), but it also included concerns about stepfathers or mothers’ current partners (21 per cent) and other family members, for example, grandfathers or uncles (18 per cent). Over half (64 per cent) the children seen were under the age of 11. For four children (15 per cent) there were concerns that the child had been abused by the man being assessed.

For protective parent/carers agreeing to take part in the evaluation, almost half were the current partner of the man assessed (49 per cent), 19 per cent were a former partner, and 32 per cent were other family members, for example mothers, daughters or sisters. Parents/carers were seen for an average of five sessions, but this ranged from two to 13 sessions.

The number of sessions attended by both children/young people and protective parents/carers reflects the additional work sometimes done by teams outside of the assessment itself, to provide support or educative input where needed. This added to the length of time required to complete the assessment process.


Participants are generally clear about the purpose of the assessmentIt is important that participants understood the purpose of the assessment and why they were asked to take part, as this could influence their views about the final assessment report and their understanding of the decisions made as a result of the assessment. The survey results showed that the men and protective parents/carers did feel clear about the purpose of the assessment when the sessions started (see Table 3 and Appendix 2 for detailed results), although the responses of protective parents/carers indicated that, on average, they felt clearer than the men being assessed did.

Table 3: Summary of survey ratings for explanations given at the start of the assessment

Very well Fairly well

Combined responses for Not very/Not

at all well and Don’t

know

Explain the reason for the assessment being carried out

Protective parent/carer

97% 3% 0%

Men 78% 22% 0%

Explain how they would like to involve you in the assessment


97% 3% 0%

Men 83% 17% 0%

Explain how they would like to involve your children in the assessment


79% 8% 13%

Men N/A N/A N/A

Explain how they would use any information you gave them


88% 12% 0%

Men 87% 13% 0%

Some survey respondents felt that the liaison between the NSPCC and children’s services over setting up the assessment could be improved.

“Better liaison with my case worker was needed. had to speak

to nsPcc direct myself to get appointments arranged and other

info to be clarified.”

Protective parent/carer survey respondent


The interviews confirmed that men and protective parents/carers felt the purpose of the assessment had been explained clearly to them at the start of the process. However, some felt that the purpose of the assessment changed over time or that the nature of the man’s previous convictions pre-determined the outcome of the assessment and that this was not clear when the process started. This suggests that practitioners should remind participants that after reviewing all the evidence, their views about risk levels may be different to participants.

Young people who answered the survey also felt clear about the reason for practitioners seeing them and felt that they answered any questions they had about the man being assessed (Appendix 3). However, the survey suggests that they did not feel as clear about this as the protective parents/carers or men assessed.

Although the version of the survey for younger children did not ask the same questions as the version for young people, the comment below highlights that at least some younger children also felt that talking to practitioners helped them understand more about what was happening at home:

“the nsPcc worker explained about different things and

playing. sharing things – like the worry tree and about my dad.

she explained things like what happened and what is going to

happen. that makes me feel better.”

Female survey respondent aged 6, with help from parent/carer

Ratings were slightly lower for being clear about how information would be shared, with three young people answering “Don’t know” to this question. It is not clear whether these young people did not understand the question or were genuinely not clear about how their information would be shared or could not remember their discussions about this.

Respondents generally felt well treated by NSPCC practitionersProtective parents/carers gave high ratings in the survey for the way they were treated by NSPCC staff and being kept informed about what would happen next (see Table 4 and Appendix 2 for full details). Although still fairly positive, men gave lower ratings for the same items.


Table 4: Summary of survey responses for working with NSPCC staff

Strongly agree Agree

Combined responses for

Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree and Don’t know

NPSCC staff made you feel welcome when you came to appointments


91% 9% 0%

Men 65% 26% 8%

NSPCC staff treated you with respect


91% 9% 0%

Men 70% 22% 8%

NSPCC staff kept you informed about what would happen next


82% 18% 0%

Men 61% 35% 4%

Where the protective parent/carer work had been done via home visits, protective parents/carers felt that this had been handled sensitively.

“home visits didn’t feel like my home had been invaded/tainted

by having visits there – which i’d been fearful of.”


Young people also felt welcomed by NSPCC staff, although not all of them felt that staff had explained what would happen next after they came to talk to them. Two young people answered “Don’t know” for this question (Appendix 3).

Ratings from younger children in relation to enjoying coming to see NSPCC staff were slightly lower and they were not always clear about next steps either (Appendix 3).

Children and young people reported that they liked having snacks available during the sessions. However, some said that they found the sessions boring or that they should be made shorter.

Protective parent/carers who were interviewed did express some concerns about their children being seen as part of the assessment and were worried that the child would find it upsetting or would have to repeat discussions they had already had with children’s services staff. These concerns usually reduced once the sessions started and protective parents/carers saw the work was being done in a child-friendly way.


Respondents can find it difficult talking to practitionersRatings were slightly lower from both protective parents/carers and men for feeling comfortable talking to staff, feeling able to be open and honest with them and feeling that staff listened to your views (see Table 5 for summary and Appendix 2 for full details). This was a theme that came through more strongly in the interviews, where respondents reported feeling embarrassed about the personal questions they were asked in the sessions. They could also find it difficult to answer questions about things from their past they wanted to forget or in the case of protective parents/carers, learning new things about the behaviour of the man assessed. This may suggest that respondents did not feel as comfortable reporting this in the survey.

Table 5: ratings for ease of talking to NSPCC practitioners



Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree and Don’t know

You felt comfortable talking to staff


69% 31% 0%

Men 48% 35% 18%

You felt able to be open and honest with staff


74% 24% 3%

Men 61% 39% 0%

You felt NSPCC staff listened to your views


74% 24% 3%

Men 57% 35% 8%

Some survey respondents felt that staff tried to make the discussions as comfortable as possible.

“they made me feel relaxed as they talked about hobbies i had

also, not just why i had to have the assessment.”

Male survey respondent

Interviewees also commented on this. They felt that it made them feel more comfortable talking to staff if they had a good rapport with practitioners, were able to go at their own pace and take breaks when needed, and that they felt supported by practitioners and not judged.

However, other interviewees felt that staff had already made their minds up about them due to the nature of their previous offences or allegations. Interview respondents did not always feel that practitioners fully understood their culture or background and that this affected the assessment. Men could find it difficult to talk to two female assessors


about their sexual behaviour. Protective parents/carers could feel that if they supported the man, this could be interpreted by practitioners as them not protecting their child.

“i was made to feel like despite the fact i had no criminal

conviction, i had done something wrong in marrying my husband

and choosing to have a family with him. i still feel my ability as

a mother to protect my child was questioned and still is, as

because i have said if i for one minute thought my child was at

risk from his dad i could not be in any form of relationship with

him, the assessor decided i am unable to adequately protect

my child and any future daughters and therefore need further

capacity to protect courses. i feel this is questioning my ability as

a mother and this distresses me greatly.”


Referrers who were interviewed felt that NSPCC practitioners worked hard to engage men and protective parents/carers, particularly when some of them had not engaged well with children’s services or were denying the allegations. Referrers felt that NSPCC staff quickly built a relationship with the men and protective parents/carers assessed. It also helped that NSPCC staff were viewed as independent to children’s services.

Young people gave fairly high ratings for feeling able to talk to practitioners about the man assessed, how safe they were feeling at home and feeling listened to by staff (Appendix 3). Ratings were slightly lower for feeling comfortable talking to staff.

Young people found it helpful to have someone outside the family they could talk to and share their feelings with.

“Being aware of what happened and being able to get my view

across. knowing what my actual strengths were more than i

already knew. Also, helping mine and my mother’s relationship by

talking more.”

Female survey respondent, aged between 14–16 years

This could also help children feel more settled about what had happened in their family.

“it helped me realise that it wasn’t my fault.”

Female survey respondent, aged between 11–13 years


Younger children also gave fairly high ratings for feeling that staff listened to what they had to say.

“Being able to talk to people and have them listen.”

Male survey respondent aged 10

However, although the numbers involved were small, it does seem that young children found it more difficult to speak to NSPCC staff, especially about how they felt about the man assessed. This is concerning given that it is one of the main reasons for speaking with children. However, it is difficult for children especially if they are in the child protection system and may feel concerned about giving their views or worry about what their parents may think. Without interviews, it is not clear what the reasons for this were or what could be done to make it easier for children to talk about the man assessed. It is also not clear whether children found it difficult, but still managed to get their views across, or did not feel able to say how they really felt.

Children reported that they found it helpful to be able to play at the same time as talking to staff and enjoyed the activities that they were able to take part in during the sessions, such as colouring or sand play.

“i liked to come and play and to talk about my feelings and

worries that i had.”

Young person, aged 8 years

They also found it helpful when staff tried to make them feel at ease before asking them how they felt about things at home.

“if the child is nervous like i was, just take it easy, give them a

drink and get them to think of happy things, that helped me when

talking.”

Young person aged between 11–13 years

However, some young people felt that practitioners did not share their views about the man assessed.

“Really listen to a child telling you that their dad is the best dad in

the world.”

Young person, aged between 8–10 years

Others did not like being taken out of lessons to come and attend the sessions.


Referrers benefit from involvement in the assessmentReferrers could also find the contact with NSPCC staff during the assessment useful. They welcomed updates that they received during the assessment process about progress and likely outcomes.

“good communication between nsPcc staff and myself. each

stage was a discussion and i was aware and contributed to

the plan.”

Referrer survey respondent

Referrers who were interviewed said that this helped deal with the length of time taken to complete the assessment report if they were already aware of the likely recommendations.

Referrers who responded to the survey commented that they felt they also learnt more about risk assessment from liaising with NSPCC staff. Some suggested that they receive training in carrying out assessments so that they can do them on cases with criminal justice system involvement that the NSPCC do not work with.


Chapter 3: Assessment reportsThis chapter presents data from the tracking exercise on the time taken to complete reports, the reasons they were commissioned and which forums they were produced for. It also includes the views of referrers, men and protective parents/carers on the final assessment reports.

The focus of the assessment guide was for men without convictions, but, in reality, reports were commissioned for a range of different forums and included men who had historical convictions. Referrers felt the assessment reports were of a high quality and gave them a detailed understanding of the family to help inform their decision making. Improvements could be made to the time taken to produce reports, their length and ensuring that they are accessible to the families involved.

Reports are commissioned for a wider range of needs and forums than initially anticipatedMost of the assessment reports were commissioned by children’s services (94 per cent), and two were commissioned by the family court. Over three quarters (77 per cent) of reports were commissioned because of historical concerns or convictions that had come to light. Only 11 per cent of assessments were commissioned because of concerns about a new allegation of offending and four per cent because of a finding of fact from a family court. One report was commissioned to inform contact decisions for a case that had recent criminal justice system involvement. The assessment guide was designed for cases where men did not have convictions. Although none of the cases were currently involved with the criminal justice system, many of them did have historical convictions. This meant that staff were sometimes working with a different profile of men than was originally anticipated. Many of the assessors had previous experience with probation and so were used to these types of case, but the breadth of cases that may present for assessment should be covered by the assessment guide.

Similarly, the reports were being used at a range of different forums. Over half the reports (58 per cent) were being taken to a child protection conference meeting, 16 per cent were being used in court and two per cent at a strategy meeting. The other 24 per cent of reports were used for lower-level child protection decisions. These were children in need forums (seven reports), making decisions about contact (four cases) and for a case held in an early intervention team.


Most of the reports were used at existing child protection conference or review meetings or court hearings, but for three cases, court proceedings were instigated as a result of the assessment report.

“the report led to the local authority making applications for full

care orders to protect the child. it helped to form evidence for

the emergency protection order and the nsPcc practitioners

attended.”


The assessment guide needs to include the range of different forums where reports may be used and the potential different needs from the report for each type of forum.

Time taken to carry out the assessments could be reducedIt was anticipated that assessment reports would be completed in four months. In reality, assessment reports took an average of five and a half months to complete, but ranged from three months to 16 months (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Length of time taken to complete assessment reports

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

6

1011

10

1

4

1

3

3 months

4 months

5 months

6 months

7 months

8 months

9 months

10 months or more

Just under three-quarters (73%) of referrers rated the assessment reports as good or very good for their timeliness, and this was the lowest rating given in the survey for questions about the quality of the assessment report and the way it was produced

The referrer interviews found that some referring social workers accepted the amount of time taken to write assessment reports, given the detailed pieces of work they received.


“it took a long time, about 6 months and we don’t like to keep

cases open if we don’t need to. But i don’t think it should

be rushed or they should try and condense it because the

information that we got out of it was really useful, so although

it was a long time it balanced it out because it was a useful

assessment to have.”

Referrer interview – case 11

Others felt that although the time taken was acceptable for them as a professional, it was too long for the families involved and could cause them some anxiety as they awaited the outcome of the assessment report and what that would mean for them.

“it can be a timely process, which can be frustrating for the

families.”


For some of the men and protective parents/carers assessed, the assessment process did feel as if it took a long time, particularly if it involved waiting for follow-up meetings with children’s services. These families found it a worrying time while they waited for the outcome of the assessment report.

“After i did my assessment, then my ex-partner had to do her

assessment. And then there was all the messing about and to-

ing and fro-ing and people not turning up for interviews and not

turning up for meetings when they should have done…so it did

drag out a long time.”

Interview with man assessed – case 4

However, other families found the time taken to complete the assessment acceptable.

While the assessment was being carried out, this meant that referrers often delayed making any decisions about the case until they got the assessment report. This could mean that contact with the child remained supervised or was not allowed until the report was ready, which could cause some difficulties between the families involved and children’s services.


Assessment reports viewed as high quality by referrers but men and protective parents/carers do not always agree with the way their views are representedAll the referrers who responded to the survey rated the reports as good or very good for addressing the issues they needed answering and addressing the individual child’s needs adequately. The reports also got high ratings for including the right level of detail (Appendix 1).

In the interviews, some referrers felt that the reports did not always cover all the points they wanted answering. The gaps were about the descriptions of risk given in the assessment reports. Some referrers wanted more detail about what, for example, medium risk meant in practice. Others wanted to understand more about how risk might change as the child gets older or did not agree with the risk level assigned by the assessor.

Protective parents/carers gave fairly high ratings for their level of agreement with the content of the assessment report and the way their views and those of their children had been represented (see summary in Table 6, detailed results in Appendix 2). The level of agreement with the content of the assessment report was slightly lower from the men who were assessed.

Table 6: ratings from men and protective parents/carers on the assessment report


Combined responses for Neither agree

nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly

disagree and Don’t know

Content of the assessment report


41% 53% 6%

Men 24% 59% 18%

Way your views have been represented in the report


44% 50% 6%

Way the views of your child(ren) have been represented in the report


50% 20% 30%

In the interviews with men and protective parents/carers, some did agree with the content of the assessment reports and felt they were balanced, fair and reflected things that had already been discussed in the assessment sessions. Others did not agree with all the report content. The reasons for this were:

• feeling what they said had been misquoted in the report


• things being taken out of context and some of the background detail left out

• issues discussed being taken too literally

• the report only focusing on some of the issues discussed, for example their historical convictions, and not giving enough detail on their current life

• “i don’t think it is fair to be judged so much on my childhood.” Male survey respondent

• facts being misinterpreted to support the argument of the assessor

• “twisted my words and wrote complete nonsense in it.” Male survey respondent

Men and protective parent/carers who disagreed with the report content felt strongly that the assessment sessions should be recorded so that it was possible to go back and check what was discussed in case of any disagreements.

Assessment reports help give a more detailed understanding of familiesReferrers rated the assessment reports quite highly for the way in which they helped them understand more about the risks posed to the child and make judgements about the actions needed to protect the child (see summary in Table 7 and detailed results in Appendix 1).

Table 7: referrer ratings for understanding gained from the assessment report

Very Good Good

Combined responses for Neither good

nor poor, Poor and Very poor

Helping you understand the risks to the child 45% 50% 5%

Helping you make a judgement about actions needed to protect the child

55% 40% 5%

Helping you understand the risk the man poses to the child

45% 50% 5%

Helping you make a judgement on appropriate treatment or management options for the man

37% 53% 11%

Helping you make a judgement about the non-abusing parent/carers capacity to protect the child

45% 40% 15%

Helping you make a judgement about the support needs of the non-abusing parent/carer

45% 35% 20%


This was supported in the interview findings, where referrers described how the detail given in the reports about the families and their backgrounds helped give them a more rounded picture about the family and fit all the different sources of evidence together.

“it gave a real insight into the man and his understanding of what

had taken place, his life generally, how he presents as a person,

his views and values. gave clear indicators of how they’d made

the recommendations as it was quite technical stuff.”


Referrers liked the fact that the reports were linked to theory and research about risk factors for sexual abuse and felt the analytical approach provided clear explanations about why the behaviours that were of concern had taken place. The reports also outlined how the NSPCC had worked with service users to carry out the assessment and collect the information in the report. This provided referrers with clear evidence they could use to support their decision-making process.

“the report was easy to read and clear. the risks identified were

discussed in detail with appropriate rationale.”


Ratings from the survey were also high for understanding the risk posed to the child by the man assessed and making a judgement on appropriate treatment or management options for the man. In the interviews, referrers described how the reports gave them a more detailed understanding of the man’s offending history and his views around the allegations and, therefore, the risks he posed.

“the information about his denial and him not accepting his

previous conviction. that helped me not just to understand the

sexual behaviours but his behaviour in general about violence

and the way he behaves because he denies all that as well.”


There was also some evidence from the survey with men assessed that steps were already being taken to manage the risk posed by the man during the assessment. Two-thirds of men responding to the survey said they had a safety plan in place before the assessment started. Four of the seven men who did not have a safety plan in place stated that they had one by the end of the assessment.


The survey ratings were slightly lower for the way the reports helped referrers make a judgement about the capacity to protect of the protective parent/carer and the support needs of the protective parent/carer, although 83 per cent still had a rating or good or very good for this (Table 14).

Improvements could be made to the accessibility of assessment reportsAlthough the overall rating was still high, only 40 per cent of referrers rated the reports as ‘very good’ for being of an appropriate length (Appendix 1).

In the interviews, some referrers did feel that the reports were a bit lengthy. This also raised concerns about how accessible the reports were to the families assessed when combined with some of the language that was used in the reports.

“it was a lengthy document and it did have a lot of jargon in it. it

wasn’t that it wasn’t understandable but it wasn’t easy to read.

in terms of it as a full report these reports do need to be shared

with the family and when i shared it with them i really felt for

them as it had taken myself and my managers some time to get

my head around the report so i don’t feel it is very service user

friendly. there’s nothing wrong with using big words that actually

explain what you’re trying to say but when a service user is

reading that it’s very academic.”


This was also reflected in the interviews with men and protective parents/carers, where some respondents said they found the reports lengthy and that there was a lot of information for them to digest.

Some respondents also struggled to understand the language used in the report, which affected their understanding.

“there was a word in the report that i had no clue what it meant

whatsoever, so i had to look it up online and i put that in my

response to the report, which they again questioned. i said: ‘i

haven’t been to university, i have no clue whatsoever as to what

this word meant.’ After i’d looked it up in my response to the

report i put it in plain english as i understood it, but then they tried

to sort of backlash and say ‘Well no, that’s not how it’s used’, but

that was given in the online dictionary for this word.”

Interview with man assessed – case 10


Reports should be shared face-to-face with men and protective parents/carersThere was no consistent process for how reports were shared with men and protective parents/carers. Some teams had a meeting with men and protective parents/carers to go through the report and explain it to them. Men and protective parents/carers were also given the opportunity to add their comments to the report before it was shared with referrers. This was welcomed by respondents, who often needed time to process the information in reports and could find it difficult to see their life history in writing. However, sometimes being able to add comments to the report led to expectations that the report would be amended.

“We have asked for amendments to the draft report, which we

have not yet seen.”


For other men and protective parents/carers, they were given a copy of their assessment report by the referrer or solicitor. Referrers who were interviewed found this difficult when they had not written the report themselves.

“i shared the report with the family as i can’t make a decision

based on a report they haven’t read. But i did feel it wasn’t my

report, i didn’t have ownership over that report so sharing it with

the family wasn’t beneficial for me to have done because when

they had questions or if they hadn’t understood certain concepts

who am i to be able to unpick that as i didn’t write it. it was

difficult if they question what’s been written as it might not have

been what i thought or my opinion.”


Men and protective parents/carers also found it difficult to process and understand the report if they were only given it just before a meeting.

Comparison to other sources of evidenceOver half (55 per cent) of referrers responding to the survey felt that, compared with all the other sources of evidence available about the case, the NSPCC report had increased their understanding of the risk to the child. Forty per cent felt that the report confirmed the understanding of risk gained from other sources of evidence and one referrer felt it made no difference to their understanding of risk.


Thirty-seven per cent of referrers responding to the survey felt that the NSPCC assessment reports were much better than reports produced by other agencies or individuals. Eleven per cent felt they were slightly better, and 37 per cent felt they were about the same (15 per cent recorded a ‘Don’t know’ response to this question).

Referrers commented that they found it helpful to have the expertise of the NSPCC in risk assessment and a neutral perspective on the family. Some referrers said they would have found it helpful to have a forensic psychology report where they use psychometric testing.


Chapter 4: report recommendations and their implementationThis chapter looks at the types of recommendations made in assessment reports, referrers’ level of agreement with the recommendations made, and progress in implementing the recommendations.

Assessors made wide-ranging recommendations to keep children safe and there was a high level of agreement with the recommendations from referring social workers. However, six-months post-assessment, not all recommendations had been implemented. Sometimes, this was due to a change in family circumstances but could also be because the suggested support was not available locally.

Recommendations made across a range of different areasOn average, five recommendations were made in assessment reports, but this ranged from none to 12. Most of the recommendations made were about the man’s contact with the child, but covered a wide range of other issues too. The types of recommendations made in the report fell into 11 main areas (Table 8 summarises the main topics covered and the number of recommendations made within each theme). Appendix 4 gives a more detailed breakdown of the type of recommendations made under each theme.

Table 8: Types of recommendations made in assessment reports

Theme

Number of recommendations made within this theme (based on 47 cases with consent)

Man’s contact with the child 108%*

Treatment work with the man 43%

Work with children 38%

Work with protective parents/carers on keeping child safe 36%

Accessing broader support to improve wellbeing or parenting skills

36%

Following safeguarding plans 28%

Need for further assessment 13%

Sharing information more widely to manage risk 13%

Managing risk within the family 11%

Actions for police or children’s services 6%

Actions for the man if he forms a new relationship 4%

* Several recommendations could be made about contact for one case


High levels of agreement with report recommendationsNinety-five per cent of recommendations made in assessment reports were agreed by decision makers. Only two recommendations were not agreed. One of these was about the police investigating a historic offence that the man admitted to, but the police did not deem it necessary to do this. The other was a recommendation that the children remained on a child protection plan, but they were put on a child in need plan instead.

Similarly, in the referrer survey, 18 out of 20 referrers (90 per cent) fully agreed with the recommendations made in the assessment report. Referrers gave high ratings for the quality of the recommendations in the report and for the reports helping referrers to make child protection decisions (Appendix 1).

In the interviews, referrers said they felt that the assessment reports gave clear recommendations and presented the evidence in such a way that it made it easy to see how the assessors had reached those conclusions. Referrers were positive about recommendations that were very practical and achievable for families to take on board and made it easy for children’s services or the court to see what actions had to be taken to protect the child.

However, some of the referrers interviewed did not agree with the report recommendations and the referring social worker may have a different view about what was appropriate for the child. Some referrers felt that there were different child protection thresholds between the local authority and the NSPCC; this could leave them feeling that the NSPCC were recommending work that they did not see as a priority given resource constraints.

There were also fairly high levels of agreement with the recommendations in the report from the men and protective parents/carers responding to the survey (Table 9).

Table 9: Proportion of recommendations agreed with in assessment reports

Men Protective parents/carers

All of them 72% 78%

Some of them 22% 17%

None of them 6% 6%

Those who were interviewed often felt that the recommendations reflected issues that had already been discussed in the assessment sessions. It also helped when the recommendations were practical things that the man or protective parent/carer could easily achieve with support from their social worker. However, others did not


agree with the assessors’ view on the risk posed by the man or the recommendations arising from that.

Making decisions as a result of the assessment reportJust over half the referrers responding to the survey (60 per cent) felt that the assessment report determined the actions taken with the family. For the other cases, the assessment report confirmed the actions already suggested from other sources of evidence.

This was confirmed in the referrer interviews, where some referrers said the assessment report did not alter the actions they would have taken anyway, but they felt more confident in making the decision having an independent, detailed report that set out the evidence to support the decision taken.

Other NSPCC reports highlighted new concerns or information that needed addressing. This was often a consequence of the more detailed nature of the NSPCC assessments, which were able to go into more detail about a man’s offending and attitudes towards the allegations. Some assessments also gave new insights about the family history or dynamics. Referrers could find it useful to get a different perspective on the family. In these circumstances, the NSPCC assessment report directly influenced the safeguarding actions taken.

Not all recommendations are implementedAlthough there was a high level of agreement from referrers at the time the recommendations were made, the tracking data showed that six months on only two-thirds of the recommendations had been implemented (Table 10). In some cases, practitioners were not sure if the recommendations had been implemented as they were unable to get an update from the referring social worker.

Table 10: Implementation of report recommendations six-months post-assessmentWere the recommendations implemented?

Yes 68%

No 15%

Don’t know 18%

Seventeen out of 20 (85 per cent) referrers responding to the survey stated that the recommendations in the report would be fully implemented; however, the surveys were sent out one to two months after report completion, so it may be that although the initial commitment was higher, it did not prove practically possible to implement all the recommendations.


The explanations given in the tracking data for recommendations not being implemented show that sometimes this was a decision on the part of children’s services, but could also be down to changes in circumstances for the family assessed. Children’s services had not always carried out further assessments on the man that had been recommended, although in one case the recommendation for a psychological assessment was being considered by the head of service.

For another case, the recommendation for children’s services to investigate the man’s behaviour in previous relationships had been taken forward by the police who agreed to interview other females he had relationships with to inform and identify strategies to manage the man’s risks. It was not always possible to get the man a place on a treatment programme if one was not available locally.

The men had not always accessed counselling if they did not feel that they needed help or did not yet feel ready to seek help. Capacity to protect assessments were sometimes done on different partners if the man had started a new relationship since the assessment. One man had gone into custody since the assessment and so none of the recommendations were implemented. In another case, the man was in the process of moving to a new area so the recommendations would need to be taken up by a different team.

Interviews with referrers showed that sometimes more input would have been useful to help implement the recommendations. Referrers without previous experience of these cases could struggle with putting together ‘contracts of expectation’ with families about what they needed to do to keep the children safe. They would also have welcomed more guidance on carrying out protective behaviours work with children and protective parents/carers. Where referrers had gone back to the NSPCC for further advice or resources they could use to help them do this work, they had found it useful. This shows referrers valued having some input from an independent service. The development of NSPCC prevention centres may provide the ongoing professional support that some referrers would have found helpful.

Accessing further support can be difficultResults from the survey with men and protective parents/carers showed that just over a quarter of men responding had been referred for further help or support, but a lower proportion of protective parents/carers or children were (Table 11). In around a quarter of cases it was too early to say yet whether there would be a referral for further support.


Table 11: Survey respondents who were referred for further supportReferred for further support? Men

Protective parents/carers Children

Yes 27% 14% 12%

No 50% 57% 64%

Too early to say 23% 29% 24%

Men had been referred on to the NSPCC intervention programme, counselling and mental health services. Protective parents/carers had taken part in joint sessions with the child to help build their relationship and educative work. They had also been referred on for further support with sexual abuse, domestic abuse and mental health issues.

In the interviews with men and protective parents/carers it was apparent that not everyone who had been referred for further support had received it. Some were told they were not eligible for the service, and others found there were long waiting lists. For men who had been recommended for treatment, if children’s services would not fund this the men could find the cost too high to fund themselves.


Chapter 5: Changes for families after the assessmentThis chapter looks at changes for families at the end of the assessment as well as progress made one year after the assessment report was completed. Protective parents/carers felt they were more aware of risk and able to protect their child after the assessment. Children and young people felt they knew more about keeping safe, although referrers felt that some would benefit from more input. Contact arrangements remained the same for many of the men assessed and there had been no further children’s service involvement. However, risk levels did increase for some.

Protective parent/carers gain a greater understanding of riskSeventy per cent of referrers responding to the survey felt that the assessment process had made the protective parent/carer more aware of the risk to their child (Appendix 1). Half the referrers also felt the process had made the protective parent/carer more able to protect their child. Where assessments helped protective parents/carers, they did this by:

• increasing their understanding of the man’s behaviour and the risks he presents

• giving them information about how to keep their children safe and feeling more empowered about putting this into practice

• enabling them to reflect more about their own life and open up to staff about their experiences

• increasing their motivation to make changes in their lives.

This was something also reflected by parents/carers:

“thank you; this has made me a stronger person.”


This process could help protective parents/carers to change their view about the risk level posed by the man assessed and support them to feel more able to protect their child.


“she got a lot of educational type stuff out of it and i think it

helped her to be able to say to [the man assessed], it was

easier for her to say to him, ‘Well look this is how it’s going

to be because children’s services have said, or because i’ve

been advised’, or whatever, rather than her being given the

responsibility of boundarying it all, she was supported to do that.”


However, this was not the case for all protective parents/carers involved in the assessments. Referrers report that some protective parents/carers had struggled to engage with the assessment sessions and the material discussed. Others had seemed motivated to change during the assessment, but this quickly reduced once the assessment ended.

Protective parents/carers responding to the survey agreed that the process had helped them to understand more about the risks posed by the man, feel more able to talk to their child about any concerns the child may have and to take action if they had any concerns about risks to their children (Table 12). These ratings were higher than those given by referrers, so it is possible that either referrers were giving a more realistic rating or they were not fully aware of how protective parents/carers felt about the impact of the assessment sessions.

Table 12: Protective parents/carer views on the impact of the assessment


Neither agree nor disagree

Understand more about the possible risk your partner/ex-partner/may be to your child(ren)

59% 26% 15%

Feel more able to talk to your child(ren) about any worries or concerns they may have

59% 26% 15%

Feel more able to take action if you had any concerns about risks to your child(ren) in the future?

59% 26% 15%

The interviews and survey with protective parents/carers found that they felt they had learnt new information about the man’s behaviour, which in some cases changed their view about the allegations made against the man. They had also had more general awareness of sexual abuse and signs that a child may be at risk, along with the actions they needed to take to protect their child(ren).

“We have further meetings to discuss the future of the family. i

am more aware of the issues and implications of offences by my

partner and actions needed to protect my family.”



Children and young people learn more about keeping safeAlmost all the children and young people completing the survey felt they had learnt something new about what to do if they ever felt unsafe as a result of the voice of the child sessions (Appendix 3). Just over three-quarters of young people surveyed (77 per cent) felt that talking to staff had helped them (Appendix 3).

However, only just over half the referrers (53 per cent) responding to the survey felt that the voice of the child sessions had made the child aware of what to do if they felt unsafe (Appendix 1). It is not clear why there are differences in views about whether children and young people are more aware of what to do if they feel unsafe.

Referrers who took part in an interview felt that the voice of the child sessions helped the child to understand more about what had been happening at home and cleared up any areas of confusion for them. It could also help the child learn more about protective behaviours.

“the process was positive for her and she enjoyed the

experience. she felt empowered by it. she gained an

understanding…about keeping herself safe, her own boundaries

and things like that. i did think the one-to-one work with the child

that was done was excellent. i was really impressed with that and

the child actually kept it and was quite proud of it and was able

to talk about all the different things that she’d done so that was

good for her.”


Some teams had done additional work with the child after the voice of the child sessions if they felt this was needed.

“ongoing support provided to the children has been very positive

for them and much needed.”


If the child was getting some benefit from the work with the NSPCC, referrers sometimes felt it would be useful if this could continue after the assessment had finished.

Almost a quarter of protective parents/carers felt their relationship with their child had improved since the assessment process, but for many there had been no change (see summary in Table 13 and full detail in Appendix 2). A higher proportion of men felt that their relationship with the child had improved since the assessment, but


fewer protective parents/carers felt the relationship between the child and men assessed had improved.

Table 13: Changes in relationship with the child since the assessment

Much better

Slightly better

No change

Combined responses for Much worse

and Too early to say

Your relationship with your child(ren)


14% 10% 71% 5%

Men 15% 20% 50% 15%

The relationship between your child(ren) and your partner/ex-partner who was assessed


5% 10% 65% 20%

Progress one year post-assessmentThere were 28 cases where practitioners had been able to follow-up progress with referring social workers twelve months after the assessment report was completed. In just over half the cases (57 per cent), there had been no reason for further contact with the NSPCC or children’s services or the case had been closed by children’s services. While this is a positive that no further allegations had been made or there was no reason for further children’s services involvement, it does not necessarily mean that the man was not engaging in risky behaviour.

Just over a third of cases (36 per cent) were involved in further work with children’s services or treatment, some of which was delivered by the NSPCC. There had been further allegations made against the man in the year post-assessment for two cases. One of these was an allegation of further sexual risk to the child assessed, the other was a conviction for child cruelty for the man assessed, the risk of physical harm having been identified in the assessment report prior the offence being committed. Neither of these men had been involved in further treatment or work since the assessment.

Changes in contact with childrenAt the start of the assessment process, most of the men were planning contact with a named child, but by 12 months post-assessment only just over half of them were having contact with a child (Figure 2). Similarly, over half (58 per cent) were planning to live with a child at the start of the assessment process, but only seven per cent were living


with a child twelve months after the assessment was completed. This showed that a high proportion of men do not get the outcome they were hoping for from the assessment, and was an important contextual issue in explaining the consent rates for the evaluation.

Figure 2: Planned and actual contact levels with children

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0

94%

57% 58%

7%

Planning contact with child at start

of assessment

Having contact with child

12 months post assessment

Planning to live with the child at

start of assessment

Living with child 12 months post

assessment

For just over a third of cases (Table 14), there had been no change in the nature of the man’s contact with children by the time of the 12-month post-assessment follow-up. For a quarter of cases, contact had become more restricted or stopped. This largely reflects the views of men and protective parents/carers at the end of the assessment, although protective parents/carers responding to the survey were more likely to report no change in contact.

Table 14: Change in the nature of the man’s contact with children

Data from 12-month follow-up

Survey respondents – man assessed

Survey respondents –

protective parents/carers

Contact stopped 4% – –

Contact more restricted 21% 15% 13%

No change in contact 36% 45% 61%

Contact less restricted 14% 10% 0%

Don’t know/too early to say 25% 30% 26%

Survey results for men and protective parents/carers gave a similar view on changes in the frequency of the man’s contact with the child. Just under half the respondents reported no change in the frequency of contact (Table 15).


Table 15: Change in the frequency of the man’s contact with children

Survey respondents – man assessed

Survey respondents – protective

parents/carers

Less contact 14% 13%

No change in contact 48% 43%

More contact 14% 9%

Don’t know/too early to say 24% 35%

These results also reflect the length of time that can be taken for decisions to be made or recommendations to be impended, given that many respondents were not sure about contact frequency or felt it was too early to say.

Changes in risk level after the assessmentA small proportion of referrers responding to the survey felt that the assessments had brought about change in the man’s thinking about his behaviour or level of responsibility (Appendix 1). This was also found in the interviews, as referrers felt a much longer input would be needed to bring about change in the men, who could often have deeply set views and behaviours.

For men and protective parents/carers there had been an increased understanding of the reasons professionals had concerns from the assessment process (see summary in Table 16 and full details in Appendix 2), but a smaller number of men had changed their level of agreement about the allegations made against them.

Table 16: Changes in the man’s views about the allegations against him


Neither agree nor

disagree


Disagree, Strongly

disagree and Don’t know

Your level of agreement about the allegations made against you have changed

Men 5% 32% 32% 31%

Understand more about the reasons why professionals may have concerns about the possible risk to your child(ren)


61% 29% 11% 0%

Men 20% 55% 20% 5%


Forty per cent of men responding to the survey felt that there had been some improvement in their relationship with the protective parent/carer since the assessment (Table 17); however, this view was not shared by protective parents/carers, most of whom felt there had been no change in their relationship with the man assessed.

Table 17: views on changes in relationship with partners since the assessment

Much better

Slightly better

No change


Slightly worse, Much worse and Too early to say

Your relationship with your partner/ex-partner who was assessed


4% 0% 70% 26%

Men 35% 5% 35% 20%

The interviews and surveys with men and protective parents/carers showed that some families felt the assessment process had improved their relationship by making them get issues out in the open and be more honest with each other.

“Although no real change in relationship, we have discussed

the assessment process and the events leading to need for

assessment much more than previously. i’m aware of more

avenues for help and support who i can report to.”


Where issues about contact had been resolved, this could help the family to move forward. However, others felt there had been no change for them as a result of the assessment or for some, things deteriorated and relationships had ended.

Changes in risk level 12-months post-assessmentIn a third of the cases where the 12-month follow-up had taken place, there had been a change in the man’s situation that may impact on their overall risk level. In a fifth of cases, risk levels had increased since the assessment had been completed (Table 18).

Table 18: Change in risk level by 12-month follow-up as judged by practitioners

% of cases

Risk increased 20%

No change in risk level 40%

Risk decreased 12%

Don’t know 28%


Where risk levels had increased, the reasons for this were men forming new relationships with vulnerable females and having children with them, further offending or allegations of offending by the man and breaches of contact agreements.

In cases where risk levels had decreased, reasons for this included the man having ended the relationship with the partner and children, the family being more open about their situation and engaging better with professionals, and the protective parent/carer’s mental health having improved.

Some of the men assessed had attended or were still going through the NSPCC intervention programme at the time of the 12-month follow-up. Practitioners felt this had made the men more aware of and more able to self-manage their behaviour and avoid getting into high-risk situations where further allegations could be made. In some cases, practitioners felt this had decreased the man’s risk level. In others, they felt the risk level remained unchanged, but that the process of becoming more aware of their behaviour had still helped the men manage their behaviour.

Practitioners on almost half the cases (49 per cent) felt that the assessment process and report had contributed to the change in risk levels (Table 31).

There were four cases where NSPCC practitioners felt that the man would have benefited from treatment, but there was no treatment service available locally. Where recommendations for further work or support had not been taken forward, this also limited any progress made. Some men also continued to deny their offence throughout the assessment period. However, for some families the motivation to make changes and engage with professionals improved after the assessment process. Practitioners felt there was little more they could have done to increase motivation to change or facilitate access to treatment.


Chapter 6: Conclusion

Despite the difficulties of being involved in assessments, families generally feel well treated by staffOverall, the men, protective parents/carers and children involved in the assessment sessions felt clear about the purpose of the assessment, although young people were not always clear about what would happen next after the sessions. Most also felt well treated by the staff carrying out the assessment. However, men and protective parents/carers could find it difficult talking to staff about personal topics they found embarrassing or having to remember details from their past that they would rather forget. Children and young people could also find it difficult talking to staff, with younger children appearing to find it more difficult to talk to staff about how they felt about the man assessed. Staff recognise how difficult it may be for children to take part, particularly if they are concerned about upsetting their parents. The finding about children feeling that it is difficult to talk to staff is based on a small number of respondents and the absence of interview data from children means it is not possible to know what the nature of the difficulties were and what more could be done to make children feel more comfortable.

Assessment reports help referrers make child protection decisionsReferrers rated the assessment reports as high quality and felt that the detailed information given about the man’s background and family dynamics gave them a greater understanding of the man and the risk posed to the child, so helping them make judgements on the actions needed to protect the child. Referrers also found it useful to have an independent perspective on the family. Sixty per cent of referrers felt that the assessment report determined the actions taken to protect the child. For the remaining cases, the assessment report confirmed the actions already suggested by other sources of evidence, but referrers found it reassuring to have this confirmed in writing by someone independent, giving them greater confidence to make the planned decisions.

The men and protective parents/carers involved in the assessments did not always agree with the report content and how their views had been portrayed. This is not necessarily surprising given the high stakes involved for the families assessed and that they may not have received the outcome they hoped for. Assessment reports should explain the recommendations and conclusions clearly, linking them back to what


the man or protective parent/carer has said and to the man’s known previous behaviours.

Referrers, men and protective parent/carers identified improvements that could be made to the report process. The length of time taken to produce reports could feel too long for the families involved and delay child protection decisions being taken. Referrers had some concerns about the length of reports and how accessible they were for the men and protective parents/carers, who found the reports could be difficult to understand and digest. They could find it difficult to see their history in writing and needed time to process the content, but this was not always possible if the report was not shared with them by the author.

High levels of agreement with report recommendations but they are not always implementedWhen the assessment reports were shared, there was a high level of agreement with the report recommendations from referrers who felt the reports provided clear evidence of how they had arrived at the conclusions and recommendations made. Around three-quarters of the men and protective parents/carers assessed also agreed with the recommendations. They appreciated recommendations that gave clear practical guidance about what they need to do to achieve them.

Six months after the reports had been produced, two-thirds of the report recommendations had been implemented. Sometimes, this was because children’s services had not implemented some of the recommendations, for example seeking further assessments, but other times it was due to a change of circumstances of the family, which meant the recommendations were no longer all relevant.

Sometimes, men and protective parents/carers had been referred on for additional support, for example counselling, but then had not been able to access the service or had decided not to take it up. There could also be difficulties with men accessing treatment programmes if a service was not available locally.

Referrers sometimes requested more help with implementing the recommendations, particularly if it was a piece of work they did not have previous experience of, for example, writing contracts of expectations or doing protective behaviours work with children or protective parents/carers. There were times when the NSPCC had done some additional work with children or protective parents/carers after the assessment and referrers would have welcomed a longer input. The NSPCC ‘Women as Protectors’ programme may help meet some of these gaps, and the development of NSPCC Together


for Childhood Centres may help provide the ongoing professional consultation some referrers would have found helpful.

Assessments can facilitate child protection but will always be limited as they are a snapshot in timeBoth referrers and protective parents/carers felt that the assessment sessions could help protective parents/carers become more aware of the risks posed to their child, by giving them greater insights into the man’s behaviour and the behaviour of those who pose a sexual risk to children. This could help some protective parents/carers to feel more able to take action to protect their child.

Children and young people also reported learning new information about what to do if they felt unsafe and felt the sessions had helped them by having someone to talk to who explained what had been happening at home. However, only just over half of referrers responding to the survey felt that the child was more aware of what to do if they felt unsafe, suggesting that some children may need more input or support.

A year after the assessment, over half the men in the evaluation were no longer in contact with the NSPCC or children’s services and a third were still undergoing further work or treatment. However, there were further allegations against two of the men.

Fewer men were living with or having contact with children than were planning to at the start of the assessment process, suggesting the safeguards around contact that were in place at the start of the assessment were still in place. For just under half the men assessed, there had been no change in levels of contact compared with the start of the assessment.

The assessment is only current at a point in time, and family circumstances can change, which will alter the risk levels. For a third of men, there had been a change in circumstances over the year since the assessment that may impact on their risk level and for a fifth of men their risk had increased.

Using multiple data sources helped overcome the limitations of the evaluationThe evaluation has been limited by the low consent rate to take part and the small sample sizes. However, including a range of different types of evidence giving different stakeholder perspectives has helped give more depth to the available data, highlight differences in view and give a more rounded picture of the assessment process.


Next steps with the serviceThe NSPCC is no longer accepting referrals into the ARPC service. This decision follows a strategic review of all of our programmes and the resources available to deliver them. Consideration was given to ARPC’s fit with our new strategy and the results of this evaluation and it was felt that greater outcomes for children could be achieved through investment in alternative programmes. The learning from the evaluation may be of use to other agencies delivering this type of work.


BibliographyBelton, E. (2015) Assessing the Risk: Protecting the Child – Impact and

evidence briefing. London: NSPCC

Belton, E. (2015) Assessing the Risk: Protecting the Child – referrers’ perspectives. London: NSPCC

Belton, E. (2015) Assessing the Risk: Protecting the Child – views of the man and protective parents/carers assessed. London: NSPCC

Bishop, P. (2015) Ascertaining the wishes and feelings of children. Seen and Heard, Vol.25, Iss.1, pp31–37

Craig, L.A., Browne, K.D, & Beech, A.R. (2008) Assessing risk in sex offenders: a practitioner’s guide. Chichester: Wiley

Fisher, D. & Beech, A. (1998) Reconstituting families after sexual abuse: the offender’s perspective. Child Abuse Review, 7 (6), pp420–434

Hebb, J. (2005) Outside the Frame. Community Care (1554), 6 January, pp32–33

National Crime Intelligence Service (NCIS) (2005) UK threat assessment: the threat from serious and organised crime 2004/5–2005/6. London: National Crime Intelligence Service

NSPCC and Sexual Behaviour Unit (2011) Assessing the Risk – Protecting the Child Practice Guidelines – The Assessment of Men’s Sexual Risk in Child Protection Settings [Unpublished guidelines]. London: NSPCC


App

endi

ces

Ap

pen

dix

1: R

esul

ts fr

om r

efer

rer

surv

ey

Ple

ase

rate

the

last

NS

PC

C a

sses

smen

t rep

ort y

ou s

aw fo

r:

Ver

y G

ood

Good

Nei

ther

good

nor

poor

Poor

Ver

y Poor

Tim

elin

ess

of p

rodu

cing

the

rep

ort

5 (

26%

) 9

(47

%)

3 (1

6%)

2 (1

1%)

0

Bei

ng o

f an

app

ropr

iate

leng

th 8

(40

%)

10 (

50%

)2

(10%

)0

0

Incl

udin

g th

e ri

ght

leve

l of

deta

il11

(55

%)

8 (

40%

)1

(5%

)0

0

Add

ress

ing

the

issue

s th

at y

ou n

eed

answ

erin

g11

(55

%)

9 (

45%

)0

0 0

Tak

ing

acco

unt

of t

he i

ndiv

idua

l chi

ld’s

need

ade

quat

ely

14 (

70%

) 6

(30

%)

0 0

0

Ple

ase

rate

the

last

NS

PC

C a

sses

smen

t rep

ort y

ou s

aw fo

r:

Ver

y G

ood

Good

Nei

ther

good

nor

poor

Poor

Ver

y Poor

Hel

ping

you

und

erst

and

the

risk

s to

the

chi

ld 9

(45

%)

10 (

50%

)1

(5%

)0

0

Hel

ping

you

mak

e a

judg

emen

t ab

out

actio

ns n

eede

d to

pro

tect

the

chi

ld11

(55

%)

8 (

40%

)1

(5%

)0

0

Hel

ping

you

und

erst

and

the

risk

the

man

pos

es t

o th

e ch

ild 9

(45

%)

10 (

50%

)1

(5%

)0

0

Hel

ping

you

mak

e a

judg

emen

t on

app

ropr

iate

tre

atm

ent

or m

anag

emen

t op

tions

for

the

man

7 (

37%

)10

(53

%)

2 (1

1%)

0 0

Hel

ping

you

mak

e a

judg

emen

t ab

out

the

non-

abus

ing

pare

nt/c

arer

’s ca

paci

ty t

o pr

otec

t th

e ch

ild 9

(45

%)

8 (

40%

)2

(10%

)1

(5%

)0

Hel

ping

you

mak

e a

judg

emen

t ab

out

the

supp

ort

need

s of

the

non

-abu

sing

pare

nt/c

arer

9 (

45%

) 7

(35

%)

4 (2

0%)

0 0

The

qua

lity

of r

ecom

men

datio

ns i

n th

e re

port

8 (

40%

)11

(55

%)

1 (5

%)

0 0

The

ove

rall

qual

ity o

f th

e re

port

in

help

ing

you

reac

h ch

ild p

rote

ctio

n de

cisio

ns10

(50

%)

9 (

45%

)1

(5%

)0

0


Had

goi

ng th

roug

h th

e as

sess

men

t mad

e th

e m

en in

volv

ed:

Yes

No

Too e

arly

to s

ayD

on’t k

now

Thi

nk d

iffer

ently

abo

ut t

heir

beh

avio

ur4

(20%

)6

(30%

)7

(35%

)3

(15%

)

Tak

e m

ore

resp

onsib

ility

for

the

ir b

ehav

iour

3 (1

5%)

8 (4

0%)

7 (3

5%)

2 (1

0%)

Mor

e m

otiv

ated

to

chan

ge t

heir

beh

avio

ur2

(10%

)7

(35%

)9

(45%

)2

(10%

)

Had

goi

ng th

roug

h th

e as

sess

men

t pro

cess

mad

e:Y

esN

oT

oo e

arly

to s

ayD

on’t k

now

The

non

-abu

sing

pare

nt/c

arer

mor

e aw

are

of t

he r

isks

to t

heir

chi

ld14

(70

%)

3 (1

5%)

2 (1

0%)

1 (5

%)

The

non

-abu

sing

pare

nt/c

arer

mor

e ab

le t

o pr

otec

t th

eir

child

10 (

50%

)5

(25%

)4

(20%

)1

(5%

)

The

chi

ld a

war

e of

wha

t to

do

if th

ey f

eel u

nsaf

e10

(53

%)

2 (1

1%)

5 (2

6%)

2 (1

1%)


Ap

pen

dix

2: M

en a

nd p

rote

ctiv

e p

aren

t/ca

rer

surv

ey r

esul

ts

How

wel

l did

NS

PC

C s

taff…

Ver

y w

ell

Fai

rly

wel

lN

ot

very

wel

lN

ot

at a

ll w

ell

Don’t k

now

Exp

lain

the

rea

son

for

the

asse

ssm

ent

bein

g ca

rrie

d ou

tPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

33 (

97%

)1

(3%

)0

00

Men

18 (

78%

)5

(22%

)0

00

Exp

lain

how

the

y w

ould

like

to

invo

lve

you

in t

he a

sses

smen

tPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

33 (

97%

)1

(3%

)0

00

Men

19 (

83%

)4

(17%

)0

00

Exp

lain

how

the

y w

ould

like

to

invo

lve

your

chi

ldre

n in

the

ass

essm

ent

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er19

(79

%)

2 (8

%)

00

3 (1

3%)

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Exp

lain

how

the

y w

ould

use

any

inf

orm

atio

n yo

u ga

ve t

hem

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er30

(88

%)

4 (1

2%)

00

0

Men

20 (

87%

)3

(13%

)0

00


Dur

ing

the

asse

ssm

ent:

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

NPS

CC

sta

ff m

ade

you

feel

wel

com

e w

hen

you

cam

e to

app

oint

men

tsPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

30 (

91%

)3

(9%

)0

0 0

0

Men

15 (

65%

)6

(26%

)1

(4%

)1

(4%

)0

0

NSP

CC

sta

ff tr

eate

d yo

u w

ith r

espe

ctPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

31 (

91%

)3

(9%

)0

0 0

0

Men

16 (

70%

)5

(22%

)1

(4%

)1

(4%

)0

0

NSP

CC

sta

ff ke

pt y

ou i

nfor

med

abo

ut w

hat

wou

ld h

appe

n ne

xtPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

28 (

82%

)6

(18%

)0

0 0

0

Men

14 (

61%

)8

(35%

)1

(4%

)0

00

You

fel

t co

mfo

rtab

le t

alki

ng t

o st

aff

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er22

(69

%)

10 (

31%

)0

0 0

0

Men

11 (

48%

)8

(35%

)2

(9%

)2

(9%

)0

0

You

fel

t ab

le t

o be

ope

n an

d ho

nest

with

sta

ffPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

25 (

74%

)8

(24%

)0

1 (3

%)

00

Men

14 (

61%

)9

(39%

)0

0 0

0

You

fel

t N

SPC

C s

taff

liste

ned

to y

our

view

sPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

25 (

74%

)8

(24%

)1

(3%

)0

00

Men

13 (

57%

)8

(35%

)1

(4%

)1

(4%

)0

0


Sin

ce r

eadi

ng th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort,

to w

hat e

xten

t do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e…Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

Con

tent

of

the

asse

ssm

ent

repo

rtPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

7 (4

1%)

9 (5

3%)

0 0

0 1

(6%

)

Men

4 (2

4%)

10 (

59%

)2

(12%

)0

1 (6

%)

0

Way

you

r vi

ews

have

bee

n re

pres

ente

d in

the

rep

ort

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er8

(44%

)9

(50%

)0

00

1 (6

%)

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Way

the

vie

ws

of y

our

child

(ren

) ha

ve b

een

repr

esen

ted

in t

he r

epor

tPr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

5 (5

0%)

2 (2

0%)

0 0

0 3

(30%

)

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

As

a re

sult

of g

oing

thro

ugh

the

asse

ssm

ent p

roce

ss a

nd s

eein

g th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort,

has

ther

e be

en a

ny c

hang

e in

…

Much

bet

ter

Sligh

tly

bet

ter

No c

han

ge

Slightly

wors

eM

uch

wors

eT

oo e

arly

to

say

You

r re

latio

nshi

p w

ith y

our

part

ner/

ex-p

artn

er w

ho w

as

asse

ssed

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er1

(4%

)0

16 (

70%

)1

(4%

)0

5 (2

2%)

Men

7 (3

5%)

1 (5

%)

7 (3

5%)

2 (1

0%)

1 (5

%)

2 (1

0%)

You

r re

latio

nshi

p w

ith y

our

child

(ren

) Pr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

3 (1

4%)

2 (1

0%)

15 (

71%

)0

0 1

(5%

)

Men

3 (1

5%)

4 (2

0%)

10 (

50%

)0

1 (5

%)

2 (1

0%)

The

rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n yo

ur c

hild

(ren

) an

d yo

ur

part

ner/

ex-p

artn

er w

ho w

as a

sses

sed

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er1

(5%

)2

(10%

)13

(65

%)

0 0

4 (2

0%)

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


Ple

ase

rate

whe

ther

sin

ce th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort w

as w

ritte

n yo

u…Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

Und

erst

and

mor

e ab

out

the

poss

ible

risk

you

r pa

rtne

r/ex

-par

tner

may

be

to y

our

child

(ren

)Pr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

16 (

59%

)7

(26%

)4

(15%

)0

0 0

You

r le

vel o

f ag

reem

ent

abou

t th

e al

lega

tions

mad

e ag

ains

t yo

u ha

ve c

hang

edM

en1

(5%

)6

(32%

)6

(32%

)1

(5%

)1

(5%

)4

(21%

)

Und

erst

and

mor

e ab

out

the

reas

ons

why

pro

fess

iona

ls m

ay h

ave

conc

erns

abo

ut t

he p

ossib

le r

isk t

o yo

ur

child

(ren

)

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er17

(61

%)

8 (2

9%)

3 (1

1%)

0 0

0

Men

4 (2

0%)

11 (

55%

)4

(20%

)0

1 (5

%)

0

Feel

mor

e ab

le t

o ta

lk t

o yo

ur c

hild

(ren

) ab

out

any

wor

ries

or

conc

erns

the

y m

ay h

ave

Prot

ectiv

e pa

rent

/car

er16

(59

%)

7 (2

6%)

4 (1

5%)

0 0

0

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Feel

mor

e ab

le t

o ta

ke a

ctio

n if

you

had

any

conc

erns

ab

out

risk

s to

you

r ch

ild(r

en)

in t

he f

utur

ePr

otec

tive

pare

nt/c

arer

16 (

59%

)7

(26%

)4

(15%

)0

0 0

Men

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


Ap

pen

dix

3: S

urve

y re

sults

for

child

ren

and

you

ng p

eop

leS

urve

y re

sults

for

child

ren

A lot

Quite

a bit

A little

Not

at a

llD

on’t k

now

Did

you

enj

oy c

omin

g to

tal

k to

sta

ff at

the

NSP

CC

? 7

(50

%)

2 (1

4%)

2 (1

4%)

1 (7

%)

2 (1

4%)

Did

sta

ff lis

ten

to w

hat

you

had

to s

ay?

10 (

71%

)2

(14%

)1

(7%

)0

1 (7

%)

Did

sta

ff ex

plai

n w

hat

wou

ld h

appe

n ne

xt a

fter

you

had

talk

ed t

o th

em?

6 (

43%

)3

(21%

)2

(14%

)1

(7%

)2

(14%

)

Did

you

lear

n an

ythi

ng n

ew a

bout

wha

t to

do

if yo

u ev

er f

eel u

nsaf

e? 4

(67

%)

2 (3

3%)

0 0

0

Did

you

lear

n an

ythi

ng n

ew a

bout

wha

t to

do

if yo

u ev

er f

eel u

nsaf

e at

hom

e? 6

(75

%)

1 (1

3%)

1 (1

3%)

0 0

Ver

y Eas

yQ

uite

easy

Not

that

eas

yN

ot

at a

ll ea

syD

on’t k

now

How

eas

y di

d yo

u fin

d it

to t

alk

to s

taff

at t

he N

SPC

C?

3 (3

3%)

2 (2

2%)

1 (1

1%)

0 3

(33%

)

How

eas

y di

d yo

u fin

d it

to t

alk

to s

taff

at t

he N

SPC

C a

bout

how

you

fee

l abo

ut

your

dad

?2

(25%

)0

3 (3

8%)

3 (3

8%)

0


Sur

vey

resu

lts fo

r yo

ung

peo

ple

Whe

n yo

u ca

me

to s

ee s

taff

at th

e N

SP

CC

, did

they

:Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

Mak

e yo

u fe

el w

elco

me?

4 (4

0%)

6 (6

0%)

0 0

0 0

Exp

lain

why

the

y w

ante

d to

tal

k to

you

?4

(40%

)6

(60%

)0

00

0

Ans

wer

any

que

stio

ns y

ou h

ad a

bout

wha

t w

as h

appe

ning

with

you

r da

d/th

e m

an li

ving

with

you

or

com

ing

to li

ve w

ith y

ou?

4 (4

0%)

4 (4

0%)

1 (1

0%)

00

1 (1

0%)

Exp

lain

if

any

info

rmat

ion

you

tell

them

will

be

shar

ed w

ith o

ther

peo

ple?

4

(40%

)3

(30%

)0

00

3 (3

0%)

Exp

lain

wha

t w

ould

hap

pen

afte

r yo

u ca

me

to t

alk

to t

hem

?4

(40%

)3

(30%

)0

01

(10%

)2

(20%

)

Whe

n yo

u m

et w

ith N

SP

CC

sta

ff, d

id y

ou:

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

Feel

com

fort

able

tal

king

to

them

?5

(56%

)2

(22%

)1

(11%

)1

(11%

)0

0

Feel

tha

t st

aff

liste

ned

to w

hat

you

had

to s

ay?

5 (5

6%)

4 (4

4%)

0 0

00

Feel

abl

e to

tel

l the

m h

ow y

ou f

elt

abou

t yo

ur d

ad/t

he m

an li

ving

with

you

or

com

ing

to li

ve w

ith y

ou?

7 (7

8%)

1 (1

1%)

0 1

(11%

)0

0

Feel

abl

e to

tel

l the

m a

bout

how

saf

e yo

u ar

e fe

elin

g at

hom

e?7

(78%

)1

(11%

)0

1 (1

1%)

00

Sin

ce y

ou c

ame

to ta

lk to

sta

ff at

the

NS

PC

C:

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeN

eith

er a

gre

e nor

dis

agre

eD

isag

ree

Str

ongly

dis

agre

eD

on’t k

now

Do

you

thin

k ta

lkin

g to

sta

ff ha

s he

lped

you

?4

(44%

)3

(33%

)0

1 (1

1%)

01

(11%

)

Hav

e yo

u le

arnt

any

thin

g ne

w a

bout

wha

t to

do

if yo

u fe

el u

nsaf

e at

hom

e?7

(78%

)1

(11%

)0

1 (1

1%)

00

Do

you

have

mor

e id

eas

abou

t w

ho y

ou c

ould

tal

k to

if

you

felt

wor

ried

or

unsa

fe i

n th

e fu

ture

?5

(56%

)4

(44%

)0

0 0

0

Do

you

feel

bet

ter

abou

t th

ings

at

hom

e sin

ce y

ou h

ave

com

e to

see

NSP

CC

st

aff?

5 (5

6%)

4 (4

4%)

00

00


Appendix 4: Recommendations made in assessment reports

Recommendations

Number of times recommendation

made

The man’s contact with children

• No unsupervised contact with named children

• No unsupervised contact with any children

• No contact to take place with named child

• Man not to reside in family home

• Man can return home with unsupervised contact

• Contact can resume

• Specific behaviours man must not do when caring for children

• Specific actions for man to try when caring for children

• Specific actions to be taken if children’s friends visit

• Named people not recommended to supervise contact

25

5

2

5

3

2

2

3

2

2

Following safeguarding plans

• Safety plan to be followed

• No change to child protection plan can be supported

• Continue child in need plan

7

5

1

Managing risk within the family

• No sexualised environment at home

• Use of PC to be restricted at home

• Man to communicate his whereabouts with partner when he has unsupervised contact

• Other family members told concerning behaviours should be reported to the police, NSPCC or children’s services

• Family to safeguard child from other negative factors and individuals

1

1

1

1

1

Accessing broader support to improve wellbeing or parenting support

• Man/protective parent/carer should access counselling

• Man to contact GP regarding anxiety and depression

• Man/protective parent/carer to have parenting classes/support

• Man to get more input on child development and safeguarding

• Man to expand his social activities

• Man to broaden his search for work

5

3

5

1

2

1

Work with protective parents to keep children safe

• Carry out an ability to protect on named carers

• Educative input for protective parent/carer needed

• Protective parent/carer to be involved in lifelong safety plan

13

3

1

Work with children

• Carry out voice of the child work

• Keep safe work with the child

• Consider the changing needs of the children as they grow up

• Give child information about their Dad and why contact is supervised

• Put school support in place so child can talk about any worries

• Information about the offence to be shared with children as they reach an appropriate age

12

2

1

1

1

1


Recommendations

Number of times recommendation

made

Treatment work with the man

• Man to access treatment for sexual offending

• Man to work on anger/violence issues

• Man needs support to work on emotional issues

15

3

2

Further assessment

• Psychological assessment to be undertaken of the man

• Psychological assessment to be undertaken of the protective parent/carer

• Children’s services to explore man’s behaviour in other relationships

4

1

1

Sharing information more widely to manage risk

• Current partner to be fully informed of concerns about the man

• Children’s services to consider how to share the report with other family members

• Church to be informed of issues

• School to be involved in monitoring child’s behaviour and sharing concerns

2

2

1

1

Actions for man if he forms a new relationship

• Man to inform professional of any new relationships

• Man to disclose allegations in any new relationships

1

1

Actions for police or children’s services

• Police to interview man about historic offences that he admitted to but for which there is no conviction

• Local authority to see a finding of fact against the man

• Local authority to review the appropriateness of current contact arrangements

1

1

1

www.nspcc.org.ukRegistered charity numbers 216401 and sc037717.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk

assessing the risk, protecting the child: final …...• this final evaluation report summarises...

Documents