Children of prisoners - maintaining family ties

Appendix 1: Local safeguarding board questionnaire results

This appendix sets out the full responses received from boards for each question. The questionnaire was circulated in February 2007, with a closing date for returns of 31st March 2007.

Question 1: Does your local safeguarding children board have a role in identifying and supporting children and families of prisoners?

• Yes (5), Yes, but (1), No (21), Not yet (2), Not answered (2).

Question 1a. If yes, please describe your role.

• Six respondents indicated that this is not a discrete group of children and that children would be treated as ‘children in need’ through use of assessment tools such as the CAF, initial assessment or core assessment.
• One board indicated they have a clear role around assessment in relation to some contacts taking place in prison, either on the request of the court or prison governors.
• One board indicated that its members are in the process of devising the 2007/08 work plan. The board will now have the scope and opportunity to table in a discussion around children of prisoners and, if appropriate, this area of work will be located within one of the existing sub-groups. 
• Several boards that answered 'no' indicated that there is no current role but there are plans to look at developing systems, as a result of the exercise undertaken to complete this document, for monitoring and identifying children and families of prisoners who may require support. This does not mean that these services necessarily need to be provided by the statutory agencies.
• The Probation Service OASys system does not produce this data, but only captures children who are at risk from offenders.
• The LSCB coordinates the effectiveness of how all agencies work to safeguard children and young people which will include support for children and families of prisoners.
• Two boards said that the local safeguarding board in itself does not have a role but individual members of the board do. The board may take a strategic role in ensuring that agencies are working together to promote the welfare of children of prisoners and set local priorities for inter-agency working. There may also be a role for the board to have the data reported to them on a regular basis.
• Children’s social care may be involved with a family depending on the circumstances. With the establishment of multi-agency locality teams it may be appropriate to explore the support offered to families in this situation through universal services.
• In one response the LSCB, in conjunction with the probation service and the Children and Young People’s Partnership (children’s trust), arranged a series of training events and held a conference. These occasions helped to raise awareness of the needs of children and families of prisoners and work is continuing to be done to maintain awareness through linking the needs of these children and families to the LSCB business plan and the Stay Safe element of the Children and Young People’s Plan.
• One board has a representative for the prisons, and another indicated the family and support pathway of the Reducing Re-offending action plan, a regional document, is considering this area.

Question 2: Does the safeguarding board record how many children in the authority have a parent or carer in prison?

• Yes (0), No (30), Not yet (1), Not answered (1).

Question 2a. If yes, what system is used to record data, and how many children were recorded in the last 12 months?

• This does not happen yet, but the LSCB is planning to collate this information as part of the LSCB 07/08 Performance Management Framework
• The only information available is on care leavers. There is an internal system of weekly reporting on where young people are living and whether they are parents or carers. We also do a return on a young person’s nineteenth birthday about their accommodation status.
• Note the probation service’s OASys assessment tool only records children of prisoners if there is a relevant issue regarding the offence, such as Schedule 1 status.

Question 2b. If no, do you have any other way of knowing how many children might be affected?

• The individual needs of children and young people who become subject of National Assessment Framework or core assessment or those subject to a Child Protection Plan as well as those looked after or subject to a supervision order, will be reflected in their planning and reviewing cycle. Where a parent is in prison, this will feature in the assessment and planning process.
• Data is not aggregated about children and young people who have a parent in prison.
• The probation service would be the key agency to inform us of issues of concern relating to the children of prisoners.
• There is no systematic way in which the department records this information. However, if required the information can be ascertained and accessed through the ICT system that is currently in place. 
• The National Offender Management Service refers on any children who they identify as having needs as a result of their parent’s imprisonment.

Question 3. Do you know how many children of prisoners are in your area at present?

• Yes, through manual check (1), No (27), Not yet (2), Not answered (2).
• This information is held by local teams and is yet to be collated centrally.
• LSCB does not currently collate this information but is proposing to measure in the future.
• No, but it is possible to find out.

Question 4. Do you have any processes in place for monitoring and assessing if maintaining familty ties is appropriate for the looked after children of prisoners?

• Yes (21), No (9), Not sure, but (1), Not answered (1).

Question 4a. If yes, how do you make sure access arrangements take place?

• The majority of the responses that came in for this question all indicated that there is a statutory requirement to promote contact insofar as this is compatible with the interests of the child. This would be monitored through looked after children’s reviews and if there are not satisfactory arrangements in place there are a number of systems to take issues forward.
• Arrangements will be made by social workers and managers with the relevant prison for either letter, telephone or direct contact. It is the responsibility of the child’s social worker who arranges escort and transport.
• These arrangements are monitored by independent reviewing officers who check that appropriate family ties are maintained including where relevant family members are in prison.
• Another response said this is facilitated through a good relationship with a number of prisons.
• One respondent noted there is an independent advocacy service, which supports young people to ensure that they can have contact with parents who are in prison.
• One response indicated that child protection procedures and operational guidance require workers to undertake a risk assessment when requested by prison staff.

Question 5. Do you have a service level agreement (or equivalent) with the police service and/or probabtion service about what happens when a child has a parent arrested?

• Yes (3), No (21), No, but (6), Not answered (1).

Question 5a. If yes, what is the process?

• There is a ‘crack house protocol’ for when a suspected drugs premises is raided, which includes guidance around dealing with children on the premises.
• This subject matter will be taken to the appropriate heads of services for further consideration.
• If the child was abandoned as a result of the arrest, children’s services would be contacted to make arrangements for the care of the child.
• We have a local agreement and sound relationships with our Metropolitan Police Child Abuse Investigation Team both locally and centrally.
• No, but where there is risk to a child or a child with no suitable care arrangement, under existing LSCB children in need processes a referral would be made to children’s social care. There are good working relationships with police and probation locally.
• There is a protocol in place for safeguarding children when a parent is arrested, in terms of urgent response through the emergency duty team within children’s services.
• If it is a planned arrest and the police are aware that there are children in the household they will contact the service in advance. If this becomes apparent during an arrest they contact the duty team.
• Not sure if formal protocol exists but incorporated into London probation safeguarding children policy.
• Police will usually liaise with children’s social care in advance if they know children are likely to be in a household where they will be arresting the carers/parents. Children’s social care would attend to ensure the children were placed safely until parents or carer could resume looking after their children. This information is not always available. If children come to the police’s attention as a result of an unexpected arrest developing then they would liaise with the local assessment team or out of hours to the emergency duty team to ensure the children had appropriate support. These situations are relatively rare.

Question 5b. What works well?

• In general, if parents are arrested, police will contact the duty desk in children’s services.
• The police will always notify us of any pending arrest wherever possible and a discussion will take place to ensure we explore the needs of any children. When an arrest is made we work closely with the police to again ensure that the children’s needs are met and that the process is as smooth as possible with minimal disruption to children.
• The Offender Management Service only deals with those prisoners receiving a sentence of 12 months or more. Information-sharing arrangements prohibit ‘speculative’ information-sharing. Parents retain a choice as to whether information about their circumstances is shared. A generalised approach would not seem possible.
• Good liaisons with the police exist and are facilitated by an accessible and responsive detective inspector.
• Being a geographically small authority the networks work well.
• During out-of-hours both police and emergency duty staff can be at a premium in which case there have been delays in responding.

Question 5c. If no, what obstacles prevent an agreement being put in place?

• The Offender Management Service only deals with those prisoners receiving a sentence of 12 months or more. Information-sharing arrangements prohibit ‘speculative’ information-sharing. Parents retain a choice as to whether information about their circumstances is shared. A generalised approach would not seem possible.
• During out-of-hours both police and emergency duty staff can be at a premium in which case there have been delays in responding.
• There is a lack of coordination in the police service. We liaise, but the service is not joined up.
• It is not always possible to pre-empt an arrest and sometimes events overtake planning.
• It would need a clear policy about respective roles and thresholds. A parent going into prison may not, as matter of course, require intervention or support if there is another suitable parent or carer still at home.
• The LSCB has conflicting priorities and only now is it moving from its core responsibility of child protection to its wider safeguarding remit.

Question 6. Have your social work staff/care managers had training in liaising with prisons to secure appropriate visits for children to see a parent or carer?

• Yes (3), No (29).

Question 6a. If yes, what sort of training and from whom?

• Children’s social care provides a comprehensive training programme including effective multi-agency working.  A multi-agency trainer provides the training. The social workers also have regular supervision by their line manager in line with the council’s employment development programme. The frequency is monitored. The supervisory relationship is an effective mechanism for training and coaching staff.
• The safeguarding group manager is responsible for this and has undertaken training in the past via previous area child protection committee training programme.
• Staff have had extensive experience of liaising with prisons on a case by case basis. Responses vary tremendously from prison to prison.
• Social workers have not received formal training in relation to liaising with prisons to secure appropriate visits for children to see their parent or carer. However, workers are encouraged to share their knowledge, skills and experiences within informal setting such as team meetings and peer group meetings. Workers are able to transfer and draw upon their acquired social work skills knowledge and experience when working with children of parents in prison.  
• No, but the appropriateness of visits is integral to planning for any child with a parent in prison.

Question 7. Have your social work staff/care managers had experience of liaising with prisons to secure appropriate visits for children to see a parent or carer?

• Yes (25), Yes, but no details (1), No (6).

Question 7a. If yes, what sort of experience?

• Several responses indicated this is on a case-by-case basis for looked after children or occasionally children in need. Social work staff/care managers have had the experience of liaising, organising and assisting with the arrangement and management of prison visits for children to see a parent or carer. This can be in conjunction with a foster carer.
• One replied that work takes place with NOMS as necessary.
• For one LSCB, the safeguarding group manager has established a good relationship with various prisons and established good communication channels.
• Some have requested visiting orders for young people and on occasions accompanied young people on the visit.
• There is a whole range of experiences, dependent on the nature of the prison, age of the child. An issue of concern is more about the process around the arrival at prison and getting into the visiting room. Various experiences around capacity to have closed contact sessions and not to have to use open sessions
• Normally through contacting the prison probation officer or governor to arrange.
• This might well occur in specific cases but would not be a standard experience for the staff group, certainly not frequent enough to justify a specific training programme.
• They have been requested and have undertaken risk assessments on an infrequent basis.
• The prisons we deal with will inform us if a request has been made for a prisoner to have contact with a child. We will then assess if it’s appropriate and at what level.          
• There is no formal agreement of protocol in place to support this.

Question 8. Are you able to support/advise foster carers to enable them to help the children in their care maintain (if appropriate) family ties with a parent in prison?

• Yes (24), Yes but no information supplied (4), No (2), Not answered (2).

Question 8a. If yes, what resources are used?

• Thirteen respondents indicated that this would be a role for the foster care workers/social workers who support, assist and advise foster carers to enable them to help the children in their care maintain family ties with parent in prison. This is done by a range of methods and on a case by case basis, depending on the age and ability of the child.
• By contacting relevant prison and determining arrangements.
• Training programmes for foster carers include the importance of maintaining appropriate family ties.
• Training via the safeguarding board as well as in-house foster care training and support groups
• Both the family placement link worker and the child’s social worker will address needs of carers in relation to providing explanations to the child.
• In general it is social workers who do liaison. It would be difficult to get foster carers to visit prison.
• Advice, materials and encouragement.
• Foster carers would be supported to facilitate contact if appropriate, however, there are no specific training materials in place.
• We have a foster carer who is an experienced prison officer who could advise carers and offer support. As yet we have had no requests or experience of maintaining these ties.
• If this role is identified in a looked after children’s review then support will be provided by a family placement social worker.
• The link and key workers for the carers/ child in placement would be expected to find and communicate information in this respect and ensure the carers and looked after child (LAC) received appropriate support for this.
• Nothing specific but contact would always be discussed at a Looked After Children review and we would be mindful of the issue.
• Managed on an individual case basis by the worker involved. No formal agreement of protocol in place to support this and no formal training provided.
• In appropriate cases, fostering officers support foster carers in promoting contact through correspondence, phone calls and (although rarely) visits.
• Individual case planning and support where it appropriate for the foster carer to undertake this task. We would also look to see if a family member could do this or in some cases another worker.

Question 9. Do social workers/care managers have involvement with the family in the planning for release?

• Yes (24), No (7), Not answered (1).

Question 9a. If yes, can you give us an example?

• Ten responses indicated that support would only be offered if the child was looked after and part of a family system that was actively being worked with. This would  involve a social work visit to prison before release to discuss contact arrangements post release; liaising with foster carers, family and children about how best this can be managed.
• Having a parent incarcerated would not, per se, guarantee involvement from social care teams.
• Twelve responses referred to risk management and the Multi-agency Public Protection Panel arrangement where individual cases are discussed with police, probation, children’s services and other relevant agencies. These arrangements apply in relation to high levels of risk.
• One example was of a woman who was imprisoned for leaving her children home alone for a lengthy period. The children were the subject of interim care orders and the mother imprisoned for one year. On her release the plan was for a residential family assessment to assess parenting skills. This is ongoing.
• To an extent – this is not always possible due to the difficult relationship we sometimes have with families who do not always welcome our involvement or support.          
• Probation/the prison notify children’s social care and where there are issues of risk children’s social care and possibly the police would liaise re planning. This may be under the auspices of MAPPA where the subject is a registered sex offender.
• Yes, when release back to the family address is being considered for those in prison for offences against children.
• Liaising with prison and probation, agreeing a plan of action and support; assisting with accommodation if necessary.
• Risk assessment and management issues in relation to persons who pose a risk of harm to children/family - for example, sex offender, domestic violence perpetrator. More generally in preparing child for release of parent and exploring/negotiating contact issues.
• Probation would also have a role in supporting the family and checking the welfare of the children of discharged prisoners and referring to other children’s services for assessment, support or intervention as required.

Question 10. Do you offer support to the familiy once the parent of carer has been released?

• Yes (22), No (5), Not answered (5).

Question 10a. If yes, what sort of support is offered?

1. Again, responses indicated that this would only happen if the child was looked after by the local authority, and if the care plan identified this as a need for intervention. Otherwise the child would receive the universal service provided, such as early years. Sure Start children’s centres, health, school and the voluntary sector.
2. The common assessment framework (CAF) could be used as a tool to refer a child in need assessment of a higher level of intervention if required.
3. Any support would be based upon the willingness of the parent/carer and an assessment of the circumstances of the family in relation to our threshold criteria.
4. Practical support can be offered, such as advice on accommodation, arranging contact, ongoing therapy and assessment.

Question 11. Do you think there are gaps in provision for children and families of prisoners?

• Not sure (3), Yes (25), No (0), Not answered (3).

Question 11a. If yes, what do you think the issues are?

• Awareness-raising with social workers. The need to recognise the possible impact of  the imprisonment of a parent on children.
• Information about support available and more focus on the child rather than offender.
• Prisons not always fully aware of the requirements for assessment and notification in relation to adults who are a risk to children.
• No support for prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months.
• No legal basis for involvement and no government guidance.
• No voluntary sector provision in the area, that may be more acceptable to the families. Would families want social care involvement?
• Barriers to contact, such as the difficulty getting through to prisons and arranging contact  and visits, lack of child-centred and family-friendly facilities away from main prison, pleasant rooms with toys, access, distance from home, flexible contact/visiting arrangements.
• Help for prisoners to write to their children.
• Clearly a child may well have additional needs that could be supported via group work with peers or via family work or individual work. However the resource implications of this are extensive.
• There is no clear responsibility for these children – they are only identified if the prison staff raise issues and are not automatically considered to be children in need.
• The feedback from this research may have an impact upon this and also when start monitoring numbers as part of LSCB Performance Management Framework.
• Sometimes the issue does not fit the criteria for assessment under the CAF but the family need support with that issue and we don’t have the resources to help them.
• Difficult to get data to effectively manage and plan services.
• The cross-boundary issue can make communication difficult.
• Lack of understanding of the impact on children such as stigmatising by peers.
• Children of prisoners are not being considered as a vulnerable group, as part of strategic planning.
• Identifying suitable times for visits which do not require children missing school.
• Given the high demand for children’s social care services children with parents in prison rarely receive additional support unless there are other factors impacting on their welfare or safety.
• Particular issues for expectant mothers and those with babies or very young children from whom they are separated.
• Procedures on initial risk assessment and information-sharing by the police and probation.
• Children of prisoners are automatically children in need but they may need an assessment by universal health and education services to see if they need additional assessment or support form a specialist agency.
• Prisons not always fully aware of the requirements for assessment and notification in relation to adults who are a risk to children.

Question 11b. Where do the greatest problems lie?

• Lack of awareness.
• The problem is systemic.
• The insufficient resources available to local social care agencies.
• bureaucracy, resources and identification.
• Information about numbers of children affected and support available.
• Establishing whether help is needed.
• Capacity to meet need.
• Repeated short term sentences for some less serious offenders are hugely disruptive for some children.
• Information systems.
• Trying to be inclusive to parent in prison, for example, copying them into information and correspondence, child’s school reports etc.
• Having child-friendly facilities within prison.
• I think this comes back to communication and information-sharing at all levels and within each agency but also the continuing need to prioritise cases due to increasing workloads and referrals.
• Around the complexity of visiting and the movement of prisoner around the system.
• Competing agendas for LSCB.
• Clearly, the more that people are imprisoned, the greater the consequences for children.
• Prison overcrowding has consequences for the frequency and quality of direct contact.
• We have no evidence that the system of identification and referral by schools and health is not working, but it is not clear that we will always know which children are the children of prisoners as there are human rights and data protection issues here, as well as possible vulnerable children, or children in need or child protection issues.
• It is only those children at the higher thresholds of concern that would be the responsibility of social care.

Question 12. What sort of product or tool might be helpful for you and your staff in your work with children of prisoners?

• These children should be dealt with via assessment processes for any child in need such as CAF, initial assessment etc.
• A guide/guidelines for social work practitioners and other professionals around supporting and dealing with children of prisoners will be helpful.
• Full implementation of the Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan. In particular Pathway 6 – Children and families of offenders.
• Training resource pack for use in multi-agency training, using both theoretical material and real life issues from prisoners and their families.
• Clear designated contact persons in prison.
• Child-friendly facilities.
• Creative use of technology such as videos, DVDs and tapes to facilitate contact.
• A pack for children that is age-appropriate, to leave with carers or to use by professionals
• information-sharing protocol to inform the local authority of which children are affected, although we may not have the resources to respond, especially in the light of our growing prison population.
• Material to raise awareness in schools and social care teams that a child will have additional support needs by virtue of the fact that a parent is in prison would be helpful. Rather than stimulating additional referrals to social care however, it would be helpful for materials to include practical advice for example to teachers on how to raise the issue with a child.
• We need to improve the sharing of information with schools and also to provide guidance to schools regarding how to record children’s visits to prisons.
• Materials to be used with younger children explaining about prison and impact.
• Guidance which sets out the issues to be considered so that staff have an ‘aide memoire’ to prompt them when dealing with a child whose parent or carer is in prison.
• Proactive work with prisons preparing for release.
• Improved communication and liaison.
• A set of standards, multi-agency procedure/protocol and a data collection tool to enable the LSCB to monitor circumstances.
• Joint protocol with police and probation on release of prisoners and planning for children.
• There are already a number of tools/training and skills that social workers possess that relate to understanding the needs, wishes and feelings of the child that would be transferable to this situation. The issue may be more for unqualified staff or perhaps staff in probation who are less familiar with working directly with children.
• As with parents who have mental health or substance misuse problems, some child-centred information and storybooks might help.
• Training to increase an awareness of the issues.
• Information on how the needs of children of prisoners are assessed in prisons and by the police and probation at the various stages of the criminal justice system.
• Clear assessment and referral pathways.

Question 13. Do you know of any good practice models elsewhere?

• The vast majority said they were unaware of any models.
• Video-conferencing.
• Web cameras to assist communication and reduce the need to visit prisons.
• High-security psychiatric hospitals have a well-developed system for assessing and supervising all child contacts within the community and hospital.
• NSPCC has done work with prisons on child protection procedures.

Question 14: Would you be willing to get involved in this project to inform its development and comment on progress?

• Yes (15), No (15), Already involved elsewhere (1), Not answered (1).

Question 15. Do you have other comments?

• We are a fairly small authority so the numbers of families who are already known to us for other reasons and who become ‘prisoners’ families’ is fairly small.
• The main focus will be with the ‘clusters’ i.e. our tier 1 and 2 services  rather than ‘traditional’ social services.
• In practice the LSCBs do not undertake these sorts of activities and responsibilities. They fall to operational services such probation and children’s social care services (who might have been a better source of information?).
• Completing this made me realise how little I know about this subject and what a low priority it has.
• Local Young Offender Team involved with a regional Southwest offender management service and will reflect on this research and how it might inform its activity.
• The Reducing Re-offending Action Plan (RRAP) Group, whilst endorsed by the LSCB, continues to work on the periphery.  It would be useful, therefore, if guidance could be issued nationally to ensure closer relationships exist between this work and the remits of LSCBs and children’s trusts.  This would ensure consistency of approach across LSCBs in the country.
• There is an issue around carer’s assessments and need to identify unmet need and support to parents who become single parents for a period of time.

Question 16. Would you like to receive a copy of the project report when completed?

• Yes (31), No (0), Not answered (1).