Research Brief

DCSF-RBX-09-13
November 2009

ORGANISATION, OUTCOMES AND COSTS OF INTER-AGENCY TRAINING

FOR SAFEGUARDING AND PROMOTING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN
Professor John Carpenter (Research Director), Dr Eszter Szilassy and Dr Demi Patsios
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol
Professor Simon Hackett, School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University

Introduction

Lord Laming’s progress report on The Protection of Children in England (2009)i considered that:

Multi-agency training is important in helping professionals understand the respective roles and
responsibilities and the procedures of each agency involved in child protection, in developing a joint
understanding of assessment and decision making practices, and in learning from Serious Case
Reviews. However, the scale and quality of multi-agency training needs to be substantially improved
(5.18).

It is the responsibility of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) to ensure that single-agency and
inter-agency (or multi-agency) training in safeguarding and promoting welfare is provided in order to meet
local needs (paragraph 3.22, Working Together). This study investigated the training provided by eight
LSCBs in England, asking how it was organised; what training was provided and by whom; whether it was
effective and how much it cost.

Key Findings
• Inter-agency training is mandated by central government but does not receive ring-fenced funding. It
relies very significantly on the good will of LSCB partner agencies and professional and personal
relationships. The system is vulnerable to cuts in partner agencies’ financial contributions and to
changes in personnel.

• Training is organised by a training coordinator, generally employed by the LSCB, and support staff. The
training co-ordinator works with a training subgroup (TSG) of partner agency representatives. In general,
TSGs were good examples of effective partnership working.

• Substantial programmes of training were offered on: recognising and responding to child protection
concerns; inter-agency and interprofessional collaboration; and on specialist topics such as
safeguarding disabled children and safeguarding in the context of parental mental illness and drug and
alcohol misuse. Courses were generally for 20-25 participants lasting one to two days. They were taught
by skilled and experienced staff from partner agencies and independent trainers.

• Enabling a mix of staff to engage in inter-agency training was a challenge and participation was varied:
there were concerns about the low numbers of doctors and adult services staff, and the lack of more
experienced staff taking specialist courses to update their knowledge and skills.

• The opportunity to learn together was very highly valued. Outcomes were remarkably consistent across
types of course and LSCBs. There were substantial and significant gains in knowledge of the
substantive topic and in self-confidence regarding safeguarding policies and procedures and promoting
the welfare of children.
• Some partner agencies were making
substantial in-kind contributions to the
provision of training in addition to their
“annual subscription” to the Board. The only
explanation for the considerable variations in
proportional contributions between LSCBs
was historical precedent.
• The cost of training compared favourably to
the fees charged by commercial
organisations. They were seen by LSCB
partners as very good value for money.
Background
Statutory inquiries, policy guidance and research
reviews have consistently advocated that if
professionals concerned with safeguarding
children are to work together more effectively
they should learn together.
1 “happy sheets” completed at the end of the
Working Together to Safeguard Children (2006)
charged Local Safeguarding Children Boards
(LSCBs) with a statutory responsibility to ensure
that training is provided to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children. It asserted that,
“Training delivered on an inter-agency basis is a
highly effective way of promoting a common and
shared understanding of the respective roles
and responsibilities of different professionals,
and contributes to effective working
relationships.” (para. 4.2). Lord Laming’s
Progress Report on The Protection of Children
in England (2009) which followed the Baby Peter
case, placed similar faith in the value of training,
in particular inter-agency training.
However, two recent reviews of the international
research literature found that the evidence base
concerning training for safeguarding children in
general was decidedly thin, and especially so for
inter-agency and interprofessional training.
Aims
The aim of the research was to develop an
evidence base for inter-agency training to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
The key questions were:
• How is inter-agency training organised? Is the
system robust?
• What kind of training is delivered and by
whom?
1
HM Government (2006) available at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/resources-and-
practice/IG00060/
• Does it work? Do participants develop a
shared understanding of their respective roles
and responsibilities?
• Is it value for money?
Methodology
The project was carried out collaboratively with
the training coordinators in eight LSCBs in four
parts of England and with the support of an
advisory group which included family carers and
young people’s representatives.
The research team observed meetings of LSCB
training subgroups and carried out sixty
interviews with LSCB representatives to
investigate the means by which inter-agency
training is planned and delivered.
Training courses are generally evaluated using
programme. These are not satisfactory for
research purposes. So, the research team
developed specific questionnaire measures to
assess the outcomes of both generic and
specialist courses on such topics as “Introduction
to safeguarding” and “Safeguarding disabled
children”. These measures were designed to be
completed at course registration (generally 6-8
weeks in advance); the start and end of the
course; and three months later.
The research design was based on the
hypothesis that, in the absence of any training
intervention, there would be no change in mean
total scale ratings between registration and the
start of the course; at the end of the course, there
would be an improvement in mean scores
compared to the start and that this could be
attributed to the training; finally, ratings made
three months later would indicate whether or not
learning had been sustained.
Finally, the costs to LSCB partners of providing
training (in cash and in kind) and of participating
in training were calculated based on staff time
and use of resources.
Findings
The context of inter-agency training
Inter-agency training for safeguarding children is
an unusual example of partnership working in that
it is mandated by central government but does
not receive ring-fenced funding. Central
government funding to each employing
organisation is intended to include training for its
own staff. Consequently, inter-agency training
relies very significantly on the willingness of
partner agencies to pool resources and on
professional and personal relationships
developed parochially. There are obvious
strengths to this approach, but also
weaknesses. In particular, the system is
vulnerable to cuts in partner agencies’ financial
contributions to the budget and to changes in
personnel; it is highly dependent on a few
people, specifically the training coordinator and
their support staff.
Mechanisms for the delivery of training
Inter-agency training is organised by a training
coordinator, generally employed by the LSCB,
and support staff. The training co-ordinator
works with a training subgroup (TSG) of partner
agency representatives. Health trusts, children
and young people’s social care, education and
the police are usually all represented, but some
members are much less active than others.
In general, TSGs were seen to be good
examples of effective partnership working, with
members believing that their agency’s and the
partnership’s goals with respect to inter-agency
training are interdependent and mutually
beneficial.
Key concerns were: the perceived inadequacy of
funding and the uncertainty about partner
agencies’ financial contributions; a lack of
capacity to deliver all the training requested
(courses were usually oversubscribed); the
challenge of reaching the right people so that
there was a good interprofessional mix of course
participants, and ensuring that these staff could
be released for training.
The content and delivery of training
The programmes of training in the eight LSCBs
studied were substantial. They offered training
on important safeguarding issues in accordance
with the guidance in Working Together.
Introductory courses on identifying and
responding to child protection concerns were
offered to a wide range of people in regular
contact with children, including nurses, teachers,
librarians, fire officers and social workers. Some
of these courses were offered as e-learning
programmes.
More advanced courses were provided for
professionals working regularly with children and
those who may be required to contribute to
assessments. The focus here was on effective,
collaborative inter-agency working and on
understanding roles and responsibilities. These
courses, typically over two days, included a focus
on child protection conferences.
Specialist courses addressed topics including
safeguarding disabled children, safeguarding
children and domestic abuse, and safeguarding in
the context of parental mental illness and drug
and alcohol misuse. Other specialist courses
concerned working with young people with
sexually harmful behaviours and female genital
mutilation.
The courses were short, the great majority being
for one day only, and typically involved around 20
participants. These courses make a substantial
contribution to learning the skills and knowledge
of the Common Core and thus to the training of
children’s workforce in general.
Courses are led by enthusiastic, skilled and
experienced trainers using participative
educational models. Most LSCBs used staff with
specialist knowledge and skills from their own
partner agencies as well as independent trainers.
However, it was apparent that many trainers felt
undervalued and that they needed more
recognition and support.
Participation in inter-agency training
The introductory courses studied were attracting
much of the target audience of people in contact
with children, including support workers as well as
nurses and social workers. However, some
groups including housing workers, librarians and
leisure staff were barely represented. These
groups might be reached more effectively by e-
learning.
In the light of the findings of the Care Quality
Commission review of health services’
involvement in Baby Peter’s caseii, it was
alarming that very few doctors and GPs were
represented in the advanced courses on
interprofessional working to safeguard children.
The Care Quality Commission’s subsequent
review of safeguarding in the NHS (2009)iii
considered the low proportions of NHS staff
reported as being up to date with their training
“extremely concerning” (p.16). In contrast, both
experienced and less experienced social workers,
teachers, nurses and probation were well
represented in the programmes in this study.
The great majority of attendees on specialist
courses had been in service for between one and
five years, which suggests that these courses
were considered suitable for relatively new staff. It
was noticeable however that more experienced
professionals were not using these courses to
update their skills and knowledge; this is a
matter of concern.
Outcomes of the inter-agency training
courses
The findings concerning outcomes were
remarkably consistent across types of course
and LSCBs. There were substantial gains in
knowledge of the substantive topic (e.g.
domestic violence and child abuse; sexually
abusing adolescents) and in self-confidence
regarding safeguarding policies and procedures.
These positive outcomes were found
irrespective of the participants’ gender, age,
ethnicity, service experience and even when
they had been ‘required’ rather than volunteered
to attend the course.
The opportunity to learn together to work
together was very highly valued, even more so
at the end of the course than at the beginning.
There were very substantial improvements in
their self-reported understanding of the roles of
different professionals who engage in work to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children
and in their confidence and comfort in working
with these colleagues. This finding is important
for the self-confidence of social workers and for
other professionals’ understanding of their roles
and responsibilities. At follow-up 3 months later,
these gains had been maintained, but the
response rates at this stage were disappointing
and the evidence is correspondingly weaker.
Costs
Training is a major investment for the delivering
and participating agency and incurs indirect as
well as direct costs. Through supplying their own
professional staff to act as trainers, by sharing
the use of their training facilities and by the time
spent as members of training support groups,
some partner agencies were making substantial
in-kind contributions in addition to their “annual
subscription” to the Board.
Taking all these contributions into account, there
was wide variation in the proportion of costs to
the partner agencies. Children and young
people’s social care services and education met
between 23% and 86% of the costs; Health met
between 13% and 34%. The only explanation for
these differences was historical precedent. The
health service, through the use as trainers of
doctors and nurses with specialist knowledge,
made the largest in-kind contribution to the costs
of courses (43%).
The mean comprehensive costs of a day’s
training per participant was around £100 (range
£78-£143). This compares favourably to the fees
charged by commercial organisations. Local
courses have considerable advantages in
creating opportunities for networking. They were
seen by partners as very good value for money.
The mean cost to agencies of staff participating in
training was £183 per person per day (range
£134 to £260). The cost per day for an individual
participant ranged from £1,100 for a GP in
London to less than a tenth of that (£90) for a
support worker on the same course.
Implications for practice and policy
Policy makers
• Better and more transparent funding
arrangements are needed for LSCBs to be
able to invest strategically in training to extend
its reach and scope to more complex
safeguarding issues. Lord Laming’s progress
review recommended that there should be
protected funding for training.
(Recommendation 54)
• There should be a more robust system
nationally for prioritising and disseminating key
training issues for individual LSCBs to
supplement locally determined priorities.
• Training materials, produced by the NSPCC
with support from DCSF, based on best
research evidenceiv are valued and should
continue to be developed and updated.
• Professional bodies, especially in medicine,
should review the reasons for the low
participation of staff in inter-agency training.
• Consideration should be given to building
LSCB inter-agency courses into the
postqualifying professional development
frameworks for different groups of professional
staff. This would both raise the status of
courses and might also help to draw in
professional groups who are currently under-
represented, such as more experienced
workers (over 5 years in service), doctors and
staff working in adult services.
• An expanded programme of ‘training for
trainers’ is needed, including standards and
accreditation.
LSCBs and training subgroups
• LSCB partners, especially those responsible
for doctors and adult services should review
the attendance of their staff on courses and
ensure that sufficient inter-agency training is
being undertaken by both new and
experienced professionals.
• Support for training co-ordinators is essential;
they and their support staff are critical in
ensuring the effective operation of the training
programme.
• LSCBs must ensure that arrangements for
providing their inter-agency training
programmes are robust; it is advisable to
compile a potential risks register.
• The pool of generic and specialist trainers
needs to be expanded. An internal audit of
training skills and capacities in both the LSCB
and partner agencies would help identify
areas in which recruitment is needed and
where staff secondment could alleviate undue
pressures on a few dedicated trainers.
• Review the feedback, training and support
given to trainers, especially those from
partner agencies. Enable them to review the
learning objectives and course content in the
light of up to date research evidence.
• The outcomes of training should be evaluated
more rigorously. LSCBs, training coordinators
and trainers could consider using the
measures developed in this study to evaluate
the outcomes of their courses.
Additional Information
Further information about this research can be
obtained from Isabella Craig, Analysis and
Research Division, 4FL-ARD, DCSF, Sanctuary
Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT
Email: Isabella.craig@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
The views expressed in this report are the
authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Department for Children, Schools and
Families.
Information about other studies which are part of
the Safeguarding Children Research Initiative can
be found at http://tcru.ioe.ac.uk/scri/
i
Lord Laming (2009)The Protection of Children in England:
A Progress Report
http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownl
oad/HC-330.pdf
ii
Care Quality Commission (May 2009) Review of the
involvement and action taken by health bodies in relation to
the case of Baby P.
http://www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Baby_P.pdf
iii
Care Quality Commission (2009) A review of arrangements
in the NHS for safeguarding children.
http://www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Safeguarding_childre
n_review.pdf
iv
NSPCC Child Protection Learning Resources
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/trainingandconsultancy/lear
ningresources/learningresources_wda47881.html