Introduction to the session – are the regulations a little confusing of what is in stage 1 and 2 – for example, “relationship history” – part 1 – but understanding the significance and impact of relationships is clearly explored within stage 2.
Employment history – is in part 2, but clearly the checks in relation to employment is part 1.
Discussion re if agencies undertake stage 1 and 2 concurrently.
Understanding the process for when stage 1 ends and differing rights under stage 2.
Do agencies “pause” if running together to ensure significant checks are returned, or keep going forward and checks such as medicals and DBS still pending only a week or two before panel, how can they then be meaningful within the assessment if the assessment is almost complete? – would this require further work, a differing response to what is already written – harder to go back and start to add at this stage, would it disrupt the assessment info you have?
Aren’t all checks significant, and meaningful in the process?
Not just a checklist – all elements of the assessment make up the “jigsaw” – holistic approach to considering strengths and vulnerabilities.
Are policies clear on the “right to undertake” any additional checks, or work to ensure the process is robust and safe for children – being explicit with applicants re this so there is no resistance to additional work that might be required?
- Most agencies undertake stage 1 and 2 together – no pause.
- A couple of agencies undertake stage 1 and complete this prior to starting stage 2, due to experiences of being “burnt”, information being returned at the end of the process that was significant and led to counselling out – time and cost of undertaking all the assessment is too much (small agency) – still meet the timescales of 8 mths, actually completion around 6 mths.
- Concerns have been around debt and finances, not discovered until much later in the process – importance of being able to “afford” to foster.
- Rely on applicants being honest re their health and convictions at the start of the process and give many opportunities to share anything – enquiry, initial visit and during the acceptance of their application – however, if there is something significant being shared early in the process – may choose to undertake checks before starting stage 2, clear with applicants of doing this.
- Some agencies only commence with stage 2 if certain checks back – usually LA, DBS, and medicals – however an acknowledgement of these being the likely checks that are often delayed.
- Covid brought so many challenges for checks – and not fully recovered re this – and medicals or DBS not being prioritized by medical practitioners or police.
- Stage 1 and 2 together – some agencies accept the costs, and loss if counselled out late on in the process.
- Being clear on what ending the assessment for – stage 1 reason despite being in stage 2
- Stage 2 ends – short report for panel – not for a recommendation, as not being asked to recommend anything – more about a learning for all, shows the agency is “safe” and trusted by panel.
- Cannot go to panel if DBS of applicants are not returned – should be no in principle decisions being made as we don’t know what will return.
- Stage 1 letter – often being sent at the end of the process – few weeks before panel – not ideal.
- Panel date being set at the start – and where stage 1 is ongoing- deferral.
- Stage 2 – good discussions with applicants and reasons for withdrawal, sensitive and “holding” people – results in less appeals, IRM.
- External assessors – examples of when they have withdrawn from their assessment role and had to start again – very costly and breaks confidence with applicants.
- Pause or delay the work in stage 2 – only if things not adding up, or identified early concerns, may add additional checks – discussions with assessment manager and process for decision making.
- 8 mths – from accepting the application and decision from ADM – prior to accepting the application – this is the expression of interest.
- Ex-partner refs – can be difficult in stage 2 – yet counselled out as a stage 1 reason.
- LA checks taking a long time to return and often have to request and explore further as not willingly shared initially.
- So far on in the process “hope all comes back ok.”
- Transferring carers – although flexibility to make this process easier – is this right – agencies do not take short cuts – serious case review re “benefit of doubt” - rushing through – carers not wanting to go through the whole process again, this is not helped by agencies offering financial incentives to join and being less robust in the process.
- Could argue that the review process in agencies is evidence of ongoing suitability – however, some people want to change agencies or LA as they say they are not supported by their fostering provider – this could be the case – or are they transferring as they are being challenged – transferring a problem.
- Important to undertake file read, but also stage 1 and 2 is there to ensure the process is robust.
- Promises of accelerated process – not helpful
- Agencies undertake between 4-6 refs as standard – discussion re a household that provided 2 names of referees but it was the same name, married couple discussion re whether agencies would see this as one ref or two – all agreed it was one reference – NAFP suggested that this is evidenced in reg 35 or under leadership of how the agency has adapted their policy based on this – to show learning org
- Does the limited number of names someone can give show a limitation in their support network – is this of significance and may impact on foster carers once approved?
- DBS example – family member living in the home, check came back re cannabis use, also that had been found with a knife – parent did not know and the person talked about it being away from the home, and received help for this – how do we cooperate against other info, and how this happens – member gave some supportive advice – ask the person to request their own access to info “freedom of info” so the agency can work through – obviously if the person is in agreement to support this process
- DBS – risk assessment and consider the offences but length of time absent from offending.• Being so close to completion of the assessment and then ending for a stage 1 reason (when everything else was positive and the process was almost completed and recommended until this point approval) – is this disingenuous and more likely to be a stage 2 reasons – legal advice for this agency said it was – Qualifying Determination
- It would have to be significant to counsel out for stage 1 reason at this point.
- A pause in your policy – is its worth mid-way meeting to agree if a pause is required if certain checks not returned – does this also motivate the applicant to try and escalate things themselves – just a thought?
- Young person that was care experienced and had many challenges – then apply to be a foster carer – talked of a file read on the persons history and many concerning areas – is this appropriate re file read – don’t we only do file reads on transferring carers – as we are considering their suitability as a foster carer based on their history as foster carers – re file reads of people who are previously care experienced – is this fair as we don’t have file reads of people generally – wouldn’t we rely on the honesty of the LA re sharing info that could have relevance to the application – their duty to share relevant info to safeguard future children
- Panel deferred as said wanted more info on the child history.
- Clarification rather than file read.
- Balanced – strengths and vulnerabilities – which out ways the other – can they be worked through – or is it not worth taking the risk – showing how you got there, your decision making.
Process of counselling out
- Question asked about who ends the process in stage 1 – some use the ADM; others have the ADM delegates the task.
- For those using the ADM – better that a discussion is not about the “person” but more about the policy in the agency – so a general discussion and fair – as the ADM is the person who will make the decision further on in the assessment.
- Some have an assessment manager and discuss the recommendation to end and evidence management oversight with the Registered Manager, who might discuss things generally with the ADM.
- Can the RI be the ADM – yes, nothing in the regulations that says they can’t, but ADM must be a qualified social worker and a senior member of the agency?
- Risk process and structure within the organisation, authority to make decisions and process for complaints or appeals.
• NAFP – to discuss the above with the ADM group in April.
Here is the discussion from the chat:
we do the same: Stg1 and Stg 2 concurrently, and if concerns come from checks, we
close the assessment under Stage 1
We do the same- if all seems straightforward at the initial assessment then we tend
to do both together. We have had occasions where there has been information at the
initial assessment that means we have waited on specific stage 1 information to be
able to make a decision whether to progress.
we measure from receiving the Application Form until the ADM date
that's very well put Rob! facts vs opinionmedical advisor https://www.orrmedical.co.uk/
Try Jon Palin - [email protected]
He has been our medical advisor for a number of years and is detailed, clear,
professional and quite quick. He also has an expedited service if a report is needed
quickly
Dr Rupa Parmar Medical Director and Private GP Midland Health
has anyone used https://fosteringmedicals.com ?
we often do a file read first for transferring carers
yes, reading the files comes first!
We do the file read as soon as we can
We still do all our own checks and references and a full assessment for transferring
carers
We also read files first - we just last week declined an assessment after a file read
We also do a full assessment for transferring carers.
We thought it was a requirement:
https://www.nafp.org.uk/pages/32-financial-inducements-offered-to-foster-carers
The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations: Volume 4 5.32.
The assessment must be completed, and a written report presented to the fostering
panel before approving anyone as a foster carer. This should be undertaken within a
timescale which allows the FOSTERING PANEL to make a RECOMMENDATION on
approval within eight months of the application to be assessed.
We use presenting to panel as the end of the 8 months
yes, if this is the same family, it should be counted as one reference to
What experience do colleagues have of getting information from the Police about the
content of a DBS which has offences recorded?
same we would ask for another one
Yes, we would view this as one reference
sorry to jump back, just checking - So if the RI is also the ADM, should there be
something in place to cover ourselves in relation to why we believe there is no
conflict of interest or what would happen if there was? And if so, what would that be?
and no close family members
We say not birth children even if adults
We also state that referees cannot be family members
I’d check that they were no relationship. I.e. Make sure it’s not a case of having the
same surname but not knowing each other.
We take reference from birth children
applicant can apply online to police for copy of police record which they get emailed
in 28 days. Includes every arrest and outcome.
we are super clear from the initial visit that we will take as many references as we
need and that this may change throughout the assessment
must interview at least two persons nominated by X to provide personal references
for X, and prepare written reports of the interviews,
We do interviews with birth children anyway so we want their personal reference to
be a different family member
We also take references from adult birth children
