Children's hearings advocacy expert reference group minutes: November 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Pam Semple, Scottish Government 
• Avril Muir, Angus Independent Advocacy
• Selwyn McCausland, Barnardo’s
• Eve Manderson and Alicja Piliszczuk, Borders Independent Advocacy Service 
• Kyna Reeves, CAPS Independent Advocacy 
• Elaine Adams, Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection 
• Bryan Evans, Children 1st
• Mel McDonald, Children’s Hearings Scotland 
• Micheál Phelan and Sarah Bannerman, Clan Childlaw
• Nikki Speirs, East Ayrshire Advocacy Services
• Julie Hutton, Independent Advocacy Perth and Kinross 
• Pauline Cavanagh, Partners in Advocacy 
• Melissa Hunt and Gordon Main, Scottish Children’s Report Administration 
• Louise Piaskowski, Scottish Government

Apologies

• Leanne Mackenzie and Emma Macleod, Advocacy Western Isles
• Jane Crawford, CAPS Independent Advocacy
• Annmarie Denny, East Ayrshire Advocacy Services
• Vivien Thomson, Social Work Scotland 
• Kay McKerrell, Who Cares? Scotland 

Items and actions

This note provides an overview of the agenda, discussion, and action points from the meeting of the children’s hearings advocacy expert reference group (ERG). Once agreed by members the meeting note will be published. 

The meeting was held as a videoconference on Wednesday 20 November 2024. Papers issued for this meeting included: the agenda; minutes from last meeting 4 July 2024; Scottish Government (SG) update paper; and Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) update paper. 

Minutes and actions from previous meetings

The chair invited any changes to the draft note. One clarification was made on page 5, and no further comments were requested. The note was agreed, and it was confirmed it will be published on the Scottish government website. 

The chair provided an update on the actions and activity from the last meeting.

• Action, ERG members were asked to provide Mel McDonald (CHS) with any thoughts on the CHS feedback process and information (leaflet and the website page) on how this could be better provided, and greater use encouraged by children and young people.

Update – Marked completed. Mel's email provided in email issued with draft meeting note issued on 19/07/24. Some members responded to Mel with feedback.

• Action, SCRA will check in with areas on what they are doing regarding identifying who should receive the notification of the Hearings (particularly review hearings) scheduled time, date, place. It was suggested Reporters could prompt Social Work / key contacts e.g. family again about involvement of advocacy when scheduling review hearings.

Update – Marked in progress. SCRA (Melissa) has been looking into this with the practice teams and will report back to the group when all the combined information available.

• Action, All members were invited to read the referral to the reporter guidance and provide any feedback and comments to Elaine Adams by email as soon as possible. 

Update – Marked completed. Elaine’s email address shared with draft meeting note on 19 July 24 and members reminded to comment. Elaine confirmed comments were received and the finished guidance has been published. 

• Action, All members were asked to consider the promise scoping report on lifelong advocacy and the plan 2024-30 and offer any feedback and requests to interact with the work to the Scottish Government team.

Update – Marked completed. Engagement and development work is progressing as per update which will be provided under agenda item 3. 

• Action, Scottish Government to consider and communicate plans for the next meeting to be an in- person meeting.

Update – as communicated with the group by email, the autumn budget/fiscal position put controls in place, and it was not possible to justify an in-person meeting on this occasion. We will consider again if/when the position shifts favourably.

Members updates

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) Update – a written paper accompanied this item.

The chair invited Melissa to give an update. Melissa referred to the SCRA update paper which provided data from 26 June 2024 to 11 November 2024.

Melissa explained the next update paper will provide one full year’s data. It would be helpful at this point to be able to compare information with the advocacy organisations to build a combined picture of the advocacy provision for children’s hearings.

Comments and feedback on the data, for example, what is helpful or not helpful and is there anything else that could be useful.

Kyna commented the data report is very useful and is an aid used in local discussions for awareness raising particularly with social workers. She suggested that it could be more helpful if the reporting periods aligned with quarterly or annual reporting rather than the ERG meeting schedule.

Bryan commented in agreement that the report is helpful and added he was pleased to see the Safeguarders information included as comparison. He asked if it might be possible to interrogate more about the support each child is receiving e.g. one or a combination of appointed safeguarder, independent advocacy, and legal representative. This would help understand how these roles are understood and how we expect them to practice together.

Melissa agreed there could be a different way to present the information as it accumulates. On Bryan’s ask, it may be possible to look at the possibility next data run, but this would depend on the numbers as the work would require manual case file reviews.

Children’s Hearings Scotland update

Chair invited Mel to give an update. Mel mentioned the potential in information that could be taken from this group and the power this could have on the work ongoing to improve hearings experiences. They are continuing the collaborative work with SCRA, and others too, to encourage and improve how children can feedback on how they experienced their hearings, good, bad, or wish to make a complaint. 

The pilot of the feedback postcards with QR codes is ending. The postcard is now surplus as the QR code is being inserted into the letters that are issued to the child and family post-hearing. The exit strategy is still being confirmed with forward communications necessary for the panel community. The QR code still directs to the joint corporate parenting website landing page for feedback or complaints. Any person, the child themselves or with help, or adults and professionals can provide their views too which may also offer some insight into how children may feel from those supporting the child in feedback or in a complaint.

The ambition is to be able to have a route to hear how children and young people are experiencing their hearings building on the good things and addressing the areas of practice, conduct, behaviours, skills where things are not going well or needs to be changed or improved. Feedback is invited about a panel member, a reporter, a safeguarder, or someone else.

Bryan commented that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), found in their work when asking children and young people for feedback, generally they will give this to other professionals they are being supported by rather than direct to the organisation asking for it. It is good to hear different ways are being considered to encourage views from others/ professionals, and those views are  valued. It does not necessarily have to be the child themselves who provide the feedback, but others can too which provides the child’s perspective. Complaints can also provide rich detail of when  things are not going as expected and can improve practice.

Pauline commented that advocacy workers will always seek agreement from the child to share their feedback. It is welcomed advocacy workers can also share their objective feedback of the hearings experience.

Julie also contributed that advocacy workers will have useful perspectives of the hearings journey for the child not just within the hearing too.

Avril also agreed feedback is difficult to get. If a hearing does not go the way hoped for, feedback is understandably negative. It is good to know advocacy workers can feedback as they see it through the child’s eyes.

Mel acknowledged the research and resembled challenges of gathering feedback from children and young people of others being reassuring it is not unique to CHS. They also recognise children, and young people will say what they want to the people they have a relationship with, so they need the help of these intermediary supporters to share the important feedback.

Elaine asked how the feedback may be encouraged and used by panel practice advisors and connected with the quality assurance model that is work in progress.

Mel acknowledged the idea and undertook to speak with colleagues involved.

Our Hearings, Our Voice

Chair invited Gordon Main, OHOV Project Lead to speak. Gordon spoke first about language and the work being progressed by OHOV in a co-produced approach to changing language. The Language Leaders group includes five OHOV Board Members, and the project is backed by the Children’s Hearings Improvement Partnership (CHIP), which includes all key organisations that play a part in Children’s Hearings including members of this ERG. The children and young people created exercises to use to demonstrate language that needs to and can be changed. Language Leaders have co-produced principles (personalised, balanced, non-stigmatising, involved) which can be used by all partners in the Children’s Hearings System and next steps are to build tools to support change and transformation. Julie contributed that in Perth the Health and Social Care partnership representatives come together annually for community of practice day and this year, in December, IAPK will be speaking about advocacy and rights and the power of language. She added language is powerful in how we communicate, write and speak. This is something we can shift with small adjustments and does not need money to be able to make a difference.

Mel commented that CHS are working closely with the panel community on language too and says language often comes out in complaints e.g. understanding of what has been said, undermining social work etc. Mel mentioned the Feedback and Complaints Reports produced quarterly showing the trends in cause alongside lessons learned and service improvement.

Gordon reflected that some of the language we have known for years is not good. Somethings can be changed with concerted effort some may need legislation to change. CHS townhall events where OHOV Board Members have spoken to the panel community have been well received. A blog sticks and sones may break my bones but names will never hurt me by Achillies, Ceria and H is hugely influential too. An overview and some resources from Language Leaders are published on the website too.

Gordon then moved to speak about the OHOV approach and report on children’s views to the Hearings Redesign consultation. The short summarising the findings video was played and can be accessed on the resources link in the paragraph above Gordon summarised the three key themes from the views shared: people, information and participation. 

On this day world children’s day, there will be a news story sharing all this work too.

Gordon also commented that, young people OHOV spoke to for the consultation were very supportive of the role of advocacy. Whilst it is understood earlier access to this in the hearings system is not within the resource of the current scheme or organisations it is worth continuing to hold this in our long-term vision.

Members including Bryan and Pauline thanked Gordon for the input, commenting the video was great and gave a good summary of children's views, and asked that thanks are noted for the children and young people who took part. The resources will be shared with teams and others.

CHIP update

Elaine commented what struck her in the OHOV response to the hearings redesign is a lot of the views were a repeat of the 40 calls to action, including around language.  It is frustrating knowing what we needed to do years ago and still not having been able to make the changes. The Redesign Board is leading on the non-legislative change programme with children and young people at the head of this. We need to be paying attention to the basics, ensuring everyone knows roles and responsibilities and how these must work together. Joint training and learning for general understanding could help.

CELCIS response to the hearings redesign consultation (48 pages) included views from people with lived experience, and was interesting in terms of people perspectives on whether things would change unless it is in legislation.

Glasgow CHIP partners also provided a response to the hearings redesign consultation.

Elaine spoke about the use of section 25 research, highlighting the disparity of practice and use of section 25 orders for voluntary accommodation arrangements. Dr Robert Porter is happy to be contacted directly to provide any clarity or information about this.

Elaine also provided an updated about the delivery, with SCRA, of new training to all new and established Social Worker in Glasgow. The training had a focus on new and refresher of legal duties, report writing and part of this was also  about encourage conversations and referrals into advocacy at the earliest opportunity. The training was run as pilot with a view to rolling out the package to other areas who have expressed interest. The feedback is still to be analysed. Glasgow is now thinking they would like to run this on a regular basis.

Mel commented that CHS receive approximately 100 complaints in a year, and approximately half of these tend to be from social work. They are keen to develop wider knowledge of hearings and know that social work training? does not really cover children’s hearings specifically. They are keen to explore how to possibly include learning modules into social work education processes – this is still to be worked out and will take away to speak to Chole in Glasgow about this approach and possibilities for national expansion ideas and opportunities.

Elaine commented that what SCRA have developed fits with the CHIP model and in- person is the best approach, offering opportunities to build authentic relationships, make connections, enquire and problem solve together. Could be a possible test of change – start small with multi-agency then grow it?

Bryan contributed that the role of Safeguarders is not systemically covered in panel member training. If this could be thought about, a role description could be detailed to describe this in training.

Pauline mentioned the definitions in these roles was set out in the non-instructed advocacy guidance provided for CHS and SCRA and should be shared more widely. 

Mel mentioned he again would speak to colleagues about this. He mentioned both the national programme for new panel members (learning academy) and also the development sessions (localised programme) but noted that attendance rates are lower for local sessions.

Julie mentioned that social work students on placements at IAPK comment on how powerful it is to be placed in an independent advocacy service because the work covers various social work processes, including Hearings. 

Most of the advocacy organisations noted they are occasionally invited to children’s panel member events held in the local areas and these have worked well. Panel members receive independent advocacy very positively and it is pleasing to develop connection and collaboration with panel members. Their enthusiasm and interest continue to be appreciated.

Elaine mentioned an information pack was sent to all Glasgow social workers involved in the training and would be open to consider any other materials/information that should be included in this.

Pauline reflected these training and information sharing matters, including the
face-to-face development day for our advocacy workers could be progressed within a training sub-group of the National Providers Network (NPN).

Actions

• Elaine will connect in with Mel to share the approach and learning from the Glasgow training. Mel will connect with colleagues to discuss opportunities to systemically include the clearly defined roles of safeguarders and advocacy worker in panel community training.
•  A meeting of the training sub-group of the NPN to be set up to discuss the training and information sharing matters

National Provider Network (NPN) Update

Chair noted apologies again from Kay, chair of the NPN and said a written update may be available to share after the meeting. Chair invited any other members of the NPN to offer any updates.

Pauline confirmed members of the NPN have joined sessions with the Scottish Government promise team, met with SCRA on use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hearings as well as joining the SG working group on developing children’s rights indicators. Pauline also confirmed the non-instructed advocacy (NIA) training resources for the advocacy organisations has been sent to Kay for distribution.

Actions

• Scottish Government will ask Kay if there is anything that the NPN would want to share in a written update to be circulated at this time.
• PiA (Pauline) agreed to connect in with Bryan who expressed an interest in receiving and an update on how NIA is moving forward.

Scottish Government Update – a written paper accompanied this item

Louise started the update drawing members attention to the update on page 1 in relation to grant funding, apologising for slight delays to some of the quarter 2 grant payments as we moved to a new finance system. Louise also mentioned the update on the recent publication of the UK budget and the monies to be made available to Scotland. 

Pam mentioned the external evaluation work saying we are delighted this is now finished and published and confirmed members had seen the report to be discussed under agenda item 5. Pam also mentioned with regards to learning and CPD that Scottish Government provided the venue for representatives from most of the advocacy organisations had come together for a training session led by Pauline Cavanagh, Partners in Advocacy to support practice improvements on non-instructed advocacy. This training and opportunity to come together in person was a very well received. Thanks was noted to Pauline and her team for all their sharing of such a great resource.

Louise spoke about the Hearings advocacy website analytics covered in the paper and made note to the fact that views to the website have increased significantly overall in the period since July with page views up from 1146 to 2248. Louise asked members if there are ideas on how to update and develop the content and to keep publicising its use, this would be helpful to hear.

Pam went on to speak about The Promise work being taken forward by Scottish Government, noting a written update will be shared with members. Pam highlighted the lifelong advocacy work updating on the engagement with advocacy providers that has commenced to shape the next stages of development of an approach to lifelong advocacy. In October, Minister convened and chaired a stakeholder panel to progress recommendations and identify next steps. Further engagement with advocacy providers is planned during November and this will inform the next stages of progress towards advocacy provision for care experienced people. This year, we are conducting several consultations which will inform the next steps on key areas and, where appropriate, inform the legislative opportunity that is proposed in The Promise Bill. The SG aims to introduce a Promise Bill by the end of this Parliamentary session, dependent on wider pressures on the Parliamentary legislative calendar. Engagement with the care experienced community is being undertaken through the Children and Young Persons Participation Framework. Who Cares? Scotland and Barnardo’s have been appointed to lead this engagement that is comprehensive in scale, geography and demographic. In September, the Scottish Government published an update to our Promise Implementation Plan providing a comprehensive review of the actions and commitments we have undertaken to keep The Promise. Also mentioned was a debate on The Promise on 6 November. It provided an opportunity to re-enforce the excellent work underway across Scotland to keep The Promise. It also provided an opportunity for consideration of the areas where we must go further, where we must go faster and where we must work together to achieve. Advocacy was raised on several occasions by MSPs during the debate. 

Louise referred to the update on page 5 regarding ongoing engagement with stakeholder to develop the policy to underpin the future regulations for Cross Border Placements. Specifically for cross-border Deprivation of Liberty (DOLs) placements some technical changes had been made to the practice guidance. Also new factsheets staff guide and children/young people guide were produced and published on the website to help explain and promote the offer, with thanks to partners in advocacy and SCRA for their work on the guides.

Pam highlighted the update on page 7 about hearings design noting the Children’s Hearing Redesign Board held its fifth meeting in October 2024. The Board, have identified five initial workstreams which are culture, data and information, preparing for a hearing, the referral process and children on a Compulsory Supervision Order. The Children’s Hearings Redesign consultation closed on 28 October. Around 100 consultations responses were received through citizen space, by email, and from children and young people and will be analysed. Engagement with children and young people will continue through engagement sessions run by Who Cares? Scotland and Barnardo’s planned for November and December.

Louise also mentioned the progression of work with Children and Young People’s Advocacy Network and with colleagues across Scottish Government and partners such as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, child law centres, and children’s advocacy services, to better understand children and young people’s advocacy provision across Scotland and their access to support and remedy. The current focus is on strengthening children and young people’s (CYP) ‘pathways to remedy’ and involves two key projects: the Pathways resource and the Development of Indicators.

Members were also signposted to updates on Youth Justice, detailing of ongoing commitment to keeping The Promise; implementation of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 and provisions around ending the use of young offenders’ institutions for under 18s and support for victims, alongside implementation of the UNCRC Scotland Incorporation Act.

Message from Ms Natalie Don-Innes Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise

Chair noted the Minister was unable to attend the meeting but wanted to express her thanks. A recorded message was provided by the Minister and was played to members.

Action

• Scottish Government were asked to share the recorded message from the Minister. SG agreed to check this was appropriate to share.

Children’s Hearings Advocacy External Evaluation Report(s)

The full report and children and young people summary are published, and the links were shared with the papers.

The Chair commented again on the Minister’s appreciation and support for the work. She said it was pleasing to see the impact on the wider system for all. The purpose of this item is to gather strategic views and practical examples of how we best use this valuable evidence and how we meet the challenges to make the provision even better. The Chair provided a summary of the report highlights:

• A literature review carried out of existing reports and information
• Gathered views from 21 children and young people; 8 foster and kinship carers
• 30 advocacy workers and managers
• 181 stakeholders through a survey
• 44 stakeholders through in-depth discussions

There is clear evidence in the report that:

• The support makes a difference to children and young people
• Feel in control of how they are supported
• Feel more prepared and less worried

Impact for wider stakeholders is also evidenced including:

• Better comms between panel members and children and young people
• Building confidence views expressed are independent of other influences

Crucially, or most welcome news stakeholders felt engagement and experiences of the Hearing improved through:

• Advocacy workers helping with raising sensitive views or managing sensitivities where there is conflict or tension.
• Building understanding of children’s rights
• Building a positive and calming atmosphere at the Hearing – with children feeling comfortable and safe.

This almost validates the role of the advocacy worker just in those 3 bullets alone.

The report also contains information on things that could be better including:

• Monitoring
• Uptake, demand and supply
• Independent advocacy role and training
• Information sharing
• Expanding and connecting support

Proposed next steps

• Monitoring – the NPN are looking at a universal annual reporting template to ensure consistency and accuracy of number of referrals. Previously mentioned, we will connect in with SCRA to consolidate and not duplicate on useful date.
• Uptake, demand and supply – options mooted are opt out, automatic referral, routine recording of whether advocacy support has been offered etc, clear that increased awareness of advocacy will be positive but it is very important to consider the resources available to meet demand
• Independent advocacy role and training – variations across Scotland.  Non-instructed advocacy was mentioned. It might be useful to jointly within NPN explore professional practice in relation to independence and the role across the provider organisations and explore the skills development opportunities available to workers around the complexities of their role
• Info sharing we can explore procedures for advocacy workers being invited to Hearing – adequate notice. Analysis of responses to Hearing Re-design focussing on section 122 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and strengthening that – so more responsibility on the Reporter. As previously mentioned under actions, SCRA (Melissa) is checking in with areas on what they are doing regarding identifying who should receive the notification of the Hearings (particularly review hearings) scheduled time, date, place. 
• Expanding and connecting support – would be useful to consider how provision connects with wider advocacy provision

The Chair invited discussion

On monitoring, advocacy organisations commented that aging databases, and some manual recording can make reporting tricky and labour intensive as it is not so straightforward to extract certain data. A Childlaw Centre event on access to justice also highlighted the point that organisations all hold rich data but there are difficulties in extracting this. It was acknowledged that organisation policies and process across multiple projects may influence certain ways of defining, counting, recording and closing cases and how this is practiced and recorded will be different across the organisations. Some organisations are currently looking into options for database upgrades and agreed to share pros/cons of systems, but these can be timely to commission and set up, costly and still present restrictions. Aging IT and costs to upgrade are a consideration for all. There was agreement that a standardised annual reporting template could be achievable if definitions and measures can be agreed across the 10 provider network organisations. The view was to keep it simple, have a consistently recorded figure on number of children supported which could be a big achievement.

Melissa commented that the SCRA data has been granular but there could be opportunities to present the information different ways as the data matures, reiterating comments that SCRA can look at their data to supplement/combine with organisations reportable data and not duplicate efforts.  It would be good to explore how to simplify recording and make this easier for everyone.

Julie welcomed the idea as this would help to reinforce practice sharing and understanding. This could increase confidence of advocacy workers and strengths of advocacy organisations and provides a sense of belonging.

Discussing uptake, demand and supply. Pauline commented that the SCRA data report is useful to take to local areas, replating the messaging and the evaluation evidence is a good strength too. A few others agreed this approach is right and needs to be repeated over. Kyna also commented in one area the local authority reports higher offer of advocacy figures than SCRA and data they have on the numbers referred and thought this is a gap that should be looked at, e.g. how is the offer being made and explained to children. Julie added social work need to refer rather than explain, and the uptake would be much more increased. Mel undertook to find out what is happing in the multi-agency learning and training space.

On independent advocacy role and training, it was reiterated that a training sub-group of the NPN could consider this. Pam also suggested that it could be a good time to revisit the skills and development framework, previously put on hold, but we now have the evidence of the report behind us.  

Pam mentioned expanding and connecting support too. The dependencies with Children (Care and Justice) Act 2024 commencement, hearings redesign, lifelong advocacy, cross-border placement regulations will all be significant to how we move forward on strengthen the independent advocacy for children and young people.

In summing up the discussion to keep to time, Pam invited any further comments to be offered in writing. Pam said we are considering a comms strategy around this Report, including.

• The report/s will be sent to Parliament – SPICE and Justice Committee
• Minister supporting comms opportunities
• The report/s will be shared with our internal colleagues in both children and adult advocacy policy areas
• Support from ERG members and others to reach external stakeholders for use in local areas – particularly highlighting the good practices
• The report/s will be shared with Association of Directors of Education and Education Scotland
• Ask Vivien at Social Work Scotland for assistance with dissemination to social workers.

Actions

• Members of the NPN agreed these matters should be discussed further within the NPN including standardised annual report and independent advocacy role and training.
• Scottish Government to work on the communications strategy for disseminating and making best use of the evidence from the evaluation report/s.

Update – training and CPD

The chair invited Micheal to give an update on the progress of the annual training and legal advice service. Micheál mentioned the legal advice service line is still operating 5 days a week, for advocacy workers to use to gain legal information in any capacity. Since April 2024 there have been 68 calls, which is an improvement on last year and the mailbox is also used for general non urgent enquires. On the training, engagement with the advocacy organisations had helped to share the programme and course content. 3 sessions have been arranged, with good sign up to the first one in November. The one-off induction session is arranged for January 2025. Sarah contributed that the course content has been developed around what advocacy workers have asked for through the helpline, in training feedback, and engagement identifying knowledge gaps/areas to improve on in relation to children’s Hearings. The refresher training content will include UNCRC incorporation, Children (Care and Justice) Act 2024, permanency and court proceeding interactions with hearings, how to manage difficult/hostile hearings, non-disclosure and excusals, recap on DOL Orders and care leavers rights.

Louise, stressed again that we know some organisations have had staff changes so we would as normal remind everyone that completing the induction e-learning for all new starts under the scheme is mandatory, so please let Clan Childlaw know new staff details so they can set them up with an account to access the eLearning modules as part of their inductions. 

Any other matters and date of next meeting 

No other matters were raised. 

The date of the next meeting is 6 March 2025 10:30-12:30.