It comes as no surprise that Ofsted’s inspection of child
protection arrangement in Coventry has come to a verdict of ‘inadequate’. Managers
and elected members there have been quite open about the problems the
organisation has experienced in the wake of the death of Daniel Pelka.
A copy of the report can be downloaded from the Ofsted website. The story is also covered by the Coventry Telegraph and the BBC.
The report of the inspection says that staff in Coventry’s
referral and assessment teams cannot do their jobs properly because of very high
caseloads. As a result, the authority is said to be too slow in responding and
children who need protection are not being seen or assessed sufficiently quickly.
Leadership and management of children's services are also
criticised as being below standard. And - surprise, surprise - information sharing
between agencies is also said to be inadequate. The Coventry Safeguarding
Children Board is also criticised.
Brian Walsh, the council’s recently appointed director of
children’s services, said that he was expecting a poor Ofsted report, following
the impact of the Daniel Pelka tragedy. He drew attention to the significant
rise in the number of referrals to the authority Children’s services. Caseloads
were said to have risen from just over 3,000 children in 2013 to just over
4,500 a year later.
I am firmly convinced that there is often a downward spiral
following a child protection tragedy. More referrals result in increased
pressure on staff and resources. In turn that results in increased vacancy
rates because not many people want to work under great pressure for an ‘inadequate’
employer.
I am pleased to see that Coventry City Council is making
extra resources available to try to address the issues, but sadly I think the
Ofsted inspection system points to, and indeed exacerbates, the problems while not
identifying the solutions. The inspector provides a long list of
recommendations of the this-is-wrong-put-it-right variety (see page 6 of the
report), but I don’t see how any of these tackles the fundamental problem of
too few people doing too much work.
