I may grumpy and cantankerous, but I can’t help feeling some
justification for fulminating just a little (is that a contradiction in terms?)
when I read Ofsted’s report of its inspection of services for children in need
of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers in Manchester
City Council.
It’s not just the fact that the report uses the word
‘embedded’ three times and the word ‘robust’ seventeen (yes, 17) times,
including four times on page 32 alone. Rather it is that you don’t have to look
very far into this report to see that the elephant in the room is resources, a word that was only used
just once in the report and then in
relation to ‘community resources’ not money.
We are told that there were 486 cases in Manchester on what was
effectively a waiting list for an assessment. Sadly you have to read quite a
long way into the report to understand that these were cases of children in
need and not in need of protection. Indeed the inspectors undertook an audit of
a sample of these cases and found that no child had been left at risk of
significant harm. (Paragraph 59)
Then there is the issue of caseloads. The report says:
“Caseloads are variable and for too many social workers they
are too high. Some social workers had over 40 cases each and two workers had 50
cases. High caseloads mean that social workers do not have time to spend
establishing meaningful relationships with all children on their caseload and
are not able to effectively prioritise all their work.” (Paragraph 62)
These are eye-watering figures. You only have to ask
yourself whether you could remember critical information about forty of your friends
or acquaintances to appreciate that social workers with caseloads this high
cannot be on-top of their work.
But rather than some kind of analysis about why caseloads
are so desperately high in Manchester, and perhaps some advice about how they
could be brought down, all the inspection gives us is an unhelpful counsel of
perfection:
“Ensure that there is a sufficient number of suitably experienced and
qualified staff to deal effectively with current demand.” (Paragraph 11)
I bet that went down
well with people on the ground who are probably pulling their hair out trying
to work out how to cope with ‘current demand’ given current resources!
Of course a bad
Ofsted report brings out the lurid headlines, like the one in the Manchester Evening News.
And that sort of
headline, and the tone of the article, which speaks of ‘nasty little-surprises’
and makes frequent references to Rotherham, will all serve to deepen
Manchester’s problems, rather than improve them.
I’m beginning to
think that Ofsted is not “… raising standards and improving lives…” as its
strap line proclaims. Rather it is putting in the boot on hard-pressed and
chronically under-resourced providers of services. And it is passing
responsibility downwards, mostly to those at the bottom of the tree.
The report’s 24
recommendations (paragraphs 11 – 34) seem to disproportionately target those who
actually do the work, who are the targets for what must inevitably be described
as more robust management. They are
enjoined to ensure case records are up-to-date, to ensure timeliness of
completing assessments, attend more case conferences, ensure that looked after
children have personal education plans and a host of other things.
Things may be bad in
Manchester, but I can’t help feeling Ofsted is doing a good job of making them
worse.
