The blog suddenly seems to be generating more international traffic with a marked increase in interest, much apparently from Japan.
Assuming that these readership statistics are not just a misleading consequence of some electronic malfunction in the blogosphere, it would be of interest to me to know what features of the blog are of interest, particularly to those accessing it from Japan but also from any new readers elsewhere.
If you can spare a few minutes why not email me with your thoughts or comments on:
chris-mills-child-protection-blog@gmx.co.uk
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Good-one Frank!
There’s a very good post in the Guardian today by some-one called
Frank who is a child protection social worker in England with 30 years
experience.
I hope politicians and senior managers listen to people like Frank. He
knows what he’s talking about. Which is more than can be said for some (but not
all) of those who entered comments on Frank’s post. Take a look - the ignorance
(and nastiness) of some people is frightening.
Frank argues cogently and eloquently that “… (s)ocial
workers' jobs are made harder by constant attacks on their profession,
increased workload and deep budget cuts”. He says that in 30 years he has never
seen it so bad.
In particular he complains of:
- Shrinking resources with which to do preventative work
- “Laborious and unwieldy” data-collection systems
- Being “chained to the desk” by poor IT and huge levels of administration
- High caseloads and workloads
That all sounds very reasonable and very accurate to me. If
you wanted to create an environment in which people find it difficult to work
effectively, and where it is easy to make mistakes, Frank describes the blueprint
of it very well. That’s the reality of lots of ‘children’s social care’
workplaces in modern Britain (and I expect elsewhere as well).
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
The Blame Game again
How sad to witness the continuing ramifications of the blame
culture with the senior management of Rochdale Council, the town where serious sexual
exploitation of vulnerable adolescents took place, denying before the House of
Commons Home Office Select Committee culpability for the Council’s failings.
And it’s all too easy for blame to cascade down an
organisation to those at the frontline who are often least able to defend
themselves.
As Sidney Dekker [1] tells us the ‘few bad apples’ argument
is a convenient explanation that is invariably unhelpful in improving safety.
The few-bad-apples approach seals lips and discourages safety reporting. It
creates a climate of fear in which self-preservation is the only response. That
results in organisations which do not learn and which are consequently less
safe.
The first response of all those involved in a tragedy such
as that which occurred in Rochdale should be to seek an objective understanding
of what went wrong. Naming, blaming and shaming makes this much more difficult.
[1] Dekker, S. Just Culture: Balancing Safety and
Accountability (Ashgate 2007)
MPs say: “(Care) thresholds need to be lower.”
BBC News takes a different perspective on the Education
Select Committee’s report. The focus here is on the issue of some children not
being taken into care, when it would be in their best interests to be removed
from their birth families.
The Committee’s report states that thresholds for care
proceedings are not set too low but too high:
'… there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that thresholds need to be lower. Witnesses from the courts found little or no evidence of inappropriate removal of children and many instances where earlier removal would have been appropriate…. This is backed by academic research: Professor Ward noted that "there is substantial evidence that many children remain for too long with or are returned to abusive and neglectful families with insufficient support".' [Paragraph 205]
In support of this the report cites research by Professor
Elaine Farmer at the Centre for Family Policy and Child Welfare at Bristol
University. This found that in almost half the cases where children returned
home from care, particularly over the age of 10, they were neglected or abused
during the return [1].
These observations are, of course, a welcome counterblast to
the likes of Christopher Booker (see http://chrismillsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/at-it-again.html
) who implausibly argue that social workers and the courts are trigger happy.
But much more analysis is required of cases where the
decision-making process fails a child in this way. My own sense is that babies
and very young children are particularly prone to be left in neglectful and
abusive situations, in which huge amounts of long-term damage occur, while
professionals give a new mum and dad a second, third and fourth chance to get
their act together. The long-term consequences of emotional neglect alone can
be momentous (see http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/brain_development/).
Very careful thought needs to go into making it easier to
intervene earlier when there may be an absence of tangible evidence of the
current impact of maltreatment, but where there is a justifiable prognosis of
the likelihood of significant harm in the medium-to-long-term.
[1] Farmer, E R G (2009). "Reunification with birth
families", in Schofield, G and Simmonds, J (Eds.) The child placement
handbook. London, BAAF.
Committee finds that child protection is failing adolescents
I very much welcome the emphasis on the needs of adolescents in the report
of the House of Commons Education Committee on child protection.
The inquiry found a worrying picture of the how the system
fails to provide protection and support to those in the 14-18 age group. The
report identifies:
- A lack of services for adolescents
- A failure to look beyond behavioural problems
- A lack of recognition of the signs of neglect and abuse in teenagers
- A lack of understanding about the long-term impact of maltreatment on young people
The Guardian quotes committee chairman, Graham Stuart as
saying:
"Care for older children is not good enough. They are let down too often, frequently ignored or not listened to, can be pushed out of care too young and insufficiently prepared and supported. This has to change."In all cases, these children must be treated as children first, and not just as either criminals or immigration cases. To ensure this happens, we want the Department for Education to take responsibility for the welfare of all children."
Recognising this problem is an important step forward, but one
thing that has to be accepted is that service improvements are seldom cost free. Protection and care for adolescents must be improved, but it
should not be improved at the cost of safeguarding services for other children. Extra resources will be required.
If the Government is serious about prioritising services for vulnerable children and young people, it needs to look at transferring resources from other services. If it is more important to meet children's needs for safety than to pursue them as 'criminals' or 'immigration offenders', then resources need to be diverted from the police and the UK Borders Agency to local authorities and children's health services. It's not rocket science.
Monday, 5 November 2012
Stateless, homeless and on the streets - some children in modern Britain
It is hard not to feel a chill reading the BBC’s account of
homeless, stateless young people living on the streets of London and other
British towns and cities.
Now one knows exactly how many such young people there are
but it is known that numbers run into hundreds. The BBC article says:
“Some stateless children are as young as 14. With no
support, shelter or care, they are increasingly turning to crime to survive.”
The most worrying part of the whole story is the suggestion
that some local authorities are trying to avoid taking responsibility for
these young people, despite having a legal duty to care for them.
I would argue that this kind of problem is a national, not a
local, issue; with homeless young people from all over the country congregating
in particular areas. A central fund to assist local authorities that are disproportionately
affected would go some way to easing the pressure.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
More criticism of Frontline
It seems I’m far from being the only one opposed to the ‘Frontline’
scheme to fast track graduates from elite universities into child protection
social work.
The Independent on Sunday today carries several letters from
people commenting on it. All are very negative.
One person speaks of the “… casual demeaning of this work by
suggesting that "elite graduates" are fast-tracked into the
profession…”
Another says:
“Vulnerable children deserve better than having to rely on
ill-thought-through but high-profile special schemes which at best will have a
marginal impact.”
One more correspondent writes,
“If ever there was a job where running a home and raising
children counted for more than a degree, it is social work.”
She concludes by saying,
“… how little Gove knows about the reality of life for
countless families.”
Michael Gove should think again, quickly. Frontline will
achieve nothing for vulnerable children because recruiting green young people, however clever,
as social workers is not what is required. People with lots of life experience and wisdom based on
a deep understanding of complex issues are needed. Doing anything else will just
squander public funds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)