Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Khyra Ishaq - Serious Case Review - still no sign
No sign yet! Apparently we will be able to read the whole thing, when at long last it is published .....
Saturday, 19 June 2010
ContactPoint - more confusion?
Tom Jeffery is quoted on the Kable website as saying "... the government recognises the big investment made on (sic) the system – estimated at £227m over five years – and wants to make appropriate use of it where practicable". So it has been decided to continue maintaining ContactPoint until a decision has been made on a replacement. (http://www.kable.co.uk/government-delays-contactpoint-abolition-dfe-education-18jun10)
Maybe Tom has never heard the management accountants' adage "Sunk costs are history". It is only future costs and revenues which matter, not money wasted in the past. If ContactPoint is a dead duck the aim should be to make sure that as little money as possible is now spent on it.
I say move on and switch it off.
Maybe Tom has never heard the management accountants' adage "Sunk costs are history". It is only future costs and revenues which matter, not money wasted in the past. If ContactPoint is a dead duck the aim should be to make sure that as little money as possible is now spent on it.
I say move on and switch it off.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
After ContactPoint
Sadly the Government has not abolished ContactPoint forthwith and seems to favour a gradual phasing out. An article in Children and Young People Now (16 June 2010) quotes Department for Education civil servant Tom Jeffrey as saying that it will be axed "... as soon as practicable ... " and that a replacement system "... will help practitioners find out if others are working with vulnerable children...."
A lot depends on what is meant by "vulnerable children". The problem with ContactPoint is that it appeared to be based on the assumption that all children were in some sense vulnerable. There is clearly a great danger that unless "vulnerable" is given a clear and unambiguous definition we will have son-of-ContactPoint by the back door.
I believe that there is only one group of children and young people for whom there is an unequivocal need for a national database. These are children who have been formally recognised as being at risk of significant harm by being made subject to a Child Protection Plan (what we used to call being on the Child Protection Register). A national database of such children which was available to Children's Social Care, hospital A&E departments and the police would mean that any such child - for example presenting at an A & E department in another city - would be picked-up quickly. And when I say national I mean UK wide, unlike ContactPoint, which was only to be introduced in England.
Hopefully the hardware infrastructure of ContactPoint could be used for this purpose and the limited user-ship would make it more secure.
A lot depends on what is meant by "vulnerable children". The problem with ContactPoint is that it appeared to be based on the assumption that all children were in some sense vulnerable. There is clearly a great danger that unless "vulnerable" is given a clear and unambiguous definition we will have son-of-ContactPoint by the back door.
I believe that there is only one group of children and young people for whom there is an unequivocal need for a national database. These are children who have been formally recognised as being at risk of significant harm by being made subject to a Child Protection Plan (what we used to call being on the Child Protection Register). A national database of such children which was available to Children's Social Care, hospital A&E departments and the police would mean that any such child - for example presenting at an A & E department in another city - would be picked-up quickly. And when I say national I mean UK wide, unlike ContactPoint, which was only to be introduced in England.
Hopefully the hardware infrastructure of ContactPoint could be used for this purpose and the limited user-ship would make it more secure.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Social worker shortages - is there a quick fix?
The Nottingham Post reports that Nottingham City Council is apparently experiencing a shortage of children’s social workers with 15 vacant posts out of a total 96 and a further ten positions filled by agency staff. (http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/)
Reasons given for this state of affairs are the national shortage of social workers and the fact that social workers are being lured away by better terms and conditions to work for local authorities where the government has intervened because of poor Ofsted reports.
Staff shortages continue to plague child protection social work. After Baby Peter, Ed Balls promised to look at ways in which those who had left the profession could be enticed to return, but no urgent action was taken. Now with a new Government we have the much welcome Munro Review, but hard-pressed local authorities need help now.
Perhaps someone should organize a one-day think tank event to which ex-social workers are invited to give their views on what it would take to get them to return to practice?
Reasons given for this state of affairs are the national shortage of social workers and the fact that social workers are being lured away by better terms and conditions to work for local authorities where the government has intervened because of poor Ofsted reports.
Staff shortages continue to plague child protection social work. After Baby Peter, Ed Balls promised to look at ways in which those who had left the profession could be enticed to return, but no urgent action was taken. Now with a new Government we have the much welcome Munro Review, but hard-pressed local authorities need help now.
Perhaps someone should organize a one-day think tank event to which ex-social workers are invited to give their views on what it would take to get them to return to practice?
Friday, 11 June 2010
Should Serious Case Reviews be published in full?
As some-one who once wrote an article about the value of anonymous reporting of errors in child protection practice, I ought to be very reluctant to embrace the Government's decision to mandate the publication of the full reports of Serious Case Reviews (SCRs). There are strong arguments that people are more willing to co-operate with an anonymous inquiry process and there will always be risks that details contained in the reports will identify surviving children and other family members.
However, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Government is doing the right thing. The current system of releasing only an Executive Summary of the report simply isn't working to produce widespread knowledge of what has gone wrong. Some recent executive summaries have been so uninformative that I defy anyone to learn anything from them, let alone important lessons about how to protect children more effectively.
And I don't think that publishing the full report will necessarily harm the interests of the professionals involved. I have a strong suspicion that if we were able to see the whole SCR report, then we might be more likely to see the actions of individual professionals in context. We might see how their actions are often the product of systems and working environments rather than individual failings, slips and lapses. It might even make it more difficult for some of the more irresponsible elements in the media to target individual scapegoats, because organisational influences will be more apparent.
There will have to be careful redaction to protect the identities of third parties, but on-balance I think this is a step in the right direction.
However, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Government is doing the right thing. The current system of releasing only an Executive Summary of the report simply isn't working to produce widespread knowledge of what has gone wrong. Some recent executive summaries have been so uninformative that I defy anyone to learn anything from them, let alone important lessons about how to protect children more effectively.
And I don't think that publishing the full report will necessarily harm the interests of the professionals involved. I have a strong suspicion that if we were able to see the whole SCR report, then we might be more likely to see the actions of individual professionals in context. We might see how their actions are often the product of systems and working environments rather than individual failings, slips and lapses. It might even make it more difficult for some of the more irresponsible elements in the media to target individual scapegoats, because organisational influences will be more apparent.
There will have to be careful redaction to protect the identities of third parties, but on-balance I think this is a step in the right direction.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Well done, Tim
Junior children’s minister, Tim Loughton, has been very wise to appoint Professor Eileen Munro to conduct a review to examine ways of reducing bureaucracy in children’s social care so giving social workers more time for direct work with children and families.
Eileen Munro is a formidable expert who has a unique grasp of issues in child protection. She will bring academic rigour, detachment and objectivity to issues which in the past have all too often been the preserve of a small group of senior figures in the children’s services establishment, bureaucrats and, during the closing years of the last government, political spin-doctors.
Her review will be a breath of much needed fresh air.
Eileen Munro is a formidable expert who has a unique grasp of issues in child protection. She will bring academic rigour, detachment and objectivity to issues which in the past have all too often been the preserve of a small group of senior figures in the children’s services establishment, bureaucrats and, during the closing years of the last government, political spin-doctors.
Her review will be a breath of much needed fresh air.
Time to raise the age of criminal responsibility
The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Paul Mendelle QC, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to 14.
His call should be taken very seriously. The recent case of two very young boys convicted of attempted statutory rape is a most worrying sign that our criminal justice system currently appears to give no regard to issues of maturity. We must stop treating 10-13 years olds as if they were adults and accept that the heavy hammer of the criminal law is not an effective or humane approach in helping our children to become well-behaved citizens.
His call should be taken very seriously. The recent case of two very young boys convicted of attempted statutory rape is a most worrying sign that our criminal justice system currently appears to give no regard to issues of maturity. We must stop treating 10-13 years olds as if they were adults and accept that the heavy hammer of the criminal law is not an effective or humane approach in helping our children to become well-behaved citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)