Is there is cloud to the Savile exposé silverlining?

Few people can be unaware of last years documentary which exposed Jimmy Savile as a predatory paedophile, and has subsequently helped in unearthing a huge amount of child sexual abuse.
The Savile (no one seems to call him Jimmy anymore) program has now been nominated in two Royal Television Society Award categories . Current Affairs - Home and Scoop of the Year. Mark Williams Thomas (MWT) tweeted this and I was prompted to respond, somewhat flippantly on reflection, that it would feel ‘grubby’ to win an award on the back of child abuse.

I then found myself in debate (not with MWT) regarding my comment and it was suggested that I was focusing on the child abuse and not the ‘tireless work’ MWT had done to expose it. Further more I was tainting MWT achievement by suggesting he was in ‘cahoots with the abuse’.

My position was that exposing child abuse to the general public by means of TV documentary is not necessary and that there other ways to deal with child sexual abuse. This other way I refer to is alerting the appropriate authorities and allowing due process. This argument was countered by the fact, and it is a fact, that this route had not been successful and thus allowed Savile et al to abuse for 30 years.

I am not seeking to attack MWT or the work he does. I am seeking to understand my reaction to the program and the subsequent award nomination. I would also very much like to encourage the views of others, both on my reaction and their views in general. If you are reading this please comment, I enjoy the debate and am eager to learn from the views of others.

Following the Savile show I believe child sexual abuse has become a cause célèbre. I do not believe that was the intent of the show and I do believe the original show was a serious piece of journalism… but much of what has followed is not.

For weeks following the show it was impossible to watch any news bulletin without viewing images of Savile leering at children. Other celebrities and high profile figures such as politicians have also been implicated and of course the BBC. The ‘story’ had all the ingredients for a media feeding frenzy and the media did not disappoint. Amongst all of that there were of course the victims of Savile, who had found a voice and were finally being listened to.

The relationship between the media and agencies involved in child sexual abuse is frequently an uneasy one. The Savile exposé has caused me to reflect on this unease and I can see that MWT’s hard work has reaped very tangible results. However, I struggle with the way this was achieved i.e releasing the findings to the general public thereby forcing the hand of agencies who hither to appeared to ignore the allegations. This ‘dropping a bombshell’ method is effective and I assume the argument is that the ends justify the means. But I am left asking before dropping the bombshell what did MWT and his team try first to address the serious issues they uncovered? The answer I came up (and I stand to be corrected) is not much. After all, their job is to make a TV documentary, and in this case although the documentary was about past events it was clearly seeking to influence future ones. MWT was not getting paid to expose child abuse, he was paid to produce a documentary. I want to reiterate that I am not attacking MWT, I believe he is an expert in his field and has produced some fine work. This is about my reaction to his work and the questions it has raised for me about the role of the media in delicate issues such as child sexual abuse.

In writing this I come to the conclusion that the central question for me is;

What are the ‘ends’ that were achieved and do they justify the means?

Apparently since the Savile exposé so many people have now come forward to report child abuse that it has led to the Norfolk Police Commissioner commenting that council tax will have to rise to deal with soaring demand. That is a claim which I find astonishing and tend to agree with MTW’s view that it actually illustrates a problem with cuts to Police funding, not with his program.

Nevertheless it does prove that the documentary has empowered many victims to speak up and report abuse. The fact that the Police are inundated illustrates that the voices of the abused are being heard. But I believe it these voices are reduced to a whisper by the loudest voices, which are those who seek to apportion blame for what has happened, in the name of understanding and preventing such events occurring again.

Clearly there is important work to be done in this area, but if the loud voices win the day and significant Police resources are focused in this area what becomes of the majority of victims of child sexual abuse who are not abused by celebrities, but by parents, relatives and family friends? As the NSPCC point out "The majority of perpetrators sexually assault children known to them, with about 80% of offences taking place in the home of either the offender or the victim." Does the current media obsession with celebrity abusers directly caused by the Savile exposé help parents protect their children and children protect themselves? I would say that it does not. In fact I would go so far as to say it is in danger of taking us back to the days of ‘stranger danger’ and the vision of the ‘dirty old man’ lurking by the playground.

This brings me to the conclusion that Mark Thomas Williams’ work has been a benefit to historical victims of child sexual abuse and for that we should applaud him. However, the by-product of the documentary has been a refocusing of the public and certain professions, awareness of child abuse, away from the most likely offenders and towards stranger (celebrity) danger.

I am struggling to see where this is helping current or future victims who statistically will not be abused by a stranger or celebrity, but by a person they know. This, I believe, is an unintended consequence of the massive media interest in Jimmy Savile and Operations Yewtree and Fernbridge.

And to my initial gut reaction of saying that getting an award on the back of child abuse was ‘grubby’. It was a flippant comment, but on reflection I stand by it. I would say that I think MWT’s intentions were honest enough; he wanted to expose a highly regarded celebrity as the man he really was and provide a voice for his victims. But this was only ever achievable via a TV show and it was always going to be headline grabbing and salacious, in short it was entertainment. And now it is it being nominated for awards I wonder if any of Savile’s victims get to go the award ceremony?

The Big Question?

How about a few simplistic, but big questions about social work?

• How do we measure success in Children’s Social Work?

• What is a good outcome for a child and their family?

• Is our role to make a child happy?

Sometimes there is an obvious need to intervene in a situation. Consider the following case study; over chastisement of a 15 year old child who lives with their mother and stepfather. The over chastisement constitutes an assault on the child, the stepfather is the perpetrator. Children’s Services and Police intervene and the stepfather is arrested and charged; subsequently the child goes to live with their father and is therefore protected from the abusive stepfather.

On the face of it, a good outcome for the child as they are no longer at risk of physical abuse, but is that the end of the story? What if despite the physical abuse the child tells you they were happier with their mother and stepfather?

This raises a number of questions;

• Firstly, can we accept that it is possible that living in an abusive home could be a ‘happier’ childhood (perhaps ‘not as sad’ is more appropriate)?

• Secondly if we could accept a child living in a home where they have been assaulted how could it be managed?

• Thirdly I would argue that the best outcome is ‘safe and happy’, but clearly there are degrees of both, is there an acceptably low level of ‘safe’ which is balanced by a child saying they are ‘happy’?

When we consider issues of risk are we always focusing on what is best the best outcome for the child? Or do we have a question about how the situation might look if we took a risk and something went wrong? Are we actually considering what is the best outcome for the child and me (the social worker)?

I was recently involved in a decision which saw a child removed from a placement which were happy and doing well in. We had identified a risk to the child in placement, not of direct harm, but the risk of being accused of something by a member of the foster carers family. I believe the probable damage caused by moving the child far outweighs the risk of living there. However, once we were aware of the risk (a risk which could not be negated for various reasons) we had to act on it. I am still wondering in whose interests we acted? We have protected that child from risk, but it didn’t feel like much of a success. 
 
I have long believed (somewhat sadly) that it is not my primary role to make children happy. I believe my job is to protect a child from harm and sometimes this makes the child happy… but not always! And this brings me back to my case study and the question of acceptable levels of risk. Would I live with the risk to make a child happy?

In amongst this, and perhaps always lurking in the back of all our minds is Ofsted, who’s tagline of ‘raising standards improving lives’ seems ridiculous when applied to Social Work.

I have never met a child whose life was improved by the timely completion of an assessment. Sure a decent analysis in an assessment helps inform interventions, but to my mind Ofsted inspections don’t even lightly scuff the surface of our work, let alone scratch it. Ofsted’s measurement of success is so narrow in its focus as to render it useless. Sure we need someone to keep an eye on us, but to call a Local Authority ‘failing’ or ‘outstanding’ on what they find is insulting to everyone, the Local Authority, the families we work with and the taxpayer . 
 
I don’t think the government have a clue what constitutes success in social work so they came up with some half arsed time scales and a quick look around the basics of what we do and then tell us we are ‘outstanding’.

Surely the answer to the question about what counts as success in social work is with the people we work for… children. And I ask you to consider this. we gain their views as part of our assessments, we act on them when we can, but will we take a risk for a child to make them happy?

C’mon Eileen!

It’s new years day and in the Independent Sarah Cassidy reports on Eileen’s latest musings on Social Work post Rotherham Ukip debacle.

Eileen feels that we look like idiots because there is a culture of secrecy within Social Work and therefore we do not explain our decisions.

It would appear that Eileen was prompted to draw this conclusion from what happened in Rotherham and the fact that she hasn’t read the reasoning for the decision. I doubt she reads my blog, but Eileen if you are have a little look at this piece from the Guardian’s website on November 30th I’m not surprised she didn’t read it, the media were already getting bored with the story and there was no interest in the actual facts of the decision so not much coverage was given to evening the story up. I am a little surprised that she didn’t take the time to check though before talking to the Independent. 
 
I can’t quite work out Sarah Cassidy’s piece because although it feels like yet another attack I do not believe that is what Dame Professor Monro intended. I think what Lady Professor Monro meant when she said Social Workers should be more transparent was, Local Authorities should be more transparent about the decisions Social Workers carry out on their behalf. I am sure Baroness Professor Monro realises that no Social Worker could talk to the media directly about a case.

I also feel confident that she did not mean to once again mention ‘Baby P’ and Khyra Ishaq and to define our entire profession by the failures in these cases.

Overall I do not believe for one moment that High Priestess Professor Monro made blindingly obvious, but slightly misinformed comments to the press in order to maintain her public profile. I’m just not sure what the point of her comments were though… answers on a postcard please