tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76794641357211140402024-02-21T00:56:58.364-08:00Updates from a Frontline Child Protection TeamAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-56163356852515964702013-02-03T23:58:00.000-08:002013-02-04T01:12:05.593-08:00Is there is cloud to the Savile exposé silverlining?<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;">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.</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;">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.<br /><br />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’. </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><br />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.</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><br />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. </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><br />Following the Savile show I believe child sexual abuse has become a <i>cause célèbre. </i>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. <br /><br />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.</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><br />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. </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><br />In writing this I come to the conclusion that the central question for me is;<br /><br />What are the ‘ends’ that were achieved and do they justify the means?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;">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 <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272358/Council-tax-rise-blamed-Jimmy-Savile-sex-probe-police-demand-resources-deal-abuse-investigations.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: purple;">commenting</span></a> 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 "<a href="https://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: purple;">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</span></a>." 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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;">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. <br /><br />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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;">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?</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-31911995708919032632013-01-27T12:46:00.000-08:002013-01-27T16:10:59.610-08:00The Big Question?<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">How about a few simplistic, but big questions about social work?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span><br />
<ul><span lang="EN-GB">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">How do we measure success in Children’s Social Work?</span></li>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></span></ul>
<span lang="EN-GB">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
</span><br />
<ul><span lang="EN-GB">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">What is a good outcome for a child and their family? </span></li>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></span></ul>
<span lang="EN-GB">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
</span><br />
<ul><span lang="EN-GB">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Is our role to make a child happy?</span></li>
</span></ul>
<span lang="EN-GB">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This raises a number of questions;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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)?</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Secondly if we could accept a child living in a home where they have been assaulted how could it be managed?</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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’?</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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 . </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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’.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-45059556543062910972013-01-02T03:09:00.000-08:002013-01-02T03:14:40.482-08:00C’mon Eileen!<span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It’s new years day and in the Independent Sarah Cassidy reports on Eileen’s latest </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/secrecy-of-social-workers-makes-them-look-idiotic-social-workers-must-explain-more-after-ukip-case-8434647.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">musings</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> on Social Work post Rotherham Ukip debacle. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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 </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">piece</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> from the Guardian’s website on November 30th </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN">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. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN"> </span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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</span> </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-52940678810781208492012-12-11T16:21:00.001-08:002012-12-11T16:30:12.619-08:00I'm a celebrity, sit me down here<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Ofsted will release the official statistics for outcomes of local authority Children’s Services inspections on </span><a href="http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/official-statistics-local-authority-childrens-services-inspections-and-outcomes" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">24<sup>th</sup> January 2013</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">. </span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Last year the banner headline from Ofsted was ‘</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/majority-of-local-authorities-are-providing-good-services-for-local-children-and-young-people" target="_blank"><span lang="EN">The majority of local authorities are providing good services for local children and young people</span><span lang="EN-GB">’</span></a><span lang="EN">. Interestingly Ofsted chose to frame their findings in a positive light rather than focusing on the 15 councils identified as poor performers.</span></span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Given the ever present furore around Social Work it seems unlikely that Ofsted will be so charitable this year. Since the Saville scandal broke there has been one negative story after another and a queue of politicians and TV personalities happy to perpetuate the suggestion that we are incompetent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Highlights (lowlights?) in the tsunami of bile aimed at our profession were;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mr Gove’s speech and in which he revealed such an astonishing lack of understanding of what we do that it hard to believe he has ever met a service user or Social Worker.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Josh Macalister's ‘Frontline’ proposal, which offers answers to a problem that in my opinion does not exist. </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Rotherham UKIP ‘scandal’, so many had so much to say about it, but so few felt the need to retract or apologise for what they said when the truth emerged. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Regardless of what Ofsted find or how they seek to frame it, the public perception of Social Work continues on a downward trajectory. To compound this we are fighting the battle of perception on more than one front. There is the public perception of Social Workers and there is the professional/political perception. These different perceptions are symbiotic and influence and inform each other. We have seen this acutely brought into focus by Mr Gove’s speech which illustrates he was almost entirely barren of reasoned opinion on Social Work whilst simultaneously quoting Lord Carlisle and Eileen Munro at us. What is it they say? ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">To address the public perception there are frequent calls to get more positive stories out in the press about Social Work, a call I have reflected on many times. I have come to the conclusion that the answer to our public image problem is not about getting stories of positive outcomes from Social Work interactions in the media. The simple reason for this is that no one cares. I cannot imagine any newsroom (even at a local level) would run a story about how a Social Worker intervened and prevented… well you don’t what was prevented if it didn’t happen. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">We need to think differently, individual success stories are not that interesting to the public. Even when they are wonderful tales of Looked After Children who have prospered in care or families we have helped to turn around. There is a time and place to celebrate these successes, but for the most part the general public are not interested. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So what do I think would help? I am almost tempted not to write this, because I find the answer so unpalatable. But I want to spark debate so I’ll take a deep breath and just write it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">I think we need to engage with the public on a macro non-specific level (trying to make it palatable here). The key to the problem is we need to be sitting down more. We need sit down next Lorraine Kelly on her couch, and sit down on the ‘This Morning’ couch, let’s also sit down with the ‘Loose Women’ and maybe even ‘gulp’ … Jeremy Kyle. In short we need to be on any TV show which covers the area’s that we do in our profession. We need to be </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">accessible to the public, we need to engage with them and we need them to like us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Wanting the public to like us is perhaps a slightly strange concept. Frequently in child protection you will hear a Social Worker say ‘you don’t do this job to make friends’ or ‘it’s not about people liking you'. I think for the most part that is true, but I believe that if we want to improve our public image it is vital we separate doing the job from our public image. Again this may sound counter intuitive, but if the two things were linked then we wouldn’t have a public image problem. I say this because the overwhelming weight of what we do does not result in tragedy and if our public image was about what we do then the general public would value us. But we are not judged on what we do every day, we are judged on what is reported when what we do leads to a tragedy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So back to sitting down with people on daytime TV. I’m not suggesting this will deal with all our problems, but I do think it will give social work a more positive exposure to a mass audience. If you speak to the general public about social work it won’t be long before they mention ‘Baby P’ or Victoria Climbié. I am suggesting that if we were on daytime TV there may be other images of social work they can identify with. I think we need celebrity Social Workers, like there are celebrity doctors.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As an example consider the recent media frenzy over the Rotherham UKIP foster carers. This was splashed all over the media and there was almost universal condemnation of the decision. Imagine the celebrity Social Worker talking over the incident with someone like Lorraine Kelly or one of the other daytime presenters. It would not be that difficult for them to at least put the opinion across that there was probably more to the story than was being reported. This message could reach a mass audience in a way that Newsnight never could.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
There may be those amongst who may feel that social work and daytime TV are strange bedfellows. You may feel it would be wrong to associate ourselves with this element of the media. I know I felt that way when I first thought of this. But why shouldn’t we engage with Lorraine Kelly et al? Are we above this? Doctors aren’t above it, psychologists aren’t above it and importantly a large section of society isn’t above watching it. Tony Blair and David Cameron both recognised the value of appearances on daytime TV (it backfired on Cameron, but Philip Schofield was forced to apologise). We need to wise up as a profession and realise that if we do not define what our profession does to the general public then others will do it for us, and it will seldom be fair or balanced. Daytime TV is one way we can get a positive message to a mass audiance. Think about how many times you've done a visit and that odious toad is on the TV? I'm not talking about Michael Gove, I refer to Jeremy Kyle of course!</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-21219012428864199322012-12-08T14:34:00.003-08:002012-12-09T16:24:43.409-08:00Put up or shut up. <span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It's time for people to choose what they care about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Recent events have sparked a tidal wave of media and political interest in child protection. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of the population have a default position of caring about the welfare of children. But my point is, once again the population has become vocal about the protection of children. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The current coalition government is weak, according to figures <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/" target="_blank">from the 7<sup>th</sup> December 2012</a> the Conservative Party is 10 points behind Labour in the polls and the Lib Dems are only 1 point ahead of UKIP. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN">A weak government will look for ways to increase its popularity and as such they will be taking note of the public interest in Child Protection. You can witness this by the ludicrous comments Michael Gove made about the situation in Rotherham, branding the Rotherham metropolitan borough council’s decision ’<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/24/ukip-foster-parents-children-removed-social-workers" target="_blank">indefensible</a>’ without bothering to find out the truth of the matter. One can only assume that all Mr Gove had to do was make a call and he would have be availed of the facts. Instead he chose to join the squawking right-wing press and attack the Local Authority in a lame attempt at currying favour with the electorate. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN">Incidentally as recently as 4 days ago he was still <a href="http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/93211/michael-gove-refuses-to-apologise-over-ukip-fostering-storm.aspx" target="_blank">refusing to apologise</a>. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN"></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF9zb7SELS1243NNSMfRD8mhm3drwMqL2k05BWBL2IAZ-ewz1nTQnr_vWHbbux5fS0M6GRvzoP4GeiIAcJDLk0i9k2Ve0DoRkBpBwo0JlloCCEdT1YKI9XOcgdMtoyukdeaTczJPElmEU/s1600/mr+gove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; height: 340px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 299px;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF9zb7SELS1243NNSMfRD8mhm3drwMqL2k05BWBL2IAZ-ewz1nTQnr_vWHbbux5fS0M6GRvzoP4GeiIAcJDLk0i9k2Ve0DoRkBpBwo0JlloCCEdT1YKI9XOcgdMtoyukdeaTczJPElmEU/s1600/mr+gove.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The government is turning its beady eye on our profession, although judging by Mr Gove’s lack of understanding, his beady eye needs even stronger pair glasses that it already has (you can read my thoughts on his speech <a href="http://socialworkerx.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/give-over-gove.html" target="_blank">here</a>). And at the risk of stating the obvious, Children’s Services are not free, they have to be paid for. However, like roads, public toilets, parks and of course the NHS, Children’s Services are free at the point of delivery (anyone thinking of toll roads and toilets you have pay for, stop being difficult). We are so accustomed to these things that they are viewed as necessities but, as many people from countries less fortunate than our own will tell you, they are luxuries. To illustrate this, although safety features, you will not find Safeguarding children on Maslow’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg" target="_blank">Hierarchy of Needs</a>. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Taking another casual stroll into the ‘obvious’ Child Protection is paid for via taxes and nobody welcomes tax. But people are awkward sods, so even though they don’t want to pay they complain when they feel there is a problem. One of the few things which has not risen is the price of Council Tax. But it appears that the general public are unable or unwilling, to consider that this translates to less social workers, which in turn leads to higher caseloads, which inevitably leads to less thorough assessments and higher thresholds for child protection. All of these things have a tendency to lead the kinds of mistakes that can have terrible consequences for children.</span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">And as much as the general public are upset by the reports of our shortcomings, we are the ones dealing with it on a first hand basis. Do they think we don't care, do they believe that we go home at night and sleep knowing that we have left children in potentially harmful situations? There was a tragedy in the team I work in just over 6 years ago. There are no members of the team from back then still here, but still it influences us and the other professionals we work with. The general public care for a while, but we continue to care years after they forget the names they read about. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I am not suggesting the general public should mourn the loss of a children for years to come. I am also not looking for sympathy for our professional. I am looking for an understanding that this isn’t just a job to us and that the overwhelming majority of decisions and interventions we make are for good and honest reasons. When we make mistakes we do so because we are human. As Alexander Pope said ‘To err is human; to forgive, divine‘.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">So we know that the general public are financially squeezed and they don't want to pay more tax. We also know they don't want their day spoiled by a terrible story in the media of a child tragedy. But can they have it both ways? Can Social Work be starved of money and still provide a great service? Can you drive a Bentley if you're only prepared to pay for a Kia? No, of course you can't!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I would also like the general public not to forget that ‘free at the point of delivery’ does not just mean ‘free’. You have to pay in advance, essentially its a bit of gamble, a kind of 'pay now, get it later if you need it' offer. But if the general public want the odds in this gamble stacked in favour of children then they should place their chips with us, we will make good use of them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So my call to the men and women in the street is a simple one, if you really care about Child Protection then pay up, its not free. Let this government know that you don’t want more cuts in services. Remind them that we live in a capitalist society, 'ya pay your money, ya make ya choice'. We’re not asking for more pay, we’re not seeking to line our pockets, we just want, no <strong><em><u>NEED</u></em></strong>, more resources, so we can have the time to do our job in a safe and efficient manner. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-85468932107552937152012-12-03T14:06:00.000-08:002012-12-03T14:06:11.756-08:00A word on commenting <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Having spent some time without many comments my most recent post before this one attracted a number of comments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Initially I responded to the comments which were exclusively challenging me about Social Work and Social Workers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">However it became apparent that the majority of the challenges were not relating to the post but simply challenging Social Work and Workers in general.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Whilst I welcome challenges on what I write, I will not permit this blog to become a free-for-all attack on Social Work.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">This does not mean that I will delete all negative comments, it does mean that any </span>comments which do not relate to the post they are commenting on will be deleted. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-47263625695971736332012-12-02T03:04:00.000-08:002012-12-02T03:04:25.637-08:00Sacrifice the few to protect the many?<span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The row sparked by The Telegraph and the story (I use that word advisedly) that they ran regarding Rotherham and the removal of foster children from UKIP voting parents has provoked some interesting debate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I do not refer to the obvious debate regarding the rights and wrongs of what happened in Rotherham, but instead the debate about the response to the story.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Guardian has printed a fuller account of why the children were removed from their parents and subsequently removed from their foster carers. In doing so they vindicated the Rotherham decision but also revealed a lot of sensitive information about the children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Concerns have been raised about the children in this row and how this further information release may effect them. These are valid concerns and whatever else we do we must always remember our job is first and foremost to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our service users.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But I believe there is a bigger picture here. For as long as I can remember the vast majority of negative press about social work intervention is not countered. A story will hit the press and it will be detailed, the detail will be damning to the social workers and/or Local Authority. The Local Authority will issue a press release which will (can)not go into detail and essentially what we get is a weak rebuttal of the original story. Often as social workers we are able to read between the lines of the story and form a view about what may have happened, the general public are not able to do this. Chalk up another point for those who seek to attack our profession. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Another area where the public image of our profession is tarnished are shows (radio and tv) where members of the general public tell their stories of social work interventions in their lives. I have listened to many accounts on radio phone-ins of children that have been removed for seemingly no good reason from loving parents. I have then listened to the outpouring of sympathy for the parents. The parents recounting these accounts do so safe in the knowledge that they can pretty much say what they want without fear of breaching data protection or slander laws. If by some miracle the social workers involved in these cases were listening to the radio phone-in they could not counter the allegations because they know that aside from any data protection law there may be emotional harm to the children by dragging up the detail.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As a profession we normally maintain either a dignified silence (endlessly interpreted as being secretive) or we talk in general terms and as such our counter arguments are poor. We do so knowing that have protected children, but that protection is at a cost to our professional reputations. ‘So what?’ you may ask, ‘at least the children are protected’. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I believe that our professional reputation has been so eroded that it seriously effects our ability to carry out our work. We need the trust and mutual respect of the families we work with to plan and implement effective interventions. If a family does not trust us, or value the help we attempt to provide, this does not make the situation safer for children. We cannot form partnerships with parents and we cannot prevent bad situations getting worse.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Essential in our role is empowerment. We seek to empower families with our interventions with the end goal of improving the lives of children. The erosion of professional reputation is empowering people, but it is empowering them to resist our help.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This situation is bad enough, but now we are beginning to hear calls from those in power to bring children into the care system earlier. Mr Gove tells us we should be intervening earlier to prevent harm to children, we should stop giving bad parents chances and remove their children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is now a two pronged attack on families. Firstly they resist our help, spurred on by the perception that basically we do not know what we are doing. Secondly we are pushed to remove children sooner and as a result of families resisting early intervention this will possibly be the right thing to do. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The end result of this is a lot of empowered families finding that their strength to resist our early intervention has led to them losing their children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The Children Act (1989) makes the child’s welfare paramount. But the spirit of the act is about preserving the family unit and removal is the last resort. We are now in a discussion where removal is not the last resort, indeed it feels that early intervention will become about removing the child. Strange coming from a right wing government which would traditionally be running away from state intervention in the family. I can only conclude it is a populist, knee-jerk reaction to the various child abuse scandals which have recently surfaced involving high profile public figures. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Coming back to the original point of this post I believe that Rotherham were right to release the details of what happened. I think we need to look at the bigger picture and understand that if we do not defend the decisions we make with detail, our profession will be so damaged that will not be able to do our job. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The risk of emotional harm to the ‘few’ is one that has to be taken if we are to protect the welfare of the ‘many’. And let us not forget it is never the profession of social work which takes these stories to a wider public audience. </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-41987256294499522592012-11-26T13:30:00.002-08:002012-11-26T13:32:33.797-08:00Ignore us and we’ll go away.<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">So a referral comes in for neglect of a child, </span><span class="s3">let’s</span><span class="s3"> s</span><span class="s3">ay the home conditions are poor and</span><span class="s3"> </span><span class="s3">the </span><span class="s3">child’s presentation at school is also poor</span><span class="s3">. We decide to do an unannounced visit, when we arrive at the home there is clearly someone there, but they do not open the door.</span></span></span></span><br />
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span class="s3" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">What can we do? Not much at this point, so we put a note thorough the door asking for the parents to contact us and then wait.</span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span class="s3" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">No contact is made by the parents, so another visit is undertaken with the same result, ignored at the door.</span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">So from here a more formal letter is sent </span><span class="s3">arranging a visit, with a warning that we may take action to ensure the welfare of the child if it is deemed necessary.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">The visit is made at the time agreed and again there is a refusal to engage.</span><span class="s3">Where do we go from here? The message from parents is clear, they are not interested in engaging and the reality of this is we write a letter</span><span class="s3"> warning that we may take further action</span><span class="s3"> and</span><span class="s3"> then we</span><span class="s3"> go away.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">It</span><span class="s3">’</span><span class="s3">s not that we do not take neglect issues seriously, but without the cooperation of parents we have no power to gain entry to the home or even speak to the children. There is no way the concerns are at a level to take</span><span class="s3"> any kind of legal action so the case is</span><span class="s3"> closed.</span><span class="s3"> After all i</span><span class="s3">t’s not like we haven’t got enough ‘higher level stuff to be </span><span class="s3">getting on with!</span><span class="s3"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">I suppose in an ideal world we could sit outside the home and wait until a parent emerges.</span><span class="s3"> But e</span><span class="s3">ven then they could tell us to sling our hook and not engage</span><span class="s3"> with us</span><span class="s3">. </span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">How about a similar scenario but with higher level concerns</span><span class="s3">?</span><span class="s3"> This time the child’s mother is associating with a convicted rapist, the child has low attendance at school and there is domestic abuse between the mother and her partner (who is not the child’s father). This mother engage</span><span class="s3">s</span><span class="s3"> early on, mother’s partner does</span><span class="s3"> not, mother indicates she wishes to continue her friendship with the convicted rapist but claims he has no contact with her child.</span><span class="s3"> Mother was unhappy when it was decided to take the case to an Initial Child Protection Conference and at this point she disengages.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">Despite this mother not atte</span><span class="s3">nding conference the decision i</span><span class="s3">s made to have a CP plan and this plan was formulated in her absence. The mother continues to avoid contact with all professionals</span><span class="s3"> and we are left with the slightly ridiculous situation of </span><span class="s3">the plan </span><span class="s3">being </span><span class="s3">carried out</span><span class="s3"> with</span><span class="s3">out</span><span class="s3"> the mother even acknowledging it exists</span><span class="s3">.</span><span class="s3"> No written agreement is in place regarding the child not having contact with the convicted rapist, but there is no new evidence that there is any contact. No further incidents of domestic violence are recorded and at the review conference the plan is removed.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">This situation was not felt to be satisfactory by professionals but similar to the neglect case there were few further actions that could be taken. Despite the concerns being significantly higher </span><span class="s3">that the neglect case they were not at a point </span><span class="s3">at which legal proceedings could be issued.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">Mr Gove would like us to intervene earlier and advocates removing children sooner rather than later (not a new concept I might add). But what he fails to realise is that most of what we do is by consent. </span><span class="s3">Hopefully I have illustrated this with my examples.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">To illustrate</span><span class="s3"> this further t</span><span class="s3">he overwhelming majority of child</span><span class="s3">ren that I have accommodated have</span><span class="s3"> been with the consent of parents, I have never had cause to go to court to obtain an EPO. The only other way I have accommodated children is when the Police have taken them into Police Protection.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">So d</span><span class="s3">o we need more powers, for example a power of entry, or a legal requirement to follow a child protection plan? Do we want these powers? Would more power improve our effectiveness or would that palpable fear that parents frequently exhibit at the merest whiff of Children’s Services involvement rise to such a level that it would become counterproductive?</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="s2">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s3">If Mr Gove is serious about earlier intervention of the most severe kind (removal of a child) then there will need to be changes to the law</span><span class="s3"> and we will find ourselves more powerful. Alternatively a different agency or different type of social worker with the required powers would be responsible for these early interventions. Either way its makes me uncomfortable!</span></span></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-21394800655303762812012-11-22T12:45:00.003-08:002012-11-22T12:49:19.825-08:00Another day in the life of a Child Protection Team<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A rundown of what we’ve been dealing with today. No analysis, just some detail to give a flavour of what we deal with.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A referral from a parent that when their child (aged7) came back from having contact with the other parent, the child had bruising in the groin area and around their genitals. Strat with the Police who felt it was single agency until more detail could be established. Child could not remember how it happened, taken to GP, (still waiting hear back from them). Referring parent starting to backtrack, now saying that neighbour has informed them that they saw child playing with other children and being hit in this area by a ball. Waiting for further info from GP, but possibly NFA if nothing incriminating.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Referral from school re 15 year old, no food, heating or electricity in home. History of allegations that child has been left whilst mother goes on holiday. In the past it has been found that child was being cared for by relative or friend. Initial Assessment to find out more.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Court request for report of Children’s Services involvement with a child, private law.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Serious domestic violence incident, ex partner with machete making threats to kill. 2 year old child was in property at time of incident. Perpetrator taken straight to court and remanded into custody, likely to get custodial sentence. Mum is stating that she had split from perpetrator 2 weeks previously. Initial Assessment to establish more detail about situation, family are from </span><st1:place style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;" w:st="on">Eastern Europe</st1:place><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">, unclear about immigration status.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Referral from parent, teenage boy masturbating into underwear of sibling and other female relatives. Strat with police, no offences, single agency, initial assessment.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Child on CP plan in other area, moving to our area to with live with father. Transfer in conference.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">One year old Child with burn on hand, two other recent injuries with were thought to be accidental. Strat with the Police, single agency (us) to get more information, which seems to be a standard line these days.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Child and older half sibling having unsupervised contact with father who has mental health problems and issues with substance misuse. Allegation that older child was hit during contact. Initial Assessment on younger child, older child does not live in our area, so being dealt with by other team.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Two siblings initially reported missing, turned up with one parent, then made allegations against other parent. Strat with Police, joint investigation, marks on one of the children, but they are now safe as with other parent.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Concerns raised from private law case regarding a mother’s new partner who had been investigated for sexual assault on child under 16 (was NFA’ed). Initial Assessment to gather more information.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Drug raid on house, two small children found in home, mother thought to be under the influence. Significant quantity of drugs found, paraphernalia all over home. Children accommodated. </span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Late finish again today as we were dealing with the children who were accommodated. Who the hell was it that said we did 9 till 5?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-56539966895587785432012-11-19T13:13:00.005-08:002012-11-19T13:37:42.421-08:00Give over Gove!<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Last Friday Education Secretary Michael Gove gave a speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research on ’the failure of our current child protection system’. I guess it‘s never too early in a speech for rhetoric and Mr Gove was setting out his stall early. As the title of the speech says, in his view we are ‘failing’. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Mr Gove's opening gambit in the actual speech was an admission (his words) that the 'state is currently failing in its duty to keep our children safe'. Hearing this I was thinking, ‘Hallelujah! He’s going to talk about the mistake of capping council tax'. But you can imagine my surprise when his admission was actually a preamble to attacking social work! </span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">With barely a pause Mr Gove was invoking the 'instantly negative towards social worker' names of Victoria Climbie, Peter Connelly and Khyra Ishaq. In doing this Mr Gove not only continued to set the tone of the speech, but made it clear that he was not talking to social workers or attempting to engage us. It was of course a speech attacking us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In further admissions Mr Gove goes on to say that ‘we’ are not asking the 'tough questions' or 'taking the necessary actions' to safeguard the emotional and physical wellbeing of children. For me this raises a question I have asked myself many times, how is this type of criticism measured?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Clearly even one child death is too many, but if the bar for our profession is set at the standard of perfection then we are eternally doomed to viewed as a profession in crisis. Our failures are easy to quantify, but it seems that no one yet has found a way of measuring our successes. Without success to measure against failure how do you quantify whether we are successful or not? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This illustrates part of the problem with debating child protection and social work. To counter the arguments made against us you have to make a case that there will be emotional and physical harm of children. This is because the reality of the situation is there will be child deaths and we cannot ensure the wellbeing of every child. That is not in anyway to excuse any failings on the part of social workers. But what I seek to do is reframe the debate by not accepting that what social workers do can be so easily (lazily?) defined by politicians. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In my view, we should always be reviewing what has gone wrong and also what has gone right, and this should lead to services evolving. But the constant redefinition and rewriting of what do is counter productive, as is the constant feeling of working in a profession in crisis. The failings of individuals in cases do not always mean that the whole system is wrong. We should not look to change a system to try and ensure that it is foolproof against an individual failing, or at least that's not all we should do. We should also be asking ourselves what is the cause of individual failure, why did a social worker miss something crucial, or worse case scenario why did a social worker look the other way? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
I do not have the answer to the problem of individual failings, but one thing that does not help is the relentless criticism of our profession. It undermines the professional confidence of social workers, and I believe that frequently social workers are effectively paralysed with fear of doing the wrong thing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mr Gove continues with the observation that ‘we’ are ‘pre-occupied by the much smaller risk of strangers causing harm and in so doing have established an intrusive and inefficient bureaucracy which creates a false feeling of security for parents while alienating volunteers and eroding personal responsibility.’ </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I quite simply do not recognise or accept this, even the most naive amongst us do not subscribe the outdated ‘stranger danger’ approach to social work. I really have no idea what he has based this observation on.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mr Gove continues to attack social work and its leadership in this way. I could critique each and every point, but I think we have already esta</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">blished this is not a speech intended to get us onside.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mr Gove moves on to his belief that more children should be taken into care and at an earlier stage of our involvement when children are at risk. He forms these views from Lord Carlile’s report into Doncaster and the ‘Education Select Committee's recommendation in its report last week on child protection‘. He backs this up with a number of other reports and personal accounts of children in ‘piss soaked vests’. Is it even worth pointing out current exisiting legislation?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">And then Mr Gove takes the role of ‘good cop’, having already been ‘bad cop’ earlier in the speech. Mr Gove finds it ‘understandable’ why we do not challenge parents/cares and offers an excuse as to why we may become desensitised to the situations before us. He wants to support those amongst who dare to take a child into care and he wants to improve the care system and the outcomes for those within it. Is this Mr Gove’s arm I feel around me, is he comforting me? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But then we are back to bad cop. Not just bad cop, but bad cop who spends his days reading the newspapers and watching the news. He talks of ‘powerful strangers who hide their abuse behind a cloak of celebrity or in the dark recesses of the corridors of power‘. Apparently we’ve all been looking for danger in the wrong places! It’s not celebrities and politicians who abuse children, oh no it parents/carers as well! Mr Gove talks like an excited school boy that has just discovered how to make a bottle rocket. Can this really be the first he has heard this, does he really think that as a profession statistically children are most at risk from they know? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So with the problems outlined Mr Gove seeks to offer some answers. In one of these he has my support. He talks about the number of different agencies and the problem of Data Protection. Mr Gove I support you in this. Early on in my career I was asked would I rather be accused of a Data Protection offence or accused of not preventing a child death. Emotive I grant you, but I do consider this is in my day to day dealings with other agencies. I am not advocating playing fast and loose with Data Protection, but I am advocating finding ways of sharing information to safeguard children. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mr Gove also wants to learn from education, he is of course referring to Frontline. My thoughts on this are well documented in my blog, but essentially I feel that it defines a problem which does really exist and then solves it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In his conclusion Mr Gove says that he hopes to have started a debate and of course he has. But the danger is that our already maligned profession is further attacked and social workers are even more demoralised.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Well Mr Gove, that comforting arm you put round my shoulder, stupidly I thought it might have had a fist full of dollars. But it appears it was just a fist, and once again my nose has been bloodied. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span><span lang="EN"></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-36931691519466064242012-11-15T11:48:00.002-08:002012-11-15T15:51:44.306-08:00Sandwell pour £1.5million down the consultant drain?<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Interesting piece on the BASW webiste about <a href="http://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=243" target="_blank">'Sandwell Council’s decision to award a £1.5m 30-month contract to management consultancy firm iMPOWER to run its children’s services'.</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sandwell have 'canned' some top management and replaced them with agency top mangers to deliver services. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Double yew, tea, eff? Why would they do that?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am but a humble assistant manager so this blue sky, out of the box, re-framing, win-win, client focused, resource driven, strategic fit, best value, root and branch restructure makes no sense to me. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Somewhere some how, iMpower is making some cash, somewhere some how, the Local Authority is saving some cash. Or alternatively they are adding another level of management to do what exactly? Well according to Darren Cooper, who leads Sandwell Council, these people “know what excellence looks like". So presumably what they will do is pass on the knowledge of 'excellence aesthetics'. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Back in February Sandwell <a href="http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/news/article/1532/ofsted_says_childrens_safeguarding_in_sandwell_is_improving" target="_blank">reported</a> improvements and Cabinet member for children and families, Bob Badham, said "The whole culture of children's social care in Sandwell has changed. The child is at the centre of everything we do". I'm sure the children will be chuffed at the new 'suits' appointed. But what I find odd is their Ofstead report was improved from 'inadequate' to 'adequate', not great, but clearly heading in the right direction, so why 9 months later spend £1.5 million on consultants?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I've always felt that in Social Care we follow in the footsteps of health and this has that feel of clinical governance about it. Add layers of management to design services that deliver excellence, whilst all the time cutting services, but claiming its an improvement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It's Council Tax payers money so I</span> hope that<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> at a time of cuts with only more cuts to come, they can justify spending the £1.5 million on management when it could be used to improve services.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-26987025795256361852012-11-14T15:35:00.003-08:002012-11-15T07:15:52.685-08:00I'm bloody Frontline!<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">This whole Frontline thing has been bothering me, particularly the fact that the Munro Review of Child Protection is used to smack us, our skills and our training, over the head. And the name, 'Frontline' a straight out insult to those of us who actually <i>are</i> Frontline in Social Work.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">In his paper, Frontline - Improving the children’s social work profession, teacher, Josh MacAlister, cites Munro's review as supporting his point that 'Of particular note is the quality of the workforce, which has been singled out as a problem'. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">I should lay my cards on the table at this point and also say that it bothers me to be ‘singled as a problem’ by a teacher who does not seem to have any actual experience of social work. I could list a host of problems with the way schools work and cherry pick from the plethora of critical reviews of that profession to back my points up, but I’m not going to. I’m not going to because I’ve never worked in a school and would rather concentrate on the issues facing my own profession. Presumably Josh feels Teach First has solved all of education’s problems and he can now solve the other issues facing children, such as the poor quality of social care.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">As I’m sure you now know the main thrust of Josh’s paper is the suggestion that the calibre of people undertaking Social Work is not good enough. Josh makes this point throughout his paper and uses Monro to support him. For example he explains that t</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #282726;">he ‘widely respected Munro review concluded that many newly qualified social workers did not have the necessary knowledge, skills and expertise to deal with the challenges posed by child protection work’. Now to be fair to Josh, Eileen (I don’t know her, but I thought she’s written so much about what I do that we could be on first name terms) did say that. But if you read her review the context of this was not criticising the calibre of students, it is criticising the training they receive. Eileen does not suggest that students just aren’t bright enough to get ‘it’, she suggest that ‘it’ (social work training, explained for non Russell graduates) is the problem, being ‘not consistent in content, quality and outcomes – for child protection’. Later in Josh’s paper he uses the same piece of the Munro report in the correct context, now that really is cheeky! Has anyone told Eileen?</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #282726;">Josh goes on to point out that The Social Work Task Force felt improvement was needed in ‘the quality of recruitment and the training on offer’. Again he turns to Eileen to back this up ‘these findings were mirrored by the independent Munro review in 2011, which called for higher-quality training and argued that children’s social workers need a mix of high-level skills to perform well’. Except they weren’t mirrored, as already mentioned by me, Eileen’s concerns were with the training not the <i><u>recruitment</u></i>. Not sure what Josh shaves in, in the morning, but I bet he always cuts himself.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #282726;">Now I understand that Josh wants to make a name for himself in the world, and he is already doing that with this report. My problem is he’s making a name for himself using my profession. And frankly the more I read of his paper the less I think of it. It’s not that we couldn’t use high quality individuals from Oxbridge, but Josh’s argument on the importance of this is stretched so far that breaking point has been reached. I do not accept the 'findings' of his paper and I do not accept him as qualified to introduce new (adapted) schemes in the recruitment of social work students. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #282726;">And a final rant on this matter… the sound bite comment by the unelected ex-minister and supporter of Josh’s paper, Lord Adonis, that the state of Social Work is a ‘national scandal' really did infuriate me. So I would just like to point out there have been a number of national scandals in your own profession Lord Adonis, and furthermore weren’t you implicated in one by your colleague </span>Stephen Byers? </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lord Adonis you are an unelected politician, I have no idea what the point of you is but I bet you went to Oxford (spoiler alert, I know he did, I checked). </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-55369803124560596122012-11-11T16:40:00.002-08:002012-11-11T16:40:30.703-08:00Frontline, the saviour of Social Work?<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Thank god, or an alternative deity depending on your religious persuasion, Social Work has been saved! </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.ippr.org/staff-profiles/58/787/josh-macalister" target="_blank">Josh MacAlister</a> , an ambassador of <a href="http://www.teachfirst.org.uk/TFHome/" target="_blank">Teach First</a> and <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/andrew-adonis/19424" target="_blank">Lord Adonis</a> (served in the cabinet without ever being elected as he is a life peer) a Trustee of Teach First, have come up with <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/06/frontline-help-rebrand-social-work" target="_blank">'a proposed scheme called Frontline which aims to improve social work's image and attract the best recruits to the profession</a>'. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Josh helpfully points out the problems that face <i>us</i>, Social Workers, in his paper '<a href="http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/10/frontline-childrens-social-work_Oct2012_9705.pdf" target="_blank">FRONT LINE Improving the children’s social work profession'</a>. This includes the 'fact' that we are 'poorly trained' and the</span><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> struggle 'to recruit and
train enough high-calibre staff'. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">Josh illustrates the problems of Social Work citing 'Baby P' (he had a name Josh, it was Peter Connelly') and</span><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> Victoria Climbié, no surprises there. He goes on to say that reviews have found problems with funding cuts and 'ballooning caseloads' recognising that </span><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">these problems 'require action in a number of areas', but citing Munro, Josh feels that 'Of particular
note is the quality of the workforce', in other words, the problem is 'us'. Looking at the calibre of applicant to study Social Work Josh found that only 5.6% came from a 'top university'. Josh feels that the Social Work recruits are a triumph of quantity over quality. Josh then makes the point that we are not trusted as a profession, equating the level of trust that the general public has to that of the Police. He feels this lack of trust may be attributed the public realising that there is low proportion of graduates from Russell Universities starting Social Work degrees.</span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">The other phrase that seems to pop up regularly in Josh's paper is 'social enterprise'. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an organisation which makes profit, albeit one that puts the profit back into the enterprise? The question popping into my head at this point is 'where does this profit come from'? The way I understand it Frontline is the social enterprise and it will be run independently from </span><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">government
and employers, but would form relationships with </span>'<span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">other charities and
corporate supporters'. I can almost smell Richard Branson's interest from where I am sitting. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">In a nutshell the 'problems' of Social Work are down to the calibre of
person applying to be Social Workers and by implication the low calibre of the current workforce. He does at least make a nod to the
issues of funding and caseloads (intrinsically linked surely?), but it
doesn't suit his cause to dwell on that. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">Firstly I want to say that Social Work is not a profession without problems, public perception is poor, funding is being cut and as a result caseloads are 'ballooning'. I do not deny his figures re the recruitment of Russell University graduates either, although I would argue the weight of significance Josh gives this. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">But will Frontline address any of these issues in any significant way? I do not believe for one moment that an increase in graduates from Cambridge or Oxford would increase our standing amongst the general public. I would be interested to know how many members of the general public could actually name a Russell University, or care if their Social Worker (if they have one) had been to one? The next time a child dies and a Social Worker is implicated would the university they went to become a positive aspect of the media reporting (and lets be clear, much of what the general public think of us is led by the media)? Essentially we are being asked to accept that there would not be as many child deaths if a higher proportion of Social Workers came from a Russell University. A bold claim and one that I would say Josh's paper does not make a good enough (nice Social Work term there) argument for. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">So what do I think Frontline may achieve? Well, there are 18 mentions of 'leadership' in the paper, here's a sample;</span></span></span></h3>
<ul>
<li><h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">'clear progression routes
into leadership roles'</span></span></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">'linking a trainee role with
progression routes into leadership positions'</span></span></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">'provide employers with a cohort of staff that could be
nurtured to take on middle and senior leadership positions'</span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;">So I believe a widespread adoption of Frontline will eventually achieve Social Work being controlled by Russell University graduates, who will have been backed by a social enterprise with links to the corporate world. A perfect recipe for privatisation and the service we provide being turned into a business. </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> But I didn't go to a Russell University, so what do I know? </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #363433; font-weight: 300;"> </span></span></span></h3>
<h3 class="r">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span></h3>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-40673070411875033572012-11-09T02:08:00.002-08:002012-11-09T02:08:50.991-08:00Painting by numbers ...
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span>I did this before the summer, its a look at how
referrals I dealt with broke down into 'types'. I don't think there were any
major surprises.</span><span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span>I intend to do this again post 'Saville' it will be
interesting to see if the spike in referrals relating to sexual abuse that the
NSPCC <a href="http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/our-news/child-protection-news/12-10-15-update-jimmy-savile/update-jimmy-savile_wda92371.html"><span style="color: blue;">reported</span></a> is represented in our team.</span><span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span>This represents 153 separate referrals and 293
children.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Parental/Carer neglect of child<span> </span>13.1%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Parental Mental Health Problems<span> </span>10.5%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Parental Substance Abuse<span> </span>9.2%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Domestic Violence<span> </span>9.8%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Physical abuse at hands of parent/carer<span> </span>7.2%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Request from court for letter or
assessment.<span> </span>7.2%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Relationship Problems between child &
parent<span> </span>5.9%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Other<span> </span>5.2%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Child Homeless<span> </span>4.6%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Parent Having Inapproriate Relationship<span> </span>4.6%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Child's Sexualised behaviour<span> </span>3.3%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Sexual abuse of child by non family member<span> </span>2.6%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Sexual Abuse Allegation By Child Against
Parent/Carer<span> </span>2.6%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">parent homeless<span> </span>2.6%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Parental relationship breakdown<span> </span>2.0%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Child's Mental Health<span> </span>2.0%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Physical abuse at hands of sibling<span> </span>1.3%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Request from Prisoner to see child<span> </span>1.3%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Young Carer's<span> </span>1.3%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Sexual abuse by parent against someone
other than their own child<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Sexual abuse sibling on sibling<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Emotional Harm<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">CP Transfer in from other LA<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">LAC Having Child Themselves<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">No recourse to public funds<span> </span>0.7%</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span>I have detail of the number of children that each
referral related to, no surprises there either. For example 'neglect' referrals
frequently come from larger families. </span><span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span>Comments welcome!</span><span></span></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-14556332896164957312012-11-08T10:15:00.002-08:002012-11-08T10:29:23.488-08:00A day in the life of a Child Protection Team<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style>
-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
No particular rant today, just a little insight to what’s
been coming in and what we are doing with it. Not particularly busy really, a
pretty ‘average’ day. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A mother of an unborn child who has had a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>number</u></i> of children removed in the
past has gone missing. There was an assessment underway and indications were
that we would be seeking to remove this child at birth. The lady in question
called in and claimed to be on another continent (seems unlikely given the
advanced stage of her pregnancy), she refused to say exactly where she was and
promptly ended the call. The Police were informed and she was reported as
missing. However, she is not considered to be missing by the Police as she has
called and said where she is (albeit very unlikely she has made it to the other
side of the world). As she has committed no crime there is nothing more the Police
will do. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are now left to wait for her to resurface, as she is not
officially missing and the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">unborn
child has ‘no legal personality</span>’ we are fairly powerless. ***Update, the Police have agreed
to accompany us to her address to check on her welfare.***</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A potentially homeless family, we have NFA’ed this as they
are not homeless, maybe in an ideal world we could do some preventive work?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Assault on a teenager by stepfather, also NFA’ed as teenager
has now gone to live with their father (we hope permanently). Teenager does not wish to make
a statement about the assault and the Police are therefore taking no action.
Should teenager return to mother we will reopen.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Emotional Harm caused to children by extremely acrimonious
marriage breakdown and possible mental health issues for dad. The most recent
in a number of referrals for this family. We are going to pick this up, but
private law case is imminent so the court will probably request a Section 37.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Young child allegedly groomed by stepfather, interviewed by
Police and Children’s Services, confirmed allegation in video interview.
Siblings will now be interviewed. This was reported by mother and the children
are now safe with her, stepfather out of the house.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Domestic Abuse whilst children being ‘exchanged’ for
contact, slightly unusual as it was mother abusing father. NFA’ed but Parents
warned that further incidents will mean that Children’s Services will get
involved.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Teenager assaulted by mother, assault confirmed in interview
but teenager has ‘issues’ which mean we will remain working with family in long
term in attempt to resolve problems. Teenager will remain in the home during
this work.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Domestic Abuse between mother and her partner (not children’s
father). The children were not present as they live with dad, however concerns
about mother’s mental health and how this may effect the children when she has
contact. Further concerns then received re father as he apparently has
convictions of a sexual nature. Police check requested to confirm this, this
will inform our future involvement.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Domestic Abuse between mum and partner, she has left him
now, but requesting assistance. The feeling is she is afraid of him and may
take him back if he pressurises her. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Request for a Section 7 from court on 2 children. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-7401803087371247302012-11-06T00:53:00.000-08:002012-11-06T00:53:25.380-08:00ICS isn't integrated enough<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We have a number of families that are
transient in our area (and then we don’t because they’ve moved!). We regularly
have families known to other Local Authorities move in. There is a process for
dealing with this if there is a Child Protection Plan in place. Not so easy
when it is Child in Need, we have no formal process to deal with that. But the
one thing both situations share is that there is no way to move electronic
records between Local Authorities.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">I’m no expert in Data Protection, but I
assume that this is part of the reason information cannot be easily exchanged.
But even if it could be easily exchanged our systems do not integrate, we
cannot exchange information electronically. Surely this is a massive
disadvantage to working with families that have a long involvement with
Children’s Services? It potentially disadvantages them as we seek to reassess
and evaluate what services are required and in issues of Safeguarding it
disadvantages us as we can end up with almost a ‘clean slate approach’, which
is well documented as dangerous.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Local Authorities routinely expect Social
Workers to travel to them to view records and I have been refused use of a
photocopier and been forced to take notes. I do not ever recall being allowed
to print from ICS and have heard of people being chaperoned as they examine
records. What exactly is being protected here?</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Even at the most basic level if a family
moves from another area I am forced to take to Google to find the phone number
for the Local Authority they have moved from. Then begins the lengthy process
of ringing the main number of that Authority and attempting to convince them of
who I am and that I have good reason to enquire about a child. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Surely the integration in our systems needs
to extend to the integration of Children’s Services? Why are Local Authorities
so bad at talking to each other? Couldn’t all Local Authorities have a
dedicated professionals line, could their be a directory of these?</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: small;">A child’s records should be THEIR records,
not the Local Authorities and should that child relocate, then their records
should relocate with them.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-37563912976028184952012-11-05T10:24:00.000-08:002012-11-05T10:24:10.679-08:00That's not right... its not even wrong!<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Apparently <a href="http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2012/11/why-the-slow-progress-on-delegated-authority-for-foster-carers.html" target="_blank">'One in five foster carers can't decide if a child they're caring for can get a hair cut'</a>, really? I mean REALLY? The piece on the Community Care <a href="http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/" target="_blank">website</a> goes on to say that 30% of foster carers cannot give permission for a child to stay over with a friend and 17% cannot allow a child to go on a school trip. There are a host of other example's (including 3 weeks to replace a pair of glasses, 16 weeks to 'ok' a school trip) which are frankly at best embarrassing, and at worse disgraceful. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Interesting that today BASW's acting chief executive Bridget Robb argued for <a href="http://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=236&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+basw+%28BASW%29#.UJfp1zAqLv8.twitter" target="_blank">Corporate Parenting to be a job for life.</a> I agree with this sentiment entirely, I have never understood how we dare to call ourselves 'parents' when officially support ends so early in the life of a Looked After Child. However, you have to wonder how many Looked After Children would want us involved when decision making is deferred for the smallest thing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Have to say I have always hated the term 'Corporate Parent' it makes us sounds like Coca-Cola or Adidas sponsoring a child. But the Local Authority which insists on making decisions about hair cuts and school trips is indeed acting like a major corporation and truly is a 'Corporate Parent'. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Do we really need to micro manage a child's life in this way? Foster Carers are well trained and often very experienced people (not mention quite well reimbursed). Surely they need to get on and do the 'job' of being a parent without fear of being reprimanded for making decisions around the child(ren) they care for. What chance does any child have of feeling like their foster home is just their 'home' if they know every request they make will need to be rubber stamped by the Local Authority. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We need to trust our foster carers to do their job, whilst we get on and do ours. My job is not to decide whether a child would be best suited to having their hair spikey or smart (I like spikey by the way), I may coordinate care, but I do not coordinate sleepovers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-76385335643982403882012-11-04T15:05:00.001-08:002012-11-05T00:03:26.472-08:00Get up, stand up!<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I had an interesting twitter debate tonight with Debbie Leven, following a post she made on her <a href="http://www.prcoach.co.uk/social-work-media-bashing-what-can-be-done/" target="_blank">blog</a>, following a post I made on this blog... keeping up? I think this might be post modern, I'm not sure? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debbie made some excellent points about how we deal with the negative perception of Social Work in the media, but on one point we differ. Debbie feels that we need a 'collaborative approach to raising standards that is visible and meaningful'. I disagree.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am not arguing that we should not be improving standards, I'm arguing that it doesn't matter how high we push standards it won't matter to the man and woman on the street. In recent times the Social Work qualification became a degree, even more recently the number of people undertaking at Masters level has increased. Has this meant that the popular press take us any more seriously or value us more? Perhaps if we all became Doctors of Social Work it might help? My suspicion is the media would probably accuse us of being out of touch with the real world if that happened, a world that we have to engage in, in a very different way to a GP. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The training Social Workers receive isn't only one way that standards have risen, but given it is the fundamental building block on which our profession is built, it is hard to see a more obvious way to drive up standards. This is why I do not believe that standards are the way to improve our standing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let me be clear here, this post is about the media interpretation of what we do, which in turn influences how the general public perceive us. So I am not suggesting some kind of dumbing down or a stop in the drive to improve standards. My point is public perception is not linked to the actual standard of our work. Public perception is what it is told to be by the press. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">How many times when you are challenging a parent/carer is 'Baby P' brought up? Have you ever wanted to ask if any of these people (who so easily use this emotive subject for their own purpose) even know that his name was actually Peter Connelly? Or if they have read either of the two
Serious Case Reviews into his murder? But it is the Peter Connelly's and <span class="st">Victoria Climbié which define the public view of our profession.<i> </i></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I thought long and hard before I used the names of Peter Connelly and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="st">Victoria Climbié</span></span>, not wishing to show disrespect. But it seems that we as a profession are often wringing our hands around the subject, not just the murder of these two children, but any tragedy where a Social Worker is involved. At a time when a child is murdered and fingers are being pointed at us we do not seek to protect ourselves. This is, I'm sure, for a host of reasons, not least that it is not the right time. But, we MUST find a way to manage the media frenzy that damages our profession. Even writing that I feel selfish and somewhat pathetic, but I do not seek to deflect the press for selfish reasons. The negative view of Social Work effects us every day and the people we work with, it hampers us and does not lead to good practice, it leads to defensive practice, it leads to having a warm back because we make sure it is covered at all times. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If we want to be able to make tough decisions based on the situation that is before us, rather than how we think it may look in the media if something goes wrong, then we need to tackle this situation. Personally, I do not think that becoming professors of Social Work is the answer. We need help and we need advice to formulate responses and we need media savy people to help us do it. And as Bob Marley said we need to 'Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights! Well maybe not our 'rights' but our profession. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-90867193123982714142012-10-31T14:50:00.000-07:002012-10-31T14:50:55.169-07:00Anyone for a reflective diary?<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When I was a
student and pretty much forced to keep a reflective diary I vowed I
would carry it on once I qualified. I didn't keep it up, not only did I
not keep it up, I didn't even start it. From the day I was no longer
required to keep a reflective diary I stopped doing it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Starting
this bog (that was a typo, but I'm keeping it in as it amused me) has
caused me to ponder on whether it constitutes a reflective diary of
sorts. I'm only 4 posts in, but it does have the same feel about it as
back in my student days. So far the main difference is that I am not
confident enough to really say what I think. I did as a student, my
diary was truly reflective, warts and all. If I was ever scared or
worried I wrote it, if I didn't understand something I said so, it did
me no harm and I actually received praise for my candor. I'm nowhere
near achieving that level of confidence with this yet. I had a little
interest in this blog and already I feel the slight weight of
responsibility, don't want to offend or say the wrong thing. I'm quite
an outspoken chap, sometimes without much forethought, this can land me
in trouble, but I normally manage to get myself out it. That's not so
easy when what you say is in 'print', I can't claim to be misunderstood
or misquoted. But I feel the 'real' me fighting its way to the surface,
hence this post I guess. Also this post may serve as a slight warning to
anyone who is reading my blog (is anyone reading this?) that I may, in
the not too distant future, start to stick my neck out a little. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For
now though I am playing it quite safe. But I want to say one thing, I'm
not even sure if its controversial really. I want to say I'm sick of
hearing that my profession is in crisis when something bad happens such
as the recent Saville revelations. We work in a profession which by its
very nature is dealing with risk every day. Every day we make decisions
about children's lives which involve us balancing risk, inevitably we
get it wrong sometimes, the results of this can be catastrophic. Let me
make it clear I am not seeking to be an apologist for poor risk
assessment, but what I am saying these mistakes which lead to tragic
consequences are not themselves an indication that our profession is in
crisis. The dangerous and simplistic attacks which follow tragedies do
not end up making children safer. I believe they lead to defensive
decision making which can have severely adverse effects on the outcomes
for the vast majority of children we deal with who are not at risk of
significant harm. Serious Case Reviews are essential following such
tragedies as they allow us to learn from our mistakes, claiming we are
in crisis is not essential. I do not believe for one moment that should
some of the pressure heaped upon by the 'crisis tag' be removed, we
would suddenly play fast and loose with safeguarding issues. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-35650751362996904522012-10-30T14:14:00.002-07:002012-10-31T12:37:26.868-07:00Someone put a call out on the Batphone for Max Clifford<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The weekend which just passed saw the Independent on Sunday lead with a piece which (somewhat tenuously) linked the 'problem' of raising standards in Social Work, the recruitment of elite graduates and Jimmy Saville. in what was frankly a poor piece of journalism the I.o.S used the name of Peter Connelly, Victoria Climbie, Khyra Ishaq, Harrison Garland and alleged satanic abuse in Rochdale & Orkney to illustrate the need to raise standards in Social Work by using elite graduates. The Jimmy Saville link didn't really make it past the front page, which for me was the telling part about this piece and revealed that it was only seeking to cash in on the endless round of Social Worker bashing the majority of the press enjoy so much. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">According to 'experts' (not named or referenced) the profession of Social Work is in a 'state of crisis'. That statement allows me to write a word which has long been my favourite, but I have never had the chance to actually use before... Verisimilitude*. Verisimilitude means 'having the appearance of being true', which is exactly what the 'experts' comment has, the appearance of being true. I do not wish to debate that matter though, what concerns me is the way we (Social Workers) are portrayed in the press. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I can hardly be bothered to detail the popular concept created by the press, but I suppose I should mention 'child snatchers' and 'incompetent' just in case someone reading this is in any doubt. Who am I kidding? Everyone knows what people think of us. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have listened to countless phone-in's on the radio where parents are allowed to put their views across about the way their children were removed for reasons as seemingly trivial as 'they missed a bit of school when I was ill' or 'I'm epileptic'. They often go on to criticise Social Workers for their heavy handedness in dealing with them, without any fear of being challenged about their criticism of Children's Services. They know that we never have a right to reply, they never mention that we are backed by the courts and that we alone do not have the right to forcibly remove their children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not believe this is a problem which can be resolved, we as a profession, will have to continue to 'suck it up'. We cannot, and should not, be dragged into debate in the media, our debates take place in court and that is the right place for this to happen.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So what about Max Clifford** you ask? Where does he come in? Firstly he clearly cannot manage the situation for every Local Authority in the country. But he can advise BASW/UNISON on how we might deal with our portrayal in the media. When he spoke at </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/on5z7r" target="_blank">Comm Care Live in 2009</a></span> it seems his main thought was that we needed to get the good news out there. Award ceremonies and the such, to spread the word of the good work that is done. That would be possibly have some effect, but if you'll forgive me, it brings to mind the phrase 'pissing in the wind'. We need more help than this, we need to understand how the press works and to try and manage the relentless tide of bad news stories. Sadly a child's death will always make more news than an award ceremony, so we need to be able to react in a manner which shows respect to the tragedy, but does not see us laying on our back and exposing our underbellies like a scolded pet. I am not suggesting for one moment that we become defensive, important lessons could be lost if we were. But we do not need to be slaughtered in press in order to learn lessons from a tragedy. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not know how to achieve this is, which is why I would suggest that a good use of the fees we pay each month to BASW and/or UNISON would be to find someone like Max Clifford to advise us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As a footnote, whenever I tell people what I do, they almost always respond positively. Now of course some of that is politeness, but not all, and even the polite ones seem to understand that we're not as portrayed in the media. Surely that's something we can build on?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">*I got the word from a song title by the fantastic Teenage Fanclub.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Other PR Guru's are available. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVNZSUxHQesdYYKnhJBU548v_RlCoOARNBR0fBXYWF1d2mOFDTr3GFGlRLvfRf2kjiYffz8VjQqjGgJxAP_i_Hzp84n6Df3OBvFdsCBYtsAjgYJJQQ0_T7vsW0yNnekLZbDOUHTmoxbC8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-10-31+at+00.46.14.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVNZSUxHQesdYYKnhJBU548v_RlCoOARNBR0fBXYWF1d2mOFDTr3GFGlRLvfRf2kjiYffz8VjQqjGgJxAP_i_Hzp84n6Df3OBvFdsCBYtsAjgYJJQQ0_T7vsW0yNnekLZbDOUHTmoxbC8/s640/Screen+Shot+2012-10-31+at+00.46.14.png" width="640" /></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-14890409652417730802012-10-29T13:08:00.001-07:002012-10-29T13:08:21.725-07:00A thought on equality of service<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Last week I dealt with a complaint from a parent which had raised a number of issues, not least that they felt the other parent was favoured in the assessment we had undertaken. It was my first dealing with the case so I wasn't familiar with the detail but a quick look at the history showed referrals from both parents making allegations against the other and finally a referral from an agency raising concerns about the acrimony displayed by the parents and the behavior of the children as a result (conjecture on their part, but the point of the assessment I guess). Not surprisingly these were parents in the middle of a messy divorce. This started on Thursday, since then there have been a number of contacts to Children's Services regarding the case, ;</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Contacted by CAFCASS to raise concerns about the mental health of the parent, concerns I would add that came from the other parent and their solicitor (I'll save a CAFCASS rant for another day). </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Contacted by complainant parent wanting to talk to me about the case, not sure how he got my name, but I refused to take the call on the grounds it was not an open case. As he had 'new' concerns I suggest to our call centre it should be a referral.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Contacted by one of the children's school for a consultation on the emotional harm issue. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">4 more calls from the original complainant over the weekend raising concerns.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Insistence from our complaints department that a referral which has already been made to another agency is made again so they can be sure it has actually be done.</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now in the last 5 days there has been a considerable amount of management time taken up with this case, which is essentially the fall out from a difficult relationship breakdown. Yes there is emotional harm to the children, but then every parental relationship breakdown brings pain and I frequently knock back professionals attempting to make referrals for this type of thing, so what is different? <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The difference is both parents are highly qualified health professionals.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Generally (and this is purely empirical) we deal with people who are living in deprivation, typically what the Office of National Statistics would class as "9's" (</span>Never worked and long-term unemployed), we don't get involved in their marriage breakdowns, we don't make referrals for their children because of emotional harm, we certainly do not spend as much time considering the issues.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not blame the parents of the case I mentioned for making a fuss, they are doing what they can to ensure they get the outcome they desire. I do blame them for bringing their intellect to bear on the situation and utterly failing to spot the damage they are doing to the very people they claim to be fighting for.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But where does this leave us as professionals? We have responded to the demands presented as best we can, but ultimately in doing this we create a 2 tier system in which the children of parents prepared to make a fuss receive a more thorough service from us.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Should all children who parents split and therefore experience emotional harm at least be assessed in order that services are provided where appropriate? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And finally could my time today have been better spent concentrating on the 2 cases I processed which involved possible sexual abuse, the 2 'unborn assessments' requested and the child which went missing from care at the weekend? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7679464135721114040.post-66130166477150086142012-10-28T11:06:00.000-07:002012-10-28T12:06:53.708-07:00A Strategy Discussion with the Police<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A parent
reports that she found her under 5 child having its genitals licked by
the family pet. When questioned by the parent the child said it was ok
as the other parent would lay the child on the sofa and allow the pet to
do this. The parents are divorced, so this was happening in a different
home. I had a Strategy Discussion with the Police who accepted that
there was potentially a serious issue here, but amazingly were not sure
that any law was broken. Initially they decided that it would be a
single agency (Children's Services) Section 47 Investigation. I believe
that the DC I talked to was uneasy with the decision that was made by
his DS and asked them to reconsider. They did then reverse the decision
and a joint investigation was undertaken. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />I think this illustrates that whilst we often work with the Police their remit is clearly prosecution, which is the one of the main tools at their disposal for protecting children. However when they do not involve themselves in an issue, or do involve themselves but chose not to pursue a case, Children's Services are then left with a problem. The problem is the message sent to parents/carers (or other perpetrators when the situation arises). Many of us will have had somebody ask us 'the Police aren't going to be prosecuting so why are you still involved?'. Frequently it is difficult to explain the difference between the Police working to 'beyond reasonable doubt' versus Children's Services working to 'on the balance of probability'. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I am not suggesting that the Police should prosecute more people to help us out, but I am suggesting that we need to work in joined up way so that clients and their parents/carers or <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">perpetrators can understand there are two processes taking place when Children's Services and the Police investigate a case. </span></span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09960549187141131908noreply@blogger.com0