Sandwell pour £1.5million down the consultant drain?

Interesting piece on the BASW webiste about 'Sandwell Council’s decision to award a £1.5m 30-month contract to management consultancy firm iMPOWER to run its children’s services'.

Sandwell have 'canned' some top management and replaced them with agency top mangers to deliver services. 

Double yew, tea, eff? Why would they do that?

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.

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'. 

Back in February Sandwell reported 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?

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.

It's Council Tax payers money so I hope that 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.

I'm bloody Frontline!

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 are Frontline in Social Work.

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'.

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.

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 the ‘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?

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 recruitment. Not sure what Josh shaves in, in the morning, but I bet he always cuts himself.

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.

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 Stephen Byers? 

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).

Frontline, the saviour of Social Work?

Thank god, or an alternative deity depending on your religious persuasion, Social Work has been saved! 

 

Josh MacAlister , an ambassador of Teach First and Lord Adonis (served in the cabinet without ever being elected as he is a life peer) a Trustee of Teach First, have come up with 'a proposed scheme called Frontline which aims to improve social work's image and attract the best recruits to the profession'.  

 

Josh helpfully points out the problems that face us, Social Workers, in his paper 'FRONT LINE Improving the children’s social work profession'. This includes the 'fact' that we are 'poorly trained' and the struggle 'to recruit and train enough high-calibre staff'. 

 

Josh illustrates the problems of Social Work citing 'Baby P' (he had a name Josh, it was Peter Connelly') and Victoria Climbié, no surprises there. He goes on to say that reviews have found problems with funding cuts and 'ballooning caseloads' recognising that 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.

 

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 government and employers, but would form relationships with 'other charities and corporate supporters'. I can almost smell Richard Branson's interest from where I am sitting. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

So what do I think Frontline may achieve? Well, there are 18 mentions of 'leadership' in the paper, here's a sample;

• 'clear progression routes into leadership roles'

• 'linking a trainee role with progression routes into leadership positions'

• 'provide employers with a cohort of staff that could be nurtured to take on middle and senior leadership positions'

   

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. 

 

 But I didn't go to a Russell University, so what do I know?

Painting by numbers ...

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.

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 reported is represented in our team.

This represents 153 separate referrals and 293 children.

Parental/Carer neglect of child       13.1%

Parental Mental Health Problems   10.5%

Parental Substance Abuse   9.2%

Domestic Violence     9.8%

Physical abuse at hands of parent/carer   7.2%

Request from court for letter or assessment.        7.2%

Relationship Problems between child & parent    5.9%

Other  5.2%

Child Homeless          4.6%

Parent Having Inapproriate Relationship  4.6%

Child's Sexualised behaviour          3.3%

Sexual abuse of child by non family member       2.6%

Sexual Abuse Allegation By Child Against Parent/Carer  2.6%

parent homeless       2.6%

Parental relationship breakdown   2.0%

Child's Mental Health           2.0%

Physical abuse at hands of sibling  1.3%

Request from Prisoner to see child 1.3%

Young Carer's            1.3%

Sexual abuse by parent against someone other than their own child   0.7%

Sexual abuse sibling on sibling       0.7%

Emotional Harm        0.7%

CP Transfer in from other LA          0.7%

LAC Having Child Themselves         0.7%

No recourse to public funds            0.7%

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. 

Comments welcome!

A day in the life of a Child Protection Team

-->

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.

A mother of an unborn child who has had a number 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.

We are now left to wait for her to resurface, as she is not officially missing and the unborn child has ‘no legal personality’ we are fairly powerless. ***Update, the Police have agreed to accompany us to her address to check on her welfare.***

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Request for a Section 7 from court on 2 children.

ICS isn't integrated enough

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

A child’s records should be THEIR records, not the Local Authorities and should that child relocate, then their records should relocate with them.    

That's not right... its not even wrong!

Apparently 'One in five foster carers can't decide if a child they're caring for can get a hair cut', really? I mean REALLY? The piece on the Community Care website 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. 

Interesting that today BASW's acting chief executive Bridget Robb argued for Corporate Parenting to be a job for life. 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.

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'. 

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. 

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.