News

This week's panel discusses an after-school group valued by parents, but which does not satisfy inspectors and is faced with closure.

Case study

Situation: An after-school group is the only service in the borough that provides care for children with special needs. It also serves children without special needs, and is much needed as it is the only scheme locally for a large council housing estate with a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities.

Problem: Following numerous announced and unannounced visits regulation officers are seeking the closure of the group. Concerns include the numbers, skills, knowledge and experience of staff (some of whom are under 18), use of taxis arranged by the scheme (and not vetted) to transport children, driving children in an uninsured minibus, and taking part in swimming (insufficient staff numbers given the dangerous nature of the sport). The inspecting officers consider this shows the manager not to be a fit person. However, parents have vociferously defended the scheme. They have lobbied the director of social services and their "Save our Scheme" protests have attracted coverage from the local paper. The manager is black and he feels the inspecting officers - four white women - are being unreasonable and racist. The social services department places five children at the scheme and have no complaint about the service. However, the inspecting officers argue that the scheme, while promoting itself as a specialised scheme, actually provides very little in the way of specialised care or programmes, and yet charges the department three times the rate per hour that it charges children from the local estate.

Panel responses

Mark Houston
This is a very difficult situation. While allowing this group to continue in its current format is not a viable option, just closing it down with no further
action is no way to tackle the problem either.

It is clearly a popular group, which suggest they must be doing something right. Nevertheless, children are potentially in danger and protective measures must be taken.

There is no evidence that the regulation officers are being racist in their dealings with the manager, but I can understand the way he feels if there are four white people trying to dismiss him and take away his livelihood.

The social services department needs to work with the people in charge of the group in order to improve the way in which it is being run. The group are probably aiming to work in the children's best interests, but the service is not being delivered in an appropriate manner.

The social services department needs to consider putting investment into the training of the people running the group.

It should also consult the children about what is going well within the group, sit down with the people running the group, explain the problems with the current situation, and come to an agreement as to what should be done.

Organising the appropriate and legally required insurance for the group's minibus would not be too difficult or expensive. Also providing extra staffing and training should be fairly straightforward.

But the most important message I would give is that both the social services department and the inspection team need to ensure that the group keeps within the law and that they achieve this by working with the group members rather than against them. This is the way to ensure that the situation improves rather than deteriorates.

However, the group also needs to appreciate that it must respect and meet the legal requirements and maintain moral standards.

Nevertheless, good relations between the group, the social services department and the inspecting team are ultimately the key to a successful outcome.

Steve Love
What are the underlying issues? First, the action taken by the regulation officers comes after numerous visits. But what action points were raised by each visit and were improvements placed within specific time frames with follow up checks? If so, the after-school group should have responded with a clear action plan.

Some of the concerns raised could have been addressed very quickly by the scheme with little difficulty. For example, taxi companies can be vetted and health and safety issues addressed. We would assume that there were policies in place within the group, which the regulation team would have received before visits (for example, health and safety, transport, staffing profile).

What is of greater concern is that social services have placed five children, but there is no apparent evidence that they took steps to ensure the group had the necessary minimum standards in place to satisfy the placement. It is also puzzling that they placed the children without considering what the "specialised" team offered. Also, does the group have a statement of purpose? It seems as if it caters for young people with a wide range of abilities and therefore should have been able to give evidence how they can cater for such a range.

The group does seem to have the support of the local community and this needs to be built upon by establishing a management committee, supported by social services, which should prepare a business plan. The support of other departments could be co-opted when considering how to improve leisure facilities, and health and safety.

As for issues of racism, we were concerned that in the inspection process of a group where there are service users from ethnic minorities, that an inspector from a similar background was not used. From the very first visit it should have been obvious to inspectors that good practice would have required a multi-ethnic approach.

The group is much needed as it is the only scheme locally for a large council housing estate. The task for social services should be to work with community partners to establish best policy and practice within the group and place some ownership of the management steering group within the local community.

User view

It seems that the regulation team believe it would be far easier to close this service down than it would to spend the time and money to enable it to be more suitably run for the children and the people on the outside.

The only people willing to keep this service going it seems are the parents and workers and they obviously have no problems with the way this service is run for their children.

Can no one else see that this is a good and much-needed programme which helps the children and provides a fun and helpful service, close to the area they know and live in.

There are a lot of good things going for the service and the range of children that use it. I feel it is a good way to help these children learn and understand about different cultures and needs of others. It also helps the community come together by involving children and parents from different backgrounds.

The inspectors have a job to do and that job is to ensure that everything runs in a way that satisfies the children's needs and safety. While they have some underlying problems that need to be addressed I don't feel that it is enough reason to close the service. These can be sorted out with enough care, attention and support.

Has this situation been discussed with all the parties involved? Has everyone come together to talk and find a solution without arguing and protesting? To me, the solution is simple. The inspectors wish to close the group because they find it unfit. The parents wish to keep it open because they feel it is good for their children. Which is the best option for the children? I feel that there is a bit of a communication problem here, with everyone just sticking to their guns and not willing to compromise. Both parties need to understand each other and come to an agreement which is satisfactory for every one involved.

The inspectors are the ones with the problem. I feel they are not willing to give this group a chance. The problems the group has with staff numbers, experience, travel and so on can be sorted out with the time and support.

It would be far better for the children to keep this group than to take it away from them. So, I feel the inspectors need to help devise and oversee the changes that are needed rather than rush to close the service down.

Justin Dickson is a care leaver.