The case of two teenage girls in care in
At-risk adolescents in general I think get a pretty poor deal and we know that sexual abuse and exploitation has slipped down council agendas since Baby P. Yet last week I was talking to an international expert on attachment, Dr Patricia Crittenden (watch for the full interview on the website and in next week's Community Care), and she was saying that between the ages of 16 and 26 there is a massive opportunity for social workers to make a difference with these young people- almost as big as the window of opportunity in children aged 0-3. But the prevailing attitude is that teenagers can look after themselves and the focus is increasingly shifting to the early years.
This is likely to accelerate as councils face massive, front-loaded cuts meaning they have no choice but to cut whatever is easiest so their budget stacks up by next February.
Youth services are already shaping up to take the brunt of council cuts. By putting grant funding for things like teenage pregnancy and anti-social behaviour into the £2bn Early Intervention Fund my gut instinct (backed up by comments made by Matt Dunkley, vice president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services to MPs earlier this week) is that many of these services are just going to disappear- particularly if the government intends to use Sure Start as the centre for all early years policy forcing councils to sustain current levels of funding.
It's clear that children-in-need are probably going to be the other losers in this equasion. We know they are already slipping through the gaps and there is now a large number who have nobody looking after their case, social worker or otherwise.
Again, as Dunkley told MPs, even with the much vaunted pooled community budgets to tackle problem families, councils are still going to have to choose which families to spend the money on- those already known to children's services or those families that are on their way to that position and whom are currently having services removed from them (ie children-in-need).
Yet ministers and Ofsted are alike in criticising councils for focusing too much on early intervention at the expense of children-in-need or focusing too much on children in care at the expense of early intervention. "It needs to be a continuum" they chorus. Yet I think this is a bit unfair on councils. Children's services already take up huge amounts of council budgets. With 11% cuts to make in three months how can they possibly justify spending even more on children's services which will mean decimating other services such as adult social care for example. And by front-loading the cuts it has effectively taken away the option of well-thought out service transformation to achieve efficiencies and better outcomes.
One councillor told me at a recent conference that he was very keen on early intervention and agreed it was the only way to make cost savings. Yet to do it he was going to have to take money from children-in-care. My suspicion is that he is not alone in wanting the government to scale back some of the statutory obligations around children in care so councils have more flexibility to prioritise early intervention. Yet such a move makes me uncomfortable. For all the criticism there is evidence that most children are happier and better off in care than they were in their dysfunctional families. Will that still be the case when it is no longer a legal obligation?
Whichever way you look at it there does not seem to be enough money to give vulnerable children the care they deserve and to give families the help and support they need. Particularly since that care and those needs are becoming ever more complex. Nor does there appear to be enough time and money to double fund services while a transition to early intervention rather than crisis-care is achieved.
Does this mean that we have no choice but to accept that in the short term vulnerable children are going to suffer in this country? Until early intervention can be embedded and social workers have the time and skills to intervene effectively they are going to be hurt and traumatised and left. Why? Because historically we have failed to give this area the same focus as we have given others such as health. We have failed to get the research in place to find out which interventions actually work and are cost effective. We have failed to ensure that when there was money sloshing around the system we used it on services that could be self-supporting when the money ran out; and we have failed to understand that social workers have a key and difficult role which should be valued and their expertise respected- with the result that that expertise is now draining away.
Sigh. Apologies for such a depressing rant. I shall be in a more positive frame of mind tomorrow I'm sure.
(pic credit: colinpoe on Flickr)
There is a great deal of potential between 16 and 26 but there is limited ability between 13-16. As I understand it these kids were mainly below 16.
The executive summary is poor given the importance of this case on so many levels. It appears to have the stunning and erudite conclusion that the children in Derby's care were vulnerable. Wow no shit Sherlock. The SCR and the news coverage seems to have two facets - 1) How brilliant were the Police
2) Opportunities were missed.
In relation to 1 what was Police response when these girls went missing? And yes the convictions and the work gone into it were incredible and brilliant but how did the Police let it get to the stage?
Opportunities were missed - brilliant! Not a bit of media coverage regarding the large amount of resources that social workers etc put into supporting and trying to protect these girls. No description of social workers emotional journey with these young women just "staff criticised".
Brilliant! Brilliant! Brilliant!
Long gone- I agree the executive summary of the case isn't great. I know it's controversial but it is cases like this that convince me of the need for full publication of serious case reviews.
For me the SCR focused too much on what went wrong in the early lives of the 2 girls concerned when what I really wanted to know was how workers conceptualised and reacted to their situations when they were in care and there were clearly some very high risks. I agree with Judy Cooper that there should be full publication of reviews.