Another good blog here on why ministers are missing the point on adoption.
A little taster: "The government's preoccupation with adoption is ignoring the issue of adoption breakdown...Gove's hyperbolic assertion that adoption is "an inspirational example of humanity at its best" does not reveal the whole story."
London councils are using Kent as a "dumping ground" for children in care, according to this article which reports Kent's children's services bosses want legislation to prevent London authorities from placing children further than 20 miles away.
Approximately half of Kent's looked-after children are now from outside the county, Kent Online reports.
Cllr Jenny Whittle, Kent's cabinet member for specialist children's services, said: "I am disappointed and concerned because it places a great strain on our services when we need to focus on providing services for our own children in care."
She said there was evidence that foster agencies contracted by London authorities were unaware of, or were ignoring, a voluntary agreement signed by councils stating they would not place children further than 20 miles away.
Two Thanet MPs are expected to call for a parliamentary debate looking at whether the voluntary agreement should be replaced by legislation. More here.
Picture credit: satguru
Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, says ministers need a more balanced approach to adoption reform.
It is rare for a politician to sing the praises of social workers, so Michael Gove's words last week were very welcome and a rightful endorsement of the profession.
It is rarer still for a right wing newspaper to carry a positive piece about social workers. So imagine my surprise when I saw a headline in the Daily Telegraph declaring, 'Michael Gove bravely stands up for social workers', citing the BBC series Protecting Our Children as brilliant.
Admittedly, Daniel Knowles (assistant comment editor) did describe us as the lepers of public services (that's another one to add to the collection!) but the article went to some pains, extensively quoting Gove's glowing affirmation of social work professionals.
They do say you should be careful what you wish for, however, and it didn't take long for me to feel rising indignation as Gove set out his stall for the government's adoption action plan. It included all the usual suspects: performance indicators; more sophisticated league tables; an end to 'political correctness' in terms of ethnicity and a slimmed down assessment process.
While I would not dispute the present system being improved, it is frustrating that yet another politician chooses to hone in on adoption as if it was the panacea for all children in care rather than for roughly 6-7% of children.
It is fitting that Gove was speaking from London's Isaac Newton Centre as I felt some of what he said defied the laws of gravity. He called for a quicker, more robust and effective system, with no promise of additional resources. More from less is very much the order of the day.
Adoption, it would appear, is an irresistible passion for many of our political leaders (recently Gove and Cameron, latterly Blair). It can be over simplified and romanticised: "Adoption is - in every sense of the word - for good. And the readiness of adults to make such a firm and unselfish commitment for a child they cannot know is, to my mind, an inspirational example of humanity at its best." (An excerpt from Gove's speech)
Some of my best friends have adopted children and even my grandmother was adopted, but I would contend that it is not necessarily a completely selfless act. Many adopters, it is okay to say, are motivated by a common desire to be parents.
Wherever possible, children should be placed with adopters from a similar background. This may not be possible in every circumstance but it is not a factor that should be ignored or minimised. Unfortunately, we still do not live in a world where race equality has been achieved and so adopting a 'colour blind' approach merely masks the social reality.
I also worry about the recent furore over the increase in the numbers of children going into care. On the one hand, the allegation is that councils are overreacting to a major child abuse tragedy, but on the other hand, many children - particularly those suffering from neglect and abuse - are being left in dangerous situations for too long and this is to be welcomed.
I think the issues are more complex than that. I worry that with the current lack of resources and pressures on services, we are not able to intervene early enough and provide families with the vital support that might overt some of these crises. It would be tragic if the pendulum swung back to the pre-Children Act days when many more children were taken into care.
Gove accused the Labour government of leaving a legacy of the worst kind regarding adoption practice, labelling it as social engineering. Equally, I would ask policy makers and politicians to think carefully about writing off so-called 'feckless' parents rather than engaging with them and offering them parenting support.
Please Mr Gove, you have recognised the talents and skills of the profession, now you must help us to put them to best effect so we can transform the lives of children in this country. We need good, holistic services for children and their families, enabling us to intervene earlier, faster and more decisively when children are at risk of harm and should not be left.
I'm not a physicist, but I believe the laws of gravity are about keeping things in balance.
The government is not going to launch a national action plan on missing children and young runaways, it appears, much to the disappointment of campaigners.
Children's minister Tim Loughton broke the news at an all party parliamentary group on young runaways and missing children this week, despite recognising the "strong link between children who run away and sexual exploitation", and admitting that the government has some "very unreliable and patchy data" he does not trust.
(This reflects our investigation in November which revealed local authorities up and down the country are flouting their legal duties by failing to keep accurate records of children missing from care.)
Andy McCullough from the charity Railway Children said: "We urge this government to understand that affirmative action can only begin with their support being given to councils to keep more accurate records of children missing from home and care. This is vital intelligence."
Picture credit: Jack!
I've just read the full transcript of Michael Gove's lengthy speech on adoption reform, and it's not just a speech about adoption. The education secretary also stood up for social workers (as well as complaining about an apparent lack of progress on adoption) and even shared his review of the BBC's Protecting Our Children. (It was glowing.)
Here's a short extract from his speech: "By giving an honest account of the fantastic job social workers do, the BBC is helping to bring a little balance to the media conversation about social work. A conversation which has been dominated for far too long by caricature, finger-pointing, recrimination and misjudgement.
"We ask social workers to operate in conditions most of us know nothing about; to engage with people in desperate need; to make extremely finely balanced ethical and practical judgements; to retain the trust of adults while thinking always of the best interests of children; to navigate bureaucracy and cope with heavy workloads.
"All the while knowing that if a mistake does occur then their career, indeed their professional status, may be ruined for ever."
He also said: "I'd like to think, and I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong, that we are now moving towards a more mature relationship between social workers and central government."
Gove's defence of the profession was referred to in a number of comment pieces today, including this unexpected one in the Telegraph which applauded him for daring to stand up for social workers. "Social workers are demonised, misunderstood and widely hated, often by people who have nothing to do with them. For a Cabinet minister to defend them is brave, necessary and welcome," wrote Daniel Knowles.
It all sounds good, really good, but it's interesting to read Gove's comments about "caricature and finger-pointing" alongside this comment piece. And I wonder how seriously his sentiments will be taken by social workers. (BASW chief Hilton Dawson has already described them as "hollow", in light of the local authority pay freeze.)
Who knows. But if Gove is going to give such rousing speeches about social workers, let's hope his government listens to them, so that today's grand statements translate into genuine and lasting support for those on the frontline protecting our children.
A think tank's report on foster care highlights the need to consider all placement options, says Jonathan Stanley, policy and practice consultant at the Independent Children's Homes Association.
The Policy Exchange's Fostering Ambitions report tells a familiar story: "Service structures and budgets are driving the decision rather than assessment of need."
For too long we have had a system that does not put children in the 'most appropriate placement' as required by the 1989 Children Act. Thorough assessments should match children's needs to their placement. Some children will need fostering or adoption, while others would benefit from residential options.
We do know about the adverse outcomes of residential care but a correlation doesn't necessarily mean such placements are the cause.
Our use of specialist support often comes too late for a child to realistically achieve the outcomes required for a successful transition into adulthood. For many children the need for specialist support and intervention was only recognised when they entered the care system, yet residential care is often the last resort used after serial breakdowns in placements.
There is no justification for placing children in a care placement that cannot meet their needs when more effective and appropriate options are available.
So before we take too many steps down the short-term budgeting road can we stop for a moment to ask: "Are we saving now to spend more later?"
Yes there is a chasm of overspend and poor outcomes but all evidence should be included. The NEF's report, A False Economy, concluded that £1 invested in high-quality residential care generates a social return of between £4 and £6.10. Apply that figure across the entire population of young people in residential child care and the total value of these services is equivalent to almost £700 million over a 20-year period.
Put simply, what is saved on other social costs by investment in these kind of residential placements would be enough to pay for the country's annual care bill for children in care.
The government is poised to launch a national adoption action plan which will reform the current "bloated" system, education secretary Michael Gove will announce today.
In a speech this morning, Gove will describe the current system of assessment in adoption as "bloated" and will say it needs to be "entirely replaced".
Pre-adoption assessments need to be slimmed down, he will say, while adoption support needs to be beefed-up.
The reforms are also expected to outline controversial plans for performance indicators to help councils "measure how they're performing against each other and improve".
Sharon Shoesmith, the former Haringey children's services director who last year won a case for unfair dismissal following her sacking in the wake of the Baby P case, hopes the recent BBC documentary series can begin to challenge the 'institutionalised' blaming of social workers.
Bristol council should be commended for taking part in the television series Protecting Our Children, shown recently on BBC2. It took great courage.
Social workers will have a range of views, of course, but I would urge them to concentrate on the important start the series has made in raising public awareness about child protection. My only criticism is that the three films gave no sense of the sheer volume of work that social workers deal with on a daily basis, or how many children in Bristol are subject to child protection plans.
The fact that we are now at a 20-year peak of 42,700 children considered to be 'at risk' in England - a figure that would shock many people - was not conveyed by the films. Equally, the fact that one child dies at the hands of a parent or a known adult every week in England also remains generally unknown by the public.
Between the deaths of Victoria Climbié in 2000 and Peter Connelly in 2007, over 400 children died in England and Wales at the hands of a parent or known adult. These are deaths that the public, including politicians, have no knowledge of. And these figures would double, and almost treble, to two or three a week if child deaths where neglect was a factor were included.
The unspoken taboo
Child homicide receives little attention or public debate because the scale of the deaths is largely unreported. In many cases social workers are not even aware of the incidents. It is the unspoken taboo.
The sad truth is that the killing of Peter Connelly was not an isolated case, but an all too regular occurrence. Yet it would appear wider society simply cannot face the unpalatable truth that some parents will kill their own children. Instead, the immediate reaction is that social workers have not done enough and someone must be sacked.
The public demand that all children deemed to be 'at risk' must be saved, but unfortunately that is not always possible. As a result, social workers are carrying too high a burden on behalf of society. In some cases, they are left to struggle alone with the reality of being cast as responsible for the brutal murder of a child.
Harrowing play
Last week in London's Soho I saw 'Shallow Slumber', a play by social worker Chris Lee. I urge everyone to try to get it staged where they can get to see it.
The mother in the play gives a powerful account of 'the logic' behind how she came to kill her child. It is utterly harrowing. During a discussion after the play, its producer said the scenes may be too disturbing for non-specialist audiences. No one, it seems, would want to see it.
So is it only for social workers to know, and 'own', child homicide so everyone else can stay blissfully unaware?
London's Southbank is soon to stage a play based on Veronique Olmi's novel, 'Beside the Sea', about a mother who kills her children. The book was a success in Europe when it was published in 2001, but it has only recently found a publisher in Britain. Again, this suggests the British public is apparently unwilling or unable to face these issues. This must change.
Institutionalised blame
The protection of children is one of society's most important duties, but society as a whole must act in concert and not just assume child protection is a job for social workers alone. We are all child guardians but the public need to be educated about the scale of the problem.
Blaming social workers, in my view, has become institutionalised: embedded in government policy and in the actions of local authorities and social work organisations. And, ironically, blame has also been absorbed by social workers themselves.
Social workers live in fear that 'it' might happen to them, hence the large numbers of children being brought into care - the highest number in the country's history and possibly one of the highest proportions in Western Europe.
For me, that means children's social care is not only out of control, but driven by blame and fear. It should be based on an explicit social care policy, with an appropriate set of checks and balances, and with an unequivocal understanding that there is no entirely foolproof system to protect all children from maltreatment inside their own homes.
Changing the culture from within
I believe it is only social workers themselves who can change the blame culture they are struggling to work within and rebuild their confidence as professionals.
I came from outside the profession and perhaps that's why I was able to see the blame culture for what it was, and resist it. I did not sack social workers in the case of Peter Connelly. My impression has always been that it was Ed Balls, then Secretary of State, who ordered it.
In the last few years, I have been profoundly struck by the absence of a strong national voice for social workers, indeed an advocate for social workers. There's been many a 'new dawn' in children's social care but is there a moment now for the courage of Bristol social workers, and of Chris Lee, to inspire social workers to draw a line in the blame culture?
It is they who must challenge it. And it is for their professional organisations to get behind them - to get out there with a loud, independent and distinctive voice - to show some courage on behalf of social workers. Only then can child homicide get the serious attention it deserves, which may save more children.
My best wishes to all in very difficult times, and my congratulations to social workers in Bristol and Chris Lee.
(Pic: Gavin Rodgers/Rex Features)
Ofsted has announced a number of big social care changes recently - from no notice child protection inspections to tougher adoption inspections with 10 days' notice.
Its role and remit has also been the subject of debate for years, with MPs last year calling for the watchdog to be split in two (to reduce the chance of social care being sidelined).
Ofsted hosted its first social care lecture this month, asking whether inspection is a force for improvement (as it should be) or just a bureaucratic burden (as some claim it has become)?
What do you think? Have inspections become a burden? Do inspectors ask the right questions and visit at the right times? Are inspection ratings fair? How do you feel about Ofsted's plans to spend more time shadowing social workers? And how should Ofsted improve future inspections? Or is everything perfect?
We've heard a (wide) range of views from readers, but now it's your chance to put those views and questions to Ofsted's deputy chief inspector John Goldup (pictured). It's also your chance to debate inspection issues with John, and colleagues across social care.
So do join us online (from the comfort of your own home) between 7pm and 8pm, Wednesday February 22nd for the live chat.
All you'll need to do is log in to the CareSpace discussion, or register if you're not already a member, and start posting.
Junior family lawyers are being forced to handle 'life and death' child care cases because of the rise in care applications, jeopardising children's access to justice, according to this interesting story in the Law Society Gazette today.
Naomi Angell, co-chair of the Law Society's family law committee, told the publication that law firms have responded to increased workloads by reorganising their practices so junior staff are helping with case preparation.
She warned: "Are junior staff equipped to make difficult decisions where there are alcohol, drug or mental health issues? Can they persuade a mother in an abusive relationship to choose between her partner or her children? Are they trained to make decisions that could mean the difference between life and death? I think not."
Barbara Hopkin, of the Association of Lawyers for Children, said the current situation was unsustainable. "The rising number of care applications means an unlimited source of work for those firms who can afford to do it.
"We all took a 10% cut in civil legal aid fees in October 2011, which led to some firms going out of business or just giving up publicly funded work. Those of us who are left are expected to do more work for less money, which is no incentive for future generations of lawyers to work in this area of law. The situation is unsustainable," she said.
Is this impacting on children's guardians working in tandem with lawyers on care cases? If you have a view on this, have your say on CareSpace.
Picture credit: katerha
Yvalia Febrer, a senior practitioner in Richmond's children and families team, describes the reactions of her colleagues and friends to the BBC's Protecting Our Children and explains why the high-profile series should leave a lasting legacy for social workers.
After initial anxiety before Protecting Our Children was aired (how would it be received by the public - and by social workers?), I was thrilled to see that it showed such a true picture of child protection. And that so many people tuned in to watch it.
Even before the first episode there was buzz in my office about it; already people were debating whether or not it was a good idea to let the cameras in, especially after what happened in Surrey.
And in a climate where we feel hated by the nation, particularly after Baby P, why would we be welcoming any media attention?
But despite all that, the general feeling once the first episode was over, was good. Better than good in fact. People in my office were relieved viewers were seeing what we actually go through, what we really have to deal with and how powerless we are sometimes.
They felt vindicated and empowered, even if they had issues with some of it - like how realistic it is that team managers come out on visits or security guards follow us around.
Judging by my friends' reaction, they had absolutely no idea what the job was like.
Four family members called me after the first episode to say they hadn't realised how bad it was. I was offered everything from commiseration and admiration, to sympathy and career advice (possibly something safer and better paid?)
People were shocked at some of the 'characters' we have to deal with and baffled when I tried to explain we have to work together with parents, empathise with them and advocate for them.
I think the more complex aspects of protecting children, while also working in partnership with parents, are still lost on the public however. I would welcome another documentary series to delve deeper into the challenges of our job.
Overall though, the series gave a good idea of a social worker's day-to-day life and that's something that should have a lasting impact on the nation's view of us.
The litmus test, of course, will be when the next tragedy hits the papers. I don't think we've shaken our negative image yet, but we're certainly starting to promote ourselves better, and this series felt like the spearhead of that movement.
Like everything in social work, 'it's a journey'. If nothing else, we as social workers feel more empowered to stand up for ourselves and our profession; for all the good work that's done, all the successes and all the children we help every working day.
Eleven councils in southern England are to jointly commission specialist foster placements in a bid to make savings and reinvest the money in services for looked-after children.
Southampton council will head up the group, called the Independent Fostering Agency.
The 11 councils, including Oxfordshire, Surrey and Hampshire, have about 650 children placed with around 50 different independent fostering agencies, costing £29m per year.
Southampton anticipates a saving of 7.4% (£160,000) in the first year of the contract alone.
Cllr Jeremy Moulton, Southampton's cabinet member for children's services, said the new arrangements will "help to ensure that we are able to offer the children in our care the best chance of fulfilling their potential by ensuring a greater choice of local placements, greater placement stability, and robust contract management to maintain quality".
Picture credit: Mel B
Spotted this local BBC story, reporting claims that children are being put at risk in Sheffield because of lengthy waits to access mental health services.
According to the BBC, the Sheffield charity Asperger's Children and Carers Together claimed some patients were waiting up to a year to see a specialist.
One mother said her son, who had expressed suicidal thoughts, had waited eight months before getting treatment.
NHS Sheffield, however, said it had increased spending on its child and adolescent mental health services (Camhs).
Now of course, lengthy waits and difficulties accessing Camhs for children are hardly new issues, but I have heard the problems are getting even worse, as the BBC's story suggests.
A report into the death of toddler Declan Hainey has identified 16 recommendations for social workers and health care staff, stating things "could and should have been done differently".
The report was jointly commissioned by Renfrewshire council and the NHS soon after the child's body was found in 2010.
Declan's mother, Kimberley Hainey, 37, was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years for killing her son at their home in Paisley, Scotland, the BBC reports.
The cause of his death is unknown and he was last seen alive aged 15 months.
Tim Huntingford, chair of the Renfrewshire child protection committee, said the most fundamental of the recommendations "is designed to ensure that plausible excuses for missed appointments are not allowed to develop into a pattern of concealment which prevents child protection professionals seeing a vulnerable child".
Declan was developing perfectly normally during the first year of his life, he said, while his mother, who was a drug addict, was making "significant progress in addressing her issues".
He added: "It was in the second year of Declan's life that his mother began to weave a web of deceit to prevent anyone - family, friends and neighbours, as well as health and social care agencies - seeing Declan."
Huntingford said it was impossible to say whether Declan would still be alive if things had been done differently, but said the council fully accepted the report's recommendations.
To see all the recommendations, read the report here. We'll bring you more soon.
Is inspection a bureaucratic burden or force for improvement? By John Goldup, Ofsted's deputy chief inspector 
The Children's Society has a new chief executive - ordained priest Matthew Reed.
Reed - a former trustee of the charity and most recently the chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust - will start the role in May, taking over from interim chief Shān Nicholas.
by Dr Lucy Rai, senior social work lecturer at the Open University
The final episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children, I want my baby back, showed three families facing the possibility of separation from their children for very different reasons.
A race against time
In the first case, we saw mum Louise trying to overcome a drug addiction so she could resume care of her baby, Mercedes.
Underlying the work with Louise was the ticking clock of her baby's developmental needs, set against her own timetable of addiction recovery. The priority was to provide Mercedes with a permanent, stable parent figure before she reached an age where changes in carers could forever harm her ability to form secure attachments.
Sadly this left Louise with very little time to achieve some momentous tasks: beating her drug addiction, withdrawing from methadone and completing a residential detox programme. Like Tiffany, the mother in episode one, Louise demonstrated real love for her baby by recognising that she was unable to meet her baby's needs in the time available.
More harsh decisions?
In the second case, we followed a mother who was failing to protect her baby from a known paedophile who shared the care of the child.
Despite clear evidence of the risk to the baby, there was a total lack of cooperation from the mother. Although there was no medical evidence of sexual abuse, the child showed worrying behaviour - such as obvious distress when having his nappy changed and being overly familiar with strangers - which indicated sexual abuse.
We saw the baby being removed by a social worker, with support from the police. This may have seemed dreadfully harsh but it is very unusual, as the team manager explained. Sexual abuse is a difficult area to respond to, and with less clear evidence of immediate risk it is normal to proceed slowly.
Multi-agency support at a time of crisis
The third case followed a mother who needed support to provide a safe, sanitary home so she and her seven-year-old daughter could be reunited.
We saw the intensive resources that can be arranged to help a parent in crisis. We saw social services, housing and environmental health workers working collaboratively to empower the mother to regain control of her home and realise her parenting capabilities.
The level of risk was very different in this case, because the child was older and the mother had been a good parent but was struggling during a personal crisis.
Child development
All three cases showed that social workers need to have a sophisticated understanding of child development. Mercedes needed quick decisions to meet her need for a secure home before she was a year old. The daughter in the 'dirty house' had both physical and emotional needs for a safe and clean home. The risk to the baby boy was heightened by observations about his behaviour - concerning behaviour in such a young child suggested his attachments were not secure and there may have been multiple, inconsistent carers in his life.
Child development plays a significant part in the education of social workers, and this programme exemplified well why this continues to be so important.
All foster carers and residential workers must receive training to help them support the mental health needs of looked-after children, YoungMinds has recommended.
This should be backed up with regular supervision and reflective support sessions.
The children's mental health charity made the recommendations in a report into the mental health of looked-after children in the UK, published today.
Based on interviews with 50 children living in foster placements, children's homes and secure settings, the report found children felt anxious about moving into placements and had a fairly negative perception of mental health services.
Young people also said they were frustrated that the only representation of life in care known to their peers was the television character Tracy Beaker. They said they were tired of telling friends they were 'not like Tracy Beaker'.
Looked-after children should be given the opportunity to visit foster placements and children's homes before they move there, the report recommended. They should also be given more information about placements to help them understand the environment they will be living in.
Lucie Russell, director of campaigns at YoungMinds, said: "Mental health services should be prioritising the needs of looked-after children and ensuring services are designed and delivered to meet them."
YoungMinds has also written to councils across the country, urging leaders to protect child and adolescent mental health services over the next financial year.
by Cathy Ashley, chief executive of the Family Rights Group
There has rightly been a lot of positive coverage for Protecting Our Children in demystifying the child protection system and highlighting the dilemmas faced by social workers.
Last week we went against the grain by speaking out about some of the issues raised in the first episode. This week, by contrast, we heaped praise on Bristol's children's services and the brilliance of the social worker involved in the case shown.
In both episodes we saw families have their children adopted or placed for adoption.
So why the contrast, given the outcome for both families was the same?
We don't know what is edited out or the confidential case history of the participants but, to us, the two films shone a spotlight on the range in practice and support that families experience across the country or even within the same council.
This partly explains why some parents who may have similar difficulties manage to turn their situation around and keep their child while others don't.
The first film didn't show either parent receiving practical parenting help or guidance, even though they had little or no parenting skills. Support was essential if either parent was to stand a chance of being allowed to look after their children.
The parents looked lost and isolated at the child protection conference. They failed to hear what social workers had to say, which was regarded as failure to cooperate. Research and our experience has shown that access to independent advisers and advocates, enables parents to listen, be heard and actively cooperate.
There was also no exploration of the impact of splitting up the children, despite the evidence on the importance of sibling relationships. Although the plan for the older child was adoption, it was clear by the end of the episode that no such placement had been found. Instead he was separated from his sister and contact with his mother ceased.
In our experience contact with birth families often stops to increase the likelihood of adopters coming forward, but what happens to the child when, as often occurs, there is no adoption?
In episode two we saw some brilliant, reflective social work by an experienced social worker, supported by a team manager who had excellent oversight of the case and really knew the parents. It was social work at its best, with parenting support provided by a mother and baby foster placement.
We've undertaken significant research with local authorities about how they engage with risky, dangerous men and the truth is that many avoid doing so, instead focusing upon an abused mother to keep the child safe.
In contrast to such findings, the social worker in episode two made significant efforts to maintain a relationship with the father and keep him informed, despite it being clear that he could not care for his child.
The government is to provide £1.2m of funding to help girls involved with gangs who are raped or sexually exploited by male members, the Home Office announced today. More detail here.
If you're worried a child or young person you're working with has been, or could be, sexually exploited, try our free interactive tool to help you identify key warning signs and action plans.
You might also find this helpful: CC Inform guide to safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation: Identification; response and prevention
Just heard ITV1's This Morning is going to be discussing social work issues today - following the rise in care applications - with BASW's Nushra Mansuri on the show.
Apparently it's on at 11:30am and the item is being called 'social services question time' (or something like that). If you're not lucky enough to be by a TV with your feet up you can watch here instead. Do let us know what you think if you catch the programme...
Custodial decisions for children should be based on safety and evidence of their efficacy, rather than costs, according to a briefing by the Howard League.
Published today, Future Insecure, follows the deaths of two children in custody and news that the Youth Justice Board is to decommission a total of 17 beds in secure children's homes.
In an open letter to YJB chair Frances Done, Howard League chief Frances Crook appealed to the board to retain the use of beds in secure children's homes.
Crook said it was "unacceptable that nearly 2,000 children are to be left languishing in young offender institutions and secure training centres".
The news that care applications hit a record high last month has been picked up widely today, as has the (much-speculated about) connection with the Baby P case - that social workers are more risk averse following the death of Peter Connelly (pictured).
That's one of the reasons explored on the BBC Today programme this morning, but not the only one. Listen here for the full discussion, with contributions from social worker Anne Farmer, ADCS president Matt Dunkley and Anthony Douglas, chief executive of family courts body Cafcass here.
Whatever the reason, social workers have warned that the referrals spike - without extra resources - is having a disastrous affect on their stress levels and ability to provide good child protection services.
Nushra Mansuri, professional officer for the British Association of Social Workers, on why she believes the government's plans for a six-month time limit on care cases are "nonsensical" and likely to set social workers up to fail.
The government's response to the family justice review recognises (on page six) that the current system is "under strain" with substantial increases in case volumes - a 10% increase in public law cases over a 12 month period and a doubling of cases since 2008.
It is therefore incredulous that, in a climate of austerity where the mantra is 'more for less', we are expecting an already overstretched and beleaguered workforce to somehow work miracles in reducing delays in cases. It is nonsensical. But worse than that, this will set practitioners up to fail and will lead to more children being let down rather than protected.
It also seems a million miles away from the Munro report which espouses a learning culture, as opposed to a blame culture, and the removal of arbitrary and unnecessary targets that curtail practice rather than empower it to effect positive change.
This is not good news for the social work profession where people are already working around the clock to do the best job they can in difficult circumstances. Even the chair of the review panel David Norgrove said, in one of the regional seminars, that he recognised things were going to get worse before they get better. That's a powerful statement.
Norgrove also repeated the government's promise of there being no more money in the light of any reviews and we know the current agenda is all about so-called 'efficiencies'. Efficient for who I wonder? I am not aware of children being the beneficiaries of such measures.
The trend for government consultations is to carry out impact assessments. I would like to know if anyone has sat down and counted the cost of these proposals to some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
Perhaps it is poignant, that this week we celebrated the bi-centenary year of Charles Dickens' birth. If he was alive today, what would one of this country's greatest campaigners for children's rights make of such reforms? Reach for his quill no doubt and offer some social commentary to this sad state of affairs.
Annie Semphill, the social worker seen in Monday's episode of Protecting Our Children, responds to comments and questions from viewers, including those who took part in Community Care's live panel debate.
I couldn't quite bring myself to read all the reaction online as the programme was aired, but I got a good choice selection from my husband throughout the evening.
I feel really honoured by the praise and appreciation shown for our work, but we were really just doing our jobs. I'd like to share some of the warm words that were posted online with all the social workers in Bristol. It was very encouraging, if also a bit embarrassing.
One of the surprising areas of interest was a fascination with the security guards who accompanied me on visits to Shaun and Marva. Because of our long history with the couple I knew Shaun could be unpredictable with a tendency for violence. It did make me feel safe to have two large uniformed men standing behind me as I approached their front door.
I was less worried by the dog as I felt Shaun could keep control of him and wouldn't risk using him in a dangerous way.
Many Community Care readers wondered why I was off sick towards the end of the case, shown in the film, and asked if this was because of the emotional burden the case had on me. I wasn't off due to stress - I had quite a serious virus - but I think the case did exhaust me and made my recovery longer than it might otherwise have been.
I think the film successfully showed the supportive atmosphere in which I was working. Emotional turmoil comes with the territory when you're a social worker but I did feel it more in this case. We'd had such a long involvement with Marva and I really did have some cautious hope for her this time as the experience of dealing with the family had improved enormously.
There was much legal discussion behind the scenes on this case. It might not have been the focus of the programme, but there was a lot of preparation with colleagues to ensure that if we did need to move to care proceedings it could be done smoothly without delays.
The BBC filmed with me, Arthur, Shaun, Marva and all the other supporting colleagues for a good seven months to produce an hour's worth of television. I think it did convey the complexity of the decisions involved and was emotionally sympathetic - both to my profession and Shaun and Marva.
I am heartened to see the number of comments from social work students online who are now further encouraged to qualify.
Last night's episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children seemed to provoke an even more positive online reaction than the first - even winning over some of the first film's critics.
In particular, there was huge praise on Twitter and our live debate for the empathetic and calm-headed approach of social worker Annie (pictured) - seen supporting young couple Shaun and Marva during their fourth pregnancy - and her manager Arthur.
There was animated discussion, and some amusement, at the sight of Annie flanked by two burly security guards during home visits. (The security guards, like the social workers, were employed by Bristol Council for all the viewers who asked last night).
There was debate around the role of adult services in child protection cases, to support parents with mental health and substance misuse problems - as we saw last night. And of course there was the all-important question of whether the series will improve the public perception of social work. (Most viewers said they were hopeful but not quite convinced yet.)
Here's a quick round-up of views, thoughts and reflections from the web (more to follow soon):
@VjLupton (via Twitter)
Even more sure I'm doing right by getting my degree after #protectingourchildren amazing people making a difference.
@CathyAshley Family Rights Group (via Twitter)
Very moving #protectingourchildren. Sympathetic portrayal of all involved. Complete respect for social worker & her manager.
@mwilliamsthomas (via Twitter)
Half way through prog- very impressed so far - Annie a credit to the profession @ComCareChildren #protectingourchildren"
@mrspentleton (via Twitter)
#protectingourchildren. Massive respect 2 the SW. Massive respect 2 the foster carer. Everyone should watch this. Pay attention media!
@SteveDonnan (via Twitter)
Social workers get such a bad rap, I think they do an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. Takes great strength #protectingourchildren
@BASW_UK British Association of Social Workers (via Twitter)
Social worker showing great resilience & empathy, lets hope her other 14 cases are not as challenging!
And you can replay our debate from last night here:
by Dr Lucy Rai, senior social work lecturer at the Open University
In the second episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children we followed the pregnancy of a young couple, Marva and Shaun.
The pair had already had three babies removed from them and posed a significant risk to their unborn child, due to their chaotic lifestyle and severe alcohol abuse. We saw Annie, their social worker, trying to engage with them to minimise the harm to their unborn child. This episode also provides a number of valuable lessons for social work.
Assessing the safety of an unborn child
The risk to Marva and Shaun's baby began before birth. The level of alcohol Marva was drinking, together with her overdoses and lack of personal care, placed the unborn baby at considerable risk. Intervention at this stage could only focus on supporting Marva to prioritise her health and self care, which was no easy task when her self-harming behaviour was driven by depression and her relationship with Shaun.
Meeting the needs of children is so often only possible through meeting the needs of parents. Marva came heartbreakingly close to letting go of her destructive relationship with Shaun in order to prioritise her own health and that of her baby.
Managing emotional work
Last night's episode illustrated very poignantly that recognising and working with emotions is a central part of social work. As Annie said at the end of the programme, the time to stop working in child protection is when you stop feeling.
Annie could only build a working relationship with Shaun and Marva by acknowledging their feelings of loss, anger and anxiety. Arthur, Annie's team manager, also showed during supervision how important it was for Annie to express her changing feelings about the work.
The pain in this story, tempered only with occasional moments of hope and exhilaration, provides an important lesson about the importance of keeping feelings at the centre of good social work practice.
Harsh decisions
The decision to separate Marva from her baby affected everyone involved in the case profoundly. It illustrated the kind of social work recommendations that keep children alive.
Responsibility for such decisions remains with the court. In this case, the court will have taken into account the vulnerability of such a tiny baby and the level of risk posed by the child being in the sole care of parents with a history of extreme alcohol misuse, overdoses and, in Shaun's case, violence.
In this context, to wait until harm has actually taken place may well be too late.
The government has finally published its formal response to David Norgrove's family justice review - and it's not without controversy.
Although it accepts almost all the review's recommendations, Norgrove has already criticised the government's announcement on shared parenting following divorce or separation. (He said don't do it. Ministers look like they might.)
For social workers and children's guardians, the biggest news is probably the confirmation that the government will introduce a statutory six-month limit on care cases by 2013. (But this shouldn't come as a huge surprise given the government's position on this back in November.)
Those I've spoken to have mixed feelings about the deadline. Some feel confident it will speed up decisions and reduce delay (some children wait 55 weeks for their case to be completed), while others are adamant the deadline will only heap more pressure on a struggling system.
One guardian said: "We could see some poor practice if people are just desperately trying to meet deadlines." Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, previously told me: "It won't help reduce delay. Most social workers don't have the resources to complete care cases in six months so this could just be setting them up to fail."
Barnardo's chief Anne Marie Carrie said the deadline would reduce delay, but acknowledged the difficulties of meeting it. "We must not underestimate the challenge in achieving this, with record numbers of care applications having been received in the last half of 2011," she said.
Maggie Atkinson, children's commissioner for England, said she recognised the challenge "in ensuring that all essential evidence is placed before the court within this timeframe".
by Sacha Mirzoeff, series director of the BBC's documentary series Protecting Our Children
There are some areas of society where it's said to be impossible to make morally responsible films. Typically the media has chosen to cover social work by going undercover and making investigative programmes. Sadly the end results are often sensationalist films that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the complexity of the work.
And so the bandwagon of poor media coverage of social work trundles on...
I feel that there is a way of approaching any issue in a documentary as long as there is a clear understanding from all about what is being tackled and how best to do it.
The director of children's services at Bristol council, Annie Hudson, was open to our approach to show the day-to-day complexities of child protection work. It took months of effort and negotiation to draw up a working protocol that ensured the welfare of children, families and social workers was protected.
We finished with a working protocol, written up by the council's legal department and ratified by the senior family court judge in Bristol. It worked for everyone. On the one hand, it was tougher than the Children Act in terms of identifying children in the public domain during and after proceedings. But on the other hand, it gave the BBC freedom to be able to continue filming during proceedings - as long as everyone was in agreement that it was fine to do so.
Each social worker was given the choice about whether to participate in the series. Understandably only a small number came forward at first. For those that did, we went through their cases together and discussed the families that might be suitable to approach. Of course even smaller numbers of families agreed to take part. It took months of patient asking before we had enough material to start making the films.
Even with a protocol, how could we at the BBC tell if we were doing the right thing? We ended up doing the opposite of what many filmmakers strive to do. We rescinded control rather than holding on tight. As many of our contributors are extremely vulnerable, we used a system of rolling consent whereby they, or any of the professionals working with them, could pull out right up until transmission.
After showing the practically finished films to everyone involved we listened and reacted to their comments. Lawyers, court-appointed guardians, council solicitors, council heads and area managers, our legal advice, editorial policy, our own childcare consultant, the seniors in the BBC and most importantly of all, the families and social workers we filmed, all had their say. It took a long time but we could then rest safe in the knowledge that the end result was balanced, accurate and fair.
Yesterday morning campaigners were desperately hoping for a reprieve on child benefit cuts -and were even feeling cautiously optimistic - after peers and bishops voted decisively against the measures, contained in the government's Welfare Reform Bill.
By yesterday afternoon that had all changed. MPs had overturned the Lords' defeats, with David Cameron even deploying a controversial parliamentary tactic, according to reports.
Enver Solomon, policy director at The Children's Society, no doubt reflected the views of many campaigners when he said: "The government has today made life more difficult for some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in the country."
He added: "The vote to include child benefit when calculating the benefit cap means that more than 220,000 children have an uncertain future as they and their families will struggle to pay for fuel bills, basic essentials or, in some cases, the roof over their heads.
"It is particularly disheartening the government has voted through cuts of up to £1,400 a year for as many as 100,000 disabled children. This will have a significant impact on day-to-day living for families with disabled children, including buying essentials like food and clothes."
As if taking on your first social work case wasn't nerve-wracking enough, imagine doing it in front a BBC film crew and, a year later, having your practice scrutinised by people all over the country. Susanne, the NQSW seen on the BBC's Protecting Our Children, has her say here and reacts to viewers' comments.
"I'm quite relieved that my episode has now gone out.
After many months of filming (you can see the changes in the weather), attending the official BBC screening and doing pre-publicity press interviews, I can now reflect on the experience.
"Most of the commentary I've seen across Twitter, various blogs and the Community Care pages has been positive about what we were trying to achieve with Mike and Tiffany - the couple whose care of three-year-old Toby was in question.
"It's interesting to see how black and white views have been and that a lot of people are sympathetic to Mike and Tiffany's situation, as well as to what I and my managers were looking to achieve for Toby.
"I've also seen a lot of commentary from professionals about the various steps and interventions they think should have been attempted with Tiffany in particular.
"While I can't go into detail about their family life, beyond what you see in the programmes, I would like to reassure the social work community that there were many strategies attempted with the family before Tiffany makes her decision about adoption. This did not happen quickly without many opportunities for reflection. As I am on the community team I only take cases that would have seen around three months worth of work from my colleagues in duty.
"There were also several comments about what my caseloads might be. So for those who are still curious, Toby was my first major case, allocated on my second day. During the months I was filmed I was dealing with between 11 and 17 other cases.
"Now I am looking forward to watching my colleagues in episodes 2 and 3."
The Children’s Services blog covers the latest news, views, gossip and analysis in children’s social care. It is aimed at professionals working with these children, young people and their families. The blog is written by children's beat editor Camilla Pemberton. |
| Children's Services blog home |
 |
Follow the children's team on Twitter | |
| Cookies & privacy | ||
| Email: | Camilla Pemberton |
 |
|
Community Care Inform is a subscription-based online reference tool for social care professionals working with children, young people and their families. For more information click Here. |
