Recently in department for education Category

Social workers reveal frustrations in Munro report

user-pic
| No Comments
judy-100.jpgSo the much-anticipated Munro progress report has finally been published. One of the most interesting parts of it, in my humble opinion, is the feedback Munro got from councils trialling the absence of statutory assessment deadlines - because this is where the real nitty gritty of change is going to loom large for everyone in social care, writes Judy Cooper.

From the comments listed one gets the impression that social workers are itching for change, but their managers are, perhaps, not so keen. 

clock2.jpg
Wandsworth reported: "Some social workers stated in their audit interviews that there was limited feel of significant change in the way they felt they were assigned assessments with a plan of work by managers - they felt that their managers remain preoccupied with timescales, as opposed to timeliness and quality."

Knowsley's reports seemed to chime with this. "It is our view that the increased flexibilities have brought with them both the awareness of the importance of first line managers (and their oversight and scrutiny of case work to ensure there is no delay in the provision of help to a child and their family and all decisions are made in a timely fashion) and the clear need for social work practitioners to be skilled and confident in exercising their judgment."

Michael Gove concerned over child x-ray trial

user-pic
| No Comments
dentalxray2.jpgCollective sigh of relief, a government minister has, finally, admitted there are "causes for concern" about UK Border Agency (UKBA) plans to use dental x-rays to determine the ages of asylum-seeking children

Addressing a committee of MPs today, education secretary Michael Gove said: "I am concerned obviously to ensure that we do not have people exploiting the generosity of this country, but I'm also clear that we should ensure that the dignity of individuals and in particular the rights of children are respected too."

It's a pretty tentative response considering the serious question marks over the lawfulness of this trial (it's not a new issue). There are two main questions, according to lawyers: whether the trial complies with this European directive which makes specific requirements on those seeking to use x-rays and whether the young people can reasonably be said to have given their informed consent. There is also doubt over the efficacy and reliability of the science itself.

Syd Bolton, a solicitor and co-director of the Refugee Children's Rights Project, called the UKBA trial "wilfully misconceived and fundamentally flawed". He told me it fails to have any regard to statutory safeguarding duties, interferes with the independent duties of councils and "will not, when all is said and done, provide any better or more accurate assessment of age than is possible using safe social work and paediatric assessment methods".

I know legal organisations have tried to contact the UKBA, with no joy, and it seems Michael Gove has had the same problem. He told MPs he's still waiting for a response from the Home Office and the UKBA. He also told Lisa Nandy MP that he didn't know whether his department had sanctioned the trial, but would write to her with the UKBA's response by Friday. Glad to see the mechanics of government are as well-oiled as ever. (Picture credit: schoschie on Flickr)

X-ray trial is 'deeply worrying sign' for DfE, says MP

user-pic
| No Comments
LisaNandy.jpg
Michael Gove has expressed concern over the UK Border Agency's child x-ray trial, but is it too little too late? In this guest blog, Lisa Nandy MP argues the trial, and Gove's response, signals a worrying shift in the government's priorities.

At the education select committee this morning Michael Gove expressed cautious concern about ongoing UK Border Agency (UKBA) pilots to x-ray young people entering the country whose age is disputed. While his apparent concern about these trials is welcome, the secretary of state's response should ring alarm bells for the wider children's sector.

Gove said he only learnt about the pilots from my parliamentary question and a magazine article, both of which occurred after the pilots had started. He did not know if his department had sanctioned the trials and had not discussed concerns in any detail with his ministers. He told us he believed questions had been raised by his department but they had not yet been answered. When I asked him if it was usual to wait a month for urgent questions about safeguarding from other departments he suggested it was.
 
In contrast to his confident and, at times, brazen response to questions about education policy, Gove appeared to be on less certain ground with child protection questions. Although he stopped short of arguing he was not responsible for this group of children, he frequently referred to the fact that the x-ray pilots did not lie within his departmental responsibilities.

Fragmented policies

The session was deeply reminiscent of the time, before the 2004 Children Act placed a duty on all agencies to co-operate, when children's policy was fragmented across government. For migrant children this situation persisted until the creation of the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), which forced the UKBA to take responsibility, both morally and legally, for keeping children safe. 

That acceptance, in 2009, was hugely important for migrant children. Although they continue to suffer discriminatory treatment, it led to greater willingness to consider their needs and a sharp reduction in the detention of children.

Since then the DCSF has been renamed, as before, as the Department for Education. This is more than just semantics. The department's focus has shifted almost relentlessly to education, neglecting the wider children's agenda. Child poverty, once a top concern for the secretary of state, has been downgraded to junior ministerial level. Resources within the department have also shifted. There are now over 100 staff in the Free Schools unit alone, while just 76 work on safeguarding.

'Deeply worrying sign'

The ability of the UKBA to push ahead with pilots that have been condemned by the four children's commissioners, the British Association of Social Workers, children's charities and the former Chief Medical Officer is a deeply worrying sign that the Department for Education is either unwilling or unable to defend the most vulnerable children. 

That is currently a serious problem for the young migrants, some of whom are doubtless under 18, and are currently being exposed to ionising radiation for non-medical purposes. But unless this mission creep is challenged, it will ultimately become a problem for all children - especially the most vulnerable.

The storm surrounding Working Together

user-pic
| 1 Comment
lightning.jpg
Last week we reported serious concerns from a number of social work sources about the government's ongoing review of Working Together to Safeguard Children

For anyone who isn't familiar with the story so far, here's a quick recap: Eileen Munro, in her review of child protection systems in England, said bureaucracy needs to be tackled. So the axe started to fall on Working Together, a 300-plus page guidance document, which social workers have often called 'cumbersome'. The government is working its way through the guidance to see what can be cut/revised and, from what we've heard, the revisions will be radical. 

And this is where it gets complicated. While some social workers and academics are deeply concerned about the revisions (specifically the scale of them), for others, they can't be radical enough. Two interesting blogs on the subject caught my eye this week. They're good so I've quoted from them fairly extensively, but there's much more via each of the links below.

Chris Mills, on the Chris Mills Child Protection Blog, writes: "Whatever way forward is adopted I remain firmly of the belief that 'Working Together' can be drastically pruned...Even if the Government has gone about the process of re-writing 'Working Together' in a ham-fisted way, I would urge everyone to stick with the vision. Munro's ideas are absolutely right. Procedural manuals that have been amassed as a result of risk-averse responses to various enquiries are not the way to go forward. Detailed procedural manuals are appropriate in some circumstances (for example where a piece of equipment or closed system has been carefully designed) but we are deluding ourselves if we believe that they make child protection any safer. On the contrary child protection is a very uncertain sphere. It does not operate like a well-oiled machine. That makes writing the rules in advance a pointless, and sometimes a dangerous, exercise."

But Abe Laurens, on the Not So Big Society blog, writes: "There is no escaping the complications of enabling all the agencies potentially involved in the care and protection of our children to co-operate and share information. Whilst nominally having the same goal in mind, each has not only different processes and procedures, they also have long-established and very different cultures that have proved highly durable and change-resistant. By all means cut out some of the more esoteric 'what ifs' but do not severely undermine the substantial core of Working Together...Let's also not forget where Working Together came from. It was forged in the heat of successive child death enquiries that from Maria Colwell onwards found fault in the system of inter-agency communication and condemned the blindness to reforms that sadly were ignored and unimplemented. This world hasn't changed, yet suddenly the system can apparently be streamlined. I fail to see how this will help abused children and young people.

Supporters of radical revision (even if they'd prefer a slightly more conservative cull than reported) told me they worry the government could lose its nerve and not revise Working Together at all if there's too much criticism, considering how slow progress on Munro has been.

But there are three important points everyone appears to agree on: 

1). There are ways of revising Working Together that could (probably) keep everyone happy. For example, a streamlined version for social workers and a longer easily-navigable online version for other professionals less familiar with the guidance.
2). There should be frontline social workers on the professional advisory group. 
3). The public consultation on Working Together is more important than ever. 

So where is the consultation? It was due any day now, ahead of the final guidance in July, but it's nowhere to be seen. It may have got lost fighting its way out of the Department for Education, a fate that's befallen a few consultations in the past. (Or maybe they've lost Working Together itself. If it really is just 10 pages, as sources have indicated, that wouldn't be hard. Perhaps it's in Michael Gove's pocket masquerading as a handkerchief.) 

In reality, it's probably been delayed while ministers and members of the professional advisory group challenge each other about just how, and where, Working Together should be culled. Whatever the reason and whatever your view, the consultation is critical. The latest info I have from the DfE is that it will be launched in July. So keep your eyes peeled. (Picture credit: Slawek Puklo)

You might also be interested in:

Could Gove really replace Hilton?

user-pic
| 1 Comment
Govethinking.jpgI doubt I'm the only one who's been left slightly baffled by the government's media strategy recently. No sooner has one announcement or press release informed us that ministers want children's services to be locally-led and free from central government prescription, another is busy grandstanding about league tables, performance indicators and score cards

We can't always expect to know what ministers are really thinking (cue Michael Gove, thinking deeply) but we usually know what their strategists want us to think they're thinking. So are we meant to think ministers are keen on setting targets or on giving councils freedom and flexibility? Something's getting lost in translation. 

Could the departure of Cameron's director of strategy Steve Hilton change the situation? Was it him handing down multiple mixed messages? This article reveals some interesting theories. It also, intriguingly, claims education secretary and former journalist Gove is in the running to replace Hilton, who's moving to California for a year's sabbatical. I know where I'd rather be.
 
And apologies to all who clicked on the headline thinking it would reveal Gove may be taking over the reins at BASW. Now that really would be a story. (Picture credit: Rex)

Why post-adoption support is like the holy grail

user-pic
| No Comments
holy grail.jpgThe government will publish its adoption action plan tomorrow and it's sure to recommend big change, with social workers and adoptive families feeling the greatest impact. In this guest blog, adoptive parent Sally Donovan explains what really needs to change.

Some say as many as one in three adoptions break down. Some say one in five. And some say these estimates are exaggerated. Going purely on my own experience of adoption, and that of those around me, I suspect the estimates are not far off, particularly when it comes to sibling group and non-infant adoptions.

 

In any case, far too many adopted children and their families experience either wholly or partially broken adoptions, and the human consequences are devastating. A bright light needs to be directed into the dark corners of adoption breakdown and on what I believe to be its primary cause: a chronic lack of post-adoption support.

 

My husband Rob and I adopted two siblings from the UK care system eight years ago. Our children had suffered a heavy mix of neglect and abuse in their birth families, during those crucial first months and years when the infant brain should be busy developing, unencumbered by fear and stress. 


It goes without saying that we have shared considerable love and joy, have faced big challenges and are knitted together all the more strongly for it. But parenting our children has tested Rob and I to the very extreme of our extreme. 


We face confrontation and verbal abuse which would turn fresh milk sour; anger that threatens to bring the house down; high levels of anxiety around safety; hyper-vigilance; control issues; issues around food and personal care - and I could go on. 

There is not a day when we don't come head-to-head with the consequences of that early damage. We are robust people but nevertheless there have been dark moments. And we haven't even reached the teenage years yet.

Post-adoption support feels rather like the 'holy grail'. It is rumoured to exist in all its glory, but few have seen it. Fewer have touched the real thing and most just desperately clutch at small shards. Rob and I have a small piece, which is of good quality, but it's not enough, by a long stretch. A friend who lives ten miles away, but crucially across a county boundary, receives none and is living through an horrific adoption breakdown as a direct consequence.Providing good quality, easily accessible post-adoption support is a matter, not only of sound economic judgement and common sense, but of humanity. The state asks adopters to carry out a difficult job and ties one hand behind their backs, rendering the job far more difficult than it need be and increasing the likelihood of failure. 

 

The therapeutic help, which is key to helping our children deal with the shame and hurt of a damaged past, is concealed within a maze of bureaucracy, baffling and conflicting labels and buck-passing. Negotiating such labyrinthine structures exhausts most already-exhausted adopters before they ever reach the help.


We were directed towards good quality therapeutic support by our support worker and, for complex reasons, we now have to pay privately for it. It is specialist work, a talking therapy that we cannot carry out alone, and it has brought about considerable improvement.

 

Much as I wish it were different, adoption breakdown is difficult to measure, for lots of reasons. Looking into breakdown before the adoption order is made, as the government is proposing to do, gives such a small glimpse of the true picture. So we could all carry on arguing about percentages or we could move on. 


Our child victims of neglect and abuse deserve better because for them adoption is not their happy ending, it is almost the beginning. They deserve support which recognises that their damage cannot be loved or forgotten away. Society also benefits when children are helped to heal and grow in stable families. It is in all our interests that they have the foundations to lead happy and fulfilling lives.


More information


Picture credit: Eddi van W

Ministers should 'adopt' policies that support children

user-pic
| No Comments

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."

Loughton ends hopes of young runaways action plan

user-pic
| No Comments

phonebox.jpgThe 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!

Government's "nonsensical" family justice plans will set social workers up to fail

user-pic
| No Comments

NushraMansuri.jpgNushra 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.

Government responds to Family Justice Review

user-pic
| 1 Comment

RoyalCourtsJustice.jpgThe 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".

  • The government also announced plans to implement the review's recommendation for a co-ordinated family justice system, including a single family court across England and Wales, and a Family Justice Board.
  •  
  • Family courts body Cafcass will move from the Department for Education into the Ministry of Justice by 2015, to "bring court social work functions closer to the court process". And courts will be expected to rely less upon expert evidence - another controversial reform.

About the Children's Services blog

   
 

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 Follow the children's team on Twitter
   
  Cookies & privacy
   

How to get in touch

     
  Email: Camilla Pemberton

 

Inform

 
 

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.

 

More from Community Care

 

 

Keep up to date

  Enter your email address, in the box below, to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Powered by MT-Notifier

  Subscribe to this blogs feed 

Subscribe to our blog RSS feed