by Mark Ivory
One simple phrase springs to mind in response to the sudden departure of high-flying family services director Andrew Webster from Surrey council – how are the mighty fallen! Webster resigned more than two months ago, shortly before publication of an Ofsted joint area review which raised serious concerns about some services to vulnerable children. Although there has been no confirmation that the two events were linked, the coincidence is too thunderous to ignore.
So the question surely is, is Webster the victim of Surrey’s hubris? It is impossible to forget, in pre-Webster days, the stockbrokers belt hauteur with which the county re-merged children’s and adults’ services two years ago just as everyone else was doing the exact opposite. It seemed like a somewhat hasty return to Seebohm-style social services, albeit with education bolted on, and arguably against the spirit of Every Child Matters which insisted that the corporate eye should be firmly and undistractedly focused on safeguarding children.
Has nemesis arrived in a JAR? The report is critical of services provided to some 3,000 children in need, finds inconsistency in the standards of social care practice, and claims that partnership working for children and young people across the county is under-developed, to take a few examples from the list. Of course, other councils followed Surrey’s example in the hope of finally achieving the family-centred services that Seebohm envisaged 40 years ago. We can only hope that they don’t live to regret it.
And what wonders just what sort of pay-off he got! No doubt a huge pension and a high probability he will re-appear as a Consultant somewhere! – Well, I’m sure that is what many readers will be thinking.
The highly bureaucratic nature of Local Authority social work sometimes means that it is, in reality, the very antithesis of what REAL social work ought to be all about. How do we genuinely ensure the safety and protection of vulnerable children and young people when we spend so much time in front of our computers and completing the even greater burden of paperwork that ICS (Integrated Children’s System) had produced?
Are social work caseloads reralistic? Are te numbers of staff Team Managers have to supervise realistic? Are more senioe managers going back to the ‘coalface’ to evidence at firsthand what is happening? Do we have proper arrangements in place for co-working and mentoring? Are we really looking after / caring for and about our colleagues? Are we trying to learn from why so many highly valued colleagues leave? Are we working in a more effective inter-disciplinary / multi-disciplinary way or are we atill in our own professional ‘bunkers’? – these are some of the questions we need to address PLUS do we really understand what social work really is? – it isn’t about gaining evidence at even earlier stages (i.e. the Public Law Outline) AGAINST families but it ought to be enabling/ empowering / advocating for them. We need to record SHORTFALLS OF NEED and bring those to the attention of Elected Members / MP’s. Whilst keeping within budgets is important we need to openly share with Service Users what we assess their Needs to be regardless of budgetary implications – others need to accept the responsibility for non-provision.
High quality assessments / monitoring / Supervision are all vital elements – whilst we have to work within a bureaucratic structure there is also no substitute for experience – do we truly value experiences colleagues and keep the profession an attractive one for them to remain in?
Just a few thoughts.
I suppose people have forgotten that Andrew Webster was once the head of the SSI/Audit Commission Joint review team (1996-1999). When I visited the Joint Review office near Victoria Station on one of their frequent publicity days, I was amazed to see one wall was completely lined with various press cuttings, all along the lines of “Director resigns after critical Joint review”, “Inspectors slam XXX authority – Director resigns” etc etc. A copy of the Coventry Evening telegraph was prominent, showing the director seemingly hiding behind a doorway, with the headline “Why don’t you resign?” or something similar. In truth, the joint review team under Andrew Webster had an unsympathetic and macho approach to social services. Some of the criticism was no doubt deserved, and not all of the reviewers of that time followed the line of their boss. Nevertheless, what goes around, comes around. I wonder if anyone remembers the Community Care profile of Andrew Webster from around 1997? In it Andrew Webster describes his family background. His parents were GPs with two children. He describes how his sister went to Art College, and “I was the clever one that went to Oxford”. Pride goeth, and Andrew’s arrogance will certainly have contributed to the events that led to his resignation. But he will turn up working for SOLACE or some such outfit, and earning even more money to supplement his vast pension.
Meanwhile the rest of us slog on, “lions led by donkeys”.
Chris Bellis
I remember Andrew Webster as a gifted even brilliant strategist, who finally met his match when he tried to bring some vision and dynamism to a county run by some of the most right wing politicians you could find outside Austria. He stood no chance in this uniquely fascist county and I feel sorry for him. He will however rise again, although it might take more than three days. Good luck to him.