By Emma Maier
All but two of the main national newspapers (The Independent and the Daily Mail) ran front page stories on Wednesday about the death of Baby P, the 17-month-old boy who suffered more than 50 injuries, including a broken spine, caused by his mother and her boyfriend.
The details of the case were so horrific that even the straightest news reports could not help but shock. While they all covered the same basic facts, timeline and summary of the child's injuries, each took a slightly different approach - and a different attitude to social work.
The Sun focused on the parts with most shock value: the paedophile lodger (who had moved into the family home after absconding with his 15-year-old lover), the revelation that Baby P's stepfather had previously been accused of torturing his own grandmother, and the allegation that the mother was a "hard-core porn-watching slob". Its leader called for the social workers involved to be sacked.
The Daily Mail, which didn't start its coverage until page four, also lamented that social workers hadn't lost their jobs. It also made much of the "£450-a-month child benefit and other pay-outs" that Baby P's mother was receiving and the fact that she "had plenty of practice in how to manipulate" social workers.
Social workers found an ally in the Daily Mirror, which limited its front page coverage to a short headline alongside a story about an X-Factor contestant, but followed up at length inside. It's leader column said "Individual social and welfare workers on the ground work hard under extreme pressure from clients and sometimes managers" and called for something to be done.
Its news stories covered the finding in the serious case review that the council consulted lawyers a week before Baby P died, but were told that the threshold for initiating care proceedings had not been reached - crucial because the advice effectively tied the hands of social workers.
Of all the newspapers, The Daily Telegraph was the only one to ask the Torys for a view: in its front page story it asked shadow children's minister Tim Loughton if he condemned the government's child protection policy; he raised concerns about resourcing and the administrative burden on frontline workers. Inside, the paper also put the mistakes over Baby P down to a decision by the "Labour-run Haringey council" of the late 90s to "divert at least £10m meant for social services into education as a vote-winning tactic". A blog on the paper's website later was unashamed about politicising the issue.
But in another blog,David Hughes sympathises with social workers and says the case goes to show that they "can't win". Among the vitriolic comments at the base of the article are some interesting responses.
Like The Daily Mail, The Independent did not to cover the case at all on Wednesday's front page. Inside, its leader emphasised that many professionals involved in the case did a good job in that they spotted the signs and alerted colleagues. The desire to keep children in the family home is at the heart of the matter, it said, concluding that there must be "mechanisms to guard against social services taking too optimistic a view".
The Times' news coverage also focused on the idea that social workers were too naïve and needed to be more streetwise, in particular in a commentary by Lord Laming. It also picked up a point missed by most of the other media: "the perceived conflict of interest over Ms Shoesmith [head of children's services at Haringey council and chair of the Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board] chairing the serious case review into the death, instead of appointing someone from outside".
A piece on the paper's comment pages attempted to uncover the reasons why some of the lessons from the Victoria Climbie case have not been learnt. Social work is difficult, emotionally draining and sometimes dangerous, there is too much focus on and abdication of responsibility to procedures and there is a problem with lack of confidence, it argued. Incompetence exists everywhere, it concluded, it's just that for those involved in child protection the stakes are much higher.
A story released later on The Times' website quoted a police source saying that social workers withheld information from the police and spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service saying that the council did not disclose some details until the judge requested them.
The Guardian's cover story detailed Lord Laming's distress that such a case should happen in Haringey, which he had hoped would learn from Victoria Climbie's death and become a model of best practice. Inside, it focused on how baby P's mother managed to conceal the scale of the danger the child was facing, and particularly the fact that her boyfriend, described during the case as "sadistic - fascinated with pain", was living in the family home.
In contrast to the Daily Mail article, this piece says police thought that the boyfriend targeted the family because of the £450-a-month benefits that the mother was receiving.
Like the Mirror, The Guardian also highlighted the legal advice that the threshold for care proceedings had not been met.
Meanwhile, Angela Neustatter uses her blog to argue that society must take some responsibility and change its attitudes to care rather than blaming social workers.
On Newsnight on Tuesday, Jeremy Paxman was slightly left behind over the jargon of "post-qualifying training", but still managed to preside over a measured and balanced discussion between guests Labour MP and chairman of the Children, Schools and Family Select Committee Barry Sheerman and John Coughlan, director of children's services at Hampshire council and former president the Association of Directors of Children's Services. Coughlan was given space to emphasise that the vast majority of cases result in a positive outcome and the panel went on to debate the importance of improved post-qualifying training.
Radio 4's Today Programme on Wednesday explored the workforce problems that this sad case emphasises: lack of staff, high case loads, quality of training and excessive paperwork (well worth listening to online - the coverage starts two hours and 10 minutes in). The contribution from Dr Eileen Munroe from LSE raised the question bothering many contributors to Community Care's CareSpace forum: whether the reforms introduced after the Victoria Climbie case are actually part of the problem, and the affect of the government's focus on managerial control.
Children's minister Beverley Hughes started her interview by emphasising that social workers have a demanding job and mainly succeed. She acknowledged that administrative duties could be overbearing but said it wasn't an issue in this case. She ended by urging managers to constantly encourage social workers to question what they were seeing. A sensible plea, but made in a way that could undermine social workers: surely the job is about making judgements - do they need to rely on managers to do that for them?
Coverage of the case on the BBC's website was conspicuous by its absence on Wednesday, though buried on towards the bottom of the news pages was a succinct and readable analysis of what the case means for social services.
Later the Beeb added a ringside account of the "ill-tempered exchange" between David Cameron and Gordon Brown during Prime Minister's questions about the case. However the story missed Cameron's pertinent question about the wisdom of children's services directors chairing Local Safeguarding Children's Boards (The Times provided full text of the exchange).
By the end of Wednesday, the coverage had already started to die down. Those involved in the death of Baby P are due to be sentenced on 15 December. Expect more outcry at the sentences.
I dont think for one minute that the demonisation of the social worker involved is going to help anyone. But it appears to me that the infrastructure and the tools designed to protect children swing from one extreme to another. Babies can and are taken at birth due to a percieved risk at some undefinable point in the future but babies like Baby P fall through the net. The system has to be overhauled, more accountability and transparency.
My comment on this is why it was allowed to happen. If social workers know they are over burdened, under staffed, and not given the training, why are they not asking for it? Is Haringey ignoring their pleas? Are they unable to ask for more staff, more resources, and more training?
I know a council that had a health and safety crisis, no death, and they quickly shifted resources such as money, staff, and training at the problem. They stated the issue was job one and they continue to deliver that service. In their case, no one died.
How is it social workers, as a collective, appear unable to ask for more money. I would think that this would be a perfect example. I would send this link to the CX and say "This is what happens if we are understaffed, undertrained, and overburdened. If the bins are late, no one dies. If a report is misfiled, or an appointment is skipped, then someone can die.
Stop wallowing in the self-pity and use this tragedy to bring about change in your council and community. If you don't who will?
George - your own occupation is of interest to me. What is your experience of working in a statutory social work setting? What is your experience of high caseloads - having to balance life over paperwork due to LEGISLATION???? It is not a case of self-pity, that is a particularly narrow-minded and unintelligent view of a UK wide profession, struggling to meet demand. A number of professionals work with families - these people are the eyes and ears for social workers. If they do not inform the social worker, the social worker can not be expected to make a 100% correct decision in the very short time they are expected to conduct an assessment. The newspapers report 60 visits to BabyP but only the Guardian and Mirror recognised that 60 visits is not by a social worker - but by ALL professionals - why is the noose not dangling for them???? Why ios nobody mentioning the medical profession?
Give me a break please - you clearly have very little understanding or knowledge of what the job entails and you therefore do not deserve such a harsh and despondent opinion.