Recently in children's services Category

by Natalie Wyatt, a children and families social worker

With the Family Justice Review due to be published next month there is a renewed focus on the courts and the professionals working within them: solicitors, guardians, judges, expert witnesses and social workers. With so many different professionals with varying views, functions and levels of status it is easy to forget that we are all working to promote the best interests of the child. Conflicts can arise and professional egos can get hurt but is this always a bad thing? Thinking of it from the child's perspective would you rather your future be decided based on the evidence produced by one individual or would you rather your future had been rigorously debated and plans scrutinised to ensure you receive the best possible outcome?
 
Timely decision making

Of course delay is a huge issue within the family courts and the aforementioned rigour and scrutiny must be balanced by swift, timely decision making. Social workers can help this process along by ensuring the assessments completed prior to proceedings are as evidenced-based and thorough as possible, clearly reflecting the wishes and feelings of the child. Given the quality of some assessments making their way into the court arena and a common paucity of parallel planning it is understandable that guardians and solicitors can be critical of social workers.
 
Authorities' independence

What is less understandable however, is the widely held belief that local authorities somehow lack independence. The commissioning of expert assessments (in my experience the biggest cause of delay in public proceedings) often happen in response to claims that local authority assessments are not independent enough. This argument ignores the fact that local authorities have no vested interests in bringing children into care.

In fact it is the opposite, over the course of a child's lifetime, placement costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Bearing in mind this huge cost and more importantly the poor outcomes for looked after children it is clear local authorities do not enter into proceedings rubbing their hands together waiting to be lavished with some invisible reward. In my experience the feeling one gets when entering in to the court arena is never pleasurable but you do it in the belief it is the morally right thing to do.

Valued and respected

In the course of writing this piece I was asked if I feel my input at court is valued? Given that I've yet to be taken on in cross examination and that the requested order has always been obtained, yes I feel my statements are valued and respected. But when the day comes that I'm slaughtered on the stand or an 'independent' social worker is appointed to repeat the work I thought I'd already done maybe I will refer back to my opening paragraph and try to see it from the child's perspective.

by Sybil*, a children and families social worker

"She cared about you, you know... She did not make this decision lightly and she was always telling us in the office how bad she felt about it and how worried she was for you..." Tears were streaming down the young man's face as I was telling him, a year later, how his social worker felt when she left for another job. She had been his social worker for seven years. Fast forward three years and here I am, looking very embarrassed, trying to think how in the world will I explain to this young woman that her social worker had just left her job after a few days notice - she was her fourth social worker and had only met her a few weeks before.

High turnover

I wrote a year ago about the negative impact that the high turnover of social workers was having on the children and young people we are meant to support and protect, and also on the workers left behind to pick up the pieces. Fourteen social workers and one manager later, it feels like little has changed. Repeated changes in senior managers have added to the difficulties in retaining workers, who feel that the organisation is too unstable to be safe.

Our local authority is trying hard to change this situation. Additional resources have been created, the quality and frequency of supervision has improved and social workers are more involved in decision making than ever before. Somehow, though, these efforts still seem to miss the point and the grass continues to look greener on the other side. So where are we going wrong?

Top-down change

I don't think there are easy answers and at times when too much change is imposed top down and at a speed that feels too high, workers feel unsafe. Doing things right in social work does not always mean doing things quickly, and speed is a highly valued element in "efficient" organisations. For families, however, doing things at their pace is far more important than ticking a lot of boxes and social workers are placed in a situation where they have to cut corners and many refuse to do so.

Then there is the paperwork frenzy. The potential of bureaucracy to self reproduce is remarkable and I was amazed to discover that as our caseloads significantly reduced, the amount of paperwork to be completed increased. The reduced caseloads mean we are expected to review paperwork at least twice as frequently and update plans after every single meeting rather than after a significant change of circumstances. This leaves workers feeling that nothing has really changed and they are still expected to complete unrealistic amounts of documents, at times at home after hours.

I have not met a social worker who would refuse or complain to work late in case of an emergency or if the safety or welfare of a young person required it. Many of us have given up time at the weekend or in the evening to attend a special event for a young person on our caseload. However, giving up time with our families to feed the bureaucratic machine of unnecessary paperwork for newly invented internal protocols is where most of us draw the line.

* Name changed

by Sybil, a children and families social worker

Frontline social work in children's services is all about the children.

Frightened, sad or angry, all children in need of protection have a difficult story to tell. My job as their social worker is to do my best to help them be happy again, to feel safe and protected by adults who love them. I always hope that these children can find comfort and protection within their own families, perhaps living with a relative or family friend if their parents cannot offer them safe care, but for some children this is not possible.

Difficult process

In some cases, the only way they can experience stability and consistency in their childhood is through adoption. Adoption is a difficult process, with tricks, bumps and turns every step of the way. All those involved hope that at its end there will be a magical day when a judge will tell the tearful new parents that the beautiful child accompanying them is now their family.

I have always found adoption celebration hearings to be hugely rewarding, although even in those happy times I spared a thought for the distraught birth parents who have lost their child to the unknown. For social workers, this is the end of the journey. For families, however, this is only the beginning.

Feeling abandoned

What starts as a happy day, with cake and photographs, for many continues as a happy life together. Unfortunately for others it ends in adoption breakdown, with children who return to the care of the local authority feeling that no one loves them and no one can be trusted. Some breakdowns occur even before the child moves into their new adoptive home, feeling abandoned, rejected and worthless. For them this pain is worse than the circumstances that led them initially into care and I, as a social worker, have made a commitment to avoid this at all costs.

There are many reasons why breakdowns occur and sometimes the weaknesses in matching for adoption can only be spotted with hindsight. It is well known that traumatized children can be immensely challenging. Naïve adoptive parents refuse to accept that their kindness and love will not magically transform a difficult child into their "ideal" son or daughter. In reality, the younger and less traumatized is the child, the higher the chances of successful adoption.

The right things?

Martin Narey's recent report on adoption appears to be recommending all the right things - a reduction in waiting time for children by prompter decision making, early intervention and a realistic (but not dismissive) view regarding the chances of the wider family to successfully parent children where their parents cannot.

This is what social workers would like to see as well, so why does Narey think that this change needs to take place in social workers' thinking? Has he been tricked into believing that it is the social worker who has the power to take the child away and decide their future like the tabloid media seems to believe?

Not very savvy

It appears that while Narey does have some knowledge of the realities of placing for adoption, he does not sound very savvy on the process that leads to it or the legal framework currently in force. 

His views on relinquishment, however, have shocked me. It beggars belief that he thinks that vulnerable mothers who desperately want somebody to love are all too ready to give their children up for adoption. Genuine relinquishment is extremely rare and the process of adoption with consent is even more tricky and complex than the court proceedings. The birth parents can also change their minds at any point.

Naming and shaming

I am very disappointed to see that Narey recommends more adoption targets, league tables and naming and shaming. This would make adoption an end in itself rather than a means to an end, where children become numbers and quotas that have to be filled. We are not a factory - we work with human beings!

Hasn't Narey learned anything from the destructive effect that targets and performance indicators have in child protection? I certainly have and I do not want to get the right number of adoptions, I only want to get adoptions right!

by Helen Bonnick
Jamie's Dream School (Wednesdays, Channel 4) has received a lot of predictable flak - it's exploiting the students who are manipulated by the cameras' presence, it places unfair levels of expectation on teachers and the degree of foolishness on Jamie Oliver's part to imagine it would work.

I would counter such criticism by pointing out that while the original aim was to see if it was possible to re-interest disengaged students in the education process through inspirational teaching, there are also other politically timely lessons here.

Firstly, that there is more to teaching than being an expert in your field. Teachers everywhere should take comfort in this, in the face of proposals that only top class degrees would be acceptable, or failing that, a stint in the army (ex-squaddies have been suggested to deal with the appalling lack of discipline, allegedly rampant in all our schools).

Secondly, there is a lesson in David Starkey's emotional justification of his own bullying behaviour (episode 2). He had been painfully humiliated by just such an approach in his own school days, but knew of no different way to instil respect and obedience - for which read absolute compliance.

Another one for the teachers - in the end honesty and respect in discussion and approach can trump spectacle and extravagance. The overall plea from the youngsters was to be treated with respect. By the end they appeared more ready to understand this as a two-way process.

Amid all our developing understanding of different learning styles, of social exclusion, and of what makes a good school, it seems to me that we continue to ignore the fundamental questions which determine the whole direction of the education system and the engagement, or otherwise, of these young people.

What should education be about, and who is it for? The individual child, the good of society, or the masters of industry?
 
Answer that one wrong and all the Dream Schools in the world will have taught us nothing.
Helen Bonnick is a school-based social worker

by Peter Corser, a social worker in a mental health team

Christians are good people; as are most other people. But, and this is a personal view, I think chances are if you are with a Christian then you have infinitely more chance of being with a person who is on the side of God (to use that phrase in its secular sense).

I'm an atheist and am a little disturbed at the warped view that the current case of the Christian foster carers may give people from either camp. I know plenty of Christians. One of them even married me. I go to church sometimes and genuinely enjoy it. This story is not about an attack on Christianity, its about the restriction of homophobia.

Not so quick to condemn

I don't recognise in the people I meet at church as the sort of people who the Johns could be so easily characterised as. There is a wide variety of views within the 'Christian community' about homosexuality. With many feeling that the Jesus they see in the scriptures does not seem the man who would be so quick to condemn anyone.

However I also don't recognise the small minded zealots that the press will no doubt be characterising as those who are enforcing the anti discriminatory practice. I think we can all agree Melanie Phillips' column this week will virtually write itself.

Bullied by PC mob?

I don't know this couple so I am not going to be making any bold statements about them. They are being portrayed as people with regular beliefs being bullied by an angry PC mob. I don't think this is the case. You may think from the press coverage they were being forced to attend G.A.Y, learn the script of the Wizard of Oz and buy KD Lang's back catalogue. They are being asked to do nothing of the sort.

What they are being asked to do is not condemn homosexuality as a sin or in some way inherently wrong. This is very important for people who have the care of young and vulnerable people, any one of whom may be gay. Try asking a gay person brought up in a home where these views are held how positive an experience this was for them and you will find how high the stakes are in these cases.

What the Johns appear to be asking for is a right to view people who are gay or lesbian as being sinners or corrupted individuals. They are welcome to that view. But only in the comfort of their own space. Not on the public purse or around vulnerable young people who may be guided by their belief, not in Christianity but in bigotry.

(Pic: Glen's Pics on Flickr) 

by Helen Bonnick

Thousands of children will finally be getting the extra support they need to succeed" was the bold declaration of Sarah Teather, children's minister, when the details of the Pupil Premium were announced in July 2010.

The aim is to close the performance gap between children from rich and poor families and this should be done in a "fair" manner. The coalition government has also claimed the premium will make funding simpler, encourage schools in affluent areas to take disadvantaged pupils and support "free schools" in poorer areas.























(picture: Rex Features, model released)

Originally trumpeted as extra money, the scheme replaces a system which was complex, but was considered relatively redistributive. But now, with no new money in the cash tin, we need to have a simpler and more transparent scheme which is extraordinarily redistributive. The Labour party has suggested that up to two-thirds of schools will lose out under this change.

So now schools contemplate redundancies as the money moves essentially to the capital and the north - the two areas with the highest proportion of children on free school meals. The immediate effect has been that head teachers have been calling for all eligible parents to register for free school meals.  

Evidence to support the sweeping claims made for the premium is mixed. The amount for each pupil, £430 in the first year, seems small beer, though of course we may be looking at hundreds or even thousands of times this in a large school. It could permit increased resources, and projects such as Excellence in Cities have demonstrated marked successes in closing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils in this way.

We are quickly seeing that under this coalition government there are clear winners and losers. The Pupil Premium reflects this. Personally, I shall be looking for a grant to research the effect of improved nutrition on narrowing the gap, from all the extra free school meals.

Helen Bonnick is a school-based social worker

by Helen Bonnick

My first social work job after qualification in 1983 was in a pilot project called the "patch team". I worked alongside a second social worker, two family assistants, a home care team and admin support under a senior social worker, in a geographically distinct area of about 6,000 homes.
There were three primary schools, a police station with a real bobby who walked his beat, a local housing office, a thriving community organisation and a laundrette, which was where you went to find out anything else. Our office was in the heart of the community and folk wandered in and out all day. We knew the people of the area and we could intervene early when needed but we were also on hand in times of crisis. This was the essence of why I came into social work.
Then there was "Cleveland" and social work retreated to big central offices where the expertise to respond to a flood of sexual abuse referrals could be better managed and co-ordinated. Now again we are seeing new developments in social care delivery, whether it be social work units in Hackney, or a pilot project in Westminster. There are huge advantages in local delivery of social services, whether or not it is embedded in other, perhaps universal services, such as social workers and health visitors doing joint visits.
Professionals in universal services need and want to work more closely with social workers. For this to be effective, all parties need to trust each other better. Trust comes through the building of relationships, time spent listening and working together - and it must be a two-way process. These relationships will go a long way towards building a wider range of expertise in universal services and a greater confidence in child protection referrals.
Social workers will find strong allies for their cause among other professionals, since all ultimately want the same thing: children and families with safer, healthier and more fulfilled lives.
Helen Bonnick is a social worker and formerly a supervisor of school-home support workers
(Laundrette picture: flickr mistress_f)

by children and families social worker Niki

It was with a heavy heart this week that I went to court representing the local authority in an application for a care order on a child who has been known to professionals for years.

As in many cases, the parent is neither bad nor uncaring but their issues have been allowed to escalate to such an extent that they are no longer physically or emotionally strong enough to care for their child. When sat late into the night preparing a chronology, I considered what might have been had this family received early intervention when low-level concerns began to emerge about alcohol and domestic violence. Did it have to come to this?

by Dr Steve Rogowski,  a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

The events at Suffolk County Council herald what is likely to occur in many other local authorities over the coming months. The council plans to outsource nearly all of its services, including social care, to private and voluntary groups. It wants to be a strategic, planning council rather than a provider of services. The aim is to reduce costs by 30% in order to cope with forthcoming the Con-Dem coalition public spending cuts.

by Sibyl*, a children and families social worker

I've seen the effect of the high social work vacancy rate from both sides.

"You are leaving me? Why? Who is going to be my social worker now?" A young girl asked me this about three years ago when I told her I was moving on to a new job. Oh dear, I did not see that coming. I started to explain to the anxious girl that I was not leaving her but my words sounded bland and meaningless. I was faced with the reality that the young person in front of me was losing a person she trusted and was worrying about the unknown.