By Emma Maier"The fact is that, contrary to public perception, social workers appear, on the whole, remarkably good at safeguarding children." Not a phrase you'd usually expect to read in a Daily Mail article, but today you can. But how does the article as a whole measure up?
The article, an attempted analysis of the challenges facing social work, has mixed results. The general gist is this:
Many of these observations are not too far off the mark and in some ways the article dispels some common myths, such as the ideas that Baby P was a typical case, and that most child deaths are at the hands of strangers.
However, social workers will be concerned about some of the explanations and 'solutions' offered. They include:
Early on it points out that the Baby P case was not typical and focusing on it could risk missing the real problems, yet later it suggests that the answer is implementing changes from reviews conducted after Baby P.
The article suggests that funding is the "excuse" offered by social services for "lack of progress". In my experience, the issue raised is not money but human resources - number of staff and how they are able/expected to use their time. To the untutored eye this may seem like a finance issue but in reality it is more complex.
Unfortunately, the complexities are ignored in this article, perhaps because it doesn't suit the Mail's agenda and because even a cursory examination would reveal that it is often part of the problem. In reality resource issues relate to vacancy rates (which are linked to the public standing of the profession, driven down by papers like the Mail) and the amount of time that social workers are required to spend in the office at their computer screens (which could be partly a result of Laming's 2000 recommendations, the same recommendations that the Mail has decided would solve everything).
Meanwhile the article misses some of the more sticky issues. It mentions the various agencies involved in child protection in addition to social services but never mentions the clear problems with finding an effective way to work together, share information and make decisive decisions. It also fails to acknowledge that parents, family members and the public have an ethical responsibility to do more, rather than ceding all responsibility to "the authorities".
The piece itself is related to a programme to be shown on Channel 4 next week. Hopefully it will avoid the pitfalls of the Mail and instead speak to frontline social workers about the real issues.
- The Baby P case was dreadful but not typical
- Social services tend to be pretty effective when a child is known to be at risk
- The bigger problem is with children that are not on the child protection register
- Children are at particular risk when their parents separate, both from their parents and their parents' new partners
- Children are also at risk when their parents use drugs
- Something must be done to remedy this
- Early identification is key
- Parents who are separating and domestic violence victims need more support
Many of these observations are not too far off the mark and in some ways the article dispels some common myths, such as the ideas that Baby P was a typical case, and that most child deaths are at the hands of strangers.
However, social workers will be concerned about some of the explanations and 'solutions' offered. They include:
- Serious case reviews "shy away from blame", with the implication that they should blame more. (In reality, the blame-culture makes SCRs less effective)
- The threshold for intervention is too low: more children with violent/separating parents should be put on the child protection register (interesting, given the Mail's penchant for "child snatching" stories) and all agencies need to be aware of the dangers associated with parental separation
- "The vast majority of these killings are behind closed doors - and that perhaps it's time we prised open these doors"
- Missed appointments should trigger concern
- There is an "arrogant refusal" to speak to relatives and give weight to their concerns
- Laming's recommendations post Victoria Climbie and Baby P haven't all been acted on (with the implication that if they were things would be different)
- Social services claim they can't meet Laming's recommendations because of a lack of funding
- It takes will and attitude to change, not extra funding
Early on it points out that the Baby P case was not typical and focusing on it could risk missing the real problems, yet later it suggests that the answer is implementing changes from reviews conducted after Baby P.
The article suggests that funding is the "excuse" offered by social services for "lack of progress". In my experience, the issue raised is not money but human resources - number of staff and how they are able/expected to use their time. To the untutored eye this may seem like a finance issue but in reality it is more complex.
Unfortunately, the complexities are ignored in this article, perhaps because it doesn't suit the Mail's agenda and because even a cursory examination would reveal that it is often part of the problem. In reality resource issues relate to vacancy rates (which are linked to the public standing of the profession, driven down by papers like the Mail) and the amount of time that social workers are required to spend in the office at their computer screens (which could be partly a result of Laming's 2000 recommendations, the same recommendations that the Mail has decided would solve everything).
Meanwhile the article misses some of the more sticky issues. It mentions the various agencies involved in child protection in addition to social services but never mentions the clear problems with finding an effective way to work together, share information and make decisive decisions. It also fails to acknowledge that parents, family members and the public have an ethical responsibility to do more, rather than ceding all responsibility to "the authorities".
The piece itself is related to a programme to be shown on Channel 4 next week. Hopefully it will avoid the pitfalls of the Mail and instead speak to frontline social workers about the real issues.
Leave a comment