http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/07/01/117114/narey-among-runners-to-be-governments-adoption-tsar.htm
If you have a big gob you get a big job.
"A childcare expert" - he's a prison officer.
Sick and tired of these politician civil servant types mouthing the populist line to insert themselves in positions of power.
Didn't Mr Narey preside over the lock em up mentality of the Labour government and the huge expansion of prisons which, ahem, didnt do much to help early intervention in child care?
Wouldn't June Thoburn be better? More measured, more expert?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/martinnarey
Couldn't agree more Long Gone....another example of the stratification in Social work...where a new ruling class has emerged during the last 10 years. The characteristics of this executive class are easy to spot.
These people are not to be trusted...they pimp on the misery of the service user groups they are supposed to help and represent.
Just to be pedantic, I think the spelling is either tsar or czar not csar... but then again...
Anyway,
Czar: an autocrat, who depends on no one's opinion but his own, rules the lives of millions on a whim and believes they are right in everything ( by definition they must be right - they are the Czar!) and has total power. Is thsi really what they mean?
Why do they abuse our intellect and our language with these trite superficial job titles. It's nonsense and disguises the real nature of the situation. I t pretends towards an easy ,superficail solution, namely , that all problems can be solved by will alone. it used to be the case that when we didn't know what we were doing we'd appoint a committee, now it's a Czar.
Sorry I am going to be a reverse pedant. You can spell it Csar.
Long Gone: Sorry I am going to be a reverse pedant. You can spell it Csar.
I thought it was spelt "Thatcher"
I was incensed to read this as part of his recommendations:
Narey's proposals for reform include for government to ensure:
● Where adoption is deemed best for a child, time is not wasted by assessing family and friends carers
What about the child's rights under Article 8 (Human Rights Act) and the many successful examples of placement with family and friends??
I dont understand that bit and would suggest that this rarely happens. Once you have an AIBI decision from your panel you are not going to look at family because this has already been done.
There could be two conclusions from this;
1) He doesnt have a clue what he is talking about,
2) He is setting up paper tigers that he can slay to keep himself in a job.
The man needs to take a job as a social worker and show us how it's done.
The adopter survey for Barnardos from 2006 said that 1478 barnardos adopters adopted children over the previous 5 years (2001 - 2006) .
That is 300 adopters per year.
There are 10 geographical areas Barnardos cover. I am looking at an average of two family placement projects in each area. That is 20 projects.
That looks like 15 adopters per year per project.
I have had to scrabble around looking for this info and I may be wrong.
If my figures are wrong fine , but they suggest the organisation Narey headed for five years is contributing in a pitiful way to the national adoption picture despite claiming they are the biggest.
Why aren't Community Care asking these hard questions of Narey.
A case of do as I say not as I do with Narey?
redana:adarynefoedd- I think, to be fair, that this refers to where carers are unsuitable and supports the view that a viability assesssment should be done early on to test out the suitability; think baby P. ..........Parents very often do put forward all sorts of unsuitable associates at each stage.......this should not disadvantage their children.......whilst recognising that further assessment of the ones with potential to be good carers is always in the child's best interests.
But this is done early on and in Court Proceedings, and good practice is that a date is given whereby all family options are brought forward by parents and beyond this point not considered.
Once adoption in in best interests is the point where no family members are considered and an adoption panel has been convened and placement order sought.
If it is different in your area then you have a problem.
The proposal to 'name and shame' councils not improving their adoption rates is the bit that worries me - how long until pressure is put on staff to downplay children's needs in order to increase adoption rates? Maybe 'forget' to mention some of the more concerning family history or behaviours? If we are pushing through numbers based adoptions I'm willing to bet disruption/breakdown rates increase. Some practitioners already try to downplay significant information to match children but my experience at the moment is of this taking place on an individual level than it being a structural issue - PIs and naming and shaming will surely only make this more entrenched.
And didn't Munro just publish her report saying to move away from PIs quantitative data to looking at the quality of the work and long term impact? It's only polite to wait a few months before disregarding the findings!
redana:Long gone- as I am sure you well know- these processes are universal........also, decisions about alternative carers are not always within proceedings.....my understanding is that Narey wanted to change the fact that, once in proceedings, things are not delayed by the introduction of every Tom, Dick, Harry and Uncle Tom Cobley and all at month 4, 5, 7 & 9- all wanting to be assessed = further delay and uncertainty.........yes, adoption 'best interest' decision is right at the end- no I don't 'have a problem'.... and still feel that Narey advocated for early decision making.......also, legal challenges can and do exist post placement order. Some of these kids hang around for years.......
If people are coming forward in month 4, 5, 7 & 9 then you have a problem (you being your Authority) and your LA is not being clear with the Courts, and the Court process is not being clear with family.
We do tread the line of the law, and rightly there are safeguards, but social workers cannot "speed up" legal issues as Narey asks us to do. Central Government fashioned the system, if the design is poor then criticism of social workers is misplaced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8665576.stm
...Narey also recommends that local authorities should be ranked in published league tables, and the naming and shaming of councils that fail to adequately improve their rate and speed of adoptions...
Time should not be wasted assessing family and friends?
IDIOT!!
Main difference is the amount, not who spends it.
Expertise is easy to come by.
At the root of most shortcomings, is cash.
Really!!!???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/14/martin-narey-quits-barnardos
We are hoping to put lots of questions to Narey!
Very interested to know what practitioners think of his adoption report (commissioned by The Times) and appointment as adoption tsar? I've heard quite a few mixed things in my conversations so far, from genuine praise and pleasure that these issues are being tackled to concern that Narey isn't really best placed to do the job and that his approach seems rather "evangelical".
What do people in the sector think? All views and thoughts really appreciated..
Ask him if he feels he has the domain knowledge to undertake this role...or if it's just another opportunity for self aggrandisement....and for making big bucks...on the back of children's suffering......I am affronted that this wealthy man leads an initiative to end child poverty as well....hypocrisy
One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others. ~Moliere
camillap: We are hoping to put lots of questions to Narey! Very interested to know what practitioners think of his adoption report (commissioned by The Times) and appointment as adoption tsar? I've heard quite a few mixed things in my conversations so far, from genuine praise and pleasure that these issues are being tackled to concern that Narey isn't really best placed to do the job and that his approach seems rather "evangelical". What do people in the sector think? All views and thoughts really appreciated..
Come on Camilla do your job will you?
You will ask a series of anodyne questions and he will give you pat anodyne answers, and you will be happy and he will be happy.
The real spadework is putting his record as Director of Prisons and at Barnardos up to scrutiny and seeing whether he just talks the talk or whether he walks the walk.
Start by looking at how adoption services evolved under his leadership at Barnardos - what did they do - more adopters, % disruption, did he expand the service if it was such a priority.
The answer is WHAT HE DOES NOT WHAT HE SAYS and the greatest inidcator of this is WHAT HE HAS DONE.
Don't fall for the PR bullshit, do the spadework.
I smell BS off him, I may be wrong.
With seven adoption agencies Barnardo's is one of the biggest player in adoption in the UK and adoption services to local authorities probably one of its most profitable lines
"It saddens me that the probability is that had Baby P survived, given his own deprivation, he might have been unruly by the time he had reached the age of 13 or 14. At which point he'd have become feral, a parasite, a yob, helping to infest our streets. The response to his criminal behavior would have been to lock him up – but we believe these children deserve better."
Martin Narey, 26th November 2008 - Barnardo's Lecture Series, Duke of Wellington Hall, London
In the same spirit of hubris that you have accepted the role of governmental adoption advisor Martin, I think I'll take it upon myself to speak for all social workers and all adoptees (being both of those myself):
F**k off!
Full stop. End of. Nothing further to say.
Doesn't his compassion really shine through? He would have been far wiser using the argument / lecture to advocate for more preventive / supportive services which would be far cheaper than the alternatives in many instances.
Rather than quoting figures of children needing adoption would it not be far more appropriate to ascertain just how many are waiting following Best Interests decisions? Many young people in Care do not wish to be adopted or have pre-existing family 'ties' that would be impossible to break successfully.
Despite how 'bad' / unhealthy we view some parents / families blood does run thicker than water and adoption really ought to be a last resort following in-depth assessments and the provision of all relevant (including residential parenting) interventions. It severs all exisiting family bonds and in irreversible - the most significant decision that could ever be made in a child's life and not one that endears itself to Targets or 'naming and shaming' of Local Authorities.
I can't really believe I'm reading this. If a social worker were to say it they would probably be sacked.
A moment's thought about the description of the disadsvantaged, disafected and rejected as '...feral, a parasite a yob helping to infest our streets...' dosn't make my blood boil, it makes my blood run cold with the implications of the language and the mindset behind it. and this man advises the government! I thought social engineering had been discredited some time ago. Don't tell me this is what they're teaching on social work courses these days.
It's not? Such views would lead to failing the course, I hear you say?
Well there's a surprise.
Perhap a referral to the GSCC is called for. If I expressed such views in my agency I would expect to be disciplined and an application made to have me removed from the register.
The fundemental assumptions underpinning this language and view - clearly his view of many of our young people today- and the consequences of it are really offensive and dangerous I don't think I've been so disgusted by anything in a long time.
With LAs looking at externalizing whatever services they can (an adoption and fostering are bound to be the first to be considered) Barnardos would get big bucks out of comissioning from LAs - an increase in adoptions would make them even richer, as external adoptive placements cost a lot of money in my knowledge, just like independent foster placements and this will give the charity more power in return. I find the whole idea of league tables absolutely disgusting, when we know how league teables and stars have already caused considerable damage in our schools, LAC and CP services. Does this guy ever read or he just pulls ideas out of thin air???
I do agree with the point that post adoption support is at times unsatisfactory and there are too many adoptions that break down. I think that the underfunding and undersfatting of CAMHS has a lot to do with it as LAs do provide support for 3 years post adoption - however many problems arise after the 3 years. I don't think making a big problem bigger is the answer either - maybe in his wisdom he can explain why so many adoptions break down (including Bernardo's adoptions, I have worked with such cases), why the assessments of adoptive parents are not throrough enough (including, again, Bernardo's assessments like the case that I had) to highlight whether these people can parents or just want to parent and why the matching progress is frequently rushed at the expense of the quality of the match to avoid a slap on the wrist for causing delay.
redana:He may be offensive some of the time, but delay IS bad for children........baby, bathwater?
It is, but an adoption breakdown is worse. I've seen quite a few and those poor souls have never been able to trust adults again. Delay while a child is in foster care can lead, at the very worst, if the child is secure, to a settled long term foster placement or adoption by the foster carers (seen a couple of those as well). Delay because you do not have the time to look for placements is unacceptable, but delay if you want to be sure you are making a good match is justified in my opinion.
so so true.......
redana:What cannot be justified is 1 yr olds in foster care- being placed for adoption at 5- seen it
yes, this is unacceptable indeed and cannot be justified. The cases i refer to are primarily cases of 3yrs + who display complex emotional needs and maybe developmental delay. Seen a few of those, I ended up making a recommendation that the child was better off in long term fostering as they were settled there than disrupt with an adoptive placement against the child's wishes and feelings and with adoptive parents that would have not been able to connect with the child due to the difficult behaviour. If I were made to place them for adoption in the knowledge that it would not work out just to keep a good place in some God knows what league table i would have handed my notice the same day.
Narey has undermined his credibility by immediately insulting extended families, social workers and local authorities. He is not an expert in the area of child care and certainly not in the field of adoption. More fool him to spout off in public in relation to matters about which he knows little.
The statutory guidance that came in with the 2002 Act made adoption more difficult because it meant that LAs could no longer parallel plan towards adoption, because all other possibilities had to be ruled out and all assessments received and considered by the Adoption Panel before a Shoud Be Placed for Adoption (SHOBPA) recommedation could be made. This meant that parallel planning was replaced by sequential planning. This increased delay.
Should be send Narey some recommendations?
White Rabbit: I can't really believe I'm reading this. If a social worker were to say it they would probably be sacked. A moment's thought about the description of the disadsvantaged, disafected and rejected as '...feral, a parasite a yob helping to infest our streets...' dosn't make my blood boil, it makes my blood run cold with the implications of the language and the mindset behind it. and this man advises the government! I thought social engineering had been discredited some time ago. Don't tell me this is what they're teaching on social work courses these days. It's not? Such views would lead to failing the course, I hear you say? Well there's a surprise. Perhap a referral to the GSCC is called for. If I expressed such views in my agency I would expect to be disciplined and an application made to have me removed from the register. The fundemental assumptions underpinning this language and view - clearly his view of many of our young people today- and the consequences of it are really offensive and dangerous I don't think I've been so disgusted by anything in a long time.
You can't refer him to the GSCC - he's not a social worker!!!
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/07/07/117137/experts-tell-narey-to-order-study-into-adoption-breakdowns.htm