?
Thursday, I think.
Yes, today is D-day, or rather, L-day with the publication of the Laming report.
There's a lot in the papers today as you'll see, with plenty of speculation, including on the future of Doncaster Council.
The DCSF is due to produce the results of its "diagnostic" review into the council, which was deemed to be 'inadequate' in its annual performance assessment last year.
One possible option on the table is outsourcing the management of its children's services.
Here is the report. And here's our story on it.
Lots of pretty radical stuff that will please a lot of people in the sector:-
But also some tough stuff for children's social work and social care:-
What do people reckon?
A few thoughts. (Note for Mods - I hope this post isn't too long?!)
It seems to me that the recommendations that came out of the Climbie Inquiry took on almost biblical proportions in terms of both authority and merit and that to be critical of the process and its outcomes was to somehow sup with the devil. To be fair, few would doubt that Laming's recommendations made ‘sense' in terms of practice and even fewer would doubt that they were driven by a desire to do good and prevent further tragedies. However, what seems to have been ignored by many commentators is how the government used the outcome of the Inquiry to push through their own agenda of ‘transformational government' whereby the twin evils of silo working and data protection could be overcome by the righteousness of a large benevolent electronic state, characterised by managerialism and its twin virtues of targets and bureaucracy.
So, the government has gone back to Laming and asked him to lead on the review of changes since his Inquiry and surely we'll see him hold the government to account about how they've misinterpreted and delivered on his recommendations. Won't we? Surely he'll finally speak out on behalf of beleaguered social workers which, apart from the occasional platitude, he comprehensively failed to do during the Climbie Inquiry. Won't he?
The answer is both yes and no. There is some recognition that there are ‘concerns that current indicators focus on processes and timescales, are not helpful in creating shared safeguarding priorities amongst statutory partners, are unclear in their impact upon positive outcomes for children and young people, and do not drive improved services.' So, at last, there is some recognition of the fact that targets (or ‘indicators' in newspeak), in themselves are not necessarily helpful and may actually inhibit good outcomes. However, Laming goes on, ‘The Government's statutory DCSF targets should be reviewed to include safeguarding and child protection targets.' So, more targets then.
Laming, rightly I think, challenges the role of senior managers and their line of accountability in decision-making and responsibility, ‘...they should support and value first-line managers ensuring that management oversight of decision making is rigorous and that the lines of communication between senior managers and frontline child protection staff are as short and effective as possible.' Indeed. However, I think there needs to be recognition of the fact that good decision-making is not an exact science and often it is only hindsight that will be able to tell you whether a particular decision is good or not. Practitioners need to be supported to make decisions for themselves and to be supported in their decision-making by their managers, whatever the outcome. Ensuring that everyone can be blamed is not the same as ensuring that everyone is accountable and I don't think Laming makes this clear.
Laming acknowledges the lack of face to face contact with clients and the impact of the ICS, particularly the IT component. He recognises the disparate attempts by local authorities to meet the ICS requirements laid out by the government and appears to still cling on to the belief that ContactPoint will have a significant positive impact, despite evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, if anyone is looking for solutions to these problems and/or an end to the ICS then prepare to be as hugely disappointed as I was.
On a positive note, Laming also acknowledges how the workforce is suffering due to high caseloads, low status, inexperienced staff, high vacancies and lack of support. It appears to me that he his advocating no less than massive and wholesale reform. He offers some solutions - referring to particular models of social work, e.g., Hackney - and how it all needs to be seen as part of wider strategy of education, recruitment, retention and effective systems. I support his recommendations but I reserve the right to a healthy level of cynicism as we have been here many times before and it will require huge commitment and support - financially and ideologically - from government, local authorities and the public. I think I'll just adopt a wait and see approach to this one.
Laming goes on to talk about inter-agency working, serious case reviews, LSCBs and, rather interestingly, a National Safeguarding Delivery Unit. This new agency would work across and through the levels of both national and local government and be the iron fist in the velvet glove to punch through the recommended changes. I guess we'll just have to watch this space.
Lastly, he addresses the issue of court proceedings and when I say ‘addresses' I mean skates over. It's almost as if this is unknown territory for Laming and, rather than fully explore the issues of secrecy, the court's adversarial nature, and the impact on the child and family, he takes the path of least resistance and refers to fees and thresholds. I think the family courts are in need of a fairly radical change(s) and this report would have been a good opportunity to move the debate on.
Finally, as I type this, I can hear a journalist on TV call it a ‘scathing report'. I disagree, it's not scathing but it is a report that fluctuates between anger and weariness; anger that another child has died and weariness because it has all been said before. I daresay there are many social workers who feel exactly the same way.
What is a national safeguarding delivery unit?
Can someone please sum up laming's report in short, simple terms
Still no-one listens to the voice of front line child protection staff, stitched up again with yet more targets and more paperwork, is someone having a laugh? because it's not me, not yet anyway, I'm going to re-train as a teacher, my 20 years front line experience counts for nothing behind a desk filling in repetative forms that no-one reads.
lindylou: Still no-one listens to the voice of front line child protection staff, stitched up again with yet more targets and more paperwork, is someone having a laugh? because it's not me, not yet anyway, I'm going to re-train as a teacher, my 20 years front line experience counts for nothing behind a desk filling in repetative forms that no-one reads.
I'm only a matter of months into my career and if i'd had a £ for every time i've heard someone say that they are going to look elsewhere for employment then i'd be very rich!
How sad to hear someone like lindylou with all that experience wanting to get out of the profession, yet like she says no one listens to the people who it affects the most, front line social workers
I can't cope with yet more paperwork, it's not what i came into the job to do
Well believe me that is what you will be doing, more paperwork, more targets and lots of requirements. Plus you'll all be re-organised, again. The great and the good have welcomed Laming!!! The only voice of reason and real truth for social workers reality from Dr E Munroe, Reader in Social Policy who begs Laming to have the humility to acknowledge reforms (his recs) are part of the presenting problem. Family Rights Exec, C Ashley makes good points to. As for UNISON, when have they ever been really interested in social workers and I'm a lifelong union member, they're just jumping on the political band wagon. We are the poor relations to Education (and getting poorer), Health and the Police. Not only are we the publics whipping boy but the public services scapegoat too.
Anyone more positive on Laming?
If implemented in full it should mean more money, an end to ICS as you know it, a tougher line on adequate support and supervision and maximum caseloads, and action on recruitment and retention and to tackle the public standing of social work.
And the government has agreed to implement in full.
I can see there are downsides - more targets being the most obvious one. But at least some of it seems to be what practitioners have been calling for for some time.
I'm trying to look for positives but I'm failing miserably
Why will it lead to more money?
Whats ICS as we know it?
as for maximum caseloads, i'm sorry but i've heard this one time and time before
as for recruitment and retention, hopefully this will work but how do you see them recruiting experienced staff and not NQSW (not getting at NQ cuz I was one not so long ago) and how do you see them retaining staff when the stress levels are so high?
Mithran:Anyone more positive on Laming? If implemented in full it should mean more money, an end to ICS as you know it, a tougher line on adequate support and supervision and maximum caseloads, and action on recruitment and retention and to tackle the public standing of social work. And the government has agreed to implement in full. I can see there are downsides - more targets being the most obvious one. But at least some of it seems to be what practitioners have been calling for for some time.
It is the data management/collection part of ICS that provides the info about timescales, etc. and whether targets have been met so there may be changes to ICS as we know it but I suspect that much of it will remain the same. I also suspect that Laming does not fully understand what the ICS actually means in practice and, to be fair to him, why would he?
On the surface at least, the information the ICS demands, the structure of the records, the system of assessment, planning, intervention and review, and the plethora of statutory and non-statutory meetings all seem to be 'relevant' and make sense on a theoretical level. But if the case of Baby P proves anything, it is that you can do all of these things and at the end all you may have - to paraphrase Eileen Munro - is a wonderful paper trail of how a child was failed. In this context, the number of social workers, the number of visits, or the number of completed forms/assessments don't mean a thing. I think the question is, are we willing to say that we can't have it both ways and that ticked boxes and data may be good for government and contribute to a local authority's star ratings but ultimately make little difference to the lives of the families we work with? This is not to say that assessments and good recording are irrelevant, only that it needs to be proportionate and absolutely necessary. If you were to ask children and their families what they care about most, it's not whether a form is completed (which they probably won't even get to see) or a PEP happened on time, it's that they had access to their social worker.
I'm not sure how you can adequately measure safety, happiness, and good relationships but I'm damn sure they're not being increased under the current way of working.
Grinch: If you were to ask children and their families what they care about most, it's not whether a form is completed (which they probably won't even get to see) or a PEP happened on time, it's that they had access to their social worker. I'm not sure how you can adequately measure safety, happiness, and good relationships but I'm damn sure they're not being increased under the current way of working.
If you were to ask children and their families what they care about most, it's not whether a form is completed (which they probably won't even get to see) or a PEP happened on time, it's that they had access to their social worker.
exactly! in all the research i've read relating to service users or business partners as they're soon to be known as (whats's all that about?) there main gripe is that their social worker hasn't been made available to them on a regular basis, they want face to face contact with a social worker
Spent last night reading the report, and I have to say I feel there are positives and negatives. Here are what I think are the positives:
I think it is good that he has recognised the importance of statutory placements during training. I qualified with no statutory experience, and so went on a massive learning curve ion my first job. I was very lucky to have a supportive manager and protected caseload, but I know lots of my fellow students weren't so lucky!
Making an issue of case weighting is also good, but as already stated above, this is not anything new. It will be impossible to do anything about caseloads until the recruitment and retention is sorted.
It is good he has recognised that ICS is not working, and needs changing. And that social workers spend too much time at computers and not with the children they are responsible for.
It can only be good that he has recognised the 'vilification' of the social work profession by the media. Isn't it convenient that the media haven't mentioned that bit ! !
The emphasis on more interprofessional working can only be good. I for one, get absolutley sick and tired of going to core groups and conferences and other professionals dont turn up! ! It is as if they think as soon as a social worker is involved, CP is not their problem any more.
on a slightly more negative note, it kind of feels as if there is nothing new in this report, and we have heard it all before
I am a final year Social Work student about to qualify and i have been concerned for some time about the standards of training in social work. There are a number of us about to qualify who strongly feel that we have not been prepared adequately for working in Child Protection. There is an issue with regards to placements as some students never get to work in an area team or have any suitable placements that prepare them for Statutory work. I have raised this issue with the University i attend am awaiting a date to discuss this further with them. I am deeply concerned that there are a number of us who will graduate this summer having had nothing but a few lectures in Child Protection and Placements that are based in charities or other settings such as Schools where we are not working alongside members of our own professional group.
As the training of Social Workers is something that has been questioned before and is once again mentioned in the recent recommendations, then Placements certainly need to reconsidered.
Kimm
I too am a final year Social Work Student, having been seconded by my employers, so I have 8 years experience of working in the statutory sector prior to starting degree course. I have to say I am shocked at in the inadequate teaching we have received in many areas, especially child protection. We simply have never discussed what to look out for in children that may be being abused or neglected, we have never had any guidance around how parents may avoid telling the truth and what a plausible reason for a bruise might be? Simple yet to me cruicial points.
I work in mental health currently and we have had ONE lecture on mental health where we were shown a video of a black man being Sectioned under the Mental Health Act in the 1990's. The discrimination and oppression by the Police, Social Workers, Doctors and Nurses was appalling and I left the the lecture feeling demoralised and saddened at this one sided and dated view of mental health services. This would put off students for life from entering the field of mental health.
In my opinion and that of many of my fellow students we spend far too much time on academia such as Marxism, Colonialism, Thatcherism and New Labour to name a few! I realise the importance of the background to social work but a lot of social work is about intuition and common sense and a good grounding from placements in both statutory and voluntary sectors.
In response to my letter to my local MP Ed Balls replied as follows:
'It is crucial that social workers have systems available to them that will support them in their work. Local authorities are responsible for the commissioning, development and implementation of the local IT systems needed to support ICS, and it is important that they ensure their local system is user-friendly. They must also consider their own social workers' requirements for training and administrative support, as well as resourcing and caseload management.'
So if you are struggling remember that Ed Balls says that it is your employer's responsibility - do feel free to quote the above which I can supply in full if you send me a Private Message.
It's not even 'a wonderful paper trail' as there's no narrative! But they do make a big difference to the lives of children and their families because it keeps us away from them!!!
Linnie, correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me that the issue here is not the amount of academia you are being taught but the fact that its relevance and connexion with practice is not presented very clearly. I have discussed with students who appeared to treat the academic stuff and the practice stuff separately and found it very difficult to join them up. In my opinion they really need to be one and I am currently supporting my student to bridge this gap. The Universities and the placement providers should join up in planning the teaching and the placement to make sense together. The poor experiences in placement shared by some social work students in another thread on this forum are a clear depiction of this problem. I think that the current effort to raise the standard of the profession includes to increase the amount of training and that would mean more academic stuff, research and specialist training as well as good placements. Surely you would not expect your doctor to learn how to do his job by observing another doctor and you would not be amused if he recommended to you a drug just because he saw another doctor using it! We are in the job of saving lives too, although sadly this only becomes apparent when a child dies. Still, I am surprised how frequently I hear Social Workers refusing knowledge on the ground that the respective information belongs to Health or Education, but then we are expected to challenge other agencies if they are not meeting their responsibilites and we are expected to spot problems that relate to those particular areas. And I feel you are spot regarding the more medical areas of training in Child Protection that we are missing, like bruises. When Baby P made the headlines I confessed to my colleagues I could not recognize a broken back - turned out they couldn't either. Many of the Local Authority failures that made the headlines included strong elements relating to children's or adult's health and I feel that common sense is not enough when one is dealing with Child Protection. From where I am, we should be more knowledgeable and out training should also cover more psychological and forensic subjects then it currently does. We should know every single minut exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it..