We'll be watching tonight's Panorama which, incredibly, is going to show unseen footage, obtained by the BBC, of Baby P's mother Tracey Connelly. It was filmed as part of a training course attended by Haringey children's services senior team manager Sue Gilmore just four months before Baby P's death: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2010/12/unseen-video-of-baby-ps-mother-reveals-missed-clues.html
Baby P was already on the child protection register and the explanation for his injuries was unknown, but the video appears to show key clues when Connelly began telling Gilmore about the new man in her life, Steven Barker. Gilmore has said she instructed Maria Ward, the social worker responsible and a team manager, to investigate Steven Barker but both deny receiving any instructions.
Very interesting - can more be learnt? Is anyone going to watch tonight?
Will watch and arrive at conclusions but will be mindful to try and think without the benefit of hindsight.
I will be out hunting witches
tricky: I will be out hunting witches
Just thought it might be better than watching the witch hunt on Telly.
I think Panorama is a shadow of its former self and is now too often prone to lazy analysis but I will be watching tonight as I understand that Andrew Turnell has been interviewed as part of the programme and, if you haven't done so already, I would urge you to acquaint yourselves with his Signs of Safety approach.
Hmm, a bit of a non-event really. Thirty minutes really doesn't allow enough time to do justice to the subject matter.
Did I hear right that Badman wanted an inquiry into the solution-focused approach based on that one video? If so, what a daft over-reaction. Perhaps he should make more of an effort to understand social work approaches before summarily dissing them. As Turnell pointed out, this approach within a clear risk assessment framework that the parent is consulted on and understands has shown itself to be a very effective way of working with families and keeping children safe.
And if I'm not much mistaken we also have Harriet Ward to partly thank for the Integrated Children's System. Thanks for that, children are so much safer now.
"I would urge you to acquaint yourselves with his Signs of Safety approach."
I think thats what was lacking in this vid, solution-focused is all well and good in Child Protection but only if its located within the whole Signs of Safety model with clear consise risk statements and robust safety plans that the family can understand.
I thought it was surprising to see little Peter going to the boyfriend for spontaneous affection in the video footage....
redana: I thought it was surprising to see little Peter going to the boyfriend for spontaneous affection in the video footage....
That struck me too.... was difficult to tell if it was not with hindsight goggles on that it appeared he pulled away a bit though?
The programme was not up to much - half an hour was too short and did not have any depth really. I said i was not going to watch it after the day ive had just too depressing but i did in the end.... every time i see maria wards face i just think, there but for the grace of..................
I found it interesting to listen and see the mother rather than just know her by that ghastly police mugshot that is pretty much the only photo around of her.
Have written up my two bits worth on the blog. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2010/12/panorama-and-tracey-connelly.html
Regarding the interview I have heard of "start where the client is" but this was like a mutual admiration society. Also the more defensive body language came from the "professional".
It was clear who felt the most under the microscope.
Damaging for SW image, goes someway toward distracting the attention from the medics.
Grinch:And if I'm not much mistaken we also have Harriet Ward to partly thank for the Integrated Children's System. Thanks for that, children are so much safer now
Well remembered Grinch!
However, Harriet Ward's current research was really interesting in terms of the outcomes of I think she said 35 high risk cases and the narrow window of opportunity for the parents to change - I think she said only 6 months which is a big ask for people with chronic problems.
On a wider note, I was thinking about the Panorama programme and reflecting on all the help, programmes, interventions etc available to families and why people still function like this and what is the answer.
adarynefoedd: Grinch:And if I'm not much mistaken we also have Harriet Ward to partly thank for the Integrated Children's System. Thanks for that, children are so much safer now Well remembered Grinch! However, Harriet Ward's current research was really interesting in terms of the outcomes of I think she said 35 high risk cases and the narrow window of opportunity for the parents to change - I think she said only 6 months which is a big ask for people with chronic problems. On a wider note, I was thinking about the Panorama programme and reflecting on all the help, programmes, interventions etc available to families and why people still function like this and what is the answer.
Many parents/families are not referred to those programmes. Even when school becomes aware of home difficulties they fail to take appropriate referral action. Schools fail to understand the principal of early intervention.
link to a story on Harriet Ward's latest research. What do you think about what she says about child development? I was at a gig with Lord Laming last night and he said the same thing- do social workers need more training in this area?
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/12/14/116009/study-shows-how-fast-vulnerable-parents-can-change.htm
by the time they're in school, they're way past the 6 month benchmark for change!
PaulBarton: adarynefoedd: Grinch:And if I'm not much mistaken we also have Harriet Ward to partly thank for the Integrated Children's System. Thanks for that, children are so much safer now Well remembered Grinch! However, Harriet Ward's current research was really interesting in terms of the outcomes of I think she said 35 high risk cases and the narrow window of opportunity for the parents to change - I think she said only 6 months which is a big ask for people with chronic problems. On a wider note, I was thinking about the Panorama programme and reflecting on all the help, programmes, interventions etc available to families and why people still function like this and what is the answer. Many parents/families are not referred to those programmes. Even when school becomes aware of home difficulties they fail to take appropriate referral action. Schools fail to understand the principal of early intervention.
I'm not sure that they fail to understand the value of early intervention - far from it - but they definitely fail (IME) to understand the value of social work. I worked in a school for 5 years as a link worker and it was school policy to involve social workers as little as possible becasue the head believed the estate would disengage with the school en masse if it became known that they would "get the social workers in". IME social workers are only ever involved as a very last resort. I remeber the first TAC meeting I went to with while at the school- we all introduced ourselves and their were nods of recognition and friendliness- until it got to the social worker -rolling of eyes tuts and groans literally en masse and you could tangibly feel the hostility lol - the poor lad was only just out of uni and this was his first involvement with the case lol
One thing that has to be considered that all of these intereventions and help etc that are available just are not fit for purpose? Surely the defintion of success is the outcomes and for a proportion of families services are just not anywhere near good enough to meet their needs.
In my homespun philosopy way I posted elsewhere about the end to justify the means. This is because todays methods seem to have an element of the means to justify the ends. (Apologies to Ms Munro that I could not find any place for loops) Before you can solve a problem you have to accurately define what it is. Do we focus on what is done or why it is done or concentrate on responses of the authorites? Is there the money to service all three?
romeo2001: I'm not sure that they fail to understand the value of early intervention - far from it - but they definitely fail (IME) to understand the value of social work. I worked in a school for 5 years as a link worker and it was school policy to involve social workers as little as possible becasue the head believed the estate would disengage with the school en masse if it became known that they would "get the social workers in". IME social workers are only ever involved as a very last resort. I remeber the first TAC meeting I went to with while at the school- we all introduced ourselves and their were nods of recognition and friendliness- until it got to the social worker -rolling of eyes tuts and groans literally en masse and you could tangibly feel the hostility lol - the poor lad was only just out of uni and this was his first involvement with the case lol
I guess that depends from LA to LA, if anything we are suffocated by schools who expect us to sort out the problem of truanting year 11s and make challenging kids disappear. We have cases where schools refuse to take Court action against parents because they do not want to be seen as the baddies and instead press that Children's Services apply for a Care Order.
However, none of this would have made a difference to Peter Connelly as he was too young to attend school.. He was too young for free nursery (I am actually quite blown that the LA paid for a child minder for a child whose parent was not in employment rather than pressing for free mothers and toddlers groups). This child was seen by a lot of professionals, in total 60 visits. The most valuable point made in Panorama, i think, is that the child's behaviour is a better account of their home experience than the parent's account. That's spot on and I am really surprised that nobody questioned Peter's challenging behaviour and the paediatrician did not query why he was miserable and cranky. But then again that goes for so many of the toddlers on our caseload that it is difficult to tell if it is a child deprived of affection or a child victim of abuse, not on the basis of a visit every 4 or 6 weeks anyway.
I don't think that interview had anything extraordinary about it, except the fact that the interviewer was too praising of mother despite saying at the beginning that she does not know much of the case. I also thought mum was perhaps more talkative than most of the parents I encounter and I guess you can hide things by talking too much as well as by not talking at all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we know now who that Steven was, but to be honest most of the single mums on my caseload living on bad estates, no real prospects for their lives and with "the social" always on their backs dream of a Prince Charming that will be wonderful and love them and give them a better life. I did ask my male colleagues in the office - if you were single, would you date Ms A or Miss B (a bit of the daughter test that is discussed on a different thread)? They said no - why are we surprised then that our vulnerable mums fall for predatory males??? There are plenty of those around!! Surely we all know that insecurely attached children will take these insecurities in their adult relationships and that in turn will impact on their caregiving style and ability. Not really rocket science. It still comes down to difficult decisions to remove or not to remove, to pay for expensive placements and care proceedings and experts etc etc or to do the utmost to keep the family together. If we chose the first one in all cases where we identify the risks above, I know estates in our area that would be emptied of children!!
If they were showing the interview in order to present it as another 'missed opportunity' then I think that was lazy analysis and in no way furthers our understanding or learning. Trawling back over particular incidents or events 'knowing' that Peter Connelly was ultimately going to die will always influence and/or cloud our judgements (which is only one reason why I'm troubled by Community Care's online quiz) and with a little help from our old friend hindsight bias makes us wiser than anyone else would have been faced with same information at the time.
Imagine if you watched the video of the interview and you did not know that Peter was going to die, would you still attribute the same importance and value to what the mother said and how she behaved? Would you be concerned that Peter's death was imminent? I would like to think that I would have picked up on some of the mother's verbal cues (e.g., questioned more about her 'boyfriend') and maybe, just maybe, this line of inquiry would ultimately have kept Peter safe but I would never make that claim because, ultimately, we can never know. I've heard a few self-righteous souls talk about how they would have been so much more alert and wise to the mother's obfuscation almost certainly have prevented Peter's but, if I'm honest, despite my confidence in my own abilities I just can't go so far as to make that kind of claim for myself.
I found the Panorama Programme to be of value:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wt02t/Panorama_Baby_P_In_His_Mothers_Words/
The mother's body language spoke volumes - she presented as almost totally defensive.
Sue Gilmore, the Interviewer and senior Team Manager was appalling - she failed to follow up clear 'invitations' by the mother.
We need to be aware of new approaches - the 'Hackney Model' as evaluated and praised by Eileen Munroe may also contain some real pitfalls.
What hit me more than anything else was how could any experienced social worker miss so much that was so obvious? Perhaps we need to really carefully re-examine just what is required in social workers if they are going to be entrusted with keeping children safe.
Very good points Grinch. I would add a couple of my own observations to this. I think a major learning point is that social workers are not psychologists or counsellors and need to be aware that their accountability in relation to keeping children safe is like no other profession. Whilst they can adapt some skills from psychological models - they do not operate in the same realm. From the interview, the solution focused model seemed to have been interpreted by the worker as providing solutions to complex situations which is not the case. I thought that Andrew Turnell sidestepped some of the issues and completely evaded accountability for the model he proposes. Likewise trainers (like the author of the online quiz) really amaze me. They seem to operate in a comfort zone where they preach and are not actively involved in practice - a kind of phantasy seems to be operating in which they are very rarely called to account..
Rupert M: I found the Panorama Programme to be of value: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wt02t/Panorama_Baby_P_In_His_Mothers_Words/ The mother's body language spoke volumes - she presented as almost totally defensive. Sue Gilmore, the Interviewer and senior Team Manager was appalling - she failed to follow up clear 'invitations' by the mother. We need to be aware of new approaches - the 'Hackney Model' as evaluated and praised by Eileen Munroe may also contain some real pitfalls. What hit me more than anything else was how could any experienced social worker miss so much that was so obvious? Perhaps we need to really carefully re-examine just what is required in social workers if they are going to be entrusted with keeping children safe.
Rupert M- I agree with your view about the interview, lots of clues and lots being unsaid. But I also feel that many parents present like this and some do get their act together. What I would ask is what is the defensiveness about? I agree with the other comments re the benefit of hindsight as the mother sadly represented hundreds of mothers involved in children's services who act in the same way. Worrying, but true.
Rupert M none of the parents with whom I work want me in their lives, all are defensive and complain they are under scrutiny and it some cases it could take me months for random comments to make sense. This interview was not meant to push the case forward, I wonder if they pursued the whole solution focused technique or stopped at this one interview. The other thing is let's not forget this was a senior manager speaking to a service user. The imbalance of power was huge and i wonder if perhaps the interviewer overcompensated this imbalance by giving excessive praise.
I also think that it has been made a lot of this "you did not know he was there" thing. Even if workers found out he was there, I am quite sure he and the mother would have done everything to present him as best thing since sliced bread. Or maybe not, but there is no way of knowing that, is there? Looking at the footage on the telephone and the comments of the reported, they said they look like any other family in the park. there is this perception that people that kill children have it written on their foreheads. They do not. They can come across like your normal, average bloke. Just like sex offenders. This case was not at the time a high profile one, it was a welfare management situation. Even a Police check can come back incomplete, we do not do CRBs for all our service users and different Police authorities have different databases. I had that situation in the past. I can get a lot out of our local Child protection Police, but go 30 miles further and it takes ages to get a check back and it will only have the convictions on it and in many cases there was more on intelligence and offences that were never pursued than in the actual convictions. And let's not forget that all offenders have had that one first offence, any check prior to that would have come back clean.
"it was a welfare management situation"
This case should never have got to a 'welfare management situation', written agreements and CP plans were breached consistently, the threshold for proceedings was met several times but the LA failed to act. It was high end CP regardless of checks on the boyfriend and whatever he did or did not have written on his forehead. These are facts, not hindsight.
Absolutely, and this is why I am saying that rather than hunt for clues in training videos and question why people did not check for toothbrushes in the bathroom it is more important to ask why the non accidental injuries were not pursued further, why it took so long to establish the threshold and why the managers did not agree with the application for proceedings. I do not dispute the fact that it should not have been downgraded in this why, but if there is to be any meaningful learning from this case I don't think it is helpful to continue to go on an on about missed clues when the obvious has been disregarded.
thinkpink: "it was a welfare management situation" This case should never have got to a 'welfare management situation', written agreements and CP plans were breached consistently, the threshold for proceedings was met several times but the LA failed to act. It was high end CP regardless of checks on the boyfriend and whatever he did or did not have written on his forehead. These are facts, not hindsight.
Those are all good points but, facts or not, it will always be hindsight if we are looking back. This is not about semantics but about how and what we can learn from what has gone before and the limitations of focussing on specific apparently correlating events that are moments of clarity now but were not necessarily so at the time. Correlation does not necessarily prove causation, the history of social work is littered with decisions that prove to be either false negatives or false positives when we do not want to end up with either.
This is not to absolve professionals of poor or even dangerous practice - either through commission or omission - but to seek to apportion blame on the strength of a single event(s) - which is precisely what Panorama seemed to be doing - does not further our understanding of how a tragedy could have been prevented. Perhaps this approach to Serious Case Reviews may have given us more insight.
Also, I think AndrewTurnell's approach and insight was slightly misrepresented or perhaps just lost in the editing suite as I don't think it was made clear enough that Haringey were not using the Signs of Safety approach he advocates.
'Shirak' and 'RP' - baby Peter was on the Child Protection Register - the threshold of concern was already well met on a multi/ inter-disciplinary basis. There was NO EXCUSE for not ascertaining who the male was - it smacks at the much-quoted issue of social workers being 'over optimistic' - this was not the start of concerns - they were already well established.
'Wake up and smell the coffee' - it is exactly this minimising / non-recognition of concerns / non-evaluation of 'leads' given by parents that can cause such ultimately catastrophic consequences. It also adds weight to the benefits of co-working when another pair of eyes and ears ca be immensely valuable.
Sue Gilmore, IF she did instruct that further enquiries be made should also have formally recorded that - if there is no record then there is no proof that she acted correctly - and she was a senior Team Manager and ought to have known better.
I do not regard it as having the 'benefit of hindsight' - I regard it as poor social work practice.
Philip J Measures,
former Registered Social Worker.
judy: I found it interesting to listen and see the mother rather than just know her by that ghastly police mugshot that is pretty much the only photo around of her. Have written up my two bits worth on the blog. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2010/12/panorama-and-tracey-connelly.html
indeed, i insisted on a quick makeover before my mugshot in the police station. just to make sure my pic gave the right impression before they started digging up my patio..........
Rupert M: 'Shirak' and 'RP' - baby Peter was on the Child Protection Register - the threshold of concern was already well met on a multi/ inter-disciplinary basis. There was NO EXCUSE for not ascertaining who the male was - it smacks at the much-quoted issue of social workers being 'over optimistic' - this was not the start of concerns - they were already well established. 'Wake up and smell the coffee' - it is exactly this minimising / non-recognition of concerns / non-evaluation of 'leads' given by parents that can cause such ultimately catastrophic consequences. It also adds weight to the benefits of co-working when another pair of eyes and ears ca be immensely valuable. Sue Gilmore, IF she did instruct that further enquiries be made should also have formally recorded that - if there is no record then there is no proof that she acted correctly - and she was a senior Team Manager and ought to have known better. I do not regard it as having the 'benefit of hindsight' - I regard it as poor social work practice. Philip J Measures, former Registered Social Worker.
Surely you know from the SCR that a number of people including professionals actually knew of his existence? The children's school, nursery, the Police, father, even the mental health nurse all knew of his existence. They all bought that he was just a friend - except the nursery nurse who knew he was her boyfriend. Even before the Initial Child Protection Conference!! I am sorry, but I find that you are caught in the blame culture that is making it so difficult for us still in frontline to do our jobs in very difficult circumstances. I also found it very interesting to read the demographic composition of Haringey. In our area we can barely manage the referrals generated by two estates that present the type of problems presented by Haringey. That Social Worker was overworked, the SCR acknoeldgeds they were using a poor ICS system (I know it quite well well, and I personally think it is beyond rubbish). Like i said, hindsight is a wonderful thing and when you can barely keep youir head above the water it is extremely difficult to anticipate that one of the cases that does not appear to be overproblematic ends in a child death.
Rupert M: The mother's body language spoke volumes - she presented as almost totally defensive.
Thing is shes someone of limited self esteem and on camera interviewed by a not only social worker but a manager at that - itd be surprising if she wasnt?
RP: romeo2001: I'm not sure that they fail to understand the value of early intervention - far from it - but they definitely fail (IME) to understand the value of social work. I worked in a school for 5 years as a link worker and it was school policy to involve social workers as little as possible becasue the head believed the estate would disengage with the school en masse if it became known that they would "get the social workers in". IME social workers are only ever involved as a very last resort. I remeber the first TAC meeting I went to with while at the school- we all introduced ourselves and their were nods of recognition and friendliness- until it got to the social worker -rolling of eyes tuts and groans literally en masse and you could tangibly feel the hostility lol - the poor lad was only just out of uni and this was his first involvement with the case lol I guess that depends from LA to LA, if anything we are suffocated by schools who expect us to sort out the problem of truanting year 11s and make challenging kids disappear. We have cases where schools refuse to take Court action against parents because they do not want to be seen as the baddies and instead press that Children's Services apply for a Care Order. However, none of this would have made a difference to Peter Connelly as he was too young to attend school.. He was too young for free nursery (I am actually quite blown that the LA paid for a child minder for a child whose parent was not in employment rather than pressing for free mothers and toddlers groups). This child was seen by a lot of professionals, in total 60 visits. The most valuable point made in Panorama, i think, is that the child's behaviour is a better account of their home experience than the parent's account. That's spot on and I am really surprised that nobody questioned Peter's challenging behaviour and the paediatrician did not query why he was miserable and cranky. But then again that goes for so many of the toddlers on our caseload that it is difficult to tell if it is a child deprived of affection or a child victim of abuse, not on the basis of a visit every 4 or 6 weeks anyway. I don't think that interview had anything extraordinary about it, except the fact that the interviewer was too praising of mother despite saying at the beginning that she does not know much of the case. I also thought mum was perhaps more talkative than most of the parents I encounter and I guess you can hide things by talking too much as well as by not talking at all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we know now who that Steven was, but to be honest most of the single mums on my caseload living on bad estates, no real prospects for their lives and with "the social" always on their backs dream of a Prince Charming that will be wonderful and love them and give them a better life. I did ask my male colleagues in the office - if you were single, would you date Ms A or Miss B (a bit of the daughter test that is discussed on a different thread)? They said no - why are we surprised then that our vulnerable mums fall for predatory males??? There are plenty of those around!! Surely we all know that insecurely attached children will take these insecurities in their adult relationships and that in turn will impact on their caregiving style and ability. Not really rocket science. It still comes down to difficult decisions to remove or not to remove, to pay for expensive placements and care proceedings and experts etc etc or to do the utmost to keep the family together. If we chose the first one in all cases where we identify the risks above, I know estates in our area that would be emptied of children!!
The latter is an excellent point - and possibly points to why so many efforts fail - I definitely dont know the answer tho ha
Just a thought and I don't actually know all the facts of this case so this may already have been identified but the mother reminded me very much of a mother I used to work with who had a personality disorder. She appeared fairly plausable, very perceptive and aware of what the interviewer wanted to hear and generally quite resourceful. Just my opinion....
'RP' - so the bottom line is that he was NOT checked out properly.
Also, lack of resources,whilst pertinent, can not be blamed. The whole Child Protection system has to be adequately resourced and practitioners / managers MUST record if they are being asked to work beyond their capabilities and FORMALLY draw that to the attention of respective managers / Unions / Professional Associations. Each individual employee owes that duty to report lack of resources - you see, you are just as much into a 'blame' culture by what you state. Have your colleagues and yourself acted appropriately in this matter in your own Local Authority?
Rupert I fully agree that the chap was not checked out properly, I don;t think anyone disputes that. What I am trying to say is that this case did not stick out in the context of the Local Authority and an overworked Social Worker will always prioritize Court cases, cases of sexual abuse, cases where DV is an established factor etc. I don't think any of us wants to do a poor job and I do go as far as i can to establish in all my cases who comes into contact with my kids. Trouble is it is not that easy. You are dealing with closed communities, people do not "grass" on thir neighbours, Police refuses to put surveillance on houses even in cases where you know families come into contact with serious offenders (my own experience not some dreamed up allegatoions), parents refuse to give out the details of their partners, or claim they do not know their surnames or say they are no longer in a relationship. People hide their partners in the loft or let them out through the back door to their neighbour's home. Partners rfeuse to meet you (had that quite a few time) and deny permission for their details to be shared. Frankly in many situations it was sheer luck that we were able to establish the identity of people that made us concerned. It is difficult and time consuming enough to do it in high profile cases and when you have a manageable caseload. When you have to spend 80% of your time doing admin and you have 50% over the recommended maximum caseload yoiur are bound to miss things. And i would never throw the first stone to an overworked colleague that is struggling to keep kids safe in one of the busiest, most deprived and most difficult areas in the whole country. I have some sympathy for the Police and NHS although I think they failing were equally serious if not worse to the Social Workers' as they had far more information and earlier than the Social Workers did. And yes, i have raised these issues in the past with my team manager, our senior managers, my colleagues have done the same. I can only imagine you have probably left frontline for quite some time if you are unaware of the typical responses we receive or how much change we can effect ourselves. It is easy to blame them - but the reality is they are under the thumb of the councillors who are under the thumb of the Government. but hey, the Social Worker is much easier to have and blame because this is by now a national sport, isn't it?
RP: Rupert I fully agree that the chap was not checked out properly, I don;t think anyone disputes that. What I am trying to say is that this case did not stick out in the context of the Local Authority and an overworked Social Worker will always prioritize Court cases, cases of sexual abuse, cases where DV is an established factor etc. I don't think any of us wants to do a poor job and I do go as far as i can to establish in all my cases who comes into contact with my kids. Trouble is it is not that easy. You are dealing with closed communities, people do not "grass" on thir neighbours, Police refuses to put surveillance on houses even in cases where you know families come into contact with serious offenders (my own experience not some dreamed up allegatoions), parents refuse to give out the details of their partners, or claim they do not know their surnames or say they are no longer in a relationship. People hide their partners in the loft or let them out through the back door to their neighbour's home. Partners rfeuse to meet you (had that quite a few time) and deny permission for their details to be shared. Frankly in many situations it was sheer luck that we were able to establish the identity of people that made us concerned. It is difficult and time consuming enough to do it in high profile cases and when you have a manageable caseload. When you have to spend 80% of your time doing admin and you have 50% over the recommended maximum caseload yoiur are bound to miss things. And i would never throw the first stone to an overworked colleague that is struggling to keep kids safe in one of the busiest, most deprived and most difficult areas in the whole country. I have some sympathy for the Police and NHS although I think they failing were equally serious if not worse to the Social Workers' as they had far more information and earlier than the Social Workers did. And yes, i have raised these issues in the past with my team manager, our senior managers, my colleagues have done the same. I can only imagine you have probably left frontline for quite some time if you are unaware of the typical responses we receive or how much change we can effect ourselves. It is easy to blame them - but the reality is they are under the thumb of the councillors who are under the thumb of the Government. but hey, the Social Worker is much easier to have and blame because this is by now a national sport, isn't it?
Cheers.
Interesting thread but the most striking bit of journalism I've seen in the whole shebang (what is the collective noun for journalists? Pit? Coven?) was the piece in our very own Community Care a few weeks ago where the P case was presented as if a series of intake duty contacts.
9months old, with multiple bruising and no explanations? In Scotland we have a vernacular word for what happens next - wheech! child's feet do not touch the ground nor social workers' heads touch the pillow til it is sorted.
Of course that was before fancy multi disciplinary projects and computerised quality standards....It would be too simple to say they're the problem but that presentation rather suggested that the Haringey workers sleepwalked into a disaster, aided and abetted by the complexity of the whole system.