Someone I know had 50 or IAs allocated in a month (individual children, not families. We get told that we are no busier than other intake teams....There is no ceiling really, and there is no discussion of allocation, the cases just arrive sometimes with an email of notification and sometimes not. There is an email which highlights IAs out of timescales and the SW responsible in red.....those regularly in the red get told, "but other people cope."
I am wondering how this compares with other intake teams. I know it's always busy, but, but, but. When is it really too much and what about the "but some people cope" which is so divisive. Morale, needless to say, is not great. Is it really like this everywhere?
The thing about intake teams is that you do just have to manage everything coming through the door and you don't know and can't control what's coming in day to day.
Initial responses is all you can do with those numbers. You can hardly core assess them all unless you are just box ticking... but I think the problem often lies with gate-keeping within other teams refusing to pick up the cases as they have no-one to allocate to......because they can say 'no' and in intake the managers can't.
RubyTrue: Someone I know had 50 or IAs allocated in a month (individual children, not families. We get told that we are no busier than other intake teams....There is no ceiling really, and there is no discussion of allocation, the cases just arrive sometimes with an email of notification and sometimes not. There is an email which highlights IAs out of timescales and the SW responsible in red.....those regularly in the red get told, "but other people cope."
There is no way that someone should possibly have a turnover of 50 IA in a month, particularly if there's also an expectation that you'll be picking up child protection cases as well.
I manage a busy intake team and my workers each do approx. 200 IA per year as well as CP cases and doing duty, not to mention there's an expectation that they actually have supervision, do training and take annual leave. We just about fit it all in, but it takes some juggling for all of us. More than that? Not happening any time soon.
'But some people cope' is just a lie, plain and simple - if they are 'coping', it's by working stupid hours and burning themselves out as practitioners, oas well as cutting corners and cutting the quality of what they do (cursory visits, lack of liaison with agencies, cursory assessments), none of which is safe.
Redana... Yes, I notice that we are quietly being asked to do more on the cases we have and we have to battle to justify transfer to the long term team. It's not easy to find the time or energy, and yet sitting on the caseload of someone who has no time, is demoralized, and is constantly dealing with new cases which may be more serious, is not going to do much to help or safeguard a child. I must say the system seems crazy.
Moose42. Thank you for the information, Moose42. It's a good reality check. I find it incredible what is expected of staff in intake! Many of my colleagues are young mums themselves, heaven knows what their home life is like! I think the police are organized so much better for this type of work. Longer shifts but also real time off. and they often work in pairs even at a straightforward interview!.. I know people who go sick or take TOIL in order to try catch up with their work. And the fact is the pressure does affect the quality of work, however many boxes get ticked. For example the ability to absorb information goes down as the stress level goes up. I think the system is falling apart and hopefully it will, and we can start again with a whole different approach.
In my experience sw's are very conscious of the difference between number of children and number of families. Managers would focus on the latter- whereas sw's might need to do 8 core assessments, 8 care plans, visit different placements for same family and so on. Different children in the same family have different needs.
None of it's safe. But if managers cannot allocate, that's less safe as no-one knows the level of risk. Sometimes, in order to play with numbers, cases are 'sat on' by management until workers have space to pick them up...... The numbers are too great to do the job properly and there are delays being covered up...it's all a mess....but who cares? Only those on the front line.
Another thing........cases being allocated without SW's being present is not Climbie compliant...it should always be face to discussion...... but it goes on.
Rant over.
redana: None of it's safe. But if managers cannot allocate, that's less safe as no-one knows the level of risk. Sometimes, in order to play with numbers, cases are 'sat on' by management until workers have space to pick them up...... The numbers are too great to do the job properly and there are delays being covered up...it's all a mess....but who cares? Only those on the front line. Another thing........cases being allocated without SW's being present is not Climbie compliant...it should always be face to discussion...... but it goes on.
Hi Redana
This chimes with my experience exactly. However the allocation email, when it comes, sometimes says, "check with me if you need to." So that puts the onus onto us to do it. And of course managers are busy too.. The system has been hijacked by the technology which can measure and control workflow, in a way. But it does not account for social workers being human. A risk analysis of the system itself...just for fun, I might do that!
Of course, I should be grateful to have a job...and so on. All so complex.
Enjoy the weekend!
Finally got to grips with quoting,
Hi RubyTrue....it doesn't really put the onus on you, because the whole point is that it relies on the fact you have been on the system...if it's remote allocation what if you were training, off sick, computer system's down or you're out on visits or on leave? Lack of communication/understanding is how children slip through the net and it's poor practice.
Likewise, enjoy the weekend.
No allocations should take place without prior discussion - this was a clear recommendation from Lord Laming's Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie.
Your manager / senior managers are responsible if anything goes wrong but, equally, you have a personal / professional responsibility to insist on prior discussion.
Recommendation 52 Directors of social services must ensure that no case isallocated to a social worker unless and until his or her manager ensures that heor she has the necessary training, experience and time to deal with it properly.(paragraph 6.581)
Recommendation 53 When allocating a case to a social worker, the manager mustensure that the social worker is clear as to what has been allocated, what action isrequired and how that action will be reviewed and supervised. (paragraph 6.586)