Yes, if you want the sack.
Perhaps the most stupid Post yet on CareSpace - I wonder what your prize will be!!!
Hi - please try not to be quite so rude to new members. I think there may be a problem with the body of some posts disappearing, so there may have been more information with this. Please email me Leebs if that's the case.
CareSpace support
With all due respect it is so easy to immediately check your Posting once made and edit it within the next hour afterwards (via 'More' button).
Your local authority will have a Policy for you to follow if your visit is unsuccessful, and you should talk with your team manager about this. Was this appointment pre arranged via letter or telephone call? Was it the first visit?
You cannot just give up on an assessment after one attempted visit, would you be in if a social worker knocked on your door during the day?
Think about the risk to the service user and make further assessment if you have more unsuccessful visits, take a letter with you and leave it arranging an appointment. But never just walk away you have to complete an IA for a reason!!
Exactly 'Stars' - exactly!
Very good response from 'Stars'. That was quite rude of you Rupert. It would have been better if you didn't reply at all.
@ Simeon. Just to inform you that I hardly come on Carespace/comment on Carespace because of some of the comments by Shirack, Rupert and co. They usually leave demeaning post/comment. They never accept their errors, same way Rupert did not see anything wrong with his/her above message.
I'm out of here. Just said I should highlight my reason.
If you do not visit CareSpace frequently 'Sugarbabz' then you will be unaware that mainly most of us do make positive postings although on occasions we might upset people.
I can only speak for myself and that is that I would be completely disbelieving that anyone could even imagine that it would be right to abandon an Initial Assessment if no-one answered the door on a home visit so whilst my response was 'tetchy' it was not rude unless in the sense of 1 definition of which is:
Vigorous, robust, and sturdy
and that is the sense in which it was made.
I do apologise, however, to those who found it offensive with my only mitigation being that I remain passionate about good effective social work.
Sugarbabz: Very good response from 'Stars'. That was quite rude of you Rupert. It would have been better if you didn't reply at all. @ Simeon. Just to inform you that I hardly come on Carespace/comment on Carespace because of some of the comments by Shirack, Rupert and co. They usually leave demeaning post/comment. They never accept their errors, same way Rupert did not see anything wrong with his/her above message. I'm out of here. Just said I should highlight my reason.
Best wishes.
Yes, the body to my post was lost. I take your point Rupert M, I should check properly.
My original post went like this:
I'm a 1st year MA student who was sent to shadow a social worker in an assessment & duty team for a day. A referral had come through regarding one particular family well-known to social services. The social worker had been attempting to make contact for a couple of weeks via home visits, phone calls etc, but as yet had no response.
She commented that if no contact had been made within the next couple of weeks, her manager would probably agree to 'giving up' - provided they could evidence that all 'reasonable' measures had been exhausted.
I was surprised by this, and raised concerns about the welfare of the child remaining unknown. The SW then explained that since no info could be gathered, there was no evidence to use for assessing the child as being in need - meaning no further SW intervention could take place.
I now have to write a reflective account of the day, using relevant law, policy, codes of practice etc. I posted on here to see if this approach is something that is widely accepted in 'realistic' SW teams.
I was also wondering if there was any law/policy/procedure at the SW's disposal to coerce engagement if there were serious concerns (my understanding of the Children Act), or whether an initial assessment needs to take place before this could happen. This is relevant to my essay as I have to evaluate the power dynamics of the SU/SW relationship and how the task of engagement is framed.
Apologies for any confusion, although the responses are greatly appreciated.
Ooops....sorry Leebs...your explanation puts an entirely different complexion on the issues. Like Rupert...on first sight ....without any qualification .....it looked like a facile and frivolous posting..so many apologies for this and the content of your recent posting is concerening and deserving of serious consideration
Ditto re. BD's posting above.
The purpose of an Initial Assessment (and by IA it does not mean that if one has been previously undertaken that another one is not required) is to indicate whether there are grounds to further proceed - i.e. by a Core Assessment or provision of other services.
In the situation you describe you need to be clear what the current presenting issues are and who has expressed any concerns - you also need to take into account what is already previously known.
Information may well be available from a number of different sources / agencies and, providing that you can evidence proceeding without parental / Service User agreement (i.e. if the concerns relate to Child Protection, possible significant harm etc.) you are fully entitled to so proceed - management agreement would be useful, of course.
If from what you know there is insufficient evidence to proceed a letter to the SU / parent / original referrer would be good practise.
We know a lot about 'non-compliant' families and the possible dangers need to be weighed up against not proceeding.
Your manager would need to 'artie off' your IA, no matter how brief it is, so the ultimate responsibility rests with that person - just make certain that you provide all of the information that you can.
Non-compliance is not a reason to not proceed.
I'm guessing it depends on the nature of the concerns raised in the referral. If child safeguarding/protection I would expect a much more determined approach to gain access (including seeing the child at school etc) than if it was a possible child in need (although ideally that should be pursued thoroughly too).
It's a very pertinent question though, particularly in the wake of baby P and other cases, and I look forwards to hopefully reading some responses from social workers currently in child protection teams.
Went to a Cat 2 MAPPA meeting. Coming home from prison to partner where there was DV and 2 kids under 5. Shotguns were involved.
Letters sent, no answer on four occasions. Must admit the temptation was to knock quietly but I had to overcome that.
Discovered family had moved to another area.
That was the best referral I ever made.
I think that you need to be very careful writing letters where there is DV - the abuser may well react badly and the partner be placed at even greater risk.
Rupert M: I think that you need to be very careful writing letters where there is DV - the abuser may well react badly and the partner be placed at even greater risk.
Yes indeed
1/ The partner was still in prison.
2/ Do you really think that an experienced SW would not chose words carefully when writing letters of appointment.
Did you not learn the basics?
I was not criticising you Shirack but making a general observation- but your further personal abuse is not unexpected. You do not learn - or perhaps you need to see someone re. your apparent paranoia.
Rupert M: I was not criticising you Shirack but making a general observation- but your further personal abuse is not unexpected. You do not learn - or perhaps you need to see someone re. your apparent paranoia.
This is positively my last acknowledgement that you even exist on this forum.
Merry Christmas.
Boo Hoo Hoo Shirack - I'll pick up your toys and put them back in your pram if that will make you happy - but I guess that you'll still throw them out again!
And don't call me a liar either - I was making a general point and if I was going to directly criticise you believe you me that is exactly what I would have done - but, as they say, 'If the cap fits, wear it.'.
I challenge you to stick to your positive assertion not to mention me again - you know that you can't resist it!!!!!!!
I do not share your Christmas good wishes - bah humbug!
Another point is motivation.
There can be cases where best interests of worker/authority come before those of the child, though I doubt if anyone would admit to it.
Stars: Your local authority will have a Policy for you to follow if your visit is unsuccessful, and you should talk with your team manager about this. Was this appointment pre arranged via letter or telephone call? Was it the first visit? You cannot just give up on an assessment after one attempted visit, would you be in if a social worker knocked on your door during the day? Think about the risk to the service user and make further assessment if you have more unsuccessful visits, take a letter with you and leave it arranging an appointment. But never just walk away you have to complete an IA for a reason!!
In some respects your clients are fortunate.....
Our LA carries out initial assessements (for older vulnerable adults) by telephone using untrained admin staff!
Last week I heard a Director address a meeting saying that he considered Care Managers to be " finished" (in the sense that they would not be needed or wanted in the future...!)
[he also referred to service users as ...."customers"...]
It's a great pity that Community Care are not more active in their reporting of such outrageous declarations and intentions by LA's....
PJ
Jeez, that's not good, PJ!
Selks: Jeez, that's not good, PJ!
Not good at all..... I spend much of my time trying to get the actions of our LA into newspapers, tv, radio that sort of thing. They just have to be accountable.... the problem I find - even from Community Care (publication/site) - is complete indifference.
Anyway, any other LA's behaving this way, or similarly, that anyone here knows about?
Leebs: The social worker had been attempting to make contact for a couple of weeks via home visits, phone calls etc, but as yet had no response. She commented that if no contact had been made within the next couple of weeks, her manager would probably agree to 'giving up' - provided they could evidence that all 'reasonable' measures had been exhausted. I was surprised by this, and raised concerns about the welfare of the child remaining unknown. The SW then explained that since no info could be gathered, there was no evidence to use for assessing the child as being in need - meaning no further SW intervention could take place.
The social worker had been attempting to make contact for a couple of weeks via home visits, phone calls etc, but as yet had no response.
There are plenty of factors to consider around this, with what it means to not be able to see the child in question being the first one - this will depend on how old the child is and whether any other agency has seen or is seeing them in the same time period (and what they're saying about the child/family, however this is likely to be more useful for families who aren't previously known to social care). You need to consider what this non-engagement means in the context of the family's previous involvement with social care as well - is this a familiar pattern for this family or something new? For example, if previous referrals are about domestic violence and this referral is about a child with outstanding medical appointments and they're under school age and you can't get to see them, then the alarm bells ought to start ringing...
It's at this point that you start thinking about whether you meet the threshold for child protection (see 'Working Together') or even for that rarest of beasts, a Child Assessment Order - does anyone know anyone who's even applied for one of these? - via the court arena. If we're talking concerns that there is likely risk to life and limb for that child, your local police may wish to exercise their powers to undertake a 'safe and well' visit at your request or you may be taking legal advice around an Emergency Protection Order, but this is really only workable around concerns re: physical or immediate risk of sexual abuse, not neglect or emotional abuse.
If this family is "well known" then I doubt it would be closed but moved to a s.47 core assessment to give things a bit of welly. Unless the child were 17 or over.
Are you in a big city authority?