The inspectors would have been too busy reading business plans
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/07/29/117247/ofsted-failed-to-see-sexual-abuse-at-birmingham-nursery.htm
This seemed a joint failure between OFSTED and Birmingham City Council - but then again Birmingham has 'produced' many failed / failing senior managers but seems to be too much of a political 'hot potato' for any Government to take on - it's list of failures and continuing unsatisfactory OFSTED Reports is just staggering.
Accountability? - what's that???? - Let's just blame each other!
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/07/29/ofsted-and-birmingham-city-council-at-loggerheads-over-paul-wilson-scandal-97319-29138645/
I cannot describe my feelings for this execrable organisation...they should go...lock stock and barrel and their posts should be taken by practitioners who have the pre-requisite knowledge and experience to know what to look for...and it's not in a business plan...or strategic management or any of the other bollocks that allows these parasites on social care get away with it tiome and time again.
When I worked on an agency basis as an IRO in Sandwell I became so highly concerned about poor practice that I left and reported my concerns to OFSTED - their response? - it's all the responsibility of the Local Authority - and that concerned on-going child abuse. No-one from the Head of Children's Services in Sandwell (Andrew Ferguson , now in Bedford Borough) downwards seemed interested and they happily let me leave - after all, who wants an IRO who raises serious concerns? I have not worked since such was the impact on me personally and professionally.
I fear that the whole system is riddled with cover up and even corruption - how can failed senior managers keep moving on - with several moving around the country or, yes, moving into the Inspection Industry.
Well Philip...you and I both share an experience of social care that those in charge don't want to become common knowledge...that most of the organisations we should respect are nothing but shams...with malevolent executives who are nothing but spin merchants and cover up artists...Ofsted tells local authorities about their child protection failings ...but they're above criticism or accountability....this government needs a broom to sweep these fuckers clean...any takers????
'Boxerdog' - I just wish that Sandwell MBC would seek to sue me - that would bring so much information into the public arena.
Colin Tucker moved from Sandwell to Birmingham as head of Children's Services just before the outrage of a damning OFSTED Inspection - OFSTED had previously been hoodwinked by Sandwell and gave it a favourable Inspection Report - months later it was utterly failing - and dangerously so. He was then suspended by Birmingham City Council and has now left - presumably on a well-negotiated Compromise Agreement / Payoff / seriously favourable pension rights. Freedom of Information requests are consistently refused when it comes to seeking to ascertain details of any Complaints etc. on the grounds that it is 'personal' date I am requesting - what about the protection of the most vulnerable from these seemingly very worrying characters?
OFSTED need to look into the movements of senior managers - see separate thread about senior managers and where are they now?
Sandwell managed to destroy me professionally - but both they and OFSTED know that I was right and said nothing that I could not 100% verify.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council children’s services assessment 2010
Performs poorly (1)
9 December 2010
Ms Barbara Peacock
Executive Director for Children and Families
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
PO Box 41
Shaftesbury House, 402 High Street
West Bromwich B70 9LT
Children’s services in Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council perform poorly. In 2009, a transitional year, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was assessed as performing adequately. However, in 2010 the quality of safeguarding services for children was judged to be inadequate, and many settings and services for children and young people remain only satisfactory or inadequate. A full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services published in January 2010 found that services to safeguard children and young people in Sandwell were inadequate, with many weaknesses in front-line social work practice and in the management of social care services. Although the local authority took action to tackle the serious weaknesses in safeguarding highlighted in the joint area review of children’s services in 2006, improvements were not sustained or consolidated.
Children’s services in Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council perform poorly. In 2009, a transitional year, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was assessed as performing adequately. However, in 2010 the quality of safeguarding services for children was judged to be inadequate, and many settings and services for children and young people remain only satisfactory or inadequate.
A full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services published in January 2010 found that services to safeguard children and young people in Sandwell were inadequate, with many weaknesses in front-line social work practice and in the management of social care services. Although the local authority took action to tackle the serious weaknesses in safeguarding highlighted in the joint area review of children’s services in 2006, improvements were not sustained or consolidated.
I now truly believe that I am unemployable because of speaking out.
Philip Measures
Philip.measures@gmail.com
Dear Mr Measures I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: Please will you supply the dates of employment by Birmingham City Council in respect of Colin Tucker, Head of Children's Services including the periods of any Suspensions. Please find herewith the following: Colin Tucker date of employment with Birmingham City Council was 13 July 2009 until 6 April 2011
Quite simply - where were OFSTED from 2006 onwards - breeze in, breeze out and let it fall to pieces!!! Colin Tucker got out just in time but was everyting OK until July 2009 and it went downhill so rapidly afterwards? OFSTED said no - so what credibility can one attribute to their previous Inspections?
Late 2009 Inspection:
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children 4 The inspection outcomes: Safeguarding services Overall effectiveness Grade 4 (Inadequate) 10. The overall effectiveness of safeguarding services in Sandwell is inadequate. The Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board is not fully functional and safeguarding priorities across the partnership are not clearly defined. The Board’s business plan is not robust and joint audit arrangements are not embedded. Communication between the Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board and the Children’s Trust is inconsistent and neither are providing sufficient strategic leadership for children’s services as a whole, and safeguarding in particular. The analysis of safeguarding need within the diverse children’s population in Sandwell is inadequate and lacks comprehensive awareness of potential risk to some vulnerable groups within the community. The third sector provides a good range of family support and direct services to children in need and is appropriately included in strategic planning arrangements including the Children’s Trust and Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board. 11. Although most cases of children deemed to be at immediate risk of physical harm are pursued quickly by duty workers, other cases do not receive such attention. The response from children’s social care to some referrals is inadequate, with reported inconsistencies in the timeliness and effectiveness of action. Feedback to referrers is not routine. Safe recruitment and joint workforce planning arrangements are adequate, including robust strategies for new recruitment and training. However, referral and assessment pressures and fluctuating staffing levels have led to a degree of turbulence in front line services and responses. The quality of initial and core assessments is inadequate overall and management oversight of casework does not ensure that unsatisfactory assessments and reports are routinely identified and improved. 12. Performance management arrangements are not consistently applied across the partnership. There is too great an emphasis on headline indicators rather than service quality and outcomes. A proportion of initial and core assessments are signed off as completed by managers when the quality remains inadequate. The arrangements for joint audit and performance management within the Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board are also inadequate. Assessments of need and risk lack necessary detail and do not lead to clear plans for safeguarding. Case recording is of poor quality and made more difficult by the use of the Integrated Children’s System (ICS) which does not focus sufficiently on risk. The views of children are not routinely sought or fully recorded. From performance information provided by the local authority, in 8% of cases of children subject to child protection plans in September 2009, the ethnicity, culture and language were not recorded. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children 5 Capacity for improvement Grade 4 (Inadequate) 13. Capacity for improvement is inadequate. Improvements that were achieved after the joint area review (JAR) in 2006 have not been sustained and the current structures and strategies for safeguarding are not delivering the changes needed in key areas of service. Quality assurance arrangements are inadequate. The council’s own performance report for the period April to September 2009 relating to children with child protection plans highlights the fact that the outcome of 9% of strategy discussions, the outcome of 30% of enquiries and the outcome of 4% of case conferences were not recorded. The Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board is unable to assure itself of the quality and outcomes of agreed joint safeguarding policies. The lack of a clearly defined relationship between the Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board and the Children’s Trust results in a risk of procedural confusion and lack of clear accountability. 14. Staffing capacity in referral and assessment services is inadequate. Frequent staff turnover and use of agency social workers has lead to front line managers in social care too frequently having to act down in order to fill practice gaps. This in turn has reduced their own capacity to oversee the quality of work and outcomes for children. Midwifery and health visiting services are managing growing workloads and staffing pressures exist with a current health visitor vacancy rate of 10%. There has been improved training in the health sector in relation to safeguarding and an improvement in the number of staff undertaking training at all levels related to their role. All Family Practitioners have received the safeguarding manual and have a named safeguarding lead. At the time of inspection, the Executive Director of Children’s Services was on long-term sick leave and the statutory duties associated with this role had been assumed by the Chief Executive. A new Director of children’s social care had recently taken up his post and is starting to develop an analysis of social care performance. The Chief Executive and Director provided a detailed action plan in response to issues raised through inspection in order to strengthen management in key areas of safeguarding. 15. The council has made a considerable investment in children’s centres, with 19 operational centres and two more under development. The impact of the centres in reducing the pressures on higher level services is yet to be fully evaluated.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children 4
The inspection outcomes: Safeguarding
services
Overall effectiveness Grade 4 (Inadequate)
10. The overall effectiveness of safeguarding services in Sandwell is
inadequate. The Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board is not fully
functional and safeguarding priorities across the partnership are not clearly
defined. The Board’s business plan is not robust and joint audit arrangements
are not embedded. Communication between the Sandwell Local Safeguarding
Children Board and the Children’s Trust is inconsistent and neither are providing
sufficient strategic leadership for children’s services as a whole, and
safeguarding in particular. The analysis of safeguarding need within the diverse
children’s population in Sandwell is inadequate and lacks comprehensive
awareness of potential risk to some vulnerable groups within the community.
The third sector provides a good range of family support and direct services to
children in need and is appropriately included in strategic planning
arrangements including the Children’s Trust and Sandwell Local Safeguarding
Children Board.
11. Although most cases of children deemed to be at immediate risk of
physical harm are pursued quickly by duty workers, other cases do not receive
such attention. The response from children’s social care to some referrals is
inadequate, with reported inconsistencies in the timeliness and effectiveness of
action. Feedback to referrers is not routine. Safe recruitment and joint
workforce planning arrangements are adequate, including robust strategies for
new recruitment and training. However, referral and assessment pressures and
fluctuating staffing levels have led to a degree of turbulence in front line
services and responses. The quality of initial and core assessments is
inadequate overall and management oversight of casework does not ensure
that unsatisfactory assessments and reports are routinely identified and
improved.
12. Performance management arrangements are not consistently applied
across the partnership. There is too great an emphasis on headline indicators
rather than service quality and outcomes. A proportion of initial and core
assessments are signed off as completed by managers when the quality
remains inadequate. The arrangements for joint audit and performance
management within the Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board are also
inadequate. Assessments of need and risk lack necessary detail and do not lead
to clear plans for safeguarding. Case recording is of poor quality and made
more difficult by the use of the Integrated Children’s System (ICS) which does
not focus sufficiently on risk. The views of children are not routinely sought or
fully recorded. From performance information provided by the local authority, in
8% of cases of children subject to child protection plans in September 2009,
the ethnicity, culture and language were not recorded.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children 5
Capacity for improvement Grade 4 (Inadequate)
13. Capacity for improvement is inadequate. Improvements that were achieved
after the joint area review (JAR) in 2006 have not been sustained and the
current structures and strategies for safeguarding are not delivering the
changes needed in key areas of service. Quality assurance arrangements are
inadequate. The council’s own performance report for the period April to
September 2009 relating to children with child protection plans highlights the
fact that the outcome of 9% of strategy discussions, the outcome of 30% of
enquiries and the outcome of 4% of case conferences were not recorded. The
Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board is unable to assure itself of the
quality and outcomes of agreed joint safeguarding policies. The lack of a clearly
defined relationship between the Sandwell Local Safeguarding Children Board
and the Children’s Trust results in a risk of procedural confusion and lack of
clear accountability.
14. Staffing capacity in referral and assessment services is inadequate.
Frequent staff turnover and use of agency social workers has lead to front line
managers in social care too frequently having to act down in order to fill
practice gaps. This in turn has reduced their own capacity to oversee the
quality of work and outcomes for children. Midwifery and health visiting services
are managing growing workloads and staffing pressures exist with a current
health visitor vacancy rate of 10%. There has been improved training in the
health sector in relation to safeguarding and an improvement in the number of
staff undertaking training at all levels related to their role. All Family
Practitioners have received the safeguarding manual and have a named
safeguarding lead. At the time of inspection, the Executive Director of Children’s
Services was on long-term sick leave and the statutory duties associated with
this role had been assumed by the Chief Executive. A new Director of children’s
social care had recently taken up his post and is starting to develop an analysis
of social care performance. The Chief Executive and Director provided a
detailed action plan in response to issues raised through inspection in order to
strengthen management in key areas of safeguarding.
15. The council has made a considerable investment in children’s centres, with
19 operational centres and two more under development. The impact of the
centres in reducing the pressures on higher level services is yet to be fully
evaluated.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/870658-little-stars-nursery-rapist-paul-anthony-wilson-is-jailed-for-life
6 staff previously complained - who did what?
OFSTED and Birmingham City Council ought to both be the subject of a Public Inquiry - too much evidence of lax practise and no-one being responsible.
and the reason being that your complaints on behalf of vulnerable service users went unheeded is...that our service leaders and politicians don't give a *** about them...or you....and some of these are people registered with the GSCC and agree to abide by their code of practice...I note that no response is forthcoming from the GSCC either.....these organisations together with politicians now form a cabal...where blame and responsibility can be passed down to frontline practitionersin any scandal of national proportions.... whilst those most responsible for these continued abominations get away scot free....how do they sleep...easy because they have calculator dreams...of huge salaries and pensions.
I blew the whistle on the abuse of children in a residential school in the 1980's...and the great and good said my allegations were without foundation. I left and the objects of my concerns were free to go about their nefarious activities sure in the knowledge that they occupied protected status.
I left feeling that I was either mad....had fabricated the whole thing or that they were wrong...and I asked myself that question many times...until
In 2000 one of these staff got 12 years for buggering boys in that school including acts of sexual abuse at the time i made my allegations.. Those who told me I was fabricationg included a Professor of Education...a Senior Social Work Lecturer...a Deputy Director of Social Services...etc etc.
As a newly qualified SW with a new family...my career as well as my emotional health suffered as a result...but none of the above was ever called to account for covering up this scandal.....plus ca change
Dear Mr Sowerby Further to your email regarding: Could you please tell me if the former Head of Children's Services, Colin Tucker was dismissed or did he resign. We have reached an agreement with Colin Tucker that will see his departure from the city council.
I keep having re-enforced to me that 'failure has it's (rich) rewards' - but just how do we stop it? - these senior managers seem to be teflon-coated.
Wait up the sexual abuse wasnt part of the nativity play.
And parents who were closer to their children and knew them like the back of their hands didnt see it either.
For all OFSTEDs bullshit this is a non story
What a moronic response from 'Long Gone' - read the comments of the Judge for instance. Not only did he film and abuse the youngster SIX staff had previously expressed concerns and his activities on the internet of grooming / abusing other young people were horrendous.
I hope that 'Long Gone' is not a social worker - certainly seems to lack a moral conscience.
Rupert M: What a moronic response from 'Long Gone' - read the comments of the Judge for instance. Not only did he film and abuse the youngster SIX staff had previously expressed concerns and his activities on the internet of grooming / abusing other young people were horrendous. I hope that 'Long Gone' is not a social worker - certainly seems to lack a moral conscience.
I think with 'Long Gone' the clue is likely to be in the name.
Boxerdog: and the reason being that your complaints on behalf of vulnerable service users went unheeded is...that our service leaders and politicians don't give a *** about them...or you....and some of these are people registered with the GSCC and agree to abide by their code of practice...I note that no response is forthcoming from the GSCC either.....these organisations together with politicians now form a cabal...where blame and responsibility can be passed down to frontline practitionersin any scandal of national proportions.... whilst those most responsible for these continued abominations get away scot free....how do they sleep...easy because they have calculator dreams...of huge salaries and pensions. I blew the whistle on the abuse of children in a residential school in the 1980's...and the great and good said my allegations were without foundation. I left and the objects of my concerns were free to go about their nefarious activities sure in the knowledge that they occupied protected status. I left feeling that I was either mad....had fabricated the whole thing or that they were wrong...and I asked myself that question many times...until In 2000 one of these staff got 12 years for buggering boys in that school including acts of sexual abuse at the time i made my allegations.. Those who told me I was fabricationg included a Professor of Education...a Senior Social Work Lecturer...a Deputy Director of Social Services...etc etc. As a newly qualified SW with a new family...my career as well as my emotional health suffered as a result...but none of the above was ever called to account for covering up this scandal.....plus ca change
This is all part of a wider issue currently in vogue on this site. Coalface workers knowing there is something not right, yet powerles to do anything about it.
The post mirrors an experiance I had in the old Kingswood secure unit, now Vinney Green. I am talking about the time Elvis died and nothing seems to have changed.
I challenged as a student and feel I was a marked man for the rest of my career. This is why I do not advocate others in similar circumstances doing the same. You get troublemaker branded on your forehead. I challenged all the time and became some one who was just patted on the head. Same thing happened when I was a manager so it was really nothing to do with rank. I dont think it's about personalities either, it comes from a sort of self preservation system default. It's like fighting an atomic power with a bow and arrow.
Individuals don't stand a chance, it is down to College/ BASW/ Unions. When will these representatives learn that sadly militancy is the only way.
The glitch in the system will never be fixed playing by the rules created by the rulers.
The problem, to a degree, 'Shirack' is that those who have risen to positions of power and influence have done so by not doing what you and I both believe to be right.
Colin Tucker having been suspended by Birmingham City Council as Head of Children's Services has now left with what is believed to be a 'Compromise Agreement' ; Andrew Ferguson who followed in his footsteps into Sandwell is now in Bedford Borough despite Sandwell still receiving and awful OFSTED Inspection Report - and so it goes on.
Those who ought to know better and speak out become part of the problem but, unlike us, they keep getting better jobs - I wonder why?
You really are full o hot air. No way - the abuse was horrendous - of course it was.
We all know OFSTED is a joke. But you are unaware of full details of what happened but still grind your ever so personal axe. When the full details come out then grind the axe as it may be more effective.
Using the abuse of toddlers to grind your axe is ahem lacking a moral conscience
Suggest that you seek help - do you work for OFSTED or some other Inspection regime? OFSTED has apologised - they would not do that if they were in the right.
If you know more 'facts' then at least be sensible, mature and concerned enough to share them.
So do you advocate that we say nothing? Rarely have I seen such an irresponsible and simply ludicrous posting.
And what "facts" do you know Mr Measures?
Stick Justice Macur's judgement up for us there.
For once... I'm actually going to agree with Long gone. Knowing too well the methodology of OFSTEDs inspections, it is no surprise they didn't detect the abuse. And to be honest I doubt that any statutory inspection regime would ever be funded to have enough capacity to do so. Its about getting into the culture of an organisation. Something that really doesn't and can't happen during an inspection.
For OFSTED or CQC to ever be effective, they'll need to provide mystery shopper type of care assistants to go in 'undercover'.
I have recently heard that, with regards to Winterbourne, the contract officers working for placing authorities are the ones being held to account..not CQC. In which case, it does make you question what the point of CQC or OFSTED actually is....
This thread reminds me of one I started (link below) in which I raised the issue of CQC, OFSTED and commissioners. Who really ends up taking responsibility?
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/ofsted-cqc-and-commissioners-why-isnt-the-10876.aspx#50450
Bloody hell! and I was going to agree with you on another thread.
Almost buried one of Phillip's big sharp hatchets.
Do feel that OFSTED is an irrelevance, although I do remember that on OFSTED helped us in a gripe because we were stunningly honest with the inspector leaving him no choice but to place it on the agenda and to be fair he did. Have also had experience of being very honest with OFSTED and being completely ignored.
With the SSI, they gave you a right good kicking no matter what you said. I do miss them.
Not clear how adult commissioning works - but how are the contracts people taking the flak - do they visit the service users in placement?
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Paul-Anthony-Wilson-7159-1.law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019414/Six-staff-warned-paedophile-Paul-Wilson-raped-toddler.html
I doubt that the full transcript is yet available.
Why have you not responded ' Long Gone' to my Post asking what further details you possess - if you are going to criticise at least back it up with facts.
Long Gone,
Accountability lies with the LA who is purchasing the service. Therefore the formal contract holds great weighting when a provider defaults on the terms and conditions (an expectation of quality will be one). There are usually 2 contracts in place... A framework contract between the LA and the provider detailing quality expectations, minimum standards of service, insurance requirements, payment terms etc. In my experience... most of the time Social Workers don't see this contract or may even be unaware it exists.
There is then a second contract for the individual which sets out a specific service for them and a specific cost for their care. Again...sometimes seen by the Social Worker and sometimes not. Ridiculously, there are many situations where this contract is drawn up by a contracts officer and is based on information they are given before the placement begins. It can then end up being very different from a child's placement plan if the Social Worker and contracts officer have not liaised. And .... this is the scary bit... dependant on the type of contractual documentation used, the details in a contract can take precedence, making the placement plan redundant!!! Not many Social Workers realise this)
In my experience Contract Management varies greatly from LA to LA. Accountability lies with the LA as they are expected to properly vet a provider before a service is purchased and to also maintain a overview of quaiity through the duration of the placement.
The problem is:
Unfortunately its quite rare to come across a LA that has a good system for initial vetting and then has a system of regular feedback from visiting Social workers to contract officers.
In short, the whole area of vetting and monitoring is a shambles and its a reason I get frustrated with many LA's who really do need to get to grips with the problem and sort it out.
Having been through an OFSTED inspection, I know how careful managers are to leave a good impression, that everything is fine and that the work of the organization is bloomin' marvellous. They will try to outsmart inspectors, play down weaknesses and only put forward reasonably good pieces of work. In most cases inspectors do not speak to unprepared staff, and if they do, staff are full aware that managers will know what they said and there could be serious consequences. I am not surprised that OFSTED did not pick this up, they did apologize but that does not mean they truely believe they wetre wrong or they should have done more. Yes, 6 members of staff did complain, but I struggle to see what they actually complained about, there nothing in any of the articles posted here or on the net to shed some light in it. At least one, though, seems to relate to child protection concerns otherwise OFSTED and Birmingham CC would not have undertaken a joint investigation. To be honest, I have also been involved in a few strategy meetings with allegations against professionals myself, and it is not as straightforward as the media make it out to be. It depends very much on the type of allegation made, evidence to back it up, proof of character, performance in the job to date, team dynamic, demonstrable impact on child... And these are cases of allegations made by children, I imagine in this particular case it would have been even more difficult. i think it is very telling that this only surfaced when a 15 year old complained about being abuse online and not due to his activities in the nursery. The previous case with Vanessa George is similar in this respect, intelligent, crafy people are very capable of hiding their abusive behaviour.
Rainbowarch: Long Gone, Accountability lies with the LA who is purchasing the service. Therefore the formal contract holds great weighting when a provider defaults on the terms and conditions (an expectation of quality will be one). There are usually 2 contracts in place... A framework contract between the LA and the provider detailing quality expectations, minimum standards of service, insurance requirements, payment terms etc. In my experience... most of the time Social Workers don't see this contract or may even be unaware it exists. There is then a second contract for the individual which sets out a specific service for them and a specific cost for their care. Again...sometimes seen by the Social Worker and sometimes not. Ridiculously, there are many situations where this contract is drawn up by a contracts officer and is based on information they are given before the placement begins. It can then end up being very different from a child's placement plan if the Social Worker and contracts officer have not liaised. And .... this is the scary bit... dependant on the type of contractual documentation used, the details in a contract can take precedence, making the placement plan redundant!!! Not many Social Workers realise this) In my experience Contract Management varies greatly from LA to LA. Accountability lies with the LA as they are expected to properly vet a provider before a service is purchased and to also maintain a overview of quaiity through the duration of the placement. The problem is: Contract Teams are not resourced to properly vet provision before placements are agreed.. particularly specialist provision. Contract Teams have been told by OFSTED and CQC that whilst they should look at inspection reports prior to purchasing a service, they cannot rely on these and therefore must undertake their own inspection of the services they are purchasing (cue duplicated visits to the provider asking exactly the same thing) Most LA's do not have robust and formal procedures for monitoring contracts. I have witnessed LA's that do no contract monitoring, LA's that send contract officers out to provision without any communication with Social Workers or LA's that have informal regional networks and try and seek 'information' from other placing authorities. The latter usually ending up in a series of shoddy quick visits from various inexperienced individuals in LA's rather than one good quality visit with the results being shared. Contract Teams are relying far too much on paperwork when vetting provision. Any Provider can buy policies and procedures and send them in to a LA. This tells us nothing and is a immoral use of LA resources. They need to get out and see provision in action Unfortunately its quite rare to come across a LA that has a good system for initial vetting and then has a system of regular feedback from visiting Social workers to contract officers. In short, the whole area of vetting and monitoring is a shambles and its a reason I get frustrated with many LA's who really do need to get to grips with the problem and sort it out.
I know how the children's contracts works but just wondering about the world of adults - is it a similar scheme or a similar lack of scheme.
Rupert M: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Paul-Anthony-Wilson-7159-1.law http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019414/Six-staff-warned-paedophile-Paul-Wilson-raped-toddler.html I doubt that the full transcript is yet available. Why have you not responded ' Long Gone' to my Post asking what further details you possess - if you are going to criticise at least back it up with facts.
Sorry Mr Measures I'll respond before you speand all your pension on FOI requests.
I know no more than you. But you find my conjecture objectionable?
Yes, I do find comments such as that 'objectionable' - in fact, I find it downright insulting.
Long Gone...
Fairly similar in adults services. Again, different LA's have different arrangements and capacity, knowledge and skills vary from one to another. I work mainly in Children's Services now, although occasionally have a remit to work across adults. From my own personal experience and knowledge I'd say Adults services is also a shambles... there is a lack of an effective relationship with CQC...but this is more due to the lack of capacity than the 'willingness' to work together - which is the problem with OFSTED and Childrens commissioners who rarely cross paths and just carry on doing their own thing without sharing information effectively..
On the whole I'd say commissioning is more advanced in adults services than what we see in Children's.
Shirack: Boxerdog: and the reason being that your complaints on behalf of vulnerable service users went unheeded is...that our service leaders and politicians don't give a *** about them...or you....and some of these are people registered with the GSCC and agree to abide by their code of practice...I note that no response is forthcoming from the GSCC either.....these organisations together with politicians now form a cabal...where blame and responsibility can be passed down to frontline practitionersin any scandal of national proportions.... whilst those most responsible for these continued abominations get away scot free....how do they sleep...easy because they have calculator dreams...of huge salaries and pensions. I blew the whistle on the abuse of children in a residential school in the 1980's...and the great and good said my allegations were without foundation. I left and the objects of my concerns were free to go about their nefarious activities sure in the knowledge that they occupied protected status. I left feeling that I was either mad....had fabricated the whole thing or that they were wrong...and I asked myself that question many times...until In 2000 one of these staff got 12 years for buggering boys in that school including acts of sexual abuse at the time i made my allegations.. Those who told me I was fabricationg included a Professor of Education...a Senior Social Work Lecturer...a Deputy Director of Social Services...etc etc. As a newly qualified SW with a new family...my career as well as my emotional health suffered as a result...but none of the above was ever called to account for covering up this scandal.....plus ca change This is all part of a wider issue currently in vogue on this site. Coalface workers knowing there is something not right, yet powerles to do anything about it. The post mirrors an experiance I had in the old Kingswood secure unit, now Vinney Green. I am talking about the time Elvis died and nothing seems to have changed. I challenged as a student and feel I was a marked man for the rest of my career. This is why I do not advocate others in similar circumstances doing the same. You get troublemaker branded on your forehead. I challenged all the time and became some one who was just patted on the head. Same thing happened when I was a manager so it was really nothing to do with rank. I dont think it's about personalities either, it comes from a sort of self preservation system default. It's like fighting an atomic power with a bow and arrow. Individuals don't stand a chance, it is down to College/ BASW/ Unions. When will these representatives learn that sadly militancy is the only way. The glitch in the system will never be fixed playing by the rules created by the rulers.
Thats a rather damning indictment of social workers ability to protect but i agree whole heartedly shirack - Im seriously quesioning exactly what the point of us is tho.....
Rupert M: Using the abuse of toddlers to grind your axe is ahem lacking a moral conscience Yes, I do find comments such as that 'objectionable' - in fact, I find it downright insulting.
That wasnt the conjecture. Nor is the above a conjecture.
Conjecture not based on fact is dangerous - so I only comment on what I am aware of - so go backand read what Justice Macur said.
Rupert M: Conjecture not based on fact is dangerous - so I only comment on what I am aware of - so go backand read what Justice Macur said.
Memory going as well then!