Panorama at 8 30 tonight is looking at the Baby P case. Are you watching it? If so let us know what you think tomorrow.

I thought it was good but only wish that folk in the media had listened to people like myself who have tried to speak out for many years

Why again do they only take any notice when things go wrong.

I would like to start a campaign to get 99% of social workers into schools, GP surgeries and hospitals the other 1% can be based with the police.

I believe that this is the only way that we can trully protect and support

But try getting anyone to listen

I have known people who have tried to get Panorama and other progs interested in all sorts of social work issues but most get rebuffed.

I have a brill TV producer trying to do a prog about how we work at Wolgarston High School but she is having a slog getting an independent interested.

What are other people's experiences

Well Justme.. I should say that you have made some valid points.  I worked with Panorama for a few weeks and they did want to alter my stance.  When I said ,no THIS is my point...they dropped me, I did not fit the 'agenda'. 

 I don't completely agree with your plan but respect you for at least having one.  As someone else who has extensive experience of  child protection with teenagers... I have ideas... perhaps one day we can knock heads over a cup of tea?

 

Kind Regards

TC-

I have to agree with your comments justme. I watched the programme lst night from behind the covers as i thought here we go again lets take a shot at SW. I was very surprised that they actually are beginning to get the point that SW work hard not just to get the familiy to recognise the damage they do to their children but also fight the bosses to allow us to do our job. 

When I worked for newcastle I had a manager who was a bully. He would never listen to a word you said. Twist the little that sunk in and then told you what to do and if you didnt do it he would drop hints about capabilities and tthe most famous "so you feel you cant fit all your visits in". when I qualified 6 years ago i was given within a month of working 28 cases with 35 kids. The majority were CP and some very difficult cases. We were going through inspection and of course you could not have cases on pending. the results of the inspection was impressive but that was to do with admin sorting out the files that were audited.  I still hear horror stories about caseloads being high and the expectation that the worker will do everything, but how can they? if you have a child placed out of authority that is a day away. Add this to ourt proceedings and asessments that 1 case could take up alot of your time. Mix another 10+ cases you have a problem. When you are working full stretch you just pray that your other cases behave long enough to get the 1 that has erupted sorted. On top of all that you have the paperwork which I agree is very important but very long and time consuming.

Its not about the pay when it comes to retention its about being able to work to a good standard and working within your ethics. managers (not all) just want the figures to look good so they dont get it in the neck off top bosses.     

I had a very similar experience myself Lins2 and can totally understand the difficulties that frontline staff in Harringey were facing.

I thought the programme was balanced and highlighted to the lay person exactly the pressures and issues we face. The disgusting campaign by The Sun has led to a ridiculous outcry led by people that don't have any idea of what is like to walk into a house and carry out this work. Nor do they understand the demands placed on us by other agencies and management.

I've read the serious case review carried out by Harringey and it appears that procedures were followed and that little was done "wrong" in this case. Obviously there have been failings as this poor child died in horrific circumstances under the noses of the very people who should be protecting him. But this is where the inquiry needs to focus, not on blaming individuals who appear to have done as much as they could and now carry a heavy burden of guilt.

The things that interested me most were:

1. Harringey managers pretty much denying that finances were an issue in deciding whether a child would be placed in Foster Care. Its always an issue no matter what they may tell people.

2. It would be dangerous to believe Harringey is an isolated borough of bad practice. I've worked in other London boroughs where this type of thing could VERY easily have happened.

3. Although its easy to pass the blame in these cases (and I see its happening again), how have the Police come out of this without any attention?

The programme confirmed what I originally thought:

For the chop:

Head of Childrens Service and the rest of her Croneys.

The LA solicitor for saying that threshold wasn't met.

The doctor that examined P and failed to spot 8 broken ribs and a broken spine.

Reprimands for the rest that thought this was wrong and failed to put their heads above the parepet and say so.

Messages of support for the team leader that wanted to remove but was blocked, to the Police Officers that stated removal was needed.

And as an afterthought; how in god's name can a social worker visit a child, of whom there were very serious welfare concern's, that had already been subject to emergency protection, and see them with a shaven head, covered in white cream and a face smeared in chocolate and not insist on a full examination and further emergency protection?

And as an afterthought; how in god's name can a social worker visit a child, of whom there were very serious welfare concern's, that had already been subject to emergency protection, and see them with a shaven head, covered in white cream and a face smeared in chocolate and not insist on a full examination and further emergency protection?

 

But Voltaire, if I say that, I am  nut job and my logic is useless or stupid.

 

TD

Yours wouldn't be a lone voice in the wilderness: you must be echoing the sentiments of the vast majority of the lay public.

I represent the views of a senoir social worker, I know that my sentiments are echoed by my (not all, unfortunately) peers. There are still a body of professionals that believe that all will be will if the correct "procedures" are followed.

Whatever happened to accumulative evidence? Two hospital admissions with unexplained injuries then a third.... Surely anyone could assess that there was a significant likelyhood of the child being abused again if returned home. Why is it that the police didnt apply for a protection order? Does this signify that in some instances, partnership working has gone too far and diplomacy is outweighing common sense?  As a social worker and a manager I am still struggling to answer questions (including those raised by millen and others) as to how this baby died in these circumstances.

Cynical view...the hospital probably lost the notes

That's happened twice for my son

Totally agree with SJL re accumulation of concerns and evidence. The default position of being on the register would mean that the child/ren are "at risk", or am I missing something? I'm a social worker in a large local authority in Scotland. Diffrent but not disimilar laws north of the border. We rarely (never in my 8 years of being a social worker) go to "legal" for advice when looking to invoke CPO (Child Protection Order) procedures. We see "legal" as being experts in the law and us as being experts in child protection, maybe sounds a bit arrogant but thats they way it is, or appears to be in my LA. We go for the CPO and worry about legal wrangles afterwards. Is it  the done thing to seek legal advice before removing a child on an emergency basis in England?

Hi KS, here in England we don't need legal to apply for what we have as an EPO (emergency protection order) if you want to convert that order and institute proceedings the whole affair seems to become a legal wrangle with solicitors and barristers involved. England introduced a new "Public Law Outline" earlier this year. One of the crucial meetings before proceedings commence will always include clients solicitors and LA solicitors.  

I was also relieved at the generally balanced tone of the piece, but a couple of things got on my wick. First was the sensationalist tone of the voiceover and the music, which wouldn't have been out of place in a Hitchcock movie; when I was a lad Panorama prided itself on sober journalism, not cheap sensationalism. I wasn't overly keen on anonymous contributions from people who seemd to have intimate knowledge of the family, which begged the question (which wasn't asked) why didn't you say something at the time?  Then there was the poor social workers name and photo being broadcast. Finally, there was the reading of the police statement, written after the trial................I would have liked to have known what the police were doing, saying and writing at the time, not what they thought after the event. The police investigated the case early on and didn't prosecute, why was that?

Although the programme was more balanced than we have come to expect, it again focussed on the failings of social services without giving much consideration to the role others played, and, again, contributed to the demonising  of someone who has not yet been found guilty of anything other than following procedure.

 Once again the case of Baby P highlights the tragic death of a young child.  All to often when such tragedies occur, one is quick to apportion blame, which by and large is directed at social services and in particular, the allocated social worker assigned to the case.  Confirmation of this is found in the salacious rantings expounded in the media, accompanied by the witch-hunt and ‘baying for blood’ which inadvertently highlights the depths to which journalism has sunk.  The fact that a balanced account of the evidence presented in the court and outlined in the report immediate following the trial was not highlighted in the media is of no coincidence. Whilst is it always prudent, as part of good practice, to reassess and re-evaluate approaches, practices and procedures that we can all learn from, it is both unhelpful and obstructive to immediately start blaming and scapegoating those one considers to be the most obvious target.   The tried and tested ideological rhetoric behind scapegoating has been historically and successfully employed and used as a ‘safety blanket’ by both critics and their audience to shift focus and both isolate and detach the problem. As such, it enables one to rest more easily in the knowledge that the responsibilities in dealing with such matter lies squarely at the door of social services. It erroneously restricts and inhibits the scope for deeper analysis and in doing so, it fails to widen the debate around how best to safeguard children or critically explore our own failings as a society.  In addition to the aforementioned, it restricts the much needed examination of our perceptible reluctance to fully address the fact that some parents will intentionally harm their child/children and, as sad as it may sound, sometimes there is little one can do to prevent such tragedies. This is not to conclude that we should adopt a ‘cannot do’ attitude, on the contrary.  Instead, in order to inform practice, we need greater knowledge around the full spectrum of human nature and the deceptive, ‘pseudo-compliant’ yet devious lengths some individuals will go to in order to mislead. Yes it is true to say lessons need to be learned in this case and examples of good practice must be at the forefront of any recommendations identified, but are we really saying that this media hysteria, which is void of profundity and in many of journalist reports I have read, lacks the credible intellectual critique we should all expect, is the correct or just way forward? This case in question, highlights the disputations that exists within the realms of safeguarding children and with reference to the work undertaken in child protection, the social worker is faced sometimes with the unenviable task of balancing the needs of the child; the rights of the parents (which includes partnership working and service user empowerment); the decisions and recommendations made by the legal teams; the guidance given and pronouncements made during supervision; the conclusions drawn by police investigations and the medical report written by health workers/paediatricians.    This brings us to the matter of the management of risk, which is a precarious business and to castigate a whole profession in their review of this case, ignores the copious cases handled by social workers up and down the country every day that have minimised perceived and actual risks through engagement, appropriate interventions and safeguarding measures.  The ‘knee-jerk’ impetuous reaction, which, in more recent years, is becoming the all too often precipitating response to such cases, helps no one. It undermines the countless good work that is done within the profession that are never, paradoxically, mentioned - much less highlighted. The dedication and commitment of countless social workers, in what is perceived as an undesirable, stress laden profession, characterised by heavy workloads and limited resources, is to be commended for the many lives that they saved and the numerous children and young people they do both protection and safeguard.   

Message to the media and the Sun in particular – be careful what you wish for. Your ill thought-out, backward thinking quest to whip up hysteria in order to divert one's attention from a more in-depth analysis of this case could result in a large scale exodus of social workers from the field of child protection – and leave our the vulnerable members of our society at even more greater risk.

 Social work – a job no one want to do, but one which everyone wants to complain about.   Anne – Marie

 

 The issue that puzzles me is how this boy was the subject of a protection plan and all the different professionals involved must have come together regularly to share information, and sat around looking at the evidence and never decided he needed to be taken away for his own safety.

I would like to know more about the dynamics in the core group meetings and case conferences, i suspect that would tell us a lot about where the mistakes were made...

Emily

 

yes I agree Anne-Marie that the worry is that social workers will fear that this could happen to them in the current climate especially with so much pressure on timescales and paper work and little time for real social work. I think the baby P case has scared alot of professionals out there and this has shown in the increased number of referrals to intake teams and this again puts added pressure on the system and social workers, I agree that things need to change and feel that more time for training and working with the families in their home with the issues and getting the clear, bigger picture, being able to do lots of unannounced visits, indepth work with families rather than typing, typing and more typing will help, Tink.

I work in adult services but feel that the issues which are causing us to practice dangerously are the same accross the board.

 We would all have more time to spend doing the work we should be doing if there was a fundamental change in the way 'success' and 'performance' are measured.

 While central government expects local authorities to measure their performance by meeting KPI's etc and not actual outcomes for real people,  the tail will continue to wag the dog.

 The move towards mangerialism and business thinking is a serious mistake - we are not a business and governmnet seem to have forgotten that there are sound fundamental reasons for this - and has resulted in downwards pressure to 'perform' (i.e; complete more paperwork) through all levels of managment which inevitably ends with the fieldworker.

 Caseloads are high everywhere but this wrong headed  governmental obsession with statistics and measuring is killing social work - and more importantly putting people at risk.

May be the fieldworker should now be renamed, any suggestions?

How about Data inputer with 'other' responsibilities ? and under current conditions with basic hours plus overtime you'd be paid more.