Eileen Munro's final report on child protection is published this morning and calls for principal social workers at a local level and a national chief social worker, among other things. What do people make of it?
CareSpace support
I think the main area of concern is that Munroe's idea's are recommendations, and past history of Govt's is they will choose what suits them to implement. I would like to think that this report will be implemented in full, but I am not holding my breath. My thinking is based upon the cuts that all LA are facing, and I cannot see how Munroes ideas can be costed into the budgets.
It concerns me that national chief social worker and principal social workers in councils might just be for children's social work. This would risk polarising the profession even more.
Ruth Smith Editor at Community Care
Twitter: @ComCareRuth
Email: ruth.smith@rbi.co.uk
To save money and have greater continuity the post should be combined with children' s commissioner.
Same thing with Adult equivalent.
Would probably add a lot of clout to both roles too.
Win Win.
Obviously we'll need to see the full document first but I am very encouraged to see that she remains clear that targets, timescales and performance management systems have prevented good practice not supported it. It is also very encouraging to see that she wants Social Work to distance itself from endless form filling and assessment - making and to bring more focus on intervention. It's really interesting to see how she wants to see management and services becoming more localized, but I am keen to see how this will be monitored to ensure that LAs continue to meet their statutory duties.
Great to see the recommendation that there is a change to the performance indicator driven aspect of our work. Really pleased that there is a recommendation that social worker's career paths dont end solely in management, guardian, ISW and IRO roles that take talented and good people away from the frontline. One of the most important aspects of her report is the focuses on high quality practice placements that are actually suitable for students with approved practice settings etc.
I have only read the executive summary so far .... am cautiously optimistic so far....................
Why has so much clearly gone wrong and been allowed to go wrong and where does accountability for that rest? How can those who have presided over failures be expected to be able to put them right - and if they are capable why haven't they done so long ago? It is far more than just 'Systems' failures and a 'Systems' approach alone will not put it right.
Recommendation 7 amazingly does not even make the case for Directors of Children's Services to be social work qualified - incredible!!!
Recommendation 10 says that Local Authorities should specify how they will identify children who are likely to suffer Significant Harm - so what have they been doing up to now? This is a staggering Recommendation / indictment on what must be regarded as abject failure.
And Recommendationn 12 states that Employers and Higher education Institutions should work together so that social work students are prepared for the challenges of child protection work - talk about putting the cart before the horse. What is initially required is a sound basic training followed by a generic social work experience - then moving on as experience and expertise are gained to deal with more complex and high risk issues. You can not 'buy' experience nor is it gained by a social work degree - indeed, I doubt that being a Graduate is the most essential building block to become a safe and effective social worker.
We never did need major re-structuring - have we not yet learned that such restructurings only ever succeeded in creating anxiety and uncertainty and eyes were taken off the 'ball'? - as well, of course, as creating more senior management Posts!!!
What we need is to re-state the basics of what social work is all about - what makes for safe and effective practice (evidence-based) and what constitutes positive management at all levels? - too often it has been the failures of management that have led to the parlous state of the profession. Grassroots workers have felt unsupported and Line Managers have been experienced to be professionally 'detached' and to not be clear what their roles are - mistakenly going along with hitting Performance Indicators (PI's) - and whilst the Report acknowledges the dangers of the PI culture it does not criticise - as it ought - those responsible for it nor address what re-training Managers will need to change the culture of their Organisations.
Social work should never have been allowed to reach its current low depths - and those responsible ought to be 'named and shamed' - this report continues to 'play politics' rather than set in motion a clear methodology of what is really required. Can 'poachers' really become 'gamekeepers'?
Perhaps we need to go back to the likes of Biestek and his 'Casework Relationship' to really re-discover what peoples' needs are and how to assist them rather than see 'Systems' as being the answer because they quite simply aren't. Local Authorities reorganised in minor to major extents about every 2-3 years of my 43 year career and still they have not got it right - surely this must tell us something?
Philip Measures
Philip.measures@gmail.com
C.Q.S.W; Cert. in Social Work (Probation & Child Care); Advanced Cert. in Working with Child Abuse; CIPFA Cert. in Management & Leadership Skills in Social Care; City & Guilds Graduateship Award in Management & Leadership in Social Care.
No longer a Registered Social Worker!
For a Review of Child Protection the report seems particularly weak on 'safeguarding' arrangements. For instance, Recommendation 10 introduces a duty on local services to coordinate early local help services for children and families and, although this includes arrangements for identifying children suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm, it does make clear that it is the local authority which is the lead agency with regard to formal child protection investigations. Munro makes the mistake of wanting to shift the balance from 'investigation' to 'support' without realising that too many mistakes in the past came from a naive faith in the benefits of 'support' and weakness in gathering critical evidence of abuse.
I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that she did not make any recommendations about the necessary social work skills in carrying out formal investigations - as these are often fateful moments to intervene. I was hoping she would argue for a specialist team of social workers who are comfortable with investigative work and are appropriately selected, trained and supported. In the most difficult cases working in pairs is good practice and this should have been emphasised.Also, her repeated emphasis on early intervention suggests she has not accepted the new reality in children's services - that the economy is in serious difficulties and cutbacks are inevitable.
Have had a quick skim and will dedicate time this weekend to do it justice. I applaud the focus on leadership and this being different to operational management (so afraid I disagree with Rupert on that one)
Am also a little concerned it doesn't quite bite into safeguarding as much as i think it should.
I like any recommendation on effective systems... I think the problem is that despite years of trying, we've quite simply not got it right!! (When you drill down into the detail you find there is still far too much lack of clarity over responsibilities in procedures and duplication)
But at a glance I think my biggest criticism is the lack of solid recommendations or addressing culture change. (as noticed by Rupert) Real cultural change can only come from effective leaders who are willing to do things differently, be creative, experimental, take some calculated risks, bring energy and enthusiasm. I'm afraid...having sat in an event with Lead Members for children's services just six months ago, I recall two fell asleep, four never commented and the remaining two kept diverting the conversation away from dysfunctional families to the impact on their transport strategy and planning applications!!!
There are some great Directors out there but we need more. And dare I say... a few more dynamic Lead members wouldn't go amiss...
IF a social work qualification counts for anything then why would there not be an absolute insistence that Directors be social work qualified? It seems a nonsense not to so I could not disagree more with 'Rainbowarch' - yes, there MAY be good 'leaders' but many aren't. How many Directors, also. are GSCC Registered? - they don't have the Title of 'social worker' so don't legally have to be registered either.
In many Local Authorities the 'Decision Maker' in Adoption cases is the Director - how could you ever justify that decision being made by an unqualified and, possibly / probably non-GSCC Registered person?
I thought she said some interesting stuff about what training and expertise every children's social worker needed. Not sure where the money is going to come from of course but she's highlighted that it should be a priority.
Rupert, a president or prime minister does not hold qualifications in defence, health, justice, environment, business, transport etc. He (or she) must provide the sort of leadership that empowers those under him to make decisions based on their expertise, knowledge and skills. As a leader, his role is to ensure there are the necessary support systems, resources and tools in place for those with the skills to make important decisions and to improve services.
Likewise there are many different elements of children's services: education, youth services, early years, child protection, health, commissioning, youth offending etc. All of which are unique and require people working in them with experience and/or qualifications. They are all specialist areas in their own right.
There is no way a Director should be acting as Decision maker for Adoption cases. This smacks of a controlling distrusting culture which is the opposite of what Manro is recommending. Instead he should be ensuring that his senior managers have the confidence in their decisions and if they don't, it is his role to question why and put that right.
OK - so let's get rid of the need for a social work qualification altogether shall we? At what level does it cease to be required?
Looking at the medical Model at what level does it not require a medical qualification to advise an operating surgeon for example?
Heads of Service / senior managers are often Decision-Makers for their Local Authorities in Adoption cases - this means ratifying, or not, a likely lifelong decision for a child - no need for a social work qualification? I think not!
We are talking Social Work 'Rainbowarch' - not politics or how to run a public transport system!!!!!!!!
Rainbowarch, You don't seem to realise that adoption cases, and in fact all child protection cases, can become highly disputed and politicised and it is entirely appropriate that the Director should become involved, on occasions. Sometimes this means that he, or she, has to explain to councillors the background to the case and why certain decisions were made i.e. taking seriously their accountability to politicians and ultimately the general public. Look at what happened to Sharon Shoesmith when this was not handled well! She did not have a background in social work and, worse still, had a very limited understanding of the highly politicised nature of child protection work.
Rupert/Philip, I share you views about leadership and feel angry about the disappearance of Chief Officers from the past who were admired and respected by the profession because they had worked their way up from the bottom (such as the late John Chant, Director of Social Services, who always retained his capacity for staying in touch with the front line.).
In my experience the difficulties over the past twenty or thirty years have come from the advance of 'managerialism' (which managers in social services have taken from the business world) and the deepening conflict between my values as a social worker and those of management. I think that management tends to driven by a different set of values i.e. to determine what the priorities are within the context of limited resources and the political system - while social workers are obviously more focused on the needs of the individual client. Managerialism, unfortunately, encourages a more depersonalised way of thinking and assumes people who need help can be 'managed' by social workers so that they become more independent and no longer a burden on agencies. Professional values are still at the core of good practice and, fortunately, the Munro Review recognises this and makes recommendations on these lines.
I think one of the core issues for social work in child protection is about finding an appropriate balance between care and control and improving practice in how to support people while carrying out statutory duties. Managerialism and the business model does not not even acknowledge that this is an issue.
I'm not a social worker but I thought Munro was trying to tackle this issue through the use of the "principal" social worker in councils and the chief social worker in government- someone still in practice but who has a voice at higher levels of management.
In some ways might that not be more valuable? Directors- whether they are former social workers or not- don't usually get to that position without becoming immersed in the politics and the budget side of things and becoming more removed from frontline practice. Just a thought, feel free to dash me down in flames though.
Blimey, quite a few issues seem to have merged into one, though there are actually significant differences between them.
Old style Chief Officers / Generic Directors of Social Services - Yes, I too have positive recollections of many (I think virtually all of whom were qualified social workers) who fulfilled that role. However, whatever one says about it, that role is long gone and the Prof. herself reinforced the importance of the DCS function.
DCS - The debates about what qualifications one needs for that role are long over too. They are virtually all qualified in either teaching or social work. I don't know the exact figure, but I believe a significant majority are teacher qualified. The qualification debate around that role will not be re-opened I think it's safe to say.
Agency Decision Maker - Rupert, with all respect, I would take issue that the DIrector is the children's social care Agency Decision Maker (for adoption, secure accomodation, etc) in 'many authorities'. You may be aware of some examples to the contrary, but as far as I am aware the ADM in virtually all English and Welsh LA's is the highest ranking qualified social worker - who may either be the DCS in some places, or the AD / Head of Childen and Families, Tier 2 person in others. An education background DCS should not be the ADM, that to me seems highly inappropriate, hence the custom and practice nationally of it being a qualified social worker. (I'd be interested to know the exceptions you know of Rupert, as somebody needs to tell them to sort that out!)
Chief Social Work Officer (Scotland) - I mention this role as ever since the creation of the CSWO role in 1968, Scotland has clevery addressed many of these issues by vesting in one person in each LA - who must by statute be social work qualified - all the Chief Officer functions for all client groups adult and child. The CSWO is also the Agency Decision Maker. That said, there are also Directors of Children's Services and of Adult Services, but the CSWO has the corporate responsilibilty over all social work services, and reports directly to the Chief Executive the council.
Principal Social Worker - The prof. does not mention (unless I missed it) that way back when - in the 70's - we used to have these in many authorities. My reading of her proposal is that they will operate rather like the Scottish CSWO does in each authority, but here they will only undertake the role for children's services. I don't think she makes any comment on whether they should be the ADM (though like Scotland, it would make sense if they were).
Chief Social Worker for England - If the gov go with that, it's a political appointment dealing with high level policy advice to government. Like the Chief Vet, LOL!
'Farlit' - many senior Managers are not GSCC Registered - so even if they are qualified social workers they are not subject to that requirement and whatever the weaknesses of the GSCC at least one can make representation to it.
The profession needs to be absolutely clear at what levels what qualification are required in order to carry out that / those specific functions of the Post-holder and to ensure both professional accountability and oversight are in place - public confidence is essential within Public Service..
Hi Rupert.
I am concerned to hear that many senior managers are not GSCC registered - can you give some examples of where and what level posts, as that to me seems an entirely untenable position within those authorities and by those individuals. If the post requires a social work qualification - and I'm not aware of any in children's social care tier 2-4 management that don't - then one has to be registered or you would potentially be in breach of section 61 of the Care Standards Act. You can't be in a post that requires you to be social work qualified and not be registered.
I can only say that I have never seen a Tier 2 - 4 LA children's social care management post advertised in England or Wales that did not require GSCC registration. All my colleagues at that level, both permanent and interim, have to be registered. I undertake Tier 2/3 interim roles in children's social care and I have always - without exception - been required to have GSCC registration by every LA I have worked in or been interviewed by..
You only have to have the Title of 'social worker' in your Post to be required to be legally GSCC Registered - although employers will also stipulate Posts which they require the Postholder to be GSCC Registered.
Check out senior managers who you know to see if they are registered or not - not my job - I'm just stating the facts.
For instance, try Peter Hay, Director of Adult Sevices in Birmingham. Does not show up on GSCC Register.
'You only have to have the Title of 'social worker' in your Post to be required to be legally GSCC Registered'. That isn't correct, Rupert. See: http://www.gscc.org.uk/page/29/Protection+of+title.html
'Check out senior managers who you know to see if they are registered or not - not my job - I'm just stating the facts.' I just told you, ALL the senior mangers I know - of which there are many - ARE registered.
'For instance, try Peter Hay, Director of Adult Sevices in Birmingham. Does not show up on GSCC Register.' A Director does not have to be registered, that is true.
I'm not being funny, but you have made some very sweeping generalisations, which I have to say blunty are just inaccurate. 'In many Local Authorities the 'Decision Maker' in Adoption cases is the Director' and ' many senior Managers are not GSCC Registered'. You know, to be blunt, those comments are actually just wrong.
Sorry to have to say it, but there's something about your tone and gross level of inaccuracy that is becoming rather annoying.
'Farlit' you correctly quote directly from the GSCC what I said! Ask them yourself if you think that they and I are both wrong.
It is employers who often insist on GSCC Registration when the Post does not have the title of 'social worker' in it.
Does a 'Team Manager' have to be GSCC registered if the employer doesn't insist?
the children's legal centre argues that statutory timescales on assessments shouldn't be scrapped otherwise delays will get even longer in child protection.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/04/15/116685/Munro-debate-Assessment-timescales-must-not-be-abandoned.htm
have to admit given the results from our survey http://www.communitycare.co.uk/static-pages/articles/child-protection-thresholds-survey/ around some of the budgetary and management pressures social workers are facing I'm wondering if they might not have a point
Rupert M:the children's legal centre argues that statutory timescales on assessments shouldn't be scrapped otherwise delays will get even longer in child protection.
I think they miss the point that often these assessments are rushed and poor quality because of the requirement to comply with statutory timescales. I've seen many rubbish initial and core assessments that were ended for the sole purpose that they do not end up "in the red". I fully support one ongoing assessment that is not time limited. Particularly for Core Assessments, quite frequently important assessments like parenting assessments take 12 weeks from the point of start - a Core assessment without their input is not worth the paper it's written on. And let's be honest, once a Core assessment is complete it is not prioritized for review as the box has already been ticked. What I think could be done, though, is set a timescale for the start of the assessment and also a timescale within which the child must be seen (although I appreciate this causes problems with unborn assessments). The review does not propose to scrap the timescales for S47 and I think most would agree it is unreasonable to have the same timescale for a case let's say of a teenager that had a row with mum and dad and threw a wobble and a baby failing to thrive due to parental neglect.
I think the bottom line is there is no such thing as a perfect system and everyone should accept this. Mistakes will always be made, people will try to cut corners when money is tight and while we all strive to provide good quality in a timely manner, when you introduce the quantity element it starts to go pear shaped. I think it is a bit of a nonsense for the legal centre to argue to keep the timescales because they know social workers are too busy and some stuff will not get done - the problem here is the workload, not the timescale, and keeping timescales will not keep kids safer. I'd like to see them advocating for lower caseloads and a practical solution and then we have something to discuss. The system is at rock bottom as it is, I have never ever experienced such a turnover of staff in my team as in the past 2 years, it has come to the point of people's stay being counted in days. This is definitely not keeping kids safe and I welcome a radical change because I don't think anything could be worse that what we already have.
''Farlit' you correctly quote directly from the GSCC what I said! Ask them yourself if you think that they and I are both wrong.' Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?
'It is employers who often insist on GSCC Registration when the Post does not have the title of 'social worker' in it.' Well yes, obviously, of they do, because they understand S.61 of the Care Standards Act and GSCC guidance on the matter. If they didn't they could be regarded as facillitating a situation where an offence would be committed i.e non-registration of the postholder.
'Does a 'Team Manager' have to be GSCC registered if the employer doesn't insist?' As the link I gave you explains - and it refers directly to Team Managers - the individual who was not registered in that post would run the risk of an offence being committed. Which is why LA'S insist on it, and why TM's register: I've never met one who wasn't, it would be stupid of them not to.
Incidentally Rupert, I asked but you still haven't named the 'many' local authorities where education background DCS's are the agency decision maker for adoption, nor the authorities or posts (leaving aside the DCS, we've covered that) where 'many senior managers' are not GSCC registered.
If you are going to make overarching statements of that kind (which certainly run contrary to my knowledge - I myself know of no examples from anywhere in the UK of either of those but I'm happy to be enlightened) then please evidence. I don't think that's an unreasonable request, is it?
'Farlit' - I never referred to education background staff.
I will, however, seek to clarify the issue you raise once I have more information regarding Adoption Decision Makers.
Apols Rupert, I may have misunderstood what you meant re.education background DCS's. You said: 'In many Local Authorities the 'Decision Maker' in Adoption cases is the Director - how could you ever justify that decision being made by an unqualified and, possibly / probably non-GSCC Registered person?'
I presumed you must meant education background DCS's taking adoption decisions, as they would be the only DCS who were unqualifed (in social work) and non GSCC registered. If not them , then I'm not sure who you would mean by 'unqualifed' (in social work) DCS's. Which DCS's do you ahve in mind?
'Farlit' - I am happy to apologise for the inaccuracy that you pointed out that 'many' Decision-Makers are not social work qualified. Without wishing to minimise what I said I was trying to say that a) Directors and some senior Managers do not have to be social work qualified and / or GSCC Registered and that b) social work decisions ought not to be made / endorsed / over-turned by non-qualified staff.
You were right to pick me up on it and I hope that my apology corrects any misunderstanding.
Rupert M: We never did need major re-structuring - have we not yet learned that such restructurings only ever succeeded in creating anxiety and uncertainty and eyes were taken off the 'ball'? - as well, of course, as creating more senior management Posts!!! What we need is to re-state the basics of what social work is all about - what makes for safe and effective practice (evidence-based) and what constitutes positive management at all levels? - too often it has been the failures of management that have led to the parlous state of the profession. Grassroots workers have felt unsupported and Line Managers have been experienced to be professionally 'detached' and to not be clear what their roles are - mistakenly going along with hitting Performance Indicators (PI's) - and whilst the Report acknowledges the dangers of the PI culture it does not criticise - as it ought - those responsible for it nor address what re-training Managers will need to change the culture of their Organisations. Social work should never have been allowed to reach its current low depths - and those responsible ought to be 'named and shamed' - this report continues to 'play politics' rather than set in motion a clear methodology of what is really required. Can 'poachers' really become 'gamekeepers'? Perhaps we need to go back to the likes of Biestek and his 'Casework Relationship' to really re-discover what peoples' needs are and how to assist them rather than see 'Systems' as being the answer because they quite simply aren't. Local Authorities reorganised in minor to major extents about every 2-3 years of my 43 year career and still they have not got it right - surely this must tell us something? Philip Measures Philip.measures@gmail.com C.Q.S.W; Cert. in Social Work (Probation & Child Care); Advanced Cert. in Working with Child Abuse; CIPFA Cert. in Management & Leadership Skills in Social Care; City & Guilds Graduateship Award in Management & Leadership in Social Care. No longer a Registered Social Worker!
hear hear!
all the re-structure has done in our LA is cause upset and anxiety
is this what i've got to look forward to a lifetime of re-structuring with the same issues still arising?
great!
Hi Jelly Tot,
Great to hear from you again !!! How are you ? Really so pleased to see you back.
Mr M and I are retired so we can be as jaundiced as we like, but really that's what it's like, to be honest. And we both loved the social work profession !!
IMHO Munroe will not be implemented. Went all through the Thatcher era and Cameron is no better as regards social work. Necessary evil springs to mind, Thatcher couldn't get rid under Griffith (yes I go a long way back and know what I'm talking about pre 1989 and the Com Care Act).
I maybe going off the point but Shirack made an excellent post about generic (80's Shirack correct me if I'm wrong) social work (which is my background, although started in the lovely welfare area around in 1972 !!!!) and what was promised as regards specialisation, and where it would lead.
Yep re-structure at least every 5 years AND of course complete U Turns costing an arm and a leg every time there is a change of government. AND all the senior managers manage to get brilliant pay offs and re-cycle themeselves to other LA's or Non Exec positions !!! Etc etc !!!!
Me cynical ? Nah !!!!
No, that's not being cynical Mary, it's called being realistic. Sadly Local Authorities still need to learn that constant restructurings and reororganisations are unsettling and often mean that eyes are taken off the ball.
Why does the 'baby' nearly always get thrown out with the 'bath water'? - we need to hang on to what works and tackle that which isn't. Simples!!!!!!
Letter to the Guardian;
"Professor Munro's report is comprehensive, erudite and impeccable in its scholarly rigour (Report, 11 May). But it is too little, too late and reflects a trend in similar reports over the past 30 years which are knee-jerk reactions to single incidents, however despicable and upsetting. The UK has one of the lowest child homicide rates in Europe and other comparable developed countries. Redesigning and restructuring child safeguarding systems and practices on the basis of rare cases is not scientific or sensible. It is political window-dressing with politicians seeking to be seen to be doing something. At its core the report is not saying anything new either. The idea of social workers spending more time with families is as old as the hills and is the foundation of the skills they are taught in training and expected to use in practice. The problem is that this, albeit worthy, report will draw hollow laughter from those on the frontline, who have too many cases, dwindling preventive resources and poor supervision. The report will not inspire them or prevent another inevitable child death.
Steven Walker
Principal lecturer in social work, Anglia Ruskin University"
Long Gone, thanks for post. Says it all and its the truth.
Anglia was a tarted up Poly when I qualified, but was my alma mater !!! Had the best Practice Tutor you could have. She's now a senior and her name is JUDY HICKS. Brilliant person and I will never forget her. And I hope she reads this post.
Munroe won't be implemented under this government? Do you agree?
Long Gone: Letter to the Guardian; "Professor Munro's report is comprehensive, erudite and impeccable in its scholarly rigour (Report, 11 May). But it is too little, too late and reflects a trend in similar reports over the past 30 years which are knee-jerk reactions to single incidents, however despicable and upsetting. The UK has one of the lowest child homicide rates in Europe and other comparable developed countries. Redesigning and restructuring child safeguarding systems and practices on the basis of rare cases is not scientific or sensible. It is political window-dressing with politicians seeking to be seen to be doing something. At its core the report is not saying anything new either. The idea of social workers spending more time with families is as old as the hills and is the foundation of the skills they are taught in training and expected to use in practice. The problem is that this, albeit worthy, report will draw hollow laughter from those on the frontline, who have too many cases, dwindling preventive resources and poor supervision. The report will not inspire them or prevent another inevitable child death. Steven Walker Principal lecturer in social work, Anglia Ruskin University"
do you genuinely think that baby perters case is rare? am talking about what happened prior to his death not his actial death
romeo2001: Long Gone: Letter to the Guardian; "Professor Munro's report is comprehensive, erudite and impeccable in its scholarly rigour (Report, 11 May). But it is too little, too late and reflects a trend in similar reports over the past 30 years which are knee-jerk reactions to single incidents, however despicable and upsetting. The UK has one of the lowest child homicide rates in Europe and other comparable developed countries. Redesigning and restructuring child safeguarding systems and practices on the basis of rare cases is not scientific or sensible. It is political window-dressing with politicians seeking to be seen to be doing something. At its core the report is not saying anything new either. The idea of social workers spending more time with families is as old as the hills and is the foundation of the skills they are taught in training and expected to use in practice. The problem is that this, albeit worthy, report will draw hollow laughter from those on the frontline, who have too many cases, dwindling preventive resources and poor supervision. The report will not inspire them or prevent another inevitable child death. Steven Walker Principal lecturer in social work, Anglia Ruskin University" do you genuinely think that baby perters case is rare? am talking about what happened prior to his death not his actial death
How would you like me to judge its probability?
The figure for child deaths from maltreatment for those under 1 is .7 per 100000 so p = 0.000007
The figure for 1< child < 14 years is .2 per 100000 so p = 0.000002
The probabilities say it is rare, albeit a black swan (the way it is treated anyway)
I share your pessimism, Long Gone. However, we should not use statistics to make us complacent. Ofsted in 2008 concluded that three child deaths each week were attributable to abuse or neglect.
The statistics are explained in more detail by the NSPCC: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/child_killings_in_england_and_wales_wda67213.html The Peter Connolly case did enormous damage to the credibility of the social work profession. It showed that social workers had such low expectations of parents that they seemed unconcerned about serious injuries to a baby. The lack of urgency in the response to first alleged NAI and the failure to act with sufficient authority over a long period of time were key social work failings. I am sure that lessons have been learned but the poor public image of the profession continues.
The Munro Review was a well-intentioned attempt to restore the credibility of social work - so I think it was appropriate to re-state the basics of good practice regarding direct work with children. It also argues for a stronger voice for the profession and this, in my opinion, is the most important message from the Review.
owl: I share your pessimism, Long Gone. However, we should not use statistics to make us complacent. Ofsted in 2008 concluded that three child deaths each week were attributable to abuse or neglect.
I am not using statistics to be complacent. I was asked a question regarding its probability and the statistics say it is very rare. There is no doubt that it is. Factor it by 10 or 100 and it is still statistically rare.
The problem is that it is a death of an innocent and they are grotesque deaths and this brings with it everything that we see with Peter Connolly, Victoria Climbie, Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford etc.
Long Gone: romeo2001: Long Gone: Letter to the Guardian; "Professor Munro's report is comprehensive, erudite and impeccable in its scholarly rigour (Report, 11 May). But it is too little, too late and reflects a trend in similar reports over the past 30 years which are knee-jerk reactions to single incidents, however despicable and upsetting. The UK has one of the lowest child homicide rates in Europe and other comparable developed countries. Redesigning and restructuring child safeguarding systems and practices on the basis of rare cases is not scientific or sensible. It is political window-dressing with politicians seeking to be seen to be doing something. At its core the report is not saying anything new either. The idea of social workers spending more time with families is as old as the hills and is the foundation of the skills they are taught in training and expected to use in practice. The problem is that this, albeit worthy, report will draw hollow laughter from those on the frontline, who have too many cases, dwindling preventive resources and poor supervision. The report will not inspire them or prevent another inevitable child death. Steven Walker Principal lecturer in social work, Anglia Ruskin University" do you genuinely think that baby perters case is rare? am talking about what happened prior to his death not his actial death How would you like me to judge its probability? The figure for child deaths from maltreatment for those under 1 is .7 per 100000 so p = 0.000007 The figure for 1< child < 14 years is .2 per 100000 so p = 0.000002 The probabilities say it is rare, albeit a black swan (the way it is treated anyway)
ot of interest have you read black swan ? - youve just reminded me that im half way thru it and need to finish it lol
isnt the main thrust of his book is that these events that are treated as outliers and rarely happening actually happen much more than people think? its a while ago since i started it so genuinely not sure.
hanks for the response tho - I was talking about the abuse and neglect that baby peter experiences before his death than his actual death - the reality is the only reason (as with climbie) it was discovered was because it resulted in death. Personally I think the family dynamics and results (barring death) seen in the baby peter case are very common in society
romeo2001: Long Gone: romeo2001: Long Gone: Letter to the Guardian; "Professor Munro's report is comprehensive, erudite and impeccable in its scholarly rigour (Report, 11 May). But it is too little, too late and reflects a trend in similar reports over the past 30 years which are knee-jerk reactions to single incidents, however despicable and upsetting. The UK has one of the lowest child homicide rates in Europe and other comparable developed countries. Redesigning and restructuring child safeguarding systems and practices on the basis of rare cases is not scientific or sensible. It is political window-dressing with politicians seeking to be seen to be doing something. At its core the report is not saying anything new either. The idea of social workers spending more time with families is as old as the hills and is the foundation of the skills they are taught in training and expected to use in practice. The problem is that this, albeit worthy, report will draw hollow laughter from those on the frontline, who have too many cases, dwindling preventive resources and poor supervision. The report will not inspire them or prevent another inevitable child death. Steven Walker Principal lecturer in social work, Anglia Ruskin University" do you genuinely think that baby perters case is rare? am talking about what happened prior to his death not his actial death How would you like me to judge its probability? The figure for child deaths from maltreatment for those under 1 is .7 per 100000 so p = 0.000007 The figure for 1< child < 14 years is .2 per 100000 so p = 0.000002 The probabilities say it is rare, albeit a black swan (the way it is treated anyway) ot of interest have you read black swan ? - youve just reminded me that im half way thru it and need to finish it lol isnt the main thrust of his book is that these events that are treated as outliers and rarely happening actually happen much more than people think? its a while ago since i started it so genuinely not sure. hanks for the response tho - I was talking about the abuse and neglect that baby peter experiences before his death than his actual death - the reality is the only reason (as with climbie) it was discovered was because it resulted in death. Personally I think the family dynamics and results (barring death) seen in the baby peter case are very common in society
The theory of the black swan is that the event has a low probability, very low, the event has a major if not catastophic effect, and most importantly there is post rationalisation of the event. It doesnt quite fit but then no theory ever does.
The probability of the abuse and neglect is harder to measure as it is a subjective event.