To think social workers need much better protection when they visit threatening families?

[Jane379]

After the recent terrible case of Preston Davey, I noticed some posts on threads here mentioning the danger social workers are often in when they DO try and report things. Threats from the families, outright intimidating behaviour when they do visit etc

Police etc have weapons. Social workers are mainly women so more physically vulnerable,,and they can't carry weapons of course. Naively I assumed they were protected from aggressive clients, but it seems there's shockingly little protection.

AIBU to think social workers visiting agesssive families need something like a bodyguard? More protection than they currently get, anyway. Few jobs require people to visit potentially aggressive and dangerous homes with such minimal protection. With the amount of cases, the danger, etc , it's no wonder it's hard to recruit social workers.

If there were more male social workers- and more generally- maybe they could help on challenging visits? I expect aggressive clients would be more reluctant to intimidate if men were present.

The LA education would be required to have a plan as to how that childs needs could be met with a tutor, they wouldn't be commissioning a home tutor if it wasn't safe, I wouldn't have thought?
I've had situations with kids in care where we didn't for that reason, alternative plans had to be made.

Yes exactly and this is the bit that doesn’t work that well in practice because there are not enough social workers. Even the multi agency teams end up being an extension of the duty team because you end up running out when a crisis happens because the actual social worker isn’t available! Add chairing conferences in and it has the potential to be a bit of a mess really. The team will just burn out really quickly

There should still be policies, including a safeguarding policy.

The LA also shouldn’t be rely on parents to provide a second adult. Where it is necessary, the LA is responsible, not parents.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream I understand that. But more often than not the parent isn't working so is at home anyway and willing to be around for some of the morning or afternoon.

@Runningswanker I've worked with a lot of LAC children (which I absolutely love). The difference with these students is they are most often in care homes where a number of checked other adults are present.

Even if the parents aren’t working, the LA still can’t require them to facilitate provision in that way.

I used to do home visits to tenants with a range of problems, including moderate LDs, ASD, MH and addiction issues.

We had an automated system that worked via mobile phones: you'd log on to the system with the details and address before going in and also log the expected end time. If you hadn't logged off the visit within 5 minutes of the end time, it would alert the call centre, who'd ring back 3 times and call the police if you didn't answer.

The system also had an emergency alert, you just had to press 5 on the phone and it would alert the call centre, who'd ring back to check what was going on, and call police if there was no answer. I don't even think the service was that expensive.

We had a comprehensive risk assessment process, and 2 staff would attend any visits where there was considered to be a risk, or we'd meet the tenant in a community setting. Male workers would be assigned to any tenant who was considered to be a risk to female workers.

I was shocked when I found out that community MH workers and social workers were doing lone home visits to tenants with a history of aggression and/or sexual violence. It's not bloody good enough imo.

Mind you, the system still wasn't infallible. I was doing lone home visits to a tenant for a year or so, and a few months after his case was closed, he was all over the front page of the paper for raping someone.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Are you suggesting the parent is at home plus another adult provided by the LA then?

Yes. Where a second (or third or fourth) adult is required it is the LA’s responsibility to provide that.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream I personally think that would be a little bit ridiculous (and very expensive!)
I have never been to tutor in a home where there is a SAHP happy to be the second adult for a couple of hours and also another adult paid by the LA who is surplus to requirements.

@Cheeseandolivesplease thankfully, the law disagrees with you.

Parents cannot be compelled to organise, facilitate or deliver the provision. If they choose to, that is their prerogative, but they can’t be forced and LAs shouldn’t be pressuring parents to. Often parents won’t even be told it is an option for them not to, and when parents do know it often takes them forcing the LA’s hand.

Proper EOTAS/EOTIS packages are expensive. It is often a TA/LSA/PA who provides the second adult unless there are specific reasons someone else is required, and the cost of that is often a drop in the ocean compared to the wider package.

Besides, proper provision under 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 should be more than a couple of hours tuition.

If you are the poster I think you are, it isn’t really surprising you haven’t come across it yet since you haven’t been an EOTAS/EOTIS tutor that long.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Look - I don't make the rules - I just show up and tutor (providing another adult oner the age of 18 is present at all times).
I tutor for a couple of hours every day with each child.
Kindly, you do come across as a little argumentative?
I've worked with lots of families with great parents who have been supportive of helping in any way they can to facilitate their child's education at home.

@Cheeseandolivesplease not argumentative. Merely pointing out the law. I didn’t say you made the rules. I was pointing out it is the LA’s responsibility, not parents, and that it isn’t ridiculous to expect the LA to comply with law.

Parents can be supportive of their DC’s education and still advocate for their DC and enforce the law.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream That's not for me to get involved with so I won't. I will just show up and do the tutoring I'm paid to do 😀

I didn’t say you had to get involved. I was merely commenting on the law in response to you saying what about you working in people’s homes.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream I was commenting from a safeguarding perspective, not one related to the law 😀

@Cheeseandolivesplease they are interlinked. Because where a second adult is required for safeguarding, it is the LA’s responsibility to provide that in law.

I work in community LD as an AHP. When I stop and think just how much risk we're at, going into people's homes who are often living very chaotic lives - it does scare me (I love my job so I keep going). We mitigate as much as we can, paired visits etc - but when we have really bog all access to clinic rooms to bring clients to us (and lots can't go either) - and people need seeing - it's tough.

I've only been physically attacked twice (very minor) and verbally abused by a family once - I've been very lucky.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecreamA second adult in a private home is always required for safeguarding. I don't really need to hear any more about the law as it's nowt to do with me; literally nothing.

@Cheeseandolivesplease there are some EOTAS/EOTIS tutors/mentors/TAs/LSAs/PAs who are happy to work 1:1 in the home without a second adult present.

You are free to feel however you want, of course. Personally, I think it is a shame someone who works with DC with SEN thinks SEN law is literally nothing to do with them.

I think that’s it, we can’t just refuse to see people because of public protection responsibilities so we need to find ways to make it as safe as possible, which may not actually be that safe.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Good luck to them if an allegation is ever made. But I won't be risking my career of 24 years.
I am not at all bothered who the adult over the age of 18 is, just that one is present at all times.

I think thresholds are too high. And many SW's are young and inexperienced, and don't always know how to look beyond surface appearances. And there are some arrogant managers who do not like being challenged - I had a complaint made against me when I sent a polite email asking them to review a decision to close a case, that I was 'undermining them and implying incompetence'.

Beyond visiting in pairs, we have very little protection available. For a little while we had a security guard at our clinic due to aggressive patients, but due to labour cost cutting we lost that.

Unfortunately there is rarely the capacity for dual visits in the nhs, unless it's needed for clinical reasons such as a nursing procedure needing 2 people. I agree it should be the case, but in reality it's just not possible

We need to judge, we need to discuss for Preston's sake and others .

As a vulnerable toddler he should have been thoroughly checked over after his hospital visits

The foster mums concerns should have been listened too. Why wasn't it. These things aren't rocket science.

Doctors were also at fault. Vardy gave two different accounts at the hospital as to how Preston was injured.

It's not as If doctors and social workers etc don't know child abuse goes on.

The social worker told Jamie varley well done for taking him to the hospital. What was that all about? That just made him more arrogant, thinking he could get away with it.