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.

@Netcurtainnelly it isn't as simple as you claim it is though. Lots of children starting to stand and cruise get bruises from falling. Lots of young children experience childhood seizures. Lots of young children are taken to a&e by anxious parents. Very, very few of those are found to be situations where children are being abused. It's very easy to sit back and say it's obvious when you know nothing about a subject, you're missing that the reason it isn't obvious is because situations like this are perfectly normal, until they aren't.

You keep referring to the foster parents concerns. What specifically do you mean? Because the only concern I've read is the adoptive parents not being agreeable to them seeing the child. Which, in the early stages of placement, is often the recommended advice from CAMHS - after a gradual transition with the foster carers involved for the child to learn to trust the new people, to have a break in visits for the child to attach to the new parents, and to reintroduce the previous carers (if they want to) once that's more secure.

Many public sector workers have to visit people in their homes, on their own. Fraud Officers, Health Visitors, Environmental Health Officers, Building Inspectors, Valuation Officers, Benefit Officers, Housing Officers, Planning Officers etc and all are at risk of violence, often having to deliver information or ask questions that people don’t like.

I work in the public sector and its years and years since going out in pairs was stopped due to lack of resources and insufficient staff. Theres always a visit protocol for checking if for safety purposes but not much you can do if someone decides to attack you.

It’s wrong but while the public sector is underfunded I don’t know what the answer is.

I wasn’t asking you to do anything. Simply commenting on your assertion that it is always required when it isn’t.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Any "professional" that agrees to tutor a child under the age of 18 without another adult present at all times is putting themselves (and also potentially the child) at risk. That's simply fact.

I work in adults and we have a safe text system where we let our team know when we’ re leaving a visit. I was shocked that in the child protection team I worked in there was no such system. I was a student, visiting a man with a history of domestic violence, on my own. I said should I let you know I’m safe, they said ‘well if you want’ like I was being precious. I have felt much more at risk in children’s than I ever have working with psychotic people or in forensics.

@Cheeseandolivesplease your post doesn’t change the fact that some DC with EOTAS/EOTIS/C do have staff who work 1:1 with them at home. You might not do it, but it does happen, so it isn’t true to say it is always required.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream It is required for effective safeguarding - surely that's just logical?
Would you happily leave your child with a tutor alone?

As I said, it isn’t always required.

My DSs with EOTAS/EOTIS have 2:1, and DS1 sometimes 3:1, at all times because of their additional needs, but if they didn’t need that, yes, I would be happy with a tutor working 1:1 with them. That is because a tutor would only get to the point of working with my DC if I trusted them. No-one works with DSs unless I agree. I am part of the recruitment process.

Social care PAs regularly work 1:1 with children. An EOTAS/EOTIS tutor isn’t really different.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream I would absolutely question the professionalism of someone prepared to risk their entire career by working 1:1 without another adult present.
Just a couple of examples - the tutor has a major medical event such as a heart attack, the student makes an allegation against a tutor which is hard to prove or disprove because the tutor was working alone with the child. The SEND element is irrelevant here; examples such as these apply to all tutoring relationships.
And as a parent I would never permit a tutor to work alone with my child in order to protect them both.
You go on and on about the LA being responsible for providing additional adults at all times but also you: "I would be happy with a tutor working 1:1 with them (alone)."
Even teachers in mainstream schools are advised not to be with students on their own without another adult having "eyes on." Again, for obvious reasons.

@Cheeseandolivesplease your examples could easily apply in other situations where 1:1 isn’t questioned such as social care PAs.

Your example about becoming unwell could easily apply to some childminders. Not all childminders have another adult working with them. It also applies to parents. Unless you are suggesting parents should never be alone with their DC either.

EOTAS/EOTIS provision is very different to teaching in schools. It isn’t comparable.

You go on and on about the LA being responsible for providing additional adults at all times but also you: "I would be happy with a tutor working 1:1 with them (alone)."

Both can be true at the same time. If you read my posts you will see when I have said the LA is responsible for providing a second adult I have also written where it is necessary and where it is required.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Absolutely. In which case social care PAs should question it and not work without appropriate safeguarding protections in place.
To equate tutors being alone to parents is simply preposterous!!
Yes - teaching in schools is very different - you're correct - as it is far less likely that a teacher on their own will be 1:1 with a child. If they are, there should absolutely be safeguarding policies in place such as an open door/clear visibility into the room from another adult etc. There are also of course lots of other staff members available to help in an emergency.
The "Gold Standard" safeguarding schools I've taught at have an open door policy for all classrooms which again, most teachers and parents have fully supported to maximise keeping everyone safe. There are also often "silent" call alarms only the teacher can access but will alert a member of staff (usally in the office) if another adult is needed quickly, and/or a walkie-talkie and/or direct call telephone within the classroom.
Which of these effective safeguarding tools do you think are available for a lone working 1:1 within the average home environment?

Despite you agreeing EOTAS/EOTIS/C is very different to school teaching, you go on to compare it to schools. It isn’t comparable, at all.

Belinda Rose was killed(stabbed) by a man she was supporting and had worked with for a while. This was the same week that the horrific death of PC Andrew Harper occurred and it has stuck in my head ever since

Themba Nkomo was stabbed and 2 police who were supporting her also attacked

Unnamed social worker, delivering food and items, stabbed by Fiyori Keset.

It happens and its not just verbal. As a foster carer we have seen a high turnover of staff and to be honest the pay against job expectations and personal risks, Im not at all surprised.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream I agree. Working in schools is inherently safer. See reasons above.
How much experience have you had of both mainstream classroom teaching and EOTAS tutoring may I ask?

Good job no-one is forced to work as part of EOTAS/EOTIS/C packages then!

I see you edited your previous post. Of course parenting is different to tuition, but around the example of becoming unwell, it is the same. If you object to the use of parents as an example, feel free to replace it with nanny, childminder or PA.

I am not a teacher, but I have 2 DSs with EOTAS/EOTIS packages. One of whom has had it for many years. The other just a few. I have also supported numerous other parents to secure EOTAS/EOTIS/C packages.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream So you're the editing police now too?!! Hmmmm.
Editing to add: you didn't answer my question re teaching experience. Assuming you've never taught?

I didn’t say I am the editing police. I didn’t say you couldn’t edit your post. I missed the edit because I was already typing my reply and I just mentioned you had edited it to explain why I was responding to that element of your pp in my later reply.

Yes I did. I said I’m not a teacher.

I'm sorry for not replying before, I was unexpectedly busy. I'll try to reply more now.

I'm really sorry that happened to you. A safe text system would surely be an improvement- it's terrible people have to work with so little protection.

Thanks for this, it's important for anyone in these jobs to be protected too. There needs to be a lot more effort to tackle these dangers rather than people in these jobs just being expected to put up with it.

How can more staff be recruited? Obviously difficult, but otoh this lack of protection will hardly attract people to the job.

I was a social worker with adults for 16 years.

I have had a gun pulled on me, threatened with an axe, hit with a zimmer frame, been caught in the middle of 2 clients fighting leading to a black eye, I've been bitten, thumped and kicked. I've also been locked in a flat by a client, been sent to assess a murderer without being told about his past conviction, likewise a sex offender. Obviously verbal abuse is even more common, this would be from clients, partners and the clients wider family, and neighbours. Oh and I was bitten by a Jack Russell, but at least that one wasn't personal.

Management gave us a key fob that could locate where we were, and we had to check in when we got to the clients home. There was also a panic button you could press. Which was supposed to alert a call centre. Trouble was they worked on mobile phone signals, and we covered a large rural area where the signal was patchy to say the least. Half the time the bloody things didn't work and there were also a lot of calls made by accident due to a shit design.

I took early retirement due to ill health, there is nothing in the world that would entice me back. But I do believe that the majority of clients were lovely, and I do think that I managed to make a positive difference to the lives of many. But it is a young person's game really, there is no way I could have still be doing the job at 67.

They just aren’t reported.

the stories I could tell…

Recruitment is hard when pay rates are so low but it’s more that when people leave, they aren’t necessarily replaced - “savings” are identified!
Less people doing more work so visits now mostly have to be solo whereas years ago, people would go out in pairs for safety.
I’m not specifically referring to a particular job here but public sector jobs generally.