to despair that as a supposedly civilised society we can’t do better for children in care

[Welshwoman]

I keep seeing the advert here for the channel 4 program about kids in care and just think its disgusting how vulnerable children are treated in society when people like sp Abu Hamza get so many privileges in jail and so much money in legal aid (please note just the 1st person who sprang to mind not a ?Muslim? or race thing just a grown up prisoner thing)

My friend fosters and many of these children are ?lost? they have several different case workers a year - and are passed around like hand name down clothes

I despair that as a supposedly civilised society we can?t do better -

One of my thoughts would be that each child in care gets a non social worker advocate - some who cares for children but maybe can?t foster and that person is involved in any major decisions for as long as that child is in care to give the child some continuity and someone to talk to outside of the ?system ? in case there is abuse going on

What does anyone else think we can do ?

Each child in care in my local authority in theory has the right to an independent advocate. Sadly they are few and they leave jobs as often as social workers do - it's impossible to provide continuity for kids when people are employed to help/support/look after them. It's terribly sad but the damage is rarely done by the care system - placements break down all the time usually because the children are so traumatised by abandonment/separation that they cannot engage with carers.
I am a leaving care SW and we try our best but seriously, the damage is done by the families, not the system. The system is not able to cope properly because, partly, of a huge lack of good foster carers, lack of retention of social workers, and overburdening of bureacracy, IMO.

Kat thanks for your reply I agree with everything you have said having a friend who is a foster carer and another who is a SW who has moved from child services to adult as the pressure was too much.

I was thinking about a paid but independant person ( Sort of job I would love to do !) who would be only one child?s advocate until the child was 18 - I can?t foster a s I have 3 already all of whom are SN but I do have lots of energy and understanding to give

It was the ad that triggered these thoughts and also how my friend was ready to do respite for a 3 year old But when she asked the main carer for the Childs ?preferences? and routine etc it was all very casual as if the 3 year old would ?make do? and the social worker was new and had no real knowledge of the child - I just think someone should be there and care - sorry to be so simplistic

Also sorry but I did not see the baby p thread where a lot of this has been discussed

I think the problem should be tackled before the cases get to the care system. Why are so many children abused anyway?

I was listening to radio 4 the other day. Someone on it said in Denmark a huge proportion of children in care go on to university, but in the UK it is only 1 in a 100 (not totally sure of the figures, but loads more went in Denmark then the UK).

She said it was because the care system in Denmark is properly funded.

I truly wouldn't mind upping my tax if it meant children in care had proper funding.

Why do we always try and do important stuff on a shoestring?

actually I like your idea - but I don't think it should be a "paid" position. I think it should be voluntary and a commitment you make to a particular child. In the way that you might have made a commitment to a child in Africa through sponsorship - most people I know will move hell or high water to continue that relationship. That is the sort of commitment children in these situations need. And a knowledge that it's being done out of concern for them as individuals, not for monetary reward would help the child's self esteem. I know many people who would happily fulfil that role on a voluntary basis throughout the life of the child. And if it's a case of phonecalls, emails, some meetings, maybe joining the family for trips etc, I know many people who would be prepared to do that sort of thing. In fact my grandparents did something very similar with a Barnado's boy back in the 40's and 50's, and they stayed in touch throughout his life and he as an adult said what an invaluable support they were.

Cheshirekitty - in Denmark social workers involved in child care are also much more highly qualified, all to at least 1st degree level if not beyond, they are much more highly paid and it is quite a respected job. I do agree we should really try and work out why so many children are at risk, but sadly in this world some children will always need help, so I think making sure the best people possible are there to look after them should be a priority.

Weegle, your gp's sound lovely.

"Why do we always try and do important stuff on a shoestring?"

Because what we might consider to be "important stuff" usually involves people and people are a long term investment and not really of much interest to government or business.

I don't consider that we live in a civilised society until we start putting the important stuff first like protecting the vulnerable, making sure there's enough decent housing stock, superb education and health care.

But now I sound like a socialist which I'm most definitely not!

cheshirekitty - they were. Particularly my grandmother, truly remarkable woman. I've always said if I could just be 10% like her I would be pleased.

And I agree, we don't see it as important enough an issue. Social work should be a highly respected profession. And we owe it to ourselves as a society to better protect the vulnerable else we just reap trouble later on.

Headfairy - SWs here all have either a BA or MA in social work. Some have older qualifications like a DipSW but they have been phased out. All SWs have to register with the General Social Care Council.

I didn't realise they were so highly qualified kat.. still I do seem to recall it's not a terribly high paid job which shows just how much respect we show for it.

I've always been a great believer in investing in the future. To me I think spending more on children saves so much money in the future. So many children who've had rotten childhoods with insufficient care from SS end up involved in crime, which of course costs a fortune. Govt seem to think that as children don't have a voice they don't really count, but no one plays the long game and thinks that investing in these children pays dividends later in life.

Weegle - I think I ment more sort of reimbursed expenses like a local councillor than 'paid', as It would take quite a lot of commitment and I wouldn't want only people able to 'afford' it, to be the only advocates - That?s one reason we end up with so many magistrates with very quaint ideas lol

WinkyWinkola - I have the same dilemma - I?m not a socialist but find especially now I have kids to be having some very ?social? concerNs

I?ve gone from being a very right wing capitalist business person to now I?m not quite sure what - I think people should take personal responsibility for their actions but there also needs to be a well funded and above all well run- support system for those not able to take responsibility

When something like continuity is so important you wonder if you couldn't make people commit to a role for 5 years like the army/navy etc when that much public funding goes into training and it is so important to the child it would make people think twice before taking the jobs and make the ones in the role stay and do the right thing by the children first and foremost.

My friend recently tried to foster and was turned down because the child would have to go to an after school club twice a week, while she finishes her degree. Her degree is in psychology, she has learned about development disorders, child abuse, and has counselling skills. But no, she was told to go on benefits and try again. No wonder there's a shortage of good foster homes when people are penalised for educating themselves!

No it's not well paid. You have to pay fees to train and there are a tiny number of sponsored places on the MA for each local authority but it's very hard to get on.
Small story - good friend of mine had worked in social care for years. Mental health experience, the lot. She decided to train as a SW to widen her options. Took a bank loan for ten grand, studied for 2 years and got a job in my team. After 2 years she has only just (after more studying to progress) reached the salary she was on before training. (plus of course she is paying the bank loan back). She has had to quit her job and work as an agency SW which pays a lot more. She is still employed by the local authority at a much higher rate (as are many SWs) to fill in the positions that they can't fill long term...because there isn't money to pay them properly.

Insane.

why are children in care moved about between placements so much? Is it really usually down to a breakdown in the placement?

Breakdowns do happen quite often,sometimes the child makes false allegations against the carers, maybe because they just want to go home, it's so sad, even if they've been abused they still want their parents. Sometimes birth children and foster children don't get along. There is a push for carers to have teenagers even if there biological children are young, and this could cause a problem. How can a foster parent be expected to have a 15 year old with behavioural problems frightening her own children? Matching is so important to begin with

Welshwoman your idea is a good one and I read a thing reecently that that is how it's done in one of the scandinvian countries (why are they always so sensible and grown up?).

I forget what they call the people but it is a well paid job and they have a child/ren who they are a friend and advocate etc for throughout their life in the care system, so they are a stable point even if the child gets moved around. It's someone "permanent" for teh child to trust. Of course the job is paid decently which it has to be as it wouldn't work if people kept leaving.

And they continue contact with the child to 18 and maybe beyond, it it doesn't all stop at 16 like here, which is really so young.

Say a child is taken into care. More often this is planned rather than an emergency, but even so, a placement needs to be found for that child that night. There is not a huge surplus of foster carers with vacancies, so the child goes to whichever avaiable carer is approved for that age. Quite often these are for short term only, until a more suitable carer can be found. This may mean someone close to the child's school, or well away so there is no accidental contact with the child's family. There may be an ideal foster carer, who isn't avaiable for two weeks as they wait for a child to go home. So the child goes to one place for a couple of nights, another place for two weeks, and then to their main carers for however long. Three placements in a few weeks. Not ideal, but quite realistic.

Allegations against carers are actually quite rare, and placements for younger children often quite stable. The most unstable placements are those for children who are most damaged and for older children 10+. Some of these children are extremely difficult to place becaiuse of their (understandably) challenging behaviour - trashing the house, weeing on the carpets, tormenting pets, trying to run away at 2am etc. Often carers can't cope and request the child be moved.

Obviously all these moves feel to the child like rejection, but because it takes quite a lot to get a child taken into care these days, a lot of damage is done, so they find it hard to cope in a normal family environment. There is a huge shortage of resources for therapeutic interventions, and long waiting lists, so behaviour tends to spiral downwards with more placement breakdowns.

I don't know the solution, but my feelings are :

• earlier and better interventions to prevent children needing to be taken into care
• recruitment of more foster carers, which will need to include respite for foster carers *less red tape for sw's to deal with *smaller caseloads for sw's - both will make them better practitioners and less likely to burn out as they do now.

and loads of other stuff, but I feel better for ranting now

Novel, what do you think about my friend being turned down for fostering (posted above). Because she's going to try another borough?

I would be surprised if your friend was turned down from fostering because she wouldn't be able to pick a child up from school two days a week. I could understand why she might not have a specific child placed with her because of that though, as individual needs can vary. It sounds like there is more to it than that tbh. Maybe the panel felt she was too involved in her studies at the moment to be able to give a foster child the huge enotional input that they would need

Novel - thanks very much for that v. useful and informative post.

They said after school clubs were classed as daycare and that she was being paid to provide the daycare. Actually not they, it was an independent SW doing the initial home visit. I'm going to advise her to ask the head of department, it just didn't seem right to me. Thanks!

Junglist - the asc may be a bit of a red herring. One of the important things about looking after children is that they should have the same opportunitues as other children. Thus, it is possible that any individual child might want to go to an after school club with their friend, so children in care can and do use after school clubs.
Like I say, maybe they think your friend isn't quite in the right place to commit to being a foster carer yet, as it may be that any children she had placed with her would need the consistnecy of being picked up by the same carer every day. What age group was she going for?

Staying out of this one till later when i can give a calm considered response.

But yes we bloody could do better to improve outcomes for kids in care.