No wonder child protection in Haringay is such a mess when this kind of gobbledigook passes for English

[mabanana]

From the Guardian:
A conference in January will focus on improving child protection.
Sharon Shoesmith will be a key speaker. Her topic: 'Breaking Down Silos: Inspiring Ownership and Sharing Responsibility For Measuring Impacts and Outcomes Across Partnerships.'

Now, wtf is that supposed to mean? It actually makes me quite angry that this kind of doublespeak is being used. It cannot help people think clearly about what must be done. It is the kind of language that makes it OK to sack and legally silence whistleblowers who want to say, in plain English, something is wrong here and we are failing children.

Well it's not just my experience though. It seems to be the experience of everyone in my situation that I have met and spoken to. If it was just my experience I could chalk it up to bad luck.

It's not going wrong at the overall big level. It's going wrong at the basic housekeeping level. Answering phone calls, reading letters, replying to letters, ensuring SW A talks to SW B, making sure that forms are sent out. Etc etc.

Ok again I have to respect that this is your knowledge and experience based on relations with the social work teams in your area.

Are they understaffed? Many Local Authorities have frozen positions (to save money) and will not replace staff when they leave (I know this through SW friends)

Yes my area is dreadful, and they are terribly short staffed (my SW was 'removed'- ds1 will need lifelong care- eventually from SS- but I'm allowed to ring the duty SW ) - but I talk to people across the country who have to try and access services via SS. They seem to be shambolic wherever you live. And again it's at the basic level of returning phone calls, reading letters, knowing who has said what and who is asking for what.

JimJam I am sorry that you experience problems - but 'shambolic wherever you live' well that is really hard to prove or disprove.

However it is obvious that funding needs to be ploughed into Social Services for recruitment as well as an independent investigation of child protection. I am sure that the majority of SW are not purposfully ignoring phonecalls and letters it is probably a matter of prioritisation - unfortunately.

Which is why I said 'seem'. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm not saying they're purposely ignoring phone calls or letters, I'm saying as a system they seem unable to take care of the general housekeeping. In our case they are very lucky that their cock up in administering a DFG hasn't resulted in injury to my son (it could have- it's only through luck that it hasn't - yet- after almost 2 years we still haven't had the DFG work done).

I have been talking to people with experience of SS for 7 years now. All over the country. And it's the sort of thing we talk about because what they do (and don't) is part of our daily life. Trying to access stuff via them is part of our daily life. I have yet to hear one good story. I have heard some horror stories, some 'shouldn't be that difficult' stories and in the main general incompetence 'couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery' stories.

If so many service-users across the country and finding SW a shambolic mess then I think something should be done about it.

I am going to be teaching some future SW soon. So I hope to do my bit to improve the way they operate in my field.

izy - there's a jury for court cases so a random panel that changed every month or so would work imho & also for ss a commonsense input would be helpful when every one official gets stuck in management speak a voice saying that something is wrong would bring the officials back to reality.

If anyone else had seen the living conditions of the baby they would have removed the child & if anyone else had seen the baby & interacted with him it would also have been straightforward that something was gravely wrong.

I really think involving outsiders - A jury of commonsense - is the only way to solve the situation were parents who are unfit are just left to continue to inflict harm.

Oh Dittany, you kill me! Didn't you know Rupert Murdoch owns the Times and the Sun.

I'm not attacking your opinions but I'm interested in how you came to have them.

Of course social workers have to be accountable for their actions, they have huge power over peoples lives. However they work with little supervision and poor resources. Thats not an excuse its the context. I'm not sure you are interested in understanding just blaming. Thats why you hack me off.

Be a social worker for a day I dare you. People aint quite as simple as you seem to think

Well Jim Jam certainly SW need a high level of IT skills as well as the obvious people skills in order to self administrate effectively and do the actual 'social work' element.

Certainly they work with complex systems that need to be learned and used correctly.

Also Social Workers working in the field of disability need to keep abreast of the detailed and ever changing benefits system and entitlements.

I am sure having a full staff team is absolutely necessary for SWs to be able to prioritise effectively regarding general housekeeping.

I can equally assure you that in general the social workers I worked alongside (for quite a few years) went into the job with the best intentions. However the post very often did not allow for 'social work' in the old fashioned sense due to extremely heavy caseloads, unwieldy admin. procedures, hostile clients, meetings that go on for hours, detailed assessments, multi-agency communication etc etc.

I am sure Service User input will be very useful as long as it is a 2 way process with both sides willing to listen and learn.

Sorry Cups I am trying hard not to interpret 'jury of commonsense' as patronising but it really implies that SWs a do not have any. In any case this ever changing panel would really need to know very detailed information about a miriad of clients each with their own special requirements. The legal procedures can be complex especially for child protection. I dont think it could work but a more qualified person might disagree with me.

RE: THe OP

It makes sense if you are working in the sector

Why would it make sense to YOU? I wouldn't expect to have the foggiest about workshops at a optometrists conference but I wouldn't say that means they are all talking shite

But JimJam of course what you have experienced is awful and very frustrating - I do feel for you and would be pissed off in your position

TBH I'm not particularly pissed off. I'm just never surprised when yet another child falls through the cracks.

Sure JimJam that's diplomatic of you. I am trying, I suppose to take a pragmatic standpoint because it is easy to blame the 'professionals' in these cases.

However the need to have a 'face' to pin the blame on quite often means that the overall picture goes out of focus.

I truely hope that the independent investigation is able to look very closely at all areas of child protection and at the same time shine a light on the shortcomings of Social Services in general.

Scapegoating a few individuals will not help the profession - it will lead to very bad morale and fewer high calibre individuals training to be child protection professionals.

I bloody hope they don't just scapegoat a few individuals - heaping coals of fire on Lisa Arthurworrey's head while promoting her bosses was a shameful reaction to the Victoria Climbie inquiry.

I do think those who fucked up in this case should be held accountable - and that includes the people at the top. But what I really hope is that there is a root and branch overhaul of SS, going back to first principles. And that the necessary resources are put into the system so councils can't get away with running on agency staff and 40 per cent vacancy rate, SWs are encouraged to engage in reflective practice and are given the time and supervision to do that.

Exactly edam

Dittany

The media is a tool used to perpetuate certain opinions and views-read up on Fox News and the malign influence of Paul Dacre (owner of the Daily Mail) and educate yourself rather than regurgitating what you read in the press. Are you seriously suggesting that just because you read an account in the Times then it must be the truth?

The court case you referred to previously was not Haringey Council on trial (you seem to think thats your job) it was of those people who were gulity of causing this poor child's death.

Of course the local authority were at fault alongside a number of other individuals and agencies. I'm not an apologist for local goverment believe me, I just think we need to look at the whole picture which we do not have until the external government inquiry is done.

However you seem to know more than I do about these things....clearly you have access to social services records, NHS casenotes, legal records etc. Wish I was as clever and informed as you

Oh and Dittany

Clearly other agencies were at fault-Baby P was examined by a paediatrician 2 days before he died (they are doctors y'know)

Jellypop, you sound like someone who has not quite finished media studies GCSE. If you are going to attempt to patronise other people, best to stick to a subject you actually know about.

I agree with you edam in your opinions 20:50:57 as they are similar to my own views throughout this thread.

However my only concern is 'those who fucked up should be held accountable.' Well I really dont think it will prove to be so clear cut and I fear that the very nature of individuals being isolated as 'culprits' will inevitably lead to scapegoating (in the press at least) something you and I dont want.

Well, at least we agree on something, that's a start! But I do feel very strongly that anyone who has made mistakes should admit them and take responsibility for them. SWs - and doctors and nurses and everyone else in a position of authority - have to be responsible for their actions.

I say it will not be clear cut because the very fact that SWs, managers (et al) are overworked, understaffed, under resourced etc. means that pinpointing responsibility to individuals becomes impossible.