When care is inadequate
Much has been said and written about how social workers should have taken Baby P into care much earlier.
It would have saved his life.
But whenever that decision is made, the agencies must calculate what is in the best interests of the child. Being taken away from your family and moved into the care system is to enter a world full of dangers of its own.
Today's Ofsted annual report on children's services reveals some of the short-comings of England's services for what are called "looked-after" children.
They found that around 7% of care homes were inadequate' in keeping the children safe. As the report notes: "Given the centrality of these services to children's lives and prospects, this is a high level of inadequacy."
Just imagine what that dry phrase means for a child who was suffering such a high level of risk at home that he/she was taken away from their family and moved into a community of strangers.
The promised sanctuary proves to be nothing of the sort.
When inspectors looked at private fostering arrangements they deemed that 16 of the 59 local authorities they visited were providing an 'inadequate' service. And those are only the one's that local council's know about with Ofsted reporting "serious concern" at how many authorities don't seem to know what private fostering is going on.
Inspectors highlight the lack of experienced and competent staff in the care sector. What is more, despite an ethos that puts the child at the centre of everything that happens, Ofsted found that children "feel it is hard to influence decisions that involve them."
Looked after children are falling further behind at school. Educational attainment and attendance, in the words of Ofsted "remain unacceptably low".
The inspectors found that children and young people "in most areas continue to experience frequent changes of social worker".The trusted adult assigned to be there for them throughout the trauma of this process is removed on a regular basis.
Much of the care system works hard to do the best for a group of very troubled and often very difficult children and young people.
Two-thirds of care is labelled good or better.
But a very significant proportion is only satisfactory or inadequate - and it is into this environment that at risk children are placed. Poor quality care options will impact on decisions to leave children at risk in families.
No wonder Ofsted argues that "there remains much to do, and to do with a sense of urgency".
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~00~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
no these people are wrong to a great degree sadly due to poor management and self interest social services in this country has become a rather expensive joke.
these people have to reach targets etc set by government and thus spend there time reaching these targets they are not interested in families or at risk children they have a target to reach.
dangerous ineptitude and blatent missmanagement has resulted in these failings and sadly its not just social services at fault but there bosses.
it needs reform and the sooner the better.
but untill then how many more tragic deaths etc that is the question.
Complain about this comment
As anyone who has had experience of Ofsted's blunderbuss inspection techniques's will confirm, the contents of these reports should be taken with a good dose of scepticism.
Unfortunately BBC journalists don't seriously interrogate, question or investigate Ofsted's techniques and data collection and reporting methods, therefore we end up getting uncritical copy which tends to just reproduce and reinforce the headline findings as fact (as this blog does).
When Ofsted (or the Audit Commission for that matter) categorises a service as "unsatisfactory" or "inadequate" it is using a very mechanical tick-box approach, which applies a rigid range of possible answers to a standard range of questions, and comes up with an overall conclusion that doesn't remotely describe what is actually occurring on the ground - the detailed nuances and human factors which mean that every organisation and circumstance is different, and cannot be neatly pigeon-holed into a bureacractic list of options.
I'd like to see a BBC reporter, instead of accepting this sort of report for the sake of an easy headline, actually visit one of these "inadequate" establishments and see what is going on. We would find that life is a lot more complex and there are so many mitigating factors to take into account which never see the light of day in a report of this kind.
Also, one has to remember that Ofsted as with every other centralised, government inspection regime and quango has a vested interest in talking down standards, to feed the knee-jerk call for more resources to be devoted to centralised inspections, audits, assessments of public services etc.
After all if, for example, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities one day said that we had pretty good race relations in this country (as we do), people might start to ask why we are funding this organization to address a problem that doesn't exist?
This sounds a bit cynical but don't underestimate the instinct for self-preservation and self-perpetuation which exists in every bureacracy.
Complain about this comment
All these various inspection industry reports are just measuring services against this governments targets.
There is no guarantee what ever that the actual targets are of any relevance. A critical report proves nothing about the service other than that it has not complied with the latest government 'reform'.
We are talking about a measurement of compliance not quality.
In some cases we may be better served by an organisation that has had the integrity to get on with the job in a common sense fashion and just accept the critical comments from the latest inspection quango.
Complain about this comment
I have a Vulnerable Young Person in my care at the moment and I am surprised at the lack of support and training available. I have experience from my own children but caring is a different kind of relationship and it has caused problems for both of us, even though she is really grateful for me taking her in.
I've also struggled to persuade her to stay in the educational system to get the qualifications she needs to live an independent life in future. I have the impression that the college just see her as a cash cow, not a young person to be developed and nurtured.
Complain about this comment
I think Shupikaya makes some very valid and intelligent points.
Why should we take these reports as proof of anything? These lumbering bodies have a strongly vested interest in maintaining their status quo.
There are probably thousands of suitable homes for fostering or adoption which are automatically ruled out by the same tick-box approach.
And what about the vast number of people who are frightened off the very idea of offering to foster because of the draconian witch-hunt approach we all associate with Social Services? To invite scrutiny from those above-reproach bureacrats with their witch-pricking sticks is a step too far for most of us. Which further limits the number of decent homes available for those who need care.
Complain about this comment
I am so deeply affected by this little boy's death I can't stop crying. Its not just this little boy but the thought that it could also be happening to other children which we don't know about I hope and pray that God has him in safe keeping that he know's we love him.Has baby p been buryed yet is there somewere we can place flower's.
Complain about this comment
`Has baby p been buryed yet is there somewere we can place flower's?` Goldgrannya. Comment 6.
Baby P`s final resting place is the garden of remembrance at Islington and St Pancras Cemeteries in Enfield, north London.
I understand from the papers that his ashes (he was cremated) were scattered close to where his grandmother was buried.
Rather than laying flowers could I suggest making a donation to the NSPCC or another childrens` charity instead?
Complain about this comment
7% of care homes may be inadequate, but none of them were anywhere close to being as bad as life at Baby Ps House.
The social workers concerned failed to make any form of sensible or valued judgement of the risks.
As usual no one will be held accountable... no one will be fired.
The problem with the system in unaccountability in the public sector... No matter how badly you screw up you will never be held responsible. The worst you can expect is extra training and perhaps a move sideways.
People need to know there are consequenses when they fail, take those away and you end up with Haringey Council.
Complain about this comment
A brief reply to Comment 8:
Before we let emotion condemn all social workers out of hand, in this case I feel it should be stated that the senior social worker of this case had wanted Baby P to be taken into care and had found him a foster placement.
She was over ruled by managers (who may not have a social work background; public service managers today often [in my experience] don`t have experience of the sector they are supposed to manage; management is seen as a separate `skill`).
The police thought that Baby P was at risk of violence, the social work management believed the doctor that misdiagnosed (to put it mildly) both the injuries and the cause and were guided by that opinion. They also had to follow guidelines in the the 1989 Children Act to explore placement options with family and friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7732193.stm
I imagine that one outcome of this case is that in future cases social work departments will operate on the basis that when a case of physical abuse/neglect is suspected that the child will be taken into care. That inevitably will lead to cases where parents accuse social services of over reacting, perhaps with cause. These are decisions that I don`t think many of us would like to have to be in the position of making, and of being sure our judgement was infallible. If you think you could then become a social worker. You are needed; in Haringey in particular which covers one of the poorest, most deprived parts of London.
I agree there should be accountability, but in cases such as these it has been known for junior front line staff to be scapegoated, sparing the line management. In this case I think it is the doctors and management that need to be held accountable.
There are 60,000 children in England and Wales in care. It could be argued that that represents 60,000 childrens` lives that have been saved, and 60,000 decisions that social services got right.
Complain about this comment
"And those are only the one's that local council's know about"
Bit of an outbreak of the greengrocer's' apostrophe's?
Complain about this comment
You mean greengrocers' apostrophes? (Or the the greengrocer's apostrophes if you know one particular individual.)
Complain about this comment
9. SheffTim
Completely agree, I guess my message was vague
The answer to this problem is not simply to fire 2 or 3 junior staff on 30k a year.
The problem is systemic, the failure flows from the management. The manger.
Make them accountable and suffer consequences for failure and then you will see the earth move.
Theres nothing like the risk of loosing a 100k a year job to motivate one is there?
Consequences should be proportionate to the level of seniority.
The trouble with our public sector today is that its all carrot.
The public sector are severely risk adverse at all levels and in all things. Indecision is never an issue. Slow conclusions are the norm.
Bring in private sector consequences to these positions and youre on the way to a resolution.
Complain about this comment
I`ve worked in both public and private sectors and I think your criticisms could apply equally to both. As for risk taking/aversion and consequences, this can be a double edged sword; in this instance if the guidance in the 1989 children`s act had been ignored (in particular the principle that ` wherever possible, children should be brought up and cared for within their own families`) then the social workers and managers would have been equally dammed had something happened to the child whilst in care. One consequence of the blame game that follows every case is that it dissuades people from being involved in child protection work; I understand there is a shortage of such workers as it is.
One thought that does occur to me is that the sequence of public enquiry after public enquiry, each followed by yet more legislation by Parliament leads to a growing body of procedures, more agencies that have to be involved in such cases etc, making process increasingly complex. There is a case for having well trained, supported and committed staff that are allowed to follow their instincts and do their jobs without interference. Reduce the bureaucracy, form filling and rules in other words. I repeat that in the case of Baby P the senior social worker of this case had wanted the child taken into care and had found him a foster placement. She was over ruled.
The professional that made the fatal error was the doctor who belived the mother plausibly saying that the Baby P's injuries were due to accidents. That is where these decisions become tough, particularly when a mother is a convincing liar and the child cannot speak for himself. After all kids do have accidents, get injured in rough and tumble play etc.
But, if the pendulum now swings the other way how many innocent parents will then be worried that their child might be removed after being genuinely injured whilst playing?
Complain about this comment
While I don't disagree with everything that has been said on this topic. I have to admit that while I was recovering and trying to get my life back together, my children were cared for by somebody who I would term as the most wonderful foster carer I had ever known. However, I am not saying every foster carer is like this, and making it clear that my children were NOT being cared for due to neglect, but more due to my mental health issues being made worse by a violent partner. However surely it is better for a child to be looked after than suffer a life of torment and torture like Baby P? The whole childcare system needs a review and alot of changes to the system need changing, we might not be able to protect every child in the world, but we can put strict damage limitations in place to try and prevent the worse cases of child abuse. Alot of these issues surround money (admitted in court due to my own case by a Social Worker). If money is such an issue, what is happening to the donations given to the nspcc full stop campaign, because its obviously not doing its job. The world has to wake up, children are not labrats, they are human beings, 'the precious jewels of the earth' and should be treated as so.
Complain about this comment
13. SheffTim wrote:
I agree with much, but risk aversion is key in the public sector, everyone is constantly mindful of it. I dont see that as much in the private sector.
I dont see the bureaucracy in the private sector to same degree. The consequences, however, are there. There are hardly any consequences in the public sector. except a days worth of... dealing with the media training... and having to apologise, and thats darn rare.
I accept the pendulum argument and we dont want social workers over reacting to a few falls and taking children into care do we. But this case was way off that mark.
I accept that social workers carry out a thankless task, it must be a bloody awful job. Hence we need better paid, well trained and more mature individuals on the front line. Not Uni grads on 27k. This paid for by having less managers and less bureaucracy, less council non jobs and less waste.
Jobs like this
I accept that no matter how good the system gets, some children will be missed. My argument is simple, there has to be a consequence when that happens.
When two children die on your watch then the least that should happen is for you to loose your job as manager of the department and be demoted especially if set systems have not been followed.
Equally if a child is needlessly taken into care then that is an error of judgement and there should be a consequence for that. I work mainly in the private sector, I face a consequnce for getting things wrong at either end of the spectrum. Why should the public sector be any different.
A final point:
It also wholly wrong for a department head to chair the organisation that scrutinises their own department. That would never happen in the private sector. No wonder the conclusion was that no one was at fault. That system simply stinks.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn`t say there were no consequences. The case worker in the Climbie case was dismissed for gross misconduct and banned from working with children. The doctor in the baby P case has had her contract terminated and faces a General Medical Council investigation, it could lead to her being struck off. I agree that senior management should take responsibility (and face consequences) for decisions that were taken, caseloads of front line staff and so on.
I`m unconvinced that the private sector would provide a better, more infallible service. My experience of public sector services being contracted out is, I`m afraid, of the lowest bidder being awarded the contract, then providing a woefully inadequate service. Staff being rewarded by lower wages or the service being dependent on workers from agencies paid on an hourly rate. I`m also sceptical of private sector companies being more open to internal inquiries being conducted by outside bodies.
According to The Times, before the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie there had been 70 public inquiries into child abuse cases in England and Wales, producing thousands of recommendations. It looks likely that the Baby P case will result in another. There needs to be greater urgency in implementing all these recommendations (Though I have reservations about increasing red tape ends up hindering, not helping front line staff, as in the Baby P case.) and providing good funding to make sure they are realistically achievable. But, sadly, given a few parents/guardians are sociopaths and able to manipulate, deceive and lie convincingly I don`t think any of us could devise a system that could absolutely guarantee 100% that another child`s death would never occur.
PS. I have visited a quit smoking advisor at my local GPs. She was a nurse and made some very helpful suggestions.
Complain about this comment
No child should have to suffer at the hands of their parents and worse, no child should have to suffer at the hands of an inadequate system of care. How could a government pay so much money into a system and demand so little in return?It would have been cheaper to pay for 12 years of a private boarding school tuition and get better results than what's been expected out of the current system. I almost think a boarding school environment would be a better placement for children in care because at least they'd be getting a semblance of a family and some skills they could use to enter higher education.
Being an early childhood teacher, it boggles my mind to see the accepted level of care as somehow adequate. No amount of care or education should be good enough for children. You should always be critical, improving to make the lives of children better. In my experience, I've seen a lot of
stupidity, entrenched attitudes and just shear LAZINESS. With all of the money they've poured into these systems they should have been producing Doctors, Lawyers, Entrepreneurs. It's just such a quandary to me where all of the money goes and what is produced as the end result. Playacting. Smoke and mirrors. A government conundrum.That's really what its about.
Complain about this comment
In my experience as a teacher the OFSTED inspections say far more about the personality of the inspectors than they do about the service being inspected.
Now retired after more than 40 years I do not think education in UK has improved despite the statistics. Most people will realise that statistics can be made to show what is required.
Complain about this comment
i spent 15 years working in some very challenging adult residential care homes. they are regulated by an organisation called CSCI, they regulated everything from standards of living for the service users (clients) too working practices of employees and employers. CSCI had their failings my big problem with them was announced inspections, whats the point of inspecting the place if they know you are coming months in advance, but by far the biggest failing in residential care isn't regulation it's the fact its been mainly privatised. People are now making money off cutting corners in caring for these people. I stopped working in privatised care for this reason, there was no longer any care involved just profit. CSCI also used to regulate adult LD education centre's which now is in the hands of OFSTED, why can't ofsted regulate ALL educational facilities and leave living standards to the Commission for Social Care Inspectors to regulate, instead of them both doing the same jobs too varying standards. Too many regulators dont work together, the CBT cant even co-ordinate themselves let alone several different agencies, the expression 'too many cooks...' springs to mind. if only it had been just the broth that had been spoiled.
Complain about this comment
We were foster carers in the NE of England for several years. The children were wonderful and so rewarding, the social workers were a nightmare. There was no continuity - in 4 years two children in our car had 7 different social workers, they were ill-informed, did not read case notes, did not keep appoint-ments and had very low expectations of the children - the worst possible role models.
We got a boy at age 11 who was totally illiterate and in a special needs school, we managed to get him into a normal school and at 16 he achieved 5 GCSE - albeit grades of D to F but nevertheless a huge achievement for him. He is now 25, working in a steady and responsible job and is a tax payer rather than a charge on society.
We had to fight for the children against the social workers all along the line - common sense against ideaology and inflexible rules.
We decided to foster because we felt we had been so lucky in life and wanted to share that. I encourage more people to think seriously about fostering. Take only one child and work on the challenge of that, you will be surprized how much you get from it. The story of baby P illustrates how important it is that normal family homes are available for these abused children.
Complain about this comment
I think Boris Johnson should mount an inquiry into the role of London Labour MPs and Ministers in the running and management of Children's Services in Haringey and similar London boroughs. How many children have to die in horrible circumstances and conditions before searching questions are asked about why the same boroughs crop up again and again in these inquiries and the same Health Visitors, Social Workers, Police and their managers are found to be at fault - yet nobody is held accountable. Yet the same names of Ministers, MPs and local officials turn up again and again .... Should these kids always have to pay the price for some trendy political agenda?
Complain about this comment
hiya,
Living in foster care pretty much destroyed my life for the entire time in which i was in its grasp.
I have asperges and the system failed me from the moment i entered it at 13, resulting in sexual abuse while living with a foster career by the foster career.
This case if going to court in the new year.
However, these experiences are what made me. Since leaving the system (and equally appalling "Leaving Care" ) i have become mostly independent (supported living) i am in education (and getting A's at A level) and the support i need. On top of this some of the people who i met while in care have enabled me to get a good start in the career in my chosen industry.
I think the issues with much of the care system are systemic, at its root MANY if not MOST of the staff are well meaning but have limited resources. During my time in the various housing areas i met young people who had no moral resource and thought nothing of themselves.
For my case, it was the mavericks who made my life turn out for the better. The inspired me to over come my difficulties and to make something of myself.
Young people inside the system are numbers, however if the young person wants to, they CAN make it work.
thank you.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
It is sad when the care for vulnerable for citizens is inadequate....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS