As an education social worker I used to be part of the child protection system in the Holloway area of north London; it was the most stressful work I have ever done. I think the first thing that shocks people when they first start to investigate the physical abuse of children is just how common it is. According to the NSPCC, every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In half (52%) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect. Each week at least one child dies from cruelty. On average, 67 children in England and Wales are killed at the hands of another person every year. A report last year, found that hospitals in England treat an average of 471 children every week who have sustained deliberate injuries, many presumed to have been inflicted by parents or carers.
Responding to the death of baby P in Haringey, Ed Balls, minister for children, has assured parliament that staff will be held accountable http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7726103.stm It seems to me, that implicit in the minister’s statement is the assumption that rules were not followed, systems not applied, regulations ignored, workers failed to act correctly. This is certainly the overt agenda of the venal scribblers at the Sun newspaper. It is of course a nice simple answer; however I suspect that when investigated the opposite will become apparent. It will be found that the procedures were followed. There will be a detailed paper trail of what was done and I suspect that information was shared correctly across organisations. In short, I suspect the system was implemented correctly, procedures were followed, just one problem, the child is dead.
How can this be? From my experience, there is no single system or set of procedures that can always be followed that will automatically lead to the correct decisions being taken. At best, any attempt to work in this way leads to a painting by numbers approach, where investigation becomes a system of box ticking. I have been told that this tendency has been made worse in recent years by the new computer systems which structure what the social worker records and the procedures they must then implement. This way of working assumes that child abuse is self evident and that systems of investigation simply reveal what is there. This is a fallacy, even medical evidence requires interpretation. Most of the doctors I consulted would examine children and say something like, ‘well, it might be true, you could break a limb by falling off a wall but its unusual’.
In my experience, even in the most extreme cases, a medical assessment does not prove child abuse. The social worker has to rely on their assessment of the situation, understand the injuries in the context of the life of that child.
Guidelines and procedures can only ever provide generalised guidance. Every child protection case is different and most of the time formulaic practice will disregard marginal differences between cases; sadly these marginal differences can be all the difference to the health and welfare of a child.
Good child protection requires the ability to see and understand the unique combination of factors that are present in every child protection case. Painting by numbers just doesn’t do it. In the end, in my opinion, the practice of child protection is more craft than science. Given that children’s lives depend on it, it is a craft that needs to be done well.
In the past, there have been instances of social workers being pilloried for taking children into care where it was not necessary. In my opinion these situations arise because of the same painting by numbers approach. It is true that physical injury can be accidental and that some children go through phases of being accident prone and clumsy, often leaving them with black eyes and multiple bruising. In this regards the organisational ‘reforms’ of the past few years have probably made things worse as they make it more likely that people operate in a formulaic way. There is evidence that since the baby P case has been publicised that more care orders are being sought as people err on the safe side.
In my opinion, there is a terrible truth to child protection, you can have as much training, supervision, procedures, guidelines and management as you like but fundamentally child protection comes down to that existential moment when an individual social worker bangs on a front door and tries to negotiate their way into the home. Once there, they cannot simply follow procedures, they need to be straining to analyse and assess the situation while talking and negotiating, in what can be a chaotic and intimidating situation. Procedures and guidelines should guide, not become the substitute for specific analysis and action. Furthermore, that social worker has to both want to be there and to have the experience to be able to cope. That is why burnt out and new social workers are equally unsafe, as neither can do this.
So what’s to do? I think that social workers should only be expected to handle a single serious child protection case at any one time (they can do other, more routine things, as well). They should be allowed leeway in how much time they spend with the family and their judgements should be trusted. In short, Haringey needs a properly funded, properly staffed, properly paid, child protection system. In my experience this hasn’t been the case for at least the last 30 years, so I don’t suppose it’s going to change now. I suspect instead we will see yet more emphasis on procedures, strategies and management systems. Certainly that seems to be government’s instinct http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7734576.stm
Well Eddy, if that’s what you think then I’ve found a conference that you really must attend. You can learn from the countries most highly rated managers as to how to “Strategically Measure Impacts & Outcomes”. Its on the 28th of January at The New Connaught Rooms, London. http://www.haymarketevents.com/conferenceProgramme/295/strategically-measure-impacts-outcomes
I think the 2.45 session will be of particular interest
“2.45 Breaking Down Silos: Inspiring Ownership And Sharing Responsibility For Measuring Impacts And Outcomes Across Partnerships. Main speaker Sharon Shoesmith, Director of Children’s Services Haringey Council”
Book early Eddy, I think it will be standing room only.
