a useful reflection

https://doing.org/10.12795/araucaria.2019.142.22

the meaning of the child has never been more important, no?

Any development of the Local Plans and especially within housing developments will impact schools and social services; and this includes the opening of new drugs lines for the new inhabitants of. The presentation of the Leeds issues last year as solely about racism ignored that it was as much to do with local drugs turf wars as not.

The separation of the regional agenda, and especially housing developments, as if it won’t impact Children’s and Families Services is simply stupid. Everyone knows that the construction industry is and has been awash with substance use problems for decades. And, it’s their white collar bosses who condone it. Btw this is what is called ‘the right touch’ by the construction industry regulators who are the people shaping the work of SWE.

The role of Purchasing Organisations are within the scooe of the increasing brief of Mayoral Office’s and will influence of Regional Commissioning for Children AND without any assurance of safeguarding children ~ this is truely a Rag Nymph arrangement.

And, I dare to say that sucessive SofS and their Ministers, including the new incumbents, have known about these risks for decades.

similary the architecture of the IT systems in use, however, is not transferable across local authority boundaries.

the regional coordination will add a needless layer of administrative duplication, i mean the term contracting authority has specific legal meaning as does the term responsible commissioner, at best these arrangements will be accommodation brokerage services and geared towards the satisfaction of a heads-on-beds profit and loss accounting.

OAP’s will have the appearance of greater visibility but the price will be the continuing diminished status of the care delivery to the individual child by their Council.

the inclusion of children’s services within the scope of the Regional Purchasing Organisations isn’t an achievement it’s a huge mistake; the veracity of the due diligence undertaken can’t be assured to meet the necessary requirements for keeping children safe ie Director checks under s174-s177 of the Company’s Act 2006 are said to be outside the scope of the Purchasing Organisations ~ it is the reintroduction of Rag Nymph arrangements increasing the liklihood of organised grooming an inbuilt feature of services design ie systemic and outside the scope of any individual to stop irrespective of their duty to report. Nothing new, then!

s25 accommodation placements and the subsequent s16 reviewing will inevitably become driven by bed availability and not the needs of the child, and especially so where the antecedents are related to prior exposure to cse.

I mean how can anyone say that the MacAlister Review is robust when the biggest thing being said is that there’s not enough of a reliable database to make decisions from. This was the case in 2007 when the case for Regional Commissioning Units was first tested. The CMA have since repeated this message rather damningly saying the sector has been sleep walking into a mess.

And, the bankruptcy fears Council’s face according to their own s114 Officers are largely due to the absence of a freedom of contract between the actual contracting authority and the provider’s who will be in receipt of an aggregated contract value across a number of Council’s way in excess of anyone’s permission to make; the notion of ‘The Meaning of the Child’ doesn’t exist in this scenario other than as a risk escalation exercise to ratchet up the costs.

Any scrutiny function will inevitably get diluted and distorted being based on and subject nothing more than a spurious word of mouth assurance that the Purchasing Organisations will have done the job of providing adequate safeguarding through nonexistent due diligence. Great, eh!

The independence and agency of the IRO’s will be tested to the max; the veracity of adherence with our Code of Ethics tested like never before, perhaps?