If bureaucracy is the issue then deal with that, do not hand over to private or ‘not for profit’ ( why are they called that?? they ARE making a profit or they wouldn’t be doing it!)
It IS the beginning of privatisation and any knowing or naïve involvement in such discussion will only hasten it…………………

Much as this may not please everyone to hear – especially Children’s Social Workers – I do agree that some amount of change and innovation is needed. There have been problems in Children’s Services for far too long. These are not necessarily the fault of workers themselves, but rather reflect issues caused by unnecessary bureaucracy, or by outdated ideas. I would argue that in Children’s Social Work – as in many other areas of Social Work – problems are created by ineffective systems, or by the pressure of things like funding constraints – but which impact negatively upon the way the job is done.

Of paramount importance is the need to address things that are causing IMMEDIATE and very obvious problems in ALL areas of Social Work across the board. These include making provision for increased funding of Social Care so that organizations are better resourced and more fully staffed. Such a measure could have the knock-on effect of improving working conditions – paying for better office facilities, updating IT systems, and so forth. It could also mean that more money is available for staffing – which means less agency workers, more continuity of care, better strained staff, more availability of training, and perhaps most importantly REDUCED CASELOADS because there are an adequate number of staff to share the workload. Things like this need to be done not just in Children’s Social Work, but in ALL areas of Social Work including Adult’s, Mental Health, Learning Disability, Elderly. INCREASED FUNDING is vital!

Then there is perhaps the issue of addressing legislation. If the argument behind the clause in the bill is the suggestion that some legislation leads to “red tape” that prevents things getting done, or makes things harder to do, then surely – rather than just asking for “innovation” in a way that suggests Local Authorities may just take matters into their own hands (which could be risky, and which is apparently what is causing so much consternation) – ought we not to be considering a thorough REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION? I understand that there may be objectors who say this is too hard to do – but research is commissioned all the time. Could researchers not be commissioned to carry out a review of legislation, along the lines of a literature review? My feeling is that it is vitally important, now, to understand and to be clear as to what legislation DOES work, in terms of providing and facilitating beneficial outcomes for vulnerable children. Meanwhile, we also need to make ourselves aware of the legislation that does not work so well, or not at all; as well as any legislation that conflicts with other pieces of law. Alas, I do feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to trial an approach to overturning or scrapping ineffective legislation that involved directly impacting upon the lives of vulnerable kids. A literature review styled study would NOT directly affect kids, but it would look at what various pieces of legislation are meant to be doing, and whether they do it.

My feeling – and apologies if I am mistaken – is that what is of greatest concern in respect of this clause in the bill is that in suggesting a need for “innovation”, and “de-regulation”, it risks opening the door to use of vulnerable children as experimental “guinea-pigs”. In other words, methods of working with them, and providing care for them, that are currently completely untried and untested could simply be brought in at will, with the children and their families having no recourse to existing legislation, or to any other form of safeguard should things go wrong. Perhaps the MAJOR problem that I am seeing, here, is one which involves both ETHICS and ACCOUNTABILITY. Whilst there may be nothing inherently wrong with innovative practice, the issue, here, is:
a) That we need to be clear that, if trials of “innovation” involve RESEARCH using vulnerable children and their families, then this research will be ethical, and will involve the gaining of informed consent from families involved, and (if the kids are not old enough to give full consent) at least ASSENT from any children involved.
b) That any Local Authority which will be testing the clause as a Government “Partner in Practice” will remain fully an absolutely accountable to the children and families with which it works, no matter what new and “innovative” practices are tried out. This is because “innovation” carries with it risks, which must be balanced with safeguards. The Government plus its “Partners in Practice” need to be clear as to what steps will be taken should “innovation” go wrong.

The problem with the WHOLE of this bill, and not just this clause alone, is that there has been little transparency, and rather an air of secrecy and defensiveness surrounding it. If the people whom it is most to affect are not permitted to have their say, to be heard, and truly listened to, then it is little surprise when they react negatively. There is nothing wrong – in theory – with the belief that Social Work staff need to be assisted to help vulnerable children in the most effective way possible. However, IF the ways in which they are to help are NOT fully, and openly discussed – with the COMPLETE involvement of all stakeholders – then in practice, such innovative views become problematic.

The sad fact is that several high-profile scandals lead to the public belief that Children’s Social Services had problems – that it did not always work effectively. The unfortunate truth is that this may be the case. However, in considering just WHY something does not work effectively, we should consider EVERY angle. The problems faced by Children’s Social Services are NOT simply for lack of “innovation”. As highlighted above, lack of funding and resources has lead in some cases to working conditions that would make it pretty hard for ANYONE to do a good job. Before we even start to consider the need for “innovation”, obvious problems like excessive caseloads, hot-desking and suchlike need to be resolved – PERMANENTLY. Then, maybe, it is right to address “innovation”.

Even so, “innovation” is NOT simply about de-regulation. The starting point in terms of understanding should be that it was believed existing legislation was there for a purpose. If not, then WHY does it exist? SOME legislation clearly DOES serve a beneficial purpose, in that it safeguards vulnerable children. However, the safeguarding of children is a complex process – one that is NOT cut-and-dried. Sometimes, the application of legislation can make a process appear to be more lengthy and drawn out than it needs to be. A good example is fostering and adoption. Many people complain that it takes too long for a child to be fostered or adopted. Now, that may be so, and indeed that IS a frustrating situation. However, checks of potential foster and adoptive carers ARE necessary, because the last thing that is wanted is for the vulnerable child to leave one dysfunctional home, only to end up in another because the correct checks were not done.

To suggest “innovations” such as removing assessment requirements for family and friend carers is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE and risks placing children in danger. We CANNOT for one moment make sweeping assumptions that a family member, or friend, of a parent who is to have their child cared for would automatically make a safe and appropriate carer. Often, in families where abuse and neglect is taking place – carried out by the parents of the vulnerable child – other family members and friends know, or suspect, the abuse. They may COLLUDE to hide the abuse, or they may even be ABUSERS themselves. In cases such as these, it would be a HUGE RISK to place a vulnerable child with a family or friend carer, as the abuse may simply continue. Family and friend carers DO need to be assessed, because they are only human, and as such, could be unsuitable as carers – they could just as easily be irresponsible, abusive, or even paedophilic, as anyone else. Abusive families could easily choose to abuse such an “innovation” as this, deliberately seeking to have their children placed with family and friend carers of their request, who could simply permit abuse to continue, and allow abusers access to their kids.

Perhaps there is one method of seeking out “innovations” that has not been considered, but which could bear fruit… WHY has nobody asked vulnerable children and families what THEY think might help to improve Children’s Social Services? WHY not ask workers, too? I suspect that responses would highlight the problems of funding, resource and staffing cuts. However, this might help to shed light on what currently works, and can be built upon; and what does not.

My feeling is that the problem with this bill is that it seeks, somewhat randomly, though probably with good intent, to bring in sweeping changes well before any of the groundwork has been done. This groundwork is what is most important – before anything else takes place we need to know how existing legislation works, what is effective and what not. We need to appraise ourselves of the impact of budget cuts and associated staff and resource cuts. We need to know, at grass roots level, what working practices and procedures – what interventions – presently provide beneficial outcomes, and what do not. We need to know what bureaucracy is causing delays. Once we know all this, only THEN can we begin to discuss what changes to make. Only THEN can we fully begin to look for, and encourage “innovation”. FIRST, there has to be a firm “bedrock” upon which to build it.