The media frenzy against social workers that started with the death of Baby P has missed the point. What’s needed is a measured review of the changes to children’s services and inspection practices
Three weeks into the new year and the media attention given to children’s social care continues unabated. None of it is good news.
From ‘Baby P’ to Shannon Matthews to the Sheffield teenagers repeatedly raped by their father, a press frenzy has built up that focuses unremittingly on social workers and their practices.
Most recently of all, attention has turned to Doncaster Council, where ministers have sent in a hit squad after the death of seven children.
Nationally, politicians have been swept along with the tidal wave of denigration of social work. From the prime minister to the leader of the opposition to the secretary of state for children, none could resist tabloid calls for professional heads to roll.
In recent weeks, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls seems to have taken a more measured approach, including the announcement of a programme of ‘intensive training for children’s services directors’. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is also setting up a ‘social work taskforce’ in the aftermath of the Baby P tragedy.
These moves are to be welcomed, but they still beg the question that is surely at the heart of these cases: the behaviour of the national inspectorate of children’s services, Ofsted.
At a time of trauma and fury, it might be expected that the inspectors would stay well grounded, deliberate and calm. However, Ofsted has damaged its credibility by getting caught up in the whirlpool of press, public and political vitriol.
Two examples will suffice. First, the inspectorate has been all over the place in its public statements about the number of children killed by, or dying through the neglect of, their carers. The numbers quoted initially showed a lack of understanding about the data Ofsted collects, including notifications of disabled children in care who died of unsuspicious natural causes and of adolescents who committed suicide alongside children who died from assault and neglect.
These statistics were later amended, but Ofsted is still citing figures that are much higher than those quoted, for example, by the NSPCC, whose data shows a slight reduction in non-accidental child deaths in the past few years.
Secondly, it is worrying how quickly, in relation to Baby P, the inspectorate reversed its views about the quality of leadership and practice in Haringey children’s services. It is not an acceptable excuse that the inspectorate relied overwhelmingly on self-assessment by the council. If that is what inspection has meant, we do not need an inspectorate. Let’s just have councils publishing their own statements and putting their own gloss on events.
We should be able to rely on a national inspectorate to report competently on service standards, raising policy, practice and resource concerns as necessary, but also recognising progress and achievements. If there are significant concerns about specific services, we would expect that these are identified early and action taken to ensure they are addressed.
When inspectors report publicly on their findings, those inspected and the public must have trust in their competence and credibility. Reports should be based on validated evidence that gives inspectors the means to take an informed and independent view.
And the inspectorate must promote service improvement, not just ensure minimum standards. The hit-and-run style of eats, shoots and leaves inspections is unnecessarily intimidating and often ill-informed. It is much more constructive for inspectors to build knowledge through continuing involvement with the services.
This should be a time for a more measured review of inspection practice. For example, was it wise to transfer responsibility for children’s social care services from the Commission for Social Care Inspection to Ofsted, whose experience and leadership is based largely on inspecting education and schools?
The post-Climbié report requirement that councils in England appoint directors of children’s services — the majority recruited from schools and education management — raises issues about management competence and expertise in these high-profile areas.
And are the new mammoth departments that have been introduced in over 10% of top-tier councils — combining all children’s and adult care services — really sustainable or sensible? Do they ensure that the chief officer is close enough to, and knows about, what is happening at the front line?
As the media frenzy diminishes, this is not a time for reflex or overly defensive reaction — but rather for more measured and managed action to address the concerns that have arisen both about children’s services and inspection in general.
Ray Jones is professor of social work at Kingston University and St Georges, University of London, and a former director of social services and of adult and community services
