The way in which a council deals with the vulnerable for which it responsible is a measure of its effectiveness and of its humanity. None are more vulnerable than children whose family or other circumstances are such that they suffer or are at risk of suffering serious injury or harm.
That injury may be physical or sexual abuse or neglect. Any of these may be devastating, even fatal for a child. The baby shaken by an angry parent may suffer a bleed to the brain resulting in death or permanent impairment. A child in the care of drug dependent parent may be malnourished, even starved. A children left to their own devices may fall prey to sexual predators and suffer lasting physical and emotional harm. These are unpalatable but undeniable facts.
A council’s Children’s Services Dapartment and its social workers is responsible for these children. Its job is working with a child’s carers to eliminate risks, removing a child to the safety of fostering or adoption and safequarding children from abuse. Ultimately there should be one guiding principle; the welfare of the child.
Two years ago Sandwell’s Childrens ‘Service was found to be Inadequate. Put bluntly it was not doing its job properly. The head of service was suspended and later resigned. A private company were brought in and cost over £1million to advise and monitor.
The Service was inspected by Ofsted again in January and February 2015. A few days before the inspection started, the Express and Star had assured readers that the department was “turning corner” and headlined “Praise for progress of childcare services” Sadly, the Ofsted report disagreed. The council caused the report to be suppressed until after the May council elections.
It has recently been published.
Yet again the verdict is Inadequate.
The Details
In respect of children who need help and protection the report found the service inadequate and that children at risk do not “get the right level of help and support they need to keep them safe”
It found “there are widespread and serious failures that create or leave children harmed or at risk of harm”
It found that “more needs to be done” to protect “children who are at risk of being sexually exploited”. Not surprising as the report also found the council did not “fully understand the scale and prevalence of child sexual exploitation in Sandwell”
On this basis Sandwell could easily become another Rotherham.
Regarding children being looked after by the service, it was judged as “requires improvement”, one grade above inadequate. Too many children had a succession of social workers which meant delays, difficulties in securing the confidence of children and problems meeting their needs.
The leadership, management and governance of the service was again found “inadequate”
The Response.
If anyone expected heads to hang in shame at Sandwell council, then think again. Instead the Council has refused to take responsibility and has called some of the usual Labour party hacks to defend it.
This time according to council leader Cllr. Cooper there will be no sackings. So the head of service remains and more importantly Cllr. Hackett retains his Cabinet post and the special responsibility payments that go with it.
It seems that Sandwell has another expert who is not in complete agreement with the report.
The Chairman of Sandwell Safeguarding Children Board is quoted as saying “Over the past six months I have been heartened by the strong commitment of the local authority and partner agencies to improve safeguarding in Sandwell. There are good foundations in place; a stable and increasingly confident workforce; an innovative multi-agency safeguarding hub that is designed to ensure that children in need of care and protection get the right support at the right time and positive partnership working to tackle child sexual exploitation and domestic abuse”
Where do they get people who speak like this?
Little wonder safeguarding and leadership were found inadequate.
No chance of a resignation there then!!
Old John Spellar MP for Warley is wheeled out “This comes in a period of constrained resources. They do not seem to take account of this factor” he groans. Well, there are “constrained resources” all over the country but very few councils whose childrens’ services are consistently branded inadequate.
Then, straight from his cave comes the Union man. A Mr. Rabaiotti, from Unison, complains that a private firm where “profit is the driving force” was brought in by Sandwell council to help when the service was previously found inadequate. Does he deliberately miss the point that the service was inadequate before that firm was involved and that its work was chiefly advisory.
This time excuses are not enough.