The starkest difference between those heady ECM days and the biggest ongoing challenge is money. Government funding and grants were readily available not only to implement ECM but to trial new preventative initiatives, we had an abundance of family support and youth workers, children's centres had bulging toy cupboards and our social workers had optimism that they could make real change for children.
Since then councils have seen our funding evaporate. In order to protect spend on statutory services councils have had to make some really tough choices. There remains so much financial uncertainty - indeed the only certainty is that there is no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. The Children Act set out the right of every child to grow up in their own family, but it also ensured that this right was balanced against the paramountcy of the welfare of the child.
Progress has been partial and piecemeal. Secondly, adoption has dominated the agenda since , reinforced in , but this will not help the majority of children in care as most eventually return home. I find myself wondering where the deep, life changing commitments from government are?
Despite the default narrative that children in care generally have poor outcomes, there is important evidence that suggests the opposite with regards to educational outcomes for example. We must do this with understanding and compassion and of course as adults we have to listen, guide and protect them too.
The post-Seebohm expansion created social services departments in but in spite of the prominence of grassroots community work, a legacy from the sixties, the prevailing view was still that professionals knew best. And in the first national conference for children in care was convened by NCB. Chairing child protection case conferences in the s we began to involve parents — considered radical, to the extent that some professionals refused to participate when parents were present!
More recently we have seen the emergence of a co-production movement, with people as partners in their own care and shaping services: it would now be unthinkable to make decisions about a child in care without engaging them; and older care experienced people are also finding their voice. But debates around both Brexit and climate change are a stark reminder that children have a greater stake in our future and should have more say, including the vote at After 20 years involving young people in the appointment of senior staff, I came to the view that we could dispense with the rest of the process — the young people always got it right.
We need to recognise the wisdom of the young as well as the power of the voice of people with direct experience. We fail to listen to them at our peril. The Children Act set out a new way of working with children and their families. In a DCS it implied a controller of cross agency levers to be used to introduce and foment change and improvement in services to protect and support children. That said, I question whether we have manged to deliver it sufficiently.
Significantly, resources have been a factor leading to this but not the only or most critical reason. Too often a DCS could pull a lever only to discover it was not connected to anything. There was no compelling authority which meant the levers would work. Other deeper, cultural levers were in play:. So, many directors have done a great job of influencing and persuading decision makers in other agencies — but once this approach ran out of space, the same old cultural problems re-emerged.
I am optimistic — a counter cultural alternative is breaking out! It has a focus on practice leaders and improvement, and it has and is generating new and more effective models of cross agency working at operational level.
The Children Act , aimed to deliver wholesale, sustainable improvement in a child protection system that was operating sub-optimally, and tackle inequalities for cohorts of children facing social and economic exclusion. ECM was visionary, evidence-driven and, crucially, was supported by a Treasury that understood the importance of long term, targeted investment in children if you want to change their outcomes.
Looking back I believe there were three factors that had a fundamental impact on us falling short in our ambition for children. The first was that we adopted the wrong theory of change. This veneration of one-dimensional indicators compounded the second impediment to lasting progress: the rise in influence of Ofsted increasingly arrogant and dogmatic from its creation, but out of control from If there was ever a better example of the medicine killing the patient, I have yet to see it, and its legacy of forcing compliance with models that have no evidence base is still with us.
The third factor? The coalition government which recklessly pulled money out of the system from day one and legislated to atomise local systems as a political priority at the earliest opportunity. The Children Act is unique. No other country has adopted such a clear and unequivocal attention to the best interest of every child. The Act established a step change in our societal attitude to children placing them at the heart of all our thinking.
The amendment built on this basic premise in an exciting and creative way and I am proud and privileged to have been one of the architects of these changes. The Act heralded a clear and determined focus on where the responsibility for children in a local area rests and that is with the DCS. Every Child Matters was the ambition and that must be the guiding principle for us all. Great strides have been made, however, changes introduced in via the Academies Act undoubtably had a real impact.
The ambitions for children were watered-down to some extent, with the present approach not fully recognising the importance of every single individual child — their unique and key contribution, whatever their circumstances, to our collective good. This links directly to the co-operation duties and to the duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children on local authorities, other bodies and individual service providers Local Safeguarding Children Boards Sections Children's services authorities must establish Local Safeguarding Children Boards LSCB to replace area child protection committees with statutory membership from 'Board partners'.
Partners are those identified above, plus the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the governors of any secure training centre or prison which ordinarily detains children. There is a duty of co-operation between the children's services authority and Board partners.
The purpose of LSCBs is to co-ordinate the work of Board partners for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and to ensure effectiveness. Two or more children's services authorities may decide to form a joint LSCB.
Regulations may require the appointment of other relevant individuals or organisations, and Boards can also make co-options Children and young people's plans Section 17 Children's services authorities must produce a plan setting out the authority's strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and those young people for whom they will be responsible under the general duty to co-operate Director of Children's Services and Lead Member Sections 18 and 19 Children's services authorities must appoint a director of children's services to be accountable for all local authority children's education and social services and any services for children provided on behalf of the NHS under section 31 of the Health Act which provides for local authorities and the NHS to pool budgets, provide integrated services and lead commissioning of services.
Children's services authorities must designate a lead member for the arrangements covered by the post of director of children's services A framework for inspection and joint area reviews Sections Joint area reviews will take place, to evaluate the extent to which children's services improve the well-being of children in the area.
The framework for inspections will be designed in consultation by the Chief Inspector of Schools and include the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Inspecting bodies have a duty of co-operation for the purposes of inspections and reviews.
The process for reviews, whether universal or in a specific area, will be triggered by a request to the relevant inspectorates from the Secretary of State, who may also specify the nature of the review. Reviews will include an evaluation of the quality of services, and how partner organisations are working together. Regulations will apply to the process and arrangements for reviews, and have been expanded to allow for changes in statutory inspection regimes New powers of intervention in failing authorities Section 50 Powers under the Education Act to secure proper performance of local education authorities' functions will be extended to cover children's social services functions A duty to promote the educational achievement of looked after children Section 52 The duty of authorities as corporate parent has been extended to include a requirement to promote the educational achievement of looked after children, and will apply when, for example, placement decisions are made.
This duty will commence on 1 July Ascertaining children's wishes Section 53 Local authorities will be required to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children, through amendments to the Children Act , when making decisions about services for a child in need s.
Authorities will also be required to ascertain wishes and feelings when investigating the circumstances of children at risk of harm s. It introduced comprehensive change concerning the welfare of children.
Traditionally, parents were seen to have rights over their children, but the Act reversed this stating that children had free standing right. These welcome child centred principles remain at the heart of all local authorities do. It is important to celebrate the successes of the Acts.
0コメント