David Lane - Editor Second Thoughts on Laming When our last issue came out, the Laming Report had just been published, and we commented that the recommendations made good sense. On re-reading them, they still do. We need sound systems, properly implemented, if child deaths and bad practice are to be avoided. We also agree (except for their mis-spellings) with the response of the Association of Directors of Social Services which we are publishing in this issue. One of the ADSS’s comments did, however, trigger a train of thought. David Behan was arguing for proper support for social services for children, an adequate infra-structure. It makes good sense, especially in view of the under-resourcing in the past. It is only when social workers are trained, professionally supervised, properly managed, monitored and inspected that we can expect satisfactory standards. On the other hand, the current Conservative criticisms of the Labour Government’s funding of the National Health Service need to be borne in mind. They decry all the extra money put in to the NHS, and say it is being wasted on management and bureaucracy. While we support proper financing for child protection, we do need to make sure that the services are working efficiently and offer value for money. It used to be said that to keep one soldier in the front line you needed eight other people in support roles. What is the current ratio for different sorts of services for children and young people? Do we know how much direct contact time a social worker now has with children and young people during a typical week? And how much time do they spend in meetings, on the phone, filling in forms, training, and so on? All these things are necessary, but is the balance right? If you add in a quotient for the overhead costs of providing training, inspection, supervision and management, how much per minute does it cost to provide child contact time by social workers? There is a real danger of systems getting top-heavy. There is no substitute for direct contact between social workers and their clients, especially the children and young people, as it is through direct contact that social workers can listen, problems are identified, matters are sorted out, relationships built, and families helped to resolve the difficulties they face. All the rest of the systems should essentially be seen as supportive. In Homestart, for example, there is substantial contact between the volunteers and the families needing help, with a modest outlay on the part of qualified staff offering support. In residential care, the level of interaction between staff and children can be very high, but it is not cheap. In fieldwork, there is a real risk that the more systems such as those advocated by Lord Laming are introduced, commendable though they be, the more social workers will have to sit at desks in order to complete records, liaise with other professionals and ensure that the whole bureaucratic process is kept going to the required standards. They must not be expected to do these things at the expense of their contact with the children. Do You Want Your Say? Immediately after this Editorial, there is a letter from Keith White, the Chair of Caring for Children. It is aimed at CfC members, but it is an open letter. In it, Keith says : Our vision is that carers should have a consistent and reliable means of voicing their concerns and ideas so that the care of children and young people improves. We are an independent organisation, not tied to any government or larger body, and we can therefore be fearless and radical in our proposals. If you are concerned about the way things are going and wish to help to shape future thinking, why not join CfC? Then you can have your say. Click here for an application form.