by
Rowan Dickman
Here
I am. Nearly 30 years of service as a Residential Care Worker.
I thought I had seen it, done it, and at long last could wear
the T-shirt, but not a bit of it.
After
ten long years of campaigning for a regulated and professional
care service, it seems that the Government are genuinely putting
in place statute law, systems and bodies, that will enable the
care service to become a professional, safe, and well regulated
service.
At
this point I should be able to think about my pension, slippers
and walks by the sea. However, I am not totally convinced that
the path ahead is going to be easy-going and hazard free, so that
coal face workers, such as myself still need to be involved in
making sure that their service evolves into a workable model.
Good
Initiatives
Please
don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I feel very positive
about many of the most recent initiatives. For many years, practitioners
in the service have been campaigning for changes that would safeguard
children and young people and develop a care service that would
be safe and professional. For many of us who have been involved
in trying to bring about change, we have felt that this could
only be achieved if we have a joined up service and a governing
body that could oversee this and maintain a quality of standards.
To
a degree this path has been embarked on, with the development
of the National Care Standards Commission and the General Social
Care Council, who between them can set standards, register staff
and ensure that a quality of standards is maintained through inspection.
These bodies along with the Government’s new Green Paper
Every Child Matters should help us realize our long awaited aims
and objectives. However, the recent events in Soham have put a
big dent in my enthusiasm and expectations for the service in
the future.
The
Same Mistakes
The
mistakes that were made in the Soham case and one of the opening
comments in the Green Paper referring to the events leading to
the death of Victoria Climbie bear striking similarities, “Poor
co-ordination; a failure to share information; the absence of
anyone with a strong sense of accountability.” We would
do well to look at these mistakes and learn from them, as at the
present time they could easily happen again.
Abusive
behaviour towards children and young people by those that work
with them happens on two levels: first, through ignorance, thus
resulting in bad practice and a poor quality service. Whilst I
feel that more could be achieved to enhance training on many levels
particularly for those care workers who are unqualified and have
little or no professional identity, much has been achieved in
the last few years.
The
development of the National Vocational Qualifications Level Three
and training initiatives from TOPPS have made a real difference,
and as long as new initiatives continue to be developed and the
present content of material is regularly monitored, then good,
safe and professional practice should take place, so that I am
less concerned about abuse through bad practice.
The
Problem of Data
Secondly,
there is the problem of premeditated behaviour, and this is where
many of my concerns still lie.
In
April 2001 I wrote an article Making Care Provision Safe.
In this article I pointed out the dangers of putting a great deal
of reliance on criminal records obtained from the police national
computer and referred to the second report of the Select Committee
on Home Affairs on the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau.
The report highlighted possible deficiencies in the accuracy of
the information in the Police National Computer and especially
the application that the Bureau would use called Phoenix. The
Committee made reference to The Home Office Police and Research
Group’s report (1998) on data quality of Phoenix and went
on to say:
“The report made clear that the introduction of Phoenix
and the move to the creation and the maintenance of records by
local forces rather than a central point has had a significant
impact on overall data quality. The report identified a number
of significant problems regarding the timeliness, accuracy and
completeness of Phoenix records.”
The
Committee also highlighted a report from the Chief Inspector of
Constabulary published July 2000, which showed that crime record
error rates were between 15 and 65%.
I
suppose it could be argued that these concerns were raised some
time ago, thus having little or no relevance to present day issues.
However, given the failure for accurate information to be passed
between relevant police forces in the Soham case, and the complete
failure of the vetting system to highlight a potential danger,
I would suggest that those early comments, which have been largely
ignored, are worryingly prophetic.
The
Green Paper
This
is when I stop and think about where we are now. On looking back
at those opening remarks in the Green paper - “Poor co-ordination,
a failure to share information and the absence of anyone with
a strong sense of accountability”, - I would have to say
we have not come any where near far enough.
Whilst
the Green Paper seeks to address poor co-ordination by developing
a joined-up service under the umbrella of the DfES (a move that
I fully support), this in itself will be a mammoth task. There
are a large number of professional groups within the care sector
who have already established their own professional identities.
There are also many workers who have little or no professional
identity, such as residential care workers. In combining these
groups many of those workers who have a professional identity
have already expressed a concern that their identity and standards
will be eroded away.
The
Need to be Joined-up
In
my view the only way of establishing a multi-disciplinary and
joined-up work force is through a governing body which workers
from all disciplines can identify with but which also recognizes
the specialism, expertise and professional identity of each group.
Ironically, because I have always worked in residential schools,
my governing body have been the DfES. However, as a care worker,
my priorities and identity are probably more akin to Social Services
and I can identify with the concerns of workers based within Social
Services Departments.
The
GSCC are probably best placed to take on this role, as they have
already produced the Codes of Conduct and are in the process of
establishing a registration scheme, although this will take some
time to achieve. However, whichever body takes on this role, they
must have a high profile, an identity that all workers can relate
to and most importantly a strong sense of accountability. It is
only through accountability that mistakes can be recognized and
lessons learnt, thus enabling staff to accept change and still
feel safe at the same time.
So
far in this piece of work I think I have been very measured and
tried to create a feeling of positive realism. However, when it
comes to “a failure to share information”, this is
where I become totally frustrated and disillusioned with our present
situation. At the risk of playing the same old record, let me
remind people of the past and where we are now, and if on the
way I upset certain people, I am unrepentant.
Over
the last decade the care sector has been beset by a number of
cases of both premeditated abuse, and abuse through bad practice.
In response, the Government and the care sector have looked at
a variety of initiatives which would work towards safeguarding
children and young people. Arguably one of the most important
initiatives was the tracking and monitoring of any adults who
would be working directly with children and young people.
At
the time, many of us who worked in the sector felt that there
should be a central database tracking all workers who would be
registered after having undergone a thorough series of checks.
It was also felt that this data and the registration scheme should
be kept by the care service who had the expertise to be able to
maintain standards.
The
Problems of IT
In
response to this the Government established the Criminal Records
Bureau. I am sure that the Government meant well. However, I can’t
say that this has been the most successful decision. As I mentioned
earlier, concerns were expressed about the reliability of the
Police National Computer and the ability of the Criminal Records
Bureau to manage the information technology.
Interestingly,
in the same report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, the
Commissioner for Data Protection, Mrs. France said, “ There
is importance in making sure that input is accurate, that there
are not large time-lags, that it is understood that all data are
needed, [including] things which might not seem important, …
like a post code”. Mrs. France also went on to say, “
If the people inputting it (the data) do not really understand
the value of it at the other end of the process, then there is
a problem”.
As
the inquiry into the Soham case gets underway, I hope those prophetic
observations made over three years ago will be taken into account,
as it could be argued that if they had been heeded then, Huntley
might never have been employed, but where does this leave the
care service?
Keeping
out the Unsuitable
As
a care manger in a residential school I have a number of obligations.
One of these obligations is to ensure that the staff that I employ
to work with the children are safe, responsible, able and professional
people and that they are who they say they are.
I
have recently read through the DfES consultation paper on the
draft revision of child protection guidance in schools, LEAs,
governing bodies, FE institutions and their corporation in England.
which I feel is a very good document in general. However, the
paper states that one of the shared objectives should be to “prevent
unsuitable people working with children”.
As
I said before, we have made encouraging steps with the establishment
of the GSCC, the National Care Standards Commission and a base
line qualification for care workers. However, as a potential employer,
I have grave concerns with the present framework for recruiting
staff and as a care worker with the lack of a central governing
body which is accountable and can bring together a joined-up service.
As
an employer, I am being instructed to use a system that was shown
to have flaws over three years ago and is subject to an inquiry
at the present time. The concerns that were raised in Home Affairs
Select Committee meeting have now become reality. Is the information
on the Police National Computer accurate? Is the information shared?
Can the CRB manage the information technology? And when much of
the vetting is sent to another country, do the staff inputting
the data understand the value of it?
Fears
for the Future
For
me, none of these questions has been answered yet, but despite
these concerns we cling on to a flawed system and are not fully
able to safeguard the children and young people whom we should
be protecting.
As
a residential care worker, I am very aware for the need for good
co-ordination between services, and I am also aware for the need
for a governing body to bring these services together as a cohesive
group and to act as an accountable body. In reality, as a residential
care worker, I am not part of registration scheme, I do not have
an identity in a professional group, and whilst we endeavour to
co-ordinate with a number of external agencies, in reality we
work within an insular environment.
I
have not meant this to be a negative piece of work, but rather
a need to express my fears about certain aspects of the service.
The GSCC and the National Care Standards Commission get my full
support and praise, but as I sit here watching the latest rosy,
muddled and unrealistic advert for recruiting care workers, it
underlines the need for the service to take charge of its future
and an accountable body to take a lead.
I
hope someone takes into account the mistakes of the past and is
brave enough to make necessary changes, rather than having to
go through this painful process again, and more importantly exposing
future children to this unnecessary risk.
