[North Wales] [What the Papers Said] [The Issues] [Letters]
[North Wales]
[What the Papers Said] [The
Issues] [Letters]
|
||||
A description of current
practice by From the days of its opening, Prospects has been subject to rigorous and extensive regulation. We are aware that the level of such regulation in North Wales is much greater than in other areas of the country. Whilst this has left us feeling, that, on times, it seems like living under a microscope, it does lead us to suggest that in light of this level of regulation, North Wales is actually now one of the safest places in the country in terms of residential child care. The Waterhouse report is an extensive and detailed account of a period in time when a lot went wrong with residential child care. However, it makes no reference to what is presently happening both in terms of recognising what has changed, developed and moved on whilst disregarding the impact that this lack of recognition has on all those currently involved – both adults and young people. One major difference is the size and scale of establishments. Prospects now is registered to care for nine children and young people with a minimum of seven residential staff cover on duty at any one time. As a local authority children’s home, 24 children and young people were accommodated with around four staff on duty at any one time. The purpose of this brief paper is to draw on some of the criticisms outlined in the conclusions of the report and comment on what we believe to be the situation now. 1. Complaints Procedures a) Young People “In Clwyd there were no complaints procedures in any of the residential establishments that were examined by Waterhouse, between 1974 and 1991 when the major incidents of abuse occurred”. Following earlier links with both A.S.C. and N.Y.A.S. Prospects has, since the 1st November 1999, entered into a formal agreement with the Wrexham Children’s Rights Service which involves a free phone helpline as well as a rota of visits by advocates to both flats at Prospects and to DEWIS. Prospects continues to obtain, and make available, copies of the complaints procedure from a young person’s local authority including the identification of a named Complaints Officer. These procedures are in addition to, as well as being linked with, the internal complaints procedure details of which are provided to children and young people in a specific complaints leaflet. This information is also contained within a Young Persons’ Information Booklet. Opportunities that now exist for children/young people to raise issues and/or concerns are – - Internal Complaints Procedures - Young People’s Meetings - Young People’s Forums - External local authority complaints procedures - Independent Advocacy Schemes - Helplines e.g. Child Line, Advocacy Schemes b) Adults “There were no procedures in any of the establishments to enable members of staff to voice matters of concern and in many of these complaints by staff were strongly discouraged”. Prospects has always striven to create an open culture where whistle blowing is encouraged and supported. Other opportunities for staff to raise concerns are Supervision; Consultative Forum; Team Meetings or by approaching one or both of the Co-Directors. In addition, written guidance has been issued to staff regarding the routes to take outside of the organisation should concerns be in respect of a Senior Manager i.e. Registration and Inspection; Child Protection or the Police. 2. Recruitment “There were many breaches of approved practice in the appointment of residential staff where several members of staff were recruited informally, without references and without any adequate checks upon the records held by Police, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and Employment prior to appointment being confirmed”. The current practice and procedure within Prospects is that all relevant checks i.e. three references (one of which must be last or most recent employer); Police Checks; DoH and DfEE checks (where applicable) are taken up prior to an offer of employment being confirmed. As Co-Directors, we also reserve the right to contact any previous employer whether offered as a reference or not. All recruitment and selection procedures are influenced by the recommendations of the Waterhouse Report. Prospects also recognises that safeguarding the welfare of children and young people is not just about how staff are selected but how they are subsequently managed in terms of Supervision and Appraisal. 3. Training “Training opportunities and practice guidance for residential care staff were grossly inadequate and no instruction was given to them in proper resources of physical restraint”. Prospects provides a comprehensive training and professional development programme which includes a specific input of training for staff in the management of challenging behaviour and the use of restraint. The programme prepared for 2000 is particularly detailed and comprehensive. A target has been set for all staff employed at the end of 1999 to complete Core Training by the end of year 2000. This is based on an Audit undertaken during the latter part of 1999. In addition all Managers (with the exception of the Head of Education and Finance Manager) will have completed the NEBS Certificate in Management by the end of 2000. Practice Guidance should also be received via the Practice Handbook and Induction Programme. 4. National Vocational Qualifications "All residential child care staff were largely untrained and unqualified or in- experienced in dealing with the special problems and needs of disturbed children". Prospects, is an Approved NVQ Assessor Centre. All staff employed are registered for NVQ – as a condition of employment. A target has been set that by March 2001 all staff will be fully qualified. However it is anticipated that over 50% of current staff group will have completed Level III by end of year. Despite a significant level of investment i.e. over £60,000 in the past five years, as well as equally substantial levels of support, the level of progress in NVQ has not, in anyway, been repaid to the level of achievement originally anticipated i.e. within 18 months - 2 years. After nearly six years’ involvement in NVQ only two staff currently have achieved the qualification. This situation must change dramatically in order to achieve our target of having a fully qualified staff team (all areas) by March 2001. This coincides with the proposed time scale announced by the Government of all residential child care staff having NVQ Level III by March 2002, although there is a suggestion that this could be fast tracked to 2001. The expectation is that all candidates will have clear targets set which are monitored by Assessors who also need to take responsibility for promoting the importance of NVQ and reporting, on a monthly basis, the progress of their individual candidates. Certain candidates who have made no progress to date will have support withdrawn. 5. Recording of Events and Incidents "Recording of events and incidents within residential establishments was frequently of poor quality and on occasions, knowingly false". Recording is looked at closely during inspection and is also reviewed on a monthly basis using our own internal Quality Assurance System. Reports are written of every incident which includes details of the debriefing of adults and young people. Copies are routinely sent to Social Workers for their written comment/view of how the incident was managed. 6. Care Planning "The need for individual care plans was recognised generally as good social work practice throughout the period of the review but little evidence was found of them in use in Clwyd". Prospects has always maintained that each and every young person has an up to date and relevant care plan. The process of action planning, originated and developed by Prospects, continues to need further review and development, notably in terms of setting achievable targets which are clear and understandable by all, particularly by the young person whose involvement is vitally important. It is also expected that collaboration will exist with a commitment to develop further the process of joint care and education action planning. 7. Reviewing Process "There were deficiencies in the statutory reviewing process for each child where too often reviews were a paper exercise carried out without consultation with the child". It is important that reviews continue to incorporate full consultation with young people and as such there should be an ongoing commitment to ensure that the number of adults attending a review are kept to a minimum based on those people who have a direct contribution to make to the plan for that young person. It continues to be a priority to reach a point where review reports are prepared in advance, giving time for consultation and amendment as well as allowing for them to be distributed by post prior to the review taking place. 8. Leaving Care "There were no adequate arrangements for preparing children leaving care". Our own Outreach resource has grown and developed in response to the needs of certain individual young people who need ongoing support whilst making the transition from group care to a position of a greater level of self sufficiency living within the community in a supported and developmental way. A further development has been to formulate a more comprehensive living and social skills programme part of which is run in conjunction with the leaving programmes within the school. 9. Education "Within the period covered by the report the provision of education was inadequate in all the local authority community homes and in the private residential homes within the educational facilities". Prospects has a registered school with a specific and qualified school team. Prospects is committed to continuing to strive to develop the quality and range of educational opportunities offered to young people. This should include a further development of the network of resources and facilities external to Prospects, as well as the development of the range of physical and human resources available within the educational provision both at Prospects and DEWIS. 10.Visiting by Social Workers "Visiting by field Social Workers was, in too many cases, were both infrequent and irregular. In general the quality of contact was poor". Prospects lays down expectations for the frequency of social worker contact i.e. one visit every 6 weeks, in the Service Agreement. This is already in excess of the expectations referred to by Waterhouse, and should be incorporated in the care plan and commented on in the review reports prepared and presented by Prospects. If difficulties and issues arise around the level of social worker contact then this is something which would be raised and pursued by the relevant manager. Concluding Thought The purpose of this brief paper has been to recognise what has changed and developed within residential care in North Wales during the latter period considered by the Inquiry, and whilst the Inquiry was sitting, ironically only a few miles away. Whilst the Inquiry was a necessary process, it has a definite historical context, and its publication at this time has had a damaging impact upon those who continue to be committed to working with severely damaged young people who continue to require and need residential care. This has been our attempt to start the process of raising the profile of residential care within North Wales by acknowledging progress, development and good practice. |
||||
|
THE REPORT IN DETAIL For the full conclusions
of the Report and further information and comment, see the Guardian
network at |
|
Most of the papers made the Waterhouse Report a major item of news on the front page, as well as giving fuller details inside and offering editorial views in a leading article. Here is a selection of the main papers. The Daily
Mail The paper gave over a further five pages of text to the story. First, there was a double spread entitled "40 monsters who must be found", with smaller sections on Sir Robert Waterhouse, the social services, the police and the recommendations. Unlike other papers, a story was also made of the influence of the Chester branch of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. The second double spread focused on those who had been abused, with the headings "A life sentence for the victims", "My tormented childhood by the boy known as Number 28", "Unimaginable horrors that were just too much to bear" and "In my dreams , I hear the screams". The text spoke in detail of the abuse, and there were photos of the victims, some of whom had since committed suicide. The last page was headed "Naming names, the evil men at the centre of the web of abuse" with a brief account of Alison Taylor's role as whistleblower. The main editorial also focused on the Waterhouse Report. "For two decades, predatory paedophiles… got away with it because social workers and local politicians were too complacent and incompetent to notice what was going on. … Nobody listened. The children's stories were dismissed…" The Mail concluded that only time would tell whether Waterhouse's 72 recommendations would help to protect the vulnerable children in care. "But how many times have we been here before?" Altogether a very thorough piece of reporting, with plenty of detail. The Daily
Star All in all, the Star's coverage offered an interesting comment on the editor's view of the readership's level of interest in such matters. The Daily
Telegraph The Telegraph's leader (the
third, after ones about Mugabe and Sinn Fein) took an individual
line in three respects. First it attacked local authority residential
care : "Fortunately, the fashion for consigning children
in care to council-run homes does, finally, appear to be waning,
with many more now looked after by foster-parents." This
statement is not only sweeping, but failed to notice the risk
of abuse in foster care as well as residential care. Secondly,
it stated that "what this sorry affair shows, yet again,
is that local authorities are not, in general, good at looking
after the needs of children". The Express The front page report was carried over onto two clearly laid-out double spreads The first was entitled "A betrayal of the most vulnerable" and majored on four case studies of victims of abuse and a major piece on Alison Taylor, the whistleblower. In a balanced and forceful piece, she is quoted as saying "Child abuse is not recognised as being simply part of the spectrum of human behaviour and therefore a constant and ever-present threat". The report also quoted the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers which called for another 80 public inquiries, to match the current police investigations into abuse. The second double spread, headed "Exploitation on a wholesale scale" covered the abusers, the history of events and the recommendations. Further coverage included a long leader - the only one that day, an article by Christian Wolmar on "The culture of apathy that ruined so many lives", and a cartoon of three staring teddies, seeing, hearing and speaking no evil. Christian Wolmar is a Joseph Rowntree Foundation journalism fellow, writing a book on abuse in children's homes, and his article covered the other recent cases in Staffordshire, Cleveland, Orkney, Ayrshire and Leicestershire. The editorial was the hardest-hitting of the national papers, pointing out that after all the abuse and the cover-ups, the Inquiry, despite its £13 million costs and 500,000 word Report, failed to identify the names of those responsible, other than those convicted. It described this as "a betrayal of the high hopes that the full story would be told and the guilty parties identified". All in all, the Express reporting and commentary was very thorough, and is to be commended to anyone wanting to get the full facts in a single paper. The Financial
Times The possible take-over of Courtaulds, the Zimbabwe referendum and the possibility of China joining the G8 were all more important. The Guardian Next there was a double spread, including photographs. The key areas covered were the children's homes, headed "Refuges that turned into purgatory", the impact on the victims, with the headings "Haunted mother's legacy of fear and loathing", "Recalling life in the Colditz of care", and "I just hope this will protect future generations in care". A useful section gave questions and answers about the Report. Further on, there was an article by Christian Wolmar, a journalism research fellow, who pointed out that until twenty years ago, nearly all residential childcare workers were women, and that by contrast with the pattern of child abuse in the wider community, which consists mainly of men abusing girls, the pattern in residential care is primarily of men abusing boys. He argued against any knee-jerk reaction, and suggested that a sober analysis was needed of residential child care, taking account of other factors, such as poor educational achievements. The Guardian devoted its first leader to the Report and commented at length. The article summarises the report, noting that "The system was devoid of leadership, management or planning. No part of it escapes censure - social services, councillors, police or the Welsh Office." It notes the lack of impact of the earlier reports and comments that Waterhouse is exceptionally weak in defending the decision not to publish the Jillings Report. "He's no champion of the public right to know" said the leader, but then "Waterhouse has cleared the air." Finally, there are comments on the cost of the Inquiry against the poor investment in better services, on the improvements which the Government has in hand and on Alison Taylor's comment that child abuse is not going to disappear. The Independent On the next two pages, the Report is covered in detail. With pictures of the Inquiry team, Alison Taylor and the homes where the abuse happened, the text deals with the report's contents, Alison Taylor's role, the impact on Darren Laverty, one of the victims, and the views of child protection organisations. The Independent devoted its first leader to the Report, recording the cove-up and the process by which the Inquiry was established, giving itself a pat on the back for publishing the findings of an earlier report which led William Hague to set up the Waterhouse Inquiry. The leader spoke of the ignorance of senior managers, with paedophiles operating unpunished, and concluded "But this is not just a problem for Wales. Across Britain, vulnerable children are in danger. Those dangers need to be confronted head on." The Mirror The reporting throughout appeared to be thorough, accurate and balanced, a good example of direct tabloid writing. The Sun The message of the editorial is simple and clear. Headed "Lone voice" it reports that only Alison Taylor spoke out and was sacked. It concludes "The least we can do for the victims is hunt these fiends down and bring them to justice. Then throw away the key." The Times The Times was the only paper to give a full account of the parliamentary debate, mainly referring to the announcement of the Report's publication in the Commons, but also mentioning the Lords. The Times made the Report the subject of its main leader, headed "Avoidable abuse" and subheaded "Waterhouse's report must not join its predecessors on the shelf." The leader underlined the main messages of the Report, and emphasised that there were still weaknesses in the system. Proper qualifications were needed and the recommended pay review needed to be "on the top of Alan Milburn's in-tray". Children's commissioners and complaints officers were welcomed for urgent action, as "a signal that [the children's] voices will never again be disregarded in such a casual fashion". The Yorkshire
Post The leader moved from horror at the abuse to a condemnation of residential care, and thence to a call for more adoption and a slating of social workers who could halt the tortuous procedures at any time through subjective judgements about the weight of prospective adopters. It is a pity that such an important subject as the Waterhouse Report can be diverted into such trivia. |
|
The Waterhouse Report throws up a lot of issues, which will need to be debated for some time to come. Here is the opportunity for readers to contribute ideas and views. The Financial Cost The Waterhouse Report cost £13.5 million to produce, and this figure presumably does not include the cost of the six previous inquiries. Nor will it cover the money spent on reporters and observers attending the inquiry, civil servant time spent on preparing reactions, and so on. A further amount of £1.5 million is anticipated as the cost of insurance claims. Then there are all the costs of the court cases against the offenders, of keeping them in prison and of their likely reduced productivity on being discharged. The economic spin-offs of events such as this are extensive. Proper investment in the training and management of the services in the first place could have saved a lot of money, as well as preventing the suffering of the 650 victims. Listening to Survivors With such a large group of people who were victims of abuse in the homes in North Wales, there is an unprecedented opportunity to learn from people who have been through the hell of having no-one who will listen and take complaints seriously. The Waterhouse recommendations for a Children's Commissioner for Wales and for Complaints Officers in every authority are excellent, and overdue, but is there more we can learn? What would have made the difference as far as the victims were concerned? What more can we do now to make amends? - we can't undo the past, but there may be ways in which the experience can be used positively, at least to prevent its recurrence. Did Waterhouse get it Right? One of the tests of a Report which deals with conflicting views is to gauge the complaints about its fairness. In the case of the Waterhouse Report, the Bryn Estyn staff support group complained about "trial by ambush" alleging that the Report "made a mockery of the British judiciary's reputation for fair play. … The Treasury team appeared to have no interest in presenting the evidence in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, complainants' evidence was led sympathetically (even when such evidence was clearly fanciful) while alleged abusers were often subjected to hostile … cross-examination." On the other side, it was alleged that former victims had been grilled when giving evidence, while the abusers had not been asked obvious questions and had been let off lightly. On balance, these conflicting observations suggest that the Report must have been taking a middle line. However, it is possible to have a bad report which satisfies no-one. The real test will be the conclusions reached by the time the Report has been read thoroughly, digested and talked about. It will have been successful if the general conclusion is that it got the measure of the abuse, described and analysed it well, and came up with helpful and workable conclusions. Alison Taylor The only person to come out of the whole saga with a really positive image is Alison Taylor, who blew the whistle, not only once but time and again. She went to the top to make her points. She gathered information systematically. She sacrificed her career when the authorities disliked what she was saying. Understandably, her story has been seized upon in one newspaper after another, each with lengthy interviews or quotations. This is a subject which has the type of scandal on which tabloid journalism can thrive, but in all the papers which quote her, Alison offered balanced, insightful remarks, making telling points in a straightforward way and providing factual information. She deserves every credit. |