Every Child Matters became the launch pad for the creation of new working practices that involve the integration of services through multi-agency working; including common assessments, information sharing and joint training. These integrated practices can be challenging to all agencies and individuals that are involved in supporting young people and their carers. Largely this is because of the different language that each agency uses. Every Child Matters tried to create a common language and core of skills and knowledge that would be required of anyone working with children and young people. However, this publication has not solved all of the problems with inter-professional practice. This is evident when evaluating the ‘Baby P’ tragedy where many years later it is evident that a lack of inter-professional communication was a main contributor to the tragic outcome.
“Everyone knew that Baby P was in danger. In eight months of abuse, he was seen no fewer than 60 times by health or .” (Jones, 2008)
There are many difficulties involved relating to inter-professional practice, not least that each service provider has different priorities. It goes without saying that the child is, and should be top of that priority list throughout each agency. But each service provider also has other professional responsibilities and duties which need to be adhered too such as gathering evidence and completing paperwork. For example my role within a residential care environment is very ‘hands on’ it is my responsibility to look after the primary care of a young person. I need to ensure that the environment that they live in is safe and that the child's care needs are met. During a child protection incident I would need to keep the young person safe and make them feel comfortable within their home setting. Whilst trying to accomplish this I need to risk assess everything the young person does and everywhere they go. My role is very child centred throughout the whole process. The police for example may be more focused on finding someone to prosecute in order to shut the case. After all their main job role is to investigate crime and protect the victim whilst ensuring the perpetrator is dealt with by the law with justifiable evidence. The police are also involved in safeguarding though. They sit on the local safeguarding board and are also involved within the community - trying to build relationships within the community though PCSO’s (police community support officers) that is their way of getting to know the locals and also being aware of places that may attract young people and anti-social behaviours. The health care services for example would be focussed on the physical health and well-being of the young person. Their priority is to help heal any wounds or injuries that may have been sustained after an incident. For a child in care they have an allocated LAC nurse (looked after children) this nurse carries out annual health assessments, makes recommendations for the care plan and also attends meetings with social workers. Of course the local authority is involved in all of this, from providing people to sit on the safeguarding board, having education welfare officers and providing social workers to each looked after child. They are a just a few examples of many of the different services roles throughout safeguarding and childcare.
It is obvious to note that one of the main priorities throughout all of the services for children that may affect a child centred approach is finance and budget. Many of the decisions that are made about young people are also based on budgets. For example a young person placed in care within my setting; he has a heavy history of trauma relating to bereavement and subsequently has behavioural issues. He has been with us for a year now and we feel he is at the right stage of development to start planned therapy around some of his issues. Throughout all of his placement and planning meetings it has been recommended that he has bereavement counselling and attends some form of anger management. This month he was due to begin counselling, we have spent two months liaising with a psychotherapist and developing a plan suited to his needs. This month I sent an email to his social worker outlining the details of the proposed first session and asking for the final decision as to whether it could be started on time. I received an email back that day, unfortunately the email said that due to financial reasons she did not feel it would be worth beginning therapy as there were now plans to move the young person into foster care and that any relationship which he developed with the therapist would be lost if he was moved out of the area. As a team we have discussed many times that we feel a foster placement would be unsuitable for this young person and that he will struggle to cope with another move in his life. This has been quashed because unfortunately the placing authority has to cut costs and foster placement is cheaper than residential care. Also the added expense of therapy is not within their current budget. This is a prime example of when some services priorities can overtake a child centred approach.
I now turn my attention onto safeguarding. Safeguarding has been defined as:
- “Protecting children from maltreatment”
- “Preventing impairment of children's health and development”
- “Ensuring children grow up in circumstances consistent with safe, effective care.”
(DCSF, 2010: 34)
These three points are very child centred and that should always be remembered when safeguarding is taken into consideration. However part of safeguarding is also safeguarding yourself. Everybody would like to say that safeguarding and the safeguarding procedures that are in place are there with the child at the fore. However, I somewhat controversially disagree that when it comes to individual practice this is fully the case. It is my opinion, cynically that many of the people involved in a child protection issue and certainly when it comes to the investigation of child protection issues are more concentrated on finding someone to blame or covering your own back. I believe that everybody carries out their own responsibilities and jobs so that they cannot be blamed if and when something goes wrong. With social workers, health care workers, managers of institutions and above all the media it is sometimes apparent that the fact that the young person has been in a maltreated or abusive situation is forgotten. A great example of this is the ‘Baby P’ scenario. Everybody was so horrified by what had happened to Peter Connelly and wanted to find somebody to blame. Services then took it in turn to push the blame onto somebody else as an easy way out and accusations of ‘Buck passing’ were made after a whistle blowers letter highlighted some issues. I think a major problem within the childcare sector is media pressure and scapegoating. Scapegoating leads to a culture of pushing blame onto someone else in order to protect yourself, rather than dealing with the issues raised in order to fully develop practice and achieve better outcomes for young people. With the Baby P tragedy, the priority amongst the service providers became protecting themselves and the role they provided in protecting the child (or not protecting the child). It has been widely reported across the media that Sharon Shoesmith was used as a scapegoat and that responsibility has still not fully been taken. Laming later wrote:
“I strongly believe that in future, those who occupy senior positions in the public sector must be required to account for any failure to protect vulnerable children from deliberate harm or exploitation.” (Laming, 2009)
After the Victoria Climbie in 2003 case review Laming also wrote:
“The greatest failure rests with the managers and senior members of the authorities whose task it was to ensure that services for children, like Victoria, were properly financed, staffed, and able to deliver good quality support to children and families.” (Laming, 2003)
These two examples show that responsibility for these two most horrific tragedies still has not been given or taken by anybody. This leads me to believe that the use of scapegoats is still prevalent today and that ultimately changes need to be made. People should not be trying to protect their policies and procedures, they should be openly criticizing them and finding ways to improve them so that tragedies such as these never happen again.
Analysing this even further leads me to the question – If the fear of being blamed is motivation enough to ensure that the correct policies are followed or the child is safeguarded then are the child's interests being met? Also if the person that did not do their job properly is found then that person and everybody else can be educated so that they do not make the same mistake again. I feel that this is a bad way of viewing the scenario, because if safeguarding is based on fear of prosecution or persecution then people will be reluctant to change or discuss ways of improving their practice with the outcome likely to be a stalemate of practice development. We need to have an open and honest review which includes representatives from each service involved after each negative case. For example the local safeguarding children's board comprised of 22 different independent service providers. Each member of that board should be reviewing their policies, procedure, framework and staff in order to improve it – not to blame somebody. In this review the service providers must discuss honestly and professionally things that they as individuals could have done better or could do better in the future to prevent this negative situation from re-occurring. I suppose in essence this is the purpose of a serious case review. However I am proposing something on a much more inter-professional level; a meeting that should be held after each safeguarding incident no matter how small or large it may have been. Each agency should be able to give advice and guidance to one another in order to improve the service provided as a whole or as a team. For this to work each service provider would need to have an understanding of each other’s role and procedures and have respect for the job each one provides.
Barrett and Keeping have explored a range of factors:
“that are likely to enable and encourage different professions to work collaboratively” (Barrett and Keeping, 2005: 18)
These include: Knowledge of other professional roles, a high level of motivation and willing participation, confidence in one’s own role and responsibilities, open communication, trust and mutual respect, equality in terms of power, and finally reflection and supervision. If these key elements are portrayed then these reviews could be utilized across the board to improve practice.
In Summary I can conclude that inter-professional practice is a difficult subject to completely reform but I do believe it could easily be improved to create a much more child centred approach. With a less judgemental approach to failures and more open attitude to criticism we could create a culture of learning and improvement throughout all services involved in safeguarding. All agencies involved within inter-professional practice should keep in mind that the child is the fore throughout the whole process. The main problem to this however is media portrayal. This in my opinion will never relent but should be used as extra motivation that we must get it right this time.
References
Barrett, G and Keeping, C (2005) The Process Required for effective Inter-Professional Working, in Oliver, B and Pitt, B (eds) Working With Children Young People and Families: A Course Book for Foundation Degrees. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd
DCSF (2010) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. Nottingham: DCFS Publications.
Jones, S. (2008) Sixty missed chances to save baby 'used as a punch-bag'. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/12/child-protection-crime-baby-p [accessed 16 January 2012]
Laming, H (2003) Report of an Inquiry into the Death of Victoria Climbie, Cm 5730. London: The Stationary Office.
Laming, H (2009) The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report. London: The Stationary Office. In Abbott, D. (2011) The buck has to stop with Sharon Shoesmith. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/27/sharon-shoesmith-baby-p [accessed 16 January 2012]
Le Riche, P and Taylor, I (2008) The learning and Assessment of Partnership working in social work and education. London: social care institute for excellence.
by
gazp89 (student)
