The commission for social care inspection (CSCI) is the daughter of the earlier national care standards commission (NCSC) which was launched in April 2002 – it was a bit of a runt of an agency which grew out of the Care Standards Act 2000.

That Act was brought about by a number of factors and events, one of which was the North Wales child abuse revelations where numerous children were systematically sexually, emotionally and physically abused.  A rather revealing report “Lost in Care” (the Waterhouse Report) describes the utter failure of all sector providers (public/private/voluntary) for looked after children and both within residential care and foster care. One of the most concerning was the utter failure of managers and elected members to take responsibility (or sometimes colluded in their demise) for children in care, resulting in the concept that these are ‘our children.’ The full report can be read here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_4097884

Hitherto local authorities ran inspection units, effectively inspecting themselves – and we know what that means!

So the 2000 Care Standards Act and the birth of the NCSC (later CSCI – Commission for Social Care Inspection), the General Social Care Council (GSCC) and others such as SCIE (Social Care Institute for Excellence).

In summary the NCSC/CSCI no longer exist but SCIE, the GSCC do and the NCSC/CSCI functions (child care) have been assumed by Ofsted as of April 2008. Their respective websites are listed below:

http://www.scie.org.uk/

http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

These are all the English based organisations – each of the three other countries have similar but differently titled and seperate organisations responsible to the pwn Assemblies/Parliament. Is that a good thing? Time will tell.

The Waterhouse Report – Lost in Care should be essential reading for every child & family social worker. It contains essential reading that will significantly influence practice. Remember, what was discovered in Wales could and was discovered in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Wilt

Conspiring to Murder Social Work

A social worker convicted in 1995 of Conspiracy to Commit Murder (of her ex husband) has hit the headlines again after she was caught out lying under oath in Court proceedings. Lynda Barnes (and not Linda Barnes) of the same local authority that employs her, Bath and North East Somerset (http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/bathnes) have suspended the team manager and referred her to the GSCC (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/) . Her misleading evidence came to light after a social worker she managed blew the whistle when Barnes asked her to conspire by also giving false evidence, and this was reported to the Court.

Barnes it is alleged was something a a ‘force to reckon with’ according to some reports and her team were not confident under her leadership.

I first came across this report earlier this week in the Blog of Allan Norman (a social worker and solicitor closely associated with BASW and of the Birmingham law firm Celtic Knot (http://www.celticknot.org.uk/). His Blog article can be found here and is worth reading: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/06/murder-and-mayhem-in-the-world.html

Since then the full story can be found on community care (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/06/18/111871/agencies-rapped-over-murder-conspiracy-social-worker.html and the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html).

Top marks however to Allan Norman in his blog who rightly tries to draw a balance on the issues of the right of the public to know these facts (and the consequential further battering social care will get in the press) with the further possible consequence that the right to be rehabilitated under the rehabilitation of offenders act will be harmed.

At the root of this matter, it seems to me, is the fact that there was a very unhappy team who (reading between the lines of some reports) felt intimidated by Barnes who was initially employed as a assistant team manager and later team manager – where were the more senior managers and what were they doing in the interim before it took some brave junior social worker to voice her concerns? It does not look good in terms of developing a safe and professional working environment where the lives of children and families are paramount. Had there been such a safe environment perhaps Barnes may have not been able to operate with, what is implied, intimidation, and ultimately deceit not only to the Court and all its parties but also to the social work profession.

The High Court judgement on the application not to name Barnes is set out here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2009/B11.html and is again worth a full read.

To date there is nothing (as usual) on the GSCC website relating to this matter although they too were criticised (along with Bath and North East Somerset Council) in their failings to allow Barnes to be registered as a social worker. My cynicism (but also based on much research) suggests to me that the GSCC will never publish themselves any criticism of the GSCC. They have however made a statement reported by Community Care in their article, essentially saying that Barnes was already employed, had good references and after the passage of time could be considered rehabilitated – for once, that seems not an unreasonable response for the GSCC.

What was however is alarming is that in the Independent report (see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html) it was revealed that the NSPCC were to verify by way of its own investigations the confirmation of the local authority that Barnes involvement in other Court case matters had not (in effect) led to any miscarriages of justice. That I find ironic in the extreme as the NSPCC are the least qualified to adjudicate on such matters, especially (but not exclusively) following the Climbe review where they themselves were found to have ‘doctored’ evidence in order to try to cover up failings in practice – essentially that which Barnes is accused of!

At the time (of the Inquiry) it was widely reported that the NSPCC had to be forced to produce ‘original’ documents for scrutiny after initially submitting photocopy paperwork heavily ‘redacted.’ And guess what, the photocopy evidence and the original paperwork, when finally grabbed from the NSPCC, were somewhat and significantly different – in short they attempted to mislead a Court of Inquiry. There are numerous articles in the press but I think the following is the best by Dea Birkett in her Gaurdian Article in 2002: (http://www.deabirkett.com/pages/journalism_film/journalism/it_needs_to_be_stopped.htm)

She gives a good account of the NSPCC cynical approach, incompetence and self serving attitude whilst giving the very false impression of being the guardians of child welfare – more like guardian of our pay packets. And what have the GSCC done about this – nothing. And anyone expects the NSPCC to be competent in auditing others while it cannot audit itself. Gawd help the social care profession. Gawd help children.

Barnes appears to be one of those who as a profession we regret having allowed into our ranks. She is, or will be gone, but she has done so much damage to our profession. Shame on you an good bye.

Wilt

Public Service?

Wilt is an ex public servant of over 20 years service and he got out into the real world of running his own business. There are very good public servants, dedicated to real public service but regrettably there is an increasingly pervasive attitude of contempt for the public (us plebs) these officers are meant to serve.

And they cost a lot of money. The budget for central and local government has grown exponentially  under this Government, despite so called reviews and reforms of central and local government.

Take for example the service conditions of these people. Here is an example from the GSCC www.gscc.org.uk/Working+for+us/Staff+benefits or gscc-employment-benefits.

High salaries (£26 – 37K) for fairly basic professional roles (e.g. outreach workers), huge sick leave pay, maternity/paternity pay above the minimum rate, exceptional leave, holidays, Bank Holidays, extra Bank Holiday paid leave and special leave to cover for exceptional personal needs, plus one day to move home and various other leave days.

In addition they have gold plated final salary scheme pensions and first class (if you believe the GSCC) office accommodation. In addition they get paid to go on training – and boy do they need it!

Add a couple of weeks Jury Service and I reckon it would be possible for your average GSCC worker never needing to sit at their state of the art workstations.

~~~~0~~~~

Now let’s compare that to Wilt:

No fixed salary – paid by the hour

Sick leave – no pay

Holidays – no pay

Bank Holidays – what are those?

Extra Bank Holidays – Uh?

Office Accommodation – Wilt pays including heating/lighting, etc., etc! (no air-conditioning)

Maternity/Paternity leave – no pay

Special Leave – OK, but what does that mean? (not paid in any event)

Pension – paid by Wilt privately, not gold plated final salary

Training – paid for by Wilt unless contractors provide it (as some do)

In addition Wilt has to run a business, pay bookkeepers and accountants and administrate himself his own accounts. Of course the GSCC and their ‘likes’ have all that done for them.

Is this economic in public service terms? The overheads of running an agency such as the GSCC is massive – that officer being paid £35K will have in the region of 10 – 15% on costs on top, excluding the lost expenditure on excessive leave and absence provisions – Gawd help the UK economy.

That is why Wilt supports privatising the whole lot. The public service provisions for staff encourages some officers (similar also to most MP Allowances) to exploitation and excessive and disproportionate (sometimes fraudulent) facilities, at the public expense. The economy depends and prospers on the reasonable costs and especially the efficiency of small business, such as Wilt.

Central and local government is so inefficient and expensive – take a look at their sickness absence rates, despite huge concessions on holiday leave.

Believe me, I know social care is challenging and stressful (particularly in the statutory sector) and that managers/employers are often (but far from always) incompetent, but there is no excuse for this level of sickness absence (perhaps some London Borough’s employees excepted) in the 21^st Century. However the issues are costs (to the public purse) and the effectiveness of public service provision – the answer is not in more tax to pay for increased provision/staff (that has already failed) but in fact putting the whole lot into the private sector with less generous service conditions. Controversial? Yes!

In short, it aint working – the private sector does work, and better on the whole than the public sector. The public sector can be good at and would be best confined to commissioning services, not providing them.

The GSCC is only one example – add the numerous other quango’s, local authorities and central government agencies into the equation and Wilt understands why the economy is in such a shit state.

Worst of all, these ‘officers’ of public service (notwithstanding the minority sincere public servants), like their political masters, just do not understand why they are held in such poor esteem. In fact, they aint got a clue. Really!

Wilt

Sadly Wilt has missed out on a gong again!

Ah well. Attached is the full official list   birthday-gongs

The second worst thing about the debacle of the local government elections (the first being Gordon is still PM) and the reshuffle is that Ed Balls remains head of children schools and families. We now have a new children’s minister in the form of  Dawn Primarolo. Well, lets see how she does.

Wilt, a long time supporter of Labour and ecpecially New Labour wants to see a new government. Lets face it, Gordon was never up to the job, no one voted for him and, bless him, he does not realy have the personality to pull it off.

Go, Gordon go. For Gods sake go with whatever dignity you have left and take Ed with you. Give me Michael Gove any day over Ed Balls. The former compared to the latter has a brain and seems to know what he is talking about. Ed is too much of a political despot for my liking and too ambitious by half – and it is reported not a very nice fellow.