Most liked posts in thread: Star Hobson

I hate to pull bits out of a long post but I'm afraid this is what is being said or implied. Despite the list of failings it all "yeah but look at the funding" . Your second paragraph is a list of reasons why we should expect failings.

I do accept that the government should put more money into things like this however I don't believe it's the main factor here. If SS are genuinely so incompetent that they couldn't spot the red flags here we might as well do away with them?

but it's the same question again. How much do we have to spend on SS for them to be held accountable or is it just a case that no amount of money will ever seem like enough in such an inefficient and ineffective system?

 

Their whole job is to stop it happening!!

It's nothing like a burglary mate.

I'm actually getting the feeling we need to disband it completely if the job is actually impossible.

 

The reason they spent £17 million on agency social workers is because they cannot get permanent payrolled staff to come, or to stay any length of time if they do come. Other authorities in the region pay higher wages for less challenging conditions. Who in their right mind would opt to work in the hellhole that is inner city Bradford when they can earn more money elsewhere in easier conditions?

Bradford Uni has a social work training course in its social sciences faculty. I attended that course in the early 80s (which is why I'm still in Bradford rather than Essex) and have also taught the occasional session on it. In the past there was a steady stream of good newly qualified social workers from that course into Bradford Social Services. Nowadays, having done a child protection work placement in Bradford during their training, most give it a wide berth. Those that do join rarely stay long - once they've completed their probationary year they either move elsewhere or burn out and leave the profession altogether.

So Bradford end up paying over the odds to agency staff, who are on higher wages than in-house employees but can walk away at very short notice. It's a band aid on a gaping wound. It's false economy.
What's needed is a serious upward wage restructure to attract experienced permanent staff and retain decent newly qualifieds. But, by comparison with most council staff (who are not professionally qualified) social workers are seen by Councillors and union officials alike as highly paid, even though they are poorly paid by comparison with other comparable professions (teachers, nurses etc). And social care services already swallow more than half of the council's budget. Getting Councillors to sanction permanent uplifts in pay scales, or unions to campaign for them, in current straightened circumstances, is highly unlikely. So the vicious spiral to the bottom continues apace.

 

More on Bradford and its problems in social services
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/17/scariest-place-ive-worked-social-worker-recalls-stint-in-bradford

 

Yes, that's the same article I linked to in post #18 above.

 

More money is not the answer, Increasing the wages of incompetent staff does not make them more competent, A root and branch clear-out of top and middle management is required bringing in proven professionals from other authorities with the power to implement better systems and required training, Of course it will not happen because the unions would not allow it and senior management close ranks to prevent it using the old adage of workload and underfunding,
Also should mention that if the buck really does stop at the top the highly paid Chief Exec should go

 

Thank you, That was a great reply and a detailed response outlining the problems we face to improve both child protection and mental health service that often is ignored by society. Hopefully these problems will be resolved but a wider use of age and experience am sure would help, Of course a lot of older people are quite intelligent to do the job but never got the chance of a university education until the chance to go there was improved by lowering standards

 

There has been an update.

Star Hobson: Bradford Council children's services to be run independently - BBC News

So Bradford have had it's children's services stripped from it's control.

Shamelessly, the council leader and CEO are still in position.

 

Bradford Council are a disgrace.

People of Bradford need to seriously wake up and stop the council ruining their city!

 

Those employed by Bradford's Children's Services will be employed by the new Authority, Some probably promoted, It is how the civil service work with Unions in charge not the bosses who are fearful of them

 

You keep going on about the unions, but you're just spouting outdated myths. Probably less than a third of the social services workforce are now union members. And the quality of representation for social services staff is appallingly bad because the branch leaders see them as highly paid and unrepresentative of the manual and unqualified clerical staff that make up the bulk of the council workforce.
I was a NALGO/UNISON steward for 25 years and by the time I stopped stewarding, about ten years ago, it was a total waste of time. Wages, staff levels and working conditions have dropped off a cliff since Cameron and Osborne slashed the budgets to pieces and the unions have been unable to do a thing about it. The unions still perform a necessary function by representing individuals over grievances, disciplinaries etc, but as far as collective bargaining and influencing council decisions they're about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

They've been doing it for decades...you must have been too busy dancing to have noticed

 

How dumb is that the second a tragedy like the Star murder occurs, it's social worker's to blame.

But when a terrorist incident occurs and the person was 'known' to authorities, it's not MI5's fault.
When a burglary happens and it's a known delinquent, it's not the police's fault.

This is just a general point, but people who do wish or choose to blame social workers quite instinctively after these awful events, how many cases do you think they should be working? And how many do you think they are? Just ball park figures?

 

Just out of curiosity were your wages as a shop steward paid for by your union or the council?

 

Like most shop stewards in the council I had a full time council job, in my case as a social worker. Branch meetings were mostly held at lunchtimes. I was allowed release to attend Level 1 and 2 meetings with management and for disciplinary hearings and individual consultation with members. There were times (restructures etc) when the union side got busy but it was generally a fairly small proportion of my working life.

Management benefits from having organised representation of its workforce and I always had a very constructive working relationship with social services management, who valued my input. Likewise, the workforce valued having a focal point to give their views to middle and higher managers who might otherwise have been out of touch with issues and views at the coal face.
Before Osborne's cuts decimated the budget, causing massive reduction in staffing, services and morale, it was a system that worked well. Yes, there were occasional disputes about staffing issues or management plans but in the main it was a collaborative process that made the organisation more in touch with its workforce. I firmly believe that our union input contributed to the high standards and great reputation that Bradford Social Services used to have.

 

You might be working on a false assumption there. For me anyway, when a known terrorist threat goes through with a plot I do want the security services as a whole to be accountable both as a whole and individuals. When a career criminal keeps on committing offences I do want to know if more can be done to stop it.

I don't actually know and would be interested to find out to be honest, it's probably an important point in general terms and I do have general sympathy with anybody in a crucial role when they're overworked.

I'm not quite so sure it's relevant in this particular case though and that's where the general points and the case specific points separate for me. I can understand that abusers can be cunning, secretive and deceptive which makes an investigative social workers life extremely difficult and cases like that can get lost in an overburdened process.

However, I can't get my head around the sheer number of open and overt red flags that have come out from this case. Even if someone has 100 cases to look at when they should have 50 I don't know how anyone could look at what has come out about the warning signs for this poor little kid and think "Do you know what, it's probably nothing, I'll close it at look at something else".

 

Maybe there should be a legal requirement for social workers with the sanction of prosecution or disbarment of practice when mistakes are made and things go wrong, You can give a child back if mistakes are made if you take them in to care, However you cannot bring them back to life if left and goes wrong,

 

Things have got worse because the council has no money to improve them. And, at the same time, demand is increasing because increasing poverty levels and the stresses of the pandemic are creating more child protection issues. Bradford's overall council budget has been progressively decimated by central government cuts, but the budget proportion required to fund child protection and other social services keeps going up and up. Where's the money coming from to even stand still, let alone improve things?

Children's Services in Bradford have been failing for the last decade - well before the current CEO took up her post. It needs major investment to recruit experienced staff at a time when social workers and team managers can be picky where they choose to work (see my post #49 above). But there is no money in the pot to do this. The vast majority of Bradford Council Tax payers, who never have contact with child protection services, would scream blue murder if other council services that affect everyone were to be slashed to pump more money into child protection. It's easy to blame the CEO, but how would you repair a sinking ship with no tools?