Title

Amanda Kelly looks at the impact of the death of Baby P – and the following media furore – on the safeguarding children sector. Safeguarding the most vulnerable in our society is undoubtedly one of the most important roles those in public office can perform. It is also a hugely-complex area, and one where the focus of those with a responsibility for children's services can swing quickly from risk management to risk aversion, especially when a child death occurs. At times, it feels as though the pendulum swings too far, and we can lose sight of who is responsible for what and where accountabilities lie in safeguarding and protecting children. Personal accountability for these failures is increasing, and the fallout for individuals when a child death occurs has been widely reported, resulting in a growing nervousness for those who work in children's services. Quite rightly, every child death is a cause for concern and is always traumatic for everyone involved. The impact on a local authority when a death occurs is significant, particularly when it is directly linked to failures in the services designed to protect vulnerable children. The ripple effect across organisations can be huge, and can result in a response which impacts negatively on the outcomes that are trying to be achieved. A common response to this type of tragedy is for the local authority in question to pull up the drawbridge and bring larger numbers of children and young people into the relative ‘safety' of the care system. We have, however, seen a much wider impact following the death and subsequent reporting of the Baby P case. The effect has been felt nationally, and there is evidence to suggest this has resulted in higher referrals and increases in care order applications. While understandable, this is a risk-averse rather than a risk-managed response. The challenge for local authorities in an environment of risk aversion is how to shift resources to areas such as preventative services, while also responding to short-term, increased-demand pressures. The most successful authorities have been those which do not let the pace of change slow, and have held their nerve in the face of increasing pressure to adopt a ‘belt and braces' approach to safeguarding. The risk of serious safeguarding incidents occurring can never be entirely eradicated. The aspiration and the expectation must be, however, that those with the responsibility for safeguarding arrangements have the training, experience and wherewithal in place, so they have sufficient confidence in the processes, professional practices and decision-making arrangements. The focus of media and public interest inevitably lands on local authorities in the case of a child death. This is despite serious case reviews clearly demonstrating that failings tend to be a result of the breakdown of multi-agency working. It is, therefore, crucial that safeguarding receives appropriate prioritisation by all relevant agencies, and is not seen as something that is the key responsibility of the local authority, with others playing a support role. The key in moving forward and developing a feeling of shared responsibility for safeguarding will be the extent to which the local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs) are successful in monitoring and evaluating coherent and consistent multi-agency functions. The difficulty in this is in ensuring a balance is struck between being proactive and moving things forward, and being reactive and responding to child protection incidents. Despite an acceptance that better and closer partnership working is needed in order to deliver better safeguarding, a common characteristic in recent child protection inquiries is that, while many of the cases had multiple agencies working with families, there appeared to be little communication across the groups. Assumptions were made about who was doing what, and significant differences existed among those groups, in terms of thresholds of acceptable behaviours. Although we should make sure we have rigorous arrangements in place to ensure everything is operating properly, more effective safeguarding will happen not because professionals have met all the relevant indicators. Rather it will happen because they have been allowed and encouraged to use their professional judgment. Outputs may improve because of greater focus on performance targets. Outcomes, however, will only improve if professionals involved in safeguarding really do work in partnership, and are not afraid of challenging each other to the make right call. Amanda Kelly is partner and social care leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Title

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Safeguarding our future – the aftermath of Baby P

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING