Children's Social Services - Will we ever get it right?

[notwell]

"and not let us see these facts until they have lined up a response."

Isn't that exactly what someone does when they commission a report on something.   In any other walk of life if a report is commissioned then surely the results of that report need to be read, understood, digested and discussed?

Would you expect anyone to simply get an indepth report on something and then just publish it to the public without reading it?

I agree that the full report should be published of course.   I'm just surprised you are surprised that someone wants to look etc first.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, notwell said:

Would you expect anyone to simply get an indepth report on something and then just publish it to the public without reading it?

Well no.  But we know they've had the report since at least June (investigations finished in April).  So unless they're very slow readers, they should have had enough time to read it by now and give the rest of us a chance to have a look.

We know all this because the Cabinet Office have published an Update on the Independent report on Children and Family Services[1], a very confused (but none the less revealing) justification of their policy over the publication of the Report.

In the statement (which is followed by FAQs) they say:

Quote

 

During June 2017 a draft Executive Summary of the report was shared with families, staff and politicians who had engaged with the investigation.

The main purpose of this process was to test the key findings and recommendations with those who had participated, to ensure that the authors had accurately reflected their contributions and to secure initial feedback on the conclusions. The authors have revised the report in light of the comments received during this process.

 

So it wasn't the process of 'Maxwellisation' which I referred to in an earlier comment - all the families were given was the Executive Summary.  So there is nothing to say whether the full report actually contains something which might refer to them personally or on which they could make valid comments[2].  But some people have been allowed to see the full report- it's stated that "the full report was released to the Council of Ministers" and presumably their attendant civil servants will also have had a look.

However this process is even more discredited by something revealed in the FAQs:

Quote

 

Why is it important to maintain confidentiality of the information that has been released to those participating in the investigation?

The Executive Summary report released in June was a draft document and was issued in confidence to recipients for the purpose of testing the key findings and recommendations with those who had participated, to ensure that the authors had accurately reflected their contributions and to secure initial feedback on the conclusions. .

The authors have made revisions to the report as a result of comments, views and opinions expressed during the consultation process in June. The final report will, therefore, differ from the draft released in June and any public sharing of the content of the draft could cause confusion and misunderstanding.

It is important to note that the revision includes the removal of the Executive Summary which the consultation indicated did not fully reflect the rationale behind the key findings and the comprehensive evidence that supported conclusions and recommendations.

 

(Bold red text my emphasis). So the families will end up having seen nothing of the report because the bit they have seen was incorrect and has been removed.  If the summary was wrong, surely the rest of the report needs looking at by those involved?

So what the families are being asked to keep quiet is the evidence that the report was inaccurate.  And in the meantime:

Quote

The Social Policy and Children’s Committee of the Council of Ministers, which includes the Ministers for Health and Social Care, Education and Children and Home Affairs[3], has been tasked with providing an action plan in response to the recommendations.

So the idea is that when the report is finally revealed in October, there will be the usual  Manx Civil Service method of presenting a fait accompli, where Tynwald members and public are just expected to agree to whatever the officials have decided among themselves.  We will be told that "lessons have been learned" and they have a plan and all the relevant actions are already in place.  There will be no opportunity for criticism or improvements - our masters will have spoken.

 

[1]  Even this seems to have been delayed as it is dated July, but wasn't published till 8 August.

[2]  The FAQs try to justify this by saying "Because the key conclusions and recommendations were included in the Executive Summary, the authors of the report hoped this would demonstrate that the report had fulfilled its brief and allow families to understand the conclusions and outcomes before the full report was published"  But as the saying goes the devil is in the details and without families and staff seeing the parts that may refer to them or derive from their testimony, then the whole process of checking is undermined.  There may have been some discussion of detail when the families met the report authors, but without full written copies it would have been difficult to respond.

[3]  But it includes more than that as we know from a revised answer given to Hooper in May:

Quote

 

Social Policy and Children’s Committee Please note amendments following review of this written answer:

Membership: Minister for Policy and Reform (Chair);  Minister for Home Affairs;  Minister for Education and Children Minister for Health and Social Care;  Member for Treasury

Officers: Chief Executive DEC;  Chief Executive,DHSC;  Chief Executive,DHA;   Acting Executive, Director Policy and Strategy, Cabinet Office;  Director Children’s Services Partnership;  Director Social Security

Any Ministers, Department Members or Senior Officers may be invited for relevant items

 

So dominated by 'top' civil servants, rather than ministers.

[Uhtred]

On 8/10/2017 at 10:08 AM, Uhtred said:

What is your evidence that Beecroft's attempt to remove Couch was as a consequence of this report and the matters it addresses?

11 August 21:38...still waiting...

[notwell]

You'll wait a while.

His/her comment makes no sense anyway.  If there was a deep seated and long term ingrained culture of poor practice in Social Services it would have far preceeded Couch's appointment. 

[thesultanofsheight]

On 8/10/2017 at 10:08 AM, Uhtred said:

What is your evidence that Beecroft's attempt to remove Couch was as a consequence of this report and the matters it addresses?

For the sake of discussion it's an interesting conspiracy theory though. As Roger Mexico points out the review was finished in April, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a report could have been available to senior members of the DHSC from the end of May; or maybe an executive summary was available and circulated before June? 

If that was the case maybe someone read it and decided it was high time to exit stage left before it all hit the fan and create some distance as the fallout will be politically damaging? 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32583&headline=Callister resigns from DHSC&sectionIs=&searchyear=2017

Or maybe Couch was being lined up as the fall guy (but not specifically by Beecroft but by staff under him telling Beecroft they had no confidence in him and she should do something about it), and now he hasnt been able to be it's giving other senior managers in the DHSC (who have been around longer than Couch and who have been much more connected to the service delivery) a real dilemma as it might now bounce back on them instead?

There's a lot of pressure been put on the DHSC since then over a variety of things. Personally I think it's unfortunate they haven't published the report yet. The longer they dont the more people will speculate on the reasons why. But it does look like there's something lurking in the background here that's going to bite someone in the ass. I'd say that it's unlikely to be Couch that cops it now though which is probably a good thing. He still has some real shits sitting under him though. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by thesultanofsheight

[Non-Believer]

Couch was moved to DHSC to get a grip of the finances. May not rest easy with some...?

[thesultanofsheight]

18 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Couch was moved to DHSC to get a grip of the finances. May not rest easy with some...?

Not as pliable as his predecessor either and far from stupid. 

[Speak The Truth]

Has anyone else noticed how many changes there have been in the reasons for the full report not being shared with the families and Tynwald?

It has also changed so that the families who gave evidence will receive the full report two weeks prior to its Tynwald disclosure.

WTF??????

 

Does the CM the AG and all those in SS who have obviously been shown to be at fault by the report really think this will make a difference to their credibility?

 

The families gave their evidence based on being told that they would recieve full copies of the report PRIOR to Tynwald.

That all members of Tynwald would receive full copies at the same time.

That the report would be in the public domain and subject to public scrutiny from the date of issue to Tynwald members.

That there would be no attempted cover ups.

 

2 Families were paid off and their evidence withheld.

The other eight have stood firm.

 

This will not be brushed under the carpet.

SS are now blaming 'staff turnover' as one of the major factors for their abusive behaviours.

If an organisation cannot retain staff on a salary of over 50k in a tax beneficial environment there must be a management problem.

The fact that most managers in that abusive section of government either have, or are about to, jump ship speaks volumes.

 

Make it public, own up to mistakes, work to put things right for those in the system, those who have had to endure it and ensure it is right for those who, in the future, find themselves in it, and we will applaud you for your honesty.

Keep abusing by constant denial and prevarication, and the cycle continues until those who assume the managerial roles are as guilty as their predecessors.

[thesultanofsheight]

Chris Thomas promised in Facebook, I think, that the report would be shared by a certain date. 

[Parrot]

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Chris Thomas promised in Facebook, I think, that the report would be shared by a certain date. 

Correct, once Tynwald have gone though it in the new session, in October I think.

[Chris Thomas]

9 hours ago, Speak The Truth said:

Has anyone else noticed how many changes there have been in the reasons for the full report not being shared with the families and Tynwald?

It has also changed so that the families who gave evidence will receive the full report two weeks prior to its Tynwald disclosure.

WTF??????

 

Does the CM the AG and all those in SS who have obviously been shown to be at fault by the report really think this will make a difference to their credibility?

 

The families gave their evidence based on being told that they would recieve full copies of the report PRIOR to Tynwald.

That all members of Tynwald would receive full copies at the same time.

That the report would be in the public domain and subject to public scrutiny from the date of issue to Tynwald members.

That there would be no attempted cover ups.

 

2 Families were paid off and their evidence withheld.

The other eight have stood firm.

 

This will not be brushed under the carpet.

SS are now blaming 'staff turnover' as one of the major factors for their abusive behaviours.

If an organisation cannot retain staff on a salary of over 50k in a tax beneficial environment there must be a management problem.

The fact that most managers in that abusive section of government either have, or are about to, jump ship speaks volumes.

 

Make it public, own up to mistakes, work to put things right for those in the system, those who have had to endure it and ensure it is right for those who, in the future, find themselves in it, and we will applaud you for your honesty.

Keep abusing by constant denial and prevarication, and the cycle continues until those who assume the managerial roles are as guilty as their predecessors.

Nothing has changed since I made the statement in Tynwald on 18th July http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/OPHansardIndex1618/1026.pdf

The original independent report will be published on Tynwald order paper alongside a government response and action plan at the next sitting of Tynwald which is in October.

All Tynwald members, those who gave evidence in the inquiry, and the wider public will have the original report for nearly two weeks to prepare for the Tynwald sitting.

Summary information is available as a Cabinet Office document at https://www.gov.im/media/1358079/update-on-independent-report-on-children-and-family-services.pdf

[WTF]

[Uhtred]

On 8/11/2017 at 11:25 PM, Non-Believer said:

Couch was moved to DHSC to get a grip of the finances. May not rest easy with some...?

Precious little sign of gripped finances at present.

[notwell]

He's been there five minutes.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, notwell said:

He's been there five minutes.

He's been there over two years.  (29 June 2015)