Tories to privatise Child Protection.
- Thread starter Part 2
- Start date
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
And also assaulting detainees in Yarl's Wood. Can they be trusted with kids?
MPs to investigate Serco over sex assault claim at Yarl's Wood centre
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/17/mps-serco-yarls-wood-centre-sex-assault-claim
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes, they can be trusted with kids. you know what to expect.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Serco fixed it for me. Not a phrase I want to see all over the headlines in the coming years.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
by comparison with serco savile was relatively benign
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
On the bright side, at least Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith can't bid for any of these contracts on account of being dead.
... because you just know that any government that would continue to employ Jeremy Hunt, would also consider their bids to run this service.
... because you just know that any government that would continue to employ Jeremy Hunt, would also consider their bids to run this service.
tombowler
still missing the point
I would not trust serco to tell me the time, I think I have said how great their tagging of yp's was.
I can not see any large company providing care to yp's or even social services doing it in the best interests of the service users their only purpose for existing is to make a profit for shareholders there is no other reason.
when I was involved in a private childrens home profit was very low down on the list of things important to us, profit has to be made to provide a stable environment for the service users and staff it would take over 25 years to get my monetary investment back but seeing the quality of care given out the stability we are offering to both service users and staff is more payment than money. , I do not see any other business with the same goals in the sector,
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Knowing G4S's competencies, our super soldiers are going to mostly be illiterate and physically-impaired, from having spent their lives sleeping under bridges.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Haha thanks for making me laugh with this bit because I actually feel pretty sad about this news, more sad than angry. It really shows how nothing is sacred to these cunts. It's just filthy.....filthy, filthy, filthy and desperately sad
I've ranted about the neoliberalisation of the "3rd sector" before, on Urban. Over here, Blair started all of this with his "third way" agenda, which sucked in those charities that were already providing their own version of social services by saying "if you tender for a contract to provide that service, you will have a steady income stream outside of donations". Those who bought into this, possibly entirely-unintentionally, put themselves in a situation where they became more and more dependant on tendering and winning, because (understandably IMO) some of their larger donors withdrew support.
Unfortunately, when austerity cam calling, some of the easiest contracts for the govt to resile from, were those with third sector providers, which threw some charities into bad straits, financially. So much so, that the same charities are still scrabbling after contracts, trying to (re)-establish themselves as "official" service providers, selling out their original ethos for a mess of potage.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Serco's people don't seem to have even a basic understanding of peri- and post-traumatic stress and how it manifests. It's entirely possible to be clinical and detached when relaying details of an assault. It's known as traumatic disassociation, a well-known psychological phenomenon.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Of course g 4/S wouldn't be involved in making super soldiers that is just stupid. No their part is producing children whose disappearance won't be noticed as they will have lost the paperwork. After being in the hands of G4s being part of a mad scientists experiments can only be an improvement.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Compared to the stellar performances of Birmingham child protection services perhaps?
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
There are huge problems in Birmingham's monolithic child protection setup, including poor information sharing by other professionals working with children, leading to an incomplete picture of the real risks and dangers in certain cases. Caseloads and staff turnover are way too high.
That said, is privatisation likely to be a panacea for Birmingham's ills? Or will it add financial concerns to the considerations a worker must make, rather than purely being about the best interests of the child? Not officially, but unofficially, as an elephant in the corner of the room? What happens when and if they fuck up, and lose the contract?
There is plenty of room for improvement and reform, but this country has generally superb child protection teams. In my local authority there are 26 Child in Need cases per worker. Annual worker turnover is 86%. It's a testament to their hard work that there aren't more tragedies, but the stress of the role drives many workers into doing something else. A few years back, the average newly qualified social worker in child protection lasted only four years before packing it in. I don't know what that figure looks like now.
I am pessimistic. Another branch of welfare that will be transformed into the latest sector of the "poverty industry".
Cid
Proper break this time
Think this is the consultation document, from here.
The power to do this under primary legislation, specifically Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (commenced Nov 2013):
The 1989 Act I assume refers to the Children Act 1989. ss. 23B-24D relate to ongoing activities relating to children formerly in care/affected by it. Provision of education and ongoing checks in that area; pathway planning, personal advisers etc.
S3 of the 2008 Act states that 'A party ... to arrangements ... (b) is referred to in this Part as a provider of social work services.'. I suppose that includes g4s and Serco then...
s(10) says '1A of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) [defines provider of social work functions]'. These are defined in Schedule 1 of the 1970 Act.
I can't be sure on a skim read, but it seems to be an extremely wide set of functions. s2(a) of the 2008 act covers children currently looked after by the LA, and (b) ongoing responsibilities to children. Basically they've already introduced what seem to be very wide powers of delegation, but are seeking (consultation paper):
It does say (4.4):
Responsibility remains with the LA (4.5).
Don't read 4.6, you may break your screen. It includes things like 'innovation' and 'third party expertise'.
Consultation is still ongoing (until 30th may), so if you're involved in this area you may want to respond.
The power to do this under primary legislation, specifically Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (commenced Nov 2013):
The 1989 Act I assume refers to the Children Act 1989. ss. 23B-24D relate to ongoing activities relating to children formerly in care/affected by it. Provision of education and ongoing checks in that area; pathway planning, personal advisers etc.
S3 of the 2008 Act states that 'A party ... to arrangements ... (b) is referred to in this Part as a provider of social work services.'. I suppose that includes g4s and Serco then...
s(10) says '1A of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) [defines provider of social work functions]'. These are defined in Schedule 1 of the 1970 Act.
I can't be sure on a skim read, but it seems to be an extremely wide set of functions. s2(a) of the 2008 act covers children currently looked after by the LA, and (b) ongoing responsibilities to children. Basically they've already introduced what seem to be very wide powers of delegation, but are seeking (consultation paper):
It does say (4.4):
Responsibility remains with the LA (4.5).
Don't read 4.6, you may break your screen. It includes things like 'innovation' and 'third party expertise'.
Consultation is still ongoing (until 30th may), so if you're involved in this area you may want to respond.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
Typical tory response to "Something's wrong in a public sector service provider": "Privatise it, the market will solve everything"... Because marketising vast swathes of the public sector has worked out so well before...
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
Quite.Typical tory response to "Something's wrong in a public sector service provider": "Privatise it, the market will solve everything"... Because marketising vast swathes of the public sector has worked out so well before...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
There are huge problems in Birmingham's monolithic child protection setup, including poor information sharing by other professionals working with children, leading to an incomplete picture of the real risks and dangers in certain cases. Caseloads and staff turnover are way too high.
That said, is privatisation likely to be a panacea for Birmingham's ills? Or will it add financial concerns to the considerations a worker must make, rather than purely being about the best interests of the child? Not officially, but unofficially, as an elephant in the corner of the room? What happens when and if they fuck up, and lose the contract?
There is plenty of room for improvement and reform, but this country has generally superb child protection teams. In my local authority there are 26 Child in Need cases per worker. Annual worker turnover is 86%. It's a testament to their hard work that there aren't more tragedies, but the stress of the role drives many workers into doing something else. A few years back, the average newly qualified social worker in child protection lasted only four years before packing it in. I don't know what that figure looks like now.
I am pessimistic. Another branch of welfare that will be transformed into the latest sector of the "poverty industry".
Purely looking at this from a social policy perspective, this is basically where the service commissioning/service provision divide imposed on social services was bound to lead.
The fact that this policy (privatisation of child protection services) will insert yet another bureaucratic and economic layer between raw budget and provided services, eroding the "purchasing power" of an already-attenuated budget, seems to me to be a recipe for disaster, even if we exclude the human issues (fewer, more poorly-qualified staff being a prime concern, along with what's got to be almost-inevitable quasi-"casualisation" of child protection) involved.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
I doubt that some poor sod on a zero hours contracted drafted in at the last minute to try to sort complex and long term problems in a family has the long term commitment to do anything other than paper over the cracks at best.
The idea is devoid of any understanding or humanity
The idea is devoid of any understanding or humanity
what does urban think of this?
http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200268/coordinating_childrens_services/815/achieving_for_children
Kingston and Richmond have merged their Childrens Services in to a Social Enterprise/Community Interest Company.
They've technically outsourced it, but not for profit.
http://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200268/coordinating_childrens_services/815/achieving_for_children
Kingston and Richmond have merged their Childrens Services in to a Social Enterprise/Community Interest Company.
They've technically outsourced it, but not for profit.
Just on the idea of G4S/Serco etc. being directly involved in running social care teams (childrens or adults) the mind fucking boggles.
it's not long since Serco was caught fiddling performance for money is it? bunch of charlatans.
the idea that G4S or Serco could come in and improve it is laughable.
it's not long since Serco was caught fiddling performance for money is it? bunch of charlatans.
the idea that G4S or Serco could come in and improve it is laughable.
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
You are right, of course. This is the natural progression of the marketisation of social care, a process which has been under way for years. The budgetary pressures remain, with the added layer of profit. Grim.
I'm actually puzzled with myself that I'm surprised by this.
Well at least with Gove behind this, there's a good chance the government will listen to reasoned arguments from the experts....
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
yeah, right ..............
..............oh. look over there ............. all pigs fed and ready to fly.
/cynic
(just wish they - the aforementioned porcines - would crap all over Gove and the condems in general)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The switch from local social services providing services to mostly commissioning services has already had a pretty lousy effect on continuity of care. This will make a bad situation worse.
We are living in the most unreal times I can imagine. Nothing seems sacred - and yet these filthy politicians play to notions they claim are moral constants.
I can well imagine G4S gestapo child services being told to fuck off with hammers when they turn up at someone's home to take their kid away or whatever.
I can well imagine G4S gestapo child services being told to fuck off with hammers when they turn up at someone's home to take their kid away or whatever.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
This will undermine the whole idea of removing vulnerable children from unfit parents. People will see it as a commercial transaction rather than a grim necessity. And yet I'm sure we all know of cases where the idea of leaving a particular child in the care of a particular parent wouldn't bear thinking about.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
It won't be just social services but entire councils commissioning rather than directly providing.in some areas it will even be delivered on a cross council or conurbation wide basis.
Cornetto
yesh
Its been in the pipeline for years, It all started under labor with the softly-softly third sector commissioning bringing them in from grants as support services to commissioned to provide statutory services on business lines. These third sector agencies struggle handling the big national contracts, because of the risk - implications of payment by results and TUPE. I Imagine Serco, G4S and other massive MNCs are rubbing their hands.The statutory third sector contracts and commissioning have been a backdoor slash and burn for cost saving, with the primary savings been made on staff wages, pensions and conditions. The local third sector commissioned drug services where I worked start staff on wages at around £14-£21K; previously those jobs were matched to local authority and NHS scales at around NHS band 5-6 and SO 1, 2, 3. It will be bad news for staff and it will be interesting to see the implications for service users.The business model has not done great things for service users except given the false choice of consumer power, look at personalization - shifting the cash out at a set amount to people - then moving costs up by the private sector, private companies rinsing people then going back to the LA for more money, what a sham. Be interesting to see the inclusion of payment by results and what criteria they include.
Complete cunts, aren't they?
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
But probation services are dealing with people after they've been convicted through the judicial process which is still state owned. The key issue is the coercive power, vested by statute, to take children away from the parents, potentially being passed to private companies. The profit motive will inevitable result in perverse incentives, and it hasn't exactly worked well in other sectors where they've been caught fiddling the figures and the like. God help us if this goes through.
This is pretty much on the money, there are enough fuck ups in child protection already, bringing a financial incentive into the arena is simply going to make it worse not better. Christ the older I get the more disenfranchised from any of our governments I feel, what a bunch of fuckwits for even thinking along these lines. Go look at the privatised penal system in America to get a flavour of what not to privatise.
Similar threads
