|
Archived Transcript for 30 January 2002: Pages
51 to 100
51
1 assistant directors advising me that the budget for
2 older people was about to overspend by £2 million,
3 a situation that had not previously been made apparent
4 to me, so in addition to the difficulties I had in the
5 Children's Services we have just gone through I was also
6 faced with considerable budgetary pressures in my Old
7 People's Services.
8 Now, part of what I had done in those early months
9 was to work closely with the Director of Finance and the
10 Chief Executive to set out clearly the position the
11 department's budget was in and to set forward and work
12 through with them what we could reasonably achieve and
13 what we could not achieve. Now, clearly it is
14 unpalatable always if one of your departments does not
15 bring the budget in on line because it puts enormous
16 pressure on other services, and particularly if you are
17 a high spending department like Social Services which
18 typically will take the lion's share of the controllable
19 budget. I say that in the context of education budgets
20 are devolved under local management of schools to
21 schools, so what the authority can control directly, the
22 Social Services budget will always be a large part of
23 that.
24 So what we needed to look at was what was the art of
25 the possible and what could be done. So the reasons for
52
1 the increases were different between the different
2 services.
3 MR GARNHAM: But you managed to persuade the politicians to
4 give you an extra £3 million.
5 MS BRISTOW: Yes I did, with some assistance from colleagues
6 I have to say.
7 MR GARNHAM: I am sure. We have asked a good number of
8 questions relating to financing and for present purposes
9 I want to deal with it at a rather more prosaic level.
10 How is it that Victoria having died and the SSI having
11 inspected, you managed to get these additional funds out
12 of your colleagues and your political masters when that
13 was apparently impossible before?
14 MS BRISTOW: Clearly there had been quite strong reports
15 about the level of funding and clearly, as I think
16 colleagues have explained, there is a process each year
17 looking at the needs. I am very clear it is my
18 responsibility to advise my members whether or not
19 I have adequate resources and also to advise members
20 what the consequences of any proposed budget cuts are.
21 At the point where I joined Haringey it will be no
22 surprise to the Inquiry we were at the stage of starting
23 to set the next year's budget and we went through
24 a process I believe in the November or thereabouts where
25 we were looking, we had been asked to identify whether
53
1 there were target reductions that we could make and
2 whether there were areas where we needed additional
3 expenditure.
4 The process I have gone through was to identify,
5 yes, where we could make cuts but what the implications
6 would be. So, for example, as I am sure you will be
7 aware there is considerable pressure from the government
8 to maintain throughput of patients through NHS hospitals
9 and therefore Social Services to pick up with community
10 care needs to support the Health Service, and some of
11 the proposed cuts were about reductions in those
12 budgets.
13 What I did then was to point out to members I would
14 not be able to maintain discharge levels. So we looked
15 through it. Alongside that is the work that I think
16 both Andrew Travers and Councillor Meehan referred to
17 which is to bring Haringey's finances into financial
18 balance. Now, by doing that and by some use of capital
19 receipts and capitalisation of debts I believe it is
20 called, we had reached the point where there was some
21 ability for the Director of Finance to redirect
22 resources.
23 MR GARNHAM: My point is a simple one. It would appear from
24 what you have told us to be the position that in the
25 years immediately prior to your arriving in Haringey,
54
1 Haringey were not spending enough on Children's
2 Services.
3 MS BRISTOW: It is clear that is the external assessment of
4 our spend, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: You agree with that assessment, you told me
6 earlier you do not disagree with the conclusions the SSI
7 drew?
8 MS BRISTOW: Not in the way they put them, no.
9 MR GARNHAM: Can we take it you agree that Haringey were not
10 spending enough prior to the SSI report?
11 MS BRISTOW: I do not think that is the same question as you
12 put to me earlier with respect. I think you asked me
13 did the SSI conclude that we were spending under SSA.
14 MR GARNHAM: No.
15 MS BRISTOW: Well, if we could perhaps have it back because
16 I think that is clearly what you drew my attention to in
17 the SSI inspection report.
18 MR GARNHAM: That was one of two points they make. The
19 first was that Haringey were under-resourcing Children's
20 Services. The second is that they were underspending
21 SSA.
22 MS BRISTOW: Well, what I was saying is I was agreeing with
23 you that that is what they concluded and that I did not
24 necessarily disagree with it. That is not the same as
25 saying I positively say Haringey underspent because
55
1 I was not there, I cannot tell.
2 MR GARNHAM: Let me ask you now, looking at it from your
3 privileged position with the knowledge that you have
4 now, having gone in and taken over this department,
5 looking back at what had happened, which is what you
6 have been doing over a lengthy period of time, do you
7 agree that Haringey were not spending enough on
8 Children's Services in the years before you arrived?
9 MS BRISTOW: I do not believe there is any social services
10 department in the country spending enough on Children's
11 Services. Indeed Mr Milburn has recently told us he
12 does not think there is enough spent. So no, no one has
13 enough. Did they have a fair share of the resources
14 available? I cannot tell you because I was not there.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did they have enough to do the job properly?
16 The answer to that must be no.
17 MS BRISTOW: I cannot answer that question. What I have
18 been telling you is what I believe about the level of
19 resources we need now, and I believe you had the
20 opportunity to ask Ms Richardson what she thought about
21 that.
22 MR GARNHAM: I did, and I took that opportunity, but I am
23 interested in the extent to which you want to qualify
24 your agreement with the SSI report's conclusion that
25 Haringey were under-resourcing Children's Services.
56
1 MS BRISTOW: All I am trying to differentiate is that if you
2 work in an authority then you have a hands-on feel for
3 the level of resources needed to deliver it, because it
4 is not simply about what is provided in your department,
5 it is also about what else is available in your
6 community. I do not have the knowledge of what was
7 available in Haringey either through the early years
8 service at that time, through voluntary organisations or
9 otherwise to make that judgment. What I am saying is
10 I have no reason to believe that the SSI inspectors who
11 did a detailed piece of work are wrong.
12 MR GARNHAM: Is there any structural change that you could
13 see when you arrived that could explain why £3 million
14 extra could be found when you asked for them but could
15 not be found the year before?
16 MS BRISTOW: My understanding is that a lot of work had been
17 done in terms of the corporate financial arrangements to
18 get to a stage where overall the Council's finances were
19 on a sound footing. Now, it is my understanding that
20 the District Auditor now believes we have a sound
21 financial footing. Once you are in a sound position
22 with a decent amount of reserves then you are in
23 a position to invest where you need to in the authority.
24 If you have shall we say not very sound finances, which
25 is what I understand the position was in the mid-1990s
57
1 with less in reserves, less ways of dealing with large
2 debts, then you are not in a position to do that and
3 that is what I am led to believe has changed.
4 MR GARNHAM: You see, we have been repeatedly putting to
5 Haringey witnesses that what matters is the political
6 will to devote money to Children's Services. What
7 I want to suggest to you is that the consequence of
8 Victoria's death first and the SSI inspection second was
9 that suddenly the political will was there and the money
10 was found. Is that right?
11 MS BRISTOW: I have found no lacking in political will to
12 support me to improve Haringey Children's Services.
13 MR GARNHAM: The essential differences you have to back up
14 that claim are Victoria's death and the SSI report.
15 MS BRISTOW: That is a supposition that I cannot comment on
16 because I was not there. If I had been there in the
17 earlier years and had experienced the political
18 environment at that time I would be able to compare one
19 with the other. All I can say to you is that I have had
20 very solid support from Haringey's politicians to do
21 what needs to be done.
22 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in paragraph 22 that additional
23 resources provided to ACPs was intended to enable them
24 to recruit an independent chair and development worker.
25 Has that happened?
58
1 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: When?
3 MS BRISTOW: The independent chair took up his post on
4 1st November 2001.
5 MR GARNHAM: Who is that?
6 MS BRISTOW: Stephen Pizzey.
7 MR GARNHAM: And the development worker?
8 MS BRISTOW: In the event we have not appointed one person.
9 We did advertise.
10 MR GARNHAM: You what sorry?
11 MS BRISTOW: In the event we did not appoint one person. We
12 had advertised for a person and there was not a suitable
13 candidate. Instead we have entered into a contract with
14 the Bridge Childcare Consultancy who are providing us
15 with development worker time from a number of their
16 employees this.
17 MR GARNHAM: You tell us, paragraph 25 if you want to look
18 at it, that an experienced Children's Services Assistant
19 Director was recruited from Southwark. Who was that?
20 MS BRISTOW: Anne Chan.
21 MR GARNHAM: Is she still in post?
22 MS BRISTOW: She is, but she has obviously concentrated some
23 of her efforts on what I had not intended at that time.
24 MR GARNHAM: Namely this Inquiry?
25 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
59
1 MR GARNHAM: You tell us members agreed to establish
2 a fourth Assistant Director post.
3 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Is that post filled?
5 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: By whom?
7 MS BRISTOW: Ben Brown.
8 MR GARNHAM: You tell us, paragraph 27, that a new permanent
9 Assistant Director for Children's Services took up his
10 appointment in June 2001.
11 MS BRISTOW: Yes he has.
12 MR GARNHAM: Who is that?
13 MS BRISTOW: David Derbyshire.
14 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 23, you say that half a million
15 pounds was allocated to fund service improvement
16 resulting from the Inquiry. Which Inquiry is that?
17 MS BRISTOW: This Inquiry.
18 MR GARNHAM: There is a half million pounds sitting in
19 a bank account ready to be spent, put forward, dealing
20 with recommendations this Inquiry makes, is that
21 correct?
22 MS BRISTOW: No, we have anticipated what we think are some
23 things the Inquiry might recommend and have started to
24 make some of those improvements. Clearly if there are
25 recommendations we have not anticipated and there is
60
1 sufficient money then we will use it. If not, I will
2 obviously need to go back and ask.
3 MR GARNHAM: One of the more interesting answers I have
4 received during the course of this Inquiry. What
5 recommendations are you anticipating that this Inquiry
6 will make?
7 MS BRISTOW: I am anticipating that you think I should be
8 fully staffed with experienced and qualified staff, that
9 you think I should improve case recording, those sorts
10 of things.
11 MR GARNHAM: Have these been reduced to writing, these
12 anticipated recommendations?
13 MS BRISTOW: I felt it unwise to do so Mr Garnham.
14 MR GARNHAM: Really? Why?
15 MS BRISTOW: Well ...
16 MR GARNHAM: Was that because I might ask you for it?
17 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
18 MR GARNHAM: Why would that, given that this is intended to
19 be a collaborative process in order to advance the
20 quality of Children's Services in Haringey, why would
21 that be a bad idea?
22 MS BRISTOW: I mean in essence my views about where
23 Children's Services need to be improved are in the
24 action plans that are before my members but what I had
25 said to them is that some of these improvements could
61
1 not happen without money.
2 MR GARNHAM: And they recognised that and allocated half
3 a million pounds for the purpose?
4 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
5 MR GARNHAM: But it must mean from what you have said that
6 you do have in mind recommendations that you think ought
7 to be made by this Inquiry to improve Children's
8 Services in Haringey?
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes, but I think of the kind that have been
10 in -- I mean having attended as you know a number of
11 sessions of the Inquiry then I have heard the questions
12 put to other people and some of the answers and
13 obviously reflected myself on the sorts of things. Now,
14 some of the interagency working clearly we would want to
15 work further on, we want to look at how we bring things
16 together. We want to look at how the basic practice
17 improves.
18 It would be surprising to me if amongst the
19 recommendations the Inquiry may make that some things
20 about that, about the recruitment, the matter we talked
21 about earlier, pan London procedures, did not emerge
22 from the Inquiry, but obviously that is matter for
23 Lord Laming, not for me.
24 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely right, it is, but nevertheless the
25 observation I made about this being a collaborative
62
1 process rather than a court case holds true, so if
2 I were to ask you to reduce to writing your thoughts as
3 to the sort of recommendations that should be made, you
4 presumably could do that for us?
5 MS BRISTOW: It would seem a little presumptuous but
6 presumably I could if I sat down and put my mind to it.
7 MR GARNHAM: I am not inviting you to engage on a lengthy
8 exercise but you are in a singularly good position to
9 know where change ought to be contemplated and your
10 thoughts on that might be of value to the Inquiry.
11 Could we ask you to do that?
12 MS BRISTOW: I would be happy to try and assist the Inquiry
13 in that way.
14 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. Paragraph 29 you tell us
15 that Haringey has embraced the performance culture.
16 What does that mean?
17 MS BRISTOW: You will recall I said earlier and I believe
18 other people from my authority have said that there was
19 a recognition in Haringey, and I think the turning point
20 as I understand it was the OFSTED report at that time,
21 that something needed to be done to move Haringey's
22 service delivery up. Increasingly it is possible to
23 compare one's performance with other authorities with
24 a variety of what is commonly known as league tables,
25 and a decision had been taken that we needed to do, to
63
1 make a real difference, and rhetoric is one thing, and
2 many plans, but turning that into reality.
3 The Council set itself a target of becoming a top
4 performing authority by 2005 and I think that was quite
5 important because it was long enough to make the
6 difference, because I think if you say to staff working
7 in an authority that is not performing well, "We will be
8 top performers next year", people will laugh and not
9 take it seriously. So a realistic target had been set
10 about by 2005. Obviously the challenge that is in that
11 is that every local authority also is trying to move its
12 performance up. While we are all exhorted to become
13 a top performer, by definition it is not possible.
14 However, that does not mean we cannot all improve our
15 performance.
16 MR GARNHAM: And there is something healthy in everybody
17 competing to get in the top --
18 MS BRISTOW: Indeed. What we have done within the authority
19 is to start to say to people we know there is cynicism
20 about performance indicators, but love them or hate
21 them, they are here to stay, and let us assume as local
22 government collaborates with central government about
23 how the performance indicators will be measured that
24 they are as good as we are going to get, and from time
25 to time the technicians change the definition slightly,
64
1 but let us just assume that they are a fair indicator,
2 we have said to people, and if they measure the things
3 that matter then let us concentrate on the things that
4 matter, and clearly some indicators one would have more
5 sympathy with than others, and that we will look not
6 only at how the numbers change, which is important, but
7 what lies behind that.
8 So that if the performance is not where we would
9 expect it to be, why not? What are we going to do about
10 it? What needs to change? And we have worked very hard
11 with staff to get to the position where at least some of
12 our staff, and I would not pretend to you all of our
13 staff, have moved away from the position of "here is
14 a director asking for yet another set of meaningless
15 statistics that has got nothing to do with my job", to
16 some of my front line managers actually wanting to know
17 what their figures say because it matters to them, and
18 that is where it needs to be, that they use that
19 information to manage the service on a day-to-day basis.
20 So that is what I mean we are trying to do.
21 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that you have conducted
22 a recruitment drive which has been successful in closing
23 the vacancy gap.
24 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
25 MR GARNHAM: What is the current position as at February
65
1 2002?
2 MS BRISTOW: January.
3 MR GARNHAM: We are nearly in February --
4 MS BRISTOW: It is worse than it was at the end of November.
5 We were doing very well up to the end of November. We
6 had some people leave us at Christmas.
7 MR GARNHAM: Can you give us an overall feel for what the
8 vacancy position is in Haringey Social Services or
9 rather Children's Services?
10 MS BRISTOW: The bit you have been concentrating on, I think
11 in the district social work teams, I am currently
12 somewhere around 25 per cent of staff are not employed
13 on Haringey permanent contracts. However, of all my
14 posts I have only two that are not covered and that
15 means some are covered by people working on temporary
16 contracts with the Council and some from agency staff.
17 MR GARNHAM: You say that the Council introduced
18 a recruitment and retention scheme that you believe will
19 attract and retain experienced and skilled staff. Has
20 it done so?
21 MS BRISTOW: We have managed during 2001 -- perhaps I can
22 say a little about what we did on the recruitment. We
23 employed someone to work on it full-time because part of
24 what we understood was that when you are competing with
25 a number of authorities, people go for several job
66
1 interviews at a time, and to a certain extent you take
2 the first one you get a formal offer for that you like
3 the look of.
4 So we tried to speed up how quickly after the
5 closing date you got interviewed and how quickly we
6 could get an offer to you and we did succeed in
7 recruiting qualified staff. I would say to you they
8 were not in all instances as experienced as we would
9 have liked. You then went on to ask me -- I have lost
10 my track, sorry.
11 MR GARNHAM: I think you have answered it. I was asking
12 about the recruitment and retention scheme and how well
13 it was doing.
14 MS BRISTOW: I think we are succeeding in recruiting people.
15 We have this month amended it further which will link
16 progression both to post qualifying qualifications and
17 to length of experience and we hope, having looked at
18 salary scales across London on a fairly ad hoc basis by
19 looking at what people are advertising in the trade
20 press, which seems, as well as some stuff through
21 employers organisations, it is not necessarily our
22 salary scales that are uncompetitive but perhaps where
23 we place people on those scales, so we have adopted
24 something that recognises if you go and get a post
25 qualification in childcare for example then you will
67
1 move up the salary scale. If you have four years
2 experience you will move up the salary scale. Things we
3 hope will help retain staff.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you hear the evidence of Mr Norman Tutt?
5 MS BRISTOW: I did not, though I have looked at some of the
6 transcript. I did not read all of it.
7 MR GARNHAM: He described a recruitment and retention policy
8 that was being adopted in Ealing which according to him
9 was successful. I wondered whether there was any
10 cross-fertilisation of ideas or whether he is simply the
11 competition?
12 MS BRISTOW: There is both I think. It is a matter that has
13 exercised the minds of London directors because we
14 recognise we are recruiting in the same labour market
15 more or less or at least in segments of the capital,
16 because often in London it is people's journey to work
17 that determines where they might move to as much as
18 other factors sometimes.
19 Also I need to both collaborate and compete and
20 there are ongoing discussions about how we can do that,
21 and ongoing discussions about how we might cooperate to
22 seek to try and manage the agency market.
23 MR GARNHAM: Sir would that be a convenient moment for
24 a short break?
25 MS BRISTOW: Thank you very much. Ms Bristow while we have
68
1 this break you are not allowed to discuss your evidence
2 with anyone, I think you know the rules. We will be
3 back just before 20 to 12.
4 (11.30 am)
5 (A short break)
6 (11.40 am)
7 MR GARNHAM: Reading your statement as a whole, one comes
8 away with a fairly optimistic picture about the progress
9 Haringey is making in its Social Services Department.
10 MS BRISTOW: It would be impossible to do my job and not
11 have a certain optimism that one could make things
12 better. However, that has to be tempered with a realism
13 about recognising when we make progress, when we go one
14 step back, two steps forward. I am confident we will
15 get there.
16 MR GARNHAM: Do you think that Haringey Social Services'
17 Children's Department is in a better state of health now
18 than it was when you took over?
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes I do, although not everything is right.
20 MR GARNHAM: Better state now than they were when Victoria
21 died?
22 MS BRISTOW: I believe so.
23 MR GARNHAM: I want to test your assertions about how well
24 Haringey is doing in two ways. First, I want to look at
25 the reports you prepared for the Policy and Strategy
69
1 Committee meeting of 9th December 2001 and the position
2 statement you prepared for the SSI which is due to take
3 place I think next week.
4 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
5 MR GARNHAM: When we have done that I want to come back and
6 look at a number of particular topics which are
7 important in the context of Victoria's case and may shed
8 some light on the way in which Haringey is now
9 performing. Let us start with the reports and the
10 position statement. First of all, the report to the
11 committee at 45H page 42.
12 MS BRISTOW: Is this the report you intended?
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
14 MS BRISTOW: Okay, it was not what I understand from what
15 you describe; that is why I ask.
16 MR GARNHAM: Perhaps I described it wrongly. This is an
17 agenda item for the Policy and Strategy Committee of the
18 18th December 2001.
19 MS BRISTOW: What I wished to do was to share with members
20 ahead of us writing the detailed position statement an
21 overall flavour of what we thought we would put in it.
22 MR GARNHAM: However I expressed it, this is what
23 I intended.
24 MS BRISTOW: I thought you were talking about monthly
25 performance reports.
70
1 MR GARNHAM: We will come to those later. We need to remind
2 ourselves that this report is describing a situation,
3 what, 18 months after the June 2000 inspection?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 5.2.4 on page 44, where you identify
6 what it is the position statement that we will come on
7 to look at in a moment: "Will need to comment upon with
8 regard to areas that still need strengthening." We see
9 them listed by bullet point over the next page or so.
10 First I want to ask you about the suggestion that as
11 at that time Social Services were not undertaking
12 assessments of need in the timescale laid down by the
13 assessment framework. How far are you out of time, what
14 is the slippage?
15 MS BRISTOW: I think the slippage is around both whether or
16 not the initial assessments are done within the seven
17 days, or the core assessments I think off the top of my
18 head 30-odd days.
19 MR GARNHAM: 42 or 35.
20 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I think it is 35, but yes. So it is not
21 to say the assessments of need are not taking place but
22 whether they are taking place speedily enough, and in
23 that context we had had obviously ahead of introducing
24 the assessment framework, guidance and documentation had
25 been produced for staff. Some year on it seemed to us
71
1 prudent to look at how not only we were doing it but
2 other authorities because some of the feedback we had
3 had from front line staff was that the paperwork was
4 cumbersome and inhibiting. In practice you are asking
5 the same question more than once. We have had a look at
6 the system for doing it, the paperwork associated with
7 it with a view to trying to help people do it within the
8 timescales laid down.
9 MR GARNHAM: This is a problem you think is shared by other
10 local authorities?
11 MS BRISTOW: Yes, we do, though some do better than us.
12 MR GARNHAM: We will come to that later. The next one you
13 identify is "child protection conferences not regularly
14 held on time and specialist advice not always available
15 from CPAs." What is the problem?
16 MS BRISTOW: I think there are a number of different
17 problems. Some, there are timescales laid down for when
18 conferences should take place and we have looked at the
19 way in which that is booked, the notifications are sent
20 out. But there is also an issue about, as you are
21 aware, there are multiagency, so it is not only
22 attendance from my staff but attendance from other
23 people. There are some inherent conflict about how that
24 might be done. There are some issues that our
25 procedures as they currently stand require the police at
72
1 all conferences, whereas a decision has been taken
2 across the Met Police Service area that they would not
3 routinely attend reviews.
4 Now, our revised procedures, which hopefully will be
5 available very shortly, will reflect that position and
6 not require people to hold those conferences. So there
7 is a number -- sorry, not to not hold the conference
8 simply for lack of police attendance.
9 MR GARNHAM: Has that been happening?
10 MS BRISTOW: Only in as much as about review conferences
11 where it is a discrepancy between the procedures
12 catching up with the reality. It is not something we
13 are critical of, it is not something that we have
14 difficulty with but clearly some of our staff are
15 saying, "Technically it is not quorate." We have asked
16 them not do that now. When we were looking at why it is
17 not happening, that was an example of the sorts of
18 difficulties.
19 MR GARNHAM: How long had that been going on? You were
20 getting the letter from Haringey, got a letter addressed
21 I think to Ann Graham from Ms Akers some considerable
22 time going ago now indicating that that was to be the
23 Met's approach. How long did people go on thinking that
24 meant meetings were not quorate?
25 MS BRISTOW: I cannot answer that.
73
1 MR GARNHAM: But it persisted for a time?
2 MS BRISTOW: I believe so.
3 MR GARNHAM: I do not understand why, because one would have
4 thought that on receipt of that letter Ms Graham would
5 either have said, "We cannot do this, Metropolitan
6 Police, you have got to come", or else she would have
7 said, "They are going to do it, let us adapt our
8 processes so they do not foul up as a result".
9 MS BRISTOW: What I am saying is we are adapting our
10 processes. You asked me, there are a range of things
11 which are not -- it has got better is my view but part
12 of them doing the position statement, as I think
13 I indicated earlier, is to try and indicate where we
14 know performance still is not good enough, so my view
15 would be that this is an area that has improved but is
16 not yet at a level I consider satisfactory and that it
17 is important to flag that up.
18 MR GARNHAM: Next point, CPAs not yet able to carry out
19 occasional audits of practice in conjunction with team
20 managers. Why not?
21 MS BRISTOW: Because I have vacancies in the Child
22 Protection Service. You will appreciate this has not
23 been an easy year for Haringey to recruit to its child
24 protection adviser roles.
25 MR GARNHAM: I am reminded that the letter from Akers to
74
1 Graham is dated 2nd June 1999, two and a half years
2 before you are writing this paper.
3 MS BRISTOW: I was advised at the time it was a factor
4 because the procedures in in that time had not been
5 updated. They are at final draft stage, going to the
6 ACPC very shortly.
7 MR GARNHAM: It seems as if things move slowly in quite
8 important areas. Two and a half years to adapt a policy
9 that was preventing successful operation of review
10 meetings seems extraordinary.
11 MS BRISTOW: I am not trying to say to you, and I think
12 perhaps this is slightly out of context, that that is
13 the major factor by any means. What I am saying is
14 there is a range of different factors why any particular
15 conference will not happen on time. Part of it was
16 booking them very close to the deadline so that if any
17 conference did not happen on the due date for whatever
18 reason, there would be no time within the required time
19 period to reconvene it.
20 What we have now asked people to do is to book them
21 further in advance so that if for some reason a key
22 player cannot be there on the day then there is time to
23 rearrange it without it being out of time. I would like
24 to see the pace of change faster than it is but we
25 clearly need to secure things on a number of fronts.
75
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Next point, the fifth bullet point on
2 page 45, this is again an area that needs strengthening,
3 according to you, the need to make consistent standards
4 of practice with children and families so there is
5 always an assessment from a child centre perspective and
6 that drift and risk are managed properly by social
7 workers and their managers.
8 This could have been written during the time
9 Victoria was in the care of Haringey Social Services --
10 I am sorry, that is a technical phrase. Her case was
11 being looked at by Haringey Social Services. Drift and
12 failure to assess risks might just about characterise
13 the whole of the process.
14 MS BRISTOW: Yes, again we are not saying that there has
15 been no improvement. What I am saying is that from the
16 work I have done on a regular basis by managers in the
17 service we are not satisfied it is consistently of
18 a high standard.
19 MR GARNHAM: Where is the problem?
20 MS BRISTOW: I think some of the problem is in that the
21 standards of practice that have been there I believe for
22 some time take time to bring up. We are putting
23 training in place, we are putting guidance in place, but
24 you need to work systematically with people about their
25 understanding of what constitutes good practice and then
76
1 make sure it is happening timely, every day.
2 MR GARNHAM: How long do you think this is going to take?
3 How long is it going to be before you are able to write
4 that drift and risk are managed appropriately and
5 consistent standards of practice are in place?
6 MS BRISTOW: Can I start by saying I do believe in a large
7 number of cases it is managed appropriately, but --
8 MR GARNHAM: Your point here is that it should be
9 comprehensive.
10 MS BRISTOW: My point is it should be comprehensive and
11 I would hope that we get there as quickly as we can. My
12 expectation is it should be significantly better month
13 on month and by next year it should be significantly
14 better. We have made progress on the bullet points on
15 the page before that you do not want to ask me about.
16 MR GARNHAM: I am happy to deal with any of them. My
17 concern is to pick those that seem to be most related to
18 Victoria's circumstances because that is where our
19 primary focus is. It is not something about which you
20 can give a timetable.
21 MS BRISTOW: I would be foolish to give a timetable because
22 what I need to -- before I can say I am satisfied it is
23 happening, I need evidence it is happening and I think
24 one of the lessons for me about what previously happened
25 was that, and I think it has been alluded to a number of
77
1 times, is people took at face value what they were being
2 told, that it was better or that it was in place, and
3 what I am saying is one of the things that I want to be
4 satisfied about before I say it is in place is that
5 regular case file audit shows it to be in place, that
6 complaints I receive do not demonstrate to the contrary
7 and that therefore I will then have a measure of
8 confidence that it is in place.
9 MR GARNHAM: How are you going to achieve this? I ask
10 because Mary Richardson told us that some staff had
11 a real difficulty with the written word, that
12 guidance -- and we have seen this time and time again --
13 guidance is not always followed or even read, so how are
14 you going to make these improvements? Do you agree with
15 Ms Richardson by the way?
16 MS BRISTOW: I believe any large organisation you will
17 always have some staff with literacy problems and
18 I think one of the difficulties in our society is it is
19 very hard for people to admit to that. There is
20 a social stigma attached to admitting difficulty with
21 literacy or numeracy.
22 MR GARNHAM: Difficulty with literacy and numeracy is a
23 problem in trained social workers, is it?
24 MS BRISTOW: I believe that does in some cases occur.
25 MR GARNHAM: How, given that, are you dealing with the
78
1 problem that you identify here?
2 MS BRISTOW: I think there are two separate issues and
3 I will try and deal with them in turn. I believe
4 critical to delivering a good quality service is the
5 quality of your first line managers. They are the
6 people who supervise the cases on a day-to-day basis and
7 who offer advice and guidance to the staff.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I have asked people to switch off mobile
9 phones.Talking about literacy it is quite apposite.
10 MS BRISTOW: So we would seek to strengthen our front line
11 management. We have recruited this year a number of
12 practice managers and for most of them but not all of
13 them it would be their first management post and they
14 may be very experienced practitioners but as people will
15 know, there is a difference between being a good
16 practitioner and being a good manager. So we have put
17 in place a practice manager development programme that
18 is currently running that helps to equip them to convert
19 their good professional knowledge and practice into
20 managerial skills that they can share with the staff
21 they supervise.
22 Now, that should, when they are doing their job
23 properly, enable them to pick up on a one to one basis
24 with people any misunderstanding about the guidance. If
25 we find an individual member of staff who appears to
79
1 have a literacy problem who is willing to address it,
2 because clearly there are issues about addressing
3 literacy with people in a supportive as opposed to
4 punitive way, then obviously we would be happy to help
5 them with a range of resources for adult literacy, but
6 some of it is also about making sure that the guidance
7 we give staff is clear and unequivocal.
8 I note there have been comments about people who did
9 not have access to documentation or we provide them with
10 copies of it they say but they never opened it. I think
11 the way you deal with that is you build it into your
12 team meetings.
13 MR GARNHAM: This may be important for where we as an
14 Inquiry go from this. So your suggestion is that there
15 needs to be clear guidance but that needs to be backed
16 up by good quality first line management who are able to
17 ensure that the guidance is read and understood and
18 used?
19 MS BRISTOW: And indeed good management at all levels but
20 I mean it is particularly critical to social work
21 practice that the immediate supervisors provide
22 guidance. In any large bureaucracy, to rely simply on
23 sending out pieces of paper and that people will read
24 them I believe is misguided.
25 MR GARNHAM: Can we look at your position statement next in
80
1 volume 45J page 4. That is the cover sheet. I would
2 like you to turn to page 13. Under the heading
3 "Progress 2001", it is bundle page 13, "Improving
4 Practice", last bullet point:
5 "100 per cent of child protection and looked after
6 children's cases are allocated. Maintained at this
7 level since July 2001."
8 MS BRISTOW: Yes, that is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: What do you mean by allocated?
10 MS BRISTOW: That there is a named allocated social worker
11 who should have the capacity on their case load to deal
12 appropriately with the case.
13 MR GARNHAM: Could you be given 45G, please page 41. The
14 point you make in that position statement is replicated,
15 is it not, in what were noted by councillors in the
16 Children's Services Working Group in October 2001 under
17 "SS monitoring requirements and staffing information"
18 towards the end of that paragraph:
19 "Allocation figures for both children looked after
20 and those on the Child Protection Register were now
21 static and remained at zero. This position has been
22 maintained since June 2001."
23 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: "For August 89 per cent of children on the
25 register were seen in the last 42 days and we are
81
1 advised for September that figure has improved to
2 98 per cent."
3 Is that your target, to see that children on the
4 register are seen once every six weeks?
5 MS BRISTOW: It is what is now a deleted Audit Commission
6 indicator which is a minimum standard. Clearly the
7 child should be seen as often as the child protection
8 plan requires. But we are monitoring to ensure that at
9 least the minimum standard is being achieved.
10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. 45F, please. Page 119. A letter
11 at the end of July 2001 to you from Pauline Bradley of
12 Unison. Second paragraph, she expresses concern about
13 staffing level and says that staff were apparently aware
14 of 150 unallocated cases waiting to come up to I&A and
15 they are worried in the light of Victoria's case about
16 the possibility of another tragedy. Any truth in that?
17 MS BRISTOW: I do not believe so. When I have met with the
18 Trade Union I have on each occasion that they have made
19 statements like this asked them to give me specific
20 details or evidence to back up their claims. I have
21 obviously made management enquiries but consistently the
22 information I have available to me and the assertions
23 made by the Trade Union do not tally and when I have
24 invited them to give me specifics they have not come
25 back to me.
82
1 MR GARNHAM: Because this would be significant, would it
2 not, because this is after the date by which you say you
3 have achieved zero per cent unallocated cases?
4 MS BRISTOW: No, I say I was -- sorry, the terminology is
5 slightly different. I am saying there are no
6 unallocated child protection cases or looked after
7 children. Now, clearly there are situations where we
8 cannot allocate every case and it is my view, and one
9 I have discussed with front line staff as well, that if
10 we have to make a choice between certain family support
11 cases -- and I would not say all of them because you
12 need to look at what is involved, it is a rather broad
13 term that can encompass everything from someone wanting
14 help to child minding right through to complex
15 situations -- the priority would be to allocate looked
16 after children and those on the register but I am
17 expecting my managers to exercise some judgment on that.
18 MR GARNHAM: I see. That I think is picked up in the reply
19 that was written to Miss Bradley on your behalf which we
20 have at page 172 in this bundle. The third paragraph
21 begins:
22 "Secondly, I have asked Terry Burns to report to
23 me" --
24 I should have said this is written by Tony Kreeson
25 on your behalf.
83
1 MS BRISTOW: I was on holiday last year, that is why.
2 MR GARNHAM: "... asked Terry Burns to report to me on your
3 claim that there are 150 unallocated cases. I presume
4 you meant to say in your letter that these were cases
5 needing allocations further to assessment in I&A. As
6 I know all children on the child protection register and
7 children looked after did indeed have an allocated
8 social worker at 3rd August I am sceptical that there
9 are as many cases as you claim which require social work
10 allocation at present. Success of staff in achieving
11 allocation of these cases at both Tottenham and Hornsey
12 is no mean achievement and should be viewed rightly as
13 a success."
14 Does that accurately represent your position?
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it does.
16 MR GARNHAM: So we need to understand, do we, that your
17 assertions are that child protection and children looked
18 after are entirely allocated? There may be, may there,
19 probably will be some children in need cases that are
20 not instantly allocated?
21 MS BRISTOW: Yes, that would be the position and would be
22 held on a duty basis.
23 MR GARNHAM: Could you have 45I please.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the gentleman who had the mobile
25 phone to make sure his phone is off. We would rather
84
1 not have the William Tell Overture in the Inquiry.
2 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: I apologise to the Inquiry.
3 MR GARNHAM: Page 149. Recent letter 9th January 2002,
4 addressed to you from Mr Lewington, Peter Lewington,
5 back to the similar theme of the union. Reference in
6 this in paragraph 1 to an e-mail that had been sent to
7 all practice managers which referred to there being
8 50 unallocated cases.
9 "It appears that this e-mail said that all 50 cases
10 had to be allocated by the end of the day. It was said
11 that this was non-negotiable."
12 What are these 50 unallocated cases?
13 MS BRISTOW: I have subsequently written, both spoken to and
14 written to Mr Lewington and I believe you have a copy of
15 my letter to Mr Lewington.
16 MR GARNHAM: I do and in fact we distributed it this morning
17 having received it yesterday afternoon.
18 MS BRISTOW: Right. What I understand, as I say in the
19 letter I then sent to him, there were 50 children as
20 opposed to unallocated cases. Clearly it is not the
21 same. During the latter part of last year it was clear
22 that if some staff were leaving at Christmas there would
23 be cases that would require reallocation.
24 Now, originally I had the issue of the e-mail raised
25 with me and at that stage I asked senior managers if
85
1 they had written any such e-mail because I obviously
2 feared that part of the concern was the nature of the
3 communication rather than its substance, and I say that
4 because in my experience sometimes people write in haste
5 an e-mail and press the send button when a more mature
6 reflection might result in a rewording of the same
7 request.
8 I also had concern about the method of communication
9 raised with me by practice managers who I went to meet.
10 In the event it turns out an e-mail does not exist to
11 practice managers but there appears to have been a fax
12 from the manager of the district office, who was not at
13 work that day, to team managers asking for reallocation.
14 MR GARNHAM: That is Terry Burns, is it?
15 MS BRISTOW: Terry Burns. He was the interim manager of the
16 North Tottenham District Office until the permanent
17 appointee took up her post at the beginning of January.
18 MR GARNHAM: That is the fax annexed to your letter --
19 MS BRISTOW: It is indeed because I wanted to be transparent
20 with the Trade Union about what I had subsequently found
21 out because the previous week, as no one I had spoken
22 to, including all practice managers, could either
23 produce a copy of the e-mail, tell me who had written it
24 nor indeed could the Trade Union, I was beginning to
25 doubt the existence of any such piece of paper but
86
1 I then find a fax.
2 MR GARNHAM: And it looks as if this is it?
3 MS BRISTOW: I believe this is the communication people may
4 have been referring to, yes. Now, what that says
5 clearly is we have looked at people's case loads and
6 people appear to have space on their case loads to take
7 cases on.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am interested you say that. As I read the
9 fax, what is being done is to look across the workforce
10 at the number of cases that they have on and compare
11 that with a maximum of 15 to see what the difference is.
12 MS BRISTOW: The case load monitoring system is slightly
13 more sophisticated to that.
14 MR GARNHAM: Is it? Can we have a look at what you do in
15 the fax on the second page?
16 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I understand what is on the fax --
17 I have not got a copy of it here. If someone could give
18 me a copy I would be happy to discuss it with you.
19 MR GARNHAM: One is being put in front of you now.
20 MS BRISTOW: Thank you. The case load monitoring system
21 that is in place has fairly sophisticated -- not
22 sophisticated, perhaps that is the wrong word -- have
23 more complex rules than set out on Terry Burns. Clearly
24 he wrote this and I assume he looked at the printouts on
25 case load allocations and how -- this appears to be how
87
1 he summarised it. It seems that there were some people
2 who ought to have had space on their case load.
3 I think what he is saying to people is, and
4 a position I support, if we have a difficulty around
5 allocating every case, the priority is to allocate child
6 protection and looked after children. I understand
7 because I have met with them personally in January that
8 with the practice managers themselves that is not
9 contentious, that people agree that is the priority, and
10 what this was doing was saying if people have family
11 support cases which are allocated, whilst we potentially
12 have unallocated child protection and looked after
13 cases, then that poses the question to be asked: is that
14 right?
15 Now, as I said there may well be a family support
16 case for which that is right because the situation that
17 is emerging or is known means that that case should
18 remain allocated.
19 MR GARNHAM: But the solution as I read it that is allocated
20 or directed by Mr Burns in this fax is much more
21 mechanical than that. If you look at the first lengthy
22 paragraph we see he writes:
23 "The top of the case load range is 15. All LAC
24 counts as a case, all CP children in the same family
25 counts as one case. On this basis if we allocate
88
1 everyone 15 cases below we will be able to allocate 48
2 cases. Clearly it needs to be considered if those
3 workers needing to be allocated say four more cases
4 overtake them. If this cannot be managed within the
5 spare allocation case produced by allocating everyone 15
6 cases, then we will need to review FS ..."?
7 MS BRISTOW: Family support.
8 MR GARNHAM: "... to make the space. However we do it, all
9 CP and LAC cases must be allocated by the end of work
10 today."
11 There is the ultimatum: not negotiable, all these
12 cases must be allocated by the end of the day, and the
13 way in which it is to be done is described in the table
14 at the bottom, which is going through the name of each
15 individual social worker, adding up the total number of
16 cases, CP, LA, C&FS, comparing that with the 15 maximum
17 and saying those who are not up to 15, they must take
18 the extra and it just so happens if you do it that way
19 you get rid of 48-odd cases.
20 MS BRISTOW: But this is not the first discussion that there
21 has been as I understand. Clearly it would be
22 disappointing, would it not, if the first time my
23 managers realised they might have a problem on
24 allocation was in January for a problem that was
25 predictable in December?
89
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
2 MS BRISTOW: My understanding from the Assistant Director is
3 that there had been discussions both in October --
4 sorry, October, November, December at performance
5 management meetings about the need to maintain
6 allocation and what this meant. Therefore people had
7 previously been asked to do this task and this in fact
8 is the manager intervening when a task had not been
9 completed.
10 MR GARNHAM: What I am interested in is the way in which he
11 intervenes. He intervenes by issuing an instruction in
12 fairly firm terms that cases must be allocated by the
13 end of the day and they are to be allocated simply by
14 looking at how many short of 15 each social worker is
15 and giving them up to 15. That is the technique he has
16 adopted, is it not?
17 MS BRISTOW: The advice I have been given is this was not
18 the first time he had asked for a piece of work to be
19 done and nor was he saying, because I think he does
20 invite people to telephone him if there is a problem
21 with this. I have to say in my discussions with the
22 Assistant Director and indeed with the practice managers
23 I also met was that if we cannot allocate at Tottenham
24 then given we are, I think as has been said,
25 a relatively small geographical area, we should look to
90
1 see if we have capacity at Hornsey or within my
2 children's team in the asylum service.
3 MR GARNHAM: You say he invites telephone conversation if
4 this is difficult. He says:
5 "I know this will be unpopular but it must be done.
6 As you know, I am happy to talk to you about anything,
7 but appealing the decision will not be a productive use
8 of time."
9 It is hardly an invitation to discuss the merits of
10 his scheme, is it? This is an instruction that come
11 what may, you will divide up the unallocated cases
12 according to this simplistic formula.
13 MS BRISTOW: I think there is a much more open relationship
14 in practice between Mr Burns and the team managers. In
15 my experience of watching them interact they were --
16 I mean correspondence between colleagues is always in
17 the context of an ongoing relationship and I think in
18 the context of that ongoing relationship and knowing the
19 people involved I think if they felt it could not be
20 done reasonably or safely they would not have hesitated
21 to phone him or the Assistant Director.
22 MR GARNHAM: No consideration of the complexity of the case,
23 no consideration of the experience or competence of the
24 social worker, simply get these cases allocated. How
25 else do you read it?
91
1 MS BRISTOW: I think I read it in the context of knowing the
2 working relationship that exists between that group of
3 people. There is also I believe a reluctance at times
4 to take the harder cases, the child protection looked
5 after, which must be our priority. I have been very
6 clear to staff those are the priority for allocation
7 with the proviso that managers look at it. I am not
8 asking anyone to operate a tick box mentality where
9 people stop thinking, because that is the worst possible
10 thing to do, but it is not tenable for me or for
11 managers -- and what also was unpopular with my practice
12 managers when I met with them to discuss this was me
13 saying if we cannot allocate at Tottenham and we have
14 capacity at Hornsey we will allocate there, because we
15 need to not move back to the position --
16 Now, in the event when I have spoken to the practice
17 managers, whilst they did not, shall we say, like the
18 way in which it was communicated, they agreed the
19 decision was right. I have therefore suggested to them
20 that there is an appropriate way in an adult/adult
21 relationship which I hope to encourage between my
22 managers that they talk about in their meetings about
23 the communication issue.
24 MR GARNHAM: What it looks like to somebody coming across
25 this exchange of correspondence is a determination on
92
1 the part of senior management of Haringey to clear out
2 unallocated cases from the figures regardless of how
3 that is done, just get those cases allocated and then we
4 can say when we make a return to the SSI, "All is happy
5 all cases are allocated".
6 MS BRISTOW: I think as you have pointed out from the other
7 documents I have, I am more than happy to put openly in
8 front of the SSI the areas where I think my authority's
9 performance is not acceptable. What I am saying here is
10 that there are -- when there are hard choices to be made
11 about what is allocated and what is not, not that we
12 would then have less unallocated cases.
13 There is a stark choice, where we cannot allocate
14 every case, about which ones remain unallocated. You
15 can either do, which I believe was happening at one
16 stage is you allocate cases willy nilly to social
17 workers and do not worry about their case load or how
18 many. What I am actually saying here, which some of
19 them find more difficult, is if we have to allocate you
20 an additional looked after child case or child
21 protection case we will encourage you to close another
22 case.
23 Sometimes because people have been doing an
24 extensive piece of work with a family they are reluctant
25 to close that case but there is a difficult balance. If
93
1 we are going to maintain reasonable workloads for people
2 then we have to be prepared to say it is a management
3 decision that we will close that case and keep this one
4 open.
5 MR GARNHAM: My point is that these subtleties that you
6 suggest are applied in practice appear to be entirely
7 absent from Mr Burns' fax message on 7th January.
8 MS BRISTOW: I accept that when you read it cold without the
9 benefit of having been party to the earlier discussions
10 which I am assured did take place then one would gain
11 that impression, but given I have been assured that
12 there had been discussions on more than one occasion
13 previously about why we were doing it, how we expected
14 do it, what it was meant to achieve, and given the
15 relationship I know existed between Mr Burns and his
16 immediate reports, then I think you have a different
17 view of what is on the paper.
18 MR GARNHAM: This has an obvious impact does it not on case
19 load for each social worker, the means by which cases
20 are allocated?
21 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: On the second page of your letter of yesterday
23 you talk about case loads and you say:
24 "We have now considered the printout case loads of
25 Hornsey and Tottenham as at 16th January. In the Long
94
1 Term Teams there are six social workers, 16 or 17 cases.
2 No worker is carrying 28 cases as alleged, that being
3 alleged by Mr Lewington in his letter, indeed no workers
4 even have 28 children. A number of full-time staff with
5 fewer than 12 cases, only seven social workers with more
6 than six children on the CPR. They of course are likely
7 to relate to large sibling groups. The clear priorities
8 for the Children's Division as set out in the draft
9 business plan for 2002-03 are around safeguarding
10 children and promoting the best outcomes for looked
11 after children. Inevitably, therefore caseloads
12 reflected this but this is not to say the case loads
13 appear overly burdensome."
14 Is it your view as at today's date that Haringey's
15 children's department social workers are overworked?
16 MS BRISTOW: I do not believe the information I have
17 suggests they are overworked. That is not to say the
18 work is not challenging.
19 MR GARNHAM: Is there slack?
20 MS BRISTOW: If you look at the stark case load figures then
21 there is some slack. However, we are mindful that
22 whilst we have a qualified group of staff we have an
23 inexperienced group of staff, not completely, we
24 obviously have some very experienced workers, and I am
25 also mindful of whether you feel you have too little or
95
1 too much to do is not a feature purely of numbers but of
2 the overall environment in which you work, so some
3 people's capacity is greater than the nominal figure and
4 other people's is less.
5 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 33 of your statement you say that the
6 Directorate has reviewed case loads and concluded that
7 staffing resources are adequate and that case loads were
8 comparable to other London authorities.
9 That is what you say in your statement.
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: There was an article published in Community
12 Care in August last year in which it was said you had
13 suggested that it may be premature to draw that
14 conclusion. First of all did you say that in an article
15 in Community Care?
16 MS BRISTOW: Not about current case loads. You may recall
17 back in -- from correspondence, and I think the papers
18 are in the bundle, in July of last year I was asked the
19 question at Council's Policy and Strategy Committee by
20 one of the members, that given we had achieved
21 allocation of cases, whether I thought staff had
22 unreasonable workloads in the present time, and by
23 extension my views on the position that had been there
24 in pertained in 1999.
25 I had indicated at that time that I did not believe
96
1 the workloads in 1999 were excessive, yes, important use
2 of words, because subsequently when reported on BBC News
3 South East and again in the trade press, "not excessive"
4 translated to underworked or overworked, not overworked,
5 which had a different connotation for my staff, and
6 I think is quite different to saying something is not
7 excessive as opposed to implying people are not working
8 hard enough.
9 The comments that appeared in Community Care
10 last August were around whether or not the 1999
11 position, not my views on the current position.
12 MR GARNHAM: Let us find out what your views are then.
13 First of all, 1999. Staff overworked or not?
14 MS BRISTOW: I cannot make that -- the comment I made then,
15 and I have looked again at the figures, is the
16 information at that time went to the Children's Strategy
17 Board and the source documents supporting it would
18 suggest that case loads were not excessive.
19 MR GARNHAM: So that remains your view, not excessive?
20 MS BRISTOW: Not excessive. However, I accept that the data
21 is not immensely robust and given we have sought to
22 evidence it as far as we can and given that I am very
23 clearly being told by people who were there at the time
24 that they perceived it to be very highly pressurised and
25 very difficult.
97
1 MR GARNHAM: Take Lisa Arthurworrey's case. 18 or 19 cases
2 and then she gets Victoria's.
3 MS BRISTOW: As I understand it, a detailed look has been
4 had at her case load she did in one particular month but
5 not throughout the period she was dealing with Victoria.
6 MR GARNHAM: Be that as it may, in the month when she was up
7 to 19 cases, was that excessive?
8 MS BRISTOW: I think it was high. Whether it is excessive
9 you cannot tell without having read all the case files
10 and I have not done that.
11 MR GARNHAM: So the position now then for social workers in
12 your department?
13 MS BRISTOW: I think the allegation indicated --
14 MR GARNHAM: Slack or overburdened or just right?
15 MS BRISTOW: I doubt if people ever think it is just right.
16 During December and January I visited both North
17 Tottenham District Office and again the Hornsey office
18 and I spoke to some dozen social workers and put to them
19 directly the question whether their workloads were
20 manageable or not. What without exception they told me
21 was that they felt the workloads were manageable. They
22 did say on a particular week for example if they had
23 a number of cases coming to court or a number of reviews
24 they could have a heavy week when they would have to
25 work extra hours, but that was not the situation every
98
1 week, and they said that taken in the round they thought
2 it was reasonable.
3 That, backed up by the figures I have, suggests that
4 it is reasonable most of the time, but as I have said
5 earlier, I am very conscious that some of the staff we
6 have successfully recruited are not highly experienced
7 and therefore their capacity to deal with case loads
8 would not be the same as you would expect from someone
9 who has five or 10 years' post qualification experience
10 inevitably.
11 MR GARNHAM: Which rather brings me back to the opinion
12 I was suggesting to you earlier that the mechanistic
13 approach adopted by Mr Burns in the fax we have looked
14 at is inappropriate because it does not allow for the
15 relative experience of workers.
16 MS BRISTOW: In my direct discussions with the practice
17 managers who were asked to implement that decision,
18 which came after Mr Burns' intervention, none of them
19 suggested to me directly, and I have spent something
20 over an hour with them, that per se allocating the cases
21 was to a point where they felt their staff could not
22 take it. I gave them the opportunity to make that point
23 if they felt it was appropriate.
24 MR GARNHAM: Let me pursue a little further the means by
25 which Haringey allocate cases. Can you go back to this
99
1 letter of yesterday's date please. On the second page
2 we have looked at the paragraphs headed "Case Loads".
3 The next one is "Practice and Team Managers" and
4 I wonder if you could help us with this:
5 "Team managers are not holding cases. The database
6 will show unallocated cases against a team manager's
7 name. This is merely a systems issue."
8 So team managers are not holding cases. That is
9 because they do not do casework?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Allocating cases against their names is
12 a systems issue. That sounds as if you are
13 demonstrating that there are no unallocated cases by
14 putting those cases against the names of managers who
15 actually are not going to do any work on them.
16 MS BRISTOW: No.
17 MR GARNHAM: Which sounds like massaging the figures.
18 MS BRISTOW: We are not massaging the figures, I think that
19 helps nobody. One of the things I am very anxious to
20 ensure is I know where it is actually at and part of
21 what we have been doing as a Council over the last year
22 or so is saying to people we would rather you told us
23 how it really is, however bad that might be, because
24 only if we really understand what is going on have we
25 got a fighting chance of putting it right.
100
1 The IT system we currently have, which I believe you
2 have heard evidence previously about our plans to
3 replace it, does not have all the facilities that the
4 newly put in Windows based, Web enabled system would
5 have. Because we want all live cases, i.e. not closed,
6 need to be somewhere, the system does not have
7 a provision for putting unallocated.
8 Now, I have taken the decision that whilst I could
9 have the system changed, yes, in order to reflect it in
10 a different way, I do not want to invest more of scarce
11 resources in amending a run time report on a system that
12 I plan to replace. It is well understood, and they do
13 not show up as allocated cases on the monthly count.
14 MR GARNHAM: So your letter when it says "the database will
15 show unallocated cases against a team manager's name"
16 does not imply that those cases are unallocated?
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes it does, sorry.
18 MR GARNHAM: So there are unallocated cases?
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes, but not of children on the Child
20 Protection Register or looked after. There will be
21 unallocated cases, ones that we have decided we cannot
22 allocate at that time. Now --
23 MR GARNHAM: But they are shown on the software as being
24 allocated to team managers when they are not allocated?
25 MS BRISTOW: They will be listed against the Team Manager
|
