|
Archived Transcript for 30 January 2002: Pages
101 to 150
101
1 but that is not understood to be case allocation.
2 I accept that it would be preferable to have an IT
3 system that had a different category unallocated -- if
4 a case is live as opposed to closed, there still needs
5 to be some management oversight or hold it on duty.
6 As I understand the intricacies of our IT system,
7 and I would not pretend to be an expert on it, the
8 facility at the moment and the way it was designed at
9 the time shows that against the team which is holding it
10 unallocated, therefore against the manager's name, but
11 not with the expectation that they are the allocated
12 social worker.
13 MR GARNHAM: If you interrogate the system at any point in
14 time, you will so see no allocated cases? They will all
15 appear to be allocated because some are with team
16 managers?
17 MS BRISTOW: If you integrate the system and the people who
18 are doing the interrogation understand that all cases
19 shown against the Team Manager are unallocated, then on
20 the management reports they produce from the raw data
21 they would show that as unallocated and on the case load
22 monitor reports it will show you how many are
23 unallocated?
24 MR GARNHAM: So when you are reporting back to the SSI, and
25 there is reference to the cases that we see on the
102
1 database are allocated against a team manager's name,
2 the SSI are told that those are not allocated, those
3 cases have not been allocated.
4 MS BRISTOW: We are not showing on our returns to the SSI
5 cases allocated to team -- you have got me using the
6 word now -- cases shown listed on the computer against
7 team managers. There are a small number of cases where
8 a practice manager may actually hold the case
9 responsibility. I mean we make the distinction between
10 whether it is actually allocated for work to be done but
11 if any case is live there has to be someone in the
12 department who is taking the oversight.
13 So I would expect managers to be aware of what they
14 have got as unallocated because clearly as space becomes
15 available on a social worker's case load, what they need
16 do is take cases from those awaiting allocation to
17 allocate and they will have that overall understanding
18 of what is waiting to be done.
19 MR GARNHAM: I understand the rationale behind that. My
20 concern is only the way in which it looks because your
21 answer to me is that those who know will appreciate that
22 a case allocated to a team manager or practice manager
23 will know that that is not really allocated.
24 MS BRISTOW: There are a team of staff in the Finance and
25 Performance Unit who produce the monthly management
103
1 reports and are more than aware of the intricacies of
2 it. We are shortly going to procure a new social
3 services information technology system and we will build
4 into the new system the things that we know are wrong
5 with the existing one but I do not think, given that
6 I hope within the year, 15, 18 months to have in place
7 a new IT system, that it is worth investing resources
8 which as we have said before are scarce in making that
9 kind of change to a system when it is not actually
10 causing us difficulty.
11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Could you have volume 45E please,
12 page 77, Children's Service Working Group April 2001.
13 Fourth item: "Monitoring of Children's Service
14 performance, children in need of protection". Can you
15 help me with what this means:
16 "Noted that all children without an allocated social
17 worker had a responsible adult assigned to them. With
18 effect from Monday 30th April a practice manager and
19 three social workers would commence visits to those
20 children, would carry out reviews in order to
21 reprioritise the unallocated list. Those persons
22 designated as responsible adults, usually teachers for
23 older children and health visitors for younger ones,
24 were aware of their responsibility. Agreed that visits
25 and reviews be carried out to ensure that every child in
104
1 field of protection had an adult assigned to them to
2 oversee their welfare. Last, agreed that measures be
3 taken to ensure that all children in need of protection
4 had an allocated social worker before the commencement
5 of the Department of Health's inquiry in September
6 2001."
7 Two issues arise out of that. The first, this is
8 a part of the report dealing with children in need of
9 protection and it seems to indicate that there will be
10 unallocated cases in respect of children in need of
11 protection where Social Services cannot take the case on
12 board and instead farm it out to what you call
13 a responsible adult like a teacher or a health service
14 worker so as to relief the burden on Social Services.
15 Is that right?
16 MS BRISTOW: No, it is not right. You refer to earlier our
17 discussions with the Chief Inspector and we were very
18 clear at that stage that the expectation is that we will
19 have an allocated social worker in our Children's
20 Services for every child whose name appears on the Child
21 Protection Register. However, we did discuss at that
22 time that where -- I had a concern that I could do --
23 I could just simply insist all cases were allocated and
24 therefore I could get the tick in the box, every child
25 has an allocated social worker, but that seemed to be
105
1 pointless if I did not in my heart believe the social
2 workers had any capacity do anything about it, and
3 I actually believe that a safer position was to accept
4 that they were unallocated, however uncomfortable that
5 made me and my elected members feel, yes.
6 So having decided that we would do that, we then
7 thought, well, if we want to try and look at what steps
8 we can take, given we are in an unsatisfactory position,
9 and who else the child is in regular contact with, who
10 could be alerted to the fact that we are not doing what
11 we would normally expect do of having a social worker
12 actively involved in it and try and do the best we could
13 on that interagency network?
14 Now it was discussed at the Area Child Protection
15 Committee and whilst people felt it was not the ideal
16 solution, it was felt to use the resources available to
17 us was better. So what we were saying to that person is
18 we accept that Social Services retain the responsibility
19 that we rightly have, but knowing that we do not have an
20 allocated social worker, if you are the class teacher in
21 a primary school and you see this child every day and
22 you are anxious, worried, have a concern, will you be
23 extra vigilant and alert our Duty system.
24 MR GARNHAM: I do not understand how that is any different
25 from the way I put it to you, namely that you were not
106
1 able to allocate social workers to children in need of
2 protection and so you farm out the responsibility to
3 school teachers and health visitors. What else are you
4 doing? No social worker is doing the job, is there?
5 MS BRISTOW: What I was trying to do was to work with our
6 partners to say if I do not physically have the social
7 workers to allocate the cases to and given that we have
8 a joint responsibility to the children, it is not that
9 I am saying I have not the money to employ them, it is
10 not that I am saying I am unwilling to employ them, what
11 I am saying is I do not physically have a person here
12 who can do it.
13 I have then two choices but they are a rock and
14 a hard place. The first choice is I do nothing, I just
15 have it unallocated. The second choice, which is not
16 very palatable and I accept that, which is why we moved
17 to by June the position of getting them allocated, is
18 that I then try to get other people in the network that
19 protects children to assist with the task.
20 Now, in no way, shape or form are we trying to say
21 that is something that we find desirable but I think it
22 is a better option and to do it up-front by writing to
23 people, by telling them that as opposed to hoping for
24 the best. In the event we were more successful with
25 recruitment and we did manage to then get all the cases
107
1 allocated by June but, you know, in the real world where
2 we live, if we do not have the people then you have to
3 make the best of it.
4 MR GARNHAM: Are you confident then that since June 2001
5 there have been no Child Protection Register cases or
6 children looked after cases that have not been
7 allocated?
8 MS BRISTOW: I believe they have been consistently allocated
9 and I have been told we have run twice a month reports
10 to show the allocation. That may mean that -- there
11 will always, as a case moves there will be overnight
12 sort of thing, but we have work with people to say when
13 you are moving a child the allocated social worker
14 should remain.
15 MR GARNHAM: It is not the case that these allocations all
16 happen just before the date on which you take the
17 measure?
18 MS BRISTOW: No, they do not.
19 MR GARNHAM: So that when you test on the last day of the
20 month they all appear allocated but ten days later they
21 are not, that is not the position?
22 MS BRISTOW: It should not be the position and it is why
23 there is a facility on the computer to run a report at
24 regular intervals and that is run from time to time.
25 MR GARNHAM: At regular intervals or irregular intervals?
108
1 MS BRISTOW: I believe because it is quite a big report that
2 runs overnight you can only do it on certain dates but
3 they are not always the same date.
4 MR GARNHAM: There would be benefit in doing it irregularly
5 to check this?
6 MS BRISTOW: Indeed there would and when we procure a new
7 system I would want to be able to run it every day if
8 necessary.
9 MR GARNHAM: What about the second part of the sentence,
10 "... agreed that measures be taken to ensure all
11 children in immediate need of protection had an
12 allocated social worker before the commencement of this
13 Inquiry"? Why does a child's need for an allocated
14 social worker change on the day this Inquiry opens?
15 MS BRISTOW: It does not, and I think, as I said earlier,
16 I think on the original targets, that back at the
17 beginning of the year I had set there was
18 a longer-running run-in to when I believed we could
19 achieve allocation, and the clear steer I was being
20 given by members at that stage was that the length of
21 time I was allowing for recruitment to come up to
22 strength they did not feel was fast enough.
23 MR GARNHAM: And so?
24 MS BRISTOW: And so we renewed our efforts. As it happened
25 we were in a position in June. It was always
109
1 a priority. I mean it was very clearly -- it was always
2 from the outset a priority to get the cases allocated
3 but allocated in a meaningful way.
4 MR GARNHAM: Can we go back to the position statement at 45J
5 page 14. Penultimate paragraph on that page:
6 "Of significance is the work currently in hand to
7 develop a clear and up-to-date procedures manual for
8 work with children and families. External consultants
9 have been commissioned to produce draft procedures by
10 end of January this year with a view to implementation
11 in the early spring."
12 Done?
13 MS BRISTOW: Significant amounts of it, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: How far are you off completing what was
15 supposed to be done in, what, three days' time?
16 MS BRISTOW: The task, what I found when I joined Haringey
17 is that there were comprehensive procedure manuals but
18 they had not been updated for some time. What the
19 Assistant Director for Children's Services has done is
20 to identify the most important procedures and get those
21 ones updated first as opposed to every single procedure
22 that exists, and I understand that that task is
23 completed. There are some drafts out on consultation
24 with staff.
25 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean that the DIAT procedures that
110
1 Angella Mairs had devised for use at North Tottenham
2 District Office are no longer in operation?
3 MS BRISTOW: I cannot answer that, sorry, I have not checked
4 in that detail and I would not wish to mislead you.
5 I would say that I do not want to be in a position where
6 individual managers devise individual procedures. Part
7 of getting a consistent standard is to have procedures
8 across the department and part of the way we would do
9 that is to place them on our intranet.
10 MR GARNHAM: It is obviously pretty unsatisfactory, is it
11 not, for individual team managers to device their own
12 set of procedures without cross-checking to Council-wide
13 procedures?
14 MS BRISTOW: I think it is unsatisfactory on two counts.
15 One, it is a duplication of effort that you would wish
16 to eliminate; and secondly, it the possibility at least
17 of not leading to consistency.
18 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Could you have a look at 45J page 68
19 please. Is this the draft new procedures or have
20 I found the wrong document?
21 MS BRISTOW: I believe so.
22 MR GARNHAM: This is the one we were talking about in the
23 previous document we looked at?
24 MS BRISTOW: I believe so. You will appreciate I have not
25 been working on them personally, but yes, I believe
111
1 these are them from the reference at the bottom of the
2 page.
3 MR GARNHAM: Where have we got to with this? Do you know
4 how far this is off completion?
5 MS BRISTOW: I have not asked about individual specific
6 procedures. The briefing I had received was we were
7 pretty much there with them.
8 MR GARNHAM: You have already told us about your new
9 recruitment and retention package. Look at page 14
10 again in this bundle please. You describe that package
11 in the last paragraph on that page.
12 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Does that affect your ability to remove poor
14 performing social workers and managers?
15 MS BRISTOW: I do not think recruitment and retention
16 packages are the way you deal with poor performance.
17 I think you deal with poor performance by confronting
18 it.
19 MR GARNHAM: Is Haringey getting better at that?
20 MS BRISTOW: I believe so.
21 MR GARNHAM: Because there is some evidence at least to
22 suggest that Haringey were not particularly speedy about
23 that in the past.
24 MS BRISTOW: I think part of the culture at one stage that
25 existed was that people did not confront what I would
112
1 say were the more minor matters. It is obviously easier
2 to address smaller matters of poor performance than
3 create a culture where expectations are high. For
4 example, if someone is persistently late, that is
5 a fairly easy matter to raise with them in managerial
6 terms, and I think you need to create an environment
7 where people understand that we have high expectation,
8 we expect high achievement and if you fall below that
9 standard we will help you, we will provide the training
10 and we will support you. If you choose not to, which is
11 different to an issue about ability, needing training,
12 development, then you should expect us to take formal
13 action against you.
14 MR GARNHAM: We can look at it again if you need to, but
15 just on this topic I wanted to pick up one comment of
16 Mr Lewington's in his recent letter. It is 45I,
17 page 150, paragraph 10 but I can tell you what it is.
18 He talks of vacancy rates running at 70 to 80 per cent,
19 the shortage being covered by agency staff, is that
20 right?
21 MS BRISTOW: No, it is not right and I have had detailed
22 discussions. I have a regular meeting with the Trade
23 Union between every six to eight weeks and one of them
24 was in January and I did raise -- which is why I did not
25 reply to his letter immediately because we were going to
113
1 meet face to face, and I did raise with him that I have
2 no evidence of that.
3 In fact my management reports show the exact
4 opposite, that the permanent numbers of staff is run
5 from payroll which I therefore believe to be fairly
6 definitive because it is unusual and extreme for someone
7 to be on payroll who does not exist and therefore I do
8 not know where he is getting his figures from.
9 I have offered to share with him the management
10 reports I have and if he then can come back to me and
11 say where are these people then I will happily look at
12 it, but I believe he has got the figures totally wrong.
13 He did say to me when I met him that he did not actually
14 have any evidence, this was something someone had said
15 to him in a meeting.
16 MR GARNHAM: Back to the position statement, over the page
17 to page 15. You talk there about strengthening the
18 Children's Services Management Team. Does this in
19 effect reinstate the two district commissioning
20 managers' posts in place of the single post that was
21 held by Dave Duncan?
22 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it does.
23 MR GARNHAM: Can you have a look at 29A please?
24 MS BRISTOW: It also adds a further one for new
25 responsibilities under the Leaving Care Act.
114
1 MR GARNHAM: 29A page 4. Supervision notes. These are
2 prepared by Ann Graham in respect of a supervision or
3 appraisal she had with you in March 2001. One of the
4 problems she identifies, and it is the fourth paragraph
5 on that page, is the problem of there simply being too
6 few managers at that level, so was she right?
7 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, you mean at the Commissioning Manager
8 level?
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes, do you have the heading "District
10 Restructuring"?
11 MS BRISTOW: I have got a heading "District Offices".
12 MR GARNHAM: Turn over the page.
13 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I have found it.
14 MR GARNHAM: "Districts teams were restructured at the end
15 of 1999. Support for the model in place. I do think we
16 have to review it urgently. The problems are one, too
17 few managers, such that we are unable to cover absences
18 effectively."
19 Is she right. Was she right?
20 MS BRISTOW: In part I think. It would not be unusual for
21 a manager at third tier level to directly supervise six
22 or seven other managers. However, the evidence we had
23 at that time was that given the challenges faced for
24 improving practice in Hornsey and Tottenham, it was
25 not -- it did not appear to be possible at that time for
115
1 that to be delivered and therefore a stronger focus,
2 i.e. by putting back a third tier manager at both
3 district offices, was what was needed. I think that is
4 beginning to show the benefits of having an on-site
5 manager with a very clear focus.
6 In relation to team managers, I do not think
7 I actually think it is the same position but I think
8 there were issues about how a particular group of team
9 managers were operating.
10 MR GARNHAM: But it does look, does it not, as if the
11 decision to delete team managers' posts in 1999 does not
12 look like a very good idea, at least when viewed from
13 where we are now?
14 MS BRISTOW: Having, as you will appreciate, taken a hard
15 look at the management structure in district offices,
16 I do not actually think, given that in the district
17 offices I have something like 23 managers, that that is
18 too few managers for two district offices. There is --
19 MR GARNHAM: It is the particular level of the manager, is
20 it not? It is the Dave Duncan post?
21 MS BRISTOW: They are not -- Dave Duncan is not a team
22 manager, that is the level below.
23 MR GARNHAM: He is a level above team manager?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: At his level at least it looks like a bad idea.
116
1 MS BRISTOW: I did take the view that the circumstances we
2 now found ourselves in was that I would replace one of
3 those managers, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. The second way in which I wanted to
5 test your relatively optimistic view of Haringey Social
6 Services was by asking you about a number of particular
7 topics. Can I start please with staffing. You have
8 mentioned several times in your evidence already that
9 you were compiling for the SSI a series of reports, data
10 reports that gave details of information they wanted to
11 receive. One of those deals with staffing levels
12 I think?
13 MS BRISTOW: Yes, though it is a report we have offered them
14 rather than one they have required from us.
15 MR GARNHAM: Could you have 45F back please, page 198.
16 "Staff in post, September 2001 child assessment and care
17 management, North Tottenham District Office", top line.
18 It seems to show, but tell me if I have it wrong, that
19 over half of all staff posts were either vacant or
20 filled with temporary or agency staff as at September
21 2001.
22 MS BRISTOW: Yes, that is what it says.
23 MR GARNHAM: And that represents the position as it was
24 in September 2001, does it?
25 MS BRISTOW: It will do, yes.
117
1 MR GARNHAM: Pretty unsatisfactory to have over half your
2 team either absent or filled by staff working, temporary
3 or agency staff?
4 MS BRISTOW: I think there are a number of reasons why you
5 may have temporary staff. You may have a member of
6 staff on maternity leave, long-term sickness or indeed
7 suspended because of disciplinary action, so you will
8 have times when you are not in a position to recruit
9 permanently to a post because it is not vacant.
10 The bit that concerns me in essence is the reliance
11 we have on agency staff and what -- because people who
12 are acting are permanent members of Haringey staff but
13 undertaking different duties. Those were temporary or
14 employed directly by us but again not on a permanent
15 long-term contract.
16 MR GARNHAM: Has this position persisted or has it improved?
17 MS BRISTOW: The position fluctuates from month to month but
18 we are showing an incremental -- for much of 2001 we
19 have operated above our establishment level by employing
20 people -- sorry, go back a step because I understand
21 that you talk from a position of knowledge that not
22 everyone will share.
23 The Council agrees a cash limited budget to employ
24 staff and from that we will calculate and have
25 a structure about how many social workers we would
118
1 expect to have as one category. Throughout most of 2001
2 we were employing staff above that level so that the
3 local office was having more people than it would
4 normally have from the salaries budget in order to try
5 and bring the service levels up. Whenever you are above
6 your establishment level you will not have people on
7 permanent contracts because what you hope to do in the
8 longer term is probably move back to your establishment
9 position.
10 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
11 MS BRISTOW: So my view is that whilst we have had agency
12 staff at times, it has been -- some of that has been
13 above establishment and some of it from posts not free
14 for recruitment, but my ambition, as I believe most of
15 my colleagues in London, is to try to get to the
16 position where you are fully staffed with permanent
17 staff. However --
18 MR GARNHAM: If we take a snapshot like this now, what would
19 it show?
20 MS BRISTOW: It will show -- sorry, the split between
21 Tottenham and Hornsey I do not have in my head. It
22 shows on average we are somewhere around between 25 and
23 28 per cent.
24 MR GARNHAM: Are filled by whom?
25 MS BRISTOW: Are filled by temporary agency staff as opposed
119
1 to permanent staff. So the permanent staffing is
2 running somewhere in recent months between -- at the
3 best months we had recently we were at 86 per cent
4 permanently. It has dropped back slightly as we had
5 people leave at the end of the year.
6 MR GARNHAM: How many vacancies of the same snapshot?
7 MS BRISTOW: We have actual posts with nobody doing the job,
8 whatever their employment status, we had two.
9 MR GARNHAM: Out of?
10 MS BRISTOW: Now?
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes, out of how many?
12 MS BRISTOW: I thought you said as it. 83, 84, 85.
13 MR GARNHAM: So three per cent or thereabouts?
14 MS BRISTOW: Yes, but the concern for the staff and the
15 concern I have is obviously the consistency is better
16 the more of the people who are directly employed in
17 permanent contracts, but there are very small numbers of
18 posts with nobody there to do the work, and indeed
19 perhaps I should say for clarification, some people who
20 work on an agency basis are of course high calibre and
21 experienced people. It does not necessarily mean they
22 are a poor quality worker because they choose
23 a particular mode of employment.
24 MR GARNHAM: No, although the difficulties with them are
25 well recognised.
120
1 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
2 MR GARNHAM: The second way in which I want to test your
3 actual performance is in relation to PDR. Remind us
4 what it means. I keep getting it wrong.
5 MS BRISTOW: Prior to April 2000?
6 MR GARNHAM: What does PDR mean?
7 MS BRISTOW: It means performance development and review and
8 it is the system that was in place prior to April 2001.
9 MR GARNHAM: What has it been replaced by?
10 MS BRISTOW: A system called "performance appraisal" which
11 is similar but different, but which has been introduced
12 right across the whole Council and is not
13 a departmentally based procedure.
14 MR GARNHAM: The evidence that has come from a number of
15 Haringey's managers is that PDR, as it was called, has
16 been regarded as an important element in the monitoring
17 system, the management monitoring system that Haringey
18 have maintained.
19 MS BRISTOW: I think it is important to have a system
20 whereby staff are clear about what is expected of them.
21 MR GARNHAM: It has been an important element so we have
22 been told for some years now.
23 MS BRISTOW: I am told similarly.
24 MR GARNHAM: Mrs Adamou told us, Day 48 page 165, that by
25 1999 PDR was well established with senior staff and
121
1 embedded generally. Would that evidence come as
2 a surprise to you, that as early as 1999 it was well
3 embedded?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it would, because one of the documents
5 I was given prior to joining Haringey was the IIP
6 assessment which showed that that was not the case.
7 MR GARNHAM: Has PDR become well embedded now?
8 MS BRISTOW: We are making progress with the success of the
9 scheme, and because the progress has not been as fast as
10 I would like, in all teams, I am monitoring on a monthly
11 basis how fast we are getting there.
12 MR GARNHAM: How fast are you getting there?
13 MS BRISTOW: Across the Children's as a whole it is
14 somewhere around 65 per cent. It is worse at North
15 Tottenham.
16 MR GARNHAM: What is it at North Tottenham?
17 MS BRISTOW: I think the last months for which I have
18 figures it was running around 20 per cent, so I have
19 drawn to the attention of the permanent manager who took
20 up a post in January that this will be an early target.
21 MR GARNHAM: As a central plank of management's monitoring
22 system it is pretty hopeless if it is only being done in
23 20 per cent of cases, is it not?
24 MS BRISTOW: I think I need to set it in context because
25 I think it creates a misleading position. The
122
1 performance appraisal system consists of a meeting with
2 the member of staff to set them objective targets that
3 link to the business plan and so demonstrates for them
4 what their part is, and a review meeting later where
5 there is a competency assessment and an identification
6 of training and development needs. Running alongside
7 that should be professional supervision which is
8 happening on a regular basis.
9 What I am assured is happening at North Tottenham
10 and at Hornsey is that the professional supervision of
11 social workers, which is happening between every three
12 and four weeks, and in some instances more frequently,
13 is in place and is happening, but the Council-wide
14 performance appraisal scheme is not yet fully in place
15 and people have been asked to ensure it is by the end
16 of March.
17 MR GARNHAM: This has been the subject of returns you have
18 been making to the Inspectorate I think.
19 MS BRISTOW: Only on the basis -- sorry I come back to this.
20 What I share with the Inspectorate is the management
21 information I have, whether or not it is something they
22 are particularly interested in.
23 MR GARNHAM: My question was simply to identify.
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it would appear in the monthly data.
25 MR GARNHAM: Could you have back please volume 45F page 197.
123
1 PDR/appraisals, it looks as though they are covering
2 both.
3 MS BRISTOW: PDR has been abolished and replaced with
4 performance appraisal.
5 MR GARNHAM: Your return refers in the top left-hand corner
6 to PDR/appraisals.
7 MS BRISTOW: It is one of the banes of my life trying to get
8 people to update their terminology.
9 MR GARNHAM: It does not matter as far as I am concerned.
10 All it means is we are talking about the same thing.
11 This is the professional --
12 MS BRISTOW: This is not the supervision, this is the
13 appraisal scheme.
14 MR GARNHAM: Let us use the word appraisal then we can
15 proceed.
16 "Child assessment and care management North
17 Tottenham District Office. Staff 82.9."
18 I do not know what that means.
19 MS BRISTOW: Full-time equivalent staff.
20 MR GARNHAM: "Agency vacancies" --
21 MS BRISTOW: It will include administrative and other staff,
22 not just social workers.
23 MR GARNHAM: "Agency vacancies 32.9, subject to PDR50.
24 Completed, 9 per cent complete."
25 MS BRISTOW: No, "completed 9".
124
1 MR GARNHAM: 18 per cent, so that roughly represents the
2 20 per cent that was the figure you took from memory?
3 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Hornsey, next one down, just under 53 per cent.
5 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And the reason for that discrepancy?
7 MS BRISTOW: I think we have had a panel manager, senior
8 manager in place for longer at Hornsey and I think more
9 attention has been paid to it.
10 MR GARNHAM: We certainly have to conclude, do we not, that
11 at least as regards North Tottenham District Office PDR
12 and its successor is still not well embedded?
13 MS BRISTOW: Correct.
14 MR GARNHAM: And if that is the position now, for sure it
15 was the position in 1999 when Mrs Adamou was describing
16 the position to us as being already well embedded.
17 MS BRISTOW: That would seem likely to me but I have no
18 personal knowledge as I have said.
19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Next, assessments. You have told
20 us already that the assessment framework requires
21 initial assessments to be completed in seven days and
22 core assessments, we were both trying to recollect,
23 35 days.
24 MS BRISTOW: 42, the paperwork is in the bundle, I am sure
25 it is right.
125
1 MR GARNHAM: Page 178 in that same bundle.
2 MS BRISTOW: And 177, yes, summarised at 177.
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Look at 178 if you would:
4 "Latest figures September 2001, number of initial
5 assessments completed within seven days, 50."
6 That is 41.3 per cent.
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Number of core assessments completed within 35
9 days, one: 11.1 per cent.
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: You explained that this was a problem not
12 unique to Haringey but you are falling noticeably short
13 of the targets.
14 MS BRISTOW: I accept that. I mean, but what I -- when you
15 are faced with a department that has many areas where
16 the performance needs to improve, it is my view that you
17 cannot put everything right at once, because if you do
18 that you will get to the position where people are so
19 discouraged that they do not believe anything can be put
20 right. So the approach I have taken to improving
21 services in Haringey is to do it in the familiar bite
22 size chunks, starting with those issues that we felt
23 were the highest priority and then working
24 systematically through all areas.
25 Clearly you can tackle more than one thing at once
126
1 because not all things fall to the same group of staff
2 to achieve, but for this group of staff, the ones who
3 are in the district offices, their first priority we
4 gave them was around getting the work round children on
5 the register and looked after children and getting those
6 visits up-to-date and the reviews up-to-date.
7 That does not mean that I think this is not
8 important but I do believe that if you are to create
9 a culture where people will succeed and we will become
10 that successful organisation we aspire to be, we have to
11 work in a way that encourages and helps people move
12 forward rather than overwhelms them by the scale of the
13 task.
14 MR GARNHAM: It looks as if in this regard at least things
15 are getting worse rather than better. If you look at
16 the trend, tracing it back across the previous five
17 months, we see the number of core assessments within
18 35 days is declining from 39 per cent down to 11.1 and
19 the number of assessments in seven days is declining
20 from 62 per cent up to 72, then down again towards 41.
21 MS BRISTOW: I think that is the unintended side effect of
22 asking people to concentrate on other things, and we are
23 very conscious and have been discussing with managers
24 that what we need to achieve is to maintain the position
25 on things that were not good enough but nevertheless at
127
1 a certain level whilst bringing the performance up on
2 others.
3 What we see as we monitor some things is it is
4 slipping on some things whilst it gets better on others
5 and we have been trying to work with people about how
6 you keep all the balls in the air and move forward.
7 MR GARNHAM: So PDR and its successor and assessments are
8 areas which are not yet benefiting from your focused
9 attention?
10 MS BRISTOW: There are a number of things that we are doing
11 where the results have not yet shown through in the
12 performance, and we are conscious of that, and I think
13 what is important is I want to create a culture in the
14 department where people can admit to how it really is,
15 because if we do not we have no prospects of making
16 things better, so we have encouraged people to do work
17 that genuinely reflects in our data collection and our
18 management reports how things really are, whatever
19 figure that shows, and not to encourage people -- it
20 could be tempting, if you are under a lot of pressure to
21 improve your performance, to put the gloss on it which
22 I think you have referred to earlier, and we have been
23 working very hard with people not to put a gloss on
24 things.
25 If there are problems up-front, tell us and we will
128
1 look at what we can do. That may mean on some occasions
2 we need to bring in extra resources, we may need to
3 change systems, but I am therefore in some ways more
4 comfortable, although I do not like what it tells me,
5 that at least there is I believe an honesty about the
6 reports that genuinely reflects where we are.
7 MR GARNHAM: Sir, would that be a convenient moment for
8 lunch?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham. Ms Bristow you know
10 the arrangements?
11 MS BRISTOW: I do.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You are not allowed discussion.
13 Ladies and gentlemen, if we get back just after
14 a quarter to two I would appreciate that enormously.
15 (1.05 pm)
16 (The short adjournment)
17 (1.40 pm)
18 MR GARNHAM: You were telling us before we broke for lunch,
19 Ms Bristow, that in order to effect improvements in
20 Haringey children's social services, you had had to be
21 directing your focus at particular areas, not trying to
22 make improvements right across the whole of the service.
23 MS BRISTOW: You paraphrase slightly. I am directing my
24 attentions across the whole of the service but where the
25 area for improvement all falls to the same group of
129
1 staff, I am trying to ask that group of staff to
2 concentrate in an achievable way on one aspect followed
3 by another. So whilst the district offices have been
4 set certain targets, it is obviously possible for the
5 family placement service, where we also need to make
6 improvements, who are a different group of people to
7 also make progress.
8 MR GARNHAM: The district office have been focusing, at your
9 invitation, particularly on cases involving children on
10 the Child Protection Register, and on children looked
11 after.
12 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
13 MR GARNHAM: Is the consequence of that that if a case like
14 Victoria's came into North Tottenham District Office
15 again, that she would struggle to get her case allocated
16 to a social worker?
17 MS BRISTOW: No, because we have looked also at the
18 arrangements of new referrals into the office. We have
19 done that in two ways. I think also, as the Inquiry has
20 heard previously, we have now allocated dedicated social
21 workers to the North Middlesex Hospital and we have
22 looked again at how things coming through the Duty
23 Investigation Assessment Team work.
24 MR GARNHAM: Where have there been substantive changes that
25 would impact on Victoria?
130
1 MS BRISTOW: I think --
2 MR GARNHAM: Or a case like Victoria, I should say.
3 MS BRISTOW: I think two things. I think I would share some
4 of the views expressed by Lesley Moore yesterday about
5 having social workers based at the hospital can be an
6 advantage and it brings closer working automatically.
7 If you work alongside people you will be seen more as
8 part of that team than if you come in and out. It is
9 not impossible to be part of the same virtual team if
10 you come in and out, but there are advantages to
11 collocation.
12 But also the work we are doing to strengthen
13 frontline management, that I spoke about this morning,
14 affects the Investigation Assessment Team as strongly as
15 other teams and I think that is where the difference can
16 be made.
17 MR GARNHAM: It may be worth simply working through what
18 happened to Victoria, and you can tell me where the
19 changes have been made that would result in a different
20 outcome. Victoria first came into contact with Haringey
21 through the Emergency Duty Team.
22 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
23 MR GARNHAM: What changes have been made there that would
24 make a difference to the way her case would now be
25 handled?
131
1 MS BRISTOW: One of the changes I have made is to increase
2 the staffing in the Emergency Duty Team. We previously
3 had four posts and there were three hours in the day
4 when we had no cover, so we now have complete cover from
5 the end of the daytime staff right through the night.
6 MR GARNHAM: But it was not the absence of cover in
7 Victoria's case, somebody took the phone message
8 eventually.
9 MS BRISTOW: I accept that, but I think in terms of given we
10 are looking not just at Victoria but other -- it came
11 from the hospital. They work around the clock and it is
12 important, therefore, that we also have cover around the
13 clock.
14 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I can see that, but are there any other
15 changes in respect of the EDT?
16 MS BRISTOW: I have asked for a review of that and it is due
17 to report to my management team in two weeks' time.
18 MR GARNHAM: The next contact was through the hospital
19 social worker. There now are Haringey hospital social
20 workers.
21 MS BRISTOW: Yes, there are, in respect of the North
22 Middlesex Hospital.
23 MR GARNHAM: Are there instructions in place that those
24 hospital social workers will invariably see and talk to
25 children who have been referred to them?
132
1 MS BRISTOW: I would always expect our social workers to see
2 and talk to children.
3 MR GARNHAM: I am sure you would but that was not my
4 question. That may well be the case for you and
5 others', at Victoria's time, expectation. What I am
6 asking is whether you have taken steps to ensure that
7 expectation is turned into reality?
8 MS BRISTOW: I believe so, though I have not personally
9 issued that instruction to the social workers but
10 I believe that has been done through my children's line
11 management.
12 MR GARNHAM: What was the basis of that belief?
13 MS BRISTOW: That I have spoken to the assistant director,
14 we have talked about ways of improving practices. We
15 have held development days for staff. I think also it
16 is true to say that in all the development -- for all
17 new frontline social workers in our District Team we are
18 also running more than -- I think I said to you earlier,
19 some of the staff we have recruited, whilst qualified,
20 are not enormously experienced, therefore we are running
21 a development programme for them as well.
22 So through the training going into that as well, we
23 are trying to make sure people understand what
24 constitutes good practice, because getting safe good
25 practice is more than about issuing instructions. You
133
1 issue an instruction once, and yes, again you can say
2 you have done it. What I am more concerned about is
3 that people understand the reasons why it makes sense
4 and why they internalise that good practice and then
5 therefore do it day-in/day-out.
6 MR GARNHAM: Good practice, presumably, would have required,
7 in the case of the hospital social worker who now is in
8 place dealing with the hypothetical new Victoria, that
9 he or she goes and sees Victoria then does more than
10 simply refer the case to some other social worker to
11 deal with.
12 MS BRISTOW: I think clearly the arrangements would be
13 different because we are placing Haringey staff there.
14 I think in a situation where the Enfield social workers
15 went in, it was not inappropriate for the Enfield social
16 worker to pass that to Haringey if we accepted the
17 responsibility to do it.
18 Clearly in London it is possible that a child who
19 comes from your borough may be in a number of hospitals.
20 In our case most commonly either the North Middlesex or
21 the Whittington Hospital, which primarily we are the
22 main catchment area for them but it is also conceivable
23 that the child may be at Great Ormond Street, The Royal
24 London or wherever, and in that case it may be
25 appropriate that what the social worker does is pass it
134
1 back to the host authority.
2 MR GARNHAM: One of the problems that it might be thought
3 arose in Victoria's case was that the hospital social
4 worker to whom Victoria's case was initially referred in
5 the North Middlesex did not go and see Victoria anywhere
6 during the 13 days because she felt she had passed on
7 responsibility to you. How can we be confident that is
8 not going to happen again?
9 MS BRISTOW: There have been quite extensive discussions
10 between the two assistant directors, Lesley Moore who
11 gave evidence yesterday and the assistant director for
12 Haringey, about how we work that together, given that
13 inevitably if we are operating in the same hospital with
14 the same medical team, then we need to be working
15 effectively together.
16 Yes, in my experience of hospital social work teams,
17 if you are on-site and you are well-known to the ward
18 managers, then if there is an issue, when you are
19 passing the ward for some other purpose the ward manager
20 will stop you and nab you and say, "By the way, remember
21 yesterday..." In that sort of way. But we do have
22 people now based there and I think that strengthens the
23 link back into Haringey's services.
24 MR GARNHAM: What changes have been made to the conduct of
25 strategy meetings?
135
1 MS BRISTOW: We have indicated clearly to people and there
2 is -- I have been asking managers to look at strategy
3 meetings. I think the key issue in relation to
4 Victoria's case was not that the strategy meeting was
5 not held, not that there were not reasonable outcomes
6 from that strategy meeting in terms of the course of
7 action that was predicted, but on the follow-through.
8 MR GARNHAM: So what has changed?
9 MS BRISTOW: I think we have had the supervision of the
10 people -- let me ...
11 What has changed is the way that -- I expect and
12 I have information about that managers will
13 systematically look at files. I think you have heard
14 evidence earlier that people are not -- were not reading
15 the files. I think it is crucial that people read the
16 files, and that part of what they should do is pull them
17 at random, so that as well as checking in the
18 supervision of the managers, that the necessary actions
19 taken, and the manager supervision of the social
20 workers, that necessary action is taken, we have an
21 independent look from time to time on a random sample.
22 MR GARNHAM: This is more than that, is it not? What was
23 needed was some active method of tracking
24 recommendations made at strategy meetings to ensure each
25 of them took place. What changes have been made?
136
1 MS BRISTOW: That active method is that the manager should
2 be doing that with the social worker.
3 MR GARNHAM: But not periodically reading files.
4 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I expect
5 the manager whose team the social worker works in to
6 systematically check on progress on the cases for which
7 the staff were responsible, and indeed that for the
8 recommendations of the last strategy meeting to be
9 reviewed when there are further meetings. In addition
10 to that, almost as an independent check to that, I am
11 expecting more senior managers to do random checks on
12 files. That is not an "instead of".
13 MR GARNHAM: Are review strategy meetings now automatic?
14 MS BRISTOW: They should be set automatic strategy meetings
15 where there is a need to come back that we have made the
16 progress or that it has -- some will go to case
17 conference instead.
18 MR GARNHAM: Absent the cases that go to case conferences,
19 do all strategy meetings now get reviewed? Does the
20 outcome of all the strategy meetings get reviewed? Do
21 you set up automatically a review strategy meeting if
22 there is not going to be a case conference?
23 MS BRISTOW: I believe so but I cannot 100 per cent say.
24 That is not something I have checked again this month.
25 MR GARNHAM: That would --
137
1 MS BRISTOW: I am not saying my Assistant Director would not
2 know the answer, but sitting here today I do not want
3 give an answer I am not 100 per cent confident of.
4 MR GARNHAM: The direction to that effect would be given in
5 writing, would it not?
6 MS BRISTOW: It should be in the procedures, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: So we ought to be able to find that in some
8 document?
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: I have not seen it yet. There has been a lot
11 of new material and it may be that I have missed it but
12 I wonder if I could ask you, when you have finished
13 giving your evidence, if you could find where that is,
14 please, and let us know.
15 What changes are being made to the process of
16 allocating cases to social workers, another problem in
17 Victoria's case?
18 MS BRISTOW: There have been -- we are very clear that cases
19 should not be allocated in the way that some staff have
20 described and that there should be proper discussion.
21 I have also been clear with people that we have an
22 expectation again about it should be made clear to staff
23 what is the work that is expected to be done. Now, the
24 level and depth of how it is set out will obviously
25 depend on the experience of the worker or how we need to
138
1 spell out step by step what needs to be done.
2 MR GARNHAM: I am interested now whether there is a process
3 in place, or is it left to the discretion of managers?
4 MS BRISTOW: I think there is a difference between the
5 discretion of managers and the rightful expectations
6 I have with professionally qualified staff to conduct
7 themselves with good professional practice.
8 MR GARNHAM: You have that expectation and one can
9 understand why you do but if you know, as you do, that
10 there have been occasions, not entirely infrequently in
11 Haringey, where managers have not been living up to what
12 might be expected of them, it is not enough to rely on
13 expectation, is it?
14 MS BRISTOW: No, but equally it is dangerous to put -- to
15 move to a mentality where if it is not on a piece of
16 paper then I do not expect you to do it.
17 MR GARNHAM: I agree.
18 MS BRISTOW: What I am trying to do is to strike the balance
19 between a reasonable management expectation of my senior
20 managers about what systems they will put in place, what
21 checks they will run, how they will monitor that in
22 their area and at all levels, and including what
23 expectations we expect from professionally qualified
24 social workers, and where we should then put it in
25 writing. Because the danger of putting everything in
139
1 writing and allowing people to say, "Well, you did not
2 write me a piece of paper that says do X, Y and Z", is
3 equally dangerous in another way.
4 MR GARNHAM: I agree and I can well understand why you say
5 that but there is another danger that if you do not have
6 a system in place and you leave it to managers it might
7 not happen. What I want to know is how you know that
8 this is happening, that cases are being allocated
9 intelligently?
10 MS BRISTOW: Because of the discussions that the Assistant
11 Director and I have with the third tier and other
12 managers about what they are doing, and when we have the
13 independent audit of the files you should be able to see
14 on the file what is happening. Now, whilst I do not
15 personally read large numbers of files, I have tried to
16 model good behaviour that when I ask people to brief me
17 on cases or when they wish to talk a case with me, that
18 they bring the file and I look at it, in the sense that
19 I do believe that it is important to demonstrate what
20 you want to happen.
21 MR GARNHAM: How long does it now take for cases to be
22 transferred from Investigation and Assessment to the
23 Long Term Teams?
24 MS BRISTOW: It should happen on the same day.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether it does?
140
1 MS BRISTOW: When I have asked people on my visits they say
2 it does. I have heard evidence at times about how long
3 it takes to get from one floor of a building to another.
4 Frankly, that was ludicrous.
5 MR GARNHAM: What happened to Victoria's case is it never
6 got transferred from I&A to Long Term Team. How do you
7 know that is not still happening or capable of
8 happening?
9 MS BRISTOW: People can break any system you care to put in
10 place if they are so minded, but we have in the review
11 of what happens on Investigation and Assessment set out
12 the clear points of which we expect the cases to
13 transfer.
14 MR GARNHAM: How do you know that that is happening?
15 MS BRISTOW: Because when the Assistant Director and others
16 look at the cases they can see it transfers there.
17 I have to, in an organisation of the size I manage,
18 expect that some of the things we put in place and we
19 put into procedures, that the local managers will track
20 and monitor that.
21 MR GARNHAM: But you need to make sure that they are doing
22 that?
23 MS BRISTOW: And that is what why we have performance
24 appraisal for the senior managers as well as the less
25 senior managers. I know where you are going, you come
141
1 back in North Tottenham, that is not in place,
2 I understand that. But what I -- if I was to check on
3 what every single manager does every single day, I would
4 not manage the department.
5 MR GARNHAM: Of course you would not and that is why you
6 delegate because you delegate to somebody who delegates
7 to somebody else and each of you along that delegation
8 process has to have in place systems that ensure that
9 what they are asked to do they are doing.
10 MS BRISTOW: But the checks and balances that are available
11 to me, in addition to "here is the written procedure,
12 please do it, here is a discussion how" is that I use
13 things like the complaints that come into the department
14 and look at what that tells me. I use liaison with
15 people in other agencies of whom I meet a large number
16 of, and I look at the file audits that we have done.
17 MR GARNHAM: This is casual and ad hoc, this is not a system
18 worthy of the name.
19 MS BRISTOW: Well, I dispute that, Mr Garnham.
20 MR GARNHAM: Why? How is the fact that you might meet
21 somebody at a meeting and ask them what the basis is for
22 their complaint, how is that a system?
23 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I have explained to you that there are
24 a range of things. I have a systematic audit of files
25 going on month in, month out, looking at what is
142
1 happening.
2 MR GARNHAM: That will pick this up, will it? Because that
3 may be the answer to my question.
4 MS BRISTOW: It will pick it up, but you seem dissatisfied
5 with my answer, when I said that was what I did. In
6 addition to that, what I am saying to you is I have
7 other sources of information and it would be foolish of
8 me not to use those as well.
9 MR GARNHAM: But your regular auditing system will detect
10 the thing we are looking at at the moment, the time it
11 takes to move a case from I&A to Long Term.
12 MS BRISTOW: On the file audit what I am expecting to happen
13 is that managers at different levels have an allocated
14 number of cases that are selected for them at random
15 every month. They are asked to review the case in all
16 its aspects. If they find things that they think are
17 incorrect or things that need to be pursued, then they
18 are required to write on the file what needs to be done
19 to send it back to the manager responsible for achieving
20 it, and to recall the file the following month to ensure
21 that it has been done.
22 MR GARNHAM: What changes have been made to the assessment
23 process, the actual reflection and thinking time and
24 analysis that social workers ought to take, ought to
25 indulge in in respect of any assessment?
143
1 MS BRISTOW: That, I believe, has been put -- part of what
2 we have done is staff above the levels to help people
3 have a bit more space, to provide the training to give
4 them the tools with which to do it if they do not
5 already have them, and that the role of the practice
6 managers, including in the Investigation and Assessment
7 Teams, is to make sure that takes place, so that as work
8 is going on in the case, people should have the
9 opportunity to have those discussions and reflect on it.
10 MR GARNHAM: And the way you determine whether that is
11 happening is the same as you have given in answer to the
12 previous question, is it?
13 MS BRISTOW: Yes but with a higher expectation that team
14 managers will -- where cases are moving to closure,
15 because my requirement is that the files are read prior
16 to closure, then clearly managers should be able to tell
17 from the recording whether or not it has happened and if
18 they cannot tell from the recording, that is another
19 problem altogether that needs to be addressed.
20 MR GARNHAM: Changes to the supervision system. We have
21 heard much about the inadequacy of the system that took
22 place in Victoria's case. What changes have you made
23 there?
24 MS BRISTOW: Within the children's divisions they monitor on
25 a regular basis that people are receiving supervision.
144
1 In my discussions with social workers I have asked them
2 if that is problematic; they are saying not. And
3 I believe it is improving. What we can monitor easily
4 is the regularity of supervision. What is harder to
5 monitor --
6 MR GARNHAM: Is the quality.
7 MS BRISTOW: -- is the quality.
8 MR GARNHAM: So what do you do to get a feel on that?
9 MS BRISTOW: I think that needs to be done by the immediate
10 superior manager, yes, and so when a team manager is
11 supervising a practice manager, they need to be testing
12 out how they are supervising people, what has gone on in
13 individual supervision sessions, and do it in that
14 sense.
15 MR GARNHAM: How long has this process, this systematic,
16 monthly auditing been going on?
17 MS BRISTOW: Nine months or so.
18 MR GARNHAM: Set up how?
19 MS BRISTOW: In about February or March of 2001. Sorry,
20 I am not quite sure which week. I met with all the
21 third tier managers in the Children's Service, together
22 with my other assistant directors, and started to look
23 at what it is we needed to do if we were going to move
24 services forward. Part of what was apparent at that
25 time was that people were not reading files in --
145
1 MR GARNHAM: Still not reading files at the beginning of
2 this year?
3 MS BRISTOW: Not all of them were read. I am not saying
4 every manager with case responsibility, this is the more
5 senior managers, yes? That was a matter of concern to
6 me and they were talking about the time pressures that
7 they felt were involved that made it difficult.
8 After some considerable work with them, we devised
9 a system, because I think its imperative that people do
10 it, and in a sense you have to find the time, it is not
11 one of those optional extras, so we agreed how many
12 files each level of manager would take each month.
13 MR GARNHAM: So that is the number of samples that are done?
14 MS BRISTOW: Done.
15 MR GARNHAM: And what proportion is it?
16 MS BRISTOW: I think it is something like, for third tier
17 managers they get ten files. I am sorry, I do not know
18 off the top of my head --
19 MR GARNHAM: Roughly give me a percentage of what that is.
20 MS BRISTOW: I am trying to think of how many live cases.
21 We probably will have something like about 100 files
22 a month being pulled at that level and there will be
23 something like around between seven and 10 per cent of
24 all possible cases. I would say that is in addition to
25 the files I expect them to read while they are doing
146
1 their job.
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
3 MS BRISTOW: Because as things come -- as they are asked to
4 take a decision on something, they should look at the
5 file then, so this is over and above that.
6 MR GARNHAM: And those who are supervising the supervisors
7 should be checking that supervisors are reading files?
8 MS BRISTOW: Managers at each level are expected to pull
9 a number of files but at the third tier level, they will
10 pull between them 70, 80, 90 a month.
11 MR GARNHAM: It is the same process, is it, by which you are
12 now ensuring that social workers actually spend time
13 talking to children?
14 MS BRISTOW: It is one of the ways. The most direct way is
15 the person who supervises the social worker is the
16 person who needs to be making sure that happens and also
17 makes sure the interaction with the child is
18 appropriate. Now what they need to be doing is both
19 looking at paper records but also I would expect them
20 sometimes to co-work it and go with the social worker.
21 MR GARNHAM: You would expect --
22 MS BRISTOW: And they tell me they are doing it. I have
23 made it a priority to as often as I can get out and meet
24 staff directly, because I am very conscious of the
25 criticisms that have been levied about the detachment of
147
1 the senior management from what the frontline staff say.
2 Whilst it is not possible for me to be in every office
3 every week, I do try to get somewhere every week and
4 I have been on a number of occasions to the district
5 offices and have taken the time to speak directly to
6 social workers and ask them direct questions.
7 MR GARNHAM: One of the problems with Victoria's case was
8 social workers there were dealing with deceitful carers,
9 never more obvious than in relation to the November
10 incident, when the allegations of sex abuse were made
11 against Manning. What steps have been taken, what
12 changes have been made to ensure that social workers are
13 better able to deal with deceitful clients?
14 MS BRISTOW: We have had considerable discussions and have
15 now put in place arrangements with the police to improve
16 the joint training. So, for example, this month --
17 sorry, it might be next month, February -- a number of
18 my social workers are going and getting training at the
19 police college in Hendon. So we are trying to look at
20 using the resources across the child protection agencies
21 and work together to try and skill everyone up.
22 MR GARNHAM: Would Victoria's case have satisfied the
23 eligibility criteria you now have in place? There are
24 new eligibility criteria, are there not?
25 MS BRISTOW: There are new draft eligibility criteria which
148
1 will still require formal adoption. They are on
2 consultation with users, carers and other agencies.
3 MR GARNHAM: Let us have a look at them; 45J, page 136.
4 "Haringey childcare services, provides a range of
5 Family Support and Childcare services Children in Need
6 ... demand for service exceeds resources available ...
7 Tough decision to prioritise request for services ...
8 established an 'Eligibility Criteria' ... divided into
9 three categories High, Medium and Low."
10 Then those are described.
11 "The following eligibility criteria sets out the way
12 in which different needs will be prioritised, the
13 timeframe for responding, and the type of service that
14 will be provided."
15 Is this the form that is in draft?
16 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it is.
17 MR GARNHAM: So this is not currently being applied?
18 MS BRISTOW: For the eligibility criteria they must formally
19 be adopted by the Council.
20 MR GARNHAM: When is that likely to happen?
21 MS BRISTOW: I understand at the end of the consultation
22 period and it will go forward.
23 MR GARNHAM: So how would Victoria's case have been
24 categorised? When was it first received by Haringey?
25 MS BRISTOW: When we first received it she was not at risk
149
1 because she was in hospital. I think she would have
2 been categorised as "high priority" at that time, given
3 what was coming in as a child protection referral.
4 MR GARNHAM: So you would have taken the view that she was
5 at immediate risk of harm?
6 MS BRISTOW: Clearly not because she was in an NHS hospital
7 but that does not mean that she would -- if the child is
8 safely in hospital and the carer is not trying to remove
9 the child from hospital, you would not deem them to be
10 at immediate risk, would you? Obviously if a carer was
11 trying to remove them from the hospital you might then
12 put them in that category, which is when you would seek
13 an emergency protection or police protection to stop
14 that happening.
15 MR GARNHAM: What category would she be in when she left
16 hospital?
17 MS BRISTOW: I think that depends on which parts of the
18 evidence that have been given to the Inquiry you
19 believe. But I would have said at the time it was not
20 seen she was in immediate risk. What seems to be
21 understood at that time, which may not be an
22 understanding that will emerge later, but what seems to
23 have been understood at that time was abuse or neglect.
24 MR GARNHAM: So low or medium?
25 MS BRISTOW: Medium I would have said.
150
1 MR GARNHAM: I see. Closure. What changes have been made
2 as to the arrangements for closure?
3 MS BRISTOW: I do not think we have changed the arrangements
4 but we are trying to make sure the arrangements we have
5 always had are being applied.
6 MR GARNHAM: And you do that by the same auditing process
7 you have told me about in answer to a number of my
8 questions this afternoon?
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: This sampling/auditing process you tell us has
11 been in place since February or March of last year. So
12 it would have been giving you a feel, would it, of how
13 well you were managing in Haringey from soon thereafter?
14 MS BRISTOW: Yes. You start to get a feel with each batch
15 that are looked at.
16 MR GARNHAM: Can we have a look at one audit report, please.
17 45B, page 138.
18 MS BRISTOW: Could I just say to you Mr Garnham this is not
19 the same auditing process, this is another.
20 MR GARNHAM: I know it is. The reason I am asking you is
21 whether, in light of the fact that you were doing the
22 sampling process you have talked about, what we find in
23 this came as any surprise to you?
24 MS BRISTOW: I think what came in this, which I think was
25 not at a dissimilar time, was obviously -- was not what
|
