KCC Lib Dem leader Cllr Trudy Dean
By Marijke Cox, Reporter
Saturday, February 18, 2012
8:00 AM
Lib Dem leader said questions need to be answered over “cover up”
County Hall’s Lib Dem leader has made fresh calls for an inquiry into the 2010 children’s services crisis, warning that the system that allowed the “cover up” still existed.
Cllr Trudy Dean said social worker vacancy rates were at a high level of risk as far back as 2008 and in 2009 were worse than those at Haringey council, where tragic Baby P was under care.
But she said it was not until an unannounced Ofsted inspection at Kent County Council in 2010 that the extent of the problem was uncovered.
The findings revealed children had been left at risk of significant harm by inadequate services, with 2,600 identified as being without an allocated social worker.
A recent Ofsted report, however, found significant improvements had been made since the damning inspection more than a year ago.
But Cllr Dean said there still needed to be an inquiry looking at why early problems were not flagged up at the time.
She said throughout 2009 more than half of the county’s social work teams had vacancy rates of over 25 per cent – worse than Haringey where Baby P died in 2007.
“In Ashford, Swale, Dartford, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling and Tunbridge Wells rates were over 25 per cent throughout the majority of the year,” she said.
“In Thanet rates were over 25 per cent throughout the entire year. In Dartford, vacancy rates were exceeding 40 per cent over four consecutive months.
“I cannot believe members given these figures would have failed to take the necessary action to fill these vacancies - as we did when OFSTED blew the lid off this two years later.
“This information was all available in KCC, but was never shared with councillors. I also understand it was never shared with the senior departmental management teams.
“Why was KCC told in April 2010 that Children Social Services was ‘coping’ and that there were no concerns about professional standards, when only four months later Ofsted disagreed?”
She claimed the system that allowed it to happen still existed.
“I want a clause in all officers’ contracts to oblige them to reveal information which councillors need to do their job properly. If we take this simple step we will ensure these failures do not occur again.”
Leader of KCC Paul Carter said there was no need for an inquiry due to the dramatic improvements made in the delivery of services for vulnerable families, children and young people.
“We are all accepting that there was a management failure in children’s services in the lead up to the Ofsted inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services in October 2010,” he said.
“Fast and appropriate action has now been taken to remedy the situation.
“Kent has now improved the pay, terms and conditions for frontline social workers and vacancy rates are now at acceptable levels. However, the drive to recruit the very best social workers into Kent will continue with vigour.
“Mrs Dean should look forwards not backwards.”
News, sport, video, blogs and local information
where you live...
|
All Kent |
![]() |
Gravesend |
|
Swale |
|
Ashford |
![]() |
Maidstone |
|
Thanet |
|
Canterbury |
![]() |
Medway |
|
Tonbridge |
|
Dartford |
![]() |
Sandwich |
|
Tunbridge Wells |
|
Deal |
![]() |
Sevenoaks | ||
![]() |
Dover |
![]() |
Shepway |
2 comments
they have always brought in social workers from other boroughs,especially if those sw's have high quotas for stealing children from "normal" decent,loving homes
Report this comment
mary
Monday, February 20, 2012
Re the comment in the article "The findings revealed children had been left at risk of significant harm by inadequate services" - According to English law, the professionals, medics and social workers etc, are only entitled to interfere with the private life of a family if a child is "likely to suffer significant harm". That isn't the same as the "at risk of significant harm". What does "likely" mean? 30%? 50%? 70%? 90%? What does "at risk" mean? 1%? etc. What does "significant harm" mean? The confusion about these things make it "easy" for the professionals to "snatch" any child they decide to snatch.
Report this comment
wasthatthatguy
Sunday, February 19, 2012