Football Managers and DCSs

All the evidence is that bowing to the baying mob of the fans, or the shareholders, after two or three bad results does not lead to a rapid turnaround – the manager is important, but he (it’s always a "he") is just part of the club and, more often than not, there are other important factors – leadership (and sometimes interference) by the owners, investment or lack of investment in players, players not performing as they should, through lack of motivation, injury or simply not being on form.

All of these factors have a direct reflection in local authority services. The DCS is too often a scapegoat and sacking the DCS is, unfortunately, a simple public expression of action being taken.

I’ve always supported the Children Act 2004 and its central concepts of ECM and the DCS, with the DCS being the single point of accountability. I still think that is right and proper, at a professional level – but the public obloquy that has been poured on DCSs and social workers is beyond anything that I could have predicted.

However, as a senior officer I have always know that a point comes when a departure is inevitable – ideally not under the public gaze – when a director or a chief executive has lost the confidence of the elected members. And then there are clear processes that deal with the issues professionally, involving professional associations that act in the trade union role – and that’s not one of ADCS’s activities – and I support that separation, and was there when it was decided.

The circumstances surrounding Sharon Shoesmith’s departure have been well explored and were entirely regrettable. While she was hard done by, Sharon did herself no favours at the time, and even in the recent Panorama, her response was: "It depends what you mean by ‘serious’ …’’ when asked a question about failings in her children’s services department. That just shows a fundamental lack of awareness about how people hear what you say.

But it is entirely improper and detrimental to children’s support and care that experienced professionals at any level, who have worked through a successful career in children’s services, should suddenly be demonised for a single case – even if mistakes have been made.

So what should ADCSs do? I think that Alan Wood got it exactly right when he said: "We made our views as an association clear in the days and weeks that followed the publication of the Jay Report that the outing of one or two individuals rarely rectifies a problem. Focus should instead be on the failure of systems. Personal support is available to all of our members through informal peer networks, particularly at times of great pressure. ADCS colleagues were in close contact with and on hand to offer Joyce support.”

However, and there is always an however, there is a question as to how any membership organisation such as ADCS (and LGA, in a different context) can challenge poor leadership, and whether it should do so. My answer is that such challenge and support should take place, but behind closed doors.

Just to take my immediate interest, educational performance, it seems to me that it’s more than worrying that the top five LAs have 211,527 pupils with more than 93% in each LA being in a good or outstanding school, while the bottom five LAs have 211,527 pupils with fewer than 64% in each LA in a good or outstanding school. (www.watchsted.com – updated to 2 December). I know it’s complicated, with academies and Regional School Commissioners, and varied funding levels, and varied deprivation and local circumstances, but the question remains as to what the sector is doing to learn from the best and help improve the poorest performers. And, yes, leadership is in there – it matters.