Daniel Pelka SCR: Children's minister questions methods used in review

In a letter to Amy Weir, chair of Coventry LSCB, sent in response to the publication of the SCR today, Timpson said the review failed to give sufficient detail on why the failings among the various agencies that had contact with Daniel and his carers had occurred.

He wrote: “The report catalogues a number of basic practice failures – to share information, to keep accurate records, to use records appropriately, to carry out professional assessments adequately. The SCR suggests these failures could be related to the nature of ‘management support and advice’, ‘efficiency of systems and processes’, training, workload or ‘organisational context’. Its analysis, however, stops at this point.

“Such an analysis is essential to ensure that local agencies in Coventry take the action necessary to address the root causes of the specific failures.”

Timpson has asked Weir to set out clearly by the end of the week how she proposes to “deepen the analysis begun in this SCR” and a timescale for doing this.

The minister suggests this should address why basic information was not recorded properly within and between agencies; why relevant information about Daniel was not shared between agencies; and why four separate assessments of Daniel by social care services failed to identify the risk he was at, and how that process was managed.

Timpson said that finding out this information is “critical” to improving child protection practice across the country.

“Until it is clearer why such basic practice failures occurred across agencies, it is difficult to believe that it will be possible to reassure the people of Coventry and the wider public that the necessary practice reforms have been made in response to Daniel’s tragic death,” he added.

Coventry LSCB used a combination of old and new investigative methods in Daniel’s SCR. Last month, CYP Now reported that Coventry LSCB was to align “fact-finding” methodology used in traditional SCR alongside the systems-approach model advocated by Professor Eileen Munro in her 2011 review of SCRs following the death of Baby Peter Connelly.

But the minister’s comments suggest the methods used by Coventry LSCB have focused too heavily on finding out the circumstances surrounding Daniel’s death with too little consideration given to establishing the reasons why professionals and agencies acted in the way they did. 

Ray Jones, professor of social work at Kingston University and an expert in SCRs, said the minister’s critique of the methods used by Coventry LSCB highlights the need for clearer good practice guidance on undertaking reviews.

He said: “This letter is the minister recognising that the current SCR may be not fit for purpose. He’s asked a lot of questions about ‘why’. Currently, too many SCRs analyse the ‘what’ and not the ‘why’ or how decisions are taken.

“The Department for Education needs to be thinking about revising guidance on SCRs.”