Backlash over ‘crass’ rejection of care leavers from Care Review’s expert group
Fiona Simpson
Wednesday, February 17, 2021
Care experienced people, sector leaders and MPs have expressed “hurt” and “disappointment” after more than 900 people were rejected from the Care Review’s Experts by Experience (EbE) group.
Last month, chair of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in England Josh MacAlister, called on those with experience of children’s social care to apply to join a hand-picked panel “central” to shaping the review.
Read more:
-
Care Review: What is Josh MacAlister’s ‘Experts by Experience’ group?
-
Analysis: Care experts outline ambitions
-
Care Review: Sector leaders set out their priorities for change
-
Editorial: Review must include needs of care leavers
When applications closed on 5 February, MacAlister shared on Twitter that more than 1,000 people had submitted applications.
However, just 10 days later most were rejected via an email which many described as “abrupt” and showing “limiting understanding”.
Labour MP for South Shields and former shadow education minister Emma Lewell Buck said: “Reading tweets from people hurt after being turned down from participating in the Care Review was beyond awful. The way this whole process has been conducted and the language used smacks of disregard and shows limited understanding. I will be asking questions in Parliament.”
To the care-experienced people who applied to the Experts by Experience group, who are feeling disappointed today and questioning the #CareReview – we hear you.
— Become (@Become1992) February 16, 2021
We want you to remember that your experiences and views are still valid, still valuable, and still recognised by us.
Care leaver Ian Dickinson branded the mass email rejection “cavalier treatment of up to 1,000 care experienced applicants”. “This 'bulldozer' approach by review must stop,” he said.
Meanwhile, charity Become said it was “raising concerns with the Care Review team directly – specifically about how this first stage of participation has excluded so many capable contributors who are young and care-experienced”.
“We are also highlighting concerns about a lack of transparency about the process for assessing so many applications in such a short period of time,” it added.
“We’ve encouraged the review team to provide an explanation to applicants to the EbE group about how the process was conducted, recommending Josh MacAlister organises an open session to speak directly with those who applied and to understand their disappointment and concern,” the charity said on Twitter.
Just getting my head round the fact there were more members of Blazin Squad than there will be care experienced people (most likely) involved in the independent care review for the whole of England https://t.co/LzaovmdRk3
— Kirsty Capes (@kirstycapes) February 15, 2021
Carolyne Willow, director of children’s rights charity Article 39, added: “The spectacle of more than 900 people with direct, personal experience of the care system or other elements of children’s social care being turned down by email following an opaque and crassly insensitive process shows the fragility of this rushed review.
“The pain, anger and disbelief we’re rightly witnessing from people who generously put themselves forward was entirely preventable.
“We collectively have the knowledge and skills to run an effective review. There are individuals up and down the country who have for decades been facilitating inclusive, respectful and caring participatory processes. It’s as if this review is starting at ground zero and knows nothing about abuse of power, rejection and manipulation. Care experienced people and their allies pressed for this review to bring about radical transformation in the care system. This latest charade confirms the Secretary of State must start again with a review panel that can command confidence and trust.”
I have no doubt whoever is on the panel absolutley deserves to be there. But why a panel when there are so many who deserve to be there and no shortage of other ways to consult on the design of the review that would not have been so divisive?
— Amanda Knowles MBE #CEP #YLYS (@amandakn0wles) February 17, 2021
MacAlister moved to address the criticism on Twitter revealing that just 40 people had been invited to interview for between 10 and 15 positions on the panel.
He suggested that the EbE would replace a traditional review panel, writing: “I wanted an Experts by Experience Group, made up of children, young people, care experienced adults, parents and carers to sit at the heart of this review and make meaningful decisions throughout. If the review is to be a success their voices must be at the centre of it.
“I wanted these people to be appointed through an open application process. There were other ways that we could have set this group up. We could have asked organisations to nominate people - we did consider this. However, it might have limited involvement to those already engaged.
“I could have directly picked people but this would have limited the group to people I already know. Instead we decided to have an open application so that we can get the widest possible range of people. The inevitable downside of this is that some people don’t get selected.”
He added that the application process was intended to be “fair and open” not to “diminish or overlook anyone’s experience”.
“A core purpose of the Experts by Experience group is to decide the ways in which people will be able to contribute,” he said, adding that more would be announced after the first meeting of the group next month.
The backlash comes alongside a damning statement from the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) calling on the Department for Education to “reconsider the leadership of the review”.
It also recommends the recruitment of co-chairs with lived experience of care and an extension of the current proposed timeframe of 12 to 15 months.
“Our decades of experience tell us that 12-15 months is unrealistic for such a large-scale review unless the outcomes have already been agreed and the reform footprint developed. The timing of this review is not right, the pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the wellbeing of the workforce and the children, families and communities they support,” it states.
Other recommendations include ensuring the review is independent of government, tackling austerity and child poverty and diversifying channels of communication.
“Communication about the review must be diverse, not just Twitter (arguably elitist in that it is designed for professionals).
“Engaging through Instagram, Tiktok, WhatsApp, Snapchat and more would open up the review to a younger demographic, as just one example. And using telephone calls and letters would reach those without access to social media or funds to pay for Wi-Fi or electronic devices,” it adds.
The DfE has been contacted for further comment.