Health is the Munro Review's blind spot
Sir Paul Ennals
Friday, May 13, 2011
There is much to welcome in Eileen Munro's final report on child protection, but also much to lament.
Let's start with the good. She offers a detailed and expert critique of what is wrong with the current child protection system and what can be done to help put it right. It is the first review of child protection that has not been carried out in the immediate aftermath of a crisis, and it is not searching for ever more precise procedural solutions to complex and varied problems. Instead, Professor Munro has quite rightly sought solutions in a "systems approach" that encourages people to seek out the underlying causes of problems.
Most practitioners would agree that child protection has been dogged by an over-dependence on prescribed process. Too many beleaguered professionals depend upon manuals and rule books. This is unhealthy and counter-productive. Any profession that does not allow space for judgment undermines the skills and aptitudes on which it should thrive. When there are too many rules, following the rules becomes a substitute for doing what's best. Under these conditions organisations don't learn - they obey.
At NCB we are particularly heartened by the observation that all children's services professionals should take seriously the views and experiences of children going through the child protection system. Making sure that vulnerable young people are kept informed about and involved in major decisions that affect their lives is a fundamental duty owed to them. If local authorities and their partners are to create a "learning system" that responds and adapts to what is happening to children, they need to make sure children are part of a dialogue at every stage. Since the majority of children who are abused are under five years of age, this is a challenge, but one that can be overcome with investment. Munro's report is called A Child-Centred System - maybe one day soon the practice might fit with the title.
But the report saddens me in three areas. First, Munro sets out the case once again for the importance of the role of a director of children's services (DCS). Several authorities have listened to the government's demands that they cut their senior management, and have lumped other duties in with the DCS role - clumsy titles such as "director of people" are emerging. Munro says why she thinks this is wrong. But her request is unlikely to carry much weight, when the force of government policy is encouraging local authorities to do just what she deplores.
Second, Munro also argues - rightly - for the importance of early help for families. Most local authorities have protected social workers themselves from the cuts so far, but early help services have been slashed across the country. The funding for all these family support services is within the early intervention grant, which has been reduced by 22 per cent since March 2010. Munro's proposal that local authorities be placed under a statutory duty to provide a decent level of early help services makes absolute sense, but has zero chance of being accepted by government.
Third, Munro still fails to grapple with how health services should play their part in child protection. Many of the historic scandals have been rooted partly in failures within health services, even if social workers have carried the public blame. Yet all Munro recommends is that the government talks with the health world about how safeguarding can best be delivered effectively in the new health legislation. The failure of the Department of Health to explain how safeguarding is to be delivered in the new system has been the subject of heated private exchanges in recent weeks, and we had been assured that Munro's report would chart a way through. It hasn't - and unless something is decided soon, child protection could become the biggest casualty of the chaos which is the government's health proposals.
Sir Paul Ennals, chief executive of the National Children's Bureau