ChatterBank0 min ago
Another Death By Social Services.......
33 Answers
https:/
why was the kid not taken away from his junky "mother"?
why was the kid not taken away from his junky "mother"?
Answers
Well said TTT, this poor child WAS being seen by social services and it appears they failed.
14:02 Fri 22nd Apr 2022
youngmafbog
From a report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance:
"Government spending on youth services, justice and children’s centres has been slashed by 56% from 2009-2010 to 2017-18. Children’s centres have been particularly badly hit with council spending on them falling by 62% over this period. Social workers have reported that some local authorities have limited the definition of ‘child in need’ in order to save funds, resulting in fewer children being eligible for care, while some councillors say they lack the resources to meet their statutory responsibilities."
What would be *your* answer? Increased public funding? Or keep the funding as it is, as somehow attract much, much better social care workers who are able to manage caseloads more efficiently than now?
From a report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance:
"Government spending on youth services, justice and children’s centres has been slashed by 56% from 2009-2010 to 2017-18. Children’s centres have been particularly badly hit with council spending on them falling by 62% over this period. Social workers have reported that some local authorities have limited the definition of ‘child in need’ in order to save funds, resulting in fewer children being eligible for care, while some councillors say they lack the resources to meet their statutory responsibilities."
What would be *your* answer? Increased public funding? Or keep the funding as it is, as somehow attract much, much better social care workers who are able to manage caseloads more efficiently than now?
My answer would be the same as for the NHS.
Better and less highly paid management and a focus on a cross calibre of people working in SS. At present they do all seem to be of the same ilk. It's not all down to money.
Having said that I would like to see better facilities for kids being provided. Things like Youth centres and places they can go which in the past have been additional ways problems have been picked up on.
Better and less highly paid management and a focus on a cross calibre of people working in SS. At present they do all seem to be of the same ilk. It's not all down to money.
Having said that I would like to see better facilities for kids being provided. Things like Youth centres and places they can go which in the past have been additional ways problems have been picked up on.
Canary42 is correct up to a point, plus no one wants that job. I've known 3 social workers in my time, and I'm talking about the front line ones, not just office based that shuffle the paperwork.
All 3 gave it up early due to the weekly threats they received and stress. All 3 said they could never relax even when not at work due to the threats.
On visits that they feared would get out of hand they would request police attendance. Most times the police never turned up. Could that also be due to cutbacks in the police force?
All 3 gave it up early due to the weekly threats they received and stress. All 3 said they could never relax even when not at work due to the threats.
On visits that they feared would get out of hand they would request police attendance. Most times the police never turned up. Could that also be due to cutbacks in the police force?
youngmafbvog
Better and less highly paid management?
There are few areas where you get the best talent by offering lower salaries.
And how would you deal with caseloads, and the pressure of the job in the face of cuts to funding? I'm guessing that by reducing the layers of management you'd be saving cash - which is brilliant, until you think about who then has to pick up the slack.
Management responsibilities would then fall to front-line workers...the ones who struggle with caseloads as it is.
Better and less highly paid management?
There are few areas where you get the best talent by offering lower salaries.
And how would you deal with caseloads, and the pressure of the job in the face of cuts to funding? I'm guessing that by reducing the layers of management you'd be saving cash - which is brilliant, until you think about who then has to pick up the slack.
Management responsibilities would then fall to front-line workers...the ones who struggle with caseloads as it is.
Well clearly you dont sack all managers!
There are far too many layers that could be easily cut providing cash for the front line. The NHS is exactly the same, managers manging 1 or 2 people. Ludicrous.
The thing is you need to get your efficiencies in place first. Then the argument for more cash can be made, particularly when heading for recession like we currently are. Where do you think more cash will come from? Do you suggest people turn off their heating totally and now cut back on food to pay for your left wing idealist ideas?
There are far too many layers that could be easily cut providing cash for the front line. The NHS is exactly the same, managers manging 1 or 2 people. Ludicrous.
The thing is you need to get your efficiencies in place first. Then the argument for more cash can be made, particularly when heading for recession like we currently are. Where do you think more cash will come from? Do you suggest people turn off their heating totally and now cut back on food to pay for your left wing idealist ideas?
"Do you suggest people turn off their heating totally and now cut back on food to pay for your left wing idealist ideas?"
You think I'm a socialist!??
You sure about that one?
Anyway - back to your point about overmanning the social services. Which areas were you thinking of?
Care workers, service managers? Regional support managers? Bidding managers? Care home managers?
And how would you determine which jobs should be made redundant? How would you calculate efficiencies?
Would you engage a consultancy firm to advise on cuts?
I ask not to pre-empt some hitherto unknown socialist clapback, but because this genuinely sounds like a hell of a complex undertaking.
You think I'm a socialist!??
You sure about that one?
Anyway - back to your point about overmanning the social services. Which areas were you thinking of?
Care workers, service managers? Regional support managers? Bidding managers? Care home managers?
And how would you determine which jobs should be made redundant? How would you calculate efficiencies?
Would you engage a consultancy firm to advise on cuts?
I ask not to pre-empt some hitherto unknown socialist clapback, but because this genuinely sounds like a hell of a complex undertaking.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
sp: "What would be *your* answer? Increased public funding? Or keep the funding as it is, as somehow attract much, much better social care workers who are able to manage caseloads more efficiently than now? " - Use what they have more wisely. Get some people with some common sense instead of hand wringing TROBites. For a start anyone with a sociology/ social sciences "degree" should be automatically excluded.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Hezbollah Vows To Continue Resistance...
News5 mins ago
