Category Archives: Inquiry

Inquiry Launched Into Making Details of Convicted Sex Offenders Public.

29 Thursday Aug 2019

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

An inquiry looking into whether details of convicted sex offenders should be made public has been confirmed in Australia, after a new report found that sex offenders got less supervision than other offenders even when they had a higher risk of reoffending.

The Upper House in the state of Victoria agreed to the inquiry on Wednesday, which was overwhelmingly voted through in a motion, with 35 members voting in favour of the inquiry and four against the proposal.

The inquiry was also called for by Stuart Grimley of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, a political party which focuses on reforms to the justice system. The Justice Party is named after its founder, Derryn Hinch. Hinch would like to see sex offenders’ full postal addresses made public rather than just their postcodes.

Victoria Police has been asked by the state’s auditor-general to provide further details about its processes for handling registered sex offenders.

Data confirms that there were 8,286 registered sex offenders in Victoria in May 2019, 54 per cent of whom were required to report regularly to police.

Some politicians do not agree with making registered sex offenders’ details public, and say there is no evidence that making this kind of information available to the public reduces reoffending.

sex-offenders-1656203_960_720

Have Your Say: Inquiry Into Children’s Social Workers

18 Thursday Jul 2019

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 91 Comments

The government has launched a consultation into the state of children’s social care.

The Education Committee’s inquiry will look at children’s social workers engaged in children’s social care with a view to trying to understand how to give children and families the best support possible.

The inquiry will explore the possibilities for early intervention, social work reform and training for children’s social workers. It will also investigate the extent to which social workers carry out and uphold their legal responsibilities as social work professionals.

While the focus appears to be on workloads and high staff turnover, this is a wonderful opportunity for families and children to try once again to explain to the government why a brand new approach, and state of the art social work training is needed. And you can share your thoughts with the committee.

Care experienced families and children can answer a series of questions prepared by the Committee in this file. The questions are:

  1. What does/did your social worker need in order to do their job properly?

  2. What helped, or didn’t help your social worker have what they need to do their job properly?

  3. Do you think the job that social workers do today has changed in the past few years? If so, how has it changed, and why do you think that might be?

  4. What does good social work look like to you?

  5. Is there anything else that you want to tell us?

You can also submit further thoughts in a file without being restricted by set questions. 

You are entitled to ask that your submission, or just selected parts, are kept confidential. The Committee may also anonymise or redact your submission.

Education Committee Chair Robert Halfon MP explains the background to the inquiry:

“Children, young people and their families receive vital support from social workers. Yet children and their families in receipt of social work support are often those who have the worst outcomes. For example, 14% of looked after children get five good GCSEs, 39% of care leavers are NEET [not in education, employment or training], and one in four women who had a child removed through the family courts is likely to go back to court to have another child removed.

Reports suggest that children are under increasing pressures as they grow up, facing  up to a rise in mental health problems, a rise in knife crime and serious violence, and experiencing a range of challenges in areas such as social media use. We want to explore what social work looks like in 2019 and examine the skills and support that social workers need to keep children and young people safe from harm and to help them grow up to thrive as adults.

This inquiry will build on the Committee’s previous work on fostering, alternative provision and special educational needs, and continue to make the case for greater support for young people as they grow up. We want all children to have the very best start in life, and social workers play vital roles in keeping families together, children and young people safe and providing much needed support.”

The deadline for written submissions is Friday 30 August. 

The Education Committee’s page with all the information on this inquiry can be found here. 

Many thanks to Eugene for alerting us to the inquiry.

portcullis3

Government Announces Review Into Family Courts – But It’s Not Enough.

21 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in child welfare, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The government has announced that it will launch a mini review into cases involving domestic abuse. The inquiry falls short of a full-scale review and misses key areas vital to understanding the family courts’ failings in this area.

In a press release issued today, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has said that it will review child protection practices inside the family courts with a panel of experts and the collection of evidence from the public in an open consultation.

The panel for the review will be chaired by the MOJ and will include senior members of the judiciary, leading academics and charities. The panel will not include members of the public who have been affected by the court process.

The experts, who have not yet been named, will have just three months to report back on their findings.

The short time-scale is not the review’s only problematic feature. The investigation will focus on a narrow set of issues, which cannot be understood as standalone elements inside the system.

The current scope of the mini review includes:

  • Looking at Practice Direction 12J – optional guidance which relates to child arrangement cases where domestic abuse is alleged
  • Investigating how the courts use ‘barring orders’ which block further applications being made without the court’s permission under the Children Act 1989
  • Collecting evidence of the impact on children and victims where child contact is sought by someone alleged to have, or who has, committed domestic abuse or other relevant offences

One of the most important areas the review has failed to include in its remit is how allegations affect orders being made in child protection cases where one party alleges abuse.

New research published las month showed that judges were more likely to award child contact to a parent after they made an allegation of parental alienation in cases where the other parent brought up an allegation of child abuse.

While parents can and do exploit their children during divorce and child welfare proceedings, the research makes another important point – that ill-informed trends in child protection and a limited understanding of domestic abuse obscures solutions which are in the best interests of children.

And many of the problems associated with cases involving abuse run right through the system, which means a piecemeal approach is never going to be satisfactory.

Further reading:

s300_ministry-of-justice

 

 

1,070 Incidents of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse In Secure Units Reported over an 8 Year Period

28 Thursday Feb 2019

Posted by in child abuse, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

The nation’s child abuse inquiry has just published its report on child sexual abuse within secure units for children. The research confirms that the number of reported incidents of sexual abuse is much higher than was previously believed.

The report noted that about 1,070 incidents of alleged sexual abuse were reported from 2009 to 2017. The figure is particularly concerning as the number of children in detention has been steadily decreasing over time.

The inquiry focused on three units:

Feltham and Werrington – young offender institutions (YOIs)

Medway and Rainsbrook – secure training centres (STCs)

Vinney Green and Aycliffe – secure children’s homes (SCHs)

The inquiry concluded that children held in YOIs and STCs were not safe from physical or sexual abuse. It found that most alleged sexual assaults took place during body searches or restraint by staff.

The summary includes harrowing descriptions of several of the allegations, including an allegation that a female member of staff had masturbated children at Medway STC in 2015 and that staff at Rainsbrook STC allowed two children to go into a bedroom together knowing one of the young people would defecate on the other’s face and watched while this happened.

There are also descriptions of staff raping children, including details about an 11-year-old boy who was sexually assaulted by two members of staff at the same time. Another witness for the inquiry gave at least 35 examples of times when he was raped and sexually assaulted by four members of staff and a former pupil at Stanhope Castle Approved School. He also told the inquiry that he had been choked unconscious while being abused, on several occasions.

The Inquiry has made the following recommendations:

  • A full government review into the practice of placing children for justice and welfare reasons together in secure children’s homes;
  • Regulating against pain compliance techniques in order to prohibit its use entirely and;
  • That the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education share policy responsibility for managing and safeguarding children in custodial institutions.

CICI-cover

 

 

Ethics Of Adoption: Enquiry Findings To Be Published ‘Before Christmas’

02 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

The British Association Of Social Work (BASW) is to publish its report on the state of the adoption sector at the end of this year.

The Enquiry, which was launched by the BASW in 2016, has been looking into adoption in England and Wales, the role social work should play in the adoption process and ethics surrounding the practice.

As part of its review, the Enquiry was tasked with examining the non consensual nature of adoption, which is often referred to as forced adoption, social workers’ involvement in the practice of removing children from parents without their consent and the ethical and human rights issues attached.

Researching Reform took to Twitter to ask the BASW and Maggie Mellon, who is a member of the Enquiry’s Steering Group, if they could offer any update on the Enquiry, which had not published any further information since its launch.

Maggie very kindly responded to us on Twitter.

Reply

Maggie Mellon, an outspoken and talented social worker who has in the past invited the profession to look at alternative ways of working with families inside the child protection system – like this insightful piece on the impact of current culture and practice inside the system which demonises parents – appeared to suggest that the findings would be launched before Christmas.

Maggie’s tweet does confirm that an update will be published shortly, which we will share once it’s live.

Many thanks to Tom Perkins for gently nudging us about this Enquiry.

 

Call For Evidence: Lords Investigate How The Internet Impacts Children

19 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in child welfare, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

The Communications Committee has just launched an Inquiry into how the internet is affecting children, and will look at online safety concerns, as well as the benefits to children of being able to access information on the web.

The Committee will be investigating how children’s use of the internet is governed and regulated, and will examine potential safeguarding roles that parents, schools, media companies and regulators might play.

If you would like to contribute to this Inquiry, submissions are now being accepted. The deadline for submissions is Friday 26th August, 2016.

Questions the Lords would love to receive answers to are as follows, and can be found in the Call For Evidence Leaflet: 

Risks and benefits

1. What risks and benefits does increased internet usage present to children, with particular regard to: i. Social development and wellbeing ii. Neurological, cognitive and emotional development, iii. Data security.

2. Which platforms and sites are most popular among children and how do young people use them? Many of the online services used by children are not specifically designed for children. What problems does this present?

3. What are the technical challenges for introducing greater controls on internet usage by children?

4. What are the potential future harms and benefits to children from emerging technology, such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and the Internet of Things? 

Education

5. What roles can schools play in educating and supporting children in relation to the internet? What guidance is provided about the internet to schools and teachers? Is guidance consistently adopted and are there any gaps?

6. Who currently informs parents of risks? What is the role for commercial organisations to teach e-safety to parents? How could parents be better informed about risks?

Governance

7. What are the challenges for media companies in providing services that take account of children? How do content providers differentiate their services for children, for example in respect of design?

8. What voluntary measures have already been put in place by providers of content to protect children? Are these sufficient? If not, what more could be done? Are company guidelines about child safety and rights accessible to parents and other users?

Legislation and Regulation

9. What are the regulatory frameworks in different media? Is current legislation adequate in the area of child protection online? Is the law routinely enforced across different media? What, if any, are the gaps? What impact does the legislation and regulation have on the way children and young people experience and use the internet? Should there be a more consistent approach?

10. What challenges face the development and application of effective legislation? In particular in relation to the use of national laws in an international/cross-national context and the constantly changing nature and availability of internet sites and digital technologies? To what extent can legislation anticipate and manage future risks?

11. Does the upcoming General Data Protection Regulation take sufficient account of the needs of children? As the UK leaves the EU, what provisions of the Regulation or other Directives should it seek to retain, or continue to implement, with specific regard to children? Should any other legislation should be introduced?

12. What more could be done by the Government? Could there be a more joined-up approach involving the collaboration of the Government with research, civil society and commerce?

Committee Chairman, Lord Best:

“The use of the internet by children is now so established, so common, that we need to understand the risks. Are we keeping young people safe in a digital age? How much of an impact is the internet having on the development of children? Are regulations around access, risk, and data protection adequate? How can providers of internet services be encouraged to incorporate concern for the welfare of children in designing their products? These are key issues which we will want to investigate.

“However, we want to make sure that the inquiry does not dismiss the internet as overwhelmingly detrimental to young people, and we will examine closely the opportunities it is giving to children, from learning through to social interaction.”

Researching Reform supports the view that the internet is a force for good which extends to children being able to access such a vital and positive resource. There is no doubt that the internet is a mixed environment however, having watched young people online we are constantly impressed by their ability to suss out suspicious online activity, and avoid it. We very much hope this Inquiry will look to strike a balance between empowering children further to explore the world around them, protecting fundamental rights which touch upon access to information and helping to ensure that critical dangers are tackled by the relevant bodies.

You can send your submission off here (files need to be in Word format).

ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg

 

 

Inquiry To Examine Effects Of False Sexual Abuse Allegations

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 13 Comments

As the nation’s Inquiry into child sexual abuse gets underway, Chair Lowell Goddard has released a statement clarifying the Inquiry’s working methods and the strands of its current investigations, as well as confirming that the Inquiry will not only be looking at the impact of child sexual abuse on its victims, but also the effect of false allegations on those accused of abusing children. 

In the wake of former MP Harvey Proctor’s very public outburst at having been investigated over allegations relating to an alleged VIP paedophile ring in Westminster, and conflicting evidence surrounding the late Lord Janner’s involvement in past child sexual abuse, we can see that the issues surrounding false allegations are complex.

But what constitutes a false allegation? Should a lack of evidence automatically allow us to say that the accused is innocent, and if so, should that accused then have the right to compensation? Should we have higher standards of proof when it comes to false allegations, and should we extend those standards to any allegation, including child sexual abuse?

Are our burdens of proof simply out of date and out of touch with modern advances in science and a progressive ethical code which forces us to question the difference between hard evidence and a lack of it?

Another difficult area lies in both how we treat allegations and how we deal with them once proved. Public figures since cleared of abuse, through lack of evidence rather than hard evidence disproving their involvement in many cases, have been very vocal about the way they felt the police treated them during their investigation despite the fact that they would have been treated in much the same way as non high profile members of the public (perhaps treated worse, even). Should we then also be looking at how ‘celebrity’ psychology impacts the effectiveness of police investigations and also, how police handling of suspects in general, whether high profile or not, needs updating?

What do you think? Which issues surrounding false allegations do you think are important and how do you think the Inquiry should approach them?

IICSA Logo

 

 

Goddard Inquiry Appoints Neo-Conservative To Run Its Communications

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in child abuse inquiry, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The nation’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, also known as the Goddard Inquiry after Chair Justice Lowell Goddard, has appointed a communications agency to oversee certain aspects of its work. 

Crest Advisory, which is run by Gavin Lockhart-Mirams, a former adviser to David Cameron, has been tasked with delivering a public awareness campaign to encourage victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to come forward and share their story. The contract runs for nine months.

We haven’t yet had a chance to see if there is available information on which agencies if any are currently running the Inquiry’s social media platforms, which to date has implemented a no engagement policy with the public – a move which sits completely at odds with the purpose of social media and PR generally – but we hope Crest Advisory will take a more progressive approach.

Management consultant Lockhart, comes to the Inquiry from the criminal justice sector, where he put together the current reform programme being used to revamp the system. After resigning from government in 2011 (there is no indication online as to why he resigned), he set up Crest Advisory.

Lockhart worked for the neoconservative think-tank Policy Exchange as Head of the Crime and Justice Unit from August 2006 to 2009 and then worked as Criminal Justice and Health Policy Adviser in the Conservative Policy Unit. He is also the author of the Reform Report, which looked at G4S and Serco failures over electronic tagging roll out for offenders.

It’s not clear yet what a conservative leaning management consultant operating a campaign drive to encourage survivors to come forward might look like, but there have been suspicions over Lockhart’s motivations in the past, most notably the suggestion that Lockhart developed policy on Police and Crime Commissioners so that he could eventually profit commercially from the provisions.

Good luck, Crest, the child welfare sector is much tougher than it looks.

gavin (1)

Gavin Lockhart

 

Commons Select Committee Examines Mental Health & Wellbeing Of Looked After Children

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 6 Comments

Today, the Commons Select Committee will be taking evidence from charities who represent children and  young people as part of an inquiry into the mental health and wellness of looked after children.

The sessions are organised as follows:

At 9.30am

Lisa Harker, Director of Strategy, Policy and Evidence, NSPCC
Kevin Williams, Chief Executive, The Fostering Network
Sarah Brennan, Chief Executive, Young Minds
David Graham, National Director, Care Leavers’ Association

At 10.30am

Tony Clifford, Head of Virtual School for Children in Care, City of Stoke-on-Trent
Carol Jones, Specialist for Leadership and Teacher Professionalism, Association of School and College Leaders
Natasha Devon, Founder, Self-Esteem Team

The first session is set to focus on issues affecting children and young people, from the perspective of organisations who work directly with looked after children and their carers. The second session will look at schools and their part in supporting children in care with mental health issues.

You can watch the sessions on Parliament TV and learn more about the Education Committee’s Inquiry here. 

Child

 

The Inquiry’s Restriction Order Doesn’t Gag Survivors But It Does Affect Transparency

19 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in child abuse inquiry, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 18 Comments

Much is being made this week of a Restriction Order put in place by the nation’s Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which effectively bans participants of the Inquiry’s Truth Project from speaking about the sessions. Some are calling it a gagging order of sorts and others a muddled policy which didn’t seem to include Victim and Survivor Panel Member participation, but are we right to view the Order in this light, and what does the Order actually mean for survivors and their stories?

On first inspection, it does seem as if the Inquiry is trying to suppress survivors – this has more to do with the muddled language used in the Questions and Answers document, than within the Order itself. In one paragraph in the Q&A page we are told:

“The Restriction Order is a legal ruling that prohibits public access to the Truth Project private sessions and prevents anyone from making public…
­ the details of the experiences shared with the Inquiry.”

That gives the distinct expression that survivors will not be able to talk about their own cases to others. And yet, further down the Q&A page, we have this paragraph:

“The Restriction Order does not prevent you from:
­ talking about your experience of sexual abuse with anyone else;
­ telling others that you wrote to the Inquiry or attended a Truth Project private session; discussing how you felt about sharing your experience with the Inquiry.”

and

“There is an exception in the Restriction Order that allows you to discuss all the details of what happened as part of the Truth Project with a therapist, counsellor or doctor.”

It’s easy to see how survivors, or anyone for that matter, might get confused about what can, and can’t be said. Jump over to the actual Order itself, and things become clearer. The Order states:

“Disclosure or publication of the identity, or any details tending to indicate the identity, of any person who has provided or intends to provide an account within the scope of the Truth Project, is prohibited, except in the following circumstances:
i. where the person making the disclosure or publication is the same person as the person who is providing or has provided the account of child sexual abuse to the Inquiry.”

Clearly then, the Order is designed to protect other survivors from having their stories discussed in the media and elsewhere without their consent.

The Order goes further – it says disclosure is also allowed where that victim or survivor consents to the Inquiry publishing an anonymous summary of what they reported to the Inquiry. The Order also says that a survivor can disclose what they said during the session to a third party, as long as they don’t also mention that they made, or did not make, the same disclosure during the Truth Project session.

And whilst this is understandable, and an attempt at allowing survivors the freedom to express themselves as far as possible without compromising other survivors, it does pose one problem in relation to the transparency of the meeting itself.

What if survivors end up discussing a visible flaw within the Inquiry? Or they challenge the Inquiry on a point of operation that could be of public interest? Or worse still, an Inquiry member says or does something wrong?

Under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is where the current Inquiry gets its power to create a Restriction Order, the legislation makes it clear that any restriction on reporting must not “inhibit the allaying of public concern.”

And yet, public concern must exist in this context, without any reassurance from the Inquiry at this time that confidentiality is to be balanced properly with an appropriate level of transparency.

Nevertheless, the Inquiry could create that balance by ensuring that all meetings are recorded formally, and sign off from every participant in each meeting given once they have read the Minutes of those meetings. It is also crucial that the Inquiry details clearly what can be reported in such meetings, for example comments relating to Inquiry process or matters likely to be of public interest beyond survivor testimony. 

We have tried to ask the Inquiry whether they will be doing this, via their Twitter account, however they don’t seem to have a clear understanding of how social media works, and their engagement level with the public on this platform is non existent, so we are unlikely to get a response. If any team member from the Inquiry is reading this, please do at least consider writing an update on the IICSA website, giving us an indication of how the Inquiry will be recording the sessions and what kind of involvement Victim and Survivor Panel Members have had in this process.

Good luck.

IICSA Home Page