I Spoke Out And Was Cancelled

I published this in 2006 and re-publish now as I believe things have not changed and as part of my move from my old blog platform to Substack.

I am simply going to copy communications between myself and managers for a children’s resource centre (kid’s home). I have worked there for two years and the young people have enjoyed and benefitted from the adventure activity programme, which was two afternoons per week.

The young people I work with are never going to be involved in group activities. They live a life cosseted by adults and are moved from one home to another. This IS abuse and will never encourage good integration and development into a valued member of society.

It costs up to £7,000 PER WEEK to look after a young person in a private care facility. The home in question is very pleasant, has two cars, has 7 or 8 staff on site, a school etc. You would think that the key aim would be to effect a change that hopes to take the client out of the care system for good (by this I include social work visits, secure, prison).

I think that the emails speak for themselves. The teaching staff, two teachers and one teaching assistant supported the comments that I made but were too aware that they may lose their job if they 'rocked the boat'.

The system is in crisis, private companies are making real profits at the taxpayer’s expense and where are the outcomes that we would all like to see? I truly welcome debate and comment on the crisis in social care for young people. I would like to take this issue further but lack the resources and time.....

I have removed the names and details of the company and home in question for reasons of confidentiality.

We have programmed mountain biking from Brecon for tomorrow. I am happy to run this for the whole group so that a discussion can take place regarding my thoughts below. the mix at the moment is proving near impossible to arrange activities for and following last Thursday it is now even harder. This Thursday I feel that riding lessons should continue for x and that there should be no activities for y or z and that they should be sent to the house, y for refusing and z for his behaviour.

I think that this should continue for two further weeks. If this is unacceptable then we need to reconsider the programme. I am of a mind to say that I am not happy taking either z or y to any location that brings them into contact with members of the public without support from the care staff and a support vehicle. this in effect is all activities.

The following statement is in no way directed at the school or school staff or indeed the care staff but at x management, training and day-to-day care policies.

x should be a flagship venue for x. It can never be this whilst young people are allowed to display poor behaviour and the consequences are inconsequential. it can never be this whilst the mix of young persons accommodated at the haven is poorly considered and superficially monitored. there have been many incidents of bullying, absconding, and abuse of property and of person. This dangerous mix will continue and this really does bother me.

I am happy to continue providing activities for x with no further assistance but I fear for the safety and property of members of the public whilst running activities for y and z. in my opinion the activity should be as programmed and if any of the young people do not wish to take part they should be sent to the house to be cared for by the care staff, the afternoon being recorded as refusing education.

y and z need further staffing when they agree to attend so that if, for example, y gets into the front seat of the car something can be done about it, something like removal from the vehicle and being taken back to the x. What message are we giving these kids when we allow them to create a threatening disturbance in a public place and there are no real consequences? sorry for all this but I am a bit fed up with the way things are at the x, and I only attend every now and then. the bottom line is I need to know that the young person will do as instructed whilst out on activity and if they don’t that there is a mechanism for removing them. I also need to know what action, other than loss of points, is taken against the young person for their unacceptable behaviour. for example, I think that z should miss Thursday activities for the next two weeks no matter what is decided.

We then had a meeting at the school to include care and teaching staff as well as myself and an education manager, the upshot of which was:

1) threatened suspension of the activity programme to stop me from pursuing certain issues

2) attendance of the programme to be a reward for attendance at school, not an integral part of the education as had previously been in place.

Thank you for the minutes. I will continue to offer activities to the x and provide a programme that is both engaging and educational. But I must say that my general worries were not put to rest by the meeting. I spoke at some length about the mix of the client being sent to the x, about w being on his own for 6 months, about being bullied by b and w and the same pattern occurring with x, y and z.

The problem, I guess, is not so much the mix of clients but staffing levels in the house and the structure that those staff have in place to constructively benefit the young people in care. although z did not go to school Tuesday morning he attended an activity in the afternoon. Was this enough for him to go to a young person’s disco in Hereford and not be collected until 1130, on a school day? Then on the Wednesday of the meeting, he was taken to Hereford again and had four hours of free time, despite not being in school all day. What does this suggest to the young person? It is obvious, I do not need to go to school and this is a few hours after the meeting.

There is something wrong with the care situation at the x. These boys are at risk or are a risk, simple as that. If I had a 13-year-old he would not be going to a kid’s disco till 1130 on a school day, he would not be out for four or five hours with mates. if he did this he would be 'grounded'. z is being enabled to behave in this way following his demonstrations of poor behaviour and non-compliance. this is the wrong 'education' for a damaged child if my imaginary son did not get up for school I would be getting him ready for school. I believe that this is a care staff issue and that the care staff should be actively encouraging, even if this develops a difficult situation, even if the difficult situation occurs every day, attendance at school. If we do not confront the poor behaviour we end up accepting and in a way encouraging it and worse. z does not go to school because he is not forced to and there is no impact on his life if he does not go. What are we setting this boy up for? A similar future to that of w?

As for w, the care staff inviting him back was news to me. I cannot understand the decision to invite him back when there was a difficult mix of three boys already in the house, with x being another a, and a being a boy w badly bullied. I never suggested restraining young people for non-compliance. I have years of experience with difficult young people of all ages and in many different environments and I am well-placed to reflect on the way to deal with certain situations. what I do want to see, however, is a structure that allows young people to know that there will be consequences that matter to them following poor behaviour.

I think that a decision to have students needing to gain n points to go on the activity will prove itself the wrong decision. it will certainly encourage z to be lazy and education, activities and evening activities do not mean a great deal to some clients. this system could work though if the care staff impose restrictions that any parent would follow non-attendance at school.

I agree that second third and fourth chances are necessary but NOT in the environment and with the level of supervision that the x currently offers. I would suggest a 2 staff to 1 client situation after coming out of secure would have been most appropriate with a very strongly worded contract. xx stated that there are sometimes 4 young people and two care staff. whilst there is a regime of bullying and fear, noncompliance and abusive behaviour that level of staffing is inappropriate. I have seen x running down the road and the care staff just let him go. where is the duty of care to this vulnerable boy. he needs to be followed and if he still does not return the police are informed of his absconding. this has to be done to protect him and the local community.

The x has a high turnover of clients and whilst this continues I believe that the current programme is invaluable to settling the young people into a normal school day and to encourage participation in school life. any disruption to the programme would I think be damaging to the ability of the clients to maintain a full school day. why should all this concern me you may ask. I want to do a job of work that is of benefit. the work I do is of benefit. I do not want the client development that I and others are part of undone by others. It’s as simple as that. the kids that we work with haven’t got a great future ahead of them but when we all work together we can make a difference that is lasting. we should be striving to make that difference as big as possible.

I did state that I had payment problems in the previous round of invoicing and that the current situation was not a new one. yy stated that the payments department had had some staff changes and difficulties but I had experienced the same problems before. I am not prepared to bankroll the x activity programmes and would ask that when I submit an invoice at the start of the next half term, to cover the forthcoming period, it be dealt with strictly under the 30-day payment rule. I think that this is a fair compromise with me being paid just one week in advance if payment is made on time.

Dear Andy I am sorry that you seem so dissatisfied with the outcomes of the meeting held on x/x/xx to discuss all your issues. It seems to me that the issues you are now raising are care issues rather than educational ones. I have copied your response to z who is the Regional Director for the n and within whose remit the care side of the x is included. Because of the problems, you have experienced during the activities regarding the boys’ behaviour and because of the lack of commitment of particularly x, I have decided to revoke this aspect of their education for the time being. I have received your invoice up to 9/02/06 and I have forwarded it to our finance department for settlement. Many thanks for your past input.

I am disappointed but not surprised by your response. I have worked hard at the x and ensured that there was always cover and excellent activities for the young people to take part in.

It saddens me that an organisation cannot deal with 'common sense' criticism and develop a way forward. I raised these issues because I care and as such, I should be a valued member of the team. the problem has always been the care side and I think that if you read my mail from six months ago and of a couple of weeks ago you will see that.

It is wrong of you to cancel the contract. The message you are sending out is one of 'don’t rock the boat, don’t strive for excellence, put up with the confusing messages that the young person is receiving, cause if you don't you get the sack'. I am very disappointed and my opinion of x as a company is now at rock bottom.

I will need to invoice you for a further month as the contract is that we provide a month’s notice either way. Please advise if you wish this to be worked on or just invoiced.

Furthermore, I would also like to be placed in touch with a senior director of the company.

Well, please let me know what you think. I would like to gather evidence to supply to relevant authorities, not with regard to one company but with regard to the care industry as a whole.

Anyone want to join me for a crusade??

https://www.cypnow.co.uk/other/article/children-s-homes-left-in-limbo