Serious Case Reviews – Editing (5 of 9)

The Reports – Editing

It was my questions that elicited the admission from the Director of Social Service, that the passages quoted in the WM article about the Kyle SCR were accurate. (I take no particular credit for that – it was just the advantage of being first. Someone else would surely have raised it, if not me). I think the Director was quite open about it. However, I do not accept his reasoning; that it was to make the report easier to read and that the report remained critical of Social Services. He did not seem to accept the point of the significant difference of emphasis between the earlier draft and the published version.

For example, that;

"...over several years ...social work staff...and their managers failed to apply the law, appropriate procedure or elementary standards of professional practice..."

is considerably more critical (and a great deal more concerning) than

"...between 2002 and 2005...social work staff and their immediate managers failed to apply the appropriate procedures or standards of professional practice...".

And then there is the complete excision of the "at least" 15 occasions that various agencies referred information to Social Services regarding Kyle's;

"persistent involvement" in "risky and criminal behaviour, self-harming or drug and alcohol abuse and inadequate parenting from the age of 12...they (the agencies) expected action to be taken.

The review found no evidence that the failures identified...were due to ...staff being overwhelmed with work...

Management and supervision... had not picked up these issues over many years

(Kyle's) circumstances were not known to senior managers ...until his death".

which becomes

"Referrals were not properly considered or acted on...Judgements were not properly reached and assessments of risk were inadequate or not carried out. No enquiries were carried into the child's presentation...there was no proper consideration of Child D's circumstances and his needs... Information shared with social services...did not lead to any appropriate assessments of Child D's needs"

Yes both versions are critical, but placed side by side, I believe that the differences are stark. They might say substantially the same thing – but they don't certainly mean the same thing! Whilst the published version is damning, the draft version is considerably more so.

These are the ones I know of, thanks to the WM and the InsideOut blogsite. Are there others? Of course, I don't know. I have written to the Authority seeking the release of certain information that would clear all this up. I have already been told that some of the information I seek is confidential, and was provided to the SCR on that basis. I have two means to access information, one in my representative capacity and the other as an FOI. Negotiations on both continue. Of course someone could always send me the draft!