Home AffairsWritten evidence from Carol Hopewell [LCG 12]
RE REVIEW OF MULTI AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN ROCHDALE
I have been watching with close interest the developments of the situation regarding the sexual exploitation of children and young people in Rochdale with great interest and am aware that Jim Taylor the Chief Executive of Rochdale Council has been summoned before your committee to answer further questions.
I fully agree that certain agencies failed the vulnerable children involved. However, it concerns me greatly that there is very little reference to some other agencies who had equally as much responsibility to protect these children. Ie Schools and all agencies responsible for educating the children.
I previously worked as a Child Care Worker in the Education setting in Rochdale (up until July 20011—for fifteen years until I retired) as part of a team responsible for school attendance and the safeguarding of children. I entered the profession with a background of working with young people and a professional qualification in Social Work.
The purpose of an Education Welfare Office is to work in conjunction with schools, families and other agencies to ensure that all children are in receipt of quality education as laid down by law. One of the main roles is to have the ability to challenge all staff, even Head Teachers in order for this to happen. This quite often can create difficulties in the relationships with some schools, not all, who are under pressure to improve their statistics and attendance, which can result in losing sight of the welfare of the child.
I have now had chance to read the Review of the Rochdale Multi Agency Responses compiled by the Safeguarding Board. At this stage whilst I may have worked with some of these children and young people I am not aware of any of them, therefore my concerns are about policies, practice and procedures in general. In my years as an Education Welfare Officer we were always encouraged that the welfare of the child was paramount.
Whilst in the job in Education Welfare as child protection workers we had significant involvement in multi agency approaches to ensure that all children were in receipt of education that fulfilled legislation. Our agency was until I left responsible for delivering Safeguarding in Education Training and received Government funding in order to do so.
In the report the two things that stand out for me from my previous experience as an Education Welfare Officer in the field are (a) when it makes reference to the victims (page 9) “Just over half were in education”. (b) The reference to lack of specific training.
In respect of these two points I have raised it may be of interest to yourselves to explore with Mr. Taylor exactly what type of education all of these vulnerable children received with emphasis on the ones that were not in receipt of education. I am aware that everyone involved in caring for children and young people have a legal responsibility to ensure they are in receipt of full time education.
As you are no doubt aware no member of education staff is allowed to recommend home education, but parents should be made aware that it is an option. However, it has to be agreed by all concerned including parents. Questions could be asked to Mr. Taylor around the validity of authorised absences and the legalities of the negotiated home education package, and the processes required by law. Bearing in mind that a Register is a legal document. All decisions and agreements must be recorded and documented in school and the children’s individual files.
From my experience many of the children who are experiencing difficulties both at home and at school more often than not have poor attendance. Some are in receipt of home education resulting in them being taken off the school role, consequently no longer the responsibility of the school, and can become more vulnerable and isolated as they are often off the radar of many agencies. I am aware that this can be exploited by many manipulative individuals. Consequently I have listed questions that may be advantageous to yourselves with regard to these exploited children.
1. Did these children have poor school attendance?
2. Were they on roll at a school?
3. Were they educated out of the Borough?
4. Were they in receipt of alternative education and what was the quality, who had negotiated it and who was responsible for the oversight of it?
5. Had they been removed from roll or excluded?
6. Were they known to other agencies? If so how much information was shared?
7. Is there clear evidence and documentation from all agencies in respect of the decision-making regarding their education? Ie School and personal files.
8. Is there any clear evidence that the professionals who worked with these young people were adequately trained to work with vulnerable children ie The law around illegal sexual activity? These professionals range from admissions, tracking of children missing education right though to all staff in schools as well as the Education Welfare Service.
Should you find my contribution to be constructive you may find evidence that will reveal that more agencies other than the Police and Social Services carry responsibility for failing these vulnerable young people.
September 2012