Bradford sees huge rise in child protection cases

The numbers of child protection cases are soaring in Bradford

CONCERN: Councillor Malcolm Sykes, chairman of the children's services scrutiny committee

First published in News

NUMBERS of youngsters on child protection plans in Bradford have soared to almost double the level of last year, leaving the authorities under increased pressure.

Figures for last year show 370 child protection plans, which are put in place when the authorities are aware children are at risk, were in place in the city and by February that had risen to 550.

However, the latest figure is now 675 with many of the recently identified cases involving East European families who have settled in the area.

The figures were revealed when councillors examined an Ofsted report which found that improvement was required in the early help and child protection work offered by Bradford Council.

Bradford is alone in the Yorkshire region in seeing such an increase in its case-load and the volume of cases meant extra pressure on the staff who deal with the work.

Case conferences should happen within 15 days of investigations starting, but the numbers meeting that deadline had fallen to 20 per cent.

"At the moment, with additional resources, we are back up to 66 per cent of conferences happening on time. We are making a concerted effort," said Julie Jenkins, assistant director of children's specialist services.

Councillor Malcolm Sykes, chairman of the children's services scrutiny committee, said: "As far as I am concerned this is serious.

"I want to see progress against the actions next time around.

"We cannot risk this going wrong, we cannot afford to have children at risk through a lack of resources."

It is understood that Bradford currently has no social workers from an East European background and there had also been problems in recruiting minute-takers who were able to deal with the material discussed at case conferences.

The committee will look again at progress in the autumn and also examine in more detail the issue of increased demand on Council services.

The Ofsted report examined five areas and found performance on adoption, care leavers, leadership and governance and the Bradford Safeguarding Board were all good.

Julie Jenkins said she had written to Government inspection body Ofsted to highlight apparent contradictions in the area of its report covering neglect issues.

"I wrote to Ofsted and said they had contradicted themselves by saying in places we had dealt with neglect and in other places that we had not," she said.

Last month Ofsted released a report of its inspections into the both the Council's safeguarding children board and its services for children in care or needing protection.

Despite getting a “good” rating in five out of six areas, including the effectiveness of the safeguarding board, inspectors said that overall the services “required improvement” because of some issues in the way in which the Council dealt with vulnerable children.

But inspectors praised, among other things, how the Council has been tackling sexual grooming.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15am Mon 30 Jun 14

izzystillbreathing says...

"Bradford is alone in the Yorkshire region in seeing such an increase". In other words we're bottom of the heap again. With this and our educational performance Bradford is not the place any sane person would want t bring up kids.
"Bradford is alone in the Yorkshire region in seeing such an increase". In other words we're bottom of the heap again. With this and our educational performance Bradford is not the place any sane person would want t bring up kids. izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 37

8:58am Mon 30 Jun 14

bluebluerobin says...

Another dispiriting performance from the Labour Group.

Once again immigration, this time East European, seems to be the root cause of the problem. Bradford suffers from high immigration, not because there are plenty of jobs, – our unemployment rate is twice the national average --, but because we have cheap accommodation. Immigrants live here and work elsewhere.

Housing is cheap in the inner city because it is poorly maintained, often empty and surrounded by dereliction. So if Bradford wants to solve many of its problems it needs to fix the dereliction.

That much is clear. Yet he Labour Group are aggressively pursuing a policy of building only on the green fields of the periphery as we saw recently at Menston and Sty Lane. This might make City Hall better off but it is doing nothing to help Bradford’s real problems.
Another dispiriting performance from the Labour Group. Once again immigration, this time East European, seems to be the root cause of the problem. Bradford suffers from high immigration, not because there are plenty of jobs, – our unemployment rate is twice the national average --, but because we have cheap accommodation. Immigrants live here and work elsewhere. Housing is cheap in the inner city because it is poorly maintained, often empty and surrounded by dereliction. So if Bradford wants to solve many of its problems it needs to fix the dereliction. That much is clear. Yet he Labour Group are aggressively pursuing a policy of building only on the green fields of the periphery as we saw recently at Menston and Sty Lane. This might make City Hall better off but it is doing nothing to help Bradford’s real problems. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 31

10:31am Mon 30 Jun 14

FinlandStation says...

Young children are suffering unnecessarily and a third of them are not being properly attended to. Yet instead of fixing the problem, City Hall totally ignores the big picture and nit-picks its way through the report looking for inconsistencies. Unfortunately this is typical of the failed and broken administration at City Hall and the reason Bradford is the dump that it is.
Young children are suffering unnecessarily and a third of them are not being properly attended to. Yet instead of fixing the problem, City Hall totally ignores the big picture and nit-picks its way through the report looking for inconsistencies. Unfortunately this is typical of the failed and broken administration at City Hall and the reason Bradford is the dump that it is. FinlandStation
  • Score: 22

10:43am Mon 30 Jun 14

gouldengirl says...

Cllr. Sykes says something should be done, but gives no indication of what that should be. Politicians are there to provide the vision, not just shout the odds and blame the staff.
Cllr. Sykes says something should be done, but gives no indication of what that should be. Politicians are there to provide the vision, not just shout the odds and blame the staff. gouldengirl
  • Score: 20

10:50am Mon 30 Jun 14

piltdownman says...

You couldn’t want a better example of a terminal bureaucracy. The failure to look after vulnerable children is blamed on a lack of minute takers. Why not record the meetings and take minutes later. Which is more important, a young child’s life or some bits of paper for the file? At City Hall the answer is, the paper.
You couldn’t want a better example of a terminal bureaucracy. The failure to look after vulnerable children is blamed on a lack of minute takers. Why not record the meetings and take minutes later. Which is more important, a young child’s life or some bits of paper for the file? At City Hall the answer is, the paper. piltdownman
  • Score: 18

11:25am Mon 30 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream. pcmanners
  • Score: -15

12:41pm Mon 30 Jun 14

allinittogether says...

pcmanners wrote:
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces.
To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.[/p][/quote]No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces. To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting. allinittogether
  • Score: 10

12:42pm Mon 30 Jun 14

pellethead says...

pcmanners wrote:
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
Once again Mr Manners talk from his back passage.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.[/p][/quote]Once again Mr Manners talk from his back passage. pellethead
  • Score: 3

12:57pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Toomanynewhouses says...

Disabled children in Bradford are losing out because of this. Getting a social worker or any kind of support is increasingly difficult because resources are stretched so much.
Disabled children in Bradford are losing out because of this. Getting a social worker or any kind of support is increasingly difficult because resources are stretched so much. Toomanynewhouses
  • Score: 10

1:17pm Mon 30 Jun 14

henjni says...

This is seriously sad. Why can't people who have children bring them up properly!? It's selfish and inhumane!
Why have children if you don't give a monkeys on their welfare and education!! I feel bad for those children who are neglected on a daily basis. It shouldn't be happening. I blame the parents. It's all about the money. That's all people care about X-(
This is seriously sad. Why can't people who have children bring them up properly!? It's selfish and inhumane! Why have children if you don't give a monkeys on their welfare and education!! I feel bad for those children who are neglected on a daily basis. It shouldn't be happening. I blame the parents. It's all about the money. That's all people care about X-( henjni
  • Score: 17

1:39pm Mon 30 Jun 14

sorrow&anger says...

henjni wrote:
This is seriously sad. Why can't people who have children bring them up properly!? It's selfish and inhumane!
Why have children if you don't give a monkeys on their welfare and education!! I feel bad for those children who are neglected on a daily basis. It shouldn't be happening. I blame the parents. It's all about the money. That's all people care about X-(
So much is so badly wrong with Bradford that it can't just be about resources. The root cause must lie in the governance of the Council and the competency of the officials.

Until there is root and branch change, things are not going to get better.
[quote][p][bold]henjni[/bold] wrote: This is seriously sad. Why can't people who have children bring them up properly!? It's selfish and inhumane! Why have children if you don't give a monkeys on their welfare and education!! I feel bad for those children who are neglected on a daily basis. It shouldn't be happening. I blame the parents. It's all about the money. That's all people care about X-([/p][/quote]So much is so badly wrong with Bradford that it can't just be about resources. The root cause must lie in the governance of the Council and the competency of the officials. Until there is root and branch change, things are not going to get better. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 7

1:50pm Mon 30 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

allinittogether wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces.
To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.
The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions

If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.[/p][/quote]No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces. To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.[/p][/quote]The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election. pcmanners
  • Score: -12

3:30pm Mon 30 Jun 14

allinittogether says...

pcmanners wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces.
To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.
The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions

If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election.
Now we know you're trolling SERCO are being investigated for abuse of female detainees at their immigration centres.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.[/p][/quote]No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces. To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.[/p][/quote]The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election.[/p][/quote]Now we know you're trolling SERCO are being investigated for abuse of female detainees at their immigration centres. allinittogether
  • Score: 5

3:44pm Mon 30 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

allinittogether wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.
No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces.
To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.
The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions

If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election.
Now we know you're trolling SERCO are being investigated for abuse of female detainees at their immigration centres.
SERCO were Mr. Goves first choice for running the children's services. The accusations about Yardley Wood are just a media witch-hunt lead by socialist rags like the Guardian. Service companies are the only way to reduce the interference of the State in all our lives.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This just shows how wrong the socialists in the LibDems were in preventing Mr. Gove from privatising Children's Services. A for-profit company would not let this kind of nonsense happen because it would adversely affect their revenue stream.[/p][/quote]No, they'd promise the earth, cherry pick the bits they could profit from then bail out mid contract leaving the state to pick up the pieces. To use child protection as a means of making profits is revolting.[/p][/quote]The Governments intention is to remove state interference from everybody's lives so that they are free to make their own decisions If support services are then deemed necessary, -- and I don't think they should be but the Tory Party has an unhealthy number of lefties who think differently --, then the only way to finance them is through the profits of a service company such as SERCO. Mr Gove understood this but was thwarted by LibDems; but he is a fighter and I'm sure he will revive this idea after the next election.[/p][/quote]Now we know you're trolling SERCO are being investigated for abuse of female detainees at their immigration centres.[/p][/quote]SERCO were Mr. Goves first choice for running the children's services. The accusations about Yardley Wood are just a media witch-hunt lead by socialist rags like the Guardian. Service companies are the only way to reduce the interference of the State in all our lives. pcmanners
  • Score: -10

6:48pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Steve30d says...

piltdownman wrote:
You couldn’t want a better example of a terminal bureaucracy. The failure to look after vulnerable children is blamed on a lack of minute takers. Why not record the meetings and take minutes later. Which is more important, a young child’s life or some bits of paper for the file? At City Hall the answer is, the paper.
Not taking minutes, prevents properly auditing of what happens, and makes it much harder to prevent similar problems next time.

I have a idea. Simply record the audio of the meetings. Shouldn't involve any extra staff at all, and be about £20 per room. Make that recording available to all who were present in that meeting, and if the worst happens to a court looking into what went wrong. After all even the best can misremember what was said verbally in what must sometimes be a pretty difficult enviroment.

Much work seems to be verbally already, maybe because it's seem as potentially incriminating if it's put down in writing. Can't see the problem with a decent record if they know they're do their job as best they can
[quote][p][bold]piltdownman[/bold] wrote: You couldn’t want a better example of a terminal bureaucracy. The failure to look after vulnerable children is blamed on a lack of minute takers. Why not record the meetings and take minutes later. Which is more important, a young child’s life or some bits of paper for the file? At City Hall the answer is, the paper.[/p][/quote]Not taking minutes, prevents properly auditing of what happens, and makes it much harder to prevent similar problems next time. I have a idea. Simply record the audio of the meetings. Shouldn't involve any extra staff at all, and be about £20 per room. Make that recording available to all who were present in that meeting, and if the worst happens to a court looking into what went wrong. After all even the best can misremember what was said verbally in what must sometimes be a pretty difficult enviroment. Much work seems to be verbally already, maybe because it's seem as potentially incriminating if it's put down in writing. Can't see the problem with a decent record if they know they're do their job as best they can Steve30d
  • Score: 1

7:08pm Mon 30 Jun 14

ollie59 says...

Where's BCFC? Surely this is a good news story for Bradford?
Where's BCFC? Surely this is a good news story for Bradford? ollie59
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Mon 30 Jun 14

baildongreen says...

ollie59 wrote:
Where's BCFC? Surely this is a good news story for Bradford?
Dunno, he's probably spreading sunshine over on the Mc Bride redundancy thread, or the lack of Council publicity for Le Tour/Urban Festival, or the OFSTED school failure in Oxenhope, or the college extension that's going to ruin Saltaire, or ...
[quote][p][bold]ollie59[/bold] wrote: Where's BCFC? Surely this is a good news story for Bradford?[/p][/quote]Dunno, he's probably spreading sunshine over on the Mc Bride redundancy thread, or the lack of Council publicity for Le Tour/Urban Festival, or the OFSTED school failure in Oxenhope, or the college extension that's going to ruin Saltaire, or ... baildongreen
  • Score: 4

10:45am Tue 1 Jul 14

They only do damage! says...

What we need is more immigration that brings benefits such has these, (honest) ask Labour!.
What we need is more immigration that brings benefits such has these, (honest) ask Labour!. They only do damage!
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree