Time we trusted the productivity of the evidence

'Opinion based discussions are more enjoyable; evidence based discussions are more productive.' I don't have much of a memory for quotations but, roughly speaking, that's what Sir Trevor Chinn, Chair of the Mayor's Fund for London, has been saying at several meetings to promote prevention in the UK capital.

He's right. Meetings about prevention can be optimistic, exciting and forward looking. The same used to be true about similarly serious debate about the future of child protection in the UK. No longer – if the recent round is anything to go by.
 
The latest crisis was rounded off last week by a report from Lord Laming whose previous inquiry in 2003 into the death of Victoria Climbié paved the way for some of the better developments in UK children's services. But it did not rid us of the failings in child protection, as was made evident by the avoidable death in 2007 of a child in the London Borough of Haringey. The death of 'Baby P' prompted a new Laming Inquiry. What did the report say? Child protection in some areas of England remains unacceptably poor.
 
Many social workers are overstretched. There is too much emphasis on process and targets. The 'tick-box' approach to assessment, which was put in place to please government, undermines clinical practice. Communication between the agencies is poor, and funding is inadequate.
 
Laming recommends child protection targets similar to those used to measure school effectiveness. There should always be a manager with child protection experience on a local authority senior leadership team. There should be a national strategy to address recruitment and retention problems in children's social work, and guidelines about caseloads. Social workers should get better training, as should Directors of Children's Services.
 
Then there's the usual bag of sticks, such as unannounced inspections, disciplinary action, the striking of names from professional bodies, and also projects that allow government to give way with dignity – the abolition of court fees in care proceedings, for example.
 
There's nothing in the report to which one can object. Unlike its predecessor it breaks no new ground, but at least it can be commended for not making matters worse. What is objectionable, however, is the largely reactive approach to child protection being taken by government, witness the latest inquiry. The world it reflects is one of potentially errant local authorities, policed by Ministers, kept on their toes by the media, driven by public clamour on behalf of the vulnerable.
 
Not that long ago the approach was more constructive. In the 1980s the UK government worked towards a framework that would enable local authorities to protect children from maltreatment (and, after Laming at the beginning of the new century) promote their well-being. In this proactive model, government collaborated with local authorities to help the media and public understand the limits of state's ability to stop every outrage against children, and to build support for collective action if willful malpractice occurred.
 
Haranguing social workers and their bosses and hounding them out of their jobs may be good sport for some. People are entitled to their opinions, but it is hard to see how trial and retribution can protect children from maltreatment, especially if it leads to a worse shortage of professional support.
 
If I have an opinion on the subject it is that if these gross errors are anybody's fault, they are the fault of us all. And the response should be collective: it should anticipate the inevitable; it should not leave people flailing in the dark every time the inevitable occurs. Just as it began to be in the 1980s, evidence about the incidence, nature and causes of the problem and what is known to work in terms of prevention and intervention should be a vital aspect of the discussion.