Contactpoint

I should think everyone has seen the grand announcement of the ‘launch’ of Contactpoint by now. Actually, it’s not really a launch at all. It’s simply that DCSF is giving access to two members of staff from each local authority in the hopes that they can sort out the godawful mess that is ’shielding’.

Regular readers will remember that plans to get Contactpoint up and running last September were thwarted, at least partly because it hadn’t occurred to DCSF that records would be unshielded but accessible on the system – in some cases for months.

The bad news is that shielding still isn’t sorted out, mainly because too many local authorities don’t seem to understand that the threat from domestic violence can persist for years after separation. Here’s a typical excerpt from a local authority’s reasons for shielding a child’s Contactpoint entry:

one or more individual(s) are likely to cause significant harm to the child/young person and/or their parent/carer; and therefore the child/young person and/or their parent/carer are being, or will be, protected at a location that is not known to the individual(s) posing the threat

So what about those who aren’t being ‘protected’? When ARCH members pointed out to their local authorities that they wouldn’t even know about a fair number of those who are in hiding, they were assured that ’significant publicity work’ would be undertaken to make sure that people contacted the LA to request shielding.

We did a quick straw poll of members just before Christmas and, from Cornwall to Cumbria, nobody had seen any publicity whatsoever. A couple of weeks ago, children were being sent home from school with ‘Fair Processing Notices’ about Contactpoint, so if any parent didn’t read the FPN carefully and immediately realise its significance, they probably missed their chance to have their children’s details shielded.

Meanwhile, the other night we were told by someone who had worked on Contactpoint (but who wishes to remain incognito because they want still to have a job next week) that the shielding is being done by ‘flagging’ the files that need to be kept hidden, and the database is in fact searchable by flag. It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the security of the system. Perhaps the DCSF would like to confirm or deny whether this information is correct?

The ORG Data Challenge

Go and find out how much of your data has been lost in this sobering survey from the Open Rights Group.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

‘Selective’ use of statistics on knife crime has got the government into very hot water.

I recommend reading Mark Easton, who has been consistently good at puncturing the bubble of hysteria around issues such as ‘yoof crime’ and knives by using the equally sharp tools of facts and figures. Here’s one example from last week, when the Home Office published its ’statistics’ apparently demonstrating the resounding success of its knife-crime policy:

“Serious knife crimes against young people (homicide, attempted murder, GBH with intent) fell by 17% between June and October 2008 in the ten TKAP areas,” the Home Office press release proclaims.

Sounds good. But 17% actually equals, er… 17 incidents.

He also points out that the statistics did not come from the UK Statistics Authority, a body established by former Chancellor Gordon Brown to provide reliable statistics for the public:

Instead, the Home Office has rung up police forces and asked them for statistics to illustrate the effectiveness of their “Tackling Knives Action Programme” (TKAP).

Government statisticians tried to persuade the Home Office not to release figures that were selective, unchecked and potentially misleading, and now Sir Michael Scholar, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority has waded in to the fracas, describing the incident as:

“corrosive of public trust in official statistics and incompatible with the high standards which we are all seeking to establish”.

As I say, if you want real information rather than panic and political spin, read Mark Easton’s blog and follow some of his links.

Safety first

If you/your child are/is (OK, so I’m a pedant) thinking about signing up to the ‘School Together Now’ social networking site for 7-12s, you really should read this excellent and expert critique first.

Leeds 2, DP 0

For For the second time this week:

A laptop used by an educational psychologist dealing with some of Leeds’s most troubled children has gone missing.The computer was reported missing to police yesterday after being missing for a week.

Leeds claim that the data on the laptop wasn’t sensitive. So what on earth was the ed psych actually recording on it?

Another singalong

From the BBC:

The private details of thousands of children were found on a memory stick dropped by a council worker…it included the names, dates of birth, ethnicity and contact details for about 5,000 nursery-age children living in the Leeds area.

The council has apologised and started an investigation.

The stick, which was found in a second-hand car, also contained confidential information about child protection and whether or not the children’s parents claimed state benefits.

The data was, of course, unencrypted. Now, you all know the chorus:

A council spokeswoman said: “We take issues of information security very seriously”

Death knell for the National DNA Database

This is fantastic news:

Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The men’s information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.

The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK’s national database.

The judges said keeping the information “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.

Is it too early to open a bottle of champagne?

Update: From the judgment:

In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.

There goes another one

This speaks for itself really:

Personal information regarding thousands of children is in criminal hands after a laptop theft. Surrey County Council (SCC) notified the 7,851 children, parents and carers, whose details were stolen, that there had been a “potential security breach” in a letter over the weekend.

Personal, unencrypted data was stored on the laptop swiped from a car belonging to one of the county council’s contractors, Trapeze Group UK Ltd, on November 12.

Unencrypted? Unencrypted? Oh good grief. You’d think they might have learned by now. And in case you’re wondering, Trapeze Group is responsible for arranging transport for children.

The dangers of big ideas

A smashing article from David Batty – one of the few journalists who has shown consistent understanding of the potential child protection problems that the government’s broad ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda creates:

The momentum of the government’s post-Climbié reforms has been to improve the wellbeing of all children rather than to focus on those most in need. The creation of children’s trusts in every local authority, combining education and social services, has arguably led to child protection being marginalised. Children’s directors face more political pressure over school league tables than problem families.

In favouring structural solutions to the problems identified in the Climbié inquiry, the government has failed to address the main requirement of good child protection – being able to make risk assessments of chaotic families often in difficult circumstances.

Damian Green’s family meets Merlin

I’ve just been scanning the latest news on the disgraceful arrest of Damian Green, and a random thought occurred to me, triggered by this bit in the Independent:

His wife, Alicia, told friends how nine officers had looked “sheepish” as they had rifled through personal papers at the couple’s home in west London, even examining letters she and her husband had exchanged as students, and leaving with three folders of bank statements.

She had feared her husband had been in an accident when the officers asked if there were children in the house before starting the search. Her teenage daughter had burst into tears when she had come home from school to see their home filled with police.

There’s a reason for the officers’ question: the Metropolitan Police operate a database called ‘Merlin’ which records details of all children ‘coming to notice’ for any reason. As we’ve said on our old database masterclass blog, and at greater length on page 73 of the FIPR report to the Information Commissioner, one of the criteria for entering a child on Merlin is their being ‘present when police are searching premises’.

This paragraph from the FIPR report explains a bit more about Merlin:

The MERLIN system is accessible to all Metropolitan Police officers and civilian staff (once they have completed training to use it) and police in any London borough can check the entries for other boroughs. In almost all circumstances, a MERLIN notification will be faxed to the local social services department. If education or health services have signed up to an information-sharing agreement with the Metropolitan Police Services, they may also receive MERLIN information.

It’s perhaps unfortunate that Damian Green’s daughter arrived home before the police had finished.

Update: I’ve been checking whether there have been any changes to the Merlin system since the last time I looked at it in 2006. Things have moved on a bit: it’s no longer enough to complete a ‘coming to notice’ notification because it has all been tied into the ‘Every Child Matters’ framework.

A police officer must now also complete a ‘pre-assessment checklist’ or PAC when they encounter a child in the course of searching premises. This is to check whether the child is achieving the Every Child Matters five outcomes, and so the officer should assess whether the child is healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic wellbeing.

You can see for yourself here.* So did the police carry out a PAC on Damian Green’s 15yo daughter? If not, why not when it’s compulsory?

*Another update: Just been told that the link won’t work properly, and WordPress won’t let me paste the full URL. Either click on the link above and then delete ‘archrights.wordpress.com/’ when it says ‘not found’, or got to Google, put in Merlin +PAC and it should come up as the first choice.

Think of a number

We all know that 330,000 users will have access to Contactpoint, right? How do we know that? Because we’ve been told so many times. The Register has been trying to find out exactly where that figure came from and the results are, well, surprising:

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we now believe that it first surfaced in a feasibility study into information sharing carried out in 2004 on behalf of a cabinet office sub-committee – MISC9(D) – chaired by secretary of state for education and science Charles Clarke. This sub-committee was itself part of cabinet committee MISC9, which was chaired by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown.

Government appears to be placing a great deal of faith in this study. They quoted it in evidence to the Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments back in 2007.

As recently as a week ago, a spokesperson for the DCSF reaffirmed the Department’s confidence in the figure of 330,000 despite the fact that it was calculated before the legislation enabling ContactPoint to go ahead had been passed, and long before it was clear as to who might be using the system. The DCSF also appeared to prefer the 2004 figure over anything based on more recent research.

Databases unravelling

It seems as if the ICS gaffe is well and truly blown:

The government’s electronic system for managing children’s social work is unfit for purpose, a local authority specialist has claimed.

Speaking at Capita Children’s Services annual conference last week, Donna Shkalla, head of management information for children, families and education at Kent County Council, claimed social workers find the Integrated Children’s System (ICS) unwieldy.

Apparently Kent is now going to conduct its own review of ICS.

Meanwhile, on the eCAF front:

The government looks likely to miss its deadline for implementing a national IT system for the Common Assessment Framework.

As for Contactpoint, we’ve heard a rumour that it may be delayed until next Autumn. Just as well because the whole ’shielding’ business is turning into a dog’s dinner. The Register has had a couple of items recently on the continuing saga. If anyone would like to see the minutes of the meeting to which they refer, drop me an email: archrights (at) arch-ed.org

Just to help things along, local authorities have been told they have to find ‘efficiencies’ next year – newspeak for budget cuts. Hmm, I wonder where they could economise?

Don’t look at us

Ed Balls pointed at Haringey again yesterday:

There is “clear evidence” mistakes were made “singly and collectively” in the Baby P case, according to Children’s Minister Ed Balls.

Shouldn’t he wait for the results of the inquiries, or is he tacitly acknowledging they’re more about damage limitation than substantive analysis? Perhaps it was yesterday’s Ofsted report pointing out the alarming extent of significant harm to children that prompted another round of “look over there!”

The government’s determination to press ahead with the detested Integrated Children’s System, in the teeth of social workers’ opposition, has already been aired – and this article is well worth the reading.

Today, the Independent is flagging up the massive hike in the costs of taking care proceedings to court.

…more than 600 fewer court applications were made by local authorities to take children into care in the past six months compared with the same period in 2007.

Lawyers blamed the 20 per cent drop on a 32-fold increase in the court fees charged for care proceedings imposed by the Government, which rose from £150 to £4,825 from 1 April.

In last Monday’s Panorama I pointed out that Haringey isn’t a single rotten apple in a barrel. In fact it’s the barrel itself that is falling apart. Government policy has had the effect of watering child protection down in its quest for ever more cost-cutting and data-sharing. Rather than asking Lord Laming to look at whether the Every Child Matters agenda is being put into practice, they should find the humility to examine whether that agenda was the right one to find needles in haystacks in the first place.

Henry Porter on CiF

Almost missed this one:

The government has a near complete contempt for children’s rights and privacy. How else are we to explain the access to be granted to a million people to the children’s database ContactPoint, which launches in January, or the 1 million children now on the Police National DNA database.

Singalong time

From the Register:

Parents concerned that new government databases might lead to their children’s data being lost or stolen were this week able to pilot the experience courtesy of a Leicester-based nursery, which appears to have “misplaced” a data stick containing details of children in their care. At time of writing, Leicester City Council, which is responsible for the nursery, could not confirm whether the stick was lost or stolen…Sheila Lock, the council’s chief executive said

OK, all together now:

“We take the issue of data security extremely seriously.”