Dear all
As you may be aware the police have now made a further arrest, albeit not linked to Haute de La Garenne, but in connection with the police investigation into historic child abuse.
I have been contacted by the national media once again and as before they are after stories.
Now, everyone has their own opinion of the media, I for one, believe that they have and will continue to help change Jersey's services for children for the better.
I absolutely respect the fact that they do not help the reputation of Jersey, but I don't care about that.
Actually I do, but not at all costs. I believe that Jersey can have a financial centre of excellence and a child care centre of excellence.
The national media will help this happen by raising public awareness of the inadequacies within the system and, in turn, this will raise the level of accountability amongst the senior civil servants and politicians.
One journalist that I have spoken to previously has made contact with me again and she would be keen to speak with anyone who may have some information in connection with recent events.
I am happy to make initial contact if you would prefer or you can contact her direct for an informal, off the record chat.
She works for the Guardian Newspaper and is working on a piece for Monday's paper looking at how the child abuse inquiry has affected Jersey and would be very glad to hear from anyone who might have anything to say. She won't need to use your name or necessarily identify you in any way if you don't want her to.
Her email address is helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk
Her mobile number is 07824 695120
If you want to phone her you can withhold your number so that you feel safer.
My previous post was titled "problem to solution", now is your chance, this is how we get to the solution. I have had so many people tell me to get to the solution , well, this is it, help me get there and speak out for yourself.
The ball is in your court, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem!
Don't just think about it, do it.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Monday, 28 April 2008
How to get from the problem to the solotion?
I have just received a comment which I have pasted below.
I want to focus on this comment, not in a defensive way but in a a constructive way. It suggests that the problem is known yet the the solution is the holy grail.
Before I take this point further I would like you to read the comment, it is as follows:
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Response from ex Jersey social worker":
I agree with everything that is being said i.e the benchmark of organisations such as OFSTED. Checks and balances do need putting in place.
Our civil servants and ministers should be held accountable. Our current goverment could well be described as corrupt.But in all honesty you're not telling us anything we don't know or at least nothing that will suprise us.
As I commented previously we, or I need to know what can be done about it all. I'm getting bored with the repetitive stuff of how bad things are.
Most people seem to be happy living in the problem when they should be getting into the solution.
I know it was strongly suggested to you to stand as a candidare for the next elections, something I believe you should consider seriously.I believe you to be a man of high morals, integrity and courage and would get my vote any day of the week.
Senator Syvret already has the market cornered with telling us all how bad things are and how corrupt our goverment is and really has the captive audience on that.
Like I said your blogs are very little new and nothing suprising, you have my upmost respect and sympathy's, but do us a favour and get out of the problem and into the solution!!
Pike Mollard."
I do agree that we have a problem, I do agree that many of us know what the problem is, however, let us consider why policies change, improve and develop in governments.
It is beacuse problems become known, the public become alterted to issues through the media and, in turn, communities demand changes.
Political desicions are driven by the publics demands.
So, the more problems that are brought to light and publicised the more people will in their own way demand change. This can be done through political activist movements, voting or simply not voting.
As I stated in my first blog and my introduction, I want to tell my story. My story is about the problems, the objective was still to tell my story.
The solutions can take many guises for many people. The way I see it - the culture that dominates through Jersey's senior civil servants and politcal spheres is so powerful that a clear and concise solution does not exist.
The activists that are trying to change this culture, such as Senator Syvret, do not enter the battle in order to win the war. They take one step at a time, they chip away in order to weaken the oppressive powers that have ruled for so long.
How therefore, can we make any difference at all?
I see my part in this war as a small part, but nonetheless, it is significant, I have exposed something that the States of Jersey do not want exposed. Why else would Franlk Walker come to oversee the settlement at an employment tribunal of a lowly social worker?
To make a difference it requires a concerted effort. The more people who write into this blog, the more people who expose the truth about the States of Jersey the more dratic the change we will see.
I don't profess to have all the answes I am simply a mouth piece that will allow others to help find the solutions, let us do this together.
Tell me your stories, tell me what you want tol achieve, lets us unite in order to drive change; change for the better within Jersey - that is the solution to our problems.
I want to focus on this comment, not in a defensive way but in a a constructive way. It suggests that the problem is known yet the the solution is the holy grail.
Before I take this point further I would like you to read the comment, it is as follows:
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Response from ex Jersey social worker":
I agree with everything that is being said i.e the benchmark of organisations such as OFSTED. Checks and balances do need putting in place.
Our civil servants and ministers should be held accountable. Our current goverment could well be described as corrupt.But in all honesty you're not telling us anything we don't know or at least nothing that will suprise us.
As I commented previously we, or I need to know what can be done about it all. I'm getting bored with the repetitive stuff of how bad things are.
Most people seem to be happy living in the problem when they should be getting into the solution.
I know it was strongly suggested to you to stand as a candidare for the next elections, something I believe you should consider seriously.I believe you to be a man of high morals, integrity and courage and would get my vote any day of the week.
Senator Syvret already has the market cornered with telling us all how bad things are and how corrupt our goverment is and really has the captive audience on that.
Like I said your blogs are very little new and nothing suprising, you have my upmost respect and sympathy's, but do us a favour and get out of the problem and into the solution!!
Pike Mollard."
I do agree that we have a problem, I do agree that many of us know what the problem is, however, let us consider why policies change, improve and develop in governments.
It is beacuse problems become known, the public become alterted to issues through the media and, in turn, communities demand changes.
Political desicions are driven by the publics demands.
So, the more problems that are brought to light and publicised the more people will in their own way demand change. This can be done through political activist movements, voting or simply not voting.
As I stated in my first blog and my introduction, I want to tell my story. My story is about the problems, the objective was still to tell my story.
The solutions can take many guises for many people. The way I see it - the culture that dominates through Jersey's senior civil servants and politcal spheres is so powerful that a clear and concise solution does not exist.
The activists that are trying to change this culture, such as Senator Syvret, do not enter the battle in order to win the war. They take one step at a time, they chip away in order to weaken the oppressive powers that have ruled for so long.
How therefore, can we make any difference at all?
I see my part in this war as a small part, but nonetheless, it is significant, I have exposed something that the States of Jersey do not want exposed. Why else would Franlk Walker come to oversee the settlement at an employment tribunal of a lowly social worker?
To make a difference it requires a concerted effort. The more people who write into this blog, the more people who expose the truth about the States of Jersey the more dratic the change we will see.
I don't profess to have all the answes I am simply a mouth piece that will allow others to help find the solutions, let us do this together.
Tell me your stories, tell me what you want tol achieve, lets us unite in order to drive change; change for the better within Jersey - that is the solution to our problems.
Response from ex Jersey social worker
Yesterday I posted a comment from a reader who had responded to a previous comment left by an ex social worker.
The ex social worker has now responded to clarify the situation and I have pasted that response below.
"Dear all,
Ex Jersey social worker here.
When I left the main reasons were to do with culture of secrecy/ lack of feeling able to complain about poor practice without feeling very vulnerable. In my opinion the overall systems were not in place to protect children in care ie inspection by UK CSCI/Ofsted (even though probation and prisons are inspected by Uk inspectorates), poor feedback form partner agencies about the functions of child care systems in jersey (voluntary and statutory partners) plus lots of bureaucratic bits about policies not being followed.
Yes I did ask about childcare availability and flexible working for child care both of which I was informed was available at interview. Neither was available in social services when I arrived (even though there was a states flexible working policy, which curiously applied to all depts except social services) but that wasn't why I left! I could have coped with that! No there was a whole host of other issues which I wont go into.
Individual staff do a good job but in my opinion the overall performance monitoring of the child protection processes are not up to the job. I left, but until CSCI/OFsted undertake regular inspections of child care in jersey there will always be a nagging doubt.
Why OFsted? Well, to performance manage child care you need to do what they call "benchmarking " a service against a set of fixed criteria. The process also needs to include feedback from young people and families who receive the service.
Children would need to have absolute confidence the people they are talking to to give feedback are independent and objective and able to take action against poor practice if reported.
For these reasons, and thinking about recent jersey childcare history the
"inspectors " would need to be from the uk and experienced in inspecting childcare services.
OFSTED are the only group with this experience. It would also bring child care into line with Prison and Probation departments. So far the govt has had numerous one off reports ie kathy bull andrew williamson etc but no "Benchmarking" against set criteria.
Its obvious really so I am not sure what the delay is! Can any one think of why?Anon"
If the author of the first comment would like to respond to the 'ex social worker' it would be appreciated.
Has anyone got any views about this? What do people feel is needed? Do people think that the States of Jersey need to introduce regular independent 'checks and balances' to regulate their services for children and young people?
I fully support this notion, however, if this is all that is needed why has the prison service received 3 scathing reports and yet still fails on virtually every assessed standard? The service has now received a financial boost from the States of Jersey but my theory is that this has been a reactive damage limitation excercise as a result of the child abuse scandal and not as a result of the reports themselves. I think that the world media raised the accountability stakes - something Jersey's senior civil servants and politicians need so very desperately to improve public services for the islands most vulnerable people.
It would be great to get some views on this. Also, please, if you can register a name, still stay anonymous but use a fictitious name so that it is easier to follow the communicate with each other.
The ex social worker has now responded to clarify the situation and I have pasted that response below.
"Dear all,
Ex Jersey social worker here.
When I left the main reasons were to do with culture of secrecy/ lack of feeling able to complain about poor practice without feeling very vulnerable. In my opinion the overall systems were not in place to protect children in care ie inspection by UK CSCI/Ofsted (even though probation and prisons are inspected by Uk inspectorates), poor feedback form partner agencies about the functions of child care systems in jersey (voluntary and statutory partners) plus lots of bureaucratic bits about policies not being followed.
Yes I did ask about childcare availability and flexible working for child care both of which I was informed was available at interview. Neither was available in social services when I arrived (even though there was a states flexible working policy, which curiously applied to all depts except social services) but that wasn't why I left! I could have coped with that! No there was a whole host of other issues which I wont go into.
Individual staff do a good job but in my opinion the overall performance monitoring of the child protection processes are not up to the job. I left, but until CSCI/OFsted undertake regular inspections of child care in jersey there will always be a nagging doubt.
Why OFsted? Well, to performance manage child care you need to do what they call "benchmarking " a service against a set of fixed criteria. The process also needs to include feedback from young people and families who receive the service.
Children would need to have absolute confidence the people they are talking to to give feedback are independent and objective and able to take action against poor practice if reported.
For these reasons, and thinking about recent jersey childcare history the
"inspectors " would need to be from the uk and experienced in inspecting childcare services.
OFSTED are the only group with this experience. It would also bring child care into line with Prison and Probation departments. So far the govt has had numerous one off reports ie kathy bull andrew williamson etc but no "Benchmarking" against set criteria.
Its obvious really so I am not sure what the delay is! Can any one think of why?Anon"
If the author of the first comment would like to respond to the 'ex social worker' it would be appreciated.
Has anyone got any views about this? What do people feel is needed? Do people think that the States of Jersey need to introduce regular independent 'checks and balances' to regulate their services for children and young people?
I fully support this notion, however, if this is all that is needed why has the prison service received 3 scathing reports and yet still fails on virtually every assessed standard? The service has now received a financial boost from the States of Jersey but my theory is that this has been a reactive damage limitation excercise as a result of the child abuse scandal and not as a result of the reports themselves. I think that the world media raised the accountability stakes - something Jersey's senior civil servants and politicians need so very desperately to improve public services for the islands most vulnerable people.
It would be great to get some views on this. Also, please, if you can register a name, still stay anonymous but use a fictitious name so that it is easier to follow the communicate with each other.
Sunday, 27 April 2008
A comment for ex social worker to respond to.
I have just been left this comment and whilst I have published it on my blog along with the other comments I also wanted to list it here as a separate post.
I have done this for two reasons. Firstly, I am aware that the person whom this comment relates is reading my blogs and is therefore likely to comment in response, and secondly, this demonstrates how the senior civil servants operate in order to suppress complaints, close rank and demonise those people who have left or have been sacked, this is done in order to protect themselves and hide their own incompetancies and inadequacies.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reply to comments":
when the previous respondent left after seven days staff were told it was because he was having difficulty in arranging child careprovision,that he wanted to work flexi-time and this was not possible.
Nothing about the real reason for leaving,many including myself had no knowledge of the Grand Prix system.
By the way flexi-time is now operating ."
If either the 'previous respondant' or the author of this comment make further comments, which I hope they do, I will keep readers posted. I have also attachd the 'previous respondants' comments below so that you can understand the context of this post.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reply to comments":
Hi Simon,I will explain to readers that I was a uk social worker who came to work for the Jersey Social services as child protection social worker.
Prior to coming to Jersey I was a senior manager in childrens services in the UK with nearly 20 yrs experience. After 7 working days in Jersey I resigned.
This partly due to the procedures I discovered were in operation at the greenfields secure unit for children. This on its own would not have been sufficient for me to resign but it was this, combined with other features, which led me to believe that social work practice in jersey was unsafe.
Firstly though I can confirm Simons verson of events with regard to the Grand Prix system was in place and abusive to children. Secondly that upon induction to the unit children were routinely isolated and put into bleak cells for 24hrs.
This process was not based upon any threat or risk the young person may pose to themselves or others.Some of these children, as young as 10, would be in the unit for "welfare reasons" and not as a result of criminal behaviour but the process would remain the same.
The process would be abusive for either group of children in the UK, but I could see a warped argument to implement the procedure for young offenders but I would not condone it!
After discovering the above (plus lots of other bits which I will save for another day)I discussed my findings with other memebers of the Social Work team who said they were aware of the situation at the unit and expressed their dissatisfaction but nothing had changed. They also expressed their fear that if they compliained too loudly they may get the sack. They also explained that they believed if they complained it may lead to them " never work in jersey again".( they had other issues as well but too long to go into now )
Before I left Jersey, my manager asked me why I was leaving. I didn't wish to go into details as I had written a seven page letter to the chief exec detailing exactly why I was leaving and used the jersey whistle blower policy to do so. However I did say to my line manager that I had found practices at the childrens secure unit disturbing to say the least.
Their response surprised me in that they said " what goes on at the secure unit is not my responsibility". Considering my manager was a "child protection" manager their view that their responsibilty stopped at the front door of the secure unit was a tad shocking.
I kind of expected the response "tell me more and if its serious we will see if we can sort it out/investigate/ talk to unit managers etc".I had already made my decision to leave by mow but this was the icing on the cake!
The failure of one part of the Jersey child care system to want to tackle the inadequacies of performance of other related departments is one of the reasens that child abuse in childrens homes has been allowed to go undetected for so long. My experiences were in the past 3 years.
Not along time ago.The response from the chief execs dept was predictable. They informed me they had fully investigated my concerns and that I did " not understand the policy and culture of the island". By now I think I had fully grasped the culture of the child care system in jersey which was " dont rock the boat or else" and that the some of the policies were abusive to children.
Several months after my departure form jersey I was contacted by Simon Bellwood. Although mine and Simons time in Jersey had crossed we didnt meet at the time.
Simon informed me had been the manager at the secure unit and tried to end the abusive childcare practices, which I had been informed by Chief Execs dept, were a figment of my imagination and lack of knowledge about Jersey social work culture/policies etc.
Simon also told me that the govt investigation into my concerns went as follows.Simon received a telephone call that went."who did that new social worker talk to when he was shown round the unit?"Simon replied " I dont know"
That is the sum total of a an internal extensive investigation into abusive child care in jersey by the jersey govt.So baring in mind the Jersey govt superb internal investigative qualities, imagine how it must feel for children in jersy who comlpained about their treatment in childrens homes over the past decades.
I hope they got more than a telephone call to the manager of the home where thay were being abused but I suspect not.I firmly believed Simon was dismissed for trying to expose the process which resulted in children being abused whilst in the govts care.
If I had stayed in Jersey I believe I would have sufferd the same fate. The information so far is just one part of my story which could go on but I dont want to identify the staff who gave me even more information confirming what I believe to be potential systemic failings in the jersey child protection system.
I think what Simon has acheived is fantastic but it has probalby been at a great personal cost,both emotional and fiancial. I will write more if people are interested and i am particularly keen to talk about what the Jersey govt needs to do to put things right for the future.
The answers are pretty simple but i wll leave those for another day!"
I have done this for two reasons. Firstly, I am aware that the person whom this comment relates is reading my blogs and is therefore likely to comment in response, and secondly, this demonstrates how the senior civil servants operate in order to suppress complaints, close rank and demonise those people who have left or have been sacked, this is done in order to protect themselves and hide their own incompetancies and inadequacies.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reply to comments":
when the previous respondent left after seven days staff were told it was because he was having difficulty in arranging child careprovision,that he wanted to work flexi-time and this was not possible.
Nothing about the real reason for leaving,many including myself had no knowledge of the Grand Prix system.
By the way flexi-time is now operating ."
If either the 'previous respondant' or the author of this comment make further comments, which I hope they do, I will keep readers posted. I have also attachd the 'previous respondants' comments below so that you can understand the context of this post.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Reply to comments":
Hi Simon,I will explain to readers that I was a uk social worker who came to work for the Jersey Social services as child protection social worker.
Prior to coming to Jersey I was a senior manager in childrens services in the UK with nearly 20 yrs experience. After 7 working days in Jersey I resigned.
This partly due to the procedures I discovered were in operation at the greenfields secure unit for children. This on its own would not have been sufficient for me to resign but it was this, combined with other features, which led me to believe that social work practice in jersey was unsafe.
Firstly though I can confirm Simons verson of events with regard to the Grand Prix system was in place and abusive to children. Secondly that upon induction to the unit children were routinely isolated and put into bleak cells for 24hrs.
This process was not based upon any threat or risk the young person may pose to themselves or others.Some of these children, as young as 10, would be in the unit for "welfare reasons" and not as a result of criminal behaviour but the process would remain the same.
The process would be abusive for either group of children in the UK, but I could see a warped argument to implement the procedure for young offenders but I would not condone it!
After discovering the above (plus lots of other bits which I will save for another day)I discussed my findings with other memebers of the Social Work team who said they were aware of the situation at the unit and expressed their dissatisfaction but nothing had changed. They also expressed their fear that if they compliained too loudly they may get the sack. They also explained that they believed if they complained it may lead to them " never work in jersey again".( they had other issues as well but too long to go into now )
Before I left Jersey, my manager asked me why I was leaving. I didn't wish to go into details as I had written a seven page letter to the chief exec detailing exactly why I was leaving and used the jersey whistle blower policy to do so. However I did say to my line manager that I had found practices at the childrens secure unit disturbing to say the least.
Their response surprised me in that they said " what goes on at the secure unit is not my responsibility". Considering my manager was a "child protection" manager their view that their responsibilty stopped at the front door of the secure unit was a tad shocking.
I kind of expected the response "tell me more and if its serious we will see if we can sort it out/investigate/ talk to unit managers etc".I had already made my decision to leave by mow but this was the icing on the cake!
The failure of one part of the Jersey child care system to want to tackle the inadequacies of performance of other related departments is one of the reasens that child abuse in childrens homes has been allowed to go undetected for so long. My experiences were in the past 3 years.
Not along time ago.The response from the chief execs dept was predictable. They informed me they had fully investigated my concerns and that I did " not understand the policy and culture of the island". By now I think I had fully grasped the culture of the child care system in jersey which was " dont rock the boat or else" and that the some of the policies were abusive to children.
Several months after my departure form jersey I was contacted by Simon Bellwood. Although mine and Simons time in Jersey had crossed we didnt meet at the time.
Simon informed me had been the manager at the secure unit and tried to end the abusive childcare practices, which I had been informed by Chief Execs dept, were a figment of my imagination and lack of knowledge about Jersey social work culture/policies etc.
Simon also told me that the govt investigation into my concerns went as follows.Simon received a telephone call that went."who did that new social worker talk to when he was shown round the unit?"Simon replied " I dont know"
That is the sum total of a an internal extensive investigation into abusive child care in jersey by the jersey govt.So baring in mind the Jersey govt superb internal investigative qualities, imagine how it must feel for children in jersy who comlpained about their treatment in childrens homes over the past decades.
I hope they got more than a telephone call to the manager of the home where thay were being abused but I suspect not.I firmly believed Simon was dismissed for trying to expose the process which resulted in children being abused whilst in the govts care.
If I had stayed in Jersey I believe I would have sufferd the same fate. The information so far is just one part of my story which could go on but I dont want to identify the staff who gave me even more information confirming what I believe to be potential systemic failings in the jersey child protection system.
I think what Simon has acheived is fantastic but it has probalby been at a great personal cost,both emotional and fiancial. I will write more if people are interested and i am particularly keen to talk about what the Jersey govt needs to do to put things right for the future.
The answers are pretty simple but i wll leave those for another day!"
My Story - Part 2
Sorry for the delay in posting a further blog.
I would like to continue telling my story, but first, the following comment was posted the other day and the system , or I, lost it. I have pasted it here for you all to read.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2":
I heard about your blog and i am well aware of your situation Simon and can easily imagine what happened at Greenfields secure centre.I noticed your 'attention readers' and would like to give your readers my opinion.I was aware of the admission procedure before you were employed.
I remember a staff commenting on a 13 yr old female being put into a cell for 24 hours as a short sharp shock. All of the teenagers on remand did used to have the solitary confinement. It appears to me that some staff and management must be suffering denial.
Apparently you changed all that when you were manager of the new Greenfields building and banned the 24 hours.Your manager's decided to over ride your system when you were off work.Bringing back the old 24 hour in cell system.Your were never allowed back to work there.
Within a week they had reintroduced your system.
Q.What did that tell the staff?
A.That you were right all along and knew exactly what you were doing.
You have a big story to tell.Go ahead and tell us.Many of the ex residents, thir family,teachers, professional visitors, current staff and ex staff must have questioned so much? As for the staff.They are dedicated to doing the best they can for the children, but have been let down by the system as well."
I would like to say thank you to the author of this comment, it is not an easy thing to do, the climate of fear prevents people from speaking out. To help remind the staff of the fear that they should feel, they further reinforced it - by sacking me after I blew the whistle.
I would like to encourage more people to write in. I am happy for anyone who has information which may agree of disagree with my views. I will publish them in order to offer a balanced view for all the readers.
As mentioned previously, I removed the Grand Prix system on 8th October 2006. This was welcomed by some and criticised by others. I introduced a new system, one based on rewarding positive behaviour and empowering young people to make the right decisions for themselves, as opposed to a system designed to ensure compliance through fear; through fear of the consequences should they make the wrong decisions.
I would like to point out that although dubbed 'my' system, this was in fact adopted from my previous secure children's home that I managed in UK. This had been developed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, music therapist, social workers, staff and young people. It had been subjected to scrutiny of inspectors and the Secure Accommodation Network (which is made up of all managers from the 24 secure children's homes in the UK).
In affect, it was not 'my' system, it was a tried and tested system that had been used for a number of years in the UK. More importantly, it was lawful - the grandprix system was not.
Rather than hearing just my perspective I have decided to list below some extracts which staff within Greenfields have made as part of their statements during the subsequent investigations into my complaints
The following extracts provide information which I feel suggests that the philosophy and ethos behind the Grand Prix system is one based on ‘control and punishment’ and not ‘care and control’.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“The management programme that SB introduced gave us no control over the young people.”
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“In the absence of SB. XX is helping support the running of Greenfields. XX suspended SB’s policy…The current policy is an incentive scheme similar to the Grand Prix system which the children can easily understand”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“Heathfield is not run under UK legislation…”.
“XX explained that a literal interpretation of care standards [UK mandatory practice standards] was applied to an establishment in Jersey the UK inspectors could close the place down immediately based on occupancy levels and material standards of the buildings”.
Quote from XX to XX
“SB was confused. XX asked him what he had been told. SB replied that he had been told there would be no community meetings and that 24 hours exclusion had been reintroduced for disruptive residents”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“He (SB) gave her new policies and documents, including his new behaviour system. She also saw him give this to XX and XX in the old building and witnessed both virtually dismiss it and hand it back saying it was too complicated to read at that time”
“SB’s behaviour programme was a points system, incentive based, with young people taking responsibility and earning points. Some staff who were used to the old system found this rather hard. The old system was very different with staff being able to deal with things by locking up the young people. The new system was not about locking up, but about dealing with behavioural issues. People were struggling to come to terms with it, but on the whole some good work was being done and the young people were, starting to get the message as numbers built up. XX said it was utter chaos, but XX [previous manager] disagreed”.
“The systems have now completely changed. The new system is no longer called the Grand Prix, but the only change to that system is that they no longer have ‘the pits’. If the young person transgressed under the Grand Prix system they were put in the pits for three days and locked up. The first 24 hours they were locked within the secure area and were educated and ate in that area. It was a very primitive way of dealing with things”.
“That three day system is no longer happening, although young people could still spend their first 24 hours in their room being assessed and XX had no problem with that. Now there are three days on Level 1, seven on Level 2 then moving to Level 3. but the young people who had worked with the SB’s points programme preferred that because they felt that they were able to earn points themselves by their behaviour.”
“SB was in the UK the following day and XX came in and changed everything SB had been doing. XX took over, took XX (young person) out of the classroom and locked him up, that was the beginning of things”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“XX (not SB) would not allow the staff to be disrespected by the residents in any circumstances”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“SB seemed to find our behaviour system dated and wanted to implement his own behaviour system once they were in the new building, this may well have been his downfall”.
“XX felt that as a manager SB was honest, knowledgeable, very confident, but approachable. He was very child centred, and it was the first time that they had seen somebody with such a child friendly approach, most staff were positive about SB’s new behaviour system. They all thought that they were going to move forward with the childcare that they provide, complying with what the children’s service were striving towards after Kathy Bull’s report.”
“SB’s ideas about childcare were not to confine the young people, unless they posed a danger. To provide the staff with the training they require and guide them in helping young people to improve their behaviour and make better choices. XX thought that some of the staff did not really understand what they could and couldn’t do. SB reiterated at regular staff meetings the operation of the behaviour system he had implemented and reminded staff that his system was designed to be used with TCI, the therapeutic behaviour management system that all the staff had all qualified in, most staff have used this for three years or more. XX specifically recalled SB saying to staff that he appreciated that whilst he ‘understood his behaviour system really well as he had worked with it for a long time, he wanted to help anyone who didn’t understand the system’. It has to be said that the young people who were resident at the time didn’t have any problems with the system and enjoyed the way it worked”.
“Some staff thought SB’s system too soft on the young people, with too much mediation and conversation taking place. They were used to having a different kind of control with the ‘Grand Prix’ system, thinking that a remand centre should be disciplined. Both systems could work well, but perhaps they just highlight the difference of thought between a ‘prison officer’ background and a ‘social worker’ background”.
“In the old building under the old system young people were often placed into a cell for 3 days known as ‘in the pits’ due to their behaviour. On several occasions young people would spend a lot longer confined from the rest of the group. This form of punishment was long standing at Greenfields.”
“They (XX and XX [previous managers responsible for unit]) then returned to the ‘Grand Prix ‘system, but with a few adjustments and called it the ‘new behaviour system’ with levels 1, 2 &3”.
During the first (Team) meeting (after SB had gone) with XX and XX staff were told that it was acceptable to lock a young person in their room for the first 24 hours after their admission or if they displayed poor behaviour. But during the second meeting there appeared to be some changes regarding locking young people in their rooms. XX also told staff they were to use their discretion regarding the 24-hour in room policy after admission, allowing more flexibility depending on the young person”.
“XX stated that up until Christmas there was now a very divided culture, XX and XX in one office in the building next door and with SB in his office. XX was not aware of any one particular incident that had caused this division, but it appeared to become worse after the interview process and that they both had differing opinions on disciplining young people”.
In addition to these statements I have taken the following from Greenfields centre Team Meeting Minutes dated 3 January 2007
“XX [senior manager in charge] explained that the Unit will be dealing with remand, welfare, sentencing + detox cases and therefore we cannot follow UK regs straight down the line. XX explained that we are going to take onboard the UK standards + Jersey will adapt them”.
“XX highlighted that we were meant to be achieving UK standards in child care in Jersey. XX explained that all policies will be adapted to suit our req’s in Jersey”.
“XX expressed he still cannot understand why SB would continue to implement UK laws etc. If he has been told this wasn’t the case why would he continue to do so?”
“XX replied that him self and XX will be putting routines into place, addressing the 24 hr in bedroom + that process”.
“XX expressed he wants the behaviour of YP to adhere to respectful towards staff + this is to be the framework to work towards. XX said he will not accept staff being sworn at + spoken to in a detrimental manner. XX wants us to respond to a YP as we would have before, a YP can be given the option to rectify their behaviour or they can be removed to their rooms + locked in”.
The following are extracts taken from Greenfields centre Team Meeting Minutes dated 10 January 2007
“…XX gave information on what they should have. YP should not be bringing in or out of G/F [Greenfields] extra clothes. XX said 2 full set of clothes.”
“…it should make us think about how we react to them appropriately. XX reminded us that child care is essential but to remember they are here for a reason”.
Now that you have read these extracts, the views of other's, not me, what can we conclude?
For me it is simple, either I am wrong and the senior civil servants are right or I am right and they are wrong. There is no alternative option - someone is wrong, is it me or them?
I would invite comments at this stage to guide me further. Tomorrow I will post some more information about the Grandprix system and the investigation that followed.
I would like to continue telling my story, but first, the following comment was posted the other day and the system , or I, lost it. I have pasted it here for you all to read.
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2":
I heard about your blog and i am well aware of your situation Simon and can easily imagine what happened at Greenfields secure centre.I noticed your 'attention readers' and would like to give your readers my opinion.I was aware of the admission procedure before you were employed.
I remember a staff commenting on a 13 yr old female being put into a cell for 24 hours as a short sharp shock. All of the teenagers on remand did used to have the solitary confinement. It appears to me that some staff and management must be suffering denial.
Apparently you changed all that when you were manager of the new Greenfields building and banned the 24 hours.Your manager's decided to over ride your system when you were off work.Bringing back the old 24 hour in cell system.Your were never allowed back to work there.
Within a week they had reintroduced your system.
Q.What did that tell the staff?
A.That you were right all along and knew exactly what you were doing.
You have a big story to tell.Go ahead and tell us.Many of the ex residents, thir family,teachers, professional visitors, current staff and ex staff must have questioned so much? As for the staff.They are dedicated to doing the best they can for the children, but have been let down by the system as well."
I would like to say thank you to the author of this comment, it is not an easy thing to do, the climate of fear prevents people from speaking out. To help remind the staff of the fear that they should feel, they further reinforced it - by sacking me after I blew the whistle.
I would like to encourage more people to write in. I am happy for anyone who has information which may agree of disagree with my views. I will publish them in order to offer a balanced view for all the readers.
As mentioned previously, I removed the Grand Prix system on 8th October 2006. This was welcomed by some and criticised by others. I introduced a new system, one based on rewarding positive behaviour and empowering young people to make the right decisions for themselves, as opposed to a system designed to ensure compliance through fear; through fear of the consequences should they make the wrong decisions.
I would like to point out that although dubbed 'my' system, this was in fact adopted from my previous secure children's home that I managed in UK. This had been developed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, music therapist, social workers, staff and young people. It had been subjected to scrutiny of inspectors and the Secure Accommodation Network (which is made up of all managers from the 24 secure children's homes in the UK).
In affect, it was not 'my' system, it was a tried and tested system that had been used for a number of years in the UK. More importantly, it was lawful - the grandprix system was not.
Rather than hearing just my perspective I have decided to list below some extracts which staff within Greenfields have made as part of their statements during the subsequent investigations into my complaints
The following extracts provide information which I feel suggests that the philosophy and ethos behind the Grand Prix system is one based on ‘control and punishment’ and not ‘care and control’.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“The management programme that SB introduced gave us no control over the young people.”
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“In the absence of SB. XX is helping support the running of Greenfields. XX suspended SB’s policy…The current policy is an incentive scheme similar to the Grand Prix system which the children can easily understand”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“Heathfield is not run under UK legislation…”.
“XX explained that a literal interpretation of care standards [UK mandatory practice standards] was applied to an establishment in Jersey the UK inspectors could close the place down immediately based on occupancy levels and material standards of the buildings”.
Quote from XX to XX
“SB was confused. XX asked him what he had been told. SB replied that he had been told there would be no community meetings and that 24 hours exclusion had been reintroduced for disruptive residents”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“He (SB) gave her new policies and documents, including his new behaviour system. She also saw him give this to XX and XX in the old building and witnessed both virtually dismiss it and hand it back saying it was too complicated to read at that time”
“SB’s behaviour programme was a points system, incentive based, with young people taking responsibility and earning points. Some staff who were used to the old system found this rather hard. The old system was very different with staff being able to deal with things by locking up the young people. The new system was not about locking up, but about dealing with behavioural issues. People were struggling to come to terms with it, but on the whole some good work was being done and the young people were, starting to get the message as numbers built up. XX said it was utter chaos, but XX [previous manager] disagreed”.
“The systems have now completely changed. The new system is no longer called the Grand Prix, but the only change to that system is that they no longer have ‘the pits’. If the young person transgressed under the Grand Prix system they were put in the pits for three days and locked up. The first 24 hours they were locked within the secure area and were educated and ate in that area. It was a very primitive way of dealing with things”.
“That three day system is no longer happening, although young people could still spend their first 24 hours in their room being assessed and XX had no problem with that. Now there are three days on Level 1, seven on Level 2 then moving to Level 3. but the young people who had worked with the SB’s points programme preferred that because they felt that they were able to earn points themselves by their behaviour.”
“SB was in the UK the following day and XX came in and changed everything SB had been doing. XX took over, took XX (young person) out of the classroom and locked him up, that was the beginning of things”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“XX (not SB) would not allow the staff to be disrespected by the residents in any circumstances”.
Quote from XX Statement to XX
“SB seemed to find our behaviour system dated and wanted to implement his own behaviour system once they were in the new building, this may well have been his downfall”.
“XX felt that as a manager SB was honest, knowledgeable, very confident, but approachable. He was very child centred, and it was the first time that they had seen somebody with such a child friendly approach, most staff were positive about SB’s new behaviour system. They all thought that they were going to move forward with the childcare that they provide, complying with what the children’s service were striving towards after Kathy Bull’s report.”
“SB’s ideas about childcare were not to confine the young people, unless they posed a danger. To provide the staff with the training they require and guide them in helping young people to improve their behaviour and make better choices. XX thought that some of the staff did not really understand what they could and couldn’t do. SB reiterated at regular staff meetings the operation of the behaviour system he had implemented and reminded staff that his system was designed to be used with TCI, the therapeutic behaviour management system that all the staff had all qualified in, most staff have used this for three years or more. XX specifically recalled SB saying to staff that he appreciated that whilst he ‘understood his behaviour system really well as he had worked with it for a long time, he wanted to help anyone who didn’t understand the system’. It has to be said that the young people who were resident at the time didn’t have any problems with the system and enjoyed the way it worked”.
“Some staff thought SB’s system too soft on the young people, with too much mediation and conversation taking place. They were used to having a different kind of control with the ‘Grand Prix’ system, thinking that a remand centre should be disciplined. Both systems could work well, but perhaps they just highlight the difference of thought between a ‘prison officer’ background and a ‘social worker’ background”.
“In the old building under the old system young people were often placed into a cell for 3 days known as ‘in the pits’ due to their behaviour. On several occasions young people would spend a lot longer confined from the rest of the group. This form of punishment was long standing at Greenfields.”
“They (XX and XX [previous managers responsible for unit]) then returned to the ‘Grand Prix ‘system, but with a few adjustments and called it the ‘new behaviour system’ with levels 1, 2 &3”.
During the first (Team) meeting (after SB had gone) with XX and XX staff were told that it was acceptable to lock a young person in their room for the first 24 hours after their admission or if they displayed poor behaviour. But during the second meeting there appeared to be some changes regarding locking young people in their rooms. XX also told staff they were to use their discretion regarding the 24-hour in room policy after admission, allowing more flexibility depending on the young person”.
“XX stated that up until Christmas there was now a very divided culture, XX and XX in one office in the building next door and with SB in his office. XX was not aware of any one particular incident that had caused this division, but it appeared to become worse after the interview process and that they both had differing opinions on disciplining young people”.
In addition to these statements I have taken the following from Greenfields centre Team Meeting Minutes dated 3 January 2007
“XX [senior manager in charge] explained that the Unit will be dealing with remand, welfare, sentencing + detox cases and therefore we cannot follow UK regs straight down the line. XX explained that we are going to take onboard the UK standards + Jersey will adapt them”.
“XX highlighted that we were meant to be achieving UK standards in child care in Jersey. XX explained that all policies will be adapted to suit our req’s in Jersey”.
“XX expressed he still cannot understand why SB would continue to implement UK laws etc. If he has been told this wasn’t the case why would he continue to do so?”
“XX replied that him self and XX will be putting routines into place, addressing the 24 hr in bedroom + that process”.
“XX expressed he wants the behaviour of YP to adhere to respectful towards staff + this is to be the framework to work towards. XX said he will not accept staff being sworn at + spoken to in a detrimental manner. XX wants us to respond to a YP as we would have before, a YP can be given the option to rectify their behaviour or they can be removed to their rooms + locked in”.
The following are extracts taken from Greenfields centre Team Meeting Minutes dated 10 January 2007
“…XX gave information on what they should have. YP should not be bringing in or out of G/F [Greenfields] extra clothes. XX said 2 full set of clothes.”
“…it should make us think about how we react to them appropriately. XX reminded us that child care is essential but to remember they are here for a reason”.
Now that you have read these extracts, the views of other's, not me, what can we conclude?
For me it is simple, either I am wrong and the senior civil servants are right or I am right and they are wrong. There is no alternative option - someone is wrong, is it me or them?
I would invite comments at this stage to guide me further. Tomorrow I will post some more information about the Grandprix system and the investigation that followed.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Time 4 Change - Conference at the Pomme D'or Hotel
Below are the details of the conference that wsill take place at the Pomme D'or Hotel in St Helier this Sunday. If should be a good event - lots of speakers about lots of issues.
I will be speaking too!!!
If you can come along that would be great and if you can pass this information on to friends and family so that they can attend too.
Time 4 Change: Press Release
22 April 2008
Time 4 Change is pleased to announce that it will be holding an event this coming Sunday to discuss a variety hot political issues, including GST, the dual role of the Bailiff, a General election, raising environmental awareness and a need for greater transparency and democracy in Jersey’s political system.
The event, entitled Reform will consist of a series of informal workshop-style sessions in the morning, followed by a public meeting in the afternoon.
The morning session will be from 10am – 1pm and will deal with issues such as, racism and discrimination, voter registration, and engaging the electorate.
The afternoon meeting will be from 2:30 – 4:30pm and will include a panel of speakers comprising a mixture of local businessmen, politicians and academics from outside the island. Once the panel have finished addressing the audience, they will take questions from the floor.
We, the organizers of Time 4 Change, welcome people from all walks of life and all political views, to attend the event. We particularly encourage those who will be voting for the first time in the forthcoming elections, and we are particularly keen to see members of the island’s immigrant community attend.
For more information, please call 07797 740886 or email montz_uk@yahoo.com
Additional information for the press: A Press Conference will be held at 4.30pm, after the meeting has finished. The media are welcome to attend the afternoon session if they wish, but we would ask journalists to refrain from attending the morning session to protect the survivors of abuse, some of whom will be attending the morning session and speaking, but who would not feel comfortable in the scrutiny of the media. We are therefore stipulating that photography and filming be forbidden in morning session.
Confirmed speakers include Rob Duhamel, Roy Le Hérissier, Mario Pirozzolo.
Senator Ozouuf to advise.
I will be speaking too!!!
If you can come along that would be great and if you can pass this information on to friends and family so that they can attend too.
Time 4 Change: Press Release
22 April 2008
Time 4 Change is pleased to announce that it will be holding an event this coming Sunday to discuss a variety hot political issues, including GST, the dual role of the Bailiff, a General election, raising environmental awareness and a need for greater transparency and democracy in Jersey’s political system.
The event, entitled Reform will consist of a series of informal workshop-style sessions in the morning, followed by a public meeting in the afternoon.
The morning session will be from 10am – 1pm and will deal with issues such as, racism and discrimination, voter registration, and engaging the electorate.
The afternoon meeting will be from 2:30 – 4:30pm and will include a panel of speakers comprising a mixture of local businessmen, politicians and academics from outside the island. Once the panel have finished addressing the audience, they will take questions from the floor.
We, the organizers of Time 4 Change, welcome people from all walks of life and all political views, to attend the event. We particularly encourage those who will be voting for the first time in the forthcoming elections, and we are particularly keen to see members of the island’s immigrant community attend.
For more information, please call 07797 740886 or email montz_uk@yahoo.com
Additional information for the press: A Press Conference will be held at 4.30pm, after the meeting has finished. The media are welcome to attend the afternoon session if they wish, but we would ask journalists to refrain from attending the morning session to protect the survivors of abuse, some of whom will be attending the morning session and speaking, but who would not feel comfortable in the scrutiny of the media. We are therefore stipulating that photography and filming be forbidden in morning session.
Confirmed speakers include Rob Duhamel, Roy Le Hérissier, Mario Pirozzolo.
Senator Ozouuf to advise.
Greenfields Staff - Please comment
Please read - I have recieved a comment to my recent blog from a member of staff who works at Greenfields and I have lost it in the system. Whoever wrote it, firstly, thank you for speaking out, and secondly, I am really sorry but please can you write it again as the system seems to have lost it and it needs to be shared on here.
I would also like to apologise to readers for not posting blogs as often as I would like, I am trying my best.
I am trying to get my new business established (remember I lost my job a while ago), fight the States of Jersey for some justice and keep you all informed of the story. It is very hard work so please be patient - my wife has already filed a missing persons report on me.
I will try and respond in the next day or so to all comments left as they are very interesting, I would encourage readers to look back on my blogs and read the comments, sometimes comments are left a few days after the blog has been published and you will only be able to read them if you go back to previous blogs.
Also, I want readers to lead me - tell me what you want to know and where you want my story to go next.
Please can I encourage readers to log in and get a name so that I can see who is making the comments, it will still be completly anonymous as you can make up a name to use.
One thing that has encouraged me to keep fighting are the people who have asked what can we do now? How do we act on this instead of simply blogging? It is simple, find your voice and stand up and be counted. I have a growing number of people who have contacted me about the awful treatment that they have been/are being subjected to as civil servants for the States of Jersey.
The evidence that I am slowly compiling is very interesting and extremely serious - no wonder there are some senior civil servants doing everything they can to try and make this whole saga go away - they have so much to lose.
I would also like to apologise to readers for not posting blogs as often as I would like, I am trying my best.
I am trying to get my new business established (remember I lost my job a while ago), fight the States of Jersey for some justice and keep you all informed of the story. It is very hard work so please be patient - my wife has already filed a missing persons report on me.
I will try and respond in the next day or so to all comments left as they are very interesting, I would encourage readers to look back on my blogs and read the comments, sometimes comments are left a few days after the blog has been published and you will only be able to read them if you go back to previous blogs.
Also, I want readers to lead me - tell me what you want to know and where you want my story to go next.
Please can I encourage readers to log in and get a name so that I can see who is making the comments, it will still be completly anonymous as you can make up a name to use.
One thing that has encouraged me to keep fighting are the people who have asked what can we do now? How do we act on this instead of simply blogging? It is simple, find your voice and stand up and be counted. I have a growing number of people who have contacted me about the awful treatment that they have been/are being subjected to as civil servants for the States of Jersey.
The evidence that I am slowly compiling is very interesting and extremely serious - no wonder there are some senior civil servants doing everything they can to try and make this whole saga go away - they have so much to lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)