WRITTEN ON January 21st, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Design: Co-creation, Foundation of Trust, What do we want?
Hurrah! The awkward squad has found its voice on YouTube. See NGO luminaries plus top academics talking here about ContactPoint and here about eCAF, also this one called “Lost in the system” with Shami Chakrabarti. Terri Dowty says spending money on these systems while children’s services are so stretched is like saying
I’m sorry you haven’t got new shoes but I need this new laptop
Brought to us by Archrights.
So; let’s hear the case _for_ these developments please. Do we need another DebateMap?
3 Responses to “Case against ContactPoint and eCaf on YouTube”
It’s easy to criticise initiatives. Let’s give more visibility to practical alternatives that will deliver real benefits to the children that need them. Because muddling on in the same old “caring” way isn’t really an option, is it?
Isn’t that what Terri Dowty is suggesting? I don’t believe Dowty, or indeed any other critic of Government policy, is against initiatives in principle. That would be a very unreasonable position to hold.
What critics are concerned about is whether ContactPoint (for example) is an appropriate solution to the ‘problems’ that the Government has identified. I put that word in scare quotes because, as the Office of Government Commerce suggests, the Government is not particularly good at identifying problems (or indeed appropriate solutions) – some proposed solutions could even be counterproductive.
Climbié was failed in many ways and not just because people or organisations failed to talk to each other, or were unable to share information electronically. Indeed the inquiry identified a vast number of problems throughout all the organisations she had contact with, some being down to plain old boring incompetence or a lack of resources.
The problem is that the Government proposes silver bullets. Yet the silver bullet mentality is one of the most common reasons for project failure.
Unfortunately you cannot participate in a debate with the Government unless you first accept its terms. For example, “engage with us on running one giant database” rather than “should we run one giant database”.
I have yet to make time to read the FIPR report on chidren’s databases (1.16 Mb PDF) but it may be of interest to you.
OK – I think we need a DEBATEMAP on childrens’ databases. David is up for it, indeed he’s already started checking out the arguments….watch this space, and stand by to chip in!!
I’m certainly not going to defend these developments (though I wouldn’t condemn them outright, either). But I hope the debate can be conducted with a little more sophistication than Terri Dowty’s emotionally-loaded false dichotomy.
As I recall, ContactPoint arose as a response to the tragedy of Victoria Climbie, who was repeatedly failed by caring, committed professionals (with or without laptops) who seemed unable to talk to each other. And yes, like anything else, ContactPoint will cost money from a finite pot to build. So is it fair for me to ask “how many cases like Victoria Climbie’s are acceptable to ensure that new shoes are available on demand?”?.
It’s easy to criticise initiatives. Let’s give more visibility to practical alternatives that will deliver real benefits to the children that need them. Because muddling on in the same old “caring” way isn’t really an option, is it?