ContactPoint goes live despite security fears The Government has announced plans to push ahead with the next phase in launch of a controversial child protection database, despite ongoing concerns about the security of data held on the system. The delayed ContactPoint system, which is due to include names and addresses on every child under 18 in England, will be accessed …
Things get expensive for a number of reasons:
1 - size. This stuff has to work for a large number of people. Granted, suppliers don't always get it right but I've worked with CapGem - the people I had the pleasure to work with knew what they were doing. There is little competition at that sort of volume, you've got CapGem, Capita, EDS - I don't think there are more than 10 who handle this.
2 - support. Train them or support them? In this case I'd suggest you need both (even if for no other reason than to tell anyone who screws up that they should have known better), but support costs money too. Especially if they're supposed to talk and understand English..
3 - risk. Doing stuff at political level is incredibly difficult to keep straight. Granted, I've seen the public purse milked in a fantastic fashion, but the honest guys don't even get a look in because they cannot afford the insurance. When someone screws up it's usually the supplier who gets the bad press first, even if they did a good job. That is partially why especially the current government has taken so enthusiastically to very costly consulting: anything blowing up is thus never their fault (didn't work for expenses now, did it? :-)).. It gives them someone else to blame, even if specs and contract management are actually the government's responsibility to manage anyway. Risk represents IMHO the main body of costs, and is the prime excuse to hit the taxpayers for a lot of extra dosh.
4 - for the conspiracy theorists: jobs for the boys. Cosying up to the decision makers costs quite a bit of money, especially since it all has to be kept under wraps for a few years until they can "retire" into a cosy job towards pension. If they really want to clean up UK government it would be interesting to analyse where all the buyers go up to 5 years after leaving civil service. But that would obviously harm their own shot at retirement.. No idea if this really still happens, but I have seen some real oinks employed in implausible places. This appears to be teh only possible explanation.
So there.
". Note that the partners in this exercise are not just government agencies, or the Cap Geminis of this world, out to make a fast buck from the taxpayer, but Barnardos and KIDS."
Anyone caring to look up the annual reports of Barnados and KIDS can see how much money they get from the taxpayer and their announced targets for getting more. The words 'producer capture' mean nothing to anyone?
There is a national system that allows parents to recieve info and updates on their kids school progress, I forget the name right now. I noticed my Missus fire it up the other and noticed there was no SSL on the site. This site allows you to find out exactly what class school your children are at and what they will be studying and their teachers details.
I told my Missus to go straight in to the school and complain that "there is no padlock on the website". She did and she was told by the local authority IT boffin, I quote:
"Oh that old thing, you only need a padlock when you have financial transactions. You have a password so it's encrypted and your details are safe."
WTF!!?!?!
She said that was rubbish and she demanded to be put up higher to someone who had a clue. After 8 days, she was told it was sorted and indeed it was. The site was SSL enabled. Why did someone have to notice it and complain? Why wasn't this factored in from day one?
This is the sort of thing we are fighting against, utter cretins of the first and highest order in charge of government IT. Give it 3 months before details from ContactStore/Point whatever, are hacked or left on a USB key on a train somewhere!
"I understand that MP's children and those of 'celebrities' will be shielded. Surely it's either secure enough for all children to be listed on or it isn't!"
It shows they consider their own children more important than the children of their powerless minions. It also shows their lack of empathy for everyone but themselves. Oh they can use excuses of kidnap fears due to their wealth, but everyone's children can be at risk from the minority of hostile people in this world. But once again, the political elite show up their key core behaviour of lack of empathy for everyone but themselves.
As for this being just a children's database, it over looks the fact children grow up. So its effectively a growing centralized database of everyone in the UK, which is their real goal. Give it just a decade and its a database of everyone under 28 years old. At that point they cover the majority of politically active protesters, because beyond that age there will be less protesters, due to factors such as becoming more restrained and with more responsibilities in life like jobs, settling down and starting their own families etc.. Plus each year it grows to cover ever more of the population.
Also its one more political step in educating the population into acquiescence over centralized databases and constant state monitoring into peoples private lives. (Plus how long before this data is leaked to other governments and businesses via info leaks).
Plus its all sold to us on the basis of it will protect a minority against crime and so the majority have to give up their rights to freedom because of that minority. If they brought in criminal punishments to stop the minority, then the majority wouldn't have to suffer being lumped into the growing police state. But then the rich and political elite consider us all below them and so must all be watched, while they shield their own young.
The solution to protect everyone is to bring in stronger laws to punish Narcissistic Personality Disordered behaviour where ever they cause harm to others, but then the political elites own kind would get caught in that net, as demonstrated by the current arrogant, Narcissistic greed and fraudulent contempt for tax payers money shown by the current political elite. That's why they will never bring in laws to clamp down on Narcissistics and its why we live in such a unfair unsafe hostile world.
I now claim the gift of second sight.
You were prepared to quote my sentence about Barnardos and KIDS, to make way for your own cynical comment, but ignored my words only 2 sentences later :
"Although I'm sure some conspiracy theorist will leap to contradict me...."
What a sad bunch you seem to be, all lining up to knock the concept without any attempt at constructive criticism.
1. It would be a plus if childcare professionals had some means of identifying others who had had contact with a child they have some responsibility for, so they can cross reference with other proffesionals where they have grounds for suspecting abuse etc.
2. Technology might be able to provide an enabler - not a solution in itself, but something which will help facilitate the above happening.
3. ContactPoint is an attempt to provide that enabler. Maybe it's the wrong answer - but if you think it is then do you have a better idea? Could technology provide some help with this problem, and if so then how?
Anyone up for the challenge? Anyone ready to be positive.....?
On your marks, get set, Go.
It's a computer database. What happens if all parents file a subject access request on behalf of their children to check the accuracy of the data being held? Of course, every single request would have to be checked to make sure the parent in question wasn't a danger to the child, so the process couldn't be automated.
Where is the seed information for this database sourced? School records (not every child goes to school)? Health records (if you're not sick you might not have seen a doctor for some time)? Birth records (doesn't give current address)?
Are they going to ask parents to confirm basic details or is it going to be a big work of fiction cobbled together from a patchwork of possibly-suspect information?
I'd follow the example of Tom on the No2ID forum and generate some paperwork with my local authority, but due to personal circumstances there's a chance that they don't have much, if any, information on my family and I don't want to raise a profile until they confirm that we're known.
How will they tell John Smith from John Smith from John Smith... ? You don't get an NI card until you're 16, and not all kids have passport numbers -- so how do they know which child is the one who is being seen by which social workers?
Not that they care, of course, since there is no real point to this other than earning a few backhanders for those involved.
None of whom will, of course, be divorcee parents looking for their own children...
There is no need to access addresses on this system, beyond, perhaps the city or borough - the various authorities using this system will already have their address, or if not can contact whichever other party (doctor, social sevice, police etc) is listed in the child's database entry if they have a legitimate need for it.
Sheesh. Two minutes thought solves half the problems here.
Cameron Colley: "How will they tell John Smith from John Smith from John Smith... ? You don't get an NI card until you're 16, and not all kids have passport numbers -- so how do they know which child is the one who is being seen by which social workers?"
The answer to this is easy. They just record the parents as well as they are listed as the legal guardians. But the government line is that its really just a database for children, honest! ... yeah right, after all, it will only have every parent in the UK on the database along with their contact addresses and other details! ... in one centralized database, accessible by 390000 people!!!
'But just ask yourself one or two questions before you continue to slate this project.
First, is the underlying intent behind the project a valid one?'
I'd suggest that a prior question should be 'is this the right solution to the problem?'. A large number of us are still not convinced that a centralised database is the solution to the problem, let alone one with details of all children (in England & Wales) and accessible to 300,000+ people.
'Glum face to reflect my disappointment in the relentless negativity of my fellow Reg readers'
There is a reason for this. The government and public servants in general have shown themselves incapable of looking after the centralised data they already harvest.
Add this to the government obsession with projects, policies and initiatives that require them to monitor just about every aspect of out lives, the unnacountable mission creep of existing system and it seems quite reasonable that people react negatively.
"...annual running costing of around £44m a year. Contact details on an estimated 52,000 at-risk children will be shielded."
So ~ £850 per year for each of the 52,000 sets of contact details?
Sounds a bit steep to me.
Details for 52,000 kids? You could stick that onto an Excel spreadsheet on a non-networked 486 machine with no USB, no floppy drive, no CD/DVD drive and no mem card reader, running Win3.1, in a well padlocked room, and give just one or two dedicated staff access to it via the padlock key.
You want some of the info? You have to go through one of the two folk with access.
I'll donate the hardware, software, and padlocks. Gov can pay the two staffers 25k each. Remove security issues. Save £43.95m.
Simples.
Oh do grow up Alex.
So anyone who does not agree with YOU is therefore a conspiracy theorist? I now claim the gift of second site, you sir are an idiot!
You seriously think this CP DB will be used for the purposes, lying cheating MP's tell you do you? Given there is NO casework or even school records entered into this system...if a lax social worker were to 'forget' to enter date and time they saw a child...how does that fix the issue?
I have not read, heard, or otherwise, rules or regulations for people with 'access rights' to this system that state they 'must' enter a diary date...as purpotedly that is only what will be recorded.
As you extol the virtues of this system, please then explain, by Cambridshire LA own admission that shielding a child will reduce the effectiveness of provision of service - it is an oxymoron. Go look at the link provided above for NO2ID and read again the response from that LA. Understand this...most normal children or those without needs of services will apparently just sit there...but those that are in need and thus sheilded will have provision of service reduced - they admitted this!!
You need to try harder...
"That's the gap ContactPoint aims to fill - if a childcare professional is able to see that others have also had contact with a particular child they can contact those professionals to find out the details. The intention is that it helps them to join the dots and see the bigger picture."
Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper for childcare professionals to simply presume that any child they have contact with may have previously been contacted by other agencies, and then simply contact those agencies to see if they have any active cases?
A couple of extra 'phone calls and some sharing of case notes doesn't cost £44m a year.
You really don't seem interested in constructive solutions at all, just in pushing the idea of this shiney-wonderful database and 'won't someone think of the children'.
As has already been pointed out more than once, the only children that may need to have their details on such a system (for the purposes of co-ordinating services from different organisations) are the one that have been identified as being at risk.
Your take on this appears to be that ALL children must go on the database, so IMO choices appear to be:
- you think ALL children are at risk (makes you a fool!);
- you think ALL children must go on the database so that when a 'John Smith' is identified by one agency as being at risk little Jonny can be confused by the same and other agencies with 40 other 'John Smiths' (makes you a management consultant);
- you think ALL children must go on the database, apart from the children of the rich, the famous and the politically connected of course, so the government can do their job by compiling a list of children to go on the NIR at some point regardless of increasing the risk to these children (makes you a sick political creature).
Tell us Alex, specifically what is your reason for putting ALL children on this database?
Who is it you expect us to trust with this unnecessary level of intrusion Alex?
A little reminder how our political elite actually value and care for the vulnerable over whom they have power.
'Hodge apologises to abuse victim'
Extract = "Mrs Hodge led Islington Council from 1982 to 1992, when it emerged that children in the council's care had been abused.
She has been accused of failing to act, despite receiving warnings - an allegation she denies."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3270149.stm
Extract = "Mrs Hodge was in her final year at Islington when, on October 6 1992, under the headline The Scandal at the Heart of Child Care, London's Evening Standard newspaper alleged that young people in Islington care homes had "descended into a life of degradation and exploitation". It said suspected pimps were having sex with children and that youngsters in care were being seduced into drugs, homosexuality and prostitution."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/04/uk.schools
I take your challange.
"1. It would be a plus if childcare professionals had some means of identifying others who had had contact with a child they have some responsibility for, so they can cross reference with other proffesionals where they have grounds for suspecting abuse etc."
Does the database actually improve upon the situation? Or could the situation be better improved by increasing the number of care workers instead of squandering resources on irrelevant technology?
Would it not be more efficent to have dedicated case workers who manage only a small number of case workers along with a crash team? If something is suspected you refer it to the crash team who should be able to work on a problem immediatly (have people available to interview and having internal systems that keep information on active and past case loads).
Does such a database simply provide a "tickbox" mentality where if there's nothing of note in the database then there's no problem? Such systems often lead to a certain degree of lazyness.
"2. Technology might be able to provide an enabler - not a solution in itself, but something which will help facilitate the above happening."
Is it the right technology? How does it really help? Does it help anymore then good care workers with reasonable work loads? Do the benefits of such a scatter gun beat the benefits of having a few dozen more professionals? Could money be better spent on counselling and training for workers in the sector?
What are the downsides? Lots have been listed by others, more then I can be bothered to browse through.
"3. ContactPoint is an attempt to provide that enabler. Maybe it's the wrong answer - but if you think it is then do you have a better idea? Could technology provide some help with this problem, and if so then how?"
I have a great number of better ideas,
Improved training.
Increased numbers of social workers with specialised training.
A change in culture towards the social care and mental health care teams.
A redirection of funds from police to social care (as a number of criminal problems seap from social care problems.)
Increased community awareness of what can be done to help those in trouble.
A reduction in the peadophile mania where people with an interest in caring for children and teenagers are viewed with a quiet distrust by society and the media.
Improved localised systems for cases.
Improved cross departmental communications (not a list of numbers but face to face communications, people in all branches need to know that there are central numbers to call in case of incidents - such as a local specialist team possibly with members from multiple proffesions (medical/social/psychiatric/criminal/educational) that is always on call (yeah you'd need more then one person per discipline).
Counselling and support for those in the profession so that they don't end up leaving after a year or two due to the stress and horror of the job.
However most of those things are a bit to expensive (kids arn't that important apparently just good for a few news stories and a bit of propaganda) and the powers that be much prefer to look as though they're doing something as opposed to actually doing something helpful, and yes sometimes it's far better to do nothing at all then do something stupid - contactpoint is pretty damn stupid. For a number of reasons, however it's a pretty awsome elephant.
This post has been deleted by its author
"specifically what is your reason for putting ALL children on this database"
I don't think the database will be secure.
I don't think it wil adequately address the original problem.
But, there is a reason to include all children on the database. It is possible to highlight exceptions. A child registered with a GP but not with a school. I could be that they are being abused and they don't want teachers noticing the bruises.
While it is possible to include every child that is born in this country what happens about those that arrive by planes, boats and trains. Unless you include every child who arrives in this country as immigrant or tourist the database won't include every child. Remember Victoria Climbie arrived in this country aged 7 and on a false passport. Until she was first taken to hospital she wouldn't have appeared in the database despite haveing been in the country for eight months.
Insecure and a waste of money.
How about if the 300,000 users only had write access the database, and a single professional responsible for each given child's database record has read access? The 300,000 can send a message to that person to voice their concerns, but can't automatically discover who it is before such message is sent?
Wouldn't that provide auditable accountability, together with the possibility to automatically identify statistically at-risk children and focus attention on them? Or is it too much like responsibility for politically correct jobsworths?
It just makes the needle harder to find.
52 000 in how many millions of ordinary needs children, who have no need to be on there.
"Might be the wrong John Smith." You're kidding me. This was not addressed in the design from day one? Same identifier, different kids. Or is this where they first issue the NIR unique ID #?
Adopted and foster children might be known by different names. Quite right. Same problem in reverse. So what did the designer do about it? Did they consider most foster children will be know by their *current* foster parents as that last name, with previous last names deprecated? But more correctly did they talk to someone who could set a *policy* on what to do that would stick and which everyone knew.
I'm sorry in advance for what is about to happen to some parents. So *many* unnecessary names on this database makes at least 1 *very* nasty incident a virtual certainty within no more than say the next 12 months. I wonder what the Government's excuse will be? The bottom line is this system *enables* a great deal of access to a very large group of children, who would not be readily accessible at all, to some characters with *very* questionable motives. It is another case (RIPA, ID cards) where the *stated* scope and goals have very little to do with what's been delivered. If this government were a child I'd say they had poor impulse control and some fairly clear signs of antisocial personality disorder. The sort of child who should be on this database. The sort most parents would not want their kids playing with.
that my children have grown up and my grandkids will probably escape this due to the usual
bungling and delays in Gov. IT .
I give it less than a month of going live before the first data "escapes", assuming it is not already in the wild.
Then listen to the well practiced "sorry" line and the lo-oooooo-ng wait for heads to really roll.
And, Oh yes, what a waste to delete the entries when the kids are 18+ when we have the start
of a ready made, unverified, National ID system.
Good news - my previous posting (12:21) has attracted several responses, which was what I asked for after all.
Bad news - not one of them has attempted to provide the sort of constructive viewpoint I was asking for. And at least one (yes Pat, I mean you) doesn't appear to have sufficient command of English to understand anything I was saying.
Actually there was one suggestion - thank you to AC 13:37 - but it misses the whole point.
"Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper for childcare professionals to simply presume that any child they have contact with may have previously been contacted by other agencies, and then simply contact those agencies to see if they have any active cases?"
In a simpler world that might be feasible, but, rightly or wrongly, there are numerous local agencies which might have contact a child (do you ring round every GP and A&E in the area to see if they've had the child in to deal with injuries?), and social workers and the like, whatever you may think of them, have very busy workloads. Can you see why this isn't an option?
To AC 13:27 who claims the gift of "second site" (sic) and wants me to grow up, well, what can i say? My views on the problem ContactPoint is attempting to address are not derived from "lying, cheating MPs" (does it occur to you that you may be confusing your issues a bit?) but from other (and in my view more reliable) sources. Of course the system will only be as good as the use that is made of it, it's only a tool like any other. But perhaps you were taught to think this way at the Universtiy of the Bleedin Obvious?
You suggest I "extol the virtues of this system". Emmm.....where? I actually say that CP may be the wrong answer. If you want to comment on my posts can I suggest you try not to make stuff up as you go along.
ElFatbob - You suggest the prior question is to ask if CP is the solution to the problem. Emmm....I take it Business Analysis isn't one of your strong points? You have to define the problem before looking at solutions. i was trying make sure that we were all talking about the same problem.
You also, along with many many others here, want to condemn all government IT projects out of hand. <sarcasm>Because, as we all know, all public IT projects are total failures whereas the private sector is a shining example of success every single time.</sarcasm>.
Blinkers off please. Some IT projects, public and private, fail, some succeed, most muddle through. Why doesn't the media report on successful government IT projects? Do you really need me to answer that question?? Can I suggest you seek your views on the world from sources beyond the Daily Fail.
BTW, I am open minded about these things. I do not believe that personal data should be captured and held unless there is a demonstrable reason for doing so. For which reason I am vehemently opposed to the NIS and ID cards, and I pay my subscription to NO2ID because of that belief. Equally I find this obsession with government IT systems bewildering. The big Credit Reference Agencies hold scary quantities of data about each and every one of us, and are not subject to the sort of external scrutiny that government departments are. You'd do well to be worried about them too.
And then there's Pat. Oh Pat, thank you, you gave me the best laugh I've had all day.
I'm guessing that I'm quite a bit older than you. When I was at school we had to do something called comprehension tests. To prove that when we read something we'd taken it all in and understood the message within the text. You didn't have them, did you? Or if you did your poor teachers must have despaired.
Read my post again. Try - really try - to understand what the words mean. Maybe you'll find a grown-up to help you. Then look at your response again. And tell me, in simple terms, which bit of my text says that I believe all children must go on the database.
And that's why I won't be able to tell you what my reason is for wanting all children on CP - because I don't think that and I've never said it. Once.
OK guys, I'll have one more go. In nice simple language that (maybe) even Pat can understand.
Victoria Climbie and Baby P (and many other less high profile cases) have shown there is a business need for childcare professionals to be aware of the contacts a child has with other services. Does anyone want to dispute that?
If that's accepted there are two basic choices - do nothing, and leave things as they are, or do something.
Personally I don't think doing nothing is an option. Doing 'something' probably involves several strands, many of which are not technology related - better training, structural reorganisation within local authorities, changes to working practices etc. Each may make some improvements, but none is a definitive 'solution'.
So can technology also play a part in building up these improvements? DCSF have said yes to that and ContactPoint, rightly or wrongly, is part of their answer (there are other systems too). It's easy to point out the flaws in CP, as so many above have done. But does anyone have a positive suggestion for how technology could be used more benificially?
I will tell you one thing - the concept of ContactPoint is actually welcomed by a large number of local authority staff working in this field. Whether that welcome lasts when faced with the reality of the system remains to be seen. But the need for what CP is trying to do, as opposed to the CP system itself, should not be doubted.
Can we have a "I'm fed up explaining the same thing over and over to morons" icon please?
Approx 1000 words for evasion, misdirection and ad hominem attacks; IMO that make you a political troll.
Evasion - CP is intended to contain details of ALL children; I got that from the Reg story - comprehension, innit? You support CP and are unwilling to be specific about this particular requirement.
Misdirection - Before being killed Victoria Climbie HAD been seen by social workers, police and medical staff, and there HAD been interaction between them. The same applies for Baby Peter. Yet here you are trying to make out your CP would have made a difference - from what political party have we heard that lying propaganda before?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385396/12-opportunities-missed-to-save-Victoria.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/5270053/Baby-P-could-have-been-taken-into-care-months-before-he-died-claims-Panorama.html
ad hominem - Well thanks for the condescending attack - again a familiar methodology. I thought if I mentioned Hodge's past I would get a rise from the usual suspects. Political-fish in a barrel.
For anyone who wants to argue with this guy I recommend you also make an effort to write (on paper, not email) a letter to your MP about it - IMO Alex won't want that, but chances are that at the moment your MPs will be eager for anything significant to take the heat off them.
No-one is saying nothing needs doing - just that this is not the correct solution.
The majority of complaints on here relate to there being no good cause (and plenty of concerns over) the details of *all* children being on this database. I'm certain, where it's justified, no-one is seriously saying departments shouldn't have a methods of sharing data better. However, data should only be kept when & for as long is is justified and, considering the sensitivity of such cases, restricted to people - at least remotely - active in the children concerned. Things lacking from this system.
As it stands the whole scheme reeks of an en-masse data-grab, pushed through against objections, and that has nothing to do with protecting children - however, it is *almost* amusing to see the "think of the children" lot being hoisted by their own pitard in response to this.
Maybe common sense is back on the rise ... we can but hope.
You might get further with commentators on here if you weren't such a condescending prick!
Saying things like: "OK guys, I'll have one more go. In nice simple language that (maybe) even Pat can understand."
Who TF put you in charge?
The BIG problem with CP is mission creep - the point is we, as parents simply do not trust whitehall to use and safegaurd our and our children's information in the manner in which it is gathered, stored and used. It is as simple as that. The argument for having all children on this system is based on 'just in case'.
Well, as a parent, and an IT professional that is not good enough for me to protect the most precious aspect of my life - my child. From the way in which you Alex are talking, it does not appear you are a parent - for if you were, you would know where we are coming from, if you are a parent and I very much doubt it, you appear from your arguments to be putting state ahead of love.
My child has never had the need, nor do I foresee that they will have a need for 'contact' with anyone other than perhaps, optician, school, college, dentist, Uni. That to me is normal - and I for one simply do not want my child indoctinated into a NIR by the back door for the purposes of just in case.
If a glorified address book is the answer to all the Victoria and Baby P problems of this country, then our servant ministers are either delusional or blind.
I would look for another icon to describe you Alex, but there is not one. Please go back to your parliamentary research or spend your time looking through 51,000 entries in google of 'condescending attitude gets you nowhere'.
Before CP: My 2 kids are known to me, my wife, some friends and family, GP, local hospital, local school, HMRC, child benefit office.
After CP: Any one of 300,000+ dullards who fancy an idle trawl of the database today/tomorrow.
Hmm, which one is more secure? Which one do I have at least some sort of idea of how/where my data is/being used? But then I'm just 1 out of millions of people right? Security through anonymity in that sense, nothing to hide nothing to fear right?
The great social conditioning experiment rolls on...
My kids were born at home, and we declined the health polic^H^H^H^H^H visitor 'service'. (They don't advertise it, but you have that right, at least for now.) We have little to no contact with GPs as wer'e a healthy bunch, personally I've only used the NHS when I've woken up in their care! My point is my kids haven't seen a doctor since I can remember and we moved house some time ago.. We've not registered at a new GP, cos they've not yet been sick, and neither of them are at school yet - so how does anyone know where we are? If we're on there at all, it'll all be wrong, how many others could this be the case for?
"In a simpler world that might be feasible, but, rightly or wrongly, there are numerous local agencies which might have contact a child (do you ring round every GP and A&E in the area to see if they've had the child in to deal with injuries?), and social workers and the like, whatever you may think of them, have very busy workloads. Can you see why this isn't an option?"
Heaven forbid that taking care of children might involve making a few 'phonecalls. A simpler system would one which centralises the information only of children who have had contact with the police or GPs or A&E or social workers etc - rather than *every* child in the country. Smaller database, faster searches, more efficient use of technology. It limits information held to only those children who are actually at risk or already in bad situations; it limits access to the people in the local area who might have a legitimate reason to access the information; it curtails the tendency towards mission creep inherent in all of these government IT projects.
The money saved could be used for better training, more social workers, implementation of better information sharing protocols. Basically, spent on anything other than a needless (and needlessly expensive) address book of kids.
ContactPoint has been live in some parts of the country for months. This has been described as a "trial" but used real peoples' data. All the bugs and security holes we tested on that data. Teachers in Kent have had access for ages.
The ContactPoint manager for my council denied that children of MPs and celebrities would have their details shielded. She even said it with a straight face. It brought a tear to my eye because I honestly think she believed it.
There is no central guidance on how records can be shielded and most councils are formulating their own rules. This means its postcode lottery time for your personal details!
If your child's details are shielded you have to renew it every 6 months. If you have a genuine need for your details to be shielded (ie your child is adopted) you now have the burden of stacks of paperwork every 6 months ... with no guarantee that it will be processed properly.
ContactPoint is a disaster waiting to happen. The clock is now ticking ...
One further point Alex...
This CP system has had it's information input, we are told from various sources, but do not explain what those sources are. I have, yesterday made a SAR (Subject Access request) to the DCSF and my local council to provide me with all the information they hold about CP.
I have done that because neither me nor my wife have been asked, nor has my child (and any official should ask my permission if questioning my child) for the information which CP holds. So where has this information come from, who has verified it as accurate - I have not nor has my wife, nor has my child.
So 'extolling' the virtues and legitimacy of this sytem which you do, so blinkered in your approach, how can you say the information it holds is correct to say it's a starting point. you see that is one of our many issues with this system - even the information it holds we have not verified, which puts this system in the position of untrustworthy.
Garbage in, garbage out is the mantra.
In the UK quite a lot.
Police officers who can't arrest parents.
Teachers scared of being accused of being racist or nosey or both.
Doctors who can't spot broken bones.
Health visitors who don't see the children they are meant to be visiting.
Social workers who believe parents excuses.
Social workers who are basically contractors.
Social workers who had a 2 day training course to teach them a totally different way to manage problem families.
How many people would it have taken to save Peter or Victoria's life?
1.
Who cared and had the authority to act. Who could spot f%$%£d up parents were f%$king up their children. Note that word "authority".
On average 1-2 children a week die in the UK. This figure has stayed at that level for the last 10 years. Almost anything which lowered it would be a good idea. I *strongly* doubt this will be it
Intelligent comment making will resume when I calm down.
@Robert Harrison
"Any one of 300,000+ dullards who fancy an idle trawl of the database today/tomorrow."
I put this to my local ContactPoint manager and she dismissed it for the following reasons :
1) All users are security checked
2) All users are 'Professionals'
3) The system can spot fraudulent activity
4) Users would lose their job if they abused it.
Therefore there will never,ever, ever be a single person mis-using the system. The end.
However the truth is :
1) Security checks will not prevent someone using the system as a favour for their mates.
2) Cops and MET Pathologists are 'Professionals' so it is clearly no guarantee of their honesty.
3) The system may be able to spot trends or "out of area" searches but is never going to spot a single dodgy search for a local child as it will simply not look strange
4) That is true for most criminal acts but clearly is a weak deterrent. Working people commit crime all the time and don't worry about losing their jobs.
The ContactPoint people are placing all their security hopes on mechanisms that have proved to be ineffective in stopping mis-use.
And 300K users is just the start. I bet by next year this will be 500K ...
Alex,
I started to address the errors in your postings again, but decided that it was a waste of my time.
Pat has summed you up perfectly: identifying your use of evasion, misdirection and personal attacks. Only thing i'd add is misrepresentation of what others have said.
Your attempts at sarcasm are also very poor.
Can we have a "I'm fed up explaining the same thing over and over to morons" icon please?
Firstly, to the AC who described me as a “condescending prick”.
It’s a fair cop guv. I deliberately set out to be provocative about this subject to see what ideas were out there. At times I did go a bit OTT, so apologies to anyone I upset. (With the exception of ‘Pat’….)
To date I’ve tried to take a neutral position and not stated my own point of view on ContactPoint, so the following may come as a bit of a surprise to a few people. I am opposed to CP. I’m delighted that one of my kids is too old to be included, and sorry there’s no way I can get my youngest off it (he’s getting near to 18 so might not be on there too long). DCSF won’t remove him, and the legislation allows them to take that line. I know, I’ve tried.
The reasons for opposition have been stated ad nauseam in previous posts so I won’t go there, but I particularly liked the posts of John Smith and FooID.
But I still believe the fact that CP has come into existence indicates a problem needing to be solved, and was interested in those suggestions which did emerge.
Matt, sorry, I didn’t ignore you consciously, our posts crossed in the ether. You are absolutely right. Our wonderful government is, for reasons which continue to bewilder me, obsessed with bright shiny IT projects. Much of the money being poured into CP could be spent on the sort of basic suggestions you make, but it’s almost as if they think such things aren’t dramatic enough and therefore can’t succeed. In part that’s media driven (e.g. the ‘paedophile on every corner’ obsession you mention), in part I think it derives from ministers feeling that they have to be doing something BIG. (To be fair, maybe some of us would be the same – when you reach those exalted heights maybe there is a lot of pressure to be seen to be doing things – do we get the political system we deserve?)
I think your only tech-related suggestion suggested improvements to local case handling systems. I’d be interested to hear you expand on that one and how it could help with the problem.
The other ideas which intrigued me were those put forward by Sleepy (15:52, 18th) and Chris Kelsey (10:32, 19th). The former is still prey to accusations of unnecessary data capture, and both could have security concerns – but those will always exist. Does anyone think Chris’ suggestion has legs?
Now - is anyone in DCSF following this?
PS - Final add-on, as I just noticed query raised by AC @ 10:44 about the data sources for CP. As far as I know, and my knowledge is imperfect on this, the initial database is compiled using NHS records, birth registrations, DWP records (presumably child benefit claims?) and internal DCSF data (presumably schools etc.). It can then be modified at a local level by authorised users who have (theoretically) contact with the children concerned. Hope that helps.
As I stated above, I have made a SAR to my local council and the DCSF. If it helps anyone out wishing to make a similar request, I paste below the body of my letter.
You are legally allowed to make the request by email or snail mail. However, as you are most likely to need to send a cheque for £10, you are best using snail mail.
I have made this request for two reasons - to see what is there, who has used it....and to check it's accuracy. I moved house in October last year. I have not been asked at my previous address or my new one for my details or my childs details for CP. Ergo, in my request, I only give my current address - this should be telling. When I get the info back, I will then decide how to proceed - but if it contains wrong info, I will be making a complaint to my MP again. I have been writing to my MP for over 3 years about this CP thing...and you would not believe the b*llsh*t that has come back to me from ministers responsible for this intrusive DB.
Anyway, here is my letter, please feel free to copy paste and ammend to your own circumstances.
"
Dear Sir/Madam
Under Section 5 of the Data Protection Act 2002 (“the Act”), I hereby make a Subject Access Request in relation to ContactPoint and request copies of all the information held about us and our daughter, together with a description of the purposes for which information is, or has been, processed and to whom the information can be, or has been, disclosed.
I understand under section 7(2) (b) of the Data Protection Act 1998 a fee of up to £10 is payable; I enclose a cheque to that value made payable to Sunderland City Council. If this amount is not sufficient, please let me know, and I will send a cheque to cover the additional cost. If my cheque exceeds the amount you normally charge, please consider the leftover funds a donation.
If there is a specific SAR form to be completed by ourselves, I would be grateful if you could forward that to us. Otherwise, you should promptly pass this request to your Data Controller. You have 40 days in which to comply with the Act.
"
Cheers.
Guidelines for social workers recommend about 12 case per worker. Harringey staff had 25. Depending on the scale of a local area it might have several hospitals, possibly over more than 1 site. If it has none and you know a child has had substantial medical attention then include every hospital in the surrounding area. Say 3? If the child is on the PNC then 1 call to them, but perhaps 1 to each station to talk to the officers concerned. Say 6 stations if you cannot get the info out of the PNC. 1 to the school. 1 to the Health Visitors service if they are of age. Then multiply by the number of missed calls, re-directs to other staff, telephone tag. 11 calls / child. But each case might have several children. Assume an average of 2 children. That's 264 calls to ring round for 12 cases. Maybe 550 in a Haringey workers case. For comparison the normal benchmark for a telemarketing firm is 100 calls per day.
A database might *look* a good idea at this point. Giving everybody a common, secure view of *cases* involving 1 or more children. Perhaps with automatic notification of changes. Less polling, more interrupt driven, to use an IT idiom. Management by exception.
If only that was what was delivered.
There are few "technical" solutions becouse the problem with our child care services is not one of technology, a few small parts of the system can be improved with better technology but as a whole the problem will only be solved by investing in staff, structure, culture and social awarness of reality as opposed to a sustained social panic.
Attempting to apply a technical solution to a human and institutaional problem makes little sense, while new systems could be helpful in assisting a functioning institution the child care system as a whole does not function as it should.
In reference to a case database (off the top of my head), each Local social care authority in reference to a case database it should contain case data/history for all archived, resolved, and active cases. A contact team for each authority should have minimal access to read which team is in charge of which cases and raise notes (maybe notes not attached to any current case or attached to a given record) this first point of contact should also have direct contact with a muilti disipline rapid responce team who can go to immediate cases (would only respond to Police or Hospital requests) may refer to police is it is an incident in process (domestic violence).
Every case is assigned to a team who assign a lead case worker to the case, there will also be a reviewer whose responsibility is making sure all the case workers are filling in their reports correctly. The reviewer has overall responsibility for record maintenance and ensuring procedures are followed, the lead case worker is the main point of contact and has overall owner ship and responsiblity for that case, the rest of the team is there as support (they will all have their own active cases.) The team of course shall have a manager (who should be different from the reviewer), the manager has overall responsibility for their team, and their case load.
At the end of the day it's a structural and staffing issue, fancy computers wont solve that.
Citizen
Under Section 4 of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2011 (The Jobsworth provision as it is popularly know) one of our analysts have monitored the following behavioural anomalies.
1)You have failed to use the local NHS child birthing facilities, thus helping offset the investment in them in the first place.
2)You have failed to accept the offer of the NHS visitors service, thus helping offset the investment in them in the first place.
3)You have failed to register with any GP within you neighbourhood, thereby breaching your families duty of care.
You are therefore required to bring all your children along to a Deviancy Assessment Panel, where the effects on your children may be determined.
The Panel is fully CRB checked and consists of members from the Police, Teaching, Social Services and Health sectors who will investigate every detail of your children's development.
Rest assured that although previous suspects have commented that many members are childless or unmarried, or both, all have been formally passed by the Government as being safe for children. This is usually more than their parents can claim.
Please also note that on occasion the Panel may call in lay experts to further examine your children for more subtle conditions. They may have to take photographs and in some cases forward them to specialists abroad, or even specialist websites for group consultations. This is all perfectly normal.
Your assistance in this matter is unnecessary but appreciated. You are reminded that failure to comply is an arrestable offence. Your children will be returned to you as soon as necessary.
In the process of our investigation we have noted you have failed to volunteer for Identity cards for your or your family. We have notified the IPS accordingly.
Office of the Child Finder General.
A wholly independent agency of the Department of Health.
“All of your children safely in our hands.“
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
