* Posts by Melkisadek

3 publicly visible posts • joined 26 May 2010

Government delays ContactPoint closure

Melkisadek
FAIL

RTFM

See, this is what happens when unqualified persons are encouraged to make decisions based on half-truths and forced agendas.

All that has happened here is that the DfE have belatedly realised that ContactPoint was actually working and was fairly well balanced between privacy and prevention of harm. Like they were told by those that understood the system...

However, as usual they chose to listen to the uninformed masses (like the posters above) and knee-jerked a reaction straight into their own net.

The delay is presumably due to the fact that the Tories promised a replacement that didn't include every child but are now struggling to decide how to determine the scope of the system - the reason it was made universal in the first place.

If every child is supposed to be on it then you instantly spot any that aren't (when you come into contact with them) and there is no stigma attached to being in the system.

If you limit it to children that have needed an intervention of some kind then how do you prevent either (i) professionals ignoring a system completely because if they fail to use it on 'the one that slipped through the net' they will be castigated; or (ii) professionals logging every instance of contact with a child 'just in case'.

Both of the above (or worse, a combination of the two at different institutions) makes anything other than a universal database largely useless. A victory for civil liberties perhaps but a serious failure of common sense.

The success of contact point across different services was largely due to the fact that it was relatively simple but exceedingly useful to all sorts of practitioners/professionals.

I'm sure the next Victoria Climbie will be overjoyed that her civil liberties weren't being infringed when no-one realised there was a problem...

Government yet to set ContactPoint closure date

Melkisadek

@Ian Johnston re. Contradictions

ContactPoint puts social workers in touch with other people working with a child; including previous social workers from other local authorities, GPs etc.

Prior to ContactPoint it was VERY difficult to find out who was dealing with a child if the parents didn't know where the child had been dealt with previously ("I lived in London" isn't very helpful). If a child can be matched on ContactPoint then not only do practitioners get instant access to previous case-workers; they also get details of previous interventions and case data once they've spoken to the previous case-workers (note that this data IS NOT held on ContactPoint).

This means that time is saved when a new initial assessment is no longer needed; care package details are transferred rather than being drawn up from scratch; false positives in terms of care are not re-tried (i.e. types of care that have been tried but didn't work aren't tried again as a case progresses from scratch) etc.

More importantly, the child doesn't miss out on care whilst the full process is restarted. Information sharing in this respect is vital when trying to maintain a sufficient level of care.

It's not the case information per se that is hard to discover, but who has it... That is the hole that ContactPoint plugs.

As for security, I'm not sure what point you're making (I think you're confusing two definitions of the word security: something which has limited access vs something which is locked away). The system can ONLY be accessed by practitioners (and other qualifying personnel) - it is therefore secure in that it isn't generally available to anyone who fancies a trawl through the data. The system is well engineered which makes it easy (or easier than it was) for practitioners to find the data they need.

The two aren't related - the security model works and the system model is usable.

Melkisadek
WTF?

It's in the Telegraph so it must be true..?

The children of MPs and celebrities weren't left off (unless you have evidence to the contrary?).

It's just another piece of misinformation that's been repeatedly printed to make people think there's something sinister going on.

Similarly - if the police had powers to raid the database for possible prosecutable offences (drug misuse etc.) then surely the source of that information is just as open to 'police abuse'.

ContactPoint doesn't contain any information that isn't available elsewhere (and is probably easier to get hold of elsewhere if you're that way inclined). The only extra thing it does is make the child demographic and practitioner data available to other practitioners nationally (with certain sensitive services hidden from view).

If that in and of itself is a bad thing then say so; then argue that case. Don't make something up (or regurgitate stuff other people have made up; without first checking the facts) and then use that as the basis for your complaint.