Appointment of Colin Tucker as Head of Children's Services

Dear Mr Measures
I confirm receipt of your request:

Can you please conform whether you were aware of the concerns relating to
Sandwell MBC Children's Services at the time you appointed Mr Colin Tucker
who, of course, previously worked in Sandwell.

OFSTED's Review of Sandwell Children's Services was that 'Safeguarding'
was 'Inadequate' and prospects for improvement were also 'Inadequate.'
See:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_provider...(id)/5290/(as)/LAC/lac_2010_333.pdf

Given that Mr. Tucker 'presided' over the parlous state of Sandwell's
Children's Services do you consider that he should be placed on
Performance Management scrutiny in view of that and, if not, how are you
seeking to ensure that he does not cause the same problems in Birmingham?

I am unable to provide a response to your request as it does not
constitute a legitimate request for information under Freedom of
Information legislation. Essentially you are asking for opinions to be
expressed, rather than for data to be disclosed, which is the purpose of
Freedom of Information legislation.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Cullen
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Manager
Children, Young People and Families Directorate
Birmingham City Council

Tel: 0121 464 4591
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Measures
Mr Tucker was interviewed for his post in March 2009 and, at that time,
Sandwell MBC was judged adequate. A 2 day, unannounced Ofsted inspection
of Sandwell's front line Social Care Services was carried out in early
July 2009 during Mr Tucker's last two days with the authority. The report
is a matter of public record so Birmingham Council would have known the
outcome of this after Mr Tucker had been appointed but before he started
working for Birmingham City Council. The report identified no children at
risk of harm, no priority actions were identified and it concluded that
all child protection cases were allocated appropriately, managers were
provided with regular supervision, children and their parents views were
taken into account, and staff reported good levels of management support
and training opportunities. There were some specific areas for development
identified relating to the functioning of the Contact Centre, provision of
family support, need for greater case file auditing and workload
pressures. It was entirely a matter for Sandwell MBC as to whether or not
they addressed these issues before the November inspection.

It is a matter of fact that the Ofsted inspection which identified that
safeguarding (rather than Looked After Children Services, which were
deemed adequate) was inadequate, took place in November 2009. This was
months after Mr Tucker had left Sandwell MBC and almost a year after he
had chaired his last Local Safeguarding Children's Board in Sandwell MBC,
on behalf of all the agencies involved in safeguarding.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Cullen
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Manager
Children, Young People and Families Directorate
Birmingham City Council

Tel: 0121 464 4591
Email: [email address]

Philip J Measures To [email address]
<[FOI #32447 email]> cc
Subject Re: Request re appointment of
12/04/2010 17:31 Colin Tucker

Dear Birmingham City Council,
I do not regard the first part of my Request as being an opinion
issue - I am specifically asking if Birmingham was aware at the
time of Mr Tucker's Appointment of the concerns in Sandwell.

I accept that your response to the second part is appropriate.
Yours faithfully,
Philip J Measures

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Measures
Mr Tucker was not just assessed on the performance of Sandwell MBC during
his time there but also his record in East Sussex County Council and Kent
County Council where he had spent 25 years of his career in children's
services, 10 of which were in a senior management position. Both those
authorities were high performing.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Cullen
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Manager
Children, Young People and Families Directorate
Birmingham City Council

Tel: 0121 464 4591
Email: [email address]

Philip J Measures To [email address]
<[FOI #32447 email]> cc
Subject Re: Request re appointment of
22/04/2010 11:10 Colin Tucker

Dear Birmingham City Council,
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_provider...(id)/5290/(as)/LAC/lac_2010_333.pdf
If you refer to Paras 10-14 in particular you will see that there
were serious concerns in relation to the Sandwell LSCB and practice
/ supervision standards especially over which Mr Tucker presided.
The deterioration did not happen 'overnight' and Sandwell was not
in a healthy state at the time that Birmingham appointed Mr Tucker.

Birmingham as such a large Local Authority should have made further
enquiries even when the Report you referred to graded aspects as
'Satisfactory' - Satisfactory is inadequate for a major Local
Authority such as Birmingham in hopefully making rigorous efforts
to appoint someone with a track record of being able to
substantially and consistently drive up standards.

The bottom line is that the Safeguarding Board was clearly
inadequate.

Did Birmingham apply 'due diligence' in the appointment process and
do everything to ensure that Mr Tucker was a 'safe' appointee and
the best person for the job?

I appreciate that you may not feel that any further response is
indicated but I leave it up to the Authority to seriously consider
the historically severe concerns over Sandwell for which I do
believe that Mr Tucker has to at least share very significant
responsibility.

Thank you for your responses to date,
Yours faithfully,
Philip J Measures

show quoted sections