Select Committee on Education and Skills Ninth Report

7  Integrated strategy and governance

Pacing change

127. The Government has set out a series of demanding milestones and targets that will need to be met by local authorities and others between now and 2008 for the successful implementation of Every Child Matters. These include the expectation that most local areas will have Children's Trust arrangements in place by 2006 and that all will have them by 2008. Setting a challenging pace is entirely laudable, but there is an awareness at the front line that rapid change could produce unintended negative consequences. The Local Government Association told the Committee that that one of the potential 'elephant traps' they foresaw was that "people would move too fast and be too enthusiastic about […] change, and [would] then fall over themselves.'[95]

128. This is still clearly an issue that resonates with local strategic bodies, as is evidenced by the response of the Association of Directors of Education and Children's Services and partners to a recent Government consultation on statutory guidance on the implementation of the reforms:

"we think it [statutory guidance] should reinforce the need for authorities to achieve necessary changes at a pace that suits local circumstances and which places an emphasis on maintaining performance generally and particularly with regard to safeguarding. We are anxious that the guidance may kick-start a rush of changes within authorities which may not be properly prepared nor mirrored, as will be necessary, among relevant and other partners in the area. The guidance should make clear statements about the need for authorities to introduce change in a measured way which suits local circumstance and which promotes rather than jeopardises improvements to children's services."[96]

129. In their oral evidence, the Association of Directors of Social Services were explicit about the specific risks to the most vulnerable children which might follow from 'rushed' implementation:

"there is a set of issues around the fragility of safeguarding services for child protection concerns, and our concern would obviously be that the majority of authorities which are committed to this arena will work gainfully to protect their children, but there are inevitably going to be children who will slip through the net, and we have to give this agenda time to work forward, and support those authorities that may be struggling with their local competing forces."[97]

130. Our visit to British Columbia in January 2005 further alerted us to the need to ensure change takes place at a reasonable pace. There, we spoke with officials who had observed the implementation of a similarly ambitious programme of reform of children's services and had concluded that driving through change too quickly had had unintended consequences for front line operations. At the front line, there had been a marked shift toward the privileging of safeguarding activities over the delivery of universal services. This had led to professionals becoming risk-averse and consequently taking children into protective custody with increasing frequency.

131. The Government has made a welcome commitment to respecting local needs, and putting control over change in local hands and we would encourage them to maintain this commitment. Statutory guidance should contain explicit reference to the need to protect front line services during transition, and to implement change at a pace suited to local needs. At the national level the Government can assist by remaining alert for any evidence that unintended negative side-effects of change are occurring, and, especially, that any decrease in the effectiveness of critical front line and child protection services is taking place.

Integrated inspection arrangements

132. The Government envisages a central role for inspection in the implementation of Every Child Matters, with new 'integrated' inspection arrangements to be developed, enabling judgements to be made about the extent to which children in any one area attain the five 'outcomes' underlying the policy proposals. Crucially, integrated inspection will also provide a picture of the way in which services contribute to improving these outcomes through partnership working.

133. Ofsted was asked by the DfES to take the lead on developing proposals for the integrated inspection arrangements, working in partnership with nine other relevant inspectorates.[98] In December 2004, Ofsted released the Framework for Inspection of Children's Services for formal consultation. The Framework has been published alongside several other documents including: Joint Area Review of Children's Services; Annual Performance Assessment of Council Children's Services; Inspection of Children's Services: Key Judgements and Evidence. The responses to the consultation are due to be published in February 2005 and the Framework for Inspection must be issued finally, in accordance with statute, in May 2005. Key proposals include:

• An overarching 'Framework' for the inspection of children's services, which will influence the focus of institutional inspections carried out by all relevant inspectorates.
• From 2005, combined Annual Performance Assessment (by Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection) of council education and social care services for children and young people.
• Joint Area Reviews which will assess the experience of children and young people and report on outcomes for them. They will evaluate the contributions made by a wide range of services and the way these services work together to improve outcomes. JARs will be conducted at the same time as CPA corporate assessment.
• Consultation of children, young people and parents during inspections.[99]

134. We have been very impressed at the progress that has been made with regard to the planning of integrated inspection over the last year. The timetable set out by the Government for the development of proposals was demanding, with a statutory requirement for the framework for inspection of children's services to be issued finally by May 2005 and the expectation that integrated inspection arrangements will begin to be implemented in September 2005. Ofsted and partners have responded well to this, taking a consultative approach which has been praised in some of the evidence we have received. They have also stayed close to the outcomes-oriented approach taken in the proposals as a whole.

135. Since we took evidence, it has been announced that the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is to be disbanded, with its children and young people's functions being subsumed into Ofsted[100]. Arguably this will make integrated inspection more achievable, although the Committee was already impressed by the evidence of joint working between the CSCI and Ofsted. It will be important that the subsuming of the CSCI into Ofsted does not lead to any devaluation of the significance of the social care perspective and experience. We will be watching developments closely in this area.

136. It is difficult to forecast the likely success of the new inspection regime as final arrangements have not yet been confirmed. There are nevertheless a number of specific issues about which we have some initial concerns including: whether the proposed arrangements are likely to provide a satisfactory measure of attainment of the five outcomes; lack of clarity about the consequences of failed inspections—and more generally, the role of inspection in the improvement cycle; likely effectiveness of arrangements to involve children and young people in inspections; training needs of joint inspection teams; and the ability of Ofsted to serve as lead agency while at the same time experiencing significant personnel cuts and restructuring. These are addressed in turn below.

ACCURATELY MEASURING ATTAINMENT OF OUTCOMES

137. Joint Area Reviews will seek to provide an objective analysis of outcomes for children in a local area, as well as looking at the extent to which individual services contribute to those outcomes through partnership working. The five outcomes each now have attached five associated 'aims.'[101] In terms of inspection, the 25 aims provide a more detailed set of criteria against which progress can be measured.

138. Commenting generally on the definition of outcomes in the original Green Paper, Prof. Peter Moss noted:

"Targets and outcomes can be treated as purely managerial tools, without appreciating that these are necessarily contestable in a democratic and pluralist society because they raise important ethical and political questions. For example, why is the outcome 'being healthy' described […] in terms of avoiding negative behaviours? Or why is 'enjoying and achieving' reduced to school achievement?"[102]

139. The relative success of inspections of children's services will depend to some extent on whether the 25 associated 'aims' truly reflect the meaning of the five parent 'outcomes' and whether, in turn, the evidence that is relied upon to gauge progress toward the outcomes and aims is appropriate. We appreciate that Ofsted and partners are currently consulting on the suitability of the proposed inspection framework, including the validity of the 25 related aims and the indicators used to measure progress toward them. We look forward to the results of this consultation and may pursue this issue further when the outcomes are known.

INSPECTION AND IMPROVEMENT

140. The connection between inspection and improvement has occupied us as a Committee and is a subject we have previously discussed at length with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.[103] We maintain that for inspection to serve as a lever for improvement, there needs to be a clear process linking inspection findings, communication of these findings to service(s) inspected, and suitable intervention to bring about change.

141. With regard to the integrated inspection arrangements proposed under Every Child Matters, we are not yet clear of how the 'improvement through inspection' process will work in practice. In oral evidence, the Minister told us:

"We […] have pretty tough performance assessment, both from our regional advisors, from the inspectors, and we have the joint area review at local level, which is all the inspectors coming together to see how well an area is delivering services for children. All that gives us the framework to measure performance, and star ratings and all that stuff flows from it. If authorities fail children through the services they provide, we will intervene. We have a new power under the Children Act which mirrors the power of intervention into local education authorities and we will intervene"[104]

142. We welcome this statement by the Minister but we are not clear as to the specific procedures which will be triggered should Joint Area Review find local services lacking or failing to improve.

143. To play the critical role in Every Child Matters that the Government envisages, integrated inspection must ultimately contribute to the improvement of services. We would welcome clarification on how this will happen with regard to inspections of children's services. The specific procedures which will be triggered should a local area be deemed by integrated inspection to be failing require clearer explanation. In particular, it needs to be made clear how the findings of area reviews will be played back to individual service providers, and how these will be used to bring about improvement.

INTEGRATED INSPECTION TEAMS AND JOINT TRAINING

144. The integrated inspection arrangements propose that teams of inspectors will conduct joint fieldwork - teams could include, therefore, employees of Ofsted, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI)[105] and the Healthcare Commission, among others. This poses some challenges for inspectorates who have traditionally employed different methodologies and approaches. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector recognised this when giving evidence to the Committee on an earlier occasion:

"The Social Services Inspectorate as was—the CSCI as is now—has a history of looking at individual case files as part of its work with local authorities. One of the very interesting questions that we have been debating with the CSCI is how you, in doing children's services inspections, capture the big picture at the same time as focussing down on those individual case files. Interestingly that will be a feature and will continue to be a feature of inspection with CSI so when we are doing children's services inspections they will be exactly what you have described. The problem with that, of course, is—and this has been very interesting for Ofsted because this has not been part of our methodology in the past—how many case files do you look at to get the picture?"[106]

145. We asked Ofsted and partners about their plans to jointly train inspectors. We were pleased to hear that groups of inspectors from different inspectorates had already been meeting and that they would be "brought together more extensively after Christmas, to start training programmes together".[107] Further details from Ofsted and partners on the scale and nature of joint training for inspectors would be welcome, and we will also be interested to hear from them over the coming period what progress is being made in this regard.

OFSTED'S ROLE AS LEAD AGENCY AT A TIME OF RESTRUCTURING

146. Like other Government departments, Ofsted are committed to making significant personnel cuts and efficiency savings over the coming period. We have considered whether this might have implications for their ability to act as the lead agency in the design and implementation of integrated inspections of children's services. The Public and Commercial Services Union was recently quoted in the press as saying that that the proposed reorganisation of, and cuts in, Ofsted's staffing would 'compromise the safety of children'[108]. In oral evidence, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector strongly contested assertions that cuts would undermine Ofsted's ability to deliver. Restructuring, he contended, was necessary and would not affect the ability of the organisation to discharge its responsibilities, even at a time where its general remit is widening significantly.[109]

147. We appreciate the considerable efforts which have gone into developing a 'unified and efficient approach' to inspection, and accept that in principle this confers the potential for joint inspections to be less of an 'additional burden' for both inspectorates and services than might otherwise have been the case. Joint Area Reviews, for example, will replace or subsume inspection of area 14-19 provision, Local Education Authorities and inspections of Connexions services—all currently conducted by Ofsted. Additionally, they will also make use of data from existing inspections. However, Joint Area Reviews will still demand resources from Ofsted and other inspectorates. They will use a wide range of strategies for gathering evidence including case studies, neighbourhood studies[110] and interviews with children and young people.

148. On balance, we feel that the Public and Commercial Services Union's assessment is, at this stage, unduly pessimistic. In our report on the Work of Ofsted 2004,[111] we concluded that it was likely that the organisation would be able to meet both existing and new responsibilities, including those associated with Every Child Matters, and we see no case for arriving at a different judgement here. Ongoing scrutiny of Ofsted is a part of our remit as a Committee, and we will remain attentive for any signs that cuts are undermining the effectiveness of their leadership role in children's services inspections or their capacity to effectively participate in joint area inspections.

Local co-operation arrangements: involving schools and GPs

149. Individual schools and General Practitioners are not placed under a duty to co-operate in local Children's Trust arrangements by the Children Act 2004. Several groups argued during the passage of the Act for an amendment to achieve this aim, but the argument was rejected by the Government primarily on the grounds that the duty to collaborate should be at 'strategic level'. As it stands, Primary Care Trusts and Local Authorities are required to co-operate in Children's Trusts and it is argued that these will be the main means for drawing GPs and schools respectively into joint planning, commissioning and delivery arrangements. Additionally, the Government has said that it intends to make clear through statutory guidance and other means that schools and GPs (as well as other agencies not included in the duty to co-operate) will be expected to participate where appropriate.

150. However, witnesses repeatedly told us that they fear that a minority of schools and some GPs may not participate fully in local co-operation arrangements in the absence of a statutory duty to do so. We are not convinced that the levers for participation suggested by the Government will provide the necessary safeguards. This is especially true in the light of policy tensions in the DfES, which appear to be producing contradictory drivers and to be demanding conflicting responses from schools and service providers.

151. One such tension is particularly apparent when the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners[112] and Every Child Matters are considered side by side. The former advances policies which give schools more independence and autonomy—for example, through the easier attainment of Foundation status. The Five Year Strategy also fundamentally alters schools' relationships with Local authorities - increasingly, money is being given direct to schools, usurping the traditional role of authorities as strategic bodies and providers of funds.

152. Every Child Matters, on the other hand, envisages local partnerships between groups of schools and/or schools and other local services. The former policy strand clearly has implications for the success of the latter, as David Bell recognised:

"there is no hiding from the fact that schools do have a high degree of autonomy and may choose, for whatever reason, not to cooperate or to collaborate in the same sort of way with other schools or the local services more generally. That is the way in which we have constructed policy, and I think we have to recognise that that is there and trust—and I think it is not just a finger in the wind, it is a real expectation—that schools will see the virtues of cooperation and collaboration with other services for the sake of the children in their care."[113]

The LGA are, however, somewhat more circumspect about how things are likely to work in practice:

"Whilst I think no-one has a problem with school autonomy as it stands at the moment, there is a concern about relying on the goodwill and spirit of individuals to see that the duty to collaborate is a kind of moral imperative as opposed to a legalistic duty that is being placed on everybody else."[114]

153. In February 2005, the Association of Directors of Education and Children's Services, Confederation of Education Services Managers (ConfED), National Association of Head Teachers, National Association of School Governors, National Governors Council, Secondary Heads Association and the Advisory Centre for Education issued a joint statement in response to the DfES policy toward independent specialist schools as laid out in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. This statement argues forcefully that the increasing independence of schools may be incompatible with other policies steering schools toward local co-operation. They stated:

"We believe that school autonomy should be in a framework of collaboration and we are concerned that the emphasis on 'independence' in the Five Year Strategy is not balanced by sufficiently strong measures to encourage schools to work together. In our experience, few schools want actively to compete at the expense of neighbouring schools and very few, if any, schools will refuse to co-operate. Excellence in Cities partnerships are a good example of active collaboration, even between schools that had hitherto been in strong competition. We expect the guidance to schools under the Children Act 2004 to emphasise the importance of such collaboration, and we look to the Government to provide appropriate incentives for them to do so."[115]

154. The evidence that we have taken in the course of other inquiries has convinced us that encouragement and exhortation to schools to change their practice is not always sufficient to secure commitment to policy proposals. In our inquiry into school admissions[116], we found ample evidence that some schools were choosing to ignore the advisory admissions code, and we therefore recommended that the code be given statutory status. Disappointingly, the Government rejected our recommendation.

155. We are therefore deeply concerned that a similar voluntaristic approach is being pursued with regard to schools' participation in the local co-operation arrangements expected as part of Every Child Matters, when there is demonstrable evidence that schools do not always perceive the standards and inclusion agendas as being complementary - and consequently will occasionally act in ways that 'raise' standards and preserve autonomy at the expense of inclusion and local co-operation.

156. The Government has consistently argued that schools will be encouraged to engage with the Every Child Matters agenda through the lever of inspection. Consequently, the current Education Bill will place a new duty on Ofsted to inspect schools on:

• how far the education provided in the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school;
• the contribution made by the school to the wellbeing of those pupils.

However, this does not necessarily imply that schools will be inspected specifically on the extent to which they co-operate with other schools and agencies in their area.

157. Partnership working by all local services (including schools and GPs) will be assessed as part of Joint Area Reviews, but, as we made clear in the section on integrated inspection above, it is currently somewhat unclear how area findings will be related back to individual services - and how consequently Joint Area Reviews will contribute to improvement.

158. The Royal College of General Practitioners sees a solution in linking inspection findings directly with funding allocations:

"There needs to be penalties associated with failure as, in this way, health, social services and education can be reasonably expected to prioritise many of the currently unfunded issues unless mechanisms are introduced, including inspection, which makes it clear that resources will be under threat unless demonstrable progress and appropriate quality standards are being applied at a local level."[117].

159. We are not currently aware of any plans to link funding allocations to inspection outcomes in the case of schools, and there are many reasons why such an avenue might not be considered constructive or workable. However, the Royal College's comments do point to the need for further reassurance that inspection arrangements will function as a sufficiently powerful lever to ensure full participation.

160. As regards securing the full involvement of GPs in local partnership arrangements, the NHS Confederation told us:

"Primary care trusts regard it as a challenge to engage all GPs, and they are very keen to see some proper incentives in the system to enable them to do that […] It will also have to happen through things like re-validation and through the quality and outcomes framework, because we know those are things that doctors inter-relate with quite intimately, because at the end of the day they affect pay; and something which affects pay is more likely to be a powerful driver of conformity than something that is enshrined in statute. We have some mechanisms for making sure that it does not become a problem around GPs, which are potentially easier to deal with than some of the concerns around schools."[118]^.

161. We are pleased to hear that practical and creative methods for securing the engagement of GPs in local co-operation arrangements are being tabled, and we think that this is something that the Government could usefully pursue with the relevant agencies. We can see the logic, reiterated to us by both the Minister and the Secretary of State, in placing a legal duty to cooperate upon strategic bodies rather than operational agencies. The rationale behind this presumably relates to the 'purchaser-provider split', with the assumption that funds lie with the strategic bodies, which, by coordinating their approach, can require cooperation from provider agencies. However, this does not seem to apply in the case of schools and GPs. The policy intention in both cases is to locate funding at the front line—with schools rather than Local Authorities, and GP practices rather than Primary Care Trusts, thereby diminishing the commissioning power of strategic agencies. We are accordingly concerned that the absence upon schools and GPs of a duty to cooperate could seriously undermine the development of local 'whole systems' approaches.

162. We await final confirmation of the details of integrated inspection, but we are deeply concerned that some schools, GPs and other services not under a statutory duty to collaborate in Children's Trust agreements may choose, for one reason or another, not to participate. This has the potential to fundamentally undermine the aims and intentions of Every Child Matters. It is unlikely that the current incentives and penalties in the system will be adequate to make reluctant schools, in particular, co-operate. The Government needs to clarify what additional incentives will be introduced into the system to address this issue, and especially, what changes will be made to the framework for the inspection of schools.

163. It is vital that the contribution of the voluntary and community sector is not overlooked or diminished. This is a complex sector, including big national charities on the one hand and very small community-based organisations on the other. This can lead to difficulties in engaging the sector with strategic planning and commissioning processes[119]. There is also concern within the sector about local mainstreaming of the Children's Fund and Sure Start local programmes, both areas in which voluntary and community bodies have played a large part. We will be following closely the effect of the Every Child Matters changes on the voluntary and community sector and hope that the large and valuable contribution it makes will be recognised and sustained.

Joint commissioning and budget-pooling

164. The Government intends that budget-pooling will increasingly occur between service providers to enable the joint commissioning of services. While this is not compulsory, the Government contends that it will be a "very, very powerful tool"[120] for providing more joined-up and responsive services. There is much support for the aims of shared financial responsibility and joint commissioning of services. Contact a Family argued:

"The principles behind Children's Trusts are sound. Parents speak to us about their frustration in having to repeat the same information time and again to different departments and then being passed from one to the other while financial responsibility is argued out. Pooled budgets across the LEA, Children's Social Services and health services must be a positive step forward in alleviating many of these problems."[121]

165. On the other hand, some witnesses sounded a note of caution about budget-pooling in particular. While this is often an admirable aim, the process of implementation needs careful thought. The Association of Directors of Education and Children's Services told us:

"We would like to see some progress on pooling of budgets, but only when it is clear what the budgets are that we are pooling, what we are pooling them for and what the service specification is for pooling them. There have been some examples of pooled budgets before their time, which have not resulted in any service improvements. We would argue that the service specification, the review of the services—what James was saying in terms of looking at the middle part of that triangle, targeted services for children in need, needs to be got right; then you look at how you will pool the budgets to get the service into the shape you really wanted to serve the children better. This is a massive programme of change. It is clear that local authorities and their partners up and down the country are at very different stages in that process."[122]

166. This sentiment was echoed in written evidence submitted by the Audit Commission, which argued:

"The experience of many local authorities and NHS bodies, as well as our own experience as auditors, has shown that pooling budgets often poses a range of challenges that can be extremely time consuming to resolve. Partners need to be very clear about the added value of budget pooling, and their individual and joint commitment to the work before taking this route."[123]

167. The Association of Directors of Social Services further reinforced this point:

"[regarding VAT and budgetary cycles]… I think they are serious obstacles. Some of the bureaucracy around pooling budgets is part of the disincentive, and the work that is required to get through that bureaucracy, we certainly feel in the smaller authority, can be better invested in developing some of the cultural arrangements about joint working and look again […] about what were the outcomes that we were intending from the pool. We would enter into it very hesitantly, particularly around services. We can find very easy ways of making sure the shared money is getting to the service user without getting into complex bureaucratic arrangements which are not necessarily going to help, and I think the evidence-base for them is a bit weak."[124]

168. While the evidence we have seen has convinced us that joint commissioning of services is a laudable and worthwhile aim that can offer significant benefits for children and young people in terms of the services they receive, we think a more cautious approach needs to be pursued in relation to across-the-board budget pooling by Children's Trusts. We understand that the evidence from evaluations of the section 31 arrangements under the Health Act 1999 suggests that pooled budgets only add value where there is already a high degree of trust and clarity of purpose amongst the partners.[125] Pooled budgets are therefore best thought of as one more tool in the partnership armoury, rather than an accounting panacea. It will be important to assess progress in this respect, and it is disappointing that the Minister has told us in supplementary evidence that the DfES does not even propose to collect information about the budgets that will be pooled through the Children's Trusts.[126]

169. Statutory guidance and other communications which concern themselves with budget-pooling need to make absolutely clear that local areas should not pursue such pooling for its own sake. Until sufficient evidence has been amassed from Pathfinder Children's Trusts on best practice in this area, it would be preferable to give a clear steer for local areas to thoroughly analyse the benefits likely to accrue from budget-pooling before embarking on the process.

Director of Children's Services

170. It is now a statutory requirement for each top-tier Local Authority to appoint a Director of Children's Services (DCS) and Lead (council) Member. It is intended that the DCS will provide strategic leadership for Children's Trusts as well as being an accountable figurehead. The DfES is currently consulting on the statutory guidance for the Directors of Children's Services and Lead Member roles.

BACKGROUND OF APPOINTEES

171. By March 2005, approximately 50% of Local Authorities had made Directors of Children's Services appointments, around 90% of whom had previously been Directors of Education[127]. With relatively few appointees from a social care background, some have argued that this amounts to an 'educational takeover' of the new integrated children's services.

172. The skills profile has also raised some concerns about whether the Directors of Children's Services are likely to have the requisite level of professional knowledge: if experienced directors of social services are, in the main, not being appointed to DCS roles, it has to be a concern that expertise on crucial issues such as child protection may not be immediately apparent at directorial level. The Commission for Social Care Inspection commented:

"It is essential that the range of skills which the new Directors of Children's Service possess, draw together the experiences of both Directors of Education and Directors of Social Services. It is essential that there is no loss of expertise and knowledge of children's social care. The Commission will be working closely with local councils to ensure that social care services for children are not seen as an add on to some reorganised education department, and that health services, the police and the youth justice system are kept as inclusive components of the development of children's services. Children's Services Directorates are not simply education departments by another name."[128]

173. The DfES, in response, told us that they would not be seeking to direct local areas in the kinds of appointments they made, as that would be inappropriate. They also told us that, in their view, what was important was the general managerial and strategic competency possessed by appointees to the DCS roles. While we understand that the DfES cannot interfere in the appointment process we do feel on balance that this is an area that could benefit from closer monitoring, as the appointments process gathers pace.

RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT POWER?

174. Children's Services Authorities will be judged, through inspection, on the effectiveness of services as a whole in their area. Directors of Children's Services, as figureheads, will therefore bear a large degree of responsibility and accountability for outcomes for children in their area. The Association of Directors of Education and Children's Services and partners pointed to an interesting and potentially problematic anomaly in relation to the discharge of the DCS' duty. While, managerially, he or she will be responsible for the Local Authority only, the scope of the role in reality goes much further. This, they contend, is likely to raise a number of operational problems:

"There is no indication of what powers if any the DCS has if partners do not fulfil their various statutory responsibilities in a satisfactory way, thus undermining the partnership arrangements. This section should make more explicit reference to how the DCS can hold partners to account and where necessary alert the relevant internal authority or inspectorate."[129]

175. Speaking on behalf of the LGA, Cllr. James Kempton told us:

"I think local authorities would say that they have some anxieties about the assessment of their performance through corporate performance assessment, for example, against the performance effectively of other authorities with whom they have the ability to influence but not necessarily the ability to control. The issue of accountability of that authority is one of concern to us […] we are used to working with a whole range of partners, and we are used to working in an area of accountability without authority, but that does not mean to say that that is necessarily the preferable place to be."[130]

He went on to add that there were potentially other avenues for holding partners to account—through, for example, performance assessment and inspection. However, the issue of authority without power seems to us to indicate a fundamental problem, and one which it would not be entirely appropriate to expect Directors of Children's Services themselves to resolve.

176. The DfES is currently consulting on the Director of Children's Services role. When statutory guidance is finally issued, it must make explicit the actions which will be open to Directors of Children's Services should essential partners fail to co-operate.

Children's Trust boards and Local Safeguarding Children Boards

177. The DfES has stressed that the successful establishment and operation of Children's Trusts will require local areas to develop and implement strong proposals for shared governance, partly to "hold […] things together through tough times as well as good".[131] As in other areas, the DfES has stressed that decisions about the exact arrangements for governance of local partnership arrangements will be made at the local level, although it is intended that decision-making on this crucial issue will be guided by "learning and research on interagency governance and accountability through the Children's Trust pathfinders."[132]

178. We agree with the Audit Commission's analysis of the potential benefits and risks of such an approach:

"The lack of specificity on governance arrangements for children's trusts reflects an opportunity to accommodate local circumstances but does carry with it risks associated with a variation of approach, practices, systems, participation, competences and accountabilities."[133]

179. Our evidence raises a number of questions and concerns about specific aspects of governance arrangements. One particular issue is the lack of clarity surrounding the relationship between Local Safeguarding Children Boards and Children's Trust boards. The LGA told us they had:

"concerns about the lack of clarity between the duty to collaborate and the duty to set up Local Safeguarding Boards. There is a lack of co-terminosity […] between the two and with different relationships regarding accountability and governance. It's feasible that the co-operation arrangements for example through the strategic partnership, and the LSCB could act independently of each other."[134]

180. Another area of concern is how boards will relate back to the executive bodies of their respective member organisations. TEN, the Democratic Health Network and the Local Government Information Unit argued in their joint submission:

"We have concerns over arrangements for ensuring accountability and transparency for Trust decisions through its member organisations. The substantial differences between governance arrangements of democratically accountable local authorities and Primary Care Trusts, as well as differences in culture and priorities, will pose considerable challenges for Chairs of Trusts or partnerships. All this raises the question of how do Trusts link back to the executive bodies of the local authority and other partners?"[135]

The Audit Commission made a very similar point:

"The governance arrangements for each sector are different. Local government and health agencies are accountable to different bodies, one democratically elected, the other not, which can pose challenges in terms of accountability and perceived legitimacy in relation to joint working. In addition, health and education are both delivered by independent practitioners (GPs) and organisations (schools). Either of these may legitimately work to different objectives to those of local authorities and Primary Care Trusts, introducing additional challenges to coordination and to a common accountability framework."[136]

181. The crucial issue of governance of Children's Trust arrangements is another example of the potential risks and benefits of a locally led approach to development. Given the importance of good governance to the successful implementation of Children's Trust arrangements, we think that in this instance there is a strong case for clearer guidance from a central source. The commitment, made in Change for Children, to mainstreaming the knowledge acquired from Children's Trust pathfinders on this issue is welcome, although as elsewhere we note that Pathfinder development (and analysis of that development) is still at a relatively early stage and therefore its ability to inform is more limited than is desirable.

182. Children's Trusts will also have the key role to play in developing the Children and Young People's Partnership Plans (CYPPP) required under section 17 of the 2004 Children Act, and upon which guidance is due later this year. The expectation is that the CYPPPs will be aligned with other local strategic plans, including the NHS Local Delivery Plan and the Youth Justice Plan, with the Local Strategic Partnership then forming an overarching view of local needs and strategies in the Community Plan. There is therefore an additional governance issue, yet to be addressed, concerned with the relationship between the Children's Trusts and Local Strategic Partnerships.

---

95   Q 173 Back

96   ADECS, ADSS, Barnardos, Connaught Group, LGA, NCB, NHS Confederation, NSPCC, Children's Society and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, Joint response to 'Consultation on draft statutory guidance on the role and responsibilities of the Director for Children's Services and Lead Member for Children's Services',2005. The ADSS has recently argued that the draft statutory guidance on Children's Trusts should emphasise that structural change is not a necessity-and that a focus on structure could detract from provision of front line services during transition.  Back

97   Q 166 Back

98   Commission for Social Care Inspection, Probation Inspectorate, Audit Commission, Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, Prisons Inspectorate, Constabulary Inspectorate, Adult Learning Inspectorate, Healthcare Commission, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. Back

99   See http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/ Back

100   This was announced in Budget 2005: HM Treasury, Budget 2005, Ch. 6.23, pp. 142, 2005  Back

101   See Appendix A. Back

102   EVCM 16, para 17. Back

103   See, for example, Education and Skills Committee, The work of Ofsted, HC 426, 2004. Back

104   Q 500 Back

105   As discussed in paragraph 134, the CSCI and Ofsted will eventually be merged. Back

106   Q 67 Back

107   Q 94 Back

108   "Ofsted cuts put children in danger, warn unions," The Guardian, Wed 24^th November, 2004. http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1358178,00.html Back

109   Q 139 Back

110   Although it is proposed that, as a rule,new fieldwork will only be undertaken when other suitable alternative data sources cannot be found. Back

111   ibid Back

112   Department for Education and Skills,Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, CM 6272, July 2004. Back

113   Q 109 Back

114   Q 159 Back

115   ADECS et.al. School Autonomy and Accountability; a Joint Statement, February 2004. Back

116   Education and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2003-04, Secondary Education: School Admissions, HC 58-I. Back

117   EVCM 22, para 12. Back

118   Q 161 Back

119   On this issue, see Kendall, J. The Voluntary Sector: comparative perspectives in the UK,2003, London: Routledge. Back

120   Q 405 Back

121   EVCM 8, section 4. Back

122   Q 172 Back

123   EVCM 49, para 2.2. Back

124   Q 192 Back

125   Hudson, B. et. al., National Evaluation of Notifications of Use of the Section 31 Partnership Flexibilities of the Health Act 1999,2002, Nuffield Institute for Health/National Primary Care Research & Development Centre. Back

126   EVCM 74. Back

127   Qq 383-385 Back

128   EVCM 60, para 4.2. Back

129   Response to Consultation on Draft Statutory Guidance on the Role and Responsibilities of the Director of Children's Services and Lead Member for Children's Services, ADECS et.al, 2005. Back

130   Q 187 Back

131   Q 407 Back

132   Department for Education and Skills, Every Child Matters: Change for Children, para 3.49, p 23. Back

133   EVCM 49, para 17. Back

134   EVCM 51, para 3.6 Back

135   EVCM 17, pap 3.3 Back

136   EVCM 49, para 15 Back

---

Prepared 5 April 2005