Conclusions and recommendations
Overarching issues
1. We
understand the drive toward rapid transformational change at policy
level and think that this is entirely legitimate given the urgency
of protecting children better and promoting their development
and well-being. However, a Government committed (rightly) to pursuing
evidence-based policy has a difficult balance to strike. It is
crucial that significant changes are thoroughly trialled and evaluated
before roll-out, especially in cases where doing things badly
risks worsening outcomes for vulnerable children and young people.
(Paragraph 20)
2. The balance between
local determination and action from the centre is likely to remain
a critical issue as Every Child Matters unfolds. Too much
central direction risks alienating those on the ground who know
a great deal about local circumstances; too little, on the other
hand, risks inconsistency and the appearance of gaps in services.
In respect of certain aspects of the reforms, our evidence suggests
that more central responsibility and direction may be needed than
is currently the case. (Paragraph 23)
Involving children, young people and parents
3. We
are concerned that significant changes are being made to the Sure
Start programme when evidence about the effectiveness of the current
system is only just beginning to emerge. This relates back to
our wider point about the inherent difficulties of pursuing transformative
and rapid change while at the same time maintaining a commitment
to evidence-based policy. (Paragraph 39)
Children's Commissioner for England
4. We
have yet to be convinced that a Children's Commissioner role primarily
defined in terms of promoting children's views, will be as effective
in practice as one focused on promoting and protecting children's
rights in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child. (Paragraph 46)
5. We are concerned
that the definition of the role of the Children's Commissioner
for England as one primarily framed in terms of promoting children's
views and concerns, rather than promoting and safeguarding rights,
may directly and negatively affect the ability of the Commissioner
to achieve improved outcomes for children and young people. (Paragraph
48)
6. We welcome the
Minister's assurance that the circumstances in which the Secretary
of State will direct the Commissioner will be limited to very
serious or tragic cases that require a national inquiry. We also
welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State will under no
circumstances prevent an inquiry being conducted. However, further
clarification of the limits of directive powers should be made
through regulation if necessary. Moreover, if there is no intention
to ever prevent the Commissioner from conducting a particular
inquiry, we fail to see the purpose of a duty to consult prior
to launching an investigation. It is conceivable that future Secretaries
of State may not take the same view, and we believe the Government
should consider modifying this part of the Act. (Paragraph 52)
7. It should be made
clear at the earliest possible opportunity what level of funding
will be available for the operation of the Commissioner's office
and whether additional resources will be provided if the Secretary
of State instructs the Commissioner to conduct a major inquiry
which is likely to tie up large amounts of resources and personnel
time—or whether it is expected that those costs will be
met out of current allocations. (Paragraph 53)
8. We are reassured
to hear the Minister's assessment of her likely working relationship
with the Children's Commissioner for England as one that was likely
to be uncomfortable at times—in our view, anything less
would be profoundly worrying, and as a Committee, we will look
for evidence that the relationship between the Children's Commissioner
and Ministers is developing in an appropriate way. (Paragraph
54)
9. We are pleased
that the three existing Commissioners are committed to working
with the Commissioner for England to resolve any problems concerning
jurisdiction. Their suggestion that a memorandum of understanding
should be drawn up at the earliest possible convenience seems
a productive way forward, and is one possible way to broach issues
of jurisdiction. This would also provide an opportunity to capitalise
on the valuable experience of the three existing Commissioners—which
they are extremely keen to share with the appointee for England.
(Paragraph 57)
10. We suggest that
a fully independent review of the role and remit of the Children's
Commissioner for England should be commissioned within three years
of appointment. This should include analysis of the effectiveness
of the Commissioner post, with particular reference to the impact
of the statutory framework. Amendments to statute should be pursued
if the review indicates that the Children's Commissioner is unduly
constrained by the existing legal framework. (Paragraph 59)
11. To preserve independence
of the Children's Commissioner for England, there needs to be
a strong link between the Commissioner and Parliament. By custom
and practice Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports
directly to Parliament through this Committee and we envisage
a similar relationship with the Children's Commissioner for England.
(Paragraph 60)
Integrated services at the frontline
12. The
DfES told us that they would shortly launch a prospectus on Extended
Schools. Where conversion to an Extended School is being considered,
we recommend that the prospectus should stress the benefits of
planning with local partners, including voluntary services, who
often have wide experience of engaging vulnerable groups, to ensure
local needs are met. (Paragraph 72)
Workforce development and training needs
13. A
toolkit on multi-agency working is scheduled to be released in
April 2005—and
we will be interested to see what prominence is given to challenges
around the reconfiguring of professional identities and responsibilities
that working in a multi-agency team is likely to present. (Paragraph
78)
14. The introduction
of an integrated inspection framework offers a further opportunity
to emphasise the importance of integrated working at the front
line, and we hope the final guidance on integrated inspection
later this year will focus in part on this issue. (Paragraph 82)
15. We are not convinced
that workforce training needs for all in-service staff are likely
to be given the priority across the board at the local level that
they merit and which the Government anticipates. While we appreciate
that there are significant resources already invested in the training
of children's professionals in some sectors, we are particularly
concerned about the priority which will be attached to Every
Child Matters-related workforce development for staff in other
sectors, and particularly the health services. (Paragraph 89)
16. Department of
Health officials told us that there was no ring-fenced money at
departmental level for training . With little or no extra resources
identified for the implementation of Every Child Matters
in general, we are concerned that with many pressures on primary
care trusts and other budgets, crucial Every Child Matters-related
training will not be given the priority it deserves. (Paragraph
90)
17. We would urge
that the presumption against an entitlement to training—with
a pooled fund at interdepartmental level to support it—is
reconsidered. Such a move would send out clear signals to local
areas that training and workforce development were being given
a high priority, and would also provide vital initial resources
to address some of the staff development and training needs arising
from the implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda.
(Paragraph 92)
Child indexes
18. In
the past, this committee has been concerned that crucial policy
decisions are sometimes taken without sufficient research or evaluation
of existing practice. In this case, the fundamental decision to
go ahead with child indexes appears to have been taken before
the activities of the Information Sharing and Assessment Trailblazers
could be fully analysed. (Paragraph 112)
19. We are not convinced
that sufficient evidence currently exists to justify the commissioning
of the proposed IT-based child indexes. We have significant reservations
about whether this will represent the best use of resources and
very significant concerns about critical issues such as security,
confidentiality and access arrangements. We are concerned in particular
that the current research evidence does not conclusively demonstrate
that expenditure in this area is the best way of improving outcomes
for children. (Paragraph 113)
20. We welcome the
news that further evaluative work on the impact of indexes in
Trailblazer areas is now being planned, and that the results of
this will be used to inform the business case for implementation.
This research should analyse the comparative benefit of the indexes
as a means of improving outcomes and other ways of improving information-sharing
within and between professionals. (Paragraph 114)
Common Assessment Framework
21. It
is essential that the design and implementation of the Common
Assessment Framework takes place at a pace that allows informed
development. The commitment to further testing and assessment
before national rollout is therefore extremely welcome. While
it is sensible that the assessments will examine the impacts of
Common Assessment Framework on services, we would also hope that
they take a broader view and examine the extent to which the Common
Assessment Framework is leading to improved outcomes for children,
young people and families. (Paragraph 126)
Pacing change
22. 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. (Paragraph 131)
Integrated inspection
23. 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. (Paragraph 140)
24. 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. (Paragraph
143)
25. 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. (Paragraph 150)
26. 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. (Paragraph
162)
27. 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. (Paragraph 169)
Director of Children's Services
28. 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. (Paragraph
176)
Funding: overall costs of reform
29. We
think—and
our concern is amplified by what witnesses have told us—that
the additional resources needed to 'bridge' the transition from
'fire fighting' to more effective preventive, universally accessible
services are unlikely to be found through 'efficiency savings'
generated by services working in a more 'joined-up' way. (Paragraph
186)
30. The
evidence we have seen has not convinced us that the financial
implications of the Every Child Matters programme of reform
have been properly assessed or comprehensively modelled, and it
is therefore not clear on what basis the Government is able to
assume that Every Child Matters will be largely self-financing.
We recognise and welcome
the significant extra resources for primary school capital projects,
announced in Budget 2005 which, it is intended, will be used partly
to support the Every Child Matters agenda. However, we
are still unclear as
to whether capital building, adaptation or maintenance costs associated
with the roll-out of Extended Schools and Sure Start Children's
Centres have been properly modelled. (Paragraph 188)
31. We are doubtful
that a policy as ambitious as Every Child Matters can be
funded in the main from existing budgets. Better deployment of
existing resources is a laudable aim, but we believe the Government
needs to lead from the top on this issue and build up an evidence
base which demonstrates how this can be achieved in practice.
(Paragraph 189)
32. Our evidence demonstrates
that at the very least, in respect of some specific areas of policy
there is a strong case for identifying additional funds for implementation,
over and above those which have already been put aside. These
areas include, but are not limited to, workforce development and
the setup and maintenance of Children's Trusts. The Government
should therefore consider committing additional dedicated resources—cross-departmentally
and ring-fenced if appropriate—to enable successful implementation
of Every Child Matters. (Paragraph 190)
DfES restructuring
33. We
are not convinced that the rollout of Every Child Matters
will be successfully implemented in the context of significant
job cuts and restructuring at the DfES and the Children, Young
People and Families Directorate in particular. While we appreciate
that a more 'strategic' department (and directorate) potentially
frees up money for front line services, we are not convinced that
this can be achieved at the same time as a major programme of
change. Clarification on the kinds of modelling and analysis which
have been carried out to demonstrate that the two agendas are
complementary is required. (Paragraph 197)
Intra-departmental policy
34. We
accept that there is a fundamental convergence between the standards
and the inclusion agendas. However, what concerns us is that the
drivers in the system - including inspection and 'league tables',
to give two examples—may
not be sufficiently strong to encourage schools to see the two
agendas as complementary. (Paragraph 198)
Interdepartmental policy
35. We
do not think that the challenges involved in dealing with children
and young people in custody have been properly addressed by the
Every Child Matters reforms. The youth justice system is
not sufficiently distinct from the adult criminal justice system
and is too separate from the mainstream children's legislation
and services. (Paragraph 205)
36. We heard evidence
that in some cases children's outcomes are secondary to immigration
outcomes. We accept that there are sincere attempts to look after
children's welfare within the immigration system, but we are concerned
that some of the fundamental policy decisions - such as detention
of asylum-seeking children - may make the achievement of the five
outcomes for these children much more difficult. (Paragraph 208).
| 
