2 Social work services
5. The Bill will allow local authorities to contract
out responsibility for all or part of services for young people
to "a provider of social work services", which will
be a body corporate, but which cannot be a local authority.[6]
On this proposal, NCH told the Committee:
"It is important to recognise that the proposal
for independent Social Care Practices (SCP) stems from a desire
to tackle many of the perceived weaknesses that the current social
work system has when it comes to placing the needs of the child
at the centre of all that it does […].
While there may be potential
benefits of SCPs, we need to acknowledge that change does not
always bring better outcomes. We share many of the same concerns
as the LGA regarding the development of SCPs. For example, SCPs
will restrict a local authority's flexibility in allocating resources
and introduces yet another layer of bureaucracy to the system.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that SCPs will resolve the issues
of recruiting and retaining social workers, or why this model
is better than empowering foster carers or key workers in children's
homes who are already much closer to the children and young people."
[7]
The London Borough of Sutton expressed views on similar
lines.[8]
6. The Minister told us that the provisions in the
Bill were designed to allow arrangements to be piloted over the
next five years, aiming to see if providers of social work services
would introduce smaller flexible teams akin to GP practices bringing
greater continuity of personnel in providing services to children:[9]
"[…] we thought that it was right to
allow in the pilot provision by private sector providers to see
if that gave any new energy to the pilot scheme. There is £6
million over the next five years. The pilots will run for two
years and then will continue to run while they are evaluated.
The evaluation will look very much into the question of whether
they have provided a better service and whether they are a sustainable
model that could be more generally extended to other local authorities."[10]
7. The Minister also mentioned that there were other
pilots operating that did not need legislation:
"These involve local authorities looking
at new ways of working and remodelling social work teams within
the structure that is there at present. We are hoping to have
a clearer picture in a few years' time that may well mean that
in 10 years we will have a much more diverse set of models of
how social workers work with children and young people."[11]
8. We asked him about whether small social care providers
would have the capacity to work in an appropriately integrated
way with criminal justice, health, social care and education services.
He told us:
"I recognise the point, which has been made
during the development of these proposals. That is the very reason
for running a pilot in six local authorities […] our hope
is that if the pilots work, it will be overcome by a reduction
in the complexity of the social care work force, by working within
a small team with a bit more flexibility and independence, by
the ability to do different, out-of-hours work, and by sharing
practice among a small team. That may well overcome the problem,
and that is why we are piloting the scheme."[12]
9. A concern that was put to us in evidence was that
the service from some private care providers might be less reliable
for the long term than other provision. The Adolescent and Children's
Trust (TACT) told us:
"While TACT supports the general principle
of commissioning social work practices, we have specific concerns
over the role of Private Equity firms' involvement in this sector.
Unlike charities, social enterprises and companies limited under
certain guarantees, private equity firms have a single overriding
objective to maximise financial returns for their backers. As
an ethos, we find this to be incongruous in the child social care
sector, yet private equity firms have the resources to operate
and grow in a market far more rapidly than their competitors.
Last year saw the collapse of the private equity run children's
residential and educational provider, Sedgemoor, a situation that
could be easily replicated in commissioned social work practices
to the great detriment of the children and young people dependent
on their care and professional diligence."[13]
10. We asked the Minister whether the Bill provided
safeguards against a private provider withdrawing provision at
very short notice. He told us:
"[…] we are strengthening the inspection
regime to make sure that there is a transition in relation to
pulling the plug on a home in that way. Within the Bill itself,
there is no particular clause in relation to that, but what we
are broadly doing is strengthening the level of inspection for
care homes that are either in the private sector or council care
homes."[14]
11. When challenged on whether it was the role of
the inspection regime to guard against these problems, the Minister
said that:
"Children's homes are regulated by Her Majesty's
Chief Inspector. They are supposed to provide a written application
for cancellation of their registration to the inspectorate, and
they should give at least three months' notice of the proposed
date of closure. Obviously, that is a matter that we have to look
at very closely now with Ofsted to see whether we can learn lessons
to ensure that people are not left high and dry in the way they
were in [the Sedgemoor] case. That work is in progress."[15]
12. We welcome the provision in the Bill on piloting
social work practices. Care needs to be taken, however, to ensure
that the pilots provide sufficient information to enable the Department
to judge whether this is an initiative that could be introduced
more widely. Our main concern is that continuity and stability
of service should be maintained regardless of who is the provider.
The architect of the proposal, Professor Julian Le Grand of the
LSE, acknowledges that it is breaking new ground:
"A lot of people object, some people approve,
although there's actually very little evidence either way […].
But we felt there was enough theory and practice to suggest this
was an experiment worth trying."[16]
The pilots need to fill the evidence gap on social
work practices. It is vital that they are properly evaluated and
that they are not rolled out unless there is clear evidence that
they will provide the essential continuity and stability for looked-after
children.
13. On a related issue, we do not see inspection
as the answer to concerns about services being withdrawn at short
notice by a private provider, as in the case of the Sedgemoor
children's homes. We note the Minister's point about Ofsted being
the registration authority for homes, but in that case and with
the proposed social work practices, it seems to us that contract
terms or some other form of regulation would be more appropriate
ways of controlling these problems. Throughout our evidence, continuity
and stability for looked-after children are emphasised as key,
and therefore some sort of safety net is needed.
6 Clauses 1 to 6. Back
7
Ev 59 Back
8
Ev 50 Back
9
Q 11 Back
10
ibid Back
11
ibid Back
12
Q 13 Back
13
Ev 19, para 5 Back
14
Q 9 Back
15
Q 10 Back
16
Children & Young People Now, 5-11 March 2008,p 15,
The grand agitator. Back
|
