The local government white paper outlines plans to scrap the Joint Area Review (JAR) in March 2009. It will be replaced with a lighter-touch regime and fewer automatic inspections for high-performing authorities.

YES: JOHN FREEMAN, director of children's services, Dudley Council - TheJoint Area Review process has been expensive in time and effort for theinspectorates and local authorities. One complaint is that evidence froma few children is extrapolated to a whole area. The change to alighter-touch regime is welcomed. The new arrangements should focus onthe validation of the area's self-assessment, and a review of progressof the children and young people's strategic plan. Fieldwork need onlythen be undertaken where there are causes for concern.

YES: Andrew Cozens, strategic adviser, Improvement and DevelopmentAgency - The JAR framework was built when education and social serviceswere coming together and there was a need to form a judgment about theextent to which councils were focusing on the Every Child Mattersoutcomes. Any judgment about improving outcomes for children is a matterfor the whole council, public and other services. It needs to be moresophisticated in terms of the evidence of improved outcomes, and notsimply counting inputs or measuring outputs.

NO: John Chowcat, general secretary, Association of Professionals inEducation and Children's Trusts - The JAR was meant to be the mainvehicle for driving Every Child Matters forward and was meant to producea comprehensive picture of services in every area. With a lighter-touchsystem that becomes harder. At the moment we look at the full range ofservices. Good models of emerging practice could be missed under the newsystem, with a focus on underperforming areas. More universal systemslook at good practice and spread it.

YES: Liz Nicholson, corporate director for children's services,Shropshire Council - We have a top score for our Annual PerformanceAssessment, so to spend inspector time in areas already seen as highperforming doesn't help in terms of improved performance. If they focuson a smaller area, the report must celebrate the rest of the success -if I was in an area with difficulties I would expect a review of thewhole organisation. But why come into high-performing authorities andlook at things when everybody knows it will be seen as positive?