Children's sector split over merits of outsourcing social care proposals

4Children

National early years and youth service provider 4Children is “not sure” whether it supports the idea of outsourcing all children’s services, but suggests that allowing local authorities to discharge their social care functions will provide the opportunity for “a more holistic, family approach” to be developed.

However, it stresses that “quality and not profit” should be the drivers behind any decision to outsource.

“While the private sector certainly does have some of the skills in some of the key areas needed, the necessary safeguarding should be framed in a way that ensures that family outcomes are the prime driver of their work, as opposed to numbers/processes and simply reducing the cost to increase profit,” the response states.

In light of this, it wants any new regulations to be developed to ensure quality provision and added value are priorities before any consideration of cost or profit is made.
 
Action for Children

Action for Children suggests that the new freedoms could be used to drive economies of scale – and enable co-operation across local authority and agency boundaries.

“Some targeted services, such as therapeutic approaches to working with survivors of child sexual abuse, need to reach out to wider catchment areas instead of just one local authority, and could be provided under new delivery arrangements,” its response states.

“Child protection systems that join up across areas may be more effective in working with mobile families, where we know children are particularly at risk of abuse and neglect.”

It also believes the changes could give local authorities the opportunity to offer longer service contracts of five, or even 10, years to encourage stability in services. The charity also calls for the government to consider a range of safeguards to ensure standards are assured and unintended consequences are avoided. It wants only organisations with a history in child safeguarding to be considered as potential service providers.

“We believe that local authorities should only consider contracting out, if this was their decision, to organisations with a very strong track record in related work and safeguarding, and accompanied by a strong ethical and moral foundation.”
 
Association of Directors of Children’s Services

The ADCS does not come out in favour or opposition to the plans, but states that, should the proposals go ahead, there will need to be consultation on new regulations and guidance for local authorities and potential providers to ensure a “secure and transparent basis for protecting children” is in place.

The organisation makes a total of 10 points, all predicated on there being further consultation on the underpinning regulations.

These include services not being grounded on a “profit motive”, local authorities remaining accountable for the delivery of children’s social care, and any external providers being subject to inspection by Ofsted.

It also calls for local authorities to have the power to provide the social care services for children outside its area if chosen to do so by a host authority.

“It is the detail of these [points] that will need to specify the precise nature of accountability for decision making in respect of children and young people,” the response states.

“Without good regulation and guidance, there would be a risk to the prime consideration that a child or young person’s needs should always be the principal point in any decision taken about their future life.”

Barnardo’s

Although in favour of the proposals, Barnardo’s stresses the need for clear quality standards to be put in place.

“Standards for children’s social care will need to be statutory, transparent, enforceable and accountable for any provider taking on such functions,” it says.

It is also keen for local authorities to maintain accountability for child protection so they can fulfil their duty as a corporate parent.

“Great care will need to be taken to ensure that councils do not simply maintain strategic oversight of service delivery, but retain the ability to contribute to day-to-day decision making over matters such as care planning or court proceedings,” it adds.

Barnardo’s also warns against allowing organisations to make a profit from child protection.

“Introducing a profit motive to services which involve such sensitive and life-changing decisions as to remove a child from their parents could have significant implications,” it says.

“This includes the extent to which children’s best interests would remain at the heart of a service or system when the interests of shareholders become the principal concern.

“As a safeguard, the government should consider restricting the provision of children’s services so that a profit cannot be made, which would be consistent with adoption.”

Catch22

Public service provider Catch22 welcomes the proposals enthusiastically, stating that the changes will give greater flexibility to local authorities in planning how to deliver high-quality support.

“Rethinking public services presents an opportunity to collaborate and engage in new models of service delivery, at more economical transactional costs with a greater likelihood of achieving better outcomes for young people and families,” the response states.

Catch22 adds that its experience of working with local authorities to provide statutory services – including leaving care services and intensive family support – means there is a strong argument, “with the exception of very high-risk cases”, to examine alternative models for providing elements of children’s services outside of local authorities.

“In particular, this could allow for more innovation and for us to look at new ways of providing support that could work better, given the number of local authorities currently rated as poor in terms of the provision of children’s services,” the response adds.
 
Children England

Umbrella organisation Children England, which represents more than 100 children’s voluntary sector organisations, says none of its members support the proposed new freedoms for local authorities to outsource services in the form proposed in the consultation.

“There is simply no convincing case offered for why the extended freedom to delegate should be made available to all authorities (regardless of how few currently say they intend to use it) or why it should be made available at all in haste.

“On the contrary, our members have identified a range of profound risks in acting prematurely, without more rigorous prior consultation, evidence gathering, impact assessment, market analysis and procedural safeguards.”

It claims that existing powers available to the Department for Education would allow it to give the go-ahead for the delegation of functions by authorities on a case-by-case basis to enable a “carefully planned, monitored and evaluated” range of pilots for innovation in children’s social care work.

Children England go on to recommend that it should only be possible to delegate child protection services to not-for-profit organisations such as charities, mutuals, community interest companies or trusts.

National Children’s Bureau

The NCB suggests that initially only local authorities involved in the Department for Education’s £30m Innovation Fund, designed to provide examples of how children’s social care can be reformed, should be given the freedom to outsource all children’s services.

The organisation says this would “allow the implications of further roll out to be considered in more detail”. If trials proved successful, the government could commence new legislation with greater knowledge of how it will be “safely and effectively implemented”.

The NCB also raises concerns within the sector about the prospect of the full range of children’s social care functions being delivered on a “for profit” basis. It proposes that new regulations should only allow relevant care functions to be delegated to voluntary organisations, another local authority or public body.

“It is always vital that decisions about children’s wellbeing and care are made according to their best interests,” the response states.

“Managing potential conflicts of interest is a common part of professional life across all sectors. However, where there is any potential for a new factor, such as the profit motive, to override the best interests of the child in any decision, it is not unreasonable to expect caution to be exercised.”
 
The College of Social Work

The TCSW has called for the government consultation on the controversial plans to be extended, claiming the six-week consultation period was “deeply insufficient” to discuss and debate the range of issues at stake.

The response also highlights four main concerns about the proposals: the “weak” evidence base underpinning them; the impact on the local authority’s role as corporate parent; the lack of consultation with children and young people; and the implications of opening up all areas of children’s services to potential profit-making.

“The proposals raise serious and important questions about how services to some of the nation’s most vulnerable children and young people may be delivered in the future,” the response states.

“These need to be carefully considered in the light of the full spectrum of evidence.

“The limited consultation and accompanying regulations has not enabled the necessary public discussion that there should be about these matters.”

Unison

Unison argues that allowing councils to outsource children’s services, risks holding innovation back, rather than encouraging it.

“It allows local authorities to put their energies into the comfort zone of setting up commissioning and client functions, running tendering exercises and designing contract monitoring functions – rather than the difficult business of designing and resourcing services,” the response states.

Instead, Unison wants social workers to lead on developing solutions and receive support to do so.

“It is practitioners who will continue to be responsible for doing the job whoever employs them. Councils do not need to incur the additional costs of outsourcing, and going through a middle party to harness their social workers’ ideas,” the response adds.

The union also claims that the consultation was “flawed and inadequate”, and there is no evidence base for outsourcing social work, given that only one in six social work practice pilots, set up by the previous Labour government, are still operating.