Focus on market risks losing sight of the child
Derren Hayes
Monday, September 28, 2015
There has been the scent of revolution in the air recently. First, Jeremy Corbyn won a landslide Labour leadership election on an anti-austerity ticket that was the antithesis of New Labour (Analysis, p10). Then the man he hopes to one day replace in Downing Street, David Cameron, used a speech on the "smarter state" to outline the government's intention to pick up the pace of reform in children's services by handing "failing" children's social care services to third-party providers (Analysis, p8).
It would seem that the era of centre-ground politics is over and that both main parties are heading in different policy directions.
Having clearer water between the government and opposition will be good for public debate, but it increases the risk that public services will become a pawn in this ideological battle, with children's services on the front line.
The Prime Minister's assertion that the looked-after children's system needs to be shaken up by introducing new providers will understandably worry many.
Attempts last year to bring profit-making companies into the sector were thwarted by a broad public campaign, with the then coalition government backtracking so that only not-for-profit providers can deliver services. Emboldened by winning an outright majority at May's general election, the government looks set to try and push that agenda again. With deep cuts to local government budgets expected in the autumn Spending Review, the pressure on councils to look at alternative ways of delivering all children and young people's services will only intensify. With many non-statutory services already cut to the bone, the overriding challenge will be how they meet their statutory responsibilities, but at a lower cost and without compromising quality.
It is a tough circle to square, and experience from other public services that have gone through similar market-inspired reforms is that the quality of services can suffer.
There is no doubt that many schools, hospitals and prisons have thrived after being given greater freedoms over how to spend budgets and organise themselves, but there are numerous high-profile examples of others that have floundered, with the state sometimes having to step in to prevent meltdown.
In many cases, the problems have arisen because the third-party providers brought in to deliver services have not been able to make good on their promises.
The result of the government's appetite for reform of children's services will likely see increased fragmentation, with multiple providers contracted to deliver different parts of the system. Not only will local authorities be expected to be experts in managing these contracts, but retain responsibility for oversight of the entire system. It will be a significant challenge and introduce added risk.
However, change will also present an opportunity to innovate. That is no bad thing. Local authorities must be open to new ideas in how they organise and deliver children's social care, in much the same way youth services are devising their own new delivery models (Analysis, p12).
But in confronting this agenda, it must not lose sight of its raison d'etre: to meet the needs of the child.
derren.hayes@markallengroup.com