Care Review contract sparks concerns over ‘no extra funding’ for reforms
Fiona Simpson
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Concerns have been raised over the scope of the Independent Review of Children's Social Care after it emerged that no additional funding for implementing the recommendations has been pledged.
Publication of details of the £140,000 contract with review chair Josh MacAlister have also led to sector leaders raising concerns over the independence of the “once-in-a-generation” review.
It shows there is contractual involvement of “civil servants from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)” and that MacAlister must report early findings to the Department for Education to “inform the department’s bid at the next Spending Review”.
A heavily redacted version of the 35-page document was published on the government’s “Contract Finder” portal earlier this month in which information about the scope of the reviews’ work had been removed.
However, website Bidstats has since published a largely unredacted version which reveals controversial clauses agreed to by MacAlister.
The contract states that “recommendations must be affordable to HMG (Her Majesty’s Government)", adding that "DfE cannot assume any additional funding from the Exchequer to meet the recommendations”.
It adds that in areas where the review’s recommendations are already supported by DfE spending, for example in improving the performance of local authorities, MacAlister’s team should “include looking at how that money is spent, and the potential for reform”.
Any requests for new funding should “be offset by savings across national and/or local public services (including local government children’s social care)”, it adds.
However, recent research by the National Audit Office found that 94 per cent of councils expect to cut spending next year to meet legal duties to balance their budgets.
The contract also states that “MHCLG officials must be involved throughout the review to support the modelling of any direct and indirect costs of potential recommendations to LAs”.
“Before any recommendations are implemented, DfE would need to agree them and their funding mechanism with MHCLG and the Treasury” noting the cost-saving parameters, it adds.
It also obliges MacAlister and the review panel to submit an internal report to DfE sharing “early findings” of the review in order to “inform the department’s bid at the next Spending Review”.
Carolyne Willow, director of children’s rights charity Article 39, said: “Hopes have been raised that this review will bring about huge changes in children’s social care, with the views and experiences of children and families centre-stage. It is inconceivable that ideas and proposals would not require public funds, just as any once-in-a-generation review of the NHS or education would inevitably point towards additional resources."
Further concerns have been raised over elements of the contract which relate to skill sets deemed necessary for those on the review panel including representatives from What Works for Children’s Social Care - which was commissioned by DfE in 2016 - and Social Finance, a not-for-profit social impact organisation.
It states that “the supporting panel must include the following skill sets: financial background and experience in cost control; local government delivery experience”.
Willow raised concerns over the fact that “there is no requirement to give positions of influence to those with direct, personal experience of children’s social care services”.
Critics have also highlighted that the contract calls on MacAlister not to “embarrass the department” or “diminish the trust that the public places in the department”.
Ray Jones, social worker and emeritus professor of social work at Kingston University, said: “How awful that the contract signed for this review makes explicit there should be no seeking of additional longer term government funding for children’s care and with the Treasury to watch over the review. It bakes in the cuts of the past 10 years.
“And how awful that the contract which has been signed states that there must be nothing in the review which embarrasses the Department for Education. So much for independence but also, as the DfE sought to hide this information, for integrity.”
Jonathan Stanley, manager of the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care, added: “This is not the Care Review we need, the contract shows it is demonstrably not independent.
“This is not the role and task of the lead reviewer we need. The lead reviewer must, now, assert the independence of the role and review.
“This is a time to expand services to meet emerging need arising from our current economic, social and health emergency.”
The contract has been agreed for one year with the option to extend for a further 12 months.
The DfE described the contract as “standard practice for a review of this nature”.
In a comprehensive Twitter thread MacAlister moved to answer concerns which implies that the involvement of other departments is “part of a big round robin process”.
Some questions yesterday about the contract between myself and government to deliver the independent review of children’s social care. Here’s a thread with some background and answers to a few questions 👇
— Josh MacAlister (@JoshMacAlister) March 18, 2021
He said: “The review recommendations could have implications for MHCLG, DfE, DHSC, MoJ, HO etc. It’s positive that these departments, alongside No10 and Cabinet Office, are engaged.”
He also disputes claims the contract means the review can not secure funding, saying: “I can recommend new funding and that I’d need to make a case for it
“The biggest cost of children's social care failing is the human cost paid by children and families. Beyond the £10bn+ spent within the children’s social care system there are £bns more spent as a result of poor outcomes.
“The review therefore needs to show the whole cost to the country when we fail children and young people and show how money can be better spent getting things right for children and families.”
The concerns come amid the publication of the review’s Plans for Engagement following the first meeting of MacAlister’s Experts by Experience panel.
The plans include a range of face-to-face interviews, workshops and roadshow events held around the country and online surveys.
The panel has also revealed plans for events led by those with care experience and a partnership with the NSPCC and Childline to provide focussed support to those helping out with the review who may be affected by sharing their experiences.
A further partnership has been launched with Coram’s A National Voice which is funded by the Segelman Trust to “strengthen the national children in care council and create more opportunities for children in care and care leavers to participate in meaningful engagement and campaigning at a local and national level”.
A National Voice will lead a programme of work from March, working with local authorities to engage their Children in Care Councils in the review.
For more information on the Care Review’s Plan for Engagement including how to get involved click here.
