Outsourcing proposals require time and care
Derren Hayes
Monday, June 9, 2014
If the submissions to the government's outsourcing consultations gathered by CYP Now is an accurate barometer of the sector overall, then the jury is well and truly out as to whether local authorities should be allowed to contract out children's social care services.
What is clear from the submissions is that the sector has divided into three distinct camps: those for, those against and those undecided.
A number of those opposed to the proposals had already broken cover to voice their concerns, fearful that opening up children's services to market forces - including child protection - would lead to contracting decisions that placed too much emphasis on price and not enough on quality. Evidence from other parts of the public sector opened up to competition suggests their concerns are well founded.
Those in favour of the proposals, including some of the country's largest and most well established voluntary sector organisations, see the proposals as a mechanism for the radical change they believe is needed to truly transform not just the child protection system, but the very life chances of the vulnerable children whose fate is entrusted to it.
The success or otherwise of these proposals is likely to depend on whether those organisations currently wavering between the two camps can be convinced they are an opportunity to improve services rather than an attempt to introduce privitisation through the back door.
A number, including the Association of Directors of Children's Services, have drawn a line in the sand by stating that any future measures must prohibit profiteering from children's social work. It is tough to see how that will square with a government that views private sector competition as a key ingredient in driving up the standard of public services. Although the vast majority of private companies delivering good quality public services are not driven solely by profit, without a return on their investment, they simply won't get involved.
One solution could be for the government to start off by testing the approach with those authorities that are taking part in its Innovation Fund programme. The National Children's Bureau suggests this would "allow the implications of further rollout to be considered in more detail".
Testing out new models of management and delivery on those at the forefront of innovation is an approach with a long history in the public sector: the first hospital trusts were those deemed the most capable, before the powers were made more widely available.
Offering greater freedoms to the handful of authorities involved in the innovation programme or those children's social care services judged "outstanding" by Ofsted could be a way of testing the reforms on those most capable of making them work.
The government has much to deliberate over the summer. But it should heed the advice of The College of Social Work - a six-week consultation over such fundamental changes is insufficient. More time is needed to think through the implications of the proposals and, if they are pursued, the checks and balances required to ensure they deliver improvements.
