Outsourcing children’s services just isn’t realistic
Suffolk might think it can outsource all its services, but the provision of children’s social services needs the kind of monitoring which comes from the State
So Suffolk county council’s “new strategic direction” is to outsource nearly all of its services, including child protection and those provided to children and families. Wrapped up in the language of the new politics the ambitions are, well, ambitious.
The changes will support and strengthen local democracy, services will become more responsive and cost effective placed in the safe hands of individuals and communities. Communities will become resilient and active in looking after their own needs. They will have control over their lives and build the “big society”. Hey presto, just like that. In Suffolk there are to be 21st century councillors. Goodness, they have a lot of divesting, innovating and leading to do.
Now, I have to confess that I’m a bit of a fan of certain aspects of the big society idea. I have been a fierce critic of the centrism of the last two decades, which has wrought havoc in our children’s services, with its obsession with command and control, targets and terror, shame and blame. A bit of autonomy and creative space to innovate, take charge of and enjoy the intrinsic rewards of one’s work would not go amiss and is likely to lead to safer organisations and safer children and families. But, wholesale outsourcing of what is resolutely a state function, the protection of children and compulsory interference in intimate family life – it needs a hefty dose of caution does it not? Knocking on doors in the dark to enquire about a child’s bruises is not intuitively a great business opportunity.
Having read Suffolk’s outsourcing document, it must be said that rumours of the death of the East Anglian state may be somewhat exaggerated. For example, in relation to what they term “personal services”, including children’s social care, the document states, “because of the consequences of these services failing, the Council will continue to have the statutory duty to ensure the quality of the provision”. Now there’s the rub. Since the accountability cannot be shed, how will they “ensure the quality of provision”? With regulation, inspection, performance management, short-term renewable contracts with key, measurable “deliverables” one assumes. All of which will have to be carried out by the state.
One can see certain aspects of provision being transferred to social enterprises of one sort or another. Indeed the document gives a number of very convincing examples, but this will also create new service boundaries which busy professionals and confused families will have to negotiate – more distracting pre-occupations with next year’s contract, more gateways, more barriers and more potential for buck passing. Suffolk employs social workers now. These social workers will need to be re-employed by someone as there are not enough to go round as it is. It is hard to see how this can be liberating for the communities, the professionals, or indeed the 21st century councillors themselves.
The track record of councils in procuring services is hardly unblemished. The now notorious Integrated Children’s System which relied on local procurement of “compliant” IT packages, illustrates the woeful knowledge base of those charged with the commissioning of this very expensive and committing piece of kit. Too many authorities bought systems which cannot be changed without huge expense and which tie them into lengthy contracts with unhelpful providers. The ICS was a noxious concoction of top down diktat and local bumbling, for sure, but it is a cautionary tale.
The problem with the Suffolk document is that it is paradoxically very controlling – hell bent on “divesting” services and finding new “divestment vehicles” it heralds a new lexicon, a new form of magical thinking, a new hubris. Haven’t we had enough of hubris? If social enterprises are to flourish and settle into the roles that they can usefully perform they cannot do it with the 21st century councillors holding up a stop watch and issuing starters orders. They have to start on their own – they need a more fertile environment than we’ve seen of late and they can’t be forced. There are some things the State must do for itself and take responsibility – deprivation of liberty is one of them. That is democracy.
Sue White, professor of social work at the University of Birmingham
