I hope your article marking the 100th joint review report ("One heavy load", 15 November) will spark a debate about the role they have played in shaping social services at the start of the 21st century. There is no doubt that they have been agents for change, but not necessarily for the good.
The arrival of the joint review team is akin to a visit from the Spanish inquisition with senior managers and councillors keenly aware that they must show a commitment to shaping the future as envisaged by the reviewers. Resistance is viewed as further evidence of inability or unwillingness to change. The language of review reports has become the "new speak" of senior managers who are keenly aware that denunciation by the review team can adversely effect their careers.
I believe that a bias against the public sector lies at the heart of many review reports. Reports have been scathing of councils judged not to have moved quickly enough to "outsource" or privatise key services. They have also in some cases criticised the conditions of service enjoyed by relatively poorly paid workers such as home carers as over-generous and encouraged councils to run down their in-house provision in favour of cheaper private providers. Nationally there is a growing crisis in home care, caused chiefly by the relentless pressure to drive down costs at the expense of quality.
If the government continues to view the work of the joint reviews as the engine of change in delivering improved social services it will be in deep trouble.
Donal Mullally
Wakefield
NSPCC is doing more
The NSPCC is providing greater protection for children at risk of harm not less (Editorial comment, 22 November). The Full Stop campaign has enabled us to develop many more projects, employ more staff and help more vulnerable children than ever before.
After a period of rapid growth and development we have reviewed all our services to ensure we are focusing our resources effectively. We would be rightly criticised if we did not manage the allocation of voluntary donations and statutory funding properly. We are not withdrawing from any local authority. We are not reducing our spending. We will employ more staff not less.
We gave notice that we were doing a review. In those few cases where we are closing a centre we are not necessarily closing all of the service. All this will be carefully managed locally. We wish to proceed on the basis of strong local partnerships to which we can give secure commitment. This is the whole purpose of the alignment process.
Our national services have been significantly enhanced. We now have a group of specialist investigation services. The 24-hour child protection helpline is available to anyone concerned about a child across the UK. It provides services in Asian languages (recently launched), Welsh and for those with hearing impairment, as well as by e-mail. The child protection in sport unit (also recently launched) ensures, through our partnership with Sport England, that children are safeguarded in sport. Such protection was not there before.
Our role is to offer specialist expertise and services to statutory agencies as part of a multi-agency system to protect children from abuse and support vulnerable children and families. Our services have been aligned so that they can make the most useful contribution at those points of the system where they are most needed and where we can demonstrate innovative, different approaches. Vulnerable children are not "paying the price" of our independence. They are reaping the rewards of it.
Mary Marsh
Director and chief executive
NSPCC
Confused advocacy
There is a fundamental problem of conflict of interest, actual or perceived, when a social worker employed by a statutory service provider acts as an advocate (Welfare Rights, 8 November).
While a social worker can practise advocacy, it must be recognised that, for example, the arrangement of services, child protection duties, or applying for compulsory hospitalisation prevent them from being truly independent. This failure to recognise the need for independence is exemplified in your writer's comments about the advocate "acting in the best interests" of the client.
Generally, except in situations where the client lacks capacity to communicate their wishes, the advocate's role is to represent and advocate clients' own views, whether or not they are perceived as in their "best interests".
At a time when joint commissioning and the approach of care trusts are merging health and social care, there is even greater need for the recognition of independent advocacy providers to fill this role properly.
Statutory services should be facilitating the availability of independent advocates rather than promoting their own limited role in advocacy.
Audrey Ludwig
Advocacy legal adviser, Mind
Jonathan Coe
Director, Westminster Mental Health Advocacy Project.
Terry Simpson
Co-ordinator, United Kingdom Advocacy Network
All the above are members of the Mental Health Alliance Advocacy Group
Not such hot advice
I hope that Edith, the case study in your article on Care Direct ("Welfare hotline", 15 November) was not in fact advised by social services that she may be entitled to invalid care allowance.
Edith would not be entitled to ICA for two reasons. Firstly, because she is 80 and current claimants must be under 65 and secondly, because the benefit can only be claimed by carers, not the person they care for.
Thankfully, the Department for Work and Pensions is making two significant changes to ICA. The name will also be changed to carer's allowance, which will hopefully help to clear up confusion about whose benefit this is.
Diana Whitworth
Chief executive
Carers Uk
