News

David Behan explains the Association of Directors of Social Services’ view that area child protection committees are ready to take on an enhanced role, tied in to national standards.

At their best, ACPCs are responsible for a great deal of innovative work, and can function as learning organisations, ensuring the growth and development of their members. However, they also raise a number of complex issues.

Since ACPCs were introduced, the range of organisations delivering services to children has multiplied, and this fragmentation has caused a real challenge in developing integrated multi-agency working as opposed to inter-agency working. New co-ordination partnerships such as the crime and disorder reduction partnership and local strategic partnerships have been developed. New requirements to produce plans and strategies have been introduced such as the community strategy. All of these have some direct relationship to the protection of children and the promotion of their welfare.  

Consequently, the ACPC needs to raise questions about its focus and its role. Should ACPCs focus on all children, vulnerable children, children in need or children in need of protection? The role and remit of an ACPC should focus on children in need of protection. However, ACPCs should embrace the wider children’s agenda through links to children’s strategic partnerships.

Clarity about the role of ACPCs is also essential to secure clarity about the membership. The development of new organisations, and the adaptation of others, has had implications for the membership of ACPCs.

First, it has contributed to a high turnover of members of ACPCs, which affects the continuity of work. Second, because of the demands within their own organisations and from other partnerships, there is a tendency for the most senior managers to delegate attendance at ACPCs.

Third, the size of ACPCs has grown to ensure that there is an appropriate representation of all agencies operating in a local area. And fourth, the competing demands on the individuals who attend ACPCs from within their own agencies are immense. Consequently their capacity to undertake specific work as part of the ACPC work plan is often restricted.

The ACPCs do not have any executive authority. What authority they have comes from their member agencies and from the seniority of representatives who attend. Consequently, their authority derives from an ability to influence organisations in the network.

ACPCs are also formally accountable for their work only to the main constituent agencies. While some areas of accountability are clear, others are less so, particularly if there are issues of conflict or disagreement. The Association of Directors of Social Services in its evidence to the Victoria Climbié Inquiry has argued that ACPCs should become statutory bodies. This would ensure greater ownership and commitment from all the partner agencies. A higher profile for the work of the ACPC would mean that the input of each agency towards the common goals would be more visible. Statutory status would also demonstrate that this vital area of work is a priority for the government.

ACPCs have operated successfully as the mechanism for co-ordinating local policy and strategy in safeguarding children, and the ADSS is seeking to encourage ACPCs to take on an enhanced role. In order to promote clarity and consistency, the ADSS is recommending that all ACPCs should operate within a context of national standards. These would inform commonly agreed outcomes with linked performance indicators, with an increased focus on setting outcome targets. The responsibility for delivery should stay with each agency where the budgets are held and where services are provided.

The ACPC will need to link to all other arrangements between agencies for planning and providing services. The ACPC should report on its performance and local agencies to the governance arrangements of those agencies, to the chief officer or chief executive, to elected members and to board members of health bodies. The overview and scrutiny function should be a vehicle for reporting on performance. Reports should also be made to key partnerships such as the local strategic partnerships and the crime and disorder reduction partnership.

The representation on ACPCs should be at the most senior level, with representatives being held accountable for the performance of their agency for achieving nationally set outcome targets.  

ACPCs are only one part of the system for protecting children and families. Their role should be enhanced to provide leadership, co-ordination and performance management of local arrangements for protecting children. This will be best achieved through ACPCs becoming statutory bodies.

David Behan is director of social services for Greenwich and senior vice president of the Association of Directors of Social Services.