News

If the familiar is reassuring, local government leaders and social services directors are probably feeling relaxed about the children's green paper proposals leaked to Community Care last week, given their resemblance to many of their own ideas (news, page 6, 17 July).

The green paper and Serving Children Well, published by the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and the Association of Directors of Social Services last summer, build on the government's earlier plans for the development of children's strategic partnership boards.


Both suggest that these partnership boards should be placed on a statutory footing and should work with local multi-agency commissioning and delivery units - such as children's trusts.

And both suggest a single unified assessment system, backed by new information-sharing systems, that would allow different professionals working with children to share a common approach to assessing and recording need.

But there are also some noticeable differences. While the LGA, NHS Confederation and ADSS argue that "central to the new vision is the involvement of children in the process and planning of services", there is no mention of child or parent involvement in the 30-page draft version of the government's response to the Victoria Climbi' Inquiry report and the joint chief inspectors' Safeguarding Children report.

In addition, while the NHS and local government leaders favour the development of unified plans for workforce planning and recruitment developed on a local basis, the leaked government document, which will be published as an annex to the children's green paper, says the paper will propose "a comprehensive pay and workforce strategy" and a possible move to multi-year pay agreements across the whole children's practice workforce.

The green paper is also expected to propose the introduction of modular qualifications to allow those working with children to move between jobs more easily, and the phasing out of the child protection register once the new information-sharing and tracking system - currently known as the identification, referral and tracking (IRT) system - is up to speed.

There is, however, no reference to a ministerial children and families board or a national agency for children and families as recommended by inquiry chairperson Lord Laming in his report published in January - although the government has recently announced plans for a children's commissioner and created the new post of minister for children and young people.

While there is always the chance that the draft annex document does not paint the whole picture or that some details could change between now and the green paper's much-delayed publication in the autumn, it has nonetheless caused some in the sector to warn of potential problems around certain aspects of a vision for children's services that has otherwise been broadly welcomed.

Highlighting one such fear, director of the British Association of Social Workers Ian Johnston says: "Basw would be concerned about people's rights in this new process when it comes to sharing information. There is nothing worse for parents than thinking people are talking behind your back. For families that are already under the microscope and are anti-authority, the nature of these relationships could be crucial in perhaps reinforcing their alienation rather than tackling their concerns."

He also believes there are many issues in terms of values and confidentiality. "I would share information with one teacher but not with another because I am not convinced that some teachers would use it properly, for example information about a mum being on a methadone programme."

Moving on to the training proposals, Johnston adds: "The idea of a modular qualification for professionals working with children is an attractive way of looking at new kinds of more flexible services and different kinds of career opportunities for people.

"But there is a certain danger that what the government is saying is that there is a single way of dealing with children and it is not acknowledging that different professions do different jobs."

Arthur Keefe, chairperson of social care training body Topss England, also has concerns about the logic behind the proposals for modular qualifications: "Most of the work around child protection is undertaken by social workers. And social workers are about to embark on a new three-year degree which includes social work training in child protection. That is not the model being described here.

"I can see how the NVQ model used in early years for example lends itself very well to this. But what does it mean for people about to embark on a social work degree? Have people thought through the implications for social work training?"


Meanwhile, Topss England's head of policy development and implementation, Richard Banks, welcomes the drive towards common occupational standards, but warns the government against treating the issue too simplistically.

"You don't get everybody understanding the same thing by getting them all sat in the same classroom. It has to be more sophisticated than that. The shared occupational standards have got to be a component of a shared approach to the service being provided to the children and their families."

On the question of the potential demise of the child protection register, opinion is divided. Johnston says Basw would be "quite pleased" if it was gradually phased out because, although it makes sure the fact that some children are significantly at risk is highlighted, by the same token it means that other children who are not on the register do not always get the protection they require.

But co-chairperson of the ADSS children and families committee and director of social services at Sheffield Council Penny Thompson insists the child protection register "fulfils a very important role".

"I cannot conceive of the government wanting to phase out or remove the child protection register until or unless there is something as good as or even better in its place," Thompson says.

"But of course we do want to see improvements. IRT has a lot of potential. We are a trail-blazer in Sheffield. But there is a still a fair way to go before we promote it as the way to safeguard all children."

More popular are the unified assessment proposals and the plans to replace area child protection committees with statutory local safeguarding children's boards, created beneath the children and young people's strategic partnerships and invested with powers to appoint independent teams to carry out serious case reviews.

"We have always supported the development of a common assessment framework," Thompson says. "We also think there should be some underpinning knowledge and values that everyone should have. It is very important that people have got the appropriate skills and knowledge."

She adds: "The best ACPCs already report to their children and young people strategic partnership boards. We need to make sure the standards of the best become the norm."

Children's charity Barnardo's would also welcome a unified assessment process, and hopes it could release resources that could be channelled into service delivery.

However, director of the charity's UK operations Chris Hanvey says the replacement of ACPCs with local boards will not improve the child protection system unless they are better resourced than their predecessors.

"Replacing ACPCs with local safeguarding children boards does not address the issue of adequate resourcing," he says. "The argument in relation to ACPCs was always that they were not adequately funded and, in many cases, could not even afford joint child protection training."

Johnston says Basw would welcome serious case reviews being conducted by people who are more independent, but warns that those appointed must be up to the job. "There seem to be a lot of people floating around who get bits and pieces of work to do, but at times it is questionable whether they have spent enough time working in the front line."

With parliament now in recess, there are unlikely to be any further clues on the future of children's services until the green paper's publication when MPs return from their summer break. This leaves the sector no choice but to sit and wait to see which of the proposals in the draft annex survive the summer, and whether the government is listening to their remaining concerns.

"There is quite a lot for us to be reasonably happy about but we are fed up waiting," Johnston comments, summing up the sector's unified assessment of the situation.