News

The news that almost one-third of local authorities have failed to meet a set of government targets on information sharing and assessment (ISA) comes as no surprise to David Johnstone.

More than a year ago, the director of social services in Devon told Community Care that insufficient resources, poor communication and a lack of guidance from government was severely hampering the drive to identify children at risk of social exclusion early, refer them to services and monitor them through improved information sharing between agencies (news analysis, page 16, 14 August 2003).

A multitude of information-sharing initiatives were being introduced within a variety of different agencies, without a thought as to how and when they might be integrated.

One year on and little has changed. "We still haven't had the full framework on what ISA is meant to be," says Johnstone, who chairs the Association of Directors of Social Services Research Group. "Until the Department for Education and Skills offers some coherent guidance that clarifies how ISA will operate and how it will integrate with other data-sharing initiatives such as the common assessment framework and the integrated children's system, then it is going to be virtually impossible to implement."

ISA is the government's response to Lord Laming's call for better joint working practices and data sharing between all agencies involved in the care of vulnerable children.

The scheme requires all local authorities to follow the lead of 10 trailblazer projects which were each given £1m to explore a number of different models for effective information-sharing practices and systems. Each non-trailblazer was given £100,000 to help them meet two sets of minimum requirements, one by September 2003 and the other by the end of March this year (see below).

However, a recent DfES-commissioned study by researchers at Royal Holloway, University of London, found that only 69 per cent of authorities had met their March requirements.¹

Fewer than two-thirds of councils are described as "on course" with their ISA systems, while almost one-third are "a bit behind" or "well behind". Only 6.8 per cent are described as "well ahead". Sixteen per cent still had to reach their September 2003 targets.

The study identifies a number of barriers that are hindering the progress of ISA work. These include doubts over whether enough funds will be made available to support the project and concerns over the legality of sharing confidential personal information between agencies without contravening the Data Protection Act 1998.

Many authorities said that they had found the guidance on information sharing issued from various government departments to be confusing and unhelpful.

"In particular the conflicting guidance on information sharing from different government departments, for example, from the Department of Constitutional Affairs and from the DfES, hindered progress," says the report.

Many of the local authorities felt that 31 March had been an unrealistic deadline to bring together such a large number of agencies with different professional cultures, languages, assessment methods, priorities, business needs, computer systems and different positions on information sharing. Some authorities had openly refused to rush the job simply to fit in with the government's schedule.

"It is therefore important to realise that some authorities that are a 'bit behind' in some requirements may end up with a better product for not having rushed a quick solution," acknowledges the report.

According to a spokesperson for the DfES, the government is "pleased with the progress that the majority of local authorities have made" and recognises that "there is a lot of guidance across government around information sharing". Moves are already under way to offer more support and produce clearer, more centralised guidance.

"The Children Bill and Every Child Matters give us an opportunity to consolidate and streamline guidance around the needs for children. We are committed to achieving this."

As evidence of this, the DfES cites last month's launch of a web-based toolkit to help address some of the more challenging requirements of ISA. The DfES insists that feedback on this from users has been "very positive". "We are engaged in active networking with authorities, and they also receive support through mentoring workshops from trailblazer authorities."


However, as David Johnstone points out, much of this support has only just become available, long after the March deadline has passed. He also finds it unrealistic to expect local authorities to shoulder the whole burden of such a self-evidently multi-agency initiative as ISA.

"The implementation of ISA is not a local authority issue. It stretches right across the health service, legal system and voluntary sector," he says. Indeed, the University of London report states that, of all the agencies involved in setting up ISA systems, the health service has "consistently experienced greater difficulties in collaborating in information sharing".

Johnstone also finds it galling to be lectured on joint-working procedures by a government whose different departments often seem to be working completely independently of each other.

"We are being encouraged to improve our joined-up working, but there is little sign of the government taking its own advice," he says.

Several local authorities mentioned in the report blame poor integration between different initiatives and a lack of guidance on how ISA fits in with the integrated children's system, the framework for multiagency environments, or e-patient records as a reason why their progress on ISA has been delayed.

It is this lack of clarity as to where ISA sits within the raft of data sharing initiatives that Johnstone sees as the main barrier to its eventual implementation.

"I'm very surprised that the DfES has commissioned this study at a time when the priority must be to offer better, more coherent guidance. I'd also be very interested in who they asked and why we at the ADSS were unaware that it was taking place."

¹ Information Sharing and Assessment: The Progress of "non-trailblazer" Local Authorities, from www.dfes.gov.uk/research

Minimum requirements on ISA by 31 March 2004   

• Requirement 1: Have evidence of improved information sharing between health, education and social care, leading to better services for children who display one or more risk factors. 
• Requirement 2: Have developed a common understanding of assessment, risk factor, service thresholds that trigger action, and service eligibility criteria. 
• Requirement 3: Have a service directory providing comprehensive information on local providers, eligibility criteria, geographical location and referral procedures. 
• Requirement 4: Have procedures for keeping this service directory up to date and for ensuring professionals working with children and young people have access - allowing public access where possible. 
• Requirement 5: Publish a short privacy statement to inform children, young people and their families about confidentiality and access to records. 
• Requirement 6: Have protocols for information sharing in place, covering health, education and social care; and in development for other agencies providing services to children and young people. 
• Requirement 7: Publish guidance on obtaining and documenting consent (including information leaflets for children, young people and their families and consent forms). 
• Requirement 8: Understanding of the authority's specific business needs in relation to information sharing. 
• Requirement 9: Consideration given to system interoperability at local level, with agreed standards for data collection, storage, retrieval and transfer, based on the e-Government Interoperability Framework.