News

This week, community care minister Stephen Ladyman is expected to rubberstamp the proposed transfer of seven key government agencies to the Social Care Institute for Excellence.

The move, exclusively revealed by Community Care, could fundamentally change the remit of the institute and its relationship with government.

It has led some to ask how an organisation that was set up to independently verify and spread best practice in social care can continue fulfilling this role when it is to become so tied to government.

In comparison to Scie's current size and £5m budget, the scale of the deal is enormous. It will involve the transfer of around 150 staff and £30m worth of funding from the Department of Health's Care Services Improvement Partnership. This is made up of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE), Valuing People Support Team, Health and Social Care Change Agent Team, National Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Support Service, Integrated Care Network, Integrated Community Equipment Support Team and Change for Children.

Most of the partnership's work will be run from NIMHE's existing eight regional centres, with a small number of staff based at Scie's offices near London Bridge. Staff will remain employed by the individual agencies but the work they do will be promoted as Scie's.

Alternatives to the integration model were considered, but barriers surrounding how the improvement partnership agencies would fit with Scie's charitable status ruled these out. It is likely the relationship, work and targets of this new "division" of Scie will be governed by a service level agreement with the DoH.

The new division will be headed up by a director reporting to the chief executive - senior DoH civil servant Richard Humphries is to oversee the transfer as interim director. With the permanent appointee likely to be one of the existing improvement partnership division heads there could be serious implications for Scie's existing senior management.

There appear to be a number of advantages to the move, notably around increasing Scie's profile, dissemination capabilities and ability to do primary research.

However, there are also a number of risks around maintaining transferred staff's terms of employment and Scie's social care focus being diluted because the NHS currently has better access to the improvement partnership's programmes than the social care sector.

By far the biggest question for Scie, though, is whether its independence will be affected by the new arrangements. This is partly a perception issue, but one that has dominated Scie's thinking while refining the proposals - it recommends a communications strategy to counter suggestions it is an agency of the DoH and for its independence to be stressed at the announcement of the initiative.

But this alone will not be enough. Factors such as the possibility the director could be seconded to the DoH for a time and that part of the service level agreement will involve negotiating with the DoH over work programmes may fuel concerns the department is pulling Scie's strings.

Indeed, Scie has suggested developing a protocol for resolving conflicts between itself and the department when they do not agree that an improvement directive is good practice or evidence-based. It has also accepted it will have to demonstrate to the Charities Commission its independence from government.

One senior social services figure, who wishes to remain anonymous, believes the move will bring fundamental change to Scie, with it moving away from identifying better knowledge and practice to promoting new legislation and government advice.

He explains: "All these agencies are expected to promote government policy and best practice - for example NIMHE is expected to promote new mental health legislation. This is not what Scie was set up for. The government is going to expect a return on its money and Scie will end up delivering what it wants to happen."

He adds that the government is likely to turn to Scie to deliver recommendations on best practice in the recruitment and retention of social workers in the adult social care green paper later this year. "I think it will be seen as taking on the functions of an agency of government."


Many academics are also concerned. "There's always been a question about its independence but I wonder whether this means Scie is no different to a government-run think-tank," says one. "There have been signs of Scie moving into a more advisory and development role rather than assessing the knowledge base."

However, John Ransford, chair of the Local Government Association and a founder of Scie, says its independence was important to the department when it was established.

"It should be seen as good news that the policy and management [of the seven DoH agencies] are going to be with an independent institute. I can understand concerns about compromise, but [Scie chair] Jane Campbell is the embodiment of independence," he adds.

Scie says it will only go ahead with the transfer if it gets assurances that its independence, emphasis on service users and social care focus will all be retained.

If these reassurances are not forthcoming, the implications for the improvement partnership and Scie are uncertain. "This is a big opportunity for Scie, but if it doesn't take it on, what will it mean for its future?" asks one social services director.

An institute and its critics.  

A director of one well-known organisation that has worked with the Social Care Institute for Excellence sums up the feelings of many when he describes it as an organisation that has "a lot of money and swank premises" but is failing to be at the leading edge of professional development.  

"Their annual conference is an expensive joke. They compare unfavourably with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence...and while they publish some interesting material, universities could do it more efficiently and effectively," he adds.  

Scie, predictably, says the criticisms are ill-informed, and has issued a statement that says: "Scie has a much wider remit than Nice, and the purpose of our conference is to give a platform to service user views and experience as well as to disseminate work to practitioners and managers." 

The institute insists that Stephen Ladyman's support for the transfer is "a strong indication" of his confidence in its ability to take forward the improvement agenda.  

Some inside government, the academic community and some practitioners say Scie is "esoteric, too academic and lacks profile" and has been "colonised by the service-user movement".  

Scie rejects this claim as "negative and insulting", showing a failure to grasp the changing nature of social care.  

"It is commonly accepted that service users need a stronger voice if services and practice are to be improved," Scie says in a statement. 

There is little doubt one of the motivations behind the move is a desire by ministers to see a bigger, more powerful Scie and one which can increase the social care profile within the improvement partnership programmes.  

The move would also enable the institute to do its own primary research - the lack of which has given rise to some of the criticism of its work.  

Professor of interprofessional health and social studies at Anglia Polytechnic University Shula Ramon says: "I am disappointed with the lack of primary research at Scie, but I don't think it denigrates what it has done. Scie can be used and is accessible but I think it needs to invest more in ensuring practitioners use it."