Summary of BASW North East branch discussion on the forthcoming Review of Children’s Social Care in England
On 3rd February 2021, the North East (England) branch of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) hosted a discussion event on the forthcoming review of children’s social care in England (‘the Care Review’; ‘the Review’). From this, and from subsequent discussions with branch committee members, I produced a branch position statement on the Review, which was forwarded to the BASW England committee on 9th February 2021.
Attendance
The event was attended by BASW members, along with myself and the BASW professional officer who supports the branch. Most attendees were based in the North East of England but there was also representation from the North West and South East. Most were currently in full time practice or teaching roles. All expressed deep interest in (and concern about) the Care Review.
Agenda
The overarching item was discussion of the Care Review. With the group’s agreement this was split into the following sub-topics:
· Independence and experience of the chair and the process by which he was appointed
· The Review’s terms of reference
· The contribution of care experienced people and others with relevant personal experience of children’s social care
· BASW’s position and its role in promoting awareness and conversations about the Care Review
We ended the discussion with each attendee being asked in turn by the chair, ‘What do you want to/hope will happen next?’
The discussion was facilitated by the branch chair (me).
Independence and experience of the chair and the process by which he was appointed
There was unanimity in the group regarding the well-documented questions and concerns about the chair’s independence, which I will not repeat here but which are set out in this piece and in this letter to Gavin Williamson by Article 39 and co-signed by many organisations and individuals with a stake in the Review and its outcomes. (At the time of discussion Mr MacAlister had stepped down from his roles at Frontline, the Whatever It Takes Org and the Children’s Commissioner Advisory Board but retains an active role on the board of the Department for Education (DfE) funded King’s Cross Academies Trust.)
The group saw these concerns as seriously undermining the Review’s credibility and were concerned about how the chair’s historical and current connections to DfE funded projects and his relationships with others in direct receipt of DfE funding, his links with global big business and his clear favouring and patronage by the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, could conceivably interfere with his ability to maintain the objectivity needed to undertake the review with the integrity it warrants. This is not a slight on the personal qualities or attributes of Mr MacAlister but a statement of concern based on recorded fact.
Related to this point were the group’s concerns that the chair simply does not have the experience, knowledge and expertise necessary to undertake this Review. This is based on the fact that Mr MacAlister spent two years as a teacher (four years if we include the two years spent on the Teach First fast-track teacher training scheme) before embarking on a career as a social entrepreneur, chiefly as founder and CEO of Frontline. The group did not consider the eight years he has spent doing this as constituting the type or level of experience required to adequately undertake this role.
There were unanimous concerns about the lack of transparency in the appointment process and the fact that there appeared not to be any other candidates considered, nor any interview of MacAlister for the role. This raised concerns about the capacity for public scrutiny of the appointment and members raised concerns that he had been ‘hand picked’ by the government for the role, which raised serious questions about his independence.
There was unanimity that the chair should have extensive knowledge and expertise in social work and social care for children and families, whatever their professional or personal capacity, and it was felt MacAlister’s experience did not sufficiently equip him for the post.
The Review’s terms of reference
Attendees noted the use of transformational language throughout and expressed concern that sweeping reform is a foregone conclusion before the Review is even under way. Terms like ‘challenging conventional wisdom’ suggest a particular framing of existing knowledge and members questioned whether the Review would be the ‘open minded’ one the terms of reference promise. Members expressed concern that the Review recommendations would advance ‘oven-ready’ solutions such as the ‘blueprint’ for children’s social care previously authored by the chair with Boston Consulting Group/Centre for Public Impact, and championed by the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, and the National Assessment and Accreditation System (NAAS), also championed by the Chief Social Worker, and which has cost the taxpayer £24m to date, albeit potentially under different names and in repackaged form.
A related concern was around whether the Review will give due weight and value to examples of good practice that have sprung up locally in the face of central government cuts and without direct DfE funding. Members want reassurance that the Review will recognise and call for investment in existing models or good practice that do not ‘fit in’ with the overall DfE agenda.
A key concern was the (perennial) reference to ‘raising standards’ without any acknowledgement at all of context and backdrop: politically-chosen austerity; local authority budget constraints; working conditions of social care staff and social workers; years of punitive welfare policy — all of which have created conditions in which crushing poverty and chronic despair harm children’s outcomes. Members questioned the extent to which these would be recognised in the Review, given the notable absence in the terms of reference. Indeed, the chair himself has made scant reference to these things over the years. This may well be an example of his political savvy, given the cross-party support he has garnered for his projects, notably Frontline, which again raises concerns about his willingness and ability to challenge those whose patronage has benefitted his career and his projects.
There was unanimity that the 12 month period slated for the Review was by no means long enough and that the job of gathering, collating and analysing the data was a huge undertaking, all of which could be better served by, for example, the appointment of a co-chair of suitable experience, expertise and independence.
Members expressed concern that overall the terms of reference did not contain sufficient detail on matters of key importance and instead were quite vague and suggestive, and seemed to presuppose that sweeping and radical change would be an outcome of the Review.
Language was repeatedly raised as a concern with terms like ‘value for money’ and ‘unit costs’ suggesting the commodification of care and support at the heart of concerns about privatisation and marketisation. Further, such terms constitute the language of burden, which was felt to be egregious and as having no place in discussions about improving outcomes for children. It was noted that the inclusion of the term ‘boosting adoption’ aligned with the current government’s favouring of adoption and was therefore indicative of in-built bias toward government’s policy preferences. The term ‘alternative long term family’ was highlighted as deeply problematic because it also suggested adoption as a preferred option while denying that children already have families, even if they cannot always live with them.
A key concern was that the Review has been constructed around children’s social care, rather than looking at care for our children as a holistic, societal concern, such as was the focus of the three-year Scottish care review. This is a crucial distinction because currently there appears to be no emphasis within the Review on preventing children coming into the care system.
The appointment of Josh MacAlister to lead the Review was seen by members to be divisive and controversial, which in themselves were concerning outcomes that the government (and the chair) would surely have anticipated and therefore could have been avoided or at least better handled.
The contribution of care experienced people and others with relevant personal experience of children’s social care
There was deep concern among members that the current approach to engaging experts by experience had proven divisive and damaging. The application process for contributing as an expert by experience was felt to be like a job application and therefore inquisitive and interrogative by nature, despite assurances in the accompanying documentation that ‘no-one would be asked directly about their personal experiences’. This itself seems to demonstrate a lack of awareness that experts by experience would by definition be at least thinking about if not discussing their experiences in applying and contributing to the Review and does not bode well for the handling of distressing and traumatic content. All agreed that proper emotional and psychological support should be a core feature of the Review, especially in a pandemic when people’s support networks may be less available. Members questioned the decision to hold the review at least partly in the midst of a pandemic.
BASW’s position and its role promoting awareness and conversations about the Care Review
Members were confused about BASW’s role in this, and about its current position on the Review. The current position was clarified by the professional officer. All felt BASW should take a more prominent role in promoting awareness and debate about the Review, including among student and early career social workers whose work will be affected by the outcome of the Review for many years to come. Members lamented the lack of awareness among social work colleagues that a Review was even taking place and saw a key role for BASW in leading this among members and non-members alike. The concern was that lack of awareness of and engagement with critical discourse about the Review would be mistaken for consent.
BASW’s current position was felt to be neither strong enough nor well-publicised.
‘What do you want to/hope will happen next?’
Members’ key hopes and wishes for the Review are:
· The Review should be led by someone with appropriate levels of experience, expertise and independence. (Members were not confident at all that the current chair met these criteria.)
· Experts by experience and those who support them, including social workers, should be heard and acted on in every part of the Review process, including in these crucial preliminary stages
· BASW should take a stronger position in line with members’ concerns about the chair’s independence/impartiality and his ability to undertake the role due to his lack of appropriate experience and expertise in the area and, where necessary, offer constructive and, if needed, strong challenge if/when the Review process falls short of or runs counter to the values social workers express and advocate for in relation to support for children, young people and families
· BASW should take a lead role in promoting awareness and discourse on the Review in line with its mission to improve the working conditions and experiences of social workers who will be directly affected by the outcome of the Review; in particular we have a moral duty to promote engagement among students and early career social workers whose work will be shaped by the Review for many years to come
· The language and focus of the Review should align with the principles of support for children, young people and families
· The Review should be positively influenced by social work and social work values.
BASW North East branch position statement on the Care Review has been forwarded to BASW England committee along with a copy of this summary for committee’s consideration and response.
