The challenge of integrating children's services

Editorial 373

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 15: 373–376 (2006)DOI: 10.1002/car

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Challengeof IntegratingChildren’s Services

The articles in this special issue address an unprecedentedpolicy shift in welfare services for children towards integra-

tion at every level. The debate is an international one and theissue reflects this aspect, with accounts of developments inEurope and Australia as well as in the UK.

In its latest and most comprehensive form, the shift towardsintegration has been heralded in England by the government’sEvery Child Matters (ECM) programme (Department for Educa-tion and Skills, 2004a), although the process of bringing ser-vices closer has been underway for some years. The ChildrenAct 1989 called for greater co-operation between agencies inthe provision of children’s services. Inquiries, research studiesand inspection reports have all proposed greater partnershipand improved communication between agencies dealing withchildren, especially in child protection (see for instance Depart-ment of Health, 1995). Prior to 1997, some social serviceschildren’s directorates had already combined with educationor housing departments, and many exemplary joint workingpractices had been developed. Since then, the New Labourgovernment has continuously promoted ‘joined-up working’as the key to greater efficiency and effectiveness in public ser-vice in the UK.

The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report (Laming, 2003) addedurgency to the debate on reconfiguring children’s services. Apicture emerged (and was disseminated worldwide on the in-quiry’s website) of inadequate or absent leadership, account-ability, communication and preventive or protective action inall the key services. Even if uncommon, such endemic prob-lems were felt to demand a real change of culture. As theLaming Inquiry sat, the Local Government Association (2002)proposed rationalizing services around the needs of children,and central government took up this challenge with Every Child

Child Abuse Review Vol. 15: 373–376 (2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.966

EditorialRuth Gardner*Department of Social Work andPsycho-Social Studies, Universityof East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk,UK

∗ Correspondence to: Ruth Gardner, Senior Research Fellow, Department of SocialWork and Psycho-Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

‘An unprecedentedpolicy shift inwelfare servicesfor childrentowards integrationat every level’

‘Even ifuncommon, suchendemic problemswere felt to demanda real change ofculture’

374 Editorial


Matters and the Children Act 2004. Since then, there has beena flood of guidance, evaluation and case-studies (see forinstance Department of Health, 2004).

The ECM change agenda is fuelled by the idea of integra-tion. The aim is that all the services will have the same visionof ‘progressive universalism’ (The Treasury, 2005), backed upwith sound assessment and timely interventions by targetedservices. Keeping children safe is conceived of as a focus for allservices working with children and families, whether univer-sal or specialist. For instance, the National Service Frameworkfor Children applies safeguarding standards to health services(Department for Education and Skills, 2004b).

Each article in this issue addresses one or more of the levelsof integration. O’Brien and colleagues discuss early findingsfrom the national evaluation of Children’s Trusts in England.Trusts are intended to be the main vehicle for delivering agreater mutual and overall accountability for children’s welfare:a sharper focus on improving outcomes for children, moreaccurate and fail-safe information systems and more acces-sible and responsive universal and targeted systems.

The evidence presented focuses on the strategic and mana-gerial levels and allows for guarded optimism, at least asregards the pathfinder trusts. The constraints are set out, butdespite these there seems to be, first, a broadly shared under-standing and commitment to the vision of mutual accountabil-ity for the five ECM outcomes, with children ‘staying safe’ ahigh priority. Second, governance arrangements reflect thevision with broad representation across the agencies, andfinally, implementation of pooled budgets, information shar-ing mechanisms and multi-agency teams is gaining pace.Potential dilemmas in locating Safeguarding Boards within thisnew landscape are also considered.

Brandon and colleagues report on another major nationalevaluation: that of the introduction in 12 trial areas of theCommon Assessment Framework and lead professional inchildren’s services in England. These are two central elementsin joining up or integrating processes aimed at avoidingduplication and miscommunication. The early findings, basedon interviews with practitioners, indicate that a strong sharedvision, joint working built up over time and investment inthe joint infrastructure can enable successful implementa-tion of these new processes. The findings indicate that thoseareas that have planned ahead for difficulties have had aneasier route to integration. However, the authors end with astrong warning about the future skills level in the workforce,something the Climbié Inquiry drew attention to (Laming,2003, p. 361).

‘Each articlein this issueaddresses oneor more of thelevels ofintegration’

‘A strong sharedvision’

Editorial 375


Other articles in this issue provide an international perspec-tive, showing how different administrations are facing the chal-lenge of integration. Valentine and colleagues report on theirevaluation of Families First, a new, state-wide child welfareinitiative in Australia intended to co-ordinate existing servicesfor children under eight, with a focus on early identifica-tion and intervention. This service level evaluation includedinterviews with over 100 fieldworkers and over 70 family mem-bers and found, as has the Sure Start evaluation in the UK(Birkbeck, University of London, 2006), that maintaininginvolvement of stakeholders including service users was keybut required resources of time and money; and that new pro-cesses that allow for debate are required to embody a new ethosof shared responsibility for outcomes. However, the researchraises the possibility of successful integration identifying ‘yetmore inequity in unmet child and family need’.

Hetherington and Katz provide a meta-perspective on theintegration debate. They suggest a typology of different Euro-pean child welfare systems based on a series of focus groupswith practitioners. They consider how these systems deal withthe challenge of joined-up working and what factors appearto assist effective early intervention. England, for instance,is moving from a focus on separate child protection services(a ‘dualistic’ approach) towards a broadly preventive, more‘holistic’ one. All the participants saw effective co-operationas crucial and had ways of delivering this; but in the last analy-sis the authors re-iterate that a good range of services, practi-tioner time and skills to offer strong partnership work withfamilies are the bedrock of sound interagency practice.

Finally, May-Chahal and Broadhurst take us to the heart ofthe matter with an account of the views of young people onthe outside of the education system, and hence at increasedrisk of both harm and social exclusion. It is the outcomes forthese young people that the ECM agenda will be measuredagainst: ‘system-wide change . . . offering better opportunitiesfor all and narrowing the gap between those who achieve andthose who do not fulfil their potential’ (DfES, 1995–2006).Drawing on qualitative interviews, the authors identify realchallenges to integration in practice. One is a lack of consen-sus around the ‘object of intervention’, so the response doesnot always address the real need, and another the tendency ofgovernment at all levels to identify problems according to theirown priorities rather than those of families. Hence, if a childdoes not fall into a category of targeted need, or falls betweencategories (such as child and adult) or is below a local thresh-old, they may remain at risk. They suggest that where thefront-line response extended beyond these boundaries to

‘May-Chahal andBroadhurst take usto the heart of thematter’

‘How differentadministrations arefacing the challengeof integration’

376 Editorial


address the expressed needs of the young person, it was moresuccessful—though, interestingly, this was often where thechild had retained contact with education services.

Together, the papers in this special issue analyse in cross-section the many layers at which integration can happen: fromthe strategic and governance issues involved in setting up chil-dren’s trusts to the personal experiences of young people onthe receiving end trying to make sense of services.

References

Birkbeck, University of London. 2006. National Evaluation of Sure Start.http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk [7 November 2006].

Department for Education and Skills. 1995–2006. Every Child Matters:Cross-Government Working with Local Partners to Achieve BetterOutcomes for Children and Young People. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk [7 November 2006].

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2004a. Every Child Matters:Next Steps. The Stationery Office: London.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2004b. National ServiceFramework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. DfES:London.

Department of Health. 1995. The Challenge of Partnership in Child Protec-tion: Practice Guide. HMSO: London.

Department of Health. 2004. Integrated Working: a Guide. Integrated CareNetwork. Short Run: Exeter. http://www.integratedcarenetwork.gov.uk[7 November 2006].

Laming, Lord. 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry, report of an inquiry byLord Laming (chairman), Cmnd 5730. The Stationery Office: London.

Local Government Association (LGA). 2002. Serving Children Well: aNew Vision for Children’s Services. LGA Publications: London.

The Treasury. 2005. Supporting Parents: the Best Start for Children. TheStationery Office: London.

‘The personalexperiences ofyoung people onthe receiving endtrying to makesense of services’

http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk

http://www.everychildmatters

http://www.integratedcarenetwork.gov.uk

The challenge of integrating children's services

Documents

Transcript of The challenge of integrating children's services