Children’s Social Care Review: A trade in vulnerable children?

The Government has launched a review of children’s social care, describing it as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to reform the care and protection of vulnerable children. However, the appointment of Josh MacAlister by Gavin Williamson to lead the review has caused significant concern from sector representatives with an open letter , signed by several hundred individuals and various organisations, sent to Williamson challenging the appointment.

As CEO of Frontline MacAlister has received significant funding and support from Government, global management consultancies (BCG) and venture philanthropy (Ark) to deliver an ‘elite’ social work programme.This has been controversial due to MacAlisters relationship with networks of power that occupy key positions across wider childrens services & the continued support of the Chief Social Worker,  who is no stranger to private sector engagement in the reform of the childcare sector. 

None of which suggests any wrong doing, but does suggest their appears to be a collective of individuals holding a great deal of positional power and influence closely aligned to Government.

The ‘blueprint’

Whilst the review is billed by Government as a once in a generation opportunity, it could be suggested the way forward has already been pre-determined as BCG has already co-produced a ‘blueprint’ for the future of children’s social care with MacAlister in Novermber 2019. Six of the nine authors of the blueprint were from BCG, one was an ex Frontliner, along with McAlister, however, research suggests the one independent author has withdrawn his support for the blueprint.

‘several months after the Blueprint was published one of the authors not associated with BCG, Brendan Martin, the managing director of Buurtzorg Britain and Ireland, withdrew his support for the Blueprint as drafted, suggesting that the emphasis on organisational restructuring rather than working with social workers and service users from the ground up was misguided (Martin, 2020)’.

Further the support of the Chief Social Worker for the model proposed in the blueprint  2 years prior to its publication, is a tad disconcerting, as if the outcome of the 2019 consultation with 80 sector parties was already preordained?  (BCG have a history of producing ‘blueprints’ globally across a wide range of sectors (see ‘Airtunnel a blueprint-for workflow orchestration using airflow‘).  Rather than a research focus their blueprints adopt a promotional approach, presenting only one solution to an issue, their solution.)

Discussion

Everything about the review of children’s social care is a moral and ethical debate, not just economic, and many are concerned about the pitfalls of applying market based approaches and ‘values’  to the protection of vulnerable children. The dangers of a unregulated and privatised system of social care for children has been exposed by the BBC’s Newsnight recently, and should ring alarm bells across the sector.

Whilst Government appear to believe the private sector is the answer to improving care provision we just have to look at the results of this strategy in adult social care.

Over three years ago the King’s Fund highlighted what many in adult services already know, the free market is failing, stating

‘Social Care is now a complex and sprawling sector – more than 12,000 independent organisations, ranging from big corporate chains to small family-run businesses, charities and social enterprises, which makes the NHS provider landscape look like a sea of organisational tranquillity. Less than 10 per cent of social care is actually provided by councils or the NHS – their retreat from long term care provision is virtually complete. But unlike the NHS, when a social care provider hits the financial rocks, bankruptcy not bail-out is the more likely scenario. But a deeper problem is the failure to think through the consequences of shifting the bulk of our care provision to a private business model’. 

Children’s services offer rich pickings for private providers like CareTech Community Services who charged local authorities £430 million for their services over the course of last year. It is reported the companies annual financial return suggests

“…. the company now owns a property portfolio worth over £750 million and paid out almost £1 billion in executive bonuses last year.” (Social Work Today,2021)

Whilst profiting from the care of vulnerable children is a major concern for many , there is also an issue in respect of global management consultants accountability. Companies such as BCG truly are the ‘invisible hand‘ as they seem unaccountable for their actions and decision making. Whilst they may refer to data/evidence based decision making scrutiny of the efficacy of their decision making and outcomes by government in the UK appears limited. However, serious concerns have been expressed in respect of BCG’s ‘value-based’ approach by the Swedish media and Government. Swedish journalists Gustavsson & Röstlund  highlighted significant concerns, suggesting patient safety was a concern following  BCG’s involvement with Karolinska University Hospital. This led to a major investigation by the journalist and publication of a book. (see The Consultants – The Struggle for the Karolinska University Hospital)

Yet faith in the free market is unshakeable in this government, as has been demonstrated by Covid19 and the huge number of tenders given to private companies to provide key services required to save thousands of lives, such as test, trace and track, including BCG. However, the re-branding of any aspect of public health and social care as a commodity over the last 40 years has all but ignored some simple truths pointed out by the economist Adam Smith several hundred years ago;  the purpose of the free market is to generate wealth for those who own the means of production, or the ‘masters of mankind’ as Smith christened them, it is not a charitable endeavour but a single minded system driven by cash not compassion, who Smith suggested had a ‘vile maxim‘  of  “all for ourselves”.  The ‘masters of mankind’  in Smiths time were the merchants and manufacturers who supported policy that enabled them to make more profit, they were not concerned with how such policy and their actions might impact on others.  

Today the ‘masters of mankind’ appear to be international management consultants, such as  BCG, who are actively supporting the development of children’s services in the UK. Such companies are popular with Government, not least because they never criticise governments handling of structural issues such as poverty and inequality, but they do lend an expensive hand in rearrange the deckchairs on the proverbial public sector deck.

One might question why the 2nd largest global consultancy in the world is so interested in our vulnerable children?  From a  venture philanthropy perspective it is feasible their intentions may well be honourable, however, given BCG has  won 37 contracts from the UK Government over the last year it would be reasonable to suggest the current review also offers potential for additional business with the Government, with the taxpayer contributing to BCG’s considerable profits.

Does any of this matter? It would appear not as mainstream media appear to be either in favour of the arrangements or are sitting on the fence.

But it does matter to me, and many many others across a board spectrum of society. There is consensus the system require reform, not least from those who have experience of care provision and feel strongly about ensuring their voices are heard. It is their voices that need to lead the children’s social care into the future, not the voices of people who have no idea of what it is to be ‘care experienced’, who know nothing of the lived experience of an underfunded care system or the effects of  grinding poverty and inequality on so many  children’s futures. 

Markets & Morals

Michael Sandel argues markets are not a mere mechanism designed to deliver goods, they also embody certain values, and the problem is these values ‘crowd’ out non market values like ethics, compassion and dignity in developing and delivering our care system. Where these values and ethics are weak we need a strong and active state to intervene to maintain those non-market values and ethics, where both are weak those most vulnerable in society will continue to be exploited, their lives and vulnerability traded as goods to be profited from.