31 May 2002
In the first star rating of all 150 English social services departments published this week, the Social Services Inspectorate awarded no stars to ten councils – Birmingham, Bromley, Coventry, East Sussex, Haringey, Merton, North East Lincolnshire, Swindon, Wakefield and Walsall.
All will meet Denise Platt, the chief inspector of social services, to agree a performance improvement plan. Performance action teams will be sent into some councils.
Health minister Jacqui Smith said she wanted quick results. 'Following these actions I expect to see improvements by November. If there has been no improvement, we will consider the use of our powers under the 1999 Local Government Act. These include directing a council to carry out a review of its social services functions or to bring in external teams,' she added.
Eight councils received the top three-star rating – Bexley, Cornwall, Kensington & Chelsea, Leicestershire, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sunderland, Wandsworth and Westminster.
They will be given greater freedoms, including the ability to spend social services grants and their share of the £50m Performance Fund on any area of social services they wish. They will also have fewer inspections.
Walsall has the worst rating, with both adult and children's services failing, and it was judged to have poor prospects for improvement.
Social services director Don Phillips acknowledged that a lot of its shortcomings had been caused by political and financial instability as well as by failures in corporate governance. But he added that services were beginning to improve.
'We have put an improvement plan in place but we need to be judged over time. We feel we have better prospects now than at the time of the review because there is now a recognition of the difficulties and the need for fundamental change,' he said.
Elaine McHale, Wakefield's housing and social care chief officer, said it was making 'far-reaching' improvements.
Sandra Taylor, Birmingham City Council's social services director, said: 'The rating reflects a past performance and does not take account of the progress made over the past 18 months.'
PFmay2002
