14 November 2003
A leading social services expert has questioned the validity of the government's latest star ratings for councils and the impact of 'trouble-shooting' teams sent to improve second-rate authorities.
Following the publication of the second annual star ratings for all English authorities on November 13, ministers proclaimed 'significant' improvements across the sector in the wake of failures such as the Victoria Climbié case.
But Ian Johnston, the director of the British Association of Social Workers, told Public Finance he was concerned about the ratings, which are calculated by the independent Social Services Inspectorate, because 'it has been very difficult to discern vast improvements on the front line in the past year.'
Of the 150 councils inspected, 60% are now rated as providing two or three-star social services, compared with 42% last year. Sixteen councils achieved the top rank of three stars, compared with 11 last year, while just eight received a zero-star ranking, compared with ten last year.
Unveiling the figures, health minister Stephen Ladyman said the improvement 'was a vindication of two of this government's most-criticised policies: star ratings generally and the decision not to finance free personal care for all of the elderly.'
But Johnston claimed ratings could 'hinder improvements by focusing management on the achievement of very specific goals that bring improved ratings and not much else'.
Ladyman praised the use of 'Pats' – performance action teams, which are often led by private management firms – saying they had been 'instrumental' in turning around some authorities.
Of the seven councils that have improved from a zero rating in 2002 to one star this year, five were helped by a Pat. But Johnston rejected the idea that the teams in themselves improve performance, saying that it was inevitable that any focus on failing services was likely to produce results.
He said: 'The fact is that these teams come in and are often accompanied by more cash for services. I'm also sceptical because Pats represent the "big stick" approach to improvement, which has no long-term benefit.'
East Sussex, one authority that moved up from a zero rating, did not use a Pat, and its improvement was so dramatic it achieved a two-star rating.
On the other hand, some authorities that used a performance team, such as Birmingham, failed to improve.
PFnov2003
