The road to Westminster pier

It is very rare for the House of Commons to go completely quiet. But today: no whispers, no rustles of order papers, no coughs and no shuffling of feet greeted the Prime Minister as he entered the chamber. Whilst the strain of his recent illness and the weight of Covid19 Cobra meetings were etched into his boyish face, he looked serious and yet strangely elated.

Rumours had been whisking themselves around the Palace of Westminster for several hours now resulting in a froth of confusion, speculation and even palpable fear. Everyone knew he was going to say something extraordinary and unprecedented but no one knew what. Not even the lobby correspondents who expected to be given a heads up. They were all sulking in a nook somewhere.

People had spoken of extremely secret meetings, objects being thrown and measures that you only expect to see in the Kremlin. Were there really hidden tunnels in Westminster?

The Prime Minister sat down. It wasn't long before the Speaker invited him to give a statement. He nodded, drew breath and stood up. He spent a few moments looking around the chamber and, smiling, glanced upwards to the woman carrying his child.

"As you all know, at the beginning of April I was extremely ill with the dreaded virus. I am grateful beyond words to have received life saving treatment from some of the most dedicated, professional and caring clinicians that I have ever met. And I know there are thousands and thousands of such people working hard, the length and breadth of this country, tending to all the people who are suffering with this disease. Let me put on record again: their commitment, their sacrifice, and indeed their love will never be forgotten by me or probably any of us. Thank you a million times. And a trillion times more.

"When one stares Death in the face, it changes one. And it has changed me. I have had to reevaluate much, maybe even all, that I have believed in until now. And I don't just mean superficial ideas about policies and programmes. I mean my most deeply held values and principles. And I have realised I have been wrong about most of them.

"Like many of my generation I was brought up to believe in the positive power of private enterprise. I still think that, but I have also noted that the huge corporations of the world have sought solace, help and of course money from the governments of the world. And by government money, I mean the money that people have contributed in hard earned taxes. I have noted that the world is really just one place and we humans, just one biology. Covid19 does not recognise borders. And it is with great fortune that across the world, scientists are collaborating to find medical and sociological solutions to the crisis we are in. Never say for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

"And I have observed how some of the least valued people in our society (and by that I mean the lowest paid) have been the ones who have stepped up and shown themselves to be the most essential, the most brave and the most caring of all of us. Obviously this includes the staff, all the staff, of the NHS but also our cleaners, our refuse collectors, our social workers, our care home carers, our bus drivers, our checkout assistants, our park keepers, our police and so forth. Why has it taken until now for us to really value such people? Moreover, why has it taken me until now to really value such people. I am deeply ashamed and sorry for all the things I have done and not done, that have in so many ways not truly respected and deeply valued everyone's contributions to the smooth and healthy running of our society. And there have been many such things.

"I know I have said things where I have tried to give the impression that I cared. But I didn't, I really didn't. But I do now.

"And so as a consequence of all this thinking, I have decided that I simply cannot remain leader of the Conservative Party. Indeed, I cannot continue being a member at all. My values and principles just don't fit anymore.  Many know that my hero, Sir Winston Churchill changed parties. I intend to follow in his footsteps, albeit in the opposite political direction."

And with that last statement, Boris Johnson put down his papers and crossed the House of Commons to the Opposition benches where he purposely sat next to Jeremy Corbyn. They smiled and shook hands.

The House of Commons was silent once more as everyone paused to reflect on what had just happened.

__________

This is of course, a work of fantasy. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Why evaluation is so important...

...  to good governance and the husbandry of scarce resources

I have been engaged in a debate with Cllr Warren Whyte over this matter for nearly a year now and we just don't seem to be getting anywhere. This blog is my attempt to nail down why this debate is so critical to the future of Buckinghamshire and the quality of the governance under the new unitary authority happening in April (with elections in May) this year.

There is a simple question outstanding: where are the baseline measures against which success (or otherwise) of the new Early Year's Services can be assessed? Either they exist or they don't and Cllr Whyte is not giving an answer to this question. (Why he is not answering this question, I do not know.)

He seems to be claiming that since the new services are so new (they came into being in September 2019) there is not enough data yet to evaluate the impact of the new arrangements.

I agree... I have no dispute with this. He is correct, it will take some while - at least a school year for the changes made to show any results. Arguably since the Sure Start programme was always long term in its visions and strategy, it may well take years for the true impact of the changes to emerge.

But... this is all about evaluation. And to evaluate the impact of a new service or policy, there has to be a baseline measure against which progress can be assessed. For example, I might claim that the way to reduce absenteeism in schools would be to give all school students a new watch with an inbuilt vibrating alarm to remind them to get to school. After the policy is introduced, perhaps just before an election, I would claim success: "the new scheme has worked - elect me as I can get good things done!".

But it would ONLY be judged a success IF I had a measure taken BEFORE the new policy came into place - against which I could then say: "look, the rates of absenteeism have gone down!" If no such measures had been taken - success could NOT be measured. This is basic science: it is about searching for proof that policies work, as far we are able to measure them.

I would hope that this is all fairly straightforward to understand but it seems from my interactions with Cllr Whyte (on social media and face to face) that this idea of baseline measures is eluding him, or at least he is saying it is eluding him. I am unable to judge which.

And this is not personal - I have nothing against Cllr Whyte as a chap: we have engaged in banter and good conversations on many occasions. This is about science and, of course, politics. I have explained the science bit above. As for the politics, I often observe how Conservative politicians like to dress up cuts to services as variously: streamlining, making efficiency savings, redesigning new services to better meet needs, reshaping public services for the modern age... and so forth. Such statements all seek to sustain a masquerade that services can be severely cut while the social impact of those cuts is negligible or even better!

I am, of course, not disputing that there are ways of changing the way that public services can be commissioned and managed that can lead to significant improvements in value for money and productivity. Indeed I have written a book about such practices (see www.crackingquestions.com). So I know my stuff after 31 years in the business of organisational improvement.

Part of the stuff I also know is that you have to evaluate any new interventions or organisational changes to see if they are working better than the previous way of delivering a service. It seems to me, however, that Conservative politicians especially (but sadly not exclusively) don't really like evaluation because it might just show that the new arrangements for a service have made things worse than before, perhaps very very much worse... And maybe we have this here with the new Early Years Services in Bucks.

Nearly a year ago, I asked Cllr Whyte on social media

• How will the success of the new arrangements be measured so that it can be seen that more children get help earlier?
• How will the effectiveness of such help be measured? (cos there's no point deploying 'help' that doesn't work)
• What outcome indicators will the County be assessing in order to judge whether these new arrangements are working (or not)

He replied:

“Critical success indicators for the new service are:

• Reduction in number of contacts into First Response (Children’s Social Care) from schools.
• Reduction in the number of cases previously closed to social care that are re- referred within 12 months from closure.
• Increased percentage share of contacts received in First Response, allocated to early help services.
• Number of early help assessments completed.
• Number of contacts signposted effectively via appropriate information, advice and guidance or to Buckinghamshire Family Information System (BFIS).
• Increased attendance for school age children engaged with family support services.
• Reduction in number of Post 16 young people who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET / unknown).
• Reduction in number of fixed term exclusions from school.
• Reduction in number of exclusions from school for students with SEND.
• Reduction in the number of students permanently excluded from schools.
• Reduction in the number of Education Health and Care Plan assessment"

These are all very specific - and very measurable. I asked Cllr Whyte then where the baseline measures of these indicators were. He didn't answer a year ago, and he still not answering this question. Without an answer, I left to assume that there are no baseline measures. But if there are some, I would be most happy!

For me this is all about good governance and the proper husbandry of scare public resources. I would like Cllr Whyte, as the responsible Cabinet Member, to come up with a reasonable answer to my questions. If not then I will have to presume that the management of our public services here in Bucks is simply all about a political drive towards cutting the money spent rather than doing the utmost to ensure the lives of young families are nurtured and helped in the most efficient and effective ways. You cannot do the latter without proper baseline measurement and evaluation. 

So come May this year: who will you vote for...? Will you be voting for the return of Conservative rule which, it seems to me based on this matter above, will deliver the same old same old ideological and unscientific approach to managing critical public services. Or do you want something different?

Is Bucks just about the bucks for you? Or do you want an administration of the County's public services that pays proper regard to science, measurement and, above all, the impact upon people's lives? It's your democratic choice. 

Time to be radical

There is no denying that the policy known as the "Right to Buy" introduced by the Thatcher/Joseph government was a political masterstroke. In one swoop it changed the world for a generation of people and their inheritors. I am not about to debate the rights & wrongs of the policy (mostly wrong of course, in the short and long term) in this blog. I merely want to use it as an illustration of a systemic change that one government put in that all future governments would find it difficult if not impossible to undo.

Under the British 'constitution', no government (at any level) can bind the policies of a future one. In other words any budget can be deleted, any structure restructured, laws can be repealed and even rights removed by a successive administration. But, the really, really clever and radical politicians can prevent this, for good or for bad. These are the systemic changes.

Another example is the Minimum Wage brought in by Blair's government. It would be nigh on impossible to undo that now. (Although it can be enforced with greater or lesser degrees of attention.) I would put the Open University into this category. Also of course, the EU Referendum was a systemic game changer too.

Some systemic changes are so by dint of legal intricacy (unravelling a law might be extremely difficult), or by dint of political zeitgeist (it would be generally seen to be unthinkable to undo the change). And some change the rules altogether such as the Human Rights Act (underpinned by the ECHR) and electoral reform (such as the voting systems put in place for the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments etc - but not yet Westminster). Still more revolve around creating an uplift in the skills and understanding of the population so that they won't (for example) have any truck with fake news or daft pseudo-science.

I hope that when the next Labour govt is elected (and that cannot come soon enough) that great effort is put into establishing positive systemic changes that will provide resilient improvements for the many, not just the few, in the UK and the world. Yes of course, it will be important to undo the years of damage inflicted on the economy and society by the years of Tory rule. But let's be really clever about it and do all that can be done systemically to prevent damage in the future - no matter which party is in control.

Tackling Anti-Semitism - an Organisational Development (OD) perspective

I have worked as an OD adviser for over 30 years. My assignments have been mainly in the public services, especially police, local government and the NHS. All this while (and longer) I have been a member of the Labour Party. Like many, I know, I have watched the debate around Anti-Semitism (AS) in the Labour Party and beyond with growing degrees of distress and concern. It seems that opinions are now more bitterly divided and sides drawn than even the arguments over Brexit.

But rather than get embroiled in the political arguments about where to go forward from here, I wanted to write this blog from an OD perspective. It is also an attempt to find some common ground.  

There is of course a huge debate about the scale of the problem within the Party, one which I plan to sidestep in this blog. All I would say about this is that I await the results of the independent and evidence based investigation being conducted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, with keen interest. I have stated that I will accept their conclusions and recommendations without equivocation. And I do this partly because I have faith in the EHRC's independence and partly, in order to move forward, I believe we must have faith in their independence and ability to help the party address this issue. And I say the latter from an OD perspective: all OD interventions need some sort of baseline to push against and from which to move forward.

(In this regard, I am very concerned that there appears to briefing against the EHRC investigation from several quarters because it will take too long or the Commission is inherently biased etc. This is most unwise in my opinion as without an up front agreement to accept the EHRC's process, there will never be any common ground and the Party will remain in a perennial self destructive battle with itself)

So with regard to the scale of the problem, for the purposes of this blog, I would ask all readers to accept that it is quite big enough to require a significant OD intervention to resolve it. (And comparisons to other political parties and wider society don't help or really matter. I think, the Labour Party should always be a trailblazer when it comes to matters of human rights, justice and equalities)

We have a problem that needs fixing. For the primary and intrinsic sake of the Jewish people who feel discriminated against and abused (within and outside the Party), we all need to sort this. And we need to resolve this as there is risk that this matter could damage the party politically, below the water line. And for anyone who wants and needs a Labour Government to be elected, this matter must absolutely be resolved. 

From my OD view, I think we need several principles established to ensure a robust fix. Anything less than these will result in the problem continuing which is in nobody's interests. 

The principles of effective OD practice as applied to this matter:

1) Whatever happens from here onward, must be evidence based. 

This applies to any interventions designed to tackle AS: there must be some science behind the interventions selected (and by definition) not selected. Simply adopting what I call a 'blunderbus' approach OD - firing all manner of development initiatives at the organisation with little aim or conscious selection is not only pointless it is potentially highly damaging.

It will be highly damaging because resources and good will, will have been squandered leaving less effort to tackle the problem effectively.  

2) We need an objective baseline and scoping of the problem

At the heart of all effective OD practice is diagnosis. This must be done comprehensively and objectively. And looking at the issue over time is critical too. We need to look back to establish the roots of the issue. There are plenty of Party documents and recordings that can help to trace the history of this problem within the Party. Has it always been there? When did it appear to grow? What else was happening etc etc. This is why the EHRC intervention is so critical and must not be disparaged, in my view.

3) There must be consistency and there can be no hierarchy of discrimination and abuse

One of the shining achievements of the last Labour Government was the Equality Act 2010: 

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.

This has helped to establish the principle that all forms of discrimination should be treated with parity. It is not the case that homophobia (for example) is more or less important than racism which in turn is no more or less important than ageism ... and so on. It is widely accepted in all circles of people engaged with tackling discrimination, that hierarchies of abuse are in themselves abusive as a hierarchy places one form above another. This applies in this instance, whilst AS is currently the focus, it is no more or less important than other forms of racism or other forms of abuse.

The implication of this is that whatever arrangements put in place to tackle AS must also have complementary arrangements for all other forms of abuse & discrimination. 

4) Changing organisations (especially a democratic membership one) is complex. Really complex!

I remain concerned that there appear to a wide number of people who seem to be engaged in what I would contend is over-simplistic or even magical thinking about this matter. The notion that there are some simple solutions than can be applied that will sort all this out, is dangerous in my opinion. Why dangerous? Because such 'solutions' will not be effective and this will leave the problem broadly untouched (leading to yet more discrimination & abuse) and also, at the same time, contribute to a cynical and nihilistic view that the problem is intractable. And I don't believe that to be the case.

Whatever happens here on in, needs to include a careful grasping and cradling of the complexity of this issue. Megaphone social media is not the way to move things forward. For me that is a lesson for all commentators on this subject.

5) Leadership is an essential ingredient but alone it is not sufficient to make all the difference

In my time as an OD adviser, I have seen many organisations eat leaders for breakfast. The idea that the performance of an organisation or its culture is determined by one leader or even a small leadership team of people is quite simply crass. It is understandable belief arising from what might be called the 'mythical hero' idea of leadership. Leaders have a significant role in determining culture of course. However no one should expect that merely changing a leader or one or two members of the senior team will lead inevitably to a positive solution.

6) Changing "the way things are done around here" (aka organisational culture) is massive challenge to any body/organisation/group - the bigger and more disparate the group - the harder it is.

Or to cite another well known aphorism: leopards don't change their spots. Now imagine thousands of leopards... Hence the notion that suddenly in the last couple of years, the Labour Party has become 'institutionally racist or anti-Semitic' is, from an OD perspective, highly unlikely. The phrase 'institutionally racist' of course originates from Lord Scarman's 1981 report into the Brixton Riots. It was also cited in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, headed up by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. A full quote is worth reading:

[Lawrence Inquiry 6.7] In 1981 Lord Scarman's Report into The Brixton Disorders was presented to Parliament. In that seminal report Lord Scarman responded to the suggestion that "Britain is an institutionally racist society," in this way:- 
"If, by [institutionally racist] it is meant that it [Britain] is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject the allegation. If, however, the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration, and, where proved, swift remedy". (Para 2.22, p 11 - Scarman Report). 

There is of course extensive exploration and discussion in both reports about 'institutional racism'. As an OD adviser, I would never use such a term lightly and certainly without extensive investigation. It is certainly possible that the ECHR investigation will conclude that the Party is 'institutionally anti-Semitic' but that would be after careful consideration of evidence and advice from many sources. To bandy the term around in the absence of such due consideration is, at the very least, unhelpful and at most highly destructive of any attempts to rid the Party of all smidgens of discrimination (which must always be the constant aim). Using the term of institutional racism in cavalier fashion debases and devalues it. And that is in no one's interest.

  7) It isn't all culture - it really is about strategy in the end

In the end all political parties exist to enact policies that each contend will provide the optimum improvement in the lives of all the citizens being governed. There has so far been relatively little focus on whether any of Labour's policies, were it to be in power, would be intrinsically anti-Semitic. An OD perspective always starts with what the organisation is seeking to achieve, for itself and the wider world.

So in terms of this matter, the crucial question in going forward, what more is the Labour party planning to do, once in power, to tackle not only AS in all of its forms throughout society but all forms of abuse and discrimination. Perhaps there are rules, regulations and advisory guidelines which could be established not only for all political parties but all organisations, commercial, public and otherwise...? What more should it be doing?

This is, of course, notwithstanding the need to examine what more the Party needs to do as an employer, as a beacon of good ethics and as a thought leader to engender anti-discriminatory practice everywhere.

All future OD interventions, including changes to HR and other procedures, leadership development, policy making structures, social media advice, memberships rules & regulations etc etc. must start with strategy and work forward from there.


In conclusion, this is a matter that is not going to go away easily or swiftly. All of us can engage in shoulda, woulda, coulda debates about what has happened and how we should not be here. But here we are and we simply have to find a broadly consensual way forward.

Ten reasons why I am a Labour Party activist

As we are in the midst of a UK election, where it seems Labour may not poll as high as I would hope I have been left reflecting deeply on why I remain an active Labour Party member and supporter.

So here are my ten foundations for why, after 40+ years, I have been and will carry on being a Labour activist until my ashes wash out into Cardigan Bay:

1) My parents were both Liberal teachers and I heard them tell stories about the students they taught who were experiencing hardship of various kinds. My early childhood was spent in dusty haystacks In north Devon, small friendly schools and on Welsh beaches in the summer holidays. I was lucky. So it did not seem right to me that there were others who were far less fortunate than me. I wanted to change this from an early age.

2) I now cannot remember why, but at secondary school, I became involved in supporting Oxfam. I went away on youth weekends and met charismatic people who educated me about the vast divisions in wealth and opportunity in the world, both between and within nations. I became angry at this huge injustice and informed myself by reading numerous articles in the New Internationalist magazine. I began to consolidate my political opinions. I remember helping to get out the vote late into the evening for Frank Judd in Paulsgrove in February 1974, just a few days before my 16th birthday.

3) At university, I became an activist: a pragmatic socialist that helped to organise a 'Progressive Alliance' of International Socialist, Labour, Liberal & Ecology party members into a combined force that wrangled control of the Student's Union out of the hands of the Federation of Conservative Students (from whom I first heard the abusive label of 'pleb'). While still at university, after the 1979 general election, I joined the Labour Party. I was prompted to do so out of fear of what was to come from a Tory government. (And I was right to be fearful)

4) I was involved in many political activities then around gay liberation, amnesty international, men's health, Anti Nazi League / Rock Against Racism, National Council for Civil Liberties, supporting the Miners etc. Even though many of these were apolitical, with a big P, there were never any Tories involved then. I remember that in these days when (at last) social liberalism has been adopted by the Tories.

5) My first few jobs (unemployment benefit office, council housing department, learning disability planning, health promotion services) served to consolidate my belief in the importance solid public services. Along with my appreciation of education (remember 1 above), I learnt that public services are not merely a 'safety net' for those who are less fortunate. Public services are the glue that holds our whole country together and creates the essential conditions for enterprise and commercial growth. Publicly funded & commercially developed organisations are two sides of the same coin, the same economy, the same society... People need the wherewithal to imagine and fulfil their ambitions: public services provide much of that through education, infrastructure, community safety, healthcare, national security and so forth.

6)  I well remember the bleak years between 1979 and 1997 with rampant militarism, legalised homophobia, political corruption and harsh treatment of anyone or any group that wasn't 'one of us'. Ours was a grey and dismal country when public services and capital investment was stripped to the bone as the government revelled in selling off the 'family silver'. The housing crisis began and continues to this day. This is when I fully began to appreciate that Tories only seem to want to know the price of everything while the value is of far lesser concern. The accountants had taken over the asylum. Self interest ('greed is good') was in the ascendant.

7) 1997 was a turning point and the sun shone again. The Labour government made real progress on many matters such as SureStart, social exclusion, community policing, human rights and decent investment in schools and hospitals. The economy grew steadily and this all seemed like practical democratic socialism in working practice. For ten years, the engines of commercial business and public services hummed along well: a fact that appears to be have been forgotten after the 2007 worldwide financial crash. Suddenly the national debt and deficit became Labour's fault, even though they were not and indeed had been far higher in previous decades.

8) However lurking behind the Oz curtains, were some of the same old same old: inequalities, militarism, privatisation, corruption and pandering to big business interests. At times like this, my pragmatic socialism comes to the fore and I remain with the party with which there is always hope of better times to come (whereas with the Tories, there is never any hope...)

9) The harsh & cruel reality of 9 years of Tory led government has only bolstered my resolve: only the Labour Party can really offer hope to the many people. For me socialism is about creating the conditions in which people can find the resources to shape their dreams and achieve these ambitions for themselves and their families. Tories like to pretend they are party of aspiration for the many but in truth, they are the party of aspiration only for the few who are lucky enough to have the resources.

10) In my head, I have a poem by Roger McGough: There are fascists pretending to be libertarians like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians. Now I am not saying that any party to the right (or left) of the Labour Party are fascists - by no means! But I think there are many politicians who pretend and fake a concern for social development and the interests of the ordinary working person but who actually have other aims really in mind. Only the Labour Party has the organisation, the principles, the policies, the reach and the experience to deliver a country that is fair, creative, ambitious, peaceful and prosperous for the many (not just the few).

Green light or flashing red light for vulnerable children?

This week, the County Council cabinet decided to move forwards on closing 35 Children's Centres throughout Buckinghamshire and replacing these with a new "Early Help service" based around "nine community team bases" (or "hubs" as they have also been called).

I am profoundly worried about the impact this change will have on families with new babies and small children. Of course the Tory administration will issue hundreds of emollient words and assurances that nobody in real need will suffer as a result. Of course they would. But how can they be so sure? And what measures will be installed to identify whether these assurances are true as the new service is rolled out?

You can read all about the proposals here in their press statement (see annotated version below too), the agenda for the meeting which discussed and agreed these proposals and the core paper on which all this is based.

As both a politician and as adviser on organisational change and development over nearly 30 years, I am always intensely interested in aims and measurement: what will success look like and how will you measure whether you are making progress towards this goal or not?

Turning to measurement first, the core paper says this:

46. The proposed new lower cost model has been introduced in a wide range of local authority areas across England over the last 3 years, with many citing positive impact on children and families. 

I would have expected to see some reference here, you know the sort of thing: a footnote listing the "wide range of local authority areas" or an article which does so. But of course there is no such footnote and frankly I am sceptical about whether there is any well researched basis for such an assertion. I am of course, because I am a scientist, more than happy to be pointed towards the research. But currently, for me, this statement has about as much evidential substance as a exhalation from Nigel Farage after four pints.

Earlier in the paper, I should add, three authorities are mentioned as places of good practice: North Lincs, Kent and Sutton.

14. An analysis of best practice in other Local Authorities shows that strong Early Help services support an effective system of help and protection for children and young people. 

Here is a page describing the full list of Childen's Centre in North Lincs. And here are details of the Children's Centres in Kent. And the ones for Sutton. So the three authorities cited as sources of good practice all still have Children's Centres... Interesting. Tell me again, why is Bucks closing all of its Children's Centres...?

The paper goes on:

47. Whilst there has been no formal benchmarking of success measures to date, there is an increasing consensus that the Troubled Families measures are a valid and evidence based approach, as they address the following key areas of success:

• School attendance rate including exclusions

• Crime and antisocial behaviour

• Worklessness in adults and young people 

• Children in need – reducing the demand for statutory services

• Domestic abuse incidence 

• Health and wellbeing of children and parents

OK. Let's highlight that statement "Whilst there has been no formal benchmarking of success measures to date". What this means, in fact, is that the current service has not been measured in any serious way against other models of service up until now. Millions of taxpayers' money has been spent on a wing and prayer. If there is no benchmarking data, the County Council probably doesn't even know whether the current service has become more or less effective or efficient over the last (say) 10 years. Without doubt there will also be no way of knowing whether the new service will be better than the old one or not. Because... there have been "no formal ...measures"! How is this a good way to run council services?! Indeed, how is this a way to plan new ones?!

But let us also examine the statement "here is an increasing consensus that the Troubled Families measures are a valid and evidence based approach". Really? Again no reference, just a set of bland words that sound good. Here is a quote from "Troubled families: progress review. Thirty-third Report of Session 2016–17. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. December 2016"

The Department [DCLG] had a target of “turning around” the lives of 117,910 families identified by local authorities as troubled. It made payments to local authorities for “turning around” the lives of 99% of these. An evaluation commissioned by the Department could not find evidence of whether or not there had been any significant impact.

Let me emphasise that last statement again, this time in bold:

An evaluation commissioned by the Department could not find evidence of whether or not there had been any significant impact.

I think we can dispense immediately with the fatuous statement "there is an increasing consensus". Evidently, this not the case and assert such is at best misleading and at worst downright disingenuous. As to whether the measures are "a valid and evidence based approach" is at least debatable if not also untrue.

It seems to me that the whole basis of driving forward on these plans has no substance or evidence. And moreover, I am not exactly persuaded that there will be any serious measures of success of the new service as it is established. Which means that the County Council is either gambling with the future of some very vulnerable children's lives or will continue not to measure seriously the impact of the new service... or both!

All that we see in the report is:

I. Progress Monitoring70. Implementation of the new service will be through the Change for Children Programme Board and reported regularly to the cabinet members for Children’s Services and Education and Skills. Once the new service is fully established, the project management and governance arrangements will transfer to normal operational management arrangements. The Children’s Partnership Board will monitor the new Early Help Service.

There is no mention of how the new service will be measured. I will be watching closely how the programme board will conduct its work. How much of this will be done behind closed doors and how will be open for the public/service users/taxpayers to see, will be illuminating. I await to hear about what reliable, evidence based and even consensual measures are being established....

But what is the shape of success? Against what vision, should this new Early Help service be compared? The paper describes that it aims to:

• put the children and families at the heart of our thinking and design services that simplify the complexity of support that is currently available across a range of organisations
• make sure children and families in Buckinghamshire get the right support at the right time
• help children and families be independent and build their own resilience so when problems occur they can find their own solutions at the earliest point of difficulty
• ensure that children and families only have to tell their story once, by working closely with our colleagues and partners to identify and meet their needs together

Noble aims which I would broadly agree with... but how will these be measured? Clearly the Troubled Families measures do not even come close to measuring these. So I repeat: how will progress towards this visions of success be measured? How will, once the detail has been worked out by the programme board, the new service be guaranteed to deliver this vision. At the very least, I would expect to see a link between the new structures, cultures and processes of the new model service mapped against these four points - showing clearly how one will achieve the other.

But finally let's turn to the press statement that was issued within minutes of the decision being taken. I have annotated it below (original in italics - my comments in bold & non-italic):

Green light for new service to help children and families earlier

Published 08.01.2018

Today, 8 January 2018, Cabinet gave their seal of approval for a new service that will help children and families more effectively by developing one Early Help service for Buckinghamshire. [to be clear: whatever now happens is the responsibility of the Cabinet and if Ofsted later criticises the model when it is operating, the buck stops with the whole Cabinet]

Following public consultation in 2017, the council plans to improve services and help families most in need by shifting the focus further from reactive services, to preventative support. [noble aim but I thought Children's Centres have always been about prevention through education. If they have become reactive that will almost certainly be as a consequence of reductions in budgets rather than an strategic plan to do so] By providing more coordinated support to children and families as soon as a problem emerges [really? And will this be identified? And this does sound rather, errr, reactive, does it not?] , the aim is to prevent small problems from getting out of control and help families to become more resilient to deal with problems in the future. [for me the question here is how? What is the basis of lack of 'resilience' in families with small children? My hunch, as a non expert, is that this is down to four things: lack of resources, lack of family & community support, lack of confidence built up over many years and lack of parenting skills for a whole array of complex reasons. Tackling these requires monumental skill, time, patience and probably resources that won't be easily magicked into existence. I await to see how this is done. I do know this won't be done without highly qualified and well resourced staff... do we have these now or will they be acquiring such?]

Cabinet agreed that the new service will be created by bringing together council delivered and commissioned  services that currently provide early help support across the county. This will enable the council to support families with all of their problems at the same time; meaning families and children only have to tell their story once. [OMG: If I had hot dinners for the numbers of decision makers who blithely assert the ease by which fragmented services can be combined into one seamless organisation, I would be very much fatter than I already am! This won't be easy and without proper transitional resourcing, it will be nigh on impossible. I am not holding my breath because I don't think the transitional resourcing will be provided...]

The new service will:                                                                                       
Be targeted at children and families most in need

[what a wonderful word 'targeted' is! What is usually means is lets reduce the service and then describe it as targeting. Two issues emerge - how far do you go? And can services be so easily 'targeted'. Let's deal with the second first. To target a service, you have to know of the whole range of need to begin with. If the new service is so limited, it may not be possible to target the services as the people most in need may not appear on the radar. The advantage of Children's Centres was that everyone was welcome. Those who needed most support would become evident. In a service that won't have that same broad appeal, it is highly likely that many of the people who need the service most will disappear under the radar. But back to the first point: allow me to propose that we strip back the Royal Navy to just six ships. I will convince you that these six ships will be very well 'targeted' where they are needed most. You see what I mean: targeting is meaningless unless you are also clear about the thresholds of need...]

• Support the whole family and work with them to deal with all of their issues together 
• Be made up of teams of family workers who will work closely with families in the community and with partners
• Operate from  nine community team bases from where family workers can go out into the community and provide services at locations that best suit the families’ individual situations
• Support families with a wide variety of issues from money worries, parenting and child behaviour difficulties to mental health issues
• Work closely with partners for the benefit of the whole family
• The service will bring together a range of experience and expertise from across the existing early help services, ensuring teams of multi-skilled family workers who will be able to support families across a wide range of issues and age groups.

The nine community team bases will be close to areas where we know there are more children and families in need. This will enable workers to go out into the community to meet with families in places where they feel most at ease [unless that most at ease means the childrens centres that will no longer exist of course! It also suggests that all of this will happen at a one to one level whereas it is my understanding is that childrens centres thrive on peer support as well. If the services is fragmented into discrete conversations in the corners of coffee shops, all that peer support is lost!].  The team bases will replace some of our current children’s centres and will be located at:

• Aylesbury, covering the Quarrendon area
• Aylesbury Southcourt, Aylesbury College Campus, Oxford Road
• Aylesbury Elmhurst, Dunsham Lane
• Buckingham: this team base will be established as part of the options being explored for co-location of a variety of public sector services. [so they don't know then. What happens in the meantime? And it is the first I have heard of 'co-locating' services. Such as what? More detail please!!]
• Burnham, Minniecroft Road
• Chesham Newtown, Berkhampstead Road
• Wycombe Castlefield, Rutland Avenue, Castlefield
• Wycombe Millbrook, Mill End Road
• Wycombe Hamilton Road

Seven of these will make use of the existing children’s centre buildings, while Quarrendon and Buckingham areas are currently being assessed for appropriate locations.

Over the next six months discussions with local communities, schools and early years providers will look at how the remaining 28 buildings can be used in the future for the maximum benefit of children, families and communities. [weasel words. Does this include selling them off?]

Throughout the consultation in 2017 concerns were raised about the continuation of specific services that take place at children’s centres such as health visitor clinics and speech and language therapy. Many of these services that are provided by partner organisations using children’s centres as a venue, will continue. For example, health visitor clinics which include drop-ins, postnatal well-being groups, post-natal and antenatal clinics, breastfeeding support, and child development reviews will continue to be provided across the county. Specific services such as speech and language support for children, grief counselling and parenting classes will also continue to be delivered by partners or by the new service. Locations for these services may need to change and be delivered from a broader range of community buildings or venues that are close to where people live. [so the lofty idea above of bringing together services does not extend to those provided by say the NHS or others. Which means where there used to be co-location of clinics and nurseries etc - this is now going to be more fragmented and scattered. Good job!!]

Alongside the development of this new service the council will be improving information, advice and support online for children and families through the Buckinghamshire Family Information Service.

One coordinated Early Help service for Buckinghamshire is planned to have a service budget of £7.125m in comparison to the budget of £10.08m for the current services, saving the council £3.07m over four years. [Please can we stop the use of this Owellian phrase 'savings'. These are not savings - these are cuts, pure and simple!] Alongside this, better early help for children and families at the right time should [should... and with no reliable measures as yet - and indeed no way of comparing to past...] reduce the demand for more costly support from children's services such as social care in the future.

Cabinet member for Children’s Services, Warren Whyte said: “This is a great opportunity to support children and families who need us the most. By going out to where they are, dealing with the whole family and all of their issues and listening to what families need rather than waiting for them to reach a crisis point, I’m confident we can make some real positive changes for families in Buckinghamshire. [I am not confident and I think hundreds of families in Bucks are not either. But I guess we will see and the families concerned will know who to contact if or when the services reduce and more crises happen... And isn't there an Ofsted report on Bucks Children's services coming out soon? I look forward to reading its results...]

I’m particularly keen now for ideas on how we can continue to keep our Children’s Centre buildings in use going forward; whether that is to support increasing Early Years places, schools, other support and services for children, young people and families, or broader community use.” [You can send your ideas to Cllr Warren Whyte here or email: wwhyte@buckscc.gov.uk]

The Tory #CareTax proposals

The 2017 Conservative Manifesto has promised "Dignity and protection in old age through the right long-term solution for elderly care" if they are returned to power. They are proposing three measures:

• First, we will align the future basis for means-testing for domiciliary care with that for residential care, so that people are looked after in the place that is best for them. This will mean that the value of the family home will be taken into account along with other assets and income, whether care is provided at home, or in a residential or nursing care home.
• Second, to ensure this is fair, we will introduce a single capital floor, set at £100,000,more than four times the current means test threshold. This will ensure that, no matter how large the cost of care turns out to be, people will always retain at least £100,000 of their savings and assets, including value in the family home.
• Third, we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care.

Hitherto, older people who have worked all their lives and managed to become home owners through paying into a mortgage of some kind, could rest easy that their efforts would be passed on to their offspring (or whomever). And if they happened to need some care at home, they knew their own home was not at risk. If the Tories are elected to government, everyone who owns a home would know their behest is at risk: because no one can know whether they will eventually need long term domiciliary care. 

No longer would many older people have the comfort of knowing that their capital asset would maybe help their son or daughter or their grandchildren to buy a home for the first time. For many older people, this is really, really important and helps to make them feel worthwhile. The Tories are threatening to take this comfort away. Indeed I have already seen one tweet this morning from someone saying that they explored the Dignitas site for the first time in response to the manifesto. I really worry that some older people will make the decision to end their own lives rather than see their hard earned assets be whittled away by this policy. 

There are many, many reasons why this policy is very unfair and punitive. And it will ultimately result in more people gaming the system (but that is for another blog...) What I want to focus on here is how would it actually work in practice? Here some questions that I would like to have answers to:

1. The proposal refers to the value of the family home. How will that value be determined? 
2. Will measures be put in place to prevent people from putting their homes into trust to avoid this tax?
3. Will this only apply to older people, or all people who need help at home such as people with disabilities?
4. How old is old? Pension age or younger? Or older?
5. Given the massive financial consequences, who will adjudicate on whether someone has health needs (paid for free by the NHS) or social care needs (subjected to surrender of their home asset)? Will such decisions be open to legal challenge?
6. How much will this policy cost to administer?
7. Will the process of releasing the equity on the homes in question be outsourced to private financial institutions? Will they charge fees and interest?
8. What happens if the person needing such care has a partner/spouse who also owns the property? Will the legal status of this ownership (tenants in common vs joint tenancy) make any kind of difference?
9. What legal instrument will be used to extract the monies after the death of the person who needed social care? Will the government expect to put a charge on the house? What happens if the person concerned refuses to sign their home over to the government? Will they be compelled to?
10. Will this policy apply to family members who do not own the family home but live in it? In other words, will it impact on social care support for younger people (perhaps with disabilities) still living with their carers/parents?
11. If a family home would be taken into account for these purposes, will that revision of the basis of means-testing eventually be made to apply in other circumstances as well? Is this the beginning of a very large wedge of policies that will mean the state seizing more and more privately owned assets?

I am sure there are many more and more critical questions that need to be asked and answered about this policy. We need to know now so that people can make their own decision on how to vote on June 8 and before. 

Does this policy feel like one that is making the country fairer to you? I know my answer to that: no!