Social services failing to meet legal obligations

Many social service departments are failing to meet the needs of children, vulnerable adults and elderly people in their care, with one in 10 performing so poorly that it is on an "at risk" register.

Many social service departments are failing to meet the needs of children, vulnerable adults and elderly people in their care, with one in 10 performing so poorly that it is on an "at risk" register.

In a government review of 150 social service departments in England, a picture of inconsistent quality was revealed, with many failing to meet their statutory obligations.

John Hutton, a Health minister, said yesterday that the Government would not tolerate poor standards and would send "hit squads" to take over departments that failed to improve care by next April. "There are some authorities doing really well, but there are some where that is simply not happening. The scale of the variation is quite remarkable and unacceptable," Mr Hutton said.

"At any one time 1.5 million people use social services, spending £9bn a year. We need to get better performance out of that expenditure and tackle inconsistency."

The Government has identified 17 failing social service departments - including Lambeth, Bury, Buckinghamshire and Coventry - which stand to lose part of their services next year to better performing neighbouring departments if they do not meet national standards.

The departments were assessed against 35 performance indicators, including inspections of children's homes, the number of times children were moved between foster homes, and the proportion of elderly, disabled and mentally ill adults receiving help so they could remain at home.

Four out of 10 departments failed to fulfil statutory obligations requiring them to inspect the homes of children and elderly people. In three authorities - Bury, North Lincolnshire and Southend-on-Sea - only half of the children's homes were inspected.

The report showed that on average, one in 10 children on the child protection register did not have their case reviewed when it should have been. Eight authorities assessed less than two-thirds of cases, and 10 authorities were not able to provide information.

Children's charities said yesterday it was unacceptable that only 33 of the 150 authorities reviewed all child protection cases.

Mike Taylor, director of child care at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said: "Children on the child protection register face, or have already suffered, appalling cruelty and neglect. Placing them on a register and leaving them there without review is not child protection, it's child limbo-land."

There was also a wide variation in the number of times a child in care was moved between foster homes. In Kirklees, Nottingham, Wokingham, Lambeth and Hounslow, less than one-quarter of children stayed with one foster family for more than two years.

"Children who are being looked after by local authorities need to be in settled places," Mr Hutton said. "Yet only half of the children who have been in care for over four years have stayed with the same foster family for more than two years. It's a major problem."

The access to social service care varied widely around the country. In Hackney, only 26 per cent of those in need received an assessment, compared with averages of 71 per cent in London and77 per cent nationally. Many authorities - including Calderdale, Wigan, Cheshire and Stoke-on-Trent - assessed 100 per cent of those requiring help.

As well, the review showed that the elderly were more likely to receive help to stay at home in urban areas than rural parts. In London, however, help varied widely, with twice as many elderly people in the borough of Greenwich receiving assistance from social services as those in Lambeth.