For the children's sake

ICS is part of the government's Every Child Matters agenda

Effective information sharing has long been a critical priority for social care practitioners. After systemic failures were highlighted by the review that followed the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie in 2000, a new integrated computer system was supposed to improve collaboration. But that project has been beset by delays. With less than two weeks to go until the next big deadline, and amid criticism from social workers and delays by suppliers, how likely is it that this most worthy of technology initiatives will be deemed a success?

Local authorities in England and Wales have until the end of September 2008 to implement the latest set of mandatory enhancements to the Integrated Children’s System (ICS), which provides a consistent framework, method of practice and business process to support social care practitioners. It is supported by an electronic case record system and is also one of three key IT systems introduced as part of the government’s Every Child Matters agenda.

The ICS aims to promote effective collaboration and to ensure that vulnerable children are brought under the wing of social care authorities in time to make a difference. To date, progress has been patchy.

In 2007, a deadline for the first set of system enhancements was met by only 58 out of the 150 councils in England and Wales with social care responsibilities.

A second deadline of 31 March 2008 passed, with 90 councils failing to implement the fundamental phase 1B requirements of the ICS project, such as ensuring that assessments are not made until the child has been seen. Suppliers were blamed for failing to deliver the necessary software in time.

A new 30 September deadline was introduced, and councils that fail to meet that target face having to return unused funding to the government and surrender the capital assets already purchased with the funding. This time, however, there is more confidence. Most councils have made good progress, and the extended deadline looks achievable, according to Colin Gunner, consultant at public sector IT association Socitm.

“I would say suppliers are basically there for phase 1B,” he says. “And I would expect that most councils are there or thereabouts.”

The relationship between suppliers and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), which is ultimately responsible for the Every Child Matters initiative, has improved in recent months. Sources at those firms confirm that their advice on workable timescales for delivering the next set of enhancements seemsto have been taken on board.

Sources familiar with the situation also confirm that on occasion the DCSF has asked for enhancements that would conflict with other compliance criteria. But the improving relationships have meant suppliers have been able to mediate, obtaining clearer feedback from the department. Those sources also confirm that they have been given a better insight into future stages of the project, which may help reduce the likelihood of further delays.

When the first phase of system enhancements was unveiled, the difference between the “must have” and “should have” requirements was not clear, says Gunner. That has changed. And with a deadline looming, suppliers knew they “would need to tackle the ‘should have’ requirements and that made scheduling easier”, he adds.

Nevertheless, some suppliers are still expected to struggle. “There are requirements that may represent individual design challenges for some, so once again do not expect all suppliers to reach compliance at the same time,” says Gunner.

Meanwhile, despite improving relations between government and IT suppliers, concerns are being raised about the next phase ­ 1C.

While suppliers may be better informed about the likely substance of the 1C enhancements, councils have yet to confirm finance arrangements. As one supplier told Computing, until finance is put in place, councils are unlikely to commit to spending, and that in turn affects how the suppliers prioritise software enhancements.

“For earlier phases we had been getting calls from our customers saying: ‘Let’s go on with the systems, we have deadlines to meet’, but this has not happened so far with the new phase. For earlier phases the funding was the carrot on the stick, but if there is no funding for phase 1C, it will be different. I am not sure it will be the customer’s priority at the moment,” says one supplier.

Even on the assumption that all technical obstacles are cleared and the system works, ICS faces severe resistance from social workers. They criticise the system for being too prescriptive to accommodate the complexities of individual situations, and argue it chains them to their computers when they should be out in the field.

A survey of users examining the practical elements of ICS by the University of York concluded: “Our evaluation raises serious reservations about the design and use of ICS and we believe that ICS has yet to demonstrate the degree to which and how it is fit for purpose.” And it is widely felt that managers are not listening to users’ concerns.

A leading authority in social policy is equally pessimistic. “I have yet to hear a user make a positive comment about ICS ­ only senior people who don’t actually use it themselves,” says Eileen Munro, reader in social policy at London School of Economics and co-author of a Cambridge University report into information sharing in social care for the Information Commissioner in 2006.

Sue White, professor of social work at Lancaster University, is working on a report with several academics on risk management in social work, which has identified a number of issues that social workers have found with ICS. She says initial feedback has highlighted problems with the system, and frustrations are building.

“Feedback from users is that ICS is not reliable and is time-consuming, generating electronic tasks that get in the way of the real work. Senior managers seem to be singing its praises, but there is a huge mismatch between what social workers and team managers are saying.”

Elsewhere, Duncan Clark, head of prevention and safeguarding for learning and children’s services at Kingston Council, says senior management has to seize the initiative by championing the system and showing social workers how it can help them.

Meanwhile, wider issues concerning information sharing in children’s services is fuelling the debate over ICS.

ContactPoint, the children’s database, has been at the centre of a storm after it emerged that police will have the right to apply for access to the system. Infuriated MPs and child welfare campaigners were aghast at the plans. Amid the furore, go-live plans for October were pushed back to January.

The DCSF insists that the delay is necessary to address “technical issues”, but the row has highlighted concerns over who will be able to access the database, and the robustness of the safeguards that must be put in place.

The ultimate goal of creating a comprehensive social care system will require the integration of ICS, ContactPoint and the electronic version of the Common Assessment Framework (eCAF). But plans for how to achieve this are not yet finalised.

“The newest specification [for the ICS system] does not include the expected links with ContactPoint and eCAF. These will bring additional challenges,” said Socitm’s Gunner.

In the absence of that blueprint, councils need to start considering the potential impact of information-sharing requirements now, suggests Gunner, if they hope to build a system equipped to support a care system where the child’s interests are placed first.

“Local authorities will need to make changes to the way they work, and the way they deliver services, and they will have to look more at multi-agency collaboration. ICS is still only part of the overall children’s services, the next big challenge is to put it into something concrete and tangible in terms of what we should be doing,” says Gunner.

The next stage in the ICS project highlights the urgent need for council staff to be able to use the system correctly. Enhancements planned for phase 1C will require ICS access to be restricted depending on the sensitivity of data or the role of the user. And while the DCSF has published mandatory guidelines, it has said that the management and control of security access and restriction of functionality is “a matter for local authorities to determine and administer in line with their own policy and practice”.

If ICS is to become a tool that can truly enhance practice and improve data sharing, without hindering social work, councils will need comprehensive and sophisticated information-management policies that are closely aligned to working practices. And managers will have to work with users to understand
and overcome difficulties, rather than allowing users to become alienated from a system that is becoming an increasingly critical part of their work.

What is the Integrated Children's System?

The Integrated Children’s System (ICS) is the cornerstone of government efforts to build an integrated care system to support case workers dealing with vulnerable children.

Phase 1 - Councils were expected to implement a system that was capable of a range of functions, including maintaining separate age bands on assessment exemplars to ensure that children are assessed according to their different developmental needs.

Phase 1B - This stage included the requirement for more comprehensive search facilities and the ability to ensure that assessments are not completed until a child has been seen.

Phase 1C - Implementation of 1C is expected by summer 2009, but funding arrangements have yet to be confirmed. New enhancements include access restrictions according to role. The system will also be able to better support child adoption plans and associated reviews.

Phase 2 - This is expected to require ICS to be interoperable with other systems, including Connecting for Health, eCAF and the ContactPoint child database.

Case Study - Redbridge Council: Meeting targets to cope with a growing population

Like many of the councils that struggled to meet the original 31 March deadline for the phase 1B implementation of the Integrated Children’s System (ICS), Redbridge Council has put huge effort into delivering a compliant system.

The authority went live with its ICS system in April 2008, just 15 weeks after signing the procurement agreement with supplier LiquidLogic for the Protocol ICS system.

The system combines services from education and children’s social care into one integrated service and has 250 users at The Redbridge Pathfinder Children’s Trust.

Like many councils, children make up a significant percentage of Redbridge’s population. It is predicted that by 2016, 14 per cent of the population of this outer-London authority will be under 18, so building a system able to serve this growing population has been a priority.

The council was able to fast-track the system deployment by appointing a lead social care practitioner to act as a link between the staff who implemented the system and those using it. This ensured that users of the system were offered support and training, while guaranteeing that any issues that arose –
particularly ones involving elements of professional practice – could be quickly addressed.

“It now means that we have met the government’s targets for compliance with ICS, which means our social care staff have a system that will safeguard children in Redbridge,” says Carole Brown, head of resources at Redbridge Children’s Trust.

Following the success of the ICS rollout, Redbridge has begun work on implementing its electronic Common Assessment Framework (eCAF), another central pillar of the government’s Every Child Matters agenda. Redbridge expects to go live with that system later this year. “We are now ahead of the game, not only in terms of ICS, but also in the facilitation of increased multi-agency working,” says Brown.