Regional bias claim against the north in adult social care inspections
England’s social care regulator has been accused of regional bias against the north following an analysis of adult services inspections.
The study by BASW England compared Care Quality Commission (CQC) assessments for promoting wellbeing with rankings by the long-established Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) used by councils to benchmark such services.
It focused on the 70 councils that have been inspected under the CQC’s two-year-old assessment framework which considers how well councils are meeting their duties under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014.
The comparison found:
- 75 per cent of London councils were scored significantly more generously (overscored) by the CQC compared to their ASCOF rankings and none of them were underscored
- No authorities in the East Midlands were overscored but 75 per cent were scored less generously (underscored) by CQC compared to their ASCOF rating
- Of the two authorities so far assessed by the new CQC framework in Yorkshire & Humber both were underscored
- 67 per cent of councils in the north east and the south west were underscored. But those in the north east were less likely to be overscored (22 per cent compared to 33 per cent)
As well as regional bias the analysis also showed a significant mismatch between the two assessment frameworks:
- 77 per cent of councils rated as requiring improvement or inadequate by the CQC were rated significantly more highly by ASCOF
- In more than half (55 per cent) of these cases, councils were substantially underscored by the CQC
- Conversely, 83 per cent of authorities rated good or outstanding by CQC were rated significantly less highly by ASCOF’s benchmark
- A third of these were substantially over-scored by the CQC
According to the analysis, Camden Council came top for performance by the CQC out of the 70 authorities analysed. However, ASCOF ranked it near the bottom, in 58th place.
At the other end, Blackpool was ranked worst-performing by the CQC but is placed 11th best according to the ASCOF rankings.
BASW England professional officer Andrew Reece, who conducted the analysis, said: “The findings raise serious questions as to how the CQC’s new framework is performing.
“The striking regional bias and the lack of consistency with the well-established ASCOF framework suggests further exploration of the CQC’s judgements, and any source of bias, is needed.”
The CQC said its assessments were based on a range of sources of information, of which ASCOF was one.
A spokesperson added: “The assessments also review a wide array of additional evidence, to reflect a broader and informed picture of how well a local authority’s care provision is meeting its responsibilities under the Care Act.
“Designed to reflect different things, it would not be expected that ASCOF assessments, or any single piece of insight in isolation, would mirror CQC’s broader findings.”
Reece, however, said the ASCOF data is the central starting point for the CQC’s assessment and collates data from 21 separate measures.
He added: “You would therefore expect there to be a broad correlation between the two, and for CQC to be able to clearly explain why they have deviated from ASCOF findings.”
BASW members who have experiences to share of the CQC’s new assurance framework are urged to contact BSW England.
Look out for more information about the framework to be published by BASW England.
Contact andrew.reece@basw.co.uk