Contemporary Social Policy and the Welfare of Children and their Families in the UK - Essay Example

?Contemporary Social Policy and the Welfare of Children and their Families in the UK Introduction Child welfare policies in the UK, since the nineteenth century, have been rooted in the theoretical view of children either as weak, and hence helpless without protection ‘(the child as a victim)’, or as reckless, impulsive, and uncultured, and hence in need of control and ‘(the child as threat)’(Hallet & Prout, 2003: 173). Policy and law concerning children and their families show a fundamental uncertainty when creating social policies for children. Wide-ranging arrays of new laws and policies which influence children’s lives both indirectly and directly have been implemented after the election and re-election of the New Labour government (Franklin, 2001). These developments have been harmonious as well as conflicting. The general objective of this essay is to present a critical evaluation of contemporary social policy about and for child welfare in the UK. The discussion will put emphasis on New Labour’s policy and three policy areas, namely, child abuse, child poverty, and child mental health. Only these three policy areas are chosen since it would be impractical to discuss all existing policy areas in the UK. The three chosen policy areas are the most pressing dilemmas of social policy in the UK today. The definition of social policy that will be used in this essay is the one that concerns guidelines for the creation, protection, or changing of living conditions that are favourable or beneficial to human welfare. Hence, social policy is a component of public policy that concerns social issues like child protection and welfare. This essay will use the rights-based approach. This is a perspective that puts together the objectives, norms and ideals of the international human rights constitution into the development agendas and processes (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). The rights-based approach to contemporary social policy for child welfare is characterised by activities and processes that relate the human rights principles and its natural concept of struggle with development and power (Hendrick, 2005). This essay argues that, primarily, children continue to be neglected in professional practice and policymaking. When children are perceptible and the emphasis of policymaking this is frequently because they are viewed and treated as ‘troublesome’ or ‘disturbed’ (John, 2003). Hence, just like in the past, according to Hodgson and Spours (1999), present-day ‘childhoods’ and contemporary children are marked by a political aspect. The history of child welfare policies in the UK can be described in terms of a steady and restricted intrusion into the family as a reaction to a nation’s evolving needs and perceptions. The acceptance of particular roles and duties by the state towards child welfare, specifically with regard to health and education, has become entrenched (Great Britain Department of Health, 2006). On the contrary, the more focused policies like those involved in the criminal justice system and in the protection of children have obliged to take action in response to certain issues and problems that seem critical then, issues which mainly concern particular families and communities (Hallet & Prout, 2003), while neglecting most families and communities. Hence, this essay will also analyse the effect of the modern children’s rights movement on social policy and law involving children. New Labour: The ‘Social Investment’ Approach The concept of ‘the social investment state’ has arisen as the Third Way ideology’s normative principle and a practical response to the problems and issues of the welfare state recognised by Third Way scholars and policymakers (Lewis & Surender, 2004). The practical response and normative principle are interlocked. The community and the child are viewed as symbols of the social investment state (Lewis & Surender, 2004). Particularly, the child assumes an iconic position. Yet, it has been argued by Hendrick (2005) that the social investment’s new framework cited the child as the prospective ‘citizen-worker’. The concept of social investment state, from a methodical context, offers a valuable methodical framework for studying the emergent welfare system. In the context of the discipline of welfare regime, it symbolises a developing integrated paradigm of liberal system which fuses patterns of democratic and liberal/neo-liberal development (Lewis, 2006). The Commission on Social Justice proclaimed that “children are 100 per cent of the nation’s future and the best indicator of the capacity of our economy tomorrow is the quality of our children today” (Leira & Saraceno, 2008: 373). Children surfaced as major icons in the emerging social investment state of New Labour in 1999 (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). The national childcare strategy, for all its limitations, embodies a major development in UK social policy (Hendrick, 2005). As claimed by Birte Siim (2000), “from the point of view of social policies towards women and children, Britain... represents an exception to the rule of European social policies” (as cited in Hendrick, 2005: 454) specifically in the domain of child welfare and services. She claims that this shows the prevailing liberal principle of the division of private and public domains and non-intervention in the former. Thus far this principle has structured common policy towards children believed to be at risk of neglect or abuse. Regardless of the provision of family allowances and change in child assistance, as stated by Devaney and Spatt (2009), children have been the victims of maltreatment and abuse. The UK has been portrayed as, according to Lewis (2006), “a serious contender for the title of worst place in Europe to be a child” (p. 56). Debatably this manifests not merely the liberal nature in the existing social welfare principle but an ambiguity in British views and treatment of children as well. (Lewis, 2006). This uncertainty is expressed in the ways where in children icon in social policy is the hope of the future, worthy of investment, and as behavioural problems, requiring control and guidance. Theoretical perspectives on social policy differ, particularly on the series of Children Act and Every Child Matters. Theorists like P. Wilding and V. George propose that social policy is an outcome of mainstream ideology or doctrine and not an outcome of humanitarianism (John, 2003). They claim that social problems are mainly the outcome of social conflicts concerning the value systems and economic objectives of competing social classes and groups (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). These perspectives make clear two relevant and associated ideas, specifically, ‘values’ and ‘choice’. There is a common agreement that social policy decisions or measures embody a choice between other values (Franklin, 2001). This choice concerning social policy is guided by mainstream ideologies in a certain society and in a particular period or framework. As stated by R. Titmuss (1974), “policy, any policy, to be effective must choose an objective and must face dilemmas of choice” (p. 16). As argued by Titmuss (1974), “there is no escape from value choices...not only is ‘policy’ all about values, but those who discuss problems of policy have their own values” (p. 16). Yet, this is not to say that there is common opinion of which value systems should be used in creating or discussing social policy (Halley & Prout, 2003). Instead, social policy is continuously reviewed and modified to show competing ideologies, objectives, and requirements in society. Child Poverty The Green Paper on Welfare Reform establishes several ideals which orient the reform agenda. In particular relevance to this policy area, the fifth principle declares: “The system should support families and children as well as tackling the scourge of child poverty” (Ditch, 1999, 7). Recognising a ‘huge problem of child poverty, with nearly three million children in workless households’ (p. 7) the administration dedicates itself to ‘support all families with children, especially poorer families’ based on the ‘identifiable needs of children’ (Ditch, 1999, 7). Although the reform agenda includes policy areas aside from poverty mitigation, according to Millar (2003), this note takes into account the possible effect of it on the earnings of the most impoverished families, before taking into account the repercussions for social work provisions. These social policies, like UNCRC’s Article 5 (see Appendix B), have been acknowledged, and commonly children, young people, and their families have acquired advantage from an improved allocation of resources and their better representation within the policymaking process. New Labour has expressed an interest with equality of opportunity and equality of outcome strengthened by a structure of social responsibilities instead of social privileges (Hendrick, 2005). David Cameron, in October 2007, gave a speech in Chance UK and declared the momentous dedication to completely eradicating poverty in the UK (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). This developed on a previous pledge by the Conservative Party in 2006 to advocate the objective established in 1999 by the administration of Tony Blair to stamp out child poverty by 2020 (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). Blair, in his address, summed up his image of a globally competitive UK, where the administration would collaborate with the private sectors and NGOs to finance welfare, guarantee that employees are provided with the needed training, harmonise the duties and rights of beneficiaries, and promise “work for those who can, security for those who can’t” (Millar, 2003, 48). Referring to the abolition of child poverty the initial step in mitigating the prevalence of poverty, furthered by Millar (2003), he dedicated the administration to building equality of opportunity. Yet, a large number of the policies stand for adult issues, like UNCRC’s Article 18 (see Appendix B), and the chief policy drive has been towards dealing with unemployment through employment programmes, as stated by Lewis and Surender (2004). The hazards of poverty and social exclusion to children have seemed less frequent on the policy scheme, and if they have, according to John (2003), the emphasis has consistently been on children as future investments. As claimed by Hallet and Prout (2003), the administration has relied greatly on poverty research that connects child poverty with meagre outcomes for adults to enlighten its child poverty policies. Hallet & Prout (2003) furthers that the primary emphasis of its strategies is “on the better adult lives that will, it is predicted, emerge from reducing child poverty. It is not on the better lives that children will lead as children” (as cited in Surender & Lewis, 2004: 172). Generally, there has been minimal recognition that poor children may encounter quite specific social requirements in their daily existence which contemporary welfare service may be inadequately fulfilling (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). Hence, without a research programme that is welcoming of ideas and recognising the different meanings and views of children, the UK government is running the risk of neglecting or missing the actual and subjective condition of child poverty. It is just in the recent years that legislators and scholars have recognised the experiences and perceptions of children across an array of policy areas. Nowadays, the law envisions itself as much more child-oriented and as involved in recognising the interests and perceptions of children and young individuals (Franklin, 2001). According to Lewis (2006), the contemporary children’s rights movement is now given the opportunity to apply the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in order to promote the experiences, goals, and perceptions of children. Hence, ever more we are informed social policies are child friendly. This is expressed in, and further strengthened, through the creations of advocacy programmes for children, such as ChildLine, National Youth Advocacy Service, and the provision on the British administration to present details to the United Nations Committee on the Child on how the UK is fulfilling its duties under the UNCRC (Lewis, 2007) (see Appendix A). The contemporary children’s rights movement is unique in its focus on the involvement and perception of the child and the appearance of several quite new organisations to promote their rights. Child Mental Health A great deal of the policy development in child care and mental health services in the UK over the recent decades has been motivated by investigations of child deaths and homicides (Great Britain Department of Health, 2006). As stated by Lewis (2006), the outcome of prominent cases reported by the media has led to a legislative consideration of accountability and risk. Mental health research and studies of child fatalities have underlined the mental health requirements of parents as a variable in several cases albeit such studies have diverge in their description of mental health problems and in some instances where offenders had a mental health background (Lewis, 2006). Children Act 2004’s Section 11 obliges all criminal justice organisations, health officials, health organisations, and local officials to have “regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children” (Great Britain Department of Health, 2006: 49) in carrying out their duties. This function is classified under the White Paper’s adult services. Although Children Act 1989’s Section 27 had already instituted an eligible obligation on housing, health, and education services to work together with local officials with regard to assisting children and families in need, the restructured edition of the statutory directive on Section 11 enumerates the obligations related to young offender institutions, NHS agencies, the police, and local officials (Great Britain Department of Health, 2006). The policy leaflet entitled Effective Care Co-Ordination in Mental Health Services: Modernising the CPA, stated that children’s services personnel must be engaged in hospital discharge system when there are recognised child care concerns (Hall & Howard, 2006, 90). Care programme preparation assemblies are recognised as prospects for naming the needs of children and potential risks for them in a variety of guidelines (Hall & Howard, 2006). Discussion of the Mental Health Bill drawn out recommendations from children’s groups that a responsibility to guarantee that children’s needs were evaluated as portion of parent’s care scheme (Hall & Howard, 2006) should be integrated into the legislation of mental health. At the core of these social policies for child mental health, lie traditional concerns about the consequences and nature of specific mental health problems in children. Designed economic and social policies, alongside their related evaluation, determine specific groups viewed as most prone to be an economic burden or ‘trouble’ for the state (Hendrick, 2005). Criminal justice and welfare systems also recognise particular families as inadequately raising and educating their children (Lewis & Surender, 2004), whether with regard to child protection or material inadequacy or when the child is creating a trouble within the public domain. This point is emphasised by a Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) on student assistance that diversely portrays socially excluded children as being ‘children from families under stress’, ‘disaffected’, and ‘poor attitudes or behaviour’ (Great Britain Department of Health, 2006, 77). Although it could be that a number of children are classified under these labels, categories like these do not explain adequately the intricacies of how structural circumstances function to identify exclusion and inclusion. Child Abuse The government, in relation to the problem of Child Abuse, formed the Every Child Matters agenda, aimed at enhancing the quality of child services, but particularly children at risk (Devaney & Spratt, 2009, 2). In addition to having a common focus on self-sufficiency and choice, these policies and guidelines have another common feature: they all nearly entirely overlook the requirement for defenceless children to be safeguarded from abuse (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). Similarly, the Green and White papers on child care fall short in comprising any mentions of child protection plans (Devaney & Spratt, 2009). Furthermore, those who support this plan of self-sufficiency and choice frequently do so in a way which states that there is no disparity between a physical impairment and a learning disability. For instance, Article 19 of the UNCRC (see Appendix B), not just ignores interesting evidence of the level to which individuals with learning impairments are recognised to be abuse victims, but may also boost their defencelessness by overlooking the risk of abuse in planning services. One of the founders of the social investment approach, Anthony Giddens, has claimed that governments should adopt “investment in human capital wherever possible, rather than the direct provision of economic maintenance” (Hodgson & Spours, 1999: 9). The child protection system in the UK, according to Devaney and Spratt (2009), has the general objective of mitigating the prevalence and occurrence of child abuse and the related unfavourable outcomes in children. After the murder of Victoria Climbie in 2000, an African child by her aunt, the UK government initiated a procedure of “... fundamental transformation of the culture of children’s services to shift the emphasis from child protection to a wider concern for all children” (Devaney & Spratt, 2009: 2). What can also be discerned here is that the UK has supported the ideals within the UNCRC with regard to child abuse (Hallett & Prout, 2003). Aside from such developments the ECtHR’s resolutions will keep on affecting the law and policy influencing children and with the integration of the ECHR into the domestic law of the UK as an outcome of the 1998 Human Rights Act, domestic courts, currently taken hold of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence (Hallett & Prout, 2003), will have to take part in human rights debate in their consideration of cases involving abuse of children. Analysing Social Policy for Children in the UK Nevertheless, at a more profound extent, social policy for children in the UK is a discourse, a preferred frame of mind that is instilled with the entire power, influence, and essence of the English state (Millar, 2003). This preferred frame of mind, as a power grounded creation of reality, not merely manifests eligibility for the children and young people in the UK, but also innate within it is possibility of excluding some children, young people, their carer/s, and their parent/s (Lewis & Surender, 2004). Social policy for children in the UK, according to Hall and Howard (2006), has the capability of involving informal and formal academics in an obedient involvement in the semiotic and intellectual activity of protecting vulnerable children. Essential to this frame of mind is a continuation and re-realization of an emphasis on apparent ‘cues’ in children’s lives (Hendrick, 2005). A superficial emphasis prevents any serious discussion about the structural disparities in present-day UK from which these ‘cues’ can appear (Hall & Howard, 2006). For instance, public services are needed to collaborate with each other to create and provide services that make sure children can ‘be healthy’ (p. 68). However, as stated by Wilkinson (1996), it is from more profound inequities in socially fragmented societies that detrimental psycho-social and physical wellbeing arises for children and also for their carers and/or parents. Conclusions The policy responses to the mounting concerns over the rights of children and granting children ‘expression’ or ‘voice’ could have the result, expected or otherwise, of expanding the importance of the individual obligation of children as well as the duties of their parents. In encouraging children and young people to become more accountable for their own behaviours, the punishments given by adults can be viewed to be even more repressing. Paradoxically, the expansion of the concept of children’s rights could have the outcome of soliciting children into dynamically controlling their own freedom and thus exposing them to a much more advanced kind of adult control, guidance, and monitoring. References Devaney, J. & Spatt, T. (2009) ‘Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems’, School of Sociology, Social Policy & Social Work, pp. 2-6. Ditch, J. (1999) Introduction to Social Security: Policies, Benefits and Poverty. London: Routledge. Hall, J. & Howard, D. (2006) Integrated Care Pathways in Mental Health. UK: Churchill Livingstone. Hallett, C. & Prout, A. (2003) Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century. London: Routledge. Hendrick, H. (2005) Child Welfare and Social Policy: An Essential Reader. London: Policy Press. Hodgson, A. & Spours, K. (1999) New Labour’s Educational Agenda: Issues and Policies for Education and Training from 14+. UK: Kogan Page. Franklin, B. (2001) The New Handbook of Children’s Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice. London: Routledge. Great Britain Department of Health (2006) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. UK: Stationery Office. John, M. (2003) Children’s Rights and Power: Charging Up for a New Century. London: Jessica Kingsley. Leira, A. & Saraceno, C. (2008) Childhood: Changing Contexts. London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lewis, J. & Surender, R. (2004) Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way? UK: Oxford University Press. Lewis, J. (2006) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Millar, J. (2003) Understanding Social Security: Issues for Policy and Practice. London: The Policy Press. Titmuss, R.M. (1974) Social policy: an introduction. The University of Michigan: Pantheon Books. Wilkinson, R.G. (1996) Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. London: Routledge. Appendix A IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD The United Kingdom (UK) Government and the Devolved Administrations have an ongoing commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and are looking forward to discussing implementation of the Convention with the Committee. Our commitment is reflected by the primacy given to policies and actions to improve the lives of children and young people across the UK. Implementation is set within the context of devolution within the UK; an approach that ensures a flexible response to the unique circumstances within each country, whilst maintaining the State Party’s commitment to the Convention. The people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own democratically elected legislatures, although the Westminster Parliament continues to legislate on matters which affect the whole of the UK, such as immigration, foreign affairs, defence and macroeconomic policy. The responses to the Committee’s list of issues have been separated to refer to the UK as a whole, England or one of the Devolved Administrations to help the Committee’s understanding. The responses from the Overseas Territories have been submitted separately to this report. The UK Government has a clear overarching aim: to give every child the best start in life. Realising this vision will involve much more than investment and reform of services. It will involve deep and broad cultural change which places children and young people at the heart of policy making, empowers young people to take their place as valued members of society, and supports the wider community to embrace and celebrate the contribution that young people make. In England, the creation of the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF), on 28 June 2007, has enabled a coherent focus on achieving these objectives. The Department builds on the successes in education and children’s services seen over the over the previous decade and will now focus on the significant challenges that remain: raising standards so that more children and young people reach expected levels in education; lifting more children out of poverty and re-engaging disaffected young people. The new structure will also enable the Department to respond to new challenges that affect children and families: demographic and socio-economic change; developing technology; and increasing global competition. The Children’s Plan, published in December 2007, builds on the huge reforms undertaken to improve children’s outcomes through the Every Child Matters programme and is underpinned by the UNCRC. It sets out, for the first time, priorities and plans for improving the lives of children and young people in England over the next ten years. In Scotland, the new administration formed in May 2007 has made clear its commitment to better outcomes for children in general and to the UNCRC in particular. The extension of access to higher education to the children of asylum seekers and ending the remand of under 16s in prison are concrete examples of this. Scottish Ministers and officials are working closely with the Scottish Children’s Commissioner and other partners in developing proposals for better implementation of the Convention. The Welsh Assembly Government has publicly stated its commitment to working towards full implementation of all articles of the UNCRC for every child and young person in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government believes it has made a promising start towards this objective but acknowledge there is still a considerable way to go. Major cultural change does not happen overnight, it is a long term strategic objective. The approach taken will put in place firm foundations to achieve change and gradually consolidate and build upon those foundations, working with national and local partners across Wales, and with children and young people themselves. The new Northern Ireland administration, established in May 2007, has demonstrated its commitment to the implementation of the UNCRC. It has included a specific target to ensure central role of the rights of the child in its Programme for Government 2008-11. A Ministerial Sub-Committee on Children and Young People has been established, chaired by the Junior Ministers with specific responsibility for children and a three year action plan is being developed to implement the rights based ten year strategy for children and young people and deliver improved outcomes for all children. *taken from Committee on the Rights of the Child, Forty-Ninth Session, 15 September- 3 October 2008 Appendix B Article 5 Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Article 18 Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children, and should always consider what is best for each child. Governments should help parents by providing services to support them, especially if both parents work. Article 19 Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for, and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents or anyone else who looks after them. *taken from http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/091104uncrcarticlesen.pdf Read More