Contemporary Child Care Policy and Practice

Barbara Fawcett, Brid Featherstone, Jim Goddard

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781350318151
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios infantiles en sociología

This important text will provide a critical analysis of contemporary developments in child care policy under New Labour and the resulting policy and practice implications. The authors will draw on sociological debates, the growing children's rights literature and wider developments within social policy in order to provide a thorough and balanced guide to contemporary developments in this rapidly changing field. Ideologies behind recent initiatives in a wide range of practice areas are explored, and the implementation of key developments are appraised. This will be primary reading for all students specializing in work with children and their families.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

(A)ctivity in itself is not necessarily a good thing and it certainly does not always signify action of the kind desired by those in need of assistance, nor that advocated by reformers working on their behalf. (Hendrick, 2003, p. 252)

Recent years have seen increasingly high levels of government activity and intervention in the UK in the field of child welfare policy. As a result, it has been difficult for many policy activists and researchers to keep up with the pace of developments. It has also been difficult to discern common themes within the wide array of initiatives. In the early to mid-1990s, this was less of an issue. Although the Conservative governments had introduced a number of significant measures – such as the Children Act 1989, the Child Support Act 1991 and the Family Law Act 1996 – they were much less interventionist than their successors, the Labour governments elected in 1997 and 2001. This is evident from Table 1.1, which lists some of the key initiatives relating to children between 1998 and 2003.

Some of these measures apply to all children, some to specific groups. Also, many of these initiatives and others interact or overlap with each other. This can make for a confusing picture of a nevertheless fascinating period in child welfare policy. Our analysis seeks to reduce such confusion by focusing on common themes whilst also examining developments in specific areas. In what follows, we document what has been happening in recent years, and also why, in a range of child welfare policy areas: family policy, child protection, looked after children, youth justice, children with mental health difficulties, children with disabilities and children as carers.

Our focus on these areas is prompted by two considerations. First, they correspond with our areas of interest and expertise as authors. Secondly, explorations across such diverse policy and practice areas open up interesting and important possibilities for comparing and contrasting the constructions of children which motivate such developments. However, we also try to give due weight to the situation of children as a whole and their commonalities. Such considerations provide a context within which our more detailed discussions are conducted. For example, there have been extremely important developments in relation to tackling child poverty and the government has placed considerable emphasis on mainstream compulsory education. The first issue is explored from different angles both in this chapter and in some of the more detailed policy chapters. The second issue also receives some attention in this chapter and is explored in relation to developments around looked after children and children with disabilities.

Table 1.1 Some significant policy initiatives with respect to children, 1998–2003

Year	Policy initiatives
1998	National Childcare Strategy Quality Protects (QP) initiative Crime and Disorder Act (youth justice measures) Guidance on the Education of Looked After Children Supporting Families: A Consultation Document
1999	Beveridge Lecture: pledge to abolish child poverty within 20 years, via National Minimum Wage, Working Families Tax Credit, Child Care Tax Credit, Tax Credit for Families with Children. Protection of Children Act Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act Sure Start Programme
2000	Cabinet Committee on Children and Young People’s Services Children (Leaving Care) Act Care Standards Act Carers and Disabled Children Act Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families
2001	Special Educational Needs and Disability Act Connexions Service
2002	Adoption and Children Act
2003	Minister for Children and Young People Green Paper on Children at Risk Children’s Trusts Child Trust Funds Children’s Bill Children’s Commissioner for England (from 2004)

In the light of the different policy fields discussed, the age range covered extends from pre-birth, the very early years of childhood in some cases (for example, Sure Start) up to 21 in others (for example, those who come under the new arrangements for leaving care). However, the vast majority of developments relate to children and young people under the age of 18. This raises an important issue in relation to the terminology used and, indeed, to the title of the book. The term ‘child’ is neither appropriate nor accurate in many instances. For example, in relation to youth justice we are concerned with the 10–17 age range. However, for the sake of brevity the term ‘child’ and ‘children’ are those most commonly used. The exceptions to this are generally those initiatives which exclusively relate to older children (such as Connexions and the Children (Leaving Care) Act).

The book is largely focused on developments in England, unless otherwise stated. Constitutional changes in the late 1990s have led to increasing policy diversity within the UK. Scotland, of course, has always had a separate legal system and a distinctively different approach to child welfare. Wales is now beginning to develop its own direction under the aegis of the Welsh Assembly. Northern Ireland also has different policy approaches to child welfare, as in many other areas, stemming from its particular (and still developing) constitutional arrangements. Developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all merit their own, separate discussions in this area. However, including them in this book would unnecessarily complicate our wider analysis.

In this chapter, we locate New Labour’s approach to children within its project to construct a ‘social investment state’. This, we argue, helps to explain both what they have done and why. It helps to explain how recent policy both builds upon and extends a well-entrenched historical discourse about children as investments (Hendrick, 1994, 2003; Daniel and Ivatts, 1998). There are a range of analysts concerned to sketch out the contours of the ‘social investment state’ (Giddens, 1998; Jenson and Saint-Martin, 2001; Esping-Andersen, 2002; Lister, 2002). These differ in terms of their level of detailed exploration of the implications for children. Our concern is with the relevance of this trajectory for specific groups of children and also to children more generally. We argue that in this context:

• The social investment state supports strategies which invest in children as a whole.
• However, it lays particular emphasis upon particular stages of childhood (such as early years) and on particular groups of children. By default, therefore, some of the commonalities between children, particularly in relation to generational power relations, receive little attention.
• On the other hand, this approach does render certain groups of children and young people more visible, as recipients of both support and control strategies.
• The social investment state supports entrenched constructions of children which places particular emphasis upon them as ‘investments’ for the future rather than as subjects whose present well-being matters.
• Parents are constructed and appealed to as key allies in ensuring children’s welfare (via a range of supportive and controlling strategies). The focus is on their responsibilities rather than their rights.
• There is a reluctance to locate, consider or appeal to children as subjects and, associated with this, a piecemeal approach to children’s rights – particularly for those children cared for by their parents.

The social investment state

Tony Blair (1999), in his historic Beveridge lecture signalling a commitment to abolish child poverty within 20 years, argued that there needed to be a redrawing of the welfare contract around a focus on:

work for those who can: security for those who can’t. This means refocusing dramatically the objectives and operation of the welfare state. If the knowledge economy is an aim, then work, skill and above all investing in children become essential aims of welfare… a welfare state that is just about ‘social security’ is inadequate. It is passive where we now need it to be active. It encourages dependency where we need to encourage independence, initiative, enterprise for all.

A clear articulation of what this social investment strategy means has been provided by Giddens (1998), who argues that the key feature of such a state is ‘investment in human capital wherever possible, rather than the direct provision of economic maintenance’ (p. 117). Jenson and Saint Martin (2001), from Canada, have critically explored this approach in relation to developments in a range of Western countries. They argue that terms such as the social investment state have begun to circulate as a design for successfully linking concerns around economic and social cohesion and signal a paradigm shift away from the post-war welfare state. Whilst the old welfare state sought to protect people from the market, a social investment state seeks to facilitate the integration of people into the market. Taylor-Gooby uses different language but makes essentially the same point when he describes the modern UK liberal welfare state as ‘designed both to support success in a flexible market system and to enhance citizen welfare, so that social policy buttresses rather than burdens the wealth-producing economy’ (Taylor-Gooby, 2003, p. 1).

Individual security in such a context is viewed as resulting from a capacity to change. Thus there is an emphasis on investing in human capital and lifelong learning: ‘The notion is that such investments will be more suited to the labour markets of global capitalism, in which job security is rare, and flexibility is highly valued. For its part, social policy should be “productivist” and investment oriented, rather than distributive and consumption oriented’ (Jenson and Saint Martin, 2001, p. 5). For state spending to be effective and worthwhile it must not simply be consumed in the present but must reap rewards in the future. From this perspective, social welfare spending may legitimately be directed to objectives such as supporting and educating children (because they hold the promise of the future), promoting health and healthy populations (because they pay off in future lower healthcare costs), reducing the probability of future costs of school failure and crime by young people, and fostering employability. Spending for current needs, by contrast, needs to be cautious and targeted and is motivated not just by reasons of social justice but also by a wish to reduce the threat to social cohesion posed by those who are marginalised. Inclusion of the marginalised is a necessary area for current expenditure.

In one sense, there is nothing new about all of this. A ‘social investment’ rationale has often featured strongly in the development of child welfare interventions and has been central, for example, to the high priority that education has always had for the Labour Party. However, what is new is the degree of emphasis placed on this rationale and the number of initiatives that flow from this. Its centrality to New Labour’s approach stems, in part, from it being, almost by definition, market-friendly. More general concepts of social justice, on the other hand, tend to be antagonistic or, at best, neutral towards markets. This does not mean that Labour is uninterested in social justice – actions such as the National Minimum Wage and improvements in provision for state pensioners indicate otherwise – but it does suggest that we need to focus more attention on the application of the social investment rationale if we are to adequately understand Labour’s approach to child welfare reform. As Gordon Browne has put it, ‘Children who grow up in poverty experience disadvantage that affects not only their childhood, but also their experience as adults and the life chances of their own children. Support for today’s disadvantaged children will therefore help to ensure a more flexible economy tomorrow’ (Budget Report, 2003, para. 5.4).

Lister (2003) argues that under New Labour there has been a genuine, unprecedented attempt to shift the social priorities of the state to investing in children. She notes, for example, that the real financial value of assistance for children under the age of 11 virtually doubled between 1997 and 2002. This has involved both a redistribution of resources and, more commonly, an emphasis on the redistribution of opportunities; such as those to enable parents, both men and women, to take up paid work. For example, Sure Start, which was introduced in 1998 for parents and children under four, is compatible with social investment approaches developed in other countries, such as Head Start in Canada (Jenson and Saint-Martin, 2001). It exemplifies many of the themes of such an approach, with its emphasis on early years learning and its fostering of employability. The financial commitment is considerable; according to the Government’s own strategy document (Delivering for Children and Families, Strategy Unit, November 2002), there will be a combined budget for Sure Start, early years and child care that will rise to 1.5 billion by 2005/2006.

Broader action on child welfare: poverty and education

An analysis of the kind that we are pursuing demands exploration of wider developments in child welfare and cannot focus exclusively on developments in relation to specific groups of children. Accordingly, it is worth examining what has been happening in relation to the two main areas of universal child welfare policy, action on child poverty and approaches to mainstream education.

The widest application of Labour’s social investment rationale can be found in its approach to child poverty. The pledge to abolish child poverty in 20 years (with poverty defined as household income below 60 per cent of the median) was followed by a Treasury commitment to halve poverty within 10 years and, in 2000, by a further commitment to reduce it by a quarter by 2004. The Government’s fourth annual report on progress in its anti-poverty strategy (Department of Work and Pensions, 2002) showed a fall in relative, real terms and persistent poverty, including child poverty. Labour’s policy is managing to significantly reverse what had been a substantial increase in child poverty in recent decades, perhaps the worst legacy of previous Conservative administrations. By 1996, there were 4 million children living in poverty in the UK, three times as many as 20 years previously (Gregg et al., 1999). From a baseline of 4.2 million children living in poverty in 1998/1999, the target for 2004/2005 was 3.1 million. By 2000/2001, the number of children living in poverty had reduced to 3.9 million (Barnes, 2003). Longer-term measures such as the Child Trust Funds of between £250 and £500 per child introduced in 2003, designed to pay for future education or training at 18, add to the more immediate impact of measures such as child tax credits.

Bradshaw’s (2003) analysis shows that large national, regional and local variations in child poverty persist. Moreover, the risks of child poverty remain heavily concentrated in certain types of household; jobless households, those with lone parents, young mothers with four or more children in the household and the youngest child under 5, and those where either an adult or child in the household is disabled (Bradshaw, 2003, p. 170). Notwithstanding such qualifications, Labour’s seriousness in tackling child poverty is the single most important background factor to all else that we discuss in this book.

Focusing on children as investments in this and other ways is, according to Esping-Andersen (2002), the only sustainable and socially desirable way forward for the enhancement of poor children’s welfare and for fostering their future life chances. This is because the basic requisites for a good life increasingly depend upon strong cognitive abilities and professional qualifications which increase t...