When Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardos and former Home Office mandarin, called for more babies to be taken into care at birth and less effort put into ‘fixing families that can’t be fixed’, he conspicuously declared that he knew it would be seen as an ‘illiberal heresy’. Cleverly seeking to undermine those who would disagree with him before we’d opened our mouths.
No one from any political movement or perspective thinks that children should be left with parents who beat them, neglect them or give them drugs; as was allegedly the case for the two Edlington boys.
It is of course right that we should challenge established doctrines, but I would challenge Narey’s assertion that we are spending too much time trying to ‘fix families’ on three grounds.
First, whilst too often children seem to come to harm despite being known to social and other welfare services, there is a growing consensus that in these cases there was too much assessment and not enough action or intervention.
Second, using the word ‘fix’ wrongly implies that effective intervention is a one-off act undertaken by an agency rather than a process in which the individuals themselves must take part of the responsbility for changing their lives.
And finally, his fatalism is misplaced because it implies that there is nothing that can be done. This is wrong. The family intervention projects earmarked for expansion in Gordon Brown’s speech to Labour party conference, and crisis intervention services such as those run by Action for Children are showing that it is possible to work with very challenging families to turn their lives around.
As progressives we must lead the argument to re-double our efforts not to step back. We know that for some children the care system or adoption will be the right outcome. But, we also know that to tackle social problems we must address ourselves not only to their symptoms but also their causes. To remove children from parents who can go on to have further pregnancies does nothing to rescue future siblings or the communities which are scarred by other aspects of their chaotic behaviour.
We must continue to invest in the specialist services that damaged families and individuals need. Despite increased investment there are still not enough drug treatment, psychological therapy or supported housing services. We must also make the case that whatever the pressures on public spending, we must maintain and develop the universal safety net now provided by children’s centres, which will form the foundation for early intervention with families in the future.
Whilst there are cases where it is possible to identify during pregnancy or soon after birth that a child will need to be removed, in many others risks to children develop or escalate during the early years. Engagement with a children’s centre not only allows vulnerable families to be referred to services that can help to avert a crisis; they also play a key role in early identification of problems which are causing concern. Children’s centre staff spot when the children in their care are not flourishing and when parents are struggling to cope. It is no coincidence that women are increasingly choosing to open up to children’s centre staff about abuse and domestic violence.
There is a myth, being propagated by the Tax Payers’ Alliance and their bedfellows, that children’s centres are overrun by the middle classes. This is not the case. As a result of the expertise in outreach work that is developing and the partnership with health visitors and midwives, more of the families who need help are accessing services.
It is all too clear now that the public spending axe will fall, but no one who claims to favour early intervention with troubled families can let it fall here. Martin Narey began an important debate but his prescription is the wrong one.