Memorandum submitted by the Family Policy
Alliance
1. WHAT IS
THE FAMILY
POLICY ALLIANCE?
The Family Policy Alliance was formed in February
2004 by three leading family support organisations: Family Rights
Group, Family Welfare Association and Parentline Plus, who, together,
support a wide range of service users receiving universal and
targeted family support services. Its purpose is to influence
current policy debate about the role of the State to support families
to care for their children safely.
The Alliance is supported by a much larger group
of similar organisations, many of whom joined us in a seminar
in May 2004, to express support for refocusing family support
services to achieve the outcomes for children identified in the
Government's Green Paper "Every Child Matters".[1]
Drawing on the extensive collective expertise
of the three partners in providing information, advice and support
services to families about the care and protection of their children,
the Alliance aims to:
— highlight the central connection
between the well being of children and the need for sustained
support and investment in parents and family members;
— promote the involvement of parents
and families, as well as children, in the planning, delivery and
monitoring of services; and
— focus attention on the benefits for
children, their families and society of taking effective action
to tackle discrimination and social exclusion.
Our submission is informed by our experience
of consulting with, and providing direct services to, thousands
of families whose children are "in need" every year.
When these families contact us, many of them tell us have been
desperate for help for a long time, but have been unsuccessful
in obtaining support from statutory service providers.[2]
As service providers ourselves, we are continuously consulting
with parents and families about the kinds of services they find
useful and what the barriers are to accessing these. Our submission
and recommendations to the Committee are therefore based on the
practical perspective we bring from working closely with families
from many differing backgrounds.
We have been active in contributing to the debate
on the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" and on the
Children Bill 2004. We welcomed the proposed reforms in the Green
Paper but we were disappointed that the Government's aim to achieve
the five outcomes for children and young people appeared to give
little weight to the central role of parents and families in achieving
these for their children.
2. WHY IS
IT ESSENTIAL
TO WORK
IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH PARENTS?[3]
Children are society's future and parents, families,
the community and the State have a shared responsibility to work
in partnership in order to build secure foundations for this future.[4]
These foundations rest on one core principle: children's welfare
is best promoted in their family environment unless this places
the child at risk of significant harm.[5]
Parents and families are therefore central to meeting the aspirations
the Government has for children. This applies not just where children
are living safely at home with their families, but also where
there are child protection issues, for example:
— The great majority of children, including
those where there is a formal concern about their welfare by protection
agencies, live at home with their families.[6]
Policies therefore need to be family centred otherwise they ignore
the key people who are responsible for providing for the day to
day care and well being of the vast majority of children and young
people;
— Even when children have been identified
as being at risk of harm, there is a strong body of research which
shows that the key to the successful protection of children is
a positive working partnership between the family and the local
authority. Indeed the official summary of a number of research
studies on child protection carried out in the 1990's stated that:
"an alliance is needed which involves
parents and if possible children actively in the investigation,
which takes account of their views and incorporates their goals
into plans. A failure to achieve this level of co-operation helps
to explain why some children remain safe at home when others do
not."[7]
Drawing upon this research evidence, government
policy now requires that the principle and practice of partnership
should be a central feature of family support and child protection
interventions. Guidance on child protection states that:
"parents know more about their family
than any professional could possibly know, and well-founded decisions
about a child should draw upon this knowledge and understanding."[8]
More recently, announcing the launch of the
Parenting Fund, the Minister for Children said:
"Everything we know confirms that the
quality of parenting in the home is the key to enabling a child
to fulfil their potential. Yet parenting is one of the most difficult
jobs and there are times when any family may need extra support.
We want to make sure it is available to them."
However, although official policy on family
support and child protection clearly requires statutory services
to strengthen the family's capacity to promote the well being
of their children, there are still tensions between different
government departments as to how this principle is applied in
the broader context of policy strategies. These tensions are attributable
to a number of factors, for example:
— A cross-departmental philosophical
tension in government between supporting families with children
in need on the one hand whilst simultaneously criticising families
for their children's inappropriate behaviour on the other. The
Government has increased its scrutiny of parenting and sought
to identify what is "good parenting", justifying its
intervention and regulation of parenting beyond the remit of child
protection because it believes that social ills and poor outcomes
for children can be addressed though regulating parental behaviour
and responsibilities.
— Fear of allocation of limited resources
to making family support meaningful—this is discussed further
below under section 3.
— Broader economic and social factors
which inhibit effective parenting and wellbeing in children and
families— the issues about what impacts on outcomes for
children are complex and many families struggle with factors beyond
their control such as poor health, lack of adequate housing and
economic constraints. Such factors undermine policies which promote
effective parenting.[9]
— Support for families, which is broadly
if not totally accepted at a policy level, is often not translated
into practice in individual cases such that parental difficulties
in raising their children is attributed to their personal failings
rather than inadequate support in adverse circumstances, as identified
by Ghate et al.[10]
These tensions make it difficult enough for
professionals to understand the coherence of government strategies.
For parents and families, it is even more difficult to know whether
to see the State and its support policies as helpful, or critical,
undermining and punitive.
In our view, policies and principles underpinning
the delivery of services designed to promote the safety and well-being
of children must be consistent, child focussed and family centred,
with assistance from the State when parents need to be supported
in their child rearing tasks14. This is not just the logical conclusion
of the above—it is also a matter of domestic15 and international
law.16, 17
3. HOW FAR
IS WORKING
IN PARTNERSHIP
BEING ACHIEVED
IN CURRENT
PRACTICE?
These tensions aside, the general commitment
to working with and supporting parents is welcomed in principle.
However, its implementation is flawed. The sad reality is that
families with children in need do not receive adequate support
and many have difficulties in accessing such support as is available.
[11][12][13][14]This
fact is not just borne out by research,[15]
but is also evidenced through our respective advice and support
work. Every year, we collectively advise tens of thousands of
parents, carers and family members who are desperately in need
of support to help them raise their children. Their recurrent
story is that they have to battle for months, if not years, to
obtain the services they need, often to no avail. Services are
not provided either because they have not been able to demonstrate
that their need is acute enough to warrant even an assessment
for support services, or because there simply are not the resources
available to provide much needed services until the family situation
has reached such a crisis that there is a child protection investigation.
This practice was specifically disapproved by the government in
1995,[16]
yet has persisted. Thus, whilst government policy constantly reiterates
the importance of supporting families, the reality is that this
support is frequently not available until it is too late.
4. WHY IS
FAMILY SUPPORT
NOT AVAILABLE?
In the wake of the Laming inquiry,[17]
the Government is understandably focussed on the safety and well
being of children but does not give adequate recognition, particularly
in its allocation of resources and its audit processes, to the
link between family support, working in partnership and improving
outcomes for vulnerable children. This means that families continue
to live in material poverty, without adequate support, which inevitably
impairs their ability to raise their children as they would wish.
Their children's well-being is undermined as a direct consequence.
"Parents reported that, overall, tackling
material poverty and deficits in family resources was their prime
concern and that poverty was the cause of many of their problems."[18]
In their overview of studies considering the
aim of the Children Act 1989 to achieve a balance between State
support and State protection for children underpinning family
policy, Aldgate and Statham concluded that although the principles
of the Act were sound, its implementation had been significantly
affected by "a climate of intense competition for resources
for public welfare services." This had inevitably resulted
in the threshold for receiving support from the statutory sector
being set high. At the same time, the voluntary sector had also
experienced the constraints and impact of changes in government
policies for funding.[19]
The competition for finite resources conflates
with the tensions in government policy elaborated above as to
whether the State should support parents to bring up their children
or whether its role is to regulate parental behaviour and monitor
how these responsibilities are carried out.
Resourcing a wide range of both formal and informal
family support is therefore the key to the successful implementation
of the Government's aim to promote the well-being of children.
It is also imperative that the Government is clear about the principles
underpinning its family policy strategy and that there is consistency
across departments about the values underpinning such policies.
If child impact assessment statements for all proposed legislation
also included impact on the family, there would be greater coherence
as to how the proposals strengthen child and family well being.
5. WHAT WORKS
IN TERM
OF EFFECTIVE
DELIVERY OF
FAMILY SUPPORT
SERVICES?
However, even if family support is better resourced,
it will only be effective if it is delivered in a way which is
welcomed, rather than resented or avoided, by families. The parents
we have consulted, and professionals in the Alliance who work
with families in need of support to care for their children, give
us the same messages time and again. Effective family support
depends on two factors:
— parents need to be able to say what
they need to support them to care for their children, and to be
heard and respected; and
— there needs to be clarity as to the
respective roles of the parent and the professional to provide
the basis for a mutual trust between the parents and the agency
which delivers support services.
This is not just based on the experiences of
families we advise in our services. It is supported by findings
made in government funded research summarised in Quinton "Supporting
Parents: Messages from Research".[20]
We have also conducted our own action research as part of the
work of the Alliance so that our campaigning work is well grounded.
This took the form of two consultation events to find out what
works in terms of effective family support: focus groups with
parents who need support to care for their children, and a seminar
of professionals representing a range of voluntary sector agencies
who work with these families. Together, they identified the following
messages about what works in delivery of family support services,
which we describe as the 6 R's, for service planning and delivery:
— Reachable services—for all
family members. In an ideal world, families tell us that services
would be: locally based, delivered at a "one stop" shop
by a range of providers, integrated to avoid going over painful
stories and sorting out incomplete agency records, and through
meeting with the professionals face to face.
— Recognition—of the family's
view of their need. Many families are confused about how to get
support services. They often do not know what they are entitled
to receive and do not have any clear understanding of when or
how their need for support is being assessed.
"certain people seem to spend more time
hiding from me than dealing with the problem."
— Response—to the needs of the
whole family. Families have a good understanding of what works
for them. Professionals should listen to the family's wishes and
preferences, both at the initial planning stage and at subsequent
reviews of the plan for services.
"don't tell us what we want and make
a decision."
— Respect—the family has expertise.
Their culture and their skills need to be valued and respected.
Families want to take responsibility for the challenges of parenting.
Therefore, although they welcome support in their parenting role,
they want to retain autonomy, choice and control about how to
use services to benefit their children (unless this would in itself
place the child at risk).
"yes, we want your expertise but don't
assume you're an expert on my life. Don't pity or patronise me"
— Referral—to services which
meet their expressed need, or signposting so as to put a package
of services together. Front line service workers should be interactive
with families and able to signpost effectively and give information
about a range of services. They therefore need training and adequate
time to listen to what families want and help them work out what
is available.
— Review—to check whether the
support provided is useful. This will identify whether another
service is needed or should it be used in a different way—through
the individual case and also the overall service evaluation. Parents
want their needs to be met so as to enhance their care of their
children. In the heartfelt words of one parent who was seeking
services on behalf of her disabled child:
"Not being forgotten about, filed and
ignored"
6. WHAT ARE
THE IMPLICATIONS
OF THESE
MESSAGES FOR
PRACTITIONERS IN
THE WORKFORCE
AND WORKFORCE
REFORM?
Families tell us that the qualities they value
in professionals working with them are:
— They are parents or understand the
challenges of being a parent.
— They return telephone calls.
— They are good listeners.
These are essentially matters of attitude on
the part of the professionals and not resource intensive. Our
findings are consistent with findings in the general population
studies on what works in family support services summarised by
Quinton as:
"parents wanted services:
— to treat them like adults;
— as partners in problem solving;
— to be practical and professional;
— to take their needs seriously; and
— to be fast and responsive".[21]
In order to achieve these aspirations, service
providers at our seminar agreed that frontline workers need to:
— be trained—specifically to
work with parents, families and children;
— have a sound knowledge of local resources;
— be supported—by peers and through
good quality, skilled supervision and consultation;
— be properly remunerated to retain
skills and expertise; and
— have an entitlement to paid sabbaticals
to avoid "burnout".
These messages need to be incorporated into
the overview of workforce reform so that not only are knowledge,
skills and competencies addressed and also the organisational
and managerial support structures required to deliver effective
services. It is therefore essential that senior managers are accountable
for the quality of the service provided, that they take seriously
their responsibility to train and supervise staff and that when
errors of judgement are made and systems fail that they are held
accountable.
7. WHAT IS
THE ROLE
OF THE
VOLUNTARY SECTOR
IN SUPPORTING
FAMILIES?
The voluntary sector has a sound track record
of providing flexible and innovative family support services,
both independently and in partnership with local authorities.
Our planning and review of services with parents tells us that
families like the flexibility and "lack of stigma" that
voluntary sector services provide. Parents have welcomed group
activities which have enabled them to meet with other parents
and share solution finding in a less socially isolated way.
However, for the voluntary sector a continuing
barrier to developing a range of services is the uncertainty about,
or lack of, core and sustained funding. Not all services need
to be constantly innovative: they need to be flexible and sustained
when they work. Yet it is innovation which tends to attract funding
in the voluntary sector. This leads to frequent repackaging of
widely used and effective services in order to secure renewed
funding. This is not only frustrating for the organisation and
the staff employed on a project, but also means that work done
in establishing trust with families using the service is undermined
because of uncertainty about whether a project will continue.
This was the experience of projects funded through the Children's
Fund and the Government's recognition of the implications of altering
funding streams is welcome. The new proposed new partnership with
the voluntary and community sectors may address this.[22]
8. WHAT IMPACT
WILL THE
PROPOSALS FOR
INFORMATION SHARING
AND DATABASES
HAVE ON
WORKING WITH
PARENTS TO
PROMOTE CHILDREN'S
WELLBEING?
The Government in its consultation paper on
information sharing[23]
identifies two key issues:
— Should the parent and child's consent
be a prerequisite to putting information on the database?
— Should a professional have the consent
of the child and parent to disclose information about their concerns
for a child to other professionals?
Trust is central to effective intervention to
support parents to meet the challenges of bringing up children.
This is not only the view of parents. It is supported by longstanding
and more recent research.
"Support from any source should not make
parents feel vulnerable, small or obligated. If `support' does
not have these features it is, simply, not `supportive'."[24]
Unless the issues of consent and openness about
recording information are properly balanced between the rights
of the individuals to know what information is held about them
and the need to protect children, the information database which
the Government sees as a useful tool to aid professional communication,
risks undermining a core ingredient of effective family support
services.
Moreover, families are unlikely to welcome a
database which records information about their child but does
not guarantee any entitlement to be assessed for support services.
Family Policy Alliance made a number of proposals during the passage
of the Children Bill 2004 to strengthen the provisions in clause
12 to ensure that if a child was flagged on the database as "a
cause for concern" by a particular professional, not only
would the parents be told but it would trigger an assessment or
process to identify what services would be useful for the child
and parents. Thus, there would be a clear link between the legislation's
aim to promote information sharing with duties to provide services
under existing child care legislation, notably the Children Act
1989. Coherence between current and new legislation is more likely
to promote good professional practice.
These proposals have not been incorporated in
primary legislation, but we believe must now be addressed in the
forthcoming Regulations and guidance. Families want to work with
professionals but will be wary of doing so if they believe that
professionals are making judgements and decisions about their
children, leaving them with no control over what services are
provided. Their confidence in professionals will be further undermined
if the stigma of being "flagged" does not result in
any services to support them to remedy the concern.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
FAMILY POLICY
ALLIANCE
Drawing on this range of evidence, we conclude
that achieving the desired outcomes for children's well being
depends on effective support for families in their child rearing
tasks. This will be best achieved by:
I. Realistic and adequate resources
for family support services from a range of providers for children
who are "in need" as defined in s 17 Children Act 1989.
II. Service user involvement in
the strategic planning of services in the area so that the design
and delivery of services are suited to the needs of the local
population.
III. Good quality information about
entitlement to services for children in need and their families.
IV. Local, well publicised
information and access points for assessment and referral.
V. Clear assessment processes,
in which families are central to the planning and review of service.
This would be best achieved by self assessment forms being developed
for families to complete so that their view of their needs is
central to an assessment of their needs.
VI. One agency (or post within
the agency) being designated to take responsibility for completing
the assessment, or for delegating this, with clear accountability
for the outcome. This is particularly important given the plethora
of agencies which may be involved in the proposed Common Assessment
Framework.
VII. Families need to have
an opportunity to consider the result of the assessment and proposed
plan for services whilst it is in draft form—as they do
in relation to adoption services and special educational needs
statements.
VIII. Following completion
of the assessment, there needs to be clarity about which agency
is responsible for deciding whether services should be provided
and if so, for delivering these.
IX. Before a local authority
takes over decision making or care of a child because of child
protection concerns, families should be given the opportunity
to request and hold a family group conference to enable the family
to agree a plan to promote and safeguard the child's welfare.
X. Clear lines of accountability
and access to complaints procedures.
XI. Access to independent
advice and advocacy support to make representations about service
entitlement and delivery.
XII. Up to date data on local
and national services to which the family can be referred according
to their need.
XIII. Regular reviews of service
provision in which families are key contributors.
XIV. Semi informal services
need to be widely available and providers need to make sure that
excluded groups are provided for. To develop these kinds of services,
planners and providers need to consult with users of the services
but also seek out the views of those who may need but do not use
the services. These requirements should become a standard part
of the audit of standards of service planning and delivery.
XV. Senior managers should
be accountable for the quality of the service provided, and ensure
that audits are carried out which involve service users They must
take responsibility for training and supervising staff. When errors
of judgement are made and systems fail they should be held accountable.
Overall, policies and practice should support
families to use their skills and strengths so as to ensure their
children's well being and also give them a range of supports to
assist them with the challenging tasks of parenting. This core
value needs to underpin explicitly the policies of all government
departments.
10. CONCLUSION
Our submissions are informed by the services
the three organisations, Family rights Group, Family Welfare Association
and Parentline Plus provide, the views of users of these services
and our consultations with both families and service providers.
These messages are reinforced by research which consistently concludes
that partnership is a core requirement for effective I nterventions
to support children and their families.
Our recommendations require government and policy
makers to spell out clearly the cross-departmental value base
for the reform of family support services and family policies
generally to achieve optimal outcomes for children in partnership
with families. They also require a firm commitment to providing
resources not only to develop and sustain services but also to
train and support professionals with the requisite values and
skills to deliver the services in such a way as to make a real
difference to children and families.
November 2004
1 Every Child Matters, DfES, 2003. Back
2
See Tunstill and Aldgate Services for Children in Need: From
Policy into Practice , The Children Act Now: Messages from Research
DoH 2001. Back
3
Although the terms of reference of the Committee cover "work
with parents" this submission uses that term inclusively
to embrace a wide concept of family, based on the child in the
context of the adults who are connected with the child and must
take into account the families' understanding of who is family
to the child. Back
4
The respective roles of the different partners is discussed more
fully in a recent submission we made to the Commission on the
Well-being of Children attached. Back
5
See Department of Health (1990) The Care of Children: Principles
and Practice in Regulations and Guidance, London, HMSO. Back
6
Recent figures show that 85% of children whose names are registered
on the child protection register live at home or in their family
network. Back
7
DoH, Child Protection: Messages from Research 1995, at p 45. Back
8
Chapter 7 Working Together guidance. Back
9
Ghate D and Hazel N Parenting in Poor Environments: Stress, Support
and Coping 2004. Back
10
Ghate and Hazel, op cit supra. Back
11
This is the rationale behind Part III of the Children Act 1989.
See also the summary of research in The Children Act Now: Messages
from Research DoH 2001. Back
12
S 17 Children Act provides that local authorities have a general
duty to provide services for children in need to safeguard and
promote their welfare by providing services to the child or a
member of the child's family. Back
13
Article 18 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 provides
that State signatories should support parents to carry out their
responsibilities for the upbringing and development of their children
by providing "appropriate assistance" to parents and
legal guardians by providing services and facilities. Although
not enforceable under domestic law, the Convention was ratified
by the Government in 1991 and as such provides an important benchmark
regarding the rights of children and families. Moreover the new
provisions regarding the Children's Commissioner in the Children
Bill 2004 which include a requirement that s/he must have regard
to this Convention means that such international provisions have
increasing significance and relevance to domestic child care policy
and practice.-see clause 2(11). Back
14
Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms-right to family
life subject to Article 8 (2), also reflected in s 23 (6) Children
Act 1989. Back
15
The recent publication by Hedy Cleaver and Steve Walker (2004)
on Assessing Children's Needs and Circumstances analyses the limited
progress made by a sample group of authorities in implementing
the 2000 DoH Assessment Framework. The report highlights that
assessments were often child protection related. Unfortunately,
the experience of the three organisations involved in the Family
Policy Alliance is that it is still the case that, for many families,
support is only forthcoming when their circumstances deteriorate
to the point at which professionals have serious child protection
concerns. Back
16
DoH, Child Protection: Messages from Research, 1995. Back
17
The Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report of an Inquiry, Lord Laming,
2003. Back
18
Ghate D and Hazel N Parenting in Poor Environments: Stress, Support
and Coping 2004. Back
19
Aldgate and Statham Services for Children in Need: From Policy
into Practice, The Children Act Now Messages from Research DoH
2001. Back
20
Quinton, D Supporting Parents: Messages from Research 2004 Jessica
Kinsley. Back
21
Op cit supra. Back
22
See the recent compact and strategy between the DfES and the
voluntary and community sector. Back
23
Information data bases in Children's services-DfES consultation
document 2004. Back
24
Op cit supra at page 192. Back
| 
