Introduction:
I have written this post as not only did I want to share some of my reading, research and perspective- but because public, political and societal perceptions towards social work and their implications on social policy, children and child protection is something that has fascinated me since completing my master’s dissertation. Having completed an analysis of the introduction of child welfare legislation it appeared that societal morals played an important role in incubating legislative and societal reform… and this had me hooked.
At a time (and I mean this blooming pandemic) where everyone is feeling uncomfortable- I have noticed a number of individuals leaning into this feeling and embracing it (on Twitter of course). They are using the already challenging context to change harmful and outdated dynamics, to change injustices and to highlight where central government and society is perceivably failing. We have seen this through the Black Lives Matter and Ending Male Violence Towards Women movements. However, more subtly and less accurately addressed by the media, is the growing unrest about injustices in children’s social care and the damaging impact it is having on children.
This has drawn me back to that review and analysis of the introduction of child protection. Thus I wanted to find a space where we could reflect on the relationship between societal morals and political change, the role of serious case reviews and public inquiries (SCR;PIs), the impact on the covid-19 pandemic.
Getting into it:
Morals, politics and child protection have a longstanding relationship. Historically, child welfare and protection legislation had not always received the social and moral imperative compared to today[1]. Transitions in the public’s perception of child cruelty as a moral evil was enabled through social activism[2], together with expanding research into children/childhood in 1870 (Ferguson, 1990; Hendrick, 1994). This development facilitated the creation of the Children Act in 1889 and its subsequent amendments (in 1906,1908, 1989, 2004), in addition to cementing societies and central government’s moral duty to protect children and provide those at risk (and with un-met needs) with support.
Research carried out by Drakeford and Butler (2005) identified that society was influential in raising awareness of social injustices through the media and activism in relation to child abuse cases; with the political response from government appearing secondary to and facilitated by society’s activism. Thus, analysing political responses to child protection in the modern context, and alongside this finding, leads one to question if modern child protection politics is characterised by political posturing, short-termism, political pragmatism and political pol-potism.
Political response to a preventable death of a child:
It is important to note that the previous political response to a preventable death of a child (already explored through SPR, SCR or CRs) was to undertake a PI. For example, there was an influx of Public Inquiries commissioned in the 1980s for individual instances of fatal child abuse, they have additionally been used as a tool to understand the harm suffered by groups of children (Rotherham sex abuse scandal, independent inquiry into child sexual abuse) in order to prevent it happening again in the future.
However, Central Government fail to explicitly advocate for and invest (time, attention or money) in our child protection/welfare system, which protects vulnerable children and young people in society. Instead, politicians have used PIs to boost their political profile and addenda, and tokenisticly responded politically with a PI (Purcell, 2020).
Central Government commissioning and undertaking a PI as a response to high-profile SCRs, CRs and society’s voice can be seen since the death of Dennis O’Neill in 1945 to the death of Victoria Climbie in 2000. However, the undertaking of a PI is inaction dressed as action from Central Government as each PI appears to override and overshadow the next, exemplifying Central Government’s excessive focus on short-term results at the expense of the long-term interests of vulnerable children (Garrì 2009).
It appears that long lasting and impactful change has not occurred as themes reoccur within each PI. However the ring of intensified and growing managerialism within social policy, and SW procedures and practice, as a consequence from PIs, is unignorable.
Current context
In the current political and child protect context, there is dismay at government’s approach (and current system used) to protect and meet the needs (and rights) of children. This has been heightened by the Covid-19 pandemic, disruption to children’s lives/education leaving them unseen and unsupported by professionals, parallel to unprecedented/uncertain times increasing the safeguarding risks to children within the family home (domestic abuse, online grooming, self-harm, substance misuse, physical abuse etc).
Coming back to the point of boosting political profiles, in early 2021 there was the announcement of ‘a once in a generation opportunity to overhaul a system that is failing vulnerable children and creaking under the strain of rising numbers of children entering care’, through the launch of an independent review of children services.
However even this much awaited and sought-after review has been greeted with claims of tokenism, collusion with central government (with the chair of the review receiving significant funding to his charity before his appointment) and pre-determined outcomes (the chair of the review has already created his blueprint for children’s services, which meets the addenda of central government).
Activists, academics, experts by experience and professionals have highlighted how central government have let an opportunity to invest in and adapt an invaluable support structure slip through their fingers and acknowledged that Josh Macalister bears all the hallmarks of ‘chumocracy and hidden agenda’. Thus, the review appears to be a way for the chair (the Conservative party and their corporate friends) to boost political profiles. As it has been put so well: ‘This appointment is seen by some as blatant determination by government to depend on a network of friends and allies to progress the privatisation of children’s services including social work and child protection’ (Knowles, 2021)
Academics, such as Dr Donna Peach are raising concerns about the relationships within the Department of Education and about the appointment and review process. Whilst also asking important questions and uncovering implicit injustice and poor practices within Department of Education. See image below:
Please also see the following link for an in-depth analysis of the relationships between important players in Department of Education at present: https://memoirsofacaregiver.com/if-only
More reviews?
In addition to Central Government letting an opportunity to strengthen the structures, which support and safeguard children, slip through the net whilst a privileged individual has ample opportunity to raise their political profile, the children’s social care review has been overwhelmed and overshadowed (in some sectors) by additional announcements of reviews and reports into the support provided to children:
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) examination into children’s social care provision.
An inquiry by the House of Commons education select committee into children in care homes.
The Childhood Commission launched by the children’s commissioner for England ahead of a “Beveridge-style” report to help children recover from the Covid-19 pandemic (Simpson, 2021).
Jonathan Stanley stated: “With no coordination and no consistency across the reviews, we will likely be confronted with contradictory conclusions; confusion and contention likely rather than consensus’- Similar to when PIs were commissioned and published with little coordination.
He goes on to say, "Even at this stage we can see there will be the need for a linking and co-ordinating mechanism. It is already clear that this would be a major task. As each, seemingly uncoordinated and unchoreographed review moves toward potentially disparate conclusions should we, must we expect and demand a Review of Reviews.” (Simpson, 2021).
A ‘review of review’ or an overhaul of the review system is something I have been exploring off the back of the master’s dissertation and am currently completing a more in depth article on the subject (so watch this space).
Political pragmatism?
The appearance of constant change through Central Government commissioned PIs and announcement of reviews into social care echo’s political pragmatism. Whereby, the willingness to come to a compromise or make changes so as many people (government, children and society) perceivably have their interests met, however no one party is ‘getting their way’ (Collins, ND). Again, exemplifying inaction dressed up as action by Central Government and illustrating the hierarchy of politics over morals. However, it has also been noted by some that the social care review has a hidden addenda.
Going back in history, Hendrick (1994) noted that in the nineteenth century, children and families received little support from society or government, because law was informed and constructed by upper-class ‘gentlemen’ (Hendrick 1994, p.45). The lack of support is largely due to the patriarchal society focusing attention on men and the wealth/stability of the country. Consequently, support for children was not considered imperative to policy makers.
An observation that is not too dissimilar to the modern context of child welfare today- in my opinion. The society we live in has been put on show by the care review announcement. An opportunity for an expert by experience panel (which has divided the social care community) within the care review to influence policy and children service reform appeared tokenistic, with only a handful of applicant’s appointment, and hundreds more let down and made to feel as though their experiences did not matter or count. Instead, the voice and ideas from the chair and his friends appear to be prioritised already.)
Coming back to the historical focus on the wealth/stability of the country, the Covid-19 pandemic has seen politics continue to focus on the economic wellbeing and stability of the country and its society (this leads me to question, did government focus even really incorporate morals... or include children's rights). Many people have been made jobless or have been furloughed as a consequence to the pandemic, with the government giving grants and loans to ensure business stay open and jobs are available. This political response to economic pressures dominates and the political response to the wellbeing of children and families appears to be a smaller thought.
Families have spoken through media outlets, such as the BBC, about their struggles to afford food for their families due to poverty and low incomes, with some parents stating they do not eat to enable their children too[3]. Similarly to the 19th century, modern societal activism led by a key voice has spurred Central Government to consider the needs of vulnerable children in society. A campaign through social and traditional media for children to receive free school meals over the school holidays has been undertaken by professional footballer Marcus Rashford.
Rashford has actively challenged Central Government during the pandemic, prompting them to make an unprecedented U-Turn in providing free school meal vouchers to children over the school summer holidays[4]. As a result of Rashford’s campaigning and societal disquiet, Central Government announced, in June 2020, a ‘£120 million Covid summer school fund to provide vouchers for the 1.3 million children who qualify for [free school meals]’ (Food Foundation, 2020).
However, Central Government had refused to extend the scheme moving forward (BBC News, 2020), citing the support packages they had offered at the start of the pandemic (See: Department For Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Ministry Of Housing, Communities & Local Government, Department For Work And Pensions, And Victoria Prentis MP, 2020), which was afforded to both vulnerable adults and children. To me, the support packages offered to children and families, and to the organisations that provide support, are minimal compared to relief packages offered to other sectors. To me, this clearly demonstrates the continued focus on the wealth/stability of the country, however central government are investing in the wealth few organisations- instead of investing in our and the emotional of children and young people in the United Kingdom.
Government’s lack of support has forced local businesses, who are struggling, to donate food to families in need, instead of taking responsibility themselves (Dawson, 2020). With some politicians perceiving supporting children in need as ‘nationalisation’ and the family’s responsibility, instead of a political and societal moral duty. North Devon MP Selaine Saxby has even been urged to quit for mocking businesses offering free food to hungry families, illustrating a lack of morals and focus on the economy/money (BBC News, 2020). (This point has drawn me to consider previous reading from Neil Thompsons book: Surviving and Thriving in Social Work, where he discusses the current movement of welfare state vs redundant state and the influence of neoliberalism)
In parallel to the belittling of business and refusal to support vulnerable children, a joint report from the IPPR thinktank and the TUC has been published, stating an urgent stimulus package is needed for families to prevent a substantial number of parents and their children falling below the poverty line this winter (Topping, 2020). Nevertheless, this evidence is being overlooked by politicians, but societal activism grows and continues to challenge Central Government (Weal, Butler and Stewart, 2020), to me this demonstrates that Central Government are not practicing morally, as children and families are left to suffer.
Thus, having waded through and reflected on the scattered information I have read over the past year, it appears that current politics in child welfare do not seek to practice morally or champion and realise the rights of children. Instead, the current care review and acts from central government are merely vehicles used to progress a political agenda that can be traced back to the 1980’s- privatisation (Jones, ND).
[1] In the 19th Century, families would abandon a child so the family could survive, also known as infanticide (Hendrick, 1994 p.44). Additionally, society did not believe that childhood was a separate stage of life, subsequently, children in lover income families were expected to find employment. [2] Thomas Agnew was the primary activist in promoting children’s rights and raising societal awareness of children’s experiences/hardship in the UK. He founded the Liverpool Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which later evolved into the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Interestingly, the RSPCA was established before the NSPCC. [3] See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54692270 [4] Please see the following articles: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/16/boris-johnson-faces-tory-rebellion-over-marcus-rashfords-school-meals-call;
Σχόλια