Parents, Children, Young People and the State (Introducing Social Policy)

Parents, Children, Young People and the State INTRODUCING SOCIAL POLICY SERIES Series Editor: David Gladstone Publishe...

Author: Sandra Shaw

17 downloads 1801 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Parents, Children, Young People and the State

INTRODUCING SOCIAL POLICY SERIES Series Editor: David Gladstone Published titles Race and Education: Policy and Politics Sally Tomlinson Revisiting the Welfare State Robert Page Drugs: Policy and Politics Rhidian Hughes, Rachel Lart and Paul Higate (eds) Reconceptualizing Social Policy: Sociological Perspectives on Contemporary Social Policy Amanda Coffey Social Security and Welfare: Concepts and Comparisons Robert Walker Perspectives on Welfare Alan Deacon Risk, Social Policy and Welfare Hazel Kemshall Comparative Social Policy Patricia Kennett Education in a Post-Welfare Society Sally Tomlinson Parents, Children, Young People and the State Sandra Shaw Transport, Environment and Society Michael Cahill

Parents, Children, Young People and the State Sandra M. I. Shaw

Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education McGraw-Hill House Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead Berkshire England SL6 2QL email: [email protected] world wide web: www.openup.co.uk and Two Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA

First published 2010 Copyright © Sandra M. I. Shaw 2010 All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd of Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London, EC1N 8TS. A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library ISBN-13: 978-0-33-522924-6 (pb) 978-0-33-522923-9 (hb) ISBN-10: 0335229247 (pb) 0335229239 (pb) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP data has been applied for Typeset by RefineCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk Printed in the UK by Bell and Bain Ltd, Glasgow. Fictitious names of companies, products, people, characters and/or data that may be used herein (in case studies or in examples) are not intended to represent any real individual, company, product or event.

For my children and my parents.

Contents

Series editor’s foreword Acknowledgements

viii x

Introduction

1

1

Risks, rights, and responsibilities

8

2

Changing families

25

3

Citizens of the future?

39

4

Looked-after children

56

5

Ending child poverty?

73

6

‘A risk’ and ‘at risk’

89

7

Young and homeless

107

8

Health and well-being

125

9

Conclusion

140

References

148

Index

165

Series editor’s foreword

Welcome to the Introducing Social Policy series which is designed to provide a range of well-informed texts on a wide variety of topics that fall within the ambit of Social Policy studies. Although primarily designed with undergraduate Social Policy students in mind, it is hoped that this series – and individual titles within it – will have a wider appeal to students in other Social Science disciplines and to those engaged on professional and post-qualifying courses in health care, education and social welfare. The aim throughout the planning of the series has been to produce a series of texts that both reflect and contribute to contemporary thinking and scholarship, and which present their discussion in a readable and easily accessible format. ‘Children should be seen and not heard.’ That familiar maxim of middle class Victorian Britain applied specifically to children’s behaviour. It can, however, also be said to characterise earlier academic writing in which children at best had walk-on roles. It was only after the publication of Centuries of Childhood by Phillipe Ariès in the early 1960s that children – and the construction of childhood – took centre stage; and degree programmes in childhood studies and youth culture are an even more recent phenomenon. Sandra Shaw’s welcome addition to the Introducing Social Policy series has a narrower time-frame than the broad historical sweep of Ariès’s book. Her focus is on the first decade of New Labour in power and the record of the Blair and Brown-led governments. It has been, as she indicates, a decade of very considerable policy innovation and practical programmes directed towards children and young people. Paradoxically, it has also been a period when media headlines and official inquiries have highlighted the failures of the care system in relation to vulnerable or ‘at risk’ children; and when, in

Series editor’s foreword ix

spite of New Labour’s commitment to eradicate child poverty, the UK still remains below the average in the European Union. Sandra Shaw provides an able and well-informed guide to the policies and programmes of the past decade that encompass a wide variety of traditional social policy concerns. These include, inter alia, health and well-being, poverty and its consequences, homelessness, family-based care and citizenship. But her book is also important for the attention it gives to: • Comparisons especially with other countries in the European Union; • Devolution and the implications of a changing polity for children’s services in the countries of the United Kingdom; • Theoretical concepts – risk, removalization and the renegotiation of boundaries between children, parents and the state – as a means of understanding the leit-motifs of care and control that have characterised New Labour’s thinking and action in relation to children and young people. • Providing an active teaching tool with website references, key point summaries and activities relating to often controversial aspects of her discussion. It is thus a book which seeks to engage the student and reader in a joint endeavour to think more actively about the well-being of children and young people not only as workers and citizens of the future but also as persons in the present with a voice that needs to be heard. David Gladstone University of Bristol

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank David Gladstone for the opportunity to write this book, and for his patience and support.

Introduction

This book looks at New Labour approaches to dealing with families, children and young people. Since the election of the first New Labour government, led by Tony Blair in 1997, a great deal of attention has been focused on families and their children. Currently, Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister, and a continuity of approach can be identified across the past 11 years or so with regard to social policies and families. New Labour has been associated with a ‘third way’ in terms of political philosophy. Kemshall suggests the following definition of the third way: The following key strands can be identified in the Third Way: social responsibility and obligations, the use of the labour market to achieve social justice, emphasis upon meritocracy, residual welfare and targeting, and modernisation. (Kemshall, 2002: 132) When considering the areas presented in this book, these themes are evident. Responsibility and obligation link to New Labour ideas about citizenship. Making a contribution to society is evident in the emphasis on participation in the paid labour market, which is seen as the primary way to end child poverty. The modernization of the welfare system seems to include attaching a principle of conditionality to access to welfare benefits. Underpinning these ideas is the principle that people will do well if they work. Families can be seen as the ‘building block’ of society, and children as an important investment for the future. The central significance of families was recognized by the Blair Labour government with the publication of Supporting Families (Home Office, 1998). This represents an explicit approach to dealing with families, and was based on three basic principles. These were:

2


first, that the interests of children were paramount; second, that marriage was the ‘surest foundation for raising children’ and that therefore the government’s aim was to strengthen marriage; and third, that state intervention in the family should be minimal, with the role of government being to support parents rather than substituting for them. (Clarke, 2007: 158) Since then there has been continuous development in policies related to families, children and young people. The Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) framework makes children and young people central to policy developments in this area; marriage rates have declined (see Chapter Two); and state intervention within families seems far from minimal. At the same time, policies in this area reflect wider concerns around citizenship, and about the connections between the welfare state and social rights. The rights that people have are important, but so too are the responsibilities or the duties and obligations that citizens have. This includes making a contribution to society and to the state, and this is primarily through paid employment. This means that all individuals are expected to make this contribution wherever possible. Recent reforms, for example, propose that disabled people should also be encouraged to enter the paid labour market. Being supported on benefits is to be challenged, and even where it may be difficult to work, for example, where there is only one parent in the family, work is presented as the way forward. The framework that underpins this book looks at some key concepts that are reflected in New Labour’s approach to welfare, and to families in society. These include: risk; rights; responsibilities; and remoralization of society. There also seems to have been some renegotiation of relationships between parents and the state, and between children and young people and the state. These are the starting point for considering the areas of policy included in this book. However, the Every Child Matters (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2003) agenda provides an important set of ideas that also relates to the content of the book. The five outcomes in Every Child Matters and the subsequent Children Act (2004) now underpin all areas of service provision relating to children and young people. The Every Child Matters outcomes framework therefore provides a convenient framework for considering these different areas of policy. When discussing children and young people within the text, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Where it is appropriate to refer only to young people, for example, in relation to youth homelessness, or young people leaving care, this is done. Defining what is meant by a child or a young person is problematic, in the sense that there is no clear cut-off point for a child to become a young person. In terms of looking at policies, Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) looks at children between the ages of 0–19, and

Introduction 3

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations (UN), 1989) applies to all of those under the age of 18. With regard to youth homelessness, young people tend to be split into age groups so, for example, 16 and 17-year-olds, 18 and upwards. In the benefits system, there are also divisions based on chronological age, with the full rate of benefit not applying to young people under the age of 25. Within each of the areas covered, there is an attempt to follow the way that children or young people are being classified within that area. Within the United Kingdom (UK), devolution means there can be separate policies or strategies in place within the four countries: England; Scotland; Northern Ireland; and Wales. The Scottish parliament has more powers than Wales or Northern Ireland, and there are clear divergences in policy in some areas; for example, the recent introduction of free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. On the other hand, some convergence around youth justice policy can also be identified in Scotland. Scotland has its own legislative framework for policies. The Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies have fewer powers devolved to them, but it may still be possible to identify differences in approach; for example, both countries had Children’s Commissioners before England – the last country in the UK to appoint a Children’s Commissioner. The UK Periodic Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (HM Government, 2007) includes information on each of the four countries (see everychildmatters website). In the book reference is made to devolution where appropriate. Sometimes, this is incorporated within the discussion, though where it seems useful to include a separate section, this has been done. Information on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be found on the parliament and assembly websites for the three nations, and these are listed at the end of this chapter. In addition, the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) websites also shown at the end of the Introduction, contains information on past (1987–08) and new legislation for the countries of the UK. More research, information and literature are needed on the impact of devolution, the differences between the four countries and the variation in policies. In terms of social policy as an area of study, there is a need to develop a greater awareness of this process, and an understanding of the way that policies are shaped in the different nations. The UK is also part of the European Union (EU). Involvement in social policies has been slow to develop in the EU (Hantrais, 2007). Where policy has developed, it has been related to labour market participation; for example, policies around gender and employment, and now such policies will affect families. The increased labour market participation of mothers will impact on the shape of families and on the care of children and young people. There is an aim to increase the number of child-care places in EU member states, and this will impact on the choices that parents, and mothers in particular, can make with regard to the care of their children. The concluding chapter casts a glance around the world to develop a

4


global snapshot of what life is like for children and young people, and how this might relate to the key concepts referred to in this book. In terms of exploring and understanding social policies and families, it is also worth noting the current global recession in 2008, the impact on national and local economies, and how this will affect families and their children. With the potential for job losses, and repossession of homes, the issue of poverty may be something that does not recede, but which increases in significance. Chapter One sets out the framework for the book, looking at key concepts including: risk; rights; responsibilization; remoralization; and the renegotiation of relationships between parents, children and the state. Policy documents that set out the government’s agenda for children, young people and their parents are examined. Within these, there is an approach that reflects New Labour’s approach to citizenship, which is based not only on rights but on the responsibilities of the individual. In this chapter, this is applied primarily to parents. Part of parental duty is to prevent some of the risks that accrue to children by living in poverty and disadvantage. Participating in paid employment is one way of addressing the issue of poverty, but parents are also involved in supporting and caring for their children, and providing them with appropriate role models. Where they do not, then the state can intervene to ensure that they do, in the interests of children and young people. There is increased interest in families and in parenting appropriately, and an expansion of intervention within families, with a consequent blurring of the public/private divide. Chapter Two discusses changes in families within the UK and the EU, and presents some information on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Key changes have included a decrease in marriage; increase in divorce; increase in cohabitation; increase in lone parenthood; increase in births outside of marriage; and increase in women’s labour market position. Associated with the policies aimed at encouraging parents to work, there are policies both within the UK nations and the EU aimed at increasing the number of child-care places. Mothers’ employment, in particular, is dependent on the availability of child care. Lone parents – the majority of whom are mothers – present a challenge for UK governments, as many are dependent on state benefits. Recent policies have been aimed at increasing their participation in the paid labour market, linked to an agenda around ‘active’ citizenship, and conditional access to welfare. In the national and international context, there has been growing concern around children’s rights. This is considered in Chapter Three in which the relationship between current constructions of citizenship and children and young people is explored. Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) highlighted five key areas in relation to children’s well-being that include a focus on achievement and by implication becoming a responsible citizen for the future. With the Children Act 2004 in place, these now underpin all areas of policies and services aimed at children and young people. Subsequently, the Youth

Introduction 5

Matters (DfEs, 2006a) agenda encourages the participation of young people, seeking to engage them as active citizens who can make a positive contribution to society. Thus, the responsibilities of young people to be good citizens are emphasized. Policies are in place to encourage their ‘positive’ engagement with their local communities, and with voluntary activities. Such approaches emphasize the responsibilities of young people. One group who make a significant contribution within their families are young carers. Chapter Four considers the situation of looked-after children – children in the care system. An examination of policies towards this group throws into relief some of the issues around relationships between parents and the state, and parents and children. It raises the question of ‘parenting deficit’ and ‘good parenting’, and who decides what this means. This is a group of young people that faces poorer outcomes than other young people in society; for example, with regard to education and health. They are also at a greater risk of becoming homeless, involved in crime or for young women, becoming pregnant. In this context, and living outside of their birth families, most children and young people will live in foster families, with a minority in residential care. The focus in this chapter is on foster care, including care by kin. The local authority takes on the role of ‘corporate parent’ and has a responsibility to ensure that these young people also achieve under the five dimensions of Every Child Matters. Achieving permanency and stability in the lives of this group is important, which may be by means of long-term fostering, or adoption. When young people leave care, they can be more vulnerable than other young people making the transition to adulthood as they are less likely to have a supportive family. The commitment to ‘abolishing’ or reducing child poverty has been a key aim of New Labour governments since the first Labour government under Tony Blair was re-elected in 1997. The area of child poverty is examined in Chapter Five. Some children face a greater risk of poverty than others. These include: those living in households where one or both parents is not in work; children from some ethnic minority groups; children from large families; living in a lone parent household; and living in a household where someone has a disability. These are risks that increase the likelihood of living in poverty for children, but there are also costs associated with growing up in poverty. These include costs to the individual, such as lower educational achievement, poor health outcomes with adverse effects persisting into adulthood. There are also costs to the state in terms of money spent on health and social care services and the loss of potential revenue from future unemployment, due to ill health or lack of education and skills. As a result, there has been a range of policies put in place to address poverty and disadvantage. As having no working adult within a household is a risk for living in poverty, parents have been encouraged to work. Providing tax benefits for working parents is one way of supporting families; extending the availability of care is another. The aim of ending child poverty is important,

6


but whether or not this can be achieved, and on target, remains to be seen. There are indications that progress has been made, but the government needs to do more to meet the targets set for reducing, and ending child poverty. Young people are frequently presented as a problem in the media, and this is discussed in Chapter Six. They are seen both as ‘a risk, and ‘at risk’. While youth crime is one obvious area where young people (predominantly male) are seen to present a problem, there is also political and public concern about the behaviour of young people in society, which is the main focus of this chapter. Antisocial behaviour is seen as unacceptable, and as presenting a threat to other individuals, to communities or to society in general. This is also connected to concern about the breakdown of families, the breakdown of society and poor parenting. Children and young people are held to be accountable for their behaviour, but their parents have a responsibility too. Antisocial behaviour orders can be attached to children or young people, and parents can also be sanctioned, or required to participate in family interventions to improve the behaviour of the whole family. This relates to ideas about the ‘remoralization’ of the family, with the family seen as both the cause and part of the solution to dealing with the problem of young people. Another group of young people at risk in society are young homeless people and this is dealt with in Chapter Seven. There are risk factors for a young person becoming homeless, which are similar to the risk factors for becoming involved in crime, or for being in the care system. In families where domestic violence or abuse takes place, or more broadly, families under strain, or where a young person’s behaviour is problematic, they are at greater risk of becoming homeless. This may be as a result of trying to escape a difficult situation, or sometimes because parents have asked a young person to leave home. Once a young person is homeless, they are at further risk, for example, of becoming involved in drugs, or experiencing mental health problems. The difficulty for the state lies in providing support for young people, while at the same time not undermining the responsibilities of parents to care for their children. There has been an investment in mediation services in order to assist young people to remain in families, or return them to families, but young people should not be returned to families where they may be at risk. The development of policies in this area relates to concern about the risks associated with homelessness, and the impact on the well-being of young people in the present and longer term. The final topic covered in Chapter Eight is that of well-being. The concept is important, as recognized in a recent UNICEF (2007) report that suggests children in the UK fare less well than children living elsewhere. In this chapter, particular attention will be paid to obesity, to health inequalities and to mental health, which relate to the Every Child Matters outcome of being healthy. There are risks for children and young people in being obese, and part of addressing this involves changing the behaviour of parents, though there seems some vagueness about how this might be achieved. There are

Introduction 7

also longer-term consequences associated with obesity, and long-term costs for the state, so this is an important problem to tackle. Many children and young people experience mental health problems and this can have serious consequences. Poor health outcomes are linked to living in poverty and disadvantage, and in this way health inequalities continue to persist. Obesity also raises the issue of responsibility for children and young people, and the extent to which they are responsible for choices they make, the responsibility of parents for their child’s health, and the responsibility of the state for the overall health of the population. These matters are of national and international concern. To close the book, Chapter Nine reflects back on some of the issues that have been raised in the book, and the central relationships between parents and children/young people and the state. Some global initiatives to improve the living conditions and life chances of children around the world are considered. These approaches are related to contemporary debates about children and young people, locating this within a global context, considering the extent to which there is a sense of an international or global responsibility for children. It is also important to consider whether children’s rights are given the primacy they deserve and, indeed, if children and young people are respected as people in their own right. Websites The websites for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and the Office of Public Sector Information websites are shown below. There are a number of websites relevant to UK policies in this area, and these are shown at the end of each chapter. Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ Northern Ireland Executive www.northernireland.gov.uk The Scottish Government www.scotland.gov.uk Welsh Assembly Government assembly.wales.org/

Risks, rights and responsibilities

Introduction This chapter considers theoretical and conceptual areas related to parents, children, young people and the state, and also examines some recent policies that relate to families, children and young people. The concept of ‘the state’ is not unproblematic (Rowlingson and McKay, 2002). The state can be seen to incorporate social policies enacted by the state, and agents and organizations that represent or act on behalf of the state; for example, social services departments and social workers, schools and teachers, and the private and voluntary sectors. Debates about whether the state should intervene in family life and to what extent have a long history. While the family has often been regarded as a private sphere, it has also been central to the development of welfare and social policies, and continues to be so today. With regard to social policies and families, it has been suggested that social policies affecting families can be explicit or implicit (Kamerman and Kahn, 1978). Examples of explicit policies would include the financial support of families and children, such as tax credits or benefits, or education policies. The notion of an implicit family policy would relate to other areas of social policy, such as transport or the environment, which will have consequences for families. Since the first New Labour government was elected in 1997, there has been what seems like a deluge of policies aimed at children, young people and parents; to the extent that it begins to feel that all policies directly impact on the experience of families living in the UK today. This makes for a complex and ever-changing area of policy and practice, and not all this policy can be examined in this book. Within this first chapter, the intention is to consider a number of concepts:

Risks, rights and responsibilities 9

• • • • •

risk – children at risk and a risk to others; rights of parents and children; responsibilities of parents, children and the state; renegotiation of relationships between parents, children and the state; remoralization of society.

These appear to lie at the heart of New Labour’s agenda for change, and are fundamental to understanding policies impacting on families, children and young people. These ideas are featured throughout the book, though sometimes they underlie discussion, rather than being addressed under separate headings. The policy documents to be included here are: Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003); Every Child Matters: Change for Children (DfES, 2004); The Children’s Plan (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), 2007a); Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007); Reaching Out: Think Family (Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF), 2007) and Think Family: improving the life chances of families at risk (SETF 2008). The chapter starts by looking at Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003, 2004) that underpins all policies relating to children and young people. Implicit within the Every Child Matters agenda is the notion of the responsible parent who supports their child throughout childhood. Other documents such as Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) focus more explicitly on the role of parents, though this is often with regard to disadvantaged families, with parents who need enabling, or sometimes coercing, into dispatching their duties appropriately. Inherent in the whole agenda relating to children, young people and their families from the policy level, through to the design and delivery of services, and the practitioners working with families, are both the potential that children and young people have, and the risk that they will not fulfil that potential. The issue of risk is considered, and how it links with the idea of children’s and parent’s rights. It is suggested that under New Labour governments, a concern with responsibilities and moral values underpins most policy and policies that relate to families illustrate this.

Every Child Matters (ECM) Since the Green Paper Every Child Matters (ECM) was published in 2003 (DfES, 2003), there has been a rolling programme of policies that reflect central ethos of this policy document, which contains a listed of outcomes that should be achieved by all children. These outcomes are shown below: being healthy: enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle staying safe: being protected from harm and neglect

10 Parents, Children, Young People and the State

enjoying and achieving: getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood making a positive contribution: being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour economic well-being: not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full potential in life. (DfEs, 2003: 6–7) Every Child Matters: Change for Children (DfES, 2004) builds on Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003). The Children Act 2004 provides ‘the legislative spine’ on which the reform of children’s services will be built (DfES, 2004: 5). The Every Child Matters outcomes framework is central to the programme of change that is currently under way, and more detail on these is provided in Change for Children. Two of the sections are reproduced below to illustrate this, and show the way that parents, carers and families have a role in supporting children and young people.

Every Child Matters (2004) what the outcomes mean Be healthy

Physically healthy Mentally and emotionally healthy Sexually healthy Healthy Lifestyles Choose not to take illegal drugs Parents, carers and families promote healthy choices Make a positive Engage in decision-making and support the contribution community and environment Engage in law-abiding and positive behaviour in and out of school Develop positive relationships and choose not to bully or discriminate Develop self-confidence and successfully deal with significant life changes and challenges Develop enterprising behaviour Parents, carers and families promote positive behaviour Source: DfES (2004: 9)

As can be seen, for each of the main outcomes, there is a list of what ought to be achieved. In addition, ‘parents, carers and families’ have a role in promoting and supporting their children to achieve in each of the five areas. These represent what should be realized and are part of New Labour’s agenda for


change and the improvement of the lives of children. For example, the relationship between childhood poverty and poor health outcomes has been demonstrated and there are targets associated with reducing child poverty that can be monitored, as can progress in reducing childhood obesity. However, it may be difficult to measure some areas for all children, such as developing positive relationships, or self-confidence. Implicit within the outcomes is a positive notion of the support that parents should provide for their children, though this will not be available for all children, as some parents will struggle, or be unwilling to provide support to their children. This is addressed in other policy documents, for example, Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) and the Think Family documents discussed below (SETF, 2007, SETF, 2008). As will be seen later, disadvantaged families will require more support in order to enable them to meet the outcomes listed in ECM. While ECM emphasizes children’s well-being, it also positions children as an investment for the future (Lister, 2006a), and there are tensions inherent in that approach. The ‘vision’ for Scotland’s children, and the delivery of children’s services outlines the broad needs of all children, providing a framework for plans to promote the well-being of each child (see Scottish Government 2008). The ‘vision’ for Scotland highlights keeping children safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included. These are similar to the ECM outcomes; children’s achievement is a priority, and respect and responsibility are also included. The Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007a), which relates to England, is discussed in the following section and sets out a vision for the future for children and young people.

The Children’s Plan (CP) The Children’s Plan: Building brighter futures (DCSF, 2007a: 3) ‘aims to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up’ and sets out plans for the next 10 years under the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ strategic objectives (DCSF, 2007a). The Children’s Plan One Year On: a progress report (DCSF, 2008a) lists achievements and sets priorities for the future. It is recognized that some parents will find it hard to cope, and that there are difficulties around balancing work and family life, though the government’s priority is still to get parents to enter or re-enter the paid labour market. It is also acknowledged that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are underachieving. The five principles that underpin The Children’s Plan are shown below: • government does not bring up children – parents do – so government needs to do more to back parents and families;


• all children have the potential to succeed and should go as far as their talents can take them; • children and young people need to enjoy their childhood as well as grow up prepared for adult life; • services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries; and • it is always better to prevent failure than tackle a crisis later. (DCSF, 2007a: 4) The first of these states that it is parents who should bring up children, rather than the state, but in the context of so much investment in and intervention within families, the state is clearly not absent from the lives of families. Instead, it often seems as if the state is acting as an additional parent, and ‘parenting’ parents as well as children and young people. Within the plan, prevention is seen as better than intervention later, and families should have some input in shaping services, with this approach also evident in Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007). While all children are seen as having the potential to develop, there is acknowledgement of the need for children and young people to enjoy their lives in the present, linked to ideas about constructive and positive behaviour and activities. These principles underpin the objectives that in turn relate to the ECM outcomes and further information on initiatives and funding is provided in The Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007a). Sure Start Children’s Centres are seen as a key resource for working with parents, with more support needed for those families most in need. In the twenty-first century, services for families should put the needs of children and families first. Partnership between schools and parents is highlighted. For children who are excluded from schools because of their behaviour, ‘new forms of alternative provision’ will be piloted (DCFS, 2007a: 14). One of the current aims of New Labour is to have all young people in education or training to 18 or beyond, and the reasons for this are illustrated by the following statement: A changing economy means we need to ensure our children and young people have the right skills as they become adults and move into further or higher education, or into work. By 2015, we want all young people to stay on in education or training to 18 and beyond. And when they leave we want them to have the skills they need to prosper in a high skills economy. (DCSF, 2007a: 15) Providing education and training for young people fits within the context of developing and maintaining a thriving economy in a global economic context. With regard to staying in education and training for longer, the term ‘participation’ is used. This reflects the meanings attached to citizenship, and approaches to involving young people in positive activities in their


communities (see the Youth Matters agenda referred to in Chapter Three). This also raises the issue of responsibility – the responsibility that young people have to participate in a constructive way in society – as determined by government policies.

Every Parent Matters (EPM) While children and young people are central to the current social policy agenda, parents clearly have an important role to play and this is recognized in Every Parent Matters (EPM) (DfES, 2007). This sets out the current government’s approach to parental involvement in the lives of their children and includes a list of actions and the date by which these should be achieved. Within EPM, there is an emphasis on supporting, informing and empowering parents. Parents and carers are seen as a ‘crucial influence’ on the way that their children develop and on what they ‘experience and achieve’ (DfES, 2007: 2), reflecting the detailed aims of Every Child Matters referred to above. This document also locates a discussion of parenthood and parenting within the context of a changing society. Parents have children later; mothers are working more; fathers spend more time with their children; parents want more support with regard to looking after children and teenagers; family structures and relationships vary; there is increased ethnic diversity in society; increasing numbers of young adults live with their parents (DfES, 2007). There has also been a change in the structure of families, with more lone parent families and more children living in step-families (DfES, 2007). While the government wants to support and inform parents, it is still seen as parents’ responsibility to bring up their children. The government’s role is to enable parents to: make confident, informed choices that are right for their family; help shape services; work in partnership with services; and access additional support when they need it (DfES, 2007: 6). The expertise of parents is to be respected by professionals. However, ‘for a small minority of parents who have lost, or never had, the capacity to parent responsibly, public services must be ready to intervene promptly and sensitively’ (DfES, 2007: 7). Thus, ‘capacity’ is an important dimension of parenting, and the use of the term implies some measure of capacity, or some assessment of parents’ abilities. As has been raised by a number of authors, this means that it is likely that it is particular families, and particular sections of society that will be the subjects of state interventions to promote responsible parenting. As a last resort children can also be taken into care if they are seen as at ‘risk of significant harm’ (DfES, 2007: 7). Then, it is the state that takes over the role of parenting. Contact with families may be supported so that ‘parents develop the capacity to resume looking after the child themselves, if it is safe to do so’ (DfES, 2007: 7). The idea of responsibility can also be linked to antisocial behaviour, and EPM states that there should be ‘clear


sanctions to improve the behaviour of persistently anti-social households’ (DfES, 2007: 32). The government is also investing in 3,500 Sure Start Children’s Centres – one in each community by 2010. Currently there are 1,055 centres delivering services to 840,000 children (DfES, 2007: 13). The level of support offered is based on local need, with more focus on families that need extra help. The services delivered should be developed on the basis of consultation with parents, children and the community, and based on local needs. The participation of parents is emphasized, though as in other areas it will be the case that some parents are better equipped to engage with the workforce than other parents. Child health is also discussed alongside parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children are eating healthily, and undertaking physical activity. Support for parents before and around the birth of their children is seen as important, and parents’ responsibility for healthy children and young people is also acknowledged. Some parents ‘find it difficult to show commitment’ (DfES, 2007: 35), or exercise little influence over their children. Initiatives to help them include: information and advice; restrictions on advertising of unhealthy food to children under the age of 16; providing fresh fruit and vegetables to disadvantaged parents through the Healthy Start Programme; School Food and School Sport Programmes that ensure all children lead healthy lifestyles during the school day (DfES, 2007: 36). While parents have duties here, not all parents adhere to policy guidelines. This is also an area where there may be conflict between what older children and young people want, and what their parents, or the state may direct them to do. Changing the behaviour of parents and their children will be challenging for those involved in this area. While parents are to be supported and informed and should have the means to access support from welfare services, their responsibility across a range of different areas is highlighted. This reflects New Labour’s approach to citizenship and the wider approach to welfare based on individual responsibility as well as social rights (Dwyer, 2004). Parenting ‘responsibly’ implies that there is a standard against which parents can be assessed, and that professionals working with children, young people and their families have a role in this assessment. Where parents are seen to be ‘in deficit’ intervention could be compulsory, for example, by using parenting orders, and the state has a right to ensure that parenting is appropriate. Overall, there is a responsibility for the welfare of children and young people that is shared by both the state and parents. Gender and parenting The significance of EPM is the way that it addresses the roles and responsibilities of parents directly. In one sense it might be seen that parenting


becomes degendered, as mothers are not referred to. However, fathers are mentioned and their role highlighted, which implies a regendering of parenting with the input of fathers privileged above mothers. To put this in context, there is an interest in addressing fatherhood, at a time when increasing numbers of mothers go out to work, and fathers are still not as involved with their families as mothers are. It is important to recognize the role that fathers can play in the lives of their children. However, removing mothers from the scene fails to recognize the way that mothers still have a central role to play in children’s lives (Lister, 2006b), and some policies aimed at parents, for example those around truancy or antisocial behaviour, may impact more heavily on mothers. Policies aimed at including fathers are perhaps ‘more significant on the symbolic level of gender relations than on the level of actual division of labour between mothers and fathers’ (Lammi-Taskula, 2006: 95). A father’s involvement is stressed within EPM. Whether relationships are positive or negative, fathers have an effect on their children’s lives. This is said to be more significant for children from the most disadvantaged families. Where fathers have early involvement in a child’s life, it is claimed that research shows: a positive relationship to later educational achievement; an association with good parent–child relationships in adolescence; and protection from mental health problems in separated families (DfES, 2007: 6). Involving fathers is seen as a challenge, as they may not be aware of services or think they are not for fathers. For example, within Children’s Centres, ‘an overtly female focus and culture amongst staff and service users’ may put fathers off (DfES, 2007: 10). Whether or not fathers are involved in the care of their children, they should still be offered support, and Sure Start Children’s Centres will develop systems that include information about fathers in all families they are in contact with (DfES, 2007: 10). Some services may be designed specifically for men, and it is noted that ‘traditional male interests can sometimes provide the basis for engaging with fathers’ (DfES, 2007: 16). Fathers should also be consulted in planning services. There seems little recognition of the fact that in some circumstances, it may create problems if fathers are to be included; for example, where domestic violence has taken place. Neither is there any acknowledgement of the fact that some families may not have fathers; for example, lesbian couples, or lone mothers who have chosen to have a child alone. This therefore seems to reinforce the ideal of the traditional heterosexual two-parent family.

‘Think Family’ (TF) The ‘Think Family’ agenda focuses on disadvantaged families. Reaching Out: Think Family (SETF, 2007) and Think Family: improving the life chances of families at risk (SETF, 2008) are two documents published by the Social Exclusion Task Force (Cabinet Office). Reaching Out (SETF, 2007)


presents analysis and themes from the Families At Risk Review. In the foreword of Reaching Out, Hilary Armstrong, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Social exclusions writes that: Poverty and worklessness, lack of qualifications, poor health, insufficient housing and poor parenting can cast a shadow that spans whole lifetimes and indeed passes through generations. These problems can be multiple, entrenched, and mutually reinforcing. And some family experiences can make things worse. They can limit aspiration, reinforce cycles of poverty, and provide poor models of behaviour that can have an impact on a child’s development and well-being, with significant costs for public services and the wider community. (SETF, 2007: 1) The issue of disadvantage is central in these documents, linked to the impact on children’s well-being, and the concern that poor behaviour can be passed on through generations. The costs to the individual child, the community and the state are highlighted. While only a small percentage of families (around 140,000 families, or 2 per cent) fit into the category outlined in the quotation above, it is seen as important to ‘reach out’ to these families. The term ‘Think Family’ is used to denote the way that services should be delivered to such families. This implies thinking about families, rather than individuals; for example, recognizing the children in need are part of families with needs (SETF, 2007: 1). The disadvantages referred to include: • • • • •

No parent in the family is in work; Family lives in poor quality or overcrowded housing; No parent has any qualifications; Mother has mental health problems; At least one parent has a longstanding limiting illness, disability or infirmity; • Family has low income (below 60% of the median); or • Family cannot afford a number of food and clothing items. (SETF, 2007: 9) The indicators are not intended as a definition of social exclusion but illustrate the nature of disadvantage and problems that may be associated with it. The ‘risk factors’ relate to adults in the family, but children are affected by them. Other issues, such as living in a deprived area, living in social housing and being a lone parent family also increases the risk of multiple disadvantage (SETF, 2007: 10). Children growing up in such families are likely to experience poorer outcomes than other children, though this will not apply to all children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The behaviour of parents is a significant factor in ameliorating disadvantage, and Reaching Out notes the importance of ‘parents as a source of


resilience’ (SETF, 2007: 13). Positive behaviours by parents include authoritative yet warm parenting and involvement in a child’s education. ‘Good parenting and strong family relationships can help to build social and emotional skills, which are themselves, protective factors (SETF, 2007: 14). On the other hand, parents can also present a risk to children, as can other family members. The state has a role in improving the social infrastructure to reduce disadvantage, and in providing services and facilities to support these families, though this may prove difficult. Some families, because of their poor behaviour may pose a threat to the communities in which they live as ‘they may externalise their problems through criminal or anti-social behaviour which can have an impact on whole communities’ (SETF, 2007: 26). Family Intervention Projects (FIPs) are one means of working with families who are ‘causing harm’, and there can be compulsion to participate (SETF, 2007). For example, the threat of eviction could be used to ‘enforce’ engagement with services. It is of course important to remember that not all families living in disadvantage will engage in antisocial behaviour, though they may be living in communities where such behaviour constitutes a problem. Think Family (SETF, 2008) follows up the earlier document, and relates to the vision in the Children’s Plan. It outlines investments and services developed to support parents and their children. Adults and children’s services have to ‘join up around the needs of the family’ (SETF, 2008: 7). There would be no ‘wrong door’ and the whole family would be considered, providing ‘tailored’ support, and ‘building on family strengths’ (SETF, 2008: 7). Empowering families is also important, so that they can make decisions about their own lives. The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) provides an opportunity for sharing between services, and assessing the needs of children and young people in a more holistic way (SETF, 2007: 14). A more holistic approach to dealing with children and young people in need would seem to be beneficial, as an understanding of problems impacting on adults’ lives within families could lead to a more comprehensive and effective approach. The TF approach focuses on the way that some families are disadvantaged, which will affect outcomes for poor children. Their parents can be seen as a risk or provide a positive resource for coping with adverse circumstances. There is a need for more effective cooperation and coordination between adult and children’s services to provide appropriate support for children and their families to avoid some of the risks associated with disadvantage, and reduce some of the long-term costs to the state – as well as those for individual children and young people. This agenda about providing the best upbringing for children, and ensuring a positive outcome for them in the future resonates with ideas about investing in children for the future. Parents are held accountable, both for


providing poor environments and demonstrating bad behaviour. They also have the potential to behave responsibly and provide their children with a supportive and loving environment. While it is parents’ responsibility to bring up children the state takes on the responsibility and right to intervene in families where this is deemed necessary. While parents themselves may seek support and advice, it will often be professionals acting on behalf of the state that make decisions about when and how to intervene within families.

Social policies and families There are different ways of conceptualizing approaches to family policy. Fox Harding (1996) suggests a continuum from authoritarian to liberal. Authoritarian states promote dominant ideologies of the family, while liberal states allow people more autonomy to make decisions for themselves. In the current context the approach in the UK might be regarded as a form of paternalistic authoritarianism. While the language of policies states that it is parents’ role to bring up children, the state has a growing role in promoting ideas about the best way to bring up children and young people. This can be couched in terms of support, but does represent a greater involvement in raising children. Governments may also have specific policy goals (Gauthier, 1996), and today one of the main aims of policies aimed at children, young people and their parents is promoting New Labour’s idea of the active and engaged citizen worker who contributes to society. This may exclude some, but is the aim for the majority. With regard to particular types of family different approaches may be adopted; for example, conservative, pragmatic or radical (Hatland, 2001). A more egalitarian, or radical response accepts difference. The UK can be seen as adopting different responses at different times, and demonstrating some ambivalence towards change; for example, towards lone parents. Similarly, while there is greater acceptance of gay and lesbian couples, and civil unions are allowed, the message within ECM seems to be that all children have a mother and a father. This can be taken to perpetuate the heterosexual two-parent ideal of the family. While it is important to recognize the role that fathers can play in families, it is also important to note that lone mothers can also parent successfully without a partner, and that some families have same sex parents. The diversity of family structure is largely absent from the policy documents referred to here. Instead, there is use of the generic terms ‘parent’ and ‘families’, and sometimes ‘disadvantaged families’, but as a consequence different types of family life become invisible.


Communitarianism New Labour draws on a set of intellectual and philosophical ideas that inform the development of policies relating to the welfare state and to individuals and communities. These connect to ideas about citizenship, and the rights and responsibilities that citizens have. The relationship between the individual and their community relates to what makes for a ‘good society’ (Etzioni, 1997). In modern society rights have been emphasized over responsibilities, but the shift is towards more focus on the latter. Etzioni’s ideas are based on voluntarism and a belief that a shared set of beliefs and values can be developed within society (Heron and Dwyer, 1999). The attempt to shape social values and behaviour is evident in New Labour policy around developing respect in society, and approaches to dealing with antisocial behaviour. There has been a push for what Lewis (1998) terms the ‘remoralization’ of society. New Labour’s approach to parents, children and young people is concerned with the responsibilities of individuals to make a positive contribution to society, in order to contribute to the well-being of society as a whole. This is an agenda for the present and the future. Embedded within these ideas is the notion that some individuals may present a risk because they do not behave responsibly. They can present a risk to others, and to the security of the community, but may also present a risk to themselves. The following section considers the issue of risk in relation to children and young people.

Risks and rights In modern society concern about risk almost seems endemic (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). Anxieties about children and young people relate to concerns about their health, well-being and safety (Gladwin and Collins, 2008). The risks associated with ‘postmodern’ society include global risks and threats to health and well-being, and it may seem as if there is little in life that can be controlled (Beck, 1992). Concern about risk determines the way that parents, society and the state perceive children and young people, and their behaviour towards them (Sharland, 2006). The sense of greater risk in modern society increases the sense of parental responsibility, or the state’s responsibility, and the feeling that children and young people need to be looked after and ‘looked out’ for. Their behaviour and the choices they are allowed to make are regulated by the state, and by their parents, though regulation may not always be successful. Providing for the safety of children and young people will also involve practitioners making assessments about risk (Kemshall, 2002). Children and young people can be seen as ‘at risk’ or ‘a risk’ to others and themselves. Considering children and young people to be ‘at risk’ seems to


result in paranoia about the safety of children, and the dangers that are inherent out there in society (Furedi, 2001). Sometimes the term ‘cottonwool kids’ is used to refer to the way that parents, and society can become overprotective. This means that children and young people may not have as much freedom as their parents did in the past. For example, they may be driven to and from school, or not allowed to play outside. Keeping children ‘safe’ could prevent them from developing autonomy and independence, or the ability to deal with challenges in later life. They need opportunities to develop their own perceptions of risk (Gladwin and Collins, 2008), without adult interference, though it can prove difficult for parents to accept this. There may also be gendered differences in behaviour that reflect the way that boys and girls are brought up (Lupton, 1999). While there is a view that children are at risk from ‘outsiders’, or being ‘out there’, they can also be at risk from their own parents and other family members, as well as from people working with children. Unfortunately, a series of cases in the media in the last months of 2008 indicates that there are parents, including mothers, who harm their children. Society has become increasingly regulated in order to protect children, but the policies in place are not always successful in protecting children from parents who wish to harm them. As well as being ‘at risk’ from others, children and young people sometimes engage in risk-taking behaviours; for example, taking drugs, or drinking alcohol. These risk-taking behaviours can also escalate and lead to substance misuse and addiction, and involvement in criminal activity. The process of putting themselves at risk can also leave children and young people vulnerable to exploitation by others. Being a risk to others is associated more closely with young people and antisocial behaviour, often captured by the media in attention-grabbing headlines, with reference to ‘feral children’ or ‘hoodies’. ‘Risks, both real and imaginings, can be amplified through the media’ (Gladwin and Collins, 2008: 173). It is believed that many young people have a propensity for violence, particularly in evidence around stories on gun and knife crime. Certain groups of young people can be seen as out of control, or whole areas or neighbourhoods seen as a threat for other people. Some of these images of young people also raise issues of gender and race. This representation of youth can escalate so that it appears as if all young people are bad. Thinking about young people as a risk also brings to the fore the idea of rights. Children and young people may have rights, but not the right to behave as they wish. They have the right to be protected from harm, including harm that they may do to themselves, but sometimes protecting children and young people will involve challenging what they may perceive as their right to behave badly, or to make poor choices. Parents are involved in this whole process, as they should be educating their children appropriately, and preventing harm or risk. However, not all parents are capable of doing so,


and some parents or carers are also involved in harming children and young people, thus presenting a risk themselves. What is evident is that thinking about risk involves a complex process where the risks that young people present to others, the risks that others pose to them, and the risks they present to themselves also have to be articulated with the rights that children and young people have. The latter includes the right to be protected, but also the right to develop, become independent and have some say in their own lives. Acknowledging that children do have rights also means ensuring the risks they face are managed effectively. In contemporary society in the UK, this responsibility lies with parents, but also with the state, and with professionals working with children, young people and families. When thinking about children’s rights, it is also important to consider parents’ rights. Children’s and parent’s rights may at times be in conflict. Currently, there is more emphasis on parental responsibility, and the notion of parents’ rights seems to be less fashionable. Access to welfare, which has been conceptualized as a social right, is connected to the duties or the obligations that parents have to support their children financially, which will facilitate their positive development. Safeguarding the economic well-being of children and families is considered in the following section.

Parents’ responsibilities for economic well-being Parents are seen as responsible for the economic well-being of families. This is related to the connections between living in poverty and disadvantage and poor outcomes for children, which are discussed in Chapter Five. Child poverty is seen as a significant problem, and worklessness within a household puts children at greater risk of living in poverty. This means that there has been much more emphasis on parents working, even when they have very young children. This includes families with two parents, and families with one parent. In addition, it means that there has been an emphasis on mothers returning to or entering the paid labour market. The belief seems to be that the economic well-being of families determines other areas of well-being, in the same way that having a healthy economy has been seen as determining the development of social policies. Policies are in place to support fathers and mothers in employment, but work–life balance – the balancing of work and family life – may prove difficult and not operate equally (Kilkey, 2006). It can be more difficult for men to take time out of work to look after children, and caring for children still remains predominantly women’s work. Concerns about work–life balance can be seen at the transnational level within the OECD (Mahon, 2006) and within other European countries (see, for example, Letablier, 2006). Within the context of the global economy, and the well-being of the national economy, citizens


have a duty to be economically active, and parents have a responsibility for the economic well-being of their children. Ensuring that parents work and supporting working families is integral to New Labour policy, but at the same time seems to present a contradiction (Perrons, 2006). There are tensions between parents working and parents’ ability to care for their children in a way that delivers maximum advantage to children, and lone parents may wish to prioritize looking after their children (Duncan and Edwards, 1999). While Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) focuses on a range of positive outcomes for children, and highlights the role that parents have to play, being in paid employment could put parents under stress. Achieving economic well-being for a family may make family life more difficult, more conflictual and in many senses less ‘healthy’ for children and young people. The choice to work is not only that of parents, as they are ‘supported’ or ‘encouraged’ into employment by social policies. More affluent families have more choices that parents on benefits, and other families living on a low income, where paid employment becomes a necessity, rather than a choice. Parents are seen as accountable for the behaviour of children and young people and can be penalized for not parenting effectively. However, if parents are expected to take up paid work, it could become more difficult for them to supervise their children effectively. If parents spend less time with their children, will this be beneficial? Increasing childcare provision in the UK, and extending the school day to 8 a.m.–6 p.m. (DfES, 2005) may have a positive dimension, but by implication, more children and young people will fall within the care of the state, individuals or agencies representing the state, including private or voluntary sector organizations. This entails a shift towards a ‘collective concern’ with looking after children and moving some of the responsibility from parents to the state. There is a tension between the state’s investment in children and parents’ investment in children. The former includes concern for the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children, but also positions children and young people as citizens of the future. Parents have a greater investment in the relationship between themselves and their children. Within a global economy, the state is likely to be more focused on the economic development of its children and families. The current ‘norm’ of both parents or the sole parent working, and extended use of child care for both pre-school and school-age children (Ellingsaeter and Gulbrandsen, 2007), may not be what all parents want, and may not always be what children and young people want (Lewis, 2006b).


Renegotiating relationships Recent policies imply a renegotiation of relationships between parents, children and the state. The Labour government has become increasingly interventionist within families, and acted to enforce parental responsibilities. The public–private divide has become blurred, and there is more intervention by state professionals, or other workers in the child-care sector, in the bringing up of children and in their socialization. A significant change is the idea that pre-school children should be looked after outside of the home, and their development is subject to much more intervention from the state. Responsibilities are shared, and there is a collective sense of childhood – what it ought to be like – and how children should be cared for – whether by parents or others. However, where the state steps in, it is important that those who carry out the required roles are also scrutinized as parents are, so that children are truly protected. It is also important to remember that policies do not operate in a vacuum. Children and young people and their families are living their everyday lives throughout the countries of the UK, subject to whatever social, cultural and economic events that both support, or hinder them. Just as important is remembering that while the labels parent, child or young person separate individuals into categories, these are people engaged in ongoing relationships within families.

Conclusion This chapter has examined some recent policies relating to families, children and young people, though with an emphasis on the role of parents, and the role of the state. Clear themes emerge around the responsibilization of parenthood. To some extent policies appear to ignore the gendered reality of everyday life for most families, where mothers are still the primary carers, even when they are in paid employment. Any parent who provides a positive role model for their children – fathers and mothers – has a role to play in providing the best outcomes for their children. The policies outlined here relate to and reflect key themes identified at the outset of this chapter. Ideas about risk inform many current policies, as risk underlies current ideas about achieving the best outcomes for children and young people, in the sense that not achieving under the headings of being healthy and safe, or of doing well educationally, has a list of ‘risky’ outcomes attached to it. In some sense, therefore, the concept of ‘risk’ is used to enable more positive outcomes for children and young people. Allied to the idea of risk are those of rights and responsibilities. Parents have rights, but also have a duty to look after their children appropriately. Children and young people have rights, but it is their responsibilities that are increasingly emphasized. All these areas relate to New Labour ideas about citizenship


and communities, and about the kind of society that ought to be in place in the UK, though so often the ideal seems to be lacking. The idea of the remoralization of society, or conversely, the demoralization of society is a powerful one, and policies aimed at parents and families illustrate this. When considering the policies in place, and relating these to the areas included in this book, there is also an indication that relationships between parents and families and the state have been renegotiated. Parents are under greater surveillance, and the world of the family is less private than it was before. It may be argued that this is not a bad thing, considering the way that some parents treat their children. On the other hand, the loss of privacy for the majority does not seem to offer any guarantee that those who abuse their role as parents will be prevented from harming their children. Websites The Every Child Matters website is a useful gateway for accessing policy documents referred to in this book. The Department for Children and Families is also an important resource. Every Child Matters www.everychildmatters.gov.uk Department for Children and Families (DCSF) www.dcsf.gov.uk

Key points • Under New Labour, there have been significant policy developments around children, young people and families. • The Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) outcomes provide the framework for policies. • Parents are seen as having an important role in supporting their children to achieve these outcomes. • The gendered nature of parenting and mothers’ role and caring role within families is minimized, though the role of fathers is recognized. • Disadvantaged families will be the subject of more state intervention than other families, as they are seen as unable to provide appropriate support. • Policies in place for children, young people and their parents relate to current ideas about citizenship. • The concepts of risks, rights and responsibilities can be identified within the policy agenda. • Increased state support for families, a ‘collective’ concern with children’s well-being, and the fact that more care for children will be provided outside of families reflects a renegotiation of relationships between parents and the state.

Changing families

Introduction This chapter considers some of the demographic and social changes that have taken place in the UK in recent years, comparing the UK to other countries in the EU, and to other industrialized nations where appropriate. The statistical data that is available provides some insight into social changes, though it will obscure some of the differences that exist between families; for example, differences on the basis of race and ethnicity may not be adequately represented. Data available at the national or European level is useful for providing an overview of how families are changing, and the participation of women in the labour market. They give some indication of the incidence of marriage and divorce, the rise in rates of cohabitation and the numbers of children born outside of marriage. Highlighting trends is important for governments and transnational organizations like the EU, for planning and implementing policies with regard to the labour market (Hantrais, 2007). This chapter considers some of these trends, and relates this to policies in process in the UK. There is a connection between changing social patterns and social policies (Lewis, 2006a). The choices that individuals make impact on social policies that states put in place to support individuals and families. At the same time, policies that states put in place impact on families, and may be instrumental in effecting change; for example, the increased provision of child-care places enables parents to work (Ellingsaeter and Leira, 2006). In addition, the EU with its emphasis on gender equality, and women’s engagement in the labour market, together with a European-level policy aimed at increasing child-care places also affects the choices that parents make (Hantrais, 2007). Some of these issues are also addressed here.


The ‘family’ in the UK The definition of a family is set out in Social Trends: ‘Families are defined by marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation, and, where there are children in the household, child/parent relationships’ (Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2008a: 16). Between 1971–2007 there was a decline in the ‘traditional’ household of a couple with dependent children in a private household. In 1971 this comprised 35 per cent of households, while in 2007 this was 21 per cent of private households (ONS, 2008a: 16). This relates to a decline in marriage, an increase in lone parent families and the choice that some women make to have a child alone. The number of lone parent households trebled between 1971–2007, growing from 4 per cent to 12 per cent. While the number of lone parents is much greater than in the past, most dependent children will still live in a family with two parents. Around 76 per cent of dependent children were living with two parents in 2007, compared with 23 per cent living in lone parent families (ONS, 2008a: 19). The majority of lone parent households are headed by women. Overall, family situations are increasingly diverse. Children can live with one or two parents, and new families are formed after separation or divorce, either by marriage or cohabitation, though the majority of children still tend to stay with their mother after a separation. Cohabitation There has been a change in the way that people arrange their relationships with an increase in cohabitation. By 2006 24 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women were cohabiting, which is approximately double the rates for 1986 (ONS, 2008a: 19). Cohabitation is less frequent in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. There appears to be a relationship with age, with cohabiting couples tending to be younger than married couples, though the figures available date from 2001 and increasing numbers of parents are cohabiting. Cohabitation could be seen to reflect the dominant ideal of two parents bringing up children – where there are children within the household. The acceptance of different forms of family living affects the policy agenda, while at the same time developments in social policies can be seen to support alternative family forms. Marriage and civil unions With regard to marriage, there were fewer than 284,000 marriages in the UK in 2005 – a drop of 27,000 from 2004. Marriages were at a peak in 1972 when there were 480,000 marriages (ONS, 2008a: 20). A new form of partnership is now available, with The Civil Partnership Act 2004

Changing families 27

allowing same-sex couples over the age of 16 to gain legal recognition of their partnership. Around 2,000 couples had registered their partnerships before the end of 2005, and in 2006 a further 16,000 partnerships were formed. The majority took place in England (90 per cent), with smaller percentages in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sixty per cent of civil partnerships are between males (ONS, 2008a: 22).

Marriage and Divorce in the EU The number of divorces in the UK has increased since the 1960s. The introduction of legislation in the countries of the UK widened the criteria for divorce, which resulted in an increase in the number of divorces. It is estimated that over a quarter of children living in married couple families will go through the experience of divorce, and out of 12.5 million dependent children in the UK, around 2.5 million live in step-families (DfES, 2007: 3). There are similar trends in marriage and divorce rates across Europe (Lewis, 2006a). The majority of the EU-27 countries have seen a decrease in marriages over the last 30 years (ONS, 2008a: 21). There has been an increase in cohabitation, alongside a rise in divorce rates. The EU-27 average divorce rate rose from 1.4 per 1,000 population in 1975 to 2.1 per 1,000 population in 2004. Lithuania had the highest divorce rate in 2005–3.3 per cent, while Italy and Ireland had the lowest rates 0.8 per cent (ONS, 2008a: 21), indicating that cultural, political and religious differences impact on these figures. The divorce rate has risen in all OECD counties, except in Latvia and Estonia (OECD, 2008). It is more difficult to obtain data on cohabitation, which may not be recognized legally.

Births The size of families is declining with women having fewer children than in previous generations; women in the UK are also having children later in life. A number of factors have a bearing on this, including: increased labour market participation; increase in educational attainment; availability of contraception; and getting married later in life. To illustrate this point, between 1971–2006, the average age at which mothers give birth in England and Wales rose from 26.2 to 29.5 for all live births (ONS, 2008a: 23). Changing patterns of employment for women, plus the fact that more women are better educated than in the past means that more women are able to live independently of men.


Births outside of marriage Births outside of marriage have become much more common and by 2006, 43.7 per cent of all births in the UK occurred outside marriage (ONS, 2008a). One significant reason for this is the increase in cohabitation. This increase is also evident in the EU-27, with around one in three births occurring outside of marriage in 2005. Estonia had the highest proportion at around 59 per cent, then Sweden with 55 per cent. With regard to Sweden and Estonia, it now appears more usual to have children outside of marriage. The only country not to see an increase was Denmark where the figure has remained stable for around 15 years. The country with the smallest proportion of births outside of marriage in 2005 was Cyprus, which may be linked to culture and religion. The increase in the number of births outside of marriage can be linked to the increase in levels of cohabitation, as well as the increase in lone parenthood. It also reflects a change in attitudes that means it is more acceptable to raise children outside marriage, and in some countries it has become more usual for children to be born outside of marriage.

Infant Mortality Rate: OECD The infant mortality rate refers to the number of deaths of children under one year of age in any given year and is expressed per 1,000 births. By 2005 all OECD countries had reduced infant mortality rates from the levels of 1970. In 1970 the average was 30 deaths per 1,000 live deaths, but by 2005 it had decreased to 5.4 (OECD, 2008). These averages conceal differences and the rate ranged from 2–3 deaths per 1,000 in Japan, the Nordic counties (except Denmark) and Luxembourg, but was considerably higher in Mexico (19) and Turkey (24). Infant mortality rates in the USA and in some eastern and central European countries were also higher than the average with more than 6 deaths per l,000 live births recorded (OECD, 2008). While there have been decreases in infant mortality, there are current factors that lead to a greater risk of infant mortality. These include: women deferring childbearing; rise in multiple births associated with fertility treatment; and increase in pre-term births. This leads to a rise in the number of babies born with low birth weights with a higher risk of neonatal deaths. In some high-income countries this has led to a levelling off of the downward trend in infant mortality rates (OECD, 2008). Additional factors for low birth weight include: low parental socio-economic status; harmful behaviours like smoking; excessive alcohol consumption, and poor nutrition during pregnancy (OECD, 2008). In 2005, the smallest proportions of low weight births with 5 per cent or less of live births were the Nordic countries (this includes Iceland), Ireland, Korea and Luxembourg.


Rates above 8 per cent were found in Greece, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and the USA. The overall average for the OECD is 6.6 per cent (OECD, 2008). Overall, these are positive trends, but there will be differences in outcomes across different population groups within countries, as factors such as ethnicity, educational attainment and socio-economic background will affect infant mortality rates. It is noticeable that the choices that mothers make, whether in terms of postponing having children, or in terms of their own behaviour, can increase the risk of infant mortality. Policies aimed at reducing infant mortality rates are evident within countries, but also operate at the global level as shown in Chapter Nine.

Gender and employment: EU Within the EU, the development of a social policy agenda has been slow, reflecting its origins as an economic union. Policies have prioritized the economic, and where ‘social policies’ have developed, they have been related to labour market participation and EU economic policies (Hantrais, 2007). More recently there has been a greater focus on families including: the changing structure of families; women’s participation in the labour market; the growth in lone parent families; and reconciling work and family life (Hantrais, 2007). The protection of children within families is also seen as important. The two areas of policy referred to within this chapter are recent developments that can be seen as having a social policy dimension, while at the same time, both relate to the EU economic agenda of increased labour market participation for women. The first of these is to increase women’s labour market participation; the second, to increase the number of childcare places available in the EU member states. While these are European objectives, the policies still have to be implemented at the national level. In 2000 the Lisbon European Council agreed an aim to achieve an overall working-age employment rate in the EU of 70 per cent, with a female employment rate of more than 60 per cent by 2010 (ONS, 2008a). In 2006 the overall EU-27 rate was 64 per cent. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands all had rates above the EU-27 target. Across the EU-27, the target rate for women in employment was reached in 2006. The UK had the fifth highest employment rate (66 per cent); the lowest rates were southern European countries – Malta, Italy and Greece (ONS, 2008a: 51). The northern European countries of Denmark (73 per cent), Sweden (71 per cent), the Netherlands (68 per cent) and Finland (67 per cent) had the highest employment rates for working-age women. These figures show the rates for women’s employment, rather than the rates for the employment of mothers, which is explored in the next section.


Maternal employment rates: OECD There is currently a lack of a comprehensive regular annual data collection on maternal or paternal employment across OECD countries. This means that data is taken from other national sources and the European Labour Force Survey to arrive at an estimation of maternal employment rates. OECD data for 2005 compares employment for mothers with one child under 16 living at home, and the female employment ratio for women aged between 25–44. Mothers’ participation rates are lower in all countries except Iceland and Sweden (OECD, 2008), and mothers are more likely to work when their child reaches the age of compulsory schooling. Female participation rates drop in many countries where mothers have three dependent children or more. This overview does not differentiate between full or parttime work. There are also differences in the way that time in and out of the labour market is recorded. Overall, figures show that most mothers are in paid work, particularly when children go to school. The OECD average for 2005 is 66.4 per cent of mothers with a child aged 6–16 in paid work (OECD, 2008). The figure for the UK for the same age group is 62.2 per cent. According to OECD figures, the highest rates of employment for mothers with children aged 6–16 are in the Nordic countries: Iceland, 86.5 per cent; Finland, 84.2 per cent; Denmark, 77.5 per cent; Sweden, 76 per cent (Norway is not included in these figures). The lowest rates of employment are Italy (47.5 per cent), Greece (50.4 per cent) and Spain (50.9 per cent). Other countries below the OECD average include Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic (OECD, 2008). Mothers are less likely to be in paid work when they have younger children. In the UK in the second quarter of 2008 two-thirds of working-age women with dependent children (68 per cent) were working, compared to 73 per cent of women without children (ONS, 2008b). While large numbers of mothers are in employment, having children still has an impact and women are more likely than men to work part time, particularly where they have younger children. Lone mothers are less likely to be in employment: 56 per cent compared to 72 per cent of married or cohabiting women with dependent children (ONS, 2008b), indicating that it is still more difficult for this group to be in paid employment. The different social, political and cultural histories of countries will contribute to the difference in employment rates of mothers; for example, in Southern Mediterranean countries, religion and traditional attitudes towards the family and gender roles may have more influence. In countries where welfare support is more developed, and where easily accessible and affordable child care is available, mothers can have more choice as to whether or not they want to work. On the other hand, increasing the availability of childcare could put pressure on mothers to enter or return to the labour


market. Political views of the family, and strategies for dealing with problems such as poverty will also be significant, as the central solution for dealing with child poverty in the UK is to make sure that parents are in employment. It is worth noting that despite increases in mothers’ labour market participation in the UK and in the EU, there are still substantial numbers of mothers who are not working. In addition, official statistics do not capture the casual or irregular employment of mothers that fits in with the care of young children.

Childcare: UK The National Childcare Strategy (DfES 1998) set out aims to provide affordable child care. Childcare strategies have also been published for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Meeting the Childcare Challenge: a Childcare Strategy for Scotland (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 1998) aims to increase places and ensure that all childcare is available and affordable for parents, as well as increasing the quality of childcare. Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy was published in September, 1999 (DHSS Training and Employment Agency and Department of Education Northern Ireland, 1999) and has similar aims. Childcare Is for Children (Welsh Assembly Government, 2005) sets out the Welsh approach. Choice for Parents: The Best Start for Children: A Ten Year Strategy for Childcare (HM Treasury, 2004a) sets out the agenda for childcare in the UK. Responsibility for delivery of the strategy is shared between the UK government and the devolved administrations. All these documents refer to childcare for children aged 0–14 years. A significant shift in policy in the UK is the objective that pre-school children should be in childcare. This is linked to policies at supporting parents in employment, but also relates to increasing investment in the early years and development of young children, and the ECM outcomes framework. In England all three and four-year-olds are now entitled to a free part-time early education place for 12.5 hours per week (ONS, 2008a: 30). From 2010, this will be extended to 15 hours per week (Government Equalities Office, 2008b). There has been an increase in participation rates for three and four-year-olds in maintained nursery and primary schools (ONS, 2008a: 30). Alternative forms of childcare include informal arrangements with family, and private provision of childcare. The hours per week that parents work may affect the kind of childcare used, or the reverse may also be the case. There are also variations in the perception of the affordability of childcare provision between lone parents and couples, with the former more likely to find childcare ‘unaffordable’ (ONS, 2008a: 119). Childcare is seen as ‘essential in supporting parents to take up or return to employment’ (ONS, 2008: 30), though as yet, child


care is not always available to parents when and as they need it, and the flexibilization of working hours is yet to be matched by the same flexibility in childcare provision. The costs of child care may also still be a preventive factor for some parents when deciding whether or not both, or the only parent, should be in the paid labour market. The expansion of childcare in the UK relates to a policy agenda that ties the eradication of poverty with encouraging parents to work, and welfare with making a contribution via paid employment. A recent UNICEF report notes a ‘sharp increase’ in the number of children under the age of one being cared for outside the home, but this creates pressure for parents, particularly the poorest in society (UNICEF, 2008a). Applying a conditionality principle to welfare entitlement also adds to this pressure, and where highquality childcare is not available for every child, and parental leave is not adequate, this does raise concern about the well-being of children in the UK (UNICEF, 2008a). The EU also has the same policy approach as the UK; that is, increasing childcare, and encouraging parents – in particular women – to be in the paid labour market.

Childcare: EU In 2002 the European Council meeting in Barcelona set out what are known as the ‘Barcelona objectives’. These included the aim of increasing childcare provision for children between three years old and mandatory school age so that by 2010, there should be childcare provision for 90 per cent of this group. There should also be childcare provision for at least 33 per cent of children under three years of age (Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 2008: 2). A lack of childcare places was seen as a ‘disincentive’ to female labour market participation. It was recognized that the provision of childcare would give parents more choice and allow them to reconcile work and family life more effectively. Six years on from the adoption of the objectives, it seems as though most member states will fail to reach the target (CEC, 2008: 9). Progress has been made, but there is still more to be done to widen provision, and to make childcare more affordable for parents, and to make opening hours more flexible. Based on figures for 2006, the CEC (2008) report shows that with regard to the lower age group (0–3 years), five member states surpassed the Barcelona objective. These are Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Estonia. Five others – Portugal, the UK, France, Lithuania and Slovenia – were close to the target. In other countries, a lot remains to be done. With regard to children between three years old and the mandatory school age, eight member states have surpassed the target of a 90 per cent coverage rate. These are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Estonia and Italy.


The availability of childcare impacts on gender roles, with women much more likely to opt for flexible working arrangements, or to give up work to take care of domestic work and family responsibilities. Within the EU, there is a connection between the availability of childcare facilities and the choices that parents can make. More than six million women in the 25–49 age range say they are not working, or work part time because of family responsibilities (EUROPA, 2008). It is the lack of childcare places, and/or the costs of childcare that act as barriers to their labour market participation (CEC, 2008). Raising the number of childcare places is an objective, but social policies are implemented by individual member states. Having these EU objectives in place would appear to lead towards the view that childcare provision outside of the home is the usual way for families to be arranged, alongside labour market participation of both parents. In addition, greater participation by parents in employment would help lift families out of poverty and, of course, would contribute to the economic well-being of the EU.

Parental leave Another part of the strategy of enabling parents to work are parental leave schemes. Parental leave is for employed parents, including mothers and fathers (OECD, 2008). Maternity leave is employment-protected leave of absence for employed women around the time of birth. The International Labour Movement (ILO) states that this should be at least 14 weeks (OECD, 2008). Paternity leave is employment-protected leave for employed fathers around the time of childbirth (OECD, 2008). Parental leave is available to either parent. The member states of the EU ‘all provide a statutory right to maternity and parental leave with a job guarantee’, meaning that parents can return to work at the end of this (Lister, et al., 2007: 121). The leave available varies. Maternity leave can range from 14 to 52 weeks (Lister et al., 2007), with the EU currently proposing a minimum of 18 weeks paid maternity leave. The Nordic countries have the longest paid parental leave, and paternity leave periods (Lister et al., 2007). In the OECD countries based on figures for 2005–06, the longest maternity leave of 52 weeks is in the UK, followed by the Czech and Slovak Republics and Norway (OECD, 2008). There are a cluster of countries with maternity leave of less than 15 weeks, including the USA, New Zealand, Mexico, Korea, Turkey and Japan (OECD, 2008). The length of paternity leave is shorter overall, with Iceland, Sweden and Norway having the longest periods, and Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain having the shortest periods of paternity leave (OECD, 2008). For parental leave, seven countries have a generous period of 156 weeks. These are the Czech Republic, Spain, Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic, France, Hungary and Austria. Countries with the shortest period of parental


leave include the UK, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, the Netherlands and Iceland (OECD, 2008). With such variation between countries within the EU and among the OECD countries, it is clear that not all parents are in an equal situation when it comes to balancing work and family life. Overall, maternity leave is still much more generous than paternity leave, which reinforces traditional gender roles. Lister et al. (2007: 124) summarizing research in this area states that: ‘parental leave legislation has not brought about radical change in the division of care between mothers and fathers’.

Tax/Benefit systems Tax/benefit systems can be used to support working parents. They can be ‘neutral’ or support particular types of family. In the UK, welfare delivered via the taxation system includes tax credits, while benefits include child benefit. Similar policies may also be in place in other countries. Analysis by the OECD looks at whether or not tax/benefit systems support the following three models: the single breadwinner; primary breadwinner with a second earner; and equal partnerships (OECD, 2008). The findings are that most tax/benefit systems have small incentives towards more equal engagement in the labour market. Germany and the Czech Republic are exceptions where the tax/benefit system favours single breadwinner couples above dual-earner families. Supporting parents via the tax and benefits systems is not the only way of encouraging labour market participation, and the provision of child care is important. This is heavily subsidized in Nordic countries that means ‘work pays’. In the UK the costs of child care can be high, which will affect the decisions that parents make.

Lone parents in the UK The increase in lone parent families has been of concern to successive governments. They can be portrayed negatively – as a symptom, and a cause of the breakdown of society, and as a drain on the state due to their dependence on state benefits (Murray, 1990). The 1991 Child Support Act represents an attempt by a Conservative government to reinforce the financial and moral responsibilities of non-resident parents (Rowlingson and McKay, 2002). However, there have been problems with the system and with the Child Support Agency set up to administer child support. Historically, the majority of lone parents have been mothers. This is still the case today, and out of around 1.8 million lone parents of working age in Great Britain, less than 170,000 are fathers (Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), 2006).


The problem of lone parent households and encouraging lone parents to enter, or re-enter the paid labour market has been of concern to Labour governments over the past 11 years. The lone parent employment rate has increased, standing at 57.2 per cent in 2007 (DWP, 2007: 14), with a slight fall to 56 per cent in 2008 (ONS, 2008b). The numbers of those still claiming income support is high, and around half of lone parent families live on low incomes (DWP, 2007). The New Deal for Lone Parents has led to an increase in lone parents working meaning that over 300,000 are in employment (DWP, 2007: 3). However, there are differences between employment rates for lone mothers and for couple mothers, who are more likely to be in the paid labour market (ONS, 2008b). The connection is made with poverty, with children in lone parent families at greater risk of living in poverty (CPAG, 2004, 2008). There are 787,000 dependent on income support, though there may be additional reasons why lone parents claim benefits; for example, sickness or disability (DWP, 2006: 52). Other countries also have high numbers of lone parents, but may have a higher proportion in employment (ONS, 2008a). Conditional access to welfare and lone parents Over the past few years, there has been a move towards applying a principle of ‘conditionality’ to welfare benefits, with incentives to persuade lone parents to return to work. Helping Lone Parents (DWP, 2006) sets out an aim of achieving a 70 per cent employment target for lone parents, which would also contribute to halving child poverty. Policies to encourage lone parents to return to work include mandatory work-focused interviews, and the New Deal for lone parents. Initially, the aim was to enable lone parents to return to work when their youngest child is 11. A similar process is under way in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, though policy developments may vary. Ready for Work, which was published in 2007, is about moving welfare recipients from being ‘passive’ to ‘active’ and actively seeking employment (DWP, 2007: 10). A framework of rights and responsibilities is important as in the extract below: Rights and responsibilities of lone parents Lone parents with older children, who are claiming benefits and who can work, will have to actively seek work. We intend this will be introduced for lone parents with a youngest child of 12 or over from October, 2008, a youngest child aged 10 or over from October 2009 and a youngest child aged 7 or over from October 2010. (DWP, 2007: 12) There is an emphasis on lone parents coming off benefits. A link is made between providing childcare places and parents’ ability to work. It is also stressed consistently that it is a parent’s responsibility to work. Earning an


income might bring lone parent families living in poverty above the poverty threshold, but could also cause strain within the family, as children have to cope with a parent who is absent from their lives most of the time. The earnings of one parent in the household may not be sufficient to provide financial security for the family. This approach represents a change from persuading or encouraging lone parents to be in paid employment, towards a much more co-coercive approach, and is a move from a social right to welfare, to an emphasis on a duty to contribute in order to receive support. No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility (DWP, 2008a) and the Green Paper Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future (DWP, 2008b), moves this approach forward. Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: lone parents The Green Paper Raising expectations and increasing support (DWP, 2008b), sets out the current Labour government’s agenda for extending conditional access to benefits. Citizens are expected to make, in order to access their social rights, or in this instance, welfare benefits. This adultworker model of citizenship places a greater value on paid employment than unpaid caring work. As women provide most of the unpaid care for children, and the majority of lone parents are mothers, there is a gendered dimension to this policy. Lone parents will have to seek work, and this is related to the age of their youngest child. From October, 2007, those with a youngest child of seven and over should be actively seeking work. This includes lone parents with younger children in the ‘progress to work’ category. The ‘no conditionality’ group; that is, people who have unconditional access to benefits, includes lone parents with young children, but no age is specified. However, the Green Paper states ‘we should not wait until the youngest child is seven before engaging with parents’ (DWP, 2008b: 14), and parents with children aged between three and six could be included in those ‘supported’ into employment. A positive undertaking is that parents on income-related benefits will keep all the maintenance paid for children (DWP, 2008b). While the obligation to work is emphasized, terms like ‘potential’ and ‘aspiration’ are used, seeing the previous system as holding people back. The welfare reforms are part of New Labour’s modernization agenda, and are located within a global economic framework. What is missing is any consideration of whether or not expecting parents with very young children to work is what children want or their parents want, or if it is in the best interests of young children.


Conclusion This chapter has described some of the changes that have occurred in families, and compares the UK with other countries. The content is dependent on the sources used – the national statistics for the UK; statistical information from the EU and statistics available from the OECD. When using the term ‘family’, it is important to note that in the compilation of statistics, there is a focus on heterosexual families, and a paucity of information on sexual orientation and families. At the international level in particular, there is also an absence of information on minority ethnic groups within counties, which means that socio-economic differences, and cultural variations within societies are missing. There is more recent information on migration, and population trends (Lanzieri, 2008), but how this intersects with family life, roles within families, poverty, life chances and a range of other factors is less evident. These omissions have implications for discussion and debate around the family, gender roles within the family and an understanding of labour market participation rates. The complexity of everyday life and relationships is subsumed within categories such as ‘parent’ or ‘family’. The factual information provides us with generalizations and an overview of family life and parenting within countries but obscures differences. Increases in divorce, cohabitation, the rise in births outside of marriage and increased labour market participation by women are trends that can be seen within industrialized nations. Of course, births outside of marriage may still involve two parents, rather than one parent, as parents may be choosing to live outside of traditional families. The increase in the numbers of lone parents, and step-families also present new opportunities, and sometimes difficulties for parents and children. Children and young people come from diverse cultural backgrounds, and beliefs and attitudes affecting gender roles, and marriage and divorce will impact on the everyday experiences of children and young people. The diversity in different countries presents a challenge to policy-makers when ensuring that policies meet the needs of children, young people and their families. Social policies aimed at meeting the needs of children, young people and their families often appear to prioritize the economic well-being of nations. This can be seen in the UK with policies aimed at getting parents into paid employment. This means that the unpaid caring work that takes place within families is devalued. Another dimension of this economic bias is the way that children and young people are often seen in terms of their futures, and the capacities that they have that need to be developed, so that in the long term they too can make a contribution to society. At the European level, the development of social policies has been linked to economic policies; for example, increasing the number of women in the labour market, and extending child-care provision so that parents can work. The motivation can be partly about ensuring the well-being of families, and


ensuring that children and young people do not grow up in poverty. At the same time, it is linked to facilitating and maintaining a strong economy in a global economic system. Websites The websites listed below provide relevant information on the UK, the EU and the OECD countries. The national statistics for the UK also include some information on other countries, and further information on Europe can be accessed via Eurostat. Eurostat www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ Office for National Statistics (ONS) www.statistics.gov.uk OECD (2008) Family database www.oecd.org./els/social/family/database

Key points • Significant social changes have taken place in industrialized nations over the past 50 years. There is a pattern between changing social patterns and social policies. • These changes include: a decrease in marriage; increase in divorce; increase in lone parenthood; increase in cohabitation; increase in births outside of marriage; and increase in women’s labour market participation. • EU policies impact on national polices within the EU member states. This includes encouraging women’s labour market participation – including mothers, and increasing the number of childcare places for young children. • UK policy reflects this approach, with policies aimed at supporting parents into employment. The National Childcare Strategy provides places for preschool children and is seen as one means of assisting parents to work. • Within the UK lone parents are predominantly female, and lone mothers are less likely to be working than mothers with partners. • Lone parents are seen as a problem as large numbers depend on welfare benefits, representing a cost to the state. Current welfare reforms in the UK seek to persuade more lone parents to take up paid work. • Official statistics provide an overview of families, and social changes, but do not show the differences that exist within societies. The idea of ‘the family’ still has a heterosexual bias.

Citizens of the future?

Introduction This chapter discusses citizenship as it relates to children/young people and citizenship. This includes exploring theoretical debates around definitions of citizenship and children’s rights; considering children’s rights in relation to parental rights; and looking at the relationship between parents and children and the state. In the process of considering these areas, recent social policy relating to children and young people is considered. Another important dimension when considering citizenship is that of age, so that the notion of the perceived ‘competence’ of children and young people is significant in determining what level of autonomy they are able to have. Finally, it is important to remember that citizenship is not just a word, or a set of ideas, but has legal implications for those assigned, or denied the label of citizen. The concept of citizenship encompasses other ideas such as: the relationship between the individual and the state, who is included or excluded from the status of citizenship (Kay et al., 2006); how boundaries around citizenship are constructed; and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. While in the past debates about citizenship have focused on adults, there has been a more recent interest in children, young people and citizenship (Invernizzi and Williams, 2008). Consideration of citizenship in relation to children and young people inevitably involves discussion of: • • • •

children and young people’s rights; children and young people’s competence; parental rights and responsibilities; the tension between parent’s rights and children’s rights.

This chapter considers some of the issues raised by considering citizenship and children and young people. It starts by looking at the concept of


citizenship, and the issue of rights, moving on to explore children’s rights. New Labour’s conceptualization of children as citizens of the future, and the responsibilities attached to the notion of ‘active’ citizenship are then considered in relation to recent policies. These are applied in the community, but consideration of the situation of young carers illustrates how children and young people behave responsibly within the home.

Defining citizenship At its most basic, citizenship implies membership of a community, a sense of ‘belonging’ and of being connected to other people (Lewis, 1998). With regard to the construction of the welfare state, it embodies an important set of ideas. 1 The ‘citizen’ is one way of imagining a link between the state and the individual. 2 Citizenship is a category of belonging that has been central to the construction of boundaries of entitlement and therefore it raises questions about both social exclusions as well as social inclusion. 3 Citizenship is a social status which articulates and mediates the entitlements of the individual to state-organized welfare and was the category at the heart of the social democratic welfare state. (Lewis, 1998: 104) If we apply the points that Lewis makes to children and young people, it raises a number of questions about children’s entitlement to citizenship, and how they achieve that entitlement. A child’s access to citizenship and the rights that may ensue is ‘by proxy, based on their relationship with their parents or families’ (Stalford, 2008). Being a part of a community, or a nation is integral to the concept (Dwyer, 2004), as this confers certain rights on individuals. This means that the inclusion of some children and the exclusion of others will also be related to their parents’ citizenship status. Children’s entitlement to state welfare is perhaps more complicated. It is difficult to envisage any child in the UK being refused medical care, or an education, for example. However, if parents are asylum seekers or refugees, and experiencing disadvantage, then their children will be similarly affected. The ‘personal’ is also important, and how people perceive themselves increasingly so, in a world where people may not live in the countries they were born in, and where family ancestry can be diverse. T. H. Marshall The concept of citizenship has a long history dating back to Roman and Greek times (see Dwyer, 2004). The two main traditions of citizenship – civic

Citizens of the future? 41

republicanism and liberalism – are still reflected in current representations of citizenship (Dwyer, 2004; Lister et al., 2007; Lockyer, 2008). The ideas of T.H. Marshall have been influential in developing ideas around citizenship and these are considered here. Marshall proposed that there are three elements of citizenship: the civil; the political; and the social. These are outlined as follows: The civil element is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom – liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts, and the right to justice. The last is of a different order from the others, because it is the right to defend and assert all one’s rights on terms of equality with others and by due process of law. This shows us that the institutions most directly associated with civil rights are the courts of justice. By the political element I mean the right to participate in the exercise of political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body. The corresponding institutions are parliament and councils of local government. By the social element I mean the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society. The institutions most closely connected with it are the education system and the social services. (Marshall, 1996, quoted in Dwyer, 2004: 40) These three elements were seen to be associated with the eighteenth (civil), nineteenth (political) and twentieth (social) centuries in Britain. However, this is not unproblematic. For example, women did not receive the right to vote in elections at the same age as men until 1928 (Lister et al., 2007). This reflects the fact that the concept of citizenship has always involved exclusions – in this case, women were not allowed the full political citizenship rights of men. If each of the elements of Marshall’s construction of citizenship is considered in relation to children and young people, it can be seen that they too are excluded from full citizenship in their own right. The civil element includes certain freedoms, such as freedom of speech, of thought and faith that may be curtailed for children and young people within their families and communities, and within society. On the other hand, adults are not necessarily free to say exactly what they wish. With regard to the political element, a young person has the right to vote when they are 18 years old. Therefore, children and young people cannot fully participate in the democratic process until they are defined as adults, though as shown later in the chapter, there are policies in process to empower young people and develop their influence within society. The social element includes being able to participate fully in society, but many children and young people are marginalized because they are living in poverty with their


families, and experience considerable disadvantage within society (see Chapter Five). When considering the point at which young people can begin to exercise some of the rights that adults have, the situation appears quite confused. They can have sex at the age of 16, drive at 17 and buy alcohol and cigarettes at 18 and vote at 18. These are current ‘points of entry’ into adulthood, which have changed over time and may not be fixed, and it is interesting how and why they vary. Marshall’s ideas on citizenship are very much associated with the development of the post-Second World War welfare state. Thus, discussion and debate was focused on the issue of social rights, and citizens’ access to welfare services and benefits. Being a member of a nation state is crucial to gaining access to welfare rights (Dwyer, 2004). In addition, there is increasing emphasis on the responsibilities of citizens as well as their rights. Access to welfare is therefore conditional both on legitimate membership of the nation, and on behaving responsibly as a citizen. While children may have rights, there is a question over when and how they can meet the responsibilities referred to by Dwyer (2004), or whether their parents are capable or willing to meet those responsibilities on their behalf. When children are below the age of 16, there is an assumption that others – usually parents – act on their behalf. This also means that parents make decisions about what it is appropriate for children to be allowed to do, or what choices they can make, though often this will be in conjunction with professionals working within the welfare system.

Developing children’s rights The social construction of childhood/adolescence relates to changing ideas about and attitudes towards children and childhood, including their capabilities, whether or not they can have rights themselves, and what their responsibilities (if any) are. There has been growing interest in the area of children’s rights since the early 1970s. The Civil Rights movement in the USA in the 1960s and the early 1970s led to demands for recognition of the rights of a range of minority groups, including those of children. Within the literature, different viewpoints are expressed, but Fortin (1998) summarizes recurring themes. These are: how to identify children’s rights; how to balance one set of rights against another in the event of conflict between them; and how to mediate between children’s rights and those of adults (Fortin 1998: 3). Today, there is greater acknowledgement that children and young people have an ability for self-determination and a capacity to make decisions for themselves. This will be related to their age, for example, a baby is dependent on others to make choices for them, but a 14-year-old may have the


capacity to think for themselves, and make decisions about matters that affect their lives. While age is significant, it is not chronological age that matters, as there will be variation in maturity and competence. The issue of competence becomes more significant for older children, and is referred to in the following section. Competence to make decisions An important example of the reassessment of children’s capacities was in a case relating to whether or not GPs could prescribe contraception to under-age girls without parental knowledge or consent. A private individual, Victoria Gillick, pursued a case to prove that this was not acceptable. The House of Lords ruling on the case adopted an approach that reassessed children’s legal competence, and ruled against Gillick. It was found that teenagers could have a ‘qualified form’ of autonomy. The ‘Gillick principle’ is now part of the law (Fortin, 1998; Fortin, 2008). This decision promotes the idea that parents should be bringing up their children to become independent, allowing them more say in their everyday lives. The Gillick case recognized that adolescents have a right to make decisions for themselves in particular contexts, and that this can occur before they are legally adults (Fortin, 1998). However, it does not grant young people full autonomy. Parents may not agree with the decisions that adolescents make around their sexuality, or with regard to other aspects of their behaviour. There are areas where a young person’s choices will not be respected by the state, and parents who do not support this position will be acting irresponsibly. For example, while children or young people may wish to smoke before the age of 16, the law clearly states that they cannot do so, nor can they legally drive until they are 17. While they might choose to engage in risk-taking behaviour, there are legal restrictions to their activities, even though at times these can be difficult to enforce.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) The UNCRC (United Nations (UN), 1989) came in to effect in 1990, and was ratified by the UK in 1990. It is important because it represents an attempt to define the rights of the child in the international context. The UNCRC sets out rights that should apply to children in all countries, but this is a set of principles or ideas about how children’s lives should be, and this does not mean that the reality meets the standards set out in the Convention. In addition, Ennew (2008) points out that the association of rights with nation states obscures the fact that some states contain groups that may be marginalized when it comes to the consideration of rights. There is also


concern for children who do not have a nationality, meaning that they are stateless, which would make them non-citizens, though Article 7 in the UNCRC states that a child does have a right to a nationality (Doek, 2008). The UN Convention contains articles that relate to substantive rights, including the civil, political, economic and social. It reflects the assumption that states should be required to protect children and promote their freedoms, and provide resources to enable children to achieve their potential (Fortin, 1998), though treating children as ‘rights holders’ is a complex area. The articles cover a wide area, and apply to all under the age of 18. Article 3(1) provides the overarching principle that ‘the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’, compared to the Children Act 1989 that states the child’s best interests shall be paramount (Thomas, 2002). The latter is balanced towards the child’s interests, while the UN Convention implies that there may be other considerations that have to be taken into account. This could, for example, mean the wishes of the parent. Rights in the Convention have been classified as: survival rights; membership rights; protection rights; and empowerment rights; (see Fortin, 1998). Survival rights include the right to life and anything that sustains life (Kay et al., 2006). Article 6 protects children’s right to life. Article 37 bars the death penalty for criminal acts. Membership rights mean that all children are equal and should not be discriminated against on any basis. Protection rights include protecting the family. Article 5 recognizes the importance of the parental role, and Articles 9 and 10 require states to ensure that children will remain with their parents, and not to be separated against their will. Children should also be protected from abuse or exploitation that can occur in a variety of contexts, for example, within the home, or in a wider society as a result of child prostitution or other forms of exploitation. They should also be protected from armed conflict, and justice systems for young people should be fair. Empowerment rights or participation rights recognize children as active agents, who should be helped to develop their independence and enabled to take responsibility for their future. For example, Article 12 assumes children are capable of forming their own opinions, though this is related to their age and maturity. There is a tension implicit in some rights, in that promoting children’s independence may conflict with supporting families, and the authority of parents. Article 5 states that parents have a ‘right to direct and guide their children’ which could contradict a child’s right to become independent (Fortin, 1998), or challenge their competence to make decisions on their own behalf. Allowing children autonomy and encouraging their participation does not mean that they are regarded as the same as adults, as indicated in below: Yet, ‘consistent with their evolving capacities’ children are granted sufficient competence to exercise some rights, and this same competence presupposes that they are capable of taking some responsibilities.


Children who exercise participatory rights must also acknowledge their duties to others. (Lockyer, 2008: 26) Despite compromises and inconsistencies, the Convention is significant as it provides a comprehensive set of standards against which states can assess their progress towards fulfilling children’s rights. However, it is a Convention – an agreement – and there is no formal method of enforcement. While the UK ratified the document in 1991, there are still concerns about children’s rights in this country. The application of antisocial behaviour orders to young people may result in their social exclusion, or if they breach them, criminalization (see Chapter Six). The numbers of young people sent to prison here are higher than in other countries, and again, this is cause for concern. The problem of youth homelessness discussed in Chapter Seven shows how thousands of young people’s most basic rights to shelter are not met. The discussion in Chapter Nine illustrates how there are global concerns around children’s rights. While it is acknowledged that children and young people have rights, it can be difficult to enforce these, due to their relative powerlessness in society, the fact that adults (parents or professionals) tend to act on their behalf, and that children may be too young to claim their rights themselves. Allowing rights to children and young people can be seen as interfering with parental authority, so that extending their rights may be seen as a threat by adults (Fortin, 2008). With rights come responsibilities. Lister (2008) suggests that these can be imposed or encouraged by the state, or chosen by young people, for example, by choosing to obey the law. Finally, it is important to remember that an international document does not automatically legitimate the belief that children have rights, and many of the rights in the Conventions are based on ideals about how children should be treated. The notion of rights embodied within the Convention not only operates at the level of the state, but also within the family, and not all parents will believe that their child has rights. Even the most basic necessities of life may be withheld, and the right to protection is not available to all children in society.

Education and citizenship A right to an education was recognized by Marshall (Lister, 2008) and the education system in the UK provides a forum for the articulation of ideas about citizenship. Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (Qualifications Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998) sets out the framework for teaching citizenship within schools (Cunningham and Lavalette, 2004;


Lockyer, 2008). This is often refered to as the Crick Report. Young people should be able to see themselves as active citizens, which would include involvement and action (Cunningham and Lavalette, 2004; Lockyer, 2008). A ‘social control’ aspect of citizenship education is still in evidence, but the notion of active citizenship challenges injustice and aims to change society. This results in a tension between ‘fostering compliance, obedience, a socialisation into social norms and citizen duties: and on the other, to encourage autonomy, critical thinking and the citizen challenge to social injustice . . .’ (Cunningham and Lavalette, 2004: 257). Undertaking research with students on the Iraq war, these authors found that the response to students who protested against the war could be seen as harsh. The government requires young people to be active citizens, so long as they act in a way that is deemed as appropriate, and the consequences of ‘active citizenry’ was ‘on the whole, admonishment and ridicule’ (Cunningham and Lavalette, 2004: 265). In this example, while young people were being active citizens and demonstrating against what they felt to be injustice, they were also challenging the government’s actions, and acting irresponsibly by taking time out of school. Educating children for citizenship is reflected in Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) which sets out the Labour government’s agenda for developing social policies for children, and this is considered next.

Every Child Matters (ECM) (2003) Williams (2004) provides an analysis of Every Child Matters, which states that every child, whatever their background or their circumstances should have the support they need to: be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; and achieve economic well-being. All organizations providing services to children will be expected to work in partnership and share information to protect children and young people from harm, and to help them achieve what they want out of life. There is also an emphasis on giving young people a say in their lives. The implementation of the Children Act 2004 means that there is now a duty to cooperate and improve outcomes for all children and young people. In addition, there is a Children’s Commissioner in each of the four nations of the UK. While ECM starts with the aim of keeping children healthy and safe, the three other outcomes are very much about the achievement of children. These include achieving economic well-being, which implies entering the paid labour market at some later stage, and making a positive contribution. These ideas fit with New Labour’s ideas of adult citizenship and position children (and young people) as ‘citizens of the future’ (Lister, 2003). In a global economy, children are seen as of fundamental importance in developing a competitive economy. For that reason, investment in children


is crucial. For New Labour, this is illustrated by the pledge to abolish child poverty, recognizing the adverse effects of living in poverty in the here and now, but also across the life course (see Chapter Five).

Analysis of Every Child Matters (ECM) In terms of analysing these recent policies, it has been suggested that ECM relates to ‘achievement’, rather than enjoyment, education or play (Lister, 2006a: 321). As citizens of the future, children are also affected by New Labour ideas about the importance of paid work, which can be seen as the central obligation of citizenship in the twenty-first century (Lewis, 2006a). While there is an emphasis on ‘active citizenship’ the question is whether the policy rhetoric can be translated in to practice, so that children and young people can become more involved in decisions about their lives, and the services provided for them. Furthermore, can all children be equally included, or as Fawcett et al. (2004) notes with reference to disabled children, are there some children who do not fit in to the model of active citizenship currently promoted? Other groups that may be marginalized include gypsy and traveller children, the children of asylum seekers and young unaccompanied asylum seekers. Lister (2006b) argues that the needs and rights of mothers are intrinsically linked with those of children, and that there is a gendered dimension to current approaches to citizenship. The emphasis of children becoming adults in the future may also overlook the importance of their well-being in the present. Micklewright and Stewart (2000: 7) suggest that in order to lead a ‘good life’, ‘material well-being, health and survival, education and personal development, and social inclusion and participation’ are other issues that need to be addressed.

Youth Matters (YM) Following on from Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and The Children Act 2004, further initiatives relate to young people and the positive contribution that they can make to their communities, and to society. Youth Matters (DfES, 2005) was followed by Youth Matters: Next Steps (DfES, 2006a), and Aiming High for Young People: A Ten Year Strategy for Positive Activities (DCSF, 2006). These documents set out New Labour’s agenda for engaging young people in positive activities in their community. In the foreword to Youth Matters: Next Steps, Ruth Kelly, Secretary for Education and Skills, writes that these proposals ‘provide a powerful and comprehensive agenda for positive changes to the life chances of all young people’, going on to state that ‘we want young people to be actively involved in their communities,


influencing decision-making and democratic processes and leading action’ (DfES, 2006a: 2). The two chapters that most obviously relate to citizenship are Chapter Four ‘Empowering Young People: Things to do and Places to go’ and Chapter Five ‘Young People as citizens: Making a Contribution’. The Youth Opportunity Fund (YOF), and Youth Capital Fund (YCF) were set up. Though the YOF, finance can be sought to develop activities; through the YCF, young people can apply for money for investing in buildings and equipment (Golden et al., 2008). There is an emphasis on developing facilities for young people, and allowing young people to have their say on how their area is developed. The total amount for the YOF and YCF was £115 million over two years (DfES, 2006a: 15), and this ring-fenced funding was distributed between all local authorities (LAs) to work with young people (Golden et al., 2008). Giving young people more responsibility is seen as a means of addressing ‘barriers to participation by developing services that are more relevant and attractive to them’ (DfES, 2007: 32). Eight thousand young people have participated in decision-making or have been grant givers, and 73,000 have developed and submitted bids, with over 569,000 benefiting from activities or facilities funded by the YOF/YCF (DfES, 2007: 32). The YOF/YCF guidance states that all young people aged 13–19 should be able to participate, but particularly those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and other young people who may find it difficult to participate. For example: young disabled people, young care leavers, looked after young people, young offenders, young carers, young refugees, young lesbians and gay men, young black and minority ethnic people, travellers and those in rural areas. (DfES, 2006, quoted in Golden et al., 2008) In Aiming High (DCSF, 2007b) both funds were expanded and extended until 2011, with £220 million in funding available. Key findings from an evaluation of YOF and YCF found that participating in panels making decisions led to positive outcomes (Golden et al., 2008). Young people participating in decision-making gained personally and socially, and developed skills in teamworking and decision-making. Those that participated in projects that received funding also benefited. Increasing awareness of the funds among young people has occurred, though the research found that an ‘adult broker’ to raise awareness of these opportunities was important. Projects funded in England cover a range of areas; for example, sports, arts, transport, youth facilities and community cohesion (DCSF, 2008b). On citizenship there is a ‘commitment to active citizenship and community engagement by young people’ (DfES, 2006a: 17). For adults active citizenship would involve paid employment; for young people it involves


promoting voluntary activities in their communities, and enabling them to participate in decisions that can help to shape their environment.

Aiming High for Young People (AH) Aiming High for Young People: A Ten Year Strategy for Positive Activities (HM Treasury/DCFS, 2007b) takes forward the ideas in YM, with a more detailed account of empowering young people and giving them ‘real’ influence. Overall, there is an emphasis on participation and empowerment, influence and leadership. As noted at the start of this chapter, these are elements of the social construction of citizenship, though for young people they relate to voluntary work, rather than paid work. This investment in young people represents a cultivation of a future adult generation that has the potential to engage in active and positive citizenship. This is a 10-year strategy, and while it is about developing that capacity in young people now, it is clearly an approach that looks forward to the future, and also reflects the outcomes in ECM. There is an emphasis on the relationship between the individual and the community, though young people’s relationships with parents appear to be overlooked, unless they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. A connection can be made with communitarianism, and the balance between rights and responsibilities (Dwyer, 2004), though one interpretation of Youth Matters and Aiming High might be that there is more emphasis on the responsibilities that young people have. However, these obligations are connected to the right that children and young people have to achieve their full potential. The extract from Aiming High reproduced in Box 3.1 is part of the Summary from Chapter Three, ‘Empowerment: Giving young people and communities real influence’.

Box 3.1 Summary (Aiming High) 3.1 Giving young people genuine influence over local services is the most effective way of ensuring better access and increasing participation. All young people should feel able to make a positive contribution in their communities and to have their achievements celebrated, sending a strong signal about their rightful places in society. 3.2 Communities have a responsibility to help expand and improve opportunities and services for young people. Where they prioritise things to do and places to go for young people, Local Authorities respond, demonstrating the power of local accountability. Community organisations can also play a vital


role in delivering positive activities for young people. When young people and communities come together to address common issues it helps to build better understanding between the generations. 3.3 Young people should be supported to take the lead in making decisions about the activities and services in their neighbourhoods. However, Local Authorities and providers have a responsibility to ensure that provision is of high quality. 3.4 The Government will expand significantly young people’s direct influence and control on the design, commissioning, and delivery of local services. This applies to all young people, but particularly those who are least likely to feel empowered to demand more of services. Source: Aiming High for Young People: A Ten Year Strategy for Positive Activities (DCSF, 2006: 29).

Activity Read the text in Box 3.1 and using this, and other information provided in this chapter, answer the following questions. 1 What is involved in young people making a positive contribution to society? 2 Are all young people included in this positive conceptualization of youth? 3 What are the links made between young people and ‘communities’?

Analysis of policies As suggested earlier, there are children and young people in society who are more likely to be socially excluded, and who may find it difficult to participate in society. The ‘empowering’ initiatives of the current government may be disempowering for those who feel marginalized or alienated by the current emphasis on achievement and positive activities. There are those who are disadvantaged as a result of poverty, and race and ethnicity can also be a factor. This is referred to in these policy documents, but is not a central focus. If children and young people are to have rights, are they to have the right not to participate if that is what they wish? Or, will those who do not participcate be stigmatized and labelled as ‘difficult’ or ‘problematic’ in some way? Lack of participation could be a choice for some young people, while for others it may be related to a lack of confidence, self-esteem or lack of appropriate skills for this agenda of participation. Focusing on the posi-


tive and acknowledging young people’s positive achievements will counter more negative representations of youth, but there will still be those who are not incorporated into the idea of the ‘good citizen’ (Tisdall, 2006). This includes young offenders, but also that larger group of children and young people whose behaviour is seen as antisocial. These groups of young people are seen as responsible for their own poor behaviour, though they are not perceived as ‘responsible citizens’ (Lister, 2008). A positive example of children and young people’s participation in everyday life is the case of young carers, and young adult carers. Consideration of their experiences raises questions about the relationship between rights and responsibilities, and about dependency and interdependency within families (Aldridge, 2008; Cass, 2007), and these two groups are considered in the following section.

Young carers With an emphasis on communities and making a contribution outside of the home, it is important to remember that on a day-to-day basis, children and young people make a contribution within the home (Warren, 2007). Young carers (Dearden and Becker, 2004) and young adult carers (Becker and Becker 2008) provide care for sick or disabled parents, siblings or other kin. This caring work is also replicated around the world (Aldridge, 2008; Becker, 2007). Young carers are children up the age of 16, with the average age being 12, and they provide domestic help, intimate care and emotional support to those cared for (Dearden and Becker, 2004). There are positive aspects of caring (Aldridge, 2008), but young carers may also miss school or experience problems at school (Dearden and Becker, 2004), and not always have appropriate support (Moore, 2007). Young adult carers are aged 16–24, and Becker and Becker (2008) estimate that there are 290,000 young adult carers in the UK. Adult young carers are split into 16–17-year-olds, and 18–24-year-old carers; the former are legally ‘children’, while the latter are adults (Becker and Becker, 2008). As with young carers, young adult carers provide an important source of support for relatives cared for. They may also miss out on educational opportunities, and a particular concern will be their transition to independence, and ‘choice’ about whether or not they can leave home (Becker and Becker, 2008). The case of young carers and young adult carers provides an illustration of the responsibility that children and young people can take on within families, and the way that many parents will depend on their children for support. However, it does not mean that these parents provide no care or support for their children. This provides a positive example of the way that children and young people can behave responsibly. It also raises questions


about the rights of this group, and how these relate to the ECM outcomes framework. Devolution: children and young people In England, the ECM agenda reflects the positioning of children as ‘citizens in the making’. The focus of YM and AH relate very much to the participation and empowerment of young people, but again they represent a future generation of citizens. It has become a young person’s responsibility to participate in a positive way in society (Clutton, 2008). In 2001 the Scottish Executive published For Scotland’s Children: Better Integrated Children’s Services (Scottish Executive, 2001) underpinned by principles of social justice and reducing inequalities. The strategy contains reference to the UNCRC, and the welfare and rights of children and young people are claimed to be in evidence in policies in Scotland (Clutton, 2008). More recently, there has been a similar emphasis on children and young people in Scotland as achieving, learning and being ‘responsible citizens’. In Northern Ireland, a Consultation Draft Strategy for Children and Young People was published (Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFMNI) Children and Young Person’s Unit (CYPU), 2004). This strategy adopted a rights-based approach, and referred to the UNCRC. Our children and young people – our pledge (OFMDFMNI, 2006) is a 10year strategy with outcomes and targets that again reflect some of the ECM agenda in England. Clutton (2008: 177) states that the strategy respects ‘the rights of the child as a key outcome’. In Wales, the National Assembly published Children and Young People a Framework for Partnership (Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), 2000). Principles of the UNCRC have been adopted as ‘the basis of all their work with children and young people in Wales (Clutton, 2008: 177). The publication Children and Young People: Rights to Action (WAG) 2004) relates to their commitments to children and young people, and the Children Act 2004 provides the framework for delivering the strategy, with perhaps a greater emphasis on the rights of children and young people than is evident in the other countries (Clutton, 2008).

EU citizenship and children EU citizenship was introduced in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union, and provided for the geographical mobility of EU nationals, allowing them social and civic rights (Stalford, 2008). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (European Parliament 2000) makes explicit reference to children’s rights provisions. There has also been a growing awareness of the importance of understanding the impact of EU policies on


children and young people. The EU judiciary in its interpretation of EU citizenship has also enhanced the interpretation of EU citizenship for children and young people (Stalford, 2008). Citizenship of the EU for children is largely dependent on the status of their parents. European citizenship and the mobility that entails are connected to the economic contribution that adults make. Their families will be able to move to other countries with them, but that locates them in a dependent position. Women may be dependent on their partners, and children dependent on their parents for the entitlement to citizenship rights that apply within the EU (Stalford, 2008). This raises the issue of entitlement and belonging that was referred to at the beginning of this chapter and, in particular, the fact that belonging to an EU nation state is a component of being an EU citizen. For children, their entitlement to EU citizenship is acquired through the ‘belongingness’ of their parents to a nation state. There have been instances of legal challenge to the European Court of Justice (Shelter, 2008), however, which in some instances can imply that a parent is dependent on their child’s status for their EU citizenship. This can apply where a child is born in an EU country and the parent or carer can apply for citizenship based on their relationship with the child. However, this would be an exceptional circumstance and in general a child’s entitlement to EU citizenship is ‘by proxy’; that is, via their parents or carers. The European Commission – Youth is a website that focuses on active citizenship and encourages young people to participate in society, ‘to shape their own future and to contribute to the development of the EU’ (2008). Youth policy actually falls within the remit of the member states, and there is no EU-wide legislation covering youth policies. However, there is some coordination in development (Open Method of Coordination (OMC)) to enhance the four priorities developed in the White Paper on Youth (2001) (European Commission – Youth 2008). The priorities are: participation; information; voluntary action; and a greater understanding and knowledge of youth. It can be seen that these priorities are also evident in New Labour policy.

Conclusion This chapter has considered some of the areas that assist in the construction of current ideas about citizenship. Citizenship as a concept relates primarily to adults, and children and young people are excluded from some of the rights that T.H. Marshall elucidated. Yet, it is recognized that children and young people do have rights, and the UNCRC is an important document in this respect. Some of the basic rights outlined there, including protection rights, have been developed within government policies over a long period


of time, and this includes governments from different political parties. More recently, the child as an adult in process has been emphasized, by virtue of the references to achievement outlined in Every Child Matters. The empowerment and participation of young people has also been emphasized within YM and AH. This agenda is also as much about the future as the present, and at the same time encouraging participation, leadership and influence brings responsibilities to young people. The current definition of citizenship for young people is in accord with New Labour’s broader approach to citizenship and the development of a strategy that emphasizes making a contribution as an important gateway to access to social rights and welfare. Looking at the policy documents, in particular with regard to those for young people, it is possible to identify a lack of engagement with parents and families. That is, there is much more emphasis on neighbourhoods and communities, and on civic engagement, than there is on relationships with families and parents. Disengaging children and young people from their families runs the risk of overlooking some of the complexity of moving towards a fuller recognition of children and young people’s rights. Yet, it is families and parents who seem to matter most when children are behaving irresponsibly, and parents are expected to take responsibility for their behaviour, as well as that of their children. Websites The Every Child Matters website provides access to policy documents referred to here, and links to government departments. There are also Children’s Commissioners for the four UK countries, which are shown below. Every Child Matters www.everychildmatters.gov.uk Children’s Commissioners England www/11million.org.uk/ Wales www.childcom.org.uk/ Scotland www.sccyp.org.uk/ Northern Ireland www/niccy.org.uk/


Key points • Citizenship is a concept that relates to a number of other areas, such as participation and empowerment, and social inclusion and exclusion. • Children’s access to citizenship is dependent on that of their parents/carers at national and European level. • Allowing children rights does not necessarily imply full citizenship status. • Analysis of Every Child Matters demonstrates a focus on children as citizens of the future, and on what they can achieve in the future. • New Labour focuses on active citizenship and making a positive contribution to society. These ideas are evident in policy documents such as Youth Matters: Next Steps and Aiming High. • There are differences in approach towards children and young people in the four nations of the UK.

Looked-after children

Introduction Children within the care system may be living with foster parents, birth parents or other kin, or may be living within residential homes. The fact that a child or young person is within the care system does not mean that they have no family, or that relationships with kin are unimportant. While many children will be within the system as a result of neglect or abuse, other factors such as family bereavement, family breakdown or family illness can precipitate a child or young person into the system. Local authorities then become ‘corporate parents’ of this group, and have a responsibility to ensure that they are cared for appropriately and that they are safe and healthy. While residential care is an option for some children and young people, most children are placed with foster families with a minority of children placed for adoption. There can be a tendency to see looked-after children as divorced from their families, yet relationships with kin can be sustained, and an individual’s background is an important aspect of their identity. This area is included in this book as it raises issues around what happens to children and young people living apart from their birth families, and highlights the risks that children and young people face both within families, and as a result of being within the care system. It is professionals – particularly social workers – who assess the risks that children and young people face within their families, and those families most likely to come to the attention of social workers are the poor and disadvantaged. While children and young people in care may in one sense be seen as ‘outside’ of the family, ideas about the family and parenting are central to understanding how the protection and care of vulnerable children and young people functions. This chapter outlines the numbers of children and young people in the care

Looked-after children 57

system, and provides information on policies relating to this group, before looking at the care that they receive, focusing on foster care, including kinship care. The relationship that children and young people have with their families and the possibilities of the reunification of families are also considered.

The numbers of looked-after children In 2008, 59,500 children were within the looked after care system in England, 56 per cent of these were male and 44 per cent were female (British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) 2008). The number of looked-after children remained fairly stable between 2002–06 (DfES, 2006b). The largest group of looked-after children in 2008 was those aged between 10/15 – 42 per cent; the smallest group was under the age of one – 5 per cent (BAAF, 2008). The majority of children are in foster care – 42,300 (71 per cent), with 7,070 children in children’s homes. A minority of children are placed for adoption, and the figure for 2008 was 2,600, which is 4 per cent of the total (BAAF, 2008). While some children and young people will stay within the care system for a short period, there are those under the age of 16 who have been looked after continuously for at least two and a half years. In 2006, 23,000 children were in this category, with 15,000 having been in the same placement for at least two years, or placed for adoption (DfES, 2006b). Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children form part of the looked-after children population and in 2008, there were 3,600 children in this category; 2,900 (81 per cent) males and 660 (19 per cent) females (BAAF, 2008); the majority of these children are in London (DfES, 2006b). There are smaller numbers of children in the care system in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with boys more likely to be in the care system than girls in all four countries. As in England, the majority of children in Wales are with foster carers; 75.2 per cent in 2008, and 4.6 per cent were adopted in 2008, but a lower percentage are in residential care (4.5 per cent) (BAAF, 2008). In Northern Ireland, figures for 2006 again show the majority of children living with foster carers (62.5 per cent) and 13.2 per cent in residential care (no percentage given for adoptions) (BAAF, 2008). In Scotland, in 2007 the figures show a higher number of children living at home with their parents (42.5 per cent) and only 29 per cent with foster carers; 15 per cent living with friends and family; 11.8 per cent in residential care (no percentages for adoption) (BAAF, 2008). In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, the numbers of children living with parents are 8 per cent, 11.4 per cent and 19.9 per cent (BAAF, 2008). While there are similarities, there are also some variations; the most significant being the number of children looked after and living with their


parents in Scotland. (More detailed information is available on the BAAF website.) Children and young people within the care system generally come from disadvantaged populations and have experienced multiple disadvantage, but this does not mean that all children living in such circumstances will enter the care system (Jackson, 1998). Contributory factors that are most likely to mean a child enters the care system include the mental illness of a parent, domestic violence, physical and/or sexual abuse (Jackson, 1998). Neglect is also a factor that will bring children into the care system. In terms of the characteristics of the looked-after children population, Biehal (2007) notes a change over recent years. With a focus on supporting children to remain with their families where possible, this raises ‘the threshold for admitting children to care or accommodation’ (Biehal, 2007: 809). Thus, children are likely to come into the care system for more serious reasons.

Policies relating to looked-after children This section provides an overview of legislation and policy developments in this area. There is different legislation in Scotland; for example, the Children Act 1995 and the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. More recently, the Looked After Children (Scotland) 2008 Regulations, Second Consultation is part of a process of policy development (see Scottish Parliament website). Further information on Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh policies can be accessed via the Scottish Parliament, Irish government and Welsh assembly websites, which are all listed at the end of the Introduction. For England and Wales, the statutory framework for children in care was set out in the Children Act 1989 and amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which places a duty on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of young people aged 16 and 17 in care, and care-leavers, to ensure that they are supported when they leave care. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 outlines how decisions on adoption should be made, and the Children Act 2004 makes reference to looked-after children and foster care, and also embeds the Every Child Matters outcomes framework within children’s services. The Children and Young Persons Bill received Royal Assent on 13 November 2008, and the Children and Young Persons Act will reform the statutory framework for the care system (see The United Kingdom Parliament 2008 (UK)). Key areas from the Children and Young Persons Bill are set out in Box 4.1.


Box 4.1 Children and Young Persons Bill 2007/08 Key areas • Improve stability of placements for children and ensure more consistency for children in care • Improve the experience children in care have at school, increasing their educational attainment • Give pilot local authorities the power to test a different model or organising social care by commissioning services from ‘Social Work Practices’ and to enable regulation of these Practices • Increase the focus on the transparency and quality of care planning, to ensure that the child’s voice is heard when important decisions that affect their future are taken • Increase schools’ capacity to address the needs of children in care, including the role of the designated teacher on a statutory footing and ensuring that children in care do not move schools in Year 10 and 11 except in exceptional circumstances • Make sure that young people are not forced out of care before they are ready, by giving them a greater say over moves to independent living and ensuring they retain support and guidance as long as they need it. Source: United Kingdom Parliament (UK) website.

The White Paper Care Matters: Time for Change (DCSF, 2007c), sets out the government’s approach to improving services and outcomes for children in care, including education, health and well-being and leaving care, and Care Matters: time to deliver for children in care (DCSF, 2008c) provides a national framework for children in care, relating this to the vision for all children set out in The Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007a) (see Chapter One), with an emphasis on delivering change locally, by supporting local Children’s Trusts. The Care Matters (CM) agenda aims to ‘secure improved and sustainable outcomes for children in care and their families’ (DCSF, 2008b: 7). Every child needs ‘a good parent who looks out for them’ and for those in care this role is taken on by local authorities, though the corporate parenting responsibility will be shared by all those involved in supporting children in care (DCSF, 2008b: 7). There includes a ‘pledge’ or promise to deliver better outcomes for children in, and leaving care. This includes improving educational and health outcomes. The emphasis on education can be seen in the key areas within the Children and Young Persons Bill shown above. This ties in strongly with the Every Child Matters outcomes framework, and with the conceptualization of children and young people as citizens of the future (see Chapter Three).


It is recognized that the most important relationship for nearly all children is that with family members, which includes parents and siblings, and supporting family relationships is therefore important for children. Children and young people also develop attachments to foster carers or residential care workers. Providing supportive, caring relationships for children and young people, and ensuring stability within placements are significant dimensions of policy in this area (Sinclair et al., 2007).

Foster care Where children and young people are in the care system within the UK, most will be living in foster families (Sinclair et al., 2004), though a higher proportion of children in Scotland will be living with kin. Foster carers provide an alternative family home for children and young people; sometimes this care is provided by other family members, but is often provided by non-relatives. Foster carers While the majority of looked after children will stay with foster carers (Sinclair et al., 2004), there has been a problem with recruiting and retaining foster carers, so this is an area of concern. Stability and permanence are both seen as important for long-stay looked-after children (Schofield et al., 2007; Sinclair et al., 2007). An international and cross-cultural comparison demonstrates that this is not only a problem for the UK, though there may be different reasons for a shortage of foster carers (Colton et al., 2008). The increasing use of foster care means that carers are expected to look after children with a wide range of needs and there may be little choice of placement for many children (Hayden et al., 1999). It can be difficult to find placements near children’s own homes and friends (Waterhouse, 1997, cited in Hayden et al. 1999), which can result in placement breakdowns, and children experiencing multiple placements. A study by Colton et al. (2008: 866) identified the following key themes in relation to foster caring: motivation and capacity to foster; professionalism versus altruism; and criteria for kinship and unrelated carers. The discussion here will focus on professionalism versus altruism. A lack of adequate remuneration for unrelated and kinship carers has had an adverse impact on their recruitment and retention (Colton et al., 2008; Kirton et al., 2007). Quality Protects (Department of Health (DoH) 1998) and Choice Protects (DfES, 2002) both attempted to raise the quality of foster care provision as means of improving placement choice and stability for children and National Minimum Standards were introduced under the Care Standards Act 2000. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008


aims to improve the stability of placements for children (see UK Parliament 2008 website). The debate over whether or not foster caring should be ‘professionalized’ and foster carers paid more raises issues about the reasons for caring. If this is conceptualized as altruistic because people want to offer a substitute family to a child or young person, then bringing money into the equation seems to imply an alteration of the relationship. If foster care is a profession with a reasonable remuneration package, then people could volunteer to be a foster carer for the money, with a negative impact on the quality of care (Colton et al., 2008). On the other hand, if remuneration is insufficient to meet the costs of caring, foster carers and their families will be under stress, and the lack of sufficient money will put people off volunteering to be foster carers, making it difficult to retain foster carers. It can be difficult for a foster carer to obtain an alternative means of raising their income, for example, by employment. The lower remuneration of foster caring also means it can be seen as low status, while professionalizing it could raise the status of foster caring. If an aim of the care system is to achieve ‘permanence’ for children and young people in care, resolving this dilemma is important. One study that looked at foster carers’ attitudes to payment, comparing local authority carers and those from independent agencies found a low level of satisfaction among local authority carers, and support for a ‘salaried status’ (Kirton et al., 2007). However, ‘there was no evidence of links between carers’ satisfaction with remuneration and local authorities’ rates of recruitment and retention’ (Kirton et al., 2007: 1221).

Activity The debate about professionalizing foster care, and paying foster carers more money, raises questions about the nature of the caring relationship. Foster carers are providing alternative families for children and young people in the care system. Consider your views on whether or not foster care should be regarded more as an area of work, or a profession, and answer the following questions. 1 Does payment for care alter the nature of the caring relationship? 2 Would professionalizing foster care lead to better care for children and young people? Support for foster carers It is important that foster carers receive training and adequate levels of support, particularly where they are dealing with children with multiple problems, and need a ‘high level’ of parenting skills (Colton et al., 2008;


DfES, 2007). It is a role that is not without difficulties (Farmer et al., 2005; Quinton et al., 1998), and social workers may not be able to provide all the support required, and additional support and advice that is necessary (Hayden et al., 1999; Quinton et al., 1998; Triseliotis et al., 1995). For example, looked-after children can suffer high levels of distress as a result of their experiences, and on coming into the care system (Minnis and Devine 2001; Pithouse and Crowley, 2001). In addition, foster carers also have to deal with their own lives and families, which can create stress (Farmer et al., 2005). Flexible, responsive services and good collaboration between carers, social workers and other professionals is required (Farmer et al., 2005; Quinton et al., 1998; Schofield and Beek, 2005). Some children may be more difficult to care for than others. Care Matters sets out a tiered framework of placement types relating to the different levels of support required by children (DfES, 2007), with the aim to pilot an intensive model of foster care to improve outcomes for more challenging adolescents. Young unaccompanied asylum seekers (UASC) are another group who have complex needs requiring specialist foster care (Home Office, 2007). In addition, as these young people may not be given asylum, they face having to leave the country when they reach the age of 18 (Home Office, 2007). Children’s views on foster care In terms of the concerns of children who are fostered, research by Sinclair et al. (2001) identified five main preoccupations: care received from foster families; relationship between feelings for foster and birth families; contact with and prospects of return to birth families; predictability of their care careers and their own say in them; and ‘ordinariness’ or the lack of it in their lives. As Ridge (2006) shows when writing about children and poverty, children want to fit in, and being seen as ‘ordinary’ is part of this. Children wanted an improvement in the quality of fostering and a better ‘fit’ between their families and foster families (Sinclair et al., 2001). They also thought that social workers should be more sensitive to their feelings. Children also wanted choice over contact with their birth families – the means, who they were in contact with and the level of support they received (Sinclair et al., 2001). This could put them in conflict with the professionals working with them, who may have opposing views on their contact with birth families. A later study by Sinclair and Wilson (2003) collected data on 472 foster children and found that the success of placements was related to three aspects. These were: the children’s characteristics; the qualities of the foster carers; and the interaction between child and carer. Listening to children was also emphasized as important, as were early interventions to prevent deterioration in the caring relationship. Some children are ‘problematic’ because they are older, may display more disruptive behaviour or have


‘special needs’, and some foster carers are better equipped than others to deal with these difficulties (Sinclair and Wilson, 2003). ‘Matching’ a child with their foster care and foster family is important (Berridge, 1999), but this can be difficult when there is a shortage of foster carers (Sinclair and Wilson, 2003). There are groups of children and young people for whom finding an appropriate placement can be problematic. These include young people on remand where tensions between care and control may be difficult for foster carers and the young people they looked after (Lipscombe, 2007). Disabled children also experience what has been referred to as a ‘reverse ladder of permanency’, and are less likely to be adopted, or return home (Baker, 2007: 1173). Summary While foster caring is the main way in which children and young people in the care system are looked after, it is not without problems; whether this is with regard to recruiting and retaining suitable foster carers, or providing stability and permanence in the lives of children and young people. When children are separated from their birth families, they will experience a loss, and this is a stressful experience. They then have to adapt to new circumstances, and when placed in a foster family, a new family with potentially different ways of communicating, and handling personal relationships. Foster carers have to handle the reactions of children and young people, and therefore need to be ‘capable’ carers and appropriate expertise and support needs to be available to support both them and the children in their care.

Mental health There are concerns around identifying mental health problems at an early stage in the looked-after children population and in accessing appropriate mental health services for young children and young people (Minnis and Devine, 2001: Quinton et al., 1998). In one study it was found that children in foster care exhibited a range of problems that were labelled as emotional or behavioural and were related to their experiences of trauma; they were also found to have attachment problems (Minnis and Devine, 2001). Child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) were found to be used less than would be expected given the level of difficulties experienced by children, and there is little evidence to show what works with this group (Minnis and Del Priore, 2001). There is a greater risk of looked-after children and young people experiencing a mental health problem (McCann et al., 1996: Phillips, 1999). Some of the most common disorders identified by Lindsey (2000) include: anxiety; fear and depression; conduct disorder; and attachment disorder.


More serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder will be developed by a smaller group of children. If problems are not identified, this can lead to problems with placements (Jackson and Thomas, 2000) and when a problem has been identified, it may still be difficult to find appropriate mental health services and support. It has been suggested that specific provision for this group needs to be developed (Lindsey, 2000; Pithouse and Crowley, 2001). Given the traumatic experiences children may have had before and after coming into the care system, it could be argued that all children entering care should have a psychological assessment. However, there would then be a danger of stigmatizing the children and young people concerned (Lindsey, 2000). In terms of the wider health experiences of looked-after children, Batty (2002) reflects on the interface between medicine and social work, both individual and organizational, and highlights the need for closer working between professionals. The review of progress towards achieving Standard 9 of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (NSF) (DoH, 2004a) indicates that there is still insufficient evidence of what works for children with mental health problems. ‘The factors which lead to a child entering care tend to be the same factors which can lead to mental health problems’ (DoH, 2006: 37). As a group, children in care have a higher need for mental health services than their peers. The overall rate of diagnosable mental health disorder in children in care up to 17 years of age in England was found to be 45 per cent; 37 per cent had clinically significant conduct disorders; 12 per cent were assessed as having emotional disorders – anxiety and depression – and 7 per cent were rated as hyperactive (DoH, 2006: 37). Progress has been made, but it is recognized that more needs to be done.

Resilience Children in long-term foster care have experienced problems in their lives that will affect their ‘self-esteem, self-efficacy and capacity to cope’ (Schofield and Beek, 2005: 1283). There are risks, but also a range of protective characteristics in the child, their foster carers, birth families and professional agencies that will combine to affect a child. The concept of ‘resilience’ has been used to explore the potential for coping with adverse circumstances in life, and protective factors can be individual or relate to relationships and professional support (Schofield and Beek, 2005). In this work, it was ‘active parenting, interacting with children’s potential that was a key marker for progress and provided some excellent examples of ways in which fostercarers were promoting resilience’ (Schofield and Beek, 2005: 1291). Social workers have an important role in supporting foster carers. At the other end of the spectrum, there were children in this study who did not make ‘good progress’; and these were among the ‘most damaged and vulnerable’


(Schofield and Beek, 2005: 1296). This illustrates how important resilience can be for dealing with difficult circumstances in life, and the role that foster carers can have in increasing a child’s ability to cope with problems.

Race and ethnicity There is a lack of literature and research data on the experiences of African children and young people, but they are over-represented within the care system (Schofield et al., 2007). In 2005 they constituted 3 per cent of the overall total of looked after children, while the 2001 census indicated they made up 1.4 per cent of the population (Bernard and Gupta, 2008). They are also over-represented within child protection statistics (DfES, 2006, cited in Bernard and Gupta, 2008; Barn, 2007). On the other hand, Asian children are under-represented (Barn, 2007). As discussed in Chapter Five, being from some minority ethnic groups carries with it a greater risk of living in poverty and experiencing disadvantage (Barn, 2007), which puts families under greater stress. Refugee families will find life particularly difficult and may be escaping from traumatic experiences that can have profound and long-term effects on parents and children (Bernard and Gupta, 2008). This area is likely to grow in importance as global migration alters the structure of the British population. Stereotypical assumptions about families could mean an increased likelihood of professional interventions, or, alternatively, an assumption that support is not required (Bernard and Gupta, 2008). Turning to the state for support may not be seen as an obvious course of action for immigrant families (Bernard and Gupta, 2008). Different parenting practices can result in conflicts between: ‘parents and professionals grounded in diverse cultural norms and values, including differing notions of when children should be left “home alone” and methods of dealing with challenging behaviour’ (Bernard and Gupta, 2008: 483). At times, social workers will be reluctant to intervene in families for fear of being seen as racist (Bernard and Gupta, 2008). The complexity of the experiences of African families also presents a challenge to professional working. Immigrant families can be ‘pathologized’ or seen as culturally ‘in deficit’ (Barn, 2007). An alternative perspective of cultural relativism sees all cultures’ practices as equally valid and that may lead to a reluctance to criticize families and their parenting (Barn, 2007). The cases of Victoria Climbie (Laming, 2003) and the finding of the torso of a young boy in the River Thames – ‘Adam’ – put the media spotlight on the situation of African children. There could be a significant number of West African children in private foster care who go unmonitored and unprotected (Ariyo, 2003; Bernard and Gupta, 2008). In a study of formal kinship care, the most common ethnic groups were Caribbean or Guyanese (Broad, 2001), with a higher proportion of black


children placed with extended family members, and it is important that this form of care is not see as a ‘second-rate’ option for families, and that carers are supported. A national study by Waterhouse (1997, cited in Hayden et al., 1999) found a shortage of foster carers from ethnic minority backgrounds in England, which has persisted (Barn, 2007). A brief overview of this area suggests that there is a need for more research and evidence in relation to those from minority ethnic groups. Here, the focus has been on immigrant communities and in particular those from African backgrounds. The experiences of children and families from other minority ethnic groups will be different, but this does indicate a need for services that are culturally sensitive, which protect children and young people in need, and provide support to families.

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) This is a child or young person under 18 years old, outside their country of origin and separated from parents, or their previous legal or usual primary care (Home Office, 2007). Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children applying for asylum in their own right are the responsibility of social services under the Children Act 1989. There has been an increase in the number of UASC in recent years; figures at the start of this chapter show 3,600 UASC children in the English care system. It can be difficult to know the exact age of a young person, as their births will not always be registered. A recent government response includes using dental X-rays to determine the approximate age of a young person (Home Office, 2007). It is estimated that around 60 per cent of UASC are aged 16 or 17, some arriving when under the age of 16. When a child arrives alone in this country seeking asylum, the presumption should be that they are covered by Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and become looked-after. This means that such young people can be categorized as either eligible children or former relevant children. Eligible children leave care at the age of 18 and have the same plan and support as other looked-after children. Once past the age of 18, they become former relevant children and can still receive support from the local authority if they are in training or education until they reach the age of 21. However, not all young people will be granted asylum, and therefore the issue of returning a young person to their country or origin becomes a matter of concern (Home Office, 2007).

Birth families Contact with birth families Contact with birth families is seen as important by children and young people – though their views on this will vary, and feelings about this can


relate to a child’s age. When in care, children are often separated from their siblings; this can have lifelong consequences. Heptinstall et al. (2001: 15) note the ‘near symbolic meaning attached to birth parents and siblings’, and even if children and young people’s ideas about their families are unrealistic and idealistic, they are still important. Sustaining contact with family members may be important for maintaining family relationships after young people leave care (Wade, 2008). However, the issue of contact is not a straightforward one. While it can be positive it can also create problems; for example, for foster carers and their families, as well as looked-after children and young people (Moyers et al., 2006). There is a great deal of individuality across cases and social work support is necessary to manage contact with birth families. Where it is not seen as appropriate for a child or young person to have contact with their birth parents, they can still benefit from contact with siblings, or other relatives. Some children are also cared for by other kin. It is worthwhile noting that when referring to ‘birth’ families, there will be instances where adoptive families or step-families have problems or break down. There may be a complicated network of family relationships to negotiate for many professionals working with children and young people. Kinship care Where children and young people cannot live with their parents, other kin can provide an alternative. Sykes et al. (2002) suggest a figure of around 11 per cent living in kinship care placements. Kinship care can be arranged informally or formally and take place within or outside of the child welfare system (Broad 2001). There are different routes into caring for kin and carers will receive different levels of support from social services departments (Pitcher, 2002). The importance of kinship care in Scotland is recognized in a study by Aldgate and McIntosh (2006: 2), where such placements provide ‘a sense of belonging and identity, and the chance to maintain meaningful relationships with family members’. This is related to achieving positive outcomes, and is reflected in the placement figures for Scotland shown earlier in this chapter. At the international level, kinship care is significant, and has grown in the USA and Western Europe (Greeff, 1999). This can be related to the importance of families and of ensuring continuity in children’s lives (Broad, 2001). In the UK Jackson and Thomas (2000) also write that placement with relatives is among factors that support placement stability. The National Foster Carers Association (NFCA) supports formal kinship care, and highlights the needs of this group – in particular grandparents. However, kinship carers are disadvantaged as they often begin fostering without formal training (Sykes et al., 2002). Grandparents can take on the role of caring for children, but can feel isolated from family and friends and left without adequate support from


social services (Pitcher, 2002). In this study, there were two main reasons for grandparents caring: the parent not being able to care as they were a drug user; and a mother’s lack of sufficient commitment to their child, raising the possibility of abuse or neglect (Pitcher, 2002). Around one-third of grandparents had approached social services themselves, and around one-third had been asked by social services to provide care for their grandchildren. Grandparents can find themselves in a difficult situation where asking for help may be seen as an admission of failure, or not being able to cope. There may also be tension within families, related to pre-existing problems or connected to the reasons for the placement (Pitcher, 2002: Sykes et al., 2002). For example, if a parent has a drug or alcohol problem and it is thought more appropriate for their child to stay with grandparents, there could be tensions between the parent and the grandparents. Placing children with kin, such as grandparents, allows them to remain in contact with their wider family, and may also enable them to remain in the same neighbourhood, have contact with their friends and attend the same school. This is important in terms of a child’s development and identity. However, if there are problems within the wider family network, some children placed with kin may be at risk of harm in the present or the future. This means that the risks that children may face should be assessed very carefully. Reunification Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) makes reference to work aimed at strengthening families and keeping them together. This includes: assessing the impact of intensive models of parenting support, establishing a National Centre for Excellence in Children’s and Families Services and sharing best practice (DfES, 2007: 39) Reunification refers to the fact that some children and young people within the care system will be reunited with their parents and/or other family members. Again, there is a significant amount of literature from the USA on this area, though less on the UK (Biehal, 2007). Packman and Hall (1998) and Jackson (1998) indicate that many children will return home after six months. Thomlinson et al. (1996), summarizing the findings of three studies, conclude that keeping families involved and supporting the birth family is fundamental to ensuring children’s health and development. This implies a role for social services, and if family relationships are not maintained, then they will deteriorate. A more recent review of the literature in reuniting children with their families looks at some common assumptions around reunification (Biehal, 2007). Reunion is currently seen as very relevant, with adoption unlikely to lead to ‘permanency’ for many children, with the rate standing at 7 per cent of all children looked-after for six months or more during 2003–04 (Biehal, 2007), and down to 4 per cent in England in 2006. This author identifies


three common assumptions about reunion: the shorter the time children remain in care, the greater chance they will return home; regular contact with parents will mean a return home; reunion with families will provide a positive outcome for children (Biehal, 2007: 808). Her review of the literature challenges these assumptions, demonstrating how the situation is much more complex. There is very little evidence that contact in itself will bring about reunification; there may be a pattern of early return to families, but it is not clear that this explains the return to families; there is very little research evidence on the outcomes of reunion (Biehal, 2007). Children and young people may re-enter the care system at a later point, and for those who have been abused or neglected there is a risk that this will occur again, particularly for very young children (Biehal, 2007). The author concludes that more research on reunion is needed in the UK, as most studies have been done in the USA ‘where the social context is different and the profile of the care population may differ too’ (Biehal, 2007: 820). Reunification will be part of the process of being within the care system for some children and young people, who do not stay ‘in care’ for very long. Others may leave and re-enter the care system, so contact with families is important. Families may need support if they are to be united, and children and young people are to be cared for in a positive and caring environment. In some cases, reunification can put a child or young person at risk, which is why careful assessment by social workers is crucial when decisions are made about care pathways for children and young people in need.

Leaving care In recent years, more attention has been focused on young people leaving care and supporting them in their transition to adulthood, and an independent life. The difficulties outlined in Chapter Five apply to all young people (France, 2008), many of whom may lack appropriate family support but for this group of young people they can be particularly intense. Support from families will not be absent for all young people leaving care, but in some instances it may also create problems (Wade, 2008). Young people are more likely to have contact with birth mothers and siblings, though the extended family can also be important. For some, there may be opportunities for greater closeness (Wade, 2008). Some young people continue to live with their foster carers after the age of 18 while others will set up their own ‘new’ families with partners, and go on to have children of their own (Wade, 2008). Whatever the situation, young people require support at this stage of their lives, so that they can make a positive transition to adulthood, and there are plans to extend the length of time that young people can be supported when they leave care. Maintaining contact with foster carers or other care workers can be part of this process.


Participation of children and young people In the current policy context, the right of children and young children to participate in the design and development of services that impact on their lives is emphasized (see, for example, DfES, 2007). In the past, the right to involvement by looked-after children has been given greater priority because they are looked after by the state, and it has been seen as important to involve them in their care. In this sense, they have been privileged above other children who remain within their families. On the other hand, seeing looked-after children and young people as a different and separate group is also problematic, in that they can be seen to represent a risk to society; for example, by the greater risk of them becoming involved in criminal activities. Participation is described by Thomas (2002) as a ‘climbing wall’, rather than the ‘ladder of participation’ referred to by Arnstein (1962, cited in Thomas, 2002). ‘We can identify different aspects of involvement in decision-making, as bricks or “pillars in the wall” creating a more complex scenario of participation for children and young people’ (Thomas, 2002: 172). Important elements of participation include: choice; autonomy; control and voice (Thomas, 2002: 175–6). Children’s involvement can be strong in some areas and weak in others and there is more than one way to ‘climb the wall’. When children and young people are taken into care, it should be in ‘their best interests’, though children and young people themselves may not agree with the decision. The right for a child or young person to be protected can be in conflict with their right to be heard, meaning that, ultimately, their views may be discounted.

Parenting ‘deficit’? The care system looks after those children and young people who for different reasons cannot remain with their birth families. At the end of the twentieth century, criticisms were levelled at the looked-after system (LAC), and in particular the way that children and young people were assessed (Garrett, 1999; Knight and Caveney, 1998: Pithouse and Crowley, 2001). Assessments were seen as based on middle-class assumptions about child development and parenting, ignoring wider social problems (Knight and Caveney, 1998). It was argued that the system operated with the idea of what a ‘normal’ child or young person should be like, and that one of the functions of the system was to produce children who are ‘moral citizens’ (Garrett, 1999). This author also argued that the system and mode of assessment did not explore the social construction of concepts like child or young person, the way in which these change or the way that the notion of a ‘reasonable


parent’ is also a social construct (Garrett, 1999). What is taken for granted as an ‘objective discourse’ on parenting can be used for the regulation and discipline of socially and economically marginalized children and young people and their parents (Garrett, 1999). At the beginning of the twentieth-first century, Woodcock (2003) suggested that professional assessment of parenting involves a particular construction of parenting, which is incorporated into practice. In the wider context, this is also evident in other areas of policy and practice that relate to parenting, such as youth crime and truancy, and even dealing with obesity – where parental attitude and behaviour has been constructed as a problem within contemporary society. This forms part of New Labour’s political agenda and what Garrett (2003: 445) refers to as a concern with ‘the personal behaviour of welfare recipients’, and an increasingly conditional element to welfare entitlement and provision. Overall, New Labour policies can be seen as ‘pre-occupied with the “parenting capacity” of socially and economically marginalized parents, often mothers’ (Garrett, 2003: 448). These ideas are still evident within the current policy agenda, with an emphasis on particular models of parenting, and a sense of ‘what is best’ for children and young people. This means that parents who do not fit within the ideal are likely to come under scrutiny, and inevitably this involves a focus on families living in poverty and disadvantage.

Conclusion The criticisms of the care system reflect concerns in the Think Family agenda, where those parents who cannot support their children and enable them to develop in line with the Every Child Matters outcomes can be targeted for intervention. In a similar way, concern about antisocial behaviour also locates the problem with parents, as well as with children and young people. Clearly, there are situations where parents are not able to look after their children appropriately, or where children are neglected or harmed. The risks that children and young people may face within families are significant, and it is crucial that effective policies are in place to support them, and that there is alternative provision when families are failing children. However, mistakes can be made and sometimes children are left with parents who present a risk, resulting in harm or even death. In these cases, social work professionals will be criticized for not doing enough, while they are also criticized for being too heavy-handed. Children also face risks within the care system. These include the risk of not achieving as well as other children and young people; for example, in education or health. Within the care system, there are also people who pose a risk to children, and it is important to have workforce policies in place that protect children.


Where children are in the care system, the majority of them are with foster carers, who have an important role and should be trained and supported adequately to facilitate a positive involvement in the lives of children and young people. The debates around the possible professionalization of foster caring raise questions of whether this should be an altruistic activity only, or something more akin to work. The role of a foster care is as substitute parent, but there is an uneasy tension between caring for pay – even where remuneration is low – and caring for free, which is how parental care is often conceptualized. Caring is associated with love and support, but also involves work. Websites The Every Child Matters website acts as a gateway for accessing policy information on a number of areas, and is therefore an extremely useful resource. The British Association of Adopting and Fostering (BAAF) provides summary statistics on children in care for each of the four countries of the UK, together with brief information on legislation. Recent policy documents can be accessed on the Department for Children and Families website. Every Child Matters (ECM) www.everychildmatters.gov.uk British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) www.baaf.org.uk/ info/stats/england.html Department for Children and Families (DCSF) www.dcsf.gov.uk

Key points • Children and young people should stay with their families where possible. • Where a child or young person is at risk of harm, they may be taken into the care of the local authority. • The local authority takes on the role of ‘corporate parent’ for children in the care system. • The majority of looked-after children will be looked after by foster carers. • Contact with families, and reunifying families is supported where this is possible, and where a child or young person will not be at risk. • Children within the care system experience poor outcomes compared to other children; for example, with regard to education and health. • Young people leaving care should have a care plan and be supported.

Ending child poverty?

Introduction The aim to abolish child poverty is a central part of New Labour policy with regard to improving the situation of children and young people in society, as the UK has experienced higher rates of child poverty than most other industrialized nations (Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), 2008), and child poverty has grown faster than poverty overall, and children rather than pensioners became the group with the highest poverty rates (Hirsch, 2006). In March 1999, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, stated that child poverty would be ended. The three major British political parties all signed up to this agenda, and the SNP (Scotland) and Plaid Cymru (Wales) also adopted the target. In 1998–99 the number of children living in poverty had risen to 3.4 million, and to meet the target identified, this has to be reduced by half to 1.7 million by 2010–11 (CPAG, 2008). Achieving the aim to end child poverty represents a significant challenge for government, and the current government remains committed to ‘tackling and eradicating child poverty’ (DWP, 2008: 6). Comparing the UK with other EU countries, in 1997 the UK had the worst child poverty rate in the EU, which provided a catalyst for doing something about child poverty in this country. By 2006 there had been an improvement in Britain’s position, which had moved from being the worst to being joint twenty-first, but still below the average for the EU (CPAG, 2008: 13). In the 25 countries of the EU, Italy, Portugal and the Slovak Republic have higher percentages of children living below 60 per cent of the median (Hirsch, 2006: 25). In countries with an equivalent standard of living, UK child poverty is higher. For example, in 2003 it was about 50 per cent higher than in France, and more than twice as high as in the Scandinavian countries (Hirsch, 2006: 2).


This chapter considers the ways in which poverty is defined and measured, and how this relates to the numbers of children seen to be living in poverty; the risks of poverty to particular groups of children and young people; the policies put in place to achieve New Labour’s aims; assess whether or not these will be successful, and outline additional changes that may be necessary in order to abolish child poverty. The individual costs of poverty to children and their families are also examined, together with the economic and social costs for society and the state.

Definitions of poverty The two main definitions of poverty are ‘absolute poverty’ and ‘relative deprivation’. Absolute poverty applies when income is not sufficient to provide the basic necessities of living, such as food, warmth and shelter. This type of poverty is more closely linked to poorer countries in the world. However, there may be examples of absolute poverty within the UK. Homeless people are one group who will find it difficult to access these basic necessities. Older people on low incomes can struggle to buy food, pay housing costs and keep their homes warm. Children living in poor households may also lack some of the basic necessities of living (Hirsch, 2006). Relative deprivation implies a relationship between individuals or households and the rest of society. Income should be sufficient to allow individuals to participate fully in society, as well as allowing them to afford the basic necessities for life (see CPAG, 2008). Labour governments have also focused on social exclusion, rather than poverty. Social exclusion is broader than poverty and again implies not being able to participate fully in society. It also includes a focus on areas and neighbourhoods, and issues such as crime, poor housing and unemployment. The definitions in Box 5.1 are those used by the current government. The definitions and measurement of poverty are combined, and provide the means by which the government assesses progress made towards ending child poverty. In terms of assessing the extent of child poverty, it is important to note that children’s risk of living in poverty, and the levels of child poverty are measured in relation to poverty within families. This means that children’s poverty is directly related to the experiences of adults living within the same household.

Measuring poverty The way poverty is measured is significant as it will determine the number of children seen to be living in poverty. Currently, the Labour government measures poverty using three criteria: children experiencing relative low

Ending child poverty? 75

Box 5.1 Child poverty: definition and measurement Following extensive consultation Measuring Child Poverty sets out a new tiered approach to measuring child poverty in the UK over the long term: • absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998–9 expressed in today’s prices; • relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 per cent of contemporary median equivalised household income; and • material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people’s living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70 per cent of contemporary median equivalised household income. The Government monitors child poverty against all three measures with a target attached to the relative low-income measure, recognising that when family income falls below that of others in society, this has additional negative outcomes, including inequality of opportunity and social exclusion. Source: Measuring Child Poverty, DWP, December 2003, quoted in Ending Child Poverty: everybody’s business (HM Treasury, 2008).

income; children experiencing material deprivation and relative low income combined; and children experiencing absolute low incomes (CPAG, 2008). Incomes are net and do not include housing costs, with housing benefit paid included as income; rent or mortgage payments are not deducted from the income figure. CPAG prefers to use ‘after housing costs’ data. Whether or not poverty is measured before or after housing costs are deducted is significant as it will affect the number of children and families perceived to be living in poverty. Material deprivation is measured by assessing whether or not families have a set of 21 items, and if not, whether they can afford them. This includes items at ‘child-level’ and at ‘adult-level’. For children, it would include having a week’s holiday each year, engaging in social activities and having sufficient bedrooms within the home. Each item is scored and a total score calculated. Families with a score above the deprivation threshold are seen as materially deprived. While poverty is about income, it is also about the degree to which families and their children can participate in society.


Risk and poverty Poverty does not affect children equally and there are factors that mean children have a greater likelihood of experiencing poverty. These include: living in workless households; living in a household headed by an adult from some minority ethnic groups (in particular those of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin); living in a lone parent household; and children in large families and families that include a disabled person (Hirsch, 2006; Phung, 2008; Ridge, 2002). Children of asylum seekers and gypsy and traveller children are also among those at greatest risk (Hirsch, 2008). Young carers, looking after a disabled parent and/or a lone mother will also be at a greater risk of living in poverty. The Green Paper Raising Expectations and Increasing Support (DWP, 2008), will impact on the groups referred to here. Whether or not claimants fall into the ‘progress to work’ category or the ‘no conditionality’ group will determine if they are expected to seek employment. While there is support for parents to find employment, these new welfare reforms may also be seen as pressurizing people to seek work. In addition, work is only a solution to poverty if it is sustainable over the longer term, and if wages lift families out of poverty. Within lone parent households, there is a greater chance that the family will be dependent on state benefits, or living on a low income. Large families have additional costs, whether on benefits, or in paid employment. Families that include a disabled person also face additional costs. Burchardt and Zaidi write: Among the 3.2 million children living in families with a disabled adult and/or a disabled child, the proportion living below the poverty line – here defined as 60% of median income before housing costs – was 28% in 2005/06. This compares with 20% of children in families not directly affected by disability. (Burchardt and Zaidi, 2008: 24) The cost of living for these families can be higher with, for example, additional spending on transport, clothing, food and items not necessarily provided by the NHS, such as adaptations or aids (Burchardt and Zaidi, 2008). However, there has been a reduction in poverty for families with a disabled child, with the government stating that this has fallen by 200,000, with the risk of poverty dropping from 34 per cent to 21 per cent (DWP, 2008: 12). Included within the figures for lone parents and families with a disabled adult are young carers. As well as the risks outlined for different families, there are also regional variations. Before housing costs, the nation with the highest child poverty rate is Wales; after housing costs, it is England (CPAG, 2008). The south east and east of England have the lowest child poverty rate, whichever measure is used, and children in inner London face the highest risk of being materially


deprived (CPAG, 2008: 8). The situation in Northern Ireland may be worse than other countries in the UK as 32 per cent of children live in households solely dependent on benefits, compared to 19 per cent in the rest of the UK (Hirsch, 2006: 22). This increases the risk of a greater proportion of these families living in poverty and experiencing disadvantage. The following sections look in more detail at lone parent families, and ethnicity and child poverty. This is followed by discussion of the problems facing young people, as an emphasis on abolishing child poverty hides the poverty faced by many young people in society. Lone parent families Additional information on lone parents is provided in Chapter Two. Children in lone parent families are at greater risk of living in poverty (CPAG, 2004, CPAG, 2008), and the majority of lone parents are women, with 787,000 dependent on income support (DWP, 2007). Ending Child Poverty (HM Treasury, 2008: 12) states that the number of children living in poverty in lone parent families has been reduced by 200,000, and the risk of poverty for these children has fallen from 46 per cent to 35 per cent. Ensuring that lone parents are working is part of the strategy for achieving these results, and for achieving further reductions in child poverty. Where a lone parent works part time there is a lower risk of poverty (HM Treasury, 2008). The government agenda has been to ensure that by 2010 lone parents move from benefits into paid employment when their youngest child is seven (DWP, 2007). With Raising Expectations (DWP, 2008b) lone parents will be encouraged to seek work when their children are younger – potentially, as young as three years old. There are in-work benefits for claimants moving into employment and this includes lone parents. All parents on incomerelated benefits will be able to keep all the maintenance paid for children. The Green Paper presents a combination of pressure and support for claimants. Living on benefits means living in poverty. Moving lone parents off benefits may reduce child poverty, but at the same time meets the needs of the state to reduce expenditure on welfare benefits. Where lone parents do make the transition from benefits to paid employment, they can end up on low earnings (Hoggart and Vegeris, 2008). Lone parents are more likely to be in low-paid, part-time work, lacking in job security. If work is seen as a solution to poverty, and lone parents are likely to be on low incomes, it is questionable as to whether or not work will provide a solution to the poverty experienced by these families. In addition, lone parents in paid employment may not be able to care for their children as they would wish to (Duncan and Edwards, 1999). The tensions inherent in reconciling work and family life are accentuated for lone parents, where there is only one parent to provide care and provide financial security for the family. These ‘activation’ policies;


that is, lone parents becoming active in the labour market, are evident in other countries (Knijn et al., 2007), and within the UK reflect a shift to the ‘adult-worker’ model of citizenship inherent in current policies. In addition to lone parent households, other families are at risk of living in poverty. Living in a workless household, or a household where only one parent works, increases the risk of children living in poverty, and policies aimed at getting parents off benefits and into paid employment apply to two parent households as well. Disabled parents will also find themselves being encouraged into employment where possible, as the principle of conditionality and access to welfare benefits is applied to benefit claimants. Ethnicity and child poverty Children from some ethnic minority groups are at greater risk of poverty (CPAG, 2008; DWP, 2008). In a recent literature review, Phung (2008) discusses ethnicity and child poverty in the context of New Labour’s aim to abolish child poverty, noting the risks that are associated with coming from particular ethnic minority groups. In 2006/7, while 15 per cent of white households were below the poverty line, 23 per cent of black Caribbean households, and 52 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi households were below the poverty line (Phung, 2008: 552). Children’s risk of poverty is related to the financial and material circumstances of their parents. There are a number of factors that have been identified as exacerbating the risk of child poverty within these groups. These include: living in large families that are more common in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities; higher rates of ill health among ethnic minorities, in particular South Asian males; a greater likelihood of a disabled workingage adult within the household; employment in lower-paid sectors of the labour market; for example, hotels and catering; and finally, what are referred to as ‘ethnic penalties’ (Phung, 2008: 556). ‘Ethnic penalties refer to the sources of disadvantage that may explain why an ethnic group achieves inferior labour market outcomes compared to similarly qualified white people’ (Heath and Cheung, 2006, cited in Phung, 2008). Factors such as language barriers and discrimination are important. Experiences will vary. With more female-headed lone parent families within the black Caribbean community, and black Caribbean mothers more likely to be in full-time paid employment, this means that they will benefit from policies aimed at supporting employment. On the other hand, there can be religious and cultural resistance to Asian women working (though this is changing among young Asian women). It has been shown that in households where only one adult works, this increases the risk of living in poverty (CPAG, 2008; Hirsch, 2006). So, if there is a pattern of Asian women remaining at home, rather than entering or re-entering the labour market, this can have a negative impact on the overall financial position of the family.


All children from ethnic minority families will be covered by the policy agenda on reducing and eradicating child poverty, but Phung (2008: 559–61) argues that there is a need for policies that specifically target these groups. This includes having services that are more culturally sensitive, greater participation in decision-making by people from ethnic minority communities, increasing their take-up of benefits and services, which is lower, and having information available in different languages. Some progress has been made in this direction, but there is more that can be done to assist these families. Poverty and youth While the political and media focus has been on child poverty, the poverty experienced by young people is also important. Under New Labour, the agenda for youth has centralized around social exclusion/inclusion. This is associated with an emphasis on education, training and work, and concern for those young people who are not in any of these, now referred to as NEETs. Concentrating attention on social exclusion represents young people as a ‘problem’ group in society. While poverty is an aspect of social exclusion, it is not given sufficient attention. Authors like France (2008) suggest that it is crucial to look at the way that poverty affects young people. Youth poverty is also of concern in other countries like the Netherlands, Canada and the USA (Hirsch, 2006). While childhood is a period of time when children need to be cared for and nurtured, protected, educated and socialized into the norms and values of society, including becoming a ‘good citizen’ in the future, ‘youth’ can be seen very much as a period of transition (Biehal, 2007; France, 2008). It is a process of moving from childhood into adulthood, of moving from dependence to independence, and to achieve that end young people need support from their families, and also from the state (Biehal, 2007). Young adult carers (see Becker and Becker, 2008) may also find it difficult to leave home given that caring responsibilities may still continue. Missing out on education could also mean that this group of young people is at a greater risk of living in poverty. France (2008) outlines the ways that social policies disadvantage young people. For example, income support rates are lower for under 25s – currently £10 less than the adult rate for 18–24-year-olds, and the national minimum wage (NMW) is also lower. This implies that a 17-year-old does not require the same amount of money to live on as someone over 18. Similarly, benefit levels are lower for under 25s. Furthermore, the benefits system makes it difficult for 16–17-year-olds to claim benefits, as they have to demonstrate severe hardship. Other young people are students or in training and also on low incomes. As a result of this income differential, young people are likely to be more at risk of poverty than adults, who receive higher rates of benefits, and earn higher rates of pay.


This means that they will find it difficult to find suitable and affordable housing. This issue is also highlighted in Chapter Seven on young people and homelessness’. Another group affected are teenage parents, and in particular lone mothers. A gender difference in pay means that between the ages of 18–21 young women earn less than young men (YMCA, 2007, cited in France, 2008). Young people in minority ethnic groups, particularly young Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, are also at risk of experiencing poverty (Platt, 2007 cited in France, 2008). New Labour’s approach to dealing with poverty is to highlight ‘work’ as a solution. However young people’s incomes are generally lower than those of adults, which means that they may remain dependent or semi-dependent on families or friends to support them. There are other young people who do not have families to support them; for example, young people leaving the care system, or young people who have been excluded from the family home. These young people are likely to face a greater disadvantage. Overall, it may be difficult for young people today to make the transition from youth to independence, unless there are policies in place that recognize the difficulties faced by young people. This would include policies aimed at increasing the income of young people, and, in addition, policies that can deliver affordable, good quality, sustainable accommodation for young people.

Ending child poverty After the election of the first Labour government under Tony Blair, the aim to abolish child poverty was announced, and targets to reduce child poverty were set by the government. These can be summarized as: reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004–05; halve child poverty by 2010; eliminate child poverty by 2020. The detail of these targets becomes more contentious as, for example, ‘eliminate’ or ‘abolish’ is redefined as bringing child poverty down to a minimal level – between 5–10 per cent of children (Hirsch, 2006: 8). This anti-poverty strategy is linked with children’s well-being, as poverty is related to poor health outcomes, and disadvantage in later life (Griggs and Walker, 2008; Underdown, 2007). Ending child poverty, and thereby reducing the risks associated with living in poverty, also links to the discussion of children as investments for the future, or as citizen workers of the future referred to in Chapter Three. An analysis of New Labour’s approach suggests an emphasis ‘not on the child as child, but on the child as adult in the making’ (Hendrick, 2003: 210; Platt, 2005), also focusing on the most disadvantaged in society (Platt, 2005). Different means for achieving these results are used, with primacy given to work as the best way out of poverty. Hendrick (2003) identifies the following areas of policy: tax benefit reforms including the introduction of children’s tax credit; increasing child benefit; access to free early education


for all four-year-olds; the setting up of the Sure Start programme; and establishment of the Children’s Fund (2001) aimed at countering child poverty and social exclusion. The Sure Start programme was initially targeted at families in disadvantaged areas, and subsequently expanded by the setting up of Sure Start Children’s Centres (National Audit Office, 2006a). While there is a division between income-based policies and other approaches to dealing with child poverty, there are also links between the two areas, particularly as a fundamental component of New Labour’s strategy is to promote work as a way out of poverty. Promoting employment among parents also relates to other areas of policy, such as the National Childcare Strategy, the development of Children’s Centres and the extension of the school day. However, income-based approaches are seen as significant in terms of facilitating progress towards reducing child poverty (Hirsch, 2006). Another way of improving a child’s situation in the longer term is what have been referred to as Baby Bonds or the Child Trust Fund that was first announced in April 2001 (CPAG, 2003). All children born after September 2002 became eligible to open an account when they became available in 2005. A family in receipt of unemployment benefits, or eligible for full child tax credit would have £500 placed in their account; with a lesser amount of £250 going to children from better-off backgrounds. Once an account has been opened, it can be added to by family and friends. The Child Trust Fund may be seen to have a redistributive effect on wealth, or assets, but cannot in itself reduce poverty that relates to income, as it is about developing assets for the future (CPAG, 2003). It is one policy in a broader approach aimed at dealing with child poverty. As already noted, the main emphasis within the approach to ending child poverty is to encourage and support parents working. Work as a solution It is recognized that living in a workless household increases the risk of living in poverty, and the number of children living in the UK in workless households is higher than any other EU country (Hirsch, 2006). Where one parent or two parents are working, they may still be living in poverty, due to low wages and living costs, including the cost of childcare. The UK is seen to have a less redistributive tax and benefits system than many countries (Hirsch, 2006), though tax credits are in place to support working parents. The Budget Review 2004, Prudence for a purpose: a Britain of stability and strength (HM Treasury, 2004b) set out the government’s strategy for encouraging parents to work, and supporting parents in paid employment. In the UK, other industrialized nations and the EU, there has been a focus on what is referred to as ‘work–life’ balance. Part of the strategy for getting parents into the paid labour market is allowing more flexible working


patterns. This is seen to be in the interests of business, and of parents themselves. However, there is concern that more parental involvement in the labour market will make achieving work–life balance more difficult, and that parents, particularly mothers, may find work stressful. In addition, if both parents, (or, in lone parent families, the only parent) are in employment, lack of consideration seems to be given to the impact on the overall well-being of children and young people. Achieving economic well-being in society appears to override other factors which are worth consideration. Sure Start Children’s Centres Sure Start was introduced in England in 1999 and was a 10-year programme aimed at disadvantaged families (and areas), with the intention of promoting the ‘physical, intellectual and social development of babies and young children’ (DfES 2001: 4). The aim was for Sure Start staff to work in partnership with families, to provide the most effective services to meet the needs of children and families in particular areas (Underdown, 2007: 70). The first evaluation was published in 2005, but was not as positive as had been hoped. It was suggested that Sure Start was not managing to engage with the most disadvantaged families (National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS), 2005 – see Sure Start website). In 2006 the Sure Start initiative entered a new phase with the development of Sure Start Children’s Centres. The aims were to establish 1,000 children’s centres by September 2006 with plans for 3,500 centres by 2010 (National Audit Office, 2006a). Between 2004–2008, the Department for Education and Skills invested a total of £3.2 billion in children’s centres and Sure Start local programmes. In November, 2008 nearly 3000 Sure Start Children’s Centres had been established, providing services to over 2.3 million children and their families (Government Equalities Office (GEO), 2008). The Sure Start Children’s Centres are ‘multi-purpose’ and bring together ‘childcare, early education, health, employment and support services for pre-school children and families’ (National Audit Office, 2006a: 5). To assess the impact of these centres in the future requires measurement of a range of outcomes. Changes in achievements for individual children will be tracked. This includes measuring children’s communication, social and emotional development and longitudinal data looking at the effect on a wide range of ‘child, parenting and family outcome measures’ (National Audit Office, 2006a: 36). The centres are also inspected by Ofsted. As the most disadvantaged and most excluded children and families were not being included in the original Sure Start local programmes, more effort needs to be focused on these groups. When considering the impact of poverty on children, it is apparent that long-term disadvantage relates to child development (Griggs and Walker, 2008). Children’s centres may help to alleviate some of this, but involving the poor and socially excluded could still present a challenge.


This area of policy acknowledges the fact that support for disadvantaged children and families is complex. A combined approach that provides monetary support as well as practical support and services for families with young children could be more productive in alleviating some of the adverse effects of poverty. For parents with young children, entering or re-entering the labour market can be difficult, and for those with lower educational achievement, and a lower level of skills, it is not easy to find work that will support a family. On a more pessimistic note, the Sure Start programme was initially aimed at the most disadvantaged in society, and a universal approach to supporting children and families could mean that the support needs of the most deprived are not met to the full.

Devolution and child poverty For the devolved administrations, tackling child poverty partly dependent on policies generated from Westminster, though there will be variations in some areas; for example, childcare policy (see Chapter Two). A brief summary of policy for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales has been reproduced from Ending child poverty in Box 5.2.

Box 5.2 The devolved administrations • The Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy has targets on solidarity and cohesion that will help to tackle child poverty. The Scottish Government has also recently launched a discussion paper on Taking forward the government economic strategy: tackling poverty, inequality and deprivation in Scotland. Other policies also contribute to addressing child poverty, such as those relating to health inequalities or focussing on children’s early years. • The Welsh Assembly published their child poverty strategy, A fair future for our children, in 2005. On the 20 February 2008 the Welsh Assembly Government also issued a written statement on child poverty. • The Northern Ireland Executive’s first ‘Programme for Government’ set out plans and priorities for 2008–11, including targets to tackle child poverty. Lifetime opportunities, government’s anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy was launched under direct rule but has not yet been formally adopted by the devolved administration in Northern Ireland. In line with its statutory obligation under Section 16 of the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Executive Committee will shortly consider proposals on the adoption of a strategy to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation based on objective need. Source: Ending child poverty (HM Treasury, 2008: 34).


The costs of child poverty While those families directly affected by poverty will be harmed by it in the present, there are long-term consequences for children and young people. In addition, there are costs to society (Hirsch, 2006). This includes the costs of providing the services required to support disadvantaged children and their families, plus future costs as adverse health effects accrue across the life course. It is also argued that children who grow up poor are more likely to become poor parents (Hirsch, 2006). Blanden et al. (2008) estimate the cost of the lost earning potential of adults who grew up in poverty. Their results suggest that ‘child poverty reduces earnings by between 15 and 28 per cent’, and ‘reduces the probability of being in employment at age 34 by between 4 and 7 per cent’ (Blanden et al., 2008: 5). With around 22.3 per cent of poor children, this means a significant loss of earnings per annum, leading to an overall loss of £38 billion a year (Blanden et al., 2008: 5). This illustrates the loss to the economy and society. Ending child poverty is not just beneficial for children themselves, but would also generate income and revenue paid to the state. The social costs of child poverty in the present and the future is summarized by Hirsch (2006: 23). These include ‘internal’ and ‘external’ costs. Internal costs relate to the hardship experienced by children, the impact on their development, and long-term adverse effects on health, psychological well-being, and future economic potential. External costs include those for society, some of which are addressed by Blanden et al. (2008). Poverty in childhood creates long-term disadvantage that will result in greater costs for society, and for governments attempting to deal with these consequences. This means there are sound economic and social reasons for ending child poverty. The next section considers whether Labour governments have achieved the targets set, and if child poverty is likely to be eradicated using the present framework of policies.

Achieving the targets? In April 2002 official statistics showed that by 2001 some 500,000 were lifted out of poverty, whereas the target was one million children. The achievement of 500,000 can be seen as significant, but there has been concern that it is easier to reach children (and families) who are just below the poverty line, and much more difficult to raise the incomes of the poorest in society (Piachaud and Sutherland, 2001). At that point in time it was felt that on the basis of evidence the measures taken would reduce child poverty by about one-quarter. To maintain progress more investments and more redistribution of income was seen as necessary. More recently, it has been argued that it will be difficult to achieve the


targets established (CPAG, 2008; Platt, 2005), without a deeper understanding of the nature of child poverty, and greater commitment and investment by the state. A 2006 press release by CPAG on 9 March 2006 states that campaigners are disappointed, and that faster progress should be made, or the milestones of halving child poverty by 2010 and ending it by 2020 will be missed. Recent figures from the government state that 600,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty (HM Treasury, 2008: 3). In order to reach their target the government needs to reduce child poverty from 2.9 million to 1.7 million by 2010–11. To achieve this, fiscal and benefit changes were made in the 2007 pre-budget review and the 2007 budget (CPAG, 2008). The budget in 2008 made further changes, increasing child tax credit, disregarding child benefit for assessing housing benefit and council tax benefit. There was also a commitment to increase child benefit to £10 for the first child. Analysing these policies, the CPAG estimates that these changes will lift 500,000 children out of poverty but leave a further 700,000 to be lifted out of poverty in order to achieve the target (CPAG, 2008: 14). Currently proposed income-based approaches to dealing with child poverty include: • increasing the first child rate of child benefit to £20 a week from April 2009, reinforcing the government’s commitment to child benefit as the foundation of financial support for all families; • disregarding child benefit in calculating income for Housing and Council Tax Benefit from October 2009, improving work incentives for many of the lowest paid families and boosting their incomes. A working family with one child on the lowest incomes will gain up to £17 a week from this change; and • increasing the child element of the Child Tax Credit by £50 a year above indexation from April 2009 to further help low to middle income families. (HM Treasury, 2008: 7) Whether the Labour governments have done, or are doing enough with income-based approaches, has been assessed by Hirsch (2006). This author argues that the ‘single most cost-effective’ way to halve child poverty by 2010 would be to raise child tax credit targeted on poor families ‘by nearly 50 per cent in real terms’ (Hirsch, 2006: 12). This is termed ‘progressive universalism’ (Hirsch, 2006). Raising child benefit – a universal benefit – would prove to be much more expensive. An alternative approach would be to use a combination of raising child tax credit and targeted support for groups with a high risk of poverty; for example, large families.


Activity Considering the information provided here on government policies to reduce child poverty, answer the following questions. 1 Does the government appear to be on track to abolish child poverty? 2 Does paid employment present the most effective way to reduce child poverty? 3 What other policies need to be in place to address the problem of child poverty, and the problem of youth poverty?

Children’s and young people’s experiences of poverty Examining measures and risks of poverty can have the effect of minimizing the every-day impact of poverty, and children’s and young people’s views on poverty can be obscured by focusing on adults (Hirsch, 2006; Ridge, 2002). Their experiences of poverty will vary, as poverty can be a short or a long-term experience and vary in degree (Griggs and Walker, 2008; Hirsch, 2006). Some researchers have included children as research participants and explored their views on living in poverty. The study undertaken by Ridge (2002) provides an interesting insight into what poverty means to children. A child-centred approach was adopted, allowing children to express their views on living in poverty. ‘Fitting in’ and ‘joining in’ are seen as problematic where families do not have sufficient money to buy fashionable clothing, but at the same time children and young people are also aware of what their parents can afford to buy them. This is shown in the two quotations below: Some kids can be really cruel even about what you’re wearing. It’s sort of like they can be friends with someone and then disown them because they haven’t got say Adidas track suit bottoms on. (Amy, 15 years old, two parent family) I would ask my parents to buy me things and then I realised that my parents couldn’t afford things. ’Cos I’d sit down and listen to their conversations and then I stopped asking for things and saved up for them. And that’s been ever since I was about D’s age, since I was about eight, because I was a quick learner. (Nell, 17 years old, two parent family) One facet of living within a poor household is the concern of children and young people to protect their parents. While it may be expected that parents on low incomes struggle to protect their children, this is also reciprocated. This can take different forms including: ‘self-denial of needs and wants,


moderation of demands, and self-exclusion from social activities such as school trips and clubs’ (Ridge, 2002: 140). Parents will sometimes, but not always be aware of this. This author concludes that it is necessary to listen to children and young people and respond to the needs that they express. After all, children’s needs relate to those of their families and the communities they live in (Ridge, 2002: 150).

Conclusion The aim to reduce or abolish child poverty needs to be set within the context of other policies aimed at families, children and young people. The Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) outcomes framework relates directly to this area, as poverty creates disadvantage, and is likely to mean that children and young people do not achieve the most positive outcomes in life. This applies across a range of areas including education and health, and future work opportunities. Within families experiencing poverty, parents can be under stress. The TF agenda acknowledges that some parents may struggle to provide positive support for their children. Some of this can be related to poverty. However, not all children growing up in poverty will do badly in life, and not all poor parents are inadequate parents. The relationship between poverty and disadvantage is a complex one, and disadvantage is about much more than lack of income. The communities and neighbourhoods in which families live will also impact on the every-day experiences of children and young people. Tackling income poverty can only be part of an approach that considers wider social, cultural, environmental and economic factors. The current approach with its emphasis on work as a solution to poverty, and making access to welfare benefits conditional, is likely to impact heavily on lone parents, families where one parent is currently at home – including large families, and disabled parents. There are positive aspects to coming off benefits, but only if in-work income is sufficient to support families and keep them above the poverty line. However, this considers only the financial well-being of families, and does not address the issue of whether or not it is beneficial for parents providing care for children, particularly for parents caring for young children by themselves. Websites The HM Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions sites provide access to policy documents and information on ending child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2003) is a useful site for obtaining information on this area, and the Joseph Rowntree site has research findings and publications relating to child and youth poverty.


HM Treasury www.hm-treasury.gov.uk Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) www.dwp.gov.uk Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) www.cpag.org.uk Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) www.jrf.org.uk

Key points • New Labour governments aim to reduce child poverty, and there are a range of policies in place to achieve it. • Children from some families and some backgrounds are more at risk of poverty than others. • Youth poverty is also a concern, and the transition to adulthood and independence can be difficult for some young people. • There are risk factors attached to living in poverty, such as poor health outcomes, poor educational performance, which persist into adulthood. • Poverty brings costs to the individual and to the state. • Paid employment is seen as the main solution for eradicating child poverty, and conditional access to welfare benefits is part of the process of encouraging parents to work.

‘A risk’ and ‘at risk’

Introduction The ‘problem of youth’ has been high up the political agenda for some time. This includes seeing young people as ‘a risk’, and ‘at risk’ from themselves and from others. Generally, the focus is on young males, and while this includes generalization about male youth, there is also a skew towards a negative labelling of black youth. There is a relationship between the social construction of youth as ‘other’ that includes ideas that relate to race and ethnicity. Allied to this are concerns about gang culture – again predominantly male. Certainly, the situation of some young people in society makes the news on a frequent basis, serving to increase fear across society about young people. The unfortunate consequence of media and political focus can be that all young people are seen as a problem. While there is a tendency to focus on males, young women do not escape attention, for example, ‘binge-drinking’ is joined together with concern about the behaviour of young women. Underlying discussion and debate about young people are wider concerns about the breakdown of society and families. This is often linked with the incidence of divorce and the rise in lone parenthood, alongside the absence of appropriate role models for male youth in society. This chapter therefore raises a number of key issues relating to the central themes of this book. These include the nature of the family, inter-familial relations, the remoralization and responsibilization agenda and the relationship between the state and the family.


Perceptions of young people Past concerns about youth As with childhood, the notion of ‘youth’ is seen as a fairly recent invention, and is both culturally and historically specific (James and James, 2008; Kehily, 2007a). Historically, in Western societies we have seen the extension of the amount of time a child/young person spends within the education system, which extends their dependence on their families. In the last 30 years or so, there has been increasing concern about ‘the problem of youth’, often tied up with concerns about law and order, and the breakdown of families and society. This means that the representation of youth in the media, politically, and in the public consciousness has been predominantly negative, often strongly associated with young males, and masculinity (Robb, 2007). These concerns and youth are not new. Cohen’s work on youth subcultures, looking at mods and rockers in the UK, illustrates how media coverage can represent young people as ‘folk devils’, and spread ‘moral panic’ about their behaviour (Cohen, 1972). Young people dressing and behaving differently from the ‘norm’ are seen as ‘deviant’. Conflict between these two groups – mods and rockers – at seaside resorts on Bank Holiday weekends was reported in the media, and could be interpreted as indicating a ‘breakdown’ in society. Geoffrey Pearson’s historical analysis suggests that moral panics about youth occur around every 20 years (Pearson, 1983), with new moral panics, reflecting the themes of previous ones (Kehily, 2007b). The way that young people are constructed as ‘other’, as different from adults leads to situations where they are seen as a threat to social order. The labelling that this involves, as in the media coverage referred to below, reinforces this difference, and the level of threat associated with it. Young people in contemporary society In May 2005 there were stories about ‘feral youths’ in cities around the country, following an incident in Salford, Greater Manchester. Chief Superintendent, David Baines, is quoted as saying: ‘They are feral, have no parental control or respect for anybody and are often fuelled by alcohol’ (BBC News, 2005). The whole family is held to be responsible and seen as a ‘corrosive influence on the area’. In a similar article in The Guardian a few days later, the landlord of a pub, 64 and an ex-convict is quoted as saying: I was never as bad as these kids. I see them driving up and down the street at night. You can’t see their faces. They’re coming out with shooters and knives and they’re terrorising people. They can’t hold their ale or they’re as high as kites. They’ve no respect for you if you’re over 25. That’s why people my age are scared to go out. (Butt, 2005)

‘A risk’ and ‘at risk’ 91

Young people themselves will be aware of this negative portrayal of youth, which while it may be about the minority, manages to attach an element of threat to other young people. The Youth Taskforce undertook an opinion poll of over 1,000 young people between 16–19 years of age to find out how they thought they were perceived by other people and what they thought of the response to young people involved in antisocial behaviour (Youth Taskforce, 2008: 1). Almost six out of ten thought older generations had negative feelings towards young people, and 70 per cent thought that there was a negative portrayal of young people in the media (Youth Taskforce, 2008: 1). With regard to antisocial behaviour, over three-quarters of these young people thought that there should be more places to go and things to do; over 40 per cent thought there should be tougher punishments to prevent young people becoming involved in antisocial behaviour (Youth Taskforce, 2008: 2). The Youth Transitions Research Overview also found that 71 per cent of stories about youth in the media were negative, and that 43 per cent of adults felt concerned about their public safety when out in their local area, or if they see groups of teenagers in the street (DCSF, 2008d: 2). Young people were ‘keenly aware of their reputation’, but disagreed with it (DCSF, 2008d: 2). Media stories are often associated with particular spaces and places, and antisocial behaviour legislation, which is discussed later in this chapter, reflects this. While stories in newspapers often focus on young males, a negative impression of young females is also created with stories about ‘binge-drinking’ and behaviour that in the past might have been seen as ‘unfeminine’. Concern about the irresponsible behaviour of young women is often related to the idea of them being ‘at risk’, rather than ‘a risk’. However, where girls or young women are involved in violent crime, media coverage is often sensationalized, as it is still seen as more unusual for them to behave in ways that have traditionally been associated with masculinity.

Causes of juvenile crime There are factors that increase the risk of young people becoming involved in juvenile crime, and similar lists have been generated for the risks associated with youth homelessness or entering the care system. Work by Farrington (1996, cited in Arthur, 2007), based on a long-term study of ‘delinquent families’, identified six variables as predictors of criminality: socio-economic deprivation; poor parenting and family conflict; criminal and antisocial families; low intelligence and school failure; and a range of behaviours – hyperactivity, impulsivity, attention deficiency, antisocial behaviour. The problem with developing such lists is they could be used to predict criminal behaviour in quite young children, and children and young


people could be judged on ‘what they might do’ rather than what they actually do (Muncie and Goldson, 2006: 41). The majority of crime is committed by young males, which implies that these factors are associated with the behaviour and background of males (Arthur, 2007). Patterns of offending for girls and boys have been different, though perhaps more recent attention has been focused on the violence of young females that can contribute to ‘increasing criminalisation of, and punitiveness towards, them’ (Gelsthorpe and Sharpe, 2006: 58). Looking at a list of causes of crime may also obscure the experience of those from minority ethnic groups, and at times collapse this experience into an agenda around disadvantage. At the same time there has been negative media representation of black and Asian youth in the media (Webster, 2006). Studies show that black youth is over-represented in the criminal justice system, while Asian youth is not (Webster, 2006). There are issues around racism and discrimination that need to be taken into account when considering the experiences of black or Asian youth, and more recent concerns around terrorism may impact on the latter group. Looking at the causes of crime can be used by policy-makers and government to inform policies. Their use may not necessarily be negative, as they could be used to inform strategies that tackle factors that cause social disadvantage. Some of the policies currently in place to tackle poverty and to improve outcomes for all children illustrate this point. Other government policies focus on particular families – the most disadvantaged, but also antisocial families. ‘Inadequate parenting’ is also recognized as a factor within the literature (Arthur, 2007).

Young people and violence Recent media focus has been on violent crime and young people, including gun and knife crime. Not all violent crime is committed by young people, but this creates an association with young males, who are presented as a risk to society. Some young offenders are involved in gun-enabled crime, and 25 per cent of offenders (in London) charged with ‘gun-enabled’ crime were aged 17 and under in 2005–06 (Connected, 2008). There is also some evidence to suggest that 2 per cent of schoolchildren carry a ‘real/loaded pistol or firearm’, rising to 7 per cent for young people aged between 11–16 excluded from school (MORI Youth Survey, 2004, cited by Connected, 2008: 2) Young people can also be victims of violent crime and young men aged between 16–24 have the highest risk (13 per cent) of being a victim of violent crime (Home Office, 2008). Statements about recent crime statistics indicate that crime has fallen by 6 per cent, but no explicit reference is made to youth crime (see, for example, News Distribution Service (NDS), 2008). The On Track Youth Lifestyles Surveys (Armstrong et al., 2005: vii) were


carried out in high crime areas in England and Wales, and are based on selfreported data from over 30,000 young people between the ages of 7–16. The key findings indicated that overall, 52 per cent of secondary schoolchildren reported involvement in offending in the last 12 months (55 per cent of boys and 49 per cent of girls). With regard to violent behaviour, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to say they had attacked someone within the last 12 months; 15 per cent of boys carried a knife to school compared to 4 per cent of girls; the likelihood of carrying a knife increases with age; and looked after children were much more likely to report carrying a knife.

Young people in prison Goldson and Muncie (2006) write that England and Wales lock up more young people than any other country. These authors question whether or not prison is the best place for young people. Prison regimes can involve bullying, and young people may be at threat, and also engage in self-harm and suicide attempts (Muncie and Goldson, 2006). A Press Release by Barnardo’s highlighted the fact that jail rates for young people under the age of 14 are among the highest in Europe (Barnardo’s 2008). Most children who are locked up have not committed a serious offence, and custody may not be the ‘right answer’ for young people. In Europe only Russia and the Ukraine put more children in prison (Barnardo’s 2008). Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Barnardo’s states We should drastically reduce the use of custody. Barnardo’s is not naive: we recognize that children committing grave crimes need to be incarcerated. But the explosion in the use of custody for very young children when youth offending has not been growing is inexplicable, unjustifiable and unnecessary. (Barnardo’s 2008) There will be cases where young people are convicted of serious offences and a custodial sentence is appropriate, but there appears to be greater use of youth custody for offences that are not as serious. Being in youth custody or being in prison can have serious consequences for a young person. Aside from the fact that there is the risk of reoffending, young people in custody are also vulnerable – at risk from other people, and at risk from their own feelings of isolation and alienation.

Drugs and young people The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows that the use of illicit drugs among 16–24-year-olds is at its lowest since the first BCS results in 1995, mainly


due to a decrease in the use of cannabis (Home Office, 2008). ‘Among 16 to 24 year olds there was a decrease in the use of any illicit drug in the last year, from 24.1% to 21.3%’ (Home Office, 2008: 12). The Young People’s Substance Misuse Strategy (Home Office, 2005) is aimed at preventing young people from ‘becoming tomorrow’s drug users’. There is also an Every Child Matters document for youth justice and for young people and drugs. Other initiatives aimed at dealing with substance misuse include FRANK, Positive Futures and Blueprint – a drug education research programme. These strategies are important as becoming involved in substance use can lead to a range of negative outcomes for young people, and also lead to, or increase their involvement in crime.

Tracing developments in youth justice Two main approaches for dealing with young offenders can be identified. These are welfare and justice-based approaches (Muncie, 1998). The development of a welfare approach to youth justice can be traced throughout the twentieth century (Brown, 2005). While a welfare-based discourse involves concern for the well-being of young people, it can also be used to justify early interventions where children or young people are seen to be at risk. A key principle underpinning all work with young offenders has been that their general welfare must be ensured. The principle of welfare in youth justice has been controversial throughout, but despite this, since the early nineteenth century, most young offender legislation has been promoted and implemented on the basis that young people should be protected from the full weight of the criminal law. It was assumed that below a certain age young people are doli incapax (incapable of evil) and cannot be held fully responsible for their actions, and in England and Wales this idea dates back to the fourteenth century (Muncie, 1998: 173). During the 1990s the principle of doli incapax came under attack from both main political parties in the UK. It is interesting to note that the age of criminal consent is low in the UK compared to other European Countries; being 10 in England and Wales, 15 in Scandinavian countries, and 18 in Belgium and Luxembourg (Goldson and Muncie, 2006). Under a Conservative government, the early 1990s saw the ideas of ‘justice and rights’ replaced by ‘individual responsibility’ and ‘obligation’, and this continued with the election of the New Labour government under Tony Blair in 1997. Throughout the 1990s, there was increasing concern about young offenders. The James Bulger case, where in 1993 two 10-year-old boys murdered a two-year-old child, put youth justice firmly onto the public agenda, with public concern about the potential for ‘evil’ that some children and young people displayed. Subsequently, there were increased calls for retribution and a more justice-based approach to youth justice. This can be


seen within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is discussed in the next section.

Crime and education The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is fundamental to New Labour’s approach to youth justice, and is identified as a ‘definitive’ change by Brown (2005). This author is critical of New Labour’s approach, pointing to a shift from crime to ‘disorder’ and ‘antisocial behaviour’, which has meant bringing more and more young people within the remit of the criminal justice system. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sets out a number of sanctions that can be applied to young offenders and their families. These include child curfews and parenting orders. Child curfews can apply to children under 10 and a child safety order can also be made for a child considered to be at risk. A parenting order can require a parent to attend for counselling and training, and more detail on this is provided later in this chapter. The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) sets out fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders, and the adoption of ‘zero tolerance’ policies to prosecute even most petty and minor offences, together with a renewed emphasis on punitive sentencing. Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are civil orders that can be imposed by the police or the local authority on anyone over the age of 10 whose behaviour might cause harm, distress or harassment to others; if breached this can lead to imprisonment. Significantly, the 1998 Act also abolished the principle of doli incapax, which meant that 10–13-year-olds could be seen as culpable for their actions in the same way as adults. Crime prevention was seen as important and a wide range of measures were introduced, which targeted ‘disorderly’ as well as ‘criminal behaviour’. In his analysis of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Muncie (1999) critiques elements aimed specifically at young people and their families. As he says, ‘Often justified on child protection, as well as crime prevention, grounds, curfews and safety orders are . . . aimed not only at children but also at their parents’ (1999: 156). He notes that parental responsibility was significant in social policy throughout the 1980s and 1990s for both Conservative and subsequent Labour governments. It is also evident that: the engendered rhetoric of parental responsibility and involvement hides the gendered nature of the debate: that it is women, mothers who ‘parent’ . . . and it is lone mothers, particularly those living in poverty, who bear the brunt of attacks on inadequate parenting. (Standing, 1999: 481) Before the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there were previous measures to enforce parents to bring up children responsibility. These included the


1982 Criminal Justice Act, where parents or guardians could be ordered to pay a juvenile offenders’ fine or compensation, the 1991 Criminal Justice Act that empowered the court to bind over parents to care for and control their children. Finally, the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act extended bind-over provisions to include ensuring compliance with a community sentence. Muncie states that: ‘the new parenting order is a logical continuation of these Conservative initiatives to criminalize what is considered to be “inadequate parenting” ’ (Muncie, 1999: 156). Muncie relates this communitarianism where the root cause of crime is seen to lie within the home, which is where moral foundations need to be laid (Etzioni, 1997). What can be seen is a continuity of approach between the Conservative and New Labour governments, and in relation to youth justice the ‘Third Way’ does not seem that different from what was in place before 1997. As Brown notes: Through the twists and turns of youth justice policy, we see a recurring and ongoing preoccupation with the perceived threat to social stability posed by unregulated, undisciplined and disorderly youth outside adult control. Youthful misbehaviour has come to be regarded as symbolizing all that is wrong with adult society: family failure, inadequate parenting, and all these perceptions influenced policy proposals and legislative changes throughout the twentieth century. (Brown, 2005: 104) Targeting parents and gender The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave police powers to stop children in the street and send them back to school if they thought they were truanting. They can arrest those who refuse. This intervention could then result in a parenting order that instructs parents to ensure their children attend school. Thus, inclusion has a coercive element to it, or can be seen as what Muncie (1998: 154) refers to as ‘compulsory inclusion’. Reasons for truanting can vary, and may include bullying and other problems at school, or problems within the family. Financial (and/or custodial) penalties for parents may in fact put additional pressure on families already under strain. Families most likely to be the subject of such state intervention are already the most marginalized within society, and this includes lone parents. Further points are made about the general involvement of parents in their children’s schooling by Standing (1999). The author notes that parental involvement generally means mother’s involvement – whether there are two parents or one. This is problematic for lone mothers in two ways. Parental involvement is seen as a solution to societal problems, but lone mothers are part of a discourse that identifies them as the cause of societal


breakdown. In addition, parental involvement makes demands on mother’s time – both in the classroom and outside of school. New Labour policy that lone mothers should be seeking work when they have young children to care for seems a policy fraught with contradictions. Parental responsibility for the behaviour of their children, and the way that this often impacts more harshly on women than on men, is evident in other areas of policy, reflecting the gendered nature of coercive social policies. In the area of housing antisocial behaviour by households is a key area of policy concern and one which has recently received much attention from the media. Hunter and Nixon (2001: 398) found in their research that in households involved in complaints about antisocial behaviour, womenheaded households were disproportionately represented in the sample with over half (58 per cent) of the sample consisting of lone women-headed households. A significant factor is the pattern of the type of complaints made against women-headed households). Complaints were most frequently made about the behaviour of other individuals in the household, as opposed to the female tenants themselves. In particular, their research shows that ‘complaints involving women-headed households focused on problems associated with their lack of control over male, teenage children and/or the violent, criminal or disruptive behaviour of male partners or boyfriends.’ (Hunter and Nixon 2001: 399). Subsequently, the risk of losing their home was greater for women than for male or joint tenants. As within the criminal justice and the education systems, where parents are held to be responsible for the antisocial behaviour of their children, it is women who are most likely to be held responsible. This not only problematizes women as welfare subjects, but is likely to have the most significant negative effect on lone mothers. These policies fail to recognize the fact that some parents, and in particular lone parents, experience adverse life circumstances and multiple disadvantage (Webster, 2006).

Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) The issue of antisocial behaviour has been central for New Labour (Garrett, 2007). As the idea of ‘community’ is important in terms of the political philosophy of New Labour, anything that undermines ‘the community’ requires attention, and antisocial behaviour can be seen in this way. Allied to this focus on community is a concern with appropriate parenting and parents’ responsibility towards their children. In terms of public debate about antisocial behaviour, this has been presented as a ‘national’ issue, and something that threatens the whole of society. Anti-social behaviour became a virtual metaphor for the condition of contemporary Britain, particularly its youth, manifesting itself almost


everywhere as rudeness, loutishness, intolerance and selfishness, disrespect, drunkenness and violence. (Squires, 2006: 151) Setting out ideas of what constitutes antisocial behaviour implies some kind of norm, which most people adhere to, but which some people react against, and these are the individuals and families who present a threat to society. As well as individuals, particular groups or areas can be problematized; for example, council estates (Squires, 2006). The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 extended the powers of the police and local authorities. They could: confiscate stereos; criminalize begging; ban sale of spray paints and fireworks to under 18s; and give fixed penalty fines for ‘disorderly’ 16 and 17-year-olds. Other groups such as private security guards can issue fixed fines. This is an interesting development with the private sector involved in ‘policing’ the behaviour of young people in society. An important dimension of the legislation is the extension of the criminal justice system to incorporate ‘behaviours’ that are not necessarily criminal. While ASBOs can be applied to adults, most attention has been focused on their application to young people. There has been concern about the number of ASBOs handed out, with Manchester having the highest number of ASBOs that suggests ‘justice by geography’; that is, the number of ASBOS varies between areas (Goldson and Muncie, 2006). Figures in the Youth Taskforce Action Plan show that almost 10,000 ASBOs have been issued, with just under half being issued to young people (DCSF, 2008d). The use of ASBOs has increased, and around 42 per cent of them made against juveniles are breached with 46 per cent of those breaches receiving a custodial sentence, meaning that some 50 children a month being incarcerated under antisocial behaviour legislation (Goldson and Muncie, 2006: 37–8). This also results in the criminalization of young people, even though the original ASBO relates to behaviour, rather than criminal activities. The idea of antisocial behaviour has stretched to include a range of behaviours, emphasizes the responsibilities of young people and their parents, and illustrates ‘the toughness which rhetorically underpins the New Labour approach to crime and related forms of social disorder’ (Garrett, 2007: 843). It also appears as if ‘young people’ have been constructed as a separate group, apart from the rest of society, while regulating and controlling young people is also about regulating and controlling public spaces (Garrett, 2007; Tisdall, 2006). The Youth Taskforce Action Plan (YTAP) With regard to recent policy, the YTAP was launched in 2008 (DCSF, 2008d), and sets out the governments aims to deal with young people with


problematic behaviour, which can cover a range of areas; for example, antisocial behaviour, drugs and alcohol. A ‘significant minority’ causes problems in their neighbourhoods. There is an emphasis on tough enforcement, support and prevention. The YTAP reflects the ideas and ‘vision’ set out in Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), Aiming high for young people (DCSF, 2006) and The Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007a). Targeting parents It is not only young people that are targeted when it comes to antisocial behaviour. The duties and obligations of parents to raise their children appropriately is emphasized in a range of policies. Two examples of policies aimed specifically at parents are Parenting Orders and Family Intervention Projects (FIPS). Details of each of these are set out in Boxes 6.1 and 6.2.

Activity On the basis of the information in this chapter on perceptions of young people and on antisocial behaviour, and using your own knowledge, answer the following questions: 1 Are concerns about the behaviour of young people accurate, and valid? 2 Can parents be held responsible for the behaviour of their children? 3 What kind of a climate does this representation of youth create in communities, and in wider society?

Box 6.1 Parenting contracts and parenting orders A Parenting Contract is an agreement between a service provider and the parents of a child. A Parenting Order is made in similar circumstances by a criminal court, family court or Magistrates’ Court acting under civil jurisdiction. Parenting Contracts and Orders recognize the powerful impacts that parental behaviour have on children’s outcomes and are designed to reinforce parental responsibilities. They can include a parenting programme to help parents address their child’s misbehaviour and a specification of particular ways in which parents are required to exercise control over their child’s behaviour. For example, this might involve ensuring that the child goes to school every day or is home during certain hours. Source: Crime Reduction, Reproduced from Reaching Out: Think Family DfES (2008: 44).


Box 6.2 Family Intervention Projects (FIPS) Family Intervention Projects work with families who cause problems in their community. Employing a twin-track approach, they combine intensive support with focused challenge. Persistence and assertiveness with families are often critical to keeping them engaged and ensuring that they follow agreed steps. The Family Intervention Projects have successfully made use of the possibility of sanctions as a means to engage the most challenging families in order to turn their behaviour around. The core components include: a dedicated key worker with a low caseload and persistent and assertive working style who takes the lead in engaging families and co-ordinating agencies and services; whole family assessment which ensures the needs of the whole family are met and regular reviews; a contract which sets out the changes in behaviour that are expected and the support that will be provided to facilitate that change; intensive and structured support which enables key workers to engage, assess and focus intensively on their families for as long as is needed. In very serious cases of anti-social behaviour, 24-hour support and supervision may be required; and a co-ordinated and integrated response where agencies commit to working together, sharing appropriate and relevant information, agreeing objectives and dedicating resources to resolve a client’s difficulties. The Government has announced that, over the next Comprehensive Spending Review period, it will invest a further £18 million in Family Intervention Projects to build on their success Source: DfES (2008: 9).

FIPs have worked with over 1,000 families, and over 5,000 Parenting Contracts and 1,000 Parenting Orders have been issued (DCSF, 2008d). In addition, over 25,000 Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) have been issued. Twenty Intensive Family Intervention Projects are to be set up, dealing with the most challenging young people (DCSF, 2008d: 11). Family interventions and work with parents reflect an approach where the whole family is involved, and where parents can be constrained to participate under a Parenting Order, and within an intervention project. These policies recognize that parents are responsible for their children, but


also provide support and information, though sanctions can also be applied to ensure that parents work with professionals. This makes the problem of the child the problem of the family, but there may be circumstances where, regardless of the support available, some parents are not able to control the behaviour of their children. The next section looks at the situation in Scotland to see whether or not there is divergence or convergence in policy-making in relation to youth justice.

Scotland Youth crime has been dealt with differently in Scotland. The Children’s Hearing system was established in 1971. It represents a ‘welfarist’ approach to deal with young people, with minimal intervention and the needs of the child central, and this has been seen as a positive approach to dealing with young people (McAra, 2006). More recently, it has been seen as paternalistic and about social control, and better with regard to care and protection than dealing with youth offending (McAra, 2006). Criticisms about the behaviour of young people have also developed in Scotland, leading to an agenda of responsibilization and restorative youth justice. What has evolved is an approach to crime and disorder and ‘the problem of youth’ that mirrors what has happened in England. The Crime and Disorder Act Scotland 1998 introduced ASBOs. This means that a local authority can apply to the sheriff’s court for an order. The application would be on the basis of protecting other people in those local authority areas, from the behaviour of the person who was the subject of the order (Tisdall, 2006). The orders apply to people over the age of 16, and breaching an order is a criminal offence. The Antisocial Behaviour Act Scotland 2004 makes provisions for local authorities ‘to prepare antisocial behaviour strategies’ and electronic tagging of children, as well as changes in housing provision (Tisdall, 2006: 104). Children between the ages of 12–15 can receive ASBOs. Parenting Orders have also been introduced, as were dispersal powers, but there were no local curfew schemes as in the England and Wales legislation. With regard to applying an ASBO, Tisdall (2006: 105) writes that ‘the child’s welfare is not a condition for the sheriff’, whereas ‘in the children’s hearing system, the child’s welfare must be the paramount consideration’ (Tisdall, 2006: 105). The purpose of an ASBO is to protect other people from the child’s behaviour. The system of children’s hearings in Scotland is based on children’s needs, rather than punishing them for their behaviour. The latter is considered, but in the context of looking after a child or young person’s needs. With the extension of ASBOs, there is a focus on holding children or young people responsible for their own behaviour. Breach of an order is a criminal offence indicating that poor behaviour, and a failure to


change that behaviour is not acceptable. Tisdall (2006) suggests a move from the ‘needy child’ to the ‘competent child’; the latter implying that children are able to take responsibility for their behaviour, and understand the consequences of that behaviour. The approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour does not only focus on the child, but on their parents too, and a Parenting Order may be made at the same time as an ASBO. A focus on ASBOs and children or young people as engaging in antisocial behaviour obscures the fact that they may also be victims of such behaviour, or at times positioned as both perpetrator and victim (Tisdall, 2006). The key points in this outline of changes in the Scottish criminal justice system is that there has been a shift from the welfare of the child, to an emphasis on protecting the community, and providing a sense of ‘justice’ for the community. The notion of ‘community’ is given strength, with little thought as to what this means, or how the process of penalizing antisocial behaviour sets boundaries around communities, including some and excluding others. The application of ASBOs is problematic in that behaviour may not initially be criminal, though the breaking of an ASBO will criminalize a child or young person. Dispersal orders also allow for the police to move groups of young people from an area, or prohibit those in an area from returning. Groups can be dispersed if they are seen to pose a threat, even if no offence has been committed, but where they do not respond to a request to move, they are then committing an offence. Thus ‘the mere presence of the groups’ can justify dispersal’ (Tisdall, 2006: 111). In summary, there has been a shift from welfare to control. The legislation in Scotland fits within New Labour’s policy agenda on children. Seeing children as an investment for the future (Lister, 2003) is a fundamental part of this approach, and is used by the Scottish government to justify regulating children’s behaviour. A focus on families and communities is also significant, as is the ‘individualized, responsibilization discourse’ that is used in relation to parents and children (Tisdall, 2006: 116). This connects to debates around citizenship where rights are dependent on individuals meeting their responsibilities (Barlow and Duncan, 2000). However, there is a tension between seeing parents as responsible for a child’s well-being, and the child as dependent on their parents, and positioning children and young people as responsible for their own actions (Tisdall, 2006). In the following section, the tension between meeting the needs of young people, and the requirements of the criminal justice system in Sweden are considered.

Sweden Similar tensions between children in need and children as offenders can be identified in Sweden. When referring to young offenders, it is primarily


young males that are referred to (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007). Here, an outline of the youth justice system in Sweden is given. In Sweden, the age of criminal responsibility is 15, which is higher than other European countries (Goldson and Muncie, 2006). Children are seen as ‘lacking legal competence’ and in need of protection. There are no special youth courts in Sweden, and all cases are heard in the same criminal courts used for adults. There are five sanctions that can be imposed for young offenders proved guilty: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

fine conditional sentence probationary sentence imprisonment youth custody (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007: 95)

In 1999, youth custody was introduced for young people aged between 15–17 and involves a ‘combination of punishment and care’ (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007). Social services have the main responsibility for the young person and run the institutions where young people are placed. The time served is between 14 days and a maximum of four years (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007). Young people can be within ‘closed’ institutional care as a result of either criminal or welfare procedures, which means ‘confusion for the children as well as social services as to the balance of care functions and punishment embodied in the institutional practices’ (Tarnfälk, 2001, cited in Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007: 96). Special care measures can also be applied to a young person aged 15 and over, rather than a criminal sentence, and in these cases the court can give social services authorities the responsibility for care or treatment. This entails the submission of a written report by social services to the prosecutor or court indicating what interventions will be undertaken if the young person is placed in their care (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007: 97). Intervention can be ‘compulsory or voluntary institutional care or supervision’, which the court can accept, or can decide to combine with a fine or youth service. The latter is a programme ‘with a restorative or rehabilitative purpose’ (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007: 97). Engaging social services with the criminal justice system means that both groups of professionals, and both systems have to work together to meet the welfare needs of the young person, but at the same time they must also deal with the offence. There are tensions inherent in mixing a justice and welfare-based approach in dealing with young people. By intertwining the social welfare with the criminal justice system it becomes more difficult for all involved to decide on what grounds


interventions should be made. There is an apparent risk that interventions are generated from the crime rather than from the needs of the child. (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007: 101) In Sweden, as in other Western welfare states, there has been a trend away from a welfare approach towards one more focused on control and punishment. Social services can be seen as ‘too weak and too vague’ in their plans for young offenders, but keeping young people outside of the justice system has been seen as important (Hollander and Tarnfälk, 2007). There is a conflict between different systems and the way that they deal with young offenders, which presents a tension for governments. Reflecting back on the UK, the recent approach has been more punitive, though this can be ‘dressed up’ as concern for the welfare of children and young people.

Risk One of the issues that is central to understanding youth justice policy is that it is concerned with both the control and the care of offenders and those considered ‘at risk’. Looking at recent policies, Goldson and Muncie (2006) refer to ‘defining deviance up’ (p. 38), while at the same time public tolerance of incivility goes down. Brown (2005) is also critical of New Labour’s approach, outlining a shift from crime to ‘disorder’/‘anti-social behaviour’ that has meant bringing more and more (young people) within the remit of the criminal justice system. There is public concern with ‘risk’ and ‘perceived risk’, so that children and young people are seen as a threat to themselves and/or to the rest of society. Action therefore needs to be taken to address this, but this involves action before children are engaged in criminal activity. Goldson and Muncie (2006) focus on the targeting of the ‘non-criminal’ as well as the criminal in England and Wales, and what is also referred to as the ‘criminalization’ of young people, or widening the scope of the youth justice system. The following quotation indicates a broad process of including more and more children and their families within the criminal justice net: To gain access to welfare services, or perhaps more accurately to be ‘targeted’ by an ‘intervention’, children and families must be seen to have ‘failed’ or be ‘failing’, to be ‘posing risk’, to be ‘threatening’ (either actually or potentially). Prior notions of universality and welfare for all children ‘in need’, have retreated into a context of classification, control and correction where interventions are targeted at the ‘criminal’, the ‘near criminal’, the ‘possibly criminal’, the ‘sub-criminal’, the ‘anti-social’, the ‘disorderly’, the ‘disrespectful’, or the ‘potentially problematic’ in some way or another. (Goldson and Muncie, 2006: 25)


Conclusion The focus on this chapter has been on the behaviour of young people, and how this has become associated with their families, and creates a general perception of young people as a threat. This emphasis on behaviour reflects the current policy agenda towards young people. It almost seems as if the issue of actual crime recedes into the distance with this focus on antisocial behaviour, until there is an extreme example that appears in the media, which usually relates to violence. Highlighting the extreme behaviour of a few will serve to foster a negative impression of all young people. More recently, there has been an emphasis on recognizing and rewarding the pro-social behaviour of young people (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007). This is a counter-balance to the focus on antisocial behaviour, and resonates with the ‘positive contribution’ of that youth can make that is emphasized within the Youth Matters agenda. The Youth Inclusion Programme (YIPs) (Youth Justice Board, 2003) recognizes that many children and young people are at risk of becoming involved in antisocial behaviour. YIPs work with children and young people between the ages of 8–17, who are targeted ‘according to their risk of involvement in offending or antisocial behaviour’ (see Youth Justice Board website www.yib.gov.uk). This approach involves developing skills for young people, and can also include parenting programmes. In addition, Youth Restorative Disposal schemes are being piloted in eight areas via police forces and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), to ensure that young people understand and take responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour (Youth Justice Board, 2008). Restorative justice is seen as increasingly important within youth justice, and provides an opportunity for young offenders to ‘atone’ for their actions. These recent initiatives are still examples of policy interventions targeted at young people and their families. However, they also offer a more positive approach to dealing with young people, offering the potential to develop skills, and to avoid the social exclusion that is attached to more negative behaviours. Websites Websites providing information in this area include the Home Office, the Youth Justice Board, NACRO and the Crime Reduction website. Statewatch also monitors this area. Home Office www.homeoffice.gov.uk Youth Justice Board yjb.gov.uk Crime Reduction www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk NACRO www.nacro.org.uk Statewatch www.statewatch.org.uk


Key points • Young people are seen as a problem and a threat to others in society, but this reflects past concerns about young people. • There has been a focus on antisocial behaviour that brings more young people within the remit of the criminal justice system. • There is a contradiction in policy approaches that see young people as responsible for their behaviour, but at the same time also hold parents as accountable for their children’s behaviour. • There is concern as to whether or not the youth justice system respects the rights of children. • There has been more recent focus on rewarding pro-social behaviour, and on the social inclusion of young people seen to be at risk.

Young and homeless

Introduction Not all young people remain within the family home until adulthood, and some who leave home may become homeless. The inclusion of this area allows an examination of what happens when young people become homeless. Sometimes this is their choice, but a major cause of youth homelessness is the breakdown of family relationships. This can be associated with problems within families, with living in poverty and disadvantage, and as a result of the behaviour of young people themselves, or the behaviour of parents. The support that parents and carers can offer young people in managing the transition to independent adulthood can be significant, but for some young people this resource will not be available. While this group of young people is living outside of families, they still have kin – whether or not they choose to be in contact with them. Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) acknowledges the problems that parents can encounter when trying to maintain supportive relationships with teenagers, at a time when young people want to become independent. Current policies in place seek to mediate with families, to resolve conflict within families and put relationships on a more positive footing. This may result in young people returning to live with their families, or provide support for continuing relationships when young people become homeless. This chapter looks at the definitions of homelessness and ways of measuring homelessness. It considers some of the risks associated with becoming homeless, and being homeless and outlines some of the policies in place to prevent homelessness, and to support young homeless people. For the purposes of this chapter, a young person is someone between the ages of 16–24, but in terms of social policies, the younger age group of 16–17-year olds is differentiated from those aged 18 and over. This is linked to the


difficulty that 16 and 17-year-olds may have in obtaining benefits, and the premise that this group ought to be looked after by their families.

Defining homelessness It is not possible to be 100 per cent accurate when calculating youth homelessness and there may be ‘visible’ and ‘hidden homelessness’ (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000). In addition, young people living on the streets may also not define themselves as homeless (Reid and Klee, 1999). A recent study by Quilgars et al. (2008) focuses on the two main categories set out below. 1. Statutorily homeless young people: young people accepted as being ‘in priority need’ under the homelessness legislation, most specifically: • 16 and 17 year olds: statutorily homeless and in priority need because of their age (except in Northern Ireland); • Young families: statutorily homeless families headed by someone aged between 16 and 24 years. • In addition, there are other more specific ‘priority need’ groups, including care leavers aged 18–20 [. . .]. Authorities also have discretion to accept any person whom they consider ‘vulnerable’ in some way (and therefore less able to fend for themselves than other homeless people) – for example, because of a physical disability or mental health problems. 2. Non-statutorily (or ‘single’) homeless young people: young people defined as being ‘homeless’ by housing associations and other voluntary or charitable sector service providers, but who have not been found statutorily homeless. This group would include people sleeping rough or in temporary accommodation who have not been placed there by the local authority. (Quilgars et al., 2008: 6–7)

Measuring youth homelessness There are difficulties in measuring youth homelessness, and Quilgars et al. (2008: 8) identify six main problems when trying to count young homeless people in the UK. These are: definitions vary; the data collected varies between agencies; the data is restricted in scope; there is little or no robust data on some populations; some of the available data sets overlap; that is, a young person can be recorded in more than one set of data; what data there is tends to be based entirely on service contact (Quilgars et al., 2008: 9). This study used estimates for the two key groups which are more robust:

Young and homeless 109

• Young statutorily homeless households who have been found unintentionally homeless and in priority need; • Non statutorily homeless young people using hostels or supported accommodation, or sleeping rough. (Quilgars et al., 2008: 10) Some young people found statutorily homeless also have dependent children of their own (Quilgars et al., 2008: 8). This study estimates there were at least 75,000 16–24-year-olds who experienced homelessness in the year 2006/7; the majority of these were statutorily homeless (Quilgars et al., 2008: 8). The Inquiry into Preventing Youth Homelessness estimated that in 1995 at least 246,000 young people aged between 16–25 became homeless in the UK (Evans, 1996). Due to subsequent developments in policies, there has been a fall in youth homelessness (Centrepoint, 2008). Quilgars et al. (2008) link this to a preventative approach to youth homelessness that continues to be an important dimension of government policy.

Characteristics of young homeless people When considering the situation of young homeless people, their youth is only one factor that affects their life chances. They will be affected by other factors such as gender, race, asylum status, parenthood (including teenage parents), drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems and disability. Some of these are discussed in this section. Gender The work by Quilgars (2008) shows more young women in the category of the statutorily homeless. It has been argued that policy solutions for single homelessness have tended to be based on the assumption that homelessness is more of a problem for young men than young women. Work by Smith (1998, 1999) challenges this assumption, drawing attention to the way that homelessness statistics are compiled, and the collection of evidence. Focusing on young people living in hostels, squats and sleeping rough may overlook the experience of single homeless women who are more likely to live in residential hostels, in shared housing, or living with friends (Smith, 1999). Smith el al. (1996) found that many young single mothers were rejected by local authorities and classified as in ‘housing need’ rather than ‘priority need’. These gender differences applied across all ethnic groups. There is less information on sexuality and homelessness, but Prendergast el al. (2001) suggest that while these young people share common concerns with other young homeless people, the experience of being lesbian, gay or


bisexual can lead to homelessness crises (Mental Health Foundation, 2006). On the other hand, negotiations with professionals around ‘difference’ can be empowering (Prendergast et al., 2001). Black and minority ethnic groups It has been suggested that young people from black and minority Ethnic groups are at a greater risk of homelessness (Renewal Net, 2004) and a Policy Action Report (PAT) (Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), 2000) found that nearly half of all homeless young people in London were from black African, black Caribbean and other ethnic minority groups. However, they are less likely to sleep rough than white British and Irish groups (Warnes et al., 2003). Julienne (1998) suggests that young people from black and minority ethnic groups can experience racism and discrimination when accessing services, and may be affected by membership of other categories such as ‘care leaver’, ‘refugee’ or ‘asylum seeker’ (Home Office, 2007; Julienne, 1998). More recently, it was found that ‘minority ethnic households are significantly over-represented among homeless people in England, particularly among black and mixed households, and particularly in London’ (Quilgars et al., 2008: 8). This is not the case in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, where ‘homeless people are unlikely to be from minority ethnic backgrounds’ (Quilgars et al., 2008: 8). Young Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers (UASC) is another group of young people vulnerable to homelessness, who will have come into the country without their parents, and may have experienced traumatic events in their country of origin (Home Office, 2007). While entitled to the same support as other care leavers, if they do not have any kin, or foster carers offering support, their sense of dislocation may be even greater. A report by the Children’s Society in 2007 uncovered ‘destitution’ among asylumseeking and refugee children, and found that these young people in care were at risk of becoming homeless at 18 years old (The Children’s Society, 2007). This group of young people is also in a difficult situation as they may not gain official permission to stay in the country after the age of 18 (Home Office, 2007). Care leavers A number of studies throughout the 1990s highlighted the fact that those with a care background are over-represented among the young homeless. In a study by Biehal et al. (1995) 15 per cent of their sample had experienced homelessness at some time within two years of leaving care. In other research, between a fifth and a third of young homeless people had been in care at some point in their lives (Jones, 1995; McCluskey, 1994; Smith et al., 1996).


Evidence presented to the Inquiry into Preventing Youth Homelessness showed that two-thirds of young people leaving care experienced homelessness (CHAR, 1996). Three main reasons were identified: (1) the young age of most care leavers; (2) their disadvantaged position in relation to other young people; and (3) the lack of support and preparation received. While the wider factors affecting other young people also affect this group, these young people have been faced with leaving their ‘home’ – foster-care or residential care – at an earlier age than many other young people. At this crucial point, they may also be without supportive relationships with their birth families. This is why the preparation and support required by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2002 is so important. However, there are still young people who may ‘slip through the net’, including young people with mental health problems, those who use drugs or offend, young people with disabilities, and a new and increasing group of care leavers who are asylum seekers (Vernon, 2000). This reflects the fact that care leavers are not a homogeneous group and have diverse needs. Another vulnerable group of young people is those who run away from home, or their care placement. Young runaways Young runaways are defined as: ‘young people under 18 who either absent themselves from home or substitute care, without the permission of parents or legal guardians, or who are forced to leave their home’ (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001: 19). A report by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2001) suggests a high incidence of running away with one in nine young people running away for at least one night by the age of 16. While a high proportion is under 16, 16 and 17-year-olds are also included in this category. This report states that in 1997 there were over 21,000 runaway incidents, with over 10,000 in Manchester (SEU, 2001: 7). It is important that young people (and children) do not establish a pattern that might result in homelessness in later life. Young people living in care are much more likely to run away and to do so repeatedly. For 16 and 17-year-olds, there is a shortage of emergency accommodation, and they have limited access to benefits (France, 2008; Local Governments Association (LGA), 2001). As housing benefit has been restricted for those under 25, this affects their ability to pay for accommodation. A number of recommendations for dealing with young runaways is made in the SEU Report, which include allocating personal advisers, setting up refuges and tracking incidents. Prevention is important for tackling this problem and this includes education, and also support or mediation for families (LGA, 2001). The problem of young runaways is acknowledged in a recent action plan


‘owned’ by three government departments (DCSF, 2008e). There are reasons why young people run away, and these include being ‘pushed away’ and ‘pulled away’ (DCSF, 2008e: 7). Being ‘pushed away’ includes difficulties within families, at school and personal problems, such as mental health problems. Being ‘pulled away’ implies wanting to be near friends or other family, or, it is suggested, ‘following grooming by adults seeking to exploit them’ (DCSF, 2008e: 11). Where a young person does run away, it should be seen as an indication that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The risks and dangers associated with running away will impact on the ECM outcomes, and services and support need to be in place to assist this group of young people. Within the action plan, there is an emphasis on prevention, and intervention in families. There is a need for emergency accommodation, and for mediation so that young people can return home or to their care placement (DCSF, 2008e). These are young, vulnerable people and their safety is important. Guidance on dealing with these young people is currently under review, with revised guidance to be published in 2009 (DCSF, 2008e). The significance of running away is that it could set a pattern of behaviour for a young person. Given that young people under the age of 16 also run away, this pattern could be established at a young age, and therefore prevention, in the form of educating young people of the dangers associated with becoming homeless is important. Running away can also indicate that there is a problem within families, which is why professional intervention and support is needed. If young people are seen as at risk if they remain within, or are returned to the family home, they could be taken into care.

Risk As noted above, the characteristics of some young people may mean it is more likely that they become homeless, and this applies in particular to young people leaving the care system, and to young runaways. There are also other risks that can affect a young person’s chance of becoming homeless. In addition, analysis of risk is complicated by the fact that there are ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenarios associated with youth homelessness. Risk can be seen as having two dimensions: the risk of a young person of becoming homeless and the risks associated with being homeless. The latter has the potential to affect a young person across their life course. In addition, some of the risks associated with becoming homeless are also risks associated with being homeless; for example, using drugs or mental health problems, and this can include the behaviour of young people themselves, as well as other members of the family.


The risk of becoming homeless Within the literature, it is acknowledged that some young people are more likely to become homeless than others, and that there are particular triggers that may also lead to youth homelessness. More recently, Quilgars et al. (2008: 36) refer to pathways into homelessness. In terms of the risk of young people becoming homeless, the literature indicates that they are likely to have: • experienced family disruption (because of parental separation or divorce and/or the arrival of a step-parent); • had difficulty getting on with parents; • witnessed or experienced violence within the family home; • lived in a family that experienced financial difficulties; • run away from home; • spent time in care; • been involved in crime or anti-social behaviour; • had their education severely disrupted (e.g. been suspended or excluded from school). (Quilgars et al., 2008: 39) One or more of the above ‘risk factors’ can increase the likelihood of becoming homeless. There is also evidence that suggests that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to become homeless (Quilgars et al., 2008). Some of these risk factors will be familiar from other chapters within this book, and in particular the risks associated with poverty and disadvantage are recognized across a range of policy areas. However, it is also important to remember that not all children experiencing the above, and/or coming from a lower socio-economic background will become homeless, and that being homeless does not always mean ‘living on the street’. As well as looking at risk factors, it is also possible to consider particular groups of young people who are more likely to experience homelessness, or challenges in finding accommodation. These include: care leavers; young offenders; young people from a minority ethnic background; gay and lesbian young people; and runaways (adapted from Quilgars et al., 2008: 41). There are also some wider factors that can impact on youth homelessness. These include the difficulties any young person faces in finding suitable, affordable accommodation in the current housing market, increased youth unemployment, withdrawing income support from 16 and 17-year-olds (France, 2008), and a reduction in social housing (Quilgars et al., 2008: 49). This means that when young people want to leave home, or have to leave home, their choices will be severely constrained. As well as risk factors for becoming homeless, there are also risks associated with being homeless, which are considered below, though as noted there may be a cross-over between the


two categories, indicating a continuity of the ‘risky’ experiences of young people in need. Risks associated with being homeless There are long-term risks associated with being homeless and these can be linked to the Every Child Matters (ECM) (DfES, 2003) outcomes framework. The adverse effects of being homeless are listed here under headings that relate to the ECM outcomes. The risks to homeless 16 and 17-year-olds are shown below, and similar lists have been constructed for young people leaving care aged 18–21, or children of families living in temporary accommodation. Risk to health • Increased emotional distress and mental health problems • Estrangement or isolation from family and friends leading to reduced emotional support • Substance misuse, including smoking and alcohol • Poor diet due to living outside the family on a low income • Increased sexual activity bringing the risk of pregnancy and of infections. Risk to safety • • • •

inappropriate accommodation such as B&B being drawn into prostitution and sexual exploitation involvement in anti-social behaviour or offending failed accommodation placements or tenancies leading to ‘intentional homelessness’ decisions and exclusion by support accommodation providers and landlords • there is emerging anecdotal evidence of increased risk to young people in temporary accommodation, especially B&B, of being targeted for recruitment into gangs in areas where they are active. Risks to enjoyment and achievement • dropping out of, or being less likely to take up, education, training or employment • no longer participating in pastimes such as sporting and creative activities • losing touch with friends and social networks.


Risks to economic well-being • financial stress and poverty • long term poverty and social exclusion when education, training or employment is disrupted. (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2008b: 28–9) If young people are homeless, then they are at risk of experiencing significant disadvantage including poverty, physical and mental health problems, and social exclusion. Their rights are undermined and their ability to participate fully in society is eroded. Preventing homelessness in the first place is clearly one strategy that would avoid some of this risk, assuming that young people are not at risk within their own families, or local neighbourhoods. Where young people do present as homeless, there need to be policies and services in place that protect and support them and facilitate their progress towards independent living. It is not possible to deal with all the risks of homelessness in this chapter, and the following section focuses on the issue of mental health. Mental health Young people can be vulnerable due to their age, and homelessness can contribute to the development of mental health problems, or exacerbate existing problems. Depression, aggression and self-harm are common among young homeless people, and there is a high incidence of psychological health problems (Bines, 1994; Craig et al., 1996; Mental Health Foundation (MHF), 2002; Warnes et al., 2003; Mental Health Foundation, 2006). In 2002 the Mental Health Foundation published Bright Futures: Working with Vulnerable Young People. This included homeless young people. Key risk factors have been identified above, and gender and ethnicity can both influence the risk of mental health problems and homelessness, with young males experiencing more ‘externalising’ mental health problems (MHF, 2002). In this report, young homeless people were found to be particularly vulnerable to: poor mental health, poor physical health; risk-taking behaviour; being a victim of crime; and exclusion from education, employment and social support. A number of recommendations are made aimed at supporting young people (MHF, 2002; MHF, 2006). As can be seen in Chapter Eight, while there are policies in place to address the needs of children and adolescents with mental health problems, more progress needs to be made in this area. Young homeless people experiencing mental health problems may find it particularly difficult to access services that meet their needs (Centrepoint, 2005; Mental Health Foundation, 2006). Another factor that can make their situation worse is the co-existence of other problems such as drugs, alcohol or substance abuse.


Drugs and substance abuse Drug problems are common among homeless men and women while a small proportion have alcohol problems (Warnes et al., 2003; Wincup et al., 2003; Mental Health Foundation, 2006). Substance abuse may be a factor in becoming homeless (Wincup et al., 2003). Co-morbidity is not unusual. Commander et al. (2002) compared homeless and domiciled young people, finding that the former group use drugs more frequently and experience worse physical and mental health. In another study, suicide attempts were high (43 per cent) and other psychological symptoms were experienced, including depression, anxiety and paranoia (Reid and Klee, 1999). Many did not seek treatment and medicated their own symptoms with street drugs. Women were more likely to seek treatment than men. Craig et al. (1996) argue that integrated services, dealing with the problems of substance abuse and mental illness, as well as addressing housing need, should be part of an overall approach. There is a need for specialist support, but this also has to overcome resistance from young people themselves. There are interconnections between homelessness, alcohol and drug misuse, antisocial behaviour, mental illness and engagement in criminal activities. Any of these factors could form part of the family and neighbourhood context from which young people wish to escape. At the same time, young people may also be engaging in, or experiencing any of these themselves, before, or after becoming homeless. Thus, risk becomes part of the complexity of the experiences of being a young person in society, with all the adverse consequences that may arise from the status of being a young homeless person.

Policy There are different pieces of legislation that provide a framework for services. These include: the Children Act 1989; the Housing Act 1996: the Children Leaving Care Act 2000; and the Homelessness Act 2002. However, legislation is not the only source of social policies, and government initiatives and directives are also important. In the current policy context of Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), there has been a broadening of the policies that affect young homeless people. This makes for a ‘busy’ area of study for social policy analysts, and a seemingly constant learning process for professionals working in the area. It is not possible to cover all this policy in detail, but some key areas are outlined. The Housing Act (Part VII) 1996 covers homelessness, eligibility for assistance and duties of local authorities to provide accommodation in England and Wales, and was implemented in January 1997. Its importance lies in the definition of being ‘in priority need’. While further guidance was


given on the special vulnerability of young people aged 16 or 17, no priority entitlement was specified for this group (Anderson, 1999). The Homelessness Act 2002 also applies to young homeless people. The Children Act 1989 Sections 17(10) and 20(3) are important and set out the criteria whereby a young person is seen as being ‘in need’ and the responsibilities of local authorities. Decisions made under subsequent legislation; for example, the Children Leaving Care Act 2000 refer back to this earlier legislation. In addition, Section 27(1) gives social services the power to request the help of other authorities, including the local housing authority, to enable them to comply with their duties to provide accommodation. Young people who have been in the care system fall within the definitions of the Children Act 1989, and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children can also be incorporated within this legislative framework. Subsequent policies build on this earlier legislation, and these are addressed in the following section.

Recent policy In 2006, Ruth Kelly, who was then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, (DCLG) announced a package of measures to prevent and tackle youth homelessness. She also made a commitment that by 2010, no 16 or 17-year-olds would be in bed and breakfast accommodation, except for an emergency, and then for no more than six weeks (DCLG, 2007: 7). The measures included improving access to mediation and establishing supported lodgings for young people. The 2007 policy briefing referred to here also includes reference to young adults with complex needs, and children and young people who offend (SEU, 2005 and YJB, 2006 both cited in DCLG, 2007). The Supporting People programme launched in 2003 offers support to vulnerable people, including young homeless people, to improve the quality of their life, and assists progress towards greater independence (Supporting People, 2003). In March, 2007 the Housing Minister, Yvette Cooper, announced a package of measures to reduce and prevent youth homelessness. A National Youth Homelessness scheme was announced, in partnership with YMCA England and Centrepoint, and includes a network of supported lodgings schemes across England. Guidance on joint working between housing and children’s services published by DCLG (2008a) in May 2008 outlines the intention to achieve the following three things for young people: • prevent homelessness; • minimize the negative impact of homelessness on their lives and life chances;


• make sure they receive the coordinated services and support they need to recover from the impact of homelessness and get their lives back on track, including maintaining or returning to their journey through learning or work. An important way of doing this is the development of joint protocols between departments. These should ‘set out the jointly agreed vision, objectives, systems and processes’, with the aims of preventing youth homelessness and making sure that housing-related need and support is provided, that people are not passed between services, and ensuring access to suitable accommodation if this is necessary (DCLG, 2008a: 13). A key component in successfully delivering policy objectives in this area is to ensure that services are coordinated and that they meet the needs of young people as and when they require support. As can be seen, the prevention of youth homelessness is acknowledged as important and mediation is one aspect of this approach that has been strengthened in recent years.

Prevention Preventative work should encompass education, family mediation and early intervention (Anderson, 1999). Projects aimed at offering support and mediation to families (Bond, 1998) and counselling for young people (Browne and Falshaw (1998) are examples. Preventative work also includes delivering harm reduction messages to young homeless people who use drugs (Wincup et al., 2003). A proactive approach is necessary to prevent long-term youth homelessness (Reid and Klee, 1999). This also includes reducing the number of young runaways and providing mediation for families as discussed below. As already indicated earlier in this chapter, there are a number of risks factors that can result in young people becoming homeless, and risks associated with being homeless, which is why preventative work with young people is necessary.

Mediation Mediation has been recognized as part of a constructive approach to preventing youth homelessness for some time (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2003). The government has funded a national project with Relate to develop a model for homelessness mediation, piloted with local authorities from April 2007 (DfES, 2007: 29). Shelter (2007) has also developed guidelines for a youth homelessness mediation scheme in Scotland. Family breakdown is acknowledged as being a ‘major factor’ in causing homelessness for young people (Relate, 2006a), and it is important


to develop services that address issues leading to family breakdown, and assist families in attempting to resolve these (Relate, 2006b). The official homelessness Code of Guidance (DCLG, DoH, DfES, 2006 cited by Relate, 2006b) states that mediation should be routinely used in an attempt to reconcile the parties in parental exclusion cases other than where there is judged to be risk of abuse or violence’ (Relate 2006b: 3). Work is done with families and young people to improve relationships and communication. In some cases mediation can result in young people remaining with their parents/carers, or if they are provided with alternative accommodation, it can mean that they maintain a relationship with their families. However, adequate risk assessments need to be carried out so that young people are not kept within families where they may be at risk; for example, abuse. This resonates with the situation of children and young people in care being reunited with their families discussed in Chapter Four. Involving parents Mediation fits within the context of youth transitions and the move from youth to independent adulthood. Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007) refers to children up to the age of 19. While young people want to take responsibility for their own lives, parents are still seen as important, as is supporting the transition to adulthood. It is noted that for this age group, parenting effectively is a ‘fine balancing act between fostering the independence of young people and relaxing boundaries on the one hand, while maintaining warm and authoritative parenting support on the other’ (DfES, 2007: 29). Recent research by the YMCA based on a ‘whole-family’ approach to preventing and tackling youth homelessness indicates that 76 per cent of those parents interviewed felt that extra help could ‘prevent the breakdown of family units and young people from leaving home’, while 46 per cent of parents want more support, and see mediation as ‘an effective way of encouraging families to improve communication and clarify boundaries and expectations’ (YMCA, 2008: 2). Much of the literature in this area focuses on young people as divorced from their family context, and parental views are not often presented. An approach that engages with parents or carers, as well as young people to find out what support is valued, seems a positive step forward, and not all parents want their children to leave home. However, this is a point when young people may begin to spend less time with their families so parents may feel they have little influence with them. If there are difficulties within families, and with relationships, then this is also a point where problems may become heightened, and there are instances where young people will feel they have to leave home. Not all parenting is positive and supportive, and some young people; for example, those leaving care will not have a strong, supportive family network to turn to (Smith et al., 1997). Nevertheless, staying within families is seen as one


solution to the problem of youth homelessness, and mediation is one means of facilitating this.

Targeted youth support Targeted youth support is another approach designed to prevent youth homelessness. This enables housing departments to work with different ages in order to prevent youth homelessness, or assist the young homeless ‘to get their lives back on track’ (DCSF, 2008f). This approach is aligned with The Children’s Plan vision for integrated services of high quality that cut across traditional boundaries. Under the Children Act 2004 and the Homelessness Act 2002 there is an expectation that children’s services will work in partnership for the benefit of all young people, including those at risk of homelessness. This will include tackling substance misuse and working with groups such as teenage parents, and providing housing support. There is also an aim to reduce the number of young people not in education, unemployment or training (NEET), and to increase the number of 17-year-olds in education (DCSF: 2008f). This strategy is about recognizing that there are greater risks of youth homelessness for some young people that need to be identified in order to prevent them becoming homeless, or where they are homeless that effective support is provided for them.

Supporting young homeless people The value of supporting young homeless people should not be underestimated (Quilgars and Pleace, 1999), and this support needs to continue when a young person is found suitable accommodation. This includes developing life skills and can include what is referred to as ‘floating support’. Gaining access to secure housing does not automatically overcome all a young person’s problems, and their capacity to cope needs to be supported (Anderson, 1999; Blackman, 1998). This can include basic skills such as managing money and cooking, and personal and social skills. Increasingly, the employment and training of young people is emphasized. This is in evidence in the Foyer movement (Shelter, 2008). Foyers are an example of supported accommodation for young people, and were introduced to Britain by Shelter in 1992. Initially, they were based on a model where all facilities were based in one building, including hostel-type accommodation and job search/training facilities. Currently, there are 130 Foyers in the country offering a mix of accommodation and support and training (see Foyer Federation, 2008). Whatever support young people are offered, it is crucial that housing departments and social services collaborate effectively, together with other agencies working with young people, and


that services are flexible and designed specifically for young people (ODPM, 2003). Recent developments in this area are considered in the following section. Supported lodgings Making a Difference: supported lodgings as a housing option for young people (DCLG, 2008c) explains what this involves and assesses progress in the area. The extract in Box 7.1 provides a definition of supported lodgings, and details of the two main types of supported lodgings service. The ‘hosts’ are paid, though not as much as foster carers. In terms of the ECM outcomes framework, supported lodgings is seen as achieving positive outcomes in all five areas, and providing better outcomes than supported accommodation; floating support or Foyers (DCLG, 2008c: 6). Supported lodgings will not suit all young people, and can be complex financially, and to administer.

Box 7.1 Supported lodgings services 3. Supported lodgings services provide a young person with a room of their own in a private home where they are a member of the household, but are not expected to become a member of the family. The householder, or host, provides a safe and supportive environment, working alongside professional services to help and support the young person in gaining skills for independent adult life. 4.

There are two broad types of supported lodgings service, those which offer:

• a response to a crisis in the home life of a young person by housing them for a short time (between one night and six weeks) while efforts are made to resolve the crisis in a way which enables them to safely resume living with their family or move in with extended family or friends. • a lodging for up to two or three years for a young person while they develop skills and confidence and prepare for adult life. Source: DCLG (2008c: 5). N.B. Numbering taken from original source.

Activity There are risks associated with becoming homeless, and with being homeless. On the basis of the information in this chapter, and drawing on your own knowledge and experience of youth, answer the following questions:


1 Does mediation with families seem an effective way to prevent youth homelessness, and can you identify any problems with this approach? 2 Why might supported lodgings be appropriate for some young people, but not for others? 3 If young people themselves engage in ‘risk-taking’ behaviours such as drug or substance abuse, what policies would be most effective in dealing with these problem areas? Supported lodgings provide an opportunity to live within a household for a temporary period of time. This is facilitated by different professionals, but at the same time allows some young people more autonomy than they have experienced within their own families. Where family relationships are conflictual, it might also provide a breathing space, and allow an opportunity to work with a young person and their family to enable a return to the family home. Where this fails, supported lodgings are an alternative to being homeless and provide some stability in a young person’s life. Assessing supported lodgings A ‘snapshot’ survey in April, 2008 found that out of 200 (56 per cent) of local authorities responding, just under half (48 per cent) had access to supported lodgings and a further 30 (per cent) were planning or developing local schemes (DCLG, 2008c: 19). In terms of the characteristics of young people in supported lodgings, over half were 16 or 17 years old, with less than one-tenth over 21 years old. The 16 and 17-year-olds were much more likely to be learning, as were 18–24-year-olds, suggesting that: supported lodgings are more likely to be used for and by young people who are already engaged in learning and for whom maintaining it is a priority. They may therefore be expected to be more motivated and more likely to engage with the service. (DCLG, 2008c: 19) Other factors affecting young people using supported lodgings include being under YOT/probation supervision, drugs intervention programmes and those subject to ASBOs. While the review on supported lodgings is very positive, it is acknowledged that they will not suit all young people. A willingness to engage with the system and services, the ability to regulate behaviour, and seeking to move forward in life are more likely to indicate success. This type of accommodation can be seen as part of becoming more independent, though as noted above, there is also an agenda of returning young people to their families where this is possible.


Conclusion This chapter has looked at some of the issues related to youth homelessness, and considered policies in place to deal with it. There is concern about the number of young people who are homeless, because of the risks that are associated with homelessness. The Every Child Matters outcomes apply to all young people, and policies should be in place to ensure that young homeless people are supported so that they realize the full potential of their lives. The risk factors associated with becoming and being homeless illustrate the importance of a caring and supportive family home life. As acknowledged in the Think Family agenda (see Chapter One), not all parents have the capacity, or are willing to provide this for their children. Family breakdown is known to be a significant cause of youth homelessness, and can lead to young people either choosing to leave home, or being excluded from home by their parents or carers. Mediation with families is part of a preventative approach, and keeping young people within their family homes becomes a positive strategy for preventing youth homelessness (YMCA, 2008). Mediation could also facilitate the development of positive relationships after a young person has left home. While developing more constructive relationships will work for many families, there are also likely to be situations, where there is a complete breakdown in family relationships, and then it is important that young people get the support they need to enable them to live independently. Prevention is important, but so too is providing appropriate accommodation and support for young people. The experience of each young person will vary, but what all will share are the risks associated with homelessness, including the risk of social isolation and social exclusion. Websites The Communities and Local Government website contains information relating to youth homelessness. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation publishes housing research that can relate to young people. Centrepoint and Shelter are charities that assist young homeless people. Department of Communities and Local Government www.communities.gov.uk Joseph Rowntree Foundation www.jrf.org.uk Centrepoint www.centrepoint.org.uk Shelter www.shelter.org.uk


Key points • There are a number of risk factors associated with young people becoming homeless. • There are risks associated with being a young homeless person; for example, mental health problems, or drug use. • Finding affordable, good-quality accommodation sustainable for the longer term is difficult for young people on low incomes. • Particular groups are more at risk of becoming homeless; for example, young people leaving care, or young runaways. • Families are seen as providing a supportive environment for young people, and family mediation is a policy aimed at preventing youth homelessness. • Young homeless people are missing one of the most basic rights of having shelter, and as a result may feel socially excluded.

Health and well-being

Well-being An important catalyst for focusing concern on well-being was the UNICEF (2007) report on the well-being of children/young people. This identifies six dimensions of child well-being: material well-being; health and safety; educational well-being; family and peer relationships; behaviours and risks; and subjective well-being. Forty separate indicators are included that are relevant to children’s lives and children’s rights. The UK was shown to be in the bottom third of rankings for five out of the six dimensions of children’s wellbeing (UNICEF, 2007). A wide-ranging approach to understanding children’s well-being in the twenty-first century was adopted; thus, well-being is about much more than physical health, and incorporates a range of factors that relate to children’s families and friends, the communities in which they live, and their own behaviours and risk, as well as their own perceptions of well-being. Subsequently, there has been a proliferation of policies aimed at improving the health and well-being of children and young people in the UK. The aim to abolish child poverty was in place well before the publication of the UNICEF report, and part of the rationale for ending child poverty is a greater understanding of the connections between poverty and health outcomes for children (CPAG, 2004). This includes the impact on development, physical and mental health, as well as extending to areas highlighted in the UNICEF report such as education, and relationships with peers. Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) the Children Act (2004) and The National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (NSF) (DoH, 2004a) have been important drivers for looking at children’s well-being in society, and adopting a more holistic approach to policy and practice. It is possible to identify a much more ‘joined-up’


approach to children and young people’s health and well-being than was evident in the past. Developing ways that children can participate and be involved in making decisions about themselves, and working in partnership with parents are important dimensions of the current policy approach. Participation and inclusion are important relating to debates around children’s citizenship rights (see Chapter Three). However, it is sometimes the case that what children want may not coincide with what adults want, or seem to be in their best interests and young people may engage in ‘risk-taking’ behaviour. The first two outcomes in Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) are ‘being healthy’ and ‘staying safe’ and there may be instances where the behaviour of young people (or children) challenges these outcomes. This is a rapidly expanding area of policy that has seen developments across a range of issues, and it is not possible to cover all these in this chapter, which will concentrate on three areas: health inequalities; obesity; and mental health. Policy and practice in health and well-being are underpinned by the ECM outcomes, which also affect all areas of service provision for children and young people and their families. In the context of this chapter, it is also important to remember that well-being does not just mean what is wrong, or the problems that children may have, but the positive aspects of being a child.

Health problems Any discussion of health problems and children and young people has to take account of the impact of poverty (CPAG, 2004). Higher rates of low birth weight, higher rates of infant mortality, child mental health and youth suicide are associated with living in poverty (Bradshaw, 2003). A recent literature review by Griggs and Walker (2008) outlines some of the health consequences for children who grow up in poverty. These include: an impact on maternal health and higher rates of infant mortality; nutritional problems in children from low income households; an association with a range of illnesses; for example, anaemia, diabetes and asthma, and poor dental health (Griggs and Walker, 2008: 4). In the longer term, there may be developmental problems and poor physical and mental health in adulthood. In terms of ‘well-being’, children’s self-confidence, self-esteem and relationship with other children can also be adversely affected by living in poverty and the stigma associated with poverty (Griggs and Walker, 2008: 6). There is seen to be a two-way relationship between poverty and ill health as ‘poverty breeds ill-health, ill-health maintains poverty’ (Wagstaff, 2002: 97, quoted in Griggs and Walker, 2008: 9). Accidental deaths are more likely within poorer households (Griggs and Walker, 2008; Underdown, 2007). Children from poor neighbourhoods are also less likely to have safe places to play and Griggs and Walker (2008) also

Health and well-being 127

state that the stigma of poverty can be attached to individuals, families and to whole neighbourhoods. These authors also note that children’s subjective sense of their own well-being can be adversely affected by living in poverty. Poor housing is also a contributory factor to bad health and children may experience respiratory problems, while parents and children may be under stress and experience mental health problems (Griggs and Walker, 2008; Underdown, 2007). While there have been overall improvements in child health, these inequalities persist (Underdown, 2007). Families in lower income groups are ‘more likely to buy foods with high levels of fat and sugar because these are richer in energy and cheaper than fruit and vegetables’ (Underdown, 2007: 65). These foods are related to a range of poor health outcomes; for example, obesity, heart disease and diabetes. However, in the consumerist society of the twenty-first century, it is also worth noting that while having additional disposable income may mean other parents can afford healthier foods, there has been a trend, and pressure to buy less healthy options for children and young people. In a society where parents are expected to be in paid employment, there is less time to prepare healthy meals. Fast-food and convenience foods are readily available and consumed more frequently than in the past. Mental health Mental health problems can affect children of all ages. Official figures give some insight into the area, but not all problems will be recognized, which means the incidence of mental health problems could be underestimated. It is less likely that formal psychiatric diagnoses will be made in pre-school children, but it is estimated that around 7 per cent of three-year-olds might show ‘moderate to severe behaviour problems’ with 15 per cent presenting with milder difficulties (ONS, 2004: 5). The NSF highlights the importance of the early years and this applies to mental health as well as other areas. Interventions with and support for parents are important. The later teenage years are a time when the proportion of young people showing mental health problems rises. While some disorders are temporary, others will persist over the longer term; for example, conduct and hyperkinetic disorders (ONS, 2004). The potential size of the problem for all children is highlighted in the following quotation: Ten per cent of five to fifteen year olds have a diagnosable mental health disorder. This suggests that around 1.1 million children and young people under eighteen would benefit from specialist services. There are up to 45,000 with severe mental health disorders. Around forty per cent of children with a mental health disorder are not currently receiving any specialist services. (DoH, 2004b: 6)


Socio-economic status can have an impact. Children in families of Social Class V (unskilled) are around three times more likely to have a mental health problem than those in Class I (professional occupations) (ONS, 2004: 9). The highest rates are in families where no parent has ever worked. The ONS survey also suggests that children from lone parent families are twice as likely to have a mental health problem as children living with married or cohabiting couples, and mental problems are more common in step-families (ONS, 2004). There is also a link with experiencing stressful life events and mental disorders in children and young people. Understanding the stressors that might lead children and young people to develop mental health problems is important. So, too, is developing an understanding of protective factors that enable them to cope with difficult circumstances. Some groups are more vulnerable to mental health problems than others. These are: looked-after children; homeless young people; and young offenders (ONS, 2004). National Service Framework Standard 9 The National Service Framework (NSF) for Children, young people and maternity services was published in September 2004 (DoH, 2004b). Standard 9 relates to the mental health and psychological well-being of children and young people (DoH, 2004b: 6), and also relates to other standards within the Framework. A report on the implementation of Standard 9 states ‘mental illness is a serious problem in children and young people with one in ten experiencing some form of diagnosable mental disorder’, with the proportion of children with mental health problems higher now than 30 years ago (DoH, 2006: 8). The mental and emotional well-being of children and young people is important, and there is concern around the numbers of children experiencing distress and mental health problems. Within the NSF, Standard 9 explicitly addresses children and young people’s mental health. This standard is reproduced in Box 8.1.

Box 8.1 National Service Framework Standard 9 All children and young people, from birth to their eighteenth birthday, who have mental health problems and disorders have access to timely, integrated, high-quality, multidisciplinary mental health services to ensure effective assessment, treatment and support, for them and their families. The NSF vision for this area is to see: • an improvement in the mental health of all children and young people; • those multi-agency services, working in partnership, promote the mental

Health and well-being 129 health of all children and young people, provide early intervention and also meet the needs of children and young people with established or complex problems; • that all children, young people and their families have access to mental health care based on the best available evidence and provided by staff with an appropriate range of skills and competences. Source: DoH (2004b: 41).

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) CAMHS are the means by which services are organized and delivered to support children, young people and their families. They promote the mental health and well-being of children and young people, and provide services and support. Services are delivered within a four-tier strategic framework, which is the basis for planning, commissioning and delivering services. The different tiers are summarized in Box 8.2.

Box 8.2 The four-tier CAMHS framework Tier 1:

A Primary level of care.

Tier 2:

A service provided by specialist individual professionals relating to workers in primary care.

Tier 3:

A specialised mutli-disciplinary service for more severe, complex or persistent disorders.

Tier 4:

Essential tertiary level services such as day units, highly specialised out-patient teams and in-patient units.

Source: DoH (2004b: 6).

The government set up a Public Service Agreement (PSA) that ‘a comprehensive CAMHS should be commissioned in all parts of England by the end of 2006’ (DoH, 2006: 3). While significant progress has been made, there is more to be done. Looked-after children are identified as a vulnerable group (DoH, 2006; ONS, 2004) and the mental health of this group is addressed in Chapter Four. There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among children with a learning disability – estimated to be four times higher than for other children, and higher still for children with a severe learning disability (DoH, 2006: 20). Further improvement needs to be made for this group.


Young offenders are also a group with significant health needs. There has been improvement in their treatment as a result of CAMHS and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) working together by: • Joint appointments between CAMHS and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs); • Teams providing in-reach to secure units and Youth Offender Institutions (YOIs); • Training and consultation by forensic nurses to professionals in residential, prison and community settings; • Many health workers and especially CAMHS workers in YOTs have developed close links and protocols with specialist CAMHS (DoH, 2006: 39) Fundamental to progress is expanding and developing a skilled workforce to deliver all aspects of CAMHS working. Further recommendations include providing dedicated services for children in care and those in the youth justice system (DoH, 2006). It is also necessary for routine outcome monitoring (ROM) to take place to ensure that services are effective (DoH, 2006). The buildings in which services are provided should be ‘fit for purpose’ and in good locations easily accessible by public transport. User participation is also important. In terms of progress, expenditure has risen. There has been an increase in CAMHS staff; CAMHS have seen more cases; children and families are being seen sooner. Three areas where CAMHS needs to make significant progress in the short term are around 24-hour cover for urgent needs and specialist assessments; CAMHS services for children and young people with learning disabilities; provision of services for 16 and 17-year-olds appropriate to their age and maturity (DoH, 2006: 13). There may be some instances where it is appropriate for 16 and 17-year-olds to use adult services and some adolescent users of CAMHS may also need mental health services after their eighteenth birthday. Therefore, the interface between child and adolescent mental health services, and adult mental health services is important, and workers within the two areas need to share their skills and experience. Much of the support offered to children, young people and their families takes place in the community. Where children need more specialist support (Tier 4) and in-patient support, it is important that there are ‘separate or designated age-appropriate in-patient psychiatric’ units for children and young people (DoH, 2006: 28). There is a shortage of such units, which means that some young people are cared for in adult psychiatric wards or paediatric units, neither of which may be suitable. However, older adolescents could prefer to be on a ward with young adults. It can also mean that children and young people are not being cared for near their families.


Minority Ethnic Groups With regard to ethnicity, nearly 10 per cent of white children and 12 per cent of black children are assessed as having a mental health problem (ONS, 2004: 9). There are lower rates for children of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin (8 per cent and 4 per cent) and for those of Indian origin (4 per cent) (ONS, 2004: 9). The Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC) study (2004) found that 26.8 per cent of young people detained on adult wards were from ethnic minorities. Black African and Caribbeans make up only 2.9 per cent of the youth population, but accounted for 13.1 per cent of the young people detained on adult wards (cited in DoH 2006: 48). Meeting the needs of children and young people from black and minority ethnic groups in each community, and developing cultural sensitivity are areas that need development (DoH, 2006). Summary As can be seen, mental health problems can affect children and young people of all ages. Early diagnosis and intervention is important, as is the development of age-appropriate, and culturally sensitive services. There is a greater likelihood of children and young people living in lower-income families experiencing mental health problems. Ending child poverty could have an impact here, and is one part of a broader strategy aimed at improving the lives of children in the UK today. This chapter now moves on to consider one aspect of the physical health of children and young people, that of childhood obesity.

Childhood obesity In Tackling Obesity – First Steps (National Audit Office (NAO), 2006b), obesity is acknowledged as a complex health issue with costs to individuals and the state – and to the NHS in particular. This concern is shared by other countries, and transnational organizations like the EU and the World Health Organization (WHO) (Lang and Rayner, 2005; Share and Strain, 2008). It is estimated that obesity costs the NHS directly around £1 billion a year, and the UK economy £2.3 to £2.6 billion in indirect costs (NAO, 2006b), and the problem is seen to be increasing (Curtis, 2008). On the basis of current trends, by 2010 it is estimated that the annual cost to the economy could be £3.6 billion a year (NAO 2006b: 6). Tackling Obesity assesses progress towards the Public Service Agreement (PSA) set out in the 2004 Treasury Spending Review. The aim is ‘to halt, by 2010, the year-on-year increase in obesity among children under 11 in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole (NAO, 2006b: 9).


Child obesity will be tackled through prevention and treatment, and involves changing the behaviour of children and their parents, and more broadly that of society. Programmes that will impact on this target include: improving school meals; the school sport strategy; the healthy schools programme; the play programme; and the obesity programme. This involves joint working already in place under the Every Child Matters: Change for Children (DfES, 2004) programme across the national, regional, local and front-line tiers. Obesity is measured using body mass index (BMI), though this is not straightforward for children whose ratio of weight gain to height will vary. Problems with BMI as a measure include the fact that there is no distinction between mass that is due to fat and mass due to muscular physique. However, this is currently the way that obesity is measured. Involvement from a wide range of professionals and agencies makes the aim of stopping childhood obesity extremely complex as does the fact that a number of different programmes are in place to help achieve the aim. Over a period of three years more than £1 billion was allocated for nutrition and physical activity programmes for children, with around £3.6 billion to be spent on other programmes such as Extended Schools and Sure Start (NAO 2006b: 11). With regard to school meals, the DfES was committed to investing £220 million (2005–08) supporting schools and local authorities in making improvements to the nutritional value of school meals (NAO 2006b:12). Children’s Trusts have an important role in bringing together all services for children and young people in their area, and should have a statutory Children and Young People’s Plan in place, identifying local priorities supporting the five ECM outcomes. There is no agreement on what works with regard to reducing obesity levels, not least because there are different explanations for the development of obesity, which pose different solutions to the problem (Lang and Rayner, 2005). Achieving the target of reducing obesity involves complex interagency and inter-professional working across a wide range of areas. There needs to be clear leadership and clarification of roles and responsibilities. While schools are a key setting for delivering ‘effective, co-ordinated interventions’, teachers may require more guidance and support, and the interface between health and education is significant (NAO 2006b: 17). A responsibilization agenda targeting schools and individuals is in place (Curtis, 2008) and this approach has also been identified in Ireland (Share and Strain, 2008). Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have a key role in weighing and measuring children, with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ‘developing guidance on the prevention, identification, assessment, treatment and weight management for adults and children who are either overweight or obese’ (NAO et al., 2006b: 17).


Changing the behaviour of parents and children Involving parents is important in order to change the behaviour of children and their parents, but not much attention is focused on how this is to be achieved. Much is made in the report of achieving an ‘efficient delivery chain’, but the lack of evidence about what works, the fact there is no ‘ringfenced’ money for the child obesity target, and lack of sufficient staff with the right skills will impact on this (NAO, 2006b: 35–7). In the conclusion, Tackling Obesity states that: ‘Achieving the obesity PSA target in England will involve major social change, sophisticated approaches to raising awareness and to changing behaviour, and a comprehensive set of policy measures and interventions’ (NAO, 2006b: 48). Achieving the target involves changing behaviour and attitudes of parents and children, with a broad range of agencies working together to effect change. This can be difficult (Lang and Rayner, 2005; Share and Strain, 2008). While improving children’s nutrition is an important dimension so, too, is changing children’s physical activity levels (Directgov, 2008). There may be connections between poverty and poor nutritional intake by children (Griggs and Walker, 2008; Share and Strain, 2008), but it should not be assumed that all poor children eat unhealthily or, indeed, that children from more affluent families always eat healthy foods. An article in The Daily Telegraph 2008 (Winnett, 2008: 10) reported that the Department of Health had identified six different family types defined by health and way of life; five of these are at risk of having obese parents or children. The categories identified are: the overworked; the novices; the treaters; the role models; the traditionalists; and the athletics. This list of ‘types’ includes those who are affluent, and those who should know what constitutes healthy eating, suggesting it might be difficult to target parents and ensure behavioural changes. Research by the Department of Health suggests that: • While parents acknowledge childhood obesity is a problem they do not think it is their problem. • Parents underestimate the amount they and their children eat and overestimate the amount of activity the family does. • Parents do not make the connection between unhealthy weight status and long-term health problems. (adapted from Directgov, 2008) Enabling parents to make these connections, and change their behaviour, and that of their children will take considerable effort and time; but it does show how parents are held accountable for the health of their children. There are other factors that will impact on the quality and the amount of food that children and young people eat. Publicity surrounding the quality of school meals grew after the showing of a television series in which the


chef, Jamie Oliver, demonstrated the poor nutritional quality of foods that were served to children at school, and highlighted the small amount of money per child that was spent on providing school dinners. As a result the Labour government (under Tony Blair) provided additional funding in this area. The television series also illustrated how difficult it can be to change the eating habits and preferences of some children and young people, and their parents, and the opposition of some parents to the idea of healthy eating. Sometimes a focus on behaviour can lead to parents being blamed for their children’s obesity. Holding parents responsible is a key component of dealing with childhood obesity with ideas about the ‘good parent’ making the ‘right’ choices (Share and Strain, 2008: 236). Obesity is conceptualized as an individual problem; that is, obese people have chosen to be that way, though there may be wider issues to consider when looking at explanations for the growth of childhood obesity (Lang and Rayner, 2005). Stigma and obesity There is also a risk that children and young people will be stigmatized because of their size. A research study with secondary school children suggests that interventions aimed at assisting young people, rather than being inclusionary can be exclusionary (Curtis, 2008). Being required to participate in PE in school, which involves wearing gym kit and doing exercise in front of their peers can be embarrassing, and make young people vulnerable to bullying. Eating in school can also be problematic, where young people feel that they are being scrutinized by their peers (Curtis, 2008). ‘The stigmatization of obesity reflects the extent to which higher body weight challenges social norms about acceptable body size’ (Curtis, 2008: 411). An alternative viewpoint is provided by an Australian study that found that Aboriginal, Pacific Islander and southern European girls regarded their weight as ‘acceptable and possibly desirable’ (O’Dea, 2008: 288). In contrast, obese girls from Anglo/Caucasian and Asian backgrounds felt ‘too fat’. This indicates that culture and ethnicity can also be important determinants of young people’s responses to being overweight. Obesity – what works? Obesity is not only a national issue, but an international problem, as can be seen in Chapter 9. There is concern at both the European level, and international level about childhood obesity (Lang and Rayner, 2005). There are health risks associated with obesity, which can persist into adulthood. In policy, there is a focus on the diet and activity levels of individuals, but obesity can be seen as multi-causal (Lang and Rayner, 2005). The fact that there are a number of different explanations for the rise in childhood obesity also means that there is no easy solution. These include: genetic factors;


economic and cultural transitions; psycho-social factors; obesogenic environment theory; and nutrition transition (Lang and Rayner, 2005). Different models suggest different solutions, and can be used by different interest groups, and it is difficult to assess which model is most effective. There is also ‘a debate about whose responsibility it is to tackle obesity: the state, the individual citizen (or civil society as a whole) or companies and the market place’ (Lang and Rayner, 2005: 313). The latter have significant power both in terms of ‘persuading’ consumers what food to eat, and financial and economic power that can be difficult to challenge. As these authors note, the development of social policy in the EU has been slow (Hantrais, 2007) and the inclusion of public health at the EU level is relatively new (Lang and Rayner, 2005). Progress needs to be made within the EU and extend across other European countries. Within Europe and more widely, obesity is recognized as a significant problem because of the adverse consequences to individuals, and additional health and welfare costs to states. It is not only a problem in developed countries but in developing countries as well (Lang and Rayner, 2005). Activity There is an emphasis on individual responsibility for healthy living, and in particular on parental responsibility. There are also other areas where policies could be developed to help reduce childhood obesity. If you were a policy-maker what strategies would you put in place to deal with the following? • • • •

parents’ behaviour; children and young peoples’ choices and actions; the advertising industry; the food industry.

Tensions between policies Increasingly, there is a sense of a ‘social’ or collective responsibility for the health and well-being of children and young people. To that end, there is a significant amount of policy in this area. The state has become increasingly involved within the family unit. Interest in child health and welfare can be traced back to the early stages of the welfare state; for example, around child health and nutrition, and linking this to economic achievement. It has also long been recognized that poverty can have a disadvantageous effect of children’s health, which has resulted in policy interventions. Poor child health and nutrition was a matter of concern at the start of the twentieth century as it is now (Fraser, 2003). There are similarities and


differences in the reasons for past and present concerns over children’s health. In the earlier period, it was seen as important to raise healthy workers and soldiers for the nation and the Empire. The causes of poor child health and nutrition were related to poverty, lack of availability of good quality food, lack of education on food and a lack of sound nutritional information. Policy examples from the early twentieth century include the introduction of school meals and school medical inspections by the pre-First World War Liberal government (Fraser, 2003). Today’s concerns over childhood obesity can be seen to reflect the consequences of living in an affluent society, where there is too much food available. Adults and children are generally less active. While there is greater public understanding of nutrition and health, messages about what constitutes healthy eating can conflict. This increased knowledge also has to be set against the impact of the commercialization of food, and the way that food products are advertised. It is recognized that childhood obesity has a longterm impact for the individual in terms of health outcomes that will, in turn, increase the costs of providing health and social care. The state intervenes to protect children, and to ensure they can become active and healthy citizens in the future. In the early stages of the welfare state in Britain, parents would still be seen as having prime responsibility for this, and governments were more reluctant to intervene. At the current time, the expansion of policies in relation to children’s well-being signals a greater and growing involvement by the state in family life. The public/private divide is dissolving as what happens within families becomes part of public discourse, where the state sets the parameters for good parenting. Within the current policy context, children’s achievement is emphasized and they are seen as in the process of ‘becoming’ adults. The actual experience of being a child has been underplayed, though there has been more recent interest in this (The Children’s Society, 2006).

Keeping children safe One of the ECM outcomes involves keeping children safe. This is something that seems to present some difficulty for parents, for society, and for the state, and relates to the risks that children and young people face, and to perceptions of risk. What are the risks? Keeping children safe also implies preventing neglect and harm to children within the home and outside of the home. Today, this involves taking account of a wide range of risks (Gladwin and Collins, 2008). These can relate to children and young people’s behaviour, or beliefs about their


behaviour and involvement in risk-taking behaviours, such as drug and alcohol use, smoking, sexual activity and criminal activities. It also involves taking account of environmental risks at the local and the global levels, such as pollution. Parents may also be concerned about the risk of children being involved in accidents, or becoming ill. Parenting can become ‘hard work’ as parents become anxious about the dangers that their children may encounter during everyday life. Too much anxiety by parents is not positive, and Palmer suggests that it is something that needs to be overcome: Anxiety is insidious. It amplifies rational fears and stimulates irrational ones. There seem so many things to worry about now – health issues, all sorts of possible accidents, crime and violence, paedophiles and other people with evil intent . . . But when the gathering paranoia begins to threaten children’s emotional, social and intellectual development, we have to confront the problem. (Palmer, 2006: 61) Of course, this anxiety is not only experienced by parents but also shared by professionals, and by the wider public, and politicians, often generated by media coverage. Dealing with risk is an every-day occurrence, and children and young people need to develop the capacity to assess risk, and make independent decisions about their actions. In a hyper-anxious society, where children are seen to be at harm both inside and outside of the home, this can be difficult. The risk of being abducted is one that attracts a lot of media coverage. It may seem as if the outside world – the public space – is not a safe place and not conducive to children’s well-being. However, keeping children safe also involves recognizing that adults who are supposed to protect and care for children – inside and outside of the home – can also be engaged in harming them. Child abuse Child abuse is an area that has attracted a lot of public and media concern in recent years related to high-profile cases such as the death of Victoria Climbie in Haringey. They serve to heighten anxieties about children’s safety, and have resulted in policy changes aimed at ensuring that children are protected (Laming, 2003). In 2008, the death of another child in the same area – referred to as ‘Baby P’ – indicates there are problems with the system (see, for example, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), 2008; The Guardian 2008). This case has heightened concern about the safety of children in society, and about professionals, such as social workers, whose remit is to protect children. The role of parents who do not protect their children also comes under the media spotlight. Some media coverage has focused on the breakdown of family life, and the


breakdown of society. A collective concern for children’s well-being seems to come to the fore in such cases, but at the same time, the actions and behaviour of parents come under scrutiny.

Conclusion This chapter has looked at some issues related to children’s health and wellbeing. The well-being of children and young people is not only about their physical and mental health, but relates to other topics covered in this book. The links between poverty and poor outcomes in adult life are well documented including physical and mental health, as well as the likelihood of living in poverty in adulthood, poor educational attainment, employment opportunities and the risk of raising children in poverty in the future. Poverty and disadvantage are key factors that put the lives of children and young people at risk, and involve individual, social and economic costs. However, it is important to remember that not all poor and disadvantaged children will have poor life chances, or experience poor health outcomes that last throughout their lives. A holistic approach to children’s well-being acknowledges the complexity of children’s lives, and how different areas of life can interrelate. At times it still seems as if there is a concentration on children and young people as a resource for the future, and concern about their health is part of this. This eclipses an understanding of what it means to be a child today, and how the experience of being a child or young person in modern society can be valued in its own right. The move towards the inclusion of children and young people within the policy arena is a positive one, as long as they are actually listened to. Understanding the relationship between parents and their children is also important. Enacting policies that take account of the views of parents, children and young people, as well as professionals, presents a challenge for the state, particularly as professional expertise is prioritized. It implies a process of policy development that engages with the public on an ongoing basis, and is not driven solely by political rhetoric or ideology. Websites For health issues, the Department of Health is a key website, and on mental health websites like the Mental Health Foundation provide useful information. Voluntary sector sites relating to children and young people are also useful sources.


Department of Health (DoH) www.dh.gov.uk Mental Health Foundation www.mentalhealth.org.uk The Children’s Society www.childrenssociety.org.uk UNICEF www.unicef.org.uk

Key points • Children’s well-being is important, and the definition of well-being extends beyond being healthy. • Health inequalities still persist, and there are links between poverty, disadvantage and poor health outcomes. • Obesity is seen as a significant and increasing problem with long-term costs to the individual and the state. • The behaviour of parents and children is a central focus in policy on obesity, but this is a multi-causal problem, and there is insufficient evidence on ‘what works’. • Many children and young people experience mental health problems, and services need to be improved, particularly for the most vulnerable groups • Perceptions of risk affect adults’ views of children and young people, and there is a danger of creating too much anxiety around the experience of being a child. • On the other hand, systems put in place to protect children and young people from harm are not protecting the most vulnerable children in the way they ought to. • There is a tendency for increased intervention by the state, which implies a renegotiation of the boundaries between the private and the public.

Conclusion

The areas included in this book provide an insight into New Labour policies that focus on families, children and young people. Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) provides a framework for policies and services aimed at children and young people thereby providing a link across different areas. In addition, the concepts set out in Chapter One are reflected within subsequent chapters. Risk, rights, responsibilities, the renegotiation of relationships between parents, children and the state, and ideas around the remoralization of society are themes which run throughout the current policy agenda. These relate to current debates about citizenship and community, welfare provision and the shaping of a ‘good’ society. Children’s and young people’s rights, and increasingly their responsibilities, underpin a vision of citizenship that looks to the future, where the capacities of children and young people are developed. Their parents/carers have a role to play here, a duty to provide a supportive environment for their children, and a responsibility to engage with professionals to ensure that children achieve their full potential. The positive contribution that young people can make to their neighbourhoods and communities, and within their own families, needs to be stressed at a time when there is so much adverse press about young people in society. That negative representation also relates to the responsibilities of young people and their families to behave appropriately, and that in turn is seen to demonstrate respect for other people. Where behaviour is antisocial then the state will intervene to ensure that children and young people are sanctioned for their behaviour. Parents are also the objects of state intervention in order to reinforce their responsibilities to make sure that their children behave in a way that is considered acceptable. Living in poverty and disadvantage is linked to antisocial behaviour, and is also seen as posing a risk across other areas explored in this book. These

Conclusion 141

include the risk of becoming involved in criminal activity, becoming homeless or being removed from families and entering the care system. Children and young people who fall into these categories face further risks that will impact on their future lives. It is therefore seen as important to prevent engagement in crime or youth homelessness. The care system provides an alternative source of parenting for children and young people – by the state, foster carers or other kin. Being in the care system presents risks associated with poorer outcomes; for example, in relation to health and education, and policies are in place to improve outcomes for young people leaving care. Providing all children and young people with permanent and supportive networks is important. These can include families, foster families and friends. At times, professionals will also have a role to play in providing this support. The links between poverty, disadvantage and poor health outcomes are acknowledged and as a result, reducing child poverty continues to be an important target for the current Labour government. However, not all families living in poverty produce children who are antisocial, or delinquent, and poor families can also provide supportive environments for their children. There is some interest in understanding the resilience that individuals show in difficult circumstances; this includes parents as well as children and young people. Targeting particular families, or neighbourhoods or communities, with social policies that include elements of care and control implies that there are sections of society that are failing. This creates an image of ‘toxic’ communities where not just the individuals, but the environment, the buildings and the whole infrastructure are failing families and children and young people. While there is a range of policies in place to alleviate poverty, there is a concurrent emphasis on parents engaging in paid labour, to facilitate the economic well-being of their families, while at the same time making a contribution to society and to the state. Rights and responsibilities coexist in a relationship of reciprocity. The conditionality of social rights and access to welfare has been given greater emphasis with the recently proposed welfare reforms, where everyone should be working, or seeking work, including the sick and disabled people. Lone parents are another group that is targeted within these reforms, and are ‘persuaded’ to enter or return to the paid labour market when they still have young children. The issue of children and young people’s well-being seems connected primarily with financial strategies, rather than a concern with the actual experience of being a child, or raising children. It is questionable whether or not all sole earner families with children will be able to earn an income that is sufficient to raise them well above the poverty line, and this will also be a challenge for dual earner families on low incomes. The potential erosion of parenting within the home contrasts with the increase in care work that takes place outside of the home; paid work that is


done by ‘outsiders’. This includes the care of very young children. However well qualified, and however well-intentioned, there is still a question mark over whether or not this is the best way to care for all children and young people. In some families, where parents are under stress, it may help. On the other hand, it could create distance within families and pressure on relationships that are already strained. By implication, children from more affluent backgrounds are not living in disadvantage and do not experience problems, and it continues to be the case that some families are more visible to professionals, and therefore more likely to be targeted for state interventions. At the same time, recent cases indicate that even where professionals are involved in families, children are not always safe. In the modernized version of the welfare state, choice will be related to socio-economic status. Parents who are benefit claimants will have to work, unless they can access benefits under the ‘no-conditionality’ principle; for example, by being disabled. Wealthier parents will have greater choice over the child care they can access, and ultimately have greater choice over whether or not to work. This perpetuates social divisions and the experience of being a child or a young person will continue to have a different shape dependent on what kind of background children come from. The focus on parents and parenting in recent social policies can be seen as positive. Giving parents information, support and advice, and encouraging their participation could be empowering. However, it allows the state more involvement in the lives of parents, and means that families are under more surveillance. Once again, however, it is some families – those that do not meet ideas about ‘good’ parenting – that will be targeted for support. Recent policies refer to ‘parents’, which is used in an inclusionary and an exclusionary manner. Mothers seem to disappear in policy rhetoric, while in reality state interventions are often focused on women, who are the primary carers of children and young people. The contribution that women make as mothers, and the way that the state depends on women’s unpaid caring work is underplayed. At the same time, there is a greater recognition of the role and responsibilities of fathers, and the duty of the services to engage with fathers in particular. This has positive dimensions, but emphasizing fatherhood while ignoring motherhood undermines the role of mothers. At the same time, this implies that there is a particular way that families should be organized – all children ought to have a mother and a father. Other ways of arranging family life disappear from the picture, unless included within the label of ‘disadvantage’. Families where there are two parents of the same sex, or where there is only one parent become marginalized as they do not fit into the ‘norm’ perpetuated within social policies. The term ‘disadvantage’ is often applied to families, children and young people from minority ethnic groups. This can reflect reality; for example, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children have a greater risk of living in poverty, but at the same time it conflates disadvantage with race, and obscures the

Conclusion 143

differences that exist across and between different communities. It also overlooks the positive contribution that parents from many minority ethnic communities make in bringing up their children. The labels and the terminology used in the policy-making process often collapse whole groups together, erasing ‘difference’ and failing to recognize the social capital that exists and can be developed. Negative perceptions based on race and ethnicity can also be created and sustained within the media, for example, by stories on youth crime – particularly participation in violent crime. What seems to be evident within recent policies aimed at children, young people and their parents is the weaving together of strands of thinking that relate to citizens and communities, to rights and risks, to responsibilities, and to the idea that there needs to be a remoralization of society. The behaviour of individuals and groups within society is ‘policed’ by the state, and moderated where possible. This reflects an authoritarian approach towards families, which is also conceptualized as being in the best interests of society and of children and young people. This more paternalistic attitude is conjoined with an authoritarian approach, resulting in what might be termed ‘paternalistic authoritarianism’ as suggested in Chapter One. The state recognizes its responsibilities to care for citizens, which legitimates interventions within families, aimed at producing the best outcomes for children and young people. In this sense, the state, and workers acting on behalf of the state know ‘what’s best’ for children and young people. In some instances, this may prove to be the case, but this should not be taken for granted. The role of parents is recognized, but the care of children and concern about their well-being is shared, so that there is a collective approach to providing the best outcomes for children and young people. Having considered the situation within the UK, the scope of the discussion will be broadened to consider whether or not there is a sense of collective concern with regard to children and young people in the international context. The next sections explore whether or not there is any sense of the development of a global or international social policy context in relation to children and young people, providing examples of some international developments.

Globalization and social policy Ideas around globalization have focused in particular on the economic aspect of globalization, and the negative or positive aspects that this can have on the well-being of individuals. In social policy as an area of teaching and research, there is also discussion of the possibility of developing a global social policy (see Yeates, 2008). Transnational organizations can have an important effect on policies within countries, and within regions, and at the


global level, and there is an opportunity to develop a global social policy (Deacon, 2008). Examples of transnational organizations include: the European Union (EU); the World Health Organization (WHO); the World Bank (WB); and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Transnationalism challenges the idea that policies only take place within nation states, and that social policies can remain isolated from the wider global context (Yeates, 2008). What happens within nations is still important as international policies are also ‘mediated by the local’ so that the way that policies are implemented will vary (Yeates, 2008). One example of this would be the interpretation of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child that has been discussed in this book. While national policies that relate to families, children and young people have been addressed in this book, there are strategies or approaches dealing with the lives of children and young people that operate at the international level. The ‘bringing together’ of the world that this implies has happened as a result of improvements in transport, means of communication, and the development of new media and new technologies. This means there is an immediacy about events that take place in other parts of the world that was not possible in the past. At the same time, the interconnectedness of the global economy means that what happens in one part of the world can have an effect on another part of the world. This can be at the regional, national or local levels. Armed conflicts and natural disasters can also be relayed around the world much more quickly than in the past, and problems in one area of the globe can spill over into other areas. National and international populations and national governments are concerned about environmental issues. There has also been increasing interest at the international level about the well-being of children. The following sections provide some examples of policy initiatives aimed at improving the well-being of children and young people.

International initiatives for children and young people A World Fit for Children? A World Fit for Children (UNICEF, 2008b) covers a range of areas affecting children and young people. It is not possible to look at all these areas in detail but some information is provided here to illustrate the way that there is international concern about the well-being of children. The most basic right of having a name and a nationality is important for citizenship, but the registration of births is not the same around the world. Around 51 million children born in 2006 were not registered, and one of the targets for achieving a world fit for children is to ensure that all children are registered at birth or shortly afterwards (UNICEF, 2008b: 42). This most basic right carries

Conclusion 145

with it more than a vague notion of citizenship, but is also associated with all the substantive rights that come with being a member of a state. Many children in the world – around 158 million – are involved in child labour, and those living in the poorest households are most likely to be involved; girls may also have to take on domestic tasks (UNICEF, 2008b: 43). The strategy with regard to child labour is ‘to protect children from economic exploitation’ and to protect them from ‘hazardous’ work that will impact on their education, or their health (UNICEF, 2008b: 43). In some instances, children may be working to support families, so policies aimed at taking children out of work and putting them into education need to be supported by policies that are aimed at dealing with the poverty that many families face. It is also important to consider the needs of children affected by armed conflict. More than 40 per cent of refugees are children. Around 1.5 billion children, representing about two-thirds of the world’s child population, live in countries affected by violence and conflict between 2002 and 2006 (UNICEF, 2008b, 48). This may mean leaving their homes and communities and becoming part of the ‘displaced’ population within their countries. The aim is to ‘protect children from the impact of armed conflict and ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law’ (UNICEF, 2008b: 48). Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) The millennium project was commissioned in 2002 to develop an action plan to achieve the MDGs (UN, 2008). The aim is to halve the proportion of people in poverty whose income is less than 1$ a day between 1990–2015, which would have an impact on children and young people (UN, 2007a). With regard to education, there is a target to achieve universal primary education everywhere by 2015 to ensure that boys and girls complete primary schooling (UN, 2007b). Education is an important means of improving the life chances of children and young people, and what happens in the early years of life can have an impact in adulthood. Finally, with regard to child mortality, the target is to reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate for under-fives between 1990–2015 (UN, 2007c). Partners to the MDG include a wide range of organizations such as the UN, the International Labour Movement and the World Bank (WB). National governments and aid agencies also have a role to play in achieving these goals. World Health Organization (WHO) The WHO also has global strategies in place aimed at tackling child health problems. These include a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (WHO, 2008a). Childhood obesity is seen as:


one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century. The problem is global and is steadily affecting many low and middle income countries, particularly in urban settings. The prevalence has increased at an alarming rate. In 2007, an estimated 22 million children under the age of 5 years were overweight throughout the world. More than 75% of overweight and obese children live in low- and middle-income countries. (WHO 2008a) Obesity is likely to persist into adulthood, and carries with it the risk of developing diseases like diabetes, and heart problems. Therefore, preventing childhood obesity is seen as important, as it is in this country. Initiatives within the UK and other countries; for example, Ireland, contribute to this global strategy. An approach that combines a focus on diet and physical activity is seen as the best way to tackle childhood obesity, so tackling unhealthy diets and lack of physical inactivity are public health priorities (WHO, 2008a). Environmental health is also an issue that is significant, as it is related to children’s health and their development. Children can be exposed to serious health risks because of environmental hazards, with the potential of greater risk for children below the age of five. These hazards can be ‘exacerbated by adverse social and economic conditions, particularly conflict, poverty and malnutrition’ (WHO, 2008b). The following list summarizes some of the consequences of environmental hazards for children: • Each year, at least three million children under the age of five die due to environment-related diseases. • Acute respiratory infections annually kill an estimated two million children under the age of five. As much as 60 per cent of acute respiratory infections worldwide are related to environmental conditions. • Diarrhoeal diseases claim the lives of nearly two million children every year. Eight to 90 per cent of these diarrhoea cases are related to environmental conditions, in particular, contaminated water and inadequate sanitation. • Nearly one million children under the age of five died of malaria in 1998. Up to 90 per cent of malaria cases are attributed to environmental facts. (WHO, 2008b) The WHO’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse also have programmes in place ‘to address global child and adolescent mental health problems’ recognizing the interdependence of societies (WHO, 2008c). Some of the problems that children and young people have to deal with in low-income countries include: being an AIDs orphan; involvement in armed conflict; and marginalization due to a lack of economic opportunities (WHO, 2008c). Migration around the world also means that children and

Conclusion 147

young people entering countries come with mental health problems that can make their integration into society difficult. The provision of information to governments is an important part of these approaches, as is the generation of international data on child health.

Conclusion There are huge problems to be tackled to ensure the well-being of children around the world. Implementing the Every Child Matters agenda within the UK is a challenge for government. Achieving obesity targets, providing services and support for children and young people with mental health problems, and more generally ensuring the total well-being of all children in the UK is a considerable task. If these areas are considered in the international context, it becomes an even greater challenge. To have an international agenda with targets is positive, but if the world is increasingly connected at the economic level – as globalization theories suggest – then the global economic problems in 2008 could make life difficult for many more children, young people and their parents. Effecting change at the national level can be problematic. Delivering results at the international level is even more complex, involving a range of organizations and actors at different levels, and even where the will is there to improve the lives of children and young people, progress may still be slow or uneven. The intention to improve the situation for children and young people at the global level reflects a growing interest in children’s rights, but at the same time it is evident that not all children and young people are valued or accorded the rights, or the respect that they deserve.

References

Aldgate, J. and McIntosh, M. (2006) Looking After the Family: A Study of Children Looked-After in Kinship Care in Scotland. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/07132800/0 (accessed 29 March 2009). Aldridge, J. (2008) All work and no play? Understanding the needs of children with caring responsibilities, Children and Society, 22: 253–64. Anderson, I. (1999) Young single people and access to social housing, in J. Rugg (ed.) Young People, Housing and Social Policy. London: Routledge. Ariyo, D. (2003) Scandal of a system that lets thousands of children disappear, Community Care, 30 January: 20–21. Armstrong, D., Hine, J., Hacking, S., Armaos, R., Jones, R., Klessinger, N. and France, A. (2005) On Track Youth Lifestyles Surveys. Home Office Research Study 278. Available online at www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/youth/ youth63htm. Arthur, R. (2007) Family Life and Youth Offending: Home is Where the Hurt is. Abingdon: Routledge. Baker, C. (2007) Disabled children’s experience of permanency in the looked-after system, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 1173–88. Barlow, A. and Duncan, A. (2000) Supporting families? New Labour’s communitarianism and the ‘rationality mistake’: Part I, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 22(1): 23–42. Barn, R. (2007) ‘Race’, ethnicity and child welfare: a fine balancing act, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 1425–34. Barnardo’s (2008) Children as young as 12 are being ‘written off’. Press Release, 22 September 2008. Available online at www.barnardos.org.uk/ (accessed 15 July 2009). Batty, D. (2002) The interface between medicine and social work in working with looked-after children, Adoption and Fostering, 26(4): 26–34. BBC News (2005) Feral youths on ‘rampage of fear’ BBC News Channel, 17 May 2005. Available online at: www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/ 4554611.stm (accessed 5 November 2008).

References 149 Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Becker, F. and Becker, S. (2008) Young adult carers in the UK experiences, needs and services for carers, aged 16–24, Glasgow, The Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Becker, S. (2007) Global perspectives on children’s unpaid caregiving in the family: research and policy on ‘young carers’ in the UK, Australia, the USA and Sub-Saharan Africa, Global Social Policy, 7(1): 25–30. Bernard, C. and Gupta, A. (2008) Black African children and the child protection system, British Journal of Social Work, 38: 476–92. Berridge, D. (1999) Working with fostered children and their families, in M. Hill (ed.) Effective Ways of Working with Children and their Families. London: Jessica Kingsley. Biehal, N. (2007) Reuniting children with their families: reconsidering the evidence on timing, contact and outcomes, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 807–23. Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. and Wade, J. (1995) Moving On. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Bines, W. (1994) The health of single homeless people, Findings: Housing Research 128, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Blackman, S. (1998) ‘Disposable generation?’ An ethnographic study of youth homelessness in Kent, Youth and Policy, 59 (Spring) 38–56. Blanden, J., Hansen, K. and Machin, S. (2008) The GPD cost of the lost earning potential of adults who grew up in poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Bond, H. (1998) Turning around family fortunes, Community Care, 18 November: 30–1. Bradshaw, J. (2003) Child poverty and child health in international perspective, in C. Hallet and A. Prout (eds) Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century. London: RoutledgeFalmer. British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) (2008) Summary statistics on children in care and adopted from care in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Available online at: www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/ (accessed 12 December 2008). Broad, B. (2001) Kinship care supporting children in placements with extended family and friends, Adoption and Fostering, 25(2): 33–41. Brown, S. (2005) Understanding Youth and Crime: Listening to Youth? Berkshire: Open University Press. Browne, K. and Falshaw, L. (1998) Street children and crime in the UK, Child Abuse Review, 7(4): 241–53. Burchardt, T. and Zaidi, A. (2008) Disabled children, poverty and extra costs, in J. Stretitz and R. Lister (eds) Why Money Matters: Family Income, Poverty and Children’s Lives. London: Save the Children. Butt, R. (2005) The trials of living with the feral youths of Salford, The Guardian, 21 May 2005. Available online at: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/21/ youthjustice.classroomviolence (accessed 5 November). Cass, B. (2007) Using the social care framework to analyse research on young carers, Youth Studies Australia, 26(2): 44–9. Centrepoint (2005) Lost in Transition: A Discussion of Homeless Young People’s Mental and Emotional Health Needs. London: Centrepoint. Centrepoint (2008) Youth Homelessness in the UK: A New Study. Available online

150 References at: www.centrepoint.org.uk/be-informed/policy-and-research/ (accessed 29 April 2009). CHAR (1996) Inquiry into Preventing Youth Homelessness. London: CHAR (CHAR is now the National Homelessness Alliance). Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2003) Baby Bonds. Available online at: www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty115/baby.htm (accessed 3 December 2008). Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2004) Poverty: The Facts. Available online at: www/cpag.org.uk/ (accessed 12 January 2005). Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2008) Poverty: The Stats. Available online at: www.cpag.org.uk/info/briefings_poverty/ (accessed 1 December 2008). Children and Young People’s Unit (CYPU, NI) (2004) Making it R Wrld 2: Consultation on a Draft Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Children in Wales (Plant yng Nghymru) Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Available online at www.childreninwales.org.uk/policy/news/10707.html (accessed 12 December 2008). Clarke, K. (2007) New labour: family policy and gender, in C. Annesley, F. Gains and K. Rummery (eds) Women and New Labour: Engendering Politics and Policy? Bristol: Policy Press. Clutton, S. (2008) Devolution and the language of children’s rights in the UK, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams (eds) Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: Paladin. Colton, M., Roberts, S. and Williams, M. (2008) The recruitment and retention of family foster-carers: an international and cross-cultural analysis, British Journal of Social Work, 38: 865–84. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2008) Implementation of the Barcelona Objectives Concerning Childcare Facilities for Pre-school-age Children COM (2008) 638 Final Report. Available online at: www.register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08 (accessed 27 March 2009). Commander, M., Davis, A., McCabe, A. and Stanyer, A. (2002) A comparison of homeless and domiciled young people, Journal of Mental Health, 11(5): 557–64. Connected (2008) Crime in England and Wales 2007/08. Available online at: www.connected.gov.uk.facts/guncrime/index/html (accessed 23 November 2008). Craig, T.K.J., Hodson, S., Woodward, S. and Richardson, S. (1996) Off to a Bad Start: A Longitudinal Study of Homeless Young People in London. London: The Mental Health Foundation. Cunningham, S. and Lavalette, M. (2004) Active citizens or ‘irresponsible truants’? School student strikes against the war, Critical Social Policy, 24(2): 255–69. Curtis, P. (2008) The experiences of young people with obesity in secondary school: some implications for the healthy school agenda, Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(4): 410–18. Deacon, B. (2008) Global and regional social governance, in N. Yeates (ed.) Understanding Global Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. Dearden, C. and Becker, S. (2004) Young Carers in the UK. London: Carers UK. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007a) The Children’s Plan:

References 151 Building brighter futures. Summary available online at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/ publications/children’s plan/downloads/TheChildren’sPlan.pdf (accessed 10 September 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007b) Aiming High for Young People: A Ten Year Strategy for Positive Activities, Available online at: www.publications.dcsf.gov.uk/ (accessed 20 December 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007c) Care matters: time for Change. Available online at: www.publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Cm%207137.pdf (accessed 20 December 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008a) The Children’s Plan One Year On: a progress report. Available online at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/oneyearon/ (access 24 March 2009). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008b) YOF/YCF good practice guide. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.co.uk/strategy/ youthfund/ (accessed 20 April 2009). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008c) Care Matters: time to deliver for children in care. Available online at: www.publications. everychildmatters.gov.uk/ (accessed 3 December 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008d) Youth Taskforce Action Plan. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.co.uk/youthmatters/ ytf/actionplan (accessed 20 April 2009). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008e) Young Runaways Action Plan. Available online at: www.publications.dcsf.gov.uk/ eOrderingDownload/Young_RunawaysActionPlan/pdf (accessed 8 December 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008f) Targeted youth support and housing practitioners: working together to tackle youth homelessness. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files (accessed 29 November 2008). Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008g online – no publication date) Youth Transitions Research Overview. Available online at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications/tenyearyouthstrategy/docs/ YouthTransitionsResearchOverview (accessed 24 November 2008). Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2007) Tackling Youth Homelessness, Policy Briefing 18. Available online at: www.communities. gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/381492 (accessed 24 November 2008). Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008a) Youth Taskforce Action Plan. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/ YouthTAksAction/pdf (accessed 20 January 2009). Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCLG) (2008b) Joint working between housing and children’ Services: preventing homelessness and tackling its effects on children and young people. London: Communities and Local Government. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008c) Making a difference: supported lodgings as a housing option for young people. Available online at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/makingadifference (accessed 24 November 2008). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (1998) National Childcare Strategy.

152 References Available online at: www.poverty/org.uk/policies/childcare (accessed 22 April 2009). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001) Sure Start: A Guide for Fourth Wave Programmes. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2002) Choice Protects. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk (accessed 20 December 2008). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Every Child Matters. London: The Stationery Office. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk (accessed 30 November 2008). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005) Extended Schools: Access to services and opportunities for all. Available online at: www.teacher.net.gov.uk/ (accessed 22 April 2009). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005) Youth Matters. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/Youth%20Matters.pdf. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006a) Youth Matters: Next Steps. Something to do, somewhere to go, someone to talk to. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk (accessed 25 November 2008). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006b) Children looked-after in England (including adoptions and care leavers), 2005–06. Available online at: www.dfes.gov.uk (accessed 30 October 2009). Department for Education and Skills (2007) Every Parent Matters. Available online at: www.dcfs.gov.uk/everychildmatters/resources-andpractice/ (accessed 30 November 2008). Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2008) Crime reduction, in Reaching Out: Think Family. London: The Stationery Office. Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2006) Helping lone parents. Available online at: www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/c3.asp (accessed 3 December 2008). Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2007) Ready for work. Available online at: www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/readyforwork/07_chapter2.htm (accessed 3 December 2008). Department for Work and Pensions (2008a) No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility. Public Consultation. Available online at: dwp.gov.uk/ docs/noonewrittenoff-complete.pdf (accessed 30 March 2009). Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008b). Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming the welfare state. Available online at: www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/raisingexpectations/ (accessed 20 March 2009). Department of Health (DoH) (1998) Quality Protects: Transforming Children’s Services. London: Department of Health. Department of Health (DoH) (2004a) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London: The Stationery Office. Department of Health (DoH) (2004b) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Service: The mental health and psychological wellbeing of children and young people. London: Department of Health. Department of Health (DoH) (2006) Promoting the mental health and psychological well-being of children and young people: report on the implementation of

References 153 Standard 9 of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London: Department of Health. Department of Health (DoH) (2008) Change4Life – Eat Well, Move More, Live Longer. Department of Health News. Available online at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/ New/CurrentCampaigns/Change4LIfe/ (accessed 5 November 2008). DHSS Training and Employment Agency and Department of Education Northern Ireland (1999) Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy. Available online at: www.northernirelandchildcare.compublications.htm (accessed 22 January 2009). Directgov (2008) Change4Life – the healthy living revolution starts here, 11 November 2008. Available online at: www.direct.gov.uk/en/NI1/Newsroom/ DG_172693 (accessed 15 July 2009). Doek, J.E. (2008) Foreword, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams, Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1999) Lone Mothers, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Dwyer, P. (2004) Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Ellingsaeter, A. and Gulbrandsen, L. (2007) Closing the childcare gap: the interaction of childcare provision and mothers’ agency in norway, Journal of Social Policy 36(4): 649–69. Ellingsaeter, A. and Leira, A. (2006) Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States. Bristol: Policy Press. Ennew, J. (2008) Children as ‘citizens’ of the United Nations (UN), in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams, Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Etzioni, A. (1997) The New Golden Rule. London: Profile Books. EUROPA (2008) Childcare services in the EU, Europa Press Release 3 October 2008. Available online at: www.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases (accessed 4 December 2008). European Commission – Youth (2008) Youth Policies: Active Citizenship of Young People. Available online at: www.ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-policies/ doc26_en.htm (accessed 30 November 2008). European Parliament (2000) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities 18 December 2000. Available online at: www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm (accessed 20 January 2009). Evans, A. (1996) We Don’t Choose to be Homeless: Report of the National Inquiry into Preventing Youth Homelessness. London: CHAR. Every Child Matters (2008) Child and adolescent mental health services. Available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/health/camhs (accessed 5 November 2008). Farmer, E., Lipscombe, J. and Moyers, J. (2005) Foster carer strain and its impact on parenting and placement outcomes for adolescents, British Journal of Social Work, 35: 237–53. Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B. and Goddard, J. (2004) Contemporary Child Care Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fitzpatrick, S., Kemp, P. and Klinker, S. (2000) Single Homelessness: An Overview of Research in Britain: Bristol: The Policy Press.

154 References Fortin, J. (1998) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. London: Butterworths. Fortin, J. (2008) Children as rights holders: awareness and scepticism, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams, Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Fox Harding, O. (1996) Family, State and Social Policy. London: Macmillan. Foyer Federation (2008) www.foyer.net/mpn/topic.php?topic=8 (accessed 30 November 2008). France, A. (2008) From being to becoming: the importance of tackling youth poverty in transitions to adulthood, Social Policy and Society, 7:(4): 495–505. Fraser, D. (2003) The Evolution of the British Welfare State, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Furedi (2001) Paranoid Parenting: Abandon Your Anxieties and Be a Good Parent. London: Penguin. Garrett, P.M. (1999) Mapping child-care social work in the final years of the twentieth century: a critical response to the ‘looking after children’ System, British Journal of Social Work, 29: 27–47. Garrett, P.M. (2003) Swimming with dolphins: the Assessment framework, new labour and new tools for social work with children and families, British Journal of Social Work, 33(4): 441–63. Garrett, P.M. (2007) Making ‘anti-social behaviour’: a fragment on the evolution of ‘ASBO politics’, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 839–56. Gauthier, A. (1996) The State and the Family: A Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in Industrialized Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gelsthorpe, L. and Sharpe, G. (2006) Gender, youth crime and justice, in B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds) Youth Crime and Justice. London: Sage. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gladwin, M. and Collins, J. (2008) Anxiety and risks, in J. Collins and P. Foley (eds) Promoting Children’s Wellbeing: Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Golden, S., Bielby, G., O’Donnell, M., Walker, M., Morris, M. and Maguire, S. (2008) Outcomes of the Youth Opportunity Fund/Youth Capital fund, Department for Children, Schools and Families. Available online at: www/dcsf.gov.uk/ research/. Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (2006) Youth Crime and Justice. London: Sage. Government Equalities Office (GEO) (2008) What Has the Government Achieved for Women? Factsheet available at: www.equalities.gov.uk (accessed 26 March 2009). Greeff, R. (ed.) (1999) Fostering Kinship: An International Perspective on Kinship Foster Care. Aldershot: Ashgate. Griggs, J. with Walker, R. (2008) The Costs of Child Poverty for Individuals and Society: A Literature Review. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Hantrais, L. (2007) Social Policy in the European Union, third edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hatland, A. (2001) Changing family patterns: a challenge to social security, in M. Kautto, J. Fritzell, B. Hvinden, J. Kvist and H. Uusitalo (eds) Nordic Welfare States in the European Context. London: Routledge. Hayden, C., Goddard, J., Gorin, S. and Van der Spek, N. (1999) State Child Care: Looking After Children? London: Jessica Kingsley. Hendrick, H. (2003) Child Welfare: Historical Dimensions, Contemporary Debate. Bristol: Policy Press.

References

155

Heptinstall, E., Bhopal, K. and Brannen, J. (2001) Adjusting to a foster family: children’s perspectives, Adoption and Fostering, 25(4): 6–16. Her Majesty’s (HM) Government (2007) The Consolidated 3rd and 4th Periodic Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child UK Government. Available online at www.dcfs/gov.uk/everychildmatters/resources-and-practice/ IG00249/ (accessed 12 July 2009). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1998) Meeting the Childcare Challenge: a Childcare Strategy for Scotland. Available at: www.archive.official-documents. co.uk/document/cm39/3958/3958.htm (accessed 20 December 2008). Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury, DfES, DWP and dti (2004a) Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare. Available at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/files (accessed 20 December 2006). Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury (2004b) Prudence for a purpose: a Britain of stability and strength. Available online at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/bud_bud04_ indes.htm (accessed December 2009). HM Treasury, Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007) Aiming high for young people: a ten year strategy for positive activities. Accessed online at www.publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/PU214.pdf (accessed 14 July 2009). Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury (2007) Every Parent Matters. London: The Stationery Office. Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury, DWP and DCSF (2008) Ending child poverty: everybody’s business Available online at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bud08_childpoverty_1310.pdf (accessed 20 December 2008). Heron, E. and Dwyer, P. (1999) Doing the right thing: Labour’s attempt to forge a new welfare deal between the individual and the state, Social Policy and Administration, 33(1): 91–104. Hoggart, L. and Vegeris, S. (2008) Lone parents and the challenge to make work pay, in J. Strelitz and R. Lister (eds) Why Money Matters: Family Income, Poverty and Children’s Lives. London: Save the Children. Hirsch, D. (2006) What Will it Take to End Child Poverty? Firing on All Cylinders. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Hollander, A. and Tarnfälk, M. (2007) Juvenile crime and the justice system in Sweden, in M. Hill, A. Lockyer and F. Stone (eds) Youth Justice and Child Protection. London: Jessica Kingsley. Home Office (1998) Supporting Families. London: The Stationery Office. Home Office (2005) Young People’s Substance Misuse Strategy. Available online at: www.drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/young-people/strategy/ (accessed 29 April 2009). Home Office (2007) Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. Consultation Paper available at: www.ukba.home office.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/closedconsultations/ uasc/consultationdocument.pdf (accessed 5 December 2008). Home Office (2008) Crime in England and Wales 2007/08: A Summary of the Main Findings. Available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rd/bcs-publications/html (accessed 30 November 2008). Hunter, C. and Nixon, J. (2001) Taking the blame and losing the home: women and anti-social behaviour, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23(4): 395–410.

156 References Invernizzi, A. and Williams, J. (2008) Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Jackson, S. (1998) Looking after children: a new approach or just an exercise in form filling? A response to Knight and Caveney, British Journal of Social Work, 28: 45–56. Jackson, S. and Thomas, N. (2000) What Works in Creating Stability for LookedAfter Children?, 2nd edn. Ilford: Barnado’s. James, A. and James, A. (2008) Childhood Studies, London: Sage. Jones, G. (1995) Leaving Home. Buckingham: Open University Press. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) Rewarding Young People for Pro-social Behaviour. Available online at: www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/youth/ youth078.htm (accessed 15 December 2008). Julienne, L. (1998) Homelessness and young single people from black and minority ethnic communities, Youth and Policy, 59: 23–37. Kamerman, S. and Kahn, A. (eds) (1978) Family Policy: Government and Family in 14 Countries. New York: Columbia University Press. Kay, E., Tisdall, M., Davis, J.M., Hill, M. and Prout, A. (2006) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion: Participation for What? Bristol: Policy Press. Kehily, M.J. (ed.) (2007a) Understanding Youth: Perspectives, Identities and Practices. London: Sage in association with the The Open University. Kehily, M.J. (2007b) A cultural perspective, in M.J. Kehilly (ed.) Understanding Youth: Perspectives, Identities and Practices. London: Sage in association with The Open University. Kemshall, K. (2002) Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kilkey, M. (2006) New Labour and reconciling work and family life: making it a father’s business? Social Policy and Society, 5(2): 167–85. Kirton, K., Beecham, J. and Ogilvie, K. (2007) Gaining satisfaction? An exploration of foster carers’ attitudes to payment, British Journal of Social Work 37: 1205–24. Knight, T. and Caveney, S. (1998) Assessment and action records: will they promote good parenting?, British Journal of Social Work, 28(1): 29–43. Knijn, T., Martin, C. and Millar, J. (2007) Activation as a common framework for social policies towards lone parents, Social Policy and Administration, 41(6): 638–52. Laming, H. (2003) The Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report, London: The Stationery Office. Lammi-Taskula, J. (2006) Nordic men on parental leave: can the welfare state change gender relations?, in A. Ellingsaeter and A. Leira (eds) Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States. Bristol: Policy Press. Lang, T. and Rayner, G. (2005) Obesity: a growing issue for European policy?, Journal of European Social Policy, 15(4): 301–2. Lanzieri, G. (2008) Population and Social Conditions: Eurostat statistics in Focus 81/2008. Available at: www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cacheITY_OFFPUB/KSSF-08-081/EN/ (accessed 20 January 2009). Letablier, M. (2006) Childcare in a changing world: policy responses to working time flexibility in France, in J. Lewis (ed.) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

References 157 Lewis, J. (1998) Citizenship in G. Hughes (ed.) Imagining Welfare Futures. London: Routledge/Open University Press. Lewis, J. (2006a) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lewis, J. (2006b) Introduction: children in the context of changing families and welfare states, in J. Lewis (ed.) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lindsey, C. (2000) Why focus on the mental health needs of looked after children?, in J. Richardson and C. Joughin (eds) The Mental Health Needs of Looked-After Children. London: The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Lipscombe, J. (2007) Fostering children and young people on remand: care or control?, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 973–86. Lister, R. (2003) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lister, R. (2006a) An agenda for children: investing in the future or promoting wellbeing in the present?, in J. Lewis (ed.) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lister, R. (2006b) Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender, Critical Social Policy, 26(2): 315–35. Lister, R. (2008) Unpacking children’s citizenship, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams (eds) Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Lister, R., Williams, F., Antonnen, A. et al. (2007) Gendering Citizenship in Western Europe: New Challenges for Citizenship Research in a Cross-National Context. Bristol: Policy Press. Local Government Association (LGA) (2001) Local Government Association Response to Consultation by the Social Exclusion Unit on Young Runaways. London: LGA. Lockyer, A. (2008) Education for citizenship: children as citizens, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams (eds) Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mahon, R. (2006) The OECD and the work/family reconciliation agenda: competing frames, in J. Lewis (ed.) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. McAra, L. (2006) Welfare in crisis? Key developments in Scottish youth justice, in B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds) Comparative Youth Justice. London: Sage. McCann, J.B, James, A., Wilson, S. et al. (1996) Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in young people in the care system, British Medical Journal, 313: 1529–30. McCluskey, J. (1994) Acting in Isolation. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Children Act for Young Homeless People. London: CHAR. Mental Health Foundation (2002) Bright Futures: Working with Vulnerable Young People. Available at: www.barnados.org.uk/resources/researchpublications.doc (accessed 29 April 2009). Mental Health Foundation (2006) Making the link between mental health and youth homelessness: A Pan-London Study. Available at: www.homeless.org.uk/ policyandinfo/issues/health (accessed 24 November 2008). Micklewright, J. and Stewart, K. (2000) The Welfare of Europe’s Children. Bristol: Policy Press.

158 References Minnis, H. and Del Priore, C. (2001) Mental health services for looked after children: implications from two studies, Adoption and Fostering, 25(4) 27–38. Minnis, H. and Devine, C. (2001) The effect of foster care training on the emotional and behavioural functioning of looked-after children, Adoption and Fostering, 25(1): 45–54. Moore, T. (2007) We’re all in it together: supporting young carers and their families in Australia, Health and Social Care in the Community, 15(6): 561–8. Moyers, S., Farmer, e. and Lipscome, J. (2006) Contact with family members and its impact on adolescents and their foster placements, British Journal of Social Work, 36: 541–59. Muncie, J. (1998) Give ’em What They Deserve: The Young Offender and Youth Justice Policy, in M. Langan (ed.) Welfare: Needs, Rights and Risks. London: Routledge. Muncie, J. (1999) Institutionalized intolerance: Youth Justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, Critical Social Policy, 19(2): 147–75. Muncie, J. and Goldson, B. (2006) England and Wales: The New Correctionalism, in K. Muncie and B. Goldson (eds) Comparative Youth Justice. London: Sage. Murray, C. (1990) The Emerging British Underclass. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. National Audit Office (2006a) Sure Start Children’s Centres. London: The Stationery Office. National Audit Office, Healthcare Commission, Audit Commission (2006b) Tackling Child Obesity – First Steps. London: The Stationery Office. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) (2008) Available online at: www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/pressreleases/ 25_November_2008 (accessed 27 November 2008). News Distribution Service (NDS) (2008) Statement on Crime Statistics. London: Home Office 23 October 2008. Available online at: http://www.nds.coi.gov.uk/ Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=382064&NewAreaID=2 (accessed 25 October 2008). O’Dea, J. (2008) Gender, ethnicity, culture and social class influences on childhood obesity among Australian schoolchildren: implications for treatment, prevention and community education, Health and Social Care in the Community 16(3): 282–90. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Preventing Youth Homelessness, Housing Research Summary No. 194, London, ODPM. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2004) The Health of Children and Young People. Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 20 December 2008). Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2008a) Social Trends No. 38 2008 Edition. Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 21 December 2008). Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2008b) Gender Work and Family. Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 26 March 2009). Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFMNI) Northern Ireland Children and Young People’s Unit (CYPU0 (2004) Making it R World 2: Consultation Draft Strategy for Children and Young People. Available online at: www.allchildrenni.gov.uk/strategy.pdf (accessed 20 January 2009). Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFMNI) Northern Ireland (2006) Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge, Belfast. Available

References 159 online at: www.allchildrenni.gov.uk/tenyearstrategy/children.pdf (accessed 20 January 2009). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) Family Database. Available online at: www.oecd.org./els/social/family/database (accessed 30 October 2008). Packman, J. and Hall, C. (1998) From Care to Accommodation: The Implementation of Section 20 of the Children Act, 1989. London: The Stationery Office. Palmer, S. (2006) Toxic Childhood: How the Modern World is Damaging Our Children and What We Can Do About it. London: Orion Books. Pearson, G. (1983) Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Perrons, D. (2006) Squeezed between two agendas: work and childcare in the flexible UK, in J. Lewis (ed.) Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Phillips, J. (1999) Meeting the psychiatric needs of children in foster care: social workers’ views, Psychiatric Bulletin, 21: 609–11. Phung, Viet-Han (2008) Ethnicity and child poverty under New Labour: a research review, Journal of Social Policy and Society, 7(4): 552–64. Piachaud, D. and Sutherland, H. (2001) Child poverty in Britain and the New Labour government, Journal of Social Policy, 30(1): 95–118. Pitcher, D. (2002) Placement with grandparents: the issues for grandparents who care for their grandchildren, Adoption and Fostering, 26(1): 7–14. Pithouse, A. and Crowley, A. (2001) The placement of looked-after children in Wales: a ‘top-down’ perspective, Adoption and Fostering, 25(3): 47–58. Platt, L. (2005) Discovering Child Poverty: the Creation of a Policy Agenda from 1800 to the Present. Bristol: Policy Press. Prendergast, S., Dunne, G. and Telford, D. (2001) A story of ‘difference’, a different story: young homeless lesbian, gay and bisexual people, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21: 64–91. Qualifications Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship. Available online at: www.qca.org/libraryAssets/media/ 6123_crick_report_1998.pdf (accessed 20 January 2009). Quilgars, D. and Pleace, N. (1999) Housing and support services for young people, in J. Rugg (ed.) Young People, Housing and Social Policy. London: Routledge. Quilgars, D., Johnsen, S. and Pleace, N. (2008) Youth Homeless in the UK: A Decade of Progress? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C. and Mayes, D. (1998) Joining New Families: A Study of Adoption and Fostering in Middle Childhood. Chichester: Wiley. Reid, P. and Klee, H. (1999) Young homeless people and service provision, Health and Social Care in the Community, 7: 17–24. Relate (2006a) Relate welcomes further government commitment to homelessness prevention Available online at: www.relate.org.uk/PressRelease_SX11CBA77FE077.html (accessed 24 November 2008). Relate (2006b) A new standards framework for homelessness: mediation standards checklist for local authorities for providing an effective and safe homelessness mediation. Available online at: www.relate.org.uk/documents/NewStandards FrameworkHomelessnessMediation.pdf (accessed 24 November 2008).

160 References Renewal Net (2004) Overview Youth Homelessness. Available online at: www.renewal.net (accessed May 2004). Ridge, T. (2002) Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: From a Child’s Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press. Ridge, T. (2006) Childhood poverty: a barrier to social participation and inclusion, in E. Kay, M. Tisdall, J.M. Davis, M. Hill and A. Prout, (eds) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion. Bristol: Policy Press. Robb, M. (2007) Wellbeing, in M.J. Kehily (ed.) Understanding Youth: Perspectives, Identities and Practices. London: Sage in association with The Open University. Rowlingson, K. and McKay, S. (2002) Lone Parent Families: Gender, Class and State. Harlow: Pearson Educational. Schofield, G. and Beek, M. (2005) Risk and resilience in long-term foster care, British Journal of Social Work, 35: 1293–301. Schofield, G., Thoburn, J., Howell, D. and Dickens, J. (2007) The search for stability and permanence: modelling the pathways of long-stay looked-after children, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 619–42. Scottish Executive (2001) For Scotland’s Children: Better Integrated Children’s Services. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Government (2008) The Vision for Scotland’s Children. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/children’sservics/vision (accessed 20 April 2009). Share, M. and Strain, M. (2008) Making schools and young people responsible: a critical analysis of Ireland’s obesity strategy, Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(3): 234–43. Sharland, E. (2006) Young people, risk taking and risk making: some thoughts for social work, British Journal of Social Work, 36: 247–65. Shelter (2007) Developing a Youth Homelessness Mediation Scheme in Scotland. Briefing paper available online at: www.communities.uk/documents/housing/ pdf/490300.pdf (accessed 30 November 2008). Shelter (2008) Facts for Young People. Available online at: www.england.shelter. org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_tolive/foyers_for|_young_people (accessed 20 December 2008). Sinclair, I. and Wilson, K. (2003) Matches and mismatches: the contribution of carers and children to the success of foster placements. British Journal of Social Work, 33(7): 871–84. Sinclair, I., Wilson, K. and Gibbs, K. (2001) ‘A life more ordinary’: what children want from foster placements, Adoption and Fostering, 25(4): 17–26. Sinclair, I., Gibbs, I. and Wilson, K. (2004) Foster Carers: Why They Stay and Why They Leave. London: Jessica Kingsley. Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Lee, J. and Gibbs, I. (2007) The Pursuit of Permanence: A Study of the English Child Care System. London: Jessica Kingsley. Smith, J., Gilford, S., Kirby, P., O’Reilly, A. and Ing, P. (1996) Bright Lights and Homelessness: Family and Single Homelessness Among Young People in our Cities. London: National Council of YMCAs. Smith, J., Gilford, S. and Sullivan, A. (1997) Young homeless people and their families, Housing Research 229, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Smith, J.M. (1999) Gender and homelessness, in J. Rugg (ed.) Young People, Housing and Social Policy. Routledge: London.

References 161 Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF) Cabinet Office (2007) Reaching Out: Think Family: Analysis and themes from the Families At Risk Review, Cabinet Office. Available online at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/ socialexclusion_task_force/assets/think _families/pdf (accessed 29 October 2008). Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF) Cabinet Office (2008) Think Family: Improving the life chances of families at risk (accessed online 29 October 2008). Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2000) PAT 12: ‘Young People’ Policy Action Team Report Summaries: A compendium. Available online at: www.socialexclusion unit.gov.uk/publications/reports/html/compendium/ (accessed May 2004). Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2001) Consultation on Young Runaways: Background Paper by the Social Exclusion Unit. London: Cabinet Office. Squires, P. (2006) New Labour and the politics of antisocial behaviour, Critical Social Policy 26(1): 144–68. Stalford, H. (2008) The relevance of European Union citizenship to children, in A. Invernizzi and J. Williams (eds) Children and Citizenship. London: Sage. Standing, K. (1999) Lone mothers and ‘parental’ involvement: a contradiction in Policy?, Journal of Social Policy, 28(3): 479–95. Supporting People (2003) What is Supporting People? Available online at: www.spkweb..org.uk/About_Supporting_People/ (accessed 24 November 2008). Sykes, J., Sinclair, I., Gibbs, I. and Wilson, K. (2002) Kinship and stranger foster care: how do they compare?, Adoption and Fostering, 26(2): 39–48. Sure Start (ongoing) National Evaluation of Sure Start. Available online at: www.surestart.gov.uk/research/publications/evaluation/ness/nesspublications (accessed 20 December 2008). The Children’s Society (2006) Good Childhood? A Question for our Times. Available online at: www.goodchildhood.org.uk (accessed 29 November 2008). The Children’s Society (2007) Living on the Edge of Despair: Destitution Amongst Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children. Report summary available online at: www.chilrensociety.org.uk/resources/documents/Research/ (accessed 10 November 2008). The Guardian (2008) http://www.Guardian.co.uk/society/baby_p. Thomas, M. (2002) Children, Family and the State Decision-making and Child Participation. Bristol: Policy Press. Thomlinson, B., Maluccio, A. and Abramczyk (1996) The theory, policy, and practice content of family reunification: an integrated research perspective, Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5): 473–88. Tisdall, E. (2006) Antisocial behaviour legislation meets children’s services: challenging perspectives on children, parents and the state, Critical Social Policy, 26(1): 101–20. Triseliotis, J., Sellick, C. and Short, R. (1995) Foster Care Theory and Practice. London: BAAF. Underdown, A. (2007) Young Children’s Health and Well-Being. Maidenhead: Open University Press. UNICEF (2007) Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, Innocenti Report Card 7, Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

162 References UNICEF (2008a) UNICEF Report Warns of Childcare Disadvantage. Press release available online at: www.unicef.org.uk/press/news (accessed 15 December 2008). UNICEF (2008b) Progress for Children: A World Fit for Children, Statistical review No. 6, December 2007. Available online at: www.childinof.org/files/worldfit_progress_for_children.pdf (accessed 1 December 2008). United Kingdom Parliament (2008) Summary of Children and Young Persons Bill (2007–08). Available online at: www.services.parliament.uk/bills/2007–08/ childrenandyoungpersonshl.html (accessed 20 December 2008). United Nations (UN) (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Geneva: United Nations. United Nations (UN) (2007a) Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger: Tracking the Millennium Goals. Available online at: www.mdgmonitor.org/goal1.cfm (accessed 1 December 2008). United Nations (UN) (2007b) Achieve Universal Primary Education: Tracking the Millennium Goals. Available online at: www.mdgmonitor.org/goal2.cfm (accessed 1 December 2008). United Nations (UN) (2007c) Reduce Child Mortality: Tracking the Millennium Goals. Available online at: www.mdgmonitor.org/goal4.cfm (accessed 1 December 2008). United Nations (UN) (2008) Millennium Development Goals. Available online at: www.un.org.millenniumgoals/ (accessed 15 July 2009). Vernon, J. (2000) Audit and Assessment of Leaving Care Services in London. London: National Children’s Bureau. Wade, J. (2008) The ties that bind: support from birth families and substitute families for young people leaving care, British Journal of Social Work, 38: 39–54. Warnes, A., Crane, M., Whitehead, N. and Fu, R. (2003) Homelessness Factfile. London: Crisis. Warren, J. (2007) Young carers: conventional or exaggerated levels of involvement in domestic and caring tasks?, Children and Society, 2: 136–46. Webster, C. (2006) Race, youth crime and justice, in B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds) Youth Crime and Justice. London: Sage Publications. Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2000) Children and Young People: A Framework for Partnership, Cardiff. Available online at: www.assemblywales.org/ (accessed 20 January 2009). Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2004) Children and Young People: Rights to Action, Cardiff. Available online at: www.assemblywales.org/ (accessed 20 January 2009). Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2005) Childcare is for Children. Available online at: www.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/ Thechildcarestrategyforwales?lang=en&ts=1 (accessed 20 December 2008). Williams, F. (2004) What matters is what works: why every child matters to New Labour. Commentary on the DfES Green Paper Every Child Matters, Critical Social Policy, 24(3): 406–27. Wincup, E., Buckland, G. and Baylis, R. (2003) Youth homelessness and substance use: report to the drugs and alcohol research unit, Findings 191, London, Home Office.

References 163 Winnett, R. (2008) Affluent families are most likely to have obese children, The Telegraph, 13 November 2008, p. 10. Woodcock, J. (2003) The social work assessment of parenting: an exploration, British Journal of Social Work, 33(1): 87–106. World Health Organization (WHO) (2008a) Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Available online at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/ childhood/te (accessed 1 December 2008). World Health Organization (WHO) (2008b) Children’s Environmental Health. Available online at: www.who.int/ceh/en/inex.htm (accessed 1 December 2008). World Health Organization (WHO) (2008c) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Initiatives of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Available online at: www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/childado/en/index.html (accessed 1 December 2008). Yeates, N. (2008) Understanding Global Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. YMCA England (2008) Breaking it Down: Developing Whole-Family Approaches to Youth Homelessness, Press Release (8 December 2008) available online at: www.ymca.org.uk (accessed 10 December 2008). Youth Justice Board (2003) Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme. Available online at: www.yjb.gov.uk (accessed 18 December 2008). Youth Justice Board (2008) Youth Restorative Disposal Schemes. Available online at: www.yjb.gov.uk (accessed 18 December 2008). Youth Taskforce (2008) Young people’s views on their portrayal and anti-social behaviour enforcement. Youth Taskforce Opinion Poll available online at: www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/youthmatters/ytf/action plan (accessed 24 November 2008).

Index

Aiming High, 49–50 Arthur, 91, 92 Antisocial Behaviour, 97, 104 Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003, 98 ASBOs, 95, 98 Scotland, 101–102 Brown, 94, 95, 96, 104 Child poverty, 73–74 costs, 84 children/young people’s experiences, 86–87 devolution, 83 disability, 76 disadvantage, 16, 140–141 health inequalities, 126–127 lone parents, 76 measuring child poverty, 75 targets, 84–85 well-being, 138 Children Act 2004, 125 CPAG, 73, 76–77, 78, 85, 126 Children’s Plan, 11–13 Childcare, 22, 31–33, 120 National Childcare Strategy, 81 Children and Young Persons Bill, 58–59 Childhood Obesity, 131–136 commercialization, 136 Europe, 135 explanations, 134–135

parents, 133–134 stigma, 134 tackling obesity, 131–134 what works?, 134–136 WHO, 145–146 Citizenship, 22 children and young people, 39–42 contribution, 140 education, 45–46 European Union, 52–53 participation, 70 global, 147 see also ECM and YM; Rights Youth Matters, 47–49 Crime and Disorder Act (1998), 95 truancy, 96–97 Crime and Disorder Act Scotland (1998), 101 Colton, 60–61 Curtis, 2008 Devolution, 3 child poverty, 83 children and young people, 52 Every Child Matters (ECM) childhood obesity, 132 citizenship, 46–47 homelessness, 114–115, 116, 123, 125–126 outcomes, 9–11

166 Index poverty, 87 safety, 136–137 see also Risk; Rights Every Parent Matters (EPM), 13–15, 119 Family(ies) definition, 26 approaches, 18 births, 27, 28 cohabitation, 26 explicit/implicit policies, 8 marriage and civil unions, 26–27 marriage and divorces Supporting Families, 1–2 Fortin, 43, 44 France, 79–80, 111 Garrett, 70–71, 98 Gender employment, 29–31 homelessness, 109 housing, 97 parenting, 14–15, 142 truancy, 96–97 Gladwin and Collins, 19–20, 136–137 Globalization, 143–144 transnational organizations, 143–144 Griggs and Walker, 80, 81, 86, 126–127, 133 Hirsch, 73–74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 84, 85, 86 Holland and Tarnfalk, 102–104 Homelessness, 107–123 characteristics, 109–110 Care Leavers, 110–111 defining, 108 drugs and substance abuse, 116 families, 113, 115, 119–120 measuring, 108–109 mental health, 115 mediation, 117, 118–119, 123 policies, 116–119 risk, 112–115 support, 120–121 supported lodgings, 117, 121–122 young runaways, 111–112 Hunter and Nixon, 97

Lang and Rayner, 131, 132, 134–135 Lone Parents, 26, 34–36 risk and poverty, 76 poverty, 77–78 Looked-after children birth families, 66–67 care leavers, 69 Care Matters, 59–50 foster care, 60–63 kinship care, 67–69 mental health, 63–64 numbers, 57–58 policies, 58–60 resilience, 64–65 see also Race and Ethnicity McAra, 101 Mental Health, 127–131, 146–147 CAMHS, 129–130 ethnic groups, 131 homelessness, 115 learning disability, 129 looked-after children, 129 poverty, 131 stressors, 128 young offenders, 130 see also National Service Framework (NSF) Mental Health Foundation, 115–116 National Service Framework, (NSF) 126, 127 Standard 9, 128–129 Muncie, 94, 95–96 Muncie and Goldson, 92, 93, 94, 98, 104 New Labour citizenship, 23–24 communitarianism, 19, 96 crime, 96, 102, 104 social policies, 8–9 Third Way, 1 work, 21–22 Parents and Parenting, 141–142, 143 anxiety, 137 economic well-being, 21–22, 141 parenting deficit, 70

Index Parenting Orders, 99 Scotland, 101–102 see also Childhood Obesity; Gender; EPM; Risk; Rights surveillance, 24 Think Family, 15–18, 87, 123 Phung, 76, 78–79 Quilgars, 108–109, 113 Race and ethnicity, 65–66, 142–143 risk of poverty, 76 ethnic penalties, 78 Pakistani and Bangladeshi, 78–79 youth crime, 92 homelessness, 110 Raising Expectations, 76, 77 Responsibility parents, 21–22, 95 see also ASBOs; Childhood Obesity; Gender; Parents Responsibilization, 23, 143 Ridge, 76, 86–87 Rights children, 20–21, 42–43, 147 parents, 20–21 see also ASBOs; Child Poverty; Homelessness; Conclusion UNCRC, 43–45 Risk ‘a risk’, 19–20 anxiety, 137 ‘at risk’, 19–20, 113–114, 140–141 homelessness, 114–115 mental health, 128 risk and policies, 23 risk taking behaviours, 20 see also Youth Justice; Youth Homelessness Share and Strain, 131, 132, 133 Schofield and Beek, 64–65 Sinclair and Wilson, 63–63 Scotland vision for children, 11 looked after children, 58 youth crime, 101–102 see also ASBOs; Child Poverty

167

Standing, 95, 95–97 Sure Start Children’s Centres, 14, 82–83 Thomas, 70 Tisdall, 98, 101–102 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC), 66, 110 Underdown, 80, 127 UN, 144 Millennium Development Goals, 145 UNICEF, 126, 144–145 UNCRC, 144 Well-being, 126, 135 risks, 136–137 child abuse–138 inclusion, 138 environmental health, 146 see also Childhood Obesity; Mental Health; UNICEF WHO, 145–147 Yeates, 143 Youth crime, 91 drugs, 93–94 poverty, 79–80 perceptions of, 90–91 prison, 93 pro-social behaviour 105violence, 92–93 see also ASBOs Homelessness; Wellbeing; Conclusion YMCA, 119, 123 Youth Justice, 94 developments, 94–95 Family Intervention Projects (FIPs), 99, 100–101 Sweden, 102–104 risk, 104 Youth Intervention Projects (YIPs), 105 see also ASBOs; Parents Youth Task Action Plan (YTAP), 98–99

Related books from Open University Press Purchase from www.openup.co.uk or order through your local bookseller

TRANSPORT, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY Sally Tomlinson This book provides a context for understanding education policy which is currently missing from education and social policy courses. It should be compulsory reading. Len Barton, Institute of Education, University of London The acclaimed first edition of Education in a Post-Welfare Society provided a critical overview of education policy since 1945. It demonstrated how a relatively decentralised education system became a system in which funding, teaching and curriculum are centrally controlled and privatisation encouraged, with education becoming a prop for global market economy rather than a pillar of the welfare state. The second edition continues the policy story up to 2005, covering two terms of a New Labour government and their plans for a third term. It also continues an examination of the relationship of education policy to social class, race, gender and the economy, paying attention to the educational disadvantages of some ethnic groups and refugee children. The book includes chronologies of education acts, reports and initiatives and summaries of major legislation. This is an invaluable resource for all those concerned with social policy and education, including educational researchers, professionals and politicians. Contents Introduction – Social Democratic Consensus? Education 1945–79 – Market Forces Gather: Education 1980–87 – Creating Competition: Education 1988–94 – The Consequences of Competition: Education 1994–97 – New Labour and Education: 1997– 2000 – Diversity, Selection and Privatisation 2000–2005 – Centralising Life-Long Learning 1997–2005 – Education and the Middle classes – Equity issues: Race and Gender – Education and the Economy – Conclusion: Education in a Post-Welfare Society 2010 184pp 978–0–335–21872–1 (Paperback)

978–0–335–21873–8 (Hardback)

SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE CONCEPTS AND COMPARISONS Robert Walker • • •

What are the objectives of social security and social assistance provisions? How can we establish whether these provisions are effective? How do countries differ in the design and effectiveness of their social security systems?

This introductory textbook provides a foundation for the systematic study of social security and means-tested social assistance. The book is structured around a model of policy evaluation, which focuses attention on the multiple objectives and outcomes of social security and provides the basis for a multidisciplinary approach. It progresses from an examination of the varied objectives of social security, via a consideration of key implementation issues, to the establishment of measures of effectiveness and efficiency. Throughout the text theoretical issues are illustrated with reference to the experiences of six countries: the United Kingdom, the USA, Australia, Germany, Sweden and South Korea, to provide an international comparative framework. This is a key textbook for students of social and public policy and economics and essential reading for anyone interested in social security, social welfare and the welfare state. Contents Objectives – Mechanisms – Effectiveness – Efficiency – Contemporary Influences – Postscript – Glossary – Bibliography 2004 368pp 978–0–335–20934–7 (Paperback)

978–0–335–20935–4 (Hardback)

TRANSPORT, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY Michael Cahill This topical book examines the consequences of our car-based transport system for social policy. Readers are introduced to the complexity of the relationship between transport and society together with the debates about the social inequalities produced by the transport system and the connection between social inequality, social exclusion and transport disadvantage. The social inequalities which result from the ways we travel are related to key areas of social policy. The book also traces the move from public to private transport during the last half century in the UK. Adopting a lifecourse approach Transport, Environment and Society demonstrates the impact of car dependence on children, adults, disabled people and older people, demonstrating the ways in which transport and mobility policy have changed perceptions of freedom, risk and safety. Throughout the book, the environmental impact of transport is kept to the fore. Reviewing the evidence on the social impact of transport the book discusses the ways in which a sustainable transport policy could emerge and argues that questions of mobility and transport should be integral to social policies which are concerned with environmental and social justice. The book assumes no previous knowledge of transport or transport policy and outlines the roles and functions of the relevant departments and agencies. Written primarily for social science students, Transport, Environment and Society is also key reading for environmental studies and transport studies students who need to understand the impact of transport on society. Contents Connections: Transport, Environment and Social Policy – Policies, Politics and Protests – From public to private transport – Life and Death – Drivers: men, women and transport – Non-drivers – Childhood – Disability – Old Age – Well-connected: transport and social policy 2010 184pp 978–0–335–21872–1 (Paperback)

978–0–335–21873–8 (Hardback)

Parents,children…state pb_Parents,children…state pb 04/01/2010 11:26 Page 1

Parents, Children, Young People and the State This book provides an exploration of the social policies and practices of the Blair and Brown-led Labour governments in relation to families, children and young people in the United Kingdom.

While there has been considerable improvement in the lives of many children and young people during this period, there have also been many headlines about abuse and failures of the care system. Moreover, the UK is still below the average in terms of child poverty within Europe, and the wellbeing of children and young people is of concern. The author has taken a rigorous look at policy developments during this period focusing on key areas such as:

• • • • • •

Health and well-being Child Poverty Risks, rights and responsibilities Young people being ‘a risk’ and ‘at risk’ Youth homelessness Looked after children

Parents, Children, Young People and the State provides an accessible analysis of this key area for students, lecturers, researchers and policy makers with an interest in the well-being of children and young people now and in the future.

Cover design: del norte (Leeds) ltd

www.openup.co.uk

Series Editor: David Gladstone

Shaw

Sandra Shaw is a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Salford, UK, and has taught Social Policy for over twenty years. She has been a member of the UK Social Policy Association Executive Committee, and a representative on the steering group of SWAP, the HEFCE subject centre for Social Policy and Social Work. Her current research interests include: children, young people and families; comparative and global social policy; well-being; and gender.

SS ee rr ii ee ss EE dd ii tt oo rr :: D D aa vv ii dd G G ll aa dd ss tt oo nn ee Introducing Social Policy


Although not a commentary solely on the policies of New Labour, the book examines Labour’s ‘Third Way’, by widening out the debate to consider family welfare policies in the context of the European Union, globalization and international policy groups such as UNICEF. Within the UK, the Every Child Matters policy agenda provides a context for the areas considered.

II n n tt rr o od du uc c ii n ng g S So oc c ii a a ll P Po o ll ii c c yy


■

Sandra Shaw

Parents, Children, Young People and the State (Introducing Social Policy)

Young People, Housing and Social Policy

Working with Parents of Young People: Research, Policy and Practice

Drugs (Introducing Social Policy)

Reconceptualizing Social Policy (Introducing Social Policy)

Drugs: Policy and Politics (Introducing Social Policy)

Comparative Social Policy: Theory and Research (Introducing Social Policy)

Children, Young People And Social Inclusion: Participation for What?

Youth policy and social inclusion: critical debates with young people

Nursing Children and Young People with ADHD

Lone parents, employment and social policy

Cancer in Children and Young People

Emergency Care of Children and Young People

Transport, Environment and Society (Introducing Social Policy)

Race and Education (Introducing Social Policy)

Teaching Young Children Social Studies

Young People and Social Change (Sociology and Social Change)

People and the State

Children Behaving Badly: Peer Violence Between Children and Young People (Wiley Child Protection & Policy Series)

Young Children and Worship

Talking With Children And Young People About Death And Dying

I am Special: Introducing Children and Young People to their Autistic Spectrum Disorder

Promoting Social Justice for Young Children

Children, Welfare and the State

Nursing Care of Children and Young People with Chronic Illness

Children, Welfare and the State

Nursing Care of Children and Young People with Chronic Illness

Young people and offending: education, youth justice and social inclusion

Introducing English as an Additional Language to Young Children

Parents, Children, Young People and the State (Introducing Social Policy)

Young People, Housing and Social Policy

Working with Parents of Young People: Research, Policy and Practice

Drugs (Introducing Social Policy)

Reconceptualizing Social Policy (Introducing Social Policy)

Drugs: Policy and Politics (Introducing Social Policy)

Comparative Social Policy: Theory and Research (Introducing Social Policy)

Children, Young People And Social Inclusion: Participation for What?

Youth policy and social inclusion: critical debates with young people

Nursing Children and Young People with ADHD

Lone parents, employment and social policy

Cancer in Children and Young People

Emergency Care of Children and Young People

Transport, Environment and Society (Introducing Social Policy)

Race and Education (Introducing Social Policy)

Teaching Young Children Social Studies

Young People and Social Change (Sociology and Social Change)

People and the State

Children Behaving Badly: Peer Violence Between Children and Young People (Wiley Child Protection & Policy Series)

Young Children and Worship

Talking With Children And Young People About Death And Dying

I am Special: Introducing Children and Young People to their Autistic Spectrum Disorder

Promoting Social Justice for Young Children

Children, Welfare and the State

Nursing Care of Children and Young People with Chronic Illness

Children, Welfare and the State

Nursing Care of Children and Young People with Chronic Illness

Young people and offending: education, youth justice and social inclusion

Introducing English as an Additional Language to Young Children

Recommend Documents