Safeguard services for the vulnerable

---

ePolitix.com speaks to Matthew Downie, head of parliamentary and public affairs at Action for Children, about why systemic policy change is needed to ensure early-intervention services are not the first thing to be cut in times of austerity, and are put on a sustainable footing for the future.

Action for Children is calling for systemic change so that crucial early-intervention services for vulnerable children and young people are valued and protected in the same way as other services for young people. Why is it that these services are cut back so quickly at times like this?

I think one of the major reasons is that a lot of the crisis or reactive services which work in exactly the opposite way to early intervention come with a lot of legal duties behind them, and are things that you absolutely cannot cut.

So when money is tight, local authorities often have little choice but to cut the things they don't want to cut, which are the things that make the difference in the long term – because they absolutely have to keep the things that the press and legal duties are most concentrated on. That unfortunately means, in full knowledge of doing so, lots of local authorities are cutting the services they cherish and storing up problems for future generations.

Can you give an illustration of the early-intervention services you are talking about?

Early intervention is not just about finding problems in the youngest children and their families, it is about intervening as early as possible when a problem arises, however old the child is. That is what we do every day.

We have over 400 services across the UK. We work with vulnerable children, young people, and families to provide long-term practical solutions that break cycles of deprivation and neglect. When a problem is picked up, the right kind of support across the myriad of local agencies is crucial. This can be done through things like Sure Start children's centres, intensive family support services and meaningful activities for young people on the cusp of difficulties and a plethora of other ways.

We have achieved enormous results when it comes to reducing levels of family breakdown and dramatically improving outcomes of children that really matter, such as child health, attainment and emotional wellbeing. We are also able to demonstrate real returns on the investment we make at local level, both in terms of the economic savings made and the social returns made by preventing deeper problems taking hold.

The crucial element is finding problems as soon as they arrive. You can only do that if you know a family, you know an individual and you know a community. That is why things like children's centres are so important because if you are embedded within a community and you know people, you are much more likely to be able to pick up those problems. That is what we do time and time again.

It is not just Action for Children who provide such services and we want to see services safeguarded and promoted, whoever is providing them.

The next generation of children, and especially those most vulnerable and dependent on help, should not suffer from cutbacks, now or at any time in the future.

Rather than fighting cuts generation after generation, do you see drastic policy change as the only way forward, so children's services really are safeguarded?

Yes. Something fundamental needs to change in the way in which public services for vulnerable children and young people are planned and delivered, so they are sustainable. You would never think when times are tough, that you would stop teaching children or remove their right to education or healthcare, and this should be the way we approach preventative social services for children and young people in the future.

Do you think there is an issue with the way in which policy decisions are actually made? Is there a need for greater cross-departmental-working? Do you think there is a change in attitude needed on the side of policymakers?

Nobody is arguing against the concept of early-intervention services. There is a consensus around the economic and social reasons for early intervention and the sort of things that do work. At the same time there are people who feel it is okay to make the uncomfortable decisions when times are tough. That is what needs challenging and completely overhauling.

The government at the moment is keen to embed early intervention, but at the same time it is not addressing the legal framework that needs to be in place to ensure it happens. It is also reducing the number of requirements on local authorities and the ring-fencing of grants that ensure early-intervention services are available on the ground.

There is a lot of rhetoric, but transformational change in the way policy is conceived and delivered does not yet match that rhetoric.

If nothing is done now, what do you think the consequence will be for the next generation of children and young people, or even the generation coming through now?

By removing services that intervene early, particularly where there is a complexity and chaos in the lives of children and young people, it is inevitable that more and more people will require crisis and acute and reactive services. More children will require expensive and reactive interventions and you will see an increase in mental health problems, family breakdown, anti-social behaviour etc.

It is not much of a stretch to see that any reduction in the importance or funds available for early intervention services will have huge effects on generations going forward. Levels of child neglect and intergenerational deprivation in the UK are already unacceptable, and must not be allowed to get worse. We need a new settlement around how such local services are valued and protected for the long term.