The destruction and violence that went on in London during the protest about the government's intention to increase student tuition fees is to be roundly condemned but there should be no surprise on the government's part - particularly the Liberal Democrat wing of the government - that many of our young people are angry about the breaking of a solemn promise and about their views being dismissed as fantasy.
Over time those who have been personally and professionally involved in the care of children and young people get to know that when parents break the promises they make to their children, the children are upset. If a parent breaks a solemnly made promise it is destabilising for the child because it threatens the trust that is necessary in the relationship between parent and child. When promises are broken frequently there is a significant chance that the child will not only become troubled but may also become troublesome. When you feel powerless, what else is there to do if those you trust to know better than you continually do what they have demanded that you do not do ? for example, break promises.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, students throughout the United Kingdom enjoyed free further and higher education. As a state we should have been proud of this. Now only Scotland provides its young people with free higher education. Many of us who benefited from a free higher education were also provided with a grant to help us with our living expenses, and, as we left home, often for the first time, we were warned by our parents and elders not to get into debt. This sensible advice was sidelined by the big financial institutions' drive to increase their customers' debt and to increase the numbers of debtors. We know how that ended.
Members of the last "New Labour" government should hang their heads in shame for having, in effect, made student debt compulsory and so now it is appalling to see the Liberal Democrat faction in the coalition government fail to pin its pre-election pledges to the mast of free higher education. The government says we cannot afford to provide free post-school education for our youth. It suggests we are financially naive to consider it. If this is so, how can we afford to save the banks from the consequences of what in the heady pre-general election days Mr. Cable described as their outrageous financial activities ? how can we still afford to allow many employees of these institutions to pocket obscene amounts of money in bonuses ? and how can we afford to finance wars (in which many of our young people have already lost their lives) that few want or believe necessary ? If we can afford to do these things and yet cannot give our young people free higher education, then the whole fallacious edifice deserves to fall.
The vote has been counted. Government policy will for the time being prevail but perhaps the many who are sympathetic to the student's cause should continue the protest peacefully, each in his or her own way, to remind the government - intent it seems on marginalising our young people - that the students were and are not on on their own. Their issues remain everyone's issues. It is not, as Mr Clegg would have us believe, our young people who are living in "Dreamland."
( First posted on the goodenoughcaring.com home page on December 10th, 2010).
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Friday, 10 December 2010
Freedom cannot be given : Homer Lane’s "outrageous" thoughts about children’s play.
It may be surprising, though perhaps not to those who have been engaged in residential child care, that it is a vocation which has inspired some of the most original and creative thinking about the healthy nurture of children. One such thinker is the controversial, and for a number of people, the outrageous American Homer Lane who came to England in 1913 to take over the “Little Commonwealth.” Readers may find it fruitful, even if they are ambivalent about its implications, to think about this, one of his many ideas about childhood.
When suggesting that adults should withdraw from their pedestal of authority and allow children to sort out their own difficulties in an environment of encouragement and freedom, he proposed,
“ Freedom cannot be given. It is taken by children and demands the privilege of conscious wrong-doing.”
Lane believed that adults should nurture children’s instinct to play and allow children the time and space to run wild and free with their friends. He thought that we should respect the nature of childhood play and its unconscious, yet fundamental purpose, that is, to help children grow healthily.
Reference
Lane, H. (1928) Talks to Parents and Teachers London Allen and Unwin
Recommended reading
Wills, W. David. Homer Lane: A Biography , London, Allen & Unwin, 1964
First posted on the www.goodenoughcaring.com home page on December 3rd, 2010
When suggesting that adults should withdraw from their pedestal of authority and allow children to sort out their own difficulties in an environment of encouragement and freedom, he proposed,
“ Freedom cannot be given. It is taken by children and demands the privilege of conscious wrong-doing.”
Lane believed that adults should nurture children’s instinct to play and allow children the time and space to run wild and free with their friends. He thought that we should respect the nature of childhood play and its unconscious, yet fundamental purpose, that is, to help children grow healthily.
Reference
Lane, H. (1928) Talks to Parents and Teachers London Allen and Unwin
Recommended reading
Wills, W. David. Homer Lane: A Biography , London, Allen & Unwin, 1964
First posted on the www.goodenoughcaring.com home page on December 3rd, 2010
Monday, 29 November 2010
We’ve never had it so good : up to a point Lord Young
Lord David Young, former favourite of Margaret Thatcher and now the current prime minister’s ex-enterprise advisor, suggested that we should all stop complaining because most of us have never had it so good. Up to a point Lord Young. Those millions of us who, for the time being, are still in reasonably well paid jobs or receiving adequate pensions do have it good and it may even be that some of us have never had it so good. We can pay the mortgage on our house. We can feed and clothe our kids. We can even afford to spare some of our cash to give to charities providing for the "deserving" if not the "undeserving" needy for whom the commonwealth of the state no longer wants to take responsibility. Our kids will get places at the new free schools because they have the right social fit. They will eat healthy Jamie Oliver style food and will not become obese because they will have access to increasingly scarce playing fields and expensive recreational resources.
Even if Lord Young’s remarks reflect what the coalition government would really like to say he had to walk off into the sunset because his sentiments didn’t harmonise with the “we are all suffering together equally” propaganda. Should we stop complaining and keep our noses to our own grindstones and not look about too much at what else is going on around us ? Or, should we have a care and provide without condescension for those of our community who are struggling to bring their children up by doing essential jobs which pay them little money, for those whose health does not permit them to work, and for those who are losing their jobs, their homes and their dignity ? These are the people who are increasingly being seen by politicians more as an economic problem than as human beings.
Struggling against inequality seems to have become unfashionable. Have we really been longing for a return of those heady days of the 1980s and 1990s when we were “in it for me and mine” ?
Well, you have to be careful in land of “we’re all in it together.” This is especially so if you not only believe every child is uniquely different, but you also think equality is about making certain that children have, whatever their family background when they are born, equal access to, and an equal share of, all the resources of a society to ensure they grow up physically and emotionally healthy. These days such thoughts will not make you influential. They are considered idealistic. We should dare to say that they are not. Unfearful adults can make this notion of equality happen.
So it is unsurprising to hear the home secretary Teresa May who is also the equalities minister decry the last government’s Equality Act as “socialism in one clause.” True, the Labour government was itself shamefully ineffective in dealing with child poverty and perhaps pushed the Equality Act through as if seeking absolution for the guilt it felt when it found that all the research findings it received concerning child poverty concluded that the gap in income between families from middle class backgrounds and those from poor backgrounds (notice we have left the very wealthy out of this) was getting wider and wider to the extent that it had become impossible for poor families to find a ladder long enough to take them out of the poverty trap.
In response we may wring our hands and say “There’s really nothing we can do about all this.”
Many of us may be having it good, but do we feel good about it ?
(First posted at the goodenoughcaring.com website home page at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on November 22nd, 2010)
Even if Lord Young’s remarks reflect what the coalition government would really like to say he had to walk off into the sunset because his sentiments didn’t harmonise with the “we are all suffering together equally” propaganda. Should we stop complaining and keep our noses to our own grindstones and not look about too much at what else is going on around us ? Or, should we have a care and provide without condescension for those of our community who are struggling to bring their children up by doing essential jobs which pay them little money, for those whose health does not permit them to work, and for those who are losing their jobs, their homes and their dignity ? These are the people who are increasingly being seen by politicians more as an economic problem than as human beings.
Struggling against inequality seems to have become unfashionable. Have we really been longing for a return of those heady days of the 1980s and 1990s when we were “in it for me and mine” ?
Well, you have to be careful in land of “we’re all in it together.” This is especially so if you not only believe every child is uniquely different, but you also think equality is about making certain that children have, whatever their family background when they are born, equal access to, and an equal share of, all the resources of a society to ensure they grow up physically and emotionally healthy. These days such thoughts will not make you influential. They are considered idealistic. We should dare to say that they are not. Unfearful adults can make this notion of equality happen.
So it is unsurprising to hear the home secretary Teresa May who is also the equalities minister decry the last government’s Equality Act as “socialism in one clause.” True, the Labour government was itself shamefully ineffective in dealing with child poverty and perhaps pushed the Equality Act through as if seeking absolution for the guilt it felt when it found that all the research findings it received concerning child poverty concluded that the gap in income between families from middle class backgrounds and those from poor backgrounds (notice we have left the very wealthy out of this) was getting wider and wider to the extent that it had become impossible for poor families to find a ladder long enough to take them out of the poverty trap.
In response we may wring our hands and say “There’s really nothing we can do about all this.”
Many of us may be having it good, but do we feel good about it ?
(First posted at the goodenoughcaring.com website home page at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on November 22nd, 2010)
Monday, 22 November 2010
Something to consider : Care in Adolescence
Reflecting on the vicissitudes of adolescence, D.W. Winnicott wrote
"There exists one real cure for adolescence, and only one, and this cannot be of interest to the boy or girl who is in its throes. The cure for adolescence belongs to the passage of time and to the gradual maturational processes; these together do in the end result in the emergence of the adult person. This process cannot be hurried or slowed up, though indeed it can be broken into and destroyed.
We do need to remind ourselves that although adolescence is something that we always have with us, each adolescent boy or girl grows up in the course of a few years into an adult. Parents know this… and public irritation with the phenomenon of adolescence can easily be evoked by cheap journalism and by the public pronouncements of persons in key positions, with adolescence referred to as a problem, and the fact that each individual adolescent is in process of becoming a society-minded adult is left out of the argument".
D.W. Winnicott (1961) “Adolescence : struggling through the doldrums” in Family and Individual Development London Routledge (1989) p79
There is a lengthier discussion about adolescence in chapter 4 of “In Care, in Therapy” at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/WritingsArticle.aspx?cpid=31
(First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring/ on November 18th, 2010
"There exists one real cure for adolescence, and only one, and this cannot be of interest to the boy or girl who is in its throes. The cure for adolescence belongs to the passage of time and to the gradual maturational processes; these together do in the end result in the emergence of the adult person. This process cannot be hurried or slowed up, though indeed it can be broken into and destroyed.
We do need to remind ourselves that although adolescence is something that we always have with us, each adolescent boy or girl grows up in the course of a few years into an adult. Parents know this… and public irritation with the phenomenon of adolescence can easily be evoked by cheap journalism and by the public pronouncements of persons in key positions, with adolescence referred to as a problem, and the fact that each individual adolescent is in process of becoming a society-minded adult is left out of the argument".
D.W. Winnicott (1961) “Adolescence : struggling through the doldrums” in Family and Individual Development London Routledge (1989) p79
There is a lengthier discussion about adolescence in chapter 4 of “In Care, in Therapy” at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/WritingsArticle.aspx?cpid=31
(First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring/ on November 18th, 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Something to agree with
When talking about the qualities of those who work to support and care for troubled children and young people, Clare Winnicott said,
“Acceptance goes very deep. It is not a passive thing, but an active effort on the part of the worker to know the individual as he is, as a person in his own right, with his own life to live, and his own intrinsic value as a human being. This does not mean that we accept or approve all that an individual does or says, but that we try to reach behind the delinquent act and the deceitful language to the suffering in the human being which causes the symptoms that we see. Acceptance in this sense is in itself a basic therapeutic experience. For one thing it is the opposite of rejection, but in a more positive way it implies to the individual a sense of value, of worth, which is essential to life.”
Clare Winnicott (1964) Casework and the Residential Treatment of Children Hitchin, Hertfordshire Codicote Press pp 28-29.
(First posted on the goodenoughcaring website http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on October 17th,2010)
If you would like to read more about the work of Clare Winnicott and her influence on Donald Winnicott visit Joel Kanter's article at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/JournalArticle.aspx?cpid=91
“Acceptance goes very deep. It is not a passive thing, but an active effort on the part of the worker to know the individual as he is, as a person in his own right, with his own life to live, and his own intrinsic value as a human being. This does not mean that we accept or approve all that an individual does or says, but that we try to reach behind the delinquent act and the deceitful language to the suffering in the human being which causes the symptoms that we see. Acceptance in this sense is in itself a basic therapeutic experience. For one thing it is the opposite of rejection, but in a more positive way it implies to the individual a sense of value, of worth, which is essential to life.”
Clare Winnicott (1964) Casework and the Residential Treatment of Children Hitchin, Hertfordshire Codicote Press pp 28-29.
(First posted on the goodenoughcaring website http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on October 17th,2010)
If you would like to read more about the work of Clare Winnicott and her influence on Donald Winnicott visit Joel Kanter's article at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/JournalArticle.aspx?cpid=91
Saturday, 16 October 2010
“We’re all in this together” : a question of child benefits and fairness
Perhaps we should welcome the coalition government’s assurance of the payment of child benefit to families with two parenting adults whose combined earnings are £86,000 per annum, even though it seems we must also accept - because otherwise it would create too much bureaucracy - that it is better for children who are in families with only one adult earning £45.000 in total not to receive any child benefit at all. It is to avoid bizarre situations like this arising that legislation needs modifying clauses and that we do need sufficient ‘bureaucrats’ in town halls and government institutions to make sure that unjust anomalies like this do not operate and that government edicts are moderated. Of course the officials in council offices, county halls and government ministries may soon no longer be available to help us avoid such injustice.
In any event the new coalition government insists “we are all in this together” and that poor children should not suffer. What a good time to make sure that all children in our community benefit in all things and to the same degree. Would it not be fairer to say that at birth no child should be poorer than another and that families and communities should share their wealth with all children equally ? Is the child of the wealthy captain of industry, or indeed the child of parents with combined earnings of £86,000 any more deserving of our planet’s resources than those of the child of an office cleaner working for £11,000 per annum ?
Is it fair that the prime minister, or indeed a social work team leader is paid more than someone who looks after people who are frail ? What is our response when questions like these are raised ? “What a ridiculously naive notion !” or “Well, up to a point” or “I like the idea, but how practical is it ?”
If a radical gesture towards equality for all children is not acceptable to the majority of people in our community, that may have to be accepted but, given that this is the case, let’s not listen to either politicians or indeed ourselves declaring that we really want to build a fairer society. Let’s all at least be honest if this is our view : we prefer to be richer, better educated, healthier and more powerful than others.
This article is written to a background of worrying news about children excluded from their mainstream schools. To be sure these are predominantly children from our least affluent families. Equally certain is that they are being excluded by mainstream schools which have clearly rejected the tub thumping idea “we are all in this together.”
A growing number of readers are writing to inform us that projects and centres which have been successfully providing for children excluded from their schools are under threat of closure and that many of the staff of these resources have already been served with redundancy notices. Where’s the togetherness and fairness here ?
(Originally posted on the goodenoughcaring hom page on October 5th, 2010)
Comments
Although not directly referring to the above article, David Cameron's thoughts on fairness expressed in his October 6th speech to the Conservative Party conference make interesting reading.
"I think it's time for a new conversation about what fairness really means. Fairness isn't just about who gets help from the state. The other part of the equation is who gives that help, through their taxes. Fairness means giving people what they deserve - and what people deserve depends on how they behave."
David Cameron, October 6th, 2010
In any event the new coalition government insists “we are all in this together” and that poor children should not suffer. What a good time to make sure that all children in our community benefit in all things and to the same degree. Would it not be fairer to say that at birth no child should be poorer than another and that families and communities should share their wealth with all children equally ? Is the child of the wealthy captain of industry, or indeed the child of parents with combined earnings of £86,000 any more deserving of our planet’s resources than those of the child of an office cleaner working for £11,000 per annum ?
Is it fair that the prime minister, or indeed a social work team leader is paid more than someone who looks after people who are frail ? What is our response when questions like these are raised ? “What a ridiculously naive notion !” or “Well, up to a point” or “I like the idea, but how practical is it ?”
If a radical gesture towards equality for all children is not acceptable to the majority of people in our community, that may have to be accepted but, given that this is the case, let’s not listen to either politicians or indeed ourselves declaring that we really want to build a fairer society. Let’s all at least be honest if this is our view : we prefer to be richer, better educated, healthier and more powerful than others.
This article is written to a background of worrying news about children excluded from their mainstream schools. To be sure these are predominantly children from our least affluent families. Equally certain is that they are being excluded by mainstream schools which have clearly rejected the tub thumping idea “we are all in this together.”
A growing number of readers are writing to inform us that projects and centres which have been successfully providing for children excluded from their schools are under threat of closure and that many of the staff of these resources have already been served with redundancy notices. Where’s the togetherness and fairness here ?
(Originally posted on the goodenoughcaring hom page on October 5th, 2010)
Comments
Although not directly referring to the above article, David Cameron's thoughts on fairness expressed in his October 6th speech to the Conservative Party conference make interesting reading.
"I think it's time for a new conversation about what fairness really means. Fairness isn't just about who gets help from the state. The other part of the equation is who gives that help, through their taxes. Fairness means giving people what they deserve - and what people deserve depends on how they behave."
David Cameron, October 6th, 2010
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Tribal loses residential child care contract : two cheers rather than three ?
Visitors to the goodenoughcaring site may remember that in March, 2010 we were critical of the last government's decision to award a contract to the private consultancy organisation, theTribal Group. In order to fulfil this contract Tribal agreed to offer extensive support to the residential child care sector. At the same time the government ended the funding for the National Centre for Excellence and Residential Child Care (NCERCC). This was a decision which was met with wide dismay in the sector.
Yesterday, September 7th, 2010 the Department of Education announced,
"The department is today launching a new programme of work to drive improvements in children’s homes, which will be led by the sector and the department. As a result, the department will no longer be awarding an external contract to Tribal to deliver this work."
The department’s statement goes on to say,
"Considerable resources have already been spent trying to raise standards, and while there have been some improvements, there is much more to be done. Therefore, instead of reinvesting in an external contract, ministers have decided that the most effective and cost-effective way of achieving this change is to work in partnership with the sector to review what is working well and to identify areas for improvement."
In our view it is wise of the new government to seek to work genuinely with the sector because the latter carries the necessary expertise which Tribal patently did not. Our hope now is that the government will seek partnership not only with the senior leaders managers of the big statutory, voluntary and independent child care organisations as child care training and education bodies, but that they will genuinely engage with both operational managers and practitioners.
However this is one of those developments which perhaps calls for two cheers rather than three. We are mindful of what was lost at the time of the decision to award Tribal a contract and that was the National Centre for Excellence in Residential child Care (NCERCC). While the government says no new external contracts will be awarded, it is to be hoped that it will be seeking, in its search for the “most effective and cost-effective way” to “raise standards” and achieve change, discussions with the National Children’s Bureau and its residential child care section about the possibility of establishing within the sector something like NCERCC which was an initiative that was generally respected as a supportive and integral part of residential child care in England.
Nonetheless this news gives hope that the expertise which the residential child care sector holds within it will be now be heard, respected and used to develop residential child care services.
This item first appeared on the http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ home page on September 7th, 2010
Comments
Noel Howard writes : It sounds like two cheers as you say but two better than none.
In Ireland at the moment there is a bit of a lull but much of the sentiment which persists about residential child care concerns the embargo on recruitment, cutbacks, closures and amalgamations of services.
Interesting isn't it that the UK government (and a Conservative one at that) has at least listened ? In our Irish the forthcoming issue of Curam there is a piece about Theresa May's welcome "about turn" from the previous government's policy on the vetting of child workers.
David Williams comments :It is good news that the United Kingdom government seems to be making a meaningful attempt to engage with coal face workers and practitioners in the sector as to raise standards and quality of care, although it is saddening to see in the midst of all the bureaucratic clammering the loss of the NCERCC. In Ireland at the moment we also seem to be at mercy of key departmental decisions in relation to re structuring our child protection and alternative care systems. However the Irish Association of Social Care Workers and othewr key bodies in ireland are attempting to ensure the voices of practitioners and more importantly vulnerable young people are heard,
John Burton writes : How do we get government to let the people who do the work to redesign it? It's what they say they would like to do but it's unlikely to happen because they have no experience of what it would really be like. But we can only go on trying!
Alan McQuarrie comments : This is a development which I think we should welcome, though I think there will still be disquiet about the way the UK Government has handled this and the fate of NCERCC. Over a number of years successive Scottish governments have been developing ‘centres of excellence’ for different branches of social care. The Centre for Residential Child Care, now SIRCC, was the first of these in 1994. Now there is talk of merging some of our work, but it is very vague and far off.
Mark Smith remarks : This is good news but as you say qualified good news - I wouldn't be too encouraged by the thought of most local authorities becoming the drivers of residential care services.
Jeremy Millar comments : the vagaries of neo-liberal agendas are a wonder to behold. If only we could separate cost effective from improving practice. Still, if they truly got their heads round real cost effectiveness they would tax the rich invest in disadvantaged communities and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Sadly they have no concept of true social justice.
Yesterday, September 7th, 2010 the Department of Education announced,
"The department is today launching a new programme of work to drive improvements in children’s homes, which will be led by the sector and the department. As a result, the department will no longer be awarding an external contract to Tribal to deliver this work."
The department’s statement goes on to say,
"Considerable resources have already been spent trying to raise standards, and while there have been some improvements, there is much more to be done. Therefore, instead of reinvesting in an external contract, ministers have decided that the most effective and cost-effective way of achieving this change is to work in partnership with the sector to review what is working well and to identify areas for improvement."
In our view it is wise of the new government to seek to work genuinely with the sector because the latter carries the necessary expertise which Tribal patently did not. Our hope now is that the government will seek partnership not only with the senior leaders managers of the big statutory, voluntary and independent child care organisations as child care training and education bodies, but that they will genuinely engage with both operational managers and practitioners.
However this is one of those developments which perhaps calls for two cheers rather than three. We are mindful of what was lost at the time of the decision to award Tribal a contract and that was the National Centre for Excellence in Residential child Care (NCERCC). While the government says no new external contracts will be awarded, it is to be hoped that it will be seeking, in its search for the “most effective and cost-effective way” to “raise standards” and achieve change, discussions with the National Children’s Bureau and its residential child care section about the possibility of establishing within the sector something like NCERCC which was an initiative that was generally respected as a supportive and integral part of residential child care in England.
Nonetheless this news gives hope that the expertise which the residential child care sector holds within it will be now be heard, respected and used to develop residential child care services.
This item first appeared on the http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ home page on September 7th, 2010
Comments
Noel Howard writes : It sounds like two cheers as you say but two better than none.
In Ireland at the moment there is a bit of a lull but much of the sentiment which persists about residential child care concerns the embargo on recruitment, cutbacks, closures and amalgamations of services.
Interesting isn't it that the UK government (and a Conservative one at that) has at least listened ? In our Irish the forthcoming issue of Curam there is a piece about Theresa May's welcome "about turn" from the previous government's policy on the vetting of child workers.
David Williams comments :It is good news that the United Kingdom government seems to be making a meaningful attempt to engage with coal face workers and practitioners in the sector as to raise standards and quality of care, although it is saddening to see in the midst of all the bureaucratic clammering the loss of the NCERCC. In Ireland at the moment we also seem to be at mercy of key departmental decisions in relation to re structuring our child protection and alternative care systems. However the Irish Association of Social Care Workers and othewr key bodies in ireland are attempting to ensure the voices of practitioners and more importantly vulnerable young people are heard,
John Burton writes : How do we get government to let the people who do the work to redesign it? It's what they say they would like to do but it's unlikely to happen because they have no experience of what it would really be like. But we can only go on trying!
Alan McQuarrie comments : This is a development which I think we should welcome, though I think there will still be disquiet about the way the UK Government has handled this and the fate of NCERCC. Over a number of years successive Scottish governments have been developing ‘centres of excellence’ for different branches of social care. The Centre for Residential Child Care, now SIRCC, was the first of these in 1994. Now there is talk of merging some of our work, but it is very vague and far off.
Mark Smith remarks : This is good news but as you say qualified good news - I wouldn't be too encouraged by the thought of most local authorities becoming the drivers of residential care services.
Jeremy Millar comments : the vagaries of neo-liberal agendas are a wonder to behold. If only we could separate cost effective from improving practice. Still, if they truly got their heads round real cost effectiveness they would tax the rich invest in disadvantaged communities and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Sadly they have no concept of true social justice.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Making money from the helping services
Those of our readers who are residential child care workers will know about Tribal Group plc, the consultancy company which took over some of the functions carried out by the former NCERCC. The influence of Tribal and no doubt other large consultancy organisations seems to be growing upon the caring services as their tendrils spread across the territories of a number of government departments. Already the recipient of profitable government contracts related to our health, education and social care services, Tribal’s response to the coalition government’s new white paper for the National Health Service, “Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS” is positive to the point of the congratulatory and carries a hint of the attitude that might be adopted by someone gleefully rubbing hands together at the prospect of more money running into his or her coffers.
“Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS” includes plans to abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and to put GPs into consortia in order to purchase care from hospitals and other health providers for their patients. This may or may not be an excellent idea but it is certain that private profit making companies like Tribal have seen it as an opportunity for making money. Kingsley Manning, Tribal’s business development director for health observes that the white paper “could amount to the denationalisation of healthcare services in England and is the most important redirection of the NHS in more than a generation” and perhaps Mr. Manning observes a lot of business development potential in it too. Tribal’s response to the white paper praises the coalition government’s vision as “compelling and logical” before reminding the government that “the practicalities of this vision still need finalising to ensure that local health systems do not suffer during the transitional period” and it goes on to give the government a little reminding nudge that Tribal is standing ready to take on this work. “Tribal’s work within the NHS," so the response goes, "revolves around implementing government initiatives such as healthcare planning and management to ensure that the NHS provides the best possible care to its patients.”
“Why”, we might ask, “can’t people who are already working within the NHS implement the government’s proposal ?” Well,Tribal’s Kingsley Manning has the answer. He tells us the “cornerstone of the government’s argument for such radical change is the NHS’s comparatively poor outcomes?” Can the government really be saying that the NHS is poor ? Furthermore who within the NHS will find it easy to work harmoniously with a private organisation which bases its approach to the NHS on this negative premise ?
Like other private consultancy companies Tribal is an unelected body which has set itself up it seems, as a source of expertise on all aspects of the caring, education and health professions. The work available to the consultants of Tribal and other companies seems to be increasing at a time when it is likely that less well paid workers who work directly in these fields will be losing their jobs. We ask again, “Who are the people who make up Tribal and companies like them ? What is their motive ? What exactly in detailed terms is their expertise and experience? If the consultants of these companies do have a great deal to offer the world of the helping professions and if they have experience of working with proven success within that world, why didn’t they remain in it as employees?
Our interest at goodenoughcaring is the nurture, care, health, development and education of children and their need for consistent and sincere and altruistic attention. There is nothing wrong with making money but should it be the principal motivating force if our main responsibility is to serve children (particularly the vulnerable ones) and their families ? Need we spend more money purchasing the services of private companies when we already have the personnel available to do it within our state provision for health, education and social care? (Originally posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on July 19th, 2010).
References
Details of “Equity and Excellence in the NHS” accessed at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleases/DH_117360 on July 16th.
Details of Tribal’s response to “Equity and Excellence in the NHS” accessed at
http://www.tribalgroup.com/Aboutus/Pages/newsTribalpublishesresponsetoGovernmentWhitePaperforhealth.aspx on July 16th 2010
Comments
The manager (name and address supplied) of a residential child care resource writes, "I agree with the sentiments of this article. We are at the coal face and the rewards for many staff in residential child care is an unfair salary for a fair day's work. Our rewards bear no comparison with the organisations who are trying to high jack social care on the back of a profit based ideology rather than meeting the care needs of individual children. I fear we will see more of this as this coalition government de-constructs the safety net for the more vulnerable members of society. All my work is now concentrated on dealing with the impending cuts and the drive by all the local authorities who have placed children with us to send as many young people home as they can whether or not the children are ready for this."
“Equity and excellence : Liberating the NHS” includes plans to abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and to put GPs into consortia in order to purchase care from hospitals and other health providers for their patients. This may or may not be an excellent idea but it is certain that private profit making companies like Tribal have seen it as an opportunity for making money. Kingsley Manning, Tribal’s business development director for health observes that the white paper “could amount to the denationalisation of healthcare services in England and is the most important redirection of the NHS in more than a generation” and perhaps Mr. Manning observes a lot of business development potential in it too. Tribal’s response to the white paper praises the coalition government’s vision as “compelling and logical” before reminding the government that “the practicalities of this vision still need finalising to ensure that local health systems do not suffer during the transitional period” and it goes on to give the government a little reminding nudge that Tribal is standing ready to take on this work. “Tribal’s work within the NHS," so the response goes, "revolves around implementing government initiatives such as healthcare planning and management to ensure that the NHS provides the best possible care to its patients.”
“Why”, we might ask, “can’t people who are already working within the NHS implement the government’s proposal ?” Well,Tribal’s Kingsley Manning has the answer. He tells us the “cornerstone of the government’s argument for such radical change is the NHS’s comparatively poor outcomes?” Can the government really be saying that the NHS is poor ? Furthermore who within the NHS will find it easy to work harmoniously with a private organisation which bases its approach to the NHS on this negative premise ?
Like other private consultancy companies Tribal is an unelected body which has set itself up it seems, as a source of expertise on all aspects of the caring, education and health professions. The work available to the consultants of Tribal and other companies seems to be increasing at a time when it is likely that less well paid workers who work directly in these fields will be losing their jobs. We ask again, “Who are the people who make up Tribal and companies like them ? What is their motive ? What exactly in detailed terms is their expertise and experience? If the consultants of these companies do have a great deal to offer the world of the helping professions and if they have experience of working with proven success within that world, why didn’t they remain in it as employees?
Our interest at goodenoughcaring is the nurture, care, health, development and education of children and their need for consistent and sincere and altruistic attention. There is nothing wrong with making money but should it be the principal motivating force if our main responsibility is to serve children (particularly the vulnerable ones) and their families ? Need we spend more money purchasing the services of private companies when we already have the personnel available to do it within our state provision for health, education and social care? (Originally posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on July 19th, 2010).
References
Details of “Equity and Excellence in the NHS” accessed at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleases/DH_117360 on July 16th.
Details of Tribal’s response to “Equity and Excellence in the NHS” accessed at
http://www.tribalgroup.com/Aboutus/Pages/newsTribalpublishesresponsetoGovernmentWhitePaperforhealth.aspx on July 16th 2010
Comments
The manager (name and address supplied) of a residential child care resource writes, "I agree with the sentiments of this article. We are at the coal face and the rewards for many staff in residential child care is an unfair salary for a fair day's work. Our rewards bear no comparison with the organisations who are trying to high jack social care on the back of a profit based ideology rather than meeting the care needs of individual children. I fear we will see more of this as this coalition government de-constructs the safety net for the more vulnerable members of society. All my work is now concentrated on dealing with the impending cuts and the drive by all the local authorities who have placed children with us to send as many young people home as they can whether or not the children are ready for this."
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Good news from the National Children's Bureau
The National Children's Bureau's announcement to continue to support the service provided to young people in residential child care and to continue to support the residential child care workers who look after them is welcome news. We hope the new service, National Children's Bureau Residential Child Care (NCBRCC) to be headed by Jonathan Stanley will flourish and that it will develop upon the resourceful service formerly provided by the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care (NCERCC). The National Children's Bureau is to be congratulated for toughing out the difficult situation which arose as a consequence of the previous government's decision to withdraw funding for NCERCC and it is to be hoped that in not ruling out reconsidering the funding of consultancy companies to provide support for residential child care that the new government may now consider diverting funding toward NCB's new project. (Posted June 10th,2010).
Nirvana ? Not yet, but the new issue of the goodenoughcaring Journal will go online on June 15th
Where has the adventure and romance of childhood gone ? Where is that utopian country - once the domain of children - of days of dawn to dusk playing, building dens, wide games in the woods, dressing up, playing Mums and Dads, making things your parents couldn’t afford to buy and pledging lifelong loyalty to friends ? Many believe the new experience of childhood is cocooned within four wheel drive people carriers, computer games in the bedroom, designer birthday parties and the avoidance of strangers and this all with an intent to protect our children from a dangerous community which is probably as much of a fantasy as the memory some of us sustain of a childhood where the sun shone all day and if it rained it did so when we were asleep. None of these notions represent a truth and there have always been children who have not experienced a childhood of the kind many of us fondly “remember.” Children who have suffered poverty, the loss of parents, who have lived through war and violent civil unrest, and those who at an early age become the primary carer for a parent have been deprived of a childhood. For these children life has always been about harsh adult reality and seldom about play and so they have missed a great deal.
Yet it is a curious phenomenon that most political manifestos, and the majority of therapies which claim to be life changing and life affirming promise the achievement of an elysium whose very perfection most red blooded human beings might view as anathema, while children who have nothing, deprived of play and love cannot even imagine those things which most of their peers take for granted as part of what is naturally given to them in life. Vulnerable people are too often seduced by promises of joy tomorrow which are rarely fulfilled. Like memories of an idyllic childhood, political and therapeutic promises can be unreliable.
In the new issue of the goodenoughcaring Journal which goes online on June 15th there is no promise of Avalon but there are ideas and examples about how life might become better for children and adults who have encountered difficulties. In an array of articles, stories and poems representing life as it is lived, John Burton, Kay Cook, Cynthia Cross, Thom Garfat, David Lane, John Molloy, Jan Noble, Jane Kenny, John Stein, and Jillien Viens write about the joys and tribulations of childhood, parenting and caring. Also in this edition will be the winning entry of our writing competition which is a short story by Tiffany Dawkins. An additional item will be the publication of Charles Sharpe's interview with Leon Fulcher and Thom Garfat. (First posted 7th, June, 2010)
Yet it is a curious phenomenon that most political manifestos, and the majority of therapies which claim to be life changing and life affirming promise the achievement of an elysium whose very perfection most red blooded human beings might view as anathema, while children who have nothing, deprived of play and love cannot even imagine those things which most of their peers take for granted as part of what is naturally given to them in life. Vulnerable people are too often seduced by promises of joy tomorrow which are rarely fulfilled. Like memories of an idyllic childhood, political and therapeutic promises can be unreliable.
In the new issue of the goodenoughcaring Journal which goes online on June 15th there is no promise of Avalon but there are ideas and examples about how life might become better for children and adults who have encountered difficulties. In an array of articles, stories and poems representing life as it is lived, John Burton, Kay Cook, Cynthia Cross, Thom Garfat, David Lane, John Molloy, Jan Noble, Jane Kenny, John Stein, and Jillien Viens write about the joys and tribulations of childhood, parenting and caring. Also in this edition will be the winning entry of our writing competition which is a short story by Tiffany Dawkins. An additional item will be the publication of Charles Sharpe's interview with Leon Fulcher and Thom Garfat. (First posted 7th, June, 2010)
Sunday, 13 June 2010
The Dutch auction of children in residential child care
In a recent article by Lauren Higgs, Residential care providers urged to work together to stop closures published on May 4th in the Children and Young People Now Daily, Raphael Silver, a member of the Law Society’s Children Panel suggests that private sector providers of residential child care should band together to resist local authorities who are pooling their budgets and working together in order to purchase residential child care services more cheaply.
In our experience the Dutch auction of children who need places in children's homes has been occurring in one way or another for a number of years. Essentially what happens is that individual providers are implicitly and discreetly warned that if they don't squeeze their fees local authorities won't place children with them. In response providers are forced to cut their costs or go out of business. For obvious reasons providers resist cutting costs on feeding, clothing or keeping youngsters warm and sheltered - although sometimes this has occurred - and so what is cut is the most important resource of residential care - staffing. Less experienced, less well trained staff and so less expensive staff are recruited and training budgets are slashed and all this is done in a service where it is generally acknowledged that staff training is seriously under-resourced.
It is not necessary to have ideological sympathy with the private provision of residential child care in order to be motivated towards pointing out this lack of concern for the quality of care children and young people receive. For better or for worse governments have encouraged the private sector to fill the void left when the voluntary and the statutory sectors beat a partial retreat from residential child care and for the forseeable future private sector provision is a necessary and significant part of the service. It is generally understood that those who operate a business wish to make a profit and of course few of us are reluctant to collect our wages, salaries or fees at the end of each month and neither would we quietly stand by if someone arbitrarily decided to cut our earniings.
In Lauren Higgs’ article, Roy Williamson, the executive officer of the Independent Children’s Homes Association comments that because of their strength in unity local authority commissioners “can play providers off against each other” and in some instances “have driven prices down so far that they risk putting providers out of business”. Roy Williamson argues that while providers are “ not unrealistic about the state of public finances…… we all want what’s best for quality. We have to look at how we can work together and have open discussions between providers and commissioners.”
Meanwhile, many individual providers and registered managers remain silent on the matter fearful that any comment will not go down well with the local authorities who are referring to their children’s homes.
In the recent general election campaign all the political parties have been careful to insist that if elected investment in front line services for children will not be reduced. It is a shame that their colleagues in local government do not feel able to act in unison with them. Perhaps there is a tacit understanding that children in residential care – recipients of a service already in reduced circumstances - are exempt from any of the positive consequences of noble political commitment. (Posted, May 10th, 2010)
Link
Lauren Higgs CYP Now Daily at http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Archive/1000764/Residential-care-providers-urged-work-together-stop-closures/
In our experience the Dutch auction of children who need places in children's homes has been occurring in one way or another for a number of years. Essentially what happens is that individual providers are implicitly and discreetly warned that if they don't squeeze their fees local authorities won't place children with them. In response providers are forced to cut their costs or go out of business. For obvious reasons providers resist cutting costs on feeding, clothing or keeping youngsters warm and sheltered - although sometimes this has occurred - and so what is cut is the most important resource of residential care - staffing. Less experienced, less well trained staff and so less expensive staff are recruited and training budgets are slashed and all this is done in a service where it is generally acknowledged that staff training is seriously under-resourced.
It is not necessary to have ideological sympathy with the private provision of residential child care in order to be motivated towards pointing out this lack of concern for the quality of care children and young people receive. For better or for worse governments have encouraged the private sector to fill the void left when the voluntary and the statutory sectors beat a partial retreat from residential child care and for the forseeable future private sector provision is a necessary and significant part of the service. It is generally understood that those who operate a business wish to make a profit and of course few of us are reluctant to collect our wages, salaries or fees at the end of each month and neither would we quietly stand by if someone arbitrarily decided to cut our earniings.
In Lauren Higgs’ article, Roy Williamson, the executive officer of the Independent Children’s Homes Association comments that because of their strength in unity local authority commissioners “can play providers off against each other” and in some instances “have driven prices down so far that they risk putting providers out of business”. Roy Williamson argues that while providers are “ not unrealistic about the state of public finances…… we all want what’s best for quality. We have to look at how we can work together and have open discussions between providers and commissioners.”
Meanwhile, many individual providers and registered managers remain silent on the matter fearful that any comment will not go down well with the local authorities who are referring to their children’s homes.
In the recent general election campaign all the political parties have been careful to insist that if elected investment in front line services for children will not be reduced. It is a shame that their colleagues in local government do not feel able to act in unison with them. Perhaps there is a tacit understanding that children in residential care – recipients of a service already in reduced circumstances - are exempt from any of the positive consequences of noble political commitment. (Posted, May 10th, 2010)
Link
Lauren Higgs CYP Now Daily at http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Archive/1000764/Residential-care-providers-urged-work-together-stop-closures/
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Residential child care's struggle for acceptance and recognition : a South African perspective
Brian Gannon the co-editor of the International Child and Youth Care Network, CYC-Net, has been following the discussions on this page about the decision made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to cease funding the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care and to provide funding for the private consultancy organisation Tribal and allow it to take a significant role in residential child care affairs in England. Brian sees some similarities between this and recent developments in the Child and Youth Care field in South Africa. (Child and Youth Care is a title which encompasses what is known in the United Kingdom as residential child care).
We do not claim to comment with authority on child care matters in South Africa but we have looked in admiration at some of the innovative practice in residential child care in that country and so it is interesting that although there are honours degree courses in child and youth care in South Africa - indeed people like Thom Garfat and Leon Fulcher have led a masters level programme for child and youth care workers - there still appears to be a feeling of some exasperation among child and youth care workers that their distinct professional discipline has not been given the recognition it deserves. We suspect that this exasperation is experienced in many countries and that it is epitomised by the reaction to the decision of the United Kingdom's government to cease funding England's National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care.
Brian Gannon writes : I have been interested in looking over your shoulder at the recent correspondence you have been having about DCSF and felt it has a resonance for child and youth care workers in SA. To illustrate this I am quoting below something which Merle Allsopp, National Director of South Africa's National Association of Child Care Workers, wrote at this time last year in the Association's journal Child & Youth Care Work:
”The first week of May is International Child and Youth Care Worker's Week.Some child and youth care programs here and abroad will have celebrated this occasion recently, using it as an opportunity to recognize child and youth care workers and express appreciation for the very distinct and exacting work that they do.
In the context of this being the month that we especially celebrate child and youth care workers, it is rather ironic that the last week of this month will see the release of the research on the 'Demarcation of Social Services' sponsored by the Department of Social Development and managed by the South African Council for Social Service Professions. Effectively a survey of opinion, the findings of this endeavour will tell us as child and youth care workers whether we exist or not!
This is not a new experience for child and youth care workers - this being defined by popular opinion of others outside the field. The international child and youth care literature from time to time refers to similar situations arising in other countries - with concomitant protests and expressions of outrage being recorded by affected child and youth care worker fraternities.
The outcome of the research and the implications of this outcome may mean that we as the South African child and youth care field have to rework our strategies and approach to achieving recognition for our field. For we have reason to be concerned about the implications, not only of the research, but about the conditions which gave rise to the research. Why question the existence of the profession in the first place? We have an established Professional Board, and consulted-upon draft regulations which will allow child and youth care workers the dignity and affirmation that comes with registration. If we question the existence of the profession, we question the validity of people who identify as child and youth care workers, and we question the existence of the Professional Board. More than anything else, we cast doubt on the contributions made to at-risk children and families by
of some of our most active and helpful social service professionals in the country.
But as I worry about hidden agendas that may be operating in our country in relation to broadening the range of social service professions beyond social work, I think too about something Thom Garfat wrote a while back - on the dangers of letting others define us, and avoiding hooking too deeply into the views that others have of our profession. I am reminded that as child and youth care workers we must remain steadfast in our certainty of the value of our unique profession and what we have to offer young people”.
(Posted April 29th, 2010).
We do not claim to comment with authority on child care matters in South Africa but we have looked in admiration at some of the innovative practice in residential child care in that country and so it is interesting that although there are honours degree courses in child and youth care in South Africa - indeed people like Thom Garfat and Leon Fulcher have led a masters level programme for child and youth care workers - there still appears to be a feeling of some exasperation among child and youth care workers that their distinct professional discipline has not been given the recognition it deserves. We suspect that this exasperation is experienced in many countries and that it is epitomised by the reaction to the decision of the United Kingdom's government to cease funding England's National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care.
Brian Gannon writes : I have been interested in looking over your shoulder at the recent correspondence you have been having about DCSF and felt it has a resonance for child and youth care workers in SA. To illustrate this I am quoting below something which Merle Allsopp, National Director of South Africa's National Association of Child Care Workers, wrote at this time last year in the Association's journal Child & Youth Care Work:
”The first week of May is International Child and Youth Care Worker's Week.Some child and youth care programs here and abroad will have celebrated this occasion recently, using it as an opportunity to recognize child and youth care workers and express appreciation for the very distinct and exacting work that they do.
In the context of this being the month that we especially celebrate child and youth care workers, it is rather ironic that the last week of this month will see the release of the research on the 'Demarcation of Social Services' sponsored by the Department of Social Development and managed by the South African Council for Social Service Professions. Effectively a survey of opinion, the findings of this endeavour will tell us as child and youth care workers whether we exist or not!
This is not a new experience for child and youth care workers - this being defined by popular opinion of others outside the field. The international child and youth care literature from time to time refers to similar situations arising in other countries - with concomitant protests and expressions of outrage being recorded by affected child and youth care worker fraternities.
The outcome of the research and the implications of this outcome may mean that we as the South African child and youth care field have to rework our strategies and approach to achieving recognition for our field. For we have reason to be concerned about the implications, not only of the research, but about the conditions which gave rise to the research. Why question the existence of the profession in the first place? We have an established Professional Board, and consulted-upon draft regulations which will allow child and youth care workers the dignity and affirmation that comes with registration. If we question the existence of the profession, we question the validity of people who identify as child and youth care workers, and we question the existence of the Professional Board. More than anything else, we cast doubt on the contributions made to at-risk children and families by
of some of our most active and helpful social service professionals in the country.
But as I worry about hidden agendas that may be operating in our country in relation to broadening the range of social service professions beyond social work, I think too about something Thom Garfat wrote a while back - on the dangers of letting others define us, and avoiding hooking too deeply into the views that others have of our profession. I am reminded that as child and youth care workers we must remain steadfast in our certainty of the value of our unique profession and what we have to offer young people”.
(Posted April 29th, 2010).
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
NCERCC : Richard Rollinson’s letter to Sir Paul Ennals, the Chief Executive of the National Children’s Bureau 16th April, 2010
This was first posted on the goodenoughcaring website at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on April 20th, 2010
Dear Paul,
NCERCC
I am writing to you to express my continuing concern – and that of many others - about the prospect of NCERCC being wound down now that its funding from the DCFS has ceased. As one of the members of the original committee, along with Bill Utting, which worked hard to develop the proposal that NCB then put successfully to the government for such a Centre for residential care, I have always held a particular interest in how NCERCC has developed. Along with many, many others, I have been delighted with how it has located itself at the heart of our residential sector in so short a time.
You yourself will be aware of this heartening reality. Therefore you will also understand just how taken aback and troubled we are now by the imminent disappearance of this Centre. We also wish to make clear that while we genuinely appreciate the support and institutional base that NCB has provided for NCERCC during its existence, we believe strongly that “ownership” of the Centre extends well beyond NCB itself. It is one of the greatest achievements of NCERCC that it has become already what we had always hoped, a “home base” for our residential sector and capable of being a “critical friend” when necessary in order to generate improvements in such provision. We are not prepared to simply see such an achievement and role drain away now, to be “replaced” by a different government supported activity to “drive through” improvements. [Note the so 90s business language.]
I am forwarding by email too further expressions of concern, anger and dismay that have been circulating since news of the risk to NCERCC has emerged. An important part of this concern is about how we were ignorant of that risk until decisions had been made concerning central government funding and with no opportunity until now to participate in securing alternative funding. Even now we wish to follow this route and believe that with NCB we can achieve such funding – so long as we have time to do so and the Centre does not close up shop, so to speak, before this can be done. It is not an alternative to NCERCC we desire, nor a pale shadow of what it has become. It is the “real article” we seek to preserve and help to grow further.
Given the longstanding support of residential care by NCB across the years – and I have been privileged to be part of several of these earlier NCB based activities – it is our hopeful expectation that your organisation can act even now to secure the continued and active presence of NCERCC in the sector, preferably but not absolutely necessarily from its NCB base. Many of us are fully prepared to participate fully in this effort, and we have some ideas already.
Thank you again for the support NCB and you yourself have given NCERCC over these recent years. I look forward to hearing from you about how by our working together now it can continue to make a difference for our sector.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Rollinson
Independent Consultant in residential child care
Chairman of the Professional Advisory Group of the Charterhouse Group of Therapeutic Communities, of the Planned Environment Therapy Trust and of the Care Leavers Foundation
(Posted 20th April, 2010)
Dear Paul,
NCERCC
I am writing to you to express my continuing concern – and that of many others - about the prospect of NCERCC being wound down now that its funding from the DCFS has ceased. As one of the members of the original committee, along with Bill Utting, which worked hard to develop the proposal that NCB then put successfully to the government for such a Centre for residential care, I have always held a particular interest in how NCERCC has developed. Along with many, many others, I have been delighted with how it has located itself at the heart of our residential sector in so short a time.
You yourself will be aware of this heartening reality. Therefore you will also understand just how taken aback and troubled we are now by the imminent disappearance of this Centre. We also wish to make clear that while we genuinely appreciate the support and institutional base that NCB has provided for NCERCC during its existence, we believe strongly that “ownership” of the Centre extends well beyond NCB itself. It is one of the greatest achievements of NCERCC that it has become already what we had always hoped, a “home base” for our residential sector and capable of being a “critical friend” when necessary in order to generate improvements in such provision. We are not prepared to simply see such an achievement and role drain away now, to be “replaced” by a different government supported activity to “drive through” improvements. [Note the so 90s business language.]
I am forwarding by email too further expressions of concern, anger and dismay that have been circulating since news of the risk to NCERCC has emerged. An important part of this concern is about how we were ignorant of that risk until decisions had been made concerning central government funding and with no opportunity until now to participate in securing alternative funding. Even now we wish to follow this route and believe that with NCB we can achieve such funding – so long as we have time to do so and the Centre does not close up shop, so to speak, before this can be done. It is not an alternative to NCERCC we desire, nor a pale shadow of what it has become. It is the “real article” we seek to preserve and help to grow further.
Given the longstanding support of residential care by NCB across the years – and I have been privileged to be part of several of these earlier NCB based activities – it is our hopeful expectation that your organisation can act even now to secure the continued and active presence of NCERCC in the sector, preferably but not absolutely necessarily from its NCB base. Many of us are fully prepared to participate fully in this effort, and we have some ideas already.
Thank you again for the support NCB and you yourself have given NCERCC over these recent years. I look forward to hearing from you about how by our working together now it can continue to make a difference for our sector.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Rollinson
Independent Consultant in residential child care
Chairman of the Professional Advisory Group of the Charterhouse Group of Therapeutic Communities, of the Planned Environment Therapy Trust and of the Care Leavers Foundation
(Posted 20th April, 2010)
DCSF letter to Charles Sharpe
This was first posted on the goodenoughcaring website at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on April 20th, 2010
DCSF
20th April, 2010
Dear Mr Sharpe
Thank you for your email dated 31 March about residential children's homes and an organisation called Tribal. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
Tribal was awarded the support and challenge for children’s homes project after successfully completing a full formal tender process and has significant experience and expertise in delivering a support and challenge role to public service commissioners and providers.
Tribal’s team includes a strong blend of consultants, analysts and researchers with experience as trusted advisors to the children’s services sector, local authorities and central government. For example, Janet Rich Director of Simplicitas, has 17 years of professional experience in the field including in therapeutic residential care, leaving care and the mental health of looked after children. Janet will be acting as expert advisor to the programme and will chair the Project’s Advisory Group, bringing together key stakeholders in residential care and others. The Tribal team also includes Professor Peter Marsh of Chair in Child and Family Welfare at the University of Sheffield to provide academic expertise and develop a strong evidence base for the work.
Tribal will initially be focusing on engaging key stakeholders in residential care, to provide a seamless transition of support. They will work on developing face-to-face presence alongside a web presence and publication of newsletters aimed at providers and managers to encourage wider sector participation and engagement.
This project will offer an opportunity to support the dissemination and embedding of evidence based practice, play an active role in rolling out lessons from recent pathfinder and pilot activity to raise the quality of care in Children’s homes and act as a catalyst for a the development of evidence based practice within the sector as a whole.
I hope this information is useful.
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Calum Strathie writes I received an identical response to the one Charles Sharpe did from DCSF when I asked it about Tribal and NCERCC except that Pamela Kearns of the Public Communications Unit replied to me and not Emma Hutchinson. I'm not sure if it's a standard response, but it's interesting how they make Tribal out to sound like a jar of Nescafe - "A Strong Blend"! Do any of the names in the blend mean anything to you? The question is "do we want the instant processed variety of Tribal?" or "do we want the fresh roast aroma of the Real McCoy from NCERCC?" There's no contest really.
DCSF
20th April, 2010
Dear Mr Sharpe
Thank you for your email dated 31 March about residential children's homes and an organisation called Tribal. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
Tribal was awarded the support and challenge for children’s homes project after successfully completing a full formal tender process and has significant experience and expertise in delivering a support and challenge role to public service commissioners and providers.
Tribal’s team includes a strong blend of consultants, analysts and researchers with experience as trusted advisors to the children’s services sector, local authorities and central government. For example, Janet Rich Director of Simplicitas, has 17 years of professional experience in the field including in therapeutic residential care, leaving care and the mental health of looked after children. Janet will be acting as expert advisor to the programme and will chair the Project’s Advisory Group, bringing together key stakeholders in residential care and others. The Tribal team also includes Professor Peter Marsh of Chair in Child and Family Welfare at the University of Sheffield to provide academic expertise and develop a strong evidence base for the work.
Tribal will initially be focusing on engaging key stakeholders in residential care, to provide a seamless transition of support. They will work on developing face-to-face presence alongside a web presence and publication of newsletters aimed at providers and managers to encourage wider sector participation and engagement.
This project will offer an opportunity to support the dissemination and embedding of evidence based practice, play an active role in rolling out lessons from recent pathfinder and pilot activity to raise the quality of care in Children’s homes and act as a catalyst for a the development of evidence based practice within the sector as a whole.
I hope this information is useful.
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Calum Strathie writes I received an identical response to the one Charles Sharpe did from DCSF when I asked it about Tribal and NCERCC except that Pamela Kearns of the Public Communications Unit replied to me and not Emma Hutchinson. I'm not sure if it's a standard response, but it's interesting how they make Tribal out to sound like a jar of Nescafe - "A Strong Blend"! Do any of the names in the blend mean anything to you? The question is "do we want the instant processed variety of Tribal?" or "do we want the fresh roast aroma of the Real McCoy from NCERCC?" There's no contest really.
Pulling the plug on good enough residential child care - DCSF style
This was first posted on the goodenoughcaring website at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on April 12th, 2010.
We have had a large and supportive response to our recent report of the damaging blow dealt to residential child care in England by the decision of the Department for Children, Schools and Families to cease funding the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care.
Some of us may have been present at the NCB conference in Birmingham in 2005 when Bruce Clark, then the Divisional Head of the Looked After Children Division in the Department of Education and Skills announced government funding of £731,000 to establish the NCERCC. It seemed then that residential child care had been provided with a strong platform from which to establish its place as a caring discipline.
Over a number of years the idea of the NCERCC was nurtured into being by a group of people and organisations with decades of practical experience, learning, research, development and management in residential child care. It is hard for us as residential child care workers not to feel a sense of humiliation when a consultancy organisation like Tribal with no depth of experience in our field is awarded such a powerful role in our work while the views of those whom we recognise as having deep insight of our professional discipline – residential child care - are dismissed.
Of course in a world dominated by a relatively small number of people seeking high financial rewards we understand that a large commercial consultancy like Tribal may claim expertise in anything in order to win a contract. To present a tender for a contract like the one Tribal has been awarded a commercial body can usually persuade an academic - with a curriculum vitae which suggests some interest in child care issues - to climb on board. We do not know if this is the case with Tribal, though its description of its current expertise does not include residential child care.
It may be that Tribal matters are a sideshow in this. The overwhelming majority of responses to our report identified the real villain of the piece as the DCSF. In pulling the plug on the NCERCC, not it seems despite of the latter's good work but, so it claims, because of it, DCSF is pulling the plug – in the way that its predecessors have done over many decades – on any informed and genuine intention to provide good enough residential child care. (Posted, April 12th, 2010).
Comments
Richard Rollinson writes, “Many of you will know I endorse the positions set out by Adrian Ward and Charles Sharpe on the goodenoughcaring website. After a conversation with John Kemmis, [of Voice for the Child in Care ] I have agreed to write to Paul Ennals at the National Children’s Bureau where NCERCC was based to emphasise the depth and intensity of the dismay felt by so many across our sector. Before NCERCC residential child care was seen as the "poor relation" of children's services and government/social policies. In light of all these comments, my communication to Paul will be brief, and forwarded with it will be the communications amongst ourselves to give it the reality and strong feeling it represents in our collective view. I am encouraged that neither a holiday period nor the start of an election has dimmed our strength of feeling”.
Adrian Ward comments, "I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns you have raised, and feel that DCSF has acted in a wholly destructive way towards NCERCC and the whole sector. There was no consultation whatsoever about the diversion of funds from NCERCC's remit into this 'Support and Challenge' programme, and as far as one can see DCSF is taking no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. NCERCC has helped to create and develop some outstanding projects such as the Children's Residential Network which have brought real value to young people by promoting and supporting good practice, and the risk is that this work will be lost, as I'm sure NCB doesn't have the money to continue any funding".
John Burton writes, "Politicians are guided by self-interested groups and have no idea of the results of their decisions. This doesn’t absolve them from responsibility. All government policy can be seen as a sophisticated system of denying accountability and passing it down to the lowest level possible – to people who are actually trying to do the work with commitment and belief. And the new legislation and guidance then makes it even more difficult to do the real work. Look at the Care Quality Commission response to the failure of inspection at the care home where Rachel Baker was convicted of manslaughter last week. It is high time we spoke out and I applaud your opinion piece".
Chris Taylor comments, " NCERCC has done well on what seems like quite a small budget, and residential care needs a unifying and professionalising voice. I know nothing about Tribal, but note that although they claim their "expertise spreads across many markets" they do not mention any form of childcare, let alone residential care. They do offer a range of services in education, perhaps a return to the old Children's Homes with Education model. I also doubt that NCERCC will be the only casualty of the desperate need to reduce both deficit and debt...residential care has always been a soft target".
We have had a large and supportive response to our recent report of the damaging blow dealt to residential child care in England by the decision of the Department for Children, Schools and Families to cease funding the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care.
Some of us may have been present at the NCB conference in Birmingham in 2005 when Bruce Clark, then the Divisional Head of the Looked After Children Division in the Department of Education and Skills announced government funding of £731,000 to establish the NCERCC. It seemed then that residential child care had been provided with a strong platform from which to establish its place as a caring discipline.
Over a number of years the idea of the NCERCC was nurtured into being by a group of people and organisations with decades of practical experience, learning, research, development and management in residential child care. It is hard for us as residential child care workers not to feel a sense of humiliation when a consultancy organisation like Tribal with no depth of experience in our field is awarded such a powerful role in our work while the views of those whom we recognise as having deep insight of our professional discipline – residential child care - are dismissed.
Of course in a world dominated by a relatively small number of people seeking high financial rewards we understand that a large commercial consultancy like Tribal may claim expertise in anything in order to win a contract. To present a tender for a contract like the one Tribal has been awarded a commercial body can usually persuade an academic - with a curriculum vitae which suggests some interest in child care issues - to climb on board. We do not know if this is the case with Tribal, though its description of its current expertise does not include residential child care.
It may be that Tribal matters are a sideshow in this. The overwhelming majority of responses to our report identified the real villain of the piece as the DCSF. In pulling the plug on the NCERCC, not it seems despite of the latter's good work but, so it claims, because of it, DCSF is pulling the plug – in the way that its predecessors have done over many decades – on any informed and genuine intention to provide good enough residential child care. (Posted, April 12th, 2010).
Comments
Richard Rollinson writes, “Many of you will know I endorse the positions set out by Adrian Ward and Charles Sharpe on the goodenoughcaring website. After a conversation with John Kemmis, [of Voice for the Child in Care ] I have agreed to write to Paul Ennals at the National Children’s Bureau where NCERCC was based to emphasise the depth and intensity of the dismay felt by so many across our sector. Before NCERCC residential child care was seen as the "poor relation" of children's services and government/social policies. In light of all these comments, my communication to Paul will be brief, and forwarded with it will be the communications amongst ourselves to give it the reality and strong feeling it represents in our collective view. I am encouraged that neither a holiday period nor the start of an election has dimmed our strength of feeling”.
Adrian Ward comments, "I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns you have raised, and feel that DCSF has acted in a wholly destructive way towards NCERCC and the whole sector. There was no consultation whatsoever about the diversion of funds from NCERCC's remit into this 'Support and Challenge' programme, and as far as one can see DCSF is taking no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. NCERCC has helped to create and develop some outstanding projects such as the Children's Residential Network which have brought real value to young people by promoting and supporting good practice, and the risk is that this work will be lost, as I'm sure NCB doesn't have the money to continue any funding".
John Burton writes, "Politicians are guided by self-interested groups and have no idea of the results of their decisions. This doesn’t absolve them from responsibility. All government policy can be seen as a sophisticated system of denying accountability and passing it down to the lowest level possible – to people who are actually trying to do the work with commitment and belief. And the new legislation and guidance then makes it even more difficult to do the real work. Look at the Care Quality Commission response to the failure of inspection at the care home where Rachel Baker was convicted of manslaughter last week. It is high time we spoke out and I applaud your opinion piece".
Chris Taylor comments, " NCERCC has done well on what seems like quite a small budget, and residential care needs a unifying and professionalising voice. I know nothing about Tribal, but note that although they claim their "expertise spreads across many markets" they do not mention any form of childcare, let alone residential care. They do offer a range of services in education, perhaps a return to the old Children's Homes with Education model. I also doubt that NCERCC will be the only casualty of the desperate need to reduce both deficit and debt...residential care has always been a soft target".
What is Tribal ? and what does it have in store for residential child care ?
This was first posted on the goodenoughcaring website on March 31st, 2010
Yesterday, (30.3.10), the Department for Children, Schools and Families sent out a press release which announced the awarding of what it calls “ the delivery of the Support and Challenge for Children’s Homes” to a consultancy group called “Tribal”. In changing the focus of its funding for residential child care, the government has given Tribal financial backing and has withdrawn funding from the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care. At the same time the DCSF acknowledges that the National Centre has been doing a good job. We are left to wonder in whose interests this decision has been made.
The editorial group of goodenoughcaring.com has long experience of residential child care but none of its members has heard of Tribal or how it gained its reputation as a “talented multi-disciplinary team with a wealth of expertise and knowledge in residential care and previous success of delivery of similar programmes of work”.
The note attached to the press release provides little evidence in its description of Tribal’s personnel that the latter has wide experience of residential child care. Initiatives of this kind should be led by people who have in-depth experience and real insight of the discrete and sophisticated role of residential child care work.
Our fear is that as a consequence of this decision residential child care will be steered, despite all the efforts of recent years, by a managerialist ethos which, though it may occasionally meet some notional paper target, has never yet provided children with better quality care. If you wish to find out more about Tribal ask the Minister for Children, Schools and Families. The email address is : dcsf.ministers@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
** Press release address :
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/childrenincare/childrenincare/ (Posted March 31st, 2010)
Comments
Calum Strathie writes ,"There was something very soul-less about the language used [in the DCSF announcement, 30.3.10] which all runs counter to what NCERCC has been promoting for all these years - i.e. practice excellence and humanity. To withdraw their funding after praising them for their 'good work' makes the praise sound more than a little bit hollow, and I'm sure that NCERCC would be the first to agree that there is much work to be done in the residential sector. The press release talks a lot about 'evidence based practice' but I wonder what evidence DCSF have used to justify this decision? In any case I question the whole notion of 'evidence based practice' and I feel that far too much credence is given to this idea. Surely we should be talking about values based practice and evidence based policies. Evidence can 'inform' practice, but I doubt that it can change actual face to face practice - only good training and quality supervision can do that - unless, of course, the evidence is practice based. What now for NCERCC? Can it continue in some form?"
Richard Rollinson comments, "I am greatly concerned, less about Tribal, but more about NCERCC. The reality is that the project Tribal have won by tender bid is a mere shadow of the much deeper, broader and more integrated purpose and role/task of NCERCC in the residential sector. As the chairman of the group Momentum (which had a good number of people long committed to high quality residential care), that paved the way for the successful NCB bid to host NCERCC, I am determined that it does not disappear entirely or come to exist only in a highly restricted form. The fact is NCERCC is not simply a property of either DCSF or NCB to treat/marginalise as it wishes (though I don't think that NCB has such a crudely dismissive attitude). It belongs very much to the sector which has taken to it as a "home base" in so many respects".
Yesterday, (30.3.10), the Department for Children, Schools and Families sent out a press release which announced the awarding of what it calls “ the delivery of the Support and Challenge for Children’s Homes” to a consultancy group called “Tribal”. In changing the focus of its funding for residential child care, the government has given Tribal financial backing and has withdrawn funding from the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care. At the same time the DCSF acknowledges that the National Centre has been doing a good job. We are left to wonder in whose interests this decision has been made.
The editorial group of goodenoughcaring.com has long experience of residential child care but none of its members has heard of Tribal or how it gained its reputation as a “talented multi-disciplinary team with a wealth of expertise and knowledge in residential care and previous success of delivery of similar programmes of work”.
The note attached to the press release provides little evidence in its description of Tribal’s personnel that the latter has wide experience of residential child care. Initiatives of this kind should be led by people who have in-depth experience and real insight of the discrete and sophisticated role of residential child care work.
Our fear is that as a consequence of this decision residential child care will be steered, despite all the efforts of recent years, by a managerialist ethos which, though it may occasionally meet some notional paper target, has never yet provided children with better quality care. If you wish to find out more about Tribal ask the Minister for Children, Schools and Families. The email address is : dcsf.ministers@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
** Press release address :
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/childrenincare/childrenincare/ (Posted March 31st, 2010)
Comments
Calum Strathie writes ,"There was something very soul-less about the language used [in the DCSF announcement, 30.3.10] which all runs counter to what NCERCC has been promoting for all these years - i.e. practice excellence and humanity. To withdraw their funding after praising them for their 'good work' makes the praise sound more than a little bit hollow, and I'm sure that NCERCC would be the first to agree that there is much work to be done in the residential sector. The press release talks a lot about 'evidence based practice' but I wonder what evidence DCSF have used to justify this decision? In any case I question the whole notion of 'evidence based practice' and I feel that far too much credence is given to this idea. Surely we should be talking about values based practice and evidence based policies. Evidence can 'inform' practice, but I doubt that it can change actual face to face practice - only good training and quality supervision can do that - unless, of course, the evidence is practice based. What now for NCERCC? Can it continue in some form?"
Richard Rollinson comments, "I am greatly concerned, less about Tribal, but more about NCERCC. The reality is that the project Tribal have won by tender bid is a mere shadow of the much deeper, broader and more integrated purpose and role/task of NCERCC in the residential sector. As the chairman of the group Momentum (which had a good number of people long committed to high quality residential care), that paved the way for the successful NCB bid to host NCERCC, I am determined that it does not disappear entirely or come to exist only in a highly restricted form. The fact is NCERCC is not simply a property of either DCSF or NCB to treat/marginalise as it wishes (though I don't think that NCB has such a crudely dismissive attitude). It belongs very much to the sector which has taken to it as a "home base" in so many respects".
Monday, 19 April 2010
Not more about poverty : keep on rocking in the free world
This was first posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on March 12th, 2010
Last week we raised our concerns about the harm of poverty wreaks on the majority of the children who live on our planet and about the current distribution of wealth. Comments mailed to us have been largely sympathetic towards re-distributing wealth but they have been accompanied by what seems a despairing wringing of hands that implies there is little we can effectively do about it. At the risk of causing wide offence we wondered if the consensual liberal concern for the poor is but a simulation which covers for an indifference with intent. Perhaps we are not prepared to go through - both individually and collectively - the great sea change that would be needed if we are to make sure that every child has sufficient food, sufficient shelter and clothing, the means to enjoy recreation, and the opportunities that may be provided by education.Material poverty so often goes along with emotional poverty. The latter may have figured largely in Jon Venables’ early experience and have contributed to the part of him that became capable of the pitiless and dreadful killing of Jamie Bulger, a very vulnerable, very young, defenceless child. Yet instead of investing our emotions into thinking what needs to done to ensure that we do something to prevent such an awful event in the future a great many of us spend our time venting the same destructive feelings upon Jon Venables that he acted out so cruelly upon Jamie Bulger. It may be very difficult for us to accept that these feelings are - to one extent or another - present in each of us. What prevents most of us from acting out our anger is that we were given enough of the right kind of nurture by our parents. In such a materially and emotionally impoverished childhood environment such as that Jon Venables experienced it can be guessed that there was no space for imagination, healthy play and creativity. It is much easier for parenting figures to offer this if they have sufficient emotional and material to provide this for their children. Perhaps we need to think about how we ensure that families never live in this wider kind of poverty.We continue to draw attention to poverty and what it brings because though there are many fine examples of human beings taking their own individual practical steps to redistribute material and emotional wealth, these initiatives may not be enough unless we all - individuals and institutions – do this in our own communities and as members of the global community.Perhaps it will never be possible for us as a species to give everyone a reasonable opportunity to lead a tolerable life. If this is so then perhaps we need to look at why this it is so. If this sounds “holier than thou” it is not meant to, for apart from these words we have done nothing but exercise an intimation of guilt. We are just wondering if it is a sensible notion that the poverty experienced by the majority of people who live on our planet can be alleviated. If so we would like to hear about it. We would like to join others in initiating action. (Posted, March 12th).
Reference : Neil Young (Performer and composer, 1991) Keep on Rocking in the Free World USA Reprise Records Accessed at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQccK0F1_iY
Comments
Cynthia Cross writes , "As a pacifist I have no difficulty in deciding where we could save money and also, I believe, it would make our country a safer place to live. (I am not sure where that leaves us with our present commitment in Afghanistan) I have also often wondered what we were doing sending things to the moon, when we were in such a mess down here. I do not really think that the concept of the Lottery is a good one, but if we do have it what is the point of giving winners more than a million, there ought to be more winners or the money should be better distributed to deserving causes. Of course people who have millions which must become meaningless in terms of the quality of daily life should be taxed at a very high level. Helping people move from a life of poverty is not just about giving them money it is also about enriching there social and emotional experience. To care people have to have been cared for and feel cared for, going through the benefits system hardly does that. As an aside I remember a little girl, about 10 years old, who had a Christmas present which seemed much too young for her, I asked who gave you that; she replied “the committee”! As Mark Smith says there are not many people going to do a Bob Holman, but maybe there are other ways to foster caring and community spirit and helping people to feel that they have some control over their lives (note I did not say empowering) Jeremy Millar mentions cooperatives which certainly could be revived to good effect as could the old Settlements which did sterling work in some parts of London. The old Family Service Units (which originally was a pacifist organisation) acted as a community resource where “professionals” were not unhappy getting their hands dirty, cleaning and making things and caring for children. Perhaps getting involved in such endeavours could be something young people could do in their gap year and we could revive the idea that volunteering can be quite fulfilling and exciting even in your own country. To achieve any of this we would have to start trusting more and blaming less. Surely the pendulum has to swing back sometime soon".
Iain Sharpe comments , "I am probably one of the hand-wringers who will the ends of reducing inequality but are painfully aware of the difficulties of doing so when we have to persuade people to vote for such things. But we should never give up trying. At risk of giving a party political broadcast I would commend the Lib Dem 'pupil premium' policy to make sure funding for schools benefits those whose need is greatest".
Last week we raised our concerns about the harm of poverty wreaks on the majority of the children who live on our planet and about the current distribution of wealth. Comments mailed to us have been largely sympathetic towards re-distributing wealth but they have been accompanied by what seems a despairing wringing of hands that implies there is little we can effectively do about it. At the risk of causing wide offence we wondered if the consensual liberal concern for the poor is but a simulation which covers for an indifference with intent. Perhaps we are not prepared to go through - both individually and collectively - the great sea change that would be needed if we are to make sure that every child has sufficient food, sufficient shelter and clothing, the means to enjoy recreation, and the opportunities that may be provided by education.Material poverty so often goes along with emotional poverty. The latter may have figured largely in Jon Venables’ early experience and have contributed to the part of him that became capable of the pitiless and dreadful killing of Jamie Bulger, a very vulnerable, very young, defenceless child. Yet instead of investing our emotions into thinking what needs to done to ensure that we do something to prevent such an awful event in the future a great many of us spend our time venting the same destructive feelings upon Jon Venables that he acted out so cruelly upon Jamie Bulger. It may be very difficult for us to accept that these feelings are - to one extent or another - present in each of us. What prevents most of us from acting out our anger is that we were given enough of the right kind of nurture by our parents. In such a materially and emotionally impoverished childhood environment such as that Jon Venables experienced it can be guessed that there was no space for imagination, healthy play and creativity. It is much easier for parenting figures to offer this if they have sufficient emotional and material to provide this for their children. Perhaps we need to think about how we ensure that families never live in this wider kind of poverty.We continue to draw attention to poverty and what it brings because though there are many fine examples of human beings taking their own individual practical steps to redistribute material and emotional wealth, these initiatives may not be enough unless we all - individuals and institutions – do this in our own communities and as members of the global community.Perhaps it will never be possible for us as a species to give everyone a reasonable opportunity to lead a tolerable life. If this is so then perhaps we need to look at why this it is so. If this sounds “holier than thou” it is not meant to, for apart from these words we have done nothing but exercise an intimation of guilt. We are just wondering if it is a sensible notion that the poverty experienced by the majority of people who live on our planet can be alleviated. If so we would like to hear about it. We would like to join others in initiating action. (Posted, March 12th).
Reference : Neil Young (Performer and composer, 1991) Keep on Rocking in the Free World USA Reprise Records Accessed at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQccK0F1_iY
Comments
Cynthia Cross writes , "As a pacifist I have no difficulty in deciding where we could save money and also, I believe, it would make our country a safer place to live. (I am not sure where that leaves us with our present commitment in Afghanistan) I have also often wondered what we were doing sending things to the moon, when we were in such a mess down here. I do not really think that the concept of the Lottery is a good one, but if we do have it what is the point of giving winners more than a million, there ought to be more winners or the money should be better distributed to deserving causes. Of course people who have millions which must become meaningless in terms of the quality of daily life should be taxed at a very high level. Helping people move from a life of poverty is not just about giving them money it is also about enriching there social and emotional experience. To care people have to have been cared for and feel cared for, going through the benefits system hardly does that. As an aside I remember a little girl, about 10 years old, who had a Christmas present which seemed much too young for her, I asked who gave you that; she replied “the committee”! As Mark Smith says there are not many people going to do a Bob Holman, but maybe there are other ways to foster caring and community spirit and helping people to feel that they have some control over their lives (note I did not say empowering) Jeremy Millar mentions cooperatives which certainly could be revived to good effect as could the old Settlements which did sterling work in some parts of London. The old Family Service Units (which originally was a pacifist organisation) acted as a community resource where “professionals” were not unhappy getting their hands dirty, cleaning and making things and caring for children. Perhaps getting involved in such endeavours could be something young people could do in their gap year and we could revive the idea that volunteering can be quite fulfilling and exciting even in your own country. To achieve any of this we would have to start trusting more and blaming less. Surely the pendulum has to swing back sometime soon".
Iain Sharpe comments , "I am probably one of the hand-wringers who will the ends of reducing inequality but are painfully aware of the difficulties of doing so when we have to persuade people to vote for such things. But we should never give up trying. At risk of giving a party political broadcast I would commend the Lib Dem 'pupil premium' policy to make sure funding for schools benefits those whose need is greatest".
The redistribution of Health
This piece first appeared at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on March 19th, 2010
It is welcome news that 32 million citizens of the USA who previously had little or no access to effective health services now do so. On a global scale this may seem a small step towards alleviating the consequences of poverty but it represents an unprecedented caring and nurturing initiative taken on behalf of all the people of the USA by its democratically elected government. Barack Obama’s, as well as his supporters’ determination and achievement should not be underestimated. Since the 1930s when these ideas were first mooted, there has been, and there remains, a great deal of opposition in the USA to the kind of health legislation the government is introducing. To citizens of the European Union where basic health services are, as far as we are aware, accessible to all what Obama and his government have done may not appear remarkable but the symbolic message it sends throughout the world is immense. If all political leaders could for a moment get off the fence of expedience – an expedience fuelled by the power of wealthy interests - and follow Obama’s determined lead and confront poverty we may begin to hold out hope that the social, educational and material riches of our world will be available to all children and be shared more equably. (Posted March 19th)
Comments
Nancy Mohindra writes "When we live in a wealthy society or when our way of living is comfortable words such as poverty, inequality, or empathy are just terms without connection to real people or real experiences-let’s remember that it is not always the case!. For this reason, among others, is why I consider so relevant research on social realities and its impact on mental health, well-being and social cohesion. Financial solvency is important to our welfare; however, inclusion and acknowledgment of our existence by our fellow citizen is what increases or reduces health status and life expectancy. That it sounds pathetic to resort to hard evidence to push for new legislation and reforms to protect less favoured communities, I agree. Hence, my call is for it, let’s do qualitative and quantitative research on the effects of inequality and indifference on the quality of life of our fellow citizens and so in our own lives. Let’s show and prove that a society which includes everybody pays and it pays well to everybody".
It is welcome news that 32 million citizens of the USA who previously had little or no access to effective health services now do so. On a global scale this may seem a small step towards alleviating the consequences of poverty but it represents an unprecedented caring and nurturing initiative taken on behalf of all the people of the USA by its democratically elected government. Barack Obama’s, as well as his supporters’ determination and achievement should not be underestimated. Since the 1930s when these ideas were first mooted, there has been, and there remains, a great deal of opposition in the USA to the kind of health legislation the government is introducing. To citizens of the European Union where basic health services are, as far as we are aware, accessible to all what Obama and his government have done may not appear remarkable but the symbolic message it sends throughout the world is immense. If all political leaders could for a moment get off the fence of expedience – an expedience fuelled by the power of wealthy interests - and follow Obama’s determined lead and confront poverty we may begin to hold out hope that the social, educational and material riches of our world will be available to all children and be shared more equably. (Posted March 19th)
Comments
Nancy Mohindra writes "When we live in a wealthy society or when our way of living is comfortable words such as poverty, inequality, or empathy are just terms without connection to real people or real experiences-let’s remember that it is not always the case!. For this reason, among others, is why I consider so relevant research on social realities and its impact on mental health, well-being and social cohesion. Financial solvency is important to our welfare; however, inclusion and acknowledgment of our existence by our fellow citizen is what increases or reduces health status and life expectancy. That it sounds pathetic to resort to hard evidence to push for new legislation and reforms to protect less favoured communities, I agree. Hence, my call is for it, let’s do qualitative and quantitative research on the effects of inequality and indifference on the quality of life of our fellow citizens and so in our own lives. Let’s show and prove that a society which includes everybody pays and it pays well to everybody".
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Lost for Words : It’s not the economy, it’s the poverty and the avarice, stupid!
This article was published on the goodenoughcaring.com homepage on March 5th, 2010
Forgive this crude play on a tired old headline. It is a reaction to the BBC's broadcasting on February 15th,
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/8513340.stm )
of a report about a research study carried out by the Sutton Trust which found after looking at the results of vocabulary tests given to 12.500 British children that those from the poorest homes are almost a year behind middle class pupils by the time they start school. Whatever all this means – after all such studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the “haves” rather than the “have nots” - we wonder how many more research studies are needed to tell us that children who live in poverty are bequeathed failure at school, defeat in what is called the “world of work”, and life long poor physical and psychological health. All this is known, so why spend money on more research about it ? Let’s spend time on working out how we go about redistributing wealth. This is easier said than done, but no human being is worth, let’s say 10 times as much as the poorest. Should any person be worth any more than another ? If as adults we conscientiously address our responsibility to protect and nurture all children then surely each of us would be prepared to give up income she or he does not require in order to make sure that all children have what they need to flourish. When fair minded people who are not rich, but who know they could exist quite adequately on less than they have, think about such a commitment they may feel a moral compunction towards it but they may also be fearful of it. "What if," they ask, "we do this and then we fall upon hard times ? Who will protect and look after us ?" Such a poignantly ironic question. We know the answer we ought to be able to give.Other than those who suffer so wretchedly from poverty in all or any of its aspects, the people we should perhaps worry most for, and about, are the excessively avariciously powerful and wealthy. Surely it is not healthy to be the way they are. These people need help. Thought needs to be given as to how we can best support them in addressing their problems. Still, even if we knew how to redistribute wealth effectively, we may have to accept that those with no experience of having anything will need a period of adjustment to spend as unwisely as we, “the haves” did in recent years. This jumbled collection of thoughts and statements is not altogether naïve, yet it would be easy to become cynical about its chances of being taken up seriously, and so, decide to do nothing. The redistribution of wealth is not a simple exercise but someone – perhaps one or more of us - needs to start to consider it seriously if we are to do the very best we can to make sure all children grow up healthily. This is not an argument for an absolute answer. Every human being is unique but we are left with the pluralism and the conflict of freedom and equality. How long can we wait before we begin to confront this problem? What do we wish for our children ? We may have to acknowledge that freedom and equality are not necessarily harmonious, but somewhere along their continuum a choice should be made. As one kind of start we would truly welcome comments and ideas about this. (Posted, 5th March, 2010).
Comments
Jeremy Millar comments, “ I concur completely. I have a regular rant against 'research into the bleeding obvious' and encourage the students to spot it. my grandfather was a mill owner but ran a workers cooperative so i have been raised in the knowledge that other forms of capitalist endeavour can work. there was an interesting prog on radio 4 regarding john lewis in this respect. also I have an alternative solution to the bank meltdown. sadly too late to impliment as the government bailed the banks out. Anyway what the government could have done was bought off the population’s credit card and personal loan debt. They could have included mortgage for those facing repossession and the debt would have been repaid by individuals over 20 years at a 1% rate of interest. This could have been done through income tax. The government would have then been able to do future investment planning on a secured additional income. The banks would have got their money back. The populace would be solvent and able to start consuming again. Obviously this is just like raising income tax but at least it would make the people feel better rather than disillusioned and angry with the whole system.”
Iain Sharpe writes that “it may be true that studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the haves rather than the have nots, but one step towards giving the have nots a better chance is to make sure they have the knowledge, language and understanding, including vocabulary to challenge the haves.”
Mark Smith comments "I'm not going to disagree with a word of that. I regularly get a niggling voice of conscience questioning whether I should do a Bob Holman (and just as regularly come up with reasons/excuses as to why I don't). Are you aware of Wilkinson and Pickett's book, 'The Spirit Level'? Have a look at www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ “
Forgive this crude play on a tired old headline. It is a reaction to the BBC's broadcasting on February 15th,
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/8513340.stm )
of a report about a research study carried out by the Sutton Trust which found after looking at the results of vocabulary tests given to 12.500 British children that those from the poorest homes are almost a year behind middle class pupils by the time they start school. Whatever all this means – after all such studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the “haves” rather than the “have nots” - we wonder how many more research studies are needed to tell us that children who live in poverty are bequeathed failure at school, defeat in what is called the “world of work”, and life long poor physical and psychological health. All this is known, so why spend money on more research about it ? Let’s spend time on working out how we go about redistributing wealth. This is easier said than done, but no human being is worth, let’s say 10 times as much as the poorest. Should any person be worth any more than another ? If as adults we conscientiously address our responsibility to protect and nurture all children then surely each of us would be prepared to give up income she or he does not require in order to make sure that all children have what they need to flourish. When fair minded people who are not rich, but who know they could exist quite adequately on less than they have, think about such a commitment they may feel a moral compunction towards it but they may also be fearful of it. "What if," they ask, "we do this and then we fall upon hard times ? Who will protect and look after us ?" Such a poignantly ironic question. We know the answer we ought to be able to give.Other than those who suffer so wretchedly from poverty in all or any of its aspects, the people we should perhaps worry most for, and about, are the excessively avariciously powerful and wealthy. Surely it is not healthy to be the way they are. These people need help. Thought needs to be given as to how we can best support them in addressing their problems. Still, even if we knew how to redistribute wealth effectively, we may have to accept that those with no experience of having anything will need a period of adjustment to spend as unwisely as we, “the haves” did in recent years. This jumbled collection of thoughts and statements is not altogether naïve, yet it would be easy to become cynical about its chances of being taken up seriously, and so, decide to do nothing. The redistribution of wealth is not a simple exercise but someone – perhaps one or more of us - needs to start to consider it seriously if we are to do the very best we can to make sure all children grow up healthily. This is not an argument for an absolute answer. Every human being is unique but we are left with the pluralism and the conflict of freedom and equality. How long can we wait before we begin to confront this problem? What do we wish for our children ? We may have to acknowledge that freedom and equality are not necessarily harmonious, but somewhere along their continuum a choice should be made. As one kind of start we would truly welcome comments and ideas about this. (Posted, 5th March, 2010).
Comments
Jeremy Millar comments, “ I concur completely. I have a regular rant against 'research into the bleeding obvious' and encourage the students to spot it. my grandfather was a mill owner but ran a workers cooperative so i have been raised in the knowledge that other forms of capitalist endeavour can work. there was an interesting prog on radio 4 regarding john lewis in this respect. also I have an alternative solution to the bank meltdown. sadly too late to impliment as the government bailed the banks out. Anyway what the government could have done was bought off the population’s credit card and personal loan debt. They could have included mortgage for those facing repossession and the debt would have been repaid by individuals over 20 years at a 1% rate of interest. This could have been done through income tax. The government would have then been able to do future investment planning on a secured additional income. The banks would have got their money back. The populace would be solvent and able to start consuming again. Obviously this is just like raising income tax but at least it would make the people feel better rather than disillusioned and angry with the whole system.”
Iain Sharpe writes that “it may be true that studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the haves rather than the have nots, but one step towards giving the have nots a better chance is to make sure they have the knowledge, language and understanding, including vocabulary to challenge the haves.”
Mark Smith comments "I'm not going to disagree with a word of that. I regularly get a niggling voice of conscience questioning whether I should do a Bob Holman (and just as regularly come up with reasons/excuses as to why I don't). Are you aware of Wilkinson and Pickett's book, 'The Spirit Level'? Have a look at www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ “
The Howard League shows the way : raising the profile of training for residential child care workers
First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on September 4th, 2009
It is good news that on September 3rd, the Howard League was able to make the BBC headlines about the need for professional training for prison officers.
Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8233001.stm
We suggest that national government and interested lobbying bodies concerned with the training of residential child care workers should promote a wider public awareness of the needs of children in residential child care and raise the profile of the training needs of those who look after them. The lone voice trying to achieve this in recent years has been the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care but it needs further support to do this from others, particularly from the DCSF.
Our media seems fearful too that we will tire of hearing of the suffering of children over a sustained period of time. It prefers to stick with short-term, blaming sensationalism, or the filling up newspaper columns or news bulletins with children's matters only when there is no political or international crisis brewing. We know that residential child care needs the sustained interest of the public if really healthy developments in the service are to take place. If we - people in one way or another involved in residential care - can sustain wider public interest in our work then we may go even further than the Howard League has done by publicising the issue of prison officer training. We may even manage to foster a wider and more informed public debate and use it to help us achieve the implementation of a national programme of professional training for residential child care workers. This will require the same kind of determination from everyone in our field particularly the DCSF to stick with the task in the same tenacity that is expected of residential child care workers in their care of children and young people.
It is good news that on September 3rd, the Howard League was able to make the BBC headlines about the need for professional training for prison officers.
Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8233001.stm
We suggest that national government and interested lobbying bodies concerned with the training of residential child care workers should promote a wider public awareness of the needs of children in residential child care and raise the profile of the training needs of those who look after them. The lone voice trying to achieve this in recent years has been the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care but it needs further support to do this from others, particularly from the DCSF.
Our media seems fearful too that we will tire of hearing of the suffering of children over a sustained period of time. It prefers to stick with short-term, blaming sensationalism, or the filling up newspaper columns or news bulletins with children's matters only when there is no political or international crisis brewing. We know that residential child care needs the sustained interest of the public if really healthy developments in the service are to take place. If we - people in one way or another involved in residential care - can sustain wider public interest in our work then we may go even further than the Howard League has done by publicising the issue of prison officer training. We may even manage to foster a wider and more informed public debate and use it to help us achieve the implementation of a national programme of professional training for residential child care workers. This will require the same kind of determination from everyone in our field particularly the DCSF to stick with the task in the same tenacity that is expected of residential child care workers in their care of children and young people.
"Disposing" of the case : the right of a young person to attend meetings
First published at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on December 3rd, 2010
Over the last two years during supervision sessions with residential child care managers in England, I have often heard them talk about being invited by social workers and social work managers to attend meetings without the presence of a young person to discuss future plans for the said young person. The young people are frequently over the age of 15 and are old enough and have enough understanding of their situation to attend and inform such discussions. Amongst the terms which seem to have developed to describe such a meeting are “professionals' meetings” and “strategy meetings”. I am informed that these meetings are sometimes conferred in order to decide how to “dispose” of the case. I am sure there is something obvious I am overlooking here but I do wonder why those who wish to be part of such a meeting do not want to invite the young person. My understanding is that a young person’s right to be at a meeting which will make decisions about her or his future is enshrined in legislation and legislative guidelines. I would be grateful for comments on this.
Over the last two years during supervision sessions with residential child care managers in England, I have often heard them talk about being invited by social workers and social work managers to attend meetings without the presence of a young person to discuss future plans for the said young person. The young people are frequently over the age of 15 and are old enough and have enough understanding of their situation to attend and inform such discussions. Amongst the terms which seem to have developed to describe such a meeting are “professionals' meetings” and “strategy meetings”. I am informed that these meetings are sometimes conferred in order to decide how to “dispose” of the case. I am sure there is something obvious I am overlooking here but I do wonder why those who wish to be part of such a meeting do not want to invite the young person. My understanding is that a young person’s right to be at a meeting which will make decisions about her or his future is enshrined in legislation and legislative guidelines. I would be grateful for comments on this.
What's our problem with families ?
First published at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on November 19th, 2009
On November 18th, 2009, commenting on the Queen’s Speech, Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4Children released the following press notice :
“Families want better information about their school, beyond simply the academic performance. They want to know their children are getting the best advice and information including about sex and relationships; and to be more involved in the life of their school. The Children, Schools and Families Bill will be a welcome advance and we call on MPs from all Parties to pass the legislation before the end of the Parliament.”
Anne Longfield's comments on the Children, Schools and Families Bill made me wonder if it might be important for us as a society that schools should not be the primary providers of 'the best advice and information about sex and relationships' - as an aside I would put relationships before sex - but we as parents or parenting figures should be doing this through example by relating to our children and young people in a nurturing, respectful way and by helping them appreciate the excitement of sexual relationships that are engaged upon through respect and tenderness toward the other. I don't think kids should learn about relationships through Powerpoint and electronic whiteboards in a schoolroom but through their parents. Some parents may struggle to carry out this part of their responsibility for their children, and if this is so, it is they we should help first if their children are to flourish. This is not to deny the important yet secondary role a school teacher may play in modelling respectful , supportive and caring relationships for children, but it is to say that it is the parenting role which is fundamental. It may be complained that what I am suggesting is somewhat eccentric. If so, then in my view there is a need for us to re-examine what, if anything, the role of society is, as well as our own roles as individuals who, notionally at least, may pride ourselves on having a care for others. In relation to helping struggling parents I am not talking about inclusion or exclusion which are rather demeaning notions but about saying as members of a supportive caring community, " If something is not going right for you, it is not going right for me".
I am sure Ms Longfield does not dismiss the importance of families in the rearing of children, but I believe we are increasingly asking schools and other agencies external to the family to do - and not surprisingly they mainly fail to do - parenting tasks for children. This should be done by families and parents. I think the symbolism of the order of title of the Children, Schools and Families Bill says it all, just as the name Department of Children, Schools and Families does. Why not Children, Families and Schools or indeed Families, Children and Schools. Why use schools as a means of separating the significance of families from the children who are integral to them ?
On November 18th, 2009, commenting on the Queen’s Speech, Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4Children released the following press notice :
“Families want better information about their school, beyond simply the academic performance. They want to know their children are getting the best advice and information including about sex and relationships; and to be more involved in the life of their school. The Children, Schools and Families Bill will be a welcome advance and we call on MPs from all Parties to pass the legislation before the end of the Parliament.”
Anne Longfield's comments on the Children, Schools and Families Bill made me wonder if it might be important for us as a society that schools should not be the primary providers of 'the best advice and information about sex and relationships' - as an aside I would put relationships before sex - but we as parents or parenting figures should be doing this through example by relating to our children and young people in a nurturing, respectful way and by helping them appreciate the excitement of sexual relationships that are engaged upon through respect and tenderness toward the other. I don't think kids should learn about relationships through Powerpoint and electronic whiteboards in a schoolroom but through their parents. Some parents may struggle to carry out this part of their responsibility for their children, and if this is so, it is they we should help first if their children are to flourish. This is not to deny the important yet secondary role a school teacher may play in modelling respectful , supportive and caring relationships for children, but it is to say that it is the parenting role which is fundamental. It may be complained that what I am suggesting is somewhat eccentric. If so, then in my view there is a need for us to re-examine what, if anything, the role of society is, as well as our own roles as individuals who, notionally at least, may pride ourselves on having a care for others. In relation to helping struggling parents I am not talking about inclusion or exclusion which are rather demeaning notions but about saying as members of a supportive caring community, " If something is not going right for you, it is not going right for me".
I am sure Ms Longfield does not dismiss the importance of families in the rearing of children, but I believe we are increasingly asking schools and other agencies external to the family to do - and not surprisingly they mainly fail to do - parenting tasks for children. This should be done by families and parents. I think the symbolism of the order of title of the Children, Schools and Families Bill says it all, just as the name Department of Children, Schools and Families does. Why not Children, Families and Schools or indeed Families, Children and Schools. Why use schools as a means of separating the significance of families from the children who are integral to them ?
Has anyone seen a NEET to WEEP for ?
First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on 9th November, 2009
Has anyone met a NEET ? NEET is one of the latest of a long line of acronyms used to reify unique human beings. I won't bother to write out what NEET* stands for because by doing so I would be if validating the notion. It is an acronym coined by wise people who I will call - at the risk of being hoist by my own petard - WEEPs, that is people who are they are Wise, Educated, Earning and entitled to Pontificate on what others - specifically, younger adults - should be doing. According to WEEPs the very least we must expect from NEETs is that they should be getting a job, or getting an education or joining some imaginative project out of which a well sponsored WEEP will be earning a very government sponsored living.This is the kind of project which though it will pay NEETs nothing will enrich them in so many other sublime ways. I suggest that each and every WEEP should get in touch with an individual NEET and say, "Not only am I going to make sure you get the education you want and that will be of relevance to you but also until this is achieved and you get a job I am going to give you half my pay. This is the least and the greatest service a WEEP can provide for a NEET.
Footnote : it may be coincidental but following the publication of this piece, Doctor Tony Ord, an Oxford academic who researches ethics, has decided to give 50% of his future earnings to others. To read more about Doctor Ord go to - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360098.stm
OK after countless requests to construe, a NEET is a young person Not in Education, Employment or Training.
Has anyone met a NEET ? NEET is one of the latest of a long line of acronyms used to reify unique human beings. I won't bother to write out what NEET* stands for because by doing so I would be if validating the notion. It is an acronym coined by wise people who I will call - at the risk of being hoist by my own petard - WEEPs, that is people who are they are Wise, Educated, Earning and entitled to Pontificate on what others - specifically, younger adults - should be doing. According to WEEPs the very least we must expect from NEETs is that they should be getting a job, or getting an education or joining some imaginative project out of which a well sponsored WEEP will be earning a very government sponsored living.This is the kind of project which though it will pay NEETs nothing will enrich them in so many other sublime ways. I suggest that each and every WEEP should get in touch with an individual NEET and say, "Not only am I going to make sure you get the education you want and that will be of relevance to you but also until this is achieved and you get a job I am going to give you half my pay. This is the least and the greatest service a WEEP can provide for a NEET.
Footnote : it may be coincidental but following the publication of this piece, Doctor Tony Ord, an Oxford academic who researches ethics, has decided to give 50% of his future earnings to others. To read more about Doctor Ord go to - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360098.stm
OK after countless requests to construe, a NEET is a young person Not in Education, Employment or Training.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
goodenoughcaring : the blog for www. goodenoughcaring.com
This is the new blog for http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ website. It is the archive for goodenoughcaring's homepage "Opinion" articles and the comments that were made in response to them. The blog is regularly reviewed and is "alive" so new comments about archived topics are welcomed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)