Amreen Rafiq

0902519

Do Integrated Children and Young Peoples Services meet the needs of Children, Young People and their Families in Socially Excluded Groupings? This assignment will critically discuss if integrated children and young peoples services are meeting the needs of children, young people and their families in socially excluded groups. It will initiate with different ideas of social exclusion and how authors define them in their individual manner. It will further on investigate how current social policies are helping those groups to be integrated and if it is having beneficial outcomes for them. However the main focus of the essay will be on a particular socially excluded group; domestic abuse and how this group is restricted by barriers to be included in the society and the support they receive in a childrens centre. The conclusion will summarise the outcomes of the assignment and if policies are doing as well as they should be. In the United Kingdom, Social exclusion is known to be a complicated notion. In 1997 with Tony Blairs election the SEU (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) was introduced by the New Labour Government. The aim of the SEU was to prevent exclusion wherever possible and to reintegrate those who have become excluded, in the hope to have a better, fairer society which aids the most vulnerable individuals (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). Buchanan (2007) asserts that the unit defined social exclusion as; individuals who suffer from a chain of problems such as unemployment, discrimination, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, ill health and family breakdown. It is argued by Buchanan (2007) that when they interlink with each other they become a horrible cycle which leads to social exclusion. The two factors that contribute to being socially excluded are that it can start from birth, for instance if they are born into poverty or have parents with low skills. These factors are still believed to be the key influences on future life chances (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). Pierson (2002, p.7) along similar lines believes social exclusion to be a process that deprives individuals and families, groups and neighbourhoods of the resources required for participation in the social, economic and political activity of society as a whole. This results in poverty, but other factors such as discrimination, low educational attainment and depleted living environments also underpin it (p.7). Pierson (2002, p.7) believes there is a contradictory nature of the way in which social exclusion is used in policy and practice The definition provided by the SEU (2001) makes an interesting statement by expressing social exclusion to be a combination of circumstances. The issue usually comes down to the individual and their families; however social exclusion mostly occurs when two or more

Amreen Rafiq

0902519

factors clash. For instance, domestic abuse is not the most prominent factor towards an individual to be socially excluded, however lack of family support with the added component of an abusive partner weights heavily towards isolating the victim from family and friends. These reasons could lead the person to be socially excluded from the community and society. The previously mentioned SEU (2001) was commenced and underpinned by three main objectives which are as follows: preventing those at risk from being socially excluded, reintegrating those who are already excluded and improving basic services to include individuals from deprived areas (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). The unit acknowledges that the project will only be beneficial in the long term. It is to be seen if the Coalition Government will see this unit to be valuable and if there will be additional funding in the future. In 2007, the Department of Children, School and Families introduced the Childrens Plan aiming on a ten year strategy to make it the best place for children and young people to grow up in (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007). It was also put in place in order to help children in need and their vulnerable families. The Plan (DCSF, 2007) is supported by five key principles: children are brought up by their families and not the government but they need backing up. Every child has the potential to succeed and their talent should take them as far as possible. Children should enjoy their childhood but also prepare for adult life. Services need to be shaped to the needs of the children, young people and families. It is best to prevent failure rather than tackle a crisis later. The principles have been strategically implemented to cover families in general. Therefore it is important to recognise that some families need more support than others. The Victoria Climbie case was a cataclysmic event in the United Kingdom, leaving people to understand the incomprehensible. The case resulted in the introduction of, 'Every Child Matters' (ECM) and its legislative spin The Children's Act 2004' (Ward, 2009, p.18). The policy of ECM is to protect children from risk that their parents/guardians or communities are putting them in (Ward, 2009, p.18). Lord Laming led the inquiry for Victoria and also for the more recent case of Baby Peter. BBC News (2010) reported that Lord Laming emphasised that every child protection referral made to professionals should lead to a formal initial assessment. The legislative framework of ECM has ensured that children are protected and safeguarded. This does not necessarily mean that every child in Britain is safe, as some cases

Amreen Rafiq

0902519

go unnoticed by professionals, or at times it is detected but there is not a lot done to save them. The DCSF published a progress report two years on which pinpointed the positive feedback of the plan. The report stated that the Childrens Plan has made excellent progression. One of the key emphases in the Childrens Plan was to introduce Childrens Centres around Britain. There are now 3000 Sure Start Childrens Centres, offering integrated services to more than 2.4 million under-fives and their families (2009). In hopes of supporting the most vulnerable families the plan introduced the Family intervention project which provides intensive support to domestic violence victims as well as other vulnerable victims. Domestic abuse has not got a single, universally agreed definition, although Sanderson (2008, p.21) believes that domestic abuse is the use of coercive control within an intimate or family relationship. Sanderson states that statistically women are seen to be more vulnerable to domestic abuse, but that this should not invalidate or marginalise female domestic abuse towards males or same sex domestic abuse (p.21). It is important as a support worker not to be biased and to stigmatise or belittle the abused. The definition of domestic violence provided by the Home Office (2006, in Sanderson, p.21) is any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. The latter definition does not focus on the aspects of force in the abusive relationship which as Sanderson states is the control the abuser has on the victim. Sanderson (2008) states abusers using emotional and psychological abuse as a control mechanism to keep the abused suppressed by depriving them of their valued and treasured objects (p.25). The Childrens Plan third principle was to focus on children being safe from harm, healthy and able to enjoy their childhoods (p.29). Hester et al. (2007, p.11) acknowledges that domestic abuse of women and children were seen as separate issues previously. Nevertheless there is a better understanding of the interrelationship between domestic violence and child abuse today. Featherstone and Peckover (2007) believe that violence by men to women may impact upon womens ability to look after children. It is important to realise that men who are violent may actively intervene in the relationship between the mother and the child/children in order to isolate her and undermine her self-confidence as a mother (Hooper and Humphreys 1997, in Featherstone and Peckover 2007, p.183). It is these circumstances,

Amreen Rafiq

0902519

as well as other factors that make a victim vulnerable and feel socially excluded from society. It has been established that children are also affected by the domestic abuse that goes on in their households. Hester et al. (2007, p. 11) affirm that if a domestic abuse victim has children, there is a heightened probability that her children may be abused. This was proved by the study conducted by Farmer and Owen (1995, in Hester et al. 2007, p.11) where three of five cases revealed that children who were being subjected to physical abuse, neglect or emotional abuse, their mothers were also being abused by their violent partners. Children growing up in domestic abuse households were earlier not given much attention by professionals (Hester et al. 2007). Mullender (2006, in Devaney 2008) believes that children should not be thought of as silent witnesses of domestic violence but as social actors who have their own perceptions and understandings. Nevertheless attention is now being given to children who are growing up in an abusive environment. The Department of Health et al. (1999, in Featherstone and Peckover 2007) addressed this issue by stating, if the police have specific concerns about the safety or welfare of a child, they should make a referral to the social services department citing the basis for their concerns. These are some very good tactics to protect children from harm and abuse. However, Featherstone and Peckover concluded that there are some problems around referrals in practice. They elaborate on this by stating that the social services department have been getting overwhelming amounts of referrals from the police. Therefore they do not respond to them until they have received three or more complaints concerning a particular family (Cleaver and Walker 2004, in Featherstone and Peckover 2007). In relation to domestic abuse there are many long term and complex needs (Devaney, 2008) that the abuse victim and the child might have as result of witnessing the abuse. This could be the emotional need of a victim. It should be kept in mind when working with domestic abuse victims that each service user has, individual needs and personal experiences. There are many barriers that affect and disengage a domestic abuse victim to go out and seek help. The following issues are the most recognised barriers to affect a domestic abuse victim: power relationship, financial difficulties, mistrust, stigma, social isolation and lack of knowledge of services.

Amreen Rafiq

0902519

The concept of power relationship is the association between the victim and the professional. Foucault (1984) stresses that power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategically situation in a particular society. It is important to keep a balanced and non-judgemental view of any domestic abuse cases. Green (2008, 28-29) establishes that power comes in at least four varied forms: power over, power to, power with, power within. The most relative and positive power would have to be the power with, Green (2008) further defines it as a collective power, through organisation, solidarity, and joint action (p.29). It is imperative when working with vulnerable individuals to put their needs ahead of anything else. Sanders and Roach (2006) express the views on some cases where the relationship tension between the parent and worker was evident and appeared to have a detrimental impact on the success of the service. They elaborate on a case where the service user avoided appointments and did not appreciate the advice in an apt manner. This could have been due to the professional making the decisions or not building a relationship of trust with the service user. It is important as a family support worker to build a relationship of trust and comfort with the service user as this could achieve more for the worker and the family. It has been witnessed many times that domestic abuse victims do not want to leave the abusive household owing the security they have from a financial perspective. Sanderson (2008, p.116) deliberates on this by stating financial security is commonly compromised when leaving an abusive relationship and is a recurring threat to external safety. Abusive partners use financial support as a way to have control on the partner, even after the victim has left them. This can have a negative impact on the survivor as they try to cope through financial difficulties. It is important as a family support worker to let the survivors know of any support services available for domestic abuse victims and their children. However it could be possible that the potential service user does not have the transport fare to get to the childrens centres and other services. This again limits the service user from getting the support that is needed to survive. Domestic abuse victims are bound to have difficulties trusting other individual and this is especially true for professionals. The Childrens Plan (2007) believed that outreach and home visiting services will provide to those individuals who are at greater risk from social exclusion. This opportunity would be a gateway to the services that families need (2007). They acknowledge that with some families it takes time, effort and dedication to establish a

Amreen Rafiq

0902519

relationship of trust. It is vital that the support worker has a positive attitude and behaviour towards helping the vulnerable. Especially since they might feel they are being judged or patronised. Devaney (2008) proves this by maintaining that some women are held accountable for putting themselves and their children in that particular situation. This is a very strong barrier, but it is vital for the professional to put those personal statements aside and only help the vulnerable. As human beings we can not but help stereotyping people. It is therefore important as a professional to put any personal stereotypes aside when helping vulnerable people. Similarly, potential service users get deterred to approach childrens centres as they feel they will get stigmatised by the support workers for reasons such as, why did he/she not leave the abuser at the start of the relationship? It is based on those reasons there are family centres which provide one stop shops operating as multi service community centres providing nonstigmatising services to vulnerable families (Tomison 1997, in Fernandez 2007). In conclusion, it can be observed that the Childrens Plan policies are very well written and also appropriately aimed at individuals and families who are at risk from being socially excluded. However, throughout the assignment it can be noticed that the policies are not very effective in practice. This could be due to the previously established barriers which although being very problematic to overcome have been handled very well by the services. The Coalition Government has recognised the importance of domestic abuse as recently they announced a scheme which will ban possible domestic violence suspects from their homes (Home Office, 2010). This will tackle abuse against women and girls. It does however raise the critique of male victims not getting the same treatment as female victims. They are equally vulnerable from being socially excluded. Overall the Childrens Plan and other services are doing well in keeping children and their families from being socially excluded by trying to eliminate the barriers. Similarly to the SEU it has to be seen if the Coalition Government will find the Childrens Plan beneficial enough to keep funding it.