The relationship between citizens and the state resides as a contentious point of debate in

the context of contemporary social policy. In direct relation to this, the issue of

compulsory early intervention targeted at those perceived to be at risk of future social

exclusion provides a contemporary basis for discussion. Appositely the current

government’s aspirations to tackle social exclusion and subsequent antisocial behaviour

are critically highlighted by various authors (Clarke, 2006; Gillis, 2006; Rodger, 2006

and Williams, 2006). In correspondence to this Best, (2006, p. 3) questions:

‘‘The Government proposes to tackle social exclusion through compulsory early

intervention for the bottom 2% of society: high harm, high cost families; pregnant

teens and children in care. What should the state do?’’

Effectively this places the role of the state and its ability to impact on society in a position

of scrutiny. Significantly Gillies (2006a) maintains focus on policy definitions which

focus on the family and specifically the governmental mechanisms which are directed at

supporting parents. In response to this Miles (2006) questions to what extent the inclusive

nature of the current government can reach those most indeed of support through early

intervention and casts criticism over the trenchant language used by the Prime Minister to

make the intervention compulsory. The authoritarian undertones which emanate from this

incisive governmental intention validate an investigation into why this course of action is

considered necessary.

The following reading will identify childhood risk factors associated with later social

exclusion with the centrality of parenting to this issue at policy level presented as a

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 1

welcome, but complex component to social policy. Governmental emphasis on coupling

social responsibilities with social rights, as defined by Baggot (2004), will introduce the

discussion area of compulsory early intervention seeking its justification and questioning

its intentions. Opposing concepts of the child at societal level will demonstrate a sense of

ambiguity associated with the approach, and representation of childhood within national

policy will be criticized in terms of condemnation. The work of Williams (2006) will

highlight instrumental connotations associated with protection and prevention which

according to Deacon (2003) represent the rationale for early intervention for those

considered at risk to be made compulsory. Divergent explanations for social exclusion

will be considered following a consideration of historical events associated with the cycle

of deprivation. The ‘‘…criminalisation of social policy’’ defined by Rodger (2006, p 123)

will strengthen deficit implications of intentions to make parenting intervention

compulsory and provide insight into potential threats to government credibility. Finally

the condition of social exclusion will be considered and the government’s ability to meet

modern societal demands questioned.

Childhood risk factors for later social problems, and in particular offending, are identified

by Farrington (2006). Amongst these are low parental involvement with the child,

disrupted families, low parental age, child abuse and neglect. The centrality of parenting

and the family unit to these factors has been strongly recognised by the current

government, and child centred policy now clearly defines political intention to improve

outcomes for children and to support parents in meeting their responsibilities of

childrearing. While this renewed focus on parenting policy appears a welcome facet of

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 2

contemporary politics, the terrain it encompasses is recognised by Henricson (2003, p.68)

to straddle many aspects of the relationship between citizens and the state encompassing:

‘‘…the government’s core crime prevention and social regulation functions through to its

social welfare and communitarian aspirations.’’

In contrast to the conservative political culture which preceded today’s current political

rationalisation, contemporary governmental perspective conceptualises families having

the right to expect and to receive support from the state. However this approach is

considered somewhat conditional by Baggott (2004) due to a clear emphasis on social

responsibilities, as defined by the Respect and Responsibility White Paper (2003),

coupled with social rights. Policy formation which seeks to make parenting intervention

compulsory suggests a lack of political confidence toward specific individuals and their

capability in fulfilling these responsibilities appropriately. Emerging from this is a thread

of paternalism which draws on Mead’s (1992) permissive explanation for social

exclusion by seeking to enforce moral obligations. Contentiously the provision of

opportunities and choice which defines New Labour ideology rests uneasily with this

situation suggesting that existing strategies have failed for the bottom 2% of society.

If enforced intervention is the solution to this problem then its methods must undoubtedly

be justifiable.

The work of Gilles (2006a, p.70) regarding parenting support is highly critical of the

government’s decision of intervention for the worst off in society to be made compulsory

and suggests that it is:

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 3

 ‘‘…driven by a particular moral agenda that seeks to regulate and control the behaviour of

marginalised families.’’

With France and Utting (2005, p.77) recognising that ‘‘risk and protection focussed

prevention’’ is now a major feature of policies and initiatives concerning children and

their families, it is interesting, in light of the criticism from Gillies (2006a), to consider

what it is to be prevented. At policy level opposing concepts of the child in society are

evident. Classical discourses of childhood offered by Stainton Rogers (2001) represent

perceptions of the child as an innocent in need of protection or a deviant requiring

control. Concurrently Walker (2005, p, 363.) offers the vision of the ‘‘…tearaway child’’

in relation to antisocial behaviour policy and in contrast the ‘‘…passive child’’ within

family policy. The implicit situation which occurs from these polarised concepts is a lack

of clarity as to whether the state paternalism evident through the issue of compulsory

early intervention seeks to protect the child in society or, in contrast, society from the

child. However, what is clear is that this does not strengthen the subordinate perception

of childhood. Important considerations in relation to this are contemporary adult reactions

to childhood which, according to Goldson (2001), have become increasingly anxious

amidst a culture of media amplification. Representation of this at policy level, through

aspirations to intervene in a child’s life before birth, seems favour an understanding of

childhood which condemns specific children as both the cause and effect of wider social

disorder, yet it is adults which are essentially in control of these outcomes.

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 4

In light of the welfare state under the direction of the current government becoming

increasingly reorganised around work evident through initiatives such as the tax credit

system, the subtle undertones emerging from Gillies’s (2006a) criticism regarding

regulation become further evident. Interestingly authors such as Williams (2006) and

Clarke (2006) have explicitly equated the governmental commitment to breaking the

cycle of disadvantage through tackling social exclusion to be underpinned by an ethic of

work rather than an ethic of care. Wyness (2000) equates this policy drive to moralising

and making responsible the under classes. Closely aligned to this are the concepts of

social investment and the emergence of the investment state Giddens (1998). Clarke

(2006, p.702) stratifies this direction of governmental manoeuvring and offers that:

‘‘Investment in children’s well-being and education represents the epitome of prudent long

term investment, which promises to save on future expenditure by avoiding the costs of

future social exclusion.’’

Clearly if this is the government’s ultimate goal then the earlier the intervention takes

place the greater chance there is of maintaining economic stability.

The presence of compulsory early intervention within current social policy clearly targets

specific children before they are born, yet the concept of this as a strategy to alleviate

social exclusion ignores the child’s experience in their future context as this has not yet

occurred. Instead there remains a focus on eliminating the characteristics or behaviour of

some children which could prevent them from becoming responsible future citizens.

Deficit connotations are evident here. Moreover and from a personal perspective, the

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 5

altruistic aptitude of the current government is placed under scrutiny by this concept with

question raised as to whether the current child centred policy demonstrated through Every

Child Matters (2003) and Children Act (2004) is concerned with improving children’s

well-being for the present or with ensuring the future productivity of society. Williams

(2006) suggests that what is lacking in this legislation is direction for respecting children

and childhood. Furthermore the increasing professionalisation of childcare represents

political pressure on early year’s settings to compensate for, and produce better outcomes

than, parents who are considered disadvantaged. Worryingly the work of Wyness (2000)

shows how this type of state action has the potential to undercut the structural position of

children by loosening the ties that hold them to their subordinate position. Personal

professional experience collates with this concern due to educational policy, especially

regarding children’s mental health and well-being, which is increasingly encroaching

parental domain and blurring the boundaries as to who is ultimately responsible.

Influenced by the earlier research findings of Sir Keith Joseph (1972) who established a

Joint Working Party on Transmitted Deprivation and later publications from Brown and

Madge (1982) New Labour has made some interesting inferences. Joseph (1972-cited in

Baldock 2005, p.57) classically defined the term ‘‘…cycle of deprivation.’’ This cyclical

explanation clearly holds strong behavioural connotations by suggesting that parents who

are deprived in childhood will become parents of a further generation of deprived

children. Also particularly relevant to this discussion is the historic recognition by Rutter

and Madge (1976) that there are some exceptions to these intergenerational continuities

and that there may be specific individual qualities which enable a person to flourish

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 6

despite the effects of disadvantage and depravation. Accordingly Deacon (2003) observes

that the possibility of reinforcing the protective qualities needed to overcome such

powerful negative effects lies at the heart of New Labour’s response to the cycle of

disadvantage. With individual resilience features historically highlighted by Rutter and

Madge (1976) remaining evident yet elusive, the notion of predicting behaviour from

before birth could be perceived as a risk in itself. The term ‘‘…genetic determinism’’ used

by Glendenning (2006, p. 12) is resonant with this concern and highlights its potential to

re-individualise disadvantage. Critically it is unclear as to whether children who have

been provided with opportunities to flourish before birth and fail to do so represent a

system failure or an individual one.

Attachment theory lends itself as a useful tool toward understanding how an individual

can be shaped according to their relationship with a parent or main caregiver. Originally

defined by Bowlby (1956) the process of attachment describes the bonding process

between primary care givers and infants and is described by Montymaa et al, (2003) as a

prerequisite for both psychological and physiological development. Pertinently Harwood

et, al. (1995) emphasise the continuity between early quality of attachment and later

socio-emotional development. At this point cultural explanations for the perpetuation of

trans-generational disadvantage become interesting to consider. This perspective

recognises the transference from one generation to the next of values which are

insufficient in fostering and sustaining the attitudes and behaviours required to escape

from disadvantaged circumstances.

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 7

Clearly the justification of intervention at the earliest opportunity is rationalised through

knowledge based on attachment theory, yet the pathological connotations aggravated by

the cultural perspective highlight some awkward and persistent issues to which the

current government is answerable. The need for intervention to be focused on the

interpersonal context of those targeted is a crucial aspect which is likely to significantly

affect its success. Difficulty in achieving this is signified by Bennett (2006) who suggests

that Sure Start, which is an established early intervention programme designed to help the

most deprived families yet available to all, is failing to engage those most in need of its

services due to the middle classes utilizing the system and deterring those who are in

greater need.

Cynically Miles (2006) notes the government’s aversion to being perceived as

condemnatory towards specific cohorts of society by a consistent emphasis on providing

opportunity rather than preventing crime. However the implications offered by Rodger

(2006) that antisocial behaviour initiatives and parenting policy are increasingly seen to

be in tension are strengthened by Grice’s (2006) concern regarding those who refuse help

losing state benefits. More critically Rodger (2006, p.123) states that:

‘‘The future of the welfare state is perhaps, imperceptibly changing as a part of a broader

movement in what is described as the criminalisation of social policy.’’

The frequent reference and justification, as noticed collectively by (Miles, 2006;

Benjamin; 2006 and Woolf, 2006), of compulsory early intervention by the current

government for those considered at risk perpetuates this statement and raises question as

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 8

to whom and what this notion of risk is the greatest? Surely the risk of not intervening

into the lives of which Best (2006, p.3) defines as ‘…high harm, high cost families,

pregnant teens and children in care’’ threatens to undermine the governments

commitment to law and order, yet the risk of stigmatisation in relation to what Field

(2003) considers as a clearly defined target group holds the potential for the further

isolation of these individuals.

Concurrent to this discussion contemporary political reactions to social exclusion are

highlighted by Fairclough (2002-cited in Gillies 2006a, p.72) who points to:

‘‘The rhetorical manoeuvres performed by New Labour politicians in order to distance

definitions of social exclusion from a starting point of poverty.’’

Our Nation’s Future - Social Exclusion (2006), a recent speech delivered by the Prime

Minister, provides a current and explicit opening for this style of criticism. The definitive

message conveyed by this confirms that:

‘‘…for a minority of families, their material poverty may be acute but is not

necessarily linked to lack of work or income per se, but may well be the

result of a multiplicity of lifestyle issues.’’

Clearly this statement places emphasis on the role of individual and group agency and

associated choices alongside an acknowledgment of the negative effects of their structural

circumstances. From a personal perspective it is both interesting and important to

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 9

consider which of these explanations for social inclusion are dominant within current

social policy. Critically a sense of ambiguity is conveyed by Lister (2003) in direct

relation to this. Deacon (2003, p.700) reinforces this criticism and states that:

‘‘New Labour has managed to avoid both the determination of structural

explanations and an approach that sees social exclusion as the result of

individual pathology.’’

However in reality it is those who have failed to engage with the existing governmental

attempts to increase opportunities and access to information through initiatives such as

Sure Start and redistributive policy such as the working family tax credit system who,

from a personal perspective, are condemned as self excluded. For children compulsory

early intervention has the potential to intensify this situation by contrasting their material

poverty with a more serious state of exclusion to be addressed separately Williams

(2006).

Pertinently the use of the term lifestyle in Our Nation’s Future- Social Exclusion (2006)

represents an interesting and contemporary discussion regarding, from a sociological

perspective, new forms of social differentiation which according to Jones (2005) have

become evident due to society’s transition to a new social form. Whilst there is

recognition by the government, according to Gillies (2006), of the transformation of

contemporary family life and the destabilisation of family values and identities there

remains a desire to protect traditional values. Essentially new Labour’s Third Way

rationale which is referred to collectively by various authors (Baggott, 2004; Clarke,

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 10

2006 and Henricson, 2003) offers a method to meet the demand of such a society, yet its

values associated with opportunities for all and responsibility appear to be laden with

behavioural connotations and furthermore be dependent on the actions of those in society

to fore fill its underpinning aims Curtis (2006).

Conclusively it appears evident that childhood can be shaped in particular ways and

children like other social groups are exposed to social forces. These social forces are

understood at governmental level to be closely aligned to parenting and traditional

values. Parental responsibility is therefore firmly established within current government

rationale. Compulsory early intervention landmarks what could be considered as a crisis

of childhood and one which requires radical action to reach the most excluded members

of society?

Awkwardly, and despite attempts to raise individual and community capacity through

increasing opportunities offered in a climate of choice a percentage of the population

have failed to engage with the plan. It is these people who are now being targeted by

enforced intervention which aspires to intercept, at the earliest opportunity, future threats

to society. With professionals increasingly taking the position of responsible adults in

children’s lives the ironic conflict of demanding more responsible behaviour from adults

through the presence of compulsory early intervention emerges. Justification is sought for

this paternalistic approach by a conceptualisation of social exclusion which defines the

victims as defeated and unable to overcome the practical difficulty of their lives Mead

(1992). Paradoxically classical perceptions of the subordinate child needing to be

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 11

controlled by a parent in correlate with enforced intervention which represents the same

requirement between particular citizens and the state. It is here that the authoritarian and

regulative control theory generated by Gilles (2006a) (2006b) is clearly observed.

France and Utting’s (2005) perception of the risk and protection focused prevention

momentum at the heart of current governmental ideology defines an interesting and

complex argument. Personal understanding of this approach perceives the emergence of

an implicit situation. Clearly intervention is required and welcomed to reduce the risk for

children of future social exclusion, and justification of enforced intervention can be

understood in terms of protection for the child or society. However the term prevention

re-orientates the discussion towards a need to reduce crime and aggravates the potential

for compulsory early intervention to reframe issues of social exclusion in terms of

disconnection with mainstream values Gillies (2006b).

Irrefutably the role of the media, according to Goldson (2001), has shaped societal

responses to children and childhood by generating prolific examples of deviant child

behaviour. Alongside this the opposing concept of childhood innocence is also residual

within contemporary understanding. Dominant consolidation of either of these concepts

at societal level has the potential to impact significantly on policy formation.

British status within the global economy explains what could be considered as an

instrumental approach to eradicating social exclusion. Compulsory early intervention as a

means of ensuring the educability of children has been aptly defined by Clarke (2006)

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 12

and Williams (2006). Ultimately the authenticity of child centred policy is placed in

question by this situation and provides an interesting starting point for further research.

Similarly the presumption that enforced professional intervention will produce more

favourable long-term results for children necessitates a fundamental examination into the

interpersonal context of those targeted and the bonding processes between these

individuals and their children. Crucially the work of Farrington (2006) defines further

limitations in contemporary understanding of the behavioural trajectories of those who

are socially excluded this lack of knowledge negates the potential of inherent resilience

factors in children.

Attachment theory and cultural explanations for social exclusion define both rational and

problematic understandings of compulsory early intervention. In particular the cultural

explanation implies that social exclusion is a condition experienced by those who are

pathologically deficient. The inverse care law presented by Bennett’s (2006) article

concerning Sure Start (1999) perpetuates the difficulties which will inevitably be

experienced by enforced early intervention. Clearly there is a danger of traditionally held

values about parenting being prescribed for the common good in a top down authoritarian

manner.

Conclusively it remains unclear as which discourse resides as dominant within

contemporary political reactions to social exclusion. This ambiguity, from a personal

perspective, presents a serious threat to the credibility of the current government. While a

sense of sympathy underlies modern policy reactions to societal change, the ability and

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 13

aptitude to function as a responsible citizen remains paramount. Amidst an increasingly

diverse society certain cohorts who are unable to fulfil this obligation are now being

targeted through a clear display of governmental concern. The basis for this concern

however remains a critical point of consideration. Definitively, the presence of

compulsory intervention within contemporary social policy represents blurring

boundaries between welfare intentions and the maintenance of law and order.

Alison Louise Williams BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies Year 6 14