Think of a number, double it, add on ten ...

Bullock, Roger

The grave and shocking problems facing many British children must not be denied. There is no room for complacency or Panglossian optimism. Yet while we welcome the courage of those who speak out, we are often invited to contemplate estimates where numbers like 'hundreds' and 'thousands' regularly appear without definition or qualification.

In the early autumn, three such incidents occurred in close sequence. On the 30th August, the Daily Mail reported that 'the [welfare] system is denying adoption to thousands of children unnecessarily'; on October 13th the Deputy Children's Commissioner claimed that 'thousands of children are being horrifically abused by gangs' with, relevant to the interests of this journal, those in care being four times more likely to be involved than others; and four days later, The Children's Society expressed concern that 'hundreds of children were being held by the UK Border Agency at ports and airports'.

Things became even less restrained as the days passed. On November 7th the BBC News reported that in Northern Ireland, 'two-thirds of young girls in residential establishments are at risk of sexual abuse', without saying that there are only 42 girls in such placements, giving a vulnerable population of 28 who, moreover, are 'at risk of' abuse rather than actually experiencing it--a figure that represents about one in 2,000 of all female teenagers living in the Province. The same day, The Guardian quoted a study suggesting that 'at least one newborn baby in four is at high risk of death or abuse because one or both parents are beset by a "toxic trio" of domestic violence, mental health difficulties or substance dependency'--a proportion made even more startling by the fact that these babies are at 'high' risk and not just vulnerable. To cap it all, on page 36, the same newspaper showed a photograph of poor housing in Manchester carrying a caption: 'A child playing in Manchester where a charity says 1.6 million children live in poverty.' This is an unlikely scenario in that that figure is three times the total population of the city, but, more worrying than the poor journalism is the fact that the sub-editor clearly had little idea of what an accurate figure might be.

Admittedly, more information on figures might follow in the detail; for example, 10,000 for the exploitation by sex gangs and 697 for immigration detention. These help to grasp the extent of the problem but in my view, the use of unqualified huge numbers harms worthy causes. It might jolt the dozing reader but can be counterproductive for reasons I shall explain.

As a long-standing researcher I have studied numerous social problems, for example putting children in secure units, managing family access to separated children and trying to prevent problems from arising or getting worse. In all these cases, the initial task was to gain some understanding of the problem by assessing its nature and prevalence so that its causes and consequences could be carefully explored. As a general rule, my experience suggests two things: that the problem usually exists but that its prevalence is exaggerated.

By the latter, I mean that in many cases the problem is perceived too broadly to be solved by a single policy. For example, what are the ages of the 697 'children' cited above. Are they children or young adults? How long are they detained for and in what circumstances? There is a difference between a bewildered and terrified five-year-old forcefully separated from parents and a 17-year-old youth wilfully trying to dodge border formalities. So without knowing more details, it is difficult to gauge how serious the problem is and whether the practice is unacceptable or just insensitive.

Many initiatives in which I have been involved have sought to meet a perceived unmet need, only to find that the number of candidates is less than expected. Although selection criteria are easy to set, many referrals don't quite fit. I was thus not surprised to read in the article by Jennifer Cousins and John Simmonds that they identified many children who were disabled and many in need of family placement, but hardly any who were both. A similar situation occurred in the 1970s with Youth Treatment Centres which were established as a response to the lack of suitable provision for a female child murderer, only to find that such cases hardly recurred in the subsequent years. Likewise, the Intensive Support and Supervision Project (ISSP) was designed to provide an alternative to custody for persistent teenage offenders, only to find when piloted that although many 'candidates' qualified on persistency, they had other characteristics that excluded them, such as being over the age limit by the time of sentence, committing offences that demanded prison, or simply being discharged or disappearing before they could join. Recent studies of looked after children by the Social Research Unit at Dartington show that while there are undoubtedly a lot of abused and neglected infants entering care, for most of them adoption does not leap out as an automatic solution for all kinds of reasons, not just the stupidity, stubbornness and prejudices of social workers and judges (dozens, hundred, thousands of them?), which the media are eager to report.

So without a careful disaggregation of the population under consideration, global statements about need and response usually falter, to the frustration of reformers who then vilify the professionals and castigate the government. But this is not to deny that the problem exists. Thank goodness that some sobriety emerged in the middle of all this (BBCNews, 30 October) when the Schools Health Education Unit reported what I think is a worrying statistic that four per cent of 12- to 13-year-olds (about 25,000 actually) admitted drinking more than 28 units of alcohol in the past week, but chose to present it calmly as 'a small but significant minority'.

So why is hyperbole so counterproductive? First, it alienates the professionals struggling with difficult work by denigrating their efforts and implying that the job is simple. Second, in a situation where most people neither encounter these problems nor know anyone who does, hearing that 'thousands' are affected engenders disbelief and a view that what is intended as a serious statement is little more than an 'End of the World is Nigh' prophesy. Third, portraying a problem as 'massive' causes citizens to feel powerless or to cease believing that communal involvement can make a difference. If this happens, responsibility becomes limited to expressing concern, paying taxes to fund remedial services and popping coins in charity collection boxes. In his report on Victoria Climbie, Lord Laming hoped that child protection would become a communal responsibility but I fear that this can only go so far if, as is alleged, so many babies are at risk of abuse and death. The British continue to be a tolerant and generous people and the Good Samaritan exists in most people, but an equally likely response in these more individualistic times is that of the Pharisee who prayed, 'Thank God I am not as other men are'; or as I heard an American social worker exclaim on watching EastEnders, 'Who wants to watch programmes about the poor?'. Whether this is an accurate prophecy of the way British society develops remains to be seen but whatever the situation, some level-headed thinking will be needed.

Roger Bullock is Commissioning Editor of Adoption & Fostering and a Fellow, Centre for Social Policy, Warren House Group at Dartington