Be happy or sad--but no Schadenfreude please.

Bullock, Roger

By the time this editorial is printed, a new UK government will be in office. I write amidst electioneering with the result unknown; but whatever the outcome, it is certain that there will be a change--either to a Conservative administration, a hung parliament or moderated model of New Labour--if only because of impending economic cutbacks.

As journal readers will hold a range of political opinions, some will be celebrating while others will be rueing missed opportunities. Rejoice or mourn as you wish, but if you have any feeling for child welfare, Schadenfreude (1) is definitely indecorous.

I say this because whatever you think of it, the outgoing government has done more than most others to improve the situation of fostered and adopted children. We do not know for certain if their situation has improved since 1997 but there is certainly a lot more money about and much activity on their behalf. It may be that their quality of life and opportunities are no better than previously, but they might have got worse without the recent initiatives given wider economic and social changes.

The list of the Labour Government's attempts to help looked after children is extensive, covering procedures for adoption, care standards, fostering models, support for care leavers, improved education and health, stronger safeguarding, consideration of children's wishes, better qualified staff, sensitivity to culture, race and religion and the promotion of needs-led, evidence-based services. All this has been accompanied by parallel initiatives in family support, health, education, youth justice, financial benefits and community development. Only the hard-hearted would question these welfare ambitions.

But the style of implementing all this has roused criticism. For some reason, the Government has failed to gain the respect of, and even alienated, the very people needed to make it work. Some might argue that this does not matter as children's services professionals needed a good shake-up but a straw poll would undoubtedly reveal many complaints: the arrogant manner, the dismissal of experience, the obsession with process and unattainable targets, the focus on child protection, the tidal wave of guidance, the DCFS monolith, the plethora of agencies, the platitudinous publications and the detachment of practice from theory. Some critics would go further and express deeper concerns, citing the lack of a comprehensive approach manifest in the continuing juvenile imprisonment, unsympathetic benefit reforms and indifference to the shortcomings of educational approaches applied to deprived children. And so the list goes on.

But if it is true that the situation for looked after children has not dramatically improved over the past 14 years, this must not be an excuse to revel in New Labour's failures. As said, they have tried hard, harder than most, so any lack of success must have deeper causes and that should worry us all. Of course, it is possible to go on offering 'if only' proposals--if only social workers did their job, if only agencies worked together, etc.--but these remain vague hopes, about as useful as the Heathrow manager's statement a few years back that 'the airport would work like a dream if there weren't any passengers'.

Reluctantly, we may have to conclude that the difficulties of achieving conspicuous and radical success for some looked after children may be beyond the ability of governments and the best they can do is to focus on minor reforms and keep the lid on. Global economic and social changes seem to be creating widening gaps between rich and poor and old and young, public opinion is less sympathetic to individual and family dysfunction, the children's presenting problems and the difficulties of providing substitute parenting are still insufficiently understood, and there is widespread pessimism about the social situation in the UK which, if only perceived, 'will be true in its effects'. (2)

So feel free to respond to the election result as you wish, but if you are concerned for the welfare of looked after children, no Schadenfreude please.

(1) Defined in the OED as 'pleasure derived from another's misfortune'.

(2) Survey results reported in The Times, 9 February 2010.

WI Thomas's theorem states, 'If men [sic] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences', WI and DS Thomas, The Child in America: Behavior and programs, New York: Kopf, 1928, pp 571-2.

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