Towards a richer harvest.
Bullock, Roger
The July edition of Adoption & Fostering opened with two
articles--one radical, the other reformist--on the future of the care
system (Little and Sinclair, 2010). They set off a debate that has been
continued in two reports (1) from the Think Tank DEMOS, both informed by
the authors concerned.
The first, titled In Loco Parentis, reviews the care system and
expands previous policy and practice publications, such as Getting it
Right for Every Child and Care Matters. It echoes the journal article by
Ian Sinclair that the laws underpinning principles and guidance, as
delineated in the Children Act 1989, are fundamentally sound but need
implementing properly. This supports the conclusions reached by external
observers such as Lord Laming in his reports on Victoria Climbie and
Baby Peter and two issues of the Journal of Children's Services
(5:2 and 5:3; June and December 2010) that review the Act 20 years on.
But effective application requires resources and so the recurring cry
throughout the report's 300 pages tends to be 'more'.
Alas, in the prevailing economic climate, pleas for
'more' seem like a ghostly lament and this aspect of the
report now has a forlorn quality, with little likelihood of ever being
heard, whatever its inherent merits. Sadly, it is also easy to be
critical of the proposals as it is difficult to judge their merits in
the absence of sound epidemiological information on children's
needs; and this simply does not exist. We do not know if the right
children are in care, getting the right interventions for the right
amount of time. If they are, then so well and good, and we should fight
for what the authors propose. If not, we end up like Sisyphus, ordered
by the gods to push a heavy stone up a steep hill, only for them to
snatch it from him as he neared the top and roll it back to the bottom.
The second report, Proof Positive, tries to explain why the
legislation and guidance do not work as well as they should. It does
this by looking at the intrinsic qualities of the 'systems'
that comprise welfare services. It suggests that much of their behaviour
is counterproductive and they can become reactionary rather than
progressive forces; hence, if outcomes for children and families are
ever to improve, their tendencies to focus on outputs, to rubbish
evidence-based knowledge and to seek survival at all costs need to be
challenged.
Several suggestions for achieving this are made. Some are
predictable, such as funding reform and training, while others are
innovatory and rely on divergent and lateral thinking. An example of the
latter--but from a quite different field--was described at the launch of
the report. It cited Cyrus McCormick who invented the combine harvester
in the 1840s. (2) Although this was a brilliant mechanical invention, it
was far too expensive for mid-west farmers, so his business struggled
and harvesting methods remained traditional. But, he then invented
'hire purchase' and introduced this into his sales pitch.
Radical change soon followed as farmers could now afford the new
machine; productivity increased, toil eased and--especially
significant--workers were freed up to do other more productive things.
In these difficult times, we need to link different ideas more
creatively. Oliver Twist needs to metamorphose into Cyrus McCormick as
his mode of thinking might just help improve services for separated
children or at least protect the best of what we have got. Sisyphus
would have welcomed a bit of support, guidance and review, but think
what he might have achieved with a block and tackle.
(1) In Loco Parentis, June, 2010; Proof Positive, October 2010;
both available at www.demos.co.uk
(2) Harold Evans, They Made America, New York: Little, Brown and
Co, 2004, pp 78-83
Roger Bullock is Commissioning Editor of Adoption & Fostering
and a Fellow, Centre for Social Policy, Warren House Group at Dartington
