The Every Child in Need Campaign – help needed!

A campaign is being launched today (Thursday 26th July 2012) aimed at protecting society's most vulnerable children from "damaging changes" proposed by the Department for Education.

The Department of Education is proposing wide-ranging changes to the legal framework which protects these 'children in need'. Although the changes will affect all 'children in need' in England and Wales - including all disabled children - they are focused solely on child protection. The proposals are set out in a consultation which runs until 4th September 2012 [details here].

However, a group of charities, campaigners and lawyers, who are today launching :Every Child In Need" say these proposals are wrong-headed, dangerous and will place the most vulnerable children at risk .

The organisations include Maxwell-Gillott SEN solicitors, Ambitious About Autism and child protection charity ECPAT UK. The organisers, between them, work with and reach thousands of children across the country, including disabled children, children who have been trafficked, and others facing challenges such as street homelessness, physical or sexual violence (often gang-related), parental neglect, educational difficulties and behavioural or mental health problems. All of these are children 'in need'.

The organisers say:

The Department for Education is proposing wide-ranging changes to the legal framework which protects these children.  The Ministers, Michael Gove MP and Tim Loughton MP, say these changes involve cutting 'red tape', allowing local authority children's services departments more freedom to meet children's needs.  Many local authorities - cash-strapped following swingeing cuts to their budgets - are happy to take this lifeline, which will mean less pressure to act quickly when a child in need comes to their attention.

We disagree.  The legal framework is not 'red tape' - it is an essential safety net for children when they are failed by their local authority.  Basic minimum national standards and requirements are essential.  A hands off approach, allowing local authorities to do what they want, when they want, is dangerous.

Even the Government's own impact assessment (.pdf) recognises this - it accepts that, "there is a risk of negative impact on children if central government is less prescriptive.”  That is not a risk we should be taking.

We believe these changes are wrong-headed, dangerous and will place the most vulnerable children at risk.  Join us and stop these changes.

Although headlined as a consultation about ‘safeguarding’ and ‘child protection’ only, following on from the Munro report, in fact the proposed changes are far wider, impacting upon all ‘children in need’ across England and Wales, and drastically altering the current guidance regarding how local authorities should assess and meet their needs.

Time is short.  The consultation is running over the summer, 12th June – 4th September 2012.  We recognise that the issues are complex and you may have many questions.  We have arranged a campaign and information meeting for Thursday 26th July 2012, to discuss the proposals further and answer any questions.  It will take place at Doughty Street Chambers at 6 – 7.30pm and we very much hope you can join us.

The Department for Education’s wide-ranging proposals are set out here: https://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/departmentalinformation/consultations/a00211065/revised-safeguarding-guidance.  In short, Michael Gove MP and Tim Loughton MP say these changes involve cutting 'red tape' and stopping prescription by central government, allowing local authority children's services departments more freedom.  Many local authorities - cash-strapped following swingeing cuts to their budgets - are happy to take this lifeline, which will mean less pressure to act quickly when a child in need comes to their attention.

We disagree.  The legal framework is not 'red tape' - it is an essential safety net for children when they are failed by their local authority.  Basic minimum national standards and requirements are essential.  A hands off approach, allowing local authorities to do what they want, when they want, is dangerous.  Even the Government's own impact assessment recognises this - it accepts that, "there is a risk of negative impact on children if central government is less prescriptive.”  That is not a risk we should be taking.

The campaign has three central concerns:

(i)            The proposals are based solely upon ‘children at risk,’ but the changes will apply to all ‘children in need’ – a far wider group.  For example, all disabled children are ‘children in need’ but their needs have not been taken into account in the proposals.  There are at least 770,000 disabled children in England and Wales. Why have their needs been disregarded?  How will they be impacted by these changes?

(ii)           The proposals remove national minimum standards for child in need assessments, basic standards which all local authorities must meet.  At the moment there are maximum timescales in place, so that when a child in need is referred to children’s services his or her needs must be assessed within 35 working days at most.  Gove and Loughton are removing this requirement.  We believe that many children in need will be left to languish, without the assessments and services they desperately need – and are statutorily entitled to.

(iii)       The revised statutory guidance proposed in the consultation is hopelessly vague and general, and will not ensure that children in need obtain assessments with a ‘realistic plan of action’.

The campaigners say they are very surprised to see the Department supporting the removal of national minimum standards on the timing and quality of assessments for children in need at this time, when in other contexts they are demanding more proscription and are criticizing local authority decision-making.  They cite as an sample, how Tim Loughton MP recently sharply criticised local authorities for their placement and management of vulnerable young people in children’s homes, and the poor quality of local authority data on such children.

The campaign website is at, www.everychildinneed.org.uk.  Full details of our meeting on 26th July are available at http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/seminars_events/.

We hope to see you on 26th July.  If you wish to attend please book your place by contacting Doughty Street’s Events Coordinator at 020 7404 1313 or events@doughtystreet.co.uk.

Follow

Tania Tirraoro

Founder, CEO at Special Needs Jungle
Founder of Special Needs Jungle. Parent of two sons with Asperger Syndrome.
Journalist & author of two novels and a guide to SEN statementing. PR & social media expert. Rare Disease & chronic pain patient advocate.
Tania Tirraoro
Follow

3 Comments

  1. simon wright

    these proposals place yet another hurdle to aprents accessing the help they need. The removal of a minimum standard of provision from the local authoity sadly will mean that they will abdicate their responsibility. No minumum standard is no standard at all!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.