Cuts led to vulnerable children “crisis”: Restore support to 2010 levels, peers tell ministers
More than a million vulnerable children in England are being damaged and their life chances reduced by cuts to early years and youth support since 2010 which should be reversed, a House of Lords committee has said.
Lack of investment in protecting children at risk of serious harm has been felt disproportionately in the most deprived areas - resulting in worse life chances for children, bigger bills for taxpayers and more pressure on social services, according to a new report - ‘Children in crisis: the role of public services in overcoming child vulnerability’ - by the House of Lords Public Services Committee published today (19 November).
The committee wants government to pledge to return to higher 2010 levels of investment in early help services to support children and families. Ministers should set out urgently a national cross-government funded strategy with a plan for a nationwide roll-out of Family Hubs (centres where families and young people get joined-up help with a range of problems) at its heart.
A government Spending Review commitment to fund a small number of Family Hubs in only half of local authority areas will not compensate for the closure of children’s centres and falls “far short” of the vision set out in its own Early Years review, chaired by Dame Andrea Leadsom, which recommended that all families should be able to access a Hub.
Spending on early intervention support in areas of England with the highest levels of child poverty fell by 53 per cent between 2010 and 2019, research by Pro Bono Economics for the committee found, including:
- Walsall - down 81 per cent
- Manchester - down 75 per cent
- Liverpool - down 65 per cent
A government pledge to spend £492million on early help services over the next three years is “welcome” says the committee but after a decade of underinvestment this would not repair the “creaking public services infrastructure” on which vulnerable children rely or make up for the £1.7 billion-a-year cuts to council services such as Sure Start centres and family support since 2010.
A survey of almost 200 public service professionals found that half had seen a rise since the start of the pandemic in the number of children and families requesting help with mental ill-health, domestic violence and addiction problems.
Lack of coordination by government and regulators has undermined the ability of local services to work together effectively, intervene early and share information to keep vulnerable children safe and improve their lives, according to the committee.
And statutory agencies have failed to engage the voluntary sector or listen to service users when designing and delivering public services.
Baroness Armstrong, chair of the committee, said:
“We face a crisis in child vulnerability which needs urgent action.
“Too often public services can’t help children before it’s too late. Too many children fall through the gaps, go into care, are excluded from school or end up in prison - all of which costs the public purse more in the long run.
“We’re pleased that the government is supporting some areas to develop some Family Hubs but it now needs to commit to a national roll-out with the most deprived communities given priority to help vulnerable children and their parents. Effective early intervention services could reduce the role of the state in family life by supporting parents to meet their children's needs.
“The government talks a lot about ‘levelling up’ so to start with it should restore funding for early intervention to 2010 levels and ministers must match their stated ambition on child vulnerability with urgent action to improve the life chances of disadvantaged children.”
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.