News

Gary Craig, professor of social justice at the University of Hull, casts a critical eye over New Labour's record on tackling poverty over the past four years. In the first of two articles, he identifies benefits as one key area where the government could act to achieve its objectives

New Labour came to power in 1997 with a commitment to address the legacy of poverty and inequality left by the previous three Conservative governments. From the early 1980s, economic deprivation grew to the point where about one third of the UK population was in poverty, placing the nation at, or near, the bottom of most league tables among developed countries. In addition, the gap between rich and poor had widened substantially.

In this context, the New Labour government's creation of a special unit attached to the Cabinet Office, the social exclusion unit, was highly significant. Announcing the SEU's establishment, Tony Blair indicated his government's broad strategy: the SEU would work as an inter-departmental ministerial group, producing "joined-up solutions to joined-up problems". A raft of specific initiatives followed, steered at a local level by partnership working, through which agencies would be drawn together in a widening range of policy arenas.

Given the ambition of New Labour and the energy it has committed to tackling poverty and social exclusion, it is appropriate, in the early stages of a second term, to reflect on what has been achieved and what remains to be done. I do not deny the advances made, not least to restoring poverty and social exclusion to the forefront of national policy debate. However, to echo another of the government's mantras, is it working? Does this increasingly cluttered anti-poverty strategy add up to more than a hill of beans? Is the energy expended leading to substantial reductions in the numbers of those in poverty or experiencing social exclusion? Are the changes sustainable? And are there losers as well as winners?

The concept of social exclusion was not a New Labour invention; the term originated in 1950s French policy where it was used, pejoratively, to describe marginal groups. In the UK, the term entered our lexicon as a way to distinguish the concept of poverty and deprivation. Essentially, poverty was seen as narrowly relating to access to material goods and income. Deprivation was a wider concept describing other aspects of poverty such as ill-health and poor housing, and the inability of poor people to participate in the normal life of the community. And social exclusion described the way in which people were prevented, by structures, processes, and mechanisms, from playing a full part in community life. Critically, poverty was about what we have or do not have while social exclusion was about what others do to us.

The social exclusion unit has been at the heart of recent discussion about disadvantage in the UK. It has produced a series of major reports, some of them on specific population groups - such as 16-17 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training; rough sleepers; and teenage parents - and some on aspects of the government's wider strategy for neighbourhood renewal. Last year, the 18 policy action teams, drawing both on insiders and selected "outsiders", and working on specific aspects of disadvantage, produced individual studies which, with the first consolidated report, Bringing Britain Together,¹ have fed into the SEU's latest major report, Preventing Social Exclusion.² An internal review of the unit's work led to a political decision to extend its life at least until the end of next year and highlighted further issues which the SEU is now addressing - transport policy and the educational achievement of children in care. Meanwhile, a similar, though slightly more participative, strategy is being pursued in Scotland through the Scottish parliament³ and in Wales.

This focus on social exclusion was complemented by a wider agenda of social justice, drawing on some of the ideas of the Commission for Social Justice established by John Smith in the early 1990s, and most of all on welfare reform. However, as was to become clear, the Blairite notion of social justice was one that favoured equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. The New Contract for Welfare⁴ (Department of Social Security 1998a) reflected this in its agenda for reform of the social security system. This advanced the "third way" of reform, gliding between the caricatured status quo of increasingly generous benefits and a privatised residual future. It "promoted opportunity instead of dependence, with the welfare state for the broad mass of people, but in new ways to fit the modern world". This would "widen the exits from welfare dependency by offering tailor-made help for individuals". The reforms would be driven "by the need to spend money in the fairest and most effective way". This came to be seen as a euphemism for more targeting, although Blair claimed it was not necessarily about a budget-cutting agenda. However, his claim looked somewhat shaky as the government made two early serious political misjudgements. First it cut lone parent benefits and then it limited pensions increases to 75p, both moves sparking Labour backbench rebellions. More positively, the prime minister committed his government in 1999 to "the historic aim - to be the first generation to end child poverty" in 20 years.

The most recent New Policy Institute review of government achievements in challenging poverty and social exclusion points to an uneven picture.⁵ There have been improvements in education such as the attainments of 11-year olds, the numbers achieving GCSEs, the qualifications obtained by 19-year-olds, and a reduction in school exclusions - with greater falls among those from ethnic minority groups. Some housing indicators have also provided positive news. Mortgage arrears have fallen, as have the numbers of houses without central heating.

However, when it comes to health, not only do inequalities remain but in some instances - for example, mortality rates among the under-65s - the gap between "healthy" and "unhealthy" areas has grown. This is not simply because rates have fallen slowly in some places but because in some very deprived areas, mortality rates - including those due to coronary heart disease and stroke - have actually risen in recent years.

The NPI commented that in 1998-9, numbers on a low income remained at a historic high level, with more than 14 million people living in households on less than half average income - a figure showing a slight increase on the 1996-7 figure.⁶ The latest DSS figures show little change to this. More worryingly, the figures show that the gap in inequality is growing. The DSS report suggests coyly that "overall income inequality rose slightly between 1994-5 and 1999-00". Between 1994-5 and 1998-9, income growth after housing costs was 10 per cent for the poorest 10 per cent but 13 per cent for the richest 10 per cent - a 30 per cent relatively larger rate of growth for the richest compared with the poorest.

Top pay in Britain, even among failing companies, is much higher than in mainland European countries. The richest 10 per cent within the UK now earn 27 per cent of all income, and the proportion taken by the poorest 10 per cent has fallen to less than 3 per cent. Comparisons between the richest 5 per cent and the poorest 5 per cent make even more depressing reading. Just over 60 per cent of all people have incomes below the national average - another indicator of persisting inequality, reflected not only in the traditional north-south divide, but within and between cities, towns, and regions. Acute poverty still exists amid plenty.

A relatively straightforward way of addressing poverty and inequality would be raising benefit levels in real terms for the poorest. Another would be introducing a more progressive taxation system and replacing the disgraceful loans-based social fund - which continues to impoverish the poorest people. However, it was not benefit levels that lay at the heart of the government's welfare reform programme, but work. And by the arrival of the second New Labour government, it was institutionalised, with the replacement of the DSS by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Central to the attack on worklessness were the New Deals aimed at moving workless targets - 18-25 year-olds, lone parents, long-term unemployed, disabled people - away from "dependency on benefits". Although the government has made much of its claim that it met its own self-imposed goal of getting 250,000 young people back into work through the New Deal, a closer look at these figures also gives a less rosy picture. Of the 380,000 young people placed in jobs since the New Deal began, only half have entered sustained and unsubsidised jobs. Given that a sustained job merely means a job lasting more than three months, those still in jobs six or 12 months after the New Deal experience are likely to be even fewer. For many, these unsubsidised jobs will bring little security and a salary not much more than the minimum wage. Here, the government has made some progress with the introduction of a minimum wage and its upratings, although it is still too low and discriminates against young workers.

Claims by the government that it is responsible for overseeing the highest employment rate since 1975 are less credible, however. Not only are many of these new jobs characterised by low pay and insecurity, but New Labour has benefited from a prolonged economic upturn over which it has had little influence . New Labour has also done little to change low and unequal pay for women and ethnic minority groups, even among employers such as the NHS where it can control employment conditions.

Research indicates that the New Deal operates in some areas in ways that disadvantage those with limited aptitudes. Local managers have tended to "filter" applicants so those with least skills end up in the environmental task force, whether or not that is where they wished to go. It is likely these will be young people who need the most support - for example, those with limited disabilities who may end up moving in and out of jobs on the margins of the labour market. There are also significant numbers of 16 to 17-year-olds who have left school and are not in education, employment or training, to whom New Labour has refused to restore social assistance benefit support. Research to be published early next year suggests the numbers of these may have been underestimated, that the new Connexions service may not be well-equipped to re-engage them, and that members of certain ethnic minority groups may be substantially over-represented among the "disappeared".⁷

Race and ethnicity comprise another area where the government's political inconsistencies have been sharply exposed. On the one hand, its response to the Macpherson report on Stephen Lawrence's murder⁸ was relatively swift and uncompromising, although doubt as to how effectively the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 will be policed remains. However, the government itself has given a poor lead in terms of its attitude to ethnic monitoring, and the welfare state as a whole remains riddled with racism.⁹ Some ethnic minority groups, particularly those of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and African Caribbean origins, are up to four times as likely to be in poverty as the population as a whole. Yet the government remains unwilling to draw obvious connections between this fact and the anger felt by young men within many of our cities.

The SEU has only very latterly begun to address race in its analyses.^10,11 The Home Office has responded to the marginalisation of the black and ethnic minority voluntary and community sector with specific funding streams for capacity-building, but research into local governance shows how marginalised ethnic minority groups remain.¹² Support for ethnic minority groups may be seen as an indicator of growing government awareness of the extent of racism within societal structures. However, this awareness is compromised by another government attitude - its shameful victimising of refugees and asylum-seekers, which is exploited by much of the UK media - and subjects people to an increasingly racist immigration regime before entry and, following entry, to a voucher scheme that stigmatises and impoverishes.¹³ Ironically, the government's own research shows that there is a net economic benefit of about £2.6 billion per year to the Treasury from in-migrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers.¹⁴

The government's welfare reform programme was also situated in the wider framework of a "modernisation" agenda, spreading across all aspects of health and welfare and including local governance, the work of social services departments, and the NHS. This agenda is beginning to bear down on local government at the same time as are responsibilities to lead the vast and increasing range of new, top-down, social policy initiatives. These responsibilities - for education, health and employment action zones; Sure Start; community safety; crime and disorder; teenage pregnancy; community legal services initiatives; Better Government for Older People; learning and skills councils; the Children's Fund; and the overarching local strategic partnerships - create considerable strains and undermine attempts at the sensitive development work required to make partnership meaningful.

The government acknowledges the central role of powerful public and private agencies in creating social exclusion. It also recognises the need for those in poverty to play a strong role in responding to that exclusion. This role is also rhetorically recognised in nods towards bottom-up solutions to neighbourhood renewal. However, the government's anti-poverty strategy contains within it one major flaw - the absence of any serious debate about the adequacy of benefit levels, an issue that will achieve a higher profile if unemployment levels climb again.

Gary Craig's analysis of social exclusion policy continues next week.

'I feel excluded'

Clair Lewis feels trapped. Clair, who uses a wheelchair, can't get in and out of her first-floor flat without assistance, writes Rachel Downey. She cannot take her five-year-old daughter Molly to the small garden at the bottom of the stairs without help, so her partner Phil has to be there. And because the flat is small and crowded with furniture, Clair cannot use her wheelchair inside. "Sometimes Molly is like a caged animal in here. We cannot even go out for a long walk because my partner cannot manage the two of us."

Clair has Graves's disease, a condition of the overactive thyroid that can lead to muscle wasting. She also has another, undiagnosed, condition. Her health problems began when she became pregnant with Molly, who is deaf.

The family is at the top of the housing list for a transfer, but there is little or no wheelchair-accessible accommodation available. Clair is not prepared to move from the area, as Phil's family live locally and provide support for Molly. They cannot move too far anyway as Molly is just about to start the school of their choice close by.

The situation is so bad that Clair and Phil have considered living separately as it would be easier to find suitable accommodation for Clair separately from Molly. "We don't want to split our family up. But I want to get in and out of my own house. And I get frustrated and we all get frustrated, and I started to think: 'if I removed myself, would it relieve the problems to some extent?'. It wouldn't - it would just make another problem.

"We are at risk - it's just so frustrating."

Clair is threatening to take legal action against the council if it does not find her alternative accommodation.

Daily living is a struggle. Using her benefits, Clair employs a personal assistant for 16 hours a week. But she finds that the responsibility and the three monthly audits drain her limited energy supply, which she tries to reserve for her daughter. "All my energy goes on looking after Molly." Her personal assistant's time is used to get her out once a week to do the food shopping.

"I do feel trapped. I do feel excluded," she says. "I feel excluded from the local community. I do not know my neighbours."

'My life hasn't improved'

Babs Ledingham lives with her three children, aged 12, 14 and 15. Her youngest son, Mark, has behavioural problems, is violent and aggressive.

When Mark was six months old, Babs separated from the children's father. She was suicidal, was diagnosed with depression and her mother-in-law looked after the children for four months, writes Rachel Downey.

"If it weren't for the drugs, I would kill the wee ones," she says. "The drugs and the depression make me tired. I'm zonked all day long." She has "explosions", smashes up her flat and smacks Mark.

Sometimes her mother-in-law has looked after the children. Once they were placed in a children's home - the plan was they would stay six weeks but they ended up there for 10 months.

Babs recently asked social services for help with Mark and they have arranged for him to use a befriending service. And the family uses a residential unit run by Altogether For Dignity (ATD) Fourth World, a charity that works with disadvantaged families.

Like everyone else on her estate, Babs is in debt to the official loan company, which charges extortionate interest. However, she is planning to clear her debts by April and has joined a credit union.

Regeneration on the estate means the family's flat was done up. But it wasn't done properly and there is still damp in Babs's bedroom. She has asthma.

The physical improvement to the estate has not improved life for Babs. "The gang fights are getting worse. I'm frightened to go out by myself at night. They get into fighting because there is nowhere for them to go. They take drink or drugs and then they cannot go into the youth club."

Fifteen of her friends are dead because of heroin, sniffing gas, or suicide. "My best pal died. She left an 11-month-old we'an. I swore I would never touch drugs when I saw him crawling under her coffin."

As far as Babs is concerned, any attempts by the government to improve her life have made no difference. "My life hasn't improved. The government are only interested in the ones that have money."

But she has clear suggestions of what would help: "The government could put more money into families. I have had contact with social workers for more than 10 years. First there was money for things, but now there's no money for anything."

What about the future? "I never think that far ahead because I do not want to be here anyway. Every week I talk about killing myself."

References

¹ SEU, Bringing Britain Together: a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Social Exclusion Unit, TSO, 1998
² SEU, Preventing Social Exclusion, Social Exclusion Unit, TSO, 2001
³ Scottish Executive, The Policy Framework for Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion in Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2000
⁴ DSS, A New Contract for Welfare, Cm 3805, Department of Social Security/TSO, 1998
⁵ C Howarth, P Kenway, G Palmer and R Miorelli, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, New Policy Institute, 1999
⁶ DSS, Households Below Average Income, 1999 -2000, Department of Social Security/TSO, 2001
⁷ L Britton, B Chatrik, R Coles and G Craig, Missing Connexions, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (forthcoming)
⁸ William Macpherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Stationery Office, 1999
⁹ G Craig, Race and Welfare, inaugural lecture, University of Hull, 2001
¹⁰ G Craig, “Race and New Labour”, in G Fimister (ed), An End in Sight, Child Poverty Action Group, 2001
¹¹ SEU, Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal, Social Exclusion Unit, TSO, 2000
¹² G Craig, M Taylor, S Monro and M Wilkinson, Trust or Contract?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, forthcoming
¹³ C Boswell, Spreading the Costs of Asylum Seekers, Anglo-German Foundation, 2001
¹⁴ S Glover et al, Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis, Home Office/TSO, 2001

Background Reading

1 P Alcock, G Craig, K Dalgleish, and S Pearson, Combating Local Poverty, Local Government Management Board, 1995
2 P Alcock, C Barnes, G Craig, A Harvey and S Pearson, What Counts? What Works? A Framework for the Evaluation of Local Government Anti-Poverty Work, Improvement and Development Agency, 1999
3 G Borrie (chairperson), “Social justice: strategies for national renewal”, Report of the Commission on Social Justice, Verso, 1994
4 D Gordon et al, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000
5 SSIN, Inclusive Communities, Scottish Social Inclusion Network, 1999
6 J Stein, “The community legal service: justice for all?”, Consumer Policy Review, Vol 11, No2, March 2001
7 D Gordon and P Townsend, Breadline Europe, Policy Press, 2000
8 SEU, Rough Sleeping, Social Exclusion Unit, TSO, 1998

Websites

M Waite, Perspectives on Social Exclusion, New Politics Network is at www.new-politics.net 2001
The social exclusion unit’s website is at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu/ where government reports and information on projects can be viewed
The UK National Plan on Social Inclusion 2001-03 can be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/society/uk_en.pdf
Information on work on social inclusion in Scotland can be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/socialjustice/

-------------------------------------------------

The silent scream: protecting abused children who can’t speak out

There are many reasons why abused children are unable to articulate their needs. Psychotherapist Sue Richardson discusses how we can learn to help them communicate, and how we can listen to them more effectively.

Cleveland was a breakthrough in the recognition of child sexual abuse. It changed the face of child protection. Yet professionals who attempt to engage with abused children still have a difficult task. The voices of many children and their advocates continue to be silenced. The existence of a children's commissioner, helplines, and other initiatives such as Quality Protects have no practical meaning for children like Victoria Climbie who cannot speak out. For children who can articulate their needs, such initiatives can bridge the gulf between them and the system. For the silenced ones, the gulf may be increased.

Martin, a seven-year-old seen in a sexual abuse project, described the topsy-turvy nature of this world: "The train is going too fast for the coaches and they are derailed, but the train says to the coaches: 'You have got to be braver than I am'." Martin saw himself as the derailed coaches not being helped by the train: the child protection system.

In the post-Cleveland era, two conflicting versions of reality have developed. The first version is embodied in legislation, procedures, and initiatives such as Quality Protects. It holds that conflicts of interest between parents and children can be reconciled and are best responded to via family support and a reduction in the number of child protection investigations and registrations. It fails to differentiate mothers from fathers and abusive from non-abusive parents. It focuses on children whose abuse usually comes to light because the child has been able to help the system by making a disclosure and taking part in an investigation. This minority of children who can disclose their abuse spontaneously has been defined as Group A^.1

The Children Act 1989, along with Department of Health guidance on Working Together, the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, and the Memorandum of Good Practice all assume that, except for children with an obvious disability, children in need can be enabled to communicate as if they belong to Group A. For example, the Children Act assumes that the wishes and feelings of the child can be ascertained. Working Together addresses communication difficulties only in respect of disabled children. The Framework for Assessment requires a level of engagement in the process with, and by, the child. The Memorandum (currently under revision) provides short, inflexible time-scales for investigative interviews. Similarly, safeguards endorsed by Quality Protects, such as complaints procedures, only benefit children who can articulate their concerns.

The second version of reality holds that the majority of abused children are actively silenced by abusing adults, cannot easily get over the hurdles of the investigative and legal systems, and need adults to speak on their behalf.

Such conflicting constructions of reality are encountered throughout Europe. They result in controversy and high-profile cases such as Cleveland, Oude Pekela (the Netherlands), the case of Notary X (Belgium), and the Rohm case (Denmark). The integration in Europe of responses to children who present with a high index of suspicion but who cannot make a spontaneous disclosure or assist in a child protection investigation - defined as Group B - has been delayed.

The second version depends on access to the child's plight via routes such as the "medical window" - the identification through a medical diagnosis of sexual abuse in children who have been unable to disclose.² It also depends on the validation of the narrative of the children and the professionals who advocate on their behalf. In the controversies created by the discovery of children in Group B, whose abuse had gone undetected, these essential components have been lost.

For example, post-Cleveland, the role of the medical diagnosis has been reduced to that of a "piece of the jigsaw". The "jigsaw" approach is disastrous for sexually abused children and their advocates. The pieces needed to make up a complete picture will very seldom be available. As a result, in legal proceedings "the standard of proof required militates against the child more than any other party."³

One effect of not addressing children in Group B has been to reduce the numbers of children entering the child protection system - an outcome seen by Quality Protects as desirable for the train, but not necessarily the right outcome for the derailed coaches. Even children in group A can be ill-served by decision-making driven by quality targets. Children in Group B are usually left to find their own way along the continuum of disclosure even though they can be helped to move into Group A by creative forms of intervention, especially ones which address their attachment needs.

Over the past 12 years, increasing numbers of colleagues and others have encountered similar dilemmas of protecting children in Group B and have recognised that more children are being failed by the child protection system than we would like to think.

What the collective experience shows is that any "successes" are drawn only from children who already belong to group A, or who can be enabled to join this group - for example, children who can benefit from pre-trial therapy and children who can be enabled to communicate via creative approaches such as art therapy. Even for these children, intervention can fail, leaving children with the impression that the system is powerless against their abuser - especially those children alleging sadistic, ritual forms of abuse.

The experience of mothers and professionals is that disclosure of these forms of abuse rarely leads to successful investigation or prosecution. Many children in Group B end up as "looked after". Some disclose as a result because they feel safe. Others suffer repeated placement breakdowns, the numbers of which cannot easily be addressed by initiatives such as Quality Protects unless ways of communicating with the child's world can be found. Martin reached 15 before settling in a placement.

A vision of protective intervention and therapy which meets the needs of all groups of children is needed. The difficulties of vulnerable/intimidated witnesses have been recognised in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999 and the discussion about obtaining best evidence which has followed. The varieties of vulnerability identified in the act, along with the concept of the "special witness" and recommendations on improved access to justice, could be made to include the needs of children and adults from Group B. This would include both children and adults who, at the time of proceedings, are vulnerable because they are newly emerged from Group B and children who, despite everyone's best efforts (such as the use of special interview techniques), remain in this group.

Provisions in the act for special measures, such as the assistance of an intermediary, offer a model for a practice which could be incorporated in guidance and frameworks for child protection and inform a shift in thinking which acknowledges that children are still being failed by the agencies responsible for their welfare. The need for such a shift is shown by the consideration given, in the current consultative draft of the revision of the Memorandum of Good Practice, to the role of intermediaries.

This welcome indication of a greater willingness to grasp the nettle of difficult evidential issues needs to go even further. The nettle can be grasped by making a specific distinction between the needs of children in Groups A and B, by permeating all existing guidance with this distinction and by allocating resources for pilot programmes and for research on its application to practice.

The positive message is that children who are in Group B because they are very young or have a disability or are silenced, frightened, or dissociated, can be helped by protection and therapy which recognises their existence, is tailored to their attachment needs, responds to their internal conflicts, and supports the adults who can not only advocate but also bear witness on their behalf.

The vision means learning new lessons from past controversies. It means looking more widely than the "successes" of family support and the aim of reducing numbers of placements. It means re-ordering the topsy-turvy world created by the co-existence of a government-funded campaign to stop child sexual abuse and government directives to reduce numbers on child protection registers. It means empowering adults to advocate on behalf of children. It is time for the cautious child protection train to be braver than the derailed children.

Sue Richardson is a psychotherapist, trainer and author. Her second book, written with Heather Bacon, has just been published

References

¹ S Richardson and H Bacon, Child Sexual Abuse: Whose Problem? Reflections from Cleveland, Venture Press, 1991

² G Wyatt and M Higgs, The medical diagnosis of child sexual abuse: the paediatrician's dilemma, in S Richardson and H Bacon (Eds) Child Sexual Abuse: Whose Problem? Reflections From Cleveland, Venture Press,1991

³ P McLoughlin, Advocacy for the sexually abused child: The role of the guardian ad litem, in S Richardson and H Bacon (eds) Creative Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Challenges and Dilemmas, Jessica Kingsley, 2001

- Background Reading

C Itzin, J Hanmer and S Quaid, Home Truths About Child Sexual Abuse, Routledge, 2000

S Richardson and H Bacon (Eds) Creative Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Challenges and Dilemmas, Jessica Kingsley, 2001

www.doh.gov.uk