News

In the first of a series of articles on the future of child protection, Nigel Parton argues that the child protection system needs to incorporate a broader definition of child abuse and take on board young people's views.

There can be little doubt that the Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie‚ has prompted a range of questions about the future of the child protection system in this country. The injuries that she suffered and the apparent failures of the various health, welfare, and police services to respond in any positive way have posed major questions about future policy and practice.

In recognising this it is also important to note that many of the themes have been well-rehearsed in a series of child abuse inquiries going back nearly 30 years. It was the public inquiry into the death of Maria Colwell in 1973 that prompted government to circulate recommendations the following year, which in effect established the contemporary child protection system. Child protection registers, case conferences, and area child abuse committees (now called area child protection committees), were all inaugurated as a result.

These are still the core elements of the child protection system, even though it has been updated and refined, usually in response to the latest public inquiry. At the same time, child protection procedures have become ever more detailed and comprehensive. However, it is important to recognise a number of key themes.

First, until the most recent version of Working Together in 1999,¹ changes in procedural guidance had always followed on from major public inquiries. By definition these have always been cases that have gone badly wrong. The most recent rewriting is a little different in that it is also informed by research which has attempted to look at the more typical cases that go through the system, and which were summarised in Messages from Research, published by the Department of Health in 1995.²

Though the child protection system is informed by research, it is important to remember the system is based on cases that go wrong and a very narrow conception of what we mean by child abuse.

This connects with a second important theme. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that the nature of child abuse and how it is experienced is far more wide-ranging and complex than ever comes to be known to the official agencies. This is well illustrated in the NSPCC's Prevalence Study.³ It is also evident in terms of the sorts of experiences that are made known to organisations like ChildLine. Very few of those who call ChildLine are ever in any direct contact with the formal agencies and the kinds of problems callers describe are rather different in many respects to those that are known to the formal child protection system.

In fact, ChildLine's cases have much more in common with the sorts of issues described in the NSPCC Prevalence Study. Issues around bullying, racism and the way young people are treated by their peers more generally figure very highly.

These points suggest that the child protection system is extremely restrictive and reactive, with a very narrow conception of what constitutes child maltreatment, and in few ways can it be seen as child-centred. Apart from anything else, it becomes clear that children and young people rarely refer themselves to it and, if they did so, they would have little control over what happened to them. It is clear from what children and young people say about official systems that a key issue is confidentiality and who controls the information and what is done with it.

This all connects with an important third theme. Essentially, area child protection committees have never been allowed to develop the more strategic roles that official guidance implies that they should have. Essentially, they have no budget and are really only concerned with case management issues. Their primary focus is on trying to insure against things going wrong and reviewing cases if they do, rather than seriously engaging with preventive and promotional activities.

There is a danger that the final Laming report may simply reiterate many of the conclusions that have been forthcoming during the past 30 years and in response to previous child abuse inquiries.

While one would not wish to undermine many of the good relationships and practices that have been developed over the years, it is simply not adequate to fall back on a defensive response to the issues. It is important that the good work professionals carry out in the field is recognised but in the context of trying to develop a service that also links in to a much higher profile for child protection policies and practices.

This implies that area child protection committees should be given the structures and finances to address issues around the safeguarding of children in the way that recent DoH guidance suggests. Whether this requires a new agency to support their activities or a reconfiguration of arrangements so that professionals can work more closely together is not the main question.

What is important is that child protection be recognised as a much wider societal and community priority and that the resources are earmarked to support it. In doing so, the views, interests and experiences of children and young people need to be clearly and explicitly represented. Simply tampering in such a way that individual professionals and agencies are blamed seems thoroughly inadequate.

If we do this, we will be doing no more than what has been the typical response over the past 30 years.

Nigel Parton is professor of child care and child protection, centre for applied childhood studies, University of Huddersfield.

¹ Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and Employment, Working Together to Safeguard Children, The Stationery Office, 1999

² Department of Health, Child Protection: Messages from Research, HMSO, 1995

³ Pat Cawson et al, Prevalence Study, NSPCC, 2000