News

The title implies inclusiveness: Every Child Matters. The green paper launched this month does indeed highlight a range of client groups with specific needs, and certainly suggests that all children are covered. The question is whether the commitment to inclusiveness is genuine or merely a token gesture.

Four main areas are addressed in the document: increasing professionals' focus on supporting families and carers; ensuring intervention before crisis point is reached and preventing children slipping through the net; addressing weak accountability and poor integration between services; and ensuring staff working with children are rewarded, trained and valued.

But there is as much criticism about what has been left out of the green paper as praise for what has been put in. In particular, more could be done for several key client groups, say critics.

Children entering the country
This heading from the paper implies all children coming into England. But the green paper makes clear that only unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are covered. Such a distinction concerns Alison Harvey, principal policy and practice manager at the Children's Society. She says all asylum-seeking children are in need. "The government has targeted just one group of a large group of children in need," she says. "It is important and would be helpful for accompanied asylum-seeker children to be identified but they are not."

Although Harvey believes the green paper should have explicitly mentioned accompanied asylum-seeking children, she says it should be taken as read that the entire document refers to all asylum-seeking and refugee children. "We are mirroring the prejudice asylum-seeking children suffer if, at every chapter, we say it doesn't apply to them because they are not named."

As part of the green paper consultation, the government calls for views on increasing support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children "building on the work of the children's panels" run by the Refugee Council to help children through the asylum process. Harvey says this is a step in the right direction but "the government shouldn't leap on the panels and think chucking money at them is the only way to go".

Parents and carers of disabled children
Two paragraphs are devoted to supporting parents and carers of disabled children. Francine Bates, chief executive of Contact a Family, is pleased that parents and carers of disabled children are specifically identified. "In previous initiatives aimed at children and parents there has been no mention of disabled children and their families' needs," she says.

The green paper urges more parents of disabled children to use direct payments but the push for a greater uptake of direct payments by service users is by no means new. Is this suggestion enough? Although Bates agrees with promoting a wider use of direct payments, she adds that the green paper is not a strategy for disabled children. As a member of a National Service Framework for Children working group she feels the NSF is "most appropriate way to develop standards and comprehensive services for disabled children".

The green paper disappointed Lesley Campbell, national children's officer at learning difficulties charity Mencap. She calls it a "missed opportunity" because it fails to refer to children with learning difficulties. "It's as if every child matters as long as they don't have a learning disability," she says. She feels that the green paper should have stated explicitly that children with a learning difficulty are children in need and not leave it to local authorities' interpretation when planning services.

Young carers
A mere 18-line paragraph includes both young carers and the government's teenage pregnancy strategy. It says that the children's framework will look at children in special circumstances, such as young carers.

Julie McLarnon, the Children's Society policy and practice manager on young carers, does not regard young carers' inclusion as a token gesture, but she is critical that the two client groups have been combined despite their very different needs. "It is interesting that pregnancy has been aligned with young carers, especially as young mothers are not defined as young carers in any legislation or guidance," she says.


The document should have looked at conducting whole-family assessments to determine what support a family needs to tackle inappropriate caring, she adds.

Children with parents in jail
The green paper is "an expression of goodwill but not a great deal more", says Billie Ibidun, director of the charity Women in Prison. She welcomes the call to improve services for children whose parents are in prison but says it missed the opportunity to consider the impact on the child if the primary carer is sent to prison: "It has lumped the two groups of children together but they have very different experiences."

There is no prison or community service responsible for supporting families in maintaining links when a member is jailed. Ibidun wants improved family contact for prisoners and increased voluntary sector involvement in service provision. "The prison system is still insular and defensive. There has to be greater openness and sharing of resources with outside agencies."

Howard League for Penal Reform director Frances Crook says the green paper looks at the problem back to front: "We are sending parents to prison and then setting up services to deal with the damage that is done to their children," she says. "It is an expensive and time-consuming exercise that does not serve the best interests of the child or society." Crook calls for a one-stop shop service in a national network of children's centres for those with parents in prison to access advice and support.

Improving fostering and adoption services
Despite the Adoption and Children Act 2002 coming into effect only last year, this client group receives the biggest mention. Felicity Collier, chief executive of Baaf Adoption and Fostering, says this shows the government is "beginning to understand" that these children have special needs that need skilled carers.

The green paper's suggestions include launching a national recruitment campaign for more foster carers; paid leave for foster carers and raising statutory adoption pay in line with maternity pay; creating a 24-hour helpline for foster carers; and improving short-break provision for foster carers.

Collier says that, although some of these ideas are far from new, a greater emphasis on fostering is important. In another optimistic move, chancellor Gordon Brown has invited her to outline the mechanics of paying foster carers a salary. "We need people to look at being a foster carer as a career option and they need the same level of recompense as other social care staff."

Although the green paper promises that every child matters, some see the listing of particular groups as divisive. It begs the question, what about the needs of those children who are not identified? Will practitioners interpret the government's message as only affecting these named groups? Or will services strive to improve their provision for all children as the government undoubtedly intended? It is up to the sector to deliver that and ensure that every child really does matter.

¹ Every Child Matters, Department for Education and Skills, 2003