I cried on 15 December - the second time in I have been reduced to tears by my job. The last time it happened was 10 years ago in the office of a hostel for homeless young people where I was a project worker. I’d been sitting with a distraught young woman of 16 who was on the phone to her mum, pleading with her to let her visit at Christmas. Mum said no.

This time my tears time were the result of a decision to cut some of our funding. They were tears of weariness, frustration and anger at having to unpick promises and expectations again. The Children’s Fund made a real difference to children and children are going to be hurt by these cuts.

Like Children’s Fund (CF) partnerships across the country we received our mid year review results in December. Under the review, the actual spend in the first six months of the year had been compared with the budget submitted at the beginning of the year, with the threat that if projects had not spent the predicted sums in time, their funds could be clawed back by the government.

We submitted a business case for each project that has underspent by the crucial date, explaining why they should still get their money. The cases we put forward were rejected.

We have more than 80 service providers in our area. Some have managed to develop the services we asked for quickly. In others there have been spending delays, not least because we are developing services unlike anything seen before. Good quality and well-planned early preventive services don’t appear overnight, as Sure Start schemes have found.

Margaret Hodge and Tom Jeffery have now admitted that things have not been handled well and it is reassuring that the government is starting to own some of the difficulties. The CF seems to have lacked strategic direction for some time. Heralded as the meat in a Sure Start and Connexions sandwich, it has never developed a clear identity and is now suffering the consequences.

The drift and confusion was apparent to most CF managers more than a year ago. The decision that identification, referral and tracking would be led by CF partnerships (soon reversed) followed by the news that 25 per cent of funding from April 2003 had to be spent on anti-crime initiatives approved by the Youth Justice Board and Children and Young People’s Unit were the first signs that the government did not have a clear picture of what it wanted.

Both announcements were unexpected and the latter led to a major redrawing of plans generating massive financial and planning headaches. By mid-year 2003 there was a change of financial rules. The CYPU seemed determined to take more control centrally, but decisions were taking longer to come through. The regional CF teams were being edged out and seem as surprised as us at the ever-moving goal posts. By marginalising regional input, the centre was making decisions on a "one-size fits all" basis that does no justice to the original CF principle of local determination and flexibility.

It is interesting to compare and contrast the fortunes and image of Sure Start and the CF. The CF feels a bit like the ugly mate at the school disco to Sure Start’s general gorgeousness. Crucially it has had a vision and ownership at the highest level of government from the beginning. You can see where it is heading and who is running it. This has protected it from the sort of uncertainty afflicting the CF now.

Of course change is essential if the Children’s Fund values are to be embedded in the mainstream, but the current uncertainty jeopardises everything. Commitment and confidence are evaporating. Service providers are one day going to briefings on the new vision for children’s services and the next getting letters saying their funds are to be cut.

The vision embodied in the green paper Every Child Matters depends on a healthy supply of child-centred preventive services across sectors. If the government is genuine in its aspirations for children’s services then it needs to act fast to shore up the failing credibility and damage caused by the continued uncertainty around the Children’s Fund.

This article was submitted anonymously