The Child Minder

I am confused. On the one hand, the government claims to be promoting a preventive agenda to make sure children are safe and thriving in their own homes, where action is taken early if they are not. On the other hand, it appears to be doing nothing to prevent the decline in the number of health visitors for families today and in the future.

Research from Amicus/the Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association
shows that, thanks to cuts, 55 per cent of health visitors are now making fewer visits to parents, with the biggest impact being losing track of vulnerable families.

The organisation is warning that the result will be an increase in the level of child abuse cases.

Must we wait for the next child death for anyone to sit up and take notice of their very real concerns? Steps must be taken today to reverse the decline in both the number of health visitors in post and health visitor students in training.

Catching the train home from work last night, my attention was caught by the front page of the free tabloid newspaper the London Paper. Its headline sceamed in large bold letters:

"£2m to go to 30 asbo families."

The story went on to say: "More than £2 million will be spent on London's neighbours-from-hell in a scheme that will teach them how to wash and dress their children. About 30 of the capital's most troublesome families, across seven boroughs, will each benefit from £67,000 of funding - nearly three times the average London salary."

Any unsuspecting member of the public could be forgiven for thinking that the government had decided to reward bad behaviour with cash handouts and free shower gel. Not so.

In fact, the story was referring to government funding for 53 areas (including seven in London) that are piloting intensive family support for around 1,500 families with multiple problems. The idea - which is backed by hard evidence of what works - is that co-ordinated support across these families led by a single professional is more effective (and cheaper) than lots of services working with the same family in isolation.

This London Paper's story is both misleading and irresponsible. But, sadly, it is not uncommon. Is it any wonder that these families are vilified and that social policies aimed at improving their life chances are misunderstood when this is the sort of one-sided coverage they receive?