The film Minority Report posed the question as to whether there was such a thing as predestination – and if so, was it possible to intervene in events in such a way as to alter the predetermined path.
While the idea put forward by Tony Blair of identifying children at risk of truanting or offending even before birth at first glance smacks of predeterminism, most of us have come into social care precisely because we believe that change is possible.
But I’m not sure we can honestly say we’re not guilty of predetermination already at some level. Who has never looked at a child and thought, or even said to colleagues, “he’ll end up in prison…” or “she’s going to really miss out on her education if we don’t get in there quick”.
We already know the markers, whether poverty, family lifestyle, educational background or support systems. We hope that,
by intervening in a family’s life, we can influence behaviour and beliefs in such a way as to give options. OK, it’s not foolproof,
but neither is it rocket science.
If we find the idea of targeted state intervention repugnant there’s always the alternative of universal provision. But, of
course, we can’t trust the “right” people to take up services if they’re provided on a voluntary basis. So we’ll go for a bit of
both then? But that risks spreading resources too thinly and doing neither properly. So we’re back to targeting
resources where we believe they’re most needed and most effective.
Several thoughts. First, if services are offered respectfully, people are more likely to choose to take them up or, even if under
compulsion, to partake in an open and receptive way. Second, most people do want the best for their children; they just may not have the resources, personal or practical, to achieve that. Finally, we already live and work in a society that believes that change is possible and holds us to account for failing to intervene; the same society that has an ambivalent relationship with technology in all its forms.
Throughout Minority Report, and in real life, there is the possibility of error, but for us there is no going back. We may not like
it but, once we know it, are we morally obliged to act?
Helen Bonnick is a supervisor of school-home support workers and a social worker
Frontlines – Targeting resources at vulnerable families
September 15, 2006 in Adults, Family support
More from Community Care
Related articles:
Job of the week
Featured jobs
Employer Zone
‘Solutions can’t be scripted here – you have to be creative’
Putting a team around the social worker to make a difference to families
How working in residential care enables staff to build one-on-one relationships with young people
‘We will always challenge ourselves to transform our services to improve outcomes for children and families’
‘It’s our job is to observe the child, find their voice and be their advocate’
Employer zone – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters
Community Care Inform
Latest stories
Cafcass ‘in serious jeopardy’ regarding social work staffing due to pay constraints
‘Serious procedural failings’ led council to wrongly believe man posed risk to son, finds ombudsman
‘Passionate’ social workers help council gain outstanding rating, despite workforce challenges
TV investigation aims to highlight trauma faced by families from wrongful child protection action
Comments are closed.