The Children Act 2004 delivered the legislative changes required to support this new agenda, including the promotion of agencies to work together and integration of education and children’s social services within local authorities. Emphasising the need for services to cooperate and share information, the creation of Local Safeguarding Children Boards promoted and monitored the effectiveness of safeguarding among agencies working with children. These legislative changes saw the introduction of several new initiatives including ‘Contactpoint’, a database to capture the amount of contact children had with statutory services; development of shared assessment tools to support social work practitioners; and updating of statutory guidance for all professionals working with children to understand their responsibilities for the welfare and safeguarding of children. In addition, an existing holistic framework for assessing children in need, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), was widely embedded and adopted across agencies (France et al, 2010).
Labour and tackling social exclusion of children
The establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in 1997 marked out the newly elected Labour Party’s aspiration for change. Employing a range of individuals from across local government, the voluntary sector and business, the emphasis of the SEU was on the importance of joined-up thinking and working together. As such, the SEU defined social exclusion as ‘a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’ (SEU, 1998). Recognising the multifaceted nature of social exclusion and committed to the idea of universal service provision, Labour sought to tackle this through five broad programmes (Percy-Smith, 2000). These included enabling people to work; dealing with issues such as crime and antisocial behaviour in poorer communities; integrated help for children and young people; access to services for those in the poorest areas; and making government work better.
Arguably, the establishment of the SEU brought social exclusion to the fore of government politics. In addition, Labour’s promise to eradicate child poverty by 2020, further cemented their commitment to tackling this issue. A central report published by the SEU in 1997 identified three responses to tackle social exclusion. The first encompassed the ‘New Deals’ programme which targeted failing statutory services such as schools, health and crime prevention, and provided interventions to support identified socially excluded groups including lone parents, the unemployed and the disabled. The second response provided funding to support regeneration in perceived disadvantaged communities. The third response advocated a ‘joined-up’ working arrangement involving cross cutting policy teams. One of these policy teams, Policy Action Team 12 (PAT12) (SEU, 2000) highlighted several priorities to focus on regarding children and young people. PAT12 identified gaps in preventative services for children and young people, recommended a greater emphasis on early intervention, identified the need for greater coordination of local provision and recommended increased flexibility in the services provided to meet the needs of children and young people more effectively. In 2006, the SEU merged with the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit under the Cabinet Office. The new Social Exclusion Task Force launched off this platform to provide central government with strategic advice and policy analysis to tackle social exclusion.
With social exclusion firmly positioned as a major policy priority, backed up with a range of government initiatives, and a significant focus upon targeting children and young people deemed to be at risk of social exclusion, the stage was set for the launch of both support and preventative initiatives. Based on the recommendations from PAT12 and in keeping with child welfare reforms, three new initiatives were launched. These initiatives were Sure Start (targeted at children aged 0–5 years) in 1997, the Children’s Fund (targeted at children aged 5–13 years in 2000 and Connexions service (targeted at young people aged 13–19 years) also created in 2000, all situated within a ‘risk and protection-focused prevention paradigm’ (France and Utting, 2005). Arguably all three of these programmes were established to ‘reduce risk factors, build resilience, and promote protective factors within the domains of the family, school, and community, or with the individual child, intervening early to reduce the risks of future negative outcomes’ (Evans and Pinnock, 2007: 22).
The government founded the Sure Start programme to help prevent social exclusion by targeting families with very young children. Initially specifically aimed at children living in poverty Sure Start facilitated cross-agency funding, in areas of deprivation, to facilitate the statutory sector, voluntary sector, community organisations and parents and families coming together to tackle inequalities at the earliest opportunity (Brown and Dillenburger, 2004). The central aim of this service was improving life chances through increased access to family support services, early intervention services and health advice (Eistenstadt, 2001). As an attempt of continued support through a child’s life, established in 2000, the Children’s Fund was a national preventative service initiative for children aged 5–13 years.
The Children’s Fund initiative aimed to deliver ‘preventative services which provide support for young people and their families before they reach crisis, with the aim of reducing the future probability of poor outcomes and maximising life chances’ (CYPU, 2001: 7). Like the Sure Start programme, the initial model of delivery centred on locally established partnership setting priorities. Each local authority area had to draw together a local partnership made up of representatives from the local authority, voluntary and community sector, health, youth services, youth justice and other key stakeholders, to manage and oversee the programme delivery (CYPU, 2001). Funded from 2000 until 2008, in three waves, with a total budget of £960 million, much of the funding was ring fenced for the voluntary sector. Funding was released to each of the 149 local authority Children Fund partnerships following the acceptance of a plan by local partnerships. Central to the Children’s Fund objective was the requirement, ‘to provide additional resources over and above those provided through mainstream statutory funding, specific programmes and though specific earmarked funding streams. It should engage and support voluntary and community organisations in playing an active part and should enable the full range of services to work together’ (NECF, 2004). This commitment solidified the relationship between the Children’s Fund initiative and the voluntary sector. Unsurprisingly, as a result, the Children’s Fund became a major source of funding support for voluntary sector organisations delivering early intervention services.
Central pillars of the New Labour approach
Central to the approach to children’s services adopted by New Labour, were two core themes, Children’s Trusts, to oversee strategic direction and accountability of services, and children’s centres, to ensure universal and targeted access for all. The Children Act 2004 set out instructions as to how services should be governed by local authorities and how services should work together. It enshrined much of what was recommended by Laming (DoH, 2003) and established the statutory duty that required every local authority to work with partners, through Children’s Trusts, to devise and implement strategies to improve outcomes for children aged 0–19 years. Children’s Trusts existed as local partnerships bringing together the organisations responsible for services for children, young people