Aberlour Internal feedback to the draft Early Years, Early Intervention Framework
In compiling the reaction of Aberlour to the draft Early years, Early Intervention Framework, a number of stakeholders within the organisation were asked to comment. We have included the views of our head of policy (Alex Cole-Hamilton), our Lead role on Early years issues (Valerie Corbett), key staff in our National Parenting Development Project (Through Service Director Catriona Rioch.) and Aberlour Northern Regional Director Jackie Hothersall.
• In reading the document do the first few pages give you a sense of the need for change?
ACH feedback:
The introductory pages of the document demonstrate a commitment to bring about change. The reference in page 2 to the joint statement on early intervention goes someway to elucidating commitments to change particularly with a regard to changing the onus of intervention and it is clear in the title of the framework itself that the government seeks to move from a culture of reactive intervention to early intervention. The case for change is well articulated in the context of recent academic research and the opinions of other relevant experts and the case for action is suitably backed up by relevant statistics, particularly with regard quantifying the opportunity cost of zero intervention, and international comparisons.
Aberlour welcomes the recognition of the role of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in terms of defining and underpinning children’s policy in the hereafter. This represents a significant and welcome shift towards recognising the pre-eminence of the UNCRC and is most timely in the context of the October publication of the concluding observations of the UN committee.
Page 2 suggests that this is a ‘policy for the long term’. As such it is regrettable that if this document will represent the foundation of policy for the early years for the lifetime of this parliament and beyond then its genesis did not include a great deal more consultation with those who will have to implement it. The only opportunity that voluntary sector providers outside of the task group structure have had to input into deliberations around the frameworks inception has been via task group members in the 3 week window following publication of the final draft. Traditionally, significant shifts or innovations in policy enjoy a consultation period of at least 3 months. It is unfortunate that stakeholders were not given such an opportunity on this occasion.
Valerie Corbett Feedback:
Overall I think it does highlight some of the key issues and arguments for change which many are familiar with and would not disagree with. It does still rely upon a ‘deficit’ and ‘high risk’ approach to meeting children’s needs rather than an entitlement and right. This does however come later but I do feel that the hearts and minds argument should be won on the basis of the child at the centre. Why not make a stronger statement about enhancing children’s development and resilience as a positive end in itself? The argument should b better made and given pride of place.
There is in my view still a lack of appreciation of the ‘child’ and the comments on page 5 regarding disability and ethnicity smack of tokenism. A truly child centred approach is inclusive and integrated and should not set children apart or allow them to be defined by their disability of ethnicity. The responses to meeting their needs are different and should have additional elements rather than a ‘setting children apart’ approach.
There is also too much of a focus on ‘failing families’ and stereotypes and the economic imperative and not enough on the value of the parenting role. The supporting documentation does give a clearer reference to ‘failing systems and structures’ which again I feel supports the need for change.
National Parenting Development Project (Catriona Rioch) feedback:
Yes, although the fundamental importance of the parent-child attachment relationship and all that contributes to it is not emphasised enough in the document overal. Parents’ understanding of this, and the workforce’s understanding of this are key to all efforts to support parents with their parenting. Generally how parenting is set out in the document is underplayed. There is a need to pay attention to this throughout childhood and this is not reflected.
There is no reference I can see to the age-range covered. There is only fleeting reference to “life beyond early years” –more attention to this is required to these later age groups as there is no adequate reference to dealing with problems when they arise later in family life.
(Norwegian example given as good practice focuses on 0-12 and 13-18)
Here are some suggestions to try and capture the above:
1 As a public health measure, relationships between children and their parents/carers need to be universally supported. Intervention into problematic relationships, as soon as difficulties are identified, is crucial in the prevention and amelioration of a whole range of social and health problems. Gilligan, R. 'Beyond permanence? The importance of resilience in child placement practice and planning', Adoption and Fostering, 21, 1997, pp. 12-20
2Attachment is a fundamental building block of human relationships and severe problems in parent-infant or parent-child interaction are now recognised to be a contributing factor to many serious social and mental health problems including violence. Parenting and family support encompasses work and support on addressing and building attachment between parents/carers and children
3. Parenting and family support therefore is a central plank in addressing the outcomes and commitments of the 15 national outcomes
Language and definitions are very important,a variety of interpretations can be made of early years and early intervention. NPDP previously provided a definition of this (Dartington Research)
“In the context of children’s services, prevention is generally considered in terms of preventing social need or social or psychological problems. Early Intervention refers to responses early in the development of social need or social or psychological problems. Treatment comes when these problems are fully manifest. Social prevention attempts to reduce the impact of entrenched social needs in the wider community”
Refocusing Children’s Services Towards Prevention: Lessons from the Literature, Darlington Research Unit, Dept for Education and Life Skills, Research Report RR510
• Does the draft set out the right balance between explaining the strategic policy objectives and describing practical actions which might be taken by local partners?
ACH Feedback:
The vision statements are commensurate with Scotland’s obligation to the UNCRC and provide a strong foundation on which to base this framework. The recognition that the entitlements afforded to children will necessitate a range of entitlements to parents is a welcome development and signals a firm understanding of the importance of parenting in early years.
It is encouraging that a document signed off by both COSLA and the Scottish Government should suggest a range of relevant indicators against which progress towards change in early years can be measured.
The document provides a clear assessment of what ‘transformational change’ should look like with a range examples covering all environmental and social influences on development in early years. We welcome commitments to promote partnership working across all sectors. However we feel that the promotion of partnership working could be strengthened. Additionally, whilst some attention is paid to the role that adult services must play in delivering positive outcomes for the early years, through improving domestic circumstances and the life chances of parents, there is very little about transitional support for young children as they progress through the early stages of education.
In the section on delivering transformational change, we were very concerned that the pictorial matrix did not seem to include a recognition of residential child care and the role and responsibilities it has to looked after and accommodated children.
This is a critical omission in such a matrix as these represent some of the most vulnerable children in our society. With 5 separate reviews and studies into the needs and circumstances of looked after children in recent years, the time has come for a national strategy on looked after children.
Valerie Corbett Feedback:
In my view this is the weakest part of the framework and supporting papers. There are some contradictions and assumptions about the relationship between the strategic objectives and the current local situation. There is not a strong enough message about partnership and the involvement of the non statutory agencies. Whilst there is some acknowledgement that there needs to be change it does give as much direction or indeed realistic suggestions as to how this is to be achieved. The supporting documents are a bit stronger in this respect particularly the Draft final Report from integrated services task group. The Final draft parenting task group also highlights some actions [page 9 onwards] but the tone of the document does detract a little from the content. It stills feels more about messages rather than action.
It would be useful to highlight some of the current service provision within Aberlour e.g. Breaking the Cycle [BTC], outreach Falkirk and Edinburgh, Clasp and Langlees and the young woman’s service. These services are already working more holistically and are about either holistic or intensive family support or early intervention and both which address intergenerational issues which increase risk and lead to poorer outcomes for children. It might be worth highlighting the Family assessment, parenting and individual child focused work, including nurture and transition work which Langlees does. The parenting and parent /child relationship work Clasp and Outreach services do and also the family support model of BTC. The young woman’s service is very much a service which is both early intervention, working with vulnerable young woman leaving care to try and prevent an escalation in risk behaviours, including substance use and sexual behaviour and risk of pregnancy as well as parenting work with those young women who are already pregnant and /or had children and of course the work of NPDP.
NDPD (Catriona Rioch) feedback
Page 18 lists as something which has been “done”-“developed a range of local parenting strategies and programmes”.As research recently released by Govt. indicates(Bill Whyte et al) we are still only in the early stages of achieving this and much more needs to be done. Some local authorities are further down the line and have invested much resource and strategic planning for the future. There is generally a need to pay more cognisance to this area as the strategies and surrounding planning will determine the “how” of the implementation of the EI Framework and in particular how the developments around parenting can and should dovetail with the Framework
Single Outcomes as they stand will not be enough to direct local authority spending appropriately. Removal of ring fencing has already demonstrated this-confusion and damage to services relevant to this framework from lack of clarity re. spend of centrally-provided funds by local authorities.Page 27-“each local area has a set of supports to meet a set of core needs”-need some degree of central overview to achieve this.
Page 7-measures of progress seem very broad,in particular “parental skills/readiness”-needs more elaboration and exploration.
We feel there is too much weight placed on health provision and health measures in this paper. Our experience shows that Health do not always join forces/work/plan collaboratively with other agencies in planning parenting services (they have so many departments within their own organisation to coordinate, it is not easy for them to do so) . If there is not more emphasis or direction on integrated working and funding there is a danger they will branch out on their own – this could result in duplication of services or developing models that are difficult for other agencies to fit in with.
Generally leaves us unclear on the “ How?” In our experience much more attention and direction will be needed to ensure the practical implementation of this Framework
• Is the document as a whole clear about what we want to do?
ACH Feedback
Whilst we welcome the range of proposed indicators against which progress towards change in early years and parenting might be measured, it is not clear what weight such indicators will carry. The Framework does not state whether such indicators will be incorporated into a refresh of the Concordat or, if not, what direction or encouragement to demonstrate progress, local authorities will receive.
As the architecture of this framework has been arrived at through the joint participation of the Scottish Government and COSLA, an argument could be made for re-examining the Concordat with a view to including these indicators. As it currently stands, the Concordat instructs Local Authorities to demonstrate progress in increasing the number of terrestrial breeding birds but does not presently suggest an indicator for progress in increasing the number of children participating in outdoor play or reducing the number of vulnerable pregnancies in a local authority area.
On page 12 the document hypothecates the future focus of expenditure.
“Investment in early years has been increasing but there was a strong feeling coming through from the task group that too much of this investment has gone into small scale projects bolted on to universal services rather than building the capacity of the core services that children and families come into contact with on a regular basis. This has to change. The majority of future investment should be focused on making sure ante-natal care, post-natal health visiting, childcare, pre-school and school are equipped to identify needs and risks, and able then to deliver a service that meets the different needs identified within mainstream services as far as possible.”
Whilst it is clear that no money is attached to this framework, it is unclear what level of authority this document can dictate the future direction of expenditure.
In terms of Section 4: ‘priorities for early years’, the sections which identify what needs to be done should be expanded to included timetables for delivery of the action points, some indication of what success will look like and how success could be measured.
We understand the legislative duty of local authorities to extend responsibility for drafting single outcome agreements to Community planning partnerships from 09/10, but are concerned that the means by which the voluntary sector, and thereby children and young people can feed into the creation of such outcome agreements varies dramatically from one local authority to another. Clearly defined rules of engagement for voluntary sector input into the design of single outcome agreements must be better defined. The framework needs to more clearly define the ways in which it will be implemented through community planning and Single Outcome Agreements. East Dunbartonshire have committed in their 08/09 SOA to create a new indicator locally to determine the input of young people into local decision making and currently have a member of the local youth senate sitting on their CPP board in addition to voluntary sector representation. We believe that this represents best practice and should be an aspiration for all local authorities.
We welcome the centrality afforded to parenting in this framework but are concerned that at a time when the government and local authorities are waking up to the importance of parenting support. National parenting services such as our own remain in jeopardy due to the end of funding streams and a lack of any replacement resources.
We warmly welcome the proposal to commence a national debate on risk to children. Since its inception we have been supportive of Kathleen Marshall’s agenda: Promoting proportionate protection as we feel that a culture of fear currently pervades childhood in Scotland to an unacceptable extent, it limits activity, suppresses adult volunteering and engenders an attitude of mistrust in both adults and children. Similarly we are very supportive of moves to extend opportunities for outdoor and open space play.
Valerie Corbett Feedback:
There is a clear message as to what is wanted but as previously stated still short and how and by when. It is still weak on holistic and integrated approach and relies too heavily on promoting a ‘deficit’ and risk model which will not empower in my view organisations and partners to think and do things differently. I think the way in which some current SOA are woefully short on prioritising early years reflects my real concern that there is not sufficient direction or indeed incentives to commit wholesale to giving children an universally accessible best start nor committing resources harnessing, enhancing and sustaining the capacity of each and every child in the spirit of GIRFEC and the UN Convention. Implicit in the document is a concept of intervening in a crisis earlier rather more positive and preventative approach.
NPDP (Catriona Rioch) Feedback:
A lot is weighted on health services to deliver(and health measures as desirable outcomes) despite significant ongoing reorganisation of community nursing which would seem to cut across this.
• Does it motivate you to get involved at whatever level you are able to?
ACH feedback:
Ironically, Aberlour has been delivering parenting support through our National Parenting Development Funding since 2002. Until March this year we enjoyed funding from the youth crime prevention fund and had hoped that this government grant would be extended. However, as all commensurate funds and responsibility for delivering on youth justice were devolved to local Authorities with the signing of the concordat. Since that time our attempts to secure funding from each of the 31 local authorities for whom we had delivered parenting development have proved very difficult. Our board have underwritten the activities of our Parenting project until March 2009 but the future for the project looks particularly bleak.
The tone and rhetoric of the framework are positive and the direction of travel is encouraging. However, with out the necessary commensurate resources, it will be harder for partners, particularly in the voluntary sector to turn this rhetoric into action.
Valerie Corbett feedback:
There is a strong aspirational tone to the document which can and does motivate but there is also much rhetoric. Aberlour is already developing services which fit comfortably with what is being suggested and promoted. A stronger endorsement of the value and active role the voluntary sector can play would be a stronger motivator.
NPDP (Catriona Rioch) Feedback:
We are already involved in many of the themes identified, or at least thought we were but now concerned that the many valid points in the framework will be loaded into narrow definition of early years work and early intervention., older children and their parents will be even more overlooked than already evidenced by audits. There is a danger that much of the development of parenting services and planning will get marginalised in the implementation of this Framework.
Danger of reinventing the wheel –“expert group” referred to on page 27 but knowledge and experience already in existence and work ongoing beyond the task groups,on strategic development of parenting services, needs to be incorporated into the thinking
• Does the document adequately reflect the substance and sense of the task group’s report as a whole?
Valerie Corbett feedback:
I am not sure that it does. I think the task groups have been more explicit about actions required than is reflected in the Framework document.
NPDP (Catriona Rioch) feedback:
As above more attention is needed to working in an integrated way, building on what is already there and linking to strategic developments that are already there. There is a failure to address HOW services can refocus – yes there needs to be a shift to Early Years but how do you achieve the balance of still providing services for parents of older children as these will still be needed? We can evidence from the audits we have undertaken across Scotland – that the biggest single gap in services is for parents of older children. This will not go away – even if provision is provided earlier by the nature of the key developmental stage of adolescence problems will occur for parents who will need support.
Additional Observations:
Jackie Hotersall Regional Director (North) feedback:
The Chief Medical Officer makes connections between early years and a range of physical and mental health outcomes. Areas around substance misuse, smoking and poor diet are specifically mentioned. In addition, the parenting task group paper, on pg 4, refers to specific groups of parents who face particular challenges. However, I feel that there are equal or even exacerbated risks in relation to:
• A parent’s own experience of childhood, for example childhood abuse and neglect, which has a huge impact on the way in which they will parent their own children. I have worked with women who have been sexually abused who can’t cuddle or touch their babies in any way shape or form
• Situations where a woman has become pregnant as a result of being raped
• Parents who deliver babies who have physical and/or learning difficulties, especially if they were unprepared for this
• Post-natal depression; there is little mention of this huge problem (Need to get stats) or indeed a positive strategy for supporting parents and children who suffer from it. What has happened to all of the evaluation from Sure Start and the subsequent plans for post-natal depression services in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act?
• Post-labour stress disorder (CherylBeck), which quite often goes undetected and which has been shown to create specific problems in children’s behaviour from age 3. There is little mention of anything changing in relation to problems women endure when giving birth – lack of midwives, lack of access to alternative approaches to giving birth etc
• Supporting fathers, especially single dads who still find the female domination in early years services to be prohibitive
Equally, pg 5 of the Framework refers to a vision of “children are entitled not to be harmed by alcohol, tobacco or drugs during pregnancy” but the child factors (pg 4 in the parenting task group paper) do not specify the issues of drug withdrawal. There is a need for emphasis on early intervention re developmental needs with children born with neo natal abstinence. Apart from affecting the attachment relationship, we know from research that growth and development, particularly communication, in the first four weeks is severely impaired as babies struggle to deal with the withdrawal symptoms. Research (e.g. Mary Dozier) has also shown that the cortisol levels in babies up to the age of 1 year flat line at a really high level (babies who are constantly crying and anxious) and that the levels can flat line at a very low level from 12-24 months (babies who are depressed and under stimulated). Parenting programmes, such as Mellow Babies, have been shown to improve all of these but they remain optional.
There appears to be no link to Getting our Priorities Right and I think we perhaps need to recommend that the current 28 week meeting is reduced to 24 weeks. In Aberdeenshire for example, I have been working consistently with mums in the early stages of pregnancy who have substance misuse problems and the evaluation has shown the programme to have positively impacted on their drug and alcohol intake; consequently improving the well-being of the baby during pregnancy. Therefore, t the point of the 24 week meeting (GOPR), a significant amount or early intervention has taken place. Even without significant interventions and given that most mums who have substance misuse problems deliver babies early, the implementation of a meeting at 24 weeks will enable significant intervention prior to the baby being born.
Again on pg 4 of the parenting task group, “maltreatment” is mentioned but it would perhaps be better to refer specifically to sexual abuse (as well?). There is also no reference to the lack of support for children who then become child witnesses or the specific issues which have been identified in relation to the lack of uptake in relation to the 6 vulnerable witness remote locations in Scotland.
There is some reference to increasing services to support children with developmental concerns or disability but we are aware of the lack of a comparative policy in Scotland to “Aiming High” in England. In addition, the Concordat has meant that money which was previously set aside for services such as play schemes, respite and short breaks has gone and we are not only facing a tendering process for these vital services but cuts across the board which may, in the longer-term increase the risks to children with complex and profound needs and maybe even create an increase in number of children being accommodated as parents find the cuts mean that they can no longer look after them at home the straw that broke the camel’s back!
There is reference to giving more support to grandparents who look after grandchildren but this could just mean in a childminding capacity. Given the prevalence of grandparents who look after grandchildren on a permanent basis, the specific problem this caused them and the resulting challenging behaviours should be specified. This is one area where early intervention is vital and where we need a more joined up approach with, for example housing. I am surprised that no reference to GIRFEC in Kinship and Foster Care is mentioned.
There is a clear need for flexibility within parenting services that makes support available in the evening and at weekends - parenting is not a 9-5 job!
Across the Framework it refers to the Curriculum for Excellence. However, an area of concern which comes and goes and which appears not to be addressed here is the current level of school holidays. Apart from the additional costs to parents for child care, research shows that there is a negative impact on children in terms of the fragmentation and disruption that so many holidays create. What is the rationale?
Again, in relation to the Curriculum for Excellence, GIRFEC and skills for the workforce I would reflect on the following;
• There is a lack of integrated training for those students in Health, Education, Social work and the Police. GIRFEC and the IAF have just found their way onto the BA in Education but my experience, form being involved in piloting an integrated training programme in the North has shown that newly qualified staff, across all of the disciplines have not been given enough information or experience of working in partnership
• The framework refers to pay for staff working in the early years being low. This does impact on the lack of men in early years services which in itself is an issue which needs to be addressed
Pg 19 and 20 refer to the increased entitlement of pre-school places and play. Firstly, when the Government (under Margaret Thatcher) introduced free nursery places and a curriculum for 3 year olds I believe that there was a direct correlation to the number of children in primary 1 being excluded (there is also a link and lessons to be learned from the way in which the Sure Start money was distributed across the country, i.e. in Aberdeen it went to Education rather than early years services such as Family Centres!). Although the framework says we shouldn’t hark back to the good old days, in retrospect, many 3 year olds were and still are in Nurseries where the curriculum does not provide opportunities for outdoor play or building up the sorts of social skills which were afforded to children in the “olden days” such as visiting family and friends or going to the shops. Consequently whilst they are prepared academically for school children’s social and communication skills are often delayed. There was a move several years ago to look at the Norwegian Early Years Curriculum where specific areas of the curriculum are set in the outside world and where children are encouraged to play outside every day – for example Nurseries provide boots, hats and scarves. We also looked at the New Zealand Curriculum where children did not start school until the day of their fifth birthday.