Taking Stock: Scottish Social Welfare after Devolution (review)

Health on the agenda in Scottish independence referendum

by Harry Hendrick ( ed .) Bristol : Policy Press , 2005 ISBN 1861345666 , 558 pp , £25.00 (pb) This reader seeks to provide a broad framework within which to observe some of the complexities and ambiguities regarding children's well-being and to think about and analyse policy and practice. Aimed at students, it is intended to make them aware of different concepts and approaches used by researchers and policy makers and to stimulate their critical reflection on social policy for children. The 26 chapters were selected to provide a state-of-the-art picture of child welfare and social policy, so that together they show the variety of ways of thinking about children's well-being. Most were originally published in the period 1997–2003 and are drawn from a mixture of monographs, edited collections and journals. The book is in four parts. Part One highlights the historical antecedents of current debates, drawing out themes such as the perennial tension between family and state and the contrasting images of children as victims or threats. Part Two discusses concepts such as rights and social capital, describing the different ways in which children have been perceived and categorised in relation to welfare and how these play out in New Labour policy. Part Three sharpens the focus on policy and practice in 21st-Century Britain, with chapters on anti-social behaviour, health, disability, housing, education, young carers and day care. Part Four turns to the future and what it perceives as the growth of the ‘social investment state’ in which children are viewed as human capital. It would be easy to get lost amidst such disparate contributions, so Hendrick's overview chapters provide a useful map and give the book coherence. There are at least two recurring themes – one relating to research, the other to policy. First is the need for a more child-centred approach to social policy analysis, much work to date having considered policy and practice from the perspective of families, households, professional outputs or economics. Ridge (2005; Chapter 5) illustrates the value of this approach in her elaboration of children's real-life experience of poverty and social exclusion and elsewhere has done the same in relation to child support policy, with interesting results. The authors are particularly concerned to stress the importance of considering children's experience in the present, criticising the recurring portrayal in policy of children as ‘becomings’ not ‘beings’. This is exemplified in Nigel Thomas's discussion of the Children Act 1989 (Chapter 9) and Ruth Lister's powerful argument that policy in liberal welfare states such as the UK conceives of children as ‘citizen-workers of the future’ (Chapter 25). There has been a marked shift in recent years in this direction, informed by the body of work known collectively as childhood sociology or ‘the new social studies of childhood’. Second, the book neatly crystallises the underlying tension in much social policy for children between a needs-led or ‘welfare’ approach and a more rights-driven agenda. Jeremy Roche's analysis of recent legislation captures well the growing influence of rights but also the sense that its impact has been somewhat less than many advocates would wish (Chapter 12). Lansdown, meanwhile, defends the rights perspective from its critics, pointing to the way that adults abuse their power over children (Chapter 6), although one might of course ask if the decline in aspects of children's well-being in a supposed golden age for children's rights does not call the agenda into question. Significantly, John Davis and his colleagues (Chapter 18) contend that the shift from a medical or needs-led model of disability towards a more social or rights-based approach has been detrimental because the latter tends to view disabled children as an homogenous group and ignores differences and complexities. Most of the chapters acknowledge benefits that have accrued to children since Labour took office in 1997 while also expressing unease about the direction of some policies and calling for more progress. In the latter case, most of the authors are less forthcoming, which lends weight to Michael King's argument (Chapter 3) that there is a need to move beyond moral indignation to formulate practical measures aimed at changing behaviour towards children (p. 66). If it is short on solutions, however, this reader is rich in fascinating and thought-provoking accounts and cannot fail in its aim to encourage thinking theoretically and politically about child welfare – which Hendrick rightly identifies as being ‘in a rather elementary stage of development’ (p. 478).

Evidence from a study of 1155 children referred to the children's hearings system in Scotland in 1995 found many of the children could be characterized as ‘children in need’. As found in other child care research, limited voluntary help was available to them, the majority received ‘no action’ and a substantial group a compulsory supervision requirement. The critical need for the strategic development of family support services in child welfare policy in Scotland for children referred to the hearings system is argued. The potential misuse of compulsory measures of supervision as a key to accessing resources is examined.

Linking state child care and child welfare policies and populations: Implications for children, families, and policymakers

This paper begins by defining the meaning of the term ‘maritime policy’. Since devolution in the UK, the opening of the new Scottish parliament in 1998 and the creation of the Scottish Executive, little effort has been made to establish a distinct maritime policy for Scotland. As was evident prior to devolution, the primary emphasis from any maritime policy perspective has continued to be a focus on lifeline island ferry services. This ignores significant developments in several other key maritime transport sectors, and this paper provides examples of areas that require some form of policy response, including intra-European short sea shipping, UK coastal shipping, urban/river transport and global container shipping. Long-standing institutional bias against maritime transport coupled with subsidy devoted almost entirely to land transport systems has resulted in a quite distorted marketplace. This suggests that a maritime policy is now imperative if maritime transport is to play a more significant role in the overall transport system. Further discussion centres on the need to consider, from a Scottish policy perspective, the role of various state-sponsored maritime service providers and how these bodies might fit better within evolving policy. The conclusion is that formulation of a maritime policy by the Scottish Executive is overdue and that a degree of restructuring of transport responsibilities within the Executive, combined with adequate resource allocation towards the maritime industry, will be necessary in order that market distortions can be overcome, so enabling Scotland to fully exploit the competitive and environmental advantages that maritime transport can provide.

Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), a landmark policy framework for improving children's well-being in Scotland, United Kingdom, is a practice initiative signifying a distinct way of thinking, an agenda for change, and the future direction of child welfare policy. GIRFEC represents a unique case study of national transformative change within the contexts of children's well-being and universal services and is of relevance to other jurisdictions. Implementation is under way, with an understanding of well-being and the requirement for information sharing enshrined in law. Yet there is scope for interpretation within the legislation and associated guidance. Inherent tensions around intrusion, data gathering, professional roles, and balancing well-being against child protection threaten the effectiveness of the policy if not resolved. Despite persistent health inequalities and intergenerational deprivation, the Scottish government aspires for Scotland to be the best country for children to grow up in. Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) is a landmark children's policy framework to improve children's well-being via early intervention, universal service provision, and multiagency coordination across organizational boundaries. Placing the child and family "at the center," this approach marks a shift from welfare to well-being, yet there is still a general lack of consensus over how well-being is defined and measured. As an umbrella policy framework with broad reach, GIRFEC represents the current and future direction of children's/family policy in Scotland, yet large-scale practice change is required for successful implementation. This article explores the origins and emergence of GIRFEC and presents a critical analysis of its incremental design, development, and implementation. There is considerable scope for interpretation within the GIRFEC legislation and guidance, most notably around assessment of well-being and the role and remit of those charged with implementation. Tensions have arisen around issues such as professional roles; intrusion, data sharing, and confidentiality; and the balance between supporting well-being and protecting children. Despite the policy's intentions for integration, the service landscape for children and families still remains relatively fragmented. Although the policy has groundbreaking potential, inherent tensions must be resolved and the processes of change carefully managed in order for GIRFEC to be effective. It remains to be seen whether GIRFEC can fulfil the Scottish government's aspirations to reduce inequalities and improve lifelong outcomes for Scotland's children and young people. In terms of both a national children's well-being framework within a universal public service context and a distinct style of policymaking and implementation, the Scottish experience represents a unique case study of whole-country, transformational change and is of relevance to other jurisdictions.

Through a convergence of factors - a president who vowed in his 1992 campaign to end welfare as we know it, a majority Republican Congress who pledged to reform welfare in its policy manifesto Contract with America (Gingrich, Armey, & the House Republicans, 1994), and an impending November 1996 election creating pressure for candidates from both parties to make good on those earlier promises - the federal government will soon enact the most sweeping revision of social welfare policy since the New Deal. President Clinton has signed the Personal Responsibility anti Work Opportunity Act of 1996, ending Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and instituting far-reaching changes in aid to needy people and immigrants in this country. This new law is one thread in a far-reaching change in the federal policy fabric, that of of policy making to states. Devolution means that the federal government will give more discretion to the states and will maintain less oversight of social policy as implemented by states. Devolution could lead to great variations in social policy the likes of which we have not seen in this century. Although health care, Medicaid, and child welfare policy, especially foster care, have yet to see major federal legislative changes, numerous bills have been considered at the federal and state levels. Although many of these changes are not described in terms of children's policy, they will affect children disproportionately. These policy revisions are aimed at the poor population, and children are the majority of the poor population in the United States. Analysts have estimated that two of every three people affected by welfare reform will be children (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Devolution Revolution and Welfare Reform If the revolution (Nathan, 1996) proceeds as outlined, welfare and other major federal programs will be delegated to the states. Nathan, McGrath, and O'Heaney (1996), in a concise and cogent history of federalism in the 20th century, credited Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon with instituting federalist policies in the first programs such as Johnson's Law Assistance Block Grant in 1967 and Nixon's State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (which expired in 1986), the Community Development Block Grant, and Title XX of the Social Security Act. According to Nathan et al., the philosophy behind the Johnson-Nixon brand of federalism was that greater flexibility for states and localities would allow them to reform government-sponsored social services in ways that would improve coordination and efficiency and allow the local community to determine needs and set priorities in selected areas of social policy. President Nixon felt strongly that certain public-sector responsibilities should remain centralized, including health, welfare, and the environment. Under Nixon's new federalism, funding was increased to states and localities while categorical programs and restrictions were relaxed or eliminated in the new block grant programs. The late-1990s brand of federalism differs from its precursors in several ways. First, the welfare and health programs considered sacred by earlier federalists are now the objects of devolution, breaking down a national standard for support of poor people, including health care. Second, today's devolution of power in matters of social policy is combined with drastic reductions in federal revenues to support the states' new discretion. States will be freer to devise and implement welfare and health programs for poor people, but they will have up to 20 percent less federal support to do so, pushing the burden to state and local taxes or resulting in dramatically reduced programs for poor families. It is not coincidental that these changes are taking place at a time when economic forces and the power base in this country are shifting. Conservative states in the South and West are booming economically, whereas the eastern and western coastal states are struggling to restructure their economies to promote technological and service industries. …

As the general election approaches the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) has drawn up priorities for mothers, babies and the maternity services. Our manifesto will be widely distributed throughout England. In February, the Government announced plans for a National Service Framework (NSF) for Children in the next parliament. This would apply in England, and similar initiatives might be in train for the other UK countries. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are ahead of England in developing a breast-feeding strategy. In January, Scotland led the way with a Framework for Maternity Services (Scottish Executive, 2001a).

Sweden is among those countries traditionally ranked highly in international comparisons of children’s well-being and conditions for development. However, in recent years a development towards greater inequality in health has occurred. The general welfare model’s capacity to safeguard both the universal provisions for the general population’s standard of living and targeted support for those in need has also been doubted. System-related deficiencies such as collaborative breakdown, inadequate effectiveness and lack of clarity concerning how to uphold the best interests of the child are cited as examples, and several calls for policy reformations have been raised. The Scottish model for supporting child well-being, Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) has garnered keen interest in Sweden and is an example of how ideas for policy reformation flow both between and within countries, and thereby undergo more or less radical transformations. This article analyses the first-phase implementation of GIRFEC in a Swedish county. It emerges that although there is a great deal of enthusiasm for the original model, the intention is to implement an adapted version. What similarities and differences would be realized is not clarified from the start, but is left for the implementation process. The positive reception is understood as arising from a perceived familiarity of the model, based on current practice and discourse. GIRFEC can therefore be regarded as part of a pendulum swing in which ideas are borrowed and lent between countries and contexts.

The center for regional and tribal child welfare studies: Students’ experiences of an Anishinaabe-centered social work education program

This article examined the extent to which methadone maintenance (MM) is considered a treatment alternative for drug-dependent parents, as reflected in the social work and child welfare literature and in child welfare policies. Findings were derived from a review of 15 social work journals published from 1996 through 2002 and from a review of child welfare policies in 27 states in regard to treatment recommendations for substance-abusing parents. These reviews found that 23 articles focused on child welfare-substance abuse issues; no article specifically discussed MM as a treatment option for heroin-using parents; and of the 27 states, only three included methadone as a treatment option in their child welfare policy recommendations. Practice and policy recommendations are discussed.

The number of Latino children involved with the child welfare system has more than doubled in the past 15 years, currently representing 21 percent of known cases of child maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (HHS, ACYF), 1997, 2009). Culturally appropriate services are in dire need, and care placements appeal to the family system fundamental to Latino culture. Evidence suggests placements result in fewer moves and instances of reentering care, better opportunities for maintaining contact with birth family, and faster sibling placements (Cuddeback, 2004; Winokur, Rozen, Thompson, Green, & Valentine, 2005). Unfortunately, most child welfare policies ineffectively deal with issues unique to Latinos, such as cultural norms, mixed documentation status within households, and high rates of poverty. This commentary explores the multifaceted barriers Latino care providers are likely to encounter as their lived experiences intersect with child welfare, welfare reform, and immigration policies. We posited that culturally sensitive practice and policy can reduce some strains experienced by Latino families involved with child welfare and supports care as a viable placement option. BACKGROUND Types of Kinship Care Traditionally, care includes formal and informal care. Formal occurs when children are placed in state custody, whereas informal arrangements do not involve the child welfare system. Within formal caregiving, placements can be foster care--where relative caregivers become licensed providers, or volunteer care--where a child is placed with a relative without seeking state custody (Geen, 2004). These distinctions significantly affect the type and amount of payment caregivers can receive as well as access to supports and services (for example, mental health). Latino Kinship Care and Licensing Difficulties Latino families' ability to be licensed foster placements are complicated by a limited definition of kin, immigration issues, and lack of language-appropriate services. The family system plays a pivotal role in the lives of Latino families and individuals. Central are familismo, which refers to the importance of family unity that contributes to the well-being of the family and extended family (Cauce & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2000), and compadrazgo, which is co-parenthood akin to godparents (padrinos) that forms social and religious ties between families and the selected godparents (Barrio & Hughes, 2000). These concepts produce strong family loyalties extending beyond the nuclear family to include networks and non-blood relations (Hurtado, 1995). Unfortunately, federal and state policies ignore these non-blood networks, as such people are ineligible for licensure. In the majority of states kinship is narrowly defined through blood relation, marriage, or adoption. Only 21 states adhere to a broader definition that includes non-blood ties like friends, neighbors, or godparents (Leos-Urbel, Bess, & Geen, 2000). Latino families are unable to be licensed foster caregivers if they live in a mixed-documentation household, in which nearly three in five (62 percent) U.S. Latino children reside (National Council of La Raza, 2009). A mixed-documentation household has one or more people living in a home who are undocumented immigrants. Caregivers in these situations may refrain from becoming a licensed placement due to requirements like background checks that require caregivers and people in the household 16 years and older to provide fingerprints and valid photo identification. Family members who want to be licensed caregivers may place themselves or others in danger of deportation, especially in light of anti-inmaigrant policies (for example, Arizona's SB1070, Prop 200) that mandate child welfare workers to enter homes and report immigration status. …

This study investigates whether child maltreatment fatalities among children receiving services from state child welfare agencies spur substantive, as opposed to symbolic, legislative change to direct child welfare policy and practice. Using existing state-level data from three years, this study examined the influence of news stories, state characteristics, and child welfare policy practice factors on the passage of new child welfare legislations. The results suggest that high levels of media attention are indeed associated with new child welfare policy that is preventative in nature. Furthermore, state child welfare policy practice characteristics are also significantly related to the passage of new child maltreatment fatality-related legislation. The author makes recommendations for future research concerning the effectiveness of policy and practice change that results from child maltreatment fatalities.

This article takes a health assets approach to extract policy lessons for Ghana’s present Child and Family Welfare Policy, introduced in 2014. We examine the role of Ghanaian adolescents’ socioeconomic status and family social capital in their subjective well-being using data obtained from a representative survey of adolescents (aged 13-18 years) in Ghana’s Upper West Region. Our empirical results revealed that various sub-components of family social capital, including family sense of belonging, autonomy support, control, and social support, varied with adolescents’ self-reported life satisfaction and happiness after controlling for their family socioeconomic status and other personal characteristics. Once family social capital was controlled for, socioeconomic status explained adolescents’ life satisfaction, but not their happiness. These findings confirm existing studies suggesting that family social capital can function as a protective ‘safety net’ for adolescents with low SES in the specific Ghanaian context. Consequently, this study contributes to the literature by arguing that, in order to develop Ghana’s Child and Family Welfare Policy further, adolescent ‘social empowerment’ ought to be accentuated alongside its current focus on enhancing household ‘economic empowerment’ via social protection interventions.

Sexual and reproductive health policies for foster youth in California: A qualitative study of child welfare professionals' experiences and perceptions of policies