Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:48:47.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investing in Children, Regulating Parents, Thinking Family: A Decade of Tensions and Contradictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2010

Kate Morris
Affiliation:
Centre for Social Work, University of Nottingham, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Brid Featherstone
Affiliation:
National University of Ireland, Galway

Abstract

This article describes the contested and underdeveloped backdrop to ‘“whole family” approaches’, whereby families with care and protection needs are caught in a conflicting set of policy and practice expectations concerning responsibility to care whilst being positioned as families that fail. Questions are raised about how supported families are to navigate their way through these permissive and punitive policies and practices. We suggest that there is an urgent need for more ‘bottom–up’ research informed by the ethic of care to develop the kinds of policies and practices that might make it more possible for them to do so.

Type
Themed Section on Family Minded Policy and Whole Family Practice
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belsky, J. and Melhuish, E. (2007), ‘Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on children and families’, in Besky, J., Barnes, J. and Melhuish, W. (eds.), The National Evaluation of Sure Start, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Blair, T. (2006), Speech to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, 4 September.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2004), Every Child Matters: The Next Steps, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2007a), Every Parent Matters, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007b), The Children's Plan, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Edwards, A., Barnes, M., Plewis, I. and Morris, K. (2006), ‘Working to prevent the social exclusion of children and young people: final lessons from the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund’, Department for Education and Schools Research Report 734, London.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. (2004), Protecting Children in Time, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Family Rights Group (2009), Report on a Freedom of Information Survey of Local Authorities’ Family and Friends Care Policies, London: FRG.Google Scholar
Frost, N. and Parton, N. (2009), Understanding Children's Social Care, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hollway, W. (2006), The Capacity to Care: Gender and Ethical Subjectivity, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Home Office (1998), Supporting Families: A Consultation Document, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (2003), Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand against Anti-Social Behaviour, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Jenson, J. (2009), ‘Lost in translation: the social investment perspective and gender equality’, Social Politics, 14, 4, 446–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumer-Nevo, M. (2003), ‘From a “coalition of despair” to a “covenant of help” in social work with families in distress’, European Journal of Social Work, 6, 3, 273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (2006), ‘Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender’, Critical Social Policy, 26, 2, 315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexmond, J. and Reeves, R. (2009), Building Character, London: DemosGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2008), Public Law Outline: Guide to Case Management in Public Law Proceedings, London: MoJ.Google Scholar
Morris, K. (2006), Camden FGC Service: An Evaluation of Outcomes, LondonBorough of Camden.Google Scholar
Morris, K., Hughes, N., Clarke, H., Tew, J., Mason, P., Galvani, S., Lewis, A., Loveless, L., Becker, S. and Burford, G. (2008), Think Family: A Literature Review of Whole Family Approaches, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Morris, K., Masson, J., Dickens, J. and Marsh, P. (2009), The Implementation and Impact of the Public Law Outline: The Experience of Family Group Conference Services and Local Authority Solicitors, The Universities of Nottingham, Bristol, East Anglia and Sheffield.Google Scholar
Morris, K. and Burford, G. (2009), ‘Family decision making: new spaces for participation and resistance’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Neary, M. (2009), ‘The case for care’, Public Policy Research, 15, 4, 180–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, J. and Parr, S. (2008), ‘Family Intervention Projects – sites of resilience, resistance and domination’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (2003), ‘Rethinking professional practice: the contributions of social constructionism and the feminist “ethics of care”’, British Journal of Social Work, 33, 116.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (2006), Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and Surveillance in a Late Modern Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Respect Task Force (2006), Respect Action Plan, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit Task Force (2008), Reaching Out: Think Family, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Tunstill, J. (1997), ‘Family support clauses of the 1989 Children Act’, in Parton, N. (ed.), Child Protection and Family Support: Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (2004), Rethinking Families, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar