All recommend the need to do things differently and highlight the benefits of supporting children and families early in breaking the cycle of wasted potential, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, antisocial behaviour and a lifetime on benefits.
With the government now undertaking a review of all its policies following the riots, the case for early intervention has never been stronger.
Local authorities need to rethink how they deliver an early offer of help to families in need and improve the way that children's centres, schools, statutory services and partners in the voluntary and private sector work together.
It's a difficult task at the best of times, let alone during a time of slashed budgets. But perhaps this challenge brings opportunities for change, by which I mean a real system change for many local authorities and tangible cross-departmental working in practice.
I have recently returned from Washington DC where I attended a conference organised by the NGO Generations United. The conference brought together examples of good practice from several states where they have changed the way business is done – breaking the intergenerational cycle of disadvantage by addressing the causes rather than the symptoms of problems and reducing demand on services. Dismantling the barriers between children's and adults' services is crucial to this way of working and has to be the way forward.
Multi-agency teams and commissioned services need a base to operate from in the community. Agencies need more than just a common agenda to work together to influence social change. Locality working, providing a menu of services for the most vulnerable families, should be delivered from children's centres or other existing local authority buildings such as libraries. A recent report from the Local Government Association and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council echoes similar thoughts. However, decisions on children's centres and library closures are being made in isolation without taking into consideration the much bigger picture.
Surely the starting point has to be looking at what services are needed to support children and families most in need. What flexible responses can a council provide to ensure that support is given swiftly before problems escalate? What's the most cost-effective way of providing services for disadvantaged families? Is it really the case that closing children's centres is the answer to reducing costs?
There has to be more effort put into tracking those families that are helped. We should be evaluating interventions and their outcomes.
It would be absurd to carry on delivering more of the same if the intervention fails and additional interventions are needed further down the line. Following the journey of the child and the family is essential if we are to be sure that we are providing the best support.
Unfortunately, new ways of working have to be established during a time of uncertainty. What will the children's centres core offer look like; what will the payment-by-results schemes mean for overall budgets; what do changes to national performance indicators mean for local authorities? There appears to be very little clear policy coming from central government.
I admire those local authorities who are raising their heads above the parapet and who are already making significant changes to the way they offer a range of integrated services and activities to help families address problems before they become too serious. But this is only the start. We can't afford to reduce the pace of change - for the benefit of children and families and to make limited resources work better.
Denise Burke is director of United for All Ages. www.unitedforallages.com
