There's also no denying that the plan is ambitious. It will see across-government approach underpinned by a firm belief in betteridentification and earlier intervention. And while there is only asmattering of concrete practical proposals, there is a commitment toidentifying and sharing best practice, a beefed-up child protection rolefor midwives and health visitors, an increase in family supportservices, and a renewed focus on tackling mental health problems,teenage pregnancy and the education challenges that many children in thepublic care system continue to face (see Analysis, p12).
However, there are two major issues that have the potential to derailthese good intentions before they begin to take root. The first isfunding.
Only last week the children's minister stated that there would be no newmoney to help councils drive down pregnancy rates. She claims it's notabout additional resources, but using those already on offer in a morefocused way (see News, p4). And yet it is widely known that the currentcash crisis engulfing the NHS is already threatening sexual health andchild and adolescent mental health services as primary care trusts tryto pay off their debts.
The second potential stumbling block is the warning that underperforminglocal authorities will face central government intervention. While therationale is understandable, it's hard not to feel sympathy fordirectors of children's services and their teams who are alreadyembroiled in changing structures and reorganising services as theyimplement Change for Children, and it's not difficult to predict thatmany of them will struggle with yet more change and the resulting staffcapacity issues.
The reality is that vision and principles are fine, but it's people andfunding that transform creative policy into robust best practice. I fearthat if the Government doesn't more explicitly recognise thisrelationship, then the social exclusion action plan will never fulfilits promising potential.
