First, there is a point of principle here. Welfare provision should bebased on need, not on behaviour. Those receiving housing benefit are, bydefinition, in need of financial assistance. Benefit reductions may makeit impossible for affected parents to provide sufficient financialsupport for their children. This could result in destitution andhomelessness, while in extreme cases it could lead to the children beingtaken into care - a prospect that must sit uncomfortably with theGovernment's commitment to end child poverty.
There is also a point of practice to be considered. It is clear that theGovernment wants to address not only the symptoms, but also the causesof anti-social behaviour, by linking benefit reductions to the offer of"appropriate rehabilitation". A fine intention - but how will this work?Will families have access to specialist provision such as mental healthor substance misuse services? How effective will compulsory programmesbe for those who may already have strained relations with statutoryagencies? What happens if suitable therapeutic programmes are simply notavailable?
Register Now to Continue Reading
Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's Included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector
Already have an account? Sign in here
