Re: More Health Visitors??

[Guest guest]

In terms of societal policing…once

you go down that route, you lose all credibility

as truly independent professionals…just

look at psychiatry. It also can prevent

(in hand with risk averseness in the law)

people seeking help earlier rather than later

this is espy true when there are mental

ill-health issues and where people perceive or know that

you may be seeing them through a potential

or actual coercive lens?

Chris

www.primhe.org

From:

[mailto: ]

On Behalf Of Daly

Sent: 10 September 2006 20:40

Subject: Re: More

Health Visitors??

Margaret

We need to distinguish between policing of individual

families in situations where children are suffering because of neglect

often as a result of acts of omission by parents or carers who are

themselves limited in their sense of their childs complex needs for their

own reasons. Health Visiting is about making judgments and indeed taking

risks in the context of a long term relationship wth the family. In

that situation we may have a relationship with the family as a whole but

we are morally and ethically accountable to the child not government, ideology

political/scientific or anything else. In my opinion a far

greater threat to society from health visitors are ill thought out

politically inspired or even worse the bright idea of some civil

servant or DOH official mass activity such as the recent national

BMI initiative. Public weighing of children with no followup. Health

Promotion and the epideomologists have the potential to be more

oppressive and damaging too individuals and families We must challange such

activity if we are not happy will serve the public good.

Health Visiting has always been about the individlual

and his needs in society. We have a proud history of " going native "

and identifying with our communities and articulating their concerns and

solutions to the wider society. Only this summer i reminded my own director of

nursing that for most of our history we were known as the mothers friend.

We can stand with families expecially the most excluded as they work with this

government to improve thier lives.

We need to be less concerned with occupational and

professional limits and more concerned with how we can stretch to help

families. I know it is not popular to praise this government at the moment

but this is the most determined political efforts on behalf of the

most excluded i have seen in my 30 year career I think we should support

it.

---- Original Message -----

From: Margaret Buttigieg

Sent: Sunday,

September 10, 2006 9:51 AM

Subject: Re:

More Health Visitors??

Although I agree with and understand what you are

saying and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for

the health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social

police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I

have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and

demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role.

I am finding that the understanding of the work of

health visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often

very poor and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what

their roles is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role

is agreed and implemented.

In terms of future work being out of children's

centres - that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the

conversations I have been having that we will be seeing a move of health

visitors and school nurses back to the local authority and

becoming clearly part of the Department for Education and Skills.

Margaret

Re:

More Health Visitors??

Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching

up with everything.

I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a

different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are

being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of Jean

/AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with

families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For

me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a

danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to

be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to

engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that

we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours

towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in

crime: like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect,

social exclusion etc. Don't we?

That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or

potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are

employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and

deserve support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions

in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their

potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not

as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or emotional

problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly pompous; I'm

sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea of health

visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of the potential

stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not engage under

such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal service as a

basis from which to reach out to people who need more support. The

universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome the fact that Polly

Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it. What is interesting,

is the assumption that this would be through Children's Centres, presumably

because local authorities, not the NHS, have the responsibility for

improving children's well-being now.

I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities

responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on

commissioning hospital/illness care?

best wishes

Bidmead wrote:

Dear all,

Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.

I am wondering what this is about?

'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventing

the wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education and

Skills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas to

identify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw them

into children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing different

parenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbee

guardian 5.9.06

See full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.html

Is this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?

I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end

up with.

Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

Dear Robyn

I hope you have a wonderful day. Whatever

Tony Blair might say

(and God Knows he’s good with the

rhetoric!), you go for it!

I’d love to know how it goes and

also for you to write an informal

piece about how it all goes for Primhe’s

Journal.

VBW

(Manning)

www.primhe.org

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Robyn Pound

Sent: 11 September 2006 08:31

Subject: Re: More

Health Visitors??

So do I.

Today is the first day of a Father's Arts Project when the most disadvantaged

fathers who I know because they have young children are invited to come and

explore different art forms. My job is getting them there and that

is my first goal as they are all (eleven) at home in the day and hugely

discouraged by life's stuff. The skill for me is keeping the child

protection stuff separate so that it does not interfer with the possibilities

to be gained from being together in a warm, safe, fun environment in ways that

prison, family life and other contacts with hard to acess services create

because of the particular goals that motivate them. The artist has

a wonderful array of taster arts. Today its wire sculpture but I am

looking forward to the stone carving and silk printing. I could look an

idiot and wish I hadn't told you about this if no one turns up. Its very

possible. My excitement is real and I've made a cake. Nuts eh? But

if I feel hopeful and enthusiastic then there is a chance some of it will rub

off on others. This is about getting people to feel better about

themselves and to share it with others so together we can learn more about how

to be in the world. I am learning from them. Goodness knows what

will happen but I heard Tony Blair say that tackling social inclusion is about

removing the constraints and fostering innovation. I've got to try

it. Robyn

Maureen Allan

<maureen.allan7@...> wrote:

I agree with you Margaret.

========================================

Message Received: Sep 10 2006, 09:55 AM

From: " Margaret Buttigieg "

Cc:

Subject: Re: More Health Visitors??

Although I agree with and understand what you are saying

and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for the

health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social

police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I

have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and

demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role.

I am finding that the understanding of the work of health

visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often very poor

and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what their roles

is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role

is agreed and implemented.

In terms of future work being out of children's centres -

that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the conversations I

have been having that we will be seeing a move of health visitors and school

nurses back to the local authority and becoming clearly part of the

Department for Education and Skills.

Margaret

Re:

More Health Visitors??

Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching up with

everything.

I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a

different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are

being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of Jean

/AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with

families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For

me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a

danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to

be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to

engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that

we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours

towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in crime:

like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect, social exclusion

etc. Don't we?

That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or

potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are

employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and

deserve support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions

in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their

potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not

as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or

emotional problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly

pompous; I'm sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea

of health visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of

the potential stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not

engage under such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal

service as a basis from which to reach out to people who need more

support. The universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome

the fact that Polly Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it.

What is interesting, is the assumption that this would be through Children's

Centres, presumably because local authorities, not the NHS, have the

responsibility for improving children's well-being now.

I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities

responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on

commissioning hospital/illness care?

best wishes

Bidmead wrote:

Dear all,

Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.

I am wondering what this is about?

'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventing

the wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education and

Skills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas to

identify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw them

into children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing different

parenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbee

guardian 5.9.06

See full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.html

Is this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?

I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end

up with.

Best wishes,

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great

rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Although I agree with and understand what you are saying and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for the health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role.

I am finding that the understanding of the work of health visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often very poor and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what their roles is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role is agreed and implemented.

In terms of future work being out of children's centres - that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the conversations I have been having that we will be seeing a move of health visitors and school nurses back to the local authority and becoming clearly part of the Department for Education and Skills.

Margaret

Re: More Health Visitors??

Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching up with everything. I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of /AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in crime: like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect, social exclusion etc. Don't we?That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and deserve support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or emotional problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly pompous; I'm sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea of health visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of the potential stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not engage under such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal service as a basis from which to reach out to people who need more support. The universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome the fact that Polly Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it. What is interesting, is the assumption that this would be through Children's Centres, presumably because local authorities, not the NHS, have the responsibility for improving children's well-being now. I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on commissioning hospital/illness care? best wishes Bidmead wrote:

Dear all,Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.I am wondering what this is about?'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventingthe wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education andSkills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas toidentify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw theminto children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing differentparenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbeeguardian 5.9.06See full article at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.htmlIs this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end up with.Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

Margaret

We need to distinguish between policing of individual families in situations where children are suffering because of neglect often as a result of acts of omission by parents or carers who are themselves limited in their sense of their childs complex needs for their own reasons. Health Visiting is about making judgments and indeed taking risks in the context of a long term relationship wth the family. In that situation we may have a relationship with the family as a whole but we are morally and ethically accountable to the child not government, ideology political/scientific or anything else. In my opinion a far greater threat to society from health visitors are ill thought out politically inspired or even worse the bright idea of some civil servant or DOH official mass activity such as the recent national BMI initiative. Public weighing of children with no followup. Health Promotion and the epideomologists have the potential to be more oppressive and damaging too individuals and families We must challange such activity if we are not happy will serve the public good.

Health Visiting has always been about the individlual and his needs in society. We have a proud history of "going native" and identifying with our communities and articulating their concerns and solutions to the wider society. Only this summer i reminded my own director of nursing that for most of our history we were known as the mothers friend. We can stand with families expecially the most excluded as they work with this government to improve thier lives.

We need to be less concerned with occupational and professional limits and more concerned with how we can stretch to help families. I know it is not popular to praise this government at the moment but this is the most determined political efforts on behalf of the most excluded i have seen in my 30 year career I think we should support it.

---- Original Message -----

From: Margaret Buttigieg

Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:51 AM

Subject: Re: More Health Visitors??

Although I agree with and understand what you are saying and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for the health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role.

I am finding that the understanding of the work of health visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often very poor and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what their roles is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role is agreed and implemented.

In terms of future work being out of children's centres - that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the conversations I have been having that we will be seeing a move of health visitors and school nurses back to the local authority and becoming clearly part of the Department for Education and Skills.

Margaret

Re: More Health Visitors??

Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching up with everything. I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of /AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in crime: like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect, social exclusion etc. Don't we?That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and deserve support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or emotional problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly pompous; I'm sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea of health visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of the potential stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not engage under such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal service as a basis from which to reach out to people who need more support. The universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome the fact that Polly Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it. What is interesting, is the assumption that this would be through Children's Centres, presumably because local authorities, not the NHS, have the responsibility for improving children's well-being now. I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on commissioning hospital/illness care? best wishes Bidmead wrote:

Dear all,Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.I am wondering what this is about?'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventingthe wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education andSkills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas toidentify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw theminto children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing differentparenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbeeguardian 5.9.06See full article at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.htmlIs this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end up with.Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

I agree with you Margaret.

========================================Message Received: Sep 10 2006, 09:55 AMFrom: "Margaret Buttigieg" Cc: Subject: Re: More Health Visitors??

Although I agree with and understand what you are saying and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for the health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role.

I am finding that the understanding of the work of health visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often very poor and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what their roles is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role is agreed and implemented.

In terms of future work being out of children's centres - that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the conversations I have been having that we will be seeing a move of health visitors and school nurses back to the local authority and becoming clearly part of the Department for Education and Skills.

Margaret

Re: More Health Visitors??

Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching up with everything. I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of /AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in crime: like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect, social exclusion etc. Don't we?That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and deserve support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or emotional problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly pompous; I'm sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea of health visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of the potential stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not engage under such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal service as a basis from which to reach out to people who need more support. The universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome the fact that Polly Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it. What is interesting, is the assumption that this would be through Children's Centres, presumably because local authorities, not the NHS, have the responsibility for improving children's well-being now. I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on commissioning hospital/illness care? best wishes Bidmead wrote:

Dear all,Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.I am wondering what this is about?'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventingthe wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education andSkills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas toidentify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw theminto children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing differentparenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbeeguardian 5.9.06See full article at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.htmlIs this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end up with.Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

So do I.Today is the first day of a Father's Arts Project when the most disadvantaged fathers who I know because they have young children are invited to come and explore different art forms. My job is getting them there and that is my first goal as they are all (eleven) at home in the day and hugely discouraged by life's stuff. The skill for me is keeping the child protection stuff separate so that it does not interfer with the possibilities to be gained from being together in a warm, safe, fun environment in ways that prison, family life and other contacts with hard to acess services create because of the particular goals that motivate them. The artist has a wonderful array of taster arts. Today its wire sculpture but I am looking forward to the stone carving and silk printing. I could look an idiot and wish I hadn't told you about this if no one turns up. Its very possible. My excitement is real and I've made a

cake. Nuts eh? But if I feel hopeful and enthusiastic then there is a chance some of it will rub off on others. This is about getting people to feel better about themselves and to share it with others so together we can learn more about how to be in the world. I am learning from them. Goodness knows what will happen but I heard Tony Blair say that tackling social inclusion is about removing the constraints and fostering innovation. I've got to try it. RobynMaureen Allan <maureen.allan7@...> wrote: I agree with you Margaret. ========================================Message Received: Sep 10 2006, 09:55 AMFrom: "Margaret Buttigieg" Cc: Subject: Re: More Health Visitors?? Although I agree with and understand what you are saying and intellectually that would be my view - my concern is for the health visitors and school nurses being asked to act as social police. I have had some first hand experience of that this year in work I have been doing and when as a group of staff you are already disempowered and demoralised it is very hard to stand up and say - this is not our role. I am finding that the

understanding of the work of health visitors and school nurses at strategic level is often very poor and it needs someone with authority to say clearly what their roles is and what they do and set up strategies to ensure their role is agreed and implemented. In terms of future work being out of children's centres - that is the clear message and I am also pretty certain in the conversations I have been having that we will be seeing a move of health visitors and school nurses back to the local authority and becoming clearly part of the Department for Education and Skills. Margaret Re: More Health Visitors?? Thanks for posting this link, ; just catching up with everything. I recognise the concerns about 'social policing' issues, but suppose I have a different take on them, and I think it is a great shame that the proposals are being portrayed in this media in this way. Shades of Jean

/AIMS and the 'all health visitors are nuisances interfering with families' debates that we heard a few months (or was it years?) ago. For me, the risk of that a child may grow up to be involved in crime is as much a danger that child's future well-being as the risk that he or she may grow up to be overweight, or physically ill, or develop mental illness, or be unable to engage meaningfully with the educational system. I am not convinced that we can separate the bits out. Of course we want to avoid the behaviours towards children that we know are conducive to later involvement in crime: like inconsistent or unkind parenting, child abuse, neglect, social exclusion etc. Don't we?That doesn't mean we want to label parents, or children, as either criminals or potential criminals themselves. Instead, as I see it, health visitors are employed using tax payers money as a statement that families all need and deserve

support; and that society as a whole cares enough about the conditions in which children grow up to ensure that they are able to develop their potential as fully participating, socially included and healthy citizens; not as socially excluded or under-achieving adults with physical, mental or emotional problems that could have been avoided. That sounds terribly pompous; I'm sorry (blame the jet lag!). I really don't like the idea of health visitors for a few 'targeted families' only, partly because of the potential stigma, but also because it simply doesn't work; people do not engage under such circumstances. We must argue to keep the universal service as a basis from which to reach out to people who need more support. The universal service is seriously under threat, and I welcome the fact that Polly Toynbee's article emphasised the need to retain it. What is interesting, is the assumption that this would be through Children's

Centres, presumably because local authorities, not the NHS, have the responsibility for improving children's well-being now. I wonder if that is a 'back to the future' scenario, with local authorities responsible for community health services, so that PCTs can concentrate on commissioning hospital/illness care? best wishes Bidmead wrote: Dear all,Thought you might be interested in the article in the Guardian yesterday.I am wondering what this is about?'A tangle of competing voices within government is now busily reinventingthe wheel. Does Blair actually know that the Department for Education andSkills has already bought £7m worth of health visitors in pilot areas toidentify and visit problem families every week for two years, and draw theminto

children's centres? Another 12 pilots start soon, testing differentparenting programmes for success and cost-effectiveness' .Polly Toynbeeguardian 5.9.06See full article at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1864995,00.htmlIs this to do with the Respect Agenda and the Pathfinder pilots?I too worry about the 'social policing' role that health visitors might end up with.Best wishes,

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.