THE 1989 CHILDREN ACT - WELFARE, DAY-CARE AND EARLY YEARS PROVISION

Citation
J. Bull et al., THE 1989 CHILDREN ACT - WELFARE, DAY-CARE AND EARLY YEARS PROVISION, Health & social care in the community, 4(1), 1996, pp. 3-10
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath","Social Work
ISSN journal
09660410
Volume
4
Issue
1
Year of publication
1996
Pages
3 - 10
Database
ISI
SICI code
0966-0410(1996)4:1<3:T1CA-W>2.0.ZU;2-L
Abstract
The Children Act 1989 was introduced into a context of early years pro vision which was characterized by a structural and conceptual divide b etween 'day care' services, provided by Social Services Departments, a nd pre-school educational services, provided by Education Departments. The Children Act 1989 includes day care within the range of 'family s upport services' to be provided for children 'in need' and, although i t requires collaboration between various agencies and departments, the structural and conceptual divide between the two systems of services remains. The Act also introduces a new regulatory regime for general d ay care services. This paper describes how two key aspects of the Act, in relation to day care services, have been implemented by local auth orities: the duty placed on local authorities to provide for children 'in need', and the duty to regulate services in general use in the pri vate and voluntary sectors. In doing so, it highlights how some of the problems emerging from implementation relate to the structural and co nceptual divide between education and care that is perpetuated in the Act, and to the tensions inherent in attempting to regulate the growin g private market in day care. The authors assert that the Act is essen tially conservative in leaving assumptions that underlie early years p olicy unchallenged. It is argued that the Act consolidates the welfare role of day care and that the regulation of general services included within this model makes more acute the tensions between allowing the free operation of the market and attempting to promote quality. In the light of this, the authors question the combination of the two duties within the same, essentially welfare orientated, legislation. They co nclude by offering some alternative models for an integrated early chi ldhood service.