Sunday, November 8, 2009

Probation service 'failing to learn'

• Report begun after Sonnex case raises fresh concerns
• Monitoring of offenders in London 'worse than 2008'

Fresh concerns about the way dangerous offenders are monitored in the community were raised today by a damning investigation into probation service failings after the torture and murder of two French students in London last year.

The inquiry was ordered by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, after the conviction of Dano Sonnex, a violent drug addict who was supposed to be under supervision and should have been back in jail for breaching his release conditions.

Today's findings show that the quality of probation supervision falls short of the required standard in nearly half of all cases in London, and has actually got worse since the Sonnex case revealed a succession of failings.

Lawyers for the parents of the two students are preparing to sue the probation service and the police.

The inquiry into public protection work in the capital, by the chief inspector of probation, Andrew Bridges, looked at 276 cases across 10 London boroughs.

"The results are somewhat disappointing," said Bridges. "We judged that only 54% of the public protection work we examined was of the sufficiently high level of quality we were looking for.

"This did not compare well with the figure of 63% we found in the 'whole London' sample we examined for the 2008 general inspection, a figure which itself was well below the national average of around 69%."

The Sonnex case triggered the resignation of David Scott, London's chief probation officer, amid claims that high caseloads, stress levels and sickness rates were contributing to a service in meltdown. The special case inspections, carried out by Bridges's team of inspectors between March and July this year, confirm the claims, and reveal that staff have to deal with a computer system that often freezes or fails altogether.

Bridges said that in some London boroughs inexperienced probation officers were being asked to deal with a high proportion of particularly difficult offenders, including drug dealers with convictions for using guns or knives.

They also include trying to deal with offenders who are on lengthy licences, after being released from long prison sentences, who have been caught up in criminal sub-cultures and have little interest in changing their behaviour.

He also reports that in some parts of London the probation service still faces a high turnover of staff.

Few officers in charge of cases had more than three years' experience as a qualified probation officer. Senior managers were also inexperienced and the inspection team raised concerns that some unsatisfactory workers had been signed off.

During the inspection many probation officers reported holding high caseloads, including those based in public protection units, which were supposed to have lower caseloads to allow more intensive work to be carried out with each offender.

In May this year, for the first time, London probation adopted a workload management tool that enables senior staff to identify "hotspots" where workloads are increasing unacceptably.

"Nevertheless, substantial improvement is both necessary and achievable," said Bridges. "Plans to improve the quality of London probation area's public protection work have been under way for some time ... but progress appears to have stalled, at least for a while, although there has now been a redoubling of management activity since March 2009."

The justice minister, Maria Eagle, said: "London probation knows there are a number of key areas where they need to improve the quality of their work. At the beginning of the year they produced a detailed performance action plan which is improving performance rapidly through procedures such as prioritised training, new monthly targets, speedy recall processes and task forces for information technology and human resources."

Eagle said the report acknowledged that the improvements would be more visible across London next year.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Father fights to keep son on life support

• Case of boy with neuromuscular condition goes to high court
• Parent to submit footage to demonstrate boy's quality of life

A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular condition will go to the high court tomorrow in an attempt to stop a hospital withdrawing the support that keeps the child alive.

Doctors treating the one-year-old say the boy's quality of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests to save him. They are reportedly being supported in their action by the baby's mother, who is separated from his father.

The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS), a muscle condition that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been in hospital since birth.

If the hospital succeeds in its application, it will be the first time a British court has gone against the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have brain damage.

Lawyers for the father say that the child's brain is not affected by the condition, arguing that he can see, hear and feel, and recognise his parents. He is also apparently able to play with toys.

The father will try to convince the court that his son has a good quality of life by submitting video footage showing the boy engaging with his parents and playing with his toys.

Neither of the parents, who have been living at dedicated family accommodation, based near the hospital, since the  birth of their baby, can be named for legal reasons.

Christopher Cuddihee, a solicitor acting for the father, described the case as tragic. "The father feels very strongly that Baby RB has a quality of life that demands the trust should continue to provide life-sustaining treatment. The father clearly adores his son and hopes to demonstrate to the court that the trust's application should be rejected."

In the UK an estimated 300 people have got CMS, with varying degrees of severity. Symptoms include muscle weakness, especially in the face; people are unable to smile and suffer from double vision and drooping eyelids.

In March the parents of a baby with a rare metabolic disorder, brain damage and respiratory failure lost their legal battle to keep him alive. The high court ruled that it was in the best interests of the child, known as Baby OT, for him to be taken off a ventilator.

The doctors treating the baby said his disability was so serious and his pain so severe they should be allowed to withdraw "life-sustaining treatment".

Medical staff removed the treatment following the ruling and Baby OT, who could not breathe on his own, died.

The parents of Baby OT, who had said that the life of their "beautiful boy" was worth saving, were "deeply distressed" by the appeal judges' decision.

A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said that while such cases were extremely upsetting, they had to be resolved through the courts. She said: "When the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount."

A series of high-profile cases has led the General Medical Council to develop guidance to help doctors treating critically ill newborn babies to give better support to parents faced with the decision of whether to switch off their child's life support.

A GMC poll also revealed that 80% of parents did not think the high court should have the final say over whether a baby should be kept alive or allowed to die.

In a survey of 684 correspondents with the Mumsnet website, 55% said that parents should decide, 25% said doctors should have the final authority, and only 18% wanted the courts to settle such matters. Asked whether or not it was fair to expect parents to make the final decision on whether to turn off their baby's life support, 54% said "fair" and 33% replied "unfair".


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Friday, November 6, 2009

Bank sell-off may cost taxpayers £40bn

• Darling's plan dependent on huge financial outlay
• Chancellor accused of policy U-turn by Tories

Alistair Darling will need to pour up to £40bn of taxpayers' money into the banking system if he is to fulfil a pledge to carve out three new banking players on the high street in the next four years.

A formal announcement from the chancellor on the new shape of the banking industry is expected as soon as Tuesday and will give a clearer picture of the commitment from the taxpayer needed to execute the plans imposed upon the government by Brussels.

The EU is demanding branches be carved out of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group that will be sold to new entrants and operate alongside a rejuvenated Northern Rock, creating three new banking players in an industry that was becoming dominated by a handful of high street names.

It was proclaimed by Darling today as a way to inject new competition into the sector and help the taxpayer get a return on its existing investment, but the Tories seized upon the apparent U-turn in policy. "When we called for smaller banks six months ago the Treasury dismissed our calls as being on the wrong side of the argument. Now they are being forced into it by the EU," said Mark Hoban, shadow financial secretary. "Now they have accepted our case for smaller banks, we need a full-scale Competition Commission review of the retail banking sector."

For the three new players to be spun out, taxpayers will need to put fresh funds into all three banks. The biggest injection will be into RBS, which has been earmarked to receive as much as £26bn in an intricate arrangement that could require the taxpayers' stake to rise from 70% to closer to 85% as result of participating in the government's toxic insurance scheme.

Lloyds Banking Group will need up to £7bn so that the government can maintain its stake in the group at 43% if the bank goes ahead with a plan to issue more shares, raising cash and allowing the bank to avoid buying insurance through the so-called asset protection scheme.

Northern Rock is to be loaned an extra £8bn so that it can be split in two, as sanctioned by the EU last week, and become an active mortgage lender again.

The £40bn estimate is subject to change and will be finalised once the delicate negotiations with the EU are concluded in the coming 24 hours.

Darling made no mention of the extra funds when he told the BBC's Politics Show today that the new-look banking sector would take up to four years to achieve. "I'm determined that because the taxpayer put a lot of money into stabilising the system the taxpayer is entitled to get that money back," he said.

After the state aid granted to the three banks since the financial crisis erupted two years ago, the EU has conducted a review of banking competition, and particularly the government's scheme to insure toxic loans. RBS, already the recipient of £20bn of taxpayer funds for a 70% stake, is also being forced to embark on a radical restructuring under which it will have to sell 300 or so branches under the Williams & Glyn's brand, last seen two decades ago. It is also being forced sell off its insurance arm, Churchill and Direct Line, and last night was battling to convince the EU that it should not be forced to sell off Citizens, its retail operations in the US.

A source close to RBS said the bank felt "bruised" by the demands from the EU, which will force chief executive Stephen Hester to tear up the business plan he announced in February just four months after he replaced Sir Fred Goodwin.

RBS is also still negotiating the precise amount of capital it needs and may be required to have more "contingent" capital that it can call upon should its balance sheet deteriorate. While the outcome of the discussions is expected on Tuesday, in February the government admitted it might need to put £26bn into the bank and it is possible this sum may rise further.

Lloyds is expected to leave the asset protection scheme altogether by conducting a cash call and asset sales to raise a total of £25bn. An estimated £7bn to be used by the taxpayer to buy shares will be partly negated by a £2.5bn fee charged by the government for insurance from the asset protection scheme but not yet paid for.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Irvine reveals Blair lord chancellor row

Six years after he was dismissed as Llord Chancellor by his old pupil, Tony Blair, Lord Irvine has broken his silence to accuse the then-prime minister of botching the reform and humiliating him. But is that the whole story? Michael White reports

When Tony Blair unceremoniously sacked his first employer and patron, Derry Irvine, in 2003, the outgoing lord chancellor was deeply hurt. Despite his imposing physique and legal eminence, he bruises easily. But Irvine has stayed silent about the slight â€" until now.

In a memo about how he left office which surfaced yesterday, Lord Irvine reinforces previous evidence of the chaotic, even cavalier way Blair sometimes did important business â€" winging it on hunches, using inadequate advice and with scant regard for procedure.

Those tendencies may still be an issue as Blair seeks the EU presidency.

Goaded by the recent evidence of Lord Turnbull, the former cabinet secretary, to a Lords committee, Irvine complains that Blair's conduct was "insensitive, high-handed and incoherent" â€" and that the decision to dismiss him should have been taken in consultation with him, the judiciary and Buckingham Palace. Instead, he says, he was left to pick up press rumours.

After three stormy meetings â€" which Blair "dreaded", according to Alastair Campbell's diaries â€" Irvine's reluctant offer to handle the abolition of his 1,400-year-old office was rejected and he resigned.

Blair hadn't told him because he feared media leaks.

The truth about the botched reform â€" Jack Straw still holds the lord chancellorship to this day â€" is more complicated. Insiders say the fate of Irvine's office was incidental to Blair's chief concern: to make the criminal justice system faster and more efficient.

This meant removing a key obstacle to any reform of the old Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD): Irvine himself.

"Derry did some good things, but he could be very difficult. He blocked things," one colleague recalls. A frustrated Straw once complained that the pair had been through a more intense correspondence "than any since I was in love at 16".

That was not how it looked at the time â€" and not only to Irvine, a self-made Glasgow University lawyer and buddy of the late John Smith, who made him shadow lord chancellor in 1994. The fact that Irvine had hired both Blair and his future wife, Cherie, as pupil barristers â€" calling himself their "Cupid QC" â€" was incidental, though it added to Blair's act of patricide.

"I personally was cast aside for no good reason," Irvine wrote in his account to the Lords constitution committee, sent after Turnbull told the peers he had been consulted â€" "the trouble was he disagreed with it". He has chosen to break his silence now, he says, "to ensure the accuracy of the public record".

Much about Blair's informality and his impatience with the established machinery of government is known. It was famously excoriated as "sofa government" by the Butler inquiry into the "sexed-up" Iraq war intelligence. That 2003 controversy was breaking â€" absorbing far more attention â€" in the days before Irvine was replaced by the Blairite Lord "Charlie" Falconer, though Peter Hain had initially been pencilled in to drive reform.

Irvine complained about these cavalier procedures, but he also feared that the act of folding the LCD into a new Department of Constitutional Affairs (itself replaced by Straw's Ministry of Justice in 2007) was being botched.

As for the lord chancellorship, no fewer than 5,000 references to it exist in law, he protested. It would be difficult to unpick, as has been proved. Blair did not know this â€" it was not his primary concern.

Officials and ministers have a different perspective. Blair and David Blunkett, the then home secretary, wanted to unclog the courts and asylum system and to shake up the judiciary; Irvine blocked this, they say. What was needed was a "normal" modern department, "not one shrouded in ancient mystique".

But there was more to it than that. Reformers felt that there should be a supreme court (it finally opened last month), and that a cabinet minister â€" the lord chancellor â€" should no longer chair the House of Lords, appoint judges or sit as a judge, as Irvine controversially did.

Both sides agree the issue was poorly handled and Irvine, admired for his radical work on devolution, freedom of information and the Human Rights Act â€" if not the work he did in his own department â€" was ill-used.

Irvine's replacement, Lord Falconer, came to regret his role, and Straw the break-up of the Home Office to create the Ministry of Justice.

"But the iron test is the counter-factual," says one player. "Would any sensible person now want to wind the clock back?"


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

David Nutt's sacking provokes mass revolt by drug advisers

Johnson faces 'collective action' threat from advisers as two resign in protest

The home secretary faces mass resignations from the government's drug advisory body over his decision to force out its chairman, who accused ministers of distorting scientific evidence on cannabis.

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned todayin protest at Alan Johnson's treatment of Professor David Nutt. Another member told the Guardian that the experts were "planning collective action" against Johnson, adding: "Everybody is devastated. We're all considering our positions."

Nutt said today that there was "no future" for the council in its present form and it is thought the group's members may use a meeting next Monday to announce a mass resignation.

In a letter in tomorrow's Guardian, Johnson accuses Nutt of "campaigning against government policy" but insists he was not forced out because of his opinions.

"Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with," he writes. "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

The collapse of the panel, which provides ministers with evidence about the harm caused by different drugs, would be a severe embarrassment for the government and deal a heavy political blow to Johnson, who has so far steered clear of the controversies that dogged many of his predecessors at the Home Office.

As the controversy intensified today, Nutt said he had been contacted by more than half the council's members who had shared their "horror and disgust" over the manner of his dismissal and were now considering resigning en masse.

Dr Les King, a former head of drug intelligence at the Forensic Science Service, was first to act, followed by Marion Walker, head of the substance misuse service at Berkshire NHS foundation trust.

King said he had decided to step down because he felt Johnson had denied Nutt his "freedom of expression".

He said that while the government had "a right" to reject the panel's advice, its attitude towards the advisory body had changed.

Nutt said he could "fully understand" why his two former colleagues had chosen to resign. "The government has interfered with the scientific processes of the panel for several years and it has caused significant resentment," he said.

"People are very much considering their positions and they have made it clear they will not continue under the current regime. There is no future for the advisory committee on the misuse of drugs in the current way it operates."

Although Johnson would not comment on today'sresignations, he went on television to step up his attack on Nutt's conduct, insisting he had "crossed the line" with his remarks.

In an angry interview with Sky News, he said: "You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions. You can do one or the other, you can't do both."

Johnson said it was not the job of scientific advisers to "just keep coming back and back and back" to overturn ministerial decisions. He also stressed that the decision to force Nutt out had been his alone and he had not consulted the prime minister, Gordon Brown.

He said: "I've got enormous respect for the advisory council. I want to meet them very soon. I've got enormous respect for the scientific community. They've got to understand that Professor Nutt crossed this line between offering advice ... and then campaigning against the government on political decisions."

But the home secretary found himself under fire from members of the scientific community. Lord Winston, the Labour peer and professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said he was "very surprised and disappointed" by Johnson's actions.

"I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly," he said.

"I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science."

On Nutt's claims that ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, Winston said: "The overwhelming evidence is probably cannabis is actually less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, that's what the chief scientist is saying."

He added: "I think that's a very reasonable scientific point to make. And of course, science is not about absolutes."

The sacking follows the publication of a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, based on a lecture Nutt delivered in July.

He repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Alcohol should come fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, he said. He also argued that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

The Lib Dem science spokesman, Dr Evan Harris MP, who spoke to scientists over the weekend, accused Johnson of "political thuggery". He said the home secretary's actions could create a crisis in government policy-making if the drugs advisory panel was left unable to function or if experts on other panels resigned.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Monday, November 2, 2009

Helping Britain's 50,00 chaotic families

The PM has promised a national network of intervention projects to cut anti-social behaviour, but do they work? One scheme in Dundee offers hope

A few weeks before he became prime minister, Gordon Brown made a low-key visit to a block of flats in a deprived suburb of Dundee. Unencumbered by minders and press photographers, he spent the morning hearing from a young mother with drug problems about a residential programme that saved her family from collapse.

Rather than whipping children away into the hands of the social services, the Dundee Families project sweeps the whole family into its care. Drug-addicted mothers are monitored as they receive treatment, parents with wildly out of control children are taught how to handle them, families who have been repeatedly evicted because of their antisocial behaviour learn how to control their lifestyles.

The visit made a deep impression on Brown, who has vowed to introduce the model nationwide, rehousing and retraining 50,000 of the most chaotic families.

Brown said in his party conference speech: "Most mums and dads do a great job â€" but there are those who let their kids run riot and I'm not prepared to accept it as simply part of life.

"Family intervention projects work. They change lives, they make our communities safer and they crack down on those who're going off the rails."

But can family intervention â€" clear rules and clear punishments â€" help solve Britain's antisocial behaviour problems?

Over the past decade, that grey block in a quiet Dundee cul-de-sac has been home to dozens of the city's most troubled families, people whose behaviour has attracted police attention, enraged neighbours and brought them to the brink of eviction. Some live here for a few months, others for as long as three years.

Staff here use the standard social work euphemism "chaotic" as shorthand for the extreme severity of these families' problems. They help people with drug and alcohol addictions, a whole range of mental disorders from depression to schizophrenia and learning difficulties.

"They may be displaying antisocial behaviour but they are also themselves very vulnerable," Jackie Crichton, a project manager at the centre, says. "Antisocial behaviour is a symptom of a lot of underlying issues."

Key to the programme's success is the intensive supervision and range of personalised support available. Echoing Tolstoy's observation that every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, staff here say that the families' problems are all unique, and they spend weeks analysing the causes before they draw up individualised support packages. About 20 families are helped in their own homes and three more of the most severe cases are housed in this block of flats, their behaviour scrutinised by staff .

Balanced meals

Residents here must endure inspection visits three times a day. At breakfast time, a support worker will arrive in the flat to check that the family are up, that the children are being given a nourishing breakfast before being dispatched, on time, to school. In the evening, there will be another visit to make sure that the family are sitting down together to eat a balanced meal, that the school uniform is clean and ironed ready for the morning, that the children's homework has been done, and that they are in bed at a reasonable hour.

"Sometimes children are given a bit of last night's kebab on bread for breakfast or some mint choc chip ice-cream and are going to school unwashed, unkempt. That's what we have to check on," Linda Wood, another project manager, says.

No visitors are allowed for the first few weeks of the programme, and later they can come only once they have been through a police records check. A strict rota dictates when residents take their turn to mop the communal stairway (which smells dental-surgery-clean). "A lot of the residents find it prison-like to begin with," Wood admits. "I imagine initially they find it quite intrusive."

But Karen Smith (who did not want her real name printed), 30, has completed two years at the centre and is sure the experience helped transform her family's life.

She was transferred there from a women's refuge because of her son's profoundly disruptive behaviour. Whenever he was denied what he wanted, the boy, who was then eight, began to stamp on the floor or kick the wall. If he was particularly angry, the stamping would go on for half an hour; Karen would shout at him to try to make him stop, and soon he would begin lashing out at her. "Hitting me, banging his feet, kicking the walls, kicking me, nipping me. He was only little, but he could pack a punch. I'd have bruises all the way up my arm," she says. "I used to dread him coming home from school." The neighbours found the noise, which continued late into the night, intolerable.

"It was a bit noisy, and it happened quite frequently. I knew there was a problem," she says. "I was scared about coming here but I didn't have an option. I needed help with my son and I was facing eviction."

She found the constant monitoring oppressive to begin with. "I thought they were prying on me." Gradually she began to feel the benefits of it. If her son's behaviour got out of control, she could press a buzzer to get help from downstairs. "In the end, I didn't feel like they were observing me. I felt like it was more like a friend coming up," she says.

Effective praise

Parenting classes are crucial to the scheme's success because so many of the parents had troubled childhoods themselves. Another flat in the block has been converted into a teaching and therapy centre, where Grant King (who describes himself as a parenting practitioner) is teaching "effective praise", part of a widely-used "parenting pyramid" format which teaches parents the importance of praise, rewards, encouragement and the value of "five minutes of special time".

When confronted with challenging children, he works with parents first for six weeks, emphasising positive behaviour, how to listen, talk, give attention, play, empathise (all of which must be used liberally) before allowing them to move up the parenting pyramid to the discipline options â€" ignoring, distracting, explaining consequences and time out, which is to be used only sparingly, and never accompanied by shouting.

The lessons are about helping parents to find their way, he says. "It's not about standing at a whiteboard and saying 'do this, do that'." They are conducted in a warm sitting room, with candles, leather sofas, cushions and a flat-screen television showing footage of a flickering log fire. Art therapy and relaxation sessions also happen here, interspersed with subjects such as budgeting and home maintenance, cookery and shopping skills. Nutrition classes are held in the galley kitchen across the corridor. Children get counselling in a separate toy-lined room.

"A lot of the parents were chronic underachievers at school. We're getting them to learn to read alongside their children," Wood says.

There is a stark disconnect between the tough language used by Brown and the supportive ethos of the centre. Workers see the residents primarily as victims; Brown painted them as nightmare neighbours who were being sent on family intervention projects as a form of punishment. Staff point out that the model works purely because it is a voluntary scheme.

"The punishment for the families is that they are in a very difficult situation, they face losing their homes and their families," says Claire Tickell, chief executive of Action for Children, the charity that runs the project. "They might have had 13 or 14 different professionals involved in their lives, but they always say, 'This is the first time anyone has ever listened to me.'"

'We talk to each other now'

Recent residents of the block have included a heroin-addicted mother, struggling â€" and ultimately failing â€" to keep her child from being removed by social services, and an out-of-control extended family with 16 children, 12 of them born to one mother who was failing to cope with their increasingly delinquent behaviour.

"You do sometimes feel overwhelmed by the number of difficulties families have," King says.

After two years, staff agreed with Karen Smith it was time for her to move on, and helped her to find a new flat in the city. She has learnt to control her children and her son has almost entirely stopped his disruptive behaviour. The family eat together every night now, and she is able to insist that he is home at a reasonable time.

"I feel that I can manage the difficult problems that he has," she says. "We talk to each other now. Before, we were just shouting at each other. My son is much happier, I think, although he doesn't talk that much."

Staff say they have had a good success rate since the unit was opened. "I can't say people leave and live happily ever after, because their lives are complicated and difficult and you can't always make life better," Wood says, but on the practical question of maintaining a flat without alienating the neighbours and getting evicted, progress is clear.

Research conducted by Sheffield Hallam University on six similar family intervention projects in England showed that complaints against the families who were helped fell by 82% and school attendance increased by 84%. Two workers from Dundee have been seconded to the Home Office to help set up similar programmes across the country.

"It is incredibly cost-effective," Tickell says, as a result of the reduction in evictions, children being taken into care, school exclusion, rehousing and policing costs. The Sheffield Hallam study estimated that £213,420 had been saved by helping one family, calculating the amount that would otherwise have been spent on policing and providing state care for the family.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families estimates that, since the project was introduced in England in 2006, about 2,600 families have either gone through or are going through the programme in one of the 170 centres already in operation.

The concept also seems likely to survive a change of government. Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative thinking most about these issues, champions a charity, Save the Family, which has a similar goal of helping families stay together.

Karen Smith's support worker will continue to visit her twice a week for the next six months as she settles in, and staff will be available to offer support on the phone, night and day.

"My life is much easier now. I feel like I could go out and sustain a job," she says. "I couldn't have done that before. I was afraid of going out and seeing the neighbours, who were so threatening."


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


(Click Here to Know More)

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Retrospect for Mac 8.1 review

Veteran Mac backup software gets more than a makeover with latest release

In the days before Time Machine made personal backup available to all Mac users, Retrospect was almost synonymous with the task it performed. Indeed, for personal backup, there was the Express version of the product that shipped with many an external hard disk and Zip drive. For a while – around version 6 – Retrospect seemed to fall a little into the doldrums, so we noted EMC’s newly enthusiastic approach to Retrospect 8 with interest.



(Click Here to Know More)