Evaluate Critically the Contention That “Early Intervention Works, ” and Consider the Implication for Social Work with Children and Families.

Evaluate critically the contention that “early intervention works,” and consider the implication for social work with children and families.

Early intervention is important to social workers in that it is seen as an activity directed at preventing children and young people who are at the most risk from developing social, physical or psychological problems. Article 19 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) states that, children should not be exposed to maltreatment. The article also states that, governments have the responsibility to identify and protect its children from all forms of maltreatment.

For the purpose of this assignment, this writer will look at the contention that “early intervention works”. This writer will explore early intervention schemes such as Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLPs) and its implications for social work with children and families.

Early intervention cements the theory that prevention is better than cure and that early intervention is vital to human growth and development. Howe (2005) also shares the same sentiments, he argues that it is easier to correct a child developmental problems during pregnancy and post-natal than in later years. Howe (2005) also states that early intervention is regarded as an important tool to use when tackling attachment problems between an infant and its parents. Within Child Health Services, early intervention frequently relates to giving a service at as young an age as possible, in the hope of improving the health and care of the child. Social work with children and families sees early intervention in Care and Adoption Services as an effective and cost effective method. Early intervention as a method is seen as a vital component of averting preventable problems emerging in later life, hence, it being viewed as having lasting outcomes for children in care.
Although a lot of researchers have argued that, there is limited research evidence which show the

References: Birchwood, M. (2003) In debate: Is early intervention for psychosis a waste of valuable resources?, British Journal of Psychiatry, 182. Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills (2004) National Service Framework for Children and Young People and Maternity Services, London, Stationery Her Majesty’s Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Trade and Industry (2006) Choice for Parents, the Best Start for Children: A Ten Year Strategy for Childcare, Norwich, HMSO. Howe, D. (2005) Child Abuse and Neglect: Attachment, Development and Intervention, London, Palgrave/Macmillan. Meyers, M., Rosenbaum, D., Ruhm, C. and Waldfogel, J. (2004) ‘Inequality in early childhood care and education: What do we know?’, in K. Neckerman (ed.), Social Inequality, New York, Russell Sage Foundation Press. Office of National Statistics (2006) Labour Force Survey, November, London, Stationery Office. Pithouse, A. (2008) Early Intervention in the Round: A Great Idea But. British Journal of Social Work 38. Pithouse, A. (2003) A national strategy for child and adolescent mental health services in Wales: New challenges and new thinking?’, Research Policy and Planning, 21(1). Rutter, M. (2006) Is Sure Start an effective preventive intervention?, Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3) Schweinhart, L,J.; Weikart, D (2002) The Perry Preschool Project: Significant Benefits. Journal of At-Risk Issues, v8 n1 Smith, A Tunstill, J., Allnock, D., Akhurst, S. and Garbers, C. (2005) ‘Sure Start local programmes: Implications of case study data from the national evaluation of Sure Start’,Children and Society, 19(2),