Targeted intervention

 A charity I supported over many years is about to close on account of financial fragility.  It has fallen victim to reduced income from individual and corporate donors, charitable trusts and contracts with statutory bodies.  The charity in question is Mental Health Resource based in Tunbridge Wells offering a wide range of services for individuals with mental health issues.  It is a good example of targeted intervention.  Lives of individuals will be diminished by the effects of closure and doubtless there will be additional calls for assistance directed to statutory agencies: probably at greater cost than continuing to fund the charity.

A charity that did close was the Panda Playgroup located in an area of multiple deprivation,  Established by a local councillor it provided support for  pre-school children living in high rise flats.  Pre-school members of families in the area living in poverty or destitution were referred by the local authority's social services department.  The charity had a high staff/child ratio.  Children enrolled by the playgroup were often not potty trained, well behind in language development, lacked social skills relevant to their age and a few were prone to violence.  The charity employed a family liaison officer (FLO) who provided assistance to parents on a wide range of matters.  The FLO work was commended by OFSTED as an example of excellent practice.  The charity was mentioned in a House of Common debate as being an excellent example of targeted intervention.  And then the wheels fell off.......

The borough council decided to close the community centre in which the charity was based.  The county council library housed in the building also was closed.  The library and community based activities were moved to a new building that unfortunately was not playgroup friendly in that there were no security arrangements to isolate the playgroup from the rest of the centre.  But not to worry, the county council was to open a new Surestart and the playgroup might transfer to that location.  However the Surestart staff/child ratio was low and the children Panda catered for would be mixed in with children from more affluent backgrounds.  The staff and the trustees of the charity determined it would not work and so it was decided to close the charity.  Thus a valuable resource was lost and that showed through in the years that followed by increased pupil  behaviour problems at the local primary school.

Targeted intervention works.  It assists individuals in need of support and is far cheaper that the long-term costs occasioned by non-intervention.  

If the concepts of love your neighbour and human rights mean anything it must mean that assistance is given to to those in need of additional support, not having to rely on the capricious nature of funding or the vagaries of political projects notable for their short-termism.  In other words systemic change to achieve social justice. It is a mantra of Liberation Theology and of progressive theology but sadly there is little evidence of successful achievement.  We are all too busy scrabbling about for funding to keep going activities  assisting individuals at point of need.  Rarely do we consider the wider picture.  Yes, there are learned reports gathering dust:  but where is the action?  Where and who are the influential effective proponents of systemic change today?  We are lost in an sea of managerialism and fiscal policy, fudges round the edges.  We fail to root out the deep causes of inequality, poverty, discrimination and marginalisation and plant something better.