Germany is more reluctant in considering adoption as they prefer to continue

Table of Contents

Germany is more reluctant in considering adoption as they prefer to continue to keep families together and provide support required in order to keep families together (Nowacki, 2017). Germany places a focus on residential care and fostering excluding adoption (Henrikson, Smith and Zimmer, 2011). By contrast, the system in England seen adoption as a legitimate outcome for looked after children (LAC) (Leu and Schelle, 2009). However, when considering the differences between the views of adoption in England and Germany, there could be a benefit of avoiding adoption to keep families together as the child will be around family (Simpson and Nowacki, 2015). Arguably, the safety of the child will be impacted when families are not stable enough for the child (Simpson and Nowacki, 2015).On the contrary, according to Keating (2011) in England, the early year’s intervention includes standards such as learning, development, and care for children from birth to 5 years old. Besides, children in England starting school at the age of 5 inhibits developmental skills, for instance, to develop their achievement potential, to solve problems, and to form relationship’s (Eisenstadt, 2012).Eisenstadt (2012) suggests early intervention is vital in reducing family breakdown, in strengthening children’s readiness for school, and preventing social exclusion and crime. Alternatively, Sure Start sets out to improve the educational, social and emotional development of young children living in poverty to reduce their chances of growing up to be poor adults (Eisenstadt, 2012). Besides, the principles of Early intervention and service integration consists of starting at the age 13 as this means being able to intervene early and thereby reducing the numbers who left school at 16 with no qualifications and plans (Eisenstadt, 2012). Additionally, Service integration was attained by bringing together careers service and the youth service (Eisenstadt, 2012). Nevertheless, Early years interventions are shown to be implemented in both England and Germany ( Katz and Hetherington, 2006). Moreover, Graham Allen’s report on Early intervention taken forward by the government examines giving children and parents the right type of evidence-based programmed movement (EBPM) (Allen, 2011). Featherstone et al., (2013) claim EBPM is an active government encouragement and funding for transportable parenting programme, especially in the children’s earliest years (Allen, 2011). Nonetheless, the key endorsement of this report is the creation of a new, independent early intervention foundation (Allen, 2011). In addition, the rationale of the report stems from several of the costly and damaging social problems in society being created because children are not given the right type of support in their earliest years (Allen, 2011). Moreover, chapter 5 of the report outlines increasing awareness of what early intervention can achieve within central government and local areas and among parents (Allen, 2011). Also, the review outlines increasing the effectiveness of staff such as teachers, social workers, nurses and doctors (Allen, 2011). Similarly, like the review led by Graham Allen, the Munro’s report has noted the growing body of evidence of the effectiveness in early intervention with children and families (Munro, 2011). Moreover, the review recommends the government placing a duty on local authorities and their statutory partners to secure the adequate provision of local early help services for children and families (Munro, 2011). Furthermore, the implementation regarding the review suggests a response from the government in providing clarity around roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities as well as setting goals (Munro, 2011). Arguably, Hohmann (2007) suggests early years support demonstrates unease around boundaries between parental responsibility and the right to make decisions on behalf of the child, and practitioners’ knowledge giving the right to make decisions about how care and education should be practiced. In Germany, the healthy development of children is perceived as a mutual responsibility of parents and society (Benz and Sidor, 2013). Additionally, the 2009 UN convention on the rights of the child was ratified by Germany without any restrictions (Benz and Sidor, 2013). According to the convention, all children are to be guaranteed unrestricted access to developmental and supportive measure. Benz and Sidor (2013) note the support services for early intervention in Germany are largely supported by the communities (Benz and Sidor, 2013). Likewise, local structures form networks system with coordinated support services focus on the beginning of a child’s life especially concentrating on zero to three age group (Benz and Sidor, 2013).According to Fieldman (2008), the implementation of early interventions around children services all stems from the welfare regimes. Lindsay (2011) notes the promotion of parenting programmes in England reflects on the policy context. Likewise, it is line with a liberal typology tendency towards discrete-targeted interventions for groups with identified need (Pollack, 2011). Ebbinghaus (2012) claims regimes discuss the ways in which welfare production is allocated amongst state, market, and households. Abramovitz (2005) notes pedagogy being a major influence in political and ideologies in both England and Germany. Furthermore, Esping-Andersen’s regime typology suggests the three distinct commands refer to political movements and their ideas generating different welfare models, the liberal, the conservative/corporatist and the social democratic (Ebbinghaus, 2012). Equally, Esping-Andersen’s typology stems from key dimensions involving individuals and families in upholding a socially acceptable standard of living independently of market participation (Ebbinghaus, 2012).Additionally, the influence of neoliberal ideology on social work is evident in several ways (Katz and Hetherington, 2006). For example, the importance of the market, and the conceptualization of recipients of welfare services as consumers positioned social workers as brokers, and assisting consumers to access services in the `care market` (Ebbinghaus, 2012). Neoliberal ideology implies that self-regulating markets will generate an optimal allocation of investments and resources (Benz and Sidor, 2013).Evers et al., (2005) considers Germany model to be more problematic to achieve speedy results, however the system that is developed is likely to be long lasting and imitate local preferences in respect of the nature of provision. On the other hand, Katz and Hetherington (2006) found that child welfare services in England were more poorly resourced and gave less attention to prevention comparing to Germany’s child welfare service. In contrast, the corporatist welfare regime concerns with upholding order and status to accomplish this goal, social insurance funds such as health and unemployment were set up that reward work performance and status (Benz and Stador,2013). Arguably, the corporatist welfare regime tends to penalize those unstable and part-time job situations (Katz and Hetherington, 2006). Nevertheless, social work delivery regarding children and families influences corporatism and its social care delivery (Aspalter, 2008). Corporatist welfare regime more often advances a form of sociability focused on extended kin or feature a lack of sociability (Ganjour and Widmer, 2016). Aspalter (2008) argues corporatist measures remain to be employed by local authorities as an effective means of guaranteeing the effectiveness and relevance of the local state in a rapidly changing sector. Nonetheless, Germany’s corporatist typology has a long tradition of a close partnership between non-profit organizations and the state with respect to health care and social service provision (Nygen, White and Ellingson, 2018). In conclusion, Early Interventions stems from identifying and providing effective early support for children who are at risk of poor outcomes (Munro, 2011). For example, Sure Start, the Munro report and Graham Allen’s report focuses on improving outcomes for children in earliest years focusing on eliminating and reducing costly and damaging issues (Allen, 2011). In contrast, In Germany early intervention services are offered to families in need, identifying risks for the child’s wellbeing at an early stage provides the support work in families (Benz and Sidor, 2013).Likewise, some crucial aspects of the governance of child care at the local level in England and Germany look rather alike, for instance, The Child and Youth welfare board in Germany, and the Early year’s development (Evers, Lewis and Reidel, 2005). Moreover, the essay has drawn on policies which centred upon the organization of services in England and Germany highlighting some of the differences between the two, notably in the role of the state sector (Local Authorities and Jugendamt). As well as practised Early intervention used in both countries regarding working with families and children. There are typologies developed by Esping-Andersen, he notes the welfare states are a concept which denotes the institutional arrangements and social-policy decisions (Aspelter, 2008).Besides, England is underlined with the liberal typology which caters to people of low income. In contrast, Germany stems from a corporatist typology which is a traditional family-hood. Above, the essay has outlined some criticisms of child and youth care in the UK. It is in the light of these criticisms that the growing interest in the concept of social pedagogy is emerging.