Mummyloves09
The problem with that approach is that, if the issues are severe, then it can mask the extent of the problem. It means that the symptoms are treated, but not the cause. It means that the children/family aren't able to access the professional support that means they are able to become independent.
The problem with this approach is that it's a "give a person a fish and they will eat that day" solution. What happens when that friend gets a job? Becomes ill? Moves away? Loses interest? Gets a new relationship; new priorities?
There are financial supports that people can access - charities that can send in cleaners and provide washing machines, for example. The school can access support services to come into school to work with the children. But if the are not having professional support, then they are not accessing these services because no one is making referrals to them.
Not only that, but there is often an issue of disguised compliance - when people appear to be making efforts and taking responsibility when it is not a genuine change, (you know, perhaps when a parent makes an effort to clean when you help, but is not doing it on their own, for example) and this often occurs where there is substance misuse.
Anyone who thinks they'll send some matronly Kim Woodburn-a-like round with a mop and bucket to teach her basic parenting skills is living in cloud cuckoo land.
No one is suggesting that the LA has a bank of people to do this, but they are able to make referrals to third sector agencies who, depending on the area and what has been set up there, are able to support families independently of LA funding.
The bottom line is, the SWs are experts in this. They have completed undergraduate degress and Masters degrees. They pursue ongoing CPD. They are the experts and know far more about the complex, multilayered social, emotional, mental and economic issues that lead people to live like this than a bunch of people who see them as interferring child snatchers.