AIBU to think early intervention matters more than cutting youth benefits?

[BeProactiveAboutThis]

Just reading in the news how the government will be looking at disability benefits for 16-24 and ways to get this age group in general into work or training.

AIBU to think that the huge issue with this age group is in fact due to failings much earlier and this approach is reactive not proactive?

CAMHS waiting times are horrendous. This should be the first thing looked at- not removing health elements of UC for this age group but immediately doing something to address the huge CAMHS waiting times times for 11+ aged children.

Going further I think that the HV system needs overhaul - there are so many more ND children and they need early diagnosis and intervention before age 5 for better long term outcomes. Also access to OT and SALT is awful so these children don’t get the support they need.

The nhs as well for any physical conditions obviously in some areas that too is inadequate.

If these issues were sorted out it would improve the situation for 16-24s that way. A move to just cut benefits won’t help long term whereas a plan for the above would.

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. As more and more people keep being diagnosed.. at what point do we accept this is the new normal and stop offering support? I feel we're encroaching mollycoddling territory with some people. Not all, of course.

Or accept it is the new normal and cater for the majority with appropriate and adequate support for all ?

It isn't about mollycoddling. It is about acknowledging that the world as it is doesn't work for everyone and that we need to bring more flexibility into the way we run things. That's complicated and in order to do it, we'll have to let go of the concept of profit before everything else - some moderation of that will be needed. People need to be supported into work and that means they will have to do some hard work building as much resilience as is possible for them. Employers need to meet them halfway. Governments need to facilitate part time working, flexible working, jobshares and that will include offering tax breaks to businesses who employ and retain staff who have disabilities. It needs to be a completely different way of thinking, not trying to force people to fit a rigid model of the world but adjusting the model and making it more flexible.

The upside is that working in this way will mean everyone can be productive.

Of course it does. I have worked in front line child protection for over 20 years, was around for Sure Start and saw the difference it made. Unfortunately Cameron's austerity set a whole chain in motion that has resulted in the divisive politics and country we find ourselves living in. I remain very passionate about the work I do and the parents and children I work with. I am so ashamed that as one of the wealthiest counties in the world, our most vulnerable and poorests life chances are actually getting worse. I could say so much more, but ultimately, for most of us life's lottery starts with the randomness of where we are born and who we are born to. Our life chances continue in this vain and most people I meet are not amazing or life changing, just usually goodish people. So I do have absolute distain for those who who have no empathy for others who have been less lucky, particularly those fleeing persecution and just wanting safety for their family, it takes unimaginable sacrifice and strength. Obviously putting up a tatty, upside down flag half-way up a lamp post and being misinformed about refugees and immigration and being vocal about it is also a lot of work......

If the government brought retirement age down there would be more jobs and opportunities for younger people. If I was going out into the world right now for the first time I'd be depressed to

I can encapsulate CAMHS and Other Services with the following:

Parent: My 16 year old is violent and refuses to leave the house.

CAMHS: Bring them in for this appointment at this address at this time (six months ahead).

Parent: As I said, my 16 year old is violent and refuses to leave the house. We need help.

CAMHS: Your child has failed to engage. You have been removed from our waiting list.

You are right that early support/intervention is vital and the earlier the better, especially as support for very young children u
is usually also support for parents

However Andy Burnham has specifically ruled out 'crude cuts" to UC or other benefits so I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

30 - 40yrs ago, if you didn't go to Uni (small debt if you did) you would probably end up with an entry level office / warehouse / trade job. I don't think you even needed gcse C grades (I never did) and you could work your way up if you wanted. Maybe doing adult education on top. That's all gone now.
Council houses were available for young families. A stable home. That's almost gone too.
CAMHS, pretty much gone too.

I agree with a lot of that - because it makes sense for everyone, not just people who are being diagnosed left, right and centre with ADHD (SIA really). No one wants to work 5 days a week. We all hate it. But we suck it up because we were forced to. Newer generations are dragging their heels (rightly so) but adjustments shouldn't be reserved for people with diagnoses. I agree it needs a massive shift in society.

We need both. There is a new early intervention programme being introduced for under fives.
It's neither either or, you can do both

In the past there was no CAHMS. There was psychiatrists. When my friend at school made a serious attempt to kill herself all she was given back then was GP appointments to keep an eye on her and a few psychiatrist appointments where she was put on medication.

Part of it is simply diagnosis, as in when someone behaves in a certain way, people immediately discuss Au DHD/mental health/ACE/trauma, yet even 25 years ago, they didn't. So there are doubtless many older people who have them, but they weren't diagnosed, and the systems helped them cope (societal standards of behaviour, schools were generally quite ordered and very quiet pre 80s, so I'm told, so they managed to regulate better than they could in today's schools/nurseries).
Another point is that many people were less likely to have children, if say they'd been in for mental health treatmet , or they'd certainly have fewer in the past, where now there's less stigma.

It's not true about having kids. Having mental health issues or neuro diversity was no barrier to having kids.

This is total and utter nonsense.

I'm old enough to remember when the Thatcher/Major era Tories took an "entirely stick and no carrot" approach to unemployed youth, this was at a point when Income Support was barely sufficient to feed yourself in the first place.

Take that away from kids already living in penury, and all they do is subsist in even greater penury.

They don't go running into jobs just because you took away the pittance they had anyway.

Short-sighted, ignorant, vindictive bollocks which has a track record of totally failing to achieve what is claimed for it.

I’m nearing 70; there were institutions for children where they spent their entire lives, some simply with lower IQ, deaf or blind.
At my secondary school; mid year 7 (yes seven) wiggly boys were streamed into shop and mechanics, girls secretarial, all the girls took home ec (cooking, sewing, and budgeting).
in the late 70’s, babies born at 26 weeks almost always had cerebral palsy, those with brain damage went directly to institutions.

My point is these children were less visible.
There’s a higher incidence of SEN in children conceived via IVF even IUI, and a higher incidence of ASD in older fathers. Therapies and trend just not as prevalent 40 years ago.
Please remember schools maintained compliant behavior with physical punishment. Which was always worse for the boys.
You could find work at 14.
It’s a complex issue.
I’d start with changing school requirements with early streaming into trades.

Our autistic DS didn’t speak till 2.5 but got intense speech and OT from then, twice a week until age 4. He’s in regular reception and killing it. He's one of the best behaved in the class! We had him reassessed before starting school and the results were that he would no longer (currently) qualify as autistic. Realistically he’s probably somewhere in between but I mean it when I say early intervention has been life changing for us. Hoping to every god it continues.

And yet raising retirement age would help people who will be negatively impacted by reversing the triple lock. And it’s a legitimate potential solution that could do with debate.

Raising retirement age will significantly raise the benefit bill as it will mean a lot off working age adults will start struggling with age related illnesses and disabilities.

Creating an environment fir growth , enterprises, and job creation would be a start.

Currently have the exact opposite . Job market is dire ( especially for anything with prospects ie not just working in Costa etc)

companies have laid off due to increasing nic/min wage/taxes , combined with use of AI agents on entry level roles its really hard for young people now !

and of course root causing the rapid increase in Sen in the last generation

Modern life is far less compatible with any kind of learning need or disability. Fast paced and overstimulating with fewer and fewer entry level positions or opportunities to learn on the job. Apprenticeships are in high demand and are now far more regulated. Life is tougher to break into for young people now full stop.

I think greater support to pay for college up
to and including L3 would be good.

DD (20), is part of the group that was effected by Covid, was unable to access CAMHS when needed, was EBSA etc etc.

She’s on a good path now, managed a full L2 year last year, now on a L3, ambitions to go to uni and get into Healthcare. The L3 she is on is not enough points for Uni, so looking to study an Access to HE course, which we will need to pay for. There is no financial support available.

She’s not claiming benefits as she’s at college, and working PT at a local pub. She could get the access course free if she claims UC.

As it is we are lucky enough to be able to financially support her, but there are plenty of parents who won’t be. There should be a recognition that the education of this cohort was severely impacted, and “free” further education should be expanded (including free bus fares)

Its a rise in diagnosed SEN. There has always been these Children but prior they wouldn't attend school (and wouldn't get pulled up on it) and would then be workimg manual jobs from early teens.

Even in 'milder' cases my dad very obviously looking back had adhd, but no diagnosis and the opportunity to go into an apprenticeship in carpentry mid teens. He has again obviously in hindsight passed this to my sister who was just considered 'not that bright' she has never had a career and not worked at all for decades. My neice also has it and has a diagnosis and support now which will hopefully take her on a better path than her mum.

DD could claim UC even though she’s at college. Although her PT wages will be taken into consideration as part of the claim. The L3 course she is on now is classed as non-advanced education. Most Access to HE courses are also classed as non-advanced. The rules around claiming UC for those on a nom-advanced education course differ slightly from the September following the person’s 19th birthday compared to the rules before the September following their 19th birthday. See Contact’s information here - scroll to the section starting ”3. Young people who remain in full-time non-advanced education beyond the August after their 19th birthday”

Apprenticeships now are often pretty academic as well.

Retirement age is going to be increased anyway, everyone knows that. About 18% of adults already do not reach current state pension age of 67.
25% of adults die before reaching 70.