Q&A about child protection with NSPCC - ANSWERS BACK

[RachelMumsnet]

We're joined this week for a Q&A with the NSPCC, the UK's leading child protection charity. Last week the NSPCC's All babies count campaign was our Campaign of the Week.

Your questions will be answered by Chris Cuthbert, from the All babies count campaign, Kam Thandi, NSPCC helpline team manager, and Jane Petrie NSPCC Parenting Officer. They will be answering your questions about the work of the NSPCC, the NSPCC helpline, the All babies count campaign, and how Mumsnetters can protect children. Send in your questions to the NSPCC before 5pm on Monday 6th February and we'll be linking to their answers from this thread on 16th February.

Chris says: 'It's great that mumsnet is supporting All babies count campaign. Almost a half of the most serious cases of child abuse and neglect relate to babies under the age of one. Evidence shows that with the right services in place it is possible to prevent many of these tragic cases. We hope Mumsnetters will support us by signing our online petition. I look forward to answering your questions about the campaign.'

Kam adds: Unfortunately we can't allow you to use the Q&A session to share concerns about a specific child. If you are worried about a child right now - even if it's just a doubt, please contact the NSPCC's free 24 hour helpline immediately for advice from our trained helpline counsellors.'

Call:0808 8005000
Email [email protected]
Text 88858
(If you are texting from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, 88858 will not be available to you. However, you can text the NSPCC Helpline on 0778 620 0001. This service is not free, and you will be charged at your standard network rate.)

This Q&A has been sponsored by the NSPCC

Yes why can't the NSPCC save Naomi house?

"....in 2010/2011 we spent just over 74% of income raised on activities focused on ending cruelty to children, including frontline direct support, preventive, and treatment services, our national helplines and information services, and public awareness raising and advice. The rest of our income was spent on other activities like fundraising and governance. This split in spend compares well with other major charities."

our national helplines and information services, and public awareness raising and advice - these are not what I would class as activities which would end cruelty to children. I want to see what services you offer directly to children and families.

I used to donate to the NSPCC, however I cancelled my direct debit after my young son was deeply upset by one of your sensationalist tv adverts, I was also irked by constant pleas to raise my direct debit amount, and on looking into your charity, realising you were all talk and no substance.

Your initial answers are doing nothing to change my negative image of the NSPCC, they come across as patronising and vague.

Sorry NSPCC but I feel patronised by your response. Until last April I had a senior job within a major local authority and I dealt with wishy washy clap trap like your answers all the time- apologies Mumsnet but this is how I see it.

I asked a very specific question regarding what percentage of your income you spend on advertising - perhaps you'll give us more information when you respond.

Your response has put me off the NSPCC more than I was already. I would rather give money directly to small charities who won't use 26p in every pound I give for governance and fund raising. I think someone asked a question about how much you pay chuggers (charity muggers). I assume this accounts for part of that 26p?

I am open minded. I am willing to be convinced. I'd like to know what you actually do to prevent cruelty to children (and I don't think your advertising counts). I'd like to know how you spend your money. I'd like to know how you as a statutory organisation fit into today's world of child protection. At the moment I am not clear about any of these things.

Convince us you are more than a glorified messaging service, policy advisor and purveyor of gruesome advertising and you may find Mumsnetters more inclined to listen to you. A lot of us may be able to help you but we have to be convinced its worth our time

soandsosmummy I don't think there is the faintest hope of them answering your question or addressing my point of advertising being catergorised under charitable activities.

After all they've paid MN out of that budget.

I'm a little confused as to whether the advertising is partly catergorised under fund raising as well as charitable activities since most of their adverts also seem to ask for money. However, who knows if we'll get an answer

Marking my place for the answers.

Yes, I think the answers so far are disingenuous and shoddy.

I'm surprised nobody has FB Recommended this thread yet. I would myself but FB is the devil's website

What is the NSPCC doing to oppose cuts to services such as Naomi House in Bristol here which supports addicts and their babies? You can't get much more vulnerable than a baby born to a sex worker who is addicted to drugs. Why doesn't the NSPCC help Naomi House?

(I know other people have raised Naomi House, just thought saying it again might make it harder for the NSPCC to ignore.)

This is a very disappointing thread. Posters raised perfectly valid questions about formulations on the NSPCC website and the NSPCC responded by reiterating exactly the same formulations without any further explanation. Surely it was perfectly obvious that the posters had already read the NSPCC website.

What we want to know is why have you chosen those particular recommendations.

Why are you saying that an 11yo should only be left at home for short periods when everybody knows that most areas offer no childcare after primary school? What is your evidence for mentioning the age of 12- it can hardly be higher rates of child mortality in other European countries which take a more relaxed attitude?

How do your awareness campaigns end child cruelty? Have you any evidence that this is the most cost effective way?

What is the split between awareness campaigns and intervention?

Happy to be convinced- but I can read a brochure myself thank you very much.

have to say i'm a bit baffled by the 'raising awareness' stuff. are we saying there are people who do not know that child abuse exists and is wrong? this everybody knows abuse is wrong and we have a consensus about how children should and should not be cared for. the only people who don't seem to know and accept this are child abusers and i doubt watching an advert changes their behaviour.

it's fundraising full stop - people are so aware of child abuse and the miserable lives many children live we don't need to be more aware of it we need to doing things about it. spending vast sums of money sending sensationalist and distressing adverts into our living rooms does nothing except trigger and upset people.

the raising awareness is a red herring. who is not aware in our media mad society about child abuse? it's impossible not to be aware - we don't need shock tactics to change views on it - the view of every non child abuser is clear. awareness has been raised, tick! now we can stop wasting money on adverts and use it to actually get on and help frontline.

gosh that was an illiterate post, sorry.

Like swallowedAfly, I'm interested in knowing where 'raising awareness' stops and 'fundraising' starts. For example, the last batch of adverts were, in my mind, fundraising. However, because they were of the 'little Johnny is scared of mum's boyfriend' variety, they might get away with being classed as raising awareness.

So..

1. If this is the case, how does the NSPCC (and other large charities) avoid the cycle of making adverts to raise funds, which are then used to make adverts to raise funds?

2. What frontline presence does the NSPCC have in chidren's services? Working in schools, I've never seen, nor heard, of any NSPCC programmes, unlike e.g. Barnados and Action for Children.

I'm hoping the answers so far are off some info sheet provided by some junior staff trying to be helpful, and that come 16th as promised we will get some real answers from someone who knows what they are talking about.

there is so little honesty and genuine engagement though realistically isn't there? be it business, politicians or even 'charitable status' organisations. it feels like we live in a world of constant spin where the biggest rarity is for someone to be straightforward and honest and answer a simple question with a simple answer.

would love it, genuinely, if nspcc were able to come back and do that. would love it if anyone involved in making money/gaining power could. shall i hold my breath?

the rule seems to be to treat everyone like stupid children and pretend we don't know what they're asking and answer what we feel like answering instead and then just brazen faced blag it out.

would be nice to live in an adult world with adult communication.

Be really interesting to see the responses. They'll only have had 16 days to pull something together though!

To be honest, I'd not thought about NSPCC at all. I've followed this thread with increasing astonishment. Both I've had a closer look at their website and the responses (aimed at the level of a 5 year old so far).

But in particular I was interested in the linking of mental health problems with a risk to babies.

from the NSPCC website

'Around 198,000 babies in the UK have parents affected by domestic violence, substance misuse or mental health problems. These families can face significant risks and we can all do more to help'

at first I thought this was marketing spin, and after feedback the bit about mental health could possibly be amended.However, it seems this would undermine the whole statistical/ research basis of their Babies Campaign.

So where did the the above statistics come from? It seems NSPCC commissioned are review of Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2009,survey here

This survey's objective is to look at the prevalence of mental health problems for planning and health management purposes. It is a count of how many people in the UK experience mental health issues.

The original survey makes no extrapolations to child abuse what so ever. That is not its intention. It is a mental health survey. That correlations seems to be the work of the NSPCC, and becomes one of the cornerstones of the research to back up their campaign.

On the website there are numerous publications spinning off from this work. Some aimed at parents, some aimed at 'professionals'.

professionals report

see page 5 for this gem

Original analysis conducted for this report (ie an analysis of the Mental Health Survey).
estimates for the first time the numbers of babies
living in vulnerable and complex family situations.
In the UK, an estimated
? 19,500 babies under 1 year old are living with a
parent who has used Class A drugs in the last
year
? 39,000 babies under 1 year old live in
households affected by domestic violence in
the last year
? 93,500 babies under 1 year old live with a
parent who is a problem drinker
? 144,000 babies under 1 year old live with
a parent who has a common mental health problem.

So we have on statistic about domestic violence (from a crime survey) and the rest are about mental health and substance abuse. (with absolutely no evidence of the link to child abuse).

This is, in my view the deliberate conflating of mental health problems with 'domestic violence' and substance abuse to support the 'babies at risk' fundraising campaign. And as a consequence the references to 'mental health' have to be there. Because otherwise the campaign is based on puff. The research is not examined.

Apologies for the length of this post (and hope you have followed it). But I am concerned at the unnecessarily stigmatising of mental health issues even further - essentially so the NSPCC can raise money.

Question to NSPCC - why have you funded and focussed your research primarily on the incidence of mental health and not other factors (eg domestic violence, poverty to name but two) as risk factors to babies? Why have you conflated quite separate issues and not made this clear in your publicity?

What consideration have you given that the impact of your campaign will further stigmatise people suffering mental health problems are the biggest risk to young babies? Possibly deterring them seeking help. Because the NSPCC is 'a respected organisation, seem by some as part of the statutory authorities' has put all over their literature mental health put 1 inn 4 babies at risk - andr could be subliminally suggesting the risk of taking their children away.

I hope the responses you come back with are good. Because I for one, having being completely open minded, have had my eyes opened by this campaign.

it appears to just be a cynical and irresponsible way to make the % of at risk babies they can cite more dramatic. i assumed that from the first (because given lots of people are suffering with some form of depression or anxiety it's the easiest way to boost your figures by including them as 'risky' despite zero evidence and the fact that the absolute vast majority of those will be dealing with moderate depression and/or anxiety that is responsive to antidepressants and being managed effectively and responsibly). it is very misleading and destructive.

Having watched the NSPCC's conduct during the Badman/home education saga, I have no respect for this charity whatever. The organisation's methods and ideology leave a nasty taste in one's mouth.

Just marking place again so I remember to look at answers on 16th

"As we state on our website and in our annual report, in 2010/2011 we spent just over 74% of income raised on activities focused on ending cruelty to children, including frontline direct support, preventive, and treatment services, our national helplines and information services, and public awareness raising and advice."

• As follow up - a little query - in respect of 'ending cruelty to children including frontline support' - what does that ACTUALLY mean - I think in the light of the apparent lack of trust amongst MNrs, in the self marketing of the NSPCC, and personally my own experience as a FRONT LINE children and families social worker, we would like you to define this "Frontline Support" you offer please. Not in vague generalised terms but a clear rundown on real projects - that are working in the area of ending child cruelty.

Having seen the baby advert - it would be my personal experience in children's services - that the NSPCC would have no role in this sort of situation - It would be really helpful if you would be able to clarify this for us all!

Thankyou

Spike!

Got my NSPCC adverts mixed up - my comments were mostly pertaining to the more dramatic baby abuse advert (William) but the every baby one I have now just watched....what are NSPCC offering that isn't already in place via the enormously publicly funded sure start children's centre programme that covers the whole of England and Scotland and Wales, being devolved and all have similar provision!! I do ackowledge that the NPSCC do some therapeutic work - but unless I am wildly out of touch with reality - in terms of the 'front line' child protection/neglect stuff - they are NOT the lead their advertising would suggest!!

Should we expect the NSPCC to give their answers today?

marking my place