The invisible man

People of a certain age might recall of fictional character, The Invisible Man. Well, it turns out that there is such a character in child protection as well. And he may be the more dangerous person.

I have been involved in assessment cases where I have become aware that the mother I am assessing is in a new relationship. When I have raised this, I have been told that the new man isn't important because he is not a legal guardian. Yet, there have been cases where the "invisible" man was dangerous. I think of Baby Peter and Victoria Climbie in the UK as examples as examples where the new but invisible or unassessed men presented real risks.

The NSPCC in the UK has just released a brief summary of their review of the hidden men. What is important is that they note the positive and negative role that men can play in the lives of children. When a child may be at risk with the mother, for example, the father may, if properly assessed, constitute another placement option.

But, when there are concerns, it is vital that the man come out of the shadows. How might this happen is complicated by privacy legislation. Professionals working with the man may be reluctant to disclose to child protection when there is an absence of clear understanding about the nature of the relationship he has with children and the risks he may pose. The professional may feel that they lack a mandated reporting situation as they may have only limited knowledge.

Equally, a women entering a new relationship may have many needs that are being met that she does not wish to place at risk. He may provide a sense of being cared for or loved. He may also bring needed financial resources. Keeping track of collateral sources of information (other family, the children, biological fathers, schools) may result in disclosure that there is new male in the picture.


The new relationship needs to be assessed. It should not be seen as automatically bad or good. Rather, it should be understood. What might the man bring that could support or detract from the safety and care of the children?

Basic social work tools such as genograms, encomaps along with being inquisitive can allow information to come forward. The big deal is getting to know and assess current partners, former partners who may still be involved with the children as well as biological fathers. What can they bring or do the children need protection?

The study results can be found at this link

Jail Time for Social Workers?

UK Prime Minister David Cameron is raising the notion of social workers facing jail time, perhaps up to five years, for failing to protect children from sexual abuse. A summary of the proposal is covered by  Community Care. One can easily see why this idea has come forward in the UK. Recently, there have been very high profile cases in which social workers failed to protect children from large scale abuses. A serious care review in Oxfordshire has shown that workers had knowledge that would have allowed them to protect girls.

There has also been the recent case of Rochdale where there have been multiple victims. But the story of sexual abuse in the UK has been a relentless story in the media. There is the recent conviction of former rock star Gary Glitter for sexual abuse several years ago. The Jimmy Savile case in the UK has shown a profound pattern of sexual abuse over many years with hundreds of victims. Savile, a former BBC pop music icon had access to children in many places.

In Australia, a Royal Commission continues to hear story after story of those in authority who failed to act to protect children when the information was available that something was wrong. There too, the stories seem relentless.

In the UK, the public must be weary of the ongoing media coverage of how children have not been protected by child protection - Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka, Baby Peter, Khyra Ishaq - and these are only the recent ones. Confidence in the ability of child protection to do their job can only be fragile given these stories. They must be asking what's wrong?

It is in this environment that Cameron raises the idea that social workers could face jail time for being wilfully blind to the risks that children are facing. It could be an idea that can gain public traction easily. Yet, is it the right thing?

Such as approach fails to ask some very key questions:

1. There are many other professionals involved such as police, doctors, health care, teachers - how will they be held accountable?
2. There are questions of caseloads - what can a worker be expected to do with caseloads of 20-30 oe even higher?
3. There is leadership - what is the role of supervisors, managers and community leaders?
4. There is training - have front line workers been given the training needed to see what is going on. Sexual abuse is a specialized area but front line workers are generalists.
5. Inter agency coordination is essential but it remains one of the key areas of difficulty.

The approach also fails to recognize how often these investigations are inconclusive. Very few cases go sexual abuse have physical evidence. It takes quite skilled investigators to work through these cases. Are we putting such skilled workers in place?

There is also the consideration that this may act to drive social workers away from child protection which is possibly the most complex and challenging form of social work. The turnover rates are high meaning that seasoned, skilled workers with this sort of specialized knowledge are not plentiful.

I can well see why Cameron (who may also be facing an election soon) can find this proposal appealing. It may not be the best way to go, however. But his concern is valid while the solution may not be.

Child Maltreatment Fatalities - Questioning Assumptions

New research just published by Emily Douglas in the United States questions some long held beliefs about the workers involved in child maltreatment fatality cases within child protection systems. As she points out at the beginning of her article:

Some argue that the child welfare profession is out of control: workers who

experience fatalities are young, inexperienced, and lack professional training, and they miss warning signs leading up to the deaths

Indeed, there has been much criticism of the failings of the child protection systems when a child dies. One needs only recall the ,media frenzy in the UK around the cases of Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly.

About 30 - 40 % of children who die from maltreatment will be known to child protection, she advises. Douglas' research however, tells us that workers did know their families and that, unlike previous suggestions, workers tended to not be new and inexperienced. The workers in her sample were not overly burdened with high case loads, although she may not have fully explored whether these more experienced workers were handling much more complex cases. The workers felt that they had the skills needed to manage the cases and also that they were appropriately supported. She notes that 27% saw that the fatality was likely unavoidable.

Douglas' sample was small and retrospective - limitations that she notes. However, her research does open up new understandings of these cases and the workers managing them. This is an important addition to the conversation. Hopefully, it leads to further work.

References:

Douglas, E.M. (2013). Child welfare workers who experience the death of a child client. Administration in Social Work, 37 (1), 59-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.654903 

Child Protection Critics - valid and not valid

Critics of child protection seem to fall into one of several groupings. This matters as a way to think about what you are reading. It allows the reader to bring critical analysis to what is being said. This is true of myself, of course.

My groupings of the critics go as follows:

1. The professionals – this includes academics, public policy makers and clinical practitioners. This group tends to approach the issues quite analytically and seek changes from a more pragmatic level. However, this group also includes some broad thinkers who seek to blend the practical with practice reform. A recent example is Harry Ferguson, a British academic who was once a frontline social worker. He has recently published a book suggesting some rather fascinating changes that include workers being very aware of their own experiences and how child protection work can trigger this.

2. The appointed overseers – This group includes those who have been positioned to engage large scale overviews typically of tragedy. One of the most famous examples is the Lord Laming review of the Victoria Climbe case in England. There are others in this role such as Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the child advocate in British Columbia, who has a longer term, ongoing mandate to review and publically report on child protection issues in that Canadian province. Serious Case Reviews in the UK, child death reviews in other jurisdictions are also examples of these roles.

3. The Media is another important set of critics, although they will often approach their role with a sensationalist bent. The stories are typically about something that went wrong and seek to hold someone accountable. There is often a target to the story and the media has, at times, simply got it wrong in terms of who they were going after or what the real issues were. The best example is the reporting of the Baby P case in the UK. The media has done some very good reporting, however, that has led to some rather excellent reforms or, at least, nudged systems to better practice. Good examples are the PBS Frontline reporting of the tragic death of Logan Marr by her foster mother or the CBC Fifth Estate story on the death of Jeffrey Baldwin by his grandparents.

4. The Advocacy groups – These often have the mask of professionalism and will have names that suggest they are some sort of professional think tank. They seem most evident in the USA. Yet, they typically have strong policy biases that they are promoting. They have a sense of what they believe child welfare work should look like and filter what they report and write from that perspective. Rarely will you see material that contradicts their agenda being reported by them and, if it is, it is being attacked. Thus, even when they report academic research, they are often disingenuous with it selecting out the bits that support their policy agenda.

5. Parents who have been affected by the system. In the majority of the cases that I can find, these are parents who have lost children to the system and feel quite betrayed by it. This is not an unexpected or unwarranted emotion although it is very difficult to judge the merits of a case by their reporting. They are quite naturally and understandably biased. They do not claim any neutrality. Yet their stories are important as they provide a human face to the impacts of child protection work.

6. The children – there are occasions when children get to tell their stories of growing up in the system or of having been part of the system. These are blends of success, challenges and failures. They too are important, as they are the real life experience of some who have lived the story. In the USA there is a film circulating that tells the story of a few former foster children. It is a difficult watch at times but also quite powerful.

In looking at the vast material that is available on child protection, I have found it important to carefully consider who is writing and what is their agenda.

Another area of concern is how terminology is used. As Faller (2007) has noted, there are cases that are substantiated and many that are classified as unsubstantiated. Many critics of child protection see that as proof that child welfare is interfering in families that need not be investigated. Unsubstantiated is about there not being sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. It is not the same as saying it did not happen. Those cases are classified as did not happen or false allegations. That group might include situations where the allegation was made maliciously or where actions were misunderstood, for example. False allegations occur but research suggests that they are small.

Child protection deserves criticism when it fails to do its job – either by failing to protect or failing to provide good case management, which can avoid apprehensions and sustain family units. But criticism also needs to be carefully assessed to determine the agenda as well as the information included or excluded.