Is the Canadian child protection system broken?

Albertans might well be wondering if the child protection systems in Canada are falling apart. Well they might. In December the Calgary Herald / Edmonton Journal ran a series of articles detailing concerns arising from the deaths of children in care. This was followed by Alberta Human Services Minister Bhullar announcing even more deaths.  Recently Justice Ted Hughes’ report into the death of Phoenix Sinclair in Manitoba was released. He determined the death was preventable by the very system that should have saved her. This past week, the Coroner's Jury made 103 recommendations to arising from the death of Jeffrey Baldwin in Toronto a decade ago.

Jeffrey Baldwin

Canada has had over 50 public inquiries into children who have been killed or harmed while child protection has been involved in their lives. Each report has detailed errors made by social workers. Each has left readers shaking their heads that professionals could have done such a bad job. The reports, of course, only focus on the “big” cases where things have gone badly wrong. Truly, these are stories that deserve to be told. They should not be hidden from the public as no system can sustain any level of confidence when it is not open to scrutiny. Such reviews though should highlight what goes well and what does not. The stories of the successes also need to be told such as the three young women at the Minister Bhullar’s roundtable on child protection who have spent significant parts of their lives in the care of child welfare. These young adults who are taking steps to transition into adulthood showed their individual strength overcoming adversity. They had the support of an effective child protection system.

Child protection is hard work. Imagine showing up at a family’s home, knocking on the door and announcing that you are there to investigate an allegation of abuse or neglect. You cross a boundary. We view the family unit as a basic of society that should largely be left alone to get on with the task of being a family. Child protection steps into that world with the force of law. The social workers will need to determine if the child is safe and, if not, what needs to be done to ensure that child’s safety. Sometimes, that means removing the child from parental care for a temporary period. In a small but profound number of cases, that may lead to the permanent removal of the child. Even when parents have acted quite dangerously towards their children, these removals are almost always traumatic for both parents and children. There is a delicate balance between sustaining the family unit and achieving safety.

There are checks and balances. A child protection worker removing a child is subject to the scrutiny of the courts. For the parent who has lost their child, that can be little solace as they wander down the hall and stare at the empty bed that only a few hours ago was occupied by their child.

Imagine, however, if there were no child protection system. There would be more children dying at the hands of caregivers. Simply put, there would be more stories like Phoenix Sinclair. That is not a world that appeals to me. A child protection system that is not subject to review is equally unappetizing as there can be no belief except by faith that they are getting it right. Courts are one way that scrutiny happens. As the roundtable noted, there needs to be more transparency. The public should be able to get data that tells them how the system is doing.

Phoenix Sinclair

Yet, there is no child protection system that can guarantee that another child will not be seriously harmed or killed by a caregiver. This is very human work in which social workers must make decisions with highly imperfect information. There are no tools, nor will there ever be, that can come even close to absolutely predicting the risk that a parent presents. There is only probability. To expect that social workers can prevent all deaths of children by parents is to expect the impossible.

Child protection also cannot solve poverty, unemployment and lack of appropriate resources across this country. Yet, child protection is asked to pick up the pieces of these social problems. Thousands of children would not be in care if these problems were better addressed.

If we want better child protection services, fund them appropriately so that case loads are manageable, prevention and healing work is achievable and bring in social programs that will help to reduce the need for child protection across Canada. This also means that the federal government must start funding First Nations child welfare programs at the same rates that provincial programs are funded. Why should an Aboriginal child on a reserve receive less funding than a child under provincial authority?

The system is not broken, but it is certainly imperfect. Thus it must be transparent. The Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal took four years to get the records on child deaths. That is just wrong and erodes public confidence.

Engaging parents in change

Research has suggested that the relationship between the social worker and the family is crucial for effective intervention in child protection. However, social workers often find themselves stuck in the dual role of both trying to assist a family and gathering forensic evidence. When parents perceive that the forensic role is the primary function, it will be hard for them to buy into the notion that the social worker is there to help. It's a bit like that old adage "Hi. I'm from the tax office and I'm here to help". Who of us feels like that is a likely outcome of a visit from the tax office. For many parents, they feel the same way with child protection workers.

With that in mind, an new article from the United Kingdom was most welcome. Platt, from the University of Bristol, addresses the conflict for parents. One area that he addresses that I think is most useful, is address the utility of the classic stages of change model that DiClemente and Prochaska wrote about. Platt suggests that it may not be appropriate for use as a model for this population. Of course, the model was developed for use with addiction.

It might be better to think about readiness for change.

We must also be wary of using engagement as the criteria for success in child protection. Is that doing what is needed to get the worker to go away or is it about meaningful change. Thus, what is happening matters more than the appearance of something happening.

Multidimensional or integrated models of engage- ment appear to offer the best way forward. Engage- ment with services is understood as a function of multiple influences, including caseworker and pro- gramme effects, as well as the circumstances of the client or patient and their interaction with those services (pp. 139-140).

Platt also reminds us that the focus of change needs to about the child - how is the intervention making the family system better for the child? Change that does not improve that may be good for the parent but child protection is about the child. Does the parent see the cause of the issues for the child as serious and thus believes that change is needed? Can the parent see that as important for the child?

Platt talks about several important factors to consider:

* internal and individual determinants;

* external determinants

* engagement as seen in behavior, attitude and interactional levels; and

* outcomes for both the parent and the child.

Platt also notes some research that helps us to understand how to work with mandatory clients. This improves engagement. He states:

Role clarification: Ensuring clarity about what the worker can or cannot do, what the client’s role is, and what each can expect from the other.

• Collaborative           problem         solving:           Providing       help    to address the problems that led to the current situa- tion; the worker needs to take a collaborative approach.

• Pro-social modelling and reinforcement: Identifying and trying to build on pro-social strengths, such as good relationships within the extended family. The worker should model ‘good behaviour’ by keeping appointments and doing what he/she said he/she would do.

• Challenge and confrontation: Extreme challenging is generally unhelpful although some level of chal- lenge is appropriate. Better outcomes occurred where clients believed that workers were clear about their own authority and how they might use it. (summarized from Trotter 2008). (p.146)

The point here is that effective case work can be done with mandatory clients when efforts are made to properly engage them.

Reference:

Platt, D. (2012). Understanding parental engagement with child welfare services: An integrated model. Child and Family Social Work, 17, pp. 138-148. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00828.x