Social workers need more support, says expert

The following article appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix following my presentation at the Prairie Child Welfare Consortium Symposium

BY BETTY ANN ADAM, THE STARPHOENIX OCTOBER 2, 2014 4:46 AM

Lessons learned from inquiries into foster child deaths usually don't get discussed with front line social workers, an expert in child protection says.

"Inquiries keep talking about the same practise problems ... We're not having enough conversation with front-line social workers about what the inquiries are telling us," said Peter Choate, a social work professor at Calgary's Mount Royal University who has studied almost 1,000 deaths of children in care in Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, Australia and the United States.

Inadequate case assessments, training and supervision are common themes emerging from the inquiries, Choate said.

Good case plans depend upon thorough assessments that include people who are too often "invisible" - the child and new adults in the child's life, he said.

Too often children at risk are not actually seen or talked to by social workers. New boyfriends or other adults who are in the picture are ignored.

Social workers need to be willing to question information they receive and they need to be able to talk with supervisors about what they've gathered, Choate said.

"How do we get our social workers and child protection workers to be more reflective about the information they need and how to gather that information and what to do with that information? What are the barriers to getting good assessments?" Choate said in an interview Wednesday, at the opening of a threeday conference for social workers and policy-makers from across Western Canada.

The inquiries show that supervisors who discuss findings and decisions made with the front-line social workers yield better results, he said.

"If the assessment's been done well and the family's really been listened to in the assessment process, then outcomes are better."

Social workers' skills can't be taken for granted. Newly graduated professionals still need years of supervision and experience, in addition to specialized training in things like addictions, mental health, sexual assault, physical and emotional abuse, child development and risk.

Child death inquiries must create conversations between the public, families, child protection agencies and government about learning how to do a better job, he said.

"If they're about shame and blame, nothing useful comes from them because people take cover, they don't want their case to be the next one in the newspaper.

"It's tough work. Turnovers are high. If we pay for enough social workers, provide them with good supervision and support and give them the opportunity to do the job well, then our turnovers will go down," Choate said.

The funding problem is acute in federally funded First Nations child welfare authorities, which are said to receive about 22 per cent less funding than provincially funded agencies. "You have a moral, ethical question of why would you be funding First Nations child welfare at a lower rate," Choate said.

"If we want to make the apology that (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper made about the tragedy of residential schools, then you have to be willing to make that apology real, to fund the work necessary to repair that, which is partially through funding the child welfare resources available to First Nations communities."

The funding disparity is the basis of a discrimination complaint against the Government of Canada that was brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations.

A tribunal has been hearing evidence on the matter since early 2013. Final arguments will be heard Oct. 20 to 24 in Ottawa.

badam@thestarphoenix.com

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Insanity?

You might well ask this question upon reading the new report from the Irish Ombudsman for Children, titled A meta-analysis of repetitive root cause issues regarding the provision of services for children in care. While the title is not likely to push this report to the best sellers lists, it should be read by child protection agencies everywhere. The Ombudsman, Emily Logan, pertinently asks why the same issues are being investigated repeatedly. In many ways, this could have been asked in a multitude of jurisdictions.

The report identifies concerns in 7 areas:

1. Assessment and care planning - "Effective intervention for each individual child depends upon a clear assessment and understanding of his/her needs" (p. 11)
2. Record keeping - The report sees this as a way to help focus action.
1. plan work with service users;
2. aid assessment and decision making processes
3. monitor staff's involvement with service users
4. monitor and review progress of set objectives and goals
5. monitor and review plans for children
6. provide an accurate account to a child as to the decisions made in relation to them and why (pp.14-15)
3. Provision of residential care - this raises the concerns around multiple placements and those that are inappropriate  for the needs of the child
4. Child protection for children in care - on p. 18 the report states that "The previous life experiences of many children in care have exposed them to increased risk of victimization. They have the right to expect and receive protection from within the child care system.
5. Social work practice and supervision - The report outlines that the public have expectations of high quality service from well trained workers. "However, social work is not well understood and public confidence is frequently influenced by the media's handling of individual cases" (p. 19). In this section, the report goes on to state a crucial conclusion: "If alternative care arrangements (foster care and residential care) are to promote stability and resilience it must promote opportunities for children to develop secure attachments." (italics added). Too often the child is lost in the process and instability is the result of poor management.
6. Interprofessional and multi-agency collaboration - This is an issue that is seen in multitudes of reports on child protection errors.
7. Governance arrangements - a clear focus on why an agency exists and how it is fulfilling its mandate

The report makes a profound and often forgotten statement on p. 19:

It is important to recognize that social workers are the lead professional group which assists the Sate in protecting children from harm through neglect, abuse or exploitation

The report also does an excellent job of covering the international obligations for children arising from United Nations conventions that many countries have signed.

I am finally struck by the reports use of the term corporate parenting. This is a concept that is often lost. It is indeed the State who acts as the parent for children in care in most jurisdictions. How accountable is the state for its actions? This is an important question that we should be asking on a frequent basis.

This report is crucial. It asks the hard questions that need asking - particularly if we continue to repeat the same errors across multiple jurisdictions as my own research is showing.

Child protection's inconvenient truth: Is Daniel Pelka an example?

Media in the United Kingdom are swarming around the death of Daniel Pelka. He was four years old at his death at the hands of his mother, Magdelena Liczak and step father, Mariusz Krezolek, . They have now been convicted of his murder. He was starved and treated cruelly for at least 6 months prior to dying.

Daniel Pelka

The media reports are slowly leaking into Canada, although they are not creating the sensation that even a casual reading of UK papers suggests is going on there.

There is a serious case review in the matter, but its publication has been delayed until next month. Apparently the SCR panel learned information in the trial that it must now consider. That, in itself, is a fascinating statement suggesting that those working on the case had information gaps. At this point, it is not clear the child protection had a significant, or even any role in the family. The case is, none the less, highly reminiscent of many cases such as Jeffrey Baldwin, Victoria Climbie, Khyra Ishaq, Logan Marr and so on. Here in Canada, we have another tragic case subject to a public review that has just finished up. This is the case of Phoenix Sinclair. It will be several months before we hear what the commissioner, Justice Ted Hughes has to say.

In all of these cases there are valuable lessons to be had on child protection practice. These cases highlight the ways in which case management and interventions can go wrong. They also help us to see the sorts of common errors that occur. It is those errors, in particular, that need avoidance.

Cases such as these raise the delicate balance between protecting children and preserving families. The challenge with these cases is that they inevitably result in several things:

1. A scapegoat will be sought. In Daniel's case, the politicians are already doing this;
2. In some fashion, a politician will also state that the protection of children is paramount and that they intend to get to the bottom of this so it will not happen again;
3. New procedures will be introduced, manualized and bureaucratized; 
4. New training will be recommended; 
5. Social workers will become wary and fearful of making a mistake; and
6. Another child will die.

I am reminded of the article by anthropologist  China Scherz in the United States who looked at how social workers try to put into place good judgement while also trying to manage that balance between protection and family. She looked at the introduction of actuarial tools to help better identify risk. Her article is well worth reading. What one concludes is that there is a real risk that we create what looks to be science (e.g. actuarial tools, structured decision making processes, formal assessment processes) which mask the reality of child protection in science. It is a false mask.

While I am a supporter of these various types of tools, there is still the reality that a front line worker is going to have to make decisions from that information - leave the child in the home? close the file? remove the child? offer services? Scherz's article shows that this still is a very individual decision that a worker must make, and that there can be a wide variance in the ways that workers see a case.

There is no way to remove the worker and the personal decision making from the work. Workers bring training, experience and, yes, beliefs into the day to day interaction with families. No matter how much structure and science you try to wrap around that, this truth remains.

Which leads to the inconvenient truth in child protection - mistakes will be made, children will be subject to further abuse and maltreatment that might have been avoided if a different decision was made, and a small number of children involved in child protection will die - but most will not.

To expect perfection in child protection is unrealistic. Let these tragic cases continue to serve as educational opportunities so that the common mistakes can be highlighted and the highly unusual errors can also be brought to light.

Reference:

Scherz, C. (2011). Protecting children, preserving families: Moral conflict and actuarial science in a problem of contemporary governance. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 34 (1), 33-50.

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.