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.

When it happens in your own family

A couple of recent discussions with social workers reminds me that, despite our profession, it is possible to have family become involved with child protection systems (CPS). This is a cause for embarrassment if colleagues become aware of the family connection. However, there is also the need to find a way to deal with this reality. In my discussions, a few themes came out strongly.

1. Being a family member means you are not the professional - no matter how much experience you have, you cannot be the family advisor on a child protection case. You will not know the case or the reasons why CPS is involved and why they are taking the actions that they are. Thus, you are a family member and not a social worker.

2. That being said, you can then act as a family member offering appropriate support.

3. As a social worker, we often learn to turn our emotions down. We keep a degree of professional detachment. When we start to see the "facts" of a case, that turns on. What we need to turn on is our personal emotions that allow us to be a member of a family.

4. We are not the confidant of the social work professionals who may turn to us to act as a go between - after all, they might say, we understand what needs to be done - could we explain it to the family? Well no, we can't. That places us in an untenable position of walking a bridge between the social workers and the family. It's not our role.

5. We are also therefore, not the advocates for the family. The best advocates are those who are not in the family system. Therefore, you should not be attending meetings in such a role.

6. We also need boundaries. We tell our clients this all the time - this is a point in which to heed our own advice.

7. Trying to be a social worker in your own family system means that you are likely to alienate colleagues and family members alike.

There are things you can do. You can be a family member who supports, acts as a shoulder to lean on if appropriate and listen. You can use your skills at reflective listening to help family members process. You can also point people to the sorts of resources that can professionally assist. Most importantly, you can also feel. There may be other ideas but knowing when to step back from the social work role with your own family system is important.