Why is the Penn State crisis important?

While I do not wish to minimize what has been happening with the Penn State sex abuse crisis, it should be seen not as an isolated issue, but as something that is representative of a larger issue. When does the interest of an institution precede the interests of a person? In essence, that is what the Penn State issue represents. Iy was more important to protect the image of the university by those who knew, then it was to protect the children involved - at least that is how it appears.

There were several people who knew. They didn't act to protect the children. Was it fear of what would happen to them? For the lowly janitor - perhaps. For others - that argument becomes less so. Yet, if we, as a society, truly seek to protect children, then should that not be the criteria as opposed to the reputation of an institution.

If Penn State were an isolated case, then one might be able to feel that they may not have known better (although that is a hard argument to make). But there have been decades of scandals that should have made it evident that protecting any individual who is offending, no matter how important that person is, should not be acceptable at the expense of a child.

Increasingly we see that institutions have not taken the steps needed to protect children. A combined CBC and Los Angeles Times story tells of Boy Scouts in Canada and the USA failing to protect children. The stories related to the Catholic Church are legion. Only last month Bishop Robert Finn was charged in the USA with covering up suspected child abuse. That is the point in the Penn State case - covering up child abuse and not taking responsibility for stopping it.

Yet attitudes around child abuse and sexual predation do not change easily. It is the leaders of institutions  who must take a stand and ensure that their organizations create a climate where the abuse can be reported with a faith that such a report will lead to action.

As I write this, I am reminded that as recently as a year ago, the Pope suggested that in the 1970s, pedophilia was in some way normal. The Pope indicated "In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children" 


Attitudes change slowly and Penn State gives us an opportunity to illustrate why these attitudes need to change.

Child protection decision making - fill in the forms or think

One of the negative results of the various types of inquiries (or media coverage) that result from the death of a child known to CPS, is that the organizations often try to create ways to minimize the risk of further errors. Structured decision making (SDM) tools are one way that this gets addressed. This creates a series of formats that a worker fills in and is then guided on their decision. Critics suggest that such tools create good form completers but not good thinkers.

Gillingham (2011) has published a review of SDM in one area of Australia. Published in Child and Family Social Work he has provided some good insight into when these sorts of tools are useful and when not. They seem to have the most value to new practitioners who lack the experience to know what to do in cases they manage. The research notes that for these workers, they are quite valuable.

However, as workers gain experience, such tools may serve to limit the intuitive application of experience and knowledge tending to force the worker into analytical methods instead.  To make good decisions, workers need to move beyond the decision making matrix that forms create. Indeed, as Gillingham notes, "...SDM tools might impair the professional development of new practitioners...."(2011, p.417).  These tools cannot replace expertise (p.419) but one can easily see that the inexperienced worker would find these tools very attractive - they replace knowledge in essence.

SDM is also likely attractive to management as it helps to protect the agency by having structured (and most probably risk aversive) decision making tools that ensure procedure is followed.

Good social work requires analytical thinking for sure. But it also requires creative and intuitive thinking based on experience. In far too many child protection agencies, however, there is a plethora of new workers along with high caseloads leading to high turnover. Thus, SDM is very appealing as there is a shortage of workers with the kinds of experience that leads to better decision making.

One question that Gillingham does not answer is whether children and families are better off.

Public inquiries, media analysis and vitriolic criticism when something goes wrong, leads to more SDM approaches. Perhaps we should be asking if children are safer as a result.


Reference

Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we 'just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes'?. Child and Family Social Work, 16 (4), 412-421.  doi:  10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00756.x

Child protection failing to follow the order of the court?

A Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision has raised some important points about the kinds of cases where the child protection authorities appear to have a different view of a case as opposed to the court. In this decision, Justice Dufour outlines a tortuous pathway that a mother took from a life of addiction and prostitution to one where it is quite possible that she might be able to parent her 2 children. The Justice ordered that child protection take certain steps to allow for increased visitation. This appears to have not happened despite a direct order that it should. Child protection appeared to have a different view of the case and were pessimistic about the mother's prospects. They even felt that there was evidence that the mother continued to use.


It is a challenge for workers who see a case quite differently than the Court. Justice Dufour however, outlines what is an important principle in the relationship between the courts and agencies - the rule of law. If the courts cannot order in a way that yields a party to act, then where is the authority of the court. Any of us who have anything to do with divorce and custody matters see parents flout such orders routinely without much consequence (although that may be a subject for a later time).


What matters here is the party failing to follow the order is the state. As Justice Dufour writes:

"In matters such as here, the Court is the only check on the enormous power that is wielded by ministry workers pursuant to The Child and Family Services Act. Social services workers can apprehend any child they think is in need of protection. They do not need a warrant or any other form of judicial pre-authorization to take children from their parents – the worker’s opinion that the children are in need of protection is all that is required. It is months, and usually many months, before the matter comes before the Court in any meaningful fashion for a determination as to whether the ministry’s decision to apprehend children was correct at law. Until then, it is ministry workers alone who determine where and when – or if – the parents will see their children. The Court is the check, albeit a belated one, in the child protection system." (paragraph 104)

This decision raises one other major point which is seen in tow areas. It is the role of valuable collateral data. In the decision, one is led to understand that, if the social workers had bothered to gather data from a medical specialist, they would have learned that the evidence that they thought suggested ongoing drug use may have another explanation.

I am disturbed as well by the way in which the parenting capacity assessment was apparently done. Too little time was spent with the mother; there was too much reliance on psychological tests and the records from child welfare and little was done to complete appropriate collateral data. As I have written elsewhere an assessment is meant to be a comprehensive and independent view of a parent that considers multiple sources of data. Like child welfare, the psychologist who conducted this assessment also failed to speak with the medical specialist.

This court decision should act as a reminder that the rule of law is a crucial pillar on which we should rely so that there is a powerful and independent check and balance on the power of child welfare. It should also serve as reminder that assessment requires that major sources of information be considered carefully when conducting a parenting capacity assessment.

Child Abuse Deaths in USA

Two perhaps unrelated stories were published in the United States today. The first is published in NJ.com looks at the rates of child abuse deaths. The story speaks about the high rates in the US as compared to other industrialized countries. While the statistics are fascinating, it is the numbing normalcy that is referred to in the story. The former director of Human Services in New Jersey, Michael Petit, suggests that people read about child abuse deaths in a way that is too common. As he states, "Americans read about it all the time and they shake their heads. But what they don’t know is that the problem is much smaller elsewhere in the industrialized world..." He notes that there are structural problems such as poverty, a weak safety net, greater rates of pregnancies occurring when the parents are ill prepared for the role and alcohol and drugs. But he also notes that there are programming interventions that can be effective if society will provide them.


Thus, it is not surprising that today there is also a story about the death of two children known the Oklahoma child protection system.NewsOK reports that the children were left in the care of a step mother well known to the system. While much is yet to be proven in a court, these sorts of stories undermine public faith in child protection adding to an already skeptical view of the system.


These stories serve to remind us that child protection is a very hard job indeed; the stakes are high and it takes more than just social workers to address the problems - these are societal issues.

The Texas Judge Video - VERY HARD TO WATCH

Likely nobody has missed the news videos on YouTube or of the actual Judge William Adams beating of his then 16 year old daughter. The essential history is that the daughter posted these videos which she indicates she recorded secretly some 7 years ago.  She now posts them in order to get help for her father who suggests that the beatings were not as bad as they appear.


No matter what the motivations for posting the video might end up being, it is hard to believe that this family court judge can be defended. Yet, he suggests just such a defence in that he lost his temper and that he was just disciplining his daughter for doing something illegal.


This case raises the very difficult question of whether or not corporal punishment is a valid form of discipline and, if it is, under what conditions. It is a broad debate with vigorous proponents on both sides. There are those who will point to the Bible passage which suggests that if your spare the rod you spoil the child. They also believe that they are behaving in accordance with their religious beliefs and should not have any interference in that regard.


There are also places in the world where such punishment is deemed culturally normal.


It is my understanding that in the United States, all 50 states permit the use of corporal punishment.


On the other side, there are those who argue that such methods are behaviourally unsound and constitute poor parenting practice. The psychological and social work literatures suggest that it tends to correlate to negative outcomes for children, particularly the more severe the punishment.  They also suggest that it leads to short term compliance as opposed to long term behavioural change. The literature also suggests that it leads to poorer relationship skills; poorer ability to self regulate; more propensity to see violence as a solution.


For child protection workers, it is hard to watch this video and see any punishment that would constitute an appropriate parental response. It is clearly in anger and done in a way that terrifies. Yet, child protection laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and thus, this apparently horrible example of parenting might be legal. Thus, the ability to intervene or protect is determined by social, community, cultural and, in particular, legal norms.


In Canada, there is some reasonable legal guidance from a Supreme Court of Canada decision. s.43 of the Criminal Code of Canada permits parents and teachers a defence when they use reasonable force to correct a child. But what does that mean? The SCC stated:

¡Not reasonable force means that:

l(a) Corporal punishment for children under the age of two is not reasonable and is harmful to them as it has no corrective value given the limits of their cognitive development;

l(b) Corporal punishment of teenagers is not reasonable and is harmful because it can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviors;

l(c) It is not reasonable to use implements or objects such as belts, straps, or rulers, etc., due to the physical and emotional harm the use of such objects cause;

l(d) It is not reasonable to strike a child on their face or head due to the harm these physical acts can cause; and,

l(e) Corporal punishment must not be inhumane or degrading or harmful and there must be no lasting bodily harm.

¡

¡Reasonable force means that;

l(a) A parent can only use “minor corrective force of a transient and trifling nature”,[7]

l(b) Corporal punishment must be for “educational” or “corrective” purposes and not be motivated by anger, frustration, or abusiveness; and,

l(c) Inflicting corporal punishment must be limited to the use of the open hand. 

This is not a perfect decision and still is open to much debate. But it does offer some level of direction for Canadian child protection workers.

Corporal punishment will remain a hotly debated topic. In my view, it is very hard to defend what is seen on the video with the Texas judge. Hopefully, the good that comes from this will be that USA states will begin to consider how to better manage this issue.

It's the relationship in social work that matters in family preservation

OFSTED in the UK has just published an overview report that considers factors that keep children in families and out of foster care. It makes for fascinating reading. One of the key findings is that the nature of the relationship between the social worker and the family makes a significant difference. The report notes, " They were described as persistent, reliable, open and honest, which included being absolutely straight about what needed to change. They enabled the families to see that they had strengths and that change was possible." Being able to create hope matters.


Another finding was having a plan that made sense to the families. This included a focus that considered not only the needs of the children, but also the needs of parents, including fathers.


The study found that there are some factors that supported successful services included:

• ␣strong multi-agency working both operationally and strategically; this involved strategic analysis and understanding of the needs of this cohort of young people accompanied by investment in services to address these needs
• ␣clear and consistent referral pathways to services ␣ 
• clearly understood and consistent decision-making processes based on
• thorough assessment of risks and strengths within the family network
• ␣a prompt, persistent, and flexible approach, which was based on listening to the views of the young person and the family and building on their strengths
• ␣a clear plan of work based on thorough assessment and mutually agreed goals; regular review of progress and risk factors; robust and understood arrangements between agencies in respect of risk management; and clear planning for case closure and for sustainability of good outcomes.

The report further notes factors that were valued by families:

• approaches which built on the strengths of the family
• persistence, reliability and flexibility including the speed of response
• open and honest communication, including in relation to what was and was not acceptable behaviour
• an approach which valued family members, listening to, respecting and understanding the family’s perspective
• clarity about expectations and what needed to be done to achieve improvements and the consequences for the family of not doing so
• identifying and addressing the needs of all family members
• working alongside the family to achieve shared goals
• a clear plan to sustain progress when the involvement of the service ceased.

This all matters as it helps child protection to see that children can be kept out of care with the right supports that involve agencies working together on a clear case plan. However, if this is to work, there needs to be room for the worker to build the needed relationships. Workers must come onto a file with the probability that they will be there to see it through. Too many families experience an array of workers coming and going from their case. Why then should the family even try to invest in a relationship?

Perhaps a reverse question should be asked of child protection supervisors - If you want families to succeed and keep your entries into expensive foster care down, why would you change workers around often? It is my experience that families can more often than not count that the worker will change. 

Given this research data, that may be very counterproductive. From this report (and others) we see that real change is possible.

If you would like to read the whole report, it can be found at the Ofsted website.

The Aboriginal Experience in child welfare is still lacking

In Canada, there is a long and sordid history in the relationship between the child protection system and aboriginal peoples. The most famous historical examples are the Residential School system which I have written about before and the 60s scoop which saw a large number of aboriginal children apprehended and placed in non-aboriginal homes. There have been inquiries in Canada in the last few years that have shown aboriginal children are substantially over represented in the child protection systems of this country.


It is with this backdrop that two stories - one from Canada and one from the USA have particular relevance.


In the first, CTV news is reporting that advocates are attempting to bring to the United Nations a report "which argues that government funding for aboriginal health, education, housing and child welfare is not only inadequate, but is also lower than for non-aboriginal children."  The report was prepared by The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the ecumenical group KAIROS also points out that aboriginal child welfare is underfunded 22% compared to non-aboriginal child welfare. This suggests that systemic problems remain in Canada.


In the USA NPR is reporting that there is evidence that aboriginal children are also over represented in child welfare systems in that country. They also speak about the extensive practice of placing these children in non-native homes which creates cultural issues.


Some critics might argue that aboriginal children are so over represented in child protection systems because of the large scale social problems that arose from generations of oppression that has left many families dysfunctional with wide spread social problems. They might argue that, therefore, reservations, for example, lack a competent parenting cohort. This may have some merits as generations of children were taken away from families and placed in residential schools cut off from family and traditions while being abused in these schools.


There is no doubt a legacy from those years that is still rebounding throughout the aboriginal communities across North America. One suspects that we have yet to find good solutions and, as a result, we stumble around with seeing the need for strong systemic changes in how we deal with child protection issues in the aboriginal communities. What we are doing now seems not to be working well.