An Understanding of the Key Features of Child Protection Practice in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

An understanding of the key features of child protection practice in the United Kingdom The social work profession in the United Kingdom in its theory and practice has a lot of emphasis on child protection. Ensuring a very healthy environment, both physical and psychological for the children has always been an integral part of the ethics of social work. The social work systems in the UK have devised a range of policies ensuring the safety of children and also in providing support for families. The system has incorporated settings which offer services right from family support to legal protection of children. There are dedicated systems in place to identify, monitor and intervene in the cases of vulnerable children (TCSW, 2012). At situations where family situations are not found safe for the wellbeing of children, the system plays a very critical role of removing the children from a situation involving risk. The system identifies cases where there is notable risk of neglect or abuse and appropriate interventions are considered. There are other scenarios where such actions are taken which include the disability or illness of the parents leading to their inability to take care of their children. The continued absence of the parents at home also leads to children being taken into care. Cases of deaths of parents, imprisonment etc. are typical examples to such a scenario. These children are taken into care (TCSW, 2012). The nature of the ‘taking away’ process is also varied according to the requirement. There are cases where parents voluntarily request their children to be taken to care. In some other case they are forcibly taken by law. Most of the cases account to this scenario, For instance, in 2011; around 54% of the reported cases were connected to neglect and abuse (TCSW, 2012). Children who get involved in some criminal activity are sent to care through the youth justice system (TCSW, 2012). Around 73% of the children are taken care of by foster-carers. A minority of 10% are put up in children’s homes; others are brought up in residential schools (TCSW, 2012). In some cases where potential risk is identified the children are left to live with their parents, however, under strict supervisions by social work professionals. The process of taking a child into care involves strict adherence involving a formal system of law. For both England and Wales the Children Act of 1989 defines legal regulations and systems for taking children into care. Under the act, every case of taking into care must be preceded by a court order. Children could also be taken into care if parents give legal consent to the local authorities under section 20 (TCSW, 2012). There are a number of orders through which the consent for the local authorities to take over a child is given. Emergency Protection Orders are issued to ensure the short term protection of the child in case the court identifies an emergency. Case Orders are issued where it is confirmed that the child is being abused or is undergoing significant harm. Such children are taken into care and are kept under care until the age of 16 or the circumstances at their home change positively. In cases where the child is required to be supervised by a social worker while continuing to live with the parents, supervision orders are issued. In normal cases the social worker supervises the upbringing of such children for a period of one year. (TCSW, 2012). There are also cases where secure accommodation orders are issued for children with a history of running away from home or voluntarily involve in activities leading to self-harm,. In addition to these there are voluntary care agreements where the parents arrive at an agreement with the local authorities to perform the day-today parental responsibilities of the child. However, in these cases the total parental responsibility is not given over to the local authorities (TCSW, 2012). It has been estimated that on an average a third of the total children in care are of this category. The majority are taken into care through care orders. Risk and Modern Society The increasing dominance of the factor of risk in the modern society and its perceptions on social norms has been explained by the term ‘risk society’. This term was first introduced by Ulrich Beck in the year 1992. To explain it further, the term limits its scope to the perception of the risk element of the society (Ferguson, 1997). This suggests that the derivation of ‘risk society’ has clear connections with the changing perceptions of the society. Beck (1992) opined that the risk society is largely influenced by the policies connecting with the society. Thus, it is important that understand the term risk society further The history of the studies on risk has been reported to have connections with the branches of mathematics and science. The theory of risk assessment has been based on the assumption that combining the knowledge on science and rationality, there can be predictions made on the natural world based on the measurements made on the same. If this is done the happenings in the natural world can be controlled and thus risk can be averted (Kemshall, 2002). Further Lupton (1999) has explored the scope of extending this concept to social world as well the sociological process can be controlled by assessing risk and responding accordingly. The local application of studies on risk suggests that that risk can be intervened with. In the modern society, risk is thus conceived as a component leading towards a decision which can divert a hazard (Joffe, 1999). In this context, the indicator of this decision becomes accountability. Thus any incident of danger, where a risk was assessed would be considered as a failure to meet these indicators of accountability. In case of child protection, failure to meet these indicators will be accounted as mistake of the social worker (Douglas, 1992). In such a perception, what goes wrong is that, there is no space for considering the social factors which led to the incident which are beyond the control of the concerned social worker. In child protection the legislation sees the sociological complexities which are involved in the incidence of a predicted risk, as controllable by a step by step procedure which is standardized for all similar cases. However, this makes it easy for the legislature and the government to stay away from the responsibility of managing the risk situation and forcing the responsibility of both the implementation and the failure on an individual or an agency dealing with child protection. (Kensal, 2002). Beck (1992) relating to this scenario has very interestingly stated that the ‘risk society’ could be very meaningful referred to as ‘scapegoat society’. The impact which risk and risk assessment has on service delivery Along with other social areas, the presumptions on risk and risk assessment are given prime importance in child protection as well. As child protection social workers work specifically with children who are at risk, this becomes more central. The whole discourse of child protection has changed due to this approach. The professionals are forced to take a very formal as they have to meet the standards of accountability. .This has evidently affected their relationship with the clients and related systems (Parton, 1998). The assessment systems and other very formal risk management tools have become the front end of the child protection system. As bureaucracy sees it as a key tool to avert the issues in relation with risk, it is quite natural that these procedures will be reflected hugely in child protection practices. Moreover, the use of Information Technology as an assessment tool also contributed to the formal nature of the system (Goddard et al 1999). There are customized automation tools which makes sure that the assessment parameters are met. However, the machine based system fails to be flexible enough to accommodate the conciseness of the social worker. However, in general there are reports that the risk assessment procedures are reported to bring forth commendable results in curtailing child abuse. It has also been argued that the discussed practices have been successful in helping the practitioners to assess the risk better and curb developments leading to ill treatment of children (Ferguson, 1997). As the methodology of risk assessment is well documented, there will be documentary evidence supporting this argument. There is a set framework in assessing a case as risky or not, thus leading to the assumption that it the process is largely helping the social workers. Perceived Risks in the context of child protection in UK The concept of risk has been undergoing changes with reference to the changing perceptions of the society. Risk with reference to social work is therefore interlinked with the developments on the concepts of risks and risk society (Beck, 1992).The values of the society keeps changing. The understanding of the society on right and wrong also keeps changing. These changing cultural and social norms of the society interfere with the society’s perception of risk. The frameworks of risk assessment are developed directly or indirectly on the basis of these norms. Any support mechanisms for social workers who interfere in families to ensure child protection also are developed based on the social perceptions of risk. An ideal example to this is the case of For instance, the level of trust that a particular society has on its system changes with time and other norms of the society. The perception of risk can have direct linkage with this trust. The more a system is trustworthy the lesser will be feeling of risk, In case of child protection, lack of trust on the system can impose regulations on the actions and decision making freedom of social work professionals. This has a reciprocal effect as this in turn will be perceived as an action to minimize risk. Thus it can be stated that the risk assessment systems of the time has direct connections with the risk perceptions of the modern society. A net result of this is that this risk assessment systems which are based on the changing concepts of modernity and society, prompts the social workers to be careful and defensive rather than being rightful and scientific in their decisions on children at risk (Patron, 1997). Adding to the situation, is that the employing institutions of these professionals will be more bound to the risk assessment systems that they will restrict their employees to take only decisions which are safe. Generally, the changing ways in which the press reports cases of child rescue and protection, stands for the people’s view on risks. It has been stated that increasingly the media are projecting child protection professionals recently with very negative images. The politicians have also reportedly victimized the social work professionals in different instances (Ayre, 2001). This politically motivated perception of risk has resulted in increased regulation and stricter policies on the local bodies which deal with child protection. This also meant that this political perception of risk put more restrictions on child protection social workers. McLaughlin (2007) has argued that procedural restrictions conceived as risk aversion strategy would adversely affect the confidence of the people working the field and also would affect the capacity to make decisions. It also has been reported that these measures can make the social workers anxious about the consequences of their decisions as a wrong one can lead to legal complications McLaughlin (2007). A social worker would have in his mind the consequences of mistakes. Thus the professional would be more careful to avoid risk to his profession. Thus what would result is that the chance of risk to the child gets wrongly documented so as to avoid personal risk to the professional. The risk assessment mechanism resulting in lack of confidence in the professional system of social work is being more and more visible as bureaucratic restrictions and checks are being imposed. Interestingly, these checklists are also not free of risks and cannot be considered as complete risk aversion methodology because it leaves little room for the social worker to flexible enough to consider the socio-cultural background underlying the case. (Littlechild, 2005a) The risk assessment methodology The assessment of risk involves sorting and processing the available information on the vulnerability of a child taking into consideration the family and other closer environments of the child. This involves the observable circumstances being broken down to arrive at a better understanding on the experiences of the child. These small blocks of information are thoroughly analyzed through the processes of sorting and weighting according to significance (Scottish Government, 2012). The process of this analysis is quite dynamic and interactive in all stages risk of assessment. The precision in these processes decides the correctness of any social work intervention which is administered on the child or its stakeholders. There are standardized theoretical models calibrated to undertake these processes in risk assessment. For instance, in Scotland’s National Social Work Practice Model, the Resilience/Vulnerability Matrix has been included as a standard tool to sort collected information on the basis of resilience, adversity, vulnerability and protective factors (Scottish Government, 2012). The model enquires the overall need of the child based on three building blocks including Secure Base, Self Esteem and Self Efficacy. Interestingly the Scottish Government’s website itself explains the methodology as a complex process. The sociological reasoning capacity of the social workers comes quite handy in this process. This process of analysis equips the practitioner to be in an informed state. The professional gets information on the child’s needs which equips him or her to suggest required interventions. Here factors are considered based on the principles of Secure Base, Self Esteem and Self Efficacy .The adult care takers and other factors affecting these principles are investigated. The complex relationships amongst these elements are also considered. The most important aspect of the risk assessment is the next stage where the practitioner makes sense of the analyzed information (Scottish Government, 2012). This leads to the formulation of a concrete management plan which logically lists out the specific steps involved in managing or addressing the risk that is involved with the child. It is important that this analysis process is judiciously used by the social work professional to understand the child’s world (Scottish Government, 2012). For this sake, it is important that the social workers share information and discuss issues of relevance with each other so that the larger environment where the child is put in is properly understood. Here is where the relevance of cultural factors comes in. It must be always kept in mind that the nature of the child’s environment has influences from the cultural origin of the child’s care takers. Thus the discussion as mentioned above would bring in more realistic understandings about the child. A very important factor that must be considered in risk assessment is that risk within itself is quite certain and is a variable changing in connection with the child, the care takers and the larger environment (Scottish Government, 2012). Taking this factor of variance into account, the process of making sense in risk assessment is very complex. Thus the practitioners need to be investigative and reasonable throughout the process of risk assessment. The source and credibility of the information being gathered is also a very important element to be assessed. The strengths and weaknesses of risk assessment methodology The definition of child abuse has not been standardized in all contexts, as contextually its criteria differ. To explain it further, child abuse in social work context won’t be considered as a case of child abuse in the medical context. This lack of clear definition of the constituent elements of child abuse makes it very difficult for the risk assessment to be done in the case of child protection (Bromfield & Higgins, 2003).The methodologies of risk assessment is also difficult, as the terms which are involved in the act of child abuse is used interchangeably for its meanings across different disciplines (Bromfield et al., 2003b). The process of child abused was first identified by the medical profession. Thus the procedures in risk assessment in relation with child protection have taken the route of medical sciences. A model termed causation which is a methodology followed in medical sciences has been followed in many of the researches pertaining to child abuse (Parton et al ., 1997).In the methodology, the general assumption followed is that the characteristics which are associated with abuse are different in the qualitative sense as compared with the general population. These factors, which are termed the causative factors are standardized and used to identify predict and prevent child abuse. A limitation which has been argued against this assumption is that, the standardization of causative factors has only included the victimized children and no control groups have been used. In this model, the primary issue in risk assessment is that child abuse is being considered as a medical issue and not a social issue (Parton et al ., 1997). Complex sociological issues which are further looped with cultural and economic reasons are overlooked in this approach. Dingwallet al (1983) has opined that the social problems connected with the incidence of a risk situation cannot be disconnected with the values of the one who is assessing the risk. Thus it is important that the professional who is assessing the risk must have prior understanding of the nature of the social problems and connects to the value of the cultural system in which the victim and the accused live in. The same principle applies in the case of researches on standardizing risk assessment methodologies for child protection. Considering the medical science background of the researches that has constituted the risk assessment methodologies, this principle is however contradicted. (McDermott, 1996). It has been reported that the risk assessment methodologies in the United Kingdom has not had success over 70% in predicting and intervening in cases of child abuse. Anglin (2002).Similarly several studies have questioned the potential of risk assessment tools in precisely predicting probable abuse of children. Several factors have been discussed in these studies including the inflexibility. A proof to this is the finding of a study conducted with 194 cases of children at risk in England revealed that though in all cases the framework and procedures were followed precisely, there were failure in delivering good practices. It must be noted here that out of 194 cases evaluated 90 children died. (Ofsted, 2010). The structural disadvantages of the concerned child including the race, gender and physical inabilities and its impact are not considered. The complex relationships amongst these factors constitute the environment in which the child is brought up. Not considering these thus makes the process of risk assessment methodology incomplete. It has also been claimed that the assessment model is composed out of statistically generalized data, the model won’t work in a scenario of different social complexity (Goddard et al., 1999). The utility of risk assessment in contributing towards the information required to formulate policies and allocate resources has be appraised by a number of studies. However, its scope in identifying an individual case of abuse is not confirmed. In other words, these assessments fail in predicting that a particular child will be abused by a particular system or a particular individual. Thus the risk assessment turns out be documentary in nature and fails in becoming a real time assessment tool of risk (Parton et al., 1997). The outcome of the assessment serves as documentary evidence towards a larger understanding of children’s environment prevalent in the country. However, this won’t give real time pictures which are case specific. Each child and its carers enter the phase of assessment at different stages of their life (Goddard et al ,1999). This factor is not considered by the assessment methodology. It evaluates every different case against an inflexible framework. The approach also lacks the scope of an integrated approach wherein the past episodes are read together to assess the cumulative effect that the incidents has had on the child. It must be noted here that these experiences make the child weak and make him or her more susceptible to further risk. Moreover, the focus on the future totally ignores the effect of the past episodes (Victorian Child Death Review Committee, 2002). Thus the assessment looks at every case through statutory angle and this necessarily need not provide a real time assessment of the child’s risk. The implementation of the risk assessment also has been reviewed by several researchers. It has been found that the field level implementation of the step by step risk assessment checklist would limit the focus of the social worker only to those points and would fail to collect other sociological evidences which would otherwise logically then can become support for the risk analysis (Reder et al., 1993). A very mechanical process of collecting data according to a largely generalized checklist would take the life out of social work. The basic principles of humility and dedication which has to be involved in any social work intervention will be lacking in this scenario. Thus the methodology of risk assessment would thus intervene with the basic principles and ethics of social work. The end result would be very mechanical clerical work. . Here the logical reasoning of the professional is switched off resulting in a very impersonal interaction. The value based principles of social work based on empowerment and partnership will be thus compromised. The assessment will in turn take a questioning format aimed at monitoring and manipulation of information and benchmarks. Goddard et al (1999) has opined that this lack of face to face relationship would result in missing out the feelings and words of children. An advantage which has been pointed out about the risk assessment methodology is that it makes the professionals accountable for their actions. As the measures are documented, the authorities and the professional personally are held responsible for every development in accordance to the reported data. However, this accountability has been reported to be of great disadvantage in practice. The burden of being responsible urges every system, including the child protection professional to play safe (Bromfield et al., 2003a). This would lead to the chances of risk assessment instruments being misinterpreted and by child care organizations and local bodies to safe guard themselves from any potential blame which may come on them. Thus there could be high chances of a tendency that the whole social order would choose to be safe from the risk of being blamed (Bromfield et al., 2003a). It is quite evident that there are contradictions amongst the concepts of risk, risk assessment methodology and the general principles of child care social work. In the processes involved in risk assessment, these contradictions strongly reflect. Researches on the effectiveness of child risk assessment in England and Wales suggests lacunas in the process. The assessment is generally observed to be process oriented and not result oriented. There has to be policy level interventions to understand and mitigate these gaps. References Anglin JP (2002), Risk, well-being, and paramountcy in child protection: The need for transformation, Child and Youth Care Forum, 31, 233_/255. Ayre, P. (2001), Child protection and the media: lessons from the last three decades, British Journal of Social Work, 31, 6: 887–901. Beck U (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage, London. Bromfield LM & Higgins D (2003).The limitations of using statutory child protection data for research into child maltreatment, Australian Social Work, 57 (1), 19_/30. Bromfield LM, Gillingham P & Higgins D (2003a), what are we protecting children from? Harm, risk and blame in child protection practice: Research based on an Australian sample. Presented at the 8th International Family Violence Research Conference, 14_/16 July 2003, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA. Dingwall R, Ecklehaar J &Muray T (1993), The Protection of Children: State Intervention and Family Life, Blackwell, Oxford. Douglas M (1992), Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory, Routledge, London. Goddard CR, Saunders BJ, Stanley JR &Tucci J (1999), Structured risk assessment procedures: Instruments of abuse?, Child Abuse Review, 8, 251_/263. Ferguson H (1997), Protecting children in new times: Child protection and the risk society, Child and Family Social Work , 2, 221_/234. Joffe H (1999), Risk and the ‘Other’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kemshalll H (2002), Risk, Social Policy and Welfare, Open University Press, Buckingham. Littlechild, B. (2004), Risk assessment and social work values: problems and possibilities. In P. Erath, B. Littlechild and R. Vornanen (eds), Social Work in Europe: Descriptions,Analysis and Theories, InstitutfürvergleichendeSozialarbeitswissenschaft und interkulturelle/internationaleSozialarbeit (ISIS) e. V. Eichstätt, pp. 42–53. Leschied AW, Chiodo D, Whitehead PC, Hurley D & Marshall L (2003), The empirical basis of risk assessment in child welfare: The accuracy of risk assessment and clinical judgement, Child Welfare , LXXXII (5), 527_/540. Lupton D (ed.) (1999), Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McDermott F (1996), Social work research: Debating the boundaries, Australian Social Work, 49 (1), 5_/10. McLaughlin, K. (2007), Regulation and risk in social work: the General Social Care Council and the Social Care Register in context, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 7: 1263–77. Ofsted (2010) Learning Lessons from Serious Case Reviews: 2009-10. Office for Standards in Education Children’s Services and Skills,London. Parton N (1991), Governing the Family: Child Care, Child Protection and the State, MacMillan Education, Basingstoke Parton N (ed.) (1997), Child Protection and Family Support: Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities, Routledge, London. Reder P, Duncan S & Gray M (1993), Beyond Blame: Child Abuse Tragedies Revisited, Routledge, London. TCSW (2012) Children in Care: An Introduction, The College of Social Work, Accessed on March 6, 2013 from The Scottish Government (2012) National Risk Framework to Support the Assessment of Children and Young People, Accessed on March 6, 2013 from < http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/11/7143/7 Victorian Child Death Review Committee (2002), Annual Report of Inquiries into Child Deaths, Victorian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne. B.A. Child and Youth Studies: Assignment Feedback Sheet Level: 9 Module Title: Issues of Risk Student Personal Identifier:1106799 Location of Student: Module Tutor: Dominic Thierry Student Adviser: Katy Beck Recommended Mark: 35 Fail Date: 15.05.13. Grade: F Please read the following in conjunction with the points noted on your script. 1 Structure, Layout and Presentation Comments Disorganized structure; does not answer question set; irrelevant material; poor spelling and grammar; Weak referencing skills * All of these aspects are present. There has been work on the referencing, but despite the choices of references often being appropriate, you have not explained the sources, never mind analysed them, & there is no development of an argument utilising the referenced material. Unclear and incoherent response; lacks development of argument; some key points included; limited range of reference sources used. Development of argument progresses throughout the piece of work coherently but can be limited or awkward at points. Coherent and logical presentation of argument; good range of reference sources effectively used. Well structured; focused; clear and fluent writing; persuasive writing; wide range of reference sources effectively used. 2 Understanding of Subject Little understanding of subject evidenced * If you have understood the subject it has not been communicated here. Basic understanding of subject evidenced Good understanding of subject evidenced, but little beyond module content Sound understanding of subject evidenced Excellent understanding, goes beyond basic module content 3 Quality of Argument and critical analysis Minimal use of sources, irrelevant material, descriptive rather than analytical content * This is key. You incorporate irrelevant examples of risk, and the relevant aspects are described, (in a very convoluted fashion), with essentially no analysis. Ability to review some authoritative sources; evidence of analysis of some arguments raised; depth of analysis limited, with some descriptive content Effective use of relevant authoritative sources with analysis of some of the arguments. Effective weighing up of arguments evidencing sound critical analysis; some original thinking evidenced Insightful discussion and critical analysis; originality of thought clearly evidenced Strong Good Weak Critical consideration of concept of Risk * Perceived risks in relation to chosen topic * Methods of risk assessment used * Strengths and Weaknesses of Risk Assessment Methods * Government control and intervention * Impact of risk/risk assessment on service delivery * Overall Comment: Looking back at your Formative assessment I suggested strongly then that there was a lack of a sense that you knew what you were intending to address in this essay, & that you seemed intent on including many things, but with no overall sense of purpose. My advice appears to have been unheeded. This essay is written in what I assume is meant as an ‘academic style’, but it merely renders much of what you write as either entirely unclear, or largely unclear. If this essay was to be read by a member of the public they would I venture be far more puzzled by the issue at the conclusion of reading this than they originally were. I can only assume that you have looked at a number of referenced sources, imperfectly understood what they were saying, and have attempted to put it into the sort of highly stylised language that I comment upon above. I have to question whether you have actually read the lectures that Stuart has laid out, which in themselves provide a useful model by which this subject might be approached. I recognise that these comments will be seen as harsh. They are not intended to be, but in truth I have no sense that you understood the issues at play by the time I had worked my way through this piece, and that you did not understand that the purpose of the formative assignment was to offer you an opportunity to avoid the pit-falls that you have fallen into here. It has, on the basis of the above, to be judged a Fail. Second marker comments I agree with mark and comments of first marker. This essay cannot be considered as a pass. The assignment task is not met. Language use and presentation is poor. I found it very difficult to follow what student is trying to say in this essay. The student needs to use simpler language to explain points they wish to make. Read More