Key Challenges for Social Workers in Northern Ireland - Coursework Example

Challenges for Social Workers Working in Partnership with Parents and Protecting Children in Northern Ireland By Professors name University name City, state Date of submission CHALLENGES FOR SOCIAL WORKERS WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PARENTS AND PROTECTING CHILDREN IN NORTHERN IRELAND Introduction While the roots of social work in the Republic of Ireland in Europe are generally tracked back to the mid-19th century, it is often revealed that the first “professional social worker” was recruited in a compensated professional potential in 1906 by the Jacobs Manufacturer as a welfare employee (occupational social worker). Every individual in his/her life desires to live in a proper and balanced, reasonable, tolerant, safe, flourishing and peaceful society. Social work makes an important participation to this goal by allowing and assisting people, many of whom are insecure and marginalized, to play an effective and productive part of community. However, social workers have not been without challenges in their daily work. Among the challenges social workers face in Northern Ireland comes from partnering with parents in protecting children. Examples are physical violence, abuse, violent attacks, aggressive clients, criticisms and intimidation (Davey, p.34). Over the year there have been reviews and establishment of laws and policies that affect the children’s rights and duty of care. This has brought misunderstanding between the social workers duties, those of the parents and those of the state. Laws and policies in Northern Ireland affecting social workers-guardians relationship 1. Under the Kids and Younger Individuals Act (Northern Ireland) 1950, the generalist welfare authorities were accountable for rendering of services to children and young persons in need of proper care or security (cited in Geen, p.15). 2. The Education Act 1947, reformed out of the Butler Act in England 1944, considers education necessary for all children up to the age of 15 (Dunke, P. 33). 3. The Ingleby Report outlined the need for power to fight neglect, ill treatment and child offending in all manners. This led to the Kids and Younger Individuals Act 1963 in Britain and Wales and, in turn, to the Children and Younger Individuals Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. Both established prevention as an actual concept in childcare exercise (Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board. Serious Case 2010, p.45). 4. The Report of the Panel on Regional Power and Allied Personal Social Services 1968 (the Seebohm Report) suggested that professional local authority divisions should be taken off by overall social services divisions offering society care services to families, children and other grownups in need of proper care or support. It was envisaged that a single public employee could deal with all the public problems within one family. In North Ireland in Europe generic welfare divisions had since 1948 offered an extensive set of public services for family members, children and grownups in need of proper care and protection(Cited in Ferguson, p.56). 5. The Kids and Younger Individuals Evaluation Team (the Black Committee) was singled out in 1976 and reported in Dec 1979. It made recommendations impacting children in proper care, and tried to explain principles regulating the therapy of children violators. Some of the recommendations got their way into the Kids (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In a individual review it suggested changes in adopting legislation which led to the Adoption (Northern Ireland) order 1987 (Bowie, 2011). 6. The Report of the Panel of Query into Children’s Homes and Hostels (Hughes Report) was formed in 1986. This, together with a number of childcare queries in Britain, brought up the professional and attention of kid misuse (Morris, p.24). 7. The Children Order 1995, and its assistance, emphasized children’s needs, both worldwide and particular, and rights in law. It acknowledged the need for kids to be listened to and their statements and views taken seriously. According to Vincent (2007) there was a focus on collaboration across organizations (and not the liability of any one agency) and cooperation with mother and father (who have obligations rather than rights) and a move towards protection and close relatives support. 8. Education monitoring orders were established into North Ireland in Europe in November 1996, when the Children (Northern Ireland) order 1995 became law. They motivate mother and father and kids to work in partnership with a monitoring official (Education Well being Officer) to benefit both the kid and close relatives members (Newhill, p.78). 9. The Criminal Justice (Children) Order 1998 described the preparations for working with kids and teenagers who offend (10 - 17 years of age). The Justice Act 2002 presented a range of innovative new ways for dealing with kids who offend, the most significant being youngsters conference meetings which is based upon Inclusive regenerative justice concepts. 10. The Human Health and Personal Social Service Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 established the North Ireland Community Proper care Authorities (NISCC) as an executive Non-Departmental Community body. Section 8 presented protection of the term ‘social worker’ the beginning time frame being 1st June 2005. (Wray, p.89) NISCC is accountable for controlling and registering social care employees to enhance requirements of coaching and exercise in the workforce. Registrants and their companies are limited to fulfill standards set in their specific Requirements of Practice. Proof of continuing studying and growth is a need for re-registration with NISCC. 11. The Kids (Leaving Care) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 placed new and improved responsibilities on Health and Social Services (HSS) Trusts to determine and fulfill the needs of care leavers (Brandon M. & Black J., p.55) The above mentioned laws, polices and provisions have brought about conflict of interest between parents and social workers. Challenges for Social Workers Working in Partnership with Parents and Protecting Children in Northern Ireland Aggression by clients Back from 1980s, surveys of social workers in the United Kingdom have exposed the extent to which they are exposed to aggressive responses from clients, and moms and dads or their associates if operating in child protection (Rowett, 1986). The results from more recent surveys in each country detail both the occurrence and types of aggression public employees experience in their exercise. In the UK, 12 % of child protection social workers participating in Littlechilds (2005a, 2005b) research exposed attack and 42 % risks, from a mother or dad or relatives. A research of over 600 kid social workers carried out by community care (2011) produced a higher incidence, with 61 % of participants stating they had been confronted by moms and dads or their associates. Samples from a wide range of US research included community cultural social workers, but their encounters were not differentiated out from those of Caucasian experts. This is just like research elsewhere, although, exceptionally, Davey (1999) in the UK discovered that black and community cultural social workers did experience racial ignore from clients, but there was no proof that they were victims of a higher stage of aggression compared to their white-colored English counterparts. Physical Violence Treated cross-nationally, this research shows that 10–20 % of all social workers experience some form of physical assault while 30–60 % of them are confronted. Almost 60 % of all social workers and close to 100 % of children‘s protection employees are exposed to verbal abuse by a client, mother or dad or relatives. Although figures on actual or confronted actual physical attack often dominate exposed results, qualitative data from research in the USA, Sydney and the United Kingdom relevant to child protection social workers, and known as above, testify to a wide range of violent mother or dad behavior. These are commonly risks of harms to social workers or their loved ones, damage to their belongings, the use of fierce dogs to frighten and the abuse of complaints to the management or the use of media to intimidate them. Violent attacks Researchers, expert bodies and trade unions in the USA, Sydney and the UK have called for higher security of front line experts from aggressive attacks and abuse by moms and dads or their associates and for improvements to organization policies, supervision and on-the-job coaching chances (Koritsas et al., 2010), albeit that, in the United States, the Nation Association of Social Workers (NASW), the trade union which represents many social workers, have smaller proportional memberships than in Sydney and the UK. Moreover, the term ‘social worker’ in the USA is not a protected title and many experts generally known as ‘social workers’ have not undertaken determining stage programs. Little consideration has been given to the effects of heightened attack for determining training, a conclusion corroborated by (Keys, p. 322), who undertook a literary works evaluation on the abilities for child protection exercise drawing on research performed in the United Kingdom. Uncooperative clients In UK, the (TOPSS, 2004) Practice Requirements for Social Workers needs proficiency in interaction abilities relevant to customer power, discussion and arbitration, but not in regards to prospective attack. The (TOPSS, 2004) English Social Work Education and studying and Certification Requirements with regards to generic material states that it must enable determining social workers to ‘practice self security and proper grooming. This includes being adequately self-aware to manage ones own wellbeing in the workplace. Mandatory program material in regards to child welfare being on all determining programs is set out in Addendum Three. This needs ‘practice with involuntary customers such as power imbalances and techniques to pleasantly promote engagement with kids, teenagers and adults who do not wish to be clients. Communication abilities relating to loyalty, empowering customers, discussion, arbitration and guidance are needed material. Nothing is mentioned to create a knowledge base interaction skills or professional features relevant to addressing customer attack. Criticisms in matters of competence All students of social work in England have hitherto been needed to show proficiency in six key roles set out in TOPSS England (2004). In TOPSS England (2004) Key Role 4, Unit 13 refers to the proficiency to assess danger to self and others and work within the threat evaluation and control procedures of the agency in order to minimize pressure and risk. It also makes passing reference to acquiring the information of how to de-escalate abusive and aggressive situations. Tellingly, the High quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) Topic Benchmark Statement for Social Work, which sets out the academic studying outcomes for undergraduate levels in social work, nowhere mentions attack or other forms of service-user attack as informing the program. The deficiency of interest on determining programs in England to attack from client and their loved ones is borne out by the critique of the (Social Work Task Force 2009, p. 19), which stated that weaknesses in child protection exercise shown problems in social work coaching for managing misunderstandings and hostility This finding was again supported by a survey of over 600 child protection social workers in the UK, which exposed that, while 50 % of participants exposed dealing with aggressive and intimidating moms and dads every week, 49 % stated that they had not obtained coaching for such perform. Of those who had obtained some relevant coaching, just 10 % obtained this on determining programs (Community Good care, 2011). This figure translates into only 5 % having obtained appropriate coaching at determining stage. Evident statistics and case studies of hostility of parents and the challenges that social workers face This research draws on serious situational reviews, which are search instigated at municipality stage in England when children known to social workers suffer or die due to maltreatment. (Yin1994, p. 13) promoted single-case and multi-case research as indicates of investigating situated public trend in circumstances in which ‘the limitations between trend and context are not clearly evident’. Critical situation research as a subcategory concentrates on circumstances of crisis within an organization. Arguably, these are typical instances, as crucial situations by definition analyze acute and often exceptional circumstances. However, their utility lies in how these extreme instances foreground the underlying characteristics of schedule kid security exercise. These cases are citations from England; Cheshire East Protecting Children Panel (2011) concerned white-colored English couple who adopted a sibling group of three youngsters in June 2001. One kid created eight reports of alleged maltreatment by his adoptive guardians during 2009. Although childrens rights were informed on each occasion, the kid was returned home to his moms and dads either without any investigation or after a hastily curtailed initial investigation. It was over eight months before further reports by the kids resulted in all of them being the topic of Good care Orders permanently removing them from their adoptive moms and dads, who were discovered guilty truly of kid cruelty. Considering the failing of social workers to engage in research into a childs recurring disclosure of mistreatment the serious situation evaluation determined that public employees had ‘struggled to maintain a kid focus’ faced with the aggressive behavior of the adoptive parents combined with the assumptions social workers created about their ‘social category, expert position, and great academic qualifications’. The combination of parents’ anger and great socio-economic position meant that social workers were reluctant to question or to follow through on any difficulties they created (Cheshire East Safeguarding Children Board 2011 p.93). Wolverhampton Protecting Children Panel (2011) examined the circumstances leading up to the murder of a three-year-old baby by his alternative careers, which were of white-colored English culture. One of them was eighteen years old and the other was her associate, who had a conviction for attack and was deemed a threat to kids. The two came into a consensus to take care of the child in November 2008. Leaving care assistance had been contracted out to a charity which employed a situation employee. The wife became increasingly uncooperative and aggressive to social workers as she fell under the influence of her husband or boyfriend. The wife did this as she did not want to jeopardize that relationship which she considered to be her job’ (BBC News Birmingham and Black Country, 2011). In conclusion, it is evident from the above discussions that social workers have faced tremendous challenges while partnering with parents in protecting children’s rights. The challenges range from verbal abuse, neglect to physical assaults which jeopardize the lives of social workers. Over the years the social workers have tried to avoid and sometimes cope with the challenges that they undergo while partnering with parents in child protection. Through education and training, the social workers have improved the access to their clients despite the neglects. The main issue that brings conflict between the parties is the law in Northern Ireland that guides children’s act. However, ongoing campaigns and education on children rights and care are expected to yield positive results on the challenges undergone by social workers. Reference List Brandon M., Bailey S., Belderson P., Gardner R., Sidebotham P., Dodsworth J., Warren C., Black J. Ballock S.,McLean J., Fisher M. (1999). Social Services: Working under Pressure. Bristol: The Policy Press; BBC News Birmingham and Black Country. (2011). Ryan Lovell-Hancox murder: Lessons learned. Available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-13892076?print=true. (Accessed on 9 December 2013) Bowie V. (1996). Coping with Violence. London: Whiting and Birch; Brandon M., Bailey S.,Belderson P., Gardner R., Sidebotham P., Dodsworth J., Black J. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and Their Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2005–07. London, Department for Children: Schools and Families; Cheshire East Safeguarding Children Board. (2011). Serious Case Review CE001: Child B, Child C, Child D. Macclesfield: Cheshire East Safeguarding Children Board; Davey B. (1999). Discrimination at work. In: Ballock S., McLean J., Fisher M., editors. Social Services: Working Under Pressure. Bristol: The Policy Press; Dunkel J., Ageson A., Ralph C. J. (2000). Encountering violence in field work: A risk reduction model. Journal of Teaching in Social Work; 20:5-18. Ferguson H.(2011). Child Protection Practice. Houndmills: Palgrave.Macmillan; Geen R. G. 2001. Human Aggression. Buckingham: Open University; Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board. Serious Case Review ‘Child A’. (2010). London: Department for Education; Koritsas S., Coles J., Boyle M. (2010). Workplace violence towards social workers: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Work Littlechild B. The stresses arising from violence, threats and aggression against child protection social workers. Journal of Social Work Morris L., Williams L., Beak K. (2007). A Study of Case Reviews Submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government under Chapter 8 of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. Cardiff: University of Wales; Newhill C. E. (2003). Client Violence in Social Work. New York: The Guilford Press; NSPCC. An Analysis of Serious Case Reviews Concerning Children under One 2011. Available online at http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/underones/under_ones_scr_analysis_wda86352.html.(Accessed 9 December 2013) Pahl J. (1999) Coping with physical violence and verbal abuse. In: Ballock S., McLean J., Fisher M., editors. Social Services: Working Under Pressure. Bristol: The Policy Press Rowett C. (1986). Violence in Social Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University;. Institute of Criminology Occasional Social Work Task Force. (2009). Building a Safe Confident Future. The Final Report. London, Department for Children: Schools and Families; Stanley J., Goddard C. (2002).In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work. Chichester: Wiley; Thompson N. (2006).Anti-Discriminatory Practice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian; TOPSS England. (2004). The National Occupational Standards for Social Work. Leeds: TOPSS England; Vincent S., Smith C., Stafford A. (2007.) A Review of Child Death and Significant Child Abuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: CLiCP; Waterhouse Report. (2000). Lost in Care. London: The Stationery Office; Wolverhampton Safeguarding Children Board. (2011). Executive Summary Child J. Wolverhampton: Wolverhampton Safeguarding Children Service; Wray L. D., Stone E. R (2005).The role of self-esteem and anxiety in decision making for self versus others in relationships. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Wright K. B., Craig E. A. (2010) Aggression communication: a lifespan perspective’. In: Avtgis T. A., Rancer A. S., editors. Arguments, Aggression and Conflict,. London: Routledge; Yin R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage; Read More