Social Work with Children and Families - Essay Example

Essay Question: Focusing on youth justice, discuss how current social policy and legislation in England/Wales and Scotland underpin social work with children and families. Name Class Professor Institution City State Date Essay Question: Focusing on youth justice, discuss how current social policy and legislation in England/Wales and Scotland underpin social work with children and families. Introduction Historically, there have been two conflicting approaches to youth justice in the UK. On the one hand, is the school of thought that prioritizes the “welfare” of the offending children. On the other hand is the school that emphasizes that “justice” must prevail regardless of the age of the offender(Eamonn, 2012). Social workers subscribe to the former school of thought. They argue that while offending children and youth need to be corrected through the justice system, their well-being remains paramount(Corby, 2006). To this end, they work jointly with other professionals to ensure that that the youth justice system protects them. This paper discusses how current policies and laws in England and Scotland govern social work in youth justice, an important aspect of child protection. The paper also discusses inter-agency cooperation – how social workers collaborate with other professionals to promote youth justice. For each country, an overview of existing policy and legal framework is provided and then analysed. Current Policy and Legislation on Youth Justice Scotland Overview Scotland is a relatively small jurisdiction. Yet the country has a unique system of criminal justice. While other countries have adopted neo-liberal policies, Scotland largely remains a welfare state that is characterised by an enduring commitment to social work with those who break the law and welfarism in its justice system (Burman, et al., 2006). The Scottish youth justice system is founded on the Kilbrandon Committee report of 1964. The Kilbrandon Committee emphasized the need for the justice system to distinguish between juvenile offenders and children who simply needed care or protection (Raymond, 2004). The committee believed that even the offending children offend because of anomalies in their upbringing. Thus, the justice system should seek to identify and correct those anomalies. The arguments of Kilbrandon have permeated Scottish government policy on youth justice to date. Offending young people in Scotland are subjected to the youth justice system that is separate from the justice system for adults. Two major players in the Scottish system of youth justice is the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) and Children’s Reporters(Daniel, et al., 2010). The work of Childrens Reporters is to liaise with other actors to determine the most appropriate form of correction to an offending child. SCRA hires, deploys and facilitates the work of Childrens Reporters. A number of options are available to the Childrens Reporter, including referring the offending child to the Childrens Hearings System. The Childrens Hearings System is a lay tribunal of three members and provides a safety net for children who break the law while strengthening families and communities. The Childrens Hearings System also provides a platform for cooperation between SCRA and their partners that include social workers. The main legislation governing youth justice in Scotland is the Children (Scotland) Act of 1995(Ferguson, 2011). Under the Act, a child may be referred to the Children’s Hearing System on one or more of these grounds: the child is in need, has committed an offence or is a victim of an offence, has truanted, has misused or is misusing drugs, has been abused physically, sexually or emotionally or the child has gone out of control, among other grounds. The Act does not distinguish between the child that been referred on the ground of committing an offence and the one referred on any other ground. Analysis Unlike the English and Wales system of youth justice, the Scottish system is well-founded on the principles of a welfare state (Guthrie, 2011). Rather than view the offending child as a threat to public safety that must be corrected expeditiously, the systems perceives the offending child as one who needs care. It for this reason that Scotland’s Children Act of 1995 does not distinguish between the child who is referred to the Children’s Hearing System for committing an offence and the one referred on any other ground. In addition, because of its welfare orientation, the system requires that before the Childrens Reporter recommends any action in relation to a child that has been brought before them, they have to consult with local social work departments and other actors. In the event that the Childrens Reporter finds it necessary to refer the case to the SCRA, the body is also required to work with their partners that include social work departments to further the interests of the child. These circumstances create a supportive environment for Scottish social workers to play an active part in youth justice. In 2000, the Scottish Executive reviewed the Scottish youth justice system. They concluded that, in essence, the principles underlying the Childrens Hearing System are sound and effective in addressing youth offending. However, the study also disclosed that due to under-funding, the system was incapable of meeting the needs of routine offenders who needed more attention(Hothersall, 2008). In addition, the system is understaffed. These findings were soon confirmed by a similar study by Audit Scotland. The under-resourcing of the system has implications for the involvement of social workers in the youth justice system. Unable to fund its activities, the system is likely to limit its spending on collaboration efforts. Nevertheless, social workers can still play an active role in youth justice by working closely with the Children’s Reporters in their respective areas. Certain strengths of the Scottish system can undermine its ability to deliver justice expeditiously(Lishman, 2007). For instance, the requirement that the Children’s Reporter must consult with the local department of social work and other actors before reaching a decision as to what action to take in relation to a child brought them is well-intended: child protection is the collective responsibility of every member of the community. Therefore, in order to determine what action best serves the interests of the child in specific circumstances, the various actors must be consulted. However, the process of consultation is time-consuming and delay justice in circumstances in which speed is of the essence. An example is the case a child that has been raped. Certain evidence of the rape can only be obtained within limited time of the act. Besides, the practicality of the welfare-driven, participatory approach of the system has been questioned. Secondly, the system underscores the cooperation of the young person in the implementation of supervision requirements(Wilson & James, 2007). This requirement creates a paradox in that if the offender refuses to cooperate then supervision may be terminated even though the offence committed may be serious. The system needs to introduce other means of disposal. Indeed, this limitation has not escaped the attention of the Scottish Executive. In an effort to enhance the effectiveness of the system in dealing with chronic offenders, the Scottish Executive has proposed the introduction of parenting and anti-social behaviour orders, electronic monitoring for those aged sixteen and under and a youth court for those aged sixteen and seventeen. Even though the proposed measures have no room for social workers, they must carve a niche for themselves. Its recognition around the world notwithstanding (Bateman, 2011), the Scottish system has been the subject of criticism by child rights promoters such as the United Nations Committee on Child Rights(Munro, 2011). An eight-year-old is criminally responsible for their actions. This is very low by international standards. Children as young as eight years are eligible for referral to the Childrens Hearing System if they are apprehended for offending behaviour. They may even be prosecuted in a criminal court if the offence is serious enough. However, the Lord Advocate must approve this course of action. England/Wales Overview Towards the end of the last century, the English system of youth justice came under sharp criticism international human rights bodies as being punitive(Schindler & Arditi, 2002). In response to the criticism, successive governments have reacted by demonstrating increasing commitment to what they have called restorative justice as opposed to punitive sanctions (Lacey, 2012). The commitment culminated in the adoption of a new policy on youth justice at the turn of the twenty-first century. A key feature of the policy is referral orders. These are a compulsory sentence for first-time offenders aged between ten and seventeen years. Referral orders were first implemented across the country in 2002 and represent a significant change in policy direction. Instead of incarcerating offenders or discouraging them from offending through punishment, referral orders seek to make children and youth understand the consequences of their behaviour and encourage them to become or remain law-abiding citizens(Goddard, 2003). The goal of the system of referral orders is purportedly achieved via a youth offender panel(Munro, 2011). The panel is run by members of the local community with the support of a member of staff seconded by the youth offending team (YOT). The panel provides a forum outside court proceedings. After the offence has been discussed a contract is prepared which the offender is required to sign and, by so doing, commits never to commit the offence again. Government guidelines require that the contract outlines the steps the offender must take to avoid re-offending. Before appearing before the panel, the offending young person is first charged in a youth court. This arrangement provides them with the opportunity to compare their experiences in a formal courtroom and the less formal panel. In the financial year 2012/2013 alone, approximately 600,000 children in England were referred to the children’s social care services of local authorities because their welfare was threatened. It is social workers who spearhead the assessment of the needs of these children and ensure that appropriate action is taken expeditiously to protect them from harm. The underlying principle of the English policy on child protection is cooperation among various professionals for the protection of vulnerable children (Riddel, et al., 2011). However, before they cooperate with one another, every professional must have a clear understanding of what is expected of them as far as children protection is concerned. To this end, England is committed to enhancing the quality and capacity of social workers to fulfil their responsibilities in helping children. In order to promote efficiency in the English child protection system, the government is taking a raft of measures(Cochrane & McNeilly, 2013). First, the government is enforcing revised statutory guidelines that clarify the role of different professions in promoting the well-being of children. Secondly, local authorities whose child protection services have been found wanting are required to improve immediately. Thirdly, the government regularly reviews the serious case reviews so that social workers can learn lessons from severe cases of child protection and improve their services. Fourth, in a bid to attract graduates to social work, the government is running two programmes: Step Up to Social Work and Frontline Pilot. Finally, the government is introducing regulations that will make it possible for local authorities to delegate some of their work in child protection to private and voluntary organization on non-profit basis. Some of the functions they can delegate include child protection and care for looked-after children. A number of laws govern child protection in England. These include the Local Authorities Services Act of 1970, the Children Act of 1989, the Children Act of 2014 and the Children and Families Act of 2014. Of these four, only the last legislation has provisions that touch directly on youth justice(Cochrane & McNeilly, 2013). The Act obligates local authorities to secure the education, healthcare and social services needs of a child or young person aged 18 and below while they are held in a youth facility. Another Act that is directly relevant to youth justice is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. Analysis Even though government policy recognizes the need for professionals involved in child protection to collaborate in order to further the interests of the child, there is no such explicit provision in the area of youth justice, a crucial element of child protection (Camilleri & McArthur, 2013). Indeed, the referral orders have no direct provision for the role social workers in them. Under these circumstances, social workers in England must find ingenious ways of making themselves useful and relevant to the youth justice system. For instance, social workers could work with children held in custody and their families. In addition, the social workers could partner with juvenile detention facilities to help offending children avoid reoffending in the future after they have completed their sentence(Sapouna, et al., 2011). Until the turn of the twenty-first century, the juvenile justice system of England and Wales was punitive (Smith, 2010). The punitive nature of the system was shaped by the attitude of policy and lawmakers that regarded the youth as lawless and, therefore, a threat to public safety. This view is in sharp contrast with the Scottish attitude that has consistently perceived offending youth as being vulnerable and needing care from the justice system and the wider society. The punitive attitude has run through juvenile justice legislations over the years. For instance, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 lowered the age at which a child could be held in custody from fourteen to ten years. In essence, the makers of this legislation were saying that English children had become so dangerous that they needed to be kept in custody at the earliest possible opportunity. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 gave the Secretary of State the power to define additional offences for which a child could be kept in custody. Having discussed the theme of punishment that runs through English legislation on youth justice, credit must be given to the well-intended policy change on the subject. The move was a deliberate one designed to render the system less punitive(Mackie & Tett, 2013). Indeed, studies evaluating the effectiveness of referral orders have indicated that many people who undergo them feel a sense of fair and more dignified treatment than in the formal courtroom. However, most of the research so far has been conducted with adults. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of referral orders among the youth. In addition, the policy and law makers of England need to change their attitude towards the youth. As long they continue to perceive the youth as lawless and needing to be dealt with according to the law, it is unlikely that new policies or laws will make things better. A welfare-driven view of the offending youth will also make it possible for social workers to contribute more meaningfully toward youth justice. Inter-agency Cooperation between Social Workers and other Professions The SCRA provides a suitable platform for social workers to collaborate with other professionals involved in child protection such as lawyers and child rights advocates(collins & Ward, 2011). However, the closest partner to the social worker is the Children’s Reporter. The work of the latter requires them to consult with local organizations such as social work departments. Because social workers interact closely with the families within their communities, they are a valuable source of information that the Childrens Reporter can use to arrive at a course of action. In order to promote effective child protection, social workers in England are working with other professionals that include Directors of children’s services, local authority chief executives and the chairpersons of local safeguarding children’s boards(Lacey, 2012). Directors of children’s services head departments of children services in local authorities across England. They develop, commission and lead the delivery of services to children, the youth and their families. These services include early years, youth, education, health and social care. Through their association and in partnership with other public agencies, the directors join forces to provide customized services to address the specific needs of children wherever they may be in the country. Given their direct contact with communities, social workers are better placed to act as the link between communities and directors of children services to promote youth justice. Currently, however, there exists no structured platform for such cooperation. Hence, the need for the government needs to take legislative and other necessary measures to formalize such cooperation. By virtue of their positions, local authority chief executives should be on the frontline to champion child protection including youth justice in their respective jurisdictions(Cochrane &McNeilly, 2013). Among other things, they can initiate and implement policies that promote youth justice. Through their association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executive (Solace), they can influence policy and legislation at the national level. Again, social workers, by virtue of their close interactions with communities can be very useful in furnishing the chief executives with valuable information that can inform policy and other decisions. Unfortunately, cooperation between these two groups of professionals is limited and unstructured. Therefore, there exists the urgent need to take measures that will foster effective cooperation between the two groups. The Association of Independent Chairs of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (AICLSCB) brings together about 100 independent chairs of LSCBs operating in about 150 LSCBs across England. Besides social workers, the association brings together police officers, lawyers and public administrators among other professionals. AICLSCB plays an especially active role in the review of serious cases(Cochrane & McNeilly, 2013). LSCBs undertake the serious case reviews (SCRs) whenever a child dies as a result of abuse or neglect. SCR reports provide information that social workers can use to enhance their services. Conclusion Questions abound about the evidence base that has informed the decisions of policy-makers across the UK to justify the modifications they have made to youth justice systems over the years. In this connection, systems need to implement an evidence-based truth if they are to deliver justice to the youth: there is a link between serious offending and a wide array of social vulnerabilities(McAra & McVie, 2010). In other words, the children who offend do so because of shortcomings in the way they were brought up. Therefore, in order to help these children and prevent them from reoffending, the justice systems must get to the roots of what renders the offending children delinquent. Meeting this need demands a systems approach to child offending(Munro, 2010). This approach recognizes that in order to have a society without youth offending, many actors must be involved, each playing their part but all working together as one. These actors include juvenile correctional facilities, schools, churches, families and social workers among others. Indeed, compared to England and Wales, Scotland has already made significant strides in this area. References Bateman, T., 2011. Youth Justice. Social Work Education, 30(5), pp. 587-589. Burman, M. et al., 2006. The End of an Era? – Youth Justice in Scotland. In: J. Junger-Tas & S. Decker, eds. National Handbook of Juvenile Justice. New York: Springer, pp. 439-472. Camilleri, P. & McArthur, M., 2013. Needs or deeds? Child protection and youth justice in the Australian Capital Territory. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35(2), pp. 193-206. Cochrane, L. & McNeilly, K., 2013. The United Kingdom, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review. The International Journal of Human Rights, 17(1), pp. 152-177. Collins, M. & Ward, R., 2011. Services and outcomes for transition-age foster care youth: Youths perspectives. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 6(2), pp. 157-165. Corby, B., 2006. Child Abuse: Towards a Knowledge Base. 1st ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Daniel, B., Wassell, S. & Gilligan, R., 2010. Child Development for Child Care and Protection Workers. 2nd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Eamonn, C., 2012. Youth Justice in the United Kingdom, London: University of Essex. Ferguson, H., 2011. Child Protection Practice. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Goddard, J., 2003. Youth justice policy in the United Kingdom. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(4), pp. 329-338. Guthrie, T., 2011. Social Work Law in Scotland. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Bloomsbury Professor Ltd. Hothersall, S., 2008. Social Work with Children, Young People and Their Families in Scotland. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Exeter Learning Matters. Lacey, L. M., 2012. Youth Justice in England and Wales: Exploring young offenders’ perceptions of restorative and procedural justice in the referral order process, London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Lishman, J., 2007. Handbook of Practice Learning in Social Work and Social Care. 1st ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Mackie, A. & tett, L., 2013. ‘Participatory parity’, young people and policy in Scotland. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), pp. 386-403. McAra, L. & McVie, S., 2010. YOUTH CRIME AND JUSTICE: KEY MESSAGES FROM THE EDINBURGH STUDY OF YOUTH TRANSITIONS AND CRIME. Criminology and Criminal Justice, Volume 10, pp. 211-230. Munro, E., 2010. The Munro Review of Child Protection Part One: A Systems Analysis, London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Munro, E., 2011. Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report, London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Munro, E., 2011. The Munro Review of Child Protection - Interim Report, London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Raymond, A., 2004. YOUNG OFFENDERS: CHILDREN IN NEED OF PROTECTION. Law and Policy, 26(3-4), pp. 309-327. Riddel, S., Stead, J., Weedon, E. & Wright, K., 2011. Additional support needs reforms and social justice in Scotland. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(3), pp. 179-199. Sapouna, M., Bisset, C. & Conlon, A.-M., 2011. What Works to Reduce Reoffending A Summary of the Evidence, Edinburg: Scottish Government. Schindler, M. & Arditi, J., 2002. The Increased Prosecution of Adolescents in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Marriage & Family Review, 32(3-4), pp. 165-187. Smith, R., 2010. Childrens Rights and Youth Justice: 20 Years of No Progress. Child Care in Practice, 16(1), pp. 3-17. Wilson, K. & James, A., 2007. The Child Protection Handbook: The Practitioners Guide to Safeguarding Children. 3rd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall. Read More