The Evidence Based and Social Investigation Conference is schedule for August 4-6, 2011 in Surrey (Vancouver),B.C.
I want to learn more about an ‘Evidence Based Practice’ model in relation to child welfare services.
I want to learn more about an ‘Evidence Based Practice’ model in relation to child welfare services.
In order to write in support of Paul and Zabeth Bayne’s
campaign to regain custody of their children I have become self educated. Mine
is not a complete program but I am informed. I have learned a great deal about
child welfare, child protection, associated laws and policies, successes and
failures. I have at times been critical that at certain junctures in the Bayne
Case, personnel within this comprehensive system have not seemed to prioritize
evidence.
Evidence Based practice is not new. The evidence based
practice approach seeks to establish a larger knowledge (evidence) base and
consequently also identifies areas where (evidence) knowledge is wanting. I want to understand how it works ideally in
those medical and social work disciplines that intersect in cases where parents
come under suspicion of abuse or neglect that necessitates child removal.
It appears that the scheduled Evidence
Based and Social Investigation Conference will be an enlightening opportunity for people
like me. Moreover, the lineup of presenters will also share material that pertains
to the work of the medical professionals and lawyers within our community. It
would be good if some of them attended these sessions.
I detect that the Surrey branch of
MCFD is more inclined to an evidence-based practice (EBP) with regard to the
Baynes at least, than was the Hope office. When the Bayne file was transferred
from the Hope MCFD office to Surrey, the Surrey
section invited Paul and Zabeth Bayne to participate with Dr. Conrad Bowden in
lengthy investigative study of them and their children and their file so he
could produce a Parental Capacity Assessment. As invasive as the time
involvement and the questions may seem to be, the assessment is evidence, and
without doubt is new evidence for this case. That is positive. I have reason to
believe that Dr. Bowden will objectively summarize his findings and that this
evidence will serve to influence the Ministry staff which is amenable to fresh
evidence as they come to another meeting with the Baynes in July. This is
encouraging.
What EBP purports to be is a systematic process which blends
the current best evidence, the client preferences (if possible), and clinical
expertise, resulting in services that are both individualized and empirically
sound. The process seeks to facilitate accountability and transparency while
working to toward effective and ethical administered interventions. For EBP to
work successfully, the practitioner must be aware of evidence, or access
evidence or research it, evaluate it and accommodate it to his/her client and
this all requires time and skills. This has become problematic given social
worker case loads.
I don’t know whether this is part of local curricula but wouldn’t
it be interesting if training programs for social workers supported EBP by
promoting research mindedness so case workers will not only be evidence users
but perhaps also evidence researchers. But of course then the local MCFD
offices that are seeking to improve services and client outcomes by using new
evidence effectively must also re-prioritizing the staff activities and
commitments. Time must be given to social workers to read, research, reflect,
plan and use this information to make well informed decisions. Is this being
done? More perhaps later but right now, more questions than answers.
And if that new evidence from Dr. Bowden contradicts MCFD's position backed by existing "evidence" for the past four years?
ReplyDeleteThank Anon 11:02 AM
ReplyDeleteI missed your note. Sorry for the delay.
Yours is a valid question. Here is my hopeful response. If this report by Bowden was delivered to the Hope detachment of MCFD, I believe it would be disregarded. No one ever picked up any signals from that office that they were interested in evidence newer than December 2007. It was not evidence based investigation but hypothesis and inuendo driven investigation and decision making. And it was unchanging because their foundation theory never changed. With Crabtree's decision this year, as incomplete as it was, their foundation was blasted to shreds. It was time they bailed on the case file because their personnel had spent hundreds of hours on this case with no good outcome and so many of those hours were idle hours spent sitting in court. What a waste of time. Then the file moved to Surrey, and this staff I am hopeful is more inclined to consider new evidence, that is new impressions about the Baynes, such as an assessment of their parental capacity that is favourable. Of course, the same Director for the Fraser Region is still head honcho of this case. We can only trust that he will pay attention to these social workers if they have listened receptively to Bowden's recommendation, which I believe cannot be anything but affirming because these children love their parents and love being with them.
Ray Ferris said...
ReplyDeleteRon I am writing this on June 10th, so please put this in the latest slot.
Sharon Shoesmith and Ed Balls may be unfamiliar names to most readers. Sharon Shoesmith was the $200,000 a year director of the child welfare authority in Haringey England. There was series of child welfare disasters to rival the cases of Matthew Vaudreuil and Sherry Charly. Repeated complaints and investigations, ending in the death of children, because compelling evidence was ignored.
Ed Balls was the minister responsible for British child welfare under the labour government. He had an inquiry made and when the report came in he found Shoesmith's service to be unfit for purpose and Shoesmith to be unfit for office, so he fired her. Shoesmith filed a suit for wrongful dismissal and after a long court battle, the court ruled in her favour.
The trial judge ruled that the dismissal was unfair, because Balls failed to follow due process. Of course with a name like the minister's, the tabloid press found lots of creative ways of making headlines, but that was just the sideshow. The main reasons were that no opportunity was given to Shoesmith to defend herself. The commissioner who made the inquiry did not discuss anything with Shoesmith and she was given no opportunity to explain anything. The judge declined to get into the issue of whether or not the director was competent, or whether she deserved to be fired, He said that was not his responsibility, but all he had to deal with was the fairness of process and he found the process to be flawed. He ordered her to be reinstated and that she be paid about half a million pounds in back pay, compensation and legal costs.
This is another prime example of how judges are totally immersed in process and outcomes are a nether matter. He was asked to rule on process and that is exactly what he did. It did not matter whether or not the woman was totally incompetent, or whether she thoroughly deserved to be fired. It was not done in the right way and that is all that mattered. There was rejoicing in the Shoesmith camp and also among the social workers. They claimed that they had to do a very difficult job and they could not do it if they were constantly afraid of losing their jobs and this ruling gave them some protection.
Not so fast though. Judges may obsess with process, but politicians obsess with power. What was the reaction of the minister? When the Cameron/Clegg coalition defeated the Blair/Brown labour government, Ed Balls was replaced by a conservative minister. He immediately vowed to appeal the judgement. He reasoned that ministers must be free to run their departments as they see fit and that it is not the prerogative of the courts to tell them how to do it. Lesson to Shoesmith. You may win a battle with the government, but you cannot win the war. They have a lot more money than you and when it comes to a power struggle, you will usually lose.
Lesson for readers of this blog. Even if a child welfare service is as badly run as British Columbia's, it is tough to fire a senior civil servant. Have we heard the last of Leslie Dutoit, or was she paid enough? Joy Rigaux fought and won following Gove. Lesson two, judges care only about process. Child welfare, deserved dismissals and every othe thing on earth are minor matters and process must rule. Crabtree proved the point as well.
June 10, 2011 5:56 PM
I would love to learn about "evidence based practice" too, but I'm wondering how listening to a retired paleontologist is going to accomplish that?
ReplyDeleteFor Anon 6:58 AM Saturday
ReplyDeleteWhen I read a comment like yours I want to give the writer the benefit in my doubt about the sincerity of the comment. The nature of your comment led me to conclude however, that you were being disingenuous about the nature and value of the Conference. I’ll tell you and others why.
Dr. Viera Scheibner is the only presenter listed with micropaleontology among her credits. Hers was the longest bio among the experts cited on the Conference website and a very good summary of the multi disciplines to which she devoted herself during a long career. It is very clear to the discerning reader that her qualification for this Conference derives from her use of an invention that her husband, a biomedical electronics engineer designed. This drew her attention to breathing abnormalities among children, the affect of vaccines upon respiration and bone densities of children, the wrongful accusations against parents suspected of harming children when in fact the physical conditions were the result of vaccines and medications, the fraudulence and power of large pharmaceutical companies.
If you wanted to criticize anything in her bio you might have alluded to her comment that we should not only study the latest literature but older literature, and then you could ask what has that got to do with new knowledge as in evidence based practice. To which she would reply, the old research material is new again, because in some instances it is more relevant and trustworthy since it is not influenced by pharmaceutical companies and also doctors focused on symptoms apart from technology which did not exist then. She may be worth an audience. Something could be learned.
The Evidence Based and Social Investigation Conference scheduled for August 4-6, 2011 in Surrey (Vancouver),B.C. has an incredibly competent and fascinating lineup of speakers.
ReplyDeleteAnd Anon at June 11, 2011 6:58 AM:
Anyone involved in this area of the law, medicine and / or child protection should attend, especially since it could potentially help them avoid the fate of Charles Randall Smith, who obviously was completely negligent when it came to making deductions concerning evidence.
Ron, has your blog been hacked by Finn Jensen? My comment was genuine and was meant as criticism of Viera Scheibner alone, not the Conference as a whole. Reading this this blog has led me believe that you are not easily swayed by nonsense and are more than capable of independent critical thinking. You have let us all down today with your blind faith in a crackpot. Did you even read the bio on the conference site? I draw your attention to the following paragraph.
ReplyDelete"The only effect of vaccines is anaphylaxis, a harmful immune response, sensitisation, increased susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host related and unrelated bacterial and viral infections and great number of substances, resulting in allergies. In other words, the effect of (supposedly prophylactic) vaccines is exactly the opposite to prophylaxis."
You are old enough Ron to have grown up with people who survived polio and to remember those that didn't survive. Viera would have you believe vaccines do not work. This is simply untrue. Her position is a mixture of conspiracy theory, ad hominem attack and bad science. There is nothing "Evidence Based" about it. I really don't have the time or space to properly address this here so I'll leave you with 2 links that address this in more detail. Should you wish more evidence I can email if you wish. Most of the speakers of the conference meet the "Evidence Based Practice" standard. 3 do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viera_Scheibner
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1997/1.pdf page 18.
Anon June 12 3:58 PM
ReplyDeleteI am smiling because you responded and took me on. I love your reply today. It's challenged me. Before I stick my other foot in, give me time to do some reading. I am interested in an email exchange. Do you have my email address? ....Ron
Anon 3:58 PM
ReplyDeleteI am interested in hearing from you via email re:the three whom you feel do not fit the evidence based practice standard. ronunruhgallery@gmail.com