SOCIAL WORKERS NEED CHILD-PROTECTION TRAINING

This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris appeared in The Times Colonist. Ray sent it to me after it was published there. whom you know as the author of 'The Art of Child Protection,' and as a frequent contributor here, as well as an advisor to countless parents as well as lawyer and members of parliament. You can order the book at rtferris@telus.net

The Walker judgement and several others have made it evident that an adversarial and even hostile culture permeates the ministry responsible for child protection. There are probable causes for this. One is that provincial social workers used to be responsible for both financial assistance and child welfare. The deep-seated antagonism to assistance applicants rubbed off on child welfare cases, often the same cases. The three children’s aid societies were kinder, because they handled no assistance. All services were amalgamated by the first NDP government.

The courts used to function well. In the late seventies I studied about 200 cases which went through the Victoria court. No cases exceeded statutory time guidelines and judges were vigilant in demanding proper notices and other parental protections. Only four cases went to contested hearings. Most cases were settled by negotiation. There were many registered social workers and there was a sense of professionalism among the staff members.

WILL THE GOVERNMENT ACT ON INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS?

Bob Plecas

Recommendations are valueless when they are ignored. Bob Plecas' independent review will contain recommendations for improvements and change for the Ministry of Children and Family Services. I have zero confidence that the recommendations will bring change within the Ministry. Plecas' work will be thorough and predictably commendable but it will have been ineffectual unless the Premier Christy Clark, and the Minister Hon. Stephanie Cadieux and preferably the Deputy Minister Mark Sieben construe the Plecas recommendations as beneficial and indispensable and determine to affect them. They must make them happen.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 2

How To Define the Problems

By Ray Ferris (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here. )

           Some simple tests can be made to define systemic and non-systemic problems. Consider this: - There have been a number of systemic changes over the years, but whichever system has been used, there have always been staff who could make the system work reasonably well and those who could not. This has been a reliable constant.

            We can infer from this that the most important factor has been the skills and commitment of the various staff. No system will work without a definable and teachable body of skills. These skills will take time to learn. They will be learned by a combination of theoretical instruction and supervised field practice with only manageable responsibilities. This training programme will take two or three years. It is most important that there is a high quality mentoring during that time.

             It should be noted that this training will not be provided by the various schools of social work. They do not teach the skills of child protection and they do not pretend to do so. This has been noted in both the Gove and Hughes reports.

            The systemic change to be made would be to fund and plan an in-service training programme, which will define and teach the necessary skills. An important component of this would be an ethical training programme and a clearly defined code of ethics. I will return to this topic in a later context.

 Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

IN ALISON'S OWN WORDS / Part 396 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

You met Alison in yesterday's post. She is a mom and a fourth year student in child welfare and intending a career in child protection. In my blog post today I have Alison's permission to quote snatches from a submission she published on November 27th. She stumbled onto my blog while doing course research and she left a comment. You will appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness of this young woman as she entitles her piece The ethics of child protection? and after several paragraphs she wrote the following.

“I have also recently read everything I could find about MCFD since the 2006 Hughes Report, especially what was available about the changes Deputy Minister du Toit intends to make. She is scrapping Risk Assessment in favour of a new model, called "CAPP" which stands for Child and Family Support, Assessment, Planning and Practice, and which is mostly described in aspirational, visionary terms. Specific, measurable outcomes are not published, nor are details pertaining to what staff will actually be doing. Not very transparent, in my opinion, and thus, not very ethical.”

“Two further reports I have recently read are Broken Promises (2008) and  Hands Tied (2009), both researched and published  by Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver. The first talks about how the system has consistently failed children and their families for generations in spite of legislative reform, internal reorganization and changing governments. The second talks about why BC child protection workers are leaving their jobs at an alarming rate: not enough staff, and too much political churn.”

“As well, I have been reading whatever I can find about MCFD in the public domain - media articles, blog posts, and comments on both. One specific blog I have been perusing is GPS, which is 'a personal weblog advocating for the Bayne family reunion and suggesting potential corrections to B.C. child welfare.' The comments on many of these blog posts have led me to conclude that British Columbians despise social workers.”

“I, however, would like to distinguish between social workers and child protection workers. Social Workers in BC are governed by the Social Workers Act, unless they are employed by a government or its agency, a school or a band (um, that's a LOT of exceptions!). Despite Judge Gove's recommendation that child protection social workers actually be social workers (pretty radical, I know!), child protection workers are not required to have a degree in social work, nor are they required to be registered. They can hold a degree in Child and Youth Care (or they can hold a Masters in Clinical Psychology or an M.Ed. in Counselling).”

“Regardless, as Pivot (2008) points out, "apprehensions are generally the result of a parent’s struggle with poverty, addiction, mental health issues or family violence. The government’s lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of [MCFD] to take a preventative approach to child protection issues."

I believe social work education, which is highly anti-oppressive, which requires continual deconstruction of the current and historical political ideologies which inform social policy, which insists that all knowledge is socially constructed to benefit a small minority of citizens, can effectively train workers to treat all clients with dignity and respect. It is a social worker's job to look for the structural, systemic causes of a parent's "bad behaviour" rather than blaming individual pathology. We consider the person in his/her environment. We stand with our clients, in solidarity. Our mandate is social change, social and economic justice for all citizens, not just for the "good" ones.”

“I just have to keep reminding myself of my mandate as a social worker (as described, above), not as a child protection worker (whose mandate is contradictory, to keep children safe from parental maltreatment while maintaining the family home as the ideal place for children). I have to keep reminding myself that I chose this profession out of my stand for social justice for all, especially the most marginalized; that I chose social work out of an ethical responsibility I feel to children. Otherwise, all those commenters who write that child protection workers are evil, could lead me to despair, lead me to think child protection is a pointless career, characterized by burnout, not appreciated by anyone. And we can't have that!”

Thank you Alison for your willingness to share your aspirations, ideals and opinions for the past two days.

MCFD JUST GOT SLAMMED/ Part 383 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Here is today's Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's 60 page report.

 GRAND SLAM, SLAM DUNK, call it what you will, the head honchos of the Ministry of Children and Family Development had it done to them. The Directors, team leaders and social workers in the various regions have earned this failing grade but the top bureaucrats own the responsibility for it. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond delivered it on Monday in Victoria. She is the Representative for Children and Youth. While she has given scathing reports in the past today was the most recent and perhaps the most stinging assessment of the province's child welfare system.

I have written blog posts for the next couple of days but these must be shelved for the moment to focus on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's report. I cannot even wait until tomorrow. You need to engage with this now. If you didn't hear her speak during news hours today, then you will want to read this. If you are one of those who feel she is just a headline grabber, then I disagree with you. I see her as our best ally. She is seeing what we have been seeing and expressing. She has the weight of office to say it in a manner that will be heard. If she gets increasing news coverage we had better be thankful because it means that the public is going to be informed and concerned and demanding of answers. She was hired to be a watchdog and she has been growling in the past and today we heard that she has a big bark as well.

Listen to her as CBC recounts her report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/29/bc-childrens-watchdog-report.html?ref=rss

She says that the Liberal “government has only fully implemented less than half the recommendations in the 2006 landmark report on the child welfare system by retired judge Ted Hughes.” She is “deeply disappointed with the government's progress and is particularly critical of what she sees as a lack of accountability and oversight in the child welfare system.” She said that “the changes made in public reporting have met neither the letter nor intent of the Hughes report and the information posted publicly now is less useful than in the past.” She described the government's action “as vague promises that make high-level references to the Hughes review yet offer no detailed information, and at other times outright government dismissal." She feels that the “Ministry of Children and Family Development has failed to meet the targets in its service plans, and that means troubles ahead. Difficult economics times can mean harsher realities for many of B.C.'s families.... Poverty will deepen for some, unemployment rates will climb, and previously successful families may struggle. Social services may be required more often, and community supports may disappear. Stagnant or decreasing budgets will not be able to address the need of additional children and families," she said.”

American Family Rights is the Voice of America's Families and its slogan is 'Until Every Child Comes Home.' It published this CBC story in a hurry today. Believe me, this is news around the world where similar issues exist. http://afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2010/11/bc-childrens-watchdog-slams-government.html

THE GOVERNMENT HAS WITHDRAWN / Part 195 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I take no pleasure in writing this. I wish it was different. The people of British Columbia are irate, disgusted and distrustful of the Ministry of Children and Family Development but most particularly with the people who manage it, Ministry Polak and her deputy du Toit. They are the government, and people would jettison this government now if there was a chance. I am not making this up. Comments left on my blog are smoldering. Comments on CBC's story are a unanimous inferno. Everyone is tired of this continuous cirque de la critique. We want to be governed by people whom we can respect and from whom we can expect consistent candor and honesty, civility and mercy.

As expected Mary Polak is wearing the bulls-eye and is taking the hits from the public and the press. Cynical and scathing remarks announce her incompetence and call for her dismissal now or her election defeat later. She is being journalistically stripped of her Honorable dignity and she may be undeserving. She is a genuinely good person.

What she may merit is an outstanding performance award to be given at the ACTRA Award ceremony in February 2011. She has been playing her role perfectly and following the script to the letter. She has pretended that she has power and is in control. Her Deputy has that. She has been defending her Deputy Ministry Leslie du Toit with whom Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had the difficulties that hit the news fan this week. The ACTRA may be grand consolation for Polak because it is possible by that time, that Campbell will shuffle Polak out of this position if du Toit pulls another ill advised stunt that Polak must defend. Of course I have seen Mary Polak being interviewed, defending the actions of her Deputy Minister. I have listened to her controlled and calm answers. She has little choice. Du Toit is not accountable to her. Polak inherited du Toit who was one of Campbell's favourites. She was an import brought in to transform an impaired MCFD. She has expertise in child welfare whereas Polak does not. Polak can be told anything. She is a politician in no position to dispute with a seasoned senior level civil servant. If someone should be receiving scrutiny it is du Toit who has exhibited exceptional guardedness, even unwillingness to disclose MCFD information as manifested by the uncooperative posture that took the MCFD to court last week. That court ruling must be an embarassment because the amendment notion was a bonehead move politically. Of course then we heard the immediate post ruling defiance that government/MCFD would still seek the legislative change that could inhibit the Representative of Children and Youth.

Someone used some common sense yesterday. A wise decision on Wednesday. CBC ran the story at 3:15 PM informing the people of B.C. that senior public servant Allan Seckel released a letter saying that the government will withdraw the amendment that would restrict children's rep. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's access to cabinet documents. Interestingly, the letter was addressed to former judge Ted Hughes, who on Monday wrote an open letter to Premier Campbell asking him to do precisely what the Seckel letter expresses. Hughes took his unusual step because of his concern that the necessary watchdog office of children's representative would be compromised or rendered powerless by MCFD's proposed amendment. The representative was one of the many recommendations Hughes made to the Premier in his 2006 review of the MCFD. Campbell agreed in 2006 that this objective and independent set of eyes was crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of the Ministry.

Read more: And read people's comments after the CBC article

MCFD Staff Shortage / Part 188 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.


EPISODE THREE: MCFD STAFF SHORTAGE IMPLICATIONS

Families matter. That's the primary reason I mention child protection staff shortages. Of course the shortages have implications for MCFD administrators and for social workers, and that matters. However, it is how these shortages impact the families already involved with MCFD and others inevitably to be entangled with MCFD that truly matters to me.

There are over 9,000 B.C. children living in the care of the Ministry. More than fifty percent of these are Aboriginal. Consider the potential for hundreds of families to receive inadequate service by an understaffed, under resourced MCFD.

An independent review of the B.C. child protection system was published in 2006 under the title 'The B.C. Children and Youth Review (The Hughes Report). It bears the name of his author, Justice Ted Hughes. Shortage of child protection staff had several implications for Hughes. It is not easy to fill the positions left by departing social workers. Child protection social work is not everyone's dream portfolio. Hughes called it the most difficult government job. In speaking to the skill set required for child protection work, the Hughes report mentioned formal training, toughness, warmth, intelligence, compassion, decisiveness and determination are requisite. That's an interesting but plausible list and it strikes me that if social workers are hired who lack half of those protection skills, the service provided will be inferior.

One of MCFD's responses to the Hughes Report was the addition of 180 positions in child protection and mental health services but that was negated by a provincial budget projection in February 2009 calling for a decrease of 185 jobs. Social workers have their own concerns with staff turnovers but so do the parents whose children are in the MCFD system. Parents have at times had to work with an array of social workers and this discontinuity is not merely frustrating to parents but discouraging because relationships, service, understanding, history and data gathering are interrupted.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org