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.

CHILD WELFARE STUDENT'S VIEW / Part 395 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

On November 22nd, Alison wrote a comment on the blog post #375 entitled, A Social Worker's Challenge. There she introduced herself. Following from that on November 27^th, Ray Ferris responded to Alison.There were a few others who engaged her that day on Blog #380. Since then for the past several days she and others have continued to interact.

Alison

Alison told us that she is a mother and that she is a fourth year student with a child welfare specialization at University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford. She happened upon my blog while researching CAPP and Risk Assessment for her class work. She left her informative comment after browsing and reading blog content for an hour. She has chosen child protection as her career track. She knows this is not easy work but she believes that it is honourable work. Very openly and honestly she spoke of her own ethical concerns about aspects of the work in which she will be engaged. She told us that she has received good counsel from her father who is himself a social worker with MCFD with a twenty year service record. She knows that there is a high attrition rate among social workers. Child protection certainly has a high attrition rate as attested by a social worker who as a guest instructor in one of Alison's recent classes stated that she has chosen to move to another province because of disappointment with Ministry changes over the past few years. When speaking of the challenges of the work in which she will be employed, Alison wrote, “There are no black and white cases, they are all painted in shades of gray. However, I chose this work because I believe that someone has to stand for children. I think that, sometimes, standing for children means standing for their parents, supporting their parents, developing their parents. (After all, what is the full name of MCFD? The Ministry for children and family DEVELOPMENT.)”

She thanked me for acknowledging the complexities of the process for keeping children safe in that day's blog entitled 'A Social Worker's Challenge' and then she said, “I will endeavour to live up to the challenge you describe in this post, to be willing to admit when I have made the wrong decision. I think I'm not the only social worker out there willing to take up this challenge...”

I believed hers was a significant comment and because I wanted people with a jaded impression of all social workers to be encouraged, I invited Alison to write to me personally and she did that. I asked for and received her permission to write this information as a blog post. In that exchange she wrote, “It is difficult to not be discouraged after reading some of the comments placed on your blog, it seems that many people lump social workers and child protection workers and politicians and MCFD into one category. I personally see many competent child protection workers, some of whom are trained as social workers, some of whom are not, and I see a few poor practitioners. I also see that many good workers are constrained by the ministry, by their managers (who are no longer protected by a union, and can be fired for not following the 'party line'), and forced to do things they don't want to do.”

Tomorrow I will publish another post that features Alison's thoughts. She represents people who are our best hope for family development within MCFD and responsible child welfare.

She writes a blog called random musings...

CAPP - A NEW MINISTRY PLAN / Part 162 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Child and Family Support, Assessment, Planning and Practice (CAPP)
Initial Implementation Plan

You should know more about this new plan from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In January 2010 the ministry introduced CAPP as a key part of Practice Change. The Ministry says that “CAPP includes a new comprehensive, strengths-based, developmental approach to assessment, planning and practice.”

The vision for this fresh initiative is a valid and uncomplicated one, “BC children and youth are strong, safe and supported to reach their full potential.”

Those of you who are critics of MCFD will immediately be saying, “Well, then leave the children with their parents when those parents have proven themselves responsible, or at least provide the help that they require to parent effectively."

But I suggest that you acquaint yourself with this plan and see what you think.
You can read about the plan yourself with this MCFD document.

The stated intention of this initiative from the home office of the MCFD in Victoria is to provide an improved approach to practice. MCFD asserts that this is a top ministry priority. This is an action plan with a motto, “Strong, Safe and Supported – A Commitment to BC’s Children and Youth.”

If the stated principles for CAPP are realized I wonder whether you might conclude that these are precisely the changes that could transform this Ministry. Here are the principles.

PRACTICE PRINCIPLES

• We will apply the following practice principles to all of our work with children, youth, families and communities:
• All aspects of practice seek to identify and build on the individual and collective strengths of children, youth, families and communities.
• The rights of children and youth, as identified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in the United Nations paper on the Rights of Indigenous Children are recognized.
• Children, youth and families will receive services that are holistic and directly address their assessed, individualized needs and will be active participants in design, implementation and review of services.
• All practice for the child or youth is provided within the context of the family and community.
• Practice at all levels of the child and family development service system will be transparent and accountable.

My sense after reading this document is that there is a great deal of hopeful promise for conceptual change and I want to examine this further with you in the next day or so to see how it might filter, affect and transform the regional level of practice.

Also see the MCFD website blurb about this initiative as part of its transformation.