We have a system in place in this country which is designed ostensibly to "safeguard and promote the welfare of the child/children" The Children Act 1989 places a duty and requirement on "social workers" and all those working in local authority children and families departments to keep and bear in mind that "the welfare of the child is paramount" Most people think this is the right thing to do and is a noble idea. After all people don't like to think of children being harmed and agree, children should be protected from harm or the risk of harm.
This system is financed through taxation leading to the employment of people as "social workers" with the expectation they are and will work towards keeping children safe, as well as safeguarding, promoting and protecting their welfare. In my personal and professional experience and opinion the reality is very different. It is not to suggest all "social workers" and all the other people working in the system are guilty of harming children either directly or indirectly however the very system is itself harmful and abusive.
For a start the talk is of "cases" when the reality is of working with and talking about our fellow human beings. Positioning them as "cases" dehumanizes them surely and presents an illusion the work is "easy"
If you said to people you have ten, twenty, or thirty plus "cases" they may believe, as has often been expressed, "that's not too bad" and "that sounds really easy" This is a myth and it's one perpetrated within the system of social work itself. If you look at it as being one case equals one child, then you are talking about ten children if you have ten cases, twenty if you have twenty cases and so on. However if you consider a number of cases may have more than one child, then effectively you are able to double the number of children, you as a "social worker" are responsible for within the role of being a "corporate parent" and in "loco parentis"
What's disturbing about this is, if a family or parent had ten children then most local authorities would be wanting to conduct assessments to ascertain whether those children's needs were being fully met by their family or parent. When "social workers" have ten children this doesn't however seem to be a concern /problem for local authorities which is a striking absurdity. Where do the assumptions and expectations arise from that "social workers" are better able to parent ten children over and above anyone else - is it because of the title/words "social worker" and the understanding/perception this a professional occupation. This only contributes to and minimizes the very real demands of parenting whether as a professional or not.
For the record and based on experience most "social workers" have an allocated case load, as called, of more than ten cases. It is unusual in fact to find a "social worker" working within a local authority, children and families department to have such a "small" number of cases. A part of the myth is the idea that the "better" "social worker" is one who holds a lot of cases, when the concern really should be about the quality of the work being performed by "social workers" on those cases.
If you had the ability to be a fly on the wall of the offices of most local authority, children and families departments, the discussions amongst social workers regarding the number of cases they were holding, would be far from positive. The myth and culture is such that having too few cases is seen as somehow being incompetent and a failure within the system of "social work" On a number of occasion this issue was raised with colleagues and was met with either agreement or a blank stare. One manager stated emphatically "you will never find a position in social work" where you have, as suggested, "as few as five cases"
This is only understandable in the context of there being more cases than there are "social workers" No-one appears able or willing to make the connection however between the number of cases held by local authorities and the shortage of "social workers" in local authority, children and families departments. Other factors do come into play besides the number of cases but this is a big issue which is rarely discussed as the expectation is to "just get on with it" irrespective of any cost. In line with procedures each case has to have an allocated "social worker" thereby setting in motion a vicious cycle of tail chasing otherwise known as corporate parenting.
One of the greatest ironies in "social work" has to be that it is the government/state which determines whether your parenting is up to scratch and if found to be lacking it can and does take children into its care based on this assessed lack of a good enough standard of parenting and the likelihood of harm occurring, whether that be mentally, physically, sexually and emotionally either alone or in tandem. It then finds itself often in a situation where it performs no better than the parent or family from which the child/children have been removed with this beginning oftentimes with the sheer number of cases allocated to individual "social workers" and the recognized, high turn over of staff in local authority, children and families departments. The state/government compounding in some instances the very problems it has created itself through shortsighted policies and ideologies.
For a glimpse into this societies attitudes towards its children the following reports provide a much needed reality check. The first report details the number of children currently living in poverty in the UK Plc http://endchildpoverty.org.uk/files/childpovertymap2011.pdf Obviously the government knows about these children having been a part of this report and you would think given their professed concern about children, they would take concrete action to alleviate poverty thereby improving children's lives. Unfortunately their priority is to bail out the deeply corrupt financial system rather than the nations children and families.
The second report is about the number of children who go missing from the care system each year. In the foreword of this report it makes the point "Children are taken into care from their parents because we do not think they are safe or cared for well enough at home. But the evidence clearly shows that we fail to keep the most vulnerable children safe whilst they are in our care. In fact, children who go missing from care are being systematically failed – and placed in great danger – by the very systems and professionals who are there to protect them. This is unforgivable" http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/u32/joint_appg_inquiry_-_report...pdf
The conclusion drawn is governments themselves present the greatest risk of harm not only towards children but to the population at large from which its very existence is financed.
No comments:
Post a Comment