Perspectives in Child ProtectionSt. John’s, NF - May 12, 2000
Learning from the voice and wisdom of families: New partnerships in
Child Protection Services
Impetus for the study
• To pilot learning from clients to improve service effectiveness and efficiency
• To obtain meaningful input from clients
Elements of the study process
• Underlying principle: We need to understand how people experience their own lives
• Oriented to articulating family-defined outcomes
• Collection, analysis and interpretation of stories of lived experience
Elements of the study process
• Inclusive and participatory
• Opportunities for reflection
– Closing the loop through staff-client dialogue
Benefits of the study process
• Makes visible the strengths of families
• Makes visible family-defined outcomes
• Makes visible features of practice that help to achieve family-defined outcomes
• Makes possible the co-creation of more effective interventions
Learning: Strengths of families
• Wanting what is best for their children
• Knowing what is best for their children
• Knowing what is normal
• Understanding the impact of negative experiences
• Worrying about their children
Learning: Strengths of families
• Seeking ways to overcome the problems
• Struggling with the right way to relate to their children– Seeing today in the context of a life– Creating a different “family” for themselves
• Demonstrating commitment to their families
Learning: Family defined outcomes
• Safety, security, stability and consistency
• A sense of control
• A sense of optimism about the future
• Social support and a sense of belonging
• Shared responsibility with the community
Learning: Relevant Practice
Principles Characteristicsof Practice
Qualities ofStaff
Skills
Familyfocused andchildcentered
Immediacy Holistic Integrated Seamless A good fit Consistency
of worker Early
intervention Community
based Community
focused
Creation of ahelpingclimate
Responsiveand flexible
Relevantsupport to allfamilymembers
Relationship-based
Strength-focused
Familyconnectionssustained forthe long-term
Sharedresponsibility
Honest Compassio
nate Self-aware Non-
judgmental Knowledge
-able Resourceful Willing to
take risks
Listeningand hearing
Seeing andobserving
Carefuldiscernment
Excellentjudgement
Ability tosupport
Reframing policy and practice
• Family preservation does not necessarily mean under one roof
• Family-defined outcomes as an anchor for child welfare work
• Pro-active, early & long term vs crisis-driven
• After-hour crisis can be an opportunity for timely intervention
Study follow-up with staff
Impact of learning on practice, administration and policy
Study Process
• Respectful of clients and staff
• Safe atmosphere for dialogue that served to inform and change practice
• Changed staff perspectives on clients
• Engaged staff in reflective process
• Engaged supervisors and administrators and created change at that level
Major Learnings
• Clients long to have their entire story heard
• Fundamental significance of client dignity
• Revised perspective of client– Clients’ perceived in more humane fashion– Clients seen as more articulate in the dialogue
• Greater understanding of how clients experience a very powerful CPS system
Learnings that lasted
• Importance of relationship
• Importance of being there for clients
• Importance of creative solutions rather than predetermined service offerings
• Importance of being available for long term support
• Importance of client definition of problem and perspective on solution
Learnings that were forgotten
• Importance of community for clients, especially those going through major life transitions
• Importance of informal support networks
• Request for advocacy resources
• Public education regarding problems of CW
• Client participation in these activities
Learnings for BSW graduates
• Confirmed what had learned in Social Work
• Clients described what they wanted superiors to know
• Process helped to inform managerial domain
• Increased confidence in creative responses
• Recognized limitations of current services
Learnings for BSW Graduates (2)
• See brokerage model as limiting
• Question current array of services
• Increased respect for clients
• Opportunity to reflect upon practice led to greater integration of theory and practice
• Increased sensitivity to client self-determination to extent possible
Learnings of non-BSW graduates
• Emphasis on protection of child limited responsiveness to parent needs
• Heavy caseloads and paperwork make client requests unrealistic
• Feel doing as much as “humanly possible”
• Sense of futility in changing system constraints
• Two-way dialogue needed so worker limitations can be expressed as well
Learnings of non-BSW’s (2)
• Understand clients need for empathy and understanding
• Impressed with importance of developing a “softer’ approach
• Concern about being overly “enabling”
• Lack of confidence in community to deliver
• Doing our best but efforts not appreciated
Practice Tensions
• Task versus process orientation
• Structured versus flexible service responses
• Organisational constraints versus family expectations
• Social control versus family support
• Brokerage function versus “therapeutic” intervention
Practice Tensions (2)
• Organisational reporting expectations versus client requests for availability
• Policies that focus on efficiency may hamper effectiveness of interventions– eg Broker model that keeps worker at a
distance from clients who depend on helping relationship to deal with their problems
Educational and training implications
• Social work principles and values reinforced by clients
• Provision of opportunity to reflect upon practice in a safe environment leads to improved practice
• Experience led social workers to seek a greater integration of theory and practice
Administrative and policy implications
• Front line staff limited use of findings to practice improvement at the local level
• Staff and clients pleased with administrative response to client perspectives
• No efforts made to inform the policy domain with this information in spite of potential for significant influence