The Children Act -
Partnership With Families
Jo Tunnard, Director, Family Rights Group The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London, E8 3DL
INTRODUCTION delighted have been invited to join you today at this important conference on the Children Act. I am delighted, too, that you have chosen to make the theme of partnership an important element of the day. In doing so, you have put centre stage, so to speak, the greatest challenge that the new legislation throws out to children and their families. I have divided my time into 4 sections: First, a brief introduction to Family Rights Group. Second, a few thoughts, about the principles of partnership which are at the heart of the new Act. Third, some comments about why partnership is to be welcomed. Fourth, a taster for how the Act encourages us to work in partnership with children and families. I
am
to
FAMILY RIGHTS GROUP For those of you not familiar with our work, I should explain that: ~ we run a national advice service about care and child protection matters, for family members and professionals ~ we organise general and in-service training courses on child care law and good practice ~ and we respond to central and local government initiatives on child care and family services. Our overall aim is to promote a family and child care service that builds on the strengths within families, and that seeks to make available to all families the respect and resources that make possible the difficult task of rearing children. We are a national charity and we operate from premises in east London. We are a staff of 8. Besides myself there is a social
worker, a solicitor, a training manager, a publications worker, 2 administrative workers and
finance worker. We have just completed a 3 year project a
on
family
participation in child protection procedures, and we have had continuous involvement in the development of the Children Act since 1984. Last year we had 2 extra staff, to enable us to write a training pack, commissioned by the Department of Health (DOH), on the partnership aspects of the Act. a
PRINCIPLES OF PARTNERSHIP What have others said about partnership in the child care field? I offer 5 comments for you to consider alongside your own
thoughts. First - that of Bill Utting, former chief of the Social Services Inspectorate. In identifying good practice, he highlighted 6
principles which should underpin the management and delivery of social services (Insight, 1988). They are these: i) The client should always come first. That’s so obvious, isn’t it? But don’t we all have experience of when the agency, or the worker, or some other need, has come first instead? ii) Services should be tailored
to individual needs. That what want and trying to provide seeing people not checking what we have and then squeezing people to make them fit in. It will require a wide range of facilities and that in itself will require a shift from the trend in recent years to reduce rather than increase options for care. iii) All services must cater to the differing needs of minority ethnic groups. This is really part of (ii) but it is essential to highlight it separately because it is something we keep losing sight of unless we give it prominence. iv) Service provision should be seen as apositive partnership means
.
it
between consumers, informal carers, independent organisations, and statutory agencies. Important, because in the past agencies have tended to work on the premise that if the professionals work well together, all will be well. We have to acknowledge the place of other people
partners, too. v) Standards depend on the quality and morale of staff, andas
vi)
Good practice must beunder-pinned by good management. ’
These last 2 are linked, of course. Workers cannot grow in a climate where management is poor or non-existent. If you want good practice you have got to have, or give, a clear and positive lead. For the Children Act, that requires working in partnership with colleagues for implementation. You have to help one another, and other staff, to own the change. Unlimited communication is the name of the game. Telling people the what and the why. Making staff feel secure by being up-front about the rules for future jobs. Using your staff news sheets. Reporting on what you are doing. Getting their views. For if people know, they can use their power and get involved. If they are powerless they will become obstructive. So, the message within agencies is to use skills and knowledge to help plan the massive changes needed. Second - some thoughts about who we need to have at the front of our minds when using the new legislation. Who will be our clients? That takes me to the next quote. ,
240
Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
’A distinction is often drawn between the interests of children and the interests of their parents. In the great majority of families, including those who are for one reason or another in need ofsocial services, this distinction does not exist. The interests of the children are best served by their remaining with their families and the interests of their parents are best served by allowing them to undertake their natural and legal responsibility to care for their own children. Hence the focus of effort should be to enable and assist parents to discharge those responsibilities. Even where a child has to spend some time away from home, every effort should be made to maintain and foster links between the child and (his) family, to care for the child in partnership with rather than in opposition to (his) parents, and to work towards (his) return home.’ Who said that? Our sentiments, but not our words. They come from the government’s consultative document (DHSS, 1985a) which preceded the White Paper (DHSS, 1987) and the Act itself. Third - the view of an experienced researcher in child care work, Jane Rowe. She put it shorter, in the way that she does so well. She said this: ’It’s because children are children that we have to do lots for them through others, through parents, relatives, and This Act can push us in that way, and can in it ... It’s a great challenge ahead. Don’t support be too daunted. It may become easier to get something done that you have been wanting to do for a long time. Parts of the Act may provide you with the pegs to hang those things on’ (BAAF, 1989). Fourth - a quote from the government’s new guide to the Act:
and workers but they concluded that ’the gap between aims and achievements in the child care service is still distressingly wide’
(DHSS, 1985b). Those researchers said nothing about the specific experiences of black children and their families, and it’s not easy to get upto-date figures. But we know enough to be worried about the additional problems caused for black families. Central to the healthy development of black children is their growing up with a strong sense of identity, and a pride in their racial and cultural background. Yet the stresses which most affect family life and the care of young children are suffered disproportionately by black families. That results in a greater risk of black children being on child protection registers or becoming separated from their families and growing up in accommodation or care. A service that is often insensitive to diverse ethnic backgrounds and cultural needs, and the vicious circle that can arise between homelessness and joblessness after leaving care, must inevitably increase the risk of deep-rooted alienation in an already-hostile society. You are best placed to know where things are at in your establishment, and your department. You will know about the procedures and the practice that you are proud of, and want to retain. You will be aware of the things you want to modify,
improve or change.
professionals. us
’Partnership, participation, choice, openness, parental responsibilities, and every child’s need for both security and family links are some of the major themes which are common to the principles (underpining the Act) and to the legislation’ (DOH, 1989). a quote from a consumer, a parent at a recent conference of ours: ’It all sound very nice - but will things be different?’ That, I am sure, is one of the questions for you to be tussling with today. And, in order to work out what might be different, you need to be clear about what things looked like before the
And last -
Act was implemented. Research studies into the circumstances of children in care and their families painted a sober picture. They confirmed that decisions were made rapidly and admissions not planned; that compulsory powers were used increasingly but were often counterproductive; that children in care were likely to experience many changes in placement; that parents felt pushed aside and disillusioned; that social workers lacked time and skills for direct work with children and families; and that the potential contribution of parents and other relatives to the care and wellbeing of their children was devalued. The researchers didn’t doubt the good intentions ofmanagers
WHY PARTNERSHIP IS TO BE WELCOMED Why should we welcome the fact that partnership
with children and their families is now a part of the law as well as good
practice?
Compulsory Measures First - because it should
help reverse the worrying trend of ever-increasing use of compulsory
years towards an All the admissions to care in the last 3 years of published figures have been in compulsory admissions. So, for instance, between 1985 and 1987 there was a 52% increase in the use of place of safety orders (DOH, 1987). This, in spite of the research knowledge ofJean Packman (Packman etal,1986) and the Dartington Social Research Unit (Millham et al, 1986) in particular, that compulsory measures do not necessarily lead to better planning but do result in longer time spent in accommodation or care, fewer links with family and friends, and a greater sense of exclusion from decision making felt by parents. recent
measures.
Contact Arrangements Second - because it should give a stronger lead to departments to set up , and sustain, better contact arrangements for separated children. The need for improvement in this area of practice is well documented. The Dartington study found that withering links with home affect many children in care: from the outset, nearly
three-quarters of children experience one of two sorts of barriers to maintaining contact. First, specific restrictions placed by social workers on the access of individuals. And second, and 241
Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
twice as common, non-specific restrictions, difficulties inherent in placements, such as hostility, distance and inaccessibility. Despite the changes in access legislation introduced in 1984, Dartington (Millham etal, 1989) discovered recently no radical change in visiting patterns since their earlier study. 44% of the 342 children in their follow-up study had infrequent or no parental visits. But in only 70 of those cases had access been terminated legally, or by parental death or desertion. The researchers concluded that links withered in twice as many cases as social workers planned them to. In view of all this, and particularly in view of the fact that continuing links were found to be beneficial for children and, indeed, essential if children were to return home, the emphasis in the new legislation is most welcome. The emphasis is that there will be a presumption of access; that access questions should be settled by negotiation; and, when agreement is impossible, that there should be a strengthening of the legal position of those children, parents and other relatives who disagree with the local authority’s restrictions.
Restoration Work We should welcome partnership because it will help managers and practitioners to upgrade restoration work.
90% of children admitted to accommodation or care eventually return to their families or neighbourhoods, from accommodation or care or afterwards. Jane Rowe’s recent study of placement
outcomes
(Rowe et al, 1989) showed that the
majority of very young children who enter accommodation or care do not stay long, so long-term substitute parenting is not the central issue. And we know that the older children and adolescents who form the bulk of children in accommodation or care come with well-forged family and friendship links which they usually wish to maintain, and should do so, given their eventual return to them. Research has found good practice in restoration work to be lamentably lacking. If we are really committed to permanency as the right option for children then we have often failed because we have done so little to promote really good restoration work. If this sounds hard, then consider the specialist teams for new placement work, the special budgets, the adoption allowances, the limited caseloads of new-families workers, and reflect for a moment on whether anything approaching similar provision is made for placements home, here or in other places you have worked recently. The return home for children is fraught with difficulties, the incidence of breakdown higher than in other sorts of placement. The most recent, and comprehensive, research on ’home on trial’ placements was carried out by Elaine Farmer and Roy Parker ( 1991 ). They studied 321 placements of children in the care of 4 local authorities. They found that success was influenced more by early and thorough planning than by reason for entry to care. Jackie Trent has written up the restoration work she has done as part of Barnardos’ new family work. They found (Trent,
1989) that some children were served best by being restored their natural families, even though they received referrals only when the local authority believed that this was out of to
the
question. She used the same methods and skills in making those placements as in placing children in new families. The success rate, 80% , was the same for both types of placement. That is in marked contrast to research findings from local authorities not providing the same quality of preparation and support. For instance, Farmer and Parker’s work found a breakdown rate of almost 50% . It would seem that equal resources
equals equal success.
Will departments now use the chance presented to them under the Children Act to increase the commitment and effort going into this aspect of providing children with ’forever’ families?
Better
Planning
spirit of partnership that underpins the legislation will, if implemented, lead to better planning for children because plans will be made jointly with others, and those others will be better placed to work in partnership with The
professionals. Using written
agreements in work with parents, older children and carers is one of the best ways to promote the philosophy and practice of partnership which is at the heart of the Act. From our experience of helping families it is clear that
they want written agreements. They welcome them because they offer the potential for shared work; shared responsibility; common goals; clear expectations of everyone involved; the guarantee of periodic review and reappraisal; and some prospect of an end to the work to be done. Note that the potential for equality is not included here, because that is not really apriority for families. They know that in statutory child care work professionals will always be more powerful, with more cards in their hands than they have. With the help of the National Foster Care Association, Peter Marsh in Sheffield, and DOH officials, we have now produced 3 model agreement forms (Family Rights Group, 1991) which conform with the requirements under the Arrangements for Placement ofChildren (General) Regulations, the FosterPlacement (Children) Regulations, and the Placement of Children with Parents etc Regulations introduced in 1991. The third form is for a child protection agreement for children living at home. All are relevant under the new Act because written agreements have become a requirement in a wider range of work than before. The tone of the forms is that of a genuine partnership and
of negotiation between the parties. They do not allow for the local authority to work out its stipulations and set them down as a contract or agreement to be signed. Nor do they allow the local authority to set up a one-sided agreement where the family have all the tasks and the local authority none, or where the family and child are, in effect, set up to fail.
242 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
~M’ff..4:%@ .
Wider Family
Partnership is not simply an issue about children and parents, though it is sometimes treated as if it were. Without special attention to relationships with members of their wider family, children can find themselves bereft ofcontinuing contact or the opportunity to be cared for by relatives if parents cannot, will not, or are not allowed to care for them. We are concerned about the growing number ofgrandparents in particular who seek our advice. They have not been sought out by social services to see if they could help their young relative in accommodation or care; or their offer to look after the child has been rejected; or they have been refused access; or told that the children are to be adopted and access then denied. The lack of legal remedy before the Act was introduced, and their frustration and unhappiness, made it difficult for them to negotiate for what they thought would be best for the children they love. Why do so many relatives find their offers meet with no real j interest? The department’s reluctance may stem from its anxiety to retain power, something they can do less easily if the child goes to a relative. But there is no evidence to show that having total control necessarily serves the child better. There is evidence to show that children placed with relatives score best on tests of adjustment (Rowe et al, 1984), and that their potential to be a resource for children should be explored and indeed exploited more.
PEGS FOR PLANNING FOR PARTNERSHIP In this final section I want to highlight some parts of the Act that present managers, practitioners and trainers with pegs on
hang the development of a service that’s based on partnership with consumers - children, parents, other relatives and others in the community. which
what research will you do in the future, to ensure that services don’t remain static while needs change? Schedule 2 (8) lists the sort of services that are to be provided for children living with their families. I mention it because it’s one of only two places where issues of culture are raised in relation to children living at home. The other is at Schedule 2 ( 11 ) which provides for having regard to racial groups in your area when providing day care and foster care. A very important requirement, but one that took a great deal of debate to get inserted into an Act that is terribly weak on issues of race and culture. ~ how well do you do at present to recruit black carers? ~ how many carers from each racial group do you need to attract to help you provide well for all children? ~ will any changes be needed to your recruitment and .
training procedures? These issues are just as important for areas that have a very small minority ethnic population as it is for areas where racial diversity is more apparent.
Information Schedule 2 ( 1 )(2) places a duty on local authorities to publish information about services, and to get that information to people who might benefit from it. What an opportunity! Imagine being able to go to the local supermarket, launderette, place of worship, school, health centre and finding a booklet about what’s on offer. If people know what the options are they are much better placed to have an informed discussion with workers. For information is power.
So, .
to
.
.
Identifying Need Under Schedule 2 ( 1 ) needs have to be identified. Not the needs that the local authority thinks are appropriate, but those which are appropriate. An important distinction that provides a more objective test of need. This is not about professionals sitting down to hammer out what’s to be done. It’s about getting out there and asking people what their needs are. It means talking to children, to theirparents, to their relatives, to the community.
. .
how have you planned to inform people about the new legislation and the new services provided? have you produced guides for children and young people, for parents and relatives, for foster carers? are they relevant to all sections of your multi-cultural and multi-lingual community, and freely available in languages other than English? how have you organised distribution? will your written information be supplemented? What direct teaching will you offer to families with children in the community and in care now the Act has been introduced? For families are as hungry for information as are
professionals.
The outcome will be influenced by your views, too, but it won’t
rely solely on your perspective. We can’t plan for re-organising services, with the emphasis on shared planning with people, without formally involving them in planning the service itself. It’s a nonsense to believe that you can create something that’s user friendly without involving users in how it will look. So, . how have you asked the community to identify its needs? . how have you asked user groups? . how did you seek the views of those in serious disagreement with your decisions? For their views too are
important.
Consultation In Section 1
(3) you find your
overr
iding responsibility
to
of children. Section 20 (6) views into account before providing for children’s provides taking accommodation. Section 22 (4) requires you to consult with children, with parents, and with others with parental responsibility, before making any decision about a child you are looking after or are proposing to look after. Section 22 (5) requires you to give due regard to a child’s religion, race, culture and background. We should welcome such provisions because our assumptions ascertain the wishes and
feelings
243 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
and ignorance are less likely to go unchecked if we are dutybound to engage with the recipients of services, and take note of their way of doing things. It will be right to have to take account of the fact that the notion of adults visiting absent children is almost unacceptable in some cultures; that some families find it very hard to maintain links when children’s religious faith is not being adhered to; that problems over access are bound to arise for some Asian children because the stigma that attaches to the removal of a daughter from the family home can be overcome only by the family acting as if their child is dead. It will be right, too, to enable and encourage people to enlist the help of friends or advocates so that you can be sure that they fully understand what is on offer; so that they have the opportunity, in the privacy of their own home and with someone who is independent of the statutory agency, to discuss plans and options for their children; and so they can put forward their views about what will be best for their children and themselves. And then there’s the confirmation about children’s rights to refuse an examination or assessment. It arises three times in the Act, in relation to: ~ interim care orders Section 38 (6) ~ child assessment orders Section 43 (8) ~ emergency protection orders Section 44 (7). Those sections provide that ’if the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment’. How must you proceed? You will need to consider each child separately, for age is not referred to and so no blanket agerelated policy will suffice; explain what you propose to do and why; make sure that they understand the range of possible options and consequences; examine those options with children, not for them; find out what they think. ·
the scene for planning for partnership, think about Finally, some of the implications of combining services for 3 groups of children who, until October 1991 ,were treated somewhatdi&rently; ~ for children with disabilities, services were free and not subject to statutory review. ~ in divorce and separation cases, children were not parties. The case was largely one of negotiation between parents, with the probation service acting as mediator. ~ in care cases, children were parties, there were charges for services provided, and reviews were required. All needs to be looked at afresh. Consider, in particular, this scenario that applied before the Act was introduced. A parent, or parents, have a child with a disability and the local authority operates a respite care scheme. The parent rings up to use it because they are going on holiday for a week in 3 months’ time or going to a family function for the day next week. Fine, they are told, your respite carer is free for both those periods, ring them up and make the usual arrangements. Now consider ’
4
Dftfft.ft&dquo;&dquo;ft~ References
BAAF (1989). Closing comments at AGM DHSS (1985a). Review of child care law - report to ministers of an interdepartmental working party. HMSO, London DHSS (1985b). Research findings and their implications. HMSO, London DHSS and other departments (1987). The law on child care and services. HMSO, London DOH (1987). Children in care of local authorities at 31 March 1987,
family
CONCLUSION to set
another parent. She has 2 toddlers and lives in a high-rise block of flats. She rings up social services. She’s at the end of her tether and she wants a break from the kids for a few days. What’s the reaction? That question goes to the heart of the attitudinal change that managers have to come to grips with. Peter Marsh, in his work with local authorities on planning in partnership, has pinpointed one of the difficulties here: it’s harder to achieve changes in skills work if people think they are already doing that job well. The major challenge ahead of us all is how to ensure that workers do not disenfranchise families because, deep down, we don’t think they deserve to be treated as partners, as having expertise about themselves and their children which is every bit as important as the other sorts of expertise that professionals bring with them. There’s nothing new in this. It’s all there in the DOH research studies referred to earlier. And, as Jane Rowe said at their launch in 1985: ’We can do much to improve services to children by changing our attitudes to their parents. Parents can be partners. Children are not helped by disregarding their parents and wider families. This is not in contradiction with our duty to the child. The family’s potential as a resource has only just begun to be realised’. Putting into practice the Act’s principles of partnership is a daunting, but exciting, challenge to managers and practitioners in all agencies. I want to finish: ~ by urging you to approach the task positively, and ~ by encouraging you to seize the Act as a new oppominity to promote even better services for children and their families.
England. Prepared by the Government Statistical Service DOH (1989). The care of children - Principles and practice in regulations and guidance. HMSO, London FAMILY RIGHTS GROUP (1991). Written agreement forms for work with children relatives and carers, available from FRG, The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London E8 3DL, also available is the companion book Using Written Agreements with Children and Families FARMER E and PARKER R (1991). Trials and tribulations: a study of children home on trial in 4 local authorities. HMSO INSIGHT (8 November 1988). A report of papers annual seminar of the Social Care Association MILLHAM S, BULLOCK R, HOSIE K, and HAAK M (1986). Lost in care. Gower, Aldershot MILLHAM S, BULLOCK R, HOSIE K, and LITTLE M (1989). Access disputes in child care. Gower, Aldershot PACKMAN J, RANDALL J and JACQUES N (1986). Who needs care? Social work decisions about children. Blackwell, Oxford ROWE J, CAIN H, HUNDLEBY M and KEANE A(1984). Long- term foster
Batsford, London HUNDLEBY M and GARNETT L (1989). Child -a survey of placement patterns. BAAF TRENT J (1989). Homeward bound. Barnardo’s care.
ROWE J,
244 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
care now
Partnership With Families
Jo Tunnard, Director, Family Rights Group The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London, E8 3DL
INTRODUCTION delighted have been invited to join you today at this important conference on the Children Act. I am delighted, too, that you have chosen to make the theme of partnership an important element of the day. In doing so, you have put centre stage, so to speak, the greatest challenge that the new legislation throws out to children and their families. I have divided my time into 4 sections: First, a brief introduction to Family Rights Group. Second, a few thoughts, about the principles of partnership which are at the heart of the new Act. Third, some comments about why partnership is to be welcomed. Fourth, a taster for how the Act encourages us to work in partnership with children and families. I
am
to
FAMILY RIGHTS GROUP For those of you not familiar with our work, I should explain that: ~ we run a national advice service about care and child protection matters, for family members and professionals ~ we organise general and in-service training courses on child care law and good practice ~ and we respond to central and local government initiatives on child care and family services. Our overall aim is to promote a family and child care service that builds on the strengths within families, and that seeks to make available to all families the respect and resources that make possible the difficult task of rearing children. We are a national charity and we operate from premises in east London. We are a staff of 8. Besides myself there is a social
worker, a solicitor, a training manager, a publications worker, 2 administrative workers and
finance worker. We have just completed a 3 year project a
on
family
participation in child protection procedures, and we have had continuous involvement in the development of the Children Act since 1984. Last year we had 2 extra staff, to enable us to write a training pack, commissioned by the Department of Health (DOH), on the partnership aspects of the Act. a
PRINCIPLES OF PARTNERSHIP What have others said about partnership in the child care field? I offer 5 comments for you to consider alongside your own
thoughts. First - that of Bill Utting, former chief of the Social Services Inspectorate. In identifying good practice, he highlighted 6
principles which should underpin the management and delivery of social services (Insight, 1988). They are these: i) The client should always come first. That’s so obvious, isn’t it? But don’t we all have experience of when the agency, or the worker, or some other need, has come first instead? ii) Services should be tailored
to individual needs. That what want and trying to provide seeing people not checking what we have and then squeezing people to make them fit in. It will require a wide range of facilities and that in itself will require a shift from the trend in recent years to reduce rather than increase options for care. iii) All services must cater to the differing needs of minority ethnic groups. This is really part of (ii) but it is essential to highlight it separately because it is something we keep losing sight of unless we give it prominence. iv) Service provision should be seen as apositive partnership means
.
it
between consumers, informal carers, independent organisations, and statutory agencies. Important, because in the past agencies have tended to work on the premise that if the professionals work well together, all will be well. We have to acknowledge the place of other people
partners, too. v) Standards depend on the quality and morale of staff, andas
vi)
Good practice must beunder-pinned by good management. ’
These last 2 are linked, of course. Workers cannot grow in a climate where management is poor or non-existent. If you want good practice you have got to have, or give, a clear and positive lead. For the Children Act, that requires working in partnership with colleagues for implementation. You have to help one another, and other staff, to own the change. Unlimited communication is the name of the game. Telling people the what and the why. Making staff feel secure by being up-front about the rules for future jobs. Using your staff news sheets. Reporting on what you are doing. Getting their views. For if people know, they can use their power and get involved. If they are powerless they will become obstructive. So, the message within agencies is to use skills and knowledge to help plan the massive changes needed. Second - some thoughts about who we need to have at the front of our minds when using the new legislation. Who will be our clients? That takes me to the next quote. ,
240
Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
’A distinction is often drawn between the interests of children and the interests of their parents. In the great majority of families, including those who are for one reason or another in need ofsocial services, this distinction does not exist. The interests of the children are best served by their remaining with their families and the interests of their parents are best served by allowing them to undertake their natural and legal responsibility to care for their own children. Hence the focus of effort should be to enable and assist parents to discharge those responsibilities. Even where a child has to spend some time away from home, every effort should be made to maintain and foster links between the child and (his) family, to care for the child in partnership with rather than in opposition to (his) parents, and to work towards (his) return home.’ Who said that? Our sentiments, but not our words. They come from the government’s consultative document (DHSS, 1985a) which preceded the White Paper (DHSS, 1987) and the Act itself. Third - the view of an experienced researcher in child care work, Jane Rowe. She put it shorter, in the way that she does so well. She said this: ’It’s because children are children that we have to do lots for them through others, through parents, relatives, and This Act can push us in that way, and can in it ... It’s a great challenge ahead. Don’t support be too daunted. It may become easier to get something done that you have been wanting to do for a long time. Parts of the Act may provide you with the pegs to hang those things on’ (BAAF, 1989). Fourth - a quote from the government’s new guide to the Act:
and workers but they concluded that ’the gap between aims and achievements in the child care service is still distressingly wide’
(DHSS, 1985b). Those researchers said nothing about the specific experiences of black children and their families, and it’s not easy to get upto-date figures. But we know enough to be worried about the additional problems caused for black families. Central to the healthy development of black children is their growing up with a strong sense of identity, and a pride in their racial and cultural background. Yet the stresses which most affect family life and the care of young children are suffered disproportionately by black families. That results in a greater risk of black children being on child protection registers or becoming separated from their families and growing up in accommodation or care. A service that is often insensitive to diverse ethnic backgrounds and cultural needs, and the vicious circle that can arise between homelessness and joblessness after leaving care, must inevitably increase the risk of deep-rooted alienation in an already-hostile society. You are best placed to know where things are at in your establishment, and your department. You will know about the procedures and the practice that you are proud of, and want to retain. You will be aware of the things you want to modify,
improve or change.
professionals. us
’Partnership, participation, choice, openness, parental responsibilities, and every child’s need for both security and family links are some of the major themes which are common to the principles (underpining the Act) and to the legislation’ (DOH, 1989). a quote from a consumer, a parent at a recent conference of ours: ’It all sound very nice - but will things be different?’ That, I am sure, is one of the questions for you to be tussling with today. And, in order to work out what might be different, you need to be clear about what things looked like before the
And last -
Act was implemented. Research studies into the circumstances of children in care and their families painted a sober picture. They confirmed that decisions were made rapidly and admissions not planned; that compulsory powers were used increasingly but were often counterproductive; that children in care were likely to experience many changes in placement; that parents felt pushed aside and disillusioned; that social workers lacked time and skills for direct work with children and families; and that the potential contribution of parents and other relatives to the care and wellbeing of their children was devalued. The researchers didn’t doubt the good intentions ofmanagers
WHY PARTNERSHIP IS TO BE WELCOMED Why should we welcome the fact that partnership
with children and their families is now a part of the law as well as good
practice?
Compulsory Measures First - because it should
help reverse the worrying trend of ever-increasing use of compulsory
years towards an All the admissions to care in the last 3 years of published figures have been in compulsory admissions. So, for instance, between 1985 and 1987 there was a 52% increase in the use of place of safety orders (DOH, 1987). This, in spite of the research knowledge ofJean Packman (Packman etal,1986) and the Dartington Social Research Unit (Millham et al, 1986) in particular, that compulsory measures do not necessarily lead to better planning but do result in longer time spent in accommodation or care, fewer links with family and friends, and a greater sense of exclusion from decision making felt by parents. recent
measures.
Contact Arrangements Second - because it should give a stronger lead to departments to set up , and sustain, better contact arrangements for separated children. The need for improvement in this area of practice is well documented. The Dartington study found that withering links with home affect many children in care: from the outset, nearly
three-quarters of children experience one of two sorts of barriers to maintaining contact. First, specific restrictions placed by social workers on the access of individuals. And second, and 241
Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
twice as common, non-specific restrictions, difficulties inherent in placements, such as hostility, distance and inaccessibility. Despite the changes in access legislation introduced in 1984, Dartington (Millham etal, 1989) discovered recently no radical change in visiting patterns since their earlier study. 44% of the 342 children in their follow-up study had infrequent or no parental visits. But in only 70 of those cases had access been terminated legally, or by parental death or desertion. The researchers concluded that links withered in twice as many cases as social workers planned them to. In view of all this, and particularly in view of the fact that continuing links were found to be beneficial for children and, indeed, essential if children were to return home, the emphasis in the new legislation is most welcome. The emphasis is that there will be a presumption of access; that access questions should be settled by negotiation; and, when agreement is impossible, that there should be a strengthening of the legal position of those children, parents and other relatives who disagree with the local authority’s restrictions.
Restoration Work We should welcome partnership because it will help managers and practitioners to upgrade restoration work.
90% of children admitted to accommodation or care eventually return to their families or neighbourhoods, from accommodation or care or afterwards. Jane Rowe’s recent study of placement
outcomes
(Rowe et al, 1989) showed that the
majority of very young children who enter accommodation or care do not stay long, so long-term substitute parenting is not the central issue. And we know that the older children and adolescents who form the bulk of children in accommodation or care come with well-forged family and friendship links which they usually wish to maintain, and should do so, given their eventual return to them. Research has found good practice in restoration work to be lamentably lacking. If we are really committed to permanency as the right option for children then we have often failed because we have done so little to promote really good restoration work. If this sounds hard, then consider the specialist teams for new placement work, the special budgets, the adoption allowances, the limited caseloads of new-families workers, and reflect for a moment on whether anything approaching similar provision is made for placements home, here or in other places you have worked recently. The return home for children is fraught with difficulties, the incidence of breakdown higher than in other sorts of placement. The most recent, and comprehensive, research on ’home on trial’ placements was carried out by Elaine Farmer and Roy Parker ( 1991 ). They studied 321 placements of children in the care of 4 local authorities. They found that success was influenced more by early and thorough planning than by reason for entry to care. Jackie Trent has written up the restoration work she has done as part of Barnardos’ new family work. They found (Trent,
1989) that some children were served best by being restored their natural families, even though they received referrals only when the local authority believed that this was out of to
the
question. She used the same methods and skills in making those placements as in placing children in new families. The success rate, 80% , was the same for both types of placement. That is in marked contrast to research findings from local authorities not providing the same quality of preparation and support. For instance, Farmer and Parker’s work found a breakdown rate of almost 50% . It would seem that equal resources
equals equal success.
Will departments now use the chance presented to them under the Children Act to increase the commitment and effort going into this aspect of providing children with ’forever’ families?
Better
Planning
spirit of partnership that underpins the legislation will, if implemented, lead to better planning for children because plans will be made jointly with others, and those others will be better placed to work in partnership with The
professionals. Using written
agreements in work with parents, older children and carers is one of the best ways to promote the philosophy and practice of partnership which is at the heart of the Act. From our experience of helping families it is clear that
they want written agreements. They welcome them because they offer the potential for shared work; shared responsibility; common goals; clear expectations of everyone involved; the guarantee of periodic review and reappraisal; and some prospect of an end to the work to be done. Note that the potential for equality is not included here, because that is not really apriority for families. They know that in statutory child care work professionals will always be more powerful, with more cards in their hands than they have. With the help of the National Foster Care Association, Peter Marsh in Sheffield, and DOH officials, we have now produced 3 model agreement forms (Family Rights Group, 1991) which conform with the requirements under the Arrangements for Placement ofChildren (General) Regulations, the FosterPlacement (Children) Regulations, and the Placement of Children with Parents etc Regulations introduced in 1991. The third form is for a child protection agreement for children living at home. All are relevant under the new Act because written agreements have become a requirement in a wider range of work than before. The tone of the forms is that of a genuine partnership and
of negotiation between the parties. They do not allow for the local authority to work out its stipulations and set them down as a contract or agreement to be signed. Nor do they allow the local authority to set up a one-sided agreement where the family have all the tasks and the local authority none, or where the family and child are, in effect, set up to fail.
242 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
~M’ff..4:%@ .
Wider Family
Partnership is not simply an issue about children and parents, though it is sometimes treated as if it were. Without special attention to relationships with members of their wider family, children can find themselves bereft ofcontinuing contact or the opportunity to be cared for by relatives if parents cannot, will not, or are not allowed to care for them. We are concerned about the growing number ofgrandparents in particular who seek our advice. They have not been sought out by social services to see if they could help their young relative in accommodation or care; or their offer to look after the child has been rejected; or they have been refused access; or told that the children are to be adopted and access then denied. The lack of legal remedy before the Act was introduced, and their frustration and unhappiness, made it difficult for them to negotiate for what they thought would be best for the children they love. Why do so many relatives find their offers meet with no real j interest? The department’s reluctance may stem from its anxiety to retain power, something they can do less easily if the child goes to a relative. But there is no evidence to show that having total control necessarily serves the child better. There is evidence to show that children placed with relatives score best on tests of adjustment (Rowe et al, 1984), and that their potential to be a resource for children should be explored and indeed exploited more.
PEGS FOR PLANNING FOR PARTNERSHIP In this final section I want to highlight some parts of the Act that present managers, practitioners and trainers with pegs on
hang the development of a service that’s based on partnership with consumers - children, parents, other relatives and others in the community. which
what research will you do in the future, to ensure that services don’t remain static while needs change? Schedule 2 (8) lists the sort of services that are to be provided for children living with their families. I mention it because it’s one of only two places where issues of culture are raised in relation to children living at home. The other is at Schedule 2 ( 11 ) which provides for having regard to racial groups in your area when providing day care and foster care. A very important requirement, but one that took a great deal of debate to get inserted into an Act that is terribly weak on issues of race and culture. ~ how well do you do at present to recruit black carers? ~ how many carers from each racial group do you need to attract to help you provide well for all children? ~ will any changes be needed to your recruitment and .
training procedures? These issues are just as important for areas that have a very small minority ethnic population as it is for areas where racial diversity is more apparent.
Information Schedule 2 ( 1 )(2) places a duty on local authorities to publish information about services, and to get that information to people who might benefit from it. What an opportunity! Imagine being able to go to the local supermarket, launderette, place of worship, school, health centre and finding a booklet about what’s on offer. If people know what the options are they are much better placed to have an informed discussion with workers. For information is power.
So, .
to
.
.
Identifying Need Under Schedule 2 ( 1 ) needs have to be identified. Not the needs that the local authority thinks are appropriate, but those which are appropriate. An important distinction that provides a more objective test of need. This is not about professionals sitting down to hammer out what’s to be done. It’s about getting out there and asking people what their needs are. It means talking to children, to theirparents, to their relatives, to the community.
. .
how have you planned to inform people about the new legislation and the new services provided? have you produced guides for children and young people, for parents and relatives, for foster carers? are they relevant to all sections of your multi-cultural and multi-lingual community, and freely available in languages other than English? how have you organised distribution? will your written information be supplemented? What direct teaching will you offer to families with children in the community and in care now the Act has been introduced? For families are as hungry for information as are
professionals.
The outcome will be influenced by your views, too, but it won’t
rely solely on your perspective. We can’t plan for re-organising services, with the emphasis on shared planning with people, without formally involving them in planning the service itself. It’s a nonsense to believe that you can create something that’s user friendly without involving users in how it will look. So, . how have you asked the community to identify its needs? . how have you asked user groups? . how did you seek the views of those in serious disagreement with your decisions? For their views too are
important.
Consultation In Section 1
(3) you find your
overr
iding responsibility
to
of children. Section 20 (6) views into account before providing for children’s provides taking accommodation. Section 22 (4) requires you to consult with children, with parents, and with others with parental responsibility, before making any decision about a child you are looking after or are proposing to look after. Section 22 (5) requires you to give due regard to a child’s religion, race, culture and background. We should welcome such provisions because our assumptions ascertain the wishes and
feelings
243 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
and ignorance are less likely to go unchecked if we are dutybound to engage with the recipients of services, and take note of their way of doing things. It will be right to have to take account of the fact that the notion of adults visiting absent children is almost unacceptable in some cultures; that some families find it very hard to maintain links when children’s religious faith is not being adhered to; that problems over access are bound to arise for some Asian children because the stigma that attaches to the removal of a daughter from the family home can be overcome only by the family acting as if their child is dead. It will be right, too, to enable and encourage people to enlist the help of friends or advocates so that you can be sure that they fully understand what is on offer; so that they have the opportunity, in the privacy of their own home and with someone who is independent of the statutory agency, to discuss plans and options for their children; and so they can put forward their views about what will be best for their children and themselves. And then there’s the confirmation about children’s rights to refuse an examination or assessment. It arises three times in the Act, in relation to: ~ interim care orders Section 38 (6) ~ child assessment orders Section 43 (8) ~ emergency protection orders Section 44 (7). Those sections provide that ’if the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment’. How must you proceed? You will need to consider each child separately, for age is not referred to and so no blanket agerelated policy will suffice; explain what you propose to do and why; make sure that they understand the range of possible options and consequences; examine those options with children, not for them; find out what they think. ·
the scene for planning for partnership, think about Finally, some of the implications of combining services for 3 groups of children who, until October 1991 ,were treated somewhatdi&rently; ~ for children with disabilities, services were free and not subject to statutory review. ~ in divorce and separation cases, children were not parties. The case was largely one of negotiation between parents, with the probation service acting as mediator. ~ in care cases, children were parties, there were charges for services provided, and reviews were required. All needs to be looked at afresh. Consider, in particular, this scenario that applied before the Act was introduced. A parent, or parents, have a child with a disability and the local authority operates a respite care scheme. The parent rings up to use it because they are going on holiday for a week in 3 months’ time or going to a family function for the day next week. Fine, they are told, your respite carer is free for both those periods, ring them up and make the usual arrangements. Now consider ’
4
Dftfft.ft&dquo;&dquo;ft~ References
BAAF (1989). Closing comments at AGM DHSS (1985a). Review of child care law - report to ministers of an interdepartmental working party. HMSO, London DHSS (1985b). Research findings and their implications. HMSO, London DHSS and other departments (1987). The law on child care and services. HMSO, London DOH (1987). Children in care of local authorities at 31 March 1987,
family
CONCLUSION to set
another parent. She has 2 toddlers and lives in a high-rise block of flats. She rings up social services. She’s at the end of her tether and she wants a break from the kids for a few days. What’s the reaction? That question goes to the heart of the attitudinal change that managers have to come to grips with. Peter Marsh, in his work with local authorities on planning in partnership, has pinpointed one of the difficulties here: it’s harder to achieve changes in skills work if people think they are already doing that job well. The major challenge ahead of us all is how to ensure that workers do not disenfranchise families because, deep down, we don’t think they deserve to be treated as partners, as having expertise about themselves and their children which is every bit as important as the other sorts of expertise that professionals bring with them. There’s nothing new in this. It’s all there in the DOH research studies referred to earlier. And, as Jane Rowe said at their launch in 1985: ’We can do much to improve services to children by changing our attitudes to their parents. Parents can be partners. Children are not helped by disregarding their parents and wider families. This is not in contradiction with our duty to the child. The family’s potential as a resource has only just begun to be realised’. Putting into practice the Act’s principles of partnership is a daunting, but exciting, challenge to managers and practitioners in all agencies. I want to finish: ~ by urging you to approach the task positively, and ~ by encouraging you to seize the Act as a new oppominity to promote even better services for children and their families.
England. Prepared by the Government Statistical Service DOH (1989). The care of children - Principles and practice in regulations and guidance. HMSO, London FAMILY RIGHTS GROUP (1991). Written agreement forms for work with children relatives and carers, available from FRG, The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London E8 3DL, also available is the companion book Using Written Agreements with Children and Families FARMER E and PARKER R (1991). Trials and tribulations: a study of children home on trial in 4 local authorities. HMSO INSIGHT (8 November 1988). A report of papers annual seminar of the Social Care Association MILLHAM S, BULLOCK R, HOSIE K, and HAAK M (1986). Lost in care. Gower, Aldershot MILLHAM S, BULLOCK R, HOSIE K, and LITTLE M (1989). Access disputes in child care. Gower, Aldershot PACKMAN J, RANDALL J and JACQUES N (1986). Who needs care? Social work decisions about children. Blackwell, Oxford ROWE J, CAIN H, HUNDLEBY M and KEANE A(1984). Long- term foster
Batsford, London HUNDLEBY M and GARNETT L (1989). Child -a survey of placement patterns. BAAF TRENT J (1989). Homeward bound. Barnardo’s care.
ROWE J,
244 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 15, 2015
care now
