Children, Young People and Families Views and Experiences of their Involvement in the Child Protection System in Scotland

Lynn Kelly and Dr Sharon JacksonUniversity of Dundee

Introduction

• This study was underpinned by a commitment to seeking the participation of children, young people and their families in the processes of service design and delivery.• The rhetoric of service user inclusion is seductive.

However, the rhetoric often obscures the complexities of the concept and the inherent difficulties with its operationalisation.

Service user inclusion

• The aetiology of service user inclusion lies within in competing and contradictory discourses that have been influenced by differing and overlapping social, political and historical forces. • In brief, two major philosophies of participation

dominate:

Service user inclusion (cont.)• A rights-based activist approach such as for disabled

persons, which locates service user inclusion within a human rights framework which situates service users as active, autonomous agents (Hodge, 2005).• The second is the consumerist discourse which prima

facie appears to allude to ideas of services users as consumers exercising choice and operating within a complex mixed economy of service provision. • However, a more critically informed analysis of this reveals

consumerist discourses to be less focused on individuals and more focussed on creating economic efficiencies within the welfare marketplace (Begum, 2006)

However,

• Research has demonstrated that practitioners are committed to the values that underpin greater service user participation and, despite a lack of robust empirical evidence - that client involvement in service development can inform and ultimately improve services.

Methods for our study

• The approach taken to this study views service users as active social agents and competent reporters on their own lives (Lee, 1998; James et al., 1998).

• Qualitative interviews were designed to elicit views about the research questions while also creating space for participants to identify issues that they felt were important to them.

• Attempts at random selection was problematic but we did try to ensure equal distribution across age, disability, gender, ethnicity and geographical location.

• Informed consent was sought from both parents and children.• Interviews were recorded and transcribed and subjected to

independent thematic analysis. • Analytical findings discussed and thematic consensus agreed.

Limits of the method and sample• The sample was biased and small therefore not

necessarily representative or generalizable to larger populations.• As per the research brief, the study did not address

the views of practitioners.• A more participatory approach to method could

have elicited more feedback from children and could have involved practitioners in ways that would have included them. This may have led to a more meaningful dissemination of the findings.

Sample

6 children were interviewed:• 4 female and 2 males• Ages 9-15

12 carers were interviewed:• 1 grandfather• 7 mothers• 4 fathers

Key findings and recommendationsThese will be presented under the following headings:

• Relationships with professionals• Early experiences• Formal meetings • Understanding the process• Information needs• Improving lives

Relationships with professionalsPositive findings:• Relationships took time to develop.• Participants described a therapeutic quality to their relationship. • Children felt that workers took time to listen to themAreas to consider:• Focus on GIRFEC and SHANARI protocols, but no narrative of

what workers were actually doing. • It seems from the data that what workers are doing is effective,

but we don’t know what this entails.• Frequent changes of worker were difficult for both children and

parents.

Initial intervention

• Initial stage of statutory intervention is distressing even when there had been prior involvement.

• Children reported as feeling confused and frightened in the early stages.

• Parents narratives are emotionally laden: frightened, overwhelmed, angry and sad.

• Parents felt distressed, embarrassed and ashamed. This is the same language and emotional repertoires as used by abused children.

• At worst it could be claimed that this system is designed to ‘shock’ in the first instance but this is replaced by a supportive approach.

• Time needs to be given to ensure that the nature of the early intervention is explained and clarified.

Formal meetings Parents and carers:• Attendance at case conferences is described as

“unpleasant” and ‘overwhelming’. • Emotionally demanding. The large numbers of people

present were particularly upsetting.• Case conference perceived as punitive – like a court and

particularly did not like police officers in uniform being present. • Most felt that their social worker had explained the

process but this still did not prepare them for the emotional aspect of the meeting.• Other less formal meetings were preferred i.e. core group

meetings and pre-birth meetings.

Formal meetings (cont.)Children: • Understood the purpose of these meetings. • Did not like being taken out of school to attend

meetings.• Viewed the matter of child protection involvement as

deeply personal, and tried to conceal it.Areas to consider:• Case conferences were described as being controlled by

social work and not as multi-disciplinary with shared decision making.• We don’t know if the meetings served the needs of

professionals, but they did seem to meet the needs of the organisations rather than the children and carers.

Understanding processes

• Children understanding of the process was broadly consistent with their developmental age and stage.

• Overtime parents begin to make more meaning of the process – this is due mainly to the intervention of the workers, but it was not clear what this entailed.• Despite agreeing that they were given adequate

information about he case conference, initial shock impairs parents capacity to comprehend what is going on.

Interventions

• Parents and children were often confused about the number of different services and people who came into their home. • Home support was seen as helpful but particularly

confusing. Parents reported feeling the service could be ‘invasive’. • Parents reported that some home support workers came

into their home with no real explanation of why they were there. They did not like unannounced visits. • However, ultimately all parents reported that interventions

made a difference, even if they felt confused at the beginning.

Case file analysis • Files consisted of reports from meetings but

included very little in terms of a narrative of the child’s life.• Chronologies were often incomplete.• Emphasis appears to be on completing GIRFEC

SHANARI indicators but the forms did not adequately speak to case planning, theory or methods of intervention.• Files contained high levels of ‘surveillance

information’ i.e. observations about the state of the home and the food in cupboards. Few attempted to analyse this information.

Does intervention make a difference? The families all considered that professional intervention had made a difference to their lives and could articulate positive changes as a consequence of engagement

“the social worker, she really bends over backwards to help us with the everything she can. We have had great support”

“ she was good. She was always reading what the wee ones had wrote down on their forms… She was good”

“I can bounce things off her, I can talk about

anything”

Key findings

• Overall, we found social work practice to be good but could not identify what was actually being done by workers.• We could not identify if the structures service the needs of

professionals or service users.• Extend the study:

• uncover views of professionals• more involved method to ensure findings become part of practice• more diverse sample

• Knowledge exchange - this could be enhanced by including workers in the next stage of the study. We need to consider how to best capture best practice and how to share this across the workforce.

Concluding remarks• As researchers we are very cautious re amount of generalisation we

can make given the sample is unquestionably biased.

• Previous studies also agree that the skills of the worker are the most important factor in effecting change. We therefore need to uncover what these are.

• We are mindful that in the process of conducting this research the focus was on the experiences of children and families, we did not interview professionals.

• The findings almost exclusively related to the role of social services with little commentary about other services. It was interesting to note the overwhelming perception from those we interviewed that child protection was a social work business.

.

References

• Christensen, P. and James, A. (eds.) (2000), Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, Falmer, Bristol.

• Gallagher, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Engaging with voluntary service users in social work: literature review 1: context and overview, University of Edinburgh, Published online at: http://www.socialwork.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/44224/review_1_context_and_overview.pdfHodge, S. (2005). Participation, discourse and power: a case study in service user involvement. Critical Social Policy, 25(2), 164-179.

• James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998), Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Lee, N. (1998). Towards an immature sociology, Sociological Review, 46(3): 458-481.

• McLaughlin, H. (2008). What’s in a name: “Client”, “patient”, “customer”, “consumer”, “expert by experience”, “service user” – what’s next? British Journal of Social Work, 39(6): 1101-1117.