ANZASW Webinar 9 May 2017 Associate Professor Nicola Atwool, University of Otago, New Zealand
Changes in the Aotearoa New Zealand care and protection system Dominant perspectives on care and protection ▪ Kin defender vs society as parent ▪ Child and family welfare vs child safety Child-Centred Practice – a third option
Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 has a clear focus on family and whānau involvement in decision-making In the intervening years child protection notifications have significantly increased and child deaths as a result of maltreatment average 9 per year Following extensive public consultation the White Paper, Children’s Action Plan and Vulnerable Children Act 2014 have introduced significant changes An Independent Review of Child, Youth and Family is leading a modernisation project in conjunction with these other initiatives
The interim report of the Expert Panel identified six principles to underpin the modernisation project the first of which is a child-centred system (MSD, 2015a, p. 16). The final report identifies six objectives for a child- centred system: ▪ Ensuring that children have the earliest opportunity for a loving and stable family; ▪ addressing the full range of needs for each child; ▪ preventing victimisation of children; ▪ helping children heal and recover; ▪ supporting children to become flourishing adults; and ▪ helping children and young people to take responsibility for their actions and lead crime free lives MSD, 2015b, p. 9).
Outcomes for children in care are known to be poor Independent Expert Panel Report states that children who have contact with CYF “go on to experience dramatically worse outcomes ”: 80% left without NCEA level 2, 90% were on benefit (25% parenting) and more than 60% of those with a custodial sentence were known to CYF One of the reasons for poor outcomes is that being in care does not always result in stability. A key factor in this lack of stability is failure to address the significant needs of children who have been traumatised. OCC State of Care Report 2015 concludes that CYF does not put children at the centre of everything it does and “we don’t know if children are better off as a result of state intervention”
Underpinning these changes is a concern that children have not been well served under current legislation The focus on children has been strengthened and there is emphasis on the ‘whole child’ and an expansion of responsibility for safeguarding children to a wider range of government agencies Implicit in these changes is the tension between two dominant discourses around care and protection
Fox (1982) identified two key positions: ▪ Kinship defenders – Family Preservation ▪ Society as Parent protagonists – Child Rescue Gilbert et al. (2009) in an extensive international review identify two policy positions: ▪ Child and family welfare ▪ Child safety Considerable tension between the two that has resulted in polarisation
Neither position has a clear focus on children as active participants Those with a family focus often overlook the fact that families are sites of conflict and that adults have a great deal more power than children Those who place faith in statutory processes may reduce children to objects of concern and overlook what is important to children
Although we can be proud of our legislative emphasis on involvement of families and whānau in decision-making there has been a down-side: ▪ Rule of optimism, family sovereignty ▪ Ambivalence about removing children leading to lengthy delays in decision-making accompanied by considerable disruption for children ▪ Placing children with kin but failing to ensure they have access to the necessary resources ▪ Failure to include children and young people in decision- making compounding the tendency toward adultcentrism
Child-centred practice is often assumed to have more in common with ‘society as parent’ and ‘child safety’ positions ▪ Paternalistic ▪ Distrustful of family ▪ Focused on permanent placement outside family when issues are not resolvable
Was identified as one of three principles in the practice framework developed by Marie Connolly (2007) when she was Chief Social Worker ▪ Child-centred ▪ Family-led and culturally responsive ▪ Strengths and evidence-based Unfortunately this framework does not appear to have been fully implemented or embedded in CYF practice
The first time I am aware of this term being used in conjunction with a formal review is Mel Smith’s report to the Minister of Social Development on the serious injury of a nine year old girl in 2011. He noted: ▪ The number of different agencies involved and the failure to share information ▪ The overwhelming focus on the mother with little attention to the girl despite her being the focus of concern
Mel Smith’s first recommendation identified a child-centred perspective as the appropriate way to address these issues: ▪ I recommend that you note the strong emphasis I have made throughout this report on the incontrovertible need for all those in child safety, welfare and protection to ensure a child-centred perspective that focuses on the child, and that all other considerations be subordinated to the principle in section 6 of the CYPF Act 1989
Research has clearly demonstrated that when children are the focus of care and protection concerns: ▪ Biological family is, and continues to be, important ▪ Children want to be involved in decision-making but ▪ are often overlooked and their views are not sought in assessment and decision-making processes ▪ Children need and yearn for stability
Is in formed by a child’s rights perspective: ▪ Focus on whole child – consideration of all aspects of their well-being not just safety concerns ▪ Entitlements – every child has the right of access to resources needed to fulfil their potential ▪ Embraces family and culture as critical to children’s well -being ▪ Emphasises state responsibility to ensure families have access to resources
Policy and legislation can be facilitative BUT the key factor is the practice that happens at the micro level of engagement with children and families and The meso level of systemic support for social workers and other professionals engaging with children and their families Change will not occur unless tensions are acknowledged and addressed
Research has demonstrated that parent- focused intervention alone will not improve outcomes for children Such a vision can only be achieved in the context of multi-agency collaboration to ensure that adults and children are supported in families facing the greatest challenges
All professionals in the care and protection sector must have a clear understanding of the dynamics of power that operate between adults and children Attitudinal change is needed to ensure that children’s capacity and competency is respected Without this they will continue to be ignored as valuable sources of information in assessment processes and individuals with the right to have a say in decisions made about them
We have to ask ourselves why 26 years on from the acceptance of UNCRC children are still not being heard in the life and death issues at the heart of care and protection work As adults we have to reflect on our position of power in our relationships with children and Challenge ourselves to identify internal and external barriers to children’s participation These barriers then need to be addressed when they are encountered No matter what system is in place decisions are only as good as the information on which they are based When we exclude children we limit the amount of information available
Recommend
More recommend
