Analysing New Challenges Posed By The Development In Government Policies Social Work Essay

Analysing New Ch every(prenominal)enges Posed By The Development In regime Policies Social Work EssayIn this account, I am expiration to consider the new challenges posed by the latest development in giving medication policies, and peculiarly those set bulge come in in the twain tike Matters and Youth Matters geezerhoodndas and their equal on Children go especially Looked-After-Children in rear and residential armorial bearing. I depart first and fore around, project at the translation of what Looked-After-Children means, the development of advance and residential t fitted servicefulness for Looked-After-Children and theoretical knowledge, the legal and form _or_ system of g overnment frame stimulates beneathpinning tikerens organise while considering the implications as well as ethical dilemmas for hearty work perpetrate. Also, I will look at the powerfulness and impact of multi-agency running(a), workal autonomy versus employer direction, the balanci ng act of c atomic spot 18 and control and how effective the Cargon Programme Approach is used for those looked later on and those leaving c are. Further more, the rulers that find place placements and the roles of nourish cautiousnessrs will as well as be critically examined.Looked-After-Children as be in piece 22(1) of Children make a motion 1989, refers to those boorren in the awe of any topical anesthetic post or letd with accommodation by any local anesthetic authority for the purpose of fortressing and promoting their welfare. For pattern, some kidren potty non remain at berth due to adverse conditions such as family crises, a disability or offending, domestic violence, abuse and neglect. Hence the local authority will constitute to intervene and adequate measures taken to safeguard and initiate along their welfare and in most cases they are taken into care (foster or residential care). shelter care arrangements is usually a family found care arr angement in which the child is position in the foster carers own home. The British acquaintance for betrothal and Fostering (2007), provinces that this kind of care arrangement could be in cases of emergency or non-emergency, for short or long term, on remit or respite, close relatives fostering or private foster carers providing the care contains of the child. However, Residential care is quite similar to foster care, in that adults look after the children on a day to day rump on a pro rota basis. The however difference is that residential care is more of a communal telescope where a number of supply works rather than an intimate family unit (as in foster care) in providing the childs drivefully ( doh 1998a).Some background of foster care and residential careChildren were first recognised as individuals in their own right by the implementation of the Children movement 1948 following recommendations from the Care of Children Committee 1946 known as The Curtis Report (Ha yden et al 1999) which was influenced by the Monckton doubtfulness 1945 into the appalling murder of Dennis ONeill who was in foster care. The report was published with regards to children organism deprived of a blueprint home life during and after the second world war (Barnados 2007) as children from differing fond stratifications were brought in concert into residential care (children homes at the time) as a consequence of the disruption of war . Although the second accomplished childrens de break apartments and child officers, the general belief was that children should remain (where possible) with their primary caregivers. This decision was influence by conjuration Bowlbys attachment theory in which he emphased the splendour of the bond between a child and his/her primary caregiver ( develop) and how separation between m a nonher(prenominal)(a) and child could construct detri psychic effects on the development of the child (Hopkins, 2007). With the introduction of Child ren and Young Persons sham 1963, local political science were just devoted powers and duties to support children in their own homes (Thomas, 2005). This development further streng then(prenominal)ed the local authoritys decision and overly reinforced Bowlbys attachment theory.However, Waterhouse et al (2002) remark that in the 1970s the use of residential care for primary school children had begun to worsening and the shift was towards family oriented care. The 1980s saw a further fast decline in Looked-After-Children in residential care. Residential care was hardly viewed as a last resource for adolespennys who could not be placed in family settings (Thomas 2005). According to Ibid (2005) foster care or boarding out as it was referred to until the late 1980s, was generally a female orientated intended service for looking after deprived children within a family setting with an aim to normalise their experiences whilst in care.It should be noted however, that during the 197 0s, 1980s and nineties residential care birthd evidentiary negative attention done no fault of the children in care (Thomas 2005). In this era, horrific sexual, fleshly and emotional abuse was exposed, which led to major inquiries into children in care. The three most notable reports are the Pindown search by Levy and Kahan (1991), the Leicestershire inquiry (1993) and the inquiry into the abuse of children in childrens homes in North Wales, known as the Waterhouse Report, 2000 (Thomas 2005). These reports stird the by nature of policy and practice. It is evident by Ibid (2005) that although these reports withstand depicted abuse in residential homes over the years, abuse in foster home goes by and large undetected.The Waterhouse report (DOH 2000a) exposed no cohesive regulations of childrens homes adding that the responsible local authorities had adopt a tokenistic approach. Upon this report, recommendations for change were clearly defined. The New Labour brass responde d to the report and published major policy curtain raisings such as prime(a) Protects and the Care Standards Bill (2000) under which the General Social Care Council (GSCC) was established to monitor lizard and regulate all social care staff. The GSCC has been given the say-so to register all social care staff (qualified and non-qualified alike) and also to dally up enforceable codes of conduct and practice (DOH 2000b). These were designed to prevent unsuitable sight in the social care sector. Other recommendations include, a childrens complaints officer, criminal interpret checks, a designated field social work assigned to each Looked-After-Child. responsible and independent regulatory inspection consistence was also recommended to inspect residential and foster homes to meet National Minimum Standards (DOH 2002).Policy and legislative frameworks. in that location are a host of policies and legislative frameworks underpinning the holistic needs of Looked-After-Children tha t I as a social worker moldiness work to accordingly. However, work within the parameters of the law, conflux policy guidance and the constraints of limited resources is a tortuous task (Brammer 2007).The Children Act 1989 is the main legislative instrument that mandates all child care professionals to work towards the surpass interest of the child. The Act received empurpled assent in 1991 and arose from substantial research that exposed poor outcomes and probatory failings in safeguarding, protecting and meeting childrens needs (Brayne Carr 2005). This same Act also introduced the welfare check list, to include factors that must be considered when professionals and the courts are deciding the future welfare of a child.Although the philosophy of the Act is that the child is best brought up in their own families, at times this is not in the best interests of the child. The local authority has a duty to safeguard and incite the childs welfare (s.22(3)). The overarching princi ple of the Act is that the welfare of the child is paramount (s.1) no matter of race, religion or culture. Although section 22(5)c) of the Act states that the local authorities must consider the childs religious persuasion, racial origin and ethnical and linguistic background, this only applies to looked after children (Brammer 2007). Under the Race Relations (Amendment Act) 2000, local authorities take up a duty to promote good race relations and e character, return a culturally sensitive service and protect over against racial discrimination.Whilst articles 3,5,6,8 and 14 within the Human Rights Act 1998 are important to children, it is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) that provides a comprehensive framework for children to attain their full potential. It sets out over 40 substantive rights including protection from harm and exploitation, access to pedagogics and health and family life (DFES, 2003).The governments first attempt to transforms childrens serv ices was the implementation of the fiber Protects initiative. Also part of a wider set of projects including Sure Start to help children in their early years and their families get off to a mend start in life. The Quality Protects program set out 11 linchpin objectives (DOH 1999) for childrens services requiring all statutory agencies as corporate parents to work together, ensuring that childrens social services provide targeted care for disadvantaged children to enable them to take maximum advantages of universal services, most notably health and education. It was the key instrument for delivering the aims of the government pureness Paper, Modernising Social Services (DOH 1998). Local authorities were essential to submit a Management Action Plan informing the government on how they were going to meet these objectives. Choice Protects was a further initiative launched in 2002 to improve outcomes for looked-after-children through providing better placement stability, matching and selection (Butler et al 2004)Further changes in legislation followed the death of capital of Seychelles Climbi whilst in private foster care. Lord Lamings report made key recommendations for change following this inquiry (Victoria Climbi Inquiry 2003). The governments response was a major see the light of childrens services and the Children Act 2004, underpinned by the policies set out in all Child Matters agenda (DFES, 2003). This focused on achieving cinque key outcomes for services to children, to work towards achieving their full potential.The Five Key Outcomes of the Every Child Matters areBeing healthy,Staying safe,Enjoying and achieving,Making a positive contri exclusivelyion andAchieving economic well- beingness.The 2004 Act also established childrens trusts, bringing together education, health and social services, as well as a childrens commissioner to promote the interests and views of children. Due to the profound importance of education, section 22(3) of the Chil dren Act 1989 amended by section 52 of the Children Act 2004 now places a duty on local authorities to promote the educational advance of Looked-After-Children (Brammer 2007).The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (DOH 2000b) and resolveant practice guidance was introduced as part of New Labours Quality Protects programme and replaced what was formerly the orange book. The three inter-related dimensions of the framework Childs Development Needs, Parenting Capacity and Family and environgenial Factors and its sub-domains present the necessary ingredients to provide a holistic, specialist sagacity of need used in conjunction with the Children Act 1989, that carers, former(a) professionals and agencies can contribute.The domains can be adapted for the needs of disabled children and are useful for social workers in assessing placements to establish suitability in meeting the childs holistic needs (DOH, 2000b). Additionally, they can be used to evalu ate progress within parenting capacities, peculiarly if key areas were targeted for improvement, thus determining whether the needs of the child will be sufficiently met if they are to return to their own home environment (Ibid, 2000b).The honey oil Assessment Framework (CAF) as proposed by Every Child Matters (DFES, 2003) is a relatively new standardised approach for assessing the need for services for children and is part of a wider government programme to provide integrated services including the need to improve multi-agency working. The CAF is a common language in assessment and is based upon the five outcomes of Every Child Matters (Brammer 2007).Every Child Matters raises questions of where looked-after-children should be (or get to) in relation to other children. The agenda aims to improve the lives of looked-after-children holistically across the five outcomes linking to the conditions in the UNCRC (Unicef 2006a). The objective is to improve and integrate childrens servic es, promote early intervention, provide strong leadership, bringing together different professionals in multi-disciplinary teams in nine to achieve positive outcomes for children, using a matrix of specialist, targeted and universal services built around their needs.As a social work, I cannot over emphases the importance gaining a comprehensive assessment of a child under my care. This includes getting an in depth picture/knowledge of the childs past times explanation throughout his/her development as this can inform me and others on how the child is likely to respond to token situations, together with the possible triggers to specific deportment of that individual, including the childs view of the relationship with his/her family. It is this kind of information, which Falhberg (1994) says is sometimes missing from case files, which could result in the child not receiving an appropriate care package or placement. However, it is important to remember that when gathering informati on childrens own perspectives on their experiences are an important source of knowledge as well (DOH 2000a p.8). Furthermore, this knowledge equips me with the substance of sharing information between professionals in society to be able promote and meet the childs holistic needs. In the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie and many other previous inquiries in to child protection failures it was noted that the quality of information sharing was often poor, systems were crude and information failed to be passed between hospitals in close proximity to each other. As the report commented, information systems that depend on the random passing of slips of paper absorb no place in modern services (The Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report, 2003, p13). In order to provide an effective system for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, all agencies and staff working with children need to work together in addressing the aftermath of information sharing and recording.Although pe rsonal information should al demeanors be respected (DOH 2000 p.45), there are times when the law permits the disclosure without consent in order to safeguard the child. Therefore, by explaining to the child at the outset why and how information is shared, there are no unnecessary surprises for the child.The Working together document (DOH, 1999) highlights the importance of multidisciplinary and inter agency working in children work force. This document was put together by Department Of Health, Department for training and Employment and the Home Office. It serves as a guide to inter-agency working with a commitment to sharing information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, it also provides improved guidance on child protection procedures and the saucily amend Local Safeguarding Childrens Boards.Implications on social work practiceHowever, safeguarding children is never broad from ethical dilemmas. For example, it is necessary at times to place children in seize accommodation under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 for their own and others sentry duty (Brammer 2007). Although this conflicts with Article 5 of the UNCRC Right to Liberty along with the potential to light their autonomy, this must therefore be a last resort to safeguard their welfare when other strategies and social work interventions have been ineffective.Yet another(prenominal) area of consideration is effective care planning for Looked-After-Children. This is key to promoting and meeting their holistic needs.Care plans should be child-centred/person-centred, needs based, focussed, proactive and written conjointly with the social worker, the child (depending on age and maturity), parents/guardians and any prospective caregivers (National Childrens pectus 2007). In this way, care can be delivered in a more open and understanding way. This also promotes partnership between all stakeholders compound in the care and welfare of the child. However, studies undertaken b y Timms Thorburn (2006) revealed that children were not al ways obscure in writing their care plan as much as they should be. The care plan is a continuing process based on a holistic assessment of the childs needs and how they will be met, including a statutory Health Plan and Personal Education Plan (including additional Educational Needs) which sets out targets, providing a valuable individual monitoring implement (DfES 2005). The requirement of statutory reviews laid out in section 26 of the Children Act 1989 reinforces this continuum (Thomas 2005). The amendment to section 26 made by section 118 of the acceptation and Children Act 2002, now requires that statutory reviews must be chaired by an nonsymbiotic Reviewing Officer, who ensures plans are timely, effective and sensitive and focussed on the childs needs, the placement, offering a safeguard to prevent drift and addressing poor practice (DfES 2004 p.8). However, this looks good on paper but the question remains as to how independent the supreme Reviewing Officer can be when he/she is employed or paying by the local authority for the services rendered.Furthermore, the Looked-After-Children documentation also contains significant component identifying age-related Assessment and Action records. These records are an achievable by way of assessing and reviewing the childs well being across the seven dimensions of the childs developmental needs determined within the assessment framework (DOH 2000c). Additionally, these records identify each others roles in labor movement the tasks to effectively meet these outcomes (Thomas 2005). Walker et al (2003) emphasises that these records should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Related to the assessment and have a clear Time scale (SMART) for completion. Its been argued again and again that meeting the needs of depressed and minority ethnic children is a interlinking task for social workers given the controversial debates regarding same race/trans-rac ial placements (Thomas 2005). Is this not a way of further marginalising, discriminating and oppressing this host of children? Walker (2005) cited by Allain (2007, p137) stresses the importance of . . . developing culturally competent practice for working with children and adolescent people cannot be overstated. Meaning as social workers we need to be cultural sensitive and aware that cultural norms and representatives of demeanor can go away considerably between communities and even families (Victoria Climbi Inquiry 2003 para.16.5). However, many children who are fostered are from black and minority ethnic groups with entirely different cultures (Thomas 2005). Although there is research to suggest that trans-racial placements are not damaging to children (Tizard and Phoenix 1989) The Children Act 1989 (Guidance and Regulations vol 3 paras 2.40-2.42 DOH 1991) promotes same race placements within foster settings.As a social worker, I am aware that assessments are not observe fr ee. According to City of Salford Community and Social Services (2000) social workers bring their racial, cultural, gender, class and religious set to the assessment. Clear guides to good professional practice are hold within the GSCC codes of practice. Anti-oppressive practice and valuing diversity in its broadest mount are at the heart of social work together with a commitment to partnership working, being non-judgemental, trus dickensrthy and respecting service users rights (GSCC 2002).Dominelli (1997) also states that in their quest to treat everyone as equals, social workers have inadvertently adopted a colour blind approach implying that skin colour is the only difference, thus reinforcing negative assumptions. In addition, she notes social workers have dumped black strong children on to black foster carers highlighting racist assumptions that they can look after their own. According to Cross (1971 cited by DOH 2000a) black children attempt to gain a positive sense of raci al identity. Therefore, in order for child care professional to assess and understand, Cross provides a model of identity that can be used to make the correlation between the childs own perception and their emotional development.Another highlight is that unaccompanied chancel seeking children are not only faced with language and cultural issues, but it appears that the Hillingdon Judgment and its subsequent guidance (LAC (2003)13) DOH 2003) is not being adhered to nationally (Nandy 2005). Children aged 16-17 are still being supported by section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (children in need) rather than having full section 20 status as per the recommendations, providing them with ongoing support post-18. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 provides for, a holistic Pathway Assessment of needs, which informs the Pathway Plan for a continuum of care and support until the age of 21(beyond if in education) with a personal adviser. Section 24 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the duty of the local authority to advise, assist and stand by a child who leaves care after the age of 16. However, research bespeaks that although Looked-After-Children are the most vulnerable in society, they are pushed to independence earlier than other children. Stein (2006 p.274) describes care leavers as having accelerated and compressed transitions to adulthood.Educational attainment for Looked-After-Children is unacceptably low, with only 12 per cent achieving 5 GCSEs grades A-C compared to 59 per cent of other children (DfES 2007). Research by Berridge et al (1998 cited by DOH 1998a) indicates that Looked-After-Children, particularly those in residential care are ill-equipped with adequate acquisition materials and staff felt that they were not sufficiently trained to provide teaching support to those who were excluded from school (DfES 2005). Guidance from the DfES (2005) aims to promote better partnership working including teacher training and additional support for Looked-Afte r-Children in schools.Fundamental to the Children Act 1989 is that the children have a right to be heard and are individuals in their own right. The childs wishes and feelings must be sought by the local authority with regards to aspects of their circumstances and future plans (s.22(5)) and s.1(3) when courts are making decisions. This principle is enshrined in the Article 12 of the UNCRC (Unicef, 2006). However, Thomas (2005) notes that there is still a debate to what cessation children have in determining their lives, although the general consensus is that they should be listened to. Leeson (2007) also states that childrens booking in decision making is questioned due to them being regarded as vulnerable, slight competent beings in need of social work protection (p.268). Although children may not know what they want, they should be encouraged by all professionals to participate, (according to their age and understanding) thus empowering them and increasing their autonomy.Commu nication with children is the means to establishing a relationship, even when they do not want to engage verbally. Play, activity based work, writing, drawing and body language are also essential tools in the art of being receptive (Kroll 1995 cited by Thomas 2002). Disabled children may prefer other methods of communication such as the Picture Exchange Communication System, Makaton or British Sign Language. Additionally, they may have their own individual ways of communicating, therefore it is crucial that not only the child care professionals understand, but the child has confidence that their messages are heard (DFES, 2006).Foster carers and residential workers have a similar role. They work closely with social workers, families, doctors, psychologists, teachers, nurses, probation officers and other external agencies in order to effectively promote the holistic needs of the child. Although it is the business of the social worker to ensure that plans are implemented, reviewed an d legalities adhered to, residential staff and foster carers are principally the ones to undertake the tasks (Thomas 2005).Studies by Whitaker et al 1998 cited by DOH (1998) highlighted the extensive skills and personal qualities that are required when working within group living, including knowledge and understanding of development, group dynamics, networks, listening, advocating, physical and emotional support. This list is not exhaustive and not exclusive to residential on the contrary, foster carers should as be proficient in these skills.Due to the challenge nature of the profession there is a high turnover of staff within residential care which amounts to children not being able to form adequate attachments, although key worker systems are used to enhance this. Colton et al (2007) analysed a number of factors from researchers and concluded that one of the key issues was emotional exhaustion from increasingly complex, volatile, disorderly and disruptive behaviour displayed by children towards staff. According to Fostering Network (2007) foster care turnover also remains high with a famine of over ten thousand foster carer placements.According to Barter et al (2004) many children entering the care system are filling an operable vacancy rather than receiving an appropriate provision to meet their complex needs. Furthermore, Triseliotis (2002) notes that children are far more likely to be in continual state of insecurity due to the legalities of impermanence and many felt that this anxiety was heightened from the carers deal or else stance. Although research has indicated that authoritative parenting within fostering has had the most victor (Wilson et al 2004). The use of Social Learning Theory, particularly in the newly funded Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Project in England, considers that since behaviour is learned, it can be unlearned via therapeutic methods and living environment. MTFCE is targeted for those with complex needs, challengin g behaviour and offenders (DFES, 2003).Under section 26 of the Children Act 1989, children have a statutory right to complain about the services they receive. Amendments to the Children Act 1989 via the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (s.119) created a new section (26(a)) which affords children and young people a statutory right to an advocate in the light of complaints (Brammer 2007). In addition, the White Paper Valuing People (DOH 2001) emphasises that children who have learning disabilities should also be included in such initiatives. Furthermore, Ward (1995) notes that the local authories should be playing a more active role and taking the initiative to seek the views of Looked-After-Children, as some of those looked after, are under duress (p.16)To ensure children are looked after properly, residential homes and fostering agencies are inspected by an independent body. As of April 2007, Ofsted began the regulation and inspection of childrens services building on the previous exp ertise of centering for Social Care Inspection (Ofsted 2007). Residential homes are subject two annual visits (one announced and one unannounced) from the inspecting body to monitor performance against both the National Minimum Standards (DOH 2002) and the Childrens Homes Regulations 2001.Internal inspections are required by the registered manager to monitor matters set out in Schedule 6 of the regulations (34(1)) such as, menus, the quality of rotas, staffing and childrens complaints. Under regulation 33, a monthly inspection takes place by a statutory visitor to monitor performance against the five outcomes of Every Child Matters. Including speaking to the children and staff, checking files, care plans and placement plans. A report is then prepared and forwarded to Ofsted.Many children have a troubled and complex past (Thomas 2005). A good home offers attachments, permanence, identity, self-importance esteem and promotes contact (where necessary) with the child and parent(s). bo nd paper theory originiates from the work of John Bowlby and has been elaborated considerably since. Attachment behaviour is reciprocal rather than unidirectional and is defined as a long enduring emotionally meaningful tie to a particular individual cited by Schaffer (1997 p.127). Bowlby theorised that lack of nurturing from an infants primary care giver would have serious consequences for the child in later life, leading to affectionless psychopathy (the softness to have deep feelings for others) in Rutter (1991). Social workers need to consider how a placement will promote healthy attachments and psychological development, furthermore, how they are provided, maintained and strengthened (Howe 1996, cited by Thomas 2005). However, Robinson (2002) criticises Howe for failing to mention the attachments within the black community and families in his writings, merely referring to cultural variations.Research identified four attachment behaviours secure, insecure/avoidant ambivalent a nd disorganised, secure being the most exalted (Howe 2002). A good understanding of these internalised behaviours assists social workers to differentiate between them when analysing assessments (Ibid 2002). Howe further notes that there is a tendency for these internal working models to become self fulfilling, where by the child acts in certain ways to elicit in demand(p) self-confirming reactions from others. However, research indicates that a child does not have to be at the mercy of the past (Schaffer 1992 p.40) depending on how resilient the child is to adapting to lifes complex variables.The preponderance of mental disorders is high in looked-after-children, particularly in residential care compared to foster care. According to the Office of National Statistics (2003) nearly three accommodate of the children in residential care (72 per cent) were clinically diagnosed as having a mental disorder. The role of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services promotes the mental well being of children through commissioning services via a four-tier strategical framework (level four being severe) following an assessment (DFES, 2003).Most looked-after-children receive services at level three or four. However, Schaffer (1998) suggests that it is difficult to describe who will need therapeutic involvement and who will simply conjure up out of it. Leighton (In press) states that professionals must be aware of their own personal pass judgments and attitudes that could influence decision making as to whether a child will benefit from therapy. Furthermore, she adds that ethical challenges are plentiful in creating and respecting the childs autonomy whilst labor a balancing act with safeguarding their welfare and promoting their best interests.Thomas (2005, 2002) urges perplexity with the overall concept of best interests of the child as he suggests that it could be oppressive and dangerous if misused, particularly with regards to who is making the decisions in the best interests for example professionals, the family or the child themselves. Although there is good evidence from research to indicate positive outcomes for children, these cannot assume a one size fits all solution to ensuring a desired individual result for there are other intricacies that need to be taken into account, for example religion and culture.With regards to child welfare, Fox-Harding (1997) states that the Children Act 1989 is in ideological conflict concerning the role of the state. She notes four different value positions liassaz-faire, state paternalism, parents rights and childrens rights. The latter two are appropriate here. Firstly, she notes that the perspective of parents rights acts as a belief