What are the characteristics of a good quality

What are the features of a good quality societal work appraisal in kid attention? To what extent do bing procedural outlooks and guidelines enhance good pattern in this country?

I shall get down this essay with an analysis of what constitutes a good quality societal work appraisal in kid attention. I shall make this by analyzing current pattern in this field, sketching each phase of the assessment process, supplying justifications for why each stage is indispensable to such an appraisal.

The balance of the essay shall so concentrate on the bing procedural outlooks and guidelines refering to such kid attention appraisals, as enshrined in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health et Al, 2000 ) , the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [ as ratified by the UK Government in 1991, and incorporated into domestic jurisprudence by the Human Rights Act 1998 ] and the Children Act 1989, which provides the UK’s most comprehensive appraisal model for the protection and attention of kids in the UK. I shall analyze this relevant statute law in item and measure to what extent I believe that these steps enhance good pattern in the field of kid attention societal work appraisal.

Before we commence with our analysis of what constitutes a good quality societal work appraisal in kid attention, it is first of import to to the full specify the range of our treatment. The range of this treatment rests with our reading of ‘child attention ; ’ societal workers after all have a assortment of functions and maps, many of which concern kids to a greater or lesser grade. In this essay I shall concentrate entirely on societal work appraisals of vulnerable kids, i.e. those who are under 16 and who may be in demand of province attention, whether as a consequence of hapless household dealingss, sexual maltreatment or any other cause of exposure.

Besides relevant to the definition of the range of our treatment is the point at which our analysis shall get down ; I shall non prosecute in treatment of how the province might travel about placing which children/parents need to undergo such an appraisal, as although this is a extremely of import country, it does non hold much relevancy to the existent appraisal process itself. Neither does the rubric of this essay warrant any deep treatment of the existent attention of a kid after such an appraisal has been made. Rather, my analysis shall concentrate on the existent appraisal itself, and what constitutes a high quality appraisal. Therefore, for the intents of this treatment, we can presume that the child/parents in inquiry have been identified as necessitating an appraisal, and analyze the subsequent processs undertaken, up until the point where recommendations have been made. How good these recommendations are executed would be the subject of another essay in this country.

Let us assume hence that a kid has been referred to us as a possible campaigner for province protection, and it is now our responsibility to orchestrate an appraisal of that kid to see if such intercession is required.

The first measure in our appraisal is to look into the background of the kid by naming a kid protection meeting between ourselves, and any other professional who has had old traffics with the kid in inquiry such as his or her school instructors, G.P.’s, the Police etc. This is a really of import phase of the procedure ; unbiased information about the province of the child’s mental and physical wellness can be acquired, and if this information seems to propose that the kid is non being cared for decently, i.e. the child’s demands are non being met by his or her parents, so we can make up one’s mind whether or non to do farther appraisal. It may be that the symptoms which the kid is showing are a consequence of intimidation at school, or other grounds which are beyond the control of the parents, and it is within this meeting that such inquiries are addressed. School instructors are quizzed on the child’s attitude in category and his or her relationship with fellow pupils, although it should be noted that frequently a kid whose demands are non being met at place, will happen it really hard to incorporate socially in school, and hence an observation of this latter phenomenon should non prevent an probe for the former.

A high quality societal work appraisal of our kid will besides affect some background fact-finding work ; neighbors, household friends and anyone else who has a great trade of contact with the kid in inquiry may be able to supply some extra information which will help us in coming to the right decisions from our appraisal. Obviously such probe should be conducted in a extremely sensitive mode ; discretion is the cardinal to such a hunt. It should besides be noted that ( hopefully ) unlike the professionals who were quizzed during the initial kid protection meeting, friends of the household may lie to cover up what they know, should they experience that you as a societal worker are seeking to break-up their friend’s household. Again, a non-confrontational attack may in such instances yield more accurate consequences, and it is here that the personal accomplishments of the societal worker who is set abouting the appraisal semen into drama.

Having gathered as much relevant background information as possible, and holding discussed this information in the forum of a kid protection meeting with all the relevant professionals, a consensus may or may non be reached as to whether or non the kid in inquiry requires province protection. A ballot will be called by the chair of the meeting [ usually a senior societal worker ] , and the sentiments of each member of that meeting shall be taken into history. If nevertheless the vote is non-conclusive, i.e. there is strong dissension about the needed class of action, so it may be deemed necessary to carry on farther and direct appraisal of the kid and his or her parents. In such instances the child’s parents will be obligatorily invited to convey their kid to an appraisal Centre, where they shall be separated from their kid for a few hours, while a child psychologist makes appraisal of the kid. Thomas and Beckford ( 1999 ) outline some of the indispensable good-practice characteristics of this psychological appraisal. Their survey was involved with adoptive kids, although their findings have been used more by and large in about all facets of kid appraisal, or wheresoever good adult-child and child-adult communicating is required. Some of the kids up for appraisal will doubtless be really hard to pass on with, and so they outline some of the jussive mood techniques which should be employed by any grownup involved in such an appraisal. Some of these techniques are self-explanatory, and do common sense, such as the demand for the assessor to show themselves clearly in field and simple linguistic communication, utilizing analogy through kid based constructs where appropriate. This evidently besides requires a pre-assessment of the child’s reading age and intelligence so that the assessor can take such constructs and linguistic communication suitably. The assessor should inquire the kid about their frights, offering reassurance that to discourse them will non harm them in any manner. Much can besides be gleaned from any inquiries which the kid may inquire, and such ejaculations should be permitted and even encouraged throughout the appraisal. The study besides suggests that kid assessors ask the kids in inquiry to reiterate what the assessor has explained to them. Merely in this manner will the assessor genuinely be able to cognize whether or non the kid has understood the constructs, or remembered them. Such accounts should be repeated until the kid does understand and is able to reiterate, although repeat should non be aggressive, as one does non wish to pelt the kid with information. This could do emotional hurt which would interrupt communicating between the assessor and the kid. Communication can be aided through usage of games, prompt cards, pictures and books where appropriate, and frequently it is the instance that certain tools will work on some kids better than on others and visa versa, and so the assessor should seek as many tools as possible to find the best manner of communicating with the kid in inquiry.

During this clip, the parents will be interviewed by the societal worker, and the societal worker should pass some clip promoting the parents to loosen up and understand that the whole process is merely seeking to assist their kid etc. Communication between the societal worker and the parents should be honest, every bit far as to make so would non sabotage the probe of the public assistance of the kid, and dependable, reassuring information should be provided after listening to the parent’s concerns. The attack should be one which appears to reenforce their parenting capacity instead than sabotaging it, as merely in this manner will co-operation be forthcoming. These are surely the features of high quality societal work interaction with the parents of a vulnerable kid ( Social Services Inspectorate, 1999 ; Tunstill and Aldgate, 2000 ) .

This interview may give the societal worker a alone penetration into the household background of the kid, and will be most helpful to the concluding appraisal, which will once more take topographic point within the forum of a kid protection meeting. In this meeting shall be present the child psychologist [ who made the appraisal of the kid in the appraisal Centre ] , or the study thereof [ if the psychologist is unable to go to ] , the societal worker responsible for the probe, and any other relevant professionals who are able to go to. Those who were present at the initial meeting do non necessitate to go to, as their sentiments have already been documented, but on the manus, if they can go to, it may be that they will add some utile parts to the treatment of the latest psych study and interview of the parents.

During all such kid protection meetings, the issue to turn to is whether the demands of the kid are being met by his or her place life. These include emotional demands, i.e. are the kid having adequate love and fondness etc. , physical demands, i.e. is the kid being physically cared for [ non being beaten or abused ] etc, practical demands, i.e. is the kid be clothed, washed decently etc. If it is deemed through consensus that one or more of the child’s key demands are non being met, the kid will be assigned a precedence evaluation, which will be used to measure which degree of protection should be levied. The development of the kid in inquiry should besides be assessed, as failures in development can be diagnostic of maltreatment and mal-treatment. An apprehension of psycho-dynamic theory is indispensable to a high quality appraisal. A child’s development in his inner universe has a relationship to that child’s outer universe development, and the child’s psychological procedures should be examines in three distinguishable models. First, how does the kid perceive himself, and how does he associate between the other important people in his life? Second, how have the child’s yesteryear and present experiences aided or restricted his development of his inner ego and of the relationships between him or herself and others around him or her? Third, an appraisal of the child’s appraisal of his inner and outer world should be made ; is there a difference between such perceptual experiences and how make these differences impact on the child’s development. This trichotomy was advanced by Brearley ( 1991 ) as being of import in a high quality appraisal of a kid, and is supported by Seden ( 2000 ) who writes: “Practitioners will necessitate to incorporate multi-faceted cognition of kid development into their appraisals and, in peculiar, what is relevant from psychodynamic theory and acquisition theory.”

Equally good as the assorted demands of the kid, and appraisal of his/her development, there are besides of class assorted determiners of rearing. There is the single determiner, as discussed above ; measuring the personality of the parents through interview and the characteristic and behavior of the kid through direct psychological appraisal. There is besides the historical determiner, besides discussed earlier ; measuring the history of the household through meeting and interview with household friends, and relevant professionals such as wellness attention workers, constabularies and schooling staff. Other determiners which should be used in doing a high quality societal work appraisal of the parents ability to supply equal public assistance for their kid include the societal determiners such as how satisfied the parents are populating with one another, and what societal support webs are in topographic point to assist them supply public assistance for their kids while they are at work or otherwise busy with their ain lives, and circumstantial determiners, such as the fiscal position of the household, how happy the parents are in their ain occupations, and how much they understand about kid attention and the procedure of kid development ( Belsky and Vondra, 1989 ) ) . These issues shall be discussed in deepness along with the treatments of the child’s needs during the kid protection meeting.

Appraisals should non be made excessively purely nevertheless, after all, parenting is a really subjective phenomena, and merely because parents do non run into all the demands of their kid at every phase of that child’s development does non needfully justify province intercession. After all, most parents would acknowledge that their criterion of parenting does non ever win in run intoing their child’s demands ( Thoburn et Al ( 2000 ) ) and hence to establish a determination of protection on this fact entirely would guarantee that about every kid in the UK was in province protection! This point was good expressed by Utting ( 1995 ) who quoted: “Good rearing requires certain allowing fortunes. There must be the necessary life chances and installations. Where these are missing even the best parents may happen it hard to exert these skills.” In other words, sometimes the ground that a child’s demands are non being met may non be the mistake of the parents, but instead for grounds circumstantial to the parents, e.g. poorness. In such instances, a good societal work appraisal will gain this, from the information gleaned, and effectual protection would take the signifier of extra public assistance support instead than child protection in its countenance signifier.

The decision of the appraisal will be that a precedence evaluation is assigned to the kid which recommends which degree of protection may be most suited for the kid in inquiry. This evaluation will be based on all the assessment features as described above. The possible evaluations range from degree 1, where a kid is at high hazard of injury should he or she non be brought into protection. At hand physical or sexual maltreatment is predicted, and this class of kid is top precedence for the societal services child care section. Next is the degree 2 hazard class ; in this class the kid may be under terrible hazard, in which instance an immediate appraisal is required to find whether protection is needed. Flat 3 hazard is where a kid is non under at hand menace of injury but his or her demands are non being met by the household, andf there are complex fortunes environing this kid which warrant an appraisal to workout what the best cause of action is. Level 4 hazard is a kid whose demands are non being met, but a simple attention program is deemed sufficient to assist to run into these demands. A degree 5 hazard is a kid who has been referred, and despite the fact that in the chief par the child’s demands are being met, the societal services deem it necessary to mention the household to an alternate province bureau for aid with the public assistance of their kid. A degree 6 hazard kid does non necessitate any aid. The referral was a false dismay, and the societal services can shut the instance without any intercession. This hazard evaluation tabular array is an illustration of the internal evaluation system used by the Hammersmith Social Services section for kid attention and protection. The precise diction of the tabular array has been paraphrased, but the significance is clear ; the higher the hazard, the higher the precedence for intercession or aid. These evaluations tabular arraies are a demand as set out in the Framework for the protection of kids in demand and their households, as will be discussed subsequently in this essay.

If a societal worker believed the parenting of the kid in inquiry to be opprobrious, as per s47 of the Children’s Act 1989, so before compulsory protection will happen, the societal worker must fulfill the legal commissariats of s31 ( 2 ) of The Children Act 1989, and demonstrate that the attention provided by the parents in inquiry is ‘not… what it would be sensible to expect’ a parent to supply.

Another point which I feel should be raised in our analysis of a good societal work appraisal is as follows: It is of import non to pigeonhole households and establish an assessment upon such stereotypes, as to make so may be to do false premises about the demands of the kid within that household. This phenomenon has been most prevailing in relation to black households and those of other cultural minorities. Ahmed et Al, in 1986 was the first to describe on institutional racism in the field of service proviso for black kids and their households, and its negative effects. Whilst modern research shows that these minority groups are under-represented by the societal services ( Tunstill and Aldgate, 2000 ) , coincident research by Thoburn ( 2000 ) suggests that when black and cultural minorities come to the attending of the societal services its is preponderantly in relation to specific service petitions instead than general kid protection, i.e. less likely to be about ill-treatment. I would notice here that the best manner to avoid such institutional racism, and edifice false premises based upon inaccurate household stereotypes is to promote more surveies into the airing of the black family/ cultural minority household stereotype. Works such as the text book by Dutt and Phillips ( 2000 ) does merely this, supplying a comparative analysis of black and white households and the several appraisal demands of each. The differences in the construction of the household and differences in cultural values are discussed in deepness, and the myths of the black stereotype are dispelled through coherent and compelling research. Such research should be promoted, as merely in this manner can confusion in this country be dissolved.

In decision, a high quality societal work appraisal is non a simple list of protocol. After all every kid is different and hence assessment process must be sufficiently ductile to guarantee that in each instance the assessor does non lose out on any relevant information about the kid and his/ her parents which may take him or her to the incorrect assessment decisions. There are many theories which contribute to our apprehension of kid development, and the assessor must be free to confer with any of these theories should he hold them to be appropriate in the instance at manus. Theory should non nevertheless be confused with political orientation ; popular political orientations such as ‘all kids should be in household based attention because residential attention is bad for them’ or ‘siblings should be kept together at all costs’ should ne’er acquire in the manner of ethical and professional pattern which discriminates efficaciously in relation to the developmental demands of a peculiar kid ( Department of Health: Assessing Children in Needs ( 2000 ) .

It is hence really hard to province with any certainty what the features of a good quality kid attention appraisal really are, as they will be different in each instance. I hope I have demonstrated all the issues which must be addressed in a good quality appraisal, and if some of my analysis has appeared to be excessively general, so delight understand that specificity is near impossible in a field of scientific discipline which is so varied and many-sided. This decision leads us nicely nevertheless onto the 2nd half of this essay in which I shall discourse the bing procedural outlooks and guidelines refering to such kid attention appraisals, as enshrined in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health et Al, 2000 ) , the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [ as ratified by the UK Government in 1991, and incorporated into domestic jurisprudence by the Human Rights Act 1998 ] and the Children Act 1989, which provides the UK’s most comprehensive appraisal model for the protection and attention of kids in the UK.

The demand for such a model was articulately expressed by Schofield in 1998: “Social workers need a model for understanding and assisting kids and households which takes into history the interior universe of the ego and the outer universe of the environment, both in footings of relationships and in footings of practicalities such as lodging. It is the capacity of societal workers to be cognizant of and incorporate in their pattern these different countries of concern which defines the typical nature of their professional identity.”

The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health et Al, 2000 ) was introduced to make merely this. Supply a model which would promote societal workers to follow an appraisal pattern which moved beyond the ideological and encouraged appraisal based on theory. As argued antecedently in this essay, theory should non of all time be confused with political orientation ; popular political orientations such as ‘all kids should be in household based attention because residential attention is bad for them’ or ‘siblings should be kept together at all costs’ should ne’er acquire in the manner of ethical and professional pattern which discriminates efficaciously in relation to the developmental demands of a peculiar kid ( Department of Health: Assessing Children in Needs ( 2000 ) . This job was identified by the Department of Health in 1995 in their policy research paper entitled ‘Messages from Research. The Model for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families along with the revised Working Together to Safeguard Children ( Department of Health 1999a ) hence set out to refocus the appraisal attack off from the myths of political orientation towards a theoretical attack which would turn out more contributing to placing the existent demands of each kid who is referred to the Social Services, and making more optimum results for these vulnerable kids and their households in each instance.

Another purpose of the model was to consolidate existing patterns into one papers which could be understood by all those parties whom might be affected by the model, including practicians. It was hence indispensable that the linguistic communication used was clear and concise. This aim is described by the Framework as follows: “ Children ‘s demands and their households fortunes will necessitate inter-agency coaction to guarantee full apprehension of what is go oning and to guarantee an effectual service response. The usage of the appraisal model for measuring kids in demand provides a linguistic communication which is common to kids and their household members every bit good as to professionals and other staff ” .

The Framework sets out the function of the Social Services in the field of kid attention as being to supply service for kids in demand and their households. Priority is assured to those kids in greatest demand of province aid, and case in point is iven to child public assistance over other impressions of household public assistance. This is of import, as basically the model is saying that it will be more likely to help when a kid is in demand instead than merely when a child’s demands are non being met due to miss of household public assistance, e.g. poorness.

The Framework outlines a committedness to guaranting that distinction is made between those ‘children in need’ [ as per s17 of the Children Act 1989 ] , and those kids who need existent province protection [ as per s47 of the same Act ] . They call on research findings of their 1995 paper ‘Matters from Research’ to warrant this differentiation as being the best manner to assist households who are in demand. The differentiation is made as follows: all referrals should be dealt with under s17 of the Act except where existent hurt or injury has been inflicted upon the kid or where such injury appears at hand.

If a referred kid is non considered to be either a kid in demand or a kid who requires province protection, the societal services section will shut the instance, although the household may be referred to another bureau who may be able to assist.

Where a kid is in demand but does non necessitate protection, the Framework provinces that a attention program will be completed to turn to the jobs in the household in inquiry. In complex instances where the kid does non necessitate protection but is in serious demand, a Core Appraisal may be executed ; a meeting will be held by the appropriate societal service section, and person will be appointed the assessor. This assessor will so work out a class of action which may outdo aid the household in inquiry. This step is like an advanced attention program.

Where it comes to the attending of the societal services that a kid antecedently in demand may now be in fright of important injury, a nucleus Appraisal will be initiated along with the standard kid protection processs.

In any of these instances, where a service is being provided by the societal services in relation to kids in demand and or those in demand of protection, the services will be reviewed on a regular basis to guarantee that at all stages the appropriate attention is provided. Where the kid appears to no longer be in demand, the instance shall be closed, although once more referral may be made to another bureau if the household still experience aid is required.

The appraisals themselves must be completed in 35 yearss of a referral being made and there being a determination to do an appraisal. The appraisal will turn to the child’s chief demands and will look into the capacity of the parents to supply those demands, as per our earlier treatment.

Where it is deemed that a kid is in demand of protection a scheme meeting will be held to discourse how the probe and appraisal should be conducted. Within 15 yearss, a kid protection meeting will be held, and a nucleus appraisal will so be conducted in order to measure whether the kid does necessitate protection, and if so, to what grade.

Martin Calder in his first-class chapter on the Assessment Framework argues that the Framework guideline topographic point an over emphatic focal point on conformity with certification, protocol and timescales, instead than a true focal point on accomplishing the greatest result for the kids involved. I would reason that whilst, Prima facie, I would hold with Calder’s point of view, he has failed to understand that the demand for greater conformity with certification and timescales is really designed to take to a greater figure of more optimal results for kids. The formalistic procedural demands promote a greater grade of attention in each instance, and the decreased timescales mean that more instances can be heard in a shorter infinite of clip.

What these procedural formalities have done nevertheless, in my sentiment, is to clear a blasted civilization in which practicians are so concerned with staying by all the procedural demands that they are less prepared to do determinations for which they could subsequently be held accountable. This sentiment is supported by an interview which I conducted with a Social Worker who works in the kid attention field. She stated that he co-workers are so afraid of allowing a kid leave protection in instance that kid subsequently becomes abused and the incrimination is placed upon them for holding assessed the child’s household as being safe.

Another job is that the kid attention section of the societal services in England and Wales is so ailing staffed that one might worry that these reduced timescales will promote those workers, who are already under immense emphasiss, to be lazy in their appraisals and reach decisions before full in depth probe has taken topographic point.

In decision, the procedural models and guidelines in topographic point to regulate good pattern societal work in kid attention are a worthy effort to promote good pattern. Whilst they make the whole procedure more bureaucratic, this added certification and demand for meetings and right appraisal techniques do look to promote a more thorough attack to assessment which could take to better attention for those kids in demand or those who require province protection. The model besides encourages those workers involved in the procedure to trust less to a great extent on age old political orientations, and more on solid behavior based theories. Again this will promote more accurate service responses, and may assist to cut down the figure of societal workers who rely on outdate stereotypes in order to do opinions.

The model besides brings more people into the procedure, and this really fact entirely will intend that there is less opportunity of errors being made in attention determinations.

The model nevertheless does non supply the substantial appraisal standards to any great grade, and this is because, as mentioned antecedently in this essay, it is close impossible to make a strategy which will be pertinently applicable in each single instance. After all there are so many variable involved within the household model.

Possibly the demand for faster responses will intend that kids who do need protection, are provided such much faster than earlier, but the existent concern is that the demand for velocity will promote fast determination doing which may be founded on misguided premises. To take a kid from his household when it is non required can hold lay waste toing psychological effects on both the household and the kid. This would non be a coveted result.

The improves and clarified referral process, whilst non relevant to the subject of this essay, will intend that more kids who may be in demand of attention or protection are brought to the attending of the societal services. This is of class a coveted result, but one can merely fear that with the short work force available in kid attention societal work, this will take to instances being rushed, and errors being made.

In decision I would reason that the models in topographic point as contained in the Children’s Act 1989 and the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health et Al, 2000 ) does so promote good pattern in the field of kid attention societal work appraisal.

Mentions:

Belsky Y J and Vondra J ( 1989 ) Lessons from kid maltreatment: The determiners of rearing. In Cicchetti D and Carlson V ( explosive detection systems ) ( 1989 ) Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Brearley J ( 1991 ) Counselling and Social Work. Open University Press, Buckingham.

Children Act 1989 ( 1989 ) HMSO, London.

Department of Health: Assessing Children in Needs ( 2000 )

Department of Health ( 1995 ) ‘Messages from Research.’ HMSO London

Department of Health ( 1999a ) , Working Together to Safeguard Children,

Dutt, R. and Phillips, M. ( 2000 ) ‘Assessing black kids in demand and their families’ Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families ( Department of Health et Al, 2000 )

Human Rights Act 1998 HMSO, London

Martin Calder, Assessment in kid attention: utilizing and developing models for pattern ; edited by Martin Calder RUSSELL HOUSE PUBLISHING ( 2003 )

Schofield G ( 1998 ) Inner and outer universes: a psychosocial model for kid and household societal work. Child and Family Social Work. 3: 57–67.

Seden J ( 2000 ) A Review of the Literature: Appraisal in Social Work. In Department of Health ( 2000b ) Studies which inform the development of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. The Stationery Office, London.

Social Services Inspectorate, 1999, Geting Family Support Right. Inspection of the Delivery of Family Support Services. Department of Health, London.

Thoburn J, Wilding J and Watson J ( 2000 ) Family Support in Cases of Emotional Maltreatment and Neglect. The Stationery Office, London.

Thomas C and Beckford V ( 1999 ) Adopted Children Speaking. BAAF, London.

Tunstill J and Aldgate J ( 2000 ) Services for Children In Need: From Policy to Practice. The Stationery Office, London.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ( November ) UNSO

Utting D ( 1995 ) Family and Parenthood: Supporting Families, Preventing Breakdown. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

.