31 Thursday Aug 2017
Posted in Huffington Post, Researching Reform
The Huff Post has published our story on the five year old girl fostered by a Muslim household.
Wishing you a good weekend.
31 Thursday Aug 2017
Posted in Researching Reform, The Buzz
The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
Many thanks to Grant Low for sharing the first news item with us and to Tom Perkins for kindly sharing the survey.
30 Wednesday Aug 2017
Posted in child welfare, Researching Reform
Whilst the case of a Christian toddler forced to live in a Muslim household in England has reignited the Far Right and caused uproar worldwide, a much bigger and more important story is being missed. It’s a story about a broken care system, one which routinely fails children and which fights to stay alive through financial incentives.
There can be no excuse for sending a vulnerable child into an environment where they feel scared and alone. Leaked social work reports confirmed that the toddler had sobbed and begged not to be returned to the family after being told to remove her cross and prevented from eating spaghetti Carbonara because it had pork in it. The child was recorded as being deeply distressed and sometimes unable to understand the family, who spoke Arabic as well as English.
The family’s actions have understandably sparked a debate about the practice of Islam, however this kind of behaviour is motivated by ignorance, not religion. Being orthodox, whether as a Muslim, Jew, Christian or any other faith denomination does not prevent believers from accommodating others, even if they are under their roof. A lack of education and understanding does.
The fault lies squarely with Tower Hamlets local authority, whose inadequate rating by Ofsted saw that the council made the news for its “… widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection in Tower Hamlets.”. Someone should have asked whether the carers would be comfortable taking on a child whose daily rituals would be different to their own. Uprooting a vulnerable child in need is one thing, removing any vestige of normality, any sense of familiarity they hold, should never be allowed.
At the tender age of five, the girl’s cross was not a religious symbol to her, it was a source of comfort, something that she relied on to feel safe in a world full of uncertainty and fear. The spaghetti too, a sense of home, and warmth. That no one stopped to think about what these things meant to the toddler is a disgrace, and yet it is exactly the job of social services to be aware of contexts like this one.
A lot has happened since The Times broke its story about the case, on Monday. The little girl has since been reunited with her grandmother. The Family Court held a hearing on Tuesday, in which Judge Sapnara ruled that it would be in the child’s best interests to live with a member of her family who could meet her needs “in terms of ethnicity, culture and religion.”
This begs the question, if this was in the girl’s best interests, why wasn’t the placement made at the outset?
To understand that, we have to go beyond the debate about orthodox religion, prejudice and hate, and look closely at a child welfare system which puts profit before protection – and exploits families in poverty.
Budget cuts spurred on by austerity measures have left councils cash strapped and social workers tearing their hair out trying to work inside teams bound by red tape and dwindling resources. There are good child protection professionals on the ground, but at management level things become more complicated.
Directors and team leaders are under increasing pressure to ease the government’s social burden by removing children from vulnerable parents whose ongoing difficulties cost the state serious money. One way of doing this is through fostering. To galvanise councils into action, the government has routinely offered financial incentives, both for fostering children and adopting them.
Reports like this one from Oxford University suggest that those who come forward to foster have mostly altruistic motives for doing so, though there is little evidence to substantiate this claim.
Whilst virtually no data exists on life circumstances of UK foster carers or the kinds of income they earn before taking on children, emerging research could offer clues about deeper motivations. A toolkit produced by the Fostering Network in 2012, called “The Motivations To Foster”, received 1,400 responses to its survey asking about reasons for fostering. The respondents were members of the Fostering Network, which is made up of 42,000 foster carers – less than 4% of the network’s membership. The survey reveals that of those who took part, the majority who fostered were between 35 and 45, with 84% of carers having children of their own and most moving into fostering after deciding to leave work.
The Oxford university study also highlights research that suggests a significant number of foster carers do in fact choose to foster after losing a job, or because they are looking to cover every day costs. This implies in part that the money being given to foster carers to look after children is seen as a convenient way to cover household bills and other every day expenses. These findings leave open the door for an important debate on fostering income as a way to fend off poverty for families who themselves may be in need.
The family in this case may well have chosen to foster for income. In 2014, Tower Hamlets had the second highest unemployment rate across London and almost half (49%) of children in Tower Hamlets were in poverty. As of 2016, it is now the worst place in England for child poverty. Families in the borough are clearly struggling and could be looking for ways to make ends meet. Fostering offers a way to do that. Parents can stay at home, raise their own children and cover utility bills without having to juggle conventional employment at the same time.
Making fostering an attractive option has become a brazen pass time for agencies, who look to target those thinking about caring for children. Private agencies like Simply Fostering offer around £450 a week for taking on a child, and outline breakdowns of yearly ‘earnings’ on their website as well as financial ‘perks’, quick to tell prospective carers that it’s tax free income. Bragging about incentives is a common feature of the fostering sector, with agencies openly admitting that parents come forward for the cash. No mention is made of the often emotionally exhausting work in caring for traumatised children or the ongoing battles with biological parents looking to reverse care orders. All of that is conveniently swept under the carpet to ensure smooth transactions between agency and parent.
It’s mass exploitation of families in need on both sides of the deal, and though no research has been done in this area could be an important factor in a lack of stability within placements which break down at an alarming rate.
This disturbing case is not about Muslim customs or the rights and wrongs of faith. It is about the need for better social work training, properly allocated budgets and finding alternative ways to source foster carers who have the insight and stamina to take on children in need of deep love and affection. It is about child protection professionals understanding what judges have been saying for years, what the law and policy tell us about rehousing children – that family members and friends must be considered first before sending a delicate child into an unfamiliar environment.
MPs are now being urged to relaunch a government review into fostering – if it does, the review’s priority should not be scapegoating religion, it should be investigating financial incentives inside the care system and how we can meaningfully address every child’s best interests.
29 Tuesday Aug 2017
Posted in child welfare, Researching Reform
A Freedom Of Information request produced by a child rights activist has called out children’s charity the NSPCC for what it suggests is a reckless and less than upfront campaign designed to influence child protection policy.
Michele Simmons was reading an article which claimed that there was a sharp rise in child neglect cases, when she decided to search online for more information. What she discovered were over twenty strikingly similar articles all referencing statistics from the NSPCC, individually tailored for the readers of each regional publication.
A piece published in The Nottingham Post for example, cites NSPCC statistics for the area, claiming that the charity refers more than two cases of child neglect in Nottingham a week. In another look-alike story, The Oxford Times references NSPCC data which claims that three reports of child neglect a week are passed on to the police in the Oxford area.
All but one piece mentioned in the Freedom Of Information Request was published on 23rd August. However, further research confirmed that these copy cat stories were spread out across the whole of August, just before children are to head back to school, with at least 40 more entries spanning almost as many locations within Great Britain.
The Freedom Of Information Request asks for details about the origins of these articles, who requested them and how many areas were targeted.
Michele says she chose to make the request because she was concerned about campaigns like these demonising parents rather than promoting a policy of support and help:
“I understand why the NSPCC would want to raise awareness and it’s apparent they have been collecting data. Even though it has been displayed according to council and borough area, perhaps it would have been better to have published all the data in one article for all to read, showing the name of the council and the alleged percentage of neglect in each area.
It would also have been interesting to see a follow up story explaining the possible causes for the different levels of neglect in each area, for example poverty, which could be the root cause.”
The discovery has caused an uproar amongst some Family Court reform activists and parents who have lost children to the care system.
Concerned with what they feel is a short sighted campaign which will engender fear around neglect rather than encourage support for struggling families, campaigners and parents are now questioning the NSPCC’s data on child abuse, particularly its implicit claim that the calls they receive are all legitimate child neglect cases before the allegations are even processed or addressed by social services.
The name of the NSPCC’s report, “How Safe Are Our Children?” which holds the data mentioned in the articles, could also be being perceived as inflammatory, as could the less than balanced headlines for several of the news items involved (see the bottom of our post for a selection of headlines).
A question mark also remains over why referrals have risen over the last few years and so campaigners are seeing the NSPCC’s silence on this glaring information gap as an act of deliberate manipulation. We know that an increase in referrals does not automatically mean that child neglect is itself on the rise. A higher volume of reporting could simply be a symptom of more people raising concerns, which may or may not be justified.
The ‘check list’ for child neglect is also raising eyebrows for what’s being viewed as a simplistic take on a complex phenomenon. The NSPCC suggests the following are signs of neglect:
The NSPCC’s call for a nationwide study into the extent of child neglect in the UK and its concerns that it is far more prevalent than current data suggests, is also considered a dangerous policy line by some campaigners. Without evidence to back up claims like this one, child protection reformers believe that campaigns which seek to encourage reporting off the back of a checklist like the one above could lead to a surge in wrongful removals, often at the hands of well meaning members of the public who may not be best placed to judge.
But a nationwide study could offer much needed clarity on exactly what child neglect is, how it develops over time and what causes neglect in the first instance. Whilst there have been reports published in this area, like this one from the NSPCC and the government’s own training resources on how to address neglect, more could be done.
We would like to see a new investigation explore the following:
More than anything, we would hope that a study would be built on a compassionate and pro-active agenda, creating powerful conversations that lead to the eradication of the root causes of neglect. Studies like this one published last month, called “Poverty, inequality, child abuse and neglect: Changing the conversation across the UK in child protection?” provide an important template for other investigations moving forward.
Many thanks to Michele Simmons for sharing her Freedom Of Information request with us and to Yvonne Taylor for sharing the University Of Edinburgh’s research on how media campaigns influence child welfare policy.
24 Thursday Aug 2017
Posted in child welfare, Researching Reform
We have been asked to update our 2016 roundup of which politicians are working in departments with a child welfare element, so we’re adding the current state of play below:
Home Office:
Ministry Of Justice:
Department For Education:
Department Of Health:
Department For Work & Pensions:
Department For Digital, Culture, Media And Sport:
Department For Communities And Local Government:
For a full breakdown of departments and which ministers head them, click here.
23 Wednesday Aug 2017
Posted in child welfare, Human Rights, Researching Reform
A charity which aims to recognise and support organisations running successful on the ground projects for refugees and displaced people around the world is about to launch a new series of cash prizes.
Ockenden International has been helping refugees and displaced men, women and children for over 60 years. Established by three school teachers in 1951, and Founded by Joy Pearce, Ockenden became a registered charity in 1955.
The charity’s original mission was, “to receive young East European people from post World War II homeless persons’ camps in Germany and ‘to provide for their maintenance, clothing, education, recreation, health and general welfare’.”
As time went on, and historical events led to a sharp rise in refugees, Ockenden broadened its scope and its reach.
In 1962, the charity amended its mission statement so that it could, ‘receive displaced children and other children in need from any part of the world and to provide for their maintenance, clothing, education, recreation, health and general welfare.’
The charity introduced its International Prize in 2012, a three-year refugee studies fellowship at Oxford University, and is now relaunching its Annual Prize as four individual cash prizes of £25,000, for projects that “excel in developing independence for refugees and internally displaced people.”
The prizes will be awarded to projects and organisations with a proven track record in promoting self-reliance. Winners will be announced in 2018.
Organisations and individuals from all over the world can apply, however the work itself must have begun no earlier than September 1, 2014.
Call for entries takes place on 1st September, 2017.
The Deadline for entries in the 2018 prizes will be midnight (GMT) on Thursday 30 November, 2017, with the four winners to be announced in the first quarter of 2018.
The charity’s website tell us:
“The Ockenden International Prizes remains focused on solutions to the challenges faced by displaced people, raising awareness of their range of needs, and providing reward and recognition for those giving outstanding support.”
Connect with Ockenden International on Facebook, to learn more about its fellowships and prizes.
If you have any questions about the prizes and submission guidelines, you can contact the charity here.
22 Tuesday Aug 2017
Posted in Researching Reform, The Buzz
The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
Many thanks to Sabine for sharing the second news item with us.
21 Monday Aug 2017
Posted in Researching Reform
Welcome to another week.
A report recently published by the University of Winchester argues that children should have their own, independent right to privacy, separate from their parents’ own views about privacy.
The publication follows the Government’s announcement this month that it will create a new Data Protection Bill, giving people a right to force social media companies to delete their personal data, including social media posts from childhood.
A workshop was held to look at the ways in which a child’s right to privacy might be implemented in law. Organisations who attended the workshop included Channel Four, the BBC, the Children’s Commissioner’s Office and academics from the universities of Winchester, Oxford, East Anglia, Sussex and Cambridge.
A total of 8 recommendations were made:
Our question this week then, is just this: what do you think of the recommendations?
18 Friday Aug 2017
Posted in Consultation, Research, Researching Reform
A report just published highlights new findings about research and evidence use in family courts.
The Nuffield Foundation, along with several universities, research organisations and adoption and fostering academy CORAM BAAF, created “Towards a National Family Justice Observatory”, a scoping study which aims to identify what role the latest evidence and research can play in child welfare proceedings.
The study includes a consultation, which took place in September 2016 and which Researching Reform completed – you can see our answers here. It is this consultation which forms the basis of the recently publicised report.
The consultation wanted to understand the research evidence needs of stakeholders and
opportunities and barriers to the application of research evidence in policy and practice.
The findings were interesting. At a healthy 64 pages, we haven’t had a chance to comb through the whole report yet (you’ll need at least 30 tea bags and two packets of Digestives), but we have managed to read a significant portion.
Key highlights:
The report also tells us that based on stakeholders’ priorities, a new observatory would need to:
The top 4 research topics listed by those consulted were:
More importantly, the consultation process asked young people how they felt about the family justice system and what they wanted from it.
Every single child who took part, said they wanted the option to be able to speak to their judge directly.
Those who took part in the Focus Group listed the following as important to them:
They also felt it was vital that judges understood the long term impact of child welfare judgments and orders, as well as an emphasis on training for both judges and social work professionals to better understand how to communicate with children and provide them with emotional support. Young people also suggested child welfare professionals should have a working knowledge of cultural and topical issues.
Very much worth a read if you have the time.
18 Friday Aug 2017
Posted in News, Researching Reform
The latest child welfare developments that should be right on your radar:
