Category Archives: social work

Over Half Of Social Workers Believe It’s OK To Search For A Client On Facebook

11 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 5 Comments

A new report published in April by child welfare professionals concludes that social workers find the internet useful for work, but are unclear about how it should be used in a child welfare setting.

Co-authored by social work professors Melanie Sage, Melissa Wells, Todd Sage, and Mary Devlin, the report recommends issuing guidelines for child protection and family professionals. This echoes what Researching Reform suggested in March, when we raised concerns about online methods used to track and trace families and children in care proceedings. In our post we urged the President of The Family Division Sir James Munby to issue a Guidance Note without delay. We also think UK based research like this report would be a welcome development to offer more insight here.

An extract from the paper tells us:

“This analysis examines the role of agency policy and supervision in the decision-making of child welfare workers about their work-related social media use. Data were collected using a mixed-methods internet-based survey of 171 child welfare workers and interns about their social media use related to their direct-practice work with child welfare clients. The study finds that supervisor approval and agency policy is correlated with worker’s social media use, and that workers find utility in social media use, but have poor clarity about how they should use social media in the child welfare work setting. These results suggest a need for agency policy and practice guidelines. Implications for child welfare agencies include an opportunity to consider the types of policy development necessary to ensure that multiple stakeholders are represented in policy and practice decisions, and that they reflect the possible benefits and risks of social media use.”

The information within this publication is astounding, both for its depth of knowledge – it cites the latest research and data available on the adoption of social media within the child protection sector – and its scope. From the risks social media poses to practitioners thinking about engaging online to the benefits of its use, such as the opportunities it offers for practice driven innovation, it is a must read for family professionals.

Some thought-provoking ideas from the paper:

  • “The utility-driven use of social media… offers the opportunity for practice-driven innovation, instead of the top-down agency-driven technology mandates which workers often find as disruptive to their practice.”
  • ” [A] study of the acceptability of videoconferencing via Skype for visits between children in foster care and their siblings or parents found that child welfare workers generally thought it was an acceptable practice, and some were already using it.”
  • “Another concern relates to safety and privacy issues… Factors for consideration include informed consent, confidentiality, verifying identity, and avoiding disclosure of confidential client identification.”
  • “Child welfare workers report that they access social media to aid in risk assessment, and sometimes generally to learn about clients.”
  • “Ethical issues also arise related to a client’s right to privacy… and potential relationship harm caused by this type of information use.”

More controversially, a significant percentage of those surveyed admitted to searching for clients online:

  • Over half of the workers (58%) reported that searching for a client on Facebook out of curiosity was acceptable in some situations and 43% reported that they had done this.
  • Over half of workers (53%) stated that it was acceptable in some situations to search for a client on Facebook that the agency would like to locate, such as a missing parent and about half (49%) had done this.
  • 61% of the child welfare workers stated that it was acceptable in some situations to search for a client on a site like Facebook when the information might give insight into client risk factors and close to half (46%) had done this.
  • About 65% of the child welfare workers reported that it was acceptable in some situations to search for a client on a site like Facebook when conducting a child welfare investigation or assessment and about a third had done this.

Whilst the research was conducted in America, there are clear parallels between the US and the UK: we know that child welfare professionals in the UK are using the internet to contact and even monitor families.

The use of social media within family work was broached by the British Association Of Social Workers in 2012, with an initial document outlining their stance on Social Media Policy  and Child Protection Practice. It’s a good basic working document which outlines the fundamentals of online content, privacy and professional conduct, however it doesn’t adequately address the evolving issues surrounding service users, and so input from the President is necessary to ensure that all topics are covered and clear guidelines are available to everyone.

We’ve added some articles below on social media use in a child welfare context:

The full report, which is called “Supervisor and policy roles in social media use as a new technology in child welfare”, can be accessed if you’re accredited or if you’re happy to pay the download fee. Essentially, the research calls for better guidance on social media use, guidance which would benefit social work practice globally.

A very big thank you to Melanie Sage for offering Researching Reform the report in full and to  Dennis North for alerting us to this publication.

pablo (15)

Social Workers To Use Facebook To Track Down Parents In Care Proceedings

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in social work

≈ 16 Comments

A well meaning judge has given social workers the green light to search for missing parents on Facebook so that they can be alerted to care proceedings, but this could open up a raft of problems around parents’ and children’s right to privacy.

In the case, the court was desperately trying to track down a mother who could not be found. It was claimed that she had either left the country or been removed from the UK once her child had been placed with an adopter. When the judge asked both Cafcass and the council in question whether there was a chance the mother could be found through Facebook, the organisations expressed scepticism. They also told the court that they had tried to find the mother but were unable to. Oddly enough, she was found almost immediately on the social media site.

The judge went on to criticise Cafcass, the council and other professionals in the case for what he felt was a ‘total disregard’ for the rules around birth parents being properly notified.

Nevertheless, this new power could lead to parents being hunted down and their privacy potentially breached on Facebook and other social media sites. And although no official rule appears to exist about contacting parents through sites like Facebook, reaching out to parents in this way is currently frowned upon inside the child protection sector.

The judgment is likely to cause confusion and lead to less than ethical developments in care proceedings unless some form of guidance by The President of the Family Division is issued immediately.

We would welcome Justice Munby publishing some guidelines in this area.

Should Fear Of Being Shamed Affect Social Workers’ Professionalism?

04 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 11 Comments

An article published in Community Care on Wednesday by a professor of Social Work at the University of Birmingham suggests that media and public scrutiny of the profession is causing social workers to feel shame which leads them to behave unethically.

Matthew Gibson says:

“Government departments provide press releases, inspectorates provide ‘inadequate’ gradings, and the media amplify the message of incompetence locally and nationally.

Inevitably senior leadership teams seek to avoid being publicly shamed and change their organisations so that employees produce the evidence they need for a positive evaluation.”

The article comes out in defence of the social work sector, but not through intelligent reasoning of the need for this vital work, instead it chooses to focus on blaming the press for the current shortcomings inside the system and the deep shame research suggests social workers feel about their roles.

Mr Gibson’s central argument is that a lack of faith in the social work sector and shame are the root causes of its problems, that the public and the press have written the sector off and as a result it cannot function properly, because every child protection professional is now afraid to do the right thing.

We just can’t see the logic in that.

It also presupposes that every social worker is trained to an acceptable standard and always knows what the right thing to do is, despite constant reminders that the sector just isn’t keeping up with legislation or new research.

Whilst it would be fair to say that negative press about the failings inside the system has placed child welfare professionals under pressure to perform better and does lead to local authorities and other government bodies manipulating figures in order to justify its existence (see the scandal over the Troubled Families programme for an excellent example of this), at its heart the social work sector’s dilemma is rooted in training and recruitment standards. It is one of our biggest bug bears. Social work should be valued and respected, but training is still too basic and the accepted standard for work practice is simply ‘Good Enough’ (which is nowhere near good enough), rather than ‘Best Practice’.

Mr Gibson’s take is overly simplistic:

“It is not the social workers, organisations, or profession that is not good enough, but the system of rules, expectations, and requirements imposed upon the social workers, organisations, and the profession that are not good enough for practice.”

Whilst it is true that many of the difficulties inside the system stem from pointless form filling, time wasting exercises, not enough attention to detail where it matters (like family visits and practical support) and too strong an emphasis on ‘outcomes’ which bear no relation to effective solutions for families, that’s not all we’re seeing.

Standard based expectations are there for a reason, and if social workers wish to be considered professionals, then negative media coverage of genuine failings should never be an excuse to compromise those expectations. It should also never be a reason to behave unethically towards the families they are meant to be supporting, an alarming practice noted by BASW Vice Chair Maggie Mellon.

We are often asked for advice on the best ways to share information about negligent or unethical social workers. Often, people will ask about the legalities of Facebook and other online Groups ‘naming and shaming’ individuals who have already made the families feel shame, (resulting in the families’ need to strike back). There is a lot of anger about the way child protection professionals treat families which has to be properly addressed, rather than shut down if the system is to understand what it needs to do in order to improve its services.

Essentially, Mr Gibson is saying that social workers are not able to do a good job because the system ‘just won’t let them’, which is partly right. But his research within the social work sector which claims that shame is the culprit for falling standards and incompetence, completely ignores the fact that such feelings come about as a result of perceived fault or negligence. His view that public service workers are expected to “never make a mistake” is also wrong. No one minds if mistakes are made, as long as those who make them admit to them, and then rectify the situation.

All too often, mistakes are highlighted but never put right, something we see time and again with families’ cases. The end result is that those errors go on to colour findings, judgments and even life altering decisions about children. The family court process is to blame for this, but social workers have a crucial role to play in putting things right to ensure appropriate outcomes for parents and children.

Mr Gibson has failed to understand that much of the upset the system faces is down to professional arrogance,  inefficiency and carelessness. All service users want is an open, honest system that works proactively to make a difference. Until then, Mr Gibson will have to accept that the sector will remain under scrutiny, and as he puts it, “‘accountable’ to taxpayers and the government by demonstrating efficiency, effectiveness, and value for money”.

social work

 

 

 

 

This Is How Visits To See Your Child In A Contact Centre Should Be…

13 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 14 Comments

The Family and Children’s Resource Programme at the University of North Carolina, have done something amazing.

Their videos on how to better understand parents’ emotions during supervised contact and showing foster carers how to work with birth parents, are outstanding, and need to be shared and watched, not just by parents but by our own child welfare professionals and universities offering social work courses.

From creating a sense of normality for children in care, to supporting mums and dads during visits to see their children, the videos offer hugely insightful information on why parents sometimes skip supervised contact, how child welfare professionals can help families stay together and more.

We would urge everyone with an interest in child protection and child welfare generally to subscribe and watch these hugely helpful videos. 

A very big thank you to Dana for alerting us to these videos.

SWNC.png

Government To Launch Consultation On Mandatory Reporting Of Child Abuse

05 Thursday May 2016

Posted by in child abuse, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 11 Comments

Minister For Schools, Edward Timpson has confirmed that the government will launch a consultation shortly, exploring whether there should be a formal obligation to report child abuse.

The consultation is due to run for 12 weeks. Information received will be used to decide whether there is a need for further statutory measures in this area.

It is likely that the consultation will focus on specific professions who come into contact with children as part of their work. A new law in this area could make it a criminal offence for social workers not to report suspicions of abuse, and could include teachers, medical professionals, child care providers and the police.

Currently in America, 48 states subscribe to mandatory reporting.

We’ll share the consultation as soon as it’s published.

OACMay

 

BBC2: Mother Who Fought To Get Her Baby Back And Won

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in child welfare, Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 5 Comments

A mother who lost four children to the care system and then fought the child protection system to keep her fifth, was interviewed today on BBC2.

The interview is a candid look at the system and the ‘risk of future harm’ test, which allows social services to take children from parents who they feel cannot look after their children. The interview also explores how the removal process affects parents and why mothers who lose children to the care system continue to get pregnant.

You can watch the full interview here.

VD

Social Worker Speaks Out About Local Authority Cover Ups in Child Protection Cases

31 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 27 Comments

In a video posted by the UK Column, Carol Woods, a social worker talks about her experiences working at Lancashire County Council on child protection cases, and how the council altered files and removed evidence which showed families had suffered directly because of the council.

Carol talks about serious breaches relating to a high profile child protection case and other serious child cases, including the alteration of children’s files, unchecked details of lawyers in the case who may not have been qualified at the time, and in-house pressure to provide ‘ordered babies’ by removing babies from vulnerable parents for adoption, rather than providing these families with support.

A significant concern appears to be the practice of encouraging social workers to alter children’s files and remove evidence in highly contentious cases with a view to creating persuasive documentation that would lend itself to removing children from parents and placing them with adoptive families.

Another very worrying element to this practice outlined by Ms Woods is the assertion that much of the evidence that was edited or taken out proved without a doubt that the local authority, and not the parents involved in these cases, had been responsible for causing the children in question serious harm.

You can watch the interview, below.

Many thanks to Andy Peacher for sharing this item with us.

 

What Do They Know: False Or Misleading Social Work Reports

11 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 39 Comments

Having been very kindly alerted by one of our lovely readers to a Freedom Of Information request made in 2012 about false or misleading statements within social work reports in the UK,  we decided to do a very quick search to see what other requests in this area have been made, and there have been several.

The one that caught our eye though, is, arguably, the most recent FOI request on this topic, and features the now infamous Walsall Borough Council (those of us assisting families will be very familiar with this borough).

The request for information was made in 2014, and is entitled, “False statements or reports from social services (aka) SS”. The question is as follows:

18th August, 2014

Dear Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council,

We are compiling research taking into account ICO guidelines and
DPA and wish the following information regarding children’s social
services.

From research many parents have complained that reports compiled by
social services are “inaccurate”, “false” or “misleading”. It has
been reported by parents that these reports or statements are not
allowed to be amended,despite evidence of reports or statements
being incorrect, contra to ICO guidelines and the DPA.

It appears that the complaints process is not been adhered by the
LA across the UK and all that happens is social workers say “we
will hold your letter on file stating our records are inaccurate”

Should the matter go to court, it has been reported that the LA
provide courts with the inaccurate reports or statements but fail
to give the courts letters by parents to show records how and why
the reports are inaccurate.

We wish to know under the FOI for the last 24 months
We refer to any written paper work compiled by social services or
any person working on their behalf.

1) How many parents have in the last 24 month period have
complained that social workers reports or statements are
inaccurate, misleading or false or any words to the same effect.

2) How many times have social workers or managers refused to
correct reports or statements?

3)How many times have social workers or managers said they would
put letters on file proving reports are inaccurate?

4) How many of the said reports that are inaccurate, misleading or
false have been used in court?

5) We have been told that notes of inaccuracies are added to the LA
computer system. Should any notes of inaccurate, misleading or
false statements or reports be applied on the LA’s computer system
does these full notes of inaccuracies show up if any other
professional prints out or reads data. Do professionals show these
notes to courts that the reports that they are giving the courts
are proven to be inaccurate.

6. Are their any laws broken by making false reports and if so
what? How many social workers have been caught making false
reports?

Yours faithfully,

Mr k Hopkins

What is interesting about this question, and distinguishes it from the first we link to above, is that unlike the request made in 2012, this newer request actually receives a more substantial answer, which offers information about complaints. The response to the first request, which is made to Torfaen Council rather than Walsall Council, offers no data and says there have been no complaints, which many would find hard to believe today. Walsall Council though, are more upfront and offer the following response, albeit a very long overdue one (for which they apologise and take the trouble to reassure the author of the request that the delay was not by design, though they offer no explanation for it and also don’t offer the name of the person responding to the query).

Here is Walsall Council’s response:

26th November, 2014

Dear Mr Hopkins,

Further to your request for information about false statements or reports from social services, please accept my apologies for the lengthy delay you have experienced in being provided with a full answer to your questions.

I can however, now tell you the following details:

How many parents have in the last 24 month period have complained that social workers reports or statements are inaccurate, misleading or false or any words to the same effect.?

The Customer Care Team has advised that their records show there have been 33 cases of parents complaining of inaccurate, misleading or false statements in social care files. There may be more complaints, but if they have not been submitted through the formal complaint process, then this information is not captured centrally and not readily available. To find any further instances would require every social care case file to be reviewed manually. It is considered, that to provide any further detail would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore exempt under section 12 of the FOI Act.

The FOI Act provides that in answering your request the Council can consider the ‘appropriate limit’. This part of the Act states that the Council can estimate the likely cost of complying with your request in order to decide whether it must reply. S.12 of the Act refers to the Fees Regulations which provide that where the Council estimates that the likely cost of responding to a request will exceed £450.00 there is no obligation to provide the information requested, free of charge.

In this case the amount of information held by the Council is extremely high and therefore I have estimated that to review all of the information held would clearly exceed the set limit. This is because as well as the large volume of social care records, it is not possible to easily identify specific concerns relating to accuracy of records within each case file as such issues may have been recorded in a number of forms within the records.

How many times have social workers or managers refused to correct reports or statements?

In total, out of the 33 reported cases of parents complaining about inaccuracies in social care files, the service area refused to amend 13 reports or statements. This documentation was not amended, as it was considered that they were accurate and contained no false information. As detailed above, this information has been provided by the Customer Care Team and relates to those complaints that have been made through the formal complaints process. There may be more instances, but if they have not been submitted through this process, then this information is not captured centrally and not readily available. To find any further instances would require every social care case file to be reviewed manually. It is considered, that to provide any further detail would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore exempt under section 12 of the FOI Act.

3) How many times have social workers or managers said they would put letters on file proving reports are inaccurate?

This information is not held centrally and would require each social care case file to be reviewed manually. Therefore it is considered, that to provide any further detail would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore exempt under section 12 of the FOI Act.

4) How many of the said reports that are inaccurate, misleading or false have been used in court?

Social Workers complete many different kinds of reports in connection with court proceedings. PARIS assessments and reports shared with families can be and are amended if inaccuracies are highlighted throughout any involvement with that family.

Once a report is submitted to a court, that document then belongs to the court. Any issues or disagreements with a report that emerges throughout the court process, can only be rectified through that process. All those that are party to the court proceedings have the right to highlight any inaccuracies directly or through legal representation.

To identify how many court reports were amended throughout court proceeding would exceed the appropriate time limit.  To find any such instances would require every social care case file to be reviewed manually. It is considered, that to provide any further detail would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore exempt under section 12 of the FOI Act.

5) We have been told that notes of inaccuracies are added to the LA computer system. Should any notes of inaccurate, misleading or false statements or reports be applied on the LA’s computer system does these full notes of inaccuracies show up if any other professional prints out or reads data. Do professionals show these notes to courts that the reports that they are giving the courts are proven to be inaccurate.

When any new case notes are added to or amended on the PARIS system they are visible to all relevant social care staff. Amended notes or newly added notes are available to read and print to all relevant staff and therefore would be available, if required for any court proceedings.

6. Are there any laws broken by making false reports and if so what? How many social workers have been caught making false reports?

If a social worker intentionally provided false information in a report this would be viewed as a serious disciplinary matter and the appropriate council disciplinary procedures would be followed.

In addition any social worker found to be falsifying records would be in breach of the BASW Code of Ethics for Social Work, which could result in a referral to the Health Care Professions Council for further investigation.

This could result in a social worker not being able to continue to practice.

Most of the information that we provide in response to Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by Walsall Council. The copyright in respect of other information may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated.

You are free to use any information supplied to you in response to this request for your own non-commercial research or private study purposes. The information may also be used for any other purpose allowed by a limitation or exception in copyright law, such as news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example by publishing the information in analogue or digital form, including on the internet, will require the permission of the copyright owner.

I hope that the information provided is useful to you. However, if you are dissatisfied, you should set out in writing your grounds for complaint and send to: Information Risk & Governance Manager, Business Change, Civic Centre, Darwall Street, Walsall WS1 1TP.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a decision. Please remember that, generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have first exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the council. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely
Information Rights Officer

Program Delivery & Governance
Business Change

The response above highlights several issues in this area. One, is that there is clearly very little effort at documenting what most people would consider to be important information which goes to the heart of child protection and good service provision generally and whilst we appreciate it takes time to log details and make sure files are accurate, and the current climate makes it harder for social workers and other professionals to devote more time to admin, good computer software in the form of a digital filing system should sort that out fairly quickly. Another concern is that false reporting, dishonesty and lying are only dealt with under non legal regulations in the form of ethics guidelines, which isn’t good enough. It may be that legislation should be put in place to change the culture inside the system and send out the message that intentionally falsifying records is a very serious matter and will not be tolerated.

Another important observation to make in relation to these kinds of queries are the significant numbers of complaints about poor reporting which would be made if it weren’t for the fact that families are terrified of raising concerns about inaccuracies within reports. A defensive culture which rails against parents’ concerns and questions makes it impossible for families to enter into any kind of constructive dialogue with the very people who are supposed to be supporting them and finding solutions to often very difficult problems. In reality, the number of complaints about social work reports will be much higher than the actual number recorded – we often advise parents not to complain to local authorities during the life of their cases because we know it will almost always result in families suffering prejudicial outcomes, and we know many lay advisers who do the same.

Dishonest reporting is a fascinating area, which we would love to write a research paper on.

What are your thoughts on dishonest social work reports?

A very big thank you to Dana for alerting us to the Torfaen Council FOI request.

Walsall FOI

Department For Education: Social Workers Are Poorly Trained & Not Ready For Practice

13 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Consultation, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 10 Comments

Another bug bear here at Researching Reform is the lack of robust training for social workers, who are tasked with working on some of the most complex social and psychological difficulties in the world, and now it seems, the Department for Education agrees with us.

In a memorandum the Department submitted to Parliament’s Education Committee, key concerns surrounding the effectiveness of children’s social work reform agenda were highlighted, including the view that too often social workers were poorly trained and not ready for frontline practice.

Other problems identified in the memorandum were the defensive nature of social work practice and an inability to provide innovative and confident practice leadership locally.

That a lack of resources, low morale and high turnover rates were also mentioned is significant – these obstacles to good practice not only have an effect on the way families are treated but directly impact on the culture inside the system. And whilst there are excellent social workers who care, they are still in relative terms, few and far between, unable to make a large scale difference to the sector as a whole and often struggle to achieve best practice due to the current economic constraints.

The memorandum has been submitted as part of the Education Committee’s inquiry into social care reform, and they are looking to gather more views. If you would like to share your thoughts, you can do so here. The deadline for submissions is midday on Friday 4th March, 2016.

social work

Parents CAN Record Child Protection Meetings

10 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 31 Comments

A recently published article in Community Care raises the issue of whether or not parents can record meetings with social workers, and serves as a good reminder to those who may not yet know the position.

Whilst local authorities and social work professionals often try to discourage the practice, citing confidentiality, data protection and human rights principles, there is in fact nothing in law or policy preventing families from audio recording child protection meetings they attend.

A Freedom of Information request revealed that most councils do not have proper policies in place to deal with the practice of recording sessions, both overt, and covert.

When we assist parents, our advice is always robust – by all means record the session. Whilst it is good practice to ask for the agreement of all involved in the first instance, if that agreement is not forthcoming, covert recording, (recording done without the other parties’ knowledge or consent) is a method of last resort.

As CAFCASS guidance points out, social workers who remain professional and carry out their duties competently, have nothing to fear.

We are often asked whether recordings of meetings with social workers are allowed, and the reasons for the requests vary. Some families find it hard to grasp all of the information they are given in a meeting and need that recording to be able to process the contents of the meeting at a pace that is right for them. Others have experienced negative or unprofessional behaviour from the team members involved and wish to protect themselves from illegal or unethical practice. And some find that their communications in previous meetings have been so badly transcribed or translated, that recordings are imperative to avoid further error.

Clearly, this  is an issue that touches upon standards of social work practice, transparency principles and good customer service. The growing phenomenon that is audio recording of such meetings, serves as a good reminder that there is still a lot of work to be done in the child welfare sector.

An informative blog for parents going through the child protection service, written by a mother going through the process herself called Surviving Safeguarding, explores and explains the realities of the process, and is worth reading.

audio recorder.jpg