Resources to Assist Social Workers

As I mentioned in a previous posting, in April 2006, New York caseworkers received a memo telling them not to discuss, email or post online anything that might reflect poorly on the agency. At the time, I mentioned my concerns that child welfare agencies, which are rather intrusive by nature when it comes to biological and foster families, might be avoiding accountability themselves.

What makes this directive even more interesting to me now is that in the January/February issue of Child Welfare, in-depth interviews of New York and Chicago social workers were published. A high percentage of New York caseworkers had reported poor morale and described their agencies as inadequate. I have to wonder if this prompted the April directive.

In these interviews, social workers were interviewed and asked their views on the child welfare system.

According to the social workers, the child welfare system:
-Does not meet the basic needs of children in care
-Lacks the necessary resources to appropriately serve clients
-Often sets unrealistic / unattainable goals

One caseworker stated that, "The system abuses the kids just as much as the parents do." Other respondees mentioned that foster children were often lost in the system, because there were not enough placement or adoptive resources.

Their overall responses emphasized the need to reform the child welfare system, and to re-evaluate funding priorities.

What might empower social workers to do the best job possible?

1.) Training. Not just initial, but ongoing training is necessary. Custodial cases are complicated. Laws change, policies adapt, inititiatives are created and research reveals new insights into child development and attachment issues. Investing in ongoing training for social workers is vital.

2.) Support: Caseworkers encounter high levels of stress and burnout. They often feel devalued and unappreciated for the work they do. To be effective, caseworkers need the support of their supervisor and coworkers.

3.) Qualified Supervision: Many caseworkers reported unqualified supervisors, unsupportive supervisors or the absence of supervision altogether. Lack of leadership does not promote effectiveness or morale.

4.) Cooperation with Court Personnel: I've mentioned the PEW Commission's recommendations on court proceedings in previous posts. They had mentioned that the adversarial approach of traditional judicial proceedings was detrimental to children in foster care.

Intrasystem contention: One interesting facet that this study revealed was that an adversarial relationship exists between court and child welfare personnel. It's hard to protect the child and facilitate collective decision-making when this type of antagonism between legal staff and child welfare staff is taking place.

Caseworkers also mentioned their frustration regarding:
-Lawyers who come to cases unprepared
-Certain birthparents and their lawyers were adept at manipulating the legal system
-Courts that were too quick to sever custody
-Courts that were too lenient on abusive birthparents and unwilling to sever custody

5.) Resources for Clients: Caseworkers expressed concern about their ability to provide the necessary services for clients.

Part of the social worker's job is to set clear limits for birth parents and provide them with the resources to overcome destructive behavior. However the instruments used to assess families were viewed as inadequate.

In order to comply with their case plan, birth parents are often required to go to multiple agencies, and if those particular trainings are overbooked, it can take up to six months to find a provider.

Reevaluating the job description

Perhaps it's time to examine the requirements of a social worker position.
-The job demands are high.
-Workers juggle high volume caseloads and redundant paperwork.
-Little time is left over to visit the children, focus on their well-being and determine the best outcome.
-Worker turnover and transition often results in lost information or spotty record keeping.

Even for a social worker with conviction, commitment and experience, the frequent lack of technical, administrative and personnel resources can be quite challenging.

We hand these overworked, underpaid individuals our most vulnerable children. We expect them to work miracles - and we demonize them for any evidence of failure. Rather than blaming the workers, we should reexamine the system as whole. And to do that, child welfare personnel should not be bound by any code of silence.

Source: Zell, Maristela. Child welfare workers: Who they are and how they view the child
welfare system. Child Welfare; Jan/Feb2006, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p83-103, 21p

Information: To Share or Not to Share?

I apologize for taking a detour in my study of the recommendations of the PEW Commission, but something has come to my attention...

Two Very Divergent Responses to Sharing Information

1.) Social workers forbidden to share information about the agency where they work.

The New York Administration for Children's Services has just released an Internet Acceptable Use Agreement, dated April 19, 2006.

According to the ACS's Internal Use Agreement:
"City employees must not publicly disclose internal information that many have any negative affect on the City's image."

Anything that a social worker hears, sees or reads in that agency is now regarded as top-secret. Even on their own time and on their own computers, they run the risk of disciplinary action if they share what's really happening.

A different tack might have been:
- To try to promote accountability for the agency.
- To shed light on problems.
- To admit and learn from mistakes (it's called accountability).
- To combat bad press by sharing positive outcomes.

This top-down, fear-motivated approach is designed to effectively shut down communication with "the outside."

2.) Agencies working together to share information about foster parents.

As New York ACS institutes its virtual "gag order," Ohio social work agencies are working together to share information more freely between agencies.

In many ways, this can be a very good thing.

The one thing that makes this issue complex is that there are three categories of allegations that can be made against foster families:

-substantiated
-unsubstantiated
-indicated

When foster parents undergo training, one of the first things that they are told is to expect an allegation to be made against them. It's part of the risk of being a foster parent.

I can see this from both points of view. As a child advocate, my first concern is for the children. They've been through enough already, and do not need to be exposed to additional harm.

However, what about well-meaning, hard-working, innocent foster parents? Should they be forever blacklisted without some form of proof?

It seems wise, in my opinion, to treat allegations differently, based on what category they fall into. However, if a foster family has a series of unsubstiated allegations for the same thing, especially if they come from different foster children, that would be cause for concern.

Seasoned, experienced social workers can differentiate between the different types of allegations. But the field of social work has a high turnover rate.

Let's say that a trainee makes a bad call about blacklisting a foster family. Will that poor choice ever be recognized and rectified by the agency? Or, will they just seek to avoid liability and rationalize that decision?

The troubling message that is sent by these two very different approaches is that:

While social work agencies might have the right to privacy, foster parents do not.

Foster families who have a grievance against an agency have limited options available:

- They can appeal the decision.
- They can file a grievance against the agency.
- Other than that, their only recourse is to transfer to another agency.

So, for example, if Agency A makes a bad call, their libel of that foster family would hypothetically be shared with Agency B. Assuming that this foster family is innocent, what can the foster family do in their own defense?

Not much. They can't file charges for libel. Why? Because the agency has immunity.

Now, that's troubling.