Chapter 5 Flashcards
Canadas child welfare
no national child welfare system
organized around two primary frameworks child protection and family support
child protection
It applies resources to the investigation of child
maltreatment. a highly legalistic and bureaucratic
process
Family support
It provides early intervention and additional supports
and resources to vulnerable families
Contrasting approaches
“Best Interests” vs. “Least Restrictive”
“Urgent Protection” vs. “Chronic Needs”
“Individual” vs. “Structural Orientation”
Best interests vs least restrictive approaches
The best interests approach emphasizes the protection
and well-being of the child above all else.
* The least restrictive approach emphasizes the course of
action that will cause the least disruption or change for
the child, preferably leaving the child with the family if
possible.
Child-welfare practitioners usually try to seek a balance
between two types of approaches
Urgent protection vs chronic need approaches
Urgent protection:
Severe physical injury,
sexual abuse, victims under
four years of age at high risk
of serious injury, etc.
Non-urgent situations:
Child neglect, emotional
maltreatment, and family
violence that threaten the
well-being of children, etc.
The concepts of “protection, safety, harm, risk” are relatively clear in the context of “child sexual abuse and severe physical abuse”; however, how about “neglect,
emotional maltreatment, and exposure to IPV”?
Individual vs structural orientation approaches
Who is responsible?
* Child-protection legislation tends to take an individualistic
approach—responsibility rests with the parent(s)/guardian(s)
to provide a safe and supportive environment for the child.
* Child maltreatment is constructed as an individual parental
failing.
* However, this perspective can obscure broader socio-
economic contributions and structural and ecological factors
that may be contributing to a child’s neglect and abuse.
change needed for these contrasting approaches?
many researchers and practitioners argue for a more
comprehensive approach to child welfare that addresses
systemic issues, such as poverty and discrimination.
Examples
* Lone mothers and their children are one of the most
economically vulnerable groups, with almost one in every
two female lone-parent families (47%) living in poverty.
* Low income among new immigrants is more than three times
higher than among people born in Canada.
Along with a broad national poverty-reduction strategy,
policies are needed that address these systemic barriers to
equality.
how is the child welfare system regulated
However, child welfare is highly regulated across the country
through provincial and territorial laws and regulations.
* Each province and territory assumes responsibility for child
welfare. (There are 53 separate child welfare agencies in
Ontario alone.)
* First Nations child welfare is provided by First Nations
agencies delegated by the provincial authority, or directly by
First Nations agencies as negotiated under the federal
government’s policy on Aboriginal self-government.
Provincial services for children and youth, provided by a branch of the provincial government or by a private or non-
profit agency involves six key activities
- Child and family investigation
- Family support (IH)
- Child placement: Tempor (OH)
- Foster care: training/support/monitoring (OH)
- Guardianship: long-term (OH)
- Adoption: permanent (OH)
The services that social workers provide for children and youth
can be either “in-home” or “out-of-home.”
In-home services
* Are provided to help family members live together
harmoniously in a secure and safe environment (family
counselling, parenting support, and family educational
services).
* Out-of-home services
* Are implemented when the home situation becomes unsuitable
for the child (kinship care, residential care, reunification
services, and transition programs).
Evidence-Based Practice
Informed and Effective Interventions
* Evidence-based practice ensures that social work
interventions have the most effective outcomes and
benefit the greatest number of people.
* Practitioners combine the latest research with their own
experiences and client preferences to help guide the
delivery of their services.
The Historical Evolution of Child Welfare
in Canada
Pre-Industrial Child Welfare: Pre-1890
Child Welfare Legislation: Late 1890 and Early 1900s
Changing Paradigms of Child Welfare in the 20th C:
Emerging Approaches to Child Welfare: 1990–Present
Pre-Industrial Child Welfare: Pre-1890
Division of labour: mother (family-care needs) vs father
(family’s economic needs). The wife and children existed
as dependants of the family patriarch
no protection
Child Welfare Legislation: Late 1890 and Early 1900s
- The Child protection laws; John Joseph Kelso (p. 143;
Toronto Humane Society in 1887): Child-saving paradigm
increase in government involvement
Federal and provincial legislation was enacted that allowed
the state to remove children from their parents or guardians. - In the 1890s, Canadian provinces began to establish
commissions to inspect the working conditions for children
in factories. - A child-saving paradigm: to rescue children from abusive
and neglectful parents
the best interests approach (BIA)
Changing Paradigms of Child Welfare in the 20th C:
Family care > Institutional care: A natural family > A foster
family (p. 145)
* Research-based revelations (empirical knowledge) of the
extent of harm being done to children: battered-child
syndrome (child abuse - clinical condition)
The Least Restrictive
Approach (LRA)
The Best Interests
Approach (BIA)
Emerging Approaches to Child Welfare: 1990–Present
Comprehensive/Standardized Risk-Assessment Models
* Collaborative Approaches (e.g., Family Group Conference
The implementation of standardized risk-assessment
models would promote more reliable, more accurate, and
less biased decision making related to child welfare.
* Structured risk assessment can improve accuracy and
consistency in identifying children at high risk for future
maltreatment.
Balance b/t BIA &
LRA
Pre-Industrial Child Welfare
Prior to 1890
The children of rural settler families typically worked at farming
alongside other family members.
* The wife and children existed as dependents of the family
patriarch.
* Although the advent of new laws (1867-1890) that began to
change the exalted position of husbands and fathers, but
times remained difficult for children and women.
A Rule of Thumb??? Offensive?
John Joseph Kelso (1864-1935)
Child Welfare Reform
.J. Kelso was an Irish immigrant to Toronto
and a child welfare pioneer.
* Helped found the Toronto Humane Society
in 1887, which at the time aimed to
prevent cruelty to children and animals
* Served as Superintendent of Neglected
and Dependent Children in Ontario until
retiring in 1934
* Helped establish Children’s Aid Societies
throughout Ontario—60 by 1912—and in
four other provinces
Child Welfare in the Twentieth Century
Changing Paradigms
* By the 1920s a new concept of “childhood” was emerging based on notions that:
* Family care, even flawed family care, was better than institutional care
* A natural family was better than a foster family
Research-based Revelations of the Extent of Harm Being Done to Children
* The post-World War II period saw an expansion of research and of empirical knowledge related to child welfare and child maltreatment (e.g., Battered-Child Syndrome)
The Post-World War II Period
Battered-child syndrome.
* For the first time, a medical professional identified child abuse
as a clinical condition. Dr. Henry Kempe’s paper established
child abuse as a regular and recurring aspect of family life in
many households rather than a sensational exception.
* Children may be frightened to ‘disclose” and parents may
describe injuries as “accidents” legislators developed laws
that required professionals and members of the public to
report suspected child abuse and neglect (Bala, 2011: 3)
The Badgley Report.
In 1984, the Badgley Report revealed that
1 out of 2 females and 1 out of 3 males had been the victim of
unwanted sexual acts, and that 4 out of 5 of these acts took
place during childhood or adolescence.
Risk Assessment
Risk-assessment approaches were never intended to be used
in isolation from clinical judgment and expertise; they were
intended to complement these, not replace them.
However, over time, the approaches became increasingly
bureaucratic and used as technocratic tools that child welfare
authorities relied upon to address the apparent problem of
accountability in the child welfare system.
* Many opponents of risk-assessment approaches argued that
these approaches contributed to the erosion of professional
practice in favour of managerialism (Callahan & Swift, 2007).
* Many practitioners began to adopt a range of collaborative
approaches to use alongside risk-assessment tools.
Collaborative Approaches to Child Protection
Today’s emerging collaborative approaches are based on
developing constructive and positive working relationships
between social work professionals and family members.
* Some examples of collaborative approaches include the
following:
* Family Group Conference (FGC). Interested parties plan out
the child’s safety and well-being.
* Mediation. Focus is on common goals and interests and
mutually acceptable solutions that benefit the child.
* Cultural and/or Traditional Decision Making. Following
community- or culturally-based models and practices.
* Signs of Safety. Collaboration between family members and
child-protection workers to focus on safety planning.
The Family Group Conference
A Family Group Conference is a formal meeting facilitated
by a child-welfare worker, during which members of a
child’s immediate family, extended family members, close
friends, and community members develop the best plan to
ensure the child’s safety and well-being
First Nations Child Welfare
Addressing Systemic Risks
Aboriginal children in Canada are over-represented in out-
of-home care—making up just 15 percent of the total child
population, but 40 percent of children in care.
* See page 153
* The persistent over-representation of Aboriginal families in
investigations of child maltreatment cannot be fully
understood through the dominant individual and forensic
perspectives
First Nations Child Welfare
Systemic Risks
Over-representation is tied to low incomes and poor
housing conditions in Aboriginal communities.
* It is exacerbated by social issues of substance use and
domestic violence.
* It also be linked to historical practices, in particular, the
period of the “Sixties Scoop” and the placement of First
Nations children in residential schools.
* One in two (50 percent) of Status First Nations children
lives in poverty in a First Nations community
First Nations Children in Care
Family Risk vs. Structural Risk
Blackstock et al. (2006) argue that it is important to
differentiate between family risk and structural risk. Structural
risks include:
* Housing. Inadequate housing is a structural risk factor
often correlated with poverty.
* Substance use. Substance use is a significant contributory
risk factor.
* Poverty. Poverty is the leading structural risk factor
associated with the removal of all children, and particularly
First Nations children.
Indigenous Children and Their Families:
Jordan’s Principle
“Jordan’s Principle” was named for Jordan River Anderson, a child from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba.
* Jordan remained in hospital for several years because neither the federal nor the provincial government would take responsibility for funding his
at-home care. He died in 2005 at the age of 5
Jordan’s Principle calls on all government institutions and
departments to ensure that children’s needs are met first and
jurisdictional disputes are resolved later.
* The government or ministry/department of first contact must pay for the services without delay or disruption
