If, as I have previously said, caseworkers often do not understand the family situations they are looking at, is more training the answer? I think that the correct response is yes and no. Obviously, more training in response to the latest blowup is commonplace. Has it made a real difference in the basic manner in which families are dealt with? In how families are understood? In what usually happens to families?
What goes on during training? What is being taught? Are several training sessions adequate?
What caseworkers need to learn takes time and much study and in any case is probably not being covered in the training sessions provided by child welfare agencies. Additionally, as I have said, the kind of knowledge necessary for child welfare work is not merely an accumulation of facts and data but the ability to flexibly use facts and stored knowledge to critically think about what is going on. But even before that, there is an ethical framework within which this all occurs. So, even before caseworkers are hired, they should be required to attend, at least, several months of training which includes in depth discussion of the very nature of child welfare work and its expectations.
Through in-class and in fieldwork training, prospective caseworkers must develop an understanding of the altruistic mind-set necessary for this work. They must also accept that when dealing with families and often complicated dilemmas where difficult decisions are called for, only the interests of the families can be considered. Never their own interests. There is absolutely no place for decisions based on self-interest; you can not bring a case to court or recommend the removal of a child because you want to play it safe and avoid any possibility of problems for yourself.
This brings to mind a situation I once dealt with as a caseworker in the 1980's. Our team worked with families whose cases (as they were called) were investigated by the department's child protective services division and then indicated as constituting either abuse, neglect or both. The children either remained in their home with the parents, sometimes under Juvenile Court supervision; sometimes the children had been removed and were placed into foster care. The goal was to work with the family to change the circumstances that led to the opening of their case.
I received the case of a single mother of two children, one, a four year old who remained in the mother's custody, the other, an infant who had been removed and placed in a foster home. The infant had a fractured femur and the mother was alleged to have intentionally caused it. During my meetings with the mother she described how she took the child out of the infant swing that stood in the living room. She told me that she believed that that was how the fracture occurred and that she had not directly or intentionally caused it. I spoke with the investigator and with the physician who examined the infant. The physician told me that the mother's explanation of how the fracture occurred was viable. He also said that the investigator had "put words in his mouth."
This had been the first and only abuse/neglect report about this mother. There was no evidence of any maltreatment toward the four year old. I spoke with the attorney from the Cook County Public Guardian's Office, who represented children in Juvenile Court. The attorney, who in this instance was the second in command, agreed with me that the infant should be returned to the mother's custody and agreed to support my recommendation to the court. The infant was returned to the mother's custody under a one year court supervision order. During my subsequent home visits there was never evidence of any maltreatment.
We will next discuss what can be learned from this.
What goes on during training? What is being taught? Are several training sessions adequate?
What caseworkers need to learn takes time and much study and in any case is probably not being covered in the training sessions provided by child welfare agencies. Additionally, as I have said, the kind of knowledge necessary for child welfare work is not merely an accumulation of facts and data but the ability to flexibly use facts and stored knowledge to critically think about what is going on. But even before that, there is an ethical framework within which this all occurs. So, even before caseworkers are hired, they should be required to attend, at least, several months of training which includes in depth discussion of the very nature of child welfare work and its expectations.
Through in-class and in fieldwork training, prospective caseworkers must develop an understanding of the altruistic mind-set necessary for this work. They must also accept that when dealing with families and often complicated dilemmas where difficult decisions are called for, only the interests of the families can be considered. Never their own interests. There is absolutely no place for decisions based on self-interest; you can not bring a case to court or recommend the removal of a child because you want to play it safe and avoid any possibility of problems for yourself.
This brings to mind a situation I once dealt with as a caseworker in the 1980's. Our team worked with families whose cases (as they were called) were investigated by the department's child protective services division and then indicated as constituting either abuse, neglect or both. The children either remained in their home with the parents, sometimes under Juvenile Court supervision; sometimes the children had been removed and were placed into foster care. The goal was to work with the family to change the circumstances that led to the opening of their case.
I received the case of a single mother of two children, one, a four year old who remained in the mother's custody, the other, an infant who had been removed and placed in a foster home. The infant had a fractured femur and the mother was alleged to have intentionally caused it. During my meetings with the mother she described how she took the child out of the infant swing that stood in the living room. She told me that she believed that that was how the fracture occurred and that she had not directly or intentionally caused it. I spoke with the investigator and with the physician who examined the infant. The physician told me that the mother's explanation of how the fracture occurred was viable. He also said that the investigator had "put words in his mouth."
This had been the first and only abuse/neglect report about this mother. There was no evidence of any maltreatment toward the four year old. I spoke with the attorney from the Cook County Public Guardian's Office, who represented children in Juvenile Court. The attorney, who in this instance was the second in command, agreed with me that the infant should be returned to the mother's custody and agreed to support my recommendation to the court. The infant was returned to the mother's custody under a one year court supervision order. During my subsequent home visits there was never evidence of any maltreatment.
We will next discuss what can be learned from this.
RSS Feed