In my letter to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, which I previously posted on this blog, I wrote, "Not only must caseworkers be able to flexibly use their acquired knowledge to understand what is in front of them but they also must maintain an ethical mind-set that assures that their recommendations are always based solely on what is best for the children and parents.  Not on what will happen to their jobs if something later goes wrong."  But why should something happen to their jobs if something goes wrong?

The something we're talking about is usually the kind of extreme situation we've become accustomed to seeing plastered in bold letters across the dailies' front page.  Starving children left alone in a filthy apartment and abuse or neglect leading to the death of a child do not happen often, but when they do internal investigations are soon to follow.  Repercussions for caseworkers and supervisors  are usually next, which can frequently include termination of employment.  With this in mind, caseworkers and their supervisors, more so during certain periods, as after a recent high profile child death, are prone to recommend foster care placement and oppose return home.   Juvenile Court judges' decisions  too, I think, are often rendered through a similar lens. 

Is the fear that child welfare workers allow to influence their decisions based on the possibility that they will be accused of maleficence or incompetence?  If they have acted appropriately how consequential can these fears be?  Can they have reason to believe that even when their actions have been carried out appropriately they still will suffer negative repercussions?  Even if a mistake was made should the response be job termination?  Is it possible to predict and prevent any and all scenarios?  Do physicians, for example,  lose their licenses when they are unable to prevent their patient's death or even when their errors lead to a similar fate?   Are the same processes at play in other professions?  If not, what is unique about child welfare work? 

What differentiates child welfare work from other professions in this regard are possibly four  factors: 1) The public's ideas about the lives of vulnerable children and their parents;  2) Child welfare, always city, county or state run, is directly tied to politicians, their positions, and their desire to satisfy their constituencies and their continued need to receive their votes;  3) The media's long established precedent to publish and  broadcast major stories, sometimes in series format over an extended period, about the most extreme child abuse and neglect situations, and, 4) The public perception and expectation that much of the work that has been and will be carried out by child welfare personnel has not been and will continue to not be competent.    

This political aspect is reminiscent of some public school systems' evaluation of the ability and competence of teachers based upon student performance, even though many other variables also contribute to these outcomes. 
 
Here too is an area of child welfare that must change.  And it is an area that is directly tied to the kind of change that I have been addressing in previous blog articles:  The need to elevate child welfare work in order to attract highly competent and knowledgeable workers, which will in turn, itself, lead to an eminent system.  Part of what is also needed is promotion and advocacy of what child welfare is really about. About the complex situations families present and the new, highly trained and knowledgeable caseworkers who are dedicated to working to help these parents and children have better lives.   This is what the media should be presenting to the public.  And this is what would be possible once such a system is in place.  These new, highly knowledgeable caseworkers who would be able to articulate the true nature of child welfare work to the media,  by doing so, will also instill confidence that these families are in good hands.  Politicians would then be reassured that the media would not go after them, even when tragedy occurs, with the subsequent result that caseworkers would not have reason to fear for their jobs.

What the current system, with its pattern of terminations, really shows, quite likely, is that it's no secret that so much of what has occurred in child welfare is misguided and plain incompetent.  That may be one of  the underlying thoughts behind these terminations, and the rationalization behind the political motivation.  Perhaps there have been administrators and government officials whose sleep has been disrupted by their seemingly hopeless and futile ruminations about how to finally change child welfare but have never been able to hit upon a workable solution.  Perhaps they have also not had the necessary background and knowledge to properly deal with this complicated issue.  

The possibility and fear of being terminated if and when something serious, even death, goes wrong, is counterproductive to competent and ethical child welfare casework.  But this is true only if highly competent and ethically thinking caseworkers populate the system.  If they don't, and the status quo continues, it is hardly something as severe as a child death that should probably warrant termination. 





 

   

 



       

The following is an edited version of a letter I sent to New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio.


January 12, 2014

The  Honorable Bill de Blasio
 Mayor of the  City of New York
 City  Hall
 New York, NY  10007

 Dear Mayor  de Blasio:

The horrific torture and death of 4-year-old Myls Dobson evokes not only a mix of extreme
sadness, bewilderment, and outrage but also the strong wish that this never happen again.  For the mayor of New York City this wish is clearly magnified by the cognizance that it is within his
power to take steps that can reduce the likelihood of future similar tragedies.  Coming at the beginning of your new administration, this tragedy and your determination “to do everything in our power to save every child” can potentially lead to one of two directions. 
 
An apprehensive and fear driven child welfare system, where caseworkers and
supervisors, worried about hypothetical what-ifs, favor foster care placement
rather than intense and compassionate in-home assistance, can harm many children
and their parents.  While child  deaths, such as Myls Dobson’s, tend to heighten one’s attention to this kind of possibility, they can not be allowed to drive child welfare policy, as they so
often have in the past.  As you are  aware, the torture and death of a child is an aberrant occurrence and is not representative of the nature of the majority of child welfare situations. 
 
Families who become involved with the child welfare system present an array of complexities
and life problems, which are often misunderstood by caseworkers and counselors.   Doing “everything in our power to save every child” should focus on the need for highly trained and knowledgeable caseworkers and supervisors who are dedicated to helping families forge better and satisfying lives. Not only must caseworkers be able to flexibly use their acquired knowledge to understand what is in front of them but they also must maintain an ethical mind-set that  assures that their recommendations are always based solely on what is best for
the children and parents. Not on what will happen to their jobs if something later goes wrong.

To say that real and substantial child welfare reform is long overdue goes way beyond being
merely an understatement.  What has until now passed for change and reform in child welfare has usually been nothing more than a kind of cosmetic musical chairs. The elevation of child welfare work into a profession that attracts highly trained people, schooled at university
psychology departments, seems to be the key to real change. 
 
Your dedication and commitment to progressive change holds the hope that at last all
New York City families can expect that if and when a child welfare caseworker comes knocking at the door, that knock will signal real help, compassion and  respect.
 
I want to wish you great success in carrying out your promise of bringing progressive change to New York City and sincerely hope that this will include genuine and substantial change in the City’s child welfare  system.

Sincerely,


Sidney Goldberg
  


 
   
 


 
 
 
 
 

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks New Yorkers have frequently, if not relentlessly, been coaxed and reminded, If You See Something, Say Something.  Other cities around the world have probably instituted similar public efforts.  The campaign to prevent future terrorist attacks shares several components with nationwide child abuse prevention campaigns.  Both are geared toward attracting the public's attention through the depiction of a sense of urgency.  The implication behind both campaigns is that each target group is very vulnerable to harm carried out by others.  Both target groups require public intervention to secure their safety.  Both groups' safety is threatened by people who are, or may be, intent on causing them harm or worse.  The public is warned in both scenarios that potential catastrophe is likely without their intervention.

Both campaigns are not merely a momentary call to arms but are also an effort to educate the public about its current and future responsibility.  They also, in effect, are influential in shaping the public's attitudes about the agents of both respective acts, terrorist attacks and child maltreatment.

The possibility exists that the pervasiveness of public campaigns such as the anti-terror effort and Most Wanted posters may, to some extent, color the manner in which people come to think about and understand the child abuse prevention effort and, in turn, child maltreatment itself.  This can influence many to view the parents as perpetrators of crimes whose rights as parents should be terminated. 

One may ask what difference it makes what attitude a potential reporter of child maltreatment holds, as long as the call is made.  A multifold response is required:   

First, reporting a family to a child abuse hotline is never to be taken lightly.  Even when substantiated maltreatment is found to be present, given the infamous and ongoing pattern of child welfare's history of not providing appropriate and helpful services to families, with much unnecessary disruption and misguided intervention, extreme caution had better be the guide.  A violation or crime can be viewed as something straight forward or black and white; a citizen's civic duty is to make a report, few would question.  But a mind-set that views child maltreatment, not as a crime, and not as an antisocial act, but as a family problem which calls for possible compassionate and competent assistance, should often give one reason to pause and consider more effective intervenient approaches before contacting a hotline.  

Second, whether or not public announcements include exhortations to parents themselves to call for assistance, the hotline, at least in theory, can be a possible source for parents.  They probably will be more likely to do so in response to a campaign that promises compassionate help.

Third, children, too, who may contemplate turning to a child abuse hotline for assistance will probably be less hesitant to do so in response to a campaign that does not appear harsh nor entails parental punishment.

Fourth, the child welfare system as a societal institution is in a position to educate and inform the public about its purpose and work.  This work should be accurately reflected in any public pronouncements.

Fifth, a citizenry correctly informed and knowledgeable about various aspects of child welfare work will be in a position to advocate and support long overdue real and substantial reform. 

Sixth, child welfare personnel themselves can likely be erroneously influenced by the nature of the campaign, as can politicians, whose hoped for familiarity with the complexities and subtleties of child welfare can have a significant impact on policy and procedure. 

Seventh, a citizenry that has developed a compassionate view of families who are burdened with various problems and hardship will be more likely to voluntarily offer neighborly help and assistance.

The very term child protection connotes something adversarial; it can seem to call for someone to step in and provide a barrier between the parent and child.  It implies that this barrier is needed to stop the onslaught of harm and danger coming from the parent(s).  It also implies that the parents' intent is to harm the child unless official protectors can successfully and, sometimes forcefully, stop them.  Who would even imagine harming a defenseless child, so this stream of thought goes, but an evil-intended defective, certainly not a normal human being; moreover, if that person also happens to be the child's parent, such wickedness is almost unimaginable.  This is very likely the picture conveyed by the concept child protection. Though perhaps not always articulated this way, it nonetheless, in a more abbreviated form, may dominate the thinking of many citizens who have been influenced by protective imagery.  

Rather than present parents as adversarial, child maltreatment prevention campaigns can and should describe a more accurate and compassionate picture, one that portrays some families as experiencing difficulties, and/or lacking adequate parenting knowledge.  And, that their family situation connects with the societal mandate to provide assistance to help them improve should be the context in which this is presented.  Rather than merely responding to another's call for action, the campaign should emphasize the ethical imperative that binds us all to help one another.