The ideas and proposals discussed on this website make sense, but, realistically, do you think a system as large and as intractable, as dug in as child welfare has long been, will ever implement any of them, I've been asked. The state of child welfare in America does indeed seem pretty gloomy and there has been no indication of significant philosophical change in practice over the past fifty years. But while we had better never stop hoping, rather than exclusively pursuing immediate full-blown change, the kind of change that appears in official policy manuals, individual managers, supervisors and caseworkers can and should be urged to begin incorporating these ideas into their daily work with families.
Child welfare personnel can become familiar with the ideas we have been discussing, come to see their logic, importance and relevance, and then start incorporating them into their work with parents. Managers and supervisors can lead discussions with their caseworkers around these ideas. But to think that this will happen is in and of itself simplistic and naïve, some may counter. So, how will caseworkers and supervisors identify and grab onto that elusive inspiration which will ignite the spark and harness the desire, the insight, the commitment... and often the courage to undertake this kind of work?
The first step requires that these ideas be presented to child welfare staff as serious and viable practice possibilities. Some will want to hear from respected supervisors or respected co-workers that this is the case. Others, after reading about these ideas, may begin to mull over their significance and start to strategize and develop plans to incorporate them into their work with families. This website, Progressive Ideas in Child Welfare, can serve as that impetus. That, after all, is a primary purpose of this website. There may likely be caseworkers who, as the result of their own child welfare work, have come to similar conclusions and have been struggling for a way to break loose from the sorry constraints imposed upon them. Just the confirming knowledge that they are not alone, that others too are of a similar mind-set, can embolden them to independently act on their ideas.
Why is it naïve to believe that this is possible? Is it inconceivable that within the child welfare system there are, at least, some caseworkers sufficiently perceptive, caring and resolute to undertake a new, better way of helping families? How can we know that around the country today there are not individual caseworkers who are bravely not adhering to official protocol when they believe another way is more appropriate?
In July 1984, an attorney, Leslie A. Jones, then on the staff of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, wrote the following letter to a caseworker's supervisor:
I represent (name withheld) whose children were taken from her in late May, 1984. ... Although [the mother] is not an easy person to deal with, [the worker] showed, from the outset, unusual sensitivity and insight into her situation. In particular, his idea that [ the mother] needed not the usual "psychological counseling" but instead help in managing her money, demonstrated [the worker's] refusal to settle for social science clichés and quick fixes. Additionally, [ the worker] made several extra home visits, contacted me in the evening (for my convenience) to arrange a court date, and appeared in court on relatively short notice. Without his extra effort, [the mother] would not have gotten her children returned as quickly as she did.
The caseworker about whom this letter was written was employed by a very large state child welfare agency. As this letter points out, in his efforts to help the mother the worker didn't choose the service most readily available but instead, after assessing what he thought would truly address the problem, followed that route and provided the appropriate help. Because his supervisor was as insightful as she was supportive, the worker had a good partner in his work with families. But even that can not always minimize the pressures and the constraints of the system. Still, the worker was led by what the parent needed, not by any practice du jour. And I know that this was no isolated instance. I know because I was that worker.
In the 1980's, at least at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services where I worked, the average caseload was 80-100 families. With today's drastically reduced caseloads, it should be easier for caseworkers to devote significant time to each of the families with whom they work and to better attend to particulars.
Every parent, every family, who benefits from an enlightened caseworker's insightful ideas will be one less instance of typical child welfare mayhem. Though not the ideal and hoped for large scale change, we should seriously and persistently strive for both.
For the majority of child welfare personnel, who have been indoctrinated into the typical business as usual-cover your ass school of thought, the great impediment is never being exposed to these other ideas. This remains our urgent task, albeit, not an easy task, but one certainly redolent with possibility.
Child welfare personnel can become familiar with the ideas we have been discussing, come to see their logic, importance and relevance, and then start incorporating them into their work with parents. Managers and supervisors can lead discussions with their caseworkers around these ideas. But to think that this will happen is in and of itself simplistic and naïve, some may counter. So, how will caseworkers and supervisors identify and grab onto that elusive inspiration which will ignite the spark and harness the desire, the insight, the commitment... and often the courage to undertake this kind of work?
The first step requires that these ideas be presented to child welfare staff as serious and viable practice possibilities. Some will want to hear from respected supervisors or respected co-workers that this is the case. Others, after reading about these ideas, may begin to mull over their significance and start to strategize and develop plans to incorporate them into their work with families. This website, Progressive Ideas in Child Welfare, can serve as that impetus. That, after all, is a primary purpose of this website. There may likely be caseworkers who, as the result of their own child welfare work, have come to similar conclusions and have been struggling for a way to break loose from the sorry constraints imposed upon them. Just the confirming knowledge that they are not alone, that others too are of a similar mind-set, can embolden them to independently act on their ideas.
Why is it naïve to believe that this is possible? Is it inconceivable that within the child welfare system there are, at least, some caseworkers sufficiently perceptive, caring and resolute to undertake a new, better way of helping families? How can we know that around the country today there are not individual caseworkers who are bravely not adhering to official protocol when they believe another way is more appropriate?
In July 1984, an attorney, Leslie A. Jones, then on the staff of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, wrote the following letter to a caseworker's supervisor:
I represent (name withheld) whose children were taken from her in late May, 1984. ... Although [the mother] is not an easy person to deal with, [the worker] showed, from the outset, unusual sensitivity and insight into her situation. In particular, his idea that [ the mother] needed not the usual "psychological counseling" but instead help in managing her money, demonstrated [the worker's] refusal to settle for social science clichés and quick fixes. Additionally, [ the worker] made several extra home visits, contacted me in the evening (for my convenience) to arrange a court date, and appeared in court on relatively short notice. Without his extra effort, [the mother] would not have gotten her children returned as quickly as she did.
The caseworker about whom this letter was written was employed by a very large state child welfare agency. As this letter points out, in his efforts to help the mother the worker didn't choose the service most readily available but instead, after assessing what he thought would truly address the problem, followed that route and provided the appropriate help. Because his supervisor was as insightful as she was supportive, the worker had a good partner in his work with families. But even that can not always minimize the pressures and the constraints of the system. Still, the worker was led by what the parent needed, not by any practice du jour. And I know that this was no isolated instance. I know because I was that worker.
In the 1980's, at least at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services where I worked, the average caseload was 80-100 families. With today's drastically reduced caseloads, it should be easier for caseworkers to devote significant time to each of the families with whom they work and to better attend to particulars.
Every parent, every family, who benefits from an enlightened caseworker's insightful ideas will be one less instance of typical child welfare mayhem. Though not the ideal and hoped for large scale change, we should seriously and persistently strive for both.
For the majority of child welfare personnel, who have been indoctrinated into the typical business as usual-cover your ass school of thought, the great impediment is never being exposed to these other ideas. This remains our urgent task, albeit, not an easy task, but one certainly redolent with possibility.
RSS Feed