Debating Current Child Welfare Policies - Essay Example

Essay Debating Current Child Welfare Policies Outline Child welfare policy started in the 18th century with a focus on providing services for disadvantaged children under religious auspices. Its main goal was to provide minimum physical subsistence to all underprivileged children. It was only a century later that legislation was made to include social and psychological help as part of child welfare policy. These were the British Children's Charter Act of 1908 and the Ohio Children's Code Commission of 1911 which marked a new era. In the 20th century, governments came to the understanding that it was the responsibility of the community to provide for children with advantages that their own parents were deficient in providing. This included free school lunches; medical, dental, and psychiatric services and child guidance clinics in schools; playgrounds; children's courts; special schools for handicapped children; and care in foster families for children of broken homes. Infant and child clinics were often provided by municipalities.(Packman,1968) In the United States child welfare services are administered through the Administration for Children and Families within the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Some of the legislations passed included the Child Nutrition Act, the Head Start Program, and the Foster Grandparent Program. The International Union for Child Welfare (1920) organized relief for child victims of major international and national disasters. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF, 1946) targets malnutrition and helps reestablish children's services destroyed in war. Current child welfare concerns include child abuse and child care. Since then child welfare policy has undergone many changes through trial and error to help children with a sincere effort to do no harm. As a result of which there have been various models that have come into being. The most popular of them happen to be the democratic, liberal and the corporatist model. The corporatist model is simply a privatized model. The Florida State Department of Children and Families(USA) is a good example. After running pilots in 1997 the state decided to go ahead with privatizing all child welfare schemes and foster care services at the start of 2004. Here the state transfers all resources associated with child welfare to private agencies, which assume responsibility for serving all children within the area who need care. These 'lead agencies' as they were called subcontracted for services with community providers. (Armstrong, 2002) In all these arrangements the agencies were financed by capitation or case rate payments. The model has problems, but due to the non availability of baseline data, its success could not be documented. However due to its wide acceptance by welfare staff, clients and the local communities the state is privatizing all welfare services in the state. The one program that was successful in its pilot stages namely the Sarasota County project, was largely due to active participation of the local community. This was a clear indication of how a community and not the government was the major stakeholder for child welfare. The other pilots that did fail were in part due to the financial deficits in various counties. One of the most important advantages of this model was an increased percentage of completed investigations and reduction in caseloads. What it required was increased numbers of staff, money and active community participation. (Peacock,1999) The liberal model is said to be founded on faulty logic as it is embedded in liberal thinking which suggests that #1: Children in families with higher income seem to do better in life. #2: Welfare can easily raise family income. Thus concluding that welfare is good for kids(Hill,1993) From this logic has sprung a relentless 30-year effort to raise welfare benefits, expand welfare eligibility, create new welfare programs, and increase welfare spending Together, they become a recipe for a disastrous system of aid which harms rather than helps, aggressively crushing the hopes and future of increasing numbers of young individuals. It is useful to examine each of these cardinal liberal tenets individually. Claim 1: Raising incomes is crucial to the well-being and success of children. The common liberal corollary to this premise is that poverty causes such problems as crime, school failure, low cognitive ability, illegitimacy, low work ethic and skills, and drug use. Hence, reducing poverty through greater welfare spending will reduce most social problems. History and common sense both show that values and abilities within families, not family income, lead to children's success. Families with higher incomes tend to have sound values concerning self-control, deferred gratification, work, education, and marriage which they pass on to their children. It is those values, rather than the family income, that are key to the children's attainment. Attempting to raise the family income through welfare is very unlikely help the child, but it is likely to destroy the very values that are key to the child's success. Claim 2: It is easy to raise family income through welfare. This also is false. Because welfare reduces work effort and promotes illegitimacy and poverty-prone single-parent families, it actually may cause an overall decrease in family incomes. Welfare is extremely efficient at replacing self-sufficiency with dependence but relatively ineffective in raising incomes and eliminating poverty. Claim 3: Higher welfare benefits and broadened eligibility will help children and improve their success in later life. In certain limited cases, such as when it is needed to eliminate serious malnutrition, welfare can help. But there is no evidence that enlarging benefits and expanding enrollments in most U.S. welfare programs will improve children's lives. And so the liberal model has drawn criticism from all quarters for its faulty logic in providing welfare as it increases the cover of children and families that benefit from welfare whilst putting a huge strain on already scarce resources and personnel. The democratic model is a more restorative approach to problem solving that involves children, youth and family members to make collective decisions regarding themselves. It was originally started in New Zealand and has gradually spread to other countries including UK, Israel, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden. The philosophy here holds that families, when provided with the necessary pertinent information, are better able to devise plans to protect their own welfare than are professionals, because families know themselves - their problems, strengths and resources - better than professionals do. Instead of transferring the child to the state, the child is kept within the care of the family. The features of the New Zealand FGC model are preparation, information giving, and private family time, agreeing on the plan and monitoring and review. Thus empowering the family as the primary decision maker. A wide definition of family applies, including extended family and close, concerned friends and neighbors. An independent coordinator facilitates the conference and is merely an observer. During private family time, the family, after hearing information about the case, is left alone to arrive at their own plan for the future of the child, youth or adult. The plan is evaluated by professionals with respect to safety and legal issues, and resources may be procured to help implement the plan. Professionals and family members monitor the plan's progress and often follow-up meetings are held.(Gunderson,2003) This model has largely been successful as empowering families to make decisions regarding their children has helped more effectively to provide the best without doing any harm, the main reason child welfare policies were created. Needless to say that this model has grown exponentially. Why do we need welfare Why is so much attention given to the child abuse that takes place inside the walls of our nation's homes and so little attention is given to the societal inequities that allow children to live in conditions of neglect and poverty(Bembry,1996) This is an often asked but important question that answers the most challenging needs of children today. Today the world has more children living in impoverished conditions. A quarter of who will grow up in poverty. Against this background, add the ever increasing rates of child abuse in the world. Add to it all those cases of neglect due to parental failure on account of divorces, unemployment, illness or criminal offences. Then there are children with special needs or medical conditions that warrant attention. That makes the population of neglected children very large and one that is rapidly expanding. (Duncan, 1994) It's indeed sad that so many children will grow up without much hope or opportunity. Child welfare is important not only to meet the physical subsistence of these children but also a more holistic provision of health, social security and education. It tries to make provisions for children whose parents have failed to do so. Current policy The new Children Act 2004 provides the legal framework for this reform programme which outlines a framework of services covering children and young people from birth to age nineteen. The new legislation was accompanied by the launch of a major strategy document for English authorities, Every Child Matters: Change for Children, which is intended to set the direction for the major programme of change in the delivery of children's services. The Children Act 2004 provides services to ensure that every child, whatever their situation or circumstances, have the support to: be healthy stay safe enjoy and achieve through learning make a positive contribution to society Achieve economic well-being. Integration of services The Children's Act 2004 also ensures that access to information is easier and advice is provided at a local level. Parents who were facing hardship raising their children were given support much earlier than before. Practitioners are now working with the social services and education departments to help coordinate better. The Children Act 2004 places responsibility in the hands of Local Authorities in ensuring effective co-operation between local partners such as NHS, Police, Schools, District Councils, Youth Offending Teams and Voluntary Sectors. There are statutory partners who are required to work alongside the local authority. There are also other partners who do not have a statutory duty to co-operate with us but we will need to engage and encourage them to work with us to deliver the Children Act. In response to the Children Act we are integrating Education (the Local Education Authority - LEA for Hampshire) and the Children and Families branch of Social Services into a new department called Children's Services. There will also be new Adult Care Services. In this manner all three departments namely education, health and social services have joined hands to deliver the Act effectively. Does the policy translate into practice In 2008 the Ofsted published a review of how effective the policy was and whether it was really translating into practice. Excerpts from the review include the following: "The third joint chief inspectors' review of arrangements to safeguard children was led by Ofsted on behalf of the eight inspectorates involved in regulating and inspecting services for children and young people. The review looked at arrangements for safeguarding children and young people in four key areas: the effectiveness of existing safeguarding systems and frameworks the wider safeguarding role of public services how well vulnerable groups of children and young people are safeguarded, including asylum-seeking children, children in secure settings, looked after children and children treated by health services How well the relevant agencies deal with child protection concerns. It found that much has changed since the last report was published in 2005. There is evidence of improvements in children's services and in outcomes for children and young people. Every Child Matters: Change for Children, the Children Act 2004 and other initiatives have provided a much-needed impetus for change. Most children feel safe, and are safe, in their homes and communities. However, some children are still not being well served. These children need particular attention to make sure that they are properly safeguarded. As in 2005, this includes some children who are looked after, children who are asylum seekers and children and young people in secure settings." Ofsted also confirmed that between April 2007 and August 2008, 282 children died of neglect, abuse or in the care system. Of that total, 72 died in accidents, stabbings or shootings while in foster or residential care, while the remaining 210 died of abuse or neglect at the hands of their families. This means that 12 children are killed by some form of abuse each month. This also was an indication that the The Childrens' Act was not foolproof in protecting all children and that every child had not been cared for as its aim was intended to be. What is best for the child While the Children's Act asks children and young persons what is best for them, answers have often included stability, security and presence of family. Various studies have indicated that school stability, closer proximity to home or familiar surroundings indeed helps a child develop better. Moreover if families can help make decisions, they can always suggest and choose options considering what the child wants. Reconciling children with their families is known to have a positive outcome in various cases. As children are brought back to the families or homes with which they are so familiar their overall development is much better and smoother. Now a plethora of research also suggests that marriage helps children in not just a moral way. Advocating marriages can also reduce poverty. Studies found that children who did not live with both biological parents were roughly twice as likely to be poor, to have birth outside of marriage, to have behavioral and psychological problems, and to not graduate from high school.(Sadefeun,Machlanahan,2007) The absence of married parents is related to retarded development in early childhood Illegitimacy leads to delays in development. (Hill,1993) The role of education is central to providing for better futures for our children. By securing skills and knowledge in various fields or arenas, children can make a positive contribution to society in the future. They would also be able to have an economically sound life, thus eliminating poverty. This in turn would be of immense help as they shape up to be adults raising more economically viable families thus continuing the cycle. Every Child Matters (ECM): Change for Children Every Child Matters: Change for Children programmes aims to integrate services for children from 0 to 19 with agencies working across professional boundaries to co-ordinate support for the needs of children and young people, using common (integrated) processes and language to meet those needs and requirements in the best manner possible, focusing on prevention and early intervention and providing better support to parents and families much earlier before a crisis can set in. These are: Common Assessment Framework (CAF) Lead Professional and Team around the Child (TAC) Information Sharing Contact Point (Child Index) Aiming High for Disabled Children - better support The services that reach every child and young person have a crucial role to play in shifting the focus from dealing with the consequences of difficulties in children's lives to preventing things from going wrong in the first place. Every child matters and Every child matters recognised that the realisation of this ambition for improved outcomes required radical change in the whole system of children's services, including: the improvement and integration of universal services - in early years settings, schools and the health service. more specialised help to promote opportunity, prevent problems and act early and effectively if and when problems arise. the reconfiguration of services around the child and family in one place, for example, children's centres, extended schools and the bringing together of professionals in multi-disciplinary teams; dedicated and enterprising leadership at all levels of the system; the development of a shared sense of responsibility across agencies for safeguarding children and protecting them from harm; and listening to children, young people and their families when assessing and planning service provision, as well as in face-to-face delivery. Early Foundation years Every child matters, the DfES Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners and the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services have set out a vision and more detail will be provided in the Government's forthcoming ten year strategy for early years and childcare and in the Green Paper on youth. Early years and childcare provision gives a good start to young children's development as well as appropriate support to their parents. The Government has made significant progress in giving a good start to families with very young children through Sure Start local programmes and children's centres, combining health and family support with early education and childcare. The Government's ten year strategy for early years and childcare will offer detailed proposals for wider choices of childcare and more integrated services for young children, as well as childcare and family support services based in schools for older children. Community participation has been a key to the success of current provision and will be critical to the success of future arrangements. Schools already support children's wider well-being. They increasingly take a personalised approach to pupils' learning to help them reach the highest possible standards. They ensure that pupils attend school and behave responsibly and thoughtfully. They engage parents and caretakers as partners in children's learning. Many offer a wide range of activities, from sporting and cultural activities to childcare. They have a formal duty under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 to safeguard pupils and promote their welfare and the Government has recently issued guidance to schools to support them as they put this into practice. The Government expects Local Authorities and children's trusts to engage with schools and other providers to ensure that all children in their local area are being effectively supported. Schools and headteachers will be key strategic partners in shaping the pattern of local services. Schools may want to develop their role in delivering services through Foundation Partnerships and other clustering arrangements The Government is committed to ensuring more young people stay on in education and training until they are 19. A new Green Paper on youth to be published early next year will set out proposals for a new offer for young people. The aim is to make sure that young people are supported to realise their potential and develop positively through their teenage years. it wants to provide a wider range of opportunities for young people and we want to ensure appropriate and timely support for young people with additional needs. This will include better advice and guidance, more tailored to the needs of the young person and relevant to today's world. Their strategy to reduce rates of teenage pregnancy is beginning to show encouraging results, with the Every Child Matters: Change for Children latest figures (2002) showing a decline in conception rates of 8.6% for under-18s and 11.2% for under-16 since 1998. Conclusion As a society, to contemplate that fact should cause us shame and send a shudder along our collective spine. What nihilistic depths have we reached when one-fifth of our children are considered expendable A child welfare system, if it is true to its mission, should be engaged in the process of imbuing all of our children with a sense of possibility. Essentially, this is the challenge. (Bembry,1997) A number of studies have found that social workers are unlikely to predict which parents who are suspect of abuse will inflict severe harm on their children and that the major determinant of children's removal from their homes is not the severity of child abuse but unstable sources of parental income. (Goldberg, 1996) Because social workers are ineffective in policing child abuse and are diverted by this task from their primary obligation to disadvantaged children, it is suggested that the investigatory role should be transferred to institutions that are better able to perform it, namely, the police and the courts. Child welfare could then assume a structural role, rather than a narrowly residual one, by preventing the poverty that abuses so many children At the end of it all we have left millions of children behind and hence need to step up efforts to protect them while society is concerned about abuse, we must not forget that hunger, poverty and despair are the problems at hand that need to be addressed now. (Simmons, 1996) References: A. Kahn and S. Kamerman, Social Services in International Perspective (1980),Helping America's Families (1982), and Child Support (1987) A. Kadushin and J. A. Martin, Child Welfare Services (4th ed. 1988). Armstrong, M., Brown, E. Jordan, N., Kershaw, M. A., Paulson, R. I., Vargo, A. C., et al. Highlights: 2001-2002 Statewide Evaluation of Community-Based Care. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. Retrieved March 2, 2004 from: http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/publications/docs/highlights_CBC_report_2002.pdf Florida Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2002). Progress Report of Justification Review: Child Protection Program, Department of Children and Families (No. 02-16). Tallahassee. Retrieved March 2, 2004 from: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0216rpt.pdf James X. Bembry, University of Maryland (in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 200-201). D. Zietz, Child Welfare (2d ed. 1969) Gertrude Schaffner Goldberg, Adelphi University (in Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 11 (1996), 383-385). Hill, M., & Morgan, J. (1991). "Expanding choices for human capital expenditures: a Proposal to enhance the financial security of children", in R. Mayer (Ed.) (1991). Enhancing consumer choice. ( 349-369). Thurow, L. (1992) Head to head: The coming economic battle among Japan Europe and America. New York: Wm. Morrow and Company. J. Packman, Child Care Needs and Numbers (1968) Kristin Moore, "Attainment among Youth from Families That Received Welfare." Paper for DHHS/ASPE and NICHD, Grant #HD21537-03.Mary Corcoran, Roger Gordon, Deborah Loren, and Gary Solon, "The Association Between Men's Economic Status and Their Family and Community Origins," Journal of Human Resources, Fall 1992, pp. 575-601. L. Costin, Child Welfare (new ed. 1972) Melton, B. University of South Carolina (in Social Work, 41 (1996), 331-332). Peacock, B. (1999). Final 1998-1999 Outcome Evaluation Report on Florida's Continuing Community-based Child Welfare Programs. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Children and Families. Retrieved March 2, 2004 from: http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/publications/docs/bpreport/1covtoc.pdf Simmons,B. University of California, Berkeley (in Journal of Social Service Research, 19 (1996), 71-71). . Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child (1985) The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved Read More