This assignment describes and analyses my involvement with a 13-year-old client Joe Smith, who was temporarily supported under section 25 (voluntary) of the Children's (Scotland) Act 1995 to be Looked After and Accommodated by the Local Authority.

Background

Before going on to discuss the work undertaken I feel it is important to highlight the situation within the family prior to my involvement, and of the dilemmas, which influenced my theory and practice. The main focus of work undertaken was crisis intervention, extricating Joe from the damaging scenarios, which he may have erected for himself (Caplan, 1964, Langsley et al, 1968a and Pittman, 1996) possibly through unsatisfactory experiences in childhood and his inability to form satisfactory relationships. (Lisham 2001, p139)

Joe’s family consists of Mum (Ann) Dad (Jack) Sue (aged 10) and two other siblings Jack (aged 16) and Tom (aged 18) who live outwith the family home.  Mum and Dad have always lived together although never married. Parsons (1951) would deem this family as being deviant   and   undesirable as they do not conform to the functionalist perspective of the “Nuclear Family” (Thompson, 2001) where the Mothers role is the reproducer responsible for nurturing and caring for the children and the workforce. (Rowbotham, 1973)   This patriarchal stereotypical view is gender specific and would construe Ann is responsible for Joe's bad behaviour due to her poor parenting skills. (Hanmer and Stratham, 1988/1999) with the father remaining virtually invisible which appears to be the case within the Smith family.   Both Ann and Jack are legally disadvantaged as cohabitees.(Harding, 1996) Jack has no parental rights and responsibilities under section without Ann's agreement however could apply for parental rights  and is responsible for maintaining the children under Child Support Act 1991. (Mays, 2001 p, 74)

This family are disadvantaged, as defined by Rowntree (1899) as they have insufficient resources to meet and maintain their basic needs and are thus living in poverty. (Social Justice Report 2000)  The term poverty however is a contentious one.

Prescott (1994:26) claims that poverty does not exist in Britain today having been virtually eliminated by the welfare system, arguing that poverty is the person’s choice, blaming the victim rather than social or structural influences. (Becker.S, p22)  Oppenheim (1990) and Millar (1991c) refute these claims, arguing that cuts in state benefits by the Conservative Government in the 80’s made the lives of the poor more difficult leading to social, individual and collective exclusion. (Gordon. D et al, 2000 ref 93)

Joe has had a history of behavioural problems, both at home and at school, which have deteriorated further since his sister Emma was diagnosed with Cancer. He refused to attend school, and stayed out late indulging in both alcohol and drug abuse.  Joe became physically aggressive towards his mother and sister, and within the community, accumulating a string of offences for assaults.  Waterhouse et al; (1999), claim such offending increases as young people reach adolescence (12-15 years) especially among boys.  Smith however (1998, p193) suggests the majority of children grow out of this deviant behaviour, and can develop, with support through this difficult stage.

Joe was referred to the Reporter of the Children’s Panel and placed on a compulsory home supervision order under, which deemed he was “beyond control of the relevant person:” (Green, 2000, p91) Therefore it was my role as a social worker, to provide advice, guidance and support to both Joe and his family (Norrie 1995, p94)

Eventually Joe’s case was presented at the Area Resource Screening Group where it was decided that he should be placed on the waiting list for a Residential Placement.  Bebington and Miles (cited in DoH990b, p6) suggest that children being placed in residential care settings due to a combination of poverty, a lack of resources and support within their family and social circumstances, not necessarily because of the offences or individuals characteristics. (Smale and Tuson 1993 p26)(Milner & O’Byrne, 2002, p10)  This troubled me as I became aware that structural and economic influences might have a bearing on the service client’s receive.    

In the meantime Joe was supported to live with an Uncle, then an Aunt. However both these relationships broke down.  His mother advised Social Work, Joe was “Out of her Control” and she wished him to be placed in care under Joe agreed to this and was placed temporarily into a Children’s Unit under Due a crisis situation because of Joe’s behaviour he was moved to another Children’s Unit.   It was at this point that I became involved.  

When this occurred, I was in the process of compiling a Full assessment enquiry on another client and a background report. However due to the immediate needs of Joe and his family, I prioritised his case.

 

Pre-Integration

The Reporter to the Children’s Panel had requested a Full Assessment Enquiry to review Joe’s Home Supervision Order.  O’Hagan (2001) suggests ‘the nature of the referral usually indicates what kind of knowledge is required to carry out well-informed and accurate assessment. (O’Hagan 2001:188)  As the referral did not refer to the family’s ethnic origin, I could not assume from the surname that the family was white.  This made me aware that I would have to consider any communication difficulties that could arise during assessment and how I could ensure an anti racist approach which respected specific customs and values (Dominelli, 1993, Pugh, 1996. Thompson, 2001, Bhandara, 1990  

Having previously discussed my learning needs with my practice teacher she allocated me this particular case, as she believed that assessing and responding to the family’s needs and risks would enable me to develop my skills as social worker.  I was informed due to a lack of funding and resources and the high number of other children already on the waiting list, Joe was unable to be placed in residential school, which would attain his educational needs.  My role therefore was to meet Joe's educational needs. I was advised to contact the Education Co-ordinator of the LAAC Department, who informed me that Joe could attend an 8 week Education Pilot Programme.  This was specifically for children awaiting placement unable to adhere to mainstream education.  I then contacted the Reporter by Fax and called a Children’s Hearing to change the terms of his supervision order. 

Prior to my visit, I felt it was necessary to acquire factual information and family background to get an understanding of the present situation (Adcock 1988, p23) and to gain knowledge of what had gone before prior to making an assessment. (Philips et al (1988) (DOH1988. p21)

Most of the information in the case notes portrayed Joe as a “problem child” rather than a “child with a problem” (Banks, 2001). )  I thought of the Human Systems theory of how we respond to information especially negative information. Reading a client’s case notes prior to engaging can assist the worker, however if the information is negative this can be damaging to the client, as the worker may develop a pre-conceived perception of the client (Evans and Kearne, 1996, p16) Bearing this in mind I decided speak to other workers who knew Joe for more detailed information.  

Two colleagues provided different perceptions of Joe, one indicating he was a big cheeky lad, while the other claimed he was indeed a big boy who could be loud and brash but was a big softie hiding behind a facade.  The latter informed me there were problems between Ann and Joe, which he had been trying to resolve despite Ann's reluctance. From this comment and other information gathered I concluded that Ann did not want Joe back as he was “out of control”.  

Howe, Dooley and Hinings, (1999) suggest children who experience controlling strategies such as avoidance or aggression resulting in neglect or rejection can develop a disorganised attachment, interpersonal and behavioural problems, such as bullying, bossiness and aggression, projecting their anger and blame onto others. They develop a lack of fear and an anxious need to control rather than be controlled, to attack rather than be attacked. (Howe, 1988, p93) This leads to role reversal where the parent loses their power often claiming the child is “Out of Control”. (Child and Family Social Work 2000, 5, p147)  This appeared to be the situation between Ann and Joe.  

I used Erikson’s (1968) Life Cycle Theory to assist me to understand Joe’s behaviour in relation to his aggressive rivalry for his Mother’s affections Joe is at Erikson’s 5th stage of “Identity vs. Role Confusion” which encompasses the onset of puberty.  The deep conflict at this stage may result in delinquent or repetitive behaviour as the child struggles to find some satisfactory meaning. (Lishman, 2001:4)

Having gathered information from the case files and other workers it was my job to reflect, analyse and make sense of Joe’s problem’s and behaviours in relation to his own unique social environment. Davies (1994, p151) suggests that this helps prepare a new worker for the complexities that h/she may face when initially engaging with a client.

ASSESSMENT

Bricker-Jenkins (1990) and Smale et al, (1998) suggest in the process of assessment the worker is not the expert in identifying need.  They claim that “People are, and always will be the expert on themselves” on their own problems, relationships, wants and needs.  Therefore the role of the professional is to work in partnership empowering the client and other people involved to exchange their views to identify problems and behaviours in relation to their current situation. (Smale and Tuson 2000, p14)  Coulshed (1991) describes assessment “as a way of continuously collecting and synthesising available data, which includes thoughts and feelings, in order to formulate treatment plans” furthermore he explains that assessments are never complete but an ongoing process. (Coulshed 1991:27)  This was true in Joe’s situation due to his re-offending and behavioural problems.

I chose the Exchange Model (Smale 2000) because of the complex situation with Joe and the family. This process of assessment, engagement and intervention necessitates networking and sharing information with the family and other agencies and professionals.  It is about partnership and empowerment on an equal basis. On initial contact, I felt that it was inappropriate to fire a set of questions at the client(s), as this linear questioning model would only compound the “cause” and “effect” chain encouraging individual blame. (Cecchin, 1987)  I decided a circular questioning approach would enable me to explore the family system, highlighting the relationships, behaviours and differences within the family and it’s members (Burnham, 1986: Burnham and Harris, 1988)  (Watzlawick, et al., 1974).

I drew on the “Systems Theory” which recognises that if one person’s behaviour changes it can impact on the whole family system. I also considered the larger system of friends, professionals and the community where structural influences such as poverty and unemployment may contribute to the crisis situation. (O’Hagan, 1986)(Lishman, 2001, p145) (Norton, 1978, p3)

Initial Engagement

Having not met Joe and the family I decided to make initial contact by letter, as it would appear more professional. Lishman (1994) suggests that effective communications skills are an essential component of social work practice.

However my plans were changed. I received a letter informing me that Joe was to attend a comprehensive medical. I telephoned the children’s unit explaining who I was and enquired if I was needed to accompany Joe. I was advised no, but asked to forward Joe’s RIC 3 Book.  I agreed although I didn’t know what it was. My colleagues later informed me it was the young person’s Health Record Booklet, which should be updated and accompany them to their new placement.  I completed and signed the relevant parts of the RIC 3 obtained from the clerical department, and forwarded it to the Children’s Unit along with a letter introducing myself and arranging an appointment to visit Joe. At this stage, I felt quite confident.

My inexperience was highlighted however when I later received a telephone call from the Depute who bombarded me with questions relating to legislation and parental consent forms. The Depute required specific documents and information urgently.  I began to panic and felt inadequate. Whilst there are guidelines and procedures to follow, Joe’s placement move was unplanned due to a crisis situation.  My Practice Teacher arrived at this point and seeing I was upset, intervened. She explained to me that being a student I was not expected to know this information.  Most importantly she emphasised the importance of me having the confidence to admit,  “I did not know” advising me that this was part of the learning process.  She retrieved the information from Joe’s file that the Depute urgently required from the Care First System.

I felt apprehensive about my initial contact with Ann. O’Hagan (2001) suggests, the first interview “should be anxiety free and honest, promoting mutual goals and problem solving” (O’Hagan 2001, p194).  Therefore I tried to relax and gain control. I telephoned Ann at home explaining who I was and my role to put her at ease. (Zastro, 1999, p96)  I then explained the situation regarding the referral and the parental consent forms so Ann was aware what she was singing and whyShe agreed to an immediate visit  

On engaging with Ann I used the following approach. I introduced myself smiling, and shaking her hand conveying warmth, acceptance and respect. (Lisham, 1994 p17)  I also explained the reason for my visit, my role and her rights to refusal and confidentiality, using language that was not laced with jargon so she could understand. (O’Hagan, 1996, p11)  I ensured my tone of voice was soft and I spoke in a manner that was clear and concise, providing concrete information rather than being vague. (Brammer, 1973) (Ivey and Gluckstern, 1976)  I used my “micro-skills” to put her at ease by making sure that my posture and body language were non-threatening and by keeping an open stance.  I also reassured her of my attention by verbal and non-verbal acknowledgements such as nodding.  

During the course of our meeting(s), Ann disclosed that she was still receiving benefit for Joe.  I felt uncomfortable about gaining this knowledge, which caused conflict with my personal and professional values also my duties legally and morally, regarding what to do with this information.   On reflection, I felt genuine empathy for Anne's family situation, also because she had little support from Jack emotionally or financially and was living in a poorly furnished house, which conveyed she was living in poverty. (Row tree, 1989)  I wondered how I would feel in a similar situation. (Kadushin, 1990, p51)(Trevithwick, 2000,p81)(Hough 1996)

Ann’s main concern was whether Joe would be allowed home, quickly adding she was concerned for his safety.  Close observation of Ann’s tone and body language suggested that she felt negatively about Joe and did not want him back. (Lishman 1994, p3).  As Coulshed (1991) suggests the use “intuition or common-sense notions alone are not enough”(Coulshed 1991, p24) I decided to seek verification by asking a range of open and closed questions in an empathetic way to get the desired information. (Trevithick, 2000,p 86)(Lishman 1994)  By paraphrasing and summarising I gave Ann the opportunity to reflect and correct me if I had misunderstood her.  

Once again my confidence left me as I drove to the Children’s unit to meet Joe and the Depute.   My initial contact with Joe was in the office accompanied by four other members of staff, which intimidated me as I felt that I lacked the experience of these professionals. (Lishman 2001, p147)   I explained my role, and discussed the referral and Joe’s educational needs.

I asked to speak to Joe in private, however the only place available was the lounge, which was not particularly private.  Joe spoke loudly and swore a lot and was indeed a large boy for his age, his hair was shaved short and he was dressed in Ranger’s regalia.  Due to his appearance Joe may experience stigma, sectarian racism, discrimination and disadvantage by being perceived socially as a white, Scottish, protestant, rangers supporting Ned. (Goffman, 1990, p15)(Thompson, 2001, p147)

Whilst assessing Joe’s needs I applied the micros skills I used in engaging with Ann to help put him at ease.  I explained Joe’s rights, and began by asking Joe his views on how he was, in accordance with .  (Frost, 1992, p9)

The initial contact was difficult due not having any privacy and being continually interrupted.  However Joe engaged well although he was reluctant to discuss any issues relating to his parents and his behaviour.    

Joe advised me that he was happy in the Unit but was going home as soon as his Mum got a new house, I felt it important to be truthful with Joe in order to build a relationship based on trust and mutual respect. (Lishman 1994)  I explained the importance of meeting his educational needs and that he would have to address his behaviour and offending prior to returning home.  I worker in partnership with colleague to re-establish the relationship between Ann and Joe and invited them both to attend a meeting to discuss any underlying issues using Family Therapy and the Systems Theory.  Joe agreed, however Ann did not.

It could be Joe developed a defensive strategy to deal with his anxieties and fears.  Fahlberg (1982) suggests this could be the result of a faulty, insecure attachment with his Mother subsequently impeding on Joe’s social growth. (Fahlberg 1982:9)  Furthermore when the attachment bond is broken ‘the very structure of the personality is endangered’ (Falberg 1991:143) (HoweD 1991:57)    

Due to Ann’s reluctance to participate I decided to discuss various issues with the all the family members and Children’s unit to get their perception of the situation. (Dallos, 1999)  To enable me to assess the family’s needs, to build picture of what’s happening, identify problems, and strengths. (Taylor and Devine 1993, p, 7/8). It appeared that the family situation had become stuck focusing on Joe as the problem. (Skynner, 1981) My aim was to promote and enable change by intervening and working in partnership with the family and other professionals.  Subsequently by introducing positive redefining the issues in a less critical way.  I hoped to break the cycle of blaming, which would empower the family to free themselves from the negative viewpoints of the current situation and behaviours. (Gorell-Barnes, 1979)  

My Practice Teacher discussed the visit with me and I explained I was concerned about my instinctive reactions and assumptions; she encouraged me to talk about these concerns. She advised me to inform Ann that she must inform the authorities, not to do so would be fraud, also to note this in Joe’s case notes to protect both the agency and myself.  

I then reflected on my personal values and those of  (Biestek 1951) “individualisation, acceptance, and the importance of having s non-judgemental attitude".  I was trying to avoid making judgements about Joe and Ann based on assumptions, personal prejudices or impressions. (O’Hagan 2001, p190) Braye and Preston-Shoot (1995) suggest these can often lead to “…negative attitudes, judgementalism and discriminatory behaviour”(O’Hagan, 2001, p12).  I realised the importance of having a holistic, anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory perspective, which considered all aspects of the family situation, the relationships, the social divisions and the structural inequalities. Recognising that external influences do have an impact on the family as a whole and on the individual, re-enforcing oppression. (Dominelli, 1993, p6, Dalrymple and Burke, 2000, p12, Banks. S, 2001:26) however I still instinctively felt that the family did not want Joe back, unfortunately this was the case, which I shall explain.  

Since the initial contact Joe has been arrested and charged with the following.  Through the assessment process the Unit kept pressuring and questioning me why Joe was living there and not in a residential school.  The problem arose when I attended the Children’s Hearing regarding Joe’s supervision Order under section of the Children’s (Scotland) Act 1995 and naming the Children’s Unit as a place of residence under section 73 of the Children’ (Scotland) Act 1995 where I finally met Jack.  I explained the reasons and the agreed care plan and I began wonder if this was due to my lack of experience.  My Practice Teacher had accompanied me and at this point intervened explaining the situation and the confusion in a more precise manner.

After the Hearing the senior and my Practice Teacher advised me to called a Review of the Child Care plan, under section of the Children’s (Scotland) Act 1995 which is held normally every six months by the L.A. to ensure the child’s needs are being met.  I wrote to the family and all the professionals concerned inviting them to Office to clarify the situation and ensure no more confusion.  However only Ann attended.    

The Review concluded with everyone present agreeing that the goal was to support Joe to return home.  However Joe should remain at the Children’s Unit, to continue with the Education Programme.  I implemented the agreed care plan by working in partnership communicating and sharing information with the family, other professionals and agencies.

1/        By arranging financial assistance for the family to facilitate contact with Joe on a regular basis  (section 17 of the C (S) a 1995.

2/        I applied to Residential School’s to refer Joe as a day student in partnership with the Child Psychologist.

3/        Contacted local resources in the area to meet Joe’s social and educational needs.

4/        I telephoned the Housing Department to assist Ann with the housing transfer.  The Housing Officer advised me that he previously offered Ann a two bed roomed house for Emma and herself. (No mention of Jack) Claiming her son wasn’t returning home, except possibly at the weekends, subsequently confirming my assumption.  I was asked me to forward a letter explaining the situation and the agreed plans regarding Joe, which I did.

The Depute agreed to contact the local school to enquire about a part-time education programme, which he didn’t claiming this would not be appropriate for Joe. I felt angry with Ann and the Depute thinking how this information would affect Joe.  

Therefore I gently challenged Ann and the Depute reminding them that they had agreed to Joe’s Care Plan.  Advising it was a legal document, emphasising that we all had a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that plan was adhered to.    

I had already arranged to visit Ann, however the Housing Officer had arranged to visit her the same day, and we arranged to meet there to clarify the situation. Ann she advised me the Housing Officer had misunderstood her and she intended to buy a sofa bed for Joe to sleep on.  I informed Ann this wasn’t acceptable, as Joe needed his own room and privacy and she agreed to a three bed roomed house.  

On reflection I felt by my agreeing to meet at Ann’s house my actions inadvertently were oppressive, as there was clearly a power imbalance, which may have intimidated her.  However I could not change the time of the appointment as I had arranged to accompany the Depute to the local school to enquire about an education programme for Joe.  Having discussed Joe’s situation with the school I later accompanied Joe

It could be suggested that Joe may have adopted a negative and aggressive identity to avoid intimacy, which may have already hurt him in the past. (Bee, p, 40)  Joe has many friends although he tends alienate himself through his aggressive behaviour. Bowlby (1979) argues that” fundamental needs or drives within the human personality are those of survival, protection and belonging”.  However, Hinshelwood (1987) stresses that the unpredictability and uncertainties human existence may threaten these basic needs and result in the individuals employing defences to protect themselves

I experienced this behaviour when I informed Joe that he was to attend another Children’s Hearing due to assault.  Joe began shouting telling me to “get out you Fucking Old Cow”, which I did.  I was slightly shocked and angry, as I had not anticipated his response.  However prior to leaving I informed Joe that I was not prepared to take this behaviour from him.  I felt it appropriate to impose a boundary and to inform Joe I wasn’t intimidated.  

However that morning I had received a telephone call from the Reporter asking for an update on Joe’s current situation and whether he should attend another Hearing.  I was uncomfortable making this decision, which caused conflict for me personally and professionally.  I felt that Joe should attend the Hearing to learn to accept responsibility for his actions and understand that his behaviour was not acceptable legally or socially.  By reflection and self-awareness I concluded that by my informing Joe of the Hearing was to relieve me of the guilt I felt.  On hindsight I feel that I would have been better letting the Reporter notify Joe.

I drew on the Cognitive-Behavioural approach, which can assist with anxiety (Beck and Emery, 1985), anger control and social skills.  I considered Joe’s interaction with his biological and social environment, which may have contributed to his behaviour. (Bandura, 1978)   Such as drug abuse, the possibility of learned behaviour from observing a violent and aggressive father, this could explain why Joe exhibits aggression towards females. (Hollin, 1989,p 20, Lishman, 2001, p128, 174)

 

---