2.3.10.1 Preamble To Conclusion – Important Descriptions

To conclude this Chapter, and give a concrete example of Pillars type thinking when it comes to the Focus Group, I will describe two experiences (A and B in the next two posts, 2.3.10.2 and 2.3.10.3) that I had some years ago before our new Child Protection Agency, TÚSLA was being set up.

This website was a little more than a thought in my head at that time – in fact I had started planning and was writing a little – so I was paying attention to anything that would be relevant. And since the concern of the website was going to be protection of vulnerable children I felt that the setting up of a brand new nationwide agency for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, was particularly relevant.

While they get older with each passing year – you might find them interesting – and revealing!

2.3.10.2 Experience A

One day I was listening to a debate on the radio about how the new Child and Family Agency in Ireland, TÚSLA, would protect children better – now that it was a stand-alone organisation with its own structure instead of being an adjunct of the Health Service Executive

As I was interested in this subject I turned up the volume a bit and paid attention.

The soon-to-be Chief of TÚSLA, the then Ombudsman for Children, a legal expert, and an academic were taking part in the discussion. Their sincerity, commitment and enthusiasm was evident throughout the programme. They spoke about real reform.  Every conceivable facet of the considerable challenge of protecting vulnerable children was explored.

For example:

1. The role of teachers, particularly primary teachers was discussed.  They were often the first to notice if children are being abused, neglected, exhibiting sudden behaviour change, absent for a long time etc. – A good start.

2. The priorities of the Ombudsman for Children were listed, as was the value of the independence of the Office in dealing with complaints and promoting children’s rights. – Excellent stuff!

3. On the legislative front, we were told that the new body would adhere to European legislation in respect of vulnerable members of our society – and how much work had been put into this. – Well – some relevance, but a bit removed, perhaps?

4. There was great enthusiasm for an early warning system where social workers would be part of a referral pathway so that children at risk would be identified prior to their circumstances deteriorating to the point where they may be going into state care. – Now we’re getting places!

5. We were assured that the issue of demarcation in respect of union membership by different arms of the child protection system, e.g. clinical vs. administration, had been resolved – and this was stated to be a particular achievement worth noting as this very issue had held up other innovative initiatives proposed by Government in other spheres. – Might be good for morale – once again a bit removed, but sure if it helps it helps.

6. The integration of Health, Education and Youth Justice, was – we were informed – vital to the project of protecting vulnerable children.  In this integration process, multi-disciplinary teams (consisting of social workers, Gardaí, educational psychologists, social care workers, teachers, family therapists and other experts) were seen as the way forward. – To be honest I felt a bit depressed that this had to be spelt out and wasn’t happening already.

7. It was stated that the method of recording of child protection cases would be improved so that we would never again lose any information on a child that was in the system. – This sounded useful and very doable.

8. The fact that there were so many social worker vacancies unfilled was seen to be something that would have to be addressed in order to ensure that TÚSLA would work to its optimum. – Could be positive all right.

9. The struggle that social workers have in accessing families in communities was mentioned as something that might inhibit good protection of children – though as far as I remember no ideas were proposed as to how families might be accessed. – Major disappointment here I’m afraid!

Now, to my mind, (and I am sure that you will all agree), 1 to 8 will not happen (and/or are irrelevant) unless 9 happens. In fact, this is by far the most important one.

To think otherwise would be like building a garage to service cars and expecting the mechanics to fix them without letting them near the engines!

In the next post I will develop this point a little.

2.3.10.3 Experience B – And Summary

Following on from the last post, around 2013 I was watching what was, at that time, a very popular nightly chat show on telly (Tonight With Vincent Browne) and the topic concerned children in care.

The panel consisted of a child protection worker, a rapporteur to the Government, a legal expert who had been involved in the enquiry into the investigation of the deaths of children in care and an academic.

It was a very positive programme in that all were well-meaning and had very good ideas about how to keep a child safe in a family under pressure and prevent the expensive option of care.

The child protection social worker commented on how children disappear into the morass of the legal system.

I think that this was a very good observation – as I have some experiences of children being harmed by the intransigence of both parties with little thought put into that side of it by the legal system.

There was a really good discussion as to how children can be scared in the courtroom environment – with all the formality and stiff atmosphere.  In the discussion the talk was mostly about judges and legal matters and things that are cold and distant from the reality of family life.  (During this discussion the always-provocative Vincent asked why all of us ordinary folk have rooms and judges have chambers)

I felt, within the discussion, that the panel empathised with children as they spoke about making the court empowering and less threatening for them.

After some time the discussion began to turn towards neglect.

As most practitioners know, what is called neglect (mostly due to poverty and poor parenting skills, burn-out among parents, and general lack of family support) is a very common challenge in respect of children at risk.

Now most practitioners will also know that many such families respond very well, and are open to assistance offered in a non-threatening and easy to access manner.  This is because they can see positive change in a relatively short time.

I tuned into this in particular because of reasons that will be clear in my summation at the end of this post.

It was stated that we now had a big opportunity in a new child and family agency, (TÚSLA) to fix, as they put it, what is broken within the system.

A number of things were identified as being broken, or at least, not fit for purpose.

Firstly, referrals needed to be timely and appropriate – inferring that they are not, at present.

There was some criticism of education officers who, it was felt, could do their job a bit better – and who sometimes, it was stated, turned a blind eye.

One participant said ‘we don’t want to mess around with families’ but I was unsure what point was being made, really.

Another said that ‘we need to be in the maternity hospitals because that’s where we can solve the problems – then invest in early intervention’ but it was not specified what early intervention meant.  (I suspected that it was a bit like the early warning system of Experience A above).

One of the panellists said that he read over 500 files in the Report into children who died in care and stated that ‘the State did nothing’, and how unbelievably hard it was to get social workers or Gardaí to remove children from danger.

He obviously was passionate about children in danger.

At the end, the 2012 referendum that enshrined children’s rights into the Constitution was referred to as something that will be helpful in protecting children.

The conversation was high on aspirational stuff but very low on specifics – as, in fairness – might be expected in a short television programme.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary

The reason why I give an account of this programme, and the previous one, was that at no time during either discussion was the potential of ordinary people in communities concerned about families and children mentioned.

I thought that it would at least find its way into the ‘early warning system’, or the ‘accessing families in communities’ discussions – but it didn’t.  Neither was there any mention of friends, concerned people, responsible members of extended families, etc., of which there are a vast number in communities that are largely untapped. 

No – every action that was proposed was to be undertaken by people in ‘the system’.

And at no time did I hear words like love, warmth, trust, inspiration, hope, belief, courage, creativity or autonomy mentioned.

No – the words that prevailed in the discussion were intervention, clarity of roles, assessment, interagency work, networking, referral pathways, legally accountable and such terms.  

This is despite the existence of research – a lot of it recent – positing the power of local, extended family, non-professional, voluntary efforts in communities to alleviate suffering in others.

The substantial and very thorough research document that I mentioned in a previous Sub-Chapter which is entitled How Are Our Kids found that when parents look for advice about parenting, asking people in organisations falls far behind family, extended family, or friends/neighbours.

Also, tellingly, when children were asked with whom they would share something that is troubling them, it was a similar story.  Professionals (e.g. teacher, youth worker, support worker) were well down the list.

If you do wish to click on the link How Are Our Kids to read the report, the relevant section/paragraph is 4.1.5 – the chart/histogram in that paragraph giving us a clear indicator of where someone in an organisation rates.

I have decided to include my recollections of the above TV programme (this post) and the radio programme (previous post) to illustrate how we are conditioned into thinking that the only shows in town are those that are favoured by the Pillars.

And of course there is nothing wrong with all plans, strategies etc. that are proposed. It’s just that, mostly, they focus on doing things for rather than with people.

And sad to say, things have not changed much since 2013.

Right up to the present I have listened to commentaries on high profile cases where well-meaning, sincere, hardworking practitioners express similar views on helping vulnerable children – neglecting to mention the wisdom, strength and commitment that abound in extended families and communities, or, indeed, the power of compassion, inspiration, connection or family love.

And after such discussions I always think about the waste of energy that goes into work that is trapped in a system that doesn’t work, and because of this, in Section Four I include an entire Chapter on Energy).

(If you have read the post on the hierarchy of helping – the subject matter of which is closely linked to this post and the previous one – you will be familiar with my thinking in this area already).

2.3.10.4 The Traffic Jam

I’m sure you know what a traffic jam is!

I will propose that our willingness to endure gridlock is directly linked to the power of the corporate world in the next Chapter.

But a humble traffic jam is slightly different to gridlock.  It is usually the result of a higher number of cars coming up to traffic lights than the number of cars that the lights will let through when green.

If we look at this from a need and resource point of view the need to get traffic through is greater than the resource which is the length of time the traffic light stays green. This causes more and more cars to back up behind; and therefore the jam.

This is analogous to difficult human problems like supporting families in distress, or child protection, or crime prevention or homelessness and similar, (or even the passport office, A+E departments, or post offices at Christmas) where people mostly encounter long waiting times as a result of there not being enough practitioners to deal with the number of people presenting.

That is to say, the need is always much greater than the resource.

This has been the case since I got involved in this kind of work – and I have no great confidence that resources will be increased significantly soon.  Nor have I a lot of confidence that our country will change to the extent that major societal inequalities and similar problems that are causative factors in respect of the need will be eradicated in the foreseeable future.

Inclusion of people within the extended family, or community, goes some way to solve this age-old problem.

Because if we are in the community and of the community and we have a real stake in the solution, we will:

1. Hear a lot more of the real stories. (As was noted in the Research referred to in the Summary in the previous post people share a lot more with each other than they do with people in organisations).

2. Usually have very high motivation – and be (probably) around for a long time.

3. Be better placed to include very hurt people in decision making, hearing their uncensored views. While being empowering this is also very educational.

4. Allow people the time they need to process change. This is important. In my experience practitioners in organisations always seem to be in a hurry.

5. Be more likely to take responsibility for decision making in respect of our own and our children’s well-being, because the decision-making is within ourselves.

6. Almost always have a much higher tolerance of discomfort – and a finely honed intuitive sense of the difference between discomfort and danger.

7. Have intuitive knowledge of what will work in alleviating suffering in members of our extended families.

8. Be well placed to assist external practitioners in building relationships – so long as practitioners are open to this.

And – very importantly:

9. Enable the root foundations, described in a later Sub-Chapter, to flourish in our community. Particularly emergence (we are part of the process of growth), identity, (pride in achievement and all that is good about our community), integration (enabling our community to become whole), consciousness, (fostering self-awareness), and time, as I referred to in 4 above.

So it stands to reason that easily the best people to help in easing the traffic jam referred to above, even offering, perhaps, alternative routes for traffic, are the responsible and wise people within the Focus Group referred to earlier. (This will be covered in more depth in Section Five, Practical Applications).

But truly tapping into the strength and wisdom that resides in communities, and not only facilitating but encouraging genuine and wholehearted involvement seems to be very difficult for the Pillars. The attitude seems to be that they have problems, we have to fix them, and until they’re fixed to a standard that we decide they’re not welcome to work among us.

For me it simply means that we practitioners have to be willing to open our hearts, take a certain amount of risk and then manage that risk.

And the principal risk is, of course, sharing power.

2.3.10.5 Endnote

At long last, I come to the final post in the long Important Descriptions Chapter.

I mentioned at the start of this Chapter that in order to get the most out of it you would have to be fairly flexible and broad-minded – and open to the content.

Much of this website proposes that Pillars thinking does not always have to be in the ascendancy when it comes to supporting families in distress, and that trust and sharing power can yield positive and more sustainable outcomes.

Because what will be proposed, and indeed what would emerge would be more empowering and far less costly than what currently is the norm.

And if you read on – particularly if you are a money conscious bureaucrat – you will truly be happy

View all Questions »
Newsletter

Would you like to keep up to date and get in touch?