Collaborative Work in Social Care

Collaborative Work in genial CareIntroductionThe following essay proposes to insure the question of cooperative treating in favorable care, looking in sparkicular at the imp mask of cooperative operative between agencies and professional determines deep down the scope of baby birdren and families. This represents an especially complex chore to attempt to tackle with the issues of both cooperative working and working with children families subject to an al to the highest degree constant process of sort out and alter in the contemporary era. When, for instance, we pause to interpret the way in which collaborative work has become such(prenominal) a rally shoot a line of contemporary complaisant indemnity in western liberal democracies with the declaration of the partnership approach to government dictating the innovation of a pastiche of kind, rageural, sparing and semipolitical initiatives, we can assemble that both banter relating to multi- authority wor k must reside in some part within the realms of a incessantly changing political ideology that wants in the starting instance to infuse new parameters for sociable work arrange (Quinney, 20065-21). Likewise, when we consider the changing character of working with children and families in the contemporary era, we can see that a emphatically pervasive legislative and policy framework progressively that seeks to infringe upon the formula of societal work on both an individual and a collaborative level cannot help but impact upon our dread of the nature and exercise of the amicable worker within the scene of children and families (OLoughlin and Bywater, 200814-27). Thus, we need to observe from the first-class honours degree the way in which the following essay constitutes an inherently subjective discussion where any conclusions garnered should be mum as open to further change and reinterpretation.For the purpose of perspective, we intend to adopt a dualistic approach t o the riddle at hand, looking firstly at the political, ideologic and legal context in which favorable work with children and families currently readys place. In this way, we leave be better able to designate an in effect(p) understanding of the field of child and family work, the social work determination and the multidiscipline system in relation to children in need and children in need of protection. Secondly, we will look at the implications of our deliver evidence-based research yielded from convention kinetics involving a specific facial expression exact of children and families. In this way, we will be better able to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of evidence-based utilization. Moreover, in this way, we will be better able to consider both the strengths and the weaknesses of the collaborative approach to social service provision at the dawn of the twenty first cytosine. Before we can begin, though, we need to in short consider the historical cont ext in order to establish a conceptual framework in which the remainder of the discussion can take place.The political, ideologic and legal context of working with children and familiesTo understand the significance of the multi-agency, collaborative approaches to child protection we need to first mention some of the close profound cases of child cruelty, which redeem acted as a launch ramble for reforms of social services. When, for instance, we pause to consider the case of Dennis ONeil who was starved and consequently beaten(a) to death by his foster father in 1945, we can see that instances of extreme abuse of looked aft(prenominal) children directly contributed to reform of the child social services system. Maria Col wellhead was similarly abused and killed at the hands of her stepfather in go against of over fifty official visits to the family by social services, health visitors, police officers and housing officers before her death in 1973. As a resolution of the ens uing enquiry into Maria Colwells death, looked after children were assigned a guardian by the suppose. (Cocker and Allain, 200824) Likewise, public outrage, indispensable inquiries and institutional reform attended the murders of Jasmine Beckford in 1984 and the uncovering of widespread sexual abuse amongst looked after children in Cleveland in 1987. In addition, the wrongful fostering of children on the Orkney Islands in 1991 after social workers mistakenly scoop upd that parents were part of a satanic cult triggered a reconfiguration of child protection policy, acting as a well-timed(a) reminder as to the fallibility of decision making at an individual as well as an organisational level.Yet while it is true that childrens services feel been influenced by individual historical cases of neglect, abuse and murder, it is also true that social work and childrens services are inherently tied to the dominant political ideology of the daylight. As we take over already asserted, soc ial work practice in the contemporary era is an inherently political issue with a pervasive neoliberal political ideology dictating the pattern of social policy and wel uttermoste reform over the course of the past twain decades. nowhere is this innovationalising neoliberal impetus more than prominent than in the field of social work with children and families (Johns, 200939-54). Beginning with the girlishsterrens Act of 1989 and continuing with the amended pincerrens Act of 2004, the state has increasingly desire to kick in provisions for disadvantaged children and failing families in order to reduce the debilitating ill effects of marginalisation and social exclusion.These two Acts, in conjunction with a variety of opposite cerebrate social policies and statutory framework such as the Every Child Matters programme, constitute an ideological watershed with regards to the way in which the state legislatively copes with the numerous issues arising from children and familie s. Most obviously, these pieces of legislation and the broader emphasis upon social inclusion that they inculpate telegraph a new way of responding to issues arising from children and families by looking to shoot for the causes (rather than the consequences) of neglect, exclusion, abuse and the ubiquitous problem of failing families. As a result, it is eventful to observe the way in which the reforms initiated over the closing decades of the twentieth century and the opening decade of the twenty first century represent a move away from the permissive social policies of the post-war years so as to incorporate a discernibly more preventative agenda for working with children and families (Morris, Barnes and Mason, 200943-67).It is within this climate of preventative action that we must consider the genesis and subsequent evolution of collaborative social work practice with multi-agency work cosmos intrinsically tied to the broader imperative of safeguarding children. The statutory framework of the Every Child Matters initiative, underpinned by the Childrens Act (2004) is, for instance, inherently tied to the partnership, collaborative approach to social service provision involving the active participation of professionals across all spectrums who work with children and youngish adults (Brammer, 2009166). Understood in this way, the role of the social worker represents iodin part of a broader network of rights and responsibilities incorporating General Practitioners, psychologists, educational practitioners, housing tie-in officers, National Health serve up professionals, law enforcement agencies, government officials, local councillors, parents, family members and any number of related workers and associates who are able to help formulate an effective social agenda which places the child at the epicentre of all mark decision-making. In this way, the social worker is better able to communicate with children who have suffered or are suffering from cases of neglect and abuse (Davies and Duckett, 2008164-166).As a consequence, it is forgive that partnership and collaboration should be understood as the ideological bedrock of the contemporary legal and political framework for dealing with children, families and young adults, constituting the single close all important(p) guiding principle for social workers operating(a) in the highly complex, risk-orientated contemporary social sphere. Fuelled in some part by the high profile cases of internal failings contributing to childrens neglect where, around notably, the untimely death of Victoria Climbie in 2000 highlighted gross failures of the system (Laming, 200311-13), collaborative working between agencies and professional disciplines is today understood as the most viable means of positively impacting upon the well being of both children and families (Brammer, 2009182.)In response to the murder of Victoria Climbie and, more pertinently, as a result of the economic imperative to cut ba ck on public celestial sphere spending, the New Labour government, followed by the present coalition government, has increasingly sought to further the multi-agency approach to social services. The Childrens Plan (2007), for example, constitutes an ideological extension of the collaborative methodology championed in the Every Child Matters campaign with the government, agencies and professionals all supercharged with improving childrens lives. (The Department for Children, Schools and Families, 201029) Safeguarding the well being of children is thitherfore no longstanding considered to be the sole certificate of indebtedness of the state rather, it is clear that promoting the welfare of children and families is increasingly dependent upon adopting an integrated approach with a variety of agencies, organisations and individuals sharing the responsibility for welfare while at the same time ensuring that the child carcass the focus of proactive, preventative action (The Department for Children, Schools and Families, 201031-34). It is consequently important to accentuate the strengths of the multi-agency approach to social care provision, underscoring in particular the way in which focusing upon collaborative working with children and families offers a holistic approach to what is an fundamentally multi-faceted problem.However, while we are correct to acknowledge the modernising ideology that underpins modern social work practice, we also need to observe the way in which the day to day practice of social work with children and families has revealed a real key chasm between, on the one hand, the preventative legal framework and, on the other hand, the deep-seated flaws in the multi-agency, inter-disciplinary approach to welfare provision in the modern day (Oko, 200816-39). In spite of the best efforts of policy makers and in spite of the preventative statutory framework enshrined in the Every Child Matters initiative, in that respect remain deep-rooted st ructural and logistical problems pertaining to the multi-agency approach. For example, the horrific death of minor P in 2007 which occurred after social services, National Health Service consultants, and police officers demonstrates that thither clay a clear and identifiable problem with regards to communication between agencies, organisations and professions.Moreover, the harrowing case of Baby P serves to demonstrate that, even when extreme levels of abuse are being reported, there remains a problem regarding intervention. The multi-agency approach to social care provision in the contemporary should therefore be understood as being inherently flawed with the collaborative system beset by a variety of structural weaknesses and new ideological complexities (Milner and OByrne, 200919-23). Although we should not seek to overlook the strengths of multi-agency, collaborative working we must, as Eileen Munro attests, consider the way in which an highly risk-orientated socio-political c ulture has created additional problems for social workers in the modern era with an increasingly bureaucratic, administrative understanding of social services hampering the attainment of a detailed understanding of the underlying economic, cultural and political factors that create problems in the social sphere (Munro, 200858-76). An over-emphasis upon research and policy has not yet yielded a large reduction in the chasm between theory and practice.Working in a Group The Lessons for Working with Children and FamiliesHitherto, we have focused upon attempting to understand how the dominant political, ideological and legal framework looks to dictate the pattern of social services at the dawn of the twenty first century. We have also seen that while policies and frameworks seek to instil a fresh, collaborative approach to working with children and young families the serviceable reality of working in a multi-agency context still leads to hearty problems pertaining to communication. This, in the last analysis, is an inevitable consequence of working with the dynamics of groups where there is little by way of cathexis and where, more importantly, different group members harbour different perspectives and different ambitions with regards to the nature, role and purpose of the sound projection at hand.In the group that I worked in, there were six participants. Two were two white women one a young woman in her too shortly twenties the other a woman in her thirties who is the induce of two young children. There were also two bneediness women in the group both of these women were in their thirties and both had children. In addition, there were two black men present in the group. As soon as the group began to convene, it was immediately apparent that there was a world-shaking problem with regards to when the group could meet. Family commitments, coupled with work placements, conspired to make agreeing on a time to meet extremely difficult. Furthermore, when wo rk was assigned to particular individuals it was not completed on time. A lack of structure was therefore preponderant from the start.As time went by and the problems with communication within the group move to grow, it became apparent that the two white women took it upon themselves to act as the leaders of the group, designate work as if they had been assigned the role of the managers. The younger woman in her early twenties was observed to be especially aggressive and domineering. When confronted she failed to act in a professional manner, which placed further strain upon the dynamics of the group. Furthermore, as the two white women exerted increasing levels of managerial withstand, it became apparent that they were withholding tax important information from the rest of the group. This was either because they did not trust the other members of the group to work to their standards or because they wished to take sole responsibility for the project upon completion. Regardless o f their true intentions, the lack of co-ordination and communication resulted in a let down final presentation that had been undermined on account of a wholesale lack of rehearsal.The lack of cohesive, coordinated action within the group revealed a immense deal about the inherent problems of inter-agency work with children and families. Most obviously, there was a clear and identifiable problem relating to a lack of leaders and direction in the group. Although there were only six members, every participant appeared to have their own specific agenda, which meant that the overall goal became lost in the resulting muddiness of responsibilities. This, according to Michael Gasper, is a key problem in multi-agency working with children and young people where a convergence of interests creates fertile grounds for problems relating to management and leadership (Gasper, 200992-110). In such circumstances, it is often the agency or partner that adopts the most rigorously aggressive attitud e which ends up assuming a leadership-type role largely against the best interests of the project in hand. This was certainly the case in the group we observed where the two white women assumed leadership roles although no such premise had been discussed and in spite of the fact that no such policy had been agreed.In this instance, of course, it is impossible to ignore the spectre of underlying carry issues that may have consciously or subconsciously influenced the behaviour of the two white women within the group. Race issues are intrinsically tied to office staff issues thus, the white women might have felt the need to assume control of a group dominated by black people. Again, the issue of male monarch and the impact that this has upon inter-personal relationships within a multi-agency setting is an important factor for us to consider. As Damien Fitzgerald and Janet Kay underscore, superpower is an inexorably important factor that needs to be legislated for when teams come t ogether in an interdisciplinary, multi-professional context. This is especially true during the early consultive stages of group work the storming stage where there may be fighting, power struggles, disputes and destructive criticism, which need to be managed effectively so as to belittle the impact upon the setting or the service. (Fitzgerald and Kay, 200792)The relationships that emerge from the storming stage are later normalised during the ensuing norming stage where the team starts to adopt its own identity. If, however, the relationships between the dissimilar agencies have not settled down into an egalitarian pattern by the norming stage of development, the power struggles and internal disputes will inevitably affect the performing stage of task management. Most notably, the creative process will be stifled and the focus that should be dedicated towards the completion of the task will be diverted towards the power struggles within the group (Cheminais, 200938-40). This was certainly the case in the group I worked in where problems in the storming stage were translated into more serious structural problems in the norming stage, both of which ultimately affected the final performing stage of the task. Thus, once more, we need to acknowledge the significant sort out between theory and practice in collaborative working with children and families where, as Jayat suggests, policies can be well intentioned, yet are often seedy co-ordinated and, in practice, under-resourced. (Jayat, 200992)Furthermore, while acknowledging the problems that multi-agency, collaborative work entails, we also need to consider the way in which the infusion of children into the scenario creates further avenues for a lack of cohesive, co-ordinated action. If, as the evidence suggests, information sharing is negatively influenced by multi-agency, collaborative working with adults, then it stands to reason that there is bound to be much great scope for withholding information w hen children and families are integrated into the procedure. If relationships at an agency level are strained then it stands to reason that, as butler and Roberts attest, that social workers will find it even harder to maintain open and naive relationships with children and their parents in a social work context (Butler and Roberts, 2004129-130). More importantly, it is clear that there is little time for power struggles and disputes when a childs welfare is at stake. In the final analysis, this kind of internal wrangling runs contrary to the central tenet of the Every Child Matters and the Working to Safeguard Children campaigns, which look to make sure that the child remains the centre of task-centred, multi-agency focus (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 201032).We should, of course, be on the alert not to assume that all group dynamics follow the pattern of the group we observed. While evidence suggests that there remains a significant scope for problems of power, communication, authority and direction within multi-agency settings it is also true that, if handled in the appropriate manner, collaborative practice allows differences in values to surface and, if effectively minded, to be aired and resolved over time (Glenny and Roaf, 2008111) In such circumstances, multi-agency work with children and families can serve to positively influence the health and well being of service users. As a consequence, it is important not to assume that the structural weaknesses of collaboration mean that there are no strengths to the multi-agency process. conclusionUnderstanding the strengths and the weaknesses of collaborative working between agencies and professional disciplines is dependent upon first understanding the distance to be travelled between the theory of cake and the practice of collaboration at a grass roots level. smell to reduce the divide between theory and practice, between the political and ideological framework and the multi-agency, col laborative approach, consequently represents the most critical challenge approach social workers and social policy makers alike. This is especially true as far as childrens services are concerned.Ultimately, though, when looking to pass a belief on the relative strengths and weakness of multi-agency working with children and families we need to recall that agencies impress individuals responding to crises in the social sphere. As Beckett attests, every individual participant in the child protection process, and every profession or agency, necessarily sees things from his, her or its own particular standpoint and has his, her or its own particular axes to grind. It is important to bear in mind that no one participant possesses the exquisite and unadulterated truth. (Beckett, 200929) Social work is an inherently complex and subjective discipline where there is no right or wrong answer to the coterie of questions arising from the breakdown of interpersonal relationships. Collabora tive work should consequently be understood as being inherently fallible. Only by concentrating upon improving the internal group dynamics of multi-agency functioning can the chasm between theory and practice begin to be reduced.