Another thing I've been reading a LOT about lately is violence against women. It's one of those topics that is briefly discussed in several of the core social work courses, but doesn't have a class dedicated to the topic. Once class in Policy was on this topic, as was one class in Feminism (actually, that was a Poli Sci class) and the Sociology of Families, as well as being mentioned in the Aboriginal class, and probably in 110 and 210. It was also one of the advocacy cases I read in my Advocacy Writing elective, and was discussed in my crisis line training. Just yesterday, at my crisis line shift, I was asked to read some of a 75 page document from MCFD on "Best Practice Approaches: Child Protection and Violence Against Women." It is also a topic that came up in both of the two BCASW conferences I have attended, most notably by Lee Lakeman of Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a Downtown Eastside women's shelter.
The general consensus is that domestic violence is NOT about anger management, NOT about mental illness (although being a victim of it is VERY likely to cause mental illness), it is about power and control. As well, it is the general consensus that domestic violence is overwhelmingly gendered, hence the term "violence against women" replacing the non-gendered term "domestic violence".
However, this kind of violence is compounded by other forms of social marginalization. So, women who experience a lack of power beyond their gender identity experience much more violence, and that violence is much more severe. For example, Aboriginal women experience intimate partner violence at a rate of 20%, whereas mainstream stats place it at about 7%. This means Aboriginal women are 3 times more likely to experience intimate partner violence. As well, immigrant women, racialized women and women with disabilities experience more violence than the general population of women.
One interesting fact, however, is that intimate partner violence occurs in lesbian relationships, as well, and it is not mutual violence or aggression. This violence is also characterized by the need to exert power and control.
Thus, I would argue that violence against women is NOT a gender issue. Rather, I contend that it is an issue of power and oppression, and that by focusing specifically on women as victims and men as perpetrators, we end up "othering" men. This is NOT to say that I think we should NOT talk about violence against women. Rather, it is to say that we need to use a post-modern approach, recognize that this ISN'T a war between the genders, and that these men, although apparently not mentally ill, are in some way damaged by our culture, by our culture's need to oppress and marginalize groups of people.
My Aboriginal Social Work prof (Gwen Point, who is of the Stó:lō Nation, and whose husband is the Lieutenant Gov of BC ) seemed to empathize with First Nations men; she asked us to imagine what it must feel like to be a man, socially constructed as the provider, and then have your ability to provide for your family and your community stripped from you.
I think that we need to stop dehumanizing men who commit violence against women, and acknowledge that they need help. This is a pervasive issue, beyond individual pathology; it is an issue built into the very structure of our social systems.
The unfortunate thing, however, in this neo-liberal political climate, is that there are no voluntary services for men who commit intimate partner violence. There ARE programs for these men, but they are either through Corrections or through MCFD. Thus, these men have to either have been charged/convicted of committing such violence (in which case, it's been going on for a LONG time, and the woman is probably extremely damaged from the constant terrorization), or the violence has to be a part of a child protection investigation. In my opinion, this is a day late and a dollar short.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
the ethics of child protection?
I've been doing a lot of reading and writing lately specifically about child protection as practiced in BC.
I've had several assignments based on the 2001 Bruce Spangler movie, Protection, which is billed as a "realistic" look at child protection (I highly doubt it is, this social worker, who is drinking wine and smoking pot in the playground at Trout Lake, proceeds to cut her hands on the bottle, then smears the blood all over her face). Regardless, we have used the 'fact pattern' of the actual investigation for 2 assignments in my law class. One was a paper which combined a Report to Court with a critique of the social workers in the movie, the other was an oral assignment where we acted as a social worker giving testimony in court. A third assignment is a paper for my Child Welfare class, where we use the 'fact pattern' to write a case recording, and followed by a personal and professional reflection on our own possible reaction to the investigation, referring to texts and journal articles which are critical of mainstream and historical child protection practices.
I've also listened to several guest speakers in these two classes over the semester. Some were lawyers, some were social workers. Some presentations centered on child protection practices - what they do, how they do them. One recent one was more reflective, a social worker who had Bob Mullaly as an instructor (Mullaly has written two social work books based on critical theory in social work practice and on structural social work, both of which are anti-oppressive).
This social worker is done with child protection in BC. More specifically, she is burnt out by the endless, possibly needless changes in the bureaucracy. She has worked in BC for 12 years, but is leaving in the spring, to return to her home province on the east coast. She discussed a case or two where she felt it was ridiculous for her to have investigated, but was compelled to do so by her supervisor. She pointed out just how intrusive this is, and how the information collected stays on file forever. She also talked about how the Deputy Minister, "in all her glory," has decided to do away with the current child protection tool, Risk Assessment, which BC began using in response to Judge Gove's 1995 inquiry into BC's child protection system after the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. However, the new 'tool' is going to be the child protection workers themselves. To this worker, this means more work will be piled on top of already overworked staff.
I have also recently read everything I could find about MCFD since the 2006 Hughes Report, especially what was available about the changes Deputy Minister du Toit intends to make. She is scrapping Risk Assessment in favour of a new model, called "CAPP" which stands for Child and Family Support, Assessment, Planning and Practice, and which is mostly described in aspirational, visionary terms. Specific, measureable outcomes are not published, nor are details pertaining to what staff will actually be doing. Not very transparent, in my opinion, and thus, not very ethical.
Two further reports I have recently read are Broken Promises (2008) and Hands Tied (2009), both researched and published by Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver. The first talks about how the system has consistently failed children and their families for generations in spite of legislative reform, internal reorganization and changing governments. The second talks about why BC child protection workers are leaving their jobs at an alarming rate: not enough staff, and too much political churn.
As well, I have been reading whatever I can find about MCFD in the public domain - media articles, blog posts, and comments on both. One specific blog I have been perusing is GPS, which is "a personal weblog advocating for the Bayne family reunion and suggesting potential corrections to B.C. child welfare." The comments on many of these blog posts have lead me to conclude that British Columbians despise social workers.
I, however, would like to distinguish between social workers and child protection workers. Social Workers in BC are governed by the Social Workers Act, unless they are employed by a government or its agency, a school or a band (um, that's a LOT of exceptions!). Despite Judge Gove's reccomendation that child protection social workers actually be social workers (pretty radical, I know!), child protection workers are not required to have a degree in social work, nor are they required to be registered. They can hold a degree in Child and Youth Care (or they can hold a Masters in Clinical Psychology or an M.Ed. in Counselling).
Regardless, as Pivot (2008) points out, "apprehensions are generally the result of a parent’s struggle with poverty, addiction, mental health issues or family violence. The government’s lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of [MCFD] to take a preventative approach to child protection issues."
I believe social work education, which is highly anti-oppressive, which requires continual deconstruction of the current and historical political ideologies which inform social policy, which insists that all knowledge is socially constructed to benefit a small minority of citizens, can effectively train workers to treat all clients with dignity and respect. It is a social worker's job to look for the structural, systemic causes of a parent's "bad behaviour" rather than blaming individual pathology. We consider the person in his/her environment. We stand with our clients, in solidarity. Our mandate is social change, social and economic justice for all citizens, not just for the "good" ones.
I just have to keep reminding myself of my mandate as a social worker (as described, above), not as a child protection worker (whose mandate is contradictory, to keep children safe from parental maltreatment while maintaining the family home as the ideal place for children). I have to keep reminding myself that I chose this profession out of my stand for social justice for all, especially the most marginalized; that I chose social work out of an ethical responsibility I feel to children. Otherwise, all those commenters who write that child protection workers are evil, could lead me to despair, lead me to think child protection is a pointless career, characterized by burnout, not appreciated by anyone. And we can't have that!
I've had several assignments based on the 2001 Bruce Spangler movie, Protection, which is billed as a "realistic" look at child protection (I highly doubt it is, this social worker, who is drinking wine and smoking pot in the playground at Trout Lake, proceeds to cut her hands on the bottle, then smears the blood all over her face). Regardless, we have used the 'fact pattern' of the actual investigation for 2 assignments in my law class. One was a paper which combined a Report to Court with a critique of the social workers in the movie, the other was an oral assignment where we acted as a social worker giving testimony in court. A third assignment is a paper for my Child Welfare class, where we use the 'fact pattern' to write a case recording, and followed by a personal and professional reflection on our own possible reaction to the investigation, referring to texts and journal articles which are critical of mainstream and historical child protection practices.
I've also listened to several guest speakers in these two classes over the semester. Some were lawyers, some were social workers. Some presentations centered on child protection practices - what they do, how they do them. One recent one was more reflective, a social worker who had Bob Mullaly as an instructor (Mullaly has written two social work books based on critical theory in social work practice and on structural social work, both of which are anti-oppressive).
This social worker is done with child protection in BC. More specifically, she is burnt out by the endless, possibly needless changes in the bureaucracy. She has worked in BC for 12 years, but is leaving in the spring, to return to her home province on the east coast. She discussed a case or two where she felt it was ridiculous for her to have investigated, but was compelled to do so by her supervisor. She pointed out just how intrusive this is, and how the information collected stays on file forever. She also talked about how the Deputy Minister, "in all her glory," has decided to do away with the current child protection tool, Risk Assessment, which BC began using in response to Judge Gove's 1995 inquiry into BC's child protection system after the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. However, the new 'tool' is going to be the child protection workers themselves. To this worker, this means more work will be piled on top of already overworked staff.
I have also recently read everything I could find about MCFD since the 2006 Hughes Report, especially what was available about the changes Deputy Minister du Toit intends to make. She is scrapping Risk Assessment in favour of a new model, called "CAPP" which stands for Child and Family Support, Assessment, Planning and Practice, and which is mostly described in aspirational, visionary terms. Specific, measureable outcomes are not published, nor are details pertaining to what staff will actually be doing. Not very transparent, in my opinion, and thus, not very ethical.
Two further reports I have recently read are Broken Promises (2008) and Hands Tied (2009), both researched and published by Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver. The first talks about how the system has consistently failed children and their families for generations in spite of legislative reform, internal reorganization and changing governments. The second talks about why BC child protection workers are leaving their jobs at an alarming rate: not enough staff, and too much political churn.
As well, I have been reading whatever I can find about MCFD in the public domain - media articles, blog posts, and comments on both. One specific blog I have been perusing is GPS, which is "a personal weblog advocating for the Bayne family reunion and suggesting potential corrections to B.C. child welfare." The comments on many of these blog posts have lead me to conclude that British Columbians despise social workers.
I, however, would like to distinguish between social workers and child protection workers. Social Workers in BC are governed by the Social Workers Act, unless they are employed by a government or its agency, a school or a band (um, that's a LOT of exceptions!). Despite Judge Gove's reccomendation that child protection social workers actually be social workers (pretty radical, I know!), child protection workers are not required to have a degree in social work, nor are they required to be registered. They can hold a degree in Child and Youth Care (or they can hold a Masters in Clinical Psychology or an M.Ed. in Counselling).
Regardless, as Pivot (2008) points out, "apprehensions are generally the result of a parent’s struggle with poverty, addiction, mental health issues or family violence. The government’s lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of [MCFD] to take a preventative approach to child protection issues."
I believe social work education, which is highly anti-oppressive, which requires continual deconstruction of the current and historical political ideologies which inform social policy, which insists that all knowledge is socially constructed to benefit a small minority of citizens, can effectively train workers to treat all clients with dignity and respect. It is a social worker's job to look for the structural, systemic causes of a parent's "bad behaviour" rather than blaming individual pathology. We consider the person in his/her environment. We stand with our clients, in solidarity. Our mandate is social change, social and economic justice for all citizens, not just for the "good" ones.
I just have to keep reminding myself of my mandate as a social worker (as described, above), not as a child protection worker (whose mandate is contradictory, to keep children safe from parental maltreatment while maintaining the family home as the ideal place for children). I have to keep reminding myself that I chose this profession out of my stand for social justice for all, especially the most marginalized; that I chose social work out of an ethical responsibility I feel to children. Otherwise, all those commenters who write that child protection workers are evil, could lead me to despair, lead me to think child protection is a pointless career, characterized by burnout, not appreciated by anyone. And we can't have that!
Friday, November 19, 2010
New beginnings
Big changes are afoot in my household. Today was my practicum interview with MCFD. I think it went quite well. Also, today I contacted the public elementary school I'd like my boys to attend for the remainder of the school year.
The boys have been home with me for the last few months, homeschooling through Self Design, an online publicly funded private ("distributed learning") school. We chose this based on the upheavals and transitions in our lives as we moved, for the first time in 6 years, from South Surrey/White Rock to north Surrey/Bolivar Heights. I felt that I couldn't manage finding a new school and a new childcare provider (we've been with ours for 5 years) on top of the move and the new semester. As well, we chose homeschooling because the boys were HATING school, the structure, the repetition, the endless worksheets. I was having to force them to go every day (not physically, they did comply when I said they had to go), which does not represent who I say I am as a professional, as an anti-oppressive practitioner, as an advocate for social justice.
However, my practicum will be from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday through Thursday, for 16 weeks. I don't have the funds to pay for the childcare required to cover those hours, and I don't have the family support to get those hours covered for free AND have their learning supported. Thus, the boys will be returning to school.
The program I am looking at for them, however, is not mainstream. The school is a "choice" program, with a district-wide catchment. They have less than 90 students. There is a gr K/1 class, a gr 1/2/3, and a gr 4-7 class. They work to foster a strong sense of community in a non-competitive environment. I think this will be such a good fit for my son!
(Last May, I went to our old school's Sports Day. The school was divided up into 4 teams, and earned points for each event. At the end, the scores were tallied, and ribbons were handed out, from 1st to 4th place. My son's team came in 3rd, as they did the previous year. My son was devastated, sobbing, and refused to take a ribbon. I carried him off the field and into the classroom to pick up his backpack. I think this is damaging. I think primary aged children are not developmentally ready to be designated winners and losers.)
I've also sent off an email to the local community services agency's (MCFD funded) child care referral program. I'm nervous and excited about the prospect of finding a new caregiver. We've been with our current provider for 5 years. Before that, I had 5 different arrangements over 2 years. It was too much, and I was feeling overwhelmed and desperate, and was so happy to find a provider who got my son.
We are attending a fall fair at the new elementary school tomorrow so that the boys can have a look around the school. I'll get a phone call from the principal on Monday. I'm starting to feel that fresh, new year vibe.
I love new beginnings :)
The boys have been home with me for the last few months, homeschooling through Self Design, an online publicly funded private ("distributed learning") school. We chose this based on the upheavals and transitions in our lives as we moved, for the first time in 6 years, from South Surrey/White Rock to north Surrey/Bolivar Heights. I felt that I couldn't manage finding a new school and a new childcare provider (we've been with ours for 5 years) on top of the move and the new semester. As well, we chose homeschooling because the boys were HATING school, the structure, the repetition, the endless worksheets. I was having to force them to go every day (not physically, they did comply when I said they had to go), which does not represent who I say I am as a professional, as an anti-oppressive practitioner, as an advocate for social justice.
However, my practicum will be from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday through Thursday, for 16 weeks. I don't have the funds to pay for the childcare required to cover those hours, and I don't have the family support to get those hours covered for free AND have their learning supported. Thus, the boys will be returning to school.
The program I am looking at for them, however, is not mainstream. The school is a "choice" program, with a district-wide catchment. They have less than 90 students. There is a gr K/1 class, a gr 1/2/3, and a gr 4-7 class. They work to foster a strong sense of community in a non-competitive environment. I think this will be such a good fit for my son!
(Last May, I went to our old school's Sports Day. The school was divided up into 4 teams, and earned points for each event. At the end, the scores were tallied, and ribbons were handed out, from 1st to 4th place. My son's team came in 3rd, as they did the previous year. My son was devastated, sobbing, and refused to take a ribbon. I carried him off the field and into the classroom to pick up his backpack. I think this is damaging. I think primary aged children are not developmentally ready to be designated winners and losers.)
I've also sent off an email to the local community services agency's (MCFD funded) child care referral program. I'm nervous and excited about the prospect of finding a new caregiver. We've been with our current provider for 5 years. Before that, I had 5 different arrangements over 2 years. It was too much, and I was feeling overwhelmed and desperate, and was so happy to find a provider who got my son.
We are attending a fall fair at the new elementary school tomorrow so that the boys can have a look around the school. I'll get a phone call from the principal on Monday. I'm starting to feel that fresh, new year vibe.
I love new beginnings :)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Interview w/MCFD
After a couple of weeks of waiting, I finally have an interview scheduled with TWO Team Leaders from MCFD Aboriginal Services, the Intake and Investigation team and the Family Services team.
I'm so super excited! I really see myself working in this area. It just kills me how many Aboriginal children are in care. The other night we were watching the news on APTN, who stated that, nationally, the population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is about 3-4%. However, about 60% of Aboriginal children are in care. Excuse my language, but W.T.F??
All I can say is that this is continuing colonialism...
but, then, what is it for the mainstream (white people?), for immigrants? Perhaps still colonization?
I know this isn't the accepted way to think about the oppression of poor white people, but bear with me for a minute...
Who are the people from the mainstream culture who have children in care? Poor people, drug users, people with mental illnesses. People who aren't coping well with the mainstream culture. People who maybe don't identify with "middle class values." People who need to be brought into line...
Sounds like colonization to me.
Reminds me of the terms of the Indian Act, once upon a (not so distant) time, when Aboriginals (men) could be enfranchised, could earn the right to vote, if they gave up any claim to their culture (if they STOPPED being 'Indians').
Pretty oppressive, no?
I don't think child protection workers are any less oppressive, despite Judge Gove's insistence that child protection workers hired by MCFD should be social workers, with a degree. Social Work education is HIGHLY anti-oppressive. Almost every class we take is centered around a social constructionist framework, around discourse analysis. This means continually looking for systemic, structural answers to individual problems seen through the lens of pathology by most other helping professionals.
A social worker stands with her client. A social worker starts where the client is. A social worker is a social change agent, is committed to professional ethical values such as social justice for all.
Especially for Aboriginal women and their children.
I'm so super excited! I really see myself working in this area. It just kills me how many Aboriginal children are in care. The other night we were watching the news on APTN, who stated that, nationally, the population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is about 3-4%. However, about 60% of Aboriginal children are in care. Excuse my language, but W.T.F??
All I can say is that this is continuing colonialism...
but, then, what is it for the mainstream (white people?), for immigrants? Perhaps still colonization?
I know this isn't the accepted way to think about the oppression of poor white people, but bear with me for a minute...
Who are the people from the mainstream culture who have children in care? Poor people, drug users, people with mental illnesses. People who aren't coping well with the mainstream culture. People who maybe don't identify with "middle class values." People who need to be brought into line...
Sounds like colonization to me.
Reminds me of the terms of the Indian Act, once upon a (not so distant) time, when Aboriginals (men) could be enfranchised, could earn the right to vote, if they gave up any claim to their culture (if they STOPPED being 'Indians').
Pretty oppressive, no?
I don't think child protection workers are any less oppressive, despite Judge Gove's insistence that child protection workers hired by MCFD should be social workers, with a degree. Social Work education is HIGHLY anti-oppressive. Almost every class we take is centered around a social constructionist framework, around discourse analysis. This means continually looking for systemic, structural answers to individual problems seen through the lens of pathology by most other helping professionals.
A social worker stands with her client. A social worker starts where the client is. A social worker is a social change agent, is committed to professional ethical values such as social justice for all.
Especially for Aboriginal women and their children.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
4th year practicum, coming up!
I had my first interview with MCFD a couple of weeks ago. Interview Number Two is with the actual team I'll (may possibly) be working with for 16 weeks pre-graduation.
This interview is not yet scheduled, but I spoke with the intake team lead, who wants to set up a concurrent interview with the family services team lead.
Oh, and did I mention, this is with Aboriginal Services? Yay, just what I asked for!
I'm pretty excited...
...and maybe even more excited by the possibility of a PAYING JOB?! Maybe even in the Lower Mainland?! Double yay!
This interview is not yet scheduled, but I spoke with the intake team lead, who wants to set up a concurrent interview with the family services team lead.
Oh, and did I mention, this is with Aboriginal Services? Yay, just what I asked for!
I'm pretty excited...
...and maybe even more excited by the possibility of a PAYING JOB?! Maybe even in the Lower Mainland?! Double yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)