Listen to thisI would like to offer a response to Madeleine Kipling’s article “A clash where professional philosophy meets practice”, in the February 2007 issue of CYC-Online (https://www.cyc-net.org/CYC-Online /cycol-0207-kipling.html). That article focused on what Kipling saw as an incompatibility between the practice of using the Step Wise Interview (SWI) (Yuille, 1997) utilized in Child Protection (CP) investigations and her philosophy as a Child and Youth Care (CYC) professional in the role of a Community Youth Worker (CYW).
I have worked as a CYW in various programs in the New Westminster, Surrey, and Burnaby areas of British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. My experience extends to various human service environments including residential, community centre, and school settings. After several years working in this capacity I sought work with British Columbia’s Ministry for Children and Family Development (MCFD) as a Child Protection Worker (CPW) in the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, B.C. I did this job for approximately 7 years, working in several areas of these two cities including the area where Kipling’s workplace is located. My formal education is exclusively Child and Youth Care oriented and my training includes many in-service workshops. During my time with the MCFD I had the opportunity to conduct many of the structured interviews that Kipling refers to in her commentary.
This description of my professional background gives you some idea of the lens through which I read Kipling’s critique. After reading the article, I felt compelled to offer my perspective about what Kipling has written primarily because from my standpoint, she may be unintentionally perpetuating some myths about the relationship between CP work and Child and Youth Care practice. These myths specifically are concerned with roles and responsibilities of the CPW versus the CYW within the wider child welfare system, the use and function of the SWI, and the identification of CP as Social Work (SW).
The role and responsibilities of a Child
Protection Worker
In British Columbia, only CPWs are delegated under the Child Family and
Community Services (CFCS) Act to receive reports of abuse, to assess
them, investigate and offer support services. Delegation in this context
refers to the level of authority under the CFCS Act CPWs possess in
pursuit of their assigned duties and responsibilities. Presently,
personnel filling CPW roles in the MCFD are recruited mainly from
professional Child and Youth Care and social work degree programs in British Columbia.
The primary role of a CPW depends on which office the worker operates from. For simplicity’s sake, I will limit this discussion to include the CPW who investigates and assesses allegations of abuse with families who are not receiving services from the MCFD at the time of the reported allegation. A worker in this role is responsible for a series of related tasks.
The first task is to receive the report and assess it to determine whether an investigation will take place or not. If it is deemed an investigation will take place the same worker, or a different worker, will take the information in the report and investigate the allegation. During the course of an investigation a CPW will speak with the child or youth who is the subject of the report, and any combination of family members, other service providers, medical professionals and teachers. Having spoken to those whom the CPW deems necessary to complete the investigation, the CPW then makes a determination to either substantiate the allegation or not. If the allegation is substantiated, the CPW may offer support services to mitigate the impact of conditions surrounding the abuse or, in severe circumstances, the CPW may remove the child or youth from the home. This all should occur within 30 days of the initial report. Of course this is a simple explanation of what can be a very complex process but it is sufficient for the purposes of this paper. Now we can examine what role and responsibilities a CYW has.
The role and responsibilities of a Community
Youth Worker
I make no claim to the existence of a generic job description for all
CYW positions in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. For the
purposes of this article I obtained a CYW job description for a recent
job posting for the same community centre that Kipling works at. The job
description lists responsibilities indicative of a purposeful Child and Youth Care role
that practices from a theoretically informed stance from identifiably Child and Youth Care perspectives. Examples of typical duties listed are:
To act as a resource to children, youth and their families who live in the area of the community centre.
To establish rapport with children, youth and their families.
To assist in case management where appropriate.
To act as a support person to this population who seek guidance on any number of issues.
To support families in an advocacy role and to liaise with the various social service agencies with whom a family may be involved.
To maintain close relationships with the various social service agencies to achieve positive outcomes for children, youth and their families.
As far as I can tell, this job is compatible with a Child and Youth Care oriented person to fulfill these duties from the ecological, relational, developmental, post-modern and social justice perspectives that are nurtured through a Child and Youth Care education.
If we take the above role descriptions to be true we can now examine how these jobs interact with each other within the wider network of child welfare services offered in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. These roles appear to have decidedly unique approaches to supporting vulnerable children, youth and families yet can be quite complementary to each other.
Use and function of the Step Wise Interview
I understand Kipling’s feeling of incompatibility with the interview
technique and her professional practice values. I think that this
feeling of incompatibility stems from the fact that the SWI technique is
a specialized tool used by CPWs to gather specific information in a
methodical manner regarding an alleged incident or series if incidents
of abuse. Gathering information with the SWI technique is not a duty or
responsibility of the CYW. Let’s use Kipling’s examples of
incompatibility between the interview and her professional practice
values to illustrate why this duty is performed by one and not the
other.
Kipling’s first example of incompatibility is the suggestion that the SWI model “encourages the gathering of objective information, while stressing the need to withhold interviewer emotion via empathic gestures and reactions that could taint the interview” (Kipling, 2007). When Kipling explains her handling of a disclosure from an adolescent girl with whom she has a relationship, she appears to be child-centered and, in my opinion, was intervening purposefully when hugging the young person during their time together as per her request.
This use of an empathic gesture may indeed taint the SWI process and eventual outcomes. The contents of this interview may well end up in a civil court process and depending on the allegation and what the disclosure reveals; perhaps it will also be required to stand up in the criminal court process. It is for this reason that the gathering of information regarding abuse using the SWI technique is the responsibility of the CPW, not the CYW. This is where I see the catalyst for Kipling’s disappointment. The duties of a CYW in this situation most certainly include listening and supporting this young person during the disclosure. However, CYWs don’t interview victims of child abuse and therefore don’t use the SWI in this context. In fact, The BC Handbook on Abuse for Service Providers states specifically that when a child or youth is disclosing abuse the service provider is not to interview the person, and should immediately call the local CP office to report the disclosure (p.39). So, there is room to have two supports that are complementary to one another involved in this scenario. First, we have the child-centered CYW who supports and listens to the youth in need, and then we have the CPW who comes to gather information regarding that abuse that will withstand the rigours of legal scrutiny. Both can be empathetic in their respective roles.
This need to withstand legal scrutiny is also related to Kipling’s assertion that the SWI does not accommodate cultural components of practice. I think to an extent, this point is fair. The creative example she uses to illustrate her point certainly shows how the interview process may have an agenda that does not accommodate a disclosure of abuse from anyone but the alleged victim, regardless of how intimately it is connected to cultural practice. Yet, based on my experience with this interview technique I believe there is ample opportunity to be culturally inclusive in its delivery depending on the cultural practice in question.
Kipling further cites research (Miller, 2000) indicating increased efficacy of interventions when connecting emotionally is permitted and empathizing is heightened. This is a point well taken, though it should be noted that the CPW is not the only person involved in the countless interventions that make up the investigation itself. There are a host of people involved in a child abuse investigation including the CYW. Does it matter from whom the emotion and empathy originates (or does not) or who it is maintained/continued by? What is more important: for everyone involved in the investigation to nurture a therapeutic relationship with the client or for the client to experience at least one therapeutic relationship within the investigation? This is not to suggest that all CPWs are not empathetic, and devoid of a capability to be genuine in the process of an investigation. There is significant room for CPWs to be empathetic and show emotion in the course of their work with children, youth and families. Moreover, the conveyance of empathy is not limited to gestures. Language is an indispensable ingredient essential in sending an empathetic message to clients and there is ample room within the structure of a SWI to practice from an empathetic stance. Furthermore, the interview that initiates a child abuse investigation is not the only time a CPW has the opportunity to express empathy or connect emotionally with the people they work to serve. The SWI is but a stage within a larger process. As a result, there remains a likelihood that a successful, empathic intervention can be reached even if the interview process comes with these important and necessary boundaries.
Kipling also mentions incompatibility in that the interview process is “narrowly focused, impersonal and weakness-based” (Kipling, 2007). As I have previously mentioned, I’ve used this interview process many times during my MCFD service. From my standpoint, a CP investigation is focused on a specific or series of specific events that allege abuse in some form so in this way I agree it is narrowly focused, and necessarily so. This condition exists to keep CPWs focused on investigating the allegation at hand. An investigation must deal with whatever allegation was brought forth and inquiries must to be relevant to it. For example, I would not ask questions of a child about sexual abuse when I am investigating a physical abuse allegation unless I had reason to suspect it to be an issue.
As far as being impersonal, I think this largely depends on the person and what level of genuineness and authenticity they bring to the interview to build rapport and connections with people. My experience has shown me that the colleagues I have worked with over the years that had a degree that required intensive practica working with children, youth and families do this very well. CPWs that do not have this component in their education lack the ability to connect quickly with clients and their practice suffers in turn.
Lastly, Kipling claims the interview process is weakness-based. Again, this most definitely depends on the worker. There is a tremendous ability to be strength-based in the SWI process. In fact, a portion of the interview should always be dedicated to assessing what resources (external and internal) exist in the child's/youth’s life in an effort to assess safety. The fact that the interview has a focus on an alleged abuse does not infer it to be weakness based in nature.
Child Protection does not mean Social Work
Kipling’s description of CP work as SW and her use of the title, “Child
Protection Social Worker” is one of many myths that detract from the
effort to professionalize CYC. Most people think that any job helping
children, youth and families is automatically referred to as SW, and the
person who assumes that role, a Social Worker. This is a widely held
assumption both within and without the human service field and is
precisely what fuels the Child and Youth Care field's constant educational campaign about
what we are and what we are not as a profession.
Since my involvement in the CP arena I have advocated for the Child and Youth Care perspective in that context. In my view, CP is a role that one performs within the broad network of child welfare services. Because CP is a role and not a profession, it is informed by the educational influences of the person assuming that role. For example, when I approached my CP roles I did so informed by my Child and Youth Care education. This education developed my ability to see how to engage children, youth and families through developmental, relational, ecological, post modern and social justice perspectives. When I worked with people in my CP role I was strength-based, honoured subjectivity, and where possible I endeavoured to create a therapeutic milieu and intervene in clients' life space. On the other hand, a person with a SW degree will be informed by the perspectives of that profession and effectively will approach the same CP role in a differing manner. Consequently, I have a view that CP is not the de facto territory of SW as most of society takes for granted. I also argue that the Child and Youth Care core education is quite appropriate for CP roles. In her article, Kipling suggests that Jim Anglin (1999) and I (2005) are quite aware of the differences between Child and Youth Care and SW. I will not presume to speak for Jim but I am afraid Kipling has interpreted my argument in a way I did not intend. I do see differences in SW and Child and Youth Care and naturally I see similarities as well. However, I do not see SW and CP as one and the same. It is for this reason I advocate for a differentiation between CP workers with a SW education and CP workers with a Child and Youth Care education.
During my time with the MCFD I was always quick to correct those who would refer to me as a “Social Worker”. I would explain that they were horribly mistaken in referring to me as a “Social Worker” as I had Child and Youth Care degrees but didn’t have any SW degrees. Additionally, there are no jobs in the MCFD that have the title “Social Worker” in their job descriptions. Rather, jobs are referred to by their functions such as Child Protection Worker, Family Service, or Child Protection Worker – Intake and Assessment, or Guardianship Worker, or Resource Worker, etc. For these reasons, I would resist any attempt at minimizing my education and professional identity by being referred to as a “Social Worker” as is overwhelmingly common across British Columbia and perhaps across Canada.
To further advocate for my professional identity, my business cards always held the title that most appropriately described my role – like Youth Worker or Outreach Worker. Additionally, my MCFD identification card spoke directly to my profession and held the title Child and Youth Care Worker. The task of advocating this point of view within the ranks of the MCFD is daunting and requires patience, perseverance, courage and conviction. It is difficult for anyone to advocate this point of view particularly due to being surrounded by those from a different profession. The practice of placing the title “Social Worker” on one’s business card without having an official title as such has been done without question for so long the practice is rampant. Where do these cards end up? The cards and words on them end up in people’s hands and those cards and words travel. Those words show up in people’s conversations and from there they travel to other persons' ears and into their minds and this pattern repeats itself again and again. Clearly there is a need to correct this situation. The first steps in correcting this situation begin with a discourse in how Child and Youth Care interfaces with CP.
Conclusion
So the challenge continues for those who choose to pursue a Child and Youth Care approach
to CP. Our challenge is to define CYCs fit in CP roles, and then to
educate the public at large, as well as those within the Child and Youth Care profession
of this profile.
The need to define CYCs place in CP roles within our own family is urgent as the ranks of CP workers swell with Child and Youth Care educated professionals. When I began my CP career there were few Child and Youth Care educated workers around, whereas now that number has grown significantly. Child and Youth Care has been largely seen as incompatible with CP work until relatively recently in our young profession's life. There is currently no discernible congruence amongst the Child and Youth Care world that I can see as to whether CYCers should be doing CP work in the first place.
Secondly, we see those Child and Youth Care workers who practice CP being identified mistakenly as “Social Workers” by the public at large. The remedy for this affliction begins with the conceptualization of what a Child and Youth Care approach to CP looks like. A second step is to identify the differences of the Child and Youth Care approach to CP from a SW approach to CP. Unfortunately, a cohesive and generally agreed upon explanation of this difference is needed before Child and Youth Care can explain its uniqueness from other professions involved in CP. Coupled with educating society at large, the educative struggle must also be aimed at our own professional ranks. As evidenced by Kipling’s article, the perpetuation of myths also sadly comes from within the ranks of Child and Youth Care itself.
Nevertheless, I am encouraged by Kipling’s exploration of Child and Youth Care in relation to CP and SW. I further applaud her willingness to critique the tools with which CP workers fulfill their legislated duties. It will undoubtedly help our relatively new and developing profession define itself both by articulating what it is we do and don’t do, as well as define new ways of practicing Child and Youth Care in evolving settings.
References
Anglin, J. (1999). The uniqueness of Child and Youth Care: A personal perspective. Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(2), 143-150.
Bates, R. (2005). A search for synergy: The Child and Youth Care educated child protection worker. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34(2), 99-109.
Kipling, M. (2007, February). A clash where professional philosophy meets practice.CYC “Online. Retrieved June 19, 2007, from https://www.cyc-net.org/cyc- online/cycol-0207-kipling.html
Miller, W.L. (2000). Rediscovering fire: Small interventions, large effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 14(1), 6-18.
The BC handbook on action for child abuse and neglect for service providers. (n.d.).Retrieved June 19, 2007 from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/pdf/handbook_action_child_abuse.pdf
Yuille, J. (1997). The step-wise interview: A protocol for interviewing children. Resource paper in Ministry for Children and Families, Investigative Interviewing: Instructor’s Manual (pp.175-184). Victoria, BC: Author.
