This document discusses issues with the current bureaucratic, procedure-focused model of child welfare and advocates for a renewed focus on relationships. It notes how the system has become dominated by risk assessment, timelines, and documentation at the expense of meaningful relationships between social workers and families. Interviews with social workers, parents, and research suggest relationship-building is key to positive outcomes but is lacking in the current system. The document proposes developing a "relational chain" model to better incorporate community needs and relationships into program planning and practice.

1. The Relational
Renaissance
February 24, 2009
Partnering for a Stronger Tomorrow
Jean Lafrance Ph.D
jl3@ualberta.ca

2. What drives me to do this
 45 years
 Hindsight
 Talking to people who have been in
my care
 Learning about residential schools
 Creating Hope Society

3. What this may do for you
 Make you glad 
 Make you sad 
 Make you mad @#!+_**&^

4. Reforming Child Welfare
Demolition- Do we begin anew?
Renovation- Do we continue to tinker?

5. Renovation ?

6. Demolition?

7. Why a relational chain?
 Bureaucratic policies and procedures
that dominate child welfare services.
 Relational considerations used to be
primary in child protection services
 Due to period of managerialism and
focus on technical considerations, fell
out of favor

8. Front Line Social Worker
I think that any management system
wants work to be done efficiently and
expediently. These words have nothing to
do with the quality of relationship.
Change is based on relationship, which
can’t be measured. So the two systems
don’t easily work together.

9. Bureaucratic influences on
child welfare
 [the] “more perfectly the bureaucracy is
‘dehumanized’, the more completely it
succeeds in eliminating from official
business love, hatred, and all purely
personal, irrational and relational elements
which escape calculation. This is the
specific nature of bureaucracy and it is
appraised as its special virtue” (Max
Weber, retrieved July 27, 2006).

10. Present day child welfare
organizations
 In spite of massive investments of resources, few
are satisfied with the outcomes achieved by child
welfare services. In Alberta 1.9 billion dollars
 Hardly a day goes by without a major child
welfare crisis somewhere in the Western world.
 There are calls for procedural solutions or
resources to minimize the repetition of ‘errors’
that call attention to ‘deficiencies’.

11. Legacy of child welfare reviews
 Increased paperwork, to the point
where the time spent on casework
with clients is now far less than the
time needed to document their
interventions.

12. These include
 New procedures, safeguards, protocols,
training and information requirements
abound
• Risk assessment
• Sophisticated information systems
• Rigid timelines
• Greater specification of responsibilities and
reporting requirements,
• New legislation, to name only a few

13. This can result in an iron cage
 No one knows who will live in this cage in the
future, or whether at the end of this tremendous
development entirely new prophets will arise, or
there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and
ideals or, if neither, mechanized metrification
embellished with a sort of convulsive self-
importance. (Elwell, Retrieved July 27, 2006).

14. The Iron Cage

15. What about relationships?
 When do the recommendations focus
on the quality of supportive
relationships between the social
workers, children and their families,
caregivers, and the community?

16. Public Crises of confidence
 Child deaths created a lack of
confidence in social work processes
 Government blamed for not having
or making good use of information

17. Fundamental change
 Transformed the core issue in child
welfare from the rehabilitation of the
family to protecting the child from
violence
 In Alberta, the death of Richard
Cardinal signaled the beginning of
this process.

18. The key question became
increasingly
 How can we keep children from
being killed by their parents?
 The ball is now in the court of
administrative and legal processes
instead of the professional and
rehabilitative

19. Changing Roles
 Shift from therapy to surveillance
and control
 Social work discretion seemed to
result in children being killed.
 Therefore, discretion had to be
reduced!

20. Prescription
 The emphasis in CPS became
primarily to protect children and less
to support families
• Need to create routines for social
workers to follow if children were to be
protected
• Social workers need to obey rules and
follow procedures
• Should we even have social workers?

21. Child Welfare workers as
passive agents
 “Drilled” people who would act as
desired if properly chosen and placed
within an appropriately designed
structure
 This created passive agents who can
be managed
 Creativity can be dangerous as may
step out of bounds

22. Practical Implications
 More information/ investigations
 Evidence must be gathered
 Detailed guidelines established for
child welfare workers

23. Assumption about Parents
 If we are not confident in our ability
to support the family, we had best
be able to predict their potential for
dangerousness

24. But
The number of child deaths
that come to public attention
do not seem to be changing.

25. So, how does the system look from
the bottom up?
 From child welfare workers
 From the parents themselves

26. What do Child Welfare Workers
want?
 Relationship
 Creativity
 Leadership

27. Bent Arrow Experience
 Time for reflection
 Collaboration between CWW in an
Aboriginal agency and government
staff
 Insights into benefits of co-location
 Insights into impact of work context

28. Why does it all have to
be so complicated?
A social worker’s story

29. A Child Welfare Worker view on
relationships
 It was very clear to me, one, the
importance of relationship and really
getting to know the youth and. . . .
so you get to know them so well . . .
They just wanted connection and
they wanted relationship

30. And another
 . . .you’re reminding me why I
became a social worker many years
ago. It was because that relationship
with the children and the family, not
worrying about a thousand overdue
things

31. The vision- If we can renew our
focus on relationship
 Ultimately we will have improved
outcomes for families, increased
stability at all levels of the
organization, a revised definition of
successful family stories and
everyone (workers and families) will
be treated with greater respect.

32. Provocative Questions

33. If relationship were important
 Would our offices not be more client
friendly?
 Why cipher locks and shatterproof
panels?
 Would our workers spend the bulk of
their precious time at computer
screens

34. And another
 (relationship) is just taking us back
to why we’ve gone into the field. It’s
so very basic and simple. It’s to build
relationships, and ultimately, it’s a
very simple concept

35. For children and families
 Would we place children hundreds of miles away
from their communities and families
 Would professional staff be so unavailable to the
children in their care?
 Would there be so many specialists in the lives of
children, few of whom create continuity?
 Would so many children spend their lives in care
and end up on the streets and in jail?

36. Creativity

37. Creativity
 the group spirit is infectious
when you’re around a bunch of
people who want to do different
service and be creative. It lights
a spark in your own creativity
that will allow you to develop
further creativity

38. Creativity
 There is truth in the specifics- The
policy makers are trying to globalize
rules to fit every situation, when
what really needs to happen is to
look at the specifics of the truth.

39. Creativity
 It takes courage to do what is right
in social work
 There is a lot of fear in the Ministry’s
at all levels.

40. Provocative Questions- If creativity
were important?
 Would leadership look askance at those
who push the envelope?
 Would we keep being weighed down with
ever increasing information requirements?
• Would the procedural bounds that contain
our creativity not be loosened?

41. If Creativity were important we
might have:
 A more effective service system that
is focused on meaningful
interventions and collaboration with
families and their communities

42. Leadership

43. Leadership
 Concern that leadership has lost touch due
to a overriding concern with optics and
politics
 A hope that leaders can regain a focus on
what is ‘real’ and truly needed for the
front line.

44. If leadership were valued, would
we not have . ..
 A commitment to make it work at all
levels
 Greater interest in each others point of
view
 Allow natural leaders to lead
 Allow all people to shine – including
children, families and communities

45. When things turn out badly
 There’s a very punitive kind of approach
when things go bad but we’re dealing with
high-risk families, we’re dealing with high-
risk kids and sometimes those risks
become insurmountable in certain
situation. I would like . . . policy makers
to know that we deal with high risk
people, and that’s not always going to turn
out well

46. Central Region Study 1996
 Stories from parents on CPS
caseload
 Dialogue between parents and child
welfare

47. What they wanted
 To have their entire story heard
 To form a relationship
 To help define the problem
 To be involved in the solution
 To be respected and treated with
dignity
 “I think I know what we should do”

48. Stories validated by research
 Latest theory discount relevance of
variety of helping models
 What creates change
• 30 % relationship with worker
• 40 % other relationships
• 15% trust and confidence in worker
• 15% the specific technique

49. What I have to tell you about
Aboriginal Mothers Experiences
 Based on three studies
• Jumping Through the Hoops – Manitoba
• Broken Promises – BC
• Broken Hearts - Alberta

50. Compare and Contrast
 Reflect on these on these as I
describe some of the findings

51. Insights from Aboriginal Mothers
 The decisions to bring children into
care are made between the child
welfare worker and the mother.
 This should be the most important
voice for policy makers and decision
makers to hear.

52. Aboriginal Mothers
How it looks from their
vantage point

53. Why am I saying this?
 Based on three important studies in
BC, Alberta and Manitoba

55. Mothers Experiences with Child
Welfare
 Fear
• I was even scared to go for treatment
because I figured … if I’m gonna go for
treatment then it means I got a problem
and they’re gonna find a reason to take
my kids away and that’s what
happened, right

56. Being Monitored
 They had people watching my home
and I’m going to try to make a court
case saying that’s invasion of my
privacy and movements
 Drug and alcohol testing

57. Triggering mothers anger
 it appeared to them that the social
workers deliberately tried to make
them angry.
• “They want to set you up. There are key
words and there are key things they try
to throw at you to make you fly off the
handle”

58. Visits with children
 I looked forward to the Saturday
visitations I had with them for an hour.
That was very hard, very hard. To see
them crying because they had to leave me
and it’s not like I could walk to a park and
be alone with them, I had to be
supervised. I’m not an abusive mom …
that I could not understand. What did they
think I was going to do with my kids? It
was awful.

59. Worry about harm to their
children in care
 At one point my family had to intervene
because my kids were in a foster home
where it was a cult. There was sexual
abuse going on, there was physical abuse
going on, the foster mom actually got her
licensed pulled…a lot of my son’s and my
daughter’s psychological abuse and
physical abuse stemmed from that
particular foster home.

60. Programming
 “parenting programs … I don’t even
know how many programs … I went
for treatment. … I got so many
certificates its unreal.”
 There is no rhyme and reason to the
types and/or number of programs
that mothers are required to attend.

61. Jumping through the hoops
 He wanted me to jump through
hoops and I didn’t like… You have to
try and prove to them that you’re
trying to get them back and you’re
trying to do everything they want
you to do. In order to do that you’ve
got to … I felt like I was always
kissing their ass…

62. Rights of mothers
 I didn’t know any of my rights. I didn’t
know I could’ve hired a lawyer. I could
have had support services come in…. CFS
didn’t sit down and say “look we can give
you a support worker; we can suggest this
program and that program to you.” None
of that was done. It was just “okay, here’s
a court date, come for your kids.”

63. Lack of advocates
 “The advocate…wasn’t allowed in the
courtroom. Well … what I said was, “oh,
you guys are allowed all your people but
I’m not allowed to have mine?” I think it is
important for these women to have
someone there with them because they
become emotional … you’ve got these
people bashing you, your character and
your parenting. No you need someone
there! “

64. Mother’s Recommendations
 Development of Aboriginal Mothers’ Advocacy
 Manual on Understanding the Child Welfare and
Legal Systems
 Mothers’ Support Groups
 Allow close family, friends and other supporters
into courtrooms.
 Development of a Website
 Anthology of Aboriginal mothers and
grandmothers’ Stories and Experiences

65. Provocative Questions
 Why are there no alternatives to adversarial legal systems?
 Why do social workers and mothers have to be
adversaries?
 What are we waiting for to have Mother’s Advocates?
 What is stopping us from providing easily understood
information about the workings of the system?
 Do we know how helpful are all the hoops?
 How can we better teach our child welfare workers to
manage their helping and authoritative role?

66. Max Weber’s fear
 Does this information validate
Weber’s fear that growing areas of
life would be subjected to decision
making according to technical rules,
diminishing creative thinking and self
direction on the part of its members

67. The Relational Chain
Merging logic and emotion

68. Objective of the Relational
Chain
To create programs that are more
fully responsive to the families and
communities we serve and those
who serve them.

69. A powerful tool to:
 Translate community needs into a
program planning model that can be
more easily understood and applied by
policy makers, managers, and front line
workers.
 Bring greater coherence to social work
practice by measuring outcomes of heart
and mind, the essence of holistic practice

70. The Relational Chain
 Addresses issues from the social work lens of people in the
context of their environment, with a specific focus on
relationships.
 It acknowledges the connection between individuals,
groups, and systems, and their interplay with each other.
 It is consistent with a world view that sees everything in
the universe as intimately connected; a worldview that
quantum physics now reinforces..

71. Renaissance of relationship based practice
 There is a burgeoning interest in the
importance of relationship and connection
to each other.
 Driven in part by fatigue and frustration
with the rigidly managed, risk-aversive,
reactive practices that have invaded social
work practice.

72. Why now?
 We work in a reductionist approach
to individuals; implementing
interventions based on surface
problems rather than addressing the
root causes.

73. What does this do?
 It contributes to diminishing the potential
for creativity at a time when it is most
needed
 Focusing on rigid policies, procedures and
gate keeping rather than on understanding
the children and families involved means
that the all important relationships suffer
(Houston & Griffiths (2000).

74. Current Situation
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Must be succinct and accurate
CURRENT REALITY
Elaborates on the issue.
OBJECTIVE
What do we want to achieve?

75. Now what?
 What activities can we undertake?
 Target Group – who will be affected?
 Resources – what do we need to do
this?

76. Anticipated Outcomes
 For children, families and
communities
 Systemic – what will it do for the
system
 Ultimate vision – 20 year time frame

77. Internal and external considerations
 What assumptions can we make?
 What external influences can come
to bear?

78. Quality Assurance
 What will we want to know
 How will we know it?

79. Current Reality
 Children continue to die which creates
more procedures and guidelines
 Increasingly likely that some worker will
have failed to meet some requirement
 All worker and supervisor has to do is to
go by the book to avoid responsibility
 This kind of social work may not be
effective but it can be ‘right’.

80. Glimmers of Hope
 Becoming clear that all of this
activity is not reducing the numbers
of children who die
 Alienated clients and practice-worn
child welfare workers are setting up
fresh conditions
 Discourse on ‘child protection’ sets
up new possibilities

81. Cautions
 This research does not pretend to be
definitive
 Can lead to asking the right
questions and to examine existing
practice more closely
 May apply to many other fields of
practice

82. Implications
 Perhaps we are spending too much
precious time and resources trying to
control for factors that are
impossible to control.
 If so, what are we missing that we
could be doing with our time and
resources that would be more useful
and productive?

83. What can we do?
 Reflect on our practice and policies
 Create dialogue between workers
and clients
 Dialogue between workers and
clients and the policy and managerial
domain

84. Reflections
 Challenge ourselves on why we
spend so much of our precious time
and energy on possibilities that have
a .001 likelihood of happening and
which we cannot really predict
anyway

85. Resolve the paradox
 Organizational rigidity and client preferences for
flexible and innovative responses can create a
paradox for child welfare workers
 Minimize the sources of tension and create a
more satisfying environment for families and
those who serve them.
 Clear that clients very much preferred a
practice orientation that was consistent with
social work values and principles.

86. Process versus Task
 “. . .families hoped for a helping process
that depended upon social workers having
time to listen, and one that treated them
as unique individuals worthy of dignity and
respect”
 Clients long to have their whole story
heard instead of many people dealing with
fragments

87. Creativity versus prescription
 If anything it opened up the door with workers to
be more creative with their clients. We’re
supposed to fit them into categories, instead of
making something out of this for the client. Now
at least you feel that there is some room. That
was a bit of a highlight.
 I think we need to have more leeway in the
services we provide to families, because they
don’t fit the categories, sometimes we have to do
something special and we need the freedom to do
that.

88. Community Partnership versus
isolation
 Most social workers did not recall clients
comments about community
 Some clients had suggested that the community
could better support families with important and
predictable life transitions, such as those
triggered by the onset of adolescence.
 I thought it was very idealistic. It would be nice if
the community could help more, but I see us
[living] in a very isolated world right now.

89. What the study did for the workers
 They seemed more prepared to
acknowledge the legitimacy of client
perceptions on service limitations, and
more responsive to their requests for more
creative and flexible responses to their
needs. Ultimately the study process gave
them greater confidence in seeking
approval for creative service responses
that went beyond the boundaries of
existing policy.

90. One worker sums it up
 I have to say that it [the process]
made me cockier. This made me
much more confident that if I came
up with a creative plan my manager
would hear it out.