Factors Inhibiting Relational-Based Practice in Residential Child Care

“The failure of the care system to replicate or compensate for the stable relationships that most children have with their parents is one of its most serious and long-standing deficiencies”

(House of Commons, 2009).  

Previous and current literature highlights relationships in residential child care as imperative to good practice. However the idea of promoting and continuing relationships with young people still causes much confusion, resistance and debate. There are a number of factors that have led to current risk averse practice that hinder the development and continuation of relationships within residential child care.

I have selected some literature that offers:

• insights into the decline of relational based practice
• themes that frontline staff felt were barriers to building and sustaining relationships with young people.

 

The effects of regulation and over procedural responses to past recommendations from inquiries and reports pushed relational practice to the side lines. The introduction of ‘new public management’ (managerialism) by the government created a shift within the social care sector; a move towards a technical-rational approach that incorporates evidence based practice, outcomes and tick boxes to ensure procedures are followed. Assessments and regulations began to take precedence over individuals and relationships in social care. Gabrielle Meagher & Nigel Parton (2004) discuss the impact of  managerialism in their paper Modernising Social Work and the Ethics of Care.

Social care practitioners I interviewed discussed the risks that are posed to themselves working within residential child care. Judyth Sachs (2003) states that ‘those who work with children have become risky subjects within a child protection discourse’ . Staff reflected on policies and procedures in the organisation that highlight the need for professionalism and distance between staff and young people. Frontline practitioners discussed previous anxieties in developing relationships due to concerns about allegations and their own safety. This has led to what Professor Jan Howarth (2000) termed as staff ‘attempting to care with gloves on’.

Concerns arise about developing relationships with young people when paper work is deemed more important.  Day trips to the beach or riding bicycles requires risk assessments and risk management plans to be drawn up, signed by staff and counter signed by management. Non compliance with rules duly noted in the case of riding a bike coupled with culpability of any accident that may occur. The risk assessment once completed becomes a ‘back covering exercise’, ‘which is indicative of a blame culture within organisations’ (Go Outdoors, 2010).  Instead of an element of fun, excitement and relationship building taking precedence; ticking boxes, and ascertaining independence and responsibility of the young person in their choice to ride a bicycle over-rules.

“It is essential that we provide the necessary warmth, affection and comfort for children’s healthy development if we are not further to damage emotionally children and young people who have usually had a raw deal from life” (Kent Report, 1997).

Further constraints include defensive practice. No touch policies and cultures exist where staff are advised that touch is unprofessional and can lead to allegations. Safety of staff and a fundamental mind set of not raising suspicion leads to a gesture of ‘comfort’ that is calculated and offered with a door open or in view of others. Questions arise about appropriate affection in practice. Side cuddles and fear of special relationships if a worker spends too much ‘quality time’ with a certain child. Instead of a diverse group of adults with varying personalities having the ability to form attachments with a variety of young people being utilised in a positive way; the natural evolution of personal relationships and affection that should occur becomes sterile. Relationships, comfort, safety, affection, growth and development for young people cannot evolve with emotionally distant individuals in an emotionally distant environment.

Social care practitioners feel that there are a number of factors affecting a young person’s ability to form trusting and lasting relationships in residential child care. These include multiple placement moves, lack of reliable and stable role models in a young person’s life and limited time for reparative experiences to occur. Dorothy Whitaker, Lesley Archer & Leslie Hicks (1998) describe reparative experiences, that ‘repair the consequences of earlier damage, and help a child or young person to discard behaviours or attitudes or feelings which, to him or her, are disadvantageous’. This reparative work can only occur over a period of time and involves caring adults providing opportunities for the young person to alter their internal feelings that will change their behaviour. ‘Reparative work cannot be taken over by someone else, for it is embedded in personal relationships which take some time to develop’ (Whitaker, Archer and Hicks, 1998). As human beings we are all works in progress, progress takes time, time provides opportunities for change and change enables growth and development. Therefore time for relationships to grow and continue are vital for such experiences, opportunities and changes in young people to occur.

Staff who were interviewed felt that promoting independence and self-reliance was a primary focus for young people leaving care and not the continuation of support or relationships.  There is a policy aptly named Sweet 16? (2008) that is in place to encourage young people to remain in care until eighteen. The report signifies a message that encourages ‘a system that supports young people until they are ready for a step towards independence, manages a staged route into independence, and continues to support them even after that’ (SCCYP, 2008). The Staying Put Scotland guidance (Scottish Government, 2013) echoed the message of readiness for young people to move on and continued support and relationships with adults. In reality however many young people feel pressured to leave care at sixteen as this is seen as a culture of care leavers, their expectation and beginning of adulthood. Relationships and continued support are not always permitted by organisations after a young person moves on. Although support for young people in care has been raised to 26 years of age for many leaving care quickly becomes the end of care and the end of relationships between young people and staff.

Staff that took part in my research identified that there is beginning to be a shift in culture within their organisation with the introduction of social pedagogy and a new focus on relationships. However attitudes continue to undermine attempts to provide a more relational based approach. The ethos of the manager and team became a particular focus for staff, some were encouraged to develop relationships through activities, story-telling, shared interests, provide affection and create a warm environment. Other staff were encouraged to develop structure, routines, boundaries and ensure an emotional distance between themselves and young people. These views are shared across the social care sector, the components of effective relationships continue to be a source of contention. Discipline and sanctions are advocated by some and a relational approach, seeking a balance of warmth and control are advocated by others. There has to be a shift in residential child care culture as Judy Furnivall (2011) stated ‘Providing attachment-informed care in residential settings requires a policy and culture shift which recognises and values the healing potential of special relationships’.

All young people who took part in my research shared that they would like their relationship with staff to continue once they had moved on. Young people expressed an anxiety about that relationship having to come to an end once they exit* the organisation. This was a view held by staff who equally placed great importance on the relationship they had with a young person. Although both parties felt it would be beneficial for their relationship to continue this was not permitted due to organisational policies. Young people are welcome to visit the organisation however young people felt that continuing a relationship with staff was more important that visiting a unit that was no longer their home. Young people spoke about how many disrupted placements they had experienced and the expectation that young people will move on and build new relationships. Young people felt there was little regard for their choice to continue relationships with those staff who had become an important part of their lives.

It was noted by Demos (2010) that maintaining links with supportive staff and carers is vital for positive outcomes for young people and an important source of on going support, ‘Stability and the maintenance of attachments with adults are vital factors in a positive care experience. Leaving care can represent an abrupt ending of a stable placement and break in attachments, which can impact negatively on care leavers’ resilience, self-esteem and sense of security’.

 

Is your organisation doing all that they can to be a confident parent and continuing the care and support that young people require into adulthood?

 

_

*I would like to highlight that the word exit is used throughout literature and within practice to describe young people leaving care. Language such as exit and disengagement between young people, staff and services was challenged by the young people I looked after and accompanied to the JAM event held by IRISS last January. Young people felt that such managerial language, professional distance and risk averse practice should be replaced with the language of love and care.

One young person who took part in my research asked, “Why does there have to be an exit or ending? It’s like you [organisation] are saying your not coming back, like a final See Ya. Why don’t we talk about new beginnings and the next step in growing up in and after care and why can’t I have my relationships with Steve and Shirley [staff] in my future? She then stated, “I don’t think I would be looking forward to my future if it wasn’t for them”.