Thursday 9 December 2010

Social Disadvantage and Looked After Children

Looked after children are living away from home against a backdrop of social exclusion and disadvantage. Those in residential care are likely to be the children who present the most complex difficulties. This is often cyclical. Research that compares parenting styles to the results of the Adult Attachment Interview (Main and Goldwyn, 1984) demonstrates that children with insecure patterns of attachment are likely to have difficulty as parents in creating a secure attachment with their own children. Although attachment is a lifelong process, early childhood experiences influence adult life. Personal, Cultural and Structural disadvantages impact on healthy development, emotional well-being and mental heath. Further, they are likely to reduce opportunities to escape deprivation. Jobs and decent life circumstances are often closed to them. Their anti-social behaviour may have criminalized them; poor attachment patterns may jeopardize a lifetime of relationships.

‘Since discrimination of all kinds is an everyday occurrence in many children’s lives, every effort must be made to ensure that agency services and practices do not reflect or reinforce it.’ (Neil Thompson). Many of the children we care for will be subjected to discrimination for several reasons; being in care itself is reason for stigma in the eyes of many people. As we work, we should attempt to reduce, undermine and eliminate discrimination and oppression, specifically in terms of challenging sexism, racism, ageism and disableism. We can acknowledge the structural and cultural influences on our behaviour and attitudes. Language plays an important part in constructing and maintaining discrimination and other oppressive forms of practice. Failure to act against discrimination is in itself a form of unintentional discrimination. Gently challenging any discriminatory or prejudiced remarks that the children may hold or express is part of our duty of care, to the children and to others.

As there is no agreement about the importance of heredity versus environment in influencing child development, a bio-psychosocial model accepts that both factors are, to an indeterminate degree, important and are transactionally involved with social conditions to shape development. Children are, therefore influenced by, as well as influencing, their families, their peers and siblings, and their communities. Modern Attachment Theory research stresses the role of siblings and grandparents (Dunn and Kendrick; Werner). Melhuish looked at the influence of day care provision. A child’s primary experiences set the tone of their relationships for life. Poor patterns of attachment, low self esteem, role-modelling and social expectations all contribute to a vulnerable child’s vulnerability, placing them at risk of significant harm or offending behaviours.

Services are often underdeveloped to meet such complex needs and the perception of such children easily moves from victim to perpetrator. Even well developed services are likely to be under resourced and unlikely to meet all these complex needs. In as far as there is a solution it is generally thought to lie in partnership and team working, although these are also contested concepts. Sheldon (1994) argues that treatment by a single professional has been demonstrated to work more effectively and that inter-professional working presents real difficulties when interventions may be based on mutely conflicting knowledge bases and research evidence. Inter-agency collaboration can also fail.

These experiences further damage emerging identity and self-worth and heighten the sense of loss, separation and abandonment. It is not surprising that in struggling to understand all this, many children blame themselves for their circumstances. What is not acceptable is that a child in this position should be stigmatised, excluded and blamed. Unfortunately it is also the case that the most damaged, vulnerable and difficult young people are also the ones most likely not to receive help and support from families and communities. Their geographical communities are likely to be the most deprived and their social cohesion is challenged by the multiple deprivations and discriminations discussed above. There is also a possibility of culture and value clash. Strongly diverse cultural groups may well bring values that are themselves at odds with the pervading social care value (e.g. the acceptance of corporal punishment among Jamaican communities). Professionals need to develop an open-minded, not knowing approach that values and respects others as equals. This is particular difficult in the face of strong value conflicts. Professionals will bring their own ethnic and cultural style to their interactions with service users. To a degree such difference may be overruled by professional training, which privileges intellectually based arguments and views, and yet the central importance of working with difference, creating dialogue, partnership and respect, calls this into question.

Although every child we meet is different, an individual with a unique history and background, in Britain, children who are Looked After by the social care system are frequently disadvantaged by a multitude of factors that each collide with and compound the disadvantages of others. One way of unravelling the complexity is to analyse these influences on three dimensions: Personal, Cultural and Structural. Government initiatives, legislation, policy and guidance have made consultation and involvement with service users key to service delivery. However, the lived experience for many service users is not one of involvement and consultation. Limited resources and difficult decisions over priorities, the residue of bad practice and poorly run Local Authority Social Services Departments that fail to meet Government quality control targets (e.g. multiple placement driven by budgetary considerations) further compound structural disadvantages. Managers of care services come face to face with inequalities, social disadvantage and social exclusion on a daily basis. Holman (1998) shows how different elements join together to heighten the impact of social disadvantage on families in Easterhouse in Glasgow. Such disadvantages may be overlaid by cultural factors. The thrust towards multi-culturalism (itself a contested concept) has not brought social equality uniformly to minority ethnic and cultural groups. New waves of immigration have further increased diversity and services struggle to answer to the diverse cultural and linguistic needs presented by such diversity. Although the dominant white culture may see minority ethnic groups as homogenous, in reality, Black Britain is culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse. Simplistic attempts to provide culturally sensitive services can be at the best tokenistic. The structural dominance of white culture re-enforces exclusion and disadvantage. Those who are most excluded from society are those to whom services are frequently less responsive. Generations of social exclusion may further damage personal resources. Exclusion from quality education and health care provision limit an individual’s ability to advocate for themselves. Government attempts to move resource allocations away from the privileged may have done little more than divert them to the articulate. Safe and effective care for children relies on a developed understanding of these issues of child development, psychopathology and identity in a context of multiple disadvantage, social exclusion and discrimination. The understanding of these issues and measure to counter social disadvantage (anti-oppressive practices) need to be woven into planning from the provision of each child’s care.

The environment in which children growing up will influence the lessons they take from their childhoods. Whilst it undoubtedly true that the majority of children, even in the most deprived areas, are well socialized and pro-social, multiple disadvantages, deprivation, abuse and neglect are all risk factors for anti-social adjustment. Children who are neglected are not given the opportunity of pro-social role modelling or responsible parenting, victims of violence are more likely to see violence as acceptable. There may be competing needs of maintaining links and safeguarding. The communities that a child needs to develop a sense of self may also harbour those who have neglected, hurt and abused them. They may well be looked after by people who have little or no direct experience of their culture, religion and linguistic background. Managers need to flag theses issues up and think creatively about ways in which such needs can be met. Although every child we meet is different, an individual with a unique history and background, in Britain, children who are Looked After by the social care system are frequently disadvantaged by a multitude of factors that each collide with and compound the disadvantages of others. One way of unravelling the complexity is to analyse these influences on three dimensions: Personal, Cultural and Structural. Government initiatives, legislation, policy and guidance have made consultation and involvement with service users key to service delivery. However, the lived experience for many service users is not one of involvement and consultation. Limited resources and difficult decisions over priorities, the residue of bad practice and poorly run Local Authority Social Services Departments that fail to meet Government quality control targets (e.g. multiple placement driven by budgetary considerations) further compound structural disadvantages. Managers of care services come face to face with inequalities, social disadvantage and social exclusion on a daily basis. Holman (1998) shows how different elements join together to heighten the impact of social disadvantage on families in Easterhouse in Glasgow. Such disadvantages may be overlaid by cultural factors. The thrust towards multi-culturalism (itself a contested concept) has not brought social equality uniformly to minority ethnic and cultural groups. New waves of immigration have further increased diversity and services struggle to answer to the diverse cultural and linguistic needs presented by such diversity. Although the dominant white culture may see minority ethnic groups as homogenous, in reality, Black Britain is culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse. Simplistic attempts to provide culturally sensitive services can be at the best tokenistic. The structural dominance of white culture re-enforces exclusion and disadvantage. Those who are most excluded from society are those to whom services are frequently less responsive. Generations of social exclusion may further damage personal resources. Exclusion from quality education and health care provision limit an individual’s ability to advocate for themselves. Government attempts to move resource allocations away from the privileged may have done little more than divert them to the articulate. Safe and effective care for children relies on a developed understanding of these issues of child development, psychopathology and identity in a context of multiple disadvantage, social exclusion and discrimination. The understanding of these issues and measure to counter social disadvantage (anti-oppressive practices) need to be woven into planning from the provision of each child’s care.