a monthly column from members of
SIRCC
This
month’s column is from Residential Practitioner
Jeremy
Millar
of Robert Gordon's University, Aberdeen
He
makes the case for a 'no-reject' admissions policy based on personal
experience
'It's
Not in Our Remit'!
Often
in my residential career in local authority units up here in the
north-east of Scotland, I have heard the phrase ‘it’s
not in our remit’ resound in team meetings during discussions
about potential new admissions. I have to confess that on occasions,
earlier in my career, I was most vocal in stating that our remit
was not to cater for:
During
a discussion the list could be extended with more subtle reasons
for rejection given; based on the current gender balance, or past
histories of the young people in other care settings, or the young
person knowing where a staff member lived, or non-specific gut
feelings located in the collective neurosis of the team!
Later
in my career I assumed the role of unit manager in a local authority
establishment catering for young people moving on from care. There
was a clear remit back then in the mid-90’s, which basically
involved only working with those young persons who were motivated,
able and reasonably compliant with being processed into their
first tenancy. I was comfortable adding my, now senior, voice
to that of the staff group in protecting our remit.
Policy
and procedures appeared clear and middle management was supportive
of protecting the service we provided. In fact, if we kept our
heads down, jollied the young people along at a reasonable rate,
few questions were asked or unreasonable requests made. But things
change and as the 90’s progressed residential child care
in our area had to deal with older teenagers, often characterised
by life experiences that included:
Added
to these changes in the demography of the potential pool of referrals
there were wider social policy reforms and media fuelled influences
on public opinion that heightened an awareness of the ‘threat’
posed by society’s most damaged and vulnerable youth.
Another
confession: as a manager, I was slow to acknowledge and accept
the changing landscape. I channelled my skills into ring-fencing
the service, using what influence I had to gate-keep. This kept
my staff group on side and I rationalised it all through the belief
that the residents were best supported to manage the transition
to young adulthood by having a stable placement experience devoid
of seriously challenging behaviours.
I
used the new managerial tools of annual reports, statistical returns,
business style plans, responses to inspection reports as a convenient
spin machine to present in the best light the wonderful work we
were undertaking within our fiercely guarded remit. I even utilised
my social work training to draw on research into residential child
care that supported the position we held. The findings I chose
to concentrate on revolved around preserving the sanctity of the
unit to choose residents and the importance of a clear ethos and
effective leadership that had the confidence of the staff group.
So
there I was captaining the Titanic secure in the belief I could
negotiate all the debris of local government reform (this involved
social work moving from the upper tier of a 2-tier system to smaller
single tier authorities) and the, as yet, submerged threat of
New Labour. I held onto our in-depth assessment process that involved
a staged admission with the opportunity for both parties to withdraw
should they find themselves incompatible.
Therefore
it was with considerable anxiety that first Ahmed and then Jo
landed at our door*. Ahmed didn’t fit our remit. He wasn’t
a care-leaver in terms of being previously accommodated, he had
a learning difficultly and was physically disabled. Surely there
was a more appropriate resource out there. What was the specialist
disability team up to? Ahmed would undoubtedly be exposed to potential
exploitation in the unit. As for Jo, she was parachuted in prior
to her 16th birthday due to the fact she had allegedly had inappropriate
sexual contact with a child in the neighbourhood of her children’s
home. Senior managers were on the phone explaining that there
was no alternative. We had spaces and there were at present no
other options, although more suitable resources were being actively
pursued.
In
one fell swoop the non-negotiable elements of our remit went out
the window; no one under 16, planned admission, young person’s
choice, staged assessment, staff discussion and decision all consigned
to history. As a team we took ill and there weren’t any
lifeboats!
Thankfully
the existing resident group helped the adults out. They accepted
the changes to the group dynamic with a nonchalance based on their
repeated life experiences of stuff just happening. There was no
implosion or explosion, just an institutional ‘honeymoon’
period as the roles in the group were reassessed and negotiated
afresh. I had to work like never before to reframe my own and
the team’s world view. Should we retrench and resist, thus
assuming the victim status so beloved in many corners of the residential
child care sector? Or would we rise to challenge, take the opportunity-led
route beloved of the all-singing and dancing residential child
care professional?
You’ve
probably guessed that I wouldn’t be writing this if I’d
plumped for the former course of action. Yes we grasped the opportunity,
some more wholeheartedly than others, and went on the biggest
learning curve of our careers. During the following three years
we endeavoured to establish a service that aimed to work with
all-comers, to embed the core residential social work approach
of unconditional positive regard and warmth, recognising the strengths
that each resident brings along with their pivotal role in the
healing process.
We
looked to the wider community for additional supports. We engaged
more pro-actively with parents and carers to support the young
people on their journeys. We went back to basics, recognising
the young person’s needs in developmental rather than chronological
terms. We concentrated on the relationship as central to the regenerative
process. In undertaking this challenge we all grew, often at a
faster rate than we would have wished, leaving little time for
the necessary reflection.
Five
years on, despite no longer working in that setting, I’m
still making sense of the whole experience. I have had the chance
to read, discuss and reflect around the issues raised by forced
abandonment of the gate-keeping policy. It is my considered view
that there is greater potential for growth at all levels in striving
for an open door approach resourced through an acknowledgement
of the strengths located in the individual, their supportive adults
and peers, the neighbourhood and wider community.
The
goal being to recognise a child or young person in need and make
the response: ‘yes, that’s our remit’.
* names and some details changed to preserve confidentiality
The Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care is funded
by the Scottish Executive and employs staff in a number
of Universities and Colleges to provide training, research
and a range of advice and support services. SIRCC-employed
staff deliver the BA in Social Work and Higher National
Certificate in Social Care with a strong focus on residential
child care. Some staff are also employed to deliver a
wide range of in-service short courses. SIRCC provides
advice, consultancy and organisational development to
all agencies across Scotland, local authority and independent,
which provide children units or residential schools for
looked after children. SIRCC also runs a library and information
service. Its national office is located on the Jordanhill
Campus within the Glasgow School of Social Work. The GSSW
is a joint school of the Universities of Strathclyde and
Glasgow
|
Email
us on sircc@childrenwebmag.com
