Core groups are responsible for developing and carrying out the child protection plan which has been agreed at the initial child protection conference. Each member of the core group is jointly responsible but the key worker; usually the social worker; has the lead role.
It is essential in child protection work for the core group to:
- keep the focus on the child and his or her safety and welfare,
- ensure that the child is seen alone where appropriate
- understand the daily life experience of the child and its meaning to them,
- understand his or her welfare, wishes and feelings, and to
- use information about the family’s history and functioning to inform decision making
How well the core groups are able to fulfil their roles has been the subject of a detailed study carried out in two local authorities. The findings suggest that core groups are struggling with a number of difficulties which impede their ability to operate and function successfully. These include professional relationships and differences, the genuine inclusion of parents and children and the emotional dynamics of the group process.
Professional differences
Each member of the core group is bound by their own set of professional ethics and practice as well as their wider responsibility for child protection and although they may all be in agreement in principle with inter agency practice, at the same time they are each accountable to their managers and the demands of their own organisations.
However once within the core group their decisions become subject; through the social worker; to ratification by the social work manager, who can overturn their professional decisions. The core group might have unrealistic expectations of what can be offered or achieved and requests for resources, for instance, can be rejected.
Different views about thresholds are frequently a point of tension with social workers in this study feeling that other professionals had a lower tolerance of risk and were worrying unnecessarily. The social workers found it hard to get across the reality that they could not nanny everyone and did not want to create dependency.
For the core group to work effectively there needs to be understanding and trust between the members; these take time to develop and without them the system works less well. The study found that it was not unusual for several changes of social worker to occur throughout the life of the core group and ongoing vacancy rates and high levels of turnover within social work teams had a knock on impact on building trust and relationships. Whenever a social worker left this was greeted with dismay by the other members of the group and affected both the relationships between professionals and those between the social worker and the family. The departure of the key worker could result in cancelled meetings and delayed progress on the child protection plan as newcomers adjusted to their roles and responsibilities. The use of temporary agency workers; who often had no prior history of involvement and might be unfamiliar with local systems and processes; added to the anxiety of the other members.
The emotional dynamics
Child protection work is not generally popular and many other professional groups feel anxious or less than enthusiastic about getting involved. Working with abused children and abusing parents can generate feelings of dismay, anger, dislike and conflict, with some professionals feeling a sense of contamination and a need to defend themselves against these painful feelings. But they expect the social worker to contain these emotions with the consequence that often the social worker is left feeling that they are the ones shouldering all the practical and emotional responsibilities.
What social workers felt
Social workers wanted other professionals to speak openly in meetings, help to manage any conflict and painful feelings and to share the administrative demands. They were also frustrated by other professionals trying to hold separate conversations outside the core group without parents present. However chairing meetings and taking minutes was seen by many others as the social workers responsibility, with little recognition that this could make it harder for the social worker to think clearly and contribute to the meeting. Even when the other members recognised that there were severe staffing shortages and that many social workers were new and inexperienced they remained reluctant to help out. Some saw an offer to take the minutes or chair the meeting as tantamount to accepting responsibility for managing the case. Not surprisingly, the social workers felt that other professionals were afraid of taking responsibility and were shirking their remit.
What other professionals felt
Often those who spent considerable periods of time with the child or their family; seeing them every day and helping them through difficulties; felt they had a greater knowledge and understanding of their situation. When someone who knew the family less well completely disagreed with them and disregarded or ignored their views it created frustration and led to conflict in the group. Likewise, other professionals were angry and dismayed when decisions that had been agreed by everyone, were then changed unilaterally by the social worker without consultation or informing the rest of the group.
Not everyone believed that it was always right or possible to be completely open with parents and there was an ongoing tension between building trust with the child or family member and openness with other professionals. There were also times when busy practitioners from adult services resented demands to attend meetings when they saw their role as peripheral or irrelevant and they were sometimes criticised for failing to see the child’s point of view, but other professionals could also be guilty of bias towards a parent at the expense of the child.
Conflicts
Fear of verbal abuse and physical aggression were very real issues for everyone involved but were rarely brought out into the open and discussed. Even when conflict was not openly expressed it was frequently below the surface. The social workers felt other members were afraid of speaking their minds openly or triggering aggression from parents with the result that they often felt left on their own to deal with any difficulties or arguments. At times it appeared the conflicts between the interests of parents and children were being played out among the core group members..
Including parents and children
Parents should be encouraged to be included in the child protection process and to take part in the child protection plan. Social workers tried to make sure that meetings were held in convenient locations, such as the home and to build parents confidence about taking part in the meeting and discussions by starting off with a small core group and increasing membership over time. Supportive friends or relatives were also encouraged, but in spite of these efforts involving parents proved difficult. In the main it was mostly mothers who attended; fathers or male father figures rarely took part and were hard to engage. Occasionally there was intense antagonism between some practitioners and fathers, which in some cases was never resolved. Professionals did make efforts to include parents and parents did made efforts to take part but attending the meetings did not mean that partnership had been achieved. Even when parents did attend their contributions were rarely recorded.
When it came to including children this was even harder to achieve and often led to a difficult balancing act between the child’s best interests, the parent’s own needs and the availability of time and resources. Social workers were expected to undertake intensive and time consuming work without any extra resources; dealing with abused children and abusing parents in the same meeting, involving children with learning difficulties or those with little spoken English were just some of the challenges. Although much direct work did take place it was unusual for children to attend core groups or for anyone else to represent them in their absence; their opinions about services were not asked and they were not encouraged to contribute towards decisions.
Core groups require sustained efforts from all parties in order to work effectively and social workers are expected to hold the process together, but this study suggests they are finding it hard to combine the administrative, decision making, inter agency and therapeutic roles expected of them. For core groups to work well practitioners need interpersonal skills around conflict management, increasing partnership and negotiating collaborative working in groups. They need time to do direct work, recognition that the work is mentally demanding and supervision that involves analysis of the emotional dynamics that are taking place through the core group. All of these are crucial to the successful functioning of the group and the completion of the child protection plan.
References
E. Harlow & S. M. Shardlow; Safeguarding children: challenges to the effective operation of core groups in Child and Family Social Work, Vol 11, Issue 1 2006
