The Frontline Workers’ Perspective on Anti-Oppressive Child Welfare Practice by Michelle K. Rivet Bachelor of Arts, Concordia University, 1990 Bachelor of Social Work, University of Victoria, 2011 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in the School of Social Work © Rivet Michelle, 2014 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee The Frontline Workers’ Perspective on Anti-Oppressive Child Welfare Practice by Michelle K. Rivet Bachelor of Arts, Concordia University, 1990 Bachelor of Social Work, University of Victoria, 2011 Supervisory Committee Dr. Susan Strega, Faculty of Human and Social Development, School of Social Work Supervisor Dr. Jeannine Carrier, Faculty of Human and Social Development, School of Social Work Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Susan Strega, Faculty of Human and Social Development, School of Social Work Supervisor Dr. Jeannine Carrier, Faculty of Human and Social Development, School of Social Work Departmental Member Through my research I explored the frontline worker’s perspective of anti-oppressive child welfare practice (AOP). Five frontline workers from the Children’s Aid Society of Brant, Ontario (Brant CAS) were interviewed to share how they view their practice, and the child welfare system, through an anti-oppressive lens. An Anti-oppressive theory perspective was the framework for my research, using a narrative methodology. It is through the stories of the participants that we learn there is a variance in the understanding and implementation of AOP that is affecting the practice of frontline workers, the families they work with and possibly placing children at further risk. An outcome of this research is to hopefully improve training, allowing the frontline worker to have a better understanding of the philosophy of AOP and how it applies to their practice. iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee ...................................................................................................... ii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 History and Current Context of Canadian and Ontario Child Welfare ........................... 7 Evolution of Child Welfare Practice: Controversies and Challenges and Introduction of AOP............................................................................................................................... 14 Frontline Worker-Client Relationship and AOP........................................................... 28 History and Current Context of Brant CAS - AOP at Brant CAS ................................ 30 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 39 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 39 The Research Process ................................................................................................... 41 Research Participants ................................................................................................ 42 Participant Selection ................................................................................................. 43 Conducting the Research .......................................................................................... 44 Research Phases ............................................................................................................ 45 Phase 1: Hearing the Stories, Experiencing Each Other’s Emotions ....................... 46 Phase 2: Transcribing the Material .......................................................................... 49 Phase 3: Interpreting Individual Transcripts ............................................................ 50 Phase 4: Scanning Across Different Domains of Experience .................................. 52 Phase 5: Linking the Personal with the Political ..................................................... 53 Phase 6: Commonalities and Differences Among Participants ............................... 54 Phase 7: Writing Academic Narratives about Personal Stories ............................... 55 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................. 55 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 60 Chapter 4: The Stories of AOP ........................................................................................ 62 Participants .................................................................................................................... 63 Participant Profiles .................................................................................................... 64 The Stories .................................................................................................................... 70 It’s Not What We Do, But How We Do It .................................................................... 70 “Bulldogs” and “Namby-pambsie” (Tammy) ........................................................... 73 Behind closed doors .................................................................................................. 74 “You sort of learn it as you go” (Fiona) ................................................................... 75 “Forced to do more with less” (Suzanne) ................................................................. 78 At Long Last ................................................................................................................. 80 “That Would Have Been My Practice No Matter What” (Joanne) ........................... 82 “Strengths Don't Always Outweigh What the Risk Is” (Joanne) .............................. 85 Parallel Process ............................................................................................................. 88 v “Walk the Walk” (Tammy) ....................................................................................... 90 Management Help Set the Tone .................................................................................... 93 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 94 Chapter 5: Discussion and Final Summary ...................................................................... 96 Final Summary ............................................................................................................ 104 References ....................................................................................................................... 106 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 116 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 117 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 118 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 121 Appendix F...................................................................................................................... 124 Appendix G ..................................................................................................................... 126 Appendix H ..................................................................................................................... 127 vi Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the contribution from the frontline workers at the Brant Children’s Aid Society (Brant CAS) who volunteered to be part of this research. Without their passion and commitment to the child welfare field, this research would not have been possible. I appreciated your honesty and willingness to share your stories with me and, through this research, others. I would like to acknowledge my thesis supervisor, Dr. Susan Strega, and Committee Member, Dr. Jeannine Carriere, for their guidance and continued encouragement throughout the process. I am fortunate to have an amazingly supportive group of friends and family. However, I could not have done this without the love, understanding and encouragement from my children: Gabrielle, Noel, Margaret and Marie Claire. Your encouragement and patience throughout the process has meant the world to me. Chapter 1: Introduction This thesis will explore how the implementation of an anti-oppressive (AO) approach to practice, also known as anti-oppressive practice (AOP), can affect the frontline worker’s perspective of their practice. I focus primarily on the experiences and stories of the frontline child protection workers at the Children’s Aid Society of Brant, Ontario (Brant CAS), who have recently committed to incorporating an anti-oppressive (AO) approach to child welfare practice in their community. I am interested in how this commitment and the agency’s formalization of an AO service delivery model have affected their practice. The formal commitment to AOP is a fairly recent initiative within the Ontario Children’s Aid Societies. To better understand the current movement towards AOP, I plan to briefly outline some of the history of child welfare and discuss the Ontario Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) (Government of Ontario, 1990), which is the mandate that governs the Ontario child welfare system. I will also outline the history of the Brant CAS and explain how its practices have evolved into the current model. Since AOP is a relatively new focus within the Ontario child welfare system, there is currently little research available on the effects of its implementation. Little is written, for example, about how AOP has affected frontline workers. My research will provide the system of child welfare—not only in Ontario, but also in other jurisdictions where AO is being considered and implemented—a better understanding of the stories and experiences of frontline workers tasked with implementing AOP. I am a white, able-bodied, single mother who was raised Christian. In addition to working full time as a frontline child welfare worker for the past 18 years, I am working full-time towards my Master’s of Social Work. During my career as a child welfare worker, I have worked in two 2 neighboring Ontario child welfare agencies, serving different communities (rural and urban) and have delivered services through various provincial governmental regimes. As a result, over the years, I have witnessed many provincial governmental changes of philosophy and shifts in funding models and methods. I have noticed also that my practice has become less about the services offered and more about ensuring accountability through paperwork and funding formulas that are based on the number of files opened, closed and moved to ongoing services. As a frontline worker, I have also observed a new expectation within the system. I am now supposed to assess risk and child safety through a more punitive and deficit-based lens, rather than working within the community (which includes the agency, worker, family and other supports) to ensure the safety of the child. I think it is necessary to distinguish between the terms “child protection” and “child welfare.” The two terms are often used interchangeably, but they embody different philosophies and approaches to practice. The system is primarily designed and managed around the need to protect children, which is understandable and necessary. However, over the years, the system has concerned itself less with socio-cultural factors (such as race, gender, poverty, culture, etc.) that may influence a child’s safety. Some may argue that this narrow and deficit-based approach to child welfare is the result of budget constraints, a political philosophy or other factors. The one thing I am certain of is that AOP demands that the system move from this deficit-based approach of “child protection” towards a more inclusive approach that includes protection, supports, services, resources, community and family values and beliefs. For the purposes of this paper, an inclusive approach would constitute “child welfare.” Since returning to school in January 2008 to obtain my Bachelor of Social Work and my subsequent Master’s of Social Work in 2010 at the University of Victoria, I have regularly reflected upon and challenged my practice. My academic pursuits have encouraged me to reflect 3 upon and challenge my practice and to recognize weaknesses within the discipline and in the way I apply my training. I struggle daily with the challenge of implementing AO in my direct and indirect interactions with the families I work with. This challenge is even greater in a system that was founded on the values and beliefs of the dominant and privileged, which is a system that historically offers “leaky band-aids” (Baines, 2011, p.2) to address social problems and issues, rather than focusing on finding long-term, sustainable solutions to social injustices and issues such as poverty, racism, ableism, etc. In my experience, these underlying issues are catalysts for the problems that bring families to the attention of the child protection agencies. Long-term, sustainable solutions might allow families an opportunity to live their lives according to their own values, beliefs and experiences, without the interference of the child welfare system. I have often wondered: Who makes the decisions? How far removed are they from frontline work? There is a divide between the face-to-face work I do with my clients and the limitations of the child welfare mandate and the internal policies and procedures of the system with which I am affiliated. Like many people, I have reflected upon the areas of my life that I might change and improve during difficult times. Throughout my years as a frontline child protection worker I have experienced several changes to the service delivery model. I believe that, while these changes can be difficult and stressful, they also provide some hope of positive change, as with the movement to implement AOP into the fabric of Ontario child welfare. Around 2004, the Ontario Association of Children`s Aid Societies (OACAS) Provincial Inter-Agency Child Welfare Training Committee came together to develop a diversity program designed to train frontline staff in adapting their practice to be more considerate of diversity within their communities. But during the course of this training development, the OACAS 4 Provincial Inter-Agency Child Welfare Training Committee (2009) saw that training alone would not address the “systemic oppression that continues to lead to [the] over-representation of racialized and marginalized populations within the child welfare system” (p.5). This realization prompted the OACAS to form the Child Welfare Anti-Oppressive Roundtable (AOR) in 2008. The main goals of the AOR are to promote an anti-oppressive approach to practice in the Ontario Children’s Aid Societies and to raise awareness about the racialization and marginalization of those served by the Ontario child welfare system (2009). The OACAS’s recent focus on AOP demonstrates the growing acceptance of, and movement towards, incorporating an AO perspective into Ontario’s child welfare practice (Barnoff, George & Coleman, 2006). According to the OACAS’s Ontario Child Welfare Anti-Oppressive Roundtable (AOR) (2009): … anti-oppression refers to engaging in work that critically examines how social structures and social institutions work to create and perpetuate the oppression and marginalization of those who have been identified as not belonging to the dominant group. By identifying these various forms of oppression, it is also crucial to recognize the power and privilege that manifests itself as a result of the oppression of others. A commitment to anti-oppression requires that we act by working towards achieving greater social justice and equality. Anti-oppression can also be understood as a framework that guides our day-to-day practice, our interactions with others, and how we give meaning to our life experiences (p. 22). For the purposes of this research paper I am focusing on the frontline workers’ perspective of the AO “framework that guides our day-to-day practice, our interactions with others, and how we give meaning to life experiences” (AOR, 2009, p.22). It is not my intention in this paper to offer solutions and/or guiding principles for frontline workers, or how they may