Book Review: The Secure Base Model

Bringing together currently available material and resources, since the development of the Model by the authors in 2000, “The Secure Base Model” begins with an introduction to the underpinning theoretical concepts of attachment and resilience. The five dimensions of the model itself: availability, sensitivity, acceptance, co-operation and family membership, are each explored from the perspective of the needs of the child and the approach of the carer, as a ‘positive framework for therapeutic caregiving’.

The authors go on to show how the model can be used in working with applicant foster carers and adopters, assessing the capacity of existing carers, including an interview format for use with carers to assess their capacity to provide a secure base for a child in their care, and more general guidelines on using the secure base model in guiding and supporting carers. A final chapter on assessing and reviewing the progress of children in placement includes a valuable, well laid out, checklist of how a secure base looks throughout childhood, from birth to 18.

The accompanying guide for foster carers and adopters (Promoting Attachment and Resilience) comprises the three introductory chapters on the background to the model and the chapter on assessing and reviewing the development of the children in placement, together with a format for a suggested progress record carers can use for children in placement.

Both books come with a DVD that illustrates the different aspects of the model through interviews with carers about issues they faced and how these were dealt with.

Although rooted in established theory these are primarily workbooks rather than textbooks, as suggested by their A4 format, with clear layouts and written in easily accessible language. Published by BAAF and central to the new BAAF Form F, The Secure Base Model’s place in the toolkit of the fostering social worker is already secured, however anyone involved in children’s social work will find this a useful reference and tool. Fostering and adoption departments/agencies may well want to have copies available of the shorter version intended for foster carers.

The Secure Base Model: Promoting attachment and resilience in foster care and adoption, Gillian Schofield & Mary Beek, BAAF Adoption & Fostering, A4 size Paperback £16.95, ISBN 9 781907 585838

Promoting Attachment and Resilience: a guide for foster carers and adopters on using the Secure Base Model, Gillian Schofield & Mary Beek, BAAF Adoption & Fostering, A4 size Paperback £12.95, ISBN 9 781910 039021

Faith, fostering and social work – a discussion

It’s a difficult question in today’s social work.  In a diverse society where people of many faiths mix, how representative are the caring professions of this mix?  I don’t yet have the statistical answers to that question but it seems that the climate is not in favour of persons of faith when it comes to employment in fostering. One relatively recent case highlights the discussion.

In a landmark ruling in 2011, as reported by BBC News, religious affairs correspondent, Roger Pigott, said, “the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence”. As of 2013 the Christian Legal Centre was still following up their case (Christians in the Firing Line by Dr Richard Scott).

The nub of the problem in this case appears to be the Johns’ position that they would be unable to tell a young person that being homosexual was OK as it would counter their spiritual beliefs. In all other respects there is no direct suggestion in the publicly available information that they would not have made good carers. However since they had previously fostered in the 1990’s, new legislation had been introduced and the world of fostering and social work had moved on.

Needless to say their case attracted a range of responses, from other Christians supporting the Johns’ position to those calling them bigots, highlighting the diversity of opinion in modern Britain.

If the Johns’ were suitable carers in all other respects it seems unfortunate they were not allowed to return to a profession they had previously enjoyed.  All the more so in an environment where more foster carers are to be welcomed. Of course, how they handle expressing their faith-based views should not be ignored and a part of their assessment and training should have included elements of going beyond stating their own beliefs, to understanding if they were able to acknowledge and express that others hold different beliefs, and how well they could work alongside other professionals who come from different religious persuasions and viewpoints.

Unfortunate though in that the fostering profession is wanting to encourage diversity; it would make for a very unequal and unrepresentative workforce if everyone has to fit the same narrow mould.  There are places for more carers from different ethnic, religious, social (an often overlooked element) and even political backgrounds, regardless of different opinions.

In court for the Johns’ the Christian Legal Centre argued that “all the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) teach against homosexual conduct” and that “all hold to the orthodox view that any sexual union outside of marriage between one man and one woman is morally undesireable”.  The court responded that whilst homosexuality is a capital offence under Sharia law in some places, the Church of England allows for same sex partnerships for its clergy as long as they remain celibate within that relationship (!) (Scott), and that there is no place in British law for Christian beliefs.

Clearly then, the ruling against the Johns’ has wider implications for both British society and adherents of all faiths in the caring professions.

If parents of children in public care are to stand a chance in having their religious preferences for their children honoured then this diversity is essential.  In ruling that equality of sexuality takes precedence over the right to religious belief, the door to fostering will have been closed to many who might otherwise have made suitable and good foster carers and narrowed down the options for diversity.

A good fostering agency (private or statutory) will be able to manage these differences through the placement matching process, which already takes into account ethnicity, cultural and religious preferences of parents where expressed, age ranges and the child’s presenting behaviours; try as we might there is no such thing as the 100% perfect match.

In the wider picture this seems to have been an unfortunate ruling and that in going to court on this case all parties might just have shot themselves in the foot!

[This blog is not advocating that the Johns should have been approved as foster carers.  This is not possible without further detailed information than is available in the public domain. The purpose is to look at issues affecting the fostering profession, particularly as I prepare to return to my role as a Form F Assessor.]

References:

Christians in the Firing Line, Dr Richard Scott, 2013, Wilberforce Publications, London, ISBN 978-0-9575725-1-5

Johns’ case news reporting:

BBC News online – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Daily Mail News online – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325635/Christian-couple-doomed-foster-carers-homosexuality-views.html

Guardian News online – http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case

Telegraph online – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8355786/Our-Christianity-is-our-lifestyle-we-cant-take-it-on-and-off.html

Responses to the news reports:

National Secular Society – http://www.secularism.org.uk/children-should-be-protected-fro.html

David Cameron as reported in the Daily Telegraph – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8370280/David-Cameron-defends-ban-on-anti-gay-foster-parents.html

 

 

Fostering and Adoption in 18th Century England

Fostering in the 21^st Century is an often difficult job: the pay not always commensurate with the commitment required.  But while recently reading Daniel Defoe’s classic novel Moll Flanders I was reminded at how much we have moved on.

Moll, in the novel, finds herself ‘with child’ and debates her prospects facing a future as a single mother.  Moll wanted the best for her child but her dilemma was very real: a single mother could expect no help or encouragement from society and a future of extreme poverty, prostitution or crime faced her in that choice, each one carrying risks of starvation or imprisonment to both her and the child.  At best, a difficult option.

In contrast giving up her child to be cared for ‘professionally’ by another woman would not guarantee her child freedom from such poverty or shame and might actually be a death sentence for the child.  These were very real concerns.

The OUP edition of the novel provides an explanatory note (p.373): a parliamentary committee investigating the problem [of children being killed by their nurse carers] in 1716 reported that “a great many parish infants, and exposed bastard children, are inhumanely suffered to die by the barbarity of nurses, who are a sort of people void of commiseration or religion, hired by the Church wardens to take off a burden from the Parish at the cheapest and easiest rates they can; and these know the manner of doing it effectively as by the burial books may evidently appear.”  House of Commons Journals XVIII 396 (8 Mar 1716)…. and goes on to give an example (p.374) of one Eleanor Gallimore, a Parish Nurse, who in 1718 was twice acquitted of the murder of an infant in her care – in February of that year she was acquitted of murder by starvation of an infant of two months old, and in September of that year for the murder of a child by beating it with a mop-stick around the head and stamping on it.

Moll’s dilemma was compounded by an offer of marriage which would have been withdrawn had her suitor known of the existence of the child.  Eventually she was persuaded that a suitable carer could be found, Moll would pay a sum of £5 per year to the woman towards the upkeep of her child in return for the right to see the child once or twice a year, although the child would never know she was his true mother.  Or, open adoption as we might call it in the 21^st Century.

Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe, Oxford University Press World’s Classics series in paperback

Politics and the Professional

Politics is always in the news and, among other things, I seem to be hearing an awful lot about UKIP at the moment.  Perhaps because the whole European debate is hotting up and UKIP is keeping to the fore of the arguments.  Whether you or I agree with UKIP policies or not is one thing, and I’m not planning on pinning my political flag squarely on the mast (it might be there and a bit lopsided though), but the right to follow a legal political party, and the impact that can have on your employment status, is another.

And not so long ago (November 2012) that debate arose when foster carers in Rotherham had three children removed from their care following an anonymous allegation that they were paid up members of UKIP.  Having worked with a considerable number of applicant foster carers in completing their Form F Assessments (which do not specifically require applicants to reveal their political affiliations) and worked extensively in the private fostering sector, this story was of particular interest to me, and I have attempted to follow the outcome.

There was a brief furore in the press and promises of inquiries made.  As yet I can find no evidence of the publicly available result of any inquiry.  So I am writing this blog on the basis of the information given in the news reports from the time and without knowing any official outcome of any inquiry, or if indeed there ever was (or will be) an inquiry once the initial dust had settled.  (Update March 2014 – there is still no publicly available evidence of an inquiry or the outcome.)

First a quick recap, culled from the various news reports.  A couple from Rotherham in South Yorkshire had been fostering for seven years when out of the blue the three children they had in placement were removed by the local authority.  Of course, except for the carers and the children, it wasn’t entirely out of the blue: the local authority had been in discussion with the fostering agency for around three weeks before removing the children with no notice to either the children or the carers.  Unless there were genuine concerns that the carers might abscond with the children (which does not appear to have been the case) the lack of professionalism displayed by both the local authority and the fostering agency is sadly astounding.

But, back to the original story.  The three children concerned were siblings of an ethnic minority family (Eastern European Roma) and had been in placement for just under eight weeks.  Various concerns about the placement were mentioned but the primary reason that kept surfacing in the news was the fostering couple’s membership of UKIP.  UKIPs foundational campaign of UK independence from Europe was not the issue.  The issue was found hidden in the depths of their policy on Asylum & Immigration, which the local authority considered racist.

Now, without an inquiry, it seems to me that poor old Rotherham, who haven’t had the best of press over the years, have had a quick knee-jerk reaction and these carers and children have been the ones on the receiving end.  Criticised in court for not previously taking into consideration this particular sibling group’s ethnic needs a whiff of further criticism following an anonymous tip off that the carers were members of a racist non-mainstream political party led to an unfortunate reaction that got them back in the headlines again.  The placement was not sound on the grounds of poor matching to ethnic needs, including the birth parents concern that the children were losing their ability to speak their native language.  But this was a temporary placement while a more suitable ethnic match could be found.  To then bring politics into the argument and remove the children in an unplanned (with the children’s welfare at heart) manner seems a little unfortunate.

Now, the bit that scares me is that I don’t personally agree with ALL the policies of any one political party, for various reasons.  But I might choose to vote for them if I agree with the overall principles of that party, whether that is UK independence from Europe, or the socialist or capitalist policies of other parties.  And I might not even be aware of all the minute details of some of the policies if, like most people, I haven’t read the small print.

When UKIP first came on the scene, as I recall, their focus was on trade and sovereignty issues but it is some time since I last looked at their policies.  Now seemed a good time to take a closer look at their Asylum & Immigration policies, just for my own pleasure.  It’s pretty boring.  The main parties are all pretty much vying for who can be the most effective in reducing immigration and the most strict on dealing with illegal immigrants.  UKIP want to cap immigration at 50,000 persons per annum, which initially sounds comparable to Conservative and Labour comments, except UKIP include EU citizens in that figure.  And of course the UKIP policy has that damming phrase that got Rotherham all in a bother: “End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies”, alongside a less trumpeted but rather worrying intention to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and enforcing the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees while a new Asylum Act is created.

Having worked in the local authority with “asylum seekers and refugees” during the immigration ‘crisis’ period that began in the late 1990’s I am well aware of the political posturing on this subject from that time, and since.  It was appallingly chaotic with the government of the day, the Refugee Council and the courts effectively changing policy and the legal rights of those affected on an almost daily basis in some way or another.  It wasn’t a pleasant time and the added stress caused to those on the receiving end was an abuse in itself.  However, I am also aware of the social tensions caused in those areas most affected.  My home town and those around are still hot beds of some serious prejudice caused by the resentment fuelled in part by political posturing and the media.  But then those same towns also have a higher than average proportion of the population from Eastern European countries and beyond.   Worryingly, through my work, I have seen this lead to a rise not just in support for relatively mainstream parties such as UKIP but also for the BNP in particular.

Back in the early days of radicalism in social work anyone that didn’t support an obviously socialist political standpoint ended up skulking in a corner and keeping quiet about their political views.  But that was grass roots opinion: social workers standing up for the oppressed and seeing socialism as the representative of the poor.  Society has changed in the intervening years (whether for better or worse).  Politics has also changed in the intervening years and the differences between the mainstream parties have become less clear.  Who to vote for now?

And there is the dilemma.  Anybody working in public services might have a personal belief that EU membership is not the best way forward for the UK.  If that person is a social worker or foster carer, or maybe a teacher or nurse or police officer, then does that preclude them from supporting a political party that represents their view, at least to some extent?  If it is accepted that supporting UKIPs views on the benefits of EU membership is not appropriate because of some of their related policies, where does that leave the social care professionals?  Is there an acceptable political party?  What if you don’t personally support one or two of their policies that you find in the small print?  Some social workers may be Christian or Muslim, and perhaps don’t support a pro-abortion or gay marriage stance (some do, some don’t): who are they allowed to vote for?  What about the fact that political parties sometimes change their views with the wind and tide of public opinion and media pressure?  Even to the point of absolute U-turns.  Where can the line be drawn?  Should there be an approved political party for social workers and other care professionals?

This is the danger behind Rotherham’s knee jerk reaction to the tip off about this fostering couple being members of UKIP.  No-one took the trouble of checking out their actual views on race and immigration (which would have been covered in their Form F Assessment).  If social work is to reclaim its radical roots (as most academics promote – see my book review on Green Social Work), then social workers cannot be afraid of their employers stance on their political views.  Social workers need the freedom to be political, and maybe there does need to be a new political party to represent that.  But they cannot be afraid that their political views will incur the wrath of their seniors in a heavy handed way as happened with this fostering couple in Rotherham.

Finally, I have a professional code of practice to abide by.  In my work it overrides my political and religious views.  I don’t bring my religion or my politics to work in any way that contradicts my professional code of practice.  Out of work I do not do anything that brings my profession into disrepute (although that cannot change my personal opinions and beliefs).  That is the nature of social work.  If I can’t accept that then I get out.

ADDENDUMS – March 2014

UKIP update

Things within and around UKIP appear to have changed in the year since the above post was written, in particular there has been a marked increase in racist and sexist allegations made against the party.  The UKIP spring conference has drawn considerable concern and criticism from mainstream media for blatant racism:

The Mirror focuses their report on the racist humour of the comic entertainment at the conference, which Nigel Farage  did not condemn.

Alex Massie, blogging for The Spectator declares UKIP a party for reactionary xenophobes.

But perhaps the most relevant article for me was from Dan Hodges of The Telegraph, in which he declares “UKIP is now a racist party”, comparing this to his view of the party a year ago, and in particular how UKIP has moved from “raising general concerns regarding immigration to directly targeting and stigmatising individual national groups”.

In Nigel Farage’s keynote speech from the Spring conference he states the key issue for the forthcoming European elections (May 2014) is the issue of ‘open door immigration’ and the impact on British jobs and services (this reference begins at 17:40 minutes into the speech).

Official UKIP video on ‘commonsense immigration’.

New Social Work Left

Since writing the original article above I note that there has been a continued push from within academia to encourage political awareness among social workers, in particular looking towards the development of a ‘new social work left’ (The New Politics of Social Work edited by Gray & Webb – see separate review).

There will also be a forthcoming blog on the link between political opinion and morals and values.