Other
Young people’s participation: views from social workers and independent reviewing officers
Clive Diaz ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-sonnet-5-5This chapter presents the views of social workers and independent reviewing officers (IROs) on their work with children in care. Both groups said children's participation is very important, but their examples showed participation was mostly tokenistic. Children generally had no say in where or when their review took place, who was invited, or what was on the agenda. The authors link this gap to high caseloads, systemic pressures and a focus on paperwork.
Key points
- Pressures on professionals were a recurrent concern.
- Social workers' understanding of the concept of participation was limited, and examples given showed participation was largely tokenistic.
- There was a disconnect between professionals' stated views on the importance of participation and their practice.
- Children generally played no role in deciding where or when the review took place, who was invited, or what was on the agenda.
- Reviews sometimes took place without children to meet statutory timescales, and some followed Personal Education Planning meetings, making very long meetings.
Limitations
The excerpt does not state the country, sample size or methods, and it reports only professionals' views, not those of children themselves. The country is not named in the text, though references to CIC reviews and IROs suggest a particular legal setting (not stated), so no country is given.
Abstract
In this chapter social workers’ and independent reviewing officers’ views on the work they carry out with children in care are presented. Pressures on professionals were a recurrent concern. It was also noted that social workers’ understanding of the concept of participation was limited and the examples provided illustrated that children’s and young people’s participation was largely tokenistic. There appeared to be a disconnect/dissonance between professionals’ views of how important participation is and their actual practice with families. Social workers and IROs both stated that children’s participation was very important to them but then went onto explain that generally children played no role in deciding where the review took place, when it took place, who was invited and what was on the agenda. Social workers and IROs also stated that reviews took place without children to meet statutory timescales and that on occasions CIC reviews would take place just after Personal Education Planning meetings leading to very long meetings. Despite legislation giving children rights to have a say in their care and their wishes taken into consideration, there remains a lack of commitment to this from professionals, high caseloads, systemic pressures and a focus on completing paperwork rather than engaging meaningfully with children seems to be the reason for this. This appears to resonate with Forrester’s (2016) idea of ‘zombie social work’, and appears clear evidence of ‘doing things right instead of doing the right thing’ (Munro 2012).