No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Development of a Family Support Agency Protocol for its Relationship with Protective Services— A Joint Effort by Clients, Staff and Protective Services
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Abstract
Family support agencies that undertake work with families where protective concerns are evident, are frequently placed in the difficult situation of deciding whether to involve Protective Services, and if so, how to do this and remain a helping agency in the eyes of the parents.
Alys Key Family Care has found it immensely valuable to meet with a group of service users to consider the issues of (1) passage of information from the agency to Protective Services, and (2) circumstances which warrant involvement of Protective Services.
Unlike many professionals, the client group expressed clear and consistent views about what situations warranted notification to a Protective Service, and as a result, the agency has now developed a pamphlet for all new client families that outlines how the agency handles these issues.
The paper describes the difficult situations faced by professionals in family support services when Protective Services become involved with their client families and a clear and open policy does not exist between the agency and its clientele. It outlines the process adopted by Alys Key Family Care to actively involve service users in the development of agency policy, and describes the specific guidelines for Protective Service involvement generated by the client advisory group.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989
References
1.
McIntosh, J., “Alys Key Family Care—A Demonstration Project of the Children's Protection Society—The Second Year of Service: New Growth”, Children's Protection Society, West Heidelberg, 1988.Google Scholar
2.
Pickett, J., and Manton, A., “The Multi Disciplinary Team in an Urban Setting: The Special Unit Concept”, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 3, pp. 115–121, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Doing Networks and Case Conferences, N.S.P.C.C. Rochdale Child Protection Team, Rochdale Area Review Training Sub-Committee.Google Scholar
5.
Waters, J., “Giving the Family Credit for Being Experts in Themselves”, Community Care, May 12, 1983.Google Scholar
6.
Hallet, C., and Stevenson, O., Child Abuse: Aspects of Interpersonal Co-operation, George Allen and Unwin: London, 1980.Google Scholar
7.
Davies, M., “Making Child Protection Services Effective”, Children's Protection Society News, Autumn, 1987.Google Scholar
8.
Dale, P., and Davies, M., “A Model of Intervention in Child-Abusing Families: A Wider Systems View”, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 9, pp. 449–455, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.
Craig, E.
Morrison, T., Roberts, W., Shearer, E., and Waters, J., “Promoting Change with Child Abusing Families”, N.S.P.C.C, Rochdale Child Abuse Training Committee, 1987.Google Scholar
10.
Molin, R., and Herskowitz, S., “Clinicians and Caseworkers: Issues in Consultation and Collaboration Regarding Protective Service Clients”, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 10, pp. 201–210, 1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.
Menzies, I.E.P., “A Case Study in the Function of Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety”, Human Relations, Vol. 12, pp. 95–121, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.
Cohen, M., and Molin, R., “Cause and Responses to Role Related Anxiety in a Social System: A Case Study of Anxiety in a Resident Advisor System”, Journal of Personality and Social Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 44–53, 1977.Google Scholar
13.
Dale, P., Waters, J., Davies, M., Roberts, W., and Morrison, T., “The Towers of Silence: Creative and Destructive Issues for Therapeutic Teams Dealing with Child Sexual Abuse”, Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 8, pp. 1–25, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar