Aiming higher: more than “on the job” training for residential child care workers
| Date | 12 March 2014 |
| Published date | 12 March 2014 |
| Pages | 42-57 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-12-2013-0037 |
| Author | Jan Nordoff,Iolo Madoc-Jones |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services |
Aiming higher: more than “on the job”
training for residential child
care workers
Jan Nordoff and Iolo Madoc-Jones
Jan Nordoff is a Senior
Lecturer at Education
Department, Glyndwr
University, Wrexham, UK.
Dr Iolo Madoc-Jones is a
Principal Lecturer in Social
Sciences, at the Applied
Social Sciences Department,
Glyndwr University,
Wrexham, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – Children who enter the care system in England and Wales are among some of the most
vulnerable children in society, often presenting with high levels of need. Ensuring that the children’s
workforce has the skills and knowledge to meet the challenges of caring for this group of children has been
at the forefront of policy agendas over the past two decades. This paper aims to report on an educational
initiative to develop the capacity of residential childcare staff to work therapeutically with children.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes the origins and nature of the Foundation Degree
in Therapeutic Childcare and documents the reflections of tutors responsible for delivering the programme
on their experiences. Comments from a small student sample are included to highlight the student
perspective in studying for the Foundation Degree.
Findings – The paper concludes that while some barriers exist in delivering the Foundation Degree to
residential child care workers, programmes designed to develop knowledge and understanding of working
therapeutically with children should be promoted.
Originality/value – The paper highlights some of the issues and challenges associated with educating the
children’s workforce and reports back on one of the first Foundation Degrees in the UK focusing on
residential and foster care workers.
Keywords Higher education, Blended learning, Training, Therapeutic childcare
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A number of studies highlight flaws in the social care system for children in England and Wales
(Jackson and McParlin, 2006; Meltzer et al., 2003, 2004; Sergeant, 2006). Whereas many
European countries view residential care as the first choice of placement for children providing
specialist therapeutic support, residential work in the UK is often portrayed as “generally
bleak, depicting episodes of abuse, poor outcomes for children across a range of measures,
low levels of qualifications and low staff morale” (Smith, 2009, p. 1). While many people would
argue that this description fails to acknowledge the “many pockets of good practice that exist”
(Smith, 2009, p. 165), nonetheless compared to the wider population, outcomes for children
“looked after” remain troubling (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2006; Petrie et al.,
2006).
Identifying areas for improvement within the care system has been at the forefront of research
(Chase et al., 2006) and a number of policy agendas attest the importance given to skilling-up
the social care workforce. The Every Child Matters Children’s’ Workforce Strategy (Department
of Education and Skills, 2005, p. 3) announced the development of a “world class workforce”,
while the later Change for Children 2020 Children and Young Peoples Workforce Strategy
(Department for Children Schools and Families, 2008) acknowledged the importance of staff
development and high quality training for care staff.
PAGE 42
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
VOL. 9 NO. 1 2014, pp. 42-57, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660 DOI 10.1108/JCS-12-2013-0037
At any one time only a very small proportion of children are “looked after” in the UK, and a large
percentage of these will return to their families within six months (Polnay and May, 2000).Those
who enter the system, but especially those who remain in long-term care, are among the most
vulnerable children in society. Many children have complex needs, most of which derive from
neglect (Bebbington and Miles, 1989) and/or physical and sexual abuse (Dixon and Stein, 2005).
Thus, while children looked after share many common health issues with non-looked after
children, these may be exacerbated due to abuse and neglect (Royal College of Nursing and the
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2012).
Consequently children looked after often fare less well across a number of domains, like health
and education. A report by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics
and Child Health (2012), highlights a greater incidence of poor mental health and/or emotional
wellbeing for children in care with the estimated figure rising from 45 to 72 per cent for children in
residential settings compared to just 10 per cent of all children aged five to 15 years (The Royal
College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2012). Despite some
improvements in educational attainment, figures show that while 58 per cent of the general
population achieved five GCSE A-Cs or equivalent, 15 per cent of looked after children attained
the same results (Department of Health, 2013). Children looked after are also twice as likely to be
permanently excluded from school and three times more likely to experience fixed term
exclusions (Department of Health, 2013). They are also more likely to come to the notice of the
criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Board, the non-governmental department charged
with overseeing youth justice services in England and Wales, estimates that 24 per cent
of children in the secure estate have spent some time in care prior to custody, suggesting an
over-representation of looked after children in custody. Care leavers are also known to
experience a cluster of difficulties, for example, disrupted career pathways, unemployment and
welfare benefit dependency (Stein, 2006), while Jackson and McParlin (2006) highlight periodic
episodes of homelessness as particularly relevant to care leavers.
Smith’s (2009, p. vi) assertion that residential care provides children with “respite, solace,
opportunities and emotional commitment through relationships”, while undoubtedly an accurate
depiction of many therapeutic settings, is not replicated across the broad spectrum of
placements offered to children. Many find themselves in placements driven by cost as opposed
to meeting the complex needs of children whose lives have been impacted by abuse and
neglect. In the past, the potential for care services to compensate for painful childhoods was not
always explicitly understood (Parker et al., 1991). Care often revolved around core day-to-day
tasks like ensuring children got to school and provision of accommodation until the child
reached adulthood. Indeed, a number of enquiries have highlighted that in some settings, rather
than compensating for previous deficits, the experience of residential care has further harmed
children (Utting, 1991, 1997; Wagner, 1988; Heron and Chakrabarti, 2002). The “Pindown”
Inquiry into institutional abuse of children in a care home in Staffordshire, for example, concluded
that practice was “intrinsically unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable” (Levy and Kahan,
1991, p. 167), while the later Waterhouse Inquiry (2000) into the abuse of children in care across
North Wales and the subsequent publication “Lost in care report” replicated widespread failings
in some residential settings to protect and safeguard children.
Since then, and perhaps not unsurprisingly, “a flurry of governmental activity” has taken place
attesting to the intention to improve outcomes for children in care (Williams, 2008, p. 195).
Following the Waterhouse Inquiry, the Conservative government was swift to act producing the
Quality Protects programme in England and the Children First Initiatives (Wales). The policies
shared common features in that they included direction around “targeting, provision, evaluation
and accountability of children’s services and recognition that enabling looked after children to
have a voice”, and were critical to improving the care that children receive and improving
outcomes for children (Williams, 2008, p. 195). While the Every Child Matters (England) agenda
and Children and Young People: Rights to Action (Wales) agenda underpin universal services to
all children, they especially seek to improve outcomes for groups of children known to require
additional need help and support. Thus in Every Child Matters (Department of Education and
Skills, 2004) and the accompanying Care Matters (Department for Education and Skills (DfES),
2007), policies specified by the Government sought to lay the foundations to “level the playing
VOL. 9 NO. 1 2014
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
PAGE 43
To continue reading
Request your trial