News

New research examines the links between child abuse deaths and violence against child protection workers. Chris Goddard and Janet Stanley discuss their findings.

The failures of child protection services have preoccupied health and welfare professions for 30 years. Media interest is international. The dead children form a litany to which the media return: in the UK, Kimberley Carlile, Tyra Henry, Susan Auckland; in New Zealand, James Whakaruru; in the US, Danzel Bailey; in Australia, Daniel Valerio.

Media attention has been merciless towards social workers and others involved. The Victoria Climbie Inquiry prompted an editorial in The Daily Telegraph entitled "Anti-social workers". The newspaper called for "the abolition of social worker training" which has "only one effect", turning trainees into people who are "incapable of seeing the blindingly obvious".¹

Research undertaken during the past 14 years at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, suggests that a new perspective is required if we are to understand child protection failures that result in death. The research links child abuse deaths with another topic receiving extensive coverage in Community Care - violence against social care staff.

Our research, published last month, suggests that there are links between the trauma and isolation experienced by child protection workers at the hands of child-abusing families and the re-abuse of children known to protective services.² In addition, we propose that the full extent and impact of all violence occurring in and around families - including actual and threatened violence to social care staff - needs to be understood. The findings are based on interviews with child protection workers and rigorous analysis of their cases. Some major points are summarised below.

The need for partnerships with parents who assault, abuse or neglect their children, for example, is stressed. Little is offered to the child protection worker where such partnerships are impossible or unsafe because of violence. Much of the child protection literature has failed to make important connections or to resolve significant contradictions.

- Violence is too narrowly defined. Power is regarded as residing almost exclusively with the social worker. Where the existence of violence is acknowledged the gulf between theory and practice is exacerbated by defining violence too narrowly. The report of the National Task Force on Violence Against Social Care Staff acknowledges that the threat and impact of violence against social workers can be very severe because they may be alone when it occurs. Verbal abuse and threatening behaviour are recognised. Yet there is still a preoccupation with physical violence in the definition used.³

We need to pay more attention to the all-pervasive and cumulative atmosphere of violence that may involve many people, and may have significant effects on practice. Until such connections are made, training and improved procedures will not safeguard seriously abused children.

- Too much focus on the wrong cases. Another deficit in research has been the dearth of studies that examine what happens to children who are referred to protective services. Research has concentrated on what causes the abuse of children, with little on what is effective practice once serious abuse has occurred^.4

The Monash University research concentrated on a sample of children who were on a legal protection order because of assault, abuse or neglect. Therefore the study examined the most serious cases. We need more research into serious non-fatal assault, abuse and neglect. As has been noted in the US, luck may play a "major role" in deciding which children survive and which children die.⁵

- Violence against front-line staff is only part of the violence present in serious cases. Domestic violence was present in more than 60 per cent of the cases analysed. Severe drug abuse, and suicide threats and attempts were present in nearly 80 per cent. Criminal and anti-social activities outside the family were prevalent.

Much of the literature on fatal child abuse and many of the child abuse inquiries have failed to make these connections. Our analysis of material available in the US, UK and Australia suggests that these studies have not closely examined the connections between the assault, abuse and/or neglect of children, and the other violence inside and outside the family (including violence against workers). Where other violence is acknowledged, it is too often minimised.

- Workers can be traumatised in many ways. Many deal regularly with the victims of serious abuse. As a result, social care staff may be subject to secondary traumatisation, in addition to violence to themselves. Lack of support can compound the trauma and this is another component in child protection failures that requires more rigorous examination. Little attention has been paid to the issue of whether workers feel supported or isolated in their work. The connections between trauma and isolation have been noted in the literature on traumatic stress. Research suggests that those already disconnected or disempowered may be at greater risk.⁶

Our findings indicate that, in addition to an extraordinary amount of actual and threatened violence, some workers felt that they lacked the support of their employers. Many felt unsupported by other agencies, and a significant percentage struggled to integrate theory and practice. Supervisors concentrated on bureaucratic and procedural elements, rather than recognising that workers were subject to multiple and interrelated stress.

We recognise that there are many possible causes of child protection failure. We acknowledge that many complex factors are interconnected, and may affect outcomes in a variety of ways. Our research, however, suggests that the intimidation and violence experienced by workers may have a dramatic impact on practice.

In suggesting this we are not blaming individual child protection workers. It would be extraordinary if the violence partially summarised above did not affect child protection practice. Some child protection workers are subject to multiple and interrelated stress and receive little assistance.

This trauma and isolation may lead some workers to develop defences in response to the need for self-preservation and relief from overwhelming stress. These defences, such as denial, rationalisation, intellectualisation, even identification with the aggressor, serve appropriate functions, but may obstruct the accurate evaluation of the safety of the home.

Our research suggests that this happens in some cases. Seriously abused children were not protected. A highly significant statistical relationship was found between those workers who had experienced the greatest violence and who felt the most isolated, and those displaying the greatest use of defences.

These workers also experienced strong feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. We found practical and measurable examples of this hostage-like behaviour. Workers consistently under-recalled, for example, the extent of violence in the families for whom they were responsible. Protection and support for child protection workers is essential if children are to be protected. Violence against and intimidation of social workers must be treated as seriously as child abuse and neglect. Regular and high quality supervision is essential. Workers need assistance to face, and appropriately respond to, the totality of violence and the traumatic nature of some child protection work. CC

Extent of violence

The full extent of violence is still not recognised. Being yelled at, sworn at, or subjected to other verbal aggression was an almost everyday occurrence. Of 50 randomly selected front-line child protection workers, in the six-months prior to interview:

- 23 had received at least one death threat.

- 12 had been assaulted.

- 22 had been threatened with assault.

- Five had been threatened with sexual assault.

- 42 had been threatened with complaints to superiors, politicians or the press, and 28 had actually been the subject of such complaints.

- In addition, there were many other forms of intimidation, such as blocking exits and the use of dogs.

Source: In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work

Christopher Goddard is an associate professor and Janet Stanley is a research assistant at the school of primary health care, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

References

¹ "Anti-social workers", The Daily Telegraph, 9 December 2001

² J Stanley and C Goddard, In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work, John Wiley, 2002

³ National Task Force on Violence Against Social Care Staff, Report and National Action Plan, 2001, is available at www.doh.gov.uk/violencetaskforce/natactplan.htm  

⁴ E Farmer and M Owen, Child Protection Practice: Private Risks and Public Remedies, HMSO, 1995

⁵ US Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, A Nation's Shame, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC, 1995

⁶ J Herman, Trauma and Recovery, Basic Books, 1992