Discussion Response

I have worked with a variety of vulnerable populations in several capacities during my career as a helping professional. Each population has a system that has been developed, both formally and informally, to meet the needs of people supported within that system. More often than not, there is overlap between two or more systems intent on meeting the needs of an individual or group (sometimes the group is a family unit). Competing practices, priorities, and agendas oftentimes interfere with the authentic collaboration between these systems.

The U.S. child welfare system perpetuates many of the problems it was designed to alleviate. Its intended design to stabilize families and improve the lives of children has struggled to achieve the designed outcomes (Goering, 2018). This system seems to struggle implementing evidence-based practices likely due to the heterogeneity of children and families. Most reports in the US are not substantiated and service provision through child welfare system referral has not been shown to be reliable (Finkelhor, 2018). It is also not clear that the child welfare system services actually reduce abuse.

I’ve noticed troubling trends working in and parallel to the child welfare system. The first of these trends is the predominance of a “savior” attitude among child welfare workers. Second is a tendency to function more on experience and intuition rather than facts and interventions supported by research. Finally, the child welfare system oftentimes fails to contemplate the consequences of its workers actions. These trends open the child welfare system to significant likelihood worker and organizational bias.

To clarify, these trends make the child welfare system challenging to work in and with. The system seems to attract workers intent on “fixing” families and/or “saving” children and who rely on their own experiences and stereotypes to solve complex ecological problems. Within the child welfare system, actions can be disempowering and oppressive (Skinner-Osei, 2018). These dynamics can perpetuate the negative effects on psychosocial development, behavioral and emotional regulation, and relational patterns that are persistent in many children and families involved with the child welfare system, as well as, make the system difficult to collaborate with.

Response Guidelines

Review the learner’s analysis of how to balance children’s rights with their need for protection. Offer feedback on how to improve this balance.

1.Michelle Drayton

When I define child advocacy, I define has fighting for children and their rights. The right to be a child and to have all things that children have. It also means fighting for them to have what they need as well as the respect they deserve. Advocating, means that you are going to be going up against the grain to have that for that child. Where I used to work, where it was working with children that had special healthcare needs, we were always working for those children to have the same opportunities and rights as typical children. Children are automatically in need of protection as soon as they are born. As babies, they are entitled to being fed, loved, sheltered and allowed to thrive in a healthy environment. That’s the balance, you must fight for both at the same time.

In communicating the rights and issues of children, it is important to educate the listener. Before we can say that they are against this idea or they don’t support, we must first educate them and then get their feedback. Once you know better, you do better. Many people don’t understand what parents of children with special healthcare needs go through and what their children need. They require many accommodations from home environment to the school environment and everything that they have now down to Medicaid waivers has been advocated for by a parent or an advocacy group.