Child Welfare Wisdom

The guest author of Child Welfare Wisdom is a current leader and administrator with over 3 decades of experience in public child welfare. The author will be regularly offering commentary reflecting the wisdom and perspective gained from a long-time passion for and commitment to public child welfare issues.

Any of the opinions expressed within Child Welfare Wisdom do not necessarily represent those of ACTION for Child Protection, Inc. or any of its staff.

October

Documentation and the Laying on of Hands

Someone once coined the phrase “The Information Age” to describe our current culture. Supposedly, the improvements in communication have changed the focus from heavy industry and manufacturing to information management. Because we now have access to vast amounts of data the challenge is how to arrange and maintain that data in a usable format. The rewards will go to those who can do so and those who can’t will not prosper.

There is no arguing the fact that, in general, we are awash in a sea of messages thanks in large part to the Internet and e mail. Personally, I find much of what I receive of dubious quality and value. I would describe some of the personal notes as a new form of literature which I characterize as “The stream of unconsciousness”.

In my experience child welfare records have often been spared the effects of the information explosion. This is not necessarily a good or desirable phenomenon.

In far too many child welfare records critical information is inadequately addressed. It would be one thing if these records were composed of carefully chosen words that captured the essence of the case without a lot of excess verbiage. The sad truth is that many records are incomplete. This is most notable when assignments change. The new worker must start over because the record does not contain needed information.

I have heard workers defend this lack of documentation by complaining that excessive recording requirements use up time that could be better spent on practicing social work. This is what I would describe as the religious approach to child welfare.

If we don’t have a well thought out plan that can be reviewed, discussed, analyzed and changed as necessary then how do we practice? If important decisions and the rationale for those decisions are not captured in the record then how does a supervisor know whether or not to approve a worker’s actions?

Absent sufficient documentation child welfare becomes a religious experience between worker and family which I think of as the laying on of hands. The worker practices some arcane, liturgical rights and the client either responds or not. Since we do not have the information to judge the worker’s actions then any fault that arises must be put down to the client.

Amazingly, these practices are, if not encouraged, at least accepted by supervisors and administrators who ought to know better and ought to insist on different standards.

What should we do to improve documentation? I have a few suggestions.

First, we should educate staff about the proper perspective towards case records. I have heard staff refer to our records more times than I can count. These are not our records. Theses records belong to clients and we hold them in trust. Think about how you would feel if you asked the bank or your doctor for your information only to be told that the records belonged to the institution or the physician and not you.

Second, administrators must insist that supervisors use case records. If no one conducts a periodic, critical review of a record then what does it matter if the record is incomplete or the information does not make sense? Records can be one of the most valuable and powerful teaching tools available if we will use them as such.

Third, as much as it irritates me to say it, administrators will need to invest in some remedial education to teach staff how to write critically. I am irritated because our educational systems from elementary to graduate school are not doing their job of helping their students learn to write. It seems unfair to be forced to address this failure but not doing so is self defeating.

Lastly, supervisors and administrators must continue to stress and reinforce the structured nature of decision making in child welfare. There is, or should be, in every child welfare program a logical set of decision making protocols. We can not justify what we do by relying on the laying on of hands.