This undertaking is based on a Foster attention appraisal of a prospective carer undertaken as a pupil societal worker. It gives an overview of my appraisal from allotment to cloture due to concerns. Although instantly allocated another more fruitful appraisal, I have chosen to look at this unsuccessful appraisal as I believe it taught me more as a pupil about my pattern.
An bureau description is foremost provided to give the reader a image of the squad which should set my function into context. This is followed by the background and aims of my work. The chief text follows the natural patterned advance of my work from be aftering to rating. I will analyze my work placing the societal work subjects, issues and theories that guided my pattern. Reflection acknowledges that we are portion of what we are sing ( Schon, 1983 ) ; looking at our relationships with service users beneath the surface ( Payne, 2002 ) . I will therefore reflect throughout this undertaking, instead than strictly at the terminal, as this is what I of course did in my pattern. This will take to a brooding rating of my pattern and the deductions it had for both me and the service user.
The bureau I was placed with was a statutory Foster attention squad within the local authorization ‘s kids ‘s services. Although the squad works more straight with surrogate carers it serves kids in demand between the ages of 0 and 16 and is hence classified as a Tier 4 service as shown below.
Fostering services in this local authorization were originally integrated amongst other service user groups, regulated by the Boarding-Out Regulations ( 1955 ) . These ordinances caused ambiguity by promoting surrogate carers to handle surrogate kids as their ain ( Triseliotis et al. , 1995 ) . In the 1970 ‘s, with the altering accent to the professionalization of fosterage, the squad bit by bit became a separate division. The 1955 ordinances were finally updated with the Boarding-out of Children ( Foster Placement ) Regulations ( 1988 ) which were later absorbed into the Children Act ( 1989 ) ordinances. Merely a few old ages subsequently the Foster Placement ( Children ) Regulations ( 1991 ) were introduced which changed the focal point of appraisal from families to single Foster parents. However, what both ordinances were missing was met in the constitution of the Fostering Services Regulations ( FCR ) ( 2002 ) and National Minimum Standards ( NMS ) ( Department of Health ( DoH ) , 2002 ) . These come under subdivisions 22 and 48 and 23 and 49 of the Care Standards Act ( 2000 ) severally. This changed the ordinance of the bureau from the local authorization itself to the National Care Standards Commission ( NCSC ) . The NCSC inspects how the bureau recruits, buttockss, supervises and trains surrogate carers. These four countries describe my function as a oversing societal worker within the squad.
Background to the Case
Monica is a 55 twelvemonth old female who had contacted the fosterage bureau with an involvement in going a surrogate carer. The procedure from public involvement to approved surrogate carer is complex and thorough. Each local Foster attention service will hold a similar but somewhat different process and the squad I was placed with used the procedure shown in figure 1.
Initial Home Visit
Application signifier sent and completed by Applicant
Full Assessment by Social Worker taking to Fostering Panel
Approved Foster Carer is allocated a Social Worker and begins furthering
Figure 1: The Fostering Assessment Process
When seeking to visualize the appraisal procedure for the reader, I felt a pyramid was the most appropriate. This is foremost because the broadness represents the greater personal investing a prospective carer must set into the fosterage procedure and secondly the deeper into their life a societal worker will and must travel. At each phase a prospective campaigner may hold a different societal worker. The initial place visit with Monica was conducted by another societal worker. The intent of this visit was to acquire a snap shooting of Monica ‘s suitableness and motive to further. The societal workers study is so presented to senior staff with recommendations and a determination is made as to whether an application signifier should be sent. Once returned, the following measure is to travel through a procedure that combines elements of appraisal and readying ( McColgan, 1991 ) . This is where my engagement with Monica began.
Aims of the Work
‘As good as strong fond regards to household members, surrogate carers or residential attention workers are truly of import for kids in attention, as these are the people who have the most impact on their daily experiences ‘ ( DCSF, 2008, p.11 )
‘Foster carers are cardinal to many kids and immature people ‘s experience of attention. It is indispensable that we value and back up them and guarantee that they are decently equipped with the necessary scope of accomplishments ‘ ( DfES, 2007, p.8-9 )
When measuring Monica I held the two statements above steadfastly in my head to utilize in times of uncertainness but besides clarity. It is good known that the enlisting and keeping of Foster carers has been systematically debatable for local governments ( Association of Directors of Social Services, 1997 ; Bebbington and Miles, 1990 ; Colton et al. 2008 ; Hill, 2000 ; NFCA, 1997 ) . Despite this, Quality Protects ( DoH, 1998 ) and the authorities ‘s launch of Choice Protects in 2002 ( see everychildmatters.gov.uk ) continually try to raise the quality of furthering proviso to better arrangement pick and stableness. The green paper ‘Every Child Matters ‘ ( DfES, 2003 ) and more late ‘Care Matters ‘ ( DfES, 2007 ) argue that Foster attention services need carers with the accomplishments to look after vulnerable kids.
In some states, such as Australia, the choice of Foster carers still has no empirical base beyond condemnable record cheques and suited adjustment ( Kennedy and Thorpe, 2006 ) . This was the past image in the UK, nevertheless the National Foster Care Association ( NFCA ) , now called The Fostering Network ( TFN ) introduced the ‘Codes of Practice ‘ ( NFCA, 1999a ) and ‘National Minimum Standards ‘ ( NFCA, 1999b ) for measuring surrogate carers. My appraisal of Monica would see her accomplishments, experience, values, cognition and overall suitableness to further kids for the local authorization. This was based on measuring her on four competences ( caring for kids ; supplying a safe and caring environment ; working as portion of a squad and ain development ) broken into 18 units ( Appendix A ) .
More late the Children ‘s Workforce Development Council ( CWDC ) has developed 7 criterions for surrogate carers ( 2007 ) ( Appendix B ) . The squad had merely begun utilizing these alongside the competences ( NFCA, 1999a, 1999b ) when I started Monica ‘s appraisal. The criterions support a three phase preparation model for Foster attention ( pre-approval ; initiation and surrogate carer development ) . Pre-approval was my nonsubjective with Monica linked to subdivision 27 ( 1 ) of the FCR ( 2002 ) ( Appendix C ) , and other relevant statute law ( Appendix D ) . Although the FCR ( 2002 ) are the legislative force, it was the NMS ( DoH, 2002 ) under subdivision 17 which gave me a more elaborate apprehension of the countries ( caring ability, sexual boundaries, faith etc ) necessitating measuring with Monica ( Appendix E ) .
Brown ( 1992 ) observes that a fosterage appraisal has two interrelated facets: ( a ) Evaluation of prospective carer ‘s strengths and failings and ( B ) the appraisal of their capacity to larn, adapt and alteration. These aims are still relevant to measuring surrogate carers today. Whilst I was measuring Monica on the competences and CWDC criterions, there is no standardized manner of obtaining the grounds for these. I therefore felt I had a batch of discretion in my appraisal. I decided multiple cognition beginnings ( research, intuition and experience etc ) would steer my appraisal. Webb ( 2001 ) argues that Evidence Based Practice ( EBP ) can non work in societal work as the farewell of facts and values inherent in EBP undermines professional opinion and discretion. I disagreed and felt the usage of both grounds and my ain intuition was needed to obtain an accurate appraisal of Monica. For illustration, research states a demand for carers committed to developing after blessing ( Hutchinson et al. , 2003 ) . However, I knew that merely because a carer agreed to developing after blessing that my intuition or pattern wisdom ( Stepney, 2000 ) may state me otherwise. Further, Sinclair ‘s ( 2005 ) research underscoring the demand for betterments in surrogate carer choice, I felt, justified my usage of multiple cognition beginnings to make my aims with Monica.
Planing for the Work
When foremost allocated the appraisal of Monica, I was in the first hebdomad of my arrangement and true had small apprehension of what really made a good Foster carer beyond my ain common sense. This deficiency of cognition and apprehension left me experiencing out of my deepness and dying. I hence decided that before doing any contact with Monica I would garner all available information and utilize my bing cognition base to see how it fitted with the fostering appraisal. Brown ( 1992 ) suggests that when nearing a fostering appraisal we should inquire ourselves a scope of inquiries. The three I found myself inquiring were: what knowledge do I need ; is the assessment discriminatory or oppressive and what accomplishments and values do I need.
Appraisal is at the Centre of all good societal work pattern ( Bartlett, 1970 ; Milner and O’Byrne, 2002 ) and therefore my planning was important as ‘failing to program is be aftering to neglect ‘ ( Trevithick, 2005, pg.140 ) . I wanted to utilize Monica ‘s initial place visit study as my get downing point, as appraisals are seldom, if of all time, value free ( Rees, 1991 ) . Therefore before I understood any more about the fosterage procedure I wanted to place and look into any prejudice I may hold that could impact the appraisal undertaken ( Clifford, 1998 ) . However I was surprised by the studies deficiency of item and hence spoke to the societal worker who completed it. He could n’t give me any extra information which frustrated me as the study, in my sentiment, failed to give the intended snapshot of Monica.
This did n’t assist alleviate my anxiousness, nevertheless reading the counsel ‘Assessing surrogate carers: A societal workers guide to competency appraisals ‘ ( NFCA, 2000 ) increased my assurance of what I was expected to accomplish in my appraisal with Monica. Using this counsel coupled with the NMS ( DoH, 2002 ) and colleague information placed the appraisal of Monica in my head as undertaking centred pattern ( Doel, 1994, 2002 ; Reid and Epstein, 1972 ) . This was because the undertakings involved were non merely activities but held significance because of what they represented overall ( Coulshead and Orme, 2006 ) ; the fosterage of vulnerable kids. As fostering appraisals vary in length, typically between 4 months and a twelvemonth, I saw the appraisal as a uninterrupted procedure ( Hepworth et al. , 1997 ) . Therefore although my assessment visits would be based around specific undertakings and information assemblage, my appraisal of Monica would follow the ASPIRE theoretical account ( Sutton, 1999 ) . This was because during my appraisal I would continually be after, step in, reappraisal and measure the appraisal with Monica.
Oppression and Control
From all available information beginnings, one issue rose within me. This was how intrusive the fostering appraisal appeared, and how for me, it epitomised the attention vs. control duality. Triseliotis et al. , ( 1995 ) believe that nowhere else are such inquiries asked with greater doggedness than in the appraisal of prospective Foster carers. They acknowledge that ways are being sought to do the procedure less intrusive and fairer to appliers. Although I saw the competences and criterions as one manner of accomplishing this with Monica, I still felt that I had a batch of power in her appraisal. Davis et al. , ( 1984 ) believe that the unequal power relationship between societal workers and appliers may advance the development of ‘a relationship of dependance ‘ instead than the type of unfastened partnership required in furthering today.
I viewed this unfastened partnership as being based on Monica ‘s ego finding which to be met began with Monica voluntarily accepting my intercession ( Spicker, 1990 ) . My original thought was that subjugation merely applied to vulnerable groups. However, I knew I should avoid complacence as subjugation could go on to anybody, including Monica. In fact Monica had begun a ‘Skills to Foster ‘ readying group and I had asked the facilitator of the group for some feedback. She described Monica as ‘an interesting one ‘ noticing that she looked like she was approximately to drop dead. I discovered this judgement was based strictly on her usage of a walking assistance. Understating the impact of labelling ( Becker, 1963 ; Lemert, 1972 ) , I did n’t desire this judgement to impact on me as I wanted to travel into Monica ‘s appraisal with an anti-oppressive, non judgmental and accepting attitude ( Biestek, 1961 ) .
Reflecting on my accomplishments and values
Cardinal to our cognition base is the demand to cognize ourselves ( Dominelli, 2002 ; Crisp et al. , 2003 ) . Effective appraisal depends on the deployment of cardinal accomplishments such as Engagement ( Egan, 2002 ) , communicating, dialogue, determination devising ( Watson and West, 2006 ) and administrative accomplishments ( Coulshead and Orme, 2006 ) . I felt I already possessed the accomplishments needed and found it was my values in relation to this appraisal that were more hard to nail.
As already stated, I did n’t desire to label Monica but I did see her as an ‘expert by experience ‘ instead than a ‘service user ‘ , which is descriptive non of her as a individual but of our relationship ( McLaughlin, 2009 ) . Although engagement in societal work is determined by context ( Kirby et al. , 2003 ; Warren, 2007 ) I saw our relationship as mutual. I found the exchange theoretical account ( Smale et al. , 2000 ; Fook, 2002 ) of appraisal was peculiarly relevant in measuring Monica ‘s ability to further kids, as she would evidently be more of an expert on her abilities. This really made me experience rather dying and powerless. This was, on contemplation, because as a adult male with no kids, I questioned my ability to measure an experient ex-childminding female parent. I took this to supervising and through treatment I understood that my virtuousness moralss ( McBeath and Webb, 2002 ) based on judgement, experience, apprehension, contemplation and temperament ; coupled with remaining client centred and esteeming Monica as an person ( Dominelli, 2002 ; Middleton, 1997 ) would steer my appraisal. I saw myself as a hermeneutic worker moving in a brooding interpretive procedure between myself and Monica ( Gadamer, 1981 ) .
I had telephoned Monica and arranged to run into at her place. As the bulk of my visits would be two manner conversations between me and Monica I saw them as interviews with a ‘specific and predetermined intent ‘ ( Barker, 2003, p. 227 ) .
Eyess of a kid
When set abouting Monica ‘s appraisal, I tried to see everything non merely from the eyes of a professional but besides that of a kid. I understood that kids in the attention system would hold diverse demands and backgrounds ( Schofield et al. , 2000 ) with perchance a complex history of moves ( Ward et al. , 2006 ) . However I besides knew that attention can be a ‘turning point ‘ and chance to raise kids, enabling them to carry through their possible ( Rutter, 1999 ; Schofield, 2001 ; Schofield and Beek, 2005 ) . Young people have commented that it is a surrogate carer ‘s personality that makes the difference ( DfES, 2007b ) . Therefore by believing like a kid, I wanted to experience confident that by urging Monica to the fostering panel I could see she would be of great comfort and benefit to vulnerable immature people.
Upon reaching at Monica ‘s I was greeted by two aggressive Canis familiariss leaping and barking at the door. A tall compact adult male, who I later learnt was her boy, appeared from the garage and asked what I wanted. When inquiring for Monica he replied ‘who wants to cognize ‘ . This ill will was shortly eased when I explained who I was, upon which he opened the door, called for Monica, and left me with both Canis familiariss leaping up at me. I felt that a kid come ining Monica ‘s place was likely to be sing a scope of emotions, including anxiousness and from the eyes of a kid this would be chilling. Despite non the best of starts, I was determined non to do a judgement at a superficial degree ( Lloyd and Taylor, 1995 ) and to maintain an unfastened head about Monica ‘s appraisal.
Constructing a resonance
Aware of the attention and control duality I wanted Monica to experience relaxed with me. I hence invested clip in acquiring to cognize approximately her as a individual before explicating the appraisal procedure. Although echt resonance can be questionable ( Feltham and Dryden, 1993 ) I felt my involvement in Monica was non-tokenistic, as I admired and respected her for desiring the ambitious function of furthering ( Kant, 1964 ) . I believe this was transmitted to her an enabled her to swear me.
Monica talked about her household including the separation from her hubby. She besides spoke about caring for her ill female parent that caused her serious back jobs. Monica explained that she had a trim room and could n’t believe of any better usage so for kids in demand of a loving place. Interestingly she went on to add ‘well they might non desire to come here, I ‘m a huffy lady and they might inquire: how would I suit into her universe ‘ . I found this look strange but following a gut feeling decided non to research at this point. I did this foremost because I did n’t desire to look autocratic but secondly I felt my appraisal would subsequently supply beginnings of information that my intuition would be tested against ( Munro, 1996 ) .
I explained the fostering appraisal procedure to Monica including the competences ( NFCA, 1999a ) and criterions ( CWDC, 2007 ) . I used a mixture of interpretive, descriptive and ground giving accounts ( Brown and Atkins, 1997 ) to guarantee Monica was clear of our hereafter work together. I commented ‘you might be believing how a immature adult male without kids of his ain can can measure me in looking after kids ‘ . This elicited laugher from both Monica and me. As Kadushin and Kadushin ( 1997 ) explain ‘laughter is an equaliser. It deflates ostentation. Workers ‘ capacity to express joy at themselves without embarrassment or shame communicates genuineness in the relationship ‘ ( pg. 225 ) . I besides believe it served a societal intent ( Foot, 1997 ) to switch power to Monica and do my following statement easier to present. I explained that in the fosterage appraisal it was expected that prospective campaigners were as unfastened and honest about their past experiences. I explained about confidentiality and that whilst non everything would be included in the fostering panel study, I could n’t vouch absolute confidentiality ( Evans and Harris, 2004 ; Millstein, 2000 ; Swain, 2006 ) . I explained I would ever inform her if I needed to unwrap information and that personal information with no relevancy to her fostering ability would stay confidential. I believe this account built the needed trust ( Collingridge et al. , 2001 ) necessity for our relationship to advancement ( Leever et al. , 2002 ) .
Due to being my first visit, no specific undertakings had been set to discourse. Therefore reflexively I thought about the group facilitators earlier remarks about Monica ‘dropping dead ‘ as I had noticed her walking assistance. I wanted to reflexivity dispute how I made sense of Monica ‘s fittingness ( White, 2001 ) by making more cognition about this ( D’Cruz et al. , 2007 ) and maintaining the power balanced towards her. We hence completed a needed medical questionnaire. Monica stated, ‘this is the spot I was worried about ‘ . Homing in on this anxiousness and apprehension that she may experience criticised ( Lishman, 1994 ) , I used reassurance to expose regard ( Clark, 2000 ) . I explained that I was non seeking to categorize her as either eligible or ineligible ( Fook, 2002 ) but a medical was expected of all carers. Monica explained that she was diabetic and was commanding this without her medicine and GP ‘s cognition. I explored this with Monica and the possible impact for a vulnerable kid, saying I would necessitate to discourse with my supervisor. Whilst traveling through the medical questionnaire Monica did n’t advert her mobility job and therefore I probed about this. This achieved its coveted consequence ( Egan, 2002 ) as I learnt that Monica was registered handicapped and had n’t been able to work for two old ages. Monica exclaimed ‘that ‘s it now is n’t it ‘ . I truly valued Monica and thanked her for being honest with me. I stated that I was really more concerned about the diabetes so her disablement. My ain values were that every bit long as a kid was safe, so any individual regardless of disablement should be able to further. I set Monica the undertaking of building her chronology to discourse in our following visit and left her place.
Supervision is non merely to help practician ‘s development ( Hawkins and Shohet, 2000 ) but besides the demands of service users ( Pritchard, 1995 ) . I raised my concerns environing Monica ‘s diabetes. I besides raised concerns environing the general province of Monica ‘s place which was highly run down, covered in Canis familiaris hairs and had peculiarly hapless air quality. Using the hierarchy of attentivenesss ( Maslow, 1954 ) I saw how of import the house would be in run intoing the kid ‘s basic demands and therefore its possible impact on a kid making self realization. Hazard has assumed increasing importance in societal workers day-to-day activities ( Webb, 2006 ) and I found my supervisor and senior practician urging we close the appraisal based on hazard. However I viewed the state of affairs from a preventive hazard position ( Corby, 1996 ) and felt that with work and support Monica could still further.
I put my instance to the squad director from a Disability Discrimination Act ( 1995 ) and Equality Act ( 2006 ) position, saying that there is a dominant political orientation of disablement where services tended to concentrate on incapacity ( Prime Minister ‘s Strategy Unit, 2005 ; Thompson, 2001 ) . However I saw possible in Monica due to raising her boy independently and her childminding experience. I was granted to go on with my appraisal if Monica could turn to her wellness and family issues. Dalrymple and Burke ( 2006 ) believe that critical argument about personal, professional and organisational values is indispensable in covering with ethical quandary. Although co-workers will hold different point of views ( Watson, 2006 ) , I felt my co-workers were moving habitually seeing Monica ‘s appraisal as impracticable. However I saw my function as besides ‘moral worker ‘ ( Hyden, 1996 ) and felt, with the attention vs. control and anti-oppressive pattern in my head, that Monica deserved the chance to do the necessary sensible accommodations.
Discussion around issues
On the 2nd visit I discussed the issues environing Monica ‘s diabetes and she agreed to see the GP and get down to command this once more. Her recognition that she was ‘just being obstinate and thought she knew best ‘ I believe showed that my actions were with her best involvements in head. I besides raised the topic of the cleanliness of her place. Monica did n’t experience at that place was an issue as she and her boy had lived at that place with no concerns. At first I questioned my values and whether I was enforcing them upon her. I reflexively began believing about the Human Rights Act ( 1998 ) Article 8 ‘Right to Respect for Family and Private Life ‘ . However I besides thought about how I felt when I had left after the first visit and once more took my point of view from a kid who would potentially be less healthy than me. Under Article 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ( 1990 ) ‘children have the right to a criterion of populating adequate to their physical, mental, religious, moral and societal development ‘ .
I explained to Monica that I was non seeking to enforce my values and believes upon how she lived and utilizing motivational interviewing ( Miller and Rollnick, 2002 ) asked her to compare her house with her friends places. I had used this method in my first arrangement and believed its usage in placing disagreements was movable. My usage of this method obtained its acquired affect as Monica stated that she knew her house could be a batch cleaner but because of her disablement she could n’t keep it. Researching this with job resolution ( Howe, 2007 ) identified the demand of her boy to assist keep the place, but Monica stated she did n’t desire to trouble him. I was holding trouble understanding how Monica ‘s boy fitted with her fosterage. From a systems theory position ( Goldstein, 1973 ; Specht and Vickery, 1977 ) I saw this as of import to Monica ‘s appraisal as he was her chief support and therefore his behavior would impact upon both her and kids placed with her. When believing about the appraisal of surrogate carers we should be turn toing whether or non the household system is ‘closed ‘ or ‘open ‘ ( Shaw, 1989 ) . An unfastened household system is one that is accepting of alteration and more likely to offer successful arrangements. Monica explained her boy was apathetic but supportive of her fosterage. I explained that I would necessitate to interview him individually to turn to this issue at a ulterior point in the appraisal.
I had asked Monica to finish her chronology which provides a history of important events in her life ( Parker and Bradely, 2007 ) . This was to measure one of the competences looking at how our ain experiences can impact us ( NFCA, 1999a ) . Monica discussed her life events but nil from her childhood. I asked her about her childhood and she said it was n’t of import. I used disputing to help farther ego contemplation and apprehension ( Millar et al. , 1992 ) . Monica asked me about my remarks in our first meeting about being unfastened and honest and whether I needed to cognize everything. I stated I merely needed to cognize things that would impact on her ability to further.
Monica began shouting and started to explicate to me that she had been sexually abused in childhood by her uncle. The information elicited took me by complete surprise and made me dying. I sat and listened to understand, sympathize and measure what Monica had disclosed ( Smith, 1997 ) . Reding techniques can be used across many societal work state of affairss ( Seden, 2005 ) and I felt I demonstrated the core/basic guidance accomplishments ( Rogers, 1951 ; 1961 ) required of societal workers ( Thompson, 2002 ) . However with something so entrenched and deep I felt I was n’t in the place to research this. Monica stated she wanted to go on and I hence asked Monica her it ‘s impact on her current life. She stated she still had the occasional ‘black ‘ twenty-four hours where she could n’t acquire out of bed. Care Matters ( DfES, 2007 ) states that we need carers who can ‘stand in the kid ‘s places ‘ ( p.46 ) to assist them modulate their feelings. Monica positively identified that she could sympathize with a sexually abused kid but so worryingly said that by speaking to a kid about their issues would assist barricade out her ain cheerless feelings. Anxiety can enrich the individuality of societal work pattern ( Miehls and Moffatt, 2000 ) . On speedy contemplation this anxiousness I felt enhanced the apprehension between me and Monica ( Ruch, 2002 ) and empowered her to state me that she still had her ain issues to turn to. Monica acknowledged that she had n’t thought about the maltreatment for 40 old ages believing her disablement caused her depression. I talked with Monica whilst waiting for her friend to get to guarantee she was safe before I left and stated I would shortly be in touch.
After the visit I compiled my notes utilizing a funnel attack to polish my information ( Parker and Penhale, 1998 ) into a study for senior staff. I used theory to offer answerability to all involved, including Monica, in my determination to shut her appraisal ( Payne, 2005 ) . This was based on standard 6.1 of the NMS ( DoH, 2002 ) in doing available ‘carers who provide a safe, healthy and nurturing environment ‘ ( p.11 ) . My co-workers supported my determination and said to direct Monica a shutting missive which I found insensitive and unacceptable. I wanted a more moral face to confront closing with Monica instead than a procedural closing ( Lloyd, 2006 ) as Monica had disclosed something highly personal to me and I respected her for this. Endings are planned from the beginning ( Kadushin and Kadushin, 1997 ) . The natural stoping would hold been showing Monica ‘s appraisal to the fostering panel. Alternatively our stoping was on different footings in which I provided Monica with a scope of local bureaus that could offer aid or reding to turn to her ain issues.
As stated at the beginning of this study, I decided to take this unsuccessful appraisal to analyze instead than my ulterior successful appraisal. This may look strange to the reader as the latter carers are now approved and furthering. However although I could compose in equal length about the more successful appraisal, it was Monica ‘s that taught me more about societal work and about myself.
I felt Monica ‘s appraisal demonstrated the acquisition and deployment of my cognition, accomplishments and values over the past two old ages. The wide scope of literature presented in this study pulls on old and new resources, showing the demand to systematically update my cognition in an of all time altering profession. Without this cognition I would ne’er hold been able to work with Monica. I believe my appraisal, communicating and interpersonal accomplishments demonstrated my competency ( O’Hagan, 1996 ) . This ensured a natural, about unconscious, usage of the ASPIRE theoretical account ( Sutton, 1999 ) throughout and intend I could accommodate to the state of affairs and react eclectically to Monica ‘s state of affairs due to its complexness ( Cheetham et al. , 1992 ) . Integrity ( BASW, 2002 ) has been the most important value throughout my preparation. I believe it incorporates all values such as Biestek ‘s ( 1961 ) rules. My unity ensured that I fought for the continuance of Monica ‘s appraisal at one point ; working anti-oppressively, non-discriminately and contending against societal unfairnesss ( BASW, 2002 ) .
However despite my strengths, I appreciate that ego cognition is cardinal to going a brooding practician ( Dominelli, 2002 ) ; necessitating an openness and ability to be self critical ( Trevithick, 2005 ) . With Monica ‘s appraisal I was reminded of how pattern is n’t straightforward and can invariably alter ( Parker and Bradley, 2007 ) . I went into this appraisal experiencing that everything would be distinct because Monica had been seen by another societal worker and therefore she must hold been a certainty for furthering. However my complacence and trust on other workers opinions did n’t fix me for the information I was subsequently to have. Uncertainty is an inevitable portion of human interaction and determination devising ( Roy at al. , 2002 ) and is something I need to appreciate more and continually turn to within myself. I feel another country that I could hold improved upon was concentrating more on Monica ‘s strengths as she demonstrated an interior resource in reacting to the day-to-day challenges in her life ( Kisthardt, 1992 ) . I feel that although my determination would non hold changed, in future pattern I need to maintain a steadfast clasp on service user strengths to appreciate that there is room in appraisal to concentrate on the cognitive accomplishments, get bying mechanisms, interpersonal accomplishments and societal supports that can be built on as strengths ( Pierson ( 2002 ) .
Although the appraisal had n’t gone every bit planned for Monica, I still believe it had some positive impact upon her. Monica ‘s childhood had been traumatic and I viewed this afterwards utilizing the Johari window ( Luft and Ingram, 1955 ) in figure 2 below. At first I had wondered whether Monica ‘s maltreatment was merely an facet of her concealed ego. However what struck me afterwards was that Monica stated ‘I have n’t thought about that in over 40 old ages ‘ . I had n’t attached any significance upon this statement, likely due to the emotiveness of the state of affairs. However upon contemplation I feel that Monica ‘s childhood maltreatment was portion of her unconscious ego that had been repressed as a defense mechanism mechanism ( Freud, 1949 ) .
Things we know about
Ourselves and others know
Things we know about
ourselves that others do
Thingss others know about
us that we do non cognize
Thingss neither we nor
others know about us
Figure 2: Johari Window ( Adapted from Luft and Ingham, 1955 )
Initially I felt that it may hold been incorrect for me to hold elicited such a strong emotion from Monica. However about 2 months subsequently I received a missive from her thanking me for my support. She was having guidance and although she acknowledged she had a long manner to travel commented that she had seen an betterment in her mobility. I am glad I ne’er pushed at what Monica meant when she commented ‘I ‘m a huffy lady ‘ as I believe my non-judgmental attitude and credence ( Biestek, 1961 ) ensured Monica discovered for herself what she meant by this statement.
My determination to shut Monica ‘s appraisal highlighted to me, as was my concern in my planning, that subjugation and power are built-in facets of the day-to-day lives of professionals ( Hugman, 1991 ) . In Monica ‘s instance, although I believe I was non-oppressive working with her, I still felt I processed a certain sum of power. O’Sullivan states that ‘effective determinations achieve the determination shaper ‘s end ‘ ( 2000, p.85 ) . My end was to measure Monica ‘s overall suitableness to further kids for the local authorization. I highlighted to the reader earlier that I held two statements in my head to utilize throughout Monica ‘s appraisal. Although non the make up one’s minding factor in my determination, they helped me to see that although I valued Monica and the strengths she possessed, her ain issues needed turn toing before going the cardinal figure to many vulnerable kids.
One article I have ever found influential is Howe ‘s ‘Modernity, Postmodernity and Social Work ‘ ( 1994 ) . Howe sees societal work as dwelling of ‘the beautiful ( aesthetics ) the good ( moralss ) and the true ( scientific discipline ) ‘ ( p.518 ) . The ‘beautiful ‘ is when we ‘care ‘ which I believe my actions for Monica demonstrated. The ‘true ‘ is where ‘change ‘ requires us to convey a matter-of-fact and scientific mentality on issues. I believe I used accumulated factual, pattern and self knowledge to assist Monica ‘s state of affairs. Finally the ‘good ‘ is when ‘control ‘ is employed if behavior has a possible impact upon the community ‘s overall good being. Control was, and still is, something I am uncomfortable with and believe this will ever be the instance. However I see in my pattern with Monica that some component of it was required, otherwise my pattern would hold convened against the rights of so many vulnerable kids.
Like many others, the ground I chose societal work was for the chance to do a difference ( Audit Commission, 2002 ) . Milner and O’Byrne ( 2002 ) believe there is no individual right manner to analyze human state of affairss but we need to happen the terminal merchandise of a narrative that is helpful to all concerned. With Monica ‘s appraisal I believe I achieved this by doing the difference non merely to her but besides to kids who I will ne’er even meet. It is with this satisfaction that I believe my work incorporates the moralss ( BASW, 2002 ) and pattern criterions ( GSCC, 2002 ) required of me post making.
5708- 296= 5412