a. Clarity
b. Specificity
c. Usefulness to student (will it help the student to get a better grade on next discussion question?)
d. Balance - does the feedback point out strengths in the discussion as well as areas of weakness?
e. Helpfulness - Does the feedback provide resources to assist student in further research?
The following is an example of “A” quality work. The discussion board question was, “What do you think are the most common mistakes made by social workers working in child protective services? What causes these mistakes to be made? How can these mistakes be avoided or reduced? Remember to consider the role of other agents or agencies in these decisions and the multiple party responsibilities in these situations.” The student’s answer is below:
I believe that some of the most common mistakes made by social workers working in child protective services are: “misidentifying serious cases, wrongful removal of children, inaccurate and incomplete data entry for tracking abuse and neglect and monitoring children in foster care, not establishing relationships with the families to make the necessary decisions, and hurting the children that they are supposed to protect.” I read an article that didn’t speak too favorably about child protection workers, but I believe the points made are very real. The article states that low salaries, high turnover rates, and staffing shortages put pressure on the remaining staff members of the agencies; this causes insufficient time for workers to establish relationships with the families and make the necessary decisions to ensure safe and stable permanent placements for the children. The heavy caseloads breed errors in documentation of case information. Another mistake is the unnecessary removals – misidentifying serious cases or wrongful removal of children. The article calls it “defensive social work.” It stated that child protection workers are possibly trying to protect themselves from liability (danger creation theory); if they question the safety of a child, they remove that child, which is also what they do when they actually identify safety risks for children in identifiable, abusive homes. It has been identified as the “better safe than sorry” mentality. Some child protection workers do not want to be held accountable for “inappropriately returning a child to an abusive parent” for fear of liability. What is most unfortunate is the fact that children can and are being hurt by abusive parents and/or child protection workers alike.
I think it is important to provide some additional oversight of child protection cases; have some form of checks and balances to ensure effective and efficient service provision. Agencies should address the recruitment and retention of its child protection workers so to ensure that the children and families are not being shuffled from one worker to another; this would increase the familiarity of the cases and reduce the number of cases per worker. Also, adequate documentation should be kept to help back up the claims of child abuse and neglect. Adequate documentation can also help in identifying what interventions are working within the agency and with the child protection workers. And, what I think is most important to the accuracy and efficiency of providing services to children and families is to engage in self evaluations at the agency and personal level. Agencies can evaluate whether or not their vision, mission, and values all support creating better results for children and families. Child protection workers can evaluate who they are, including, what their morals and values are, what biases they may have, and what drives them to do what they do. Regular self evaluations are necessary for providing children and families the best possible assistance and can also ensure better results for children and families.
Works Cited:
A Critical Look at Child Welfare: Defensive Social Work, 5 Feb 2005, Rick Thomas. 6 Feb. 2005 http://www.liftingtheveil.org/defensive.htm
Alexander, R., Jr., Understanding Legal Concepts That Influence Social Welfare Policy and Practice, 2003, Brooks/Cole Publishers. ISBN: 0-534-59661-4
Child Welfare: Improved Federal Oversight Could Assist States In Overcoming Key Challenges GAO-04-418T, 28 Jan. 2004, Government Accountability Office (GAO): Report Abstract. 6 Feb. 2005 http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A09174&rptno=GAO-04-41
The following is a response to another student’s post. This response is also “A: quality work:
I can understand your concern for the safety of others when a threat of harm has been established. My only concern is that maybe we (me included) are forgetting that sometimes people say things out of anger and with a limited vocabulary or means to express themselves completely. For instance, a mother speaking about the way she feels when her adolescent daughter stays out all night without calling. The mother, out of pure anger says, “I am going to strangle that child when I see her!” Do you automatically report this information to the authorities or the Department of Social Services? I wouldn’t. What I would do is reflect back to the client the message that I am receiving. I might follow up with, “It sounds like you are angry with your daughter because of her behavior. Is strangling her something that you would do?” Not saying that this mother would not strangle her daughter, but she may have used those terms for lack of better word choices. Like using the terms, “I could kill ‘em.” I think it is important to get as much information from the client as possible. Now if the mother says to you, “When my daughter walks in the door, I am going to walk up to her, put my hands around her neck, and choke her until she can no longer breathe and falls over lifeless” there is definite reason to be alarmed and to contact the authorities. Sometimes clients don’t have the “words” to express themselves or their feelings. They use what they know…regardless of how incriminating it can sometimes be. Just something to consider.
Grading Scale:
Perfect = 10 points
A+ = 9.85 points
A = 9.5 points
A- = 9.15 points
B+ = 8.85 points
B = 8.5 points
B- = 8.15 points
C+ = 7.85 points
C = 7.5 points
C- = 7.15 points
D+ = 6.85 points
D = 6.5 points
D- = 6.15 points
If there are two discussion board questions assigned, I add the scores. For example, if you received a 9.5 on one, and a 8.15 on another, your score would be 17.65 out of 20. If there were two questions due and you only did one question, and received a 9.5, your score would be a 9.5 out of 20.
If there are four discussion board responses due, I generally look at all four and come up with a grade such as overall “B” quality work, and you earn an 8.5 out of 10. However, if you only do three of the responses due, this will be adjusted so that you get a B for three and a “0” for one, bringing your overall grade to 6.375 points out of 10.