'Systems Generated Trauma' Conference. Summary of key information delivered.
Campaign to Challenge Blame 2024
Hello everyone,
In this newsletter I am providing a succinct overview to the conference I attended earlier in July - ‘Systems Generated Trauma’. Facilitated by the University of Leeds (LEAP project) and Cerebra.
In my newsletter for August (2024), I will take a more analytical focus around what actions will be necessary to tackle parent-carer blame in relation to autistic families and summarise the voices of parent-carers.
Summaries of conference key speakers and videos of their presentations can be accessed here:
Building practical solutions for traumatised families - Cerebra
Here is my ‘whistle stop conference guide’ for time limited people:
Elly Chapple
Spoke about the concept of institutional ACE’s (adverse childhood experiences). That adverse experiences can happen to children outside of the home environment and outside of the parent’s control, and that this can be caused by the institutions our children are exposed to (schools, health services).
It is the system that is ‘complex’, not the child.
Language use matters - it is not the parents that are difficult, rather they are experiencing a difficult time.
Remember - the state is a servant to those with ‘additional needs’. (Sir James Murby)
Professor Luke Clements
Parent-carer blame stems from legislative (application) and guidance problems.
Children’s Services are overly focused on child homicides despite the number of child homicides per year remaining unchanged (over forty years).
Children’s Services can be seen as a surveillance system, not a welfare system.
The prevalence of FII (Fabricated and Induced Illness) is difficult to ascertain because it isn’t always recorded explicitly as such - there is a discrepancy between recorded numbers of FII obtained via Freedom of Information Requests and information being presented by parent-carers.
Spoke about the unique experiences of adoptive parents who, when approaching specialist SEND services, are told issues are attachment related. Adoptive parents are highly screened during adoption process yet still experience being blamed when seeking health and social care services.
A point was raised via audience - that services want to pass the risk and responsibility (associated with the provision of specialist services) onto other providers.
Dr Peter Baker
Conducted NHS England funded research around the trauma experienced by family carers. Research conducted with 214 participants. All of whom reported at least one identifier of CPTSD (Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), for which they received little to no help.
Identified the diagnostic labelling of a parent-carer with CPTSD as problematic as this encourages focus to remain on the individual rather than to focus upon the causation by systems and services.
Concludes that trauma caused by services is predictable and therefore is preventable.
Mary Busk
Spoke about the double standards present within health and social services in relation to residential services, pointing to examples highlighting that if certain issues for a child or young person were to occur within a home environment, safeguarding concerns would be raised.
Spoke about how funding panels are often conducted in secret, with no transparency and therefore little accountability.
Also spoke about there being a lack of ‘corporate memory’ in relation to a child or young person but in contrast, families do retain longevity of information.
Cerebra
Highlighted how GP systems and medical records retain safeguarding flags on their systems indefinitely.
There is no national guidance relating to how safeguarding concerns should be flagged or recorded on GP records - individual trusts hold guidance, but this is not consistent nationally.
Child Protection flags and alerts will remain connected to patient (and parent) GP records until the GP practice decides it is appropriate to remove, which they can only do by entering a ‘kill code’.
Professor Andy Bilson
From 2010, there has been a 152% increase in S47 investigations, however, this increase has only led to a 44% increase in children being placed on Child Protection Plans. Therefore, Local Authorities are not seeing an increase in harm.
The number of safeguarding investigations that are NOT finding harm has increased by 265%.
Bilson projects (from previous statistics) that in 2023, 1 in 12 children were investigated via safeguarding procedures, and that 1 in 14 children were placed on a Child Protection Plan by the age of 18.
If families reside in the poorest tenth of the country, 1 in 7 children will be on a Child Protection Plan.
Does Child Protection reduce harm? There is no clear evidence that safeguarding policies and safeguarding investigations reduce child maltreatment.
Children’s Services operate via the concept of ‘collateral damage’ - with there being a high rate of unnecessary safeguarding investigation to ‘catch’ the true cases of abuse.
The largest category of abuse is ‘neglect’, which is vague (as a definition), and which can include poverty and disability - there is no need for substantive evidence.
Outcomes for care experienced children and young people are poor - there is an increased risk of death and / or criminality.
The concept of ‘future emotional harm’ - there has been a stepped increase within certain Local Authorities in terms of instigating Child Protection Plans for this reason.
(Note, the data referred to within this newsletter is from the UK)
As always, I hope this newsletter is useful.
My best wishes,
Alice X
alicerunningwriter@gmail.com
I’m so glad I found this newsletter!!!