Why we should listen

1. Why we should listen Good practice with black minority ethnic families Beverley Prevatt Goldstein bpg@blueyonder.co.uk Challenge-bombarded with information and initiatives Make the case for why we should listen, then move on to what we should hearChallenge-bombarded with information and initiatives Make the case for why we should listen, then move on to what we should hear

2. Why we should listen Professional arguments Organisational arguments Research identifying inadequate practice This research Aims Research process Multiple voices Diverse voices Transferable Ethical imperative We�ll go through briefly-why we should listenWe�ll go through briefly-why we should listen

3. The professional argument The General Social Care Council Code of Practice The guidance in the Public Law Outline The guidance to Cafcass court reports Start with the professional argument: The General Social Care Council Code of Practice which mandates �promoting equal opportunities for service users and carers; respecting diversity and different cultures and values; and using established processes and procedures to challenge and report dangerous, abusive, discriminatory or exploitative behaviour and practice� (GSCC, 2002). Practice Direction 6 of the Public Law Outline (Ministry of Justice, 2008) enables the court to consider the implications of evidence on ethnicity, language, religion and culture for the child. Replaced Protocol of judicial case management in public law Children Act cases Guidance-known to you and another imperative-both professional and organisationalStart with the professional argument: The General Social Care Council Code of Practice which mandates �promoting equal opportunities for service users and carers; respecting diversity and different cultures and values; and using established processes and procedures to challenge and report dangerous, abusive, discriminatory or exploitative behaviour and practice� (GSCC, 2002). Practice Direction 6 of the Public Law Outline (Ministry of Justice, 2008) enables the court to consider the implications of evidence on ethnicity, language, religion and culture for the child. Replaced Protocol of judicial case management in public law Children Act cases Guidance-known to you and another imperative-both professional and organisational

4. Guidance for Cafcass court reports The child�s ethnic origin, religion, language and cultural background [should be described briefly in the family composition]. The child�s ethnic origin, religion, language and cultural background [should be included fully under child�s identity]. The parties� ethnic origin, religion, language and cultural background [should be included]. The relevance and importance of issues of diversity (e.g. disability, heritage, culture, religion, etc) for the child�s learning and development [should be considered in section d of the welfare checklist]. Also: Diversity issues must be addressed. The information in the report should be non-discriminatory. Did these professional imperatives have an impact? The author�s research revealed that only 27% of the 92 reports had substantive information on any aspect of culture of the adult parties and 37% on the child in question. Four of the 26 practitioners interviewed stated that the judges would not be interested in information on culture Onto organisational imperatives Also: Diversity issues must be addressed. The information in the report should be non-discriminatory. Did these professional imperatives have an impact? The author�s research revealed that only 27% of the 92 reports had substantive information on any aspect of culture of the adult parties and 37% on the child in question. Four of the 26 practitioners interviewed stated that the judges would not be interested in information on culture Onto organisational imperatives

5. The organisational argument The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 10.5% of public law service users are black minority ethnic !3.5% of private law service users are black minority ethnic The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 which places a statutory duty on public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. Employees are also individually obliged by The Race Relations Act 1976 and its 2003 Amendment not to discriminate. However, ignoring the significance or impact of �race�/racism and culture in practice with service users may not be understood as discriminating by all practitioners. In the author�s research, no practitioner alluded to the legislation, though one practitioner considered that the external scrutiny of the organisation�s performance had prompted organisational concern with practice on �race� and culture. Large numbers may dictate organisational attention: 2006-2007 in Brown and Davies, 2007 South Asians-4.2% public law; 9% private law: Africans-2.9% public law; 1.7% private law; Caribbeans-5.4% public law; 2.8% private law Haven�t counted black other, mixed other, ethnic other.These are individuals-excludes mixed families so white individuals in mixed families- Figures include mixed with white-small proportion except for Caribbeans 2.4% Caribbeans in public law, 3% mixed; 1.5 % Caribbeans in private law, 1.3% mixed. [S Asians 4.5% of England pop; Africans 1%; Caribbeans 1%; Caribbean and white 0.5%, Census data 2001] Are numbers enough? Small numbers for many practitioners and is it a numbers game for professional practice.The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 which places a statutory duty on public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. Employees are also individually obliged by The Race Relations Act 1976 and its 2003 Amendment not to discriminate. However, ignoring the significance or impact of �race�/racism and culture in practice with service users may not be understood as discriminating by all practitioners. In the author�s research, no practitioner alluded to the legislation, though one practitioner considered that the external scrutiny of the organisation�s performance had prompted organisational concern with practice on �race� and culture. Large numbers may dictate organisational attention: 2006-2007 in Brown and Davies, 2007 South Asians-4.2% public law; 9% private law: Africans-2.9% public law; 1.7% private law; Caribbeans-5.4% public law; 2.8% private law Haven�t counted black other, mixed other, ethnic other.These are individuals-excludes mixed families so white individuals in mixed families- Figures include mixed with white-small proportion except for Caribbeans 2.4% Caribbeans in public law, 3% mixed; 1.5 % Caribbeans in private law, 1.3% mixed. [S Asians 4.5% of England pop; Africans 1%; Caribbeans 1%; Caribbean and white 0.5%, Census data 2001] Are numbers enough? Small numbers for many practitioners and is it a numbers game for professional practice.

6. Research evidence Inspection Report, 2004 Smart et al, 2005 Inspection Report on frontline practice in private law, 2006 Inspection Report on RRA, 2006 Inspections 2007/9 Midlands, South East, South Yorkshire, near South West