Juvenile Delinquency and the Labyrinth of Services: A Case Study

Abstract

The Maria Colwell case (1973) called into question the effectiveness, individually or collectively, of intervention by various professionals in the problems of a child “in trouble”. Issues were raised concerning the extent of communication between these professionals and the breakdown in co-ordination of approaches by official agencies, including the school. The school stands at a point of central concern for it is within this context that the most regular contact between children and professionals occurs. It is within the classroom that problems often initially become manifest, and it is at this point that the earliest decisions concerning these problems must be taken. In all too many instances teachers employ external means to “solve” problems, which then pass beyond the classroom. Rarely is assistance offered to pupils who are defined as “being in trouble” in a concerted or coherent fashion, and there appears to be a mutual lack of confidence between schools and other external agencies. At the heart of the problem of disco-ordination lies the question of information and the communication of information. By the use of a single case study this article examines possible points of break-down, or conflict, which may occur in the co-ordination of services and the implications of a lack of communication in the school situation for both the teacher, and the pupil defined as “being in trouble”. In particular, the relative contribution of health, welfare, education and police agencies to the child's situation is discussed. Pupils, defined by school staff as “being in trouble”, become the focus of concern within the school. These pupils provide the catalyst for interaction between school personnel, the school and external agencies and for interaction between different external agencies. Yet despite the presence of, and intervention by, a number of skilled professional people assistance for pupils “in trouble” is rarely offered in a concerted or coherent fashion. The central concern of this paper is to show that there are a number of points at which breakdown, or conflict, may occur in the co-ordination of the school and community's response to such pupils and their problems, and that despite intervention problems, far from being solved, can be exacerbated. In particular, this paper is concerned with the implications that the failure of intervention, and the lack of a co-ordinated approach, may have for the pupil “in trouble” in the school situation. The extent of effective interaction, communication and co-ordination between schools and external agencies and between personnel within the school itself, is often problematic. Schafer and Polk (1972) state: A recurrent problem facing the school is to co-ordinate and articulate the perspectives and actions of various professionals who deal with pupils in trouble. (Polk and Schafer, 1972:234) “Various professionals” are taken to include all those who, in a professional capacity, have some contact directly, or indirectly, with the school pupil. In 1973, amidst a storm of public protest and concern in the United Kingdom, a Committee of Inquiry was established by the Department of Health and Social Security to examine the apparent inability of “various professionals” to safeguard the wellbeing of an eight years old child — Maria Colwell. Maria was beaten to death by her step-father, in January 1973, despite being the subject of a Juvenile Court supervision order and the “client” of “a number of skilled professional people”. A comment on the report of the Committee of Inquiry concluded: What emerges is the failure of the system, or indeed several systems for providing effective communications between and within agencies. This is not just a problem for social service departments and local authorities, but equally concerns schools, the Education Welfare Services, the Housing Department, the police, doctors and other health services, the NSPCC and other voluntary organizations and indeed the community in general. (“Social Work Today” vol 5 No 12 Sept 1974). There were no fewer than six statutory arrangements which were central or peripheral to the child's welfare and 20 individuals of varying skills and training, and of varying roles, who had knowledge of the family's circumstances. Yet individually and collectively they manifestly failed to “solve” the problems of the child. The atomization of approaches by social services can lead to contradictory policies and to situations in which “everybody's business becomes nobody's business”. The Colwell case may represent an extreme situation, but it raised issues which call into question inter-agency and inter-personnel role definitions and communications, and the nature and purpose of responses by professionals to a problem. In particular, it emphasizes the existence of points of possible breakdown or conflict between the various professionals involved. The school stands at a point of central interest for it is within this context that the most regular daily contact between professionals and children occurs. In contrast to other public services concerned with children, it is a legally-sanctioned contact. Furthermore, for some children the only source of help may be the school (Clegg and Megson, 1968). The teacher-pupil relationship represents the immediate point of contact between the child and the school and it is within the context of this relationship that problems often initially become manifest. It is at this point that the earliest decisions concerning those problems must be taken. The effectiveness of the decisions may depend on the personality of the teacher (Hamachek, 1973; Good and Brophy, 1978); the climate which prevails in the classroom and the strength of the relationship between teacher and pupil (Hargreaves, 1972); the extent of communication with the school and between school personnel (Blau and Scott, 1963; Shipman, 1968); or upon the course of action which the teacher chooses to adopt (Polk and Schafer, 1972). In all too many instances, the classroom teacher employs external means to solve a problem, particularly if that problem is of a behavioural nature. The school may be able to deal with the problem effectively at the deputy-principal, principal or guidance officer level, but if seriousness dictates, then the pupil may be passed from the internal coping system of the school to the various external agencies which deal with children and youth who are in trouble, or who are otherwise defined as in need of special attention (Polk and Schafer, 1972). The tendency can become to “shunt-off” the responsibility for such pupils from the school to other youth serving agencies at the earliest possible moment. Or to move into a situation in which, …the rarity of contact between the school and social welfare organizations and their frequent mutual antagonisms seem to reflect misunderstandings and prejudices of both sides about the other's role. (Phillipson, 1971:295). As Robinson (1976) suggests, there appears to be a lack of mutual confidence between the school and external agencies. There still appear to be real or imagined jurisdictional disputes that make it extremely difficult to delineate authority and define terms of reference. This is particularly the case with external agencies, where the duplication of effort, overlapping of services, lack of co-ordination and failure to share information bedevil their attempts to serve youth in many communities (Passow, 1963). A mutual lack of awareness between official agencies results not only in an ineffective, unco-ordinated approach to problems, but the possibility of actual conflict between the approaches of specific agencies (Stevenson, 1963). Each step away from the classroom situation involves an increasing number of people, directly or indirectly, with the problems of a particular child. Each agency involved will have different influences or pressures brought to bear upon it, and, therefore, will have different reasons for “solving”, or attempting to “solve”, any problem. This is especially relevant where the costs of any decision can be seen to fall within the jurisdiction or responsibility of another department or agency (Boss, 1971). Each person or agency involved will view problems from differing perspectives which may produce overt conflict between educational and “clinical” perspectives, or situations in which subsequent activities are irrelevant to each other (Hargreaves, 1976). The possibility of breakdown or conflict exists within the school, in the relationship between the school and the external agencies, and in the relationship between the external agencies themselves. The resulting situation overall is the development of an atmosphere which militates against co-ordination of approaches to pupils “in trouble” and their problems. At the heart of this problem of disco-ordination lies the question of information and communication as both a prerequisite and an aim of co-ordination. For co-ordinated activity to take place it is necessary to ensure that information is given at the right time to everyone who needs it; that it is understood; and that it is remembered when it is required for action. Schools possess large amounts of information about pupils, their families and about those who give and who should receive specialized services, but this information is rarely used for evaluation and feedback purposes (Polk and Schafer, 1972). Usually, this is because the means for systematically collecting, analysing and using the information do not exist, or there is an over-riding fear that such information, disseminated to teachers, will not be used in a professional manner by the teachers concerned.