วีดีโอ

cringe

this is a naive statement, the first case sounds like self-defence, and the second is the reality of what we are not prepared for as adults even raising teenagers, teenagers have different stresses today and the law is still catching up. Those also impacted by low socio-economic inbalances also adds stresses and prevents students from taking in the world created for them as they are in survival mode.

Hi Catherine, When we put the ECM together, we were acutely aware of the tensions that practicing in this way could conjure up for practitioners. However, as you know, the standards these days aren't what they used to be (despite what your manager/s may tell you! :0) There's lots of flexibility built in. For example, where we might ordinarily be initiating breach due to poor attendance or whatever, we may make a decision not to breach because the progress made or the clinical advice is such that it's not going to best serve the young person. In this situation there needs to be a clear decision recorded with the reason for NOT breaching clearly set out, along with a date set for further review. That way the decision is defensible. The key factor here is that the intervention plan and the actions that spring from it are clinically derived via the case formulation meeting and subsequent psychological report. This informs the decisions made and, de facto, makes them more defensible. We have also set out some guidelines in the ECM project Practice Guidance to help practitioners find their way through national standards. AssetPlus is a much more thorough assessment structure and will facilitate the discovery of some issues not previously picked up by Asset. However, some of the domains and information needed may well not come out until the relationship with the young person deepens (for example whether or not they may have suffered a previous brain injury). So they feed each other - AssetPlus is better but it may not come into its own until we know the young person well enough to fully complete it. ECM promotes relational working and therefore encourages and facilitates more thorough assessment. Having said that, the case formulation takes a much broader, zoomed-out approach to assessment. It looks less at what's happening now (at least not in isolation) than at the child's journey so far - from birth to the present. As such, the intervention plan is based less on a present-focussed snapshot (like Asset and - less so - like AssetPlus) and is seeking to see the young person in the context of their life as a whole. Once we complete this process, it becomes easier to see where things went wrong DEVELOPMENTALLY. This then becomes the focus of the intervention - to help the child recover through a sequenced and developmentally driven set of priorities and practical strategies. Once this happens the offending tends to come into line - or it begins to. Ultimately, if relationships between practitioners and young people are strengthening (albeit slowly) and offending patterns are calming (if not stopping altogether) then we're moving in the right direction - this is what the ECM aims at. There will be an evaluation of the project published very shortly which will put some flesh on all this. In the meantime I hope this is helpful, Catherine. Cheers, Jonny. (p.s. check out the link below for a summary of the Model being used to guide the ECM - J.) jonnymatthew.com/2015/08/03/a-model-for-helping-troubled-kids-to-recover/

How does AssetPlus & National Standards fit in with the needs of Young People ;-)