Social Welfare In Canada

Social Welfare Policy and Child Protection – Strength and Limitations Since last two decades Canada being experienced softer and harder forms of neo-liberal economic impetus (McKeen, 2006). Many of these reforms targeted social benefits and divided marginalized people into deserved and undeserved category (McKeen, 2006). At a large level, social policies are shaped by the exploration of dominant ideas about a social issue. Existing political views and the interest of the dominant policy community are predominantly influencing policy making (McKeen, 2006). The mainstream discourses for solutions of social problems and policy outcomes are increasingly underrepresented and narrow down the focus of social welfare in Canada (McKeen, 2006).

McKeen (2006) explains that the framework of the current child welfare approaches was directed from the dominant discourse of ‘national children’s agenda’ initiatives. Since then, there have been many major changes happened in the mainstream social policy in child welfare sector. The national and global political influences and world economic pressure forces federal and provincial governments to control the social security and welfare programs and it reflects in child welfare system too (McKeen, 2006). Politics in Canada has a serious notion on key ideologies while restructuring child welfare policies (McKeen, 2006). Ontario’s Child and Family service Act 1984, was developed on the principle of minimal family intervention with a view that children need to be protected in their own homes (Dumbrill, 2006b). McKeen (2006) argues that the conceptual models of the mainstream society and policy community cleverly hold child welfare model with an assumption that the child welfare programs can effectively treat the assumed deficiencies of the

The risk assessment mandate of the current child protection practice is crop up in connection with individual responsibility of neo-liberal ideology. The right of the worker is given during their “mandate to investigate, monitor, assess and dispose of” (Strega & Carriere, 2009 p.16) of child protection cases under the legal system. As a result of child protection practice merely becomes a risk assessment model of bureaucratic approach. Apparently, child protection in Canada turns out as a mechanical social intervention with more focus on short-term remedial recommendations and limited or no emphasis on the holistic view of the problem (Strega & Carriere, 2009 p.20). This process is not really supporting the family in terms of a long term “helping, healing and change”. The current risk assessment process reinforces the idea that once the risk is identified or properly addressed, the children are safe and prevented from future risk. It also broadens the false notion that child welfare means protection of the children rather than providing support to the children and