I write to express my dismay at the apparent unravelling of the social welfare system which was intended to protect and restore the broken relationships of the families from which the girls at Armadale were recruited. My sincere condolence to the survivors and to all of the families concerned.

As a social scientist I share the burden of responsibility, which hangs so heavily, about what ought to have been done to prevent such a perilous occurrence. It is difficult to navigate the roles and role-relationships that characterised the Armadale setting prior to the final conflagration.

Comfort zone

It is clear that every single staff member must by now realise that no one can go back to the same comfort zone in which each was enmeshed at the end.

One gets the feeling that having admitted the children to the residence, it became an end in itself, minus the fruitful collaboration of the managers, the caregivers, the providers of the service, the security personnel and the client group of children and parents.

This interlocking of positive interests expressed by way of face-to-face verbal and non-verbal feedback is what in welfare service is called 'treatment' or social change. It creates the same positive changes comparable to the prescription that a physician gives the patient via the pharmacist. If it does not work, the items may be modified to match individual client need.

The phenomenon being treated must first be identified and named. In social welfare a 'social diagnosis' is established, if necessary by case conference between staff members. Once there is clarity about the changes or 'growth paths' needed, then every staff member is locked into providing the means to that end. This becomes the programme of the treatment facility.

Growth changes

Without a programme which charts the interlocking behaviour of various skills, modalities, and team members, then regrettably one is relying only on the architecture of the building, the physical space and the density of clients to effect growth changes in behaviour and personality. Treatment of troubled personalities is never so simple.

Solitary confinement, while it lasts, can cancel certain occurrences. Locking down for long spells might also give staff a respite. What we call treatment (the growth and maturing of personality) can only occur if all staff, as a team, prescribe and take a collective approach, thereby creating a therapeutic milieu.

The burden of raising the standard of residential care now weighs heavily on our society and I hope that all settings in which 'lock-down' may be substituted for growth-inducing programmes will call a staff conference, followed by a town meeting of staff and clients at the earliest opportunity.

Creation of growth paths

This would afford the creation of growth paths for staff and clients and to map out the eight-hour day and the 40-hour week into shared modules of direct contact with the clients. At least a weekly case conference is necessary to pool ideas and strengthen the milieu approach to residential care.

Quite apart from the court case, about which I do not wish to comment, these thoughts are aimed at other residential settings that have not yet come under the microscope.

I am, etc.,

Dr EDNA MCLAREN