Search results

How might the profession of child protection social work be “future proofed”, i.e. remain intact and of value beyond its present existence? The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a discussion/“think piece” paper, in which the author argues that foregrounding the art and science of helping relationships is a way forward. Recognising and promoting the centrality of helping relationships is the direction in which the author believes (or is it hopes?) social work should head, because “more of the same” is not, in the author’s view, possible to sustain for much longer. Treading the well-worn but pot-holed path of box-ticking, endless risk assessment and perfunctory statutory visiting is likely to lead to continuing problems retaining social workers and, for those who do stay, increased burnout, compassion fatigue and secondary trauma, each of which interrupts or delays the development of working alliances with family members.

Growing reliance on thresholds and checklists to assess risk has served to increase referrals. As a result, social workers spend much of their time on triaging and filtering rather than working with the children and families that most need help and protection. Further, it is not what is in the practitioner’s toolkit that matters: rather, it is a defined set of personal skills and qualities that tips the balance to achieve lasting change. Thus, in order to “future proof” social work, we would do well to deepen our understanding of how helping relationships can lead to lasting change. Supporting social workers in this work is not just the responsibility of individual practitioners and their professional bodies, action also needs to be taken at governmental and managerial levels.

This is a discussion/“think piece”.

This article considers some of the implications of research findings into relational conflict and couple violence and suggests links with elder abuse. An outline of a research design to study elder abuse from an attachment perspective is discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast what is spoken about in supervision case discussions in Children’s Services with what subsequently appears in the written record on the child’s file. As an exploratory study, the authors set two research questions – how do supervision conversations and corresponding records compare? And how do social work supervisors make use of these records?

The authors sampled ten pairs of supervision audio recordings and written records from the child’s file. Using a content analysis approach, the authors compared what was spoken about (on the audio recordings) with what was subsequently written down (on the child’s file).

The complex activity of social work case supervision is not easily captured in written form. Written records did not reflect objectively the content of the audio recordings and on occasion, even contained information absent from the discussion. Supervisors seemed to engage in an interpretative process when creating the records, translating what was spoken about into a record thought (more) suitable for the file.

The sample was limited to one authority and did not compare between different models or approaches to supervision.

Supervisors understandably orient their recording behaviour towards anticipated audiences (chiefly, senior managers and Ofsted inspectors). To change recording practices, it would help to promote the role of children and families as the more important audience for written recordings of supervision case discussions.

The major strength of this study is the inclusion of audio recordings of actual supervision case discussions and real case records. This is an advantage over the more common methods of vignettes, role plays and self-reports because it allowed the authors to examine directly what happens in practice. The findings from the study are strengthened via the use of a focus group with social work managers, helping the authors to validate and test the themes the authors’ identified.