Search

This paper argues that contemporary child and family social work in England and some other states in Europe needs an ethical 'turn'. This paper considers the facts in the Re W judgment and identifies certain features in the case that can be understood as products resulting from a particular paradigm of social work in contemporary practice. National and international implications are considered and hopeful ways forward are proffered: epistemic humility, inner dialogue and cultivating our humanity. The key message of this paper is that Re W indicates that contemporary child and family social work is dominated by an 'automatic' thinking that tends not to 'hear' the voices of actual human beings and a refocusing on ethics work is needed to put humane practice back at the heart of the social work profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practitioners, irrespective of the service users they work with, have educational, emotional and supervisory needs. In addition, they require appropriate physical space and a safe work environment. Social workers are most likely to develop effective relationships with families if these needs are met. Therefore, it is important that managers create an organisational culture that not only recognises, but also meets, practitioners' needs. In this paper, the various needs of social workers are considered in detail with a particular focus on those of child and family practitioners. Agency responses to meeting these various needs are also explored. An argument is made that the agency approach to work environment, staff development, supervision and managing the emotional demands of the job all influence practitioners' commitment and ability to engage with families and improve outcomes for children. Drawing on a framework of different types of practitioner engagement with carers, the negative effects on practitioners of working in a 'neglectful organisation' are considered. An argument is made that the neglected practitioner, working with a parent who is not meeting the needs of their child, leads to an unhealthy alliance and in effect a 'Toxic Duo' is created. The paper concludes by considering the work culture and climate that promote meaningful engagement and questions are raised as to how managers can create this culture when services are subject to year-on-year cuts, marketisation and increased service demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coulter et al. (2019) argue that there is an urgent need for a theoretically coherent conceptualisation of contemporary relationship-based practice (RBP) models within child and family social work. They propose that a systemic and social constructionist 'lens' can provide this coherence. This reply draws attention to one particular difficulty with their argument and makes a partial case for maintaining clear distinctions between models, with distinct nomenclature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social work practice has an essential, yet ambiguous, relationship with theory. This state of affairs is currently evident in the range of contemporary relationship-based practice (RBP) models being applied within Child and Family Social Work. This article argues that there is an urgent need for a theoretically coherent conceptualisation of these models to enable social work practitioners to embrace their common precepts and so enable more effective interventions. In contrast to attempts to show the distinctiveness of current models for reasons of fidelity, model identity and marketing, this unifying approach advocates for recognition of the commonality and complementarity of contemporary RBP models. The article argues that systemic theory which applies a social constructionist orientation can provide this coherence, helping social workers develop their practice in an informed way. In making this case, the emergent evidence base is noted and recommendations are made about how greater convergence and complementarity can be promoted. This article contributes to the debate about how practice and policy should be guided by theoretical ideas of coherence, alongside more utilitarian ideas advocating the importance of evidence and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]