Search

Social workers carry much of the frontline authority to define risk to children and discuss it with families. Assessment reports and other institutional documents record professional views about family information, and also have the potential to convey the 'voice' of the family to institutions. Social workers have responsibility for sharing these documents with families, yet little is known about how they do this. This paper focuses on episodes when social workers introduce institutional documents in home visits, and on the family responses elicited. These are high-stakes encounters which, when they go seriously wrong, emerge in the press as tragedies and scandals. For families, these documents carry an emotional depth-charge as intimate, potentially shaming and sometimes inaccurate details of their lives are inscribed in them by and for others. Latour's (1996) concept of interobjectivity sheds light on the use of documents, while concepts of epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond, 2005) and epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) are employed to examine how social workers respond to parental testimony about themselves and their children. Learning how to present institutional documentation in ways that reduce the risk of emotional reactivity and treating family perspectives with epistemic justice may enhance social work practice. At a policy level, the design of documents warrants review, so that they facilitate rather than obstruct social workers' efforts to build what are already fragile relationships with families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents parents' experiences of community support and their recommendations for how their communities, and the services within them, might support their families. Generated through a human‐centred design methodology and using a desire‐centred framework, the findings suggest that parents receiving a family service require support invoking feelings of intimacy, trust, reciprocity, inclusivity, connection and belonging. Parents' recommendations for community support include addressing material and attitudinal constraints impacting on engagement with services; creating non‐judgmental services tailored to their needs but accessed as a last resort; and creating peer‐based opportunities to support each other. Parents reflect that moving beyond basic survival of risk and vulnerability to a position where thriving is possible requires purposeful integration of parent's existing and desired community into service interventions. Facilitating deliberate change at the intersection of community and service support is pertinent to current and future social work policy and practice. Wider opportunities for understanding and enabling the needs and aspirations of parents, which are often overlooked because of a focus on addressing risk and vulnerability, are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is not a research paper in the conventional sense. Instead, it is a reflexive account of the building of a relationship which would not have happened without the existence of digital technologies and might not have happened but for the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was through reading a digitised resource (an online PhD thesis) in the first UK 'lockdown' that Bob, now a semi-retired academic in the field of adult and organisational learning, began to reappraise his upbringing in a children's home in Scotland. Meanwhile, it was in getting to know Bob (through emails and Zoom meetings) and by accessing Bob's retrospectively digitised case record that Viv, the author of the PhD thesis and now a semi-retired social work academic, was stimulated to revisit her early research from a fresh perspective. We argue that our real-life example, serendipitous and unique as it undoubtedly is, demonstrates the democratising potential of the digital transformation that is currently being played out in child and family social work. Furthermore, it seems likely that digital technologies will continue to bring new and unexpected opportunities for forming such relationships in the future. Plain Language Summary: In this article, two older academics (one from social work and the other from management learning) introduce their meeting online during the Covid-19 pandemic and the relationship they have been building since then, from the very different perspectives of a social work researcher and a former resident of a children's home in Edinburgh in the 1940s and 50s. Bob and Viv describe coming together as an opportunity for shared learning, and they suggest that child and family social workers should be ready for, and welcome, such opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Reports perspectives of 49 frontline staff from five child protective services. • Systemic supervision used as a "rehearsal space" to plan family conversations. • Family systems understood via lens of hypothesising, circularity and curiosity. • Exploring family perspectives enhanced identification of risks to children. • Systemically-trained clinicians provided supportive practice leadership. The importance of supervision for social work practice is widely accepted. This paper focuses on one type of supervision: systemic group supervision or "systemic supervision". Systemic social work practice is generally a group-based, multi-disciplinary model of service delivery that aims to work therapeutically with the whole family. Central to this model is the use of systemically-informed group supervision. This has been shown to impact positively on the quality of direct practice with families, but what is it about this type of supervision that supports frontline practitioners to practice more skillfully? This paper is based on interviews with 49 frontline staff across five children's services departments in the UK. It identifies the key features of systemic supervision and explores why workers think that developing shared understandings of risk to children supports them to intervene more effectively with families in contact with children's services. These findings contribute to a growing body of knowledge about the practice shaping function of supervision within child and family social work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vague programme descriptions are known to impede implementation and evaluation. Yet social work change programmes often fail to describe in detail how they aim to provide better outcomes for children and families. This study focused on the Systemic Practice Model (SPM), which is a Finnish adaptation of Reclaiming Social Work, a practice model developed in England. The SPM aims to deliver systemic practice in children's social care and has recently been widely disseminated across Finland. However, research has found both considerable variation in its delivery and a lack of clarity about what it is. This study, applying realist evaluation, aimed to formulate a programme theory based on the perceptions of key informants (n = 12) involved in the national development and dissemination of the SPM during the period 2017–2019. The analysis yielded three core components (a systemic team, systemic weekly meetings, and systemic practice) and two context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations, which represent causal chains of the SPM. The findings should enable its quality implementation and meaningful outcome and process evaluation. The findings will also aid organizations and practitioners both to identify changes required in their service provision and prevent adverse effects. This programme theory should be tested and refined with empirical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared the impact, challenges, and benefits of the Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) intervention across two delivery modes: group center-based (GCCOS-P) and individual home-based (IHCOS-P). Methods: This mixed-methods study compared the impact of the COS-P on parental reflective functioning and parental stress across two delivery modes: GCCOS-P (n = 7) and IHCOS-P (n = 7). It compared the challenges and benefits of each, from the qualitative perspectives of participants (n = 2 IHCOS-P; n = 3 GCCOS-P) and facilitators (n = 4). Results: Quantitative statistical analysis comparing pre- and postintervention measures suggest that each delivery mode was equally effective in reducing parental stress and generally noneffective with respect to parental reflective functioning. Challenges and benefits of each mode, inherent in the peer/shared learning environment of the GCOS-P and the individualized, flexible delivery of the IHCOS-P, were identified. Discussion: This study adds to knowledge about the widely utilized COS-P, highlighting challenges and benefits of two modes of delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]