4.1 Article

What social workers do in performing child protection work: evidence from research into face-to-face practice

Journal

CHILD & FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 283-294

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12142

Keywords

child protection; communication with children; ethnography; child and family social work; research in practice

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J006629/1]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J006629/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. ESRC [ES/J006629/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little research has been done into what social workers do in everyday child protection practice. This paper outlines the broad findings from an ethnographic study of face-to-face encounters between social workers, children and families, especially on home visits. The social work practice was found to be deeply investigative. Children's bedrooms were routinely inspected and were the most common place where they were seen alone. A high proportion of children were not seen on their own because they were too young and the majority of the time was spent working with parents and children together. Small amounts of time were spent with children on their own and some first encounters were so rushed that social workers did not even introduce themselves to the child. This arose from two key factors: firstly, organisational pressures from high workloads and the short timescales that social workers were expected to adhere to by managers and Government; secondly, practitioners had varying levels of communication skills, playfulness and comfort with getting close to children and skills at family work. Where these skills and relational capacities were present, social workers were found to have developed deep and meaningful relationships with some children and families, for whom it was apparent that therapeutic change had occurred.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available