Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Promoting dignity and rights in marginalised communities: Messages from social work researchTuesday 22nd March 2016
#mrcsalford
Joe Smeeton
Making Research Count at The University of Salford
#mrcsalford
• National initiative across ten universities in England
• A knowledge broker
• Bringing together academics, practitioners, carers and users to facilitate the dissemination of social care research and theory
• The University of Salford is the regional hub for MRC in Greater Manchester
• Support the learning needs of a range of organisations in the sub-region
Making Research Count (MRC)
#mrcsalford
Celebrating World Social Work Day!Family Group Conferences: A Global Approach to Child ProtectionKate Parkinson, Lecturer in Social Work, Salford University
• Celebrating global approaches to Social Work • Relevant to Social Work practice locally• What are Family Group Conferences?• Presenting research on child protection outcomes from
FGCs across the globe• Introducing a new typology for examining the use of
FGCs across the globe• Discussion on where and why outcomes are best
Setting the Scene!
• Developed in New Zealand in the late 1980s• Family led decision making process• Underlying philosophy – families are the experts• A family/kinship group/social network develop a plan
for the care or protection of a child or young person• Used across the globe• Used in over 40 local authorities in the UK
What are Family Group Conferences (FGCs)?
• Literature review and article for the European Journal of Social Work
• Focused on 7 countries: UK, Republic of Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden
• Examined literature on the outcomes of FGCs used in child protection situations
• Differences in defining child protection and what constitutes a good outcome for children but some key themes emerged
• Developed a typology for understanding the implementation of FGCs across the globe
International Research
• Legal – FGCs have a legislative mandate and are a mandatory part of the child protection process e.g. New Zealand, some states in Australia, Republic of Ireland and one province in Canada.
• Policy – FGCs are recommended as good practice and well embedded in child protection policy and procedure but they are not a legal requirement e.g. USA and two provinces in Canada
• Optional – FGCs are recommended as good practice but their use is optional and an ‘add on’ to existing child protection policy and procedure e.g. the UK and Sweden (Parkinson, 2015, unpublished).
The 3 Models
• Outcomes for children were better under either the Legal or the Policy model of implementation – this is not a surprise!
• UK – where FGCs are used, outcomes are generally good but the research is patchy and confined to small geographical areas
• There are barriers to successful implementation of FGCs
The 3 Models
• Existing child protection processes• Cultures within some teams• Financial barriers• Sweden – the situation is similar• Sundell and Vinnerljung (2004) – paternalistic
approach to child protection
The Barriers
• Fewer numbers of children enter Local Authority Care• An increase in the number of children being safely
cared for within their family following a FGC• Improved relationships between families and
professionals• Improved relationships between professionals (an
unintended outcome)
The Key Outcome Themes
• Children are more likely to be cared for within their families following a FGC:
• The Legal Model:-New Zealand: Maxwell and Robertson (1991) and Pakura (2003) – almost two thirds of children remained within the care of their family
The Research Evidence
- Australia – Northern Territory and Victoria – research found that the majority of children remained in the care of their families following a FGC (Ban, 1996 and Arney, McGuinness and Westby, 2012).
The Research Evidence
• - The Policy Model:- USA – Hawai’i – research from 2001 – 2003 demonstrated that two thirds of children remained within the care of their family (NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2003).
The Research Evidence
- Toronto, Canada, 2006 – Comparative research. Children subject to a FGC were more likely to remain in the care of their family – 85% vs 72% (Cunning and Bartlett, 2006),
The Research Evidence
• The Optional Model:- UK – does have a legislative context to some
extent. - 2014 – Public Law Outline and Statutory
Guidance- Children Act 1989 – key principles
The Research Evidence
- Morris (2007) – Camden – FGCs were successful in diverting children away from care
• Sweden – Sundell and Vinnerljung (2004) – longitudinal study. Outcomes for children following FGCs were NOT better
• BUT
The Research Evidence
• Paternalistic system in Sweden• Not embedded in child protection practice and
procedures• Doolan (2007) – for FGCs to be successful
they need to have a legal mandate and be embedded in child protection process.
The Research Evidence
• Children Being Safely Cared for Within their Extended Families
• The Legal Model: - Pakura (2003) - families plans were more successful at keeping children safe than those designed by professionals.
The Research Evidence
- Australia. Harris (2008) outcomes from FGCs – improved child safety and increased formal and informal support to enable families to safely care for their children.
The Research Evidence
• The Policy Model: - USA, Hawai’i – Walker (2002) - 97% of families developed safe plans for their children and 99% of families were not reported for harm or threatened harm within one year of the conference
The Research Evidence
• The Optional Model: - UK. Morris (2007) Camden – there was a significant reduction in the number of families needing the support of social work services.
The Research Evidence
• Families are better engaged with child protection processes:
• The Legal Model:- Republic of Ireland. Brady and Miller (2009) South Tipperary – significantly improved relationships between families and services
The Research Evidence
• The Policy Model: - USA. Hawai’i. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, (2003) – 82% of participants in research (2001 – 2003) including professionals and families reported that the FGC approach enabled better engagement between professionals and families.
The Research Evidence
• The Optional Model: - The UK. A key message from the research is that FGCs have the potential to engage with families more effectively that traditional child protection approaches (Marsh and Crow, 1998; Dalrymple, 2002; Holland et al, 2003; Horan and Dalrymple, 2004; Holland et al 2005).
The Research Evidence
• One of the most significant research findings – fathers better engaged in child protection processes.
• Marsh and Walsh (2007). Research into the Kent FGC service – the majority of families viewed FGCs as a collaborative process with professionals.
The Research Evidence
• Relationships between professionals improved:
- USA. Hawai’i. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2003) – 82% of participants felt that the FGC model helped child protection workers and other professionals work closely together to meet the needs of families.
The Research Evidence
• FGCs have the potential to lead to better outcomes for children and young people subject to child protection procedures and processes.
• The Munro Report 2011• Key messages from Serious Case Reviews
(Brandon et al., 2011).
The Significance of this Research for the UK
• The International Federation of Social Work Definition of Social Work:
‘Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels’ (IFSW, 2014).
The Significance of this Research
• [email protected]• Twitter - @KateParkinson5• 0161 295 6545
Happy World Social Work Day!! Thank you and any questions?
• Arney, F., McGuinness, K., and Westby, A. (2012) Report on the Implementation of Family Group Conferencing with Aboriginal Families in Alice Springs, Menzies School of Health Research.
• Ban, P. (1996) Implementing and Evaluating Family Group Conferences with Children and Families in Victoria, Australia in Hudson, J., Maxwell, G. and Galway, B. (eds.) (1996) Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice, The Federation Press: Criminal Justice Press.
• Brady, B. and Miller, M. (2009) Barnados Family Welfare Conference Service South Tipperary Evaluation Report, Child and Family Research Centre, National University of Ireland.
References
• Brandon, M; Sidebotham, P; Bailey, S; Belderson, P; Hawley, C; Ellis, C; and Megson, M. (2011) New Learning on Serious Case Reviews: a two year report from 2009 – 2011, Centre for Research on the Child and Family in the School of Social Work and Psychology, University of East Anglia.
• Cunning, S. and Bartlett, D. (2006) Family Group Conferencing: Assessing the long-term effectiveness of an alternative approach in child protection, Center of Excellence for Child Welfare: Toronto.
• Dalrymple, J. (2002) Family Group Conferences and Youth Advocacy: the participation of children and young people in family decision making, European Journal of Social Work, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 287 – 289.
References
• Harris, N. (2008) Family Group Conferencing in Australia 15 years on: Child Abuse Prevention, No. 27, pp. 1-19. Litchfield (Maxwell, G.M. and Robertson, J.P. (1991) Family Group Conferences: Key Elements, Paper Presented to Mission of St. James and St. John: Melbourne, Australia, 10th June.
• Holland, O., O’Neill, S., Scourfield, J. and Pithouse, A. (2003) Outcomes in family group conferences for young people on the brink of care: A Study on child and family participation, Cardiff University School of Social Sciences.
• Horan, H. and Dalrymple, J. (2004) Promoting the Participation Rights of Children and Young People in Family Group Conferences, London: Barnardos.
References
• Doolan, M. (2007) Working Towards an Effective agency mandate for family group conferences, in Ashley, C. and Nixon, P. (eds.) (2007) Family Group Conferences – what next?: Policies and Practices for the Future, Family Rights Group.
• Holland, O., O’Neill, S., Scourfield, J. and Pithouse, A. (2005) Democratising the Family and State? The Case of Family Group Conferences in Child Welfare, Journal of Social Policy, Vol, 34, No. 1, pp. 59-77.
• Marsh, P. and Crow, G (1998) Family Group Conferences in Child Welfare, Blackwell Science Ltd.
References
• Marsh, P. and Walsh, D. (2007) Outcomes of Family Group Conferences: More Than Just the Plan? Outcome Report for Kent Family Group Conference Service.
• Morris, K. (2007) Camden FGC Service: An Evaluation of Service Use and Outcomes, University of Birmingham.
• Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection Final Report: A Child -Centred System, London: The Stationary Office.
• (20120 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2003) Empowering Families in Child Protection Cases: An Implementation Evaluation of Hawai’i’s Ohana Conferencing Program, The Center for Community Partnerships in Child Welfare: New York.
References
• Pakura, S. (2003) A Review of Family Group Conferences 13 years on, Social Work Review, Vol 15, Part 3, pp.3 -7.
• Parkinson, K. (forthcoming) Family Group Conferences and Child Protection: A Review of International Research Outcomes, European Journal of Social Work
References
Sarah Pollock, University of Salford
Using qualitative research methodologies to inform social work
practice: Learning from older Pakistani women
• Background• Literature Review• Narrative methods
– Co-construction– Free association– Dialogic/performance analysis
• Adult assessment processes
Outline
• Qualified social worker, in ethnically diverse local authority• Lack of ethnic diversity in local authority service user population• Want to find out why = PhD proposal• ‘Underrepresentation of Minority Ethnic Groups in Intermediate
Care’
Background
• Umbrella term – residential units, hospital at home, reablement, telecare, day hospitals…
• Short term, step-up & step-down• Suitability assessed via multi-disciplinary team• Government policy since 2001
– National Beds Inquiry (1999)– National Service framework for Older People (2001)– Halfway Home? (2009) extended timeframes & added exceptions for
some groups
What is Intermediate Care?
• Nationally (E&W) South Asian 5.3%;– Indian 2%– Pakistani 2.5%– Bangladeshi 0.8%
• Research Area 18.1%;– Indian 0.7%– Pakistani 10.1%– Bangladeshi 7.3%
2011 Census Data
• Research Area:– Indian 0.56%– Pakistani 0.56%– Bangladeshi 0.16%
• Real terms:– 8/1537 Bed-based– 31/1517 Home-based
National Audit of Intermediate Care 2012(NAIC) Data
Not going to service
Not included in evaluation of service
Service not suitable for needs
Cycle of Exclusion
• Articles referred specifically to ‘Christianity’ when discussing religion• Research asked for ‘English speaking’ participants only• When consulting with minority ethnic communities only ‘community
elders’ were actually consulted• 'there is no evidence that provision responsive to Black and Minority
Ethnic communities has been addressed‘• Service users who were not Christian, or could not speak English
were silenced.• Very little social work led research
Literature Review
• Qualitative method
• Narrative interviews = one open question;– ‘Can you tell me about a specific memorable time that you have
accessed either health or social care services in this country?’– ‘tell me about an average day/week…
• Allow the individual to talk and they will come to what is important to them• ‘following people down their paths’• Interviews take more than one one-off visit – about relationship building
Dialogic/Performance Analysis Catherine Koler-Riessman
• Co-construction
‘all investigators… lack access to another’s unmediated experiences; we have instead materials that were constructed by socially situated individuals from a perspective and for an audience’ Riessman C, K (2008)
• Recognising both the researcher's influence and the importance of socially constructed expectations and rules
• Treating whole narrative as one rather than fragmenting• Multiple readings = multiple interpretations
Analysis of narrative interviews
• The Care Act (2014) • Assessing adult care needs• Service user wellbeing and choice;
‘Local authorities should adopt a flexible approach that allows for a focus on which aspects of wellbeing matter most to the individual concerned’
(http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Standards/Care-Act/learning-and-development/introduction-and-overview/wellbeing-handout.pdf)
Practice relevance: Care Needs
• First legal duties for local authorities to investigate• Following safeguarding adult processes means involving
individual at all points‘The Act signals a major change in practice - a move away from the process-led, tick box culture to a person-centred social work approach which achieves the outcomes that people want’
(http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Standards/Care-Act/learning-and-development/introduction-and-overview/adult-safeguarding-handout.pdf)
Practice Relevance:Safeguarding Adults
http://www.mycareinbirmingham.org.uk/home-page.aspx
Examples from Care Act assessments…
• Austerity• Resource Allocation System (RAS)• Neoliberalism
– Individualism– Consumerism– Choice
• Premised on:– idea that people can answer questions about ‘what I want’ – recovery– Language of ‘outcomes’
Analysis of approach
Elements of Narrative Analysis
Current Assessment Narrative Assessment
‘following down their paths’
Pre-prescribed pro-formaProcedural, time limited, outcome focussed with restricted options
Clearer link to ‘true’ person centred approach, might miss information – important to who?
Co-construction – role of the researcher
Self assessmentTelephone screeningOne-off assessment visitNo opportunity for relationship building
Acknowledged in interpretation of narrative therefore can be explored further with SU
Socially constructed expectations
Expected to make life changing choices immediately, choose from limited options
Acknowledged and explored
Treat narrative as a whole
Each answer ‘scored’ and accumulates funding separatelyMultiple professionals contribute
Truer ‘holistic’ picture of lifeIndividual as expert – in subconscious
Multiple readings = multiple interpretations
Once completed assessment & person passed to another teamNeed to decide immediately on response
Time to return to SU and explore analysis
Factors to consider when using dialogic/performance analysis for Social work assessment
• Narrative approach to social work needs assessment & dialogic/performance analysis of assessment narrative
• Transparency about interpretation• Recognition that not everyone can consciously identify what they
want as an ‘outcome’• More contact with service users• More interpretation and reflection on information provided during
assessment• Pilot schemes…
Conclusions
Refreshments and Networking
Break
Jenna Murray de López, University of Salford
(Dis)embodied knowledge and the ethics of engagement
Panel discussion• Jenna Murray de López• Joe Smeeton (chair)• Kate Parkinson• Sarah Pollock
#mrcsalford
Joe Smeeton, University of Salford
Conference Close
