‘The essence of family life is that it is complex and changing and that unique situations and combinations of needs continually arise. Families need therefore to be able to act in creative ways to find solutions to their circumstances’ (p7)
I began my intervention at the preparation stage; I spoke at length with Shane’s Youth Offending Team worker and gained as much knowledge as possible about the family as I realised the importance of preparation when working with families. I wanted to ensure that all the information I had was correct. As I had found the family structure complex and difficult to understand I did not want to offend anybody on my first visit by making a mistake. I also looked at Shane’s referral order to file to see what work he had been covering in his sessions with Emma. By doing this I was meeting Key Role 1 of the National Occupational Standards for Social Work as detailed by Hafford-Letchfield (2006),
‘Prepare for, and work with individuals, families, carers, groups and communities to assess their needs and circumstances’
Another reason for studying the family in depth before meeting them was to ensure that by going to the family home I would not be putting myself at risk (Trevithick, 2000). I followed the company lone worker policy by ensuring that my colleagues knew I was going on a visit on my own; I wrote the address and the time of visit on the board alongside the expected time of my return. I learnt that is important to be aware of dangers when practising social work, especially with strangers and new referrals, and to ensure that your colleagues are aware of your movements at all times. This is how I met Key Role 4 of the National Occupational Standards for Social Work,
‘Manage risk to individuals, families, carers, groups, communities, self and colleagues’ (Cited in Hafford-Letchfield, 2006).
Although the family had already given consent via Shane’s Youth Offending Team worker it was important for me to make contact with the family and gain their consent directly. It is important to gain consent from families, particularly when working with children (Koprowska, 2005). I first made first contact with Rita via the telephone; I explained my role as student Social Worker and reconfirmed that she was happy for me to make an intervention with herself and her family. Making initial contact is one of the 8 practice skills recognized by Coulshed and Orme (1998) that are needed when applying systems theory in practice. I made sure that I was clear, concise, comprehensive and courteous during the telephone call which is highlighted by Koprowska (2005) as being important principles of communication when trying to form an effective relationship with a service user. I arranged a date and time to visit her at home and explained how the Social Work process was going to work, and that it would begin with the initial assessment to identify their areas of need. It is essential to remember that when making assessments we must make judgements whilst at the same time remaining non-judgemental (Parker and Bradley, 2003). I felt that my first contact with the family was important and I feel that I did it effectively as it resulted in an open and honest relationship with the whole family.
Systems theory evolved from biology and engineering and was first applied to social work by Pincus and Minahan in 1973, then Goldstein further developed this theory in 1974 (Coulshed and Orme, 1998). Although this was when Systems theory was officially applied to Social Work, Healy (2005) heralds that we were introduced to this theory in the 1930’s by a sociologist from the Smith School of Social Work and even before systems theory was proposed, social workers were
‘Adopting a person-in-environment perspective’ (Kemp et al, 1997, cited in Healy, 2005).
Systems Theory looks at interactions and relationships, in this case between the members of the family (Koprowska, 2005). The International Association of Schools of Social Work (2001) informs us that social work
‘recognises the complexity of interactions between human beings and their environments, and the capacity of people both to be affected by and to alter multiple influences upon them including bio-psychosocial factors’
The initial phase of Systems Theory is very important as it is based on establishing a partnership based on ‘mutuality and respect’ (Germain and Gitterman, 1996, p39 cited in Healy, 2005)’ between the social worker and the service user (Healy, 2005).
When I went to meet the family, I undertook an initial assessment where I followed the framework for assessment that
‘Builds on the duties of assessment of needs set out in Section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989’ (Parker and Bradley, 2003, p18).
The assessment is the first step of the ASPIRE model and is an essential tool used to highlight the areas of need within the family (Parker and Bradley, 2003). The result of the initial assessment confirmed the issues that were highlighted in the referral form; Shane’s anti-social behaviour, Samantha’s disability and Rita’s depression. The initial assessment was done in the family’s home, and the reason for this was to ensure that the family felt comfortable (Koprowska, 2005). I ensured that I was punctual, I asked them how they would like to be addressed and informed them how long the session would take and what it would entail (Koprowska, 2005). Coulshed and Orme (1998) herald that,
‘Systems theory requires interviewing, assessment skills and counselling skills’ (p48).
When the initial assessment was completed with the family I then worked alongside them to construct an action plan. Coulshed and Orme (1998) inform us that data collection and assessing problems are 2 of the 8 practice skills needed when using systems theory in an intervention. It is important to work with the family rather than for the family as they must participate in the process in order to produce a good outcome for the family (Watson and West, 2006). Dominelli (2002) heralds that,
‘change is easier if the directions that professionals and users wish to follow coincide’ (p25)
Healy (2005) shows us how Systems Theory highlights the differences in skills and knowledge between the social worker and service user which emphasises the need to work together; the families involvement in the action plan was important so that I could establish which needs they thought were the greatest as opposed to which needs I thought were the greatest. This is where the second phase of Systems Theory begins; the social worker and service user work together to identify and prioritise the family’s issues and needs (Healy, 2005). I sought to empower the family in order for them to be able to recognise their full potential (Dominelli, 2002). Systems Theory also demonstrates the importance of understanding each element within the family unit (Koprowska, 2005).
‘A complex system is one in which the behaviour of the whole system is greater then the sum of its parts’ (Healy, 2005, p145)
By working with the family to plan my intervention I was meeting Key Role 2, as conveyed by Hafford-Letchfield (2006), of the National Occupational Standards for Social work,
‘Plan, carry out, review and evaluate social work practice, with individuals, families, carers, groups, communities and other professionals’
The most pressing issue for the family was Shane’s behaviour. Shane, who is 17 years old, was bullied at school because he is of small stature and looks younger than his age. As a result Shane left school before he sat any exams and therefore has no GCSE’s. After he left school his stepfather, Paul, found him 4 different jobs, each of which he left within a few weeks. Shane has become very vulnerable due to his troubled time at school. Seward (2001) recognises that vulnerability in young people can often lead to problems accessing services as they are seen to be difficult to engage.
Rita and Paul’s youngest daughter, Samantha, is 5 years old and suffers from cluster epilepsy which can result in her having up to 15 fits in one day, in addition to her being non-verbal. The family feel a great deal of frustration as they have not yet been given a correct diagnosis of Samantha’s decision and are concerned that she is not getting enough medical help as a result of this. The issue that the family had with Samantha’s disability is that although the family manage very well and meet all of her needs they feel excluded from their extended families as they don’t get invited to family events because they are scared of Samantha having seizures. It is important that as a social worker you recognise the needs of a person with disability as their developmental milestones may be
‘Significantly different to those associated with non-disabled people’
(Adams et al, 2002, p297).
When working with carers of disabled people in it important not to encourage them in a role that could result in dependency, and to encourage them to allowed the disabled person to a person first (Thompson, 2001).
A further issue that was identified was that Rita and Paul dreamt of setting up their own business in the form of a sandwich shop but could not envisage their dream as a reality. At the time Rita and Paul were full time carers for Samantha but I recognised that if I could empower and enable them to achieve their dream and by doing so not only would it create a positive future for them but that it would also provide financial security for the rest of the family (Thompson, 2005).
Rita’s depression was the final issue that was identified by the family in the initial assessment. Rita has suffered from depression for many years and is medicated by the doctor. Because of this I decided that Systems theory would be the most appropriate to use. Although the whole family are suffering because of their issues it is Rita who is the most heavily affected by the networks around her, due to her depression (Healy, 2005). Depression can affect anyone at any time and is a disorder that is characterised by mood change (Golightley, 2004). When engaging with the family I realised that they were very accepting of their situation however,
‘if people’s strategic responses to their oppression involve an uncritical approach to their position, they embrace existing patterns of social relations as a matter of course, and do not believe there are options open to them’ (Dominelli, 2002, p11).
I felt that the family were failing to envisage that their life could improve as they had little faith in their own abilities.
Although I used Systems Theory to shape my intervention with the Bloggs family I used Carl Rogers principles of person centred counselling in order to gain an open and honest relationship with the family members (Koprowska, 2005). Miller (2006) indicates that it is crucial to gain a working alliance with the service user and by having a level of congruence you can help the service users
‘Resolve inner conflict by congruently matching feelings with experience’ (p35).
As a social worker is it also important to display genuineness, empathy and unconditional positive regard, and I feel that by doing this I gained a positive relationship with the family (Miller, 2006).
I supported and worked closely with the family to identify a range of issues that have impacted upon Shane’s behaviour as well as looking at how Rita and Paul are responding to the needs of their family, which was done mainly through assessment, which enables the family to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The Systems Theory model allowed me to actively use the families’ strengths to help to create a positive future for themselves (White, 2002).
The issue that was causing the most anguish for Rita was Shane’s behaviour so I felt that it was important to identify the cause of his problematic behaviour. Shane’s unemployment appeared to be linked to his behaviour which made this matter also important to address as soon as possible. Coulshed and Orme (1998) makes us aware of the ‘feedback loop’ (p47) that works in the within the system, or family in this case, and allows them the ‘capacity for change’ (p47). Dominelli (2002) states that it is important not to oppress families and to do this you should be
‘focusing on their strengths without undermining their responsibilities for the choices they make’ (p25)
The key concepts within social work are about meeting the needs of the service users and developing their potential (International Association of Schools of Social Work, 2001).
Pincus and Minahan (cited in Coulshed and Orme, 1998) heralded that there are 4 systems within social work; the change agent system, the client system, the target system and the action system. In the case of my intervention with the Bloggs family I played the role of the change agent system within my organisational boundaries. The International Association of Schools of Social Work (2001) state that
‘social workers are change agents in society and in the lives of the individuals, families and communities they serve’
The target system within the family is Rita and her family, particularly Shane, are the action system. I was working with the family to achieve the aims of the intervention which were agreed upon in the action plan.
When I began my intervention Shane was not in any form of employment or education. Shane expressed a desire to work or go to college but felt too intimidated because of the large crowds and stated that he wanted a job where he could work alone. The other aspect of Shane’s behaviour is that he spends much of the evenings and weekends with a group of older boys who regularly get in trouble with the police. He had been drinking excessively and as a result had smashed a window which resulted in him being charged with criminal damage and then sentenced to a 6 month Referral Order.
I realised that there were a lot of possible opportunities for Shane and that in my role I could
‘facilitate the negotiation of different contexts or provide an environment in which self-empowerment can flourish’ (Dominelli and Gollins, 1997, cited in Dominelli, 2002, p25)
I took Shane to college for careers advice and advocated for him until he felt confident enough to do it himself. When advocating for a young person it is important that the young person is sure of what your role is (Seward, 2001). I eventually referred Shane onto an Entry to Education (E2E) programme at the local college, which was tailored to meet his requirements as well as his interests. The aim of the Entry to Employment scheme is to design a programme that is tailored to meet the learning needs of the individual as well as offering a range of provision (Learning and Skills Council, 2007). I supported Shane and by doing this I met the criteria for Key Role 3 of the National Occupational Standards for Social Work,
‘Support individuals to represent their needs, views and circumstances’ (Cited in Hafford-Letchfield, 2006).
Throughout my involvement with Shane he built up his trust in me and began to open up about his anti-social behaviour. We discussed the risks he was putting himself in by ‘hanging around’ with the peer group that he was friends with in addition to how his offending behaviour could impact upon his future. By doing this I was exercising influence over Shane which is one of the practice skills highlighted by Coulshed and Orme (1998) needed when applying systems theory. During this process Shane managed to disassociate himself from his peers and his mum was overjoyed by the change in his character. I found that I used my communication skills well in order to achieve this outcome with Shane. Seden (1999) describes 4 important skills in communication which are active listening, giving attention to the service user, paraphrasing information and reflecting feelings and views back to the service user. Shane seemed to open up in our conversations and gained trust in me which I feel was a direct result of my openness and honesty with him. Systems Theory shows us that the primary purpose when working with is service user is to enhance and strengthen their abilities to adapt and solve problems (Healy, 2005).
Once the process of intervention had begun with Shane I then discussed Rita and Paul’s dream of running a business of their own. It was apparent that it was something that they had been considering for a very long time but they didn’t know how to start or how to raise the capital needed. I did some research and found a local enterprise trust that I linked the family up with. I also enquired at the local college about food hygiene courses as this was essential in being able to run their own sandwich shop. I accompanied Rita and Paul to their first meeting the enterprise trust where the process was explained. There were several courses available to the family which covered the basics of setting up a new business to helping them with their accounts. It was explained to Rita and Paul that the enterprise trust would find them premises as well as helping them to apply for small business loans as well as a local authority grant. Once the process was started I gave Rita and Paul encouragement and support and helped them when they were struggling to complete forms. They found the business plan particularly challenging them but again I aided them to complete it for themselves. I felt that Rita and Paul had a distinct lack of confidence and I aided them to build up their esteem and empower them to recognise their full potential. Germain and Gitterman (1996, cited in Healy, 2005),
‘Suggest that the social worker enhances the service user capacities through the methods of enabling, exploring, mobilizing, guiding and facilitating’ (p139).
The whole process of beginning their own business helped each system within the family network to interact in a more positive way, which is the objective of systems theory (Healy, 2005).
The next issue that required attention was Samantha’s disability so I referred the family to the Children with Disabilities team. The reason for this was to get them extra support to deal with the issues arising from Samantha’ disability but from social workers who are trained to deal with problems surrounding disability. Fortunately for the family Samantha met the criteria and was given a social worker to address the families’ difficulties in that area. The result of this was that the Children with Disabilities Team wanted to hold a Family Group Meeting to address the families’ issues but unfortunately there was no funding for this resource, which is a common problem in the Social Work Arena and is likely to get worse over to the next 2 years (Community Care, 2007). Thompson (2001) informs us that
‘social work with disabled people has never achieved a priority status’ (pIII)
and as a result of this, this area has ‘low levels of funding’ (pIII).
Whilst working with the family it came to my attention that Paul was upsetting Shane by making upsetting comments towards him, which was very oppressing for Shane (Dominelli, 2002). The uncomfortable situation was also upsetting Rita as she was unsure how to deal with the situation so I felt it important to address this ‘system’. Shane’s vulnerability led to his hurt but Paul couldn’t understand why as he thought he was being humorous. I used transactional analysis to work with Shane and Paul together to address this issue. Transactional analysis was developed by Eric Berne in the 1950’s and he termed it to be
‘a new psychotherapeutic approach’ (International Transactional Analysis Association, 2007).
A relationship can also be described as an interaction that occurs between elements of a system (International Transactional Analysis Association, 2007). Because of this I felt that their negative relationship needed to be addressed so that it didn’t put any more strain upon Rita.
The final phase of Systems Theory is the ending phase and is an important part of the structure of the theory (Healy, 2005). When I began work with the family I explained that my intervention would be restricted. When I felt the time was coming to end the intervention I explained to Rita that there were other support networks available that she could use, such as support groups. Systems Theory allowed me to explore their feelings about the ending of the intervention and Rita and I discussed at length her sadness and together we came to the conclusion that she needed some form of ongoing support. After exploring the options available Rita decided that she would like to be linked into a parent support group that I was co-facilitating based at her daughter’s high school. Coulshed and Orme (1998) informs us that
‘Group work can be used effectively to extend to networks of carers and service users’ (p191)
When Rita had been to the support group twice and felt comfortable within the group I ended the intervention; a decision that the whole family were satisfied with. The way in which you end your intervention with a service user is very important. Miller (2006) relays to us that,
‘Abrupt endings, in which the service user has no part in the decision-making, leave room for the event to be interpreted as a rejection or abandonment’ (p45)
Throughout my intervention with the Bloggs family I felt that I was getting very close to them, particularly Rita. I was very aware that the relationship could easily slip into a ‘friend’ relationship. I used my supervision sessions both with my work based supervisor and my practice assessor to address these feelings and ensure that my relationship remained on a professional grounding. Both my work based supervisor and my practice assessor allowed me to explore my feelings and provided me with containment (Frogett, 2006). I also used my supervision sessions to account for my work with the family. Thompson (2005) conveys to us that
‘Because law and policy do not provide detailed prescriptions for practice, individual social workers have to take responsibility for their actions’ (p50)
Bell (2003) advises that it is easier to understand peoples’ behaviour in the setting where it occurs and within
‘The belief systems of the family’ (p195).
I found that using Systems Theory allowed me to understand and respond to the family in their own environment. It is also noted by Parker and Bradley (2003) that using a systems approach allows the social worker to observe how the family is impacted upon by social structures. Healy (2005) advises that this theory also allowed me to promote change at micro level (in the home) as well as at macro level (by Shane gaining entry onto E2E course and Rita and Paul working with the Enterprise trust). Throughout my intervention Systems Theory enabled me to highlight the family’s strengths, as observed by Healy (2005); their love for each other, their ability to survive and their potential to succeed. Parker and Bradley (2003) claim that working with the service users’ strengths helps to ensure anti-oppressive focus is maintained. Using Systems Theory also allowed me to use other methods of intervention where it was appropriate, for example, person-centred to build up the relationship and advocacy to help gain entry to College for Shane.
Although Systems Theory allowed me to look at the family in their environment it is still very difficult to identify a ‘system’ and where its boundaries lie (Healy, 2005). Banks (2001) notes that
‘It is difficult to reconcile the respect for users as persons with the ‘client as system’’ (p74).
Another obstacle that I was faced with when using this theory was the distinct lack of both theoretical and empirical justification of the theory in practice situations (Healy, 2005).
Although I found this theory to be the most appropriate methodology it is concerning that it draws heavily on discourses that bear little relevance to social work, for example biology, maths and physics (Healy, 2005). Alongside this comes my final critique of systems Theory in that allow the theory allows me to observe person-in-environment is does not allow me to break this down into smaller pieces for further analysis (Healy, 2005).
I thoroughly enjoyed working with the Bloggs family and found the results of the intervention very fulfilling. When I first started working the family I was unsure as to how I would deal with their complex issues, or if I was capable of helping them at all. My time-management and organisational skills were essential in facilitating my role and helping me to achieve positive results with the family. My intervention with the Bloggs family also highlighted my weaknesses and I am much more aware of how my practice needs to improve in the future. I have helped the Bloggs family to fulfil the criteria of the 5 outcomes of Every Child Matters together, which was very challenging yet extremely satisfying at the same time. Seeing the Bloggs family achieve positive change and create themselves positive futures has been very gratifying and has made me even more sure that Social Work is the field to which I want to dedicate my life to.
5361 Words
24 Pages
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (2002) Social Work Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Banks, S. (2001) Ethics and Values in Social Work 2nd Edition. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Batchelor, J. In: Bell, M. and Wilson, K. (2003) The Practitioners Guide to Working with Families. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Bell, M. In: Bell, M. and Wilson, K. (2003) The Practitioners Guide to Working with Families. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Community Care (8/3/07) Funding Fears for New Joint Regulator, (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/03/08/103691/funding-fears-for-new-joint-regulator.html?key=LACK%20OR%20FUNDING
Accessed 12/3/07)
Coulshed, V. and Orme, J. (1998) Social Work Practice. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Cree, V. (2000) Sociology for Social Workers and Probation Officers. Oxon; Routledge
Dallos, R. (1991) Family Belief Systems; Therapy and Change. Milton Keynes; Open University Press
Dominelli, L. (2002) Anti-oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Every Child Matters (2005) Background to Every Child Matters (http://www.everychildmatters.co.uk/aims/background/
Accessed 17/01/2007)
Frogett, L. (2006) Psychosocial Theory and Practice for Social Work: A Conceptual Introduction to an Object Relations Approach. Preston; University of Central Lancashire
Golightley, M. (2004) Social Work and Mental Health. Exeter; Learning Matters
Healy, K. (2005) Social work theories in context: creating frameworks for practice. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
International Association of Schools of Social Work (2001) About IASSW: International Definition of Social Work
(http://www.iassw-aiets.org/
Accessed 30/4/2007)
International Transactional Analysis Association (2007) History of Eric Berne, Founder of Transactional Analysis.
(http://www.itaa-net.org/ta/bernehist.htm
Accessed 30/4/2007)
Jowitt, M. and O’Loughlin, S. (2005) Social Work with Children and Families. Exeter; Learning Matters
Koprowska, J. (2005) Communication and Interpersonal Skills in Social Work. Exeter; Learning Matters
Learning and Skills Council (2007) Entry to Employment
(http://e2e.lsc.gov.uk/
Accessed 23/4/2007)
Miller, L. (2006) Counselling Skills for Social Work. London; Sage
Parker, J. and Bradley, G. (2003) Social Work Practice: Assessment, Planning, Intervention and Review. Exeter; Learning Matters
Robinson, G. (2002) in Davies, M (2002) Companion to Social Work 2nd Edition. Oxford; Blackwell Publishing
Seden, J. (1999) Counselling Skills in Social Work Practice. Buckingham; Open University Press
Seward, J. In: Factor et al. (2001) Working with Young People. Dorset; Russell House Publishing
Thompson, N. (2005) Understanding Social Work Preparing for Practice. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
Thompson, N. (2006) Anti-discriminatory Practice. Basingstoke; Palgrave
Trevithick, P. (2000) Social Work Skills: A Practice handbook. Berkshire; Open University Press
Watson, D. and West, W. (2006) Social Work Processes and Practice: Approaches, Knowledge and Skills. Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan
White, J. In: Davies, M. (2002) Companion to Social Work 2nd Edition. Oxford; Blackwell Publishing
Candidate Number 20160036
