Practice Study3

Social work intervention operates at one of three levels: the Macro level which involves work with society or communities as a whole. It is concerned with policy forming and advocacy on a national or international scale. The Meso level of social work intervention involves work with agencies, small organizations, and other small groups. It is concerned with policy making within a social work agency or developing programs for a particular community. The third level of intervention is the Micro level that involves services to individuals and families.

This paper is a reflective account of my intervention role as a social work student attached to a local authority social work agency operating in a direct practice work on a micro level. Hence my intervention was direct work with individuals and families.

In this particular case, my intervention was with a ten years old school boy that I name (C) and his family. He has been referred by the children’s reporter for an alleged offence under section 52 (2) (i) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and The Children Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1996 ().

Under the above legislation, the reporter to the children’s panel may decides whether a child needs to appear before a panel in which case the overarching principles should apply to all proceedings . Those principles state that: the welfare of the child is paramount and the child must be given the opportunity to express their view and that view must be taken into account. Also, section (16) of the above 1995 Act stipulates that no order be made unless it benefits the child.

The reporter was requesting information which I have the duty to provide under section (56) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

Having perused all relevant physical and electronic documentation of the casework, I got the following picture of the child’s situation in his micro environment: the child school attendance was poor since the previous year because of difficulties in the relationship between his mother and two older brothers. There were issues of drug and alcohol abuse and of suspected child neglect. It was alleged that the child was seen in the street asking strangers for food or money; and the police also suspected the child’s mother to use her benefits entitlement money to fund her older sons’ substance abuse. (C) and one other friend (P) were charged by police for alleged offences of causing damage to the property of other persons. I contacted (C)’s family in writing followed by a telephone call to agree a suitable time and date for an initial visit (I had due regard to standard 2.2 of SSSC codes of practice). On arrival to the family home, I introduced myself and set out the purpose of my visit which was to investigate the various reports of neglect and alleged offences. I also informed (C)’s mother and brothers that my presence was to gather information from their individual perspective (standards 1, 2.1 and 2.2 of SSSC codes of practice) in order to help my assessment of their family situation and that of the Child (C). And I explained that based on the information, I will write a report in which I would make the best possible recommendation to the reporter who will decide the next course of action. I also explained the procedures and timescales of the hearing system (Codes 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). This process was to conclude within two weeks of the casework allocation date. My engagement with (C) and his family consisted of two visits to the family home, a visit to his school and telephone conversation with another professional from an external agency (standard 6.7 of SSSC codes of practice).

In order to gather the information I needed, I opted to use a questioning model of assessment because it allows me to collate and analyse information imparted to me by (C), his family and other professionals while I have control of the direction of the whole process. And the procedural model of questioning as it fits in well with my agency’s and the children reporter’s ways of gathering and supplying information to the children panel. The advantage of this model is that it requires little judgement (Milner& O’byrne, 1999:53) while meeting statutory requirements through the possible use of a checklist ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

I also used the exchange model for it gives the flexibility of including (C) and his family’s view of the problems as well as that of other professionals. I also used two systemic tools: an Ecomap and the Vickery Chart for their usefulness in helping me identify the problems by breaking them down. The systemic tools also help address the tasks holistically, and engage me into ongoing negotiations (an exchange model) with all the people involved with (C) and his family. The tools also help me explore the specific problems and their possible solutions (questioning model); and to address the ‘change, care and social control task’ (Smale, Tuson et al P.132) of social work intervention.

I used the ecomap below to lay out (C)’s problems in his micro environment. It is clear that (C)’s problems are:

-his mother has struggled before to cope with her two older sons aged 22 and 24

-there had been issues of violence in the relationship between the two older brothers and the C’s mother resulting from misuse of substances

-the (C) had poor attendance at school in the past and although this has recently improved, his academic performance is still lagging behind

-peer influence leads him to offending

-his home environment presents some cause for concern

In order to analyse the above information in the ecomap I used another systemic tool: the Vickery chart below.

Based on the information eco-mapped and analysed in the Vickery chart above, I have come to the decision that:

owing to the fact that ( C )’s older brothers have had had their own difficulties which impacted him emotionally, psychologically and educationally; these problems nonetheless appear partly resolved through the eldest brother’s participation in the methadone programme and (C)’s mother success in stopping his other brother to bring alcohol home. There was also no tangible evidence of child neglect or maltreatment even though the mother may have struggled in the past. Rather, my observation was that the mother and the older brother were now trying to help (C) make better peer association and find him activities that will keep him away from offending.

I therefore recommended that the reporter take no further action and allow the family to work with the social work department on a voluntary basis to assist them deal with the child’s and the whole family’s problems. For example parenting skills support was in my view needed and therefore I consulted (C)’s mother and discussed with her the parameters of the support to be provided and its benefits. And I suggested it in my report only after she agreed that she would welcome such a help.

In making this decision I was not only wary of making a sound and effective decision (O’Sullivan, 1999:16) by using the power I have as ‘an element of social action’ (Hugman, 1991:30) but also I was informed by Baumrind’s (1991:56-95) suggestion that ‘effective parenting is a combination of firm discipline in the face of a child’s difficult behaviour and a response to the child’s needs consistently’. This is further corroborated by Strand (2000:269-281) who argued that the presence of firm discipline and consistent response to a child’s needs help children develop into well-adjusted people. My decision was also influenced by my wish to maximise the service user’s participation and self-determination so that it leads to the family’s greater commitment to the change process (Pincus & Minahan, 1973:40)

The process of my intervention with (C) can be summarised by the five stages in the diagram below:

As shown in the diagram, in each stage of my intervention; I have taken steps to ensure that my practice is respectful of the service users’ and my values differences (Dominelli, 2002:16). For example during my first visit, I was faced with an ethical ambiguity when throughout the interview ( C ) mother and brother were smoking heavily turning the living room into a smoky zone. I was very uncomfortable working in such an environment and concerned about the health risks to myself and the children: (C) and his ten year old friend (D) were also in the room. I was very uncomfortable but neither the mother nor the brother appeared concerned about the effect of their smoking upon others. I sat down thinking whether I should tell them how I feel and not appear intrusive and oppressive by trying to manipulate their behaviour (Pincus & Minahan, 1973:43); after all they are in their home and I am only a visitor and I do not want to infringe on their self-determination and choice of life style. I did not know what to do but one thing certain is that I felt powerless because power was somewhat ‘reversed’ to the service user.

At the end of the interview, I negotiated a smoking free environment to work in for my next visit by remind C’s mother of the health risks to myself and the children of being exposed to smoking.

Prior to my first visit, I familiarised myself with the case file. I prepared questions that would easily be understood by the child and his family (respect for service users’ needs) and I had due respect for every member of the family during the interview process. I involved all four members of the family and taken into account each of their views of what the problems are and working with them to find possible solutions. For example, the child’s mother informed me during my second visit that she and the child’s older brothers have agreed to stop his friend visiting and instead encourage him to go along with his new ten years old friend (D) and go fishing with his older brothers at weekends. I supported that strategy because I felt that it was not only appropriate but also it came from the service users themselves (it is their choice of solution). And it is also a sign of their commitment to the partnership work and my recognition of the service user’s self-determination and empowerment.

I was pleased that following two visits, (C)’s mother and brothers have come up with a strategy to make a change in (C)’s situation. And work alongside social services in exercising their power of initiative (Dominelli, 2002:18) to achieve the common goal of changing (C)’s associations and improve his performance at school.

My intervention with (C) and his family highlighted some considerable issues of power, choice; service user self determination and worker’s ethical ambiguities in dealing with risks that conflicting values may pose. The use of self, systemic tools and intervention models as well as skills of negotiation were successful in establishing positive partnership and maximising participation by each member of the family.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1991), The influence of parenting style on adolescent

competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.

Dominelli L. (2002) “Ch2, Values in social work: contested entities with enduring qualities” from Adams, R., Dominelli L. & Payne M. (2002) Critical practice in social work pp.15-27

Dominelli, L. (2002), Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Hugman, R. (1991), Power in caring professions, Basingstoke: MacMillan

Milner J & O’byrne P, (2002), Assessment in Social Work 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

O’Sullivan, T. (1999) Decision Making in Social Work, Macmillan Press Ltd

Pincus, A. & Minahan, A. (1973), Social Work Practice: Model and Method, bIstaca, Illinois: Peacock publisher, Inc

Smale, G., Tuson, G. & Statham, D. (2000) “Ch7, Assessment and Intervention” from Smale, G., Tuson, G. & Statham, D. (2000) Social work and Social Problems: working towards social inclusion and social change (pp131-153) Basingstoke, Palgrave

Scottish Social Services Council (2007), Codes of Practice for Social Services Workers