From behaviour-based to ecological: Multi-agency partnership responses to extra-familial harm

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK
R. Owens, J. Lloyd
{"title":"From behaviour-based to ecological: Multi-agency partnership responses to extra-familial harm","authors":"R. Owens, J. Lloyd","doi":"10.1177/14680173231162553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary In the United Kingdom (UK), inquiries into the abuse of adolescents harmed in contexts beyond their families frequently document failures in multi-agency arrangements. Forms of extra-familial harm, such as criminal and sexual exploitation, often feature near-fatal violence and serious abuse. UK welfare policy has shifted towards place-based approaches to harm, leading to safeguarding partnerships forming between welfare agencies and neighbourhood crime reduction agencies. However, forming partnerships between those who have differing epistemological underpinnings raises challenges. This article explores these by drawing on a research project implementing contextual safeguarding theory and practice within five child welfare social care departments in England and Wales. Data is presented from 10 pilots (33 focus groups, 24 interviews, 59 meeting observations, 36 reviews of cases, review of 100 documents). Findings Multi-agency partnerships prioritise safeguarding practice that targets behaviour, over addressing the social conditions of abuse. Assumptions that partnerships will automatically align means that there is little space for negotiating a shared conceptual/ideological approach. Particularly in high-risk situations, welfare agencies defer to policing methods that target individuals rather than environments. Where ecological approaches are utilised, this is experienced as ‘against the grain’ and requiring support. Applications To advance contextual approaches to safeguarding young people, multi-agency partnerships must go beyond altering the behaviour of those who are harmed. Partnerships that engage in reflective discussion about their conceptual approach are more likely to build the awareness and trust required for ecological methods to succeed. Enhancing ecological social work leadership within partnerships responding to extra-familial harm is a key factor.","PeriodicalId":47142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173231162553","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary In the United Kingdom (UK), inquiries into the abuse of adolescents harmed in contexts beyond their families frequently document failures in multi-agency arrangements. Forms of extra-familial harm, such as criminal and sexual exploitation, often feature near-fatal violence and serious abuse. UK welfare policy has shifted towards place-based approaches to harm, leading to safeguarding partnerships forming between welfare agencies and neighbourhood crime reduction agencies. However, forming partnerships between those who have differing epistemological underpinnings raises challenges. This article explores these by drawing on a research project implementing contextual safeguarding theory and practice within five child welfare social care departments in England and Wales. Data is presented from 10 pilots (33 focus groups, 24 interviews, 59 meeting observations, 36 reviews of cases, review of 100 documents). Findings Multi-agency partnerships prioritise safeguarding practice that targets behaviour, over addressing the social conditions of abuse. Assumptions that partnerships will automatically align means that there is little space for negotiating a shared conceptual/ideological approach. Particularly in high-risk situations, welfare agencies defer to policing methods that target individuals rather than environments. Where ecological approaches are utilised, this is experienced as ‘against the grain’ and requiring support. Applications To advance contextual approaches to safeguarding young people, multi-agency partnerships must go beyond altering the behaviour of those who are harmed. Partnerships that engage in reflective discussion about their conceptual approach are more likely to build the awareness and trust required for ecological methods to succeed. Enhancing ecological social work leadership within partnerships responding to extra-familial harm is a key factor.
从行为为基础到生态:多机构伙伴关系对家庭外伤害的反应
在联合王国(联合王国),对在家庭以外的环境中受到伤害的青少年的虐待的调查经常记录多机构安排的失败。家庭外伤害的形式,如犯罪和性剥削,往往以近乎致命的暴力和严重虐待为特征。英国的福利政策已经转向以地方为基础的伤害方法,导致福利机构和社区减少犯罪机构之间形成保障伙伴关系。然而,在那些拥有不同认识论基础的人之间形成伙伴关系带来了挑战。本文通过在英格兰和威尔士的五个儿童福利社会护理部门实施情境保护理论和实践的研究项目来探讨这些问题。数据来自10个试点项目(33个焦点小组、24次访谈、59次会议观察、36次案例审查、100份文件审查)。多机构伙伴关系优先考虑针对行为的保护实践,而不是解决虐待的社会条件。伙伴关系将自动结盟的假设意味着,就共同的概念/意识形态方法进行谈判的空间很小。特别是在高风险的情况下,福利机构服从于针对个人而不是环境的警务方法。在使用生态方法的地方,这是“违背常理的”,需要支持。为了推进保护年轻人的情境方法,多机构伙伴关系必须超越改变受伤害者的行为。参与对其概念方法进行反思讨论的伙伴关系更有可能建立生态方法成功所需的意识和信任。在应对家庭外伤害的伙伴关系中加强生态社会工作领导是一个关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social Work
Journal of Social Work SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Work is a forum for the publication, dissemination and debate of key ideas and research in social work. The journal aims to advance theoretical understanding, shape policy, and inform practice, and welcomes submissions from all areas of social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信