From parental engagement to the engagement of social work services: discussing reductionist and democratic forms of partnership with families

Abstract

Social work has moved from a child protection discourse towards a child welfare discourse that views the relationship between social workers and families as a partnership. Partnership with families in the field of child protection and child welfare, however, mirrors diverse ideological motives of social policy, civil society and practice. We engage in a theoretical discussion of different interpretations of partnership. We draw a primary distinction between reductionist and democratic forms of partnership with families. In a reductionist approach, social workers activate parents in order to realize the goals set by social work. A democratic approach to partnership refers to a shared responsibility between social workers, parents and children. In this approach, effective partnership is not something to be realized as an outcome, but a point of departure that implies a joint search for meaning and an experiment with which social workers engage. This engagement presents non-participation' not as problematic but as an essential element of participation. The focus then shifts from a methodical approach to partnership - how to activate people to participate in the care process - to the question of how the engagement of social workers can be constructed together with families

Professionals' understanding of partnership with parents in the context of family support programmes

“…Roose et al . ). They include family support practices that are particularly addressed to parents and that can be identified by their preventive purpose and their aim to promote strengths in family members (Gardner ).…”

Linking family engagement with a rights perspective: macro factors influencing practice

“…This is an indication of the agreed upon importance of work with families. Phrases such as "family support" (Kagan & Weissbourd, 1994), "family participation" (Morris, Brandon, & Tudor, 2015), "family partnership" (Roose, Roets, Van Houte, Vandenhole & Reynaert, 2013), "family group decision making" (Buford, 2000) and similar concepts have been used to reflect variations of this work. In some cases family-centered approaches focus on core principles working with families (e.g., Krumer-Nevo, 2003) and in other cases they refer to specific program models (e.g., Gerring, Kemp, & Marcenko, 2008).…”

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

“…This suggests that participatory decision-making models with democratic intent may still result in undemocratic decision-making processes (Roose, Roets, Van Houte, Vandenhole, & Reynaert, 2013). These findings emphasise the importance of examining how child protection policy occurs in practice and from the perspective of those involved, such as frontline workers and parents.…”

“…The literature indicates that barriers to parent engagement can be further exacerbated by social disadvantage (Featherstone, Broadhurst, & Holt, 2012;Roose et al, 2013). It is suggested that parents who experience poverty, marginalisation and discrimination may distrust services and be reluctant to engage (Forrester, McCambridge, Waissbein, & Rollnick, 2008;Schreiber et al, 2013).…”

“…In recognition of the benefits associated with participation, commentators have suggested that child protection systems in Anglophone countries are experiencing a shift towards policy and practice informed by child welfare, rather the child protection ideals (Fargion, 2014;Roose et al, 2013).…”