Social work, poverty, and child welfare interventions

Abstract

The relationship between children's material circumstances and child abuse and neglect raises a series of questions for policy, practice, and practitioners. Children and families in poverty are significantly more likely to be the subject of state intervention. This article, based on a unique mixed‐methods study of social work interventions and the influence of poverty, highlights a narrative from practitioners that argues that, as many poor families do not harm their children, it is stigmatizing to discuss a link between poverty and child abuse and neglect. The data reveal that poverty has become invisible in practice, in part justified by avoiding stigma but also because of a lack of up‐to‐date research knowledge and investment by some social workers in an “underclass” discourse. We argue, in light of the evidence that poverty is a contributory factor in the risk of harm, that it is vital that social work engages with the evidence and in critical reflection about intervening in the context of poverty. We identify the need for fresh approaches to the harms children and families face in order to support practices that engage confidently with the consequences of poverty and deprivation.

Protective support and supportive protection for families “in the middle”: Learning from the Irish context

“…The necessity for this consideration to not only be about the child and family agency itself but also about related government departments is emphasized. The need to address structural factors such as poverty, homelessness, inequality, and discrimination is evident especially in light of recent research in the United Kingdom, which helps to differentiate child welfare with regard to the impact of social inequality and disadvantage (Bywaters et al, ; Morris et al, ) and a shift in thinking about child protection not just as an individual but a wider social issue (Featherstone, Gupta, Morris, & White, ). The need for greater investment in organizational factors including inadequate services for many adult parents with substance abuse problems, mental health needs, or disabilities as well as improvements within the child welfare system is another priority.…”

“…We recognize that there are a number of ways one might consider this, bearing in mind the international literature discussed above, but for the purposes of our argument, we will focus specifically on adapting Hardiker et al () along the lines depicted in Figure . Throughout the child welfare system, there is a need for better differentiation between concerns, needs, and risk resulting from between micro‐meso causes such as individual/family factors and wider exo‐macro causes (socio‐economic and environmental factors in order to direct responses more accurately (see Bywaters et al, ; Morris et al, ).…”

On hope, loss, anger, and the spaces in between: Reflections on living with/in adoption and the role of the social worker

“…However, these can be hard to dislodge in contexts where understandings of the importance of economic and social circumstances within which families are seeking to care are not considered part of social workers' core business (Morris et al, 2018). Attending to a range of needs is often very necessary to support parents' capacities to care safely for their children, and binary conceptualizations of parent versus child are extremely unhelpful in such circumstances.…”

Recognizing and addressing child neglect in affluent families

“…Few studies have examined social workers' perspectives of child protection interventions in cases of child neglect in affluent families. Although child neglect is recognized as being the most prevalent form of child abuse in the United Kingdom (Daniel, ; Radford et al, ), limited attention has been paid to children in affluent families because they are considered to be at “low risk.” Where social class and economic conditions are addressed in research on neglect and social work practice, typically, the spotlight is on families from lower socio‐economic backgrounds, and emphasis is placed on the relationship between poverty and neglect (Bywaters et al, ; Howarth, ; Morris et al, ). However, children from affluent families may suffer maltreatment in less visible ways; they might not be materially neglected, dirty, or malnourished, but emotionally neglected (Felitti et al, ; Bellis et al, ).…”

“…As has been shown in existing research, child neglect is the most prevalent type of maltreatment in the United Kingdom, and is the largest category of abuse for children subject to a child protection plan (Brandon et al, : Daniel, Taylor, & Scott, ; Whalley, ; Ofsted, ; Taylor, Daniel, & Scott, ). There is strong evidence that children living in environments of deprivation and social inequalities are at higher risk for neglect than children from more privileged backgrounds (Burgess et al, ; Bywaters et al, ; Daniel, Taylor, & Scott, ; May‐Chahal & Cawson, ; Morris et al, ; Sidebotham et al, ; Sidebotham et al, ). Yet, it is important to note that affluence as a category is not routinely recorded when collecting child abuse and neglect data for the Department for Education's Children in Need census in the United Kingdom, which tells us little about the specific demographic characteristics of the children featured.…”