Which Strengths-based Practice? Reconciling Strengths-based Practice and Mandated Authority in Child Protection Work

Abstract

The recent application of strengths-based practice in child protection settings has been accompanied by evidence of inconsistent implementation and concerns that the approach is incompatible with statutory work. Few studies have moved beyond asking whether child protection workers are implementing strengths-based practice to explore why the approach is enacted as it is. This article describes a mixed methods study using an online survey and interviews to elicit from 225 statutory child protection workers in a large Canadian agency how they applied strengths-based ideas and why they did what they did. The authors found that although strengths-based practice was popular, 70 percent of participants believed that it was not always applicable to child protection work. Participants described five distinct versions of the approach, only one of which was fully congruent with their mandated role. The study suggests that the common conflation of strengths-based and solution-focused approaches ignores important differences in the conceptualization of practitioner authority and leaves practitioners attempting to implement versions ofstrengths-based practice that do not fit statutory child protection work. Only when practitioners choose solution-focused models that support their use of mandated authority is consistent implementation a reasonable expectation.

Representing Latinos

“…Five distinct versions of strengths-based practice were constructed from interviewee descriptions of how they applied the approach in their daily work (Oliver and Charles, 2015). These versions were characterised as 'Supporting client self-determination'; 'Relating therapeutically'; 'Connecting to internal and external resources'; 'Pursuing a balanced understanding'; and 'Enacting firm, fair and friendly practice'.…”

“…Four of the five versions of the approach were deemed by interviewees to require parental collaboration. This made their inconsistent implementation an important strategy allowing workers to assert their mandated authority when child safety could not be secured through collaboration alone (Oliver and Charles, 2015). Only 'Enacting firm, fair and friendly practice' reflected all core principles of strengths-based child protection approaches, including the principle that coercion and partnership are not mutually exclusive.…”

Enacting Firm, Fair and Friendly Practice: A Model for Strengths-Based Child Protection Relationships?

“…These versions were characterised as ‘Supporting client self-determination’; ‘Relating therapeutically’; ‘Connecting to internal and external resources’; ‘Pursuing a balanced understanding’; and ‘Enacting firm, fair and friendly practice’. Their content and relative applicability to child protection work are described in detail elsewhere ( Oliver and Charles, 2015 ). The lack of a shared definition was partly explained by the fact that the agency did not subscribe to a single strengths-based model, leaving workers exposed to a range of messages from their training and the social work literature about what strengths-based practice in child protection settings entailed.…”

Understanding factors that promote and limit the use of video guidance in child protection services: A SWOT analysis

“…Although approaches that draw on families' resources are central for much parent guidance in the CPS, little research has been carried out regarding how it is used in practice within the CPS (Kiraly & Humphreys, 2015;Oliver & Charles, 2015). Taking full consideration of parent's perspectives within the context of CPS is challenging, but there is a need for interventions that contribute to empowerment of parents, rather than reinforcing beliefs about failing in their role as caregivers (Kiraly & Humphreys, 2015).…”