Social Work Weaving Together Collaborative Responses
45Te Hautaka ako te Tari Äwhinai te Tamaiti, te Rangatahi, taeatu ki te WhänauAPRIL 2010The Practice Journal of Child, Youth and FamilyWeaving together collaborative responsessocialworknow
contents1 Editorial2 Social work and the law: Collaborationor domination8 Building community within the community:Government – community partnerships in theDistrict of Columbia’s child welfare system15 Working together to improve outcomes forchildren and young people with disabilities20 Working together to support families ofvulnerable children26 Practice Matters– Exploring innovative practice in family violence– Collaboration the Pacific way34 Information for contributors36 Social Work Now – aimssocialwork45 nowAPRIL 2010The stone that features on the cover was created by a young personat one of our care and protection residences.Social Work Now is published three times a year by Child, Youth and Family.Views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of Child, Youth and Family.Material may be reprinted in other publications only with prior written permissionand provided the material is used in context and credited to Social Work Now.
Collaboration – weaving together ideasArguments supporting interagency collaborationpermeate the literature and child welfareguidelines internationally. Yet, difficulties ininteragency communication and coordinationhave nevertheless plagued child welfare servicesover many years. Strong collaborative practicetakes time, which is often in short supply in busychild welfare practice. Differing professionaland philosophical perspectives, beliefs aboutwhen and how services might intervene in thelives of children and their families, and agencymandates and operational priorities also criticallyinfluence the ways in which agencies worktogether. It is within this dynamic interagencyand interdisciplinary context that relationships oftrust develop between professionals, or converselyfail to develop. Where relationships are weak, thepotential exists for children to fall between servicedelivery silos. Where relationships are strong andpeople are able to work toward a common vision,despite disciplinary differences or cross-agencytensions, children and families are most likely tobe the benefactors of their collaborative efforts.I am particularly pleased therefore that weare dedicating this special edition to issues ofcollaboration. I am also delighted to see thediverse ways in which our contributors havetackled the subject – exploring disciplinaryframes that influence practice, proposingevidence-based opportunities for collaboration,and providing excellent examples ofcollaboration in action.Rosemary Sheehan, Associate Professor atMonash University, opens the special editionwith a discussion of social work and the law andthe tensions that can emerge when practicebecomes dominated by legalism. Roque Geraldand Erin McDonald from District of Columbia’sChild and Family Services Agency in the UnitedStates, then explore the ways in whichgovernments can develop meaningfulpartnerships with local communities that gobeyond the rhetoric of collaboration and becomea unified focus of change.SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2010Working collaboratively together, whilst importantin all areas of practice, is particularly importantin the area of disability. Pete Carter, writing froma New Zealand perspective, looks specifically atthe ways in which cross-sectoral services can worktogether to improve outcomes for children withdisability. Noting that collaborative practice doesnot always come naturally or easily, he remindsus that children and young people with disabilitiesare nevertheless more likely to have their serviceneeds met when professionals work togethertoward a common purpose.Dorothy Scott, who is the Foundation Chairand director of the Australian Centre for ChildProtection in South Australia, then looks atintegrated responses in early intervention.Professor Scott encourages us, when creatingcollaborative service environments, to extend ourthinking beyond professional collaborations anddevelop stronger solution-finding collaborativepartnerships with parents and families.Finally we have two local articles in PracticeMatters that look at collaboration-in-action.Firstly Delwyn Clement discusses an innovativecommunity-led initiative developed to breakcycles of violence within the community. TheWhakakotahitanga Family Violence Programme isan excellent example of local communities comingtogether to find new ways of addressing domesticviolence. Our final paper is also a fine example ofcommunities coming together to develop localsolutions. Tofa Suafole Gush and Gafa Faitotoadiscuss collaboration the Pacific way. They takeus on their journey of developing a Pacific ActionPlan to support Pacific children and their families.Working collaboratively provides us withopportunities to create more extensive andintegrated services that better meet the needs ofchildren and their families. You will have noticedthe ‘new-look’ of Social Work Now, which I thinkreflects beautifully the weaving together of ideasthat comes about through collaboration. I hopethis special edition provides us with some newideas and innovative ways of making that happen.1Weaving together collaborative responseseditorial
Social work and the law:Collaboration or domination?Rosemary SheehanThe legal system exerts significant influenceon the practice of social work, and this isparticularly evident in the health and publicwelfare domains. Legal definitions of, forexample, mental illness, or what constitutesrisk of harm to a child, can in some jurisdictionsspecifically direct system and service responses.Bureaucratic and legal obligations areincreasingly defining social work interventionsand assessments, for example in the childprotection practice context, where emphasison procedure and administrative regulationcan get in the way of professional social workdecision-making (Braye & Preston-Shoot, 2006).It is not uncommon, however, when welfarereform is on the agenda, for the law to be seenas a critical component in developing provisionand strengthening professional practice. Thelegal system reflects society’s desire for betterdefined standards and expectations, especiallywhen judgements about individual welfare andfamily relationships are required (Disney, 1992).What this has meant in practice is that lawyersand social workers are increasingly required towork together to assist clients with individualand family problems. Both social work andthe law are concerned with issues that can beemotionally charged and/or highly contested(Vanstone, 1995). Yet the work of the twoprofessions is often characterised by conflict:social workers and lawyers will often differ inwhat they see as their respective roles, duties,and ethical responsibilities, and in their responsesto individual and family problems.The dominance of legal interventionIt is in the area of child welfare practice thatthe law asserts itself most forcefully (Stein,2004). This is evident, Braye and Preston-Shoot(2006) suggest, in the series of public enquires2SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2010into child deaths in the UK from the mid-1980s(Jasmine Beckford, Kimberley Carlisle and TyraHenry) to more recent deaths of Victoria Climbie(2003) and Baby P. (2007). They suggest theseenquiries reveal how social work professionaljudgement is compromised when the focusof child welfare work is more about its legalmandate than therapeutic intervention. Socialworkers were criticised in each enquiry forfailing to understand their legal obligations, andcalls were made for the development of evenmore legal criteria to define risk and proceduralstandards for intervention to ensure childrenwere adequately protected. This legalisticapproach presumes that there will always beclear indicators about individuals who needhelp and are vulnerable and that social workerswill always know when they need to exercisestatutory authority. Braye and Preston-Shoot(1995) argue that this is misleading: the law isneither simple nor unproblematic to apply andis an ineffective remedy for the often long-termand complex problems of individuals and families.Both social work and the law are concernedwith issues that can be emotionallycharged and/or highly contested.Social work in child welfare and mental health,for example, must deal with the uncertaintythat surrounds individual and family problems,balancing ethical dilemmas, confidentiality,obligations to clients, and challengingdisadvantage, with community interests.Social work practice in health is particularlyinfluenced by a range of legal principles relatingto treatment, access to health resources, andthe protection of individual rights. Obligationsto particular clients (the elderly, individualswith mental health problems or intellectual
Madden (2003) contends that social work hasbeen a passive player in its relationship withthe legal system, and this is especially evidentin the child protection arena. In Australia childprotection is a shared responsibility betweenlegal, health and welfare professionals, althoughit is now so closely aligned with judicial andadversarial processes that it is separated fromcore social work practice in the broader childwelfare and family support systems. Legalmeasures, rather than child development andwellbeing, decide findings of child abuse andneglect, although it is child welfare professionalswho identify whether there are child welfareconcerns that justify statutory intervention.In the Australian system, decisions about childmaltreatment are regarded as critical societaldecisions, which need legal arbitration toguard against unwarranted state intrusion,most particularly from the child welfare system(Edwards, 1997, pp. 2–3).The underpinnings of legalism in healthand welfareThis emphasis on social regulation, in areas ofhealth, safety, welfare, working conditionsand the environment, characterises Australiangovernment and legislative approaches tothe protection of individual rights. Theseare translated into the welfare structuresthat respond to individual vulnerability anddirect the professional activity of services andpractitioners working within these structures.The strong individualist and individual rightsbasis to social policy in Australia flows fromAustralia’s ratification of United Nations humanrights conventions. A range of Australian stateand territory legislation has been enacted toset out the individual and civil rights of theircommunities, recognising basic democraticrights such as the right to vote and freedom ofexpression as well as rights to privacy, culturalrights, and protection from forced work, forexample. The Victorian Charter of Human Rightsand Responsibilities Act 2006 gives protection tothese rights, and others, requiring governmentdepartments and public bodies to observe theserights when they create laws, set policies andprovide services. The Australian Capital TerritoryHuman Rights Commission Act 2005 absorbsthese same functions, as well as paying particularattention to disability services, and to childrenand young people.Weaving together collaborative responsesdisability, for example) shape practice and theway social workers make decisions (Hugmanand Smith, 1995). So too does understandinghealth and public welfare structures andprovisions, the entitlements individuals have,and when individuals have the right to challengeadministrative decisions (Cull and Roche, 2001).Clearly social workers need to be familiarwith law and legislation and be competent inits application in the context of their work.However, social work privileges values such aspartnership and empowerment, and respect forindividual differences, more than acquiescence toprocedure and authority (Wilkinson, 1995). Socialwork has a different core mandate, write Parton,Thorpe and Wattam (1997), preferring supportiveand preventive roles rather than relying onstatutory powers to work with people.Social work privileges values such aspartnership and empowerment, andrespect for individual differences,more than acquiescence to procedureand authority.The Human Rights and Equal OpportunityCommission (HREOC) was established in Australiain 1986 as an independent statutory organisationto formulate policy about areas such as civiland political rights, refugee rights and children’srights, and to make recommendations to theCommonwealth Attorney-General. Legislationhas been formulated to protect these rightsand provide for sanctions when they are notobserved. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992makes disability discrimination unlawful and aimsto promote equal opportunity and access forpeople with disabilities, and individuals can lodgecomplaints of discrimination and harassmentwith HREOC. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975makes discrimination based on an individual’sethnicity unlawful and provides the sameforum for complaint as disability legislation.3
The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 focuses ondiscrimination and sexual harassment, givenAustralia’s commitment to equality betweenmen and women as a principle that lies at theheart of a fair and productive society. The AgeDiscrimination Act 2004 addresses discriminationbased on age, recognising the right of olderAustralians to participate in work andcommunity activity free of age barriers.Each state and territory in Australia haslegislation that allows an individual ororganisation to make decisions for anotherperson who cannot make decisions themselves,either because of illness or intellectualimpairment. Victoria’s Guardianship andAdministration Act 1986 provides a forumin which decisions can be made about anindividual’s capacity to consent to medicaltreatment and to manage their financial affairs,where an individual’s health or decision-makingcapacity is compromised. The decision to appointan advocate for an individual will always bebased on what is least restrictive of the person’srights and what is consistent with their propercare and protection. Social workers who workin, for example, aged care, will be confrontedwith such challenges and will need to ensurethat whatever process is decided, it is in theirclient’s best interests and that their rights areprotected. The Medical Treatment Act Victoria1988 allows an individual to refuse medicaltreatment and, where this is known, socialworkers need to ensure this is respected, bearingin mind however that the legislation does notpreclude palliative care. Mental health lawacross each of the states and territories puts inplace administrative processes that protect thelegal rights of individuals who are involuntarypatients, ensuring they have the right to appealcompulsory treatment. Social workers need toknow about these legal frameworks and anyobligations that are mandated. To neglect thesedisadvantages and disempowers clients.The legislation outlined above illustrates howthe law addresses social problems and sets outstandards of care that inform both the policyand services arena in which social work practice4SOCIAL WORK NOW: APRIL 2010takes place. In any practice context, socialworkers not only have to be mindful of theirethical and professional responsibilities butalso any mandated administrative proceduresthat influence services and shape client-centredresponses. They may also find that social workvalues and interventions are set aside to achievepreferred legal outcomes.The decision to appoint an advocate foran individual will always be based onwhat is least restrictive of the person’srights and what is consistent with theirproper care and protection.The protection of the privacy of family life andparental autonomy is a long-held tradition inAustralia, reflected not only in the framing ofchild welfare legislation but also in the choiceof legal remedies to perceived problems inchildrearing. The United Nations Convention onthe Rights of the Child (UNCROC) has also had aparticular impact on frameworks that have beendeveloped in Australia about standards for thecare of children. Australia is a signatory nationto UNCROC (since 1990) and whilst not boundto enforce the principles of the Convention,the principles have influenced new legislationabout children and the modification of existinglegislation. Legislation such as Victoria’s Children,Youth and Families Act 2005 states that thechild’s wellbeing is a central community concern(Article 30), although there are no definitionsor parameters provided to decide this; it alsoestablishes a statutory framework for childcare and protection systems for families duringadverse times (as have other states and territoriesin Australia). It is recognised that, in line withUNCROC principles, where child development isthreatened or a child is exposed to harm, thereis a need for systems of response that ensurechildren’s safety, but also protect individual rightsand dignity. Again, how these are to be actualisedis not set out in legislation and is left to thediscretion of the individual legal decision-maker.The influence of UNCROC provisions is presentalso in the Australian Family Law Reform Act
Reclaiming collaborationThere are clear dangers when legalism becomesthe driving feature of child welfare practiceand decision-making. Braye and Preston-Shoot(2002, p. 67) remind us that this emphasis onlegalism is problematic because it conflatesgood practice with practice that is ‘procedurallycorrect’, “emphasising apparent certaintiesrather than acknowledging the imprecisions andchoice points inherent in social work tasks”.Social workers need to be confident in theirknowledge about best practice and the ways inwhich the law can at times inadvertently divertpractice from the best interests of children,young people, and their families. Confidence inthe articulation of best practice in the context ofmultidisciplinary discussions and collaborationis important. Social workers have to strike abalance when working with a diverse range ofinfluencing factors, including legal systems. Strictadherence to procedural and legalistic defenceswithin child protection practice gives priorityto technical rather than clinical competence,curtails professional judgement, social workproblem-solving and the development of practiceexpertise (Harlow, 2003, p. 34). Developingpractice frameworks that position law within aset of integrated imperatives, including principledbest practice, research evidence and clinicalknowledge, will provide greater confidence thatsocial work is striking an appropriate balanceand practicing in the best interests of the peoplereceiving social work services.Madden (2003, p. 15) argues that social workneeds to exert a more reciprocal relationshipwith the law if it is to be in control of its future.This more reciprocal relationship is found insystems where child protection relies more on ahealth or welfare model of intervention than ona justice model, where the legal system works inpartnership with welfare professionals to resolvechild protection concerns. Legal systems inmost Western European nations, in Scandinaviaand to some extent in the United Kingdom,look to broad-ranging approaches to familiesthat go beyond immediate safety problems andemphasise negotiation and diversion away fromthe legal system. They are systems foundedon interagency cooperation and communitydevelopment models, although centralgovernment remains responsible for legislationand policy that shapes child welfare.Weaving together collaborative responses1995 (Cth) which, while making the child’s bestinterests the primary concern when decidingaccess and residence matters, does not provideany measures by which these interests can beunderstood. This is evident also in the statementthat it is the child’s right to be heard in anymatters that concern them in child welfareand juvenile justice jurisdictions in Australia.Nevertheless, it is important to note thatchildren’s voices are conveyed by adult legalpractitioners who may or may not have anytraining in working with children or knowledgeof child welfare. Yet the lega
3 disability, for example) shape practice and the Weaving together collaborative responses way social workers make decisions (Hugman and Smith, 1995). So too does understanding health and public welfare structures and provisions, the entitlements i
realm of weaving.” The weaving curve for a k-factor of 1.0 essentially identified the limit of weaving length that resulted in weaving movements. Beyond these lengths, which depended upon weaving volume or flow rate, the section was believed to operate as a basic freeway section, with merging at one end and diverging at the other.
Dark Age Tablet Weaving for Viking and Anglo-Saxon re-enactors 1 Introduction Tablet weaving, also known as card weaving, is a method of using square tablets with holes in the corners to weave narrow decorative bands made of wool, linen or silk threads. Tablet weaving was widespread in E
Free Weaving Patterns from Eplore Techniques for nlay Plain Weave and uck Lace The Draft: How to Read Weaving Patterns P atterns for weaving are written in a form called a “draft.” The draft is a standardized short-hand way
Weaving God’s Promises is: For children ages 3-11 and youth ages 12-14 A three-year program: year One: weaving Our faith year Two: weaving together the family of God year Three: weaving God’s beloved Community You get access to all three years with your annual purchase. Episcopal: wri
Weaving educational threads Weaving educational practice KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 13, ISSUE 1: 2012 7 A Māori Pedagogy: Weaving
6TH GRADE WHEEL PROJECTS 1-Name Puzzle Art -Drawing design with permanent markers and hide name in composition.2 - Mini Mat Weaving -Beginning loom weaving to create a pattern. 3 - Basket Weaving - Beginning weaving techniques using natural reeds. 4 - Pinch Pot -3/D Claystone clay sculpture learn basic steps in a process. 5 - Animal/Mammal -3/D claystone
the physiological indices of weaving in the Philippines. Such an undertaking may provide a better understanding of the working conditions that the weavers face. Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify the physiological aspects of weaving, particularly in this study, the weavers' HR and posture during the weaving task to promote better
INTRODUCTION The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln T he global community of qualitative researchers is mid-way between two extremes, searching for a new middle, moving in several different directions at the same time.1 Mixed methodologies and calls for scientifically based research, on the one side, renewed calls for social justice inquiry .
