Child Welfare and Protection Professionals: How Do They Experience Their Work? An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Abstract

Professionals and services which aim to help vulnerable children and adolescents are required to provide care, protection, welfare, and advocacy in a professional manner (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011). This is a sensitive and emotionally charged job that can be very rewarding at the same time as being very stressful (Stalker, Mandell, Frensch, Harvey and Wright, 2007). Consequently, frontline Child Welfare and Protection Professionals (CWPP) are marked by high turnover rates. The declining economic context which led to budget cuts and understaffed offices has increased such risks (Ellett and Millar, 2001; Thoma, 1998; Markiewicz, 1996; Tham, 2007). Therefore, much research has focused on the stressors as well as the protective factors involved in this line of work. Given that each national and international region has its own policies which influence the outcomes and work experiences of CWPPs it is important to gather knowledge and research into each jurisdiction so that situations are properly assessed and addressed. For the Republic of Ireland this research has been less intense, with only a few published papers looking into this matter, albeit with original observations (Burns, 2011; Burns and Christie, 2013). The aim of this qualitative research was to expand the literature surrounding this subject by using semistructured in-depth interviews with twelve CWPPs working within an Irish organisation. The research uses Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to organise and structure meaning into themes that reflect the experiences of the participants with regard to their work. Four super-ordinate themes emerged (Client Relationships, Organisation Support and Variance, Child Welfare System Inadequacies and Job Satisfaction) which unite positive and negative work factors consistent with the literature as well as factors that seem to relate to the local context. Improvements that can be made at the organisational and policy-making level are discussed, as well as possibilities and necessities to further expand on this research through the use of quantitative or mixed method measures.