Social work最新文献

The Mass Incarceration Trauma (MIT) framework is a conceptual model for understanding the role of trauma in the lives of individuals who experience incarceration in the United States. This population faces poverty, violence, and discrimination across the life span. The MIT framework is guided by an ecological systems perspective, a foundational theoretical approach in social work that recognizes that effective assessment and intervention require an understanding of the complex contexts in which individuals live. The MIT framework presents the cumulative trauma exposures commonly faced by this population before, during, and after incarceration at the individual, social, environmental, and historical levels. Because traumatic stress undermines health and daily functioning, it is essential that interventions for this population address both the ongoing risk for trauma exposure and the consequences of multiple, repeated past exposures across ecological systems. It is to be hoped that a new and fundamental focus on the poverty, contexts of violence, and lifetime disadvantages experienced by those who cycle through prisons in the United States might reframe the question of how our society should prevent and respond to crime as well as respond to those swept into the criminal justice system.

Practicing social work involves unique difficulties, which may vary with seniority. This study aimed to identify these difficulties among social workers and social work students and to examine the associations between psychological flexibility (PF), self-differentiation (SF), and difficulties in practice in both groups. Ninety-one social work students and seventy-five social workers completed the following questionnaires: Difficulties in Practice, the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II, and Differentiation of Self Inventory. Results showed higher difficulties among social work students regarding their professional competence. Social workers demonstrated higher levels of PF, while no significant difference was found in SF. SF and PF were positively correlated, and both were negatively correlated with difficulties in practice in both groups. Among social work students, a moderating effect of PF was found for the association between SF and difficulties in practice. The current study emphasizes the importance of developing SF and cultivating PF during social work education to enhance professional competence and reduce difficulties in practice.

This article analyzes peer-reviewed English-language social work scholarship on Islam and Muslims published between 2011 and 2021. Of these 127 articles, 70 journal venues are represented, and first authors are primarily American (44 percent), followed by British (15 percent) and Canadian (11 percent). A total of 70 journals published studies analyzing data related to Muslims/Islam and social work, with 46 consisting of only one publication between 2011 and 2021. A total of 13 of these journals had a SCImago Journal Rank indicator of over 0.5, and three with rankings over 1.0. The volume of publications was high in 2015 and 2020, in particular. Major themes include faith-aligned and strengths-based approaches, the importance of mosques in the lives of Muslims, the relevance of the hijab in the lives of Muslim women, and the prevalence and impact of sociopolitical stereotypes. The conclusion calls for still greater culturally respectful approaches to the profession that include Islam and Muslim individuals/communities and ensuring that ethics and practice/research continue to evolve in ways that are culturally relevant to diverse communities.

Social workers are sometimes named as defendants in malpractice lawsuits. These lawsuits allege negligence, specifically that social work defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff, breached this duty, and the defendant's actions caused harm. Plaintiffs in litigation cases typically allege that social workers violated or failed to meet prevailing standards of care in the profession. It is essential that social workers understand the legal concept of standard of care and its implications for professional practice. This article reviews the concept of standard of care; discusses the ways in which social work ethics standards, federal and state laws, national practice standards, expert witness testimony, and professional literature determine the standard of care; and presents practical steps social workers can take to comply with prevailing standards of care, protect clients, and protect themselves. The author focuses especially on complex cases where social workers may not agree on relevant standards of care.

The dehumanizing effects of neoliberal, white dominant regulations, laws, policies, and cultural assumptions seep into the everyday practice of social workers in frontline and mid-level positions. Many social workers are learning various antioppressive practices and becoming aware of how microaggressions and other oppressive dynamics can manifest in workplaces but lack models to guide efforts for small-scale action. This article describes how the RE/UN/DIScover heuristic can be used to interrupt and shift oppressive processes during everyday moments of practice within organizations and systems by social workers and their interested colleagues who have some awareness of oppressive and antioppressive dynamics. The RE/UN/DIScover heuristic is an iterative set of three practices: (1) tend to self with compassionate REcover practices; (2) engage in curious, critical reflection to UNcover full understandings of the power dynamics, impacts, and meanings of specific challenges; and (3) DIScover and try out just, humanizing responses with creative courage, individually and with other colleagues. The heuristic uses a dual focus on self and situation with an ad hoc group of other colleagues to raise awareness; cultivate humanizing spaces; and implement antioppressive, relational responses. The article describes the heuristic practices and how to apply the heuristic with two composite practice applications.

There is a persistent disconnect between research and practice, both in the social work profession as well as in the criminal legal system. Community-engaged research has been suggested as an approach to bridge this divide, but specific tools are needed to integrate research and practice efforts. This article presents three distinct logic model development processes that occurred in collaborative research and practice efforts in the context of criminal legal programming, including prosecutor-led diversion programs, a high-intensity drug court, and a multiagency justice and mental health collaborative. Logic model development incorporated multiple forms of program information using collaborative reflexivity, an approach focused on understanding the relationship between knowledge and power in the research process. For each program, the authors describe the context and process of logic model development, and how the logic models were used by both practitioners and researchers. The authors discuss how collaborative logic model development can facilitate community-engaged research, strengthen the research-practice connection, and advance applied social work scholarship.