社会工作者和特殊监护人对特殊监护儿童计划联系的看法

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Childrens Services Pub Date : 2019-11-28 DOI:10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021
N. Thompson
{"title":"社会工作者和特殊监护人对特殊监护儿童计划联系的看法","authors":"N. Thompson","doi":"10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Special guardianship order (SGO) assessments require social workers to make plans and recommendations for ongoing post-SGO contact between the child and the parents. However, there is very little policy to inform and guide practitioners on how these duties should be undertaken, and no studies that describe current practice. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the recommending of contact in special guardianship cases is currently working, by holding focus groups with social workers and special guardians. This paper reports on the results of a study to examine what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work.,The research involved a mixed methods approach comprising of an online questionnaire, two focus groups for social workers and two focus groups for special guardians. This paper describes the second part of the study and reports on the qualitative results from the four focus groups. The methodology was based on a pragmatist theoretical position, and used an interpretivist approach and elements of the analytical procedure of grounded theory in order to generate inductive research. The focus group method was chosen as the best way to gather rich information on the opinions and ideas of practitioners who are recommending contact and the carers who are managing it.,Participants provided a wide range of views on the issues, with practitioners describing the challenges of planning contact, and special guardians explaining the problems they faced with the parents. Involving special guardians in the study gave a chance to include the different perspectives of the people who have to make the contact recommendations work, and contrast their views on contact planning with those of the professionals. The study makes recommendations for practice, which recognise the difficulty of preparing an initial contact plan that will remain relevant for years ahead.,The number of focus groups the author held was limited by the author’s own personal resources and the time the author had available, and one group only had three social workers on the day. The author’s involvement affected the responses, and the author’s questions dictated the issues that were commented on, but the answers were the opinions that the participants wanted to express. The nature of the approach means that no two sets of focus group results would ever be the same. And as the direction of the discussions was largely dictated by the participants, the coverage of all aspects of contact was probably inconsistent.,This research sheds light on a crucial area of social work permanency planning, that has suffered from a lack of previous research, in order to better inform future practice. The paper reports on what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work. It concludes with recommendations for improving future special guardianship policy and practice.,The research clearly raises a number of specific difficulties faced by special guardians and problems with current policy and practice. These include the special guardians’ lack of understanding about contact, the difficulty for social workers of long-term planning, the challenge posed by uncooperative parents who behave badly, the view of carers for the need for a greater emphasis on the quality and reliability of contact, and the challenge to careful contact planning posed by the adversarial court process.,Special guardianship has had a major impact on permanency planning since its introduction 12 years ago. However, apart from one DfE study in 2014, very little research has been produced to inform policy and practice. There have been no studies specifically on contact in special guardianship cases, despite contact being one of the two major factors in determining the success of SGO placements. This study has provided the first in-depth evaluation of social worker contact planning in special guardianship, and the first investigation of special guardians’ views on contact.","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":"14 1","pages":"237-250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The views of social workers and special guardians on planning contact for special guardianship children\",\"authors\":\"N. Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Special guardianship order (SGO) assessments require social workers to make plans and recommendations for ongoing post-SGO contact between the child and the parents. However, there is very little policy to inform and guide practitioners on how these duties should be undertaken, and no studies that describe current practice. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the recommending of contact in special guardianship cases is currently working, by holding focus groups with social workers and special guardians. This paper reports on the results of a study to examine what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work.,The research involved a mixed methods approach comprising of an online questionnaire, two focus groups for social workers and two focus groups for special guardians. This paper describes the second part of the study and reports on the qualitative results from the four focus groups. The methodology was based on a pragmatist theoretical position, and used an interpretivist approach and elements of the analytical procedure of grounded theory in order to generate inductive research. The focus group method was chosen as the best way to gather rich information on the opinions and ideas of practitioners who are recommending contact and the carers who are managing it.,Participants provided a wide range of views on the issues, with practitioners describing the challenges of planning contact, and special guardians explaining the problems they faced with the parents. Involving special guardians in the study gave a chance to include the different perspectives of the people who have to make the contact recommendations work, and contrast their views on contact planning with those of the professionals. The study makes recommendations for practice, which recognise the difficulty of preparing an initial contact plan that will remain relevant for years ahead.,The number of focus groups the author held was limited by the author’s own personal resources and the time the author had available, and one group only had three social workers on the day. The author’s involvement affected the responses, and the author’s questions dictated the issues that were commented on, but the answers were the opinions that the participants wanted to express. The nature of the approach means that no two sets of focus group results would ever be the same. And as the direction of the discussions was largely dictated by the participants, the coverage of all aspects of contact was probably inconsistent.,This research sheds light on a crucial area of social work permanency planning, that has suffered from a lack of previous research, in order to better inform future practice. The paper reports on what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work. It concludes with recommendations for improving future special guardianship policy and practice.,The research clearly raises a number of specific difficulties faced by special guardians and problems with current policy and practice. These include the special guardians’ lack of understanding about contact, the difficulty for social workers of long-term planning, the challenge posed by uncooperative parents who behave badly, the view of carers for the need for a greater emphasis on the quality and reliability of contact, and the challenge to careful contact planning posed by the adversarial court process.,Special guardianship has had a major impact on permanency planning since its introduction 12 years ago. However, apart from one DfE study in 2014, very little research has been produced to inform policy and practice. There have been no studies specifically on contact in special guardianship cases, despite contact being one of the two major factors in determining the success of SGO placements. This study has provided the first in-depth evaluation of social worker contact planning in special guardianship, and the first investigation of special guardians’ views on contact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"237-250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Childrens Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-09-2018-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

特殊监护令(SGO)评估要求社会工作者为孩子和父母之间持续的SGO后接触制定计划和建议。然而,几乎没有政策告知和指导从业者应如何履行这些职责,也没有研究描述当前的做法。本文的目的是通过与社会工作者和特殊监护人举行焦点小组,调查特殊监护案件中的联系建议目前是如何运作的。本文报告了一项研究的结果,该研究旨在检查社会工作者建议的接触计划、他们的决定背后的想法以及必须使这些计划发挥作用的特殊监护人的观点。,这项研究采用了一种混合方法,包括一份在线问卷、两个针对社会工作者的焦点小组和两个针对特殊监护人的焦点小组。本文介绍了研究的第二部分,并报告了四个重点小组的定性结果。该方法论基于实用主义的理论立场,并使用解释主义的方法和扎根理论的分析程序的元素,以产生归纳研究。焦点小组法被选为收集关于建议联系的从业者和管理联系的护理人员的意见和想法的丰富信息的最佳方式。参与者就这些问题提供了广泛的观点,从业者描述了计划联系的挑战,特殊监护人解释了他们与父母面临的问题。让特殊监护人参与这项研究,让他们有机会了解那些必须让联系建议发挥作用的人的不同观点,并将他们对联系计划的看法与专业人士的看法进行对比。该研究为实践提出了建议,认识到制定一个在未来几年仍具有相关性的初步联系计划的困难。,提交人举办的焦点小组的数量受到提交人个人资源和提交人可用时间的限制,其中一个小组当天只有三名社会工作者。提交人的参与影响了回答,提交人的问题决定了所评论的问题,但答案是参与者想要表达的意见。这种方法的性质意味着,没有两套焦点小组的结果是相同的。由于讨论的方向在很大程度上由参与者决定,接触的各个方面的报道可能不一致。,这项研究揭示了社会工作永久性规划的一个关键领域,该领域以前缺乏研究,以便更好地为未来的实践提供信息。该论文报告了社会工作者建议的联系计划、他们的决定背后的想法以及必须使这些计划发挥作用的特殊监护人的观点。最后提出了改进未来特殊监护政策和实践的建议。,该研究清楚地提出了特殊监护人面临的一些具体困难以及当前政策和实践中的问题。其中包括特殊监护人对接触缺乏了解,社会工作者难以进行长期规划,行为不端的不合作父母带来的挑战,护理人员认为需要更加重视接触的质量和可靠性,以及对抗性法庭程序对仔细的接触规划提出的挑战。,特别监护自12年前引入以来,对永久性规划产生了重大影响。然而,除了2014年英国财政部的一项研究外,很少有研究为政策和实践提供信息。尽管接触是决定SGO安置成功的两个主要因素之一,但还没有专门针对特殊监护案件中的接触进行研究。本研究首次对社会工作者在特殊监护中的接触规划进行了深入评估,并首次调查了特殊监护人对接触的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The views of social workers and special guardians on planning contact for special guardianship children
Special guardianship order (SGO) assessments require social workers to make plans and recommendations for ongoing post-SGO contact between the child and the parents. However, there is very little policy to inform and guide practitioners on how these duties should be undertaken, and no studies that describe current practice. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the recommending of contact in special guardianship cases is currently working, by holding focus groups with social workers and special guardians. This paper reports on the results of a study to examine what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work.,The research involved a mixed methods approach comprising of an online questionnaire, two focus groups for social workers and two focus groups for special guardians. This paper describes the second part of the study and reports on the qualitative results from the four focus groups. The methodology was based on a pragmatist theoretical position, and used an interpretivist approach and elements of the analytical procedure of grounded theory in order to generate inductive research. The focus group method was chosen as the best way to gather rich information on the opinions and ideas of practitioners who are recommending contact and the carers who are managing it.,Participants provided a wide range of views on the issues, with practitioners describing the challenges of planning contact, and special guardians explaining the problems they faced with the parents. Involving special guardians in the study gave a chance to include the different perspectives of the people who have to make the contact recommendations work, and contrast their views on contact planning with those of the professionals. The study makes recommendations for practice, which recognise the difficulty of preparing an initial contact plan that will remain relevant for years ahead.,The number of focus groups the author held was limited by the author’s own personal resources and the time the author had available, and one group only had three social workers on the day. The author’s involvement affected the responses, and the author’s questions dictated the issues that were commented on, but the answers were the opinions that the participants wanted to express. The nature of the approach means that no two sets of focus group results would ever be the same. And as the direction of the discussions was largely dictated by the participants, the coverage of all aspects of contact was probably inconsistent.,This research sheds light on a crucial area of social work permanency planning, that has suffered from a lack of previous research, in order to better inform future practice. The paper reports on what contact plans social workers are recommending, the thinking behind their decisions and the views of the special guardians who have to make those plans work. It concludes with recommendations for improving future special guardianship policy and practice.,The research clearly raises a number of specific difficulties faced by special guardians and problems with current policy and practice. These include the special guardians’ lack of understanding about contact, the difficulty for social workers of long-term planning, the challenge posed by uncooperative parents who behave badly, the view of carers for the need for a greater emphasis on the quality and reliability of contact, and the challenge to careful contact planning posed by the adversarial court process.,Special guardianship has had a major impact on permanency planning since its introduction 12 years ago. However, apart from one DfE study in 2014, very little research has been produced to inform policy and practice. There have been no studies specifically on contact in special guardianship cases, despite contact being one of the two major factors in determining the success of SGO placements. This study has provided the first in-depth evaluation of social worker contact planning in special guardianship, and the first investigation of special guardians’ views on contact.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
“Friendly, local and welcoming” – evaluation of a community mental health early intervention service From “intimate-insider” to “relative-outsider”: an autoethnographic account of undertaking social work research in one’s own “backyard” Effective child well-being practices, barriers and priority actions: survey findings from service providers and policymakers in 22 countries during COVID-19 Child First and the end of ‘bifurcation’ in youth justice? Why are there higher rates of children looked after in Wales?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1