Walking the tight rope: Women’s health social workers’ role with vulnerable families in the maternity context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol28iss2id225Keywords:
women’s health, maternity care, child welfare, vulnerable children, children’s workforce, relationship-based practiceAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Keeping children in the centre of practice is an established mantra for the children’s workforce internationally and is also enshrined in the Aotearoa New Zealand Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The principle that the welfare and interests of the child are awarded paramount consideration (s6) when these are in conflict with others’ needs is incontestable. However, we suggest that how this translates into day-to-day social work practice is open to multiple interpretations. This interpretation emerged from a women’s health social work team, providing services to pregnant women experiencing complex social factors.
METHOD: An audit collected and analysed data from cases that were identified as having achieved successful outcomes in this context. A metaphor emerged from the reflective analysis of these findings. This metaphor, ‘walking the tight rope, maintaining the balance’ was put to the practitioners via a reflective process.
FINDINGS: Research findings indicate that by taking up a child welfare orientation to practice positive outcomes are possible. This practice was found to rely on a number of personal, professional and organisational factors, most dominant were those associated with relationship based practice. Findings suggest that women’s health social workers need to maintain a fine balance with several critical elements, such as the provision of reflective supervision acting as a practice safety net.
CONCLUSION: It is argued that the binary either/or positions of adopting a child centred or a woman’s centred approach to practice should be avoided and an and / both orientation to practice be adopted. This reflects a child welfare orientation to practice – one in which prevention is a primary focus.
References
Barnes, H., Barnes, A., Baxter, J., Crengle, S., Pihama, L., Ratima, M., & Robson, B. (2013). Hapu ora: Wellbeing in the early stages of life. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/departments/centresresearch/shore/projects/hapu-ora.cfm
Beddoe, L. (2014). Risk and vulnerability discourses in health. In L. Beddoe & J. Maidment (Eds.), Social work practice for promoting health and wellbeing (pp. 51-62). New York: Routledge.
Bird, J. (2000). The heart’s narrative. Therapy and navigating life’s contradictions. Auckland: Edge Press.
Blumenfield, S., & Epstein, I. (2001). Introduction: Promoting and maintaining a reflective professional staff in a hosptial-based social work department. Social Work in Health Care, 33(3/4), 1-13.
Braithwaite, J., & Travaglia, J. (2008). An overview of clinical governance policies, practices and initiatives. Australian Health Review, 32(1), 10-22.
Bywaters, P. (2014). Globalisation, social work and health. In L. Beddoe & J. Maidment (Eds.), Social work practice for promoting health and wellbeing (pp. 28-38). Oxon: Routledge.
Bywaters, P., McLeod, E., & Napier, L. (Eds.). (2009). Social work and global health inequalities. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Dobbs, T., & Eruera, M. (2014). Kaupapa Maori wellbeing framework: The basis for whanau violence prevention and intervention. Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of Auckland.
Fargion, S. (2014). Synergies and tensions in child protection and parent support: Policy lines and practitioners’ cultures. Child and Family Social Work, 19(1), 24 - 33.
Featherstone, B., White, S., & Morris, K. (2014). Re-imagining child protection towards humane social work with families. Bristol: Policy Press.
Ferguson, H. (2001). Promoting child protection, welfare and healing: The case for developing best practice. Child and Family Social Work, 6, 1-12.
Ferguson, H. (2003). Outline of a critical best practice perspective on social work and social care. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 1005-1024.
Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems: International trends and orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gould, N., & Baldwin, M. (Eds.). (2006). Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Handcock, J. (2013). Legislation to reduce child poverty. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Publications/OCC-Summary-Sheet-Legislating-to-Reduce-Child-Poverty.pdf
Haultain, L. (2011). From the cleaners to the doctors - exploring the dimensions of effective health social work in the acute hospital. (Doctoral thesis, Massey University Albany, Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/3255
Haultain, L. (2014). Facing the challenges together: A future vision for health social work. In L. Beddoe & J. Maidment (Eds.), Social work practice for promoting health and wellbeing (pp. 39-50). Oxton: Routledge.
Hyslop, I. (2009). Child protection policy and practice: A relationship lost in translation. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Te Puna Whakaaro. (34), 62-72.
International Federation of Social Workers. (2008). International policy on health. Retrieved from http://www.ifsw.org/p38000081.html
Keddell, E. (2014). The ethics of predictive risk modelling in Aotearoa/New Zealand child welfare context: Child abuse prevention or neo-liberal tool? Critical Social Policy, 1-20.
Lachman, P., & Bernard, C. (2006). Moving from blame to quality: How to respond to failures in child protection services. Child Abuse & Neglect. (30), 963-968.
Laing, L., & Humphreys, C. (2013). Social work and domestic violence developing critical thinking & reflective practice. London: SAGE publications Ltd.
Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J., & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. London: Routledge.
Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection. Interim report: The child’s journey. London: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/munroreview/downloads/Munrointerimreport.pdf.
New Zealand Government. (2015). Children’s action plan he taonga te tamariki. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
O’Brien, M. (2015, 1 February 2016). The latest: Prevention: The best way to address child poverty. Auckland: Child Poverty Action Group. Retrieved from http://www.cpag.org.nz/resources-publications/background-papers-1/
Rashbrooke, M. (Ed.). (2013). Inequality a New Zealand crisis. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books Limited.
Ruch, G. (2005). Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: Holistic approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 111-123.
Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Trevithick, P. (2003). Effective relationship-based practice: A theoretical exploration. Journal of Social Work Practice, 17(2), 164-176.
Turnell, A. (1989). Aspiring to partnership: The signs of safety approach to child protection. Paper presented at the Twelfth international congress on child abuse and neglect, Auckland.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
