Radical practice in a risk-averse environment: Learning from ATD Fourth World UK
Keywords:Poverty, collaboration, relational, risk, reform, families
INTRODUCTION: The escalation of coercive, risk-averse policy directives in Aotearoa New Zealand’s child and family social work sphere is undermining the profession’s potential to meet its social justice, human rights based aspirations. Social workers may need to look further afield for best practice models that facilitate emancipatory practice in neoliberal social policy environments. This article posits the radical practice of anti-poverty organisation ATD Fourth World in England (where child protection is characteristically risk-averse, individualised and coercive), as an alternative for work with families experiencing poverty and social exclusion.
METHODS: We drew on the voices of ATD Fourth World activists cited in previous publications, alongside Activists(a-d) interviewed specifically for this article, and Activist(e) who contributed at a roundtable discussion on a previous project. Interviews focused on ATD Fourth World’s approach to working with families in poverty; three distinctive aspects emerged: the organisation’s philosophy on poverty, and its collaborative and relational family support model. We contrasted these three aspects with state child protection policies in Aotearoa New Zealand and England.
FINDINGS: The often inflexible, top-down nature of state child protection policies, coupled with an atmosphere of policing, control and disregard for the impact of poverty, constrain social workers and families alike, eroding the crucial social worker/family relationship underpinning best practice. ATD Fourth World’s approach suggests that genuine strengths-based practice relies on nuanced understandings of poverty, a commitment to advance families’ wishes, and trusting relationships grounded in human dignity and commonality.
CONCLUSION: The Aotearoa New Zealand reforms may amplify coercive, risk-averse tendencies in the state’s child protection system. Child and family social workers could consider adapting aspects of ATD Fourth World’s approach to resist or mitigate these coercive aspects and steer the reforms’ implementation in more emancipatory directions.
ATD Fourth World. (2005). Getting the right trainers, London, UK: Author.
ATD Fourth World. (2009). Annual review.
ATD Fourth World. (2012). Annual review. Retrieved from http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/07/2012-annual-review.pdf
ATD Fourth World. (2016). Annual review.
ATD Fourth World, & Sajovic, E. (2014). The roles we play: Recognising the contribution of people in poverty. London, UK: Author.
Beddoe, L. (2014). Feral families, troubled families: The spectre of the underclass in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology, 29(3), 51–68.
Blaiklock, A., Kiro, C., Belgrave, M, Low, W., Davenport, E., & Hassall, I. (2002). When the invisible hand rocks the cradle: New Zealand children in a time of change. (UNICEF, Innocenti Working Paper No. 93). Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/334/
Boston, J., & Chapple, S. (2014). Child poverty in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.
Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty (2012). Solutions to child poverty in New Zealand: Evidence for action. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/EAG/Final-report/Final-report-Solutions-to-child-poverty-evidence-for-action.pdf
Connolly, M. (2006). Fifteen years of family group conferencing: Coordinators talk about their experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work, 36(4), 523–540.
Cottam, H. (2011). Relational welfare. Soundings, 48, 134–144.
Expert Panel on Modernising Child Youth and Family. (2015). Final report: Investing in New Zealand’s children and their families. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/investing-in-children/investing-in-children-report.pdf
Featherstone, B. (2016). Telling different stories about poverty, inequality, child abuse and neglect. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(1), 147–153. doi:10.1332/204674316X14540714620085
Featherstone, B., Morris, K., & White, S. (2013). Moving from the individual to the relational: Child protection re-imagined. In Participle (Ed.), The relational welfare blog: Collection of posts (pp. 18–20). Retrieved from http://www.participle.net/our-vision
Featherstone, B., Morris, K., & White, S. (2014). A marriage made in hell: Early intervention meets child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 1735–1749. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct052
Frykberg, E. (2016, October 12). “I see… a poverty of parental responsibility”. Radio New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/315489/'i-see-a-poverty-of-parental-responsibility'
Gupta, A. (2015). Learning from others: An autoethnographic exploration of children and families social work, poverty and the capability approach. Qualitative Social Work. [Advance online publication]. doi:10.1177/1473325015620946
Gupta, A., & ATD Fourth World. (2015). Poverty and shame—Messages for social work. Critical and Radical Social Work, 3(1), 131–139. doi:10.1332/204986015X14212365837689
Gupta, A., Blumhardt H., & ATD Fourth World. (2016). Giving poverty a voice: families’ experiences of social work practice in a risk-averse child protection system. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(1), 163-172. doi:10.1332/204674316X14540714620166
Healy, K. (2001). Reinventing critical social work: Challenges from practice, context and postmodernism. Critical Social Work, 2(1). ‘Retrieved from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/reinventing-critical-social-work-challenges-from-practice-context-and-postmodernism’
Hyslop, I. (2009). Child protection policy and practice: A relationship lost in translation. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 34, 61–72.
Keddell, E. (2011). Reasoning processes in child protection decision making: Negotiating moral minefields and risky relationships. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1251–1270. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr012
Keddell, E. (2014). The ethics of predictive risk modelling in the Aotearoa/New Zealand child welfare context: Child abuse prevention or neo-liberal tool? Critical Social Policy, 35(1), 69-88. doi:10.1177/0261018314543224
Krumer-Nevo, M. (2005). Listening to “life knowledge”: A new research direction in poverty studies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 99–106.
Krumer-Nevo, M. (2008). From noise to voice: How social work can benefit from the knowledge of people living in poverty. International Social Work, 51(4), 556–565. doi:10.1177/0020872808090248
Krumer-Nevo, M. (2009). Four scenes and an epilogue: Autoethnography of a critical social work agenda regarding poverty. Qualitative Social Work, 8(3), 305–320. doi:10.1177/1473325009337839
Martin, S. (2016). Shifting power relations in New Zealand child welfare policy: The process and implications of the 2014 amendment to s13 of the CYP&tF Act. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(2), 40–50.
Mason, W., & Bywaters, P. (2016). Poverty, child abuse and neglect: patterns of cost and spending. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(1), 155–161. doi:10.1332/204674316X14540714620201
Minister for Social Development (2016, September 21). 717 NZPD (Hansard). Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20160921_20160921
Moyle, P. (2015). Māori-lived-experiences of the Family Group Conference: A selection of findings. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/10578356/M%C4%81ori-Lived-Experiences_of_the_Family_Group_Conference_A_selection_of_findings.
Munby, J. (2016). Care cases—The looming crisis (14th View from the President of the Family Division). Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf.
Oak, E. (2016). A minority report for social work? The predictive risk model (PRM) and the Tuituia assessment framework in addressing the needs of New Zealand’s vulnerable children. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1208–1223. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv028
O’Brien, M. (2016). The triplets: Investment in outcomes for the vulnerable—Reshaping social services for (some) New Zealand children. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(2), 9–21.
Pelton, L. (2015). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and placement. Child Abuse and Neglect, 41, 30–39.
Rashbrooke, M. (2013). Why inequality matters. In M. Rashbrooke (Ed.), Inequality: A New Zealand crisis (pp. 1–19). Wellington, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.
Skelton, D. F. (2015). Artisans of peace: Overcoming poverty, Vol. 1: A people-centered movement. Pierrelaye, France: ATD Fourth World.
Skelton, D. F. (2016). Artisans of peace: Overcoming poverty, Vol. 2: Defending human rights. Pierrelaye, France: ATD Fourth World.
Te Wharepora Hou: Māori Women’s Network. (2016, October 9). #Hands Off Our Tamariki: An Open Letter [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com/2016/10/09/hands-off-our-tamariki-an-open-letter/
Tobis, D. (2013). From pariahs to partners: How parents and their allies changed New York City’s child welfare system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tolley, A. (2015, April 1). Independent expert panel to lead major CYF overhaul. [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/independent-expert-panel-lead-major-cyf-overhaul
Walsh-Tapiata, W. (2004). The past the present and the future: The New Zealand indigenous experience of social work. Social Work Review, 16(4), 30–37.
Warner, J. (2015). The emotional politics of social work and child protection. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
How to Cite
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.
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.
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.