Forrester, D., McCambridge, J., Waissbein, C., and Rollnick, S. (2008). How do child and family social workers talk to parents about child welfare concerns? Child Abuse Review 17, 23-35.
Child welfare practitioners frequently encounter complicated cases requiring them to both understand and respond to parental concerns, yet remain focused on the best interests of the child. Previous studies typically examined parents’ retrospective narratives in order to better understand how parents perceive such complex interactions. The current study employs a different approach by directly measuring the empathy levels and communication styles used by child welfare practitioners when speaking with parents. The main findings suggest that practitioners tended to rely on confrontational and, at times, aggressive communication styles when speaking with parents who demonstrate resistance. Study participants were also found to impose their own agenda and pay less attention to the concerns expressed by parents. Results may reflect systemic issues whereby workers adopt a confrontational position in order to avoid colluding with the problematic behaviours of parents. The findings show a need for practitioners to develop investigative skills, which promote relationship building and reduce resistance. The findings are consistent with parent-reported retrospective experiences of child welfare investigations, and highlight barriers to establishing meaningful, trusting and supportive working relationships with child welfare-involved parents.
Study participants (n=40) were child and family workers from seven London (UK) authorities who volunteered to participate in the study. The participants were mostly social workers (n=30), senior practitioners with the added responsibility of supervising staff (n=5), and team managers (n=5). The study measured the practitioners’ empathy levels and communication styles using case vignettes and textual prompts from the Helpful Response Questionnaire (HRQ), and three additional verbal prompts designed to simulate working with resistant parents (PRS). A pre-test HRQ measure examined participants’ written response to six client statements, and was followed by the random assignment of two case scenarios examining their empathy scores. There was high inter-rater reliability for both the HRQ measure and the PRS scenario responses, tested by a second researcher on a sub sample of 12 participants. Participants’ responses were taped and coded in order to capture various types of communication styles. Limitations of this study include a small sample size consisting entirely of practitioners in London, and the lack of external validation of participants’ responses to confirm that they are consistent with actual practice.