Clinical Counselling: A vital part of child welfare services - Part One
By Clinical Counselling in Child Welfare Committee

The "Clinical Counselling: A vital part in child welfare services paper will" be presented in three parts.

INTRODUCTION

Child welfare in Ontario and beyond is undergoing change. The field is demanding a return to practice where child welfare workers1 develop helping relationships with the children, families and communities we serve2 (Drake, 1994; Lee & Ayon, 2004; Platt, 2008). This resurgence of interest in relationship-based practice results from a recognition that the worker-client relationship is a powerful means of protecting children by supporting parents3 to make changes that enable children to remain safe and realize their potential (de Boer & Coady, 2007; Dumbrill & Lo, 2009; Drake, 1994). In this paper we (the Clinical Counselling in Child Welfare Committee) discuss the role that clinical counselling plays in this context and argue that its revitalization within child welfare agencies is long overdue.

Relationship-based practice has always been a part of social work (Howe, 2009), so it is long familiar to the field as a whole and to child welfare in particular. It has, however, taken on varying degrees of importance and presence in the work over the years. Recent decades, for example, have focused on risk and risk assessment in child welfare to the relative neglect of the worker-client relationship: "With the introduction of risk assessment, many workers began to feel that relationships, through which many had tried to motivate and assist people in trouble, were removed to the back burner" (Swift & Callahan, 2009, p.172).

The emphasis on risk is an effort to protect child safety. It is increasingly recognized in psychotherapy and social work research, however, that the quality of the worker-client relationship supports and predicts the achievement of desirable outcomes for clients (Graybeal, 2007; Horvath, 2001 cited in de Boer & Coady, 2007; Lambert & Ogles, 2004 cited in de Boer & Coady, 2007). And, child welfare practice in particular is no exception.

Child welfare research highlights the importance of the worker-client relationship in facilitating good outcomes for children and families involved with child welfare services (Dore, 1996; Drake, 1994; de Boer & Coady, 2007; Lee & Ayon, 2004; Trotter, 2002; Verge, 2005). Even though child welfare is distinct from other areas of social work practice in that clients are often involuntary and/or mandated to receive services, and although workers possess the unique authority to remove children from their families (and communities) in situations of abuse or neglect, a skilled child welfare worker is capable of developing engaging relationships with clients even in situations involving the more controlling aspects of the work, such as cases with significant legal coercion (de Boer & Coady, 2007; Platt, 2008). And, as cited above, in cases where they do, the intervention process becomes more capable of protecting children.

Similar to the renewed interest in the worker-client relationship, there has been an expanding emphasis on the strengths perspective in social work (Graybeal, 2001; Saleebey, 2002, 2008; Glicken, 2004; Long, Tice & Morrison, 2005). The recognition of clients‘ strengths, capacities, and resilience not only fits well with social work values, but is also viewed as a means of supporting change and achieving goals:

The fundamental premise of [the strengths perspective] is that people will do better in the long run when they are helped to identify, recognize, and use the strengths and resources available in themselves and their environment. … The identification of strengths is not the antithesis of the identification of problems. Instead, it is a large part of the solution. (Graybeal, 2001, p. 234)

In child welfare specifically, there is a strong connection between the strengths perspective and the worker-client relationship discussed above, highlighting the congruence between the two:

When working with families we should search for their strengths (rather than always exerting energy on "fixing" a person). This shift opens up the opportunity for families to use their own strengths and abilities to share their stories and create their own solutions.… Strength-based practice includes transparent relationships with families, which provides families with dignity and pride. In order to shift from ‗fixing,‘ it is essential to build and nurture relationships between worker and family. Working from a strength-based model requires a commitment to valuing and honouring relationships." (Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009, p.39).

Because of the growing recognition of the importance of the worker-client relationship and strength-based practice in child welfare, our committee has come together to identify ways these can be developed and strengthened in our practice. Throughout this paper, we demonstrate that focusing on relationships and client strengths need not detract from child safety; rather, it provides a framework through which we can better protect and promote the well-being of children and their families.

It needs to be highlighted that developing and maintaining quality relationships with non-voluntary child welfare clients is extraordinarily difficult (de Boer & Coady, 2007; Yatchmenoff, 2005). Workers‘ clinical skills are paramount in this endeavour (Platt, 2008; Sedan, 2005; Trotter, 2002); and, unsurprisingly, workers feel they are lacking the necessary clinical skills for this work and struggle to build quality relationships with clients and facilitate change without formal support for the acquisition, expansion, and refinement of the these skills (Drake, 1994; Pecora, 1989, cited in Dore & Alexander, 1996). This is not to say that child welfare workers are less competent than other helping professionals; rather, it refers to the complexity of the work. In terms of the requisite clinical skills, counselling skills play a central role and are the focus of this paper:

Relationship, one person interacting with another, is at the heart of all social work in health and social care settings. Counselling and communication skills are used every day to build such relationships in order for the work to happen. (Seden, 2005, p.2).

Additionally, a clinical counselling role helps workers to directly facilitate the process of change (beyond developing the relationship); Miller (2006) explains this further:

The objective of [social work] practice is usually to enable change, from an undesirable emotional state, in behaviour, or from a position of social disempowerment that either impairs social development and participation or requires protection from some form of harm. The process of undertaking these tasks [concerns] the utilization of counselling skills in various forms. … The use of counselling skills in social work [is the] means by which service users are assisted through the process of personal change or change of their environments. (p. xiii, ix)

The revitalization of the clinical counselling role in child welfare practice is essential to the role of the child welfare worker due to its fundamental link to the achievement of client change, which, in the child welfare arena, entails change that protects the safety and well-being of children, families, and communities. In this regard, a clinical counselling role allows child welfare agencies to better fulfill their duty to promote the protection and well-being of children under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) (1990).

We anticipate that readers will have mixed reactions to a shift toward relationship-based practice. Some will embrace this as a change in focus that is long overdue, while others may reject workers‘ clinical counselling role. We believe that critiques will be, in part, related to varied perceptions of what counselling is, and what it is not, and its role in child welfare. We expect that some may regard counselling as basic to the role of the child welfare worker, while others may feel it is work meant for specialized referral.

As will be shown in this paper, clinical counselling is integral to the service child welfare workers provide and is something they have always provided, albeit often under the radar and with insufficient support and recognition from the child welfare field and social work at large. Counselling can involve the use of particular skills utilized, for example, when a worker first meets a family; while driving with a child to their destination; while talking to a foster parent4 on the telephone; and, it can also involve planned counselling "sessions". We‘re not expanding the role of the child welfare worker. We are aiming to name and improve the quality of the counselling that workers are already providing. As such, clinical counselling is a role of the child welfare worker that needs to be acknowledged, revitalized, and enhanced. Essentially, we feel that workers ought to be recognized for the counselling knowledge and skills they are already using everyday to assist their clients; and, workers‘ competency in this role should be further enabled with more formalized agency support.

Moreover, beyond our opinion or argument, it is important to highlight that a counselling role is an explicit function of a CAS in Ontario under the CFSA (1990). Section 15(3c) states that one of the functions of a CAS is to "provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children." In other words, we‘re meant to be doing this work, and we have a responsibility to our clients to do it well.

Importantly, a renewed focus on the worker-client relationship, the infusion of a strengths-based perspective, and the revitalization of clinical counselling are all in keeping with core social work values, such as showing respect for the inherent dignity and worth of human beings, our pursuit of social justice, service to humanity, and integrity and competence in professional practice (CASW, 2005). Examples of such are filtered throughout this paper.

Overall, as will be discussed throughout this paper, a clinical counselling approach goes hand-in-hand with our child protection mandate and is applicable in all service areas of child welfare (see Figure 1). We recommend, therefore, the revitalization and expansion of the clinical counselling role in order to better support our workers in their efforts to assist clients in their process of change for the improved safety and well-being of children and families in our communities.

Figure 1

BACKGROUND

Child Welfare Transformation (2005) is an important policy initiative that is influencing social work practice in child welfare in Ontario. The principles of Transformation – in particular the focus on better outcomes in child safety, permanency and child well-being; balancing the emphasis on child safety with a focus on family and community strengths and prevention; and best practice and research – guide and underpin our work.

Transformation also introduced the notion of a "Differential Response Model" which emphasizes the importance of engaging families, assessing their strengths and needs, and identifying community resources. This model reminds us of the need to focus our work on the family while at the same time strengthening our assessment and decision making capabilities. Transformation has thus served to provide direction and clarity for the field, and for the work of our committee, whereby the emphasis is on the helping role of the child welfare worker in realizing this vision.

Over the last few decades our sector, workers in particular, has struggled with balancing the administrative and procedural responsibilities of our mandate with the need to provide direct service to children and families. There are tensions at all levels within Children‘s Aid Societies5 (CAS) around the need to comply with administrative requirements and the responsibility to work directly with clients. Transformation reminds us of the importance of engaging with clients in an effort to help achieve the outcomes identified above. It is also recognized, however, that over the last few decades a new generation of child welfare staff have had their practice shaped by the structured and standardized approach of the Ontario Risk Assessment Model (ORAM) along with the child protection standards that have been compliance-based. Indeed, it would seem that a transformation will need to occur within the collective and individual approach of the frontline staff for a clinical counselling role to take hold. As we discuss later in this paper, however, this seems to be a change that workers desire—not only as a means to better serve their clients, but also because it is in keeping with their own personal and professional values and why they got into this field in the first place.

Clinical counselling plays a role in the vision of Transformation. Indeed, in child welfare we frequently work with people who, for a variety of reasons, respond negatively to our involvement and resist our interventions; it can be very challenging (although essential and our responsibility) to find ways to genuinely engage these clients. Part of revitalized clinical role is to assist clients, practically and compassionately, with the personal transformation they are undertaking to more effectively address their current challenges and provide a safer environment for their child; counselling is central in this clinical role.

We know that the worker-client relationship is critical in achieving desirable outcomes for children and families involved with child welfare services (Lee & Ayon, 2004; Trotter, 2002; Verge, 2005); and, clinical counselling skills are fundamental in helping to build such quality relationships (Seden, 2005). Indeed, child protection problems are often the "tip of the iceberg" for clients; and if workers are to protect children by addressing the underlying issues that give rise to protection problems, they need counselling skills to engage their clients to better understand the root causes, while also uncovering intrinsic strengths and capacities that can be built to mitigate them.

In order to further explore the issues and practices related to a clinical counselling approach, the Clinical Counselling in Child Welfare Committee was convened in March of 2009 to guide and undertake a project of the same name. The committee is co-chaired by Janice Robinson, Executive Director of Haldimand and Norfolk Children‘s Aid Society and Howard Hurwitz, Director of Service at Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto. Committee members have included representatives of CAS agencies across the province as well as interested persons from schools of social work and Ontario Association of Children‘s Aid Societies (OACAS). The role of this committee has been to provide leadership and guidance to child welfare agencies in recognizing existing clinical practices, and integrating counselling-based interventions into everyday practice as a means of supporting families and keeping children safe.

In terms of our committee‘s process, we utilized various methods to gather and incorporate knowledge on this topic from the field. In addition to a literature review, we heard presentations from a number of child welfare agencies and frontline and supervisory staff pertaining to innovative counselling practices and programs. We also held a focus group with frontline workers and supervisors from a variety of agencies in the province. Focus groups, as a qualitative research technique, were selected for their usefulness in gathering information about clinical counselling from select individuals (in our case frontline workers); moreover, they are particularly useful in providing evaluative information about programs, identifying questions to ask in a survey (Logan & Royse, 2010) as well as providing an "opportunity to uncover information that might otherwise remain undiscovered" (Logan & Royse, 2010, p. 227). Additionally, members of our committee gave a presentation to the OACAS and we were able to incorporate helpful preliminary feedback into the ongoing work of the project. We also obtained input from the Zone Chairs of the Local Directors Section and the Provincial Project Management Committee of the Local Directors Section. As an additional means of collaboration and inclusivity, we distributed an informal survey that elicited further valuable input from those in our field on this issue. In total, there were 91 respondents from CAS agencies in Ontario with a range of experience in child welfare (further details are provided in the Evidence Based Practice section of this paper). The knowledge, experience and wisdom gleaned from survey respondents, which is filtered throughout this paper (shown throughout in scrolls) add depth and context to what is noted in the literature and research.

Despite the diversity in agencies, programs and practices, there were a number of commonalities worth noting. People consistently emphasized the importance of clinical counselling being relationship-based, strengths-based, anti-oppressive, client-centred, and based on social work values and principles. These perspectives are, therefore, given due attention throughout the paper. Overall, the knowledge, expertise, experience and guidance shared from all above participants/contributors were heavily considered and are reflected in the final product that is this paper.

As our committee proceeded with its work, we came to recognize that child welfare workers and agencies feel that a clinical counselling approach is timely and necessary in order to effectively address the complex needs of our clients. It also became clear that such an approach compliments our mandated duties as a Children‘s Aid Society as it provides us with a greater capacity to exercise our helping role in a way that supports clients through the challenges and obstacles they encounter to achieve meaningful and lasting change that better protects children.

THE LENSES WE LOOK THROUGH

Sociopolitical and Economic Context

This section examines how the wider sociopolitical and economic context affects the need for child welfare services and the way in which they, including clinical counselling, are delivered. It is essential to have this "lens" in order to appreciate the ways in which clients‘ difficulties are intrinsically connected to larger structural problems.

“Transformation” and Sociopolitical and Economic Constraints

Child welfare policy has been accused of swinging between two ends of a pendulum that have manifested in extremes in practice—at one end, practice is focused on supporting families at the expense of child safety (low intrusion/few apprehensions); at the other end, the focus is on child safety at the expense of support to families (high intrusion/many apprehensions) (Dumbrill, 2006). Clearly, neither extreme is desirable for children and families, the state, or society as a whole.

Figure 2 - The Building Blocks of Clinical Counselling in Child Welfare

Since the late 1990s until 2006, child welfare has operated during a period of high intrusion. During this period of child welfare "reform" and the Ontario Risk Assessment Model (ORAM), political problems are conceptualized as personal parental failure, families are policed instead of helped, risks are emphasized and family strengths are minimized (Dumbrill, 2006). This focus on child safety without a corresponding sufficient level of support and services to families resulted in, for example, an increase in apprehensions in Ontario by 65% between 1998 and 2004 (Dumbrill, 2006). This is costly for the state and, more importantly, detrimental to children, families and communities as many could potentially have remained together with the necessary support and helping services.

Child welfare services in Ontario now recognize the unintended consequences of these extremes in practice and we are now looking for ways to achieve balance in our approach. Child Welfare Transformation (2005) in particular is focused on balancing child welfare‘s important emphasis on child safety with a strong focus on client strengths, early intervention, and prevention. It is a policy initiative that has the potential to make a significant positive impact on the way that child welfare services operate; however, it is being implemented within a constraining sociopolitical and economic context, which will pose challenges in meeting these ideals.

Child welfare work is an inherently complex and challenging enterprise. Workers must assess and address the multi-faceted needs of the child, the dynamic capacities of the parent, and the complexities of the environment in which these are supported or constrained. Often workers are presented with cases where change needs to be immediate, where clients are anxious and reluctant to engage, and resources are limited. Unsurprisingly, this is stressful work that leaves workers vulnerable to burnout and turnover, which will be discussed more thoroughly later in this paper.

Moreover, the worker (and the agency) must operate within the constraints of the broader sociopolitical and economic context and the impact that this has on the clients we serve, and our resources to serve them. Indeed the context need not be inherently constraining, however, it currently is. In a time of economic downturn, we are experiencing increased need in our communities and decreased resources to meet those needs. Income assistance, employment insurance, housing and child care are some of the policies that have been "under the government gun in the past decade" in Canada; and, cut-backs in government services have coincided with dwindling economic and social supports for people in need (Swift & Callahan, 2009, p. 78).

Impact on Marginalized People and Need for Child Welfare Services

The impact that this larger context then has on people who are living in poverty and on the margins in general is enduring hardship:

Study upon study has demonstrated that people who live in chronically poor conditions are far more likely than middle-class Canadians to experience reduced educational opportunities, specific physical and mental health problems, poorer employment opportunities, low birth weights and diminished life span, criminal justice involvement, and social exclusion, and that they therefore require additional resources from health and human services organizations to deal with these problems – nevertheless, there is a staunch reluctance to address poverty and inequality in a substantial way. (Swift & Callahan, 2009, p.81).

One can then easily surmise the kind of impact these structural barriers have on parents, families and communities, and their ability to provide adequate care for their children often leading to child protection involvement. The impact of these barriers on the need for children to enter care has been empirically calculated in the UK. Dumbrill (2003) summarizes these data:

Jones (1994) calculates the compound risk of child removal for a child aged 5-9 from a single parent family of mixed ethnic origin receiving social assistance with four or more children living in rented accommodation with one or more persons per room to be 1 in 10. In contrast, a similar child from a two parent white family not receiving social assistance with three or fewer children living in a home they own with one or more persons per room faces a 1 in 7000 chance of entering care. This 700-1 ratio does not result from the parenting of white middle class families being 700 times better than single parent mixed ethnicity families dependent on benefits. It results from prejudices and structural inequalities deeply embedded within child welfare and other social systems. (p. 106)

Leslie (2005) also highlighted the influence of the environment/context (housing in particular) on the incidence of child welfare difficulties. He discusses a study conducted at Children‘s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) in 2000 whereby the purpose was to examine the links between inadequate housing supports for families and the placement of children in care. The findings highlight the ways in which structural problems become individualized for child welfare clients:

The survey findings indicate that Toronto‘s housing situation continues to have a detrimental impact on the safety, stability and well-being of many families with children who are clients of CAST. … These families face substantial barriers in securing adequate and appropriate housing to meet their needs and this may have an impact on parents‘ abilities to adequately care for their children. Not having permanent affordable housing can lead parents to feel insecure, anxious stressed and possibly depressed and this contributes to the neglect of their children (Zuravin and Taylor 1987). This stress can then be passed on to children who may become depressed, aggressive and difficult for parents to manage, creating a cycle of stressors. This unfolding situation may be further compounded if parents become overwhelmed and unable to focus on working with child welfare staff in gaining the skills needed to safeguard their children. (p. 225)

Unsurprisingly, agencies, and the services they are able to provide, are also affected by an environment of shrinking resources. Humphreys (1995) identified the ways in which constrained resources in the UK affected worker practices and interagency relationships, ultimately leaving children and their families alienated from receiving the support they needed to cope with the impact of abuse. Specifically, Humphreys explained how only 56% of children who were in need of counselling for sexual abuse actually received an appointment at a counselling agency despite explicit guidelines that this service be provided. And, again unsurprisingly, it was those most vulnerable who were most likely to fall through the proverbial cracks: "Children with single mothers dependent upon social security benefits were the least likely of any income group or family constellation to receive counselling" (p. 806).

Dumbrill (2003) and Leslie (2005, 2004) both contend that to effectively protect children, Canadian child protection policy and practice need to focus more on the issues of social inequality that give rise to protection concerns rather than simply reacting at a superficial level to incidents of abuse and neglect. Consequently, to properly help families and protect children, workers need the capacity to address structural issues that sometimes cause and compound incidents of child abuse and neglect.

How Clinical Counselling Can Help

Our committee argues that clinical counselling will contribute to achieving needed balance in the child welfare system. A counselling role will better enable workers to provide a helping service to children and families in addition to maintaining our focus on child safety. Counselling is one way to support families through their change process. It can help clients to identify the problems and difficulties in their lives, appreciate the impact of those problems on themselves and family members, accept responsibility for areas requiring personal change, reduce self-blame for the political causes of presenting problems, and elicit and mobilize strengths and capacities to identify solutions and make needed changes.

Counselling can help facilitate a process whereby clients are empowered to protect their children‘s safety and well-being, and achieve their potential as parents, families, citizens and human beings. As such, our committee argues that this role will correspondingly enhance, and not undermine, the protection role of the child welfare worker.

We wish to emphasize that we acknowledge that a client‘s presenting difficulties are inextricably linked to the oppressive structures all around us (Baines, 2007; Mullaly, 2002). We support the counselling role not as a way of downloading responsibility for social and political problems onto our clients, but instead as a means of taking responsibility for our role to help and support our clients contend with the impact that oppression has on their family. There are structural causes for our client‘s so-called personal problems, and it is our responsibility as service providers to challenge those structures; however, our clients can‘t wait for us to do that – they need assistance immediately to cope and to make changes that support their capacities to care for their children.

The dual role of the child welfare worker, in terms of supporting clients to make changes while mediating and challenging the affects of an oppressive environment, is unquestionably daunting. Who among us is prepared for this complex task, let alone with limited time and resources? And yet, this is what we ask of our child welfare workers everyday. It is our hope that we can support our workers in their challenging and admirable work by enhancing/expanding their clinical counselling skills; and we hope that this paper will be such a start.

An Anti-Oppressive Practice Framework

The purpose of this section is to briefly examine anti-oppressive practice (AOP) and how clinical counselling might be congruent with fulfilling the principles of this prominent social work perspective. Essentially, we hope to position AOP as an epistemological framework within which clinical counselling may be applied in child welfare so that the counselling role can serve to contribute to the individual and collective pursuit of empowerment and social justice.

While it may appear that our discussion of AOP is limited to this single section of the paper, our aim has been for it to underpin and inform all sections. AOP, after all, is not meant to be something that applies "here and there"; it‘s not even something we should leave at work when we return home to our families, friends and communities. Rather it is a perspective that is more akin to what Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht (2009) call "a way of life" – meaning that it is with you constantly, in all situations, informing all thoughts and interactions:

"Anti-oppressive practice is not enough. We cannot decide when or when not to practice in a good way; it must be about living – anti-oppressive living. " (p.35).

What is AOP?

In addition to being "A Way of Life", what is anti-oppressive practice? We will not spend too much time exploring this question in-depth because, not only is it a complex question, but also the Child Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable recently produced an excellent discussion paper exploring current thinking around AOP in child welfare, Anti-Oppression in Child Welfare: Laying the Foundation for Change (Oct 2008) and they are about to publish a report on ways to undertake anti-oppressive practice in Ontario‘s child welfare system. That being said, a common base of understanding and communication is needed within this paper, so we will discuss this briefly.

Dumbrill (2003) writes that "Anti-oppressive practice is concerned with eradicating social injustice perpetuated by societal structural inequalities, particularly along the lines of race, gender, sexual orientation and identity, ability, age, class, occupation and social service usage" (p.57). The Child Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable (2008) explains additionally by citing Clifford (1995) that,

An anti-oppressive perspective looks at the use and abuse of power not only in relation to individual and organizational behaviour, but also in relation to broader social structures such as the health, education, political, economic, media and cultural systems and their routine provision of services and rewards to powerful groups. These factors impinge on people's life stories in unique ways that have to be understood in their socio-historical complexity. (p.7)

While the above represents a window into understanding AOP, many theorists acknowledge that it defies a simple or precise definition (Mullaly, 2002; Sakamoto & Pitner). This is due, in part, to its inherently complex and multi-faceted character: Jeffery (2009) explains that,
"[AOP] includes a disparate and multidisciplinary variety of perspectives taken from feminist, anti-racist and other critical philosophies and social movements" (p. 55). Importantly, AOP has an ambiguity and fluidity to it that is welcomed rather than needing to be resolved somehow:

AOP does not claim to be, nor does it wish to become, an exclusive and authoritative model containing every answer to every social problem. Instead, consistent with its emancipatory heritage, AOP is a set of politicized practices that continually evolve to analyze and address constantly changing social conditions. (Baines, 2007, p.20).

AOP and Clinical Counselling in Child Welfare

What can we say about AOP in terms of how it might influence child welfare practice specifically, including clinical counselling? As a starting point, the Child Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable (October, 2008, p. 7) offers the following guiding principals:

- An anti-oppression perspective requires an understanding of the dynamics of privilege, power, oppression and social location.

- An anti-oppression perspective recognizes how our social identities impact our interactions with both service users and colleagues.

- Knowledge and skills are required in order to recognize, analyze and respond to all forms of oppression.

- Commitment to anti-oppression can transform child welfare structures and processes such as engagement, assessment, service planning, and service delivery.

- Being a change agent and an ally is integral to the role of child protection workers. -

- Organizational strategies are required to create an inclusive workplace which can support the delivery of anti-oppressive services.

(Child Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable, 2008, p.7)

Clinical counselling can be utilized in child welfare practice in ways that embody the principles of AOP. We offer that enhancing workers‘ competency and skill in clinical counselling can bring us closer to working anti-oppressively. Miller (2006), for example, explains the how client empowerment is underpinned by counselling skills:

The belief that self-directed solutions to individual problems are best achieved by service users with a supporter is as central to empowering social work practice as it is to counselling practice. … Within social work agencies practitioners can use interpersonal skills to build relationships and practice in a way which promotes and enables service users‘ agendas as far as is possible within the limitations of the agency‘s remit. (p. 86)

Workers are meant to offer meaningful assistance to clients who are doing their best to cope with the ongoing impact of disempowerment and oppression on their lives, and they need the clinical counselling skills to undertake this work:

A competent caseworker … will deliver clinical intervention while also identifying the broader political origins of personal troubles. It is important that an AOP-oriented worker have such clinical skills because most parents do not have the luxury of waiting for political remedies to social ills, but instead need immediate strategies to get through the next day safely and with their families intact. (Dumbrill, & Lo, 2009, p. 129)

Counselling is already a fundamental component of child welfare practice. Our collective failure to better recognize that this role already exists doesn‘t mean that it does not. Moreover, clinical counselling is not inherently anti-oppressive; however, it can be applied oppressively if we are not mindful of what it means to be anti-oppressive. The issue, therefore, is not whether child welfare practitioners are or should utilize clinical counselling in their work, but rather how they can do so purposefully in ways that support client empowerment and the pursuit of social justice, and also guard against the ways it might serve to reinforce or even enhance clients‘ oppression.

AOP in Practice

AOP‘s elusive identity makes it theoretically appealing and engaging; however, its application in practice with some of the most oppressed members of society, can be vague, unclear, and overwhelming. So, in the interest of clarity and simplicity, we include suggestions from AOP educators and theorists, in their own words, in regard to how we might practice anti-oppressively in child welfare in more concrete ways:

- We must listen to and value client knowledge.

Service users‘ theory reflects the knowledge that clients have about their own needs and about the ways these needs can be best met. We contend that listening to such recommendations is the starting point of anti-oppressive child welfare practice. … Service users‘ voices are absent not because they lack validity, but because they lack power. (Dumbrill & Lo, 2009, abstract and p. 131)

As well as being vital to hear service users‘ voice for… structural reasons, it is also important for reasons of efficiency. Clients have an expert understanding of their own needs and they often have lived experience of the programs and social work approaches that attempt to meet those needs. Consequently, the most obvious way for social workers to find out how they can be helpful to service users is to pay attention to what they say. (Dumbrill & Lo, 2009, p.128)

- We must be committed to transparency.

The people we work with must know what we are doing and how we are doing it, and have ample opportunity, without fear of consequence, to reflect on and comment on what we are doing and how we are doing it. (Strega & Esquao, 2009, p. 16)

- We must become comfortable with the discomfort of this work.

AOP is necessarily complicated and uncomfortable because as social workers in child welfare, we are forced to enter people‘s lives. In most cases, the children and families do not know us, but are required to share their most intimate and personal history. How we take up their stories is critical. (Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009, p.30)

- We must be self-reflective.

We must be self-reflective, always considering how our values, beliefs and location are affecting our interactions with people we are working with – the intention being to understand these interactions not in psychological terms, but in terms of sociology, history, ethics and politics. (Strega & Esquao, 2009, p. 16)

- We must critically examine how we know what we know.

AOP forces us to critically examine how we know what we know and to explore our assumptions not only about helping, but also about all living things. AOP invites us to connect our subjective lived experiences to our knowledges – that is, what we know may be connected to who we are. (Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009, p.30)

- We must protect the child, but also the family.

Mainstream worldviews tend to be more individualistic and focus on protection of an individual child or children. Subsequently, when mainstream workers see the need to protect the child, they discount the collective role of the child‘s family and community. This oversight has resulted in multi-generational trauma [for Indigenous Peoples]. This has led many to misuse substances to numb historical pain. It is critical that helpers understand our unique history and see how we can work together to heal from our past. By engaging in child welfare practice that is anti-oppressive, the worker then must not only protect the child, but indeed protect the entire family – or at least work with the entire family. (Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009, p.39)

- We must “see double”.

[Seeing double] means we must understand the situations of the families and children we work with in the context of the larger structural problems they are facing and at the same time understand what we need to do on the ground in the moment. (Strega & Esquao, 2009, p.17).

- We must avoid blaming clients for problems with political causes.

Micro practice, with its clinical focus on individual functioning, can easily lose sight of the broader social context and can thereby blame individuals for problems that have a political cause. (Dumbrill & Lo, 2009, p. 129)

- We must address power imbalances in the worker-client relationship.

Workers should … increase their emphasis on understanding how parents perceive them using power in the process of addressing [the problems needing intervention]. Intervention must begin by addressing the power imbalance that exists between worker and client, and by acknowledging the fear parents may be feeling. Workers can gauge, through parental reactions, the perceptions they generate about their power. Workers finding parents fighting, or playing the game by being overly compliant, may wish to question whether parents perceive them to be wielding power over them. Workers, of course, may choose not to change their use of power based on these reactions because sometimes workers must use power in a coercive manner to protect children. (Dumbrill, 2006, p. 35)

- We must choose social justice.

While all social work encounters are shaped by power and oppression, we contend that this is particularly so in child welfare because child welfare workers are given the right, through their mandate, to investigate, monitor assess and dispose of cases in ways that have far-reaching impacts on children, families and communities. In anti-oppressive practice, power is understood as widely dispersed rather than only held by one group and wielded over another group. Individual workers therefore have a choice about whether to produce social justice or reproduce social injustice through how they practice. (Strega & Esquao, 2009, p.16)

- We must live anti-oppressively.

Being committed to living anti-oppressively requires that we not only examine our values and beliefs, but live them out as well. … We need to question our intentions and motivations and ask ourselves: Are we good helpers? Do we truly value all human beings? Do we value parents who neglect their children? Do we care about the poorest and the homeless people? Do we value the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and queer communities? These are tough questions, but they must be examined. Exploring our values and beliefs is very difficult, but a commitment to anti-oppressive living requires that we do just this. (Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009, p.37)

- We must respect our clients.

What do parents think the most important thing is for child welfare providers to do? It is to treat them with respect. (Dumbrill & Lo, 2009, p.133)

AOP and Respect

Our committee asserts that respect is the heart and soul of AOP. We offer that the above principles and applications are enabled through our commitment, in our hearts and our actions, to respect our clients. Respect for our clients, their families, and their communities. Respect for their stories. Respect for their knowledge, beliefs and ways of being. Respect for their struggles, their strengths and their resilience. Respect for their individuality, their community, their humanity, and their dignity.

What does respect look like? Indeed, in keeping with principals of AOP, it is preferable to hear what clients themselves have to say about this. Analysis by Drake (1994) of four focus groups with child welfare clients revealed also that clients identified workers‘ ability to show them basic human respect as an essential "relationship competency". He shared the ways that clients understand respect (p. 597):

Workers Must Show Clients Basic Human Respect:

- Workers must not be pushy or rude.

- Workers must ask for permission of clients to look in rooms or examine contents of cupboards.

- Workers must be willing to spend time with clients.

- Workers must consistently honest. Workers must be aware of the (potentially, but not inherently) dehumanizing context of child welfare work

(Drake, 1994, p.597)

Analysis by Dumbrill and Lo (2009) of three in-depth studies eliciting the views of 125 parents receiving child protection intervention revealed that:

Parents perceived respect in various forms. These ranged from the worker‘s attitude, as in parents feeling they were respected as fellow human beings, to workers sharing power, as in parents feeling informed and included in decision-making and planning. (p.132)

Parents perceived a lack of respect in five forms: being judged, being harmed by intervention, being kept in the dark, being misrepresented, and having power used arbitrarily over them. (p.133)

Questions for Reflection on Anti-Oppressive Practice:

- Do I listen to and value the knowledge of my clients?

- Am I committed to transparency and being transparent in my work?

- Do I accept that working anti-oppressively can be complicated and uncomfortable?

- Am I self-reflective in my work?

- Do I critically examine what I know and how I know what I know?

- Do I focus on the protection of the family as well as the child?

- Do I "see double"-- address the presenting problem (ex. poor housing, no food), but also recognize its structural causes (ex. poverty)?

- Do I avoid blaming clients for problems that have structural causes (ex. domestic violence rooted in sexist structures)?

- Do I work to address power imbalances in my relationship with clients?

- Have I chosen to work toward social justice in my practice?

- Do I live anti-oppressively?

- Do I genuinely respect my clients? How do I show this? Would my clients say that I respect them?

(Dumbrill & Lo, 2009; Dumbrill, 2006; Kundouqk & Qwul‘sih‘yah‘maht, 2009; Strega & Esquao, 2009)

In summary, this section serves to remind us of the principles of AOP and some suggestions about the ways AOP can and should be applied in child welfare practice. Clinical counselling, as a component of child welfare practice, can similarly be applied within this framework to facilitate client empowerment and social justice. Clinical counselling, like any other dimension of the caseworker role, can be implemented in ways that more or less fulfill, or more or less depart from, the principles and applications noted above. It is our hope that we can all strive to consciously and purposefully apply what is shared in this paper in a manner that is anti-oppressive.

A Multi-Cultural Framework

Related to, although not the same as, AOP is the use of a multi-cultural framework. Miller (2006) discusses the saliency of a multi-cultural framework for the use of counselling skills in social work practice. She asserts that such a framework encourages us to consider "the multicultural aspects of society that are integral to our work, especially when communicating with others using counselling skills" and that we can potentially accomplish this "by promoting the development of awareness of 'self‘ in working relationships, i.e. seeking to understand our own cultural history and position in society and how it impacts upon others"(p. 1).

We include this framework, albeit briefly, because like AOP it considers structural inequalities, but with a focus on culture. Miller discusses several important multi-cultural concepts and skills for counselling within this framework (pp.1-21). We share a selection of those skills in order to further support workers in their task of translating structural, emancipatory and social justice-oriented theory into practice.

Essentially, a multi-cultural framework can be used not in place of, but alongside other assessment and counselling approaches and skills. Of note, we have re-worded the skills offered by Miller into questions that workers may ask themselves in order to reflect on their competence in this area. As always, these should be applied critically with social work values and principles in mind:

A Few Multi-Cultural Skills for Reflection:

- Cultural influences in communication are complex. It takes a great degree of skill to incorporate cultural competence into the use of counselling skills. It requires a high level of personal awareness and reflexivity. What am I doing to develop this awareness and these skills? How am I evaluating them?

- Individuals and families are unique. How do I show that I appreciate my clients‘ uniqueness?

- Assumptions about people‘s presentation and communication style often lead to blocks in communication? Do I avoid doing this? How do I monitor myself in this regard?

- Assumptions about beliefs and practices are based on stereotypes, often formed from a white western position?

- Do I avoid making these assumptions? Do I avoid imposing views on others? How do I do this? What communication skills do I use?

- Do I recognize how my own social position impacts on others? How does knowing this affect the way that I work with and speak about my clients?

- Do I have an awareness of my own cultural history? Have I explored the influence of generationally held beliefs and practices on the way I see the world and the way I work with my clients? What do I do to continually increase my awareness of my own values and beliefs to avoid inadvertently stereotyping people? How do I monitor myself in this regard?

- Do I have conversations about oppression with others? How do these conversations go? What do I learn in these conversations that can improve my work with my clients? Do I draw on my listening skills to hear the views of others regarding their personal experience of oppression? How do I show that I really hear what they are saying?

(Miller, 2006)

Other Theories/Approaches/Perspectives

Certainly, there are many other "lenses" that we use in child welfare that help us to better understand our clients‘ presenting difficulties and how we might intervene on multiple levels (individual, family, community, policy) to affect individual and structural change necessary to improve the safety and well-being of children and families.

A selection of such theories/approaches/perspectives, including the ones mentioned elsewhere in this paper, may include, but is not limited to those listed below (this is a modified version of Hick (2010, p. 59) table of modern theoretical approaches to social work).

- Aboriginal social work

- Anti-oppressive practice (AOP)

- Anti-racist social work

- Attachment theory

- Client-centred perspectives

- Communication theory

- Crisis intervention theory

- Critical theory

- Ecological theory

- Existential perspectives

- Feminist perspectives

- Functional theory

- Generalist practice

- Integrative theory

- Life model systems approach

- Locality development theory

- Mediation theory

- Multi-cultural framework

- Psychodynamic perspectives

- Psychosocial theory

- Social action theory

- Social planning theory

- Structural social work

- Strengths-based social work

- Task centred models

- Trauma theory

Endnotes

1. We use the term "child welfare worker" to refer to the professionals who provide direct front-line services to children and families in child welfare agencies; elsewhere in the paper we also use the generally accepted shorthand "worker".

2. At times we refer to "children, families and communities we serve" in the short-hand "clients". Notably, the term "clients" and other relevant terms are described at the end of this paper.

3. We use the term "parent" to designate a child‘s caregiver. This can refer to a biological parent or other individual with care and custody of the child.

4. We discuss clinical counselling with "clients" throughout the paper; however, our service providers, such as foster parents, adoptive parents, kin caregivers and volunteers will also be recipients of clinical counselling, especially in terms of building effective relationships that enable us to improve service provision, which is discussed later in the paper.

5. Child welfare agencies in Ontario are referred to in the shorthand "CAS" throughout.

Read the Winter Journal 2011 for the next segment of "Critical Counselling: A vital part of child welfare services". This paper continues to explore topics such as relationship-based practice, evidence-based practice, and crisis intervention.

AUTHORS
Janice Robinson, Co-Chair
Howard Hurwitz, Co-Chair
Andy Koster, Project Champion and Liaison to the Local Directors Section of the OACAS BettyAnn Frankland-Cowan
Bruce Leslie
Charmaine Pette
David Gill
Donna Miles
Emmanuael Antwj
Dr. Gary Dumbrill, Author and Editor
Gisèle Paquette
Helene Fournier
Dr. Bernie Gallagher
Ingrid Hauth
Jacquie Scatcherd
Anna Bozza
Jennifer Binnington
Kathy Moran
Maureen Reid
Melissa Violette
Michelle Young, Author and Editor
Michael Goldstein
Patti Jacobs
Peggy Wright
Peter Martyn
Phil Howe
Rhonda Hallberg
Shari Gardener, Secretary
Shelia Markle
Shelley West
Tami Callahan

REFERENCES

Introduction

de Boer, C. & Coady, N. (2007). Good helping relationships in child welfare: Learning from stories of success. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 32-42.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Code of Ethics 2005. Ottawa: CASW.

Drake, B. (1994). Relationship competencies in child welfare services. Social Work, 39(5), 595-602.

Dumbrill, G.C. & Lo, W. (2009). What parents say: Service users’ theory and anti-oppressive child welfare practice. In Strega & Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together (pp.127-141). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Dore, M.M. & Alexander, B.B. (1996). Preserving families at risk of child abuse and neglect: The role of the helping alliance. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(4), 349-361.

Glicken, M. (2004). Using the Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: A Positive Approach for Helping Professions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant paradigm. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(3), 233-242.

Graybeal, C. (2007). Evidence for the art of social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 513-523

Howe, D. (2009). A Brief Introduction to Social Work Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Lee, C.D. & Ayon, C. (2004). Is the client-worker relationship associated with better outcomes in mandated child abuse cases? Research on Social Work Practice, 14(5), 351-357.

Long, D.D., Tice, C.J., Morrison, J.D. (2005). Macro Social Work Practice: A Strengths Perspective. CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Miller, L. (2006). Counselling Skills for Social Work. London: Sage Publications.

Platt, D. (2008). Care or Control? The effects of investigations and initial assessments on the social worker-parent relationship. Journal of Social Work Practice, 22(3), 301-315.

Kundouqk [Green, J.] & Qwul’sih’yah’maht [Thomas, R.]. (2009). Children in the centre: Indigenous perspective on anti-oppressive child welfare practice. In Strega & Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together (pp.29-44). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Saleebey, D. (2002). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Saleebey, D. (2008). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Seden, J. (2005). Counselling skills in social work practice (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

Swift, K. J. & Callahan, M. (2009) At Risk: Social Justice in Child Welfare and Other Human Services. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Trotter, C. (2002). Worker skill and client outcome in child protection. Child Abuse Review, 11, 38-50.

Verge, V.M. (2005). The client-worker relationship in a child welfare setting. Envision: The Manitoba Journal of Child Welfare, 4(1), 43-66.

Background

Child Welfare Secretariat. (2005). Child Welfare Transformation 2005: A Strategic Plan for a Flexible, Sustainable and Outcome Oriented Service Delivery Model. Toronto: Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

Lee, C.D. & Ayon, C. (2004). Is the client-worker relationship associated with better outcomes in mandated child abuse cases? Research on Social Work Practice, 14(5), 351-357.

Logan, T.K. & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), Handbook of Social Work Research Methods (pp. 221-240). California: Sage Publications Inc.

Seden, J. (2005). Counselling skills in social work practice (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

Trotter, C. (2002). Worker skill and client outcome in child protection. Child Abuse Review, 11, 38-50.

Verge, V.M. (2005). The client-worker relationship in a child welfare setting. Envision: The Manitoba Journal of Child Welfare, 4(1), 43-66.

Sociopolitical and Economic Context

Baines, D. (2007). Introduction – Anti-oppressive social work practice: Fighting for space, fighting for change. In D. Baines (Ed.), Doing Anti-Oppressive Practice (pp.1-30). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Child Welfare Secretariat. (2005). Child Welfare Transformation 2005: A Strategic Plan for a Flexible, Sustainable and Outcome Oriented Service Delivery Model. Toronto: Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

Dumbrill, G. C. (2003). Child welfare: AOP's nemesis? In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practice (pp. 101-119). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Dumbrill, G.C. (2006) Ontario’s child welfare transformation. Another swing of the Pendulum? Canadian Social Work Review, 23(1-2), 5-19.

Humphrey, C. (1995). Whatever happened on the way to counselling? Hurdles in the interagency environment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(7), 801-809.

Leslie, B. (2004). Social inclusion: Promoting child welfare service innovation. Child Welfare
League of Canada, Canada’s Children, summer, 30-34.

Leslie, B. (2005). Housing influences on child welfare: A practice response with service and policy implications. In Scott, J. & Ward, H. (Eds.), Safeguarding and Promoting the Well-Being of Children, Families and Communities (pp. 213-227). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging Oppression: A Critical Social Work Approach. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Swift, K. J. & Callahan, M. (2009) At Risk: Social Justice in Child Welfare and Other Human Services. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

An Anti-Oppressive Practice Framework

Baines, D. (2007). Introduction – Anti-oppressive social work practice: Fighting for space, fighting for change. In D. Baines (Ed.), Doing Anti-Oppressive Practice (pp.1-30). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Drake, B. (1994). Relationship competencies in child welfare services. Social Work, 39(5), 595-602.

Dumbrill, G. C. (2003). Child welfare: AOP's nemesis? In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practice (pp. 101-119). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Dumbrill, G.C. (2006). Ontario’s child welfare transformation. Another swing of the Pendulum? Canadian Social Work Review, 23(1-2), 5-19.

Dumbrill, G.C. (2006). Parental experience of child protection intervention: A qualitative study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 27-37.

Dumbrill, G.C. and Lo, W. (2009). What parents say: Service users’ theory and anti-oppressive child welfare practice. In Strega & Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together (pp.127-141). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Jeffery, D. (2009). Meeting here and now: Reflections on racial and cultural difference in social work encounters. In Strega & Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together (pp.45-60). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Kundouqk [Green, J.] & Qwul’sih’yah’maht [Thomas, R.]. (2009). Children in the centre: Indigenous perspective on anti-oppressive child welfare practice. In Strega & Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together (pp.29-44). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Miller, L. (2006). Counselling Skills for Social Work. London: Sage Publications.

Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging Oppression: A Critical Social Work Approach. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Sakamoto, I & Pitner, R.O. (2005). Use of critical consciousness in anti-oppressive social work practice: Disentangling power dynamics at personal and structural levels. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 435-452.

Strega, S. and Esquao. S.A (2009). Introduction. In Strega and Esquao [Carrière] (Eds.), Walking this Path Together. (pp.14-28). Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

The Child Welfare Anti-Oppression Roundtable. (Oct 2008, Revised May 2009). Anti-Oppression in Child Welfare: Laying the Foundation for Change. A Discussion Paper. ON: Lorna Grant Kike Ojo (Eds.).

A Multi-Cultural Framework

Miller, L. (2006). Counselling Skills for Social Work. London: Sage Publications.

Other Theories / Approaches / Perspectives

Hick, S. (2010). Social Work in Canada: An Introduction, (3rd ed.). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.

Previous Article : World Forum 2010 - Youth Declaration