We need to rethink our approach to disguised compliance

Viewing disguised compliance as a characteristic of some 'bad parents' can mean ways of overcoming resistance get overlooked, says David Wilkins

Description_of_image_used_in_We_need_to_rethink_our_understanding_of_disguised_compliance_rexfeatures_Baby_social_worker_parent_4127871a_John_Birdsall_Rex
Photo: John Birdsall/Rex

By David Wilkins, senior research fellow, University of Bedfordshire

Some parents are openly resistant to the involvement of statutory social work services. They will say clearly that they disagree with the social work assessment and refuse to attend alcohol support groups, abstain from substances or change the way they discipline their child. This kind of resistance can be very challenging – but at least you know where you stand.

Disguised compliance is a more hidden and, as a result, more worrying form of resistance. Although the parent may say they agree with the assessment, they really don’t. And although they may attend alcohol support groups because it’s part of the plan, they don’t accept the need to change and have no intention of reducing their alcohol intake.

In the most serious cases, parents may attempt to hide the significant harm a child is being exposed to. As a result, disguised compliance has been cited as a factor in several serious case reviews and can be a very challenging problem to address.

‘Catch-all term’

In recent months, I’ve been involved in a large-scale research project exploring the relationship between supervision, practice and outcomes for children. This affords me the opportunity to observe and listen to social workers in supervision with their managers – and I have noticed how common the concept of ‘disguised compliance’ has become in social work parlance. But for the most part, it is not used in relation to (suspected or actual) manipulation or intent to deceive. Rather, it can be used as a catch-all term in relation to almost any signs of resistance or even just ambivalence on the part of the parent.

The following is a composite example of the kind of thing I hear:

Social worker: I saw her last week and we talked about what might happen at the next conference. I was trying to focus on strengths, on what’s going well, because I think mum is used to professionals talking at her all the time about what’s going wrong or how worried they are and that must be hard for her.

Deputy team manager: You’re trying to balance it out a bit, by making sure she knows some things are working well. What kind of thing did you talk to her about?

Social worker: I said it was good Charlie is going to school more; he’s turning up with clean uniform and all his books, his PE kit, his trainers. And that she picks him up on time now, he’s not sitting in the office wondering where mummy is. So that’s good, I think.

Deputy team manager: I hear some reservation in your voice.

Social worker: Well, being strengths-focused is obviously a good thing, but how can I know if things are really getting better or if this is just because mum is worried about the plan? Maybe he’s going to school and doing well now but if we close the case, I don’t know if she really believes in all of this.

Deputy team manager: You’re worried about disguised compliance?

Social worker Yeah, like when she knows I’m visiting, she tidies and cleans the house a bit. But she’s only doing that because I’m coming around.

Here, the social worker is thinking critically about what might explain the changes he has seen and whether the mother is motivated only by the intervention of children’s services. Following the discussion above, the manager and social worker discussed the need to focus on outcomes for the child and to talk with the mother about what might be motivating her to change. No doubt a very good plan – but what was missing was any consideration of the social worker’s role, what he or she might have done or said that made it more difficult for the mother to be open with her views and what she thought did – or did not – really need to change.

What is my role in this resistance?

The NSPCC recommends if you are worried about ‘disguised compliance’ that you should establish your facts, gather evidence, build a chronology, record the child’s perspective and focus on outcomes. This is good and sensible advice. But it overlooks how the social work system – and the approach of some individual workers – can create understandable parental resistance. It fails to address the questions – what am I doing that might be increasing the parent’s resistance and what can I do to change this?

Stay up to date with the latest best practice
Attend sessions to find out about developments in best practice, the law and research at Community Care Live Manchester on 25 and 26 April.

David Wilkins will be speaking about supervision, giving tips to go beyond a managerial approach and deliver supervision that improves practice. Other areas covered include court reports, working with traumatised children, direct work and many more. Check out the full programme and register for your free place now.

If we only consider disguised compliance and resistance more generally as an individual characteristic, something that ‘bad parents’ do, then we avoid having to think about these questions. But one ‘solution’ to disguised compliance would be to close the case. Without the intervention of children’s services, there is no plan for the parent to comply with and hence no question of whether their compliance is genuine or ‘disguised’. Take away the plan and the issue of disguised compliance goes with it. This hypothetical argument demonstrates that disguised compliance and resistance result from the situation rather than the individual. Of course, when it is safe enough to do so, social workers will close cases. But what can be done when it is not safe enough to end the plan and you are concerned about disguised compliance (or other forms of resistance)?

Thinking about the relationship

Motivational Interviewing (MI), as many social workers will know, is a communication style underpinned by a set of key principles – including the idea that intrinsic motivation is more sustainable than extrinsic motivation and that ambivalence about change is entirely normal. When resistance occurs, MI prompts us to think about the nature of the relationship between the social worker and the parent, alongside a consideration of what other factors might be playing a part.

With this in mind, in addition to the actions recommended by the NSPCC and those in the example discussion above, here are some other things that might help:

  • Avoid a direct head-on argument about the behaviour you would like to change (whether this relates to pre-existing concerns, such as alcohol misuse, or the issue of disguised compliance itself)
  • Show the parent you understand what they are saying and what life is like for them and their child. Use reflective listening skills and demonstrate empathy
  • Talk in a non-confrontational way about any discrepancy you notice between what the parent says about the plan and what you understand to be their wider goals or objectives (in MI, this is known as ‘change talk’)
  • Encourage the parent to come up with possible solutions or alternative behaviours themselves rather than advising or directing them

None of these ideas is a magic wand to transform ‘resistant parents’ into willing partners. But they do offer the potential for lowering – or at least not increasing – any parental resistance attributable to their relationship with the worker. In combination with a focus on outcomes and listening to the child, such an approach should help us to have more reflective and reflexive discussions about parental resistance and the problem of disguised compliance.

 

10 Responses to We need to rethink our approach to disguised compliance

  1. Tom J March 17, 2017 at 9:40 am #

    Good article- this label is being placed on parents left right and centre without any degree of criticality.

  2. Marion wood March 17, 2017 at 11:27 am #

    Good article with a focus on the relationship between the social worker and the parent. We know that is the most important factor in bringing about change.

  3. Heidi March 19, 2017 at 9:09 pm #

    Interesting article, I now work with the team around the family, doing early intervention and prevention work with the family. We are outcome focused from the statt and we ask the family what they would like to change or be better. It works great – as we are not statutory, we cam work this way and look at the family as a whole and what parts need reparing in order to be better parents or deal with other issues. I think the paperwork and way childrens teams work forces a different focus and ecerything is led by the plan which is written by the social worker and not the parent.

  4. Seran Zorbas March 19, 2017 at 9:12 pm #

    Is the article about disguise compliance or superficial compliance? Sorry as the details given is not what I understood disguise compliance to be but it does give details of superficial compliance

  5. Marion Herbert March 20, 2017 at 12:04 pm #

    As the above comment states- it’s misleading to use the term “disguised compliance”- you mean “disguised lack of compliance” surely?!

    • Graham March 23, 2017 at 5:24 pm #

      I agree that ‘disguised non-compliance’ or ‘superficial compliance’ is what is referred to here. It is a shame that so many buzz-word terms are widely adopted without anyone considering what they actually mean grammatically.

  6. Jan Loxley Blount March 20, 2017 at 8:13 pm #

    One of the problems is that despite the Autism Act making it imperative that relevant Local Authority workers are trained in Autism understanding / awareness – this rarely happens in the case of social workers and others working with parents of children with additional and complex needs. Many of these family difficulties arise because not only does the child or children have diagnosed or undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Differences & Difficulties, but also the parent(s) have diagnosed or undiagnosed autistic spectrum conditions .
    There’s a lot of recent evidence about undiagnosed autistic women and girls – many of these are parents.
    An autistic or autism spectrum mother who sees her children struggling in school, will fight like a tigress for the resources which that child needs. Her unflinching tenacity in this regard may make her unpopular with headteachers who may report her to social services.
    If the social workers were more Autism aware, they might actually spot the problem, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of parental blame. If a social worker instructs such a mother to abandon her fight for educational resources, there is simply no way that the autistic mother can act contrary to what she perceives as her child’s needs, so she can’t comply with the instructions.
    This is the root cause of many misunderstandings and arguments about compliance / non compliance / altered or disguised or disordered compliance etc.
    The single biggest thing the local authorities could do to help, would be to comply with the spirit of the Autism Act and make Autism Awareness training available to and compulsory for all children and family social workers.

  7. Rlh March 22, 2017 at 12:47 pm #

    Very interesting. As a final year student in placement in a LA, this is Something I strongly feel warrants further discussion.

    Disguised compliance appears to be a buzz term at present and it concerns me that individuals are being labelled as this when resistance would be more appropriate?

    I don’t suggest that it does not exist, but when it does I feel that it is more born from perhaps a more malicious/sinister thought out process of deception?

    Quite right to question what we bring within out interactions with people. Surely we should expect a level of resistance? Do time constraints and the struggle of relationship building within these further impact on our perception of resistance?

    Be careful how we label, as they may feed further into oppressive front line practice despite not being our intention.

  8. Toyin Adenugba-Okpaje March 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm #

    Nice article, and whether ‘disguised compliance’ or ‘superficial compliance’ it does resonate even in adult practice teams. Thanks for this

  9. Jan Loxley March 22, 2017 at 5:14 pm #

    Jan Loxley Blount March 20, 2017 at 8:13 pm #
    One of the problems is that despite the Autism Act making it imperative that relevant Local Authority workers are trained in Autism understanding / awareness – this rarely happens in the case of social workers and others working with parents of children with additional and complex needs. Many of these family difficulties arise because not only does the child or children have diagnosed or undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Differences & Difficulties, but also the parent(s) have diagnosed or undiagnosed autistic spectrum conditions .
    There’s a lot of recent evidence about undiagnosed autistic women and girls – many of these are parents.
    An autistic or autism spectrum mother who sees her children struggling in school, will fight like a tigress for the resources which that child needs. Her unflinching tenacity in this regard may make her unpopular with headteachers who may report her to social services.
    If the social workers were more Autism aware, they might actually spot the problem, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of parental blame. If a social worker instructs such a mother to abandon her fight for educational resources, there is simply no way that the autistic mother can act contrary to what she perceives as her child’s needs, so she can’t comply with the instructions.
    This is the root cause of many misunderstandings and arguments about compliance / non compliance / altered or disguised or disordered compliance etc.
    The single biggest thing the local authorities could do to help, would be to comply with the spirit of the Autism Act and make Autism Awareness training available to and compulsory for all children and family social workers.

Leave a Reply