Archive

Research with child protection managers has shown some of the traumatic effects on workers of violence and aggression from parent service users.¹

Although there has been a great improvement on managing physical violence since the late 1980s, there is still a need to establish how this area of risk can be dealt with.

Interviews with 20 managers in a large social services department examined issues of definition, under-reporting, gender, ethnicity, who is at risk in what types of ways, and the effectiveness of responses to perpetrators.

While physical violence is comparatively rare, other forms of "indirect violence", as one respondent referred to it, were common. These situations caused some of the greatest problems for workers, managers and children. Problems appeared to arise from a "power/control" continuum as presented by some service users. As a result, workers might not recognise the effects of intimidation or threats over time on their assessments and interventions, or they might be unable to share these problems with managers, potentially leaving the child inadequately protected - a situation which has occurred a number of times in child abuse deaths.

The research showed that:

• Fear and anxiety were common features of respondents' experiences in reaction to aggression and violence.
• Some of the most powerful effects of threats or violence or both were when these were personalised against the worker and also their family.
• Skilled and knowledgeable supervision was important in reducing risks to workers and children.
• The situations where violence was most likely to occur were when decisions were being made about removing children, when applying for a care order or during contact meetings.
• Role conflict and ambiguity contribute to stress and violence experienced by workers in child protection work.
• The adversarial complaints procedure was not helpful for the organisation to learn from difficulties that may have led to complaints, and also proved problematic for workers.

Managers believed that some workers had difficulties being open and honest with service users about their role and the reasons for the intervention, which could cause problems. This was exacerbated by the ambiguity of the child protection social work role - whether the roles of supporter and investigator can be reconciled. Nearly all those interviewed believed that the Diploma in Social Work did not prepare students for the pressures of the conflict-laden nature of child protection.

Most physical violence was perpetrated by mothers, but it was the less obvious (to others) threats from males that had greatest effects. Examples included sustained and personalised verbal abuse and threats, and workers being followed in the street or in cars. Racist abuse was identified as a regular occurrence for workers from ethnic minority groups.

Attempts to work with service users on their part in the aggression were not a major feature of responses, and is an area that agencies need to consider further.

The findings offer a model for how under-reporting, effects on victimised staff, support for staff and dealing effectively with perpetrators might be incorporated into the development of practice and agency policies. The report suggests how risk assessment and risk management procedures can take these issues into account in order to protect more effectively the worker and children.

¹ Brian Littlechild, The Management of Conflict and Service User Violence against Staff in Child Protection Work, Department of Health and Social Care, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB. E-mail: B.Littlechild@herts.ac.uk