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?
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.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Good article- this label is being placed on parents left right and centre without any degree of criticality.
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.
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.
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
As the above comment states- it’s misleading to use the term “disguised compliance”- you mean “disguised lack of compliance” surely?!
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.
“They will say clearly that they disagree with the social work assessment”
In the case of parents who are not substance or alcohol abusers, no mental health affecting parenting, no domestic violence issues, have not neglected or abused their children in any way, and in all cases, when a social worker’s report contains complete untruths, of course parents will disagree with it.
Too many social workers are committing non-oath sworn perjury and this carries up to 2 years in jail, the more parents find this out the better as they can ask police to start a criminal investigation.
“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?”
Exactly, try being honest and not lying in reports and more parents will not see social workers as the enemy. Just a few examples, which are a tiny tip of a very large iceberg:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/hull-city-council-social-worker-rachael-dinsdale-accused-of-falsifying-documents/story-29765748-detail/story.html
“A council social worker is facing allegations of misconduct and dishonesty after she was accused of falsifying child protection documents.”
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/social-worker-suspended-further-12-11302138#ICID=sharebar_twitter
“That led to him [Martin Sands] “deliberately recording false information over Children In Need plans when meetings had not taken place.”
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14096815.Social_services_staff_in_Hampshire_involved_in__cover_up__says_top_judge/?action=success#comment_14966417
“Social services staff asked to make decisions about the future of five children were involved in an attempted ”cover-up”, a family court judge has said.
Judge Mark Horton said there had been a ”deliberate and calculated” alteration of a social worker’s report.”
“I have noticed how common the concept of ‘disguised compliance’ has become in social work parlance.”
This is the trouble, there are these favourite terms in social work which many social workers seem to use like they are going out of fashion, almost like a game to see how many of these favourite terms they can squeeze into a report even when they don’t apply.
A real-life example: having a special needs child with associated mental health problems resulting from school difficulties, parent requests CAMHS referral via GP, parent religiously takes child to every single CAMHS session and supports child to engage with CAMHS, no social work involvement through any of this – social services become involved through later malicious and unwarranted referral, social worker suggests parent is committing disguised compliance with CAMHS sessions in report! How can you comply with something you instigated yourself. The social worker in question was also a senior. There are simply too many corrupt social workers out there, damaging families, sometimes horrifically so.
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.
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.
Nice article, and whether ‘disguised compliance’ or ‘superficial compliance’ it does resonate even in adult practice teams. Thanks for this
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.
There is a power dynamic between social worker and service user that service users are usually much more acutely aware of than social workers because so much more is at stake for us than the social worker.
Ask yourself this – how much challenge can I cope with from others and how comfortable am I being challenged? Seems to me service users are caught between a rock and a hard place if they are working with a SW where the answer is ‘not very’. I once ( yes only once!) sat in a meeting when a SW lied to cover up a mistake she had made earlier – there . It told me a lot about her personal integrity if nothing else. There were four of us around the table and no-one challenged her so whose fault was that – hers or ours? I personally made a decision to choose my battles carefully – maybe that is also ‘disguised compliance’?