Br. J. Social Wk. (1998) 28, 897-914
Participation and Child Protection:
The Importance of Context
KAREN HEALY
Karen Healy is based in the Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University
of Sydney, Australia. Her theoretical interests include emancipatory social work and poststructural
philosophy. Dr Healy has worked as a statutory child protection officer and as a
community worker with homeless families. Over the course of her work she has been involved
in the establishment of a number of community-based family support initiatives, including a
young parents' peer support and advocacy network.
SUMMARY
This paper examines the effects of discourses about participation on child protection practice.
The paper critiques the prevalent conceptualizations of paiticipation on the grounds that,
often, these ideals have been imported from other disciplines without due regard for the
specificities of child protection practice. Initially, the critique is focused on how participatory
discourses have resisted adaption to the child protection field. FOT example, participation and
paternalism are often paired dualistically, with the consequence that participation is seen as
an unquestionable good, whilst practices that do not conform to this ideal are associated
with paternalism and considered to be antithetical to just child protection practice. By
examining some of the typical responses, within the child protection literature and amongst
child protection professionals, to the prevalent discourses about participation it is argued that
these discourses have actually thwarted the development of participatory processes in child
protection work. This is because these discourses do not engage with the expectations
associated with child protection work, particularly the use of statutory power that such
practice demands. The final part of the paper identifies how post-structural theory, particularly
the work of Foucault, can highlight and dismantle some of the assumptions about power on
which participatory models have rested and allow for the development of a participatory
ethos which is receptive to the specificities of child protection work.
Participatory approaches to practice have gained considerable popularity in
discussions about child protection and the past decade has seen participatory
practice processes enshrined in child protection legislation and policy in a
number of countries. Participation, it seems, is widely considered to be of
unquestionably positive value as it is often associated with empowerment and
Correspondence to Karen Healy, Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University
of Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
© 1998 British Association of Social Workers
KAREN HEALY
best outcomes for families in child protection practice (see Rybum, 199\b;
Calder, 1995; Mittler, 1995; Thobum et al., 1995). Despite the enthusiastic
embrace of participation there has been some acknowledgement of the limits
to this ethos within child protection contexts. In various literatures, the service
users, the professionals and the organization of child protection work
are considered to present obstacles to participatory practices. The key concern
motivating much of the discussion about participation in child protection
practice seems to be: why isn't child protection practice more participatory?
By contrast, I seek to ask why so much of the debate is premised on
approaches to participation that are of little relevance to the child protection
field. It is my position that a critical stance should be adopted towards conceptualizations
of participation that have been imported from other fields or
disciplines with little recognition of the specific demands associated with
child protection work. I consider that, all too often, these ideals are not only
unhelpful but actually detrimental to the development of participatory practices
in this field of work. A key purpose of this paper is to examine the ways
in which the ideal of participation has been constituted in the child protection'
literature and to outline the kinds of participatory processes that are envisaged
and those that are obscured by the prevalent discourses about participation.
WHAT'S IN A NAME?: A DISCOURSE ANALYTIC
APPROACH
It could be argued that the approach I am suggesting, that of examining
and rethinking notions of participation in child protection practice, is largely
irrelevant; that is, it could be asked, 'who cares how we define participation
as long as we do it?'. None the less, the importance of attending to how we
define what we do has gained considerable impetus with the post-structural
recognition that discourses have 'real' or 'material' effects (White, 1996). As
Parton (1994) defines it, 'Discourses are structures of knowledge, claims and
practices through which we understand, explain and decide things.... They
are frameworks or grids of social organization that make some actions possible
whilst precluding others' (p. 13). Discourses fix norms and truths and,
in so doing, shape what can be written, said and even thought within a given
context (McHoul and Grace, 1993). Furthermore, according to this view,
discourses do not simply construct ideas but also material realities, that is the
'field of objects', through which the social 'world' is experienced (Foucault,
1977, p 199).
In this paper, I intend to examine the effects of participatory discourses
particularly in terms of how the tensions between ideals of participation and
the demands of child protection practice are managed or suppressed, and also
the possibilities for participation that are obscured by the prevalent concep-
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 899
tualizations. In this examination, it is not my intention to lambaste notions
of participation and partnership; indeed, it is apparent that these ideals often
form a fundamental base for empowering practice. Rather, I seek to cultivate
approaches to child protection that can acknowledge the specificities of child
protection work. In this paper, I will outline how the ideals of participation
are constituted in the child protection literature. I will overview the limitations
to participation in child protection practice and examine how social
workers have responded to the tensions between the ideals of participation
and the demands of child protection practice. In the final section, I will consider
the implications of post-structural theory, particularly the work of Foucault,
for the identification and deconstruction of assumptions about power
that underpin the prevalent models of participation. I will demonstrate the
relevance of this approach in relation to the issue of professional judgement
in participatory approaches to child protection.
The paper is grounded in my experience and research as a child and family
worker in both statutory and non-government contexts. These experiences
contributed to my awareness of the deleterious effects and, indeed, the dangers
of a participatory ethos that is unresponsive to the specificities of child
and family work. The paper is also based in my ongoing research into the
potential of post-structuralism for the analysis and reconstruction of emancipatory
social work practices. My project involves the refusal of transcendant
frameworks for change in favour of the development of practice theories that
can engage with, rather than ignore or devalue, the actual contexts of social
work practice. Before turning to the main body of the paper, I will briefly
overview some of the legislative and policy changes that appear to have
strengthened the importance of service user participation in child protection
practice. As I am writing within the Australian context I will make some
comparison between the changes to British legislation and the situations in
Australia and New Zealand.
THE RISE AND RISE OF PARTICIPATION
Over the past decade, a number of countries, amongst them Britain and New
Zealand, have enshrined notions of participation in child protection legislation.
The Children Act 1989 (covering England and Wales) and the New
Zealand Children, Young Persons and their Families Act of the same year
take some important steps towards ensuring that families are involved in
decision-making about child protection matters, though they approach the
matter in different ways. In Australia, the analysis of legislative and policy
change is somewhat complicated since child protection legislation is a state
responsibility and there is considerable variation from state to state
(Wilkinson, 1993). None the less, the push towards greater involvement of
900 KAREN HEALY
families in decision-making can be seen in a number of legislative changes
instituted in various States of Australia. Campbell (1997) has recently
reported on the Victorian child protection legislation, the Victorian Children
and Young Persons Act 1989, which has required that statutory child welfare
officers maximize opportunities for families to be informed about and, as far
as possible, involved in decisions about the care of their children. Similarly
in Queensland, there has been the recent formation of the Children's Commission,
a legislative body which is aimed at providing a forum for families
and children to address concerns and grievances about statutory child welfare
authorities.
While the introduction of legislative changes towards the protection of
families and of children's rights has often been accompanied by a rhetoric of
family participation, it is wise to be cautious in one's acceptance of these
claims. Indeed, many of these legislative changes have arisen in the context
of perceived community concern about the action or, indeed, the inaction of
child protection authorities (Campbell, 1997). Moreover, the ideals of participation
have been developed in a political context in which individualism is
emphasized, with the often explicit purpose of 'winding back' the welfare
state (Jack and Stepney, 1995; Jamrozik and Sweeney, 1996; White, 1996).
In essence, the participatory ethos embedded in recent legislation is not necessarily
reflective of a concern with social justice but, rather, arises from an
emphasis on individualism that has become increasingly widespread over the
past 50 years throughout much of the Western world (Fairclough, 1989).
DEFINING PARTICIPATION: IMPORTING A
PARTICIPATORY ETHOS
Despite the popularity of notions of partnership and participation, these terms
have remained 'loosely defined' (Calder, 1995, p. 753; Morrison, 1996, p.
133). None the less, within the social work and social policy literature, participatory
practice is often allied with the ideal of social justice and, as such,
it is associated with a number of key values such as: service user control and
leadership (Ryburn, 1991a); trust and respect (Ryburn, 19916; Mittler, 1995);
equality between professionals and service users (Mittler, 1995); and mutuality
(Shemmings and Shemmings, 1995). Importantly, it would appear that
participatory approaches in child and family welfare are heavily influenced
by models that have been developed in disciplines and areas of practice which
are markedly dissimilar to child protection work. Indeed, ideals of participation
have been imported from a range of disciplines such as: community
development, social planning and social movements, particularly feminism
(Wise, 1990). For example, in their study of participation in child protection
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 90I
TABLE 1. Degrees of consumer involvement
Arnstein's Ladder
Citizen control
Delegated power
Partnership
Placation
Consultation
Informing
Therapy
Manipulation
'Ladder' as adapted for rating of each case
Delegated power
Involvement in service design
Partnership
Participation
Involvement
Consultation
Keeping fully informed
Placation
Manipulation
Table adapted from Arnstein (1969) in Thoburn et al. (1995, p. 33).
practice, Thobum et al. (1995) propose the use of 'Amstein's Ladder'
(Amstein, 1969) as an evaluative framework, as illustrated in Table 1.
The employment of Arnstein's ladder in the research and evaluation of
participation in child and family welfare (see also Shemmings and Shemmings,
1995) is remarkable in that Amstein's work was initially intended for
an audience of social planners. While it is self-evident that the demands of
child protection work are quite distinct from social planning, there appears
to be little transformation of Arnstein's ladder to accommodate some of the
specificities of such work. Indeed, the ladder constitutes a hierarchy that may
be highly inappropriate for child protection practice. Although Thobum et al.
(1995) do acknowledge that there is a small but significant proportion of
service users for whom a participatory model of practice is unrealizable, their
reference to a hierarchy does privilege the ideal of 'delegated power' in comparison
to other forms of participation. This privileging is problematic for,
while it is indeed true that statutory power has been used in some instances
for the regulation and control of populations (O'Connor, 1993; Jamrozik and
Sweeney, 1996), statutory workers have an obligation to protect society's
most vulnerable members, such as children experiencing severe abuse and
neglect (Wise, 1990; Van Krieken, 1992). The danger of hierarchies in which
certain forms of participation are considered to be innately superior to others
is that they can lead to a devaluing of and, in some instances, a retreat from
this obligation.
The imposition of participatory models from other disciplines limits the
development of a participatory ethos within child protection practice for at
least two reasons. First, these models are often based on universalist definitions
of what counts as participation. For example, Ban (1992) suggests that
notions of partnership and participation are meaningless unless practitioners
'are comfortable with the practice implications that accompany these ideas'
(p. 6, italics added). The inference is that there is 'a' set of universal practice
902 KAREN HEALY
implications that will accompany a commitment to participation, regardless
of the context in which social work practice occurs. What I am arguing for,
by contrast, is a recognition that practice values can only find their meaning
within specific contexts of practice; that is, that what it means to be 'participatory'
in child protection practice can only be established in recognition of
the specific demands and expectations the context involves.
A further impediment to the rethinking of participation is the dualistic
pairing of participation and paternalism (see Calder, 1995; Shemmings and
Shemmings, 1995; Thoburn el al., 1995). As Calder (1995, p. 751) sees it,
'paternalism is synonymous with enforcement and compulsion' whereas participation
is not. The problem with the oppositional construction of participation
and paternalism is that it makes it difficult to acknowledge the complexities,
particularly in relation to power, that are inherent in child protection
work. These dualisms leave little conceptual space in which to acknowledge
those elements of child protection work, particularly the productive and
necessary use of statutory power, that are outside the typical definitions of
participation but which must be grappled with if participatory models of relevance
to the field are to be developed.
LIMITS TO PARTICIPATORY PRACTICE
While participatory ideals have been widely espoused within the recent child
protection literature, many authors acknowledge the limitations to the
achievement of participatory practice processes. First, service users are sometimes
considered to present significant obstacles to the realization of a participatory
ethos. It is suggested that the personal, social and economic deprivations
to which many service users have been subject may impede their
capacity to engage on 'an equal footing' with statutory child protection
officers (Campbell, 1997, p. 3; see also, Smith, 1992; Healy and Young
Mothers for Young Women, 1996) and their ability to sustain interpersonal
relationships, let alone an equitable or mutual relationship with a statutory
child welfare officer (Daro, 1988; Belsky, 1993; Dore and Alexander, 1996).
Indeed, not so very long ago in reporting their research about neglectful
families, Polansky et al. (1979) urged workers not to underestimate the onerous
task of engaging with marginalized families, as they asserted:
Given their lifelong patterns of non-participation, they appear poor prospects for general
programs of family support or family life education. Their deficits in ordinary
social skills require us to meet them well over half way; their unresponsiveness contributes
to worker burnout (Polansky et al, 1979, p. 152).
The point is not that workers should retreat from participatory practice processes;
but rather that it is important, in child protection work, to acknow-
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 903
ledge that the consumer's life history is one factor, amongst many elements,
that will impact on practice interactions. In addition, service users who have
had previous negative involvement with statutory authorities are, quite
rightly, likely to be reticent to engage with statutory authorities in a spirit of
participation (see Healy and Young Mothers for Young Women, 1996).
Child protection professionals are also seen to present an obstacle to the
realization of a participatory ethos. Frequently it is asserted that, despite the
popularity of notions of participation and partnership, professionals are often
highly reluctant to relinquish their professional power and status in order to
engage in more equitable and participatory relations with service users
(Calder, 1995, p. 757; see also Rybum, 1991a; Ban, 1992; Mittler, 1995;
Shemmings and Shemmings, 1995). Moreover, differences between workers
and service users, especially differences in power and life experiences, are
considered inevitably to result in exploitative practice relations. As Calder
(1995) argues:
Most practitioners in child protection are white and middle-class, and have often been
socialized into the oppression of class, culture and gender. If they remove children
from the home, they refer the matter to the courts, thus inviting decisions based upon
the values of predominantly white, male upper-class judges (Calder, 1995, p. 752).
From this perspective, the worker is charged with a propensity to impose his
or her values and beliefs on the service user and it is this dominatory
approach that is seen as impeding the achievement of participatory practice
processes.
Third, the organizational contexts in which child protection occurs are
identified as limited, if not entirely hostile to, a participatory ethos. The rhetoric
about participation in recent child protection policy and legislation has
not usually been matched by significant changes in the organization or the
funding of child protection work. The characteristics of many child protection
agencies, particularly the high caseloads and limited resources, detract from
the quality of relationships between workers and service users and from the
development of an infrastructure to support participatory processes. For
example, despite legislative and policy initiatives aimed at ensuring family
involvement in case planning (see McCallum, 1992), it has been observed
that attendance of families at such meetings does not, of itself, guarantee
their participation (Campbell, 1997). A variety of advocacy and support processes
may be required, at least in some instances, to ensure that some of the
power differentials between workers and service users are addressed, yet
rarely are these resources available in child protection contexts (Smith, 1992;
Campbell, 1997).
The limited professional autonomy and support for workers within child
protection agencies is also recognized as deleterious for the achievement of
a participatory ethos. It would appear that child protection organizations do
904 KAREN HEALY
not often deal well with the highly emotionally charged character of child
protection work (Killen, 1996; Morrison, 1996). Indeed, workers often feel
unsupported and devalued as both the complexity and emotional costs
exacted by their work are minimized or overlooked altogether in the organizations
in which they work (Comford, 1993; Morrison, 1996). This failure to
offer support or to acknowledge professional skills and knowledge contributes
to effects which are antithetical to the emergence of a participatory practice
culture, including: a defensiveness about one's practice and a resistance
to sharing, reflecting on, or seeking to improve practice (Morrison, 1996,
p. 131); a tendency towards toughness and detachment amongst workers,
particularly those who have been in the field long term (Thoburn et al., 1995,
p. 214); and disillusionment and high staff turnover amongst child protection
workers (Comford, 1993, p. 137).
RESPONSES TO THE TENSIONS BETWEEN
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION
The barriers to participatory practice are formidable, yet, a key premise on
which this paper rests is that the limits to participation in child protection
practice lie not only in the people (workers and service users) involved in
child protection practice and in the organization of this work, but also in the
way in which the ideal of participation has been constituted. It is my view that
the dissonance between the definitions of the participation and the practice of
child protection work is actually deleterious to the development of participatory
processes in this field. In this section I will demonstrate what I consider
to be the negative impact of the prevailing ideals of participation by identifying
some responses to this ethos that are present in the child protection literature
and amongst child protection workers themselves.
The first response is essentially that of resignation to the constrained possibilities
for participatory practice in statutory welfare contexts. It is widely
considered that social workers, both in child protection contexts and in other
arenas of practice, are inevitably more powerful than the service users with
whom they work (Laursen, 1975; Spicker, 1990; Rybum, 19916; Calder,
1995). One response to the recognition of power differences between workers
and service users is for workers to minimize their involvement with service
users. As Spicker asserts, 'Social workers should limit their intervention to a
necessary minimum—while recognizing their intervention does infringe the
. . . liberty of their clients' (Spicker, 1990, p. 235). One obvious problem
with this response is that, in many instances, workers have no choice but to
have lengthy and in-depth involvements with service users. This is particularly
the case for practice with those families who experience a multitude of
personal, social and economic deprivations which bring them into frequent
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 905
and lengthy contact with a range of statutory welfare systems (see Dore and
Alexander, 1996).
The second response is a denial of the tensions between the ideals of participation
and statutory child welfare practice. In their work on child protection
practice in the United Kingdom, Marsh and Fisher (1992) found that the
response of many workers to the increased emphasis on participation embedded
in the Children Act was to insist that their practice already reflected
participatory principles. Indeed, Marsh (1990) observed that
Because of a general ethos within social work which approves of partnership, many
workers have a vision of their practice as already carrying out most, and sometimes
all, of the elements of a partnership-based approach. They say, implicitly or explicitly,
we 'Do All This Already'. It is not the reality (Marsh, 1990, p. 30).
It is perhaps to be expected that, given the high premium put on notions of
participation and partnership both within social work training and in contemporary
theorization and policy about practice, social workers should want
their work to be aligned to these ideals. It would seem that statutory workers
are in a no-win situation. For, to acknowledge one's 'failure' to realize these
values is to leave oneself open to charges of lacking commitment and care
for the populations with whom one works. Yet, to make claims to a participatory
ethos is to be vulnerable to charges of duplicity (see Shemmings and
Shemmings, 1995). It is my position that the 'duplicity' often observed by
researchers and theorists is a logical outcome of the kinds of standards and
ideals which have been grafted on to child protection practice without due
consideration for the specific demands associated with such work.
The denial of the tensions between a participatory ethos and the specificities
of child welfare practice is concerning. My concern, however, lies less
with the failure of workers to reach particular and often imposed ideals, than
with the potential for the exploitation of service users that arises from an
inability to come to terms with the tensions in practice. The scope for
exploitation and disappointment are particularly great for service users who
are especially vulnerable, such as those who are dislocated from their families
and from other forms of informal social support. As one respondent to a
study about young mothers and the child protection system observed:
If you've got no family and workers say they're there for you, you [the worker] gotta
make it clear how much and however it's gonna be. It's like family. You gotta make
it clear the limits and the boundaries, otherwise they're [the client] gonna resent you
for giving false hope (Healy and Young Mothers for Young Women, 1996, p. 28).
The issue of duplicity, that is a dissonance between the espoused ideals and
the realities of practice, is widely observed by researchers, theorists, professionals
and clients of the welfare state. The problem is what to do about it
Some argue that workers should try harder to effect a shift in their practice
906 KAREN HEALY
towards participatory ideals (see Ban, 1992; Mittler, 1995). Another response
is for workers to develop greater clarity about the boundaries and the limits
within their particular context of practice to the participatory values they
espouse.
A third response to the tensions between the ideals and practice of child
protection work is that of guilt, whereby the workers carry a sense of selfblame
about the nature of their role and their failure to effect the kinds of
practice relations and change processes they consider to be ideal. Indeed,
in her empirical study of statutory child welfare workers, Cornford (1993)
demonstrated the considerable anxiety experienced by many workers about
the effects of the status and power that were attached to their role and their
limited capacity to effect change in the lives of service users. As one worker
asserted:
I really don't like the statutory authority. I guess I tend to have a more low key
approach to families. But I think it doesn't matter how much you're low key you still
wield power ... It's hard for me even now to deal with how threatened clients are
(Comford, 1993, p.133).
Child protection work requires the use of statutory power, this is a role for
which many workers feel unprepared. The caricature of the controlling professional,
accustomed to believing that they 'can determine the best interests
of others' (Ryburn, 19916, p. 11), obscures the fact that many workers are
so aware of the dangers of professional and statutory power that they are
paralysed from using this power in a productive way. In contrast to the overzealous
and uncaring worker, frequently portrayed by critics of child protection
practice, there is considerable evidence to suggest that child protection
workers often experience extreme difficulties in making negative judgements
about the families with whom they work (see Dingwall et al., 1983; Minty
and Patterson, 1994; Tomison, 1995; Stevenson, 1996). Ultimately, such difficulty
can lead to the minimization of neglect and abuse to the detriment of
the families with whom child protection workers have contact
RETHINKING POWER AND PARTICIPATION IN CHILD
PROTECTION
In the previous section, I considered some responses to the way in which
participation has been constituted in many discussions about child protection.
At the heart of the tensions between participatory discourses and the specificities
of child protection practice is the issue of power. Typically, statutory
authority is associated with repressive power, while participatory practice is
identified with the diminution of power differences and ultimately the
absence of coercive power relations altogether (see Rybum, 19916; Mittler,
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 907
1995; Shemmings and Shemmings, 1995). By contrast, I propose an approach
that transcends the dualism between paternalism and participation towards a
recognition that power is present in all forms of practice and, thus, that participatory
practice in child protection requires not a refusal of worker power
but rather an ongoing assessment of the operations of power within specific
contexts of practice. As Van Krieken (1992) asserts,
The focus of our critical attention should therefore not simply be power and control
in themselves, but the forms they take, the point at which we can genuinely say they
have turned into domination, as well as how we could turn a cruel, self-serving and
unjust authority into one which is humane, accountable and just (Van Krieken, 1992,
p. 145).
I consider that the work of Foucault, particularly the principles he adopts for
the analysis of power, can assist in acknowledging the repressive as well as
the complex and potentially productive operations of power in child protection
contexts.
Foucault rejects a model of power that sees power as something held by
one individual or group (for example, workers) and imposed on others (for
example, service users), on the grounds that this model cannot comprehend
the operations of power through the local practices associated with 'our
bodies, our existence, our everyday lives' (Foucault, 1978, p. 70). A Foucauldian
approach to power involves a recognition that power is not a possession,
rather it is exercised through discourses and practices that are specific
to particular institutional contexts. This means that power relations are rarely
singular or unilateral, although individuals may experience different relations
to power within any one context The importance of Foucault's insight for
social work is that it warns against a divide between workers as powerful
and service users as powerless and alerts us to the multiple relations of power
that may exist within the practice context This view is reinforced in Gordon's
(1988) historical analysis of family violence and social service intervention,
as she asserts that:
it is a mistake to see the flow of initiative in these social control relationships in only
one direction, from top to bottom, from professional to clients, from elite to subordinate.
In fact, the clients were not usually passive but, rather, active in arguing for what
they wanted (Gordon, 1988, p. 295).
To state that workers and service users exercise power is not to deny inequalities
but rather to refuse constantly to situate service users as passive victims
of the state. For, while certain groups have experienced undeniable violence,
such as the genocidal role the state played in relation to aboriginal children
in Australia, frequently the relationship between workers and service users is
much more complex.
In addition, Foucault (19806, p. 100) advocates that the investigation of
908 KAREN HEALY
power should involve an ascending order of analysis. Foucault rejects deductive
accounts that prioritize broad systems such as capitalism, patriarchy and
imperialism in analysing local relations of power on the grounds that such
approaches cannot grasp the multiple and differentiated operations of modem
technologies of power (Foucault, 1980a, p. 122). The refusal of a deductive
approach is consistent with the criticisms raised by Wise (quoted in Hudson,
1989, p. 93) that structural analyses have 'oversimplified the realities of social
work practice, with the consequence that the needs of society's most vulnerable
groups (for example, children) are sometimes disregarded' (see also Van
Krieken, 1992).
The work of Foucault necessitates a suspicion and transgression of the
dualisms between victims and villains that have pervaded much of the debate
about power in child protection literature (Goldner et ai, 1990; see also
Featherstone and Fawcett, 1994; Healy and Peile, 1995). While in some
instances these divisions may hold true, an approach to power that is suspicious
of dualisms can allow for the complexities of power to be articulated
in the analyses and practice models of child protection work. These complexities
include, first, a recognition that individuals may be situated across multiple
positions of power at any one time. For example, feminist authors in
the child protection field have had to grapple with the reality that, while a
woman may be a victim/survivor in one situation, such as in relation to her
partner, she may be in a position of power in relation to others, particularly
her children (Featherstone and Fawcett, 1994, p. 75; see also Wise, 1990). A
post-structural approach to power can also allow for an acknowledgement
within participatory models of practice of the complex power relations
between workers and service users that can emerge, particularly in long-term
statutory work. As Wise (1990, p. 242) reflects on her experience as a statutory
social worker: 'the myth of compliant and powerless clients is belied by
the reality of the complex process of interaction and negotiation that goes on
in defining the problem and finding the solution' (see alsoVan Krieken,
1992). Thus, rather than seeing power as something that is transferred from
one to the other, a post-structural approach to participation demands a recognition
of the multiple and complex power relations that may be present within
the practice context.
Secondly, a post-structural approach can also allow for the recognition of
the productivity of statutory power in child protection practice by acknowledging
the diversity of power relations within families. This recognition calls
into question the assumption, often espoused by advocates of participatory
practice processes, that statutory power is necessarily experienced as coercive
by those subject to it As Van Krieken (1992) asserts 'what might be the
imposition of control to one can be a way out of an untenable situation for
another' (p. 141). Once differences within families are highlighted, it
becomes much more difficult to maintain the conflation of power and social
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 909
control that has underpinned much of the current theorization about participation
and, instead, it becomes necessary to acknowledge the potentially productive
effects of statutory power, particularly in relation to the protection of
those family members who are most vulnerable to abuse.
In summary, post-structural theory can be used to highlight and critique the
assumptions about power that underpin participatory models. Post-structural
theory is useful for a reconceptualization of the statutory power in participatory
practice insofar as this theoretical approach invites not a refusal of power
but, rather, a constant reflection on its complexities and specific effects within
practice contexts. I will now demonstrate the relevance of this approach by
considering how professional judgement, a notion that has long been critiqued
by the advocates of participation, may be incorporated in a participatory
approach to practice.
ACKNOWLEDGING AND REFINING JUDGEMENT AND
ASSESSMENT IN PARTICIPATORY PRACTICE
Professional workers in child protection practice are required to make judgements
which have enormous implications for service users' lives. Although
assessment is fundamental to practice in many social work settings, the idea
of making judgements is not something with which most social workers are
comfortable. Indeed, the ideal of non-judgement is inscribed at the very core
of liberal humanitarian social work (Biestek, 1961). For advocates of participatory
practice, the notion of professional judgement is further critiqued on
the grounds that it involves the imposition of middle-class values on service
users (see Ryburn, 19916; Calder, 1995) and that it is antithetical to the
mutual and egalitarian relationships on which, it is argued, participatory practice
should be based (see Mittler, 1995; Shemmings and Shemmings, 1995).
The critique of professional judgement that is central to much of the current
discourse about participation is, however, problematic for child protection
practice for at least two reasons.
First, the rejection of professional judgement on the grounds that such
judgement is inevitably based on social norms, particularly middle-class
values, is unhelpful for assisting workers to deal with the complexities associated
with assessment in front line practice. As Stevenson (1996) asserts:
Who are we, the argument runs, to make an assessment of what is 'good
enough' parenting and adequate child development when cultural mores and
ethnic variations show such wide variations? It is indisputable that child
abuse is a social construction and that such variations exist. But agencies
involved in child protection cannot opt out of defining minimum standards
and ways of behaving that are acceptable to our society at a given time in
our history... When it comes to the crunch . . . (and it is a crunch, not an
910 KAREN HEALY
intellectual foray), these judgements have to be made (Stevenson, 1996, p.
15).
Indeed, in contrast to the portrayal of professional workers as overly confident
in their scientistic knowledge (see Ryburn, I99\b; Calder, 1995), the
value laden character of much social work knowledge is an idea with which
many social workers are only too familiar. What has been an important
insight for social workers, namely the differences in lifestyles and experiences
between themselves and the service users with whom they work, risks
becoming overemphasized to the point that it is no longer useful for child
protection practice. For, while social workers should be sensitive to differences,
a participatory ethos that demands a rejection of any form of criteria
for the assessment of abuse and neglect is ultimately unhelpful in the decision
making required in child protection practice.
A second problem is that criticisms of professional judgement are often
based on ideals of mutuality that not only are difficult to attain but may be
highly inappropriate in some situations of child protection work. The ideal
of mutuality is taken to mean that workers should transcend professional
boundaries and develop non-hierarchical relationships (see Mittler, 1995;
Shemmings and Shemmings, 1995). To some extent, I would contend that
personal engagement is not only positive but, indeed, inevitable in child protection
practice, particularly where the worker has long-term involvement
with service users (see also Wise, 1990). However, within the highly emotionally
charged terrain of child protection work, the failure to maintain some
degree of separation from service users can detract from the workers' capacity
to ensure minimum standards of care and protection for the most vulnerable
members of the families with whom they work (see Dingwall et al.,
1983). For example, Killen (1996) has observed that workers may enact a
number of psychologically defensive strategies in order to deal with the emotional
intensity of child protection practice; one of the most common of these
is over-identification. Killen uses the term over-identification to denote the
process whereby workers project on to parents their own feelings and desires
about how they want the situation to be, rather than 'empathising with and
facing the parents' and childrens' realities' (Killen, 1996, p. 793). Overidentification
is problematic for child protection practice because it can lead
workers to make assessments which minimize the abuse and neglect being
suffered by children and, in some instances, to the 'postponement of placement
of a child for many years ... until it is almost too late at least for a
successful outcome for the child' (Killen, 1996, p. 793; see also Dingwall et
al., 1983; Tomison, 1995).
There can be little doubt that child protection practice has the potential to
exact enormous personal costs on the worker. In particular, workers must
frequently confront the serious dilemmas of choosing between the costs of
removing a child from an abusive situation, particularly the costs associated
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION O.II
with the risk of repeated abuse or neglect of children within notoriously
under-resourced substitute care systems, and, alternatively, leaving the child
in a situation in which abuse and neglect are known to be occurring (Wise,
1990; Tomison, 1995). The emphasis on mutuality found within much of the
participatory literature can deprive social workers of an important and indeed
fundamental resource; namely, the capacity to stand both within and outside
the various systems (such as family systems and alternative care systems) in
order to negotiate at least a minimum standard of care for those members of
our society who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect.
A rethinking of participation in child protection requires not a retreat from
assessment and judgement but, rather, clarity and openness about one's
judgements and the processes by which they were reached. Very often, members
of the families who are the subject of these assessments will dispute
them, at least in the initial phase of statutory involvement (see Thobum et
al., 1995). However, a refusal to make these assessments constitutes a denial
of our ethical and professional responsibilities towards addressing situations
of child abuse and neglect (see Wise, 1990; Killen, 1996). Indeed, if statutory
workers are to have any chance of inducing change in these situations, it is
necessary that they be willing to acknowledge their observations and the
sense they make of them. The problem, then, lies not in the judgement of
itself but, rather, in a lack of reflexivity in the way that judgement has been
developed and applied. For, while it is certainly the case that labels such as
'neglectful parent' have been too quickly applied to certain groups of service
users, particularly those from indigenous populations, for many who have
entered child welfare systems 'their preceding family life was nothing other
than sad, and many were in fact neglected and abused by any criteria' (Van
Krieken, 1992, p. 145) and, in our professional work, we cannot shy away
from acknowledging, assessing and indeed judging abusive and neglectful
situations.
It is my view that participatory practice models which are responsive to
the specificities of child protection work will acknowledge the relevance of
professional judgement to this work. A participatory approach to child protection
practice requires, however, that our judgements are accessible and
accountable to those with whom we work. As Campbell (1997) asserts:
Active participation by family members requires professionals to demonstrate their
willingness to inform and listen respectfully: to give full and frank information on
their evidence of risk to the child, their interpretations of that evidence, and the
resources and services they have to offer the family; and to hear what the family has
to say about the evidence, their own views and interpretations and what resources
they have at their disposal and feel that they need (Campbell, 1997, p. 8).
This approach to assessment differs from a hierarchical relation often associated
with traditional practice in which the professional knows best, yet it also
912 KAREN HEALY
differs from an approach which demands that workers eshew power altogether.
The nature of statutory work, particularly the demand that workers
identify and intervene in situations of abuse and neglect, means that workers
cannot avoid judgement, but a participatory ethos demands that these judgements
are reflectively applied and that workers are accountable to the families
who are the subjects of them.
CONCLUSION
In this paper I have outlined the serious difficulties that can emerge both for
workers and services when ideals of participation are imported from other
disciplines without due regard for demands of child protection practice. These
ideals are detrimental to the development of participatory practices in child
protection because they establish practice benchmarks that arc both unrealizable
and inappropriate in this field. I have argued that post-structural theory
enables the deconstruction of the opposition between paternalism and participation
towards an acceptance of the repressive and the productive aspects
of power in statutory work. This recognition is important in developing
modes of participation which are responsive to the demands of child protection
work, such as centrality of professional judgement in this practice arena.
For too long, the debate about participation has been burdened by references
to models of participation that have only peripheral relevance to the work
that child protection workers do. It is time for those of us who work, whether
as researchers, theorists, or practitioners in this field, to cultivate modes of
participation that struggle with, rather than retreat from, the specificities of
child protection.
Accepted: June 1997
REFERENCES
Amstein, S. R. (1969) 'A ladder of citizen participation'. Journal of American Planners, 35(4),
pp. 216-24.
Ban, P. (1992) 'Client participation: beyond the rhetoric', Children Australia, 21(2), pp. 23-30.
Beistek, F. (1961) The Casework Relationship, London, Allen A Unwin.
Belsky, J. (1993) 'Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis', Psychological
Bulletin, 114(3), pp. 413-34.
Calder, M. (1995) 'Child protection: balancing paternalism and partnership', British Journal of
Social Work, 25, pp. 749-66.
Campbell, L. (1997) 'Family involvement in decision-making in child protection and care: Four
types of case conferences', Child and Family Social Work, 2, pp. 1-11.
Cornford, D. (1993) 'Public child welfare as experienced by field workers', in Mason, J. (ed.),
Child Welfare Policy: Critical Australian Perspectives, Sydney: Hale and Iremonger,
Sydney.
PARTICIPATION AND CHILD PROTECTION 913
Daro, D. (1988) Improving Practice: Prevention Strategies in Confronting Child Abuse:
Research for Effective Program Design, New York, Free Press.
Dingwall, R., Eekalaar, J. and Murray, T. (1983) The Protection of Children. Oxford, Basil
Blackwell.
Dore, M. and Alexander, L. (1996) 'Preserving families at risk of child abuse and neglect', Child
Abuse and Neglect, 20, pp. 349-61.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power, Harlow, Longman.
Featherstone, B. and Fawcett, B. (1994) 'Feminism and child abuse: opening up some possibilities?'.
Critical Social Policy, 14(3), pp. 61-80.
Foucault, M. (1977) "History of Systems of Thought', in Bouchard, D. (ed.) Language, Countermemory,
practice, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1978). 'Interview with Lucette Finas', in Morris, M. and Pattern, P. (cd.). Michel
Foucault: Power, Truth and Strategy. Sydney, Feral Publications.
Foucault, M. (1980a) 'Truth and Power', in Gordon, C. (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault, New York, Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (19806) 'Two Lectures', in Gordon, C. (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault, New York, Pantheon Books.
Goldner V., Penn, P., Sheinberg, M. and Walker, G. (1990) 'Love and violence: gender paradoxes
in volatile attachments', Family Process, 29, pp. 343-64.
Gordon, L. (1988) Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence,
Boston 1880-1960, New York, Viking.
Healy, K. (1996) 'Participative action research and the processes of feminist inquiry', in Alder,
C. and Baines, M. (eds.) . .. And When She Was Bad? Working With Young Women in
Juvenile Justice, Hobart, Australia, National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies.
Healy, K. and Peile, C. (1995) 'From silence to activism: approaches to research and practice
with young mothers', Affilia, 10, pp. 280-9.
Healy K. and Young Mothers for Young Women (1996) 'Valuing young families: child protection
and family support strategies with young mothers', Children Australia, 21(2), pp.
23-30.
Hudson, A. (1989) 'Changing perspectives: feminism, gender and social work', in Langan, M.
and Lee, P. (eds.) Radical Social Work Today, London, Unwin Hyman.
Jack, G. and Stepney, P. (1995) 'The Children Act 1989: protection or prosecution? Family
support and child protection in the 1990s', Critical Social Policy, 15(1), issue 43, pp.26-39.
Jamrozik, A. and Sweeney, T. (1996) Children and Society: The Family, The State and Social
Parenthood, South Melbourne, Macmillan Education Australia.
Killen, K. (1996) 'How far have we come in dealing with the emotional challenge of abuse and
neglect?', Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, pp. 791-5.
Laursen, K. (1975) 'Professionalism', in Throssell, H. (ed.) Social Work: Radical Essays, Brisbane,
Australia, University of Queensland Press.
Marsh, P. (1990) 'Changing practice in child care: The Children Act 1989', Adoption and Fostering,
14(4), pp. 27-30.
Marsh, P. and Fisher, M. (1992) Good Intentions: Developing Partnerships in Social Services,
York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
McCaJlum, S. (1992) 'Participative case planning: a model for empowering practice in statutory
child welfare'. Children Australia, 17(1), pp. 5-9.
McHoul, A. and Grace, W. (1993) A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, Melbourne,
Australia, Melbourne University Press.
Minty, B. and Patterson, G. (1994) 'The nature of child neglect', British Journal of Social Work,
24, pp. 733-^8.
Mittler, P. (1995) 'Rethinking partnerships between parents and professionals'. Children and
Society, 9(3), pp. 22^H).
Morrison, T. (1996) 'Partnership and collaboration: rhetoric and reality', Child Abuse and Neglect,
20(2), pp. 127^0.
O'Connor, I. (1993) 'Aboriginal child welfare law, policies and practices in Queensland: 1865-
1989', Australian Social Work, 46(3), pp. 11-22.
Parton, N. (1994) ' "Problematics of Government", postmodernity and social work', British
Journal of Social Work, 24, pp. 9-32.
9 1 4 KAREN HEALY
Phillips, A. (1991) Engendering Democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Polansky, N., Chalmers. M., Butteoweiser, E. and Williams, D. (1979) 'Isolation of the neglectful
family', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49(1), pp. 149—52.
Ryburn, M. (1991a) "The myth of assessment', Adoption and Fostering, 15(1), pp. 20-7.
Ryburn, M. (19916) "The Children Act: power and empowerment'. Adoption and Fostering,
15(3), pp. 10-15.
Shemmings, D. and Shemmings, Y. (1995) 'Defining participative practice in health and welfare',
in Jack, R. (ed.) Empowerment in Community Care, London, Chapman Hall.
Smith, G. (1992) 'Rights and advocacy: a framework for child protection services', in Calvert,
G., Ford, A. and Parkinson, P. (eds.) The Practice of Child Protection: Australian
Approaches, Sydney, Hale and Iremonger.
Spicker, P. (1990) 'Social work and self-determination', British Journal of Social Work, 20, pp.
221-36.
Stevenson, O. (1996) 'Emotional abuse and neglect: a time for reappraisal', Child and Family
Social Work, 1, pp. 13-18.
Thoburn, J., Lewis, A. and Shemmings, D. (1995) Paternalism or Partnership? Family Involvement
in the Child Protection Process, London, HMSO.
Tomison, A. (1995) 'Spotlight on child neglect', Issues in Child Abuse and Prevention, Australian
Institute of Family Studies, Issue Paper no.4.
Van Krieken, R. (1992) Children and the State: Social Control and the Formation ofAustralian
Child Welfare, North Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
White, S. (1996) 'Regulating mental health and motherhood in contemporary welfare services:
anxious attachments or attachment anxiety', Critical Social Policy, 16(1), pp. 67-94.
Wilkinson, M. (1993) 'Children's rights: debates and dilemmas', in Mason, J. (ed.), Child Welfare
Policy: Critical Australian Perspectives, Sydney, Hale and Iremonger.
Wise, S. (1990) 'Becoming a feminist social worker', in Stanley, L. (ed.) Feminist Praxis:
Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, London, Routledge.
Copyright of British Journal of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.