New Theories for Social Work Practice

Ethical Practice for Working with Individuals, Families and Communities

Kieran O'Donoghue, Robyn Munford

• Publisher: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781785921582
• eBook ISBN: 9781784504267
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

• Part 1 •

WORKING WITH
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
IN THEIR ENVIRONMENTS

• Chapter 1 •

PARTH Practices and Better
Outcomes: Creating ‘Lucky’
Encounters between Social
Workers and Vulnerable Youth

JACKIE SANDERS AND ROBYN MUNFORD

Introduction

The concept of vulnerability is increasingly shaping global academic debates, government responses and programme development for youth who face major challenges in navigating a safe path to adulthood (Gorur 2015). As yet there is no commonly agreed definition of vulnerability (Rizvi 2015) and there is debate about its usefulness as a concept because of its ambiguity and stigmatising potential (Becroft 2016; Cole 2016; Foster and Spencer 2011). For instance, some have adopted a universal definition, arguing that the simple fact of being dependent makes youth inherently vulnerable (Daniel 2010). Others consider that vulnerability should only be used to define particular sub-groups of youth who confront atypical levels of risk (Gorur 2015; Felitti et al. 1998; Smyth 2013; Walker and Donaldson 2010).

In our research (the Youth Transitions Research programme, see www.youthsay.co.nz), we adopted this latter approach: vulnerability as exposure to atypically high, non-normative levels of risk across multiple life domains that compromised youth capacity in reaching their full potential. Many of these risks were beyond the direct control of youth themselves and their vulnerability was thus compounded by restricted availability of adults who could help them positively address these multiple challenges. This definition of vulnerability has two key elements: high levels of complex risks and reduced likelihood of positive outcomes (Gorur 2015). It highlights the critical importance of adults taking decisive action to address the risks that create vulnerability and this is where it becomes important to understand what types of intervention make a difference.

While it is clear that chronic exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACE) makes children and young people vulnerable to poor outcomes, there is less clarity concerning the characteristics of effective interventions (Metzler et al. 2017; Walker and Donaldson 2010). Relatively few programmes have been subjected to evaluations using the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that would conclusively establish efficacy (Mitchell 2011; Thurston 2016). Despite this, the call for evidence to support claims of programme efficacy is strong as governments have become increasingly unwilling to fund programmes without such proof (Thurston 2016). Indeed, rather than a developmental asset, some have suggested service delivery can exacerbate vulnerability and thus there is a pressing need to understand the characteristics of successful interventions (Mitchell 2011).

In the face of these challenges, Positive Youth Development (PYD) theory has provided a framework that draws together many of the ideas regarding how to most effectively work with vulnerable youth. While PYD emerged out of the youth development field, it has much relevance for social work (Metzler et al. 2017). This chapter outlines the core components of PYD and this discussion provides a context for elaborating on a model of effective social work practice (PARTH) which emerged from our longitudinal study of vulnerable youth in Aotearoa New Zealand. The chapter concludes with questions for reflection.

Positive Youth Development (PYD): a framework for effective practice

Emerging during the 1980s out of dissatisfaction with deficit-focused approaches PYD has created a platform for a fundamentally new way of thinking about and working with young people (Benson et al. 2007; Lerner 2005). PYD provides a framework for harnessing the strengths and capacities inherent in all youth, for creating opportunities so that all youth can thrive and for responding to the challenges posed by chronic exposure to harm. PYD is a strengths-based, ecological theory which defines youth as competent social actors who must be actively involved in the programmes designed to support their development (Benson et al. 2007; Lerner 2005). Rather than problems to be fixed, PYD defines all youth as having the potential to develop into caring, responsible contributors to society, given relevant and meaningful support. PYD programmes feature the Big Three characteristics: ‘positive and sustained relationships with competent, caring adults; the development of life skills, and opportunities for youth engagement and empowerment’ (Sanders, Munford and Liebenberg 2017, p.202).

PYD and resilience

The ecological and strengths focus of PYD has a good fit with contemporary approaches to resilience (Benson et al. 2007). Resilience is a multi-faceted, socio-ecological construct that includes individual factors, family/caregiving factors and extra-familial factors, including relationships outside the family (for example, with friends, teachers and service providers), as well as community, cultural and spiritual resources that enable individuals to respond positively to significant challenges (Masten 2014). In this sense, it provides a valuable framework for social work with vulnerable youth because of the emphasis on working with youth in their social context. A particularly important facet of resilience is that it is malleable; it changes over time as young people’s lives change. Resilience manifests itself differently in different social, cultural and historical contexts (Masten 2014). These characteristics make resilience particularly useful to PYD-informed social work interventions which also emphasize culturally and contextually responsive practices (Munford and Sanders 2011).

PYD and relationships

According to PYD, positive development becomes possible when adults create nurturing and enabling relationships with youth. The international research consistently points to the protective and promotive roles that a positive, enduring relationship with at least one committed adult has in terms of outcomes for vulnerable youth (Dewar and Goodman 2014; Fallis 2012). There is evidence that the quality of the social work relationship is a stronger determinant of successful outcomes than the individual characteristics of the young person, their family or the challenges they face (Bastiaanssen et al. 2014; DuMont, Widom and Czaja 2007; Liebenberg, Sanders and Munford 2016). From a PYD perspective, the social worker has the potential to be a critical developmental resource (Munford and Sanders 2016a). The social worker–youth relationship may be the first time the young person experiences a trustworthy, reliable, committed relationship with an adult (Everall and Paulson 2002; Ruch, Turney and Ward 2010). However, strong, committed, positive relationships do not happen spontaneously (Duncan, Miller and Sparks 2004). Building this relationship is an intervention in its own right and one that needs careful attention (Kroll 2010; Ruch et al. 2010). When practitioners use PYD practices they come from a position of genuine respect, hold high aspirations for the young person and create opportunities for them to exercise personal agency and develop life skills. These practices result in better outcomes (Jobe and Gorin 2013; McLeod 2007; Sanders and Munford 2014; Sanders et al. 2017; Walker and Donaldson 2010).

PYD, culture and context

From a PYD perspective, human development is a bi-directional process which involves individuals influencing and being influenced by their contexts (Benson et al. 2007). These processes of mutual influence vary according to the specific social and cultural context and this means that social workers need to understand the particularities of young people’s lives (Benson et al. 2007). In our research, the developmental process was characterized by significantly different configurations of risks and resilience for Māori (the indigenous population) and Pākehā youth (white New Zealanders) (Sanders et al. 2017). In terms of practice, what this means is that while nurturing relationships with caring adults are common features of PYD practices, these relationships and the opportunities they create manifest themselves differently in different cultures and contexts (Benson et al. 2007).

This contextually specific facet of positive development requires that adults provide access to contextually and culturally relevant and meaningful resources and developmental opportunities (Lerner 2004). Positive youth development in this sense is a collective endeavour that is potentiated by well-functioning communities that can provide resources that are culturally and socially relevant. This has implications for policy, because communities need to be enabled to create the empowering and facilitative social environments that provide positive developmental opportunities for youth to develop into contributing, caring, confident, competent adults (Lerner 2004, 2005). The task of PYD-informed social work then becomes ensuring that positive culturally and socially relevant and meaningful resources are available to youth.

PYD and risks

The pervasive, negative impact which chronic risk exposure during childhood has on outcomes in adulthood is now well established (Felitti et al. 1998; Metzler et al. 2017). Adverse childhood experiences have a profound impact on children’s brain development and on later outcomes (Felitti et al. 1998; Metzler et al. 2017). Disrupted attachments and relationships that are neglectful, exploitive or abusive cause trauma for children (Ruch et al. 2010). Of particular relevance during adolescence, exposure to chronic risk and trauma and an absence of positive, nurturing adults compromises the key adolescent developmental processes of identity development and the development of a positive sense of agency (Bulanda and Byro Johnson 2016). These negative impacts transfer across generations, intensifying vulnerability to negative outcomes for each subsequent generation so exposed (Merrick, Leeb and Lee 2013). Young people exposed to significant, enduring risks miss out on key normative childhood experiences; their childhoods end prematurely and, in this sense, are compressed. These young people also shoulder adult responsibilities early and this means that their transitions to adulthood are accelerated (Stein, Ward and Courtney 2011).

Key tasks for social workers wanting to provide meaningful help are to directly involve the young person in decision making and to provide numerous opportunities for them to learn to make pro-social decisions and to practise decision making. In this way, the intervention becomes the safe place where young people try out new ways of managing their lives and, critically, where they are supported to try again when things go wrong.

PARTH: an approach to social work practice with vulnerable youth

While enduring, positive, caring adult relationships make a positive difference for vulnerable young people (Dewar and Goodman 2014), in our research it was also clear from young people’s narratives that there was an element of luck in terms of whether or not practitioners worked in ways that made such a relationship possible (Munford and Sanders 2015, 2016a, 2016b). The proposition that it might simply be the luck of the draw that made the difference between good and poor outcomes for vulnerable youth is of great concern. Intervention in a young person’s life should significantly weight the odds in favour of a good outcome. The PARTH model responds to this challenge and distils the common characteristics of lucky encounters. PARTH defines the core elements of effective practice and in so doing provides a way for social workers to develop meaningful encounters with vulnerable youth that can lead to better outcomes. The key components of this model are discussed below and case studies (using pseudonyms) derived from the research are used to illustrate key points.

P – passion, perseverance, patience, perspective

The first six months was basically like holding onto the tail of a tiger. I had read the case notes and talked to some of the professionals who had been involved in Anthony’s life. By the time I became involved, he was 14, angry and very self-reliant. It seemed to me that we would get nowhere until I could prove to him that I would stay the distance. I needed to show that I would take everything he threw at me, and just keep calmly coming back to him to start again. If someone didn’t get alongsi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Foreword by Jim Ife
• Introduction
• Part 1: Working with Individuals and Families in their Environments
• Part 2: Developing Communities
• Part 3: Practice Approaches
• Part 4: Informed and Ethical Practice
• Authors’ Information
• Subject Index
• Author Index
• Join Our Mailing List
• Dedication
• Copyright
• By The Same Editors