Author: Norbert Flasko

The Hidden Link: How Problematic Social Media Use and Social Stress Drive Cyber-Victimization in Adolescents

In today’s digital world, social media use among adolescents is almost universal, but its darker implications are still unfolding. A recent study titled “Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict, Social Stress, and Cyber-Victimization Among Early Adolescents” by Shongha Kim, Rachel Garthe, Wan-Jung Hsieh, and Jun Sung Hong explores the complex relationship between problematic social media behavior and the rising tide of cyber-victimization among youth. Drawing on the Social Information Processing (SIP) model, the research focuses on how social stress mediates the link between problematic use and cyberbullying, providing timely insight into a pervasive and increasingly harmful issue.

The study targets early adolescents, particularly sixth graders, during a formative period in their development when they are gaining autonomy, navigating changing peer dynamics, and interacting more through digital platforms. While previous studies have shown that the amount of time spent on social media correlates with increased risk of cyber-victimization, Kim and her colleagues shift the lens from frequency of use to the quality and nature of social media engagement. Specifically, they examine Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict (PSMUC)—a term that encompasses negative behaviors and outcomes stemming from excessive preoccupation with social media, such as arguments with family and friends, school troubles, and lost relationships.

This shift in focus is critical. Time alone does not tell the full story of adolescents’ online behavior. The conflicts and emotional turbulence generated by problematic usage offer a more nuanced explanation for why some adolescents are more vulnerable to cyber-victimization than others. The research demonstrates that adolescents caught in cycles of social media-related conflict may experience elevated levels of social stress—feelings of exclusion, loneliness, and isolation—which in turn makes them more likely to be targeted online.

The researchers collected data from 316 sixth-grade students at a large public middle school in the Midwestern United States. The students were diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and economic background. Using structural equation modeling, the study tested three main hypotheses: whether certain demographic groups reported higher rates of cyber-victimization and PSMUC; whether higher levels of PSMUC were linked to increased social stress and cyber-victimization; and whether social stress mediated the relationship between PSMUC and cyber-victimization.

The findings were illuminating. Roughly 29% of the students reported experiencing some form of cyber-victimization from someone at school. PSMUC was significantly associated with both increased social stress and cyber-victimization. Furthermore, the researchers confirmed a mediating effect: adolescents with higher PSMUC were more likely to report feelings of social stress, which in turn increased their risk of being cyberbullied. This indirect pathway underlines the central premise of the SIP model—that emotional and cognitive responses to social conflicts can alter how youth perceive and react to future social interactions, potentially setting them up for victimization.

The study also uncovered notable demographic trends. White students reported higher levels of social stress, while non-White students showed higher PSMUC levels. Those receiving free or reduced-price lunch (a marker of economic disadvantage) were more likely to report both cyber-victimization and problematic social media behavior. Interestingly, gender and ethnicity did not yield significant differences in mean-level analyses, though in the structural model, male students were less likely to report cyber-victimization.

These findings carry substantial implications for schools, mental health professionals, and families. First, they challenge the notion that simply limiting screen time is enough to prevent online harm. Instead, they suggest that the quality of online interactions and the conflicts that stem from social media use deserve greater scrutiny. The findings also urge school social workers, counselors, and psychologists to pay closer attention to social stress as a red flag for deeper problems. By identifying students struggling with PSMUC and intervening early, professionals can potentially disrupt the chain of events leading to cyber-victimization.

Moreover, the study critiques the idea of restricting social media as a blanket solution. Rather than policing digital behavior, schools and families should focus on empowering adolescents. Teaching them about privacy settings, conflict resolution, and healthy communication online could be more effective strategies. Interventions should not only address behavior but also the emotional landscape that underlies it. For instance, programs that build emotional resilience, peer support, and inclusive school climates may reduce the feelings of isolation that make young people targets.

Family involvement is another critical point raised by the authors. Since many conflicts originate at home—arguments over device use, strained parent-child communication—supporting parents in setting healthy boundaries and engaging in open conversations with their children about social media may be a key part of prevention. Encouraging shared understanding rather than punishment could defuse tensions and foster healthier relationships.

Of course, the study is not without limitations. It is based on self-reported data from a single middle school in a semi-urban area, which may limit the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions about causality or changes over time. Future research would benefit from longitudinal designs that follow students over several years, allowing researchers to see how problematic behavior, social stress, and victimization evolve together.

Despite these limitations, the study offers a compelling argument that understanding adolescent cyber-victimization requires a shift in perspective. It’s not just about time spent online, but the interpersonal conflicts and psychological distress that often accompany problematic usage. By addressing the emotional fallout of PSMUC—particularly the social stress that can leave adolescents isolated and vulnerable—educators, clinicians, and parents can work together to create a safer, more supportive digital environment for youth.

The research by Kim and her colleagues provides a vital roadmap for future prevention efforts. It reinforces the importance of viewing adolescent digital behavior through a relational and emotional lens. Addressing the deeper issues of social stress and problematic usage patterns may be the key to stemming the tide of cyber-victimization, ultimately promoting healthier, more connected youth both online and offline.

Source

Understanding Adolescent Health in the Social Work Perspective

Understanding adolescent health from a social work perspective requires a multidimensional appreciation of the complex and dynamic changes occurring during adolescence, as well as the systemic factors that influence these changes. Adolescents, typically defined as individuals between the ages of 10 and 19, undergo significant physical, emotional, psychological, and social transformations that shape their development and identity. Social workers engaging with adolescents must be equipped to recognize these transitions and respond holistically to the needs that arise during this critical period.

The adolescent stage is marked by biological changes such as puberty, which initiate physical growth spurts and the development of secondary sexual characteristics. Alongside these bodily changes, adolescents experience cognitive and emotional growth, characterized by increased abstract thinking, self-awareness, and the formation of identity. These developmental changes bring about a need for autonomy and a desire for peer acceptance, often leading to conflicts with parental authority and experimentation with new behaviors and roles. Social workers must therefore understand adolescence not as a problem to be managed, but as a normal and essential developmental stage that, while challenging, presents opportunities for growth and resilience.

Stages of Adolescent Development

Adolescence is commonly divided into three distinct stages: early adolescence (10–13 years), middle adolescence (14–16 years), and late adolescence (17–19 years). Each stage presents specific developmental tasks and challenges. In early adolescence, individuals experience the onset of puberty, resulting in rapid physical growth and hormonal changes. This stage is often marked by increased self-consciousness, heightened sensitivity to peer influence, and an emerging sense of identity. During middle adolescence, cognitive development advances, allowing for more complex reasoning, abstract thinking, and questioning of authority. Emotional intensity peaks, and adolescents often strive for greater independence from parental control while seeking approval from peers. By late adolescence, individuals typically gain greater emotional stability, clearer identity formation, and improved decision-making abilities. This period also involves preparation for adult roles, including vocational planning and the establishment of intimate relationships. Social workers must tailor their approaches according to the developmental needs and cognitive maturity of adolescents in each stage, ensuring interventions are age-appropriate and supportive of healthy growth.

In understanding adolescent health, it is essential to contextualize it within broader determinants. The family, school, peer group, media, and community each play a critical role in shaping an adolescent’s behavior and health outcomes. For instance, family structures and parenting styles can have profound effects on adolescents’ emotional well-being and behavior. Supportive family environments tend to encourage healthy development, while families experiencing conflict, neglect, or abuse can contribute to poor outcomes such as substance abuse, depression, or delinquent behavior. Similarly, the school environment can either support or hinder adolescents’ development. Schools that foster inclusivity, participation, and a sense of belonging can act as protective factors, whereas those marked by bullying, academic pressure, or neglect may exacerbate vulnerabilities.

Peers also become increasingly influential during adolescence. Peer groups offer adolescents the opportunity to form social identities and practice autonomy. While positive peer influence can promote healthy behaviors and reinforce social norms, negative peer influence may lead to risk-taking behaviors such as smoking, drinking, or unprotected sex. Media and technology, especially social media, also significantly impact adolescents’ mental and emotional health. The constant exposure to idealized lifestyles, peer comparison, and online bullying can increase stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Social workers must therefore consider these social determinants in their interventions and work collaboratively with families, schools, and communities to promote adolescent health.

One of the significant areas of concern in adolescent health is mental health. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and self-harm, often exacerbated by academic pressure, social isolation, or identity crises. Mental health challenges in adolescence frequently go unrecognized or untreated due to stigma, lack of awareness, or limited access to mental health services. Social workers play a critical role in early identification, prevention, and intervention by providing counseling, advocating for supportive school environments, and linking adolescents with appropriate mental health services. Building trusting relationships with adolescents is essential, as it encourages openness and helps in addressing underlying issues in a nonjudgmental manner.

Another central issue is reproductive and sexual health. Adolescents often lack accurate knowledge about sexual and reproductive health, resulting in early pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and unsafe abortions. Inadequate sex education and cultural taboos further contribute to misinformation and risky behaviors. Social workers can provide adolescents with age-appropriate, culturally sensitive education that empowers them to make informed decisions about their bodies and relationships. Promoting open communication about sexuality, ensuring access to contraceptives, and addressing gender-based violence are key strategies to improve adolescent reproductive health.

Substance use is another prevalent concern during adolescence. The desire for experimentation, peer influence, and coping with stress or trauma can lead adolescents to use tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Early initiation of substance use is associated with long-term health problems and social consequences. Social workers must adopt a preventive approach that involves raising awareness about the risks of substance use, building adolescents’ coping skills, and supporting families in creating protective environments. For adolescents already engaging in substance use, harm reduction strategies and rehabilitation services must be made accessible and non-punitive.

Nutrition and physical health also play a crucial role in adolescent development. Adolescents have increased nutritional needs due to rapid growth, but they often adopt poor dietary habits influenced by peer norms, media, and lifestyle changes. Malnutrition—both undernutrition and obesity—can have lasting impacts on health, affecting physical development, academic performance, and self-esteem. Encouraging healthy eating habits, regular physical activity, and body positivity is vital. Social workers can contribute by organizing community-based health programs, advocating for adolescent-friendly health services, and engaging with schools to ensure balanced nutrition and physical education.

From a social work perspective, promoting adolescent health requires a rights-based, strengths-focused approach. Adolescents are not merely passive recipients of care; they are active agents in their development. Social workers must empower adolescents to voice their concerns, participate in decisions affecting them, and access opportunities that nurture their potential. This includes advocating for adolescent-friendly policies, improving access to education and health care, and addressing systemic inequalities that marginalize certain groups of adolescents, such as those with disabilities, LGBTQ+ youth, or those in conflict with the law.

Cultural sensitivity and ethical practice are fundamental to effective social work with adolescents. Interventions must respect adolescents’ dignity, privacy, and autonomy while recognizing the role of cultural norms and values in shaping behaviors. At the same time, social workers must challenge harmful practices such as child marriage, female genital mutilation, or honor-based violence. Balancing cultural competence with advocacy for adolescent rights is a delicate but essential task.

In conclusion, understanding adolescent health through a social work lens entails a comprehensive appreciation of developmental, psychological, social, and systemic factors that influence health outcomes. Social workers must adopt a holistic, preventive, and participatory approach that addresses the unique challenges adolescents face while fostering resilience and empowerment. By working in partnership with families, schools, communities, and policy-makers, social workers can contribute significantly to the promotion of adolescent health and well-being, ensuring that this critical phase of life becomes a foundation for a healthy and productive adulthood.

Source

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy: A social work intervention?

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) has emerged as a pivotal intervention in addressing the complex challenges associated with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), particularly within the field of social work. As a modified form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), DBT integrates cognitive and behavioural strategies with mindfulness and dialectical philosophy, making it uniquely suited to the emotional dysregulation and interpersonal instability characteristic of BPD. The therapeutic approach was developed by Marsha Linehan, initially as a treatment for individuals experiencing chronic suicidality and self-harming behaviours. Over time, DBT has evolved into a comprehensive psychosocial treatment, combining individual therapy, skills training groups, phone coaching, and team consultation to support both clients and therapists.

Social work practice is deeply rooted in values of client-centred care, empowerment, and the therapeutic alliance. DBT aligns well with these principles by emphasizing validation, collaboration, and skill-building. The therapy does not pathologize emotional suffering but instead recognizes the dialectical tension between acceptance and change. Clients are encouraged to accept their current realities while simultaneously working towards behavioural and emotional improvements. This dual emphasis supports social work’s commitment to both respecting clients’ lived experiences and fostering meaningful transformation.

Central to DBT is the biosocial theory of BPD, which posits that the disorder arises from a transactional relationship between an emotionally vulnerable individual and an invalidating environment. Emotional vulnerability includes heightened sensitivity to emotional stimuli, intense emotional responses, and a slow return to baseline. An invalidating environment dismisses or punishes emotional expression, leading individuals to doubt their internal experiences and seek external validation through extreme behaviours. This conceptual framework resonates with social work’s ecological perspective, which views human problems within the context of systemic and environmental influences. It also invites practitioners to address broader social and relational dynamics rather than focusing solely on intrapsychic pathology.

The structure of DBT involves several interlocking components. Individual therapy sessions are designed to help clients apply DBT skills to specific challenges and to work through motivational issues that may hinder progress. Skills training groups, which often function more like psychoeducational classes than traditional group therapy, teach core skill sets in four modules: mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and interpersonal effectiveness. Phone coaching offers in-the-moment support, helping clients generalize skills to real-life situations, while therapist consultation teams ensure practitioners receive ongoing support and supervision. This multifaceted structure enhances treatment fidelity and helps social workers manage the emotional toll of working with high-risk populations.

Mindfulness, the foundational skill in DBT, draws heavily from Zen Buddhist practices and emphasizes nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. In the context of social work, mindfulness supports both clients and practitioners in cultivating emotional awareness, self-regulation, and a grounded therapeutic presence. Distress tolerance skills help clients survive emotional crises without resorting to self-destructive behaviours. These include distraction techniques, self-soothing strategies, and radical acceptance. Emotion regulation skills aim to reduce emotional vulnerability by increasing positive emotional experiences and decreasing emotional reactivity. Finally, interpersonal effectiveness skills teach assertiveness, boundary-setting, and strategies for maintaining self-respect in relationships.

For social workers, the integration of DBT into practice offers several advantages. The structured nature of the therapy provides a clear roadmap for treatment, while the emphasis on validation and nonjudgmental stance aligns with social work values of empathy and respect. Moreover, DBT’s evidence base is robust. Research demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing self-harm, suicidality, psychiatric hospitalizations, and treatment dropout rates. DBT has also been adapted for various populations beyond BPD, including adolescents, individuals with substance use disorders, and clients with eating disorders or post-traumatic stress.

However, implementing DBT within social work settings also presents challenges. The comprehensive nature of the therapy requires significant training, time commitment, and organizational resources. Many community-based agencies may lack the infrastructure to support all components of the DBT model, such as skills groups or consultation teams. Additionally, the emphasis on behavioural analysis and structured interventions may be unfamiliar to social workers trained primarily in psychodynamic or client-centred approaches. Bridging this gap requires ongoing professional development and interprofessional collaboration.

Despite these barriers, adaptations of DBT have made it more accessible to social work contexts. For instance, some programs offer abbreviated or skills-only versions of DBT, which retain core elements while reducing intensity. These adaptations can still be effective, particularly when delivered with fidelity to the therapy’s principles. Social workers can also incorporate DBT-informed strategies into their broader practice, such as using validation techniques, teaching emotion regulation skills, or encouraging mindfulness.

Furthermore, the relational aspects of DBT—especially the therapeutic alliance—are critical to its success and align closely with social work practice. Therapists are encouraged to balance acceptance and change strategies in their interactions with clients. This dialectical stance involves being warm, validating, and supportive while also setting limits, challenging behaviours, and fostering accountability. Such a balance is particularly important when working with clients who experience intense fear of abandonment, emotional lability, and chronic interpersonal difficulties.

The DBT approach also invites social workers to reflect on their own emotional responses and boundaries. Working with clients who self-harm or express suicidal ideation can evoke fear, frustration, and helplessness. DBT addresses this through consultation teams that provide peer support, case discussion, and skill development. This component fosters sustainability and reduces burnout among practitioners, reinforcing the importance of self-care and supervision in social work practice.

In conclusion, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy represents a powerful intervention for clients with Borderline Personality Disorder, particularly within the field of social work. Its structured, skill-based approach, combined with a compassionate and validating therapeutic stance, makes it both effective and congruent with social work values. While challenges in implementation remain, adaptations and DBT-informed practices allow social workers to integrate its principles in diverse settings. By doing so, they can enhance their capacity to support emotionally vulnerable clients, promote resilience, and foster meaningful change in the lives of those they serve.

Source

DBT tools

The Hidden Cost of Suppressed Emotions

In a world where modern medicine often focuses on treating symptoms with pills and procedures, Dr. Gabor Maté, a renowned Canadian physician and psychotherapist, offers a radically different perspective. In his international bestseller When the Body Says No: The Cost of Hidden Stress, Maté argues that the root cause of many chronic illnesses—such as cancer, addiction, and depression—lies not in genetics or biology alone, but in suppressed emotions and unhealed trauma. Drawing from decades of clinical experience and scientific studies, Maté’s work challenges the conventional separation of mind and body in Western medicine, urging us to address the emotional wounds that silently shape our health.

1. The Mind-Body Connection: Chronic Illness Starts with Emotional Repression

Maté asserts that the roots of most chronic illnesses are psychological and emotional, a perspective that starkly contrasts with mainstream medical practice. He points out a troubling statistic: 70% of adults in the United States are on medication, yet chronic diseases, obesity, addiction, and mental illness continue to rise. Why are we struggling despite advancements in science? Maté argues that modern medicine’s fatal flaw is its failure to integrate the mind and body. “The repression of anger leads to the chronic secretion of stress hormones, such as cortisol, that suppress the immune system,” Maté explains, citing research from his website (drgabormate.com). This suppression, he notes, has been linked to a wide range of conditions, from cancer and rheumatoid arthritis to migraines and fibromyalgia.

In his over two decades of family medicine, including seven years in palliative care, Maté observed a consistent pattern: patients with chronic illnesses often exhibited emotional shutdowns, particularly an inability to express anger. They were driven by a compulsive sense of responsibility for others, often at the expense of their own needs, and struggled to say “no.” This emotional repression, Maté argues, creates a physiological environment ripe for disease, a theory supported by studies showing that individuals who suppress emotions are at a 30% higher risk of developing depressive symptoms (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003).

2. Trauma Begins in the Womb: The Lasting Impact of Early Stress

One of Maté’s most profound insights is that trauma can begin even before birth. He explains that a stressed mother’s emotional state directly affects the fetus, shaping its brain development and physiology. “A stressed mother affects the physiology and brain development of the fetus,” Maté notes. “The impacts of that stress can be seen decades later by how they respond to stress as adults.” In Western societies, where many pregnant women work well into late pregnancy, this stress can imprint on the baby, influencing its future mental and emotional health.

Maté’s own life story as the Budapest-born son of Holocaust survivors underscores this point. As an infant, his mother left him in the care of strangers for weeks to save his life during the Holocaust, an experience he believes left him with lifelong themes of abandonment, loss, and rage (theconversation.com, 2025). This early trauma, he argues, is not an isolated case but a universal phenomenon that shapes who we become, often manifesting as chronic illness or mental health struggles later in life.

3. Addiction as a Coping Mechanism: Reframing the Problem

Maté’s perspective on addiction is both compassionate and revolutionary. “Addiction isn’t the problem, it’s the solution,” he states. He views addiction—whether to substances, behaviors, or even work—as a coping mechanism for unhealed emotional trauma. “We turn to substances or behaviors to soothe wounds,” Maté explains, a theory backed by a study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, which found that 70% of individuals in drug treatment programs report having experienced trauma.

Rather than asking “Why the addiction?” Maté urges us to ask “Why the pain?” This shift in perspective encourages self-compassion and a deeper understanding of the emotional wounds driving addictive behaviors. For Maté, healing addiction requires addressing these underlying emotions, a process that goes beyond the surface-level interventions of most treatment programs. His own struggles with addiction and ADHD, which he has openly discussed, lend a personal authenticity to his approach, making his insights resonate with those who feel misunderstood by traditional medical frameworks.

4. Depression and the Weight of Suppressed Emotions

Maté challenges the conventional view of depression as a chemical imbalance, such as low serotonin levels. Instead, he identifies suppressed emotions as the true root cause. “When you bury your pain, sadness, or anger, it doesn’t disappear,” he warns in the thread. “It lives in your body, silently shaping your thoughts.” This emotional repression leads to feelings of hopelessness, emptiness, and depression, a connection supported by the 2003 study mentioned earlier, which linked emotional suppression to a higher risk of depressive symptoms.

Healing, according to Maté, requires reconnecting with these buried emotions and feeling them without judgment. This process can be daunting, as it involves confronting pain that has been avoided for years, if not decades. However, Maté emphasizes that this emotional reconnection is essential for recovery, offering a path to liberation from the cycle of depression.

5. People-Pleasing as a Sign of Deeper Wounds

At first glance, people-pleasing might seem like a harmless trait, but Maté sees it as a symptom of deeper emotional wounds, often rooted in childhood. “Those raised in emotionally unstable environments learn to prioritize others’ needs before their own as a survival tactic,” he explains. This behavior, while adaptive in childhood, leads to a loss of connection with one’s own needs in adulthood, perpetuating a cycle of emotional suppression.

To break free, Maté recommends a three-step process: learning to identify your own needs, setting healthy boundaries, and reclaiming your sense of self. This journey requires processing suppressed emotions, which can be facilitated through therapeutic methods like Internal Family Systems, Somatic Experiencing, EMDR, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy, and Maté’s own approach, Compassionate Inquiry. These methods, he notes, help individuals reconnect with their bodies and emotions, paving the way for true healing.

A Path to Healing: Reconnecting with the Body

Maté’s work is a powerful reminder that healing is not just about treating the body—it’s about addressing the mind and emotions as well. His insights challenge us to look beyond the surface of our struggles and confront the emotional wounds that shape our health. Fortunately, as Maté points out, healing is more accessible than ever before. The first step, he suggests, is free: reconnecting with your body and sensations. From there, therapeutic methods can provide the tools to process suppressed emotions and reclaim your well-being.

For those feeling stuck, Maté’s message is one of hope. Various resources available that can help individuals change their habits, routines, and mindset, fostering strength and discipline. Maté’s work, combined with such tools, offers a roadmap to break free from the hidden costs of suppressed emotions and live a healthier, more authentic life.

Conclusion: A Call to Emotional Awarenes

Gabor Maté’s insights into the mind-body connection are a wake-up call for a society grappling with rising rates of chronic illness and mental health struggles. By linking conditions like cancer, addiction, and depression to suppressed emotions and unhealed trauma, Maté challenges us to rethink our approach to health. His five key insights—ranging from the psychological roots of illness to the origins of people-pleasing—reveal the profound impact of emotional repression on our lives. But more importantly, they offer a path forward: by reconnecting with our emotions, setting boundaries, and seeking therapeutic support, we can break free from the cycles of pain that hold us back. In a world that often prioritizes quick fixes, Maté’s work reminds us that true healing begins with listening to what the body—and the heart—have to say.

Strengths-based social work practice: KcVETS

The KcVETS model outlined in the framework is a carefully constructed practice framework designed to guide and enhance social work practice. Rooted in the core components of co-produced knowledge and research (Kc), social work values and ethics (V), social work theories and methods (T), practice skills (S), and the practitioner’s experience (E), the model seeks to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to professional practice. Unlike traditional models that might emphasize one element over others, KcVETS encourages a balanced and interconnected view, recognizing that effective social work practice emerges from the dynamic interplay of these elements. This holistic framework aims to build reflective, ethical, and skilled practitioners who can navigate the complexities of social work in diverse contexts.

Central to the KcVETS model is the emphasis on co-produced knowledge and research (Kc). This component underscores the importance of collaborative knowledge generation, involving service users, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders. By engaging in co-production, social workers can ensure that their practice is informed by a diverse range of perspectives, lived experiences, and evidence-based insights. This collaborative approach enhances the relevance, inclusivity, and effectiveness of social work interventions, while also promoting a sense of shared ownership and mutual respect.

The second key element of the KcVETS model is social work values and ethics (V). This component highlights the foundational role of values and ethics in guiding social work practice. Social workers are expected to uphold principles such as respect, dignity, social justice, and human rights, and to act in accordance with professional codes of ethics. By integrating values and ethics into every aspect of their practice, social workers can ensure that their actions are aligned with the core mission of social work, which is to promote well-being, address inequalities, and empower individuals, families, and communities.

The third component of the KcVETS model is social work theories and methods (T). This element emphasizes the importance of theoretical knowledge and methodological expertise in shaping social work practice. Theories provide a framework for understanding human behavior, social systems, and the structural factors that influence well-being, while methods offer practical tools and techniques for intervention. By drawing on a range of theories and methods, social workers can adopt a flexible and evidence-informed approach to practice, tailoring their interventions to the unique needs, strengths, and circumstances of each individual or group.

Practice skills (S) constitute the fourth key element of the KcVETS model. This component focuses on the practical skills that social workers need to engage effectively with service users, build trusting relationships, and facilitate positive change. These skills include communication, active listening, empathy, problem-solving, advocacy, and conflict resolution, among others. The KcVETS model encourages social workers to continuously develop and refine their practice skills through ongoing professional development, supervision, and reflective practice. By enhancing their skills and competencies, social workers can increase their effectiveness, confidence, and capacity to respond to complex and challenging situations.

The fifth and final component of the KcVETS model is the practitioner’s experience (E). This element recognizes the critical role of the practitioner’s own experiences, insights, and reflections in shaping their practice. Social workers bring with them a wealth of personal and professional experiences that influence how they understand and respond to the needs of service users. The KcVETS model encourages practitioners to engage in reflective practice, which involves critically examining their own assumptions, biases, and experiences, and considering how these may impact their practice. By engaging in reflection, practitioners can enhance their self-awareness, improve their decision-making, and ensure that their practice remains ethical, person-centered, and responsive to the diverse needs of service users.

Social work and strengths-based practice are central to the KcVETS framework, which draws on the foundational principles of strengths-based social work. This approach emphasizes the importance of recognizing and building on the inherent strengths, capacities, and resources of individuals, families, and communities. Rather than focusing solely on problems, deficits, or pathologies, strengths-based practice seeks to identify and enhance the positive attributes and potential that service users possess. This perspective fosters hope, resilience, and self-determination, and it is closely aligned with the core values and ethics of social work, such as respect, dignity, and empowerment.

The KcVETS model also incorporates perspectives from experts by experience, or people who use services. These individuals bring valuable lived experiences and insights that can enhance the relevance, effectiveness, and inclusivity of social work practice. By involving service users as active partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of services, the KcVETS model promotes co-production, mutual respect, and shared decision-making. This participatory approach helps to ensure that services are responsive to the diverse needs, preferences, and aspirations of those they serve.

The evidence base for strengths-based social work practice is growing, with research demonstrating its positive impact on a range of outcomes, including well-being, resilience, social inclusion, and empowerment. Studies have shown that strengths-based interventions can enhance service users’ confidence, motivation, and sense of agency, while also improving relationships, reducing dependency, and promoting sustainable change. By drawing on this evidence base, the KcVETS model provides a robust and evidence-informed framework for guiding practice.

A case study can illustrate how the KcVETS model can be applied in practice. For example, a social worker using the KcVETS framework might work with a family experiencing challenges related to housing instability, financial stress, and mental health issues. Rather than focusing solely on the family’s problems, the social worker would begin by identifying the family’s strengths, such as their resilience, support networks, and problem-solving skills. The social worker would then collaborate with the family to set goals, develop a strengths-based action plan, and access resources and support. By adopting a holistic, person-centered, and strengths-based approach, the social worker can help the family to build on their existing strengths, overcome challenges, and achieve positive outcomes.

Restorative practice is another key aspect of the KcVETS model. This approach emphasizes the importance of repairing harm, restoring relationships, and promoting accountability, respect, and mutual understanding. Restorative practice can be particularly effective in addressing conflict, fostering social cohesion, and building trust within families, communities, and organizations. By incorporating restorative principles and techniques, the KcVETS model seeks to create a more inclusive, respectful, and supportive environment for service users and practitioners alike.

To enable and support strengths-based social work practice, several key factors are needed. These include strong leadership, supportive organizational cultures, effective supervision, access to training and professional development, and adequate resources and infrastructure. By creating an enabling environment that supports reflective practice, continuous learning, and collaboration, organizations can enhance the capacity of social workers to deliver high-quality, strengths-based services.

The next steps for strengthening the implementation of the KcVETS model include ongoing research, evaluation, and dissemination of best practices. By continuing to build the evidence base, share learning, and promote innovation, the social work profession can enhance its ability to respond to the diverse and evolving needs of service users. Additionally, efforts should be made to strengthen partnerships, enhance co-production, and promote the wider adoption of strengths-based approaches across different sectors and settings.

In summary, the KcVETS model represents a comprehensive, integrated, and strengths-based approach to social work practice. By focusing on co-produced knowledge and research, social work values and ethics, social work theories and methods, practice skills, and the practitioner’s experience, the model provides a holistic framework for guiding professional practice, enhancing effectiveness, and achieving positive outcomes. Through its emphasis on integration, continuous learning, collaboration, and reflective practice, the KcVETS model offers a robust and adaptable framework for social work practitioners seeking to navigate the complexities and challenges of contemporary social work practice.

Source

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, Bias, and Innovation: Implications for Social Work

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various sectors, including social work. AI technologies are being increasingly integrated into social work practice, offering both opportunities and challenges. While AI-driven tools can enhance decision-making and service delivery, concerns about algorithmic bias, ethical implications, and the impact on marginalized communities persist. This article explores AI’s role in social work, highlighting its potential benefits, risks, and the need for ethical frameworks to guide its application.

AI algorithms are being employed in social work settings to support decision-making processes. Decision support systems (DSS) use administrative data and case files to assist practitioners in making informed choices. These systems operate in two primary ways: prescriptive analytics, which guide decisions such as child protective services’ (CPS) interventions, and predictive analytics, which estimate the likelihood of future events. In child welfare systems, AI tools aim to augment social workers’ decision-making capabilities, particularly in high-risk scenarios. Given the life-altering consequences of social work decisions, AI models must be rigorously tested and monitored before implementation.

Despite its advantages, AI introduces significant ethical and practical risks. One of the primary concerns is bias in AI algorithms. Since AI systems rely on historical data, they may reflect and perpetuate societal biases. This issue is particularly pressing in social work, a field that primarily serves marginalized and historically oppressed populations. If the data used to train AI models contain racial, socioeconomic, or cultural biases, the resulting decisions may disproportionately harm certain groups. Furthermore, AI-driven systems often operate as “black boxes,” meaning their decision-making processes are opaque, making it difficult to assess whether they function fairly and ethically.

Another critical issue is the potential violation of client privacy and confidentiality. Social work involves sensitive personal data, and the repurposing of this information for algorithmic decision-making raises concerns about informed consent and data security. Clients may not be aware that their data is being used to train AI models, leading to ethical dilemmas about transparency and accountability. Additionally, AI’s reliance on administrative data—often incomplete or inconsistently recorded—can result in inaccurate assessments, further exacerbating biases and misjudgments.

Social work students and practitioners have expressed mixed opinions about AI’s integration into the field. In a qualitative study involving social work students, participants acknowledged the potential benefits of AI while also raising concerns about its limitations. Many students recognized that AI could streamline administrative tasks, improve service accessibility, and assist in identifying at-risk individuals. However, they also noted the risks of AI reinforcing systemic inequalities and diminishing the human-centered nature of social work. The study emphasized the need for AI education in social work curricula to equip future practitioners with the knowledge necessary to engage critically with these technologies.

The presence of bias in AI extends beyond social work and is evident in various domains. For example, research has shown that AI models used in healthcare settings have misclassified Black patients as healthier than their White counterparts due to biased training data. Similar biases can infiltrate social work algorithms, leading to discriminatory outcomes. Language-based biases further complicate AI’s role in social work, as natural language processing models may struggle with diverse dialects and accents, potentially marginalizing non-native English speakers or individuals from underrepresented linguistic backgrounds.

To mitigate the risks associated with AI in social work, policy interventions and ethical guidelines are essential. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and other advocacy groups can play a crucial role in shaping AI-related policies. These organizations can collaborate with legislators to implement AI-specific training requirements, ensuring that social workers are equipped to identify and address biases in AI-driven systems. Furthermore, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) could consider incorporating AI competencies into its accreditation standards, promoting awareness and critical engagement with AI among social work students.

Another strategy to address AI bias is the implementation of structured testing and evaluation processes. AI models used in social work practice should undergo rigorous audits to ensure fairness and accuracy. A standardized checklist, similar to those developed for medical AI applications, could be adapted for social work settings. Such measures would help identify and rectify biases before AI tools are deployed in practice, reducing the risk of harm to vulnerable populations.

Beyond policy changes, social work educators and practitioners must actively engage with AI technologies to ensure they align with the profession’s ethical principles. Social work educators can incorporate discussions on AI ethics into their curricula, fostering critical thinking about the implications of technology in social services. Practicing social workers should participate in ongoing professional development programs focused on AI literacy, enabling them to navigate the complexities of AI-assisted decision-making responsibly.

Despite the challenges, AI offers promising opportunities for social work innovation. AI-driven tools can enhance service delivery by automating routine administrative tasks, freeing social workers to focus on direct client interactions. Additionally, AI can facilitate remote service provision, particularly for individuals facing barriers to traditional social services. For example, AI-powered chatbots and telehealth platforms can expand access to mental health support, especially in underserved communities. AI can also aid in crisis intervention, with machine learning models detecting signs of distress in clients and alerting social workers to intervene promptly.

Ultimately, the integration of AI in social work must be approached with caution and a commitment to social justice. While AI has the potential to improve efficiency and expand service accessibility, it must be implemented in a manner that prioritizes equity and ethical considerations. Social workers, policymakers, and technologists must collaborate to develop AI systems that uphold the core values of the profession—dignity, respect, and advocacy for marginalized populations. By fostering interdisciplinary partnerships and promoting ethical AI development, the social work field can harness the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks.

In conclusion, AI’s growing presence in social work presents both opportunities and challenges. While AI-driven tools can enhance decision-making and service provision, concerns about bias, privacy, and ethical implications must be addressed. By incorporating AI education into social work training, implementing robust policy measures, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, the profession can navigate the complexities of AI integration responsibly. As AI continues to evolve, social workers must remain vigilant in ensuring that these technologies serve as tools for empowerment rather than mechanisms of oppression. With careful oversight and ethical considerations, AI can contribute to a more just and effective social work practice.

Source

Anti-Oppressive Practice: A Framework for Social Justice

Anti-Oppressive Practice (AOP) has emerged as a fundamental framework in social work, emphasizing social justice, equity, and transformation. It challenges structural inequalities and discrimination while advocating for systemic change. AOP integrates progressive, radical, antiracist, feminist, and critical social work theories to inform practice. Its primary goal is to dismantle oppressive systems and empower marginalized individuals and communities.

AOP is rooted in the acknowledgment of social divisions and hierarchies that contribute to inequality. Social workers utilizing this framework must recognize the sociopolitical contexts of the individuals they serve and work towards alleviating oppression at both the individual and systemic levels. Lena Dominelli, a leading social work theorist, defines AOP as an approach that seeks to address structural inequalities while fostering relationships that empower participants and minimize the impact of social hierarchies. This approach ensures that social workers provide appropriate and sensitive services to all individuals, irrespective of their social status.

One of the core aspects of AOP is its recognition of interconnected and interdependent levels of practice. This means that while direct assistance is given to individuals experiencing oppression, a parallel effort must be made to change systemic structures, such as policies, laws, and service delivery systems. AOP is not solely the responsibility of individual social workers but also of institutions and the state, which must take active roles in societal transformation.

AOP is built upon five key concepts. The first is engaging in critical self-reflection. Social workers must critically analyze their values, biases, and privileges in relation to the individuals they work with. This process of self-examination helps prevent the imposition of personal assumptions on others and encourages an awareness of power dynamics in professional relationships. By cultivating self-awareness, social workers can ensure that their practice is truly centered on the needs of participants rather than their own perceptions of those needs.

The second concept is assessing participants’ experiences of oppression. AOP requires practitioners to engage in critical assessments of individuals’ intersecting identities and social locations to understand the unique forms of oppression they face. Through active listening and understanding, social workers can shift the focus from blaming individuals for their circumstances to addressing the broader structural inequalities that shape their experiences. This process also involves analyzing agency policies and organizational structures to identify and challenge discriminatory practices.

The third principle of AOP is empowerment. Empowerment, in this context, refers to equipping individuals with the necessary tools to navigate and challenge the cultural, structural, and personal barriers they face. It is grounded in an understanding of power and privilege and seeks to enable individuals to take control of their lives. Empowerment in AOP includes education, consciousness-raising, and collective action. This can involve creating alternative services, engaging in progressive social movements, and advocating for policy changes that address systemic oppression.

Working in partnership is the fourth pillar of AOP. Social workers and participants must engage in an equitable relationship where both parties learn from one another. The participant’s role in decision-making should be transparent, and their agency must be respected. This partnership model challenges traditional hierarchical structures within social work, aiming to create an environment where individuals feel heard and valued rather than positioned as passive recipients of aid. Collaboration and dialogue are key to fostering meaningful change and preventing the reproduction of oppressive power dynamics.

The final principle is maintaining minimal intervention. AOP emphasizes that social workers should avoid unnecessary intrusion in the lives of participants. Historically, social workers have often been positioned as agents of state surveillance, particularly in marginalized communities, where their role has been associated with policing and control rather than support and advocacy. To counteract this, AOP advocates for a practice that minimizes coercion and upholds the dignity and autonomy of individuals. Social workers must critically assess their interventions to ensure they do not perpetuate harmful structures of power and control.

Despite its strengths, AOP is not without its challenges and critiques. One major issue is the complexity of power relations. While AOP seeks to dismantle oppressive structures, the intricacies of power at various social levels are not always easily identified. Some critics argue that AOP lacks clarity regarding the concept of power and the balance between empowerment and control. There is a paradox in the notion of empowerment, as the act of empowering someone assumes a degree of authority over them. This raises questions about who holds the power to empower and whether empowerment can be genuinely achieved without reinforcing existing hierarchies.

Another critique of AOP is the risk of overemphasizing victimhood. Some argue that positioning participants solely as victims of oppression can create a paternalistic dynamic where social workers take on the role of rescuers. This perspective may inadvertently undermine the agency and resilience of individuals. Additionally, the role of the social worker as a teacher or guide can create an unequal relationship, making it difficult to truly achieve the collaborative partnership that AOP advocates for.

AOP also faces challenges in its practical implementation. While the framework provides a strong theoretical foundation, it has been criticized for lacking concrete practice guidelines. Many social workers struggle to translate AOP principles into everyday practice, particularly within institutions that uphold traditional social work models. In some contexts, AOP can be perceived as overly ambitious, leading to burnout and discouragement among practitioners who feel overwhelmed by the scale of systemic change required.

Despite these limitations, AOP remains a crucial approach in the pursuit of social justice. It provides a lens through which social workers can critically analyze and challenge oppression while working towards an equitable society. To enhance the effectiveness of AOP, ongoing education, reflexivity, and collaboration are necessary. Social workers must continually challenge their assumptions, advocate for policy changes, and engage in grassroots movements that promote justice and inclusion. Institutions must also commit to restructuring their policies and practices to align with anti-oppressive principles.

Ultimately, AOP is a dynamic and evolving practice that demands active engagement from social workers, policymakers, and communities. By striving for equity, amplifying marginalized voices, and dismantling oppressive systems, AOP contributes to the broader struggle for liberation and social justice. While challenges exist, the commitment to continuous learning, adaptation, and advocacy ensures that AOP remains a transformative force in social work and beyond.

Source