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

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

Ageism and Attitudes Towards Older People in Social Work: A Systematic Review of Operational Definitions

The issue of ageism remains a critical concern in social work, as this profession is deeply rooted in principles of social justice and advocacy for vulnerable populations. Given the increasing aging population worldwide, understanding ageism within social work practice is essential to ensuring the fair and respectful treatment of older adults. Despite its significance, defining and measuring ageism has been a complex challenge, as various conceptual and operational definitions exist in the literature. This study systematically reviews the operational definitions of ageism used in empirical research within the field of social work, shedding light on the prevalent measurement frameworks, existing gaps, and implications for future research and practice.

Introduction

Ageism, first coined by Robert Butler in 1969, refers to prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination based on age. It is often considered the third major form of discrimination, following racism and sexism. While ageism affects all age groups, older adults are particularly vulnerable to its negative consequences. These include social exclusion, reduced healthcare quality, and limited opportunities for employment or meaningful participation in society.

In social work, ageism is particularly relevant, as professionals in this field are responsible for advocating for older adults and ensuring their access to adequate care and services. However, research indicates that ageist attitudes persist among social workers, often due to societal stereotypes, limited exposure to older adults, or misconceptions about aging. This study examines how ageism has been operationalized in quantitative studies within social work to understand how it is measured and conceptualized.

Conceptual Framework

A clear definition of ageism is crucial for developing interventions to combat it. This study utilizes the framework of São José and Amado (2017), which builds upon Iversen et al. (2009) and defines ageism as negative or positive stereotypes, prejudices, or discrimination based on chronological age or perceptions of aging. Ageism can manifest in various forms:

Cognitive (stereotypes): Beliefs about aging, such as associating older adults with frailty or cognitive decline.
Affective (prejudice): Emotional responses to older individuals, such as fear, discomfort, or admiration.
Behavioral (discrimination): Actions influenced by age-based bias, including exclusion, neglect, or preferential treatment.

Additionally, ageism can be:

Explicit or implicit: Conscious vs. unconscious biases.
Self-directed or other-directed: Internalized by the individual or imposed by others.
Positive or negative: Favoring older adults or discriminating against them.

Understanding these dimensions is essential to effectively measuring and addressing ageism in social work practice.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. The search focused on four academic databases (Scopus, PubMed, Taylor & Francis, and Springer) covering the period from 2000 to 2020. Keywords included “ageism” and “social work.” Inclusion criteria required that studies be empirical, quantitative, peer-reviewed, and focused on ageism among social work students or practitioners in Western countries. Qualitative studies, policy papers, and literature reviews were excluded.

Results

Study Characteristics

A total of 414 studies were initially identified, with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States, while others took place in Greece, Spain, and England. Participants included social work students, practitioners, and faculty members.

Various validated scales were used to measure ageism, including the Attitudes Towards Older People Scale (Kogan, 1961), the Relating to Old People Evaluation (Cherry & Palmore, 2008), and the Facts on Aging Quiz (Harris et al., 1996). These scales primarily measured explicit, other-directed ageism.

Components of Ageism in Social Work

Findings indicate that ageism in social work is predominantly measured through cognitive and behavioral components, with limited attention to affective elements. The most frequently identified forms of ageism were:

Cognitive – Other-directed – Explicit – Negative: The most common form, involving negative stereotypes about older adults.
Cognitive – Other-directed – Explicit – Positive: Reflecting benevolent but potentially paternalistic views of older people.
Behavioral – Other-directed – Explicit – Negative: Observable discriminatory behaviors towards older individuals.

Notably, implicit and self-directed ageism were absent from the reviewed studies, indicating a gap in the literature and a need for broader measurement approaches.

Discussion

This systematic review highlights several key findings. First, the studies primarily focus on explicit, other-directed ageism, neglecting self-directed and implicit biases. This omission is critical, as implicit biases influence behavior in subtle ways that are difficult to detect yet have significant impacts on older individuals. Self-directed ageism, where older adults internalize negative stereotypes, is also underexplored despite its known psychological and physical health consequences.

Additionally, while most research examines negative ageism, the phenomenon of positive ageism—where older adults are stereotyped as wise, kind, or in need of special care—is also relevant. While seemingly benevolent, positive ageism can contribute to infantilization and disempowerment.

Strengths and Limitations

This review systematically examined empirical studies on ageism in social work, providing a comprehensive overview of how the phenomenon is operationalized. However, several limitations exist. The exclusion of qualitative studies means that nuanced insights into social workers’ attitudes and experiences may be missing. Additionally, most studies were conducted in Western countries, limiting the generalizability of findings to non-Western contexts. Finally, the absence of studies on implicit ageism suggests a need for further research using alternative methodologies, such as implicit association tests or observational studies.

Recommendations for Future Research and Social Work Education

To improve understanding and mitigation of ageism in social work, future research should:

Expand measurement approaches: Develop scales that capture implicit and self-directed ageism to provide a more complete picture of how ageism manifests.
Diversify study populations: Conduct research in non-Western settings to explore cultural variations in ageist attitudes.
Investigate positive ageism: Examine how seemingly favorable stereotypes about aging influence social work practice and policy.
Utilize mixed methods: Combine quantitative and qualitative research to gain deeper insights into the lived experiences of older adults and social workers.

In social work education, programs should:

Integrate gerontological training: Ensure that all social work students receive education on aging issues to counteract stereotypes.
Foster intergenerational interactions: Provide students with opportunities to engage with older adults in diverse settings.
Encourage self-reflection: Train social workers to recognize and challenge their biases through critical reflection and discussion.

Conclusion

This systematic review underscores the importance of understanding and addressing ageism in social work. While significant progress has been made in measuring explicit and other-directed ageism, further research is needed to explore implicit and self-directed biases. By adopting a more comprehensive approach to studying ageism, social work as a profession can better advocate for older adults, ensuring equitable and respectful treatment in all areas of practice.

Source

Trust and Power in the Space Between Visibility and Invisibility

Exploring Digital and Social Media Practices in Norwegian Child Welfare Services

The digitalization of Norwegian public services, including Child Welfare Services (CWS), has introduced new communication methods between professionals and clients. This article examines how the use of digital and social media affects trust and power dynamics in professional-client relationships. The study is based on interviews with CWS caseworkers, parents, and youth clients, offering insights into how digital media practices shape visibility and invisibility within this context. By employing Michel Foucault’s concept of Bentham’s Panopticon, the analysis highlights how digital surveillance influences professional authority and client trust.

The rapid adoption of digital tools such as smartphones, emails, SMS, and social media platforms has transformed communication within social work. While digital media can enhance efficiency and accessibility, it also raises ethical concerns about privacy, surveillance, and power imbalances. Previous research suggests that digital media can empower clients by providing them with more control over communication and facilitating social participation. However, this study uncovers how digitalization can also reinforce existing asymmetries, particularly when caseworkers monitor clients through social media without their knowledge.

The methodological approach of this study includes group interviews with 26 CWS caseworkers and individual interviews with five parents and four youth clients. The interviews, conducted between October 2019 and March 2020, explored participants’ experiences with digital communication. Caseworkers reflected on their professional practices, while clients shared their perspectives on how digital interactions influenced their relationships with CWS. The analysis focused on when and how digital tools were used, revealing key patterns of visibility and invisibility in professional-client interactions.

One key finding is that caseworkers view digital tools as a means to remain accessible and build relationships with clients. SMS, for instance, allows them to check in on clients efficiently, maintaining a presence without direct intervention. Some caseworkers expressed a desire to use social media platforms such as Snapchat to reach young clients but refrained due to ethical concerns. Clients, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of face-to-face interactions in establishing trust. While digital tools were seen as useful for scheduling meetings, they were not considered substitutes for in-person communication.

The study also reveals that caseworkers use social media to observe clients, often without their knowledge. Some CWS offices created fake Facebook accounts to monitor clients’ online activities. This practice sparked debates among caseworkers about its legality and ethical implications. While some defended it as a means of obtaining crucial information, others viewed it as a breach of trust. Most clients were unaware of this surveillance, assuming that their social media presence was private. However, those who suspected that they were being watched expressed strong feelings of betrayal, underscoring the potential damage to professional-client relationships.

Another key aspect of digital communication is the ability of professionals to make themselves invisible. Many caseworkers manage two phones, one for work and one for personal use, allowing them to control their availability. They may also refuse to share their email addresses with clients or limit digital interactions to SMS. This selective accessibility contrasts sharply with clients’ experiences, as they have fewer options for making themselves invisible. Some clients avoid digital communication altogether to minimize exposure to CWS surveillance, reflecting concerns about constant monitoring.

The discussion situates these findings within broader debates on digitalization, power, and trust in welfare services. While digital tools can enhance service efficiency, they also introduce new challenges in maintaining ethical boundaries. The study demonstrates that visibility and invisibility in digital interactions are not neutral but are shaped by power relations. Caseworkers have the ability to control their exposure and monitor clients discreetly, reinforcing the asymmetry of professional-client relationships.

Drawing on Foucault’s concept of the Panopticon, the analysis illustrates how digital media enables caseworkers to observe clients without being seen. This surveillance dynamic undermines trust, as clients are unaware of when or how they are being monitored. Previous research has highlighted the potential of digital media to empower clients by providing them with more agency in communication. However, this study suggests that digital tools can also be used to reinforce hierarchical structures, limiting clients’ ability to negotiate their visibility.

The findings call for a critical reassessment of digital media use in child welfare services. While digital tools offer opportunities for improved communication, their use must be guided by ethical considerations and clear regulations. Caseworkers require guidelines on appropriate digital practices to balance professional responsibilities with respect for client privacy. Clients, in turn, should be informed about how their digital presence may be used in professional assessments. Transparency and consent should be central principles in digital communication policies to ensure that trust is not eroded.

In conclusion, the digitalization of Norwegian Child Welfare Services has reshaped professional-client interactions, introducing new complexities in trust and power dynamics. While digital tools can facilitate accessibility and efficiency, they also present risks related to surveillance and ethical boundaries. The study highlights the importance of regulating digital communication practices to prevent power imbalances from being exacerbated. Ensuring that clients have a voice in how digital tools are used can help maintain trust and foster more equitable professional relationships in child welfare services.

Source

Creating Elder-Friendly Communities: Preparing for an Aging Society

As the population ages, the need for communities to adapt to the changing requirements of older residents has become increasingly crucial. With the Baby Boomer generation entering retirement, a significant portion of society will soon be over the age of 65. By 2020, it was estimated that one in five Americans would be classified as senior citizens. This demographic shift brings both opportunities and challenges, necessitating the development of elder-friendly communities where older adults can live independently while remaining actively engaged in society.

An elder-friendly community is one that values and supports its older residents by providing necessary infrastructure, services, and opportunities that accommodate their evolving needs. Many communities today were not designed with the elderly in mind, and without appropriate modifications, aging in place can become difficult. This article explores what constitutes an elder-friendly community, the challenges involved in creating such environments, and the role of social workers and policymakers in facilitating these changes.

The Importance of Community Environment for Older Persons

Aging in place—the ability of individuals to remain in their own homes as they age—is a priority for the majority of older adults. Research has shown that over 80% of seniors prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible. However, many homes and communities present barriers that make independent living difficult. Physical limitations can make daily activities such as driving, shopping, and home maintenance more challenging, increasing reliance on social services and caregiver support. Additionally, unsafe neighborhoods, inaccessible public buildings, and inadequate transportation can contribute to the isolation of older residents.

A well-designed elder-friendly community, on the other hand, actively promotes the well-being of its older residents. It ensures accessibility, offers social engagement opportunities, and integrates health and support services into the fabric of everyday life. A well-integrated support system can also alleviate the burden on family caregivers, reducing stress and preventing burnout. By addressing these issues, communities can empower older adults to contribute meaningfully to society while maintaining their independence.

Characteristics of an Elder-Friendly Community

While there is no universal definition of an elder-friendly community, research has identified several core characteristics that make a community more accommodating for older residents. Surveys and studies conducted by organizations such as AARP and various social research institutions highlight key features that contribute to community elder-friendliness, including:

Accessible and affordable transportation: Public transit should be senior-friendly, with features such as low-floor buses, special transport services, and well-maintained sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. Rideshare services and volunteer-driven transportation programs can also be beneficial.
Diverse housing options: A range of affordable housing options should be available, including single-story homes, assisted living facilities, and housing that incorporates universal design principles. Home modification programs should be in place to assist seniors in making their homes more accessible.
Responsive health and long-term care services: Health services should be easily accessible and include home-based care options, geriatric specialists, and community-based health initiatives. Preventative care and wellness programs should be readily available to ensure seniors maintain their health for as long as possible.
Safety and security: Communities should implement measures to ensure safety for older adults, such as well-lit streets, emergency response systems, and crime prevention programs tailored to seniors. Local law enforcement should work closely with senior advocacy groups to prevent elder abuse and scams targeting older individuals.
Social integration and respect for seniors: Elder-friendly communities should encourage active participation by older residents through volunteer opportunities, senior centers, and intergenerational programs that promote respect and engagement. Public spaces should be designed to encourage socialization and community events should be inclusive of older adults.

While these general characteristics provide a foundation for elder-friendly communities, individual communities may need to focus on different priorities based on their demographics and urban or rural settings. For instance, rural communities may need to prioritize transportation and healthcare access, while urban areas may need to focus on affordable housing and public safety.

Assessing and Planning for Elder-Friendliness

Creating an elder-friendly community requires a structured approach that involves assessing current conditions, identifying gaps, and planning for improvements. Needs assessments are a crucial first step in this process, as they help policymakers and social workers understand the specific challenges faced by older residents. These assessments can take both qualitative and quantitative approaches, such as focus groups, interviews, and surveys.

Several assessment tools have been developed to help communities evaluate their elder-friendliness, including:

The AARP Livable Communities Guide, which provides a checklist of factors affecting older residents.
The AdvantAge Initiative, which measures key indicators such as transportation availability, safety, and community involvement.
Elder Ready Community Report Cards, which help communities evaluate their accessibility and preparedness for an aging population.

Using these tools, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and community groups can identify necessary changes and develop strategies to enhance elder-friendliness. These assessments can also be used to track progress over time, ensuring continuous improvement in community services and infrastructure.

Examples of Elder-Friendly Initiatives

Several cities and regions have successfully implemented policies and programs to become more elder-friendly. For instance, the City of Pasadena developed a Senior Master Plan that analyzed senior needs, services, and policy recommendations. The plan, which included input from residents, agencies, and local government, resulted in expanded senior services, improved transportation options, and a greater focus on affordable housing.

Another example is the “Coming of Age in Rural Illinois” project, which conducted assessments to identify key issues faced by seniors in rural communities. By leveraging partnerships with local governments and service providers, the project was able to address transportation challenges and enhance community support networks.

Such initiatives demonstrate the importance of a lead organization in bringing together stakeholders, conducting assessments, and implementing meaningful changes that benefit older residents. Collaboration between public agencies, private organizations, and community groups is essential for sustained progress in developing elder-friendly environments.

The Role of Social Workers in Developing Elder-Friendly Communities

Social workers play a critical role in advocating for and supporting elder-friendly community initiatives. Their involvement includes:

Community assessment and advocacy: Social workers help identify areas where improvements are needed and advocate for policies that support aging in place.
Service coordination: They connect older adults with resources, including transportation, healthcare, and social services, to enhance their quality of life.
Policy development: Social workers can influence local planning and development efforts by ensuring that older residents’ needs are considered in housing, transportation, and healthcare policies.
Empowerment and education: They work to empower seniors by providing them with information and opportunities to voice their concerns in community planning processes.

Implications for Social Work

Social work plays a crucial role in fostering elder-friendly communities, as professionals in the field are uniquely positioned to advocate for aging populations, bridge gaps between services, and address systemic issues that affect older adults. Social workers must actively engage in community planning efforts to ensure that policies and programs meet the needs of aging residents. By promoting interdisciplinary collaboration between urban planners, healthcare providers, and policymakers, social workers can help create environments that support aging in place. Additionally, they play a key role in providing direct support, ensuring that older adults have access to essential resources such as affordable healthcare, transportation, and social services. Beyond advocacy and service coordination, social workers also empower older individuals through education and community engagement, encouraging them.

Implications for Practice

Developing elder-friendly communities requires a multifaceted approach that integrates policies, services, and infrastructure improvements. Practitioners in social work, urban planning, and public health must work together to create age-inclusive environments that support independence and social engagement. This means incorporating age-friendly design principles into urban development, expanding access to essential services, and fostering community programs that encourage intergenerational interaction. Furthermore, practitioners must ensure that the voices of older adults are heard in policy discussions, promoting participatory planning processes that reflect the real needs of aging residents. By embedding elder-friendly initiatives into broader community planning and public policy frameworks, practitioners can help establish sustainable, long-term improvements that benefit not only older adults but the entire community.

Conclusion

The aging population presents both challenges and opportunities for communities. By developing elder-friendly communities, local governments and service providers can ensure that older adults can continue to live safely, independently, and actively engaged in society. Key strategies include improving transportation, housing, healthcare, and community involvement opportunities.

While much progress has been made in recognizing the importance of elder-friendly communities, there is still work to be done. Needs assessments, policy changes, and community engagement efforts must continue to evolve to address the unique and changing needs of aging populations. Social workers, policymakers, and community organizations must collaborate to create supportive environments that enhance the well-being of older adults while enriching the broader community.

Source

The Evolution of Social Work in Scotland: From Radical Vision to Contemporary Challenges

The history of social work in Scotland over the past forty years has been shaped by two major reports: Social Work and the Community (1966) and Changing Lives (2006). These documents represent key moments in the evolution of a profession that has struggled to maintain its identity and influence while adapting to shifting political, social, and economic landscapes. The transformation of Scottish social work from a radical vision of social equality to a profession increasingly bound by bureaucratic constraints and market-driven policies encapsulates broader trends in welfare provision.

The publication of Social Work and the Community in 1966 marked the beginning of modern social work in Scotland. It was a time of optimism and reform, inspired by the Kilbrandon Report of 1964, which emphasized the need for a unified and proactive approach to addressing social problems. The report envisioned social work as a force for social change, capable of tackling not only individual issues but broader societal inequalities. Unlike the reforms in England and Wales, Scotland’s approach was notably radical, seeking not just to streamline services but to create a profession deeply embedded in community welfare and activism.

The 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act formalized this vision, establishing social work as a single, unified profession encompassing various specialist roles, including probation officers, child welfare workers, and psychiatric social workers. The Act also introduced Children’s Panels, a distinctive Scottish institution that replaced juvenile courts with a welfare-oriented approach to dealing with young offenders. These reforms positioned Scotland at the forefront of progressive social policy, earning admiration for their coherence and ambition. The creation of a unified social work profession was a significant step forward, one that promised greater efficiency, improved service coordination, and a holistic approach to social welfare.

However, the success of the profession was contingent upon maintaining strong political alliances, particularly with regional governments and the Scottish Office. The Association of Directors of Social Work (ADSW), established in 1969, played a critical role in shaping policy and advocating for the profession. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, social work departments enjoyed considerable influence, particularly within the large regional councils such as Strathclyde. These councils championed social work as a tool for addressing poverty and social injustice, reinforcing the profession’s ideological commitment to state-led welfare provision. Regional councils provided the structural backbone for social work, allowing it to integrate effectively with other public services, such as education and housing, ensuring a coordinated response to social issues.

The 1980s, however, introduced a series of challenges that tested the resilience of Scottish social work. The Thatcher government’s policies of privatization and reduced public spending threatened the foundational principles of the 1968 Act. While Scottish social work had initially resisted the tide of market-driven reforms, the introduction of the Griffiths Report in 1988 marked a turning point. The report advocated for a mixed economy of care, shifting responsibilities from the state to voluntary and private providers. While ADSW initially opposed these changes, it ultimately had to adapt to the new reality, signaling a departure from the profession’s original vision of comprehensive state provision. This shift was not just ideological but practical, as funding constraints made it increasingly difficult for local authorities to sustain public service dominance.

Further crises in the early 1990s compounded social work’s difficulties. The Orkney child abuse case of 1991, in which children were removed from their homes based on unproven allegations of satanic ritual abuse, severely damaged public trust in the profession. The subsequent Clyde Report (1992) criticized social workers for overreach and lack of accountability, leading to increased scrutiny and regulation. This period marked the beginning of a shift away from professional autonomy toward greater bureaucratic oversight. The media portrayal of social workers as overzealous and intrusive further eroded public confidence, making it more challenging for social work departments to operate without intense scrutiny.

By the mid-1990s, the landscape of Scottish social work had changed dramatically. The dissolution of regional councils in 1996 fragmented the profession, creating 32 smaller local authorities with varying levels of resources and expertise. The abolition of the requirement for local authorities to appoint a professionally qualified Director of Social Work further diminished the profession’s standing. No longer at the ‘top table’ of government, social work became increasingly subordinate to managerial and financial constraints, limiting its ability to act as a transformative force in society. Local authorities struggled to maintain the same level of service provision, as smaller budgets and fewer resources led to a more reactive rather than proactive approach.

Against this backdrop, the publication of Changing Lives in 2006 sought to redefine social work for the 21st century. While the report reaffirmed the importance of a generic profession with a distinct body of knowledge and skills, it also acknowledged the numerous challenges facing social workers. These included excessive bureaucracy, unrealistic public expectations, and a lack of professional confidence. Unlike the 1966 report, which positioned social work as a driver of social change, Changing Lives emphasized a more pragmatic approach—focusing on targeted, individualized interventions rather than broad societal reform. The report encouraged a more flexible and responsive approach, one that balanced professional autonomy with structured oversight.

The report also introduced the concept of ‘Reserved Functions of the Social Worker,’ defining specific roles that only qualified social workers could perform. This was an attempt to clarify professional jurisdiction and restore a sense of professional identity. However, the broader context of market-driven welfare and increased managerialism meant that social work’s role was now more about navigating complex service structures than leading systemic change. The impact of this shift was profound, as social workers found themselves increasingly engaged in risk management and procedural compliance rather than direct social intervention.

The evolution of Scottish social work from the radical optimism of the 1960s to the constrained pragmatism of the 21st century reflects broader trends in welfare provision. While the profession has retained its commitment to social justice, its ability to enact meaningful change has been curtailed by political and economic pressures. The challenge moving forward is to reclaim a sense of professional autonomy and redefine the role of social work in a rapidly changing society. Changing Lives may have marked a departure from the revolutionary aspirations of the past, but it also offers an opportunity for Scottish social workers to critically reassess their position and reassert their relevance in an increasingly fragmented and market-oriented landscape. The question remains: can social work in Scotland recapture its original mission, or will it continue to be reshaped by external forces beyond its control?

Source