Anti-Oppressive Practice in Social Work: Addressing Inequalities and Power Dynamics

Anti-oppressive practice (AOP) in social work is a framework designed to challenge and address the complex forms of oppression experienced by marginalised individuals. This approach focuses on analyzing and transforming the unequal power dynamics within social systems, aiming to provide more equitable outcomes for those who have been historically disadvantaged by social, economic, political, and cultural structures. The principles of AOP are not only a guide for action but also a theoretical lens through which practitioners can understand and respond to the lived realities of oppression.

Understanding Oppression and its Complex Nature

Oppression manifests in the lives of individuals who are marginalized due to social divisions such as race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and age. Social work, informed by anti-oppressive principles, draws upon multiple disciplines—sociology, psychology, history, philosophy, and politics—to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these divisions intersect and shape people’s lives. According to Burke and Harrison, oppression is not only a personal issue but also one deeply rooted in societal structures. The challenge for social workers is to recognize these structures and work towards dismantling them in both individual cases and broader systems.

Defining Anti-Oppressive Practice

Anti-oppressive practice is a dynamic and evolving approach that involves critically examining how power operates at personal, organizational, and structural levels. It requires an understanding of the relationships between different social divisions and how these divisions influence the life chances of individuals. For instance, a black woman may face unique challenges stemming from the intersection of racism and sexism, which can further complicate her access to resources or support.

As Clifford (1995) explains, anti-oppressive practice must address both personal and broader social structures that perpetuate inequality. These structures can include health, education, and political systems, which often provide benefits and resources to dominant groups while excluding or disadvantaging others. By recognising these power imbalances, social workers can begin to address the root causes of oppression and work toward more just outcomes.

Core Principles of Anti-Oppressive Practice

The key principles of anti-oppressive practice, as outlined by Clifford and further discussed by Burke and Harrison, offer a comprehensive framework for practitioners. These principles are essential for both understanding the nature of oppression and guiding effective intervention:

Social Difference: Differences arise due to unequal power relations between dominant and subordinated groups. Recognising these differences is crucial for understanding how oppression operates across various social divisions.
Linking the Personal and the Political: Personal experiences are shaped by broader social and political structures. By placing an individual’s life within a wider societal context, social workers can address the systemic issues contributing the challenges of the service users.
Power: Power is both a social and personal construct, influencing relationships at all levels. In practice, this involves understanding how individuals and groups gain or are denied access to power and resources. Social workers must be aware of their own power and how it impacts their relationships with service users.
Historical and Geographical Location: Individuals’ experiences are situated in specific historical and geographical contexts. Acknowledging these contexts helps social workers understand how societal factors shape individual experiences and interactions.
Reflexivity: Social workers must continuously reflect on their own identities, values, and power dynamics. This principle emphasises the importance of self-awareness in practice, ensuring that practitioners remain conscious of how their own social positions affect their interactions with service users.

Putting Theory into Practice: The Case of Amelia

The application of anti-oppressive principles is best illustrated through case studies, such as Amelia’s story discussed by Burke and Harrison. Amelia, a young black woman, experienced domestic violence, homelessness, drug addiction, and the eventual removal of her child into foster care. Her story highlights the ways in which multiple forms of oppression—race, gender, and class—intersect to shape her experiences. Despite her attempts to navigate these challenges, Amelia’s needs were not fully understood or addressed by the social care system.

In this case, social workers focused on Amelia’s psychiatric and psychological assessments, largely ignoring the broader structural factors that contributed to her situation, such as racism and poverty. The failure to consider her experiences of oppression as a young black woman resulted in a care plan that recommended the adoption of her child, further disempowering her.

The anti-oppressive approach demands that social workers recognize the interplay of social divisions and challenge the ways in which power is exercised within the system. Reflexivity, critical analysis of power, and a holistic understanding of Amelia’s life circumstances could have led to a different, more empowering intervention.

Challenges and Opportunities for Change

Anti-oppressive practice is not without its challenges. Social workers often operate within systems that are constrained by financial, legislative, and organisational limitations. The tension between resource-driven services and the needs of marginalised people can lead to conflicting demands on practitioners.

However, the power of AOP lies in its commitment to challenge these constraints. By adopting a person-centered philosophy and an egalitarian value system, social workers can begin to create opportunities for change, both at the micro and macro levels. The process of challenging oppression may be painful or met with resistance, but it is a necessary step toward creating more opportunities and just outcomes for service users.

Conclusion

Anti-oppressive practice is a critical framework for addressing inequality in social work. By understanding the complex nature of oppression, examining power dynamics, and continually reflecting on practice, social workers can move beyond merely describing oppression to actively challenging and transforming it. While the path may be difficult, the principles of AOP provide a guide for creating meaningful change in the lives of individuals and communities.

Source

Exploring Narrative Social Work: A Conversation Between Theory and Practice

Social work, like many professions, continuously evolves to meet the complexities of human experience. With multiple models and theories guiding practice, it is often difficult for social workers to determine which approach best suits the unique circumstances of the people they supporting. The article Narrative Social Work: Conversations Between Theory and Practice by Karen D. Roscoe, Alexander M. Carson, and Iolo Madoc-Jones offers a compelling solution: a narrative-based approach to social work that encourages a dynamic conversation between the theories of social work and the practical realities of working with service users.

The Complexity of Social Work

Social workers frequently draw from diverse models, such as psychodynamic theory, systems theory, or care management, to address the needs of service users. However, as the article points out, these theoretical frameworks often reflect dominant social narratives rather than the lived experiences of service users. This selective use of theories can sometimes distance professionals from the actual needs and stories of those they serve, leading to an imbalance in power dynamics. In response, Roscoe and colleagues suggest that narrative social work can restore balance by creating a space for both social workers and service users to share and reflect on their stories.

Defining Narrative Social Work

Narrative social work is a method that emphasizes the sharing of stories between the social worker and the service user. It involves three key stages: engagement, deconstruction, and re-authoring. These stages allow for a more democratic and reflective practice, where the social worker does not impose a dominant theoretical framework but collaborates with the service user to create new meanings and possibilities.

Engagement: The process begins with the social worker and service user sharing their stories. This is critical because it establishes mutual respect and positions the service user’s narrative as equally important as any theoretical model. The emphasis is placed on listening and understanding the service user’s perspective without prematurely applying labels or diagnoses.
Deconstruction: In this stage, the stories shared are carefully examined to uncover underlying assumptions, cultural influences, and power dynamics. This helps both the social worker and the service user to challenge taken-for-granted ideas that may be limiting progress. For instance, in the case of Mrs. Roberts, a caregiver struggling with guilt and fear about seeking help, the deconstruction process involved exploring how societal norms about gender roles influenced her sense of duty as a wife.
Re-authoring: Finally, the narrative is re-authored in collaboration with the service user. This stage empowers the individual to imagine alternative ways of understanding their situation and opens the possibility for change. The social worker facilitates the creation of a new narrative that supports the service user’s autonomy and personal development.

The Value of Narrative in Social Work

Roscoe et al. argue that narrative approaches allow social workers to engage more authentically with service users. Unlike traditional methods that often rely on diagnosing or categorizing, narrative social work recognizes the complexity of human experience and embraces the idea that individuals’ stories are shaped by broader cultural, social, and political contexts. This aligns with anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practices, which emphasise the importance of understanding the service user’s cultural background and societal influences.

Moreover, the article highlights that narrative-based interventions can lead to significant personal transformation. In Mrs. Roberts’ case, for example, the social worker helped her re-author her story, moving away from feeling trapped by her caregiving duties to accepting support and making choices that aligned with her well-being. This shift in narrative is not merely theoretical but has real-life implications for improving the quality of care and emotional well-being of service users.

A Model for Reflective Practice

One of the most critical aspects of narrative social work is its potential to foster reflective practice among social workers. By engaging in the storytelling process with the people they supporting, social workers are encouraged to reflect on their assumptions and biases. This form of practice pushes professionals to move beyond applying ready-made solutions or adhering strictly to one theoretical model. Instead, narrative social work asks social workers to remain open to multiple perspectives and to co-create solutions that are rooted in the lived experiences of their service users.

Conclusion

Narrative Social Work: Conversations Between Theory and Practice provides a meaningful contribution to the field of social work by advocating for a more holistic and flexible approach to practice. Through the use of narrative, social workers can engage with service users in ways that are respectful, empowering, and transformative. By prioritising the stories of individuals, narrative social work not only enriches the practice of social work but also ensures that service users are seen, heard, and valued as active participants in their care.

The State of Homelessness in Scotland

The Homelessness Monitor: Scotland 2021 provides an extensive analysis of the factors driving homelessness, focusing on the effects of economic policies, housing issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The report highlights both the progress made and the challenges still faced by Scotland in its mission to reduce homelessness, particularly its “core” forms like rough sleeping, sofa surfing, and unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Economic and Policy Context

Prior to the pandemic, Scotland had seen an increase in statutory homelessness, which refers to households legally recognized as homeless. Between 2016 and 2020, homelessness increased by 10%, with 27,571 households classified as legally homeless in 2020-21. However, the pandemic contributed to a temporary decline in homelessness rates due to government interventions such as eviction bans and increased welfare support. Despite this, homelessness was not uniformly reduced across Scotland, with areas like Glasgow experiencing less reduction compared to regions like Edinburgh.

The number of people in temporary accommodation, though initially stable at around 10,000, surged during the pandemic. By March 2021, over 13,000 households were living in temporary accommodation, an increase that reflected both an immediate need for safe housing during the pandemic and systemic issues within housing supply and distribution.

Core Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

The most severe forms of homelessness—referred to as “core homelessness”—affect individuals who are rough sleeping, sofa surfing, or living in unsuitable accommodations like hostels or bed and breakfasts (B&Bs). In 2019, an estimated 14,250 households experienced core homelessness, a rate that is lower in Scotland (0.57%) compared to England (0.94%) and Wales (0.66%). Sofa surfing was the most prevalent form, with over 7,900 people affected. Rough sleeping was estimated at 900 individuals nightly, but the pandemic led to significant reductions, particularly in cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The Impact of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Scottish Government to implement emergency measures to house rough sleepers and those in shared accommodations. The introduction of hotel-based housing and the provision of additional funding to homeless services helped reduce rough sleeping to historically low levels during the pandemic. However, issues like exploitation and crime in some temporary accommodations, particularly in Glasgow, raised concerns about the safety of individuals housed in these emergency solutions.

One positive outcome from the pandemic was the enhanced cooperation between local authorities, homelessness services, and health and social care organizations. This collaboration resulted in better access to support services for individuals with complex needs, although challenges remain in sustaining these efforts beyond the pandemic.

Policy Measures and Recommendations

Several policy initiatives are highlighted as crucial in the fight against homelessness. The “Ending Homelessness Together” plan, introduced by the Scottish Government in 2018, aims to eliminate homelessness by focusing on rapid rehousing and prevention. Local authorities developed Rapid Rehousing Transition Plans (RRTPs) to reduce reliance on temporary accommodations by prioritizing settled housing options. However, the implementation of these plans has been hindered by resource limitations, and many authorities have expressed concern over the underfunding of these initiatives.

Housing First programs, which offer permanent housing to individuals with complex needs, have shown promise, with over 500 tenancies created since the program’s inception. Tenancy sustainment rates are high, and the approach has been widely adopted by local authorities, though challenges remain in scaling these efforts.

Moreover, the Unsuitable Accommodation Order, which limits the use of B&Bs and hotels for families and pregnant women, was extended to cover all households. Despite delays due to the pandemic, this extension marks a significant step in improving temporary accommodation conditions for homeless individuals.

Future Directions

The report emphasizes the need for sustained investment in housing and homelessness prevention measures to achieve long-term reductions in homelessness. Increasing the supply of affordable housing, particularly in high-demand areas like Edinburgh, is seen as essential. Additionally, policies that raise Local Housing Allowance rates and improve access to the private rental market are identified as key to preventing homelessness in the future.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of flexibility in responding to homelessness and the need for integrated approaches across sectors. While Scotland has made notable progress in reducing core homelessness, particularly rough sleeping, ongoing challenges, such as the availability of affordable housing and the full implementation of rapid rehousing policies, remain central to addressing the homelessness crisis.

Conclusion

Scotland’s journey toward ending homelessness has been marked by significant policy innovation and progress, yet challenges persist, particularly in light of the economic and social disruptions caused by the pandemic. The Homelessness Monitor: Scotland 2021 underscores that while Scotland’s approach to homelessness is more progressive than that of its UK counterparts, sustained investment, robust implementation of homelessness prevention policies, and an expansion of affordable housing are critical to achieving lasting reductions in homelessness.

In the years ahead, Scotland’s ability to maintain its focus on rapid rehousing, support vulnerable individuals, and work collaboratively across government and non-government sectors will determine whether it can become a global leader in ending homelessness altogether.

Navigating the Complexities of Single Parenthood: Insights into Mental Health and Socioeconomic Factors

A literature review on how social support impacts the mental health of single fathers

Abstract:

This study conducts a systematic review to examine the impact of social support on the mental health of single fathers, a demographic often overlooked within family dynamics. The research aims to expose the challenges single fathers face in accessing social support and the implications for social work practice. Despite the rising prevalence of single father households, traditional gender roles and societal norms often marginalize these fathers within caregiving contexts, limiting their access to needed support systems.

A comprehensive search across five online databases led to the identification of 14 studies that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The critical analysis of these papers, encompassing responses from 4,174 single fathers, reveals that while single fathers generally exhibit better financial stability than single mothers, they face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace support. These challenges result in higher psychological distress and poorer health outcomes compared to partnered fathers. Socio-economic status plays a crucial role, with single fathers benefiting less from informal social support networks and more from financial stability.

The review identifies two main themes: “Family Structure” and “Buffer against Socio-cultural and Economic Factors.” The first theme explores how gender, household composition, and socio-economic support influence the well-being of single fathers compared to single mothers and partnered fathers. The second theme highlights the role of social support in mitigating mental health challenges, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated socio-economic and cultural stressors for single fathers.

The findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policy measures that enhance social support networks and alleviate economic pressures for single fathers. Social work practice must consider the varied socio-economic and mental health challenges single fathers face, promoting resilience through strong support networks and flexible employment policies. This comprehensive approach can enhance the well-being of single fathers and contribute to healthier family dynamics. Future research should focus on identifying specific intervention areas to ensure support mechanisms are responsive to the evolving needs of single parents.

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction

This study explores the realm of single fathers’ mental health by conducting a systematic review of existing research. It seeks to shed light on what the literature reveals about the impact of social support on the mental well-being of single fathers and examines the implications for social work practice. Single fatherhood represents a significant but often overlooked demographic within the broader landscape of family dynamics (Barker, 1994; Katz, 1979; Shorey & Pereira, 2023). Existing definitions of single fatherhood vary (Letablier and Wall, 2018), depending on the context, marital status, legal and residential arrangements, financial responsibility, parental involvement, cultural and social factors and personal circumstances. Based on UK government definitions (ONS, 2016, 2023), in this paper single fathers are considered as fathers who undertake primary caregiving responsibilities for their child(ren) without the presence of a spouse or partner in the household. Regardless of the expanding number of single-father households, societal norms and institutional practices often perpetuate traditional gender roles, relegating fathers to secondary caregiving roles and prioritising mothers as primary caregivers (Christie, 2006; Featherstone, 2009).

Existing literature (Bradshaw & Miller, 1991; Greif, 1992; Janikowski, 2021; Shorey & Pereira, 2023) underscores the challenges faced by single fathers in accessing support and recognition within social work systems, which are critical for their mental health outcomes, well-being and resilience (Chiu et al., 2018; George & Wilding, 1972; Louie & Crombrugghe, 2017). Despite evolving societal attitudes towards father involvement, deep-rooted biases and stereotypes persist, leading to a lack of visibility and engagement with single fathers in social work practice (Janikowski, 2021; Shapiro & Krysik, 2010). Research indicates that social work services tend to focus predominantly on mothers, with fathers being marginalised and excluded from meaningful participation in decision-making processes (Ashley et al., 2006; Brewsaugh, Masyn & Salloum, 2018). Moreover, single fathers are often subjected to societal narratives that portray them as inadequate caregivers or financial burdens on the state (Bradshaw & Miller, 1991; La Rossa & La Rossa, 1981), further complicating their mental health challenges (Garner, 2009). Such narratives exacerbate the challenges faced by single fathers in seeking support for their mental health needs. Despite the increasing acknowledgment of the importance of social support, single fathers continue to encounter barriers in accessing and utilising support services. Socio-economic disparities, cultural stigma, and institutional biases often inhibit help-seeking behaviours and limit access to support networks (Eickmeyer, 2017; Shapiro & Krysik, 2010).

In light of these findings, there is a pressing need to understand and address the relationship between social support and the mental health needs of single fathers within the social work context. This review will highlight the existing gaps, biases, and the impact of socio-economic and cultural factors on their mental well-being. Thus a literature review to explore how social support impacts the mental health of single fathers has been undertaken.

Chapter 2: Research Methodology

The research question was developed based on the PICO framework (Booth et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2020; Maher et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2015) to create specific search terms and the systematic search strategy. This approach facilitated a preliminary scoping search to identify the impact of social support on single fathers’ mental health (Karolinska Institutet University Library, 2022). Table 1 outlines the key concepts and search terms used, providing a clear framework for the literature search.

This revealed significant research gaps in the literature; therefore this dissertation investigates how social support affects the mental well-being of single fathers and examines the implications for social work practice.

Search Strategy:

The search strategy employed systematic methods to comprehensively summarise and synthesise evidence on the research question using predefined approaches and relevant databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and Social Science Premium Collection) (Booth et al., 2022; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Taylor et al., 2015). Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search and selection process. The search terms, determined through a preliminary scoping review, included “single father,” “social support,” and “mental health,” with social support defined as emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance from social networks (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cohen et al., 2000; Kent et al., 2018). Boolean operators and truncation symbols were used to enhance search outcomes (Shorey et al., 2023). Table 2 lists the key terms and articles found in the process.

The PRISMA Flow Diagram (Table 3) illustrates the article screening procedure, beginning with an initial abstract scan and progressing to a thorough review of full articles as inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented (Booth et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2020; Maher et al., 2018; Paige et al., 2020). It also highlights the inclusion and exclusion of the articles, providing the rationale for these decisions. This process involved assessing the data points to ensure they were relevant to the research question.

Studies considered for analysis:

The selected papers presented diverse perspectives on how social support impacts the mental health of single fathers, adhering to the research question and highlighting key themes (Booth et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2015). The journal articles were organized in the EndNote 20 reference management tool (The EndNote Team, 2013). Key themes were identified to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic (Booth et al., 2022; Naeem et al., 2023).

Eligibility Criteria:

Eligible studies were contemporary – prior 10 years, peer-reviewed primary research in English due to the researcher’s language barrier. Inclusion criteria were single fathers regardless of age, geographic location, socio-economic status (SES), education, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, length of single parenthood, raising children of any age, divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married, with any custody percentage, and living alone with their children. Excluded were secondary and correlational research, thesis papers, conference proceedings, books, editorials, and reports (Shorey et al., 2023).

Quality Appraisal:

The researcher appraised the selected articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist (Appendix 1) for systematic reviews (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018), evaluating study objectives, methodologies, researchers’ reflexivity, ethical considerations, data analysis rigor, findings, and overall research value (Shorey et al., 2023). Despite varying degrees of relevance, all studies were included to enhance the rigor of the review (Walsh & Downe, 2005).

Data Extraction:

Led by the PRISMA checklist (Liberati et al., 2009), the researcher extracted study details—such as author, publication year, study location, methods, analysis and data collection, population and main findings. Then, themes were identified through a detailed coding process, where each article was read thoroughly. This involved using both digital and paper notes, connecting themes, and integrating them into a comprehensive document (Booth et al., 2022; Shorey et al., 2023; Naeem et al., 2023; Taylor et al., 2015).

Ethical Considerations:

Systematic reviewers must accurately represent the perspectives of authors and participants to identify missing viewpoints and evaluate the relevance of their findings to specific contexts. This involves considering how publication and search biases may influence results and reflecting on their own biases during the review process. Selective and informed inclusion should guide decision-making, and transparency is crucial for ethical impact (Suri, 2020). Publication bias occurs when study results are not published due to their findings’ direction or strength, often because researchers lack access to necessary literature, leading to biases that affect evidence synthesis (Dickersin & Min, 1993). To mitigate researcher bias, the CASP checklist was utilised (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018).

Limitations:

This review acknowledges potential omissions due to unclear titles or abstracts, inadequate indexing, and various restrictions. It highlights the lack of research on racial and ethnic differences in single-fatherhood experiences, suggesting future studies in this area (Shorey et al., 2023). Limitations include small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, biases from self-reported data, and demographic or geographic restrictions (Booth et al., 2022; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thematic analysis, while flexible, may lead to inconsistency and incoherence in theme formulation and cannot assert conclusions about language usage (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Holloway & Todres, 2003; Nowell et al., 2017).

Chapter 3: Research findings

From the database and manual searching 298 studies were identified. After removing 130 duplicate studies and excluding 75 studies due to their publication dates, 93 studies remained for title and abstract screening by the researcher. During this screening, 55 studies were excluded for being irrelevant to the research question. Subsequently, the full texts of the remaining 38 studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria, resulting in the exclusion of 24 more studies (Shorey et al., 2023). The 14 selected studies were peer-reviewed, primary research, conducted in Canada (n=1), Germany (n=3), Iceland (n=1), Israel (n=1), Japan (n=1), New Zealand (n=1), South Korea (n=2), Sweden (n=1), United Kingdom (n=2), and United States (n=1). A total of 4,174 single father’s responses were analysed.

The critical review of the selected literature shows single mothers face poorer mental health, higher unemployment, and greater socio-economic deprivation than single fathers, who are generally more financially stable. However, single fathers face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace-support, leading to higher psychological distress and poorer health outcomes than partnered-fathers, with SES playing a crucial role. These findings were described in two main themes and five subthemes below.

Theme 1: Family Structure

This theme highlights how gender, household-composition and socio-economic support impacts the well-being of single fathers in comparison to single mothers and partnered-fathers.

Mind Matters: Exploring Gender and Economic Differences in Single Parenthood

Research comparing the mental health of single parents reveals significant differences in their experiences and outcomes. Collings et al. (2014) found that single mothers endured significantly poorer mental health compared to single fathers, due to higher rates of having preschool-aged children, unemployment, and socio-economic deprivation. Kong et al. (2017) highlighted higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in single mothers, while single fathers showed higher prevalence of alcohol dependence, influenced by SES. Chiu et al. (2017) noted that while single fathers tended to have a less healthy lifestyle and diet, they were also less likely to be diagnosed with mood or anxiety disorders than single mothers. However, Rattay et al. (2017) found no significant differences in self-rated health between single parents, suggesting that partner status impacts health similarly across genders, which may downplay the nuanced challenges single mothers face. Fritzell et al. (2019) indicated that health disparities were more pronounced among single parents than in two-parent families, with greater differences observed among mothers. Quantitative analysis of parental social support, depression, anxiety, and parenting stress (Prokupek, 2023) revealed similar outcomes for both mothers and fathers. Results indicated that fathers typically experienced positive reactions from others, with negative feedback being rare and isolated. Overall, fathers exhibited good well-being and received comparable levels of social support to mothers in similar circumstances (Jones et al., 2022).

Collings et al. (2014) showed that single fathers have higher homeownership and lower socio-economic deprivation when compared to single mothers (Kong et al., 2017). Single fathers are also more likely to be employed, whereas single mothers are twice as likely to have a preschool-age child and work part-time (Chum et al., 2022) and benefit more from informal social support (Chiu et al., 2017; Chum et al., 2022). Single fathers face greater challenges receiving employer support for childcare responsibilities, while single mothers benefit from greater workplace flexibility due to traditional gender roles and often working low-skill jobs. However, single fathers in high-skilled employment adapt better to work-caring responsibilities (Itzayeva, 2021). Chum et al. (2022) noted that single fathers experience more significant mental-health decline with job-insecurity compared to single mothers. SES is linked to increased alcohol-dependence risk among single mothers and poor mental health among single fathers (Kong et al., 2017). Foreign-born single mothers, with sole custody arrangements, face the poorest socio-economic conditions and the highest rates of mental health issues, exacerbating their vulnerabilities (Fritzell et al., 2019).

Fatherhood in Contrast: Unpacking Mental Health and Socio-economic Differences between Single and Partnered Fathers

Research consistently indicates poorer mental health of single fathers compared to their partnered counterparts. Collings et al. (2014) found single fathers experienced higher psychological distress due to lower home-ownership rates and inadequate social support. Kong and Kim (2015) noted severe stress, depressive symptoms, and poorer quality of life among them, exacerbated by demanding socio-economic conditions. Chiu et al. (2017) and Dhungel (2023) highlighted lower educational attainment, higher unemployment and poorer health behaviours, correlating with their prevalent mental health issues. The prevalence of depression and suicidal ideation was notably higher, with poor SES being a significant factor (Kong et al., 2017). Frisch-Volkert et al. (2020) reported higher levels of mental disorders and psychopathological symptoms, supporting findings from Thorsteinsdottir et al. (2018) and Rattay et al. (2017) regarding escalating anxiety and depression and custodial father’s high levels of anxiety and worry (Fritzell et al., 2019). Despite these difficulties, Tsfati et al. (2022) found that they experienced benefits such as reduced family conflict and stronger relationships with their children. Overall, single fathers face greater mental-health challenges than their partnered peers due to deep-rooted socio-economic disparities and limited social support (Collings et al., 2014; Chiu et al., 2017; Dhungel, 2023; Frisch-Volkert et al., 2020; Kong et al., 2017; Kong & Kim, 2015; Rattay et al., 2017; Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018; Tsfati et al., 2022). Single fathers face greater socio-economic and financial challenges than partnered parents, as illustrated by Collings et al. (2014), with home-ownership rates of 37.7–45.4% and 72.9–74.1%, respectively. Single fathers, experience pronounced social disadvantages, such as lower educational accomplishment, lower income, and higher unemployment rates (Chiu et al., 2017). These factors contribute to a troublingly higher incidence of poor self-rated well-being among single fathers when compared to partnered fathers (Chiu et al., 2017). The economic strain on single fathers is further compounded by lifestyle; namely unhealthy diet and sparse medical examinations, correlating with increased psychological distress (Dhungel, 2023).

Theme 2: Buffer against socio-cultural and economic factors

This theme highlights how social support cushion single fathers’ mental health against social, economic and unforeseen pandemic related stressors.

Community Armour: Protecting Single Fathers from Socio-Cultural Strains and Parental Stressors

Research shows that single fathers are disproportionately affected by negative socio-cultural factors, resulting in a significantly poorer quality of life compared to married fathers. This disparity is driven by lifestyle, precarious employment status, lower education, and profound lack of formal support (Chiu et al., 2017; Collings et al., 2014; Dhungel, 2023; Itzayeva, 2021; Kong & Kim, 2015; Kong et al., 2017; Tsfati et al., 2022). Additionally, being a foreign-born single father may heighten the risk-factors regarding their well-being (Fritzell et al., 2019). They experience higher rates of anxiety (Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018) depression, stress (Tsfati et al., 2022), back pain, smoking, lack of physical activity, neglected dental health (Rattay et al., 2017) and challenges due to perceived male gender norms as providers and caregivers (Itzayeva, 2021, Tsfati et al., 2022). Although, strong social networks are essential for helping single parents navigate the complexities of solo parenting and mitigate stressors, single fathers often find themselves with severely limited access to these essential resources (Collings et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2022;; Tsfati et al., 2022; Thorsteinsdottir et al., 2018). This lack of support not only heightens their vulnerability but also amplifies the stigma and discrimination they face (Jones et al., 2022).

Strength in Numbers: How Social Support Fortifies Single Fathers against Socio-economic Stressors

Social support is essential, but often insufficient for single parents, acting as a fragile buffer against the overwhelming socio-economic stressors that significantly undermine their physical and mental health (Kong et al., 2017). Research consistently demonstrates that single fathers often face substantial challenges, such as job-insecurity, low income, and inadequate social benefits, which significantly impact their quality of life and mental well-being (Chum et al., 2022; Collings et al., 2014). For instance, they are significantly more likely to experience stress, depressive symptoms and poorer mental health compared to their married counterparts, largely due to socio-economic disadvantages (Chiu et al., 2017; Dhungel, 2023; Kong & Kim, 2015). The absence of robust institutional support during crises, like the pandemic, further exacerbates their stress-levels (Tsfati et al., 2022). Single fathers, who are able to afford and obtain supportive networks can better manage parenting stress and combat feelings of stigma and isolation (Jones et al., 2022). Social benefits, although less utilised by single fathers compared to single mothers, provide a financial buffer that can alleviate some economic pressures, which can improve their well-being (Chum et al., 2022). Moreover, single fathers with higher-income jobs are likely have better access to flexible work arrangements and quality childcare, which can help balance work-caregiving responsibilities, thus reducing stress (Iztayeva, 2021; Jones et al., 2022). However, this reliance on individual circumstances reinforces systemic inequalities, since not all single fathers can access high-income jobs or supportive networks, highlighting the urgent need for structural changes to better support this vulnerable population.

Resilient Together: The Role of Social Support in Mitigating Mental Health Challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Various papers (Iztayeva, 2021; Prokupek, 2023; Tsfati et al., 2022) show the critical role of social support in buffering single fathers against mental health challenges, particularly during the pandemic. Before, they often relied on extended family for childcare, especially those in low-skill jobs who found formal childcare unaffordable (Iztayeva, 2021). However, the pandemic disrupted these informal support systems and exacerbated pre-existing stressors such as financial insecurity and social isolation, leading to increased psychological strain (Tsfati et al., 2022). Despite these challenges, the availability of support networks played a critical role in mitigating negative impacts. Support from mental health professionals and community networks helped alleviate feelings of loneliness, mitigated their vulnerability and improved their well-being (Tsfati et al., 2022). The single parents who already relied on social support prior to the lockdown, showed stable employment and only moderate changes in external childcare, potentially due to emergency provisions that reduced the need for additional support. This enabled single fathers to educate and spend quality time with their children, while experiencing similar levels of stress (Prokupek, 2023). This increased involvement with their children during lockdowns provided an unexpected source of emotional support and a sense of fulfilment, highlighting the dual role of single fathers as both caregivers and financial providers (Tsfati et al., 2022). Therefore, the presence of robust social support systems significantly cushioned the impact of pandemic-related stressors on single fathers’ mental health and well-being, yet it also highlights the precarious nature of their reliance on such support.

Chapter 4: Discussion and analysis of findings

Understanding the well-being of single fathers is essential in addressing the broader implications of family structure on mental health and socio-economic stability. This systematic review explored the nuanced differences in mental health outcomes and socio-economic challenges faced by single fathers in comparison to single mothers and partnered fathers. The contrasting experiences of these demographics reveal the critical influence of gender, household composition, and socio-economic support on mental health. While single fathers often struggle with less flexible workplace support and higher job-insecurity, they benefit from social networks and financial stability, which can offset some mental health stressors. Conversely, single mothers frequently struggle with higher rates of unemployment and depression, exacerbated by socio-economic deprivation and childcare responsibilities. Analysing these dynamics through the lens of status characteristic theory (Berger et al. 1977; Wagner and Berger 1997), which suggests that men typically receive a fatherhood bonus due to their higher social status (Berger et al. 1977), we can discern how societal biases shape these outcomes. Single fathers, despite facing job-insecurity, are often perceived more favourably in professional environments, receiving implicit socio-economic advantages. On the other hand, single mothers endure a motherhood penalty, as caregiving is devalued and deemed “women’s work” (Folbre, 2018), leading to systemic disadvantages such as increased unemployment and severe mental health challenges (Correll et al. 2007; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Additionally, the role of social support networks emerges as a key buffer against socio-economic stressors, particularly evident during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis emphasises the importance of fostering supportive environments and tailored interventions to enhance the well-being of single parents across different socio-economic landscapes.

The relationship between socio-economic deprivation and poorer mental health has been recognised in the general population (Oakley-Browne et al., 2006), with the emphasis on single parents (Crosier et al., 2007; Hope et al., 1999; Kim and Kim, 2012). This aligns with Avison and Davies (2005) and Collings et al. (2014) findings, that single mothers generally experience higher degrees of psychological distress compared to single fathers, largely due to socio-economic deprivation. Conversely, Wade et al. (2011) found that while single mothers had a higher risk of psychiatric disorders compared to single fathers, SES accounted for a larger proportion of this risk in fathers (37%) than in mothers (14%).

Within the general population, single fathers earn more than single mothers (Grall, 2020; Livingston, 2013), and the latter receive more social support (Grall, 2020; Hertz & Ferguson, 1997). Chum et al., (2022) found that job-insecurity impacted partnered parents and childless individual’s mental health less than lone fathers, while lone mothers were unaffected. They argued that limited resources play a critical role managing the possibility of job loss, which is linked to increased stress. This indicates that job-insecurity is linked to poorer mental health outcomes, as shown previously (Abbafati et al., 2020; Andrea et al., 2009; Burgard et al., 2009; Ferrie et al., 1998; Ferrie et al., 2002; Lassalle et al., 2015; Meltzer et al., 2010; Rugulies et al., 2006; Rugulies et al., 2010; Watson & Osberg, 2018).

Therefore, while single mothers are more exposed to psychological distress, the impact of socio-economic factors on mental health may be more pronounced in single fathers. For instance, increased financial instability and lack of social support, particularly in economic downturns, can exacerbate mental health issues, such as mood, substance disorders and suicidal ideation (Tobias et al., 2009) in single fathers (Artazcoz et al., 2004; Berk et al., 2006; European Commission, 2013). Studies by Klose and Jacobi (2004) and Wade et al. (2011) reported no significant gender differences in the impact of single parenthood on mental disorders, a finding supported by Chiu et al. (2017), who described no disparities in self-rated well-being between single mothers and fathers. However, several research articles argue that insufficient financial and social support among single parents contribute to higher depression rates (Cairney et al., 2003; Crosier et al., 2007; Targosz et al., 2003; Wade et al., 2011) worse self-rated health (Curtis & Phipps, 2004; Rousou et al., 2013) and key predictors of mental illness (Honkalampi et al., 2005). Likewise, studies highlight significant health inequalities that persist after accounting for socio-economic variables (Benzeval, 1998; Fritzell & Burstrom, 2006; Rahkonen et al., 2005; Siahpush, 2004; Wang, 2004) or social support (Rahkonen et al., 2005; Wang, 2004). For instance, substance use disorders are more prevalent among men (Kessler et al., 2005), they have four times less healthcare appointments per year than women (Hippisley-Cox & Vinogradova, 2009) due to various socio-economic and day-to-day challenges, which may postpone diagnoses of significant health problems (Banks & Baker, 2013).

In comparison to partnered parents, lone fathers lack the resources and opportunities to mitigate their economic vulnerabilities or develop their career further (Abu et al., 2018; Backhaus et al., 2002; Collins et al., 2001). Similarly, Crosier et al., (2007) and Kim et al. (2001) reported that single fathers have endured more adverse socio-economic conditions and well-being (Cooper et al, 2008; Kim & Kim, 2012; Meadows, 2009; Wade et al., 2011; Westin & Westerling, 2006) in comparison to other demographics. Furthermore, they present worse quality of life, depression, stress (Kong and Kim, 2015), and more prevalent mental disorders (Cooper et al., 2008).

Child custody, raising more than two children, (especially if they are under 10 years old) linked to depressive symptoms of single parents (Song, 2007; Yoon et al., 2009). DeKlyen et al. (2006) reported that fathers experience anxiety and depression at rates similar to or higher than their female counterparts, while studies (Collings et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Wade et al., 2011) show higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in single mothers, followed by single fathers and partnered fathers. In contrast, men are at a higher risk of suicide and often have under-diagnosed or hidden depression (Brownhill et al., 2005; Kilmartin, 2005), possibly due to traditional masculinity roles (Courtenay, 2000, Galdas, 2013; Veskrna, 2010) or because single fathers frequently under-report mental disorders or are unaware of them, therefore they are undiagnosed and remain untreated (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Angst et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2019; Emslie et al., 2006).

Regarding self-rated health, there are no substantial differences shown amongst single fathers and mothers, implying that partner status similarly affects health across genders (Rattay et al., 2017). Similarly, Wade et al. (2011) also reported comparable rates of mood, anxiety, substance-use disorders and psychological distress (Kamp Dush, 2013) among lone parents, which had a higher prevalence than their partnered counterparts. Consistent with a limited body of research on solo parents (Carone et al., 2020; Golombok et al., 2016; 2021), both groups exhibited high psychological adjustment levels, aligning with general population standards for health measures. These findings above imply that single father’s mental health is better than single mothers, but worse than their partnered counterpart (Benzeval, 1998).

Our findings show the importance of social support, especially for men in relation to their mental health. It is essential for adaptability (Dunn et al., 2001; Jackson and Kiehl, 2017; Manning et al., 2011; Martin-West, 2019; Prokupek, 2023; Wierda-Boer et al., 2008), mitigating stress, risk (Cairney et al., 2003, Oppermann et al., 2021), loneliness and isolation (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2016; Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010). It also linked to good physical and mental health (Fagan and Lee, 2011; Luo et al., 2012) and economic welfare (Henly et al., 2005). As one of the themes indicates, social support plays a key role as a buffer against challenges and stressors (Degarmo et al., 2008), for instance mitigating parenting stress (Parkes et al., 2015).

However, men usually lack a large support network, as they often rely on their intimate partner (Carr, 2004; Carr and Pudrovska, 2012; Crowley, 2018), which limits the quality and quantity of support single fathers have access to (Carr and Pudrovska 2012; Haxton and Harknett 2009). According to Jones et al., (2022), while this support is generally positive and supportive, single fathers experience various stressors, such as stigma and prejudice (Bock, 2000; Mayer, 1995, 2013). Regarding social support, especially from other single parents, fathers emphasised its significance in reducing their vulnerability and loneliness, and improving their well-being (Tsfati et al., 2022). This corroborates with previous research, linking informal support to parents’ health during the Covid-19 lockdown (Brown et al., 2020; Craig & Churchill, 2021). However, practitioners should be mindful that even without a global epidemic, most parents exposed to various stressors due to their parenting role (Griffith, 2020), which can lead to parental burnout (Griffith, 2020; Mikolajczak et al., 2019).

The evidence underscores the complex relationship between SES, gender, and mental health among single parents. While single mothers generally experience higher levels of psychological distress, socio-economic factors seem to have a more pronounced effect on the mental health of single fathers, exacerbating their vulnerability to depression, substance disorders, and suicidal ideation. The disparity in earnings and social support between single mothers and fathers highlights the critical role of financial stability and social networks in mitigating mental health risks. Despite the gender differences in mental health outcomes, single parents face significant challenges that stem from their unique SES and limited support systems. This calls for targeted interventions and policy measures that address the specific needs of single parents, enhance social support networks, and alleviate economic pressures. Ensuring access to mental health services and promoting gender-sensitive support mechanisms can help improve the overall well-being of single parents and their children, ultimately fostering a more equitable and supportive societal framework.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

This chapter synthesises this systematic review’s key points on the mental health and socio-economic challenges faced by single fathers worldwide, compared to single mothers and partnered fathers. Research indicates that single mothers experience poorer mental health, higher unemployment, and greater socio-economic deprivation than single fathers, who generally enjoy higher financial stability. However, single fathers face significant mental health challenges due to job-insecurity and limited workplace support, with higher rates of psychological distress and poorer health behaviours than partnered fathers. SES heavily influences these outcomes, with single mothers benefiting more from informal social support networks, while single fathers rely on financial stability and social networks to mitigate stress.

The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these vulnerabilities, with single fathers facing heightened financial insecurity and social isolation. However, those with robust social support networks, both formal and informal, were better able to manage stress and maintain well-being. The presence of supportive communities and institutional backing emerged as crucial for buffering against socio-economic and pandemic-related stressors. Despite these supports, single fathers often contend with societal stigma and limited access to comprehensive social networks, exacerbating their mental health struggles.

The analysis highlights the importance of tailored interventions and supportive environments for single parents. Gender-sensitive policies and access to mental health services are essential to address the unique challenges faced by single fathers and mothers. Ensuring financial stability and enhancing social support systems can significantly improve their overall well-being and that of their children. This calls for targeted policy measures that recognize the distinct needs of single parents, fostering a more equitable and supportive societal framework. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for social work practice in Scotland. Practitioners must consider the varied socio-economic and mental health challenges single parents face and provide holistic support that addresses both immediate and long-term needs. By promoting resilience through strong support networks and flexible employment policies, social workers can help mitigate the adverse effects of socio-economic stressors on single parents. This comprehensive approach can ultimately enhance the well-being of single fathers and mothers, contributing to healthier family dynamics and more stable communities. Future research should focus on identifying specific areas where intervention can be most effective, ensuring that support mechanisms are responsive to the evolving needs of single parents in different socio-economic contexts.

Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice: A Pathway to Healing

In the field of social work, professionals often encounter individuals who have experienced significant trauma. These traumatic events—whether they involve violence, abuse, neglect, disaster, or other forms of overwhelming stress—can have profound and long-lasting effects on a person’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. To address these complexities, the approach known as trauma-informed social work practice has gained recognition as an essential framework for guiding interventions. This method prioritizes understanding the effects of trauma and its impact on the lives of clients, ensuring that care is delivered with sensitivity, empathy, and respect for the person’s experience.

What Is Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice?

Trauma-informed practice involves recognizing the widespread prevalence of trauma and its potential impact on individuals’ behaviors, emotions, and functioning. The key to this approach lies in viewing trauma not as an isolated event but as a core element influencing many aspects of a person’s life. By integrating this understanding into every aspect of care, social workers help create a safer, more supportive environment that encourages healing.

Trauma-informed social work is grounded in several key principles:

Safety: Creating an environment—whether physical, emotional, or psychological—that feels safe for the client is essential. This allows clients to express themselves without fear of judgment or harm.
Trustworthiness and Transparency: Social workers should be clear, honest, and consistent in their interactions, building a foundation of trust that is critical for traumatized individuals who may have difficulty forming trusting relationships.
Collaboration and Mutuality: In trauma-informed practice, the client is considered an equal partner in the healing process. Social workers collaborate with clients, acknowledging their strengths and promoting empowerment rather than fostering dependence.
Empowerment, Voice, and Choice: Recognizing that trauma often leaves individuals feeling powerless, trauma-informed social work emphasizes restoring a sense of agency. Clients are encouraged to actively participate in decision-making processes regarding their care.
Cultural, Historical, and Gender Considerations: Social workers must be aware of and sensitive to how cultural, historical, and gender-related issues intersect with trauma. For marginalized groups, historical trauma (e.g., racism, colonization) can compound the effects of individual trauma.

The Impact of Trauma on Individuals

Trauma manifests in various ways, often leading to mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders, and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. It can impair emotional regulation, skew perceptions of reality, and trigger harmful coping mechanisms.

For children, trauma may disrupt their development, leading to behavioral problems, cognitive delays, or attachment issues. For adults, trauma can influence everything from job performance to parenting abilities and personal relationships. Recognizing the unique ways trauma impacts individuals helps social workers tailor their approach to meet specific needs.

Principles in Practice: What Does Trauma-Informed Social Work Look Like?

Incorporating a trauma-informed approach into social work practice requires rethinking traditional models of service delivery. Whether a social worker is in a school, hospital, child welfare agency, or mental health setting, understanding trauma’s influence shapes how they interact with clients.

Assessment and Engagement

When engaging with a client, trauma-informed social workers prioritize building rapport and trust before diving into the specifics of the trauma itself. Rather than focusing on “What is wrong with you?” a trauma-informed perspective asks, “What has happened to you?” This subtle shift encourages clients to share their stories without feeling labeled or stigmatized.

Assessments are done with care, ensuring clients understand the process and feel comfortable. These assessments explore not just the trauma but also the client’s strengths, support systems, and coping mechanisms. Knowing that trauma can manifest differently, practitioners are attuned to signs that might indicate unresolved trauma, even if the client does not explicitly mention it.

Intervention Strategies

Interventions in trauma-informed social work practice are designed to avoid re-traumatization. Practitioners choose techniques that prioritize safety, control, and the client’s own pace in their healing journey.

For example, a social worker might use grounding exercises, mindfulness techniques, or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) that emphasizes reframing traumatic thoughts in non-triggering ways. For children, play therapy or art therapy may offer non-verbal outlets for processing trauma.

Family and community involvement are also crucial. Trauma is not experienced in isolation, and involving the client’s support systems—when appropriate—can be key to healing.

Flexibility and Adaptation

Trauma-informed practice is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Different individuals respond to trauma in diverse ways, so flexibility is necessary. Social workers adapt their interventions based on cultural considerations, developmental stages, and the unique circumstances of each client. This sensitivity ensures that interventions are relevant and effective across different populations.

Challenges in Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice

Despite the benefits, trauma-informed social work practice presents challenges. Social workers themselves may experience vicarious trauma or burnout, given the emotional toll of working with traumatized clients. Agencies and institutions may struggle to adopt a fully trauma-informed culture due to resource limitations or insufficient training.

Moreover, clients may be resistant to discussing their trauma, particularly if their experiences involve deep shame, guilt, or fear. Social workers need to be patient, understanding that building trust can take time. In these cases, gradual, consistent, and trauma-sensitive engagement becomes critical.

Moving Toward Trauma-Informed Systems of Care

Trauma-informed practice transcends individual social workers; it requires systemic change. Agencies and institutions must embed trauma awareness into policies, procedures, and staff training. This can include creating trauma-informed workplaces where the well-being of both staff and clients is prioritized.

Advocating for trauma-informed care across sectors—such as criminal justice, healthcare, and education—is essential for broadening its impact. When these systems work together, individuals who have experienced trauma are more likely to receive consistent, compassionate care throughout their recovery journey.

A Healing-Centered Future

Trauma-informed social work practice is not just a methodology; it is a compassionate approach that respects the complexity of human experiences. By recognizing the pervasiveness of trauma and its deep effects, social workers can play a critical role in helping individuals heal and reclaim their lives. In a world where trauma is often hidden, this practice brings it into the light—where understanding, empathy, and healing can begin.

Through ongoing education, advocacy, and collaboration, the field of social work can continue to lead the way in ensuring that all services are trauma-informed, fostering hope and resilience for those who need it most.

Further reading:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10615-014-0481-6

https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/insights/trauma-informed-approaches-critical-overview-what-they-offer-social-work-and-social-care

From Pixels to People: Connecting Technology and Social Work Practice

Over the past ten years, there has been a substantial surge in digital technologies, marked by the increased dependence on the Internet and electronic devices and social media for communication, information, entertainment and everyday chores (Pascoe, 2023; Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Naturally, this technological trend has infiltrated the field of social work (SW), often without measured, appropriate and careful decision-making or ‘critical reflection’ and transformed the interaction between stakeholders (Mishna et al., 2012, 2014; Pascoe, 2023). This shift in the digital world profoundly impacts SW, including its practitioners, institutions, and the people who are using services. These changes extend beyond digitisation to include digitalisation, restructuring processes, and social realms through digital communication and platforms (Brennen & Kreiss, 2016). While digitalisation offers numerous opportunities across various SW fields and practices, it also introduces novel challenges and complexities.

Digitalisation appears increasingly elusive. While initially promising for education, dialogue, and empowerment, its potential is overshadowed by growing concerns over disinformation, control, and dependence. Yet, within digital technologies lie both opportunities and risks. For instance, search engines offer educational benefits but also propagate disinformation and threaten privacy. This dual nature of digitalisation is evident in SW discourse. Despite fears that digital processes may undermine core SW values like the significance of relationships (Parton, 2008; Oak, 2016), practitioners and managers actively seeking digital technologies to enhance SW delivery and practice (Perron et al., 2010).

In some cases, technology can improve service users’ safety by providing comfort, privacy and security, such as allowing them to receive services remotely to avoid potential risks in public settings or unsafe environments (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). Cook & Zschomler (2020) found that ‘virtual home visits’ lack the sensory and atmospheric qualities of in-person visits, raising concerns about confidentiality, safety, building relationships with new service users, and issues of digital exclusion. However, it also notes some benefits, such as social workers being more accessible to families through shorter but more frequent video calls, reducing the need for travel. Additionally, some younger individuals prefer this less intrusive form of communication (Pink et al., 2022). Social media platforms and online forums are valuable resources for healthcare recipients as they offer both practical and emotional support (Elwell et al., 2011) and improving mental well-being (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014). However, there are also risks associated with technology use, such as the potential for hacking or technical difficulties that may delay intervention during critical situations, for instance, if the service user is suicidal and breaks communication. Therefore, social workers and services must carefully assess the specific risks relevant to their practice context, considering factors like the service users’ physical and mental state, the circumstances, and the methods of therapy or intervention employed (Barsky, 2017).

In our digital age, the integration of technology is essential into SW practice, offering numerous benefits such as extending service delivery options and reaching populations that are challenging to access and connect. Tools like digital networks and online websites and applications, video and telephone calls facilitate engagement with people who are more challenging to attain or less mobile individuals and underserviced regions (Brownlee et al., 2010; Bryant et al., 2018; Harris and Birnbaum, 2015; Richardson et al., 2009; Rummell and Joyce, 2010; Simpson et al., 2005). Online services, video conferences, or phone calls offer service users a sense of safety and control over their environment, potentially fostering openness and a composed mind-set due to the anonymity and perceived protection they provide. (Callahan and Inckle, 2012; Rummell and Joyce, 2010; Simpson et al., 2005). Studies on videoconference telemental health services have shown consistent highly positive user satisfaction, with comparable effectiveness to in-person support (Richardson et al., 2009). Asynchronous communication methods, such as email, together with in-person sessions, can foster self-expression and reflection among service users, providing a platform for better session preparation and boost therapeutic relationships by enhancing and developing positive attitudes towards the service (Pascoe, 2023; Mattison, 2012). However, when communicating with service users online, social workers face various challenges.

For instance, confidentiality and cyber security in which they can take practical steps to address these issues, such as using encryption software and secure Internet sites, employing password protection for devices and accounts, and using cyber-security application (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015; Mattison, 2012; Reamer, 2013, 2017; Rummell and Joyce, 2010). Social workers bear the ethical responsibility to alleviate such risks and discuss limitations with service users, including protecting their privacy and confidentiality online (Mattison, 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013). Decisions regarding electronic communication or technology assisted interactions should be collaboratively discussed and agreed upon with individuals who use services. Social workers and agencies may contemplate implementing policies regarding the safety of service users, such as determining the nature of discussions to be initiated during the early phases of engagement. These discussions are aimed at assessing safety needs and ensuring the safe and appropriate utilization of technology within the working relationship (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). It is essential to establish protocols for backup systems to be employed in cases of emergencies or when the standard technology is unavailable for contacting people who using services. This involves identifying alternative communication methods or contingency plans for ensuring accessibility of service users (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014). Social workers should develop guidance strategies for service users to address safety concerns and promote the secure and safe use of technology. This may involve educating clients on privacy settings, emphasizing password security, and providing resources for enhancing online safety awareness (Harris & Birnbaum, 2014).

Although technology plays an increasingly fundamental role in society, there is an inequality in the level of skill and knowledge among people, resulting in unequal use of technology among service users (Bryant et al., 2018; Garrett, 2005; Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). Digital skills are often considered vital; however, access to technology and the development of these skills are influenced by various factors such as culture, socioeconomic status, language, gender, age, and educational background (Bryant et al., 2018). The concept of ‘digital natives’ suggesting that, all young people inherently possess digital competencies due to growing up in a technologically advanced era (Wilson and Grant, 2017). However, this perspective does not depict the reality accurately. Merely having access to digital tools and technology does not ensure sufficient knowledge for safe and effective use, and many young individuals still require additional assistance to enhance their technical and digital skills (Pascoe, 2023; Wilson and Grant, 2017). Consequently, the incorporation of any technological developments in service delivery should be a collaborative effort between social workers and the people using these services, ensuring that reasonable options are offered (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). Assuming competencies, access to essential devices, and appropriate knowledge could result in the exclusion and marginalization of individuals seeking support, rather than empowering them. Therefore, it is essential to approach technology integration with sensitivity to the diverse needs and circumstances of service users. From the standpoint of human rights-based SW, the integration of digital technologies into public services requires participatory processes involving authorities, professionals, and people who using services (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010; Baker et al., 2018; Pela´ez et al., 2018). Shaping such procedures and developments is complex, as it must accommodate varying technological capabilities and participation levels among stakeholders, as well as their diverse expectations and needs. For instance, ethical software must balance demands for evidence, accountability, data sharing, case management, transparency, service user access, collaboration of creating data with users, and data security (West and Heath, 2011; Gillingham, 2014; Lagsten and Andersson, 2018; Mackrill and Ebsen, 2018; Steiner, 2020).

The proliferation of social media (SM) and the Internet has blurred the lines between private and public life, making personal information readily accessible to service users who have received services in the past, are currently using them, or will use them in the future (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017; Groshong and Phillips, 2015; Mishna et al., 2012; Reamer, 2017). Social workers need to critically evaluate how their virtual identity and online behaviour could impact their interactions with people who use services and take measures to safeguard their privacy. However, barring social workers from engaging in online social networking may be unrealistic, impractical and potentially unlawful (Barsky, 2017; Maia & Rezende, 2016). Social workers and their agencies need to establish clear guidelines to navigate ethical considerations. The SSSC Code of Practice for Social Service Workers mandates that individuals must avoid any actions, both on and off the job that could undermine their fitness to work in social services (SSSC, 2024). The British Association of Social Work (2012) promotes the ‘positive use of SM’, urging social workers to incorporate the values and principles outlined in the Code of Ethics, while according to their Australian counterpart (AASW, 2013) social workers need to be aware of the ethical issues and relevant guidelines. Before interacting on social networking sites, social workers should carefully assess the potential impact of their content on their professional relationships with service users, considering issues such as ‘dual relationships’ and conflicts of interest (Online Therapy Institute, 2014). They should ensure that their posts align with SW values and ethics, including principles of dignity, integrity, and social justice (NASW, 2016). Social workers should refrain from accepting friend or contact requests from current or former service users across any social networking platform (Kolmes, 2010). Additionally, it is inappropriate for social workers to carry out online searches for information about people who using services without their explicit written consent, except in cases of urgent necessity where obtaining permission is not feasible (NASW, 2016). This example highlights the moral and ethical dilemmas social workers face when interacting with service users.

SM, in particular, facilitates text- and image-based communication with service users and basic, low-risk online counselling, mitigating concerns about technology’s impact on social relationships (Dodsworth et al., 2013; Steiner, 2020). However, the use of SM by social workers raises concerns about data usage and algorithms by international media corporations, posing novel challenges regarding professional boundaries and service users’ privacy (Chan and Ngai, 2019). A common barrier to adopting SM in social services is the concern among both professionals and organisations about the potential challenges, ethical issues, and risks associated with its use. Boddy and Dominelli (2017) examine the challenges posed by what they describe as the “new ethical space” emerging with the increased use of SM. They emphasise the importance of social workers maintaining their professional judgment in situations involving boundary crossings and advocate for more organisational support and guidance to help social workers navigate SM responsibly.

Strategies like altering names or omitting identifying details when discussing cases online, even in private groups, or anonymising scenarios are recommended by researchers as ways for social workers to exercise their professional judgment to mitigate risks related to safeguarding (Greer, 2016). A key takeaway from the research and existing guidance is to always consult colleagues if there is any uncertainty at any point (Jackson, 2016). Informed consent is imperative before engaging in SW services, regardless of whether they are delivered online, in-person, or with the assistance of technology. However, obtaining informed consent poses unique challenges in online services. Confirming the identity and competencies of the individual who use the service can be challenging, and obtaining parental consent for minors is a consideration (Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013, 2017). Additionally, service users may seek services while under the influence of substances, rendering them temporarily unable to give informed consent (Reamer, 2017). A comprehensive informed consent process for online services should encompass discussions on the benefits and limitations of technology-mediated services, confidentiality, potential technology-related issues, emergency protocols, expected response times, and guidelines for communication through e-mail and text messages outside of arranged meetings (Mishna et al., 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2013, 2017; Rummell and Joyce, 2010). Reamer (2013) raises questions about how service providers can address safety concerns when individuals “disappear” online and cease or avoid engagement. Additionally, Harris and Birnbaum (2015) criticise anonymity, citing it as an obstacle to producing appropriate referrals and ensuring that individuals receive high-quality care possible. Furthermore, when communication is facilitated through technology, the decrease in verbal and non-verbal cues can affect the accuracy of assessments and interventions (Harris and Birnbaum, 2015). These risks to service user safety require deliberate consideration when incorporating technology into practice, prompting reflection on whether the professional duty of care shifts when services are not provided in-person (Pascoe, 2023). Regarding SW standards, they remain out dated as they can’t keep up with the swift expansion of SM, creating a gap that needs to be addressed (Voshel & Wesala, 2015).

Within the realm of the Internet, text, or phone-based social services, it is paramount to consider the professional duty of care. For instance, when establishing personal online connections with service users, professionals must contemplate their duty of care when noticing changes in online behaviour beyond the formal supporting relationship (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017). An ethical responsibility exists to report individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, such as those disclosing child abuse, suicidal ideation, or homicidal intent (Pascoe, 2023). However, managing this obligation becomes challenging when anonymity is maintained or when personal information are not consented for service access (Callahan and Inckle, 2012; Rummell and Joyce, 2010).

ICT presents novel challenges to maintaining professional boundariesin SW practice. Platforms such as email, SM sites, and text messaging can create an informal and personal perception, potentially blurring the lines between professional and personal relationships (Boddy and Dominelli, 2017; Mattison, 2012; Pascoe, 2023; Reamer, 2017). Dealing with boundaries and setting expectations should be addressed during the informed consent process. Conversely, if maintaining appropriate boundaries becomes difficult with the use of technology, social workers must consider whether it is more responsible to avoid using certain technological platforms altogether to preserve the integrity of the professional relationship (Groshong and Phillips, 2015). This decision should prioritize the ethical principles of maintaining professionalism, and confidentiality and ensuring the best interests of the individual who using the services. Although practitioners have recognized ethical concerns associated with online platforms, they often lack clear guidance on how to handle these issues (Mishna et al., 2012). Additionally, a significant number of SW students are not fully aware of the ethical dilemmas and the necessity of upholding professional conduct and boundaries in digital environments (Mukherjee & Clark, 2012). As the adaptation of ICT continues to grow amongst all age groups, online interactions are becoming an unavoidable aspect of SW practice. Practitioners have a duty to improve their expertise by expanding their knowledge, developing skills in text-based communication and computer literacy, and staying updated on research, literature, and ethical values and standards (Betteridge, 2012; Bradley & Hendricks, 2009; Mattison, 2012; Mishna et al., 2012; Reamer, 2013).

Research by Byrnes et al. (2019) highlights how service users may use the Internet and SM to gather personal information about their social workers, or in some cases ‘verbally abuse and troll’ them (BBC, 2021) highlighting the importance of maintaining professional boundaries online. Conversely, social workers performing online searches (Community Care, 2018) or surveillance of service users through SM raise ethical concerns regarding service users’ right to privacy, accuracy and the quality of information obtained (Coner et al., 2020). There is a debate even among legal experts regarding the acceptable use of social media (Reed, 2019). Furthermore, connecting personal SM accounts with professional ones can further blur boundaries, and refusing invitation to a social network may be perceived as a direct disregard by service users (Reamer, 2017). Despite potential demands from the people who use services, management, or stakeholders to engage online, it is essential to address these concerns to reduce risks to both service users and practitioners.

The integration of digital technologies into SW practice brings a variety of opportunities and challenges, underscoring the importance of ethical considerations and exercising professional judgment. Throughout this discussion, various moral and ethical dilemmas have surfaced, emphasizing the intricate nature of navigating the digital sphere while staying true to the core principles of SW. A central dilemma revolves around ensuring the safety and welfare of service users within the digital domain. While technology can broaden accessibility and enhance service delivery (Turner, 2016), it also introduces unique risks such as privacy breaches, cyber threats, and complexities in obtaining informed consent. Social workers are tasked with grappling with these dilemmas, striking a balance between the advantages of technology and the imperative to shield service users from harm. Professional judgment and decision-making hold significant influence in addressing these dilemmas. Social workers should evaluate the risks and benefits associated with integrating technology into their practice, taking into account factors like the vulnerabilities of service users, their cultural contexts, and their familiarity with technology. Open communication, transparency, collaboration with service users, and adherence to ethical standards are fundamental in navigating these complex situations.

The implications for SW practice require clear-cut policies and procedures to govern the ethical utilization of technology. This includes protocols for informed consent, data management strategies, and methods for upholding professional boundaries and values. However, current procedures, policies and guidelines are difficult to implement due to their circumspect nature, which requires revision and adjustment (Harris, 2021; Trancă, 2021). Furthermore, continuous training and support are vital to prepare social workers with the essential experience, knowledge and expertise to navigate the digital landscape responsibly. Potential solutions to these dilemmas involve adopting a comprehensive approach that prioritizes the well-being and agency of service users. Social workers need reliable, ‘flexible and creative digital tools’ and opportunities to improve their skills for online engagement (Owen, 2020; Dodsworth et al., 2013; Mishna et al., 2021), which should be included in their training (Bryne et al., 2019). This may involve investing in technology literacy programs, advocating for equitable access to digital resources, and advocating ethical guidelines for technology use in SW education and practice. By embracing these solutions and engaging in reflective practice, social workers can effectively harness the potential of digital technologies while upholding the ethical standards of their profession.

Relational Social Work

Relational social work has gained prominence as an approach that emphasizes the centrality of relationships in the therapeutic and support process. Rooted in the belief that meaningful, authentic relationships are essential to effective social work, this approach seeks to foster deep connections between social workers and their clients. While relational social work is celebrated for its person-centered focus and its potential to empower individuals, a critical analysis reveals several significant challenges and limitations that must be considered.

At the heart of relational social work is the idea that the relationship between the social worker and the service user is a primary vehicle for change. This approach draws from various theoretical frameworks, including psychodynamic theories, humanistic psychology, and attachment theory, which all underscore the importance of relationships in human development and well-being. Proponents argue that by building a trusting, empathetic relationship, social workers can create a safe space for clients to explore their emotions, confront challenges, and ultimately achieve personal growth (Howe, 1998; Ruch, 2005).

However, one of the main criticisms of relational social work is its lack of structure and specificity. Unlike more traditional approaches that offer clear, evidence-based methodologies, relational social work can be vague in its application. This lack of clear guidelines can lead to inconsistencies in practice, as the effectiveness of the approach becomes heavily dependent on the individual social worker’s skills, personality, and interpretation of the relational model (Trevithick, 2003). The subjective nature of relationships also makes it difficult to objectively measure outcomes, raising questions about the accountability and effectiveness of interventions based on this approach (Healy, 2014).

Moreover, relational social work can create ethical and professional dilemmas. The emphasis on deep, authentic relationships can blur the boundaries between the personal and the professional, leading to potential complications. For example, social workers who become too emotionally involved with their service user may struggle to maintain the professional detachment necessary to make sound, objective decisions. This over-involvement can also lead to burnout, particularly for social workers who deal with clients experiencing significant trauma or crisis (Ferguson, 2011). The intense emotional engagement required by the relational approach can deplete a social worker’s emotional reserves, potentially compromising their ability to provide effective support over the long term (Ruch, 2005).

Another significant concern is the power dynamics inherent in the social worker-service user relationship. Although relational social work aims to minimize power imbalances by fostering a sense of mutuality, the reality is that social workers still hold a position of authority. This power differential can subtly influence the relationship and decision-making processes, even in a relationship-focused approach (Trevithick, 2003). Additionally, there is a risk that service users’ may become overly dependent on the social worker, which could undermine their ability to develop independence and self-sufficiency—a key goal in most social work interventions (Winter, 2009).

Cultural and contextual limitations further complicate the application of relational social work. The approach is often rooted in Western, individualistic perspectives, which may not resonate with or be effective in more collectivist cultures. In cultures that prioritize community, family, or collective well-being over individual autonomy, the focus on the dyadic relationship between social worker and client may seem misplaced or even counterproductive (Healy, 2014). Furthermore, relational social work may not adequately account for cultural differences in communication styles, relationship norms, and social expectations, leading to misunderstandings or ineffective interventions in cross-cultural settings (Ferguson, 2011).

Another critique of relational social work is its potential to neglect broader systemic and structural issues. By focusing primarily on the interpersonal relationship between social worker and client, the approach may overlook the social, economic, and political factors that significantly impact the client’s life. This narrow focus can lead to an insufficient understanding of the systemic barriers and injustices that many clients face, such as poverty, discrimination, and social inequality (Munro, 2011). Consequently, relational social work may be less effective in advocating for systemic change and addressing the root causes of service users’ difficulties (Healy, 2014).

Practical challenges also arise when attempting to implement relational social work in real-world settings. Developing deep, meaningful relationships requires time—a resource that is often in short supply in social work settings where professionals are managing large caseloads and operating under tight deadlines. The time-intensive nature of relational social work can make it difficult to implement effectively, particularly in high-demand environments (Winter, 2009). Additionally, the personalized nature of this approach presents challenges in scalability. In large organizations or systems where social workers need to serve many clients efficiently, the relational approach may not be practical or sustainable. Moreover, the cost implications of providing the necessary training, supervision, and support for social workers practicing relational social work can strain already limited resources, raising questions about the approach’s viability in underfunded social services systems (Healy, 2014).

In conclusion, relational social work offers a valuable perspective within the field, highlighting the importance of human connections and the therapeutic potential of genuine relationships. However, it is essential to approach this model with a critical eye, recognizing both its strengths and its limitations. While relational social work can lead to transformative experiences for clients, it also poses significant challenges related to ethics, practicality, and cultural applicability. To effectively integrate relational social work into practice, it must be accompanied by clear guidelines, robust training, and a deep awareness of the broader social and cultural context in which it operates. Social workers must balance the relational approach with an understanding of systemic issues and a commitment to maintaining professional boundaries. Only through such a balanced and critical application can the potential of relational social work be fully realized in diverse and complex social contexts.

References

Ferguson, H. (2011). Child protection practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Howe, D. (1998). Relationship-based thinking and practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 12(1), 45-56.

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report – A child-centered system. Department for Education, UK.

Ruch, G. (2005). Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: Holistic approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child & Family Social Work, 10(2), 111-123.

Trevithick, P. (2003). Effective relationship-based practice: A theoretical exploration. Journal of Social Work Practice, 17(2), 163-176.

Winter, K. (2009). Relationships matter: The problems and prospects for social workers’ relationships with young children in care. Child & Family Social Work, 14(4), 450-460.

Nurturing Wellbeing: A Comprehensive Guide to Supporting the Workforce

The well-being of the workforce is a critical aspect of maintaining a healthy and productive work environment, such as the importance of setting boundaries, providing psychological support, and adopting proactive measures to enhance the overall well-being of employees. In this article, we will explore key elements of a Stepped-Care model, the challenges posed by operational and organizational threats, and practical strategies to safeguard mental health.

Stepped-Care Model: The Stepped-Care model, adapted from NHS Education for Scotland, highlights the need for a tiered approach in supporting the workforce. Starting with proactive prevention measures, it progresses to reactive intervention and, if necessary, formal psychological intervention. This model ensures that employees receive appropriate support based on their needs, fostering a holistic approach to well-being.

Identifying Stressful Situations: Understanding potential stressors is crucial for proactive intervention. Operational threats, organizational challenges, and the demands of everyday life can contribute to stress. Operational threats such as incidents involving colleagues or children, excessive workload, and poor work environment are examples. Recognizing these challenges allows for targeted support and intervention.

Protective Armour and Teams: Building resilience is key to maintaining well-being. Protective factors, such as professional identity, social support, and a sense of competence, act as armor against stressors. Additionally, fostering protective teams within the workplace, characterized by mutual respect and open communication, enhances the collective ability to navigate challenges.

Recognizing Warning Signs: To effectively support the workforce, it is essential to identify warning signs of stress. Physical effects like heightened awareness, increased heart rate, and muscle tension can indicate alarm mode. Emotional signs such as anxiety, irritability, and avoidance behaviors should also be recognized. Regular self-assessment and open communication contribute to early intervention.

Psychological First Aid Kit: Creating a personalized Psychological First Aid Kit is crucial for self-care. Understanding anxiety and depression, two common mental health challenges, is the first step. The kit should include activities that help recharge and relax, such as exercise, relaxation techniques, and engaging in pleasurable activities. Recognizing that depression is an illness and seeking professional help are vital components of the kit.

Dealing with Potentially Traumatic Experiences: Employees may encounter potentially traumatic experiences, both directly and indirectly. Whether it’s a direct threat, witnessing accidents, or experiencing burnout, recognizing the signs and seeking appropriate support is essential. Post-trauma strategies include creating a sense of safety, expressing feelings, regaining normal routines, and accessing evidence-based treatments.

Implementing Psychological First Aid: The seven key components of Psychological First Aid (PFA) serve as a guide for supporting individuals through difficult times. General tips, such as spending time with supportive individuals, maintaining routines, and engaging in activities that bring joy, contribute to overall well-being. Recognizing the impact of trauma and allowing time for recovery are essential components of PFA.

Conclusion: Prioritizing the well-being of the workforce is a shared responsibility. Employers, colleagues, and individuals themselves play crucial roles in creating a supportive environment. By implementing proactive measures, recognizing warning signs, and providing appropriate support, organizations can foster a culture of well-being, resilience, and productivity.