Category: support

How to Stop Being a People-Pleaser

Being a people-pleaser often begins as a desire to help, to be seen as kind, dependable, and cooperative. Yet this desire can slowly transform into a trap—one that ties self-worth to the approval of others. In the workplace, the people-pleaser is the person who cannot say no, who always volunteers for extra work, and who measures their value by how useful they are to the group. Despite their efforts, they are rarely appreciated, often becoming invisible or taken for granted.

The roots of this behavior usually reach back to childhood. From an early age, children learn that being “good” or “bad” depends on the emotional reactions of the adults around them. When being helpful and compliant earns affection and attention, that pattern becomes deeply ingrained. As adults, these early lessons evolve into a belief that one’s worth is defined by how much others approve or need them. The result is an endless cycle of seeking validation through service, at the cost of personal boundaries and emotional balance.

Breaking free from this pattern requires confronting the anxiety that drives it. For many, the thought of not pleasing others provokes deep discomfort—if they are not the helpful one, will they still matter? Learning to put oneself first begins by questioning motives: “Why am I doing this?” and “Who is this really for?” There is nothing wrong with being kind or cooperative, but when those actions come from fear of rejection rather than genuine choice, they stop being healthy.

Learning to say no is a vital skill. Practicing refusal, even in imagined situations, helps reveal the emotions that surface—guilt, shame, or fear of disapproval. Instead of burying those feelings, sitting with them allows understanding and growth. Each time a person resists the automatic “yes,” they reclaim a small part of their independence. Over time, the discomfort fades and is replaced by a sense of control and self-respect.

Another important realization is that self-worth is not dependent on how others see us. It is natural for relationships to involve mixed emotions—others will not always feel positively toward us, just as we cannot always be pleased with them. Accepting this ambivalence is part of emotional maturity. Likewise, understanding that disappointment is inevitable in human relationships allows us to connect more authentically. To never disappoint or be disappointed is to live without real connection or honesty.

The fantasy of the perfect workplace—where everyone is kind, cheerful, and endlessly supportive—does not exist. Real workplaces, like real families, are filled with differing moods, frustrations, and imperfections. Constantly striving to maintain harmony through self-sacrifice drains energy and erodes confidence. True teamwork does not come from pleasing everyone but from being honest, setting limits, and respecting both personal and collective boundaries.

Ultimately, the path away from people-pleasing is not about becoming unkind or unhelpful. It is about reclaiming the right to make choices that honor one’s own needs as much as others’. Saying no does not mean being selfish; it means recognizing that kindness has no value when it is forced or fearful. By letting go of the compulsion to please, a person creates space for authenticity, confidence, and genuine respect—both from themselves and from those around them.

Source

PACE: A Trauma-Informed Approach to Supporting Children and Young People

Introduction to PACE

PACE is a therapeutic approach developed by Dr. Dan Hughes more than two decades ago, designed to help adults build safe, meaningful, and trusting relationships with children and young people who have experienced trauma. Rooted in attachment-focused family therapy, PACE encourages adults to think, feel, communicate, and behave in ways that help children feel secure. It is not a rigid, step-by-step procedure, but rather a flexible mindset that integrates four essential qualities: Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity, and Empathy.

Children who have lived through traumatic experiences often struggle with trust, connection, and emotional regulation. Their interactions with adults may be shaped by fear, defensiveness, or shame, making it difficult to form stable attachments. PACE aims to create an environment where these children feel safe enough to explore emotions, express themselves, and build resilience. By adopting PACE, adults can slow down their own responses, regulate their emotions, and remain engaged even during challenging moments. This emotional regulation is essential: when adults stay calm and supportive, children are more likely to mirror that stability, gradually learning to manage their own intense emotions.

Ultimately, PACE offers both children and adults a pathway toward understanding, connection, and healing. Instead of focusing primarily on correcting behaviours, it emphasises relationship-building and emotional safety. In this way, it equips caregivers, teachers, and social workers with strategies to guide children through difficult emotions and behaviours, without compromising their sense of self-worth.

Playfulness

Playfulness is the first element of PACE and serves as an important bridge to closeness without fear. Many children affected by trauma may withdraw from joyful experiences, having lost hope in the possibility of fun or shared enjoyment. For some, affection feels threatening, and hugs or overt displays of love may be rejected. A playful stance provides a gentler alternative, allowing warmth and closeness without overwhelming the child.

Playfulness reassures children that conflicts or separations in a relationship are temporary and not damaging to the connection. In tense situations, a light tone of voice, animated facial expressions, or humour can defuse defensiveness and create opportunities for reconnection. This is not about minimising serious misbehaviour but about keeping minor incidents in perspective. For instance, when a child resists transitioning between activities, introducing a playful game or role-play can reduce resistance and maintain cooperation.

Practical strategies for playfulness include storytelling tones rather than lecturing, softening facial expressions, lowering body posture to avoid intimidating presence, or transforming routine tasks into small games. These subtle adjustments communicate warmth and safety while maintaining the adult’s authority.

Importantly, playfulness is not about distracting from difficulties or denying a child’s struggles. Instead, it signals to the child that relationships can contain joy, even in the presence of challenges. For children who expect rejection or punishment, playfulness can be a powerful reassurance that their presence is valued. Over time, playful interactions rebuild a child’s belief in positive connection and create space for emotional growth.

Acceptance

Acceptance in PACE communicates to a child that their inner world—thoughts, feelings, and intentions—is safe from judgment. For many children, especially those shaped by trauma, the fear of being criticised or rejected for their feelings can prevent honest expression. Acceptance means separating the child’s identity and intentions from their behaviours. Adults can challenge unsafe behaviours while still affirming the child’s worth and humanity.

For example, when a child declares, “You hate me,” a typical adult instinct may be to deny or correct the statement. However, PACE encourages an accepting response such as, “I’m sorry it feels that way to you. That must be really painful.” This communicates understanding without dismissal, showing the child that their perspective matters, even if it is painful or inaccurate.

Through acceptance, children learn that conflict does not equal rejection. They discover that behaviours can be addressed and limited without threatening their relationship or self-worth. Adults may say, “I’m disappointed by what you did, but I know you were upset. It doesn’t change how much I care about you.” Such statements reinforce the difference between disapproving of behaviour and rejecting the child as a person.

This practice strengthens children’s confidence in relationships, making them more willing to share vulnerabilities. Acceptance fosters resilience by teaching children that they can be loved despite their mistakes, and that their feelings—whether anger, fear, or sadness—are valid and worthy of attention.

Examples or how to express acceptance:

“I can see how you feel this is unfair. You wanted to play longer”
“You probably think that I don’t care about what you want”
“You were letting me know that you were really scared when you ran
away from me”
“I can hear you saying that you hate me and you’re feeling really cross.
I’ll still be here for you after you calm down”.
“I’m disappointed by what you did, but I know you were really upset. It
doesn’t change how much I care about you”.

Curiosity

Curiosity is the element of PACE that invites children to explore and reflect on the reasons behind their behaviours. Many children, especially those living with trauma, may recognise that their actions are inappropriate but lack the words or awareness to explain why. Instead of asking “Why did you do that?” in a demanding or accusatory way, curiosity involves gentle wondering, aimed at understanding rather than interrogating.

For instance, rather than scolding a child for breaking a toy, an adult might say, “I’m wondering if you broke the toy because you were feeling angry.” Such open-ended reflections give children the opportunity to recognise and articulate their emotions without fear of judgment. The tone is vital: curiosity must be communicated lightly, with compassion rather than frustration.

Curiosity helps children distinguish between their behaviours and their identities. When adults show genuine interest in the underlying feelings—such as sadness, fear, or confusion—children begin to understand that their behaviours are expressions of unmet needs rather than evidence of being “bad.” This reduces shame and defensiveness, replacing them with healthier emotions such as guilt, which can motivate positive change.

Examples of curiosity include phrases like, “I wonder if…,” “Could it be…?,” or “Tell me if I’m getting this wrong.” These sentence starters signal openness and a desire to understand, not to correct. Over time, curiosity builds children’s capacity for self-reflection and strengthens trust in their caregivers.

Examples of curiosity:

“I’m wondering if you broke the toy because you were feeling angry.”
“I’m thinking you’re a little nervous about going back to school today,
and that’s why you don’t want to get ready this morning”.
“I’ve noticed that you’ve been using a really loud voice, and if you’re
trying to tell me that you’re angry with me.”
“I’m a little confused. Usually you love going for a walk, but today you
don’t want to go. I’m wondering what’s different about today”.
“When she couldn’t play with you today, I’m wondering if you thought
that meant she doesn’t like you.”

Empathy

Empathy is the heart of PACE, ensuring children feel that they do not face struggles alone. Empathy involves actively recognising and validating a child’s distress, demonstrating compassion and solidarity. For traumatised children, empathy communicates that their emotions are not too overwhelming or burdensome for the adult to handle.

Showing empathy requires both words and actions. Adults might say, “That must have been so painful,” or “You are really upset right now, and that’s so hard.” Such statements acknowledge the child’s feelings without minimising them. Non-verbal cues, such as calm body language, gentle tone, and attentive presence, reinforce the message.

Importantly, empathy is not about pity or indulgence. It is about recognising that behaviours often stem from deeper struggles and showing willingness to share in those struggles. By doing so, adults demonstrate resilience and commitment, reassuring the child that the relationship remains intact even during difficult moments.

For example, when a child lashes out after feeling excluded, empathy might sound like: “It hurt so much when she didn’t ask you to play. That must have felt confusing.” This helps the child name their emotions and feel understood. Over time, empathy helps children build trust in relationships, knowing that their vulnerabilities will be met with care rather than criticism.

Examples of empathy:
“You are SO upset about this right now. That must be really hard!”
“It hurt so much when she didn’t ask you to play. You were probably
thinking ‘Why did she do that?’ It was a real shock for you.”
“You wanted to have another turn so badly. You were so excited about it
and it’s so unfair that we ran out of time”.
“It seems to you like he hates you. That must be really hard. I know you
like him a lot, so this is pretty confusing”.
“I know it’s hard for you to hear what I’m saying.”
“Me saying ‘No’ has made you angry with me. I get why you don’t want
to talk to me right now”

PACE in Practice

While PACE is simple in principle, applying it consistently in real-life situations can be challenging. Adults often feel the urge to correct or discipline, especially when confronted with disrespect or aggression. Yet practice shows that PACE-oriented responses defuse conflict and build stronger relationships.

Take, for instance, Emily, who becomes angry when denied a turn on the swings, yelling “I hate you!” A typical response might involve correcting her rudeness. A PACE-ful approach, however, acknowledges her anger with playfulness and empathy: “Wow, you’re really angry! It feels rubbish when you can’t do what you want.” Such responses validate her feelings while keeping the relationship intact.

Similarly, when Tom swears at his dad after school, a typical response might be punishment. But with PACE, his dad could say, “I can see you’re really angry. I’m wondering if something happened at school.” This curiosity and empathy create space for Tom to share his feelings rather than escalating conflict.

These examples illustrate how PACE transforms discipline into connection. Instead of viewing behaviours as personal attacks or defiance, adults see them as expressions of inner struggles. By responding with playfulness, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy, adults guide children toward emotional regulation, resilience, and trust.

Example:
Emily asks Mum if she can play on the swings. Mum says she can’t as they need to be home soon. Emily gets very upset and angry and starts yelling “that’s so unfair, I hate you. You’re horrible!!!!”
Typical response:
“Emily, don’t be so rude!”
“Life’s unfair!”
“I am not horrible and you don’t hate me.”
PACE-ful response:
“OH WOW [in an animated voice], you’re feeling REALLY ANGRY [with a concerned expression]….you think I’m being mean by not letting you go on the swings when you really want to go…I’m saying no and you really want to go and that feels rubbish…it’s so frustrating when
someone says we can’t do something that we want to do!”
“I’m really sorry you feel that I hate you Emily that must feel awful – no wonder you’re so angry and upset if you think I hate you! I’d want to scream and shout too…”
“It’s rubbish that we can’t do the things we enjoy right now…I’m missing the swings too…maybe we could all have a think about what other games we could on our way home…”

The 4 R’s of Responding with PACE

To support practical application, PACE can be aligned with the “4 R’s of Responding”: Regulate, Relate, Reason, and Repair. These steps provide a framework for managing challenging behaviours while maintaining emotional safety.

Regulate involves calming both the child and the adult. Adults must notice their own emotional state, ensuring they remain calm, compassionate, and engaged. They also help the child regulate by addressing immediate safety concerns and using soothing, light-hearted approaches.

Relate comes next, where adults seek to understand the meaning behind the child’s behaviour. Using curiosity and empathy, they explore the child’s motives, fears, or frustrations, showing genuine interest in their experience.

Reason follows, when the adult and child can discuss the behaviour rationally. Logical consequences may be introduced here, but always in a way that separates the behaviour from the child’s worth.

Repair is the final step, ensuring the relationship remains strong. This might include offering a hug, doing something enjoyable together, or using words and actions to affirm ongoing love and connection.

For example, if a child breaks a jar in a supermarket, a PACE-ful process would involve regulating emotions first, then relating by wondering what feelings triggered the act. Once calm, the child can reason about consequences, such as writing a letter of apology. Finally, repairing the relationship reassures the child that the incident does not damage their bond with the adult.

This structured yet compassionate approach ensures that discipline is balanced with emotional safety, turning difficult incidents into opportunities for growth.

Conclusion

PACE offers a trauma-informed, attachment-based framework for supporting children and young people. By integrating Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity, and Empathy into everyday interactions, adults can build stronger, safer, and more trusting relationships. The approach recognises that behind every challenging behaviour is an unmet need, an unspoken emotion, or a legacy of trauma. Instead of focusing narrowly on behaviour management, PACE invites adults to engage with the whole child, affirming their worth and supporting their healing journey.

Through consistent practice, PACE not only helps children regulate emotions but also strengthens the resilience of caregivers, teachers, and social workers. The “4 R’s of Responding” provide a practical framework for applying these principles, ensuring that discipline and connection go hand in hand. Ultimately, PACE reminds us that children are not problems to be fixed but individuals to be understood, supported, and valued.

Source

Developing and Integrating Professional Resilience: Influencing Factors for Social Workers as Students and New Practitioners

The increasing complexity of social work practice presents significant challenges to practitioners, particularly those entering the profession as newly qualified social workers (NQSWs). These challenges affect workforce retention and overall well-being, necessitating a deeper understanding of professional resilience. A recent study conducted through longitudinal and qualitative research explored the factors that contribute to the development, maintenance, and integration of professional resilience among social workers. The study followed participants from their time as students in a Master of Social Work (Qualifying) (MSW(Q)) program through to their early experiences as professionals. The findings highlight the evolving nature of resilience, the critical role of relationships, and the disparities between academic preparation and workplace realities.

The social work profession demands engagement with marginalized and disadvantaged individuals, advocating for social justice and overcoming systemic barriers. However, research has shown that the challenging conditions of social work practice often lead to burnout, vicarious trauma, and compassion fatigue. Studies indicate that resilience plays a crucial role in mitigating these adverse effects, allowing social workers to adapt to their professional environments. While earlier research has largely focused on individual attributes such as emotional intelligence and personal coping mechanisms, recent inquiries emphasize the interplay between environmental factors and individual capacities in shaping resilience. This study adopts a strengths-based approach to understanding resilience as a dynamic and socially constructed process.

Research Aim and Methodology

The primary aim of this research was to explore social workers’ perceptions of the factors influencing their professional resilience during their transition from students to practitioners. Using a social constructionist and critical theoretical framework, the study employed a longitudinal qualitative design. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted at two stages: the final year of the MSW(Q) program and approximately six months into professional practice. The research drew participants from eight Australian universities, employing narrative inquiry and thematic analysis to identify key themes related to resilience.

Ethical Considerations and Participant Recruitment

Ethical approval was obtained, and participation was voluntary, with informed consent secured at both interview stages. A total of 23 participants were recruited, with 19 continuing into the second stage. The study ensured anonymity by allowing participants to choose pseudonyms. Participants varied in age, cultural background, and educational experiences, providing a broad perspective on the factors influencing professional resilience.

Key Findings

Personal Adversity and Identity Formation

Many participants reflected on personal adversities, such as mental distress, domestic violence, and financial hardship, as formative experiences that contributed to their resilience. They described how these experiences enhanced their empathy, self-awareness, and ability to support others facing similar challenges. Many participants acknowledged that resilience developed over time through life experiences, reinforcing the notion that professional resilience is inherently linked to personal resilience.

Participants also noted the importance of self-awareness in maintaining resilience. As they transitioned into professional roles, they continued to encounter personal challenges, including difficulties securing employment, health diagnoses, and personal relationships. In these instances, they drew upon strategies they had previously developed, such as seeking support from peers, engaging in self-care, and accessing therapy. The participants’ narratives reinforced the idea that resilience is an ongoing process shaped by an individual’s ability to reflect on and learn from adversity.

The Role of Education in Professional Resilience

Social work education played a crucial role in facilitating self-discovery and strengthening professional resilience. Many participants described their academic journey as transformative, citing experiences such as critical reflection, engagement with peers, and interactions with faculty as instrumental in developing self-insight. Managing academic pressures, accessing university support services, and balancing multiple responsibilities also contributed to resilience.

Participants noted that field placements provided valuable opportunities to observe and model professional behavior, learn effective coping strategies, and engage in reflective practices. However, while they viewed education as a foundational component of their resilience, they anticipated and later experienced significant differences in workplace realities.

Supervision as a Protective Resource

Supervision emerged as a critical factor in developing professional identity and resilience. During field placements, participants generally found supervision to be a safe and supportive space for learning, self-reflection, and professional growth. However, as they transitioned into the workforce, many encountered challenges in accessing quality supervision. Some reported irregular or inadequate supervision due to workplace constraints, while others sought external supervision to compensate for workplace deficiencies.

The quality of supervision significantly influenced participants’ confidence and resilience. Those who received consistent and meaningful supervision described it as a protective resource, helping them navigate professional challenges. Conversely, those who lacked adequate supervision reported feeling unsupported, questioning their professional competence, and contemplating career changes.

The Impact of Workplace Support on Resilience

Participants highlighted the role of teams and management in shaping their resilience. During field placements, they observed workplace dynamics and learned from experienced professionals. Many noted that positive team environments fostered resilience by providing opportunities for collaboration, emotional support, and shared learning.

As practitioners, participants reported mixed experiences with workplace support. Those in supportive teams described a sense of belonging and access to valuable professional guidance. However, others encountered unsupportive environments where high workloads, lack of recognition, and limited managerial support negatively affected their resilience. Some participants responded by seeking support from external networks or considering job changes.

Discussion and Implications

The findings underscore that professional resilience is a multifaceted and evolving construct shaped by individual experiences, educational environments, and workplace conditions. The study reaffirms that resilience is not solely an individual trait but is socially constructed, emphasizing the importance of external support systems. These insights have significant implications for social work education, workplace policies, and professional development programs.

Universities and professional bodies play a vital role in preparing social work students for the realities of practice. Curriculum design should integrate opportunities for self-reflection, critical analysis, and discussions on navigating workplace challenges. Moreover, educators must equip students with the skills to advocate for their needs, recognize supportive workplace environments, and develop strategies for maintaining resilience beyond their academic journey.

Employing organizations must acknowledge the importance of supervision, team support, and managerial engagement in sustaining social workers’ resilience. Implementing structured induction programs, ensuring regular supervision, and fostering collaborative team cultures can enhance practitioners’ well-being and reduce attrition. In the UK, initiatives such as the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) offer a structured transition period for NQSWs, which could serve as a model for similar programs in other regions.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, it is limited by its sample size and geographic focus on Australia. Future research could explore cross-cultural perspectives on professional resilience and examine the long-term impact of workplace interventions. Additionally, further studies should investigate how different educational institutions and employment settings shape social workers’ resilience trajectories.

Conclusion

Professional resilience in social work is a dynamic and contextually influenced quality that develops over time. Social work students and practitioners benefit from supportive educational environments, meaningful supervision, and workplace structures that foster resilience. Universities, professional organizations, and employers share the responsibility of ensuring that social workers are equipped with the resources necessary to sustain their well-being and effectiveness in practice. By acknowledging the systemic and relational nature of resilience, the profession can move towards creating sustainable conditions that enable social workers to thrive.

Source

The Foundations and Evolution of Anti-Oppressive Practice Theory

Anti-Oppressive Practice (AOP) theory has emerged as a pivotal framework within the realm of social work, advocating for equity, social justice, and transformative change. Rooted in the historical critique of social work’s complicity in systemic oppression, AOP seeks to dismantle entrenched power dynamics that perpetuate inequality and injustice. This article delves into the intricate layers of AOP theory, tracing its origins, core themes, and its dynamic role in shaping contemporary social work practices.

Historical Context and Theoretical Foundations

The genesis of social work in the mid-nineteenth century, particularly in Victorian UK, was intertwined with the industrial capitalist milieu marked by rampant poverty and stark social inequities. Early social work efforts, often spearheaded by charitable organizations, operated under paternalistic paradigms that distinguished between the ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ poor. These interventions, while providing rudimentary relief, failed to address the systemic roots of poverty, instead reinforcing moralistic judgments and social stratification.

AOP theory critiques this legacy, highlighting how social work has historically functioned as an apparatus of social control, upholding the interests of dominant groups while marginalizing the oppressed. However, within this historical framework lies a radical kernel—an undercurrent of resistance and advocacy for social justice that AOP seeks to amplify and institutionalize.

Core Themes of Anti-Oppressive Practice

AOP theory is anchored in several core themes that collectively underscore its commitment to dismantling oppression and fostering inclusive, equitable social relations:

  1. Intersectionality: Drawing from Black feminist thought, AOP employs intersectionality to analyze how overlapping systems of oppression—such as race, class, gender, and (dis)ability—interact to shape individuals’ lived experiences. Intersectionality highlights that oppression is not experienced in a vacuum; instead, it manifests through the convergence of multiple, intersecting social identities. For example, a Black woman may face not only racial discrimination but also gender-based biases, with these experiences compounding to create unique challenges distinct from those faced by individuals experiencing only one form of marginalization. Recognizing these complexities enables social workers to tailor their interventions more effectively, addressing the nuanced realities of those they serve.
  2. Critical Social Analysis: AOP emphasizes the importance of critically examining social structures, policies, and practices that perpetuate inequality. Critical social analysis involves unpacking how historical, political, and economic forces shape contemporary power relations and contribute to systemic oppression. By deconstructing dominant narratives, social workers can expose the structural barriers that inhibit social mobility and reinforce privilege. This analytical lens encourages practitioners to move beyond surface-level symptoms and engage with the root causes of social injustices, fostering systemic change.
  3. Advocacy and Activism: Central to AOP is the role of social workers as advocates and activists. Advocacy is not viewed as an optional component but as an ethical imperative integral to social work practice. This involves not only supporting individuals in navigating oppressive systems but also challenging and transforming those systems through policy reform, community organizing, and public education. Social workers are encouraged to align themselves with social justice movements, amplifying marginalized voices and contributing to collective struggles for equity and human rights. This dual focus on micro and macro advocacy underscores the holistic nature of AOP.
  4. Critical Allyship and Attunement: AOP promotes the concept of critical allyship, where social workers actively support marginalized communities while critically reflecting on their own positionalities and privileges. Critical allyship requires a commitment to continuous self-examination, recognizing how one’s identity and social location can influence professional practice. It involves listening to and learning from the experiences of those who are directly impacted by oppression, ensuring that allyship is informed, respectful, and responsive. Critical attunement complements this by fostering an acute sensitivity to the power dynamics within client-practitioner relationships, promoting practices that are collaborative rather than hierarchical.
  5. Cultural Safety and Humility: Moving beyond the static notion of cultural competence, AOP advocates for cultural safety and humility. Cultural safety focuses on creating environments where individuals feel respected, valued, and free from the risk of cultural harm. This approach acknowledges that cultural competence alone is insufficient, as it often reduces culture to a checklist of characteristics. Cultural humility, on the other hand, emphasizes an ongoing process of self-reflection and lifelong learning, where social workers recognize the limits of their knowledge and actively seek to understand diverse cultural perspectives. Together, these principles foster more equitable and meaningful engagements with diverse populations.
  6. Participatory Practices: AOP encourages participatory approaches that empower service users by involving them in decision-making processes. This participatory ethos challenges traditional hierarchical models of social work, promoting collaborative and co-constructive practices. By valuing the expertise and lived experiences of clients, participatory practices shift the dynamic from “helping” to “partnering,” fostering mutual respect and shared power. This approach not only enhances the effectiveness of interventions but also reinforces the agency and autonomy of individuals and communities, aligning with the broader goals of social justice and empowerment.
  7. Emancipatory Praxis: At its core, AOP is an emancipatory project aimed at achieving social justice and equity. Emancipatory praxis involves a reflective cycle of action and critical reflection, where practitioners continuously evaluate and adapt their approaches to challenge oppressive systems. This praxis is informed by a commitment to social transformation, seeking not only to alleviate immediate hardships but also to dismantle the structural conditions that produce and sustain inequality. By integrating theory with practice, emancipatory praxis empowers both social workers and the communities they serve to envision and enact alternatives to oppressive social arrangements.

Conclusion

Anti-Oppressive Practice theory offers a robust framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of social injustice. By grounding social work in critical, reflexive, and activist practices, AOP empowers practitioners to not only respond to the symptoms of oppression but to challenge and transform the systems that produce and sustain it. As social work continues to evolve, AOP remains an indispensable guide for those committed to the pursuit of equal opportunity, dignity, and social justice for all.

Source

Decision-Making in Children and Families Social Work

Decision-making is a fundamental aspect of social work, particularly in the realm of children and family services, where practitioners are required to assess needs, risks, and service provisions within often complex and emotionally charged contexts. The process is influenced by a myriad of factors, including emotions, time, and the professional voice within the hierarchical and multi-disciplinary settings of social work. This article provides an exhaustive examination of decision-making within this field, drawing from an exploratory qualitative study that seeks to highlight the nuanced and multi-layered nature of social work practice. By focusing on the perspectives of both student and qualified practitioners, this study sheds light on the challenges, experiences, and insights that shape professional judgments and actions in child and family social work.

Decision-making in social work is a multi-faceted process that operates within legal, policy, and ethical frameworks. It involves negotiation, professional discretion, and the application of knowledge and evidence in real-world scenarios. The study at the heart of this analysis sought to explore the factors that inform decision-making among student and qualified practitioners, identifying key themes that influence how decisions are made and how professional voices are developed over time. A grounded theory approach was employed to analyze data gathered through focus groups consisting of practitioners at different stages of their careers, allowing for a comparative analysis of experiences across the professional spectrum.

One of the most significant findings of the study was the profound impact of emotions on decision-making. Social work, by its nature, is deeply relational and requires practitioners to engage with families and children who are often in distressing circumstances. Qualified practitioners demonstrated an ability to recognize and articulate their emotional responses, acknowledging the power and influence of their feelings on their decisions. They noted that emotions could lead them to advocate more passionately for certain clients or, conversely, comply more readily with managerial decisions based on negative perceptions. Student practitioners, on the other hand, expressed emotions more in relation to their own experiences, describing stress, anxiety, and the fear of making the wrong decision. This highlights the emotional labor involved in social work and underscores the need for reflective practice and supervision to help practitioners navigate these challenges effectively.

Time emerged as another crucial factor in the decision-making process. The passing of time was recognized as central to professional development, as student practitioners often felt overwhelmed by their lack of experience and sought reassurance that time would eventually bring greater confidence and expertise. For qualified practitioners, time played a role in both immediate decision-making—such as assessing risk and child protection concerns—and in long-term planning for children and families. Many practitioners expressed frustration with the bureaucratic nature of social work, which often limited their ability to follow cases through to their long-term outcomes, thus restricting opportunities for learning from past decisions. The significance of time in professional learning and in forming relationships with service users was also highlighted, emphasizing the tension between the need for timely interventions and the requirement for thorough, well-considered decision-making.

The concept of professional voice was another prominent theme that emerged from the study. Both student and qualified practitioners identified the challenges associated with having their voices heard within multi-disciplinary teams and hierarchical structures. Qualified practitioners noted that their voices were often overshadowed by those of legal and medical professionals, reflecting broader issues of power and status within inter-professional practice. Student practitioners, meanwhile, reported a sense of uncertainty regarding their own professional authority, often feeling that their perspectives were not taken seriously. This lack of confidence in their own voice was compounded by concerns about making mistakes and being held accountable for incorrect decisions. The study findings suggest that developing a strong professional voice is an essential aspect of professional growth and that support structures such as supervision and mentoring can play a crucial role in fostering this development.

The study contributes to existing literature on social work decision-making by reaffirming the complex interplay between rational decision-making models and the intuitive, relational, and emotionally driven aspects of practice. The findings align with previous research that emphasizes the role of organizational factors, managerial constraints, and bureaucratic pressures in shaping decision-making. They also highlight the need for greater recognition of the affective dimensions of practice, which are often overlooked in favor of procedural and evidence-based approaches. This underscores the importance of integrating critical reflection and emotional awareness into both social work education and professional practice.

A key implication of these findings is the need for structured opportunities for reflection and critical thinking within the profession. Supervision should be more than a procedural oversight; it should provide a safe space for practitioners to explore their emotional responses, develop confidence in their professional voice, and refine their decision-making skills. Additionally, social work education should incorporate models that acknowledge the transition from novice to expert, helping students to navigate the uncertainties of early practice and equipping them with the tools to manage the complexities of real-world social work.

The development of professional identity and confidence in decision-making is a process that unfolds over time. Student practitioners need to be supported in recognizing their capacity for informed decision-making, while qualified practitioners should be empowered to assert their expertise within inter-professional settings. Addressing the barriers to professional voice and ensuring that practitioners have the time and space to engage in meaningful reflection will enhance the quality of decision-making and ultimately improve outcomes for children and families.

In conclusion, decision-making in children and families social work is influenced by a multitude of factors, including emotions, time, and the ability to assert a professional voice. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the lived experiences of practitioners at different career stages, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that shape their decision-making processes. By fostering reflective practice, providing supportive supervision, and acknowledging the complexities of social work, the profession can better equip its practitioners to make informed, ethical, and effective decisions. As social work continues to evolve, it is essential that these factors are given due consideration in both education and practice to ensure that practitioners are able to navigate the intricacies of their roles with confidence and competence.

Source

The Care Act and Whole-Family Approaches

The Care Act 2014 represents a significant milestone in social care legislation in the UK, placing a legal obligation on local authorities to consider the broader context of an individual’s care needs. The Act introduces a whole-family approach, ensuring that care and support assessments take into account the impact on family members, particularly carers, including young carers and parent carers. This comprehensive guide explores the implementation of the Care Act in alignment with whole-family approaches, emphasizing the importance of integrating services for children and adults.

Introduction to Whole-Family Approaches in the Care Act

The Care Act 2014 aims to create a cohesive framework that allows local authorities to assess and support families holistically. It aligns with the Children and Families Act 2014 to promote a seamless approach to care and support. The integration of services helps prevent fragmented support and ensures that families receive the necessary assistance to maintain their well-being and quality of life.

A whole-family approach acknowledges that an individual’s needs do not exist in isolation. Instead, it considers the network of relationships surrounding the person, ensuring that the well-being of all family members, including children and carers, is safeguarded. This approach is embedded in the Act’s guiding principles, particularly the promotion of well-being and the prevention of needs arising for care and support. By taking a proactive stance, local authorities can reduce crises, improve support planning, and empower families to participate actively in the care process.

The Four Key Steps of Whole-Family Approaches

To implement whole-family approaches effectively, local authorities are encouraged to follow four key steps:

  1. Think Family – Recognizing that individuals exist within family networks and that their care needs impact those around them. Local authorities must integrate services and establish protocols for seamless coordination across departments. This includes multi-agency working, shared training initiatives, and joint assessment frameworks to ensure a truly holistic approach.
  2. Get the Whole Picture – Ensuring that assessments are comprehensive and consider the broader family context. This includes identifying young carers, parent carers, and extended family members who may be affected by an individual’s care needs. Local authorities should ensure that assessments capture all interdependent relationships, financial considerations, and the emotional burden carried by family members.
  3. Make a Plan That Works for Everyone – Developing care and support plans that are inclusive and consider the well-being of the entire family. This includes joint planning where appropriate and ensuring that carers have the support they need to sustain their roles. Local authorities should explore how technology, respite services, and financial aid can be integrated into care planning to enhance sustainability.
  4. Check It’s Working for the Whole Family – Regularly reviewing the impact of care and support plans to ensure they continue to meet the needs of all family members effectively. Reviews should include feedback loops, outcome-based assessments, and ongoing adjustments to ensure that evolving family dynamics and needs are addressed.

Key Practice Considerations for Local Authorities

In a local authority that effectively implements whole-family approaches:

  • Leadership and commitment are demonstrated through coordinated services that span across social care, health, education, and other relevant agencies.
  • Workforce development programs ensure that professionals are trained to recognize and respond to whole-family needs.
  • Assessment processes incorporate family-related questions to understand the full extent of a person’s support network.
  • Carers, including young carers, are identified early, and their needs are assessed alongside the individual requiring care.
  • Families and carers play an active role in designing, delivering, and evaluating services to ensure their voices are heard and their needs are met.
  • Effective inter-agency protocols enable a seamless transition for individuals moving between different levels of care.

Assessment and Whole-Family Considerations

Under the Care Act, assessments must be holistic and proportionate, considering both the individual’s needs and the impact on their family. Carers are now recognized in law, and their right to an assessment is independent of whether the individual they care for receives support. Key considerations include:

  • Identifying carers and their willingness and ability to continue in their roles.
  • Assessing young carers to determine if they are undertaking inappropriate levels of care.
  • Recognizing mutual caring arrangements, such as elderly spouses supporting one another or adult children providing care for parents.
  • Addressing risks to carers’ well-being and ensuring that they receive adequate support.
  • Ensuring that assessment processes capture not just immediate care needs but also future considerations, such as anticipated deterioration, changing financial circumstances, and housing adaptations.

The assessment process must also consider whether a child in the family is a young carer and, if so, whether they should receive additional support under the Children Act 1989. Coordination between adult and children’s services is crucial to ensure that young carers do not take on excessive responsibilities that could impact their education, development, and well-being.

Care Planning and Whole-Family Approaches

Support planning must integrate the needs of all family members. This can be achieved by:

  • Developing joint care plans where appropriate, ensuring that support is coordinated and not duplicated.
  • Considering joint personal budgets for carers and individuals receiving care, maximizing efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Identifying support networks and helping individuals and carers develop circles of support to enhance resilience and reduce social isolation.
  • Ensuring that carers have access to breaks, respite care, and other forms of assistance to prevent burnout.
  • Utilizing assistive technology and digital tools to enhance accessibility to care resources.

Reviewing Care Plans and Their Impact on Families

Regular reviews of care and support plans are essential to ensure they remain effective. Reviews should:

  • Assess the impact of the plan on all family members, including unintended consequences.
  • Identify any changes in circumstances that require adjustments to the plan.
  • Ensure that young carers are not taking on inappropriate levels of responsibility.
  • Evaluate whether carers are receiving sufficient support to maintain their own well-being.
  • Incorporate family feedback to refine support mechanisms and improve service delivery.

Legal Responsibilities and Rights of Carers

The Care Act places a duty on local authorities to identify and support carers proactively. Carers’ eligibility for support is based on their needs and the impact of their caring role on their well-being. Key provisions include:

  • The right to an assessment for all carers, regardless of the amount or type of care they provide.
  • A duty to meet eligible needs, with local authorities providing appropriate support services.
  • Consideration of carers’ employment, education, and personal well-being when determining support options.
  • Recognition of young carers’ rights, ensuring they are supported appropriately and not left with excessive caring responsibilities.

Conclusion: Embedding Whole-Family Approaches in Social Care

The Care Act 2014 represents a shift towards a more integrated and holistic approach to social care. By implementing whole-family approaches, local authorities can ensure that individuals receive the support they need while also protecting the well-being of carers and family members. This approach promotes resilience, prevents crises, and fosters stronger, more supportive family networks.

Successful implementation requires commitment at all levels, from policymakers to frontline practitioners. By embedding whole-family approaches into assessment, planning, and review processes, social care services can create more sustainable and effective support systems that truly meet the needs of individuals and their families.

Source

The Paradox of Charity: How “Helping” Can Sustain the Stigmatization of Homeless People

The stigmatization of homeless individuals is deeply ingrained in society and, paradoxically, often perpetuated by the very institutions and initiatives designed to help them. This article, drawing from a comprehensive ethnographic study conducted in Łódź, Poland, by Małgorzata Kostrzyńska and Brian Littlechild, delves into the interplay between well-meaning charitable efforts and the reinforcement of negative stereotypes about homelessness. By exploring systemic failures and societal perceptions, it highlights how aid can unintentionally exacerbate the struggles of homeless individuals, transforming the act of “help” into a mechanism of further marginalization.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Stigma

This research is framed through Erving Goffman’s stigma theory, which posits that stigma arises when individuals deviate from societal norms and are subsequently “tainted” in the eyes of others. Homelessness, according to this theory, is not merely a material condition but a social construct shaped by labeling, stereotyping, and societal expectations. Stigmatization of homeless individuals often manifests through assumptions of personal failure, laziness, or moral inadequacy. These stigmas are further reinforced by charitable practices that objectify the homeless, positioning them as passive recipients of aid rather than active agents of their own lives.

In line with Goffman’s concept of the “discredited” and “discreditable,” homeless individuals are often categorized based on whether their homelessness is immediately visible or concealed. This binary contributes to the social mechanisms of exclusion, as the act of seeking help often forces individuals to publicly disclose their homelessness, thereby subjecting themselves to judgment and further stigmatization.

Systemic and Structural Stigmatization in Aid Practices

One of the core findings of the study is how systemic structures of aid are often designed based on stereotypical perceptions of homelessness, which, instead of empowering recipients, exacerbate their stigma. The research identifies multiple dimensions of such stigmatizing practices:

  1. Aid Designed on the Basis of Stigma
    Many interventions rely on the assumption that homeless individuals are inherently deceitful or manipulative, leading to practices such as the use of informers within shelters. Managers and social workers encourage residents to report on one another to determine eligibility for aid or compliance with shelter rules. This strategy fosters mistrust among residents and perpetuates a degrading environment, where individuals feel surveilled and dehumanized.
  2. Provision of Inferior Goods and Services
    Homeless individuals often receive aid that is visibly of lower quality, reinforcing their marginalized status. Participants in the study described receiving expired food, damaged clothing, or supplies that were unsuitable for their needs. The process of distributing such items often involves humiliating rituals, such as queuing for discarded bread or being treated as “second-class citizens.” These experiences strip individuals of dignity and deepen their feelings of exclusion.
  3. Segregation and Hierarchies Among Aid Recipients
    Aid programs often create internal hierarchies among homeless populations. For example, some individuals are given priority based on arbitrary qualifications such as possession of government-issued coupons, while others are relegated to secondary queues. This segregation exacerbates tensions within the homeless community and underscores the dehumanizing nature of these interventions.
  4. Aid Enhancing Visibility of Stigma
    Certain forms of aid make the stigma of homelessness more visible to society, thus intensifying its impact. For instance, social welfare cards with conspicuous labels or restrictions on where benefits can be used signal the recipient’s dependence on aid. Such measures not only limit individual autonomy but also serve as a public marker of their marginalized status, leading to social alienation.

Apparent Aid: A False Sense of Support

The study also critiques “apparent aid,” which refers to well-intentioned but ineffective measures that fail to address the root causes of homelessness. These efforts often prioritize appearances over substance, creating an illusion of support without producing meaningful outcomes. Examples include:

  • Misguided Donations
    Participants reported receiving items such as women’s clothing or children’s shoes, which were entirely unsuitable for their needs. The refusal to accept such donations often led to accusations of ingratitude, further alienating recipients.
  • Provisional and Seasonal Support
    Much of the aid provided to homeless individuals is temporary, addressing immediate survival needs but neglecting long-term solutions. For instance, shelters may relax restrictions during winter months to prevent fatalities but revert to rigid policies thereafter, leaving many without support. This episodic approach undermines efforts to achieve lasting stability.
  • “Spoiling” Aid
    Over-reliance on charitable handouts, such as free meals and clothing, fosters a culture of dependency and diminishes the motivation to pursue independence. This phenomenon, referred to as “spoiling” by study participants, underscores the need for aid to be both empowering and sustainable.

The Intersection of Neoliberalism and Stigma

The research situates these practices within the broader ideological framework of neoliberalism, which emphasizes individual responsibility and self-reliance. This ideology often shifts the blame for homelessness onto individuals, portraying them as “undeserving” of support unless they conform to societal norms of productivity and behavior. Such narratives not only reinforce stigma but also shape the policies and practices of aid organizations, perpetuating a cycle of marginalization.

Neoliberal discourse also influences the attitudes of aid providers, who may adopt a paternalistic approach that undermines the autonomy of homeless individuals. By framing support as a form of charity rather than a societal responsibility, these practices obscure the structural factors contributing to homelessness, such as inadequate housing policies, unemployment, and systemic inequality.

Toward a Transformative Approach to Aid

To address the shortcomings of current practices, the study advocates for a paradigm shift in how aid is conceptualized and delivered. This involves:

  • Partnership-Based Support
    Aid must move away from asymmetrical relationships where the helper wields authority over the recipient. Instead, support should be grounded in partnership, where homeless individuals are treated as experts of their own lives and included in the decision-making process.
  • Empowering Interventions
    Aid should focus on enhancing the self-determination of recipients, providing them with the tools and opportunities to achieve independence. This includes offering housing-first initiatives, vocational training, and access to mental health services.
  • Challenging Societal Perceptions
    Efforts to combat homelessness must also address the societal attitudes that perpetuate stigma. Public awareness campaigns, education programs, and inclusive policies can help dismantle stereotypes and promote empathy.
  • Systemic Reforms
    Ultimately, the fight against homelessness requires systemic changes that address its root causes. This includes investing in affordable housing, reforming social welfare policies, and tackling income inequality. Without these measures, charity alone will remain insufficient.

Conclusion

The paradox of charity lies in its potential to harm those it aims to help. As this study demonstrates, well-meaning interventions often sustain the stigmatization of homeless individuals by reinforcing negative stereotypes and perpetuating dependency. Addressing this issue requires a holistic approach that combines systemic reforms with a commitment to empowering those in need. By dismantling the structural and ideological foundations of stigma, society can move closer to a future where homelessness is not merely managed but eradicated. In this vision, the ultimate goal of aid is not to perpetuate dependency but to render itself unnecessary, enabling individuals to reclaim their dignity and autonomy.

Source