Navigating Engagement: Building Relationships with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work

The article titled “Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project” explores the complexities of engaging involuntary service users within social work practices. Through a Scottish-funded knowledge exchange project, researchers and local authority practitioners analysed the challenges in involving service users, particularly involuntary clients, as active participants in social work processes.

Background and Significance of User Engagement

The concept of service user engagement has evolved within UK policy, highlighting goals like strengthening communities, enhancing citizenship, and improving social service design. Historically, social work interactions have been characterized by a hierarchical, paternalistic approach, particularly concerning “involuntary clients” such as individuals in the child protection or criminal justice systems. These clients often interact with social services under mandates, not by choice, which introduces inherent challenges to fostering meaningful engagement.

Project Overview and Methodology

The project promoted knowledge exchange between academics and practitioners, focusing on effective engagement methods with involuntary clients. Key components included literature reviews on user engagement, small practitioner-led research projects, and structured seminars. Four main practitioner research projects (PRPs) were conducted, each examining different aspects of engagement within child protection, risk assessment, and adult protection cases. These projects revealed the daily barriers and opportunities social workers encounter when trying to involve involuntary clients in a supportive, participatory manner.

Key Themes and Findings

1. Importance of Relationship-Building

Effective engagement in social work requires building trust and mutual respect between social workers and service users. Both practitioners and clients highlighted the critical role of relational work—small, everyday actions like following up on commitments were seen as foundational to establishing trust. Consistency and empathy from social workers allowed clients to feel heard and empowered to express their views over time. However, high staff turnover poses a significant obstacle to sustaining these relationships.

2. Communication and Information Transparency

Clear, honest communication and appropriate information-sharing are essential to engagement. Service users often feel excluded or confused by the complex and opaque processes of social work. Informing clients, even about difficult decisions, fosters a sense of respect and trust. The study found that miscommunication could lead to resentment, while transparency promoted understanding and reduced resistance from clients.

3. Challenges of Managerial and Bureaucratic Systems

The study revealed that managerial structures often hinder engagement. Formal procedures, such as lengthy reports, case conferences, and risk assessments, can be intimidating and overwhelming for clients, thereby creating barriers to participation. In many cases, these systems prioritize accountability and defensive practices over relational work, undermining the quality of client-worker interactions and the ability of clients to meaningfully engage.

Discourses in User Engagement

The article identifies four prevalent discourses in user engagement:

  1. Managerialist/Technical Rationality: Focuses on improving service efficiency but often at the cost of user relationships.
  2. Consumerist: Views clients as service consumers, yet this model is limited when dealing with involuntary service users.
  3. Neo-liberal Governmentality: Uses engagement as a tool to enforce policy compliance, promoting acceptance rather than genuine participation.
  4. Rights and Citizenship: Prioritizes empowerment and justice, aiming for meaningful participation and equal partnership in decision-making.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

The findings underscore the disconnect between policy rhetoric and the practical realities of engaging involuntary service users. The authors critique the use of “buzzwords” in social work policy, suggesting they obscure the complexities of practice and mask a bureaucratic, rather than relational, approach to engagement. Drawing on Michel De Certeau’s theory, the authors propose viewing user engagement not as a strategic government tool but as a series of everyday tactics that frontline social workers adapt in response to client needs.

Conclusion

For meaningful engagement, the authors advocate for a reduction in bureaucratic procedures and a focus on relational social work. Service user involvement should be embedded in daily social care practices rather than treated as a separate, formalised activity. This shift would allow social workers to navigate the complex power dynamics with involuntary clients, fostering a more supportive and participatory environment.

This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights for improving engagement practices with involuntary service users, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic, relationship-focused approach in social work.

Source