Trauma-informed social work practice is an approach to social work that takes into account the impact of trauma on the lives of individuals, families, and communities. This approach recognizes that trauma can have long-term effects on a person’s mental health, physical health, and well-being, and that individuals who have experienced trauma require specialized care and support.
The goal of trauma-informed social work practice is to create a safe and supportive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma. This approach emphasizes the importance of building trust and collaboration with clients, as well as empowering clients to make decisions about their own care. Trauma-informed social work practice also recognizes the role that societal and institutional trauma can play in the lives of individuals, and seeks to create change at a systemic level.
One of the key principles of trauma-informed social work practice is understanding the prevalence of trauma. Research has shown that a significant percentage of the population has experienced some form of trauma in their lives. This trauma can range from individual experiences, such as physical or sexual abuse, to collective experiences, such as discrimination or systemic oppression. Understanding the prevalence of trauma is essential in creating an environment that is sensitive to the needs of individuals who have experienced trauma.
Another principle of trauma-informed social work practice is the importance of safety. Trauma can create feelings of fear, anxiety, and vulnerability, which can make it difficult for individuals to engage in social work services. Trauma-informed social work practice emphasizes the importance of creating a safe environment for clients, both physically and emotionally. This may involve providing privacy and confidentiality, ensuring that clients have control over their own care, and creating a space that is calm and welcoming.
Trauma-informed social work practice also emphasizes the importance of empowerment. Clients who have experienced trauma often feel disempowered and may have difficulty trusting others. Trauma-informed social work practice seeks to empower clients by providing them with information, support, and tools to help them make decisions about their own care. This may involve working collaboratively with clients, recognizing their strengths and resources, and supporting them in setting goals that are meaningful to them.
Cultural humility is also a key aspect of trauma-informed social work practice. Social workers must recognize the ways in which cultural differences can impact the experience of trauma, as well as the ways in which cultural beliefs and practices can be a source of strength and resilience. Cultural humility involves recognizing one’s own cultural biases and limitations, and working to create a culturally responsive and inclusive environment for clients.
Finally, trauma-informed social work practice recognizes the importance of collaboration and partnership. Addressing the impact of trauma requires a multidisciplinary approach, and social workers must work collaboratively with other professionals, such as mental health providers, medical professionals, and educators. Trauma-informed social work practice also recognizes the importance of community partnerships, and seeks to create partnerships with community organizations and leaders to create a more supportive and responsive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma.
In conclusion, trauma-informed social work practice is an approach to social work that recognizes the impact of trauma on the lives of individuals, families, and communities. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the prevalence of trauma, creating a safe and empowering environment for clients, practicing cultural humility, and collaborating with other professionals and community partners. By adopting a trauma-informed approach, social workers can provide more effective care and support to individuals who have experienced trauma, and contribute to creating a more just and equitable society.
Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) has emerged as a pivotal intervention in addressing the complex challenges associated with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), particularly within the field of social work. As a modified form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), DBT integrates cognitive and behavioural strategies with mindfulness and dialectical philosophy, making it uniquely suited to the emotional dysregulation and interpersonal instability characteristic of BPD. The therapeutic approach was developed by Marsha Linehan, initially as a treatment for individuals experiencing chronic suicidality and self-harming behaviours. Over time, DBT has evolved into a comprehensive psychosocial treatment, combining individual therapy, skills training groups, phone coaching, and team consultation to support both clients and therapists.
Social work practice is deeply rooted in values of client-centred care, empowerment, and the therapeutic alliance. DBT aligns well with these principles by emphasizing validation, collaboration, and skill-building. The therapy does not pathologize emotional suffering but instead recognizes the dialectical tension between acceptance and change. Clients are encouraged to accept their current realities while simultaneously working towards behavioural and emotional improvements. This dual emphasis supports social work’s commitment to both respecting clients’ lived experiences and fostering meaningful transformation.
Central to DBT is the biosocial theory of BPD, which posits that the disorder arises from a transactional relationship between an emotionally vulnerable individual and an invalidating environment. Emotional vulnerability includes heightened sensitivity to emotional stimuli, intense emotional responses, and a slow return to baseline. An invalidating environment dismisses or punishes emotional expression, leading individuals to doubt their internal experiences and seek external validation through extreme behaviours. This conceptual framework resonates with social work’s ecological perspective, which views human problems within the context of systemic and environmental influences. It also invites practitioners to address broader social and relational dynamics rather than focusing solely on intrapsychic pathology.
The structure of DBT involves several interlocking components. Individual therapy sessions are designed to help clients apply DBT skills to specific challenges and to work through motivational issues that may hinder progress. Skills training groups, which often function more like psychoeducational classes than traditional group therapy, teach core skill sets in four modules: mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and interpersonal effectiveness. Phone coaching offers in-the-moment support, helping clients generalize skills to real-life situations, while therapist consultation teams ensure practitioners receive ongoing support and supervision. This multifaceted structure enhances treatment fidelity and helps social workers manage the emotional toll of working with high-risk populations.
Mindfulness, the foundational skill in DBT, draws heavily from Zen Buddhist practices and emphasizes nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. In the context of social work, mindfulness supports both clients and practitioners in cultivating emotional awareness, self-regulation, and a grounded therapeutic presence. Distress tolerance skills help clients survive emotional crises without resorting to self-destructive behaviours. These include distraction techniques, self-soothing strategies, and radical acceptance. Emotion regulation skills aim to reduce emotional vulnerability by increasing positive emotional experiences and decreasing emotional reactivity. Finally, interpersonal effectiveness skills teach assertiveness, boundary-setting, and strategies for maintaining self-respect in relationships.
For social workers, the integration of DBT into practice offers several advantages. The structured nature of the therapy provides a clear roadmap for treatment, while the emphasis on validation and nonjudgmental stance aligns with social work values of empathy and respect. Moreover, DBT’s evidence base is robust. Research demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing self-harm, suicidality, psychiatric hospitalizations, and treatment dropout rates. DBT has also been adapted for various populations beyond BPD, including adolescents, individuals with substance use disorders, and clients with eating disorders or post-traumatic stress.
However, implementing DBT within social work settings also presents challenges. The comprehensive nature of the therapy requires significant training, time commitment, and organizational resources. Many community-based agencies may lack the infrastructure to support all components of the DBT model, such as skills groups or consultation teams. Additionally, the emphasis on behavioural analysis and structured interventions may be unfamiliar to social workers trained primarily in psychodynamic or client-centred approaches. Bridging this gap requires ongoing professional development and interprofessional collaboration.
Despite these barriers, adaptations of DBT have made it more accessible to social work contexts. For instance, some programs offer abbreviated or skills-only versions of DBT, which retain core elements while reducing intensity. These adaptations can still be effective, particularly when delivered with fidelity to the therapy’s principles. Social workers can also incorporate DBT-informed strategies into their broader practice, such as using validation techniques, teaching emotion regulation skills, or encouraging mindfulness.
Furthermore, the relational aspects of DBT—especially the therapeutic alliance—are critical to its success and align closely with social work practice. Therapists are encouraged to balance acceptance and change strategies in their interactions with clients. This dialectical stance involves being warm, validating, and supportive while also setting limits, challenging behaviours, and fostering accountability. Such a balance is particularly important when working with clients who experience intense fear of abandonment, emotional lability, and chronic interpersonal difficulties.
The DBT approach also invites social workers to reflect on their own emotional responses and boundaries. Working with clients who self-harm or express suicidal ideation can evoke fear, frustration, and helplessness. DBT addresses this through consultation teams that provide peer support, case discussion, and skill development. This component fosters sustainability and reduces burnout among practitioners, reinforcing the importance of self-care and supervision in social work practice.
In conclusion, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy represents a powerful intervention for clients with Borderline Personality Disorder, particularly within the field of social work. Its structured, skill-based approach, combined with a compassionate and validating therapeutic stance, makes it both effective and congruent with social work values. While challenges in implementation remain, adaptations and DBT-informed practices allow social workers to integrate its principles in diverse settings. By doing so, they can enhance their capacity to support emotionally vulnerable clients, promote resilience, and foster meaningful change in the lives of those they serve.
The perception of social workers in England has long been a subject of concern, particularly among those within the profession. A persistent narrative suggests that the public holds a predominantly negative view of social workers, an idea that has influenced government policy, media representations, and even the morale of social work professionals. However, recent research highlights a significant disparity between this narrative and the reality of public opinion. This article explores the origins of the negative perception discourse, its impact on social work, and evidence that challenges this pervasive myth.
The Discourse of Negativity: Origins and Persistence
Over the past two decades, government policy documents have consistently referred to the “negative public perception” of social workers. These references, often unsupported by concrete evidence, have been used to justify sweeping reforms in the profession. For example, policies such as the introduction of fast-track training programs, the establishment of Social Work England (SWE), and the implementation of national accreditation systems have been framed as necessary to improve public confidence in social work.
The genealogy of this discourse, as outlined in Joe Hanley’s recent article in the British Journal of Social Work, reveals that government rhetoric has often been based on repetition rather than research. Policy texts frequently cite concerns about public perception without substantiating these claims with robust evidence. For instance, the 2003 Every Child Matters policy referred to social workers’ “poor public image” as a factor in recruitment and retention challenges. However, no empirical data were provided to support this assertion. Similarly, later policies, including the 2016 Putting Children First report, justified reforms by emphasizing the need to “build public trust,” yet offered little evidence to demonstrate widespread distrust.
Evidence Contradicting the Narrative
Contrary to the claims found in policy documents, studies on public opinion suggest that the public’s view of social workers is far more favorable than often portrayed. Surveys and focus groups conducted over the years have consistently demonstrated appreciation for the profession. For example, a 2007 survey commissioned by Community Care found that 93% of respondents believed social workers made a significant contribution to society, with two-thirds expressing trust in their ability to help families.
More recent research supports these findings. A 2020 study commissioned by SWE revealed that 88% of respondents acknowledged the importance of social work in supporting vulnerable individuals, while 74% believed that social workers strive to achieve the best outcomes for the people they support. These statistics challenge the assumption that the public inherently distrusts or undervalues social workers. Notably, the discourse around negative perception often conflates public opinion with societal narratives shaped by media and political rhetoric.
The Role of Media Representations
Media portrayals of social work have been a critical factor in shaping the perception of the profession. Stories in newspapers, films, and television programs often depict social workers as ineffectual, intrusive, or complicit in high-profile failures. Such portrayals, while not reflective of the broader reality, have amplified fears among social workers about how they are perceived.
Negative media narratives also intersect with political discourse, creating a feedback loop that reinforces the idea of public distrust. For instance, in the aftermath of child protection scandals, media outlets have frequently focused on social work failures, overshadowing the systemic issues that contribute to such tragedies. This has led to what researchers describe as a “culture of fear” among social workers, where concerns about public perception hinder confidence and innovation within the profession.
Impacts on Policy and Practice
The belief in a negative public perception has had tangible effects on the profession. It has been used to justify reforms that prioritize image management over addressing systemic challenges. For example, the introduction of fast-track training programs like Frontline was framed as a solution to social work’s “low status” and recruitment difficulties. However, critics argue that these initiatives divert attention from more pressing issues, such as high caseloads, inadequate funding, and poor working conditions.
Moreover, the narrative of public distrust has been leveraged to control and regulate social workers more stringently. Initiatives like the Knowledge and Skills Statement (KSS) and the National Assessment and Accreditation System (NAAS) were justified in part by claims that they would enhance public confidence. Yet, these measures often faced resistance from practitioners, who viewed them as punitive rather than supportive.
A More Nuanced Public Perception
While the discourse of negativity persists in policy and media, research presents a more nuanced picture of public attitudes toward social work. Studies conducted in England and internationally highlight a general recognition of the profession’s value. For instance, research from Scotland, Sweden, and New Zealand has found that the public appreciates the role social workers play in addressing social issues, even as they acknowledge the challenges faced by the profession.
In England, public surveys reveal that while awareness of social work’s breadth—beyond child protection—remains limited, perceptions of individual social workers are overwhelmingly positive. This suggests that the negative narrative is more a reflection of societal narratives than personal experiences or interactions with social workers.
Moving Forward: Reframing the Narrative
To counter the myth of widespread public distrust, it is crucial to shift the focus from perception management to substantive improvements in the profession. Campaigns to raise awareness about the diverse roles social workers play could help broaden public understanding and appreciation of the field. Additionally, highlighting the documented positive perceptions of social workers may boost morale within the profession and improve recruitment and retention.
Policymakers and practitioners must also challenge the use of public perception as a justification for reforms. Future policies should be grounded in evidence, addressing the systemic issues that truly impact the profession, such as workload pressures, underfunding, and staff shortages. By prioritizing these challenges, the profession can foster a stronger, more resilient workforce capable of meeting the needs of vulnerable populations.
Conclusion
The persistent narrative of a negative public perception of social workers in England is more myth than reality. While media and political rhetoric have perpetuated this discourse, empirical evidence paints a far more positive picture of public attitudes. By recognizing and challenging this myth, the social work profession can redirect its efforts toward addressing the genuine issues it faces. Doing so will not only strengthen the profession but also enhance its capacity to support the individuals and communities that depend on it.
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:
Managerialist/Technical Rationality: Focuses on improving service efficiency but often at the cost of user relationships.
Consumerist: Views clients as service consumers, yet this model is limited when dealing with involuntary service users.
Neo-liberal Governmentality: Uses engagement as a tool to enforce policy compliance, promoting acceptance rather than genuine participation.
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.
Democratic leadership, characterised by inclusivity, shared decision-making, and active participation, is particularly suitable for the field of social work. This leadership style not only respects the input of every team member but also fosters a sense of responsibility and empowerment among both social workers and service users. When combined with the principles of Social Discipline Window—a framework aimed at creating balanced relationships between leaders and team members—it becomes an effective approach for tackling complex social challenges. This article explores the democratic leadership style in social work through the lens of Social Discipline Window, highlighting how these principles enhance practice, collaboration, and outcomes.
The Democratic Leadership Style in Social Work
Democratic leadership is a participatory approach in which leaders encourage input from all team members. In social work, where the complexity of human problems requires collaborative solutions, this leadership style offers several benefits:
Enhanced Problem-Solving: By involving various perspectives, social workers can collaboratively develop solutions that are comprehensive and inclusive.
Empowerment and Ownership: Democratic leadership empowers team members to contribute ideas, fostering ownership of their work and an increased commitment to achieving positive outcomes for service users.
Building Trust and Respect: Social work is inherently relational, relying on trust between practitioners, service users, and stakeholders. Democratic leadership nurtures this trust by valuing each person’s voice.
Adapting to the Needs of Service Users: This style allows for flexible decision-making, enabling teams to adapt to the specific needs and circumstances of clients effectively.
These elements make democratic leadership an ideal fit for social work, aligning well with the ethical standards of participation, dignity, and mutual respect in practice.
Understanding Social Discipline Window
Window of Social Discipline is a framework that categorises social discipline into four quadrants based on two primary factors: support and control. Each quadrant represents a different balance between these elements, influencing how leaders interact with their team members. In social work, understanding these principles is crucial because they help practitioners foster an environment that promotes healthy development, accountability, and growth. The quadrants are:
High Control/Low Support (Authoritarian) – This approach is strict and directive but lacks empathy and support. It’s generally counterproductive in social work, where empathy and collaboration are key.
Low Control/Low Support (Neglectful) – Here, neither control nor support is emphasised, leading to disengagement and poor accountability.
Low Control/High Support (Permissive) – While supportive, this style often lacks the necessary structure to guide progress and achieve outcomes.
High Control/High Support (Authoritative) – Combining high support with clear boundaries and expectations, this quadrant aligns well with democratic leadership. Social workers operating in this quadrant can foster autonomy and accountability simultaneously.
The Social Discipline Window model, particularly the authoritative quadrant (high control/high support), underpins a democratic leadership approach by ensuring that social workers and clients feel supported while also held accountable for their responsibilities.
Applying Window of Social Discipline to Democratic Leadership in Social Work
Democratic leadership thrives in the authoritative quadrant of Social Discipline Window, providing both the structure and support essential for social work environments. Here’s how the principles can be applied in practice:
Creating a Supportive and Accountable Environment
Social workers leading democratically within the authoritative quadrant provide clear expectations to team members and service users. They encourage mutual respect and accountability while remaining empathetic to individual circumstances.
For example, a democratic leader may facilitate regular team check-ins to ensure alignment on service users’ care plans, while encouraging open dialogue to address challenges or new ideas that could improve outcomes.
Encouraging Person-Centered Decision-Making
In a democratic setting, service users are involved in the decision-making process, honoring the social work principle of self-determination. This aligns with Window of Social Discipline’s emphasis on both support and control—allowing service users to voice their preferences while guiding them through choices and potential consequences.
Social workers might, for instance, co-create a treatment plan with service users, explaining available options and jointly setting achievable goals. This approach gives service users a sense of autonomy and empowerment within a structured framework.
Balancing Team Autonomy with Guidance
Democratic leadership promotes a collaborative team environment, encouraging members to contribute ideas and take initiative. However, Window of Social Discipline’s authoritative quadrant ensures that this freedom comes with a balance of oversight to maintain quality and accountability.
Leaders can delegate tasks based on team members’ strengths while setting clear expectations for communication and follow-up. This enables social workers to develop professionally, engage more deeply in their roles, and contribute to a unified team effort.
Building Mutual Respect and Trust
The democratic leader in social work respects the input of team members and service users, fostering an environment of mutual respect. Social Discipline Window reinforces this respect by blending high control with high support, ensuring that boundaries are respected even in a collaborative setting.
In practice, this could mean involving team members in policy discussions or changes within the agency, promoting transparency, and aligning the team around shared values and goals.
Promoting Reflective Practice
Reflective practice is integral to social work, allowing practitioners to evaluate and improve their approach to service user care. A democratic leader within the Window of Social Discipline framework encourages regular reflection, promoting self-assessment and a deeper understanding of each team member’s role in advancing the organization’s mission.
Regular team debriefs after case discussions, for instance, can serve as a platform for reflection, enabling team members to learn from one another’s perspectives and refine their approaches to interactions with service users.
Benefits of Applying Democratic Leadership with Window of Social Discipline in Social Work
Integrating democratic leadership with the principles of Social Discipline Window yields several advantages for social work:
Enhanced Collaboration: A participatory environment builds stronger team bonds, enhancing collaboration and leading to more holistic approaches to service user care.
Increased Service User Satisfaction: Service users’ feel respected and heard, improving trust and satisfaction with services.
Sustainable Outcomes: The balanced approach of support and accountability creates a sustainable framework where service users’ and team members can grow and succeed.
Professional Growth and Retention: Social workers in democratic teams are more likely to feel valued and invested in their roles, promoting job satisfaction and reducing burnout.
Conclusion
The democratic leadership style, supported by the principles of Social Discipline Window, represents an effective approach in social work. By combining empathy and structure, this model creates an environment where service users, social workers, and team members are empowered, engaged, and accountable. This approach aligns well with social work’s core values, fostering a collaborative, respectful, and results-oriented practice that ultimately leads to positive outcomes for all stakeholders involved.
Religion and spirituality have long been foundational aspects of human experience, shaping cultures, moral values, and personal identities. In social work practice, however, these elements have often been sidelined, especially in British contexts, in contrast to their central role in the United States. Recent studies highlight the importance of integrating religion and spirituality into social work, given their significance in the lives of many service users. Social work practitioners must be prepared to address the religious and spiritual needs of clients in order to provide culturally competent care.
The Importance of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work
Religion and spirituality play a pivotal role in shaping people’s worldview, coping strategies, and their perception of challenges such as illness, poverty, or discrimination. For some, religious beliefs provide a sense of community, meaning, and hope during difficult times. Social workers must be able to recognize the influence of these beliefs in shaping client behavior and choices. This recognition is critical for providing holistic and culturally sensitive interventions that consider all aspects of a person’s identity.
In the study by Philip Gilligan and Sheila Furness, surveys conducted with social work practitioners and students in Britain revealed a need for increased focus on religious and spiritual elements in education and practice. Although many clients value these beliefs, social workers often feel unprepared to engage with them in their professional practice. The findings suggested that Muslim practitioners were more likely to view religious interventions as appropriate, but overall, the profession requires better training to adequately meet the spiritual needs of clients.
Current Practice and Educational Gaps
British social work, compared to the U.S., has historically paid less attention to the religious and spiritual dimensions of practice. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) code of ethics, while emphasising respect for service users’ values, does not specifically address religious or spiritual needs, whereas the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in the U.S. explicitly includes these in their ethical guidelines.
In educational settings, British social work students often report that religion and spirituality are rarely explored in their training. According to Gilligan and Furness, less than 50% of students felt that religious or spiritual interventions were appropriately covered in their curriculum. This is a missed opportunity, as many service users rely on spiritual or religious frameworks to navigate crises and life transitions. In contrast, some U.S. social work programs, like the California State University Bakersfield, have made strides in integrating religion and spirituality into their curricula, offering courses that teach students how to assess and incorporate spiritual practices in their work.
Cultural Competence and Spiritual Sensitivity
The need for culturally competent social work cannot be overstated, especially in diverse societies like Britain, where the 2001 census showed over 75% of households identified with a particular religion. For many minority groups, especially those of South Asian heritage, religion is central to their identity. In such contexts, ignoring the religious and spiritual needs of clients can lead to interventions that feel disconnected or even harmful to those being served.
Culturally competent practice involves not only acknowledging the impact of religion but also integrating it into the assessment and intervention process when appropriate. For example, the 1989 Children Act in Britain mandates that local authorities must consider the religious background of a child when making care decisions. However, Gilligan and Furness’s research shows that many practitioners do not feel adequately trained to handle such requirements, particularly when religion plays a significant role in service users’ lives.
Addressing the Gaps: Recommendations for Social Work Practice
To close the gap between the needs of service users and the preparedness of practitioners, social work education must place greater emphasis on religion and spirituality. Training should not only focus on the theoretical understanding of religious and spiritual beliefs but also equip social workers with practical skills to engage in spiritually sensitive assessments and interventions.
Furthermore, social workers must navigate the delicate balance between supporting service users’ religious or spiritual beliefs and maintaining professional boundaries. The NASW Code of Ethics warns against exploiting religious beliefs for personal gain or allowing them to conflict with professional duties. In practice, this means that social workers need to respect service users’ beliefs while ensuring that interventions are ethical, appropriate, and service user-driven.
Conclusion
The integration of religion and spirituality into social work practice is essential for delivering culturally competent care. As the diversity of service users increases, so too does the need for social workers to understand the profound role that these beliefs can play in shaping individual lives. Gilligan and Furness’s research underscores the importance of education and training in this area, advocating for a more intentional approach to addressing the spiritual dimensions of social work. By doing so, social workers can provide more comprehensive, respectful, and effective care for all people they supporting.
For social work to be truly inclusive and effective, practitioners and educators must prioritise the spiritual and religious dimensions of human experience, recognizing them as integral parts of holistic social care.
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.
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.
Social work is a profession rooted in empathy, compassion, and understanding. While the field often attracts individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences, one unique perspective that is gaining recognition is that of social workers who are also on the autism spectrum. Navigating the complexities of human relationships and societal challenges, these individuals bring a distinctive set of strengths and considerations to the field of social work.
Embracing Neurodiversity:
Autism, characterized by differences in social interaction, communication, and behavior, is a spectrum that manifests differently in each individual. Social workers with autism may exhibit a range of traits that can enrich the profession with unique perspectives. One notable strength is their capacity for intense focus and attention to detail, which can be advantageous when addressing complex cases or developing innovative solutions.
Communication Styles:
Social workers with autism may approach communication in ways that differ from their neurotypical counterparts. While they may experience challenges in decoding nonverbal cues or engaging in small talk, their direct and honest communication style can be an asset in promoting clarity and transparency in professional relationships. Clear communication is crucial in the social work field, and the unique approach of autistic social workers can contribute to effective problem-solving.
Sensory Sensitivities:
Many individuals with autism experience sensory sensitivities, such as heightened awareness to light, sound, or touch. In a social work setting, this heightened sensitivity can provide a nuanced understanding of environmental factors that may impact a client’s well-being. Social workers with autism may be particularly attuned to identifying and addressing sensory triggers that could affect clients or create barriers to engagement.
Advocacy for Inclusivity:
Being a social worker with autism can also inspire a strong commitment to promoting inclusivity and understanding within the profession. Autistic social workers may advocate for workplace accommodations, such as sensory-friendly environments or alternative communication methods, to create an inclusive atmosphere that supports the diverse needs of all professionals.
Challenges and Opportunities:
While there are unique strengths associated with social workers who are on the autism spectrum, there are also challenges that may arise. Sensitivity to the potential for burnout, self-care practices, and ongoing professional development are crucial aspects to consider.
In the evolving landscape of social work, embracing neurodiversity is an essential step towards building a more inclusive and effective profession. Social workers with autism contribute valuable insights and perspectives that can enhance the field’s capacity for empathy, understanding, and positive change. By fostering an environment that embraces differences, the social work community can harness the unique strengths of individuals on the autism spectrum and work towards creating a more compassionate and inclusive society.
Beyond Barriers 