Download
1 / 41
410 likes | 518 Views
Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Research on How Child Welfare Social Workers and Law Enforcement Officers Collaborate to Investigate Child Abuse Viola W Lindsey, PhD MSW Loma Linda University April 16, 2012. Rationality and Skepticism. Rationality
E N D
Interdisciplinary Collaboration Research on How Child Welfare Social Workers and Law Enforcement Officers Collaborate to Investigate Child Abuse Viola W Lindsey, PhD MSW Loma Linda University April 16, 2012
Rationality and Skepticism • Rationality • Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries. • Skepticism • Lack of participation based on confidentiality
Research Site Demographics • Riverside County • Population • 2,100,156 • Ranks number 4 among top ten largest counties in California • Geography • 7,208 square miles • Ranks number 3 in square miles coverage among top ten largest counties
Research Site Demographics • San Bernardino County • Population • 2,015,355 • Ranks number five in top ten largest counties in California • Geography • 20,062 square • Ranks number 1 in square miles coverage among top ten largest counties
Comparative Demographics • Remaining 48 California Counties • Population • Range from 1,061 to 845,559 • Geography • Range from 48 to 4,060 square miles
Social Workers Demographics (11) • Gender • One male, 10 females • Age • Ranged from mid 20’s to early 50’s • Job title • Social service workers III • Social Service practitioners • Social service supervisors
Social Workers Demographics cont’d • Education • Six social workers had earned Masters of Social Work (MSW) degrees, • Five possessed Bachelor of Art (BA) degrees • Years on the job • Ranged from 2 to 13 years • Ethnicity • African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics
Law Enforcement Demographics(10) • Gender • Four males, six females • Age • Ranged from mid 30’s to mid 60’s • Job title • Three sergeants, seven detectives • Years on the job • Ranged from two to 27 years
Law Enforcement Demographics cont’d • Education • Two law enforcement officers had earned Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees • Three possessed Associate’s (AA) degrees • Five completed their high school education • Ethnicity • One African American, nine Caucasians • Commonality • Both professional groups respond to child abuse allegations across multiple municipalities and/or regional offices
Research Method • Qualitative rationale • Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries
Research Method cont’d • Grounded theory approach • Provides insight into human interactions involving individuals or groups working together on particular tasks(Hughes, Bryan & Robbins, 2005; Turner, 1983) • Data comes directly from the practitioners themselves (emic) • Information gathered has practical and functional use in real world or day-to-day work environments (Myers, 2000)
Research Methods Grounded Theory cont’d • Most appropriate candidates • To attach meaning to their cross-discipline actions and social interactions • To defend the consequences of taking such actions (Goulding,1998) • To clarify the conditions in the environments that shape their actions
Key Questions • 1. Describe for me how you decide which child abuse allegations do not need to be investigated. • 2. Describe what circumstances you and child welfare social workers(CPS)/law enforcement join together to investigate child abuse. • 3. How frequently do you go out with the same child welfare social worker/law enforcement officer? [Revised] • 3. How often do you meet up with the same child welfare (CPS) social worker/law enforcement officer? • [Probe: When you work with the same officer, what is that relationship like?] • [Probe: When you work with a new officer, what is that relationship like?] • 4. Describe how well you think CPS social workers/law enforcement officers are prepared to do child abuse investigations? • [Probe: What problems do you see in their performance or understanding?] • [Probe: What strengths do you see in their performance or understanding?] • 5. Both CPS and law enforcement talk about ensuring the well-being of children. What does that mean to you? • [Probe: Describe for me how that meaning is the same or different for CPS social workers/law enforcement] • 6. Describe some of the challenges encountered when working with CPS social workers/ law enforcement. • 7. Tell me what’s positive about working jointly with CPS social workers/ law enforcement.
Findings cont’d • Law enforcement officers’ characterization of social workers relating to • Time line differences - ‘irresponsible’, ‘overzealous’, ‘jumping the gun’ • Punishment versus treatment - naïve and shortsighted • Investigation styles - passive, too soft, lacking in assertiveness skills • Consulting with supervisors - too much emphasis placed on book learning rather than training
Findings cont’d • Social workers’ characterization of law enforcement • Punitive - more interested in taking the perpetrator down regardless of consequence to the children • Impatient – see child abuse as a low level crime, not as exciting as a homicide or a robbery • Detectives who work in Crimes Against Children Units are low level positions in police departments; it’s like a “you screwed up” position
Findings cont’d • Complementary roles • Social workers complement my role when the child is removed form the home and the suspect goes to jail and hopefully to prison • They protect my safety; they protect the safety of the child, but I wish they would value my profession more • They provide another set of eyes; respected for their uniform. All we have is a plastic badge and a plastic notebook going into neighborhoods that we don’t even know are dangerous. Law enforcement tells us they don’t even go into those neighborhood without backup
Summary Findings Structural Barriers • Overall, child welfare social workers and law enforcement officers do not collaborate on a consistent basis • There is a lack of understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities • The structure of each organization makes it difficult to build working relationships
Summary FindingsStructural Barriers • Patrol officer or deputy who responds to investigate a child abuse allegations work on rotating shifts; rarely is the investigating officer the same • Social workers refer to thIsrelationship as ‘the luck of the draw” • If a more thorough investigation is needed the referral is handed off to a detective • Social workers describe this relationship as not having a connections to the intermediate detectives “so it’s like trying to call the station, you leave a message hoping that whoever is assigned will call you back. And that tends to be a hassle for those of us who are not stationed with police/law enforcement”
Summary Findings Structural Barriers • Similarly, child welfare social workers who are first responders investigate child abuse across multiple geographical locations, a mixture of municipalities, and with different deputies and patrol officers who work on rotating shifts, and with different or no understanding of child abuse • If a child is removed from the home and/or a more in-depth investigation is required the referral, in many cases, is handed off to another social worker
Summary FindingsStructural Barriers • Law enforcement (detective) describe this relationship as “A lot of time I will find that if a deputy took a report and say they took it today and I called the social worker who had contact with the family in the past they are usually not available any more so I can’t get any information about the past” • Overall, communication linkage is lost • Social workers and law enforcement who are co-located seem to have a better working relationship
Reference List Attached Questions Discussions Remarks Thank you for participation
