1 / 41

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

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

reuel
Download Presentation

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Comparative Demographics • Remaining 48 California Counties • Population • Range from 1,061 to 845,559 • Geography • Range from 48 to 4,060 square miles

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. Key Terms

  14. Key Term - Coordination

  15. Key Term - Cooperation

  16. Key Term - Collaboration

  17. 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.

  18. Findings

  19. Different Investigative Approaches

  20. Inconsistent Engagement Practices

  21. Different Standards

  22. Different Languages

  23. Different Timelines

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Theoretical implications

  28. Theoretical Implications

  29. Theoretical Implications

  30. Theoretical Implications

  31. Theoretical Implications

  32. Theoretical Implications

  33. Policy Implications

  34. Limitations

  35. 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

  36. 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”

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Recommendations

  40. Recommendations

  41. Reference List Attached Questions Discussions Remarks Thank you for participation

More Related