Johanna Woodcock Ross and Charlotte Crow explore the professional identity and practice strategies of the new role of private fostering social worker. A case study approach is used to reflect on the practice required to support private fostering. The perceived role of the private fostering social worker and the practice strategies adopted are affected by confusion and stereotypes about what constitutes private fostering and which children can be considered as privately fostered. Significantly, in addition to professional practice, private fostering social work has to cope with critical attitudes and negative cultural stereotypes among professional colleagues, many of which are reinforced by social and political arguments, media and organisational scrutiny, and resulting low staff morale. The core practice strategies of the private fostering social worker involve working against oppressive labelling, communication and engagement with ‘sofasurfing’ teenagers and developing skills for working with conflict. While it is relatively easy to understand the confusion, conflict and cultural stereotyping as representing defence mechanisms to ‘taking in’ the pain and complexity of the situations of these young people and their carers, the impact upon the professional identity of the social workers involved exacerbates feelings of being maligned, isolated and undervalued.
Department of Health, Assessing Children in Need and their Families: Practice Guidance, London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
14.
FimisterG. (ed), Tackling Child Poverty in the UK: An end in sight, London: Child Poverty Action Group, 2001.
15.
GreenwoodD.LowenthalD., ‘Case study as a means of researching social work and improving practitioner education’, Journal of Social Work Practice19: 2, pp 181–83, 2005.
16.
HolmanB., The Unknown Fostering, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, 2002.
17.
HorwathJ., ‘Maintaining a focus on the child? First impressions of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families in cases of child neglect’, Child Abuse Review11: 4, pp 195–213, 2002.
18.
HoweD., Child Abuse and Neglect: Attachment, development and intervention, London: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.
19.
HowittD., Child Abuse Errors: When good intentions go wrong, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1992.
20.
JackJ.GillO., The Missing Side of the Triangle, Ilford: Barnardo's, 2003.
21.
JonesC., ‘Voices from the front line: State social workers and New Labour’, British Journal of Social Work31: 4, pp 547–62, 2001.
22.
MenziesIEP, ‘A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety: A report on a study of the nursing service in a general hospital’, Human Relations13: 2, pp 95–121, 1960.
23.
NicolsonP., ‘The social construction of motherhood’, in RichardsonD.RobinsonV. (eds), Introducing Women's Studies: Feminist theory and culture, London: Macmillan, 1993.
24.
Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), Explanatory Memorandum to the Children (Private Arrangements For Fostering) Regulations 2005 No: 1533, 2005; www.opsi.gov/si/em2005/uksiem_20051533_en.pdf.
25.
PartonN., Governing the Family: Child care, child protection and the state, London: Macmillan, 1991.
26.
PartonN.ThorpeD.WattamC., Child Protection: Risk and the moral order, London: Macmillan, 1997.
27.
PeartE., ‘The experience of being privately fostered’, Adoption & Fostering29: 3, pp 57–67, 2005.
28.
PhilpotT., A Very Private Practice: An investigation into private fostering, London: BAAF, 2001.
RustinM., ‘Conceptual analysis of critical moments in Victoria Climbié's life’, Child & Family Social Work10: 1, pp 11–19, 2005.
31.
SheppardJ., ‘Learning from personal experience: Reflexions on social work with mothers in child and family care’, Journal of Social Work Practice14: 1, pp 37–50, 2000.
32.
ShulmanL., The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups and Communities (sixth edition), Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole, 2008.
33.
SmartC., ‘Deconstructing motherhood’, in SilvaE. Bortolaia (ed), Good Enough Mothering: Feminist perspectives on lone motherhood, London/New York: Routledge, 1996.
34.
TaylorH., ‘Judgements of Solomon: Anxieties and defences of social workers involved in care proceedings’ Child & Family Social Work13: 1, pp 23–31, 2008.
35.
Unison, ‘Still slipping through the net? Frontline staff assess children's safeguarding progress’, 2009; www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B4416.pdf.
36.
ValiosN., ‘Home discomfort’, Community Care, 19 February, pp 28–30, 2004.
37.
WhiteS., ‘Getting it wrong? Despatches from the front-line of children's social care’, Social Work Action Network, 2008; www.socialworkfuture.org/?p=83.
38.
WoodcockJ., ‘The social work assessment of parenting: An exploration’, British Journal of Social Work33: 1, pp 87–106, 2003.
39.
WoodcockJ., ‘The UK’, in WeissI.GalJ.DixonJ. (eds), Professional Ideologies and Preferences in Social Work: A global study, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 2004.
40.
WoodcockJ.DixonJ., ‘Professional ideologies and preferences in social work: A British study in global perspective’, British Journal of Social Work35: 6, pp 953–73, 2005.