What Factors Predict Social Workers Relationship Repair Strategies in the Mandatory Reporting of Child Maltreatment

Background and Purpose

The therapeutic relationship is an essential component of diverse treatment approaches; however, relationship ruptures may occur when a social worker is faced with reporting suspected child maltreatment. Mandatory reporting often leads to negative feelings and reactions on the part of families which include fear, betrayal, blame, and result in premature termination. It is critical that social workers utilize relationship repair strategies to provide ongoing care and psychosocial support. This study sough to answer the research question “what factors predict the likelihood of social workers undertaking specific strategies maintain the therapeutic relationship once they report suspected child maltreatment.”   

Methods

An online survey was sent to members (N=2,533) of a social work association who had at least five years of clinical work with children and families. The survey asked participants to read three vignettes of suspected child maltreatment (intimate partner violence, physical maltreatment, emotional maltreatment) and respond to Likert-scale questions (strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, strongly agree).

Multiple logistic regression analyses using the enter method were run for the following relationship repair strategies: offer additional sessions, speak to clients via telephone, meet clients in their home, validate clients’ emotions, and explain the reasons for reporting. The predictors used in the analysis include the social worker’s gender, parenthood, attitude toward child protective services, field of practice, comfort with speaking to caregivers about reporting, reporting history, duty to report child maltreatment, consultation / supervision, ethnicity of caregivers, and circumstances around maltreatment disclosure.

Results

Participants included 70 men and 410 women; the mean number of years of practice with children and adolescents was 13. The current area of practice was medical (30.1%), private practice (26.9%), child related (23%), and community related (20%).

Offering additional sessions was utilized by participants working in community related practice, female participants, and participants who felt comfortable discussing the report with caregivers. By contrast, respondents working in medical related practice were less likely to meet with clients in their home. Validating clients’ negative feelings was utilized by participants who felt comfortable sharing their concerns with caregivers and by female participants. Contacting clients by telephone was utilized by participants working in community related practice, female participants, and participants who were influenced by their reporting history. On the contrary, participants who disagreed with the need for consultation / supervision around their reporting decision were less likely to speak to clients via telephone, validate clients’ emotions, and explain the reasons for reporting.

Conclusion

There are a variety of factors which predict social workers’ relationship repair strategies including occupational environment (community versus medical), gender, seeking consultation / supervision prior to reporting and comfort speaking to caregivers about reporting. The study highlights the importance of emotional regulation for social workers when facing distraught families due to a report to child protective services. The study reveals the need to utilize multiple relationship repair strategies regardless of the occupational environment or the perceived need or not of consultation / supervision.