Paperwork and Social Work: Two Sides of the Casework Coin?

Background and Purpose

Casework scholarship often positions the caseworker-client relationship as the theoretical and practical focus. Analyzing interviews with child welfare workers, we turn our attention to an important though frequently overlooked actor involved in case management—paperwork. Drawing from Actor Network Theory (ANT), we treat casework as a process carried out by not only the caseworker but also by other human and non-human actors. By shifting the analytical question from “What are the practices of people?” to “How are people and objectsinteracting to produce particular practices?,” ANT highlights the relational nature and social potential of non-human actors. This lens allows us to begin to see the array of things paperwork does in and to child welfare practice, revealing how and when paperwork directs, (dis)empowers and constitutes relationships between caseworkers and other actors.

Methods

We conducted in-depth interviews with 28 child welfare professionals employed through a number of child welfare agencies in a large Midwestern city. Interviews (lasting 75-90 minutes) took place at the worker’s place of employment or, in three cases, by phone. Participants had an average of 15 years of practice experience in the child welfare system. Nineteen had social work degrees; the remaining professionally identify with counseling or psychology. Interviews centered on questions of how workers conceptualize well-being, and barriers and facilitators to well-being in the child welfare system.

After transcription, we compiled a code book, editing until consensus was reached on the scope, meaning, and depth of the codes. The research team then returned to the data and conducted general coding for themes, first within and then across interviews. After several rounds of targeted coding, the theme of “paperwork versus social work” clearly emerged.

Results

Participants described casework as having two key dimensions: social work and paperwork. “Social work” was characterized as the work of building strengths-based relationships with clients. "Paperwork" was characterized as requirements to document practices to ensure compliance with institutional mandates. The latter form of work was described as diverting time and attention away from the former. However, poignant counterpoints to this characterization of paperwork were provided, illustrating ways that it might in fact facilitate social work. Paperwork is discussed as possessing a kind of sociality as it mediates between actors involved in child welfare casework, conveying information about cases that can have a decisive impact on the course of a client’s life within and beyond the system.

Conclusions and Implications

Paperwork plays a central and social role in casework. Whether it is a physical and symbolic barrier or facilitator to a positive caseworker-client relationship, or a conveyor of vital information, paperwork influences the way people relate. Study participants articulate several methods of practice that re-imagine paperwork in the age of accountability. Additionally, we propose a set of essential questions for future research in the role of paperwork in social work practice: First, what kind(s) of accountability does paperwork enable? Second, what kinds of communication does it facilitate between professionals within institutions? Finally, what kinds of relationships does it enable between caseworkers and clients?