$
€
£¥
social sciences
A icle
Social Wo k wi h Families in Special Dis ess:
Collabo a i e P ac ices
Ta iana Casado, Joan Albe Rie a * and Jose a Ca dona
Depa men o Philosophy and Social Wo k, Facul y o Philosophy and Li e a u e, Uni e si y o Illes Balea s,
07015 Palma, Illes Balea s, Spain; [email p o ec ed] (T.C.); [email p o ec ed] (J.C.)
*Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]
Recei ed: 19 June 2020; Accep ed: 9 July 2020; Published: 12 July 2020
Abs ac :
Collabo a i e p ac ices ha e eme ged as an e ec i e app oach o conduc ing social wo k
in e en ions wi h amilies in special dis ess. This s udy aimed o asce ain he pe spec i e o
he social wo ke s loca ed in basic communi y social se ices, in ela ion o he de elopmen o
a collabo a i e app oach wi h amilies in special dis ess. The main objec i e was o ind ou he
le el o impo ance and he le el o implemen a ion ha pa icipan s (N =121) ga e o he di e en
in e en ion c i e ia included in an In en o y o Collabo a i e P ac ices. The esul s indica e ha
c i e ia ela ed o basic issues in social case wo k (ac i e lis ening, espec , and empa hy) as well
as he managemen and bu eauc acy o he speci ic case a e he mos alued and pe o med by
social wo ke s. The leas alued and pe o med c i e ia ha e o do wi h issues ha in ol e e lec i e
p ocesses in he helping ela ionship, bo h wi h he amily and wi h he es o he p o essionals.
Implica ions o p ac ice and quali y enhancemen a e discussed, as hey a e key aspec s in he
de elopmen o collabo a i e in e en ions in social wo k.
Keywo ds:
social wo k; collabo a i e p ac ices; sys ema ic eedback; amilies in special dis ess;
la ge sys ems
1. In oduc ion
Families in special dis ess we e i s ly de ined by Minuchin in he nine een six ies as amilies
wi h pa icula cha ac e is ics o diso ganiza ion and pa hology, who we e also pe manen ly
in ol ed wi h ins i u ions, agencies, and se ices (Rede 1986). These amilies ha e been known
as excluded amilies (Tie ney 1976), mul i-p oblem amilies (Selig 1976), mul i-agency amilies
(
Rede 1986
), and mul i-s essed amilies (Escude o 2009;Madsen 2007). Families in special dis ess (FED)
expe ience di e en p oblems simul aneously, a ec ing wo o mo e membe s and di e en domains
(
E enboe e al. 2018
;Tausend eund e al. 2016). Mo eo e , he ypical p o ile o hese amilies includes
po e y, inadequa e li ing condi ions, de e io a ed unc ioning as pa ne s and as pa en s, subs ance
abuse, an isocial ac i i ies, and a lack o suppo sys ems (
Bodden and Deko ic 2016;Chagas 2014
;
Imbe -Black 2000;Shamai e al. 2003).
FED a e o en in ol ed wi h social wo ke s and o he p o essionals o he helping p ocess.
Sha lin and Shamai (2000
) highligh he impo ance o using di e en app oaches wi h hese amilies
(s a egic, solu ion-cen e ed, and na a i e p ac ice, among o he s), o be e add ess hei objec i es.
FED usually de elop ela ionships wi h o mal sys ems ha las o yea s, e en o gene a ions
(Imbe -Black 2000). This ch onici y gene a es eelings o despai and hopelessness. A coali ion o
despai a ises, which a ec s no only he amily membe s bu also he p o essionals ha a e in e ening
wi h hem (Sha lin and Shamai 2000).
Pannebakke e al. (2018) s a e ha hese amilies a e o en mul i-use s o psychosocial and
heal h ca e se ices. The mul iple se ices ha a e wo king wi h a FED end o wo k in a agmen ed
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121; doi:10.3390/socsci9070121 www.mdpi.com/jou nal/socsci
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 2 o 19
way (Lipchik 2004;Sousa and Cos a 2010;Sousa and Eus
é
bio 2005). In ac , agencies a e no mally
o ganised by a eas o in e en ion, ocusing on speci ic aspec s, such as d ug addic ion, pa en al
unc ioning, o men al heal h. Each p o essional o en wo ks in a di e en se ing, and each se ice
has i s own manda es and ules. This p e-de ined ole cons ains he possibili ies o he in e en ion
(
S eens e al. 2018
). This may esul in he amily ecei ing con adic o y messages o he duplici y o
in e en ions. Imbe -Black (2000) pu o wa d a se o ques ions so ha social wo ke s and amilies a e
able o e lec on he in e en ion and assess he ela ionships wi h la ge sys ems. These ques ions
add ess subjec s such as he o me and cu en la ge sys ems in ol ed, he p oblem de ined by
each agen , hei my h and belie sys ems, and p e iously applied solu ions. Elabo a ing an ecomap
wi h he amily is a echnique ha con ibu es o a conjoin e lec ion on he ela ionships wi h all he
p o essionals and se ices in ol ed, bu i is also a way o pinpoin ing in o mal suppo and o he
signi ican people in he amily’s li e. Mo eo e , inding ou which agen s ( o mal and in o mal) a e
ela ed o he amily becomes essen ial o de eloping a collabo a i e ela ionship (Imbe -Black 2000).
Collabo a i e p ac ices ha e eme ged as an e ec i e app oach o de eloping social wo k in e en ions
wi h amilies in special dis ess. Saa -Heiman e al. (2017) suppo he idea ha FED can be engaged in
a p ocess o change, e en i hey a e in ex eme po e y condi ions. In his line, Bachle e al. (2017)
claims ha FED ha e highe d op-ou a es han o he amilies. Collabo a i e p ac ices a ise as a way
o ac i ely in ol ing bo h he membe s o he amily sys em and he p o essionals ha make up he
helping mac osys em. Thus, social wo ke s a e able o de elop hese p ac ices by hono ing he expe ise
o he amily sys em, espec ing hei wishes and p e e ences (D isko 2017), and accompanying hem
in he p ocess o change (Madsen 2007;Whi e and Eps on 1993). I is also undamen al o de ine,
conjoin ly, he objec i es and asks, and wi h FED, “i is no easy ask o es ablish a posi i e ela ion
(. . . )
(and) ha ing a posi i e ou look o he u u e” (Bachle e al. 2017, p.143). Likewise, i is essen ial
o de elop a coope a i e and collabo a i e sys em wi h he o he p o essionals in ol ed. In his
way, he duplica ion o ac ions may be ob ia ed, and we may con ibu e o he implemen a ion o a
holis ic, in eg al in e en ion (Imbe -Black 2000;Sousa and Cos a 2010). Collabo a i e p ac ices d aw
on di e en heo e ical app oaches, such as he na a i e app oach, solu ion- ocused in e en ion,
o s a egic b ie in e en ion. The common ac o s ha explain change in socio- ela ional in e en ion
a e also undamen al in he de elopmen o a collabo a i e app oach (Duncan 2002;Lambe 1992;
Rosenzweig 1936). Building a helping alliance, engaging he membe s o he amily sys em in he
in e en ion p ocess, gene a ing posi i e expec a ions, and ge ing sys ema ic eedback become he
backbone o success ul collabo a i e de elopmen . Jakob (2018, p. 29) highligh s he “o en ex eme
isola ion o pa en s in mul i-s essed amilies”, and Goh (2017) explains he impo ance o es ablishing
a wo king alliance wi h ulne able amilies p io o he s a o he in e en ion.
Vissche e al. (2018) analyzed he ype o in e en ions de eloped wi h FED in he Ne he lands,
and de ailed eigh ca ego ies: he assessmen o p oblems, planning and e alua ion, wo king on change,
lea ning pa en ing skills, helping wi h conc e e needs, ac i a ing he social ne wo k, and main aining he
p ac i ione -clien collabo a ion. This las ca ego y includes collabo a i e p ac ices, wi h in e en ions
such as “ alking abou expec a ions” o “wo king on he quali y o he ela ionship”.
Reupe and Maybe y (2014) explain ha p o essionals ecognize he bene i s o collabo a i e
p ac ices. Howe e , hey expe ience di icul ies when ne wo king wi h o he p o essionals. The high
o a ion o s a wi hin social se ices and he dis us o he amily membe s ega ding he exchange
o in o ma ion be ween ins i u ions a e signi ican challenges ha social wo ke s ha e o cope wi h in
hei daily p ac ice. O he ba ie s a e ela ed o ime cons ain s. Leigh and Mille (2004) s a e ha a
conside able caseload may p e en social wo ke s om ha ing enough ime and space o e lec on each
case. Mo eo e , he p essu e hose p o essionals ace in o de o p o e he quali y o hei wo k (mos ly
de ined by quan i a i e indica o s) may comp omise he alliance and he ela ionship wi h he amily.
Finally, we should bea in mind ha wo king wi h FED o en implies a combina ion o assis ance and
coe ci e in e en ions (Ng 2017). In ac , in social se ices se ings in Mallo ca (Spain), i is common
ha he social wo ke de elops in e en ions in bo h con ex s a he same ime; hey usually suppo
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 3 o 19
he amily and a end hei economic needs, while hey some imes ha e o simul aneously assess hei
pa en al capaci y (manda o y i he Child P o ec ion Sys em is in ol ed). I bo h in e en ions a e
conduc ed by he same social wo ke , he alliance wi h he amily is jeopa dized, since hose di e en
ela ional ag eemen s (assis ance and coe ci e) gene a e con usion. To p e en his,
Ci illo e al. (2018)
and Sha lin and Shamai (2000) sugges he co-in e en ion o wo p o essionals, one ocused on
he coe ci e in e en ions, while he o he p o essional handles o he conce ns, such as economic,
emo ional, o ela ional issues. Sousa and Rod igues (2012) and Pannebakke e al. (2018) enhance he
ole o he case manage o ensu e he adequa e coo dina ion o all he agen s in he in e en ion.
Supe ision aims o help he apis s and social wo ke s o se e clien s in a use ul way om hei
speci ic se ices. Supe ision, when wo king wi h FED, becomes a way o empowe he p o essional,
o help him/he ake new pa hs o inc ease he e icacy o he in e en ion (Sha lin and Shamai 2000).
Du ing supe ision, social wo ke s may wo k o p e en he coali ion o despai , inding ways o
manage hei own eelings owa ds he cases (Escude o 2013). In his line, La ee and S ie (2018)
sugges supe ision and aining in o de o help social wo ke s o manage he emo ions ha a ise in
hei daily wo k wi h FED.
The p esen in es iga ion is desc ip i e. I a ises om he need o know he pe spec i e o he
social wo ke s loca ed in basic communi y social se ices ac oss Mallo ca (Spain), in ela ion o he
de elopmen o a collabo a i e app oach wi h amilies in special dis ess. To his end, an In en o y o
he De elopmen o Collabo a i e P ac ices in Social Wo k wi h Families in Special Dis ess has been
compiled. Ou main ques ions we e “Do p o essionals alue collabo a i e p ac ices when wo king
wi h FED?” and “A e p o essionals implemen ing hose collabo a i e p ac ices?”. The main objec i e
is, he e o e, inding ou he le el o impo ance and he le el o implemen a ion ha pa icipan s
(
N=121
) gi e o he di e en in e en ion c i e ia included in he in en o y. Mo eo e , we aim o ind
ou whe he he e a e co ela ions be ween hose in e en ion c i e ia and some o ganiza ional aspec s
in he di e en se ings whe e he s udy is conduc ed. Ou esul s may con ibu e o de e mining
i p o essionals a e implemen ing collabo a i e p ac ices wi h FED, and o wha ex en . Besides,
ou esul s may con ibu e o de e mining i he e is a need o implemen changes a o ganiza ional
and ins i u ional le els. These esul s gi e an insigh in o he kind o in e en ions ha should be
p omo ed, in o de o imp o e he pe o mance o social wo ke s in hei daily p ac ice wi h FED.
2. Me hods
2.1. Design and P ocedu e
We made an ini ial panel o 113 i ems, based on li e a u e o social wo k p ac ice wi h amilies,
including aspec s such as collabo a i e and na a i e models, common ac o s ha explain changes in
psychosocial in e en ions, and he in e p o essional collabo a ion wi h la ge sys ems. A wo-s ep
p ocess e ision o he ini ial panel was ca ied ou , and e en ually, 67 i ems we e chosen. The i s
s age was comple ed by wo social wo ke s wi h mo e han 15 yea s’ expe ience in communi y basic
social se ices. The second s age o he e ision was implemen ed by ou ull ime p o esso s a he
Uni e si y o Illes Balea s (Spain), all wi h p e ious expe ience in social wo k wi h FED.
2.2. Ins umen s
Two ins umen s we e applied: an In en o y o Collabo a i e P ac ices in Social Wo k wi h FED,
and a sociodemog aphic ques ionnai e speci ically designed o his s udy.
The 67 in e en ion c i e ia o his In en o y e e o he di e en skills, a i udes, and ela ional
s ances ha he li e a u e con eys as undamen al o ca ying ou collabo a i e p ac ices in social
wo k (basic social se ices), no only wi h amilies in special dis ess bu also wi h la ge sys ems
in ol ed wi h hem. Thus, among o he s, he e a e i ems ela ed o he cons uc ion o a helping
ela ionship, he impo ance o a ela ional s ance as an app ecia i e ally, e lec ion wi h he amily
abou he in e en ion o di e en p o essionals a he same ime, o he co-cons uc ion o objec i es
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 4 o 19
and asks wi h he clien s. Pa icipan s we e asked o assess he le el o impo ance o each i em
and he le el o implemen a ion in hei cu en p ac ice. A i e-poin equency scale was used
(5 =ex emely impo an /always, 4 = e y impo an / e y o en, 3 =impo an /o en, 2 =no e y
impo an /some imes, and 1 =no impo an /ha dly e e ).
Pa icipan s also illed ou a socio-demog aphic ques ionnai e, including ques ions on
gende , age, and issues ela ed o hei speci ic wo kplace (such as supe ision o spaces o
in e p o essional coo dina ion).
This su ey was conduc ed be ween June and Oc obe 2018. A lis o 146 social wo ke s in public
basic social se ices in Mallo ca (Spain) p o ided he sampling ame o his s udy. The pa icipan s
wo ked in di e en municipali ies ac oss Mallo ca. Public basic social se ices p o ide a ange o
se ices o indi iduals, amilies, and g oups. Ac 4/2009 (Illes Balea s, Spain) es ablishes he basic
social se ices o be o e ed by he egional adminis a ion. Thus, social wo ke s a end o di e en
kinds o eques s, and hey p o ide in o ma ion, counseling, and suppo , oge he wi h esou ce
managemen guidance. Thesep o essionalsa endFEDandwo kwi h hema di e en le els: (a)indi idual,
including wi h economic di icul ies, social isola ion, and p o essional inse ion; (b) amily- ela ional,
including wi h he managemen o he household economy, pa en ing abili ies, he imp o emen o
ela ionships, ela ionships wi h la ge sys ems in ol ed in hei li es, and coo dina ion o ensu e an
in eg al in e en ion; and (c) socio-cul u al, including wi h hei communi y connec ions, hei alues,
and cul u e.
The p incipal in es iga o PI o he s udy (T.C.) pe sonally con ac ed each manage o he di e en
se ices, in o de o explain he aim o he p esen esea ch and o ask o hei collabo a ion in he
ec ui men o pa icipan s. Rega ding da a collec ion, pa icipan s comple ed he sel -adminis e ed
ques ionnai e in hei wo kplaces (du ing wo king hou s) by p io appoin men . The PI was always in
he same oom, in o de o espond any inqui ies and o gua an ee ha he e we e no in e up ions
while he ques ionnai e was being comple ed. The E hics Commi ee o he Uni e si y o Illes Balea s
app o ed he s udy (70-CER-18).
2.3. Sample
The sample was made up o 121 social wo ke s (mean age =42 yea s old; SD =8.30,
ange =23–6
4;
92.6% emales), who ca ied ou hei wo k in public basic social se ices in Mallo ca (Spain). The sample
uni e se was made up o 146 social wo ke s; he e o e, he sample cons i u ed 82.88% o he o al popula ion
unde s udy. The sample was signi ican , wi h a 95% con idence le el and a 4% ma gin o e o .
The inclusion c i e ia we e: (1) ha ing a deg ee in Social Wo k; (2) de eloping hei wo k in basic
social se ices in (loca ion), wi h a leas 2 mon hs in he cu en se ice; and (3) cu en ly conduc ing
p ac ice wi h amilies in special dis ess (known as “mul i-p oblem” amilies).
2.4. Da a Analysis
The Z Kolmogo o –Smi no no mali y es was conduc ed o decide whe he pa ame ic o
non-pa ame ic es s should be un. This es was conduc ed o each i em o he ques ionnai e (using as
a iables he esul o sub ac ing he le els o implemen a ion om he le els o impo ance). The sco es
we e 0.000 o all he i ems. This es was also conduc ed ega ding he sociodemog aphic ques ionnai e,
and as he sco es did no exceed 0.05, non-pa ame ic es s we e conduc ed. Uni a ia e desc ip i e
analysis, equency ables, and he Wilcoxon signed- ank es we e applied o he answe s o pa icipan s
ega ding he In en o y i ems (bo h he le els o impo ance and implemen a ion). Bi a ia e analyses
(K uskal–Wallis and Mann–Whi ney U es s) we e applied o analyze he ela ionships be ween he
ques ions and answe s in he In en o y ela ed o he wo kplace o ganiza ion. S a is ical analyses we e
ca ied ou using SPSS 20.0.
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 5 o 19
3. Resul s
3.1. Sociodemog aphic Da a
Pa icipan s we e loca ed in di e en basic social se ices in Mallo ca (Spain). A p opo ion o
47.1% we e wo king in Palma, he bigges ci y in Mallo ca, wi h almos hal a million inhabi an s.
A p opo ion o 52.9% we e wo king in o he municipali ies ( he bigges one had 50,000 inhabi an s).
The e o e, he sample was balanced, wi h pa icipan s om u ban and u al a eas.
Hal o he esponden s had mo e han 15 yea s’ expe ience wo king in social se ices, while 9.3%
had less han i e yea s’ expe ience. In he cu en wo kplace, he mean was almos 11 yea s’ expe ience
(SD =9.06). Beside his, 89.1% o he pa icipan s we e wo king ull- ime (35–40 h pe week), while 9.1%
we e wo king pa - ime (20–30 h pe week).
Mos pa icipan s (76.9%) had ecei ed speci ic aining in social in e en ion wi h amilies in he
p e ious i e yea s.
3.2. Caseload, Supe ision, and In e p o essional Coo dina ion
A p opo ion o 45% o he esponden s de o ed be ween 41% and 60% o hei ime o di ec
clien a en ion, while 40% o he esponden s de o ed be ween 20% and 40% o hei ime o wo king
di ec ly wi h clien s. Bu eauc acy and coo dina ion wi h o he ins i u ions ook up be ween 36% and
59% o he ime o 48.3% o he esponden s. Beside his, 38.3% o he pa icipan s de o ed be ween 8%
and 35% o hei ime o pape wo k. A p opo ion o 62% o he esponden s a ended be ween 7 and
20 clien s weekly, and 16.1% a ended mo e han 20 clien s each week. The ange o new cases each
week a ied om one o wo o he 24.8% o he pa icipan s, while 60.3% a ended h ee o ou new
cases each week. As ega ds he closu e o cases, 42.1% o he esponden s closed one o wo cases
each mon h, while 42.1% closed h ee o ou cases pe mon h.
Supe ision was no an es ablished ou ine in mos cases. Thus, 47.1% o he esponden s s a ed
ha hey ecei ed no supe ision in hei wo kplaces, while 28.1% o he pa icipan s had supe ision
once a mon h, and 28.1% o he esponden s had supe ision wice a mon h.
In e p o essional coo dina ion implies ha ing ime and space. A p opo ion o 52.9% o
he esponden s had a weekly mee ing wi h he p o essionals assigned o he same depa men .
Ne e heless, mee ings wi h p o essionals om o he se ices we e sca ce . In ac , 42.1% o he
esponden s s a ed ha hey had ewe mee ings han we e necessa y.
3.3. In en o y o Collabo a i e P ac ices in Social Wo k wi h FED
A p incipal componen analysis was conduc ed p e iously (Casado and Ca dona), and six ac o s
explained 46.88% o he o al cumula i e a iance. The eliabili y was calcula ed h ough C onbach’s
alpha, and he six ac o s o dimensions had adequa e alues, be ween 0.70 and 0.90. The esul s in his
manusc ip a e o ganized a ound hose six ac o s. Table 1shows desc ip i e s a is ics o each ac o .
The assessmen o he ag eemen wi h he amily on objec i es and asks was he mos ul illed ac o
o bo h le els (impo ance and implemen a ion). The assessmen o he s ance o an app ecia i e ally
was he ac o wi h he leas di e ences be ween he impo ance a e and he le el o implemen a ion
(24.69); i was also he mos implemen ed ac o , wi h 61.28% o he esponden s answe ing hey
implemen ed hose i ems “ e y o en” o “always”. The assessmen o he in e p o essional collabo a ion,
on he o he hand, was he ac o wi h mo e di e ences be ween he le els o impo ance and
implemen a ion (40.28). Finally, he assessmen o he ela ionships be ween amily and la ge sys ems
was he ac o leas ul illed o bo h le els; hus, 63.38% o he esponden s conside ed hose i ems
“ e y” o “ex emely impo an ”, while 34.59% o he esponden s answe ed ha hey implemen ed
hose i ems “ e y o en” o “always”.
One o he aims o his s udy was o de e mine which i ems we e conside ed he mos and he
leas impo an by pa icipan s in hei cu en p ac ice, and which i ems we e he mos and he leas
implemen ed. Because o his, he six ables in his sec ion show: (a) he median and in e qua ile ange
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 6 o 19
o each i em (bo h le els: impo ance and implemen a ion); (b) Wilcoxon signed- ank es s (
p alue
);
(c) he pe cen ages o answe s “4” and “5” o bo h le els, impo ance and implemen a ion (“ e y”
o “ex emely impo an ” o he le el o impo ance, and “ e y o en” and “always” o he le el o
implemen a ion); and (d) he di e ences be ween hose pe cen ages.
Table 1. Desc ip i e s a is ics o he In en o y’s ac o s.
Impo . 1M (SD) Implem. 1M (SD) Impo . 1(% 4 +5) * Implem. 1(% 4 +5) * Di e ence (%) **
Fac o I: assessmen o ela ionships be ween amily and la ge sys ems.
60.34 (8.70) 47.93 (9.63) 63.38 34.59 28.79
Fac o II: assessmen o he in e p o essional collabo a ion.
61.23 (5.74) 48.08 (8.30) 89.88 49.7 40.28
Fac o III: assessmen o he ag eemen wi h he amily on objec i es and asks.
44.22 (4.15) 36.73 (6.09) 91.44 61.28 30.16
Fac o IV: assessmen o he capaci y-cen e ed app oach.
43.50 (4.27) 35.70 (5.38) 87.32 55.58 31.74
Fac o V: assessmen o he s ance o an app ecia i e ally.
38.93 (3.85) 33.65 (4.94) 88.31 63.62 24.69
Fac o VI: assessmen o amily expec a ions.
34.32 (3.85) 28.94 (5.18) 85.36 58.19 27.18
1
Impo .: Impo ance. Implem.: Implemen a ion. M: Mean. SD: S anda d De ia ion. * pe cen age o pa icipan s
esponding 4 ( e y impo an ; e y o en) and 5 (ex emely impo an ; always). ** Di e ence be ween impo ance
and implemen a ion in answe s 4 and 5.
3.3.1. Assessmen o Rela ionships be ween Family and La ge Sys ems
Fac o I con ains 16 i ems (see Table 2); hus, he possible sco e anges om 16 o 80 poin s. Fo he
le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 43 and a maximum o 80 (M =60.17;
SD =8.78
).
Fo he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 27, and he maximum was 70 (M =47.83;
SD =9.65).
A p opo ion o 81.7% he o esponden s conside ed i ems 41, 42, and 67 he mos impo an ,
while i em 15 was conside ed he leas impo an (28.9% o he esponden s conside ed his i em “ e y”
o “ex emely impo an ”). Rega ding he le el o implemen a ion, 68.6% o he esponden s answe ed
ha hey implemen ed i em 14 “ e y o en” o “always” ( he mos implemen ed i em in his ac o ),
while less han 20% o he esponden s implemen ed i ems 38 and 35 “ e y o en” o “always” in hei
cu en p ac ice ( he leas implemen ed i ems in his ac o ).
The esul s show ha , o all o he 16 i ems con ained in his ac o 1, he esponden s sco ed he
le el o impo ance signi ican ly mo e highly han he le el o implemen a ion (p<0.001). The leas
di e ences be ween he sco es o impo ance and implemen a ion we e o i em 15, while he mos
di e ences we e o i em 35, which e e ed o elabo a ing an eco-map oge he wi h he amily o
join ly e lec abou he ela ionships be ween he amily and all he p o essionals and o he signi ican
people in ol ed in hei li es.
3.3.2. Assessmen o he In e p o essional Collabo a ion
Fac o II con ains 14 i ems (see Table 3); hus, he possible sco e anges om 14 o 70 poin s.
Fo he le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 45 and a maximum o 70 (M =61.17;
SD =5.72
). Fo he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 22 and he maximum was 68
(M =48.04; SD =8.24).
This ac o had high sco es o he le el o impo ance. In ac , he leas alued was i em 58,
wi h 79.3% o esponden s answe ing “ e y” o “ex emely impo an ”, while he es o he i ems in
his ac o sco ed abo e 80%. On he o he hand, o he le el o implemen a ion, i ems 62 and 55 we e
he mos implemen ed, while i ems 59 and 64 we e he leas implemen ed.
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 7 o 19
Table 2. Fac o I: assessmen o ela ionships be ween amily and la ge sys ems.
I em Impo . 1Median (IQR) Implem. 1Median (IQR) Wilcoxon pValue Impo . 1(% 4 +5) * Implem. 1(% 4 +5) * Di e ence (%) **
Make use o humo when he si ua ion allows.
14 4 (4–5) 4 (3–5) <0.001 76.9 68.6 8.3
I possible, sha e pe sonal eelings wi h he indi idual/ amily conce ning he si ua ion hey a e going h ough.
15 3 (2–4) 2 (2–4) <0.001 28.9 27.3 1.6
Sha e simila alues o expe iences wi h he clien .
16 3 (2–4) 2 (2–3) <0.001 33.3 23.3 10.0
Re lec , oge he wi h he indi idual/ amily, on hei ela ionships wi h la ge sys ems, join ly de eloping an eco-map ha allows he isualiza ion o his helping mac osys em.
35 4 (3–4) 2 (2–3) <0.001 65.3 17.4 47.9
Iden i y possible nega i e eelings ega ding a se ice o a p o essional and e lec on his issue wi h he amily.
36 4 (3–4) 3 (2–4) <0.001 58.7 25.6 33.1
De ec ela ionships wi h a se ice o a p o essional ha a e cha ac e ized by a posi i e bond, highligh ing he gene a ion o ha bond.
37 4 (3–4) 3 (2–4) <0.001 66.7 37.5 29.2
Discuss wi h he amily abou wha hey hink u u e ela ionships will be like wi h he di e en la ge sys ems.
38 3 (3–4) 2 (2–3) <0.001 46.3 16.5 29.8
De ec possible con lic s be ween he amily, o one o i s membe s, and he di e en la ge sys ems in ol ed, ying o unde s and, oge he wi h he amily, how he con lic has s a ed and
how i has con inued up o he p esen momen .
39 4 (3–4) 3 (2–3) <0.001 59.5 23.1 36.4
De ec possible con adic o y messages om di e en p o essionals and e lec oge he wi h he indi idual/ amily on he na u e o he con adic ion and i s po en ial managemen .
40 4 (3–4) 3 (2–4) <0.001 58.7 31.4 27.3
De ec la ge sys ems ha p o ide in o mal suppo and p omo e hese sou ces o social suppo .
41 4 (4–5) 4 (3–4) <0.001 81.7 54.2 27.5
De ec he compe ences o he amily and add hem o hose o o he p o essionals o gene a e syne gies o change.
42 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 81.7 47.5 34.2
Re lec , oge he wi h he o he p o essionals, on he exis ing ela ionships be ween he amily (o some o i s membe s) and he la ge sys ems, aking in o accoun he manda es o he
di e en se ices and ins i u ions in ol ed.
43 4 (3–5) 3 (2–4) <0.001 69.2 38.3 30.9
De ec po en ial posi i e bonds be ween he di e en la ge sys ems in ol ed and he amily, iden i ying he aspec s ha ha e acili a ed he gene a ion o said bond.
44 4 (3–4) 3 (2–4) <0.001 62.5 30.8 31.7
Assess possible s a egies ha may neu alize any nega i e e ec on he la ge sys em–indi idual/ amily ela ionship.
45 4 (3–4) 3 (2–3) <0.001 58.7 24.0 34.7
Summon la ge sys ems in ol ed in he case (o a end he mee ing i ano he la ge sys em con enes i ) in o de o ind ou he de ini ion o he p oblem acco ding o each la ge sys em, he
in e en ions al eady ca ied ou , and hose ha ha e been planned.
46 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 84.3 47.1 37.2
Fos e and/o accompany he o mal and in o mal suppo ne wo k, so ha changes, howe e small, a e ecognized and expanded.
67 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 81.7 40.8 40.9
1
Impo .: Impo ance. Implem.: Implemen a ion. IQR: In e qua ile ange. * pe cen age o pa icipan s esponding 4 ( e y impo an ; e y o en) and 5 (ex emely impo an ; always).
** Di e ence be ween impo ance and implemen a ion in answe s 4 and 5.
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 8 o 19
Table 3. Fac o II: assessmen o he in e p o essional collabo a ion.
I em Impo . 1Median (IQR) Implem. 1Median (IQR) Wilcoxon pValue Impo . 1(% 4 +5) * Implem. 1(% 4 +5) * Di e ence (%) **
Re lec oge he wi h he o he p o essionals on he possible misma ches be ween he iews o all conce ned pa ies ( he SMAFs and he amily), building a common iew.
47 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 84.3 43.8 40.5
Join ly d a objec i es and asks wi h he indi idual/ amily in such a way ha hey a e easily unde s andable, achie able, and limi ed enough o assess hei deg ee o ul illmen .
52 5 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 95.0 45.0 50.0
Es ablish ( lexible) iming o each o he ag eed objec i es and asks.
53 4 (4–5) 3 (2–4) <0.001 86.8 35.5 51.3
Assess he willingness and he i al momen o each amily membe o expand o imp o e hei connec ions wi h he ou side wo ld.
54 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 83.3 44.2 39.1
Use he esou ces a ailable a he local and communi y le els so ha he in e en ion p ocess con ibu es o imp o ing and/o ex ending he social suppo ne wo k o ha indi idual/ amily.
55 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) <0.001 98.3 76.0 22.3
Join ly build and sign an ag eemen /in e en ion plan so ha bo h he p o essional and he indi idual/ amily assume a sha ed esponsibili y in ha ag eed plan.
56 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) <0.001 95.9 54.5 41.4
A he ne wo k mee ing, once he si ua ion has been join ly de ined, collabo a i ely plan in e en ion s a egies ha a oid duplica ions and con adic ions in he in e en ions o he di e en
la ge sys ems in ol ed.
57 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) <0.001 96.7 60.3 36.4
Based on he ag eed di ec ion o change, sugges , i possible, ce ain asks o he indi idual/ amily o ca y ou be ween sessions.
58 4 (4–5) 3 (3–4) <0.001 79.3 47.1 32.2
Ask he indi idual/ amily o eedback a he end o each mee ing, in o de o ind ou i he p ocess mee s hei expec a ions and is wo king o hem.
59 4 (4–5) 3 (2–3) <0.001 81.7 20.0 61.7
In case i is necessa y o modi y he con ex o a p o essional in e en ion ( o example, in si ua ions o unp o ec ed mino s), gi e an explana ion o he indi idual/ amily o he p o essional’s
legal and e hical esponsibili ies, main aining an hones posi ion wi h hem, so ha ac ion al e na i es a e p o ided ha do no jeopa dize con inui y in he helping ela ionship.
60 4 (3–5) 4 (3–5) <0.001 96.7 68.6 28.1
Pe iodically ag ee on ne wo k mee ings be ween he di e en p o essionals who a e wo king wi h he indi idual/ amily, adjus ing he di e en in e en ions and sha ing any ype o
p og ess, howe e small i may be.
61 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) <0.001 95.9 53.7 42.2
Main ain elephone o email con ac be ween p o essionals o sha e in o ma ion and he p og ess o he amily, and o adjus he di e en in e en ions.
62 5 (4–5) 4 (4–5) <0.001 98.3 78.5 19.8
In a collabo a i e amewo k, join ly decide which p o essional will lead he coo dina ion o he c ea ed mac o-helping sys em.
63 4 (4–5) 3 (2–4) <0.001 84.3 40.5 43.8
In he e en o a ela ional con lic , sugges a mee ing be ween conce ned p o essionals and he indi idual/ amily so ha hey can e lec on he helping p ocess and join ly make he
necessa y decisions.
64 4 (4–5) 3 (2–4) <0.001 81.8 28.1 53.7
1
Impo .: Impo ance. Implem.: Implemen a ion. IQR: In e qua ile ange. * pe cen age o pa icipan s esponding 4 ( e y impo an ; e y o en) and 5 (ex emely impo an ; always).
** Di e ence be ween impo ance and implemen a ion in answe s 4 and 5.
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 9 o 19
The esul s show ha , o all o he 14 i ems con ained in his ac o II, he esponden s sco ed he
le el o impo ance signi ican ly mo e highly han he le el o implemen a ion (p<0.001). The g ea es
di e ences be ween he sco es o impo ance and implemen a ion we e o i em 59 (61.7%), while i em
62 had he lowes di e ences (19.8%).
3.3.3. Assessmen o he Ag eemen wi h he Family on Objec i es and Tasks
The ac o III con ains 10 i ems (see Table 4); hus, he possible sco e anges om 10 o 50 poin s.
Fo he le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 30 and a maximum o 50 (M =44.22;
SD =4.15). Fo he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 21 and he maximum was 49
(M =36.73; SD =6.09).
Fo his ac o , he esul s show he highes le els o impo ance o all o he i ems. In ac , a leas
89% o he esponden s sco ed “ e y” o “ex emely impo an ” o all o he i ems. Rega ding he
le el o implemen a ion, i em 33 was he mos implemen ed (80.2%), whe eas i ems 31 and 51 we e
implemen ed “ e y o en” o “always” by less han 45% o he esponden s.
The esul s show ha , o all he 10 i ems con ained in ac o III, he esponden s sco ed he le el
o impo ance signi ican ly mo e highly han he le el o implemen a ion (p<0.001). The smalles
di e ences be ween he sco es o impo ance and implemen a ion we e o i em 33 (12.4%), while he
la ges di e ences we e o i em 51 (49.1%).
3.3.4. Assessmen o he Capaci y-Cen e ed App oach
Fac o IV con ains 10 i ems (see Table 5); hus, he possible sco e anges om 10 o 50 poin s. Fo he
le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 29 and a maximum o 50 (M =43.50;
SD =4.27
). Fo
he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 22 and he maximum was 46 (M =35.70; SD =5.38).
A leas 73% o he esponden s conside ed all hese i ems “ e y” o “ex emely impo an ”.
Rega ding he le el o implemen a ion, i ems 65 and 66 we e he leas implemen ed, wi h less han 35%
o he esponden s answe ing “ e y o en” and “always”. The mos implemen ed i ems we e 3 and 18
( a es o e 75%). Beside his, i em 18 p esen ed he lowes di e ences be ween he a es o impo ance
and implemen a ion (17.4%), while i ems 48 and 49 had he highes di e ences be ween bo h le els.
The esul s show ha , o all o he 10 i ems con ained in his ac o IV, esponden s sco ed he
le el o impo ance signi ican ly mo e highly han he le el o implemen a ion (p<0.001).
3.3.5. Assessmen o he S ance o an App ecia i e Ally
Fac o V con ains nine i ems (see Table 6); hus, he possible sco e anges om 9 o 50 poin s. Fo he
le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 26 and a maximum o 45 (M =38.93;
SD =3.85
). Fo
he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 21 and he maximum was 45 (M =33.65; SD =4.94).
This dimension had high sco es o all he i ems o he le el o impo ance. Thus, he leas
a ed was i em 8 (79.2% o esponden s conside ed i “ e y” o “ex emely impo an ”). On he o he
hand, he mos implemen ed was i em 2 (81%), while i em 10 was he leas implemen ed (40.5% o
esponden s implemen ed i em 10 “ e y o en” o “always”).
The esul s show ha , o all he nine i ems con ained in his ac o V, he esponden s sco ed he
le el o impo ance signi ican ly mo e highly han he le el o implemen a ion (p<0.001). The i em
wi h he g ea es di e ences be ween hese le els was i em 9 (39.2%), while i em 1 showed he lowes
di e ences (10.9%).
3.3.6. Assessmen o Family Expec a ions
Fac o VI con ains eigh i ems (see Table 7); hus, he possible sco e anges om 8 o 40 poin s.
Fo he le el o impo ance, his ac o had a minimum sco e o 12 and a maximum o 40 (M =34.32;
SD =3.85
). Fo he le el o implemen a ion, he minimum sco e was 11 and he maximum was 39
(M =28.94; SD =5.18).
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 16 o 19
social wo ke s hono he expe ise o he amily membe s ( he main ques ion is “whe e do you wan
o go?”). The p o essional adop s a no -knowing s ance (Ande son 1999) and asks he amily o
pe mission o co-in es iga e he si ua ion, hinking oge he abou o he new pa hs and possibili ies
(Madsen 2007). Ou esul s may indica e ha social wo ke s a e s ill in be ween hose pa adigms.
5. Conclusions
Social wo ke s end o p i ilege esou ce managemen o e e lec ion on he ongoing p ocess
wi h he amily and o he p o essionals in ol ed. Tha is, mos social wo ke s ega d collabo a i e
p ac ices as highly impo an , hough i is o en clea ha hey do no always implemen hese p ac ices
in he same p opo ion. Se e al causes may be in e ela ed, bu u he esea ch should be conduc ed
in o de o explo e possible ac o s ha could be in luencing hese esul s. Fi s o all, he clien a io
is qui e high in Mallo ca; hus, social wo ke s usually mee i e new amilies each week, while hey
close h ee o i e cases pe mon h. This implies a high caseload ha may hinde hei capaci y o
ha ing space o e lec on hei in e en ion and he alliance es ablished. Ne e heless, he esul s
showed no di e ences o hose pa icipan s wi h highe caseloads, and his may imply o he easons
o no de eloping collabo a i e p ac ices as he li e a u e ecommends. Secondly, supe ision is no
ou ine o mos social wo ke s in Mallo ca; he e o e, hey do no ha e he oppo uni y o e lec in
a o mal space abou an ongoing case in o de o decide on a cou se o ac ion. Ou esul s showed
no di e ence o hose pa icipan s who had supe ision as a ou ine ac i i y; ne e heless, u he
esea ch should be ca ied ou in o de o deepen ou knowledge o he way in which ha supe ision
is unde aken. Beside his, asking he clien o eedback is a g ea way o become an app ecia i e
ally wi h he indi idual o amily. Ou esul s showed ha pa icipan s do no ask o eedback o
o he expec a ions o he amily in ela ion o he in e en ion p ocess. The e o e, he need a ises
o egional adminis a ions o p o ide social wo ke s wi h he amewo k and ools equi ed so ha
hey can de elop a s ong wo king alliance, no only wi h he amily bu also wi h o he p o essionals
in ol ed (speci ic aining in collabo a i e p ac ices, mo e ime o conduc in e iews, spaces o
in e p o essional coo dina ion, and mon hly supe isions, among o he s).
This s udy has limi a ions. Fi s , he ac ha he In en o y is sel -adminis e ed, i s asking abou
he le el o impo ance and hen abou he implemen a ion o each in e en ion c i e ion, may ha e
in luenced he esul s. Secondly, cohe ence is obse ed in he esponses p o ided o he c i e ia o
he di e en a eas in he in en o y, al hough he c i e ia we e no o de ed by dimensions. Ano he
limi a ion is ha his s udy ocuses on he pe spec i e o he p o essionals, no he amilies, so he esul s
and conclusions only add ess pa o he helping mac osys em c ea ed ad hoc. Finally, we conside ha
u u e esea ch should include quali a i e me hodologies. In his way, by ha ing access o he na a i e
o he p o essionals hemsel es, we will be able o deeply discuss issues ela ed o he opinions and
conside a ions o he p o essionals ega ding he in e en ions wi h hese amilies.
This s udy highligh s ha FED o en ha e speci ici ies ha social wo ke s mus bea in
mind (dis us , hopelessness, low au o-e icacy, and poo communica ion abili ies, among o he s).
Thus, enhancing he implemen a ion o echniques and a i udes ha help hese amilies o gain
con idence and us in he p ocess o change emains a key challenge o many social wo ke s.
P i ileging esou ce managemen o e e lec ion spaces is, he e o e, ine ec i e and coun e p oduc i e.
Ou In en o y may be an oppo uni y o e lec on how social wo ke s a e in e ening wi h FED.
I migh also p omo e he pe o mance o a i udes and echniques ha enable p o essionals o de elop
a wo king alliance wi h hei clien s. Acco dingly, he p esen In en o y migh help p o essionals and
clien s o join ly e lec abou hei expec a ions, desi es, and capaci ies. Ou esul s ha e implica ions
no only o he way in which social wo ke s de elop hei in e en ions wi h FED, bu also o
e- hinking o ganiza ional aspec s in communi y basic social se ices. Mo eo e , a lowe caseload will
p o ide social wo ke s wi h mo e ime and space o e lec on hei in e en ion. In his line, allowing
social wo ke s he ull exe cise o in e p o essional coo dina ion when necessa y is ano he issue ha
egional adminis a ions should conside and p omo e. Finally, supe ision also becomes an essen ial
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 17 o 19
ac i i y ha should be manda o y in social se ices, especially when wo king wi h FED, as i is an
essen ial ool o ensu ing ha p o essionals eel suppo ed in hei pe o mance.
Au ho Con ibu ions:
Concep ualiza ion, T.C. and J.C.; Da a cu a ion, T.C. and J.A.R.; Fo mal analysis, T.C.;
In es iga ion, T.C.; Me hodology, T.C. and J.A.R.; P ojec adminis a ion, T.C.; So wa e, T.C.; Supe ision, J.C.;
Visualiza ion, T.C.; W i ing—o iginal d a , T.C. and J.A.R.; W i ing— e iew & edi ing, T.C. All au ho s ha e ead
and ag eed o he published e sion o he manusc ip .
Funding: This esea ch ecei ed no ex e nal unding.
Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
Ande son, Ha lene. 1999. Con e saci
ó
n, Lenguaje y Posibilidades. Un En oque Pos mode no de la Te apia.
Buenos Ai es: Amo o u.
Anke , Mo en G., Jacqueline A. Spa ks, Ba y L. Duncan, Jesse J. Owen, and Ann K. S apnes. 2011. Foo p in s o
couple he apy: Clien e lec ions a ollow-up. Jou nal o Family Psycho he apy 22: 22–45. [C ossRe ]
Ayala-Nunes, La a, Luc
í
a Jim
é
nez, Vic o ia Hidalgo, and Saul Ne es. 2014. Family eedback in Child Wel a e
Se ices: A sys ema ic e iew o measu es. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew 44: 299–306. [C ossRe ]
Bachle , Egon, Alexande F uehmann, He be Bachle , Benjamin Ass, Ma ius Nickel, and Guen e K. Schiepek.
2017. Pa e ns o change in collabo a ion a e associa ed wi h baseline cha ac e is ics and p edic ou comes
and d opou a es in ea men o mul i-p oblem amilies. A alida ion s udy. F on ie s in Psychology 8: 1221.
[C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Bedi, Robinde P., Michael D. Da is, and Me is Williams. 2005. C i ical inciden s in he o ma ion o he he apeu ic
alliance om he clien ’s pe spec i e. Psycho he apy: Theo y, Resea ch, P ac ice, T aining 42: 311–23. [C ossRe ]
Bodden, Denise H. M., and Maja Deko ic. 2016. Mul ip oblem amilies e e ed o you h men al heal h: Wha ’s in
a name? Family P ocess 55: 31–47. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Casado, Ta iana, and Jose a Ca dona. Fo hcoming. In en a io pa a el desa ollo de p
á
c icas colabo a i as
en abajo social con amilias en si uaci
ó
n de especial di icul ad. An
á
lisis ac o ial explo a o io.
Al e na i as. Cuade nos de T abajo Social, in p ess.
Chagas, E eline. 2014. T abajo Social con Familias: Un Es udio Compa ado Sob e la In e enci
ó
n en los CRAS de
Fo eza-CE-B asil y los CSS de Ba celona-ES. Ph.D. hesis, Uni e si a Au
ò
noma de Ba celona, Ba celona,
Spain. A ailable online: h ps://www. esisen ed.ne /handle/10803/134823 (accessed on 5 Ma ch 2020).
Ci illo, S e ano, Ma eo Sel ini, and Anna Ma ia So en ino. 2018. En a en Te apia. Las Sie e Pue as de la Te apia
Sis émica. Mad id: Desclée de B ouwe .
D isko, James. 2017. Ac i e collabo a ion wi h clien s: An unde emphasized bu i al pa o e idence-based
p ac ice. Social Wo k 62: 114–21. [C ossRe ]
Duncan, Ba y L. 2002. The legacy o Saul Rosenzweig: The p o undi y o he Dodo Bi d. Jou nal o Psycho he apy
In eg a ion 12: 32–57. [C ossRe ]
Duncan, Ba y L. 2014. On Becoming a Be e The apis : E idence-Based P ac ice one Clien a a Time. Washing on, DC:
Ame ican Psychological Associa ion.
Duncan, Ba y L., and Robe J. Reese. 2015. The Pa ne s o Change Ou come Managemen Sys em (PCOMS).
Re isi ing he Clien ’s F ame o Re e ence.Psyco he aphy 52: 391–401. [C ossRe ]
Escude o, Valen
í
n. 2009. Gu
í
a P
á
c ica pa a la In e enci
ó
n Familia . Ge encia de Se icios Sociales. Conseje
í
a de
Familia e Igualdad de Opo unidades. Cas illa y León: Jun a de Cas illa y León.
Escude o, Valen
í
n. 2013. Gu
í
a P
á
c ica pa a la In e enci
ó
n Familia II. Con ex os Familia es C oni icados o de Especial
Di icul ad. Conseje
í
a de Familia e Igualdad de Opo unidades. Ge encia de Se icios Sociales. Valladolid:
Jun a de Cas illa y León.
E enboe , K. Els, Sijmen A. Reijne eld, and Danielle E. M. Jansen. 2018. Imp o ing ca e o mul ip oblem amilies:
Con ex -speci ic e ec i eness o in e en ions? Child en and You h Se ices Re iew 88: 274–85. [C ossRe ]
Goh, Es he C. L. 2017. Vulne able amilies as ac i e agen s o hei own change p ocess: A bidi ec ional pe spec i e.
Social Wo k 60: 145–54. [C ossRe ]
Ho a h, Adam O., and Les e Lubo sky. 1993. The ole o he he apeu ic alliance in psycho he apy. Jou nal o
Consul ing and Clinical Psychology 61: 561–73. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 18 o 19
Imbe -Black, E an. 2000. Familias y Sis emas Amplios. Buenos Ai es: Amo o u.
Jakob, Pe e . 2018. Mul i-s essed amilies, child iolence and he la ge sys em: An adap a ion o he non iolen
model. Jou nal o Family The apy 40: 25–44. [C ossRe ]
Lambe , Michael J. 1992. Implica ions o ou come esea ch o psycho he apy in eg a ion. In Handbook o
Psycho e apy In eg a ion. Edi ed by John No c oss and Ma in R. Gold ied. New Yo k: Basic Books,
pp. 94–129.
La ee, Eina , and Roni S ie . 2018. Social wo ke s’ emo ional labou wi h amilies in po e y: Neolibe al a igue?
Child & Family Social Wo k 23: 504–12. [C ossRe ]
Leigh, Sa ah, and Ch is Mille . 2004. Is he hi d way he bes way? Jou nal o Social Wo k 4: 245–67. [C ossRe ]
Lipchik, E e. 2004. Te apia Cen ada en la Solución. Más alláde la écnica. Buenos Ai es: Amo o u.
Madsen, William C. 2007. Collabo a i e The apy wi h Mul i-S essed Families. New Yo k: The Guil o d P ess.
Ma hinsen, Edga , G aham Cli o d, Hal o Fauske, and Willy Lich wa ck. 2020. P o essional alues challenged
by case managemen - heo izing p ac ice in child p o ec ion wi h e lexi e p ac i ione s. Social Sciences 9: 44.
[C ossRe ]
Ng, I ene. 2017. Mul is essed low-ea ning amilies in con empo a y policy con ex : Lessons om wo k suppo
ecipien s in Singapo e. Jou nal o Po e y 17: 86–109. [C ossRe ]
Pannebakke , Noo je M., Paul L. Kochen, Meinou H. C. Theunissen, K is a an Mou ik, Ma y R. C one, Ma ijs
E. Numans, and Sijmen A. Reijne eld. 2018. Se ice use by child en and pa en s in mul ip oblem amilies.
Child en and You h Se ices Re iew 84: 222–28. [C ossRe ]
Rede , Pe e . 1986. Mul i-agency amily sys ems. Jou nal o Family The apy 8: 139–52. [C ossRe ]
Reupe , And ea, and Da yl Maybe y. 2014. P ac i ione s’ expe ience o wo king wi h amilies wi h complex
needs. Jou nal o Psychia ic and Men al Heal h Nu sing 21: 642–51. [C ossRe ]
Rosenzweig, Saul. 1936. Some implici common ac o s in di e se me hods o psycho he apy. Ame ican Jou nal
o O hopsychia y 6: 412–15. [C ossRe ]
Saa -Heiman, Yu al, Michal K ume -Ne o, and Maya La ie-Ajayi. 2017. In e en ion in a eal-li e con ex :
The apeu ic space in po e y-awa e social wo k. B i ish Jou nal o Social Wo k 48: 321–38. [C ossRe ]
Selig, And ew L. 1976. The my h o he mul i-p oblem amily. Ame ican Jou nal o O hopsychia y 46: 526–32.
[C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Shamai, Michal, Vic o Moin, and Schlomo A. Sha lin. 2003. Po e y in he “p omised land”: The apeu ic
in e en ion wi h immig an caucasus amilies in Is ael. Families in Socie y 84: 559–70. [C ossRe ]
Sha lin, Schlomo A., and Michal Shamai. 2000. The apeu ic In e en ion wi h Poo , Uno ganized Families.
London: Hawo h.
Sluzki, Ca los. 1996. La Red Social: F on e as de la P ác ica Sis émica. Ba celona: Gedisa.
Sousa, Liliana, and T
â
nia Cos a. 2010. The mul i-p o essional app oach: F on -line p o essionals’ beha iou s and
in e ac ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e 19: 444–54. [C ossRe ]
Sousa, Liliana, and Ca la Eus
é
bio. 2005. When mul i-p oblem poo indi iduals’ alues mee p ac i ione s’ alues!
Jou nal o Communi y and Applied Social Psychology 15: 353–67. [C ossRe ]
Sousa, Liliana, and So ia Rod igues. 2012. The collabo a i e p o essional: Towa ds empowe ing ulne able
amilies. Jou nal o Social Wo k P ac ice 26: 411–25. [C ossRe ]
Sousa, Liliana, Cl
á
udia Ribei o, and So ia Rod igues. 2007. A e p ac i ione s inco po a ing a s eng hs- ocused
app oach when wo king wi h mul i-p oblem amilies? Jou nal o Communi y & Applied Social Psychology 17:
53–66. [C ossRe ]
Spa ks, Jacqueline, and Ba y L. Duncan. 2018. The Pa ne s o Change Ou come Managemen Sys em: A bo h/and
sys em o collabo a i e p ac ice. Family P ocess 57: 800–16. [C ossRe ]
S eens, Roos Julie, Koen He mans, and Tine Van Regenmo el. 2018. Building a wo king alliance be ween
p o essionals and se ice use s in amily p ese a ion. A mul iple case s udy. Child & Family Social Wo k 23:
230–38. [C ossRe ]
Tausend eund, Tim, Jana Kno -Dickschei , Gisela C. Schulze, E ik J. Kno h, and Hans G ie ens. 2016. Families in
mul i-p oblem si ua ions: Backg ounds, cha ac e is ics and ca e se ices. Child & You h Se ices 37: 4–22.
[C ossRe ]
Tie ney, Leona d J. 1976. Excluded Families. Ph.D. hesis, School o Social Wo k, Columbia Uni e si y, New Yo k,
NY, USA.
Soc. Sci. 2020,9, 121 19 o 19
Vissche , Lo aine, Els K. E enboe , Danielle Jansen, Ron H. J. Schol e, Jana Kno -Dickshei , Jan Wilmen Weeman,
Sijmen A. Menno Reijne eld, and Tom Albe an Ype en. 2018. Iden i ying p ac ice and p og am elemen s
o in e en ions o amilies wi h mul iple p oblems: The de elopmen o a axonomy. Child en and You h
Se ices Re iew 95: 64–70. [C ossRe ]
Whi e, Michael, and Da id Eps on. 1993. Medios Na a i os pa a Fines Te apéu icos. Ba celona: Paidós.
©
2020 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access
a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
(CC BY) license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
