Barriers and Innovations in Family Engagement

Systemic Barriers to Participatory Practice

Jac McNamara: Welcome back, everyone,. I'm Jac McNamara, and I've got Paloma here with me—how're you doing, Paloma?

Paloma Cesare: Hey Jac, I'm well—and hello to all our listeners. Today we're getting into something that, honestly, has frustrated both of us for years: the gap between what participatory social work promises and what actually happens in statutory child protection. It's a big, tangled knot, right?

Jac McNamara: Absolutely—like, at the heart of social work, there's this beautiful ideal of empowerment, right? You know, being user-led, working alongside families, helping them drive their own change. But then—bam!—statutory systems dump all these constraints on you. It’s so often unachievable, especially when you’ve got mandatory requirements, legal stuff, and, honestly, a mountain of paperwork. I sometimes felt, in my early days, like the whole idea of participation was setting both workers and families up for disappointment.

Paloma Cesare: And the reality is, for a lot of families, being part of the system isn’t just hard—it’s traumatic and adversarial. It’s like we’re balancing on this seesaw of supporting families while also being arm-in-arm with risk assessment, monitoring, and—ugh—surveillance. That dual role can really mess with trust. And for social workers, the pressure to tick boxes and manage risk... it just crushes relational work.

Jac McNamara: Neoliberalism’s fingerprints are all over this, yeah? The whole system’s shaped by this idea that government should step back—families must be self-reliant, efficient, and, if they're struggling, well, it’s kind of their own fault. That sort of blame game, especially towards families living with poverty or other vulnerabilities, is just so counter to empowerment.

Paloma Cesare: Uh-huh. And then you have this monster called managerialism—big bureaucracies, all these new public management strategies. Suddenly, your time's measured by data points instead of conversations. Staff are drowning in admin, not actually building relationships with families.

Paloma Cesare: I remember my time in statutory work, the staff turnover was ridiculous—the faces kept changing, and families noticed. How can anyone trust a system or develop rapport, when the person meant to help them might disappear next week? The urgent, the manageable, and the ‘technically right’ decisions get prioritised over the meaningful. I mean, some days, Paloma, it felt like all I was offering families was a schedule and a list of rules.

Jac McNamara: Yeah—it's just so inconsistent. The research demonstrates that even the same worker could flip between being collaborative and, when the heat was on, really authoritarian. And the families—especially those with lived experiences of poverty, trauma, or just being constantly ‘managed’—they feel that inconsistency. We kind of touched on this idea of risk aversion and the cost of losing trust in past episodes, but it just keeps coming up because it’s so entrenched in practice.

Key Barriers in Practice and Their Consequences

Paloma Cesare: So let’s peel back some of those barriers actually showing up in day-to-day practice which is informed by the research evidence of social work practice in child protection in Australia. There’s this persistent myth which is believed by social workers and child protection officers that some families, or parents, just aren’t fit for participation—maybe because they’re struggling with addiction, or disability, or they’re seen as ‘lacking insight.’ And honestly, mothers get judged so harshly—especially if they go back to a partner who’s violent. I’ve seen it first-hand.

Jac McNamara: Same here. It’s like, you walk in, and the initial idea is, “Maybe we’ll work in partnership.” But the research highlights as soon as things look risky—let’s say a parent doesn’t tick every box, or there’s a whiff of disguised compliance—the approach shifts fast: “Here’s what you have to do. Step A, B, C—don’t do them, your child could be removed.” And then families understandably get suspicious or defensive, which just becomes another reason for workers to lean away from participation. It’s a vicious cycle.

Paloma Cesare: That tension between focusing on the child and working with parents…it’s like we forget that deep engagement with parents actually protects kids, not endangers them. But there’s always this background noise—what if collaborating with a parent means we miss something and a child’s harmed? I remember, in Maryborough, we had this mum, right? She went back to a violent partner. Suddenly, our whole approach shifted from supportive—meeting her where she was at—to this really top-down, rule-focused vibe. Overnight. This is also what is shown in the evidence - this paternalistic authoritarian approach that becomes part of the every day child protection approach.

Jac McNamara: It’s exactly what you’re saying—skill levels, role clarity, and personal values play massive roles. Some workers struggle with truly respecting a parent’s knowledge, and the training doesn’t always bridge that gap. If you can’t see your own role as both helper and social controller, you get lost. Or worse, the child gets ‘lost’—the invisible child problem which the evidence highlights. It's a bit of an oxy-moron isn't it- child protection but the child is invisible?!

Paloma Cesare: Right! And that’s devastating. Kids can become like, almost an ‘idea’ in the background—overwhelmed workers, all the paperwork, and heavy emotions mean you miss the child’s context, their lived reality. We’ve talked before—remember in the kinship care episodes?—about how bureaucracy and system demands can turn kids into statistics, not people. It’s the same here. If the worker checks out, the child becomes invisible, unheld, and the very point of our work is missed.

Jac McNamara: Right, and strong family engagement is one way to counteract that—but it’s only possible if you’ve got the skills, supervision, and time for reflection. Systemic change—moving past poverty-blame and giving families dignity—has to be more than just a buzzword.

Paloma Cesare: And I want to say, too—it’s not always about ‘better tools’ or ‘smarter training.’ Organizational values and genuine support matter so much more. There needs to be room for critically reflective practice and a real debate about what child protection is even for: investigation or supporting families? Because right now, that’s still a live question, isn’t it? At the moment the primary function is an extension of the police and one of social control and punishing families for hardship and poverty.

Collaborative Family Work: Evidence-based Approaches

Paloma Cesare: So, let’s talk about some of the ways forward—and maybe toss in a bit of hope here! The Collaborative Family Work, or CFW, model is well known in the field, as is Chris Trotter, Social Worker from Victoria who has focused on working in statutory contexts and best practice for the duration of his career. Jac, do you want to give a quick rundown?

Jac McNamara: Yeah, sure. Basically, Collaborative Family Work is all about shifting the focus back to genuine engagement, even with involuntary or court-ordered families. The model is built on four pillars: role clarification, pro-social modelling, problem-solving, and relationship skills. It’s well-researched—like, over ninety percent of families surveyed found CFW actually improved family functioning, and there’s evidence for lower re-offending rates, especially for young people.

Paloma Cesare: Yeah, and what I like about it is how practical it can be. A lot of the steps are about being transparent—like stating up front what can change, and what’s non-negotiable due to legal mandates. Actually explicitly discussing the mixed role—the surveillance plus the help—can really take the wind out of that “us versus them” feeling in early sessions.

Jac McNamara: And then there’s the pro-social modelling element—it’s not just praising good stuff but linking it for families: “You kept your appointment, so I’m happy to come to your home.” That builds trust and a little momentum. Sessions are structured, often home-based, and tangible—using things like family rating scales, even a bit of humour or self-disclosure, to humanise the process and lower resistance with the goal of building trust and a collaborative relationship.

Paloma Cesare: I struggle a little with behavioural psychology approaches such as the behaviour reinforcement model - essentially the carrot and stick approach. They use it a lot in large systems such as schools, prisons, and statutory work. But the evidence suggests its effectiveness. I kind of reframe to think of it as a mutually collaborative approach that is respectful and includes compromise.

Jac McNamara: Humour makes a massive difference, especially in regional Queensland where families might be suspicious at first. I sometimes kick off with, “On a scale of one to ten, how chaotic is the house right now, honestly?” It’s a bit cheeky but it gets a laugh, and you start on the same side of the table, not across it. Families from different backgrounds—especially if English isn’t their first language, or there’s cultural difference—respond to less jargon, more warmth. Honestly, those are the moments change starts.

Jac McNamara: You also see these models recommend tasks: role plays, positive feedback, lots of strengths-based language, and small, achievable goals. SMART goals—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely—just work. And when something does go well, you shine a big light on it. It’s about making change feel possible, not like another mountain to climb.

Paloma Cesare: And, I guess, to wrap up—if you’re listening and feeling stuck in rigid statutory work, there is evidence-based hope out there. Space for humour, transparency, non-judgment, and actually sharing a little of yourself? That stuff matters. If you want to see better outcomes, push for those reflective spaces and real organisational support, not just the latest policy tool.

Jac McNamara: Alright, so we’ll leave it there for this week. Next time, we’ll keep building on this—more on the organisation context and working across organisations effectively, including critically reflective supervision. Thanks, Paloma, I always get so much from these chats with you!

Paloma Cesare: Me too, Jac—it’s good to know there are ways forward, even in these tough spaces. Thanks everyone for tuning in. Take care, and we’ll catch you next time.