Working with Resistance and Disguised Compliance Jane Wiffin

Where does my knowledge come from? Work as a social worker User of services as a carer Serious case review author – largely children, but some adults Researcher/Dissemination of research Training

Why do I tell you this? One of the biggest issues emerging in SCRs is the importance of professionals not relying on one source of information in important circumstances/decisions/assessments/understandin g poor engagement or hostility Not relying on self report – looking for the clues or discrepancies Intuitive & Analytical thinking Major issue in resistance and disguised compliance – making and trusting our professional judgements

Intuitive & Analytical thinking Recognise the impact of Intuitive and Analytical reasoning (Munro Review) Intuitive: unconscious process that occurs automatically and integrates wide range of data to produce quick judgement. Makes use of emotions (sometimes referred to as “gut feelings” Analytical: conscious and controlled – using formal reasoning and explicit data – often not using data from emotions – ruling them out Each have their benefits and drawbacks – But: Need to draw on both to make sense of complex situations Need to recognise when one dominates

What different forms does resistance take ? Disguised Compliance Violence/Hostility

Disguised Compliance Disguised Compliance is a phrase coined by Reder, Duncan & Gray in 1993 in ‘Beyond Blame – child abuse tragedies revisited’. They described It as a patterns of interaction between professionals and service users (family/parents/carers) in which professionals are kept at bay by partially complying with professional plans. Also splitting professional opinion

Disguised Compliance - some indications No significant change at reviews despite significant input; – Note need for a plan and a review Parents/carers agreeing with professionals regarding required changes but put little effort into making changes work; Change does occur but as a result of external agencies/resources not the parental/carers efforts; Change in one area not matched by change in other areas; Parents/carers will engage with certain aspects of a plan only; Parents/carers align themselves with certain professionals; and Child’s report of matters is in conflict with parents’ report.

EFFORT COMMITMENT TO CHANGE HIGHLOW o Genuine commitment Talk the talk and walk the walk o Tokenism Talk the talk o Compliance o Imitation o Approval seeking Walk the walk o Avoidance Walk away HIGH LOW RESPONSE TO CHANGE Horwarth, 2001

Manipulation of professional relationships SCRs often note splits across agencies Often a deliberate if at times unconscious process Splits between agencies can result in: individuals and agencies blaming each other and therefore colluding Those who are not experiencing hostility can find themselves taking all the responsibility those who are “approved of” and “praised “ may feel gratified and unable to accept that there are problems or risks Enables adults to harm children/adults unchallenged

Developing an overly optimistic approach/ Focus too much on small improvements rather than considering families’ full histories Develop ‘fixed views’ that are not updated in light of contrary evidence Implications for practice Presentation details

Working in the context of violence and hostility: First Principles Workers have a right to feel safe, to be heard when they voice fears and concerns and to know that the response should include appropriate action being taken. Professionals must feel able to talk about these issues Professionals must not be blamed for other’s violence and aggression Authoritive practice

THREATENING BEHAVIOUR Deliberate silence Written threats s and telephone calls Intimidating or derogatory language Racist and other oppressive remarks Physical intimidation Swearing Shouting Throwing things Physical violence

The importance of naming the problem This raises dillemmas – by naming the problem now are we labelling people for ever However if we are not clear about the nature of the problem hard to change/address Do not fully capture history of problems Do not enable others to address Lack of naming it might also indicate that a professionals has not been clear with the service user

What is the nature of the problem ? Is it about me ?????? Is it about you ???????? Is it about you ???????? Is it about someone else ??????

Factors to do with service users and their experiences Experience of seeking help in the past – influence on the present Experience of help seeking attitude Trust and Attachment Experience of authority Attitude to change Cultural issues /Racism/discrimination Disability issue – e.g having a learning disability Have something to hide

Factors to do with Professionals Lack of engagement skills – making relationships critical Lack of confidence in own role and task/confusion about what is required Not adopting an authoritative approach Self reliance/capacity issues/ people can make their own decisions Not acknowledging racism/discrimination oppression Not recognising the impact of issues such as – Learning disability – Domestic abuse – Parental Mental health Not seeking to find a shared understanding of the issues to be addressed

Demanding Unresponsive Responsive Undemanding Authoritative Permissive Authoritarian Neglectful The Authoritative Practitioner

Practitioner - Service User styles matrix ‘ Demandingness’ – the extent to which practitioners show control and maturity, and make demands for change based on assessment Responsiveness – the extent to which practitioners respond to the differentiated and assessed needs of service users Adapted from Hackett (2003) Undemanding Unresponsive Responsive Demanding Authoritative Permissive Authoritarian Neglectful Practitioner is both responsive to and respectful of the user and his/her needs, but demands appropriately assessed changes in behaviour/honesty/parenting and genuine collaboration in return Practitioner is over-directive, showing inappropriate/disproportionate and/or unnecessary use of control and authority; can lead to unobservant of and unresponsive to user needs Practitioner forms passive and/or collusive relationships with users, in which needs are neither recognised nor differentiated (Eg between parent/carer and child). Fails both to assess accurately and use authority when appropriate Practitioner is keen to offer support – both emotionally and practically (Eg by offering financial support and access to services) but asks for nothing in return; fails to differentiate between competing needs; is essentially in a collusive and ‘one- way’ relationship with specific users (normally parents/carers)

Factors from others Adults who are “behind the scenes” including “shadowy males” Children and vulnerable adults who are dependant on others WAS NOT BROUGHT V DID NOT ATTTEND

Making sense of the problem Need for reflection Analysis of the cause of the problems – importance of hypothesising – Remember tendency to take fixed positions – It is my fault/it is your fault – Test this out Risk assessment and resilience Strategies to address Review – is it working – or have we got the cause wrong Change in strategies Have a plan and review it

What helps Relationship based practice – working with everyone “Think Family” An authoritative approach Good assessments Appropriate plan and review Tools such as – Genograms – Culturagrams – Discrepancy matrix Awareness of risk and consequences Reflective supervision