Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Co-working, in its various forms, has been a feature of family court welfare work for many years. However, it has never become universally accepted by practitioners (or endorsed by their managers), as has been the case in group work and work with sex offenders. From his previous experience as a Senior Family Court Welfare Officer in Humberside and latterly as a trainer with the National Induction Programme, Brian Cantwell proposes that a firmer and more articulate commitment to the shared work ethic is needed if family court welfare practice is to develop, flourish and perhaps also compete successfully, in the belief that a culture of collective responsibility will become increasingly important in maintaining staff skill and confidence.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cantwell, B. & Trinder, L. For Better or Worse; Research into the Impact of The Children Act 1989 on the Work of Family Court Welfare Teams. (HumbersideProbation and The Save the Children Fund, Humberside Cluster, 1993) noted that in early 1993 few family court welfare teams had any form of structured gatekeeping in place .

Local Humberside statistics, kept over the period 1984-95, indicated that a co-worked office-interview model of welfare report preparation took no more total officer time than Resource Management Information Systems allowances, and compared favourably with the figures produced by solo working areas.

Napo , Good Practice Guide , 1995.

Acop , An Introduction to the Work of the Family Court Welfare Service, 1996.

Home Office , National Standards for Family Court Welfare Work (1994, 4.12-

4.14) place significant constraints on officers who favour joint or family interviews.

The Curious Case of Co-Work in Family Court Welfare

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References