This paper aims to utilize social theory to inform relationship‐based social work practice with children, young people and families. We see ‘direct relationship‐based working’ drawing on theory and evidence as best placed to take forward high quality, humanistic social work practice. We outline the problems with policy and practice development led by the latest high profile ‘scandal’ or by the overemphasis on experimental design and systematic reviews. This issue was highlighted during a recent debate about appropriate methodologies for exploring Family Group Conferences: the debate is explored as illustrative of our concerns. A flexible model is proposed, which draws on eclectic sources of evidence, social theory and professional knowledge. We propose some principles for a reflective, humanistic and responsive form of social work professionalism.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to argue that the future of social work can be situated as part of a fundamental shift towards co-located, multi-disciplinary practice and networking. It is argued that social work has a key role to play in co-located, multi-disciplinary child welfare practice, and indeed can be a leading profession in this context. Situating social work in this way involves re-conceptualising social work as a network profession, rather than a silo profession. The paper builds on an earlier study of five multi-professional, co-located teams updated with interviews with social workers currently situated in such co-located teams. An exploration of the role of social work in relation to child sexual exploitation is provided. Design/methodology/approach: The first study was an ESRC-funded study and used a multi-method approach to understanding the work of five multi-disciplinary, co-located teams working with children, young people and families (Frost and Robinson, 2016). Four co-located teams with eight social workers participated in the research. This was followed up by a small scale study involving semi-structured interviews with six social workers situated in co-located, multi-disciplinary teams. The focus of the study was on professional identity and working practices with other related professionals. Findings: The ESRC study explored the complexity of co-located, multi-disciplinary professional teams – exploring how they worked together and analysing the challenges they face. Professionals felt that such working enhanced their learning, their skill base and the process of information sharing. Challenges included structural and organisational issues and differences in ideological and explanatory frameworks. The follow up study of six social workers found that they gained satisfaction from being situated in such co-located, multi-disciplinary teams, but also faced some identified challenges. Child sexual exploitation is explored as an example of the work of co-located, multi-disciplinary teams. Research limitations/implications: Semi-structured interviews with social workers based in co-located, multi-disciplinary teams have provided valuable insights into the operation of social workers in such settings. It is acknowledged that all the interviews are with social workers in co-located settings and that further work is required on the views of other social workers in reference to their experiences and views in relation to multi-disciplinary working. Originality/value: The paper brings together theoretical positions and policy contextual material with qualitative research data which situate the social worker in wider multi-disciplinary, co-located settings. Drawing on qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 14 social workers in such teams, the paper aims to contribute to an understanding and development of the future of the social work role in these contexts, arguing that this is fundamental to the future of social work.

Purpose: – In the context of current developments in children ' s services in the UK and increased emphasis on workforce development, the authors describe a survey of successful completers of a Post-qualifying (PQ) Child Care Award Programme, one of 18 such programmes in England that ran between 2001 and 2006/7. The survey ' s aims were twofold: first, to gather the respondents ' overall evaluations of their PQ training and information about their past and current work circumstances; and second, to explore their knowledge and opinions on the latest developments in children ' s services in relation to their own work practices. The findings from the survey are outlined under four themes, which are then discussed in relation to other relevant studies, reviews on the role and tasks of social workers and current developments associated with the Every Child Matters agenda and the integrated workforce. Concerns are raised about whether social work professionalism is being effectively utilised within the current children ' s services arrangements.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the public mental health challenges arising in the field of child sexual exploitation (CSE) from the perspective of frontline professionals. Design/methodology/approach: The methods included semi-structured face-to-face individual interviews (n=6) and focus groups (two groups with a total of eight participants = 8), all participants work with CSE-experienced young people. Findings: Professionals report how they offer support and therapy to CSE-experienced young people. Findings are outlined in relation to support, therapeutic interventions, multi-agency working, what works and the challenges and issues faced in their professional roles. Research limitations/implications: The paper reports briefly on a substantial amount of data. A further limitation is that there is a need to gather data directly from the perspective of young people. Practical implications: The high quality of work undertaken and the need to further develop therapeutic work with the CSE-experienced young people emerges from the findings. Social implications: CSE is a high-profile public health issue which attracts considerable public and political attention. Originality/value: The data gathered reflect the contemporary views of frontline professionals in a challenging and complex field of practice.

There is an obvious but perhaps sometimes forgotten difference between the child welfare worlds of developed northern and western countries and the developing majority in the southern and eastern continents. A more obvious tension in child welfare relates to choice for service investment and, particularly, between funding for early years services compared to resources for youth work. There is an ongoing debate in the academic, policy and practice arena on the distinction between, and merits of, a child protection over a Family Support approach. Not too far way in the past – a century ago, in the 1920s – the Child Welfare League in the USA sought to achieve better life conditions and prosperity for children who experience adversity; their original mission has core global messages for the future. The world children and their families may be dissatisfied with service provision while in the other they are more simply unsatisfied.