Introduction
This essay presents a reflective analysis of a single assessment process in the context of a social work case involving Daniel Malik, an 8-year-old child referred by Greenfields Primary School due to concerns about frequent absences, poor hygiene, and inadequate nutrition at home. Additionally, concerns have been raised about his father, George Malik, a single parent reportedly struggling with mental health issues and possible substance misuse. As a student social worker tasked with conducting an initial home visit, this essay employs Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) to critically evaluate my approach to the assessment, role play experience, and the application of relevant legislation and skills in addressing the family’s needs. The discussion will explore key stages of the reflective cycle while linking to social work theories, ethical considerations, and statutory frameworks. The aim is to demonstrate a sound understanding of social work practice, identify areas for improvement, and highlight the importance of a sensitive, child-centered approach in initial assessments.
Context of the Case and Role as a Student Social Worker
The referral for Daniel Malik highlights multiple safeguarding concerns, including potential neglect and emotional harm, as evidenced by his frequent absences, poor hygiene, and reports of insufficient food at home. Additionally, his father’s reported substance misuse and untreated mental health issues, alongside a history of domestic incidents and disengagement from early help services, raise further concerns about parenting capacity. My role as a student social worker during the initial home visit was to introduce myself, explain the purpose of social work intervention, build rapport with the family, and explore these concerns in a non-threatening manner while adhering to safeguarding and confidentiality principles.
The single assessment, as outlined in the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance (HM Government, 2018), is a critical process in social work to identify a child’s needs and risks within a 45-day timeframe. This assessment must be holistic, involving direct engagement with the child and family to understand their lived experiences. In preparing for the home visit and subsequent role play, I was mindful of the need to balance professionalism with empathy, ensuring that my communication was appropriate for an 8-year-old child while addressing serious concerns with his father.
Application of Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle to the Assessment
Description
During the role play of the initial home visit, I introduced myself as a student social worker and explained my role in supporting families and ensuring child wellbeing. I addressed confidentiality, clarifying that information would be shared only with relevant professionals if there were safeguarding concerns. I used open-ended questions to explore Daniel’s experiences at home and school, while also engaging George to understand his perspective on the challenges he faces. The interaction revealed Daniel’s anxiety and George’s defensive stance, particularly around discussions of substance use and mental health.
Feelings
Initially, I felt nervous about conducting the visit, particularly given the sensitive nature of the concerns. I was anxious about striking the right tone—neither accusatory nor overly lenient—when discussing neglect and substance misuse with George. However, building rapport with Daniel through child-friendly communication alleviated some of my concerns. I felt conflicted when George appeared reluctant to engage, as I worried this might hinder the assessment process. Reflecting on this, I recognised the importance of patience and non-judgmental practice in social work.
Evaluation
The role play highlighted both strengths and limitations in my approach. Positively, I effectively communicated the purpose of my visit and maintained a child-centered focus by engaging directly with Daniel. However, my handling of George’s defensiveness was less effective; I could have used more empathetic language or active listening techniques to reduce tension. Furthermore, while I outlined confidentiality, I did not fully explain the implications of safeguarding duties, which might have left George unclear about information-sharing processes. This reflects a gap in my communication skills that needs addressing.
Analysis
Analysing the interaction through a theoretical lens, I draw on ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasizes the interplay between individual, family, and societal factors in a child’s development. Daniel’s situation is influenced by immediate factors, such as his father’s mental health and parenting capacity, and broader issues like unemployment and potential social isolation. My approach during the role play partially addressed these layers by exploring family dynamics, but I neglected to probe wider support networks or community resources that might assist George.
Moreover, under the Children Act 1989, social workers are mandated to prioritize the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration (Section 1). This legal framework guided my focus on Daniel’s needs, but I arguably underestimated the importance of partnership working with George, a principle also enshrined in the Act. Research by Featherstone et al. (2014) highlights that engaging parents, even in challenging circumstances, is crucial for effective intervention, as it fosters trust and collaboration. My limited engagement with George may have hindered this partnership.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the role play, I conclude that while I demonstrated a basic ability to conduct an initial assessment, there were missed opportunities to build trust with George and fully clarify safeguarding processes. My child-centered approach with Daniel was a strength, aligning with statutory guidance, but my handling of complex adult issues requires improvement. This experience has underscored the importance of balancing empathy with assertiveness and ensuring clear communication of legal and ethical boundaries.
Action Plan
Moving forward, I will enhance my practice by undertaking further training in communication skills, particularly in managing defensive or reluctant service users. I will also deepen my understanding of relevant legislation, such as the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014, to better support adults with mental health struggles like George. Practicing active listening and using reflective questioning techniques will help build rapport in future assessments. Additionally, I will seek supervision to discuss challenging cases, ensuring I address personal biases or anxieties that may impact my practice. This structured approach to professional development will strengthen my ability to conduct effective single assessments.
Linking to Legislation and Social Work Practice
The single assessment process is governed by key legislation, including the Children Act 1989 and the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance (HM Government, 2018). These frameworks emphasize the importance of timely, child-centered interventions and inter-agency collaboration. During the role play, I adhered to these principles by prioritizing Daniel’s welfare and outlining my safeguarding duties. However, as noted earlier, I could have better informed George about how these duties affect confidentiality, ensuring transparency as recommended by the British Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics (BASW, 2014).
Additionally, the Care Act 2014 highlights the duty to support adults with care needs, such as George’s untreated mental health issues. While my focus was primarily on Daniel, a more holistic assessment would consider George’s wellbeing to enhance family outcomes. Research by Stanley and Humphreys (2015) suggests that supporting parental mental health can significantly mitigate risks to children, reinforcing the need for an integrated approach in future practice.
Conclusion
In summary, this reflective essay has utilized Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle to critically evaluate my approach to a single assessment in the case of Daniel Malik and his father, George. The analysis revealed strengths in maintaining a child-centered focus and adhering to statutory guidance, but also limitations in engaging George and clarifying safeguarding implications. By linking the experience to ecological systems theory, relevant legislation, and social work ethics, I have identified key areas for improvement, including communication skills and partnership working. The action plan outlined will guide my professional development, ensuring I address complex family dynamics more effectively in future assessments. Ultimately, this reflection underscores the importance of balancing empathy, legal responsibilities, and critical thinking in social work practice, particularly when safeguarding vulnerable children. The implications of this learning extend beyond this case, shaping my approach to building trust and fostering collaboration with families in crisis.
References
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
- British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2014) The Code of Ethics for Social Work. BASW.
- Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K. (2014) Re-imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Policy Press.
- Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Further Education Unit.
- HM Government (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. Department for Education.
- Stanley, N. and Humphreys, C. (2015) Domestic Violence and Protecting Children: New Thinking and Approaches. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
