Introduction
This essay critically evaluates a case study involving Atif (16), Fatima (5), and their father Haris (43), a family of Punjabi Muslim ethnicity facing multiple social, emotional, and economic challenges in south London. The purpose of this assignment is to apply social work theories and approaches to understand the family’s circumstances and propose interventions, while embedding principles of anti-oppressive practice (AOP) and social justice. I will adopt the perspective of a student social worker placed at a voluntary organisation working with adults on mental health, employment, and housing issues, focusing primarily on Haris. The essay will explore three key theoretical frameworks—Systems Theory, Strengths-Based Approach, and Task-Centred Practice—to guide interventions. These will be critically analysed for their relevance, strengths, and limitations, with specific attention to how they align with AOP and social justice. Finally, I will reflect on my professional development in relation to Social Work England (SWE) standards and the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF), identifying key learning and areas for future growth.
Theoretical Frameworks and Rationale
To address the complexities of Haris’s situation, I have selected three social work theories: Systems Theory, Strengths-Based Approach, and Task-Centred Practice. Each offers a distinct lens to understand and support Haris and his family.
Firstly, Systems Theory, originating from Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s work in the mid-20th century, views individuals as part of interconnected systems, such as family, community, and wider society (Payne, 2021). In social work, it is used to examine how these systems interact and influence an individual’s well-being. Haris’s mental health struggles, financial difficulties, and family dynamics are interlinked, and this theory helps identify how interventions at one level (e.g., housing support) can impact others (e.g., emotional stability). Its place within social work tradition lies in its holistic approach to assessment, though it can be critiqued for lacking specificity in intervention strategies.
Secondly, the Strengths-Based Approach, developed in the 1980s through the work of scholars like Dennis Saleebey, focuses on identifying and building on individuals’ inherent strengths and resources rather than deficits (Saleebey, 2013). For Haris, this approach is relevant given his past qualifications as an electrician and his commitment to caring for his children and mother, despite adversities. This framework aligns with empowerment principles central to social work, though it risks minimising structural barriers if over-emphasised.
Lastly, Task-Centred Practice, pioneered by Reid and Epstein in the 1970s, is a short-term, problem-solving model focusing on achievable goals through collaborative tasks (Reid and Epstein, 1972). This is suitable for Haris’s immediate practical challenges, such as budgeting or accessing mental health support. Its structured nature suits early help interventions, yet it may overlook deeper emotional or systemic issues if applied in isolation.
These theories were chosen for their complementary nature: Systems Theory provides a broad understanding, Strengths-Based Approach fosters empowerment, and Task-Centred Practice offers practicality. Together, they address both individual and structural dimensions of Haris’s circumstances.
Analysis and Discussion: Application of Theory to Practice
Applying Systems Theory, Haris’s situation can be understood as a product of interconnected challenges across multiple systems. His mental health (anxiety, depression) impacts his ability to parent and work, exacerbated by housing instability and debt, while his caregiving role for his mother limits his capacity to address these issues. Interventions would involve coordinating support across systems, such as linking Haris with mental health services (e.g., NHS IAPT programmes) and housing support through the local authority. However, policy guidance like the Care Act 2014 highlights the need for integrated support for carers like Haris, which may be constrained by resource limitations in practice (Department of Health and Social Care, 2014). A critical limitation is that Systems Theory does not inherently address power imbalances, a gap that AOP fills by prompting me to consider cultural stigma around mental health in Punjabi communities, which may discourage Haris from seeking help (Bhui et al., 2004).
The Strengths-Based Approach complements this by focusing on Haris’s resilience and skills. Despite his struggles, Haris has shown dedication to his children and mother and possesses vocational expertise as an electrician. Interventions could involve supporting him to access employment schemes or training, reinforcing his self-worth. Research indicates that strengths-based interventions can improve mental health outcomes by fostering agency (Gray, 2011). This approach dovetails with social justice principles by valuing Haris’s lived experience and countering deficit-based narratives. However, it risks ignoring structural inequalities, such as systemic barriers to employment for ethnic minorities, necessitating an AOP lens to advocate for fair access to resources (Dominelli, 2002).
Task-Centred Practice offers a pragmatic framework to address immediate concerns, such as budgeting or ensuring Fatima’s school pick-ups. Working collaboratively with Haris, I would set small, achievable goals, like creating a weekly budget plan or arranging childcare support. This method aligns with early help guidance under the Children Act 1989, which prioritises preventive support (HM Government, 2018). Yet, its short-term focus may neglect deeper emotional trauma, a limitation that requires integration with other approaches. In terms of AOP and social justice, this model can empower Haris by involving him in decision-making, though I must remain vigilant to avoid imposing solutions that do not account for his cultural or personal context.
Each theory has benefits: Systems Theory ensures a holistic view, Strengths-Based Approach promotes empowerment, and Task-Centred Practice provides actionable steps. However, limitations exist—none fully address structural oppression unless explicitly paired with AOP, which challenges discrimination based on ethnicity, class, or disability (Thompson, 2016). Social justice is partially considered through empowerment and advocacy, but more explicit focus on policy change (e.g., housing wait times) is needed. Thus, while these theories guide practice, their application must be critically moderated to ensure they do not inadvertently perpetuate marginalisation.
Reflections on Professional Development
Reflecting on this assignment through the lens of Social Graces (Burnham, 2011)—which prompts consideration of gender, race, age, class, and other identity factors—I recognise how my assumptions about family roles or cultural norms could influence my practice. Engaging with Haris’s case has deepened my social work values, particularly around respect and dignity, aligning with SWE Standard 2 on promoting rights and equality. My ‘use of self’ has developed through critically examining how my background might shape interactions, ensuring I remain open to Haris’s perspective.
This work prepares me for placement by enhancing skills in assessment and intervention, mapping to PCF Domains 5 (critical reflection) and 7 (intervention and skills). Key learning includes the importance of integrating theory with AOP to avoid oppressive practice. Areas for future development include building confidence in navigating multi-agency systems and deepening cultural competence to better support diverse families, essential for meeting SWE Standard 4 on professional leadership.
Summary and Conclusions
In conclusion, this essay has critically evaluated the application of Systems Theory, Strengths-Based Approach, and Task-Centred Practice to support Haris and his family, highlighting their strengths and limitations. While these frameworks offer valuable tools for understanding and addressing complex needs, their integration with AOP and social justice principles is essential to challenge systemic inequalities and empower service users. Reflecting on my development, this assignment has reinforced my commitment to ethical practice and identified areas for growth ahead of placement. Ultimately, effective social work demands a dynamic, critical approach that balances theory, policy, and values to promote meaningful change.
References
- Bhui, K., Bhugra, D., and Goldberg, D. (2004) Cross-cultural validity of the Amritsar Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire amongst English and Punjabi primary care attenders. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(5), pp. 391-396.
- Burnham, J. (2011) Developments in Social GRRRAAACCEEESSS: Visible-invisible and voiced-unvoiced. In: Krause, I. (ed.) Culture and Reflexivity in Systemic Psychotherapy. London: Karnac Books.
- Department of Health and Social Care (2014) Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office.
- Dominelli, L. (2002) Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Gray, M. (2011) Back to basics: A critique of the strengths perspective in social work. Families in Society, 92(1), pp. 5-11.
- HM Government (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children. London: Department for Education.
- Payne, M. (2021) Modern Social Work Theory. 5th ed. London: Red Globe Press.
- Reid, W. J. and Epstein, L. (1972) Task-Centred Casework. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Saleebey, D. (2013) The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
- Thompson, N. (2016) Anti-Discriminatory Practice: Equality, Diversity and Social Justice. 6th ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
