Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Saario, Sirpa
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Hall, Christopher, Lydahl, Doris
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315
Resumo: Client non‐cooperation is a widely recognised problem in welfare services. Being ‘hard‐to‐reach’ is considered a risk especially for the most vulnerable clients, for example in terms of increased homelessness. Such clients pose challenges to social inclusion, and services make some allowances to achieve engagement. However, even a minimum level of cooperation is required from hard‐to‐reach clients. In the context of home visiting, we study welfare workers’ efforts to engage with clients who continuously avoid contact. We examine three services in Finland, England, and Sweden that provide floating support to clients in their own accommodation. Utilising Robert Emerson’s idea of ‘the last resort,’ we analyse how workers justify their decisions to continue or terminate the support with the hard‐to‐reach. The data consist of team meeting recordings and home visit observations. We aim to demonstrate that justifications deployed to make the decision to end the home visiting service or tighten control, draw on ‘last resort responses.’ We identify three types of justifications: retrospective summaries on past failures to reach the client, intensifying remedial actions to engage clients, and characterisations of clients as uncooperative. While such justifications can be seen to draw on shared ethics, they have different ethical implications.
id RCAP_d83909eb8ba8f24377f1cbf9651ad136
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4315
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workersfloating support; hard‐to‐reach clients; home visiting; last resort; social work; welfare workersClient non‐cooperation is a widely recognised problem in welfare services. Being ‘hard‐to‐reach’ is considered a risk especially for the most vulnerable clients, for example in terms of increased homelessness. Such clients pose challenges to social inclusion, and services make some allowances to achieve engagement. However, even a minimum level of cooperation is required from hard‐to‐reach clients. In the context of home visiting, we study welfare workers’ efforts to engage with clients who continuously avoid contact. We examine three services in Finland, England, and Sweden that provide floating support to clients in their own accommodation. Utilising Robert Emerson’s idea of ‘the last resort,’ we analyse how workers justify their decisions to continue or terminate the support with the hard‐to‐reach. The data consist of team meeting recordings and home visit observations. We aim to demonstrate that justifications deployed to make the decision to end the home visiting service or tighten control, draw on ‘last resort responses.’ We identify three types of justifications: retrospective summaries on past failures to reach the client, intensifying remedial actions to engage clients, and characterisations of clients as uncooperative. While such justifications can be seen to draw on shared ethics, they have different ethical implications.Cogitatio2021-08-26info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4315Social Inclusion; Vol 9, No 3 (2021): Home- and Community-Based Work at the Margins of Welfare: Balancing between Disciplinary, Participatory and Caring Approaches; 265-2752183-2803reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4315https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4315/4315Copyright (c) 2021 Sirpa Saario, Christopher Hall, Doris Lydahlhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSaario, SirpaHall, ChristopherLydahl, Doris2022-12-20T11:00:03Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4315Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:33.626999Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
title Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
spellingShingle Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
Saario, Sirpa
floating support; hard‐to‐reach clients; home visiting; last resort; social work; welfare workers
title_short Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
title_full Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
title_fullStr Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
title_full_unstemmed Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
title_sort Engaging with Hard‐To‐Reach Clients: Towards the Last Resort Response by Welfare Workers
author Saario, Sirpa
author_facet Saario, Sirpa
Hall, Christopher
Lydahl, Doris
author_role author
author2 Hall, Christopher
Lydahl, Doris
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Saario, Sirpa
Hall, Christopher
Lydahl, Doris
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv floating support; hard‐to‐reach clients; home visiting; last resort; social work; welfare workers
topic floating support; hard‐to‐reach clients; home visiting; last resort; social work; welfare workers
description Client non‐cooperation is a widely recognised problem in welfare services. Being ‘hard‐to‐reach’ is considered a risk especially for the most vulnerable clients, for example in terms of increased homelessness. Such clients pose challenges to social inclusion, and services make some allowances to achieve engagement. However, even a minimum level of cooperation is required from hard‐to‐reach clients. In the context of home visiting, we study welfare workers’ efforts to engage with clients who continuously avoid contact. We examine three services in Finland, England, and Sweden that provide floating support to clients in their own accommodation. Utilising Robert Emerson’s idea of ‘the last resort,’ we analyse how workers justify their decisions to continue or terminate the support with the hard‐to‐reach. The data consist of team meeting recordings and home visit observations. We aim to demonstrate that justifications deployed to make the decision to end the home visiting service or tighten control, draw on ‘last resort responses.’ We identify three types of justifications: retrospective summaries on past failures to reach the client, intensifying remedial actions to engage clients, and characterisations of clients as uncooperative. While such justifications can be seen to draw on shared ethics, they have different ethical implications.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-08-26
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4315
url https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4315
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4315
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4315
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4315/4315
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Sirpa Saario, Christopher Hall, Doris Lydahl
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Sirpa Saario, Christopher Hall, Doris Lydahl
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Social Inclusion; Vol 9, No 3 (2021): Home- and Community-Based Work at the Margins of Welfare: Balancing between Disciplinary, Participatory and Caring Approaches; 265-275
2183-2803
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130662084542464