Introduction Measuring outcomes in child and family social work is notoriously difficult. Reasons for social work involvement are complex and varied, ranging from a baby where there are serious concerns about risks, through a... [ view full abstract ]
Introduction
Measuring outcomes in child and family social work is notoriously difficult. Reasons for social work involvement are complex and varied, ranging from a baby where there are serious concerns about risks, through a family with social problems to a teenager with challenging behaviour. Even where there is a clear presenting problem, the specific goal may not be captured by standardised instruments. Furthermore, the aim of social work is not always to create change: sometimes it is to maintain a fragile situation. Finally, the values of social work point to the importance of service users defining their own goals. This is difficult using pre-existing standardised instruments.
This presentation reports on an attempt to overcome some of these challenges by measuring outcomes in a client defined way, using Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS; Kiresuk & Sherman, 1968). We explore the opportunities and challenges of GAS using data collected in research studies on social work practice in England.
Background
GAS was first used to evaluate mental health treatment outcomes (Kiresuk & Sherman, 1968). It forms part of two research interviews. At the first, the client shares a goal that is important to them. Detailed descriptions are elicited to document the current situation and how things might be if they get ‘much better’ or ‘much worse’. At the second interview, progress is mapped against the initial descriptions through a qualitative summary of changes and by quantifying progress on a scale from -2 to +2.
Method
A version of GAS, adapted for child and family social work is being used in three studies exploring the impact of social work skills on outcomes for children and families. This follows analysis of a pilot of GAS (Forrester et al, forthcoming). We will present a content analysis, giving a description of client-defined goals illustrating contrasting potential outcomes. We will also use quantitative data to explore progress and examine how far the GAS framework accommodates these goals. At the time of submission, data has been collected from 196 clients at interview one and 34 clients at follow up.
Results
Content analysis identified a diverse set of goal categories, including substance misuse, parenting, and issues such as housing or immigration. Some goals did not fit easily the GAS framework, due to the nature of the goal. Some goals were not behavioural or within the client’s control and some were unrealistic within the timeframe. Not all descriptions were specific enough for assessment of progress. This analysis illustrates the potential of GAS, highlights the challenges and suggests further adaptations.
Conclusions
GAS is promising for measuring outcomes in child and family social work, and adaptations implemented here increase its utility. Implementation is challenging but GAS offers a more flexible and client-centred assessment of outcomes than many alternatives. We explore the practicalities and ethics of operationalising GAS as a research tool, arguing that GAS is best conceptualised as a collaborative (rather than client-centred) outcome measure, and that this makes it particularly useful for research and practice. We also suggest further enhancements (client perspectives of agency goals, exploring barriers). We aim to contribute to a wider debate about the impact of social work and how outcomes can be defined and understood.
References
Forrester, D., Westlake, D., Whittaker, C., Thomas, R., Waits, C., Antonopoulou, V., Killian, M and Hutchison, D. (forthcoming) “Engaging Parents and Protecting Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Impact of Training Social Workers in Motivational Interviewing for Children and Families”, Research on Social Work Practice
Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal Attainment Scaling: A General Method for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Mental Health Programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6).
Program evaluation and quality in child welfare , Other topics
