By Jane F. Gilgun and Samantha Hirschey, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

In previous blogs, we discussed relational interviews as a means of getting to know young people and building circles of trust. In this blog, we show how relational interviews can create change in systems that are punitive when young people act in aggressive ways.

Systems Change

Child protection social workers know through experience that school authorities have policies and procedures for dealing with students who behave in aggressive ways. Many schools have zero-tolerance or close to zero-tolerance policies where students are punished immediately for any infraction that authorities believe threatens safety. This may solve the immediate problem by getting the troublesome student out of the setting, but long-term issues remain. Mullet (2014) reported that a principal told her “I know that punishment doesn’t really change the student, but at least everyone involved knows that I did something” (p. 157). Not only does punishment not help but it can become part of a sequences of negative consequences that we have discussed in previous blogs.

Child welfare social workers have roles to play in changing ineffective policies, procedures, and programs. Principals, teachers, and other school staff often have engrained beliefs such as punishment is an appropriate response. At the same time, they typically have an inkling that punishment doesn’t work in the long run.

Organizing for Relational Interviews

Child welfare social workers can initiate a series of relational interviews with parents, school social workers, guidance counselors, and school staff. They may find among them persons who want to join them to plan for systems change. Those conducting the interviews would have the necessary skills as described earlier, and the principle of non-coercion would be in play.

Interviewers would ask parents about their children, what they think of school policies, and whether they would like to see school policies change. As interviewers build relationships with parents, they could invite parents to meet in small groups to discuss concerns. Through these meetings, parents may form coalitions and make plans for meeting with administrators, teachers, staff such as janitors, teachers’ aides, and lunch room servers, and school boards to discuss current policies and programs and changes they would like to see. Interviewers would become “background facilitators,” present and available for consultation and supportive of the emergence of parent leaders.

Services to Parents

Through building relationships with parents, interviewers may learn about the roles of families in the aggressive behaviors. Interviewers would have relationships with parents and information on which to make recommendations for parents about what to do for their children. This could include referrals to parent support groups, self-help groups such as those based on the 12 Steps, and individual and family therapy. Job preparation and training, educational programs, recreation, and any other resources would be opportunities interviewers could offer parents.

In informational interviews with school personnel, interviewers would inquire about the reasoning and meanings behind current policies and guide conversations toward the effectiveness and consequences of current practices. Naturally or with a bit of encouragement, school officials might begin to wonder out loud about what might be more effective.

Interviewers could make gentle suggestions about principles and programs that have been shown to be effective. Slowly and carefully, relational interviews can change views about how to deal with children and young people who have issues with aggression.

Well-done interviews are contingently responsive, meaning that interviewers are attuned to school officials and staff. They interact in ways that keep them connected to what is happening for the people they interview.

Partnering with Parents for Systems Change

Interviewers could work toward getting parents and school staff to work together to change policies and to initiate new approaches to children and young people who behave in aggressive ways.

Interviewers could also approach school board members. Relational interviews with them could lead to changes in school districts. If the work parents and school personnel have done together has gone well, they could conduct the relational interviews with members of school boards. These interviews would build coalitions that could result in district-wide changes in policies and programs.

Such movements toward systems changes have a chance of being effective with careful planning and evaluations after each step. Based on evaluations of what has already happening, child protection social workers and the growing number of parent and school allies could work toward program and polices research and practice experience have shown to be effective.

Summary

In summary, individual and systems change happens through relationships of trust. Child protection social workers have leadership roles to play with parents who might want to see changes in school policies and who also might realize that they have to change their own behaviors for the sake of their children and for their own sakes.

Child protection social workers, especially if they can collaborate with parent groups, may be catalysts for change in schools and other settings. Relational interviews with young people can build communities of support, where young people have persons to whom they can turn when they are about to act out in aggressive ways. Finally, the people who compose the systems that affect young people often are frustrated with the results of their policies. Relational interviews with them can explore these issues and lead to systems changes.

Questions To Consider

Please feel free to leave a comment on today’s blog. As you think about the blog, we wonder how you are responding to the ideas we presented.

  • What do you think of relational interviews as a way of creating systems change?
  • Can you picture yourself doing relational interviews for systems change? Why or why not?
  • Can you picture yourself organizing others, such as other child protection social workers, school social workers, guidance counselors, and teachers to do relationship interviews?
    • What would be involved in leading such an effort?

About the Authors

Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.D., LICSW, is a professor, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA. She was a child welfare social worker for more than eight years and has taught courses and done qualitative research on high-risk children and families for many years. A special focus of her research is factors associated with good outcomes when children have experienced complex trauma. Professor Gilgun’s articles, books, and practice manuals are widely available on the internet. Many of them are free.

Samantha Hirschey is a second year master’s student at the School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, USA, and Professor Gilgun’s research assistant. She did her first year internship at the St. Paul Public Schools and her second internship will be at the Community-University Health Care Center that provides mental health services to residents of the inner city of Minneapolis. She has worked in a variety of social service agencies including with children, teens, and adults with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. She has a special interest in the promotion of integrated behavioral health in children and families.

References

Brown, Kirk Warren, Richard M. Ryan and J. David Creswell (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 18 (4), 211-237.

Gecan, Michael (). Going public. Boston: Beacon.

Gilgun, Jane F. (2011). Children with serious conduct issues: A case study, a NEATS assessment, and case planning. Amazon Kindle.

Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). The effects of family, school, and class- room ecologies on changes in children’s social competence and emotional and behavioral problems in first grade. Developmental Psychology, 40, 533–544.

Kahn, Si (2010). Creative community organizing. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Mullet, Judy Hostetler (2014). Restorative discipline: From getting even to getting well. Children & Schools, 36 (3), 157-162.

Neff, K. D. & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identify, 9(3), 225–240.

Rubin, Herbert J. & Irene Rubin (2008). Community organizing and development (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.