Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Has Personalisation enhanced the rights of service users and aided social workers ability to manage risk?

Written Assignment 001: Submission 5th May 2016: 3,750 words written (+/-10%)

 

The assignment has two parts to it which students need to answer and submit as one assignment using the questions as titles for each section both pieces will be marked and given one overall holistic grade:

 

 

Part 1: Has Personalisation enhanced the rights of service users and aided social workers ability to manage risk?  (2,250 word count +/- 10%)

 

Part 2: Adopting the role of a children and families social worker, present the completed analysis and recommendation sections from the Single Assessment template based on the case study materials which will be provided in Session 15? (1,500 words +/- 10%)

             

SPECIAL GUIDANCE:

 

Part 1 should:

Use a wide range of sources of information from research, articles, websites and books to enable you to form a structured concise argument to answer the question.

 

It is important that you identify macro theories which are influencing the meso and micro levels of practice.

 

You may select a specific focus for the assignment for example adults with learning or physical disabilities, mental health or older people. However, you can maintain a broader analysis incorporating research from these different areas, which compares and contrasts different areas of practice. Make your focus specific however in your introduction.

 

Ensure that you identify the differing perspectives. Be balanced in assessing and appraising different theories, values and policies that you may apply.

 

Ensure that you reference the PCF and SoPs where applicable within the assignment.

 

You can include case studies covered or guest speaker points to help illustrate your answer and relate it to practice making sure these are annoymised and confidentiality is not breached.

 

 

Part 2 should: 

 

Using the multiagency Case Study materials demonstrate your ability to assess and analyse risk. Part 2 should show your ability to analyse and interpret information balancing rights, risks and responsibilities in this case incorporating research, theory and risk assessment models. A clear professional judgement and recommendation will need to be put forward based upon your analysis. The recommendation should include a decisiojn as to whether or not the child is at risk of significant harm and what further support, steps are required?

 

Use the Single Assessment template sections on Analysis and Recommendations to answer Part 2. During the module we will complete the initial sections which will help inform your analysis. You may include the initial sections of the assessment as an appendix to aid your analysis but this will not be marked or counted towards the words used.

 

Part 2 will need to be written in a professional style and written in the first person, with you assuming the role of the assessing children’s social worker. The Single Assessment sections should be written professionally but using common language so that the case study family and professionals, who would receive this assessment, understand it.

 

Any academic terms which are used need to be clearly explained eg attachment / resilience / trauma… The main area of focus should be on analysing and interpreting the information gathered, which will inform and back up your recommendations and professional judgement made.

 

The application of research, theory, policy and values needs to be incorporated into the report in a cohesive style and will need to be academically referenced.

 

Ensure that you reference the PCF and SoPs where applicable within the assignment

 

Further Reading Materials and Core Text*:

 

Ash, A. (2015) Safeguarding older people from abuse, Bristol, Policy Press

 

Baldwin, C. (2013) Narrative social work: theory and application, Bristol, Policy Press

 

Banks, S. (2012) Ethics and values in social work. 4th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

Beech, A.R. Leam, C. and Browne, K. (Eds)  (2009) Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: a handbook, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell

 

Bentovim, A., Cox, A., Miller, L.B., Pizzey, S.  (Eds)  (2009) Safeguarding Children Living with Trauma and Family Violence:  Evidence-Based Assessment, Analysis and Planning Interventions.  London:  Jessica Kingsely.

 

Beresford, P. (2014) Personalisation, Bristol, Policy Press

 

Brayne, H, Carr, H and Goosey, (2015) Law for Social Workers 13th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press

 

Calder, M. C. and Archer, J. (2015) Risk in Child Protection, Assessment challenges and frameworks for practice, London, Jessica Kingsley Press

 

Calder, M. C. and Hackett, S.  (2013) Assessment in Child Care: 

Using and Developing Frameworks for Practice. 2nd edn. Lyme Regis:  Russell House

 

Carson, D. and Bain, A. (2008) Professional risk and working with people; decision making in health, social care and criminal justice, London, Jessica Kingsley

 

Cleaver, H. Unell, I. and Aldgate, J. (Eds.)  (2011) Children’s Needs – Parenting Capacity: child abuse, parental mental illness, learning disability, substance misuse, and domestic violence (2 Eds.) London, TSO

 

Cree, V. Clapton, G. and Smith, M. (2015) Revisiting Moral Panics (Eds), Bristol, Policy Press

 

Daniel, B. Wassell, S. and Gilligan, R. (Eds)  (2010) Child Development for Child Care and Protection Workers (2nd Eds.) London, Jessica Kingsley

 

Ferguson, H. (2011) Child Protection Practice, London, Sage

 

Harms. L. (2015) Understanding trauma and resilience, London, Palgrave

 

Gardner, A. (2014) Personalisation in social work (2nd Ed) London, Learning Matters

 

Howarth, J. (2013) Child Neglect; planning and intervention, London, Palgrave MacMillan

 

Langan, J.  (2004). Living with Risk:  Mental Health Service User Involvement in Risk Assessment and Management.  Bristol, The Policy Press.

 

Grant, L. and Kinman, G. (2014) Developing resilience for social work practice, London, Palgrave

 

Gray, M. and Webb. S. (2013) The new politics of social work (Eds), Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

 

Greenfields, M. Dalrymple, R. and Fanning, A. (2015) Working with Adults at Risk (Eds) Maidenhead, Open University Press

 

* Kemshall, H. and Wilkinson, B. (2011) Good practice in assessing risk: Current knowledge, issues and approaches, London, Jessica Kingsley

 

Kemshall, H. Wilkinson, B. and Baker, K. (2013) Working with risk; skills for contemporary practice, Cambridge, Polity Press

 

* Koubel, G. and Bungay, H. (2012) Rights, Risks and Responsibilities interprofessional working in health and social care, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

 

Ingram, R. (2015) Understanding emotions in social work: theory, practice and reflection, Maidenhead, Open University Press

 

Mandelstam, M (2013) Safeguarding Adults and the Law. 2nd edn. London: Jessica

 

Mantell, A. and Scragg, T. (Eds.) (2011) Safeguarding Adults in Social Work, London, Sage

 

Milner, J. and O’Byrne, P. (2009) Assessment in social work Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

 

Morgan, S. (2014) Working with strengths putting personalisation and recovery into practice, Hove, Pavilion

 

Morgan, S. (2013) Risk decision-making: working with risk and implementing positive risk-taking, Hove, Pavillion

 

Parker, J. (2014) Social Work Practice: assessment, planning, intervention and review, London, Sage

 

Pritchard, J. (2013) Good Practice in Promoting Recovery and Healing for Abused Adults. London: Jessica Kingsley

 

Pullen-Sansfacon, A. and Cowden, S. (2012) The Ethical Foundations of Social Work, Dorchester, Pearson

 

Sanderson, H. (2012) A practice guide to delivering personalisation, London, Jessica Kingsley

 

Sellars, C. (2011) Risk Assessment in people with learning disabilities, Chichester, Blackwell

 

* Webb, S. (2006) Social Work in a risk society, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan

 

Journals

Child Abuse and Neglect

Child and Family Social Work

Child Abuse Review

Journal of Adult Protection

 

Websites:

SCIE

Gloucestershire Children’s Safeguarding Board

Gloucestershire Adult’s Safeguarding Board

 

Social Work Assessment Marking Criteria for Level 5

 

Criteria for ‘A’ Grade A B C D F Criteria for ‘F’ Grade
1. Structure, Language and References

Presents an argument that sequences information and ideas in a coherent structure. Uses paragraphing appropriately including a range of vocabulary, which conveys precise meaning. Complies with Harvard Referencing; errors are infrequent.

           

Does not present a coherent argument. Lacks a clear structure with numerous errors in word choice, spelling and grammar throughout some errors with Harvard referencing.

 

2. Knowledge, Concepts & Understanding

Answers the assessment question or assessment task in a way that demonstrates an in-depth specific knowledge aligned with the relevant learning outcomes; showing a clear understanding of relevant concepts.

         

Does not answer the assessment question or address the assessment task, and shows limited evidence of knowledge and understanding in relation to the learning outcomes.

3. Application to Practice and Skills Development

Applies reflective social work practice in an informed manner (PCF/SOPs) utilising social work skills and methods of interventions for practice delivery. Demonstrates a clear application of social work skills set.

         

Describes reflective social work practice in a way which demonstrates a lack of understanding of applying social work skills and methods of interventions, shows a lack of application of the core social work skills set (PCF/SOPs).

1.     Values and Ethics

Demonstrates awareness of social work values and ethics. Applies anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice and demonstrates an understanding of the concepts of power and empowerment. Includes recognition of ethical dilemmas and value conflicts.

         

Demonstrates limited awareness of social work values and ethics. Does not apply anti-discriminatory, anti-oppressive practice or recognise concepts of power or empowerment. Fails to recognise ethical dilemmas and/or value conflicts.

 

2.     Use of Literature and Evidence

Sources relevant and wide ranging evidence, and evaluates it with clarity in an organised and informed manner.

        Obtains information from limited or irrelevant sources. Lacks evaluation and clarity; presents evidence in an unclear and disorganised way.

 

A = 70+; B = 60 – 69; C = 50 – 59; D = 40 – 49; F = 30 – 39 with right to resubmit, less than 30 = Fail with no right to resubmit.

 

 

 


Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
6
Writer's choice
Business
University
2
1 hour 32 min
7
Wise Approach to
Philosophy
College
2
2 hours 19 min
8
1980's and 1990
History
College
3
2 hours 20 min
9
pick the best topic
Finance
School
2
2 hours 27 min
10
finance for leisure
Finance
University
12
2 hours 36 min