Sara Serbati

Building a Successful Care Path in Residential Care: Findings from Qualitative Research with Young People and Professionals in Italy

ABSTRACT Qualitative methods (i.e. semi-structured interviews) were used in this micro-research to explore the different ways in which young people and social and residential workers perceive the outcomes of the residential care experience. By comparing the participants’ points of view, it was possible to investigate different ways of thinking about residential care plans and evaluating outcomes. Seven residential care paths were considered via a total of 21 interviews with young people formerly in residential care (n = 7), residential workers (n = 7) and social workers (n = 7). The analysis focused on the young peoples life path and on the understanding of their family relationships. The results highlight the social workers’ difficulty in sharing a care plan with residential workers and with the respective families, and underline the importance of thinking about ways of cooperating between different services and families: a methodology focusing on participation of families and children leads to an increased likelihood of successful intervention.

Filling the gap between theory and practice: challenges from the evaluation of the Child and Family Social Work interventions and programmes

ABSTRACT The article proposes a theoretical reflection about the evaluation field of Child and Family Social Work (CFSW) programmes and interventions. It focuses on the relationship between ways for producing knowledge through evaluation and whether and how such knowledge influence practice. In the past years, several reports have highlighted the gap between knowledge of effective treatments and practices delivered. The article aims to discuss the features of an evaluation process seeking to build a bridge between research and practice displaying the logical process by which evaluation knowledge should be rearranged in order to change practice. The value of the effort of evaluation in making generalisations and rules for helping people operate efficiently and effectively is considered. But from this view, misunderstandings about the use of the meaning of ‘science’ are identified. The author introduces a broader understanding of the ‘knowledge’ to be investigated by evaluation, no longer intended only as ‘what works’ (external evidence), but also as processes able to produce a change in peoples decision-making (internal evidence) that happen within reflective and dialogical contexts (communicative evidence). These reflections are looking for a knowledge more appropriate to the CFSW field, able to improve and change practice and to ensure access to quality services.