Working with Involuntary Clients A Guide to Practice, 4th
Edition
Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:
https://medipdf.com/product/working-with-involuntary-clients-a-guide-to-practice
-4th-edition/
Click Download Now
Cover image: ‘All together’ – 172413137 (Getty)
Fourth edition published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Tird Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 Chris Trotter
Te right of Chris Trotter to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by SAGE Publications, Inc. 1999
Tird edition published by Routledge 2014
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Trotter, Chris, author.
Title: Working with involuntary clients : a guide to
practice / Chris Trotter.
Description: 4th edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge,
2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifers: LCCN 2022012960 (print) | LCCN 2022012961 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367744113 (hbk) | ISBN 9780367744106 (pbk) |
ISBN 9781003157663 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Social service. | Involuntary treatment.
Classifcation: LCC HV41 .T743 2023 (print) | LCC HV41 (ebook) |
DDC 361.3/2—dc23/eng/20220708
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022012960
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022012961
ISBN: 978-0-367-74411-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-74410-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-15766-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003157663
Typeset in Caslon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
Acknowledgements viii
1 Introduction 1
Who are involuntary clients? 1
Te dual role of workers with involuntary clients 2
Direct practice 3
Sources of knowledge in work with involuntary clients 4
Evidence-based practice 6
Te purpose of this book 10
Te structure of the book 11
2 What works and what doesn’t? 12
Approaches that work 14
An integrated approach 19
Approaches that sometimes work 23
Approaches that don’t work 41
An evidence-based practice model 42
Research evidence, theory and other practice models 43
Summary 51
3 Role clarifcation 52
Dual role: Social control and helping 53
What is negotiable and what is not? 55
Confdentiality 56
Case manager, case planner or problem-solver? 57
Te client’s expectations 58
Helping the client to understand the nature of the professional relationship 59
v
Contents
Organisational expectations 60
Teoretical approach to the work 61
Summary 66
4 Promoting pro-social outcomes 67
1. Identify pro-social comments and behaviours 68
2. Reward pro-social comments and behaviours 69
3. Modelling pro-social behaviours 71
4. Challenging undesirable behaviours 72
Advantages of the pro-social approach 75
Criticisms of pro-social modelling and reinforcement 75
Summary 82
5 Problem-solving 83
Steps in the problem-solving process 83
Written agreements 96
Problem-solving, risk assessment and case planning 97
Criticisms of problem-solving 101
Summary 108
6 Te worker–client relationship 109
Empathy 109
Touching 112
Culturally sensitive 112
Optimism 113
Humour 115
Self-disclosure 117
Worker safety and client violence 118
Summary 120
7 Working with families 121
When is it appropriate to work with family groups? 121
Collaborative Family Work 123
Collaborative Family Work research 124
A home-based model 124
Te Collaborative Family Work process 125
A fexible approach 135
Pro-social modelling 135
Te worker–client relationship 136
vi
Contents
Single session family work 136
Summary 142
8 Evaluation 143
Single case study evaluation 144
Case analysis 146
Analysing interviews 146
Coaching 147
Conclusion 147
Appendix: Principles of efective practice 149
1. Role clarifcation 149
2. Pro-social modelling and reinforcement 149
3. Problem-solving 149
4. Relationship 150
References 151
Index 166
vii
Acknowledgements
t his fourth edition of Working with Involuntary Clients continues to be inspired by the late
William Reid’s work on task-centred practice and the late Don Andrews’ work on pro-
social modelling. While they come from diferent perspectives their publications have inspired
much of my research and the material presented in this book.
In writing this edition I remain indebted to my research colleagues including Dr Phillipa
Evans from University of New South Wales, Dr Susan Baidawi and Professor Rosemary Shee-
han from Monash University, and the many other colleagues, students and professional work-
ers who have provided case examples and helped me develop the ideas and practices which
are outlined in the book. Tanks also go to my organisational research partners, including the
Victorian Departments of Justice and Child Protection, New South Wales Youth Justice and
many other government departments and voluntary agencies. Particular thanks go to Leonie
Bender, Regional Director, NSW Youth Justice, and to Stuart Rindfeish, Megan Boshell, Greg
Edwards, Louise Oliaro and Tamara Tornton for their work helping to develop and imple-
ment the Collaborative Family Work model. Tanks also to Michael Scheel, Anna Tasevska
and Jan Mumford, for assisting with role-played transcripts, and to Jackie Dias for editing the
manuscript.
Finally, thank you to Joan, David and Rebecca for your ongoing love and support.
Note: For seminars and workshops on working with involuntary clients Professor Trotter
can be contacted via email: [email protected]
viii
Chapter 1
Introduction
H ow do you help someone who has no interest in being helped? What can you do with
clients in the welfare or justice systems who are not motivated to change? How do you
counsel someone who does not even recognise that they have a problem? How do you work
with someone who has a totally diferent set of values from yourself ? How can you help some-
one deal with their problems and at the same time exercise authority over them?
Tese are questions which workers with involuntary clients face on a daily basis. Tese
workers are asked to help clients who have not chosen to be helped and who may be resistant
or even openly antagonistic to the assistance they are ofered; to help clients and at the same
time collect information which may subsequently be used against them; to testify against clients
in court and then to work with them in a helping relationship; and to work in a collaborative
manner with clients, yet make authoritative decisions about their lives.
Tis book aims to help workers with involuntary clients come to terms with these issues.
Who are involuntary clients?
A young person visits their probation ofcer; a child-protection worker visits a mother follow-
ing an anonymous report of child abuse; a drug user attends for drug treatment under the direc-
tion of a court order; a man who has abused his wife attends domestic violence counselling at
the direction of a court; a psychiatric patient who is a danger to herself and others is directed to
treatment as an alternative to hospitalisation; a young man living on the streets agrees to go to
a refuge with his youth worker, knowing that the alternative is for him to be taken to the police;
or a child is placed in a children’s home despite the protestations of the parents.
Tese are examples of involuntary clients. Te clients (or recipients of welfare or legal ser-
vices) in these examples can be described as involuntary because they have not chosen to receive
the service they are given. In fact, these clients might actively be opposed to receiving the ser-
vice.Tey might believe that it is unnecessary and intrusive.Te clients receive the service either
DoI: 10.4324/9781003157663-1 1
WORKING WITH INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS
because of a court order or because they are under the threat of some other legal sanction. Tey
are sometimes referred to as mandated clients (Rooney 2009).
Te clients in these examples are clearly involuntary. In many instances, however, the dis-
tinction between voluntary and involuntary clients is not so clear. In the following examples,
the clients are not required by a court order—or even the threat of a court order—to receive ser-
vices. Teir participation is motivated by pressures other than their own desire to address their
problems: a mother whose child has been removed by child-protection services seeks assistance
from a family counselling agency to help get her child back; a drug user seeks rehabilitation
counselling before a court appearance; an abusive man seeks anger management counselling in
response to his partner’s threats to leave; or a pregnant teenager visits a counselling agency at
her parents’ insistence. Tese clients are partly voluntary and partly involuntary.
Others who receive services are more obviously voluntary—for example, a student who
seeks assistance from a student counsellor; a couple who seek relationship counselling; a parent
who seeks assistance with children who are out of control; or an alcoholic who seeks assistance
from a drug rehabilitation centre.
Tere may also be involuntary aspects of work with clients who choose to receive services,
as well as voluntary aspects of work with court-ordered clients. For example, a student who
seeks the assistance of a student counsellor might feel compelled to do so in order to pass her
course; a woman might attend marriage counselling as a result of pressure from her spouse; or
a probationer might visit his probation ofcer on a voluntary basis in order to discuss problems
in his personal relationships.
Te distinction between voluntary and involuntary clients is therefore not always clear. It
is perhaps best viewed on a continuum, with court-ordered clients towards one end, partially
voluntary clients in the middle, and clients who seek services on a voluntary basis towards the
other end.
Tis book is about working with clients at the involuntary end of the continuum. Its par-
ticular focus is on work in the community with involuntary clients—for example, the work
of probation ofcers and child-protection workers. Few clients in these settings are voluntary
or even partially voluntary. Many of the practice principles discussed also apply to work with
clients in institutions such as prisons, children’s homes and psychiatric hospitals. In many cases,
the principles are also relevant to clients who might be described as partially voluntary or even
voluntary.
The dual role of workers with involuntary clients
For the most part, workers dealing with involuntary clients work in the welfare or legal sys-
tems, for government departments or for agencies funded by government departments. Tey
generally have two roles: a legalistic or surveillance role; and a helping, therapeutic or problem-
solving role.
2
IntRoDUCtIon
A probation ofcer, for example, has a responsibility to ensure that a probationer carries out
the requirements of the court order. Te probation ofcer is required to take action if a client
fails to report or to comply with some other condition of the probation. Te probation ofcer
might have to report to a court about the progress of the probationer with potential negative
consequences. Simultaneously, the probation ofcer is expected to work towards the rehabili-
tation of the probationer by assisting with problems which may be related to the ofending
behaviour.
Similarly, a child-protection worker has the dual task of investigating levels of abuse and
assessing the risk of further abuse, taking action to protect a child and possibly taking measures
leading to prosecution of a perpetrator of abuse; at the same time, they are asked to assist the
family with the problems that may have led to the abuse.
Reconciling the legalistic and helping roles in work with involuntary clients can be a dif-
cult task. It is difcult for a worker to fulfl a helping role with a probationer when they are also
taking action to have a probation order cancelled. Similarly, it can be difcult to fulfl the legal
role where a close helping relationship has developed between the worker and client. A child-
protection worker who has worked with a family on a voluntary basis for a period of time, for
example, may fnd it difcult if they suddenly have to take action to remove a child.
Coming to terms with this dual role is one of the greatest challenges in work with involun-
tary clients. Often workers and organisations fnd it easier to focus on one of the roles to the
exclusion of the other. Tere are many examples of workers with involuntary clients who focus
almost exclusively on the legalistic role, and other instances where they focus almost exclusively
on the helping role (Trotter, 2004, 2012).
Tis issue is addressed throughout this book, with the aim of helping workers achieve an
appropriate balance between the two roles.
Direct practice
Te focus of this book is on direct practice with involuntary clients. It refers only incidentally to
community development, policy development and management. It is about the direct day-to-
day work with individuals and families carried out by probation ofcers and child-protection
workers.
As I said earlier, the practice principles discussed here are also relevant to others who work
with involuntary clients—for example, workers in psychiatric clinics, drug counsellors, youth
workers, school welfare staf, domestic violence counsellors, family support workers, family
counsellors and those who work with the aged.
Te terminology used to describe direct practice work in welfare and corrections settings
has changed over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s, the term ‘casework’ was popular; then terms
such as ‘direct practice’ or ‘clinical practice’ began to be used. Today, workers with involuntary
clients are sometimes described as caseworkers but perhaps more often as ‘case managers’. To
3
WORKING WITH INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS
some extent, this change in terminology refects a change in the way the work is conceptualised
and carried out. Case managers tend to have a service-coordination role rather than a direct
service or therapeutic role—although, as Gursansky, Harvey and Kennedy (2003) point out,
there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the term, and the practice of case management
may be very diferent in diferent settings.
Te defnition of direct practice workers as case managers rather than caseworkers is seen
by some writers as problematic (McMahon 1998; Searing 2003; Turner 2010). Tey maintain
that government department staf are increasingly responsible for case management and case
planning, with problem-solving or therapeutic services being left to often under-funded volun-
tary organisations. Tey argue that clients are more and more likely to be managed rather than
helped.
Te following case example in the area of child protection illustrates one way of looking at
the diferences between case management, problem-solving or therapeutic work and case plan-
ning. A case plan involving a direct practice worker is developed, which specifes where and
with whom an abused child is to live, how often and in what circumstances that child will have
access with family members, and what welfare services will be ofered to the child and family
members.
Following the development of the case plan, the client or client family is case managed. Tis
involves a case manager coordinating the various professionals involved and ensuring that the
case plan is carried out. Te case management might be undertaken by a worker involved in
the case planning or by another worker. Individual problem-solving work with the client may
then be done by another worker. Tis work might involve, for example, working on problems in
the relationship between family members or helping a child to deal with difculties at school.
Each of these functions—case planning, case management and problem-solving—can be
viewed as part of the direct practice process. Tis book focuses on these three functions as a
holistic endeavour, defning direct practice as incorporating each of them. Nevertheless, the
framework for efective work with involuntary clients presented here is likely to be useful for
those with responsibility for only part of the direct practice process—for example, where the
worker has a role exclusively as a case manager or planner, or where the worker has responsibil-
ity for therapeutic or problem-solving interventions without a coordination or planning role.
Sources of knowledge in work with involuntary clients
A wide range of theories infuence work with involuntary clients, including for example; psy-
choanalytic theory, ego psychology, systems theory, behaviourist theory, human development
theory, labelling theory, feminist theory, critical theory, diferential association and modelling
theory. Work with involuntary clients is also infuenced by practice models originating from
a range of theoretical frameworks—for example, task-centred, ecological systems, strengths-
based, solution-focused, cognitive behavioural, rational emotive, narrative, motivational inter-
viewing and a number of diferent family therapy models.
4
IntRoDUCtIon
In addition to theory and practice models work with involuntary clients may be infuenced
by knowledge in areas such as human development, trauma, cultural norms and expectations,
and mental and physical health. Concepts such as trauma-informed practice, culturally sensi-
tive practice or strengths-based practice, for example, refect particular infuences on work with
involuntary clients.
Work with involuntary clients may also be infuenced by research fndings. For example,
workers might be aware of research which suggests that peer group infuence can impact on
young ofenders (Akers, Sellers & Jennings 2021; Bonta & Andrews 2016) or that client-
focused problem-solving leads to positive outcomes (Barnes et al. 2018; Trotter 2004, 2013).
In addition to theories, practice models and research fndings, workers’ own values and
beliefs may infuence their day-to-day work—for example, a belief that siblings should remain
together wherever possible; that women deserve more than they often get in family situations;
that marijuana is harmless; that the legal system is unfair; that ofenders should be treated more
harshly; or that the nuclear family is the best environment in which to raise children.
Particular life experiences, both professional and personal, may also infuence workers’ prac-
tices. A case example illustrates this point. A worker in probation confronted a client with what
she saw as the reality of his life situation. She said that she believed the client was wasting his
life and should be actively seeking work. Te client committed suicide shortly afterwards. Tis
experience left the worker very cautious about confronting or challenging clients.
Workers are also infuenced by accumulated life experience, sometimes referred to as practice
wisdom. A worker may have worked with young homeless people for many years. She may have
found that she is able to relate to these young people better if she has supported the young per-
son through a critical incident in which the young person is distressed—for example, following
an argument with a family member. Her experience leads her to try to be available to other
young people on such occasions in order to build her relationships with them.
Organisational expectations and norms can afect workers too. An organisation can have a cul-
ture which pressures individual workers to behave in a certain way. For example, in one organi-
sation in which I worked, the culture was to see clients as soon as possible, even if they arrived
without an appointment. Tis was viewed as respectful. In another organisation, the culture was
to expect clients to make an appointment for another time. Tis was viewed as helping clients
to be responsible.
Tere are therefore many sources of knowledge for work with involuntary clients.Workers often
have difculty identifying how the diferent sources guide their work. I have conducted many work-
shops for direct practice workers over the years, and have consistently been struck by the difculties
workers have articulating the sources of knowledge on which they base their work. A number of
research studies have raised the same problem (Chafn & Friedrich 2004; Cheung 2017; Schmut-
termaier et al. 2011). Tis hardly seems surprising given the maze of theories and models, values
and beliefs, research fndings and organisational expectations which inform every worker’s practice.
In work with involuntary clients, where value diferences between workers and clients are
likely to be accentuated, where the use of authority places particular demands on workers,
5
WORKING WITH INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS
where client motivation levels are likely to be low and where the development of the worker–
client relationship can be problematic, sorting through the conceptual maze of theory and
practice can be even more difcult.
Evidence-based practice
In an attempt to make some sense of this conceptual maze of theory and practice, this book
outlines a framework for practice based on the research about what actually works. It presents
an evidence-based practice model.
What is evidence-based practice (also known as EBP)? Many defnitions have been ofered.
Debbie Plath (2013: 26) refers to evidence-based practice as ‘a clinical decision-making pro-
cess where the practitioner identifes current best evidence, critically appraises this along with
knowledge of the client circumstances, and then makes decisions about how best to respond to
issues presenting in practice’.
Mark Chafn and Bill Friedrich (2004: 2) refer to evidence-based practice in child abuse
services as ‘the competent and high-fdelity implementation of practices that have been dem-
onstrated safe and efective usually in randomized control trials’—a rather complex description.
However, they also ofer a simpler description: ‘practice based on scientifc knowledge about
what works.’
Aron Shlonsky and Leonard Gibbs (2004: 137) talk about the evidence-based practice process,
which involves ‘a well-built practice question, an efcient search for best evidence, a critical
appraisal of that evidence and action based on the interchange between client preferences, prac-
tice experience and the best evidence’. Tey point out, however, that some see it as ‘anything,
which can be done with clients which is linked to an empirical study’.
Some writers distinguish between evidence-based practice and evidence informed practice.
Isaak Nevo & Vered Slonim-Nevo (2011) for example, argue that it is more realistic to talk
about evidence informed rather than evidence-based practice as this provides ‘ample room for
clinical experience as well as the constructive and imaginative judgements of practitioners…’.
Evidence informed practice, while acknowledging the importance of research fndings, also
allows for the many other infuences on practice such as values and organisational expectations
(Lwin & Beltrano, 2022).
I have used the term evidence-based practice in this book largely because it is a more widely
used term than evidence informed practice. Te defnition of evidence-based practice which
I favour—and the one utilised in this book—views evidence-based practice simply as the use
of research fndings as a primary source of knowledge for practice. Tis is not to say that research
fndings should be the only source of knowledge for practice, or that theories, values or organi-
sational expectations, for example, are not important. It simply maintains that research fndings
should be viewed as a primary source of knowledge.
Evidence-based practice involves a worker having knowledge of research fndings in rela-
tion to the various practices in their particular feld. For example, a probation ofcer might take
6
IntRoDUCtIon
care not to blame or judge a young ofender, being aware of research which suggests that when
probation ofcers display these characteristics young ofenders under their supervision are more
likely to reofend (Trotter 2013; Bonta & Andrews 2016). A worker in child protection might
be familiar with research which suggests that children are less likely to be removed from fami-
lies if the worker focuses on specifc and achievable client goals (Smokowski & Wodarski 1996;
Trotter 2004). Te worker might therefore choose to work with a client to fnd relief childcare
for a mother rather than immediately address concerns about her use of drugs. Or a worker
might choose to refer a client for a cognitive behavioural intervention rather than non-directive
supportive therapy because of her knowledge of the efectiveness of cognitive behavioural inter-
ventions (Regehr et al. 2013).
Criticisms of evidence-based practice
Tere has been much discussion among academics and practitioners about the nature and
value of evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice has its passionate supporters and its
passionate detractors (Finne 2021; Mullen & Streiner 2004). Critics of evidence-based prac-
tice often argue in favour of practice wisdom, intuition and more qualitative research, which
focuses on individual experience. So, what are some of the specifc criticisms of evidence-based
practice?
It is argued that evidence is often not available, or, if it is available, workers do not have the
time or expertise to gather the research evidence they need. Even when they do have time, the
evidence usually applies to groups of clients and cannot be applied to every individual—no
single intervention will work for everyone. Others simply take the view that you can make
statistics prove anything, and they are suspicious of research fndings.
It is argued that evidence-based practice is reductionist because the focus is on measurable
outcomes; factors which are not easily measured are ignored. Value-based objectives such as
empowerment and social justice, or more individual objectives such as the development of self-
esteem, are not pursued simply because they are not amenable to measurement.
For example, a problem-solving or mediation approach to family work might be successful
in reducing family confict. However, such an approach might maintain a patriarchal or even
abusive family structure. Te work undertaken with the family might therefore achieve one
of the goals of the intervention—to reduce confict within the family—but not another more
value-based goal—for the family to interact in an equal manner.
Critics also argue that an evidence-based approach leads to the notion that there is one
best answer, and that it downplays diversity. As well as ignoring the objectives which are hard
to measure, it often ignores the unspoken objectives which underlie many programs. Te com-
plexity surrounding objectives in work with involuntary clients represents a major difculty for
evidence-based practice, and therefore warrants some discussion here.
For example, most evidence-based work in corrections rests on the assumption that the
purpose of corrections programs is to reduce reofending rates or to divert ofenders from the
prison system. Similarly, evidence-based work in child protection often presumes that the aim
7
WORKING WITH INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS
of child protection services is to enhance the safety of children and to help children to remain
with their natural families. Te primary aim of work in a mental health setting may be to help
clients remain in the community.
However, in reality, workers work with a complex syndrome of sometimes competing objec-
tives. An example from probation illustrates this. One objective for a probation ofcer may
be to help clients to abide by the law—in other words, to rehabilitate ofenders. However,
the probation ofcer also has an objective of supervising a court order, which might involve,
for example, directing clients to community work where they are required to work with other
ofenders. It might thus mitigate against the achievement of the rehabilitation objective, given
the potential contaminating efects of association with other ofenders on community worksites
(Trotter 1995b).
Te probation ofcer may also be required to administer a punishment. Te client, the
courts, the community and the probation ofcer may all see probation as involving in part a
level of deprivation of the ofender’s liberty. Again, this may not be consistent with the reha-
bilitation objective. For example, some research suggests that low-risk ofenders are likely to
reofend less if they receive minimal levels of supervision (Bonta & Andrews 2016), however,
the need to ofer a certain level of sanction in response to an ofence might require a higher
level of supervision.
Te probation ofcer may have a number of other objectives—for example, working well
within a team or achieving early promotion to a more senior position. Again, the pursuit of a
rehabilitation objective can be inconsistent with achieving these aims. Te team may have a
more punitive orientation, and workers might be rewarded with promotion for ftting in with
this punitive approach.
Research suggests that high-risk ofenders (unlike low-risk ofenders) are likely to reofend
less if they receive higher levels of supervision (Bonta & Andrews 2016); however, this may
confict with the worker’s objective of facilitating justice. Disadvantaged groups of ofenders
might efectively receive higher penalties (through higher levels of supervision) because they
share risk characteristics such as unemployment and lack of family support. Tis may result in
higher penalties for social disadvantage—a clear injustice.
Te complexity surrounding the purpose of work with involuntary clients is not limited
to corrections. A child-protection worker, for example, might aim to keep children with their
families; however, she may also have an objective of avoiding negative publicity. Te child-
protection worker might therefore be reluctant to leave a child with his natural family during
an assessment period because of the fear of negative publicity if the child were further injured,
even though the worker may be aware of research which suggests that an alternative placement
may not lead to better long-term outcomes for the child (Gypen et al. 2017).
In addition to the confusion at an individual worker level, there is often confusion about
purpose at an organisational level. For example, there is some evidence that the actual intent
behind at least some corrections programs is to punish rather than rehabilitate ofenders, despite
public expressions to the contrary (Trotter 1996b). Tere is also some evidence that, while the
