Web of relationships/Social ecological perspective

selinaward
Mind Map by , created over 6 years ago

K218 Working with children, young people and families Mind Map on Web of relationships/Social ecological perspective, created by selinaward on 05/05/2013.

211
4
0
selinaward
Created by selinaward over 6 years ago
Skills and strategies for practice
ibiorban
Social Pedagogy
ibiorban
In trouble with the law
ibiorban
Acids and Bases
silviaod119
CCNA Security 210-260 IINS - Exam 3
Mike M
Knowledge, skills and vales for good practice
selinaward
Law, social policy and practice
selinaward
A critical understanding of policy practice and service
ibiorban
Social Pedagogy
selinaward
web of relationships
ibiorban
Web of relationships/Social ecological perspective
1 It could be argued, that people are surrounded by a web of relationships. In order to deepen our understanding of the lives of children, young people and families it can be useful to break down these sometimes complex relationships
1.1 The social ecological model can be used by practitioners to critically assess the different layers of relationships, by focusing on how they interact and affect the lives of children and young people.
1.1.1 Once these layers are simplified practitioners are able to identify problems, therefore, enabling them to develop solutions
1.1.1.1 LG 3 - illustrates the web of relationships using Russian dolls, showing the child in the centre, surrounded by layers, consisting of their family, community and society
1.1.1.2 The original social ecological model by Bronfenbrenner 1979 illustrated there could also be many environmental factors, which interrelate, impacting the lives of children and young people
1.1.1.2.1 These factors could affect the parent's ability to raise and support their children such as problems with; relationships, employment, childcare, safety and welfare services. Much like Russian dolls, Bronfenbrenner's model put the child in the centre nested around these other environments.
1.1.1.2.1.1 This model has been adapted for many different issues and problems surrounding children and families. For example, in the “Working with parents; strengthening the family” clip
1.1.1.2.1.1.1 A social ecological model was used to highlight the issues surrounding one family. The clip illustrated how there were many different social and financial pressures that affected the parent's ability to raise their children. Such as; poverty, lack of social support and broken relationships.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 With the aid of social ecological models to identify problems, the Government aims to improve the lives of children and young people through developing new practises.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bronfenbrenner, believes that although the social ecological model identifies there are layers of interactions affecting the lives of children and young people, it is important to consider which layers are most influential
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Bronfenbrenner, argues that although some of the outer layers can seem to be very influential such as the family, there are also broader social influences, which could have a significant effect on the lives of children and young people.
2 The social ecological perspective has been widely used in Government frameworks, for example; Getting it Right for Every Child. Which emphasises, that children must always be kept in the centre of all planning and practice
2.1 Rixon (2011) argues, that although governments can use the social ecological model to propose new framework of practice, it not does actually define what is considered beneficial or detrimental for children
2.1.1 For example, Rixon (2011) aruges, that within the ecological framework, poverty should be recognised as one key external influence. Not only, at an individual level, but practitioners should also consider the wider influences surrounding the child such as their family, community and society.
2.1.1.1 Practitioners need to understand that poverty on an individual level is not just a direct result of the individual's misfortunes. There can be many external factors and complexities which have a negative influence on the child's wellbeing
2.1.1.1.1 Rixon (2011) argues that understanding a child's economic status does not solely include looking at the lack of income for their family. Practitioners should also take into account other measures of deprivation, for example; the lack of resources such as, their own bedroom
3 At a community level, poverty seems to have a greater effect on black and minority ethnic groups. Rixon (2011) mentions, overall they contribute to twenty-five percent of all children classed as living in poverty
3.1 it could be argued; that poverty is not just directly linked to income but should also be measured by seeing where families “fit” within their community. It is important for practitioners dealing with families from minority groups to make them feel included in society
3.1.1 For example, by bringing families together who face similar difficulties. Gill and Jack (2007, as cited in Rixon, 2011) described how they worked on a predominately white estate to bring together ethnic minority groups, thus supporting their needs as a community.
3.1.1.1 Rixon (2011) argues, poverty and the impact of negative inequality affects all members of society, not just the disadvantaged. Inequality can have many consequences such as; health and education issues, drug and alcohol abuse and even violence
4 Practitioners need to use the ecological perspective to identify connections between the different factors affecting the lives of children and young people. Gill and Jack (2007, as cited in Rixon, 2011) believe practitioners should consider working with other platforms such as, politicians, and the media to discuss issues like poverty
4.1 Sharing understanding, and making people aware is the first step to developing solutions. Once the issues surrounding poverty are raised at a national level, strategies and framework can be developed to help families and the community they live in. As expressed by The HM Treasury (2008, in Rixon, 2011, p.23) we will only end poverty by “making it everybody's business.”
4.1.1 In conclusion, it is evident the social ecological model can be a very useful tool to help practitioner's break down and understand the sometimes complex relationships surrounding children and families. Once these webs of relationships are understood and simplified, practitioners can begin to assess any additional external factors, which may also impact their wellbeing, such as poverty.
4.1.1.1 However, it could be argued that the social ecological model is only a guideline for good practice. Therefore, practitioners should discuss the needs of the child, or family and adjust the model accordingly, to ensure they are promoting wellbeing.
5 Although ecological models are very effective tools, they can be lacking in certain aspects. For example, practitioners sometimes offset responsibility because the model contains elements, which do not fit within their job role.
5.1 The model only offers guidance for practice, without giving specific do's and dont's, this vagueness means it is open for interpretation by the practitioners. Furthermore, using ecological models does not always consider the needs of the individual practitioner
5.1.1 Each practitioner will have a different approach, depending on other factors they need to consider. For instance, balancing cases, knowledge limitations and conflicting priorities. This illustrates how practitioners are also constrained by their own “nested” social ecologies (Rixon, (2011)
5.1.1.1 In addition, although ecological models maybe good for representing the web of relationships that surround children, it does not always consider any other weighting factors.
5.1.1.1.1 For example; although a child is raised in poverty, they may still achieve well academically with the help of other factors such as good parenting or support in school. Conditions like this will vary for each child, so the “generic” model needs to be adapted to make sure their individual needs are met.

Media attachments