Social Work Now, Issue 39, pages 29-37.
Place, and its corollary, displacement, lie at the centre of child welfare practice. Child neglect, the issue that more than any other brings children and families into contact with child welfare services, is intrinsically linked with everyday life in difficult places. The loss of place, through homelessness, for example, or refugee status, creates other risks to family wellbeing. Efforts to stabilise vulnerable families and prevent child placement typically involve place-based services and supports. If children must be removed from their families, place once again looms large in child welfare decision-making. Should children ideally be placed in their home communities, even if these neighbourhoods pose risks to healthy development? How do we balance the choice between a foster placement near home and placement with extended family at a distance? When children experience multiple foster placements, what role does the repeated loss of place play in the problems these children face? And returning children home, the child welfare system again focuses on providing place-basedsupports for fragile family ecosystems. In various forms, from home-based family preservation services to community-based interventions, place-based services have long been a hallmark of child welfare practice. Yet with some exceptions (see e.g. Berrick, 2006; Crampton, 2007), ‘place’ has received surprisingly little attention in child welfare discussions. Meanwhile, a growing body of theoretical and empirical scholarship in other fields points to the mediating role of place, for better of worse, in a range of health, mental health, and developmental outcomes (see e.g., Cummins et al, 2007; Evans, 2004). Given its obvious centrality in the lives of vulnerable children and families, it seems time for the field to grapple more seriously with this issue.
This brief paper takes some initial steps in this direction. Since to practice differently we must first revisit the conceptual frameworks on which our practice depends, I begin with an expanded definition of place, focusing on two key domains: place as site of experience, identity and meaning; and place as a site of power and inequality. Building on these ideas, I then offer some preliminary suggestions for ‘place-sensitive’ practice, focusing on assessment and engagement. These may in turn stimulate further thought and conversation about the interventive possibilities in a more thoroughgoing focus on place in child welfare practice.