Sarah Maiter

Ramona Alaggia

Adrienne Chan

BASPCAN Conference: April 2015Partners: York University, University of Toronto, University of the Fraser Valley,

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (Collaborator: Bruce Leslie),

British Columbia: Ministry of Children & Family Development

By Trial and Error: Experiences of Child Welfare Workers in

Providing Services Where Language Interpretation is an Issue.

Research Goals and Aim

Research Goals

To understand processes of relationship building and service

provision for minority ethno cultural families involved with the child

protection system where language is identified as a barrier.

To inform improved practices for relationship building and service

provision

Research Aim:

This study explored child protection services to immigrant families

from diverse ethno-racial backgrounds. The focus was primarily

with parents and families for whom English fluency was a barrier.

Context for the Study

Worker Client Relationship & Communication

Importance of effective communication

Language central method of communication

Relationships dependant on clear communication

Language barriers lead to communication blocks and frustration

on both parties –engagement barriers

Structural Considerations

Immigrant racialized families are disproportionally represented in

the child welfare system

Clients with language challenges are a growing group in child

welfare services

Unclear in the child welfare sector how language barriers are

handled

Previous Studies

Few studies in Child Welfare…. show

process is complex, variable quality (Humphreys, Atkar, &

Baldwin, 1999);

children being used as interpreters, lack of

interpreter availability and competency, and

inaccuracy of interpretation (Chand, 2005).

ethnic minority caregivers experience obstacles

in trying to reach social workers (Kriz and Skivenes, 2009, p.6).

Methods

Two sites of data collection in Canada

Toronto, Ontario

Abbotsford, British Columbia

Mixed-Method

Focus groups of child welfare workers

In-depth individual interviews of a sub-sample of child

welfare workers

Client case file reviews

Trustworthiness procedures for the study adhered to

Sought to gain insights and understanding rather than

to generalize

Worker Focus Groups

(n=30 participants)

10 workers in 2 focus groups in

Toronto, ON

All female

Average 8.5 years of work

experience

Workers from diverse ethnic

backgrounds

1 intake worker, 6 family services 3

in special services

8 indicated competency or

proficiency in a language other

than English

clients at agency: Spanish

Portuguese, Italian, Vietnamese,

Filipino, Afro-Caribbean

20 workers participated in 4 focus

groups in Abbotsford, BC

5 male and 15 female workers

Average 10 years of work

experience

3 South Asian, 17 Caucasian

workers

12 intake workers, 2 family

services, 4 youth specialists, 1

special needs, 1 guardianship

worker

3 proficient in a language other

than English

Clients largely South Asian

Punjabi speaking

Thematic Findings from Focus Groups

Two ways of handling language barriers with clients emerged with

similar benefits and challenges:

Use of interpreters and;

Use of workers who speak the same language

Overall Themes:

Worker-client relationship factors

Structural factors

Impact of structural factors on worker-client relationship

Relationship Factors:

(Interpreter Challenges)

barriers to engaging with clients

problems with the quality of interpretation

Variable, details missed, concerns for inaccuracy, misinterpretation, children

and neighbours being used as interpreters

role confusion

confidentiality issues

increased workload

“It is very difficult – totally difficult to connect with the person that I am

interviewing because there is someone in between.” (P1 G1)

“Sometimes the interpreter feels almost like they’re representing the

client...and they end up building a little bit of rapport which can be

tricky “(P2 G2)

Interpreter Challenges

“Because you as the worker are not aware of the language or

sometimes the culture there are certain nuances that may

happen [in the interpretation process] that you may completely

miss or misinterpret and sometimes that can lead to ...a whole

array of misunderstanding of certain dynamics.” (P7 G1)

“Sometimes the interpreter feels almost like they’re

representing the client...and they end up building a little bit of

rapport which can be tricky . . . “ P2 G2

Relationship Factors:

(Interpreter Benefits)

improved communication-decreasing the possibility of inaccurate

assessments and lessening power differentials

cultural conduits and links to culturally specific services

workload help

“The clients often feel better in expressing themselves more fully in

their primary language. They will get more out than in English when

they don’t have the words to express themselves. To allow that is

amazing for the work that we do, right?” (P3 G1)

“I found that I learn a lot from interpreters in terms of helping me

understand more about cultural differences that I can avoid mistakes.

It enhances my understanding, family background, family culture...”

(P5 G1)

Structural Barriers

Lack of linguistically appropriate services

Limited programs for clients and long wait lists

Securing high quality, trained interpreters

Limited availability of interpreters

Cost prohibitive

Training is not guaranteed

Services available in areas that are inaccessible

Workers feel challenged to find resources for linguistically diverse

clients

Legal

Housing advocacy

Resources seen as unsuitable by clients because of concerns for

confidentiality/anonymity

Worker from their cultural community

Structural Barriers

“I work a lot with the Portuguese culture, so like my coworkers said, I’ve

come to know some of the agencies within the city that service that culture

and that language. The difficulty though is waiting list[s], [and] …. if

somebody lives in a different part of the city, and it’s not quite accessible

to them...” (P8 G2)

“Often interpreters aren’t available so trying to do the best that we can

with those circumstances and sometimes we’ve needed to use, you know,

if the family says that there’s a neighbour that speaks English or if there’s

another family member. And there have been on occasion times where a

child has needed to interpret what’s appropriate for them to interpret like if

it’s something very basic that I feel it’s comfortable for a child to interpret

depending on their age...” (P8 G2)

Summary of Practice Implications

Impact of language barriers and the use of interpreters on the

worker/client relationship is complex

Use of interpreters has both benefits and challenges

Language barriers are often exacerbated by structural barriers and

the lack of clear policies/guidelines regarding the use of interpreters

Structural barriers impede therapeutic alliance, and ongoing worker-

client relationship

There is a clear need for better guidelines, policies and training at

the agency level to support workers working with clients who

experience language barriers

Conclusion

Immigrant families receiving child protection service experience

discrimination in service provision given the challenges in

interpreter availability, variability in interpretation quality, use of

children and others for interpretation, and lack of relevant

services for families.

Agencies and direct service providers should take this into

consideration when intervening in these families and make

concerted efforts to overcoming these.

Findings highlight areas for knowledge development and

mobilization

Organizational commitment together with practical training,

provision of resources, recognition of the needs of workers is key

to empowerment for workers as well as clients

References

Baurer, D., Yonek, J., Cohen, A., Restuccia, J., & Hasnain-Wynia, R. (2012). System-

level factors affecting clinicians' perceptions and use of interpreter services in

California public hospitals. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health/Center for

Minority Public Health.

Chand, A. (2005). Do you speak English? Language barriers in child protection social

work with minority ethnic families. British Journal of Social Work, 35(6), 807-821.

Humphreys, C., Atkar, S., & Baldwin, N. (1999). Discrimination in child protection

work: recurring themes in work with Asian families. Child and Family Social Work,

4(4), 283–291.

Kriz, K. & Skivenes, M. (2009) Lost in translation: how child welfare workers in

Norway and England experience language differences when working with minority

ethnic families. British Journal of SocialWork. 27 March. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp036.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990; 2015). Focus groups: Theory and

practice. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Image Credits

The images in this presentation were created

by third parties and released under Creative

Commons licenses. We would like to express

our gratitude to those who have shared their

work in this way:Child with balloon: by Jeevan JoseChild on swing: by Pawel LojGroup of children: by Taylor Sloan