Preparation

Think of a problem, something in your life you’d like to change. If I asked you to develop a plan to solve that problem in ten years, how would you go about developing and implementing your plan?

If I said that I would help you develop and implement that plan, but we only had six meetings and we would need to be finished in 3 months, how would you go about developing and implementing your plan?

Assuming your plans are different, how are they different?

What do you make of that?

Introduction

There is a tendency in life to think that more is better, but when it comes to social work there is good reason to believe that this is not always the case. When social work is open-ended, the social worker and the service user work together for as long as is necessary, there is a tendency for things to drift. There is good evidence that the knowledge that involvement is short-term, that it has a definite end date, can help focus attention and help get more done. That is fundamental to Task-Centred Practice.

Idea in Summary

TCP is a highly structured and disciplined way of helping people overcome problems. It involves working with people to reach an agreed understanding of their problems and to generate and implement strategies to overcome them. This takes place over an agreed period of time and uses an agreed number of meetings.

The Idea in More Depth

The task-centred model is probably the most widely claimed model within social work in the UK. It is specifically designed to be short-term and focuses on solving the problems that exist in the interactions between people and their environments. While these problems may be considered a normal part of life in social living they fall into the remit of social work when the problems seriously affect people’s well-being or pose a risk to the person or others around the person.

What is most distinctive about TCP is that it is time-limited and focuses on developing workable definitions of problems that lead to specific actions taken to solve the problem.

When it is done well TCP is a very respectful and anti-oppressive way of working. This is because well done TCP is very person-centred; it empowers individuals to define their problems in ways that work for them and to generate solutions that are individually and culturally specific. TCP is not based on any specific notion of ‘normality’. Finally, the TCP model easily incorporates the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia and social injustice into the model.

TCP consists of three distinct phases.

Termination Phase

In many ways, the termination phase has been structuring the work through previous phases. However, it is usual for a final session to be devoted to reviewing the lessons learned from work undertaken.

This termination session focuses on issues around managing without support and relapse prevention.

Having briefly explained these three phases it is possible to look at each one in more detail. This will give a clearer understanding of how the model works.

Initial Phase

The initial phase itself has a number of stages. While these are not rigid, the stages will generally include the following.

Stage One – Rapport and Mandate

Stage Two – Problem Exploration

Stage Three – Selection and Prioritising of Targets

Stage Four – Problem Modelling

Stage Five – Goal Setting

Stage Six – Contract making

Stage One – Rapport and Mandate

It is essential at the start of the work to explain what you are doing there. If the person has been referred to your service you need to explain why they have been referred and why you are meeting with them. If the person has referred themselves to your service you need to explain what your service does.

In either case, it is common for people to have mixed feelings about you being there. As a result you must show a high degree of empathy. You will need to listen to their views on what they think you are doing there and what they expect you to do. By using active listening it is usually possible to build rapport and develop a collaborative relationship.

It is important to establish your mandate, what is the basis for you being there. If you are there under a statutory duty, such as child protection or mental health, then you need to be clear about this. People do not have to like you being there but they do have to agree that you have a mandate to work with them. In cases where people self-refer this mandate comes from the person themselves and the remit of your agency. In both cases, you can only proceed in a Task Centred way when this mandate has been accepted.

Once a person has accepted the mandate and feels confident that you will listen to them and take them seriously you can move on to the next stage.

Stage Two – Problem Exploration

The second stage involves developing a comprehensive list of all the things that are troubling the person. It is extremely helpful at this point to build up a detailed list of all the problems a person has, not just the most obvious ones. This can be done using a brainstorming technique. The aim here is to focus on breadth, not depth.

It is tempting to focus immediately on the most pressing problem and solve that. While this can sometimes save time, in practice moving too quickly to focus on one problem can mean that progress is hindered by other previously unacknowledged problems. The result is that either progress is slowed or solving one problem only causes other problems to emerge.

Once problems have been noted it is possible to focus on the most pressing ones without ignoring other problems.

Stage Three – Selection and Prioritising of Targets

It is not uncommon for people to have dozens of areas of life that cause them difficulties and unhappiness. It is impossible to work on all these areas at the same time. It is therefore vital to work out which problems need to be worked on.

Many problems will simply lie outside the remit of your agency. Where other specialist agencies exist then part of the Task Centred Approach can involve signposting people to those agencies rather than exploring them in detail. Your focus will be on those problems that are most distressing or pressing and fall within the remit of your agency.

Simple questions will help identify the priorities for the goals you need to work on. These questions might include: What is worrying you the most? Which things are most likely to have the worst effect on your life? What will get worse if we don’t work on changing things?

When a person feels overwhelmed, or the problems are complex, then you might need to begin by asking something like “which problem do you think it will be easiest to solve first?” This should not be used to avoid addressing more complex problems, but to agree to build confidence by working on a smaller part of the problem before tackling more complex areas.

In the problem exploration stage you might uncover a whole host of problems. In this stage you want to pick one to three key problems to focus on.

Stage Four – Problem Modelling

Having established which problems are the main priorities it is important to build a model of the problem. This should include a detailed description of what the problem is and how it works.

This is probably the most complex stage of the entire process. You need to help the person explore the details of the problem in a way that puts the problem into a logical and explicable format. This will need to cover how the problem starts and how the different parts of the problem contribute to the whole.

One particular subtle skill in this stage is to help people define problems in a solvable way. For example if the person perceives the problem as being caused by having a genetic predisposition to depression then there is little chance of changing this. People cannot change their genes. However if the problem is phrased as being because the person has a genetic tendency to focus on the negative aspect of any situation and to ignore the positives, then it is much more solvable. This is typical of the kind of problem modelling used in TCP. The worker does not try and argue the person out of seeing depression as being genetic (because maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t) but incorporates this into a model that creates space for change. The person cannot change their genes, but they may be willing to work on changing the way they see things.

The model of the problem needs to incorporate as much of the person’s way of seeing the problem as possible. It is built on how they already see the problem. It needs to makes sense to the person. When reviewing the model the person needs to have an emotional and cognitive sense that the model explains why they are having the problems they are having.

As mentioned earlier, model making will often include a specific exploration of issues of social injustice. The worker can explore with the person how sexism, racism, poverty, homophobia and other oppressive forces have an influence on the problems they are experiencing. It is important to strike a careful balance. To ignore these factors, to leave them unexplored, is in itself an oppressive practice. If TCP creates the impression that people have problems because of their individual characteristics then you oppress them. On the other hand if you focus only on these, and frame the person as a helpless victim of social forces, then you disempower them. The model needs to include both the oppressive social forces and the individual and social forces that help the person resist these forces.

Stage Five – Goal Setting

The Task-Centred Model is focused and time-limited. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to use the model developed in the previous stage to agree which problems need to change and in what way they must change. Although this might sound like an obvious stage, it is surprisingly easy to miss this step. Too often it is assumed that everyone agrees what the goal is without it having been stated clearly. Alternatively, goals may be stated in too vague a format.

For example, if the reason for involvement is due to concerns around child protection then we can assume that the goal is for the child to be safe. This is a mistake for two reasons. Firstly, this may not be the most important goal. Sometimes other things need to change before we can hope for a child to be safer. Secondly, as a goal, it is far too vague. How will you know that the child is safer? What do you mean by safer? The goal setting stage involves being clear about what you are aiming to change in specific terms.

As an example, a goal might be to discover ways to set limits to a child’s refusing to do as they have been asked without shouting or smacking. If this was the goal for a piece of work then it would be important for the model the worker and person had developed covered what was meant by ‘setting limits’ and ‘refusing to do as they were told.’ In general, these should have flowed from the conversation and should be the words used by the person and not be the words used by the worker.

This goal setting brings us on to the stage where the worker and the person can create the contract.

Stage Six – Contract making

The contract should spell out clearly why the worker is involved with the person (the mandate), the areas to be worked on, including the goals, and the time-scales. It should also include how often the worker will meet with the person. The clearer this contract is the more likely the work is to be successful.

Simplified View of the TCP Process

One important factor in explaining the contract is to ensure that the person understands that there is unlikely to be a single,simple solution to the problems or strategy to reach the goal. There are likely to be multiple small steps and many tasks to be completed between the way things are now and the goals the worker and the person have negotiated. It is often helpful to share the following diagram with the person as a way of explaining this process

The signing of the contract effective finishes the initial assessment phase of the work and marks the movement to more active intervention in the middle phase.

Middle Phase

As with the Initial Phase the Middle Phase involves a number of key stages. Again, it is not intended to be a rigid list but as a general guide to the work.

Stage One – Generating possibilities

Stage Two – Evaluating options

Stage Three – Selecting an intervention

Stage Four – Preparation and ‘problem planning’

Stage Five – Implementation

Stage Six – Debriefing

Stage Seven – Intervention modification

Stage Eight – Reviewing progress

In general, stages one to four will take place within a single session. Stage five occurs between two meetings. Stages six to eight will form the basis of the following session.

Each of these stages needs to be explored in more detail.

Stage One – Generating possibilities

In many ways, this is probably the most challenging point in the entire Task Centred process. If the solution to the problem was simple and obvious, the person would already have done it. Given that the person has not solved the problem you will need to create a range of possible solutions.

Again the key technique here is to brainstorm possible solutions. It is important that you give the person a clear introduction to this stage and a rationale for what you will be doing. Something like the following might be useful.

“So we are clear on what we think is causing the problems, and what it is we want to change. What I’d like us to do now is to think about what might help. We need to come up with as many possible ways to improve things so we can choose the best one; so what I’d like us to do is to brainstorm as many possible solutions, even if they seem silly or unlikely to work. That way we are more likely to come up with an answer that will work. Does that make sense?”

Once the person has agreed to that you can begin this process with some fairly obvious and simple questions, for example

“Given what we have talked about so far, do you have any ideas for things we could try that might make a difference?”

“As we have been talking what ideas have popped into your mind about how we might tackle this, even if they may seem silly?”

You can also tap into things the person has done in the past that have helped by asking questions like these.

“When things have been bad in the past what have you done that helped?”

“Have there been times in the past when you think you’ve handled things well? What did you do then?”

“Can you think of a time when you faced a similar problem and managed to deal with it? How did you manage it?”

Sometimes you can draw on ideas from people around the person to generate alternative solutions. Sometimes people find it hard to be flexible about their own behaviour, but can imagine other people being more flexible. You can ask questions that tap into this.

“If you were to ask your best mate what they think would help you, what would they suggest?”

“If Super Nanny (or Tricia) were here, what ideas do you think they would come up with for you?”

You can also bring your own ideas into the mix of possible solutions. You need to be careful to introduce them as possibilities and not things you are going to insist on. You can do this by saying things like these.

“What some of the other families I have worked with have found helpful is to do X. Does that sound possible?”

“Given would we have said about why things are the way they are it sounds like it is worth trying doing X. What do you think?”

Finally, if you are working under a statutory mandate you need to be honest about where this constrains your options. For example, you might need to say something like.

“Given what was said at the Child Protection meeting one of the things we will need to do is to practice walking away when you are angry. Let’s put that on the list.”

“From what your doctor was saying we will need to consider changing the medication you have been taking. We can put that on the list of possibilities.”

While generating this list of ideas it is important not to rush to evaluation. No ideas or suggestion is rejected at this stage. So if a parent might say something like this.

“I could just tie him to the bed.”

In almost all cases this will be an abusive option and the temptation is to reject it completely. But in the brainstorming technique, this is simply added to the list knowing that it will be evaluated in the next stage.

The list of possibilities will usually contain a mixture of ideas that are impractical or inappropriate and some that are very realistic. The next stage involves finding which of these possibilities are worth putting into practice.

Stage Two – Evaluating options

Having generated possibilities it is necessary to choose which option you and the service user will put into practice. In the first instances it is possible to reduce the dozen or more conceivable solutions to a handful of practical solutions. The service user may be invited to reject any strategies that they feel are completely impossible, incompatible with their core beliefs, are too risky or clearly harmful. This will eliminate from the list any possible solutions that the service use thinks will be impossible or inappropriate.

Next the social worker and the person can look at the remaining list and discuss which of the remaining strategies are most likely to bring about the chances the person wants to make. There are a number of key factors to be considered here. Two key ones are whether the service user believes they have the resources, skills or ability to implement the strategy and second how successful they think the strategy is likely to be.

In evaluating the options the social worker must note doubts the service user may have about either their own ability to carry out a strategy or the likely effectiveness of a strategy. Sometimes it is important for a service user to practice easier strategies before moving on to more complex ones. At other times it is important to try a few more likely strategies before trying something that seemed unlikely to succeed, but which turns out to solve the problem.

The end result of this stage is to create a list of possible strategies and solutions that the person thinks has some possibility of achieving the goal that was agreed in Stage Five of the Initial Phase of the Work. The next stage is to select an intervention.

Stage Three – Selecting an intervention

In selecting an intervention it is important to remember Figure 1. Early interventions are not designed to completely solve the problem or reach the goal in a single step, but to be steps on the way to reaching the goals agreed in the initial phase.

If the evaluation of options stage has been completed successfully the worker and person will have a clear sense of which strategies are most likely to be successful and which the person feels most confident about completing. Early interventions are more likely to be based on those that the person feels most confident they can carry out. The self-confidence that comes from successfully completing a task is central to the overall effectiveness of TCP, therefore selecting tasks that have a high likelihood of being completed is essential to this phase of the work.

The old phrase “You have to be able to walk before you can run” is helpful at this point. The worker can explain this using a metaphor based on something the person can already do; learning to drive, learning to read, or even learning to talk. In each case the person did not suddenly wake up one morning fully able to do that thing. They made lots of mistakes on the way. They learned small, imperfect steps, but they can now do that thing well. The interventions are likely to be similar.

As well as self-confidence the person has also to believe that the strategy will have some positive effect. This will generally take one of two forms. In many cases the strategy will be directly related to making the problem less of a problem or bringing the goal a step nearer. However at other times the strategy may be about learning more about how a problem happens or how a problem may be influenced or managed. This is important because it creates an atmosphere where even an ‘unsuccessful’ intervention can give useful information on how to do things better next time.

The aim of this stage is to agree one or more possible solutions to be tried. It is possible sometimes to work on two or three possible solutions at the same time. However it is important not to overload the person with too many different tasks to be completed together.

This phase ends when the worker and the person agree on which possible solutions are to be tried first. It is important not to rush into implementing solutions until the person feels fully prepared. The next stage will address that preparation.

Stage Four – Preparation and ‘problem planning’

The evaluation and selection of a solution will set the general approach to be taken, but they often lack detail. This stage adds specific details to the solution.

The worker can begin supporting the person to think about what they will do to solve the problem; when they will do it; how they will do it. This is likely to involve careful mental rehearsal. Although this may seem like a waste of time when the person has already decided what to do, it is worth spending time to carefully prepare. Cognitive Psychology suggests that we use the same parts of our brains thinking about doing something as we do when we actually do it. By imagining carrying out the solution in detail the brain lays down pathways that will be used when carrying them out for real. The more vivid and emotionally real the rehearsal the stronger these pathways will be laid down and the more likely the strategy is to be successful when carried out in practice.

In this stage the worker performs the role of a critical friend. They raise potential difficulties and build them into the plan. The aim here is not to undermine the person’s confidence but to prepare them for the fact that the solution may well not go according to the plan. By planning for problems and setbacks the person is less likely to be overwhelmed by them and may well feel confident that they can stay on track even if things do not go according to the plan.

An important sign to watch for in this phase is the switch from ‘I’ll try’ to ‘I’ll do it.’ In practice the majority of those who say ‘I’ll try’ don’t do anything. The word ‘try’ is loaded with negativity. As Yoda says in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, “Do or do not. There is no try.” If a person’s words or non-verbal communication expresses doubt about either the potential helpfulness of the agreed solution or their ability to carry out it is vital not to push ahead but to continue preparing and planning how to overcome difficulties, or even returning to stage three or two to find a more appropriate solutions.

Once the person has something that they will do then this is the strategy or strategies that are implemented.

Stage Five – Implementation

Ironically this is often the easiest stage, at least easiest for the social worker. Once the worker and the person have decided who will do what, when and how it is simply a case of getting on with it. Three general principles for this phase is that it is fair and reasonable for the person to expect the worker to contribute something as well as the person; that in general the worker should not do things for the person that the person can do for  themselves; and that the worker should do less than 50% of the work.

In many ways the real work of TCP takes place between meetings rather than in the meetings. It is by doing things on their own that the person’s self-confidence will grow. The key message is that success leads to success. As the person tries different strategies and discovers which ones work for them then they see themselves as having the skills and resources to take control of the situation successfully.

Although the implementation is vital it is important for the worker and the person to meet to debrief after the implementation.

Stage Six – Debriefing

In the debriefing the worker takes the person through what happened. If the solution led to an improvement the worker will help the person explore how and why it worked. This will lead to suggestions for how to keep doing what works or even for how to improve on what has worked. A key goal of the work is to use ideas from attribution theory to enable the person to develop personal causal attributions; that is to see the cause for the success as coming from themselves and not from causes outside the person’s control. It is even more helpful when these causal attributions are permanent (or at least easily repeatable) and pervasive (that is usable in a range of situations). When a strategy has led to an improvement it is important to consider whether the original targets been met; in other words are things good enough for the person to continue without further support from the social worker.

Where an intervention has been unsuccessful it is important that the worker does not panic or lose faith in the person or the process. If the Preparation and ‘Problem Planning’ phase was completed successfully the person can first of all be reminded that set-backs are a normal part of making progress and not a sign that things have failed. The worker’s key responsibility in this case is to support the person in turning failing into feedback.

When debriefing a service user who has not done the things they said they would do, it may be helpful to offer a validatory comment, for example “I’m sure you had good reasons for not doing what we talked about last time. What did you do instead?” The first part of this sentence assumes that the person did not simply fail to do it, but had reasonable reasons for not doing it. The second part assumes that although the person has not done what was agreed they did do something else. Quite often this spontaneous ‘something else’ contains ideas and strategies which had been missed in the planning phase but which nevertheless are useful ones. It is dangerous to assume that not doing what was planned is the same as not doing anything.

There are many occasions where what seemed like a good idea in the planning meeting turned out not to be a good idea in practice. In this case it is common for the person to have done something else and for this something else to have been a useful thing. By exploring what the person did, instead of what they didn’t do, the person might discover important strategies that can be built into the plan. If these came from the service user’s own ideas this means they are more likely to attribute more of the credit of this to themselves.

If it turns out that the person simply decided that the idea was too difficult for them, or too unlikely to succeed, then it is important to go back to the earlier stages of this phase and generate, evaluate, select and plan a new intervention. In doing this the lessons learned from what ‘went wrong’ with the previous implementation are helpful.

In all cases there are four possible outcomes of the debriefing stage. Firstly, if the strategy has enabled the person to meet their goal you can move to Stage Eight of this Phase, and prepare for termination. Secondly, if a strategy has been highly successful then simply continuing with it is a sensible plan. Thirdly, if the strategy has been unsuccessful then it may be necessary to return to an earlier stage of this phase of the work. Fourthly, if the work has been somewhat successful, but this has been limited or has had unforeseen negative consequences, then the intervention will need to be modified. Debriefing needs to be cautiously optimistic, but also it needs to lead to feedback which allows flexible and effective strategies to emerge and grow as plans evolve rather than being about rigidly sticking to a plan.

One of the key points of the debriefing stage is that it tests feelings against reality. Someone may ‘feel’ that they have failed or that a strategy didn’t work (probably because they feel frustrated that it didn’t work as well as they’d hoped or guilty because they didn’t use the strategy as often as they’d wanted to) but in the debriefing they discover that the reality is that thinks worked better than they had thought. Human memory is biased and imperfect, so debriefing is a way of reality checking in order to ensure that effective problem-solving lessons are learned.

Stage Seven – Intervention modification

This stage involves fine-tuning the intervention based upon what has worked and what has not worked. At its simplest it may mean simply confirming that what has been tried has been successful and should be continued. On a more complex level it might mean exploring in detail how the things tried could be modified to make them even more effective or easier to do.

A powerful way of doing this is having debriefed the person following a time when they have used a particular strategy then ask them the following question. “Knowing what you know now, if we could rewind the clock to the start of that incident, what would you do differently in that situation?” This encourages the person to think actively about what they have learned, and how this learning can be applied in the future. This is a simple application of the reflective learning cycle which is explored in more detail in Appendix 1. Often we focus on reflective practice as a learning tool to help social workers learn from experience, but we forget that reflection is just as important for helping service users learn from their experiences.

As well as improving the strategies that have been tried so far it is also important to remember the overall process as shown in Figure Five – The Social Work Process. Tasks build upon each other and a person may have succeeded in using part of a strategy but still have a number of steps left to go before things have improved enough for the worker to withdraw.

It is important to remember that in the debriefing stage people may focus far more on what has not worked and to ignore what has worked. It is often the case that a strategy may have been used successfully numerous times and then on one occasion it did not work. This can lead to someone wanting to abandon or change the strategy. This may be a mistake as it might be more helpful to focus on the times it worked and then repeating it in the light of reflecting on when and how it succeeded rather than modifying it based on the one time it didn’t work.

On other occasions a good idea will simply not work. Some things work for one person, but not for another, or they work in some situations, but not in others. Plans can be modified by fine-tuning the plan (doing it slightly differently) or be modified by changing what you do (doing new things).

Stage Eight – Reviewing progress

This is an essential element of TCP. The worker must not lose sight of the time-limited nature of the process. In each meeting the worker must remind the person of how many sessions have taken place so far and how many sessions are left. The key question is “How close are we to achieving the things we set out to achieve?”

This question will help enhance motivation and keep the work focused. In the TCP model termination is seen as a positive driver for change and not a limiting factor. It prevents a person becoming reliant on the worker and supports them in seeing themselves as a competent, capable person who can and will manage to overcome whatever challenges they are currently facing.

To avoid losing focus in the work it is important to keep linking back to the original goals. It is not uncommon for new problems to emerge. If these constitute a genuine crisis it may be more effective for a worker to suspend the TCP and switch to Crisis Intervention to resolve the crisis before switching back to TCP. If it is not a crisis, then the worker may take a Person Centred Approach to listen to the person, but then maintain the focus on the TCP. If this is not done the work is likely to regularly lose focus and become much less effective.

In this stage of the work, it is also important to ask the question, ‘have things improved enough for the work to stop?’ If done well it is likely that the person will have experienced the work as a positive event in their life. For many different reasons the person may be reluctant to ‘let go’ of the worker, but these feelings should never cloud the fact that the worker has a role and agency goals to achieve. The aim is therefore, to complete the work as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

In many ways, it is the focused attention on reviewing what has been learned so far and what is still to be achieved within the time-limits that most defines the TCP approach, rather than the simple allocation of tasks to different people.

Termination Phase

In many ways, termination in TCP begins in the first session, when the person and the worker set limits for the total length of work and the number of times that they will meet together. As noted earlier the worker regularly reminds the person of the time limits and the number of sessions left.

One of the key mistakes that can be made in TCP is to see the time limits as ambitions rather than fixed points in the work. Occasionally it might be necessary to negotiate a small number of additional meetings, between two and four, but if a worker is regularly taking more sessions than planned this is a possible sign that the process is not being followed well.

In the termination stage, a number of things will take place. The first is that the worker will review with the person what has worked and why it has worked. The aim is to support the person in seeing that their success has been rooted in things the person has done, things that are under the person’s control, and not matters of chance or coincidence. This is essential as a key aim of TCP is to empower individuals to see themselves as people who have the skills and resources to tackle the challenges of life successfully. In doing this the person is more likely to see the things learned as being useful in the future. This means that when problems do re-emerge the person will be able to solve them without any need for further help.

A second key activity in the Termination Phase is relapse prevention. Many problems have a cyclical pattern. It may be unrealistic to expect that after four or five meetings over eight to twelve weeks that all these problems will go away and never return. Relapse Prevention involves exploring with someone the signs they might notice that could indicate that the problem is about to re-occur. At the same time a list of things the person will do (including supporters they can call on) when they notice these signs is drawn up. In many ways, the presence of such a list may in itself reduce the likelihood that things will break down in the future.

Finally, the termination phase should be a time of celebration. At times it might be helpful to give certificates or to write a letter of congratulations to honour the hard work the person has undertaken. Trivial or patronising as these ideas might sound the power of such ‘transitional objects’ should not be underestimated. Certificates, small awards, letters and cards can become physical, tangible reminders to the person that they have had their strengths and resources recognised and validated.

Theory Checklist

Have you drawn up a contract of work which specifies the goals to be achieved and the time-scales for the work?

Have you worked with the person to create a model of what is causing the problem and what needs to change in order to solve it?

Have you worked with the person to generate multiple possible solutions; have you evaluated these with the person and selected the solutions to be tried?

Have you debriefed after implementing the solutions and modified the interventions in response to the debrief?

Do you know when the work will finish and how many meeting you have left?

Unless you can say ‘yes’ to all these questions you are not using Task-Centred Practice, regardless of what other techniques and approaches you use.

Critique of the Theory

When critiquing TCP it is important to separate critiques of the model from critiques of its application. As stated earlier, when many social workers say they are using TCP they are only using an abbreviated form of the approach. This does not mean that it is bad practice, or that the work will be ineffective, only that this cannot be counted as TCP.

The main criticism of TCP is that it is an individualised model. Implicit in the theory is the assumption that the problems people encounter in their lives are caused by a lack of appropriate problem solving skills. In terms of practice, day-to-day social work practice, this might be helpful and necessary. However it may also be oppressive. Many service users face problems related to structural oppression in its many forms. Racism, sexism, ableism (an ideology that implies that able-bodied people and those without learning difficulties/disabilities are ‘normal’, and that those with disabilities should fit into this normal pattern), homophobia and class oppression are all powerful forces that affect the lives of many service users. If TCP ignores these features it cannot be counted as good practice.

It is possible however to incorporate an understanding of oppression into the TCP model. When modelling the problem a social worker can (and I believe should) introduce the idea of power into their understanding. It will often be helpful to support a service user in realising that the difficulties they face are not simply a case of individual failing but are strongly influenced by unjust social arrangements. In the same way a social worker can introduce consciousness raising or political action in its various forms as possible ways to improve the person’s situation when exploring potential solutions.

In its original form TCP had a strong patriarchal and oppressive dimension. The model focused on difficulties in role performance and helping people perform the roles expected of them in society. This lead to social workers ‘helping’ women become good wives and mothers. With changes in social work practice in the last thirty years this is less likely to be the case now. While this danger still remains (and will as long as we live in an unequal society) as long as a social worker is aware of and uses Person-Centred theory and Anti-Discriminatory practice this danger is minimised.

Another critique that is sometimes levelled at TCP is that of Euro-centric bias. When faced with this challenge it is important to consider what this means. It is hard to identify which aspect of the model is distinctively European in nature. Whilst it is true that the model was developed in North America and Britain, there is nothing in the model that fits the cultural values of those societies more than an African, Asian or South American culture. The model invites service users to develop their own, culturally appropriate models of both the problem and the potential solutions. As long as the model is applied with cultural competence it is hard to identify in what way the model is meaningfully Euro-centric. At the same time badly applied Anti-Oppressive Practice may be effectively Euro-Centric, so we need to focus on making sure they models and theories are applied in culturally appropriate ways rather than see the models as inherently flawed.

A further critique is that TCP is less effective with chronic and complex problems. Whilst this is a valid criticism it is also a circular argument. All interventions work better with recent and simpler problems. To say that something is chronic and complex by definition means that interventions will take longer and be less successful. As has been demonstrated, when applied in full TCP is a thorough and complex process capable of being applied to a very wide range of problem areas. In reality with complex problems the number of meetings dedicated to the Initial phase and to the first four stages of the Middle phase is likely to be higher, whilst with chronic problems the number of meetings dedicated to whole of the Middle phase is likely to be higher. However when performed with skill and appropriate social work values TCP is as likely to be effective as any other approach in complex and chronic situations.

Further Reading

Maclean, S. and Harrison, R. (2011) Theory and Practice: a straightforward guide for society work students. Lichfield: Kirwan Maclean Associates.  Chapter 45 – “Task Centred Practice” pp241-246

Marsh. P. “Task Centred Practice” in Davis. M. The Blackwell Companion to Social Work: Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Pp492-495

Coulshed, V. and Orme, J. (2012) Social Work Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 8 – “Problem Solving Practice” pp152-173

Payne, M. (2014) Modern Social Work Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 5 “Crisis and task-centred practice” pp 127-149

Trevithick, P. (2012) Social Work Skills and Knowledge: a practice handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Appendix 11 – “Task-centred approaches” pp353-356

Teater, B. (2010) Applying Social Work Theories and Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Chapter 11 – “Task-Centred Practice” pp178-195

Last update – 18.8.16 – by M. Allenby