Action research with caseworkers: Responding to and reflecting on the impacts of COVID‐19 on birth family contact

Abstract Social distancing due to COVID‐19 forced changes to contact with birth relatives for children in out‐of‐home care. This required a shift to using technologies, which was previously underutilized and viewed as risky. In an action research study, 33 caseworkers in New South Wales, Australia, reflected upon adapting their practices. Three key themes characterized the changes in caseworker practices and how these impacted upon social interactions between children and their birth and carer families: communication, not location; shared not separate spaces and spontaneous not restricted interaction. First, caseworkers described how contact via technologies involved fewer logistical arrangements, shifting the focus on interactions among children and their two families and encouraging these to be flexible and child‐centred. Second, caseworkers discussed how spending time together virtually could build trust, as carers and birth relatives could forge relationships around shared commitment to the child's wellbeing. Third, caseworkers noted that technology‐facilitated communication enabled greater choice and control for children while requiring renegotiating boundaries. The findings reflect a shift in caseworker perceptions of technology‐facilitated contact from a risk to opportunity framework as a result of COVID‐19 conditions, consistent with social shaping of technology theory. Beyond the pandemic, contact with birth relatives can be enhanced through technology.


| INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The global spread of COVID-19 prompted a range of responses from governments around the world, including state-imposed 'lockdowns' that limit social and physical contact between individuals. Common social distancing measures include school and workplace closures, bans on public gatherings and stay at home orders (Thomas et al., 2021). Children who live apart from their families as a result of child protection intervention and decision-making are uniquely impacted by lockdown measures. Lockdowns pose barriers to face-toface visits between children in care and family members they do not live with (Neil et al., 2020). These face-to-face visits are an important way in which children's relationships with family members are supported, developed and sustained.
Australian law enshrines the right to ongoing contact with family members for children in out-of-home care (foster care, kinship care, At the same time as these sudden and necessary changes to children's contact with family were taking place, action research was being used in New South Wales to explore how out-of-home care caseworkers could better support children's relationships with their families. Influenced by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, action research teams composed of caseworkers and their managers chose to bring a practice focus to supporting indirect communication between children in out-of-home care and their family members. This research provided a unique window to observe practice adaptations by the out-of-home care sector in real-time and to document emerging lessons. After reviewing relevant literature on technology-assisted contact, this paper will present qualitative, reflective practice evidence from 33 out-of-home care caseworkers who met monthly as part of an action research study while adapting their practice during COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.

| International evidence on technologyassisted contact
The use of mobile devices and internet-based digital technologies has become an integral part of contemporary life, and, as such, the potential for digital technologies to impact the nature of contact between children in care and their families is receiving growing attention. A number of international studies, primarily in the UK, have examined the views and experiences of children, carers, family members and social work practitioners in relation to using digital technologies for contact. Various terms are used to describe this contact, including indirect contact, technology-assisted contact, digital or virtual contact and family time from a distance.
The small but growing body of literature on digital contact between children in out-of-home care and their family members suggests it is not possible to conclude that digital contact is positive or negative (Iyer et al., 2020;Neil et al., 2020). A rapid evidence review undertaken in the UK in response to COVID-19 related social distancing measures explored the implications of digital contact on children separated from their birth relatives, synthesizing findings from 16 international studies in both public and private law contexts (Iyer et al., 2020). A contemporaneous UK study used an online survey (n = 197) and telephone interviews (n = 24) with carers, professionals and birth relatives to investigate what was working well and not so well in terms of contact between children in or adopted from care and their families during lockdowns (Neil et al., 2020). Cumulative findings suggest that digital contact experiences are unique and involve both challenges and benefits (Neil et al., 2020). For example, digital contact can be more immediate and less formal and may help facilitate relationships, but having meaningful and positive interactions can involve active support to manage expectations and transitions, set boundaries and be age appropriate (Iyer et al., 2020;Neil et al., 2020). Taken together, this evidence echoes existing research on the benefits of direct contact, which suggests there is no simple, one-size-fits-all approach (Boyle, 2017). These studies highlight the need to apply best practice principles for children's contact with families, regardless of the mode of communication used. These include taking a childcentred and child-friendly approach, considering the needs and wishes of both families and making contact arrangements work on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Research reveals that perspectives on the benefits and risks of digital contact diverge. On the one hand, children and parents/ relatives are more likely to view technology-based contact primarily as an opportunity for informal family connection. Simpson (2020) studied 12 triads of young people, their foster carers and social work practitioners to explore how young people use mobile communication devices and internet for contact with people they value, including family. Young people described digital contact as a means of 'staying in touch' informally and spontaneously with family members, rather than 'contact', which they characterized as formulaic and rigid arrangements and interaction patterns (Simpson, 2020). While limited research exploring the views of birth relatives in relation to digital contact exists, one study of 62 parents of children in foster care highlights the value parents place on opportunities to connect with their children by mobile phone when direct contact is limited or supervised, including being able to text or call at regular times, such as at bedtime (Schofield et al., 2009). By contrast, carers and practitioners are more likely to perceive it as a risk to children's safety and wellbeing. In Simpson's (2020) study, for example, carers and social workers did not see the value of technology-assisted contact for supporting ongoing family relationships, framing it as a 'risk or nuisance' rather than an opportunity for relationship-building and a normalized communication mode for young people.
This sentiment is echoed in the wider literature on attitudes towards young people's use of technology in which carers, adoptive parents and social workers emphasize safeguarding from online harm, risk management and the perils of overusing devices (MacDonald et al., 2017). Moreover, digital contact is viewed as posing significant risks to the emotional wellbeing of children and young people when it occurs 'out-of-the-blue' or outside of an established relationship; it has been formally prohibited or is unsupported by carers and adoptive parents (Greenhow et al., 2016;MacDonald & McSherry, 2013;Neil et al., 2013). Yet it is important to note that a study by Sen (2010) found that even when practitioners did not have first-hand experience of children using technology for contact, they constructed it primarily as a risk rather than an opportunity.
Despite the dominance of risk discourse, research nonetheless points to the value of technology-assisted contact for extending and developing existing relationships between children and their families.
Virtual contact is thought to add 'normality and reality to the child's dual connection to two families', allowing the connection 'to feel more natural and family-like' (Greenhow et al., 2016, p. 382) through its informal nature and regularity (Neil et al., 2013, p. 245).
Willoughby (2019) stresses that practitioners need to build their knowledge and skills with technology-facilitated communication and social media in order to reduce risks and promote opportunities for young people and so they can offer a supportive scaffold for all parties involved. The need for further research into the views and concerns of social work practitioners around technology-assisted contact has also been identified, in light of the central role they play in managing contact arrangements (Sen & Broadhurst, 2011, pp. 305-306).

| Social work and the social shaping of technology
Such calls are particularly pertinent given that the social work profession had been notoriously slow to use technologies and develop technology-facilitated practices even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Carrilio, 2005;Taylor-Beswick, 2019). This is despite a wealth of evidence pointing to the relevance of technologies for relational and participatory social work practice, including opportunities to enhance the active participation of children and families in child welfare processes (Tregeagle, 2010) and the potential for technologymediated communication to assist social workers and service users to develop social presenceor an awareness of the other person (LaMendola, 2010;Simpson, 2017). The theory of technological essentialism posits that technologies direct social change and their uptake is inevitable and positive (Hutchby, 2003), claims which are challenged by the low uptake within the social work profession. In contrast, a social constructionist view of technology and accompanying ideas of social shaping of technology posits that technology is shaped by complex social processes and social factors (Hutchby, 2001). Like Tregeagle (2016), we argue that the use of technology is 'both the result of, but also shapes, social processes' (p. 228) and that the COVID-19 pandemic is a factor that shapes uptake and use of technology.
The research presented here extends on this body of literature through an analysis of caseworker reflections about their own practices to support children and families to connect from a physical distance during COVID-19 restrictions. The study sought to answer the following two research questions: (1) How did caseworkers support children, carers and birth family to have indirect contact? And (2) how did caseworkers view the use of technologies to keep children connected to family during COVID-19?

| METHOD
These findings are part of a larger study, Fostering Lifelong Connection for Children in Permanent Care, that uses action research to develop, trial and evaluate small practice changes to improve relationship-based casework support for contact (referred to in the study as 'family time') over a 2-year period. Participatory action research is a qualitative methodology designed to promote, document and evaluate a change process (Chevalier & Buckles, 2019;MacDonald, 2012). It involves critical observation of practices and concepts and flexible responses to lessons as they emerge (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). This method acknowledges that people who have personal experience of an issue have the knowledge that is critical to designing workable solutions to it (Chouinard & Milley, 2016;McCormack & Dewing, 2012). Action research participants engage in a cycle of planning, acting, reflecting and adapting (Cardno, 2003;McNiff & Whitehead, 2012). The study adapted an action research methodology, the Breakthrough Series Collaborative, that was first developed in health settings and then utilized in the context of child welfare practice in the United States to bridge the research-to-practice gap (Miller & Ward, 2008). The first of three

| Sample and participants
A purposive sampling method was used to recruit 33 caseworkers and their managers from eight out-of-home care organizations, each with children on their caseloads who were permanently placed in out-ofhome care, on court orders for long-term foster care or kinship care or transitioning to open adoption or guardianship and having regular contact with birth relatives ( Table 1). The overarching aim of the action research was to improve practices used for family time through building practice-informed evidence, and the professionals who are 'information rich' (Patton, 2002) in this practice area are caseworkers.
This was an efficient and practical approach to selection of individuals with relevant knowledge (Cresswell & Clark, 2011), willingness to participate and ability to communicate experiences in a reflective manner (Palinkas et al., 2015).

| Data collection
Data collection took place between March and October 2020. The 33 action researchers formed four site-based local action research teams and participated in reflective meetings in their local teams each month. Reflective practice is a core concept in social work owing to Schon's (1983) formulation of how professionals engage in 'reflection in action' by thinking consciously about what they are doing while they are doing it and later using 'reflection on action' to integrate their practice with theory and knowledge (Fisher & Somerton, 2000;Ferguson, 2018). These meetings were attended by at least one member of the academic research team and were audio recorded. If an action researcher was unable to attend, they submitted a brief, written reflection. Action researchers were invited to reflect on what worked well and not so well during the previous month, challenges and how they overcame them, new learnings and impacts on children's relationships. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, meetings were mainly convened on videoconferencing platform Zoom and audio recorded to a local drive of a laptop before being transferred to a secure data store and permanently deleted from the local drive. This protected the privacy of participants. Audio recordings were transcribed for use in analysis.

| Data analysis
An inductive approach was used to analyse the reflective data using a six-phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2012). Data were uploaded to Dedoose™, a secure cloud-based program designed for mixed method, team-based research. Author 1 completed open coding of all data and proposed preliminary categories and themes.
Authors 2 and 3 completed inter-rater reliability tests of a sub-sample of codes from each theme in Dedoose™. The authors iteratively resolved discrepancies in interpretation through discussion. Exemplar themes were re-examined to remove duplicates or rename constituent codes or categories. The codebook was applied, tested and revised in an iterative process until a 0.80 kappa score of inter-rater agreement was achieved among the three authors.

| Communication not location
This theme explores the way that family time from a COVID-safe distance prompted caseworkers to shift their focus away from where visits took place and to take creative licence and calculated risks with trialling new modes of communication that can help connect children with relatives. What they observed was that relationships could continue and even flourish in the absence of physical contact when an intentional focus was to create the conditions for meaningful exchange. However, this was not without its challenges.

| Focus on quality interactions
Caseworkers reflected that a focus on family time logistics could be a distraction from the fundamental purposeto create a space for a meaningful connection between children and their relatives to flourish and undermine efforts to make this as high-quality experience as

| Spontaneous not restricted interactions
This theme explores the differences that using technologies made to the way that children and family members communicated and the ways that caseworkers supported them to embrace the benefits and navigate the challenges.

| Choice and control
Increased spontaneity was an advantage of the shift to family time from a distance during COVID-19. Some children and young people were able to gain flexibility and control by asking their carers to initiate phone or video calls rather than having to wait for a scheduled visit. It also made it more acceptable for carers and children to exchange contact details and social media profiles with family members and, in the case of young people, to directly initiate communication with relatives. Caseworkers reflected that some children and young people appeared to be more settled as a result because 'They have the ability to contact their parents whenever they want. No one is saying "no, you have got to wait until next week" or "you have to have prearranged phone calls"'.
Another caseworker highlighted how the option of using technologies to stay in touch with family was giving children more of a voice in when and how they speak to family, shifting control over family time from agencies and adults to children and young people:  When conversations did stray into inappropriate territory, caseworkers were careful to reiterate to carers the gains for children of using technologies to stay connected to family and to normalize the inevitability of boundaries being crossed from time to time, irrespective of whether family time was in-person or not.

| Benefits outweigh drawbacks
Overall Caseworkers began to re-evaluate their practice and look forward to how these changes could be sustained after restrictions were lifted. and not seen the value and not seeing that as being good, hearty contact whereas now our views have definitely changed on that … I think COVID has obviously had lots of negatives but from this perspective, it's been a real positive. We've been able to keep kids connected and, in fact, with some kids, get them more connected.

| DISCUSSION
The social shaping of technology perspective draws attention to the agency people hold in determining how technology is used, focusing on cultural factors such as perceptions and meanings (Baym, 2015).
The caseworkers in our study were able to move beyond well-docu- as the dominance of a risk and safeguarding discourse in the views and attitudes of social work practitioners regarding the merits of technology-assisted contact (Macdonald et al., 2017;Sen, 2010;Simpson, 2020).  (Kretchmer, 2018).
Another example of this interplay is evident in the research results that indicate that technology-assisted, indirect contact can assist with developing 'communicative openness' between carers and birth family members. In adoption contexts, openness relates to 'the degree to which information passes between birth and adoptive families and to the level of contact and ongoing relationship between these connected families' (Jones & Hackett, 2007, p. 158). Children's ongoing relationships with family are prioritized regardless of the placement type they are in. Previous studies have shown that technology-assisted contact works best when a 'general climate of openness' within adoptive families already exists (Neil et al., 2013, p. 244).
Our study extends on these findings, suggesting that technologyassisted contact can be a means for developing and facilitating greater openness between carers of children in out-of-home care and their birth relatives in circumstances where openness is yet to exist. The results indicate that video calls gave carers and parents who had not met a chance to observe each other from a comfortable physical distance and could make them more receptive to in-person contact in the future. Again, these findings reflect how the use of technology is socially shaped and reciprocally shapes individuals, groups and society (Kretchmer, 2018). As the use of technologies for family time became Given pre-pandemic social work was less reliant on digital technologies and social work education was less willing to prepare its workforce in digital capability, investment should be made in developing these skills across the profession to enable critical digital decision making (Taylor-Beswick, 2021).

| LIMITATIONS
The study relied solely on caseworker accounts of how children and families experienced the shift to non-physical modes of communication and the suitability and success of casework responses.
Consistent with an action research approach, the academic researchers made no attempt to verify the accuracy of the accounts or to challenge how individuals interpreted their observations. However, data collection at regular intervals with the same caseworkers over a 6-month period provided an opportunity to follow up on previously noted observations and clarify inconsistencies, thereby enhancing reliability. The co-researcher sample was recruited using a convenience approach which may have introduced recruitment bias. While it is recognized that the co-researchers involved in this study are not representative of all caseworkers in NSW and group and individual differences may have influenced their accounts, the impact of these differences on generalizability of results is reduced by a study design that included caseworkers from government and non-governmental organizations and from urban and regional parts of the state. Finally, input was not sought from children or family members about the practices trialled by caseworkers, and data triangulation would have strengthened the reported results.

| CONCLUSION
The need to rapidly respond to unexpected changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic gave caseworkers permission to challenge conventional and risk-oriented approaches to family time practices.
Based on action research with caseworkers to trial, observe and reflect on new ways of connecting children with birth relatives using digital technology, this study found these changes encouraged caseworkers to focus on and strengthen the interactions among children and birth relatives and carers. The results extend beyond how to cope with future lockdowns and offer lessons about how to support meaningful relationships among children and their two families. This includes practical, emotional and instrumental support such as resources for families who lack hardware, software or technology skills.