It's no picnic: personal and family safety for rural social workers

Keywordsrural, violence, worker safety.

IntroductionThe research reported in this article is partof a larger study of rural welfare and socialworkers in the Western Region of Victoria,which included an examination of factors

relevant to rural practice, such as servicedelivery, management of dual and multipleroles, privacy and confidentiality.Investigation of work related harassmentand violence was included in the study asour own experience, and the stories weheard informally from colleagues, indicatedthat this could be a significant issue forrural practitioners, especially when workingwith statutory clients or perpetrators ofviolence and abuse. In these fields socialwork can be conceptualised as a form ofsocial control rather than as a vehicle forempowerment. The social worker as anagent of control is not a new idea;proponents of the radical social worktradition have had concerns about it formany years (Ife 1997; p. 33). Participants inour study often work with clients who feelpowerless and threatened because of theirsituation. This can lead to behaviour thatsome may see as antisocial, directed at the

It’s no picnic: personal and familysafety for rural social workersRosemary Green, Raeleene Gregory and Robyn Mason

This paper reports the key research findings related to personal and family safety ofrural welfare and social workers, from a study conducted in rural Victoria, Australia.Significant findings included concerns about personal and family safety, frequencyof episodes of work related violence and harassment, and the resultant impact onpersonal and family activities.A range of useful strategies was identified to combat and cope with both the riskand experience of violence and harassment for the worker, and for their families.Workplaces, professional associations and educators need to recognise the impactof this occupational hazard and respond with sensitivity to these issues, which haveparticular relevance for rural practitioners where anonymity and privacy arefrequently compromised.

Rosemary Green is an Associate Professor and Head ofSchool, Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanitiesat the University of Ballarat. Email: [email protected] Gregory was previously the Coordinator ofBallarat (Vic) Centre Against Sexual Assault and iscurrently a post graduate student at the University ofBallarat researching the adoption and management ofprivacy and boundary issues in rural welfare practice.Email: [email protected] Mason is a PhD candidate at the University ofMelbourne School of Social Work, researching ‘RuralWomen’s Services in Australia’. She was previously acoordinator at the Ballarat Centre Against Sexual Assault,Victoria, Australia. Email: [email protected]

94 Australian Social Work/June 2003, Vol. 56, No. 2

workers because they are seen asrepresenting the oppression that clients aresuffering.

(social workers) . . . work daily withvulnerable people: many of the factors which contribute towards thatvulnerability- for example poverty, illness or family tensions- are factors which maywell predispose those individuals towardsviolent or aggressive behaviour. In additionsome clients may have a tendency towardstemporary loss of control, for examplebecause of alcohol or drug abuse. (Bibby 1994 p. 19)

The challenge for social and welfareworkers is to pursue empowerment while in a position of social control (Barber 1991;p. 48).

Understanding the issuesThe risk of violence for workers in thehuman services has emerged as anoccupational issue in the past two decades.On reviewing the literature, there are fewstudies which explore this aspect ofpractice. In Great Britain, Bibby (1994)explored policy frameworks and practicalstrategies, such as assertiveness andinterview techniques, to address violence inthe workplace. In Canada, Gair and Thorpe(1996) exposed the extent and nature ofthreats and actual physical violenceexperienced by workers, with up to 61% of workers reporting verbal abuse in oneCanadian study. In Australia, in 1991, theincreasing frequency of violence related tothe distribution of emergency relief wasrecognised in a seminar organised by the Victorian Emergency Relief Project(Cheshire & Gourlay 1991). This was

followed by a major study conducted by Puckett and Cleak (1994) whichinvestigated 124 welfare and social workers working in ‘high risk’ settings inMelbourne, with results suggesting thatalmost one-third of participants in the study had been physically assaulted one or more times. In the same study, almostone-third of respondents, when asked how many times they had experiencedverbal abuse, could not say how many,‘because of the frequency with which such abusive episodes occurred ’ (Puckett & Cleak 1994; p. 4–5).Horejsi and Garthwait’s (1994) Amercianstudy identified that threats are oftendirected against the worker’s family. Fifteen of the 166 child protection workerssurveyed reported threats of violencedirected at their family members. Gair and Thorpe (1996) found that five of the89 respondents had their familiesthreatened and a quarter of graduatessurveyed had seen other workersexperiencing violence.

Issues for individual rural practitionersinclude managing high visibility, informality,self-disclosure, trust and mistrust ofprofessionals, dual and multiple roles andblurring of professional and personalboundaries. (Cheers 1998; Briskman &Lynn 1999; Wilson-Barrett & Dollard 2000).High visibility and the consequent lack ofanonymity and privacy, for rural socialworkers and their families, has both positiveand negative elements. For some, highvisibility can lead to concerns aboutpersonal and family safety, particularlywhen working in fields such as familyconflict and violence, child protection or the criminal justice system. Where urbanworkers may be able to maintain anonymity

Australian Social Work/June 2003, Vol. 56, No. 2 95

by living in different suburbs to those inwhich they work, rural social workers canbe highly visible as they often must live,socialise and work within the samecommunity.

Few studies have concentrated onissues of safety for rural social workers andtheir families. Horejsi and Garthwait’s (1994)findings indicated that threats, violence andverbal abuse experienced were frequentlyrelated to work roles in child protection.One-third of their participants reportedbeing frightened on the job at least monthly.Verbal abuse occurred up to several timesweekly for about one-quarter of theparticipants. They identified that threatswere also made against workers’ propertyand their family members. Supervisorsresponding in this study expressed concern about workers becomingdesensitised:

‘. . . Many workers get so accustomed tothreats and angry parents that they tend tounderestimate or disregard the danger they really face’ Horejsi and Garthwait(1994; p. 77)

There is very little Australian rural socialwork research about work related violenceand harassment. Studies by nurses have indicated that there is a culture of non-reporting, denial and minimisation of the importance of such episodes both by nurses and management (Fisher et al.1996; Kelly 1998).

‘The literature suggests that when nursesdo report violent incidents, their employerand colleagues frequently respond byidentifying the individual’s nursing andinterpersonal skills, or lack of these, assomehow having caused or contributed tothe problem.’ Fisher et al. (1996; p. 191)

This ‘blame the victim’ approach is notuncommon in other professions, or indeedin the general community. Victims ofviolence are often made to feel responsiblefor the violence perpetrated on them.Outcomes of violence may include post-traumatic stress disorder (Kelly 1998),burnout and vicarious or secondarytraumatisation (Kelly 1997; Coholic &Blackford 1999; Sexton 1999) and thesemay be exacerbated by poor responsesfrom colleagues and employers. TheNational Health and Medical ResearchCouncil (NHMRC) has recently developed a draft manual for health care workers,managers and employing organisations to assist workers in rural and remotecommunities to better manage episodes of violence. This manual considers a widerange of potentially violent situations, andincludes examples of violence beingdirected against the health professional.(NHMRC 2002).

MethodologyThe study examined issues for rural welfare and social workers in WesternVictoria working in fields of practiceidentified by the researchers as‘controversial or conflictual ’. These fields of practice included those where workershad statutory responsibilities such ascorrections, child protection or mentalhealth; or controversial fields that maythreaten existing community views aboutwomen and children, for example. familyviolence and sexual assault. A University of Ballarat grant and a reference group ofkey staff from major regional organisationssupported the research. The practitioners’


experiences of harassment and violencearising from their work role were a key subset of this broader study.Participants included those with mandatory responsibilities and working in fields where conflicts frequently arise.The study utilised three methods ofgathering data: a formal self-reportquestionnaire; informal, private interviews;and publicly advertised forums. While thesample size is small, this methodology,being both quantitative and qualitative,assists in analysing themes, narratives andexperiences (Denscombe 1998; Lincoln &Guba 2000).

Questionnaires were widely distributedand completed by 23 participants. Aswould be expected in social work andwelfare service delivery, where the majority of workers are women, more women responded than men(19 women and four men). The participantsrepresented a range of agencies,experience, qualifications and geographicallocations. To reflect the diversity ofexperience, age, agency focus,geographical location and size ofcommunity and agency, six were selectedfor interview. Those interviewed comprisedone man and five women selectedpurposively to provide the study with varietyof experience and background includingrurality, length of practice, type of role and agency.

Following the completion and part analysis of the questionnaires, three forums were held in different parts of the region. These were widely advertised. Attendance at the forumstotalled more than 40 participants, of whom one or two had completedquestionnaires.

The participants

Questionnaire respondents comprisedmostly experienced practitioners, whoresided in relatively small communities.Most had formal qualifications in socialwork or welfare, with the remainder beingeither qualified nurses or holding othertertiary qualifications.

Of the 23 questionnaire respondents,nine worked in a non-governmentorganisation, 12 worked for a StateGovernment agency or instrumentality, onein local government and one recorded‘other’ in response to this question. Sixteenwere in permanent positions. While four hadbeen in their current position less than 12 months, eight had held their positionbetween 1 and 5 years and 10 had held their current position for over 5 years.Of the 13 participants living in communitiesof fewer than 60 000 people, six lived incommunities less than 10 000, three intownships of 10 000–19 000, four between 39 000 and 60 000 and ninedid not specify. Three-quarters had lived inthe community for longer than 7 years.

For 14 participants visibility related totheir work role was rated as very high andwhile five felt very professionally isolated,nine reported feeling not professionallyisolated at all and nine only a little ormoderately isolated. Three-quartersbelieved residing in a rural area had moreadvantages than disadvantages.

Overall, most respondents appeared tosee living and working in rural practice asrewarding and suiting their lifestyle atpresent. While high visibility related to theirwork role existed, most felt comfortable withthat. Overall professional isolation did notseem to be a major factor.


Definitions

For the purposes of this study, the followingdefinitions were used:• Work related violence is defined as anyincident in which an employee is abused,threatened or assaulted by a member of thepublic in circumstances arising out of thecourse of their work, whether or not they areon duty. It includes behaviour, whichproduces damaging or hurtful effects,physically or emotionally.

• Harassment is defined as any form of behaviour that a person does not want, and does not return, and that offends, humiliates or intimidates them.

Experiences relating topersonal safetyFive of the questionnaire respondentsestimated that they experienced violence


Fig. 1. Frequency of work related violence and harassment. � Violence, � harassment.

Table 1. Frequency of work related violence and harassment

Frequency of Frequency of work related violence work related harassment

n % n %

Daily/Every couple of days 3 8.7 4 8.7Weekly 2 8.7 2 8.7Every couple of weeks 2 8.7 1 4.3Monthly 3 13.0 2 8.7Less than once a month 10 43.5 8 34.8Never 3 13.0 5 21.7Total 23 95.6 22 86.9

on a daily or weekly basis, with slightlymore (six) reporting episodes ofharassment being daily or weekly. Fiverespondents reported never experiencingwork place harassment while only threereported never having experiencedepisodes of violence. Harassment wasexperienced less often, but this finding may be explained by blurring of ourdefinitions. Violence was infrequent,occurring less than once a month for10 workers (Fig. 1 and Table 1).

One participant described the reality ofrural practice:

‘I feel that living and working in a ruralcommunity is full of risks . . . the nature of my work is that there are alwaysrisks . . . People don’t always understandmy work objectives and may seek to exact some kind of payback for real orimagined actions I have taken in myprofessional capacity.’

Violence and harassment occurred mainlyin the workplace. Of the 20 questionnairerespondents who experienced violence,these episodes occurred mainly in theoffice, the telephone, and in the client’shome. Violent episodes were reported


Fig. 2. Where work related violence and harassment occurs. � Violence, � harassment.

Table 2. Where work related violence and harassment occurs

Work related violence Work related violencen % n %

In the workplace 17 73.9 14 60.9In client’s home 7 30.4 5 21.7In the car 3 13.0 1 4.3In public places 3 13.0 3 13.0On telephone 9 39.1 9 39.1In the mail or electronically 1 4.3 0 0.0In other places 2 8.7 1 4.3Total 42 182.4 33 143.3

to have occurred outside the workplace, in public or in the client’s home for five of our sample. In 15 cases, people knownby the worker perpetrated this violence.Analysis indicated that harassment followed a similar pattern (Fig. 2 andTable 2).

Participants in forums referred to clientanger, intimidation and threats as examplesof violence. Sixteen questionnairerespondents referred to intimidation andverbal abuse, four had experiencedphysical violence and three had receivedthreats in person or by telephone afterhours.

At the forum, participants spoke of beingfearful when attending families living inremote locations, of having guns pointed intheir direction and of assaults such aspunching, shoving and hitting. Theseevents had occurred to several of the forumparticipants. Although they often attendedhome visits ‘in pairs’ participants felt thatthis afforded them little real protection.While some situations were obviously risky,and in these cases office visits werearranged, participants disclosed episodeswhere they were ‘taken by surprise’ byaggressive and abusive situations.Participants in forums spoke of beingverbally abused or otherwise threatened byclients, partners or former partners ofclients in supermarkets, in the street or atthe office.

Examples of harassment included verbalabuse, invasion of privacy at social eventsand in public places, episodes of stalkingand excessive phone contact. Theft ofpersonal belongings, sexual references andunwanted romantic attention was reportedin a few instances, as was malicious gossipand complaints.

Participants talked about the risksinvolved in solo home visits, transportingclients and using personal vehicles. Thelack of effective agency equipment such asradios, mobile phones, tracking systems,protocols and procedures relating to workersafety were identified as of concern. Thereporting of episodes, and any resultantaction, varied. Similar to comments made instudies conducted by nurses (Fisher et al.1996; Kelly 1998), examples were givenwhere violence was minimised, laughedaway, or seen to be just part and parcel of the job by colleagues, the workersthemselves and management. One of our participants commented:

‘My work mostly relates to a client groupwhere violence and harassment is prettymuch part of the work . . . mostly emotionaland mental abuse and verbal harassment.While there is a threat of physical violence,this is far less threatening to me than theseother forms of violence which I face on adaily basis.’

Strategies for dealing withpersonal safety issuesWorkers reported a range of strategies fordealing with personal safety issues. Theseincluded the use of security pagers, duressalarms and mobile phones. However, at theforums it was highlighted by manyparticipants that in rural areas mobilephones are unreliable and do not providereal security for workers. Agency practicesof recording the location of rural workerswhen on home visits varied, with many loneworkers having little or no means ofensuring someone knew where they weregoing. Lone workers raised safety and


confidentiality as a concern. They felt itwould compromise confidentiality to advisethe address of their client and other detailsrelating to home visits to another person oragency, even though this may give themsome personal security. Some agencieshad a very specific protocol about time athome visits and check up phone calls if aworker had not reported into the officewithin a specified time period.

Many participants at the forums and sixof the questionnaire respondents reportedthat they were very clear and careful abouthighlighting boundaries, maintaining aprofessional distance from clients, andworking within strict agency ‘guidelines’ so that the client would be less likely topersonalise the actions taken by the worker.

Avoidance strategies were frequentlymentioned. These included social workersbeing constantly aware of their proximity toclients and vigilance in public areas. Socialworkers frequently chose not to shop in thelocal area, or chose to shop when fewerclients were likely to be shopping. Someavoided taking family members, particularlychildren, with them in public. Avoidingsocial events in public spaces, such ashotels and restaurants, and preferring tosocialise at home or in friends’ homes werefrequently cited. Using silent home phonenumbers, using a different name at work,keeping the personal car away from theoffice and avoiding solo home visitswherever possible were other strategiesutilised.

One worker had recently taken furthersteps to relieve the stress she experienced.She reported: ‘I have recently moved fromthe local community where I work as thestress of living and working in the sameplace has become too great’. She had

arranged with her agency for her not todirectly work with people in her new locale,but had already had an episode where aneighbour had sought her assistance‘informally and out of hours’ to escape anepisode of family violence. One intervieweetalked at length about her discomfort whenclients moved into the house next door.

Some people identified that it was usefulto have ‘local’ knowledge as it enabledthem to identify and avoid potential issues.Work practices that emphasised mutualrespect and ‘collaborative, working togetherapproaches’ to resolve issues werementioned as good preventative strategies,but it was also acknowledged this was nota general solution in all situations. Oneworker advised: ‘Always treat people withrespect and courtesy, they could end upbeing your neighbour’. Others stated thatclearly identifying boundaries and havingwork protocols assisted in managingpotential workplace harassment andviolence. Good supervision, support andopportunities to debrief were consideredvery important to managing stressfulepisodes.

These strategies had become part of theworkers’ repertoire and incorporated intotheir daily routine. For many rural welfareand social workers in the study, thesemeasures were ‘just part of life’, but asresearchers we were surprised at the levelof compromise made by many workers intheir personal lives as a direct result of theirwork role.

Concerns about familysafetyJust under one-quarter of respondents tothe questionnaire reported that their work


raised issues of family safety and close toone-third had significant concerns aboutfamily safety (Fig. 3 and Table 3).

Experiences reported included phonecalls to family members, which werethreatening, general threats about ‘gettingeven’ and concerns for children, particularlywhere sexual offenders on probation orparole were in the worker’s caseload. In theinterviews, the forums and questionnaireanalysis, it appeared that women workerswith school age or adolescent children wereoften ‘hypervigilant ’ about their children’swhereabouts and their children’s socialcontacts, and were highly concerned fortheir safety. However, the lack of maleparticipants has not allowed us to furtheranalyse gender as a critical factor.

Strategies to deal with familysafety issues

In terms of children’s safety, some workerssaid that their children had mobile phonesso as to inform parents of theirwhereabouts, although the problem ofreception in rural areas remains. At timeschildren were told about risks to themposed by people in the community knownto the worker through her professional role.Heightened awareness about children’ssafety was a factor for several workersresponding to the questionnaire and in theforums. One told us: ‘I never allow my 15-year-old-daughter to be alone in publicand always know her whereabouts’. Othersreported that they exercised no more thanthe usual parenting vigilance and that therewas a safety inherent in rural communities:‘We all look out for each other’s kids’.Others deliberately educated members oftheir family about the need for additionalcare related to privacy, safety and the workrole. Some reported warning their familymembers of suspected dangers and hadprovided instructions about how to deal with client or client-related phone calls or visits.


Fig. 3. Concerns for family safety. (�) Not at all; (�) a little; ( ) a moderate amount; ( ) a gooddeal.

Table 3. Concerns for family safety

Concern for family safetyCount %

Not at all 10 43.5A little 1 4.3A moderate amount 5 21.7A good deal 7 30.4Total 23 99.9

Another strategy involved womenchoosing to use a different name, such astheir maiden name at work, to avoid beingidentified elsewhere. For many rural workersin smaller communities this was seen asineffectual as residents knew them and theirfamilies. For some this was positive:

Being a rural person and a member of thiscommunity gives me an ‘edge’ in somerespects. I don’t have to waste timebuilding rapport, I am already known andpeople trust me, particularly the elderly, as Iunderstand the history and culture of thearea. My conservative family backgroundprobably helps too.‘

This interviewee had few fears for herfamily, as her adult children were ‘big menand could take care of themselves’. Rather,her concerns were related to communitysafety issues, for example, when she knewof repeat child sex offenders beingreleased from prison and settling in thetown.

Some participants stated they did nottalk about work at home or give details ofthe professional role, as a means ofprotecting family members from worryabout the worker. The reverse was alsoused as a strategy, where the worker wasvery circumspect about her familyconnections and took care that there wasno acknowledgement of her family life in theworkplace. Three participants commentedas follows:

My family are totally unaware of my roles.

I deliberately do not have photos in myoffice.

I don’t want to be seen with mygrandchildren in this community . . . for their

own protection it is better if they are notidentified as belonging to me . . . nor do Ihave their drawings or other items aroundthe office.

Several workers refrained from displayingpictures of their family or children’sdrawings. However, for some workers thiswas not a concern. They argued that suchactivities made them more ‘approachableand human’ and provided a normalisingsetting for clients, demonstrating trust andrespect.

ConclusionThis study reflects the many challengesfaced by rural social workers in terms ofpersonal and family safety, and confirms the findings of previous studies. There issome evidence that in rural areas thepercentage of social workers experiencingepisodes of violence and harassment iseven higher than that reported by Gair and Thorpe (1996) and Puckett and Cleak(1994). The concern for family safety issignificant with a higher percentage ofparticipants reporting concern, in excess of the findings reported by Horejsi andGarthwait (1994). As this study was small,further investigation is warranted. However,reports of violence and harassment seemsignificantly high and there is someevidence that, like nurses, this is taken for granted as part of the role, minimised,and its impact hidden. Its role in burnout,job dissatisfaction and vicarious traumashould also be further investigated. A studyof gender and its impact on violence andharassment would be useful, as this studywas too small and lacked enough maleparticipants to draw any real conclusions


about gender. The occurrence ofhypervigilance as a result of workplaceviolence and harassment, in both urbanand rural workers in contentious fields ofpractice, is another area worthy of furtherstudy.

Individual workers have developed arange of strategies, appropriate to theirparticular professional approach, personalvalues and experience. Strategies used bysome are in direct opposition to strategiesdeveloped by others, such as displayingfamily photos at the office or disclosingfamily background. These differentperspectives do not alter the findings thatharassment and abuse related to work roles are significant in rural areas and thatthey impact on workers and their families.Educators and employers must take intoaccount these safety factors whenestablishing services and recruiting staff in rural areas. There are also implicationsfor professional training and for ruralcommunities.

First, individuals who want to work and thrive in contentious rural social welfare positions need to be resilient, with good coping strategies equippingthem to face difficult personal and family challenges arising from their work.Professionals who have experience on the ground, such as those in our study,would be useful role models and mentorsfor newly graduated or newly arrived ruralworkers.

Second, rural service providers need to be aware that these challenges exist and pose a threat to the wellbeing andproductivity of their workforce. Protocolsand policies that protect workers andacknowledge the risks they face, should bestandard items in the policy manuals of

agencies and included in induction and in-service education programs. Suchapproaches should not tolerate threats,abuse or violence against their staff.Workers should have an expectation thatthe agency’s duty of care to staff isinformed by this knowledge. Whenrecruiting new staff, the challenges of rural practice should be outlined tointerested applicants, not in an alarmistway, but to alert recruits to the reality ofrural professional life. Successful strategiesused by experienced staff should berecommended to new workers early in their role, with a mentoring system as apossible tool. Should episodes of violence occur, access to counselling for workers, their families and especiallytheir children, should be provided quickly. There must be appropriateprotocols to manage these incidents without minimising them or their impact,including reporting threats to police where necessary. Ongoing education and training for staff in how to minimise their vulnerability to episodes of violenceand abuse should be provided. Protocolsshould be established with other keyagencies regarding management of volatile situations involving clients. Effective supervision and opportunities to debrief must be provided on a regular basis to address these concerns.

Third, professional associations andhigher education institutions need to beactive in disseminating research findingsabout the challenges of rural practice inprofessional development and teachingroles. Students from rural areas will oftenreturn to their home town or region to work.Others who do not envisage working in


rural areas may take up rural positionsduring their working life. Students need tobe aware of the lessons learnt by those who have gone before them and examplesof rural practice issues should be includedin the curriculum.

Finally, we should reconsider the theoryand practice of working in contentious andconflictual fields. It must be recognised thatsocial and welfare workers often engage inwork where they exert socially sanctioneduse of power and where behaviour is oftendetermined by someone else as deviant orunacceptable. We should further explorethe nature and implications of this work forpractitioners in both rural and urbansettings.

While this study has focused on theexperiences of rural welfare and socialworkers, issues of personal and familysafety constitute significant careerconsiderations for all health and welfare personnel and demand ourattention.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr Bob Lonne ofQueensland University of Technology forassistance with the design of thequestionnaire.

References

BARBER JG (1991), Beyond Casework. Macmillan,London.

BIBBY P (1994), Personal Safety for Social Workers.Ashgate, Aldershot.

BRISKMAN L & LYNN M, (1999), Challenging RuralPractice. Deakin University Press, Geelong.

CHEERS B (1998), Welfare Bushed: Social Care inRural Australia. Ashgate, Birmingham.

CHESHIRE J & GOURLAY M (1991), Violence andemergency relief: its getting worse, what to do?VCOSS Papers no. 8. Victorian Council of SocialServices, Melbourne.

COHOLIC DA & BLACKFORD KA (1999), VicariousTrauma in Serious Assault Workers: Challenges of aNorthern Location. In: Promoting Inclusion –Redressing Exclusion. Joint AASW, IFSW, APASWE, AASWWE Conference Proceedings, 1. Australian Association of Social Workers, Brisbane,pp. 242–248.

DENSCOMBE M (1998), The Good Research Guide:for Small Research Projects. Open University Press,Buckingham.

FISHER J, BRADSHAW J, CURRIE BA, KOLTZ J, REID SERLE K & SMITH J (1996), Violence andRemote Area Nursing. Australian Journal of RuralHealth, 4 (3), pp. 190–199.

GAIR S & THORPE R (1996), Helpers as Victims.Assaults on Women in Social Welfare Practice. In:Thorpe R & Irwin J (eds) Women and Violence:Working for Change. Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney.

HOREJSI C & GARTHWAIT C (1994), A Survey of Threats and Violence Directed against ChildProtection Workers in a Rural State. Child Welfare, 73 (2), 173–180.

IFE J (1997), Rethinking Social Work: Towards CriticalPractice. Longman, Melbourne.

KELLY K (1998), Responding to job related trauma in remote areas: only fools would rush in. In: 4thBiennial Australian Rural and Remote Health ScientificConference, Toowoomba, Queensland 1998.Proceedings, Rural and Remote Health Papers.National Rural Health Alliance, Toowoomba [CD Rom].

LINCOLN YS & GUBA EG (2000), The onlygeneralisation is – there is no generalisation. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M & Foster P (eds), Case Study Method, Sage, London, pp. 27–44.

NATIONAL HEALTH & MEDICAL RESEARCHCOUNCIL (2002), When its right in front of you – Assisting health care workers in rural and remote Australia to manage episodes of violence.National Health & Medical Research Council,Canberra, Consultation Drafthttp://www.nhmrc.gov.au/8publications/synopses/hp16syn.htm.

PUCKETT TC & CLEAK H (1994), Caution – Helpingmay be Hazardous: Client abuse, threats and assaults.Australian Social Work, 47.1, pp. 3–9.

SEXTON L (1999), Vicarious Traumatisation ofCounsellors and Effects on their Workplaces. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27 (3),393–404.


WILSON-BARRETT E & DOLLARD M (2000): DualRelationship Dilemmas. In: Munn P & Farrin J, eds.Constructing Alliances Across Rural Communities.Proceedings of the 4th National Regional AustraliaConference, Rural Psychology, Vol. 2, South Australian

Library Publications, University of South Australia,Adelaide, pp. 9–15.

Article accepted for publication December 2002.


Documents

It's no picnic: personal and family safety for rural social workers