The societal issue that I chose is abused children. According to the CDC (2014), approximately 700,000 children per year are victims of maltreatment in the United States, which includes neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. About one in four children in the U.S. experience some form of maltreatment in their lifetimes. Most victims are children less than one year old, and 80% of perpetrators are the parents. Clearly, a staggering number of people need help.

The change theory that I would apply to this issue is Kurt Lewin’s classic model of unfreezing-moving-refreezing (Lewin, 1947). One does not want a temporary change in such serious situations. Unfreezing involves an exploration of knowledge and values to provide motivation for change. Lewin says, “To break open the shell of complacency and self-righteousness it is sometimes necessary to bring about deliberately an emotional stir-up” (p. 35). Once the need for change is agreed upon, however, it is best to use the environment and group dynamics to create lasting change. Finally, the decisions for change can be reviewed and reinforced. Once the new behaviors seem normal, they will “refreeze.”

In the case of preventing and/or treating child abuse, I would work with parents and families. I would provide interview time with the primary caretakers separately and together. Why do they treat their children this way? I would first focus on resources. Can I help the parents access these resources? Are there transportation issues that we can resolve? One study found that simply changing bus routes provided more access to needed services (Laureate Education, 2009). What about sharing caretaking responsibilities with day care, preschools, relatives and/or friends, to take a break? Given the high level of babies that are abused, do they understand expected developmental milestones? What else might take the heat off? What about values? Do they believe, “Spare the rod, spoil the child,” and can we change that? Can we teach them other ways to discipline, so that it is no longer a choice between let the children run wild or punish them harshly? Abuse often runs in families. Can we enlist grandparents, teach them, as well, and perhaps get them to admit that they wish they had not been so harsh? Can they become more involved in helping the extended family, or are they unreliable?

Once we have a better feel for the specifics of a particular situation, we will know how to move, to set up an environment in which parents have more knowledge, more resources, and more willingness to make changes. If they do not feel that their families would be of much help, we could perhaps have a group setting. Lewin (1947) found much more movement occurred when groups with similar problems met and discussed the situation, and then as a group made a decision to change how they behaved. There seemed to be a “commitment to the group” that caused lasting change.

Such individual and group support on our part would be ready to end when the changes seem permanent. A good indicator is when participants feel comfortable with the new array of behaviors that they have acquired. Between their new comfort level and community support and other resources that we can set up, then at this point, behavior will be long lasting.

Two ethical principles that might arise include confidentiality and self-determination (NASW, 2008). While clearly support from others is critical, and social workers recognize the importance of human relationships according to the NASW ethics code, at the same time confidentiality is an issue. This is the reason for beginning with individual and partner/parent interviews. Those drawn into the confidential circle must be people our clients believe are trustworthy. Certainly where accessing resources and transportation, we can simply reveal the need for such in the support of families, without revealing that they are abusive families. As far as our ethical code of respect for the individual and their right to self-determination, this seems to conflict with Lewin’s suggestion to deliberately stir up emotions to break through complacency. On the other hand, the NASW code of ethics states that we may have to limit a client’s right to self-determination in the case of a serious risk of harm. However, this would of course be a last resort. It is our belief that by providing stressed parents resources and new parents information, this can go a long way in increasing parents’ tolerance for their children’s behavior. Open communication will allow us to keep children safe while helping parents learn new ways to parent and to cope.