A twin track to trouble - BASW · wholesale doom and gloom is not necessary. Social workers,...
2
T wo issues currently dominate social work. In the wake of the tragic Baby Peter case and subsequent Laming and Social Work Taskforce reviews, child protection and safeguarding issues sit at the top of the UK government’s agenda. Not far behind we have the pre-occupation with personalisation, something the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), in particular, has been actively promoting. In their different ways both agendas are, and undoubtedly will continue to, impact on social work’s future. Now that some of the initial media frenzy over the death of Baby Peter has subsided – not withstanding the recent sentencing of those responsible – it does seem opportune to have a sober look at the situation. First and foremost, and as Professor Colin Pritchard has pointed out (see his chapter on the effective prevention of child abuse in David Smith’s edited collection, Social Work and Evidenced-based Practice), child protection/safe-guarding services in England and Wales are among the most effective and most improved in the world. This is not to say that tragedies will never happen because, unfortunately, they always will. It may be stating the obvious, but perfection, either in terms of human behaviour or whatever systems are devised, simply cannot be attained. Despite the foregoing, there is no doubt that social work’s current subservience to managerialism – for example, the focus on bureaucracy, targets and financial rationali- sations – does hinder its ability to meet the needs of clients and service users, not least families with children subject to child safeguarding concerns. One has only to recall the recent research by Professor Sue White and her colleagues, which found that the current pre-occupation with form/computer exemplar filling means that up to 80% of a social worker’s time is spent doing precisely this. Indeed, for many, the Integrated Children’s System has much to answer for, a point recognised by the fact that at its first meeting the Social Work Taskforce put this issue at the top of its agenda. It does not take a genius to ask: when exactly are social workers supposed to see, and spend time with, the children and families they are in- putting information about? Going further, the pre-occupation with targets can result in social care organisations simply adapting to meet these specific ends, rather than the real needs of clients or service users. Incidentally, a similar criticism was raised as a possible explanation for the failings of health care in Staffordshire, with the NHS Trust at the centre of the failings viewed by some as more concerned with cost- cutting and meeting government targets – to help secure foundation hospital status – than meeting the real needs of patients. We have similar concerns in social care. Take, for example, the target to reduce the number of children subject to safeguarding plans. It could mean, simply, that some children will not be adequately safeguarded if decisions are made not to make them subject to such plans because of the pressure of targets, when in fact their circumstances mean they should be receiving this level of attention. Some commentators argue that there should be a move away from the 1990s focus on prevention and family support back to, more specifically, child protection. Admittedly there was the Department of Health’s 1995 publication, Child Protection: Messages from Research, which did advocate a change towards prevention and family support, but in practical terms it never really happened. Unless parents were seen as a ‘danger’ to their children they received very little, if anything, in the form of extra support. There is a similar situation now. Despite the stress on assessing children’s and families’ needs and then providing help and support to meet them, unless there are serious child protection concerns, little is offered other than referral to PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORK 26 Feature www.basw.co.uk Steve Rogowski offers a critical view from the social work frontline of rapidly emerging policy developments in and around child protection and safeguarding work, as well as the government’s personalisation agenda for adult social care A twin track to trouble P026-027_PSW_June09.qxd 22/5/09 13:41 Page 10
Transcript of A twin track to trouble - BASW · wholesale doom and gloom is not necessary. Social workers,...
Two issues currently dominate socialwork. In the wake of the tragic BabyPeter case and subsequent Laming and
Social Work Taskforce reviews, childprotection and safeguarding issues sit at thetop of the UK government’s agenda. Not farbehind we have the pre-occupation withpersonalisation, something the Social CareInstitute for Excellence (SCIE), in particular,has been actively promoting. In their differentways both agendas are, and undoubtedly willcontinue to, impact on social work’s future.
Now that some of the initial media frenzyover the death of Baby Peter has subsided –not withstanding the recent sentencing ofthose responsible – it does seem opportune tohave a sober look at the situation. First andforemost, and as Professor Colin Pritchardhas pointed out (see his chapter on theeffective prevention of child abuse in DavidSmith’s edited collection, Social Work andEvidenced-based Practice), childprotection/safe-guarding services in Englandand Wales are among the most effective andmost improved in the world. This is not tosay that tragedies will never happen because,unfortunately, they always will. It may bestating the obvious, but perfection, either interms of human behaviour or whateversystems are devised, simply cannot beattained.
Despite the foregoing, there is no doubtthat social work’s current subservience tomanagerialism – for example, the focus onbureaucracy, targets and financial rationali-sations – does hinder its ability to meet theneeds of clients and service users, not leastfamilies with children subject to childsafeguarding concerns. One has only to recallthe recent research by Professor Sue Whiteand her colleagues, which found that thecurrent pre-occupation with form/computerexemplar filling means that up to 80% of asocial worker’s time is spent doing preciselythis. Indeed, for many, the IntegratedChildren’s System has much to answer for, apoint recognised by the fact that at its firstmeeting the Social Work Taskforce put thisissue at the top of its agenda. It does not takea genius to ask: when exactly are socialworkers supposed to see, and spend timewith, the children and families they are in-putting information about?
Going further, the pre-occupation withtargets can result in social care organisationssimply adapting to meet these specific ends,rather than the real needs of clients or serviceusers. Incidentally, a similar criticism wasraised as a possible explanation for thefailings of health care in Staffordshire, withthe NHS Trust at the centre of the failingsviewed by some as more concerned with cost-cutting and meeting government targets – to
help secure foundation hospital status – thanmeeting the real needs of patients. We havesimilar concerns in social care. Take, forexample, the target to reduce the number ofchildren subject to safeguarding plans. Itcould mean, simply, that some children willnot be adequately safeguarded if decisions aremade not to make them subject to such plansbecause of the pressure of targets, when infact their circumstances mean they should bereceiving this level of attention.
Some commentators argue that thereshould be a move away from the 1990s focuson prevention and family support back to,
more specifically, child protection. Admittedlythere was the Department of Health’s 1995publication, Child Protection: Messages fromResearch, which did advocate a changetowards prevention and family support, butin practical terms it never really happened.Unless parents were seen as a ‘danger’ to theirchildren they received very little, if anything,in the form of extra support. There is asimilar situation now. Despite the stress onassessing children’s and families’ needs andthen providing help and support to meetthem, unless there are serious child protectionconcerns, little is offered other than referral to
PROFESSIONALSOCIAL WORK26
Feature
www.basw.co.uk
Steve Rogowski offers a critical view from the social work frontlineof rapidly emerging policy developments in and around childprotection and safeguarding work, as well as the government’spersonalisation agenda for adult social care
A twin trackto trouble
P026-027_PSW_June09.qxd 22/5/09 13:41 Page 10
other agencies, with cases quickly closed.As for personalisation, SCIE, largely at the
behest of the current government, has beenadvocating its implementation for some time.It argues that personalisation originates fromsocial work values, such as respect for theindividual and self-determination. Anotherargument is that Direct Payments andindependent budgeting, which are linked topersonalisation, have their roots in the serviceuser movement and the social model ofdisability, with notions of participation,control, choice and empowerment to the fore.But actually, as Iain Ferguson notes in hisbook Reclaiming Social Work: Challengingneo-liberalism and promoting social justice,personalisation did not emerge from withinsocial work or service users but from Demos,the New Labour think-tank. Another offshootof consumerism, it draws on the communitycare reforms of the Thatcher era and thedevelopment of care management.
DependenceIn simple terms, dependence on the state is tobe discouraged and independence celebrated.However, this so-called independenceamounts to being dependent on the marketdespite all the implicit insecurities andanxieties this brings. This uncertaindependency is welcomed by policymakers.Public policy is often about shaping thechoices people make about their lives so as toreduce the risk they will make expensivedemands on public services. In thisconsumerist environment, individuals willhave to take more responsibility for findingtheir own solutions, including assessing andmanaging the risks of their own behaviourand being liable for managing their own carewithin clear financial and service constraints.
But surely you cannot reconstruct peoplewho rely on social work and social care as‘customers’ or ‘consumers’, not least becausemost ordinary people lack the basicinformation to make meaningful choices. AsMarx once said, people may make choices butnot in circumstances of their own choosing.
What then should the future hold as far aschild protection and personalisation areconcerned? As many foresaw, the Lamingreview lived up, all too well, to expectations.The person who came up with the idea ofchildren’s trusts, including the demise ofsocial services departments and theseparation of adult and children’s services,can only be expected to say that thisrecommendation remains valid. It is simplythe implementation that is at fault – “get onand do it” as he said. Again, not surprisingly,one of his review recommendations focuseson the virtual separation of the social workdegree into adult and children services, a
move that will only lead to furtherfragmentation of social work. We already havethe folly of, for example, 16-year-olds havingto deal with a social worker focussing on theirwelfare needs, a youth justice worker dealingwith their offending, and an after-care workerpreparing them for independence.
Moreover, Laming ignores the reason whysocial work exists as it does. Echoing theSeebohm report, which in my view stillretains its relevance, social work should be afamily service focussing on each familymember’s needs, with the initial ideal beingthat this would be done by a single genericsocial worker. Going further, there is thestrong argument that social work should alsohave a community orientation, even thoughsuch a view does not sit easily with theindividualism of today.
Importantly, Laming missed theopportunity to come up with something toaddress the form filling, target-driven,managerial culture which only hinders soundprofessional practice. He even managed toadvocate an extension of the IntegratedChildren’s System, into a national database, ata time when there are serious problems withthe existing system. Like many others, myview is that it should be scrapped.
More positively, and although it is stillearly days, one has only to note that target-driven cultures have started to be addressedin other parts of the public sector. Forexample, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smithrecently announced the abandonment ofvarious targets so that more police time canactually be spent dealing with crime. Thepolice have been arguing for this for sometime, and a similar announcement for socialwork would be equally welcome. How oftenhave we heard arguments for social workersto be allowed to spend more time with thepeople they are supposed to be serving?
Returning to personalisation, we shouldalso step back and question the view that itshould increasingly form the backbone onwhich social care is to be built and provided.Put bluntly, it should not be up to theindividual service user to sort out their ownproblems, even if some, in many wayslimited, help and advice is provided. One hasonly to recall that last year Wirral Councilplanned to cut 29 qualified social workerposts while expanding non-qualifiednumbers to implement personalisation
reforms in adult care. More recently, BASWProfessional Officer Ruth Cartwright warnedof other councils planning to reduce thenumber of social workers, again as part ofthe personalisation agenda. There is a realconcern at the potential for systematic socialwork deskilling, where professionaljudgement is sacrificed on the altar of choiceand control. In place of social workers we canexpect more unqualified bureaucrats, easierto control and more willing to tick ‘choice-denying’ boxes rather than supporting clientsto achieve the best quality of life open tothem, even if it is more expensive for thestate.
As Martin Powell emphasises in NewLabour, New Welfare State?, a key aspect ofcitizenship today is actually theabandonment of the citizen – thedismantling of the collective safeguards builtup during post-war welfare capitalismagainst all the demands of, and the inherentunfairness in, the market. Surely, personali-sation is one logical result of all this.
Negative My fear is that the negative trends as outlinedhere are likely to continue. But perhapswholesale doom and gloom is not necessary.Social workers, through BASW and inalliance with service users, can surely be atthe forefront of challenging and resistingsuch developments. It also goes withoutsaying that one way of doing this, particularlyin relation to child protection, is to makesubmissions to the Social Work Taskforce.BASW will, of course, be doing this butindividual social workers have a responsi-bility to make their views known too.
Social workers should recall the critical andemancipatory potential of their role, aninfluence that remains possible even if suchpossibilities seem to be reducing by the day.Indeed, as one young person said to me theother day – “Keep the faith!”
www.basw.co.uk PROFESSIONALSOCIAL WORK 27
June 2009 Feature
“Personalisation did not emerge from within social work orservice users but from Demos, the New Labour think-tank.Another offshoot of consumerism, it draws on Thatcheritecommunity care reforms and care management”
Dr Steve Rogowski is asocial worker (children andfamilies) with a localauthority in North WestEngland. He is currentlyworking on a book entitledSocial Work: The rise andfall of a profession?
P026-027_PSW_June09.qxd 22/5/09 13:41 Page 11
