Six months in… social work and social care

It’s six months since we launched this version of Guerilla Policy. Here’s a selection of some of our favourite posts we’ve published in social care and social work. Thanks to all those contributors we’ve published so far.

In November, Ermintrude2 (who used to write on The Not So Big Society) reacted to the Government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ in health and social care:

“We all knew it would come in time. This wonderful government idea to slash all that awful ‘red tape’ that stops people doing what the government otherwise would stop them doing finally arrives at Health and Social Care. I had a brief look at some of the provisions detailed as ‘red tape’ for which the government is asking for comment and quite frankly, I am horrified. What I might see as essential protections, they are presenting as ‘red tape’ and asking for feedback about potential abolition. …If the government want to know what ‘red tape’ is in terms of adding unnecessary burdens, I’ll gladly explain about how useful (or not) it is to spend time recording how much time I spend on ‘smoking cessation’ work or time spent ‘clustering’ people according to diagnosis into tiny little tick boxes which are, clinically, unhelpful in order to get the ‘Payment by Results’ systems which will never work well, up and running. THAT’S red tape. But it seems to be red tape that potentially infringes on the rights of those who might be least able to protect their own that they are classing as ‘red tape’ here.”

Also in November, in ‘Doing social work in between the cracks…’, Claudia Megele reported on a session of the All Party Parliamentary Group examining the state of social work in the UK:

“Bridget Robb [from the British Associate of Social Workers] explained how the climate of cuts combined with some of the recent changes the profession has experienced have made it increasingly difficult for social workers to carry out their role and to adhere to social work’s fundamental values and its mission of contributing to greater social justice. …Indeed, if we want good social work then we must invest in social workers’ education as well as personal and professional development and to ensure that they are supported and guided in their journey. The points raised by both witnesses [to the Group] highlighted cultural, structural and systemic problems within social work. It reminded me of what Frank said earlier in the session: “… people do social work in between the cracks, they do social work in spite of the system rather than through it.””

There’s been widespread skepticism among social workers about Frontline, the apparent ‘saviour of social work’ as critiqued by Social Worker X, who saw a hidden agenda in the initiative:

“…Social Work is not a profession without problems, public perception is poor, funding is being cut and as a result caseloads are ‘ballooning’. …But will Frontline address any of these issues in any significant way? I do not believe for one moment that an increase in graduates from Cambridge or Oxford would increase our standing amongst the general public. I would be interested to know how many members of the general public could actually name a Russell University, or care if their Social Worker (if they have one) had been to one? The next time a child dies and a Social Worker is implicated would the university they went to become a positive aspect of the media reporting (and lets be clear, much of what the general public think of us is led by the media)? Essentially we are being asked to accept that there would not be as many child deaths if a higher proportion of Social Workers came from a Russell University. …I believe a widespread adoption of Frontline will eventually achieve Social Work being  controlled by Russell University graduates, who will have been backed by a social enterprise with links to the corporate world. A perfect recipe for privatisation and the service we provide being turned into a business.”

As in education, Michael Gove has been a source of controversy, often about his views on child protection. Social Worker X again felt moved to comment in ‘Give over Gove!’:

“Mr Gove’s opening gambit in the actual speech [in November] was an admission (his words) that the ‘state is currently failing in its duty to keep our children safe’. Hearing this I was thinking, ‘Hallelujah! He’s going to talk about the mistake of capping council tax’. But you can imagine my surprise when his admission was actually a preamble to attacking social work! …Clearly even one child death is too many, but if the bar for our profession is set at the standard of perfection then we are eternally doomed to viewed as a profession in crisis. Our failures are easy to quantify, but it seems that no one yet has found a way of measuring our successes. Without success to measure against failure how do you quantify whether we are successful or not? …I do not have the answer to the problem of individual failings, but one thing that does not help is the relentless criticism of our profession. It undermines the professional confidence of social workers, and I believe that frequently social workers are effectively paralysed with fear of doing the wrong thing.”

Simply Social Work also felt that social work was again being caught between selective criticism and the assumption that social workers can act in a God-like way in rescuing children from harm:

“Dear Mr Gove, thank you for your extremely helpful comments on ‘Child Protection‘, which has historically been under resourced, disrespected by the Government and other professionals because of its lack of a status as a ‘Profession’, and by the gross failure in the family courts to respect the experience social workers bring in their long term case work with vulnerable families and their children in order to provide long term safeguards. …Children do require protecting from serious harm, they can not be left without love, food, warmth, stimulation, so yes they do require protection and to play down neglect is a serious crime. However, social work can not continue in the contradiction that it currently exists within, created by those in power and those who have the power to influence through the use of the media.”

In January, writing on The Not So Big Society, Abe Laurens argued there is a limit to what it is possible to provide given cuts in foster care - but the same argument could go for many public services:

“This is serious. The government is trying to create a myth that decent levels of service can be maintained with inadequate resources. Sure, we can all do better, and every professional I know is determined to put everything they can into their work in 2013 on behalf of users in defiance of the cuts. However, the government has to understand this simple thing – there is a limit as to what is humanly possible. The demands on services and professionals for higher standards are greater than ever, and rightly so, but if we don’t have the tools to do our job, there’s a limit. What really hurts is, the government know the truth but carry on undaunted.”

Social Worker X widened this point by challenging policymakers and the public to ‘Put up or shut up’:

“So we know that the general public are financially squeezed and they don’t want to pay more tax. We also know they don’t want their day spoiled by a terrible story in the media of a child tragedy. But can they have it both ways? Can social work be starved of money and still provide a great service? …So my call to the men and women in the street is a simple one, if you really care about child protection then pay up, its not free. Let this government know that you don’t want more cuts in services. Remind them that we live in a capitalist society, ‘ya pay your money, ya make ya choice’. We’re not asking for more pay, we’re not seeking to line our pockets, we just want, no NEED, more resources, so we can have the time to do our job in a safe and efficient manner.”

Despite - or because of - this context, Abe later highlighted the ‘Rich pickings in foster care’ for private companies seeking to invest in the sector:

“The economy of care has always been mixed and many private companies do excellent work, often with some of the most damaged children and young people. Yet the language of the balance sheet rather than the review form sticks in the craw and masks the realities of caring for vulnerable children to the standard they deserve. Companies, including private equity, are attracted to the sector because of the potential for “cost savings” and “economies of scale”. …This isn’t the world where we talk of standards of care, of healing relationships between carers and vulnerable children, not even of outcomes or aspirations. This is “the fostering space” where consolidation provides opportunities for profit, where large concerns, often multi-nationals from the health and, latterly, service sectors could invest and please their shareholders.”

Abe also subsequently bemoaned ‘Race to the bottom commissioning’ and its impact on services at the frontline:

“I resent the fact that quality is less significant than price. More and more, authorities are looking to the bottom line of the balance rather than good practice when it comes to children’s futures. I accept that they don’t have as much money and that the cuts are not their fault. However, this is not the most effective way of using their scarce resources to provide a child centred service. I’ve said before how prices can be kept down in the sector – you provide a placement without extra services like contact, therapy and other forms of support. Yet carers as well as children need those packages of care as the demands of fostering are ever more complex. A price-based approach does not encourage that.”

A final word from Ermintrude2, who retired from blogging in November. In ‘Social Work and moving on’, she offered her reflections of her time at the frontline:

“I’ve seen a lot of changes but not all bad. I see a great hope in the profession as we can work harder on developing an independent voice that doesn’t need a battling professional organisation which can’t stop its bickering and pettiness or a ‘Chief Social Worker’ chosen by civil servants with no knowledge of what the heart of social work is to ‘speak for us’. Let us speak for ourselves and find more ways of doing so. Social Work is a profession to be proud of – we just need to make sure more people know about it – and we need to put some more fight into it. Fight politically, fight against cuts which affect those whom we work with, challenge within the organisations in which we work and remember that we need to create and build a profession to be proud of for ourselves – because no one else will.”

Let us know which other social care and social work bloggers we should be posting. Get in touch with us at: [email protected]