News

A young woman with mental health problems is sent to prison for burglary. Her baby, who has been put up for adoption, is brought to her once a month but a decision is taken to break off contact with her social worker. As a result the woman begins to issue threats against the worker. Graham Hopkins reports.

There has long been the feeling that violence, threats and verbal abuse are part and parcel of the everyday working life of a social worker. Being assaulted goes with the territory.

Julie Davenport (not her real name, she wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal) is one who has had enough. “It’s not acceptable to make threats to a police officer or a nurse - so why is it OK for social workers?” she asks. It is this feeling that inspired Community Care’s successful No Fear campaign in 1999, which resulted in the government setting up the national task force on violence to social care staff. But clearly some front-line staff have yet to feel the benefits of this.

Davenport was allocated the case of Edie Ramsay, a new born baby, 13 months ago. The mother, Fiona Ramsay, agreed to Edie being put up for adoption. However, as Edie is a mixed-race child it has proved difficult to find appropriate parents and thus she remains in the care of the local authority.

The relationship between mother and social services had been very positive, says Davenport. However, that all changed following Ramsay’s conviction for burglary and her imprisonment - her second term in jail. Now in prison, she has monthly contact with Edie. Davenport escorts the child to prison but a social work assistant supervises the actual contact.

“A case decision was made that it would be better if I no longer had contact with Ramsay and Edie while she was in prison. This was to be their time together,” says Davenport. Ramsay, unfortunately, clearly didn’t think so. Davenport’s social work and probation colleagues report that Ramsay is making threats of violence against Davenport, which, she says, she will carry out upon her release.

Davenport is taking these threats very seriously, not least because a social work colleague was assaulted by a client just last week. She is further worried that she may meet Ramsay on the streets as both live in the same borough. “I’m scared she’ll attack me in front of my children,” she says.

The simple solution would be to allocate the case to someone else. But this would merely shift the problem rather than address its causes. “I think she sees me as the department - so I’m not sure that will help,” says Davenport. “Also,” she continues, “I want to see my work through to the end, and it sounds silly but I don’t want to give in to her.”

Tellingly, Davenport is not aware of a social services procedure for tackling aggression. She looked for a copy but only found a council-wide violence at work policy leaflet. None the less, she feels supported by her management and is confident that if she does resume work with Ramsay on her release any visits will have another worker present. Davenport, aware of the resource implications of this, worries that this will mean extra work for her already over-burdened colleagues, but recognises the necessity.

During discussion, Davenport agrees that she could try two ideas. First, it transpires that neither Davenport nor her colleagues have explained to Ramsay why Davenport stopped seeing her (she may have felt abandoned, or perhaps Ramsay may think her threats are having the desired effect). And, second, she could contact Ramsay’s mother, who has also had a positive relationship in the past with the department, to see if she could exert some influence.

As things stand, Davenport is determined to carry on working with Ramsay once she is released. She echoes many a social worker when she says: “I just have the need to see things through to a hopefully positive conclusion.”

None the less, the threats are very real and clearly have shaken Davenport. Social work is a risky business but the profession must work to minimise those risks. The task force unequivocally stated that violence, threats and abuse to staff are unacceptable. Since 1984, seven social care workers have been killed simply carrying out their job. Countless thousands have in that time been assaulted or threatened (countless because such instances are notoriously under-recorded) and probably everyone has been verbally abused.

It may be accepted that violence and threats of violence are part of everyday social work. But this in no way makes it acceptable.

- For more information on violence against social care workers see the archived reports on www.community-care.co.uk (click on “search” and type in “No Fear”).

Case notes

Practitioner: Julie Davenport (not her real name)

Field: Social worker, children’s services

Location: Wales

Client: Edie Ramsay (not her real name) is a 13-month-old mixed-race baby in the care of the local authority awaiting placement for adoption. Her mother, Fiona Ramsay (not her real name), is serving a prison sentence for burglary. She is 19 years old.

Dilemma: Fiona Ramsay has been known to social services for some years. She, and her family, have received services from the mental health team, which had benefited them. Ramsay has had a history of arrests and is currently serving her second prison sentence. Davenport was allocated the case upon Edie’s birth, when she was taken from her mother. Ramsay has monthly supervised contact with her daughter. Davenport reports a good relationship with Ramsay, until Ramsay was imprisoned. Since then she has been threatening violence against Davenport.

Risk factor: As she lives and works in the same borough, Davenport risks being assaulted by Ramsay either during her work or when she is off duty.

Outcome: As things stand, Davenport intends to continue her work with Ramsay on her release from prison.

Arguments for risk

- Davenport is a committed social worker and is determined to see her work through.  

- She has spent 13 months working with the family and understands them and the case well. She feels continuity is important, particularly as the placement of Edie is proving difficult. Work with the family may possibly continue for some time to come.

- If the case was to be re-allocated, there is a strong feeling that either Ramsay’s threats will continue to be made against Davenport (she being in Ramsay’s eyes the personal symbol of the department) or her threats would shift to any newly assigned worker.  This might ease Davenport’s personal concerns but fails to address the root problem.

- There is the possibility that some fresh approaches to Ramsay while she is imprisoned might resolve the tension between her and Davenport allowing for a restored relationship upon her release.

Arguments against risk

- Ramsay is making regular, persistent threats of violence to Davenport. She is serving her second spell in prison, has a history of conflict with police and authority, and is felt to be more than capable of carrying out her threats.

- Davenport feels particularly vulnerable as she not only works but also lives in the borough, and while she may receive adequate protection while at work, she fears meeting Ramsay in the street while out shopping. She also fears that her young family might either witness her being assaulted or, indeed, be assaulted also.

- There are clear resource implications in working safely while under threat and Davenport may feel uneasy about further burdening colleagues, who are over-stretched with their own workloads. Being very conscious of this may cause Davenport to take a risk too far and meet Ramsay alone.

- Although Ramsay has agreed to Edie’s adoption, as this becomes more imminent there may well be heightened resentment towards Davenport.

Independent comment

This could be a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Ray Braithwaite. I am amazed and saddened that the department in which Julie Davenport operates does not have a policy. It is failing in its responsibility to protect staff and should be investigated by the Social Services Inspectorate.

Furthermore, the burden of deciding what to do next appears to be left with Davenport. This is irresponsible. Maybe she will make the right choices and not be influenced by “the resource implications” into choices that may place her at risk. But “maybe” is just not good enough. These threats must be taken seriously and acted upon yet the onus for deciding future actions appears to be left with Davenport, albeit with her manager. What is required is an organisational response not ad hoc individual decisions.

I am glad that Davenport feels supported by her management yet support is not enough - managers need to take a proactive stance to ensure staff are safe not just supported. In such a situation the completion of a risk assessment (a requirement under health and safety legislation) is the minimum Davenport can expect. I advocate calling an “at risk” conference with the focus being to identify what may be done to reduce the risk to Davenport and to decide how best these threats are to be managed.

Ray Braithwaite is author of Managing Aggression (Community Care/Routledge, 2001). His final seminar on the subject is a two-day workshop: Managing Aggression - Training the Trainer. Details: 01983 862335.