Two apparently unrelated stories struck me when I read last week's Community Care (29 April 2010). Both left me with strong feelings. Both deserve further comment. First there was the tribute, following his premature death, to David Morris, longstanding senior policy adviser on disability to the London Mayor.
I had the privilege of knowing and doing things with Dave. Hearing the
news of his death really feel like a blow in the stomach - as it must
have done to many more people. All the clichés go through your mind as
they do when someone you value is lost. Why him? Why so young? If only
he had had a bit more luck with his health.
Dave had an important role. He was influential, he could make a difference. He had a massive track record. Yet he was one of those people who never came over important. As the old saying goes, he had no side to him. What I really valued about him was his commitment to inclusion. For people like me that meant really valuing his efforts to involve all disabled people, to address diversity and to include mental health service users/survivors equally alongside other disabled people. Some people work hard to do that. Others, including some disability leaders, don't. Dave came very firmly in the first category. I know that this was true about his efforts for other groups who faced particular barriers. Whenever I went to anything Dave was part of helping make happen, there was always the widest range of disabled people there. That's something to be proud of, a real achievement. I am really sad we won't be seeing more of Dave. Wishing you well Dave, wherever you are.
Second, there's the little item towards the back of Community Care where people talk about best and worst decisions they have made. Last week it was John Davies, a frontline social worker. What interested me was what he had to say about what he regarded as one of his worst decisions. It concerned his work with a long term mental health service user who also had a long history of alcohol problems. His 'diagnostic category' isn't what's important here. What's important is what John says of his practice with him. He writes 'His sister with great justification wrote a letter of complaint to my manager'. No ambiguity, no qualification, no get outs. He feels she was right to think he did badly by her brother. Yet there were many extenuating circumstances. He was young, inexperienced, put in a difficult position. But this experience clearly had a powerful and positive effect on John. And he is still in there. And while we can see how much more might have been involved than his own fallibility, he still wants to be clear about the part that might have played and be honest about it and take responsibility. If only social work, social services, senior managers and politicians more generally would take such a view, recognise their own limits, fallibility and shortcomings. Social work and social care would have to be better.
I think this is what brings these two stories together. Both are about putting service users and disabled people first. Both are about the important understandings that people from two very different positions and roles can give us. Let's hope they both can leave a lasting mark. Thanks Dave and thanks John.
Dave had an important role. He was influential, he could make a difference. He had a massive track record. Yet he was one of those people who never came over important. As the old saying goes, he had no side to him. What I really valued about him was his commitment to inclusion. For people like me that meant really valuing his efforts to involve all disabled people, to address diversity and to include mental health service users/survivors equally alongside other disabled people. Some people work hard to do that. Others, including some disability leaders, don't. Dave came very firmly in the first category. I know that this was true about his efforts for other groups who faced particular barriers. Whenever I went to anything Dave was part of helping make happen, there was always the widest range of disabled people there. That's something to be proud of, a real achievement. I am really sad we won't be seeing more of Dave. Wishing you well Dave, wherever you are.
Second, there's the little item towards the back of Community Care where people talk about best and worst decisions they have made. Last week it was John Davies, a frontline social worker. What interested me was what he had to say about what he regarded as one of his worst decisions. It concerned his work with a long term mental health service user who also had a long history of alcohol problems. His 'diagnostic category' isn't what's important here. What's important is what John says of his practice with him. He writes 'His sister with great justification wrote a letter of complaint to my manager'. No ambiguity, no qualification, no get outs. He feels she was right to think he did badly by her brother. Yet there were many extenuating circumstances. He was young, inexperienced, put in a difficult position. But this experience clearly had a powerful and positive effect on John. And he is still in there. And while we can see how much more might have been involved than his own fallibility, he still wants to be clear about the part that might have played and be honest about it and take responsibility. If only social work, social services, senior managers and politicians more generally would take such a view, recognise their own limits, fallibility and shortcomings. Social work and social care would have to be better.
I think this is what brings these two stories together. Both are about putting service users and disabled people first. Both are about the important understandings that people from two very different positions and roles can give us. Let's hope they both can leave a lasting mark. Thanks Dave and thanks John.
