We have written to the editor of The Sun asking her to rethink the newspaper's agenda on social work issues - read the open letter here.
We know from your letters and CareSpace contributions, and from the thousands of you who logged on to previous blogs on the subject, that you were deeply affected by the Sun's campaign to have the social workers involved in the Baby P case sacked.
The surprise appointment of a Sun writer to the social work taskforce has created an opportunity for a representative of the newspaper to use its influence to good effect, and campaign for better resources to strengthen Britain's social care workforce.
Please feel free to share your views on the issues we have raised.
I think you have presented a reasonable case.
Looking at the rest of the taskforce membership Diedre's name looks incongruous (although in the other thread it notes she has been a supporter of social work in the past). However I can see some positives if she is able to learn more about the role of the social worker and the negative impact her paper's campaigns have had on the profession and take that back to her editors. Hopefully it will be harder for The Sun to vilify social work if one of their own has had some influence into the way it works. An attempt at divide and rule maybe. The risk will be if she is made to feel an outsider and walks away saying that the taskforce will achieve no good.
That's an excellent letter Daniel and neatly shows up the Sun's campaign as the ridiculous witch-hunt it really is.
However, it also highlights precisely the reasons why the Sun should not be involved in the Taskforce. Just because they shout the loudest doesn't give them any extra rights to determine the future of social work. In fact, I would suggest that if we did have the Sun's support then we're probably doing something wrong.
A very eloquent letter Daniel but the question in my mind is this....
Does anyone really believe that it tells the Sun anything they don't already know.
I don't think that the Sun is in the business of being fair - that's just the line they take for their readers. They're in the business of making money and scapegoating is a very profitable angle to take with human interest stories - especially if that story can be disguised as 'taking the moral high ground'. It saves people the problem of thinking through complex issues and simoultaneously lets them feel superior to the scapegoat.
So well said but don't hold your breath.
Visit my blog at http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/
'fx7' is incorrect in that the GSCC can only investigate REISTERED SOCIAL WORKERS - a check on the Register does not show Sharon Shoesmith as falling into that category and therefore she falls outside of the GSCC investigation remit.
I have raised this issue on many occasions and wonder why /Communtity Care' does not take it up more vigorously. There are many senior managers within Social Care who are either not social work qualified or do not need to be registered to carry out their responsibilities.
Grinch:In fact, I would suggest that if we did have the Sun's support then we're probably doing something wrong.
Thank you for your comments - we hope we have accurately reflected your views and interests, but re: Grinch's comment, I understand that social workers have been ideologically opposed to the right-wing press and tabloids since the beginning of time, but don't forget that improving the Sun's three-million readers' understanding of social work would go a long way towards improving the status of the workforce nationwide.
Stuart, thanks for that dose of realism...in my opinion, given The Sun's crusade for 'justice' and the rush to hold social workers to account, I thought it was about time we held them accountable for inaccurate, one-sided journalism.
Rupert yes good point, the only way that Sharon Shoesmith and other employers could be investigated by the GSCC is if we had an Act of Parliament making the code of conduct for employers mandatory, rather than voluntary as it currently is. We have covered this issue in the past (see here) following the British Association of Social Workers' campaign, but this amendment was left out of the Health and Social Care Act and it seems to have died down a bit now.
Daniel's letter is measured and accurate; unfortunately, as noted by others, the Sun is not interested in promoting either of these attributes.
Sharon Shoesmith was a teacher by training, not a social worker, so it is not surprising that she could not manage a social work service. Similarly, OFSTED is not the right agency to be inspecting social work services. I don't belive it is an exaggeration to state that the social work profession is in grave danger of total extinction.
Hazel ...I agree (vicky29) - perhaps not total extinction, but I do think that once the drive for a degree qualified and registered workforce is largely complete, that social work departments might cease to exist - with the by then autonomous social workers commissioned as needed (much the same as the CAFCASS model) by the funding authority. This is likely to be either health or education as, heaven knows, social care are notorious for their overspending...!
Daniel Lombard: Grinch:In fact, I would suggest that if we did have the Sun's support then we're probably doing something wrong. Thank you for your comments - we hope we have accurately reflected your views and interests, but re: Grinch's comment, I understand that social workers have been ideologically opposed to the right-wing press and tabloids since the beginning of time, but don't forget that improving the Sun's three-million readers' understanding of social work would go a long way towards improving the status of the workforce nationwide.
I'm opposed to any press - from the right wing or left - that prints innuendo, spurious comment, half-truths and outright lies as informed comment and, as the Sun does all those things, I really don't want their support.
However, I certainly respect your endeavours and wish you the very best of luck!
One of the bosses at The Sun has delivered a response to our letter, denying that his newspaper's coverage was irresponsible and biased. This has also been picked up by a couple of other bloggers, including Jon Slattery's The Sun - Tabloid Lies, which calls the response "patronising" and incomplete.
Meanwhile we have fired back another letter to The Sun inviting them to take part in a feature, outlining their proposals for the future of British social work. Still awaiting a response, but will keep you posted...
Daniel Lombard:Meanwhile we have fired back another letter to The Sun inviting them to take part in a feature, outlining their proposals for the future of British social work. Still awaiting a response, but will keep you posted...
that will be interesting i await with baited breath!
It's a wonder The Sun feel they can take the moral high ground while they are creating a celebrity of a 13 year old father.
The Sun seems to have paid little heed to our warnings with a story in today's paper marking 100 days since the Baby P scandal broke. It asserts that the social workers "responsible" are still - sorry STILL - in their jobs and the pleas of the Sun's 1.2m people who have signed its petition to sack staff have been ignored.
To be fair there's a bit more to the story than that - it quotes a source from within Haringey children's services detailing ongoing alleged failings, including that an emergency helpline for abused children is being "ignored" by staff, massive shortages, lack of managerial oversight and uncaring agency staff.
Such 'whistleblowing' makes for great copy but without any wider context, analysis or comeback from the council - which gets just two paragraphs at the end of the story - it doesn't really tell you anything.
they contradict themselves by saying that there are staff shortages and SWs carrying ever larger caseloads - wanting staff sacked and this kind of publicity will just make the staff shortages worse
I wonder how THEY would feel if they had to produce five times their rubbish per week, be liable in Court, to their employers and to the public for every single word they wrote and have their readers turned against them all this time. I wouldn't give them a week before the magazine goes belly up.
As a professional, I do not feel I need their support. That should be the responsibility of my employer, of GSCC and of BASW. My poblem is that I do not feel particularly supported by any of these 3. My employer is too money and targets oriented, GSCC is a clueless bully and the BASW does not have any teeth. That's why The Sun had the possiility to do what they have done. The public also sees they are the only ones displaying some form of passion, regardless how misguided that is. I can only imagine this must be the reason why an agony aunt now sits in a proessional panel meant to decide the future of Social Work. By the way, would she be invited to decide the future of brain surgeons???? Of course not, but hey, everyone and their dog are an expert on Social Work, right?
"everyone and their dog are an expert on Social Work, right?"
This has been the problem for too long, because we are not united and don't have strong support, we are easy targets to have a pop at. And we always will be. Front line child protection Social Workers, their Managers and Senior Managers will remain vulnerable as long as there is the present level of unecessary and repetative paperwork to contend with. But not as vulnerable and at risk as the children that we cannot get out of our offices to see. As practitioners, we all know that statutory visits are not sufficient to safeguard children but how many of us can afford to make more with workload pressures as they are and set to get worse with the mass exodus of experienced workers from front line services?
Is anyone really listening to that?
Duty & Assessment Social Workers are feeling the very sharpest end of the stick and have been for some time (we are all overloaded however) some are working over 12 hour days to protect children, this is the reality. This remains "unseen" because we do not get paid overtime and don't have any spare time grab TOIL back. Children's Services' survive primarily on the good will of the people holding the front line together...barely.
Putting the needs of others before our own is one of the characteristics of Social Work, so why then, are certain Local Authorities penalising workers by refusing to reimburse them considerable amounts of mileage because they completed the Core Assessments/ Court reports within statutory timescales but their mileage claim was overdue by 2 days? Soon we will be paying Local Authorities to work for them.
Is anyone listening to this?
I seriously doubt it. The real issues for Social Work today are being overlooked and danced around in a manner akin to the old book "The Emperor's New Clothes" everyone knows he's naked but they are all to scared to say so. Apart from, ironically, a small child. Well metaphorically speaking, haven't Victoria Climbie and Baby P done the same for Social Work? The difference in the book was that everyone finally woke up and saw the Emperor for what he was.
Will a similar revalation happen in Social Work?
I seriously doubt that either.
Until people such as Lord Laming truly walk in the shoes of todays front line child protection Social Workers for a period of time, we will continue to be thrusted more paperwork, more timescales and bigger caseloads.....a plaster..on a plaster.....on a plaster.
And where, for goodness sake, does an "Agony Aunt" fit into this??