certainly looks like one to watch.
However, I will be interested to find out how exactly they managed to 'infiltrate' a social services department to work undercover for three months. Doesn't say much for the recruitment process if any old reporter can work with children and families particularly in the current climate. I hope to be proved wrong!
I also think it would be helpful to show the other areas of social work occassionally as well however, as it is widely acknowledged that one of the image problems the profession faces is that it is all about child proctection, and a focus on the rare tragic failures in this area rather than the good work done day in day out by the same profession in that area and others. But I guess that doesnt sell newspapers or make good TV.
Hi all this should be an interesting program, but I do agree how does a reporter get access to a vulnerable group of people in the current climate & what does it say about the CRB, inaddition it would be useful to show a positive side of what social workers do and not focusing on the negative.
Cheers Rag1
I am a bit uncomfortable that this work has to be done 'undercover'. It seems that there is nothing discovered that couldn't have been found out from some anonymised interviews/recent retirees and everyone is saying the same thing about under-resourcing etc.
Like Hatgirl, I think there is a perception that social work is the same as child protection social work so perhaps there is scope for a programme to be made about some of the other facets of the work.
I just feel that when you are working so closely with people's lives, having an undercover reporter pretending to be someone that they are not, is not a good way to go about.
I can speak as a foster carer and say that if I thought that my child's social worker was privy to such intensely private information about her and was actually a reporter trying to 'uncover' the facts about social services, I would be very distressed and she would be even more so...
Thank you for this post, it would be interesting to watch. I wonder what LA this took place in and like the other comments, i wonder if service users were make aware of the undercover worker or what was taking place???
Although this programme may contribute to a positive outcome for social work I just want to play devil's advocate for a minute.
If he is a social worker then I guess he must be qualified and GSCC registered. If this is the case it does raise ethical questions on several levels. Firstly, if he is qualified and took the job with a view to making an undercover documentary then he is putting the documentary ahead of the job when his first responsibility should be to his job and the vulnerable families he is working with . He has potentially seriously compromised himself and the families.
Secondly, a social worker needs to be 'honest and trustworthy' and not 'exploit service users, carers or colleagues in any way' (GSCC codes) and even if his motives were pure there is certainly an argument to be had that he hasn't been open or honest and has exploited his colleagues. These are all things that can have him struck off the social care register.
If he is a social worker who is risking his registration and his career for 'the greater good' then I applaud him, however, despite this I still have a lurking sense of unease about the whole thing.
Hi!
Good poiints, Grinch. However, given that it is a Social Worker (and we don't know that), maybe s/he wil expose some of the systems and issues that put children at greater risk than is necessary, and some of the absurdities that stop us getting on with our jobs. This would be a good thing and a service to the profession, especially in an atmosphere where few SWs will speak in the media because of being forbidden to do so by employers and fearing sanctions.
However, like you I do have some unease about confidentiality of families and colleagues. I suppose all will be revealed when we see the programme!
I also agree with comments on the 'glamourising' of child protection. Of course, it's vital work but much vital work is also done in social work with adults, and colleagues in this area are at risk of bearing the brunt of cuts to posts in a way that they are not in children's services. Difficult for us to dictate the media's agenda of course, but we could try to influence through BASW and other organisations.
He isn't a social worker - He worked in a support worker post so didn't need to be GSCC registered. With reference to client and staff confidentiality, i think it will be the arguement that the public interest overrides this. I won't post what LA it is, but I anticiapte that it will focus on some issues which affect the whole profession such as performance indicators, resources etc.
Exiled Northener: He isn't a social worker - He worked in a support worker post so didn't need to be GSCC registered.
He isn't a social worker - He worked in a support worker post so didn't need to be GSCC registered.
Then it should be called 'Undercover Support Worker'. However, I do suspect that, like many support workers, he may have been used as a de facto social worker.
Exiled Northener: With reference to client and staff confidentiality, i think it will be the arguement that the public interest overrides this. I won't post what LA it is, but I anticiapte that it will focus on some issues which affect the whole profession such as performance indicators, resources etc.
With reference to client and staff confidentiality, i think it will be the arguement that the public interest overrides this. I won't post what LA it is, but I anticiapte that it will focus on some issues which affect the whole profession such as performance indicators, resources etc.
In these instances, I'm always a bit worried about unintended consequences but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I daresay we'll be in a better position to discuss the ethics of it all after we've seen it. I actually like Dispatches, it's often quality programming, let's hope it doesn't let us down now.
I doubt they would present any service user in the program that has not given consent to the footage being published. If they give consent, it would be difficult to invoke confidentiality considerations - just like in sharing of information, really. Maybe at times we can be too overprotective of some of our service users against their wishes and feelings, particularly when it comes to presenting aspects of our work to the press. Of course we must protect the identity of the children involved, but if in effect we wish to protect ourselves, it's more honest to say so. At the end of the day people complained when the nurse that filmed under cover was being sacked and she worked with equally vulnerable people. We don't know what that person filmed and we do not know whether they did a good or bad job during their employment - if they made a mess of the 3 months they worked and made an abuse of trust just for the sake of sensationalism that's one thing, but if service users genuinely benefitted from their work then it is different. I, too, am curious whether it will be an exercise of proper, fair journalism or it will be an opportunity for another social work bashing.
I have no idea whether service users are filmed - If they are, you would imagine that their faces would be blurred out.
I have no complaints about this documentary whatsoever, if it makes managers and policy makers sit up and realise that changes need to be made, then it is undoubtedly a good thing.
Indeed and I would bet that this is one of his findings!
I wonder what will be 'discovered' that isn't already known about the stress levels and over-work etc of social services departments.
My concerns about confidentiality were not about people being shown on film - I'm sure they won't. It is more a discomfort that someone who was a journalist with the intention to 'uncover' a service would have had access to files etc.
Maybe the programme will prove wrong. I quite like being proved wrong if I am prone to be overly negative.
I do think there is a lot of general confusion about social workers and the so-called protected title. I don't suppose this will help matters.
cb:I do think there is a lot of general confusion about social workers and the so-called protected title. I don't suppose this will help matters
this was sort of what I was trying to get at (I never seem to manage got get my point right first time) if this adds to the perception that any one can waltz in off the street and apply for a social work job, and get it then whatever they show, good or bad, that impression will have further impregnated the UK conciousness and potentially further undermine the profession. I'm not saying we as social workers are anything special, but the training we go through to eventually do the jobs we do should be recognised.
If they have made this distinction in the programme then I applaud them, whilst for us in the job the difference between a social worker and a support worker may seem obvious and significant, to they lay person it is not. Again if they have, they have also given a false impression of the title in the programme.
It will hardly be accurate judging by the blurb which is intended to mislead the reader. It wasn't a social worker who went undercover, although that's what channel 4 is saying in the blurb and adverts. In fact, it was someone posing as a family support worker. FSW's work in social work teams but are NOT the same as social workers nor have the same qualifications! If the blub is so misleading presumably the rest of the piece will be too. The piece will be sensationalist rather than fair and balanced. This person who went undercover mislead and betrayed the trust of not only his team colleagues, but also the client families he engaged with (was supposed to be supporting) during his undercover stint - a betrayal of confidentiality and professional ethics. Sickening if you ask me.
Hatgirl: cb:I do think there is a lot of general confusion about social workers and the so-called protected title. I don't suppose this will help matters this was sort of what I was trying to get at (I never seem to manage got get my point right first time) if this adds to the perception that any one can waltz in off the street and apply for a social work job, and get it then whatever they show, good or bad, that impression will have further impregnated the UK conciousness and potentially further undermine the profession. I'm not saying we as social workers are anything special, but the training we go through to eventually do the jobs we do should be recognised. If they have made this distinction in the programme then I applaud them, whilst for us in the job the difference between a social worker and a support worker may seem obvious and significant, to they lay person it is not. Again if they have, they have also given a false impression of the title in the programme.
That is very true and I also hope that they make the distinction. However, as some of the criticism will be about unqualified workers doing the same work as qualified workers, it will add to this perception.
Be interesting to see how the programme portrays social workers, lets hope they show the reality of the work that we do and how we spend 90% of our time at our desk filling forms in
my oh thinks we sit and drink tea all day, he really infuriates me when he says this as he has no idea what i do
I think this will be an interesting programme and hopefully poeple can be informed of what happens within social services, hopefully without stepping on too many confidentiality toes.
In regards to the title of the programme, as previously stated most people don't know the difference between support worker & social worker, and the programme-makers would have probably used 'Undercover Social Worker' to grab audience's attention in a way I doubt support worker would have done.
The undercover worker in question may have previously worked within a social care setting, and not simply worked as a journalist, as many newsreaders & reporters have degress & qualifications in a whole range of subjects (history, politics, economics) which makes them a more valuable member of the team rather than someone who purely studied journalism. Therefore, this person may have background knowledge in the area filmed in and I hope that no service users were exploited in any way just to make an interesting television programme. I highly doubt that Channel 4 producer's will have allowed the programme to be shown if it would harm vulnerable people and expose their lives in detail.
I agree that Dispatches are well-made and thought-provoking programmes have even won awards in the past, so lets hope this trend continues in this programme. Let's watch tomorrow!!
Is this just one episode as the undercover worker spent 3 months in the team and I think that would be hard to condense into a one hour programme
Just been reading in this months issue of PSW (yes I know I'm sad I read CC & PSW lol!) that Birmingham Childrens Dept has opened its doors to ITN television crew, who will be filming the team for a fortnight in a bid to improve understanding of the professsion. Does anyone work for Birmingham? No idea when this will be shown on TV though
sooooooooo....
well i wasn't massively impressed anyways
I thought the programme was surprisingly (and refreshingly!) sympathetic to social workers. Check out CommCare's blog about it: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2010/06/channel-4-dispatches-undercover-social-worker.html
I thought it was a good representation of life in a overworked, understaffed team, who are trying to by the skin of their teeth to deal with a caseload that is too large and complex for the staff available. It seemed to be a very sympathetic portrayal of staff who mostly want to do a good job and care, but are swamped and unable to do what they want to.
It highlighted pretty well the issues of ticking boxes for boxes sake, despite it not helping children or families. And that a department that is swamped and struggling at present is going to be even more badly affected by more forced budget cuts. It also highlighted the pressure on individual workers and how difficult the job is.
I was very concerned about the poor disguising of service users though- it didn't specify that voices were disguised or anything which enabled easy identification of the parents/ children involved.
Could have been literally any SW office in the country
The title undercover social worker was misleading, it was more like a day in the life of a family support worker, but still i suppose that doesnt sell
Although the programmes contents came as no surprise to me, I've just been chatting to some non SW friends who watched the programme and it's opened their eyes as to what actually goes on and they say they are now less likely to vilify social workers at every opportunity, which can only be a good thing
Just a few observations from the programme
whats with all the paper files?
what a grimy horrible office that was, I shall never complain about my office again
the SW who said that she liked to sit at her desk and do the paperwork as oppose to going on visits will no doubt no down like a lead balloon once the LA has seen the programme
FSW's certainly dont do any of that on my team, they do contacts, home checks and make the odd phone call
Phrase of the programme ' this isnt worth 18 grand a year, in fact it isn't worth double that' ..he he..
queenb: I thought it was a good representation of life in a overworked, understaffed team, who are trying to by the skin of their teeth to deal with a caseload that is too large and complex for the staff available. It seemed to be a very sympathetic portrayal of staff who mostly want to do a good job and care, but are swamped and unable to do what they want to. It highlighted pretty well the issues of ticking boxes for boxes sake, despite it not helping children or families. And that a department that is swamped and struggling at present is going to be even more badly affected by more forced budget cuts. It also highlighted the pressure on individual workers and how difficult the job is. I was very concerned about the poor disguising of service users though- it didn't specify that voices were disguised or anything which enabled easy identification of the parents/ children involved.
I agree on all points. I wouldn't want to be that manager or the worker who seemed to prefer sitting on her arse in front of a computer than seeing families mind!
Hatgirl - No impressed by what? The programme itself or the practice it showed?
Certainly I think the people involved would be quite easy to identify to anyone who knew them, and that could be bad both in terms of working with children/families and from an employment perspective. And the unrelentingly negative view of things probably won't improve the perception of social services. I also think that some of narration was fairly poor.
However, I do think that they at least tried to set out that FSWs shouldn't be doing some of the work allocated of work (as predicted above!), and maybe something like this that shows how bad the situation is in some teams in a way that will actually get through to the people. And whilst it might not be new news to those of us with a specific interest in the subject I think a programme like this is often needed to get the message to a wider audience.
As someone who has decided to leave a comfortable job to retrain as a SW I find it encouraging that a couple of you say this is much worse than the teams you work in!
Not unsympathetic and I certainly recognise all of the issues raised, although it only really touched on them. Would have been good to see some of the good practice (surely there must have been some!) rather than just the tears and gripes. I guess there's only so much you can squeeze into an hour.
Some of the narrator's comments were confusing (or wrong) but probably reflect the general confusion among the general public and other professionals over terminology and concepts that actually require a great deal of thought and discussion and can't really be reduced to soundbites. John seemed like a top guy though and I'd have him on my team any day (and he'd get more support too) but I have a feeling he may have been put off for life.
I had to smile at the scene of the team meeting where the senior manager seeks to 'spin' positive about caseloads (that's fairly typical of senior managers most everywhere) but the team just weren't having it - good for them.
But will it help or hinder? In all honesty, I have mixed feelings about the programme but I think I'll wait and see what impact it has before I make a final judgment.
I used to work in Comm Ed. When we had inspections it was impossible to manipulate the records of the service as HMIE would choose which service and area to visit. I was a bit concerned about the manager saying they manipulated where to send the inspectors. Can someone tell me if this is the case with SWIA?
hound:Hatgirl - No impressed by what? The programme itself or the practice it showed?
can't really put my finger on it. Perhaps it is because I have been waiting to watch it I was a little bit disappointed that it didnt go further.
They kept making the distinction that 'it should be a qualified social worker doing this' but didnt say why other than on a very basic 'social workers do child protection cases' type level, and then intersected it with clips of said qualified social workers sitting on their arses.
Some very good points were made, but I just dont think they went far enough, and the emphasis was very much on the innappropriate use of unqualifed workers and paperwork which although both signficant problems are not 'just' what goes on in social work teams. Much like I and others on this forum suspected the title was very misleading.
Whilst interesting for us to watch and compare our own teams with I really don't feel it was a sympathetic portrayal of 'social workers' as most of the issues focussed around support workers, it looked to me like the social workers in the team had seperate offices!?
Occassionally we do get positive results and this wasnt shown, I think we came accross as pretty useless and powerless as a profession, unable to help those in need, when actually every now and then we can.
If this documentary was supposed to enlighten the public about what actually happens then I don't think it did, and our friends and relatives may have us to translate for them what different bits were wrong or realistic and what was probably actually meant, the majority of people sitting on their sofas won't have a clue and will have taken the information presented to them at face value.
I do not work with children so I came at the programme wanting to see an exploration of the social work role in the child protection team, I didnt get that, I got 'look how pressured child protection is' under the title of undercover social worker
I was hoping for something Gerry Robinson ish (in my opinion an excellent documentary) and didnt get it, my own fault for setting my expectations too high!
thinkpink:"a couple of you say this is much worse than the teams you work in!" I would read the comments again hound, one person said the actual physical office was a bit more grotty than her own (which is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things) and i said that it made me feel a BIT better about my authority, and when i mean a bit i mean marginally, as in a properly properly teeny tiny bit better! I handed my notice in a few weeks ago and wont be revoking that notice any time soon, i actually value my mental health haha! Sadly this documentary was far more accurate than it was sensationalist.
Ok, fair point! Maybe I am just clutching at straws to reassure myself I have made the most insane decision ever!! Still, I'm not backing out now so will remain hopeful/positive (albeit with a sensible amount of realism thrown in) and see how things work out!
Hatgirl - thanks for the more detailed appraisal. I think you make some excellent points. Maybe the filming in Birmingham will give a more balanced view when that comes to air. As for the Gerry Robinson thing - yes, they were quite good and entertaining (although I think quite a few people had problems with it as well) but I am not at all sure if very much changed as a result of it!
I thought a lot of the issues were very reflective of what goes on in CP work. I can only speak from my own experiences but in my area the job title family support worker was changed to social care worker several years ago. Social Care Workers were used exactly the same as Social Workers and there were no apologies from management, they were told to get on with it if they questioned whether they should be carrying CP cases and carrying out CP investigations. I think the change in title was to confuse the public and other professionals so that they could not distinguish between who was qualified and who wasn't as the job titles are too similar.
It's definitiely true that management are always thinking of statistics to meet government targets - we're just pressurised from every angle and the only possible way to do the job is to work 24 - 7 and never sleep.
hound:As for the Gerry Robinson thing - yes, they were quite good and entertaining (although I think quite a few people had problems with it as well) but I am not at all sure if very much changed as a result of it!
not wanting to go too far off the original topic but I have seen small but significant changes as a result of the Gerry Robinson documentary in that it focused on a positive way forward for care homes and really opened the general public's eyes to what dementia care is generally like in this country. People were talking about it and are still talking about it, relatives in my area ask care homes who take people with dementia if they do any of the stuff they saw recommended in the programme, and are much more aware of small things such as pull cords being placed out of reach than they used to be. Yes these are small changes, and still few and far between, but the message has got through in some small way and made people more aware.
It is my opinion that many of the people who detract from the work that social workers in child protection do are well aware that there are high caseloads, lots of pressure, unqualified workers doing social work jobs (i'm sure many service users are convinced that none of us are qualified to do our jobs!), and that occassionally workers dont do their jobs properly. I felt that this programme needed to move past that and show something new about social work. I personally feel that an opportunity has been missed and the same old same old has been shown. I don't mean to say that it's not true or accurate, but its not new.
A quick scan of the digital spy forum shows that as of yet 22:46 not one person has commented on tonights dispatches. The Gerry Robinson programme prompted immediate response from people moved by what they had seen. Thats what this programme needed to do to get a public dialogue started about the profession and it hasn't happened.
How embarrassing. Watching this just made me cringe. At a time when child protection social workers are being lambasted in the media, we witness a social worker saying she doesn't like doing home visits, a manager saying it wouldn't matter if a child died as long as the case was closed and a council refusing to accommodate a homeless child. I really hope this isn't considered to be a 'sympathetic' portrayal of social workers and I certainly don't think it's going to attract any public recognition or respect.
I thought this programme highlighted the realities for many Family support workers in statutory teams. I have worked as a FSW for eight years. I have worked child protection, managed care proceedings and attended court. I am extremely skilled in my line of work.
The term "unqualified" is not only wrong but also insulting, as many of us hold degrees or qualifications in something other than the social work degree. in addition, many of us have had rich life experiences which enable us to build good relationships.
I feel this was a fairly accurate if not depressing view of child protection social work and that the journalist was quite sympathetic to the profession. I hope it creates discussion amongst managers and government officials.
What made me 'smile' was the first case John had to take on - the violent teenager........ as I explained to my partner this was exactly the sort of stuff I was doing as a student!!!! Wonder what the public/press would make of that. No different really to the FSW doing it with 'support' as that is what you undertake as a student.
I was somewhat surprised by the refusal to accommodate the 15 year old,knowing from my experience it is often 5pm on a Friday you end up working late to ensure that teenager is not sleeping on a park bench!. I didn't understand how one minute they were looked after in foster care then the next they has no where to go- not very well explained, also would have led to seeing the issues in LAC and not just CP.
AND what was it with those paper files! My OH said 'oh do you have files like that'......errrrrr no!!!!!
I enjoyed this programme just like life as an agency worker.When I started in social work in 1979 complete with long hair sandals and a beard we thought we could change the world .Today its just forms and more forms,wanna be senior managers whose only interest is performance indicators and a lack of facilities.
If it wasnt for my therapists Jack Daniels and Jim Bean I would have given up long ago.
Matt
15 year old had looked after status if he had been in care and should have been accomodated.