interesting chapter in a new book coming out on Friday claiming that social workers are often unable to practice ethically if they work for a council because targets and organisational procedures always take priority. Would you agree?
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/22/114773/council-social-workers-cant-practise-ethically.htm
me, too.
yes i agree also - it does often concern me
In the famous Stanley Milgram experiments on obedience to authority, it shown that regardless of societal role, such as social workers and priests, most participants electrocuted the research subjects up to the maximum potentially lethal 240 volts.Now if you consider that organiations like local authorities are often large anonymous organisations that create cultures of pervasive unquestioned obedience to authority, therefore they can and never will be ethical.Social workers, who are also managers are crucially acting as employers and gatekeepers to resources and no matter how much they talk about professionalism and objectivity they are bound more by their employer and gatekeeper role.As managers, by definition, are a smaller group in the workplace many will seek obedience to their authority and will deploy many autocratic and non legitimate means to maintain obedience.Could there be any connection between the growing 'professional' status of social workers and the growing disparity between what it 'stands' for and what the reality is. An example of this is how social work managers and employers are not subject to the GSCC Code of Conduct as individual social workers are, these 'Codes' are just another tool on the box of obedience that ends up obscuring the more strutural nature of ethical practice. The court ruling extracts below show the sort of unethical arguments used to deny young people services. How many social workers in these situations challenged their employers/managers of the illogical way the law was being interpreted...Court rulings-------------G, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2009] UKHL 26 (20 May 2009) "The human issue in this case is simple to state. If a child of 16 or 17 who has been thrown out of the family home presents himself to a local children's services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, is it open to that authority instead to arrange for him to be accommodated by the local housing authority under the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996?" So, the reasoning on which the Borough relies to avoid the duty which is prima facie imposed by section 20 effectively involves asserting that there is no such duty.http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/26.htmlBerhe & Ors, R (on the application of) v Hillingdon & Anor [2003] EWHC 2075 (Admin) (29 August 2003)“At the heart of the Council's case is its contention that these four claimants were not provided with accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act, they were merely provided with services under section 17 of the Act.Eliminating tautology, the defendant's case boils down to this: it seeks to draw a distinction between providing "housing" for children in need who require "somewhere to live" as a result of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) in section 20(1) of the 1989 Act, and providing such children with "accommodation" to meet their acknowledged need for somewhere to live. In my judgment, the defendant's argument is mere sophistry, based upon a distinction without a difference.“http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2075.htmlThe above two cases clearly show how, even a cursory overview of the Children Act (1989) would have led to these young people getting a service, without the need of these court cases based up 'mere sophistry'."A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sophismand one common unethical trait that the 'educated' have developed is greater use of Sophism to bamboozle each other, themselves and vulnerable service users. And it seems that the GSCC Code of Conduct can't handle Sophism, as so often managers and employers just say they were just being obedient to 'mere sophistry'.Children Act (1989)----------------Children Act (1989) and 'Looked After' / 'Accommodated' Children dutiesInterpretation“child” means, subject to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, a person under the age of eighteen;20 Provision of accommodation for children: general (1) Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of— (a) there being no person who has parental responsibility for him; (b) his being lost or having been abandoned; or (c) the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890041_en_1
Could the shortness in the responses to this issue reflect the fear of discussing the unethical practice of employers. Or more convincingly be an expression of such a commonly help belief/reality?
For me, I'm not afraid (I no longer work for a LA), but what else is there to say? To accomodate needs of the LA, you have to compromise your value base as you do not have the power to do anything else. You have to hold onto your ethics the best you can and do what you can with what little power and resources you have. Then you know you have personally done your best. Those in the job know-those who are not can never really know....and yes, I think it's a commonly held belief/reality.....in the LA.
Take for example, a foster placement that you know is not a good match for a child and you identify why- you are told it is the only placement, there are no choices as LA foster carer is available, so no-one will fund an outside placement (too costly). You argue this-but are over-ruled by funding panel. LA Foster carer is seriously lacking and placement breaks down. SW now has to go back for approval for outside placement that they knew was right anyway...child has had, in my opinion, an unnecessary move. In my opinion, this is damaging for said child. LA continues to employ ropey foster carer as they are cheap and they are a scarce resource. (I must make the point that THERE ARE MANY, MANY FANTASTIC LA FOSTER CARERS AS WELL and keep up the good fight)
That's just one example-don't get me started, I could go on all day.
Fredtt: Could the shortness in the responses to this issue reflect the fear of discussing the unethical practice of employers. Or more convincingly be an expression of such a commonly help belief/reality?
Fredtt we've been discussing this subject over and over and over again on various threads in the forum. I don;t think this issue should come as a surprise to anybody, employers included, or even the GSCC. I brought this up at the Uni, with my colleagues, with my students etc. I don't think anybody is afraid of discussing it, just people feeling very tired and demoralized. I frankly feel like I'm turning into a broken record, repeating the same concerns over and over again for so many years.
Yes repetition may be unwelcome by some, but what is repetition to some is new to others and it is a question of how completely compliant or complicit we are. For instance in the kind scenario given above, as social worker can make formal recommendation that states with unambiguous language that:
"In light of the above evidence it is my opinion that in accord with my legal duties under the Children Act (1989) I recommend that first name-last name be placed at foster carer placement x, as this is the best match for their individual needs and that using an alternative placement may not be in the young person's best interests. An alternative may break down and under the council's best value principles placement x is the best option available. I have discussed the various options with the young person I they have also stated that they would prefer placement x, over any alternative as yet unknown provision. I have confirmed that placement X is available and that I fully support this placement and it should, in this instance, enable the council to meet many of it's performance targets under the Every Child Matters National Indicators."
Maybe we should be discussing the methods to ensure that what write and recommend are fully compliant with good practice and are person centred,
There was suppose to be a move toward social workers holding budget responsibility, but I have not seen much of it. The much vaunted 'private' practice model just seems to be about cost cutting.
Fredtt you do have a point here and sorry if it looked like I tried to discourage people from talking aboutthis subject. Speaking of your example, in the LAs where i worked a Social Worker would not know what foster care options are available as they are managed by the Fostering team and the external placements might be organized through a financial department. Without senior manager agreement or agreement from the department's panel an individual social worker would not have the possibility to make an enquiry regarding what is available, particularly in terms of inependent fostering agencies. It would also be unfair to discuss this placement with the young person (if by some miracle a social worker does become aware of a placement becoming available, like another young person moving on) as the worker would not know if they could place until having permission from the managers. I have done that in the past, a YP was virtually begging me to go to a certain placement, I made the case repeatedly from it in various settings but I was denied permission to consider it. In the meantime the young person was making plans what she will do when she will be there.... But she never went... I know what you are saying about the private model, there was some debate about that in the old threads when the GP style practices were proposed, but as they are still in pilot and there has been no evaluation of their success (to my knowledge) we need to wait until the reports come out. I guess there is so much wrong in the practices and procedures of the LA that it is surprising there are still rights about it. A quick look over other threads would give you an idea of how bad the situation is and workers leave demoralized and disillusioned, the first thing an NQSW would say is "Uni never prepared me for this!!!!". But to be honest, and this will sound bad, every single change in restricting Social Worker's autonomy and right to make use of their professional judgment has occured, historically, following a demand from society, newspapers and the successive governments, and you know, as you sow...
It may be too much of a presumption, but I think the trend in the last few years has been for CP social workers to have their means for judgment and consideration removed from them, in favor of process and procedure.
The consequence of this is that the effort to try to render professional skills down to a commodities has been a long-running and unmitigated disaster. Simply, I don't think the profession of CP social work allows for simple data-entry and process following; if we are losing the means to make judgments and 'common sense' (that term so beloved by The Daily Mail) then the risk is that those attributes will be lost forever.
At this point my opinion will diverge sharply from others. The Coalition government suggestion that social workers could form their own departments should be fully extended; I believe that a team should be able to form a Limited Company and then by default either perform a 'management buy out' of the current facility, or be able to tender for its business under the auspices of the District Auditor.
As an interim measure I believe the GSCC should be provided, at the end of every week, rung through or by email, or simply collected through a Web dbms system, the statistics as follows;
plus quarterly statistics for staff turnover, recruitment rates, proportion of senior staff-management-nqsw's-'ordinary joe's'
The GSCC should produce anonymous stats based on the data above and publish them through online reports, highlighting broken thresholds/exceeded hours, every week.
Assigning a case to a non-registered or insufficiently qualified/experienced SW should be a criminal act, or should be an automatic prima-facia case for a Constructive Dismissal claim.
Over-burdening should be regarded as an automatic reason by OFSTEAD for a department to be placed under 'special measures'.
Managers and Directors be rendered subject to the GSCC provisions, in addition to other professional bodies they belong-to.
The Department for Education should establish a 'hotline' for anonymous information-sharing concerning manning or performance or ethical issues from registered sw's. Each communication should be logged and assessed. Internal thresholds should be determined that will automatically trigger an investigation by the GSCC/OFSTEAD/Education Dept/HSE.
Dismissal of staff/blocking of pay rise/denial of promotion etc. for legitimately and correctly raising a concern (i.e. through internal procedures, including something like the form communication detailed previously, not the Press) to be a criminal act. Arbitration of what constitutes a 'legit' concern to be determined by the GSCC.
Note I place a lot of emphasis on the GSCC - determining that its 'brief' and budget expands hugely. If they are determined to set standards, then they should be the ones to determine if standards are being maintained and if working environments are sufficient.
Rachell, I fully agree with your points. However, most Social Workers I have encountered are not confident enough to consider working independently. It involves a huge culture shift, people leaving their comfort zones and at times accepting that they will face competition from peers. I am also concerned that most of the workers i have met do not consider it their personal responsibility to further their education and profesisonal development, therefore there is a risk that independent practices will aim to work on business models, profit making and not investing in their staff. I also wonder who and how will deal with S47s, care proceedings, EPOs, secure order applications or with sectionings. Some stuff is quite likely to remain within the public services - now whether that is LA or another public body, that will be left to be seen. I take your point about the GSCC. I am not optimistic though about their ability or even willingness to take these extra responsibilities. And where would the money come from? LAs?