The long-awaited statement on the roles and tasks of social work in England has been being published this morning by the General Social Care Council.

It's pretty similar to the draft version published in October 2007 - which was a bit controversial - and interestingly has not been formally published by the government, despite ministers commissioning the review in October 2006. Instead the government will use it to inform policy.

Directors are pretty chuffed, seemingly, as is the GSCC, but some people are sceptical, such as Peter Beresford.

See what you think!

Why hasn't the government published this properly? What's going on? Are they embarassed? I smell a rat. A rather woolly one.

I can't help feeling jaded by this new piece of paper that has been churned out by the GSCC. Why not improve social workers pay and conditions and invest in regular supervision to stop burnout, rather than waste money on ivory tower ideas that no-one has time to read anyway. I am fed up with all the bits of paper churned out every year about how social workers should do things and what social work is. Its role is pretty simple really - support people who cannot be supported by their family, friends or private wealth. Give service users a say and choice in their care. Allocate care fairly. Keep decision-making as local and close to the individual as possible. Don't be patronising....I could have written this for the GSCC at a fraction of the cost. I would love to know how much it cost to produce it....

Whilst this document is worthy of careful consideration it could have been made an awful lot stronger and received the explicit backing and support of Government (surprising that having been commissioned by Ministers it does not come out with their written support but just issued by the GSCC).

It fails to address the very issues which can, and do, arise when practitioners are in conflict with their managers / departments. It does not make clear that 'whistle blowers' will receive full legal protection and, as such, seems to have made no progress at all in strengthening the position of social workers.

It would also have been useful if it had given clear advice on the position of social workers when advocating for their 'service users' brought them into conflict with other disciplines (i.e. when a social worker would be fully supportive of a specialised but expensive educational placement for a child with disabilities but where Education were refusing to fund and insisting that the needs could be met elsewhere (usually in a cheaper placement) despite the social work view being opposed to that.

It also fails to address the position of employers when services can not be delivered due to staff shortages / skill-mix deficiencies / budgeratry constraints.

It states that 'Social work at its best helps to ensure the wellbeing and human rights of migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking children, adults and families...' tell that to those children and young people 'locked up' in Dispersal Centres without the protection of the Children Act. Tell that to the friends and family of the young woman deported (and so denied on-going treatment) despite being in the middle of cancer treatment (and who recently died). Tell that to the young people discharged from Care to avoid them becoming entitled to statutory  'leaving care' services (it will be interesting to watch the situation in Hillingdon following the comments of the Children's Commissioner).

This document contains much that we would agree with but it lacks the 'teeth' to ensure full implementation - but then it would, wouldn't it? because that would really prove to be something that Government would have to deal with - such as removing children from poverty.

Interestingly, the initial consultation document (published last March) may have had some of the teeth that Rupert talks about (in theory that is - strong statements being pretty meaningless without political backing to put them into effect):

It had lines such as:"Social work time and effort should not be diverted to tasks more appropriate to skilled administrators, better IT, and more information and support systems."

And: "The social work role may be misused where the state fails to provide adequate resources to meet the needs of individuals and families in accordance with legislation and policy, and expects social work to be the acceptable face of service refusal."

Would people have preferred to have seen stuff of that nature in the final document? 

Can someone explain to me what the point of it is?

This document just seems to state, unbelievably, the bleeding obvious. For example social work is "committed to enabling every child and adult to fulfil their potential," and working in partnership with them "whenever possible." The one I like best is that some  tasks "can be shared with or delegated to" other social care staff under social work supervision. What a load of old chestnuts. I am actually glad it didn't get a foreword by the government, as it only would have added to the meaningless crap. The thing is also only 18 pages long - to sum up the entire meaning and purpose of social work? Plurleeeeeeeeeez...

Another example where I am asking how Front Line social workers influence the GSCC. We are taxed but we do not have representation. How do I get to be on the GSCC how do I disagree with their conclusions or priorities. Why did the GSCC not insist that the Government that commisioned this report indicated their agreement or disagreement with it. Given its unchallenging conclusions it hardly bodes well for the commitment by government to social work that they could not publicly support it. GSCC may feel happy that at least it looks like they are doing something I am so pleased for them.

Here's a list of the members of the General Social Care Council all of whom are appointed by the NHS Appointments' Commission. They are pretty much all senior figures and there's no one who leaps out at you as being a "frontline voice".

But then again, the GSCC would say they are not there to represent the profession but to regulate it.

It's always difficult to know what is going on behind the scenes in relations between the national social care bodies (GSCC, CSCI, Scie etc) and government.

It could well be that the GSCC has been banging the table about the government's silence on the roles and tasks, but cannot do so in public for the sake of future relations and to make your voice count.

Interestingly, CSCI chair Denise Platt has been reasonably good at criticising government policy openly, particularly over its plans to effectively scrap CSCI through inspection mergers.

I remember one occasion in which Scie was almost forced to have a pop at the DH after then minister Stephen Ladyman had criticised the institute for its handling of negotiations over whether Scie would absorb a number of DH programmes a few years ago.

I don't set out to be negative (honest!) but this document is at best woolly, very woolly. It's greatest achievement appears to be its ability to say something without actually saying anything at all. If there is anything in this document that tells us something new or indeed provides any real vision about the future of social work then I can't see it.

Thanks Grinch. Has anyone else had a chance to give it a read as yet? It would be good to hear some more thoughts from frontline practitioners as this document is in danger of being something that social care's great and good are very proud of putting together - perhaps rightly - but whose impact on government policy is at best hard to define.