GSCC chief exec Mike Wardle has written a piece for ComCare reflecting on the benefits which the social work protection of role has brought three years after its introduction. He says:

"As a regulated workforce, social workers should now be able take their place as equals amongst other professions they engage with. Regulation has helped in building a strong professional identity for social workers."

Is this most people's opinion? 

I can hardly credit it that Mike Wardle can seriously believe his own words. The Registration of social workers  together with the extremely weak and watered down version of the Roles and Tasks publication certainly goes nowhere near putting social workers on an equal footing with other professionals.

Many qualified social workers (but who are not called 'social worker' in their Job Description} do not need to even register (unless their employers insist). The post-registration requirements are feeble and do not look at demonstrated competencies. Doctors, nurses, Occupational Therapists, lawyers, teachers etc. would certainly not see us as having to meet and maintain the same high standards as themselves.

Social work has always struggled to accept that it is a 'profession' - that fight has still not been won and unless the GSCC can produce something far more stringent and credible than its Roles and Tasks document then I think we can regard the battle as lost.

I entirely agree with Rupert. I would add that the GSCC are the least interested party in promoting social care, nor are they particularly competent at it given the various and now numerous judgements made by the Care Standards Tribunal  (http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/)  who described their procedures as ‘flawed’ and, the Employment Tribunal who fined them for discriminatory practice relating to disability issues concerning a prospective, now, Registrant.

They are a bit like a new manager who wants to impress the governor and to earn their spurs and justify their existence, in the process hiding their numerous gross failings and only promoting their success – and their success is no great feat given those removed from the Register were self evidently unsuitable and already found to be so by other agencies e.g. the Courts or employers.

Such ambition is sickening to watch. In one notable case the GSCC were found by the care standards tribunal to have not conducted a proper investigation and that is only the tip of this rather menacing iceberg which the press and the GSCC do not report on their respective websites or other publications. They have no proper procedures nor for certain any investigative skills. Take a look at the Care Standards Tribunal’s findings if you want to see clear evidence of this.

Lost battle it may be but lost plot might also be an apt description as if they were intending to drive up standards they have failed inexorably to demonstrate this through their own actions. They are inept.

Perhaps the CEO of the GSCC might like to explain to the community at large what he is doing to get his own house in order before he starts preaching best practice to others. Thus far, my reading of the Tribunal findings against the GSCC is that by now they should be struck off and forever banished to not practice in social care. Somehow, I doubt if the GSCC would care to publish their less favourable appraisals for general consumption.

 Wilt

Surely registration was a good thing? Is it the system that is wrong or just the way it is being run?

Simeon2, you must be rather innocent of the facts of registration. In the ideal World we would be all well behaved, professional and never make the slightest of mistakes, or if we did we might hope for reasonable and fair treatment from a regulator taking account of facts (‘facts’ mean nothing to the GSCC, it appears) and subject to a rigorous but competent investigation (‘investigation’ and ‘competent’ are not, regrettably, within the GSCC vocabulary, although they would have you think otherwise).

 

I know that you (Simeon2) intend to stimulate discussion, but I think it wiser and more competent that the press and Community Care in particular actually report facts. I am astounded that Community Care lacks the apparent interest in reporting the outcomes of the Care Standards Tribunal, commensurate and consistently with regular reporting of the outcomes from GSCC tribunals – reporting is thus lacking balance, integrity and reasonableness. Community Care is failing in this regard big time, and if it holds itself out as a reasonable and leading reporter in the industry need to correct its approach and journalistic research in this area.

 

The ‘system’ (whatever that means – perhaps you mean the principle of registration) is not wrong. What is definitely wrong is the delivery and exercise of the powers of the GSCC particularly as regards integrity, competence and its claimed objectives of promoting social care, in a manner as one might reasonably expect as consistent with the standards it sets out for Registrants. Regrettably no equality in standards seemingly pertains as the GSCC apply one standard to others and thereafter make them up for themselves.

 

One of the best and very concerning (indeed very worrying) case matters is set out by the CSCT (Care Standards Tribunal) in the case matter (see link below)  http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=63 regarding Ms Henry who the GSCC severely and incompetently dealt with. And that is just one example. When exactly will Community Care be reporting such worrying case matters which establish beyond doubt the competence, or otherwise, of those ever so nice (sic) people at the GSCC.

 

In short, the GSCC need to lie down in a dark room and contemplate what it is exactly they are meant to do, feel they are good at doing, their motives, operational practice  and standards which apply to themselves before attempting to judge others. If the term ‘dork’ were to be applied to anyone/thing, the GSCC has a God given right to first claim. Gawd help us all!!

 

Wilt (grrrrr)

 

Thanks for your comments Wilt regarding our coverage and its balance, which are taken on board. In fact, it's a fair cop guv.

We regularly cover decisions on conduct cases but rarely report on CST appeals against registration decisions (Lisa Arthurworrey's case being a rare example).

The main reason for this is that GSCC conduct cases are press released - both their occurence and their outcomes -  and thus easy to cover. One of our journalists also attends hearings on a not irregular basis.

Care Standards Tribunal decisions are not press released though their decisions are published on the tribunal's website, and are thus pretty straightforward to cover. We've just not developed a tradition of covering them, which is an oversight on our part.

I will try to address this in future.

A very penitent news editor!

 

Thank you Mithran, you give great hope & expectation to al old social worker. :-) of basic values.

Wilt

I think that this week's 'Community Care' can only leave one filled with despair at the state of social work. The Integrated Children's System (ICS) is an appalling 'production' by many who ought to know better - the best part of 40 pages for a Care Plan - whose bright idea was that? - they probably got a medal for it!!!!

Social Workers will soon have no idea how to do 'casework' - they will even struggle to have any but the slightest direct contact with service users as they will be tied to their computers.

Never have I seen so much paperwork despite all the IT available. Why are we still having paper files? - double work again!

Government ought to get back in touch with grassroots social workers - the chasm is enormous. The GSCC have fallen into the Government trap of 'all spin and no substance' (well, very little substance and even less clout). Who is speaking out for social workers? It sickens me to see the huge salaries many 'senior' figures in the profession are getting as the profession sinks - sadly, the analogy with Northern Rock is not altogether inappropriate.

 

 

We don't mean to send you into despair Rupert M. But yes, our stories this week on the integrated children's system and the roles and tasks of social work do not fill you with joy over the profession's standing with government.

Does anyone see any light at the end of the tunnel?

Make sure you are at the Gatehouse Theatre on 25 Sept for ' Believe in me' where the outspoken can talk sense with others from the traingle. social work, media and those we both serve - the public. More on here and everywhere soon.

Do Quangos ever really work anyhow?

Rachel Bramble

ps Hiya to old Fassit forum members glad you are still going from socialworker

Rupert

Your comments on the ICI and lack of time to see service users reminded me of that old joke:

 What is the difference between social workers and bogus social workers?

Answer: Bogus social workers make home visits!

Ah well :-)

 

Wilt 

 

Rupert M:

I think that this week's 'Community Care' can only leave one filled with despair at the state of social work. The Integrated Children's System (ICS) is an appalling 'production' by many who ought to know better - the best part of 40 pages for a Care Plan - whose bright idea was that? - they probably got a medal for it!!!!

Social Workers will soon have no idea how to do 'casework' - they will even struggle to have any but the slightest direct contact with service users as they will be tied to their computers.

Never have I seen so much paperwork despite all the IT available. Why are we still having paper files? - double work again!

Government ought to get back in touch with grassroots social workers - the chasm is enormous. The GSCC have fallen into the Government trap of 'all spin and no substance' (well, very little substance and even less clout). Who is speaking out for social workers? It sickens me to see the huge salaries many 'senior' figures in the profession are getting as the profession sinks - sadly, the analogy with Northern Rock is not altogether inappropriate.

Well said Rupert (and Wilt), it's good to see that other people are angry too. If this debacle were happening to doctors or teachers it would be on the front page of national newspapers but as it's only about social work it doesn't even merit a mention and yet the consequences for children and families are enormous.

The ICS is an absolute mess and this is reflected in the recent study. However, the ICS wasn't primarily about making it better for professionals or families but about the current government's obsession with a management culture and targets and this is reflected by the fact that the only bit of the ICS that actually 'works' is the bit that tells local authroities which and how many forms have been completed within/or out of timescales. Social work absolutely needed to face up to the fact that in too many cases there were incomplete or poor assessments on file (as well as too much 'drift') but if the best answer to this is the ICS then god help us all.

 

The Social Care Register The Social Care Register is a register of people who work in social care, and have been assessed as trained and fit to be in the workforce. 'Social workers and social work students are currently on the register but it will be rolled out to social care workers at all levels over time. In order to register, workers need to meet rigorous registration requirements and must adhere to the code of conduct. Character references and qualifications are checked as part of the registration process and social workers need to complete post registration training and learning requirements in order to re register every three years. Service users and carers can check the register. All social workers should be registered and can register here' So says the GSCC Website! But what if you are a senior manager - or indeed, not called a 'social worker' do you have to Register with the GSCC? - I think not, unless the employer insists. And what 'character references' are taken up - mainly NONE AT ALL is my understanding - so who is the GSCC kidding? I am all for the highest possible standards and monitoring but it is a 2-way-street. How may EMPLOYERS have the GSCC referred to the care Standards Commission - is it still just the ONE? - but then, again, they say (and very conveniently) that they do not register and regulate employers. I resent paying my £30 annual fee to such a quango.