I know bumping uglies is a highly inappropriate relationship but the GSCC's guidelines refer to "Sexual and other inappropriate relationships".
What are these other inappropriate relationships?
I would guess things like a financial relationship, or possibly any social relationship outside of work would be inappropriate?
CareSpace support
Any relationship that could possibly be (mis)construed as potentially abusive i.e. financially,sexually,emotionally etc etc. I think a lot depends on how the power balance is allocated. The majority of people we come into contact with could be classed as "vulnerable" in one way or another.
Anne - the GSCC are currently drawing up new advice on professional boundaries with service users, because a lack of guidance had been cited by many people in their defences in conduct hearings.
There's also an upcoming feature in Community Care about living and working in the same area as service users that looks at this issue.
I think this is overdue. There are some cases when a relationship is clearly inappropriate, but others will be less clear cut. For example what if a worker's exisitng partner needs a referral to Social Services? What if a worker meets someone socially away from work and does not realise they are receiving services? Is ther a danger of labelling every person with a physical disability who may need a personal assistant or equipment and adaptations as a "vulnerable" person?
AJT - that's kind of exploration I was thinking about! I lived and worked in the same area and within my groups of friends there was a cross over between service users and service providers. I constantly bump into a service user in the pub, they were never on my case load but I've been privy to personal information about them. He smokes, as do I and we are often outside having a fag together. We both do the quiz night at the local so he's got to know my husband who obviously doesn't know of the complications.
When I shadowed a social worker in my first week she often had bags of food for a service user, grab clothes at charity shops for the kids, bought books etc.
I have wondered, yet can't find clear guidance, as to whether these relationships are inappropriate or not.
When I left my previous job, most of the young people on my caseload requested that I keep in touch and visit them occasionally. Obviously this would have needed to take place outside working hours as I moved a full time job in another area. I had my reservations about meeting them on my own as I knew how vulnerable they were and never went ahead. I know that in the past few months some of them asked about me and asked my former team if I could meet them. I am really worried now to do this because I do not feel that the GSCC are clear enough on what is appropriate relationship and inappropriate relationship. My impression was that the latest hearing was not about an inappropriate sexual relationship. To be honest, I do not think they are clear enough on any "do's" and "don'ts", they just look back at individual cases and say "you should not have done that, it is bad for the public image of the profession".
This is a different scenario but my friend (who is female) used to work in a children's home. One of the girls there became very attached to her and was very upset when she left. This girl has now contacted my friend through Facebook and asked her to be her friend and she is unsure what to do. Do people think being friends with ex-clients through Facebook is okay or not really on?
For me, an inapproriate relationship would be one that was :
The examples given above might or might not fall into these categories. Its impossible to not meet clients if you live in the area, or to discover that a friend is also a client, but that needs to be acknowledged, so the person with least power in the relationship (client) is empowered to make the decision about how much engagement to have. A situation that uses the imbalance to be exploitative (sexual relationship, financial impropriety, violence, invlovement in illegal or immoral activities) is always wrong, but it's easy to persuade ourselves that they're not, as society has such blurred moral lines anyway. Meeting with ex-clients once you move onto another job is always inadvisable - you might have been their trusted advisor and confidant, but shouldn't be their "friend"... and you no longer have that role. Well managed endings (rarely possible in the busy, stressed pressured environments we work in, where there's no one to hand over a caseload to) should reduce the need for that, but clients who are needy may not feel that they can manage without us - which makes us feel needed and good! Hopefully that's not why we do our jobs though....
What sort of weak Body is the GSCC that it never addressed this in detail in the first place? Bland Statements by it are ueseless and thoroughgly unhelpful. It persecutes socuial workers with regularity but seems to let Employers totally off the hook? How many Employers has it referred to the Care Standards Commission - is it still just the 1!!!
And what about all those workers (many being senior managers) who do not have to be Registered because they do not have 'social worker' in their Title?
What seemed like a good idea at the time appears to have been a dismal failure - a root and branch Review now needs to take place to determine if the GSCC is 'fit for purpose.'
What puzzles me is that in some of the cases or suspended or deregistered social workers the GSCC acknowledges that he personal relationship did not harm the service user and that the relationship was consensual. I do not refer to the cases of sexual relationships between social workers and servce users. The decisions to suspend or strike the social worker to protect the "reputation of the profession". To be honest it looks like a witch hunt to me. I know social workers that have kept in touch with previous service users and all the professional involved felt this was admirable. In one particular case it provided continuity to a highly vulerable young man with severe attachment difficulties.
I think this lack of clarity is particularly poor for social workers that live and work in the same area. I know colleagues that went to school with some service users, their children study at the same school and at times the children are friends. Social workers and service users come from all backgrounds and walks of life, there should not be an expectation that they are two worlds apart that will never meet. I feel that what GCSS are currently doing is create confusion, and ultimately chase the Social Workers away from the communities that they serve for fear of being accused of inappropriate relationships.
By the way, does anybody know what it the expectation of a Social Worker's behaviour outside of the working hours? we definitely know now that naughty websites are a no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if we will look in the future at another wave of hearings about what social workers might have done outside of work - remember the poor woman that drank herself to death? In the meantime, nobody gets deregistered for being dishonest, or oppressive or in any other way unprofessional WHILE being involved with a service user. Which is what I expected that the GSCC will target first and foremost.
I've often wondered about this.
I live in the area that I work and some young people I work with go to the same pubs and clubs I do. Luckily I've never been in the situation that I've seen any of them but it brings up some issues, such as they will most likely be in the pub/club illegally as they are underage and also how about if I'm a bit tipsy then would I be behaving in an appropriate way?
My mum is a teacher living in the same town where she teaches. She never goes out a night where she lives which is a shame but I can see why (it's not a case of her drinking too much etc but more that she gets plagued by parents about how their children are doing and can't relax). Schools are obviuosly a universal service and this must be very tricky for social workers helping vulnerable people.
Do most people choose not to live in the same town they work in on purpose or is there more of a so what attitude?
RP:What puzzles me is that in some of the cases or suspended or deregistered social workers the GSCC acknowledges that he personal relationship did not harm the service user and that the relationship was consensual. I do not refer to the cases of sexual relationships between social workers and servce users. The decisions to suspend or strike the social worker to protect the "reputation of the profession". To be honest it looks like a witch hunt to me. I know social workers that have kept in touch with previous service users and all the professional involved felt this was admirable. In one particular case it provided continuity to a highly vulerable young man with severe attachment difficulties.
This is why I started the topic, I feel that there's no clear guidance. Don't get me wrong, if I were allocated a case where I knew or knew of the service user then I would obviously discuss this with my manager and declare the conflict, insuring that I'm not involved in the decision making process etc. but it goes further than that. In teams I've worked in we've always discussed cases to gain another perspective, so I have personal knowledge of cases that aren't my own including those worked on the duty desk.
I'm also reluctant to stigmatise the service users further, we're in the business of social inclusion aren't we - surely ignoring service users outside work because we know they access a service is stigmatising them further?
I've used services and I'd feel humiliated if I were to bump into those who provided services for me and they were to ignore me like I was some leper.
I'm passionate about my community and those I will eventually work for; I'm not comfortable with pretending that past 5pm they don't exist.
Well said, Robert.
How can we as professionals offer support, empathy and care to clients while still remaining detatched?
I think its a shame that professionals might shy away from any relationship that even in a minor way (sending a postcard as Robert says) might be construed as inappropriate when in fact that small human connection can be so important to people.
I think the key is in the word 'abuse'. Is it enough to know that we are not abusing our relationship with clients? We have to also be sure that the client sees the relationship in the same way we do. But given that... wheres the harm in the 'postcard'.
I would also like to get some feedback from y'all about whether its different for care staff. I worked as a care worker before studying for social work. I formed relationships with clients who I worked with on a daily basis...alll day...every day. In their homes. Part of the job involved taking them out socially. Different to the social work relationship. Is it ok for non professionals to see clients outside of work hours? The lines get very blurred sometimes. I think its easier for social workers (who dont provide personal, daily care) compared with care workers (who by definition are there to care.. all the time)
Thanks Chris
Personally I'd say that the only differences between professional roles are about power difference - and that many care assistants (for example) have as much if not more power than many social workers. The power isn't about resources - it's much more direct, and all the more dangerous for that. So actually we need to look at this on a case by case basis, without trying to generalise by professional title or qualification.
But - I'd return to my additional point. Why is it that it's us taking people out socially? If people continue to depend on us for their social lives - because of our failings to change their social exclusion - then we're maintaining the power difference which is the cause of the power difference in the first place. I know that most care professionals can't see a way to change this exclusion - and that real 'social inclusion' seems like an impossible dream (meaning people going out socially with members of the public and not us - or at least with us playing a 'servant'/'assistant' like role, assisting then going off to wait in the car until we're called) - but I really don't believe it is impossible. Nor do I (to pre empt a common question) think that it's society's fault - that we'll only manage to 'do' inclusion when society changes. That's too easy an excuse, and actually I think the whole thing works the other way around - that society will only change when we do and that until we do it won't.
Yes, I agree. I once met an Older Agency Social Worker (pre GSCC) while doing agency
social work myself. She confessed to me that she had sexual relations with a Physically Disabled client who had alcohol
problems. I think she had alcohol related problems herself. The next day she did not return to work and the Senior Social
Worker asked me where she was and why she had not come into work. At the time, I was worried about the consequences
for her as she seemed like a very nice person, so I did not say anything, but I felt uneasy with her burdening me with that
information. She left London and is engaged by Social Services elsewhere in the country. She never felt guilty about what
happened and when she moved away, I was glad not to have to come into contact with her anymore because she compromised
the professional situation all round. She clearly needs help herself. I only hope that she learned from this and did not did not
take advantage of her position elsewhere. If this happened with a colleague again though, I know what to do next time, report.
The response I gave was about specifically not ignoring service users - but allowing them to take control by choosing to acknowledge me or not. However, I am also clear that when I am not at work, when I am out shopping with my kids, I do not want to stop and chat with clients, just as many of them acknowledged that they would not want me to stop and chat with them if they were out with a neighbour or someone else who didn't know they were in reciept of our team's services (I worked in a specialist drug dependency/mental health unit), and didn't want to have to explain who I was. When I have run into them in the pub or in other social settings, most will just nod, a couple have come and said hi - and when I met one of them at a festival we had a long, none too sober chat about the world, the universe and everything! But once back in work, although we agreed that had been a pleasant interlude we had to ensure it didn't impinge on the other work we were doing, and differentiate between the social and professional situation. I agree it may well be different when working with clients needing physical care, or with whom a long term, 1:1 relationship is built up. The BACP website ethical guidelines (http://www.bacp.co.uk/admin/structure/files/pdf/ethical_framework_web.pdf) are proabaly as good as anything I've seen on guidance, although even they are a bit woolly in places!
I find the comments on this topic/ thread interesting challenging and thought provoking and wish to share few first hand accounts lived through experiences as a former service user as a child in the care system for my entire childhood birth to 16 years 1957 -73.
I leave the guidelines practises that will safe guard services users and the current welfare health and social workers to others to formulate implement workable user friendly policies.
Here is my level of evidence / good and bad inappropriate experiences and beneficial relationship with the various child care professionals whilst in care example carer house parent and social worker.
What it was liked for me I count over 33 adults paid in various roles responsible for my well being in those years all paid and left terminated their employment by their choice reasons pregnancy marriage new employment further study etc .One placement where I was moved by the department because carers found unsuitable, transferred to new environment suddenly with ten other children. That home closed down.
I became emotional attached to every one who looked after me even when experiencing observing harmful situations child abuse in some circumstances to my self and others I resided in care with feelings of unease so powerless to do any thing... I was the type of child highly sensitive and could have easily related to a murderer as I had no ability power to realise what was good or whom provided the best quality care. You tended to suppress your uneasy thoughts to survive . It was not about your own individual care needs child development care plan back then.
When an adult left no fault of children I cried usually my self to sleep for a period of a few weeks thought in simple child terms not loved. You soon have to recover cope with new staff and the changes style personality they bring that life as a child in care. You have to be relisient when others look after you.
Until around 11 years old the only life I knew was care life relationships within those buildings residential nursery, vicarage with 12 others and large cottage children’s home complex 10 children to a set of houseparents.Ten cottages in the grounds built in 1930s high reliance on residential care my former local authority.
It was not a loving nurturing environment.
When this houseparent left she had cared for me two years 9 to 11, I had some contact visits to their home about twice a year no problems encountered usually normal interactions.
At 14 years old my first social worker lovely lady took me out to coffee shops outings home visits telephone calls, she was a good role model defined me as a person not an care kid, more importantly treated me like another human being respectful showing dignity appropriate balance of being interested in me giving me helpful experiences outside the children’s home. The support guidance empowered me. I loved getting away from the childrens home do normal things on my own without the influences of houseparents and the other children .
My abusive relationship with a male housefather started at 11 years old, it was a sexual onslaught to my growing body I was not completely aware of what was happening or what to do as it was hidden not in the open. I was many times woken up from my sleep in my bed often taken to vacant rooms in the home and door locked trapped I froze usually found the energy to block out the abuse go back to sleep. A quarter of my care history sexually abused. Other times in his car and private home day time incidences..
My abuser became a social worker then team leader across two decades after leaving the residential setting. I share this because he was highly regarded respected person well liked by departmental social services staff. The other aspect I want to impart with the current professional staff working with children today, I felt deeply a burden to society nothing about my abuse would be disclosed it was something I had to carry in my heart.So keen to please others and extremely fearful what could happened to me. Decades ago you had no ability to tell people all the things that happened to children in care.
He lost his job when I wrote to children’s services as an adult confident to reveal my dark chapter care history tell them some insights what endured as a child in their care.
It is my personal belief because of my childhood history so dependent on the care services of others having no parental contact home family life your left very vulnerable and can be at placed at some risk to the various forms and degrees of abuse. In the end it is the adultwhom is responsible for his her behaviour. What is inappropriate ? and sadly today even though we have much better understanding of service user rights. With improved safe guards in place for both parties’ strict guidelines it still unfortunat we as an society cannot not guarantee that an inappropicate relationship with an service user will never happened
Thankfully though this would be a rare pobability/ possibility.
I valued reading everyone insights opinions so far I realise this is important topic needed to be discussed as everyone has rights to be protected at all times.
Former services users can have a small voice telling exposing some pitfalls in the past , as the conquences of an inappropriate relationship never quite leaves you I had certain issues to confront across life span.
Aus: Thank you so much for sharing such a personal story.
You have illustrated many of the issues very clearly.
I have to agree with RobertW aus, your story is very moving and honest so thank you for telling us all.
Senior writer, Community Care
Elwing - Would the GSCC consider your talking to a service user at a fesitval intoxicated as inappropriate? I know you said you wouldn't ignore them but my fear is that the guidance offered by the GSCC isn't clear enough and makes me feel like I should ignore service users out of the office. However this goes completely against my ethos and I would struggle to do this. I'm aware social work is going through a change at the moment and as a student I feel a little confused whilst it finds it's feet.
Aus - I echo what the others have said. Thank you so much for sharing your story, as a student service user involvement is one of the biggest learning opportunities. Hearing the impact of good and bad practice is really important and I can't stress how grateful I am to you for sharing what has been such a huge personal journey.
Popeye, I imagine GSCC would consider it inappropriate - but as he was someone I liked and respected enormously, outside of our professional relationship as client and worker, and I had known him from festivals in previous years before he became a client we made the decison, having dicsussed it (when comparatively sober) that it was okay to be sociable outside of my workplace. And no the GSCC isn't clear, but I guess if there was an easy, clear, straightforward answer that could legislate for being professional, being compassionate, and having a life we wouldn't be having this conversation!
Elwing:I guess if there was an easy, clear, straightforward answer that could legislate for being professional, being compassionate, and having a life we wouldn't be having this conversation!
I guess if there was an easy, clear, straightforward answer that could legislate for being professional, being compassionate, and having a life we wouldn't be having this conversation!
Nicely put Elwing.
Popeye:I'm aware social work is going through a change at the moment and as a student I feel a little confused whilst it finds it's feet.
I'm aware social work is going through a change at the moment and as a student I feel a little confused whilst it finds it's feet.
Popeye - The way it works - I think - is that 'social work' is perpetually 'going through a change' - so don't wait for it to find its feet! Actually, one of the problems I see out there is that there are loads of people waiting for the current change (consultation, new manager, new service plan, etc etc) to improve things. I spoke recently to someone who was really excited about the new plans for making things different in the service with which he's associated. I didn't like to remind him that last time we'd spoken - almost 10 years ago - everybody was really excited about the new plans for making things different - and I didn't get around to pointing out that from the outside everything looks pretty similar to how it did then. That's the bad news. The good news is that people who want to see something different can often use the current change opportunity to actually make this happen.
Aus - I wonder if when you reflect on your own experience you come to any conclusions about whether it is possible to write good guidelines. Your story has several relationships described in it. There were ones which were 'inappropriate' because of being actively abusive, but prior to that 'inappropriate' because you were - in your words - "not loved". And then there's the first social worker who - again in your words - "defined me as a person not an care kid, more importantly treated me like another human being respectful showing dignity appropriate balance of being interested in me giving me helpful experiences outside the children’s home".
Is it possible to define where the boundary lies between appropriate and inappropriate, in terms of actively abusive relationships, without at the same time preventing (or discouraging) good workers from making that kind of a difference to someone's life?
RobertW I think you are spot on. I think that the social worker as a professional has a rather negative public image. Many service users perceive social workers as nasty, superficial people, who ruin other people's lives without giving it a second thought, under the protection of bureaucratic systems. At best social workers are seen as overworked people, that do not have the time to be humane with their service users because they keep looking at the clock thinking of the next meeting and because they are more preocupied to do long forms that nobody reads or cares about then getting to know them. I have heard all these things before from service users regardless whether they had or did not have prior involvment with social workers. Many service users to do not see the social worker as a professional that is there to help and that could make a difference both as a professional and as a person. I am worried that we start to lose sight of this ourselves! And even more, this term "inappropriate relationship" casts suspicion on the intentions of otherwise good social workers if they see their (ex)service users outside the professional involvment. In many hearings it has been noted that the social workers accused of forming inappropriate relationships had an unblemished professional record and were considered good workers. Yes, I do think this would deter good, well intentioned workers to do precisely the things that Aus' first social worker used to do.
Robert,
Your comments always come across that you do really understand the practicial implications that when some body is being cared for 24/7 long term over years in some situations by primary carer givers that the service user is not just an number or active case in working hours.
It is normal to develop relationships with people who care for you and whom our responsible for your well being, the relationships usually evolves naturally were all human not a machine or an auto matic robot. If I was brought up by my parents or they had any involvement in my childhood I would have been expected to be bonded or become emotionally attached to them Mine though were absent I had no family home life. So why is that not an reasonable acceptable expectation that an relationship with care provider that the service user will have an connection on a human level.
I fell for it every single time even though not fully aware that you relating to your carers welare staff or social worker ? you just respond to others remember a looked after care child may only have known the staff caring for them dailycontact with these people.
Despite sometimes not liking every thing the staff members did or some times theie wayof handling the children and at times their unfair decision making processes you learn to accept your houseparents it is about adaption and adjustment the unexpected does occour in the care system staff changes easily come to my mind .
May I point out I liked my abusers personality as an care giver , however I certainly did not consent what he did to me the abusive sexual actions to my body or the control he had or the power to do those extremely damaging incidencies. That was totally unacceptable behaviour by the adult carer an housefather and clearly an inappropicate relationship it certainly did pass the boundaries of any decent caring person would do to a vulnerable person. Having an unlawful sexual relationship with an minor child / teenager.
I desire to inform and share some of my care history so lessons may be learn't and understood by the professionals practising today, that in my situation because of denial not wanting this sexual abuse to have been happening to me whilst growing up in care.
I did not want it revealed it was so shameful and painful it was much more easy to act normally live in denial shut down, get on with living. I lost my virginity and did not realise this had happened I put my mind in another place disassociated the reality the lived through tuberlant experiences . However it is a fact I went through these experiencies when I was not ready mind or body, the fact I had no choice, because I was forced in to sexual activity .
Sadly though when I reflect on my childhood I remember strongly the deep emotions suppressed, verbalising expressing our thoughts was not encouraged generally it was an adult routine focussed world keep the children in line more importantly the daily operations of the childrens home came first.
Being brought up in the care system for entire childhood is not an normal childhood. In my opinion caring for large groups of children in the residential setting does not allow any child to develop to their full potential. Raw traumatic experiences of rejection constant feelings of not being loved as an parent would a child, some times the seperations with staff came to an aburpt end. It was hard to deal with and painful to cut off an relationship. A child cannot change his or her personal circumstances or the staff you or whom may dislikes you.
I had some positive caring relationships with assistant housemothers over the years because they related well to children and more responsive sensitive to our needs. The domestic staff in my last placement they indeed where the stabilising influence usually having families them shelves, living in the local area and tended to remain employed much longer than the hands on staff. One year we had 3 set of houseparents 2 assistant housemothers and 2 relief house parents take charge of the family group home. a high turn over of staff.
Several people made a huge difference to me during my childhood, this impacted and influenced my well being shaped my personality and I remain grateful to them. I want to encourage people working today do no harm is a good principle treat others like you would your loved ones. As a grand mother now it good feeling looking back to reflect I ve been a loving parent did my best for my children see the person I become despite my background and care history.You would not wish a whole childhood in the care system on any child.
'aus' - you make really important points albeit from your own personal experiences many years ago. Nowadays the 'Houseparent' model has gone and replaced by 'Unit Manager' or 'Officer-in-Charge' or something equally impersonal. The 'local authority' is supposedly the 'Corporate Parent' to children and young people in Care - what does that mean in reality? - not a lot!!! I guess that the individual is still left being cared for by multiple residential care staff or foster-carers and will probably also have lots of changes of social worker if they remain in care for any length of time.
You are absolutely correct that 'being brought up in the care system...is not a normal childhood...' - it is quite abnormal and we do well to listen to what you have to say. It is good, however, to hear that you were able to distinguish the good experiences and role-models from the not-so-good and been able to be a loving mother and grandmother. We need to be able, wherever possible (and where it is safe to do so) support children and young people at home or within their extended families. However good 'Care' is you are right to remind us that it is not normal.
Thank you aus, for more wise words.
I, and others I work beside, have a phrase to describe what happens to people - and it isn't just children - whose primary social relationships are with those who are paid to work with them. The phrase is: "serial bereavement" - and it's intended to capture the magnitude of having one close relationship after another torn apart, as the people to whom you are closest (or in the worst case scenario, the only person with whom you have a relationship) leave their jobs and move on in their lives... One approach to this issue that I come across all too often is 'making the professional boundaries clear.' It looks like this:
Of course these actions might be useful in some situations, and they may be appropriate if they are what we do for a short time while we genuinely get someone included in society - BUT they aren't much good on their own (and indeed in this case you might look at them as pretty cruel). AND actually they seem to me to be pretty well designed to make someone more vulnerable to certain kinds of abuse. If the only kindness we can get is at the hands of someone who also takes advantage of us, we'll probably choose that option over no kindness at all.
Lots of my work is about asking what we can do to allow a more human response from services, and in particular what we can do so that a person no longer needs to 'attach' themselves to us because we've genuinely helped them to build real relationships outside the care world.
It is interesting to see the desire for clear guidance from the GSCC:
But do we actually want prescriptive guidance? Jef Smith, writing in BASW's Professional Social Work, in an article you can read here, argues about the complexity of human relationships, and identifies some of the problems with prescriptive boundaries relating to sexual relationships, including the observation in relation to the professionalisation of service users that "treating them as equal partners in professional relationships surely implies that they may occasionally, without impropriety, become partners in a more intimate sense".
Some of the suggestions on this thread are that an inappropriate relationship might be:
Any such relationship? Potentially abusive is enough? What relationship isn't potentially abusive? The possibility of misconstruction is enough, even if properly construed the relationship would be appropriate?
Especially if we feel that professional relationships and therapeutic relationships might be in tension (which some contributors to this thread hint at), might we not want to influence any guidance we receive instead of asking for it to be presented to us?
Incidentally, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence's guidance is here, and the GSCC's response to it is reported here.
Celtic Knot - Solicitors & Social Workers
www.celticknot.org.uk
twitter.com/CelticKnotTweet
Alan - you raise more questions than you answer!
I've recently been doing some care work in a residential home, there's one particular resident with whom I've spent sometime chatting to (she has no family locally). I pass the care home once a week and am in a position to be able to pop in and see her, I'm no longer working at the home as I'm about to return to uni. Outisde her window are the home there was a birds nest which she watched regularly.
Is it inappriopriate to keep in touch? If I saw a bird feeder which would be perfect for her room would it be wrong to purchase it for her?
Popeye - an interesting question. It's nice to tie this down to something specific. My take on this (ignoring any guidelines) would start from here: Taking the bird feeder would be a hand of friendship. Offering friendship to someone who (I guess from what you say) has no (or very very few) real friends isn't something to do lightly. If you genuinely mean to offer this friendship, then that's great. There are issues to overcome of course - what if she dies and leaves you all her money for instance? And how are you going to explain the relationship to other social care workers who view it as suspect? But to some extent these are obvious issues and my greatest concern would be different to this. I'd be worried that you don't really mean to offer friendship along with the bird feeder - more something closer to 'sympathy' - meaning something like 'it must be hard being alone, and I just wanted to give you a present to compensate' (obviously I'm not judging you personally here by the way - I'm just playing with the example you've given). In this case maybe a better present would be for you to introduce her to someone you know who you think would genuinely connect with her - who would want her friendship, and whose friendship she'd value in return.
Hi all,
Just to let you know as part of a special focus on the GSCC's conduct system on our website today we've published the results of a survey of 300 practitioners on their attitudes to inappropriate relationships.
Results include:-
73% of practitioners have witnessed inappropriate conduct towards a client from a colleague (41% professional misconduct; 12% sexual misconduct; 20% other), but of these, just 1% reported this to the GSCC and 14% did nothing, though 54% reported it to their manager.
87% of you believe there is a need for a specific code of conduct on sexual boundaries - which the GSCC is currently looking into and in discussions with partners about.
98% of you believe it is not acceptable to have a sexual relationship with a client; though 14% believe it is acceptable to have a relationship with a former client.
RobertW: Popeye - an interesting question. It's nice to tie this down to something specific. My take on this (ignoring any guidelines) would start from here: Taking the bird feeder would be a hand of friendship. Offering friendship to someone who (I guess from what you say) has no (or very very few) real friends isn't something to do lightly. If you genuinely mean to offer this friendship, then that's great. There are issues to overcome of course - what if she dies and leaves you all her money for instance? And how are you going to explain the relationship to other social care workers who view it as suspect? But to some extent these are obvious issues and my greatest concern would be different to this. I'd be worried that you don't really mean to offer friendship along with the bird feeder - more something closer to 'sympathy' - meaning something like 'it must be hard being alone, and I just wanted to give you a present to compensate' (obviously I'm not judging you personally here by the way - I'm just playing with the example you've given). In this case maybe a better present would be for you to introduce her to someone you know who you think would genuinely connect with her - who would want her friendship, and whose friendship she'd value in return.
When I read your reply RobertW I actually said out loud to myself "what an excellent answer". Popeye's question about the bird feeder is innocent enough, especially as she/he wants to give it to the older woman because she/her cares and feels some sort of connection with her, but you've been able to highlight where some of the difficulties may occure if she/he did such a thing.
Such a tricky line to walk but your response is really helpful. What do social care professionals think? Would be really interested to hear Popeye's response.
Thank you Anabel.
I suppose I should emphasise that I am supporting Popeye in the wish to do something - not to be content to leave someone in a bad situation. I wouldn't like people to interpret what I said to mean "this is too dangerous, we shouldn't take the birdfeeder". In some ways it would be better to have the 'sympathy' birdfeeder rather than nothing at all (once again I should make it clear that what I'm saying isn't meant as a personal comment on Popeye's motivations which might be very different from this).
The problem is that there are two easy but ineffective/damaging actions - 1) break contact 2) take the bird-feeder but that's all - and one difficult but really positive action - do something to genuinely get this woman included in the world. If we discuss only the first two options only we miss something utterly crucial.
RobertW: Thank you Anabel. I suppose I should emphasise that I am supporting Popeye in the wish to do something - not to be content to leave someone in a bad situation. I wouldn't like people to interpret what I said to mean "this is too dangerous, we shouldn't take the birdfeeder". In some ways it would be better to have the 'sympathy' birdfeeder rather than nothing at all (once again I should make it clear that what I'm saying isn't meant as a personal comment on Popeye's motivations which might be very different from this). The problem is that there are two easy but ineffective/damaging actions - 1) break contact 2) take the bird-feeder but that's all - and one difficult but really positive action - do something to genuinely get this woman included in the world. If we discuss only the first two options only we miss something utterly crucial.
No problem RobertW. I certainly read your reply as being supportive of Popeye's motivation to do something to help the older woman, and that his/her motivations were appropriate - as well as highlighting what may go 'wrong' in all this. Fascinating stuff for this social care journalist to read about.
I'm pleased it wasn't just me who wanted to try and apply this thread to something specific.
The example I gave was loosely based on fact, I had in fact been working in a residential home and I do have time on my hands. When I saw a bird feeder that fits onto a window I did think of the lady however I would not have purchased it for her (I mentioned it to the manager at the care home and she said she'd look at buying them for around the home), again on my long drive from the home I did think about the amount of time I had on my hands with school being back in session however my thoughts moved to volunteering at my local nursing home, I did mention to the senior on duty that this particular lady was lonely.
I have been on teams where workers purchased items for service users and spent time out of hours befriending (once an allocated task for support workers), but things have moved on and I'm pleased to see I'm on the same wave length as this discussion.