The government has appointed Social Work England’s interim chair to the role on a substantive basis.
Andrew McCulloch, who has overseen the regulator since Lord Patel’s resignation in February 2023, has been made chair for the next three years.
The Department for Education has also reappointed Adi Cooper and Sue Ross – both registered social workers – to the regulator’s board, likewise for a three-year term.
McCulloch, a former civil servant in the then Department of Health and ex-chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, will receive £450 a day for the role, as was the case when he was interim chair. He is expected to commit 80 days a year to the position.
Role of the board and chair
The role of the board is to oversee the running of Social Work England, review management performance, set the regulator’s strategic objectives, ensure it has the human and financial resources to meet them and make sure it complies with its statutory, regulatory and common-law duties.
The chair is responsible for leading the board, including by formulating its strategy, ensuring that it takes account of government guidance, promoting the effective and efficient use of staff and resources and delivering high standards of propriety.
The role also involves reviewing the work of the board and its members regularly and making sure that it has an appropriate balance of skills.
An external review of the board earlier this year, commissioned by the regulator, received positive feedback about McCulloch, who is not a social worker, with fellow members and stakeholders saying he had brought structure and focus to the board.
‘A deep commitment to social work and social care’
“I’m honoured to have been appointed to the substantive role of chair of Social Work England,” McCulloch said.
“I have a deep commitment to social work and social care, and to the people who access social care support. It is therefore a privilege to continue in the role for the next three years.”
Cooper and Ross were both appointed as non-executive directors for Social Work England in 2021, in the wake of criticisms about there being a lack of social workers on the board.
Former local authority directors remain on board
Cooper spent over 20 years working as a social worker, manager and director in local authority services, until 2015. She has since worked as a social care and health adviser for the Local Government Association, currently chairs two safeguarding adults boards and is a visiting professor at the University of Bedfordshire.
Ross is a consultant in health and social care covering both adults’ and children’s services, and previously worked in adults’ and children’s services director roles in England, Scotland and Wales.
They will continue to receive £350 per day for a time commitment of up to 25 days per year.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Qwhite amazing diversity! 🙄
The very definition of failing upwards. Rudderless leadership, disinterested leadership, career building on back of incompetence. Harsh it’s definitely not. Harsh is waiting 3 years to be told we never had any evidence of you not being fit to practice but you know we are a little short staffed and our priority is staff training days not timely investigations. Just pay you quids and suck up whatever we unleash on you. It’s not as if BASW is going to support you is it?
No surprise there!!
What will change for the minority children, families, employees and those in need of a professional service.Will they remain invisible to the service? until needed for political reasons?
I think this is a fair question to ask.
They have two main priorities.
1. Deal with the Fitness to Practice delays. Social workers waiting two years plus for an outcome is not good for the worker or the person making the referral. They need to apologise to those who are impacted and address the delays.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/05/08/hundreds-of-social-workers-left-in-limbo-basw-and-unions-urge-action-on-fitness-to-practise-delays/
2. Formally apologise to social workers and Rachel Meade for the ‘abuse of power’ in seeking to silence her AND for the huge sums of legal fees (aka money given to them by social workers) that Social Work England spent in seeking to silence her.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/05/03/social-work-england-committed-abuse-of-power-in-punishing-practitioners-gender-critical-beliefs/
They won’t do the first because they are not independent of SWE and they think it’s fit for purpose. They won’t do the second either because what ever they are forced to acknowledge publicly, they believe just like their pals at SWE that Ms Meade is a bigot and the law is only to be obeyed if you agree with it’s judgement. Which they don’t. Something also shared by my London LA by the way where the PSW never tires of reminding us that Ms Meade “got away with it”.
Depressive Realism, Eh!
Let’s hope these are the same group of people who get the post that they couldn’t or do not qualify in. Who you know people.
The previous ones were so poorly performed towards ordinary qualified social workers who wanted to register. They used a blanket criteria that didn’t mean the different field of social work. They are inexperienced and managed by inexperienced managers. No proper complaint procedure. They were not representing the group of people that represent social work and dismissed the feedbacks from the minority groups especially from the Black and people with disabilities.
The watch dogs that gave them good didn’t interview those these people so called representatives of social work England refused to register because of their age and disabilities. Total bad practice. They registration itself was under one criteria even though social work covers so many fields. They only able to throughly assess and register a single percentage. Over 80% were just registered without proper or throughly assessing them. Many people never get the outcomes of their registrations, therefore losing their jobs. How wicked? We watch and pray. Please make sure registration is fit for a purpose otherwise many good social workers will be lost. The previous workers saw their roles as being powerful and could do what they like without consequences with no care about the effects of their actions on the devastated workers who had to leave their jobs as a result of the social work England incompetence Anything good about the service, I don’t know. Only heard negative feedback and social workers are even frightened of the their service that they provide as a Social Work England. They’re not to serve but to rule
the 3 appointments are reappointments, no? originally made in 2021 to shore up a voice of ‘registered social workers’ …
… the common denomination between the 3, and irrespective of their actual tenure dates, is in managing dissent in transitional organisational change …
… I’d ask Sue (we’ve met on occasion) to write about this publicly ~ you know a ‘systems thinking’ take on SWE and clear the waters flow enough to facilitate greater transparency on how SWE actually works …
… the specificalities of which should include the extent to which ‘unfounding’ and usually politically motivated, has repeatedly used as the basis for investigative inquiry about practice …
… reputation management at any cost isn’t a solid basis for judgment …
… and ‘The Right Touch’ which is a regulators regulation approach illsuited to social work generally speaking …
… Sue will recognise POSIWID’s as a prompt for an article on such; for me SWE are undertaking a series of themed Category Sourcing Exercises the purpose of which is to create the SuperLanguageModel for the computational ciphers needed for the digitalisation of social work practice…
… it’s happened across primary and tertiary NHS care and treatment, and crucially is the basis for the recent DWP culling of welfare benefits to people with disabilities …
….the specificalities of trauma informed approaches and the advances made within the neurosciences can’t be ignored ~ why would they be we’ve known about this since 1987 (see Stern) ~ that such interventions are also tied up with health and welfare economics is though less obvious…
… QUALY’s and DALY’s are the metrics of spend allocation ~ it’s about what’s called ‘transitivity’ ie how to create the health gains needed in, and often geographically targeted populations ie Super Output Area’s up to the level of the wider population health ….
… it’s called NUDGE …
… this is Sue’s bread and butter ~ let’s hear from her, say, by asking her, (or Eileen Munroe) How social work plays a pivotal role in mitigating systems collapse (by this I am referring to policy implementation failure between s5 and s1, and crucially at s3/4 as the socio-legal information management requirements are distorted by market mechanisms which digitisation and interoperability are meant to address but never have.) …
… SWE (and previously BASW) shy away from what ought to be, by now, an ordinary conversation….
… what say, SWE ? what say, Sue Ross? …
… context is everything, right? …
btw being negative is OK the current positivist positivity must have a balancing negative feedback loop and anyone wanting a conceptual framework for such might want to catch up with Julie Reshe
btw btw the recent coverage of the 50 Years Celebrations neglected to say that the knowledge and value base of Social Work is premised upon European Philosophy; a philosophy, now, sandwiched between Analytical Philosophy and Behavioural Economics ~ the jam just gets thinner and thinner, no? Neoliberalism is root cause, No?
We’re ALL caught in the churn ~ Sue, has Leadership and Management in her skill set invite her to use the expertise!
If SWE or any senior person therein was interested in or indeed capable of having a public dialogue with those they iron fist over we wouldn’t need to have the begging bowl out now would we? Bureaucrats do bureaucracy, they have no interest in explaining nor in personal or organisational accountability. Pay your fee, pretend you are a reflective practitioner and shut up if you want to work is about the sophistication level these time servers reach.
All the legislation, and across all vulnerable populations, has been away from SSD’s and SW having primacy in decision-making rights ~ the questions is less why so than how come?
For what purpose registration ?
The institution of social work ie the SSD exists to meet State Liabilities and those liabilities have for 40 years been slowly altered, say, with the removal of doli incapax or the shift from social enquiry reports to pre-sentence reports and the list goes on and on.
The massive growth in SSD’s from the 70s a feature to mitigate the impact of deindustrialisation on the one hand and increased standardised and harmonised professional services across and within Europe.
The respective speed of such felt unevenly across the country; here’s the rub:
It’s based upon, and still is the direction of travel, the requirements for regionalism ~ previously, and up until Brexit, the EU framework via the little known but very powerful EC Committee for the Regions worked directly with LocGov against Westminster the later in turn curtailed the functions of LA’S to that required solely by EC Directives, and the cash transfers.
The failure to absorb EC spend allocations into LA core funding was never dealt with. Personalization, for example, was always attachment to the pam EU programme of de-institutionalisation which in turn was a part of the process of services harmonisation and standardisation. And, especially in the category ‘professional services’. To begin with services for the elderly and children were said to be exempted ~ yet the only mechanism for personalisation, although Individual Budgets thwarted this, was through public procurement processes and competitive rivalry where once the very thought of such was abhorrent.
Council s114 Officers and their s151 Officer counterparts were simply astonished by the volume of ‘off book’ contracting for ‘Social Services’ across Council’s ~ when once the CEO of a Council had to be a Social Worker or delegate such to the Director of a SSD in order meet with their statutory duties ended.
The current mess has been decades in the making. It isn’t new news either. SOLACE made clear that contracts and procurement in social care was high risk in May 2007 likening it to the construction and finance sector.
SWE are bound to the regulatory requirements of this thinking called ‘Right Touch’ of these industries today. Without the steer of an EU framework both individual Council’s and Westminster are now a drift.
The harvesting of information is the prize and the information is likely be re-used without permission to forge next international trade agreements for ‘professional services’ both inside and outside the EU.
This is, I find, is the context Tahin.
It doesn’t mean I disagree with you it does though, I found, require a seriously longrun perspective which dates back to the Bolkenstein Directive of 1957.
This said, the question remains ‘for what purpose registration’ ? Is it simply a case that SWE are Taking Without the Owners Consent (TWOC) the information gathered from SW’s as part of their registration requirements?
What say the ICO?
Insiders appointed by other insiders to stay inside are hardly going to challenge let alone hold accountable other insiders about the competence of fellow insiders are they? Social work is ossifying under these careerists who have little to no regard for the social workers they claim to speak on behalf of and supposedly champion.
I know nothing substantive about these 3 and am too lazy perhaps to find out.19 years as a social worker has taught me however that buggins turn is how get our leaders and therefore to have zero expectation of them having a positive impact on my experiences and practice. That’s not cynicism by the way. It’s the realism that maintains positive mental health.
People can be as offensive as they wish but there are very few social workers who have the skills and the aptitude to do these jobs. There is no reason to believe they’ve been appointed because they are friends of those doing the appointing. Social workers need to acknowledge that most of us have limitations that rightly restrict us to do the actual jobs we are doing. If we were all equal all of us would be managers wouldn’t we. Do your jobs and let those in leadership roles get on with theirs.
Oh no Jane – reading your comments it’s clear to me they have got to you! The only limitations social workers have are conformity and compliance. Liberate yourself and those around you!
Strange set of assumptions there Janice. How is recognising the skills set of one group of people being different from another group of people having been “got”? Don’t listen to me, listen to those who laud Social Worker of the Year Awards and the ones proudly acknowledging their MBEs and the like. They seem to believe and justify that we are not all equal. Social workers need to take a step back and recognise that wallowing in the no one likes us hopelessness one minute and being absolutely certain that they are unique next is bad for their mental health let alone their self esteem. Where I agree is that for all its posturing social work is a conformist, establishment embedded, rules obsessed and nonsensically bureaucratic endeavour. That of course would improve if social workers accepted their personal limitations and stopped obsessing about proving they are super duper in everything and an equal to anyone in any position. If allegedly those at the top don’t practice social work and social workers are the sole practitioners who is really responsible for the malaise? Hurt feelings and outrage does not a profession make. Accepting facts and reality is indeed liberating. It also enables a serene and level headed calmness that facilitates the realisation that not everything is a catastrophe created because somebody else leads a profession and “we” don’t”. If only tranquility was universal to all social workers.
As long as we can agree that SWE are the gleeful arbiters of social workers oppression then ok fine Jane.
SWE can be what it wants to be. The bigger question is why social workers do not take responsibility for perpetuating their own oppression? It’s laughable how often the refrain of woe is us is wheeled out without the obvious insight about why are social workers such doormats? All SWE required of us is that we cough up the fish and send in pretend reflections. Is it to much to expect social workers to have independent thoughts and personal accountability? Hence why most social workers are where they are at and others get to take charge over them. It really isn’t that complicated now is it? So no I do not agree that SWE is the sole arbiter of social workers oppression.
If those in leadership roles have the skills and insight why is the profession at breaking point,why are social workers leaving the profession,why is the profession not delivering support,guidance and protection for employees and service users.Why are the same mistakes being made time and time again?
Whiles social workers remain the scapegoats their concerns will not be taken seriously nothing will change.
Why should social workers not expect strong leadership which promotes the profession,instead it is the service users and employees who remain the targets.Fact not fiction!!
Social workers are on the frontline they know what is happening and what needs to change.
If social work is at a breaking point and I don’t believe it is, causes of that go beyond the likes of these 3. Social work is in a crisis definitely. I believe because the ever more frantic flailing to prove it’s a “profession” has ended with degree level education that bears no relationship to actual practice. It’s in crisis because of the likes of BASW valuing ‘influence’ over articulating what social workers want said. Because it’s seduced by Empire medals and Social Worker of the Year baubles. It’s in crisis because it has defenestrated any vaguely radical ideas and depoliticised analysis of the problems it cannot adequately respond to. It’s not just Leaders who are culpable, social workers are too. It’s not scapegoating social workers to point that out. I’m less bothered by who becomes a Leader or whether they should be but more about the complacent and morose way social workers respond to the problems we face. Then expect others to solve them while we wallow in the helplessness we impose on ourselves. I have a lot of regard for your thoughtful responses Pauline but on this one we are not going to coalesce.
See It My Way !
Is/was a recognised system dynamic, or archetype like ‘addiction’ or ‘fixes that fail’ or ‘shifting the burdens’ impacting both health and social services for an age.
One application of Systems Thinking to address such dynamics is called Viable Systems Modelling, another is called Total Systems Interventions and another Critical Systems Heuristics ~ ALL have had real world application and for a decades.
Context, is crucial, especially the Policy Context and how it is operationally framed.
Morethan twenty years ago there was a huge amount of person-energy saying “Nothing Works’ ~ the wider framing of social work as valourised social protection was lost; one simply can’t measure indeterminacy (see Sha Xin Wei).
The reflexivity needed today is mind bending and moreso when there’s a price tag attributed to everything that can be counted. And, critically when one only counts that which can be counted.
When Prof Jones calls for generic training it is with these, now almost, metaphysical values of social protection, like the age of criminal responsibility, like the universal services obligation and the principle of solidarity. These bedrock foundations have been eroded since the Thatcher-Regan-Gorbachev pact setting the tone for a market led response to all economic activity. Until July 2008 the EU framework exemptions from ‘economic activity’ ie competition law covered all welfare services, known as Category 25 services, describing them as of ‘general interest’ but outside the scope of competition ~ unless the individual member state chose otherwise.
The dynamic “See It My Way’ morphed into the means by which competition, and competition between colleagues, manifest. The professional arrogance of traditional services was rocked by it’s own internalised blindness to racism, sexism and homophobia and it was cheaper to build new delivery vehicles, like the PCT’s or the CT’s and now the RCC’s ~ the lumping of people by definition of mental disorder, learning/ physical and sensory disabilities was over and the splitting began.
The regulation of Social Work is harnessed to the wider framing of these issues by following the lead from construction and finance industries.
Pitching espoused values against actual behaviour is the consequence of this. The specificalities of meeting the satisfactory outcome of, say, ‘the duty to ensure that ‘welfare of the child is paramount’ like the child is lost.
It’s taken decades to get into this position, and some believe it to be an inevitability arising from neoliberalism (they’re not wrong) but just how SWE actually decouple from ‘their’ masters requires revision ~ again, For What Purpose Registration ?
Jane,
I totally agree with most of your points,however I disagree with you that social work profession is not at breaking point( it is).
Look at all the failing authority’s who have continually cut back on resources,adequate training for social workers, appointed people with poor pratice and poor attitudes to name a few issues.
I agree with you that social workers are complacent the mind set appears to be say nothing, do nothing.Therefore I struggle to understand how social workers can claime to be the vioce of the child when they
can not or do nothing to address the issues.
Is this because they fear repercussions within the work enviroment.
You would expect senior managers to ensure the work force is up to date with relevent training and educated to a level where by social workers can meet the needs and requirements of the role.When you are working with vulnerable children,surely this is a must.
Training of social workers has all but disappeared.Surely when working with vulnerable children you should be working from a professional level given the complexities of the role with regular relevent training.
I agree the degree level traing does not appear to equip today’s social workers with the necessary skills and knowledge base needed given the complexies of the needs of society today .
This poses challenges for social workers which leaves them emotionally and educationally ill-equipped to address the realitys of frontline work,however are told you are expected to hit the ground running, which place’s some in position’s they are not yet ready for.
I disagree with this terminologie ( because it implies to me do not bother me )
Why are senior managers and those who hold positions of power not supporting the profession to make chances,why are they not held accountable. Do we not expect our leaders to make changes which benefits the service users and the work force?
I agree social workers do not stand up for themselfs and the rights of some service users, the attitude is to go along with the decisions whether they are wrong decisions being made in respect of the child.
What I do not understand is why the 3 appointees have been reappointed when nothing has been addressed.
For give me if there have been changes.
What will be done differently if anything?
With reference to the Empire Medals and social worker of the year this is not something I have much knowledge of other than it is unlikely certain members of the work force certainly in my life time would gain any recognition.
With regards to your other point social workers do not have support from all levels of the system when issues arise. We have evidence of this,however I do belivie the culture should be more open and honest as this may improve out comes for children and the workforce on all levels.
Being appointed to one of these types of positions is a bit like being awarded an MBE, an opaque and semi-anti democratic process more concerned with keeping the shadows than shedding light on the merit of the appointee. As such I’m really not exercise by who gets the posts than how they are chosen. I expect pals rates between senior people and their desire to work alongside “people like us”. What I abhor is the justifications that range from ‘talent’, ‘expertise’, supposed history of ‘commitment’ to just plain refusal to see how this erodes the confidence social workers should have in our leaders. Speaking as a white male with a degree of positive professional repute I know my chances of getting into some of these positions are greater than my colleagues of colour who’ve not had the opportunities I’ve had to build a reputation but who are in some cases better equipped than me. That they would never put themselves forward knowing the games rigged should be the issue we should be addressing here. Let’s deal with the fundamentals rather than the trifles. We shouldn’t waste our indignation at unpicking personalities rather than poking at prejudice in plain sight.
Is prejudice in plain sight the new unconscious bias?
Why is appointing two women and a man who happen to be white necessarily prejudice in plain sight? Why reduce their talents to their skin colour? Surely that’s discrimination itself. We don’t know more than the bare career sketches we read here about these 3 leaders. Are they married, in a civil partnership, gay, non-binary, lesbian, heterosexual? Are they divorced, parents to adopted children, are biological parents, do not have children through joice or circumstance and so forth. Stop seeing diversity just through colour and ethnicity. If merit got them here than I for one applaud that.
I agree with (privileged) your words are entirely true,why is it difficuilt to acknowledge racism in all sections and levels of the system does exist from job opportunities to progression and assumptions made.(I could expand further however feel frustrated)
Considering the workforce is represented by black,Asian and minority groups both the workforce and service users,representation in this area does not exist, there does not appear to be one minorty representive.
Surely there are experienced social workers who also have the skills,experince and desire to make changes and represent all the workforce.
Unfortunately in my opinion the appointees are representative of frontline social workforce and sociality.You can not understand the challenges faced by minority workers,and service users if you are not a minority because you are not subjected to the same challenges,life demands and descrimation.
I am able to expand further, however we know if you are black or minority you will not be taken seriously,your ability to progress further than a certain level is restricted unless for political reasons or regardless of how hard or committed the person may have worked.
Must we endlessly walk down the same path generation after generation after generations. When will there be truly positive change.
Service users including vulnerable children represent black,Asian and minority groups.They remain invisible to the system (in 2024) which claimes to protect,safeguard and support to enable them achieve thier best potential.Therefore who speaks on thier behalf and makes sure they are receiving fair safe and inclusive practice to ensure thier needs are being met?
Who is representing the disproportionate numbers of minority workers who face fitness to pratice,why have so many been referred for investigations?
Should,black and minority children not see people in senior position’s representing them to ensure they are treated fairly and this is a position they could one day achieve (perhaps I have answered my own question there)
Descrimination happens none more so on a senior level which we can all observe in plain sight,I feel it fair to say there are those who continue to choose not to acknowledge what is taking place in PLAIN SIGHT.
My views are based on my experiences.
the IFSW ushered in the NASW in the US, but then list of academics and inparticularly black women was stronger than in the UK; Ruth Howard, Dorothy Height, Abena Brown, Darlene Bailey, Bette Jean Davis, Ruby Gourdine, Maycie Herrington, June Hopps, Kimberly Hughins-Hoyt…
… isn’t it long overdue that a Black Association of Social Workers exists here too …
… once over there existed the Black Health Caucus in both Leeds and Birmingham, what’s going on now? …
… the territory has hardened and has a narrow band width ~ it’s definitely white protestant turf for sure …
… this said the immediacy of tackling the associative assault on Council’s using splits and ruptures remains problematic as the splitting between ‘difference’ is harnessed to the wider neoliberalism, and especially so since Brexit …
… thoughts ….
The appointees consist of two lady’s and one man, (no disrespect to the appointees whom I do not know) but none of which represents the workforce and or the service users we clame to be the voice off.
Again my opinion,service users nor the workforce have been listened to inorder to make changes not only for the service users or the professions repretation also the workforce who are not receiving balanced and safe professional pratice (again) this is my opinion based on my experiences and observations.
This can only lead to conflicts and eroson of the profession.
Inorder to be balanced, my experiences are not consistent in all areas and there are some professionals who want to deliver a professional service,however there are some who do not and have become complacent to the role so long as targets have been met.This does not evidence the quality of the service received only that the target has been met does it not.
My question still remains what seriously will change if the mind set remains no different?
I can express and evidence more of my opinions and what is happening in plain sight based on my lived experiences, however I am aware they will no doubt be dismissed.
I agree with some things and disagree with other things you say. We have respectful dialogue so disagreement is never dismissing views we don’t agree on. We should all say what we want to say, how we want to say it and when we feel we should. Otherwise social work is meaningless. Agree, disagree but nicer dismiss. Dialogue is how we learn and if we are mature enough be persuaded to change our opinions. That’s what I think anyway.
Violet,I agree open and honest dialogue between professionals can only help to learn from and even in some cases prevent obvious mistakes happening,however in my opinion social work manager’s and senior social workers are not at a stage where open conversations can and should be taking place between social work professionals!!,managers, guardians and senior managers without repercussions there is an hierarchical attitude at play . I can give ample examples of this pratice.
If a manager as the maturity and is confident in their leadership skills should they not have the confidence to expect and address questions from social workers who want to understanding the base’s of why a decision is being made after all they are likely to be the ones who are expected to be accountable and evidence to the court why proceedings have been initiated.(Just one example)
Some members and service users are marginalised/invisible to the system I still stand by this,they learn not to say anything for fear of repercussions that may lead to them being referral to fitness to practice,having your contract terminated because they should know thier place in the system, having thier integrity challenged on no basis simply because they can.
If someone has lived experiences and witness’s no change time after time should they not express this? No one lives another person’s experiences only they understand the challenges and impact it has on themselves.
Violet I hope I have answered some of your thoughts.
Forgive the intrusion in what reads like a private conversation here: there’s a world of difference between argumentation, dialogical positioning and dialectics; all are useful to a point although through a reflexive understanding of these thought-forms and the limitations, is important, no? (see Otto Laske for more on the social psychology of adult development and competency and for more on ‘how’ to weigh the objective significance played by colour as a definitve attribute of racism see what Franz Fallon had to say on this in 1976 ~ his social experiment with Louis Althusser while sat in a Parsian cafe still speaks volumes as does Rushdie’s essays in his collection called ‘Imaginary Homelands’but especially his essay ‘The Empire Within’ a prose in keeping with the, late, EP Thornton’s writing on ‘the secret State’ and ‘Poverty of Theory; An Orrery of Errors’ and, the late, Stuart Hall on ‘The Great Moving Right Show’
And, for what it’s worth, Sue Ross (our paths have crossed more than once) isn’t someone who will shy away from damn difficult decisions, and at cost to herself ~ just saying. The de-institutionalisation of Social Work brings with it consequences including it’s over professionalisation and ‘Council’ ownership and shows up in most of the social welfare egislation for the past 40years which has been designed to fetter and move away from SSD’s as the sole provider. Racism, Sexism and Homophobia are expensive liabilities and it’s ‘easier” to create alternative delivery options.
The establishment of a Black Social Work Caucus exists, no?.Or, better the devil you know, perhaps ?
The new Labour Government continues with culling benefits to the poor while the ICB’s, and without consulting, undertake contract carve-ups to divvy up the patient allocations according to agreements made with an increasingly larger number of equity backed investment trusts funding primary care than on population and individual patient needs. The geography of services has been altered, right?
Black and Asian people, like Irish Catholics and the myriad of other minority groups, will inevitably be poorly served on the one hand yet enter services increasingly via the CJS and psychiatry on the other. If these ‘distortions’ aren’t new, and they are not, how does Social Work as a whole respond?
A standing conference, either with or without BASW, a Black Social Work Caucus remains a possibility, no?
What say the Social Work Union, Unite, Unison, IFSW , BASW or NASW(US) and SWE?
Nothing is private on a public forum so no intrusion at all. We are of course allowed to comment and reply. Even Structuralists accept the concept of binary opposites. Don’t they?
Alec,I understand your point,therefore should we not expect more of a voice from the above organisations such as BASW, Social Work Unions, SWE all of which appear complacent to what is happening to the profession (are they not?) not everything is down to social workers.
Violet, it would be interesting to see whether manager’s and senior manager’s take the same view point as you. Just asking.
Violet, I feel I must respond to your comments.
so those who fight for equality,respect,dignity,recognition to be who they are and the right to have equal recognition for the work they do should not accept any recognition?
In my view we know it is unlikely and almost impossible for anyone of colour will be supported and or recognised for the commitment and work they do,they still remain invisable and have to work twice as hard.Therefore those who accept or reject recognition is their choice is it not?
Racism happens in plain sight on all levels there is no getting away from that.
Are children and the next generation thaught about slavery and the impact on generation after generation.Do children know millions of slaves where brought all over the world to build nation’s who prospered, does anyone care to explore and bring to rest those slaves who never made it but lost thier life’s in sunken ships.Where is thier recognition?
Is it a case if a person of colour accepts any recognition they are damed if they do,is it a case of shaming the person if they accept any recognition? Racism is covert and overt we know this.
In 2024 racism is still happening in plain sight for employees and those vulnerable children we are suppose to be supporting/protecting.In my views there is still a long way to go before we can claim we all have equity and the right to respect,dignity and the part we each play.
Violet I can express my views and experiences further however it would take to long to argue a balanced and clear picture on this platform .Accepting I understood your comment that is.
These are my experiences. Racism continues to take place in plain sight!!
No doubt about that!!
No disrespect intended the appointees may have the skills and expertise but where is the diversity at this level?