Category Archives: social work

Letter To Lord Patel: Registration Of Social Workers Must Be A Legal Duty

26 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 4 Comments

As recently appointed Chair of the new social work regulation body Social Work England (SWE), Lord Patel outlines his vision for social work in England and Wales, Researching Reform invites him to push for mandatory registration of social workers.

Dear Lord Patel,

In the ten years that this project has been assisting families, we have grown increasingly concerned about the number of social workers practicing inside councils and private agencies, who either have no social work qualifications or who are so badly trained and behind in their CPD courses, that the advice they are giving is endangering lives. That advice is also leading to gross miscarriages of justice and the often unnecessary removal of children from their families.

Currently, there is no legal requirement on social workers to register with an independent body like Social Work England. Whilst no figures appear to be available on the number of social workers who are unregistered in England and Wales, a piece in Community Care in 2013 revealed that over 8,000 social workers were struck off after failing to renew their registration. 

As of July, 2017, 100,000 social workers were registered with the HCPC, the current regulation body for social workers and health practitioners. Of those, 28,500 are children’s social workers. A further 5,340 are agency workers, working as children and family social workers.

The 8,425 social workers struck off in 2013, are only a small part of a much bigger picture, which includes social workers who never registered in the first place. Conservatively, we can assume that at least 8% of social workers are practicing without the necessary regulation or qualifications needed to carry out their jobs effectively. That’s a significant statistic when taking into account the number of families and children affected, and the potential for negligence where a social worker is either unqualified or making mistakes which could be fatal, and in the process remaining undetected.

Past attempts at enforcing registration without legislation have failed. In 2015, the sector attempted to introduce a £5,000 fine for any social worker who failed to register. Ten months after implementing the fine, 55,000 of the estimated 60,000 social workers in England and Wales remained unregistered.

At the same time, the government passed legislation that would make the title of ‘social worker’ protected, meaning that anyone who wanted to call themselves a social worker could only do so if they had registered with the HCPC. The legislation was not robust enough, and social work practitioners began creating new titles which were not protected, and using them to avoid the registration process.

Alarmingly, some of the titles which remain unprotected encompass duties and responsibilities that are not only hugely sophisticated but require years of experience to perform. In a case involving an unregistered social worker which we wrote about last year, one service user was shocked to discover that the social worker in charge of her case, whom she wished to complain about, was calling herself a senior practitioner. The role of a senior practitioner is exceptionally demanding, requiring a high level of experience as a social worker, so any poor decision making or incompetence could change the life of a child forever. The service user was left unable to complain about the misconduct to an independent regulator as the title was not protected. The social worker remains free to continue making the same errors with other families.

And it’s not just families in England and Wales who are suffering under the current registration arrangements. New Zealand is currently calling on their government to not only make social worker registrations compulsory, but to ensure that a proper definition of social worker is laid out, so that no one can hide behind an unprotected title.

Lord Patel, we would like to invite you to take up this important issue and call on the government to:

  • Make registration with SWE a legal requirement, for all social workers.
  • Remove, or expand the list of Protected Titles to encompass all roles and;
  • Set out a working definition which covers anyone engaged in social work, ensuring that everyone engaging in that work is registered.

Researching Reform.

SW.png

Advertisements

Government Backtracks Over Failed Response To Social Work England FOI

04 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 8 Comments

The Department for Education has now released information about the management structure of new regulator, Social Work England (SWE), after it was threatened with an investigation by the Freedom Of Information team. The response claims that the information was prepared and sent within FOI’s timeframe, though it was never filed with the site.

Researching Reform made a Freedom Of Information Request on 26th February, asking for a breakdown of the management team at SWE, after the Department for Education failed to offer this information in earlier email exchanges with Researching Reform. The Department then failed to reply to the FOI request, leaving Researching Reform no choice but to engage FOI’s investigation process.

A reply was finally offered today. The cover letter incorrectly claims that the government submitted a response on 15th March, which clearly isn’t the case. The letter also says that a Chair for SWE hasn’t been chosen, however Lord Patel was confirmed as the new body’s chairman last month. This may have been the case if the response had been written before the official announcement was made on 20th March, though the response itself has not appeared on the FOI site before today.

The government’s awkward attempt at backtracking aside, as the Chair has now been chosen, it is likely that the process to appoint the non-executive Board members has begun. The recruitment process for a CEO is also, presumably, underway.

The document attached to the letter offers a breakdown of individuals, groups, organisations and MPs all currently on board as advisers and experts:

Dear Natasha Phillips,

Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 26 February 2018. You requested a full breakdown of the management team at Social Work England.  I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Social Work England (SWE) management team is not yet in place. It will include a Chair, a CEO and a Board. 

We hope to appoint a Chair shortly and the process to recruit a CEO is underway.  Once the Chair is in post, the process to appoint the non-executive Board members will begin.

Politicians overseeing SWE are:

  • The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Secretary of State for Education
  • Nadhim Zahawi, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families
  • The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Health & Social Care
  • Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State for Care

We have defined “SWE Partners” as meaning stakeholders we have worked with in the design and development of Social Work England. This includes the SWE Advisory Group and the SWE Regulatory Group.

The SWE Advisory Group includes key organisations from across the social work sector, employer representatives, education providers and service users. The current membership comprises representatives of the following organisations:

  • Association of Directors of Adult Social Services
  • Association of Directors of Children’s Services
  • Association of Professors of Social Work
  • British Association of Social Workers
  • Joint University Council – Social Work Education Committee 
  • Local Government Association
  • Professional Standards Authority
  • Principal Child and Family Social Worker Network
  • Principal Adult Social Worker Network
  • Unison
  • Shaping Our Lives
  • Become
  • Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
  • General Pharmaceutical Council.

The Regulator Expert Group membership includes representation from a number of professional regulators. The current membership comprises representatives of the following organisations:

  • Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
  • General Medical Council
  • Banking Standards Board
  • General Osteopathic Council
  • General Pharmaceutical Council
  • Professional Standards Authority
  • General Chiropractic Council
  • General Dental Council
  • Solicitors Regulation Authority
  • General Optical Council
  • Law Commission
  • Legal Services Board

FOI

Government Creates Best Practice Body For Social Work

25 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 6 Comments

The government has launched a series of measures it hopes will lead to a reduction in the number of children taken into care. A statement released on 20th March also confirms that Lord Patel, a former social worker, will be the head of the new social work regulation body, Social Work England.

The project has been put together by the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.

Former Children’s Minister Edward Timpson will be chairing the independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel to analyse and share experiences from the most serious child safeguarding cases.

The new measures also include revised standards for social workers to follow, grants for the social work sector, and a new centre to research and establish best practice in social work, with the government facilitating councils who act as early adopters and take on board the findings.

The appointment of Lord Patel as head of Social Work England (SWE) may be an appropriate choice given his social work background. Lord Patel spent three years working as a social worker in Bradford, and an undisclosed amount of time working with vulnerable children, after that.

Patel’s appointment is the only one that has been made public so far. We wrote to the Department for Education asking for a full breakdown of the Management team at SWE last month, which it did not offer. So we sent a Freedom Of Information request asking for that breakdown. We expect a response by the 27th March, 2018.

The announcement that the government will, yet again, be revising social work qualifications and training in order to improve practice misses a fundamental aspect of practice – those social workers who remain unregistered. This was a point we tried to raise in the Department for Education’s recent consultation on regulating the social work profession. If social workers remain unregistered, families and children who experience negligent malpractice have no means of redress, or support.

But perhaps the biggest news to come from the government’s announcement, is the creation of a new centre called the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care which aims to produce a best practice pathway. The government has hired an innovation foundation called Nesta, which promises to “tackle the big challenges of our time.” Nesta’s task is to assist with setting up the centre and ensuring that it is independent and effectively engages the social care sector.

So, who works at the What Works Centre (WWC)? The centre is currently being developed by a large group of organisations so it doesn’t have a set structure yet, although Nesta’s site says that the WWC should become a fully independent entity by 2020. In the meantime, Cardiff University seems to be at the forefront of the research side of things, with several other organisations working in partnership with them.

Once the centre is up and running, its remit will be to:

  • collate and share existing research, evidence and data
  • identify and support robust standards of evidence in children’s social care
  • develop the evidence base by conducting new trials and evaluations
  • translate existing and new evidence into easily accessible guidance and resources for practitioners
  • drive and support the dissemination and implementation of findings into practice
  • support practitioners and decision-makers to understand the importance and utility of research
  • support the development of a coherent learning infrastructure to foster learning

Nesta’s duties include:

  • Stakeholder engagement
  • Research
  • Testing
  • Organisational design

The WWC has put together a programme to start the research process off. It involves three stages:

  1. Stage 1 2018-2019: Establishing the baseline. This looks at evidence and practice to see what is being done at the moment to reduce the need for children to go into care.
  2. Stage 2: 2018-onwards Exploratory studies. This stage will look at what practice works.
  3. Stage 3: 2020-2025 Establishing effectiveness. The final stage here will seek to put together a best practice package.

We have campaigned strongly for this kind of project and warmly welcome to the government’s uptake on this.

You can Sign up for news about the Centre to stay up to date with the latest developments.

The hashtag #whatworksforchildren has also been set up, to give Twitter users a way to follow developments and discussion on the centre.

Very many thanks to Dana for alerting us to this project.

Nesta 2

Image: Cardiff University

 

More Councils Using Section 20 Arrangements To Keep Children In Care Illegally

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 17 Comments

A damning judgment has revealed that another council is using Section 20 Agreements – which are intended to be voluntary – to force children into care indefinitely. 

Herefordshire county council kept a boy in state care for his whole life without getting the consent of a court, which is required by law. The judge identified 14 other children in the council’s care who had been separated from their parents and placed in care for inappropriate periods of time.

In his judgment, Judge Keehan said he had never before come across a situation in which a council had “so seriously and serially failed to address the needs of the children in its care, and so seriously misused, and indeed abused” its statutory powers.

Unlike Judge Keehan, we have often seen Section 20 Agreements being used illegally, across a number of councils. The practice is so common that in 2015, President of the Family Division James Munby, issued a Guidance Note, explicitly forbidding councils from using S.20s to unlawfully detain children in state care.  And in April of last year, the malpractice had become so severe, that a collective of child welfare professionals launched an investigation into how Section 20 Agreements were being misused.

The investigation concluded that in many cases featuring a S.20 Agreement, the parents did not have access to free, independent legal advice and there was no court scrutiny of the decision.

Section 20 agreements are meant to be voluntary arrangements between the state, the family and their child, which allows a child to access temporary accommodation where the family are finding it hard to manage their relationship with their child, or take care of them. As these are voluntary arrangements, parents can remove their children any time they wish from the temporary accommodation offered, and children too have the right to leave whenever they want, without notice. However, councils have neglected to tell parents and children about their rights, and have even used these agreements to coerce parents into handing their children over to the state.

This abuse has been made possible because of a lax approach by government in regulating these agreements, and councils wilfully exploiting the loopholes in S.20 agreements to secure the number of children placed in their care. This is particularly beneficial to councils who work to adoption targets, which are financially incentivised.

Despite the obvious flaw surrounding the issue of consent – local authorities are just ignoring the fact that these agreements are voluntary, and failing to tell families this is the case – the Supreme Court ruled in February of last year that councils did not have a legal duty to inform parents that the agreements were not mandatory.  Had the judges overseeing this case understood that the duty existed – councils are providing accommodation which is fundamentally a temporary service – they could have stopped this illegal activity by ruling that there is in fact a duty on councils to share this information.

Exasperated with the court’s judgment, families going through the child welfare system decided to take matters into their own hands. Family activist, Michele Simmons created her own S.20 Consent Forms, which have become so popular that they have been downloaded several thousand times since their publication.

This latest case is a sharp reminder that S.20 Agreements are still in desperate need of regulation. If the courts won’t commit to protecting vulnerable families under these arrangements, perhaps the government will consider issuing legislation that ensures all councils must tell parents, and children where possible, their rights under Section 20.

Further Reading:

Many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for alerting us to this case.

9dc09262f4e27476af7b3f9538d8708a

 

 

MPs Debate Social Workers’ Contribution To Society, And Child Abuse.

14 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in child abuse, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 9 Comments

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament met to discuss child welfare topics, including the contributions social workers make to society, and the rights of victims of crime.

The first debate looked at the ways in which the rights of victims of crime could be better protected. Whilst this was a general debate about different types of crime and those affected, child witnesses in court were mentioned. The recommendations made included offering children in court trained intermediaries and ensuring that children were not obliged in the first instance to enter a court building to give evidence. Other suggestions included be pre-trial therapy for all victims of sexual crimes, and a national strategy for victims with mental health difficulties.

Lucy Allan MP, who represents Telford, the town recently rocked by serious child sexual abuse allegations, went on to discuss victims of child exploitation. This is what Lucy had to say:

“I particularly want to talk about the victims of child exploitation, following revelations in newspapers over the weekend in my constituency. These victims have more difficulties than most in getting heard, and in identifying that they are indeed victims, as my hon. Friend Kevin Foster identified. Child sexual exploitation is not just any crime. It affects whole communities up and down the country; it is not just Telford. It is a crime about fear, manipulation, coercion, shame, control, and sometimes blame. All too often, the victims are ignored. They are victims who do not have a voice, and for whom very few people will stand up and speak. I pay tribute to Sarah Champion for the amazing work that she has done in this field over so many years. She has given a voice to victims, and has set a precedent for us to follow in this House.

These young girls are too often white and working-class, and have multiple vulnerabilities. That is why the perpetrators are targeting them, and why they are so often miscast as bringing it on themselves, as indulging in risky behaviour, as being promiscuous and as somehow being to blame for what is happening to them. In their own minds, they often internalise the sense that they are somehow at fault.

When a 13 or 14-year-old girl is befriended by a 35-year-old man who gives her affection and cigarettes, tops up her phone, and tells her that she is beautiful and that he loves her, sometimes she feels affection for him. She does not realise that when he asks her to share a sexual image of herself, that will lead to something worse—something that she will not want to do. The coercion begins when he says, “If you don’t have sex with me”—or, “If you don’t have sex with my friend”—“I’m going to out you as promiscuous,” or as a “sket”, as they say in Telford. That is when it becomes a crime, but at that point, a 13 or 14-year-old does not know that what is happening is rape and child sexual exploitation. If she goes to the police, what does she say? She does not say, “I am a victim of statutory rape.” She says, “I’m being harassed by this person. He’s threatened to take a picture and put it on Facebook. He’s threatened to tell my mum that I’m a prostitute.”

Too often, victims of such terrible crimes do not articulate what is happening to them, so we have to be incredibly sensitive with them. Too often, they are not heard because of their vulnerabilities. I worry that a difficult family background or drugs and alcohol or mental health issues at home mean that victims are thought of as troublemakers and just a bit too difficult. Perhaps that is why these crimes were not identified for so long. Had the girls been from a different background and able to articulate more clearly what was happening to them, or able to identify that it was a crime, perhaps we would not have the cases that we see in Telford, Rotherham and Oxford.”

There follows an extended discussion with MPs from Rotherham and other constituencies which have experienced serious sexual abuse within its borders, which is worth reading.

The second debate invites the House of Commons to reflect on the contribution social workers make to society. MPs discuss their views on social work and social workers. Tim Loughton MP mentions that he is a patron of the Social Worker Of The Year Awards, and that this year there will be a reception for all the winners on the Terrace, in the Commons.

The group go on to discuss national social worker day, or World Social Work Day as it is called, which falls on the 20th March. 

There is also some debate about the difficulties of working with other agencies when processing child protection cases, the problems with having time scales when dealing with such complex cases and how best to support vulnerable children and families.

Alex Burghart MP, who chaired the debate offered these thoughts:

“We have to remember that children themselves are part of the system, and it is through hearing their voices, and their views of the services and support they and their parents are receiving, that we can make the improvements that are so necessary.”

Some of the thoughts in this debate are a little naive, even overly optimistic, and also indicative of not having a depth of experience needed to really understand the issues and how they affect children and families, but the discussion is still worth a read.

Palace_of_Westminster,_London_-_Feb_2007

 

 

 

Petition Calls For Review Into Professional Bias Against SEN Families

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in child welfare, petition, Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 7 Comments

A petition is calling on the government to prevent child protection professionals from incorrectly removing children from Special Educational Needs families.

The petition was created by a mother using the handle ‘Autistic Parent’, and is addressed to the Department For Education; Minister for the department, Robert Goodwill MP; Jeremy Hunt MP; and Dr Philip Lee.

In its summary, the petition states:

“False accusations of child abuse in the form of emotional harm and MSBP/FII happen across the board in the UK, but seem to be particularly focused on parents of children with special needs.

Situations such as:

  1. Asking a school to provide more support for their child or challenging lack of provision/school failings;
  2. Appealing to SENDIST regarding an EHCP;
  3. Requesting support from social services for your child’s difficulties;
  4. Seeking a health assessment for your child’s difficulties, particularly ASD, chronic fatigue, Ehlers Danlos;
  5. SEN child school-refusing;
  6. Cover-up of medical/diagnostic/administrative negligence or error, challenging a health professional’s opinion, or ignorance of a medical or neurodevelopmental condition;
  7. Services wanting to prevent access to expensive resources and disliking a parent’s persistence;
  8. Parent having ASD and being misunderstood or misrepresented by professionals;
  9. A culture of parent-blame;
  10. Circular assurance/professional bias/professional defensivism

can all result in false accusations being made against parents, causing unwarranted child protection investigations, which traumatise the children as well as the parents. Sometimes it results in removal of the children, which can be permanent, for instance by forced adoption.”

Empirical evidence for the often unnecessary removal of children from these families is also included, as is a series of recommendations the petition calls on the government to implement:

  • We request the Government writes stringent safeguards against misuse and abuse of the law, within all Acts of Parliament covering children and families and makes it law that all health/medical and neurodevelopmental possibilities are independently assessed of a child, before a referral for emotional harm or FII can be made and this to include accepting private diagnoses obtained by parents if NHS services have failed the family;

 

  • We request the Government puts in place serious penalties for any professional who misuses and abuses the law against families and sanctions LAs who pursue malicious case building based on false accusations – penalties to include financially compensating families;

 

  • We request social workers who perjure within documents or courts, who do not conduct honest and unbiased child protection investigations and comply wholly with all relevant laws, who do not honestly ascertain the veracity of allegations at the outset to include listening to parents, who emotionally abuse and traumatise children by conducting unwarranted investigations based on false allegations against their parents, are immediately and permanently struck-off and perjury is criminally prosecuted in all cases;

 

  • We request the Government issues new training procedures for all professionals in avoiding false allegations being pursued, to include changing the culture of parent-blame, knowing their legal obligations with regards to Human Rights, disability discrimination/equality, Data Protection, following the law correctly and learning on the damage caused to innocent families by false accusations;

 

  • We request that unless there is very significant evidence (as opposed to speculation and unfounded suspicion) of harm to a child, that children of parents accused of emotional harm or FII, remain with their families, where appropriate under surveillance, until medical or neurodevelopmental possibilities have been independently assessed and parents have been given a fair and unbiased opportunity to provide information and evidence regarding their child and answer allegations at the earliest opportunity (pre-referral ideally);

 

  • We request that all social workers receive mandatory training in all ASDs including the unique subtype of pathological demand avoidance (PDA) as a matter of urgency.  Too many social workers are ignorant of ASD and misjudge parenting or child’s needs.

 

You can access the petition here. 

Very many thanks to Autistic Parent fo sharing her petition with us.

Facts

New Body Monitoring Social Workers Makes Malpractice Blunder.

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 13 Comments

A new social work regulator called Social Work England (SWE) set to take over from the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) has published a survey asking for feedback on its plans to protect the public from malpractice. And it misses the main issue by a country mile.

The background to this latest development is set out in SWE’s consultation guide, which tells us:

“The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) currently regulates social workers in England alongside 15 other professions. The Government believes that the regulation of social workers in England will be better carried out by a social work specific body able to develop an in-depth understanding of the profession. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 (the 2017 Act), provides for the establishment of Social Work England for this purpose…

In January 2016, the then Secretary of State for Education announced, in partnership with the Secretary of State for Health, the intention to set up a new regulator for social workers, as part of wider reforms to improve confidence in social work and raise the status of the profession…

As a single-profession regulator, Social Work England will be able to use the data and evidence it gathers through delivering its core regulatory functions to gain an expert understanding of the challenges that face the social work profession in England and use this information to feed learning back into the wider social work system…

Establishing and maintaining a transparent and accurate register of social workers is fundamental to effective regulation and public protection. We are proposing that Social Work England maintains a single register of social workers in England providing assurance that only those who are sufficiently qualified, have up to date knowledge and remain competent are able to practise as social workers in England.”

Social Work England is a specialist regulator for social workers in England, whose primary objective is to protect the public. The regulator claims that it will fulfil this objective by “setting professional, education and training standards for social workers, and providing assurance that those registered meet the standards, are qualified and remain fit to practise.”

Whilst this initiative could potentially be a good thing for the social work sector, there are two very worrying aspects about Social Work England, and its current proposals.

The first lies in the phrase, “…providing assurance that those registered meet the standards.” A dangerous loophole in the registration rules for social workers currently exists, which lets social workers practice without registering with the HCPC, or other regulatory body. This effectively allows unregistered individuals to work without being monitored, or held to account for breaches in practice or law. The SWE’s proposals only focus on social workers who have elected to register, and fails entirely to include those that choose not to.

This loophole isn’t addressed anywhere inside SWE’s survey either, nor do they ask whether registration should be mandatory, which it should be. Whilst it is impossible to quantify the number of social workers practicing without registering, we have come across several instances ourselves. Dr Ireland’s ground breaking report identifying a significant proportion of expert witnesses in Family Courts who don’t have the necessary qualifications or training is also a sobering reminder that just because the extent of a problem might not be immediately visible or quantifiable, it doesn’t mean it’s not lurking beneath the surface. And this problem is hugely concerning, because it could lead, or may have already led, to the death of a child.

There does appear to be a small concession to service users who wish to complain about an unregistered social worker in the Grounds For Action. S.23 suggests that a social worker can still be investigated for an actionable offence regardless of whether they were registered at the time of the offence or not, however this doesn’t necessarily apply to social workers who were never registered in the first place.

So, the SWE’s proposal to “set professional standards which individuals must meet as a condition of registration,” means very little if registration isn’t compulsory in the first place.

The second aspect of these proposals which concerns us relates to the makeup of the SWE. There is absolutely no mention of who will be running it, or what their professional credentials are. On this point, we have written to the Department For Education to find out, and will let you know as soon as we hear back from them.

As for the first point about mandatory regulation, we mention it in our response to the consultation. And the SWE want to hear from you, too. The following groups have been invited to offer feedback:

  • Social workers (including Approved Mental Health Professionals and Best Interest Assessors);
  • • Social work employers;
  • • Social work sector organisations;
  • • Social work academics and social work education institutions and providers; • Children and families, adults, and the wider public;
  • • Other organisations and individuals with an interest in social work; and
  • • Other professional regulators.

You can access the survey here. 

The consultation closes on 21st March, 2018.

SWDE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Workers, How Much “One To One Time” Do You Spend With Children?

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work, Vocie of the Child

≈ 10 Comments

The British Association Of Social Workers (BASW) is collaborating with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, to examine how much one to one time social workers spend with children and families during child protection investigations. In order to do this, they have created a survey, and they’d love to hear your thoughts.

This is what the introduction to the survey says:

“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) and BASW are working in partnership to promote and enhance the importance of social workers spending quality ‘direct’ time with children and families, which is vital to developing trusting relationships and completing good quality assessments, decision-making and plans based on the wishes, feelings, holistic needs and interests of the child.

Children have a right to have their voice heard in any decision that affects their lives, to receive information and explanations in meaningful ways, and to have opportunities to explore their concerns and receive support. Any system change to delivery of services for children should also place children’s views and experiences at the heart of delivery. Children in research studies and consultations, such as with the Children’s Commissioner’s Office, have expressed their concerns about social workers spending less time with them and not seeing or hearing from their social workers enough. This is also a concern highlighted by numerous serious case reviews and public inquiries which highlight how the absence of engagement and communication with children compromises not only children’s right to a voice but to their safety.

We want to hear your views and gain enough feedback so we can lobby for social workers to spend more time undertaking direct work with children.”

Whilst the initiative is a good one, the questions were not as precise as we would have liked. Question 2 was particularly worrying, as it lumped face to face contact with phone contact, which are not the same when it comes to getting to know a child and building a trusting relationship with them.

Survey

We invited the BASW to edit this questionnaire so that these two elements were separated, and as of this afternoon they have very kindly done just that. (You can see a screenshot of the revised questionnaire at the bottom of the post).

We hope the sector will remember that quantity of time must be combined with quality time, so that social workers not only sit face to face with children, but really listen to what they have to say, and most importantly understand what these children are saying.

At only five questions, it’s a short survey, and so quick to fill out. If you’re not a social worker, we’d love to hear your thoughts on this survey, too.

A very big thank you to BASW for listening to our feedback and splitting Question 2, so that face to face contact is now presented as a stand alone element.

You can complete the survey here.

Q2

 

 

Social Workers And Mission Drift – What Is Their Job?

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 15 Comments

A new and very interesting piece of research spanning 15 years, looks at the social work profession from a skills angle and asks whether social workers are routinely going beyond their professional borders.

The paper was published on 5th January, 2018 in the Journal of Evidence Informed Social Work. Entitled, “Should social workers be engaged in these practices?” it was written by Gary Holden, Professor at the New York University Silver School of Social Work, and Kathleen Barker, Professor of Psychology at the City University of New York. 

Outlined in the article are a list of jobs social workers seem to be carrying out as part of their social work role, or carrying with them as previously acquired skills. The authors tell us:

“Some of the entries…. are specific interventions, some indicate previous training of the provider (e.g., certifications or degrees), some specify offers of training for others, others are guiding philosophies or conceptualizations and still others refer to equipment.”

The list of skills and courses involved seem to be heavily skewed towards holistic disciplines, as well as religious and spiritual ones like rebirthing, Feng Shui and herbology. A significant number of entries for counselling and therapy can be seen, as well as some medical courses and qualifications.

Holden and Barker say the list they have compiled is unfinished and raw, but urge us to think about how the profession is evolving and whether it is staying true to its original mission:

Mission Drift

As the professors point out, the definition and boundaries of social work are a little fuzzy, which we can see for ourselves in England and Wales with our own definition of social work, which is presented as a global one:

“The following definition was approved by the IFSW General Meeting and the IASSW General Assembly  in July 2014:

Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work.  Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.

The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels.”

The BASW’s Advice Note on the roles and responsibilities of social workers is also worth a read.

Ultimately, the researchers want us to think about whether this kind of mission creep is actually a good thing for the social work profession, allowing greater knowledge and by implication better support for vulnerable individuals, or whether the skills presented are not really effective ones for the purposes of helping those in need and building strong communities.

The professors, and Researching Reform would love to know what you think.

SSWBEITP

Social Worker (Wrongly) Accuses Mum Of Impersonating Complaints Ombudsman – And It’s Hilarious.

12 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 21 Comments

One of the things that frustrates us the most about current social work practice is the bloody minded way in which professionals refuse to correct records when mistakes are made. But this latest case is not without its funny moments.

An ongoing child protection complaint involving a mother who has been routinely denied access to her children’s records, has taken a bizarre turn.

Trying desperately to access information held by the local authority in question, and having made several complaints about the way she and her family have been treated by the council, the mother decided to enlist the help of complaints ombudsman, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).

hcpc3-672x372

The case was accepted, and so the professional for the HCPC made a telephone call to the relevant social worker at the council to collect details about the child protection professional the mother had lodged a complaint against. The council then wrote to the mother about the conversation.

Stay with us. This is where it gets silly.

In the letter, the local authority social worker tells the mother she is lying about the ongoing investigation, and then accuses her of impersonating the HCPC professional:

Webb Letter 1

The mother, confused and a little upset by the accusation, decides to email the HCPC professional to ask her to confirm the investigation and that it was the HCPC who called, and not her. The HCPC professional then sends the mother a reply:

Webb Letter 2

Without any confirmation that it was in fact an HCPC professional who called, the mother may now be faced with an uncooperative council at best, and at worst, a bias which may affect the outcome of her complaint.

So, what can we take away from this story (other than the importance of correcting errors when they’re made)? Well, as it’s a Friday, we think it might be appropriate to point out the obvious difficulty the social worker had in identifying an HCPC professional, and to offer the mother a glass of wine and tell her that she’ll live to fight another day.

Wishing you all a lovely weekend,

Researching Reform