Social Work with Children and Families

Reflections of a Critical Practitioner

Steve Rogowski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317053286
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Marriage & Family Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Professional social work has changed considerably over the last forty years coinciding with the demise of the social democratic consensus of the post-war years and the emergence and now domination of neoliberalism. Rather than the state through the government of the day ensuring citizens' basic needs were met via the welfare state, the belief in free market economics entails people having to be self-reliant and self-responsible. This has involved social work with children and families moving from a helping and supportive role to one that is more authoritarian, this often involving telling parents to change their behaviour and lifestyle or face the consequences.

This book outlines the development of social work with children and families over the period in question, drawing on the author's unique practice experience and his extensive writings. It charts the highs and lows of social work, the latter including the dominance of managerialism which emphasises speedy completion of bureaucracy so as to ration resources and assess/manage risk. Despite this, the argument is for a critical practice which addresses service users immediate needs while simultaneously aiming towards a more socially just and equal society.

This book is essential reading for everyone interested in social work including academics, students, practitioners and managers both in the UK and overseas. Social care and allied professionals more generally will also find it insightful, as will academics, students and educators of social policy and related disciplines.

Part oneSetting the scene

1 Introduction

Critical reflections on social work with children and families

DOI: 10.4324/9781315609683-2

What Next After Forty Years of Social Work? Dr Steve Rogowski has decided to retire, or at least take the summer off.

(Saddleworth Independent 2014)

Beginning with this headline and sentence, the local press published an article about my retirement/break from social work in March 2014. It went on that I had (mostly) specialised in work with children and families across five decades including working at various locations in Oldham, a town in the north-west of England, for some thirty plus years. Although my last post was in a centralised town hall office, my fondest memories were utilising community social work methods from a sub-office on a deprived estate in the late 1980s and early ’90s. A proactive, preventative service was provided rather than the reactive service that now dominates under the guise of child protection/safeguarding. Dealing with problems/difficulties at an early stage thereby leading to less crisis-orientated work later was the philosophy – something acknowledged by the now sadly deceased local councillor for the area.

However, social work in Oldham was not immune to the ravages of Thatcherism and ensuing Conservative, New Labour, Coalition and now current Conservative governments. As far as social work and social services/care are concerned, processes of privatisation, marketisation, consumerisation and managerialisation slowly encroached (Harris 2014; also see Chapter 7). The latter in particular serves to control what practitioners do and how, this essentially meaning they are now involved in rationing resources and risk assessment by completing bureaucracy speedily. To the extent that any hands-on practice takes place it amounts to assessment, monitoring and review. Such developments have led to what Brid Featherstone and her colleagues refer to as a ‘muscular authoritarianism’ towards children and families (Featherstone et al. 2014a). This involves telling parents to change their behaviour or lifestyle or face the possibility of their children being removed and placed for adoption. Another way at looking at this is to see social workers are little more than ‘community surveillance and rationing officers’ (Jones and Novak 2014, p. 66). Such developments, including the fact that in essence I had been swimming against the tide for many years, perhaps took their toll, hence the decision to retire or at least take a six-month break/‘sabbatical’ to decide what the next step should be.

The background to my decision goes back many years of course, but more immediately in January 2014 I received an email from Bob Stott after he had read a piece I wrote about the Common Assessment Framework.¹ He is not a social worker, but rather has a background in engineering design and behavioural science. However, his father was a social worker for thirty-five years, so in many ways he grew up understanding the profession, including his father's frustration as to what has happened to it in recent times. What particularly interested me was Bob's focus on the notion of moral distress. Simply put, moral distress occurs when you know the ethically appropriate action to take but are unable to act on it, or when you act in a manner contrary to your personal and professional values; this in turn undermines your own integrity and authenticity. It can lead to burnout and resignation, even in the case of resilient practitioners.

Soon after I received Bob's communication, an example of moral distress happened to me. I was asked to meet police officers at a local hospital concerning child protection issues in relation to a baby girl. A relative was concerned that her parents were interested in voodoo and thought they might have seen the mother give the baby some vinegar two days previously. It was all a bit vague but as the concerns had emerged the previous night, the baby had already been subjected to a medical during the early hours of the morning at the instigation of emergency duty social workers and the police. She was found to be happy, healthy and very well cared for. However, following a subsequent strategy meeting held the next day, a second medical was ordered so that blood tests could be done in order to see whether the baby had been given any vinegar. When I arrived at the hospital, the A&E consultant immediately said that blood tests are only done if there is a medical reason for doing so; if there are no symptoms, there is no need. He added that a small amount of vinegar would be unlikely to be detected given the time lag. However, because of the alleged concerns he referred the matter to paediatric colleagues. Importantly, one of the police officers made the point that if such forensic tests were deemed necessary, they are usually the province of police surgeons.

Somewhat reluctantly the police, health staff and I carried out what had been ordered. Eventually, after waiting several hours, it was decided the best option was for the baby to be admitted to hospital, despite misgivings by all the frontline professionals as well as the baby's grandmother and young cousin, who were present throughout the ordeal. The grandmother also had to stay in hospital overnight with the baby.

As one of the police officers said, referring to the meetings/discussions that had apparently taken place throughout the day (but not involving the frontline staff dealing with the situation), the whole scenario indicated an overzealous approach at best, or a ‘they don't know what they're doing’ stance. He also commented about all the resources that had been wasted. Another key point is that it was almost as if the baby and family were treated as objects rather than human beings. From a social work perspective, this case highlights an example of overzealous/oppressive practice, one more geared to meeting agencies’ needs (‘make sure we cannot be criticised,’ or even worse, meet a target) rather than those of the baby and family. It was an example of defensive practice and, as alluded to, the baby, grandmother and cousin had to endure an upsetting, tiresome and stressful afternoon – something which the grandmother pointedly mentioned. Furthermore, the baby had to undergo what all the frontline professionals thought were unnecessary further medical tests and investigations, something which in themselves can be seen as child abuse.

The foregoing indicates that in current neoliberal times moral distress is often caused by having to adhere to detailed procedures or managerial diktats which undermine professional autonomy. As I (only half) jokingly said to colleagues, I have been suffering such distress for much of the last eighteen years or so, particularly since New Labour came to power in 1997 with its reform and ‘modernisation’ agenda (Rogowski 2010a). In particular, the increased domination of managerialism and associated emphasis on bureaucracy and targets is well founded, and has been the cause of much practitioner demoralisation and disillusionment (Jones 2004).

It was not long after this experience of moral distress that I decided that I had had enough and needed some time out from social work, and handed in my resignation as a result. It is worth noting that I was not the only social worker to leave the local authority at the time; several colleagues went to work for other authorities via social work agencies. As for me, I had spent almost forty years in practice, so I arguably had, as one colleague said, ‘put in a good shift’. However, lack of energy as a result of resisting/swimming against the aforementioned tide for many years had seemingly taken its toll.

Echoing earlier comments, one has only to recall that over my social work career Margaret Thatcher and her heirs in all the main political parties have changed the welfare state and social work. The social democratic consensus of the initial post-war years has been replaced by the current neoliberal consensus. No longer has the state, through the government of the day, a responsibility towards ensuring the basic needs of citizens are met by having a role in planning and directing the economy, and the creation of the welfare state. Instead, all the main political parties see the free market as being the best way to achieve human well-being, with the resulting dominant values being individualism and self-responsibility. The welfare state and in turn social work have been subjected to the aforementioned reform and ‘modernisation’ including the processes of privatisation, marketisation, consumerisation and managerialisation (see, for example, Clarke 2004; Clarke and Newman 1997; Garrett 2003, 2009b; Harris 2003, 2009, 2014; Harris and White 2009a). Privatisation, the involvement of corporate capital in the provision of public services, has been actively pursued. Marketisation, the creation of markets which are seen as dynamic, innovative, and customer-centred ways of delivering welfare, has been encouraged. Consumerisation which positions service users as consumers/customers who are free to exercise choice has taken place. And managerialisation, the belief that more and better management can transform services and organisations, has occurred. At the same time, the level of welfare benefits has declined, and eligibility has been tightened and become more conditional. In short, the model of social citizenship, based on collectivism, has been dismantled in favour of incentivising work and abolishing so-called welfare dependency.

These changes have profoundly affected the context in which social work is practiced.

New inequalities and vulnerabilities have been created while simultaneously the forms of available social support have been reduced. People in difficulty are now expected to rely on themselves, family, friends or charity (food banks are a prime example) rather than the state through social work. As a result social workers are now largely restricted to rationing increasingly scarce resources and risk assessment/management, rather than providing help and support. In addition, and as mentioned, this changed/reduced role involves the punitive turn of ‘muscular authoritarianism’ towards families where there are child protection/safeguarding concerns (Featherstone et al. 2014a).

Subsequent musings: rants from an old, burnt-out leftie?

Over the ensuing months (April–November 2014) I outlined my ongoing reflections, thoughts and feelings in the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) monthly magazine, Professional Social Work, where I had a ‘Time Out’ column. It is worth noting some of my musings here.

What I missed about practicing was spending time with children and families, listening to their stories and trying to help them sort out problems and difficulties. Admittedly, this was increasingly difficult because of the managerial pressure to complete the bureaucracy and close the case. For instance, just before I left my job I had a conversation with a single parent who had six children, one of whom exhibited challenging behaviour. At times he would bully and fight with his younger siblings, this occasionally causing bumps and bruises to them. He also had other issues such as hyperactivity, lacking concentration and so on. One of my aims was to ensure appropriate help and support was provided, including making sure that local mental health services for young people became involved. The mother was appreciative of this, as was her son, with her commenting that I listened to her ‘not like the others … and you do not judge me’. My last thoughts were that the case would sadly go down the child protection/safeguarding route because of her ‘failure to protect’ the younger children from him. And I use the word ‘sad’ because of the already referred to authoritarian nature of much child protection practice – telling parents to change behaviours or lifestyles ‘or else’!

There were other issues and concerns that merit a repeat here. First, just before I left I had been to a child ‘in need’ meeting about the problems facing a single parent and her children, and was taken aback by the views of a student social worker. Rather than talking about the difficulties the family faced and how they might be tackled, surprisingly she spoke in a rather derogatory way about the parent. As well as saying many people only want a social worker ‘because it's a status symbol’, comments included how many children the mother had had, how big her stomach was and that she must be pregnant again. The implication was that if she stopped having so many children all would be well and good. It reminds one of the 1990s when John Major's Tories blamed almost every social problem imaginable on single parents and recommended ‘getting back to basics’ as a solution. Such views resonate with research that suggests that the emerging generation of social workers tend to be motivated by a perception of the individual being the locus of social problems, this ignoring the structural factors that shape and constrain the conditions of agency (Kirk and Duschinsky 2014).

Second, I referred to service users’ ‘now you see us, now you don't’ experience of social work. This arises because of the emphasis on meeting targets, which means practitioners are eager to visit service users, gather information, complete the bureaucracy and then, more often than not, quickly disappear. Things are left as they are unless serious child protection/safeguarding concerns emerge, in which case there is even more bureaucracy to complete as child protection procedures are followed. The Munro Report (2011) acknowledged that there was far too much red tape and that it was hindering practitioners’ ability to do their jobs properly, this being a major contribution to child abuse tragedies. However, apart from the welcome move to a single assessment, rather than the initial/core assessment distinction (see Garrett 2003; Rogowski 2010a), little seemed to be done to address the situation.

Third, not long after leaving my job I met a former social work colleague who had retired from my local authority. She lamented what has happened to social work over her long career, pointing out that now there is little time to engage and build relationships with children and families. Instead, she continued, it was all about finger-wagging, telling parents to ‘change this and do that,’ otherwise they knew the consequences – losing their children to, more often than not, well-off middle class families. Little or no family support was now on offer, she argued, adding that it is ‘the Tories, they just want to save money.’ Rather poignantly she referred to how she was in touch with one of the children she had prepared for adoption, saying that what the child missed about childhood was ‘being at home with my mum’ – obviously regretting being removed from the biological family. Again one wonders if speed in order to meet targets, rather than the real needs of children and families, is now the order of the day. How many more times do we have to hear about the need to speed up the adoption process, even though this is perhaps more about meeting the needs of childless middle class families rather than children?

Fourth, and on a slightly different tack, I was surprised that the social work voice has been silent about the alarming growth in food banks. In May 2014 the Trussell Trust announced that it had handed out nearly a million food parcels during 2013–14 – almost treble the number from the year before – this being despite the fact that many are reluctant to request help because of the attached stigma (Trussell Trust 2014). Benefit payment delays and sanctions were the main reason for this, with having to live on a low income another significant factor. And while a letter to ministers from clergy of the Church of England and other denominations protested and demanded action over food hunger (BBC News 2014), there was silence from social work organisations. This was all the more worrying given that practitioners essentially deal with the casualties of societal arrangements, and users of food banks are certainly examples of this. Unsurprisingly, the views of the Tory-led government were clear in that there was no evidence of a link between welfare reforms and the use of food banks.

And finally, a major concern was the government's proposals to privatise child protection and other social work services with children, which were quietly announced in May 2014 (Butler 2014). Michael Gove, Secretary...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword
• Part One Setting the scene
• Part Two The high points of social work
• Part Three The low points of social work
• Part Four Ways forward
• Afterword
• References
• Index