Posts Tagged 'social care'

Care and caring: challenge, crisis or opportunity?

SusanMYeandle

Sue Yeandle

As the first issue of the International Journal of Care and Caring publishes, Sue Yeandle, Editor-in-Chief, highlights the global space that care now occupies and introduces the journal as a new forum where world-class knowledge about care, caring and carers can be shared.

Issue 1 of the International Journal of Care and Caring is free to access on Ingenta until 30 April.

“From Nairobi to Tokyo, Sydney to Bogota, Montreal to Stockholm and Gdansk to Glasgow – and beyond – care is more visible than ever, and an issue of growing importance all over the world. It is central to human life and relations. It underpins the world’s health, employment and welfare systems. It affects every family and human being on the planet.

“In all its horror, glory and daily realities, care touches us at every level.”

Continue reading ‘Care and caring: challenge, crisis or opportunity?’

Get social care right and the NHS will benefit

How can we improve access to and quality of social care? Catherine Needham, co-author of Micro-enterprise and personalisation, discusses how micro-enterprises and micro providers could improve care services. 

catherine-needham-head-shot-b

Catherine Needham

At a time when the Red Cross is warning of a ‘Humanitarian Crisis’ in the NHS, there is a growing recognition that pressure on NHS services will not be alleviated unless we get social care right.

Social care services support frail older people and people with disabilities. They are run by local government and have borne the brunt of the local authority cuts in recent years, with around 26 per cent fewer people now getting help than did in the past.

Many care providers have gone bust due to downward pressures on fees and in many parts of the country it is very hard to recruit trained staff to work in care when the pay rates are higher at the local supermarket.

“It is very hard to recruit trained staff to work in care when the pay rates are higher at the local supermarket.”

Together these pressures contribute to older people being stuck in hospitals, unable to be discharged into the community because the support is not available to them.

Fixing social care

Getting social care right is not a quick fix. Access to good quality, affordable care for people with disabilities and older people is a challenging issue.

Continue reading ‘Get social care right and the NHS will benefit’

Racism, anti-racism and social work

by Iain Ferguson and Michael Lavalette

A spectre is haunting Europe. It is the spectre of racism, xenophobia, and in some countries, outright Nazism. For Golden Dawn in Greece and the Jobbik Party in Hungary, there is little attempt to hide the associations with 1930s German National Socialism. These include overt anti-semitism, paramilitary marches, and the encouragement of violence against asylum seekers, immigrants and left-wing activists. At the time of writing, a member of Golden Dawn is being held in custody for the murder in September 2013 of Pavlos Fyssas, a rap singer and well-known anti-fascist activist in Greece. Elsewhere in Europe, racism wears a more respectable face. Parties such as the UK Independence Party in Britain or the various People’s Parties in Scandinavia have gained a degree of electoral support by playing on popular fears about waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe coming to the West solely in order to live off the benefits system. It is a rhetoric which, shamefully, is increasingly echoed by the leaders of mainstream political parties, both Conservative and social democratic.

In reality of course, the vast majority of immigrants are young, hard-working, ambitious, make less use of health services than the rest of the population and do the jobs that the local population refuse to do. The residential social care sector in Britain, for example, would collapse without the labour of people from the Philippines, South Africa and Poland. But that truth is lost in the deluge of anti-Roma, anti-Muslim and anti-asylum seeker propaganda pumped out on a daily basis by the tabloid press. In early October 2013, the bitter fruits of that propaganda, and of the increasingly restrictive immigration policies adopted by governments across Europe, were only too graphically demonstrated. Then, some 274 refugees from Eritrea and Somalia drowned when their overcrowded boat sank off the Italian island of Lampedusa. These were ordinary men, women and children fleeing war, torture and hunger in search of a better life for themselves and their families. But as a letter in the Guardian newspaper in the UK pointed out, responsibility for their deaths lies not just with the people smugglers but also with the exclusionary policies of Fortress Europe: ‘People-smuggling is the symptom and not the cause of migration. Tougher border controls, higher fences and more expensive surveillance systems won’t deal with the causes either. They will make things worse by driving more people into the perilous embrace of the smugglers. The causes of migration are overwhelmingly poverty, inequality and conflict’.

The main challenge to racism and fascism has come, and will continue to come, from parties of the Left, social movements and trade unions. In Greece, for example, following the murder of Pavlos, some ten thousand people demonstrated against Golden Dawn in the streets of Athens. In Britain, the anti-Muslim English Defence League is currently in crisis following the resignation of its two founders, a crisis provoked in large part by the fact that every time its supporters appeared on the streets they were physically challenged by much larger anti-fascist protests.

As individuals, social workers from Glasgow to Athens and all points between have participated in many of these demonstrations. But we also need to explore the implications of the growth of these new forms of racism for our social work practice. And here, it is important to learn the lessons of the past, both negative and positive.

Discussing the role of social work during the Nazi period, Walter Lorenz has commented on the use of social workers’ diagnostic skills to sort out the ‘deserving’ from the unworthy, the latter referring to those with mental illness or learning disabilities who would then be deemed eligible for compulsory sterilisation or worse. As Lorenz (2006) describes it:

Sticking to their professional task with the air of value neutrality and scientific detachment (especially after the ‘non-conforming’, ‘politically active’ social workers had been sacked or imprisoned) they did not feel responsible for the consequences of their assessments and may indeed not have been conscious of the full implications their work had in the national context (pp 34-35).

As Lorenz argues, the issue here was not only State coercion or lack of discretion but rather the understanding of their role which informed the practice of these workers:

The evil of a fascist approach to welfare had not emanated primarily from its collectivism and from the imposition of ideologically determined forms of practice (which social workers usually knew how to get round) but rather from the disjuncture of the political and professional discourse that prevented the ‘ordinary welfare workers’ from fully facing up to the consequences of their actions (p35).

If there is a lesson for today, it is surely that social work cannot respond to the growing tide of racism and xenophobia by hiding behind a mask of ‘professionalism’ which seeks to deny the political nature of our profession or pretend that somehow we are above the struggle.

A very different response to racism developed in the late 1980s. In that period, social workers and social work academics in the UK and elsewhere sought to develop forms of anti-racist theory and practice which challenged the ways in which racism shaped the mind-set of many white social workers on the one hand and blighted the lives of black and minority ethnic clients and communities on the other. The limitations of these approaches, above all their focus on personal racism at the expense of State and institutional racism, have been well-documented. Nevertheless, they were important in putting issues of racism and anti-racism on the social work education agenda in a way they had not been previously.

Race, racism and social work

Race, racism and social work

Recent publications have sought to develop new forms of social work theory and practice that can challenge the forms of racism that have emerged over the past decade and can defend multiculturalism (Lavalette and Penketh, 2013; see also Mahamdallie, 2011; Richardson, 2013). This is a very positive development. Critical and Radical Social Work welcomes papers on all aspects of racism and anti-racism in social work. These can include both analyses of current developments and also historical pieces which critically evaluate the role of mainstream social work in oppressive and racist regimes such as Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa as well as those highlighting examples of social work resistance which have until now been’ hidden from history’.

References
Lavalette, M. and Penketh, L. (eds.) (2013) Race, Racism and Social Work: Contemporary Issues and Debates, Bristol: Policy Press
Lorenz, W. (1993) Social Work in a Changing Europe, London: Routledge
Mahamdallie, H. (ed.) (2011) Defending Multiculturalism: a guide for the movement, London: Bookmarks
Richardson, B. (ed.) (2013) Say It Loud: Marxism and the Fight Against Racism, London: Bookmarks

Race, racism and social work, edited by Michael Lavalette and Laura Penketh, is available to buy with 20% discount from www.policypress.co.uk.

Policy & Politics: Making it personal

Personalisation is squarely at the heart of current policy debate around adult social care. For the last 10 years the British government has been experimenting with moving away from assisting users through providing services drawn from a relatively short menu of possibilities. Personalisation gives users personal or individual budgets and allowing them discretion to determine how they think the money should be best spent to meet their own understanding of their needs.

From a policymaking perspective it is a fascinating development because stakeholders from very different perspectives feel able to support it. The market liberals see it as a means of introducing competition and choice into public service provision, while those more concerned with autonomy and dignity see it as a means of empowering service users. Those concerned about the size of the welfare budget see it as a more efficient way of achieving positive outcomes for those receiving assistance. With such diverse constituencies lined up behind it, it is perhaps not surprising that the personalisation agenda has momentum.

And this is the case despite the need for several notes of caution. First, there is the tension between the individualisation of welfare and society’s collective responsibility for meeting the needs of its population. Second, there are concerns that personalisation may be great for some but it is not necessarily beneficial for all recipients of social care – older people in particular. Third, the evidence that personalisation delivers cost savings and enhanced outcomes is promising, but by no means overwhelming. Some would contest it vigorously.

Debate about personalisation can also occur at a more conceptual level. Precisely what type of state intervention does it represent? It is not the sort of direct service provision that much of social care provision has traditionally been based upon, but at the same time it isn’t a pure income transfer of the type so beloved by economists. In a paper in the current issue of Policy & Politics Simon Duffy and his colleagues offer a framework for thinking about personal budgets as a conditional resource entitlements (CRE). The characteristics of such entitlements can be examined in relation to five dimensions: autonomy, flexibility, targeting, support and conditionality. The authors argue that the nature of the conditionality associated with personal budgets differentiates it from other types of CRE: the focus is less on how resources are spent and more upon outcomes.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this issue is what personal budgets might tell us about future directions for welfare. Here Duffy et al offer a brief discussion of three possible scenarios. First, personal budgets are a transition in the move towards pure income transfers. Second, personal budgets represent an optimal state – they represent the best of both worlds. Third, personal budgets represent a stage in the process of shifting greater responsibility for meeting need away from the state and towards the individual. These are all plausible futures. Which one is realised will depend in part on how we make sense of the agenda and how we narrate it. Whether we embrace it uncritically or whether we contest it. There is much still to play for.

Duffy, S., Waters, J. and Glasby, J. (2010) ‘Personalisation and adult social care: future options for the reform of public services’, Policy & Politics, Volume 38, Number 4, October 2010*

Alex Marsh, Management Board, Policy & Politics

* This article is only available to subscribers. If you are not subscribed and would like to read this article, why not sign up for a free trial at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/trial

Also available: Direct payments and personal budgets: Putting personalisation into practice by Jon Glasby and Rosemary Littlechild

Should recording in social work be given a higher priority?

With the impending cuts in the public sector that the new government will be implementing this year, people working in social care services will be understandably apprehensive about what those cuts will mean for them. One area that may be a welcome focus for attention in social care is the concern over the proliferation of paperwork and the time this takes away from the direct delivery of care. Cutting down on paperwork is an issue that most people, whether working in the social sector or not, would support. It is a means to make services more efficient. Efficiency will be even more of a priority with the pressure on budgets.

However, while the reduction in paperwork might receive considerable support, we also need to remember that concerns over poor record keeping have featured in many inquiries into tragedies involving social services for many years. While more paperwork is not necessarily the answer, more effective record keeping should be a priority. Understanding what might be involved in making records more effective is explored in Recording in social work: Not just an administrative task. In her six year study Liz O’Rourke studied the experience of social workers in over half the social services departments in England and Wales and found that recording is a highly complex task. It is also a strangely neglected issue when considering training needs. Most social workers reported that they learned to record by looking at other people’s files, and then were left confused and uncertain as to what was expected when they found inconsistency in those files. If we do not afford a higher priority to recording then we will continue to see social work records feature in each successive inquiry following yet another tragedy. We ignore recording at our peril.

What do you think? Should recording in social work be given a higher priority, or will this just increase the paperwork practitioners are expected to complete? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Liz O’Rourke, author of Recording in social work: Not just an administrative task


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

The work on the Policy Press blog is licensed under a Creative Commons licence.