The Prince’s Trust recently said thousands of potential mechanics, social workers and entrepreneurs could also be lost if young people could not fulfil their career ambitions.
We’ve all met those keen and bright young people who want to become social workers. They want to help others and make a difference. They are fired by altruism, curiosity about the lives of others, the wish to meet people and they want to avoid being stuck in an office just pushing buttons. But, what happens?
In a previous post I quoted a colleage who thought that there ought to be research done into why so many social workers leave the profession. Well, there is an Excelent piece of research by Christine Eborall & Kay Garmeson (2001) on the recruitment and retention of social workers and social care staff. About the reasons for difficulty in retaining social workers they conclude:
Most social workers are highly committed to their work, and are motivated firstly by their contact with users and feeling that they are making a real difference to people’s lives, and secondly by working in a skilled team and learning from others. However, if there are staff shortages, excessive workloads, reliance on temporary/inexperienced staff, bureaucratic procedures and poor management, they feel unable to do a good job, and hence lose job satisfaction. A vicious circle of staffing frustration and increasing pressure can set in. As the workforce is stretched, levels of stress and emotional exhaustion increase and there is increased opportunity for error and mis-judgment, leading to fear that things may go wrong. The increasing amounts of violence, threats and verbal abuse from users and/or their families are also harder to take.
Sounds spot on to me. As that research was done for the Department of Health nine years ago why is it that the position now is just as bad if not worse than it was then? Why are we wasting the energy, ability and motivation of young recruits and forcing them out of a useful and potentially highly rewarding profession?
I see that the growing community of Independent Social Work Expert Witnesses are worried that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) intend, as from October this year, limiting what they will pay for an Independent Social Worker to provide assessments to the courts to the notional fee rate Cafcass pay their Self Employed Contractors (SECs). I say notional because Cafcass are gradually divesting themselves of their SECs and anyway the SECs have long complained about the inadequacy of Cafcass rates. The LSC cheerfully pay Psychologists and Physicians about 500% of what they intend paying independent social workers.
Doing an ISW assessment, let me tell you, is very, very demanding work which calls on every ounce of all the knowledge and skill hard earned over many, many years of professional experience if it is to be of any value to the courts or the families and children involved.
The ISWs comfort themselves with the thought that at that miserly fee rate it will not be possible for the courts to obtain high quality assessments by independent expert social workers. Sadly, I doubt the LSC care about the quality – “just feel the width”, and will happily pay this insulting fee rate to local authority and Cafcass employees who will gladly earn some extra cash on top of their salaries by doing the work in their “spare time”. That would take us right back to over 50 years ago. 
Then, when an “independent” social work report was required, it would indeed be done for “pin money” by somebody in their so called spare time. Also in that era when Medical Consultants provided reports to the courts they interviewed and wrote their reports in NHS time and even had the report typed up by their NHS secretary on NHS paper.
I though we had got away from those indefensible sort of arrangements but it seems not. The LSC, like several other arms of government, seem determined to roll back services to children to somewhere around the pre-1960 standard while their political masters loudly shout their great concern for children and their deep commitment to family life.
The Legal Services Commission is a non-departmental public body answerable to the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor – Jack Whitaker Straw MP. He seems to have had little to say about children but his “reluctant” approval of the invasion of Iraq and his kindly decision not to extradite the former Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, to Spain to face charges of torture and violation of human rights show him to be a sensitive and sympathetic man *. I’m sure when this situation is brought to his attention he will correct it. OR can it be, as a colleague of mine writes:-
… the message from ‘the system’ and from the state is that social work is not a respected or valued profession and remains at the bottom of the pile, along with the children whose lives are at stake. Its time for all social work professional bodies to meet with government to say we’ve had enough. Perhaps if less was spent on advertising for people to join social work on the tv and more looking at the reasons why people have left the profession (in addition to being whipping posts for child deaths) then may be something would be learnt. Now there’s an idea for a phd or is it better to research the life of plants instead!
Something every child living in the UK (and everywhere) should have is the protection of fair laws and access to justice. In the 1990’s this seemed to have been achieved with the implementation of the 1989 Children Act, the creation of family courts, specialist Judges, guardians ad litem and accredited family and children’s solicitors. But now the judiciary must ‘come off the bench’ and speak out about the ‘parlous state of family law in 2009’, says Lord Justice Wall (no relation). Well, he certainly did so in his keynote address in November to the Association of Lawyers for Children:-
However, a more serious problem is the fact that guardians are not allocated when they should be, and that important decisions are made about children without the guardian’s input. I was shocked during the summer to learn both of the number of care cases in which a guardian had not been allocated, and the fact that insistence on the CAFCASS monopoly inevitably meant that guardians would simply not be timeously allocated. The President, in this year’s Hershman Levy Memorial Lecture ran into criticism when he announced a system of “duty” guardians to plug the deficiencies in the system. But who can blame him? He is doing what anyone in his position would do. That it is not acceptable is not his fault nor his responsibility. The failure to protect children through the sensible operation of the guardian system seems to me to be one symptom of a much wider malaise. …..
In the 2000’s there has been a long slow and continuing backsliding from the heady days following the 1989 Children Act. Civil (including Family) Legal Aid is being capped, Cafcass cannot cope, and there are too few specialist Judges, lawyers or guardians. Delays are growing and the government is now proposing reducing access to the courts for arguing parents and diverting them to (possibly compulsory!!) mediation. Ed Balls says:
More than 50,000 cases are referred to the Children and Family Courts Advisory Service every year involving parents who are fighting over access rights to their children. We want to look at how to get more of these cases out of court. They cost us £800 million a year on private law disputes about custody – that’s expensive. It takes a long time, it can be antagonistic and painful. It’s far better to get them out of the courts initially.
So, where do the children fit in this mediation process? How do they get their voice heard by a 40 hours trained mediator?
I think Ed Balls and Jack Straw need to re-read the Convention on the Rights of the Child particularly:-
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
I don’t see anything in the convention saying the rights of a child are subsidiary to cost considerations, in fact the convention in Article 3 says
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
It seems to me that the UK is falling far short of the ringing words in the preamble to the Convention, at least as far as children are concerned:-
that … recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
is January as everybody, except T S Elliot, knows . At least it has seemed to be so this January with the Christmas excess shortly followed by the snow and ice which I seem to have been at the very epicenter of. Fell over twice and sorely bruised. Trees falling down under weight of snow including one falling onto Brick’s modest home in the middle of the night with an tremendous crash. And, as we were constantly and annoyingly reminded in by that irritating and inaccurate phrase; “tax need not be taxing”, the Self Assessment maze of forms had to be completed by the end of this vile month. These anyway are my excuses for not being as assiduous as usual in keeping up the blog.
There have been lighter notes midst the gloom.
That well known wit, Harriett Harman coined a new word wellderly: “We have to understand that we now have a new cohort of well, active, healthy older people. The role that they play in their families, in the economy and in society must be recognised and responded to. We must recognise the emergence of the “wellderly”. Chicken Yoghurt and his commenters have had a lot of fun with this. I particularly liked this from jamie; “We now have a cohort of older, active people who drink all night and smoke like crazy. We must recognise the emergence of the whatthehellderly.”
Then there was the picture on facebook of a toddler with a cigarette (unlit) in his mouth which caused Southend Council and Essex police to drop everything else in order to “advise” the young mother responsible. This is a new top priority category for social workers. If it’s in The Sun you must visit immediately and report back to The Sun otherwise you will probably be summarily sacked by Mr Balls who will announce your dismissal in The Sun.
And there is the continuing comedy at Cafcass. In this dcreary month Cafcass has been publicly excoriated by Ofsted, by Napo and by Nagalro. No wonder Takki Sulaiman their head of communications is leaving but look at these two different reports (one, two) on following days in the East London Advertiser. Onwards and upwards for Mr Sulaiman from Haringey to Cafcass where he said “We are unusual in that we work directly with service users. This gives us a unique opportunity to influence the social care agenda for children and families on a national level. As an organisation, we’re able to embrace new ideas and suggestions and this makes Cafcass an exciting place to work”. Well, I guess the excitement palled because he’s off to Tower Hamlets. One doesn’t know whether better to wish good luck to Takki or to Tower Hamlets – so, good luck to both in their union.
Every Child Matters says our caring UK government but there are exceptions, actually quite a considerable number of exceptions. One of these are the children who are locked away for indefinite periods. They are not charged with nor convicted of any crime nor are they locked up for their own safety or to protect others. They do not know when or where they may eventually be released and their fate lies in the hands of a Kafkaesque bureaucracy. I write, of course, of the children locked away in Yarl’s Wood and other immigration detention centres such as brutal Tinsley Green. There have been many reports and articles about this scandal. What beats me is how the government in the person of Phil Woolas who is responsible for the ghastly UK Border Agency and its repressive activities can defend the indefinite and harmful detention of children while his colleague, Ed Balls, claims the aim of the DCFS is “to make this [the UK] the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up.”
Wonderful children’s writers including Beverley Naidoo, Michael Rosen, Jacqueline Wilson, Michael Morpurgo, Quentin Blake, Carol Ann Duffy, Michael Bond, Benjamin Zephaniah and Philip Pullman have written the following letter to Gordon Brown:
Dear Mr Brown,
As writers and illustrators of books for children, we urge you to stop detaining children whose families have sought asylum in the UK.
We strongly support those doctors represented by the Royal Colleges of Paediatrics & Child Health, General Practitioners and Psychiatrists, the Faculty of Public Health and the Children’s Commissioner Sir Al Aynsley-Green, in the concerns they have expressed about the trauma being experienced by children whose families have sought asylum in the UK.
These children have already had their worlds torn apart and witnessed their parents in turmoil and in stress. No wonder that paediatricians and psychologists report that child detainees are confused, fearful, unable to sleep, suffer headaches, tummy pains and weight loss and exhibit severe emotional and behavioural problems
The UK Border Agency asserts that ‘Treating children with care and compassion is a priority’, but it continues with the policy of child detention which has been shown to harm children. The Government must end child detention, now.
I’d be very surprised if the author’s letter makes the government change course even by the tiniest degree. Henry Porter says “Let us hope that the government, and Mr Woolas in particular, have not sunk to the level of mistreating children to discourage those who, in desperation, ask Britain for sanctuary.” Sadly, it seems the government has indeed sunk to that depth, presumably with the aim of soliciting the support of the BNP, its supporters and other racists.
Even Santa is to be kept away from the imprisoned children, that is the real Santa and his Christmas gifts. But, children do not despair because Santa Alan Kittle, otherwise known as Director of Detention Services for the UK Border Agency said. “UKBA already has procedures in place to ensure any children held in detention over the Christmas period receive a present and get to see Santa.”
The words; “we have procedures in place” must surely rank as the second most terrifying English phrase after Ronald Reagan’s; “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
“The US president is in Oslo to receive an award that many thought premature. Misgivings have increased since he announced a troop surge in Afghanistan. Follow updates from his visit here throughout the day”. That’s from the Guardian’s News Blog by Mark Tran.
Misgivings! I ask you. I can think of a great many words to describe the decision to award the Nobel Peace prize on the basis merely of a candidate’s promises and many more to describe the incredible hypocrisy of Barack Obama accepting it just after having decided to send yet another wave of US troops to Afghanistan to kill even more Afghans but, the word misgivings would very certainly not be among them.
War creates peace, says Obama and that he has only just started on his labours in the world. Well, looks like we’ll be damn lucky if there are any of us left by the time he has finished – perhaps that is what he means by peace.
It’s just too good to share. 
Kyle, an American social worker explains how, by using Freakonomics you can get rich just by doing social work. Hat Tip to Antisocial Social Worker.
Gordon Brown is an intelligent and very well informed man who will know very well that there is a significant body of informed opinion that believes Osama bin Laden to be dead. Indeed, many believe him to have died in December 2001, just months after the Twin Towers atrocity. Even if he did not die then, given the poor state of his health, in particular kidney failure and need for regular dialysis it seems unlikely that he has been able to survive in hiding in the remote and desolate region of north west Pakistan. Even our own Daily Mail questions his continued existence. So why does Gordon Brown state as a fact that Osama is still on this planet and how does he have the gall to accuse Pakistan of having failed to capture this ghost when the might of the USA and Britain combined has failed to do so?
Presumably the answer is that Gordon knows very well that Osama is probably dead but thinks the British public so ignorant that they won’t realise this and considers that they need a bogey man figure to frighten them into supporting, continuing and possibly extending the colonial wars in the middle east.
Is OBL Gordon’s WMD?
STOP PRESS – Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani says Osama is not in Pakistan. So he, Gordon and I are all in total agreement: Osama is ON THE OTHER SIDE!
I really didn’t want to do another post about the pathetic disaster which is Cafcass but Radio 4 PM on Wednesday (listen within the next 5 days) did a piece about the “paper children” meaning those children Cafcass are responsible for representing but do not actually meet and talk with but nevertheless go to court hearings about. To do just what? – one might ask. One of Cafcass’s ten (and I thought they said they were reducing their numbers) members of the “Corporate Management Team“, Christine Banim stepped up to the plate to try to ascert that Cafcass is “safer than ever”. Presumably that is the view Cafcass holds in its own little panglossian world because virtually everybody else thinks it has never been worse and needs to be put out of its misery. Christine is an “Operational Director and Chair of Modernisation and Efficeincy Board” – yup, that is how she spells efficiency on the Cafcass web site. Check it now before somebody in Cafcass reads this and corrects the spelling.
Update – somebody read and did the editing – glad to have been a help!
Indeed not, Mischon de Reya are a different sort of law firm they do important social research – or do they?
The BBC reported that research carried out by law firm Mishcon de Reya among 2,000 divorcees and a similar number of children who had experienced divorce revealed that; “Two thirds (68%) admitted indiscriminately using their children as “bargaining tools” when they separated and “A staggering 20% of separated parents admitted that they had actively set out to make their partners experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.”
Pink Tape wondered what sort of research could produce these results. Would 2 out of 10 divorcees reply “Yes” to the question “Did you set out to actively make your partner’s experience as unpleasant as possible regardless of your children’s feelings”? Seem unlikely; so Pink Tape asked Mishcon de Reya for a copy of the actual research report. She was refused. Hang on, what’s that – specialist family barrister refused a copy of a serious research report which it is claimed to show highly important new information about parents and children going through divorce – how can that be? Sean of MdR told Pink Tape; The press release is the best place to find the information following the research carried out.’ He added: ‘Unfortunately I’m unable to share the research as it contains information we may wish to release in the future.’
The press release is in fact quite revealing. In footnotes to the MdR “policy briefing paper” it is stated that the research in question was carried out by independent research house, OnePoll. On looking up OnePoll one discovers they are an online market research company and have been responsible for such ground breaking discoveries as:
“People who live in Bristol were yesterday (mon) named and shamed as the most unhygienic in Britain.” and “The average British family argues for the equivalent of nearly FOUR DAYS A YEAR – with mum sparking most of the bust-ups, according to new research.”
Those SUN headline style research results from OnePoll seems rather to put the MdR research into context. But it is worrying if, as Pink Tape reports, that Judges are taking this so far unpublished and un-reviewed research seriously – especially if you happen to be an argumentative couple from Bristol trying to get a divorce.
