According to Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls, social workers ‘change lives’. Despite that attraction, and despite an appeal from many ‘famous’ people (Samantha Morton, Michelle Ryan, Sadie Frost, Goldie) adding their names to a UK campaign to recruit more social workers, I won’t be changing career myself (even if that were practically possible) or encouraging others to think about social work.
The impetus for the campaign seems to spring from the fact that in the wake of the outcry following Baby P’s death (a toddler killed by his parents, despite the involvement of Haringey Social Services), many people have understandably decided that social work is too unattractive and risky as a career. Having a few ‘celebrities’ and a government minister say that social work is a worthwhile career is the easy bit. Unless at least two other major things change, social work will remain an unattractive career for decades to come.
For over 30 years I have worked with many social workers and have had several friends who have been social workers. I think I can legitimately claim to having had some contact (albeit vicarious) with the reality of social work life, especially with those working with children. The one theme that emerges strongly, and which seems to appear in every report that is published after serious failure by the social services following a predictable death of a child, is that of ridiculously high case loads.
There isn’t enough money to employ enough social workers, and even if there were, not enough good ones could be employed. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to adequately manage so many details and to be on top of so much risk. And when too much work has to be managed with limited human resources, corners are cut, analysis isn’t thorough, and more obvious priorities leap to the top of the pile leaving unseen dangers to hide beneath.
I have heard it argued that doctors have a similar high case load with many more risk factors. To me, it seems a poor analogy. Patients present themselves and doctors aren’t responsible for intervening into patients’ homes in order to prevent things happening. The science around diagnosis of risk is usually more more clear cut, and if things do go wrong and mistakes are made, there are often other professionals around (in a hospital, for example) to notice and to prevent tragedy.
The second thing that needs to change before social work becomes more attractive is the general public’s understanding of social science and risk. Although there are cases where social workers clearly have got it wrong, where they have failed to intervene in the face of clear evidence of extreme risk, the sad fact is that social workers can get it right and children will still die.
Social work isn’t like medicine: the science is less precise. Human beings have a habit of being scheming and unpredictable. Removing children from households is a serious matter and difficult judgment calls have to be made. Sometimes those judgment calls are reasonable given the available evidence, and yet other genuinely unforseen things can happen that lead to painful tragedy. After every child death it is too easy to jump on the bandwagon and blame social workers for getting it wrong. They do sometimes, but I suspect that in hundreds of thousands of cases they don’t - even when a tragic death occurs.
In a society where judgements are formed by the need for the tabloid press to sell newspapers, where salaries can be determined by public opinion, were the mob can demand that human beings are not given the rights enshrined in law or in the human resources policies of their employers, it is all to easy to scream for the blood of social workers. They are easy scapegoats for those who want to rule by emotion rather than informed reason.
Until workload decreases, or until more of the public appreciate that taking informed risks means that sometimes a tragedy can occur, social work will always remain unattractive to many of the people that it needs.
Good post. Judging by where we spend our money, it appears that Western societies don’t really value the people who provide critical services like social work, teaching, etc. It seems that what we do value is people who can throw balls at 95 mph, kick balls into nets, tell funny jokes, sing sappy songs….
We live in a society that does not want any risk. That’s the problem as I see it. We want a world where everything is safe and controlled where evrything is devoid of the elements of chance. Where the only chance we are happy to witness is that of a game with rules and laws.
The only risk people want to face up to is where the risk is out of choice and experienced by other people; the 17 year old who went around the world being an example.
We don’t want it ourselves and are too ready to point fingers if we suffer some misfortune that once would have been put down to fate, chance.
While society has that attitude there will not be a solution.
the chaplain
I always find it interesting to see what people do and where they spend their money, rather than pay too much attention to what they say. You are so right about the values of our society. And as being able to do things in balls and allegedly sing songs has contributed so much to the advancement of the human race, I can’t understand why we don’t pay these people more!
Awriteblog
Interesting point about risk. We seem oblivious of the fact that throughout the day we are taking reasonable risks all the time, accepting that perfect control and elimination of risk is not possible, and yet, like you say, in certain cases we demand 100% safety. So inconsistent. So ridiculously wrong.
Show me a career that is not unattractive from one point of view or another. The problem is, of course, when you combine unattractive with low pay, low status and dominated by emotional, female souls (God bless them) then you get “really unattractive”. Add to that a general sense of entitlement on the side of the receiver of services in general, spice it up with the Me Myself I syndrome that is pervasive in society and then it becomes unbelievable that anyone would ever hold a shitty job like that.
Now the above is of course a gross exaggeration on my part, but I think it pretty much compiles some current conceptions of society.
I think the issue is being analysed from the wrong perspective. All this social work that is being done, all this workload, all these details, all these papers and forms and meetings are seen as proof that more workers are needed.
I would argue that no matter how many new hires you were able to fill into the social services workforce, they would all continue to be equally busy. (And we know that lack of competence is not restricted to social services.)
There are always creative minds around to ensure that nobody goes idle, and that budgets are spent and stretched. There are always people who will find new ills and problems to attend to and cure. There are those people who simply just can’t leave other people be, who need to constantly interfere in other peoples lives. And there are people who own their seat in Parliament to some of those people.
We have allowed these people to continuously increase their influence and dominions for a number of decades now, and this, gentlemen, has led to fear of risk, fear of injury, fear of failure, and fear of what constitutes life.
But hey, look on the bright side of things, it has kept unemployment low and taxes high …
You pretty much sum it up. I know you are not a social worker but you have an pretty good grasp of the problems social workers face.
Here, I endorse what you are saying.
I would not be a Social Worker if you gave me a million quid. Overworked and under-resourced, there’s is a ugly and tough job. Yes, they see cases closed where positive things can happen but there is immense frustration along the way.
My questiion is this?
Why are so many children vulnerable now, or was it always so? The difference being that is is highlighted more and talked about-perhaps.
Excellent post atm.
I use this theme on a few of my sites. Can’t beat it