This week there a are a number of events and important events and activities (both online and face-to-face) to celebrate Social Work Week #SWweek, beginning with World Social Work Day #WSWDay (Tuesday, 20 March 2012) to United Nations’ Social Work Day #UNSWDay (Monday, 26 March 2012).

Therefore, our topic for this week’s debate (Tuesday, 20-Mar-2012 at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT) is the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” and we will be tweeting and will be joined by the question and answer on Global Agenda for Social Work from London Metropolitan University. We hope you can join our debate by using the hashtag #GASWSD & #SWSCmedia.

Social work is an international profession with shared values and ethics. Therefore, the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) together with International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) have developed the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development“ as a call to action for all.

During World Social Work Week (20^th to 26^th March 2012) the Global Agenda will be officially presented to:

• Westminster and UK national governments;
• Helen Clarke, United Nations Development Programme Director,at the UN in New York;
• UN offices, the European Parliament and national governments around the world.

Furthermore, we are also starting the hashtag #GASWSD. to  continue the discussion in relation to the Global Agenda, and for Social Work Week, we will do a compilation of all tweets using the hashtag #GASWSD and/or #SWweek. Tweet us your thoughts, actions, views, and reflections using  #GASWSD and/or #SWweek in order to initiate and sustain a Global conversation focused on Social Work and Social Development and to connect the Local, National and International.

We look forward to seeing you in our debate @SWSCmedia on the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” on Tuesday (20 March 2012) at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT.

Historically, so much social work has concentrated on women. There are very understandable reasons for this. It tends to be women who take responsibility for caring and it is women are most involved in community action. However, when social work takes a more controlling function, for example in relation to the protection of vulnerable children or adults, then it is women within families who are typically made responsible for tackling problems and turning round difficult situations, even if a man is the main cause of the problem.

Social work, having as it does a unique focus on the individual in their social context, has a powerful contribution to make to engaging men in personal and social change. We need to be cautious about how much we claim about social change – I have written elsewhere for @SWSCmedia about how too much radical political rhetoric can only end up making social workers feel bad about themselves when inevitable their practice does not match the aspirations of the theory. But working with men is an area where personal change is unavoidably tied up with social change. Even though in Western countries social workers are likely to be working with individual men rather than working at a community level, work with individual men does unavoidably involve negotiating social norms of masculinity. There is not just one way to be a man in any given social context, so there is no one single ‘male role’, but social structures and cultural discourses absolutely do shape the way men see themselves as men and what behaviour is or is not acceptable.

Working with men is a very contested field, with very different positions being taken by feminism (in its many different varieties) and by those who prioritise men’s rights We need to get beyond polarised positions of men as either 100% victims or 100% perpetrators. Sometimes individual men should quite rightly be addressed primarily as perpetrators of abuse, but that is not the end of the story. Men also have vulnerabilities and of course some men’s behaviour can be very pro-social and protective.

In working with men we need to get beyond purist critiques and use pragmatic effective approaches. So, for example, some feminist commentators have criticised the use of sport in social interventions for men and boys because it is based on competition and the idealisation of certain kinds of body, which can be exclusionary. I would have to disagree. If you can reduce the involvement of boys and men in crime or violence through sport, then that has to be a good thing. If you can improve the literacy of working class boys via books with conventionally masculinised themes then there is a social gain, even if the intervention is not ideologically correct in every respect.

Brid Featherstone, Mark Rivett and I have argued in our book on working with men that too much political correctness is not helpful in work with men. Certainly practitioners need to own the ideological orientations of their practices, but this does not mean being terrified to act in case you are ‘letting men off the hook’ or ‘giving men a hard time’ to quote some of the respondents to a survey of programmes for violent mendid a few years ago. What practitioners need to know is what works with men specifically. This may be an eclectic mixture of things. Interventions I’ve recommended on the basis of evidence have included the diverse approaches of pro-feminist education for violent men and family group conferences. I think a wide range of approaches could be used as long as practitioners are clear about what these are for and what the implications are likely to be for family dynamics.

Practitioners need very practical skills for engaging with men effectively in routine practice and opening the door to change. (Actual behaviour change will often require more intensive help). Motivational interviewing, for example and cognitive-behavioural methods are generally found in research studies to work well, but even though most practitioners will know something about these approaches, they are, in my experience, typically not trained in actually using them. I think they should be.

Working with men is arguably rather too broad a theme for World Social Work Day as it refers to half of the population. But in reality it is a marginal issue because most social work takes place between women workers and women as service users. It doesn’t have to be this way. Social workers are ideally situated to work with individual men and groups of men in such a way as to take seriously the gendered social and cultural context which shapes their lives.

Join us on World Social Work Day (Tuesday, 20-March-2012) at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT to discuss and explore the “Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” in a rich and lively Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

Prof. Jonathan J. Scourfield (@profjscourfield) is a professor of social work at Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University and a member of @SWSCmedia Expert Panel.

The role & importance of Social Work in society

On the journey to find ways to share this planet with one another, many conflicts have arisen and continue to arise among human beings and their environments. We have divided ourselves into various groups, with each group being given a specific value that has been used to determine our worth, and for some, at times have made us question our humanity depending on how much value has or has not been placed on our identity and personhood.

What am I talking about? Here are some ways in which we stratify ourselves:

• By Race/Skin Color: ex. White/European-Black
• By Class/Caste/Educational/Social Standing: ex. Wealthy-Working Class-Working Poor-Impoverished
• By Sex, Gender & Gender Expression: ex. Male-Female, Masculine-Feminine
• By Sexual Orientation: ex. Heterosexuality-Homosexuality
• By Religion & Spirituality: ex. Christianity-other world religions-Agnosticism & Atheism
• By Ability Status: ex. “Able-Bodied”-“Others”
• By Age: Young-Old-Old-Young
• By National Origin

There are many more groups in addition to those I have listed here, and even within those groups exists other groups with varying levels of difference. The issue that has created so many social problems is that a reality has been constructed to assert the inherent superiority of some groups over others.

This reality, which serves to benefit some groups at the expense of others is reinforced through misinformation being widely disseminated and accepted by dominant and targeted groups, and can cause some of us to feel left out, undervalued, and even less than human depending on where we lie on the spectrum of privilege and oppression when this misinformation shows up in our experiences. Our experiences shape our own personal narratives in terms of how we see ourselves in relation to others in world. Within our personal narratives lie conscious and unconscious attitudes about people who we believe to be different from us. We act on the information that we believe to be true, and sometimes after experiencing some contradiction we might find that some of the things we once believed to be true were only part of the truth, or not true at all.

However, it is not misinformation alone that causes conflict and oppression, but it is also the power to be able to decide what information is accepted; the power to be able to decide the “standards” for which all others must try to aspire to, although they may never necessarily fully attain.  Although the “standards” I am writing about are in actuality a constructed illusion, they have been made real through our thoughts and actions. The standards that assert the superiority of Europeans or “Whites” over People of Color, that assert the superiority of men over women, wealthy over poor, heterosexuality over homosexuality, standards that assert the superiority of Christianity over other world religions, “able bodied” persons over people with different abilities, and standards that devalue people because of their age or national origin continue to serve as a challenge in our journey to live together peacefully.

I say that the standards have been made real though “our” thoughts and actions because I believe that we are all implicated somehow in this conflict. There are parts of ourselves that place us in positions of privilege, sometimes unearned privilege, and other parts of ourselves that can leave us vulnerable to discrimination and oppression. How do we move forward? How do we negotiate the conflicts that arise as a result of the differences between us?

Enter Social Justice Work

“All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence”.–Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Social Workers are humans too, and I think that we are just as much implicated in the web of privilege and oppression as anyone else. However, what attracted me to the profession was a desire to promote the humanity and personhood of all people; a desire to get beyond the misinformation and to find the connection that we all share: we are all human beings and in order for us to survive and thrive, we must work together.

I truly believe that Social Workers have played, and can continue to play a role in transforming the social landscape and in working to ensure a more just and equitable future for everyone. According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the primary mission of the profession is to “enhance human well-being and to meet the basic needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty”. Social workers have an obligation to advocate for the most marginalized in society, and to work for social justice & equity for all people. The core values of service, social justice, the dignity and worth of the person, the importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence highlight the fact that our work is person-centered.

Social workers can be found all over the world working in schools, hospitals, communities, government, and a variety of other areas to improve the human condition. Through their service and advocacy for others, social workers play a role in helping us all negotiate conflicts and in working against those social ills that prevent us from having a more just society.

Ubuntu and the Global Agenda for Social Work

For me, when I think of Social Work, improving the human condition, and negotiating the conflicts that arise as a result of working toward this goal, it all comes back to Ubuntu: an African philosophy which highlights the interconnectedness of our destinies and our real interdependence on one another to succeed. As I mentioned earlier, although we are all implicated somehow in the complicated network of privilege and oppression, I also believe that we all have a role to play working toward establishing a more equitable and just society for all people.

Social Justice Workers can be found all over the world and although our interests, talents, and the ways in which they choose to serve others are as varied and vast as the differing locations we inhabit, we have many shared values and ethics. I believe that there is room at the table for all of us as professionals, just as we believe that there is room at the table for all of us as human beings. Here in the United States, March is Social Work month. I was so pleased to be invited to by Claudia Megele to share my thoughts about the role of Social Work in society with colleagues in the UK as you prepare to celebrate Social Work week, and we all prepare to celebrate World Social Work Day this year on Tuesday, March 20^th, 2012, and The United Nations’ Social Work Day on Monday, March 20^th, 2012, and to present the great work of collaboration that is the Global Agenda on Social Work and Social Development.  We all share somehow in the problems, and we all can share in crafting the solutions. Ubuntu.

Wishing you all Grace & Peace,

Join us on World Social Work Day (Tuesday, 20-March-2012) at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT to discuss and explore the “Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” in a rich and lively Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

Relando Thompkins (@Relando_T) is a social justice worker and writer for the Blog: Notes from an Aspiring Humanitarian (N.A.H.) (@N_A_H_Blog) at RelandoThompkins.com

In those industrialised countries over the last century, there are a number of social changes which deserve mention in relation to viewing contemporary social work in context. Firstly, and these are not in any sort of priority order, there has been the increasing secularisation of society. I am an agnostic on the importance, or not, of religiosity (though secularisation certainly does not just refer to that), but I do recognise from a social science point of view the effects of secularisation on social structures, social welfare development, and meanings related to modernity and society. I will go no further into the detail of that here, as it tends to be an extremely complex, lengthy, challenging, and not infrequently divisive subject area. But I acknowledge its relevance within social history.

Secondly, there has been the phenomenon which social scientists often refer to as ‘the death of the extended family’: another complex subject. Again, without getting diverted off into high detail, I think most historians and social scientists would agree that there has been significant change and evolution to western societal structures, communities and familial constructs over the past century. The arguments then begin over which were good changes, and which were not.

Thirdly, there has been the emergence of the welfare state: by which I mean not simply Beveridge-type changes to formal social welfare provision, but the evolution of the state, independent, and third sector social care and welfare provision which we see in the present day, in various shapes and forms, in innumerable countries around the world.

Those and many other socio-cultural, political, economic, scientific (etc, ad infinitum) factors have shaped and impacted upon the practice of social work in contemporary society.

I would add one final element into the mix. It is what Francis Fukuyama called ‘The End of History?’ It contends, essentially, that eventually liberal democracy will become the only form of universalised government for all. One extrapolation of that, in terms of social welfare, is that ‘everyone’ will end up with a homogenous social welfare provision that will look the same, will be funded the same, and will be delivered the same wherever one goes in the world. Whether I agree with that, I will come back to, but it is certainly relevant to the debate.

Before finally coming on to the central issue of the importance of social work in contemporary society, perhaps one should first consider whether it has been important so far. I think that is actually very easy to answer: and it sometimes drives me to distraction that this is not said often or loudly enough. OF COURSE IT HAS! We have over a hundred a years of anecdotal and research evidence from around the globe which demonstrate unequivocally that social work has assisted, advised, supported and protected hundreds of thousands of people. It may even run into the millions. We really should be producing that evidence far more often. We should be so proud of that record. I am.

So, is social work important in contemporary society? Well, to answer that I will return to Fukuyama.

I have absolutely no idea whether there will ever be what he terms the end of history. But one area where I do agree with him is the postulation that everything is ultimately determined by human evolution. And that, I think, is precisely the determinant of whether social work is important in contemporary society. Because it actually does not matter whether one is asking the question in 1912, 2012, or 3012. As long as there is poverty, vulnerability, and need, then there will always be people who want to help, support, assist, and protect those who are subject to those social ills. Whether they are called social workers or not is really neither here nor there. There were social workers before such a term existed, and there will be social workers once that name has morphed into something else. The need for and importance of ‘social work’ will only end when humanity has evolved beyond the existence of any of those social ills. And that, I am very sad to say, will not be any time soon.

Join us on World Social Work Day (Tuesday, 20-March-2012) at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT to discuss and explore the “Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” in a rich and lively Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

Nick Berbiers is a Social Care Interim Manager and Consultant at Neist Point Limited and a member of @SWSCmedia Expert Panel.

Therefore, our topic for next week’s debate (20-Mar-2012) is the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” and we will have a special Tweet up session from London Metropolitan University. We hope you can join our debate by using the hashtag #SWSCmedia.

Social work is an international profession with shared values and ethics. Therefore, the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) together with International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) have developed the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development“.

During World Social Work Week (20^th to 26^th March 2012) the Global Agenda will be officially presented to:

• Westminster and UK national governments;
• Helen Clarke, United Nations Development Programme Director,at the UN in New York;
• UN offices, the European Parliament and national governments around the world.

Furthermore, we are also starting the hashtag #GASWSD. to  continue the discussion in relation to the Global Agenda, and for Social Work Week, we will do a compilation of all tweets using the hashtag #GASWSD and/or #SWweek. Tweet us your thoughts, actions, views, and reflections using  #GASWSD and/or #SWweek in order to initiate and sustain a Global conversation focused on Social Work and Social Development and to connect the Local, National and International.

We look forward to seeing you in our debate @SWSCmedia on the ”Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development” on Tuesday (20 March 2012) at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT.

The social worker, a male in his 30’s, was continuing to meet a 15 year old girl, who had been a case of his, (young person in need, I think), but the case had been closed for some months. He was meeting the girl in public places, such as Café’s. There was no suggestion that there had been any impropriety. He hadn’t informed his manager about what he was doing. His manager wanted to discipline him, citing the GSCC Code of Conduct 5.4 (which had newly been launched):

“You must not form inappropriate personal relationships with service users.”

The social worker retorted that:

a)  he wasn’t having an inappropriate relationship and

b)  he had never been issued any guidance about what constituted inappropriate relationships, including that it was inappropriate to stay in contact with former users of service

c)  covertly he raised the ethics of the practice of closing cases where there had been long standing involvement from a social worker, pointing out that foster parents are encouraged to continue support of “looked after” children well into adulthood.

I won’t go into the ins and outs of the case, but it did encourage the department to consider its policy and guidance on the issues.

Since the issue of the GSCC Code of Conduct in 2002 there has been a lot written about personal boundaries and the complex issue of separating the professional from the personal.

Following concern regarding the volume of professional boundaries issues resulting in conduct hearings The GSCC commissioned Sheffield Hallam to undertake research. The research included detailed discussions with social workers, a literature review and discussions with other professions such as nursing and medicine. The research found that only 10–15 per cent of informants made regular reference to regulatory and professional codes of practice, with an even smaller percentage quoting specific sections from these codes. A slightly larger group (15–20 per cent) made fairly regular reference to their agency’s policy documents. However, a clear majority relied on their own sense of what is appropriate or inappropriate, and made their judgements with no reference to any formal guidance. Agency guidance tended to ignore the ambiguous areas of practice and seemed to act as an insurance policy, brought out and dusted off when something goes awry. The research concluded two key things:

1. Firstly, the considerable harm that professional boundaries violations can have on service users
2. Caution against ever-increasing bullet points of advice and prescription. The authors advanced a notion of ethical engagement in which professionals exercise their ethical senses through regular discussion of professional boundary dilemmas.

The GSCC then produced a guidance document “Professional Boundaries Guidance for social workers. (Not dated, but probably 2011). The guidance re-iterated the lessons of the Sheffield Hallam research. In the spirit of the recommendation regarding the notion of ethical engagement the guidance uses case studies as an aid to provoke reflection and discussion about behaviour inside and outside of work, including discussion on ‘grey areas’. The guidance says that “we hope the guidance will be used by social workers and by their teams to reflect on and improve their practice”.

BASW’s Advice and Representation service has been highlighting for a number of years the issues of professional boundaries and welcome the increased level of debate on the subject. BASW, like the Sheffield Hallam research has opted for the writing of principles, rather than detailed guidance:

“Social workers should establish appropriate boundaries in their relationships with service users and colleagues, and not abuse their position for personal benefit, financial gain or sexual exploitation”. (Principle 3 of 2.3 Professional Integrity)

BASW also recognises the important role that employers play in supporting ethical values and principles:

“BASW expects employers to have in place systems and approaches to promote a climate which supports, monitors, reviews and takes the necessary action to ensure that social workers can comply with the Code of Ethics and other requirements to deliver safe and effective practice”.(Ethical Practice Principle 3).

BASW has been working with The College of Social Work (TCOSW) to develop the Professional Capabilities Framework. A dimension of the framework relates to “Ethics and Values”. The framework states that:

“A Newly Qualified Social Worker should Use ethical reasoning to arrive at principled decisions, recognising the impact of your own values, working with ethical dilemmas, conflict and ambiguity”.

The Health Professions Council minimum standards for HPC registered professionals states a worker (Standard 3.4) must:

“Be able to establish and maintain personal and professional boundaries.”

So it looks like that we have agreement on principles and ethics. It is also really interesting that there has been a definite shift away from the detailed issuing of “bullet points of advice and prescription”.

BASW welcomes that, but only with some provisos. The main one is that social workers must be given responsibility and space to debate these issues and employers must provide that space, via individual and peer supervision to enable these debates to happen.

So what advice would you give regarding the social worker who carried on seeing a service user after the case was closed? In addition to the conventional issues we also now have the complexities of social media – it is so easy now to have communication via social media. These issues have been considered elsewhere, but we do need to add social media into the reflection of professional boundary issues.

Joe Godden  (@GoddenJoe) is Professional Officer @BASW England and Trustee of an advocacy charity.

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST and share your views in relation to this and other relevant and important topics and issues at our Debates @SWSCmedia. 

The College is a strong and independent organisation which will promote and champion the positive aspects of social work, and will work hard to alter the negative perceptions that surround the profession.  Its mission is to:

• Develop a strong profession, confident about the unique contributions it makes to the individuals, families and communities it serves, with a clear sense of its values, ethics and purpose.
• Be a powerful voice for the social work profession, when communicating with the public, policy makers, employers and the media.
• Improve public understanding of, and support for social work, by developing a positive and transparent relationship with the media and representing the profession in public debates.
• Influence the development of national policies that impact on social work, social workers, carers and the people who use social work services, acting as an advocate for the profession.
• Build relationships and develop policies with other professional bodies regarding issues of common interest (e.g. occupational therapists, nurses, probation officers).
• Build relationships and develop policies with the academic community, including researchers, lecturers and teachers.
• Build relationships with user and carer led organisations, so that we involve service users and carers in everything that we do.
• Represent the social work profession in discussions with policy makers in government, the public, the media and other professions.
• Establish links with similar organisations overseas, learning from and sharing good practice in supporting social work.

Further information about the College is available at: www.collegeofsocialwork.org

The Centre for Health Communication Research and Excellence

This report has been prepared for the College of Social Work by the Centre for Health Communication Research and Excellence (CHCR) at Bucks New University.  CHCR is a new research centre that focuses on the communication challenges and issues within health and social care.  It operates within the Institute of Applied Leadership based at Bucks New University’s High Wycombe Campus.  The Director of the centre and lead researcher for this project is Professor John Underwood.

1. Executive summary

The Munro Review highlighted how the ‘sustained nature of the negative media images of social work that have been commonplace’[1].  The review cites studies showing that the 15 most common messages in press reports from 1997-1998 were negative with regard to social work and included: ‘incompetent’, ‘negligent’, ‘failed’, ‘ineffective’, ‘misguided’ and ‘bungling’.[2]

The Centre for Health Communications Research and Excellence has undertaken a research project for the College of Social Work involving a questionnaire completed by approximately 740 social workers plus a number of in-depth telephone interviews and email dialogues.

Key results included:

• 20 per cent of respondents believe that in general media coverage of social work is “completely unfair and inaccurate” and a further 71 per cent believe that in general media coverage is “pretty unfair and inaccurate”.

• In total 91 per cent of respondents felt that media coverage of social work is generally unfair and inaccurate and only one person (out of approximately 740) thought that in general media coverage of social work was “completely fair and accurate”.

• But when considering the media coverage of social work cases they had been personally involved in, the percentage of social workers who felt the coverage was unfair, unbalanced or inaccurate fell from over 90% to approximately 50%.

• Around 1 in 7 questionaire respondents claimed to have experienced unethical journalistic practice and almost 1 in 5 claimed to know of other social workers who had such an experience.

• Examples of poor journalistic practice experienced by social workers ranged from minor complaints to serious concerns including the use of illicit means to obtain client information, bullying and manipulation of staff and clients, poor fact checking, the failure to offer a right of reply and poor understanding or knowledge of the complexities of social work.

• Common themes that were raised by social workers included:

• Media intrusion can have a negative impact on service users
• Negative coverage of social work can cause concern and anxiety both to professionals and service users
• The poor status of the profession as reflected in negative reporting can have a direct impact on the morale of social workers and can lead to talented people leaving the profession
• An inability – on the part of some local authority media teams – to protect and promote the social work profession can lead to a lack of confidence among social workers when dealing with the media.

4.4  Respondents’ experiences of police supplying negative briefings to the media

It is sometimes claimed by social workers that police officers leak information and supply negative news stories about social services to journalists.  6 per cent (43) of respondents claimed to have personal experience or suspicions of this and 7 per cent (49) said they knew of other cases or other social work colleagues who had been or may have been the subject of negative police briefings.

4.5  Numerical analysis of experiences of unethical media practices

Before we move on to the qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses (section 5 below) it is useful to consider the number of respondents who claim to have experienced different types of unethical media practice.

While the number of respondents personally experiencing unethical behaviour (101) is less than 1 in 7 of all respondents it is a relatively high number when compared with the total number of respondents who had experience of social work cases that attracted media attention (307).

5. Thematic analysis

This section includes an analysis of qualitative inputs provided by questionnaire respondents in open text responses in the electronic survey and comments made to our researchers during interviews and email dialogues.

Thematic responses are split into two sections – the first dealing with the examples of poor journalistic practice that were shared with our research teams, and the second with the comments on the effects that journalists’ actions have on social workers and their clients.

5.1  Examples of poor journalistic practice

Over 100 of the survey respondents claimed to have personal experience of journalistic unethical behaviour and 139 claimed to know of other social workers who had experienced it.

Feedback on journalistic practice ranged from minor complaints to serious concerns.  Broadly, these can be categorised under four key themes:

Category 1: Improper conduct – unethical journalistic standards, using illicit means of obtaining information, bullying and manipulation.

Category 2: Imbalanced reporting and prejudice – including apparently malicious attempts to lay blame or scapegoat social workers, prejudice against service users.

Category 3: Poor journalistic practice – including inaccuracy, poor fact checking, failure to offer the right of reply.

Category 4: Ignorance – including poor understanding and knowledge of the complexities of social work, failure to include information which explains the context or complexities of social work cases, failure to understand that social workers cannot provide sensitive or confidential information.

5.1.1 Category 1 responses:  Improper conduct

Many respondents provided information about examples of behaviour by journalists which they felt was improper or unethical.

Comments relating to children and young people

• Two social workers shared examples of payments being made by journalists to young people receiving social care.  One social worker commented: ‘Journalists required to speak to a young person directly – told that it was not appropriate due to safeguarding issues for that young person – approached young person directly and published story in exchange for cash’.

• Two respondents told us about a young person being approached by a journalist despite being asked not to by social workers, another complained that an interview with a vulnerable young person had taken place without advocacy support being offered.

• Many respondents expressed concern about media exposure of vulnerable people – one referred to some broadcast coverage revealing the name of a young person ‘with no respect or regard to the surviving children and family, nor other young people closely involved’, and another respondent referred to the use of photographs of children obtained via Facebook.

Comments relating to payments for information offered to vulnerable adults

Some respondents shared information with us about vulnerable adults in their care who had been offered money in exchange for information.  For example:

• One social worker told us about a case involving an adult woman with a personality disorder who had been subjected to sexual abuse.  The woman contacted the media in desperation and was offered money to provide names and more details about her case.  The result of the media coverage was extremely distressing for the woman concerned and has jeopardised her position in relation to maintaining custody of her children.

• Another respondent mentioned a vulnerable individual who was the victim of an arson attack being offered money to sell their story.

• Another case involved a client who was still in treatment for substance misuse being offered cash to sell a story to a magazine aimed at young people.

Comments relating to dishonest means of obtaining information

A number of respondents gave examples of journalists lying or posing as service users, family members and other public service professionals involved in cases in an attempt to obtain information and gain access to staff.

• One social worker we spoke to claimed that this media practice was ‘par for the course… all social work teams have to rely on good support staff and office protocols to ensure that sensitive information doesn’t fall into the wrong hands’.

• Two social workers responding to this survey said they were subjected to unauthorised taping of discussions with clients.  One reported noticing a hidden tape recorder during a conversation with a client and a person introduced by the client as her best friend:  ‘I asked some more questions and was informed that the second person present was actually a journalist who was doing an article for a national newspaper about the way drug-using parents were treated by children’s social care. My consent had not been sought for a journalist to be present. I felt this was unethical on 2 levels 1, I was being taped without my knowledge or consent and 2, the mother was being given false hopes by the journalist that she should be able to keep her children and that the social workers were tricking her.’

Comments relating to aggressive and threatening behaviour

Many respondents shared examples of what they considered to be aggressive or threatening behaviour or infringements of privacy by journalists.

• One respondent claimed that a journalist had threatened to expose their identity if they didn’t answer the journalist’s questions.

• Another commented that they had ‘experienced a local journalist entering an ambulance and demanding the name and address of the patient, who was in shock. They did not declare who they were or why they wanted the information, which was then printed without permission’.

• Several respondents complained about journalists using overbearing face-to-face or door-stepping tactics on them, their colleagues or their clients including lingering outside contact venues, following staff members home, using the electoral register to obtain addresses, waiting outside their homes and phoning them at home.

5.1.2 Category 2 responses:  Imbalanced reporting and prejudice

Comments on scapegoating of social workers

Many respondents told us they felt the media automatically placed blame with social workers involved in cases that they reported:

• One respondent viewed this as an almost intractable position:  ‘I think the ritualistic scapegoating of social workers who work with the most complex, damaged and dangerous families in society is so deeply embedded in the journalism ‘psyche’ that it is bound to lead an individual journalist’s thought processes to attach blame in any controversial situation involving a social worker.’

• A very common issue involved the unfair allocation of blame to social workers rather than other public services.  One respondent said: ‘There was a preconceived media idea that the social worker would be the ‘fall guy’. The case involved professionals from social care, health, youth justice and education, but as ‘allocated social worker’, even if others do not conform to the care plan, social services take the blame.’

• Similarly, another respondent noted: “Social workers were made scapegoats and the decision regarding the removal of the children was ultimately made by a judge who had heard evidence from other professionals and yet it’s all down to the social worker again!”  Other respondents shared examples of unfair representation of the respective roles and responsibilities of the NHS and police.

• Many respondents raised concerns that service users’ accounts of events in which they were involved were often reported as fact without the professionals involved in the case being given an opportunity to comment:  ‘The media, with the exception of professional press, only reported from a single perspective, that of the parents [in one particular case] who were opposed to any change. They did not provide a balanced view with any response from the professional perspective nor that of the people who were directly affected.’

Comments on prejudice against service users

Some respondents were concerned about stereotyping of service users by gender, race, immigration status and mental health.  Comments included:

• ‘I always feel the media coverage is sensationalised and one-sided, such as “Schizophrenic attacks …”. There doesn’t appear to be any understanding just judgement.’

• ‘The media coverage was hugely sexist.’

• ‘In my opinion the articles were loaded with value judgements and lacked any factual basis. There was massive misrepresentation and the language used was both offensive and emotive.’

• ‘Used foul words which are in breach of human dignity and belittled the people described.’

5.1.3 Category 3 responses:  Poor journalistic practice

Comments on poor journalistic practice

Several respondents complained about poor or sloppy journalistic practices, particularly with regard to establishing the facts:

• One respondent commented: ‘Journalists do not understand the role of social workers and see us within simplistic terms. Inaccurate and lazy reporting is unfortunately the norm.’

• Other respondents commented that journalistic practice was ‘grossly insufficient’ when it came to establishing and reporting facts and pointed to inaccurate details such as: ‘Wrong name, wrong hospital, wrong grade for staff concerned’.

• ‘The media coverage included a great deal of guesswork and supposition in regards to outcomes.’

• ‘Reporting was directed at apportioning blame to individual staff concerned without having a full appreciation of the facts involved.’

Comments on poor balance

We also received numerous comments about the failure of journalists to balance their coverage by offering social workers or social services the right of reply:

• ‘No attempt was made to check the accuracy of statements made by a client who had complained about the service they received.’

• ‘Unbalanced views provided without views of the professional involved, social workers do not often get an opportunity to comment.’

• ‘One side of the story was portrayed. The service user and her husband told the local Commercial TV station one part of the picture but that station didn’t try to balance it out by seeking any comments from our organisation.’

Some respondents expressed disappointment that reports were not covered again after the facts of a case were better established:

• ‘In both Cases after the initial reporting the local newspapers did not follow through with their investigations.’

• ‘There was an enquiry which exonerated the social worker, but the press did not follow this up.’

5.1.4 Category 4 responses:  Ignorance and poor understanding of social work

Comments on the lack of knowledge of the complexities of social work

Typical comments about lack of understanding of the social work process included:

• ‘Assumptions were made about the ability of social workers to predict behaviour, and about the nature of risk assessment. There were assumptions made about the nature of intervention and likely outcomes.’

• ‘The issue was taken out of context and this meant that the report pathologised the issue. This was detrimental to the outcome which we were trying to achieve.’

• ‘Media had run with one aspect of the case which they deemed to be negative however failed to recognise that ultimately the children had been protected and the work and involvement this takes by professionals.’

Comments on failure to understand that social workers cannot provide sensitive or confidential information

• ‘While we have an obligation to keep confidentiality the service user can say whatever they like so reportage tends to be unbalanced.’

• ‘As I had confidential knowledge of the case I was able to identify inaccuracies relating to the potential outcomes for the mother, who was facing trial due to issues presented in the case and harm caused to a child.’

5.2  The impact of poor journalistic practice on social workers and service users

Social workers made full use of the open text responses in the questionnaire and open dialogue opportunities in our telephone interviews to volunteer their own thoughts, ideas and concerns about the issues surrounding media reporting of social work.

Common themes that were raised included:

• A sense that excessive media scrutiny could make day-to-day work difficult.

• The idea that media intrusion and negative coverage of social work caused unnecessary concern and worry for social workers, their clients and colleagues.

• The poor status of the profession impacting on morale and staff retention.

• Poor individual support or defense of the profession from local authority press offices.

• The role of the wider media beyond journalism (i.e. the representation of social workers in wider fictional settings such as TV soap operas).

5.2.1  A sense that media scrutiny made routine social work difficult

Respondents told us that pressure from the media and concerns (from social workers) that supreme efforts needed to be made to protect confidentiality frequently acted as a distraction from the routine social work case load.

• One social worker told us about a case in which a young woman with mental health issues was being targeted aggressively by the local media.  Her family were pressured into supplying her social worker’s contact details and ‘because they felt intimidated by the journalist so they provided them’.  The journalist took to loitering in reception areas and trying to get information out of other staff as well as repeatedly ringing the social worker to ask for information.  The social worker explained that this ‘had a negative impact on the whole team and affected the relationship with the client and her parents in terms of the quality of care we could give’.

• Many respondents shared with us examples of subterfuge that obstructed their day-to-day work and restricted the flow of information within teams, between agencies and with service users’ families.  For example, we were told several times that journalists routinely posed as service users, public services professionals or relatives in attempt to obtain information.  Typical quotes include:

• ‘Journalists masquerading as relatives, service users, requesting community care assessments in order to gain access to staff.’
• ‘I had a colleague who a journalist tried to trick into answering questions posing as a family member of a client.’
• ‘Phone calls to the office pretending to be relatives or other involved professionals in the case.’

• Many respondents also objected to what they saw as the overbearing face-to-face or door-stepping tactics that had been used on them, their colleagues or their clients e.g:
  • ‘Journalists waiting outside contact venue to try and get a quote.’
  • ‘Journalists following social workers to their homes and phoning them at home.’
  • ‘Journalists using the electoral register to find addresses of social workers.’

5.2.2  Media intrusion and poor coverage of social work causing unnecessary concern and worry for social workers and their clients and colleagues

Media intrusion is also apparently having a negative impact on service users and many social workers we spoke to were concerned that poor coverage of their profession was causing unnecessary concern and worry.

• One respondent told us: ‘Negativity from media coverage can have an impact all round, on the team, the clients and their families. This can hamper the job, particularly in the case of children protection issues, because the families are more suspicious. In my experience I’ve had clients talking to each other and ‘checking me out’ to see if I was ‘ok’ and they could trust me.’

• ‘Social workers are used to getting bad press and we get our job satisfaction in different ways.  But it makes me sad because people who need our help become fearful and put off contacting us, and it takes such a long time to build up trust when you start work with a new client.’

• ‘The myth of the social worker as someone who removes children from families on a whim is one that continues to be perpetuated.’

• ‘Whenever social workers are mentioned in the media, it tends to be associated to some scandal or failure to protect or poor service.  More often than not, people only hear anyone mentioning social workers when a serious case review hits the news and by then, it is usually to highlight the poor practice that led to the tragedy.’

Many respondents expressed concern that service users were given false promises and exploited for their stories and that the resulting media coverage had a damaging effect on them or on others.

5.2.3  The poor status of the profession impacting on morale and staff retention

The poor status of the profession appears to be having a direct impact on the morale of social workers and in some cases media intrusion is actually causing staff to leave their jobs.

Respondents felt that the media would criticise them whatever they did, pointing to examples of cases where social services were criticised for interfering and others where they were criticised for doing too little.  The phrase ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ came up several times in our discussions.

Examples of staff leaving the profession are included in the following quotes:

• ‘The case was initially presented in the press but then not followed up. The media often present the high drama of cases but not the subsequent processes or outcomes. Despite being exonerated the team leader in this case had to stop working because they found the whole experience just too much, despite being an experienced and capable welfare professional.’

• ‘A colleague and friend and superb social worker was accused by young woman of sexual offences, newspapers printed photo and address of social worker, leading to threats and the need to move, meanwhile all charges dropped as young woman admitted she had made up all allegations, no media coverage for this. As a locum he was unable to find work and has now left the profession, a huge loss.’

• ‘An incident of child death with drug abuser father, press put blame on my friend, management not supportive, friend left social work.’

5.2.4  Poor individual support or defense of the profession from local authority press offices.

A number of social workers clearly lack confidence in their local authority media teams and feel they are not dealing with the media in a manner that protects and promotes the status of their profession.  Typical comments included:

• ‘As a rule I have not felt supported by local authority media teams.  In one case I was simply sent an email saying ‘do not speak to the press.’

• ‘I didn’t feel supported by local authority media teams; you tend to get left out in the cold. I was lucky with my manager that my experience didn’t result in a ‘black mark’ for me.’

• ‘The local authority had a blanket policy not to comment on cases, so they took no action to set the story straight.  The social worker and manager looking after the child had done nothing wrong, so no disciplinary action was taken against them.  But the media exposure was extremely upsetting for them both.  The social worker was off sick for a year or so and was fearful of coming to the area in case she should be recognised or attacked by the family or friends of the dead child.  The manager involved suffered too, finding it very difficult to get work elsewhere because her name was recognised on applications… And while the local authority had their reasons for not challenging the coverage, this left their staff exposed and unsupported.’

• ‘Local Authorities are still very ‘jumpy’ about press involvement because there is no positive side. There is a reticence to involve the press other than in a managed situation such as a fostering recruitment campaign.  An honest portrayal is difficult not least because Local Authorities ban individuals from having any contact with the media.  This is fairly widespread and it is made clear that you need a Line Manger’s approval first, so it is uncomfortable and so staff are reticent to make a decision.  It’s understandable but depressing… these issues reinforce the fear of the media and so people stay quiet about anything positive.’

• ‘In my experience with local authority media teams some have been very good and other times I felt they could have dealt with it better. Sometimes I think they can forget why they are there. They should be more honest rather than trying to be protective and put a spin on it. Sometimes it is best to show where we’re coming from and not play games with the media.’

5.2.5  The role of the wider media beyond journalism

We also detected a sense that social workers believe that journalism and news reporting are not the only type of mass media representation that affects the public perception of the social work profession.  TV dramas also play a major part.  Comments included:

• ‘In terms of general perceptions and how the media treat social workers, the press is one area of it, but we need to look at the depiction of social workers and welfare professionals in soap operas, general drama, and film because they too add to public perceptions, and these notions stick in the public’s mind.’

• ‘Another problem is that it doesn’t seem to be a popular subject.  You see lots of heroic policemen and doctors in dramas and soaps.  But when a social worker is cast we’re portrayed either as woolly-minded, sandal wearing hippies or nasty, dominant and interfering.  There’s nothing rational about this – we come into the profession to do good and work hard to qualify.  We should be supported and enabled to deal with the challenges in society, not pilloried.’

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The College of Social Work has been established following recommendations from The Social Work Task Force for the establishment of an independent college to articulate and promote the interests of good social work.  Part of its mission is to promote and champion the positive aspects of social work and to address the negative perceptions that often colour media coverage of the profession.

Of course, any professional group (teachers, nurses, police officers) may feel that it receives unfair media coverage from time to time but when 20% of social workers believe that general media coverage of their profession is “completely unfair and inaccurate” and a further 71% believe that such media coverage is “pretty unfair and inaccurate” then the profession faces a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The findings of this research also throw light upon the day-to-day impact that negative media coverage has on social workers, service users and their families.

It is clear that media intrusion and resultant negative media coverage can cause real concern and anxiety both to professionals and service users and this can feed into a cycle of understanding that reduces the status of the profession and has a direct impact on the morale of social workers and the ability of the profession to retain talented people.

It is also clear that the perceived inability of some local authority media teams to protect and promote the social work profession can lead to a lack of confidence among social workers when dealing with the media.

Perhaps the most encouraging point to emerge from this research is that when considering the media coverage of social work cases they have personally been involved in, social workers feel the coverage is likely to be more fair, balanced and accurate.  Perhaps not as fair, balanced and accurate as desirable but certainly more balanced and accurate than is generally the case.

It is not entirely clear why this should be the case but at least two factors may be at play here.

• First, this is coverage where social workers are more likely to have actively engaged with the media either personally or through media handling intermediaries such as local authority press officers and this in itself might help to ameliorate otherwise hostile and negative media coverage.

• Second, this research shows that well over half (53 per cent) of the media coverage that social workers have personally been involved in is local or regional media coverage compared with 29 per cent national media coverage, 11 per cent professional or trade press coverage and 7 per cent electronic coverage (social media, blogs etc.).

It may be that local media is somewhat more benign than national media and it may be more susceptible to positive engagement from social workers.

In any event this research suggests the need for a robust programme of activity to:

• Ensure social workers have a sophisticated understanding of how the media works
• Create a suite of tools that social workers can apply to media engagement
• Support social workers in dealing with media intrusion
• Apply pressure to eradicate poor media practice
• Educate the media to enable more balanced and informed reporting

Appendix:

The College of Social Work – media ethics questionnaire

Please note the numbers in the multiple choice boxes represent the total number of respondents that gave alternative replies to each question.  So, for example, 307 respondents replied “YES” to question 1 and 434 respondents replied “NO” to this question.

Q2 – If “YES” please indicate what type of media coverage this case (or cases) received.  Feel free to put an “X” next to more than one box if that is appropriate.

• Professional or social work media:   52
• Local or regional media including local radio or regional TV:   251
• National media including national newspapers, magazines, national radio and national TV:   137
• New or electronic media such as blogs, social media, Twitter etc.:   32

Q3 – If you answered “YES” to question 1 how fair did you feel the media coverage was?  (If more than one case received media coverage please reflect on the case that received most coverage.)  Did you feel the coverage was…?

• Completely fair and balanced:   13
• Reasonably fair and balanced:   141
• Pretty unfair and unbalanced:   114
• Completely unfair and unbalanced:   33

Q4 – If you answered “YES” to question 1 how accurate did you feel the media coverage was?  (If more than one case received media coverage please reflect on the case that received most coverage.)  Did you feel the coverage was…?

• Completely accurate:   12
• Reasonably accurate:   134
• Pretty inaccurate:   131
• Completely inaccurate:   18

Q5 – If in response to questions 3 and 4 you indicated that you thought the media coverage was in any way unfair or unbalanced or inaccurate please answer this question.  In what way did you think the coverage was unfair or unbalance or inaccurate?  (Please type your answer in the box below.)

Q6 – Have you ever personally experienced any examples of what you would consider to be journalistic unethical behaviour?

• Yes:   101
• No:   639

Q7 – Do you know of any other social workers who have experienced what you would consider to be journalistic unethical behaviour?

• Yes:  139
• No:  601

Q8 – If you answered “YES” to question 6 or question 7 would you please describe the details in the box below?

Q9 – It is sometimes claimed that police officers give negative news stories to the media about social services and social workers.  Do you have any personal experience or suspicion of such activities?

• Yes:   43
• No:  694

Q10 – It is sometimes alleged that police officers feed negative stories to the media about social services and social workers.  Apart from any personal experience of this do you know of any other cases or any other social workers who have been (or may have been) the subject of police briefings?

• Yes:   49
• No:   689

Q11 – If you answered “YES” to question 9 or question 10 would you please describe the details in the box below?

Q12 – And finally we would like to seek your general view of the media coverage of social work.  Do you think coverage of social work in the media is generally…?

• Completely fair and accurate:   1
• Reasonably fair and accurate:   68
• Pretty unfair and inaccurate:   521
• Completely unfair and inaccurate:   146

Thank you for your help in completing this survey. 

We are keen to have more detailed conversations with a small number of respondents.  If you are willing to have a ten minute telephone conversation one of our researchers please give us your email address and telephone number.

• Email address:
• Telephone number(s):

Join us every Tuesday at 8:00 PM GMT / 3:00 PM EST and share your views in relation to this and other relevant and important topics and issues at our Debates @SWSCmedia. 

And so to social work!

In McLaughlin, K. (2007) ‘Regulation and Risk in Social Work’ British Journal of Social Work 37(7): 1263-1277, the author identifies and separates out three notions of risk: risk posed by service users, being the risk that social work is to manage (Codes of Practice at point 4); the risk to ourselves as professionals; and the risk that we as professionals pose to our service users.

It is really in response to the last of those that we have such activity and such a live debate about boundaries in social work. In short, some social workers are abusive of service users. And in short, as in so many other fields of life, the call goes up to the State, “Do something about it! Stop it happening again!” The state obliges, steps in, makes some rules. And we all feel that little bit safer. Until something else goes wrong, as it inevitably will, the cry goes up, and the circus begins again.

We have now reached a point in the process that George Orwell might have recognised as doublethink: we actually think these boundaries represent good social work practice, rather than that they were erected to protect from bad social work practice. The danger of that doublethink is that we think we are getting better and better at social work by erecting more boundaries, and don’t stop to question the possibility that the side effects of protecting from bad social work might be… a different kind of bad social work!

Which ties in with the other reason we need boundaries. It’s called a professionalisation project – see Weiss-Gal, I. et al (2008) ‘The professionalisation of social work: a cross-national exploration’ International Journal of Social Welfare 17: 281–290. It’s tied in with enhancing our status as a profession. We emphasise our difference from service users. By maintaining our professional distance, we increase our status.

This latter seems to arise because of our insecurity about social work’s status. It seems to me that the more secure a profession is about what it is about, the less it seems to need to say, “We’re not here to talk about me, we’re here to talk about you!”

You may know I am dual qualified and also a solicitor. Have you heard of solicitors having business lunches with their clients? Because they do! Did you know solicitors are allowed to practice from their own homes? Because they are! Have you checked out the guidance note on professional boundaries? Let me know where it is…

You may say, ah! but solicitors and their clients have more equal power relations. Not so, you’ve just bought into the myth that service users are intrinsically vulnerable and solicitors clients are not. Some solicitors clients are rich and powerful, others are among the most vulnerable in society. Some social work service users are among the most vulnerable in society, others are rich and powerful.

The real difference is that as a lawyer my regulator requires me to:

• act with integrity;
• not allow your independence to be compromised;
• act in the best interests of each client;
• provide a proper standard of service to your clients;
• behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services;

…but does not prescribe exactly what that means. Thereby giving me greater freedom – professional responsibility even – to work it out for myself in each given situation, instead of having it worked out for me, chapter and verse.

Meanwhile, safe within its perimeter fence, social work, under siege, and out of contact with the service users on the other side – could die.

Allan Norman (@CelticKnotTweet) is a registered social worker and a solicitor at Celtic Knot – Solicitors and Social Workers.

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST and share your views in relation to this and other relevant and important topics and issues at our Debates @SWSCmedia. 

It is a small workshop and unfortunately there are no more places available. However, we will be live tweeting using the hashtag #12thMW so please follow if you can between 2.00pm and 4.30pm.

The workshop will feature contributions from:

• Shirley Ayres (Digital Strategy and Communications Consultant)
• Victoria Hart (Social Worker)
• Claudia Megele (Senior Lecturer & Module Leader MSc Programme, University of Hertfordshire)
• Dr. Martin Webber (Lecturer and Programme Leader Institute of Pyschiatry, King’s College)

This is an opportune time to discuss CPD in social work with the impending closure of the post-qualifying framework in July and the start of endorsement of CPD by the College of Social Work. We hope that this workshop will help to advance the thinking of the College about the role of social media in CPD in social work.

To start the discussion, Daisy Bogg (social worker and Member Services Development Officer at the College of Social Work) has written the following statement of behalf of The College:

The world has changed. Technology is now both the present and the future. It could be suggested that social work needs to grasp and utilise all of the various communication mechanisms available if we are to make sure we remain relevant and reflect the society in which we operate. Social media represents a far reaching way to share views, ideas and best-practice across diverse areas and geography. Surely this can only be a good thing?

For the technophobes out there it can be a daunting thing to approach. How does it work? What can it do? How will it help? What equipment do I need? Can I break it if I press too many buttons?

I guess if you have never really had to use it it can be a overwhelming world to break into, but I would urge people to stick with it and just jump in, it really can open up a world of information, peer support and learning that is instantly accessible from your own front room.

CPD is not always about traditional training courses or academic peer reviewed research articles, the important thing is the impact of learning, not necessarily the way it is delivered.

From Twitter, to Facebook, to LinkedIn and beyond, there are so many options that are available to today’s social work professionals, which in a world of increasing cost pressures and budget cuts (which of course usually includes restrictions on training options) could provide the opportunity for social workers to explore a whole range of issues and development needs as well as to access peer support networks that would never have been possible in a pre-computer age.

Social media can be a valuable addition to the social workers toolkit, from social work specific debates on twitter, through to facebook groups of social workers discussing opinions on both practice and policy, blogs (which are effectively online journals) on a range of subjects and e-learning packages that support self-directed learning and practice development. From a CPD point of view technology is opening up options for us that have never been available before, and personally I think that should be celebrated and promoted. How else would we be able to debate the differences between English and Scottish mental health law, or poll national views on the best course of action in a specific case? Surely this level of interaction across the profession should not be sniffed at – if used well it can serve to strengthen both the evidence-base and the voice of social work.

The College is in the process of developing an endorsement scheme for a range of training and learning and is unable to recommend any specific resources at the moment. However The College Communities of interest which are currently hosted on the Local Government Association (LGA) Knowledge Hub, has been established by The College to provide a facilitated forum and range of professional resources and an online practice helpdesk ‘Knowledge at The College’ (accessible via your member dashboard) are both available to support good practice, along with a whole library of e-books and selected professional journals. These are the very real benefits, that as a member you can access and take part in, and are just some of the ways that technology can support social work CPD in today’s gadget orientated world. Often the most important thing in social work practice is to remember that you are not alone, and online forums, social media and electronic resources can make a real difference and connect you with other social workers across the country (and beyond).

As this statement suggests, the College is using social media to engage practitioners in discussions about their work and is open to discussing its role in a social worker’s CPD.

We are pleased to have a range of people attending the workshop on Tuesday to discuss this, including social work students, practitioners (including some undertaking post-qualifying training), managers and academics. Also, the British Association of Social Workers will be represented at the workshop. BASW have a CPD policy and this can be downloaded here.

So, if you can, please follow the discussion on twitter (#12thMW). If you can’t, the outcome of the workshop will be shared on this blog and elsewhere online. Thank you.

This is reblogged from Dr. Martin Webber’s blog.

Due to a technical problem we were not able to capture the opening tweets from @SWSCmedia for the debate. Therefore, we list these tweets here below:

• Good evening everyone and welcome to our debate @SWSCmedia on “Social Workers, Politics, and Political Opinions” #SWSCmedia
• #Socialwork interventions and #socialworkers actions are not free from political significance. #SWSCmedia
• 1 of the fundamental objectives of social work and social workers is to achieve positive social change and greater social justice #SWSCmedia
• However, social change even if it is positive social change has political ramification and significance. #swscmedia
• In a sense, any choice or acts of commission or omission have political significance and implications. #swscmedia
• However, in a world where you can loose your job for tweeting about having a bad day in the office, #SWSCmedia
• Our 1st Question is: To what extent can socialworkers really engage in politics and express political opinions? #SWSCmedia

Below is the summary of our debate on Social Workers, Politics and Political Opinions:

Join us next week on Tuesday, 13 March 2012, at 8:00 PM GMT / 4:00 PM EDT when we discuss “Codes of ethics and professional conduct separating the personal and professional” and share your views @SWSCmedia. As always use the hashtag #SWSCmedia to join the debate.

Whatever your particular take on this subject is, there is no getting away from the fact, that social work is very much a political activity, prescribed by our policy makers in terms of statutory social work but relevant to the third sector too in the role that it plays .  Governments through their legislative programmes are keen to make their mark – one only has to think back to the previous Government and the Every Child Matters agenda which had such an impact over the whole of Children’s Services.  Contentious issues can also become ‘political footballs’ – I have already mentioned adoption but of course, child abuse tragedies are relevant here and on the adult side, we have had the CQC debacle and the contested area of personalisation.  It is in my mind therefore, all political and I don’t think that we need to seek ‘diplomatic immunity’ in terms of for example, debates on how health and social care for older people should be funded or how we should protect vulnerable children.  I was struck last year when travelling on public transport by the amount of people who were talking about the cuts to public services and what this meant to them on either a personal or professional level or even, both.

Of course, the issue of political engagement in this country is a wider one than just the sphere of social work; culturally, there is a reticence for people to talk about politics – it is not taught in schools unlike in other countries do our social mores also act as inhibitors in this area?  I don’t know.

What I would like to finish with is something constructive to help social workers consider our legitimacy in engaging with the political process.  BASW recently revised its Code of Ethics. By this point, some people’s eyes I imagine will be glazing over as they think to themselves ‘oh no, please don’t start citing lofty pieces of text that however, commendable can never be applied’.  Whilst I recognise that the context for practising social work is not an easy one and in truth, this has never been the case, I don’t see why we should admit defeat and abandon our professional values, principles and ethics.  2.2 of the Code of Ethics reminds us that Social Justice (something else the politicians have seized upon recently!) is a social work value and we have a duty to bring to the attention of our employers, policy makers, politicians and the general public situations where resources are inadequate or where distribution of resources, policies and practice are oppressive, unfair, harmful or illegal’.  Not to do so, means that we are being negligent as professionals.  However, in order to fulfil 2.2 of the Code of Ethics I would not recommend that social workers do this without firstly considering their support and protection needs as so many who strive to flag up poor practice can often end up as casualties of a system that promotes activities such as whistle blowing in word at least but then sadly does not necessarily follow it up with positive action.  The bullying culture has become pervasive in so many workplaces where there appears to be systems in place to deal with those who challenge and it is more about the ‘unwritten rules and codes’ than the written ones.  But of course, we as social workers are also armed with the greatest knowledge of all – how to combat abuse; it has to be brought out into the open and exposed so that it can no longer be a secret activity, cultivated in a climate of fear.  Mike Jervis, chief executive of the Damilola Taylor Trust once said to a group of professionals at a conference I attended, that it just took us all to stand up to defeat some of the ‘lawlessness’ that was going on.  I think there is something in what he said, it takes both individual courage and strength but also a collective effort to make a difference.

Nushra Mansuri (@BASW_UK) is the Professional Officer for BASW (British Association of Social Workers).

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST for an exciting and enriching Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

As a social work academic, I often mark assignments where practitioners try to make connections between social work theory and practice. Fairly often I come across written work which claims to be linking routine statutory social work to ‘anti-oppressive practice’ and I have to say it rarely works. There is usually a profound mis-match between the lofty theory and the mundane reality of what state social workers actually do. And you know what? I blame the theory, not the practice. Of course we should be anti-oppressive, but this is just good practice, as in any professional field. Let’s not make such a song and dance about changing society through our practice.

I wonder if the radical rhetoric in social work textbooks only succeeds in making social workers feel bad about themselves because they don’t manage to apply it in their practice. Would it not make more sense for us to accept that social workers should channel any political views they have via involvement in political parties or movements in their spare time, instead of kidding ourselves that they can change structural inequalities via their jobs as social workers? It is simply that the vast majority of social workers are employed more or less to work with individuals. Now of course you can’t separate the individual from their social context in social work and of course that social context is shaped by political decisions. But the same is true for anyone who encounters deprivation and disadvantage in their work – a teacher or a nurse perhaps. In teaching and nursing, though, there is not the same idea lurking around that the professional is somehow selling out their principles if they do their job well but fail to change the world.

I honestly think the best that social workers can do – and this is especially true in the statutory sector – is to help service users to improve their quality of life, even if this only in a small way, via some kind of social intervention. This may have some socio-political implications – e.g. you can think of helping an abused woman to leave a violent man in terms of wider issues of gender relations – but it is not in itself political change. And that’s fine. It’s probably the best you can do given the conditions of your employment. You might be able to go a bit further and make the case for more refuges or better policing or a new intervention for perpetrators, or you might even help set some of these changes in motion, but that is as much change as you are likely to achieve.

If the textbooks were less guilt-tripping, social workers might feel more content to work within the limitations of real-world employment. They might even have more energy for political campaigning in their spare time. Any outside political involvement will of course be deeply informed by the intimate exposure to how inequality works which social workers encounter in their daily practice.

If instead of radical rhetoric the textbooks were more focused on what works in social work – more on knowledge and skills and less on values if you like – then more individuals and families might actually experience an improvement in their quality of life. The larger structures of inequality may remain unchanged, but, let’s face it, the larger structures will anyway not be affected by how radical social workers are. If you want to change the structures, you have to change the government. To do that, you need political parties, unions and social movements. We are kidding ourselves if we think that social work practice can do it.

Prof. Jonathan J. Scourfield (@profjscourfield) is a professor of social work at Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University and a member of @SWSCmedia Expert Panel.

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST and share your views in relation to this and other relevant and important topics and issues at our Debates @SWSCmedia. 

This debate was Co-Chaired by three of our Tweeteraties and Twitter Ambassadors: @sasemwills & @ManishaMahen & @lillieputian.

Below is the summary of the debate however, there are tweets that did not have the hashtag #SWSCmedia and therefore, were not included in this summary. Please do not forget to use #SWSCmedia when you tweet during the debates or when you tweet something relevant to social work or social care, alternative your tweet does not appear in our search and is not included in our summary.

Our “Student Debates” are now every Sunday at 6pm GMT / 1pm ET / 10am PT.

We look forward to seeing you in our next “Student Debate” on Sunday (04-Mar-2012) when we discuss: “What do students want from their placement, practice educators and supervisors/supervisions”.

We look forward to seeing you in our next “Student Debate” on Sunday (04-Mar-2012) when we discuss: “What do students want from their placement, practice educators and supervisors/supervisions”.

This was our Inaugural “Student Debate” and was Co-Chaired by three of our wonderful Tweeteraties and Twitter Ambassadors: @sasemwills & @ManishaMahen & @lillieputian.

The debate was so successful and lively that we exceeded our data limits and could not retrieve all the tweets. We have now adopted a different strategy, which we believe will help us capture all the tweets so long as they have the hashtag #SWSCmedia. So please do not forget to use #SWSCmedia when you tweet during the debates or when you tweet something relevant to social work or social care.

Below is the summary of the debate in so far we could collect the relevant data.

Our “Student Debates” are now every Sunday at 6pm GMT / 1pm ET / 10am PT.

We look forward to seeing you in our next “Student Debate” on Sunday (26-Feb-2012) when we discuss: “What do students need from their Universities and Lecturers”. 


























Join us on Every Sunday at 6:00 PM GMT / 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT for our “Student Debate”.
The next debate on Sunday, 26-Feb-2012, is “What do Students want from their Universities and Lecturers?”

This was our Inaugural “Student Debate” and was Co-Chaired by three of our wonderful Tweeteraties and Twitter Ambassadors: @sasemwills & @ManishaMahen & @lillieputian.

The debate was so successful and lively that we exceeded our data limits and could not retrieve all the tweets. We have now adopted a different strategy, which we believe will help us capture all the tweets so long as they have the hashtag #SWSCmedia. So please do not forget to use #SWSCmedia when you tweet during the debates or when you tweet something relevant to social work or social care.

Below is the summary of the debate in so far we could collect the relevant data.

Our “Student Debates” are now every Sunday at 6pm GMT / 1pm ET / 10am PT.

We look forward to seeing you in our next “Student Debate” on Sunday (26-Feb-2012) when we discuss: “What do students need from their Universities and Lecturers”. 


























Join us on Every Sunday at 6:00 PM GMT / 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT for our “Student Debate”.
The next debate on Sunday, 26-Feb-2012, is “What do Students want from their Universities and Lecturers?”

SWSCmedia:  Where did you undertake your social work degree and training?

Susanne:  I did a Masters in Social Work at Bristol University.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated you to become a social worker? Did you always know you wanted to become a social worker?

Susanne:  I really wanted to work with children and looked into teaching, but there were quite a few ideas in teaching that I didn’t like. I feel children are one of the most vulnerable group of people in our society. They don’t really have people to stand up for them. I wanted to listen to their needs and support them. When I became aware of social work and what it involved, I was very keen and pursued it. I think as a social work you have a very unique and privileged role and insight into family life.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated your area of practice specialism (family and children)?

Susanne:  My interest in working with and supporting children. As mentioned, I feel you have a very privileged position within a family. 

My placement in my second year confirmed my choice – this was in a children’s team near Bristol.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated you to take part in the programme “Protecting our Children”?

Susanne:  When I arrived to start work for Bristol City Council, the BBC was already filming. I was asked if I would agree to being filmed and wanted to help promote the profession in a more positive light. Although “Protecting Our Children” is a small drop in a big ocean, I thought it would be a good way to help people understand more about what it involves and the complicated dynamics and difficult decisions we have to take. Perhaps to not always see things in black and white.

SWSCmedia:  You were newly qualified when filming started how did it make you feel watching the programme after almost a year of filming?

Susanne:  Like many people, I didn’t like seeing or hearing myself on TV! But it is very interesting to see your own actions from a different perspective. It was also interesting to see what decisions had been made about what was included in the final film and what wasn’t. The case had to be distilled into a film of only one hour long, so inevitably some things were left out.

It also made me analyse my own practice and become very critical. I was anxious about what people would think of some of the things I said and did. It made me realise how vulnerable I was as a newly qualified social worker as my practice is different now.

It was very emotional watching Toby’s situation from a distance. I realised what sad, emotional and difficult situations we work with and how we have to distance ourselves from this to a degree as professionals.

SWSCmedia:  Did many of your colleagues volunteer to take part in the programme?

Susanne:  Several people in my team were also involved in filming.

SWSCmedia:  How did your family and friends react to the programme (pre and post screening)?

Susanne:  I’ve had a really positive reaction from friends and family who have seen the documentary. My family in Germany couldn’t watch the programme, but I’m sending them a DVD. My partner’s family, colleagues and friends have been very supportive. One friend said watching the documentary had helped her understand me better as a person, as it shows an aspect of my life she wasn’t fully aware of. People have been very respectful of the work social workers do.

SWSCmedia:  Everyone enjoyed watching “Protecting our Children” what was the most difficult aspect of being involved in this programme?

Susanne:  Being looked at and criticised by the public. I’m not someone who enjoys being the centre of attention, so it was uncomfortable at times being the focus of discussion.

It upset me hearing criticism about my practice from other social worker / professors in the media about support that we would not have given the family. I hoped that people in the social work professions would have been more aware that of course we did much more for the family before we removed Toby and that not everything could be featured in an hours programme after being filmed for a whole year!

SWSCmedia:  What aspects of making the programme did you enjoy most?

Susanne:  Overall it has been an extremely interesting experience. I’ve very much enjoyed talking with people about what they thought about the work. I am pleased the response to the programme has largely been positive and has improved understanding of the profession.

It was also helpful for me understanding just how much work goes into a single hour
of broadcast. It has made me respect the media much more. 

SWSCmedia:  What did it feel like having cameras follow you around at work ?

Susanne:  Uncomfortable at times – people look at you when you come past with the
camera. But I enjoyed getting to know the documentary team. When they left I felt part of my working practice was gone.

SWSCmedia:  How long did they film you for?

Susanne:  They filmed altogether for just under a year.

SWSCmedia:  What do you hope the programme will achieve?

Susanne:  Better public understanding of what social work is about.

SWSCmedia:  Do you think we will see more programmes like “Protecting our Children”? 

Susanne:  I hope so! But I’m not sure – it’s very difficult to arrange the access, to get departments to agree to it. The way the team approached filming was unique, and I’m not sure how often the BBC could commit to this approach.

Since the programme we have seen you featured in Community Care. What advice will you give to social workers interested in engaging with the media?

Before working with BBC I would have said to be very cautious but now I think we as social worker have to be more open and honest. It took time to trust the BBC and the crew. But not to be too shy, to be open and honest and talk about what social work is about. I hope more people will engage, so social work stands in a more positive light. 

SWSCmedia:  Do you think you will be doing more media work to raise the image and profile of social work?

Susanne:  I might, but at the moment my priority is to build experience and to
develop my own professional understanding of the job.

SWSCmedia:  What has been the most surprising or unexpected aspect of being part of
“Protecting Our Children” documentary series?

Susanne:  I have been pleasantly surprised by the positive response to the programmes. I think looking back on my first difficult case it helped me develop my practice. 

SWSCmedia:  Thank you for answering our questions and best wishes with your career.

SWSCmedia:  Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and all the best with your work.

Susanne is a Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSW) at Children and Young People’s Services @BristolCouncil 

We’re pleased to announce that Annie Hudson (Director of Children and Young People’s Services from @BristolCouncil) will join us on Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 ET when we shall explore “Social Work in Media: Protecting Our Children” @SWSCmedia.

SWSCmedia:  Where did you undertake your social work degree and training?

Susanne:  I did a Masters in Social Work at Bristol University.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated you to become a social worker? Did you always know you wanted to become a social worker?

Susanne:  I really wanted to work with children and looked into teaching, but there were quite a few ideas in teaching that I didn’t like. I feel children are one of the most vulnerable group of people in our society. They don’t really have people to stand up for them. I wanted to listen to their needs and support them. When I became aware of social work and what it involved, I was very keen and pursued it. I think as a social work you have a very unique and privileged role and insight into family life.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated your area of practice specialism (family and children)?

Susanne:  My interest in working with and supporting children. As mentioned, I feel you have a very privileged position within a family. 

My placement in my second year confirmed my choice – this was in a children’s team near Bristol.

SWSCmedia:  What motivated you to take part in the programme “Protecting our Children”?

Susanne:  When I arrived to start work for Bristol City Council, the BBC was already filming. I was asked if I would agree to being filmed and wanted to help promote the profession in a more positive light. Although “Protecting Our Children” is a small drop in a big ocean, I thought it would be a good way to help people understand more about what it involves and the complicated dynamics and difficult decisions we have to take. Perhaps to not always see things in black and white.

SWSCmedia:  You were newly qualified when filming started how did it make you feel watching the programme after almost a year of filming?

Susanne:  Like many people, I didn’t like seeing or hearing myself on TV! But it is very interesting to see your own actions from a different perspective. It was also interesting to see what decisions had been made about what was included in the final film and what wasn’t. The case had to be distilled into a film of only one hour long, so inevitably some things were left out.

It also made me analyse my own practice and become very critical. I was anxious about what people would think of some of the things I said and did. It made me realise how vulnerable I was as a newly qualified social worker as my practice is different now.

It was very emotional watching Toby’s situation from a distance. I realised what sad, emotional and difficult situations we work with and how we have to distance ourselves from this to a degree as professionals.

SWSCmedia:  Did many of your colleagues volunteer to take part in the programme?

Susanne:  Several people in my team were also involved in filming.

SWSCmedia:  How did your family and friends react to the programme (pre and post screening)?

Susanne:  I’ve had a really positive reaction from friends and family who have seen the documentary. My family in Germany couldn’t watch the programme, but I’m sending them a DVD. My partner’s family, colleagues and friends have been very supportive. One friend said watching the documentary had helped her understand me better as a person, as it shows an aspect of my life she wasn’t fully aware of. People have been very respectful of the work social workers do.

SWSCmedia:  Everyone enjoyed watching “Protecting our Children” what was the most difficult aspect of being involved in this programme?

Susanne:  Being looked at and criticised by the public. I’m not someone who enjoys being the centre of attention, so it was uncomfortable at times being the focus of discussion.

It upset me hearing criticism about my practice from other social worker / professors in the media about support that we would not have given the family. I hoped that people in the social work professions would have been more aware that of course we did much more for the family before we removed Toby and that not everything could be featured in an hours programme after being filmed for a whole year!

SWSCmedia:  What aspects of making the programme did you enjoy most?

Susanne:  Overall it has been an extremely interesting experience. I’ve very much enjoyed talking with people about what they thought about the work. I am pleased the response to the programme has largely been positive and has improved understanding of the profession.

It was also helpful for me understanding just how much work goes into a single hour
of broadcast. It has made me respect the media much more. 

SWSCmedia:  What did it feel like having cameras follow you around at work ?

Susanne:  Uncomfortable at times – people look at you when you come past with the
camera. But I enjoyed getting to know the documentary team. When they left I felt part of my working practice was gone.

SWSCmedia:  How long did they film you for?

Susanne:  They filmed altogether for just under a year.

SWSCmedia:  What do you hope the programme will achieve?

Susanne:  Better public understanding of what social work is about.

SWSCmedia:  Do you think we will see more programmes like “Protecting our Children”? 

Susanne:  I hope so! But I’m not sure – it’s very difficult to arrange the access, to get departments to agree to it. The way the team approached filming was unique, and I’m not sure how often the BBC could commit to this approach.

Since the programme we have seen you featured in Community Care. What advice will you give to social workers interested in engaging with the media?

Before working with BBC I would have said to be very cautious but now I think we as social worker have to be more open and honest. It took time to trust the BBC and the crew. But not to be too shy, to be open and honest and talk about what social work is about. I hope more people will engage, so social work stands in a more positive light. 

SWSCmedia:  Do you think you will be doing more media work to raise the image and profile of social work?

Susanne:  I might, but at the moment my priority is to build experience and to
develop my own professional understanding of the job.

SWSCmedia:  What has been the most surprising or unexpected aspect of being part of
“Protecting Our Children” documentary series?

Susanne:  I have been pleasantly surprised by the positive response to the programmes. I think looking back on my first difficult case it helped me develop my practice. 

SWSCmedia:  Thank you for answering our questions and best wishes with your career.

SWSCmedia:  Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and all the best with your work.

Susanne is a Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSW) at Children and Young People’s Services @BristolCouncil 

We’re pleased to announce that Annie Hudson (Director of Children and Young People’s Services from @BristolCouncil) will join us on Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 ET when we shall explore “Social Work in Media: Protecting Our Children” @SWSCmedia.

This wasn’t a philosophical crisis but rather a musing on the relationship between the social work profession and the press. As the then group editor of Community Care I was doing another interview about social work in the wake of Baby P, where I challenged and corrected misunderstanding, misinformation and what sometimes seemed like wilful ignorance.

This wasn’t a philosophical crisis but rather a musing on the relationship between the social work profession and the press. As the then group editor of Community Care I was doing another interview about social work in the wake of Baby P, where I challenged and corrected misunderstanding, misinformation and what sometimes seemed like wilful ignorance.

I was doing it because news organisations found it difficult to find social workers and social work leaders to speak to. This was either because social workers wouldn’t speak to the press – not surprising given the media climate and because they feared employers wouldn’t approve – or because journalists didn’t even know where to find social work representatives.

There were social work spokespeople talking about Baby P but they weren’t being heard enough and it seemed that social work was in a vicious circle. The media and great swathes of the public and politicians were ignorant about the realities of social work but this ignorance created a climate where social workers were reluctant to speak out.

This was why Community Care launched a campaign to encourage social work to get its positive stories out there and to create resources that helped the mainstream media understand more about social work and to find spokespeople.

The BBC series, Protecting Our Children, made with Bristol Council, also has its roots in that post-Baby P movement to inform about social work. It makes a brilliant if stark contrast to much of the reporting of social work. The decision-making and practice shown is subtle and nuanced – we are not seeing “politically-correct do-gooding” nor “baby snatching” but the complexity of child protection decisions.

And, certainly, the programme has worked in that aspect, to judge by reactions in the press, on social media and in the one-to-one conversations I’ve had or overheard. But nobody should sit back and think job done. Excellent as it is, Protecting Our Children portrays only one dimension of social work and there is a risk that it could reinforce certain preconceptions. It would be easy to watch the first two programmes and assume that social workers work with one family at a time rather than juggling many similar situations at once and that all child protection issues occur in the “underclass”. And of course just as in party political discourse “health” has come to mean “hospitals”, this series could add to the public conviction that social work means child protection.

Of course this series couldn’t show every aspect of practice but it would have been useful to understand that other social work teams exist and may even have contact with these families.

Creating a public understanding full range of social work activity remains an urgent challenge.

What these programmes do reveal is the innate prejudice that social workers face from the service users – the immediate assumption that social work has a negative purpose to split up families. It is to be hoped that the series will challenge some of these preconceptions – but are the people most likely to hold these views going to watch a BBC2 documentary at 9pm?

Protecting Our Children is probably the most high profile piece of positive social work publicity but there has been other good work. Radio 4’s series Who’d be a social worker? revealed the challenges faced by newly qualified social workers last year. But most significant is the emergence of frontline social workers as spokespeople for the profession, mainly through the work of the nascent College of Social Work.

However, while the college’s recruits go some way to addressing my “why me” concerns of three years ago, there is still much to be done for social work to have a media presence similar to some other professional groups such as midwives. If birth or pregnancy hits the news, you are almost guaranteed to find a working midwife or two gracing the breakfast show sofas. It is still a significant red letter day to find a social worker in the same position and certainly the profession is not called upon enough to comment on stories related to disability or services for older people.

So these are the challenges for social work:

• Making the public perception of social work wider than the “sexy” discipline of child protection. For example, I was recently told by a TV producer that broadcasters would not be interested in something following dementia sufferers and their families through the various stages of and decisions about care.
• Helping the whole profession, not just brave enlightened sections like Bristol children’s services, to be confident in dealing with the media.
• Embedding the idea of social workers as experts in the minds of journalists.
• Making the good news stories sound as interesting as the bad. It was Ed Balls, I think, that summed up the problem here: when a fireman rescues a child there are flames and drama but when a social workers does it the important think is the lack of drama.

The solutions lie in challenging public and press prejudices and preconceptions about social work but equally challenging social workers’ and social work employers’ prejudices about the media.

The situation is dramatically better than 2008 but social work has only started on changing its media image for all the good press that Protecting Our Children has attracted.

Bronagh Miskelly  (@bromiskelly)is a Freelance writer and editorial consultant specialising in health and social care and former group editor of Community Care. 

Join us on Tuesday, 21 February, at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 ET when we shall explore “Social Work in Media: Protecting Our Children” @SWSCmedia.  We’re pleased to announce that Annie Hudson (Director of Children and Young People’s Services) from Bristol Council will also join our debate on that day.

SWSCmedia:  What made you decide to do this programme with BBC?

Annie Hudson:  We were approached by the BBC in autumn 2009 about doing a follow-up to ‘Someone to Watch Over Me’ – a similar documentary by the same team that broadcast in 2004.  A lot had changed since then with the Baby P case and Munroe review and we were the preferred choice for the BBC as we had a track record of working with them through providing access. Given our previous experience I was confident the programmes would accurately illustrate the complexity and demands of social work sensitively.

SWSCmedia:  What were the obstacles and challenges you faced and how did you overcome them?

Annie Hudson:  The main challenges for the local authority was to ensure that having a documentary crew with our teams would not be too distracting and that appropriate consents were in place.  All of the social workers involved say the documentary team worked alongside them without getting in the way and after a while they rarely noticed they were there.  The BBC managed consents and they worked closely with our legal team where proceedings were ongoing.

We also knew we would be inspected by Ofsted at some stage while the cameras were in, so we had even negotiated permission for the camera crew to have some access to the inspection, and our reading of the report.  In the end, they did not use this footage as the coverage of the live cases was a priority. 

SWSCmedia:  What are the main barriers for Local Authorities’ in engaging with media and how can Local Authorities overcome these barriers?

Annie Hudson:  It is really difficult to present media stories on child protection as most press would not have the time or resources to seek consents from clients to get the full story with names.  Also, there are contradictory views about what makes a success story involving social workers – this could be both keeping a family together at a time of crisis or removing a child  from a dangerous situation.  Apart from the documentary our usual media activity around children’s social work either focuses on fostering and adoption recruitment, outcomes of external inspections or new trials or pilot projects.  For all of these we would try social workers who are content to be named and photographed for local media as well as appropriate service users clients who could be kept anonymous.

Around the publicity for the documentary we managed to take journalists from The Times and Radio Times out with social workers as part of one of their regular days.  It took a lot of preparation work and we had agreement with both journalists that we would be able to check copy before publication to ensure client identities were protected and that photography would be blurred.

SWSCmedia:  How can Local Authorities improve/enhance their engagement with media, including social media?

Annie Hudson:  I think it helps to be minded to use any service-wide initiatives as new opportunities to engage with media.  We have found that using inspection reports, new pilots,  research or new statistics have been a good way in to placing a story and encouraging local media to look at our services.  Providing quick access to case studies is always appreciated.  Social media is becoming more important for us and certainly the documentary has provoked masses of online chat in various forums for monitoring and comment when necessary.

SWSCmedia:  What are the points that a Local Authority must consider and be aware of, in engaging with media and social media?

Annie Hudson:  I would recommend working closely with your communications department as well as staff and key partners, such as the police and health. Keep them informed of new projects, reports, research and objectives coming up, with plenty of notice. They can take on the considerations around timing, spokespeople, third-party endorsement and pitching stories that will fit with current agendas – both for the media and the rest of the local authority.

For a documentary there is a lot of extra council resource that needs to be on board to make the partnership work – especially at the beginning and end of the process.  Social workers who had been involved with the documentary found themselves in demand to do interviews and blogs around transmission.  This has all required considerable capacity and resources particularly around the time of  transmission. 

SWSCmedia:  It is not the first time that Bristol Council has formed a partnership with BBC to create a documentary programme around social work. What makes Bristol different in engaging with media?

Annie Hudson:  I’m not sure that we are very different but we were well-placed to work with them as we had previous experience with the same team.  The building of effective working relationships, where risks and issues can be honestly discussed has been paramount.

SWSCmedia:  Do you allow your staff to engage in social media? and do you have specific guidelines for social media participation for your staff?

Annie Hudson:  All our employees are provided with guidance about media engagement.  We do not expect staff to use social media in a professional capacity without permission from manager and our communications team.

SWSCmedia:  How involved were you in this programme and the project? 

Annie Hudson:  I was very involved at the beginning and towards the end of the project but was also obviously regularly briefed as filming progressed; this included regular meetings with the BBC team.  I was filmed undertaking some of my work, for example at council budget meetings, staff meetings and  and receiving our ofsted report but none of this was needed for the final films.  One of my key roles was championing why we were involved with colleagues and partners as well as ensuring that all necessary safeguards and protocols were in place.  On a practical level this included approving the agreement with the BBC, engaging with our partner organisations such as the NHS, police and the courts, viewing all the films during the final editing process for comment and doing media to promote and explain the programmes near transmission.

SWSCmedia:  There has been an overwhelmingly positive commentary from the public. Specifically, while on air many took to twitter to praise the programme. Did you expect such a positive feedback?

Annie Hudson:  It has been very encouraging and exceeded our expectations.  While we cannot yet evaluate the public impact, we know viewing figures were very high and the series has attracted very considerable media attention, which has been largely positive.  We have received many responses from viewers (via emails, twitter, blogs etc.) that many viewers were left with a  better appreciation of, and considerable admiration for social workers.  There has also been a palpable sense of public shock at the tough realities of some children’s lives.   It is also encouraging to hear that some would-be social workers have been spurred to apply for training. 

SWSCmedia:  How can social work as a profession engage with the media in order to bring about greater understanding of its’ role and raise the profile of social work and social workers? 

Annie Hudson:  I don’t think that there are any quick fixes to raise the profile of social work but councils could do more to remind managers of regular opportunities that might make good stories.  This might be a successful recruitment round, a local response to a national report with local statistics or a new pilot project that has gained funding.  I think the key is to keep a steady flow of information and engagement so that media know just where to go if something breaks for comment.

SWSCmedia:  How can social work and social workers use social media to enhance awareness and understanding of their role and profession?

Annie Hudson:  Apart from the documentary we’ve tried using our twitter feed during adoption or fostering recruitment blitzes to make ourselves more available for queries.  As individuals, social workers can always use comment pages linked to media stories about their work to provide their own insight, but I would advise getting clearance to do this first.

SWSCmedia:  BBC spent two years with your social work team how difficult was it for them to identify cases of interest?

Annie Hudson:  It was very challenging, as with each case they had to get a combination of social workers, service users and workers from other agencies to agree to be filmed. The documentary team had to spend a great deal of time developing relationships and building trust with all involved. Other events that go on within families also had an impact – for example the case could not be one where a family member was in criminal court as media exposure could prejudice the outcome of a trial.

SWSCmedia:  Do you think we will see more social work fly on the wall type programmes and documentaries?

Annie Hudson:  It is hard to comment on this but the Protecting our Children series, together with the equally strong and excellent Panorama programme on adoption (filmed in Coventry) may encourage the media and local authorities to think further about how best to capture the work of social care.  I think there is undoubted public interest, but clearly there are many safeguards that must be in place before proceeding. 

SWSCmedia:  Do you think it would help the social work profession to have a reality based programme such as ‘Coppers’ or ‘One born every minute’? and why?

Annie Hudson:  I’m not convinced this would be appropriate for social workers given the very sensitive work they do and that consent for filming with clients is very exceptional to obtain.

SWSCmedia:  Many individuals may feel inspired by the programme and may decide to train to become social workers. What early years career advice would you give to those setting out to become family and children social workers? 

Annie Hudson:  The most important thing is for would be recruits to acquire direct relevant experience of what the work can and does entail.  This can come through a range of activities and there is no doubt that the greater the experience the better.

SWSCmedia:  Do you have any final words, thoughts or piece of advice for local authorities, organisations or practitioners?

Annie Hudson:  I hope our work with the BBC and Open University will encourage more local authorities to think about how they can contribute to opening up the profession to the media and greater public understanding. 

SWSCmedia:  Thank you for taking the time for this interview and to answer our questions. Your engagement, and leadership have been exemplar. We wish you and your team every success with your work.

Annie Hudson is the Director of Children and Young People’s Services @BristolCouncil 

We’re pleased to announce that Annie Hudson will join us on Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 ET when we shall explore “Social Work in Media: Protecting Our Children” @SWSCmedia.

We’re delighted to have Annie Hudson (Director of Children and Young People Services) @BristolCouncil as our guest for our debate on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 when we discuss #SocialWork and #Media: #ProtectingOurChildren.

We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 8:00 PM GMT / 3:00 PM ET / 12:00 PT to discuss: #SocialWork and #Media.

Use this link to download: #SWSCmedia Debate/Chat Summary for 14-Feb-2012 – #ChildProtection Debate

]]> http://swscmedia.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/making-social-work-work-making-social-work-work/ Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:36:51 +0000 Claudia Megele http://swscmedia.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/making-social-work-work-making-social-work-work/ This literary review calls for families and children in developing countries to be supported in waysthat are appropriate to the conditions, culture and resources available rather than through approaches to social work that are common in the west.

Children living without, or at risk of losing, parental care have wide and varied needs, this paper highlight the need for more thorough assessments of appropriate approaches, functions and support needs for social workers, and suggests elements of an assessment tool to explore these issues. This paper is the first part of a longer process for developing such an assessment tool, and plans are underway to further develop and test the tool in 2012.

Every Child Connecting the Local and International and Making Social Work Work:

Download the Every Child’s report on Child Protection

Watch Hermione Norris’ BBC Lifeline appeal for Every Child and Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST for an exciting and enriching Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

In his 2003 report on the death of Victoria Climbié, Lord Laming stated:

“I recognise that those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm face a tough and challenging task… Adults who deliberately exploit the vulnerability of children can behave in devious and menacing ways. They will often go to great lengths to hide their activities from those concerned for the well-being of a child…(child protection) staff have to balance the rights of a parent with that of the protection of the child” (Lord Laming 2003:13). In his 2009 report he stated that “ They (parents) become very clever at diverting attention away from what has happened to the child. Therefore people who work in this field-.. have to recognise this in their evidence gathering. They have to be sceptical; they have to be streetwise; they have to be courageous”   (Lord Laming, 2009: 51-52).

Whilst with the great majority of  many parents we work successfully   to achieve positive outcomes, the small number of parents who do resist intervention  to a significant degree   pose a real threat   to their children.

The results of    a Community Care/Reconsruct survey (Community Care, 17 November 2011, pp 4-5and 18-20) in   2011 of nearly 600 social work and social care staff  show the high frequency of such behaviours towards staff  in child protection work.

In the survey,

• 91% of respondents stated that their caseload includes parents who are hostile or intimidating
• 51% said that they   dealt with such parents on a weekly or more frequent basis.
• 44% of respondents said that they agreed or strongly agreed that vulnerable children are being put at greater risk because they do not get enough supervision and support when dealing with hostile and intimidating parents
• Only 25% said    their organization had existing procedures/guidelines that they all use in dealing with such parents.

A Department for Children, Schools and Families analysis of   Serious Case Reviews in 2008   found    frequent  evidence of   lack of co-operation from families, often with  overt hostility towards staff. This included threats that   could make workers   become ‘frozen’,  hampering their ability to think and act clearly.

An Ofsted evaluation of 50 Serious Case Reviews in 2008 found  that professionals sometimes placed too much reliance   on what parents said, and that families were often hostile to contact from professionals,    preventing   workers  from recognizing or responding appropriately to the child’s abuse.

However, these areas of concern   are hardly present  in   government guidance and regulation. In the latest (383   page) 2010 HM Government Working Together regulations there is no mention of the need for assessment of the confounding effects of parental resistance, aggression and avoidance, apart from one sentence:

‘Some children may be living in families that are considered resistant to change.’ 

Jasmine Beckford’s   workers  visited her family over 70  times in the 10 months before she died in 1984, but she was seen just once, with her parents.

23 years later, an independent inspectors’ report into the death  of Baby Peter Connelly stated  that the agencies in contact with the family worked in isolation and  without effective communication or information sharing, which was exploited by the mother. The report made the point  that such failures increase the risks to vulnerable children. According to Munro in 2008, ‘Robust supervision should have challenged this (the social worker’s) flawed appraisal,’ and helped guard against the social worker’s biases impairing her judgement.

There is a need for greater focus on these areas in regulatory documents and guidance from central government for agencies, and for supervisors and child protection workers to take these risks into account. Agency managers and social workers could be helped more in this by way of improved policy focus, and training, to be able to be more confident in assessing and addressing the nature and extent of the various types of such resistant behaviours.

References:

Brandon, M, Belderson, P,  Catherine Warren, C, Howe, D,   Gardner, R, Dodsworth, J, Black, J  2008. Analysing child deaths and serious injury through abuse and neglect: what can we learn? A biennial analysis of serious case reviews 2003-2005,CSF-RB023. Department for Children Schools and Families: London.

Lord Laming 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry CM5720.  HM Government: London.

Lord Laming 2009. The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report.  The Stationery Office: London.

Munro, E. 2008. Lessons learnt, boxes ticked, families ignored. The Independent, Sunday 16^th November 2008, www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/eileen-munro.

Ofsted  2008. Learning lessons, taking action: Ofsted’s evaluations of serious case reviews 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008. Ofsted: London.

Professor Brian Littlechild is the Associate Head of School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work at the University of Hertfordshire.

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST for an exciting and enriching Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

Child protection represents one of the most challenging and controversial areas of social work practice. Indeed, it often represents the culmination of social workers’ dual mandate of support and safeguarding where on the one hand the objective of social workers and the social services’ intervention is to empower children and their families so that they can achieve their best potential, while, on the other hand they must ensure that children within their jurisdiction are safeguarded against significant harm.

There are many factors that make child protection practice so difficult and controversial, these include:

What is child protection practice? And what does it signify and imply?

In what circumstances is a child subject to a child protection plan?

What happens after a child is made subject to a child protection plan?

Is child protection a helpful practice? If yes how? and in what sense?

Is child protection an intrusive and/or oppressive plan? If yes how? and why?

What are the socio-legal implications of subjecting a child to child protection plan?

Does child protection presuppose and/or require more of an investigative type of social work rather than a supportive social work approach? Is that justified?

Does child protection counter-oppose parent(s)/carer(s) interest and/or priorities vis-à-vis the children’s best interest and/or priorities? Is that correct?

Does child protection practice mitigate risk to children? or does it simply aggravate the divide between families and the social worker?

Join us @SWSCmedia on Tuesday, 14 February at 8:00 PM GMT / 3:00 PM ET / 12:00 PT to explore these and other relevant questions in relation to Child Protection and how to best protect the interest of our children.

You can join our debate by using the hashtag #SWSCmedia.

Also if you are tweeting while watching Protecting Our Children, make sure to include both hashtags: #SWSCmedia #ProtectingOurChildren in order for us to be able to pick up your views.

Nevertheless, I digress!  The point I wanted to make about the above is that it helpfully opened up numerous debates about child protection in this country and the services available to both children and adults.  This is also very positive, as for too long social work has been on the back foot, having to defend itself too often in the glare of yet another child abuse tragedy rather than actually get into the heart of the issue of being able to unpack what our work is about – complexities, ambiguity, intricacies and all!  What we need to do is welcome and encourage healthy debate about the services that are in place (or in some cases not) to protect and promote the welfare of children and ‘vulnerable’ (I use this term hesitantly, as I know it is contested and seen as pejorative by some user groups) adults.  If the public has a better understanding of what it is we do rather than being influenced by the propaganda of the right wing press, we have more chance in getting them on side and campaigning with us for better services.

Protecting our Children certainly evoked a lot of debate from the posts I saw on both twitter and the online debate hosted by Community Care which included social workers, young people with experience of the care system and many others from different walks of life.  Many expressed their frustration in the social workers not acting more swiftly in securing an emergency protection order or even police protection to remove the child from the family home.  The living conditions in the house were shocking and this was after all a child aged 3 and a half, begging the question how long had he been living in these circumstances and what had professionals of various persuasion being doing all this time?   On the other hand, others commented at the lack of support that had been offered to the parents.  Had anyone picked up on potential learning disability in both parents?  Rather than just being told what they needed to do to improve the situation for their child, were they being given appropriate support in parenting etc?  What about Tiffany (the child’s mother) – had she received support as someone who had experienced domestic violence, counselling for her previous experiences as a young person, and, would she have been better able to meet the needs of her new baby in the context of no longer being in an abusive relationship?

Inevitably, a case like this presents us with so many conundrums and different strands that we could spend from now until eternity debating the issues.  However, what we also need to remember in Protecting our Children is that we did not have the luxury of watching what happened in real time and so we never saw the kind of services that we would expect (some of which I have already mentioned) on display to alleviate our anxieties.  Nevertheless, I would say that whilst good social work practice is about achieving some degree of balance between support and safeguarding, safeguarding inevitably has to tip that balance and take precedence in situations we deem to be at an unacceptable level of risk, requiring us to exercise professional judgement which then of course, needs to be backed and reinforced by others in the system i.e. child protection case conferences, family courts etc.  Holly Willoughby again asked Sallyanne a profound question in terms of ‘is love enough when assessing parenting’ to which Sallyanne responded very eloquently that whilst many of the parents that social workers work with do love their children, it is not enough if they cannot meet their needs.  This really spoke to me as I had to do an interview for the French television channel Canal Plus a few weeks ago, where the journalist wanted to take the line that if parents went to court in opposition to their children being adopted, then somehow this was the ‘acid’ test and they had passed it.  I told the journalist, with respect, it wasn’t necessarily my job to make a judgement call about whether or not a parent loves a child but rather to focus on their capacity to adequately meet their needs and not expose them to significant harm.

Ideally, I don’t think it should be a case of ‘support versus safeguarding’ but sadly, feel that the pendulum has swung in this direction over the last decade, as pressures on resources and the ‘taylorisation’ of social work, has inevitably led us more into this either/or situation which is detrimental to the people that we work with in both adults and children’s services.  Yes of course, some situations are so stark and extreme and merit authoritative intervention from the state.  However, I am a firm believer that in order for social work to be effective the two need to work in tandem with a plethora of other support services being available and conclude that this is an equilibrium that we should keep striving to strike.  To my mind, it is a usp of social work that practitioners can both be supportive and challenging of people in the quest to manage risk and we saw evidence of this in the Bristol programme. So,  rather than accepting defeat in the battle for resources, accepting that this is the way things are and the latter is symbolic of a ‘by-gone’ era, it is my contention that we do not concede on such a critical point as to do so will only impoverish the profession, our service users and society.

For the record, less isn’t more and greed isn’t good (a la Gordon Gecco).

Nushra Mansuri (@BASW_UK) is the Professional Officer for BASW (British Association of Social Workers).

Join us every Tuesday at 20:00 GMT / 15:00 EST for an exciting and enriching Twitter Debate @SWSCmedia.

Therefore, in this week’s debate we will explore the concept of support versus safeguarding as well as care versus control and aim to answer some of the following questions:

What is support and when is support empowering?

What is safeguarding?

What are the implications of the duty of social workers to safeguard children and their families?

What are the relevant issues and some of the differences in relation to care versus control?

When does care turn into control?

How do you distinguish and resolve the conflict between support and safeguarding as well as care and control?

What are some of the practical and professional implications and consequences of these dichotomies?

Join us today at 20:00GMT / 15:00 ET / 12:00 PT @SWSCmedia to discuss these important issues and to share your views in relation to these and other relevant questions.