social work in the 1990's - empowerment fact or fiction

8/3/2019 Social Work in the 1990's - Empowerment Fact or Fiction

1/10

9 Social work in the1990's:empowerment -fact or fiction?

Olive StevensonThis chapter explores the position of social work within thepersonal Social Services in the context of contemporary socioeconomic and political trends . It is argued that social work ispresently subject to contradictory forces, pulling it in differentdirections. Whilst ambiguity and ambivalence concerning roleand task has always characterised social work and has been thesubject of much debate and introspection , (Barclay Report1982), its dilemmas and tensions have become much more acutein the last decade. Specifically the concept of 'empowerment'and related ideas focus more sharply the long running debate onthe balance between 'care and control' and between protectionand autonomy which have been raised and analysed over theyears. The ways in which these dilemmas are, at least partially,resolved will be critical in establishing social work's claims tocredible status as a distinctive occupation, with a sound ethicalbasis and a reasonably secure body of knowledge and skills ,which is not dominated by political imperatives and populistinfluences.The socio-political background to this analysis is so familiarthat it needs no elaboration. More than a decade of Conservativegovernment has radically altered both the social andorganisational context within which social workers must operate.Particularly relevant to this discussion are:

the increase in inequality between different groups in societywith evidence of growing poverty amongst many of thosewho use social work services;

Social work in the 1990's: empowerment - fact or fiction? 171the challenge to the framework of the welfare state, withinwhich social workers have operated since 1948;the introduction of a market philosophy into the personalsocial services, bothinternally and in increased use of theprivate and voluntary sectors;the growing emphasis on punishment, with its underlyingthemes of deterrence and retribution, rather than onrehabilitation in the penal philosophy of th e presentgovernment.For those social workers (the large majority) who areemployed within social services departments, the past decadehas seen deteriorating relationships between central and localgovernment, with a far greater degree of central control thanbefore. These political processes have been accompanied by twomajor pieces of legislation, the Children Act 1989 and the NHSCommunity Care Act 1990 both of which have resulted in aflood of government instruction and guidance . Some of this isnecessary and helpful, to be expected following such legislation.However, in the context of the time, it further emphasises the

powerful influence which central government (The Departmentof Health) is seeking to exert o n the personal social services. TheSocial Services Inspectorate is more proactive and moreauthoritative than in earlier days, especially in the field of ChildProtection. Similarly, in the Probation Service, the requirementsof Probation Officers, laid down by the Home Office, havebecome highly specific putting much emphasis on the controllingand monitoring aspects of the role. Some are fearful that thework will no longer fit into a definition of social work, howeverstretched.Thus, the ideology of the present government has penetratedinto every sphere of social work activity . Indeed, even thevoluntary sector, ideologically cherished by th e presentadministration, is struggling to come to terms with 'the contractculture', anxious lest their traditional independence is eroded byfinancial dependence.

Social workers are also acutely aware of the financialrestraints under which the personal social services are operating,within the overall spending limits set by the government. Manydepartments are having to make cuts in established provision;very few are able to fund expansion of services, whether ' inhouse' or in the independent sector, to meet the needs of users


2/10

172 Social Policy Review 6for better community care and probably none to developpreventive child welfare services beyond those deemed at risk ofabuse. Resource constraints are often cited as threatening thevery foundation of the two major legislative changes referred toearlier. Such a gloomy view needs cool appraisal, which isdifficult in the constant exchange of political fire, with attack andcounter attack. Whilst there is no doubt that the personal socialservices are suffering, along with others, from the preoccupationwith restraints on public expenditure and the obsessive fear ofraising taxes, these difficulties may sometimes divert attentionfrom the potential of both Acts to improve the quality ofprovision. Indeed , what may be described as a 'culture ofdespair' has been noted amongst student social workers andsome younger social workers may arise not simply from therigours and difficulties of the job, but from a sense of politicaldisenfranchisement. Most of those in social work have left-wingviews (Becker 1987) and those in their late 20 's and early 30'shave not seen their political views translated into policies sincethey were of voting age.Into this uneasy, tense context for daily operations, entersthe media. Aldridge (forthcoming 1994) has shown howcomplex are the factors governing the media response to socialwork 'happenings'. She points to 'the variables of time, place,political regime, ethnicity and news value' as affecting the degreeof coverage given to particular events. Her analysis of the rightwing newspapers responses' to child abuse tragediesdemonstrates very clearly that political ideology and racismaffects 'the slant'. Of the Beckford (1985) and Henry (1987)enquiries, she argues that the template was 'violent uncontrolledblack man, fearful and inept white social worker, chaotic socialistlocal authority , - a sure fire mixture for sensationalism. Shecomments that there were 'suspicions of social work as statesocial work: part of expensive, socialist inspired and dominatedwelfare bureaucracy '. However, Aldridge argues that suchcoverage is highly variable and that social workers havedeveloped a 'bunker mentality' about the media, whereas a moreproactive , 'good news' approach might at least modify thebalance of reporting. What is clear is that most social workersbelieve news reports will range from the 'poorly informed tosystematically excoriating'. Nearly all the fiercest criticism centresupon issues of child protection and this will be further discussedbelow.

Social work in the 1990 's: empowerment - fact or fiction? 173Whatever the power of the media to influence the publicview of social work, it is self evident that the very nature of thework and its association with stigmatised groups in society willensure a degree of ambivalence and hostility to those who seekto mediate between 'the outcasts' and the rest of society. This isa view which I expressed in 1974, following the Maria ColwellInquiry, in the following terms;Those who commit themselves to social work contribute, inmy view, to the sensitisation of our society. In doing so, theywill not be popular .. .. They must seek to hold, and tomediate in, the multiplicity of conflict in interpersonalrelationships. They deal in shades of grey where the publiclooks for black and white. And they are bitterly resented forit. They are brokers in lesser evils, frequently faced with theneed for choice followed by action whose outcome isunpredictable, In the precise sense of the word, society isdeeply ambivalent about social work, asking it more andmore to combat the alienation of a technological age yetresenting its growing power and quick to point harshly to itsfailures, especially those in relation to functions of socialcontrol.(Stevenson, in Harvey and Philpott, 1994)

Philpott and Harvey (1994) suggest that this view may'sometimes act as camouflage for shortcomings'(p.3). They pointout that Davies in his 1981 edition of 'The Essential SocialWorker' used that quotation with approval but four yearslater, the revised book dismissed 'brokers in shades ofgrey' as 'a seductive phrase'.

Social workers have no monopoly of such a role or too oftenthe idea can be misconstrued and used self indulgently tojustify indecision, buck passing; theoretical squeamishness.The truth is that social workers are employed to do a wideranging but quite specific job .... They cannot expect alwaysto be right or regularly to receive public plaudits ...(In Harvey and Philpott, 1994 p3).


3/10

174 Social Policy Review 6The Davies message appears to be 'don 't whinge'! To use

my observation to excuse deficiencies in social work practice isclearly unacceptable, yet British social workers in child protectionhave been subjected to abuse which far exceeds that to whichothers in the human services occupations or social workers inother countries have been subjected. The 'quite specific job' towhich Davies refers is in fact immensely complex and fraughtwith uncertainty in that most emotional of areas - the family.That is the starting point for any analysis of relations betweensocial workers and the public.Thus far, this discussion has focused upon what might bedescribed as negative factors which affect the state of social workin the 1990s, most of which arise from the prevailing politicalorthodoxy. There are, however, counteracting trends, to whichwe now turn.

In the public service sphere, we have seen increasingemphasis by politicians upon notions of consumerism,'customers charters' being the tangible symbol of this. Suchideashave been taken into the personal social services ; thetraditional word 'client' is now frequently replaced by 'user.'Although the term 'consumer' is felt to be inappropriate, theideas of consumerism have given impetus to the development ofcomplaints systems, which are now quite elaborate both in adultand child care. Those on the left politically regard such wordswith suspicion because they do little to alter the fundamentalimbalance of power between user and provider. Into this debate,therefore, has entered the word 'empowerment', much belovedof social workers and educators, an idea which stresses the needto alter the power balance, to encourage users to participate fullyin the planning of services and in the detailed arrangements fortheir own well being: 'care plans' and so on.

The extent to which these ideas of consumerism andempowerment conflict in the practice of social work has beenlittle explored. What is clear is that those who have long beenarguing for the need to redress the power balance (see, forexample Croft and Beresford, 1990) are finding the presentclimate , in adult care particularly, a more congenial one thanheretofore. An example is a recent publication for practitioners(Beresford and Harding , eds. , 1993) which gives examples,mainly drawn from the fields of mental health and learningdisability, of ways involving users in their own affairs. Despite themany constraints and fears for the future , briefly discussed

Social work in the 1990's: empowerment fact or fiction? 175above, the empowerment idealists see a window of opportunityin the present 'consumerist' climate. Indeed, many, includingmyself, were astonished to see the idea of empowermentarticulated in government gUidance in community care. In asignificant and detailed publication designed for practitioners andmanagers, the Social Services Inspectorate stated:

The rationale for this reorganisation is the empowerment ofusers and carers. Instead of users and carers beingsubordinate to the wishes of serviceproviders, the roles willbe progressively adjusted. In this way, users and carers will beenabled to exercise the same power as consumers of otherservices. This redressing of the balance of power is the bestguarantee of a continuing improvement in the quality ofservice.(Social Services Inspectorate,1991 .)This is revolutionary stuff! Cynics may wonder how itsurvived the numerous drafts no doubt circulated within the

Department of Health; its implications are far-reaching. Perhapsit did so because of the more general right wing challenge tobureaucrats and professionals, who would have to put theirhouses in order, if that idea were to be realised. However thatmay be, the formulation of government policy directed toempowerment of user (and carers) clearly gives authority andimpetus to such efforts within social services departments and, assuch, is very influential.

In 1992 , with Phyllida Parsloe, I was funded by the JosephRowntree Foundation, to examine the application of the ideal ofempowerment to (adult) community care . (Stevenson andParsloe, 1993). Essentially, our objective was to show some ofthe implications for ethical social work practice of translating thatidea into reality. The rhetoric surrounding the idea can becomefacile, even empty. The user groups in adult care with whomworkers are mainly concerned fall into four main categories andthere are major differences between them in the utilisation ofideas of empowerment.

The groups are : people with physical disabilities , withlearning disabilities, with mental health problems and elderlypeople.


4/10

176 Social Policy Review 6Some elements common to all four groups underpin theissue. These concern the balance between personal autonomy

and protection against risk - to the individual and to others.There are also complex questions surrounding the balance ofinterests between usersand carers. Conflict between theseinterests is commonplace and raises many difficulties in practice.(In the stream of government gUidance emanating for theDepartment of Health , little attention was paid to this potentialor actual conflict). However , in each user group, those who seekempowerment do so in a social context in which the users andcarer ' s views an d public and professional attitudes varyconsiderably.The case of physical disability appears at first to be the mostclear cut. There has been a vocal and influential lobby byyounger physically disabled people directed towards theirempowerment {Oliver, 1983}. This has been much strengthenedby the promulgation of the 'social model ' of disability, whichstresses that 'the problem' lies in society, in social attitudes andenvironmental deficits rather th an in disabled people themselves.Within the personal social services , it is symbolised in themovement by disabled people to gain control of finance for 'carepackages', rather than have the provision made, and be paid for ,directly, by the social services department. {At present , itremains , oddly , illegal for local authorities to pay people toorganise their own care} .So, is the case simple? What possible justification, one mightask , could there be to deprive people who happen to have aphysical disability from making and paying for their own careplans? Their right to personal autonomy can surely not bechallenged. Yet the consequences for physically disabled peoplemay not always be helpful, if the idea of 'empowerment' isequated {inappropriately} with that of 'independence'. Disabledpeople vary greatly in their capacity and appetite fo r'independence .' In particular, many with chronic and progressivedisease have 'up and down ' periods, fluctuating energy levels,other complications and so on. There may well be times whenthey do not wish to have the whole responsibility for their carearrangements. The need (of some) for support and advice isclear. The skill of the worker lies in his or her capacity to take aback or a front seat depending on circumstances. Thefundamental intention to redress the balance of power canbeaccepted but it does not absolve the worker from responsibility to

Social work in the 1990 's: empowerment - fact or fiction ? 177support. In my view, the understandable determination of thelobby of physically disabled people and its enthusiasticendorsement by many workers has led to an oversimplification ofthe position.Work with people with learning disabilities, has been one ofthe most encouraging and innovative spheres of activity withinsocial services departments in the last fifteen years or so. Idealsof empowerment were well established long before the recentlegislation, borne of profound disillusionment with the effects oflong stay institutional care and of the impact of 'normalisationtheory' , {Wolfensberger, 1983}, which, for all its limitations, gavea wholly new impetus to the rights of such people to live asothers in society. There is now a generation of social workershighly committed to such work; remarkable strides have beenmade in patient, detailed work with such people to enable themto develop their capacity for autonomous living and to become'self directed' in daily living, sexual activity and so on. It is in thisfield that the link between ideal and translation into reality can bemost clearly seen. People who have been grossly disempoweredby previous experiences and whose abilities are quite severelylimited {though not nearly as much as was once thought} cannotbe moved quickly to more autonomous functioning withoutencountering unacceptable levels of risk an d , often inconsequence, profound discouragement or disappointment. Inthis field too , we have seen a faster development of 'advocacy'schemes by which those who cannot speak out for themselvescan be helped to assert their rights.This is not to suggest that the battle is over. The verycommitment of those who work in this field and their indignationat the ways people with learning disabilities have been (and stillare) treated, has raised the profile and aspirations of the work.Viewed from a historical perspective, however, the differencebetween, say, the 1950 's and the present day is very striking.Sadly, when we turn to consider people with mental healthproblems, the position is much less encouraging. Mentally illpeople have been the Cinderella of the personal social services,both in terms of expenditure and professional interest and havebeen poised uneasily {and often lost} between the health andsocial services bureaucracies . Here the movement forempowerment has come mainly from the voluntary sector;organisations like 'MIND ' and users ', or survivors' (a telling word)groups put the case forcefully but it has not found such powerful


5/10

178 Social Policy Review 6echoes amongst the professionals as in the field of learningdisability . Indeed , it is in this field that some of the mosttrenchant criticism of the new community care provision havearisen. Ideas of empowerment are a mockery when people areleft unsupported and uncared for in the community. There arefar too many examples of chronically ill people in pitifulsituations - whatever the formal acknowledgement of the needfor care plans. Fragmentation of accountability and resourceshortages have a major part to play in the problem. However,from the point of view of social work practice , there are alsoimportant questions regarding the processes of empowerment -its potential and limitations in working with mentally ill people ,especially those with severe chronic conditions. In the workundertaken for the Rowntree Foundation, we found someinteresting examples of skilled efforts to empower such people.For instance, drawing on a 'strengths model ' from the USA(Rapp, 1988), a social services team was seeking to build on thewishes and talents of chronically ill people and thus to give theirlives a new sense of direction and purpose (Stevenson andParsloe , 1993). Clearly , such work requires a sensitive andskilled appreciation of the fluctuating nature of some disorders ,of the space and techniques needed to produce change towardsgreater autonomy. There are signs that this is happening insome places but it would be misleading to suggest that it iswidespread .Elderly people are by far the largest group in community carearrangements. Although they have long consumed most of socialservices resources (through residential and domiciliary care) , thishas not been matched by professional interest amongst socialworkers . Research (Parsloe and Stevenson, 1978) showed nearly20 years ago that old people received very little of the time ofqualified social workers. The reason for this lies , at least in part ,in entrenched agist attitudes (Stevenson ,1989) which suggestthat face to face work with old people will be less rewarding andless intellectually and profeSSionally interesting. There are signsthat this is shifting and the new community care arrangementswhich lay clear responsibilities for assessment on care managersmay play a part in raising the level of sophistication and interestin this user group .

For example , interest in elder abuse , surely the most'disempowering' phenomenon of all , has risen sharply in recentyears , with a growing British literature on the subject and rapid

Social work in the 1990's: empowerment - fa ct or fiction? 179increase in the development of procedural gUidance (comparableto child abuse) in social services and health authorities (Bennettand Kingston, 1993).

However , it is apparent that the application of th eempowerment ideal to the community (and residential) care ofthose very old people who are vulnerable and frail, urgentlyrequires further development, for there are two significantdifferences between such users and others.Firstly, old people are , by and large , moving towards greaterdependence and frailty. The issue, therefore , becomes one ofpreserving autonomy as long as possible , in the domains where itis possible. Secondly, a high proportion of those needing suchcare will suffer from dementia in one of two main forms ,'Altzheimers' or 'Chronic infarct' . (These have different patternsand raise different questions for practice). Clearly, suchconditions severely limit the capacity for autonomous activity.However, there is interesting work (and theorising) in processwhich stresses the importance of the social milieu and, critically,of the way face toface relationships and conversations with suchpeople are conducted to minimise the impact of the condition(Kitwood , 1990).Thus we can see that the practice of empowerment inrespect of different user groups raises complex, fascinatingquestions which have to be addressed if there is to be a sincereattempt to realise a laudable ideal.A further complexity is introduced by the (proper) insistenceon the position of informal carers in these situations. As earliersuggested, t here is not infrequently a degree of conflict betweenthe interests (and hence empowerment) of users and of carers .There are significant difference between the four groups in thismatter. Broadly speaking, those working with users who havephysical or learning disabilities and who wish to promote theircapacity for autonomous living , have tended to see 'carers' assomething of an obstacle. When speaking to practitioners, manyexamples are given of the ways on which carers may obstruct theprocess of empowerment, even when this is sympatheticallyunderstood as a product of protective feelings developed overmany years. On occasion , the perspective of (say) a parent whomay have been led by profeSSionals over many years to cultivatea controlling, 'anti-risk' stance is not sensitively handled. This isespecially appare nt in matters of sexuality.


6/10

180 Social Policy Review 6When one turns to consider elderly people, however, thereverse appears to be the case ; here the 'plight' or 'burden' ofthe carers is more often stressed and the feelings of those 'caredfor' are often neglected. In a spate of literature (much from afeminist standpoint) , which emphasises the exploitation (i.e.disempowerment) of women in their caring roles, there is little

attempt to consider the role of the old person in thoserelationships. Indeed, in a recent 'think piece' for the RowntreeFoundation (Parker, 1994) , emphasis is laid on the need tounderstand more of the dynamics of the carer-cared-forrelationships .

If the realisation of empowerment is complex in adult care , itmay be said to be evenmore so in the aspect of child welfarewhich dominates the current scene - matters of child protection.The Children Act 1989 places 'partnership' between parentsand the local authority at the centre of its philosophy. Theconcept is well illustrated by the position of parents in relation tocase conferences called when a child is thought to have beenabused. Less than ten years ago , parental attendance at suchconferences was almost unheard of. Now it is commonplace.Indeed, government guidance changed dramatically within fouryears: in 1987 (Working Together) parental attendance was notrecommended . In 1991 (Working Together) it waswholeheartedly endorsed as good practice .We are fortunate in having research on this developmentwhich examines it from user and professional perspectives.(Thoburn , Lewis and Shemmings , 1993 ; Farmer and Owen,1993; Bell and Sinclair , 1993). Despite forbodings , someoutcomes seem broadly positive . Parents report that they preferto be included, despite the pain of the situation . Professionals(from different agencies) report that on the whole they believeconferences to benefit by parental attendance, both in terms ofinformation obtained and by better understanding of the parentalperspectives. I have pointed out elsewhere, however, (Stevenson,forthcoming) that:

although parents were glad to have attended, the conferencewas often experienced as intensely painful and humiliating .Although some of this may be due to poor handling of thesituation and poor preparation , the inexorable fact remainsthat the occasion is highly stressful. Its very nature, whichdiffers so markedly from other situations when parents and

Social work in the 1990 's: empowerment - fact or fiction? 181professionals may meet , determines that it will be fraught forthe parents.Furthermore, Farmer and Owen (1993) , in their study,

analysed the attendance of parents at such conferences and theircontribution to it when present. They concluded thatonly inabout 20% of the cases was there full participation . They arguefor greater use of parental advocacy. Whilst this offersopportunities for effective participation, it carries the danger,especially when the advocate is a lawyer, that the conferencebecomes an adversarial encounter. It is easy to see how difficult itis to combine 'getting at the truth' with ideals of partnership withparents in such situations. Indeed , Thoburn et al. (1993)(enthusiastic proponents of partnership) comment: 'In the earlystages of child protection work, there are few cases where it ispossible to involve parents fully as partners '. (p19) . Th econference, then epitomises the tension between protectingchildren and empowering pa rents .Discussion with social workers in child protection shows howuncertain and anxious they are about the possibility ofpartnership in child protection work. However committed inprinciple to the concept an d its associated value ofempowerment, it is obvious that the duty to protect the childplaces severe constraints on the operation of such principles.Indeed, in research I am currently directing, we have an exampleof a mother who successfully achieved a series of steps inimproving her child care but whose child was nonethelessremoved because it was eventually felt that these did not ensureadequate safeguards for the child .Thus , in this sphere of work, as in aspects of adult care, wesee that limitations on empowerment because of ' risk' (ofdifferent kinds) has to play a crucial part. This has always been anecessary tension in much social work practice . In the field ofchild protection, however, anxiety about accountability, about'covering your back ', produces a new and more dubiousemphasis. Paradoxically, social workers are caught between theclamour for protection of children and the powerful socialpressure to respect parental rights. Their position is unenviable.Yet the current research, earlier referred to, demonstrates thatthe level of sophisticated understanding of these issues is highand that skilled attempts to work within and through th e paradox


7/10

182 Social Policy Review 6are being made. Media concentration upon tragedies tends todistort appreciation of the fact that we now have a large groupof highly experienced, well qualified practitioners in childprotection who daily confront the ambiguities of their role withefficiency and determination.An unfortunate effect, however, of resource constraints andof a minimalist view by politicians of state intervention, is thatresources to help families - critical in the process ofempowerment - are only unlocked when a 'diagnosis' of childabuse is made. Thus, many families in need go un helped and'partnership ' is no t mobilised ; or families are placed in anunequal relationship by virtue of the assessment of their childrenas needing 'protective services'. Whilst there are obvious caseswhen child protection procedures are inescapably brought intoplay, there are others, notably concerning neglect, when thedecision to register (the beginning of 'labelling') is influenced bythe wish to make available help and support - for example anursery place. Thus, possibilities of genuine partnership aremade more difficult.

Thus far , we have addressed the extent and nature ofempowerment practice within adult and child welfare services , inrelation to the current legislative framework. If the difficulties inthis area are readily apparent, how much more so in relation tocontemporary practice in the Probation Service. The ChiefInspector of Probation at the Home office recently stated thatthe 'service still clung to its welfare ethic ' and 'had not yet fullyincorporated the notion of punishment into its repertoire '(TheIndependent 2.2 .94).Thus, the tension is not formulated as between 'care andcontrol', which has long been the focus of discussion in theservice, but between 'care and punishment' . To some, of whomI am one, this tension is irreconcilable . As with a prisonsentence, the making of a probation order may be regarded as aform of punishment , in the sense that most people would prefernot to have it imposed on them. But once that 'sentence ' ismade, there can be no place forpunishment in the relationshipbetween Probation Officer and offender. The aim must be torehabilitate, which is , of course, empowering. At present , wealso see difficulties in public and political perceptions of what areregarded as acceptable forms of rehabilitation . Projects for youngoffenders which are perceived as 'too enjoyable ', even ifdemanding, have been harshly criticised . The requirement that

Social work in the 1990 's: empowerment - fact or fiction? 183punishment should be contained within the 'treatment', not justin the act of sentencing, makes the position of the social workerproblematic . Whilst many officers will in fact pursue the ideal ofrehabilitation, it is profoundly unsatisfactory for officers to beplaced in a situation of such role conflict. It remains to be seenwhether the political rhetoric will die down and how far it will bepossible for probation officers to continue to see themselves associal workers.There is a further aspect of the contemporary scene whichhas a bearing upon the realisation of empowerment, namely thegrowing bureaucratisation of the professionals. As I have arguedelsewhere (Stevenson and Parsloe , 1993), empowerment ofusers must be accompanied by empowerment of the workerswith whom users engage face to face . Without a sense offreedom to relate constructively to users , the process is stalled.There is mounting evidence that systems which increasinlyemphasise accountability and developing quality assurance arethrowing great strain upon workers at field level. I have alreadyreferred to issues of accountability in child protection. This islinked to the emergence of 'procedures' as a key element in childprotection work . There is also an increase in precision inassessing standards of the work. There is nothing inherentlyobjectionable in this - on the contrary, most workers regard'procedures' and standards for quality assurance as necessaryand helpful: however, there is suspicion amongst field levelworkers that part of the motivation for this is to facilitate 'passingthe buck' on the part of senior management (see also thechapter by Jan Pahl in this volume) . Whatever the truth of thatmay be , the current research to which I have earlier referredreinforces th e wid espread impression that theweight ofprocedures and its associated 'paper work' is oppressing workersin child protection. Somewhat to our surprise , many of ourrespondents , asked what would make them leave the work , gaveas one response 'more paperwork'. (The other was 'a tragedy inone of their cases '; they did not stress the sheer strain of thework with families) .This finding is not restricted to child protection. Our researchin adult care (Stevenson and Parsloe , 1993) showed similarreactions in workers, especially in relation to the necessity fordetailed assessment procedures. Some of those respondents sawelaborate forms as a barrier between them and service users ,part of the process which depersonalised the interaction at thepoint of contact.


8/10

184 Social Policy Review 6'Paper work' is , of course, shorthand for managementsystems and personal social services are no different from otherpublic service agencies in seeing a proliferation of such activities.

This sits curiously with the often repeated assertions bypoliticians that 'deregulation ' and the cutting of red tape is apriority. In fact quite the contrary is evident in many spheres. Forsocial workers, the dilemma is how to retain spontaneity andflexibility which are often at the heart of empowering work withthe increasing burden of bureaucratic accountability , howevernecessary and desirable that may be. It seems that we arereaching a crisis in this matter.The final strand in this analysis of empowerment in socialwork relates to the influence on social work eduction of the 'antioppressive' movement , promulgated by the CCETSW in itscurriculum requirements for the Diploma in Social Work. As thisis being written, we learn of yet another review by CCETSW oftheir training requirements, a surprising and disturbing turn ofevents for social work courses, many of which have not yet seenthrough the first round of the new Diploma.The 'anti oppressive' stance of the new Diploma has beenattacked vigorously by thosewho see it as a manifestation of 'theloony left' (Pinker , 1993) and who sense obsessive politicalcorrectness in its application. This concern is not wholly withoutfoundation and some educators, including myself , fear lest itcreate a climate of dogmatism and intolerance not only betweenteachers and taught but, more likely, between students. There issome anecdotal evidence that this is the case and that there canarise an unhealthy competition for the 'most oppressed' withinthe student group.Yet the most vociferous critics of the emphasis , notablyProfessor Pinker, fail to acknowledge the manifestly inadequateresponses in the past of social work courses and social workpractice to the rights and needs of ethnic minorities, to those ofwomen to disabled and to gay and lesbian people . It is ,therefore , constructive to see this as a necessary redressing ofthe balance of interest and preoccupation in social work. Thevery origins of social work lie in championing underprivilegedand deprived groups in the population or, at least, in seeking toalleviate their predicament. It is not surprising that, from time totime, different groups command particular concern , especially associal structures and demographic characteristics change andparticularly glaring examples of injustice to, and the inequality of,

Social work in the 1990 's: empowerment - fact or fiction ? 185certain groups in our society arise. However, concentration uponsuch groups may cause antagonism , especially if there arealready scapegoating processes at work, typical of societies inrecession. Recent social work emphasis on the oppression ofethnic minorities may be an example of this.'Anti oppressive practice ' is in fact about empowerment -and might be better so called. There is an urgent need for asophisticated approach to such practice , in which itscomplexities and subtleties are explored , as is happening now insome child protection work. For example, in relation to ethnicminorities, an understanding of the interaction between racismand cultural factors, rather than concentration solely upon theformer , is overdue.There is also needed a willingness to examine'oppression' in a wider range of contexts. For example , somesocial work students are now (rightly) asking - 'whateverhappened to social class as a dimension of oppression? '

It remains salutary to note that the influence of the validatingbody has been so thoroughly pervasive . It reminds us of theextent to which social work is buffeted to and fro by thedominant social values of the time. In this case, there is a strangesocial policy case history waiting to be written . How did ithappen that CCETSW ' s anti oppressive requirements sodominated the agenda at a time of a right wing governmentwhich could be expected to be suspicious of such trends? OneUniversity Registrar, reading a submission for the Diploma inSocial Work in 1990, remarked that it read more like a MarxistManifesto of the 1960s, (but without the class analysis!) . Are wenow seeing the retaliation?

In conclusion: this chapter has attempted to show the waysin which a concept of empowerment and its associated themesof 'partnership' and 'anti oppressive practice' are influencingsocial work practice and to show how complex are itsapplications to the daily lives of people with whom socialworkers seek to engage. Furthermore , the relationship of thesetrends to wider social influences, political pressures andeconomic constraints are acknowledged.

Social work is a child of its times. It is inevitable andappropriate that it will move in different directions according tochanging social values. It is no part of this argument to suggestthat it can insulate itself against such pressures. However , someaspects of the conte mporary scene give grounds for concerns.


9/10

186 Social Policy Review 6First , as in other spheres of public service, the Conservativegovernment of the past fifteen years has sought radically to

change the personal social services, in line with its marketideology and with a minimalist view of state intervention infamily life . On this lastpoint, however, contradictions have to benoted. For in some ways both the Childrens' and CommunityCare legislation have increased and focused intervention bycentral government, for example, by systematising andelaborating procedures and guidance in both child and adult careand by greater insistence on monitoring arrangements. Socialworkers , therefore, hear double messages; economic constraintsand political philosophy suggest a retreat from service butaccountability in terms of day to day practice is substantiallyincreased, with expectations of public servants raised, in childand adult care and in the probation service. This serves to holdindividuals to account and deflects attention from the underresource issues which may underlie failures. However that maybe, it is apparent that the clash between the social values of thepresent government and those of most social workers isprofound and must raise questions, especially in the probationservice, concerning the ability of the latter to function ethically inthe context of increasing control by the centre.Secondly, as a consequence of social and economic trends,specifically the increasing poverty of many social work clients,the very nature of social work is under challenge. Quite simply,the post-war assumption that social work was to be practisedwithin a framework of welfare state legislation, especially inrelation to social security health and housing, is no longer valid.In many ways, the climate in social work practice is reverting toan earlier era before such protection to vulnerable people wasreceived. For example, social workers are now driven to seekrelief of poverty for their clients through applications forcharitable funding. This is made necessary as the level of benefitsproves increasingly inadequate to support families. How willsocial work respond to this? How can it assert itself effectivelywhen so many workers derive job security from state agencies?(Even when these are in local government of different politicalcolour, the problems remain acute for independent expression ofopinion and dissent) . Will the voluntary sector, increasinglyemploying socialworkers as service providers, turn and bite thehands that feed it? Or does the 'contract culture ' effectivelysilence them?

Social work in the 1990 's : emp owerment - fact or fiction? 187Thirdly , as the discussion of the 'anti oppressive' movement

if such it may be called, illustrates, social work is (and always h a ~ been) very vulnerable to the 'trendy ' emphasis of the time.Probably because social work is a relatively new occupation andnecessarily engaged more than most with the social issues of theday , social workers seem altogether too ready to adoptuncritically a prevailing orthodoxy which seems to fit reasonablywell with its underlying ethos. This leads to fashions tosearchlights on particular issues whilst others remain in shad'ow.It can also lead to intolerance of legitimate argument and linkswith an anti-intellectual tendency which harms social work.Fourthly, as this chapter has attempted to show, the translationof ideals such as empowerment into practice requiressophisticated rigour as one seeks to move at the pace and in theway which the user needs and to balance protection andautonomy. There is in fact evidence that many practitioners areattempting this with commitment and skill. Yet the public voiceof social work has done little to demonstrate some of theexcellent private, face to face , work which goes on - a situationwhich urgently needs rectification.

So , will social work survive? I believe that it will but its qualityand character will be determined by the way these four issues aretackled.References

Aldridge , M. (forthcoming 1994) Making Social WorkNews,London, Routledge.Barclay Report, (1982) Social Workers, their role and tasks ,report of a working party under the chairmanship of PeterBarclay, London, National Institute for Social WorklBedfordSquare Press.Becker, S. (1987) Social Workers Attitudes to Poverty and thePoor, PhD, University of Nottingham (unpublished).Beckford (1985) A Child in Trust: Report of Panel of Inquiryinto the circumstances surrounding the death of JasmineBeckford (London Borough of Brent).Bell , N. and Sinclair, I. (1993) Parental Involvement in InitialChild Protection Conferences in Leeds. University of York.Bennett, G. and Kingston, P. (1993). Elder abuse: concepts ,theories and interventions, Chapman and Hall.


10/10

188 Social Policy Review 6Beresford , P. and Harding, T. (1994), A Challenge to change:practical experiences of building user-led expe riences.National Institute for Social WorkCroft , S . and Beresford , P . (1990) From Paternalism toparticipation: involving people in social services , London,

Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ Open Services ProjectDavies , M. (1985) Th e Essential Social Worker , 2n d Ed tLondon, Heinemann/ Community Care.Farmer , E. and Owen , M. (1993) Decision making ,in te rvention and outcome in Child Protection Work .Report to Department of Health , University of BristoLHarvey, C. and Philpott , T. (1994) Practising Social Work ,London, Routledge.Independent 2 .2.94 . Report of Chief Inspector of Probation ..Kitwood, T. (1990) Th e dialectics of dementia - with particularreference to Altzheimers disease ', pp131-150 , in Aging andSociety , VoL 10 , Part 2 , June.Oliver, M. (1983) Social Work with disabled people. London,Macmillan ,Parker, G. (1993) Where next for Research on Carers? , AThink Piece for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Parsloe, P. and Stevenson, O. (1978), Social Services Teams :tthepractitioners' view, HMSO.Pinker , R. (1993) The looniness of the left. , Times HigherEducation Supplement, 0.9 .93 .

Rapp , S .A . (1988) Th e strengths p e rspectives of caremanagement with persons suffering from severe mentalillness , Kansas , University of Kansas , School of SocialWelfare.

Report of the public inquiry into the death of Tyra Henry (1987)London Borough of Lambeth.Social Service Inspectorate, SSI , (1991) Practitioners andManager's Guide to Care Management and Assessment ,HMSO.Colwell Report (1974) Report of Committee of Inquiry intothe Care and Supervision provided in relation to MariaColwell , London, HMSO.

St evenson , O. (1974) 'Editorial' , British Journal of SocialWork , 4 .1. Spring.Stevenson , O. (1988) , Age and Vulnerability: a gUide to bettercare, London, Allen and Unwin .

So cial work in the 1990 's: emp owerment fa ct or f iction? 189Stevenson , O. and Parsloe, P . (1993). Community Care and

Empowerment , York , Joseph RowntreeFoundation/Community Care.St evenson, O. (forthcoming) 'Case Confe rences in ChildProtection', in Wilson, K. and James , A. (eds) The ChildProtection Handbook .Thoburn, J. , Lewis, A. and Shemings , D. (1993) . Family

Protection in Child Protection. Report to Department ofHealth , University of East Anglia.Wolfensberger , W. (1983) 'Social Role Valorisation: a proposed

new term for the prinCiple of normalisation ', in Journal ofMental Retardation, December 1983.Working Together (1988) Department of Health, HMSOWorking Together (1991) Department of Health , HMSO.

social work in the 1990's - empowerment fact or fiction

Documents