Scrutiny in social work: Principles of effective practice

'Workers in the welfare field must be accountable for the service they

Provide the resources they expend and the outcomes they achieve.'(Alston and Bowles 2003).

How do the principles of effective practice help us to be more accountable?

The work of a social worker, and other welfare workers within the field of welfare services is becoming subject to greater levels of scrutiny (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2006) 14) (Beckett, C. and Maynard, A. (2005) 46). This is due to a number of reasons, one of which is the progress of human rights for vulnerable and or disadvantaged groups (Scottish Executive (2006) 1) (Williams, C. (2002) 1-5), and the other is the increasing encroachment of legislation and other regulatory activity into the sphere of professional social work practices (Higham, P. (2006) 1-5) (Hill, M. (1991) Ch.I) (Philpot, T. (1998) 1-5). As Rodney Brooke, the Chairman of the GSCC put it: ‘The GSCC continues to work with the Government to improve standards in social care…. (General Social Care Council (2006) 1)’. There are now a range of bodies, both within the international community and the UK itself, whose role it is to bring pressure to bear on service providers like social workers within the welfare sector. Examples include, perhaps most obviously, the national courts, but the role of international agencies and institutions are becoming more and more important, and therefore the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights have pivotal roles to play in the development of effective practices to increase the accountability of social workers, and most importantly to define the parameters within which a social worker is constrained in these terms (Beckett, C. (2006) Ch. 1) (Davies, M. (2000) 1-20). The Department of Health has also been instrumental in the definition of the role of the social worker, and has issued guidance on the care of vulnerable adults, through the protection of vulnerable adult’s scheme, the care services efficiency delivery programme and the Dignity in Care initiative, to name just three of many. In terms of theoretical modelling these processes are becoming encapsulated by the Single Assessment Process which advocates greater integration in the work of all social services.

In this sense, there are strong arguments to the made in favour of the view that workers in the welfare field are becoming increasing accountable for the resources they expend, as well as the service and outcomes ultimately provided as a result of their work. Effective practice is crucial in regards to how these processes of accountability are adhered to appropriately and holistically by the modern day professional social worker, indeed as Beckett (2006) has noted: ‘…the users of social work services are entitled to expect that those services are offered on as sound and solid a basis as feasible…(Beckett (2006) 4)’. This essay will attempt to show why this is the case, but the essay will also attempt to balance this view against the views of those who believe that the government has placed too much responsibility into the hands of the social worker, and that this has the potential to become very problematic.

Perhaps the most significant theoretical progressions in terms of placing a requirement upon social workers to be more accountable comes from the fact that social workers, and social work students are under a duty to register themselves as social workers on a register known as the Social Care Register, which is monitored by the General Social Care Council and means that; social workers are also under a duty to disclose criminal convictions during the registration process; there is a policy whereby a failure to register on the Social Care Register accompanied by an attempt to represent oneself as a social worker with the intent to deceive others is a criminal offense; social workers also have a duty to submit to inspections organised by bodies affiliated to the GSCC; social workers are under a duty to adhere to ethical codes, and to keep records; social workers are obliged not to discriminate against those in their care and social workers are required to have and maintain their own information regarding their codes of ethics (http://www.gscc.org.uk/). The principles of effective practice revolve primarily around these legal duties, and it is primarily through their implementation that social workers are assisted in discharging their growing responsibilities to be more accountable. Social workers who do not comply with these rules and regulations are open to prosecution, disciplinary proceedings or both (General Social Care Council (2006) 1).

Theoretically, in terms of social care models these new principles increasingly fall under the various assessments models which include a specialist assessment model, a contact assessment, a comprehensive assessment and an overview assessment. All of these models place a greater degree of responsibility on the individual social worker to effectively manage social work practice and principles of accountability through liaising with third parties and outside agencies.

A recent example of the importance of these principles of accountability can be drawn from the publication recently of an account of a social worker tried in London for breach of her duties under the GSCC rules and found guilty of misconduct. Bernice Francois was discovered to have provided false information in her application for registration under the GSCC registration rules, and in addition it was discovered that she failed to divulge during the registration process that she had criminal convictions for theft and for criminal damage (General Social Care Council (2006) 1). This matter was brought before the independent conduct committee who upheld the allegations and her failure to truthfully comply with the registration process is placed on a public register, and the findings of the independent conduct committee have similar legal effects to those of a criminal caution (General Social Care Council (2006) 1).

However, to consider the converse of this paternalistic model of social work practice; can it be argued that to increase the administrative and other responsibilities of a sector which is clearly under-resourced is just a recipe for disaster? The more liberal, pragmatic model of social work theory argues as follows. Social workers have heavy case loads, and are expected to have a lot of contact with the outside community in terms of service user contact. A social worker is expected to deal with people who are society’s most vulnerable; the poor; the mentally ill, the elderly, and to ensure that their needs are identified and dealt with expediently and professionally. These are the duties that are generically associated with the role of a social worker. However, the duties which the principles of effective practice have now burdened social workers with are not strictly related to these competencies. They are broader in construction, and include as the question title suggests the duties to ensure that resources are expended appropriately and accountably and that the end result of their work is achieved satisfactorily. However, what this basically implies is that social workers are being made responsible for matters which fall well outside their traditional scope of their responsibilities. Social workers must now wear the hat of an administrator; an accountant; a book-keeper; a lawyer and a manager. However, can this really be conducive to a promotion and improvement in the care available to the public through the social work sector? These responsibilities have been given to social workers, however no extra support (for example extra budgets for administration staff within the social services sector) is available to them to assist them in carrying out their duties. This can be critiqued as an attempt made by government to simply cut corners by increasing the levels of responsibility which social workers owe to the public, without having to expend the resources in delivering it appropriately with the right financial backing and support. Instead the duty to be responsible for the expending of resources lies with the social worker. This is not to argue that some of the measures are not necessary in today’s political and social climate, for example there is arguably a need to monitor the backgrounds of those admitted to the social work sector, and there is a need to make social workers more accountable for the ultimate impact of the service which they provide. These rationales make sense, and are reasonably held. However, these needed reforms have all being introduced at the same time as other reforms, such as increased pressure to keep more detailed records which are arguably not the remit of the social worker, personally, but the remit of their employer’s, the government who have a responsibility to transfer these responsibilities to the remit of the social work sector with enough financial backing to ensure that health care trusts and social services providers can be adequately staffed and that social workers can be given much needed administrative support.

What could this mean for the future therefore? There are two perspectives. Firstly, those who broadly support all of the changes which have been made to the role of the social worker argue that the greater pressures on the position of social workers and the more responsibility which is placed upon their shoulders will help to raise standards and weed out those who are below par within the sector. The second perspective is the one personally reflected upon by the writer, and that is that to over-burden the social work sector with extra responsibilities to monitor expenditure, and to have greater administrative responsibility within their jobs means that social workers may become over-burdened. To force a qualified social worker to take on responsibilities which are ordinarily the remit of managers, administrators and book keepers, and to heighten the burden by not providing enough finance to the social work sector to properly implement, leaves the modern social worker with little option but to take on the responsibility themselves. This may well produce detrimental effects upon the services which the social worker is able to provide to the community, and therefore the rhetoric of effective practice might just produce an overall depreciation in the services available to the public through the social work sector. It could also mean that the pressure to be able to perform ‘effective practice’ duties may well discourage people from wanting to become social workers in the first place, since the role of the social worker has now expanded to include competencies which have traditionally not been the remit of the social worker.

In conclusion, to reflect from the writer’s personal perspective, the duties which a social worker must discharge have become more onerous in contemporary society, indeed as Higham (2006) has commented that ‘..higher expectations of social work pose a challenge…(Higham (2006) Ch 1)’. This makes the administration of effective practice skills and accountability central to the duties of the modern social worker. The theoretical debate continues however, as to whether the redefinition of the role of the social worker is a positive thing.

Bibliography

Books

Beckett, C. and Maynard, A. (2005) Values and Ethics in Social Work. Publisher: Sage Publications. Place of Publication: UK.

Beckett, C. (2006) Essentail Theory for Social Work Practice. Publisher: Sage Publications. Place of Publications: UK.

Davies, M. (2000) The Blackwell Encloyopedia of Social Work. Publisher: Blackwell. Place of Publication: Oxford, UK.

Higham, P. (2006) Social Work: Introducing Professional Practice. Publisher: Sage Publication. Place of Publication: London, UK.

Hill, M. (1991) Social Work and the European Community: Social Policy and Practice Contexts. Publisher: Kingsley Publishers. Place of Publication: UK.

Philpot, T. (1998) Caring and Coping: Guide to Social Services. Publisher. Routledge. Place of Publication: UK.

Articles

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2006) Strategy for Social Work and Social Care. Publisher: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. Place of Publication: UK.

General Social Care Council (2006) GSCC Welcomes Healthcare Professional Regulation Reviews. Publisher: General Social Care Council. Place of Publication: UK.

General Social Care Council (2006). Social Worker Cautioned Following Hearing in London. Publisher: General Social Care Council. Place of Publication: UK.

Scottish Executive (2006) The Need for Social Work Intervention. Publisher: Scottish Executive. Place of Publication: UK.

Williams, C. (2002) A Rationale for an Anti-Racist Entry Point to Anti-Oppressive Social Work in Mental Health Services Critical Social Work, 2002 Vol. 3, 1.

Websites

<< http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Put+social+care+centre+stage+in+social+exclusion+drive.htm