By Muncii
Yet another tragedy has hit the UK headlines: the failure of the authorities to protect a vulnerable child, Sara Sharif, who was tortured by her father and family over several years and who eventually died. The details are horrific. She suffered terribly. When her bruises and injuries became too noticeable, the family dressed her in a hijab, and eventually withdrew her from school, citing ‘home schooling’.
The MSM have predictably reacted with incredulity, noting the ongoing failures of social workers and in particular, a judge who allowed the child to return to the care of her main abuser, her father. The family is of Pakistani origin and was notorious for having fled the country to go into hiding in Pakistan. a few days ago, the trial concluded with a judge sentencing the father to life in prison with a minimum tariff of 40 years while the stepmother must serve 33 years.
Most people will wonder ‘ how on earth can this happen?’ and comments at HP were scathing of the social services as the full details of this case were finally released at the trial’s conclusion.
‘ surely faith in parents’ good will should be left at the door when investigating child abuse…’
and
‘..people with the wettest personalities seem drawn to social work… they should be hiring characters with strong personalities..’
I agree entirely. But this is not how things work. I have long argued that social work qualifying training – which since the 1960s developed from a modest certificate course through a diploma and now a degree course – does not adequately prepare students for the real world.
The progression from a certificate to a three year degree course has not brought greater rigour in academic study and practice work, with better trained social workers. On the contrary, many training courses now make grandiose claims about changing the world, characterising social work as in the forefront of such militancy.
Paradoxically, when the qualifying training comprised a modest certificate course, there was no sense that students should see themselves as national or international champions of social justice. Rather, they wanted to work locally, become familiar with the local statutory and voluntary services, and were content to operate quietly with no wish to strut about on the stage .
Do courses prepare students for working with hostile and aggressive clients ? For going into filthy homes ? Do courses recognise that ‘vulnerable’ clients can also be deeply unpleasant people with seriously challenging behaviour? Do students understand that clients can lie, and that parents can do terrible things to their children ?
These difficulties have always been part of a social worker’s experience, but with the advent of the social justice movement, the relentless pursuit of ‘anti-discrimination’, and the focus on clients as victims, they are now characterised entirely differently. Filthy homes are not to be seen as the client’s fault, or a problem which needs addressing. Above all, one mustn’t be ‘judgemental’.
So when social workers come face to face with these situations, they are in a state of denial and shock. They have been taught to see clients as helpless victims of an oppressive society. Course content emphasises deprivation, poverty, and racism and discrimination, factors which are said to deprive clients of agency, and which the student must understand and ‘empathise’ with. There’s a huge emphasis on providing ‘support’ and ‘tolerance’ for these alleged ‘victims’.
It’s only a small step from this mind set to excusing the most disgusting behaviour.
Yet time after time, independent investigations and inquiries into the tragedies and failures of child protection, have noted the absence of the necessary professional ‘suspicion’ in child abuse situations. They have noted that too often social workers were easily fobbed off by the child’s parents and carers, too unwilling to look at the evidence, and too easily regarded each incident, every expression of concern by teachers, neighbours etc., as a ‘one off’ rather than a pattern. So social work, as the lead agency, becomes passive and reactive, rather than assertive and pro-active.
I don’t underestimate the difficulties of doing social work in a local authority setting. It’s not so much about funding – that’s as easy excuse, always trotted out every time the shit hits the fan, and in any case, social workers have always complained about ‘scarce resources’ – but more a case of incompetent management , failure of leadership, inability to prioritise, and an impossible bureaucracy. Do managers and senior staff ever read, disseminate, and put into practice, all the ‘recommendations’ trotted out after every investigation ? Do they read the research ? I doubt it.
Most people would regard social work’s task of child protection to be absolutely paramount.
We are obviously not getting this right.
I could be criticized for characterising social work qualifying courses for prioritising matters which are not germane to, and which actually hinder, practitioners’ ability to carry out their duties and daily tasks.
So I did a brief excursion into the websites of various English universities and their social work qualifying degree courses.
Here are some examples :
‘social workers battle against discrimination, poverty, injustice, and inequality, and we earn victories every day… you’ll learn how to make sense of human behaviours and explore peoples’ responses to trauma, loss, and tragedy…’
(Nottingham Trent University)‘social workers change lives for the better and make a difference in the world..’
(University of Kent)‘you’ll promote and advocate human rights and social justice..’
(Manchester Metropolitan University )‘are you a catalyst for social change ? Become a social worker and empower people to live their best lives. We’ll equip you to support vulnerable people and communities to find positive ways forward in the social justice and human rights challenges they face…..
‘the social work degree…. is an integral part of our social work and social justice division which is underpinned by activism, internationalism, and research…’
(Essex University)‘… social work is about empowering children, families and adults .. it’s a complex job that demands a lot of soft skills such as communication and partnership…. The chances are you’re naturally patient, honest, and tolerant.. someone with sound judgement who sees value in people…’
(Anglia Ruskin University )‘… the core module ‘introducing health and social care’ – we all depend on care services at some time in our lives,,, the module explores the impact of disadvantage and discrimination to (sic) human needs across the life course… the module is based on a video case study of a pre-school playgroup supporting migrant families in Edinburgh…’
(The Open University)
and so on and so forth. I saw nothing which allayed my suspicions. The Open University module conflates ‘care’ with ‘social work’ (the two are very different) and Essex university seems to envisage its graduates working in high profile jobs in the UN or the EU.
‘Social justice’ and ‘discrimination’ are given priority, along with ‘empowerment’ and ‘tolerance’.
This is really not helpful , either to social workers or the clients they deal with.
But I can’t see it disappearing. Too many academics have a vested interest in pursuing these topics, contributing to an ever expanding volume of useless ‘research’ projects, and leading students away from their primary, practical, tasks. It’s easier to assume the moral high ground about alleged injustice than prepare students with the necessary skills, knowledge, and courage, to confront unpleasant, challenging, people, and take appropriate action.
