Join us for what promises to be an outstanding webinar on mental distress during COVID. The social work profession has largely gone unnoticed in trying to respond to the broad welfare needs of those heavily impacted by COVID. Equally unnoticed is the impact of that work upon practitioners. Join us in solidarity for a fascinating discussion. Share with your colleagues.
19th November 2020 at 3pm – 5pm
You are invited to attend our next public zoom event, details below.
If you wish to attend, please register in advance by clicking the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMod-GhrDMpGteZY1tWBnTpYkK7ThVIol5d
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Co-production: what it is and how it can be employed
What is transformational co-production?
People’s contribution is only looked for if it is helping to deliver services. Transformational co-production means that the power and control changes, so that people who use services are actively involved in all aspects of designing, commissioning, and delivering services.
Moving forward
Disabled people are sick and tired of holding the Cinderella role within society where they are either excluded from or marginalised within mainstream social activity. Disabled people’s human rights are being denied as detailed under Article Nineteen of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. Disabled people’s right to self-determine – Nothing About Us, Without Us – is not reflected in the practice of policy development and co-production of service delivery as much as it should be.
In this open meeting a number of perspectives will be outlined based upon the experiences of service users engaging with service professionals.
Any queries about the event please email reclaimsocialcare@gmail.com
The NSPCC sent an immediate response to our JCB campaign letter, submitted to them on Monday 12th October and demanding an explanation of why they felt it was ok to accept a massive donation from a company renting out their equipment for the destruction of West Bank homes. Our concerns are not new to them, their reply clearly highlights that they have spent time considering just how serious and damaging taking this money from JCB would be. The reply is below:
Dear [SWAN],
The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent cruelty to children, fighting child abuse in the UK and providing support and advice to both victims and professionals.
In line with Charity Commission guidance the NSPCC has produced ethical corporate fundraising guidelines reflecting its values in relation to this goal and undertakes due diligence based on criteria approved by its Trustees in relation to corporate partners.
The purpose of the above due diligence is to ensure that the NSPCC is not associated with any organisation connected with slavery, human trafficking and child labour or where a director or officer has been convicted of a sexual offence.
The export activities of a corporate do not form part of our ethical checks unless there is demonstrable evidence that there is an association between such corporate and a country on which the UK Government/Department of Trade has formally imposed trade restrictions.
The issues which your letter raised were discussed by the Board of Trustees and having also considered our Complaints Policy further, it appears that your allegations relate directly to JCB’s activities rather than the NSPCC’s. Therefore, in accordance with this policy, I suggest that you contact JCB direct.
We are grateful for the employees of JCB who continue to fundraise for our work with and for children in the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Josephine Swinhoe
Executive Director of Income Generation
Yet the worries are serious – and the public are concerned. The Guardian on Friday saw numerous letters submitted expressing dismay at JCB’s actions, and SWAN are responding publicly. Watch this space. Do contact the press and join our campaign.
As social workers, service users and carers we welcome the publication of Amnesty International’s report which exposes the government’s criminal failure to protect elderly and vulnerable people in care homes during the pandemic. The report makes very difficult reading as it lays out the statistical evidence for deaths in care homes during the pandemic. 18,562 deaths from Covid in care homes from December 2019 to June 2020 , the vast majority of these people over the age of 65. This represents 40% of the total number of Covid deaths. 13,884 (76%) died in care homes the remainder in hospital after leaving care homes. The actual number of Covid deaths likely to be much higher as the number of Covid “excess deaths” was 28,186 a 46% increase on the number of deaths in care homes for the same period last year. These are shocking statistics and it needs to be remembered that each number represents a human life lost and the devastating effect this has on family and carers.
Amnesty International rightly challenge Matt Hancock’s assertion that the government placed a ring of steel around care homes to protect their residence. The government knew that the UKs 400,000 care home residents were particularly vulnerable to the Covid virus.
Amnesty cites the following as the evidence of the governments failure to discharge its Article 2 and Article 3 towards UK citizens with regard its positive duty to protect life and protect its citizens from inhumane and degrading treatment:
Mass discharges from hospital into care homes of patients infected or possibly infected with COVID-19 and advice that “[n]egative tests are not required prior to transfers / admissions into the care home”.
Advice to care homes that “no personal protective equipment (PPE) is required if the worker and the resident are not symptomatic,” and a failure to ensure adequate provisions of PPE to care homes.
A failure to assess care homes’ capability to cope with and isolate infected or possibly infected patients discharged from hospitals, and failure to put in place adequate emergency mechanisms to help care homes respond to additional needs and diminished resources.
A failure to ensure regular testing of care home workers and residents.
Imposition of blanket Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders on residents of many care homes around the country and restrictions on residents’ access to hospital.
Suspension of regular oversight procedures for care homes by the statutory regulating body, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
SWAN supports the demands of Amnesty International including a full and independent public inquiry.
We are now entering the second wave of the pandemic and this criminal negligence must not be repeated. We support the immediate demands of Amnesty International:
Equal access for care home residents, staff, and visitors to regular testing.
Adequate representation and involvement of the social care and care home sector in the decision-making processes related to matters which impact care home residents at all levels.
Adequate and continued supply of PPE for care homes to enable them to comply with national guidance and ensure all staff have undertaken training on its purpose and correct use.
Adequate mechanism to assess and build the capacity of care homes to deliver appropriate infection prevention and control, including in regard to their ability to isolate new or returning residents effectively and limiting the movement of staff as much as possible between care homes; and to provide adequate care for residents with COVID-19 and other residents.
Full access for care home residents to the NHS services to which they are entitled.
A thorough review of DNAR forms that have been added to care home residents’ care plans and medical files since the beginning of the pandemic to ensure they have been completed with the full knowledge, consideration and consultation of the resident and/or their family or independent advocate where they do not have mental capacity, according to the terms set out in the Mental Capacity Act. Ensure all staff working in the home understand when and how DNARs apply and that they do not in themselves indicate that a patient does not want to be taken to hospital or does not want to receive (non-CPR) medical treatment.
Empowerment of care homes to develop visiting policies which respect and fulfil residents’ human rights and which give voice and agency to them, their families, and/or their legal guardian, while ensuring their safety and that of their fellow residents.
Full transparency in the collection and publication of all relevant data related to the deaths of older people in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The balancing of human rights is complex, peoples right to life needs to be protected and we understand that social distancing and shielding the vulnerable are necessary steps to protect infection. But the protection from abuse and the right to contact with our families are also important. Adequate funding for ongoing testing in care homes and for local authority staff could ensure that safe visiting takes place. Social workers, healthcare professionals, families and representatives could safely have “eyes on” visits to ensure residents wellbeing and undertake statutory protection of the vulnerable.
SWAN believes that this was an avoidable tragedy and the blame for what has happened lays firmly with the current Conservative government. 40 years of neo liberal policies in social care and public health have undermined the capacity of public services to protect the most vulnerable in our society which has been compounded by over a decade of austerity. The government’s negligence, belief in herd immunity and prioritising the handing of contracts to private firms is further evidence that concern for profits overrides concern for human life.
We ask our members and supporters to read the full report from Amnesty, share this statement and ask our trade unions and professional bodies to do the same.
SWAN believes that these tragedies will continue until we have fully funded national care service that is accountable to service users, carers and the public.
The UK Palestinian Mental Health Network recently highlighted to SWAN that the NSPCC has accepted a £5 million pound donation from JCB.
This is highly problematic and has led to SWAN spearheading a social work campaign to have the NSPCC refuse this money. Today we publish our campaign letter, sent to their CEO and signed by SWAN and 14 other high profile social work professionals. Any further letters sent by Swan supporters will encourage the NSPCC to respond. Can you help? Read ours below:
Peter Wanless
NSPCC CEO
Neil Berkett
Chair of the Trustees
Weston House
42 Curtain Lane
London
EC2A 3NH 11-10-20
Dear Peter and Neil,
We are writing to you in regard to the NSPCCs decision to accept a donation from JC Bamford Excavators Ltd (JCB). This is because we believe there is very clear evidence that these machines being used to demolish Palestinian homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
We do not accept that the NSPCC can exonerate itself from all responsibility by claiming that this relates to JCB’s activities and not that of the NSPCC.
We refer you to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory.”
JCB has been fully informed of the use of its equipment in ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights, yet continues to supply its Israeli partner, Comasco, with that equipment. Consequently, JCB may be aiding and abetting the commission by another person of a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In March 2016 the United National Human Rights Council adopted resolution 31/36 that called upon business enterprises in all states to take all measures necessary to comply with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN identified a number of business activities that raised particular human rights violations concerns. These included the supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements, the supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property and the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olives groves and crops.
Subsequently, in 2020, the UN report A/HRC/43/71 named JCB as one of 112 business entities which the UN Human Rights Office considers in breach of international law.
JCB are currently the subject of a formal complaint by eminent lawyers (Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights) who cite JCB’s failures under OECD guidelines to apply due diligence within their human rights obligations.
Research by the Shoal Collective found that JCB’s products were used in 2018 in at least 130 demolitions, including the destruction of at least 2 schools and 31 homes. These demolitions displaced 163 people, including 31 children. They generally are used to carry out demolitions in vulnerable farming or Bedouin communities in the Jordan Valley or the South Hebron Hills. The bulldozers were most often used to destroy people’s homes or animal structures, olive and fruit trees. They were also used to destroy wells, and community freshwater systems, cutting off villagers from water sources. Reports complied in 2019 found that JCB machinery was involved in demolition of property that displaced 123 people and 39 children.
We recognise the excellent work NSPCC does and applaude your aim to “Give a voice to children when no one is listening” and to “fight for every childhood.” But British children should not benefit at the expense of Palestinian children and their families. Nor should a charity accept money from a company complicit in war crimes.
We therefore call on the NSPCC to demonstrate a truly ethical position, cease to take money from JCB and prove that every child matters.
We very much look forward to your reply and hope that the NSPCC will reconsider its position.
Yours,
Alissa De Luca-Ruane on behalf of:
Social Work Action Network Steering Committee
Professor Nigel Parton
Emeritus Professor, University of Huddersfield
University of Huddersfield
Dr Nigel Patrick Thomas
Professor Emeritus of Childhood and Youth
Associate Director, The Centre for Children and Young People’s Participation
School of Social Work, Care and Community
University of Central Lancashire
Norma Baldwin
Professor of Child Care and Protection (Emeritus)
University of Dundee
Ian Butler – Emeritus Professor of Social Work at the University of Bath.
Kate Ramsden, UNISON Scotland (and children’s rights officer).
Diana Neslen, Retired Social Worker
Professor Claudia Bernard
Co-Head of Department
Head of Postgraduate Research
Social, Therapeutic & Community Studies
Goldsmiths, University of London
John Stevenson
Retired Social Work Team Manger
Past Chair UNISON Scotland Communications Committee
Leah Levane, co-chair, Jewish Voice for Labour
Barrie Levine – Lecturer in social Work, Glasgow University.
Lorraine Radford, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Henry Maitles
Emeritus Professor of Education
School of Education and Social Sciences
University of the West of Scotland
Ann
Davis, FAcSS
Emeritus Professor Social Work and Mental Health
University of Birmingham
Eric Blyth
Emeritus Professor of Social Work
All queries may be directed to swansocialwork@gmail.com or Annie O’Gara on
0114 4382351.
PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING AND SHARING THE PETITION ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS STATEMENT.
SWAN is extremely concerned that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), a charity campaigning and working in child protection in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, receives donations from JC Bamford Excavators Ltd (JCB), despite these machines being used to demolish Palestinian homes. We do not accept that the charity can exonerate itself of all responsibility by claiming that this relates to the JCBs activities and not that of the NSPCC.
SWAN wishes to remind the NSPCC that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory.”
JCB has been fully informed of the use of its equipment in ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights, yet continues to supply its Israeli partner, Comasco, with that equipment. Consequently, JCB may be aiding and abetting the commission by another person of a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In March 2016 the United National Human Rights Council adopted resolution 31/36 that called upon business enterprises in all states to take all measures necessary to comply with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN identified a number of business activities that raise particular human rights violations concerns. They include the supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements, and the supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property and the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olives groves and crops
Subsequently, in 2020, the UN report A/HRC/43/71 named JCB as one of 112 business entities which the UN Human Rights Office considers in breach of international law.
JCB are currently the subject of a formal complaint by eminent lawyers (Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights) who cite JCB’s failures under OECD guidelines to apply due diligence within their human rights obligations.
Research by the Shoal Collective found that JCB’s products were used in 2018 in at least 130 demolitions, including the destruction of at least 2 schools and 31 homes. These demolitions displaced 163 people, including 31 children. They generally are used to carry out demolitions in vulnerable farming or Bedouin communities in the Jordan Valley or the South Hebron Hills. The bulldozers were most often used to destroy people’s homes or animal structures, olive and fruit trees. They were also used to destroy wells, and community freshwater systems, cutting off villagers from water sources. Reports complied in 2019 found that JCB machinery was involved in demolition of property that displaced 123 people and 39 children.
SWAN recognises the excellent work NSPCC does and applauded the charity’s aim to “Give a voice to children when no one is listening” and to “fight for every childhood.” But British children should not benefit at the expense of Palestinian children and their families. Nor
SWAN calls on the NSPCC to demonstrate a truly ethical position, cease to take money from JCB and should a charity accept money from a company complicit in war crimes.prove that every child matters.
PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THIS PETITION. YOU MAY WISH TO WRITE TO THE NSPCC: Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH.
Book here for the second Workers’ Experience meeting for UK social work practitioners, a closed event accessible to those who have registered via eventbrite.
These meetings are safe spaces. We can only challenge the status quo, which forgets the centrality of social justice in social work and abandons the well-being of the workers, if we share our stories. Our website is currently hosting two stories that we recommend you read before joining the meeting. We would like to add more.
This meeting will not lead with speakers. We will devote as much time as possible to your voice, to hearing what practice during COVID has looked like, what you expected to happen and what you think will happen in the future. What has happened to our relationship with people receiving social care services or intervention? How have local authorities responded to legislation changes? What have you been asked to prioritise – what is your role during COVID?
Book here. You will receive log in details, including a password, for the meeting 24 hours before it starts.
This is an appeal for Support for a Hong Kong Social Worker Sentenced to one-year Imprisonment in the Anti-extradition Bill Movement.
A registered social worker from Hong Kong, Mr. Lau Ka-tung, has been convicted and sentenced to one-year imprisonment for committing an offence in the Anti-extradition Bill Movement on 17 June, 2020. The Magistrate agreed that Mr Lau had impeded police’s action of arresting protesters on 27 July, 2019 in Yuen Long. He also rejected Mr Lau’s application for temporary release, pending on his appeal against the sentence to the High Court. But as the defence lawyer asserted, Mr Lau has shown his social worker registration card and held up his hands without any physical resistance. He just functioned as a mediator to verbally remind the police of the possible casualties that might result from a stampede of the retreating protesters. However, he was injured and arrested. The conviction is a disastrous precedent for upcoming trials of other social workers who are arrested at similar scenarios.
According to the global definition and ethical principles of social work, one of the main duties of the profession is to stand for the rights, safety and interests of the clients while upholding human rights and social justice. The presence of social workers in the protest scenes and the related mediating and rescue work is not only legitimate, but also essential when the Anti-extradition Bill Movement in 2019 in Hong Kong became a fight for human rights, democracy and freedom. Unfortunately, more than 50 social workers were arrested for upholding human rights and safeguarding social justice, and some were charged for rioting. Mr LAU was the first, but will not be the last, social worker being criminalized while carrying out professional duties.
We call for social workers and social work organizations in the international community to show their support and solidarity to Mr. LAU and to protect the basic values of the social work profession in one or all of the following ways:
1. Stage an open support for social workers’ presence in the frontline at the protest scenes to perform as mediators;
2. Declare a global solidarity against the arrest, ill treatment and criminal conviction of social workers when they implement their roles and duties in social movement to uphold human rights and safeguard social justice;
3. Call for the High Court appeal for the convicted case against any possible political prosecution of social workers.
Yours sincerely,
Reclaiming Social Work Movement 18 June, 2020
Contact Person: Dr. Leung Chi Yuen (sscyl@polyu.edu.hk)
…and where this sits in the broad context of Children and Families social work. Read this interview with a Children and Families practitioner, as they reflect upon how COVID has stressed the inadequacies of modern social work.
“I just don’t believe in what we are doing anymore.”
Working during COVID has highlighted a lot of issues in Children and Families social work for me. When you take away being able to sit with people in their homes and have open and empathic conversations, we are left with nothing to offer.
We all go into social work with – well it’s supposed to be about working with families, doing direct work and make a difference. Personally I wanted to do this job because I felt I had a lot of life experience. In the child protection teams, I wanted to be with people in crisis but I think quickly I have realised that the system doesn’t work.
“You need therapy but I can’t give it”. “Your child needs xyz but the services aren’t available so we ae gong to court to ask for a care order”. It doesn’t sit right. The higher above agenda is stat driven. It’s not about the families. If this was proper social work, as it’s meant to be, I could really do some good work here, I could go in and build relationships, give these kids time, do family work. But instead I get told to close them when they are at the Child In Need s17 threshold.
2. CIN cases are being forced closed by management too soon, due to COVID pressures. Objectively I get that these cases aren’t always about safeguarding against immediate and significant harm, they are more about giving support – we aren’t allowed to do it. I have families asking us NOT to leave or close the case because our presence is working. The kids don’t want to be left without anyone. Mums say “you all leave me, when you are there you help – then you leave, it goes down and I come back in a worse place in the system”.
If it’s not Child Protection s47 then you have to close it. COVID has cranked up the pressure on our service and therefore on CIN cases. What’s the point of CIN if they get closed instantly? It’s there in law! Why are we ignoring them? We are being pushed to close all CIN cases. Where is the value of S17 of the Children’s Act? We are misleading families about the levels of involvement and engagement when we force workers to close CIN cases during times of pressure like this. I’m so conflicted. Half of me says we should not be involved unless absolutely necessary because the system is so bad. So destructive. We infringe on their rights. The other half wants to do the proper work, to get in early. Social care shouldn’t be about removing children. We moan about the media portrayal of social work but can you blame them? We have created this monster.
3. The risk aversion in management is paralysing. I have been led to believe I can make a difference in cases where then I have found out my manager has made decisions with legal without my knowledge. When I challenge this I am told “You have become too emotionally connected to the family”. They are trying to gaslight me into thinking I was not making a sensible assessment. Why is emotional attachment being trained out of us? Our social work values are meant to play a part. Yet being robotic is the only way apparently to make a decision. It’s not all meant to be on data, it’s meant to be a consideration on how the child will emotionally react.
4. There is no guidance to making major decisions like this during COVID. Mothers are asking to have contact in the park etc with their children now that lockdown has been eased. We are saying no. There is NO WRITTEN GUIDANCE. Why have SWE not sent any guidance out? Why has the LA not issued any guidance in writing? Why have we had no email explaining how to work during COVID? Why is there no centralised file with COVID guidance accessible by all? Where are the copies of the risk assessments? This is not a mistake – this is deliberate. It’s suspicious that we are told to visit within houses verbally only, no paper trail. If someone tries to sue the LA because we have spread COVID, there is no paper trail to show we were told to go in to houses. We will be blamed for making personal decisions on a case by case basis. This is not an accidental situation. And that is the worst thing for me.
5. The Court system under COVID is problematic. It is a doable system but not a fair system. From a worker’s perspective, court is horrendous anyway. Especially when giving evidence. Everybody’s emotions are high. At least when you are physically there you can leave it behind in a different building – it isn’t actually taking place in your home! I can’t process that I had 4 court hearings last week and all that happened with me in my house. I have been cross examined and heard these stories whilst I’ve been sitting at home. I can’t escape it. There is no office environment for a debrief. I also have to look after my own child straight after these court sessions. It’s impossible to switch off. This is not my safe space at the moment. The pressure of trying to juggle being a parent, working during lockdown, and trying to manage safety around visiting families during a pandemic has been minimised and dismissed by judges. Legal teams have told us not to raise any of this for consideration when court mandated plans are created. Are we working with reality or fantasy?
Alongside this, I cant speak to legal to take advice during the hearing, there are no sidebar moments where we are waiting outside the room, talking through what to say next. It helps to process things. Nothing can ever replace face to face conversation in that kind of serious situation. We mustn’t pretend it’s a suitable replacement. In one case, from the mum’s point of view, she wanted to speak to us face to face: she wanted to explain herself and give evidence looking at people. They denied her the chance to do it over a video call. They said no, that the technology was not set up for that. For her that was a big thing. And she has to do all of this from home and it’s really not a safe space for her.
6. Key resources have shut down during COVID such as psychological assessments that feed into our court planning. So we are having to decide whether we are going from pre-proceedings to court without the essential assessments. They are normally independent social workers who now don’t have to work. Is this a breach of rights? No-one knows how to handle this situation, fair enough. But everyone looks to social work to keep going regardless. But we can’t do this alone and we need other services to get involved. We need early help and youth workers to keep engagement, we need psych assessments and cognitive assessments to happen fairly. We aren’t trained to deliver domestic violence work with perpetrators etc. but we are expected to by court and management. It’s a false sense of security during this pandemic. Because SW doesn’t offer solutions anymore, only monitoring, what we do becomes hugely oppressive when the external resources back off. If we don’t put the resources in place and then the court feel we have not evidenced that its safe enough for children to go home to their families, then we are responsible for tearing children out of their homes.
What should happen after COVID goes away? What will we learn and where should we be going in the future?
As a public service we should be treated as importantly as the NHS regarding policy and guidance. We are being forced to do things beyond good guidance.
The system is so broken that I am not sure what is saveable. The entire system needs an overhaul and we need a new government to even stand a chance. We are not funded, we are scapegoated as a service that should do everything. Are we being represented enough as a public service by the Labour party?
We need grassroots social work, properly funded. We need space to talk about structural oppression alongside trauma rather than just look at thresholds.
Swan’s Michael Lavalette interview’s author Lee Humber on issues of climate change, health inequalities and class in the context of COVID-19.
You may have noticed that SWAN is using a variety of formats to debate government policies and the role of social work during the current pandemic. Thursday evenings have seen us co-host several huge international webinars with the IFSW, as well as national meetings that address the UK context. SWAN International (SWAN i) has grown exponentially as we connect with workers from South Africa, Hong Kong, Thailand and Greece to name but a few. The calendar is looking busy for months to come, as the appetite for transparency, critical debate and change grows further.
On the 7th May 2020, SWAN hosted a closed meeting for UK social workers that was designed to be a safe space for sharing the reality of what frontline practice is looking like during the COVID pandemic. SWAN recognised that detailed stories of experience are essential for understanding how our government is using the social work profession to deliver its ideological goals during this time of fear and change. We also recognise that practitioners often feel very wary of sharing their worries about what they are being asked to do or criticising their employer. Creating a safe space was crucial. We are very grateful that people trusted our forum to share perspectives, and much came from it.
Our focus was to explore experience, perhaps identify themes, and consider next steps. Immediately we all identified a desire for more meetings in a similar vein. Therefore we are going to be back on the 11th June, details to follow.
Some personal experiences were hard to hear. One worker spoke of entire teams having to reapply for their own jobs, as their employer took advantage of the union stepping back from a walk-out during the pandemic. Another shared that community groups and schools have led the way in easing the impact that COVID has had upon families already managing poverty, with their employer simply trailing in their wake, signposting families.
People talked of the way that families without a laptop or internet access simply can’t get the services they are entitled to. Those using services and reliant upon the welfare state have not been able to stockpile food; those with really complex needs such as drug users are being left behind as services withdraw. Redeployment of social workers may be a common consideration across local authorities but there are worrying stories of wholly inappropriate placements.
Several workers shared feelings of guilt as people feel forced to choose between their own safety and the needs of the people they are trying to support. Many stories highlighted that managers do not know how to respond to this crisis, are paranoid about serious case reviews highlighting failings, and are increasing control and reducing dialogue with workers as a result. Alongside this, the government clearly is using this period of shock to force its own agenda of privatisation and reducing regulation.
Throughout all of this, we remembered the workers who have died of COVID-19.
During discussion, themes emerged around the disconnect between social workers across the UK:
These themes are informing a set of demands that we hope to pull together, potentially after the next Workers’ Experience meeting. Please consider joining this safe forum and telling us what working life is like for you, and the people you are working to support. Alternatively, email us your story at swansocialwork@gmail.com.
