Moving on from ‘reflection’: a new voice for social work practice ….

The knowledge and experience of social workers is often undervalued, even devalued as not ‘valid’, relegated to the realms of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘not good enough’ to inform the professions future. We suggest current dominant constructions of ‘reflection’ in social work education and practice serve to individualise and de-politicise the process itself and as such, have become unsupportive and dismissive of practitioners experience, serving to reinforce notions of subject responsibility allied to Foucauldian notions of governmentality.

In the document below we suggest that knowledge created by practitioner ‘reflection’ is undervalued, diminishing its transformative potential for workers, and those they work with, to contribute towards meaningful, purposeful change at an individual and systemic structural level. We therefore introduce an alternative optical metaphor, ‘diffraction’ (Karen Barad, 2014).

We proposes the autoethnographic turn as a potential next step for students and practitioners to draw upon to use as a framework to analyse their experiences, and those of others, to develop contextualised knowledge that situates individual experience within the sociological, political and ideological realms.

We suggest social workers experience is valid and should be used to inform the future of social work, along with the experiences of those they work with, rather than individuals with the right connections and global corporate entities.

Please use this work as a discussion piece to support the voice of social work.

troubling-critical-reflection-2

Frontline, The Care Review and the lost decade …..

A decade on from the creation of Frontline and the final conclusions of the Children’s Social Care Review some individuals careers have soared, riches have been enhanced, power, privilege & elite status have been grasped, bright futures are in clear sight… but alas not for those children and families at the centre of this continuing social work saga.

In October 2012 an early career teacher in his mid 20’s decided he was going to change the future of social work with children and families. So Josh MacAlister approached Ark Ventures, a global charity set up in 2002 by hedge fund managers, seeking support to develop a new programme of social work education based on a fast track teacher leadership training programme he himself had qualified through called Teach First.

Ark responded by providing £200,000 in seed capital so a business plan for Government funding could be submitted by MacAlister to start up Frontline. Support in developing the business plan was provided by BCG (Boston Consulting Group the 2nd largest American consultancy in the world). ‘The business plan was submitted in just four months, and used to secure over £15m of government and philanthropic investment to launch the venture’ (Ark Ventures).

The premise of the plan focused on the calibre of qualifying social workers and their education, suggesting both were inadequate for the task of protecting vulnerable children. To address the perceived failure of social work a new approach needed to be developed.

‘Frontline would be run as a social enterprise, independent from government and employers. It would recruit top graduates, commission and quality-assure the training, and develop a network of social work champions across the profession. It would develop formal relationships with other charities and corporate supporters. The long-term objective would be to build a movement of social work leaders who could tackle social disadvantage.’ (Mac Alister)

The business plan gained Government support, not least from the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove.

In November 2013 Gove delivered a speech to the NSPCC in which he argued that social work training involved ‘idealistic students being told that the individuals with whom they will work have been disempowered by society’. Gove held that students were being ‘encouraged to see [service users] as victims of social injustice whose fate is overwhelmingly decreed by the economic forces and inherent inequalities which scar our society’. Gove suggested that the intellectual demands of many social work courses should be raised.

Just a year after the publication of MacAlisters plan Gove announced the creation of Frontline explaining it would seek to replicate the success of Teach First in education by recruiting the “brightest and best” – to social work.

The development and support by government of Frontline was controversial from the off with many in the profession taking exception at the comments of both MacAlister and Gove , neither of whom had ever been a social worker.

Critics suggested Frontline represented conservative ideology and the creation of a social work officer class (Murphy,2016). Accusations of elitism were at the forefront, whilst the exclusion of qualified and experienced social workers in its development was highlighted. I wrote my first blog post on Frontline in May 2013, where I suggested tackling issues such as inequality, poverty, poor housing, unemployment and low wages would make the biggest difference to the lives of the families many social workers are in contact with, rather than having a social worker with a good degree from a top university.’

Over the years many more blogs followed, more recently with the appointment of the lead for the Children’s Social Care Review.(i.e 2020;2021). However, mine is not a lone voice, many others have sought to provide analysis of what lies behind/beneath the rise and rise of Frontline and the Care Review and why it matters that this is discussed/debated i.e Ray Jones special edition; Christian Kerr; Donna Peach; Hanley et al, Care Review Watch Alliance

In record time interim findings of the Care Review have been published and featured in Community Care. Responses from social workers to the article echoed what I and many others felt, there was nothing new, the issues identified had been outlined by social workers on the actual frontline for over 20,30 even 40 years. The relationship between poverty, child abuse and neglect is well documented. Stress, burnout, heavy case loads, bureaucracy clearly highlighted by Munro. Ray Jones was highlighting issues re the privatisation of children’s services, along with the profits that would be made in 2015 etc etc …… So whilst these issues have been known for years, none appear to have been a priority for Frontline and the lead for the care review. However, what has been prioritised is the development of networks of power with an elite leadership placed in strategic positions, drawn primarily from Ark, Global Management Consultants, supporters of the Conservative party and Teach First. These networks continue to occupy key positions within the infrastructure that surrounds children in the UK and will shape the future of social work. Those who occupy these positions will not critique government, and will not openly seek to challenge government on their role in supporting increasing poverty and structural inequality which impacts so negatively on children and families lives. (see Ray Jones special edition and Galpin, 2021).

It has taken nearly a decade and many many millions (£45 just for 2020-2022 to train 900 social workers + £141,000 salary as care review lead for 1 year ) for the care review lead to finally acknowledge what we all already knew, …. but leaders of the profession have not been interested in listening to the voice of social workers, those social workers they branded nearly a decade ago as of ‘inadequate’ calibre, and even worse those who were idealistic and believed in social justice …….!!

Next year the review will conclude , rushed through and shaped to provide the ‘evidence’ to deliver a predetermined outcome many fear … most likely the much lauded ‘Blueprint’ … the plan written by an American Management Consultancy agency (BCG), the same plan the one independent author, Brendan Martin the managing director of Buurtzorg Britain and Ireland, withdrew his support for as drafted, showing much welcomed respect for the grass roots voice of the social work profession, suggesting that the emphasis on organisational restructuring rather than working with social workers and service users from the ground up was misguided (Hanley et al)

If this comes to pass we will see another decade of lost opportunity and millions more that could change childrens lives spent on what now seems like a vanity project as yet again the elite leaders of the social work profession continue to disregard the ideological & political drivers of the structural oppressions that leave children vulnerable and adults lost and without hope.

A decade on from the creation of Frontline and the final conclusions of the Children’s Social Care Review some individuals careers have soared, profits have been enhanced, power, privilege & elite status have been grasped, bright futures are in clear sight… but alas not for those children and families at the centre of this continuing social work debacle.

In 2010 MacAlister was a potential candidate for a by-election in Oldham East, his bio concluded

“…..and regardless of whether he can make it through such a tough field of candidates, he’s certainly one to watch for the future.” (LabourList)

They weren’t wrong were they !!

Children’s Social Care Review: A trade in vulnerable children?

The Government has launched a review of children’s social care, describing it as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to reform the care and protection of vulnerable children. However, the appointment of Josh MacAlister by Gavin Williamson to lead the review has caused significant concern from sector representatives with an open letter , signed by several hundred individuals and various organisations, sent to Williamson challenging the appointment.

As CEO of Frontline MacAlister has received significant funding and support from Government, global management consultancies (BCG) and venture philanthropy (Ark) to deliver an ‘elite’ social work programme.This has been controversial due to MacAlisters relationship with networks of power that occupy key positions across wider childrens services & the continued support of the Chief Social Worker,  who is no stranger to private sector engagement in the reform of the childcare sector. 

None of which suggests any wrong doing, but does suggest their appears to be a collective of individuals holding a great deal of positional power and influence closely aligned to Government.

The ‘blueprint’

Whilst the review is billed by Government as a once in a generation opportunity, it could be suggested the way forward has already been pre-determined as BCG has already co-produced a ‘blueprint’ for the future of children’s social care with MacAlister in Novermber 2019. Six of the nine authors of the blueprint were from BCG, one was an ex Frontliner, along with McAlister, however, research suggests the one independent author has withdrawn his support for the blueprint.

‘several months after the Blueprint was published one of the authors not associated with BCG, Brendan Martin, the managing director of Buurtzorg Britain and Ireland, withdrew his support for the Blueprint as drafted, suggesting that the emphasis on organisational restructuring rather than working with social workers and service users from the ground up was misguided (Martin, 2020)’.

Further the support of the Chief Social Worker for the model proposed in the blueprint  2 years prior to its publication, is a tad disconcerting, as if the outcome of the 2019 consultation with 80 sector parties was already preordained?  (BCG have a history of producing ‘blueprints’ globally across a wide range of sectors (see ‘Airtunnel a blueprint-for workflow orchestration using airflow‘).  Rather than a research focus their blueprints adopt a promotional approach, presenting only one solution to an issue, their solution.)

Discussion

Everything about the review of children’s social care is a moral and ethical debate, not just economic, and many are concerned about the pitfalls of applying market based approaches and ‘values’  to the protection of vulnerable children. The dangers of a unregulated and privatised system of social care for children has been exposed by the BBC’s Newsnight recently, and should ring alarm bells across the sector.

Whilst Government appear to believe the private sector is the answer to improving care provision we just have to look at the results of this strategy in adult social care.

Over three years ago the King’s Fund highlighted what many in adult services already know, the free market is failing, stating

‘Social Care is now a complex and sprawling sector – more than 12,000 independent organisations, ranging from big corporate chains to small family-run businesses, charities and social enterprises, which makes the NHS provider landscape look like a sea of organisational tranquillity. Less than 10 per cent of social care is actually provided by councils or the NHS – their retreat from long term care provision is virtually complete. But unlike the NHS, when a social care provider hits the financial rocks, bankruptcy not bail-out is the more likely scenario. But a deeper problem is the failure to think through the consequences of shifting the bulk of our care provision to a private business model’. 

Children’s services offer rich pickings for private providers like CareTech Community Services who charged local authorities £430 million for their services over the course of last year. It is reported the companies annual financial return suggests

“…. the company now owns a property portfolio worth over £750 million and paid out almost £1 billion in executive bonuses last year.” (Social Work Today,2021)

Whilst profiting from the care of vulnerable children is a major concern for many , there is also an issue in respect of global management consultants accountability. Companies such as BCG truly are the ‘invisible hand‘ as they seem unaccountable for their actions and decision making. Whilst they may refer to data/evidence based decision making scrutiny of the efficacy of their decision making and outcomes by government in the UK appears limited. However, serious concerns have been expressed in respect of BCG’s ‘value-based’ approach by the Swedish media and Government. Swedish journalists Gustavsson & Röstlund  highlighted significant concerns, suggesting patient safety was a concern following  BCG’s involvement with Karolinska University Hospital. This led to a major investigation by the journalist and publication of a book. (see The Consultants – The Struggle for the Karolinska University Hospital)

Yet faith in the free market is unshakeable in this government, as has been demonstrated by Covid19 and the huge number of tenders given to private companies to provide key services required to save thousands of lives, such as test, trace and track, including BCG. However, the re-branding of any aspect of public health and social care as a commodity over the last 40 years has all but ignored some simple truths pointed out by the economist Adam Smith several hundred years ago;  the purpose of the free market is to generate wealth for those who own the means of production, or the ‘masters of mankind’ as Smith christened them, it is not a charitable endeavour but a single minded system driven by cash not compassion, who Smith suggested had a ‘vile maxim‘  of  “all for ourselves”.  The ‘masters of mankind’  in Smiths time were the merchants and manufacturers who supported policy that enabled them to make more profit, they were not concerned with how such policy and their actions might impact on others.  

Today the ‘masters of mankind’ appear to be international management consultants, such as  BCG, who are actively supporting the development of children’s services in the UK. Such companies are popular with Government, not least because they never criticise governments handling of structural issues such as poverty and inequality, but they do lend an expensive hand in rearrange the deckchairs on the proverbial public sector deck.

One might question why the 2nd largest global consultancy in the world is so interested in our vulnerable children?  From a  venture philanthropy perspective it is feasible their intentions may well be honourable, however, given BCG has  won 37 contracts from the UK Government over the last year it would be reasonable to suggest the current review also offers potential for additional business with the Government, with the taxpayer contributing to BCG’s considerable profits.

Does any of this matter? It would appear not as mainstream media appear to be either in favour of the arrangements or are sitting on the fence.

But it does matter to me, and many many others across a board spectrum of society. There is consensus the system require reform, not least from those who have experience of care provision and feel strongly about ensuring their voices are heard. It is their voices that need to lead the children’s social care into the future, not the voices of people who have no idea of what it is to be ‘care experienced’, who know nothing of the lived experience of an underfunded care system or the effects of  grinding poverty and inequality on so many  children’s futures. 

Markets & Morals

Michael Sandel argues markets are not a mere mechanism designed to deliver goods, they also embody certain values, and the problem is these values ‘crowd’ out non market values like ethics, compassion and dignity in developing and delivering our care system. Where these values and ethics are weak we need a strong and active state to intervene to maintain those non-market values and ethics, where both are weak those most vulnerable in society will continue to be exploited, their lives and vulnerability traded as goods to be profited from.

 

 

 

 

What’s ideology got to do with ‘cladding’ & Grenfell Tower? A lot actually…..

Who can forget that fateful night when the horrific images of the tower ablaze flashed across our screens.  Almost four years on from the tragedy of Grenfell Tower calls for the Government to address the issue of unsafe cladding stills rages on. On the 1st February 2021 a vote in the House of Commons on this issue resulted in all of the Conservative Government abstaining.

Why? 

How do Government decide whom or what to prioritise when governing the country?

Firstly, the Governments response is totally predictable, why? Because they are adhering to the dominant  ideology that  shapes their actions, and apparent inaction.

In short ideology determines the nature and limits of the state, who should be supported by whom, and how it should be paid for.

In this context the dominant ideology underpining successive Governments over the last 40 years, since Thatcher, is neoliberalism.

There are a number of strands to neoliberalism which are, arguably, as relevant as the cladding on Grenfell Tower in understanding why this issue has dragged on. In political terms this has resulted in Government  dis-investing in public services with the aim of privatising  services such as health care and children’s social care,  to promote open unregulated markets to transfer public services into the free market.

This has resulted not only in the deregulation and privatisation of publicly owned assets, such as housing, but also arguably the transfer of responsibility for those requiring public services away from government, so that when, as in the case of building regulations, there is a failure in the system, holding someone to account is almost impossible due to a diffused chain of responsibility government has put between it, and the individual, by creating a host of intermediary layers of officials and organisations , such as management companies, contractors and sub-contractors.

A key tenet of neoliberalism is the role of free market in delivering everything from baked beans to iPhone’s to children’s social care. The free market is highly valued by neoliberals because it is viewed as a more efficient system in providing goods and services and promotes individual liberty by empowering society through consumer choice.

In the case of Grenfell Tower, and the ongoing ‘cladding’ debate, the extremes and limitations of these beliefs are starkly revealed. Not least in Brandon Lewis’s comments who, following the Grenfell Tower disaster, was criticised for having rejected calls to increase fire safety regulations in his former role as housing minister in 2014.  

Mr Lewis had declined to force building developers to fit sprinklers, even though a  coroner’s report into  6 deaths  in a block of flats at Lakanal House in 2009 had recommended regulations be updated, and called for developers refurbishing high-rise blocks to be encouraged to install sprinkler systems. However,  five years later, Mr Lewis told MPs:

“We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation.”

He said the Tory government had committed to being the first to reduce regulations nationwide, pledging a one-in-two-out rule. He added:

“The cost of fitting a fire sprinkler system may affect house building – something we want to encourage – so we must wait to see what impact that regulation has.”

Even after the controversy when these comments were publicised Micheal Gove’ still held the neoliberal ideological line when interviewed in respect of Grenfell Tower, suggesting that it is a matter for “debate” that government should regulate so that people could have safe housing conditions.

Whilst some might find such comments incredulous, these responses are wholly consistent with neoliberal ideology, which promotes the commodification of everything from children’s social care to housing to education to health, and more worryingly clearly includes the commodification of ‘risk’. This combined with limited regulation of the free market and an unshakable belief that all consumers can exercise free choice to control, or eliminate, risk is concerning.

Those in power do not seem able, or willing, to recognise there are flaws within the neoliberal ideology they so zealously adhere to, that authentic consumer choice is often a facade in important areas of life  such as housing, health  and children’s social care. The fact is individuals cannot always eliminate risk because of the governments hand in creating systems that perpetuate structural inequality, which then restricts the individual autonomy and consumer choice they purport to support, unless, of course you are very wealthy.

The powerlessness of the residents of Grenfell Tower, and current leaseholders  of property effected by dangerous cladding, to exercise autonomy and choice is seen in their inability to challenge the decisions being made by Government.  

Peter Weatherby QC  suggests a key action of government that compounded the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the swingeing cuts to legal aid. Residents of Grenfell Tower had sought to challenge decisions being made, and residents did try to get a lawyer, however, they could not get a lawyer because of cuts to legal aid according to campaigner Pilgrim Tucker, speaking on BBC Newsnight

“These are poor residents – or they’re ordinary residents. They’re not 
the wealthy. They’re not the Camerons. They can’t afford private 
schools, they can’t afford lawyers. They tried to get lawyers but,
because of the legal aid cuts, they couldn’t get lawyers. ”

However, again, this is consistent with neoliberal ideology, why should the state fund legal aid?

Arguably, this is actually structural abuse. Structural abuse is defined as ‘the process by which an individual is dealt with unfairly by a system of harm in ways that the person cannot protect themselves against, cannot deal with, cannot break out of, cannot mobilise against, cannot seek justice for, cannot redress, cannot avoid, cannot reverse and cannot change’ (https://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-Structural_abuse)

I think this sums up the plight of the residents of Grenfell Tower pre and post fire, along with those leaseholders now seeking support, along with many other marginalised groups within society.

Albert Camus wrote “We must mend what has been torn apart, make justice imaginable again in a world so obviously unjust….. ”, going onto suggest mending a broken world is ‘steadfast, often unglamorous work – it is the work of choosing kindness over fear, again and again…’

Nearly 4 years on let the fate of the individuals of Grenfell Tower be a lesson to us all, and lets ensure their tragedy is never forgotten. We need to change the ideology driving Government and the decisions they make for all our futures.

Why it matters former Frontline CEO has been appointed to lead the review of children’s social care (Part 2)

Former  Frontline chief, Josh MacAlister, has been appointed to lead children’s social care review as the Department for Education (DfE) launches “once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform systems and services” . 

Whilst I do not dispute the need for a review, I do question whom will really be leading this, whom will produce and shape the collation of  evidence,  and what will be the ideological and philosophical foundations that findings from the review will be filtered through. I have expressed concern previously in respect of social work education built on a form of political elitism and corporate values and ethics designed to influence the future social work. Change can be positive, but I believe it is unwise to accept without challenge, however, to challenge we need to know what we are challenging.

To understand the contentiousness of this appointment we need to move beyond MacAlister and the discourse of ‘fast track’ and ‘elites’ to explore the significant structural networks of positional power that support this appointment. 

To begin, lets go back to the start……..

The Genesis of Frontline: ARK Ventures

Frontline’s as an Ark Venture.

Ark is a global charity set up in 2002 by hedge fund managers focused on children, primarily in respect of education. As such Ark Schools run a number of academies across the UK and receive significant support and funding from the DfE. Ark also have a number of programmes and ventures that involve them acting as funder, incubator, provider, technical supporter and advisor as well as curriculum developer, teacher trainer, leadership developer, ecosystem builder, evidence producer and network builder. All ventures are focused on improving the lives of children, primarily via education. Frontline was added to their portfolio of interests in 2012 when Josh MacAlister approached Ark Ventures seeking support to develop a new programme of social work education based on a fast track teacher training programme called Teach First.

Ark responded by providing £200,000 in seed capital so a business plan for Government funding could be submitted by MacAlister to start up Frontline. Support in developing the business plan was provided by BCG (Boston Consulting Group). ‘The business plan was submitted in just four months, and used to secure over £15m of government and philanthropic investment to launch the venture’ (Ark Ventures). Ark Ventures continued to support Frontline for a further 2 years until it became on independent organisation and ‘Ark family member and continues to benefit from its close relationship with Ark and the other ventures.’

it was at this time Frontline became visible in the public domain when a briefing entitled ‘FRONT LINE Improving the children’s social work profession’ was published by the Institute for Public Policy outlining ongoing issues within social work with children and families, stating

‘Tackling this problem will require action in a number of areas. In particular, there is a need to improve the quality and training of the workforce. The nature of social work means that it is heavily dependent on the effectiveness of its frontline staff.

Despite the importance of an effective workforce, social work has struggled to recruit and train enough high-calibre staff, it has suffered from a perception of low prestige, and it has been criticised for offering degree courses that provide inadequate training (p.3) ……….. there are widespread concerns about the skills, competencies and calibre of people entering the profession’ (p.7)…….

A key point states Frontline needs to ‘have a prestigious reputation that sets it apart from traditional recruitment‘ (p16)

To address the issues outlined above Frontline adopted Arks ‘successful’ tried and tested formula built around the development of partnerships and networks of power between global venture philanthropy, international management and consultancy companies and national Government designed to inform, shape and deliver public services.

The formula involves 4 principle stages

1)Identifying the problem – The sector is in crisis and requires transformation via inventive solutions and enterprise through public private partnerships (PPPs), which Ark will provide support for
2)Leadership – highlighting the strategic role of managers and suggesting that strong leadership effects positive outcomes
3)Partnership – with a range of global companies, national Government and communities
4) Establishing Shared Networks of Power – building Inter-relationships to influence policy

We can see the application of these principles as underpinning the growing success of Frontline to act as the ‘voice’ of social work with children and families. Firstly, when MacAlister identified issues within the profession and provided a solution for these through the development Frontline. Secondly, alignment to a discourse proclaiming Frontline graduates as leaders of the future. Thirdly, the links to venture philanthropy, such as Ark, and global management consultancy BCG has provided the resources to network with national Governments, and fourthly, establish working relationships with those who occupy positions of positional power.

Partnerships & positional power: From A(rk) to B(CG)

The issue of networks of power has long been a feature of MacAlisters rise as the voice of social work with children and families, and is pertinent to consider now he has been appointed to review children’s social care. Such networks may be perceived of as necessary and appropriate in a global world or as undermining of traditional social work values depending on the readers perspective. Regardless of their purpose networks of positional power cannot be ignored. For example Frontline list of patrons/trustees provides an insight into the partnerships and networks that underpin it:

Mary Jackson (Interim CEO, Ex Morning Lane)

Paul Dunning a patron of Frontline, and ARK trustee

Michael Clark is the Deputy Chief Executive of Ark

Jacob Rosenzweig is a Partner and Managing Director at BCG

Andrew Adonis Formerly served as the Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, as Minister for Schools and as a senior Downing Street adviser on education. He helped to pioneer the Teach First scheme that has provided lessons learnt for Frontline.

Camilla Cavendish former head of the Downing Street Policy Unit under Prime Minister David Cameron. She joined the House of Lords in 2016. 

In addition another Ark graduate occupies a key position, – Chief Inspector of Schools for Ofsted. Amanda Spielman

Ofsted is the inspector of educational providers and has a regulatory role in relation to the inspection of children’s social care services. MP’s initially rejected the appointment of Spielman, with the Commons Education Select Committee feeling ‘unconvinced’ by Ms Spielman’s suitability for the top Ofsted job.

However, given the remit of Ofsted and the role of Frontline it is pertinent to also mention Spielman was part of the original management team of Ark Schools. Spielman’s roles included research and development director for Ark schools 2004-2010, working as an adviser to Ark’s international arm 2011-January 2016, during which time she was also chair of the exams watchdog, Ofqual.

Along with key individuals, key organisations influencing social work with children and families also share similar partnerships and networks of positional power, for example:

Education Endowment Fund (EEF)

EEF describes itself as an independent grant-making charity dedicated to raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils in English primary and secondary schools by challenging educational disadvantage, sharing evidence and finding out what works. The EEF was initially funded by the Dept of Education with a £125 million grant.

In March 2013, the EEF and Sutton Trust were jointly designated by the Government as the What Works Centre for Education, which includes ‘What Works for Children’s Social Care’.What Works is based on the principle that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If evidence is not available, decision-makers should use high quality methods to find out what works. TheTrustees/Advisory Board of EEF include:

Lucy Heller, ARK Chief Executive

Sir Micheal Wilshaw (Chair), served as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills from 2012 to 2016 and was Director of Education for ARK

David Hall a member of the executive committee of the Boston Consulting Group and chairman of BCG’s ten worldwide practice groups. He was the founder-leader of the financial services practice of BCG

Peter Goldsbrough was a managing director at BCG and is now a senior advisor to the firm

Russell Hobby joined Teach First as CEO in September 2017, currently sits on the Development Board for Mathematics Mastery, a ArkCurriculum+ venture 

Centre for Public Impact (CPI)

CPI was founded by BCG and state ‘We champion those who advance the world and draw insights from our worldwide network, including from our founders, Boston Consulting Group, and other change makers paving the way. We work with people and organisations who, like us, believe that government can and must be both effective and legitimate’. BCG has been active supporters of Frontline and actively involved with the UK Government.

At no time has there ever been any accusations of wrong doing within any of these professional partnerships/relationships however, the existence of such networks may provide strategic power and influence in shaping the review, especially given MacAlister has already developed a blueprint for the future of social work with children and families

The Genesis of the Blueprint: BCG

The Blueprint for children’s social care was published by Frontline in late 2019 following consultation with 80+ sector professionals. The Guardian heralded its launch with the headline ‘Radical plans aim to give power back to frontline social workers’, whilst the Centre for Public Impact commented in January 2020

‘The response to the blueprint has been amazing. It’s been widely covered in the national media, like The Guardian and The Times, from inside the UK government and the civil service, and from the sector’s media. But most incredible have been the reactions of social workers. Stating ‘Since the launch hundreds of social workers have got in touch asking how this can be done, and what they can do within their systems to drive change’. (CPI,2020)

Heralded as a positive contribution to the reshaping and reimagining of social work with children and families by some, others question its foundations suggesting

‘The intellectual base behind the Blueprint is not drawn from social work or its academy but inspired from the field of corporate management…….’ (Cardy, 2020)

The Authors

Firstly, lets explore the assertion the blueprint is drawn from the field of corporate management.

The writers of the document are associated with Ark, BCG and Frontline, as would be expected as it is promoted by the former CEO of Frontline. However, closer inspection reveals the authors are predominantly associated with BCG. For example six of the nine authors attribute links to BCG.

CPI, EEF and What Works contributed significant research and evidence to the blueprint, whilst the  document adopts an issue/ solution genre, presented in the signature style of BCG, promotional and offering only one solution, theirs. As in previous  blueprints produced by BCG, For example

A Blueprint for the Government of the Future (2018)
Airtunnel: A blueprint for workflow orchestration using Airflow( 2019)

Hybrid internships provide a blueprint for the future (2020)

The global nature of BCG’s influence is apparent in such documents and a cursory look a their website illuminate the many areas of interest their ‘ventures’ cover, especially in respect of reforming the public sector. It is also apparent BGC have close financial links to Governments across the world, including the UK.

Exploration of links to the UK Government has found BCG are actively involved in tendering for contracts across government departments, and has received substantial funding from Government from the ‘Moonshot’ programme to Brexit to the NHS consultancy and advisory framework BCG is there.

The extent of BCG’s influence in Government is clear in the 32 tenders it submitted for contracts in 2020 across government departments, full details can be found here.

Why might any of this matter in respect of the review?

The question for me is how much support will these networks of power provide in shaping the review and any subsequent outcomes?

To find potential answers to this, lets return to the beginning and look at educations experience of venture philanthropy and Ark.

Venture philanthropy represents a contemporary approach to traditional philanthropy, a ‘hybrid’ charitable venture which adopts the principles and methods of venture and investment capital to philanthropic decision-making and activities. The impact of this approach in reshaping educational provision has been analysed by Junneman and Olmedo (2019). Their research provides points of synergy with the current context of social work, and its potential future, stating

‘….philanthropies like Ark operating through a complex set of roles, and therefore in complex relationships as providers, lobbyists, advisers and evidence producers, at times partnering with and at times supplementing the state. It also clearly reflects the mechanisms (e.g. drafting policy frameworks, and policy documents, using strategic entry points and tactics to gain buy-in from relevant authorities) used to influence policy and create the conditions under which they and the non-state sector more generally can strengthen their own roles’ (p.53)

It appears to me this a the new way of doing neoliberalism. Whilst  MacAlister, Ark and BCG may present themselves as neutral and free of ideology, their philosophical foundations appear highly political and ideological, and more worryingly extremely similar, sharing a somewhat mono view of the future and the way forward….. in effect they speak the same language as their political paymasters, indeed they share many of the same attributes elite education, privilege….

Venture philanthropy is taking up key positions within the infrastructure that will shape the future of social work, those who occupy these positions will not critique government, will not seek to challenge government on issues of poverty and inequality, not least because the hedge fund managers and venture capitalists that fund the likes of Ark and BCG ventures have profited from the system those social workers support have fallen foul of.

The truth is any social worker on the real frontline could advise Government on how to reform childrens’ services, there is no need for global consultants and venture philanthropist. The problem is Government does not want to hear your voices because it would mean changing their ideological stance.

My blueprint,  that costs nothing to produce would suggest they stop putting these issues in silos and develop a joined up approach to end poverty, provide decent homes for families, reduce in work poverty and increase secure employment, resource mental health and drug and alcohol services, reduce bureaucracy,  and  increase administrative support to social workers for starters…

Part 1 is available here

The ‘triangulation’ of social work with children and families:global consultants, elites and Frontline (Part 1)

Since its inception Frontline has been at the centre of controversy, and criticism in academic circles,  research (2020) highlights the perceived disparities that exists as those on ‘traditional’ University programmes express their views. Initially the inequity highlighted in the research above was the primary issue,  however, seven years on from its launch I, and others, are more concerned about its links to big business and the positional power it has attained to shape and colonise the ideological future of the social work  profession.

The ‘Elite’: Colonising the ideological future of social work 

Recent research highlights the political and ideological context in which ‘the original architects of Reclaiming Social Work, (and supporters of Frontline), have gained significant positions of power and influence and been instrumental in introducing neoliberal reforms throughout children and families social work in England’.

At its inception Micheal Gove, then Education secretary supported by his special advisor, Dominic Cummings, suggested Frontline was required because many social worker are not up to the job and 

‘Social workers are abdicating their responsibility by viewing individuals as “victims” of injustice rather than making them stand on their own two feet’. (The Daily Telegraph)

Gove went onto claim

‘too many social workers had been filled with idealistic dogma and theories of society that viewed people as victims of social injustice. Gove vowed to strip this sort of thinking out of the profession’.

Interestingly Gove’s purported aim to depoliticise the education of social workers was highly political. No Government wants social work challenging and exposing the inequalities and discrimination caused by their policies. What is needed is a system of education that ensure responsibility for individuals problems are attributed to individual failure not Governments, therefore leadership in the profession needs to mirror that of Government ……

And so perhaps not unsurprisingly the search for a social work ‘elite’ was established.

How ‘elites’ work

Technically, the concept of elite(s), as used by most political scientists today, refers to the ‘top power holders’ who form networks of important national decision-makers. The operational definition circumscribes the category of ‘elites’ to the incumbents of the most powerful positions of power and authority in the largest, most influential and resource-rich national organisations. Therefore ‘elite’, classically defined as ‘the select’, is often seen as a synonym for the ‘political elite’.

Pakulski and Tranter, writing on Political Elites, Equality and Recruitment, suggest

‘Elite qualities are shaped through political recruitment and selection(sifting and grooming)’.

Further they suggest these processes of elite formation are important—if not critical—for political development and the types of regime that emerge. We can observe how this might be achieved by examining our current political leadership.

Research by the London School of Economics in 2020 found two-thirds of Boris Johnson’s cabinet attended a private school, and the new government is now nine times more likely to have been independently educated than the 7% of the general population who themselves go to fee paying schools. Four members of the new cabinet attended just one such school, Eton College, including the new Prime Minister.

In addition MP’s often have links to corporations outside of Government. In October 2019, The Guardian reported that oil companies and climate contrarian businessmen had given at least £5m to MPs over the past decade in the form of donations, expenses-paid trips, and salaries. The London School of Economics suggest

‘interaction of the corporate sector and political representation is a highly controversial and important issue. At its core lies the concern that these interactions lead to the ‘co-option’ of politicians by large corporations, and that politicians will prioritise their own corporate interests over the interests of their electorate’.

Going onto state

‘To what extent is the corporate clientism of elected politicians socially desirable? As we see from our results, the companies that benefit more from political connections are not the best corporate citizens (for example, those with poor environmental performance and opaque accounting standards).’

Hmmn this is sounding a bit familiar….

Frontline as the mirror

Just as questions are rightly raised in respect of the ‘elitism’ of political leaders in the UK, and their connections with wider business interests (corporate clientism), similar concerns have been raised in respect of Frontline. Whilst there is no suggestion of wrong doing, there is concern in respect of those who hold powerful associations within the organisation to shape the future of social work as a profession, and the provision of services.

For example, the chosen sifting process for Frontline follows that of politicians via attracting the educational ‘elite’. This led to a recruitment campaign focused on attracting high achieving graduates from ‘top Universities’. Evaluation of the pilot cohorts found the strategy had worked with a much higher percentage of Frontline participants having attended a Russell 15 Group university than the high tariff university PG group (71% and 30%, respectively). 

However, there is no acknowledgement that inequalities start before students even enter the school gates, meaning those with an ‘elite education’ are more likely to be privileged rather than natural leaders.

As Education is integral to social mobility, and is core in accessing the professions, there are concerns a system of graduate recruitment premised on academic achievement in elite institutions will lead to homegenuity in outlook and focus of already privileged groups.

Another concern relates to a perceived commitment to an internal political system wedded to privatisation of service provision, i.e Morning Lane, and the establishment of close affiliations to influential consultants and corporations, such as McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group, along with an internal network of leadership within Frontline with close links to Government and international consultancies i.e. an award-winning writer and broadcaster, and former head of the Downing Street Policy Unit under Prime Minister David Cameron; a chartered accountant. who spent over 30 years at BDO, one of the world’s leading audit firms, latterly as their Global CEO; a former minister for schools who was a senior Number 10 adviser on education..

More recently Frontline launched ‘A Blueprint for Children’s Social Care’. This was actively co-produced with the Centre for Public Impact, founded by the Boston Consulting Group.

However, Simon Cardy states

‘The intellectual base behind the Blueprint is not drawn from social work or its academy but inspired from the field of corporate management literature and best-selling management gurus such as Frederic Laloux (Laloux, 2014) a former associate partner with McKinsey & Company.’

The very same  McKinsey and Company who wrote many of the proposals contained within the Heath and Social Care Act 2012 . The Observer exposed how McKinsey was being paid for “consultancy services in support of the NHS transition programme” and acting as a “middleman” between the Department of Health and private international health corporations. The newspaper revealed the “existence of confidential emails between McKinsey and the government showing that the firm had helped the department to hold discussions about ‘international players’ running up to 20 NHS hospitals” and given “a free hand on staff management”.

(Both McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group were recently  implicated  in a corruption case in Angola. If you want to read more about these companies , and the synergies  in strategy within Frontline and the future of social work read The (Real) Dark Side Of Management Consulting)

Just as the influence of the worlds leading management consultancy (McKinsey) can be seen in our health care law, policy and provision, I am concerned by the involvement the the worlds 2nd leading management consultancy (Boston Consulting Group) in influencing the future of social work practice and care provision. BCG already has close contact with Government, who were  recently criticised for paying Executives from BCG £7000 per day to help set up the Governments Covid 19 test, track and trace scheme. The Times suggests Government have paid BCG about £10 million for a team of 40 ‘consultants’ to work on the testing system between April and August. From a BCG perspective our health and social care system offers rich picking in a privatised global care economy.

A potential future for social work can gleaned from BCG’s mission statement on  transforming complex public sector organizations

‘…..to respond to today’s challenges starts with defining a bold vision for large-scale change along with a set of projects and initiatives—carried out over a sustained period—to achieve that outcome. This transformation often involves becoming more digital, agile, and responsive to the public while attracting and retaining the right talent and managing budgets’.

Their approach to transforming social work relies on promoting  ‘smart simplicity‘ that offers an abundance of soundbites to hide the drive to privatise a deregulated health and social care market. However, there is  little of substance in ‘smart simplicity’ on the poverty, social injustice, discrimination and oppression those who require services experience.

Ideology matters

Social work, as Micheal Gove clearly recognised, is based on a countervailing ideology that challenges the dominant Government ideology and recognises the structural components of oppression and discrimination. Diversity within the workforce, and leadership, is central to challenging privilege and structural discrimination, as is the ideology that underpins its values and ethics. A profession built on a form of political elitism and corporate values and ethics will change the very foundations of social work, potentially silencing the voice of challenge and promotion of social justice, human rights and equality.

Maybe that is the point?

Since writing this Josh MacAlister has been appointed lead to review childrens’ social care, further analysis of the networks of power surrounding Frontline is provided here 

Part 2 of the analysis of the tyranny of resilience in Social Work practice: SW’s are drowning in an ideological ‘sea of me’

The Tyranny of Resilience in Social Work Practice (part 2)

Our previous writings on the place and meaning of resilience in social work practice highlighted findings from our research which exposed practitioners experience of the application of resilience in practice as a punitive mechanism of coercion and control.

Our analysis of respondents comments suggests social workers are drowning in an ideological and theoretical ‘sea of me’ where reslience is pathologised, and intervention to address issues of non resilience are focused at an individual level rather than addressing issues of structural and organisational oppression.

A striking feature of participants responses , which further supported the ‘individualisation’ of resilience in practice, was their need to control/manage their emotions as part of demonstrating resilience. The inter-relationship between emotion and resilience is encapsulated in the notion of ‘emotional intelligence’.

Research suggests

“supporting the development of emotional intelligence and self determining behaviour may go some way to addressing the experiences of stress and burnout among social workers, and the retention of social workers in this profession” (Bunce et al, 2019: p20).

Whilst Biggart et al (2016) state

“emotional intelligence covers the ability to identify emotions in oneself and others and to manage emotions in oneself and others …… Research shows that Trait Emotional Intelligence helps reduce physiological responses to stress and is strongly associated with mental health” (p3-4)

However, it could be suggested uncritical acceptance of this strategy may exacerbate the current situation further. Again, as with resilience, this approach locates the ‘problem’ within the individual, and suggests emotional intelligence is something the individual must learn to improve their resilience, and ultimately their professionalism and wellbeing.

From an ideological perspective Binkley (2018) suggests in a neoliberal context ‘emotions are not diminished per se, but are re-conceived as resources and instruments for advancement’ (pp.581). In this context practitioners emotions are not crushed or suppressed they are re-made, produced and modified for the wider purposes of their organisation. If one lacks these 

‘qualities, one should set about the work of generating them through the use of a set of generally available lifestyle techniques (self-help, physical exercise, popular psychologies, etc. To neglect the development of one’s emotional life is a failure for which no one else is responsible. In other words, emotions are no longer simply experiences or static states, much less traces of deeper subjective characters and truths: they are dynamic, plastic resources’ (Binkley, 2018: p582).

It is this notion of ‘plasticity’ that was most apparent within respondents responses, a belief that they need to be ‘flexible’, able to ‘bounce,’ able to ‘bend‘ to meet their professional requirements, to meet their organisational needs, to meet service users needs.

The neoliberal inter-sections between resilience, emotional intelligence, psychological theory and professionalism could be conceived as putting in place a set of internal restrictions on the professional that diminishes their power to challenge those that govern or the context in which they practice. From this perspective the individualisation of resilience provides a distraction to looking beyond the individual to deeper aspects of the political and structural. This was frequently apparent within respondents comments as the ideological, political and structural realms remained at a surface level confined to comments in respect of ‘limited resources’.

Previous research by Joseph (2013) firmly locates resilience as a form of ‘neoliberal governmentality’ arguing that it has become a normative force , deflecting attention from formal structural analysis and emphasising individual responsibility for solutions to collective problems. Evans and Reid (2013) present this as a paradox inherent within the concept of resilience and expose how resilient individuals are destined to remain constantly vigilant to adapting and therefore have less capacity to envision how to change their circumstances.

In this context resilience can be conceptualised as a tool of control retaining subjects in a permanent state of anxiety and denying them agency to address the source of their woes.

————————————————————————————————————————-

To continue to read our analysis click here Tyranny of Resilience in Social Work Practice

To read the research overview click here  Resilience Report 2020

(The Tyranny of Resilience, Part 1, can be found here)

---

Our starting point for this research was the voice of social workers who told us their stories, and our aim has been  to honour their voices. We would like to thank all those who took part in our survey and apologise for the delay in publishing the results.  We experienced a long period of delay as our analysis was lost in a social work journal peer review system for over a year. Having been advised the work required minor revisions our subsequent submission was rejected as ‘not adding anything new’ to understanding  social workers experience of resilience,  however, this work has always been about enabling the voice of frontline social workers who took part in our survey to have their voices heard.

We therefore respectfully ask you the reader to share this work if you feel able please as an act of solidarity and commitment to one another as a community of social workers, and activists,  in the advancement of the social work profession.

Thank you. 

Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself’: Who holds the keys to the kingdom of knowledge?

This post is inspired by a research paper whose title many within academia may well have voiced themselves, ‘Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself‘. 

The author states ‘The objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer’.  Concluding ‘Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.'(Peterson,2020)

Peer review is the accepted academic foundation to the development, gatekeeping and dissemination of research, while underpinning professional hierarchies within academia. However, research has called this process into question, identifying different outcomes based on gender and nationality. Research by Murray et al (2018) on submissions to a biosciences journal found

‘…… a homophilic interaction between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors in determining the outcome of peer review; that is, gatekeepers favor manuscripts from authors of the same gender and from the same country. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.’

Now it could be suggested peer reviewed Social Work  journals operate from a different ideological and philosophical  perspective to biosciences, however, my subjective experience over the past 14 years as an academic suggests to me social work might not be quite so different. On reviewing my publications I have been astonished to find that the majority of my successful submissions have been to  journals edited by females, whilst the majority of unsuccessful submissions have been to journals edited by males. In addition I have also realised the female edited journals have a lower metric rating, compared to the male edited journals. 

Why I wonder? The answer is likely to be multiple and complex, although hierarchies in power at both an individual and subject/content level would have a key role I believe. (Maybe that’s the subject of another blog or even a symposium?)

A recent experience of a ‘reviewer 3’s’ generally negative comments on a submission prompted me to think more deeply about  the role of peer reviewed journals as ‘gatekeepers’ of knowledge distribution, and how this might  inform the evidence base of social work. Commonly framed within the profession as ‘evidence based practice ‘ or ‘evidence informed practice’.

From a philosophical perspective Evidence Based/Informed Practice (EBIP) appears to operate on modernist foundations. For example seeking to adhere to methodological and analytic standards of rigour, which demonstrate the objectivity and reliability of a scientific approach, because this will provide clarity in establishing the ‘right’ evidence is combined to create systematic and cohesive frameworks of knowledge. The belief that by adopting this approach the ‘right’ research and knowledge is published is alluring,  and indeed may lead practitioners into a false sense of security when making decisions based on EBIP.

However, Postmodernist frameworks are of benefit here to thinking about the multiple discourses at play in social work practices, and understandings the dynamics between them,  particularly concerning power.

Academia is an interesting example of this if we consider the suggested positional power of some academics. Reid and Curry (2019) suggest such power is insidious, and  produces barriers for some scholars throughout their entire careers, disproportionately affecting women and people from black and minority ethnic groups. This template dictates certain research agendas, epistemologies, and methods as legitimate while discarding or marginalizing those that do not fit neatly within this framework. Reid and Curry argue In essence there is an acceptance of 

‘white male subjectivity as the norm (thus ‘objective’), rendering racialized (nonwhite) and genderized (nonmale) subjectivity as the ‘other,’ as lacking credibility.” Scholars who focus on critical theory, race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality and identities, qualitative methods and the like are marginalized because their work is supposedly not “objective” science.’

Add to this a cloak of anonymity, and a lack of transparency and accountability, there is very little discriminated groups can do to challenge such academic orthodoxy.

Peshkin (1988) provides an interesting perspective which extends, and troubles, the notion of objectivity by suggesting the ‘taboo’ of subjectivity stems from a misunderstanding of its potential role in EBIP. It is our own subjective involvement in practice—not the precise replication of the event—which can provide strong theoretical insight. However, we are somewhat conditioned as practitioners and academics to see subjectivity as a ‘contaminant’. Yet, that contaminant is always present, one can never get away from one self.  As Alan Peshkin eloquently reminds us

“Whatever the substance of one’s persuasions at a given point, one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed. It is insistently present in both the research and non-research aspects of our life. … our subjectivity lies inert, unexamined when it counts ….. ” (Peshkin 1988, p.17)

The key point here is that subjectivity cannot be removed. It shapes and mediates our thinking and action in a whole range of ways. Therefore, it needs to be valued understood and utilised . Instead of trying to remove the garment and declare ourselves clean of subjectivity, it is important to acknowledge it, and draw upon it to deepen our analysis. However, this is unlikely to happen if the ‘gatekeepers’ decide not to open the gates to their kingdom of knowledge, unless of course we can find another way in.

There is also an issue, I believe, in respect of practitioners opportunities to engage in research, and attain publication of their work, especially given the workforce is predominantly female (approx 85%). If there is gender bias in favour of males, specifically white males, this has major implication in who creates the evidence base for social work practice, and what does his mean for practitioners and service provision?

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

Covid19 & the care of older people: We need an ethical approach by Government

The lack of care and support for older people in care settings during Covid19 has shone a very bright spotlight on the value Government places on older peoples lives. Arguably, the transformation of ‘care’ into a commodity that dominates current health and social care reform has drawn attention away from saving lives to prioritise saving the economy. This raises issues for many in the sector, not least is it wise to continue to build a system of care provision with no clear ethical or ideological foundation outside of that of over valueing the economy and free market, whilst undervaluing older people and the public sector in the provision of health and social care?

I believe as a society we need greater expectations of the quality of our care system, and Government needs more ambition in developing great care for older people, with a more ethical and strategic approach to make real improvements.

Developing ethically sustainable care for older people

Drawing on the ecology movement sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. This captures two relevant issues; the need to support those older people currently requiring care, without compromising the future of the care system.

Need, capabilities and the ‘good life’

A first step in developing ethically sustainable care involves reframing our understanding of ‘need’. Need in a health and social care context is often used to refer to a function to be fulfilled, i.e. nutrition, physical care, or in the context of Covid19 any bed as long as it is not an NHS bed. However, we should also view older peoples’ needs in terms of equality, respect, compassion and justice.

The failure to distinguish between different types of need has led to limiting Governments understanding of how to care for older people, and has subsequently influenced older peoples experience of ‘care’. Amartya Sens’ concept of ‘capabilities’ provides an alternative long term approach. Sen is concerned in this model with identifying what individuals require to flourish and live a ‘good life’. In this model it is recognised older people require different capabilities to flourish, depending on their personal circumstances and the community they live in, whether that community is within an in-patient/residential setting or in the wider community. Successive governments’ appear to believe an expansion in a consumer culture within health and social care provision is the only route to a ‘good life’ for older people, as it enables individuals to increase choice and control by becoming consumers of care, rather than receivers of care.

From surviving to flourishing

Yet many older people are clearly not flourishing in a culture that defines the good life in terms of their ability to engage as a ‘customer of care’ or as a body to be moved to free a bed up for someone more deserving of life during the pandemic. A more useful way of thinking about this, from an ethical perspective, links Sen’s idea of capabilities and Aristotle’s vision of the ‘good life’. From this perspective achieving quality of life is central, rather than just meeting economic needs. In other words it is not just about the economy and achieving an ‘adequate’ notion of well-being but about the opportunities available to the individual which will enable them to develop their full potential, whatever that might mean for that individual.

This approach moves beyond ensuring older people have the ability to flourish to consider whether they are actually flourishing. Commentators suggest there are five areas in which older people need to flourish to live a good life, regardless of where they live. These are: belonging to a family; belonging to a community; having access to material goods for sustenance, adornment and play; living in a healthy environment; and having a spiritual dimension to life. Arguably the commissioning and delivery of service provision based on achieving these five areas might enable older people to receive care that is both compassionate and dignified.

The way forward

Conceptions of what constitutes a good life are varied, however, within health and social care provision it is prudent to assume a good life involves at a minimum care provision that is not abusive to older people.

Within the public sector the organisation and delivery of care is structured to focus on the meeting of targets rather than enabling an individual to flourish. The health and social care sector is arguably over managed and under led. In the private sector it could be argued a free market economy contains structural incentives for business to pursue a notion of the good life that supports the sale of a narrow range of care ‘products’, whilst there are not mechanisms in place to ensure the market operates within a clear ethical framework outside of the profit ethos.

By not actively endorsing care provision from an ethical stand point the government and regulatory bodies may actually be unwittingly aiding the abuse of the most vulnerable within the care system. A shift in focus from human need to human flourishing has already begun with the development of the personalisation agenda and emphasis on voice, choice and control however, this agenda has been overshadowed by a managerial approach to consumerism and consumption in a low paid, low status care system and this is undermining the ability of the care system to develop ethically.

Markets versus Values

Michael Sandel argues markets are not a mere mechanism designed to deliver goods, they also embody certain values, and the problem is these values ‘crowd’ out non market values like ethics, compassion and dignity in developing and delivering our care system. Where values and ethics are weak we need a strong and active state to intervene, where both are weak those most vulnerable in society will continue to be exploited and abused. This begs the question can we afford not to have an ethical care system, for all our futures?

 

Time to stop and reflect, and smile ……

Sometimes we can get so caught up in the hussle of everyday life we forget there is a world out there, indeed lots of worlds!  It is good to stop and reflect just to refresh ourselves, take a moment today to step outside of your ‘world’.

Have a good weekend.

First picture from NASA of water on Mars – an amazing and outstanding achievement!

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc.jpg