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
Di Galpin 