'
HOWE, D.: Social Workers and Their Practice in
Welfare Bureaucracies str. 122-140
at
11"
1 Ě."''
If:
it
t r.
r
Social Workers and their Practice in Welfare Bureaucracies
DAVID HOWE University of East Anglia
Gower
9 Controlling the meaning of welfare work
The previous three chapters identified a number of concepts which can be used to understand the organisation of workers and their work in the personal social services:
1.  Control over the nature and" definition of the work.
2.  Control over the content of work.
3.  Control over the organisation of work and workers.
4.  The power that derives from such control.
5.  The potential conflict that exists between the occupational groups competing to achieve control over the content of practice.
These ideas and concepts offer the prospect of a common explanatory base to a range of phenomena, Including the distribution and differentiation of social workers and their practice and the response patterns within particular cases.  The explanation, as it is developed, begins to encompass ideas concerning the nature of social work and its organisation.  In this way, links are made within the same conceptual schema between (i) the work, (ii) the occupational groups that tackle the work and (iii) the relationship between these groups including their organisation.
What takes place in the politics of occupational control is not entirely divorced from what takes place in a fieldworker's practice.  Examining social work case practice with reference
122
only to 'professional' social work concepts frustrates the making of wider links between social work practice and the organisation of social workers.  Instead of seeing the organisation of social workers as an unfortunate constraint on practice, the organisation of social workers can be seen as a higher level form arising out of the same conceptual ingredients that occur at the 'micro level' of individual practice. Explicit in such an explanation is the view that social work and those who 'claim' it as their 'professional' concern are not the sole arbiters, of what is 'best' or 'right' in the name of social work.  Rather, definitions of practice emerge out of  -•*' the competing views of different occupational and interest      / groups (cf Glastonbury et al, 1980, p.26).
This view óf welfare occupations and their work suggests that social work practice does not have inherent qualities' that allow universal definitions to be made, that social work has no essential nature just waiting to be expressed by that occupational group which believes itself to be in a position to pronounce on the true nature of the job.  Field-workers and welfare í : managers represent t»Q. occupational groups which have employed \ different strategies to establish cqntraL-.9y,gr__tJhe_wprk done    ; I and so have things seen their way lír the., light of their con-    ! i cerns,  Out of the relationship between these,.alternajtiye       I j strategies and their different 'technological' bases ariggs the !'
^^f/fiL-SŽ—SHíÄ' tÍ}Ä-d-Íy-isiSS—£Í~,J;£k?ur> the stvle of technology ' > used, the structure of the .organig&MSi1 anaThé' 'q^fT^Tion of the 'raw material/ (clients, their needs and their" pr'oBľemsT.
SEQUENCE OF INTERPRETATION
It is within the work carried out on individual cases (Chapter 5) that the basic elements which characterise the relationship between occupational control and the content of practice are discovered.  The identification of this basic relationship not only helps explain the distribution of types of response present in particular cases, but also can be used to account for a broader range of phenomena, including the 'activity profiles' (Chapter 4) and the general distribution of field-workers and their work (Chapter 2).  The explanations offered in Chapter 3 are now superseded and subsumed by the more encompassing theoretical accounts described in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The interpretation of the, results..is presented in the following order:
1,  Types of response in particular kinds of cases (interpreting the results of Chapter 5).
2.  The pattern of responses and their evolution within and between cases (continuing the interpretation of
123
the results of Chapter 5).
3.  The distribution of activities amongst fieldworkers and client groups (interpreting the results of Chapter 4).
4.  The distribution and differentiation of fieldworkers and their client groups (interpreting the results of Chapter 2) .
1.  TYPES OF RESPONSE IN PARTICULAR KINDS OF CASES
In their handling of particular cases, fieldworkers perceive and understand their work and then respond in a variety of ways. The freedoms and constraints experienced or recognised in these acts of perception, understanding and response tell us something about the amount of control fieldwoTkers appear to enjoy or lack over their work.  The_perceptions__and understandings reached are stimulated either by professional andpersonal thjEories.jabout pract£ce"ôŕ by organisational and__admijiis_trjj.jtive requirements.  Control over the content of a plece_qr practice is . therefore rqoteď^p,jaithgr^r^f es_sj^i^a\_asffer-$iqnB or, managjgr„ial des.jgjis.  Control, from the social workers' point of view, may be more or less available along two dimensions:
(i)  Control over the 'raw material1 itself; that is the extent to which the worker's skills and occupational technology can have a predictable effect on nliants and their problems. (ii)  Control over the way clients are perceived and understood and the responses offered in the light of these; that is the extent to whi-ch the s oc i aJ._jyorker_Ls_, respons^s_^r_e_p_r^gcrlb£c;iafla shaped by either _the individual_worker ('professional' control) or others, > particularly managers,__either directly (centralised management control) or indirectly (formalised manage-menteqntrol).
The amount of control experienced or credited, to social workers allows us to say something about their occupation and the nature of its practice.  The results of the taped interviews (Chapter 5) might now be interpreted around whether or not the two dimensions of control are present or absence in particular areas of fieldwork practice.  Thus the following positions are theoretically available to fieldworkers:
1.  The fieldworker experiences personal control over the content of her work ('professional' control) including: (i)  the 'raw materials', that is the people, events and circumstances that make up cases; (ii)  the responses made in working with a case (non-programmed and so at the worker's discretion).
124
2.  The fieldworker does not experience personal control over the content of her work including: (i)  the behaviour of the 'raw materials'; (ii)  the responses made in working with a case because of
either organisational constraints of structure, design, rules and resources (formalised management control), or explicit directives by managers (centralised management control).
The recognition of strengths and weaknesses in the amount of   ,( control held by fieldworkers over the elements of practice offers a clear insight into the occupational standing of social,' workers.  If_ control is weak over both the 'raw materials' and the the responses made in practice, social workers are unlikely to have work defined to suit their occupational skills ox to develop organisations which confer control and power on their occupation.  Mapping the contours of control in practice reveals where the balance of power lies between the worker and     | the managers of her agency.  The results of Chapter 5 do just    j. this, and it now remains to describe ÍEeoccupational relief as  J. it exists between field social workers and their managers in more pronounced terms.
The results show that the two major dimensions of control over the content of practice generally were weak in the case of field social workers.  The occupational skills and techniques   \'_  $ of the worker, although attempted frequently as non-programmed .'•]  ^ responses, generally failed to bring people and their situ-    'j'; qt.-iong nnripT sufficient control.  In the event of such failure, ij the more restricted strategies of managers and administrators  } j were employed.  The use of formal procedures and statutory devices al lowed _si,tuatxpns to. be viewed.mor.e__ppTrQwJ-v^and in
this_nar.rp.w. sense,__control cquid be achieved more easily.  The
responses, though, are not of the worker's own manufacture. Formally programmed responses had a high occurrence across all client "groups, suggesting_that managerial control was prevalent! and pervasive.  The effect of such weakness is that field-workers are subjected to control from elsewhere - either by the momentum nf pa<ip .""l"! y|ti nn (t.hn 'rawnnteri al ' goes its qw_n way) and/or through the determination oT~responses by managers "effected_thröugh the division „of _labour.,__ resource provision, procedure and directives.  There might also be an element of 'managers knowing best' - a form of collective disillusion with the claims of professionalism, an organisational recognition that formal procedures are the proven 'best way' of making a minimally acceptable response.
There is, of course, a close relationship between the weakness of social workers' expertise and the strong control exerted by managers.  In terras of asserting the claim to control
125
and define the nature of the work, managers and social workers represent two different occupational strategies.  Each makes use of á different technological base.  Indeed the techniques, as means, are used to different ends.  The ' professional' end and means have had less success inwelfare work_than those employed by managers.  As Pearson (1975, p.56) puts it, the -sociallrôrker 'even at the most basic level of performance -immediate,client response .,. cannot say confidently that if he does A he will 'cause' B to follow'.  In similar vein,' one of my respondents reflected:
I don't actually think I_ bring about_ particular changes; through what I do I mean, like stopping Gary pinching things.  I mean, I try.  I go through all the recommended motions and he may stop or he may not.  So far he hasn't'. I just hang in.
And in work with the elderly, Goldberg and Warburton observed (1979, p.94): 'In oyer two-thirds of the'cases for whom a continuance of domiciliary services and occasional surveillance was prescribed, unjLn.ticip_ated_events outside the control of social workers intervened before the next review.1
The_effect of management-based techniques gaining control is not just that control by social workers iF~reduced~but that the content of the work is prescribed both explicitly (through   ~ au^horTtx£baséd_^d i ŕ: éčtjLves[.J^^nd^imp l^čXtiZ^-íiX-fflSnitESEi a 1 design and structure).  Explicit and implicit controls occur across all areas ö*f~~work, but actual mixes and distributions vary most between work with children and their families on the one hand and work with the old and frail on the other.
Direct and usually explicit managerial involvement in field-work practice was most common in_cjjilcl~c äŕ e and f ami ly work. This was particularly so when the behaviour and circumstances of individuals were clearly related to the statutory responsibilities of the agency.  In critical situation§_the_worker'_s discretion was curtailed with more direct reference being made to statute, policy, procedure and managerial authority.  Discretion, particularly over the methods used, was greatest in' situations; .wh^r_e_the_ outcome_ was, not_c.r.iticalíy the concern of the .agency or_ where matters, as currently unders_tood,._~were not likely to present the organisation "with too much uncertainty in^térml^of^rts "responsibilities■  As one fieldworker put it, referring to his use of family therapy as a technique of working:
My Area. Officer doesn't care about the way I do it, so long as I do it, so long as I'm in there and can say I'm in there.
126
In these cases, although allowed to behave in ways based on their own technology and expertise, fleldworkers essentially were indicating to the department that they were involved and alert to what was happening.  That the departments, in some cases at least, did not mind how the workers conducted the manner of their involvement is captured in the rueful remarks of this young and recently qualified woman:        «
I was told by our Area Officer that I couldn't go on the course (week long family therapy workshop).  I'm really interested in family work and see it ... well as á really " useful way of handling many of my cases, you know.  He saigl he was sorry, but really if I wanted to specialise in that type of work I would be better off in a specialist agency of some kind.  It was a luxury that we couldn.'t/af f ord at area team level.  I ask you.'
Tf d ipn'ts- did begin to exhibit features which the organ! s -  [ ation felt to be of direct relevance to its operations,, "the    j
The čase_jwas. then placed within the tjjghtgr framework of manag-f erial authoj^yyr„aAd^.d.esj.gA#  So, for example,' wKen""íeenagers   ■ committed offences or parents were suspected of being a danger to their children, the responses of the fieldworker obeyed either procedural guidelines or the directives of managers. Cooper (in Glastonbury et al. 1980, p.78) observed that in one SSD, when making child care decisions 'at least four tiers in the department were recorded as involved' with a tendency to view decision making as concentrated in the hands of the committee and management.  In critical areas of child care the worker loses control over the content of her own practice and follows the practice designs of other people.
Parton (1979 and 1981) has considered similar influences at work in child care practice with cases of suspected non-accidental injury.  He examines the growing concern and anxiety surrounding the recognition of child abuse.  He relates the establishment of child abuse as a problem and the 'moral panic' it has engendered 'to certain influential economic interests and „the changing ideological and material base of British society' (1981, p.394).  In the 1970s the family, as an insti- '_ tution, was felt to.be 'at risk', a 'victim' of 1960s permissiveness.  The feeling that 'something should be done' developed.  Parton quotes (1981, p.393) an article from the Sunday Times, 11th November 1973, which argues that baby battering 'rightly horrifies the public and it is a category where society is failing to do its duty- ... the tragedy of Maria Colwell deserves attention because her death dramatises a national scandal.'  Rather than see famliies""aš 'neglectful' or 'inadequate' as tended to be the case in the 1950s and 1960s,
127
they came to be seen as violent and deviant allowing formal social control to be the proper reaction in which intervention was more likely to be coercive and authoritative.  The way the problem was being conceptualised and the way priorities were set, increasingly influenced the DHSS and the advice it gave SSDs.  In turn this affected the working definitions and practices of managers and fieldworkers.
In this climate, both deviant families and the permissive practices of social workers could be controlled and disciplined. 'The moral panic related to child abuse has been inextricably interrelated with debates about the nature and äirection~5f socJ.a^jror^_an^tjie_^c^countabiiity of social workers 77^  It is
families.  Their practice, as Holman (1976) Iľä^arguedT'has legitimately been encoj^xaged-tobe more punitiye,__intervehtive and 'rescue' minded.  Parton (1981, p.407) quoles Jordan" on the changing role of the social worker:
It is much more linked to the task of investigating and acting upon allegations of neglect and ill-treatment of children, which after all was one of the duties of the local authority social worker; this now suddenly looms much larger and sets the tone of all other work with 'at risk' children - 'at risk' comes to mean 'at risk from parents' rather than ~^at risk of coming- into cäŕe''"". ".". "social" workers„_ar.e_ijicreaslngly^xhöT^id"^ saving children frpp "SľčťžH or feckless parents.
Social work practice in child care and family work is not left simply to the professional discretion of the worker.  The worker's understanding of individual cases and the responses she makes are outcomes of 'wider social processes', structural developments and the role of the state (Parton 1981, pp. 409^410). '  ' The.PaLnic-over ch*3jLjÜituSg_Jias biased departmental priority e s, i caseloads and professional practice in terms_of_ child and \   family problems.  Such a bias now seems to be accepted as t  natural by ťKôsé in the field'-(Parton 1981, p.409). í ■
|   The net result of increased surveillance and direct control \  °í_gg£juíifl^amll.-ie-s according _tg_ Parton is "that the removal of \  a child from i t^s_p_arents_i s_ňow seen far more as á first rather ■ than_a^_last_resortj_ (1983, p .392) .  Between March i972 and March 1976 there was nearly a fourfold increase in the number of Place of Safety Orders taken (204 to 759).  And whereas only one newborn child was compulsořily placed in care out of 81 departments who returned evidence in 1970, the same departments reported 42 such removals in 1978 (Parton 1981, pp.392-393).
128
Examination of DHSS returns reveals a 27% increase in the number 'of.children for whom parental rights have been assumed between 1976 and 1979, the number growing from 14,500 to 18,400.  By 1980, some 41% of the children in voluntary care in England and Wales were subject to parental rights resolutions.  Social work practice clearly does not operate in a social, political or occupational vacuum.
Implicit methods of control_were met in practice with all   J1 client groups.  However, work with the old and the, handicapped , was particularly:iiabie_to indirectmethods of control and pre-scriptionj. Again, fieldworkers in situ had considerable dis-™ cretion over the manner of their responses.  Their ajctions were not determined in exact detail_.  Nevertheless, the "Worker's perception of clients and the way their needs were recognised and understood was set within the framework laid dbwiiby the orgaňi aatľôn~ánď ""■" its "manag er s .  Clients were viewed as individuals whose needs could be recognised and_met in terms of the resources available; they 'were apprjo^cJied__fpr__inf qrmation which would determine their ěli^bil"ity^.ffir_,e,xxs-táiig_.„ser.vices.
Lee (1982, p.30), describing social workers' adoption of managerially designed systems of practice and accountability, sees the work increasingly subject to 'technicalisati.on and routine de-skilling'.  Bamford (1982, p.38), in his book addressed to managers in social work, notes the use of 'Operational Priority Systems' in SSDs which 'give managers additional means of controlling the flow of work' as well as viewing available responses from the perspectives, of the agency.  One of my interviewees, a qualified social worker, found her work prescribed and her outlooks limited in a case involving a young man who was physically handicapped even though she believed she could see other needs and methods of working:
The agency ... doesn't allow you a lot of time to do a lot of_personal counselling in cases like this._. You're more of a resource system, a getter and provider,of a limited range of^ resourc*es_and this is how I'm supposed basically to tackle this case.  But really, if_I could I would like to d^_^c^e_cou_nselling with Peter's mother.
A telephone survey conducted by Neill (1982) looked at the procedures and criteria related to Part III applications in-the -33 local authorities throughout the GLC area in the autumn of 1977.  Although there were variations in the way Part III applications were defined, the study indicates a relationship between case practice, the decision making process and 'the powerful and important needs and politics of organisations' (p.241).  The part that managers played in determining eligibility and priority were seen both in the provision of resources
■■      f                                 {■■                       '■ ■   >
129    (0^ 6«-.AJ?,  ^-A-y/t. . ■
(the number of Part III beds available) and the tendency for final decisions to be taken centrally in many authorities:
In two-thirds (21) of authorities, two systems of ciassifi-ca_tion_.were...in_opera_tion.  Priority applicants were first selected by referring social workers in consultation with < their senior, colleagues in area office or hospital.  These selected 'priority' applicants were then further screened by" a central management person or panel .... .  In ten of the remaining boroughs all Part 3 applicants were classified at the central office, and priority applicants then selected by a panel or an individual.  (Neill 1982, p.237)
There was á pre.ss.uj£__c^i_s^cial_\vorkers to define their clients' si tuatioiiS. in ,cr i sis., terms in order to gain PaTtTTT^pTačěT".'-" Scarcity of resources, in this case, affected .the assessments made.  It also led to the organisation needing to control decisions by taking them centrally.
The results of Neill's research and other studies, suggest a common pattern in which clients are measured, using departmental formulae, to see to what „esj;.e.n_^j^hejrj_i.t_a:/ail„ahle_„s.exviixes.. The forms to be filled control and guide perceptions and responses.  In this sense, social workers adopt a procrustean style of practice in which the basic design of services, including, the routes to them arid the- gatrěways_met_on__the_way, is constructed by managers interpreting the legislation.  Black et al. (1983) reached similar conclusions: iii"the provision of practical services 'delivery systems were overbureaucratised, governed less by individual needs than routinised procedure' i(p.219) and 'for elderly people, problems were redefined to fit I the available' solu tions__of__ex_is_ting practical services' (p. 222} 'In these .ways managers control the content of many "areas of fieldwork practice.' It is further reflected in the division of i'labflli£. if which there is an implicit acknowledgement that work" ;' wi_th_ the old and_J^njiij;^p,p.sd_^Qn_tains a relatively high and un-• amJ2J>SUälls "preser ip tivecojnpongnt.__Ujiqualif ieď workers predominate in this area of work.  Indeed the origins of socTaT""work ■'' assjLs_t ant^.__ajad_w_e_lI ar e a ides lie in the"Tr~ěčru.itment""poTicies "of 'SSDs in the early 1970s with managers seeking a growth in the number of workers to handle the old"ä"nd~lTilíabIed (Hey 1979)."'"
2.  THE DISTRIBUTION, OCCURRENCE AND EVOLUTION OF RESPONSES
The dissolution of independent 'professional' types of control, which assert a social work technology, into responses which reflect managerially inspired understandings receives further confirmation when the direction of dissolution . is considered. If managerial technologies receive their characteristics and ultimately their strength from interpreting and administering
130
statutes .and society's expectations of personal service work, then two principal directions. of • dissolution might be anticipated:
(i)  Child care legislation addresses itself to standards of-behaviour exhibited by children and their parents.  The work of SSDs involves surveillance,"monitoring and controlling the welfare and conduct of children.  The work is not described in terms of 'curing' or 'mending' faulty behaviour, but rather in terms of .establishing guidelines and procedures about what     * responses should occur when certain behaviours are identified.  / Thus the responses in this area of work occur along a spectrum: independent responses within the worker's control dissolving into formally programmed and ultimately, in some caseís, centrally controlled responses.  It is to programmed responses that social workers turn or are directed when the conduct of clients brings them clearly into statutory focus in spite of the technical efforts of the 'professional' social worker.
(ii)  Work with the old and handicapped rests on legislation which, in general terms, describes the services and resources these client groups might expect from local■authorities.. From the outset most workers adopt a 'service' outlook.  This is set within a managerially designed framework of procedures, resources and responses.
In both major areas of practice - work with children and work with the old and handicapped - control shifted in favour of managers, though the overall complexion of control strategies differed in each case.  Imp"! íct,ť. rontro"^ mechanigmg allow routine, unreflective resp.onges~ťS~occur~for which there' is no organqsational need to employ independently skilled workers.
Cpn.tr ol__is at__its ni o s t _p_o t e n t_ whe n__i_t__iis... s u b t í e_and_ imp II c i t, when workers do not even recogniseithat there might be other ways/of understanding the work.  In these si tuatioňs "here''is no need for managers to display power overtly.  This form of control ('ideological hgj^eroony') is most prevalent in work with the old and hařWŤcřkgpeaT^ Vs  ! ^
!.1> tV
Control in child care work" Is more visible and apparent. Behaviours are judged, laws invoked and procedures applied Management and statutory determination are 'on the surface partly because the work cannot.be straightforwardly routin and partly because the workers are required to assess the evidence on behalf of the agency which obliges the adminis ation to reveal its hand by the overt invocation of legal dards, controls and directives.  The fact that.child care f amily _worJi_appears"" more likely to contain exampTesof ünc* taijit3^_wnich stubbornly remain outside~h"é^ecliníc^T~po"wer bouTwôrkers and managers (persisteHE'öfTenders^ absconder
ised
tr-s tan-and  ! er-s~"öf s,
131
families in chronic poverty, foster homes '.vhich_break down) is
ä7~poínt~wKrčh— has to be- borne_in__mind__ when considering,, the
distribution and differentiation of workers and their_praetices If neither occupational group.' s__3tťá ťegjŕ~caH~eT?ect sufjfJLcTžnt cólítroi-""Qyer "case practice, neither group can entirely deter^ minethe practice "ami occupational organisation of the other.
As argued,~explicit control is.a weaker power base than those founded on normative consensus.  To the extent that power is weaker, thgxe is some potential for workers to assert their own
Conclusions on the types of responses appearing in case practice
Worker's control over:
Critical 'Raw                     case
materials'   responses
Strong professional control/High worker discretion
Weak professional control/High worker discretion
Weak managerial control/Low worker discretion
Strong managerial control/Low | worker discretion-Figure 9.1  Four occupational levels of control over the content of practice
Figure 9.1 summarises the positions theoretically available to field social workers.  When the worker is able to control critical case responses and has high discretion over the content of practice, professional control is high.  In the case of
132
■+■	+
■-	+
-4- .	-
	
fieldwork practice in SSDs, the workers characteristically had little control over critical case responses and experienced low powers of discretion.  This is not the stuff of professional control.  And although managerial control was not uniformly strong, it nevertheless held the balance of power throughout all client group categories and was at its most subjtle and pervasive in work with the old and disabled.
The meaning that different types of client group have for organisations and the responses expected in the light of these meanings are determined by managers as they interpret the     / agency's brief and role in the community.  The effect of such control is to influence the content of fieldwork practice in far reaching and penetrating ways.  As Smith and Ames (1976, p.52) remark, 'the way in which a department as a whole operates does crucially constrain both the way in which decisions are taken and the outcome of these decisions within area teams ' .
3.  ACTIVITY AND PROBLEM PROFILES
Statistical profiles were tabled for the range and type of problems and activities associated with different types of fieldworker and client group (see Chapter 4).  Problem and activity profiles were found to be (i) different between client groups, but (ii) similar for different kinds of fieldworker working with the^same client group.  In the conclusions to these results, this state of affairs was taken to indicate that the characteristics of the client group determined the type of work„c_arrieä out irrespective of the kind of fieldworker.      ( Fieldworkers. appeared not to control the content of client group practice:
However, at this stage of interpretation, the introduction of the concepts culled from the sociological literature allows the 'profile' results to be interpreted within a deeper theoretical setting.  Fundamentally, it is__not the client group in itself which controls the content of worker practice.  Rather, ij__is the wajudj.ff!ererit jjlieii.t_.gr-Qups__^are pj5r£eiy_e,d,_ understood_and defined by those occupational groups able to describe the work in" termg_jü£LthÄir„Qwn,AU-tljoak^_interejSj^s,_apď_skills .  SSD_ managers do not passively respond to their 'task environment'. They actively define it apd_.,shape^ it wherever possible so_that it accords with the.iX—.oaia_abiiities and_r_e^qurcies1_^ Client gr°ui>;?_t3^e_rjn^_t^^J.r^jneJaivArig_ in _thg_l.igh.t of managerial inter -pr'etations jUKL-tteXinitions^.
Individual clients within particular client groups might display sufficient variation to disturb the original equation that
133
''the work determines the worker'.  But under the present analysis, the similarity of problem and activity profiles by different kinds of worker for the same client group suggests that _no matter what■the. Individual, case idiosyncracies might be, cases in "the "s'áiHe"-čTíeHt'~gřóup, by and large, are perceived and" "~" handled uniformly.                     .—— «<-.
Conversely, if fieldworkers using their occupational expertise were controlling the content of work ('the worker determines the work')y it might be expected that different types of fieldworker (qualified and unqualified, Level 1 and Level 3) working with the same client group would generate different 'profiles'.  That this is not the case suggests that another mechanism controls the relationship between work and worker. Using the concept of occupational control, the formula 'work determines the worker' can be seen as merely the surface appearance of a deeper order.
1   Particular client groups__are_^s^ndar.dised_'„Ja3Ljhe_processing v proceduřěs"~ind structures of _the_grganis.ati.on.  The idiosyn-
1 cracies_(intrinsic uncertainties) of^individual clients are subdued or lost in the standardising process.  The client group, as the organisation's.'raw material', is defined through , statute, procedure, method of process and resources available. ' As interpre-_gjr_s__Q^.Ař^íuJ.'e_and designers of work, managers t  con_t__ol_J_he,j__c_nJ:ent of work,__ Their understanding penetrates ';. the organisation and practice so that workers think and act in L terms of _thg__organisation' s_perceptidns of the ~cTTent_groups ■ v So although the definitions made of each" client"group vary, and
1 so produce different "prof iles f or" "each client "group, .."di'f-f eřent"
í kinds of worker working within „the same client g r öup__d_i_s piay
J similar 'profiles' .
Managers determine the mej^riing of each client group, for the organisation and so determine the perceptions ajtid,.. responses .of. fieldworkers vis a vis each client group^  One of Harris's (1979, p.71) respondents saw work"'with the elderly through the eyes of the organisation:
I think that both in this office, and certainly in the one-I was in before, it seems welfare work, by that I mean it's the term I use for work with the elderly, tended to be assigned pretty exclusively to welfare assistants and their brief is not to do casework.  It is to do more, you know, mechanical jobs, in the sense of transportation, etc., and I think if the department says that welfare work is a fitting use of welfare assistants' time, then it may be saying something.
The organisation is also felt to influence the worker's
134
behaviour at early stages of Involvement too.  Addison (1982) sees the organisation determining work at the intake stage in an SSD as it attempts to defend itself against a range of amcietiesj including the quantity of work, the insistence of events and the sense of impossibility, unpredictability and hostility in the environment.  As well as what'she sees äs rational in the light of these demands, departments 'have to ration their services and set priorities in a formal way' ("pp. 615-16) .  The effect on the organisation and its workers is for them to perceive and understand the .environment and clients in a particular way in. order to__reduce anxiety, minimise uncertainty and manage the work.
í If the organisation influences the practices of wojfeers, a
certain commonality in approaches taken and activities conducted is to be expected.  That there are more similarities than . differences between social workers in practice has been realised by~a"~hümber-of authors who, íike me, explain this state of affairs in terms of the structural boundaries that curtail and determine the content of practice (Bailey 1980; Black et al. 1983; Hardiker 1981, p.102).  However, rather than just see the organisation as some inert, determining given, the present interpretation understands the organisation to be the.product of particular occupational groups and their techniques and interests.  In _the case of SSDsit is managers who have largely devised the 'structural boundaries' that channel and predefine" ma j or_eJ.emea.ts_ of _ pr.aj^tice. ■
4.-  THE DISTRIBUTION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF FIELDWORKERS AND CLIENT GROUPS
On the face of it, the amount of indeterminacy and uncertainty confronting occupations which practise in the sphere of moral behaviour, social problems and human conduct is high.  The opportunity for deciding how things.are to be understood and how' practitioners ought to proceed is considerable.. But though people might try.to explain delinquency or violence, the existence of such categories of behaviour depends upon moral and social judgements being made about those types of behaviour. Such matters cannot be derived from scientific theories-(Döwnie.and Loudfoot 1978; Hesse 1978).  Communi._t.ies react to the behaviour of their members and thiis__u"a_£esgonsible for ďlä"sigji_t_ijis_j;h_e_j^^duj:j^                                            as _unac.cept._Ble,
anti-social and not to be tolerated.  The premise that underlies all social work practice is that clients are cligßts, not because of any innate condition, but because society defines ~them as such (Davies, H. 1981; Howe 1979; War-ham 19tT)~.      Ultimately, social workers have no._manda_te_.to..daiine the.ir _c.l i en-tele.  In controlling how we understand and respond to
135
departures from 'normal* and 'proper', moral and social behaviour, the 'ideological basis of indetermination' simply are not available to social workers for the' purpose of occupational control (Johnson 1977, p.108).  The, state ,^sJ^hjjrdjgjjTjty, ' mediates between practitioner and client/.  However, there are 1>jo-aféáá In"personal.....social service .work over which occupational groups might establish^some control:
(i) the type of jork.„ an4 _cj.ie,nt group,__withjiome areas
being_X-SRarded as more crj._tlfi.al or sensitive .than others; (ii) the techniques and proce^durgg. available..in order to copewith the work, partimiarly 1p«r?as where satisfactory or appropriate outcomes are not easily guáranteedT™'                                     "''.-'
Given these prospects, d iff er gn.tr client, groups might be assessed in terms of the u-ncjer^aint_5i._\vhich„t'liej!;_.are defined as displaying, their s oc ia 1 imp or t ance and their. susceptibility
to pa rticuXax_fcape.s_af..occupational techniques and ski lis.
Each client group offers a type of work which provides more or less opportunity for different occupational groups to increase their control over the content of practice.  The distribution and differentiation of fieldworkers can now be explained with reference to the locus of control as it occurs between managers and fieldworkers,. particularly as it affects the meaning given to each client group.  The way client groups are defined and
Again, the explanations offered in Chapter 3 are not entirely redundant.  Rather, they are put in a broader context.  Qualified social workers do 'ditch their dirty work'; the old and Handicapped are delegated to lower rankedjyorkers.  But the reasons -for such_r_ejectioň^iě_Těšš~in the intrinsic unsuit-abTTity of the work for the^expertise.of qualified workers and more in the abilAj^_jyf_^atíager^_tjDjcontTol   exactly,._the...meaning tha.t such client groups ..hay_e^j>r___tjie_organisatio-ii_-aňd,,its resources.  So it is that the work _associated_with the old_.and disabled becomes standardisierend routine, with_little_need or oppöTTtrnTty for the~^sTT*č/f"Ti"TsTľréTTon™1pý workers.  The association between certain types of' worker and kinds of work can now be considered in terms of the balance of control over the meaning and content of practice as it occurs between managers and fieldworkers.  The two major cÍíénť~gFoupings, the old and handicapped and children and their families, will be discussed in the light of this conceptual framework.
136
The old, physically and mentally handicapped
.Legislation and policy affecting some client groups permits a relatively straightforward interpretation of .the_'meaning' given to people and their problems, at least as it affects the agency, its organisation and services.'  Intrinsic uncertainties are 'defined out' by the limits of statutory interest and their organisational interpretation.  If it is possible to deploy resources__in. a pred.icTable.,.I,_pjr^                                                                    in
defined circumstances, control rests with those who design the se,rxic_e_SIa_3d^j_otwiththose who .£5^££____i-Í»-l3-u * • This "Ts why formally programmed 'service' responses predominate in work with
the old and handicapped.
■                                                                                                                           'i
'Professional' social work's technologies are inappropriate as far as the agency is concerned for much of the work with the old and handicapped because it only "/requires simple organisational responses in order to achieve,the desired result. Therefore in terms of social workers gaining control over the content of practice, there is little potential in. work with the old and handicapped.  Management techniques are more suitable, sufficient and effective.  There is no requirement to see or understand the work in more complex^terms.  Moreover, because : i the overriding condition of old people and the handicapped ^.remains mialterjible and therefore certain, there is no gain to \-    b_e found in having other occupational groups define the work associated with these client groups.  They remain, old and handicapped.  In which case there is no need to hand over control to other occupational groups, working in these areas. Indeed all that is required of workers,.is. that^hjM follow procedures ma.tlcihingiidef,i.ned._i;eso.urcesi to „defined need.  So, as Larson (1977, p.222) says, 'In most occupations, nguj^inised ■ speciailij:_i_ej3„.±e^                         equiyalenj^__io_the._,'jiirt.x wo__k'\
which prof essions^jieiegate tp__ ancillary^ occupations ' .    >;  •■ '
Children, and their families                                                                    ". r\
Whereas the legislation and its, interpretation affecting old people and the handicapped permits a set of responses which can be. adequately.. described by the provision of services and procedures, child care and family legislation requires a different interpretation.  The 'raw matéria1____9_f ^,bU.;_lj?Š__ri;r___Ill:g and delinquent teenagers is_p_er_c_j,iy,e.d.^an_d^
greater J.ntr,insi.c._complex_iJ;y, and, uncerjaiivty.  'Doing something about' these behaviours is not so easily achieved.  The two main and contrasting technologies available are those of control and curie,, where control means either separating people (children from violent parents) or removing them (offenders from the community).  Each offers the prospect of rendering tiie material stable and certain, but using a different set of
137
techniques.
ggnjxol-based   strat.egi.es^r_emove   or - sejia^ate^those^.wh.9_.piis-behave   from "those   who   suííeř^the   consequences   of   their   misbe-haVÍourT^Tn"this'  way,    the   offending   behaviour   is   said   to   be   no longer   possible.      The   new_.statutorv   situation   offers'certainty' in  respect   of   the  client   suffering   the   behaviour   as   originally identified.      For   example,   parents   cannot   assault   their   children or   teenagers   commit   offences   when   they   are   no   longer   in   the community.      Although   these   situations__bring   immediate   relief, the   long   term   outcome   is  much   less   certain.      Confidence   in   this lTně~1óf ""a^ctTon? ~±s"no ť  ábsoľu'teT   "When   children  are   encouraged J  to   be   reunited   with   their   parents   or  delinquents   returned   to the   community   there-.is. no  guaran^ee__thaj;_.thirigs _will_ be__better.
Cure  techniques   attempt   to   change   the   behaviour   and   attitudes   of-   thosj^^ajfjrjagJJyjjj^B^ '   ^*"~,tj!.gJ^J-S£--rlf f"^W~5ľ.h_a.^-
■    iottrs_and».A£utu4e.a«are^elimi^ated.     This  holds   the  possibility ;   of   a  more   lasting   resolution  of   the   problem  as' defined   by   the
I   law,    the   community   and   their   agents.      However   the   technology j  which  backs   this   type  of  occupational  practice   is  weak  and  as 1   yet   there   is   ho   guarantee   that   the   outcome   prescribed   will   be ;   achTeyea":    "So;—altHougfi-cure  poses   the  possibility   of   treating I  people   so   that   their  unacceptable  behaviours   are  eliminated !,  (which  makes   it   a   potentially   attractive   technology),    its 1 weaknesses  mean   that  ad m i n i strát i y e   and   statutory  control   tech-1 ní^ues"r^í5ough  nôt  addressing^the  root^c^us^s._ÍB-j^y_ertheless | have  a-"'sHort'3pľ"3eäium   term  effect..on  r educ.ing.^jiiiCLér.ta j.n ty, f albeit,..in._r.es.tr.ic.tedU-ter-ms . t
Child   care   and  family  work  has   to  be   understood   in   such  a  way 1',  that   neither    'prof essional'   nor__maiiagerial   technologies   e.ntire-i \ ly  get   to  gr ips~~wiT;n""tHe  main  features   of   the-work.      Both  have ■only   ajartial,    temporary   or   s.ome_iaight   say  pyrrhic   success   in reducing   under taiňtýr"~"Ťhe  prospect   of   increasing_occupational control   over   the   content   of   practice   in  child   care   work   is .    still   ope'n   to   social   workers,   managers   having   been   able   to devise   responseTTwhTcTT^only   offer   to  hold,    monitor   or  police the   client's   behaviour   with   noDermanent   solution.      Eveii_so, this_limited   response  reflects   thesTaluTory   mandates   that underlie   much   SSD   work.      So,    when~ rt"comes   to   idenTľiying   areas which   have   some   prospect   of   improving   occupational   power   if   the A   technology   can   be   got  right,   work  with  children   and   their i\ families   holds   out, the   most   hope,   or   so   it   would   appear,   pärt-\ \ ieulariy..Jor   qualif ied jirorkers   attempting   to  develop   and   prac-
■  l tise   their  prof ess iona.l_ski.lls.                          *      "
It  might   therefore  be   expected   that   'professional'    techniques on   the   one   hand   and   formal   procedures   and   prescriptions   as -determined   by   managers   on   the   other' would   be   the   two   main
138
response patterns, - This appears to be the case according to the results described in Chapter 5.  The balance, nevertheless, is tipped towards the raanagerially designed responses reflecting the current advantage that administrative technologies have in personal social services work.  But the manager's viewpoint is not so strong"as to preclude alternative worker perceptions of. child care practice.  Occasionally this r}ay lead to conflict or resistance on the part of the worker.  So it is then that cr.as.ks.in 'managerial- hegemony' are most likely to appear in child care .work leading to the assertion of cruder but weaker forms of power: the use of hierarchical authority and coercion,__                                                                                  ..
The txend, though, even in child care work, appears to be towards managers increasing their control over practice.  Although large pockets of child care work have offered 'the prospect of occupational freedom, the lack of clear or demons traSle success^Jias led to f urther re S.ÍF Actions p lac ed around the worker's self-control.  For example, recommendations which follow in the wake of enquiries into the death of children through non-accidental injury often suggest the need for tighter staff supervision, and more coordination between different types and levels of ^worker.. Monitoring and disciplining the worker's behaviour in order that she obey set procedures falls to managers to organise.
Thorpe's (Thorpe 1977, Thorpe 1979, Thorpe et al. 1979, Thorpe et al. 1980) recommendations arising out of his Intermediate Treatment studies also see an increase in management control.  His work is particularly interesting because it records the effect of social workers increasing their licence to practise preventative and therapeutic skills in relation to adolescents who have offended and, more significantly, adolescents (and younger children) thought to bé 'at risk' of offending.  His investigations into the practice of IT and its effects demonstrate quite-clearly that the results of social worker interventions of this kind have led to an increase in the number of y'oung people placed on. care orders, an increase in the number of children entering the orbit of SSDs- and a consequential, increase in costs to SSDs,  It appears that professional efforts at preventing children'coming into care has actually.led to more children experiencing courts and care orders.  Thorpe's prescription is that managers should impose tight criteria on the practices of IT workers, that they should curb professional autonomy.and restrict the number and'type of children receiving the specialist attention of 'professionals' in order to reduce .the damage and harm being done.
139
SUMMARY
The ability of an occupational group to control the content of its own practice determines a range of phenomena.  For social workers, these include the type of actions which take place in case practice and the organisation of fieldworkers and their work.  The concept of control over the content of practice runs through and links each empirical level and its interpretation.-The mechanism which helps explain the prevalence of standardised prescriptive 'service' responses in work with the elderly or the dissolution of professional discretion into administratively and statutorily determined procedure in work with children also explains the differential distribution of field-workers and client groups.  Practice and organisation áre understood as intimately linked phenomena.
Explanations of the behaviour of social workers in case practice tend to be approached solely in terms of 'professional' social work theories.  If the social worker's practice is felt to be bureaucratically determined this is viewed as a matter of regret.  Similarly, the prevailing organisation of social workers is judged in terms of the occupation's ability to establish its professional standing.  The improved professional status of social workers is often taken as self-evidently desirable.  Any limits placed on professional progress, that is increased worker control, is seen as bad.  But the occupational limits and weaknesses are rarely taken as indicators of social work's actual nature and that its character can only be understood in a wider context which lies outside the control of social workers.  In seeking to recognise common threads between the 'micro' and 'macro' levels of observation, not only is a close relationship argued between the details of practice and the organisation of fieldworkers but the nature of the activity itself is taken as embedded in its social context.  As Salaman (1978, p.523) reminds his readers, 'organisations reflect and reveal societal resources and interests' and that 'the outside world is also inside', permeating the practices of the organisation and its 'workers.
140
10. The rise of the welfare manager
The scope for power and occupational control by social services managers and social workers has increased in the general expansion of the personal social services.  Withinthis context social work is defined relative to the prevailing political fortunes and interests of the various occupations involved in the work.  The discussion is developed through the following four stages:
1.   The growth of the 'service classes'
2.   The expansion of the personal social services
3.   The weakness of social work's 'professional project'
4.   The rise of the social services manager.
1.  .THE GROWTH OF THE 'SERVICE CLASSES*
The rise of professional, administrative and managerial employees, particularly in private and public bureaucracies, has represented something of a problem for social and class, analysts.  These occupational, groups have been described as the 'service classes' by Renner (1953) and the Salaried Middle Class (SMC) by Gould (1980).  Although such groups do not share the ownership of the means of production nor are they part of the elite of state power, their labour is nevertheless taken to be non-productive; 'they are not themselves a source of surplus value but, rather, a charge on the surplus value which is
141