HOWE, D.: Social Workers and Their Practice in Welfare Bureaucracies str. 122-140 ■ ■ 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 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 of 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-worker's and welfare managers represent t»Q. occupational groups which have employed different strategies to establish conjtrjjJa„9y^^_tJlig_.wprk done and so haye things seen their way xn^ the light of their con-cerns, Out of the relationshipi between these,.alt.erna.tiye strategies and their different 'technological' bases arises the ^EE^IiL-Si™S££li' t&S^i.iXiSiSS—AftkSEF> the stXle of technology used, the structure of the .organig&Mgi1 ang~The''d^fTnlTion of the 'raw material' (clients, their needs and their" pr'oBI'emsT. 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 122 123 the results of Chapter 5). The distribution of activities amongst fieldworkers and client groups (interpreting the results of Chapter 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. TJ^^per^ejptions_ and understandings reached are stimulated either by professional andpersonal thjBories.jabout practlce"or by organisational and_admiiiistrajt ive requirements. Control over the content of a pJ.ece_of practice is . therefore rgoted^n either^ manag.gr.ial des.igjis. 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 r.liants 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 sociaJ._j^rke_r_Ls_-response3il are, prescribed, aiy^ shaped by either _the individual_wg£ker ('professional' control) or others, > particularly managers,__either directly (centralised management control) or indirectly (formalised manage-mentcqntrol). 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). 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,J workers. If_ control is weak over both the 'raw materials' and th the responses made in practice, social workers are.unlikely to have work defined to suit their occupational skills or 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 this, and it now remains to describe tile-occupational relief as 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 .f responses, generally failed to bring people and their situ- j qt.-ions, nnripr sufficient control. In the event of such failure, | the more restricted strategies of managers and administrators J were employed. The use of formal procedures and statutory devices allpwed_siJ:jiations to. be viewed.mor.e__pprrQwJ-v^and in thls__narrfiw. sense,__control could 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^T The effect of such weakness is that field-workers are subjected to control from elsewhere - either by the momentum nf (j^iP oTf[1i)tinTi (t.hn ' rnwmat.gri a 1 ' goes its qw_n way) and/or through the determination o7~r^sponses by managers "effected_through the division of_lab.Qur.,__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 124 125 and define the nature of the work, managers and social workers represent two different occupational strategies. Each makes use of a 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 -sociallrorker '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, un^n.ticipat_ed_events outside the control of social workers intervened before the next review.' The_effect of management-based techniques gaining control is not just that control by social workers is~Te^uced~but that the content of the work is prescribed both explicitly (through ~ au^h_pxTtx£based_^d i r ecTivesll^S^J^P iisXtJ^i^iX-fflSilltEeri a 1 design and structure). Explicit and implicit controls occur across all areas of"~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_cjjild~care and family work. This was particularly so when the behaviour and circumstances of individuals were clearly related to the statutory responsibilities of the agency. In critical situaticji§_the_worker'_s discretion was curtailed with more direct reference being made t° _CfcfiJ£i'fce» policy, procedure and managerial authority. Discretion, particularly over the methods used, was greatest in' sit.uatTbns__ where the oufcome was-not ■crljtlcaliy the concern of the .agency or where matters, as currently undersjtopd,._~were not likely to present the organisation "with too much uncertainty ^n^terms^of^rts "fesponsibilities■ 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 a really " useful way of handling many of my cases, you know. He said 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/afford at area team level. I ask you.' Tf clH'pn'ts- did begin to exhibit features which the organis-ation felt to be of direct relevance to its operations, "the d isj^rjstionjirx^ . The casg_ was. then placed within the tjjghtgr framework of manag- f erial authar_^J^^aji1d-..d.esj.gA< So, for example,' when '.teenagers 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"~as '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 withdebates about the nature and direction of social work an^tjie_^ccountability of social workers ... It is now the major concern of the practTtioners and~the~ir~employing~ (Parton 1981, p. 406) . __Social workers became, forced a more coercive relationship with a large number of íepartměnts into families. Their practice, as Holman (1976) has argued, has legíTTimately been encouraged- to be 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-iíitó cáre"social " workeťs„_ar.e_increaslngly^xhoirEéď"fo~ačT: as rescuers. saving children frQJjj"STf=ťžH or feckless parenAs. Social work practice in left simply to the profes worker's understanding of she makes are outcomes of developments and the role 'Thg panic over child_abu. caseloads and professiona child care and family work is not sional discretion of the worker. The individual cases and the responses 'wider social processes', structural of the state (Parton 1981, pp.409^410). sg__has biased departmental priorities, 1 practice in terms of child and \ family problems. Such a ]'' natural by tKose in the f bias now seems to be accepted as ielď-(Parton 1981, p.409). i The net result of increased surveillance and direct control ;( of_^erjtain__E.amil_ies according _to Parton" is ' that the removal of \ a child from its parents_is_now seen far more as a first rather ■ than__a last resortj_ (1983, p.392). Between March 1972 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 compulsorily 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 '1 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^ajJL_ «" client groups. However, work with the old and the, handicappedj was particularly iiapiejto indirectmethods of control.and_pre-scriptionX Again, fieldworkers in situ had considerable discretion 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_ down, by the A prgSiTsaTlon~and"its "managers. Clients were viewed as indiv- \ iduals whose needs could be recognised and met j^n terms of the resources available; they were approached _for_^information which would determine their eligiblTit^rji^^ . 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 resources and this is how I'm supposed basically to tackle this case. But really, if_I_ could I would like to do some counselling 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 ! . . i>. " " i 129 (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_jKere...ln_operation.. Priority applicants were first selected by referring social workers in consultation with ■ their senior, colleagues in area off ice.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 a pressuj^__oj^s^ci1al^_workers to define their clients' si tua.tians.. in. crisis, terms in order to gain Part III" places*. Scarcity of resources, in this case, affected .the assessments made. It also led to the organisation needing decisions by taking them centrally. to control The results of Neill's research and other studies, suggest a common pattern in which clients are measured, using departmental formulae, to_.se e to what js^XsXkXJS^2-Jcli^^XlAblS-MSXyj^?.s ■■ 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 and the" gateways met o.n_jthe way., is constructed by managers interpreting the legislation. Black et al. (1983) reached similar conclusions: in"the provision of practical services 'delivery systems were overbureaucratised, governed less by individual needs than routinised procedure' (p.219) and 'for elderly people, problems were redefined to fit the available' solu tions_^o____e___ls_ting pracjtical services' (p.222}, 'In these .ways managers control the content of many areas of fieldwork practice. It is further reflected in t!ie_dj_vi££on^ of l_aj___U___ in which there is an implicit acknowledgement that work" wi_th_ the old^^nd_J_ajn_y^c-apjLeri rj2ri.taans a relatively high and un-ambi^u_ous_prescriptive .component. _JJ.n__ualif ied" workers predominate in this area of work. Indeed the origins of sociT~.T""work 'as5jAt«njta_ajuCjLeJUEare_3iiies lie in the recruitmeaf""'policies "of 'SSDs in the early 1970s with managers seeking a growth in the number of workers to handle the old~and disabled (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 cases, 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. Tmnl ir.it. con txglj mechanisms allow routine, anref lective respfln'5es~to~occur~for which there' is_ no organisational need to employ independently skilled workers. Con.troJ___is at its most_p_otent_when it ta...subtJ.e ana-imolicit, when^workers do not even ,recogniseithat there might be other ways of understanding the work. In these situations"there is no need for managers to display power overtly. This form of control ('ideolog icalhegemony') is most prevalent in work with the old arid JtanttTcragpea^ N { - ' . "~T~~ ---' <^yV__l_^^ <*■ H'-^ 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 routinised and partly because the workers are required to assess the evidence on behalf of the agency which obliges the administration to reveal its hand by the overt invocation of legal standards, controls and directives. The fact that.child care and [ family work..appears' more likely i to contain examples, of uncer- i taintv__wnich stubbornly remain outside the technical powers^af bot^tt' workers and managers (persis~tent~offenders", absconders", families in chronic poverty, foster homes '.vhich_br eak down) is 37"point"which-has to Be-Sorne_in__mind_ when considering,,the distfibution'and differjentiat;ion of workers and their_practices If neither occupational group.' s .rs tra tegy~can~~eTf' ecrt sufficTent colitr oi—"Qy er "case practice', neither group can entirely Jeter'-'" mini? the practice 'ami occupational organisation of the other. As argued,~explicit control is.a weaker power base than those To the extent that power is wn founded on normative consensus. weaker, thgxe is some potential for workers to assert their o ^occupational control base. In certalrrr~~STrtaa:-trr5ns~; sc^cTaT""~~ workers re^ognise^tlmt thl»y~h"a"ve~an~~a~lternatil7e~VTe%r~anci'"under- s tanJTng ~^^thT^work?''' Ev'eTr'sqT^TTp^SPs 'the~^^aKce of "control. even in Tho' 1 ess predictable area of child car^lieswith the manager's ^ aTTnough social jiQ^ks.fSZi[^S7^ssSI^S^--^^^^^p^s*i~ pockets of freedom. The irons _ ________ is that th£slessi>_^omplete form of cJi!3^2ii_^LlLJSili2iLj^ generates more "exam- ples 'exjjjjj^j^ groups but it axsoJgJESSlfSeffJtlie _over_t .'.use of^po'wer in._iije"f orm of qanSg-^^jb&SQP^3'' ^^^S.srlal authority__thus app^axl*~moTt ' b^at^_t^n_.tho^_ar_e^£_of work which are leasj under "the detailed._co:atrol ..of mana£gJ£sL"" "~" "'"~~~~ 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 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 arid 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_arrled 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 wajjiyif eren t._cliejxJw.gr.QURg_jare_ gerceive,dj_ understood_and defined by those occupational groups able..to describe the work iii" ter^^ms._.QiltJisJ.r._awn,o,u-tljook^_interejsj^s,_and'._skills . SSD_ managers do not passively respond to their 'task environment'. They actively define Jit_apcL.shape^ it wherever possible so_that it accords with the.ir_..Oivn-_abiiities and_r_e^oj^rcies1_^ Client 'group's take, ,..011-, thftj.-'' fftantgBL in _th.a_Xigh.t of managerial inter -pr'etatibnsj.and..(ts£i.nitiQiis. Individual clients within particular client groups might display sufficient variation to disturb the original equation that 132 133 ''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' 'sai5e~~cl lent "group, by and large, are perceived ana 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. Particular client groups ar e_^sJ;andar.disecL' „iy_._the_ processing procedures'"and structures of the grgajiigftlion. The idiosyn-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 interpretj5rj5_of_ sXatuJte__a_nd designers of work, managers cpntr_ol_jyie _cjontent of vyork,_ Their understanding penetrates the organisation and practice so that workers think and act in terms of__the__ojrganisaticon' j3_perceptibns of the client groups ■ So although the definitions made of each client group vary, and so produce different profiles for each client "group, differenf kinds of worker working within._the same client grpuj^jijLsp_lay similar 'profiles'. Managers determine the mejining of each cliejrt. grqug for the organisation and so determine the perceptions .and_respouses ..of. fieldworkers_vis a vis each client group^ One of Harris's (1979, p.71) respondents saw worlTwith 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 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 anxieties, 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 as 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. > If the organisation influences the practices of workers, 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~iiumEe?""of authors who, like 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 SSDs it is managers who have largely devised the 'structural boundaries' that channel and predefine" ma j or_eJ.emen.ts_ of _ pr.ic_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-(Ddwnie.and Loudfoot 1978; Hesse 1978). CoiMuniUes^react to the behaviour of their members J*nd_ tJnjj5_axa..£esponsible for des lgnatin__t,he.conduc t J_L_&o_e_ individuals as _unacceptaBle, anti-social and not to be tolerated. The premise that underlies all social work practice is that clients are gXignts, not because of any innate condition, but because society defines "TherT"a£j|uch (Davies, M. 1981; Howe 1979; Warham 1977)T~ U11i-"mately, social workers have no__manda_te__to. .define the.ir ..clientele. In controlling how we understand and respond to 134 135 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, as_th"ird", ' mediates between practitioner and client/. However, there are "two—af f.áš in "per serialsocial service .work over which occupational groups might e8'tabli.ah spme control: (i) the type ofjfoit.aad.jiient.jroup,__withjiome areas being_xeKarded as more cri_tlfi_|i or sensitive .than others; (ii) the techniques and prpcedu,rgs available..in order to cope* with the_jfork, pai-tirniarlY 1r«r?as where satisfactory or appropriate outcomes are not easily guar anteedT™' " Given these prospects, different/ client groups might be assessed in terms of the uncey^a j.nta ..which_.theg-.are defined as d'Tsplayirig, their s oc ia 1 imp or t ance and their. sus.cep_tibility to pa rt i__.u_La-£_t8Bas_cf..occuDatlonal 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 the meanings given to them by different occupational grjpups_-__ infjjjences both the practices defined, as appropriate and the type of__wgrker állocateji^oi__J^aJ^cj;i^ 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 ranked._w.orkers ■ But the reasons -for s^ji_j_ejLecti6ň"TlŠ'^ěaš~In the intrinsic unsuit-ibITTty~'of~rthe work for the^expertise. of qualified workers and more the ability of manag er g.. t o control exaetly„the... meaning tha.t such client g r pup s.-have for the orgah^a.tiiJ_i_ahd.;11s resources. So it is that the work _associjited_with the old_.and disabled becomes stándardise-T~and routine, wi th_1ittle_need or opporTTtrnTty for the^S^ó'í~lITscTeXT'an~'S'ý 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 cÍlénť~gFoupings, the old and handicapped and children and their families, will be discussed in the light of this conceptual framework. 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 res^uxcjsj.n^predicxab^ in defined circumstances, control rests with those who design the s^r-V-iceL-and not- with those who carry..i^ll but". "^This ia' 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 onlyfffe'qu ires 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 : the overriding condition of old people and the handicapped ■^remains mial^eraj)le 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 a 11 tjuvt is^ required of workers is th_aJ;-_^h^_^o3lJ_Q,w procedures matching iideii.ned._r^so.urcesi to ..defined need. So, as Larson (1977, p.222) says, 'In most occupations, r.,guj