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
-i if 85
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 arid 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.    Fieldworkers and welfare managers_represent tap..occupational groups which have employed different strategies to establish conjtrjj^^gy^gr^yie^^ork done and so have things seen their way in^the. light of their concerns ,    Out of the relationship between these .alternative strategies and their different 'technological'  bases arisjes the
4—£i§iL-2£—^55^-iy-i£i22u=2£-,.3;5iSEF>   the 3'tyle °^ technology used, the s1^uctureof_th^^ of the  'raw material1   (clients,  their needs and their" problemsTT.
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_r.esuits, .is. presented in the f ol1owi ng 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 field-workers 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 fieldworkers appear to enjoy or lack over their work.    TJte^p^r^ejptions_ and unders tandings reached are stimulated either by professional andpersonal theories_about practice"or by organisational and administrative requirements.    Control" over the content of a piece of jpracti.ee is . therefore rooted^tn ei thgr;_orpf^e^ssipr^al^jsser.tiqns orM manajgjgr.ial des.iaas.    Control,  from the social workers'  point of view, may be more or less, available along two dimensions:
(i)    Control over the 'raw material'  itself;   that is the extent to which the worker's skills and occupational technology can have a predictable effect, ri-n gtiants 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 which the sociaJ^jTorkexij-. r^sponses^are. priesiicrj|)jg[^..ani^< shaped by either _the inc^^dual worker ( ' professional1 con tr o 1) or__other s, *   particularly managers,__either directly (centralised management control) or indirectly (formalised aanage-ment_contrgl).
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 (centralized 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 dr 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
le-^o^clIpa^Tonal" rleTTel
this,  and it now remains to describe the 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 freguentljr.as, npn-prpgrammed responses.generally failed to bring people and their situ-qt.iong; nndpr sufficient control.    In the event of such failure, the more restricted .strategies of managers and administrators were employed.    The use of formal procedures and sJLatutory devices. Ay^P3!?eA.^iu£afit.49ns to.be viewed .mo^e^nattMwly and in
thlsnarroj 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,   sugges ting_.th.at managerial control .was., prevalent and pervasive^   TEe effect of such weakness is that field workers are subjected to control from elsewhere - either by the momentum of c^p piff|]^tinn (t.hp  ^-rnwmat.pr-t al '  goes its own way) and/or through the determination oT~7e"sponses by managers ,Offected_through 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 terms 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 havehad less success in welfare work_ than those employed by managers.    As Pearson (1975,  p.56) puts it,   the -so"cTal worker  '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, unan.tic;ipat_ed_ey_ents_outside the control of social workers intervened before the next review.'
Thg_effect of management-based techniques gaining control is not just that control by social workers is reduced but that the content of  the work is prescribed both explicitly (through au^hp^Tt^base d d i r 'ecttves .L»SS5«^Pii£itiz^ bX^3iiaaa£^ a 1 design and structure).    Explicit and implicit controls occur across all areas o? 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 chiTd~cafe 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 situatigjis^_thg__worker'_s discretion was curtailed with more direct reference being made to statute, policy, procedure and managerial authori t.y. Discretion, particuTar1y over the methods used,  was greatest in' situations whei^e_theoutcome was_not_critically the concern of the..agency or_where matters,   as currently^understood,~were not likely to present the organisation with too much uncertainty 4n^t^ms"~5f__its 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.
In these cases,   although allowed to behave in ways based on their own technology and expertise,  fieldworkers 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 saiol 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.' '
rf cliqntifi did begin to exhibit features which the organis-ation felt to be of direct relevance to its operations, the dTscreJT]^^
The case was then placed within the tjghtgr framework of manag-f erial authoritju.aad..dosign,    So,  for example,' wEen'leenagers ■ 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 arid 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 institution, 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 famiiies~"as "'neglectful' or''inadequate'  as tended to be the case in the 1950s and 1960s,
126
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 direction of social^work anjd_t^e_^c^countability of social workers  . ,~ It is now the major concern of the practitioners and~tfi^ir~employing~ departments'   (Partem 1981, p74o6).   ^Social workers became forced into a more coercive relationshiar_with a large number of families.    Their practice,  as Holman (1976) has argued, has legitimately been encojxa^ed-to be more punitiye,__intervehtive and  'rescue' minded.    Parton (1981,  p.407) quotes Jordan on the changing role bf'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 risk1 comes to mean 'at risk from parents' rather than ~^at risk of c bm i ng ~i ii t b c af e". social"
workers„_are_AncJreasingly exhorted ~f5~acrfc as rescuers. saving children from "wf^frcH qr 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_Pf-nic-.over cnilJ..^LbU3g__has biased departmental priorityes, j   caseloads and professional practice.in terms of child and \ family problems.    Such a bias now seems to be accepted as ' }' natural by tEose in the field1 "(Parton 1981, p.409). 1   ■ . ■ ' .
i      The net result of increased surveillance and direct control :( of ^er^ain__E.amil_ies according Jo Parton is 'that the removal of \ a child from its parerrta^is^now seen far more as a first rather ■ than a_last_resort'   (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
f
m
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 ..Pjractice      thrall '-«' client groups.    However, work with the old and th.e_.handicapped ^ was particularly liaDie^^o_indirect methods of control and pr e -scr iption^   Again,  fieldworkers in situ had considerable dis- \ cretion over the manner of their responses.    Their actions were not determined in exact detail_.    Nevertheless,  the Worker's perception of"clients and the way their needs were recognised     , j and-understood was set within the framework laid djbwn by the     A I organTsaTi"orI~ana'" its, "managers .    Clients were viewed as indiv- '■} iduals whose needs could be recognised andjet in terms of  the i
resources available;   they were approached JE or_information which
would determine their eligYbil"it^^.c^^
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 iike 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
/     AH i     aA/ «A> 0 ^ 0     P% <> * '■    AS y A A .H-Wl
129
0:1 ff^-SL.
(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  aucharities,   two systems of ciassifi-caJion_j»ere...ia_operati_6n..    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 a prs.ssj^£__oj^s^ci_aJL_jvorkers  to define  their clients' situations, in. crisis.terms  in order  to gain Part TI replaces". Scarcity of resources,   in  this case,   affected jthe 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_.se e  to what _ex.tgat_. thejL^A.t_aya_il.atLle_.s.ervices .. 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 qn_JUie 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' Hp.219)  and   'for elderly people,  problems were redefined  to fit i the available: solu tiajgs__of_j__d_s^^ (p.222"j. 'In these .ways managers control  the content of many areas of fieldwork practice.'   It is further reflected  in the division of lj_J_ojjr__ in which there is an implicit acknowledgement  that work' with_ the ol^_^^d_h^dAj;a.s.p.^d  p_Qnj:ains a relatively high and un-ambi^ious^prescriptive component. _U,n__uaiif iecT workers predominate in this~area of work.    Indeed the origins of sociaT^-ork ; asBisJ;a.nt^.^jad__w_e_lf arj__a_id.es lie in the recruitment "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).
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
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.     Tmn 1 i r. \ t. r. on frj o 1j mechanisms allow routine,   anref lective_resp.onSes^o~occur f or which there is no organlsat^ional need to employ independently skilled workers. Cgn.tro.l_is at its most jr_otent_when_i_t__i-A..subtie__and_ implTcit,
when workers do not even ,recognise that there mi^ht......be other
ways of understanding the work.    In these situations'there "is no need for managers to"display power overtly.    This form of control   ('ideologic aliie^emony ' )   is most prevalent in work with the oldand KarkiTC^D'pejn       \ ^ ' " "
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 to contain examples, of uncer-taint£_wnich stubbornly remain outside the technical polvers~"of bot^T" workers and managers  (persis"Eent~6fTehaers ~ absconders",'
130
131
families  in chronic poverty,   foster  homes which__break down) is
S~point~wnTch— has  to Be-b~or_ne_in_jniiid_ when considering__.the
distribution"and' differentiation of workers and   their_practices If neither occupational group.' s_stra t"eg'3^can~eT? e-ct _ 9uff_icTent c'ont^r^yer "case'prachcej neither-group can entireTy" *3'e7ter^°~ mine  the practice "Sricl occupational organisation of   the other.
As argued,'explicit control is.a weaker po founded on normative consensus. To the exte weaker, thg£e is some potential for workers ^occupational control base . In cer taTrr-gTTttia workers recognise that they have an~ltgrnat standing of the *work"T "' Even'' so i''::Tn~T?SD^*the~ even in tins' lM3_j)n.l«j.fiJ.r!3! i> area of child c managers aTTnough sociaTj^^ElJSTra^f^^sen^
pockets of■ freedoa.    The irony is  that this of contr_ol_:i_jLn^^ ge
pies of  exp1_it*-j-tdisagreements between__ojyyig
ft &lsojaJE£HifSe£_the over-t:.use of power in_ erlal direjatixes-. . Managerial authoxity_ thus bl^a.t^t^n^thosj__ar_e^s^f work~which are lea. detailed_con.tr.ol _,of jnanagj^jr
wer base than those nt that power is to assert their own tTons"; so~efiaT'"~~ ive v tew ' ancf'under-D^lance of^contrbl, ar^l^eswith^ the hXs—La^Jalor^™*"
le_s_s_j^omplete form nerates more exam-ational^gr^oups but .£$e f orm^jof^janae;-
appears' most st uiider the
Conclusions on the types of responses appearing in case prac tice
Worker's control over:
'Raw
materials'
Cri tical case
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 subtle 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 Am.es (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..carrled 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 wayMdi.f f erent j;JLie*i.t„gr,aup_s_'are nerceivedj  understood_and defined by those ^occupational^ groups able . to describe the work in" termg_fl£ltha.i r_ aw.g jau-tLook«^intere^ts,_and_skil 1 s . SSD_-managers do not passively respond to their 'task environment'. They actively define i_t^naL.shape^ it wherever possible so_that it accords with tbej^r_.aan__abiiities and resources. Client 'group's take, ■.on-.thflj,*- f ftamjgg. in . thA-Lifcb.t-.6f managerial inter -p r et at ions .aacL.iieiini t iajis^.
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  idiosyncraeies might be, cases in the■'~same"c'I ien't "group,   by and large, jare perceived and Handled uniformly. '"'
Conversely,   if fieldworkers using  their occupational expertise were controlling the content of work  ('the worker determines __the work'),   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 are_^^anda.r.dised_'._h3L_tfee_grocessing procedufes'and structures of  the organj.s.aAicm.    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 interpretevs_gf___s__tatu_te_and designers of work, managers c:pntro_l_J^e._content_ of ,workTheir understanding penetrates the organisation and practice so that workers  think and act in te_rjns^j^ihe_or_ganisa tion '_s__pe^rcejpt ions of   the cTTent_groups . So although the definitions made of  each client, group vary, and so produce different profiles for each ' client "g^oup.,  dVf f erent" kinds of worker working within_the same client group display similar- 'profiles'.
Managers determine the mejming of each client_ grqug for the organisation and so determine the perceptions and responses .oi. fieldworkers vis ~a~vls 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
|- 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 s4es as rational  in  the light of  these demands,  departments   'have to ration their services and set priorities in a formal way' i (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"~humb~"er-of authors "who,   iike 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.
I 1983;  Hardiker 1981,   p.102).    However,   rather  than just see the
organisation as some inert,  determining given,   the present
I. 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 jo_r__eJ.eme:n±s_o£_ pr^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 exis-
;■ tence 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).    Communities react to
» the behaviour of  their members ^and^ihj^s^ara^esgojisj^ble for
designj^yjig^to^conduct _p_f_So§e_individuals as jnacceptafile, anti-social  and not  to be  tolerated.    The premise  that underlies all social work practice is that clients ,ar e_c l_ie.n t s, not because of any innate condition," but because socie_ty defines ~tTTeT~a£_j3uch  (Davies,  M.  1981;  Howe 1979;  War-ham 1977T.' Ultimately,   social workers have no._manda_te„.to..define .the,ir.._c.lien-
i tele.     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  tile purpose of . occupational control   (Johnson 1977,  p.108).    The state,   as _third~yj&ty,' mediates between practitioner jind ;:1 ion!..     However,   there are ■^tWo-afCIs iH "persorial  sociaT^sefvlce .work over which occup- " ati'onal groups might establish__j30me control:
(i)   the type of^work....and_c.li.ent _group,__wi th some areas
being^xsRarded asmore cri_tjc_a,l  or  sensitive .than others;
(ii)   the techniques and procedures available, in order to cope'with the »oik.,   particularly  jp «reaa where satisfactory or  appropriate outcomes  are not easily guaranteed
Given these prospects,   dif feren.tr client, groups might be assessed in terms of the uncer/^ftj-Qta ..which., thefr-are defined as displaying,   their social importance^ and their sus.cep_tibility to particuia-e—tscea_of.oceupational techniques and skills. 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 gtoups__, injjjienc_es both the practices def^ineji as "appropriate and the type of__wgrker alloca^ed^^o^t^iaj^cjj^n^
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 rankedporkers■    But the reasons -for ■ sujch,_r_e;{ectidn'"Tle~Tess~xii the intrinsic unsuit-
-'abTTTty~cif"""the work for the^xpertise. of qualified workers and mor e in the ability of managers to control. exactly.„the., me an ing tha-t such client g roups..'.have f.or the orgajiisa.tion—and.. j.ts resources.    So it is that the .wor k._as sociated jrith the old..and disabled becomes standardise3~b.nd routine,   with_ little_need or o^poTTtniTty for  the~^S^^oT*°liTsc?eTiT5ir" By worker s .    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 client groupings,   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
respurees in. a ,B3^Ag3?fr.L«j^^9X%Pt4y^._^!^s^llJ.'!2S:-^.?\?.h 1 °n in defined circumstances,  control .rests with those who design the slTrv Iceland, not- with those who .carry i^it b.u t."J-r This* is" why" £ or -raally programmed   'service*  responses predominate in work with the  old and handicapped. '
'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 f/requ 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^e 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^j^ha^t^jg^req,uired^^of. .^pr k.er.3. 1g. tha^Jjjjsx^isiXLpar. procedures ma;tlchingiideii.ne^._xeso.urcesi to ..defined need,    So, as Larson  (1977,   p.222)  says,   'In most occupations, rjjy^tinised speciaj^^ '. which r^roiessj.ons^_deieg_ate ^tp^ ancj.lj.ary^ occupations' .        .»•;'    /» '
Children.and  their families
1 tr.
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 ""at.erj,aJJ__jf ^.b'jgJjlg__J2fjj^ntg and dei.inqueut teenagers ijL-Rg£^JJif^Eai^4ad_BB4SXa,tood. ,t oK Jiay greater JLnteins^c„c^omp^xity__ aj^jmcerJ_aJLrj.ty.     'Doing something about'   these behaviours is not so easily achieved.    The two main and contrasting  technologies available are those of control and cure.,   where control means either separating people (children from violent parents)  or removing  them (offenders from the community).    Each offers  the prospect of  rendering the material stable and certain,   but using a different set of
136
137
techniques.
CSft£r_ol-based 3tra.teg.J.9s_..remove or• sepjirate^.those^whg^mjls-behave' from "Thosewho^ suffer ^Jthe consequences of   their misbe-. hSLVla&rT'^Yn"this way,   the offending behaviour  is said  to be no
longer- possible .    The new_ _st.atu.tpry_. situation off ers.....'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_b£lng;Immediate relief, the long  term outcome is much less certain.    Confidence in this l'irie of "'action"'!s not ftbsol'ii'tleT "SKen children are encouraged to be reunited with their parents or delinquents returned to the community there.-_is.no guara^ee__Jthat_Jh.i,ng;s _wilJLJ?e_jLetter-
Cure techniques^a.ttempt to change the behaviour and atti-•tudej_jg£; j|tho£e^^aj,jjjjagJ:ASillB^ 1 ■ J*'^.tJl5^_JliL£_f'f f^nfrrT^^jTay^-iQars—anrt»rAtti,turtea..are- elimjlna^ed.    This holds the possibility of  a more lasting-resolution of  the problem as defined by the law,   the community and their agents.    However  the technology which backs this type of occupational practice is weak and as yet  there is ho guarantee that the outcome prescribed will be achieved"; ~Sd;—altrTough-cure poses  the possibility of treating people so that their unacceptable behaviours are eliminated (which makes it a potentially attractive technology), its weaknesses mean that administrative and statutory control techniques." Ttfiough not ad'dresstn^t^^o^jc^^js^jB^gr^B^ess have a^sHof t ~lp'"ledliim term effect^ on reducing.^unp,scta4-nty,
| alJ3ett,..in._r.estr.ic.tedU terms .
I
Child care and family work has to "be understood in such a way that neitjier^^prof essional'  nc^r__jaaiiage.rial  technologies entire-\ ly get  to gr ips~~wTTinKe mjjjijl__featur es of _the~work.     Both have !onlj ajartial,   temporary or^sdme-Jaight say pyrrhic success in reducing under tairity r~"The prospect of increasing_occupatj.onal control over  the content of practice in. child care work is still ope'n to social workers,  managers having been able to devise responseTT"~wTircT5^o'rny offer to hold,  monitor or police the client's behaviour with nogernanent solution. Even^so, . thi's_limi ted response reflects the^^Ea^uTtory mandates that underlie much- SSD work.    So,   when~"Tt~c'omes to" identifying, areas " which have some prospect of  improving occupational power if the technology can be got right,   work with children and their families holds__qu_t- the most: hope,   or so it would appear, part-\ ieularly.._f or qualif led _woxker s attempting  to develop and prac-Itise their professional skills. " '
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
response patterns.  - This  appears  to be   the case  according to the results described  in Chapter 5.    The balance, nevertheless, is  tipped  towards  the managerially 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 n}ay lead to conflict or resistance on the part of the worker.    So it is . then that cr_.ac_k.3_ in_ ' manager ial-^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 trend,   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 demonTtrIB'le llfcTcess^Jias led to furjther ristyic_ tijons^p 1 aced 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 jvorker.    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 be  '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  /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.
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 are 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.
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.    Within~this 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
140
141