275P
The “De-Institutionalized” Social Worker: The Release of Social Workers in England from Local Government into the Community

Schedule:
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Bissonet, Third Floor (New Orleans Marriott)
* noted as presenting author
Barbra Teater, PhD, Associate Professor, College of Staten Island, The City University of New York, Staten Island, NY
Background:

The Social Work Practice (SWP) Pilots with Adults were initiated by the Department of Health (DoH) in England in November 2010 and consisted of seven pilots from different geographical regions. The purpose of the pilots were to enable social workers to create social enterprise businesses that deliver functions independently of local governments. In particular, the DoH envisaged practices that were small, person-centered, social work led, independent of the local government, yet were able to carry out local government duties, and were accountable to and were primarily funded by the local government. The pilots were able to gain additional funding from other sources.

This evaluation sought to explore the following: (1) the benefits and disbenefits in terms of outcomes for clients, social workers and other staff; (2) how social work practice was developing when working independently from local governments; and (3) the benefits and disbenefits of professionally-led social enterprise.

Methods:

Through the use of a co-operative inquiry approach (Heron, 1996), this evaluation sought to identify “what works”, specifically the social work methods being developed in the new practice context and their impact on the social workers and clients and how the “values and principles” of social enterprise are evident in the practice. The information was gathered through two, 2-day site visits to each of the seven SWP pilots, and through 2, 1-day workshops where all seven SWP pilots were represented. Data were gathered from social workers, clients, and community members and partners through individual interviews, group meetings, home visits, and office-based activities. The data consisted of video and audio recordings, pictures of the physical agency, field notes from interviews, observations and home visits, and practice documents. All data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Greg, 2012).

Results:

The thematic analysis revealed the following five main themes: (1) Spend more time with individuals – less bureaucracy; (2) Take decisions much closer to their clients – a more responsive service; (3) More control over the day-to-day management; (4) Thinking creatively about resource use; and (5) Enjoy their jobs more. Each theme will be described and supported through pictures, videos, and case studies where consent to do so has been obtained.  

 Conclusion:

This evaluation has revealed that social workers are able to work more creatively, flexibly, and with less bureaucracy within a social enterprise operating independently from local governments. Social workers described feeling “de-institutionalized” and free to practice “social work” away from the managerializm predominant within local governments. Skeptics argue this approach is “privatization through the back door”.  

The lessons from this evaluation provide examples of how social work practice in England could develop in the future which is in alignment with social work practice in the United States. Dialogue between the two counties could be beneficial in establishing best practice approaches, particularly when there are sociological and political differences.

Future research should explore the long-term impact of SWPs on clients and social workers before the Department of Health require all local governments to move social work into social enterprise social work practices.