Pruned, policed and privatised: the knowledge base for children and families social work in England and Wales in 2019

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is on the knowledge base for social work practice with children and families and its relationship to current social work policy development in England and Wales for the foreseeable future. It is argued that over the last ten years, the nature of the knowledge base for children and family social work, including the way it is generated, accessed and applied, has been increasingly subject to politically initiated change. This article argues that over the previous ten years of ‘austerity’, knowledge for social work has been purposely, and increasingly, ‘weaponised’ as a component of the same political system which introduced and now sustains neo-liberalism and austerity. Deliberate decisions have been taken by government in order to initiate- through a variety of inter-linked and mutually reinforcing strategies- the reframing and repackaging of the role of knowledge in social work practice with children and families. Following a review of current approaches to understanding social work knowledge, the article identifies five key inter-linked projects , which have been established by the Conservative government . It argues that these are intended to deliver a far-reaching political colonisation of the existing knowledge base for social work, which should be resisted by all social work stakeholders.

A Fisher-eye lens on social work reform

“…There is a long history of concerns voiced regarding the encroachment of neoliberalism into children and families social work in England, and most have cited the reforms in the last 13 years as an acceleration of this process (Ferguson, 2008;Garrett, 2018aGarrett, , 2018bJones, 2015Jones, , 2019Tunstill, 2019). There has however been no serious attempt to apply the ideas and work of Mark Fisher, especially his most influential work, Capitalist Realism, to these reforms.…”

“…As we have seen with Reclaiming Social Work in 2008, these are not idle threats, as Trowler and Goodman made clear: 'many social workers simply lacked the skills required to do the job, both because of the quality of people entering the profession and inadequate training', following this up by acknowledging that, 'few of Hackney's original social workers from 2006 got posts in the new system' (Rix, 2011). This can also be seen in the Frontline organisation, as Tunstill (2019) points out: '[Frontline] drew on the idea that child and family social work "tragedies" were rooted solely in the poor calibre of the workforce' (p. 65). MacAlister, the lead author for both the Frontline proposal report and the Blueprint continues to use the high profile death of Baby P in 2007 to justify and validate the reforms he is part of, despite this tragedy occurring well over a decade ago (Curtis, 2019;MacAlister et al, 2012).…”

“…In the Blueprint, this co-option of language is most notable in the co-opting of the term 'radical' as it relates to social work, which is used nine times in the text, including calling for a "radical change" and a "radical shift" (MacAlister et al, 2019). However, unlike traditional conceptions of radical social work (Pease, 2013), the approach advocated in the Blueprint does not propose radical change to key power structures and systems, preferring instead a model that fits well within existing policy-making around social work in England, a model that has continuously marginalised the voices of social workers and service users while solidifying the power of a few powerful organisations and individuals (Jones, 2019;Tunstill, 2019). By using 'radical' so prominently, the authors of the Blueprint are unmistakably co-opting the language of protest in justifying their proposal (MacAlister et al, 2019).…”

“…This clearly indicates that we are dealing with what Fisher identifies as the deepest and most pervasive of ideological projects: that of neoliberalism, which pervades exactly by ignoring or denying any ideology. With the increasing influence of consultancies, intensified privatisation, the dismantling of established children's services and a narrowing of the theoretical base of children and families social work in England, it seems the profession needs to challenge neoliberal colonisation afresh (Garrett, 2018a(Garrett, , 2018bJones, 2019;Tunstill, 2019). This article will argue that the value of Fisher's ideas to social work is in their addition of a new perspective on recent reforms.…”

“…Several authors, including Garrett (2018aGarrett ( , 2018b, Jones (2015Jones ( , 2019, Mearns (2014) and Tunstill (2019), have pointed to trends of neoliberalisation and privatisation of children and families social work in England, and the existential threat to social work this entails. Although these concerns have stretched back almost as far as the profession has existed (Ferguson, 2008), they appear to have intensified since 2010 and the coalition government (Jones, 2015(Jones, , 2019Tunstill, 2019). Absent from recent reforms is any acknowledgement of an ideological imperative.…”