Welfare Words: Critical Social Work & Social Policy

The effects of an exclusionary bursary policy on student social workers: an exploratory qualitative study on the effects of the 2013 policy to cap the allocation of bursaries in England

“…Beddoe et al (2011) offered a framework to help identify factors contributing to resilience in social work students which included factors residing in the individual (such as optimism), cultural factors (such as supportive teams) and structural factors (organisations that promote wellbeing). There has been an expansion in the research on resilience and social work and the prevailing definition is rooted within the field of positive psychology (Garrett, 2018). One criticism of this approach is that the responsibility is placed on the individual to cope and ignores the broader social context (Mohaupt, 2009;Garrett.…”

“…There has been an expansion in the research on resilience and social work and the prevailing definition is rooted within the field of positive psychology (Garrett, 2018). One criticism of this approach is that the responsibility is placed on the individual to cope and ignores the broader social context (Mohaupt, 2009;Garrett. 2018).…”

Some Ethical Limitations of Privatising and Marketizing Social Care and Social Work Provision in England for Children and Young People

“…The rapid growth of private sector adult residential and nursing care homes throughout the 1980s, which previously had been almost exclusively owned and run by local authorities, began an ambitious political and cultural process (Harris, 2003;Scourfield, 2007;Williams, 2012). This was partially initiated from strains evident throughout the development of the Keynesian Welfare State, and wider neoliberal ideological counternarratives: which reiterated anxieties about inefficient and expensive public services, State-owned monopoly service provision and widely publicised systematic 'failures' by social workers, in order to pursue market-based policies within sectors such as social care (Lewis, 1998;Harris, 2003;Garrett, 2018). The gradual ideological switch to prioritising consumerism and eclectic service provision challenged public sector and welfare professional dominance, whilst promoting competition, 'service user' engagement, choice, participation and, eventually, the centrality of civic responsibilities and community assets (Rose, 1996;Webb, 2006;Cowden and Singh, 2007;Fenwick and McMillan, 2012).…”

“…For example, they helped to reinforce an apparent need to promote an objective 'evidence base' of service impact and stimulate more choice and participation. Much greater privatization ensued alongside a related 'Third Way' inspired push for elevated community and civic engagement, personal autonomy and family responsibilities (Rose, 1996;Jordan and Drakeford, 2012;Garrett, 2018). Other market-based outcomes included the proliferation of 'minimum wage' employment for social care employees, and the raising of eligibility criterion for social care support services, with the latter closely facilitated by social workers (Clarke, 1996;Jordan and Drakeford, 2012;Harris, 2003).…”

A Critical Analysis of Disability Policy and Practice in Flanders: Toward Differentiated Manifestations of Interdependency

“…This critical commitment is even more vital since modern welfare states have experienced growing social and economic pressures on the principle that the state is conceived as the main provider of welfare services and resources (Lorenz, ). This was “accompanied and fueled by a significant backlash against social rights” (Dean, , p. 37), and reflected in the current climate of an active restructuring of public spending, austerity measures and the continuous rationing of resources (Dean, ; Garrett, ), particularly in liberal welfare states where the rights‐based entitlement to public services for disabled people is currently under pressure (Ellis, ; Garrett, ; Mansell, ).…”