The Saturday Boy

I am three months into a new job. Its really been hard. All the things you take for granted when you’ve known people for a long time are gone. Its hard having a bad day and no-one knowing you well enough to know that that is what your experiencing without explaining it. Its hard not swearing. Its hard remembering that no-one really knows my sense of humour or my cultural references. It reminds me of all the jobs I’ve ever had from Saturday boy to social worker. It gets easier the less new you are of course but the desire to feel settled, accepted and wanted is strong.

Last week I read a blog from Mark Neary that has preyed on my mind ever since. It was about an incident at home that had triggered a memory for Steven from where he was held (illegally) in a unit away from his dad and where a staff member had casually referred to Steven has  ‘a nasty piece of work’.  That the comments still  upsets  Steven all these years on and made his dad upset too are testimony not only to the powerful spiteful words used but moreover perhaps the intent behind the words. Whether or not the carer believed the words they used to describe Steven is one thing but the intent behind the words, the casual hateful remark towards someone they are caring for, is really quite sickening. For me the words are a reflection of culture in social care that thrives on not allowing people to feel settled, accepted or wanted. We are comfortable with belligerence in social care. We can even deal with hate. But if someone feels settled, accepted and wanted there is a risk that they may be loved and that is considered a real risk in social care. Its easier to consider people has a nasty pieces of work than it is to consider them as people, with the same desires as the rest of us. If we consider people who require social care as people like us we have to consider the totality of that. This leads to a risk that people might be possibly be loved. Love and social care anyone? Words you very rarely see in the same sentence.  

For the last few years of her life my sister had a Direct Payment. It took her a while to find the right person for the role of her PA but eventually she found Christine (not her real name). What amazed me at the time was how much my sister had to hide her relationship with Christine from social care. My sister was an extremely generous person with a  huge personality. Her relationships with people were intense and beautiful. Within weeks of employing Christine my sisters personality and humanity had completely dwarfed the Direct Payment arrangement that was supposed to govern it – it was always going to. Over the years a deep friendship grew but it was always hidden in the shadows of social care. When Christine was diagnosed with cancer it was my sister, the person Christine was paid to care for, who was at the hospital with her holding Christine’s hand as she received the diagnosis and prognosis. As Christine died it was my sister who stayed with her, gently singing to her and reassuring her that her daughter would be cared for. After Christine died my sister became the guardian of her daughter until she was 18. All this, the complexity of the relationship was extremely normal if you knew my sister and Christine. Humanity had completely overtaken the narrow definition we have of people in social care. That the relationship  was completely  hidden to health and social care was not really spoken about at the time because we knew social care could not ever understand it. It didn’t have a form to explain love or relationships or humanity but it did have a form on boundaries, inappropriate behaviours  and people abusing Direct Payments – all things that appear to be quite expected of people who need social care. How could that relationship ever be explained to social care with an expectation that the state would understand it? How do you tell an Audit Officer or a CHC Nurse or a social worker that a human relationship and love were meeting the ‘assessed need’ for both the cared for person and the carer? 

Dealing with love and relationships is really too difficult for social care to contend with so we constantly work in an environment where people are left feeling  unsettled, unaccepted and ultimately unwanted – its just easier that way. It’s a system where calling people we care for hurtful names, such as Steven and Mark experienced, is actually far more comfortable for us to deal with than love. A system where Marks love for his son or my sisters deep friendship with her carer is something that is seen to be so remarkable that it has to be fought for through courts or hidden in shadows. A system where love and human relationships, with all the complexities that they include, are viewed with suspicion and an industrial response to protect people from the very thing that we all strive for in feeling settled, accepted, wanted and yes, lets say the word, loved. 

<And la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la means I love you>

Walls Come Tumbling Down

Walls

When you look at these pictures – what do you see?  What do you think goes on inside of them? Would it surprise you to know that these buildings host social work – or would that be no surprise at all?

It is hard to envisage community social work, working cooperatively in partnership with people, when social work is often detached from people based in corporate settings such as those above.  So much of how we understand ourselves and our roles is defined by the people we spend time with.  Who do people in these buildings spend their time with?  Who do they chat to in the lift?  Who do they have a coffee with or chat to over lunch?  Who do they share their hopes and worries and dreams for a different future with?  How does that shape what they imagine their future could be?

Is there another way?   Bob Holman and his wife Annette believed so – http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/12/01/social-workers-praised-40-years-outstanding-support-in-poorest-communities/

Social enterprises such as the one that they set up cooperatively, in genuine partnership with people are able to provide creative solutions to local social problems.  As the New Local Government Network has argued – rising demand for adult social care can be tackled 1 of 3 ways:

1 – a wasteland approach – where services cut back to the bone

2 – the wild meadow – where Councils withdraw core services by binding into tighter and tighter partnerships with health, using thresholds to deny access to services – hoping that voluntary sector prevention, self help and navigation services bloom around them to fill the gap

3 – the common – where the Council moves from primary responsibility for maintaining the public offer and estate to one of cooperative approaches shared with communities

The report is here if you want to read more about these options – http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/2014/the-council-and-the-common-local-government-in-2020/

Although it may not be possible for all social workers and OTs to form their own social enterprise, the very act of influencing the policy and practice of the agencies we work for to ensure that social justice is on the agenda should speak to our core values and training.

And this is happening.  There are social workers across the Country who are working differently.  Developing cooperative approaches with people who have experience of accessing support from social work and occupational therapy services where they stop being “users” of services and become the people who lead it, who practice becomes accountable to.   One such example being People to People in Shropshire who inspired the National Development Team for Inclusion Community Led Social Work programme – https://www.ndti.org.uk/blog/community-led-social-work-devolving-choice-control-and-power

This isn’t about trying to convince you that you want your practice to be accountable to people, or that signing up to a mutual or cooperative approach is the right thing to do.  To really work in partnership with people, you first have to really believe that you want to change the way you think about your practice, be genuinely person-centred and be ready to talk openly and honestly about the fact that everyone makes unwise decisions.  The celebration of not being perfect all the time (and not needing to be so) is the start of a new way of thinking and feeling about the future.

walls 2

Should I stay or should I go?

BBA

 

  • We visited 63 supported living settings and residential care homes to find out what people with a learning disability were doing between 8 – 9pm at night.
  • We asked about whether people had gone out for the evening, were up, were getting ready for bed or were in bed.
  • We also asked about what time people had eaten their evening meal.
  • We found that most people who lived in settings managed by a care provider were getting ready for bed or were in bed when we visited.
  • People who were getting ready for bed or were in bed had eaten an early evening meal.
  • People who were living independent lives with support for their tenancy agreement were not ready for bed when we visited. Some people had gone out for the evening.

 

Here’s the link to the Big Bed Time Audit Paper – http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/nZmMyCEzNDjqGunKPwcJ/full 

Adult Principal Social Worker Network

This week saw the publication of a piece of research by Elaine James and the Adult PSW Network Co-Chairs Rob Mitchell and Mark Harvey. The research paper titled ‘An inquiry by Social Workers into evening routines in community living settings for adults with Learning Disabilities’ looks at the life when living your life in care settings. This researched involved the collective efforts of overs 70 social workers wanting to understand the reality of the of choice and real lives.

We were extremely pleased to when Paul Richards  ( @Heavy_Load ) of Stay up Late and Gig Buddies fame agreed to write a blog challenging some of the concepts that lead to such arrangements and suggesting what we need to do. What’s clear is that as Social Workers we need to take responsibility for such restricted lives and be part of the solution alongside citizens. Over to you Paul……

Should I stay or should…

View original post 1,165 more words

Ten thousand whispering and nobody listening

cat 1

I received my social work qualification in the post just two days before I started my first ever social work post. New social workers, in the days before we defined Newly Qualified Social Workers, were just called a new social worker. The fact that you were newly qualified was never  discussed. I was a social worker. I bought a new shirt for the occasion of my first ever day in the profession. It would have been ironed had one of the children not delayed me by being sick in one of my wedding (now work) shoes.

I met my first line manager in the first hour of the first day. She talked a lot and I was to listen. In fact she even passed me a notepad and pen as she commented that she was surprised I was not noting some of the things she was telling me. In truth I wont have been listening. I can’t listen when people give me instructions. If I get lost and ask people for directions I never listen to a word they helpfully try and give me. As much as I need their assistance I instead find myself concentrating on the kindly direction givers accent or slight whistle when they pronounce anything with an ‘s’ in it or I notice the expression of their passengers face. Whilst nodding and saying ‘yes, turn right’ after they’ve said it to give the impression I am listening I am wondering where they going themselves or where they have been. Now that I would listen to. But directions and instructions far less so. I expect my new superior was telling me about fire alarms that probably wouldn’t go off and the ritual of car parking or maybe even how to pay the tea club. I smiled and nodded and I remember noting something down in the pad she had given me. It will have likely to have been the last one I heard her say in order that it looked like I was listening. My guess is that it said something like ‘ok’. It may as well as said ‘turn right, yes’.

I remember my first ever social work client from that day. She was called Jean. She talked and I listened because she was talking about herself, her life, her ambitions, her present situation and her desires. Jean spent a lot of time talking about her cat. There were no instructions attached to Jean talking, and so I just listened. I asked questions from time to  time, but crucially I listened and Jean just spoke. On my lap I had a Community Care Assessment. This, my boss explained, was where we wrote down relevant points about peoples lives to do ‘The Assessment’. I had heard a lot about assessments in my first morning as a social worker. They were described as the cornerstone, the purpose and the focus of our role. In truth I hadn’t had much in the way of training on assessments at university. There was some mention of Care Assessments and Care Plans but in three years of training, 24 separate 3000 word assignments, two 8000 word portfolios based on two practice placements I rarely mentioned assessments. My training was about our approach, our understanding of people, relationships, the dynamics of relationships, empowerment, advocacy and rights. Maybe I was on the sick on the day they did ‘assessments’? Either way, assessments were a form and forms came with instructions. I wouldn’t have listened.

Half way through week one the boss was clear that my work with Jean needed reviewing. I was invited in to the meeting room and asked to explain where the discharge planning was up to. With my paperwork in hand I began talking about Jean. I had completed the assessment through recording what I had heard Jean say. So half reading from the assessment document and half through memory I talked about my conversations with Jean. I talked about her background and her family, I talked about her husband Bob and his job and how when he retired he died shortly after robbing Jean of the retirement that they planned. I talked about how Bob had helped choose the new carpet that she had tripped on, causing the fracture that led to her fall and how she laughed at the thought that he was getting his own back. I talked about the grandchildren in Australia and how the letters and photographs kept Jean going as well as the 3am phone calls from her granddaughter Laura due to the time difference and how excited Jean felt when she was due a 3am call. I talked about Jeans cat and how when Bob had died and her daughter had gone to Australia it was the main focus on Jeans life. I listened to Jean talking about the life that Jean once had, the life she was planning to have and the life she had now. After I had talked about Jean I waited for the boss to speak. There was a long pause and then she spoke. ‘You may have well as assessed the bloody cat’. She went on to explain that what I needed to assess was the support Jean needed, not Jean herself and certainly not her long lost husband, far flung daughter and bloody cat. I needed to listen to how many times she needed the toilet during the night. I needed to hear if she now thought she needed to be in a residential home. I needed to hear how the care package was going to get her back home. I needed to listen out for who manages her finances and how much money she has. I was genuinely perplexed. I wasn’t trained to do that sort of listening. I didn’t like that sort of listening. That wasn’t the social work I was educated in and in truth I didn’t even recognise that it was social work. But this was my job.

I didn’t speak to Jean again or get the chance to listen to her. Our conversation was converted into an assessment by an experienced social worker. Apparently with a half decent nursing report and a functional assessment from the OT we could just about throw together an assessment that would help Jean be discharged as quickly as possible. The assessment documented that  Jean needed four calls of home care a day. The calls would start anytime between 7am and 11am. Lunch was between 12 and 3. Tea from 3.30 to 7 and bed every night by 10pm. No mention of Bob or little Laura in Sydney or even Audrey next door. On the box that documented whether or not Jean had got any pets it said in bold capital letters NONE.

 

 

All life is an experiment – I am not vulnerable!

friendship

I once worked with a young woman called Emma (not her real name) who had a mental impairment and would sometimes go into town alone, whereupon two young women would sometimes meet up with her. Emma would withdraw £200 from the ATM which she would share with these people. After an hour or so, the two women would desert her. The care home staff where Emma lived wanted to prevent Emma from going out on her own, they said it was ‘mate crime’ and that Emma was being financially abused.

I met with Emma and put this to her. She said, “I know they are not my real friends, they only want my money. I’m not daft.” I asked what would she do if it happened again? She said, “The same probably. It’s worth £200 to me because it feels like I have friends, I can pretend to have friends even if it’s just for an hour.”

Emma’s story made us feel sad and angry that people would take advantage of her and we wanted to protect her. But she did not want us to do that. She had the mental capacity to make the decision and, putting it bluntly, she did not care how we felt.

I also worked with a man who was nursed in bed at home but his son – frustrated with his dad’s deteriorating health – would shout at him. We wanted to stop the son from shouting at the older man, possibly apply to the court to prevent him from visiting altogether, but the man told us and the police to do nothing. He acknowledged it upset him when his son lost his temper but he loved him and wanted him to be around. In time, he died at home with his son visiting him to the end. As social workers with both children and adults know well, from the perspective of the person a not-very-good family is usually better than no family.

Had the legislation been available, we could have over-ridden their decisions to protect them. They would have been protected from abuse, so we would feel better, but would Emma or the older man feel better? If a capacitous person wants our support then we give it; if they don’t, we must walk away, no matter how upset or concerned we are.

I am reminded of that much quoted speech by Sir James Munby (‘When is Safeguarding Abuse?”) in which he says that if local authorities are to justify intervention then what follows must be better than what went before. I have no doubt the intention of the Vulnerable Adults Bill is not to wrap all people in cotton wool, but to take what Sir James calls a proper balance in supporting those “less well equipped” to deal with risk than others.  If you want to find out more try the brilliant Lucy Series @thesmallplaces – https://thesmallplaces.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/what-good-is-it-making-someone-safer-if-it-merely-makes-them-miserable/

However the proposals for a Vulnerable Adults Bill concern me because, although I have little doubt that while the courts would continue to respect the right of an individual to make an unwise decision, where such is to be over-ridden that must be by a higher authority than a council employee. Indeed, I don’t see why the inherent jurisdiction of a judge sitting in the High Court does not already meet this need. And as I see it, treating people who are vulnerable because of their disabilities differently from all other people is discriminatory.

In practice then I fear such an Act would be used against people, not to support people, and there would be little consistency in its application by health and social care workers. The culture of paternalism and protection is still deeply embedded in some quarters. For example, I have been challenged many times about the outcome of a capacity assessment I have completed, but not once when I said the person lacked capacity to make the decision, only when I said the person had capacity. That is absurd; the assumption of capacity unless proven otherwise should be well established but it is not, even ten years on.

I doubt those drafting the Bill would want this to happen but in practice many people with dementia (or not!) in hospital making the natural decision to return to their home would be deemed ‘vulnerable’ by ‘concerned others’ and needing protection. The ward staff would want this because they would not want to be held responsible in the event something bad happens to the person. This paternalism exists now in spite of the law preventing it. In my experience some professionals are not afraid so much of something bad happening to the person, they are afraid of something bad happening to them as a consequence of something bad happening to the person!

I tell social workers all the time that if they do what the MCA says then Section 5 of the Act will protect them from liability. But how could a social worker trying to defend the right of a person to make an unwise decision deal with such ward staff or police officers or concerned neighbours telling them that they must do something and citing the new law? Who among us wouldn’t be more worried about their job than the rights of the relevant person? The MCA is already intentionally used against people so what then would be the chances of a person unfortunate enough to be objectively considered ‘vulnerable’ appearing on the radar of health and social care retaining their autonomy?  See the case of Fluffy the Cat if you don’t believe this to be the case – https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/01/29/what-price-liberty-damages-dols-and-a-cat-named-fluffy/

By the way, in time Emma found a real friend and moved out of the care home and into a shared flat and those two women lost their free money. What she had needed was support from her social workers, not for her social workers to decide what was best for her.

Ian Burgess, BIA and MCA Professional Practice Lead, on behalf of the Adult Principal Social Worker Network in England

 

Lymbery, M (1998). Care Management and Professional Autonomy: The Impact of Community Care Legislation on Social Work with Older People. The British Journal of Social Work 28, 836-878.

Munby, Lord Justice (2011). Safeguarding and Dignity: When is Safeguarding Abuse: Keynote address by Lord Justice Munby to the Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NSH Foundation Trust’s AMPH and Social Care Conference.

 

 

​Stayin’ Alive While Getting Your First Job In Social Work

  • Do you remember your first interview for a qualified social work post? My guess is that you probably do. Having asked me my very first question on my very first interview for a social work post on the subject of why I had applied for the post, the chair of the recruitment panel inexplicably decided not to make eye contact with me but instead positioned his body so he could look out of the window to my left. I then remember him pulling the most bored expression I have ever seen from a non-teenager. I remember thinking, ‘at least give me a chance to bore you first before you look desperately disappointed in me, I promise I won’t let you down’.  By this point I was so purple in colour from neck to the top of my head that my cheeks hurt. The Matalan suit jacket that I had bought for my grandads funeral, doubling up for this momentous event, was glued to my shirt that was glued to my back. I spoke. Immediately all I could hear was my new voice, which reminded me of Barry Gibb doing the ‘ah, ah, ah, ahh’ bit on Stayin’ Alive from Saturday Night Fever. Where did that come from? It was high pitched enough to have brought all the dogs in the vicinity to the front door of the local social services office that I was holed up in. And the speed in which I spoke?! It broke the speed of sound! I described my journey into social work training and the need for this particular post in a way that would have rivalled legendary horse racing commentator Peter O’Sullivan articulate the last furlong of a particularly close Grand National. Anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice, both thoroughbreds, were clearly neck and neck and could only be separated by a photo finish at the end. 

I was exceptionally lucky at the interview. On the right of the panel I found a really kind pair of eyes. I focused on them. They seemed encouraging, they seemed to get my predicament. I focused all my answers on them. Every time I seemingly said the right thing the kind eyes lit up and then the person nodded their approval. This was soon to become my first ever social work manager and had the most profound effect on my career ever. As I say, I was very lucky. 

It was clear working alongside other social workers that our experiences were similar. I heard horror stories of people that I had studied with unable to get a social work post due to poor interview experiences for some considerable time. I remember one friend I had studied with getting some feedback from an interview where she had failed miserably which said ‘the candidate should have focused on relevant legislation and not just The Childrens Act 1989… Could have mentioned Social Services Act 1970’. It was 2001. Social workers applying for posts can only do so much, we as interview panels and more experienced social workers and now managers will also need to step up our game.

So working with two brilliant social work managers who had similar experiences to me and having canvassed the opinions of social workers via twitter, we have tried to provide some top tips for our social work students in applying for social work posts. We think the tips are as relevant for interview panels as they are the candidates. Here’s just a selection of them;8

The Application Form – Well, firstly, there is a trade secret here which is really obvious if you know it but if you don’t you won’t even get an interview. You have to meet all the bits on the person spec, particularly those that are described as ‘essential’. So you have to write about how you meet these requirements. Sorry if you already know this and it seems patronising even mentioning it but its amazing how many exceptional candidates that will miss out on jobs because no-one has ever told them this!

Prior to the interview. If it says that you can speak to the Team Manager or arrange a visit then do so. Do some research into the job, the organisation and remember to take that knowledge with you. Recruitment panels are flattered by candidates who really know the job they’ve applied for and what the team/service is doing well. 

Prior to the interview. Make sure you are really clear where the interview is. Social work interviews can take place anyway! Check out the venue, parking, walking distance if its raining etc. On the day we advise getting to the interview venue at least a good 10/15 minutes before the interview is due to start so you can compose yourself.

Prior to the interview. Have examples of your practice ready. Panels love to hear you talk about what you have done and learnt as a social work student. Have a least 3 or 4 examples of people that you have worked with that demonstrate you at your best and show your social work values shining through.

At the interview. Your unique selling point is that you are new and enthusiastic and have strong values.  You aren’t expected to be the finished product (no-one in social work should ever think they are). But you are adaptable, willing to learn and you have examples of your practice to date which shows you put the person at the heart of your practice.

At the interview. Be as positive as you can be (without telling lies!). We can all have moments on the social work course when things don’t go well or placements may be difficult or the academic work is tricky. Try and reflect well on the positives where possible. When we are nervous we can often focus on the negatives. Try hard not to.

At the interview. This is a tough one. Because its an interview we can often find ourselves just talking about ourselves and our learning. However don’t lose focus in terms of actual social work. It’s all about the values. Bring the people we are here to serve to the forefront of your answers. How person centred are you? What did the person say about you? If you helped as a social worker what benefit did the person have?

At the interview. Have some legislation and theory ready and relate it to examples of your practice to date. 

At the interview. Know the 5 principles of the Mental Capacity Act!

At the interview. If the interview is going well the panel tend to write a lot of information down. If after answering a question for 20 minutes non-stop you look up and the panel are staring back at you and have all out their pens down and have stopped writing then it’s probably time to stop talking. Don’t worry, we all do it, but try and keep things concise.

At the interview. Having some good questions at the end for the panel is important. Surely as NQSWs you will want to know about the ASYE offer etc? Even if you only have one question for the panel at the end of the interview try and ensure that it isn’t just ‘when will I find out if I have got the job?’

Good luck to all the social work students who will find themselves applying form posts over the next few months. From one social worker to another, thank you sincerely for choosing to the join the profession. You have made a brilliant decision and this is truly the best job in the world. 

Prepare yourself. Take a deep breath. And then come and knock our socks off. We promise we will give you every bit of encouragement and we know that the Barry Gibb falsetto voice doesn’t really belong to you. 

 The Liberty Safeguards – the door is open for better social work

liberty or death.png

On the 13th March 2017, the Law Commission published their report on Mental Capacity and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.  The overdue report finally arrived a week after news broke of the death of Rusi Stanev, aged 61.  The ruling on Stanev v Bulgaria by the European Court of Human Rights in 2012 was a catalyst for change.  Just two years later Lady Hale referenced his case in setting the acid test for determination of what constituted a deprivation of liberty in her summary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling which has come to be known as Cheshire West.

The Cheshire West ruling was a large boulder thrown into the relatively tranquil sea of adult social work.  The waves which it has generated continue to disperse and rebound across the profession, disrupting the comfortable care management function which has defined adult social work since the Community Care reforms of the 1990s.  Cheshire West was a wake up a call to adult social work, reminding the profession of its roots as an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people based on principles of social justice and human rights.  The role of Best Interest Assessor became a hugely desirable qualification for adult social workers who saw the opportunity to reconnect with their values as the person whose professional role was to uphold people’s human rights.

The widened the definition of deprivation of liberty in 2014 has, however, triggered unprecedented demand on Local Authorities. Almost overnight we experienced a 10 fold increase in the number of requests for the Safeguards to be authorised from hospitals and care homes where a deprivation of liberty was taking place.  In the last 18 months further pressure has mounted on adult social work services as deprivations of liberty are also being identified in supported living settings for adults with learning disabilities.   As social workers we are relearning report writing skills as we prepare to present cases to the courts, increasing our legal literacy with case law that references the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and reclaiming our sense of professional identity and pride in our profession.

So, we have approached the Law Commission Report with optimism and a sense of hope.  The report (which includes draft legislation) reflects 3 years of work on the part of the Law Commission to review how fit for purpose the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards scheme in light of the clarity given by the Supreme Court in 2014 on what constitutes a deprivation.  Their finding is that there is a compelling case for reform of what has become an overtly technical process which is subject to increasing managerial concerns about levels of demand and the cost which Local Government is baring in administrating the scheme.  They observe that the numbers of requests for authorisation have reached levels which make it impossible for Councils not to routinely breach statutory timescales for completing assessments and putting the safeguards into place. Their solution is to replace the DoLS with a new scheme which they are proposing is called the Liberty Protection Safeguards.

Here is where a first pause is required. As a proposed response to reduce the level of technical fog around the current DoLS – already the name of the new scheme is causing confusion with parent and carer groups questioning what the difference is between a protection and a safeguard.  Our view is that names matter hugely.  As symbols of intent which send signals across the system a name is a powerful object.  Our preference would be to simplify the name and set out as we intend from the start.  Let’s drop the protection bit and simply call the new scheme the Liberty Safeguards because that is what they are. We know what images the word protection conjures up in the post Care Act world of health and social care; where we challenge those who self-neglect, ignore the spirit of making safeguarding personal or give barely a passing nod to our responsibilities under Article 8. If we call anything in adult care ‘protection’, then really do expect the worst because there is a swathe of the public sector that think that protection means good old fashioned, ‘lock em up and love em as best you can’ care. The best protection is self protection or sponsored protection where people’s rights are upheld with the same vigour and singular desire as we ourselves feel when it comes to protecting ourselves and our loved ones. If public protection is genuinely such a concern that the word protection must explicitly feature in there (and having read the first few bars of the heart-sinking entitled proposed Vulnerable Adult Bill) let’s at least try and agree on what it is we are trying to protect.  Our role as social workers is to protect people’s right to liberty.  So if we can’t drop the word, let’s at least move it to call them the Protection of Liberty Safeguards.

Going back to the detail of the scheme, our Liberty Safeguards would apply in much wider contexts including hospitals, care homes, supported living, shared lives and private and domestic settings. The new scheme will cover any situation where Article 5(1)(e) is potentially engaged. The specific arrangements that may be authorised are:

  • arrangements that a person is to reside in one or more particular places;
  • arrangements that a person is to receive care or treatment at one or more particular places; and
  • arrangements about the means by which and the manner in which a person can be transported to a particular place or between particular places.

Interestingly, the Law Commission also propose that whereas the DoLS scheme only applied to adults over the age of 18, the new Liberty Safeguards would apply for 16 and 17 years olds. This is a sensible change which reflects best social work practice in preparing young people for their transition into adulthood.

It is also proposed that the role of Local Authorities as the Supervisory Body be revised and replaced with a new Responsible Body requirement.  In a pragmatic nod to the drive towards integration the Responsible Body duties would be shared across health and social care depending on where the deprivation of liberty is taking place with hospital trusts and CCGs taking responsibility for their cases.

There are other significant changes which it is worth finding out more about from the various commentators who have written about the report.  However, our personal favourite is the blog written by Mark Neary.  The ruling on the unlawfulness of his son Steven Neary’s deprivation of liberty in 2011 is one of the most significant cases in adult social work in that it made the connection between Article 5 and Article 8 ECHR, the right to a private and family life.  If Article 5 is the technical aspect of the current DoLS scheme, Article 8 is the heart and soul made manifest in Mark and Steven’s relationship. If you ever get chance to hear Mark speak, please take the opportunity.

Whilst, we recognise and welcome the requirement to make explicit the relationship between the proposed Liberty Safeguards and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by upholding people’s wishes, feelings and beliefs when authorising the Safeguards, we are underwhelmed by the missed opportunity to emphasise the significance of Article 8 rights.  It makes us wonder whether the current obsession with interference with Article 8 rights to justify disproportionate responses to so called self-neglect has leaked into the thinking of those working on the report.

The Law Commission also recommend that the role of Approved Mental Capacity Professional be introduced building on the current Best Interest Assessor role.  As a long term advocate of the AMCP role we remain convinced that role is a lifeline being thrown to the adult social work profession and it should be grabbed with both hands. It is a role most naturally suited to social workers with adults because since 2014 we have rapidly embraced and consolidated our expertise, knowledge of and passion for human rights and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). AMCPs as the safeguard of people’s rights and well being. What greater opportunity can there be for all those social workers who came into the profession saying at their interview to get on the course that they wanted to make a difference?

So do the Liberty Safeguards provide a last chance saloon challenge to adult social workers?  We think they do.  But we also think that if better social work is to become our reality, social workers will need to be really brave. In embracing the social work role as the Law Commission envisage it, and making the most of the potential to elevate our professional by leading on human rights through social work, we may need to be prepared to cast off other roles that we have had bestowed on to us that don’t suit us, or that we don’t do well or moreover where the person themselves needs to be the only voices heard.  At the beginning of the Law Commissions consultation process we asked ‘Are We Human or Are We Care Manager?’ and questioned where social work sits, nearly 30 years on from NHS & Community Care Act. By the end of the consultation we think that yes, we can see the door which is open to us.  This 3 year process has generated overwhelming evidence that the answer to the question is that social work is human rights and that it is ready for the challenges of ensure that Article 5 loophole is dealt with. However, social work is not the answer on its own and can only wish to be a small part of the solution. As Mark Harvey said in his blog describing a new Bohemian social work movement:

 ‘we are not the custodians of society, we need to learn to be part of it, in fact we need to ask humbly if we can come and play again. Then and only then on an equal footing can we work alongside people and create opportunity, not risk averse application that does unto’.

To truly step up to the plate and play the role the new proposals need us to, we need to really ask ourselves – what sort of social worker are we?  Are we really ready to step away from the trappings of care management, which was a role no one else wanted but we ended up with in the post Community Care scramble of 1990. Our role as all things to everyone, assessor, support planner, broker, discharge facilitator are perhaps best rested with the individuals we support, the communities that they come from and families that are best suited to help deliver real meaningful outcomes because of their love for the person. Social workers, put down your RASs (they never worked anyway), step up to the challenge of the Liberty Safeguards and deliver human rights based social work and maybe not all the other things between.