Despite everything I had been "programmed" to believe in University regarding the field of social work, the lectures attended, presentations given, seminars attended, assignments and placements completed, research conducted and dissertation submitted, disillusion set in really, within six months. After graduating I was full of enthusiasm and applied for a position as a social worker in an inner London borough. The induction process was carried out by the the administration worker assigned to the team, which consisted of about twenty to twenty five social workers. The induction period lasted for about two weeks at the most.
Induction meant basically, being bombarded with information regarding fire escapes, admin procedures re applying, for finance and transport, being given directories of local resources, visiting other council premises working in conjuction with the children and families team, learning the filing system, in terms of where physical files were accessed and stored and where one could find the keys to open the storage facility, should you either be in work before or after anyone else, not unusual in social work and really the only way, you're going to be able to manage with all of the over arching bureaucratic and administration processes, this is before you consider working on weekends.
After this process is completed you are given a diary and have handed, or more commonly, you have left on your desk, a bundle of files and off you go "to do social work" One of the earliest challenges was working out how the computer systems in place worked. Invariably there were two systems to be learnt and managed, for example, one might have the actual forms and paperwork, so beloved in social work departments, and the other would operate pretty much like a running log, this is where every interaction/conversation about a case, with whomever and conducted, in whatever format is recorded.
These systems would invariably crash, considering the numbers of social workers working in the boroughs/councils, children and families department. Most departments had at least four teams made up of children who were looked after by the local authority, as unaccompanied young people who were seeking asylum, whether voluntarily therefore with the agreement of their parent's or family, or via fostering and adoption, a team for children who had disabilities, children who were seen to be in need and children in need of protection. The system would inevitably crash, freeze, lose work and not be accessible for a variety of reasons including being upgraded or for maintenance etc.
Part of the myth of social work being if everything is recorded, then this will keep children safe, how exactly does that work, when it is recognised social workers spend up to seventy five percent of their time in front of a computer!!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/social-work-two-thirds-paperwork-28999726.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/sep/25/social-workers-longer-hours-survey
http://www.tcsw.org.uk/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/CollegeLibrary/Consultation/Service_User_reports/Action%20for%20Children%201%20of%203Full%20Report%20Social%20Work%20College%2012th%20November%202010.pdf
As all of these documents note, social workers invariably get sucked into a black hole of administration and bureaucratic tasks and this has a great knock on effect, in terms of the relationships you are attempting to build with children and families and is surely counter productive and in direct opposition to what was imbibed at university, whereby what is stressed consistently, is the importance of and the need to build and maintain positive or at least workable relationships with children and families who have interactions with local authorities social work departments. You are therefore immediately placed at a disadvantage, as there are not enough hours in the day to complete all the admin tasks expected.
A failure to stay on top of these tasks can lead to social workers being burdened with the label of not having "good time management skills"when the system itself mitigates against this, talk about a catch 22 situation. What also takes up time is having supervision, attending meetings and training, travelling to different parts of the country in some cases and also across and out of borough.
Time management or the perceived lack thereof is often used as a stick with which to beat social workers, this is easier than recognising, the way the system is set up and operates, inevitably means you are on a hiding to nothing really, as in my experience, there were always more cases than there were social workers and this represents a large portion of the problem in social work.
Since every case has to have an allocated social worker, most social workers have the responsibility, for at the least twenty cases. If time management is perceived to be an issue/problem this will be raised in supervision and discussed with the intention of making a change, obviously this doesn't and wont work until the issue of the number of children/families allocated to social workers and the very real shortage of social workers in the field is tackled, after all how many parents/families would or could spend seventy five percent of their time focused on any thing else besides their children. If this was the case, social services would be wanting to carry out assessments with the intention of finding out what was happening and why.
Social work has moved way beyond working for the best interests of the child and in working to keep children and families together. As acknowledged by more than one manager, social work has become more about the practice of having the requisite "bums on seats" further as another manager stated, managers and social workers are "glorified administration workers" It is hard to see how this situation can improve given the cuts and austerity measures, falsely foisted onto local authorities/councils. Social work departments should start to examine why this is the case, when the same amount of council tax is being collected, yet services are being cut or are no longer available.
Wednesday 19 June 2013
Monday 10 June 2013
Deja Vue otherwise known as This Shit Has Happened Before
I was going to write a post about the history of social work and realised I should at least do some research:) With the worldwide web at my fingertips, as long as I pay my bill, I entered the term, history of social work into the search engine and found in the first instance, the following information: http://historyofsocialwork.org/eng/index.php this first publication lists individuals who have contributed to and or had an impact in some way on the development of social work. Elizabeth Fry 1780 - 1845 is the first person mentioned in this article, so I scanned through and it makes for an interesting read, not least because of the inclusion of the head of Elizabeth Fry on pieces of paper, which in reality and as stated upon one side are, promissory notes or as is more commonly known "money" whilst the promissory note bearing the head of Elizabeth Fry upon it, is generally/commonly called a "fiver"
At the bottom of the article is a link to the Bank of England and being somewhat curious I followed this link, as you do and found a very interesting nugget of information, link provided here: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/default.aspx - I decided to copy and paste the text as this paragraph highlights/informs as to the basis of money creation and issuance and tells you all you need to know about the psychological/financial scam being perpetrated.
"The Bank of England has been issuing banknotes for over 300 years. During that time, both the notes themselves and their role in society have undergone continual change. From today's perspective, it is easy to accept that a piece of paper that costs a few pence to produce is worth five, ten, twenty or fifty pounds. Gaining and maintaining public confidence in the currency is a key role of the Bank of England and one which is essential to the proper functioning of the economy"
If it therefore "costs a few pence to produce" as the Bank of England claim, why is anyone going without because of a lack of enough pieces of paper, why do interest rates change and inevitably rise, why do children, families, individuals, communities and countries experience and suffer financial hardship, bankruptcy and have austerity measures imposed upon them, when it only "costs a few pence to produce" this paper. Surely enough could be printed, without anyone/anywhere at any time having to go without anything ever. Why isn't it distributed as it is in the game of monopoly, where all the players are issued with the same amount at the beginning of the game, from rememberance of playing monopoly and more often than not losing, the issuance of the money is followed/observed in an almost drooling and ritualistic fashion.
One of the Bank of England's "key roles" is "gaining and maintaining public confidence in the currency" and "is essential to the proper functioning of the economy" Notice the bank doesn't describe banknotes as money or ascribe any value to them aside from "a few pence"
As the "Bank of England has been issuing banknotes for over 300 years you would think they would have got it right by now, given they have the monopoly, pun intended, on the creation and issuance of banknotes. Are there any other institutions which could perform so badly and yet still remain operational.
Look at what is happening to the National Health Service whereby it has been deliberately mismanaged with the intention of destroying it, signaling to the philosophers, agents of greed of its constructed and manipulated failure, leaving it to the merchants of misery, who in adhering and following the philosophy of greed have reasoned and state quite brazenly, the only way to save the National Health Service is to sell it off, enabling private individuals to purchase it, to guess what, make and receive greater numbers of banknotes/promissory notes/pieces of paper, which as the Bank of England declares is based on the belief and "confidence" of the public, these "pieces of paper" have and are valuable.
The keys to the puzzle are to be found in the terms and conditions belief and "confidence" one of the keys used by the Bank of England, is therefore the ability to manipulate the minds of the public into believing and having "confidence" in the currency, they themselves have the monopoly on issuing and providing, see link here http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/foi/disc1103
23.aspx
Keys either open or close locks and the Bank of England have managed to cement this concept into the public's mind via the turning of the keys of belief and "confidence" with the result the whole nation is dependent upon them for the currency, which they declare is needed in order to live. Further information on what the bank terms "currency" can be found here http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/foi/disc110323.aspx
The Bank of England as it's called, is a deception when you consider, in the language of the law society called legalese "of " means "without" now say, the Bank without England and it becomes clear the owners, of this private and profit driven/making enterprise, who according to the Bank of England Nominees Act of 1976/7 shall remain nameless, have nevertheless their hands on an absolute goldmine. If it really was the Bank of England why wouldn't the public be named as the beneficiaries.
The country was declared bankrupt in 1689 and the Bank of England was founded and began issuing promissory notes/promises to pay at interest, "interest" being code for "usury" in 1694. As the bank themselves state, the nations currency is issued and provided by them for a "few pence" irrespective of its face value. What is hardly ever explained is the bank only ever print what's called the "principle" currency and they never print enough "currency" to cover what's politely called interest, more accurately/usury, hence the face value of their "promissory notes" or promises to pay are never and can never be worth the paper they're printed on.
Elizabeth Fry used to visit women and children in Newgate Prison with the intention of improving the conditions they were held in. As the Bank of England publication goes on to say of Elizabeth Fry "Although prison reform was her main work, she was deeply interested in helping relieve other aspects of human suffering. The homeless in London received her attention when she was instrumental in establishing a 'night shelter' having seen the body of a young boy who had frozen to death in the winter of 1819/20. The scheme prospered as, a committee of ladies headed by Elizabeth Fry, lent their support by trying to find employment for those without a job. This work was extended beyond the boundaries of London to places such as Brighton"
In conclusion then Elizabeth Fry was aware of, indeed she sought to "relieve other aspects of human suffering" via reform as noted in the above paragraph. However then as now this didn't entail reform of the banking/financial sector/industry, indeed successive governments have stressed the necessity of bailing out the banking/financial industry, to the detriment of sovereign human beings of all ages.
Before we turn away and think it won't happen again and we won't see children freezing to death in the streets, see the following link for the February 2013 report by the End Child Poverty campaign - http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area#map
some facts from the report -
We have a situation whereby the government/s have no qualms about bailing out the banking and financial sector, they're not expected to feel the weight and chains of austerity upon them but it's socially/morally acceptable for children to feel the weight of and carry the chains of austerity.
This situation is rendered even more cruel, heartless and inhumane when one considers the government could print all the "currency" needed, without the mechanism of usury, rather than borrowing it from the Bank without England with usury attached. If the will was there this would ensure no child, man or woman would have to go without, because of or for want of some "pieces of paper" which "only cost a few pence to print"
Lest we forget, human beings are suffering appalling financial hardship and in some instances dying due to this lack, as the following link shows: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2117718/British-people-committing-suicide-escape-poverty-Is-State-wants.html
Be under no illusion the government/s are unable to print interest free currency or it is neither possible or feasible and has not been done before, see the following link here: http://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/Bankers%20Bradbury%20and%20the%20carnage%20on%20the%20Western%20Front!%2030:11:12.pdf
Reforms should only ever be contemplated and enacted for the good of all sovereign human beings and not for the good of the financial/banking interests and profits
At the bottom of the article is a link to the Bank of England and being somewhat curious I followed this link, as you do and found a very interesting nugget of information, link provided here: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/default.aspx - I decided to copy and paste the text as this paragraph highlights/informs as to the basis of money creation and issuance and tells you all you need to know about the psychological/financial scam being perpetrated.
"The Bank of England has been issuing banknotes for over 300 years. During that time, both the notes themselves and their role in society have undergone continual change. From today's perspective, it is easy to accept that a piece of paper that costs a few pence to produce is worth five, ten, twenty or fifty pounds. Gaining and maintaining public confidence in the currency is a key role of the Bank of England and one which is essential to the proper functioning of the economy"
If it therefore "costs a few pence to produce" as the Bank of England claim, why is anyone going without because of a lack of enough pieces of paper, why do interest rates change and inevitably rise, why do children, families, individuals, communities and countries experience and suffer financial hardship, bankruptcy and have austerity measures imposed upon them, when it only "costs a few pence to produce" this paper. Surely enough could be printed, without anyone/anywhere at any time having to go without anything ever. Why isn't it distributed as it is in the game of monopoly, where all the players are issued with the same amount at the beginning of the game, from rememberance of playing monopoly and more often than not losing, the issuance of the money is followed/observed in an almost drooling and ritualistic fashion.
One of the Bank of England's "key roles" is "gaining and maintaining public confidence in the currency" and "is essential to the proper functioning of the economy" Notice the bank doesn't describe banknotes as money or ascribe any value to them aside from "a few pence"
As the "Bank of England has been issuing banknotes for over 300 years you would think they would have got it right by now, given they have the monopoly, pun intended, on the creation and issuance of banknotes. Are there any other institutions which could perform so badly and yet still remain operational.
Look at what is happening to the National Health Service whereby it has been deliberately mismanaged with the intention of destroying it, signaling to the philosophers, agents of greed of its constructed and manipulated failure, leaving it to the merchants of misery, who in adhering and following the philosophy of greed have reasoned and state quite brazenly, the only way to save the National Health Service is to sell it off, enabling private individuals to purchase it, to guess what, make and receive greater numbers of banknotes/promissory notes/pieces of paper, which as the Bank of England declares is based on the belief and "confidence" of the public, these "pieces of paper" have and are valuable.
The keys to the puzzle are to be found in the terms and conditions belief and "confidence" one of the keys used by the Bank of England, is therefore the ability to manipulate the minds of the public into believing and having "confidence" in the currency, they themselves have the monopoly on issuing and providing, see link here http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/foi/disc1103
23.aspx
Keys either open or close locks and the Bank of England have managed to cement this concept into the public's mind via the turning of the keys of belief and "confidence" with the result the whole nation is dependent upon them for the currency, which they declare is needed in order to live. Further information on what the bank terms "currency" can be found here http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/foi/disc110323.aspx
The Bank of England as it's called, is a deception when you consider, in the language of the law society called legalese "of " means "without" now say, the Bank without England and it becomes clear the owners, of this private and profit driven/making enterprise, who according to the Bank of England Nominees Act of 1976/7 shall remain nameless, have nevertheless their hands on an absolute goldmine. If it really was the Bank of England why wouldn't the public be named as the beneficiaries.
The country was declared bankrupt in 1689 and the Bank of England was founded and began issuing promissory notes/promises to pay at interest, "interest" being code for "usury" in 1694. As the bank themselves state, the nations currency is issued and provided by them for a "few pence" irrespective of its face value. What is hardly ever explained is the bank only ever print what's called the "principle" currency and they never print enough "currency" to cover what's politely called interest, more accurately/usury, hence the face value of their "promissory notes" or promises to pay are never and can never be worth the paper they're printed on.
Elizabeth Fry used to visit women and children in Newgate Prison with the intention of improving the conditions they were held in. As the Bank of England publication goes on to say of Elizabeth Fry "Although prison reform was her main work, she was deeply interested in helping relieve other aspects of human suffering. The homeless in London received her attention when she was instrumental in establishing a 'night shelter' having seen the body of a young boy who had frozen to death in the winter of 1819/20. The scheme prospered as, a committee of ladies headed by Elizabeth Fry, lent their support by trying to find employment for those without a job. This work was extended beyond the boundaries of London to places such as Brighton"
In conclusion then Elizabeth Fry was aware of, indeed she sought to "relieve other aspects of human suffering" via reform as noted in the above paragraph. However then as now this didn't entail reform of the banking/financial sector/industry, indeed successive governments have stressed the necessity of bailing out the banking/financial industry, to the detriment of sovereign human beings of all ages.
Before we turn away and think it won't happen again and we won't see children freezing to death in the streets, see the following link for the February 2013 report by the End Child Poverty campaign - http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area#map
some facts from the report -
- Nearly 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK (after housing costs)
- The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998. Today, 30 per cent of children in Britain are living in poverty.
- The UK has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world
- The majority (59 per cent) of poor children live in a household where at least one adult works.
- 40 per cent of poor children live in a household headed by a lone parent. The majority of poor children (57 per cent) live in a household headed by a couple.
- 38% of children in poverty are from families with 3 or more children.
- Since 1999, when the current Government pledged to end child poverty, 550,000 children have been lifted out of poverty.
We have a situation whereby the government/s have no qualms about bailing out the banking and financial sector, they're not expected to feel the weight and chains of austerity upon them but it's socially/morally acceptable for children to feel the weight of and carry the chains of austerity.
This situation is rendered even more cruel, heartless and inhumane when one considers the government could print all the "currency" needed, without the mechanism of usury, rather than borrowing it from the Bank without England with usury attached. If the will was there this would ensure no child, man or woman would have to go without, because of or for want of some "pieces of paper" which "only cost a few pence to print"
Lest we forget, human beings are suffering appalling financial hardship and in some instances dying due to this lack, as the following link shows: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2117718/British-people-committing-suicide-escape-poverty-Is-State-wants.html
Be under no illusion the government/s are unable to print interest free currency or it is neither possible or feasible and has not been done before, see the following link here: http://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/Bankers%20Bradbury%20and%20the%20carnage%20on%20the%20Western%20Front!%2030:11:12.pdf
Reforms should only ever be contemplated and enacted for the good of all sovereign human beings and not for the good of the financial/banking interests and profits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)