|
| HEADLINES: For News on Abuse, Human Rights & Entitlements:
Current
Features |
|
'No Secrets', 'No Shame no Blame' and the protection of 'Whistle
Blowing'. |
Hi, My Name is Terry Couchman and I sometimes include my
personal experiences, in order to illustrate some problem or other. I have
written in more detail, else where, about the social experiment I have been
undertaking over the last half century. It is only in the last 30 years that it
has been more formalised as 'Operational Research'. It is only in the last 5
years that I have again gotten down to some serious academic writing and also,
some more 'popular' forms of writing (at Service User's requests).
Basically, this experiment involved continuing to work as
a 'front line' Professional (Returning from being a Team Leader & Service
Manager) and engaging with the Community as an 'empowered' Service User. No
personal experience was excluded from this experiment and it has sometimes been
quite dangerous (for myself) at times. These are all valid outcomes of the
experiment, which are gradually being drafted into (hopefully) interesting and
challenging reflections on the experiences.
My remit has been to remain as 'ordinary' as possible and
experience the same experiences as my colleagues and my professional clients.
This did not mean I could not continue to play a positive role, as a full member
of the teams I worked in, but sometimes did produce conflicts and
misunderstanding, but these don't have to be negative. I had already gained very
early experience of the problems that Team Leaders and Line Managers
experienced, in attempting to provide an adequate service, often in very
difficult circumstances.
This early engagement in management and the relationship it
provided with executive managers, allowed me insight into some of the best
practices and some of the worst. I filtered out the best, of course, but
recorded the worst also. I learned early and I learned quick. I had to. As
someone in my 20's the experience of management responsibility was sometimes
quite intimidating, especially as I took this very seriously. Working from a
'radical' standpoint, you are always under close scrutiny, even from 'friends'
and encouraging managers.
I see these management experience as an equally valid part of
the experiment and I was fortunate enough to have senior managers who were very
open to my (and others) idealistic initiative and allowed me to formalise and
promote these under their expert advice and guidance. Some of these early
community service and therapeutic social care developments, generated such
professional antagonism, one almost had to resort to subterfuge. Fear of natural
community change was as great then as it is now. Fear of Risk is key to the
insights gained. Thankfully, we were able (collectively and individually) to
establish Community Care as the appropriate 'social work' practice for the
future.
Then, just as now, the big issues are news worthy and people
can make a name for themselves (and often do) by the more dramatic disclosures.
These are valid of course, assuming everything possible was done, professionally
and institutionally, to resolve the problem. We should always highlight the big
failing, which have had disastrous effects upon peoples lives, whenever we become aware of them. My interests was in the smaller
failing, the ones that, like Chinese torture, dig away at the resolve of
professionals, service users and communities alike. These undermine the
quality and accessibility to services and help.
Beyond that, the 'experiment' was quite simple. It was to
observe, record, comment and theorise, on the challenging circumstances I found,
within the professions, within the communities in which I lived, within the
small community projects I supported and even within my personal life. Nothing
is sacred. Each of these circumstances acted as the 'reference group' for the
other. Like so many social experiments, one has to be careful not to be
seduced by powerful groups (including our own professions), or over react to emotional trauma's. These
influences have to be engaged and professionally dealt with in Holistic, Human
ways, but 'filtered' in
the Research process and its findings.
Now, normally I do not include my 'professional' roles (and
the conflict within these roles) in
the stories that are described on some of these pages. The reasons for this are
a bit complicated, but basically I feel this can tend to 'subvert' the opinions
and perspectives of the the Service Users of our Professional & Community Services. These
perspectives are fundamental to my research, they give me the 'external'
overview of the accessibility and responsiveness of the institutions we fund and
the professional and other community services we seek to provide. I occasionally
act as an Advocate, in particular instances, but I usually encourage 'self
advocacy, with informed choice'.
Ok, that said, I recently became a 'Service User' in a number of profound
ways which, if I did not have the resolve and insight into institutions, or the
'social' entrepreneurial spirit that I have, would have completely overwhelmed
me and produced very serious, permanent mental and physical health problems. I
became the victim of some of the more incompetent, abusive and neglectful
aspects of the institutions I have been studying. Until recently, I have
maintained the same polite approach to advocacy for myself, that I had for the
people I support. I must now make a stand.
Historical personal perspectives and experiences, adjusted through
'reflection' and recovery from traumas, are legitimate forms of material for Research.
Such experiences are legitimate, provided we are able to see the events in the
wider perspective. This is only possible and such experiments can only be safely
and effectively conducted, in the context of stable reference groups. These
groups (for myself) include Service User Volunteers, Project Clients, Professional Colleagues
I have worked with and good Friends who understand the purpose of the
experiment.
Basically, the formal experiment is now over. I have collected enough
evidence, and I am being provided with so much more, that I have just enough
time to write up the conclusions and concentrate upon my own personal and social
'recovery'. I would not have chosen the extreme nature of the recent experiences, as part of the
original experiment. I was very aware of the suffering that others had
experienced from these prolonged experiences, but they are now some of the most
valid experience I have ever had. The research is now complete. Lets get on with the
changes; 'In our terms'.
My own continuing story will be uploaded soon. For legal
reasons, the latest experiences are a bit technical at present but, as is usual
with this website, it will evolve as my friendly critics reflect upon the
material. I again apologise for the largely 'logical' and sometimes
'intellectual' character of the material. Academically, this can not be avoided,
it must follow scientific protocols. As promised, the more 'entertaining' and
'emotional' reflections on our collective experience, will be presented as
'Headliners', over the next few months. As I get published elsewhere, I will
keep you informed.
My mild dyslexia is currently 'agitated' by these recent,
distressing experiences and there is still a tendency to leave conceptual gaps,
which I know can somewhat confound you at times. I am still re-reading,
listening to criticisms and re-writing the material as quickly as I can. I also
have a good friend who is beginning to see the pattern and providing useful
'external' reflection. I feel
that it is important that it is here though, even in its inadequate form.
People
have suffered enough and we have to take every opportunity to reduce that
suffering. All we can do, at present, is open up a few more people's minds and
give permission and legitimisation, to those who's minds remain open. Social
advancement is often a case of two steps forward one step back. We are those
steps forward. The good news, for me, is that my poor
health, which was largely work stress related (institutional in form, not form
client work) has now been largely overcome.
This confirms, to my own and others
satisfaction, that the poor health was due to inappropriate institutional
practices which I have been observing in colleagues and challenging as an issue.
As I have said. No experience need be wasted and all experiences can be turned
to the benefit of all concerned, including those who generate the unacceptable
stresses, provided no permanent damage has been done. This is now my further
intention. ©
Terry Couchman, June 12th 2009
| 'Health and Safety', at work, play and just going about your business. |
| Highlighting The Psychological & Emotional Components of Health &
Safety |
Like so often, in so many circumstances, there are many
misunderstandings of issue like those of Health & Safety. In Civil Law, we all
have entitlements and obligations to help ensure our own and other people's
health and safety. We usually understand the entitlements to a reasonable
degree, unless we are vulnerable for some reason of health, or social
circumstances. There are, however, some areas where we just do not appreciate
these entitlements fully and people can then suffer serious consequences, which
no amount of financial compensation can correct.
The costs to ourselves and others (through taxes), for
these 'failures of duty' of various kinds, are quite considerable. These costs
are not just in terms of processing and payment of compensation claims they
generate (which are directly, or indirectly paid by us all, in some form). The
costs also arise out of the wide range of disabilities created and the
subsequent absences from work. These have to be compensated for, in terms of
expensive support and therapeutic services, along with the cost of man hours
lost. We should all become more aware of these causes of distress, the wider
effects and the consequences for us all.
In a more enlightened and ideal world, it should be enough that someone is
unnecessarily suffering, for us to take some action to stop it. We see so many
instances of distress and disability on our TV's and this is often focused upon
the extreme events, often in other parts of the world. We may feel powerless to
help, except through charity. Some of these effects are natural, some due to
neglect, some due to the consequence of deliberate human actions. The smaller,
local failings, errors and abuses, which persistently put people in danger,
seems minor by comparison.
People who are physically, emotionally and psychologically injured, as the
result of any neglect of these duties, are often no less affected by otherwise
avoidable risks, in their particular and defining circumstances. Whether it is a
failure of duty to recognise and appropriately manage a risks, or to intervene
in any dangerous situations or behaviour, and whether or not this is the work
situation, or as part of public & civil duty, we have both entitlements and
obligations which are often inseparable. Work situations are the primary
environment where the more repetitive stresses occur.
These entitlements and obligations are also encompassed, in most instances,
by the Conventions on Human Rights. They are certainly explicit legal
requirements in all employment and professional activities, although badly
understood and implemented at times. Health and Safety legislation, where it is
in place, in any country, encompasses 'any' form of injury, or
potential risk to injury, by whatever means, which could be avoided by good
risk management practices. These do not have to be complicated, they are
often just good commons sense, a quality that is missing at times.
The idea is not to eliminate risk, this would make life impossible; it is to
manage it in any reasonable way, which reduces and avoids injury of any kind.
The idea of chopping down healthy chestnut trees, because of the risk of conkers
falling on peoples heads and injuring them, is ridiculous and risky in itself.
The practice of pruning or loping trees, so that branches are less at risk of
breaking in storms is very sensible. The idea of chopping down trees in order to
eliminate the costs of pruning them every now and then, is more an issue for you
to take up with local authorities and councillors, balancing civic amenity
against the costs. There is almost always a cost of some kind.
What are Manageable Risks?:
I hope this sets the scene for a more intelligent consideration of risk
management and the appropriateness of a particular response to risks. Firstly,
though, we have to recognise what a manageable risk is and this is where some
people have a problem. There are still significant numbers of cases of plain
physical injury, which are the result of poor judgment and neglectful practices.
Often, these failures have been known and reported prior to an injury and not
adequately addressed, or even dismissed as trivial. Sometimes the risks have
been identified elsewhere but not adequately communicated and managed. Sometimes
they are managed but ignored by individuals.
Sometimes, however, they are novel, or newly identified risks, in a
constantly changing and demanding world of commerce, industry and increasingly
demanding employment and professional practices. Sometimes the changes
introduced are because of risks that were identified in older work
practices. Sometimes these changes are in order to save money; become more
efficient; provide improved services; or simply to impress. Whatever reason for
change, it is a general rule that any change, even when for the purpose of
reducing risks, will often give rise to other risks, some of which can be
qualitatively and materially more serious in Health & Safety terms and in
other important respects.
Science and technology have thrown up these kinds of problems and we are
still failing to promptly see many new risks, because of our excitement in
having a new technology to play with. Typical examples are the risks of
electrocution, radiation risks, and the risks associated with pollution of
various kinds. To some degree, we accept these risks, as we do work stress, when
the rewards are high, as with executive salaries and bonus schemes, etc. Even in
these areas, there are limits to the balance of risk against benefits. It is the old
fashioned risks which are more often neglected, or become exaggerated through
modernised versions of bad work practices. Work stress comes in three broad
forms:
-
Stress and other psychological, and even
physical risks, resulting from the 'challenge' of the work we do. This is
sharp in our focus and we have a measure of control of the stress we
experience and risks we take. Like the GP, we balance the benefits obtained
against the risks encountered (side effects); skilfully adjusting our
approach and exposure, according to the 'managed' risks we encounter. This
kind of stress is 'healthy', when it is balanced in this way. Like hang
gliding, rock climbing and scuba diving, as long as we have developed the
skills to manage the risks, we can reasonable safely enjoy the challenge.
Taking risks, in this way, is actually beneficial and allows for novelty,
research and development. It is essential that we do not stifle such risks
and associated benefits.
-
Another broad kind of stress risks are associated with the
environment and conditions of work. These have some of the character of the
first category. Some of the risks may have a 'challenge' quality and get the
adrenalin flowing. At the same time, there will be unforeseen, ignore, or badly
assessed risks, associated with physical conditions like: lighting; temperature;
dampness; obstacles; insecure, faulty and badly maintained environment,
equipment and safe(ty)-guards; inadequate use of protective
clothing and sensory equipment (including glasses), etc. Included here are
sensory, mental and emotional stresses, poorly accounted for. These
risks must now take account of 'all' disabilities, which now benefits everyone.
The stresses we have no control over are dangerous.
-
The other kind of stress, and other kinds of
psychological, emotional and physical risks, are qualitatively
different. We may not initially be aware of them, they have been around
for millennium. They are pernicious, insidious, manipulative, punitive,
or the result of serious, repetitively neglectful practices. They are
cumulative through their repetition and have physical health effects, as
well as psychological, perceptual and emotional consequences. Bullying &
prejudiced behaviour and attitudes; inappropriate, neglectful and
unskilled management styles are central to these kinds of risks. Racism,
Sexism, Ageism, Mentalism, Intellectualism and other stark forms of
prejudices, are typical components of these insidious risks and have known,
serious health consequences.
Because of the character of these stress risks, it is managers who are in the prime position
to observe the cause and effects, but colleagues also play an important
role in identifying and stopping the procedures and behaviours which generate these
risks. 'Cause and Effect' associations are crucial in identifying and
rectifying these risks. These forms of risk have the highest level of
'denial', 'projection' (blaming) and punitive responses to complaints.
It is the area of risk which involves the greatest ignorance, with
prejudiced, negligent and abusive attitudes.
Their primary characteristics are:
They are never 'positively challenging', in the way described above; The
individual has little power in challenging, managing, or avoiding the
psychological, emotional or physiological risks involved, or their
consequences; They are so well established in the popular psyche, they have a
strong tendency to be incorporated into inappropriate management styles; They
are argue, by those with inadequate social & managerial skills, as justified and
'necessary,' in order to maintain adequate managerial and social control.
These have the same characteristic of classic forms
of Bullying: They operate upon the disproportionate and inappropriate exercise
of any form of 'power'; They are manifestations of the Bullies own
insecurities.
These behaviours and associated risks, are wholly
unacceptable in Law, but are most often ignored and justified by inadequate &
poorly skilled managers. The excuses used are inexcusable, being justifications
offered by those unable to see the consequences of their own inappropriate
actions. They are the active psychological domain of the abusive individual. Put
downs, Public Humiliation, Mind Games (Intellectual Games'
They are contradictory
Risk Management can become Risk Aversion (leading to stagnation):
Micro management is the consequence of policies and guidelines which over
focus us on avoiding the known risks. Unfortunately, this has the
consequence of blinkering the perspectives of managers, employees and
professional practitioners, away from the other risks which have been
developing in the background; including those which are the consequence of
the micro-management of risks itself. This is both a problem for the
identification and management of risks in the workplace, in the wider
environment and in undertaking any professional roles within our employment.
These problems have arisen because of the constant justification, on all
sides, of failures to address avoidable risks. By all sides taking the
position that 'it is not my fault', there is increasing tendency to tie down
responsibilities in the minutiae of detail, apparently eliminating the need
for intelligent and considered observation and anticipation. This practice
in dangerous in itself. It causes people to assume the risks are covered and
consequently leads to the tendency for people to litigate. It, in fact,
often increases and broadens the risks we encounter, without prior
intelligent knowledge and protection against them. It is the processes of 'dumbing
down' and 'regression to the mean'.
The simple fact is, the obligations on each of us are to recognise a risk
when we encounter it and take immediate steps to reduce &/or manage the
risks. This may be as simple as removing a physical, or intellectual
obstacle and pointing out the 'error' to the person who is responsible for
the risky placement of an obstacle, or 'obscuring' a risk. These risks can
be direct 'gross' physical, repetitive 'physical' strain, or repetitive
'psychological and emotional' strain. The legislation & guidelines are clear
on this. It relates to physical, psychological and emotional injury and
overlaps with other employment legislation and Human Rights legislation,
which address all these areas. There are no holes, only ignorance.
Denial of risks that are recognisable and easily rectified, is not
unusual. Institutions can become so dependent upon 'showing' they are 'risk
focused' that they spend inordinate amounts of time recording incidents and
repeatedly training staff. In doing so, they often miss the point of risk
management. Risk management is to do with individual alertness and their
skills in recognising the nature of potential and actual risks. It requires
immediate action to reduce unnecessary risk; acknowledging the potential
disadvantages against benefits; reporting incidents that led to potential,
or actual injury; assessment of any future & residual risks; resolution of
the future potential for recurrence of risk; appraisal of other
consequences, including the new risks (generated by our intervention) and
the review of outcomes, from actions taken.
It is not unusual for managers, employees and professionals, to insist
they have been adequately trained in the important areas of health and
safety, while at the same time missing the whole point of any policy, or
Health & Safety training. In effect, they seek to limit their risks
to the potential danger that they may be seen to be lacking in
managing real risks. Sometimes it becomes a paperwork exercise, where great
emphasis is placed of process while people ignore the 'actual' dangers and
unhealthy practices surrounding them and even some of those perpetrated by
them.
The argument is that 'there has to be a paper trail'. This is true, of
course, 'after the event'. That is no consolation for avoidable
injury at the 'prior to an actual, avoidable risky situation, or event'.
Such attitudes are the result of lazy, or belligerent thinking, or both.
There are no excuses and the behaviour is demonstrably incompetent.
Unfortunately, the dishonesty, displacement of responsibility and the
delaying tactics used to defuse and disable any reasonable stand for safe
working practices, means that complainants either fear taking any action, or
become exhausted and give up.
Risk Management is about Intelligent Foresight:
It is not enough to put a band aide on a fortuitous 'minor' injury, it is an
obligation to ensure that any practices which might result in similar
injuries should be adjusted. This has been problematic, because people tend
to be defensive of their errors and as a consequence can be disabling of
other people's attempts to highlight what may have been an 'obscured' (or
covered up) risk. It is for this reason that legislation has been put in
place which protect those who report risks, or wish to lay grievances which
result from the failure to adequately address the risks identified.
It is not unusual for managers to identify your
failings, including those partially generated by their inappropriate policy
& management practices, to justify their own risky actions, or inactions.
You are likely to have failings and these may need addressing, they are not,
however, adequate excuses for justifying, or hiding their own failings of
duty. It is this feature that makes people fearful of reporting risks and
also reluctant to take grievances. Individual employees and small groups can
also have this belligerent influence in covering up serious risks and facts
relating to particular injuries. It is of course, very unfair.
Unfortunately, proving such behaviour is often problematic. People can be
quite abusive and clever.
If you are suffering persistent, low level physical,
emotional, or psychological injury, due to the failure to recognise risks,
or the failure to acknowledge the existence of risk and progressive injury,
it is essential that you report these instances, as soon as you are aware of
them. Sometimes it will not be immediately apparent that there is an injury.
Repetitive strain injuries are now commonly recognised, but they can still
be difficult to prove in individual circumstances. In the case of
psychological and emotional injuries this can be even more difficult,
especially since the very effects can disable your perceptions and can be
dismissed as due to sudden onset of a personal weaknesses (abusive in
itself).
There may even be physical ill health as a consequence.
There are many conditions that are the consequence of stress and many others
(including cancer) which are aggravated by unusual levels of intolerable and
unmanaged stress risks. If you find yourself unable to challenge, or
control, what are felt to be clear psychological and emotional risks and
stresses, which are clearly 'disabling' you, this can have permanent
physical health consequences and long term psychological effects. Even the
strongest of us are susceptible and in our determination we are often 'more'
susceptible.
If there are symptoms that you feel are generated by
experienced risks, or actual, identifiable ill health of any kind; It is
important that you report the symptoms to your Manager, GP and Occupational
Health, etc. Put this in writing, providing dates times and effects of the
behaviours, stresses and risks you identified. In doing so, make it clear
that your experiences of risk are 'disabling' and are the result of others
inappropriate behaviour, institutionalised practices, prejudices, identified
by any means. If any subsequent reference is made to you 'competence', note
this also. As a response to disclosed concerns of stress and risks, this
kind of action is clearly abusive.
Remember, it is not unusual for the risk management
processes to become distorted into the selfish purpose of protecting those
who may fail in their duty of care, rather than protecting people from
actual risks. Collect evident that supports this and communicate with
trusted colleagues and good friends, to ensure you are clear in your
assessments, particularly is you find yourself under critical scrutiny for
daring to complain. Whenever possible, and as soon as you are 'aware' of the
evidence, record the details of actions, comments and dates and times of the
incidents.
As each issue is clarified and evidence recorded, you have
to then choose between presenting these as informal complaints, presenting
them as a formal grievance, or contacting your Union Representative, or
solicitor. This will depend upon the how secure you feel with the
established policy and process for dealing with such matters. It will
also depend how supported you feel in communicating the risks you have
encountered and the 'quality' of response you have received so far. Delays n
response can be for two reasons: The hope the problem will go away if
neglected long enough or, the fear that you have a very good argument and
there is a need to be 'cautious' & legalistic in response.
Both forms of delay are inappropriate and contribute to the
same kinds of risks you are reporting. These delays should be challenged and
incorporated into you complaint, or grievance. Believe it or not, 2 weeks
between stages of any process, is a pretty good legal guideline. Keep
supplying factual outcomes at every stage, including the consequences of the
delays in dealing with a reported risk, or complaint concerning the effects
of neglected resolution of unacceptable risks encountered and consequences
experienced. Two weeks between reports and enquiries is a good standard. The
procedure established in policy are often the 'minimum' requirements, you
are entitled to 'enhance' these.
You will have to demonstrate how 'reactions' to your reports
'disabled' your attempts to minimise those risks for yourself. Reporting and
repeatedly reporting the on-going effects is one essential way of doing
this. There may be attempts, through deliberate delays and provocative
investigative processes, to undermine your attempts to get risks addressed.
There will often be attempts to reduce your credibility. Under these
disabling circumstances you will make mistakes and it is important to
acknowledge them and show how they resulted for the inappropriate use of
intimidating, or insensitive investigative 'processes' and other abuses of
power, to bring about these failures. It can be a dirty process.
In Summary:
To summaries; stay calm and polite, as much as you can.
Record details of dates times, behaviours, comments, actions and inactions,
which you feel contributed to the risks you (and others) have
encountered. Wherever possible, discuss the problems with trusted
colleagues, but recognise they may be fearful of the consequences to
themselves. Talk with your GP and Occupational Health, about any symptoms
you are experiencing. Talk with friends outside the organisation. Try and
choose someone who is skilled in these matters. Talk to a Union Rep, to
Citizens Advice. Get as many people into the picture that you can. Stick
with the issues and demonstrate fairness but firmness.
Also be aware, that those investigating
the risks and grievances may simply be under pressure from those who
determine their roles in turn. These inhibitions to the process may be due
to other Managers, the Legal Department, the following inappropriately
drafted policies and procedure, institutional prejudices, incompetence's and
inappropriate practices, inefficiencies and ignorance, else where in the
organisation. If you are experiencing disabling, stressful problems, you can
bet your life (as your may be doing in these circumstances) that other
people are also, including some managers and people in Human resources.
Finally, remember that the risks and
stresses that you have reasonable control over and can in some measure
enjoy, as part of your work, are quite different to those risks and stresses
that you have little control over. Where you have inadequate support,
professional supervision or other mechanisms for reducing, or managing the
risks, these are completely unacceptable. In addition; if your attempts to
address these risks & stresses are dealt with in ways that are punitive, or
abusive (including 'head games'), these should be included in the reports
and subsequent complaints you make. Lay a good, evidenced based paper
trail.
These 'risk' factors overlap with issues
of abuse and prejudice at work and are covered by further Employment Law.
Make your stand, even if you have to use 'constructive dismissal', or
'unfair dismissal', as your escape routes, in order to protect yourself. Get
legal advice. Search for someone with the skills to do an effective job.
©
Terry Couchman, June 12th 2009
Prejudice, Neglect & Abuse Causes Serious Mental Ill Health.
 World Health Organisation (UN) identified, nearly 30 years
ago, that these problems are greater in the Advanced World than they are in the
Developing and Under Developed World. The
episodes of Serious Mental Ill Health are more frequent, more enduring and more
disabling in Western Cultures than in any other Cultures. All the evidence now,
is that this problem is getting worse and is affecting a larger proportion of
the young and the elderly ("Mental
ill health epidemic"). Mental Health
has social causes and is a becoming a serious social problem.
Institutions have been negligent and incompetent at
dealing with the underlying causes and the effective recovery, from serious
mental ill health. Many of the
misunderstood causes and inadequate 'quick fix' resolutions, have been passed on to the rest of us. We
have tended to trust intellectually biased 'expert' opinions, assuming genetic
pre-dispositions. The result is a
highly prejudiced public perspective on all Mental Ill Health, Stigmatisation
and low expectations of recovery, even from relatively minor difficulties, which
become compounded by lack of early relief. This leads to much misdiagnosis.
Modern Health & Social Care Services are barely able to meet the critical
demands, leaving the early 'social' stages almost totally neglected. Social
Policy, which now prioritises those in 'greatest need', has had the predictable
result of drawing resources away from prevention. It also neglects the earlier
stages of social, psychological and emotional distress and the manifestations of
ill health, which invariable affect adult life at all stages, often quite seriously.
In effect, Institutions are actually part of the problem, perpetuating
'unsafe' mental health practices, as we will show, by providing evidence. In
Wiltshire Services we can quote the cases observed and experienced.
For a more in-depth explanations
on this 'Mental Health' topic, please
follow the:
LINK
Towards a better Institutional, Professional and Media
Understanding:
 We have tended to become increasingly reliant upon 'experts'
to make decisions for us and to take necessary actions to solve personal and
social problems, along with legal & economic problems. Life has become quite
complicated and often appears, or feels to be beyond our knowledge and understanding at
times. This
complicated institutional system of 'experts' has largely arisen because of the
'commercialisation' of our lives. The Industrialisation and commercialisation of
our daily activities, and the means of sustaining ourselves in particular, has directly caused,
or encouraged,
the dispersal of our normal family and community networks of support. It has 'created'
dependency. It will take positive support and education, to undo this level of
dependency.
The health & welfare services were an an attempt to rectify
the shortfall in support and to compensate for the more complex demands, caused
by the revolution in working and living practices. Recognising the dependency
this had created, the Community Care initiatives of the 1970's and the Community
Care & Health Services Act, sought to redress this imbalance and help people
live more independently. The idea was to support individuals, communities and family carer's,
in looking after their needs directly, or else with the kind of help 'they' choose. It
is a wonderful idea, and where it has been implemented well, it has been very
successfully, although typically it is still under resourced.
There are a few professional and other interested parties, who are
resistant to this Community Care progression and the gradual return of choice
and control to the people affected. Some sabotaged the
process, some are highly prejudiced towards it, others are just confounded and
disempowered. Aggravating all this; Managerial Incompetence, Risk Aversion, Bad Ass Attitudes
and 'Dumbing Down' practices. Wilshire & Somerset Mental Health Services (both
Health & Social Care) often fail in their duty of care to Patients & Clients
and in protecting Staff from the unacceptable pressures of reduced staffing
levels and wasted resources. This affects the reliability and quality of service
and is seriously affecting the health of staff and service users alike
For a more in-depth explanations for the
reasons why Community Care fails to live up to expectations:
LINK
County Wide 'Service Users Conference', Resources through
'Your Choice' (Wiltshire).
We are planning to support a Health & Social Care, Service
User's Conference for the Wiltshire area. There are so many issues that are
common to people with any kind of impairment, disability or social problem. The
opportunities to get help are becoming more scarce and it is often necessary to
wait until problems have reached quite a critical state, before they are taken
seriously enough to get any real help. There is also a distinct lack of the
choice which was promised. Many people we talk to are frustrated, overwhelmed,
disillusioned and stressed.
Many Professionals are almost as frustrated as the Service
Users. Their hands are often tied to dealing with only those difficulties that
have reached a critical state. There is little attention paid to early
intervention, or properly helping people to help themselves. When there are
attempts to do this it is often dependent upon the individual Professionals and
Agencies in a particular patch. This is fine, but there is often no consistency
and the service can become reduced, or change, at quite short notice. There are
not enough resources to go round, largely because of how they are used. By
providing help late, the problems are often greater and more difficult to
resolve.
The biggest resource we have is that which we share among
ourselves. Unlike in the inner cities, the problem of linking up and cooperating
in organising our own self help, is hindered by the distances involved within
Rural areas. The problems this creates is severely underestimated by the
Authorities. If there is anything inhibiting our opportunities for travelling
and getting access to the normal resources of the community, this is also a
restriction on the support we can obtain for ourselves. Making this all happen
requires imagination and some creativity. Unfortunately at also requires energy,
much of which has been exhausted from beating our heads against the walls to the
institution.
After years of frustration and making do, with one failed
promise after another, it is small wonder that some people are disillusioned and
loose the motivation necessary to improve their situation. Only someone who has
been there can fully understand this. Whatever our original problem; be it
physical, psychological, social, or caring for someone with a disabling problem,
the most disabling experience that we face is the sense of psychological,
emotional and social isolation. Thankfully, some of us have overcome this level
of disablement and are looking to take the concept of 'Community Care' to its
next logical level. This has been done before and I was part of this.
We are now inviting people, who feel that they have ever have
been disadvantaged by any kind of problem, to meet together and identify a
programme for positively raising public awareness of 'disability', in all the
forms that it can take. We also invite existing voluntary organisations and
charities, who have people with specific disabilities, to join us, irrespective
of age and disability. Most importantly, we will wish to include those who do
not identify themselves as 'disabled', in the terms that professional's often
identify this.
If you are interested in being part of this Reference Group,
or become involved in organising the Conference, Please Call me on 07727618540
(Daytime), 01225 775275 (Evening & Weekends), 01225 691140 (Message Service), or
Email me at:
terry@visitweb.org. We are also
interested in anyone else willing to help set up the facilities for the
Conference, or help with providing transport, etc. Companies in Wiltshire are
being approached to see if they are willing to provide the venues and facilities
for the conference. There have been some good initial responses. No disability
group is excluded, nor individual who feels they are 'disabled', or
'disadvantaged' in any way.
For a more in-depth explanations and
outline arrangement for organising for the Conferences: LINK being developed.
The Chicken 'Pecking Order' Syndrome:
 Background Story: A Farmer, with limited resources and keen interest to maximise his
production, keeps his chickens (and other animals) 'cooped up' in pens and
sheds, with just enough food and space to do what is required of them. This
keeps most of them plump and tender, but vulnerable. In these situations,
scientists observed that chickens tended to peck the chicken next to them more
frequently, or, if they did have opportunity to move, they pecked the chicken
more dishevelled and distressed than themselves; The one with least feathers
often died after a distressed, shortened life.
This behaviour was much more exaggerated than the 'quick peck
and flurry' of one chicken protecting its opportunity to greedily grab at a
morsel of food. It was 'pathological' behaviour, resulting from distress. That
same, pathological behaviour, in a more sophisticated form, is often exhibited
by abusers and aggressive displays of all kinds, including the behaviour of some
more bullying and neglectful managers
and a few practitioners within institutions. It is very powerful, abusive behaviour
and usually 'blinkers' the abuser and 'gags' the abused. The behaviour is so
ingrained it is often seen as 'normal'. (Or, as a colleague once said - "Like Mushrooms - Keep
them in the dark and feed them bull****").
If anyone needed a simple explanation for the
prejudice, neglect &
abuses of children, frail elderly, vulnerable adults, people with physical,
sensory and learning disabilities, the socially & culturally isolated and other
stigmatised groups, this simple model of 'social behaviour
under distress' would explain most of these. It also explains the intimidating
behaviour of managers and the institutions' tendency to 'gag' the distressed
professionals, who recognise these practices and failures. Staff have the stark
choice. Attempt to meet ethical obligations, at the possible expense of their
jobs & health, or 'put their head down & follow policy'.
There are, of course, pathologically abusive and neglectful people.
Most though, are poorly experienced, isolated and variously distressed. The tendency for professional's
failure to identify impending crises, or to
intervene supportively at an early stage, is because they are instructed not
to. This is almost entirely due to the defensive, self protecting nature of
Managers and Institutions that they work for. Each are 'somewhat' intimidated by
the level above. They are tacitly required to disregarded inadequate provision,
unreasonable administrative demands, pass on the pressures & distress, keep
quiet, and act like there is no problem.
At the end of this Pecking Order, Services Users, who feel
things are getting beyond them, but are not yet 'Victims', can not understand
why they are not getting the support and choices, promised in the glossy
leaflets and on websites. If they become angry, they are 'difficult' and
'unreasonable' customers. Wiltshire Mental Health & Community Services, for all
the new initiatives and restructuring, fail to identify these deteriorating cases, which represent a
significant proportion of vulnerable people, of all ages. Front line workers,
Family Carers & Clients get the bulk of the 'heavy pecking' and scant
proportion of the available grain.
Eventually a person's Health
is affected; not by normal life and work stresses, but by the distress of
increased 'pecking' demands; overwhelming workload and reduced support. Another
form to fill, another excuse, another put down; then the situation is critical
enough to "meet an institution's criteria" and professionals have to act.
According to popular professional theories, the problem is now a
'weakness' of the individual. So the rest of us can pretend it is nothing to do
with us. If something goes seriously wrong (and it does more times than
recognised) it is the client, carers, or a single professional failing. We
ticked the boxes, right?
Managers of services need to think again. The failures and
complaints are too frequent but are reduce to quiet murmurings, out of 'fear'
from being treated as the problem. Respect has been lost and service
shortfalls fail to be recorded, as required. The Professional's are too busy
'policing the resources' to meet the needs of customers earlier. The
institutions are part of the problem and are abusive in their neglect to
understand people's distress and in not helping them to help themselves. People
are not stupid. They mostly know what they should be entitled to, but have
difficulty getting out of this institutional 'chicken coupe'.
For a more in-depth explanations
on the 'Pecking Order' topic please
follow this:
LINK
Copy Cat Failures:
 Copy cat reorganisations of Services and Institutions usually fail to resolve
the problems that they have been experiencing and had hoped to rectify. The problems continue and often
worsen, in spite of attempting to 'model' on best practices found else
where, and despite 'appearing' to follow new Government Guidelines, produced as a result of repeated
failures in services and the resulting 'Judicial Reviews'. The Good Practices
proposed now were actually successfully tested by professionals like myself
20-30 years ago. They are sometimes managed effectively but are often totally
misunderstood.
 The
reasons for these constant failures are explainable and are actually quite
simple to understand. Changing and renaming the 'structure' and 'processes' does
not alter underlying attitudes. More often, the changes are undertaken on
duplicitous basis, saving money being a key feature. Professional Staff usually
resent and become distressed at these changes, which often impact upon the
established good practices as well as the bad. Often very effective teams are
dispersed and have to rebuild. It is actually
the bit in the middle that requires attention and reorganising. There is too
much 'control'.
Any Institution that fails to bring staff along with the
changes and fails to gain their confidence, runs the risk of 'alienating' them.
Even attempts to retrain staff, without adequate understanding of underlying principles
(not the words) of Good Practice and Managing Change, actually makes things worse. The argument that 'all
our professionals are adequately trained', has been used as an excuse for not proceeding with
User complaints further. Like the idea of 'I have years of experience',
training can help produce effective & adaptive skills and insight, or produce
habitual, well rehearsed and rationalised incompetence.
 Training, of itself, does not change attitudes, remove
prejudices, or ensure the acquisition of appropriate skill and insight. It
can lead to convincing mimicry, the right signals given and raised expectations,
without the real competence to follow through. This kind of problem has been
identified within Wiltshire Health Care, Social Care, Housing and Community Policing
Services. The assessment processes are being used to 'exclude' people,
not to enable 'social inclusion', as was legally intended.
Assessments of people's needs and risks are effectively undertaken on the basis
of the resources available. The real level of need and risk is missed and early
interventions & support are neglected. to produce more serious problems later.
For a more in-depth explanations
on this topic of 'Copy Cat Failures
follow this: LINK
The More Technical, Professional Arguments (Bare with us):
Society,
especially in the form of its institutions, seems only able to cope with social
problems in intellectually manageable 'bits', where there is incontrovertible
evidence and demonstrated professional credibility. Because of the underlying
'bullying' character of our culture, Professionals are made to feel 'isolated',
if they do not 'tow the line' and go with the prevailing, fashionable,
'institutional' views. The services are fragmented with large gaps. The overall
picture is rarely seen by Line Managers of specific services. They are too
focussed on their own 'butts', sorry 'bits'.
When
professionals do try to operate ethically and thereby appear to risk
'being seen to be wrong'; by taking a more 'critical', person focused, human
perspective; following service users underlying wishes, they are often chastised
by managers. It can also raise the professional anxieties of colleagues. This
then sets the expectations for all professionals. ‘Don’t rock the boat’. There
appears to be severe difficulty in managers critically interpreting any evidence
disclosed to them and greater difficulty in understanding the 'natural'
consequences of allowing the perpetration of even low levels of psychological
abuse and neglect.
As a professional, I have seen increasing levels of serious
physical and mental health problems of professional staff and care workers, due
to the inadequate support of staff at the 'front end' of services. My own
experience is in the Somerset and Wiltshire areas. I have no reason to believe
this is not the case in other geographical areas, where professional's express
similar concerns. I have direct experience
within the services and as a researcher, from outside the services. A current
research project is to obtain comparative statistical information, and to
correlate existing research, on the level of 'early retirement on health
grounds' and absenteeism from work, on health grounds. I will let you know my
finding. Don't hold your breath though.
For a more in-depth explanations
on how our Health, Social Care &
Policing Institutions fail, follow this: LINK
So, where are things at now - concerning Abuse, Neglect & Bullying:
 Domestic violence towards children and women has been more
successfully addressed in recent years. It has provided some relief, of course,
but much physical and serious psychological & emotional abuse still remains,
undiscovered for years. Abuse towards men is grossly underestimated and very
poorly addressed, including its effects upon their children. The Psychological
and
Emotional abuse is treated as 'Low Priority' by Social Services
who, in spite of their obligation to assess, assert that supportive intervention
is not their priority - FACT. Why? The abused argue that it
is the psychological effects that are worst.
Racism & Sexual Discrimination are particular forms of abuse. Its most obvious forms have been challenged and the
Law now protects the most public forms of abuse. There still remains subtle
prejudice and substantial institutional prejudice, especially towards those who
are 'less credible witnesses' to it; expressing themselves with anger,
exhibiting mental ill health, or with limited insight. There is scant insight by
mangers and professional, of the significant personal, family and social impact
of these 'small, incremental failures' and the cumulative, poisonous
effects upon people's psychological & emotional security and stability. I see
it - clients feel it - what is happening here?
There has been some success for the more 'vocal' and those
who
generate the most public sympathy (news worthy). Others,
who are less vocal and generate less 'sympathy', continue to suffer prejudice,
discrimination and actual abuse, in all areas of social experience, including
their dealings with institutions. Institutions are prejudiced against the less
vocally competent and the less 'sympathetic' presentations of abuse. Political
correctness is often used as a weak excuse and sometimes in abusive forms. I
have been involved in trying to get people supported, who normally fall through gaps in
Wiltshire's 'Safety Net'. Comment like 'well, what do you
expect from social housing', are not unusual from professional's & managers and
belays an underlying prejudice.
For in-depth explanations
on Abuse, Neglect & Bullying,
Surviving Abuse and Institutional Neglect, please follow the:
LINK
Local Stories that are on-going and will be available soon:
To understand our 'critical perspective', please follow this link:
The
Basis for Criticism
Wilshire Services for Children with Disabilities:
The community services to our Children, who happen to have disabilities, are so
poor that they are seen (by some of our clients) as more disabling than the child's physical condition.
The opportunities to live a normal life with normal expectations, with access
and opportunities to a normal activities, does not extend much beyond access to school, libraries
and disabled activities. This affects their expectations, social access &
inclusion, and their general physical & mental health.
Although the health service support is described as
excellent and well organised; Teenage expectations are almost completely
neglected, in terms of the Community Support. This has distressing effect upon
them, at this important period of already stressful transition. Many teenagers with
disability want access and transport mobility to 'normal' amenities. They
hate having to relying upon volunteers, friends, parents and siblings. This
causes stress within families. We can all understand why!
The Mobility Allowance, which can be so beneficial to
the independent mobility of an Adult who can drive, has limited value for
young teenage people with a disability, especially in Rural Counties. Even
towns the size of Trowbridge have very poor facilities for young people. To
get access to the common
The support services are so underfunded, to the extent that
funds available for 'Social Inclusion' (a special Government Initiative)
are said to be have been almost exhausted. Remember, also, that we are at the
beginning of the financial year. If we compare the relatively good Direct
Care Services and Direct Payment options to Adults with Disabilities and the
Frail Elderly (where there is still need of improvements), Children appear to get as
little as 20% of comparable support. Staffing of these services is also very low
by adult service comparisons, which themselves are actually 'reducing', in real
and relative terms.
Drop Kerbs:
There is a real problem for some people, just to get
around on the local streets in Trowbridge. This is a problem that affects
everybody at some time, but people with physical disability and sight problems
in particular. A young teenage girl has had real difficulties with crossing some
of the roads on the Longfield Housing Estate. She has to get about with the use
of a wheelchair and is restricted to what is, for her, an island of houses on
Longfield Road. Her Mother requested the Council to install 'Drop Kerbs' to help
her and others to safely get about.
Drop Kerbs are essential for helping people with
disabilities to safely cross roads. They are not only designed to provide a
gentle slope for wheelchairs and pushchairs, they also act as guided pathways
for elderly people and people who have sight problems. Mum did have some initial
success with getting this work done, but this task was never completed, because
funds ran out before they got to her patch. The area surrounding her home, a
housing block enclosed by Brown Street & Longfield Road, was therefore neglected
for years.
An access slope on the Tesco side of Brown Street was
already in place, as part of the Tesco's development agreement, but this is
useless as there are no other Drop Kerbs opposite the Tesco slope, or anywhere
else on her 'island'. The young lady involved, and her family, feel that this
access problem affects other people also, including those with many
disabilities, those who are elderly and parents using push chairs. She feels
that there is not enough attention paid to the difficulties that people
experience. She suggests that Local Councillors and Council staff should be
required to try using a wheelchair for a day.
This young person had one serious incident with her
electric wheelchair, when it overturned. She has since lost confidence in using
it on the street. This now seriously inhibits her 'independence' and restricts
her safe access to Tesco shopping and to the Town Centre. It seems a little
ironic that the two people who pointed out the lack of access and got an initial
response, actually failed to get the Drop Kerbs installed in their part of the
Estate. She resents being dependent upon others to do the simplest things for
herself, some of which any young woman would expect. This puts a strain on all
her relationships.
We hope that this will now be sorted, in this new financial
year and the new, 'One Council' arrangement. These two people are not convinced.
It is a 4 year wait for them, so far, and the slopes were not there for others
before that. In 2008 the United Nations produced an Internationally agreed
Treaty, which has the status of Law in the UK. It clarifies the duties of
National Governments and Local Authorities to ensure the basic Human Rights of
People with Disabilities. It is not discretionary and the responsibilities are
not avoidable, as some inexperienced legal advisers tend to suggest.
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention
Disability Rights:
This young lady is concerned not just for herself, but for all the others who
are affected by the inadequate access and use of the community facilities,
including access to trains, buses, shops and clubs, etc. She has the same
expectations for life as any other teenager of her age and has become very
distressed and frustrated at the slow rate at which things are changing. It is
affecting her health. She feels that there are too many excuses for 'not doing
things'. She is right, our research suggests that this is the normal situation
for young people with disabilities, in our area and it is not adequate for
adults with disabilities either.
Our Local Authorities have a 'Policy' to restrict services
to what is a now a 'crisis' service. In effect, you have to wait until things
get so bad that there are immediate risks to a person, before any real service
is provided. Too often she has been told that there is no money left, or the
manager can not agree to increasing the support, because of restrictions of
finances. I fact, they are even neglecting to record that there is a real need
for support, so the shortfall in services is never really recognised and
improved.
This is not just a Wiltshire problem. Various Local
Authorities use the same excuses and make the same mistakes in understanding
Human Rights for people with disabilities of all kinds. They will often quote
the fact that other Authorities use the same excuses, and restrict support on
the same basis. This does not make any one of them correct. These Authorities
rely upon the fact that few will complain and that the Law allows for restricted
provision of services. In fact, it does not. It only allows for reasonable
delays and reasonable limits to provide less costly arrangements.
Here we are clearly talking about persistent absence of
adaptations, long delays and poor, 'disabling' services, for many people who
often do no automatically show up on the Local Authority's disability radar.
According to our reliable sources, more time is spent by professionals (more
than 50%) ascertain whether someone meets (or does not meet) their criteria,
than on actually providing direct help. This is on top of the costs of providing
the buildings, computers, managers and administrative support,' not' to do a
more effective job.
Professionals are rarely, wholly at fault here. The Policy
and instructions they are required to follow, are similar to those which have
produced such poor services in other sectors of Community Care and Social Work.
We tend to hear abut them when a child, or older person dies in distressing
circumstances. We do not hear about all these cases, and by comparison, the
disabling effect of people being effectively 'trapped' in their own little
worlds, is often of little interest, by comparison. Sadly more silent problems
affect people adversely for the rest of their lives and cost the community
greatly, because of the small failures in the early days.
Wilshire Strategies for Community Care need is often 'Wait
till it gets worse' and call again:
To understand our 'critical
perspective', please follow this link:
The
Basis for Criticism
The strategy, which is designed to keep community care cost down, while meeting
the needs of people 'in most serious distress', effectively means that
the person with any serious problems (along with their families), have to wait
until their difficulties are so great that they are clearly at risk. They must
reach a point where the Authorities would be seen as negligent, not to get involved.
New plans hope to improve the situation but there are not enough 'available'
resources; the processes are time consuming.
Because the various 'disabilities' are fragmented and are dealt with by
'specialist', contracted-in to provide a specific services (all restricted by
the rules of 'Substantial & Critical' need), many people with multiple problems
are passed from pillar to post. The delays often mean that the person's
difficulties get worse and are further exacerbated by the distress of trying to
get help. There seems to be no main focus where the more complex problems can be
effectively dealt with. These cases are very complex, but are dealt with on the
same basis as a need for a raised toilet seat.
What could have been quite simple, inexpensive resolutions that would have kept
the person independent and relieved of distress, become more compounded
disabilities, which are then costly and create longer term dependencies. Where
is the joined up thinking and the seamless services that were promised? Where is
the evidence of improved access to early prevention and entitlements to choice,
that were promised through the Convention on Human Rights, Disability Rights and
the UK Law? Well, we have to keep asking, assuming we knew, or were told, what
we can ask for in the first place.
Fear of criticism is still the biggest constraint in
getting these failures recorded (as required) and rectified. This fear of being
seen to 'complain', filters down from the the very top, to the bottom, affecting
professionals and service users. It is only when things go seriously wrong and
someone sues, or speaks out to the media, that there is any real response.
Sadly, the same underlying mistakes continue to be made, fear persists and the
same problems re-surface later. The problems are inherent in the system. The
principle of 'no shame no blame' is supposed to underlie professional and
institutional practice. Who is listening?
Wilshire Policing Services & Justice System:
Did you now that there is a modern system of 'Summary Justice', supposedly an
improvement on Judge Jefferies? Did you know
that the allegedly guilty and the vulnerable and gullible; (including
those with learning difficulties and mental health problems) are being
energetically encouraged, by Police and even the person's own Defence Solicitor,
to plead guilty to charges for crimes they have been accused of, even if
they argued and can show they were not directly implicated.
This is particularly unjust in the case of crimes which the person had
previously insisted & demonstrated they did not commit and even where
they had credible witnesses to the effect that they had not and could not,
commit the crime. The argument is that the Magistrate, Court, Judge, or
potential Jury, is
likely to see them as guilty and they would not be 'credible' in their own
defence (police & solicitors often unlawfully use the person's previous history
as pressure for pleading guilty). I can understand the intention but the
resulting, progressive injustice is very worrying. There are few inducements to
encourage 'a true defence'.
The accused are told that, by pleading guilty they will get a less harsh
sentence than if they plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty,
justly or not.
To make this worse, witnesses for the defence, in giving neutral witness
statements to the police, are sometimes (if not often) ''tied in as 'witnesses
for the prosecution', thereby disabling them to act as witnesses on behalf of a
person's defence. Attempts to get this rectified are delayed and effectively
'disqualify' the defence witness.
In my community network support role I have seen this kind of conduct and even
found myself 'disabled' as a witness in this way, on 3 distinct occasions. In
all these cases I had credible evidence of the developing miscarriage of
justice, including my presence at the time of alleged offenses. In all cases
there was a level of learning difficulty and serous mental health
problems. In all cases they were accepted as guilty, in spite of attempts to
intervene in defence. Defence solicitors defended their own actions and resisted any appeal.
This arrangement contravenes the most basic Convention on Human Rights.; Don't
antagonise the police!
Wilshire Wheel Clamping & Towing Policy (Complete
Story):
You are probably aware of the new wave of wheel clamping &
Towing episodes, affecting people who park for even for briefest periods
(sometimes seconds and with the person next to the car). This practice has
particular impact on people with low incomes, confused and distracted by
distress, frailty, or disability. The companies involved provide inadequate
notices & allow 'no' leeway of error. The practice is clearly punitive, rather
than being used to discourage illegal parking & punish serious perpetrators.
There is another semi-legal 'scam' that affects disabled &
distressed people with low incomes in particular. There is a vehicle recovery
and recycling company (currently un-named for legal reasons), contracted by Police in Wiltshire,
and based in Devizes. They are contracted to collect and store cars that are
abandoned, fail legal requirements or, more particularly, are recovered from stolen. In the case of stolen cars, these are
recovered & stored for forensic investigation & evidence, at the police request.
Wiltshire Police and
Wiltshire Council (you) pay for this service to be provided and you, once more pay for it
when you, or your insurance company, wish to collect the stolen (or accident
damaged) car. This arrangement is loosely based upon Government Guidelines, to
reduce the cost to the public purse, but the person's entitlement to have these
charges waved, or recovered is not disclosed, or adequately enabled. Those who
are least aware of their rights receive disadvantaged, prejudicial
treatment.
Again, this has the most punitive effect on those with the
least income and is effectively 'prejudicial', unfair and disabling to the
quality of life of people who 'need' a car for rural living, access to work, &
hospital, etc.. People on low incomes are likely to only have 3rd Party, Fire &
Theft insurance policies on the road. Sometimes these stolen cars were in their
gardens driveways, awaiting repairs. The excuses used for this injustice are
usually even more 'prejudicial' in content and indicative of more general,
underlying institutional prejudices towards the poor and less attractively
disabled.
To make matters worse, when people do go to collect their
cars, the Contractor invariably advises that the car is 'unfit' for
removal, even when it is being towed, or in fact, legally drivable. This means
that the contractor gets their Police, or Wiltshire Council fee, the storage
charges for the duration of impounding (for the purpose of forensic
investigation), sellable parts from breaking the car, plus a significant scrap
value of the car. It is a scam and is not Transparent accounting, compounded by
Police negligence is recognising the problem. The whole arrangement is abusive
of peoples rights and is blatantly unjust.
The use of some Scrap Dealers for receiving stolen
vehicles, with inadequate documentations and lack of adequate proof of identity
of the person 'scrapping', is vey serious. This means that there is a good
chance your stolen car will not be found, having been scrapped before its time.
Further more, these apparently small cases of 'petty deceit' and
injustice, have a tendency to 'grow', as do the resentful reactions of those who
are disadvantaged. We all pay a price of injustice in the end.
These injustices are nearly
always judged upon the value of an item stolen, rather than the practical and
economic benefit to the original owner. These are just further, clear case of
social bias, ones that will require copious time to challenge & rectify, because
there is no basic, institutional will to ensure equitable, unbiased justice.
Human Rights are again suppressed.
Professional Issues that are on-going:
To understand our critical
perspective, please follow this link:
The
Basis for Criticism
Social Work, as a socially supportive professions, is
suffering an indignant demise:
Over a year ago, on this web site, I proposed that Social
Work is in serious crisis. Well, I now have to report that, to all intent and
purpose, it will no longer be 'Social Work' as we know it (within Wiltshire and
possibly other shire Counties). The pressure is on and the Title has almost
completely incorporated into the roles of 'Community Policing' and 'Budgetary
Control'. The opportunities and the professional will, to utilise the skills of
Social Workers to intervene to avert crises, has been severely
constrained. The next service reorganisation will see the role reduced further;
to one of crisis management & service 'claw back'.
The hidden agenda is to reduce professional commitment,
implement cheaper & less accountable care options and increase 'control's. I can
not pretend that the public image of social work has ever been particularly
positive, except in the eyes of those relative few, who eventually manage to
qualify for the 'positive' help they requested. Even that role is increasingly,
competently undertaken by committed Social Care, Support Workers and
Occupational Therapists. The image and confidence in the profession has never
been lower and the more committed Social Workers are increasingly disillusioned
in the limited roles they are assigned. They dare not speak out publicly. Each
of the specialist skills are being sequestrated by other professional groups.
It is small wonder that the media focuses on the failures in
community care. There are too few examples of demonstrable success these days.
While the other Social Care professions are measured in terms of the 'quality'
of their work, Social Work is measure in terms of the statistics. New
generations of Social Workers are unlikely to have insight into the original,
positive objectives of the profession, except during their training. I wonder
how long it will be until even this is lost. The 'Theory' of social work, such
as it is, now bares little relation to the realities of social work practice. I
see little evidence of Social Workers publically speaking up against the current
'disabling' trends. Sadly, credibility is so low, I am not sure we would be
trusted anyway.
Social Worker integrity is being further undermined and
eroded, by increasingly micro managed, disabling services. Service
Manager's 'fear' allowing professionals the opportunity to take appropriate
professional decisions which are in keeping with ethical obligations.
Identifying 'needs' cost money, managers clearly feel that this must be
curtailed and the 'system' protected from being seen to be negligent and
incompetent in the process. Meeting people's needs adequately overruns the 'time
boundaries' imposed and increases the length of waiting lists. These are the
artificial criteria being used to measure social work effectiveness. In this
incompetent process, we are reducing quality, reliability, choice and
effectiveness of the services.
It is the underpaid and under resourced 'Health & Social Care
workers' who are 'enabling' disadvantaged members of the community to 'survive'.
I can no longer see my way to defend the current, newly evolving role of 'Social
Work'. Social Worker's are increasing shoehorned into the role of
'disqualifying' people from obtaining a service. Getting access to practical
social work is almost impossible and those Social Workers that are still able to
provide, or assign 'enabling' services, are being increasingly (though subtly)
overridden in their assessments, essentially for financial reasons. I can no
longer defend this position. It entirely conflicts with ethical obligations and
contravenes basic, legally incorporated 'Human Rights'. It is actually disabling
people.
Social Work interventions, which were originally geared
towards the early prevention of crises, are almost absent now and have been
progressively reducing for years, 'written out of existence' by divisive local
Policy'. People who are trying to get this help early on, already know this.
Because people who seek early help do not 'qualify' for more than the assessment
(which they do not always get), they have very limited grounds for complaint.
They meet a brick wall, or are referred to the voluntary sector, Citizens Advice
and other Charities, who are often unprepared for the referrals and certainly
under resourced for the increasing demands that they can now expect. The few
professionals left put themselves on the line in trying to maintain ethical
standards.
I recently heard a Child Protection Officer describe their
role as a 'third and forth tier services'. Health services personnel only speak of two. I
am strain to envisage what the lower 2 or 3 tiers of Social Work & Child protection
services are. There are no substantial foundations and the tower itself is
tilting at a dangerous angle. Like Pisa, it is becoming a spectacle. The same
kinds of 'its not my job' arguments can be heard in many specialist
social work and health care teams. Many who have spoken out against these
artificial boundaries and of the displacement of duty, have been censured, whole
teams of highly effective, but vocal professionals have been run down, disbanded
and units closed.
It is also common for health care and social work teams to
pass responsibility back and forth between themselves. This is because each
profession is competing for funds and attempting to reduce their overwhelming
workloads, This leaves vulnerable service users and their carers, heads
spinning. This then, eventually creates the crises which 'qualifies' them for
professional attention. Unfortunately, unavoidable damage is done in the process
and greater, longer term 'dependencies' are created. Most of this could be
excused, due to lack of resources, if it were not for the fact that a lot of
this time and restricted resources are tied up in the process of 'disqualifying'
people from help, in dealing with the admin and paperwork which is necessary for
doing this.
Each rationalisation of services leaves the community with
less resources and poorer quality services, which have become even less well
integrated with each other, at surprising increasing costs. As a Researcher, as
a Community Care practitioner as a Professional Social Worker and in my own
right as a Citizen, I have, (until recently and from time to time) sought
services for those that I support in the community and also for myself and my
family. I always take the approach as 'an ordinary member of the community', not
disclosing, or calling upon, any of my professional roles, my District & Town
Counsellor status (while these were in operation), and without initially
disclosing my specialist knowledge of Rights & Legal Entitlements.
The comprehensive experience has usually been that of
sympathetic dismissive, displacing, disempowering and often distressing
rejection of almost all 'substantial' requests. Sometimes the rejection has also
been quite 'aggressive' if I persist in attempts to get the person's needs
addressed. This approach has been tested in engaging Second Tier 'involved'
Mental Health, Third Tier Child Protection, Ground Floor Policing Services,
Basement and Ground Level Housing, Legal, Social Security and Employment
services. Unless the person I am referring is in imminent risk of danger, the
response has been not only been ineffectual, but actively disabling and
compounding of the person's problems.
By institutional neglect and jaundiced judgments, we are creating the
more complex 'social crises' that we later feel justified to attend to,
often quite inappropriately and frequently ineffectually.
Once upon a time, those of us undertaking Social Work had
hoped that this profession would achieve independent practitioner standard, much
like GP's, senior Nurses, paramedical and complementary practitioners have
achieved. The health services professionals are equally restricted by the
resources available, but are less ready to allow this to interfere with their
Code of Ethics. Even here, especially in the Mental Health sector, Community
Team Social Workers and Nurses are being assigned what can only be described as
'policing' & 'Emergency' type roles and powers. The focus, therefore, is
increasingly upon 'restrictive', rather than 'enabling' interventions. Social
Work was supposed to be the 'thread' that patched these services together.
The Ethics of Professional Social Work is now severely
compromised, on a daily basis. It is small wonder that the profession's
credibility and public confidence is so low. Some how, institutional managers
and the General Social Care Council (many of who are failed or burnt
out professionals), have progressively brought Social Work into disrepute.
The social work profession 'as we knew it' had hardly achieved any respected
professional standing, before its embarrassingly dishonourable and painfully
slow, early death. Sadly, no one appears to be trying to resuscitate it. This is
because there is so little left, of any integrity, that is worth saving. It is
also in the interests of some institutional bodies to see its self inflicted
demise and Community Care along with it.
Basically, the Title of Social Work has been usurped by the
community engineers of BASW; The Big-Brother, Association of
(Institutionalised) Social Work). Their purpose was always to serve self interest.
From my engagement with the General Social Care Council, over the last 5 years,
it is clear that the interests of the professions 'status' takes precedence over
the interests of adequate support and protection of clients. You will have noticed the the existence of GSCC, the
Professional Regulating body for Social Work, has made no significant difference
to the security, or wellbeing of clients, 'even if you knew nothing of its
existence'. It is time to develop a new profession for the proper support of our
citizens and communities, the proper management of risk and earlier, positive
intervention into potential family and community crises.
This is Social Works last stand. The profession now glories in
riding in as the Cavalry, like Custer, having preserved their strength on the
sidelines, while watched the locals fight to survive and become depleted, before
putting on a good show', only to fail to save anyone and suffer the consequences
of all who procrastinate and leave things too late; - extinction. We need to
look for a new 'Title'. The original one has been stolen and has become
tarnished. I look forward to the advance of Social Care and Community Care in
their own right, with a Title earned, like other true, enduring and advancing
professions, by demonstration of its Ethics and independence of professional
integrity. For the time being, I retain the last stand for the fundamental
principles of being a 'Social Worker' without the Title. The pay is poor but
principles are strong.
Come on all Social Care Professionals, everywhere, Show
what you are made of. There is even room for some good 'social work'
professionals. You are the people undertaking true, socially therapeutic 'social
work'. Regain the Copyright of general practice, which integrates social care
and community work, providing the foundations for good, effective and empowering
social work. I have decided to stop encouraging the best of the Social & Community
Care professionals to advance careers, through becoming 'Institutional' Social
Workers. I now recommend that we advance our professional practices and build up a
new, professionally independent 'social work' profession. Independent that is, of the 'Agents of State', that
institutional social work has become.
Just one other important point for Social Workers (and other
professionals) who are experiencing increased levels of anger, aggression, and
reduced cooperation from clients (or patients), families, carers, neighbours and
voluntary organisations. I certainly meet these difficulties on a weekly
basis and the frustrations and anger are increasing, along with a corresponding
reduction in aspirations and hope. This is very worrying.
Some of this aggression is due to the personality of the individuals
concerned and we have learned to live with this. Much of it is now directly
related to the frustration and distress caused by incompetence and poor insight
of your predecessors and colleagues, within your own and other professions
and services. It is important to identify which is the case. Some of the anger
is wholly justified and understandable. This energy needs to be given
direction and positive effect. We ethically have to help this process.
To understand our critical
perspective, please follow this link:
The
Basis for Criticism
For a brief explanation of the purpose of this WebSite,
please follow this:
LINK |
