is essay will discuss why sociable exclusion and anti-oppressive practice are so carefully linked. It will discuss how public exclusion make a difference a person and community, taking away their to selections afforded to others in world. It will demonstrate how through anti-oppressive practices, operations such as decisio
n making and taking care of risk can be carried out in an honest manner to help promote self-reliance and empower a service user enabling those to work together with the service provider.
It will also discuss, what sort of managerial style of cultural work threatens to remove your choice making process from social workers if you want to increase efficiency, meet focuses on and minimise risk. With growing advertising coverage dialling for social work decision to become more transparent, increasing pieces of legislation, regulations and techniques are taking away your choice making skills and professional judgement from the role.
From the beginning, the role of your social staff member has gone to help those marginalised and discriminated against by main stream modern culture. The Poor Laws and regulations of 1536 found for the very first time, money being collected from local people and redistributed to prospects deemed worthy of support (Horner, 2009). These humble beginnings are in stark compare to the intricate role of sociable work today. Banking institutions (2006) discusses the role and the attitude towards social work as ever changing, one which is influenced by the opinions of main stream population and the politics agenda, time and environment within which it works.
The underpinning principles of sociable work have remained essentially unchanged throughout its record and can be determined in the present day role today; esteem, confidentiality, acceptance of individualism, being non-judgemental and a perception in the ability to change, as defined by Parrott (2011). These beliefs have defined the role of any social worker to be the one which "promotes social change, problem solving in human connections and the empowerment and liberation of men and women to improve well-being. " (International Federation of Friendly Work, 2011).
Values and ethics are a strong theme which dominates all areas of social work. Values are ideals or beliefs which are important to a person or company and can be viewed as being either positive or negative. Ethics are ways that a person or organisation behaves with regards to their ideals, again either positively or negatively. Beliefs define what's right and incorrect whereas ethics is the work of doing right or wrong. (Banks, 2006).
The General Social Treatment Council (General Social Care and attention Council, 2002) is rolling out a code of practice which communal workers must abide by, these include; promoting independence, to safeguard individuals from injury, respecting the protection under the law of something end user to make their own selections and be in charge of their own actions. The purpose of these rules of practice is to provide a unified value foundation that may allow social staff to act ethically within their role. The rules of practise as set out by the GSCC provide a tangible set of worth for the sociable work profession and by pursuing these values should result in ethical practice. Friendly Work isn't only governed by its codes of practice and their beliefs but also by government legislation.
Dalrymple and Burke (2006) and Lenders (2006) discuss how the great amount of public care legislation can be seen to both help and prevent the role of any social worker. Targets and rules were introduced into the work environment with each new piece of legislation, turning the focus from how a person is cared for to the outcome; how quickly they arrived at this aspect and what tool have been used to accomplish it. The honest question here's how the legislation can be used; often as a means to justify an action somewhat than to assist it and the legislation should be utilized to confirm what forces a social worker keeps not when they must enact them. When positioning a kid into local specialist care, your choice of removing the child is placed with the cultural employee, the legislation only gives them the energy to take action.
To some extent, Banks (2006) argues that the process of moral decision making has been removed from the role of cultural work to allow them to meet targets as is seen in the role of assessments of service user's needs. Assessments progressively more use the system of tick bins forms to evaluate the necessity for services; those not getting together with the threshold are rejected the sought after service. Lack of resources and pressing targets may mean the course of action taken might not exactly continually be the most honest.
According to Parrott (2006), one reason behind this switch towards a more business style method of interpersonal work is right down to the increasing advertising coverage when things fail, getting in touch with for the sociable work career to be more accountable in the eyes of everyone. Banks (2006) supports this debate citing Franklin's (1989, cited in Bankers, 2006) view that sociable workers are often vilified for acting too hastily or not behaving soon enough. Visible cases such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie (Parrott 2006) have needed the interpersonal work vocation to be more in charge of their actions, introducing set procedures and guidelines in to the workplace, negating the necessity for individual communal employees to make their own decisions.
Dalrymple and Burke (2006) suggest another reason behind the move towards a far more managerialist design of communal work in the decreasing money available to the sector. Most of the money are spent providing an adequate service across the mother board or on risky areas such as child coverage.
Birmingham City Council confronted High Court docket action in 2011 (BBC, 2011) when it attemptedto lower its provision of cultural care for impaired adults. Within the increasing difficult financial overall economy, there are 122 councils in the united kingdom which now only provide care for those with substantial or critical care needs. (BBC, 2011).
Wilson et al. (2008) explains this move towards a more managerial design of social work as not being all inherently bad, the objective being to standardise the decisions making process in the hopes of lessen risk for all over the board, however the decisions being made occasionally aren't the best they may be; the best outcome in a few cases has been forgotten for a good end result in the majority of cases.
In 1997, the UK underwent a change in federal; from the long reigning Conventional Party to New Labour (Labour Get together, 2011) and with it the release of the term 'interpersonal exclusion'.
The circumstances of interpersonal exclusion have been recognisable since before the social work role been around, however this new saying encompassed not only the issues people confronted, but how it affected them. Betts and Gaynor (Team of International Development, 2005) describes sociable exclusion as a process which systematically cons certain categories within culture and by doing so does not allow them the same opportunities and privileges given to their peers. This can be done on the basis of; age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, health, physical/mental and emotional capacity or even the area in which they live. By not affording these groupings of people the same opportunities as others, this influences on education and job prospects leading to low education, poor occupations and substandard property.
It is often found that individuals living in poorer casing estates, compared to those in better off areas, have basic degrees of education resulting in high levels of unemployment, poorer work prospects plus more health issues credited to poor housing. This often results the resources available being of poorer quality. According to Oxaal (1997) college attendance is often lower in economically deprived areas as it sometimes appears as having little or no value, thinking that the individual will be confronted with a life on benefits despite their academics achievements. Institutions in these areas will be less well funded and able to supply the same opportunities as other colleges, often concentrating on the fundamentals such as reading and writing and less on personal development. (Giddens, 2009).
Giddens (2009) describes how cultural exclusion is not always imposed by contemporary society but sometimes by the average person themselves; turning down career or not continuing in education are selections made by the individual and the results of which may lead to or maintain the state of public exclusion.
One of the key impacts of social exclusion is poverty. Llewellyn, Agu and Mercer (2008) represents how social workers are more likely to work with people from an impoverished qualifications than every other; citing that 'children moving into poverty are 700 times much more likely to be the subject of local authority care and attention'. Giddens (2009) agrees with this arguing that children of poorer households are more more likely to become poor men and women, perpetuating the routine and increasing the necessity for intervention sooner or later during their lives. Despite it being perceived as the biggest generating factor, Ward (2009) argues that communal exclusion is approximately more than just a lack of income. Both Giddens (2009) and Ward (2009) concur that those facing poverty tend to be children, the elderly, women and ethnic minorities but Ward continues on to describe that it's the deposition of factors such as these that keep people in cultural exclusion. A young unemployed white man is more likely to improve their circumstances than an elderly Asian sweetheart living on the pension.
It is this multi-dimensional aspect of cultural exclusion that makes it difficult to take on. A social staff member needs to understand if the exclusion a person encounters is imposed by society or the individual themselves as well as the nature of the exclusion and be able to identify the aspects which donate to the exclusion experienced by the individual. It really is this understanding that will finally lead to a highly effective plan of action to help empower people and permit them to improve their standard of life.
One of the roles of cultural work is to fight social injustice. Interpersonal exclusion based on such attributes as age, contest and gender are often tackled with an organisational level by legislation, serves including the Race Relations Work 2000 and the Disability and Equality Take action 2010 (The Country wide Archive, (2000) and Directgov (2010)) prohibit discrimination against certain sets of people. Other bits of legislation, such as the Country wide Health Service and Community Attention Work 1990 encourage an alteration in behavior to redistribute the power balance between a company and its individual. This act managed to get a legislative work for Local Government bodies to seek advice from service users when planning and providing services (The National Archive, 2000). It is this change in delivery and execution of service provision that has resulted in the introduction of anti-oppressive practice in public work.
Parrott (2011) discusses two distinct aspects of anti-oppressive practice; firstly on the basis that it will work against oppression and secondly that cultural work practice should seek to enable service users, seek to work together with them with a minor level of involvement. Wilson et al. (2008) and Dalrymple and Burke (2006) buy into the view of Parrott (2011) on anti-oppressive practice finding it as a view to attain cultural justice for service users. Anti-oppressive practice as a behavior should, as outlined above, seek to market three things, empowerment, collaboration and minimal intervention.
Empowerment, as referred to by Parrott (2006), can only be done when the social worker is aware of the framework of the viewpoint of the service consumer of their situation. Although the reality and information obtained during this process can be confirmed, they should be taken as a clarification of the way the service user sees themselves and should not be changed or corrected. People from the going community do not place a higher importance on children participating school once they have gained a simple education, understanding how and just why they hold this point of view will enable a social work to gain a better understanding of the values and priorities of the going community on educational matters.
Control should be given to the service user to allow them to explain their own situation, permitting them to accomplish that without judgement and correction can empower these to take ownership of their situation. This control can permit a service user to take vitality over their situation, providing them with the self confidence and self-belief that they are in a position to learn new skills and develop existing ones to boost their circumstances. (Parrott (2006), Clifford and Burke (2009))
Working in partnership with service users can be an important aspect of anti-oppressive practice. Any course of action used by a social worker should be done with the consent of the service end user. Parrott (2006) explains that this might not exactly continually be possible; some decisions such as taking away children from the family home or admitting someone into hospital following a malfunction are choices beyond your service user control; however some choices, like where in fact the child is placed, may still be subject to conversation.
The function of listening to and considering the wishes and thoughts of something end user in such situations can also be seen as employed in partnership. The type of the relationship should include features such as hearing others viewpoint, providing information to all or any parties and being honest. These characteristics will allow the partnership to stay even when a decision is made the service user does not trust.
An opportune time for relationship to be developed is during the assessment, planning, involvement and review (APIR) routine. The analysis of the situation experienced by the service consumer should always be achieved in cooperation with them, checking their requirements for assistance and understanding of the circumstances. During the diagnosis process, particular concentration should get to identify the strengths of the service end user, reinforcing the first stage of empowerment. Regions of development also needs to be discovered and arranged.
When deciding upon a plan, it is much more likely to work if it is finished with the consent of the service end user and where possible, utilises their advantages. Planning can be a difficult part of the APIR process, controlling the needs of the service end user with the resources available may not continually be possible. It could also be that the wants of the service user are incompatible with what they want, an elderly person may wish to remain in their own home but the degree of care required may well not make it fiscally feasible.
The coalition authorities in power in the UK today has put forward the ideal of any 'Big Contemporary society' (The Cabinet Office, 2010); the theory being that individuals and communities interact to meet their own needs, taking back again the energy and the responsibility for enhancing their own situations. It is hoped that when a community will take responsibility for improving the area because of its local residence, it's more likely that everyone can be involved and improve the benefit of all without reliance on central authorities.
Any treatment should be assessed frequently and should look at the opinions by all involved parties. The dialogue will include what has been successful and what's still left to be achieved. If more action is necessary, the APIR circuit can begin again to deal with the remaining issues. Not all remaining issues may be negative, it might be appropriate to keep with more strengths such as enrolling on course to assist self-improvement; this will give the service individual more self confidence and empower them further which makes it more likely that the positive outcome agreed upon is more likely to be successful.
The third facet of anti-oppressive practice is little intervention. Parrott (2006) has divide this into three degrees of intervention; first of all at, the burkha level. This degree of intervention should provide nominal support and usually takes the proper execution of education and support, preventing the need for further assistance. Strategies such as Sure Start run by the federal government supports pregnant moms before child reaches university age and was created to provide support and help to prospects from poorer backgrounds with the aim of tackling issues before they arise, (Directgov, 2011). The next level of treatment is done thorough early intervention with the motive of participation being brief. The third level of intervention is usually enacted when something has truly gone wrong. Relating to anti-oppressive practice, the goal of the intervention ought to be to reduce the results of the event. Taking away the risk of the occurrence reoccurring without changing the situation would be the ultimate goal, it is accepted that may not continually be possible. (Parrott 2006).
Wilson's et al. (2008) view on anti-oppressive practice is basically exactly like Parrott (2006) in that she perceives the advantages of immediate payment's and specific finances for service individual a confident thing. Wilson et al. (2008) also explain the service customer as having 'self-determination' for the reason that they may be an entity able to make their own options and decisions and really should be encouraged to take action. Wilson et al. (2008) also mentioned the over use of advocacy with social workers often presuming the service user requires you to definitely speak on their behalf. If a interpersonal worker is to seriously empower the service user they must recognize their right to make their own decisions.
Under government legislation, the Mental Capacity Action 2005 (The National Archives 2005) which came into drive in 2007 gives every adult the capability to make their own decisions unless it is proven they are unable to achieve this. The take action also protects 'unwise' decisions, in which a professional may well not make the same decision in confirmed situation; it does not imply the service individual lacks capacity to make it, safeguarding their to make their own alternatives. When a service user is deemed not capable of making their own choices, an advocate may be appointed to assist with the procedure. In situations where an 'unwise' decision is made, a social employee should weight up the right of the service end user to help make the choice and the risk involved in doing this. If the risk involved in choosing puts the average person or the city vulnerable, then further appointment should be taken to discuss the idea further. Although a cultural worker shouldn't force a service user to improve their opinion on the matter, they ought to provide a well balanced view of the situation and focus on the possible results and outcomes of the choices available in the expectations that a more positive decision will be made.
Mental capacity to produce a decision is not a blanket issue; someone may have the capacity to make some decisions and not others. Seniors with illnesses such as dementia may lack the capacity to make decisions one day but in a position to do so the next.
Advocacy is frequently regarded as functioning on behalf of a person who struggles to do so for themselves, however behaving as an advocate can also signify empowering someone by giving them the information, ability and opportunity to make their own decisions, (Parrott 2006). The 'Big Society' is an example of collective self-advocacy when a group a people with similar interests are encouraged gather to create one unified tone of voice. Encouraging the formation of such teams often lessens the sensation of isolation in people facing cultural exclusion. Collectively it also gives them a better voice and the capability to demand change to services and resources that have historically been withheld or are inaccessible on a person level.
Decision making in social work comes with the factor of risk management. As talked about previously, it is good practice to for service users to make their own prepared decisions provided they understand the consequences of these choice as well as getting the capacity to do so. Hothersall and Maas-Lowit (2010) summarize how the term 'risk' was historically used to describe the probability of something occurring, with neither a positive or negative connotation. In modern society, risk is viewed as the probability of a negative results occurring, the term 'chance' is utilized when something is regarded as to truly have a more positive final result, however both words suggest a similar thing; the likelihood of an event happening.
Much like Parrott (2006) and Bankers (2006), Hothersall and Maas-Lowit (2010) have found a change in the manner social staff perform in relation to risk, talking about the career as becoming 'risk adverse'. The procedures and procedures put in place for social staff member to work within have minimised risk to this extent that the option of preference has been greatly reduced.
When carrying out assessments, Hothersall and Maas-Lowit (2010) highlight how reports and case records focus on the chance of a predicament as opposed to the needs of the service user, taking away the understanding of what has brought on the situation to centering instead on who is at fault and minimising the chance of computer reoccurring. Situations with a higher degree of risk to either the average person or the community are often afforded more resources than those with lower risk levels.
Hothersall and Maas-Lowit (2010) also view risk positively in that the outcome could be beneficial to a service individual. By understanding the chance, how many other options can be found and taking steps to minimise any unwanted effects, the outcome of the risk taking may be highly good for the individual. This is the situation when people who have mental illnesses return to live in the community from hospital treatment. Whilst taking medication, the service user may pose a very nominal risk to the community; however the identified risk may be much larger. Provided steps have been taken to acknowledge and minimise the risk and strategies have been agreed in the event of a crisis situation, then your right of the service end user to reside locally should outweigh the requirement to keep them in institutional good care.
Risk is a factor that can be minimised however, not eradicated; the nature of interpersonal work is surrounded by risk on a daily basis. Even by pursuing policies, codes of conducts and planning all recognized eventualities, the results may be an unwanted one. Hothersall and Maas-Lowith (2010) understand this to be inescapable in neuro-scientific social work and it is learning from these situations that will improve professional judgement.
My first placement as a communal work student was with a homeless charity working with young adults. The impact of public exclusion was obvious in every aspect of the job. Many of the young people who frequented the centre possessed a poor level of education, often possessed a criminal history, had spent amount of time in good care, were unemployed and many had learning challenges. Although I had formed academic knowledge of social exclusion, the truth was far not the same as what I acquired expected.
One of the service users I was asked to work with was a woman who experienced spent a larger percentage of her years as a child in good care. She had recently endured a mental malfunction and lost guardianship of her young child to its father. Living in poverty, being truly a single mom and suffering with mental illness are all forms of public exclusion. I got asked to assist the service individual with organising medical appointments and attending conferences. Working alongside one another, we made good improvement in a comparatively short time. On reflection, the work carried out had not been done in conditions of anti-oppressive practice. More emphasis should have been put on allowing and motivating the service user to act for themselves rather than having things done for these people. Although this can be effective in the short term, in the long run it might form a feeling of dependency for the service customer.
The risk of the choices made by the service end user should have been taken into consideration, and possessed it done so, it could have lessened the level of intervention. The child had been located out of damage and the amount of the mental health problems did not place the service consumer or the community at any immediate risk. Instead of daily support, it would have been appropriate to request the service individual to discuss the situation they faced, your options available to them and the results of the choices open to them.
Anti-oppressive practice is about empowering people, promoting their right to make choices and working in partnership to attain an agreed end result with the purpose of bettering their situation. Individuals who are subject to the constraints of communal exclusion tend to be denied these rights. Social workers are essential by their code of practice to help service users assume control over their own lives, promote independence and recognise that service end user have a right to take chances. The type of public exclusion helps it be more likely these individuals will, at some point in their lives, require involvement by means of social treatment. By working with anti-oppressive practices, the effects of social employee involvement should leave a good effect upon the service individual.
In a great world their financial restraints wouldn't normally affect the options available to something consumer, time and resources would be accessible to plan, consider and minimise risky situations making a wider selection of services available. Within the ever before restricting financial local climate, social worker are not afforded the luxury of such costs and so must take a look at ways that service user are still empowered and given the maximum amount of choice as possible in how their situation is dealt with. As a profession, social staff should be moving more towards a 'risk-taking' procedure and away from 'risk aversion'.
Service users who live with social exclusion need to be given the tools and possibility to improve their own situation; it has been tools such as anti-oppressive practice and a solid set of ideals and ethics that sociable workers can enable them to battle the public injustice they face.