Management, Social Work and Change

Elizabeth Harlow, John Lawler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351740265
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2000: This text focuses on developments in social work and its management. In doing so, it is of necessity multi-disciplinary: research and literature from the fields of management, organization and social policy, as well as social work, are drawn upon. The major theme of the book is change, which, paradoxically, appears to be the major constant. Change is everywhere and living with change is part of the "modern condition". As the various transformations of social work are articulated, their influence becomes apparent. Each process will constitute a theme around which the content of this book is introduced. Although these processes are interdependent, each will be dealt with in turn.

SECTION ONE

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

1 From Beveridge to Best Value: Transitions in Welfare Provision

ALAN SIDDALL

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to locate the management of social work within the context of the change which has been taking place in the provision of welfare services since the end of the Second World War. In particular, the chapter will examine the developing relationship between different providers of welfare, the balance between statutory and nonstatutory provision and the increasing role of the independent sector. The development of state welfare and social work is briefly considered in order to contextualise current and future pressures on social work managers. A newcomer to social work at the turn of the millennium could be forgiven for thinking that contracts and partnership agreements, tendering and purchasing have always been fundamental to welfare provision. However, these concepts are relatively new and the job of a service manager has altered considerably.

Introduction and Development of the Welfare State

The welfare state in the UK is generally seen as being established by the Labour government immediately after the Second World War (Johnson, 1987). The major blueprint for the policies was the Beveridge Report of 1942. Following many of the recommendations, the Atlee administration clearly placed the state as the major provider of welfare services which included social security, health, housing, education and personal social services. Under the Keynesian approach of the time, fundamental to the aims of the welfare state was the economic and social goal of full employment. This would provide sufficient tax revenues to fund such services but perhaps more importantly; it would provide people with a route away from poverty through paid work.

In the immediate post-war atmosphere there was a strong feeling that the time had come for the state to play the central role in comprehensive health and welfare provision: the state would replace the fragmented and partial pre-war arrangements. The overall mood reflected the desire to avoid a return to the difficulties of the severe pre-war economic conditions or to the health and welfare inequalities which had characterised the early years of the century. There was a new consensus: right-wing politicians believed that the state had a central role to play within a capitalist framework and left-wing politicians accepted a mixed economy of welfare, though emphasising a central state role in both planning and provision. Whilst this new state role in welfare was accepted, decisions remained over the implementation of policies, particularly how the resulting services would be delivered. The market was not seen as being able to provide the necessary mechanisms. This previous failure of unregulated markets to provide for common welfare is often overlooked in the development of UK welfare (Barr, 1987, in Lowe, 1994). In addition, whilst there was a history of voluntary welfare provision throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, this was seen as being diverse and uncoordinated. The government of the time chose to follow the path of state welfare in both defining policy and delivering services. Brenton (1985) rightly suggests that this central role for the state was not inevitable. The state could have chosen to finance and regulate the voluntary sector as its agent, as happened in the United States and The Netherlands, or it could have decided to refocus on the operation of markets. However, the market was not seen as an appropriate provider of welfare services and was largely ignored. The voluntary sector was not directly regulated out of existence but was expected to wither away. Thus, the Labour government chose to invest in statutory services as a means of promoting comprehensive and universal provision.

From this time, the welfare state infrastructure began to develop and continued over the next three decades. Butcher (1995) usefully charts the development of the welfare state and sees it as having three distinct phases. The first, from 1945-1976, was one of development but relative consensual stability. The much shorter period from 1976-1979 was a time of welfare provision being under specific financial strain and from 1979 to 1995 as undergoing radical reassessment. Powell and Hewitt (1998) and Rao (1996) highlight that, whilst the 1945-1976 period is often described as a period of major consensus, there were significant dissenting voices to the central role of government in both economic and social domains. However, this was a period of relative growth and political stability. Relationships were strong between a central government dealing with the ‘high’ political issues (Lowe, 1994) of macro-economics and social policy and local government largely responsible for delivering welfare services. The voluntary and independent sectors continued to exist however. The state was not to become a monopoly provider of welfare services. The relative slow pace of development of statutory services in the 1950s helped voluntary organisations maintain their position in welfare provision, and gave them time to review their role. Furthermore, Government reports (Nathan Committee, 1952; Younghusband Committee, 1959) in the 1950s were positive about voluntary organisations and their contribution to welfare provision was encouraged. Whilst this period to 1976 was relatively stable, there were, nonetheless, changes in thinking on welfare and changes to its organisation and management, particularly in relation to social work. There was still a consensus on the role of the state as a major provider of welfare, but already it could be seen that an entire state monopoly of welfare was unsustainable due to the increasing demand on services together with finite state resources. The voluntary sector was acknowledged as providing valuable welfare service support.

As services and legislation developed, problems of organisation and co-ordination also grew. The Seebohm Report (1968) recommended a new structure for social work services. New departments would replace the old welfare and children’s departments, and participation of local people and consumers was to be encouraged. The state, through local authorities, was still seen as being prime provider of social work services but by the time the report was published, the continued role of voluntary organisations as a supplement to a strong framework was clear. In highlighting resource limitations for state provision, Seebohm looked towards using community resources to augment state provision. The concept of ‘partnership’ was developing.

The period from 1976 to 1979, whilst much shorter than that discussed above, can be seen as a major transitional period both in political and social policy terms. During this period, the state could not sustain its general levels of expenditure, including its welfare expenditure. In addition, any hope of full employment, a fundamental requisite for many in achieving a welfare state, was deemed unrealistic. The oil crisis at this time added to concerns regarding expenditure on welfare provision. Whilst attempting to maintain core welfare services within the state sector, governments of different political flavours implemented cuts in public spending. Attempts made to reduce public expenditure during this period was largely based on persuasion rather than coercion. Governments were concerned with total levels of expenditure rather than with spending on a more localised basis (Butcher, 1995). However, even a ‘no-growth’ welfare state was proving difficult to finance and, to keep up with increasing demands, new sources of support were felt to be necessary. The Conservative Party, which was to form the government from 1979, looked both to its traditions of support for philanthropy and charity and to newer monetarist philosophy as the way forward. The relative consensus born in the late 1940s and sustained, albeit in modified form, for the next three decades was to give way by the end of this period to a new radicalism of the political right.

The development of this ‘new right’ philosophy saw voluntary organisations and the independent sector beginning to be represented as integral to welfare provision rather than as complementary to it. The Friedmanite monetarist philosophy of the new right saw public spending as a millstone around the neck of wealth creation which should be reduced to minimal levels. The growing demands on welfare services, exacerbated to a significant extent both by an increasing elderly population and by high levels of inflation, were understood to pose a threat to economic growth. The encouragement of self-help, voluntary and commercial provision was seen as the means of maintaining welfare without increasing the burden on the state. Such an economic philosophy did not stand in isolation. It was part of an overall philosophical approach which viewed the role of the centralised state as negative but which was also reluctant to delegate significantly to local government, much of which was seen as having quite a different agenda. The 1980s saw the promotion of individual freedom and responsibility. This implied a minimal state with a role confined to regulatory functions.

Concern with expenditure levels at this time became focused at the level of local government. There was considerable ideological disagreement between central and local government, the result of which was the elevation of local government to the arena of ‘high’, i.e. national, politics (Lowe, 1994). The impact on welfare services was that now local authorities were being forced by financial and legislative constraints to accept a role as providers solely of basic services, focused on areas for which they had statutory responsibility. Experimentation and innovation became luxuries for many local authorities. Instead, the pioneering qualities of voluntary organisations and entrepreneurial spirit of the independent sector was increasingly recognised as ways of enabling and developing services beyond the mainstream. This was in keeping with the new right principle that individuals should become less reliant on the state in general and take more responsibility for their own welfare provision. Hence, whilst provision by the state was still significant, the informal sector was important in a continuing focus on individual ‘self-help’. The Conservative Manifesto of 1979 was to urge that:

We must do more to help people to help themselves to look after their own. We must also encourage the voluntary movement and self-help groups working in partnership with statutory services (quoted in Brenton, 1985, p. 25).

Self help was seen to be an integral element of citizenship. Home Office Minister Patten in 1988 described his concept of the ‘active citizen’ as ‘someone making more than a solely economic contribution to his or her community’ (quoted in Holman, 1988). In analysing the content of Patten’s argument, Holman suggests that the ‘active citizen’ was being presented as one who becomes increasingly involved in voluntary activity as her or his affluence and leisure time increases. Holman points out that one’s contribution in the community is never ‘solely economic’ and that a mass of ‘active citizenship’ exists already, traditionally in very poor areas. However, he concluded that poverty limits active citizenship and that ‘government action to redistribute goods and powers more fairly throughout society is the prerequisite for all citizens to participate in voluntary movements’ (Holman, 1988, p. 17). Government though, did not share these views.

The Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s held to the assertion of their 1979 Manifesto that ‘in the community, we must do more to help people to help themselves and the family to look after their own. We must also encourage the voluntary movement and self help groups acting in partnership with the statutory services’ (Conservative Party Manifesto quoted in Brenton, 1985, p. 51). This was entirely consistent with a ‘help yourself’ attitude to finding your own work, starting your own business, taking out your own pension, and insuring your own health. It ran parallel to talk of the ‘Nanny State’ and derision of public services which changed the public’s perception of state provision. Conservative Ministers continued to make their support for this position clear. By the late 1980s statutory organizations were no longer primary providers, simply complemented by voluntary activity. They had been persuaded, or in some cases coerced, into encouraging the development of voluntary and independent organizations. Latterly they were seen as playing a tertiary role, alongside the voluntary and commercial sectors, of supporting ‘self-help’ and active citizenship.

Private service provision has existed for some time in welfare, for example, in nursing care. The extent of such provision, however, has previously been relatively small scale. The policies of Conservative governments from 1979 actively promoted an increase in this system of care. Throughout the 1980s there was considerable debate about the policy of privatising a wide range of public sector organisations and activities. However, the debate over private provision of welfare was less heated. Whilst suggesting that ‘welfare policies constitute a major divide between the political parties’, in a subsequent analysis of the respective party manifestos of 1987, Papadakis and Taylor-Gooby concluded that:

Conflicts over welfare denationalisation have become less marked than those over the privatisation of state-owned industries. The place of private services in welfare is not seriously challenged by any of the main parties (Papadakis and Taylor-Gooby, 1987, p. 14).

In attacking dependence on state welfare provision, the Conservative government generated policies which created an atmosphere both nationally and locally which supported a transfer of resources and responsibilities. They introduced the most radical set of legislative changes since the 1940s and perhaps at any time this century. These were based on a view of local government as negative; ‘usually based on its attitude towards a small handful of Labour authorities’ (Gutch and Young, 1988, p. 10). This led to a further diminution of the state’s role in providing services directly and to services being provided increasingly by private, voluntary and informal sources. Thus, we can see that during this time there was a developmental trend away from state provision, an increasing reliance on the role of the individual and of self-help, and the development of a stronger independent, commercial sector within welfare. This trend signified a revised view of the role of local authorities in providing welfare services.

Changing Role of Local Government

As noted above, from 1979 significant changes to policy and finances for and within local government were introduced, together with an increasing emphasis on the use of voluntary and commercial organisations in welfare provision. The consequences for local government of national policies could be summarised as: imposing strict limits on spending, changing their systems of accountability and changing their roles and responsibilities. In the 1980s and early 1990s reductions in the rate support grant, financial penalties and rate capping all had a significant effect on the way local authorities were able and allowed to operate (Butcher, 1995). The introduction of the poll tax, later to become the council tax, incurred costs for local authorities, reduced income from industry in areas already encountering economic decline and led to a further control of spending and redu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Preface: Management and Social Work: Do They Mix?
• Introduction: Postmodernisation and Change in Social Work and Social Welfare
• Section One Local Perspectives
• Section Two International Perspectives