Br J Soc Work 2010 McLeod 772 88

‘A Friend and an Equal’: Do YoungPeople in Care Seek the Impossiblefrom their Social Workers?

Alison McLeod

Alison McLeod, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, University of Cumbria, has worked for overtwenty-five years in local authority social work as social worker, manager, trainer andconsultant. Initially, her practice was generic; latterly, she specialized in child-care social

work, fostering and adoption. She currently lectures in social work at the University ofCumbria and has published work on child-care social work and listening to children.

Correspondence to Alison McLeod, University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle CA12HH, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

Recent policy initiatives have begun to recognize something that has long been indi-

cated by research findings and by studies of young people’s views: that, for children

in local authority care, having a positive and sustained personal relationship with

their social worker promotes their well-being. This article presents findings from a

research study in which the views of young people in care were elicited on the role of

the social worker. Their response, that a good social worker is like a ‘friend’ and an

‘equal’, appears to challenge notions of the professional social work role. However,

attention to the detail of what the young people meant by these terms demonstrates

that, in fact, they are compatible with social work values and best practice. It is

argued that, in order to accord with these young people’s wishes and with research find-

ings on what promotes best outcomes for looked after young people, social workers

must be enabled to give more time to sustained direct work with children in care. Impli-

cations for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords: Social work with children and young people, looked after children, state as

parent, listening to children, direct work, child-care policy

Introduction

There’s too much corporate and not enough parenting (Young personquoted in Department for Education and Skills, 2007a, p. 12).

# The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.

British Journal of Social Work (2010) 40, 772–788doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn143Advance Access publication November 24, 2008

by guest on Novem

ber 27, 2013http://bjsw

.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/


There seems to be a consensus developing that positive and stable relation-ships with their social workers promote good outcomes for children andyoung people in the care system. Studies of the views of looked afteryoung people consistently highlight how much they value sustainedsupport from adults who champion their cause and make them feel theycare about them as individuals (Butler and Williamson, 1994; Munro,2001; National Children’s Bureau, 2006). Research demonstrates that chil-dren who experience such relationships do better than those who do not(Gilligan, 2000; Bell, 2002; Dearden, 2004; Bostock, 2004). Now, officialpolicy documents are beginning, even if equivocally at times, to arguethat a necessary aspect of effective corporate parenting is that socialworkers build and maintain positive relationships with the individual chil-dren in public care for whom they are responsible (HM Government,2005; Department for Education and Skills, 2007a, 2007b; General SocialCare Council, 2008). The exact nature of the relationship a social workershould have with a child in care, however, and its purpose remain contested.In a parallel development, listening to children and young people andtaking account of their views regarding service design and delivery havebecome increasingly accepted as hallmarks of good practice over the lastdecade (Shemmings, 1999; Children and Young People’s Unit, 2001;Kirby et al., 2003; HM Government, 2005). It therefore seems opportuneto consider how young people themselves say they would like their socialworkers to relate to them.In a piece of practitioner research I carried out into how effectively fieldsocial workers listen to young people in public care (McLeod, 2001), itwas amply demonstrated that the nature of the relationship that lookedafter children had with their social workers was important to them.However, my findings presented a challenge: the attributes of a goodsocial worker most frequently cited by these young people were that theywere like ‘a friend’ or ‘an equal’. In a world in which maintaining appropri-ate professional boundaries is stressed, in which a relaxed and informalapproach can be seen to be collusive, and in which social care staff fearthat any display of warmth or intimacy may be construed as exploitation,how can the front line representative of the child’s corporate parentalso be their friend? And how can a reflective worker, who is aware ofinequalities and sensitive to the risks of oppressive practice, deny the sig-nificance of differences in age, class, status, income, education, professionalpower and perhaps even physical size, and claim to be a young person’sequal?

In this article, I will attempt to unpack the notions of ‘friend’ and ‘equal’as they were understood by the young people I interviewed and show thatthey are not in fact incompatible with a professional role. I will draw outfrom this discussion the implications for policy and practice if socialworkers are indeed to listen to what these young people are saying and torelate in ways that are friendlier and more egalitarian.

‘A Friend and an Equal’ 773

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



The original study

My research investigated how effectively social workers listened to childrenlooked after in one local authority in the north of England. Time limitationsdid not permit examination of the important roles played in listening to chil-dren by other professional staff and by carers, though many of the study’s find-ings may have relevance for them, too. The research was conducted, first, by asurvey of all social workers allocated case responsibility for the 100 childrenlooked after in one geographical division of the local authority in question.All the social workers were qualified; most were based in children and familiesfieldwork teams, some in specialist teams (youth offending; children with dis-abilities). Seventy-five questionnaires were returned. The survey was fol-lowed up by in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview formatwith eleven young people and eleven social workers. In this article, I willfocus on the interview data from the young people. Though using youngpeople as interviewers might have given me a different perspective andenriched my data (Kellett, 2006), I chose to carry out the interviews myself.This meant that my interviews formed in effect a microcosm of the wholeproject—a social worker listening to children—and could be analysed as such.

Unlike some researchers (Leeson, 2007), as an employee researching prac-tice in the agency in which I worked, I had no difficulty accessing youngpeople to interview, though the fact that they were put forward by theirsocial workers, and that I was already known to some of them, may have influ-enced their responses and thus introduced some bias (Curtis et al., 2004). Theauthority at that time had no research ethics committee; permission to under-take the research was given by a senior manager. Consent to take part in theresearch was negotiated in advance by the social worker and I renegotiated itverbally with child and, where appropriate, carer (or, in two cases, parent)before the start of the interview. Interviews were tape-recorded providedpermission was given by the interviewee, and transcribed interviews wereanalysed qualitatively by post-coded theme. Young people were sent atoken by way of thanks after the interview (Alderson and Morrow, 2004).

The young people interviewed constituted 11 per cent of all looked afterchildren in the study area. They were aged between nine and eighteenyears; seven of the eleven were male; all were white British; they wereliving in the full range of placement types; all had been looked after for atleast six months and two for more than ten years. The sample was thussmall and cannot be seen as representative of looked after children in thisone authority, still less of the whole country. Nevertheless, commonthemes supported by other research emerged from much that they told me.The young people spoke with an eloquence born of often painful experience.I found their testimony compelling and worth taking seriously in its own right.

The interviews sought to elicit the children’s experiences of being in care;they were asked how they had been consulted and involved in planning and

774 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



also about the response they had got to any complaints or grievances. Byand large, their answers indicated that they did not feel their concernswere listened to or that they had adequately participated in decisionmaking. They had limited confidence in the available channels for redress.These findings are explored in more depth elsewhere (McLeod, 2006,2007). Questions about what makes a good social worker and about thenature of the relationship these looked after young people had with theirindividual social workers were not explicitly part of the plan for the inter-views, but data on these themes emerged in response to the other questions.

In the quotations from my data that follow, all names and other identify-ing information have been omitted.

Findings

The view of these young people about being looked after was that it wasnot, in the main, a happy experience, that the quality of care was ofteninadequate, and that they were marked out as different and as trouble-makers just because they were in public care. Their social worker wasseen as a key ally to help them survive in a hostile environment. Accordingto one eleven-year-old, the social worker’s task was ‘to make sure you’re allright when you are in foster care, to stop people bullying you, and to get youhome as soon as possible’.

Good social workers were seen as sorting things out, making a difference.Those young people who had the most negative view of social workers sawthem as never doing anything: ‘They just say “Oh yeah, we’ll do it”, andthen two years later they won’t have.’ Those who spoke highly of theirsocial workers, on the other hand, felt they had provided practical assistancewhen needed, as in the case of this seventeen-year-old living independently:

[If I had a problem I’d] go to me social worker and ask her. Well I went tosee her yesterday to get some food vouchers because when we came backhome the electric had gone and we had to put all our money in it.

There were those whose whole view of being in care was jaundiced: ‘Allthe trouble in my life has been caused by Social Services.’ However, eventhose with the most negative view of the system in general were able todescribe social workers who had helped them and to define what made agood one, and there were strong similarities in all the young people’sviews of the characteristics of a good social worker.

A friend

Repeatedly in the children’s testimony, the word ‘friend’ came up: a goodsocial worker is ‘like a friend’. This poses a dilemma for workers who


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



have a professional role to play that is quite distinct from friendship. Socialworkers have responsibilities as representatives of the corporate parent thatfriends do not have: tough truths may have to be confronted, boundariesimposed; the legislation itself says that the child’s welfare takes priorityover the child’s wishes (1989 Children Act, section 1). However, if weunpack the children’s understanding of what it is to be a friend, there arefeatures there that are entirely compatible with a professional view of thesocial work role.

First, being a ‘friend’ was seen to combine elements of sociability andemotional support:

[Good social workers] take time out to come and see [you] and take you outand talk to you really down to earth and when you’re in a bad mood theycheer you up and that, and if you’re upset they comfort you, you know—all the ordinary things that you’d tell a good friend from a bad friend.

It takes time to develop a relationship in which a child feels ready to confideand relaxed, non-threatening ‘friendly’ times assist in this process:

Most young people treat their social worker like a bit of dog muck, likesomething you’d walk in and wipe off your feet on the mat . . . . But it’s prob-ably because they’re in the social worker’s office, or a kids’ home, or ameeting or something like that. If they took them out, like to [a] cafe, orthey just walked round town or sat in the park it might relax the kidmore. Like, they’ve got to find out about the child . . . . Just get to knowthem, ask about their friends and what music they like and that, andmake sure you understand them so you know what questions to askwithout upsetting them.

Being a ‘friend’ meant treating the child as a person, according them respectas an individual: ‘The social workers never used to treat you like you were afriend, you were just someone who came with the job.’ A ‘friend’ is honest,even when honesty is uncomfortable: ‘[My dad]’s like a friend. Like whenyou’ve got a friend who tells you when you look horrible in a skirt or some-thing. He’s like that. He’s honest.’ Such straight talking requires trust, andtrust can be nurtured through reliability—another characteristic that wasmentioned repeatedly: a good social worker is reliable. Social workersshould visit regularly; they should arrive on time; they should deliver onpromises. Many of the young people complained about lack of reliability:‘She said she was going to [get me a passport], but she keeps forgetting.’Those who spoke most warmly about their social workers said they werereliable and available:

[Social worker] supports everything I want to do . . . . She’s always there.She’s brilliant.

A good social worker, like a good friend, listens:

Just sitting down with [the young person] and not filling them with questionsbut just letting them talk.

776 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



They are also prepared to share something of themselves:

Like whether they’re married, if they’ve got kids, whether they’ve been incare, when they were a child whether they had a hard time with theirmum and dad, what they watch, what music they like—just generalthings. Nothing that’s really really private.

This sharing is based on a belief in reciprocity, or fairness, which is closelyrelated to the other recurring theme: equality.

An equal

The second theme that arose repeatedly when the young people talkedabout a good social worker was that they treated you ‘like an equal’.When I asked if they had any advice for social workers, one youngwoman said: ‘Always remember that the young person’s your equal.’ Theadvice of one of the boys was: ‘Try to be their equal, not their master.’Again, we need to unpack what the young people are saying here, sincethe structural inequalities between worker and young service user are ines-capable and to deny them would be naive and potentially oppressive.

Some young people felt alienated by the social worker’s class and pre-ferred workers from a background closer to their own. One said shefound it easier to relate to her leaving care worker (a young womanformerly in the care system herself) than to her social worker because‘I think she knows what you’re going through’. It was not just a questionof comparable life experiences, however; it was more often a matter ofattitude when young people spoke of ‘equality’. The young people didnot want to be lectured: social workers should be ‘Treating children as anequal, not just telling them off’. They wanted respect: ‘I don’t like peoplethat look down their noses at me’. Above all, they did not want to bepatronized:

If they treat you like a kid you resent telling them something, so you don’tbother, but if you’re treat like an equal then you want to share things.

These young people were acutely aware of what they perceived as thepower of the social worker:

They are a big part of your life, social workers, because they’re the ones thatmake the decisions of your life. They help decide what you’re gonna be andwhere you’re gonna go.

One particularly thoughtful young woman put this in the context of widersocietal inequalities:

I think children are treated very much in this society, but particularly bySocial Services, as incapable, the same way mentally ill or elderly peopleare treated.


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



The young people believed their views deserved to be heard—’I thinkeveryone’s got a right to a say in their future!’—and that this applied what-ever their age:

The older you get, the more likely they are to take note of what you say.Though actually I think a five year old knows just as well what they wantas a fifteen year old.

It seems that when they talked about ‘equality’, they meant not so muchthat they wanted to be seen as the same as their social workers, but thatthey wanted to feel equally valued as a human being.

A good social worker was seen as someone who supported the youngperson’s autonomy. Some young people complained they had little or nosay in what happened to them: ‘It’s them [social workers] that has the finalyes or no, and that’s what bugs me.’ Others complained about specificissues, such as not being able to buy their own clothes or visit whom they chose:

I can look after myself. I know if someone’s abusing me. I’m fourteen andI feel strongly I’m old enough to understand the risks I’m taking and makemy own mind up . . . . It seems I have to ring up the Social to see if I can go tothe toilet!

Even the most disaffected, however, accepted the need for some limits:

It’s just being given freedom to do what you want, really. As long as youdon’t get stupid and start messing around then you’re all right.

It is clear that power is central to the young people’s wish to be treated as‘equals’: while fully aware of the power differential due to the socialworkers’ social status as well as their real or imagined authority, theyvalued any efforts made by individual workers to narrow the gap,whether by supporting the young person’s autonomy, by speaking inlanguage that was at their level, or simply by treating them with respect.

The ideal social worker

From this, we can gain a composite picture of the ideal social worker: he orshe is accessible, trustworthy and reliable; s/he is sociable and listens; s/heoffers effective practical and emotional support; perhaps most crucially,good social workers are fair, respect children as autonomous individualsand do not abuse their position of power. In the children’s terms, thisideal worker is ‘like a friend’ and ‘treats you as an equal’.

Interestingly enough, the young person who best summed up the generalview was the most disaffected of all the youngsters I interviewed—asixteen-year-old in residential care:

Just being there for you, helping you when you’re in trouble, talking withyou and trying to sort it out. Take you out . . . just to socialise with you,get to know you. Listening to what you’ve got to say.

778 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



He was deeply hostile towards his social worker—he told me she was‘pathetic’ and a ‘waste of space’—yet, one of his chief complaints wasthat she did not come to see him often enough! His anger at this workerseemed fuelled by his sense of betrayal that his previous social workerhad left. The loss appeared for him to be akin to a bereavement. Thisyoung man was not alone in valuing a sustained relationship with a socialworker and grieving one that was lost: most of the young people inter-viewed had had more than one social worker and several expressed acutedistress, even long after the event, at workers who had moved on and, asthey saw it, abandoned them:

My last [social worker] I had her for a lot of years and we were really greattogether and had a good laugh and that, but the new one I don’t hardly knowher.

The final attribute of the ideal social worker, then, was that he or she didnot leave.

Discussion

If we compare these findings with those of other studies of young serviceuser views, there are striking similarities, sustained over time and across set-tings. Scottish teenagers receiving social work services in the communitysaid they wanted their social workers to be available, reliable, respectfuland frank, to listen to them and to give practical help (Triseliotis et al.,1995). Young people in Wales and the Midlands expressed very similarviews (Butler and Williamson, 1994). Comparable results were also elicitedfrom a nationwide sample of 600 children and young people receiving socialwork services aged between four and twenty-one years. Typical commentswhen asked what they wanted from their social workers were: ‘Support,advice, a friend. Someone I can trust, someone who I know really caresabout me’ (Morgan, 2006, p. 28) or ‘Not stuck up—someone who gets onwith children’ (Morgan, 2006, p. 12). African and Afro-Caribbean youngpeople in the care system in London rated:

. . . effective interpersonal skills such as listening, reassuring (while beinghonest and realistic) and frequent contact, along with good practical skillsto offer support that was needed and help them solve their problems.Giving respect . . . (was) also high on the list (Shaw, 2006, p. 3).

These parallels suggest that even though my sample may not have beenrepresentative, the views elicited reflect views commonly held by youngpeople whose lives bring them into contact with the social work professionand thus may be seen as having validity beyond their immediate context.

It is interesting that, despite criticisms of individual staff, and a widespreadfeeling that few lived up to the ideal, there was an acceptance by all thelooked after young people I interviewed of the legitimacy and importance


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



of the field social worker’s role. There was a near universal complaint thatthey did not see enough of their social workers and that social workerschanged too often. These findings, too, are reflected throughout the litera-ture (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000; Voice for the Child in Care,2004). Morgan and Lindsay (2006, p. 11) quote one child who had had thir-teen social workers complaining they did not even always tell him they wereleaving: ‘They just go on holiday and don’t come back.’

The value of a sustained and supportive relationship is borne out byresearch that suggests that positive relationships between child and socialcare worker are linked to better long-term outcomes. Gilligan (1999,2000) argues persuasively that this is because having an adult mentor pro-motes resilience, the ability to survive adversity. There is further supportingevidence in Bostock (2004). Dearden (2004, p. 192) found that looked afterchildren progressed better at school where they reported consistent supportfrom a social worker or carer, since ‘adults who believed in them were acritical factor in developing their sense of optimism’. Theories of well-beingare also invoked to explain the importance of relationship. Jordan collectsevidence from across Europe about environments in which children flourishand concludes that all agencies that work with young people should paymore attention to the quality of the relationships children have with staffand less to administrative procedures:

Children’s well-being is closely linked to their relationships and emotions.This implies that services should not only focus more on these, but alsoenable staff to use relationships positively, rather than concentrating onbehavioural or organisational outcomes (Jordan, 2006, p. 48).

Other writers link the importance of relationship to attachment theory. Bell(2002) uses the concept of ‘secondary attachment’ to describe the child–social worker relationship: the social worker is not there as a substitutefor the parent but nevertheless reflects some aspects of a parental role intheir responsibilities for the child’s welfare. Bell distinguishes between a‘supportive/companiable’ relationship that promotes positive development(this parallels closely what my young people described as ‘friendship’ and‘equality’) and a ‘dominant/submissive’ one that represents the obverse.In her study of children involved in the child protection system, the needsof the children were more likely to be met and their situations toimprove where relationships with social worker and/or carer weredescribed as ‘supportive/companiable’. Attachment theory links thevalue of a long-term relationship to the child’s need for continuity and asecure base (Daniels et al., 1999; Schofield and Beek, 2006).

There are also practical reasons why a longer-term relationship is likely tobe more productive. It can take years for young unaccompanied asylumseekers to trust workers enough to speak to them at all (Kohli, 2006). Scho-field (2005) demonstrates that the same can be true of children in foster-care:understanding their wishes and feelings is a difficult and time-consuming

780 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



business, given that they may have limited or confused understanding of whathas happened to them, conflicting loyalties and mixed emotions. The samecan apply to young people in residential care (Ward, 2008). Helping childrencome to terms with troubled histories cannot be rushed, since:

. . . the issues that may be raised can be very sensitive and the times spenttogether can be intense (Romaine et al., 2007).

Social workers, like carers, thus need to have long-term relationships withlooked after children if they are to be able to respond to their needs, heartheir voices and make a difference in their lives. Brief interventions will, inmost cases, have only limited impact on long-term outcomes.

A growing literature on relationship-based social work argues with Mor-rison (2007, p. 249) that relationship is ‘at the heart of social work’ and thatemotional intelligence is the key to effective assessment, planning andintervention. A fieldwork setting may be ‘far from ideal’ if what a childneeds is intensive therapeutic help (Trevithick, 2003, p. 168); nevertheless,an empathic and holistic understanding of the child is a prerequisite foradvocacy, capacity building or promoting change. The social worker–child relationship is simultaneously the medium for engagement, thesource of information and the means for offering help (Ruch, 2005); it isthus the vehicle for the whole intervention. The GSCC’s recent statementon the social work role lists among the tasks of child-care social workers:enabling children to reach their potential; safeguarding and ensuring theirwell-being; working with them to overcome problems; helping to turnthem away from delinquency and self-harm; confronting them construc-tively with the consequences of their actions; helping them to changetheir behaviour; and helping them to enjoy their rights as active membersof the community (General Social Care Council, 2008, pp. 7–8). Theseare clearly skilled activities and it is hard to see how any of them can beachieved without sustained face-to-face contact. As Parton (2003, p. 3)observes, talk is ‘the key to making sense and taking control’. Nevertheless,the social workers I interviewed for my research, and those I currently teachon post-qualifying courses, complain vociferously that direct work with chil-dren and young people in care is a luxury they have no time for. Their con-cerns are echoed in the literature:

The worst thing about this job is that you don’t get enough time to spendwith children. The time is taken up with filling in forms, paper-work, andmeetings about things that sometimes seem a long way from directservice to children (Practitioner quoted in Blueprint Project, 2004, p. 2).

It is arguable that the pursuit of procedural rather than relationalapproaches to the social work task and the growth of paper work in prefer-ence to direct work have arisen as defence mechanisms:

. . . bureaucratic responses to the uncertainty, complexity, risk and anxietywhich are inherent in social work practice (Ruch, 2005, p. 113).


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



The ‘Blueprint Project’, facilitated jointly by the charity the NationalChildren’s Bureau and the service user group Voice for the Child inCare, argues eloquently for a reappraisal of the social work task withchildren in care and has a number of radical proposals. It suggests thatsocial pedagogy models used in other European countries should beexplored and the arts and outdoor activities harnessed to assist personalgrowth. More intensive therapeutic interventions should be available fortraumatized young people. Staff, according to Blueprint, should beenabled and encouraged to maintain links with children in care, evenafter moving to other jobs: ‘ . . . keeping in touch doesn’t have to be unpro-fessional’ (Blueprint Project, 2004, p. 46). We should not:

. . . discard important lessons about professional boundaries. But it mustalso be recognized that children and young people need warmth and affec-tion to flourish. . . . [social workers] cannot be the child’s friend but for chil-dren to benefit, professionals have to provide some of the qualities that afriendship provides (Blueprint Project, 2004, p. 46).

If there are not enough social workers to do the paper work and to workdirectly with the children, then unqualified staff should be employed todo the paper work, rather than the other way round.

Some of Blueprint’s proposals are controversial, but their view that‘Much greater emphasis should be given to allocating time to direct workwith children’ (Blueprint Project, 2004, p. 48) is echoed by others.Romaine et al. (2007) are concerned about the risks of delegating life-storywork to those who may lack the necessary training to carry it out sensitively.Searing (2003, p. 314) feels professional skills, including that of ‘gettingclose enough to see what is hidden’, are being lost to proceduralism.Munro observes that while the young people in her research highlyprized continuity of relationship with their social workers, the stress ontargets, performance indicators and paper work in government policy hadled to a devaluing of casework skills and neglect of direct work withchildren. She comments:

On this issue the children in this study may have shown a better understand-ing of what is in their best interests than current policy-makers (Munro,2001, p. 136).

So what is the attitude of policy makers to child-care social work? Has itchanged since Munro wrote these words in 2001?

Child-care policy: a new dawn?

It is certainly true that there have been some indications of a shift in think-ing. New Labour, since it came into office, has tirelessly promoted targetand procedure-driven rather than relational approaches to social work(Parton, 2003), and the vision of the child-care social worker’s role set

782 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



out at the time of the 2004 Children Act (Department for Education andSkills, 2004) made no reference to either direct work or relationshipswith children. It focused instead on assessment, risk management and inter-agency working. However, more recent documents appear to signal a shiftin attitudes. The Common Core (HM Government, 2005) stressed the valueof communication skills and continuity of relationship. The White PaperCare Matters: Time for Change (Department for Education and Skills,2007b) took this a stage further, acknowledging that young peoplewanted social workers to have more time for them, and saying recruitmentand retention of social workers must be improved to enable this to happen.Independent practices of social workers out-with the local authority wereproposed as a means to reducing staff turnover. The following year, Build-ing Brighter Futures (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008)announced a significant investment in improving recruitment and trainingfor child-care social workers, describing their role as providing a ‘highlypersonalized service’ to children and families. Do these proposals amountto a sea-change in government attitudes? This is debatable.

Not all observers are convinced of the government’s commitment tohearing children’s voices: Kelley (2006) demonstrates that when the gov-ernment, in one of its own consultation exercises, discovered that childreninconveniently objected to a key feature of their Every Child Matters pro-gramme (Department for Education and Skills, 2003)—information-sharing via a national database—it simply ignored their views. The proposalto set up independent social work practices is central to the government’sreforms; however, it is by no means universally accepted that they willhave the desired effect. According to the government’s own consultationdocument (Department for Education and Skills, 2007b), young peopleasked about the idea were initially confused and then sceptical. Professionalbodies were split on the usefulness of the proposal.

Care Matters: Time for Change does state that practitioners must have ‘astrong understanding of . . . core practices such as life story work’ (Depart-ment for Education and Skills, 2007b, p. 18); however, there is an ambiguityhere: it does not state that the social workers will be directly working withthe children themselves to help them make sense of their experiences, onlythat they will understand how to do so. The document acknowledges thatyoung people want to see more of their social workers and asserts that:

More needs to be done . . . to ensure that [social workers] are adequatelytrained in assessment and planning . . . and that children’s care plans arereviewed effectively (Department for Education and Skills, 2007b,pp. 125–6).

The third, arguably central, element of the APIR cycle (Parker andBradley, 2007)—intervention—is conspicuous by its absence. This lendsweight to the fear that the social worker is not seen as someone who


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



works directly with the child but who rather delegates all actual interven-tion to someone else.

Conclusion

The notions of ‘friendship’ and ‘equality’ that emerged from the testimonyof the young people interviewed for this research can be linked to corevalues underlying social work practice that can be summarized as respectand empowerment (General Social Care Council, 2008), or, in another for-mulation, as commitment to human dignity and social justice (BritishAssociation of Social Workers, 2002). These values have implications forthe skills child-care social workers require to practise effectively. Morrisand Shepherd (2000) have argued cogently that the most crucial of theseskills are empathy and partnership and it is interesting to note thegrowing research base indicating that the practical application ofempathy and partnership can be demonstrably linked to better outcomesfor children and their families (Thoburn and Shemmings, 1995; Forresteret al., 2008). There are implications, too, for the underpinning knowledgebase required by staff. The Common Core (HM Government, 2005) listsa knowledge of child development as essential for effective practice inthe child-care field, and, while there are those who would question itsvalue (Taylor, 2004), Schofield (2005) makes a convincing case for itsimportance when trying to build an empathic working relationship, andhence a ‘friendship’, with a child who may be traumatized and have goodreason to distrust adults. Knowledge of the sociology of childhood is alsorelevant to the concept of ‘equality’: Winter (2006) makes a good case forthe adoption of a sociologically based model of the child as an autonomousagent if we are to hear children’s voices, work in partnership, and empowerthem.

The concept of the social worker as a ‘friend’ and an ‘equal’ to a child inthe care system, far from being a professional impossibility, can thus be seento be consistent with social work values, evidence-based practice and child-care theory. It does, however, require a service that is intensive in terms ofdirect, face-to-face work and therefore requires an increase in staffing fromcurrent levels. To achieve the continuity that young people seek, policiesmust be pursued that will promote stability and retention in the workforce.It will also be necessary to rethink the attitude that sees the social worker’srole as that of arm’s-length assessor and ‘care manager’, and leaves alldirect work to others. While, in some situations, therapeutic work maybest be delegated to a specialist, there are many aspects of the field socialworker’s role where skills in relationship and in direct interventions arecrucial. The challenge to the government is whether their professed com-mitment to listening to children’s views extends as far as funding thismore intensive service. While there is room for doubt concerning the real

784 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



depth of the government’s commitment to the listening to children agendathey profess to champion, the changes proposed in Care Matters: Time forChange may present our best chance yet of meeting young people’s wishesregarding social work service delivery. It pledges a qualified social workerallocated to every looked after child who will take account of children’swishes and feelings and involve them in decisions. It acknowledges theneed to tackle recruitment and retention of social workers so that theycan spend more time with young people. These are moves in the rightdirection.

Social work can make a positive difference to the lives of children in care:

The voices of young people confirm that [social workers] retain an enor-mously important role in rebuilding the child’s sense of worth and ofhaving a valued place in the world . . . . When [social workers] do get itright their impact can be healing and highly treasured by the youngperson concerned (National Children’s Bureau, 2006, p. 10).

More intensive and higher-quality services come at a price, however. Willwe see change, or will financial and procedural pressures mean that therecontinues to be, as the young person quoted at the start of this articlesaid, ‘too much corporate and not enough parenting’?

Accepted: October 2008

Acknowledgement

The research referred to in this article was carried out for my Ph.D. thesis.My employer at the time provided a bursary towards the cost of the fees.Since my employer was also the local authority responsible for the careof the young people I interviewed, I will not name it, in the interests of pro-tecting the young people’s confidentiality.

References

Alderson, P. and Morrow, V. (2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children

and Young People, Barkingside, Barnardo’s.

Bell, M. (2002) ‘Promoting children’s rights through the use of relationship’, Child and

Family Social Work, 7(1), pp. 1–11.

Blueprint Project (2004) Start with the Child, Stay with the Child: A Blueprint for a Child-

Centred Approach to Children and Young People in Public Care, London, NCB/

VCC.

Bostock, L. (2004) Promoting Resilience in Fostered Children and Young People,

London, Social Care Institute for Excellence.

British Association of Social Workers (2002) Code of Ethics, Birmingham, BASW.

Butler, I. and Williamson, H. (1994) Children Speak: Children, Trauma and Social Work,

Harlow, Longman.


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



Children and Young People’s Unit (2001) Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Invol-

vement of Children and Young People, London, Department for Education and Skills.

Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Copperman, J., Downie, A. and Liabo, K. (2004) ‘“How come I

don’t get asked no questions?” Researching “hard to reach” children and teenagers’,

Child and Family Social Work, 9(2), pp. 167–75.

Daniels, B., Wassell, S. and Gilligan, R. (1999) Child Development for Child Care and

Protection Workers, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Dearden, J. (2004) ‘Resilience: A study of risk and protective factors from the perspec-

tive of young people with experience of Local Authority care’, Support for Learning,

19(4), pp. 187–93.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Building Brighter Futures: Next

Steps for the Children’s Workforce, London, DCSF.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Every Child Matters, London, TSO.

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in

Social Care, London, TSO.

Department for Education and Skills (2007a) Care Matters: Consultation Responses,

London, DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (2007b) Care Matters: Time for Change, London,

TSO.

Forrester, D., Kershaw, S., Moss, H. and Hughes, L. (2008) ‘Communication skills in

child protection: How do social workers talk to parents?’, Child and Family Social

Work, 13(1), pp. 41–51.

General Social Care Council (2008) Social Work at its Best: A Statement of Social Work

Roles and Tasks for the 21st Century, London, GSCC.

Gilligan, R. (1999) ‘Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by

mentoring their talents and interests’, Child and Family Social Work, 4, pp. 187–96.

Gilligan, R. (2000) ‘The key role of social workers in promoting the well-being of chil-

dren in state care: A neglected dimension of reforming policies’, Child and Family

Social Work, 14, pp. 267–76.

HM Government (2005) Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Work-

force, London, DfES.

Jordan, B. (2006) ‘Well-being: The next revolution in children’s services?’, Journal of

Children’s Services, 1(1), pp. 41–50.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2000) Barriers to Change in the Social Care of Children,

York, JRF.

Kellett, M. (2006) ‘Children as researchers: Exploring the impact on education and

empowerment’, Childright, 226, pp. 11–13.

Kelley, N. (2006) ‘Children’s involvement in policy formation’, Children’s Geographies,

4(1), pp. 37–44.

Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K. and Sinclair, R. (2003) Building a Culture of Partici-

pation: Involving Children and Young People in Policy, Service Planning, Delivery

and Evaluation: Handbook, London, DfES.

Kohli, R. (2006) ‘The sound of silence: Listening to what unaccompanied asylum-seeking

children say and do not say’, British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), pp. 707–22.

Leeson, C. (2007) ‘My life in care: Experiences of non-involvement in decision-making

processes’, Child and Family Social Work, 12(3), pp. 268–77.

McLeod, A. (2001) ‘Listening but not hearing: Barriers to effective communication

between children in public care and their social workers’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis,

University of Lancaster.

786 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



McLeod, A. (2006) ‘Respect or empowerment? Alternative understandings of “listen-

ing” in childcare social work’, Adoption and Fostering, 30(4), pp. 43–52.

McLeod, A. (2007) ‘Whose agenda? Issues of power and relationship when listening to

looked after young people’, Child and Family Social Work, 12(3), pp. 278–86.

Morgan, R. (2006) About Social Workers: A Children’s Views Report, Newcastle, CSCI.

Morgan, R. and Lindsay, M. (2006) Young People’s Views on Leaving Care: What Young

People in, and Formerly in, Residential and Foster Care Think About Leaving Care,

London, CSCI.

Morris, K. and Shepherd, C. (2000) ‘Quality social work with children and families’,

Child and Family Social Work, 5, pp. 169–76.

Morrison, T. (2007) ‘Emotional intelligence, emotion and social work: Context, charac-

teristics, complications and contribution’, British Journal of Social Work, 37(2), pp.

245–64.

Munro, E. (2001) ‘Empowering looked after children’, Child and Family Social Work,

6(2), pp. 129–37.

National Children’s Bureau (2006) The Views of Children and Young People with Experi-

ence of the Care System Concerning Social Workers, Residential and Foster Care Staff:

A Literature Review. Unpublished paper prepared for the Children’s Workforce

Development Council.

Parker, J. and Bradley, G. (2007) Social Work Practice: Assessment, Planning, Interven-

tion and Review, Exeter, Learning Matters.

Parton, N. (2003) ‘Rethinking professional practice: The contributions of social construc-

tionism and the feminist ethics of care’, British Journal of Social Work, 33(1), pp. 1–16.

Romaine, M., Turley, T. and Tuckey, N. (2007) Preparing Children for Permanence: A

Guide to Undertaking Direct Work for Social Workers, Foster Carers and Adoptive

Parents, London, BAAF.

Ruch, G. (2005) ‘Relationship-based practice and reflective practice: Holistic approaches

to child-care social work’, Child and Family Social Work, 10(2), pp. 111–23.

Schofield, G. (2005) ‘The voice of the child in family placement decision-making: A

developmental model’, Adoption and Fostering, 29(1), pp. 29–44.

Schofield, G. and Beek, M. (2006) Attachment Handbook for Foster Care and Adoption,

London, BAAF.

Searing, H. (2003) ‘The continuing relevance of case-work ideas to long-term child

protection work’, Child and Family Social Work, 8(4), pp. 311–20.

Shaw, J. (2006) Findings from Consultations with Young People on the ‘Children’s

Workforce Development Council Options for Excellence Review’, London, CWDC.

Shemmings, D. (ed.) (1999) Involving Children in Family Support and Child Protection,

London, TSO.

Taylor, C. (2004) ‘Underpinning knowledge for child-care practice: Reconsidering child

development theory’, Child and Family Social Work, 9, pp. 225–35.

Thoburn, J. and Shemmings, D. (1995) Paternalism or Partnership? Family Involvement

in Child Protection, London, HMSO.

Trevithick, P. (2003) ‘Effective relationship-based practice: A theoretical exploration’,

Journal of Social Work Practice, 17(2), pp. 163–76.

Triseliotis, J., Borland, M., Hill, M. and Lambert, L. (1995) Teenagers and the Social

Work Services, London, HMSO.

Voice for the Child in Care (2004) The Care Experience: Where We Live and When We

Leave: A Review of Literature and Research on Placements in Care and the Leaving

Care Process, London, NCB/VCC.


by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



Ward, A. (2008) ‘Real-time communication in residential care’, in Luckock, B.

and Lefevre, M. (eds), Direct Work: Social Work with Children and Young People

in Care, London, BAAF, pp. 234–43.

Winter, K. (2006) ‘Widening our knowledge concerning young looked after children: The

case for research using sociological models of childhood’, Child and Family Social

Work, 11(1), pp. 55–64.

788 Alison McLeod

by guest on Novem



ownloaded from



Documents

Br J Soc Work 2010 McLeod 772 88