the public service merry go round
more reasons to hate public sector commissioning, thanks again Thatcher
I am writing to update on the situation with the London-based woman and the energy debt. Since we raised a “safeguarding” (ie, emailed the local authority to basically say, if anything happens to her, this email holds you culpable), there has been quite a lot of movement.
I have been surprised by the response but then I have been told that I am very cynical.1 She is being visited consistently by a social worker for the first time, since she moved in over a year ago. A group of people are supporting her to be on top of her bills, and most importantly, we are together, sorting her Netflix password (she is always on the move.)
Something is new though. The social worker is a “locum”. It seems that under Osbornian2 public services, one doesn’t really have “a” social worker anymore. One has a “locum”, which I believe means, that they kind of float around in the “background”, and step in when things go wrong, or when you ask. So you better be good at asking for support I guess! I am told that people who have slept on the streets are often very good at that.
No shade to this worker, they are fantastic, and probably horribly stretched. I remain unconvinced by this development to social work, as I thought the idea behind social work was that you bond and connect with people and find solutions to society’s ills, but as I’ve written before, you find things easier in public services, when you stop asking questions.
Of course there is a phrase still being flung around about this person. Her “lack of engagement”; which apparently is, in part, to blame for her situation. And yet, I don’t see the London authority who claims to take care of her, owning up to their failures to engage with her.
Engagement
My colleague at Groundswell, Mahesh commented on (“my attempt at banter"), in my last post regarding the term “client”;
“Vis-a-vis public services/ public assistance:
“Use of Client, Customer, Guest - there is certain yucky awfulness...as if a Subpar level of a human, dressed up / dolled up to be spoken of, sans risk, in polite company. Personally speaking, I equate it to social defenestration
“I have seen too many times, the way the "haves" react towards the "have-nots".”
Plenty of words in the public service system are icky. “Engagement” is another. It speaks to responsibility, which in general I think is a worthy attribute; yet it does it in all the wrong ways.
The person discriminated against by systems, is always the one upon whom the onus to “engage” is placed. See the above “service discharge” text, a common occurrence in public services driven by old school, numbers-driven commissioning.3
But what if this perceived failure to “engage”, is not the CLIENT’S fault? What if the service is actually quite shit; what if the person never asked for it, and so doesn’t wish to “engage”.
Well then apparently, it’s your fault if your mental health tumbles further; you should have listened to your GP love! and/or taken that benzo! (No stigma intended, some of my favourite people take benzos, which can help them feel better. I’m just not convinced that they are for everyone).
new public “management” systems
Services are rarely systematically blamed for failing to “engage” their “clients”. Sometimes a mean-spirited manager, might blame a worker for not working hard enough - but it is rarely a case of returning to your commissioner at the end of the financial year and saying, “well the fact you only fund us year-on-year, with all these arbitrary targets, is a terrible way to run public services, the service we run has been pretty shit this year as we are learning what works for the community we serve - fund us for another year and we propose we make it a bit less shit. For example offer 12 week support to people rather than 6 weeks, as really what can be done in 6?”
When services do report engagement rates to commissioners (a practice I have seen first hand, so I must be right), they always have plenty of excuses for low engagement, or high rates of drop-outs (nb: if they’re not skewing the stats to hide the truth). The excuses are funnily enough, often about the people they deliver services to.
ie, “our client group (ew) tend to be complex cases” (ewww)
well this client suffers “severe and multiple disadvantage” and has “complex needs”.
I’ve seen this practice delivered, often, by white, largely middle class project managers. And no guesses for the race and the class position of the people they are referring to.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m not sure talking about “engagement” helps. Particularly when you consider the power dynamics in systems. It seems to be another opportunity to stigmatise the very people who need decent public services the most.
My friend, who received the above text said it herself;
“I have never asked for this service, I didn’t ask for befriending, or group therapy. I didn’t ask for 6 weeks of chatting to a “peer” worker online, who was a white 20 something man who lectured me for having an empty chocolate wrapper in my hand, stating that “I wouldn’t improve my mental health if I kept consuming sugar”. I asked for proper tailored psychological support. But because I can’t afford to pay for it myself, it seems I am being demanding and entitled.”
Guess her race, gender and class! I’m beginning to see a pattern…
So it is interesting how the system can create “locum” roles that can dip in and out (not necessarily a bad thing I suppose), but the person being supported can rarely do the same. Miss a (tax-payer funded) appointment at your peril, even if you never asked for it.
Although where is it they say dreams go to die; charities that claim to “tackle oppressions like racism” perhaps? Having witnessed institutional racism at this former particular place of work, I am convinced that I am not cynical enough. (Not meant in a derogatory way).
tldr: thrifty and shit
Thanks again, Thatcher! Idiot.