It became increasingly evident as interviews with students progressed that the relationship with the practice teacher was the most important factor in determining a student's general experiences on placement, and also their ability to address issues of ‘race’ and anti-racist social work practice. As noted earlier, Paper 26.3 of the Rules and Regulations for the Diploma in Social Work charged practice teachers with a significant responsibility in facilitating anti-oppressive social work practice, of theorising anti-racist practice, and of keeping up with theoretical debates and developments in this area.

Practice teachers have a great deal of influence in structuring the placement experiences of students and their learning opportunities, and ultimately they are responsible for assessing whether students pass or fail their placements. As such, they have a great deal of power in determining to what extent issues of anti-racist practice reach the placement agenda. The practice teachers interviewed as part of this research project had little knowledge or awareness about ‘race’ and the implementation of anti-racist practice, and many of them exhibited varying degrees of anxiousness and defensiveness when the issues were raised. Many students differentiated between what they called ‘traditional’ (or conservative) and ‘radical’ practice teachers (see the discussion in Chapter Two). They felt that the more ‘radical’ social workers and practice teachers were ‘open’ to anti-racist social work practice and more concerned about other forms of discrimination in social work departments. Conversely, conservative practice teachers tended to be more hostile and defensive, not just about ‘race’, but about a diverse set of oppressions and systemic disadvantages.

The ability of students to share fears, anxieties, difficulties and areas of vulnerability was of vital importance in determining their ability to discuss anti-racist social work theories and practice while on placement. Dealing with racism was dependent on their practice teacher's knowledge, awareness and commitment to issues of ‘race’ and anti-racist practice, but even those practice teachers who lacked such knowledge could still be supportive by demonstrating a willingness to be receptive to, and take seriously, confrontations with racism. When practice teachers demonstrate such attributes, students can feel comfortable about the issues despite negative agency cultures and the sometimes hostile attitudes of other staff.

Social work, as we have noted, is a contradictory practice, and there are a number of perspectives (within the academy and the profession at large) over its appropriate roles, functions and activities. Yet by the late 1980s CCETSW had established a number of clear rules and regulations over the training content and programmes of the new Diploma in Social Work. Central to these developments was the requirement for students to be taught and to be able to facilitate anti-oppressive practice, accompanied by the claim that racism was endemic in British society. As we have noted, this was an important and radical development and it is worth establishing where these ideas developed and why.

A first point to consider is why the anti-racist commitment should have been incorporated within social work education and training at a time when the political climate in Britain was generally hostile to such concerns. This was a period when the Thatcherite project was apparently in full swing (Hall and Jacques, 1983; Gamble, 1988). According to Gamble (1988), part of the Thatcherite political agenda was to establish a new hegemony around a commitment to a free economy and a strong state, and for Hall (1985), central to obtaining such hegemony was the development of an authoritarian populist ideology, within which were implicit references to the ‘traditional values’ of family, nationhood and ‘race’. Thatcherism clearly represented a new political formation, drawing on the tradition of “organic, patriotic Toryism” combined with “a virulent brand of neo-liberal economics and an aggressive religion of the market” (Hall, 1985, p 16), and was a relatively successful attempt to move mainstream political thinking in this direction, shaping a new party political consensus which would seem to be continuing, with some minor countervailing trends, under the present New Labour government (Ludlam and Smith, 1996; Lavalette and Mooney, 1999).

But while ‘Thatcherism’ may have altered significantly the dominant politics of the main parties in Britain, and sociological and academic discourse over the development of British society in the 1980s, it was never the case that these ideas and values were unproblematically accepted in toto by the majority of the population. First, the rhetoric of Thatcherism masked the reality, which often represented a much less dramatic break with economic and social policy than the claims would lead us to believe (Johnson, 1990; Wilson, 1992).

As the last three chapters have emphasised, CCETSW's initiative came up against significant barriers within the social work profession: antidiscriminatory policy was not fully implemented or supported in any real sense; dominant agency practices and norms operated in a range of institutionally racist ways; there was a lack of adequate service provision for the black community and under-representation of black staff; practice teachers were generally unwilling or unable to implement anti-racist practice; there was a professional culture within which students raising anti-racist concerns – and black students in particular – were dismissed or even racially abused. In the early years of its operation, CCETSW's policy faced significant internal hurdles. But the anti-racist initiative also came under increasing scrutiny and met hostility from a range of groups outside of the academy and CCETSW's core policy group. Opposition came from the media, government (both national and local) and from inside the profession itself. The anti-racist initiative was increasingly dismissed as a Left-wing, politically correct dogma with no place in social work education, training and practice. By 1992/93 there was an all out backlash against CCETSW and Paper 30. This chapter deals with these events.

As social work education and training attempted to address the issue of structural and institutional oppression in society, it found itself at the forefront of a political debate about the nature of Britain, racism, social welfare and ‘political correctness’ (PC). In 1992, Virginia Bottomley, the then Health Minister, took CCETSW to task for too great an emphasis on anti-discrimination in qualifying training, and this set the tone for a series of attacks on CCETSW. Things came to a head in August 1993 when several articles attacking CCETSW appeared in the national press. As Jones (1993) states:

These articles led to intervention by both politicians and social work practitioners. There were mixed responses in the letters page of The Observer (8 August 1993) to the debate.

This book has focused on the development of CCETSW's anti-racist initiatives, as outlined in the Rules and requirements for the Diploma in Social Work (Paper 30) (1989). The aim has been to explore how CCETSW's anti-racist initiative came about, how it fared in practice, what reaction it generated, and what political response it produced. In doing so, it has been possible to offer an assessment of the successes and limitations inherent in ‘progressive’ top-down policy developments. This is important for, as Solomos and Back (1996) stated:

Paper 30 was a top-down policy initiative that attempted to deal with the manifestation of racism in social work agencies by imposing legitimate modes of practice onto social work students and practitioners. It did this by regulating training and assuming this would filter through to practice. One of the major concerns of the report has been to look at the successes and failures of this policy, and the barriers that prevented its constructive implementation and operationalisation. In doing so, it became evident that while anti-racist initiatives are clearly relevant to social work education and training in a society structured by inequality, policy initiatives by themselves do not necessarily invoke change in institutions such as social work agencies. It also became apparent that such policies are always vulnerable to counter-policies from political opponents hostile to anti-racist perspectives. By themselves then, topdown policy initiatives are relatively limited in the extent to which they alone can develop anti-racist practice within welfare agencies which themselves operate in ways that reflect and embody institutional racism.

An analysis of CCETSW's anti-racist initiative and the commitment to, and ability of, social workers to address racism and implement antiracist social work practice also needs to be undertaken in the context of historical ‘race-related’ political developments. An analysis of such developments reveals that social work education, training and practice has tended to be dominated by individualistic and cultural theories of racism which do not focus on structural and institutional racism.

CCETSW's Paper 30 was a brave and remarkable attempt to move beyond assimilationist and multicultural perspectives to challenge institutional racism within social work education, training and practice. However, its anti-racist initiative received a mixed response among practitioners who, as a group of professionals, do not share the same perspective regarding the role of social work in society. As Robert Pinker, an opponent of Paper 30, states:

In a sense, Pinker was right. Social work has always consisted of competing perspectives over, for example, its place within the welfare establishment, its attitude towards family values or the relative merits of its ‘caring’ and ‘controlling’ aspects. For ease of understanding, we can identify three broad perspectives concerning social work's role and function in society: ‘conservative’, ‘social democratic’ and ‘radical’. Each of these offers a different analysis of the role of social work and its relationship with its mainly poor and disadvantaged client groups, and hence, I will suggest they were always likely to respond differently to various anti-discriminatory initiatives. In order to understand social work's response to CCETSW's anti-racist developments, it is necessary to analyse historically how the differing social work perspectives emerged, and their underlying assumptions.

The origins of social work

Social work developed in the context of both industrialisation and urbanisation. Industrialisation created new demands for labour and redefined the categories of people who could be seen as suitable workers, marginalising those who were not part of the labour market. It also produced problems of low-waged employment, and seasonal and cyclical unemployment, which gave rise to increasing poverty, and the expansion of cities and towns which led to problems of housing, ill health and unsanitary living conditions (Clarke, 1993). This produced an element of fear among the middle classes, who believed that such developments would give rise to disorder and disruption, especially as the capacity of the traditional charitable institutions to respond to need was diminished (Mooney, 1998). The reforms that emanated from these concerns were devoted to reinforcing an appropriate system of social values centering on thrift, sobriety, self-discipline and family life.

In 1990 and 1991, at the time that CCETSW was introducing Paper 30, a research project was set up at the University of Central Lancashire to investigate its implementation. The research was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with black and white students from the first two cohort years of the Diploma in Social Work, and with their respective practice teachers. Each student was interviewed three times while they were on placement, in order to ascertain if, over a period of two years, the developments were having an impact on education, training and practice within agencies.

As we have noted, the rules and regulations for the Diploma in Social Work required practice teachers and the institutions in which they were located to enable students (both black and white) to effectively carry out anti-racist practice. The process of implementing the research immediately confirmed the nature of institutional racism in social work agencies, identified as the systematic outcome of institutional systems and routine practices which, in effect, discriminate against members of ethnic minority populations (Williams, 1985; Husband, 1991). As Husband has noted, this can lead:

The research revealed three institutional indicators as being instrumental in reinforcing and reproducing racism in social work agencies: the representation of black clients within agencies, the representation of black staff, and the effectiveness of anti-discriminatory policies.

Black client representation

Social work clients have historically, tended to come from the most disadvantaged and socially deprived areas (Barclay Report, 1982; Clarke, 1993; Jones, 1998). This research was carried out in Lancashire, a county faced with disproportionate levels of poverty, poor housing, poor health and education, particularly among its black community (Lancashire County Council Planning Department, 1986; Blackburn Borough Council, 1996), which would indicate a real need for assistance from the personal social services.

The previous two chapters have revealed the extent to which students were dependent on the support of their practice teachers while on placement, particularly in relation to developing and implementing CCETSW's anti-racist requirements. The evidence, however, revealed that only a minority of students felt that their practice teachers were receptive and sympathetic to anti-racist developments. Most others were not confident that practice teachers had the knowledge, awareness or understanding to facilitate anti-oppressive practice, and in some cases felt they were overtly hostile to the issues. As well as interviewing students, the research project involved interviews with each student's practice teacher once during the placement process. The purpose of these interviews was to explore if they were aware of CCETSW's antiracist programme, if agencies were able to facilitate anti-racist learning opportunities, and if there were institutional barriers to CCETSW's developments.

Their responses revealed that none had experienced any substantial education or training in the field of anti-racist practice, which had serious consequences for students, but also had negative implications for the experiences of practice teachers themselves. For example, most had never explored ‘race’, racism and anti-racist practice, but were nevertheless expected to undertake anti-discriminatory supervision with little or no constructive preparation or agency support. This led to a situation where many practice teachers felt vulnerable, threatened and confused in relation to both black student supervision and anti-racist practice. Another barrier appeared to be the fear of practice teachers that to display such vulnerabilities could challenge their personal and professional credentials. As a result, it was only those practice teachers who had a personal commitment to anti-discriminatory practice who were confident in facilitating anti-racist supervision. However, due to the lack of institutional and professional commitment to the issues, this group of practice teachers were also susceptible to feelings of insecurity and isolation.

The first part of this chapter explores the accounts of practice teachers who supervised black students. For the majority of practice teachers it was the first time that they had supervised or worked with black students, and very few appeared to have worked with other black social workers or clients. For many, therefore, it was the first time they were confronted directly and indirectly with anti-racist issues.

Racism continues to blight the lives of the black population in Britain today. It operates in the systematic discrimination which black people face in the labour market, and the housing, education and health services (Solomos and Back, 1996). It is present in the harassment that black people face at the hands of the police and the immigration authorities (Callinicos, 1993), as is evidenced in the fact that black people are more likely to be ‘stopped and searched’, arrested, imprisoned, and even to die in custody than whites, and are likely to be seen as perpetrators of crime even when they are victims (Bowling, 1999; Younge, 2000a). It also rears its ugliest head in the violence perpetuated against black people by racist thugs, shown most graphically in the murders of Stephen Lawrence and Michael Menson, but present on street corners, and in the violence against properties and homes across the country. As CCETSW noted, at the beginning of the 21st century racism within Britain is ‘endemic’.

Institutional racism affects the representation and treatment of black people within a range of state institutions. For example, the 1997/98 Labour Force Survey revealed that:

For those members of the black communities in work, their earnings are likely to be lower than white people in equivalent jobs. The Institute for Social and Economic Research found that between 1985 and 1995:

Black people are more likely to live in inferior housing in run-down areas (Ginsburg, 1992; Law, 1998), experience higher mortality and morbidity rates (Skellington and Morris, 1992; Blackburn Borough Council, 1996), differential health provision (Skellington and Morris, 1992; Ahmad and Atkin, 1996), and are often subject to differential treatment in terms of educational provision (Troyna and Hatcher, 1992; Gore, 1998).

The research which informed this book was carried out at a particular moment in the history of anti-discriminatory social work developments, when the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) incorporated anti-racist learning requirements in the Diploma in Social Work (Paper 30) (1989) (the professional social work qualification awarded after two years of education and training). This was an initiative which acknowledged the manifestation of racism in the social work arena, and made it a compulsory requirement that issues of ‘race’ and racism should be addressed in all aspects of social work education and training. These were radical developments which signalled a serious commitment by a state welfare organisation to tackle racism. For the first time, while they were undertaking training in social work agencies, students and their practice teachers (work-based supervisors) were given the responsibility for implementing anti-racist learning requirements.

The research project, which was instigated by the Department of Social Work at the University of Central Lancashire, initially set out to explore how far CCETSW's anti-racist learning requirements were achieved, and what barriers, if any, there were to implementation. It sought, through detailed information from students themselves, to identify as clearly as possible, any difficulties associated with dissemination and anti-discriminatory practice which they experienced while on placement in social work agencies. Interviews were carried out with a sample of black and white students in order to facilitate a comparative analysis to explore if there were similarities in experiences, or if ‘race’ and racism were more dominant factors in determining the experiences of black students. As practice teachers (qualified social workers within agencies) are responsible for supervising students, they too were interviewed to assess the impact they had on the placement experiences of students. In this respect, the research was concerned with contributing to a deeper understanding of racial exclusion and discrimination within the personal social services, at a time when anti-racism was becoming a fundamental part of CCETSW's legislation regarding social work education and training.

Interviews were undertaken with first and second year students and their respective practice teachers. In-depth semi-structured taped interviews were carried out with 20 students in a variety of social work settings. Each student was interviewed three times during the first year of the research project (1991) and half of the group were then interviewed again during the second year of the project (1992).

Labour market and social security policies, and the institutions to design and implement them, altered radically between 1971 and 1999. The process of change was inevitably shaped by a combination of factors in the policy domains – with new perceptions, policy goals and policy models – as well as developments in the labour market, discussed in Chapter 4. An understanding of these changes is important to any assessment of the impact of policy on the numbers of unemployed claimants. For a blow by blow account, the reader is directed to Clasen (1994); here a brief sketch has to suffice.

Government job creation and training

A Conservative government was in power in the early 1970s. Unemployment was still low although, at the time, half a million unemployed seemed high.

Having reviewed the literature, what story can be told about the increased number of claims for unemployment-related benefits?

The growth in the number of claimants of unemployment-related benefits between 1971 and 1999 was the direct result of the de industrialisation of the British economy, a process that changed forever the nature of the labour market, added a new dynamic, and radically restructured the set of employment opportunities available (Figure 8.1). The impact of labour market changes was mediated by labour market and social security policies that themselves evolved in response to the new economic environment, and were guided by a varying mix of ideology and pragmatism. A shared understanding developed between successive governments that the goal of full employment had become unrealistic, and that high inflation was a worse evil than high unemployment. From the late 1980s onwards the common belief emerged that policies needed to accommodate the new needs of the flexible labour market.

Although throughout most of the period total employment continued to grow, jobs were lost in large numbers from the traditional manufacturing sectors and ‘replaced’ by service sector jobs, many of which were low paid and latterly part-time and short-term.

Introduction

The concept of citizenship implies membership of some form of community; in turn the notion of community opens up questions about terms of inclusion and exclusion. This chapter's focus is to consider the ground rules which are seen by welfare service users as being pertinent for individuals to be included in or excluded from arrangements for the collective provision of welfare benefits and services. Throughout the research sessions, it became clear that many users saw certain people as having legitimate claims to welfare while the claims of others were often seen as invalid. A distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ claims was apparent in the users’ dialogue. This was a recurrent and often strongly expressed discourse that was regularly used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of certain people from public welfare. Illustrative examples of the users endorsing either an inclusionary or exclusionary approach (and the strategies that they use to justify their stance) in healthcare, housing and social security respectively are offered in the following discussions. Where relevant, comments about all social provision and welfare rights in general are included. It should be noted that in common with previous discussions on conditionality (see Chapter Five), a lack of individual contribution and/or responsibility once again appears to be of significance among those who are seeking to defend their decisions to exclude certain individuals from welfare rights.

Inclusion and exclusion from healthcare: undeserving immigrants, deserving senior citizens

Several of the questions that were put to the groups for discussion were designed to explore whether any of the users saw the exclusion of particular individuals (or groups) from access to certain welfare rights as justified. Question 5 (see Appendix) attempted to specifically address the question of access to free public healthcare in relation to two groups, immigrants/asylum seekers and senior citizens.

Excluding immigrants

When considering the claims of immigrants/asylum seekers, the most prevalent opinion (49% of users) was that the denial of free healthcare for those who had recently entered Britain could, in some instances, be justified. Users were keen to acknowledge that healthcare rights should be granted to ‘genuine’ immigrants, that is, those who had openly entered the country in order to seek political asylum and escape persecution in their homeland; but their comments also tended to echo a belief that a substantial number of immigrants entered Britain primarily to make use of free treatment.

Institutional changes, both within social security policy and implementation, and in policy interaction with other areas like health and employment, will have contributed to the growth in caseloads. However, the question remains whether the increasing numbers of recipients of disability benefits reflect a rise in numbers of people who have developed an impairment, or simply an artefact of the way that benefit rules have been framed and applied. For instance, how significant is the ageing population and worsening health? Certainly, since the chances of developing impairment increase with age, one might expect – other things being equal – an ageing population to be associated with a higher incidence of impairment. The difficulty is that other things are seldom equal and, as has already been discussed, social attitudes towards disability have changed markedly over the last 30 years, measurement has changed and improved, and people have possibly become more prepared to exercise their right to provision.

An ageing population

A key characteristic in the ageing of Britain's population since 1971 has been the 44% increase in the number of people/pensionable age, over a period when total population increased by less than 7% (Chapter 2). Not surprisingly, therefore, the most obvious impact of an ageing population can be seen in the increased numbers of people of pensionable age who are in receipt of benefits to cover the extra costs associated with disability (largely Attendance Allowance – the increase in numbers of older people continuing to receive Disability Living Allowance was considered in Chapter 11).

Britain has never had a Minister for the Family and the Minister for Women is a creation of the new Labour government. Nor does it have a coherent family policy, governments generally preferring not to intervene directly in family matters (Kammerman and Kahn, 1980). However, at various times, governments have accepted the fact that children increase the risk of families suffering poverty and have introduced policies to raise family incomes. They have also responded, if sometimes reluctantly, to social problems associated with new family forms, typically targeting specific population groups and relying on fiscal and benefit measures rather than promoting an explicit family policy.

It is apparent from earlier chapters that the growth in benefit claims from families with children was influenced by the activities of many social institutions other than social security: moral authorities including the church and other opinion leaders, the legal profession and employers were all agents of change. Space limits consideration in this chapter to key changes in social security policy that have impacted most directly on the numbers of parents and children receiving benefit.

Child Benefit and One Parent Benefit

The one single policy change that most increased the number of families receiving benefit was the introduction of Child Benefit in 1977.