Community Care has published this story about social workers’ fears of being named in the media. This reminds us that it’s not just children who worry about this prospect, but also professionals. The article is sponsored by Unison, the trade union, on behalf of their members who have responded to a Community Care survey on stress in the workplace.
‘New research by Community Care shows that almost 80% of social workers are thinking of leaving their jobs because of stress. UNISON has growing concerns that one of the contributors to this stress is the pressure surrounding social work in the courts.’
Unison is now conducting its own survey on members’ views about media access and court work in general. This can be accessed here. Presumably, it includes a check that it is being completed by genuine Union members, so the results should be helpful in contributing to the debate.
Unison is recommending:
- More awareness raising and debate within the profession
- Proper risk assessments ahead of court proceedings and applications for anonymity for social workers where there are specific risks
- Ensuring court report writing and evidence are covered to a high standard in training and CPD
- Workload management measures including protected court preparation time and support
- A comprehensive media and social media strategy in every employer to protect social workers
- Health, safety and welfare support measures
- More liaison and engagement between social work services and the judiciary
All good points but there has never been automatic protection of social workers’ identities in family court cases. This can only be successfully argued when identifying the social worker might identify the child, or there is evidence of direct risk to adults concerned. Unison is a bit late to the debate.
Ironically, the shocking treatment of social workers (and a paediatrician) by the media following Peter Connelly’s death is partly a result of the laws which protected his siblings from being named. As the Panorama TV programme broadcast in October showed, if the media had been able to name and show pictures of the three adults who were charged with the offences (Peter’s mother, partner and another man living in the household) then they may have left the Haringey staff alone. But the media (including BBC and ITV) were so desperate for a picture of someone to blame, they turned on Sharon Shoesmith et al (with a little political help).
I agree – a bit late to the debate. The piece reads as if anonymity was in place but removed with the issue of the President’s guidance last year, which is not the case. That guidance simply spelt out the existing position. It has probably become more apparent to social workers that this is an uncomfortable issue for them because more judgments are being published generally.
There is a wealth of unpleasant information out there about social workers and lawyers – I for example am listed on contactdeniers dot com and have the special status of having a personalised biography by Matt O’Connor – but I’m not sure what difference anonymity in judgments makes. Those who “name and shame” professionals do so regardless and in great numbers. Those who make threats do so regardless. I don’t actually think anonymity affords anything more than reassurance to those who fear being hounded – it is no protection to those who have the misfortune to encounter it. I think that as professionals we have to expect and bear criticism, but where that turns to threats or harassment employers should take steps to protect employees. I suspect that LAs as employers (and unions) remain largely woolly about distinguishing between those two issues – protection of children and protection of employees – in either case specific evidence of actual harm or risk of it must be put forward to warrant an injunctive order that limits freedom of expression. In passing I note that lawyers have historically been routinely named in almost all judgments that have been published and that doesn’t seem to have caused a particular problem for us. I appreciate that social workers play a different part in the “snatching” of children (as it is seen) but lawyers are pretty unpopular and I don’t feel endangered by being named in a judgment (generally). I think a lot of it is fear of the unknown.
Lucy Reed has provided an update on the Unison survey here –
http://www.pinktape.co.uk/social-work/social-work-the-courts-and-the-consequences-of-transparency/#comments
Unfortunately, the full report of the survey results does not appear to have been published yet, but there does appear to be a need for someone to take a lead on advising and supporting social workers in LAs and Cafcass on what can be published about them (and about the children & families they work with). Is this a role for Unison, BASW, or the employers or the regulators?