self funding do social services have a right to assets info

[Guest]

Once involved, social services have a duty to ensure the welfare of the person they are called in to support. It doesn't matter who involved them, the duty remains the same.

A duty they all too frequently choose not to exercise. It seems to me that individuals in need of assistance have little choice but social service departments and those they employ have infinite choice. Whether it's child protection or provision of care services, the determinants of who gets what is as much down to financial considerations and individual social workers and their prejudices as to statute, if anything more so.

[charles47]

I don't disagree, Parsifal.

Social workers, like the rest of us, are human and sometimes take the easy option. Funding decisions that used to be devolved to social workers are now taken by managers who do not know or understand the situation. The theory is that they can make dispassionate decisions based on need. Actually, what they do is make decisions based on budgets.

And one thing I've found out the hard way is that most social workers have no clue as to what the law, or guidance and policy, dictates. Although I have on occasion been able to turn that to my clients' advantage...

[Guest]

I'm afraid I disagree, what I came across was an extraordinary level of prejudice and I have records that confirm this, wrong sort of crip, wrong sort of carer . Oh and I forgot, wrong sort of caree, all my fault for marrying a much older man. I can honestly say that dealing with social services was one of the worst experiences in my life, it took me years to get over what was said to and about me and I know I'm not alone. Neither my husband nor I would allow one across the threshold again, he wouldn't deal with them after the first meeting but I was desperate for help and spent five months fighting for what? Nothing. Whilst accepting that not all LAs and social workers are the same, having a brother-in-law who became a social worker and left because of the culture simply confirms that it isn't simply funding, it's an ethos and individual attitudes as well.

[charles47]

Sorry, Parsifal, if I haven't made myself clear.

I agree that there are social workers who need to be removed from their jobs because they have the wrong attitude. Unfortunately a lot of them seem to be the ones who get promoted. Where they can infect the system and make ridiculous decisions. Sounds like they are the ones you've had contact with.

The ethos of social services, according to the General Social Care Council, is to advocate for the service user and carer. There is no particular emphasis on one over the other. However, it is an ethos which is in direct contradiction of the legal and financial pressures on social workers - the two don't fit. The culture then becomes one of cynicism and "do nothing" (or impose something impractical but cheap) rather than one of proactive and positive support in a spirit of partnership. And that's where it all goes wrong. Your example of the wrong kind of disability, wrong kind of carer, etc., is very familiar to me. I've a desk loaded with cases where something like that has happened. It's unacceptable. But it would be easy for me to say that this is the norm: I have to remember that not everyone comes to us. People usually come to my carers centre and similar organisations because they were getting a raw deal: if everything's fine they don't really need us. That's why I didn't elaborate further in my last.

What I will say is this: if there were fewer financial constraints, the culture would be different.

[Guest]

That's a fair response, Charles, it would be all too easy to assume that everyone claiming benefits, for example, has a raw deal by reading Rightsnet , the Disability Now forum or the Benefits and Work forum but obviously the experience varies and these sites will attract those who've had, or represent those who've had, a raw deal not those who have no reason to appeal or complain. But there's another group, those who've had a raw deal and go to no-one, just leave it at that, perhaps because their experience has been so negative they don't wish to pursue it further. Ultimately the percentage who're satisfied and the percentage who feel that they've been badly treated or unjustly denied services will never be known because those who've been failed by the system are never asked their opinion, only those who use services.

[charles47]

I agree completely, Parsifal. And it's those people - the ones who don't know their rights (whether they've tried to claim/obtain some sort of services, or not) - that we need to find somehow.

It's a real problem with no easy solution: the obvious way would be a media campaign, but the scope and cost of such a project would absolutely require a large chunk of money. And the campaign would have to be eye-catching and comprehensive...