Evaluation of social workers in social work--essay代写范文精选

51Due论文代写平台essay代写范文:“Evaluation of social workers in social work”，这篇论文主要描述的是对于社会工作者的评估需要一个富有张力和包容的评估标准，应该以政府为中心来制定一个完成的评估系统，评估需要更加的合理和人性化，思考社会工作者该如何去服务用户，有着更深层次的价值理念。

It could be argued however, that such inflexible screening and assessment systems whilst attempting to standardise practice and offer transparency leave little space for service users to be described within their own personal contexts in an inclusive manner. Henwood and Hudson (2008) suggest there is an inherent tension between FACS and the Personalisation agenda in that

There has been some Government recognition of the shortcomings of FACS in relation to Personalisation with the introduction of government guidance seeking to deliver a 'whole system' approach to eligibility. (Department of Health, 2010). Whilst it goes some way to acknowledging local community needs as well as individual needs, it still requires social workers to operate within rigid boundaries in deciding whether they have an 'eligible need' and therefore become entitled to a resource.

There lies a complex maze of tensions for the social worker to navigate herself through. On the one hand she has to work within a medical model framework which dictates criteria and allows little flexibility yet may lead to more resources. On the other hand she is aware of the need to adopt a social model approach in which she should value and highlight the strengths and uniqueness of each person. The tensions between the social and medical model are not new to social work but the Personalisation agenda does challenge practitioners to consider their impact. This process is worthy of reflection as the model the practitioner adopts will inform their conceptualisation of the professional task.

So far we have tried to unravel some of the underlying values and theories influencing our practice as social workers. We now need to consider how we engage with service users, their families and other stakeholders in supporting individuals to direct their own support. The answer may appear simple 'we work in partnership' and it is certainly easy to say we do this but what does it actually mean to work in partnership?

Partnership between service users and professionals has long been established as a core component of social work practice. Legislation and government guidance has promoted the concept of partnership working in all aspects of social work from community care to child protection. Marsh and Fisher (1992) propose the principles upon which partnership is practiced include; user agreement, involvement, negotiated agreement and users having the greatest possible choice of the service offered. Pugh and De'Ath (1989) cited in Braye (2001) suggest partnership can be understood as a continuum from involvement in a decision through to the service user being in control of the process.

At its simplest level partnership working means working with service users and other agencies, rather than doing things for them and this is a good starting point. Thompson (2005, p123) however, suggests that it requires a 'degree of humility to accept that professionals do not have all the answers and clients have a major contribution to make in resolving the difficulties that have been identified'.. Although this quote precedes the development of self directed support, in many ways it captures the essence of personalisation. It steers social workers away from adopting the 'professional gift' model and working within a paternalistic framework. Instead it recognizes service users as having insight into their own needs. It views them as citizens with relationships and connections within families, networks and communities which only they fully understand. Many solutions and sometimes support can be found within these networks but the social worker must take the lead from the service user in unlocking this understanding.

The mandate for partnership working was introduced formally in the NHS and Community Care Act (1990). Policy guidance in which consumer power and power to purchase were seen as essential components in creating a market economy of welfare. It was assumed that the inevitable outcome would be the ability of service users to express their choice and act upon it. Armed with clear guidance in relation to decision making procedures, channels of complaint and involvement in assessment and planning, service users would be able to assert their own views on how best to meet their needs. Whilst these conditions went some way to changing the working relationship between the service user and the professional, the absence of one key ingredient, 'cash' meant that true consumerism could never be achieved.

Arguably Community Care failed to reject a paternalistic approach to social work with adults. As a result, the somewhat tame gestures of handing over power and control remained largely tokenistic. The framework and terminology which at its time may have appeared radical and refreshing, actually only served to reinforce the belief that power remained securely with the social worker and the state. At second glance however, shouldn't we have seen the writing on the wall? The clues may have been in the language used to described this process, 'care management', 'care manager' suggesting the need for someone to be 'in charge' of care. On one level, care management claimed to be about 'tailoring services to individual needs' yet at another level social workers were required to act as 'gate keepers', 'secure service' and 'support and control the delivery of the care plan'. 'The role of the practitioner is to assist the user in making choices from these resources, and put together an individual care plan (Department of Health 1991). The language used within care management suggests the values underpinning this process were based on a paternalistic model whereby the 'expert' care manager/social worker would support the service user to make 'sensible' decisions about how best to meet needs. One has to question how far we have journeyed from the sentiments of Minister Jay in 1973 in claiming that the gentlemen in Whitehall really does know what is good for the people than the people know themselves (Faber and Faber 1973). In reality perhaps only as far as the 'gentlemen in the town hall.

In contrast, the development of the Personalisation agenda is based on a more radical form of partnership working which insists power is transferred to the service user in relation to assessment, support planning and crucially the allocation of resources, the money. Its success is based on a model of citizenship which places the individual at the centre and encourages professionals and service users alike to work together in identifying natural, community and paid support rather than thinking purely in terms of services.

Finally a word of caution in understanding partnership working. It would be naive to believe that intention alone will enable us to develop equal partnerships with service users. This assumption ignores the powerful structures and processes inherent within local authorities and society at large. Social workers must always acknowledge the power they hold in each interaction with a service user. No matter how much control we transfer to service users, the gate keeping role of the social worker has not been removed. The power held by the social worker/state at each point of the process whether is be access to resources or reviewing the outcome, service users will be ever aware of this relationship and the risk it carries in terms of accessing or keeping a resource.

51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。

51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供essay代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-xz