Latest / Foster Care Uncovered / Forces shaping the world that we all work in, who really designs the reforms in social work and children's services?

Transcript

Forces shaping the world that we all work in, who really designs the reforms in social work and children's services? · Foster Care Uncovered

• 0:20
  Hi, welcome to Foster Care Uncovered. I'm Sarah
• 0:24
  Anderson. And I'm Louise Allen. And we have a
• 0:29
  super guest today, Jo Hanley. Today, we're delving
• 0:33
  into one of the most important and least understood
• 0:36
  forces shaping the world that we all work in.
• 0:40
  Who really designs the reforms in social work
• 0:44
  and children's services? We want to look at how
• 0:47
  much happens on the front line has been impacted
• 0:49
  by these networks and ideology. For anyone listening
• 0:52
  who thinks, well, what's this got to do with
• 0:55
  me on the front line? You know, this is sort
• 0:57
  of a world away from everything I do. You have
• 0:59
  to remember that everything that happens in those
• 1:03
  places affects reform. It affects our work. It
• 1:07
  affects social workers work. It affects everything.
• 1:11
  And I feel that a lot of this is holding us back.
• 1:15
  from that reform we so desperately needed. So
• 1:18
  today we're joined by Dr. Joe Hanley. He's an
• 1:22
  accomplished social worker, lecturer, researcher
• 1:25
  and author whose work is reshaping our understanding
• 1:29
  workforce reform and the hidden networks behind
• 1:32
  public service change. With experience spanning
• 1:36
  adult safeguarding, youth work, prison services,
• 1:40
  homelessness and children's frontline practice,
• 1:42
  Joe brings a rare combination of lived practice
• 1:45
  and critical scholarship. His doctoral work,
• 1:48
  Look Who's Talking, social work podcast as continuing
• 1:52
  professional development in England, earned him
• 1:55
  the prestigious VC Prize for doctoral research.
• 1:58
  And since then, Joe has explored themes from
• 2:00
  fast track professional routes and apprenticeships.
• 2:04
  to the role of large private consultancies in
• 2:06
  shaping public service professions. His influence
• 2:10
  reaches across national associations, unions,
• 2:13
  academic journals, universities and policy reforms.
• 2:17
  Joe has peeled back the layers of policy influence
• 2:20
  in England. He's written extensively on the fast
• 2:23
  track programmes like Teach First and Frontline.
• 2:26
  which, as we all know, the current children's
• 2:29
  minister founded a few years back. The government's
• 2:32
  care review. He's also commented on the government's
• 2:36
  care review and the quiet but powerful networks
• 2:38
  linking private consultancies, government departments
• 2:42
  and the public sector reform. It's our honour
• 2:46
  to welcome Joe today as we dig into how systemic
• 2:48
  reform plays out for social workers, foster carers
• 2:52
  and ultimately the children in our care. Jo's
• 2:56
  insights help us understand why so many frontline
• 2:58
  professionals, foster carers, social workers,
• 3:01
  even managers feel disempowered and what needs
• 3:04
  to change to put relationships, continuity and
• 3:08
  professional integrity back at the centre of
• 3:11
  care. Hi, welcome. Hi, Jo. It's absolutely wonderful
• 3:15
  to have you here today. Real treat. We have to
• 3:18
  sort of, I've had to control Sarah. She is so
• 3:21
  excited. Before we dive in. I wanted to ask you
• 3:26
  a couple of questions because I'm always curious
• 3:29
  about how people end up where they end up and
• 3:31
  what got them there in the first place. So I
• 3:34
  would like to find out, how did you find yourself
• 3:37
  in the world of social work? Was it a calling,
• 3:41
  an accident or a case of being in the right place
• 3:45
  at the wrong time? Tell me your story. Yeah,
• 3:49
  thanks. so much. Thank you for that introduction,
• 3:51
  Sarah. That was really appreciated. And I really
• 3:57
  appreciate the invitation to be here and to talk
• 3:59
  to you both. Yeah, I mean, I guess I kind of
• 4:04
  found it after I traveled around a bit. I finished
• 4:08
  my first degree, which was in law. And I did
• 4:13
  some traveling. I went to Central America. I
• 4:16
  spent some time in USA. And I kind of came back
• 4:20
  to Ireland where my family was at the time. And
• 4:22
  I was just trying to kind of find myself. And
• 4:23
  I was interested in mental health. And I'd done
• 4:26
  a little bit of work kind of with charities.
• 4:29
  And I found myself in applying for some social
• 4:33
  work courses in England. And yeah, didn't really
• 4:35
  know what I was getting myself in for. But I
• 4:37
  don't think anybody really does when they get
• 4:39
  to that stage. Then once I qualified, most of
• 4:43
  my practice was in adults. I think Sarah, I hate
• 4:46
  to nitpick something about that amazing introduction,
• 4:49
  but my practice was primarily, it was almost
• 4:54
  always in adults. I did a little bit of youth
• 4:56
  work, but I definitely don't claim to have any
• 4:58
  frontline children's social work. experience
• 5:01
  so primarily older people lots of kind of hospital
• 5:05
  and adult safeguarding work obviously children
• 5:08
  are involved in those cases often but in particular
• 5:11
  kind of my experience of fostering and foster
• 5:13
  care is admittedly limited but thankfully there's
• 5:16
  no lack of experience of that side of thing in
• 5:18
  this room so hopefully you can help kind of translate
• 5:21
  some of my research and some of my musings and
• 5:23
  rants for your audience Great. Well, thank you.
• 5:27
  That's really interesting. And I think, as you
• 5:29
  say, how do we all find ourselves in this sector
• 5:32
  is sometimes we scratch our heads. And as myself,
• 5:36
  I was probably one of the most reluctant foster
• 5:38
  carers, but I can't seem to to give it up. Now,
• 5:41
  the other thing I really want to know is that
• 5:43
  when you when you tell people you work in social
• 5:46
  work education, what do you usually get as a
• 5:51
  reaction? I think it's usually really positive.
• 5:55
  I think that there's this idea that social workers
• 5:58
  are people involved in this area. I won't say
• 6:01
  just social workers, but kind of have to hide
• 6:03
  what they do almost and pretend that they don't.
• 6:06
  But I cannot think of any reactions I've ever
• 6:10
  had from telling somebody that I work in social
• 6:13
  work or now in social work, academia or education.
• 6:17
  And I think it's... it's very different from
• 6:21
  kind of what is expected and I think people almost
• 6:23
  hide it in a way that perpetuates that as well
• 6:26
  then if you kind of meet people and people often
• 6:28
  say well I try not to tell people I tell people
• 6:30
  I work for the council or I tell people I work
• 6:32
  for a university or something like that probably
• 6:35
  the most common reaction I get is if I'm with
• 6:38
  my wife who is a social worker and I say I'm
• 6:40
  a social work lecturer and she's a social worker
• 6:42
  the first thing we have to say is that's not
• 6:45
  how we met he wasn't my lecturer He wasn't my
• 6:47
  teacher. That's probably the most common. Yeah,
• 6:51
  exactly. She actually qualified before I did.
• 6:57
  But yeah, so that's kind of that's probably the
• 7:00
  most common reaction I get. Oh, that's fantastic.
• 7:02
  Thank you for that. Yeah, because it's one of
• 7:04
  those careers. It's a bit like being a foster
• 7:07
  carer, you know. OK, people have just left the
• 7:09
  room and gone. And if you say you're a social
• 7:12
  worker, everyone's like it is a hip role. It
• 7:15
  was a really trendy role as a child. My social
• 7:17
  workers turned up in, you know, Citroen 2CVs
• 7:21
  and long hair and ripped jeans. And they were
• 7:23
  absolutely lovely. And now they tend to look
• 7:25
  a bit more formal. But it's funny, isn't it?
• 7:28
  I want us all to be proud of our work. Yeah,
• 7:31
  me too. We should be proud. Thank you for that.
• 7:35
  So today we'll be talking about the so -called
• 7:38
  fast track empire, how it connects to the government's
• 7:42
  care review, what this means for children and
• 7:45
  for the people who care for them. And most importantly,
• 7:48
  what we can do to reclaim the profession from
• 7:51
  the inside out. So, Jo, Sarah, let's dive in.
• 7:55
  Right. Let's start. I'd like to start with something
• 8:00
  I'd frame as the network nobody voted for. you
• 8:04
  know, the policy and the fast track empire. I
• 8:08
  know very little about this. I've just read Joe's
• 8:10
  work. And, you know, Joe, forgive me if I sound
• 8:14
  a bit naive in places, because I got a feeling
• 8:18
  this stuff goes on. But I mean, when I was reading
• 8:20
  about the Transform Society, my jaw nearly hit
• 8:22
  the floor. Joe's research on Teach First, Frontline
• 8:26
  and Transform Society. It shows how a small cluster
• 8:30
  of policy entrepreneurs and corporate partners
• 8:33
  have captured huge influence over who enters
• 8:36
  and leads social work. And I'd like to say for
• 8:40
  foster carers listening as well, you know, foster
• 8:42
  care is social work as well. And it impacts so
• 8:46
  much on our roles. As you know, how much. It
• 8:49
  impacts social work, impacts on your role every
• 8:52
  day. So, Joe, the first question we'd like to
• 8:54
  ask is how did this network gain such hold over
• 8:58
  social work and children's services policy? Yeah,
• 9:02
  that is a story that could certainly take the
• 9:04
  rest of this podcast and many more podcasts.
• 9:07
  But I guess it's important to kind of highlight
• 9:09
  that this work on that I've done on policy networks
• 9:13
  and a lot of other people have as well. And the
• 9:17
  idea of policy networks isn't a new. concept
• 9:20
  you know there's been a long time you know recognition
• 9:22
  of the role that networks have uh you know networks
• 9:27
  within government networks outside of government
• 9:28
  how they influence the changes i think over the
• 9:32
  last couple of decades uh at the risk of getting
• 9:35
  a little bit too theoretical i promise not to
• 9:37
  do a huge amount of that but they come with kind
• 9:39
  of the the technology and what academics call
• 9:43
  neoliberalism that's kind of transformed social
• 9:47
  structures and systems. So, for example, there's
• 9:50
  the Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells. I've
• 9:53
  drawn on his work quite a bit if anybody wants
• 9:56
  to go delve into that. But he has this theory
• 10:00
  of the network society. And again, I don't want
• 10:03
  to overburden the listeners here, but essentially
• 10:04
  it suggests that modern society is kind of no
• 10:08
  longer. fundamentally shaped by individuals or
• 10:12
  kind of traditional hierarchical networks or
• 10:15
  structures. It's based around networks. So if
• 10:19
  all society is based around networks, then so
• 10:21
  is policy development. So I've kind of done research
• 10:24
  alongside some really great colleagues on these
• 10:27
  networks and children's services policy development.
• 10:29
  That includes mapping of these networks. So getting
• 10:33
  this visual representation and these maps started.
• 10:37
  quite small but they grew and grew and the biggest
• 10:40
  mapping project i was involved in it actually
• 10:42
  mapped over a thousand policy connections in
• 10:45
  children's services involving people and organizations
• 10:47
  incredible piece of work joe yeah yeah and again
• 10:51
  i have to like you know credit colleagues especially
• 10:53
  column web for pulling that all together uh and
• 10:56
  possibly kind of what your listeners might find
• 10:58
  most startling about this map was uh how central
• 11:03
  private enterprises are to that mapping so like
• 11:06
  management consulting firms like mckinsey bcg
• 11:09
  boston consulting group banks like city group
• 11:12
  barclays even like fossil fuel companies like
• 11:15
  shell uh and kind of something something else
• 11:18
  that might interest listeners services Well,
• 11:23
  yeah, Shell have been a sponsor and supporter
• 11:25
  of Teach First for a long time. Honestly, I think
• 11:29
  that they've moved away from them recently because
• 11:32
  the optics have been informed about that, but
• 11:34
  I'm not sure. But you've still got organizations
• 11:36
  like Barclays. Barclays are one of the biggest
• 11:39
  funders of fossil fuel companies in the world.
• 11:44
  And it always feels like such a contradiction
• 11:46
  because these are organizations that, and Barclays
• 11:48
  support Frontline, or they have at least anyway.
• 11:51
  It's tough to keep track of who's sponsoring
• 11:53
  who at different times, because it changes all
• 11:57
  the time. But they're working alongside these
• 12:00
  funders of fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies.
• 12:02
  And the devastating impacts of climate change
• 12:06
  impact disproportionately on disadvantaged people
• 12:09
  and children. So it has that kind of instant
• 12:12
  contradiction in relation to how those networks
• 12:16
  are supposedly there to support children. Gosh.
• 12:21
  Wow. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Wow. Okay. Well, that's
• 12:30
  a whole show in itself, isn't it? Yeah, there's
• 12:36
  also, I mean, there's defence contractors in
• 12:38
  there too, if you really want to delve into it.
• 12:41
  The social impact policies within organisations
• 12:45
  just where a lot of funding is left and perhaps
• 12:49
  sometimes it's lazy thinking, I don't know, to
• 12:53
  align with what sound like similar values for
• 12:56
  that particular policy. But that is interesting.
• 13:00
  This is the kind of critical thinking we need.
• 13:03
  And I think it's a critical thinking we need
• 13:05
  more. So in foster care, when people make their
• 13:08
  decisions to even become a foster carer, because
• 13:12
  it's more than just, you know, £250 extra in
• 13:15
  your account every week. This is massive, what
• 13:18
  we're doing. What are the implications of the
• 13:21
  same people designing, funding and evaluating
• 13:24
  this reform? Yeah, I mean, I guess it comes down
• 13:30
  to kind of how ideas and initiatives and solutions
• 13:34
  are shared within these networks. So these networks
• 13:36
  are they're really complicated. They overlap
• 13:38
  in so many ways. But essentially, it means that
• 13:41
  the same sort of people with the same basic ideologies
• 13:45
  and views meet frequently. And therefore, ideas
• 13:48
  can kind of spread within these networks rapidly.
• 13:50
  And often by the time. a policy idea actually
• 13:54
  gets made public support has already been really
• 13:57
  short up amongst the policy network informally
• 13:59
  so it's kind of a done deal that's why public
• 14:02
  consultations often feel so tokenistic because
• 14:05
  essentially they are the real consultation has
• 14:08
  already been done yeah yeah yeah it's behind
• 14:11
  the scenes they've developed this support already
• 14:14
  oh so it's a pre -done deal at times Yeah, it's
• 14:20
  kind of also why those networks often seem so
• 14:22
  unwilling or unable to kind of understand the
• 14:25
  views and experiences of frontline professionals
• 14:27
  or people they support or foster carers or just
• 14:31
  generally people outside their network. I think
• 14:33
  they're so used to just hearing the views and
• 14:35
  perspectives of those they surround themselves
• 14:37
  with. Yeah, echo chamber. Yeah, exactly. And
• 14:40
  then anybody who disagrees with them feels like
• 14:42
  an outlier to them. The few frontline professionals
• 14:46
  or others that they kind of do allow to give
• 14:48
  them advice tend to be those who have proven
• 14:50
  in the past that they align to the views of the
• 14:52
  network already. Yes, just so agenda -driven,
• 14:54
  isn't it? But I'm wondering, who's agenda? It's
• 14:56
  not the children's agenda in our... We don't
• 14:59
  find this. This is why we wanted you on here,
• 15:00
  because, first of all, it's so top -heavy. so
• 15:04
  many consultants so many so many you know organizations
• 15:08
  so many this that and the other and yet the burden
• 15:12
  falls on the front line to actually do the work
• 15:14
  and and help children or help adults whatever
• 15:17
  it is so top heavy but also this echo chamber
• 15:22
  i mean we'll be getting to that but i you know
• 15:24
  how do we get them out of it how do we get how
• 15:27
  do we infiltrate how do we stop it but that will
• 15:31
  come to that i'm sure but uh i mean what does
• 15:34
  what does you know this largely remains invisible
• 15:40
  to the public even to professionals to foster
• 15:43
  carers to social workers to managers this is
• 15:45
  why we wanted to sort of bring this to the fore.
• 15:49
  I want to start talking about these things because
• 15:51
  I think the more they're hidden and the more
• 15:54
  they go on behind the scenes, the more of a stranglehold
• 15:56
  these people have on the work that we do on the
• 15:59
  front line. I mean, what's your thoughts on that?
• 16:03
  Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting kind of aspect
• 16:06
  of it is you struggle to kind of make those changes
• 16:10
  because often the ways that we have for engaging
• 16:13
  with policy tend to reflect older models of governance.
• 16:20
  So, you know, something that might be interesting
• 16:23
  to listeners is how party allegiances and kind
• 16:25
  of the association with political parties become
• 16:29
  so much less important in these networks, even
• 16:31
  arguably inconsequential, although it'd be quite
• 16:35
  interesting to see what a reform government does
• 16:37
  to that. But I hope that never comes to pass.
• 16:40
  But there was, you know, there's so much even
• 16:43
  between, you know, the conservative government
• 16:45
  that. just got knocked out after 14 years in
• 16:50
  all sorts of disgrace and people think thank
• 16:52
  god that's gone that's done but there's so much
• 16:54
  continuation between the conservative government
• 16:56
  and labor governments within these networks so
• 16:58
  it's this you know a lot of the same and i mean
• 17:01
  the person you mentioned earlier josh mccallister
• 17:03
  who started frontline worked really closely with
• 17:05
  michael gove through reforms led the care review
• 17:09
  he's like all this under the conservative government
• 17:13
  arguably facilitating their reforms and their
• 17:16
  approach and their policies to social work and
• 17:19
  social care and children's services. Now he's
• 17:22
  the children's minister. Under Labour. Yeah,
• 17:26
  under Labour. There's so much continuation and
• 17:32
  the policies they're pushing therefore are unsurprising.
• 17:36
  They're not that different to what we had before.
• 17:41
  And I guess The reason it's kind of invisible
• 17:43
  to the public is often just because it's so complicated.
• 17:46
  That's probably the main reason. And not to forget,
• 17:50
  there's many mainstream news organizations linked
• 17:53
  into this network, too. So in the same way that
• 17:55
  kind of politicians often have media connections
• 17:58
  and backgrounds, some good industry and independent,
• 18:01
  you know, some of these organizations kind of
• 18:04
  have links to the media as well. And some of
• 18:07
  these networks have links to the media, too.
• 18:10
  I mean, you do get limited coverage kind of across
• 18:13
  often very niche media organizations, often kind
• 18:18
  of social care children's focused organizations
• 18:21
  or like things like bylines or something like
• 18:23
  that. But that's kind of why we decided to map
• 18:26
  these connections is because it's so complicated.
• 18:30
  But with a map, visual map, you can kind of see
• 18:33
  clearly. and understand the scope and the scale
• 18:37
  of these networks in a way that actually kind
• 18:39
  of writing about them never really captures.
• 18:42
  And well, just for everyone listening, we will
• 18:45
  attach the map and any other thing that Joe talks
• 18:50
  about here, we'll attach the map to the podcast
• 18:53
  in the comments so that you can access that.
• 18:55
  It really is worth a look. It's extraordinary,
• 18:59
  the tentacles that go out from those bigger,
• 19:02
  you know, front line, isn't there? There's DFE,
• 19:05
  there's, you know, and the tentacles that go
• 19:07
  out. And I'm finding people, also finding people
• 19:10
  on everything. I mean, there's Andy Elvin from
• 19:13
  TAC to the, it's an IFA, but it's registered
• 19:17
  as charity, isn't it? It's the, it's a, yeah,
• 19:22
  it's basically a independent fostering association.
• 19:27
  But I suddenly find he's on the trustee board
• 19:31
  for Frontline through your map. And then we find
• 19:36
  out that the new chief of Frontline is Edward,
• 19:42
  who's it? Mary Jackson is the new... No, the
• 19:46
  politician that's taken over at Frontline, the
• 19:48
  CEO. Mary Jackson is the CEO of Frontline. Oh,
• 19:53
  well, I've got that. I must have got that wrong,
• 19:54
  then I'll Google it. Oh, maybe the chair of Frontline?
• 19:57
  Yes. Is it Timpson? Yes. I'll Google it while
• 20:03
  we're talking. Yeah, that's probably the easiest
• 20:05
  thing to do. I was going to get that right. It's
• 20:08
  just that incredible web of... You know, in that
• 20:14
  great documentary film, The President's Men.
• 20:20
  Which is, I think, if you want to understand
• 20:22
  a lot of how governments work is, you know, follow
• 20:27
  the money. And when I've been on TV and radio
• 20:31
  in the past, and it used to kind of blow my mind
• 20:34
  that every time I. Got to be like the BBC, be
• 20:37
  whatever platform. I get to the point where I
• 20:40
  was just about to go on. The producer would come
• 20:42
  up to me and whisper in my ear, please don't
• 20:45
  say anything negative about local authorities.
• 20:47
  And I remember with one BBC interview, I said,
• 20:51
  look, I've got nothing to say then. The interview
• 20:55
  is already over. I've got nothing left to say
• 20:58
  because the local authorities, the delivery of
• 21:02
  services, it's the processes which they use,
• 21:06
  which for me, the reason I'm here today. So it
• 21:10
  was like, but follow the money is always, you
• 21:13
  know, I think the interesting. And that's, again,
• 21:17
  another podcaster that would require a lawyer
• 21:20
  and an accountant, I'm sure. I mean, we have
• 21:22
  terrible trouble, don't we, forever, ever getting
• 21:25
  anything into the media. We managed with our
• 21:28
  survey last year. We had a great PR girl who
• 21:31
  got us into ITM News, which was quite a feat.
• 21:36
  But we go to people with stories and they're
• 21:38
  like, wow, you know, that's quite the story,
• 21:40
  blah, blah, blah, blah. Then they come back to
• 21:42
  us and say, well, I've been to my editor, but
• 21:44
  perhaps... have you got any nice stories about
• 21:46
  foster carers and foster children or dead children
• 21:49
  yeah someone seems to have to die before they
• 21:52
  do anything but isn't that is that part of it
• 21:55
  because you really can't crack this so hard to
• 21:57
  crack the media about our stories or are they
• 22:00
  just not interesting enough for the the main
• 22:02
  mainstream media so what do you think joe uh
• 22:08
  yeah it is it it it becomes an interesting thing
• 22:12
  then where Because there's a thread in social
• 22:15
  work policy and debates about this idea that
• 22:20
  we need to have a better media presentation.
• 22:23
  We kind of we do hear that a lot. And sometimes
• 22:27
  we have that almost thrown at professionals that
• 22:31
  social workers need to be better at speaking
• 22:33
  up for the profession or, you know, advocating
• 22:36
  for the profession in a way that I, you know,
• 22:39
  I. think that social workers are damn good at
• 22:42
  advocating for the profession and speaking up
• 22:44
  for the profession that doesn't mean that anybody's
• 22:45
  listening i think that's the real issue like
• 22:47
  you say it is it's it's really difficult to kind
• 22:50
  of get get those stories through into the media
• 22:55
  uh and i like you say and that's because of the
• 23:00
  way that the media is set up you know it's profit
• 23:03
  driven it's driven by clicks and well you know
• 23:06
  it used to be driven by by ads and now it's driven
• 23:08
  by clicks which is ads as well and so if a story
• 23:12
  isn't going to get those clicks and it's not
• 23:13
  going to get that attention and it's not going
• 23:15
  to get shared on social media and stuff then
• 23:17
  nobody cares uh and they can talk about you know
• 23:20
  media impartiality all they want but that's ultimately
• 23:22
  kind of what it boils down to and again it unfortunately
• 23:26
  again i would say politicians in the media are
• 23:30
  to blame for this they have created a situation
• 23:35
  where society, when they do want to know about
• 23:39
  what's going on in children's social care, does
• 23:41
  tend to be when things have gone horrifically
• 23:42
  wrong. And that tends to be what sells and that
• 23:45
  tends to be what gets people angry and interested.
• 23:49
  And again, unfortunately, because those are such
• 23:51
  a small, tiny, infinitesimal percentage of all
• 23:55
  the cases and situations. There's so much good
• 23:58
  work going on. But then maybe we're... naive
• 24:02
  if we think we can change that because that's
• 24:04
  kind of just the way the media works and i think
• 24:06
  maybe we need to look at other channels things
• 24:09
  like podcasting right now you know this this
• 24:11
  is an opportunity to get alternative perspectives
• 24:13
  out there in the world in a way that isn't necessarily
• 24:16
  controlled by mainstream media although mainstream
• 24:18
  media have arguably colonized the podcast market
• 24:21
  too there's another podcast for you I mean, I
• 24:25
  just want to pick up on something you said. Oh,
• 24:27
  by the way, everybody, it's OK, we're safe. It
• 24:28
  was Ed Timpson. Yes, I thought it was. There's
• 24:34
  so many changes all the time, it's so difficult.
• 24:38
  And they all just move around from one thing
• 24:40
  to another, it seems. Which is why I should say
• 24:42
  really quickly that the mapping that you're going
• 24:44
  to share is horrifically out of date because
• 24:46
  it's a couple of years old, but it becomes out
• 24:48
  of date almost immediately. Well, you can just
• 24:50
  swap them around within the map, really, can't
• 24:52
  you? I just want to touch on something you said
• 24:58
  there, which is really important to us as well
• 24:59
  as foster carers, is about narratives. And especially
• 25:04
  in the media, which then becomes public narrative.
• 25:08
  We have a narrative we've been trying to break
• 25:11
  through as foster carers for years. You know,
• 25:14
  it's not helped by the government in court cases
• 25:17
  saying that how can we. be classed as workers
• 25:20
  not that i want to get into that discussion right
• 25:21
  now but if we're just watching tv and having
• 25:24
  dinner so joe is rolling his eyes everybody for
• 25:30
  the um and the narrative that's how do we break
• 25:37
  that now it's the media narrative obviously I
• 25:41
  don't know in your map if there are any of the
• 25:43
  big fostering organisations like Fostering Network,
• 25:45
  maybe Foster Talk, but certainly some IFAs and
• 25:48
  stuff. But this capture of the narrative, which
• 25:52
  serves certain agendas, I think that's also the
• 25:55
  case with social work. I'm not sure that social
• 25:57
  work has the public narrative, the positive public
• 26:00
  narrative that it perhaps should. Yeah, I think.
• 26:07
  I've done some recent work on this. So it sounds
• 26:10
  like you're not aware of it. But if you are aware
• 26:12
  of it, you're setting me up. I wasn't aware of
• 26:16
  it. Yeah, I've done work what I kind of what
• 26:21
  I call the social work public perception myth.
• 26:24
  And it's this I kind of delved into policy and
• 26:28
  how it frames social work public perceptions.
• 26:31
  And for decades. The government has used this
• 26:34
  idea that there's a negative public perception
• 26:36
  of social workers as an evergreen excuse to introduce
• 26:39
  whatever reforms they want. So frontline included,
• 26:43
  but, you know, introduction of the chief social
• 26:44
  worker, our new regulator, that's been a bit
• 26:46
  of a disaster. Almost every reform, you'll see
• 26:51
  something about how there's this need to change
• 26:53
  the public perception of social workers. But
• 26:56
  actually, all research that's been done, not
• 26:58
  just in England, but Scotland, internationally,
• 27:00
  USA, countries in africa asia other parts of
• 27:04
  europe they almost always find that the public
• 27:09
  really respect and value the contribution that
• 27:14
  social workers make the vast majority of the
• 27:17
  public obviously so social workers actually have
• 27:21
  a relatively good public perception certainly
• 27:23
  above average when it comes to professionals
• 27:26
  so this idea and this that and there's people
• 27:29
  listening to this if there's any social workers
• 27:30
  listening to this they probably think I'm lying
• 27:32
  they won't believe me because it's so ingrained
• 27:35
  into the profession this idea that there's a
• 27:37
  negative and because I've talked about this research
• 27:38
  and conferences and talks and stuff and i do
• 27:41
  get that pushback it's like well you know where
• 27:43
  i've worked there's people you know i hate social
• 27:46
  workers i don't think you're talking to the right
• 27:47
  people etc but i'm not i didn't even do the research
• 27:49
  on public perception i was just analyzing this
• 27:51
  uh but it is that it becomes that kind of myth
• 27:56
  so i think it's important to kind of interrogate
• 27:57
  you know media and politicians they perpetuate
• 28:00
  that myth like crazy and certainly they're constantly
• 28:03
  have negative narratives around but actually
• 28:05
  the public People are far smarter and far more
• 28:08
  discerning than I think we often give people
• 28:11
  credit for. They know a lot of that research
• 28:15
  into social workers and asking the public what
• 28:17
  they think of them. They also find that they
• 28:20
  understand that policies have failed professionals.
• 28:23
  They understand that there's underfunding. They
• 28:24
  understand that the media portrayals aren't accurate.
• 28:27
  They understand that politicians are overly critical.
• 28:32
  And on that note, you know politicians can't
• 28:35
  shouldn't really be saying much they've got by
• 28:37
  far the worst public perception if you look at
• 28:39
  any sort of trust rating uh there's this annual
• 28:42
  survey that they ask the public to rate how much
• 28:45
  they trust different professionals and politicians
• 28:47
  are always at the bottom of that journalists
• 28:49
  aren't far ahead of them they're uh these kind
• 28:52
  of the people who are constantly telling us that
• 28:55
  we need to fix our public perception they're
• 28:58
  they've got far far worse public perceptions
• 29:00
  than we do and they don't seem to care that much
• 29:02
  about it that's interesting That's very interesting.
• 29:05
  I guess the thing we suffer from narrative -wise
• 29:08
  is we've got, I just think, a misleading narrative.
• 29:12
  You know, if you say you're a foster carer, people
• 29:14
  tend to put their head on one side and say, oh,
• 29:16
  my goodness, isn't that marvellous? Wow, I couldn't
• 29:19
  do what you do, you saint, you know. But actually
• 29:22
  it's a far more visceral, complex, skilled vocation,
• 29:28
  undertaking, job, whatever you like to call it.
• 29:30
  And, you know, that's for another day. It's a
• 29:34
  narrative that actually perhaps we should do
• 29:37
  some research on, Louise. But yeah, well, I'm
• 29:40
  quietly simmering because my blood rises every
• 29:46
  time as an ex -looked -after child myself. And
• 29:50
  as a foster carer of some seasoning, I think,
• 29:55
  why, where are our voices? You know, you have
• 29:58
  these tokenistic voices, but I, you know, I'm
• 30:02
  a reasonably intelligent woman. I've had quite
• 30:04
  a big career. I worked in academia for 23 years
• 30:08
  and I've worked as a journalist. I've worked
• 30:10
  in many, many realms. But the moment I became
• 30:13
  a foster carer, I became literally a cardigan,
• 30:16
  a beige cardigan. And it's like, you know, I
• 30:20
  think social work and foster care have been set
• 30:26
  up to dislike each other on occasions. I feel
• 30:31
  that there is, you know, it would be terrible
• 30:34
  if we all got on and agreed, wouldn't it? It
• 30:37
  would be, you know, we'd lose out, wouldn't it,
• 30:39
  if we all kind of worked together in some kind
• 30:42
  of harmony. But anyway, that is... Some kind
• 30:45
  of power. Well, power is harmony, isn't it? You
• 30:48
  know, because once you've got everything set
• 30:51
  up and then there is peace and there is calm,
• 30:54
  you can think more clearly. What we all tend
• 30:56
  to do is firefight. And firefight drains us.
• 31:00
  We're firefighting in our homes. We're firefighting
• 31:03
  all the services, education, therapy services,
• 31:08
  children's services. And none of us really have
• 31:11
  time to look up and see what's going on, which
• 31:14
  is why I'm so grateful Joe's here to tell us
• 31:17
  what's going on, because we're kept very busy.
• 31:19
  You keep people this busy when you don't want
• 31:21
  them to know things, in my opinion. I think that's
• 31:24
  a segue you've just done there. Isn't that what
• 31:27
  they call it, Joanne? A segue into our next section,
• 31:32
  which is the care review and the ideology behind
• 31:36
  reform. I mean, the focus here would be how government
• 31:41
  reviews and reform have been shaped by the same
• 31:44
  networks and ideologies. You've written critically
• 31:50
  about the pantomime of professional reform, Jo,
• 31:53
  and the links between fast track alumni and consultancies
• 31:58
  and the care review team. And I really want to
• 32:01
  get down to this here because it is a bit of
• 32:04
  a hot potato and I don't want to skirt around
• 32:07
  it because it's really live right now. We've
• 32:11
  got Josh McAllister, formerly of Frontline, formerly
• 32:14
  of the care review, now as children's minister.
• 32:18
  The question is, well, the interesting thing
• 32:21
  is that he seems to be peddling back a lot on
• 32:24
  the care review at the moment. But it's hard
• 32:28
  to say. Lots of good things said, a lot of soundbites,
• 32:31
  a lot of politicians, you know, phrases and things.
• 32:36
  But I'm not sure that it's working, to be honest.
• 32:41
  I'd like to ask you, to what extent did the care
• 32:44
  review reflect genuine sector consultation versus
• 32:47
  preset ideology? Yeah, I think to situate it,
• 32:54
  I guess the care review was launched in 2021,
• 32:58
  I think. Yeah, 2021. And, you know, it's important
• 33:02
  to remember that that was launched by. education
• 33:05
  minister gavin williamson will you believe uh
• 33:07
  who is whatever 25 education ministers ago at
• 33:11
  this stage it sounds like like decades ago now
• 33:15
  yeah i know it was in the midst of the pandemic
• 33:18
  and he was when he launched this he was all like
• 33:21
  williamson was incredibly unpopular like you
• 33:24
  know he amongst professionals especially teachers
• 33:27
  i either before or just after he did this he
• 33:30
  had like a vote of no confidence from like teachers
• 33:32
  unions and stuff he was forced out soon after
• 33:34
  in a complicated shameful way but that's the
• 33:39
  start that's like you know the the beginning
• 33:41
  of this and uh kind of despite the fact that
• 33:46
  it was arguably over -rushed review, there was
• 33:49
  still so many different ministers for children
• 33:51
  and education ended up overseeing it. It was
• 33:53
  only like a year and a half, slightly less even,
• 33:55
  I think. But there was so much change in government
• 33:59
  ministers at the time, which disjointed the whole
• 34:02
  thing. But Josh McAllister, who was appointed
• 34:04
  chair... He was a known commodity in the conservative
• 34:08
  government, like we talked about earlier, close
• 34:10
  associate of Michael Gove, helped shape social
• 34:12
  care policy under the last government, in particular
• 34:15
  in his role as founder and CEO of Frontline,
• 34:18
  that trained social workers, but is also now
• 34:20
  involved in all sorts of other stuff. And our
• 34:22
  mapping actually kind of points to Josh McAllister
• 34:25
  as the most heavily connected person in the policy
• 34:28
  network at the time, meaning he was as far from
• 34:32
  independent as one could get. arguably he was
• 34:35
  kind of uniquely unqualified for the role of
• 34:38
  independent chair uh because he was like and
• 34:42
  like i said he was a known commodity they knew
• 34:44
  what they were getting the conservative government
• 34:46
  knew what they were getting they knew he would
• 34:49
  consult uh who he would consult i should say
• 34:52
  and he knew who he would platform he knew that
• 34:55
  they knew that he wouldn't be too challenging
• 34:57
  of the government's record and that his report
• 35:00
  would be too critical uh and this was notable
• 35:03
  from the very start of the review and the awful
• 35:05
  way that he treated experts by experience who
• 35:08
  came forward to be involved and who were essentially
• 35:11
  dismissed with an email after many having given
• 35:14
  really extensive details of their backgrounds,
• 35:17
  care backgrounds that they'd had. So they immediately
• 35:20
  felt alienated by the review. And in my role,
• 35:24
  I'm kind of most aware of social workers feeling
• 35:26
  alienated by the review and excluded by the review.
• 35:30
  How did that pan out? How did it pan out? Yeah,
• 35:34
  I mean, how did it, how did that, what did that
• 35:37
  look like? That feeling excluded? Well, the British
• 35:41
  Association of Social Workers did quite a lot
• 35:43
  of surveys during the care review and they found,
• 35:46
  you know, social work, very few social workers,
• 35:49
  a small percentage felt actually able to meaningly
• 35:52
  engage with the review. And social workers talked
• 35:55
  about the kind of stuff that does back up what
• 35:59
  we, the research we've done, unfortunately. Is
• 36:02
  social workers complained about kind of it's
• 36:04
  all the usual suspects involved was a term that
• 36:08
  they use. They talked about exclusive invitations
• 36:10
  to be involved. I mean, McAllister, Josh McAllister,
• 36:14
  his unredacted contract to chair the review seemingly.
• 36:19
  released by mistake in its unredacted form I
• 36:22
  again I don't think that was ever confirmed but
• 36:24
  it certainly there was a redacted version and
• 36:26
  then an unredacted version was published online
• 36:28
  that included clauses not to embarrass the government
• 36:33
  like that was in there and to work with like
• 36:36
  specific government approved organizations on
• 36:40
  the review independent in the independent review
• 36:43
  yeah and then you know also he wasn't there was
• 36:46
  a requirement that he couldn't assume any additional
• 36:48
  funding for recommendations so everything had
• 36:50
  to be like cost analysis analyzed and uh there
• 36:55
  was there was even there was a specific requirement
• 36:57
  in there i think to collaborate with the ministry
• 36:58
  of housing communities and local government at
• 37:01
  the time that was being led but during the review
• 37:04
  was mostly led by josh mccallister's good friend
• 37:06
  michael gove uh and you know and mccallister
• 37:10
  even on a podcast which is why i think podcasts
• 37:12
  can be really helpful sometimes people will let
• 37:16
  their hair down a bit and say stuff that maybe
• 37:18
  they might not have said if they were writing
• 37:20
  like an official government blog but because
• 37:22
  jess mccallister talked about how the review
• 37:24
  was being rushed through you know i don't think
• 37:26
  he used that word but it was done quickly because
• 37:28
  people did say you know this is a huge review
• 37:30
  and you're not taking that long to do it and
• 37:32
  he said it was being done in part because they
• 37:35
  wanted to get it done and with the and implemented
• 37:39
  to an extent before the conservative government
• 37:42
  were out of power which at that stage was pretty
• 37:46
  much the writing was on the wall which says a
• 37:49
  lot which it makes it bizarre now that he ended
• 37:52
  up being part of that new labor government that
• 37:55
  came in and is now to make an even bigger mockery
• 37:58
  of the fact that it was an independent review
• 38:00
  he is now the one theoretically responsible for
• 38:03
  implementing the findings of his own review yeah
• 38:08
  that's a bit odd actually it it really upset
• 38:13
  foster carers as well because of course despite
• 38:17
  having reputable long -standing now organizations
• 38:21
  of our own foster carer led um organizations
• 38:25
  like foster wiki like national union for professional
• 38:28
  foster carers and things they his idea of representing
• 38:32
  foster carers were two foster carers random foster
• 38:35
  carers just not associated with any organization
• 38:38
  or with that broad you know cross -country uk
• 38:44
  -wide experience of foster carers just two random
• 38:48
  foster carers and he put them on the care experienced
• 38:50
  board now we aren't care and not the care experience
• 38:54
  the experts by experience board we're not experts
• 38:58
  by experience we are actually you know foster
• 39:02
  carers are practitioners we are you know, we
• 39:05
  work professionally alongside other teams. We
• 39:08
  are delivering policy, if you like, care plans,
• 39:13
  you name it, on the front line. We felt so diminished
• 39:17
  by that review. We put in extensive, extensive,
• 39:22
  you know, submissions. And so to be, and I would
• 39:27
  say that we're probably some of the biggest experts
• 39:29
  on foster carers. in the country and uh by sheer
• 39:34
  hard work i might say not not because of anything
• 39:36
  special but and perseverance something like that
• 39:40
  as well um but we are not experts by experience
• 39:44
  we should have been represented properly and
• 39:47
  of course because we weren't properly represented
• 39:51
  that showed straight through in the care review
• 39:54
  in the same old totted out the same old stuff
• 39:57
  for foster carers oh are you being supported
• 39:59
  enough are you being you know it was a really
• 40:01
  sort of a diminishing experience for foster carers
• 40:05
  and of course the quiet attrition of foster carers
• 40:06
  just leaving you know the care review had a lot
• 40:09
  to do with that they're just like oh well okay
• 40:12
  so really really really there is going to be
• 40:14
  no change the diminishing experience of it wasn't
• 40:18
  it louise it was horrendous We are diminished.
• 40:23
  I wonder, and I have absolutely nothing to back
• 40:25
  up this theory, but because it's a bit like the
• 40:29
  veterinary industry, they make huge amounts of
• 40:34
  money out of the kindness of women who take up
• 40:38
  the roles as veterinary nurses and so on and
• 40:40
  do a lot of the work. I might be talking complete
• 40:43
  rubbish. But I think I might not be. But with
• 40:47
  foster care, it's also perceived as women's work
• 40:50
  that instill a lot of the mindsets of what looks
• 40:54
  like, from my perspective, when I look at all
• 40:56
  the faces, men in control of this sector, that
• 41:01
  it feels like they perceive us as some sort of
• 41:04
  like... it's women's work it has a less value
• 41:07
  and if they give us too much attention or we're
• 41:10
  given too much voice and the truth will be out
• 41:13
  and then they might have to pay us or we're still
• 41:15
  have us around those tables and listen to us
• 41:19
  so i think this is a deeper thing i think it's
• 41:23
  a lot to do with the fact that we're and then
• 41:26
  a lot of male foster carers and i talk to them
• 41:29
  that they end up becoming you know like oh god
• 41:32
  i really know what it's like to be a woman now
• 41:33
  you just get ignored you get undermined you get
• 41:36
  you know all these things yeah i know so i don't
• 41:39
  know i think there's there's political but i
• 41:42
  think there's so sienna there's a historic hard
• 41:44
  wiring that foster care is women's work therefore
• 41:48
  worthless yeah yeah It was deeply distressing,
• 41:53
  wasn't it, Joe, about the experts by experience
• 41:58
  and the care leavers were, there were hundreds
• 42:02
  and hundreds of them deeply distressed by it.
• 42:06
  And even the ones that were popular and the chosen
• 42:11
  ones, if you like, now seem distressed by it
• 42:14
  because he's peddling right back on the care
• 42:16
  experienced protective stuff. Yeah. And just
• 42:22
  to kind of address Louise's point, I completely
• 42:26
  agree. There is that certainly that gendered
• 42:30
  element to all this. One thing that I do think
• 42:33
  our mapping was helpful with was it shows clearly
• 42:36
  how many men are in the center of these policy
• 42:40
  discussions in what, you know, especially our
• 42:43
  mapping mostly looked at teaching profession
• 42:46
  and social work professions, both of which are.
• 42:49
  female majority professions, but, you know, by
• 42:52
  a long shot. And it's really important, I think,
• 42:54
  to say female majority professions, not female
• 42:57
  dominated professions, because that's often the
• 42:58
  terminology used because they definitely are
• 43:00
  not. If you look at the higher realms of leadership
• 43:03
  roles in these professions, they do tend to be
• 43:06
  very disproportionately male considering the
• 43:10
  frontline makeup, gender makeup. And that's,
• 43:17
  you know. that's problematic for all sorts of
• 43:20
  reasons, but it's, it certainly got those historical
• 43:24
  elements to it as well of the diminishing of
• 43:27
  what is perceived as women's work. And I think,
• 43:30
  I forget who it was exactly, but it was a politician.
• 43:33
  And she said before that social workers need
• 43:36
  just common sense and that the job could just
• 43:39
  as easily be done by street wise grannies was
• 43:42
  her exact terminology. And that is the, this
• 43:47
  sort of perception that you kind of get from
• 43:49
  politicians which is what we suffer from hugely
• 43:52
  yeah yeah so it does be again it's it's that
• 43:55
  yeah like you said it's the idea yeah i could
• 43:59
  easily find it i'll find it out before we finish
• 44:01
  this podcast and i'll tell you yeah we'll put
• 44:03
  it in the comments you find out the um Yeah,
• 44:07
  and like you said, it's that perception of foster
• 44:09
  carers that I think you said sitting in front
• 44:12
  of the TV during the day and like, how is that
• 44:15
  real work as if that's what foster carers are
• 44:17
  spending their time and energy doing. If they
• 44:20
  get a chance to stop and watch some TV, it's
• 44:23
  a few minutes of self -care. oh we just light
• 44:28
  a candle that's so we didn't have a bath that's
• 44:30
  that's our that's our mindfulness and our therapy
• 44:34
  done you know it's simple i have our nails done
• 44:36
  you know yeah we just had like have a massage
• 44:38
  and yeah go off to the spa and yeah right not
• 44:43
  yeah i know we laugh because it's so tragic Yeah,
• 44:52
  absolutely. But no, thank you for that. And I'm,
• 44:55
  yeah, interesting. When you talk about the reforms,
• 45:00
  Jo, I think I'm right in saying that, you know,
• 45:03
  you solve problems of their own making. What
• 45:06
  do you mean by that? Just really quickly, it
• 45:09
  was the Secretary of State, Virginia Bottomley,
• 45:12
  who said that about Streetwise Grannies. And
• 45:15
  she was actually a social worker. Oh, was she?
• 45:16
  Oh, right. Oh, really? Makes it even more concerning.
• 45:22
  But, you know, same as yourselves, we get that
• 45:24
  sort of kind of diminishing of the role all the
• 45:27
  time. But sorry, you were saying about solving
• 45:31
  problems. Well, I actually think it's diminishing
• 45:33
  of the children, to be perfectly honest. Yeah,
• 45:36
  of course. Yeah, yeah, at the end of the day,
• 45:38
  yeah. Young people. Yeah, no, I was just curious
• 45:41
  about in your work, you talk about, you know,
• 45:44
  you talk about these reforms. You know, we use
• 45:46
  the word reform lightly or interest needs to
• 45:49
  solve solving problems of their own making. I
• 45:54
  just wonder what you do. So it's kind of about
• 45:56
  the same people being involved for so long. So
• 45:59
  Isabel Trowler is a good example. So she's the
• 46:02
  chief social worker for children and families
• 46:04
  in England. She was appointed by Michael Gove,
• 46:06
  interestingly enough. And her role was announced
• 46:11
  at the same time as Frontline was announced by
• 46:12
  Michael Gove to add an extra little element.
• 46:15
  She's been involved in Frontline and stuff. But
• 46:18
  anyway, the point I want to make is she's been
• 46:19
  in the role for like 12 years now, I guess, 2013,
• 46:24
  12 years, yeah. And she's still like, you know,
• 46:27
  arguing to solve the same problems that she claimed
• 46:30
  she wanted to solve when she came into post.
• 46:32
  So arguably now she's claiming to want to solve
• 46:36
  problems that she... helped create or at least
• 46:39
  sustain you know and she spent huge amount of
• 46:43
  money in that role you know launched all sorts
• 46:45
  of highly disruptive reforms been involved in
• 46:47
  some really questionable contracts and still
• 46:51
  social work vacancies have increased agency rates
• 46:54
  have increased working conditions for social
• 46:55
  workers have tanked turnovers increased pay is
• 46:59
  stagnant social work students are in a much worse
• 47:02
  position but you know ultimately she's friendly
• 47:07
  to the network and friendly to the government
• 47:09
  uh so she's and now she's leading the next you
• 47:13
  know set of reforms uh and like you know she's
• 47:16
  very close with josh mcallister uh as well so
• 47:19
  he's certainly not gonna force her out anytime
• 47:22
  soon so there almost becomes this failure to
• 47:25
  fail uh there's like you know there's there's
• 47:28
  no parameters whereby somebody can kind of from
• 47:33
  these policy networks can be held. Actually,
• 47:35
  strangely enough, the main positive about somebody
• 47:38
  like Josh McAllister becoming a minister is suddenly
• 47:41
  he actually does have a scope to fail because
• 47:44
  he's now in a government position where the buck
• 47:47
  does really stop with him. So now is his opportunity
• 47:51
  to kind of implement these reforms and he can't
• 47:54
  really blame anybody anymore because he's got
• 47:57
  his hand on the wheel and he can get... From
• 48:02
  a politician's perspective, the ultimate thing
• 48:03
  was if he's demoted from minister and or kicked
• 48:06
  out of government, which it sounds like a hell
• 48:08
  of a lot of Labour MPs will be in the next time
• 48:11
  that they allow us to vote, unfortunately. Do
• 48:14
  you think, just on that naive question, because
• 48:19
  I find a lot of this quite troubling, is that
• 48:22
  you have a very small group of people, you know,
• 48:25
  they're in the centre of your network, who...
• 48:29
  who seem to feel that it's OK to keep failing.
• 48:33
  Now, when we say that they're failing, what we
• 48:37
  actually mean is they're failing children again
• 48:39
  and again and again and again and again. And
• 48:42
  what I keep finding in the language of all this
• 48:47
  is I hardly hear the children. They get shunted
• 48:50
  to the side, even off the cliff now. And it's
• 48:54
  like, what do you think now? Is it a kind of,
• 48:58
  again, these are my words, no one else's, a form
• 49:02
  of weird narcissism that these people are in
• 49:05
  these roles? And they actually, to me, I don't
• 49:09
  feel from them and their policymaking and the
• 49:12
  way they do their work that they have any compassion.
• 49:17
  Because if you had compassion, this would be
• 49:20
  an emergency every minute of the day. When you
• 49:23
  look into the eyes of the young people that we
• 49:26
  work with, this is an emergency. Sarah and I
• 49:29
  often talk about the stress we feel just knowing
• 49:33
  how bad it is, let alone looking at it and trying
• 49:37
  to advocate for children. I want to help other
• 49:40
  foster carers understand. And the young people
• 49:45
  who are coming out of care and can ask these
• 49:47
  questions, because when I came out of care, it
• 49:50
  was so troubling to think, why didn't anyone
• 49:54
  care? And when I sat with siblings who were also
• 49:57
  in care, and we've sat in Oxford in a park, the
• 50:01
  first time we met after 30 years, 30 plus years,
• 50:04
  tears pouring down his face. He just said, why
• 50:09
  didn't anyone care? And that's the question that
• 50:12
  children want to know. So when you've got people
• 50:14
  up and making decisions at policy level, and
• 50:18
  I know they'll be listening, why don't you care?
• 50:21
  Where is your compassion and what are they doing?
• 50:24
  Why are they there? I guess that's about, you
• 50:28
  know, how do these networks shape what the government
• 50:32
  defines as success? Because there doesn't seem
• 50:36
  to be any success. What do you think, Jo? uh
• 50:41
  yeah and i as much as i'm highly critical of
• 50:45
  uh these networks and people in them and how
• 50:48
  they work often the people in them i i do think
• 50:52
  genuinely think that they're you know, they are
• 50:56
  doing the best that they can or they're trying
• 50:59
  to change things and they think this next reform
• 51:03
  will be the one that works, you know, even though
• 51:05
  it's based on the same basic assumptions as the
• 51:08
  last reform. And even though, you know, everything
• 51:11
  that I've tried in kind of those veins hasn't
• 51:14
  really worked. So I don't. I don't think it's
• 51:19
  a lack of compassion or desire to help people.
• 51:23
  Like a lot of these people I'm talking about
• 51:24
  are former professionals or even current professionals.
• 51:28
  And so they will not necessarily have that kind
• 51:32
  of persistent frontline engagement, but they
• 51:37
  will, you know, they'll know about the challenges
• 51:39
  and things. Not all of them, not everybody, certainly
• 51:41
  not some of the management consultants who are
• 51:43
  involved or the financiers. But so I don't want
• 51:49
  to completely do that, although I completely
• 51:51
  understand it can feel like that. And social
• 51:53
  workers certainly often feel like that as well.
• 51:55
  And the people they support that the people making
• 51:58
  decisions and deciding reforms don't care to
• 52:02
  an extent. And so it's also not about dismissing
• 52:05
  that feeling because it is there. And, you know,
• 52:08
  to some extent, it doesn't really matter the
• 52:11
  motivations behind people in the network and
• 52:13
  what they're doing if the impact is the same
• 52:16
  one. people and children uh as far as kind of
• 52:21
  how they shape what they define as success uh
• 52:26
  well in line with that how they define success
• 52:30
  chops and changes a lot kind of almost at times
• 52:34
  depending on what's expedient so and i guess
• 52:37
  another role of these networks is that it hides
• 52:39
  this it hides that failure that i was talking
• 52:41
  about it doesn't kind of hold people into account
• 52:43
  so i already kind of mentioned the failures of
• 52:45
  isabel trawler as chief social worker frontline
• 52:48
  the charity i mean if you look at they were established
• 52:51
  with a bunch you know the proposal for frontline
• 52:54
  laid out some really clear areas that this was
• 52:56
  that frontline was going to address rising demand
• 52:59
  just for our listeners actually joe because not
• 53:01
  everybody will know what frontline is can you
• 53:03
  do a little explainer oh yeah sure i wasn't sure
• 53:15
  so Frontline is a charity and it was founded
• 53:20
  with a lot of government support but it is it's
• 53:22
  an independent charity and it it's central role
• 53:28
  is to train social workers in what they call
• 53:32
  a fast track route so kind of social workers
• 53:35
  have this summer school where they go in for
• 53:39
  five six weeks I can't remember exactly what
• 53:41
  it is and they have really intense training and
• 53:44
  that used to be residential now I think a lot
• 53:46
  of it's gone online COVID realities of that and
• 53:51
  then they're kind of thrust into frontline roles
• 53:53
  where The approach is to give them as much responsibility
• 53:57
  as quickly as possible, because these are supposed
• 54:00
  to be the best and brightest. They're people
• 54:02
  from highly selective Russell Group universities.
• 54:05
  So they're supposed to be better than the rest
• 54:08
  of us. For anybody, Teach First is probably a
• 54:11
  better known version of this. Frontline was based
• 54:13
  on Teach First. Josh McAllister, who we've been
• 54:15
  talking about, he was trained through Teach First.
• 54:18
  So it's that same model of teach first. It's
• 54:21
  like, you know, the best and brightest graduates,
• 54:23
  they'll come into the classroom or they'll come
• 54:25
  into the social work office and they'll all these,
• 54:27
  you know, by definition, by association, I should
• 54:32
  say, if they're the best and brightest, then
• 54:34
  the rest of the professionals who are in there
• 54:35
  with 20 years experience are, you know, use your
• 54:38
  own terminology. So it creates a lot of tensions
• 54:43
  as well within the profession. It almost kind
• 54:45
  of splits. the profession uh so when frontline
• 54:48
  were established uh 2013 -ish they had like this
• 54:54
  kind of bunch of things that they said the best
• 54:55
  and brightest were gonna come in and and solve
• 54:58
  so things like rising demand uh for services
• 55:01
  high vacancy rates amongst uh in social work
• 55:04
  teams high agency team use uh and each of these
• 55:10
  kind of things has worsened or at minimum there's
• 55:13
  no clear evidence of improvement but there's
• 55:15
  no like accountability for Frontline. They've
• 55:19
  just recently been awarded a new contract that
• 55:23
  increased their numbers again, as they always
• 55:26
  do. Government contracts. Yeah, sorry, government
• 55:30
  contracts. Millions and millions. Hundreds of
• 55:33
  millions have gone into these types of agencies
• 55:36
  or these types of charities. And they do get
• 55:39
  support from private organisations, like I said,
• 55:42
  like often some organisations that are quite
• 55:46
  questionable ethical issues going on to themselves
• 55:50
  which actually is is something about that is
• 55:53
  that to an extent charities like frontline allow
• 55:56
  these organizations that have been up to some
• 56:00
  quite dubious and questionable things around
• 56:02
  the world and in england and by associating themselves
• 56:06
  with frontline suddenly they can say well look
• 56:09
  we're not that bad we're we're helping children
• 56:12
  yeah it is it's very similar to greenwashing
• 56:14
  we like to call it like They're almost laundering
• 56:16
  their reputations through the profession. They're
• 56:19
  using the profession as a way to kind of suggest
• 56:22
  that they're not as bad necessarily as all other
• 56:25
  evidence might suggest. And then it becomes kind
• 56:30
  of about saying the right thing, you know, not
• 56:33
  challenging the status quo, loyalty, shared ideology.
• 56:36
  These things become far more important than track
• 56:39
  record. And that shared ideology tends to be.
• 56:44
  associated with market and business logic so
• 56:47
  rather than kind of disruptive or or challenging
• 56:50
  or professional values and logic yeah very interesting
• 56:56
  and that that that goes back to what i said earlier
• 56:59
  about follow the money yeah and i mean so do
• 57:06
  these fast track routes undermine long -term
• 57:09
  professional development and relational practice
• 57:11
  relational practice i mean that's a big word
• 57:14
  these days isn't it how you've just i think you've
• 57:16
  just kind of answered that in a sense in that
• 57:18
  you can't have relational practice where there
• 57:21
  are tensions yeah i mean they've certainly i
• 57:27
  guess undermined or or certainly made it a lot
• 57:31
  more challenging for other kind of uh programs
• 57:35
  to to function uh in this network because if
• 57:40
  you've got because one of the other things about
• 57:41
  fast track organizations like i say fast tracks
• 57:44
  that's that's kind of their terminology as well
• 57:47
  because it's important to kind of highlight that
• 57:48
  actually the frontline method because they've
• 57:51
  had so many problems with with their with their
• 57:53
  method it actually now takes longer to get a
• 57:55
  master's through frontline than a standard postgraduate
• 57:57
  because they have to it's all done in practice
• 57:59
  and same thing with teach first it's it's not
• 58:02
  It's not necessarily faster than other routes.
• 58:04
  The fast track element, I guess, is more about
• 58:06
  the fact that they do this kind of six week program
• 58:09
  and then they're in practice where they're where
• 58:11
  they're getting all this responsibility and supposed
• 58:14
  to have this impact while they're qualifying.
• 58:18
  So. But they also get a huge amount of money
• 58:22
  from the government for this, like it costs way
• 58:24
  more to qualify a social worker through frontline
• 58:26
  than standard university routes, which is another
• 58:29
  inequity, because then social work students.
• 58:32
  on most university programs most of them don't
• 58:36
  even get any a bursary anymore and if they do
• 58:38
  it's it's very small the amount of bursary hasn't
• 58:41
  increased in like 12 years so you've got students
• 58:43
  who are on one program best and brightest often
• 58:48
  from more advantaged backgrounds as well who
• 58:51
  get full pay you know you know 20 000 bursary
• 58:55
  for the first year and then in the next year
• 58:57
  they get salaries Whereas you've got students
• 59:00
  on two or three year university programs who
• 59:04
  are struggling. You know, we've had students
• 59:07
  who have worked nights while doing a full time
• 59:10
  placement, which is, you know, and that becomes
• 59:12
  a fitness to practice issue, unfortunately, because
• 59:15
  obviously you can't be practicing if you've been
• 59:17
  awake all night. But it's just the realities
• 59:20
  that they don't have that financial support.
• 59:22
  We can align with that, can't we, Louise? oh
• 59:25
  yeah but that it sounds like a bit of an own
• 59:28
  goal to be honest but but they obviously can't
• 59:31
  see it because they're funding it even more so
• 59:34
  i guess it's back to those networks who's listening
• 59:37
  to who and why can't we why aren't they listening
• 59:40
  to people that actually know how to fix things
• 59:43
  i know it's a very simple way of putting it but
• 59:46
  actually it's the truth yeah and it is it's an
• 59:50
  it's another kind of element to these networks
• 59:54
  is that those who steer too far from the kind
• 1:00:00
  of essential ideas of the network or the culture
• 1:00:04
  is a term that these networks almost have their
• 1:00:07
  own culture which does shift and change but it's
• 1:00:10
  importantly the main thing is that it sustains
• 1:00:13
  the network that it will never but those who
• 1:00:16
  kind of move too far away. So those who do a
• 1:00:19
  critical evaluation, those who speak out, they
• 1:00:24
  will find themselves excluded from the network
• 1:00:26
  or never invited in the first place. You don't
• 1:00:30
  get those voices in there. And that's not to
• 1:00:33
  say that there aren't disagreements within these
• 1:00:36
  networks, but they still largely agree on like
• 1:00:39
  the route of travel, the solutions, where they
• 1:00:41
  should come from. And probably most importantly,
• 1:00:43
  they agree that they or people like them. are
• 1:00:47
  the ones who have the answers and should be in
• 1:00:49
  charge you know that that's why you you don't
• 1:00:51
  in a situation like the care review like you
• 1:00:53
  said the involvement of foster care has felt
• 1:00:56
  quite tokenistic because you know you're not
• 1:00:58
  necessarily part of that network and yet we're
• 1:01:04
  not we're hoping that when you do your new map
• 1:01:06
  right in the middle of it will be sarah anderson
• 1:01:10
  and louise allen that'll be the day We have the
• 1:01:17
  determination. Shall we move on to the next sector?
• 1:01:24
  Impact on the frontline. um what happens to social
• 1:01:28
  workers and carers the human cost of policy capture
• 1:01:31
  by these big networks um with public sector system
• 1:01:36
  designed around managerial targets and short
• 1:01:39
  -term schemes social workers and foster carers
• 1:01:41
  face disempowerment and burnout how do you think
• 1:01:45
  these reforms and the impact of policy capture
• 1:01:49
  has changed the nature of social work itself
• 1:01:52
  um I guess something we've already touched on
• 1:01:59
  is that kind of many of the reforms like frontline
• 1:02:01
  chief social worker, what work centers, they
• 1:02:04
  kind of they start from the premise that social
• 1:02:07
  workers aren't good enough. So we need to get
• 1:02:10
  the best and the brightest to replace poor social
• 1:02:12
  workers. We need to do these what work centers
• 1:02:16
  that were set up to do government, to do research
• 1:02:19
  essentially for the government. So they kind
• 1:02:21
  of we need the government. led research because
• 1:02:24
  social work academics like myself just aren't
• 1:02:26
  doing good enough research. We need somebody
• 1:02:29
  to speak for the profession. So the chief social
• 1:02:31
  worker, even though the debates about what her
• 1:02:33
  actual role are are long, but we need people
• 1:02:37
  to speak for the profession because existing
• 1:02:38
  leaders aren't good enough. So it's not just
• 1:02:40
  frontline professionals. It's all up and down.
• 1:02:42
  You know, it's the idea that people. aren't good
• 1:02:45
  enough so this has undermined you know the confidence
• 1:02:48
  and the belief that the profession has in themselves
• 1:02:50
  how could it not and you know it perpetuates
• 1:02:53
  the myth of social workers just not being good
• 1:02:56
  enough and that's absolutely been my experience
• 1:02:58
  you know systems fail social workers but social
• 1:03:03
  workers rarely fail based on their professional
• 1:03:05
  standards and values so These reforms that are
• 1:03:09
  often built on these ideas, like I said, that
• 1:03:12
  the public don't like social workers. But the
• 1:03:15
  truth is that when you ask the public directly,
• 1:03:17
  they're overwhelmingly positive. That as well
• 1:03:20
  creates this kind of barrier between social workers
• 1:03:23
  and people that they work with, including foster
• 1:03:25
  carers and children. It almost splits us. And
• 1:03:29
  I think you touched on it earlier. It prevents
• 1:03:31
  us from collaborating together where you would
• 1:03:33
  potentially have. a lot more power to challenge
• 1:03:37
  and change things. Absolutely. Absolutely. It
• 1:03:40
  sounds like, you know, when you talk about the
• 1:03:45
  funding and the way this has all been laid out,
• 1:03:48
  I mean, when you talk about Russell Group students,
• 1:03:49
  you know, I used to work in academia and I remember
• 1:03:53
  like the brightest, brightest ones. I would not
• 1:03:56
  necessarily say they have the empathy and compassion
• 1:03:59
  or the understanding of that to work with social.
• 1:04:02
  to do with the social sector now i i've actually
• 1:04:05
  worked with as a foster carer some of these graduates
• 1:04:09
  that you're talking about and they didn't know
• 1:04:12
  who i was i never went on the ground i never
• 1:04:15
  discussed who i am if they happen to look me
• 1:04:18
  up then that's fine but they usually don't because
• 1:04:20
  i'm just a foster carer um which works to my
• 1:04:23
  advantage um but it was a disaster On every case,
• 1:04:28
  it has been a disaster. And we've had to work
• 1:04:31
  incredibly hard as foster carers with the organisations
• 1:04:35
  that they always move on as well. They don't
• 1:04:38
  stay. They go very quickly. And you have to clear
• 1:04:41
  up their mess. And this is absolutely shocking.
• 1:04:45
  And the children, and let's go back to the children
• 1:04:48
  because we've got to keep remembering why we're
• 1:04:49
  all here. The children don't like them either
• 1:04:51
  because children are the greatest radar, have
• 1:04:54
  the greatest radar of authenticity and sincerity.
• 1:04:57
  And if you are in this to just better your own
• 1:05:02
  financial position or your status or your career,
• 1:05:05
  they sniff that immediately and they will do
• 1:05:07
  what they can to jeopardise that if they want
• 1:05:11
  to, because they can. So it's like I found it
• 1:05:14
  really terrible. It feels to me like a kind of
• 1:05:18
  honey trap for easy procurement. That's what
• 1:05:22
  it feels like. It doesn't feel like it's got
• 1:05:24
  the best interest of the students. Now, when
• 1:05:26
  you talk about a six week program, where's the
• 1:05:29
  enrichment? What do you really learn? Now, I've
• 1:05:32
  been a foster. Bearing in mind, I've spent my
• 1:05:34
  entire life in the care system. I was in care
• 1:05:36
  since before I was born. I am still learning.
• 1:05:41
  I am still learning every I am always learning
• 1:05:46
  and I'm a good learner I love learning I would
• 1:05:49
  never say six weeks I'm now ready how could you
• 1:05:53
  so it feel it feels a bit dark if I'm honest
• 1:05:56
  it feels quite sinister and as you know when
• 1:06:00
  you know I'd like to get the evaluation of this
• 1:06:04
  practice from young people and say how was that
• 1:06:06
  you know how was that for you Yeah. And it's,
• 1:06:10
  I mean, I guess something to say is that I don't
• 1:06:14
  want to disparage every professional who's come
• 1:06:16
  through Frontline or Teach First or any of these
• 1:06:19
  other programs, because they undoubtedly do qualify
• 1:06:23
  some really great professionals who go on to
• 1:06:25
  do really great work and things. And it's, you
• 1:06:30
  know, and a lot of them, sometimes they even
• 1:06:33
  enter these programs with moral quandaries about.
• 1:06:36
  you know, knowing that there's deficits with
• 1:06:39
  the model and, you know, I've had, because I've
• 1:06:42
  written about this stuff, I've had people contact
• 1:06:44
  me often via social media saying, you know, I'm
• 1:06:47
  thinking about doing frontline or think ahead
• 1:06:50
  or teach first or one of these. What do you think?
• 1:06:53
  I feel like they're almost asking me for permission
• 1:06:55
  sometimes, but it's, I usually say to them, look,
• 1:06:59
  I understand it. Like it's. You're talking about
• 1:07:02
  most of these people. These are almost always
• 1:07:04
  people who have just qualified from university.
• 1:07:06
  Obviously, the market of university now means
• 1:07:09
  that most people qualify with or finish their
• 1:07:13
  first degree with life limiting debt. And the
• 1:07:17
  idea of choosing between doing postgraduate in
• 1:07:22
  a university where you'll take on more debt or
• 1:07:24
  a highly funded program like Frontline. it can
• 1:07:29
  kind of unfortunately seem pretty straightforward
• 1:07:32
  for why students for why people do that which
• 1:07:36
  is also a reason why university software programs
• 1:07:39
  are struggling so much because you know you do
• 1:07:41
  have that that challenge uh from that when we
• 1:07:44
  can't even remotely uh equal the amount of money
• 1:07:48
  and resources that the government gives frontline
• 1:07:50
  to to train and support its people so i just
• 1:07:53
  don't want to completely disparage like all professionals
• 1:07:56
  who go through these things but but the point
• 1:07:58
  you make is is is still valid in that in choosing
• 1:08:02
  social workers primarily they still do other
• 1:08:07
  tests and stuff and and interviews and things
• 1:08:10
  but the the first step is kind of having that
• 1:08:12
  academic that strong academic best and brightest
• 1:08:14
  talented whatever they want to call it background
• 1:08:16
  and that's not a recipe for successful recruitment
• 1:08:21
  onto into you know professions where academic
• 1:08:25
  background isn't necessarily the most important
• 1:08:28
  aspect. I think there is some research that backs
• 1:08:31
  up what you've said about people from those backgrounds
• 1:08:35
  having slightly more difficult engaging in empathy
• 1:08:38
  and things. And, you know, like yourselves, and
• 1:08:43
  I know, Sarah, you've talked about kind of your
• 1:08:46
  background and kind of what brought you into
• 1:08:48
  foster caring. And I'm sure the same is with
• 1:08:51
  you, Louise. You bring yourself into the background
• 1:08:55
  and the professions and that, and that almost
• 1:08:57
  is your background, whether it's a professional
• 1:09:01
  background before joining the profession or before
• 1:09:03
  becoming a foster care or your personal background
• 1:09:06
  before entering one of those things, that shapes
• 1:09:08
  you as a professional. And that kind of is so
• 1:09:11
  influential in how you act and support people
• 1:09:15
  and just in understanding the issues that you
• 1:09:17
  kind of deal with and you come across. I couldn't
• 1:09:21
  agree more when we all, let's face it, we all
• 1:09:23
  come into these professions with our own sort
• 1:09:27
  of frame of reference, with our own, you know,
• 1:09:31
  our own motives, really. It doesn't matter what
• 1:09:34
  that motive is or what it looks like. We very
• 1:09:37
  definitely, it's all about us. I came in because
• 1:09:40
  I've always had a passion for young people. And
• 1:09:45
  of course. often comes often in our profession
• 1:09:49
  especially fostering may have come from not having
• 1:09:51
  the easiest time when you were younger yourself
• 1:09:54
  like Louise but also I came in from the NHS seeing
• 1:10:01
  a lot of young people in adolescence and then
• 1:10:04
  decided I want to do more at home so yeah that
• 1:10:06
  I came from that but coming from that background
• 1:10:09
  in the NHS I also brought that with me which
• 1:10:12
  Then, of course, translated into completely being
• 1:10:15
  startled and amazed at the way I was treated
• 1:10:19
  and the difference in the way I was treated there
• 1:10:21
  from my team, previous team. So that was a real,
• 1:10:25
  real eye opener and probably set me on this path
• 1:10:28
  of campaigning for better. And also, I think
• 1:10:31
  what gets lost in all of this, in what we're
• 1:10:35
  talking about today in foster care, is the children.
• 1:10:40
  The problem is when you come in, you probably
• 1:10:43
  are, a lot of these people probably are thinking
• 1:10:46
  about the children or the adults they're going
• 1:10:48
  to care for. But somehow, I mean, we've sort
• 1:10:52
  of gone into all our other questions. They've
• 1:10:56
  all merged into one now. That's how it happens.
• 1:10:58
  Yeah, but somehow these sort of systemic distortions
• 1:11:03
  then start to translate into the experience of
• 1:11:06
  the child every day. I kind of guess. How can
• 1:11:10
  we build a system on stability and humanity,
• 1:11:16
  not ideology? Any answer? Got any magic answers
• 1:11:22
  to that? Yeah, the listeners can't see my face
• 1:11:26
  as I try to solve these things. Yeah, I mean,
• 1:11:32
  as far as kind of the... the everyday experience
• 1:11:35
  that children have and how this kind of impacts
• 1:11:37
  on them i mean you both probably know that much
• 1:11:39
  better than me i like i said my my background
• 1:11:42
  is adults so even what i do know is kind of more
• 1:11:44
  around that but there are there are things that
• 1:11:47
  you can point to like uh like careless accommodation
• 1:11:51
  for 16 17 year olds i don't know how much you
• 1:11:54
  Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So the government introduced
• 1:11:58
  kind of new standards for care experienced children
• 1:12:01
  under the age of 16. Yeah, standards. But these
• 1:12:06
  standards, they didn't apply to 16, 17 year olds
• 1:12:09
  necessarily, with the essential kind of difference
• 1:12:12
  being that 16 and 17 year old children could
• 1:12:15
  be placed in accommodation that doesn't include
• 1:12:17
  quote unquote care. So this can be like an unregulated
• 1:12:22
  setting where sometimes they're homed alongside
• 1:12:24
  adults. And so this was this was going on during
• 1:12:28
  there's a charter. There's a charity, Article
• 1:12:32
  39 that. Yes. So they have a much better account
• 1:12:36
  of this. But this was all kind of going on during
• 1:12:39
  the Macalester Care Review. And in the interim,
• 1:12:41
  the interim report that the Macalester Review
• 1:12:43
  produced. the view was kind of taken in there
• 1:12:48
  loosely that it could be important for 16 and
• 1:12:50
  17 year olds who want more independence to be
• 1:12:53
  afforded kind of the opportunity to be to be
• 1:12:55
  housed in this unregulated place that doesn't
• 1:12:58
  have care so recall like these unregulated settings
• 1:13:02
  they don't have the kinds of minimum standards
• 1:13:04
  that well that foster carers would be subject
• 1:13:06
  to you know they aren't regulated they aren't
• 1:13:09
  all regulated by Ofsted they're privately owned
• 1:13:11
  often money making is an important aspect of
• 1:13:13
  that too So anyway, the government was actually
• 1:13:15
  challenged about this in court. But when they
• 1:13:18
  were, the government relied on the Macalester
• 1:13:21
  interim report as evidence for kind of why these
• 1:13:25
  the differences in care standards were needed,
• 1:13:28
  because the Macalester report had mentioned almost
• 1:13:30
  in passing that some 16 and 17 year olds wanted
• 1:13:34
  this independence. So then when the court found
• 1:13:37
  in favor of the government that these standards
• 1:13:39
  could be different, essentially. the Macalester
• 1:13:42
  Review, the interim report was used to support
• 1:13:45
  that. And then when the final report came out
• 1:13:47
  and actually was quite critical of the government
• 1:13:50
  approach for 16 and 17 -year -olds, it didn't
• 1:13:53
  matter. The court case was done. It was at its
• 1:13:56
  end. And again, I would look up the work of Article
• 1:14:01
  39. They've got a much better account. this i'm
• 1:14:04
  worried i've butchered some points there and
• 1:14:06
  i'm kind of relying on on what they've reported
• 1:14:08
  but i think they've just done some really great
• 1:14:10
  work in child and that's this is still going
• 1:14:12
  on you know that that that is still the status
• 1:14:14
  quo of uh for 16 and 17 yeah yeah it's it's absolutely
• 1:14:18
  shocking louise you've got a lot to say on that
• 1:14:20
  well no i well i'm living it at the moment um
• 1:14:24
  what what fascinates me and always has fascinated
• 1:14:27
  me is it's a kind of um The snapshot language
• 1:14:32
  that social workers use, which is why I believe
• 1:14:34
  that social workers require at least three years
• 1:14:37
  in education to understand the nuances, the efficacy,
• 1:14:43
  the emotional intelligence. Because when you
• 1:14:46
  say 16, 17 year olds want independence, why?
• 1:14:52
  What prompted them? How was that conversation?
• 1:14:55
  Yeah, how was that conversation? Was that a manipulated
• 1:14:57
  conversation? Was it, you know, what I find of
• 1:15:00
  a lot of young people is you get a young social
• 1:15:03
  worker and the boundaries are blurred between
• 1:15:06
  friendship and, hey, look at me and let's be
• 1:15:10
  friends. And then they say things which they
• 1:15:12
  don't mean. So it takes experience. It takes
• 1:15:15
  a good education. And education must become before
• 1:15:18
  for foster carers and social workers. before
• 1:15:22
  training. You have to have depth of knowledge.
• 1:15:25
  So a lot of, when you, you know, you talk to
• 1:15:29
  young people and they say, or you're told, you
• 1:15:32
  know, the classic we hear is they vote with their
• 1:15:35
  feet. How can they vote with their feet when
• 1:15:38
  they don't know what they're voting for? We call
• 1:15:42
  it the teenage keys to the kingdom, we call it,
• 1:15:45
  because the social workers or the PAs come along
• 1:15:48
  and they say, Suddenly in a half an hour, and
• 1:15:51
  this happens frequently in half an hour, they've
• 1:15:54
  never met this young person. We've often fostered
• 1:15:57
  them for years. They don't engage with us and
• 1:16:00
  they hand them what I call the teenage keys to
• 1:16:03
  the kingdom. Oh, you can be independent. You
• 1:16:05
  can live in your own flat. You're going to get
• 1:16:07
  money, even though they don't realise it's far
• 1:16:09
  less money than they get now. And you can live
• 1:16:12
  on your own. No adults around telling you what
• 1:16:15
  to do. What teenager at 16 is not going to grab
• 1:16:18
  that? Yeah, especially a teenager who's been,
• 1:16:20
  you know, who's been let down so often. Absolutely.
• 1:16:26
  That's when it becomes the relationship, when
• 1:16:30
  you get the newly qualified. social workers or
• 1:16:33
  the new that don't have the depth of education
• 1:16:36
  and experience that's when it becomes dangerous
• 1:16:38
  i think for the young people not by malice i'm
• 1:16:41
  not saying that joe at all not out of malice
• 1:16:43
  and often they think they're doing them a great
• 1:16:45
  favor and getting them away from these evil foster
• 1:16:48
  carers but you know i think uh it's probably
• 1:16:52
  one for another day but there's a lot of work
• 1:16:54
  to be done there i think if we're to stop you
• 1:16:58
  know we've got to stop fishing these care experience
• 1:17:01
  out of the river i mean they that's another one
• 1:17:03
  of those one of those interesting conversations
• 1:17:07
  and again probably as long as you know all day
• 1:17:10
  but the the business of how they spend so much
• 1:17:15
  money funding people like the family rights group
• 1:17:19
  for instance to go and find young people's attachments
• 1:17:24
  that they've lost along the way and now they're
• 1:17:27
  in you know got mental health problems why aren't
• 1:17:29
  we spending more money stopping that happening
• 1:17:31
  in the first place yeah you're asking me yeah
• 1:17:37
  that's uh well it must be similar for you you
• 1:17:41
  know yeah well i was hoping that was a rhetorical
• 1:17:42
  question because i don't have an answer for that
• 1:17:44
  i think it does well it it's often that kind
• 1:17:49
  of thing as well where you mentioned earlier
• 1:17:52
  about kind of how i talked about uh the pantomime
• 1:17:55
  of reform so this this idea that these kind of
• 1:17:59
  changes happen all the time and but from a professional
• 1:18:02
  perspective you don't really notice any difference
• 1:18:05
  except for the disruption that kind of that kind
• 1:18:07
  of comes from them uh it's it's this idea that
• 1:18:12
  if you never the solution never seems to be let's
• 1:18:18
  properly fund foster carers let's prop like not
• 1:18:21
  properly fund property support let's say the
• 1:18:23
  frontline professionals that's properties and
• 1:18:26
  they you know they'll phrase it in that language
• 1:18:28
  and stuff but ultimately it tends to be tinkering
• 1:18:30
  with systems and restructuring or whatever uh
• 1:18:33
  but you know arguably if you haven't kind of
• 1:18:37
  provided that essential support and if frontline
• 1:18:40
  workers don't feel supported and like they have
• 1:18:42
  a backup and that they they don't have to constantly
• 1:18:46
  be firefighting or like trying to find how to
• 1:18:49
  firefight almost and they don't expect some valuing
• 1:18:53
  and all of that yeah and if you don't support
• 1:18:55
  social workers if you don't support foster cares
• 1:18:58
  on the frontline then it doesn't matter how good
• 1:19:00
  your systems are the whole thing won't work whereas
• 1:19:03
  actually professionals of every ilk can function
• 1:19:08
  quite well with bad systems if they feel and
• 1:19:11
  are properly supported. So arguably you need
• 1:19:14
  to get the, I mean, we already do. The systems
• 1:19:16
  are bad regardless of what they say. So they
• 1:19:19
  already have the experience of pushing through.
• 1:19:21
  But I think the first step is to properly support
• 1:19:25
  professionals. And I include foster care is in
• 1:19:30
  that 100 percent. And you once you've kind of
• 1:19:32
  provided that support, then start talking about
• 1:19:35
  restructuring and reform, because to be honest,
• 1:19:37
  you don't really know what's working and what
• 1:19:39
  isn't working if you're not properly supported.
• 1:19:42
  And that's why you end up just with perpetual
• 1:19:44
  conveyor belts of changes and reforms, because
• 1:19:48
  at no point are any of them going to succeed
• 1:19:50
  because. the people who are on the front line
• 1:19:54
  implementing them they're not supported to do
• 1:19:56
  them and at this stage they're apathetic to them
• 1:19:58
  probably yeah i think apathetic's right i mean
• 1:20:01
  should we draw to a close in with section five
• 1:20:04
  louise or you do you want to add something there
• 1:20:06
  no no i'm mindful that we're taking up joe's
• 1:20:09
  yeah oh that's okay this is really interesting
• 1:20:12
  really interesting because i wanted to tell you
• 1:20:17
  joe that what a uh that what you have just said
• 1:20:21
  you know and i'm talking slowly so carl can edit
• 1:20:24
  but what you have just said is key to everything
• 1:20:28
  you have just landed as far as i'm concerned
• 1:20:31
  on the bit we need to do The bit we need to do
• 1:20:34
  is to serve, you know, the rest. It's like, look
• 1:20:37
  after your pennies and the pounds will take care
• 1:20:40
  of that. Yeah, so true. And you've got to work
• 1:20:43
  at the chalk face, always at the chalk face.
• 1:20:47
  Recently, I met a guy and his wife, ex -military.
• 1:20:52
  They'd both retired from the services where he
• 1:20:55
  was. He did something like 12 tours of Afghanistan
• 1:20:58
  and all the rest of it. And they became foster
• 1:21:01
  carers and they left after two years. months
• 1:21:03
  and I said oh what what happened he said because
• 1:21:07
  I have never felt so unsafe he said when I am
• 1:21:11
  on in the army when I am working I have a clear
• 1:21:16
  chain of command and I know who's got my back
• 1:21:20
  he said when we were foster carers we didn't
• 1:21:23
  know who we could even trust And that is very,
• 1:21:29
  very difficult. It resonates clearly that we
• 1:21:31
  need a clear chair. I'm the most un -military
• 1:21:34
  kind of thinking person you'll find. But it's
• 1:21:38
  like, we don't know. The clarity isn't there.
• 1:21:40
  So you're absolutely... Jo, if I could give you
• 1:21:42
  an award today, it'd be you just... On the very
• 1:21:47
  thing, and Sarah, I think we need to take that
• 1:21:49
  bit further. Yeah, yeah, I do. Because it's a
• 1:21:51
  muddle. It's such a muddle. We live in a muddle
• 1:21:54
  as foster carers. I mean, in France, for instance,
• 1:21:56
  just across the channel, since 1989, they've
• 1:21:59
  been, you know, they're state workers. They get
• 1:22:02
  a pension after 10 years. They have got union,
• 1:22:06
  proper union rights and union bargaining units.
• 1:22:11
  They get paid a salary. every month and then
• 1:22:15
  they get additional amount for the children's
• 1:22:18
  allowances as they come in and go out and it
• 1:22:21
  works and our government say that You know, it
• 1:22:25
  couldn't possibly work, a system like that. But
• 1:22:27
  it does in France. And actually, one of the big
• 1:22:30
  things is for foster care, isn't it? After 47
• 1:22:32
  years, a carer gives up and they've got no pension
• 1:22:34
  at all. But we don't have, this is the whole
• 1:22:38
  juxtaposition of status, about who we are, about
• 1:22:41
  the whole confusing thing, because very much
• 1:22:44
  we're used as one thing when it suits and another
• 1:22:47
  thing when it doesn't. But sort of wrapping up
• 1:22:50
  on this. We sectioned the last one called Reclaiming
• 1:22:54
  the Profession. And I think you're going to do
• 1:22:56
  a lot if I haven't got an answer for that. But
• 1:22:58
  I guess we've touched quite a bit on this. You
• 1:23:02
  know, we want to, in this podcast, look at solutions
• 1:23:05
  and hope as well as positivity, not just negativity.
• 1:23:10
  And hope, resistance and reform from within,
• 1:23:14
  I think, sums Louise and I and what we do up.
• 1:23:19
  And you often talk about social workers. social
• 1:23:21
  workers both a site of control and potential
• 1:23:24
  rebellion i think we got from somewhere um so
• 1:23:28
  how can social workers foster carers and communities
• 1:23:31
  reclaim influence over policy and over all this
• 1:23:36
  tight stranglehold that certain people have on
• 1:23:40
  um on the system and what collective professional
• 1:23:46
  voices what can they do differently And, you
• 1:23:50
  know, basically, where do we go from here, Joe?
• 1:23:53
  What would be a great way forward? Well, I think
• 1:23:58
  the collective point is really important. We've
• 1:24:00
  touched on it earlier, this importance of kind
• 1:24:03
  of cross -professional collaboration. And so
• 1:24:06
  much is set up to kind of push us apart, like
• 1:24:10
  push social workers away from foster carers,
• 1:24:13
  push, you know, push the public away from professionals.
• 1:24:18
  I've done some in my work because it's often
• 1:24:21
  analyzing the Department for Education. I can't
• 1:24:24
  help but end up in teaching circles. And the
• 1:24:27
  network overlaps. It's very much often the same
• 1:24:32
  people who are implementing ideas that have often
• 1:24:34
  failed in teaching, but then they decide, oh,
• 1:24:36
  let's try them in social work. So I think, so
• 1:24:42
  I've had some amazing collaborations with teachers
• 1:24:44
  and academics from the teaching side and education
• 1:24:47
  side, and they face the same challenges. And,
• 1:24:50
  you know, we've already talked about how foster
• 1:24:52
  care has shared many of the same challenges.
• 1:24:54
  So I think, you know, and I think the reforms
• 1:24:59
  that we've talked about and the approach that
• 1:25:01
  this network takes towards reform is often individualized
• 1:25:05
  solutions. things that individualize things like
• 1:25:10
  saying we need the best and brightest social
• 1:25:12
  worker to come into a team to solve things as
• 1:25:14
  if one person acting alone can fix an entire
• 1:25:18
  system so I think rejecting that kind of push
• 1:25:21
  towards individualism and you know promoting
• 1:25:24
  that idea of collective action I think is probably
• 1:25:26
  the most important thing I think you're right.
• 1:25:28
  And I'd just like to visualise what it would
• 1:25:30
  be like in a social worker's office where you've
• 1:25:33
  got, you know, seasoned social workers who've
• 1:25:36
  spent many years under the belt of practice and
• 1:25:39
  in swings a young whippersnapper who went to
• 1:25:43
  one of the red brick universities and is like,
• 1:25:46
  they have to tolerate. Even the idea that they
• 1:25:50
  now have to listen to somebody who has not got
• 1:25:54
  their experience because all our work depends
• 1:25:57
  on experience because it's what you see, you
• 1:26:00
  feel, you hear and you smell becomes our experience
• 1:26:04
  and informs every decision. So I feel very bad
• 1:26:08
  for that person that's been sent in to transform
• 1:26:12
  and change because they can't. If that person
• 1:26:16
  walked into my office, my hackles would go up
• 1:26:19
  and my resistance would be strong. And that's
• 1:26:22
  just me. So I feel that, you know, that's a dangerous.
• 1:26:26
  It is. And how it also I think also it just pinpoints
• 1:26:31
  for me what how experience has somehow become
• 1:26:36
  less than. For instance, I never use the term
• 1:26:40
  lived experience next to a foster carer because
• 1:26:44
  for some reason that's a diminishing thing. You
• 1:26:47
  say, oh, you know, we really want to hear your
• 1:26:50
  lived experience. I'm like, no, no, we've got
• 1:26:53
  professional experience, we've got whatever.
• 1:26:54
  But experience is so important. How come it's
• 1:26:57
  got so diminished? Yeah, and I guess, yeah, it's...
• 1:27:04
  We've talked about, we've kind of skirted around
• 1:27:06
  it, but there's been an over -focus almost on
• 1:27:09
  recruitment and a de -emphasis on retention.
• 1:27:13
  And that's in social work, but it's also in foster
• 1:27:16
  cares. And it's, you know, the need to, again,
• 1:27:21
  like we talked about, the need to actually support
• 1:27:22
  professionals and foster cares who are doing
• 1:27:25
  the job rather than thinking we need to, I mean,
• 1:27:28
  we definitely need to bring more foster cares
• 1:27:30
  and social workers in, but. they're going to
• 1:27:33
  just leave if they're not valued and we're going
• 1:27:36
  to just be replacing the pipeline. It's going
• 1:27:40
  to be constantly having this flow of professionals
• 1:27:42
  through. I think the average working life of
• 1:27:46
  a social worker is something that's often talked
• 1:27:48
  about. I think there was a study that's really
• 1:27:51
  out of date now that said it was like seven years.
• 1:27:53
  I can't imagine that it's less than that. I'd
• 1:27:58
  say it's less than that now. You've talked about
• 1:28:02
  how quickly some foster carers leave when they
• 1:28:05
  experience the realities. Yeah, yeah. That's
• 1:28:09
  shocking. I think we should end on that because
• 1:28:11
  I think, Jo, that is absolutely key. Look after
• 1:28:17
  your retention. Stop ignoring it. Look after
• 1:28:22
  the ones you've got because, after all, they're
• 1:28:24
  the best adverts you've got for recruitment,
• 1:28:26
  frankly. And then... Yeah, I think that's a really
• 1:28:30
  central message. And I think it's a central message
• 1:28:33
  that all those on that map need to understand
• 1:28:37
  whether they ever will or not, I'm not sure.
• 1:28:39
  But Jo, gosh, have you got any last thoughts?
• 1:28:42
  That was a fantastic podcast. I think we might
• 1:28:44
  have to split it into two because there were
• 1:28:47
  so many important things to speak about. I want
• 1:28:49
  to say to Jo, because I think Jo has hit many
• 1:28:53
  things. on the nail today but i'm really interested
• 1:28:57
  and curious about how we can create professional
• 1:29:00
  um avenues pathways into each other's worlds
• 1:29:05
  so that foster carers can work with social workers
• 1:29:08
  in in a in a way that is impactful that a way
• 1:29:12
  is that can be built upon because we are literally
• 1:29:15
  set amongst each other upon each other and that
• 1:29:19
  is so wrong so wrong um how can we How can we
• 1:29:24
  do that? What are the settings or the agendas
• 1:29:27
  where we can collaborate? Because we could work
• 1:29:30
  so well together and share knowledge. Agreed.
• 1:29:34
  Yeah, and it does, it becomes almost in these
• 1:29:36
  informal settings. Like, I mean, I say this,
• 1:29:41
  we're three of us sitting in front of computer
• 1:29:43
  screens, talking to each other in what might
• 1:29:47
  seem quite formal, but compared to like a professional
• 1:29:49
  interaction, it's incredibly informal. and you
• 1:29:52
  do i think you really need to because while while
• 1:29:56
  i talked a lot about networks being important
• 1:29:58
  for uh you know policy development and things
• 1:30:01
  like that if we go back to what i talked about
• 1:30:04
  at the very start which was the theory of the
• 1:30:05
  network society and this idea that society is
• 1:30:07
  more made up of networks now than anything that
• 1:30:10
  means that resistance needs to be networked as
• 1:30:12
  well so actually it is about kind of creating
• 1:30:14
  those connections and that that mutual support
• 1:30:17
  and there's one thing that that can help with
• 1:30:20
  is that it's much more difficult to co -opt a
• 1:30:23
  network so if you've got an organization that's
• 1:30:26
  got a leader who's challenging the government
• 1:30:28
  they can bring that leader in and suddenly that
• 1:30:31
  organization is kind of under the umbrella whereas
• 1:30:33
  actually a collaborative and supportive network
• 1:30:35
  can't really be co -opted in that same way and
• 1:30:38
  there are examples you know during the care review
• 1:30:41
  there was a thing that I was involved in called
• 1:30:43
  the care review watch alliance and that was you
• 1:30:46
  know there was a huge variety of professionals
• 1:30:48
  involved in that who had kind of as their their
• 1:30:51
  goal to watch this troubling review as it progressed
• 1:30:55
  and so I think it can happen but like you've
• 1:30:59
  said it's really challenging because so much
• 1:31:02
  is set up to push people apart yeah and I think
• 1:31:05
  Louise you said it earlier everybody's so damn
• 1:31:08
  busy to take the time to do that it's really
• 1:31:11
  given us food for thought i think that hasn't
• 1:31:13
  it i think yeah well i feel i feel inspired now
• 1:31:18
  i feel inspired as well to find ways of doing
• 1:31:22
  that and maybe you set people against each other
• 1:31:24
  it's just divide and conquer isn't it yes and
• 1:31:27
  that's what and that's where we lose our strength
• 1:31:30
  you know i think yeah social workers and foster
• 1:31:34
  carers listen we're the ones working directly
• 1:31:38
  with those young people and teachers and everybody
• 1:31:42
  setting everybody else up to fight each other.
• 1:31:44
  I sit in those CLA reviews. I sit in those meetings,
• 1:31:48
  those pet meetings. Everyone's rolling their
• 1:31:50
  eyes when the other person is not there, just
• 1:31:52
  saying, oh, it's all their fault. It should not
• 1:31:54
  be like that. We should have each other's backs
• 1:31:57
  because if we have the children's best interests,
• 1:32:01
  genuinely, the children at the front and centre,
• 1:32:05
  we'd all get on. because we'd all agree and that's
• 1:32:09
  what the children first and then i think that's
• 1:32:13
  a fantastic place to finish the children first
• 1:32:16
  um and we hope that more people follow that thought
• 1:32:21
  um joe thank you so much for joining us If you're
• 1:32:25
  interested in more of Joe's work, we'll link
• 1:32:27
  his publications, including that very important
• 1:32:30
  map in the show notes. And as always, if you're
• 1:32:34
  a foster care professional, want to be part of
• 1:32:36
  this conversation, you can join us at Foster
• 1:32:39
  Care Uncovered. And we look forward to hearing
• 1:32:43
  from you. Please give us your feedback. Joe,
• 1:32:45
  thank you so much. Thank you. It's been an inspiration.
• 1:32:50
  And we'll speak to you very soon, hopefully.
• 1:32:54
  Bye.