Interviews and Ideas

Please forgive the blatant self-promotion in this post but it’s Friday and I’m feeling a like I have a bit of a cold coming so I’m less ‘perky’ than usual.

Dorlee from Social Work Career Development has published an interview which she did with me and it concentrates on what I do at work and some of the ways it differs from Social Work in the United States.  Excellent work, if I do say so myself – but joking apart, it is a good way for us to learn about social work in other countries.

Shirley Ayres has written a fantastic post for PSW, the BASW magazine (yes, I know.. ) and it includes some gems from myself. It’s a piece about social media use for social work specifically and is definitely worth a look.  The PDF is available here

As for my twittering on last week about wanting to work collaboratively on more online social work conferences/learning/interaction – well, it’s VERY rudimentary, but I’ve set up a ‘holding site’ here

Feel free to nose around as the whole point is to emphasise openness, conversation and working together on something that can be led by social work and improve social work without having a cost barrier to entry and that allows all who want to learn and contribute to do so. I’ve also added a very basic forum just to collect ideas.

I don’t have any great desire to ‘run’ this project and if anyone with greater technical skills wants to volunteer them then please please do but it’s a start and I hope someone will – even if it isn’t me – because I think something that adds value to our collective, international knowledge base and moves learning out of universities and into practice will be a real ‘hook’ in convincing more practicing social workers to engage with social media and new technologies.

Enough from me, the forum is here. Do join and share ideas.

(Don’t be scared that there isn’t much there yet.. everything needs to start somewhere!)

Technology, Social Media and Social Services – Finding new ways to ‘help’

iPad con dock y teclado inalámbrico

Image via Wikipedia

I have some across lots of discussions and debates about ways of using social media and new technologies and interactions to ‘help’ social services become more effective. Most of it seems to revolve around building online directories and databases of micro providers and services that are available which build on so-called community capacity to improve the way that personal budgets can or might work.

At the risk of sounding overly cynical there is nothing ‘innovative’ in my mind about building a directory of services.  To me, this is not a particularly innovative way to use ‘technology’ in social services.  It taking a very obvious and well-trodden route to using new technologies. Providing directories while being useful to a certain group of people again exacerbates the isolation of those who are not party to or able to use them.  Being innovative isn’t always necessary to be helpful but it is very important that new ideas are focussed so we don’t just end up with increasingly specialised, localised directories that might have more ‘interactive’ features and feedback, look more ‘user led’ and compatible with the buzz words of social media but in the end they are brushing the surface of possibilities.

It feels more and more as if that there is a growing division between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ as far as personal budgets have been extended and does absolutely nothing to address or use technologies to address those who reside continually in the ‘have not’ section.

While at work, we labour with database systems that have clearly been developed through conversations between commissioners and software companies without any recourse to frontline practitioners, nice new provider directories are being tinkered around with while the fundamental foundations of the systems we work with remain resolutely inaccessible.

I’ve had a few ideas myself and whilst I lack the technological expertise to see any of these ideas to fruition, this is a kind of ‘wish list’ of the sorts of things I’d like to see.  I’m under no illusion that these are ‘new’ ideas. I am sure similar things already exist in some form but they are things I’d like to see pan out in the longer run. Things I’d like to use at work.

I’d like to see more creativity in the use of technologies to assist with decision making for adults who have some kind of cognitive deficit. I’m a great fan of the ‘tablet’ and ‘touch screen’ model as I think it is intuitively an easier interface to understand.  When I see people instinctively reach out to touch the screen of my Kindle (which isn’t touchscreen!) I realise that we are becoming conditioned to seek the easiest input methods which are about touching a screen and speaking into a microphone and perhaps writing on a tablet. Now, voice recognition has improved, I’m yet to come across very successful handwriting recognition (possibly because I have scrawly almost illegible handwriting) but there is potential there. In the meantime, pictures and touchscreens seem like a good way to go.

Using pictures/sounds/music it can draw on multi-media ‘shows’ and explanations of different options – moving beyond the ‘written word’. Providing documentation in aural form or in pictorial/moving form rather than reams of leaflets. Having recordings of familiar voices or pictures of familiar faces might help to reassure. I’m a great fan of telecare in general with the proviso of always being mindful that the human contact is not replaced but in days where human contact is sparsely provisioned anyway, it may be something that can be experimented with.

Why not a YouTube type video to explain how services can be chosen instead of reams of ‘easy read’ leaflets which really aren’t remotely ‘easy read’. Instead of flooding people with lists of providers (which, while good for some ignores those who are restricted in terms of capacity and carers to choose ‘freely’ the types of services they garner) why not explain and expound in different ways the ways that services can work?

Why not explain providers in terms of what they can actually provide and what purpose they serve rather than creating directories that are meant for people with a good understanding of what they want and need?

I was in a day centre last week and there was a seemingly unused Wii. I wonder if he Kinect might be a better project to develop some type of interactive play, exercise and work as it doesn’t need a controller at all and uses the more innovative way of body movement.  Using participatory games with larger screens in company can provide different stimuli. I know why games developers  haven’t tackled directly the ‘older’ market with games that might otherwise reside in memories but why not repackage old school yard games and board games with Kinects and iPads? It may be a good way to introduce the use of these new technologies in a ‘friendly’ manner which may then see them used in other wider ways – such as directories or personalised information sources. Using YouTube video channels for personally designed ‘reminiscence’ therapies could personalise the delivery of memories and digitise memory boxes where items are not there to build up the frames of someone’s life and people aren’t there to fill in the gaps.

There are many ‘dating site’ type services that match people and organisations. Volunteers to voluntary groups etc. How about a type of match between schools and residential homes? I know it’s something that’s sometimes done locally where I work and having spoken to both providers and some of the kids who go in, they seem to enjoy it and it can change and break expectations – each of the other.  I

We talk of social media a lot and often it is used to provide ‘recommendations’ to particular services through these databases. Perhaps more user and carer led general recommendations can be collated. Crowd source an ‘introduction’ to social services provisions by those currently using the service.

Ask ‘what do you wish you’d known?’ ‘what do you wish someone had told you?’ and while taking out all the obviously libellous stuff, a local authority must be brave enough to leave in the criticisms. We learn through complains and criticisms and it can take a lot of guts (or anger) to make a complaint or to criticism and that MUST be respected by the service and the individuals at fault and used as a means of improvement.

I don’t want to see local authorities ‘whitewash’ problems in order to gain sparkling OFSTED or CQC inspections. It sullies the whole process and makes the inspections worthless. Regulation should be less authoritarian and more about actually making improvements and making things better for the end user – not about allowing local authorities to produce the ‘right’ results while poor practice is brushed away from the sight of the inspectors.

But back to my point about using social media to crowdsource – it is important that social media ALONE is not used as an ‘answer’. Crowd sourcing must be honest but it must also be broader than putting out an ‘internet consultation’ and having a Twitter account or blog. There must be pounding of the streets too to engage those who are not able to use digital means to put their points across. There should be knocking at doors and face to face discussions – not leaflets, not inaccessible (for some) groups.

Talking about crowdsourcing though, there’s a much better and perhaps more obvious way it can be used and certainly isn’t being used at the moment and that’s to engage other social workers and professionals into putting together more information and useful methods of practice for ourselves. Sure, it needs time but we remain reliant on organisations to provide ‘guidance’ such as SCIE (who do provide fantastic resources) and BASW and the College of Social Work but why none of these organisations who purport to exist to help social work and social care practice actually engage more directly and use social media and open access blogs/discussion groups/forums/micro blogging etc to engage with currently practicing social workers is completely beyond me.

I’ve become very interested in open access education and resources and feel there is great scope for professional engagement and information to build its own resources and information together with users and carers, together with other professionals but there has to be a push for social workers to see the benefit of sharing and finding appropriate ways to share the information that we learn every day.

I have other ideas which will come in different posts  but I’d be interested in hearing other peoples’ ideas for uses of ‘technology’ in the very broadest sense and how they can develop to help the broadest range of people we see in social services – particularly those who are less able to look information up in various fancy online directories.

Old Media, New Media and the Social Echo Chambers

News of the World

Image via Wikipedia

I’m off on a bit of a tangent today and I apologise to my social work readers for that, but sometimes a story happens that causes me to think more widely about the implications on a societal scale.

So in the wake of the death of the News of the World, I was left with a few residual thoughts about the transitioning between traditional media sources and the so-called ‘new’ media and the role and interplay between them.

I have been feeling for a few months if not more that the ‘internet’ – blogs and twitter predominantly, create their own ‘echo chamber’ effect where it is easy to become caught up in a competition of ‘page hits’ and ‘followers’ where you might gain an overinflated idea of the influence that can be welded by a blog or a tweet or by one particular ‘voice’ over another.

I occasionally boast about my ‘hits’ or ‘numbers of posts’ because I’m human and I indulge myself but I know that out of an audience of the average ‘man in the street’, my online life, perhaps because I separate it through a different (anonymous) identity has no bearing or interest to people in the ‘real world’.

I am sure some communities, professions and cultures are more likely to ‘connect’ than others. Journalists for example, would be foolish not to build their voices through different channels. Social Workers, less so but it remains a fine way of building conversations through unconventional means to promote the identity of the profession and to challenge poor press coverage.

Twitter especially, with regards to counting followers – can become a self-referential and meaningless circle of assumed influence if it is not used and reflected on. Yes, I have many followers but much more important is WHO those people are rather than the numbers. Similarly with this site my ‘hits’ keep going up but if that’s made up with people who find me by an ‘I hate social workers’ search or because they want information about ‘dangerous hamsters’ (incidentally, one of my highest search terms (!)) it shouldn’t be the cause of a celebration at this wonderful ‘break-out’ opportunity to ‘influence’.

Twitter for me, started as an alternative to an RSS feed as a means of ‘following’ the delivery of news. It became more conversational but now I see it as reverting to a news delivery system but with more curation. I know the people I follow will find the news that interests me and sometimes I will have useful and interesting conversations but mostly it is about news curation and building links in a much more effective and randomly serendipious way than blog comments where the power tends to remain in the hands of the site owner/s.  So in a sense, Twitter can become it’s own kind of newspaper with people whom I trust finding the articles that I know I will find interesting.

I’ve also tried to be a little sceptical in part about a role in social media regarding the building of individual influence and branding. Far more likely larger, different conglomerate and disparate sites and services will take over rather than the individual person with a voice having their own blogger or wordpress site.

And then I see as the News of the World story broke, the so-called ‘Twittersphere’ (and Facebook groups) picked up the baton (aided, importantly, by some larger group blogs – Liberal Conspiracy and Political Scrapbook ) in targetting advertisers.

I still suspect that people who extensively use Twitter and read blogs are in the massive minority in the general populace however those users have loud voices and they have influential voices. PR likes new media – so voices shouting loudly are heard by the ‘right’ people.

My  worry is two-fold though before we head off down the path of increasing equality and a breaking down of the barriers between bloggers and journalists, people and politicians.

Firstly, there are massive groups of people who are disengaged and remain disengaged by the so-called ‘digital divide’. Some groups of people are much more likely to have their views heard.

Secondly, the rise of the group blog and of different kinds of news organisations like the Huffington Post which set up in the UK this week, as well as Dale and Company (which is launching today)  are merely replacing one kind of journalism for another.

There will always be a place for good journalism and don’t think we are close yet to the death of the newspaper but the balance has shifted a little more along the way this week.

Sometimes it’s useful to take a step back and retain a perspective outside the ‘internet’ and ‘new media’ bubble and remember that there is still a long way to go before we assume equality of access and  pay attention to the volume of the different kinds of voices that may be heard.

Media, whether old or new, still has an agenda. We shouldn’t think that just because we can add a comment to a news story or a blog post or retweet an interesting nugget or post curious stories to facebook that we have a greater role in influencing the agenda. Maybe we do but it isn’t necessarily the case.

In the meantime though, I can’t say I would be sad to see a re-examination of the relationships between media and politics in society in general. It is well overdue.

So Goodbye News of the World – Hello seven day Sun. Is the world really that different?

Maybe.

The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing

To continue my theme (at least initially) for carers’ week, I wondered a while on the purpose of these weeks and days and months we have devoted to various issues.  They are about celebration, gratitude and recognition for the most part. Celebrating Mothers Day, for example,  doesn’t make us less grateful or thankful for our respective mothers on the other 364 days of the year so what is it about having a special day or week that is necessary.

I’m not a cynic. It is a good focus for events and allows particular issues that can be forgotten to be drawn out into the news agenda for a discreet period of time (a week is good – it can focus the attention). Campaigns can be built around days or weeks or months and themes can be wound up in the consciousness of the ethereal ‘general public’ whose attention can be fickle and fast-moving.

So it is that Carers Week is upon us but for it to be truly meaningful over the longer term there has to be a more systemic change in the process of social care and the way it is done in this country.

I engaged in a very brief ‘Twitter chat’ yesterday with a carer, Casdok, who writes a blog here. She mentioned that since her child had moved from childrens’ services to adult services she had noticed that she was listened to less and (I’m extrapolating a little here because it was in very short messages!) the service received was less good.

A brief exchange mentioned the loss of the relationships with particular social workers – you know, when the social worker used to pop round for a cup of tea – made me wonder what we have lost in the rush towards ‘care management’ which was to be the way that adult social care was organised after the NHS and Community Care Act.

I worked in an adult social care team before I moved into Mental Health services. The office had something of a ‘production line’ feel to it. Assess, review, close. Assess, review, close. Sometimes you would linger if there were direct payments involved but that would mostly be about referring to a different agency or part of the council to set up the payments and advise about employment regulations and advertising for assistance.

The relationship was and is lost. Is this what we study for? To assess, review and close with some safeguarding thrown in with increasing regularity. The processes have been streamlined almost to the point of any independent thought and true ‘assessment’ in the sense of being able to give professional judgements being rattled out of the processes to simplify.  This process has streamlined the heart out of social work for adults.

Critical analysis and reflection, yes, there is an option but it has to be in your own time and at your own rate. When we lose the critical analysis and reflection in our work though, we cease, to all intents and purposes being social workers and become care managers.

And where is the relationship-building? The listening. The advocacy. It has been costed out of the equation. It cannot be reduced to a performance indicator and therefore it has no value.

The issue is that it does have a value. It has a value to carers and to service users but often that value is unquantifiable and in a world of measurements and costs, unquantifiable is not where you want a value to lie. Because it is discarded.

The reason I moved from adult social care into mental health social work was because I felt my brain was stagnating to a point. Of course, things may have changed with self-directed support being more available now but I hope I always assessed in a person-centred and creative way. I certainly set up a lot of direct payments packages.

For the moment, in the mental health teams we do have a little more time to spend building therapeutic relationships. We have  more time to listen. It is all measured, of course, against outcomes because we have to be able to justify every minute we spend on paid time  but the ability to build relationships and to listen are, at least, embedded more strongly in the role.

I can’t see us ever going back to the days of being able to pop in for cups of tea. And we have lost much much more than a piece of cake along the way. We have lost the soul of the profession at the sniping jaws of employers who want to distil creativity out of the job because we need to meet specified targets in specified times. Everything is quantified.

Sometimes though, we need to be less complacent as employees. There are jobs going. There are changes coming in our services. Last years cuts are only the very start. They will come more quickly. Social Work is changing. It will move out of local authorities and I don’t think that will necessarily be a bad thing. It may be the best thing for the profession as a whole, in fact, if not for individual employees who won’t necessarily have the rock solid pensions and the now laughable idea of job security.

Perhaps we need to take more responsibility for our own work and our own profession in order to retain the values that remain at its heart and move into community work and macro-social work.

I occasionally get glimmers of real hope and drive for the future and the ways in which this profession can change and be changed and then, I look at the people at the top and wonder if there is any desire for truly structural changes in the way that social care and social work is delivered. Yes, I want personalisation to work, I really do but I want the value of good (and I really mean good) quality social work to be recognised in the process.

Yes, there are coercive elements to our role. I know that only too well as an Approved Mental Health Practitioner. I didn’t go into this job to be loved and as for respect, for the most part, I can take it or leave it – except for self-respect. I have to be able to feel I am giving the best every day I am at work and that regardless of some of the more coercive elements of my work, I am able to work according to my moral and ethical compass.

Sometimes I worry that has been lost but perhaps among the structural changes that are going on around us in social care, some true change can be affected.

I hope so.

Are Beans more valuable than People? – Or A Day at Community Care Live 2011

Yesterday I went to the C0mmunity Care Live conference. It is an annual event put on by Community Care Magazine and runs across two days. Being one of the very few free events (and excellent – free isnt the ONLY reason I go but it does help!),  I’ve always made an effort to attend on one or other of the days and try and catch up on the workshop and debate programme that is put together about a very wide range of subjects relating to social care in the UK.

I went to a few workshops and my attempts at ‘live tweeting’ were scuppered initially when a colleague from work came to sit next to me in the first session.

It was a packed session run by the Mental Health Foundation about their Dementia Choices project and the title of the session was ‘Can personalisation and direct payment support work for people with dementia?’. There was an initial presentation about the research evidence and the project that the Mental Health Foundation had put together to pilot direct payments among adults with dementia  and then there was a talk from the daughter of a service user whose direct payments had changed her life.

I was a bit disappointed though. Not with the presentation and talks – they were very good and it was obviously something that was very deeply felt by those who have direct payments working for them but, in a sense, I felt that the speaker who first received direct payments for her mother in 2003 (I think – that’s from memory but it was a good few years ago) could have made the same speech about their use about 2 or 3 years ago before the move of the more widespread personalisation agenda. Her mother had been receiving direct payments for 8 years. What was ‘different’ then with this new push towards everyone receiving a direct payment?  I refer to my previous points about us knowing that direct payments can work incredibly well if there is an involved family to provide support for the person who may lack capacity but for the isolated older person who lacks capacity there is no ‘magic wand’ to make the systems that are over-complicated seem suddenly more empowering if there is no-one to take on the support planning role.

I’ve said this before and will again that I feel currently there is a two-tier service that we are providing where those with involved families and carers may receive the more individualised support plans simply because the additional time burdens of arranging support is placed on informal carers whereas those who do not have those networks receive exactly the same services as they always do – we just call it ‘managed personal budgets’.

The workshop instilled in me a kind of despair that this group of people that I work with a lot has again been sidelined in favour of the ‘easier’ groups. Where is the research with people who have greater cognitive impairments and who don’t have family members or carers who can or who are able to manage their support plans for them? Ah, a role for the voluntary sector perhaps? The problem is that the voluntary sector is also shrinking and someone needs to pay them so that a role for ‘support planning’ is likely to mean a lower personal budget.

Still, I know I should try and be more cheerful about it. It just seems that so much of the research time spent about personal budgets has been telling us things that we already knew about research that had taken place around marginalised groups regarding direct payments.

The second session I went to was about the need for media and social workers to work more closely together. Social Workers should not be afraid of the media and the media (and by that, the panel were referring particularly to main stream media – because that’s where the battles are to be won!) – should have a chance to engage more with social workers. The usual subjects of local authorities barring their employees from speaking to the press came up and hopefully the College of Social Work will be addressing this on a broader scale.

There are a lot of inaccuracies reported and it would be good to see more social workers able to contribute to debates about the work which we do to quell some of the misunderstandings.

I then went to session on Making Personalisation Work in an era of cuts. I almost didn’t go because I thought (wrongly, as it happened) that it would irritate me and that it would be people lecturing to us again how it is the intransigence of social workers which is holding up the forward march of social care.

It wasn’t that at all and for once, it really did sound like people were actually listening to what I wanted to say about the personalisation agenda and my fears for it. There is nothing at all I would like to do more than work in a person centred way regarding care and support planning. This is something I hope that I have always been doing since I qualified though. If it can be improved, it must be and I am more than willing to change every way I have of working in order to improve it but, and this was noted by the speakers, Peter Beresford and Miranda Wixon (of Think Local Act Personal) in some ways the government’s agenda of cuts has overtaken the meaning behind the ‘personalisation’ agenda.

Unfortunately, there has been a drive to try and deliver more for less and it is not only unrealistic, it can involve pushing people into making choices that they don’t necessarily want.

Beresford made the point that the government agenda is about pushing everyone onto direct payments as the ‘preferred method’ of delivering personal budgets but, he said, crucially – ‘preferred by whom’. Well, that would be the government.

There are more ways of delivering person centred planning and person centred support than providing the cash for someone to buy their own services and while it can work incredibly well for some people, there is the very real and often ignored or side-lined issue that it is not everyone’s choice to have that choice.

The excellent concept of personalisation and putting the primary role of designing support into the hands of the user of that support and the services is being lost to the marketisation agenda.

There was a speaker on the floor, in the question time who explained that the rate of pay for carers was lower than the rate of pay for employees in Tescos – asking, ‘Do we really value cans of beans over human life?’. It makes you ponder for a while – but there are vast issues about the undervaluing of care and support staff in our culture – not just through poor pay but through poor status. Surely the ‘heroes’ of our society should be the home carers and the support workers as much if not more than the professionals whom we traditionally hold in high esteem such as doctors – who, while performing fundamental roles are at least well-compensated for it.

Another speaker spoke about an issue that I am all too aware of where choice is actually reduced for service users as in-house local authority provided services are frozen out of the provider choice that has been given to users.

Can personalisation work then, in an era of cuts? We don’t have any choice. It will because the concept is a good one although the danger is that it has been completed hijacked by a government’s cost-cutting enterprise which will end up making social care delivery so restricted that it will barely exist in all but the most extreme situations.

It is not possible to detach ‘personalisation’ from ‘the era of cuts’ as local authorities have to divest themselves of many of their functions. I see a lot of third sector organisations and possibly private sector organisations moving into the support planning and assessment verifying and supporting roles. The money (when it comes) may come from the local authorities but they will not necessarily be involved in many of the intermediate processes. It may well be that some aspects of the work are far better done in other sectors. It will become far more usual for people to pay for their own care as the eligibility criteria rise – those who can afford it anyway – those who can’t afford it may well be waiting until they meet the critical bands of need before they receive support.

There will be a two-tier system of social care support. Those who can afford to meet their own ‘moderate/substantial’ care needs according to the Fair Access to Care Services and then shift to maybe receive some support from the local authorities as their needs increase – and those who can’t afford to meet their own moderate and/or substantial needs who will deteriorate more quickly and reach the ‘critical’ band which will qualify them for support quicker at the cost of their health and independence.

I am trying to think of a positive to end on. It was good to hear some of the concerns about the pushing out of the personalisation agenda are being heard. It was good to see groups of social workers who want to be engaged in the process of change.  I got a good supply of pens and although I wasn’t able to nab a mug, I did get a frisbee!

I almost forgot too, that the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between BASW and the College of Social Work – great news. Long overdue in my view!

Personally, I enjoyed being able to catch up with some people I’ve known a long time, others I’ve come across before and some I’d only ever met in a ‘virtual’ capacity – thanks to Shirley Ayres, the team at RiPfA and of course, the Community Care team as well as others who will remain nameless!

Embracing Social Media and Developing Guidance for Social Work

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

I’ve been engaged in an interesting conversation on Twitter over the past couple of days about guidance being developed or potentially being developed about  use of social media for social workers and more generally people who work in social care.

Our sector seems to be dragging its feet a little in this respect – certainly in comparison to some of the more sophisticated writing and communities that exist in other professional domains.

Can you imagine, for example, a social care blogging event taking place on the same scale that a legal blogging event is taking place today?

Or a weekly twitter chat about social care and social media strategies as happens with the NHS.

Even other local government employees seem to be talking about ways of using social media in their work that seems to be unbelievable for those who work in social work and social care.

Shirley Ayres on her site, posts an interesting video about the spread of social media and the need for engagement in all channels.

I wonder how long many of my colleagues and managers are going to be left ‘out of the loop’ and continue to let the world develop and grow around them.

The reasons that I am so strongly in favour of guidelines is that the bars are being moved regarding contact, discourse and discussion constantly and with many people testing out new ways of communicating and engaging, there are certain difficulties that lie ahead for the front line practitioner.

One is the anonymity vs named issue which I covered a couple of weeks ago. A part of me (the part where pride is based, I guess) would love to write under my own name but I worry about the impact that would have both on the service users I work with on a day to day basis and I am genuinely unsure if I am breaking any kind of contractual rules with my writing and can’t afford to risk my job.

Another is sheer openness of the debate and discussion. Just as I told one of our foster children not to put anything on Facebook that she would not want everyone in her school and family to see, the same applies for me but more so. With Twitter/Blogs/Facebook, privacy settings can be tightened but security is always an issue and even behind an anonymous persona, being a prig or prejudicial or just ‘having a moan about a visit’ might come across very differently to a service user who has just had an unpleasant and forced encounter with a social worker – does a search – and sees social workers complaining about seeing the ‘druggie’ or about people with ‘too many children’. Everyone likes a moan but having a moan about having a busy day is different from having a moan about some of the more particular things you might see on a day to day basis.

Then there is the illusionary barrier that is provided by a screen-name. Anyone can be a ‘social worker’ if they say they are. Anyone can be a ‘judge’ or a ‘professor of social work’ or a ‘psychologist’ if they say they are. While I have a healthy degree of scepticism generally, I tend to take people at face value  but I add a hefty pinch of salt as the ‘internet’ and by extension ‘social media’ can be a great way to invent less than useful ‘personalities’ if you are so minded to do.

I remember when I did some research back in the day into the use of social networks for self-help groups – and this is over 10 years ago when I was initially doing my MA – and came across lots of research examples of online confabulation. As I say, a healthy pinch of salt.

I hope that the baton is picked up by the social work profession because more than media guides and focus groups and the odd press release here and there, we, at the grass roots of the profession have an real opportunity to be heard by those who are able to make changes and help them get an understanding of what is happening beyond those focus groups but we can also change the perception of the profession and the sector and while I certainly don’t see ‘social media’ as a cure-all, I do see it as yet another tool to be added to our arsenal regarding communication.

Where previously a bad experience with a particular social worker might have shaped someones’ perception of the profession forever, now we have the chance to join in the discussion on blogs, give advice and thoughts in different forums, add support and information on twitter and show that social workers can do a lot more than just become mouthpieces of their employers.

But our employers and our College (whatever form that takes) need to take up the baton and run with it so that guidance can allow for safer practice and inform and education others in the profession about the opportunities that are now open to them.

Carers, Conferences and Random Blog Search Terms – a Friday Special

Yesterday, I was sent an email by someone associated with Age UK to draw attention to the information on their website for carers. I get a number of requests from various sources every week but having checked out the information, it is definitely worth sharing and I will be adding the site to my ‘resource list’ both on this site and at work – and on that note, I’ll be trying to update the links on the ‘more links’ tab so am happy to take suggestions of sites that people  have found useful.

Next week is the Community Care Live event at the Business Design Centre in Islington. It’s a conference over two days every Spring that us aimed quite specifically at people who are involved and work in social care and social work.  I’ve been attending this event most years since I started studying social work and am a great fan.

As a free event, it is pretty much unparalleled in terms of access to useful and interesting debates, workshops and networking opportunities for social workers and social work students.

I’m only able to attend on one day but I hope to feedback some of the information gathered about the sessions I attend and will be following closely those sessions that I’m not able to attend. I expect there to be great coverage over at Community Care.

Finally, because I haven’t done it for a while –  one of my favourite things about writing a blog is seeing some of the terms people use  to find my site – some intentional (I think I’ve seen every possible spelling of Munro possible) , some with familiar difficulties and some just.. well, who knows!

Here are a few from the last couple of weeks (spelling retained as original)

‘is it possible to feel good about my being a social worker and imbarassed at the same time’

‘explain why i cant login to my nhs computer via a council network’ (oh, I feel your pain)

‘hairy arm pitted women’ (?!?)

‘who benfited from the nhs 1990 community care act’ (Southern Cross)

‘dementia trampolines’

‘wonder drug for alzhimers’ (would be nice)

‘are hampster dagerus’ (no, they are wonderful!)

‘sex monsters’ (I usually get at least one of these per week – I love the internet, some things are so predictable!)

My most popular search terms after the usual ones of the blog name and people searching for ‘social work blog’ or ‘british social worker blog’ or other ‘expected’ ones are ‘no roads in the city of London’ or ‘which city has no roads’ or variations on ‘gifts for social workers’.

Just to end, I noticed as I was looking through the search terms that yesterday I passed 200,000 unique ‘hits’ on my blog.

Wow. Thank you to everyone who pops by and visits. I really do appreciate the support!

Happy Weekend!