Applying Theories to Regional-Level Challenges

EDITORIAL

Social Justice and High-Quality Human Services: Visioning the Place of a Contemporary Professional Association1

The current world situation is plagued by ‘‘wicked problems’’ and a widespread sense

of ‘‘things are going to get worse’’. We confront the almost imponderable

consequences of global habitat destruction and climate change, as well as the

meltdown of the financial markets with their largely yet to be seen damage to the

‘‘real economy’’. These things will have considerable negative impacts on the social

system and people’s lives, particularly the disadvantaged and socially excluded, and

require innovative policy and program responses delivered by caring, intelligent, and

committed practitioners.

These gargantuan issues put into perspective the difficulties that confront social,

welfare, and community work today. Yet, in times of trouble, social work and human

services tend to do well. For example, although Australian Social Workers and Welfare

and Community Workers have experienced phenomenal job growth over the past

5 years, they also have good prospects for future growth and above average salaries in

the seventh and sixth deciles, respectively (Department of Education, Employment

and Workplace Relations, 2008).

I aim to examine the host of reasons why the pursuit of social justice and high-

quality human services is difficult to attain in today’s world and then consider how

the broadly defined profession of social welfare practitioners may collectively take

action to (a) respond in ways that reassert our role in compassionately assisting the

downtrodden and (b) reclaim the capacity to be a significant body of professional

expertise driving social policy and programs.

For too long social work has responded to the wider factors it confronts through a

combination of ignoring them, critiquing from a distance, and concentrating on the

job at hand and our day-to-day responsibilities. Unfortunately, ‘‘holding the line’’ has

proved futile and, little by little, the broad social mandate and role of social welfare

has altered until, currently, most social programs entail significant social surveillance

of troublesome or dangerous groups, rather than assistance. At times it almost seems

like the word ‘‘help’’ has been lost in the political and managerial lexicon, replaced by

‘‘manage’’ and ‘‘control’’. Our values, beliefs, and ethics are under real threat as

guiding principles for social programs.

1 This is an edited version of the 2008 Norma Parker Address.

ISSN 0312-407X (print)/ISSN 1447-0748 (online) # 2009 Australian Association of Social Workers

DOI: 10.1080/03124070802635084

Australian Social Work

Vol. 62, No. 1, March 2009, pp. 1�9

The Broad Factors at Play

The environment is not all bad and it is worth remembering that during the past

three or so decades there have been (a) significant increases in the proportion of gross

domestic product allocated to the social and community services sector, particularly

the nongovernmental organisations (NGOs); (b) profound growth for its workforce;

(c) overall rising levels of practitioner education; (d) a raft of new program responses

to address newly identified need; (e) large expenditure increases on primary and

secondary prevention programs; (f ) greater recognition of the significant benefits of

community development and community engagement approaches; and (g) an

expansion of career opportunities for many practitioners. Nevertheless, the late

20th century and the new millennium witnessed ambivalent, and sometimes hostile,

attitudes to social work and social welfare. Social welfare systems experienced

widespread institutional change to structures, processes, and underlying rationale

(McDonald, 2006).

Consensus about the how and why of welfare has been lost, with many influential

players arguing that social welfare and its attendant characteristics have led

generations of disadvantaged people to become dependent upon ‘‘welfarism’’. They

argue that to restore people to independence as self-reliant social actors, the clock

must be wound back and a range of social services and supports removed. From this

viewpoint, welfare is clearly part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Policies and programs have been driven from neoliberal philosophies that

emphasise individual responsibility rather than a collective response. Moreover, the

punitive and blaming aspects of programs have steadily spread across a range

of practice areas, including income support, disability, housing, child protection,

corrections, and youth justice. Social surveillance has been ramped up, with social

control more important than social care. One example is the Rudd government’s

decision to make Centrelink part of the child protection surveillance system

with inbuilt consequences for ‘‘bad parents’’ who neglect or otherwise harm their

children.

In an age where evidence-based policy has been the script for politicians and

managers alike, policy change is seldom derived from the lived experiences of those

affected. Too often it results from media-driven perceptions of systems failure that

become public scandals. Policy making occurs within an increasingly risk-averse

society, anxious to ensure that everything works well all the time, with blame and

retribution apportioned to those deemed responsible for organisational and systemic

failures. In this environment, risk has largely replaced need as the basis of social work

assessment (Webb, 2006). As Nigel Parton (2004, p. 36) noted, the state faces:

A paradox of the simultaneous demand for certainty together with the denial of its

possibility; professionals cannot provide certainty and consistency and are, in any

case, not trusted to do so. The net result seems to be that the various changes

introduced act to side-step this paradox and to substitute confidence in systems for

trust in individual professionals.

2 Editorial

During this period, the ‘‘social welfare’’ sector became the ‘‘human services’’. The

pressure to produce ‘‘more with less’’ led to a shift in service provision from

government to NGOs and community-based organisations, justified on the basis of

lower costs and their situation closer to community and service users. The contract

regime and marketisation of the human services has commodified the delivery of

social programs and services through legally binding contracts reflecting the risk-

averse positions of government.

Compounding matters has been a gradual development of not-for-profit

conglomerates and the introduction of a range of managerialist techniques, including

corporatised structures, processes, and operations. Power has shifted away from

professional expertise to management through mechanisms such as strategic review

and planning, robust budget and financial systems, and the routinised collection of a

range of business, operational, and client data. Sophisticated information and

communication technologies have become part of the daily grind for practitioners,

and business decision making is increasingly used in day-to-day determinations

about service prioritisation, rationing, and delivery.

The adoption of business-like approaches has inexorably altered the role and

functions of social care practitioners. For example, Nigel Parton (2008) suggests

computers have profoundly changed the nature of the practitioner�client relation- ships, as assessment and other functions of traditional interviews are determined by

the imperative data for organisational, program, and evaluation purposes, including

auditing and social surveillance. Case management systems have often compounded

these problems, with their attendant policy rigidities and creeping proceduralism

affecting relationship-based approaches to practice.

The changed environment has brought profound changes to the social work and

human services workforce. Its substantial growth, particularly in the not-for-profit

sector, has opened up a raft of career paths and opportunities hitherto unavailable

(Lonne & Healy, 2008). A significant diversification in the qualifications of

practitioners has occurred, aided by an increasingly marketised educational sector.

Disciplinary boundaries have blurred as positions and job descriptions have opened

up recruitment to a wider pool. Increases in the number of social workers have

been modest and substantial overall workforce growth has been filled by ‘‘welfare

and community workers’’, which has become the largest qualified group, albeit

within a sector-wide labour force that is primarily unskilled. Although this

expansion has met industry needs for different skills, a clear trend to ‘‘depro-

fessionalise’’ key parts of the labour force has been identified (Meagher & Healy,

2006) due to market pressures to reduce labour costs, difficulties in staff

recruitment and retention, and a whittling away of the requisite educational

standards for particular positions via ‘‘job redesign’’ processes. However, juxtaposed

with these trends have been increased qualification requirements for some parts of

the workforce, such as in mental health.

There has also been a growing trend towards international migration of this

workforce. Further, the human services workforce is rapidly ageing and the increasing

Australian Social Work 3

numbers of experienced professionals retiring are unlikely to be offset by the largely

static numbers of new graduate practitioners. The trends suggest that social work in

particular is likely to become a waning influence within the total workforce.

The Australian vocational training and higher education sector has witnessed

profound change over the past 15 years, with policies of marketisation and increased

central government control and direction. There are now major pressures on the

sector to rapidly transform and ensure viability through growth. Rapid adjustment to

meet industry demands has raised real concerns that professional and vocational

education standards will suffer.

To counter this, innovative educational programs and different approaches to entry

level professional qualifications are developing, including Masters degrees. Many

‘‘career changers’’ see social welfare practice as a viable career option and, despite the

widespread mythology, social work undergraduate students are not young and

inexperienced, their average age of 29 years compares favourably with that of 24 years

for all undergraduates (Lonne & Healy, 2008). However, increasing costs of higher

education are likely to be a disincentive for these older and more experienced people

to undertake vocational and higher education when they also have to meet family and

living expenses.

In Australia, membership of professional associations is not compulsory for

practitioners and, for many people, the associated benefits, such as access to

continuing professional education (CPE) or insurance coverage, are not sufficient to

make membership worthwhile. Nor is there always a clear connection between

membership and remediating the day-to-day pressures of practice. The Australian

Association of Social Workers (AASW) has a membership of 6,500 of the estimated

16,000�20,000 social workers in Australia, whereas the Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers (AIWCW) has a membership of 1,000. In order to have a

body that effectively promotes social justice, high-quality services, and professional

practice, the human service professional associations needs to become bigger and

better, substantially increasing overall membership. With approximately 50,000

professional practitioners in Australian social work and the human services, and

many more paraprofessionals and unskilled workers, there is ample opportunity for

this to be achieved.

A Vision for Things to Come

The theme of the joint AASW, AIWCW, and Australian Association of Social Work

and Welfare Educators (AASWWE) conference in 2008 was ‘‘Strength in Unity’’,

chosen to reflect a view that competitive relationships and a lack of collaboration

between social work and other welfare practitioners, as well as their professional

associations, is counterproductive to our collective interests and the broader pursuit

of social justice. The strategies I propose rest on the view that there is little place for

narrowly defined, discipline-specific solutions that include some, but exclude many

other, social welfare practitioners. Although this acknowledges the benefits that flow

4 Editorial

from a diverse workforce, it recognises the distinct disadvantages of too much

diversity, such as a lack of consistent application of core values, ethical frameworks,

knowledge base, and practice skills necessary to ensure that the community, groups,

and individuals benefit from quality services delivered within an overarching social

justice framework.

Amalgamating our Organisations into an Inclusive Body

Currently, the overwhelming majority of the 50,000 strong social welfare professional

workforce does not see a compelling reason to join a professional association. The

merits of amalgamating the organisational structures of the AASW, AIWCW, and

AASWWE in order to grow membership and build a solid foundation for advocacy

and influence are substantial. Such an organisation would not only build upon the

natural alliances and shared perspectives, but would also allow for the differences

between existing organisations. There is, indeed, Strength in Unity, but it would be

problematic to try to become a homogenised group by ignoring our differences and

distinct identities. The benefits of amalgamation are significant and attractive to the

many practitioners who are not presently represented by a professional organisation,

and include:

1. Being an influential body that fully represents the qualified workforce in the

human services in core areas such values, principles, practice methods, and an

ethical framework.

2. Becoming a single and united organisational voice that increases collective

influence in social policy and other advocacy initiatives.

3. Significantly increased capacity to advocate for appropriate registration, as well as

accredited educational requirements and practice standards.

4. Reduced duplication of organisational functions and consequent savings that are

better spent on member services.

5. Increased long-term financial and organisational viability with the expansion of

member scope and size.

Small professional associations are increasingly in danger of becoming irrelevant in

the current context of a rapidly expanding human services sector. Without a robust

and influential professional association, there will be no effective advocacy for our

values, principles, and ethics. These will disappear under the overwhelming weight of

corporatised human services, with organisational and political considerations

dictating what should be the professional standards and these self-interests

determining policy, programs, and services. One of the arguments for amalgamation

rests on the view that the value of collective influence is gained via effective advocacy.

However, collective advocacy will only be effective if the media is better used to gain

influence over political debates, social policy formulation, and organisational and

program issues.

Australian Social Work 5

Making our Standards THE Standards

We must establish our standards as THE standards for social work and social welfare

in this country, as already occurs in the educational curricula for social work practice

and established practice standards. The values and beliefs of social welfare

practitioners separate us from other helping professions, and we remain the only

discipline that embraces social justice and human rights as central to our intellectual

framework and practice values and approaches. Unless our professional standards,

ethics, and values become THE benchmark for quality practice and service delivery,

governments and organisations are left as the keepers of the service delivery

standards. The politicisation of welfare means that these are likely to be motivated

by expediency rather than principles. We should position ourselves to be the publicly

recognised and acknowledged keepers of proper practice and ethical standards, in

keeping with our traditional role as moral and practical helpers. Moreover, the

opportunity is there to lead the way and occupy this currently vacant territory,

undertaking ‘‘audits’’ of quality and practice standards across the human services.

Pursuing a Broadly Based National Registration and Accreditation Scheme

Registration of social workers in Australia has been pursued for many years without

success. A significant difficulty is the professions’ spread across a huge human services

sector that cuts across state and federal jurisdictions, as well as various ministerial

portfolios. Perceptions of self-interest and the absence of political or bureaucratic

champions have also hindered this cause. One solution is a broadly based registration

scheme for the human services workforce, which will protect the public from harm by

ensuring that all practitioners are appropriately educated, trained, and supervised,

and that high standards of ethical practice are attained. Protection of the titles, such

as ‘‘social worker’’, ‘‘welfare and community worker’’, and ‘‘social care practitioner’’

can be sought through regulation. One model is the General Social Care Council in

the UK. Such an approach would ensure a coordinated system of national

accreditation of curriculum in higher education and Vocational Education and

Training (VET) sectors. Setting and accrediting high standards is fundamental to

protecting the public and ensuring a properly trained workforce. There is a critical

need for diversity of qualifications and training. One size does not fit all. But there is

also a need for regulation in order to prevent the present situation of ‘‘anything goes’’.

Raising the Profile of the Profession

There is a serious and long-standing problem in attracting a sufficient number of

talented people into careers in the human services. Yet, we do not know why such

careers are less attractive than expected or how people, particularly Generation Y,

perceive these. In the US, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has

responded by spending significant funds on market research about the profession and

6 Editorial

the development of a sophisticated public education campaign to change negative

community perceptions. In the UK, the government has provided valuable scholar-

ships to students to study social work. The AASW has this year initiated a program to

research and raise the profile of social work, but we need a national workforce plan.

Government, other employers, educators, and professional associations must all make

contributions to secure the sector’s sustainability in the recruitment market.

Promoting Membership Pathways

The current single-tier memberships of the AASW, AIWCW, and AASWWE do not

properly reflect the range of members’ skills, abilities, and experience. Membership

categories do not designate members’ career progression from new graduates to

highly expert practitioners. This lack of internal recognition of expertise contributes

to the devaluing of the highly complex roles and tasks of practitioners and the

struggle to demonstrate their abilities to employers via promotion processes. One way

to address this is a membership system that explicitly recognises the diversity of

members and actively promotes members’ career progression through educational

and other advancement options. Unless the professional association explicitly

recognises higher order skills, abilities, education, and experience, then it is unlikely

the general public and employers will do so.

Becoming a Top Line CPE Provider

An amalgamated professional organisation could promote lifelong learning of human

service professionals through a business arm to provide quality CPE clearly linked to

career and membership progression. The AASW has relied for too long on the efforts

of volunteer branch CPE appointees to organise annual calendars and the delivery of

training. This model is now stretched to its limit and does not always provide the

range of options that the broad membership requires. Although volunteers should be

centrally involved in the determination of CPE priorities and planning the calendar,

organisation and delivery should be left to paid staff through commercial and other

partnerships with universities, VET sector educational providers, and a range of other

training bodies and providers. A more professional approach will ensure a

coordinated system across the entire country so that all members have opportunities

for accessing top line CPE.

Combining Membership Options with Union Membership

Two significant benefits are likely to follow from a combined fee arrangement with a

union for members of the professional association. First, many human service

professionals are relatively lowly paid, particularly those that fall under the Social and

Community Services (SACS) award. Higher salaries are associated with unionised

labour and it is therefore in our collective interests to be union members. Second,

Australian Social Work 7

many members and potential members struggle to afford dual membership fees. A

lower combined fee would act as a significant financial incentive for many. In

Denmark, for example, where social workers and social pedagogues are represented

by a single organisation that is both a professional association and a union, the social

welfare workforce is in a much stronger position regarding salaries, conditions, and

status. Indeed, until the early 1970s, the AASW was a combined organisation. The

British Association of Social Workers is currently in discussions with unions to

achieve a combined membership.

More Effective Organisation and Business-like Operations

As Schembri pointed out in his editorial in June 2008, social work is falling behind in

the use of Web 2 and other modern communication strategies. This is just one

indicator of the need to treat the operation of the professional association as a

successful business enterprise. While not ignoring our values framework, regard to

budgets is important. Planning makes a difference. Ensuring expenditure follows

strategic priorities is essential. Important, too, is the requirement that a professional

association expands its business operations and sources of income, and decreases its

dependence on membership fees, which are inevitably subject to fluctuations.

Members expect their association to be well run and, without sound business

systems, the organisation will not be in a proper position to undertake the more

strategic approaches needed to reposition ourselves.

At the same time, attention must be paid to governance processes and structures* the ways in which members treat each other is critical to the success of our collective

endeavours. Too often focus has been on internal hostilities, whereas the bigger

external picture went largely ignored. Although we cannot legislate for good

behaviour, we can, and should, ensure that there are clear expectations and

responsibilities as to the ways in which we treat each other. Professional associations

are not only businesses, they must also be forums where we can debate the trends,

issues, and options, and dialogue ways to best address our collective interests and

aspirations. But this must be done in ways that are respectful, use power and

authority in an ethical way, and allow space for all to have a say, but also recognise the

majority viewpoint.

The Norma Parker Address is an important opportunity for the National President

of the AASW to voice his or her own viewpoint about the sector and the association.

These views are mine rather than the AASW Board’s views. Our collective future will

be affected by the factors outlined in the first part of this paper, but it will also largely

be determined by our own decisions and preferences. We should not shy away from

these vexed problems and issues. Rather, we should reclaim the initiative and assert

our role, mandate, methods, perspectives, approaches, values, and ethics. A civil

society does have a responsibility to care for, nurture, and assist those who are

vulnerable, traumatised, and socially excluded. Our members have critically

important roles in this regard and we should display strength in a united

8 Editorial

determination to achieving social justice and high-quality human services. We need

to harness the strength in unity that is available to us and, like Norma Parker, let us

vision what could be and ask ourselves ‘‘why not?’’.

References

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Australian Jobs 2008.

Retrieved 21 October, 2008, from http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Publications/

ResearchStats/LabourMarketAnalysis/AustralianJobs/

Lonne, B., & Healy, K. (2008, November). Social work and human services curriculum. Paper

presented at the Strength in Unity Conference, Sydney, Australia.

McDonald, C. (2006). Challenging social work: The context of practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Meagher, G., & Healy, K. (2006). Who cares? Volume 2: Employment structure and incomes in the

Australian care workforce. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ACOSS.

Parton, N. (2004). Post-theories for practice: Challenging the dogmas. In L. Davies & P. Leonard

(Eds.), Social work in a corporate era: Practices of power and resistance (pp. 31�44). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Parton, N. (2008). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘‘social’’ to the

‘‘informational’’? British Journal of Social Work, 38, 253�269. Schembri, A. (2008). Editorial. www.why-social-workers-need-to-embrace-Web2.0.com.au. Aus-

tralian Social Work, 61(2), 119�123. Webb, S. (2006). Social work in a risk society: Social and political perspectives. Hampshire: Palgrave

Macmillan.

BOB LONNE

AASW National President

Australian Social Work 9