Frontline and ‘social justice’: uneasy bedfellows in the contemporary social work context?
I read with interest this considered piece in The Guardian by a Frontline ‘fellow’ (former student), in which he sets out some arguments in defence of the Frontline social work training programme. The piece was written in response to my and Anna Gupta’s recent piece on the threat Frontline poses to social work education and practice.
A major bone of contention in this recent piece is that university routes ‘focus too much on social justice and social action’. This is a remarkable claim. The International Federation of Social Work (IFSW) Global Definition of Social Work begins:
“Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels.”
Further, the British Association of Social Work (BASW) Code of Ethics (1.1) states:
“Social work grew out of humanitarian and democratic ideals, and its values are based on respect for the equality, worth, and dignity of all people. Since its beginnings over a century ago, social work practice has focused on meeting human needs and developing human potential. Human rights and social justice serve as the motivation and justification for social work action. In solidarity with those who are dis-advantaged, the profession strives to alleviate poverty and to work with vulnerable and oppressed people in order to promote social inclusion. Social work values are embodied in the profession’s national and international codes of ethics.”
Social work emerges from and is inextricably bound to social justice. To argue that university routes focus too much on social justice is to fail to recognise the history and evolution of social work as a profession and applied field of knowledge that is centrally concerned with social justice. To downplay the importance of social justice in everyday practice is to deny the essential nature of the profession and discipline of social work.
The piece goes on to argue that social justice is embedded in the technicist ethos of Frontline, pointing to the sole example of family systemic therapy, one of the handful of behaviourist models the programme is based on. At the same time, the author flatly denies the programme is overly focused on practical skill sets.
However, the piece’s tortuous arguments initially deny, and then acknowledge, that, when it comes to social justice and social work skills, it is not a case of either/or. Social workers must be critically adept at wielding tools that have practical application in the achievement of better — or, as is often the case, less bad — outcomes with and for people with social needs. Undoubtedly, this means having the skills and confidence to get on and do what you need to do but also, crucially, to understand why you are doing what you are doing so that your practice is transparent, accountable and focused, as far as is possible in the circumstances, on the root causes of social problems, not just on ‘treating’ the symptoms. It is axiomatic that the personal is political, though in today’s climate this bears saying time and again.
Anna and I argued in our piece that ‘terms and concepts such as “social work values” and “social justice” are totally absent from Frontline’s publicity’. I stand by that view. The response piece does not deal at all with the concern about the absence of any mention of social work values in Frontline’s publicity, but instead focuses on the social justice question by advancing the argument that Frontline are in fact doing social justice, they just don’t call it that.
Leaving aside for now the Orwellian overtones of this notion, I am reminded of Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s remarks, made a century ago:
‘Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’
If you’re doing social justice, own it. Point to it, uphold it, wear it as a badge of honour. Perhaps this is uncomfortably close to placard-waving for some but, in doing social justice, your practice is the placard. That means being able and willing to articulate and be explicit about how what you do as a professional social worker is an expression of social work’s shared values, principles and missions. In this era of austerity, increasing poverty, homelessness and widespread crises in local authority funding, it is absolutely imperative that social workers who bear witness to and deal with the impact of government policy on the lived experiences of individuals, families and communities speak out and champion the principle of social justice, explicitly and overtly. There are very good reasons why upholding social justice is a career-long requirement of the Professional Capabilities Framework for social work.
The scepticism and, it’s fair to say, suspicion with which Frontline is increasingly met speaks to concerns that the organisation is part of a wider agenda to privatise social work and social work education. There are valid concerns the Frontline charity plays a key role in this agenda by advancing and embedding narratives that recast social work and its underpinning principles — for example, social justice — along neoliberal conceptions of society, the people in it and the problems they face. Any discussion about contemporary social work cannot ignore the impact of the neoliberal turn in society, in social work and in the various contexts in which social work operates. In this wider debate, the support Frontline has from global big money interests has, surprisingly, received relatively little attention.
During Frontline’s brief gestation, strategy consulting firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) ‘volunteered to step in and give Josh [MacAlister, Frontline’s chief executive] the ‘nuts and bolts’ support (resources and expertise) to turn his idea into reality’. BCG continues to provide pro bono support to Frontline — £200k worth in 2015–16 and £230k worth in 2016–2017. BCG’s Managing Director, Craig Baker — a former Frontline trustee — has been keen to point out that social work ‘leadership skills’ are transferable to other spheres. Indeed, Frontline is marketed as a ‘leadership development programme’ from which graduates (or, as Frontline prefers, ‘fellows’) are favoured when applying to the civil service fast-track scheme, Fast Stream, which seriously undermines claims that Frontline is a solution to social work’s recruitment and retention problems.
MacAlister is a ‘fellow’ of GLG Social Impact, the philanthropic arm of the Gerson Lehrman Group, consultants to global investors and hedge funds. GLG Social Impact provides ‘learning resources to a select group of nonprofit and social enterprise leaders for two years, at no cost’. Expert global networking, for free. But Frontline is a charity and this is corporate social responsibility in action, so what’s the problem? There’s a truism: no such thing as a free lunch. But it’s true nonetheless. Pro bono benefits the benefactor through growing connections and providing networking opportunities. There are obvious business benefits to ostensibly socially responsible corporate pro bono.
Frontline also receives cash donations from its corporate partners. A major problem with this sort of 'big philanthropy’ is the sheer lack of accountability. It is tax-sheltered, non-transparent and donor-directed. That the government has allowed foreign big money interests — especially those whose core enterprise is global business networking — intimate access to its flagship social work training scheme is deeply concerning, if unsurprising. There are valid concerns that Frontline, in placing itself in the web of big money global connectivity, is a key player in the creeping privatisation of English social work.
A substantial body of evidence shows marketised care and the neoliberal philosophy underpinning it lead to poorer quality care and reduced choice for users as well as lowering employment standards for those providing care and support. The market and the wider neoliberal project in social care and health services have, in fact, failed to deliver on their own terms. Given Frontline’s business model and the justifiable concerns about what this heralds for social work in terms of creeping privatisation, the claim that social justice is intrinsic to Frontline is spurious to say the least.
All in all, the recent Guardian piece amounts to a strange, unwieldy, largely anecdotal and, in my view, specious argument which, in the end, relies on a reductive appeal to those who believe the answer to social work’s current challenges lie in the constant calls for ‘reform’, ‘leadership’ and ‘innovation’. The main purpose and effect of such calls is to serve the ends of those most vocal in making them. In short, Frontline are said to be ‘challenging the status quo’. The logical conclusion of the arguments set out in the piece is that social justice is important to social work only insofar as it can be applied in practice through prescribed skill sets. Given the centrality of social justice to social work, and the inextricable nature of their interrelationship, this is an extremely damaging notion for 10% of the emerging workforce to be carrying with them, for it raises once again the suspicion that Frontline constitutes an attempt to move social work away from the core principles, beliefs and values that underpin practice and academia and which inform its multi-faceted identity as a global movement for multi-level social action. Frontline’s move to cleave social work from its academic and values bases, and the techniques it employs to do so, such as promulgating narratives that seek to redefine social work and social justice in its own terms are, despite the rhetoric of ‘innovation’ and ‘reform’, in fact deeply reactionary.
