Professionals get involved in peoples to protect then and promote social justice , yet oppress them for example, by making decisions for them or the structure of an organisation can oppress on individual. Oppression is:
The central circle P represents the personal, psychological, practice and prejudice. Here we are considering the individual’s thoughts, feelings and actions. The way in which each practitioner interacts with service user and the “…inflexibility of mind which stands in the way of fair and non-judgmental practice.” The P level is embedded in the C level, as values and norms are internalised through socialisation. C refers to the cultural, sphere where people share “…ways of seeing, thinking and doing.” Commonailties and consensus about right and wrong and conformity to shared norms are found here. Social inequalities are thus legitimated through culture. Our culture is supported by structures such as the economy, society and the nation state. The C level is immersed in the S level. Discrimination is part of the fabric of society. Socio-political and social divisions describe the “…interlocking patterns of power and influence” (Thompson 1997).
Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Therefore, at the P and C level we can see that anti oppression and values are interlinked. they are both socially constructed moral code that assist and control our actions within society; as social work practice recognises the complexity of interactions between human beings and their environment, it has drawn some of its knowledge from anti-oppressive practice and values in order to influence individual change. This knowledge helps the social worker to make informed judgements in addressing the inequalities and injustices that exist in society (Stanford 2005).
Issues and risk factors from the case study.
A referral form the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) was sent to the organistion on be half of David, requesting service from the Adult Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). David is 17 and half years old has got a history of mental health. Clinical depression (quotion) and self harm. and has been involved for 3 and half years with The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service(CAMHS). His condition is medicated and he been taking this on a regular basis as well as receiving counseling. Due to his age his current Social worker his referred him to the Adult Community Mental Health Team. However, the CMHT made clear that David could receive service from the organisation as he not 18. This could have a negative effect on his condition. for example, it may further the risk of self-harm and potential risk of accidental suicide. According to (Rutter, 1995 and Steinberg, 2004) adolescent are particularly vulnerable to self- harm and suicide if they are already suffering from depression. Therefore, coping strategies such as counselling and the resources centres are important to his well-being. However, at the moment it’s not Cleary as to where David will receive support. according to the Menatl Health Act he is sitll a child mental health Act
Both organisation were in a dilemma as the both shifting to blame on his age however the Menatal Health Act points out…in this case Daivd may need an independent person to speak out for him because the professional are able to support.
I found this very demoralising and questioned the CAMHT’S decision; had she thought about, the remaining mouths of his age, was this helping David to lead a fulfilling life like any other citizen and had she thought of any other ways to support David attend a resource centre without stopping him completely? I wondered whether the whole notion of “working together”,” partnership “professionalism”, and “commissioning” meant anything at all to the both social workers. I thought that the CAMET’S social worker decision based on a social model.
This decision deprived to David to gain a resource that will enhance his well-being. For the reason, his complex needs where not being met. Since both organisations where not working in partnership. There are two types of partnership working, one working with the service user and the other working with other professionals as part of a multi-disciplinary approach. Coulshed & Orme (2006:230) states “Multi-disciplinary work or inter-agency work is carried out to ensure that a range of service is accessed to provide a holistic approach to meeting the needs of service user”. In this case, I believe the CAMHT did not carry out a holistic approach clearly his/ her approach was to simply transfer David to the AMHT. As Thompson (2000) stress partnership working with service users involves working with clients, as opposed to making decisions for them. This view is also shared by Hatton (2008) and Trevithick (2000) who points out positive practice must involve service user if it is to achieve agreed objectives…within this process, service user must be seen not only in terms of “problems” they bring, but as “whole person” and “full citizens.” Therefore, in partnership working, the service user is seen as the ‘expert’ on themselves and therefore it is essential to involve them in all of the processes. Hatton(2008) goes on to say, if social work is to make a real impact on live of people like David… it needs to develop a frame of reference which values, hears and works in partnership. This is in contrast to for example, the medical model, where the professional is regarded as the expert on the service and the service user’s health.
redard of his he should fall ut of this frame referneces. in constarn with ths social modle as it is concerned with experience of vulnerable people at risk of oppression and social devaluation.
The whole notion of ‘working together’ and ‘joined up thinking’ is now embedded in social work and social care discourses in the United Kingdom (DOH 1998, Payne 2000)
Partnership working with other professionals is highly important in order for services to be delived well. The relationship between different agencies can sometimes be difficult as both parties are likely to operate on different levels. For example, referring to level S or Structural-organisation level of the PCS model in David’s case both professional where clashing or the case. Therefore, services are not co-ordination. This will have an effect at the C level or the “professional-culture level”. As Wilson (2008) highlights effective cooperation between different profession groups is possible but they is a range of difference between them; for instance, their goals, the nature and peace of their work. Therefore, professionals have different priorities, expectations, obligations and concerns, as this is the underlying message in the case of David as a result it is important that these are shared from the beginning to enable understanding. This then allows any issues to be dealt with in a positive and open manner (Thompson, 2000). In doing so, professionals should A, recognise and accept the need for “partnership”. b, develop clarity and realism of purpose. c, ensure commitment and own ship. d, develop and maintain trust, e, create clear and robust partnership arrangements. F, monitor, measure and learn.(Nuffield cited from class notes)
According to the “working together” It is considered as high-quality practice when a service has partnership working with both the service user and other professionals. According to …
Keeping clients informed and aware of any issues and changes in the situation empowers the client and provides autonomy.
In order to work in partnership, it is important to keep communication channels open, by involving the service user and other professionals in decision making processes, for instance, in the case David the CAMHT’S social worker should have communicated with the AMHT’s social worker in advance about the transfer. Therefore, it would have been clear that the AMHT would not be able to take on Daivd, therefore, he/ she would have thought of an alternative such as commissioning service. Commissioning means that “services a available so that identified needs can be met” c and 0()This suggests that he/she was accountable to the supplier of the resources and the service user . This is supported by the GSCC code of practice as it requires social workers to “be accountable for the quality of their work”. In the case of David there was lack of commissioning and partnership the case was closed both social workers did not think about the next step. .. to carry out an assessment and plan therefore , Partnership working promotes a jointed accountability for resolution of the condition, making sure that all parties consider that their contributions are important (Thompson, 2000). Plans must be supported on negotiated agreement and not on the prejudices or assumptions about client’s feeling or thoughts.
,
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
