This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 12:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Social WelfareLawPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsf19

The Children's Hearing System:Part 2. The Limits to SocialWork InfluenceDavid May B.A., Dip. Crim., Ph.D.Published online: 01 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: David May B.A., Dip. Crim., Ph.D. (1978) The Children's HearingSystem: Part 2. The Limits to Social Work Influence, The Journal of Social WelfareLaw, 1:2, 86-96

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649067808414795

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Children’s Hearing System

Part 2. The Limits to Social Work Influence By David May, B.A., Dip. Crim., Ph.D.

‘‘I think the social workers have had a bit of a shaker with the panels. I think they thought the panel members were in a sense going to be in their pockets, and certainly in . . . they haven’t found this . . . I really do feel they thought they were going to run us, and I think they’re finding out that they’re not.”

(Children’s Panel member) ’ Juvenile justice has traditionally afforded social work an arena in which to

fashion a professional identity and achieve some measure of public recognition. Within the courts, although the social worker’s role remained formally a subordi- nate, even a marginal one, his advisory and resource functions ensured that he exerted considerable influence on a system that was after all explicitly committed to the welfare principle. The development of juvenile justice and the advancement of social work are in a very real sense coterminous.

The Scottish reforms provide a case in point. The 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act, as its name implies, goes much further than the restructuring of juvenile justice; it promoted a sweeping reorganisation and expansion of social welfare services in Scotland, in the course of which social work influence generally was increased, and its identity transformed. In this, the second of a two-part paper dealing with the children’s hearing system, attention will be focused on how that influence was brought to bear, in what ways it manifests itself, and finally how organisational and ideological features have combined to contain it.

Social work and the restructuring of juvenile justice In the restructuring of Scottish juvenile justice social workers found themselves in a position to influence policy at a national and a local level. Indeed, in some respects they were the policy-makers.

From the start the Kilbrandon report-perhaps rather surprisingly for so legally dominated a committee-was imbued throughout with the ideology and indeed, the language of social work. The control of delinquency was to be taken outwith the ambit of the criminal law; the distinction between the “depraved” and the “deprived” was dismissed as being neither useful nor defensible; the concept of delinquency was to give way to “children in need of care”; and in dealing with “problem” children punishment and coercion were to be replaced by

‘‘ . . . the continuing application, by persuasive action, of skilled advice and

’ The uncited quotes in the text are taken from verbatim transcripts of interviews carried out in 1972 as part of a research project into the operation of the children’s hearing system. T h e research was funded by a grant from Scottish Home and Health Department.

86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM 87

guidance, with the aim of evoking in turn from the parties concerned a con- structive response, based on an increased awareness and understanding of their underlying problems and responsibilities. Such a process amounts es- sentially to one of helping others to help themselves.”2

If the Committee’s enthusbasticand, it must be said, somewhat uncritical embrace of a treatment ideology has yet to be satisfactorily explained, there can be little doubt of its consequences. It legitimated the social work approach and it encour- aged the government to turn to social workers when they set about implementing the proposals. In addition to the usual consultative and lobbying processes social work influence was brought to bear in two highly important ways.

Firstly, the government set up a small advisory committee drawn from social work and social administration to assist them in turning the proposals into legisla- t i ~ n . ~ In the process the control of delinquency was explicitly defined as a social work responsibility, and social workers were consequently thrust onto centre stage?

Secondly, and perhaps more important in view of its permeance, was the creation within the Scottish Office in March 1967 of the Social Work Services Group (SWSG). Initially formed to supervise the legislation through Parliament, the Group has continued in existence with general oversight responsibilities for the operation of the Act. SWSG has an interesting, although by no means novel, organisational structure in which authority is equally shared between the profes- sional social workers and the professional administrator^.^ Its significance is that it placed social workers in a position of strategic importance within central govern- ment, able to influence the allocation of resources and the dissemination of ideas. In the critical period following passage of the Act when ideas, experience and even leadership were in short supply, SWSG ensured that professional social work exercised a powerful voice in the formulation and development of the Hearing system.

The influence of social workers and social work ideas was not confined to this broad policy-making level ; it extended into activities that might properly be called policy-interpretation.6 It certainly made itself felt in that most crucial matter of the formation of the children’s panels. The Kilbrandon report, curiously, was not very forthcoming on the question of panel membership. The logic of its argument, how- ever, implied the salience for any selection process of qualities that one might reasonably look for in candidates for social work, if not the appointment of pro-

__ ~~~~~

* Report of the Comtnittec on Children and Young Persons, Scotland, Cmnd. 2306, Edin- burgh, H.M.S.O., 1964, para. 86. The three consultants were: Richard Titmuss, Department of Social Administration, L.S.E.; Megan Browne, Department of Social Study, Edinburgh; Kay Carmichael, School of Social Study, Glasgow. It is significant that in those sections of the White Paper dealing with the children’s hearing (Social Work and the Community: proposab jor reorganisiny local authority services in Scotland, Cmnd. 3065. Edinburgh. HMSO. 1966, paras. 56-83) the term “de- linquency” is not employed at all. For a more detailed discussion, see Social Work in Scotland: Report of a Working Pnrtjp on rhc Social Work (Scorfand) Acl 1965 (1969). pp. 82-83. D. May and G . Smith, “Policy interpretation and the Children’s Panels: a case study in social administration.” (1970) 2 Applied Social Studies 91-98.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

88 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE LAW

fessional social workers as such. This view was by and large reflected in the activities of those responsible, both at a local and a national level, for selection.

Four features of the selection process are in this context particularly worth noting:

One, the application form-a rather complex document emanating from SWSG-included a number of questions concerning experience of social/welfare work. Whatever the precise reason for these questions, it is suggested that they encouraged applicants to portray themselves from the start in a social work role.’

Two, in the later stages of selection criteria were adopted which favoured those applicants revealing the qualities of articulateness, detachment, and humani- tarianism commonly associated with professional social works

Three, applicants with previous social work experience were eagerly seized upon and held up as models against whom lesser qualified persons were (unfavourabiy) compared.

Four, many local selection committees (Children’s Panel Advisory Committees) were assisted in their task by consultants, many of whom had a background in social/welfare work, and in some instances were recruited from the newly created local authority social work departments.

Not surprisingly then in view of the recruitment procedures adopted and the criteria, both implicit and explicit, that guided selection a panel complement for Scotland was initially appointed in 1971-and has not subsequently undergone any essential modification-’ that at the very least was sympathetically inclined towards social work. Indeed, many of those selected were frustrated social workers who quite consciously saw in panel work an opportunity to realise, however imper- fectly, unfulfilled ambitions.

This general orientation was further reinforced through an extensive, and in many respects, quite sophisticated training programme, to which all panel members submit as a condition of their appointment. Training is a regional responsibility, promoted through university-based, although centrally financed tutors. The organisation and content of training programmes reflect this regional devolution, although as with selection, SWSG maintains a general oversight, thus ensuring some measure of uniformity.

“This can mean at one extreme a panel which has carried out a large number of visits to residential establishments, child guidance clinics, social and wel- fare agencies, penal institutions in a number of areas; has had discussions with many relevant local officials; has attended a dozen lectures, seminars, case study sessions, etc. prior to operating; has had subsequent meetings with other panels to discuss issues in common or to study particular issues in depth; and has regular meetings, at least monthly, as a panel to evaluate its work and discuss common problems. At the other extreme, particularly in a few rural areas with small panels without large numbers of cases, the training

~~~ ~

G. Smith and D. May, “The appointment of the Aberdeen City Children’s Panel: a comment on the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968”, (1971) Br. J. Social Wk 5-25.

* E. Mapstone, “The Selection of the Children’s Panel for the County of Fife,” (1972) 2, Br. J. Social Wk. 445-69. S. Moody, Survey of fhe background of current panel members. Scottish Office Central Research Unit (1976).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSIEM 89

at the minimum might have been two heavy weekends of regional training with other panels, some talks locally with appropriate officials and a few visits. In-service training for them may take the form of an annual evaluative weekend conference with other panels.” lo

Whatever differences of detail there may be, it is submitted that all training pro- grammes, to a greater or lesser extent, encapsulated a social work world-view. Their aim appeared, if not to impart social work skills, then certainly to familiarise panel members with the language and techniques of social work. In some areas the local authority social work department, especially in the person of its director, played a major part in the planning and implementation of these programmes. Much of the teaching was entrusted to professional social workers (either practising or academic). Other groups (e.g. reporters, policemen, sheriffs, fiscals) who might have presented alternative versions of the system remained on the periphery. With the exception of reporters, who in any case were only just coming into post at that time, and were understandably occupied in mastering their new jobs, these other groups had neither the same professional nor emotional investment in the system as did social workers, and for the most part showed little interest in, or sympathy for its development. In any event delays in the publication of various statutory instruments and rules rendered discussion of procedural and legal matters difficult, and inevitably limited the part that non-social workers could play in the early training programmes. At this stage debate had perforce to be conducted largely in terms of general principles and ideology. Training then functioned to reaffirm further the dominant notion of the hearings as a system of social welfare, rather than social control.

The social work presence in the hearings “We have been pretty well brain-washed by the social workers” (Children’s Panel Member). Social work influence, so pervasive in the early, formative years, persists practice they frequently assign them a much more marginal, almost wholly advisory presence of a social-worker at all hearings. N o other external agency is so repre- sented, or integrated in quite this way in the conduct of the system.”

The social work presence in the hearing is, however, much more than symbolic, for here the social worker functions as the provider of information, the dejiner of problems, and the executor of decisions. The centrality of his role derives from the fact that the issue formally facing the Hearing is not “What has this child done?, but rather ‘What kind of child do we have here?” Action is future-oriented and is to

l o G. Murray and A. J. B. Rowe “Children’s Panels: implications for the future”. (1974) 1 (4) Policy ond Politics, 327, at p. 331. For another “inside” view of training see K . Murray, “The Children’s Panel” in F. M. Martin and K. Murray (eds), Childrmk Hearings (1976), pp. 57-66, esp. 64-65.

I I The social worker has no statutory right to be present at the hearing; it would seem to be entirely at the discretion of the chairman. The social worker’s status in this respect is similar to that of the Reportcr, who is also routinely present at hearings, but whose role is much more circumscribed. In addition to the child and hisiher parents (and their rep- resentative, if they have one) only members of the Council on Tribunals, its Scottish Committee and honafidc. journalists have a right to be prescnt, a right which thcy rarely exercise. Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, ss. 35(a), (2), (3) and 41(1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

90 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE LAW

be determined by the needs of the individual child, which, as Kilbrandon was at pains to point out, can only be established “in the light of the fullest possible in- formation as to his circumstances, personal and environmental.” l2

Statutory responsibility for providing the Hearing with this information lies with the Reporter,13 but since he does not have his own investigative staff, he remains in practice the collator rather than the collector of information. Reporters can, and sometimes do approach directly several agencies or individuals for in- formation (e.g. schools, youth clubs, GPs, psychologists), but typically they delegate this task to the panels’ “executive arm,” the social work department. In any event by far the most important document bearing on any particular case is generally the Social Enquiry Report (SER). Given then this virtual control over information, the social worker is in a position not only to define the way in which problems are presented, but also to a very real extent to determine which cases are in the first instance to be viewed as “problems.”

Panel members are conscious of the social worker’s control of information, and the distortions that this can produce. “They seem to tell you only what they want you to know.” In one area Panel opposition to the establishment of an assessment teamI4 was rooted in the fear that this would further increase their dependence on the social work department, although conversely, in another area support for the assessment team was forthcoming because, it was argued, it would reduce the excessive dependence of the panel on the social worker by providing an equality of status to other professionals.

But even should panel members arrive at a different diagnosis from that pro- vided by the social worker, and assuming further that they also could come up with a practical course of action, their ability to give effect to all this depends ultimately on their persuading the social worker of the correctness and practicality of their proposals, “The Panel can’t go into the homes of the people and follow them up and be with them, whereas the social service people can.”

This problem aside, there are sound organisational reasons why panel members cannot afford to clash with social workers routinely, and these are not lost on the majority of panel members.

“Well, you get the social worker’s report. They obviously know the case, and how can you, who’ve only read the report, go against what they’re saying? I mean, obviously having put a lot of work into it, you can’t just say, ‘Oh, no, we don’t think that’. Ifyou kept on doing that you’re going to have the whole of the social workers against the panel.” (emphasis added)

The limits to social work influence “The majority of the (social workers) that we have here, they certainfy don’t interfere in the Hearing. You know, I would say that they certainly keep their

l 2 Cmnd. 2306, para 78. l 3 Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1971, r. 6(1). l4 An interdisciplinary group of professionals, including social workers, but extending

to psychologists, psychiatrists, general medical practitioners, teachers, meeting on an ad hoc basis to provide collective reports on children referred to a hearing. See Assessmenf of Children, SWSG, 1971.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM 91

place very well. They’re always ready and willing to give of the knowledge that they have of the family, if they’ve anything more they wish to tell us about the family. Mostly they have it reported, but I like fine to get the social worker to talk, again if it’s something that’s to be to the advantage of all concerned . . . We have found that the social workers that we have, they have acted in a very

proper manner.” (emphasis added) (Children’s Panel Member) In practice social work influence is contained by certain structural and ideological

features which encourage and enable panel members to fashion a role for themselves that is to some considerable degree independent of the social worker.

The first obvious point to make is that within the Hearing, as in the Courts, the social worker formally occupies a subordinate position. It is the Chairman of the Hearing (always a panel member) who determines who shall be present, who shall speak, and what shall be discussed, and who therefore controls, wittingly or un- wittingly, the contribution that the social worker makes to the proceedings. While most panel members subscribe to the persuasive rhetoric of consensus, acknow- ledging discussion and decision-making to be a joint activity in which all (panel- members, clients and social workers) should participate equally, nevertheless in practice they frequently assign them a much more marginal, almost wholly advi- sory role in the proceedings, as the quotation at the opening of this section implies.

Secondly, panel members are not in practice so dependent on the social worker for information, as I earlier implied. In rural areas especially-but by no means confined there-panel members often bring to a Hearing a much greater knowledge of communities, and even of individuals, than the social worker appearing before them, particularly, as was frequently the case in the early years of the system, when rapid social work expansion contributed to a high turnover among fieldwork-staff. After all, knowledge of, and involvement in, their communities were criteria explicitly built into the procedures for the selection of panel members.

Most panels follow a policy, so far as it proves possible, of keeping the original three panel members together for any subsequent review so that gradually an intimate knowledge of specific cases is developed. In one area the chairman of the panel went to considerable lengths to “match up” hearing members with clients, always seeking points of contact between the two; for example, ensuring that there was a school-teacher present to deal with a case of truancy, a mother with teenage children to handle what appeared to be a problem of adolescent growing pains, or at least one Roman Catholic panel member where the family concerned was itself Catholic.

The value of this exercise is well illustrated by the following:

“He (AB, the panel member) was in fact excellent at the Hearing. He was really terrific. The first two cases were fishing village cases. He could speak to them in their own language. He made no pretence to be anyone above them. He spoke to them in their own local dialect. He was able to discuss a lot of fishing problems, which he knew at first-hand . . . I found this extremely valuable, this was a world he knew.”

and again concerning another panel member:

“He actually knew both of the familes, though they didn’t know him. He was able to say, ‘Before you moved in such and such street, I remember so and so. Now why did you move from there? It helped discussion.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

92 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE LAW

It is easy to see how this kind of knowledge and experience lessens the panel’s dependence on the social worker, and may in fact render his presence in the Hearing almost redundant, especially on those occasions when the social worker’s own competence and understanding of the situation is called into question.

Finally, when one talks of panel members being for the most part committed to a social work ideology, this is not to imply thet their understanding of what social work is about, either in general or specific terms, necessarily corresponds to those versions held by practising social workers. Panel members for the most part sub- scribe to a romanticised version of social work in which emphasis is laid on com- mitment, caring relationships, and personal qualities of commonsense, empathy and experience. They view with suspicion and some disapproval a management- theory informed concept of social work characterised by a concern with academic qualifications, esoteric bodies of knowledge, technical jargon and an unbecoming career-consciousness. In other words panel members tend to approach social work as a vocation rather than as a profession.

“IWe need social workers prepared to act] as a friend to the family, or a friend to the kids. Taking the kid out on a Saturday or a Sunday, or taking them home for the weekend, or to camp for the weekend. This kind of one to one involve- ment which apparently social workers no longer have time for, and some of them don’t see it as their role to do . . . I think a lot of social workers just don’t see it as their role to be so personally involved. You know, they’re much more sort of objective administrators. . . . I mean one or two of them do some tremendous amount of things; taking the kids personally to the community centre. One is actually giving a kid guitar lessons in his own home. You know, this to me as I see it is positive social work. But it’s not seen by a lot of them. You know, they would say, ‘No, your job as a social worker is to find some- body else to give the kid guitar lesson^."'^

In common with most other professionals however, social workers carry out the great bulk of their work frw from the direct scrutiny of supervisors, whether lay or professional. As Freidson and Rhea have noted: , . . only if some form of observability exists can deviant performance become known and subject to con- trol.”’6 Denied access to what the social worker is doing with the clients, panel members perforce must lay greater emphasis on attitudinal conformity;” that is, panel members assess social workers not so much on the basis of actual performance as on how they talk about performance, and the values and orientation that can be discerned from such talk. So a routine feature of panel-social worker interaction, and one that directly relates to the outcome of cases, is the categorisation of social

I s It has to be said that such views would be broadly shared by many social workers, who themselves manifest a similar distaste for certain trends in contemporary social work practice. So to postulate a simple panel member-social worker split over the proper nature of social work is to do violence to a much more complex reality. The homogeneity implied by such a dichotomy does not exist.

l 6 E. Freidson and B. Rhea, “Processes of control in a company of equals” (1963) I 1 Social Prohlcms 1 19-3 1 . R. L. Coser. ‘Insulation from observability and types of social conformity’ (1961) 26 American Sociological Rccior 28-39.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM 93

workers by panel members into “good” and “bad,” “reliable” or “unreliable,” essentially on the basis of intuition.’*

“She’s a very sensible motherly person (social worker Y). She’s no extreme ideas, she’s brought up a son herself, and she’s usually pretty dependable. I went a lot on what she said about the case.” “I think you’d find him (social worker R) typical of the modern social worker. He even talks thataway-and even in the hearing, you know, you ask him a direct question and you’ll never get a direct answer.” ‘*(social worker I) -seemed to have an insight, an ability to see just a little bit further than some people.” “(social worker C)-is that rarity, a social worker of the common man type.” “(social worker E)-is also another social worker that’s more like a person fhan Q social worker . . . he’s the sort of bloke that I wouldn’t be surprised to find myself buying a pint in a pub . . . I really somehow don’t see myself buying (social worker A) a pint in a pub.” (emphasis supplied) “If (social workers E,I,C) made a recommendation 1 think I’d be more in- clined to think about their recommendation than 1 would if (social workers A,B,F) made a recommendation.’’

To the extent that panel members see social work as essentially about personal qualities, attitudes and experience, rather than training, bodies of knowledge and academic qualifications, they are encouraged in the bclief that thcy themselves are competent to assume the role of social worker. This, however, is hardly a new problem for social work, or one that is peculiar to the Children’s Hearing system. As Dollard noted some years ago:

“The difficulty which has plagued social work in its development as a profes- sion is that the social worker’s dedication is to a degree shared by all good men and women . . . Hence we all resist and resent the notion that the task of the social worker requires a peculiar combination of temperament, intelligence and e~perience.”‘~

Conclusion

Social workers, observes Ruzek, “face the dilemma of being professionals trapped in powerful bureaucracies controlled by lay boards and elected officials who scldom share the values, goals or perspectives of the professional social worker.”20 Such comparisons, however, ignore the fact that much generally recognised profes-

-- I’ Denied the possibility of directly observing the social worker at work, consideration

of outcome would appear to offer an alternative means of evaluating social work per- formance. In practice, this course of action is rarely adopted. Low levels of success in the management of deviancy do not typically prompt a re-asscssmcnt of institutional performance, or the performance of “treatment” agents (c.y. judgcs and prison governors are not evaluated on the basis of recidivist rates). Instead we arc much more likely to attribute failure to some inherent defect in the moral character of the offender.

l 9 Quoted in N. Torcn, “Semi-professionalism and social work: a theoretical perspective,“ in Etzioni, A. (ed.), The Semi-Professions and their Organisation, (1 969). S. K. Ruzek, ”Making social work accountable.” in E. Freidson (cd.), 7k Professions and rhcir Prospects, (1971), p. 218.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

94 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE LAW

sional work is now commonly practised in bureaucratic settings within which the individual practitioner is subject to varying degrees of lay control and supervision. It is not, therefore, the subordination to lay authority as such which sets social work apart from other professions; it is, rather, the nature of that authority and the manner in which it is exercised. While, for example, the NHS doctor practises his medicine within an organisation of health care whose size, structure and nature are determined by lay (or, at least, semi-lay) bodies, within those confines his clinical autonomy remains inviolate. But for the social worker operating within the sphere of juvenile justice it is precisely in matters of diagnosis and treatment where he must ultimately accept the primacy of lay authority. Here he is not merely answerable to lay authority, he is faced with lay supervisors who present, wittingly or unwittingly, as competitors in the exercise of essentially professional skills. The threat to the social worker’s sense of professional identity is a source of conflict and tension that is the more damaging because it goes largely unacknowledged.

Ironically, this general problem of relationships is the more acute within the children’s hearing system precisely because of the dominance of the social work ideology. Panel members, imbued by inclination, selection, and socialisation, with a social work world-view, and presented with few alternative versions of practice, assume a position within the hearings that comes perilously close to usurping the diagnostic and treatment functions that might be said properly to belong to the professional social worker.2’ In its more extreme form this tendency to “play the social worker” has on occasion involved panel members making their own back- ground inquiries, engaging in home visits, lobbying local authority departments on behalf of clients, and more generally seeking to practise a form of casework within the hearing. At other times panel-members sought to dictate thecontent and management of supervision orders. This took the form of writing into the order detailed conditions (e.y. the imposition of curfews or exclusion orders) which the social worker was expected to enforce, attempting to specify the sex, and sometimes the name of the supervising officer, requiring the social worker to meet clients at stated intervals, even suggesting what kind of activities might be appropriate, and on occasion, “dropping in” on the social worker to enquire as to the progress of particular cases.

These manoeuvres were on the whole applied rather half-heartedly, embarrassed many panel-members, and have been fairly successfully contained by social workers. If they (the social workers) have not achieved the dominance of the system that one might have predicted, then equally panel members have not found it easy to transform authority into actual power over social workers. Any ambitions in this direction are likely to remain unfulfilled because they can claim only a legal competence that derives from the authority ofofice, and not a technical competence that rests on the authority of Even the most vociferous panel critic

*’ Of course, the situation does not apply equally to all systems of juvenile justicc. It is, for example, much less true of the post-1969 English juvenile courts where the power of the magistracy to determine the content of treatment is severely circumscribed But significantly, this is regarded as a departure from traditional practice and has occasioned much disquiet and discontent among members of the juvenile bench-in itself indicative of the ambiguous status of social work.

2 2 This distinction is discussed in T. Parsons’ introduction to Weber’s Theory of Sociol and Economic Organisafion, (1 964).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM 95

of social work performance was reluctant to engage social workers on their terms :

“I don’t think I’m really qualified (to exercise supervision over social work activities). Even the worst social worker at least has been trained in social work, and I have not. I may well after the hearing take a social worker aside and say, ‘Look, you know you’re not right there.’ But I feel that this is me putting an opinion which he, if he chose to, could shoot down simply because he has the ammunition to do it, having been trained in social work. I’m always rather wary at taking on a professional as an amateur.”

The problematic nature of the relationship between panel members and social workers will not be resolved by essentially palliative action such as joint discussions intended to identify areas of difficulty, an approach that is being tentatively explored in some areas-although open acknowledgement of the latent conflict may well encourage a more thorough-going attempt than hitherto to clarify re- spective roles. The problem, however, runs deeper than this for it proceeds directly, and inevitably, from a shared commitment to the concept of the hearing as a diagnostic-treatment agency. Yet despite its ascendancy in this century “treat- ment” does not in the final analysis afford a workable model for organizing juvenile justice, and must sooner or later give way to alternative solutions.23 The rhetoric, no doubt, will remain-to the continued mystification of a1124-but the likelihood is that practice, driven by external pressures, the nature of the presenting problems, and the continued demonstration of the irrelevance, if not the impossibility of treatment measures, will sooner or later in the great majority of cases come un- ambiguously to reflect the social control functions that are at the heart of the system; we will simply revert to a court model, although not one necessarily in- formed by “due process.” There is some evidence that this is already happening: the dominance of the offence in the reporter’s referral activities; the emergence of an implicit “tariff’ approach to disposal; and the increasing demands for wider (i.e. more punitive) powers to be conferred on the hearings.

Such a development may not be all that unwelcome to many social workers. There was, after all, considerable resistance from within the ranks of the former Scottish probation service to the 1968 Act in general, and to the children’s hearings in particular. Although the social worker’s role within the court was severely circumscribed (especially when compared with the hearing), this was compensated for by its being well-defined. The nature of his contribution was relatively un- problematic.

A limited involvement in the proceedings has the additional advantage of providing social workers with a means of distancing themselves from the activities of panel members, and thus of protecting their client-relationships from too public an examination. In that the practice of the hearing, tends to blur the identities of panel members and social workers alike, this more than impinges upon the social worker’s professional dignity; it threatens to compromise his activities outside the Hearing.

~ ~ _ _ _ _

23 See D. May, “Delinquency Control and the treatment model: some implications of

24 See D. Matza, Delinquency and Drift, New York, John Wiley, 1964. recent legislation”. (1971) 11(4) Brit. J. Criminol. 35%370.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

96 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE LAW

An alternative approach, more radical, but on that account alone less likely to command support, lies in what one might call the “public accountability” model?’ In this model the focus of the hearing is shifted from the child and his family to the social worker and his performance. Panel members abandon their present attempt to operate the hearing as a diagnostic-treatment agency, in which they seek to identify problems and construct solutions. Instead they consciously present them- selves as the expression of community wisdom and sensibilities, converting the hearing into the place where the professionals are called to public account. A social worker explained how this might work:

“The panel members do not need so much to answer questions as to ask them . . . . This is the point at which the panel puts the social worker on his mettle, and this is where they engage in searching scrutiny; not providing answers themselves, but saying, ‘You said you were going to do this, and you’ve not done it. Could we have helped you to do it? Did you need more resources to do it? If you had all the resources you want was it a failure in terms of your expertise? Could you have been better trained to cope with this case? This sort of critical, quality-control type analysis invests the social worker with the responsibility of being accountable to the panel.”

This approach might at least make some sense of the notions of “lay panel” and community representation which have so bedevilled discussion and practice. But it is idle to pretend that it is not possessed of serious draw-backs. For one thing it still assumes a “treatment” approach, despite the irrelevance of such an approach for the great majority of cases presently being referred to the hearings. Moreover it would likely provide social workers with at times an uncomfortable environment in which to work, and could have unforeseen consequences for their relationships with clients. Already social workers bridle at the extent to which, under the present system, they, the professionals, are subordinate to laymen, even though the evidence suggests that this control is more apparent than real. The Scottish children’s hearing system has made social workers more sensitive to their position by already demanding the kind of accountability that goes beyond the rituals of the court. If, however, social workers are genuinely concerned to increase their effectiveness, and not merely to protect their professional dignity, they will welcome the opportunity to explain their thinking, and account for their actions before an audience of informed laymen. The children’s hearings provide a forum for that kind of experiment. It would be a pity if professional insecurity discouraged social workers from exploiting its potential.

~ ~ ~ ~

25 This, of course, is not to exhaust the list of organizing ‘models’. One alternative might be to hand over the management of delinquent and other problem youth to professional social work unfettered by any lay supervision. This would be in line with the Kilbrandon Committee’s argument, if not its proposals. Given the present status of social work, however, and especially in view of the furore that has followed on a highly tentative step in this direction brought about by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, it is unlikely to occur. Quite a different approach would be to’ abandon the ‘treatment model’ entirely and adopt a limited social control approach, what has been referred to as “radical non-intervention:‘ (See e.g. E. Lemert Instead of Courr: diversion in Juvenile Justice, 1971). In Scotland such an approach would surely require the dismantling of the Children’s hearings, and one may safely assume is not an immediate prospect.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014