Sorry Red but your logic is entirely flawed. You discount the possibility that Event A is not being prevented but is, actually, very rare.

Where is your evidence that children routinely tortured other children pre-1950 and modern social services? Or that such crimes are common where social services have not been alerted and involved?

What you *can* do is look at the likelihood that Event A would have happened if social workers had not acted. If Event A was very likely, and did not happen after social workers stepped in, and this pattern repeats itself with great enough frequency, then it’s reasonable to assume that social workers have some role in reducing the likelihood of Event A when they step in. But if Event A happens very frequently, totally regardless of the social workers’ intervention, we may assume that the current intervention is not effective and seek an alternative method of preventing Event A.

The fact that Event A is so incredibly rare as to attract such major media attention would seem to suggest that there is some success in preventing Event A on a wider scale, but that such prevention is only quite likely rather than guaranteed. Occasionally Event A will happen, because individual factors may prevent a 100% prevention rate.

What you cannot do is prove that Event A would or would not have happened even if they didn’t step in, which is what pagar is demanding we do.

With medicine, the aim is to prevent Illness/Death, and restore Health. We test the medicine to see how effective it is- how often Health is restored, and how often Illness/Death prevails instead. If Health is usually restored with medicine, but Illness/Death usually prevails in similar situations without medicine, then we infer that the medicine works to treat the illness and restore health. Same principle at work.

I have always got it.

Libertarians are greedy bastards who genuinely think that if they are rich enough they can live outside of the State. They have the right to reject any evidence, science or facts that curtail them or their beliefs. They also are allowed to make up facts or evidence to back their ideology up too.

The same people who think that the entire scientific community concocted and maintained the ‘greenhouse effect’ ‘myth’ tell us that the guy sacked from the drug advisory board was just telling us the ‘scientific truth’.

Libertarians are also in favour of banning certain forms of architecture.

It comes as no surprise that few of these Libertarians have felt it necessary to emigrate to one of the many failed states throughout the World, instead they live in the Stasi run UK.

You can find many Countries run on the lines of ‘small Government’ favoured by Libertarians; Somalia springs to mind. Not state to speak of, no welfare state, health and safety, EU, Global Warming propaganda, gun control, smoking ban, speed and CCTV or even a five a day leaflet,, whats stopping you guys

If the state spent twice as much on it – would that give us better outcomes?
or conversely spent only half as much?

Is there really no evidence anywhere, as to the effectiveness of current social work?

If not, how do social workers themselves know what to do to improve their own effectiveness?

Secondly, maybe one argument might be that we want the social work system to solve problems which we as individuals making up society are not willing to help out with ourselves?

Maybe society is a little more broken than it was 30 or 50 years ago. Maybe then, a wayward son in trouble at school would also incur the wrath of his father + family: no matter what ‘social class’ they were in.
Whereas today, from the anecdotal stories I hear from teachers – the parents of troublemaking kids don’t support the school’s attempts to help bring the kids into line so they and the rest of the class can get on with learning.

There have been uncooperative parents all along of course -but maybe it is more common now.

Social workers alone can’t fix it – in the absence of a society’s set of agreed values that underpins right behaviour, and that acts to enforce it, from the small local level up.

Maybe like the AA rule – that someone has to want to be helped, before you can help them – and that therefore you need to let an alcholic hit rock bottom and not try to assist to prevent the rock bottom being reached.
Maybe as a society, until we admit we need help – we will continue to let social workers carry the can, and we won’t be willing to ask the tough questions; what aspects of society are broken, why, what has changed in society’s attitudes and what are the choices.

No of course I’m not.

But I am saying that I think we need to do more work in terms of measuring the efficacy of what we are doing. There are situations, as in the Doncaster case, where beaurocratic hand wringing will not help. A thousand multi-agency case reviews would not have redeemed these kids.

We need to accept that we cannot solve everything by well meant advice and support- if social policy is to be effective we need to apply methods appropriate to the circumstances.

They become leaner, fitter, non bureaucratic and better equipped to boot. Everybody wins.

So where is the downside?

Jim. If I didn’t know you better, I’d think you were beginning to get it.

Are you suggesting that the entire concept of state backed social work can be judged on a single case?

Does it sound like Switzerland enough for you to back it?

Sounds like Switzerland.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2143663,00.html

@31

Compared to anything.

Are you arguing that, without the input from social services the outcome would have been worse?

Or even better why not remove the standing army on the same basis? We could have a militia completely staffed by guys turning on of there own whim and supplying their own weaponry. The defence budget wiped of the balance sheet and the army becomes exactly as the Libertarians want all authoritarian, state owned leviathans. They become leaner, fitter, non bureaucratic and better equipped to boot. Everybody wins.

A government department and spending is erased.
State employees are replaced by volunteers.
The State pension black hole gets slightly shallower.
People become self reliant.
Militias are more accountable to membership.
No more unpopular wars.
The Government of the day no longer has cannon fodder.
Libertarians can put their money (and the lives) where their mouths are.

So where is the downside?
Libertarianism means you are free from having to think things through.

Compared to what?

And how, exactly, do you find evidence for something that has not happened?

In this argument, I don’t need to. If you are arguing that social workers add value you need to be able to point to the evidence. In terms of the outcome of the Doncaster case, I can show that they did not improve the situation or the outcome.

@27

As was pointed out above, the charity does not have any authority- its sole role is to help. It would therefore be viewed very differently than a state sponsored agency would be. If you were feeling suicidal would you phone the Samaritans or the police?

@28

No, he wouldn’t. But that’s a very different argument.

People are surprised that the traffic flows better and there are fewer accidents when traffic lights are turned off. I think that’s a better analogy.

So what would a charity do differently from the state and perhaps more importantly how would your charity do better in this case than the state?

nor do I believe there is any evidence to show that social workers are generally effective in preventing abuse taking place or even in mitigating the consequences.

If you have such evidence, please point me to it..

And how, exactly, do you find evidence for something that has not happened? Clearly you cannot, but neither can you prove that something wouldn’t have happened had the social worker not intervened. You could play this game all day and it wouldn’t get anybody’s argument any further. Like I said, people make decisions and live with the consequences, what else are they supposed to do?

No of course not. But nor do I believe there is any evidence to show that social workers are generally effective in preventing abuse taking place or even in mitigating the consequences.

If you have such evidence, please point me to it..

Charities lack authority

They don’t need authority, they help people.

the police only intervene in cases of suspected criminality.

That is their proper role.

Who, then, cares for the uncared for, those who suffer abuse, those who are strung out on drugs or are depressed?

Charities.

What happens when a child is seen in school with bruises

If there is reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, the matter should be investigated by the police.

Everyone hears the pain of the child brutalised by the very people who should be caring for him but what about the screams of the child being forcibly removed from his parents by the agents of the state?

God would know what to do for the best- social workers can only guess. As I said above, misanthropy is the default disposition.

You would replace social workers with charities and the police?

I can’t believe you can seriously entertain such a regressive notion. Charities lack authority and the police only intervene in cases of suspected criminality. Who, then, cares for the uncared for, those who suffer abuse, those who are strung out on drugs or are depressed? What happens when a child is seen in school with bruises, but refuses to complain?

The social services are vital and necessary, most of their work is unreported and unregarded. Social care is a constantly evolving concept which attempts to alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable people in society. It’s inception is one of our greatest achievements.

Is a country just a place where we live? Or is it a place where we try to build a fair society, a place where we look after our vulnerable as well as caring for our own, where the common good is valued over narrow self-interest? I accept that the status quo is never good enough and there must be argument and trial and error before we can lay out a plan for the future, but the debate must also look at what we do right as well as sneer at what we do wrong. There doesn’t seem to be much balance at the moment,

Drug dependent parents, for example, may love their children dearly and yet not be fit and capable of looking after them. Intervention here is never likely to have a happy ending, but it would take a fool to suggest that it isn’t necessary.

OK. Let’s look at your illustration.

The smart thing for the social worker to do is take the kids away from their parents. He can argue that the parents were drug addicts and were incapable of caring for the children and he eliminates the possibility of a potential future tragedy where one of the kids accidentally takes a drug overdose.

But while having drug addicted parents may be less than ideal, it may be a better than the alternative of a childhood of abuse in the care system and by taking the children you may be removing the last motivation for the parents to get their lives together.

That’s the rub of social work: damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I agree.

Which is why, on balance, I think social workers should stay out of peoples lives at least until a crime has been committed or their help is requested..

Quote from Cameron in the Times:

To criticism that a marriage tax break would be backward-looking he said: “What is so backward-looking, in a country where we have social breakdown and social problems, in saying committed relationships and encouraging people to come together and stay together is a bad thing?”

Interesting to note that the parents of the two boys found guilty in Edmonton were still together. Didn’t stop them from being rubbish parents though. Do you reckon tax breaks would have made any difference?

Of course we can all point to social work interventions that lead to good outcomes- the happy endings that make the job bearable. But how many cases would have had positive outcomes without the interventions and in how many cases did intervention make the ending less happy? As far as I can tell nobody can answer this question.

Well, no of course they can’t, but that’s because your question is in essence hypothetical. We don’t have two realities running side-by-side for us to evaluate which course of action was better, we have to make our decisions and then face the consequences.

Social work isn’t black and white. In some cases the intervention may make both parties less happy yet effectively forestall a tragedy. Drug dependent parents, for example, may love their children dearly and yet not be fit and capable of looking after them. Intervention here is never likely to have a happy ending, but it would take a fool to suggest that it isn’t necessary. That’s the rub of social work: damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

No, never never said that in so many words. He has implied that the problems of the Nation are partly due to to the breakdown of the family and marriage would help restore the balance. Well look at this family, and tell me that a tax cut would have solved these kids.