Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:01:56.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

At risk of prevention*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

David Billis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The first part of this article explores the ways in which the term ‘prevention’ is utilized in the field of the personal social services. The conclusion is reached that, unlike its legitimate use in the physical world, the term is intellectually confused when applied to social services. In Part Two it is argued that this confusion has unanticipated and damaging consequences. It leads to an unfair deal for clients, to confusion and status differentials for staff, and an increase in the social control apparatus of public agencies. It is suggested that the abandonment of ‘pseudo-prevention’ may lead to the clarification and explication of more defensible boundaries based on the analysis of problems rather than the attainment of ideal states.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 367 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I shall primarily be discussing those services currently provided in England and Wales by Social Services Departments – what have been called the ‘personal social services’ For brevity, I shall sometimes just refer to these as ‘social services’.

2 For an analysis of the social conscience tradition, see Baker, John, ‘Social Conscience and Social Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 8:2 (04 1979), 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Donnison, David, ‘Training for Social Work’, Social Work Today, 10:24 (02 1979), 17–20.Google Scholar

4 Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services(Seebohm Report), Cmnd. 3703, HMSO, London, 1968.Google Scholar

5 Hall, Phoebe, Reforming the Welfare, Heinemann, London, 1976, p. 10.Google Scholar

6 Report of the Committee on Social Workers in the Local Authority Health and Welfare Services(Younghusband Report), Report of the Ministry of Health and Department of Health for Scotland, HMSO, London, 1959Google Scholar; Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons(Ingleby Report), Home Office, Cmnd. 1191, HMSO, London, 1960Google Scholar; Prevention of Neglect in Children(McBoyle Report), Report of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care, Cmnd. 1966, HMSO, London, March 1963Google Scholar; Crime: A Challenge to Us All (The Longford Report), Report of a Labour Party Study Group, June 1964Google Scholar; Children and Young Persons in Scotland(The Kilbrandon Report), Scottish Home and Health Department and Scottish Education Department, Cmnd. 2306, April 1964.Google Scholar

7 Home Office Circular 157/50, Ministry of Health Circular 78/50, Ministry of Education Circular 225/50, Scottish Home Department Circular 7497. Referenced in the Report of the Committee on Social Workers in the Local Authority Health and Welfare Services, op. cit. para. 202.

8 Carrier, John and Kendall, Ian, ‘The Development of Welfare States’, Journal of Social Policy, 6:3 (07 1977), 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See, for example, Popper, Karl R., Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, London, 1972, Chapter 6.Google Scholar

10 Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, op. cit. Chapter XIV.

11 Rutter, M. L., ‘Research into Prevention of Psychological Disorders in Childhood’ in Barnes, J. and Connelly, N. (eds), Social Care Research, Bedford Square Press, London, 1978.Google Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 Thorpe, David, Paley, John and Green, Chris, ‘Ensuring the Right Result’, Community Care (10 05 1979), 25.Google Scholar

14 Carrier and Kendall, op. cit. made a similar, if more elaborate, point: ‘The relationship between the intended effects of welfare developments, their unintended effects, ideas about their effects and their actual effects, is potentially very complex – much more complex certainly than many analyses seem to allow.’ p. 286

15 Report of the Committee on Social Workers in the Local Authority Health and Welfare Services, op. cit.

16 Smith, G., Social Need: Policy, Practice and Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1980.Google Scholar

17 For analyses of ‘community care’ see Tim Packwood, ‘Community Care: The Universal Panacea’ in Digby Anderson, C. (ed.), The Ignorance of Social Intervention, Croom Helm, London, 1980, Chapter 4Google Scholar; and Finch, Janet and Groves, Dulcie, ‘Community Care and the Family: A Case for Equal Opportunities?’ Journal of Social Policy, 9:4 (10 1980), 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons, op. cit. paras. 38–45.

19 Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons, op. cit. ‘though actually all seems as it should be, the disturbances of family relationships may be a real danger to them’, para. 14.

20 Reported in ‘Prevention Proves Better Than Cure’, Community Care (10 April 1980), 3.Google Scholar

21 Geismar, Ludwig L., Preventive Intervention in Social Work, The Scarecrow Press Inc., Metuchen, New Jersey, 1969, p. 123.Google Scholar

22 Leonard, Peter, ‘The Challenge of Primary Prevention’, Social Work Today, 3:6 (1971).Google Scholar

23 Holmes, Anthea and Maizels, Joan, Social Workers and Volunteers, George Allen and Unwin and BASW, London, 1976.Google Scholar

24 See also Stevenson, Olive and Parsloe, Phyllida, Social Service Teams: The Practitioners View, Department of Health and Social Security, HMSO, London, 1978Google Scholar; and Goldberg, E. M. and Warburton, R. W., Ends and Means in Social Work, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1979, Chapter 3.Google Scholar

25 Illich, Ivan, Limits to Medicine, Marion Boyars, London, 1976.Google Scholar

26 Rowbottom, R., Hey, A. M., Billis, D., Social Services Departments, Heinemann, London, 1974, Chapter 7.Google Scholar

27 Cohen, Stanley, ‘Community Control – A New Utopia’, New Society (15 03 1979).Google Scholar

28 Billis, David, Bromley, Geoffrey, Hey, Anthea and Rowbottom, Ralph, Organising Social Services Departments, Heinemann, London, 1980, Chapter 9.Google Scholar

29 Pinker, Robert, ‘Slimline Social Work’, New Society (13 12 1979).Google Scholar