SOCIAL WORK
Seebohm in the city
Bill Freeman
The Local Authority Social Service Act 1970 was warmly welcomed by both political parties during its passage through Parliament. It was an enabling Act and was to put an end to the fragmentation and divided responsibility of the past. The personal social services of the local authority were to be unified and made more accessible, acceptable and available to the general public. Nearly a year has passed since the Act came into operation on April 1, 1971. Although it is too early to come to any reliable conclusion about the Seebolm recommendations which were embodied in the Act, some assessment should be made. I took up my post as Director of Social Services in Leeds on October 1, 1970. Six clear months were given to me to collect all the information and, devise a plan for the city's personal social services. Some work had already been done. As far back as 1969 the City Council had accepted the Seebohm recommendations almost in their entirety. They fitted in with the new management structure of the Leeds Corporation modelled on the Maud proposals. I was the last of the eleven chief officers to be appointed who work on an integrated basis under the direction of the three group chief officers, the Town Clerk, the City Treasurer and the City Technical and Planning Officer. I work directly under the Town Clerk. On April 1, 1971, the Leeds social services were unified and decentralised. Most staff had been appointed beforehand and were fully aware of the new structure. A main office was set up in the same building as the Medical Officer of Health, six divisional centres and a staff training centre were sited strategically in different parts of the city. We had to use such buildings as were available. Some are being replaced within the next three years. 2,200 staff were involved in the reorganisation which includes a large number of residential staff and home helps. The City Council took the view that the new department had to be brought into operation immediately. It consisted of inter-related parts and could not be brought in by stages. Staff morale was good. Hopes were high. There was much goodwill towards the new department. Members, colleagues, voluntary societies were all eager to help. We were out to find all the people who needed our help, to provide the services they needed, to disperse any vestige of stigma attached to the new service; it was not a service just for a small group but for everybody. The people who provided the service also used it. We remembered that we had to "reach far beyond the discovery and rescue of social casualties, enable the greatest possible number of individuals to act reciprocally giving and receiving service, for the well-being of the community." What have we achieved so far? The new Act in Leeds has been a fantastic success in terms of numbers of clients. As we do not yet have a basic counting document it is difficult to get accurate figures but a reasonable estimate is that there has been an increase of 40 per cent in the number of referrals to the department. They are now running at the rate of 17,000 a year. During the fuel crisis, when social service departments were made responsible for the issue of fuel priority certificates to elderly, chronically sick and housebound people, 14,000 certificates were issued in a month. The new social service department has certainly become much more accessible to the general public and other services. Recently a headmistress of a county secondary school wrote in the following terms: "As a head, prie of the most rewarding aspects of the new department is the lack of official form filling! A simple telephone call (not being passed via several departments!) has always been followed by immediate action." This is much more difficult to assess. Certain parts of the service appear to be very acceptable. Handicapped aids, telephones, house adaptations, residential accommodation for the elderly, sheltered workshops for the blind and handicapped, training centres for the mentally handicapped, friendly visiting, day nurseries, holidays, night sitter-in service, pre-school playgroups, meals on wheels, social clubs, neighbourhood wardens, sheltered housing, car badge certificates (disabled drivers), information, advice, advocacy, in fact anything of a service or amenity nature which a good secretary or lawyer could organise for a person with adequate means is welcomed. Barbara Wootton advocated this kind of service in her book Social Pathology. All these services could be extended indefinitely. For example, Leeds supplies just under 200,000 meals on wheels per year; the need is more like 500,000 meals per year. The further development of day centres and luncheon Clubs is likely to be popular. We are not sure, however, about the whole-hearted acceptability by the public of our casework and counselling service. Yet this kind of service is desperately needed, particularly by families in difficulty children who are in trouble, mentally ill persons who have great i difficulty in adjusting to life n the '.'-.ornmunity and people who are living in isolation. Perhaps it is just simply that the sheer number of people found needing this Skilled help prevents the social worker being able to give it effectively. Community participation is increasing but I doubt if much more than 5 per cent of . the corrtnunity is Prepared to Participate in the planning, organising, and helPing to run the personal social services. There have been many requests for Presentation on the Social Services Committee, especially from consumer g,roups like the blind and handicapped. k.rr. iralPs of parents of mentally handicapped liildren have been particularly active and nave show great interest in the developservices for the mentally handicapped. Volunteers have come forward to take It)art in community care schemes. Volunary. 0rg _ anisations like the Councils of 6ocial Service, WRVS and some of the church groups have been very active. The °Longregational church in conjunction with ,eeds Council of Social Service has ;PPointed a young minister in South Leeds ,..h° is a trained social worker, to work in ipe . area He works from our South sional Centre and works particularly With church organisations, schools and cother groups of voluntary helpers. Also, a thcirranunity worker has been appointed by e: dePartment to work in East Leeds to h"e°tirage self-help schemes, identify 'eeds, open up lines of communication. In.This is the big question. I have serious hilttsbgivings about massive take-up bids or aPoWered campaigns if the resources :e not there. Reorganisation does not ;\?ive the problem of inadequate resources. h,°b°dY can pretend that local authorities a've all the necessary money, manpower, ci _nd know-how to develop the local _tithority social services to anywhere near ta el ilre lev , of known need. Minimum needs e.,°nLY just being worked out. th'"e Seebohm Report in 1968 pointed out at '72 per cent of the gross national Prod uct was being spent on the personal -ncial services. More resources were s;reded. In 1970 by contrast social u.ritY cash benefits amounted to £3.968 1:ueil.°thri; education £2,704 million; National 1 Service £2,175 million (includes hohd.° health service 10 per cent); 8.,ing and environmental services (ex'"i 5 Million; personal social services 11c2e;i4ttihding those undertaken by the Public , Department of local authorities) 1..e1/4 Million. To put it another way, in 1,vnecii_s we have 100 qualified social th-r4ers, who have a key role to play in bue di t agnosis of social need and meeting it, half they have to cover the entire city of i bei' a Million people. Some fine work s are.11g done at present but many more staff needed to develop the work fully. The reorganisation has increased the range of work and extended the number of people receiving help, but the family casework service and the frequency of routine visiting has regrettably fallen off. This seemed, inevitable in the first year while staff are being retrained and reallocated and while new needs are being identified. The number of volunteers can be increased, especially if we have a volunteers organiser at divisional level. Larger grants to voluntary organisations will also help considerably but the really hard core problem of people who need residential, home and day care support, family casework, expert advice and information will always remain basically a local authority responsibility, although the contribution which many voluntary organisations make is warmly acknowledged. Local authorities are being asked to advance on all fronts at once. This is good, but the money must be found from some source to ensure that we can advance. I doubt if it can be found solely through the existing rating system and the present government rate support grant formula. In Leeds, the City Council have agreed to spend in the next five years on a capital building programme over £4 million which will be spent on mental health; on care of the elderly; on child and family care and on the handicapped. On the revenue side the gross expenditure budgeted for 197273 is now nearly £4 million, an increase of 21 per cent net expenditure on the 1972-72 estimates, By comparison, however, the education gross revenue expenditure is £32 million. The local rate increase is 8p of which the increased social service expenditure accounts for the equivalent of 2p. We are making many important advances but we admit that we have hardly begun to think in terms of realistic preventive action. The administrative reorganisation recommended by Sir Frederic Seebohm's committee I am convinced is sound and practical. Despite teething troubles over generic and specialist approaches, there are ground for sober optimism. The existing personal social services are relatively inexpensive to run; the tragedy would be if additional resources do not arrive in time.
Bill Freeman is Director of Social Services in Leeds.
Previous page
