social work

Poverty and Social Work Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith * Greg Mantle is Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Social Care at Anglia Ruskin University. Greg is a GSCC-registered social worker and has research interests in family court work and restorative justice. Dave Backwith lectures on social policy on social work courses at Anglia Ruskin University and has research interests in mutual aid, poverty and social exclusion and health inequalities.

*Correspondence to Dave Backwith, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, William Harvey Building (3rd Floor), Rivermead Campus, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ, UK. E-mail:[email protected].

Abstract This article explores the conceptual, policy and practical links between poverty and com- munity-oriented social work (COSW). It argues that social workers should be directly involved in the relief of poverty and that the approach most likely to prove successful in this context is one in which practitioners retain close contact with the local commu- nity, working in partnership with a joint focus on prevention and empowerment.

Although academic, government and mainstream professional interest in COSW has waned over the past decades in the UK, there are grounds to believe that this may change and that lessons can be learned from COSW in other countries.

Keywords:Poverty, Community Social Work Accepted: April 2010 Introduction In 2007/08, the number of people living in poverty in the UK rose, for the third year running, to a total of 13.5 million, while income inequality reached its highest level since 1961 (Breweret al.,2009). Thus, after ten years of a New Labour government committed to eradicating child poverty and combating financial exclusion (HM Treasury, 1999), inequality and deprivation were at historically high levels, and this before the current recession took hold. We were recently brought sharply to our senses about the seriousness of the situ- ation by a television programme that featured a wealthy entrepreneur #The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved. British Journal of Social Work (2010)40,2380–2397doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq068 Advance Access publication May 30, 2010 experiencing some of the more deprived aspects of life in Dundee, Scotland.

This included a religious charity distributing bags of food to starving people and a young man eking out a miserable existence in a flat without electricity, gas, nourishment or furniture. We were moved into debate and action, decid- ing to use some of the energy to write this article, as a challenge to ‘social work under capitalism’. Our two key questions are ‘Why are established social ser- vices not more involved in anti-poverty work?’ and ‘What form of social work would be best suited to such endeavour?’.

Taking the latter question first, a critical social work perspective would seek to challenge capitalism on the young man’s and others’ behalf. A systems approach would, perhaps, seek to link him into community resources and net- works. A bureaucratic, functionalist response would be to assess him and con- clude that he was (likely to be) ineligible for services (Payne, 2005). So, part of the answer to the first question is that it depends on what one understands the purpose and nature of social services to be. A further thread is concerned with what social workerscoulddo about poverty if they were expected to do some- thing about it. Adopting a critical perspective in social work is traditionally associated with a focus on poverty and we will spend some time unpacking what this might mean and entail. Similarly, having a community perspective in social work can be linked with a concern for poverty (Pierson, 2008). Fur- thermore, these two viewpoints (critical and community) clearly overlap.

Our aim is to examine this terrain closely in order to establish the similarities and differences between a social work driven to challenge poverty and a social work that is ‘community-oriented’. We have opted to use the notion of ‘community-oriented social work’ (COSW) as our central focus, describing its major features and contours, and teasing out how it can be understood vis-a` -vis other, related concepts. So, for example, we appraise its association with the ideas of ‘patch’ (local area), prevention, partnership and empower- ment and, in so doing, we discuss relevant theories and approaches employed in social work.

Our own view—from a critical perspective—is that poverty should be seen as a structural problem and this, arguably, is also implicit in the IFSW/BASW definition of social work, which includes the aim of ‘empow- erment and liberation of people to enhance well-being’ (British Association of Social Workers, 2002, p. 1). This is not to say that a critical perspective has been or is commonplace in social work and, given the dominant neo- liberalist ideology of the times, an ascendancy of more individualistic approaches is, perhaps, to be expected. Gilligan’s finding that of applicants for social work qualification training, ‘Around half arrive with explanations for social problems which point primarily to “individual” causes, while the overwhelming majority are most unlikely to be thinking in terms of “radical” solutions’ (Gilligan, 2007, p. 739) suggests that even training pro- grammes adopting a strong emphasis on structural explanations will struggle to get their message across. Similarly, it is not hard to understand why state social workers might struggle to be engaged in anti-poverty work, Poverty and Social Work2381 given the performance management and individualising approach imposed via the government’s modernisation agenda. AsStepney (2006)points out, these are difficult and challenging times for social work in Britain.

However, both from a moral perspective (it is wrong to ignore suffering) and in terms of the economy (exclusion is wasteful), there are good reasons why social workers should be ‘willing and able’ to tackle poverty and its effects. After all, poverty is associated with just about every social ill one can think of and with which social workers grapple. Overall, it is also remaining relatively untouched by extant government policies (Hills et al., 2009). Since 1990, the proportion of households below the standard poverty line has remained above 17 per cent, peaking at 27 per cent in 2001, and poor households have become increasingly polarised geographi- cally, while wealthy households have become more segregated and concen- trated in the south-east of England. Rich and poor are now living further apart and, in some urban areas, more than half of all households exist below the poverty line, on the ‘breadline’ (Dorlinget al., 2007).

Community-oriented social work Definition in this area of theory, policy and practice is particularly fraught because so many different meanings have been ascribed to constituent and combined terms over the years and across different countries. ‘Community’ itself is a highly contested term. It can refer to geographical locality or shared interest (Bulmer, 1987), for example, and is sometimes employed loosely, as if such distinction is unimportant. There are conceptual and theoretical connections with ‘culture’, ‘identity’ and with ‘social capital’.

Social workers may be said to practise in the community, to work with the community and to work with ‘minority communities’, such as gypsies and travellers (Cemlyn, 2008), and communities of need such as the dis- abled or minority ethnic groups. Social work in deeply divided ‘commu- nities’ is now beginning to receive academic attention worldwide (Heenan, 2004;Baum, 2007). When ‘community’ is combined with ‘care’ or ‘work’, further definitional complexities arise (Ritchie, 1994;Hill, 2007).Payne (2005)examines the broad notions and expressions of social and community development and their connections with social work. He concludes that while these perspectives offer a wider social focus for inter- vention with oppressed people than systems theory (which looks at the ‘interpersonal’ level), they both serve to reproduce the existing social order.

Mayo (1994)provides an account of the development of community (social) work in Britain, from the ‘settlement houses’—local centres for delivering social work services established towards the end of the nine- teenth century—to theSeebohm Report (1968, p. 147), which called for ‘a wider conception of social service, directed to the well-being of the whole community and not only of social casualties, and seeing the 2382Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith community it serves as the basis of its authority, resources and effective- ness’, to the flourishing of community-oriented work in the UK through the 1970s and 1980s and from this to the interest in community and preven- tion apparent in theBarclay Report (1982).AsFerguson and Woodward (2009)show, a community orientation has historically been closely associ- ated with radical social work theory and practice.

Employing the concept of ‘community-oriented social work’ (COSW) carries pitfalls for the unwary and it is important to begin by acknowledging that community work is not limited to social work. It has strong links, for example, with youth work and with housing tenants’ associations and the like. On the other hand, a social worker could be involved in very similar ways within a community—in terms of political participation, advocacy and community organising.Mendes (2009)sees much in common between social work and community development and provides a concise exposition of the relationship between them, including an account of how social work constructs community development andvice versa. Interest- ingly, he relates the hostility of some community development educators and practitioners towards social work to: ...a false construction of community development as inherently radical and social work as inherently conservative. In reality, both have conservative and radical components...many contemporary programmes such as neigh- bourhood renewal are based on working within our existing socio-political system rather than developing strategies to explicitly challenge social struc- tures (Mendes, 2009, p. 249). It is fair to suggest that, within the social work context, ‘community-oriented’ carries a different meaning from ‘community-based’, although the difference in terms of actual practice may be slight—Pierson (2008)makes a similar argument, using the notion of ‘community-level’ rather than ‘community-oriented’, but arguing that whereas community-based approaches start with the needs of individuals: ...the assumption behind community-level interventions is that a vigorous community that has the capacity to solve problems will be able to provide a high level of well-being for those who live there. In short it seeks to change the community rather than individuals (Pierson, 2008, p. 23). Characteristics of COSW Drawing on previous attempts made to establish conceptual models for com- munity work and community development (Butcher, 1984;York, 1984; Payne, 2005;Stepney and Popple, 2008), it seems reasonable to present the following four ideas as defining characteristics of COSW: (i) it has an association with empowerment; (ii) it has a local focus; (iii) it is concerned with prevention; and (iv) it requires partnership. We now discuss these aspects in turn, relating each as best we can to poverty and its relief. Poverty and Social Work2383 (i) COSW and empowerment COSW enjoys a ready and longstanding association with empowerment approaches in social work (Lee, 2001;Butcheret al., 2007). Mirroring the concern-with-poverty discussion addressed above, empowerment has both an individual and a wider focus. And, like community, it is a contested concept that is often used loosely. It could be argued, for instance, that indi- viduals can be empowered, pretty much whoever they are, through financial elevation if she or he is impoverished, through self-actualisation should they be well-to-do. Traditional one-to-one social work might suffice for empow- erment of this kind. Well as such individualistic empowerment might fit with the on-going commodification of welfare, we would argue that it is inherently limited by its failure to address structural constraints that ‘disem- power’. Hence, we would argue for an approach that sees empowerment as a process that aims to enable people to take control over their lives by ‘sharing power and working towards establishing egalitarian [social] relations’ (Dominelli, 2006, p. 45). In this collective sense, poor people, at the level of nation or more broadly as a group, can be empowered through a shift away from the worst excesses of capitalism, while a commu- nity—in the sense of persons living in a geographical location—can also be ‘empowered’. COSW can therefore be readily associated with these two latter meanings of empowerment social work.

Given that the championing of oppressed groups in society must entail con- flict with established authority and serve to draw social workers into political activism, this aspect of COSW may be especially difficult to sustain within the management-dominated, highly regulated statutory sector of social work. The idea that there are few prospects for COSW within statutory UK social ser- vices has been commonplace since the early 1990s. However, asHadley and Leidy (1996)point out, COSW can flourish even in a less than conducive climate: ‘It is remarkable...to note a renewed interest in integrated, commu- nity orientated services in the United States, a country whose marketisation of public services has apparently been particularly influential in inspiring current British reforms’ (Hadley and Leidy, 1996, pp. 823 – 4).

In a similar vein,Goldsworthy (2002)called for a ‘resurrection’ of community-oriented and social action approaches in Australian social work. While such calls to action might be relatively sparse in the academic literature, they can be found.Collins (2009), for example, has recently argued that social workers might learn ‘for instance, from the commitment, tenacity and organizational skills’ (p. 348) of the anti-capitalist and other collective movements. In relation to COSW, he also argues for a shift away from individualised practice ‘towards a greater focus on collective support and empowerment’, concluding that ‘A newly invigorated move- ment towards community development perspectives would firmly 2384Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith emphasize the “social” in social work and a collectivist approach to social problems’ (Collins, 2009, p. 345).

In a similar vein, while accepting that the statutory roots of social work differentiate it from social movements,Thompson (2002)argues that there are significant parallels: ‘...not least the push towards the empowerment and social transformation of which Payne (2002) writes. Professional social work is not simply an organ of the state and is therefore in a position to seek to influence the state and the political sphere more broadly’ (Thompson, 2002, p. 720). There is general evidence to suggest that empowerment approaches, specifically in social work, would be expected to prove effective. Empower- ment initiatives have been shown to lead to improved health outcomes and empowerment is accepted as a viable public health strategy (WHO, 2006), for example. However, there is very little empirical evidence on the efficacy of COSW in terms of empowerment and what does exist is based on small-scale, qualitative research. For example,Itzhaky and Dekel (2008) gauge the effectiveness of a community programme aimed at empowering Jewish Israeli women, concluding that such intervention did empower women and increase their participation in community activities. A total of thirty-eight women participated in the study.

In relation to poverty, the empowerment face of COSW would be immediately turned towards two related aspects of life in poor communities—income poverty and limited access to capital/credit. In the UK, high rates of unemployment, especially for young people and ethnic minorities, continue to blight people’s lives, while low-paid employment has similar, if less readily acknowledged, effects. Recession brings additional misery and hits hardest in areas of the country already disadvan- taged. In Wales, for example, already ravaged by the loss of coal-mining and related industry, the local authority of Blaenau Gwent had the highest rate of eligible population claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in the UK (Crockett, 2009;Kenwayet al., 2009). In regards to the difficulties poor people experience in gaining access to capital and banking services, the development of credit unions is crucially important (seeDrakeford and Gregory (2008a)for ways in which social workers can engage with credit unions; andDrakeford and Gregory (2008b)for an account of the diversification of Welsh credit unions). Without this, ‘empowering’ service users may do little more than raise unrealisable expectations.

A community approach that addresses practical and material problems can also, of course, help relieve the psycho-social effects of persistent poverty (Ferguson and Woodward, 2009).

The experience of being involved in the instigation and running of a credit union can be empowering—seeLedwith’s (2005)account of Hattersley (Greater Manchester, UK) Credit Union’s development and efforts to build links with credit unions in Northern Ireland. In this sense, COSW, Poverty and Social Work2385 which actively supports such initiatives, can address one of the key features of poverty as defined inVoices of the Poorin which ‘poor men and women very often express a sense of hopelessness, powerlessness, humiliation, and marginalization’ (Narayan, 2000, p. 32). It would be a mistake to assume poor people in the affluent ‘first world’ do not face similar problems.

A study of some of the ‘poorest and most socially excluded people’ in London, for example, found that more than half experienced welfare services as ‘unhelpful, unapproachable, complicated to use or even untrustworthy’ (ATD Fourth World, 2008, p. 4). This relates toStrier and Binyamin’s (2009)argument for the development of anti-oppressive social services for the poor in which ‘poverty may be defined as a system of domi- nation’ (p. 3). Social workers’ participation in, and support for, the develop- ment of credit unions for deprived communities can be seen as one example of such an approach that dovetails well with COSW, as both involve: ‘...grass-roots social development, active participation, underscoring a structural analysis of the problem, consciousness raising and social action ...allow[ing] for the emergence of meaningful and vibrant community set- tings (Karabanow, 2004, quoted inStrier and Binyamin, 2009, p. 5). (ii) COSW is local At first sight, the statement ‘COSW is local’ appears tautological but ‘local’, in this context, tends to imply a ‘patch’ approach to social work—the indi- vidual practitioner is responsible for service users living within a delineated area and, indeed, may be expected to reside in that same area. This allows practitioners to develop a close sensitivity to community life and, even- tually, to be much more accepted by local people. The writings of Bob Holman about his life and work in Easterhouse, Glasgow, the largest public housing estate in Europe, contain many vivid examples of how workers who live within their community can utilise this sensitivity in their practice (for example, seeHolman (1999)for an account of seven indi- viduals’ experiences of poverty). In a similar vein, the late JeremyBrent’s (2009)community youth work on the Southmead estate in Bristol provides many insights into the opportunities enjoyed and difficulties faced by the ‘outsider within’. Of course, ‘living on the patch’ does bring its own chal- lenges. An awareness of key players in the community, of vested interests and illicit businesses can be uncomfortable for practitioners. Physical con- ditions on poor urban estates can be especially difficult and workers may feel vulnerable because of a lack of security: for example, burglars may have ready access to terraced houses because of their poorly built attic walls. More rural areas can also be demanding for practitioners and in countries that have many different languages, living and working in one’s patch requires a fluency in the particular language spoken locally— Maritz and Coughlan (2004)raise this issue in regard to COSW in rural parts of South Africa.

2386Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith The increasing interest in rural health and social care in the UK (Asthana et al., 2003) and internationally (Pugh and Cheers, 2009) has also high- lighted the importance of social workers adopting a community approach.

Hadley and Leidy (1996)presented findings from a case study of Tioga County Human Services Agency (TCHSA). Tioga is a small rural county in Pennsylvania, covering about 1,000 square miles and having a population of only about 41,000 people. Nevertheless, the County is very poor and has many social problems. At the time of writing, TCHSA continues to boast an integrated, local and highly effective service. Interestingly, the norm is for practitioners to live locally: Your new casemanager isn’t a stranger to your community. With our Patch system, our staff are assigned caseloads in the area where they live. Patch casemanagers work with your local schools, churches and area organizations to help build community support networks for you and your family (TCHSA, 2002). A further aspect of ‘local’ is that new needs can be identified and new ser- vices developed to address them. The initial efforts of charities and volun- tary agencies can subsequently be provided by the state and if COSW practitioners are involved at an early stage, it is possible that such formal provision will be instigated more expediently. ‘Community needs profiling’ has a long history within UK community work (Ledwith, 2005) and has been proposed as a way for social work agencies and practitioners to become more aware of local needs and thereby prepare the ground for com- bating poverty (Green, 2000).

As well as providing base-line data about the extent and nature of poverty in a locality,Green (2000)argues that community needs profiles can also make social workers better informed about the processes that create and maintain poverty at both local and national levels. Here, for instance, the theoretical links between income deprivation, ill health and low educational achievement can be enhanced by local knowledge about how they play out in a specific community and practice can be adapted accordingly. Green also argues that community profiling can inform a struc- tural or critical approach to social work at structural, organisational and inter-actional levels. This is akin toStrier and Binyamin’s (2009)model of anti-oppressive social services (mentioned earlier) in that both would seek to ‘challenge some of the assumptions, attitudes and stereotypical beliefs about poor families often held by individual social workers and social work agencies’ (Green, 2000, pp. 294 – 5).

(iii) COSW is preventive An association with ‘prevention’ is easy to understand. Having a commu- nity focus suggests an interest in general, predisposing factors affecting groups—sometimes large groups—of individuals, families and households. Poverty and Social Work2387 COSW practitioners would be expected to utilise their local knowledge relating to such factors and to particularly vulnerable individuals and families to good effect. Prevention is often presented as an alternative to intervention, especially ‘crisis intervention’ (Stepney, 2006, p. 1300). On the other hand, prevention can still be regarded as a form of intervention, albeit at a different, ‘non-individual’ level, thereby retaining the need for (urgent) action. ‘Prevention’ retains the interest of government (Depart- ment of Health, 2006) and researchers—as an example,Morriset al.

(2009)critically examine approaches to prevention, focusing on the nature and outcomes of partnership strategies in relation to combating the social exclusion of poor children and families. Nevertheless, the meaning of prevention is often tacitly assumed rather than closely defined.Biehal (2008, p. 459) usefully distinguishes between ‘truly preventive services which identify need and offer help at an earlier stage to those...offering help to families experiencing acute stress’. In other words, we have to be clear what is to be prevented. Interestingly, while Biehal’s quasi-experimental study of young people referred to specialist family support teams compared with those receiving mainstream social work found little difference in effectiveness, ‘an ecological approach to addressing the multiple risk factors in young people’s lives’ (Biehal, 2008, p. 458) was found to be an important generic factor in achieving successful outcomes. This affords a measure of (tentative) support for COSW, given its association with the wider environment.

In relation to poverty, preventing it is clearly better than dealing with its effects, for everyone concerned. Perhaps, the most straightforward way that this could be achieved would be the establishment of local credit and saving facilities to serve disadvantaged communities. Social workers might usefully play a part in campaigning for this and in helping to organise it. It would be naive to claim that credit unions can prevent poverty but they can be preventive in the sense of alleviating ‘the chronic conditions of persistent poverty and responding to the acute difficulties which occur when faced with the sudden demands of a utility bill or unex- pected need to purchase an essential household item’ (Drakeford and Gregory, 2008a, p. 146). Moreover, as Drakeford and Gregory go on to argue, by working to build communal, mutual relations, social work of this type can also be empowering by encouraging service users ‘to help themselves through long-term participation’ (Drakeford and Gregory, 2008a, p. 146).

(iv) COSW involves partnership Our case-managers are cross-trained and can provide services in the areas of mental health, mental retardation, children and youth and drug and alcohol.

You and your family will have just one case-manager, no matter how many services you need (TCHSA, 2002). 2388Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith Ensuring the effective integration of services is an essential aspect of part- nership (Morris, 2008) and one that COSW practitioners would be expected to push for. However, in the UK, central government has adopted a less than coherent approach to encouraging integration: after many years of trying to ‘join-up’ health and social care, its recent decision to separate adult social care from children and family services has received a mixed response (Bochelet al., 2009).

The involvement of service users and carers has also come to be widely accepted in social work. There is research evidence, albeit limited, to suggest that involving service users is associated with more effective COSW. For instance, from research with a range of UK service users, Postle and Beresford (2007)have recently concluded that ‘community- based social work...can support people to participate in emerging forms of active and inclusive citizenship’ (p. 143) and that ‘By engaging in this activity, social workers are helping people to participate in active citizen- ship...which contrasts sharply with consumerist models of involvement and participation’ (pp. 115 – 16).

In regards to poverty, it is important to acknowledge the difficulties service users and carers may experience in partnership because they are poor and, in the same breath, the difficulties that professionals may have, in this context, because they are relatively well-off.

COSW in other countries The contention that social work should be actively engaged in the relief of poverty is international, as is the notion that it has largely failed in this role.

Maritz and Coughlan (2004), for example, while citing the government’s commitment to community development and expectation that social work will contribute to its anti-poverty programmes, write that: Poverty is the single most important social issue facing South Africa because it is so inextricably linked with all the other problems such as crime, unemployment and HIV. South African social work has been repeat- edly accused of failing the country’s people...critically because it has not acted as an advocate for the poor...there is an increasing demand to develop strategies that will promote community development...(Maritz and Coughlan, 2004, p. 28). Countries that do tackle poverty, in part, through COSW should be of inter- est to social work in the UK. However, given the widely varying histories and manifestations of ‘social work’ across different countries, it can safely be predicted that interpretations of COSW will be similarly legion. So, attempting to ‘compare’ COSW in Cuba, for example, with what is meant and taking place in England is no simple task (Backwith and Mantle, 2009). To illustrate this point,Strug (2006)presents contemporary social work in the West as essentially ‘non-community-oriented’, instead Poverty and Social Work2389 highlighting its individualism. COSW in England is, at best, relegated to the sidelines although, in response to Strug, it is possible to point to the work undertaken by the non-state sector, particularly its path-finding of new approaches. A community approach also appears more likely to be fol- lowed in parts of the UK.Heenan (2004), for example, has charted the relationship between community development and social work in Northern Ireland and, perhaps, there is some more general linkage with ‘troubles’ in the sense that fiercely divided ‘communities’ are more obviously in need of community-oriented intervention than are more settled populations. As a further example,Itzhaky and Dekel (2008)report on community interven- tion in Israel ‘in times of terror’. More generally, there may be special, if short-lived, opportunities for COSW when political environments are fluid or uncertain (for example, see Wong’s (1990) account of social work in Hong Kong).

Social work is fast strengthening its international base. There is more public scrutiny of and debate about social work in different countries that is helpful in regard to understanding the various manifestations of COSW. Initiatives such as International Doctoral Studies in Social Work (INDOSOW, 2009) promote an international approach to doctoral social work research and education.Ferguson and Lavalette (2007) present case studies from countries including India, South Africa and Nicaragua and call for a review of social activism in social work. They argue that while neo-liberal globalisation has been accompanied by the emergence of social work in many poor countries, Western social work is in crisis because of the ascendancy of market-based approaches.

This is an important contextualising debate for understanding, for example, Cuban social work, given the country’s post-revolutionary, anti-capitalist tradition. It is fair to say, however, that the literature addressing social work in Cuba remains sparse.Dominelli’s (2008) review of an anthology by Swedish and Cuban authors (Mansson and Proveyer Cervantes, 2005) includes the following account of her visits to Cuba: ...I have found some impressive examples of practice...where social workers and health practitioners hold multiple roles and often join together to challenge the [Communist] party’s proposals and empower people acces- sing their services to ensure that...they get what they need in extremely difficult circumstances...(Dominelli, 2008, p. 269). This suggests that conflict with central government does occur and that it can be effective, providing an important insight into the nature of COSW in Cuba and raising questions and challenges for COSW in increasingly authoritarian regimes such as the UK. However, having outlined some key characteristics of COSW and aspects of its international context, we now discuss its application to anti-poverty work.

2390Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith Poverty-focused COSW: margin to mainstream A number of ways to bring COSW into the mainstream of social services have been suggested and there is much that can be learned from ‘joined-up’ projects such as TCHSA. In search of integration,Goldsworthy’s (2002) model—empowering casework, community building and social action— seeks to overcome the perceived barriers between COSW and traditional casework approaches: Casework and community development have been seen by many human services professionals as rivals for too long, with competing philosophical underpinnings and goals. Reinforcing this false dichotomy between a conservative casework and a radical community development is convenient, but incongruous with the realities of practice, and moreover, has been to the detriment of disadvantaged communities (Goldsworthy, 2002, p. 327). Goldsworthy draws on her experiences of working for ‘UnitingCare Sunshine Mission’ (UCSM), a small church agency in Victoria, Australia, to detail some of the ways in which this integration of approaches can be achieved in practice. She describes the three types of work under- taken at UCSM. First, a structural approach to casework (Mullaly, 1997) is followed, allowing the discussion of wider issues affecting the individual’s experiences and opportunities for people to become involved in confront- ing them. Second, community building includes power sharing with service users, involving them in the agency—mainly through volunteer- ing—and in its decision-making processes. Finally, social action takes place at local, state and federal levels and includes ‘campaigning for needle exchange facilities, highlighting the lack of affordable housing, and improving the local council’s involvement in Aboriginal reconciliation’ (Mullaly, 1997, p. 333).

The need for more and better training about COSW has been widely recognised. In terms of educating practitioners, there may be more room for gloom than might be expected.Weiss and Gal’s (2007)survey of social workers in Israel, for instance, found that social workers ‘ascribed greater importance to psychological causes of poverty than other middle- class professionals’ (Weiss and Gal, 2007, p. 906). The authors attribute this finding, in part, to the influence of the US social work model on training and practice in Israel.Maritz and Coughlan’s (2004)attitudinal survey of social work students in South Africa found that although students under- stood the need for community development, few would choose to practise in this way. This attitude towards COSW was largely shaped by the stu- dents’ feeling of being ‘overwhelmed’ by the sheer enormity of the task of poverty alleviation. However, Maritz and Coughlan argue that practice learning opportunities need to be much more structured and students better prepared. An emphasis on income generation is commended, in order for students to empower service users economically (Maritz and Poverty and Social Work2391 Coughlan, 2004, p. 35). This links closely with strategies to combat financial exclusion, including the avoidance of sub-prime lenders through the estab- lishment of credit unions. Community-oriented social workers would need to draw from a sound knowledge base on how credit unions can be set up and sustained, including ways of moving beyond reliance on government subsidy (Gothet al., 2006). In an Australian context,Mendes (2009)calls for: first, better integration of community development with social work theory and practice; and, second, more opportunity for students to practise community skills in the real world. In using the example of the development of credit unions in a deprived community in Wales to highlight the potential for a social work contribution to community enterprise,Drakeford and Hudson (1993)point out that financial and economic gains are complemen- ted by social ones: people gain skills, knowledge and confidence and social interaction—‘community cohesion’ in the current parlance, increases.

Nonetheless, practitioners should bear in mind that micro-finance is not a panacea for poverty, nor are its effects always positive (Dichter and Harper, 2007).

Unemployment is, of course, a major determinant of poverty.Iversen (2001)argues that a reformulated ‘occupational social work’ in the USA can have lessons for social workers in other countries (and vice versa), especially as the unemployment-related social consequences of economic globalisation are widely shared. This would involve social workers, in multiple roles, working at different levels, ranging from assessment and referral to social activism. To illustrate the community aspect of this, Iversen (2001)cites examples from Europe, Africa and Latin America in which social workers ‘could initiate community programs aimed at expand- ing human and social capital...[building] collaborative connections between residents, businesses and community groups [which] would be mutually beneficial’ (Iversen, 2001, p. 334). The social activism of lobbying for policy changes, such as job creation programmes, is clearly complementary to this.

In countries like the UK, where practice has traditionally been domi- nated by casework, adopting a community orientation is likely to bring practitioners to the attention of their managers and employers. Neverthe- less, social workers should not attempt to play ‘neutral’ because in so doing, they allow the status quo to continue unchallenged (see ‘false neu- trality’,Wilding, 1982). There is another reason for avoiding neutrality and this is one of self-preservation, as social work may itself be at risk.

The UK probation service, which traditionally provided ‘social work-with-offenders’, has already been seriously weakened. The New Labour government has overseen the end of community-focused approaches in the probation service (Mantle and Moore, 2004;Mantle, 2006). Probation officers have become increasingly ‘office-bound’, spend- ing much of their time on the risk assessment of individual offenders and related paperwork, with little sense of the wider picture.

2392Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith There is an ethical dilemma for social workers in that having accountabil- ity to both service users and agency implies that social workers may find themselves at odds with their employer. This is an uncomfortable place to be, especially in a society like the UK, where the power of employers continues to grow as the influence of trade unions and professional associ- ations ebbs. Not having a job usually means poverty for those, including social workers, who have only their labour to sell. Should we therefore expect state social workers to put their jobs on the line? This is an ethical issue for all of us on the radical edge of social work and politics more gen- erally. It is also an issue that bears heavily upon attempts to move COSW ‘centre-stage’.

Conclusion In order to tackle poverty, social workers will engage with and mobilise col- lective action within poor communities. They will look for ways to reduce financial exclusion and help poor people avoid sub-prime lenders, through the establishment of credit unions. They will play a vital part in maximising opportunities for the development of asset-based welfare schemes in local communities (Gregory and Drakeford, 2006). Close con- nection with the community is the way to ensure targeted, effective inter- vention and, for this, social work must be community-oriented.

While it is important to recognise that not all types of COSW are appro- priate for alleviating poverty, a common theme in the literature is that social workers need to work at different levels, combining different social work skills and methods. The key features of Iversen’s reformulated occu- pational social work described above bear comparison withGoldsworthy’s (2002)integrated modes of practice: empowering casework, community building and social action. Similarly, in a discussion of the development of community networks in a US city,Morrisonet al.(1997)conclude that ‘true generalist practitioners are needed’ and, thus, that ‘differentiation in traditional social work roles of case worker, group worker and community organizer are not functional’ (Morrisonet al., 1997, p. 533).Strier and Binyamin’s (2009)argument for an anti-oppressive approach in social work with people living in poverty also includes multi-level and multi- method approaches.

While distinguishing clearly between palliative, preventive and transfor- mative goals of social work with poor people,Strier and Benyamin (2009) argue that ‘anti-oppressive social services’ should also be transformative, to mutual benefit: ...such an approach may help social workers and clients counter the effects of powerful institutional forces that are undermining the ethical basis of these services, and provide an organisational platform for the common empowerment of workers and clients (Strier and Benyamin, 2009, p. 13). Poverty and Social Work2393 This is most timely in the current economically tough climate. In their call for social workers to engage with credit unions,Drakeford and Gregory (2008a)take a similar stance: A critically engaged social work, which aims to rediscover and reanimate the radical impulse which has always formed one strand in its history...is a precondition for the sort of practice we have advocated here (Drakeford and Gregory, 2008a, p. 148). In the UK, there may be signs that radical social work could be experiencing something of a revival (seeFerguson and Woodward, 2009). On the other hand, whatever the outcome of the pending general election, times may be even more challenging for social work. Nonetheless, the argument for a radical, anti-poverty-focused COSW is far from abstract. As the example of credit unions shows, not only can such an approach promote community cohesion and social capital, but it can also provide direct prac- tical assistance to people who have no savings and have no option but to seek credit from loan sharks. It is, then, asDrakeford and Gregory (2008a, p. 148) put it, ‘intensely practical’.

References Asthana, S., Gibson, A., Monn, G. and Brigham, P. (2003) ‘Allocating resources for health and social care: The significance of rurality’,Health and Social Care in the Community,11(6), pp. 486 – 93.

ATD Fourth World (2008)Voices for a Change, London, ATD Fourth World.

Backwith, D. and Mantle, G. (2009) ‘Inequalities in health and community-oriented social work: Lessons from Cuba?’,International Social Work,52(4), pp. 499 – 511.

Barclay Report (1982)Social Workers: Their Role and Tasks, London, Bedford Square Press.

Baum, N. (2007) ‘Social work practice in conflict-ridden areas: Cultural sensitivity is not enough’,British Journal of Social Work,37(5), pp. 873 – 92.

Biehal, N. (2008) ‘Preventive services for adolescents: Exploring the process of change’, British Journal of Social Work,38(3), pp. 444 – 61.

Bochel, H., Bochel, C., Page, R. and Sykes, R. (2009)Social Policy: Themes, Issues and Debates, London, Pearson.

Brent, J. (2009)Searching for Community: Representation, Power and Action on an Urban Estate, Bristol, Policy Press.

Brewer, M., Muriel, A., Phillips, D. and Sibieta, L. (2009)Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2009, London, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

British Association of Social Workers (2002)The Code of Ethics for Social Work, Birmingham, BASW.

Bulmer, M. (1987)The Social Basis of Community Care, London, George Allen & Unwin.

Butcher, H. (1984) ‘Conceptualizing community social work: A response to Alan York’, British Journal of Social Work,14(1), pp. 625 – 33.

Butcher, H., Banks, S., Henderson, P. and Robertson, J. (2007)Critical Community Practice, Bristol, Policy Press. 2394Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith Cemlyn, S. (2008) ‘Human rights and gypsies and travellers: An exploration of the appli- cation of a human rights perspective to social work with a minority community in Britain’,British Journal of Social Work,38(1), pp. 153 – 73.

Collins, S. (2009) ‘Some critical perspectives on social work and collectives’,British Journal of Social Work,39(2), pp. 334 – 52.

Crockett, N. (2009) ‘Blaenau Gwent has UK’s highest unemployment rate’,South Wales Argus, available online atwww.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4418983.Blaenau_ Gwent_has_UK_s_highest_unemployment_rate/(accessed 29 September 2009).

Department of Health (2006)Our Health, our Care, our Say: A New Direction for Com- munity Services, Cm. 6737, London, Department of Health.

Dichter, T. and Harper, M. (eds) (2007)What’s Wrong with Microfinance?Rugby, Prac- tical Action Publishing.

Dominelli, L. (2006)Women and Community Action, 2nd edn, Bristol, BASW/Policy Press.

Dominelli, L. (2008) ‘Book review’,International Social Work,51(2), pp. 168 – 71.

Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Ballas, D., Thomas, B., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D.

and Lupton, R. (2007)Poverty and Wealth Across Britain 1968 to 2005, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Drakeford, M. and Gregory, L. (2008a) ‘Anti-poverty practice and the changing world of credit unions: New tools for social workers’,Practice,20(3), pp. 141 – 50.

Drakeford, M. and Gregory, L. (2008b) ‘Avoiding sub-prime lenders: Credit unions and their diversification in Wales’,Research, Policy and Planning,26(2), pp. 123 – 34.

Drakeford, M. and Hudson, B. (1993) ‘Social work, poverty and community economic development’,Local Economy,8(1), pp. 22 – 32.

Ferguson, I. and Lavalette, M. (eds) (2007)International Social Work and the Radical Tradition, Birmingham, Venture Press.

Ferguson, I. and Woodward, R. (2009)Radical Social Work in Practice, Bristol, Policy Press.

Gilligan, P. (2007) ‘Well-motivated reformists or nascent radicals: How do applicants to the degree in social work see social problems, their origins and solutions?’,British Journal of Social Work,37(4), pp. 735 – 60.

Goldsworthy, J. (2002) ‘Resurrecting a model of integrating individual work with com- munity development and social action’,Community Development Journal,37(4), pp. 327 – 37.

Goth, P., McKillop, D. and Ferguson, C. (2006)Building Better Credit Unions, Bristol, Policy Press.

Green, R. (2000) ‘Applying a community needs profiling approach to tackling service user poverty’,British Journal of Social Work,30 (3), pp. 287 – 303.

Gregory, L. and Drakeford, M. (2006) ‘Social work, asset-based welfare and the Child Trust Fund’,British Journal of Social Work,36(1), pp. 149 – 57.

Hadley, R. and Leidy, B. (1996) ‘Community social work in a market environment: A British – American exchange of technologies and experience’,British Journal of Social Work,26(6), pp. 823 – 42.

Heenan, D. (2004) ‘Learning lessons from the past or re-visiting old mistakes: Social work and community development in Northern Ireland’,British Journal of Social Work,34(6), pp. 793 – 809.

Hill, M. (2007) ‘The role of communities in care’, in Balloch, S. and Hill, M. (eds),Care, Community and Citizenship, Bristol, Policy Press.

Hills, J., Sefton, T. and Stewart, K. (eds) (2009)Towards a More Equal Society?Poverty and Social Work2395 HM Treasury (1999)Access to Financial Services: The Report of Policy Action Team 14, London, HM Treasury.

Holman, B. (1999)Faith in the Poor, Oxford, Lion Hudson.

INDOSOW (2009)International Doctoral Studies in Social Work, available online at www.indosow.net(accessed 21 September 2009).

Itzhaky, H. and Dekel, R. (2008) ‘Community intervention with Jewish Israeli mothers in times of terror’,British Journal of Social Work,38(3), pp. 462 – 75.

Iversen, R. R. (2001) ‘Occupational social work and job retention supports: An inter- national perspective’,International Social Work,44(3), pp. 329 – 42.

Kenway, P., Palmer, G. and MacInnes, T. (2009)Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclu- sion in Wales 2009, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Ledwith, M. (2005)Community Development: A Critical Approach, Bristol, BASW/ Policy Press.

Lee, J. A. B. (2001)The Empowerment Approach to Social Work Practice: Building the Beloved Community, Columbia, USA, Columbia University Press.

Mansson, S.-A. and Proveyer Cervantes, C. (eds) (2005)Social Work in Cuba and Sweden: Achievements and Prospects, Goteborg and Havana, Goteborg University and the University of Havana.

Mantle, G. (2006) ‘Counterblast—probation: Dead, dying or poorly?’,Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,45(3), pp. 321 – 4.

Mantle, G. and Moore, S. (2004) ‘On probation: Pickled and nothing to say’,Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,43(3), pp. 299 – 316.

Maritz, A. and Coughlan, F. (2004) ‘Developmental social work: Exploring the attitudes and experiences of South African social work students’,Community Development Journal,39(1), pp. 28 – 37.

Mayo, M. (1994) ‘Community work’, in Hanvey, C. and Philpot, T. (eds),Practising Social Work, London, Routledge.

Mendes, P. (2009) ‘Teaching community development to social work students: A critical reflection’,Community Development Journal,44(2), pp. 248 – 62.

Morris, K. (2008)Social Work and Multi-Agency Working, Bristol, Policy Press.

Morris, K., Barnes, M. and Mason, P. (2009)Children, Families and Social Exclusion:

New Approaches to Prevention, Bristol, Policy Press.

Morrison, J. D., Howard, J., Johnson, C., Navarro, F. J., Platchetka, B. and Bell, T. (1997) ‘Strengthening neighbourhoods by developing community networks’,Social Work, 42(5), pp. 527 – 34.

Mullaly, B. (1997)Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory & Practice, Toronto, Oxford University Press.

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000)Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us?New York, Oxford University Press/World Bank.

Payne, M. (1983) ‘Implementing community social work from a social services depart- ment: Some issues’,British Journal of Social Work,13(1), pp. 435 – 42.

Payne, M. (2005) Modern Social Work Theory, 3rd edn, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Pierson, J. (2008)Going Local: Working in Communities and Neighbourhoods, London, Routledge.

Postle, K. and Beresford, P. (2007) ‘Capacity building and the reconception of political participation: A role for social care workers?’,British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), pp. 143 – 58. 2396Greg Mantle and Dave Backwith Pugh, R. and Cheers, B. (2009)Rural Social Work: International Perspectives, Bristol, Policy Press.

Ritchie, P. (1994) ‘Community care: A quick look at some of the big issues’, in Davidson, R. and Hunter, S. (eds),Community Care in Practice, London, Batsford.

Seebohm Committee (1968)Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Social Services, London, HMSO.

Stepney, P. (2006) ‘Mission impossible? Critical practice in social work’,British Journal of Social Work,36(8), pp. 1289 – 307.

Stepney, P. and Popple, K. (2008)Social Work and the Community: A Critical Context for Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Strier, R. and Binyamin, S. (2009, forthcoming) ‘Developing anti-oppressive services for the poor: A theoretical and organisational rationale’,British Journal of Social Work.

Strug, D. (2006) ‘Community-oriented social work in Cuba: Government response to emerging social problems’,Social Work Education,25(7), pp. 749 – 62.

Thompson, N. (2002) ‘Social movements, social justice and social work’,British Journal of Social Work,32(6), pp. 711 – 22.

Tioga County Human Services Agency (TCHSA) (2002)www.tiogahsa.org/doorway.

htm(accessed 21 September 2009).

Weiss, I. and Gal, J. (2007) ‘Poverty in the eyes of the beholder’,British Journal of Social Work,37(5), pp. 893 – 908.

WHO (2006)What Is the Evidence on Effectiveness of Empowerment to Improve Heath?

Copenhagen, World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe’s Health Evi- dence Network.

Wilding, P. (1982)Professional Power and Social Welfare, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wong, C. (1990) ‘The advocacy role of social work in a changing political environment:

Its dilemmas and challenges in Hong Kong’,Community Development Journal,25(4), pp. 399 – 404.

York, A. S. (1984) ‘Towards a conceptual model of community social work’,British Journal of Social Work,14(1), pp. 241 – 55.Poverty and Social Work2397