social workers to oppose discrimination, recognise diversity, allocate resources equitably, object to unjust practices, and work against social exclusion and for an inclusive society. Ife has identified some issues with respect to the practice of social work: language, the labelling and handling of clients, supervision and training, structures, modes of operation, and boundaries as well as personnel selection (Ife 2012: 256).

The question remains: who decides on the choice of means – the ‘affected parties’ or the ‘experts’? Social workers have largely seen themselves as the ‘protectors’ of human rights. This is surprising since encroachments on human autonomy, i.e. potential violations of human rights, are inherent in social work (Sennett 2002: 215). This ambivalence necessitates a focus on:

* Professional self-concept, particularly one's personal attitude toward clients;

* (Constant and institutionalised) evaluation of one's own actions and their – intended and unintended – effects; and

* Openness of structures and the ‘inclusiveness’ of institutions, both with respect to social work practitioners and their clients.

Concluding, three central mandates can be identified:

* Protection of individuals against violations of their ‘rights’ (freedom, needs);

* Opposition to systematic ‘rights violations’ and the denial of opportunities;

* Education in human rights and guarantees of institutional precautions.

## Organised advocacy and the mainstreaming of human rights

In all ‘organized advocacy’ (Sen 2004: 343) a central role is played by the media and lobbying groups, collecting information, contributing to the debate, launching campaigns and undertaking supportive projects. They publicise the human rights implications of decisions and expose violations of rights: human rights, says Luhmann (1995: 234), are recognised in their infringement.

A form of human rights orientation is the ‘rights-based approach’ and the request for ‘mainstreaming’ human rights. Human rights become the central focus of development and implementation of programmes and projects. However, a problem arises when social movements set a (human rights) agenda, which makes it difficult for individuals and organisations outside of the mainstream to be heard, and to obtain funding (Kennedy 2004). At times, the question may be raised whether the human rights discourse itself is a part of hegemonic (dominant) cultures.

## Education and standards

The Global Standards for the Education of the Social Work Profession (IFSW 2012a) can serve as an example of this. A comparison with the German Social Work qualifications framework clarifies the differences between human-rights- oriented and service-oriented approaches.
The Global Standards favour ‘a critical understanding of how socio-structural inadequacies, discrimination, oppression, and social, political and economic injustices impact human functioning and development at all levels, including the global’ (IFSW 2012b) rights-based approach. They require the ‘ability to deal with the complexities, subtleties, multi-dimensional, ethical, legal and dialogical aspects of power’ (Ibid.), and aim at ‘reflecting cultural and ethnic diversity, and gender analysis’ (Ibid.), allowing people to form relationships, and treating all persons with respect and dignity.

In contrast, the German Social Work qualifications framework 5.1 focuses on: knowledge, description, analysis and evaluation, planning and conceptualisation, organisation, argumentation and problem solving – and therefore can be seen as a service-oriented approach.

***The exercising of rights***

What conditions must exist so people can exercise their rights? What does it mean for the affected parties when advocacy and empowerment are components of an approach? How can clients of social interventions, ‘subalterns’, speak and be heard (Spivak *et al.* 2008)? Persons living without papers, who work, might not be able to exercise their rights under the employment relationship not – as students often assume – because they have no such rights but because they fear legal consequences resulting from their residence status. This example shows that we can fail to empower people if we encourage someone to exercise his or her rights. At the same time, social work has to answer questions such as to what extent can the profession grant rights to its own clients: do they really have the right to make an autonomous decision (Sennett 2002: 215)?

***In summary***

The formulation of Educational Standards or Qualification Frameworks does not relieve individual social workers and the profession as such from answering – for itself and for others – what constitutes the professional core. At the centre of this discussion is the tension between managing realities and changing them. The characterisation of social work as a ‘human rights profession’ appears to offer such self-positioning and self-description. After all, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), and more than 80 professional associations worldwide have adopted these principles and standards. However, how they shape the self-image of the profession primarily depends on how they are implemented in practice.

**The connection between human rights and social work**

***Social justice***

The history of social work is closely linked to so-called social questions: impoverishment, hunger, existential insecurity, urbanisation, migration. Today
these matters are again (or still) global questions. In the past, social work included
organising social aspects against the prevailing conditions. Debate over
‘professionalisation’ seems to have replaced the debate over social goals and
conditions. The question is whether and, if so, how, the discourse on human rights
can refocus the debate. Human rights, as individual rights to freedom, tempt one
to push the plight of individuals to the forefront. Having said this, such rights can
only be understood in a global context and implemented from a ‘person-in-
environment’ perspective.

***Individuals as the focus of social work***

Social environments embody ‘resources’ and ‘repression’ at the same time. Traditions, religious practices, or even group pressures are often the starting point for – if not the cause of – human rights violations. This necessitates a discussion of how social work makes individuals the focus of its work. Sennett charges that ‘organized welfare services’ (Sennett 2002: 215) do not accept that their clients are capable of determining the conditions of their dependency: only those who accord the weak their autonomy leave them their dignity, writes Sennett (2002: 317). Following a definition by the German Federal Constitutional Court, clients should not become ‘objects’ of social work. This presents social workers with the difficult task of addressing their clients and not their afflictions (Khan and Miles 2011), in other words, making dealing with needs of the individual – and not the social structure causing these needs – the focus of any action. As Kennedy (2004) points out, it is important that social work takes people’s aspirations for emancipation seriously.

***Protection of minorities***

Fear of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Tocqueville *et al*. 2010: 410) is very real for social minorities. The human rights discourse could demonstrate its greatest strengths here: by claiming equal respect for all people, despite – or even because of – their differences. Social work is not a natural ally here. Not without reason does Foucault (1977: 304) include ‘teacher-judge’ and ‘social worker-judge’ as part of the ‘normalizing power’ that measures, evaluates, diagnoses, and differentiates the normal from the abnormal. Sennett’s question as to how much autonomy, i.e. deviation, among its subjects is tolerated by social work is also relevant here (Sennett 2002). Only if social work honestly appreciates the stubbornness, the deviation, and the otherness of its clients (and not so much the colourful bouquet of diversities) can it support minorities in their ‘right’ to deviate from the norm.

***Outlook: inclusion of a global perspective***

In his history of violence, Pinker considers the Declaration of Human Rights to be
a 'signal event': 'Each component', he writes, 'of the war-friendly mind set
– nationalism, territorial ambition, an international culture of honor, popular
acceptance of war, and indifference to its human costs – went out of fashion in
developing countries' (Pinker 2011: 257). In turn, social human rights have significantly improved the economic situation in poorer countries in the last 30 years; halved the number of people living on less than one USD per day; improved school enrolments; reduced mother and child mortality rates; and increased access to safe drinking water (UN News on MDG). Recent history speaks for itself – despite all criticism of the details. However, the 'international community' has failed in at least two major areas:

1. Women: only two of the 130 so-called developing countries have equal participation of girls in primary education. Violence against women continues to be the greatest criterion for exclusion. It might take 150 years for women to receive worldwide equal pay for equal work.

2. Trade and the environment: trade barriers have not been dismantled; customs imposed by rich countries on imports from poor countries continue. CO₂ emissions have increased by 46 per cent worldwide since 1990 (UN Goal 7).

It is of some concern that the societal commitment of students of social work has had a tendency to decrease and idealistic motives are seldom seen. The reason may be that social workers feel more effective when working with (indigent) individuals than with respect to social conditions or within the global context.

## References

Appiah, K.A., 2010. *The honor code. How moral revolutions happen*. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

Arendt, H., 1951. *The origins of totalitarianism*. 1st ed. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Benhabib, S., 2007. 'Another Universalism. On the Unity and Diversity of Human Rights', *Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association* 81(2): 7-32.
Available from: www.yale.edu/polisci/sbenhabib/papers/On%20the%20Unity%20and%20Diversity%20of%20Human%20Rights.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2016].

Chandler, D., 2006. *From Kosovo to Kabul and beyond. Human rights and international intervention*. London, Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Foucault, M., 1977. *Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison*. London, New York: Penguin Books.

Hunt, L.A., 2007. *Inventing human rights. A history*. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.

Hytten, K., and Bettez, S.C., 2011. *Understanding Education for Social Justice* [online].
Available from: www.stjohns.edu/sites/default/files/documents/adminoffices/asl-understanding-education-social-justice.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2016].

Ife, J., 2012. *Human Rights and Social Work*. Cambridge University Press Textbooks.

IFSW, 2012a. *Global Standards* [online]. International Federation of Social Workers.
Available from: http://ifsw.org/policies/global-standards/ [Accessed 10 March 2014].

IFSW, 2012b. *Statement of Ethical Principles* [online]. International Federation of Social Workers. Available from: http://ifsw.org/policies/statement-of-ethical-principles [Accessed 30 June 2014].

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. *Social and Political Recognition* [online]. Available
from: www.iep.utm.edu/recog_sp/ [Accessed 20 November 2015].
Joas, H., 2006. 'Max Weber and the Origin of Human Rights. A Study on Cultural Innovation' (IIIS Discussion Paper, 145). Available online at www.tcd.ie/iiis/documents/discussion/pdfs/iiisdp145.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2015].

Joas, H., 2013. *The sacredness of the person. A new genealogy of human rights*. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

Kennedy, D., 2004. *The dark sides of virtue. Reassessing international humanitarianism*. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Khan, A., and Miles, D., 2011. "'Talk to me, not my illness". Relevance of human rights and social justice in child and adolescent mental health intervention', in P. Jones, ed., *Eco-social justice. Issues, challenges and ways forward*. Kerala, Australia, Bangalore: De Paul Institute of Science and Technology; James Cook University; Books for Change, 307–26.

Luhmann, N., 1995. 'Das Paradox der Menschenrechte und drei Formen seiner Entfaltung', in N. Luhmann, ed., *Soziologische Aufklärung*. Opladen, Köln: Westdt. Verl., 229–36.

Nussbaum, M.C., 2003. 'Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements. Sen and Social Justice', *Feminist Economics* 9(2–3): 33–59.

Pinker, S., 2011. *The better angels of our nature. Why violence has declined*. New York: Viking.

Rawls, J., 1999. *A theory of justice*. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Sen, A., 2004. 'Elements of a Theory of Human Rights', *Philosophy & Public Affairs* 32(4): 315–56. Available from: www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/asenETHR.pdf. [Accessed 18 April 2016].

Sen, A., 2005. 'Human Rights and Capabilities', *Journal of Human Development* 6(2): 151–66. Available from: www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Human_Rights_and_Capabilities.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2016].

Sen, A., 2009. *The idea of justice*. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Sennett, R., 2002. *Respect in a world of inequality*. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books.

Spivak, G.C., 1991. 'Neocolonialism and the Secret Agent of Knowledge. An interview with Robert J.C. Young', *Oxford Literary Review* 13(1): 220–51. Available from: www.robertjcyoung.com/Spivakneocolonialism.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2016].

Spivak, G.C., Steyerl, H., Joskowicz, A. and Nowotny, S., 2008. *Can the subaltern speak? Postcolonialität und subalterne Artikulation*. Wien: Turia + Kant.

Staub-Bernasconi, S., 2007. 'Soziale Arbeit: Dienstleistung oder Menschenrechts profession? Zum Selbstverständnis Sozialer Arbeit in Deutschland mit einem Seitenblick auf die internationale Diskussionslandschaft', in A. Lob-Hüdepohl and W. Lesch, eds, *Ethik Sozialer Arbeit. Ein Handbuch*. Paderborn: Schöningh; UTB, 20–54.

Tocqueville, A.d., Heffner, R.D., and Gregorian, V., 2010. *Democracy in America*. Signet.

Torres-Harding, S.R., Steele, C., Schulz, E., Taha, F., and Pico, C., 2014. 'Student perceptions of social justice and social justice activities', *Education, Citizenship and Social Justice* 9(1): 55–66. Available from: http://esj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/05/1746197914520655.full.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2016].

UN, *Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability* [online]. Available from: www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml [Accessed 20 November 2015].

UN, *News on Millennium Development Goals* [online]. Available from: www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ [Accessed 20 November 2015].

UN, *Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties* [online]. Available from: http://indicators.ohchr.org/ [Accessed 20 August 2015].

UN, *1994. Human Rights and Social Work* [online]. Available from: http://cdn.ifsw.org/assets/ifsw_24626-7.pdf [Accessed 20 September 2013].

Weber, M., 1976. *Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft*. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
This page intentionally left blank
# Part II

## Country profiles

Ursula Kämmerer-Rütten, Alexandra Schleyer-Lindenmann, Beatrix Schwarzer and Yafang Wang

### Introduction

During the past decades, interest in transnationalism as a concept and in transnational social work as a disciplinary approach has intensified. The following part of the book presents country profiles of all the countries included in the case studies presented in Part III of this book, because we think that on global and transnational issues the ‘local’ answer can reflect a very practical way of (social) intervention. ‘Local’, however, must be understood in a wider context – nowadays as much shaped by global implications (globalisation) as by local or national frameworks. These frameworks are influenced by a number of aspects such as specific historical, legal, political, social and cultural implications. That is why we asked for a ‘national’ description – laid out in the following country profiles – of statutory, social and professional foundations concerning the countries presented in this book. The country profiles all follow the same structure, providing basic information on national data and statistics, historical background, legislation and policy as well as current debates and major challenges in relation to professional social work concerning education, policy and practice.

The country profiles aim to provide an overview on national particulars and developments relevant to an understanding of the emergence and the role of professional social work within its wider framework of national social policy. We are aware that within the restricted scope of a book it is not possible to provide a more detailed account on these issues. Therefore, the authors were asked to outline selective aspects, initiatives, reforms and debates concerning national policy foundations and professional social work to illustrate national characteristics and allow a deeper understanding of the case studies presented in Part III of the book.

Part II thus includes country profiles of China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Malaysia, and Turkey. The selection of countries (and authors) is based on the academic exchange during the international summer schools held in Frankfurt in 2013 and 2014. A number of criteria are relevant to explain the limited selection of countries: first, it is not explicitly intended to work along continental structures (Asia and Europe), because we argue that countries such as China and Malaysia should not simply be summarised or categorised as ‘typically’ Asian. Second, the aim is to avoid simple classifications and provide exemplary
but more in-depth knowledge on a smaller number of individual countries. Third, the number of countries should also be manageable and thus limited.

Historically, social work as a profession grew mainly out of the development of social welfare policies and programmes in Judeo-Christian and Muslim countries (Leighninger 2008) which may be seen as a common link between the majority of countries included in this book. The major aim is to foster the transnational transfer of social work policies, practices and ideas. We consider the respective national frameworks – i.e. historical contexts, welfare state context and social work training and education – as important background knowledge in understanding the development of social work in each country.

Principally, the countries presented show individual national approaches concerning transnational issues in social work practice and particular ways in dealing with cultural, linguistic, political, socioeconomic and professional barriers. To a great extent these countries share similar problems and common social challenges in the twenty-first century but they also show differences concerning policy foundations and potential solutions for (trans-)national social questions.

It is difficult to compare the countries by using specific criteria which could be applied to all of them and which have influenced welfare state development as well as professional social work and social service provision. Some countries feature a strong secular orientation (China, France, Germany, Great Britain) while in other countries politics and social service provision is shaped by more or less fundamental religious influences (India, Israel, Malaysia and increasingly also Turkey).

In terms of economic developments, China, India and Malaysia may be seen as countries still in the process of growing industrialisation and on their way to developing a welfare state, while countries such as France, Germany and Great Britain are considered as post-welfare states influenced by strong neo-liberal policies and growing privatisation of the social sector.

While some of the countries presented are characterised by a rather strong national ethnic and cultural heterogeneity, such as China, India or Turkey, European countries as well as Israel (still) show a rather homogeneous surface often with a common 'national identity' (e.g. white and Christian in Germany, Jewish in Israel or Citoyenneté in France), despite specific national particulars concerning an evident ethnic heterogeneity resulting from the post-colonial heritage (Great Britain, France).

Most of the European countries presented here share a growing demand for cooperation in matters of immigration and asylum which have become even more important since the influx of millions of refugees from Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia during 2015. Its significance for political and professional intervention and intermediation has recently expanded rapidly and is presently seen as one of the major challenges for politicians, professionals and the wider society. However, countries outside of Europe have been facing migration processes for decades – often as sending and receiving countries at the same time. Israel, in fact, is a country built on immigration.

In every country social policy and the provision of social work is fundamentally influenced by economic developments as well as by cultural values and religious convictions. The availability of professional social work as well as social work
education largely depends on political ideologies and decisions shaped over time
within respective national frameworks. While social work is also usually restricted
to the national context we are currently witnessing increasing transnational
activities and links across many fields of social work.

Reference

Leighninger, L., 2008. 'The history of social work and social welfare', in B.W. White, ed.,
*Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare. The Profession of Social
Work*. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 1-24.
# 5 Social welfare and the development of professional social work in China

*Xiaoxiao Xie and Yafang Wang*

The idea of social work was first introduced into China by western Christian missionaries in the late nineteenth century, and in the 1910s a few elite Chinese universities started offering courses on social work. Over the next few decades, social work experienced a lukewarm growth, before being brought to an abrupt end when the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949. It was not until the late 1980s that the Chinese government again approved the education and practices of social work. The present chapter will first review the history of Chinese social work since its inception, followed by a discussion of the welfare system in China. We then attempt to explain the systematic integration of social work into the existing Chinese welfare structure and its subsequent influence upon social work development in China. We conclude by pointing out the potential contribution of this country profile to a broad understanding of transnational social work as an emerging professional field committed to achieving greater social justice.

## The early development of social work in China and its revival since the late 1980s

Shortly after the gate of the ‘Middle Kingdom’ was forced open to the world following the Opium Wars, social work, along with many other ‘Western knowledges’ was introduced into China. In 1914, the Shanghai College, a higher education institution founded by Christian missionaries, started teaching social work as a mandatory course in its newly established sociology department (Colloquium on Social Work in China in the 21st Century et al. 2004). Other universities in China quickly followed this lead, and social work education began to experience a moderate growth in the next few decades. The outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, and the ensuing Chinese Civil War greatly hindered the development of social work in China. After the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took over state power in 1949, social work as both an academic discipline and profession was abolished (Xia and Guo 2002: 254ff; Yip 2007: 93ff).

The legitimate status of social work in China was restored after the country experienced rising social unrest and instability as a result of the transition to a socialist market economy in the 1980s (Brandt and Rawski 2008; Vogel 2011; Sun 2003; Wang 2001: 57ff). The first sign of rehabilitation appeared in 1988
when the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA) approved the establishment of a BA
Social Work programme, first at Beijing University then at three other universities.
Henceforth, the growth of Chinese social work was rather rapid (Xiong and Wang
2007: 560ff; Yuen-Tsang and Wang 2002).

At the policy level, social work was recognised as a legitimate profession first
by the Shanghai Municipal government in March 2003, followed by the formal
approval of the MCA in June the next year. In July 2006, the MCA and the
Ministry of Personnel decreed the ‘regulations for social work qualifications’.¹
Social work development in China received another major boost in October the
same year, when Chinese President Hu Jintao announced the ‘Decisions for
Crucial Issues Regarding the Political Vision of Building a Harmonious Socialist
Society’ at the 6th plenary session of the 16th Central Committee of the Chinese
Communist Party.

To achieve such an ambitious plan, it was decided that a large and strong social
work team should be developed in China; in 2010, the first Master of Social Work
(MSW) programmes were launched at a few pre-selected elite universities such as
Beijing University and Shanghai University and within the next few years the
numbers of university social work programmes mushroomed. It is reported that by
2014, 298 BA degree programmes and 61 MSW programmes were established at
different higher education institutions (Yeung 2013; Wang et al. 2014). Along
with this rapid expansion of social work education in China, we are also witnessing
a growing emphasis on specialisation. Nowadays, Chinese social workers are
trained to tackle a wide range of issues including care of the elderly, children and
youth, schools, children of migrant workers, hospitals, mental health, disability,
drug addiction etc. (Colloquium on Social Work in China in the 21st Century et al.
2004; Suet-Lin et al. 2010; Guo 2011; Wong and Li 2012; Wu et al. 2012; Dai
2013; Sim et al. 2013). It is also worth mentioning that in recent times, more
scholars are concerned with, and are intensively debating, the future direction
(indigenisation and professionalisation) of the profession (Yunong and Xiong
2008; Gray 2010; Gray and Coates 2010; Yunong and Xiong 2012).

A brief introduction to the Chinese ‘welfare system’²

To illustrate the Chinese welfare system as a basic political framework for the
development of social work in China, we will first summarise the achievements
and limitations of this system established in the early 1950s, before moving on to
consider its current shape.

Shortly after the PRC was founded, a basic welfare system compatible with its
avowed socialist planned economy was created. Despite being highly stratified
and narrowed, this welfare system was nonetheless capable of meeting four
essential social needs. There was, first of all, a governmental aid programme
targeting those who suffered from poverty, natural disaster etc. Second, a primitive
social insurance system was set up in 1951 to cover the city, though not rural
residents who belonged to a work unit. Third, an elementary welfare structure was
designed to support those who otherwise could not survive either because of loss
of family, lack of resources or inability to work. Finally, Mao's China also took
responsibility for the well-being of a few retired war veterans.

There are three distinct features of this old Chinese welfare system: first, it was
under full control and continuously regulated by the CCP; second, there was a
particular paternalistic aspect to the system (Leung and Nann 1995: 159); third,
there was a structurally determined inequality in terms of welfare provision
between urban and rural residents. It should be noted that the household registration
system/‘Hukou’ (戶口制度) which created this urban/rural division in the first
place remains largely intact today.³

The old Chinese welfare system of Mao’s era started crumbling towards the end of the 1970s. In a new historical context of ‘reform and opening up’, the Chinese government began to delegate some of its welfare duties to other social or semi-governmental agencies. Nevertheless, this process of restructuring the Chinese welfare system to ‘welfare pluralism’ is always under the close and incessant supervision of the CCP, and retains rather than discards a few key institutional arrangements and rules of the past. For the moment, we shall highlight four distinctive characteristics of the current Chinese welfare system.

First, the internal governing structure of the Chinese government is still highly centralised despite a recent call for building up ‘small government, big society’ (Wang 2014). Second, whereas the third sector has continued to grow since 1978, it has not yet acquired a de facto autonomy. Third, it is also noted that the CCP has been gradually adopting a few neo-liberal types of governing strategies (Wang 2012). For example, there is a clear tendency towards increasing marketisation and privatisation of state-provided welfare benefits (public housing, education and medical insurance), which unfortunately has not succeeded in significantly reducing, but rather sometimes increasing, existing social inequalities (Sun and Guo 2013). Finally, although in recent years the central government has become more attuned to the welfare inequality between the city and rural residents caused by the Hukou system, the decision to have it abolished completely has not yet been made.

## The structurally determined dilemma faced by Chinese social work

Based on the above outline of the Chinese welfare system, the remaining part of
this chapter will map out the existing structure of welfare agencies/providers
before addressing one among many potential challenges faced by future Chinese
social work.

In urban areas, welfare providers normally consist of public agencies, mass
organisations, work units, street committees/residence committees (RCs), and
NGOs. Within the first category of the above-mentioned welfare providers, i.e.
public agencies, the main institutions charged for appropriating and delivering
welfare benefits include the Ministry of Social Security, the MCA and a few
other relevant governmental departments at different administrative levels. In
regard to the traditional mass organisations, e.g. Chinese Women’s Federation,
China Disabled Persons’ Federation, and the Communist Youth League, while in
theory they are not official governmental agencies, in reality, all of them are
supervised by the CCP government and act as a ‘second government’ or
semi-public agencies, and thus are also responsible for distributing certain
welfare benefits (Wang 2014).

In addition to the mass organisations just mentioned, RCs are also considered a semi-public agency (Wang 2014); a remnant of the socialist past, RCs were established by the Chinese government in the 1950s as a semi-governmental apparatus deployed at the local and community levels. One of the main duties of RCs is to provide basic welfare benefits to residents living in a particular community or neighbourhood. In the past, typical members of an RC consisted of a few ‘old or middle-aged aunts’. Despite the fact of having received little if no formal professional social work training, these semi-official state employees are very efficient in terms of both addressing various issues in the community (e.g. mediating in interpersonal conflicts, caring for the unemployed and the old, etc.) and implementing the tasks assigned by the state (keeping social order, doing propaganda work for the CCP etc., Yan and Gao 2007; Lee and Zhang 2013; Tomba 2014). Nevertheless, in more recent years, we have observed that social workers have been increasingly recruited into existing RCs. It is hoped that in doing so, the community level of governance can be improved. One of the consequences of this development, however, is the potential conflict between the institutional position that RCs occupied in the single party structure and the avowed principle of professional social work. Social workers newly recruited to RCs may find it hard to adjust to such a working environment, because the main duties assigned to them are administrative rather than service-oriented.

Another paradoxical aspect of the Chinese welfare provision structure is the
growing importance occupied by the newly emerging ‘semi-governmental’
NGOs. Established either directly by the government itself or by former public
servants, this type of ‘semi-governmental’ Chinese NGO is entrusted by the
government with distributing welfare benefits on its behalf. The relegation of
certain welfare responsibilities traditionally reserved by the State is confirmed in
a new social policy issued in 2010. What is crucial here is that this particular type
of NGO with a strong governmental connection gained an upper hand, when
competing for a few already limited opportunities with those without close links
to government. It is also worth noting that, more recently, the Chinese government
has started referring to both the ‘semi-governmental’ Chinese NGOs and the
aforementioned mass organisations as ‘social-hub organisations’. Yet, as Wang
contends, what this new title really implies is not that the above-mentioned two
types of organisation serve as a ‘bridge between government and NGOs’ but
rather a new model of managing the emerging social organisations in China
(Wang 2014).

With regard to those few NGOs striving for high levels of autonomy, it is very
unlikely that they will be prosperous in the foreseeable future, largely because of
the lack of resources and insufficient institutional support. To a large extent, their
survival depends on how well they liaise with different levels of government. It is
in this sense that they can be defined as semi-autonomous agencies.
To better explain the current structure of welfare providers in urban China, two illustrative charts are offered below:

<table><caption>Table 5.1 Basic structure of welfare providers in China's urban areas</caption><tr><td>Ministries of social security, of civil affairs, and governmental welfare departments at various vertical administration levels</td><td>Public agencies</td></tr><tr><td>Hub social organisations, e.g. mass organisations, and semi-public NGOs</td><td>Semi-public agencies</td></tr><tr><td>Street committees or resident committees</td><td>Semi-public agencies</td></tr><tr><td>NGOs</td><td>Semi-free agencies</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.1 Relationships between NGOs and public/semi-public agencies in providing welfare benefits</figcaption></figure>

Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 show that NGOs in China normally lie at the bottom of the administrative hierarchy of welfare provision and often have the same status, or even lower, as RCs.

Because most Chinese social workers are employed either by semi-autonomous NGOs or semi-public agencies, both of which, as argued above, are well
incorporated into the existing governmental structure of welfare provision, their professional identities have been inevitably compromised by the raison d'être of the Chinese State. In other words, social workers in China often work as de facto government employees whose dual duties include, on the one hand, delivering basic welfare benefits, and on the other, helping to maintain social stability and building a 'harmonious society' (Zhang 2009). This 'instrumentalisation' of social work in China (Chen 2010) also determines that the capacities of Chinese social workers to provide client-centred services and campaign for social justice are rather limited. The challenge faced by Chinese social workers then is how to work within the single party state structure without completely losing their professional identification.

## Concluding remarks

This chapter first reviewed the historical and more recent development of Chinese social work, before turning attention to the welfare system in China. We identified five different types of welfare providers in the country, and considered how the institutional design has shaped and would still influence the professional identity of Chinese social workers. Our argument is that one of the major challenges facing future social work development in China is how to cope with a structurally determined tendency of de-professionalisation. From a transnational perspective, we suggest that the dilemmas faced by Chinese social work indicate the importance of understanding the paradoxical relationship between a commitment of social work to addressing issues related to social injustice/inequality and each country's unique socio-political structure and historical tradition.⁴

## Notes

1. There are three types of social workers according to this regulation: assistant social worker, junior and senior social worker.

2. Please note that we placed the quotation marks around the words 'welfare system'. We used quotation marks here in order to suggest that this term 'welfare system' has acquired a different meaning in the Chinese context; we attempt to explain this difference later in this section.

3. The case study 'Education Inequality of Migrant Children and School Social Work Interventions', Chapter 13 in this book, describes this problem in more detail.

4. A good example is the incapability of social workers to solve problems, especially inequalities such as those faced by rural migrant children. This is discussed in more detail in the case study of China (see Chapter 13).

## References

Brandt, L., and Rawski, T.G., 2008. *China's great economic transformation*. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, T., 2010. Chonggou Shehui Gongzuo Zhuanye de Shiming. *Zhongguo Shehui Gongzuo Yanjiu* (8), 132–74.
Colloquium on Social Work in China in the 21st Century, et al., 2004. *Social work in China. A snapshot of critical issues and emerging ideas: Proceedings of the international colloquium in Beijing 2000*. Toronto: Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.

Dai, H., 2013. 'Care for whom. Diverse institutional orientations of non-governmental elder homes in contemporary China', *British Journal of Social Work* 44(7): 1914–33.

Gray, M., 2010. 'Indigenization in a globalizing world. A response to Yunong and Xiong (2008)', *International Social Work* 53(1): 115–27.

Gray, M., and Coates, J., 2010. "'Indigenization" and knowledge development. Extending the debate', *International Social Work* 53(5): 613–27.

Guo, J., 2011. 'Family and parent correlates of educational achievement. Migrant children in China', *Asian Social Work and Policy Review* 5(2): 123–37.

Lee, C.K., and Zhang, Y., 2013. 'The power of instability. Unraveling the microfoundations of bargained authoritarianism in China', *American Journal of Sociology* 118(6): 1475–508.

Leung, J.C.B., and Nann, R.C., 1995. *Authority and benevolence. Social welfare in China*. Hong Kong, New York: Chinese University Press, St. Martin's Press.

Sim, T., et al., 2013. Rising to the occasion. Disaster social work in China. *International Social Work* 56(4): 544–62.

Suet-Lin, H., Shui Lai, N., and Kwok Kin, F., 2010. 'Functions of social work supervision in Shenzhen. Insights from the cross-border supervision model', *International Social Work* 53(3): 366–78.

Sun, L., 2003. *Duan Lie: 20 Shiji 90 Niandai Yilai de Zhonguo Shehui*. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.

Sun, W., and Guo, Y., 2013. *Unequal China. The political economy and cultural politics of inequality*. New York: Routledge.

Tomba, L., 2014. *The government next door. Neighborhood politics in urban China*. New York: Cornell University Press.

Vogel, E.F., 2011. *Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China*.

Wang, S., 2001. *Shilun Woguo Shehui Gongzuo de Bentuhua*. Shejiang Xuekan.

Wang, S., 2012. 'Zhongguo Shehui Fuli de Neijuanhua ji Fazhan. Zhongguo Shichanghua Zhuanxing zhong Shehui Fuli Zhidu de Bianqian', *Zhongguo Shehui Gongzuo Yanjiu* (8): 1–38.

Wang, S., Ruanzeng, Y., and Shi, B., 2014. *Zhongguo Shehui Gongzuo Jiaoyu de Fazhan*. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.

Wang, Y., 2014. 'Social work in China. Historical development and current challenges for professionalization', *Social Work and Society International Online Journal*. Available from: www.socmag.net/?p=1280 [Accessed 25 January 2016].

Wong, F.K.D., and Li, J.C.M., 2012. 'Cultural influence on Shanghai Chinese people's help-seeking for mental health problems. Implications for social work practice', *British Journal of Social Work* 44(4): 868–85.

Wu, Q., Tsang, B., and Ming, H., 2012. 'Social capital, family support, resilience and educational outcomes of Chinese migrant children', *British Journal of Social Work* 44(3): 636–56.

Xia, X., and Guo, J., 2002. 'Historical development and characteristics of social work in today's China', *International Journal of Social Welfare* 11(3): 254–62.

Xiong, Y., and Wang, S., 2007. 'Development of social work education in China in the context of new policy initiatives. Issues and challenges', *Social Work Education* 26(6): 560–72.

Yan, M.C., and Gao, J.G., 2007. 'Social engineering of community building. Examination of policy process and characteristics of community construction in China', *Community Development Journal* 42(2): 222–36.
Yeung, W.-J.J., 2013. 'Higher education expansion and social stratification in China', *Chinese Sociological Review* 45(4): 54–80.

Yip, K.-S., 2007. 'Tensions and dilemmas of social work education in China', *International Social Work* 50(1): 93–105.

Yuen-Tsang, A.W.K., and Wang, S., 2002. 'Tensions confronting the development of social work education in China. Challenges and opportunities', *International Social Work* 45(3): 375–88.

Yunong, H., and Xiong, Z., 2008. 'A reflection on the indigenization discourse in social work', *International Social Work* 51(5): 611–22.

Yunong, H., and Xiong, Z., 2012. 'Further discussion of indigenization in social work. A response to Gray and Coates', *International Social Work* 55(1): 40–52.

Zhang, W., 2009. *Soziale Arbeit in China. Einführung in die Rahmenbedingungen, die Struktur und den Stand* [online]. Available from: www.igfh.de/cms/sites/default/files/Soziale%20Arbeit%20in%20China_Anlage.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2016].
# 6 Social action¹ in France

## Issues and development

Nathalie Jami, Yves Pillant and Nathalie Segura

### General presentation of France

France is one of the main actors of the European Union. It is the third largest European economic power behind Germany and the United Kingdom. On 1 January 2015, the number of inhabitants was estimated at 64.2 million inside the French metropolitan area. France is therefore the second most populous country in the European Union behind Germany. It is the largest country of the European Union and because of its history, has many links with the African, American and Oceanic continents.

France enjoys the highest demographic growth in Europe: the fertility rate is 2.01 children per woman which represents 828,000 births in France in 2010 with 54.8 per cent outside marriage. The life expectancy at birth is 84.2 years for women and 78.4 years for men (all statistics from INSEE 2014).

The administration of the French territory, traditionally centrally managed (from Paris), has been profoundly modified by the decentralisation laws of 1982 and 1983. Since then, the state has shared a part of its powers, mainly economic, cultural, and social, at different administrative levels: 13 regions, 101 departments and 36,778 municipalities.

The French social security system, created in 1945, is based on the distribution principle. It is funded by employer and employee contributions. This funding is mainly based on insurance paid by the labour force, managed equally by all the social partners represented by workers' unions and managerial organisations. Especially in times of crisis, these systems and institutions focus on the minimising of social risks and protection of individuals from life hazards, just as an insurance system would (Castel 1995). The total social security budget represents one-fifth of the GDP (Sécurité Sociale 2014). The budget deficit has become chronic and is part of the French national debt.

Concerning social issues, there are two main challenges: increased poverty and an aging population. Indeed, 8.7 million people live below the poverty line and the phenomenon of 'the working poor' is increasing (ONPES). The aging of the French population is an important demographic issue; in 2060, one-third of the French population will be over 60 years old (INSEE 2010).
## Historical evolution of social action

In 1945, out of the rubble of World War II, France reconstructed its national social security system into three branches (sickness insurance/workplace accident/professional illness; family; old age) and funding based on the working society's contributions.

During the ‘thirty glorious years’ or ‘glorious thirties’, the period of economic growth between 1945 and 1974, the initiative of social action was mainly private, with non-profit associations developing institutional answers to meet the needs of target populations.

However, the complexities of the social issues outstripped these schemes during the same period. Little by little, France lost the dynamics of a society of ‘objective solidarity’ based on a working society, where economic and social progress are linked. This mutation led to a social security funding shortage, as it could no longer be supported by the labour force. Instead of the institutional support of social needs, social projects, which must be negotiated between institutions and interest groups, became the norm. Also during this time, ideological debates took place about the role of the state in social action and ways to think of social work within an individual or a group perspective.

During the 1980s, instability and poverty increased, and as an answer to people’s needs, the Minimum Income was created in 1988 by law.² The implementation of this minimum income affected the shift from an abstract distribution logic to an empowerment and participation logic (see also below). During this period France faced social problems such as massive unemployment (especially for young people and women), difficult life in suburbs, and discrimination issues. Policy was based on positive discrimination, which consisted in giving more to those who have less, in order to catch up. The 1998 law against exclusion³ reaffirms universal access to rights for everyone, based on common law’s social service. The same is true for Dalo’s law⁴ which takes this universal-access-to-housing logic so far as giving citizens an enforceable right in terms of housing.

Social action was modernised through the 2002 law.⁵ A major notion in this law is ‘social cohesion’, a concept that implies strong engagement by civil society regarding social vulnerabilities (Donzelot 1994). The person affected by social action is then no longer ‘just’ a beneficiary of a public charity but becomes a subject with rights and plays a role in his/her own care.

The logic of the law of 2002 was extended by the law of 2005.⁶ This proposes that society as a whole has to adjust to people’s disabilities and has to develop its accessibility. The evaluation of the needs of each disabled person takes into account his/her aspirations as expressed in his/her ‘life project’. They have a right to compensation in order to reduce the gap between the possibilities offered to each citizen and the limits imposed by his/her disability, and to increase his/her participation. In a similar vein, the reform of childhood protection (law of 2007⁷) confirms support for parenthood and the strengthening of parental skills.

Therefore, within fifteen years, important reforms and laws have changed the French social landscape. European and international policy guidelines such as the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have contributed to these changes.

## The institutional actors of the social action

### State, social security and civil society

The French social system has been built around three entities: state, social security and civil society, with an important differentiation between the social and health care sectors. Driven by the NGO (non-governmental, non-profit) sector, the management of specific issues, such as disability or old age, has crossed a divide and now a hybrid sector, combining medical care and social support, has emerged (the medico-social sector). Civil society's development of appropriate answers to the population's needs has thereby led to very specific initiatives which have generated new structures.

Government, local authorities and social security organisations are the principal financers of social services and their implementation is entrusted to non-profit associations as well as social and health care institutions. Thus, the field of social work is mainly funded by the state and based on global, sector-based, local or even cross-cutting policies.

### The Département – the local territorial authority, leader of social action

With the first social action legislations of 1982 and 1986, the expertise of social action was redistributed, along the subsidiarity principle, amongst the General Councils (elected organism of the *Département*) considered to be the most relevant local actor for setting up this policy. The General Councils implement local solidarity in sectors such as personal independence benefits for the elderly, childhood protection, and housing for dependent and disabled adults. The territorial approach has become a foundation of social action in order to fulfil the population's needs. Its principal aim is to bring the beneficiary closer to the management of social needs and to the funding of social action.⁸

On top of the decentralisation laws' projected aims, the government's own decentralisation has resulted in a split between the medico-social sector, which is managed by Regional Health Agencies (RHA, see below) and those social services which are integrated into the Regional Office of Youth, Sports and Social Cohesion.

However, for the future, an important territorial reform is being planned, and General Councils could disappear by 2020. Observers, for example the *Cour des Comptes* (Court of Auditors),⁹ agree that the aim of controlling costs requires – above all – better coordination between the government, territorial authorities and social security organisations.

### Persistence of state government and new public management

The requirements of cost rationalisation and balanced spending explain the constant presence of the state, despite successive waves of decentralisation.
A recent example is a law called ‘Hospital, Patients, Health, Territory’.¹⁰ Based on this law, the RHA (Regional Health Agencies), created in 2010, have responsibility to manage health policy at the regional level. RHAs have taken over the former decentralised services and report directly to the government. Their purpose is to make health establishments more effective, meaning to give every user (usager) access to quality care, and to introduce and develop preventative health care. This regional management shows that the state regained control over the healthcare system with the main aim of reducing costs.

Through the RHAs, the Government also regained control over ‘the constant evaluation of every social group member’s needs and expectations’ (Legifrance. gouv.fr) according to article L116-1 of the Families and Social Action Code. For a long time, social action relied on associative initiatives (mostly NGOs); it was civil society which expressed its needs. From now on, a downward logic is imposed, and the RHAs, which elaborate the Regional Health Plan, define the needs through data collection and fix the necessary actions through the interdepartmental programme concerned with personal independence and disabilities.

Within the new public management system, the general view of public policy is to pursue the control of public spending. In the social and medico-social fields, this objective is entrusted to agencies, which are financed by the Government, and launch projects generating competition between the various actors in the field. At the establishment level, new sharing tools, such as contracts formalising objectives and means, as well as organisations in social and medico-social cooperation, have been set up to meet the demands of reducing costs. The rise of this new logic has considerably weakened the autonomy of the social and medico-social institutions.

## Social workers

### Development of the profession

In France, social work is composed of various complementary professions (e.g. social assistant, specialised educators), which were developed throughout the twentieth century. These professions have been established by a continuous adaptation to social issues (social exclusion, elderly dependency, disability, and childhood protection) but also according to changing perceptions of the interaction between the individual and society.

In 2011, in mainland France, there were 1.2 million social workers, working full- or part-time (DREES 2011); 40 per cent of them work for individual employers, as nursery assistants, in home childcare or home support. The remaining 60 per cent work in various fields. With 383,000 social workers, the elderly dependency care field is the main area of social workers’ employment in addition to individual employers. This is followed by the disability field (123,000 workers), early childhood care (55,000 workers) and work with individuals in social distress (51,000 workers) (DREES 2011).

The social work profession is currently attested by 14 diplomas, from level V (Professional Studies Certificate or Professional Competence Certificate) to levels
I and II (master's degree)¹¹ according to the definition of social work described in the article L 451-1 of the Families and Social Action Code (Legifrance.gouv.fr). To these can be added qualified workers such as nursery assistants who do not have access to a diploma; however, they do need approval from the General Council and must have undertaken specific studies.

Notably, the labelling of social action and intervention has changed; social action, carried out by ‘social workers’ (*travailleurs sociaux*), has developed and diversified to such an extent that now a multiplicity of ‘other social workers’ (*intervenants sociaux*) has appeared, having less professional training. These workers assume various functions with poorly defined tasks which are mainly related to social mediation.

## Social work education in France

Since decentralisation, professional training in social work has been entrusted to the regions. However, the diplomas are nationally recognised and thus the state controls the curricula. Social work education is not handled by universities. Historically, this field has been developed by private initiatives such as non-profit associations, who have volunteered to provide professional education to their employees or future employees.

Nowadays, initial and continuous training for social workers is divided between several governmental departments and several associative, university-based and public educational institutions. In general, the training combines theoretical lectures and professional training (placements). The social and medico-social establishments or services are considered as ‘qualifying sites’ and contribute, just as any training institution, towards transferring the skills necessary to graduate. The creation and successive reforms of diplomas have brought along with them an individualisation of the programmes that helps to transfer skills from one level to another. International partnerships are encouraged in order to exchange theoretical and practical knowledge or to discover specific social issues. At present, the educational sector is trying to harmonise programmes according to the European Credits System (ECTS) in order to ease the legibility and mobility of students and social workers.

Finally a revision project (UNAFORIS) is under consideration in order to simplify the social work education system and to improve coordination and complementarity between the education system's components in order to respond to social workers' needs in the field. A link between social work diplomas and university curricula is also planned.

## Principles of professional intervention

Social work history has been based on an ‘assistant logic’ (Castel 1995) and a conception of the individual as the beneficiary of social services still persists. However, since 2000, a new dynamic with a revision of the job definition, the introduction of a regulatory framework, and an evolution in favour of the user’s individual rights, can be noticed. Social work is not there any more ‘to do good’, but
to consider the choices of each person to steer his/her own life. The notion of
'accompanying' emerges, replacing the notion of 'taking in charge', which did not
sufficiently take the person into account. Of course, this approach, i.e. asking the
individual to be participative, active and dynamic, also includes the risk of neglecting
the fact that some conditions are necessary for a person to be able to take charge of
him/herself (Castel 2011). Yet, there is a strong will to consider the individual as a
true actor by offering him/her a form of contract regarding the actions developed
with him/her ('Active Solidarity Income',¹² 'residence contract'¹³) in a mutually
defined project dynamic. The key word is 'participation' which becomes a principle
(confirmed by the laws of 2002-2 and 2005-102) as well as a means (by participating
the person learns how to participate) and a societal purpose.

The empowerment approach represents the process whereby individuals or
groups considered as being excluded or at risk of exclusion learn the necessary skills
to increase their power to act and a real capacity to decide how to manage their life.
The term ‘empowerment’, ‘almost untranslatable in French, describes a frequent
practice of supporting a person who will gradually gain social skills/competences
that will allow this person to defend his/her own interests’ (Velche 2010: 200). But
the concept of empowerment reaches beyond the capacity of acting individually; it
is a strategic approach that aims to support the individual’s and the community’s
efforts to develop or regain their capacity of autonomous action. This approach is
still not widely considered in France, especially due to the low recognition of
community work as an approach in social work (Donzelot et al. 2003).

Nevertheless, this approach is receiving growing acknowledgement, e.g. in
health care, where HIV patients now directly control and influence the decisions
that may affect their treatment and lives; or through official support¹⁴ and financing
of mutual self-help groups for people with mental health issues.

Altogether, there is a discernible transition from considering the user as a
passive recipient of benefits to an active participant, who not only voices his/her
needs but is an agent of his/her development. In order to truly reach this aim,
institutions and professionals are obliged by law to use a project-based method
and evaluate their work.¹⁵ For a long time, actions have been justified by the right
intentions. The current decade has made a ‘pragmatic change’ with a new logic
aiming at goal achievement and evaluation of results for the users.

The professional developments in France promote (new) ethical standards and
critical positions regarding exclusion, discrimination and segregation. Social
inclusion as well as empowerment and participatory practices confirm the political
dimension of social action.

Notes

1 Social action encompasses social policies, their financing, and the social work implemented or supported by the state or non-profit organisations.

2 Law n° 88-1088 of 1 December 1988 concerning the Minimum Income.

3 Law n° 98-657 of 29 July 1998 against exclusion.

4 DALO: Law n° 2007-290 of 5 March 2007 institutes the right to housing as an enforceable right and includes different measures in favour of social cohesion.
5 Law n° 2002-2 of 2 January 2002, modernising social and medico-social action.

6 Law n° 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 for equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship for people with disabilities.

7 Law n° 2007-293 of 5 March 2007 regarding childhood protection.

8 For further reading see Baguenard (2004).

9 Founded in 1807, it is an independent public institution which audits public spending and informs citizens about it; see Cour des comptes (online).

10 For a detailed presentation of this law see www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/vademecum_loi_HPST.pdf

11 Breakdown from the lowest level to master's degree level:

- Diploma of medico-psychologic assistant (AMP)

- Diploma of social life assistant (AVS)

- Diploma of familial assistant (AF)

- Diploma of familial and social intervention engineer (TISF)

- Diploma of educative monitor (ME)

- Diploma of social service assistant (ASS)

- Diploma of specialised educator (ES)

- Diploma of early childhood educator (EJE)

- Diploma of specialised technical educator (ETS)

- Diploma of social and familial economy adviser (CESF)

- Diploma of familial mediator (MF)

- Certificate of abilities for management functions and manager of a social interventions unit (CAFERUIS)

- Certificate of abilities for management functions of an institution or a social interventions service (CAFDES)

- Diploma of social engineering (DEIS)

12 The Active Solidarity Income assures individuals, without resources or with low resources, a minimum income which varies according to the household's composition.

13 This requires institutions or services to sign a contract with the resident individual specifying the given benefits.

14 Circulaire n° 2005-418 29 August 2005 regarding mutual help groups.

15 Law n° 2002-2 of 2 January 2002, articles 7–13 and 22.

## References

Baguenard, J., 2004. *La décentralisation*. 7th ed. Paris: PUF.

Castel, R., 1995. *Les métamorphoses de la question sociale. Une chronique du salariat*. Paris: Fayard.

Castel, R., 2011. 'Les ambiguïtés de la promotion de l'individu', in *Collectif and P. Rosanvallon, eds, *Refaire société*. Paris: Seuil; la République des idées, 13–25.

Cour des comptes [online]. Available from: www.ccomptes.fr/ [Accessed 20 June 2015].

Donzelot, J., 1994. *L'invention du social. Essai sur le déclin des passions politiques*. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Donzelot, J., Mével, C., and Wyvekens, A., 2003. *Faire société. La politique de la ville aux Etats-Unis et en France*. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

DREES, 2011. *1,2 million de travailleurs sociaux en 2011* [online]. Direction de la recherche, des études, de l'évaluation et des statistiques. Available from: http://drees.social-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/er893.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].

INSEE, 2010. *Projections de population à l'horizon 2060. Un tiers de la population âgé de plus de 60 ans* [online]. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Available from: www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/ipweb/ip1320/ip1320.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].
INSEE, 2014. *France, portrait social - Insee Références* [online]. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Available from: www.insee.fr/fr/publications-et-services/sommaire.asp?ref_id=FPORSOC14 [Accessed 20 June 2015].

*La loi HPST à l'hôpital* [online]. Available from: http://social-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/vademecum_loi HPST.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].

Legifrance.gouv.fr. *Code de l'action sociale et des familles* [online]. Available from: www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074069 [Accessed 20 June 2015].

ONPES. *Rapport 2013-2014. Les effets d'une crise économique de longue durée* [online]. Observatoire national de la pauvreté et de l'exclusion sociale. Available from: www.onpes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Fiche_synthese.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2015].

Sécurité Sociale, 2014. *Evolution de la part des dépenses de protection sociale (hors transferts entre régimes) dans le produit intérieur brut* [online]. Available from: www.securite-sociale.fr/Evolution-de-la-part-des-depenses-de-protection-sociale-hors-transferts-entre-regimes-dans-le?-type=pro [Accessed 30 September 2015].

UNAFORIS. *Ré-architecture des formations* [online]. Available from: www.unaforis.eu/dossiers-thematiques/re-architecture-des-formations [Accessed 20 June 2015].

Velche, D., 2010. 'La diversité du travail protégé et assisté en Europe et son avenir', *Les cahiers de l'Actif* (404–5): 197–231.
# 7 Social policy and social work in Germany

Ursula Kämmerer-Rütten

Germany has about 81 million inhabitants (Statistisches Bundesamt 2015). It is the largest country in the European Union (EU) in terms of population. Germany likes to present itself as a modern, cosmopolitan country with a society shaped by a plurality of lifestyles and ethno-cultural diversity. Indeed, German society has become more diverse, more flexible and perhaps even more tolerant in recent decades, and yet the challenge to combat social exclusion and work against the discrimination of minorities is still a political as well a professional task and a major challenge for civil society.

The socio-economic change over the past few years – accelerated through the consequences of the worldwide economic and financial crisis – has led to the emergence of new social risks and greater diversification in Germany as well as in many Western societies.

‘New poverty’ and precarious living conditions are rising in Germany accelerated by a growing low-wage sector and insecure working conditions. This change is accompanied by the withdrawing of the welfare state and the reduction of public expenditure, which is influencing the provision of social services and the living conditions of many citizens directly, but more vulnerable people – e.g. people with disabilities, unemployed people, young families and single mothers, (ethnic) minorities or elderly people – are most severely affected (Uhlendorff et al. 2013; Schilling and Klus 2015).

This country profile, first of all, looks into the changing pattern of the German welfare state, which is still providing a comprehensive – albeit receding – foundation for social care and support, before, second, the significance of professional social work is considered.

## The welfare state context¹

The roots of the present German system of social security date back to the last century when social reforms (enactment of sickness, accident, old age insurance) introduced by Bismarck at the end of the nineteenth century took place.

German health care funding relies on compulsory insurance contributions (sickness insurance scheme, long-term care insurance)² that workers and employers are obliged to make to designated health funds, which in turn pay the
treatment costs of their members, while social care is mainly funded by state
subsidies (taxes).

The German sickness insurance scheme maintains a sharp division between the state of acute ill-health and long-term care needs. Non-clinical health and social care/personal social services, such as supported accommodation or residential care, are usually not covered by the sickness insurance scheme but by a locally administered means-tested social assistance scheme.

The German welfare system rests on the traditionally strong idea of subsidiarity including the administrative structure that a body of welfare organisations is responsible for the provision of health and social care (based on state subsidies). In Germany, public authorities will only be involved in the production of services when the abilities and resources of the family, the community and organisations to serve their members have been fully exhausted. It is a complex system, which influences not only the provision of care and support but also how caring responsibilities are perceived in public.

The role of the non-profit sector and the principle of subsidiarity
in Germany

Pursuing the principle of subsidiarity, Germany is the prime example of a non-profit organisation approach to service production. Non-profit or welfare organisations are responsible for an important share of health care and social services and they depend heavily on public subsidies. Based on the long tradition of the ‘subsidiary’ role of the state, the role of intermediary organisations as providers of social services and health care became legally approved.

Today in Germany the institutions of voluntary welfare work³ are organised in six large bodies, the so-called Central Associations (Spitzenverbände) serving also as ‘umbrella’ organisations (Bieker and Floerecke 2011). In 2012 German Welfare Associations ran more than 105,000 units providing health care and social services for people with special needs – e.g. children/youth and families, people with disabilities, elderly people etc. – employing almost 1,700,000 staff (BAGFW 2014: 7). The important role of the non-statutory sector has to be seen in the context of subsidiarity, the principle which applies not only to the responsibilities of families for their members but also to the relationship between statutory and voluntary bodies. Conditional priority is given to voluntary non-profit organisations which wish to provide such social help, and public social assistance bodies are obliged to support the voluntary welfare organisations (Jarré 1991: 212ff; Bieker and Floerecke 2011).

Among the six major associations providing personal social services in Germany (Wienand 2007; Bieker and Floerecke 2011) those of the two churches (the Catholic Deutscher Caritasverband and the Protestant Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland) play a traditionally influential role.⁴ They share the major part as provider of social services among voluntary agencies (Bieker and Floerecke 2011: 29), which has certain ideological consequences such as a corporate policy concerning service provision and staff selection.
However, although these considerations may often be more formal than ideological, they are oppressive retaining elements of control and repression, at least concerning the selection of staff. Major conceptual differences, for example, between a day care centre for mental health patients or drug users run by the churches or non-religious agencies are usually not apparent in an everyday working context.

German welfare associations still play a dominant role in health and social care however, increasingly applying structures similar to private enterprises in order to survive mounting competitive pressure, while private/profit-oriented providers are also entering the social and health care market in greater numbers, a process critically observed by different stakeholders (Wohlfahrt 2011: 92ff).

## Economisation and privatisation

The German welfare state has come under increasing attack during the last two decades and is experiencing considerable reform pressure. This has to do with the ideological onslaught of neoliberalism and increasing global competition, but also with the challenges arising from demographic change (aging societies), social change (erosion of traditional family structures) and rising public debt. To ease what was considered to be an increasingly unsustainable financial burden and a constraint on competitiveness, contraction of social safety nets in combination with labour market reforms and regressive tax reforms substantially yields inequality in Germany as in many European or Western societies (OECD 2008; Grabka and Kuhn 2012).

Today, issues such as globalisation, demographic pressures, individualisation, unemployment, greater social diversity and fiscal scarcity (Leibfried and Mau 2008) raise the question as to whether the welfare state is indeed sustainable. Increasingly, we witness that economisation and privatisation have a negative impact on the provision of social and health care services in terms of expenditure cuts and austerity policies, which are affecting citizens in need of care, but also social workers as part of the caring professions.

## Current issues in social work

### Social work education

Historically, the development of professional social work in Germany was influenced by strong Anglo-Saxon initiatives going into the twentieth century. Well-educated middle-class women in particular had strong political and social visions of equal rights and individual freedom (first-wave feminism, women's suffrage) and demanded participation: among them were popular activists and social reformers such as Mary Richmond and Jane Addams (winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931) and their German colleague, Alice Salomon, who founded the first German college for social work in the 1920s in Berlin. Ever since, there has been a strong drive towards professionalisation in German social work. This
has led – over the decades – to higher academic qualifications, further diversification and a strong emphasis on professional standards based on scientific methods, theory development and research as well as a professional code of ethics (Schilling and Zeller 2012).

Education and training for social workers is regulated in Germany. The regulatory bodies are usually the responsible ministries on a federal level. From the 1970s until the turn of this century the academic education was split into two different academic tracks indicating a relatively strong divide: social pedagogy or social work. Today, both tracks are combined under the heading of social work and to qualify and work as a professional social worker you need at least three years' principal academic education leading to a bachelor's degree in Social Work. The BA is the condition for state recognition, while licensing procedures through state recognition are in force in some regions but not nationwide. In addition to the bachelor's degree it is possible to go on for a master's degree⁵ and specialise in particular areas of professional interest. The title of social worker is protected and in many areas of social work practice only qualified social workers will be accepted.

In 2004 the number of qualified social workers/social pedagogues centred around 160,000, but numbers have risen remarkably within ten years ranging around 283,000 in 2013 (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2015). Some sources even estimate a number of more than 300,000 social workers/social pedagogues/counsellors in Germany including professionals who have other relevant and/or additional qualifications, of which 72 per cent are female. The rate of part-time employees (50 per cent) is remarkably high, made up mainly of women, who often shoulder part-time work and family responsibilities at the same time (ISA; DBH 2012).

There are two major professional associations for social work in Germany: the DBSH (Deutscher Berufsverband für Soziale Arbeit und Heilberufe) and the DGSA (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziale Arbeit). While the DBSH – member of the IFSW – primarily addresses social work practitioners, providing practical advice such as professional standards and a code of ethics, the DGSA has a strong focus on educational issues and research concerning theory development to strengthen the scientific basis for social work practice.

## Social work practice

In Germany, qualified professionals work in many fields of social work practice and with different client groups, such as:

* children, youth and families

* health care/patients (mental health care, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc.)

* elderly care

* people with disabilities

* criminal offenders

* substance/drug abusers

* refugees, migrants.
The national social legislation (Sozialgesetzbücher I-XII) provides the foundation for the provision of social services in Germany, and the availability of qualified social work is broadly grounded in respective national laws – e.g. in relation to child protection – and further accomplished by federal laws and directives.

Social workers address issues which have a profound effect on people’s lives such as illness, poverty, violence, abuse and neglect, and provide multi-level interventions drawn from an eclectic knowledge base. Contemporary aims of social work education and practice in Germany are to empower clients, enable social participation and combat social exclusion (Sheppard 2006; Schilling and Zeller 2012).

While the German welfare state provides shelter and protection from severe threat (hunger, neglect) and social support to those in need, this does not mean that full social participation is always possible for people threatened by social exclusion. The reasons for this are twofold: first, neoliberalism and economic pressure have led to increasing cuts in public expenditure affecting the provision of personal social services in many ways and, second, discrimination (e.g. against race, sex, gender, religion, disability) and prejudice concerning ‘otherness’ (Bauman 1991: 8) are still influential and often affect the living conditions of social work clients.⁶ At the time of writing it seems particularly worrying that social and racial exclusion and discriminatory attitudes are prevalent among the German population and displayed more openly, e.g. in relation to the current admission of refugees arriving in Germany in increasing numbers.

Nevertheless, there are areas of social work practice, e.g. working with drug users, where Germany exhibits a deliberately progressive and liberal approach in relation to social support.

Social workers in Germany have to assume a wide range of professional roles ranging from professional care and case management to advocacy and ‘reflexive modernization’ (Beck et al. 1994). Therefore, practices of assessment, management and the resolution of individualised ‘problems’ are one part of the professional profile, but beyond rather ‘technical’ interventions and the simple notion of ‘problem solving’ there should be knowledge about the influence of power, attitudes and (cultural) values.

Social work professionals in Germany often carry high responsibilities, for example, between the conflicting priorities of care and control. This situation is commonly known as the double mandate and social workers may sometimes find themselves ‘trapped’ between the mandate given by the state/agency (control) and the mandate given by the client (care). This becomes evident if agencies cut budgets and the support for families and children is reduced or even cancelled and/or high caseloads are difficult – if not impossible – to handle. In some fields of practice, for example child protection under the child protection act (Bundeskinderschutzgesetz), social workers are increasingly under pressure to fulfil their responsibility in the light of their heavy caseloads (DBSH 2014).

A third mandate (Staub-Bernasconi 2007: 198ff) is scientifically and ethically based and includes both a theoretical basis for interventions, methods and policies and a professional code of ethics with a focus on human rights and social justice. The third mandate emphasises the modification or refusal of illegitimate claims
and mandates from society, social agencies and clients and may be seen as a base for the critical questioning of local, national/constitutional and international laws (Wronka and Staub-Bernasconi 2012: 81).

**Challenges and perspectives**

The challenges for professional social workers are manifold, covering issues that will affect our societies deeply. Most pressing for the German welfare state and the 'social' professions are:

* demographic change and changing family structures

* global migration and internationalisation of social problems

* poverty and social exclusion

* modern technologies and the change of employment patterns in a post-industrialised world.

One of the major challenges for German society is certainly the demographic development: a low birth rate, an increasing life expectancy and an aging society. For more than 30 years now Germany has been witnessing fewer births: with slight fluctuations, since 1975 the number of newborn infants has been approximately 1.3 children per woman. This means that for 35 years the generation of children has been smaller than that of their parents. High rates of immigration to Germany prevented the overall population from shrinking accordingly. At the same time, as in other wealthy nations, life expectancy has risen continuously, and is now 77 years for men and 82 years for women with rising tendency (Statistisches Bundesamt 2015).

Germany is an immigration country. Only very recently has this notion become official governmental policy, although the country experienced some waves of immigration after the 1950s and the size of the population with a foreign background continued to grow, comprising around 16 million immigrants in 2011 (Hoßmann and Karsch 2011). However, social work professionals have been involved in working with immigrants for decades now, and successful professional efforts for social integration have been made, especially in cities and metropolitan regions. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable demand for (better) integration, which is currently further fuelled by the exodus of refugees from Africa and the Middle East among which we find high numbers of children/unaccompanied minors. For economically and politically stable Western countries such as Germany it should be manageable to provide food, shelter and acceptable living circumstances for refugees, but it seems more difficult to provide a framework for social acceptance among the general population. This is evident by increasing public activities (demonstrations, even violence) against migrants and refugees in Germany. Therefore, we are currently witnessing a strong demand for political response but also for continuing professional intervention to foster integration and social participation.

The Federal Government's latest report on poverty and wealth states that one in four Germans counts as poor or has to be protected from poverty through state
subsidies. The EU defines those households as ‘poor’ that have less than 60 per cent of median income at their disposal (Lelkes and Gasior 2011). Especially at risk of poverty are children and single mothers, migrants and – increasingly – elderly people.

Although unemployment in Germany is currently officially not considered as a problem, because labour market reforms have created more (low-paid) jobs, the number of citizens with insecure working conditions and low-paid jobs is rising. That means increasing numbers of people and families are living on state subsidies although they are working full-time.

The German welfare state is under pressure, as has been shown above, but it is worthwhile utilising professional interest and power to keep its original interventionist sense: i.e. to handle tensions, help provide social security, social justice and to improve opportunities for disadvantaged groups and prevent social exclusion.

## Notes

1. Further reading: Wienand (2007: 20ff).

2. Long-term care insurance was implemented in 1995 in order to meet the rising demand of care in an aging population; since then it has undergone many reforms due to rising expenditure and more cost-effective service patterns.

3. Here the term ‘voluntary’ for German welfare organisations refers to non-governmental, non-profit making associations, which operate as *freie Träger* oder *private Vereine*. They are nowadays highly professional services and also may or may not draw on the work of volunteers.

4. Traditionally, Christian churches and their services can rely on special protection by the German state guaranteed by law.

5. Bachelor’s and master’s programmes have been implemented in Germany according to what is commonly known as the ‘Bologna Process’, facilitating European convergence in higher education institutions in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

6. In 2006 Germany transposed European Anti-Discrimination Directives into national law (General Equal Treatment Act) – eventually after many years of political campaigning. This needs to be regarded as a successful European policy outcome highlighting the importance of transnational cooperation concerning the exchange of ideas and policies (Chopin and Germaine 2014).

## References

BAGFW, 2014. *Die freie Wohlfahrtspflege. Von Menschen für Menschen* [online]. Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der freien Wohlfahrtspflege. Available from: www.bagfw.de/uploads/media/BAGFW_Imagbrosch_Webversion.pdf [Accessed 4 October 2015].

Bauman, Z., 1991. *Modernity and ambivalence*. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S., eds, 1994. *Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order*. Stanford: University Press.

Bieker, R., and Floerecke, P., 2011. *Träger, Arbeitsfelder und Zielgruppen der Sozialen Arbeit*. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2015. *Gute Bildung - gute Chancen. Der Arbeitsmarkt für Akademikerinnen und Akademiker* [online]. Available from: http://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statischer-Content/Arbeitsmarktberichte/Akademiker/generische-Publikationen/Broschuere-Akademiker-2014.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2015].
Chopin, I., and Germaine, C., 2014. *Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 28 EU Member States, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey compared* [online]. European Commission. Available from: www equalitylaw. eu/index.php?option=com_edocman&task=download&id=1328&Itemid=295 [Accessed 13 January 2016].

DBH, 2012. *Sozialarbeiter sehen sich als Experten für das Soziale* [online]. Fachverband für Soziale Arbeit, Strafrecht und Kriminalpolitik. Available from: www.dbh-online.de/themen.php?id=417 [Accessed 10 January 2016].

DBSH, 2014. *Pressemitteilung. Kinderschutz - die Sau wird durchs Dorf getrieben* [online]. Deutscher Berufsverband für Soziale Arbeit e.V. Available from: www.dbsh.de/fileadmin/downloads/2014-02-17_PM_DBSH_Kinderschutz.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2015].

European Higher Education Area (EHEA). *Bologna Process. European Higher Education Area* [online]. Available from: www.ehea.info/ [Accessed 10 January 2016].

Grabka, M.M., and Kuhn, U., 2012. *The evolution of income inequality in Germany and Switzerland since the turn of the millennium* [online]. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung e.V. (DIW). Available from: www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01_c.407154.de/diw_sp0464.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2015].

Hoßmann, I., and Karsch, M., 2011. *Germany's integration policy* [online]. Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung. Available from: www.berlin-institut.org/en/online-handbookdemography/population-policy/germanys-integration-policy.html [Accessed 3 September 2015].

ISA. *Sozialwesen. Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik* [online]. Informationssystem Studienwahl & Arbeitsmarkt. Available from: www.uni-due.de/isa/fg_sozial_gesund/sozialwesen/sozialwesen_am_frm.htm [Accessed 10 January 2016].

Jarré, D., 1991. 'Subsidiarity in social services provision in Germany', *Social Policy & Administration* 25(3): 211–17.

Leibfried, S., and Mau, S., eds, 2008. *Varieties and transformations*. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Lelkes, O., and Gasior, K., 2011. *Income Poverty in the EU. Situation in 2007 and Trends* [online]. Available from: www.euro.centre.org/data/1295444473_73292.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2016].

OECD, 2008. *Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries*. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publ.

*Racial Discrimination in Germany* [online]. Available from: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/DEU/INT_CERD_NGO_DEU_19968_E.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2016].

Schilling, J., and Klus, S., 2015. *Soziale Arbeit. Geschichte, Theorie, Profession*. 6th ed. München, Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.

Schilling, J., and Zeller, S., 2012. *Soziale Arbeit. Geschichte, Theorie, Profession*. 5th ed. München, Basel: E. Reinhardt.

Sheppard, M., 2006. *Social work and social exclusion. The idea of practice*. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Statistisches Bundesamt, 2015. *Kurz erläutert. Bevölkerungsentwicklung* [online]. Statistisches Bundesamt. Available from: www destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerung.html [Accessed 19 December 2015].

Staub-Bernasconi, S., 2007. *Soziale Arbeit als Handlungswissenschaft. Systemtheoretische Grundlagen und professionelle Praxis*. Bern, Stuttgart: UTB.

Uhlendorff, U., Euteneuer, M., and Sabla, K.-P., 2013. *Soziale Arbeit mit Familien*. München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.

Wienand, M., 2007. *Social system and social work in the Federal Republic of Germany*. 3rd ed. Berlin: Dt. Verein für Öffentl. u. Private Fürsorge.
Wohlfahrt, N., 2011. ‘Privatisierung und Ausgliederung auf kommunaler Ebene’, in H.-J. Dahme and N. Wohlfahrt, eds, *Handbuch Kommunale Sozialpolitik*. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 89–101.

Wronka, J., and Staub-Bernasconi, S., 2012. ‘Human Rights’, in K.H. Lyons et al., eds, *Sage handbook of international social work*. London: SAGE Publications, 70–85.
# 8 Social welfare and social work in Britain¹

Caroline Humphrey

The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four countries – England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – and the adjective British is applied to citizens and residents across the UK. However, Great Britain refers only to the first three countries, and Britain refers only to England and Wales. Initially I shall sketch out the development of the welfare state in Britain, although some of the material is also pertinent to the wider UK. The focus then shifts to social work in England, since the devolution of central government powers means that professional education and practice harbour significant inter-country variations. Finally, I will survey the contemporary ethnic profile of the UK population and transcultural dilemmas in safeguarding young black and minority ethnic (BME) people. This transports us back to England, particularly its capital city, London, which is home to large BME communities.

## The welfare state in Britain

Britain has one of the oldest welfare states in the world. The Poor Law was formulated in 1601 creating institutions such as orphanages, houses of correction for delinquent youths, workhouses for adults and alms houses for elderly people. During the nineteenth century, this state apparatus was supplemented by the work of charitable organisations wedded to a conservative Christian philanthropy. By the turn of the twentieth century, socialists and feminists were pioneering a more radical community settlement movement, so that when social work became officially recognised as a profession, it bore the imprints of contradictory philosophies (Pierson 2011: 1ff). However, social workers across the political spectrum overlooked the global context of colonialism in which Great Britain had been incubated (Hall 1998), along with the suffering of Irish immigrants (Cemlyn 2008).

The welfare state was reconstructed in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its central pillars then were compulsory education, a National Health Service, social security benefits and the personal social services, with the latter being administered at local government level and delivered by social workers (Clarke et al. 2001). During this era of welfare expansion, the government encouraged the migration of workers from Commonwealth countries to compensate for the shortfall of indigenous labour. African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants helped to build the material infrastructure of modern Britain and to serve its welfare
organisations, and created distinctive communities in metropolitan areas. They enjoyed citizenship by virtue of being born into former British colonies, but in practice it was a subaltern citizenship – immigrants were appointed to low-status jobs, confined to poor neighbourhoods, and subjected to racism (Laird 2008: 1ff).

The cyclical downturn of the capitalist economy in the 1980s and 1990s generated widespread unemployment, along with a raft of anti-immigration legislation. The UK carried an enormous debt from wars and welfare spending into the twenty-first century, and successive governments have been more or less captivated by a neo-liberal ethos which attempts to decouple welfare from the state (Mishra 1990: 18ff; Alcock 2009). There have been savage cuts to public sector budgets, repeated restructurings of health and social care bureaucracies, and incentives to develop privately funded alternatives to state schools and hospitals. These austerity measures have unfolded during a period of spiralling inequalities, and by 2012–13 it was estimated that more than 14 million people in the UK (23 per cent of the population) were living in poverty after taking account of housing costs (Belfield et al. 2014: 5). Most people who access the personal social services as voluntary service users or involuntary clients are poor (Hood and Johnson 2014).

## Social work education in England

The title of social worker is protected so that only those who are qualified and registered as social workers are allowed to appropriate this name. Those who work in social care without a social work qualification are designated as 'social care workers'. Social workers must be educated to degree level, and both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees are available. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) is an overarching professional body for social workers across the UK, but the regulatory framework for education and practice is unique to each country in the UK, and much of the intellectual scaffolding for social work education in England came from the work of The College of Social Work (TCSW).

The education and career development of social workers in England is currently governed by the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF). Its nine capability domains cluster around four themes i.e.

* Personal qualities manifested in professional life: demonstrating professionalism in one's entire modus operandi (Domain 1) and eventually professional leadership in a specialist area of practice, education or research (Domain 9);

* Ethico-political principles: adhering to social work ethics and values (Domain 2); recognising diversity and anti-discriminatory principles (Domain 3); and advancing human rights, social justice and economic well-being (Domain 4);

* Intellectual skills: acquiring myriad sets of disciplinary knowledge (Domain 5) and applying them in a critically reflective and analytic manner (Domain 6);

* Practical skills: assessing the needs and risks of service users and carers as the basis for service provision, care planning and legal interventions (Domain 7); and operating effectively in complex organisations and multi-professional networks (Domain 8) (TSCW 2012).
The curriculum reform associated with the PCF ensured that students rehearse
practice skills in the university before embarking upon placements, and that
service users and carers are valued co-teachers and co-assessors in social work
education. However, it may not necessarily enhance inter-cultural working, and
there is no inter-cultural capability as such in the PCF. Whilst there are three
references to culture in this sense – i.e. race and faith are aspects of diversity;
cultural and spiritual factors are components of our knowledge around human
development; and adapting communications to take account of cultural differences
is a practical skill – there are more references to organisational cultures and
learning cultures (TSCW 2012). Arguably the ‘unspoken atheism’ in English
social work has largely deprived us of the foundation for a critical appreciation of
the role of religion in peoples’ lives (Whiting 2008), notwithstanding recent
efforts to bridge the gulf (Furness and Gilligan 2009). Ironically, part of the
solution to inter-cultural working is already in our midst insofar as 25 per cent of
social work students and practitioners in England belong to a minority ethnic
group (Centre for Workforce Intelligence 2012), suggesting that social work
educators could tap into this resource for inter-cultural classroom dialogues.

Once graduates have registered as qualified social workers with the Health and
Care Professions Council (HCPC), they undertake an Assessed and Supported
Year in Employment (ASYE). Subsequent career progression involves the pursuit
of one of three pathways, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive i.e.
a social worker can remain in grassroots practice and undertake more specialist
training, or climb the ladder into management, or carve out a niche as a professional
educator of students and ASYE novices (TSCW 2014).

Social work practice in England

Local government is responsible for providing statutory services to children and
adults as prescribed by law, and has traditionally been the main employer of
qualified social workers. However, about 50 per cent of the 87,442 registered
social workers in England now work outside of local government – they may be
located in education, health or the independent sector (Centre for Workforce
Intelligence 2012). The latter encompasses charities, private businesses and
self-employed individuals. Major charities providing social work services such as
Age UK, Mind and Barnardo’s are successful fundraisers, but smaller charities
are often dependent upon local government grants; most residential care homes
for adults are run as profitable enterprises; and social workers can supply their
services to various agencies on an independent basis.

Local government caters to citizens who meet specified eligibility thresholds
for statutory services, i.e. people harbouring complex needs, people at risk of
serious harm and people who have neither the capacity for self-care nor the
support of suitable informal carers. Those who fail to meet such thresholds are
re-routed to relevant charities, so smaller charities and their clientele are destined
to suffer when eligibility thresholds for statutory services become more stringent
whilst local government funding for charities dwindles. Under these circumstances,
social workers devote increasing resources to shoring up informal care by relatives and friends (Wilson et al. 2011: 428ff). Statutory welfare is brokered on an inter-professional and inter-agency basis on account of the multifaceted nature of needs and risks (Ibid.: 384ff), and The College of Social Work (TSCW 2014) has issued advice on when social workers should occupy the ‘lead professional role’, charged with co-ordinating the efforts of all relevant professionals.

In child care settings, many roles are reserved for social workers in accordance with primary legislation such as the Children Act 1989, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Children and Families Act 2014 (TSCW 2014). First, it is mandatory for a social worker to be the lead professional when assessing children in need and their families for voluntary services. ‘Children in need’ includes children with disabilities; children whose welfare may be compromised by their parents’ disability, domestic abuse, drug dependency or poverty; and unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors. If the threshold criteria are met, social workers will tailor a support package to the presenting needs. This could include emergency funds, equipment, parenting programmes or alternative accommodation (Wilson et al. 2011: 461ff). Children with disabilities and those with special educational needs are entitled to Education Health and Care Plans which can run from birth to 25 years, and parent carers and young carers are also eligible for support (Brammer 2010: 185ff).

Second, social workers assume the lead role in investigating child protection referrals when there are allegations of neglect, emotional maltreatment, physical injuries or sexual abuse (TSCW 2014). They convene child protection conferences and co-ordinate child protection plans, and if they require additional powers they can apply to the family courts under the Children Act 1989 for a range of orders to intervene on a compulsory basis in the life of a child and their family (Brammer 2010: 230ff). When there are parallel criminal proceedings, the police take the lead role in dealing with alleged perpetrators of abuse.

Third, a social worker is appointed to any child who becomes ‘looked after’ by the local authority, whether on a voluntary basis (i.e. children in need who are accommodated) or a compulsory basis (i.e. children subject to a Care Order) (Brammer 2010: 285ff). Finally, social workers undertake assessments of suitability vis-à-vis adults who are offering a home for a child (Brammer 2010: 309ff).

In adult care settings, there is no legislative mandate for specific roles to be reserved for social workers, so the roles which are typically discharged by social workers may be delegated to other caring professionals or social care workers (TSCW 2014). Three areas of work can be highlighted here. First, social workers are usually the lead professional when assessing the social care needs of elderly and disabled people and determining their eligibility for services under the Care Act 2014. This work typically involves securing a care package to enable people to maintain independent living in the community or to return to the community after a period of hospitalisation.

Second, social workers should act as the lead professional when making enquiries into allegations that adults are being neglected, abused or exploited (TSCW 2014). However, there is the presumption in English law that adults have
the right to choose relationships and lifestyles which may be harmful to them. Consequently, social workers can offer advice on practical alternatives to adults who are neglecting themselves or being ill-treated by others, but they cannot resort to legal measures to enforce health and safety except when a service user lacks the mental capacity to make an informed decision on the relevant matter. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables social workers to assess the mental capacity of adults and to make decisions which are in the best interests of adults who lack mental capacity. Under these circumstances referrals to other specialists in the civil and criminal justice systems may also be necessary (Brammer 2010: 465ff, 487ff).

Third, social workers act as Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) under the Mental Health Act 1983. This legislation confers a wide range of powers and duties upon AMHPs when dealing with people suffering mental disorders, i.e. they can receive a mentally disordered person into local authority guardianship and they can undertake advocacy to protect the human rights of people deprived of liberty (Brammer 2010: 428ff; Wilson et al. 2011: 595ff).

In a nutshell, it is incumbent upon social workers in the statutory sector to manage the nexus of dilemmas around ‘care versus control’, ‘liberty versus security’ and ‘rights versus risks’. This means that social work is a risky business, and when our service users or carers are the victims or perpetrators of serious harm, the media typically lambasts the lead professionals and their allies (Stanley and Manthorpe 2004).

## Transcultural dilemmas in the metropolis

The UK’s transnational profile can be decoded from the 2011 Census: of the 63 million registered residents in the UK, 87 per cent identify as white British, leaving 13 per cent who trace their origins or that of one or both parents or grandparents to another country (Office for National Statistics 2011).

The increase in the BME population from 8 per cent in the 2001 Census to 13 per cent in the 2011 Census is attributable to the propensity of BME couples to have more children than their white counterparts, rather than any influx of migrants, asylum seekers or refugees (Laird 2008). According to the United Nations (UN 2014), there are fewer asylum seekers in Britain than in many other European countries, with only 23,500 new applications in 2013. Whilst adult asylum seekers can be held in detention centres or dispersed around the country pending the adjudication of their claim, unaccompanied minors are accommodated by the local authority (Brammer 2010: 565ff), and children who may have been trafficked into the UK are dealt with under child protection protocols (HM Government 2011).

The Equality Act 2010 defines race and religion as ‘protected characteristics’ (along with age, gender, disability and sexual orientation) in order to prohibit negative discrimination (Brammer 2010: 151ff). Nevertheless, research has consistently revealed the under-representation of BME citizens as voluntary service users and the over-representation of African, Caribbean and dual heritage citizens as compulsory clients in the child protection, mental health and criminal
justice systems (Graham 2007). BME citizens have established their own support networks, often housed in religious centres such as black churches, mosques and temples (Laird 2008: 64ff, 88ff, 108ff), as well as charities campaigning against racial inequalities in the welfare state (e.g. the AFIYA Trust).

Questions of racial injustice have been superseded in recent years by those of cultural harm (International NGO Council on Violence against Children 2012). The pivotal event was the death of an eight-year-old African girl Victoria Climbié in London in 2000. She had been malnourished and maltreated by her carer who claimed that the girl was ‘possessed’ by ‘evil spirits’, and she was due to undergo a deliverance or exorcism ceremony at a black church on the day of her death (Laming 2003: 32ff). Anti-oppressive ethics and politics have not yet countenanced the conundrums wrought by cultural harm, and incommensurable worldviews, but government policy is that when culturally framed beliefs and behaviours cause objective harm to young people then the protection of youth must override respect for cultural diversity (Department for Education and Skills 2007). London has become the umbrella for transcultural work between the safeguarding children authorities, churches of all denominations, black communities and black charities such as the Victoria Climbié Foundation, the Congolese Family Centre and AFRUCA (Africans Unite against Child Abuse). Groups have been convened for African parents and young people respectively so that they can debate their cultural norms, values and beliefs and those of child care professionals (Briggs et al. 2011: 35ff, 41ff, 50ff). A key divergence is that the rights of the elders are enshrined in most African cultures, whilst the rights of the child are emblazoned on the child protection apparatus in the UK. AFRUCA has been at the forefront of transcultural education, rolling out training on African cultures for child protection workers and guidance on parenting and child protection for African parents (AFRUCA 2012). This has culminated in the launch of a National Working Group on Child Abuse Linked to Faith or Belief (2012), with a remit extending to mosques and Muslim communities, to other metropolitan areas, and covering multiple forms of cultural harm.

New civil orders and safeguarding policies are in place to prevent other forms of cultural harm such as female genital mutilation and forced marriages, along with criminal offences to punish those who transgress (HM Government 2014b; HM Government 2014a). Tragically, cultural harm may be exacerbated by cultural transitioning (Briggs et al. 2011: 32ff). For example, the elders of a family are more likely to maintain cultural traditions around arranged marriages whilst the younger generation is assimilating norms and values from the mainstream culture around autonomy and choice of romantic partner. This ignites intergenerational strife within the family. Formal remedies in the civil and criminal courts can only come into play if the authorities are aware of the problem. Yet it is extraordinarily difficult for a young person from a minority ethnic community to disclose their predicament to social workers as this is tantamount to shaming their elders. It is also disturbing for social workers to deal with such cases since it requires a departure from their professional norms around mediating in family disputes. The policy guidance is to protect the young person by invoking
legal measures and removing them to a refuge if necessary whilst refraining from
attempts at family mediation (HM Government 2014b). Charities such as Karma
Nirvana have emerged from BME communities to campaign against forced
marriages and to support victims and survivors, paving the way for more
transcultural safeguarding initiatives.

Conclusion

The United Kingdom is arguably a misnomer for a deeply divided queendom.
There are economic divisions between a wealthy elite and an increasingly
impoverished working class and unemployed underclass. Under these
circumstances, policies of welfare retrenchment are likely to generate more social
problems and safeguarding failures. There are also cultural differences within and
between majority and minority ethnic communities. Given that inequality,
diversity and population growth are positively correlated with social conflict, we
are likely to witness more prejudice against asylum seekers and less compassionate
understanding for cultural harms which manifest in some BME communities.
Finally, there are institutional segregations within the social work profession, so
that social workers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are educated
and organised quite differently.

Note

1. Acknowledgements: Dave Marsland and Liz Price provided guidance on social work with adults in England.

References

AFRUCA, 2012. *Manual on child protection for African parents in the UK. A step-by-step guide to help prevent abuse towards children* [online]. Foundation for the Protection of the Rights of Vulnerable Children. Available from: www.baspcan.org.uk/files/Afruca%20Final%20Parents%20manual%202012.PDF [Accessed 3 November 2015].

Alcock, P., 2009. 'The United Kingdom. Constructing a third way?' in P. Alcock and G. Craig, eds, *International social policy. Welfare regimes in the developed world*. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 109–29.

Belfield, C., Cribb, J., Hood, A., and Joyce, R., 2014. *Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK* [online]. The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available from: www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r96.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2015].

Brammer, A., 2010. *Social work law*. 3rd ed. Harlow, England, New York: Pearson Longman.

Briggs, S., Whittaker, A., Linford, H., Bryan, A., Ryan, E. and Ludick, D., 2011. *Safeguarding children's rights. Exploring issues of witchcraft and spirit possession in London's African communities*. London: Tavistock, Portman. Available online at www.trustforlondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Safeguarding-final-report.pdf [Accessed 3 November 2015].

Cemlyn, S., 2008. 'Human rights and gypsies and travellers. An exploration of the application of human rights perspective to social work with a minority community in Britain', *British Journal of Social Work* 38(1): 153–73.
TSCW, 2014. *Roles and functions of social workers in England. Advice note* [online]. The College of Social Work. Available from: http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_115640-9.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2016].

UN, 2014. *The facts. Asylum in the UK* [online]. United Nations. Available from: www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html [Accessed 21 May 2015].

Whiting, R., 2008. 'No room for religion or spirituality or cooking tips. Exploring practical atheism as an unspoken consensus in the development of social work values in England', *Ethics and Social Welfare* 2(1): 67–83.

Wilson, K., Ruch, G., Lymbery, M. and Cooper, A., 2011. *Social work. An introduction to contemporary practice*. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson/Longman.
9 Evolution of professional
social work in India and
transnational issues faced

Arvind Kumar Agrawal and Asutosh Pradhan

India is an emerging economy and promises high growth rates, even against the backdrop of global economic recession. However, with a population of 1.2 billion it is faced with numerous problems of poverty. With a Human Development Index of 0.547 it occupies the 135th position worldwide, which proves the point that its scarce resources have to be invested heavily in social welfare.

Other major problems faced at present are large-scale inequality; unemployment; costly health services and inadequate public health care; lack of quality universal education, particularly in rural areas; corruption and inefficient governance; low female literacy; street children and child labour; malnutrition, high maternal and infant mortality; domestic violence; increased incidence of rape; lack of social development infrastructure in rural and tribal areas; environmental pollution; barrier-free access for the disabled population etc. To compound all this, liberalisation and privatisation have led to a lurking fear of reduced welfare spending which may affect ordinary people.

Evolution of social welfare in India

Notions of welfare are rooted in the ancient values of dana¹ and punya². Kautilya's ArthaSAstra (fourth century BCE) specifies the role of the state and citizens which includes help, social services and social development (Jha 1999). During the eighteenth century, India witnessed a drastic change in its polity under colonial rule. The spread of modern values and missionary work, including in the fields of health and education, were significant developments. Social reform movements during this period saw the enactment of social legislation. Colonial rule, however, became the main reason for marginalisation and acute poverty. Leaders of the freedom struggle also pioneered social development projects which continued in independent India (Singh 1996).

Post-independence, India declared itself a Welfare State and enshrined in its constitution various strands of social welfare, justice and human rights. The socially and economically backward, such as the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Minorities, Other Backward Classes (OBC), poor, and women in particular, were targeted for development. This also included the disabled, elderly, children, juvenile and adult offenders, refugees, the mentally challenged etc. (Goel 2010). Other prominent legislation and programmes were developed in relation to social
security, social assistance and social insurance for the poor and disadvantaged; environmental protection laws related to land, water, forest, pollution, sanitation, slum improvement, displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation etc.

These welfare programmes and services were developed and carried out after independence by the Department of Social Security, in 1964 upgraded into the full-fledged Ministry of Social Welfare, further renamed in 1988 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This evolution in nomenclature is evidence of the changing paradigm of social welfare in India. Power to the people was enshrined through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in relation to local self-governance, ensuring adequate representation of SC, ST and women in various local bodies and the enactment of the Right to Information Act 2005. Since 2010 various state governments too have started enacting laws related to citizens' rights to public services.

Professional social workers made valuable contributions to this evolution in a way that had a lasting impact on social welfare systems in India – from a *service-reformist-ameliorative mode* to a *developmental-empowerment-rights-based mode*. The purpose over the years was to usher in planned change in multiple sectors. In the last two decades, the goal of the government has been to bring about inclusive growth and development so that the marginalised and vulnerable get a fair and just chance to benefit from the policies and programmes launched by the government (Desai 2002).

## Prevailing social welfare systems in India

India has a federal structure of governance, with powers shared by the central government and the states. Various welfare schemes are implemented by state governments independently or with part funding from the central government, termed ‘Central Plan Assistance’ (CPA). For example, CPA for ‘Social Security and Welfare’ covers debt relief for farmers; pension schemes for the unorganised sector titled Swavalamban (self-help) Scheme; the Social Security Fund under Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (insurance for the common citizens); and grant-in-aid to the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to finance Women’s Self Help Groups, to name just a few. These and other similar programmes are implemented by various ministries and departments of the central and state governments. If it were not for issues of governance, ineffective service delivery and corruption, these welfare programmes could have definitely contributed to the amelioration of the disadvantaged.

Provision of Social Assistance is currently by way of cash transfer or conditional cash/in-kind transfers under food-for-work or employment guarantee under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 or subsidies for construction of houses in rural areas, scholarships for SC and STs; in-kind transfers under child welfare programmes including Midday Meals in schools; disaster relief or relief to victims of domestic violence; assistance to the elderly in the form of shelter, day care services, pension-, or food security; health assistance, and disability programmes.
To improve governance the Government of India (GOI) has embarked on efforts for large-scale financial inclusion by providing banking access to all families in the country. This aims to prevent corruption and reduce large scale pilfering of welfare funds. A paradigm shift is taking place since cash transfers to the beneficiary's bank account have been initiated for various welfare schemes.

The number of beneficiaries targeted through most of the flagship social welfare programmes is quite large and this requires the involvement of professionals in service delivery. A positive outcome of this has been that in recent years the government is recruiting social work professionals as Consultants or Project/ Programme Coordinators for effective implementation of these programmes. However, the recognition of social workers in terms of salary and working conditions is inadequate. The lack of any active national professional body or association of social work or a National Council for Social Work similar to that of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) or International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) has deprived the social work profession in India of much deserved status and recognition within the country that could influence the government to identify and reserve positions in various sectors of welfare and social policy for professional social workers for more effective service delivery.

## Social work profession and social work education

In the pre-independence era, the Nagpada Neighbourhood House (1926) was established in Bombay by Dr Clifford Manshardt on the lines of the Settlement House, USA, which set in motion the early years of professionalisation of social work in India (Bose 1987). Its basic objective was to work in the context of social problems in slums. Professional Social Work Education (SWE) in the form of a diploma course in Social Service Administration began in 1936 at the Sir Dorabji Tata Graduate School of Social Work, Bombay, later renamed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The 1950s and 1960s saw a number of schools of social work established in different parts of the country, mostly by Christian Missionaries. Initially diploma courses were offered, but within two to five years master's programmes with specialisations were started while undergraduate programmes began 30 years later in 1971. At present there are more than 500 schools of social work in India.

Due academic recognition of social work came when the University Grants Commission (UGC) instituted the 1st and 2nd Review Committee for social work education in 1960 and 1975 respectively. The mandate was to develop structured social work curricula for social work education and evolving mechanisms for the promotion and maintenance of standards of education, training, research and practice. In 2001 the UGC Model Curriculum for Social Work Education was developed (UGC 2011), the aim being the indigenisation of SWE and provision of flexibility in choices of courses that suited local needs (Thomas 2010). In 1961 the Association of Schools of Social Work in India (ASSWI) was established and stressed improvement of social work training including standardisation of
pedagogical aspects. After the ASSWI became defunct, the Indian Association of Social Work Education (IASWE) was established in 2014.

Currently most schools of social work offer a generic programme, having moved away from specialisations. Concerns that SWE in India adopted a Western model (Nagpaul 1993) continue to haunt even today, mostly because of a lack of indigenous literature and non-existence of evidence-based research on social work practice. Contextualising SWE to the Indian situation during the 1940s and even now continues to be a huge concern. Some of the most striking areas of focus of social work intervention could have been in effecting structural changes, especially to benefit the dalits³ or SCs, STs and large sections of the poor. There is an emerging view that specialisation in dalit and tribal social work, rural development, social development, advocacy work and policy advocacy etc. would make the profession more ethnically tuned to the Indian setting. There are also emerging concerns and challenges that social work needs to address, which – as outlined below – have transnational moorings.

## Contextualising transnational social work (TSW) in India: key issues faced

It would be pertinent to understand the effects of globalisation and global forces in the Indian context and the transnational character of social issues faced. Issues that need to be addressed under TSW include: the economic impact of globalisation in production processes leading to large-scale displacement or retrenchment of labour and a rise in unemployment (Sen and Dasgupta 2009); labour unrest that is a result of mechanisation and modernisation (Agarwala et al. 2004); farmer suicide caused by crop failure and resulting indebtedness; increased urbanisation leading to intra-country migration and the problem of slums; and privatisation of the health sector making health services out-of-reach of the poor (Peters 2002; Iyer 2005). Social impacts of modernisation and globalisation are believed to be in the form of the nuclearisation of families including an increase in single family norms and empty nest phenomena due to increased emigration. Modern and liberal thinking has led to an increase in inter-caste marriages inviting the ire of Khap Panchayats⁴; and promiscuous relationships affected by loosening of traditional forms of social control. Global feminist movements (Mitra 2011) have led to the enactment of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while the influence of international civil society has led to environmental and human rights movements.

Liberalisation policies have attracted huge investments from multi-national companies. However, such investments have not resulted in the overall development of the local or indigenous peoples. Mining of mineral resources has caused large-scale displacement and suffering to tribal peoples (Mathur 2013). Modern and mechanised operations and relaxation of labour laws have not increased job opportunities but contributed instead to pollution and increased health hazards. Globalisation has thus increased the misery of the local and indigenous peoples and the government has failed to serve its citizens as a welfare
state as enshrined in the Indian Constitution and in protecting their right to life and
a dignified living (Aerthayil 2008). Other key transnational issues faced are:

Migration

Out-Migration has increased in recent years, mostly from the states of Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, leading to a range of issues and problems such as exploitative and abusive employers; unhygienic and inhumane work and living conditions; duping of potential migrants by cheats; abuse of brides in the case of transnational marriages. In the case of Punjab in particular, parents of girls often want a transnational marriage alliance so that their loved one would have a bright future which in many cases has turned out to be a disastrous assumption. Cases of desertion, divorce, abuse, illicit relationships and extra-marital affairs often crop-up later (Hawley 2013; Mishra 2015).

Infiltration and refugee problems

Infiltration from across the border from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Tibet has created national security and law and order issues and refugee problems (Muni and Baral 1996; Chirantan 2009). Border states including Assam, Nagaland, Tripura and West Bengal, which have a common and porous boundary with Bangladesh, are faced with a demographic crisis (Sinha 1998). Local resentment and opposition has resulted in violent attacks on migrants and has led to a humanitarian crisis. Such large-scale violence has led to frequent breakdowns in peace in the region caused by persistent conflict, leading to human deaths and destruction of houses.

Surrogacy

Transnational surrogacy is fast catching on in India (Qadeer and John 2009). The absence of a strict regulatory regime to deal with transnational surrogacy may put surrogate mothers at risk, including in situations like the death of the surrogate mother, birth deformities in the new-born child prompting desertion by biological parents, or disputes over fees for surrogacy. Legislation currently only exists in draft form, known as ‘The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill 2010’ (ICSW 2010). ‘Non-medical evaluation’ of surrogate and biological parents by trained social workers would help ‘determine the party’s suitability to parent’ by considering not only ‘[t]he ability and disposition of the person being evaluated to give a child love, affection and guidance,’ but also ‘[t]he ability of the person to adjust to and assume the inherent risks of the contract’ (Rao 2003: 29).

Inter-country adoption

Inter-country adoption is another area where professional social workers can play
a key role in the appropriate screening, selection and monitoring of adoptive
parents (Bhargava 2005). There have been instances in the past where adoption was undertaken as pretext to having someone who would act as a domestic help at home. Sexual abuse of such children has also been reported in inter-country adoption. Hence, international law concerning the transnational adoption of children has developed in response to breaches of human rights, such as child trafficking (Pfund 1994; Graff 2010). Screening and verification of potential adoptive parents could possibly be better managed through intergovernmental and transborder NGO networks working in the field of adoption.

## Clinical trials

Another burning issue that calls for advocacy action and policy intervention is the problem of the illegal practice of surreptitious clinical trials (Dave 2009) conducted by private hospitals and multi-national pharmaceutical companies (Sandhya 2009). Frequently the subjects of such clinical trials are poor and illiterate people who are not aware of their rights nor of the risk of adverse effects of such trials. In the event of death, disability or any other adverse health impact on the subjects, they often fail to receive adequate compensation and justice.

## Summary

To sum up, it is expected that some of the transnational issues highlighted in the Indian context would initiate further reflection and research in this grey area of social work practice. They call for an understanding of global factors impinging on social and welfare systems at the micro (e.g. individual, family, community), meso (e.g. larger community, panchayat or district) and macro (in terms of policy or programme) levels. Transnational social work practice would necessarily require skills in policy advocacy, cross-cultural competencies, general advocacy work, human rights practice etc. This may even prompt a course correction in social work education and training in India to ensure the coverage of emerging transnational issues and challenges.

## Notes

1. Denotes religious giving or charity.

2. Attainment of *Moksha* or salvation of the spirit through the pious practice of religious giving.

3. The term dalit, meaning ‘oppressed’ in South Asia, is the self-chosen political name of castes which are classed as ‘untouchable’ in Hindu caste society. It implies a condition of being underprivileged and deprived of basic rights and refers to people who are suppressed on account of their lowly birth (Michael 2007).

4. *Khap Panchayat* or ‘Caste Council’ is a traditional patriarchal institution that consists of selected members of the representing villages who often hail from upper and dominant caste groups. Lately they have emerged as quasi-judicial bodies that pronounce harsh punishments based on age-old customs and traditions, often bordering on regressive measures to modern problems.
References

Aerthayil, M., 2008. *Impact of globalisation on tribals. In the context of Kerala*. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

Agarwala, R., Kumar, N., and Riboud, M., eds, 2004. *Reforms, labour markets, and social security in India. International conference in New Delhi on 1 - 3 November 1999 on social security policy*. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press.

Bhargava, V., 2005. *Adoption in India. Policies and experiences*. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Bose, A.B., 1987. 'Development of social welfare services', in GOI, ed., *Encyclopedia of social work in India. Volume I*. New Delhi: Government of India, 203–15.

Chirantan, K., 2009. 'Migration and refugee issue between India and Bangladesh', *Scholar's Voice: A New Way of Thinking* 1(1): 64–82.

Dave, H., 2009. *Multinational research company shuts unit at Rajkot hospital* [online]. Available from: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/%20multinational-research-company-shuts-unit-at-rajkot-hospital/454517/ [Accessed 15 July 2015].

Desai, M., 2002. *Ideologies and social work. Historical and contemporary analyses*. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

Goel, S.L., 2010. *Social welfare administration*. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.

Graff, E.J., 2010. *The baby business* [online]. Available from: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/17/the-baby-business/ [Accessed 17 September 2015].

Hawley, M., 2013. *Sikh Diaspora. Theory, Agency, and Experience*. Leiden: BRILL.

ICSW, 2010. *The assisted reproductive technologies (regulation) bill* [online]. International Council on Social Welfare. Available from: http://icmr.nic.in/guide/ART%20REGULATION%20Draft%20Bill1.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2016].

Iyer, A., 2005. *Ill and impoverished. The medical poverty trap* [online]. Infochange Agenda. Available from: http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/access-denied/ill-and-impoverished-the-medical-poverty-trap.html [Accessed 16 May 2016].

Jha, V.N., 1999. *Kautilya's arthashastra and social welfare*. Delhi: Sahitya Academy.

Mathur, H.M., 2013. *Displacement and resettlement in India. The human cost of development*. London: Routledge.

Michael, S.M., 2007. *Dalits in modern India: Vision and values*. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Mishra, R., 2015. 'Vulnerability of Women in International Marriage Migration', in S. Irudaya Rajan, ed., *Gender and migration*. New Delhi: Routledge, 73–9.

Mitra, N., 2011. 'Domestic violence research. Expanding understandings but limited perspective', *Feminist Review* e62–e78.

Muni, S.D., and Baral, L.R., 1996. *Refugees and regional security in South Asia*. Delhi: Konark Publishers.

Nagpaul, H., 1993. 'Analysis of social work teaching material in India. The need for indigenous foundations', *International Social Work* 36(3): 207–20.

Peters, D.H., 2002. *Better health systems for India's poor. Findings, analysis, and options*. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

Pfund, P.H., 1994. 'Inter-country Adoption. The 1993 Hague Convention: Its purpose, implementation and promise', *Family Law Quarterly* 28(1): 53–75.

Qadeer, I., and John, M.E., 2009. 'The business and ethics of surrogacy', *Economic & Political Weekly* 44(2): 10–12.

Rao, R., 2003. 'Surrogacy Law in the United States. The Outcome of Ambivalence', in R. Cook, S. Day Sclater, and F. Kaganas, eds, *Surrogate motherhood. International perspectives*. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 23–34.
Sandhya, S., 2009. 'The clinical trials scenario in India', *Economic & Political Weekly* 44(35): 29–33.

Sen, S., and Dasgupta, B., 2009. *Unfreedom and waged work. Labour in India's manufacturing industry*. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications India.

Singh, M., 1996. *Social policy and administration in India*. New Delhi: M D Publications.

Sinha, S.K., 1998. *Report on illegal migration into Assam. Submitted to the president of India* [online]. Available from: www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/assam/documents/papers/illegalMigration_in_assam.htm [Accessed 10 January 2016].

Thomas, G., 2010. *Origin and development of social work*. Delhi: IGNOU.

UGC, 2011. *UGC model curriculum. Social work education* [online]. University Grants Commission. Available from: http://docplayer.net/5901659-Ugc-model-curriculum-sociology.html [Accessed 10 January 2016].
# 10 The development of social welfare services and the social work profession in Israel

*Merav Moshe Grodofsky*

Israel is a young state. It was formally recognised by the United Nations Partition Plan in 1948; however, the history of the country can be traced back to over three thousand years ago, to the time of the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The foundations of the social work profession and the social welfare services were laid in the early twentieth century, prior to the establishment of the modern-day state. In 1931, under the rule of the British Mandate, the Va'ad Haleumi, the independent governing institution of the Jewish settlement, established the first social work department (Gal and Weiss 2000; Spiro 2012).

Different models have influenced the development of the social service system and the social work profession in Israel. The British Beveridge social insurance model with its emphasis on social assistance for the poor, was crucial for the formation of the initial social welfare institutions and structures and ultimately for the development of the welfare state. The social work profession on the other hand evolved under the influence of German and American social work models (Gal and Weiss 2000; Doron 2004).

## Israel and Israeli society

### Population

Data released by the Israeli Census Bureau in 2013 reported that Israel's population has exceeded 8 million. Three-quarters of the population are reported to be Jewish; approximately 20 per cent Arab, and approximately 4 per cent other religions including Arab Christians (Zeiger 2013). There is a clear Jewish majority and Arab minority.

Israel is a country of immigrants. Since its establishment, the country has seen an influx of immigrants from Europe, North Africa and – more recently – from the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia and Western countries including the United States, Canada and France. It has been defined as a 'divided society' characterised by 'deep schisms running through the social fabric ... with each group having distinct cultural, religious and political identities' (Desivilya and Yassour-Borochowitz 2010: 38). Divisions within the Jewish majority can be found between religious and secular communities, Ashkenazi (European) and Mizrahi (Asian-African)
communities, new immigrants and veteran communities as well as along political lines (Moshe Grodofsky and Yudelevich 2012).

Alongside the Palestinian or Arab-Israeli minority, there are apparent divisions among community subgroups, including Muslims, Christians, Druze and Bedouin. Schisms within Israeli society are compounded by the ongoing, more than 100-year-old, conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours and more than five wars fought since the establishment of the state.

## Political system

Israel's political system is based upon a parliamentary democracy. The President of Israel, an apolitical ceremonial figurehead, is the head of the state. The Prime Minister of Israel is the head of the government. The prime minister appoints a Cabinet. The Parliament, known as the Knesset, has 120 members elected for a four-year term. In the 2015 elections, ten different political parties secured representation in the Knesset.

Israel does not have a Constitution but in 1992 the Knesset enacted two Basic Laws that address basic individual rights: they are Freedom of Occupation, and Human Dignity and Liberty. There is ongoing debate in Israel surrounding the nature of Israel's democracy, in that the state defines itself as both Jewish and democratic. Religion continues to play a major role in public affairs, including matters of marriage and divorce. Religion in public affairs has served to alienate non-religious Jewish citizens while simultaneously ignoring and often undermining the interests of Israel's Arab minority.

## The Israeli social welfare system

Israeli social welfare services developed over three distinct periods; according to Doron (2004) the development of the system was influenced by the leadership of each period. The first period (1940s until early 1960s) laid the foundations for the social service system and – particularly between 1948 and 1951 – the emerging country absorbed 700,000 new immigrants, among them Holocaust survivors and entire communities from North Africa, Yemen and Iraq (Spiro et al. 1998; Stypinska 2007). With few resources and growing populations in need of basic services, social welfare institutions were in great demand.

Three basic principles influenced social service growth: the recognition of the family as the primary unit of social service assistance, the recognition of local services funded by the state as the primary provider of assistance and the recognition of social workers as the professionals mandated to provide social services (Spiro et al. 1998; Gal and Weiss 2000; Spiro 2001).

Professional development of the social service system during the initial post-state period was directed primarily by women influenced by social work pioneers in pre-state Israel, among them Dr Henrietta Szold and Sidi Vronsky, a colleague of the well-known German social work educator Alice Salomon. In its initial stages, the social welfare system adopted the predominant Zionist ethos of
the time – that it was the responsibility of the Jewish State to absorb waves of immigration (Doron 2004) and to ensure that the collective look after individuals and families in need. During this period social services included both financial and material assistance as well as professional support and care. According to Doron (2004) the system was highly hierarchical and centralised and driven by the values and the ethics of those women who served as its leaders. In 1958 legislation formalised the operation of the local social service system.

## The Israeli social welfare system – second phase of development

Changes in Israeli politics between the 1960s and the 1980s influenced the second stage of the development of the social service system. Professionals who advanced the system in its initial stages were replaced by male non-professionals aligned with the National Religious political party. Leaders of this period spearheaded the development of the legal basis for the social welfare system, including policy to delineate criteria for the allocation of benefits and entitlements and institutionalisation of the professional social work role. Laws and regulations set forth in 1958 formalised and institutionalised the mandate and operations of the local welfare offices and clarified professional roles (Doron 2004; Gal and Weiss 2000).

It was during the first half of the 1970s that the Israeli welfare state experienced rapid growth. Gal and Weiss (2000) attribute this to the country's military victory in the Six Day War of 1967 and the economic growth that followed. The country experienced additional waves of immigration from the West and the Soviet Union. Simultaneously, poverty, growing social gaps and civil unrest were challenges of the time.

These developments led to new social welfare programmes and an increase in welfare expenditure per annum between 1970 and 1975 (Cnaan 1998). During this period, financial and material assistance provided together with psychosocial support during the first phase of social welfare service development were separated and eventually, during the 1980s, financial and material assistance was moved from the welfare system to the National Insurance Institute (Gal and Weiss 2000).

## The Israeli social welfare system – third phase of development

During the 1980s and the 1990s, The Ministry of Welfare was in part controlled by Israel's two major political parties, Likud and Avodah, yet also fell under the leadership of ultra-Orthodox sectoral political parties including Tami, Agudat Yisrael and Shas. Not only did the leadership lack an understanding of social welfare, but as Doron (2004) notes, they encountered an ideological rift between particular and universal orientations: the ultra-Orthodox parties envisioned the role of social welfare through a religious lens where values of charity and assistance to one's own were dominant, as opposed to services that ensure basic social rights as a matter of universal citizenship.

Doron (2004) notes that these parties chose to cope with the ideological conflict through the transfer of resources to newly emerging non-governmental organisations
that shared the values of the ruling ultra-Orthodox party. In effect this advanced the privatisation of Israeli social services at the same time that the government was encouraging the private provision of education and health services. Gal and Weiss (2000) suggest that the trend to privatise social, educational and health services, severe cuts in welfare expenditure and changes in universal programmes were influenced in part by worldwide economic stagnation, an economic crisis in Israel enhanced by the 1973 Yom Kippur War and a shift to conservative and economic thought.

## The development of the social work profession in Israel

During the 1950s the social work profession functioned without formal legislation but since the establishment of the state the profession has undergone a gradual process of professionalisation (Doron et al. 2008). Social work professionalisation has been the product of a number of processes, among them professional training (including academic recognition of the profession), the expansion of professional research, knowledge and expertise, the promotion of professional methodologies and fields of intervention, the establishment of the professional association and the professional code of ethics, and the advancement of legislation delineating the mandate of the profession (Doron 2004; Doron et al. 2008; Spiro 2012; Spiro et al. 1998; Gal and Weiss 2000). According to Doron, Rosner and Karpel, 'in legislative terms social work has developed to the point where over 60 different laws and hundreds of regulations assign a wide range of roles and responsibilities to social workers' (Doron et al. 2008: 4).

The first social work training programme opened in Jerusalem in 1934. Prior to the establishment of the state and until 1948, 150 social workers completed their professional training (Spiro 2012). In 1958 the profession gained recognition as an academic field. The first undergraduate programme in social work education was established at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Israeli social welfare system was highly dependent upon aid from Jewish organisations in North America to advance the profession. These organisations sent professionals to Israel and simultaneously secured scholarships for Israelis to attend academic programmes in social work in North America (Spiro et al. 1998).

Casework and the distribution of financial assistance to the neediest populations in the country characterised the professional social work role during the 1950s. The majority of social workers were employed by local welfare offices with only a minority working in psychiatric hospitals, in schools, within the probation system and special services for immigrants and finally in community work. Moreover, social workers rarely engaged in policy or social change work. Similar to North American social work, the profession in Israel did not identify social change work as an integral part of the professional mandate (Gal and Weiss 2000).

During the 1970s social justice principles were at the forefront of the social work profession. Social workers trained in community organising were instrumental during the protests staged by immigrants from North African countries to combat the discrimination and prejudice that they had experienced
since the establishment of the state. Concurrently, social workers went on strike to force the Jerusalem municipality to fund needy clients when state funds ran out. Finally, social workers provided recommendations to the Prime Minister's Committee on Children and Youth in Need and as Gal and Weiss (2000) note, were successful in influencing the social welfare policy and legislation of the following decade.

## The Israeli Association of Social Workers

The Israeli Association of Social Workers was established in 1937 and has been an influential body in the development of the social work profession in Israel. The association is active in the development of social services, the advancement of professional competencies and status, the promotion of job security and social lobbying (Spiro 2012). Spiro (Spiro 2012) suggests that the greatest success of the association was the creation of a monopoly for the professional mandate ensuring that no other professions can engage in areas defined within this mandate. In 1996, after years of political lobbying, The Israeli Association of Social Workers succeeded in the passage of The Social Workers Act 1996.

## The Social Workers Act 1996

The Social Workers Act 1996 has two goals. The first is to ensure that social workers heed the principle of professionalism and have appropriate qualifications to function as social workers. According to the law, practising social workers must hold an academic degree and must be registered for practice in the social work registry (Doron et al. 2008). The second goal is to ensure the protection of social work clients and to safeguard the professional status of social workers in society (Doron et al. 2008). In light of the challenges that face the profession, not only in Israel but internationally as well, the law provides a safety net for those engaged in the profession.

## Current state of the social work profession in Israel

Over the past two decades the social work profession in Israel has grown in size, and has become both more professional and more diverse. While in the late 1960s there were just over a thousand social workers, by 1997 there were over 10,000 professional social workers in the country (Gal and Weiss 2000: 490). Whereas in the late 1960s the majority of social workers were employed by the local welfare departments, today social workers are employed in health and mental health facilities, senior citizen services, counselling centres, corrections, factories and more (Gal and Weiss 2000). Social workers are also engaging in feminist social work (Peled and Krumer-Nevo 2012) and in multicultural social work (Korin-Langer and Nadan 2012).

Gal and Weiss (2000) discuss two dominant trends: first, a separation between the income-maintenance role and the treatment role of the profession within the social
welfare services as the beginning of a predominant trend that identifies the individual as the source of his/her distress. Following this school of thought social work professionals are more inclined to engage in individual work (psychotherapeutic) and group therapy methods with mainstream social work populations

A second major trend in the profession has been the entry of social work professionals into the market sector. Growing social service privatisation has led to professional employment in non-governmental non-profit and for profit organisations, as well as to a growth in private practice (Gal and Weiss 2000).

Perhaps in response to this and in the aftermath of social work involvement in the social protests of the early 1970s, the profession has seen a gradual yet steady rise in social activism and in activity that targets the environment, institutions and policy as the source for individual distress. The Israeli Association of Social Workers has adopted a more activist role and the code of ethics, revised in 1994, emphasises the professional commitment to social justice principles (Gal and Weiss 2000).

Israeli social workers are gradually becoming more apt to engage in political work through the establishment of social work organisations such as Ossim Shalom – Social Workers for Peace and Social Welfare that recognises the relationship between the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and welfare expenditure or lack thereof. Social work students have established the organisation, Ossim Shinui – Social Workers for Change. Furthermore, during the 2011 Israeli social protest movement, social work professionals were actively involved in a variety of aspects of the protests (Moshe Grodofsky and Makaros 2016). Certainly there is a sense that a new generation of social workers is making its way into social work education and the profession.

## Problems and challenges for social work development

Looking towards the future, social work in Israel faces a myriad of challenges including those that relate to the on-going political conflict within a volatile Middle East, growing levels of inequality and poverty within society and the phenomena that accompany them, and population changes. All of these have a bearing on transnational social work and the social work profession has become increasingly concerned with its role in political conflict around the world (Ramon et al. 2006; Moshe Grodofsky and Yudelevich 2012; Moshe Grodofsky 2007; Moshe Grodofsky 2001). This is, for example, evident in increasing numbers of asylum seekers from Africa making their way to Israel's borders. According to available data, by 2011 more than 20,000 asylum seekers had entered the country (Raijman and Barak-Bianco 2015: 4). Yacobi contends that ‘the flow of non-Jewish, non-white migrants into Israel is having a significant impact in the Israeli ethnocratic context’ (Yacobi 2009: 48). The question of refugee status challenges Israel’s social and political discourse which Yacobi notes is ‘caught between its own ethnocratic ideologies and a wider commitment to universal human rights’ (Yacobi 2009: 51).

Within this complexity social workers are engaged in human rights and psychosocial work with asylum seekers. Social workers have voiced the dual loyalty
conflict that characterised their work – on the one hand the guiding principles of social justice; on the other hand the complexity of working within governmental systems that have not fully recognised the status or rights of asylum seekers.

## References

Cnaan, R., 1998. 'The evolution of Israel's welfare state', in R.R. Friedman, N. Gilbert, and M. M. Sherer, eds, *Modern welfare states*. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Desivilya, S.H., and Yassour-Borochowitz, D., 2010. 'Israel's moral judgements of government aggression and violation of human rights. Is democracy under siege?' *Beliefs and Values* 2(1): 38–48.

Doron, A., 2004. 'Individual social services in Israel. Changing leadership and its implications on the system', *Bitachon Sociali* 65: 11–32.

Doron, A., Rosner, Y., and Karpel, M., 2008. 'Law, social work and professionalism. Israeli social workers' attitudes towards the 1996 social work act', *Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law* 30(1): 3–16.

Gal, J., and Weiss, I., 2000. 'Policy practice in social work and social work education in Israel', *Social Work Education: The International Journal* 19(4): 485–99.

Korin-Langer, N., and Nadan, Y., 2012. 'Social work in a diverse, multicultural society', in: M. Hovav, E. Lawental, and J. Katan, eds, *Social work in Israel*. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 506–26.

Moshe Grodofsky, M., 2001. 'Peacebuilding. A conceptual framework', *International Journal of Social Welfare* 10(4): 14–26.

Moshe Grodofsky, M., 2007. 'The contribution of social work and law to interdisciplinary community development and peacebuilding in the Middle East', *Journal of Community Practice Special Issue Interdisciplinary Community Development: International Perspectives* 15(1–2): 45–65.

Moshe Grodofsky, M., and Makaros, A., 2016. 'Social workers' conflict of loyalty in the context of social activism. The case of the 2011 social protests in Israel', *Journal of Policy Practice* 15 (forthcoming).

Moshe Grodofsky, M.M., and Yudelevich, D., 2012. 'Organising across-identity group divisions in the context of acute political conflict. A case study', *British Journal of Social Work* 42(6): 1–14.

Peled, E., and Krumer-Nevo, M., 2012. 'Feminist social work', in M. Hovav, E. Lawental, and J. Katan, eds, *Social work in Israel*. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 479–505.

Raijman, R., and Barak-Bianco, A., 2015. 'Asylum seeker entrepreneurs in Israel', *Economic Sociology The European Electronic Newsletter* 16(2): 4–13. Available from: http://econsoc.mpifg.de/downloads/16_2/raijman_16_2.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2016].

Ramon, S., Campbell, J., Lindsay, J., McCrystal, P. and Baidoun, N., 2006. 'The impact of political conflict on social work. Experiences from Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine', *British Journal of Social Work* 36: 435–60.

Spiro, S.E., 2001. 'Social work education in Israel. Trends and issues', *Social Work Education: The International Journal* 20(1): 89–99.

Spiro, S., 2012. 'The history of the social work profession', in M. Hovav, E. Lawental, and J. Katan, eds, *Social work in Israel*. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 50–67.

Spiro, S., Sherer, M., Korin-Langer, N. and Weiss, I., 1998. 'The professionalization of Israeli social work', in F.M. Loewenberg, ed., *Meeting the challenges of a changing society. Fifty years of social work in Israel*. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; the Hebrew University, 29–50.
Stypinska, J., 2007. 'Jewish majority and Arab minority in Israel. Demographic struggle', *Polish Sociological Review* 1(157): 105–20.

Yacobi, H., 2009. ""Let me go to the city"". African asylum seekers, racialization and the politics of space in Israel', *Journal of Refugee Studies* 24(1): 47–68.

Zeiger, A., 2013. 'Israel at 65. Population tops 8 million' [online]. *The Times of Israel*. Available from: www.timesofisrael.com/israel-at-65-population-tops-8-million/ [Accessed 10 January 2016].
# 11 Social welfare in Malaysia

## Provision and limitation

Kartini Aboo Talib

### Politics and government

Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy largely influenced by the British system. The bicameral parliament consists of a House of Representatives and the Senate. One of the unique features of the political system in Malaysia is that the sovereign (Paramount Ruler or Yang di-Pertuan Agong in Malay) is elected every five years by and from the nine hereditary rulers of the nine states of the Malay Peninsula. This division of powers amongst the different organs of government provides a system of checks and balances.

The Malay Peninsula started to become a plural society in the early 1920s with a substantial influx of workers and labourers from Southern China and Southern India. By the end of the 1930s, the Malay Peninsula had evolved into a plural society with the Chinese population reaching 30 per cent and the Indian 14 per cent, respectively (Teo Seong 2010). Today, Malaysia is an ethnically diverse modern society that exhibits ethnic heterogeneity (Marger 2003). After 57 years of independence, Malaysia continues to demonstrate unity amongst its multi-ethnic population and little ethnic confrontation relative to Sri Lanka (Abeyratne 2008; Shamsul 2009). Moreover, the east Malaysia states including Sabah and Sarawak comprise numerous indigenous groups and the record of harmonious ethnic relationships is sound since they joined Malaysia in 1963.

Currently, the population is 30 million and Malaysia is a great example of cultural and religious tolerance. Vernacular schools, ethnic programmes, religious festivals and celebrations are supported by the government. Instead of creating a melting pot, Malaysia has painstakingly weaved a rich cultural mosaic into its multi-ethnic society.¹ The plurality in this multifaceted society is like the colours of the rainbow – separate but not apart (Faruqi 2010: 68). Furthermore, this multi-ethnic society is made more plural and colourful with influxes of immigrants.

### Social work in Malaysia

Social work was introduced in Malaysia by the British Colonial Administration as early as the 1930s, mainly focusing on the problems of migrant workers from India and China. After the Second World War, other social problems became
prominent, including issues of expulsion as a result of war, juvenile delinquency and poverty, thus the Department of Social Welfare was established in 1946. This department assists specific target groups and provides, for example, financial aid, probation programmes for juveniles, shelters for women and girls exposed to domestic abuse, residential care for people with disabilities as well as care for elderly people. The British Almoners² formed the first professional body for social workers called the Malayan Association of Almoners (MAA) in 1955. In the late 1960s, it was renamed the Malaysian Association of Medical Social Workers (MAMSW). In the early 1970s, medical social workers initiated the inclusion of colleagues from social welfare, prisons and social work education programmes. Consequently, the Malaysian Association of Social Workers (MASW) was formed on 3 March 1973 and registered with the Registrar of Societies on 28 March 1974, while the MAMSW was dissolved on 16 May 1975 (Malaysian Association of Social Workers).

The consequences of the Second World War were a powerful impetus that formalised the creation of social welfare programmes in Malaysia (Rashid 2000: 320). Public health issues were among the foremost concerns in this period considering that Malaysian-born social workers were trained by the British. As a colony, colonial knowledge and understanding determined the category of services created in Malaysia. Additionally, the post-war generation of social workers facilitated their inception of knowledge and experience through government-run medical social work. As a result, other forms of social work services managed independently by the state and taken up by non-governmental (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) came into being, such as shelters for women victims of violence, homeless people, and refugees. Other areas of social work for different target groups include elderly people, people with disabilities, women, children, youths, abandoned children, people with HIV/Aids, etc. These too are handled by the ministry or non-governmental organisations. NGOs are independent entities with workers and volunteers from many disciplines. The majority of active NGOs in Malaysia are advocacy groups campaigning for women's issues.

Social work in Malaysia is often referred to as social welfare. However, such an interpretation of the role and responsibility of the Social Welfare Department is not in line with most social work departments in advanced countries. The common understanding of social welfare in Malaysia is of a department that assists people with charity and provides care for the elderly, orphanages, or care for victims of natural disasters such as floods.

The social work programmes offered in Malaysia at public and private universities include the BA, MA and PhD. To date, there is no statistical material available on the number of trained professionals working in social care. A social work degree is recognised as equal to other social sciences degrees, and the social work graduates normally end up doing other generalist work. Therefore, Crabtree (2005: 732) notes that social work in Malaysia continues to hold a weak and undefined position in both the civil service hierarchy and public perceptions. Although the popularity of social work programmes and courses offered at the
universities across the county is increasing, social work jobs and opportunities are
limited. Students who have graduated from these courses struggle to find
themselves employed in either the government or private sectors, thus they are
likely to be diverted permanently from a social work career.

Some gaps and barriers, including lack of recognition, government inertia
towards standardising social work training, and budget cuts in public expenditure,
especially in state social welfare, further limit improvements in the social work
field in Malaysia. Lack of government recognition and incentives to recognise
social work as a profession create difficulties for trained social workers to be
accepted as experts in many fields of social work practice. Social work positions
are in fact filled with graduates from other disciplines including those from general
social sciences or humanities (Crabtree 2005: 733). This trend reduces social
work professionals to ordinary generalists.

Social Welfare Department

Due to the lack of government recognition of social work professionalism, issues regarding social welfare are managed by the Social Welfare Department. This department was established in 1946 and its portfolio has evolved over the years. Shifting and moving the department from one ministry to another was intended to result in a bigger budget, more staff and more importance. The initiative to create a national social policy was necessary to achieve national unity among the multi-ethnic population. The policy was established on 19 August 2003 (The Malaysian Government: online) based on a principle to ensure that every individual, family and community regardless of ethnicity, religion, culture, gender, political affiliation and regions can participate in and contribute to national development and improve the social well-being of citizens. The policy is viewed as social development based on virtue and the improvement of human potential to achieve unity and social stability with the aim to empower the society to become progressive.

The mission of the Social Welfare Department (The Malaysian Government: online) is to care for society and achieving such mission demands the government set a course of action, including providing protection and rehabilitation services, creating a caring society through continuous educational and practical programmes, and improving the well-being of the community through professional welfare and social development services.

This department also allocates financial assistance to target groups who need help to live independently. In line with its principle to assist people, the government created the financial assistance scheme. The aim of this financial assistance scheme is to help low income families with their basic needs, to improve the standard of living and to ensure they can live independently.

The financial assistance service requires certain basic criteria for the target group to be eligible for the service. The eligibility requirements include proof of citizenship and residential address, payslips that meet income eligibility standards, disability criteria, and numbers of dependants in a family. The citizenship requirement automatically denies legal immigrants with dependants any assistance from the government.
## Delivering services

The implementation of welfare assistance in Malaysia is consistent with the Concurrent List³ between the federal and state government. Registered applicants are assessed to verify their eligibility for assistance. However, the legal regulation for social welfare in Malaysia clearly states that the social welfare department is meant to assist citizens with certain eligibility criteria and automatically denies access as well as eligibility to non-citizens. There is therefore an absence of social welfare services that could help other groups in the community, especially legal immigrant workers who are non-citizens.

Although the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights had considerable influence on the development of social work (Brammer 2010), the existing legal provisions in Malaysia provide less than satisfactory protection of rights, particularly those of immigrant workers. There remains a need to review the law and to find ways for social work practice to be extended. It is vital to view the law as an opportunity to promote best practice and be a support to a real culture of rights by empowering service providers and users.

## Non-governmental organisations

The limitation on delivering services to non-citizens does not affect the role and contribution played by non-governmental organisations (NGOs).⁴ These non-state actors are becoming more significant around the world and this phenomenon is also visible in Malaysia, especially in the context of assisting people in need. NGOs are private, non-profit, professional organisations that are concerned with public welfare such as philanthropic foundations, religious development agencies, academic think tanks, social welfare institutions, human rights activists concerned with issues such as agricultural development, gender equality, health care, environment, indigenous people and many other areas such as sports, culture, etc. (Clarke 1998: 36).

The increasing emphasis on grassroots and local autonomous initiatives in the development process make the involvement of NGOs profoundly important in delivering and providing social services to communities. Their involvement also represents a dramatic departure from the traditional state-centric system to decentralized forms of democratic government. NGOs' efforts are varied, as are the ways in which they empower beneficiary communities to mobilise themselves and improve their living conditions.

Meanwhile, the issue of migrant domestic worker abuse is increasingly a growing concern in Malaysia. Several severe cases of maid abuse have attracted attention not just regionally but around the world. The Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report of 2009 by the United States of America ranked Malaysia at Tier 3 (worst) for its violation against human rights based on the evidence of abused foreign domestic workers (Ab Wahab 2014). As a result, women's organisations have come forward and offered support, such as shelters and advice, to the victims.
## Case Studies of social work by women's NGOs

Women's Aid Organisation (WAO)⁵ is the NGO that has assisted and attended cases actively. Since its inception in 1982, WAO has received cases of domestic worker abuse and supported women from many different countries including Malaysia. The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 189 clearly recognised domestic work as work, but in many countries, domestic workers are not recognised as workers (Crépeau 2014). As a result, domestic workers are not protected by labour laws. They are vulnerable to abuse because their workplaces are in private households, behind closed doors, out of the public eye, and physically isolated, thus it is difficult for them to take collective action. Most migrant domestic workers are women and they feel very discouraged to seek legal redress for abuse which can take years to settle the case. At the moment, there is no specific law in Malaysia to protect migrant domestic workers from violence and the WAO follows a series of protocols to handle the foreign domestic worker abuse cases including:

* Filing complaints with the police, welfare and labour departments

* Processing applications with the Immigration Department

* Gathering medical reports and other evidence of abuse

* Assisting women in obtaining lawyers and initiating civil and criminal suits

* Lobbying the media for case coverage and advocacy.

WAO is making substantial efforts in promoting advocacy and ways to educate the community on changes of attitude towards migrant domestic workers. WAO also strengthens its strategy by lobbying the press to highlight the agenda of migrant domestic workers' rights, the abuse and violations of human rights that are punishable by law. A comprehensive list of access to an effective remedy for human rights violations is stated in the UN Human Rights Council of Twenty-sixth session (Crépeau 2014: 20f). Furthermore, another NGO that is active in building awareness on issues pertaining to migrant domestic workers is Tenaganita. It launched its campaign kit in 2012 demanding the government to include domestic work in the current national labour laws of both origin and destination countries as well as to introduce a Domestic Workers Act in order to protect the rights of migrant domestic workers.⁶

## Conclusion

Overall, social work in Malaysia has traditionally been concentrated in the field of health care (e.g. hospitals). The line between social work and social welfare is still blurred in Malaysia and most people are likely to view both as similar if not the same. Such perspectives mean that social work still is not recognised as important as other professions. Social workers continue to be viewed as generalists rather than highly qualified professional care givers or agents of social change that can contribute to improving the living conditions of society. The paradigm shift must
take place through the education system. A career path as a social worker must be
introduced in Malaysia as a way to move society forward so that it can adapt to the
challenges and complexities it faces. NGOs such as WAO with a strong history of
support work to vulnerable members of society can become part of the advocacy
to change perceptions and demand for service improvement.

Notes

1 A report by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) indicated in the Global Peace Index 2011 ranked Malaysia at 19 among 153 countries that succeeded in maintaining peace and political stability. See details at Institute for Economics and Peace (online).

2 An almoner is a chaplain or church officer who originally was in charge of distributing money to the deserving poor. The 1910–1912 *Every Woman’s Encyclopedia* drew attention to the new profession offered for women of culture and education. The almoner was an important figure both for the hospital and for the patient. The almoner profession played an important role of assisting social enquiry with significant influence over how and where people were treated, what support they might receive after leaving hospital and how much they would be asked to pay for the care provision and service. In the 1940s almoner activities were recognised as social work within the wider context of health and welfare programmes (Sackville 1987).

3 Concurrent List is referred to as the third list of shared autonomy between the federal list and state list outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of Malaysia 1957. See details at Federation of Malaysia Constitution (online).

4 The total list of NGO applications from January until July 2015 was 5,989. However, the statistic did not provide information on the types of organisation. Thus it is difficult to see the number of NGOs that work in social work services. See details at Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia (JPPM).

5 WAO is a registered society with tax exemption status under the Registrar of Societies. WAO is a member of the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality and an affiliate member of the National Council for Women Organization and the Malaysian AIDS Council. See details at WAO (online).

6 Tenaganita Domestic Workers Campaign Toolkit, 2012. Tenaganita Sdn Bhd: Malaysia.

References

Ab Wahab, A., 2014. *Malaysian anti-trafficking initiatives and the emerging issues. An overview on refugee perspective*: National University of Malaysia (UKM).

Abeyratne, S., 2008. 'Economic development and political conflict. Comparative study of Sri Lanka and Malaysia', *South Asia Economic Journal* 9(2): 393–417.

Brammer, A., 2010. *Social work law*. 3rd ed. Harlow, England, New York: Pearson Longman.

Clarke, G., 1998. 'Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world', *Political Studies* 46(1): 36–52.

Crabtree, S.A., 2005. 'Medical social work in Malaysia. Issues in practice', *International Social Work* 48(6): 732–41.

Crépeau, F., 2014. *Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants* [online]. Human Rights Council. Available from: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ SRMigrants/A.HRC.26.35.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2015].

Faruqi, S.S., 2010. 'The federal constitution and the social contract', in H. Khek Hua et al., eds, *Managing success in unity*. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Dept. of National Unity and Integration, 49–70.
Federation of Malaysia Constitution. *Legislative Lists as in the Ninth Schedule* [online]. Available from: www.sapp.org.my/pdf/legislative_list_A9.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2015].

Institute for Economics & Peace [online]. Available from: http://economicsandpeace.org/[Accessed 18 June 2015].

Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia (JPPM). *Statistik Pendaftaran Pertubuhan* [online]. Available from: www.ros.gov.my/index.php/my/statistik-perkhidmatan/statistik-pendaftaran [Accessed 22 August 2015].

Malaysian Association of Social Workers. *A Brief History* [online]. Available from: www.masw.org.my/ [Accessed 15 June 2015].

Marger, M.N., 2003. *Race and ethnic relations. American and global perspectives*. 6th ed. Belmont, Calif., London: Wadsworth; Cengage Learning.

Rashid, S., 2000. 'Social work and professionalization: a legacy of ambivalence', in C. Davies, L. Finlay and A. Bullman (eds), *Changing Practice in Health and Social Care*, London: The Open University/Sage Publications, 316–25.

Sackville, A., 1987. *Professional Associations and Social Work. From Almoner to Medical Social Worker 1950-1970* [online]. Available from: www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/scwru/swhn/2013/Sackville-WP04-From-Almoner-to-Medical-Social-Worker-1950-to-1970.pdf [Accessed 13 July 2015].

Shamsul, A.B., 2009. *Culture and governance in Malaysia's survival as a nation*. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

Teo Seong, K., 2010. 'Malaysia ethnic relations. The challenges 50 years ahead', in H. Khek Hua *et al.*, eds, *Managing success in unity*. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Dept. of National Unity and Integration, 7–22.

The Malaysian Government. *Dasar Sosial Negara (DSN)*[online]. Available from: www.jkm.gov.my/content.php?pagename=dasar_sosial_negara&lang=en [Accessed 13 July 2015].

WAO. *Migrant Domestic Worker Abuse* [online]. Women’s Aid Organisation. Available from: www.wao.org.my/Migrant+Domestic+Workers_54_5_1.htm [Accessed 18 June 2015].
# 12 A profile of the Turkish social welfare system and social work

Sema Buz

## A short history of social welfare in Turkey

The social welfare system in Turkey derives from the Ottoman Empire and so had a different process from those of Western countries. In western societies, social security systems were established as a result of industrialisation in order to find solutions to the problems of the working class such as poverty and overpopulation in cities. In the Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, the industrialisation process was relatively slow because the Ottoman economy was largely based on artisanship, only a few factories existed and the working class did not emerge, therefore no social security system developed in the empire. Instead what we see was the predominance of charity – which in the Ottoman Empire can be divided into three parts: familial aid, religious aid (zakat, alms, sadaqah), and various professional institutional aid (gUILDS, foundations) (Cicek 2010: 52).

From the foundation of the Republic of Turkey until the 1960s – when the modern institutions of social welfare were inaugurated – the main institutions were Darülaceze (the poor house), Türkiye Kızılay Derneği (The Turkish Red Crescent Society), and Çocuk Esirgeme Kurumu (The Child Protection Agency). The Child Protection Agency was a social assistance institution founded in order to protect children who were left parentless because of the war in 1921 (Himaye-i Etfal Cemiyeti Association for Protection of Children; in 1980 the name of the institution was changed to The Social Services and Child Protection Agency).

The 1961 Constitution was a breakthrough and an important framework concerning social work, since it focused on basic rights and liberties and emphasised the concept of a social state and a state of law. A five-year plan for social and economic development was scheduled and put into practice in 1963. Some of the major topics of the plan were: ensuring that social justice was seen as developing parallel to financial development, and including social insurance activities in the redistribution and fair distribution of income. Ten developmental plans have been implemented since 1961, with the present one in operation since 2014.
## The structure of the state and society in Turkey

In 1923 the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the Republic of Turkey was founded. The process of transition from empire to nation state with its attendant modernisation was mostly carried out by a group of elite men under the leadership of Atatürk. The new state was built with a modern understanding and secularism was seen as a very important founding principle. In 2013 Turkey's population reached 76,667,864, with 91.3 per cent of the population living in cities and the ratio of male to female population was 50.2 per cent to 49.8 per cent respectively (TUIK 2014).

Population development in Turkey is expected to transform from a young aged society into an old aged society with a decrease of the population under the age of 15 and an increase in the age groups between 15 and 64 (Bugra 2001; Koç *et al.* 2010). These changes indicate that the elderly population will be an important target group.

In the latest report on ‘Youth, Skills and Employment Ability’ prepared by the OECD (the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Turkey ranks first among OECD countries, with 28.7 per cent of the population aged between 15 and 29 years not employed and not continuing their education (OECD July 2015). For 2013 the unemployment rate was 9.7 per cent and the employment rate 45.9 per cent of which 23.6 per cent were employed in agriculture, 19.4 per cent in industry, 7 per cent in construction, and 50 per cent in the service sector (TUIK 2013). The needs of those who do not work and do not have any social security are mainly met through family solidarity instead of formal statutory measures. According to Bugra (2001: 25) family solidarity stands at the heart of the traditional welfare regime in Turkey, lacking formal regulations and rational bureaucratic procedures.

## Legal framework

The following laws can be seen as legal foundations providing social protection for target groups relevant to social work professionals:

The 1982 Constitution is the current legislation and Article 41 of the Constitution states the duty to protect the family, particularly women and children; Article 61 mentions the protection of people with disabilities, older people and children who are in need of protection. Besides the Constitution, the Civil Law (1926) – which was adopted from Switzerland – is an important law in terms of social work. This law provides equality between men and women, secures monogamy, regulates the principle of equality in inheritance matters, and protects women in divorces.

The Law to Protect Family and Prevent Violence against Women (2012) is aimed at the protection of women and other family members who are subjected to violence or who are at risk of violence. However, there are a number of aspects that prevent the full force of this law, e.g. reluctance of public officials to apply the measures of the law for women who are subjected to violence; patriarchal perspectives; men's violations of restraining orders; ineffective punishments; femicides by intimate partners even when the victim is under police protection.
This leads to the paradoxical situation that despite the law violence against women
cannot be prevented.

The aim of the Juvenile Protection Law (2005) is to support the well-being of children who are in need of protection, and to provide rehabilitation for them through protective and supportive measures should they participate in crime. But the problems in the institutional, physical, infrastructural, financial, administrative and labour force areas that are related to the realisation of cautionary measures and other actions to be taken by the courts have not yet been solved (Acar 2012: 22).

The Law of Encouraging Social Assistance and Solidarity (1986) claims to provide assistance to citizens and external migrants/asylum seekers who are living in poverty and are in need of help and includes measures to strengthen social justice for a more equal distribution of income, and encourage social solidarity. Although the state claims to minimise its role and to include civil society organisations including those with a philanthropic emphasis, the state has been criticised concerning its involvement in the realm of social help – including the levels of social assistance expenditure and extensive bureaucracy (Dodurka 2014: 4). Social workers also refer to the international conventions (1989 Convention on the Rights of Children etc.) and other legislations (family legislation, legislation for people with disabilities, etc.) depending on the field of work.

## Social service delivery in Turkey

The Ministry of Family and Social Policies is linked to the central government and has provincial directorates in 81 cities in Turkey. The ministry is responsible for various welfare services in the provinces, including support for women victims of violence. In addition to this, there are local administration units, namely special provincial administrations, municipalities and villages. The special provincial administrations have an especially important function in the realm of social assistance; they operate at the local level and have a significant budget for social assistance; they provide social services and conduct activities in order to combat poverty; support social protection for people in need and reinforce social welfare (Cicek 2010: 52).

Social services in Turkey were provided by central administrative institutions for a long time. Although this situation provided many advantages in terms of central planning, there were also problems concerning the sensitivity of the services to local needs. According to a current preparation (Ministry of Family and Social Policy Infrastructure Project about Transfer of Service Institutions to Local Authority) social service provision is defined as a responsibility of the municipalities and the special provincial administrations. In addition to these state institutions, NGOs and private institutions are beginning to be effective in the provision of social welfare services. For example, women's groups (Purple Roof) and LGBT organisations (Kaos GL) provide consultations and counselling to individuals, group work (such as with parents with LGBT children), advocacy, support groups and inputs to various policy-making processes, whereas other types of NGOs predominantly give social assistance, and have philanthropic motives in aid disbursement.
With the marketisation process in the fields of elderly care and disability, many profit-oriented institutions have also started to operate, and there is an increase in the subcontracting of care and cleaning services in institutions (Şahín Taşğin and Özel 2011). But there is no joint plan or programme between central administration, municipality, NGOs and the private sector. Every institution pursues its centre and services with its facilities and calculations (TEPAV 2010).

The number of non-governmental organisations in Turkey is rather low compared to the population: on average there is only one NGO for every 780 people. In India there is one NGO for every 600 people (Mahapatra 2014); in Germany and France there is one NGO for about every 40 people. The geographic distribution of the NGOs is also important; they are concentrated in urban areas, mainly in the western regions of the country. There is no policy influencing the agenda of 65 per cent of the NGOs but they focus on social services and solidarity activities (İçduygu et al. 2011: 18). Mainly the NGOs working for children, women, LGBT and people with disabilities have an agenda of active involvement in policy-making processes. This has increased somewhat since Turkey has taken a prominent role in European-wide work regarding violence against women – the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (The Istanbul Convention) was opened for signature in May 2011, in Istanbul, Turkey.

Social workers are mainly employed in public institutions; the number of social workers working in the private sector is comparatively small. ‘Familialisation’ tendencies remain at the forefront of the provision of social welfare services. Care in the family is thus provided by unpaid carers.

## Professional social work in Turkey

The Social Work Department was founded in 1961 – linked to the then Ministry of Health and Social Assistance – under the name of ‘The Academy of Social Services’, providing a four-year higher education course. An academic curriculum based on international standards was prepared by renowned social work experts.

In 1965 the Academy was accepted as a member of the International Association of Schools of Social Work. In 1967 The School of Social Work and Social Services was founded within Hacettepe University Faculty of Administrative and Social Sciences, Ankara. During the 1960s and 1970s social workers’ roles varied, including working in village and slum development as well as in social welfare institutions (Uğuroğlu 2003). Following the military coup d'état of 12 September 1980, the Academy of Social Work and the Department of Social Work of the University of Hacettepe were united as the Council of Higher Education (YOK) promulgated in 1982. In 2006 the Social Work Department joined Hacettepe University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. The Social Services and Child Protection Agency (SHCEK) was established in 1983. It was an important institution in view of being a governmental organisation employing the largest number of social workers providing services at community and family levels including through its sub-organisations for children, women, and people
with disabilities. Although the Social Services and Child Protection Agency was
an important step for a centralised social service provision system, independent
institutions in the fields of women and people with disabilities remained. In 2011
the Ministry of Family and Social Policies was founded.

Until the 2000s, the Social Work Department at Hacettepe University remained the only institution offering social work education. As a result of the growing demand for social workers the number of social work schools has been increasing. Currently there are 67 social work departments in Turkey but nearly 20 of them have not started student admission yet because of a lack of academic staff (Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Çalışma ve Sosyal Hizmetler Forumu). However, the new social work departments have partly been founded without professional social work knowledge and thus the quality of education and professional standardisation remains inadequate. This has led to a critical debate concerning the quality of social work education in Turkey and also concerning the lack of competencies of social workers graduating from these recently established programmes. Those who have bachelor's degrees in social work can work in institutions with different target groups (children, families, poor people) without any further accreditation. Social workers mostly work in public institutions (after receiving a valid score in the KPSS exam – a national selection examination conducted by the government for the selection of employees in the public sector). In Turkey there is no exam or accreditation for professional competence or work.

In 1965 The Union of Social Workers was founded and it was transformed into the Association of Social Workers in 1970. After the military coup d'état of 1980 the association was closed, and only re-opened in 1988. In 2002, the Turkish Association of Social Workers (SHUD) became a member of the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and published a manual called ‘Ethical Codes for Social Workers’ based on international ethical standards for social work (NASW, IFSW), (SHUD, Sosyal Hizmet Uzmanlari Derneği 2003). Social workers now learn these ethical principles during their education, and any cases of ethical violations are discussed in the ethical commission of the Association. The total number of social workers in Turkey is 6,150 and members of SHUD working in public institutions is 2,180 (SHUD, Sosyal Hizmet Uzmanlari Derneği 2015).

Challenges for social work: central problems

Poverty is a very important social issue: throughout the country 9.5–12.5 per cent of families live below the starvation line, 29–36 per cent live below the poverty line. In Turkey 34 per cent of children under the age of 16 are at risk of relative poverty. According to The Turkish Statistical Institute more than 50 per cent of the single resident households who are aged 65 and over are in the lowest income group (TUIK 2014).

Social expenditures in Turkey are insufficient (Candas *et al.* 2010; Bugra and Adar 2011; UNICEF 2012; Özbek 2002). In 2008, 11.5 per cent of GDP was allocated to social protection expenditure, increasing to 13 per cent in the period 2010–2012; this remained the same for the period 2013–2015. Although this is a
very positive development, it is highly insufficient for Turkey. One of the most
important deficiencies of the social protection system in Turkey is the lack of a
steady citizenship-based income support mechanism funded by the tax revenues
(Public Expenditures Monitoring Report 2011: 3). The Turkish Government tries
to assign its responsibilities of social policy to voluntary agencies, rather than
regulating financial policies to increase public social expenditures. Fundraising
activities are also an important part of the current operations of the government in
the field of social policy. For example, the Rainbow Project conducted by the
Administration of People with Disabilities and the Ministry of Education envisages
the rehabilitation of people with disabilities and their integration into the job
market. The financial obligations of the project are planned to be covered by
charitable contributions (Bugra and Adar 2011).

Gender equality is a major challenge and the ‘Global Social Gender Gap Report’ of the World Economic Forum ranks Turkey 125th concerning gender equality while recent Turkish figures confirm low employment rates (below 30 per cent), and high illiteracy rates among women (five times more among women than men) (TUIK 2014).

Gender-based violence is also a very important issue. According to recent research, 36 per cent of married women are subjected to violence from their husbands; 10 per cent of women are subjected to physical violence during pregnancy; 38 per cent of women are subjected to physical and/or sexual violence; 12 per cent of married women are subjected to sexual violence. Only 11 per cent of women apply for institutional help (Domestic Violence Against Women in Turkey 2014: 9).

Another emerging issue is the current problem of Syrian refugees and asylum-seekers: there are approximately 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, accommodated in camps and distributed around cities, yet they predominantly do not have access to social welfare services. There are numerous claims that women and girls who cannot meet basic needs and live under the poverty line are forced into prostitution, subjected to sexual harassment or child marriages in return for money and unofficial marriages as a second or third wife (Mazlumder 2014: 26ff).

Conclusion – outcomes for social work

Whilst Turkey has maintained its traditional and conservative welfare regime, many changes have been implemented in view of the EU accession process and in view of the articulation of neoliberal policies giving rise to changes in legislation, the social security system and delivery of social services. By force of neoliberal policies, the proportion of disadvantaged and marginalised communities in Turkey has increased (Buz et al. 2012; Gürses 2009: 210) and as such, new social work policy needs to emphasise social justice and provide for more social workers. In these circumstances, the responsibility of social work to promote social justice has gained increasing importance (Buz et al. 2012).

Turkey’s transition to philanthropic policies in the social realm, the acceptance
of social assistance and services as important tools to maintain political power, and
important fund transfers in the field of social assistance are negative developments
with regard to social work. Mainstream social policies in Turkey as well as social welfare services are predominantly reduced to social assistance with limited or small-scale professional expertise. This devalues the profession and reduces social work to a 'technical' dimension.

## References

Acar, H., 2012. *10. Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı Çocuk Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Ön Rapor*. Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kalkınma Bakanlığı.

Bugra, A., 2001. 'Ekonomik Kriz karşısında Türkiye'nin Geleneksel Refah Rejimi. Turkey's traditional welfare regime against economic crisis', *Toplum ve Bilim* (89): 22-30.

Bugra, A., and Adar, S., 2011. *Türkiye'nin Kamu Sosyal Koruma Harcamalarının Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analizi. A comparative analysis of Turkey's public social protection expenditures*. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Forumu.

Buz, S., Ontas, C.O., and Hatiboglu, B., 2012. 'Opinions of social work students from Turkey on social justice', *International Social Work* 56(6): 724-42.

Candas, A., et al., 2010. *Türkiye'de Eşitsizlikler: Kalıcı Eşitsizliklere Genel Bir Bakış. Inequalities in Turkey: A general outlook at permanent inequalities*. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Forumu.

Cicek, E., 2010. 'Türkiye'de Belediyelerin Sosyal Hizmet ve Sosyal Yardım Faaliyetleri. Social services and social assistance activities of municipalities in Turkey', *Yerel Siyaset Aylık Bilimsel Siyasi Dergi* 39(4): 49-52.

Dodurka, B.Z., 2014. *Türkiye'de Merkezi Devlet Eliyle Yapılan Sosyal Yardımlar. Çalışma Raporu*. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Forumu.

*Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey, 2014* [online]. Available from: www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/ING_SUMMARY_REPORT_VAW_2014.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2015].

Gürses, D., 2009. 'An analysis of child poverty and social policies in Turkey', *Journal of Developing Societies* 25(2): 209-27.

Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Çalışma ve Sosyal Hizmetler Forumu. *Tarihçe* [online]. Available from: www.scforum.hacettepe.edu.tr/tarihce.shtml [Accessed 20 December 2015].

İçduygu, A., Meydanoğlu, Z., and Sert, D.Ş., 2011. *Türkiye'de sivil toplum. Uluslararası sivil toplum endeksi projesi Türkiye ülke raporu*. İstanbul: TÜSEV Yayınları.

Koç, İ., et al., 2010. *Türkiye'nin Demografik Dönüşümü. Doğurganlık, Aile Planlaması, Anne-Çocuk Sağlığı ve Beş Yaş Altı Ölümlerdeki Değişimler: 1968-2008. Demographic transformation of Turkey*. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü.

Mahapatra, D., 2014. *India witnessing NGO boom, there is 1 for every 600 people* [online]. Available from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-witnessing-NGO-boom-there-is-1-for-every-600-people/articleshow/30871406.cms [Accessed 20 December 2015].

Mazlumder, 2014. *Syrian asylum seeker women live outside of camps*. Ankara: Mazlumder Yayıni.

OECD, 2015. *OECD Employment Outlook 2015* [online]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Available from: www.oecd.org/turkey/Employment-Outlook-Turkey-EN.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2015].

Özbek, N., 2002. Osmanlı'dan Günümüze Türkiye'de Sosyal Devlet. *Toplum ve Bilim* (92): 7-33.

Public Expenditures Monitoring Report, 2011. *2011 yılı Kamu Harcamaları İzleme Raporu Kamuoyu Duyurusu* [online]. Available from: kahip.org/site_media/docs/basinmektubu2011.doc [Accessed 12 December 2015].