Almost everyone is in favor of innovation in the public sector. After all, who could be against? Policy-makers and the public seem to assume that innovation is always a good thing – but, in reality, innovation carries risks that are not often recognized. Moreover, while the UK government urges innovation, there is less evidence that it facilitates innovation, at least in social work with children and families.

Few would deny that new approaches in social work are needed. But how can governments facilitate innovation, while taking into account the special difficulties and risks of innovation in a social work context?

Innovation refers to change that is significant and far-reaching. It changes the way things are done, or as Louise Brown, a social work scholar and policy analyst from the University of Bath, UK, puts it, “changes worth recognising as innovation should be globally or at least locally new to the organisation, and be large enough, general enough and durable enough to appreciably affect the operations or character of the organisation.” All innovation implies change, but not all change involves innovation.

Innovation also implies taking risk, which sits uncomfortably with social work in today’s world, as Brown explains.

To start with, social work service users are uniquely vulnerable. While risks in the private sector are largely financial, Brown argues, the consequences of getting it wrong in social work can be costly in human terms. Innovation gone wrong can easily harm the lives and well-being of vulnerable people.

There is also a lack of incentives for individuals and organizations in the social work sector to innovate. High profile child death scandals, together with a “blame culture” propagated by the tabloid press, mean that professionals are reluctant to step out for fear of getting it wrong.

In response to such cases, governments tend to introduce tighter regulation and systems of accountability. Work with children and families becomes characterized by rule-following and defensiveness. Again, risk-taking – a necessary part of innovation – gets squeezed out.

Then, of course, there is the lack of resources. Changes to the way in which services are funded by the state mean that the voluntary sector now has less stable sources of funding and less capacity for innovation than before. At the same time, the UK’s expenditure on public sector R&D “remains low,” Brown charges.

Innovation barriers: Cases from New Zealand and Australia
Two contrasting real-world examples show how and when these barriers to innovation in the social work sector operate.

Family Group Conferencing arrived in the UK from New Zealand in the late 1980s. Its attraction was that it empowered families in the child welfare system to decide on the best course of action rather than relying on professionals. One in three local authorities adopted it, but the government remained lukewarm and it has never become mainstream.

Service providers found it difficult to switch resources to FGC because of the lack of evidence that it produced better outcomes. Fitting it into existing system processes also proved challenging. There were also concerns that a family-made plan would not keep children safe in families where they were at risk of abuse or neglect [‘Why keeping it in the family doesn’t work?’].

Meanwhile, the New Parent Information Network (Newpin), which originated in the UK, has now been imported to Australia by a large children’s charity and adopted by 47 organizations. Newpin is a center-based service for parents, offering intensive education and support to inspire good parenting and promote self-help.

Newpin was adapted in Australia to take account of local conditions and cultural issues. Like FGC, there are reservations about its effectiveness [Newpin: can it be as shiny as it sounds?] but it did not challenge professionals’ autonomy or generate perceived risks. There was a risk in recruiting and retaining staff owing to the uncertainty of long-term funding, but it was considered a risk worth taking.

What lessons do these example offer? Many social work organizations working with children and families are willing to consider new models of practice and find ways of initiating them. They are willing to innovate. But such activity generates real or perceived risks for individual employees and organizations.

In both the FGC and Newpin cases, there were reservations about the innovations’ likely impact, but even where there is evidence of effectiveness, professionals may resist innovation, Brown argues, whether through a lack of motivation and commitment or through actual sabotage. Professionals’ resistance may relate to threats to their professional autonomy and role, or it could be because of ethical concerns that the innovation will harm clients.

Whichever way, if government wants service providers working with children to innovate, it needs to show them that it is prepared for them to take on risks posed by innovation. It needs to foster risk management strategies that address the unique vulnerability of service users and stifling regulations. It needs to provide incentives and opportunities to innovate. It needs to invest.

Reference
Brown, L. (2010). Balancing risk and innovation to improve social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1211-1228.