Not So Social Work

Blog

  • Trump’s Return to Power: Implications for Social Work and the Equalities Movement in Scotland

    As Donald Trump begins his second term as President of the United States, many are reflecting on the legacy of his first administration (2016–2020) and how it might shape his approach this time. For social workers and equality advocates in Scotland, Trump’s return to power is a stark reminder of the global influence of populism and its potential to undermine social justice, equality, and human rights.

    The lessons of his previous presidency, marked by division, discriminatory policies, and a disregard for democratic norms are critical for anticipating the challenges ahead.

    Yet, in some quarters, there seems to be a collective amnesia about the severity of Trump’s previous tenure. The events of January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election, stand as a chilling example of the risks posed by populist rhetoric. As some seek to downplay the seriousness of that insurrection, the question arises: what does Trump’s return mean for the equalities movement here, and how can social workers prepare for the challenges ahead?

    Lessons from Trump’s First Term

    Trump’s first presidency was characterised by policies and rhetoric that undermined vulnerable communities and emboldened far-right ideologies. His administration’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries (Executive Order No. 13769, 2017), attempts to restrict transgender rights (Green, 2020), and the stoking of racial tensions during moments of civil unrest were emblematic of a broader agenda that normalised discrimination and exclusion.

    The effects of these policies reverberated globally, I would argue, including in Scotland. Hate crimes in the UK surged during Trump’s tenure, with a significant rise following the Brexit referendum and the normalisation of anti-immigrant rhetoric (Home Office, 2020). Social workers reported increased fear and isolation among marginalised groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, and minority ethnic communities, highlighting the pervasive impact of populist politics on local communities.

    Trump’s presidency also shone a light on the fragility of democracy. The Capitol riots marked an unprecedented attack on democratic norms, underscoring the dangers of unchecked populism and misinformation. For social workers, who are committed to upholding social justice and human rights, these events serve as a cautionary tale about the need to remain vigilant in the face of populist threats.

    The Rise of Collective Amnesia

    Despite the violence and division of Trump’s first presidency, there is a growing tendency in some circles to downplay its impact. The Capitol riots, once condemned as an attack on democracy, are increasingly reframed by Trump’s supporters as a protest that has been exaggerated by his opponents. This collective amnesia risks normalising the very ideologies that led to the described ‘insurrection’ and creates fertile ground for further erosion of democratic values.

    In Scotland, where the equalities movement has long championed inclusivity and human rights, this shift in narrative poses a significant challenge. If the global influence of Trumpism normalises discriminatory ideologies and undermines public trust in democratic institutions, it could embolden those who oppose progressive policies at home.

    Social Work’s Role in Responding to Trump’s Second Term

    As Trump re-enters the global stage, social workers must prepare for the potential ripple effects of his policies and rhetoric. Social work practice is rooted in the principles of human rights, social justice, and anti-discrimination—all of which are threatened by the populist agenda.

    Key priorities for social workers could include:

    Countering Populist Narratives

    Populism thrives on division, scapegoating, and misinformation. Social workers can play a critical role in countering these narratives by promoting inclusion, challenging discriminatory rhetoric, and fostering community solidarity. This is particularly important in supporting marginalised groups who may feel further alienated by Trump’s return to power.

    Advocating for Systemic Change

    Trump’s first presidency highlighted the importance of addressing systemic inequalities that are often exploited by populist leaders. Social workers must continue to advocate for policies that tackle poverty, discrimination, and social exclusion, ensuring that Scotland remains a beacon of progress in an increasingly polarised world.

    Defending Democratic Values

    The events of January 6 underscored the fragility of western democracy and the importance of safeguarding it against authoritarian threats. Social workers have a responsibility to uphold democratic values by empowering individuals and communities to participate in civic life and challenge injustices.

    Promoting Intersectionality

    Trump’s policies often targeted specific groups, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, but their effects were felt across multiple intersecting identities. Social workers must adopt an intersectional approach, recognising how different forms of oppression compound each other and addressing inequalities holistically.

    The Path Ahead for Scotland’s Equalities Movement

    Scotland has long positioned itself as a progressive nation committed to equality and human rights. Initiatives such as the Race Equality Framework (Scottish Government, 2016) and LGBTQ+ inclusive education (Scottish Government, 2020) demonstrate a commitment to building a fairer society. However, Trump’s return to power serves as a reminder that progress is not guaranteed. The rise of populism requires constant vigilance and proactive efforts to safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable.

    Trump’s second term may embolden far-right ideologies and amplify anti-equality narratives worldwide, but it also presents an opportunity for Scotland’s social workers and equality advocates to reaffirm their commitment to justice and inclusion. By challenging oppression, promoting solidarity, and defending democratic values, Scotland can continue to lead by example in the fight for equality.

    Conclusion

    Trump’s return to power is a pivotal moment for the global equalities movement. For social workers, it serves as a call to action to resist the normalisation of discrimination and uphold the principles of social justice. The lessons of his first presidency, particularly the dangers of populism, misinformation, and reframing must guide efforts to build a more inclusive and equitable society. In the face of division, Scotland’s social workers must remain steadfast in their commitment to equality, ensuring that the values of dignity, respect, and justice are never compromised.

    References

    Executive Order No. 13769 (2017). Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. [Online]. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov.

    Green, E. (2020). “The Trump Administration’s Final Attack on LGBTQ Rights.” The Atlantic. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com.

    Home Office (2020). Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019/20. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk.

    Scottish Government (2016). Race Equality Framework for Scotland 2016–2030. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot.

    Scottish Government (2020). LGBT Inclusive Education. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot.

  • Gatekeeping or Progress? The Case for Fluid Criteria in Social Work

    In social work, eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that resources are allocated fairly and to those most in need. However, I’ve noticed the more national forums I am involved in, that those most committed to maintaining strict eligibility thresholds are often the loudest critics of innovative suggestions for change. This raises an important question: does a commitment to gatekeeping unintentionally block potential solutions? At what point does the act of guarding these criteria become resistance to progress?

    This tension reflects a broader debate about how public services balance accountability with flexibility. Strict eligibility criteria are often seen as a ‘safeguard against inefficiency’ and the ‘misuse of resources’. However, they can create delays, reduce access to timely support, and lead to individuals falling through the cracks. Early intervention and person-centred practice, two principles widely recognised as best practice, could be seen as constrained within rigid frameworks.

    To address these issues, I believe that investment in fluid eligibility criteria, supported by robust triage systems, offers a solution.

    Fluid criteria allows practitioners to assess needs holistically and respond proportionately without being constrained by rigid frameworks. For instance, enabling social workers to use their professional discretion allows them to respond effectively to the nuances of individual cases.

    The Case for Early Intervention

    Research almost consistently shows that early intervention leads to better outcomes for individuals while reducing long-term costs. Bywaters et al. (2016) highlight that socio-economic deprivation is a significant driver of child welfare interventions, yet strict eligibility criteria can delay support until crises emerge.

    Policies such as Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) in Scotland emphasise early intervention and a holistic, child-centred approach. GIRFEC’s principles include promoting wellbeing across all aspects of a child’s life, with interventions tailored to individual needs rather than dictated by rigid thresholds.

    Our Scottish model demonstrates the value of early intervention supported by flexible systems. GIRFEC’s Named Person approach, for instance, ensures that every child has a consistent point of contact to coordinate support. While not without controversy, this policy reflects an understanding that early, proportionate intervention is often more effective than crisis management. My view being we have tools and frameworks already deeply embedded that could be utilised to enable a more progressive criteria use.

    A Counter Argument: Why Criteria Matter

    Despite these advantages, the argument for strict eligibility criteria should not be dismissed outright. Opponents of fluid criteria argue that such an approach risks creating inconsistency and inequality in service provision. Without clear thresholds, there is the potential for subjective decision-making, leading to disparities in how resources are allocated. This is particularly concerning in contexts of austerity agendas, where resources are limited, and practitioners may face increased pressure to ration services.

    Furthermore, strict criteria can serve as a safeguard against implicit bias and discrimination. Clear frameworks ensure that decisions are based on objective measures rather than subjective interpretations, which may inadvertently perpetuate inequalities. For example, critics of the Named Person policy in Scotland famously argued that it risked overstepping boundaries and creating confusion about roles and responsibilities (Gillen, 2020).

    Finding a Middle Ground

    The solution I suggest may lie in combining the strengths of both approaches. Policies such as GIRFEC provide a useful model for blending flexibility with accountability. By embedding person-centred practice into statutory frameworks, we have almost consistently demonstrated that it is possible to prioritise individual needs without abandoning oversight.

    Additionally, robust training and investment in triage systems I strongly argue, can help practitioners make consistent, evidence-based decisions.

    For example, Scotland’s implementation of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 in my view, clearly shows how legislation can underpin flexibility.

    This Act established wellbeing indicators (SHANARRI—Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included) that guide assessments while allowing practitioners to tailor interventions. This balance between structure and flexibility enables early intervention while maintaining transparency.

    Moving Forward

    Ultimately, social work must balance the need for accountability with the imperative to provide timely, person-centred support. Fluid eligibility criteria, supported by significant investment in triage and professional development, offer a way forward. Early intervention and person-centred practice are universally recognised as best practice; empowering practitioners to make meaningful decisions will ensure these principles are upheld.

    While gatekeeping may safeguard resources, it can also deeply inhibit progress. An approach integrating flexibility within statutory frameworks offers valuable lessons for other systems. By adopting a similar mindset, social work can shift from guarding resources to finding and enabling actual solutions.

    References

    Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., & Bos, E. (2016). Inequalities in child welfare intervention rates: The intersection of deprivation and identity. Child & Family Social Work, 21(4), 452-463.

    Gillen, S. (2020). The ‘Named Person’ scheme in Scotland: Between support and surveillance. Social Policy and Society, 19(3), 407–417.

    Ruch, G., Turney, D., & Ward, A. (2018). Relationship-based social work: Getting to the heart of practice. 2nd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Scottish Government. (2014). Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

  • Capitalist Realism: Reimagining Social Work in the Neoliberal Era

    Social work can be inherently argued as being rooted in principles of care, equity, and justice, yet it operates within a system heavily shaped by the ideology of capitalist realism. As Mark Fisher (2009) explores in Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, the pervasive belief in the inevitability of capitalism constrains not only economic and political structures but also cultural and social systems. For social workers, this ideology poses unique challenges, from the commodification of care to the bureaucratisation of welfare services. This article examines how capitalist realism affects the field of social work and explores pathways to resist its dehumanising tendencies.

    The dominance of capitalist realism in social work fosters what Mark Fisher (2009) might describe as a “bland, surrender to the blender” approach, where systemic critique is abandoned in favor of homogenised, surface-level solutions. This occurs when the complexities of social issues are reduced to standardised practices and performance metrics that prioritise efficiency over meaningful intervention.

    Social workers, constrained by apparent neoliberal demands for quick results and measurable outcomes, are forced to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approaches, blending diverse client needs into a uniform framework that often fails to address deeper systemic problems.

    The result is arguably a diluted form of social work that prioritises bureaucratic compliance over creativity, innovation, and individualised care, ultimately perpetuating the very inequities it seeks to resolve. By surrendering to these pressures, social work risks becoming a passive enabler of neoliberal ideology, rather than a transformative force for social justice.

    Neoliberalism in Social Work Practice

    Under neoliberal capitalism, social work can be seen as increasingly shifting from addressing systemic inequities to focusing on individual responsibility. Fisher (2009) argues that capitalist realism privatises social issues, framing problems such as poverty, homelessness, and mental health struggles as personal failures rather than symptoms of structural inequality. For justice social workers, this could translate into interventions that prioritise measurable outcomes, supervised work, support compliance, or educational obtainment over holistic, person-centered care.

    Social work as an institution, once envisioned as a safety net, now could be argued as operating under a market driven logics. Budget cuts, privatisation, and an emphasis on cost-efficiency often reduce clients to statistics, while social workers are burdened with excessive caseloads and bureaucratic constraints (Harris, 2014). This not only undermines the quality of care but also perpetuates burnout and disillusionment among practitioners (Morley & Macfarlane, 2021).

    A direct practice example of capitalism influencing social work in Scotland could be seen in the outsourcing and privatisation of services. For instance, many essential social care services, such as foster care, residential placements, or mental health support, are delivered by private companies. While these services are vital, they are often governed by profit-driven models rather than purely needs-led approaches.

    In practice, this might manifest as:

    Inequitable Access to Services: Social workers may find that private providers prioritise placements or services for individuals with higher levels of funding, such as those supported by specific government grants, leaving others with unmet needs.

    Budget-Driven Decision-Making: Social workers might face pressure to make decisions based on financial constraints, such as opting for cheaper, shorter-term interventions even when they are not in the client’s best interests.

    Increased Caseloads and Burnout: With funding often tied to “efficiency savings,” organisations may reduce staffing levels while maintaining or increasing workloads, leaving social workers overstretched and diminishing the quality of care they can provide.

    This intersection of capitalism and social work as Fischer may argue, creates ethical dilemmas, as social workers are often forced to navigate tensions between financial priorities and their duty to advocate for the rights and wellbeing of those they support.

    Mental Health in a Capitalist World

    Fisher’s (2009) insights into the link between capitalist realism and mental health resonate deeply in social work practice. The rise of depression, anxiety, and stress in the population is not coincidental but could be tied to the alienation and precarity associated with neoliberal life. Social workers frequently encounter individuals who are unemployed, overworked, or socially isolated which could be seen as symptoms of a society driven by competition and productivity. However, as Fisher critiques, mental health is often individualised and medicalised rather than understood as a systemic issue.

    For example, a client struggling with anxiety due to unstable housing is more likely to be prescribed medication than to receive structural support, such as access to affordable housing or employment opportunities (Peck, 2010). This may reflect Fisher’s capitalist realist mindset: treating the symptom while ignoring the root cause.

    The Bureaucratisation of Care

    Social work in this lens has become increasingly bureaucratised under the pressures of capitalist realism. Metrics and performance indicators dominate the field, reducing care to checklists and compliance targets. Fisher (2009) critiques this managerial logic, arguing that it prioritises paperwork over meaningful interactions. For social workers, this results in a tension between fulfilling institutional demands and providing authentic, compassionate support to clients.

    Consider the example of child welfare: social workers may spend more time completing assessments and reports than engaging with the families they are tasked to help (Garrett, 2010). While these systems are intended to ensure accountability, they often dehumanise both clients and practitioners, reinforcing feelings of powerlessness.

    Challenging Capitalist Realism in Social Work

    Reimagining Social Work as Collective Action

    Fisher (2009) emphasises the importance of collective imagination in resisting capitalist realism. Social workers, as frontline advocates for vulnerable populations, are then uniquely positioned to challenge the status quo. This begins by reframing their role: rather than simply navigating existing systems, social workers can act as agents of systemic change.

    Community organising, advocacy for policy reform, and collaboration with grassroots movements can help social workers push back against neoliberal constraints. For example, social workers then involving themselves in housing justice campaigns, would anot only address individual clients’ needs but also challenge the broader structures that perpetuate homelessness (Morley, 2022).

    Centering Structural Analysis

    A key lesson from Capitalist Realism is the necessity of recognising systemic roots. Social workers can resist the pull of individualisation by consistently framing issues like poverty or mental health in their structural context. Learning programs and social work education can further emphasise anti-oppressive frameworks, critical theory, and systemic analysis, equipping practitioners to see beyond capitalist realist narratives (Harris, 2014).

    Advocating for Holistic Care Models

    Holistic, person-centered approaches to care offer an alternative to the fragmented logic of neoliberal social work. By prioritising relationships over metrics and addressing the interconnected nature of social issues, social workers can create spaces of resistance within their practice. This might include trauma-informed care, restorative justice approaches, or community-based mental health initiatives (Garrett, 2010).

    Conclusion

    Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism offers a powerful lens for understanding the challenges faced by social workers in a neoliberal era. The commodification of care, the bureaucratisation of services, and the individualisation of social issues are not insurmountable barriers but symptoms of an ideology that can be challenged. Social workers, guided by their commitment to justice and equity, have the potential to envision and enact alternatives to capitalist realism, redefining social work as a collective, transformative process.

    By acknowledging the systemic nature of the struggles they address and working in solidarity with broader movements for change, social workers can help create a world where alternatives to capitalism are not only imaginable but achievable.

    References

    Fisher, M. (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books.

    Garrett, P.M. (2010) ‘Examining the ‘conservative revolution’: Neoliberalism and social work education’, Social Work Education, 29(4), pp. 340–355.

    Harris, J. (2014) Social Work and Social Welfare in a Neoliberal World. London: Routledge.

    Morley, C. and Macfarlane, S. (2021) ‘Critical social work practice in the neoliberal context: Working resistance’, Australian Social Work, 74(2), pp. 182–194.

    Morley, C. (2022) Practicing Critical Reflection in Social Work. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

    Peck, J. (2010) Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.