A difficult balance

The final question invited an open answer: Question 17: “The Careers Service Performance Assessment Survey (DfEE, 1997a) reported that 'Some careers officers find it hard to balance client need and numerical targets'. How do you do it?”

As an open question, it gave the respondents time and space to revisit or elaborate on their previous answers. It is clear from the volume and detail of the responses, that this question afforded practitioners a valuable chance to have their say, but relatively

little of this data was new. Although a full transcript of all the answers is attached (Appendix 3) the findings presented here are limited to illumination of previous points raised or fresh insights.

 Reiteration of previous points

Not surprisingly, the tension experienced in satisfying competing demands of funding requirements and guidance practice were revisited. One respondent brought in the issue of extended support for clients: ‘More difficult to respond to needs of clients who require more long term interactions/guidance’ (X3), another gave a graphic illustration of the managerial response to a non-claimable action plan:‘If all points are not included payment isn’t made and I’m likely to get the plan of action

back from our ‘Quality team’ marked out of 10 with comments!’(X7). There was an eloquent plea:‘We must measure what we value but we must also value what cannot be measured’ (X64). Although lengthy, this quote merits attention, for the practitioner’s exposition of the professional dilemma:

‘I am always aware of requirements for a claimable plan of action and not all interviews would naturally fulfil these requirements, although they would be good guidance interviews. I have had little difficulty meeting targets in numerical terms. The biggest problem for me is producing POAs [Plans of Action] which meet the very strict guidelines for claimable action plans from the Government Office. Because of targets I feel that if I spend 45-50 minutes with a client I need to be able to claim this work. It can be very difficult to establish rationale for example with clients where experiences are quite limited. On many occasions I would be much happier to make it an interview and not claim until a subsequent meeting when it is often easier to establish clear goals and very definite action.’ (X58)

The underlying issue, clearly explained here, is that policy does not understand practice.

Turning to the audit procedures, there were some interesting insights into how practitioners managed the system: ‘By trying to meet the client’s need and then fiddling the figures afterwards e.g. getting a signature and doing Action Plans

(claimable) afterwards. Tut, tut.’ (X13) and: ‘Creative accounting!’ (X63). There was also evidence of the system not being managed ‘…targets often balance out, more by luck than judgement’(X19) and of the management system creating its own inefficiency:‘…inordinate amount of time spent on planning and frequently revising time management to meet targets’(X37).

Whilst the importance of schools’ co-operation in the achievement of targets had already been mentioned, a number of respondents were emphatic that targets can only be achieved with schools’ help; ‘there is strong pressure to meet these targets but careers advisers’ ability to do so depends on the goodwill, co-operation and

efficiency of third parties, i.e. schools, colleges and indeed young people themselves’

(X12); ‘…by [ensuring a] good relationship with educational establishments’ (X6) and: ‘By working hard - it is perfectly possible to achieve the targets set with co- operation of educational establishments and support of colleagues - no one can go

sick!’ (X7). In one case, the careers adviser’s agenda overrides the school’s:

‘Building good relations with staff in school - helps and influences negotiation to get

numbers you need rather than what school needs’(X32, emphasis added).

The issue of schools subordinating pupil need to careers adviser target fuels a hotly debated issue in Focus Group 2.

 Fresh insights; catch-up, values and new technology

Still in response to Question 17: “The Careers Service Performance Assessment Survey (DfEE, 1997a) reported that: 'Some careers officers find it hard to balance client need and numerical targets'. How do you do it?” some respondents brought fresh insight into their professional experience of contracted-out careers service delivery. Whilst reference had already been made to time pressures, the data for Question 17 include concrete examples of advisers working harder during work hours: ‘Trying to meet targets means cutting down the time which can be spent with individual clients. I therefore do not think that I do manage to meet all client needs

other than by devoting rest time (breaks, lunchtimes) to clients’ (X12); ‘Try and manage my time efficiently through keeping up to date with admin and I.T. inputting

during breaks and lunchtimes and after school’ (X20) and: ‘By working longer hours! i.e. giving the client the service they need/want etc and catching up

afterwards’ (X51). Catching up can mean spending longer in the workplace: ‘By working longer hours e.g. using the interview time for the client and word

processing the "perfect" plan of action later’(X47) and:‘Plan work as effectively as possible. Work late! ’ (X29). Or it can mean taking work home: ‘Try to be extremely flexible and acknowledging that I will have to catch up on work at a later

time’(X39) and:‘I am constantly playing "catch-up", regularly work at home during evenings and weekends’(X16). For some, it is a combination of all three:‘By never having a spare minute, missing lunches and working at home’(X53).

An important new theme was taking a moral stance, where practitioners squared up to company policy in defence of their practice: ‘If I need to spend my time at interview with yp [young person] say listening to details of some trauma I simply do

not produce an action plan - I have never worried about failing to make my targets

as if I do I feel I would be able to justify’(X60) and: ‘I put client needs first; if as a result I fail to hit targets, too bad!’(X11). A final defence of client-centred practice is to confront the prevailing management paradigm: ‘I do not meet numerical targets, nor I do I claim that I will be able to do so. I try to make it clear to

managers, when this is the case, that the numerical targets are destructive’(X35).

Whilst none of these professionals makes explicit reference to ethical principles, it is clear that they are operating to a value system in which their professional judgement compels them to take a stand against a managerial value system driven by contract compliance.

The final new insight was into information technology (IT). Previously, reference had been made to the use of laptop computers during interviews, but this respondent explained what computers meant for the professional rather than the client. Another lengthy quote which outlines the problem and offers a solution:

‘The targets themselves are not the problem and I think they help to stimulate activity and develop innovation. The problem lies with the collection and presentation of statistical information which is supported by an inadequate IT system. This results in having to use the computer at all times but because the software is unreliable, having to also produce manual statistics…I feel it would be better to…employ skilled clerical help for computer input.’ (X51)

The problems of IT in this company were discussed at length in the focus groups.

As a final comment about the pressure of targets, this respondent offers thoughtful contextualisation:

‘ I am still very motivated by my clients. I am depressed that it has not, apparently, been possible so far to suggest to Government agencies that a more enlightened approach to control of careers guidance activities is necessary and can work. I feel, perhaps unjustifiably, there has been a failure/betrayal by our own professional bodies.’ (X28)

Interestingly, this is the only reference in all of the data to the professional bodies. As nobody else mentions the professional bodies either by name or in the abstract, are the professional bodies acting in privatisation as the dog that didn’t bark? This absence could prove a significant finding, because it raises the question of professional identity and representation. If careers guidance professionals feel their practice is under attack from policy which doesn’t understand what they are trying to do, where does the responsibility for articulating a defence of their profession fall?