Here I identify the most significant factors, arising from the data set as a whole, which were likely to indicate that agencies, and individual social workers, were attempting to treat lesbian and gay applications ‘on merit’. I looked for the key factors that seemed to influence the social workers to assess lesbians and gay men more positively, and I did this by constructing comparative tables for each authority. The table for the South River Council is given below as an example:
Key Themes: South River Council
Policy
Experience
of... Team Research Training Values
Lesbian or gay? SR1 On merit Equal Opps None Not raised Not aware CQSW and PQ None Liberal Double burden No SR2 On merit etc Gay couple and lesbian Raised rarely in adoption Not raised CQSW some, PQ none Anti-opp Positive Black issues No, but
knows gay people
SR3 On merit etc She has approved cases Tends to be avoided Own exper- ience PQ - 2 day course Anti-opp but child care focus Lesbian mother SR4 On merit etc None but research on this Raised rarely and negative Read and quotes from research CQSW yes; PQ - 2 day course Anti-opp Positive
No, but knows gay people
SR5 On merit
etc None Some discu-ssion in adoption
Not raised PQ - 2 day
course Liberal but child's needs
No
SR6 On merit etc
None Some Not raised Not CQSW, PQ - 2 day Positive but not about male carers No SR7 On merit etc Current lesbian couple asst.
Some Hasn't seen any resea- rch PQ - 2 day course Positive Feminist Worried about male carers
No, but knows gay people
Figure 4.5
In analysing the data, I looked for key themes which related to the ‘stance’ taken by any team and individuals, and might best be described as the practice context within which the social workers were conducting their assessments. Here, then, I looked for the policy position taken by the authority, whether the social worker had experiences of assessing lesbians or gay men, whether the team raised and discussed this issue (or 'took a position'), and whether the social workers knew of existing research in this area. In addition, I also looked for individual
to issues of anti-oppressive practice. Here I looked for any training on lesbian and gay issues undertaken by the social workers during, or post-qualifying, values statements made by them about lesbian or gay carers, and whether they were themselves lesbian or gay, or lesbian and gay-'friendly'.
Key Themes from the data: Practice Issues
• policy - the public stance taken by the authority affected both the likelihood
that lesbians and gay men would apply to that agency in the first place, and also whether the social workers to adhered to the concept of ‘fair’
assessments for all. None of the agencies had a policy on lesbians and gay men as carers, but all had equal opportunities statements to which the social workers referred. The social workers told me that equal opportunities
statements which explicitly mentioned sexuality (or ‘sexual orientation’) were important in attracting enquiries and applications from lesbians and gay men. All of the twenty-eight interviewees in the cohort told me that their agency adopted an ‘on merit’ approach to lesbian and gay applicants, despite my arguments that individuals used different approaches in carrying out
assessments. Even where social workers did not approve of lesbian and gay carers, they were reminded by equal opportunities statements that they ought to treat them ‘fairly’.
• experience of such applications - whether a fostering or adoption team, and
indeed an individual social worker, had previous experience of handling
found great variation within and across agencies. In South River Council, four out of seven respondents had no experience of assessing lesbians or gay men, although one of these four had been researching this issue herself. Of the remaining three, two had previously assessed lesbians and gay men but in former jobs, and one was currently assessing a lesbian couple for respite foster care when I visited. In North River Council, four of the eleven
respondents had some past experiences of assessing lesbian and gay carers. In the North Eastern Council, three out of ten workers had practice experience of assessing lesbian or gay applicants. I did find, however, that others had experiences of acting as a support or link worker to approved lesbian or gay carers. Those social workers with previous experience of working with lesbian and gay carers were far more conversant with the issues involved in carrying out such assessments and were far clearer on the kinds of questions they felt needed to be addressed with such applicants. They also had more confidence in their ability to take such assessment reports to a panel. A panel which had never considered an application by lesbians or gay men was seen by all the social workers to be a major stumbling block to approval, and this particularly applied to the adoption panels in all three authorities.
• team ‘culture’ - the stance adopted by particular teams, including whether
lesbian and gay fostering and adoption was actively discussed and debated, was also significant. I found that adoption teams were far less likely to have approved lesbians or gay men, far more likely to have incorporated more ‘discriminatory’ arguments about lesbian or gay applicants, and adoption
workers were far less likely to agree to speak with me for the purposes of my research. This does not mean that all adoption social workers were
‘discriminatory’, and some actively opposed what they saw as prejudice within their teams. Fostering teams were generally more likely to have debated and discussed lesbians and gay men as potential carers, but often only where specific applications had been made. In South River Council, six of the seven workers told me that lesbian and gay carers were rarely discussed amongst team members and one worker said it had never been discussed in her experience. In North River Council, there had been some discussion of the issues in the fostering teams especially as these had two gay male couples and a lesbian single carer on their books. The adoption team rarely discussed these issues and one worker felt any discussions had been particularly
homophobic. In the North Eastern Council, one fostering team regularly discussed the issues, and this was at least largely due to the presence of lesbian social workers on the team. There had also been a ‘lesbian and gay issues working party’ which had actively raised the topic for debate amongst all teams. All the teams had discussed the topic at some point and so the social workers were far more conversant with current debates about areas for assessment.
• the relevance of research - some of the social workers were aware of key
areas of research knowledge which they used to counter arguments made against the suitability of lesbians and gay men to care for children. These were especially to do with existing knowledge concerning the ‘effects’ of lesbian or
gay parents upon children and concerning the gender and sexuality of known child abusers. In South River Council, one of the social workers had read research on the psychosocial development of children of lesbians and gay men, and used this to counter perceived risks to such children. Another worker told me that she was not aware of research, but used her own experiences as a lesbian mother to help construct her arguments. In North River Council, research was only mentioned by three workers, two of whom referred to figures regarding sexual abuse in order to argue that children were most at risk from known heterosexual men. Another worker had detailed knowledge of the Tasker & Golombok (1997) studies (discussed in chapter two) and used these to counter perceived risks to children. In the North Eastern Council, six of the ten workers mentioned figures regarding sexual abuse but none had knowledge of research on the children of lesbians and gay men. I found, most significantly, that the social workers were unlikely to be aware of existing research studies concerning the children of lesbians and gay men (e.g., Patterson 1992).
Key Themes from the data: Understandings of ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’
• training - I asked the social workers whether they had experienced any pre-
or post-qualification training which looked at lesbian and gay issues as a whole, or which was directly concerned with lesbians and gay men as carers. In South River Council, the entire unit had recently undergone some training about lesbian and gay issues in fostering and adoption by a voluntary training
agency, a rare event indeed. This, however, had been at the request of one of the social workers who had been researching this issue herself and had become increasingly concerned by what she perceived to be homophobic ideas suggested by some of her colleagues. Two of the seven workers told me that their social work qualification courses had covered some aspects of
lesbian and gay issues, and five had attended the recent post-qualifying training event. Otherwise there had been no training on this issue for workers. In North River Council, one social worker out of eleven remembered covering lesbian and gay issues in his social work qualifying course, and one other had received some training post-qualification. None of the other social workers had done any training covering lesbian and gay issues. When I spoke to the
Equalities Officer for North River Council, she told me that she was keen to develop such training programmes, but, when I put this to the Children’s Care Services Manager, she told me that she did not consider this to be a priority for fostering and adoption workers. She felt that training on issues of child protection was far more pressing, but she did feel that some general equalities issues training might be appropriate for the fostering and adoption panels. In the North Eastern Council, none of the ten social workers had covered lesbian and gay issues as a part of their qualifying courses, and none had received any such training post-qualification.
• ‘values’ / ‘making sense’ of ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ - I have interpreted a whole
range of ‘values’-positions amongst the social workers concerning how they made sense of the categories ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’ in relation to the potential to
care for children. In South River Council, two of the seven workers took ostensibly liberal ‘on merit’ positions, but one of them used the argument that lesbian or gay carers posed a ‘double burden’ for children (see section three), and another felt that I was emphasizing adults’ over children’s needs in
discussing this issue. Three other workers adopted positive and anti- oppressive stances, one of whom drew direct parallels with her own
experiences as a black woman and another of whom emphasized the need for child care skills amongst potential carers. The two final workers adopted
positive approaches to lesbians and gay men but both had reservations about men, of whatever sexuality, as carers (see chapter five). In North River
Council, two of the eleven workers adopted liberal equality models, whilst five adopted positive, anti-oppressive stances. Of these five, two drew direct parallels with black carers again based upon their own experiences as black women, one of these positioning herself as the only ‘radical’ member of an adoption team which she considered to be homophobic. A further two workers took up positive equality stances which tended to emphasize child care skills as the main focus. The final two adopted less positive positions, one having concerns about the poor ‘role models’ provided by lesbians and gay men (see section three), and the other focusing on children’s needs and being
suspicious that lesbians and gay men had an adult’s and gay rights agenda. In the North Eastern Council, half of the ten workers adopted positive, anti-
oppressive approaches, three of whom based this upon their own experiences as lesbians and one of whom drew upon her experiences as a black (Asian)
woman. The three male workers adopted ‘on merit’ equality models which were also pro-feminist in their analyses. The final two workers took up equality models which emphasized the need to look for child care skills as well as understanding sexuality issues.
• being lesbian or gay - finally, I found that workers being lesbian (I did not
manage to speak to any openly gay male workers), or having experiences of working or living alongside lesbians and gay men as colleagues and friends, did make a difference to how they constructed ideas of what a ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay man’ was like and, crucially, whether these were seen as being compatible with 'the good enough carer' of children. Those workers who were
heterosexual and had no personal experience of lesbians and gay men tended to construct the most discriminatory views of a lesbian or gay sexuality - as other, exotic, abnormal, threatening and so on. In South River Council, I spoke to one lesbian, and three women who had lesbian and gay friends or family. In North River Council, I spoke to one lesbian, and three workers told me they had lesbian and gay friends and family. In the North Eastern Council I spoke to three lesbians, and three other workers told me about lesbian and gay friends and family.
I suggest, therefore, that where a social worker and/or agency scored positively on most or all of these key themes, they were more likely to be conversant with the issues involved in assessing lesbians and gay men, and more likely to construct versions of ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’ compatible with the ‘good carer’.
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize here that these are not claims to ‘representative figures’ for the authorities in question, since I did not speak to all workers in the fostering and adoption units, and indeed some of them refused to speak with me.
Similarly, the key themes do not ‘predict’ a likelihood to approve lesbian or gay applicants. At the times that I visited the authorities, the South River Council had no lesbian carers on their books but did have one gay male couple doing
fostering. North River Council had one single lesbian foster carer and two gay male couples doing fostering, and the North Eastern Council had a single gay man doing fostering and a lesbian couple fostering. None had any openly lesbian or gay adopters.
These represent very small percentages of approved lesbian or gay foster
carers, and as I have noted there were no approved lesbian or gay adopters. As I have shown, even where an agency has a stated equal opportunities position and workers conversant with the assessment of lesbians and gay men, there are other workers who do not approve of such applications, as there are managers and members of panels. It is for these reasons that I chose instead to focus on how the social workers constructed versions of ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’ in and through their assessment practices.