The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Social Work: Evidence for Impact?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereafter CRPD) has provided a radical imperative for the reform of mental health and capacity legislation around the world. The interpretation of the CRPD has been controversial, ranging from the complete abolition of detention, forcible treatment, and substitute decision-making to accepting that elements of these measures need to be retained based on non-discriminatory criteria, additional safeguards, and a comprehensive shift towards supported decision-making. While the potential effects of the CRPD on mental health social work and social work generally are considerable given their shared commitment towards social justice, to date there has been no review of research evidence exploring their relationship. In addressing this knowledge gap, this study held a preliminary discussion with practitioners and academics at the European Association of Social Work Mental Health Special Interest Group in Amsterdam 2022, followed by a scoping literature review on the question: What impact, if any, has the CRPD had on social work practice? The review produced four main findings: impact on legislation; positive impact on practice; limited impact on practice; and impact on social work education and research. In sum, while there were some positive indications of social work and mental health social work practice being influenced by the CRPD, these were scant. Barriers to change included tendencies among some social workers to practise substitute decision-making, in part related to resourcing and policy contexts, and understandings of disability aligned to individualised/medical rather than social perspectives. The results indicate that legal reform on its own is insufficient to impact social work practice, and that realising the potential of the CRPD will necessitate good quality training, as well as improving social workers' knowledge of the human rights of people with mental impairment.

An Exploratory Survey of Mental Health Social Work in Europe.

This article reports on an exploratory study comparing mental health social work (MHSW) in Europe. There has been very limited previous research comparing approaches to MHSW in Europe and so the aim of the study was to develop a better understanding of the similarities and differences between and, where relevant, within countries (referred to as jurisdictions). An online survey was distributed mainly through existing European networks and social media to seek information on the role, nature, extent and context of MHSW in a range of European jurisdictions. Conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were 158 responses from 10 jurisdictions. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. From this analysis, four main themes were identified, relating to: role; law, policy and education; the distinctive contribution made by MHSW; and the key challenges for MHSW. The study demonstrates that MHSW, although it is described and provided in different ways and is confined by a range of factors, plays an important role in mental health services across jurisdictions. There are also interesting differences between contexts, especially in the balance of therapeutic, legal and specialist/generic approaches, some of which reflect the World Health Organisation's vision and objectives for mental health. Lastly, the study illustrates a need and provides a valuable basis for further comparative and collaborative work to define MHSW and enhance the contributions it makes.

"It's about how much we can do, and not how little we can get away with": Coronavirus-related legislative changes for social care in the United Kingdom.

The coronavirus pandemic, referred to here as Covid-19, has brought into sharp focus the increasing divergence of devolved legislation and its implementation in the United Kingdom. One such instance is the emergency health and social care legislation and guidance introduced by the United Kingdom Central Government and the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to this pandemic. We provide a summary, comparison and discussion of these proposed and actual changes with a particular focus on the impact on adult social care and safeguarding of the rights of citizens. To begin, a summary and comparison of the relevant changes, or potential changes, to mental health, mental capacity and adult social care law across the four jurisdictions is provided. Next, we critique the suggested and actual changes and in so doing consider the immediate and longer term implications for adult social care, including mental health and mental capacity, at the time of publication.several core themes emerged: concerns around process and scrutiny; concerns about possible changes to the workforce and last, the possible threat on the ability to safeguard human rights. It has been shown that, ordinarily, legislative provisions across the jurisdictions of the UK are different, save for Wales (which shares most of its mental health law provisions with England). Such divergence is also mirrored in the way in which the suggested emergency changes could be implemented. Aside from this, there is also a wider concern about a lack of parity of esteem between social care and health care, a concern which is common to all. What is interesting is that the introduction of CVA 2020 forced a comparison to be made between the four UK nations which also shines a spotlight on how citizens can anticipate receipt of services.