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.
Not So Social Work 
Leave a comment