The panel
will receive an introduction to matters pertaining to the recruitment and
retention of Assessment and Care Management staff (Social Workers and Social
Care Workers) within Adult Social Care.
Item for
discussion.
Minutes:
The Chair
explained that this was an additional topic that had been placed into the
panel’s work programme for this year, which was agreed in July 2021. In the interim period, issues around the recruitment
and retention of staff within Adult Social Care had emerged, particularly in
relation to ‘fieldwork teams’, i.e. Social Workers and Social Care
Workers.
In addition to
matters arising from COVID-19 and developments in the current workforce, details
in respect of the Health and Care Bill 2021 had been gradually emerging. Further information regarding the bill was
currently awaited, but what had become clear from those details released to
date was that there would be significant implications for local
authorities. With this in mind, the
panel felt it important but this matter be looked into with some urgency.
An informal
briefing note / background paper had been circulated to Members detailing for
their information. The Director of Adult
Social Care and Health Integration was in attendance to provide further
information to Members. Through
discussion and response to questions from panel members, the panel was
appraised of the issues surrounding the topic.
The panel heard
that, for a number of years, Adult Social Care had been particularly fortunate
in that its workforce had been established and remained particularly
stable. However, with a substantial
number either at retirement or approaching retirement age, with some taking
early retirement owing to the profession becoming more challenging, there had
been increased turnover in recent years.
It was explained
to Members that when a newly qualified social worker completed their degree
programme, which was now mandatory for the profession, this needed to be
followed by an Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE), which aimed to
develop their knowledge, skills and professional confidence. In terms of recruitment, competition for
qualified social workers was incredibly strong.
It was indicated that during recent recruitment attempts, there had been
either very few or no applicants for qualified social worker positions; it had
been easier to recruit ASYE social workers and this had been supported, but
increased time and investment from supervisors was required during that
probationary year. It had become clear
during recent months that recruitment to these ASYE positions had also become
increasingly difficult, which had therefore made this topic a critical issue
for the service.
A Member made
reference to neighbouring and other regional local authorities and queried
salary differences for qualified social workers. In response, the panel heard that it was
difficult to ascertain exact details pertaining to remuneration because local
authorities set their own salary rates, which owing to the competitiveness of
recruitment were not easily obtainable.
However, it was indicated that one neighbouring local authority did
commence their social workers on a salary that was approximately £3,000 higher
than Middlesbrough. It was noted that,
over time, the salary scales did even out, but it commented that this was an
issue because recent graduates may find this particularly appealing.
Members heard
that exploratory work was currently taking place with Human Resources to
determine potential ways forward to address this issue. It was felt that there was no single, direct
response to it. It was noted that staff
salary grades were evaluated against a centralised scheme, which meant that to
arbitrarily commence a position higher up the scale was particularly
complex. It would be unrealistic to
raise all salaries within Adult Social Care to ease the recruitment and
retention issues.
In relation to
COVID-19, it was indicated that the issues surrounding the recruitment and
retention of social workers and social care workers were becoming more apparent
prior to the pandemic, but suddenly became much more acute during the
period. Reference was made to staff
turnover within Children’s Social Care and how, historically, this had always
been reasonably high. This had not been
the case in Adult Social Care, and when taking this into account with staff
leaving, together with a national recruitment issue around qualified social
workers that was more and more acute in the North East than it was nationally.
Details regarding
routes into social work were provided to Members. It was explained that a degree and
post-graduate registration, similar to that of other professions such as
nursing and occupational therapy, were now required to work as a social
worker. Previously, various diploma
based routes into the profession were offered.
It was indicated that, in some instances, some people may have been put
off by the fact that training was longer now and that a degree was required
and, as such, social work training was expensive. As funding was limited, it was explained that
the department had supported staff by providing flexibility around working
hours and creating job placement opportunities whilst they completed their
studies. Reference was made to a social
work degree apprenticeship that had recently been launched; there was currently
one individual pursuing this at the moment and it was hoped that this route would
be used more in future.
In response to an enquiry, it was explained to the panel that to
register as an ASYE social worker, trainee social workers were required to have
first completed their degree. Upon
reaching the end of the ASYE programme, trainees were able to apply for full
social work registration (therefore a total of four years was required to meet
all training requirements). It was
indicated that the Council did work with Teesside University in terms of
providing student placements, but it was important to gain balance with organisational
resource.
A short discussion ensued in relation to age, experience and training to
become a social worker. It was felt that
suitability to train in social work was very much dependent upon the individual
concerned. An ability to reflect, listen
and empathise was important; life experience was a positive addition, but not
always necessary as there had been many examples of younger individuals who may
not necessarily be seen to have as much life experience, but have shown great
wisdom and professionalism. It was felt
that everyone had something to bring to the profession.
A Member made reference to the number of social workers currently
employed and queried the status of agency staff. In response, it was explained that Adult
Social Care did not have a track record of employing agency social workers as
this had not been necessary in previous years.
It was explained that attempts to recruit agency social workers to help
meet acute pressures in hospital settings over the winter period had been unsuccessful,
as there had not been the same availability of experienced social workers
within the agency system for adults, as there had been for children’s. The panel heard that over the last 12 months,
as a consequence of COVID-19, a small managed team of agency workers had been
employed to assist with a backlog of some review cases, which had proven to be
both effective and efficient.
Discussions were currently taking place with a number of agencies as to
potentially repeating this to help alleviate some of the present issues. However, owing to the expense of recruiting
agency social workers in comparison to recruiting local authority staff, it was
intended that this practice would be minimised wherever possible.
In response to an enquiry regarding departmental structure, the panel
heard that now was the appropriate time to perhaps revisit some of it. Consideration was given to the terms
‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ in relation to social workers; it was highlighted
that the term ‘unqualified’ was unfair because there were individuals who had
acquired other qualifications and significant experience and although not
qualified in social work, had supported the department for years. In terms of potential ways of working in the
future, it was possible that Adult Social Care could be operated with a smaller
number of qualified social workers, with a higher ratio of clients to qualified
social workers. However, this could not
mean an increase in caseloads as that would be unsafe. It was possible that an increase in the
number of social care workers could be included within the structure, with
teams made up of a couple of (supervising) social workers and the rest social
care workers. Social care workers were
perhaps easier to recruit and came from a broader range of backgrounds. If social workers were placed in a
supervisory role, consideration would need to be given towards supporting their
training and development, as well as towards remuneration and linking job grades
to offer clear career progression and make the Council more attractive to
potential recruits. In relation to a
recruitment retention payment, it was explained to Members that if this were to
be introduced for Adult Social Care, this would potentially be a cost pressure
for the local authority. Therefore, it
was important that structures be looked at accordingly to ensure best
value. It was felt that remuneration was
only one element of recruitment and retention – career development and
opportunities for staff were also key.
A Member commented that the Council’s social care and social work teams
carried out incredible work under very difficult circumstances, and felt that
establishment of a clear career structure within any remodelled service would
encourage individuals to apply for positions.
A Member made reference to COVID-19 and queried how this and other
similar pressures (e.g. other illnesses) had impacted on the workforce, and how
these could potentially dilute interest for future recruits.
In response, it was indicated to the panel that the period of the
pandemic and the various lockdowns had been difficult for staff. People were tired, and had been required to
not only work in new and flexible ways with constantly changing guidance, but
also to work from home. Social workers
by nature learnt and/or taught by osmosis and de-stressed by sitting amongst
colleagues. As such, the requirement to
work from home had prevented this, which in some cases had affected confidence
around decision-making. Although recent changes to contracts had provided for
blended working, this did not always prove effective for social workers. The pandemic had been an acutely difficult
period for social workers, enhanced further by staff being required to perform
their duties at risk to their own health.
It was highlighted that, without exception, staff had been
magnificent.
Members heard that, in light of the loss of staff over the last few
years and a consequential reduction in complement, additional pressure had been
transferred to those remaining team members.
Current vacancies within teams exacerbated the pressure on the staff who
were already tired, which drove the acuity of the situation.
It was explained that, in terms of winter-based and other illnesses,
there were a number of things that made social work a more complicated
profession than it might have been in previous years. For example: the accumulation of
recommendations from safeguarding adults reviews and others meant that work was
being undertaken with a larger cohort of higher risk individuals at the moment
and complex systems were in place around individuals to bring multiple agencies
together to address their case, to maximise knowledge and opportunities to work
with people or to intervene. However,
the process of working with a high number of very chaotic individuals was
stressful for the staff involved. We
have seen a lot of that in Middlesbrough because of some of the challenges
faced in the area. Social work is not
only more legally challenging, but there was a shortage of staff and many of
the authority’s social workers were working with more chaotic service users
more of the time, which did bring increased stress. The profession is becoming very challenging
and there was no perfect answer to the question about how the authority could
make it an attractive proposition. It
was felt that people would continue to enter social work and would continue to
be driven by the same things; it was a very demanding profession now and likely
that there was a gap between remuneration and the reality of it, but that was a
national issue and not one confined solely to Middlesbrough.
A Member made reference to Occupational Therapists and queried whether
their assistance had been sought to support social work teams. In response, the panel heard that there was
an occupational therapy team within Middlesbrough that comprised occupational
therapists and occupational therapy assistants.
From a salary perspective, occupational therapy assistants were paid
broadly the same as social care workers, although the roles did differ. On the other hand, there was a large overlap
in the skill set of occupational therapists and social workers; the style of
working complemented one another especially well. Consideration was currently being given as to
whether occupational therapists could potentially fulfil some of the roles that
social workers did, in order to help alleviate some of the recruitment
pressures.
The panel wished to
congratulate the Adult Social Care teams for all of their hard work and
accomplishments over the course of the pandemic.
The Director explained that one of the additional pressures related to
the position of other partner agencies that the authority worked with. Reference was made to staffing and
recruitment pressures currently being experienced by Cleveland Police and the
NHS, and some organisations that had a non-statutory role had greater
flexibility around stopping certain lines of activity than those with statutory
duties. Further exploration around these
issues would be undertaken with the organisations concerned to ensure that
services were as coordinated as possible and resources were being utilised to
their maximum.
With regards to next steps for the investigation, given the current issues
being experienced, the panel was keen to progress with some pace. In terms of potential recommendations, a
Member proposed that the department deploy a recruitment and retention payment
(‘golden hello’) if they held qualifying experience and would remain with the
local authority for a specified period of time.
This was supported by other panel members on the basis that it would be
introduced in line with the Council’s existing policies and that it aligned
with the current structure and other similar roles within the authority.
A Member made reference to a previous scrutiny investigation undertaken
several years previously that focused on the role of Adult Mental Health
Practitioners (AMHPs). Such matters as
responsibilities and remuneration of AMHPs had been considered during that
review. It was commented that if the
introduction of a recruitment and retention payment assisted with the issues
currently being experienced then the panel should recommend this, provided that
the Council’s existing rules and regulations were not transgressed.
The Director indicated that a business case was currently being prepared
to implement a recruitment and retention policy within Adult Social Care for
the ‘field work’ team, which would align with existing Council policies. An outline of the process was provided to the
panel, including details regarding the requirements for recruitment and
retention payments to be considered (i.e. where there was a shortage category
and recruitment attempts had been unsuccessful), their determination based on
market rate, their longevity, and how payments would be controlled in line with
existing corporate policies.
A Member commented that, within the draft report, they would wish to see
the range of reasons as to why individuals wanted to remain and why they wanted
to leave both the Council and the profession.
A Member made reference to the recruitment and retention payments within
Children’s Services and the requirement for recipients to remain with the
authority for a minimum three year term.
In response, it was indicated that the same term, practice and process
would apply for Adult Social Care, if progressed.
In terms of next steps and in response to the panel’s desire to complete
this review with some pace, it was agreed that the Democratic Services Officer
would draft a final report for review by the panel. This would be discussed at an informal
meeting, before formal consideration in December 2021.
The Chair thanked the Director of Adult Social Care and Health
Integration for his contributions to the meeting.
AGREED that: