House of Commons - Health

Select Committee on Health Second Report

CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

TRAINING FOR RESIDENTIAL WORK

175. We heard much evidence about the difficulty of maintaining sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff in residential homes. The difficulty is as much about retention as it is recruitment. There is a strong tendency for residential workers who increase their level of training to move on to field social work which pays more and carries more status. Mr Roger Smith of The Children's Society summed up the problem: "work in children's homes is hard, difficult, under-rewarded—it means that if people do get trained they are likely to look for the nearest exit, unless they have a vocation for it."[200]

176. Mr Keith Bilton of BASW described residential care as neglected and a "Cinderella service".[201] Mr Richard Clough of the Social Care Association observed that the very scarcity of residential workers with a Diploma in Social Work meant that the rate of loss of such people was high: "they are regarded with awe, they are gold dust, and they are moved off elsewhere into management ... and not actually allowed to practise the skills that they have learned".[202] And Mr Richard Evans, Director of Social Services at Birmingham, queried why people would accept the stresses and burdens of residential work in the first place:

"Why would people want to work evenings and weekends? Why would they want to work at the coal face, literally face to face sometimes with some of the most difficult children, when they earned far less and were treated in status terms far worse by the departments they worked for? I did work in residential care and I did not understand why I did it on occasions."[203]

177. Professor David Berridge of the University of Luton commented on the way the traditional low status attaching to work in residential homes, as descendents of the Victorian workhouse, has been reinforced by the recent revelations of child abuse in some homes. He said that

"Many residential workers we met in our three-year study said they were ashamed to admit they were residential staff, particularly men, and if they admitted it to colleagues or friends they would automatically question their motives, which I think is a terrible pity. Residential care is one of the most difficult jobs any of us could imagine, yet we have not had the professional or public support for what these people are trying to do".[204]

178. There is scope for debate about what training is appropriate for workers in children's homes. The chief question at issue is whether training should be primarily practical, and limited in scope, focusing on the kind of 'parenting skills' which are widely disseminated in the community at large; or whether, in addition to this, residential workers should be encouraged or obliged to seek a full, academically based, professional qualification. At present there is no requirement that residential workers should possess formal training qualifications, and only about a quarter of them do so. This contrasts with the situation in field social work, where almost all workers are now formally qualified.

179. Practical "pre-professional" training can be linked to the system of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs). NVQs are nationally recognised vocational awards. They are available at five levels, ranging from NVQ1, which is of a similar level to GCSEs, to NVQ5, which is equivalent to a higher degree or professional qualification. NVQs are awarded on the basis of assessment of job competence in the workplace, rather than through a system of exams.

180. The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) regards the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) as the appropriate professional qualification for residential care staff. The DipSW is obtained on the basis of a two-year university-based course, drawn up jointly by the university and by local employers. The NVQ levels have been aligned to allow staff to progress up to, and attain, the DipSW qualification. The DipSW course does not include management training, and residential workers who wish to be trained in management skills must attend separate courses such as that provided by the Management Charter Initiative.[205]

181. In his 1991 report, Children in the Public Care, Sir William Utting pointed out that 70% of all residential care staff were completely unqualified. He recommended that all heads of children's homes, and a proportion of care staff, possibly amounting to one third in all, should hold the DipSW or a relevant professional equivalent, and that the remainder of staff should possess the appropriate level of the NVQ.[206] In response to this recommendation, the Government set up a Residential Child Care Training Initiative (RCCI). This initiative led to the secondment of about 450 staff to DipSW courses containing programmes specially developed to deal with issues of relevance to residential workers.[207]

182. The RCCI has now been wound up. A review of its impact has been conducted by the Tavistock Institute. This suggests that a majority of heads of children's homes are now professionally qualified, but that it is too early to say whether the objective of 100% qualification has been achieved. It also found that only 13% of the qualifying students chose not to return to residential work. Sir William Utting in his 1997 report commented that "now that the initiative is coming to an end there is a danger that a haemorrhaging of qualified staff will reverse the gains that have been made".[208] Other witnesses expressed doubts about whether the RCCI would prove to have a lasting effect. BASW stated that it was "another temporary scheme whose achievements are already proving transient".[209]

183. We asked the DoH what their latest information is on the proportion of staff who are trained. They replied that, although such information is not routinely collected, a 1996 survey of the social services workforce had indicated that, overall, 32% of staff in residential establishments for children had a relevant qualification (2,848 individuals out of 8,949). Such qualifications were held by 70% of officers in charge and deputy officers, 31% of other supervisory staff and 32% of child care staff. The survey also showed that 12.6% of staff (1,130 individuals) were studying for a relevant qualification.[210] As part of the follow-up to the RCCI, the DoH has set aside £2 million in 1998-99 to support local authorities in training residential staff to NVQ Level 3.[211]

184. Doubts have been cast on the value of simply increasing the number of staff who have been trained under the present system. Recent research suggests that there is no necessary correlation between increased professional training and improved outcomes. Professor Berridge commented that his study of children's homes found that the level of care offered was unrelated to staffing ratios or professional qualifications. He added that these factors were important for other reasons but did not automatically result in improved practice. Instead, "key factors associated with successful homes included having clear objectives and being able to stick to them".[212] Sir William Utting offered a reason as to why training does not necessarily improve staff performance: "the problem is that if you train people and then bring them back into an incompetent or abusive regime their training is wasted, they are made ineffective by the context within which they are operating".[213] He said that the area of training and qualification of staff was the one where he felt the greatest disappointment as to the outcome of recommendations he had made in his days as Chief Inspector of Social Services.[214]

185. Professor Dorothy Whitaker, formerly of the University of York, agreed on the basis of her research that "a professional qualification in itself does not guarantee good performance, since personal qualities are so important". Amongst those personal qualities she listed "a genuine liking for young people, a capacity for empathy with them [and] an ability to stay cool and collected under fraught circumstances". Successful residential workers also tended to have an understanding of the likely impact on a child of previous trauma, of adolescence as a life stage, and of the nature of group living; and they tended to possess listening skills and the ability to persuade young people to manage their behaviour without getting into adversarial relationships with them.[215]

186. Witnesses have argued that much social work training is inappropriate for the residential task. There is a body of opinion which is critical of the suitability of the DipSW as the primary professional qualification for those involved in social work with children. It has been suggested that a preferable alternative would be a qualification such as that available in most other European countries, where a three-year course secures entrance to a childcare profession, whose practitioners have titles such as "social pedagogues" or "educateurs specialises". European qualifications tend to emphasise direct work with children and the development of the whole child, rather than just child-related problems.[216]

187. Several witnesses called for changes to the current content and structure of training. The ACC/AMA, in their joint memorandum, commented that a coherent training strategy involving NVQ and social work qualifications needs to be developed. They added that where a student entering the DipSW course knows that his or her future will be spent in child care, the training modules should be designed to support entry into such work. ACC/AMA supported "the principle of a three-year social work qualification with the third year spent in employment, properly supervised and with links to an academic course", and argued that a post-qualification course of advanced training in child care, accredited by CCETSW, should be available.[217] Professor Mike Stein of the University of York supported the idea of a three-year diploma course, which would allow for a specialist year dealing with specific issues such as child care or mental health.[218] Mrs Moira Gibb, Director of Social Services at Kensington and Chelsea, also called for the introduction of three-year courses with specialist training in the skills required for residential work.[219] She added—in response to the criticism that young people had made to us that their social workers were remote and uncommunicative—that communicating with children and young people should be a core competence in this field, with training which focused on this.[220]

188. The Warner report in 1992 called for a separate qualification for residential staff, equivalent to the DipSW but "focused more on the group care of children and young people".[221] Sir William Utting, however, argued in his 1997 report that it is doubtful "whether the sector [is] of sufficient critical mass to be able to support a dedicated qualifying framework".[222]

189. Mr Richard Clough of the Social Care Association called for more on-the-job training, arguing that "the service can no longer afford to release people out of work for long periods of time". He wished to see a mix of options, with both full-time training courses and NVQ-related courses on the job being available.[223] Mr Keith Bilton of BASW said it was important that the latter type of courses "do not simply confirm people in the practices of what happens to be going on where they are working now"; this danger could be averted by use of open learning materials and by bringing in tutors from outside to supplement training offered by the home's own managers.[224] Professor Whitaker said that on-the-job opportunities were needed "for learning the specialised things that residential workers need, [such as] what do you do when a 15-year-old starts trashing his room or attacking someone else".[225]

190. Ms Hedy Cleaver of the University of Leicester said that residential workers needed greater training in child development. She also called for a proper career structure within the residential system, to be integrated with the career structures in the social work profession generally, in order to reduce the rate of loss of qualified residential workers.[226] Birmingham City Council told us that staff within their children's homes now have individual Professional Development Plans, "designed to ensure that appropriate training and development is identified" for them.[227]

191. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the DoH, Mr Boateng, said that he believed there should be more specific training for residential workers. It was not just a question of training the heads of homes but of training "the people who actually do the hands-on stuff which ... can be very challenging, can be difficult and dirty work". He also said there was a case for a system of awards to mark society's recognition of the work done by residential carers, and to discourage the notion that "residential care is a dead end, once you are in it you are not going to get anywhere else in social work".[228]

192. It is clear from the evidence we have received that fundamental problems persist with the training and career structure of residential social workers. During the last 10 years considerable efforts have been made to train an adequate work force of residential workers. By and large these have proved unsuccessful. Once people are trained they tend to leave residential work in favour of field social work, which offers higher pay, more attractive working conditions and greater public esteem. Far from receiving public recognition for the difficult work they do, residential workers increasingly face being stigmatised as a result of revelations of abuse in a small number of homes.

193. As long as these problems remain unaddressed, residential care will continue to be a "Cinderella service". We are struck by Sir William Utting's comment that the field of training and qualifications of staff was the one where he felt the greatest disappointment in looking back on progress made during and since his time as Chief Inspector.

194. We believe that there is scope for reconsideration of the task of residential social workers, as well as for a reform of the training opportunities open to them. Within children's homes, the skills of those who have been trained in social work are often wasted because they become over-involved in routine tasks. Traditionally, field workers retain management of a child's care plan when that child enters residential care, such management being considered inappropriate for residential workers. The ensuing two-tier system of social work contributes directly to the assumption that residential work is of secondary status and for people of lesser abilities. We believe that there should be a rebalancing of responsibilities. This should include a clearer definition of the roles and tasks of qualified residential social workers, and flexible allocation of roles and tasks between them and field workers in each case at the placement planning stage. One of our witnesses, Mr John Findlay of UNISON, commented that "one of the greatest problems in residential care is that it has been cut off from other areas of social care".[229] We believe that residential care needs to be reintegrated with those other areas.

195. It would be over-ambitious and unnecessary to train all residential social workers to the level of Diploma in Social Work. We consider that Sir William Utting's recommendations in his 1991 report are sound, that all heads of homes and about a third of other staff should obtain this qualification, whilst other staff should follow a vocational training and qualification route. This should achieve a workable skill mix. We support the concept of a continuum of training, ranging from basic practical training up to full professional qualification and, where appropriate, post-qualification training. The NVQ structure is particularly suited to this concept. We also support the proposal that a three-year DipSW course should be introduced, to allow for one year of specialised training relating to the practical skills required in residential care. We welcome the recent announcement of £2 million extra funding for residential staff training, but there needs to be continuing provision of funding to allow for the 1991 recommendations to be implemented. This will entail the revival of the Residential Child Care Training Initiative, or something similar to it, on a permanent basis. Reform of training for residential social workers should be regarded as a priority by the new General Social Care Council, which is expected shortly to be established as a replacement for the CCETSW.

196. The recommendations in the previous two paragraphs are interlocking. To increase training opportunities, without making a career in residential care a more attractive option within the social work profession, would be likely simply to reinforce the vicious circle whereby talented residential workers acquire qualifications and use them to move on to other forms of social work. A holistic approach to these problems is needed. We urge the Government to report back to us with proposals for a reconstruction of the tasks of residential and field social workers along the lines we have set out in paragraph 194 above, and for a fully funded expansion of training opportunities within that context.

200 Q122. Back

201 Q257. Back

202 Q271. Back

203 Q640. Back

204 Q461. Back

205 See ACC/AMA, Children and Care Training: Quality in Residential Child Care Training, p 18; Children in the Public Care, para 5.14. Back

206 Children in the Public Care, paras 5.10, 5.12-17. Back

207 People Like Us, para 12.5. Back

208 People Like Us, paras 12.16-17. Back

209 Ev p 95. Back

210 Ev pp 404,406. Back

211 Ev p 404. Back