Training of Children and Families Social Workers - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents

3  Initial training

Standards on degree courses

61.  We heard concern from several quarters that it is too easy to pass a social work degree course—both the academic elements and the demonstration of fitness to practice.[119] In the three cohorts to have completed degree courses since 2003-04, the failure rate was on average 2.62% and the withdrawal rate 15%.[120] Deputy Children's Commissioner Sue Berelowitz told us:

I was at a meeting recently, and somebody—she was an assistant director of a local authority up north—said that she was a moderator on a social work course, although she also didn't mention the name of the university concerned. She said that the pass rate for essays and exams was 30%, and that that shows, in terms of the calibre of the people going through the university. That is not the only story like that that I have heard.[121]

John Barraclough, a senior lecturer in social work, wrote that students are often given the benefit of the doubt about their suitability to practice or their performance in placements, because the level of proof required to terminate studies is much higher than for academic factors. This, he argued, is inappropriate when a degree course constitutes a professional qualification.[122] The NSPCC reported that "our practice teachers have on occasion advocated that a student should not be allowed to progress but have come under pressure to pass them. It has been suggested that the NSPCC expects too much."[123]

62.  Some suggest that penalties for student attrition in the higher education funding regime encourage universities to keep students on who are unfit for practice.[124] We have noted in evidence to our parallel inquiry into teacher training that the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA), which funds initial teacher training, is regarded as taking a less "punitive" approach to student attrition than the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds social work courses. The TDA made an explicit decision to remove any incentive universities might have for retaining students who were not likely to pass the course or become competent teachers.[125]

63.  The suggestion that social work degree providers feel under pressure not to fail students was strongly refuted by Professor Michael Preston-Shoot:

I think all social work educators are profoundly aware that the ultimate accountability is to the person who is using the service—the service user, the child, the parent, the mentally unwell person—and we are very clear that we have to send people out who are ready to begin practice."[126]

Students can be required to repeat practice placements if they are not deemed to have met the standards of assessment.[127] Liz Davies, a Senior Lecturer at London Metropolitan University, explained that incorporating the GSCC Code of Conduct into student misconduct regulations allows questions of suitability for professional practice to be taken into account in the academic requirements of the course.[128]

64.  Andrew Webb, Joint Deputy Chair of the Social Work Task Force, posed the question of whether graduating from the degree course should be decoupled from the practice qualification; he reasoned that "academic knowledge is easily acquired by a bright 21 year-old, but perhaps the practice skills are not."[129] Bridget Robb argued that exit routes out of the professional programme should be available for those who do not carry on to become social workers, either because they are deemed not to be competent or because they have made the choice that being a social worker is not for them.[130] It is possible at some universities for students not deemed fit for practice to obtain a default academic award, for example in social care.[131]

65.  It is unacceptable that social work courses, or any element of them, should have a reputation for being 'difficult to fail'. A review of the funding arrangements for social work degrees is needed to ensure that there are no incentives to keep unsuitable students on a course. Funding should be channelled through a sector-specific body to reflect the fact that the degrees are not just an academic course—they are a test of fitness for professional practice. Every university should make provision for students deemed not suitable for practice to put credits towards an alternative, non-qualifying award.

Quality assurance of degree courses

66.  The General Social Care Council approves higher education institutions (HEIs) to deliver the social work degree, and grants programme approval for individual courses. The GSCC employs a delegated model of regulation which gives responsibility for monitoring quality standards to universities themselves, and then examines the institution's own quality assurance systems. HEIs are required to report annually to the GSCC to demonstrate that they are continuing to meet the criteria against which they were approved, but only every five years is the course re-approved; this involves visits to the university by GSCC inspectors and social work service users.[132] In 2007-08, 75% of HEIs offering the degree were judged to be providing well-run courses and implementing their own quality assurance processes effectively.[133] Of the courses due for re-approval, 70% were set conditions to meet. Re-approval has subsequently been granted to all but one institution, which has suspended its undergraduate intake.[134]

67.  Rosie Varley, Chair of the General Social Care Council, described their approach to enforcing standards when asked if the GSCC had terminated any courses:

We have not got rid of, as you put it, any universities providing social work courses […] What we have done is to work very closely with the education providers, and on many occasions we have said to them, 'We have concerns that you are not meeting our expectations in this or that area. We want you to put in place remedial measures and we will come back and have a look at you again next year.' So we have worked with educational institutions to make sure that they satisfy our requirements. What we have done is to refuse to approve some new courses with new providers that have come with us, saying, 'At the moment you do not meet our requirements'.[135]

Nevertheless, the GSCC themselves listed a number of weaknesses which they have identified in the current system: delegation of quality assessment to HEIs; little information about the quality of a course being available to prospective students or local employers, meaning there are no 'market'-based incentives to improve; and a poorly-defined benchmark for quality in the form of high-level 'output statements'.[136] The GSCC has considered introducing several measures to address these weaknesses: targeted and sample visits (which may include observation of teaching and visits to placements), gathering feedback on courses from graduates and their employers one year on, and publishing annual reports from universities so that students are better informed.[137]

68.  In his Progress Report on the Protection of Children in England, Lord Laming stated that the quality of social work degree courses is not yet sufficiently developed, and that providers' standards are not subject to a rigorous assessment regime.[138] John Barraclough argued that the previous regime of regular inspections was more effective in identifying problems and forcing universities to address them.[139] Sue Berelowitz complained of too much variability in the standards of courses, and argued that the GSCC should be more actively involved in assessing against benchmarked standards.[140] Reports of degree courses by the recently-qualified social workers we met varied: some were very complimentary, while others complained that courses were "hit and miss", or "unstructured".[141] The Institute of Education drew a contrast with "the tight quality control in the teaching profession, where nationalisation of the curriculum and standard expectations are accompanied by rigorous inspection by Ofsted of initial teacher training".[142] Universities UK, however, preferred the current arrangements to what they called "some of the more burdensome mechanisms in other professions."[143] The Department for Children, Schools and Families said it will await the findings of the Social Work Task Force on quality assurance of degree courses.[144]

69.  We accept the General Social Care Council's analysis of the weaknesses in the current system of quality assurance. While some may consider greater involvement from central bodies to be 'burdensome', we believe it is appropriate that courses leading to a professional qualification should be subject to more rigorous examination. Quality assurance of degree courses should not be delegated to such an extent to universities themselves. A much more active role in quality assurance should be established, whether for the GSCC—with whom it would naturally sit under current arrangements—or for Ofsted, as an extension of its role as the children's social services inspectorate. Ofsted performs this function on behalf of the Training and Development Agency for Schools for initial teacher training; however, we acknowledge that the analogy is not exact as the Care Quality Commission inspects adult social care services.

Content of degree courses

70.  Employers in both statutory and voluntary sectors have argued that the degree courses are failing to prepare students adequately for employment.[145] The NSPCC stated that:

we cannot be confident about the abilities and knowledge of new social workers. We therefore assess the competence of each new member of staff and provide a range of in-service training for our recruits. […] We have to date been in the fortunate position of being able to do so but this should not be necessary.[146]

Barnardo's reported that some degree courses are too theoretical, and lack focus on the practical skills needed by social workers.[147] The Children's Workforce Development Council reported results of a consultation with newly-qualified social workers and employers in 2008, in which one in seven workers said they did not feel the degree had prepared them at all for their roles in employment.[148] Employers also reported that they felt the new social workers were under-prepared for the task of working with children and families in difficult circumstances; one in four thought the course had failed to prepare them for decision-making, and one in five thought this to be the case in relation to analysing information.[149] The Association of Professors of Social Work and the Joint Universities Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC SWEC) disputed the validity of some of CWDC's conclusions, pointing out that a 2008 Department of Health-funded study of the social work degree reported that most students have a good experience and that most courses meet requirements.[150] The GSCC agreed that research shows the degree has achieved the goals originally set for it by Government, but admitted they would support a review of the requirements for the degree to assess whether these match the current expectations of Government and employers.[151]

71.  Particular deficiencies in degree courses from the point of view of children and families social work were identified by many organisations. The main criticisms are summarised in the table below:
Reported gaps of knowledge or skill in the content of social work degree courses:
Child development,[152] especially in relation to abuse and neglect[153]
Preparation for court work,[154] including writing reports[155]
Communicating with service users, especially children, and interpersonal skills[156]
Multi-agency working[157]
'Daily tasks' such as using IT systems[158]
Analytical and assessment skills[159]
Knowledge of and ability to apply research into effective interventions with families[160]
Children's rights, specifically the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child[161]
Knowledge of particular medical conditions and disabilities[162]

72.  Social work degree courses do not follow a prescribed curriculum. Course providers must instead demonstrate to the GSCC that their curriculum meets a set of outcomes and standards derived from three main sources: the Department of Health's requirements for the degree, the National Occupational Standards, and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's Benchmark Statement for Social Work.[163]

73.  There is a strong measure of support for greater clarity and consistency in course content.[164] Moira Gibb, Chair of the Social Work Task Force, commented that social work training in England appears to be more variable than in some other countries.[165] Universities may choose to emphasise different parts of the academic course, but these choices are not necessarily made with an eye on the skills and knowledge needed in practice.[166] The GSCC argued that an agreed core curriculum for social work training should be developed

to give greater clarity to universities, employers and students about what will be taught. A common curriculum would provide a clearer standard against which to judge the performance of Higher Education Institutions. It would also provide greater assurance to employers about the types of knowledge and skills attained by newly-qualified social workers.[167]

74.  Hilary Tompsett, Chair of JUC SWEC, rejected any inference that providers have carte blanche in designing their courses—the various sets of requirements are reasonably detailed—but suggested that, as has happened in Scotland, integration and rationalisation of the different sets of requirements with the involvement of employers, training providers and service users would be valuable.[168] Bruce Clark of Cafcass recalled that he had been in favour of more of the statute, regulations and guidance about social work being formally inserted into course curricula when they were drawn up in 2002-03, and he speculated that this might now be rectified by imminent reforms.[169]

75.  Nottingham Trent University cautioned, however, that greater prescription in degree content could neutralise the strengths of individual lecturers and students.[170] Universities UK felt that variations reflecting links with local employers and type of placements available contributed to "the necessary diversity in education provision across the country".[171] Hilary Tompsett was loath to see a core curriculum preclude innovation and creativity in how courses are delivered.[172] Professor Michael Preston-Shoot felt there is already sufficient prescription of content, in relation to values, knowledge and skills, in the QAA benchmark statement (revised in 2008), the National Occupational Standards and the Department of Health requirements:

The focus is as much on content as on outcome […] so universities in general do have a very clear idea about what the content of the degree should be. Every approval and reapproval process conducted within universities, and overseen directly by the General Social Care Council, should contain a mapping of how the curriculum as it is proposed to be delivered by a university with its agency partners maps against the core requirements in the three documents that I have outlined.[173]

The Department has as yet formed no opinion on whether there should be a common curriculum for social work degrees, anticipating that the Social Work Task Force may express a view.[174]

76.  Two criticisms of degree content in particular merit further attention. Barry Luckock, social work course director at Sussex University, wrote that communication with children is neither taught nor assessed effectively in the degree courses.[175] This skill was reported to be often lacking in graduates by Enid Hendry of the NSPCC; "they may have done a small introduction to it, but not the depth of theory, and particularly not observing children and knowing about behaviours, developmental norms and what it is reasonable to expect a child to be able to do at a particular age."[176] We also heard an example of one course, however, that contains a module solely on communication with children, in different circumstances and in different modes.[177]

77.  The second area of specific concern is training in child protection work.[178] Enid Hendry reported worryingly scant coverage of child protection in some degree courses:

We are often asked to provide input for courses on child protection. That is great; it is part of what we should be helping with. But we are sometimes asked to do half a day. Half a day on child protection in a three-year training programme seems to be grossly inadequate. Obviously, other things relate to child protection, but you cannot cover the knowledge and practical skills that you need in that time—for example, the application of the law, how you engage with families and talk about some of the difficult things, how you probe. There is so much that you need to cover in that course beyond the basics of what is abuse, how do you recognise it and what do you do about it. That is about all you can get in a half day.

78.  She confirmed to us that "on a number of occasions", this day or half day was the only portion of the academic part of the course with a specific focus on child protection.[179] Coverage of this topic may be so light because of an assumption that it will be covered by a relevant placement, but this depends on the student obtaining such a placement and having a good practice teacher—by no means guaranteed, as we will discuss below.[180] The NSPCC drew attention to "the depth and detail of knowledge required for child protection work", and argued that there needs to be stronger emphasis on the statutory duties, regulations, procedures, and guidance relating specifically to safeguarding: "this knowledge base needs to be a central core of the course that is tested through placement experience and examination."[181] Liz Davies warned that reduced awareness and understanding has led to "a general sense of reduced confidence and knowledge about how to intervene to protect a child from significant harm."[182] She highlighted the potential consequences, referring to the lack of child protection content in both university and post-qualifying training taken by Lisa Arthurworrey, the social worker in charge of Victoria Climbié's case.[183] The National Occupational Standards for Social Work, which form part of the requirements for degree courses, lack explicit references to child protection and risk assessment.[184]

79.  We are very concerned to hear so much criticism of the content of degree courses from employers. Great variability in course content does not serve students or their prospective employers well. Current requirements for the social work degrees should be rationalised, combined and, where appropriate, set out in greater detail to form a basic common curriculum. This must be done by universities and employers in collaboration, so that agreement can be reached about the key components that must be learned through the initial degree, and what skills can be acquired while in employment. We particularly wish to see consensus on the content of training on child protection, child development and communication with children. Adoption of a common core curriculum should not preclude flexible and innovative delivery.

Specialisation in degree courses

80.  Concerns about the child protection content of degrees are central to one of the main debates that ran through this inquiry: whether qualification should be gained through a generic degree that views social work, whatever the client group, as a unified discipline, or through a degree specific to children and families social work. The current split of children and families social workers and adults services social workers into separate local authority departments dates back only to the Every Child Matters reforms and the 2004 Children Act. The generic nature of the social work degrees (and the Diploma in Social Work that preceded them) reflects the professional unification brought about by the Seebohm Report in 1968 and the subsequent formation of unified Social Services Departments in local authorities in 1971. Prior to this, 'child care officers' worked within local authority children's departments and the term 'social worker' was not commonly used for those working with children in the statutory sector.[185]

81.  Lord Laming took a firm view in favour of specialisation in his progress report on child protection in March 2009:

At the heart of the difficulty in preparing social workers through a degree course is that, without an opportunity to specialise in child protection work or even in children's social work, students are covering too much ground without learning the skills and knowledge to support any particular client group well. […] It is currently possible to qualify as a social worker without any experience of child protection, or even of working within a local authority, and to be holding a full case-load of child protection cases immediately upon appointment. The current degree programme should be reformed to allow for specialism after the first year, with no graduate entering frontline children's social work without having completed a specialised degree including a placement within a frontline statutory children's social work team, or having completed further professional development and children's social work experience to build on generic training.[186]

82.  Reaction to this recommendation has been very mixed. In the evidence we received, those speaking on behalf of employers were typically the most supportive of introducing specialisation to the degrees, though only after broader foundations have been laid in either the first one or two thirds of the course.[187] Jane Haywood, Chief Executive of the Children's Workforce Development Council said that "when the newly-qualified social worker joins them, our employers need to know that they understand what it is like to operate as a children's social worker in the children's services context, understanding the wider integrated working that is underway."[188] The Association of Directors of Children's Services argued that because of the policy context of Every Child Matters, the multi-agency approach to service delivery and the complex corpus of legislation and regulation specific to children and families work, there is a strong justification for specialisation in initial training.[189] Janet Galley, an independent consultant with 40 years' experience in social work and inspection, commented that:

the reality is that there is now little commonality, apart from the basic principles and values, in the work of the adult social worker and the children and families' social worker. The legislative, policy, practice and organisational frameworks are completely different, and the opportunities for working in depth across the interface minimal. Other ways than through the basic training course must be found to ensure good communication across this interface […] It could be argued that it is equally important that children and families social workers understand the role of teachers, named nurses and doctors, and police officers working in child protection as it is to understand the role of the social worker for adults.[190]

83.  Surrey County Council told us that, as a result of these increasingly specialised tasks, the idea of generic training "is attractive to the profession but not for employers at the sharp end of child protection service delivery".[191] Surrey's Strategic Director for Children, Schools & Families argued that relying on post-qualification training and support to produce fully-competent social workers means too long a lead time for employers needing to fill vacancies.[192]

84.  The Social Work Task Force has received Lord Laming's recommendation cautiously; although it was announced at the height of concerns about the Baby Peter case, the Task Force itself has been formed to consider the social work profession as a whole. Andrew Webb told us that "we have not yet heard anything to suggest that we should move away from a single approach to social work, and then look at how best to apply it in the post-Children Act 2004 world."[193] Moira Gibb spoke of not wanting to "pull up the drawbridge once [children's and adults'] services had separated".[194] The Family Rights Group also feared that specialisation would have the consequence of further distancing adult and children's services.[195] Unison was strongly opposed to specialisation, wanting social work to remain cohesive "in the face of the current bureaucratic split between adults and children's services, in order to preserve the ability to respond effectively to the whole family."[196]

85.  Academic opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the generic course.[197] Hilary Tompsett, Chair of the Joint Universities Council social work committee, argued that:

in order to do a good job with children and families, it is clear that we have to recognise that children live in families, they live in communities. The needs of the adults around them will be absolutely critical. […] If social workers did not understand what the issues were for the parents, and the law in relation to mental health and child care, they would not be able to give such good service to children and families.[198]

She pointed out that Serious Case Reviews frequently highlight the importance of factors such as parental mental health problems and domestic violence in safeguarding work.[199] Social Work Education North East cited research showing that workers "entrenched" in specialisms have difficulty in implementing a 'whole family' approach.[200] Professor Lena Dominelli argued that three years is actually "a very short time […] to learn what I would argue is one of the most difficult professional tasks in the world", and specialisation would therefore be to the exclusion of much vital material.[201] Professor Stephen Scott drew an analogy with training in psychology, where specialisation in child psychology comes only after a thorough general grounding.[202] Nottingham Trent University characterised the call for a specialist degree as "a knee jerk reaction to current issues" which would not serve children well in the long run.[203]

86.  Students embarking on generic social work courses value the opportunity to keep their options open, and often end up specialising in areas they had not previously considered.[204] James Brown, director of employment agency SocialWork 2002, posed the question "How does a social worker know on day one of their course whether they want to be an adult social worker, a child care social worker, or a mental health social worker? They do not really know what social work is."[205] Several witnesses pointed out that specialisation can and does already happen within degree courses, as students choose and combine particular academic modules and types of practice placement according to their developing preferences.[206] However, there is no requirement for universities to offer a course structure catering for those who know the specialism they wish to pursue.[207] Dr Eileen Munro suggested that mature entrants, with previous degrees and relevant experience, might benefit from specialised child welfare training as they may have a clearer idea of what they want from their training.[208]

87.  While the landscape of children's services has changed significantly over recent years, it is also argued that social workers make their most effective contributions to multi-agency working when they are confident about their unique duties and skills. Moira Gibb said that social workers will struggle most where they or those around them do not understand their role.[209] Professor Michael Preston-Shoot commented that social work students must be equipped with skills and knowledge particular to social work, but also need to know how to work with other professionals, including when they should be taking the lead in those relationships. Some of this can only be taught effectively by training people from different professions together, as it is a challenge they all share.[210] Whether such 'multi-professional' training should be integrated into initial training or post-qualification is an unresolved issue, but we were encouraged to hear from recently-qualified social workers that the multi-agency context of their work had featured strongly from the outset.[211]

88.  We are persuaded of the merits of a generic base for social work training, but we agree that social workers are often insufficiently prepared for specialist work with children. We note that specialisation often occurs in practice in university courses as students select particular modules and placements. We recommend that each course makes these choices formal and explicit, so that students may specialise in children and families work if they wish by choosing a defined package of course elements, and employers are given clarity about what a student specialising in this way would have covered in their degree. In our opinion, however, the principal problem is not that the initial degree is generic; it is that expectations of engagement in further training and development after qualification are too low. It is as if a doctor were to be trained in general medicine, and then allowed to specialise in paediatrics without undertaking additional training. Initial degrees cannot, and should not be expected to, produce social workers capable of assuming full responsibility for complex specialist caseloads. In addition, the generic degrees were introduced only in 2003, and fundamental structural changes at this stage could be unnecessarily disruptive.[212] We will look in more detail at expectations of post-qualifying training in Chapter 5.

Collaboration between employers and universities

89.  Among its immediate next steps, the Task Force lists "working to bring together social work educators and employers so that we can begin to establish a shared understanding of, and solutions to, the demands and challenge to which the social work education system needs to be able to respond."[213] There is widespread acknowledgment that employers and higher education institutions are not working together satisfactorily on a consistent basis, although there are examples of good local partnerships.[214] Eleni Ioannides of the Association of Directors of Children's Services told us, "we need a little bit more national prescription and leadership on the whole issue to take it forward. It can't be left to those local partnerships, because they won't be standard".[215]

90.  Bob Reitemeier, Joint Deputy Chair of the Social Work Task Force, articulated the underlying importance of the relationship between employers and social work educators:

it really comes down to what our aspirations are for social work as a profession. If we want to compare social work to medicine or law, all of a sudden that relationship between academics and employers becomes a lifelong relationship. It is not about the three or four years at university, but about how we can expect a social worker to maintain a state of the art understanding of social work theory all the way through their career, just as we would expect a doctor or a lawyer to do. I think that our aspirations need to be adjusted for that to be the case.[216]

The relationship between employers and universities must be built up in a systemic way so that employers are confident in their role in as "learning communities" and trainers of future professionals.[217] Social workers need throughout their careers to have access to new research, so that they can integrate it into their practice.[218] On the other hand, social work educators need regular engagement with practice to ensure their courses are relevant.[219]

91.  Moira Gibb, Chair of the Social Work Task Force, reported that joint appointments between universities and employers had been frequently raised with the Task Force as a way of ensuring that the two sectors work together and share the same perspective. At the moment, there is not even necessarily agreement about what students are being trained to do: "The universities would say that it is important that they are training [students] to be social workers, not simply processors of referrals, which happened in the least effective authorities."[220] The CWDC suggested that there are two different views of competence in social work: the academic and the employers'.[221] Professor Sue White commented that there could be more opportunities for social work practitioners and managers to contribute to university programmes, and for academics to be seconded to undertake practice-based research; each group needs to be knowledgeable about what happens in the other's organisations.[222] Bruce Clark of Cafcass summed up the situation thus: "We are in it together and we must climb out together."[223]

92.  Mike Wardle of the General Social Care Council set out a comprehensive view of the ways in which employers could be more closely involved with courses:

We must think of ways to spread the good practice in partnerships [between employers and HEIs] throughout the system—things such as ensuring employers are involved in the processes by which students are selected, in deciding which students come to them for practice placements and in the assessment of students at the end of those placements. They must be integrated into the way in which the professional skills are taught and the assessment of the students' capabilities, both during practice placements and at the end of the degree.[224]

Keith Brumfitt of the Children's Workforce Development Council reported that:

When I talk to employers [about placements], they are keen to be involved, but they want to be involved in more than just the placement. They want to be involved in other aspects of the training as well, so that they feel that they are working on and committing themselves to a professional training programme, rather than just being the recipient of a student on a placement.[225]

93.  It is a matter of great concern to us that there seems to be so little common understanding between employers and training providers about the purpose, content and success of social work education. Universities are unhappy with criticism of degree courses and feel powerless to improve the choice of practice placements their students have, while employers are frustrated that they have no influence over university intakes and complain that graduates do not meet their expectations. Without greater mutual understanding and closer co-operation, it is difficult to see how courses will achieve the balance of academic study and practical training programme necessary to satisfy all stakeholders.

94.  Collaboration between employers and universities, while working well in some places, should not be left to chance. Close partnership would bring mutual benefits at all stages of social work education, including selection of students, relevance of the curriculum, provision of placements, exchange of staff, assessment, Newly-Qualified Social Worker years, post-qualifying training and integration of research with practice. We recommend that the Government consider introducing a requirement that all social work education is delivered by formal partnerships of higher education institutions and employers.

119   Ev 102; Q 249 Back

120   Ev 64  Back

121   Q 258 Back

122   Ev 152 Back

123   Ev 109 Back

124   Ev 102, 150; Qq 70 [Professor White], 86, 260 Back

125   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Children, Schools and Families Committee on 15 June 2009, HC (2008-09) 369-v, Q 211 Back

126   Q 177 Back

127   Q 76 [Hilary Tompsett] Back

128   Q 179 Back

129   Q 26 Back

130   Q 57 Back

131   Q 84 [Hilary Tompsett] Back

132   Ev 51 Back

133   GSCC, Raising standards (February 2009), para 23 Back

134   GSCC, Raising standards (February 2009), para 26-28 Back

135   Q 97 Back

136   Ev 52 Back

137   Ev 52 Back

138   Lord Laming, The Protection of Children in England: a progress report HC 330 (March 2009), para 5.9 Back

139   Ev 151 Back

140   Q 269 Back

141   See Annex Back

142   Ev 170 Back

143   Ev 25 Back

144   Qq 312-3 Back

145   Ev 86 Back

146   Ev 109 Back

147   Ev 193 Back

148   Ev 45; see also Ev 167. Back

149   Ev 45 Back

150   Ev 28, 32; Department of Health, Evaluation of the new social work degree qualification in England (July 2008) Back

151   Ev 50 Back

152   Q 266; Ev 86, 105 Back

153   Ev 83 Back

154   Qq 220, 223 [Bruce Clark] Back

155   Ev 83, 86 Back

156   Ev 83, 86, 169, 193; Q 264 [Enid Hendry] Back

157   Ev 86 Back

158   Ev 86 Back

159   Qq 23, 263; Ev 169, 193 Back

160   Q 69 [Professor Scott]; Ev 90-1, 105, 169 Back

161   Ev 108, 154 ff. Back

162   Ev 177 ff. Back

163   Department of Health, Requirements for social work training (June 2002); TOPSS UK Partnership, The National Occupational Standards for Social Work (May 2002); Quality Assurance Agency, Social work subject benchmark statement (2008). Back

164   Ev 198 Back

165   Qq 28, 213, 267 Back

166   Qq 136 [Professor Preston-Shoot], 213 Back

167   Ev 50 Back

168   Q 95 [Hilary Tompsett] Back

169   Q 198 [Bruce Clark] Back

170   Ev 184 Back

171   Ev 25 Back

172   Q 95 [Hilary Tompsett] Back

173   Qq 132 ff. Back

174   Q 311 Back

175   Ev 108, 162 Back

176   Q 264 [Enid Hendry] Back

177   Q 138 Back

178   Ev 83 Back

179   Q 270-1 Back

180   Q 272 [Sue Berelowitz]; see also Ev 45; see below, Chapter 4. Back

181   Ev 106, 108 Back

182   Ev 65 Back

183   Q 140 [Liz Davies] Back

184   Ev 83 Back

185   Children's departments were established by the Children Act 1948. Back

186   Lord Laming, The Protection of Children in England: a progress report HC 330 (March 2009), para 5.10 Back

187   Ev 44, 105, 108, 193; Q 235 [Enid Hendry] Back

188   Q 99 Back

189   Ev 85 Back

190   Ev 159 Back

191   Ev 199 Back

192   Ev 199 Back

193   Q 26 [Andrew Webb]; Ev 2  Back

194   Q 27 Back

195   Ev 103 Back

196   Ev 17 Back

197   Ev 25, 27, 32, 184, 189, 198 Back

198   Q 74; see also Ev 83, 193. Back

199   See also Q 158 [Professor Preston-Shoot and Liz Davies]. Back

200   Ev 198; see also Ev 50. Back

201   Q 74 Back

202   Q 74 Back

203   Ev 184 Back

204   Ev 168, 189, 193, 198 Back

205   Q 272 Back

206   Qq 158 [Professor Preston-Shoot], 162 [Liz Davies]; Ev 171, 180 Back

207   Ev 51 Back

208   Q 156 Back

209   Q 26 Back

210   Qq 26 [Andrew Webb], 148 [Professor Preston-Shoot]  Back

211   Ev 105; See Annex Back

212   Ev 180 Back

213   Ev 2 Back

214   Ev 88, 180; Qq 70 [Professor White], 99 [Jane Haywood]  Back

215   Q 198 Back

216   Q 25 Back

217   Qq 2 [Moira Gibb], 58 [Bridget Robb], 120 [Jane Haywood], 164 [Professor Preston-Shoot], 231 [Bruce Clark]  Back

218   Q 95 [Professor Scott] Back

219   Ev 87, 171 Back

220   Q 29 Back

221   Ev 45 Back

222   Q 72; see also Ev 193. Back

223   Q 231 Back

224   Q 100 Back

225   Q 120 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 30 July 2009