Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
MONDAY 18 MAY 2009
MOIRA GIBB,
BOB REITEMEIER
AND ANDREW
WEBB
Q1 Chairman: I welcome Andrew
Webb, Moira Gibb and Bob Reitemeier to our proceedings. The investigation
of training of social workers is something that this Committee
takes very seriously. Indeed, we have just come back from speaking
about some of those issues on an overseas visit. The strength
of that is that we know a little bit more than we did and can
compare it with some international practice. The bad news is that
we might not be quite on the ball today, so we will see. We always
give our witnesses a chance to say something to get us started,
but they can opt to go straight into questioning. It is really
up to you. Andrew, what is your wish?
Andrew Webb: I am happy to go
straight into questioning.
Chairman: Moira?
Moira Gibb: It is probably worth
saying that there is a deal of confusion about the Social Work
Task Force. Certainly when we meet people out there and talk to
journalists or others, there is an assumption that it is only
focused on social workers who work with children and families.
Obviously, the context of the Baby Peter case makes that almost
inevitable, but we are very firmly looking at the social work
profession across the piece. There is, of course, more concern
around children and families, but that is part of our remit and
we try to stress that.
Q2 Chairman: Moira, could
you stretch the definition and tell us what you know your remit
to be? How broad is it?
Moira Gibb: We have been tasked
with setting out a programme of reform for the social work profession.
My short version of it is creating a self-confident and effective
profession, but there is recognition that there will be a number
of aspects to that. One part of it, and what you are interested
in, is around the training and education of social workers. Again,
our concerns are wider than that, but it is a programme of reform.
Our first report was particularly focused on a number of things
that are within your area. We were asked to comment on Lord Laming's
recommendations, which were focused on social work and social
workers. We were also asked to comment on the ICS—integrated
children's system—which was a particular concern to practitioners
and which seemed to be hindering them in delivering quality social
work. We were asked to report urgently on that. In our report,
which came in the form of a letter to the two Secretaries of State,
we also highlighted six themes that were, in a sense, playing
back to those who talked to us about the concerns that exist.
One of those is about preparation for the job; lots of the people
we have talked to are very concerned about how good that preparation
is. But we would want to say that it is rather more complicated.
I am sure that you have found that in your work: you think you
see the answer, but then you open it up and it leads on to other
things. We have recognised and talked in the report about the
need for better collaboration between employers, who have different
expectations from what the higher education institutes are preparing
people to do, so that what newly qualified social workers should
be able to do appears to be unclear, which is very unhelpful.
We certainly see a need for those two sets of people getting together
and being much more explicit about the newly qualified social
worker—the training they should have received and the skills
they should be able to demonstrate.
Chairman: Bob, I hope you do not mind
that we slip to first names as it eases the conversation.
Bob Reitemeier: Just to add two
quick points to what Moira said. One is that, in terms of a barometer
of success for the task force, we are clearly tasked to look at
the front line and to make sure that, whatever recommendations
come out of the task force, the intention is that it will help
to improve work and the situation on the front line. Secondly,
there is acknowledgement that the status of the profession itself,
with the public and in society at large, is also something that
everyone wants to improve. Therefore recommendations that the
task force can come up with, which address the public image and
public understanding of social workers, are part of the remit.
Q3 Chairman: Thanks for that.
Obviously, our focus is the children and families part of the
remit, which covers an awfully large part of the social work sector.
What is the social work area? The term social worker, for all
sorts of reasons, good or bad, seems to have got a bad name. We
were in the United States, talking to the New York commissioner.
They talk about case workers there, but I looked at all their
advertising—posters and so on—and social work and
social workers were not mentioned. There are people in Essex who
want to introduce social pedagogues, presumably to replace the
title "social workers". Is the social work/social worker
brand so damaged that we need to rebrand it with a new name and
a new focus?
Moira Gibb: We have not, as a
task force, spent any time on that. Certainly, the comment has
been made to us that the brand is now damaged. The issue of social
pedagogues is different from what most people are generally thinking
about when they talk about social work. The risk that anyone runs—this
is my personal view; my colleagues may have different views and
we have not talked about this—is that we would be accused
of rebranding without having changed the core. We are focusing
on what creates this effective and self-confident profession.
Actually, if social workers were better able and enabled to explain
what they do, there would not be such continuous and only negative
coverage of them. A report could be made to Government, who would
make the decisions, but they would face the criticism of having
merely been superficial and rebranding without having changed
the core. We want to keep focused on that core capacity and ability.
Andrew Webb: One of the discussions
we have running through the task force's work is about what is
unique about social work and what is the unique contribution of
social workers—they are slightly separate things. The feedback
we have been getting from stakeholders, employers, academic institutions,
social workers and their managers is very clear: social workers
carry out an essential role in society. Many of them operate to
the very highest standards. They are well trained, well educated
and highly skilled, and usually well managed. I am a director
of children's services in a metropolitan authority, so I am aware
of the level of work and skill that goes into promoting the independence
of families who require additional support and help—stepping
in where families are no longer able to provide the sort of support
and protection that a child needs and, occasionally, stepping
in to protect children. Social work brings to the preventive and
protective agenda a unique set of skills. I do not think that
it would be in anybody's interest to rebrand or even to move back
from where the task force wanted to be, which is to create a much
more professionalised profession. Our analysis of the recent history
leads us to agree that one of the problems that we have had in
recent years is that there has not been a central point of ownership
for social work as a profession, whether across the children's
work force or with adults. Without that sense of ownership and
leadership and the definition of social work as a profession,
it is easier to pull apart and knock things when there is poor
practice, as there has been—there is no doubt about that.
There has not been a central point of defence of the core, which
is very successful. I was involved in a multi-way discussion with
some west coast American teachers of social work recently—we
had a video link. It is clear that, internationally, social work,
whichever label you give it, has set standards that are achieved
by our best social workers; but our standards of educational attainment
and practice are not yet transportable internationally. An area
to look at is the standing of social work internationally and
applying the best standard in the world to what we want in this
country. Social work's contribution to protecting the vulnerable
is enormous and I would not want to see it changed. Social pedagogy
is a different discipline and involves a way of looking at the
needs of a child in the round. In Essex, they are bringing it
into work in children's homes. The needs of a child in residential
care are quite specific and particular and are very different
from the needs across the whole population of children and families
at risk, and the same set of skills would not do for protective
work in a local authority setting in the way that we use them
at the moment.
Q4 Chairman: Who are the guilty
men and women, if there is a lack of leadership in this area?
What people and what organisational leadership have been guilty
of not providing the requisite leadership? Who has got it wrong?
Andrew Webb: It is not a question
of who has got it wrong; it is a question of there being too many
cooks. The General Social Care Council, the Children's Workforce
Development Council and others all have a part. The bodies set
up by Government to variously regulate, commission and so on all
have a part in social work education, deployment and so on, but
there is no single point of reference—as there would be
in a medical discipline or psychology—to say, "This
is the core of social work and the consequence of adopting that
core would be this for that work force and this for this work
force."
Q5 Chairman: So you would
like it to be much more hierarchical, like the British Medical
Association?
Andrew Webb: I am not necessarily
advocating a hierarchy like the BMA, no. I am talking about something
professionally owned—owned by the profession as much as
by any Government body. In that sense, it is like the medical
model.
Q6 Chairman: May I ask all
three of you this? It is a weak profession in a sense, is it not?
I am referring to something that is not articulated in our briefing.
Tell us about the pay of social workers.
Moira Gibb: There are probably
others who are better informed about pay, because it varies considerably.
Q7 Chairman: You must know
roughly how much social workers get paid, though.
Moira Gibb: Obviously, they compare
themselves with teachers in particular, and they see that teachers
have made considerable progress in their pay and in the wider
conditions that surround them. From the people we have talked
to, it is an issue, but it is an issue that also points to status
and recognition. It is a continuing theme, but it is probably
true to say that the conditions that surround them, the expectations
of them and wider public disapproval cause them considerable angst
as well.
Q8 Chairman: Usually if you
have a tough job—everybody knows social workers have a really
tough job—you get paid to compensate for it being really
tough. Come on, Bob. How much does a newly qualified social worker
earn?
Bob Reitemeier: Roughly, you are
looking at the £20,000 range; £20,000 and a bit more
is the range, but again, as Andrew was saying, you have so many
different employers that it can change by geography.
Q9 Chairman: But someone must
go round the universities saying, "If you're a social worker,
when you're qualified, you earn about this much." Surely
that is the case.
Bob Reitemeier: You start in the
£20,000 range and you work your way up.
Q10 Chairman: Does the £20,000
range mean £20,000, or does it mean £28,000?
Moira Gibb: In London it would
mean more than £20,000, yes, but the issue is about how difficult
it is to stay in practice and earn more, so in children's services
we often have the least experienced social workers and the worst
paid doing some of the most difficult jobs.
Chairman: And the least trained.
Moira Gibb: There is not a mechanism
for them continuing in front-line practice, or there are not enough
mechanisms for them continuing in front-line practice and getting
recognition, through pay, of their additional skills and experience.
Q11 Chairman: We heard this
in America and it really was worth going to find it out. Someone
said, "If you're a teacher, you can carry on teaching. You
get increments. You can increase your salary and do what you're
good at. You don't have to go into administration, become a principal
or go into management to have decent pay." That is not true
in social work, is it? Andrew?
Andrew Webb: It is true in some
authorities. An awful lot of social workers are employed by the
voluntary sector, effectively on contracts to local authorities,
so it is publicly funded social work. There are examples where
advanced practitioner status has been worked out. A lot of authorities
have senior practitioners. You extend the top of what is traditionally
a local government pay range from £22,000 to £28,000
up into the low £30,000s, so as a senior practitioner, you
might earn the same or just slightly less than the manager. It
is a relatively short set of pay scales. On your point about the
worst trained, the task force is looking at the education of social
workers throughout their careers, not just when qualifying.
Chairman: We will come to continuing
professional development later.
Bob Reitemeier: From the evidence
we have gathered from talking to thousands of social workers,
the issues with pay are not just about career progression, increments
and management positions, but about the responsibility that goes
with the job. That is where the differences between the professions
are being brought to light. For example, social workers sometimes
have the responsibility literally to take a child away from the
family. That is a big responsibility to carry as a professional.
Other professionals do not carry the same responsibility. Social
workers say that role should be recognised.
Q12 Chairman: Absolutely.
The other side of that is that a child not identified as being
in danger can lose their life in the most horrible circumstances.
It does not take an advanced realm of human resources and management
to understand that certain things make a profession attractive
and retentive. What is the retention rate for social workers?
On average, how long do they stay in the job?
Moira Gibb: About 12% probably.
Q13 Chairman: Is that 12%
nationally?
Moira Gibb: Yes.
Bob Reitemeier: Yes. That is the
turnover rate.
Q14 Chairman: It was a hell
of a lot higher than that in Haringey, wasn't it?
Moira Gibb: There were certainly
a large number of agency staff working on the front line, I understand.
Q15 Chairman: I understood
it was 48%.
Andrew Webb: It was about half.
Bob Reitemeier: People often look
at three things: the vacancy rate, which shows how many jobs are
not being filled; the number of agency staff who are filling jobs
on a temporary basis because recruitment has not been successful;
and the average turnover across the sector or within a particular
area. We are referring to the turnover rate, which is almost 12%.
Chairman: In some authorities it is much
higher. As a rule of thumb, that is usually in the toughest places.
I've said too much, but I've warmed you up. I will hand you over
to Derek.
Q16 Derek Twigg: Good afternoon.
Does the fact that the Government have already announced a number
of initiatives in response to the Laming report cause you a problem
or inhibit you any way?
Moira Gibb: Obviously, we had
a tight time scale for our first report. Responding to the Laming
recommendations that affected social work meant that we had more
to do in that short period, but we recognise that it was important.
The Government have assembled a task force of people who are still
in the business, or are related closely to the business, so their
recommendations are practical and are based on the reality now.
Q17 Derek Twigg: But you have
been asked to go away and do a report, and the Government are
announcing initiatives while you are doing that. How does that
work?
Moira Gibb: We understand the
context of the Haringey situation—that Lord Laming is reporting
and that the Government need to respond. That does not create
a particular problem for us, but there is some confusion out there
about which things are coming from where. There has been a lot
of activity in a short period. The recommendations about newly
qualified social workers, for example, are wholly to be welcomed.
We have to work within those realities.
Q18 Derek Twigg: Do you think
that has been clarified now, or is it still confusing to some
people?
Moira Gibb: We still have a job
to do in explaining what our task force is about and in communicating
that to practitioners. We think we have done exceedingly well
in talking to lots of social workers, as Bob said. We announced
recently that we are setting up a front-line practitioner reference
group with 16 people from across adults' and children's services.
Within a few days of that being announced in Community Care,
116 social workers had volunteered. There has also been a massive
response in a short space of time to the call for evidence that
we issued with our first report. We are communicating with many
people. We still have a considerable job to do with understanding
among the public.
Q19 Derek Twigg: In your earlier
remarks, you made the point that it was not just about children's
social services, but about adult social services. What pressures
have you had from the adult side of social services?
Moira Gibb: We have tried to make
our work look across the piece at everything we do. Obviously,
Laming was different, and ICS was different because that affected
front-line practitioners in relation to children's services only.
We have had more work to do to ensure that social workers in other
settings, such as people with learning disability or mental health
issues, are working with those people's interests in mind and
understand their concerns. They feel caught up in some of the
public concern, but I think that it has affected them less than
social workers in children's services. Social workers are trained
to work in very different settings, and we try to take that into
account. I am talking about those employed not just by local authorities,
but by different employers. Even that is a challenge, though.
If anyone who is not closely involved wants to talk to us, they
start from the child care issues.
| 
