Agenda item

The Director of Safeguarding and the Assistant Director of Safeguarding & Quality Assurance introduced this item to the committee. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       The most senior social worker in in any local authority was the Director of Safeguarding or named equivalent.

·       Islington’s social care workforce was comprised of suitable qualified practitioners, that were registered and regulated by Social Work England.

·       A Social Work qualification was a mandatory requirement as the postholder would be expected to carry out statutory safeguarding duties on behalf of the Local Authority.

·       The Workforce required qualified practitioners and managers to supervise and oversee key decisions e.g. case allocation, prioritisation, care planning, statutory decision making e.g. agency decision maker for adoption, permanency and fostering.

·       Islington employed 250 Child and Family Social Workers

·       Islington’s social early help service had been rated outstanding by Ofsted.

·       Nationally, research showed that no authority was confident that they will be able to recruit enough permanent Child and Family Social Workers to meet their needs in the next 12 months, and recruitment and retention was the top priority for service delivery for most local authorities.

·       Experienced Children & Family Social Workers were the hardest to recruit / retain, followed by team leaders and senior managers. Newly qualified CFSW were easier to recruit, but it was getting harder.

·       There had been a reduction in social work posts in the last three to four years, an increase in vacancies, agency positions and social workers leaving the profession. This had resulted in increased caseloads because there were fewer social workers. The sickness rate had also increased.

·       Islington’s position still remained stronger than the national average, with caseloads considerably less than the national average and sickness levels better also, at 1.8% compared to 2% nationally.

·       The Council met its needs through several workforce initiatives, but it was becoming harder to recruit and retain experienced talent, which would only increase going forward. One of the initiatives in place to tackle the measure regionally, was the London Pledge, which aimed to standardise agency costs across London.

·       Islington had a programme of benefits and allowances for harder to recruit posts including a retention bonus, Zones 1 and 2 Travelcard, and qualification increments for extra training.

·       The Council would no longer be able to offer Key Worker housing for newly qualified social workers, from April 1^st 2024, which had proved to be a popular draw for talent. There were six social workers at present that were still able to bid for properties before April 2024, the deadline for which had just been extended to May 2024, giving a month’s grace. Since 2022 the Council had housed nine social workers (five in Council stock and four in Housing Association stock), but not every social worker was eligible for this scheme. This was a decision taken by Islington Council in line with the housing allocation scheme amid concerns there was not enough to stock to adequately cater to both key workers and care leavers, with both groups often in competition for these properties and the Council’s duties as a corporate parent meant that care leavers took precedence in this instance.

·       The Council had also worked with The Frontline and was engaged in the Step Up to Social Work programme.

·       Officers were looking at how the Council trained its social workers as practice educators, ensuring that there was a pool of staff with an experience and knowledge of Islington that could also train up and coming, new talent.

·       Agency pay caps may curb the outflow of social workers from local authorities, but it wouldn’t stop them leaving the profession, and may further reduce supply.

·       The workforce was currently representative of the Islington population, but not of the population children known to social care, which was different, and officers were working to address this. 

·       There was a controversial piece of research being undertaken by central government into the use of artificial intelligence in writing assessments, plans and research that would serve to cut down on bureaucracy.

·       In response to questions from members about whether the Council was regularly benchmarking its benefits and allowances against neighbouring boroughs or comparative employers, and as to whether the Council also had a good understanding of pull factors that draw social workers to Islington over elsewhere, officers advised that the data showed that Islington had a stable workforce and much more stable caseloads than other boroughs. Combined with Islington’s practice model, good supervision, and opportunities for growth, this helped sustain Islington’s reputation as a rewarding and attractive employer. Regular benchmarking against local authorities was done as standard and Islington was in line with other authorities on retention. The Step Up to Social Work programme and higher education provision were also pull factors, as was how well staff were looked after.

·       In response to members questions about whether there was anything unique in other boroughs’ models of practice unique that Islington could adopt, officers advised that most local authorities now had a practice model that was relationship based. Islington’s model was referred to as the motivational practice model whereas other authorities had different names for their models.

·       The further point was made by officers that trauma-informed practice was a model that had been shared across the council, in schools, housing, any interface that has contact with children and young people.

·       Officers also advised that they were working with the Department for Education on authoring a career framework that seeks to establish how much more effectively social workers can be supported in the first two years of practice and pushing organisations to have one model of practice, which had a demonstrable impact on children’s lives.

·       The committee praised the work of the social workers, praised the leadership that facilitated such an environment and sought to see the good work being highlighted more widely.

·       In response to members questions about what else can be done to convince agency workers to join the Council permanently, officers stated that some of Islington’s most experienced, longtime social workers had been recruited through agency/temporary positions. There had been work done on making the transition from agency/temporary working to permanent staff as seamless as possible, but this had been challenging because of the competitive job market. Officers also engaged with staff on an individual basis, but noted the cost of living was a significant factor and welcomed any suggestions from members on addressing the issue.

ACTION:

Officers to provide a breakdown of the social care workforce by age, ethnicity and gender.

ACTION:

The Committee to work with Democratic Services to facilitate a discussion with the relevant officers and/or the Executive Member for Homes & Communities to establish what else can be done regarding the allocation of key worker housing.

ACTION:

Officers to provide a breakdown of the social care workforce by age, ethnicity and gender.

ACTION:

The Committee to work with Democratic Services to facilitate a discussion with the relevant officers and/or the Executive Member for Homes & Communities to establish what else can be done regarding the allocation of key worker housing.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.