Pay - how to dissatisfy child protection workers

Pay is what Herzberg called a ‘hygiene’ factor – a possible source of dissatisfaction but not a motivator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory

Whatever investment bankers tell you, you don’t get high performance simply by paying people lots of money. More important are factors such as job satisfaction, recognition and opportunities for personal growth.

But paying people badly can make them very dissatisfied. It can piss them off. It can convey a message that they are not valued. At worst, it can make it financially difficult for them to do the job, when their pay is less than they need to keep a roof over their heads or feed their families.

So a report from the Resolution Foundation makes for worrying reading.

It summarises the situation on public sector pay in Britain as follows:

“… the picture is similar in education, health and social work, and public administration (which covers most other roles). Indeed, on these projections average real pay in these sectors in 2019-20 would be lower than in 2004-05, meaning over 15 years of lost pay growth. In public sector education, real pay in 2016 was already lower than in 2003 and is now set to fall further, while health and social work could face a further 6 per cent real fall by 2019-20.” (page 4)

You can’t go on paying children’s social workers and other public sector workers involved in child protection less and less and expect it to have no impact. You can have all the recruitment campaigns you want, but you will not retain staff if you keep cutting their pay in real terms.

It’s a simple fact of life – it's not rocket science.

Stop blaming, start learning

You don’t need to go much further than a very interesting report in Community Care to see how the blame culture results in services which are less safe.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/03/16/social-worker-falsely-logged-visits-due-fear-managers-criticism/

A stressed and struggling social worker is reported to have falsified records in order to avoid being publicly named and shamed by her manager. Apparently, the manager circulated a group email to colleagues each week, listing all instances of work which had not been completed within the required time scales.

That blame and fear of blame are the primary enemies of safety is now a well-established fact. Civil aviation has taken this lesson to heart and has devised systems and practices to make it easy for people to talk about their mistakes and failings, so that things can be put right before disasters happen.

Any manager who creates conditions in which members of staff fear to report things going wrong is acting contrary to the interests of her or his organisation and, most importantly, to the interests of those to whom services are delivered. It isn’t just bad practice, it is dangerous practice.

A good introduction to how civil aviation thinking can inform safety debates in health and other fields is provided in a recent ITV programme. Trevor Dale, a former airline pilot, explains how the blame culture works against safety in the NHS. It is well worth half-an hour of your time watching it, if you haven’t done so already.

http://www.itv.com/hub/tonight/1a2803a1060

The overall message is clear: stop blaming, start learning. 

Mandatory Reporting in New South Wales

I am currently in Australia. Reading the Sydney Morning Herald this week I noticed an interesting article about mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect.

It was reported that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse had heard evidence that the New South Wales child abuse hotline is “clogged” with almost half of reports made in 2016 not meeting the criteria for statutory action. One hundred child protection caseworkers were said to be necessary to handle reports of cases which did not meet the criteria for statutory action. Mandatory reporting was said to be part of the problem. The Royal Commission was told that mandatory reporters and staff of Child Wellbeing Units were reporting matters that didn’t meet the criteria for statutory action nearly 50 per cent of the time.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-abuse-helpline-clogged-with-less-serious-cases-royal-commission-20170307-gut2z1.html

Like most Australian states and territories, New South Wales has an established system of mandatory reporting in which professionals such as teachers, doctors and police officers have a legal obligation to report child abuse.

The experience here is highly relevant to the discussions which have gone on in Britain, since the death of Daniel Pelka, with many arguing that Britain should copy Australia in introducing a similar mandatory reporting approach.

The experience in New South Wales must give pause for thought. Britain’s child protection system is already under very great stress. To introduce a system that resulted in a significant increase in what appear to be unnecessary referrals would be a reckless step.

Ending the blame game

I liked the post on the Association of Directors of Children’s Services website by Ian Thomas, Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services at Rotherham Council.

http://adcs.org.uk/blog/article/tackling-blame-culture

Ian argues against the prevalent culture of blame in society and its ramifications for children’s services and concludes that blaming staff for service failures should only happen in a very small number of cases of clear ‘professional negligence’. He concludes: “No one comes to work to deliberately do a bad job.”

One aspect that Ian doesn’t mention is that a blame culture results in unsafe working. Where people are afraid to talk about service failures, and their parts in them, opportunities to learn from things going wrong are significantly reduced. And that means that members of staff and managers have fewer opportunities to create safer and more reliable services.

The only safe services are ones in which everybody involved in service delivery and support are not only willing to explore errors, especially their own, but are actively congratulated and rewarded for doing so.

OK, so more needs saying …

I was so relieved that the Government has dropped the so-called ‘exemption clauses’ that perhaps I got carried away. There is more to be said as LouiseTickle demonstrates so well in the Guardian. The most important thing to say over and over again is that improvement and innovation are possible without the clauses.

  

One approach, which Louise does not mention and in which neither Government nor the Association of Directors of Children’s Services has shown much interest hitherto, is Lean.

Lean was originally developed in manufacturing industry, but is equally applicable to services. Its fundamental idea is that it is all too easy to do things which do not contribute to adding value to a product or service. But doing things which don't add value must be avoided at all costs. 

Lean abhors unnecessary bureaucracy, waste, unnecessary overhead and re-work. Organisations become lean by thinking about how to get rid of those evils, usually through making small but frequent changes to business processes to eliminate them. Forms can be simplified, procedures streamlined and management processes simplified. Unproductive and poorly focused ways of working can be eliminated. All kinds of waste can be identified and reduced. Perhaps most importantly focusing on how value is added and thinking about how to reduce re-work are likely to result in higher quality services.

Rather than focusing on removing legislation to create space for improvement, as the Government had proposed, Lean children’s services would concentrate on getting rid of barriers to high quality services such as unnecessary forms and procedures, poorly designed IT, unfocused working practices (such as unnecessary meetings and unnecessarily complex procedures) and unproductive tiers of management. Every new working practice, and every proposed change to an existing working practice, would be scrutinised to determine exactly how it added-value and whether it could be done better in some other way.

Instances of re-work and other service failures (e.g. repeated investigations following re-abuse, re-assessments following a poor quality initial attempt) would need to be closely examined and scrutinised to determine what had gone wrong and how it can be avoided in future.

All staff would need to be steeped in a culture of abhorring waste and trying to focus all resources on providing value to children and young people and not squandering resources on unproductive overhead or inefficient or unnecessary practices.

Say no more ….

There’s no need for extended comment on the Government’s reported decision to drop the controversial exemption clauses. 

It’s simply very good news.

The Government’s proposals for children’s social worker accreditation – a good idea, but horribly flawed in the making

The Government is consulting on the proposed introduction of an accreditation system for children’s social workers.

https://consult.education.gov.uk/social-work-reform-unit/naas-consultation/

The plan is to introduce a national post qualification specialism in child and family social work comprising three levels of seniority: the child and family practitioner, the practice supervisor and the practice leader. The specialist knowledge and skills needed to undertake each area of social work successfully are set out in three documents, one for each ‘level’.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/knowledge-and-skills-statements-for-child-and-family-social-work

The Government expects all child and family social workers to become accredited over time and promises to work progressively with employers to achieve this.

You can respond to the consultation yourself by 14^th March.

I am in favour of having post qualification specialisation and accreditation in social work,

but – and it is a very big BUT – an accreditation scheme has to be well-thought-out. It has to be well-designed and well-executed. It must result in practitioners who are more knowledgeable and more competent. It must clearly contribute to improving quality and safety of services. I don’t think that the Government’s proposals describe a scheme like that. Let me explain why.

A good post qualification accreditation scheme begins with analysis of the gap between the knowledge and skills conferred by basic training and the knowledge and skills required to deliver high quality and safe services in the most challenging of circumstances. What more does a highly experienced practitioner need to know to practice at an advanced or specialist level? This gap analysis needs to be detailed and thorough, setting out clearly and meticulously the required competencies for advanced or specialist practice and the results of a rigorous training needs analysis. The resulting accreditation scheme should set clear performance expectations for children’s social workers and provide a clear direction for learning new skills by setting out the major tasks which are required of children’s social workers immediately following qualification and subsequently at the two higher levels.

Unfortunately, the Government does not do this. What it gives us are the ‘knowledge and skills statements’ which are only loosely connected to tasks and which are general, sometimes vague and sometimes obscure. They come with no real explanation about how they were agreed and appear to have been conjured out of nowhere, a rather amateurish and essentially arbitrary listing of stuff which seems relevant to somebody. It’s the kind of thing you might get from a brainstorming session with a few bright but not necessarily knowledgeable people. Not bad for half-an-hour’s effort, but not definitive and not authoritative.

Not only does the Government provide no real detail about where these lists came from, it provides no proposals for how these knowledge and skills lists can be reviewed, improved and kept up to date in future. This is a serious failing since there is a real danger of these poor-quality lists becoming fixed in stone and becoming of decreasing relevance as time goes by.

Connected with these problems is the issue of ownership. The Government’s whole approach to accreditation is one of imposition rather than enabling. What will be tested, and how, have been decided by a small groups of government insiders, doubtless clever people but hardly representative of the profession. In contrast, post qualification training in medicine is a matter for the relevant Royal Colleges, whose members are themselves practitioners: paediatricians or anaesthetists or surgeons or psychiatrists etc. Inevitably the imposed system which the Government proposes for children’s social work, with control being vested in Government ministers and civil servants, will be at risk of being open to bureaucratic and political pressures rather than professional ones. And it risks alienating children’s social workers, by not involving them in choices about how their careers can be developed.

Although there is some information about the form of the proposed accreditation tests, I was unable to gain a clear impression from the consultation document and associated materials what the content of the tests will look like or how it is to be determined. What seems to be missing from the consultation document, in addition to the absence of a training needs analysis, is any account of curriculum. It is almost as if the Government has started from the premise that children’s social workers should be tested, rather than from the premise that they should be properly trained.

It is all too easy to make up tests for people to take, but the crucial question is whether the test is necessary to determine whether they have the requisite knowledge and skills to do the job. Nowhere in the consultation documents could I find any discussion of that issue.

Finally, the Government seems to have little to say about how post-qualification training can be evaluated and improved over time.

So, to summarise, a good approach to accreditation will have the following features:

• A clear understanding of the major tasks undertaken by advanced or specialist practitioners
• A clear understanding of the competencies required to deliver those tasks
• A clear understanding of the gap between those advanced or specialists competencies and those conferred by basic training
• Clear ownership of the scheme by the profession
• A well-structured curriculum, designed to equip practitioners with the knowledge and skills they require for advanced or specialist practice
• A mechanism for reviewing the relevance of the curriculum to the changing task environment, and updating as appropriate
• A mechanism for reviewing the effectiveness post qualification training and the accreditation system

Most, if not all, of these features are absent from the Government’s proposals.

A final thought. I was disappointed to see no mention in the consultation document of non-technical skills and knowledge. How well and how safely children’s social workers practice depends on their knowledge or child development, child abuse, the law relating to children, social work methods etc. etc., but it also depends on people’s skills and knowledge of how to work safely, how to understand error in the workplace, how to analyse and improve one’s own safety skills and how to analyse and develop practice to improve continuously the quality of service. Those are non-technical skills but sadly they are ones the Government seems to be currently ignoring.