FAQ
3. Does Aspect recruit social workers across all areas of social work?
4. What is the difference between the GSCC Code of Practice and the BASW Code of Ethics?
5. What does Aspect think will come out of the Social Work Taskforce?
6. Did Aspect give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on social work training?
10. Does Aspect think the Social Work Taskforce will really make much difference?
11. What submissions did Aspect make to the Social Work Taskforce?
12. What is Aspect’s view on social worker’s pay?
13. Does Aspect support the idea of a National College of Social Work?
14. Will Aspect be involved in the follow up to the Laming Report and the Social Work Taskforce report?
Employers are “vicariously liable” for the acts or omissions of their employees. That means employers are liable for the negligent acts or omissions of their staff in the course of their employment. So employers must have in place policies and procedures to ensure staff act safely and appropriately.
In addition, the GSCC Code contains specific responsibilities for employers:
“The Code requires that employers adhere to the standards set out in their Code, support social care workers in meeting their Code and take appropriate action when workers do not meet expected standards of conduct”. (Introduction to Employers Code).
“Having systems in place to enable social care workers to report inadequate resources or operational difficulties which might impede the delivery of safe care and working with them and relevant authorities to address those issues(Employers Code 2.3); and
“Supporting social care workers to meet the GSCC’s Code of Practice for Social Care Workers and not requiring them to do anything that would put their compliance with that code at risk”.(Employers Code 2.4).”
Although the GSCC Code is not yet mandatory for social care employers, the Code is really a summary of what the employer’s duty of care is towards their staff and service users. In other words, failure by employers to take these steps is ALREADY a potential contributory factor in a breach of their duty of care to their staff and service users. Already the employers Code is an element of the inspection process of both CQC and Ofsted.
In any case Children’s Services Directors have a statutory duty to ensure:
“staff are supported and developed so that they are effective, competent and confident” (Para 3.44 (h)
Statutory Guidance on the Roles and responsibilities of the Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Director of Children’s Services (DCSF July 2009)
Adult services directors have similar statutory duties.
All managers are entitled to the same support, professional supervision and manageable workloads as the staff they manage. Faced with circumstances where potentially unsafe practice or working conditions exist managers have a duty of care to their staff and should respond appropriately when concerns are raised.
Similarly when managers raise their own concerns with their line management it is essential that there are effective ways of addressing them.
How specific concerns are addressed by employers will vary according to the nature of the concern but the common features of any good management system will include:
- Encouragement to raise concerns informally and at an early stage, especially through supervision
- Proactive role by staff and managers in clarifying precisely what the concerns and are the possible means of addressing them
- Ensuring that whatever staff do do, they are competent to do and work in an environment where they can practice in this way and at this level.
The common principle underpinning the response to all concerns such as, delegation of work, excessive workloads, or inadequate training is that whatever work staff do they must be able to do it safely, competently and with the appropriate level of skill. If that is not possible, then additional training and supervision should be provided or additional staff should be found, or work prioritised such that the work that IS done can be done safely.
Managers who are concerned that they are not able to do this should draw their own concerns to their own managers.
No. As employers, their duties are the same. They have a duty of care towards their staff and the same contractual obligations as Local Authorities. The duties and powers of Local Authorities are specific and are laid down in statute. The responsibilities of head teachers in the areas of work that EWOs work are covered by the same framework of law and guidance. The inspection framework is the same.
Any differences will arise from the fact that the employment framework (pay, terms, conditions, supervision, CPD, training, supervision and access to advice and representation for staff) is often more complex and in theory better developed in Local Authorities.
Does Aspect recruit social workers across all areas of social work?
Yes. Aspect is a TUC-affiliated trade union and professional body with a long history. Over recent years, we have developed by representing a range of professional groups in children’s and related services. As the Every Child Matters policy developed in England, we were indeed increasingly approached by staff across children’s and allied services in all parts of the UK.
For example, a significant number of staff working as Early Years Professionals (EYPs) have joined Aspect because of our long term work with education improvement. EYPs in Aspect joined Aspect’s highly successful Early Years conference in June of this year and have their own network and autonomous group within Aspect.
As Aspect’s social work membership grows, so will our dedicated social care web zone and our autonomous social care section. While the majority have been from childrens services, we have members across all services. Social work is a generic profession, of growing importance.
What is the difference between the GSCC Code of Practice and the BASW Code of Ethics?
The GSCC Codes set out the standards of practice and conduct that workers and their employers should meet. The Employers Code is not yet mandatory but is likely to become so, and that will require employers to ensure you are able to comply with the Code. You can download both codes here.
The GSCC Code is a statutory one. As a result, compliance with the Code is a condition of social workers remaining registered, and without registration, you cannot work as a social worker. Section 62 of the Care Standards Act 2000 requires the GSCC to produce the codes and means that, for the first time, the social care sector has similar regulation to doctors and nurses. Registered social care workers who breach the codes can be (and sometimes are) removed from the Social Care Register.
The CQC (Care Quality Commission) and Ofsted are supposed to take the Code of Practice for Social Care Employers into account when enforcing care standards.
The Codes of Practice are to be amended in the near future prior to the employer’s code becoming mandatory. Aspect will contribute to any consultation on a revised Code.
The British Association of Social Work Code of Ethics, covers many of the same issues as the GSCC code but is far more comprehensive and better capture many of the ethical aspects of social work. The BASW Code of Ethics has no statutory basis and is not linked to membership of the GSCC register in any way.
However we believe the BASW Code should form a central part of social work training and is an excellent guide to key issues and standards that should be observed. It is much more detailed than the GSCC Code and if the GSCC Code is amended we hope it will take on board some of the issues covered by the BASW Code.
What does Aspect think will come out of the Social Work Taskforce?
The Social Work taskforce was set up by Ed Balls, Children, Schools and Families Minister, as one of a number of responses to the Baby Peter tragedy. It followed the Laming Report The Protection of Children in England highlighting a range of more general concerns about social work practice. The Report, the Government’s response and the initial report of the Social Work Taskforce can all be found here . Although some of Laming’s recommendation struck a real chord with practitioners, there are concerns as to whether Laming adequately revisited the focus and training for child protection work.
Aspect attends all meetings of the Social Work Taskforce Key Partners group and has submitted evidence which focussed on the crucial importance of staff being able to raise concerns, preferably through professional supervision, but if not, then in other ways in accordance with the staff duty of care and the GSCC Code of Practice.
The Government’s response to the Laming Inquiry included some positive steps such as agreement that the GSCC Employers Code should become mandatory and encouragement to the Social Work Taskforce to propose ways to reduce the burden of the ICS computerised records system and advice to Local Authorities on this has already been sent out.
However the absence of significant extra funding to reduce workloads, protect newly qualified staff and ensure employers have funding to train, develop, support and professionally supervise place real restrictions on what can be achieved. For example, although Laming recommended national guidance on workloads, it is unclear what this will mean without additional funding to recruit and retain staff.
Aspect believes that the ‘single status’ pay scheme and job evaluation in local government has done social workers few favours by failing to reward the complexity and demands of the job. We believe it is time to revisit current arrangements. Decent pay is as essential as manageable workloads if more staff are to be recruited and stay in the profession.
Whether the Taskforce can make the difference its members want to see will largely depend on whether, notwithstanding the gloomy forecasts for public spending, real additional funding is put into both childrens and adult social services to make that happen.
Did Aspect give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on social work training?
We did. It focussed, as our evidence to the Social Work Taskforce did, on the crucial importance of putting systems in place to enable, encourage and require staff to speak out when they have concerns about unsafe practice or unethical decisions. It is now available on the Select Committee web site.
We are grateful to Professor Michael Preston Shoot, Dean of Bedfordshire University, for being co-author of our evidence.
We believe it is essential that social work, the media, and politicians move away from the blame culture which prevents the learning of lessons, intimidates those who wish to raise concerns and leads, for example, to Haringey social workers being pilloried and living in fear even before their case has been heard by the GSCC as Liz Davies illustrates.
Aspect supports the evidence given by the Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC SWEC) which stressed, amongst other matters, the importance of not separating childrens and adult social services training.
No, we’re not. It would be quite wrong to argue that.
However individual social workers do have contractual and ethical responsibilities to and duties to speak out, however difficult the work environment may be. This is not only for self protection, to make sure their concerns are recorded, but at least as importantly it is for the sake of those at risk from poor practice or inadequate resources.
The handbook argues that those who wish to speak up for others must also speak up for themselves. Complying with the Code of Practice and with one’s duty of care is both implicit, and often explicit, within a social worker’s contract of employment. What if? suggests it is about time both the Code and the duty of care were explicitly used by social workers to raise concerns rather than just being used to hammer social workers. We also believe it is important that we take an approach that better team leaders and managers can also support and use themselves.
As a minimum the approach we suggest can give staff the moral high ground in discussions and help lay a clear audit trail.
How that is done and when that is done can vary and will depend on your circumstances. It may be done (in a good employer) within supervision, or in team meetings, or more formally individually or collectively. Whether a group of individuals raise concerns, and then follow it up via a team meeting, or if that doesn’t work via their union, the approach will certainly give staff the moral high ground. It can also be helpful to good managers who can use the concerns raised with their own managers
If this isn’t done – even if only as an audit trail – then it can put staff in a very difficult position since, for example, there may be no evidence that they raised concerns about excessive workloads, inappropriate delegation of work, etc and the potential impact on their work and themselves.
No one is suggesting that using the Code or the duty of care is the answer to all issues. Nor are we suggesting staff all suddenly become whistleblowers, but if social workers are to stand up for themselves – all the better to stand up for those who use services – it seems to us to be a pretty useful approach.
We’d be really interested to hear of examples where the letters in the handbook have been used.
We will be, though our view is that there is no reason why the Code as currently drafted, could not be applied and then amended later.
There are certainly improvements that could be made to the Code. For example, it is much less clear the Nursing and Midwifery Code is on big issues such as skill mix and the delegation of work. Similarly there are aspects of the BASW Code of Ethics that ought to be part of the statutory GSCC Code, such as what the BASW Code says about the sharing of information.
If you are interested in emailing suggestions to us of how the GSCC Code might be improved, please email us at .
This is a fair point. We should have made a reference to them. By way of explanation (or excuse!) the handbook is already a little longer than originally planned.
There a lot of information on Local Involvement Networks (LINks) here
The role of LINks is supposed to be to find out what people want, monitor local services and to use their powers to hold them to account. Each local authority (that provides social services) has been given funding and is under a legal duty to make contractual arrangements that enable LINk activities to take place. The role includes:
- asking what local people what they think about local healthcare services and provide a chance to suggest ideas to help improve services
- investigating specific issues of concern to the community
- using its powers to hold services to account and get results
- asking for information and get an answer in a specified amount of time
- being able to carry out spot-checks to see if services are working well (carried out under safeguards)
- making reports and recommendations and receive a response
- referring issues to the local ‘Overview and Scrutiny Committee’
Under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, local authorities have been given £84 million in funding to support LINk activities between 2008 – 2011.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled Local Involvement Networks (LINks) to be established. The legislation sets out the role and function of LINks and can be downloaded from the web link above.
LINks are likely to have the same shortcomings some PALS organisations have in the NHS. But they may well be worth while making contact with.
Does Aspect think the Social Work Taskforce will really make much difference?
We think the Taskforce did a pretty good job in the circumstances but we are very concerned that without ring fenced additional funding and a continued Government commitment to those recommendations its Report cannot make the difference they could.
The Report requires additional funding for:
- More social workers to be trained
- More social workers to be employed
- Protected caseloads for newly qualified social workers
- Improvements in social worker’s pay
- Improved CPD and training for social workers and their managers
- Increased support from universities during training and in the post qualification year
The report also sets out a clear role for central government in ensuring that the recommendations of the taskforce are implemented since to rely on purely local implementation would lead to a post code lottery for the training, development and employment of staff.
Local government already faces real cuts in spending. After the next General Election all parties are promising deeper cuts and none of the three major parties has given a commitment that social work and social services will be exempt from cuts in the way that education and health are supposed to be.
Bashing central government is easy to do, but social workers need to ask what exactly “decentralisation” means for the Taskforce recommendations and indeed for social services provision more generally.
Aspect will be involved in playing a constructive role in the implementation of the Taskforce recommendations but we foresee choppy waters ahead.
What submissions did Aspect make to the Social Work Taskforce?
We made four. They are:
- Response to the draft statement for social workers in children and families services
Our response to the draft Statement for social workers in children and families services stresses the importance of relating any statement to professional accountability and key elements of that accountability such as the role as advocate and care in the delegation of work. - Response to the consultation on a National College for Social Work
Our response to the draft Statement for social workers in children and families services stresses the importance of relating any statement to professional accountability and key elements of that accountability such as the role as advocate and care in the delegation of work. - Response to the Roles and Tasks Consultation
Aspect has responded to the Skills for Care/ADASS/DH consultation on the roles and tasks of (adult) social workers. You can find the original consultation we have commented on here. - Submission on pay to SOCIAL WORK TASKFORCE
Aspect has made a submission to the Social Work Taskforce on social work pay summarising our analysis of the shortcomings of the job evaluation schemes used to grade social workers and calling for the taskforce to urge action on our findings to ensure a sustainable national framework for social worker pay.
What is Aspect’s view on social worker’s pay?
We believe social workers have been badly served by the current national pay arrangements. The plethora of local supplements are proof that the national pay structure, and the job evaluation schemes in use, utterly fail to reward social workers for the skills, knowledge and responsibilities that are required.
We really don’t understand why it has taken so long to recognise this. Our critique of the current arrangements, especially the job evaluation schemes in use, and our alternative is contained in our evidence to the Task Force (Submission on pay to SOCIAL WORK TASKFORCE) . We were delighted when Community Care magazine subsequently endorsed our approach.
Does Aspect support the idea of a National College of Social Work?
We agree that social work needs a coherent voice so that Government and the wider public can be effectively lobbied by a body with real credibility. Unfortunately, with only half the social worker workforce in a union and even fewer in a professional body, this has not happened, as was shown in the period after Baby Peter’s death.
Such a body must be independent of Government and must be accountable both to the profession and to the public it serves. That will mean it must be able to speak out when professional accountability and the public interest clashes with Government policy or local spending decisions.
So we welcome the recommendation that a National College be established without having any illusions that it is a substitute for real improvements in staffing levels, management culture, and service provision. However, if it is genuinely independent of Government and commands the support of the majority of the profession, it could be an invaluable voice explaining what social workers do, defending high standards and speaking out for the best possible social services.
Will Aspect be involved in the follow up to the Laming Report and the Social Work Taskforce report?
Yes. We expect to be involved in the formal structures established to implement the Taskforce report, and informally at local level. We expect to be involved in many aspects of implementation of the Taskforce recommendations. In doing so we will not compromise our commitment to the duty of care owed to social workers by their employers and the duty of care owed by employers and staff to service users. Over the last few months Aspect has begun to be seen as a credible voice for social workers. We hope that will continue.
