APPENDIX 1
Area Social Care Teams: Current Issues
a)
Initial Assessment Teams
Some teams have experienced a higher volume of cases than was planned for in the
staffing specification. There has been a difficulty allocating cases. The teams that have
been experiencing the most pressure have been some Initial Assessment Teams and
most of the Locality Teams. This has been in part due to the number of referrals that are
still flowing into the Customer Service Centre and the number of requests for Initial
Assessments that are then going into the Initial Assessment Teams. Some of the Initial
Assessment Teams have now built up a waiting list for initial assessments which is of
concern.
Initial Assessment Teams have also experienced problems passing cases that need
further intervention onto the Locality Team. This combination of too many requests for
Initial Assessments going into the Initial Assessment Teams and a log jam in passing
some of the work out has contributed to a serious feeling of overload and a real concern
about the level of practice in both the Initial Assessment and the Locality Teams.
For the workflow in relation to initial assessments to happen efficiently there is an
assumption that there is a through flow to the Family Support and Adolescent Support
Services. Comments received suggest that this does not happen as efficiently as it could,
as referral to these support services is dependent on an initial assessment being
completed. Some of the cases that would benefit from family support services remain
stuck in the Initial Assessment Teams awaiting assessment.
.
There is significant variation in the rate of referrals (per 10,000 population) to the Initial
Assessment Teams and thought needs to be given as to whether the resources available
in each area accurately reflect the level of demand.
Number of Referrals in Month
Team
IA Team East 1, Letchworth
IA Team East 2, Hertford
IA Team West 1, Watford
IA Team West 2, St Albans
November
2005
Number Rate
416
61.1
197
39.0
322
46.5
212
40.8
December 2005
Number
Rate
390
57.2
166
32.6
269
38.8
151
29.1
In addition the initial assessment format that has been developed in Hertfordshire is more
detailed and complex than the national format and seems unnecessarily time consuming.
060309 Growth and Change Update – Appendix 1
1
b)
Locality Teams
The Locality Teams are also under pressure. All work, (with the exception of some
looked after children) comes into the Locality Team following Initial Assessment if it
needs further intervention. In addition to this the Locality Teams also take the vast
majority of Child Protection work directly from Client Services. Accordingly the workload
of Locality Teams is comprised of a mix of short term work of significant severity plus a
substantial long-term workload. As described above, the Locality Teams deal with child
protection investigations section 47 Children Act 1989, all core assessments, all court
work, children on the child protection register and serious cases of children in need. This
means that these teams manage a substantial body of casework as well as dealing with
an excessive workflow of additional cases arriving from the Initial Assessment Teams.
The number of referrals from Client Services (almost exclusively child protection
referrals) to the Locality Teams varies significantly and raises questions about the both
the distribution of resources and the geographical boundaries between teams.
Number of Referrals in Month
Team
(Broxbourne) Team, Locality
(East Herts) Team, Locality
(North Herts/Hitchin) Team, Locality
(North Herts/Letchworth) Team, Locality
(Stevenage) Team, Locality
(Welwyn Hatfield) Team, Locality
(Borehamwood) Team, Locality
(Bushey & London Colney) Team,
Locality
(Dacorum) Team, Locality
(Rural & West Hemel) Team, Locality
(St Albans) Team, Locality
(Three Rivers) Team, Locality
(Watford) Team, Locality
November
2005
Number Rate
10
5.0
13
4.3
6
2.2
14
5.2
38
19.5
9
4.2
8
3.7
6
7
4
24
7
17
2.8
2.2
1.2
7.9
3.6
9.5
December 2005
Number
Rate
3
1.5
10
3.3
5
2.7
7
2.7
16
9.2
8
3.7
3
1.4
1
6
2
10
3
14
0.5
1.9
3.2
3.0
1.6
7.8
There is an expectation within Growth and Change that Locality Team managers will take
a responsibility for developing integrated services in the districts and contribute to the
commissioning/provider relationship with provider services and well as contributing to
district based strategies around the ECM agenda. Due to the demands described above
they are unable to fulfil this function.
c)
Looked After Children Teams
Looked After Children Teams take cases where children are voluntarily accommodated
after the four month (2nd) review and rehabilitation work up to the 2nd review. However,
those cases that go into care proceedings remain in the Locality Teams and transfer to
the Looked After children Teams only after the court proceedings have finished. This
has meant that children change social worker after what could be very lengthy court
proceedings, when they may have a well established relationship with their allocated
worker. Also it means that Looked After Children cases are remaining in the Locality
Teams for a long period contributing to the pressure in those teams.
In addition the Leaving Care Team is up to capacity .Cases awaiting allocation to that
team continue to be held in the LAC teams contributing to the difficulties in maintaining a
060309 Growth and Change Update – Appendix 1
2
healthy work flow. The Leaving Care Team is currently subject to a review which will
impact upon these issues long term.
060309 Growth and Change Update – Appendix 1
3
d)
Management Information and Data Inputting
There has been ongoing difficulty with obtaining accurate management information. This
has been in part due to the pressures on social work staff and errors inputting data
accurately into IRIS .The current expectation that social workers input all data into IRIS
has not been workable in practice in some of the teams due to the other pressures they
are under. The role of the administrative teams in supporting social work staff requires
clarification.
.
The IRIS inaccuracies have lead to inaccurate management data which has to date
made it very difficult to establish baseline data for the number and nature of cases in
each of the teams. This has contributed to the difficulty of monitoring and managing the
work flow processes.
e)
Management Support
Some team managers are finding it difficult to manage the number of cases in the team
and to provide supervision. This is due in part to the fact that the implementation of the
Growth & Change restructure has sometimes involved poor handover of cases and some
difficulties with transfers. However, a lot of the pressure is to do with the quantity and
quality of work. There are issues for managers in terms of their skills and experience in
dealing with child protection work. This is particularly the case in the Locality Teams
where not all the team managers have had significant experience of court and child
protection work. They may also be managing teams which have very mixed levels of
skills and competencies in this area. If these issues are combined with a
disproportionate amount of child protection work coming into the team, there is significant
risk to the quality of practice.
It has become apparent that managers are struggling with basic management tasks such
as providing adequate levels of high quality supervision, completing PM&D’s and
implementing systems for both quality assurance and monitoring and for innovative
service developments. In some teams one team manager can be managing up to 12
practitioners. As a general rule it would not be expected that team managers would on
their own be responsible for supervising more than six staff.
On average team managers are managing between eight to ten practitioners. This is a
large span of control for a team manager and means that they are less likely to complete
basic management tasks as well as doing the day to day supervision of practice. In such
circumstances it is not surprising that levels are of practice are inconsistent. It has
become urgent that we address their capacity and enable them to improve the practice in
their teams.
f)
Quality Assurance
Concerns around the quality of practice in the social work teams have been emerging.
This has been demonstrated by some audits of case files and the work that has been
taken in preparation for the adoption inspection. It has also become obvious for team
managers that PM&D’s have not been completed in about 50% of cases. Some of these
concerns predate Growth & Change but the scale of the restructure has exposed some
of the existing problems.
As detailed above, it has become apparent that the team managers have had neither the
capacity nor the resources to set up systems to routinely quality assure the level of
practice. It is evident from case files that team managers have not been auditing them
060309 Growth and Change Update – Appendix 1
4
systematically and that lessons learned from external audits do not appear to be used to
improve practice. The ongoing problem of getting sound and accurate management data
contributes to the problem. There are no clear systems in place for auditing cases at
service manager level to support the audit work of team managers.
g)
Organisation Culture, Staff Care and Support
Both team managers and practitioners have complained of a culture whereby they do not
feel invested in. There are consistent messages from staff that they feel under pressure
either individually or as part of the system in the team. The staff turnover in the social
work teams has increased since November 2005 to an average of five qualified social
workers leaving a month compared to an average of three. This is a worrying trend and
is leading to an escalation in vacancies that we cannot afford. In addition, The Way We
Work project has meant some staff having additional travelling time which has
contributed to the low staff morale in some areas. Action must be taken to reverse this
trend.
The delegation of decision making lacks clarity. Because of the pressures outlined above
together with a legacy of managing the service with 50% vacant posts, team managers in
Hertfordshire lack the experience of their peers in other local authorities in areas such as
decision making and accountability, budget management, service planning and quality
assurance.
h)
Training and Development
The skill mix in each of the teams is not appropriate for the tasks required. The process
of slotting posts has resulted in the most experienced social workers being in the Initial
Assessment Teams while the Locality Teams, which deal with court work, child
protection, etc tend to have less experienced workers. The numbers of professional
assistants were increased with a view to supporting them with a robust training and
development programme and “growing our own” social workers. There was to be a focus
on maximising the use of qualified social workers on qualified social work tasks by
strengthening and clarifying the role of qualified social workers vis a vis professional
assistants. In practice, the vacancies in the teams and the pressure of cases have made
this difficult to achieve.
Similar difficulties apply to the roles of senior social/level 4 workers. These posts should
be used consistently to support better practice. Level 4 workers should be clear about
their responsibilities and how much coaching, mentoring, training and one to one support
they are expected to provide. In addition, the number of such posts per team should be
clarified. Some teams have more than one senior social worker and other teams have
none.
Inductions must be established for staff who have moved to new teams to provide them
with skills for work they have not previously undertaken e.g. court work and child
protection assessments. A competency based learning and development scheme must
be fully developed to provide a framework for identifying training needs within PM&D’s.
A similar scheme must be implemented for first line team managers and children’s
service managers to determine levels of competence, gaps in knowledge and training
needs as part of a systematic process.
060309 Growth and Change Update – Appendix 1
5