1
Developing and
Implementing a South East
Region Memorandum of
Cooperation for Managing
the Demand and Supply of
Children’s Social Workers
SESLIP Workforce Project Report for
Assistant Director Safeguarding Network
Meeting 19th June 2015
Mark Evans
[email protected]
2
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................2
2. Research and Consultation ........................................................................................3
2.1 Background ..........................................................................................................3
2.2 Benchmarking and Workforce Trends .................................................................3
2.3 Consultation and Qualitative Research in the South East ...................................4
2.3 Researching Best Practice from other Regions ....................................................5
3. Conclusion and Recommendations ...........................................................................7
3.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................9
3.2 Recommendations ...............................................................................................9
Appendix 1 Memorandum of Cooperation Time Line .................................................10
Appendix 2 Draft MoC .................................................................................................11
Appendix 3 MoC Sign Off Page ....................................................................................15
1. Introduction
Recruitment and retention of social workers and frontline managers continues to be
one of the greatest challenges facing local authorities in the South East and beyond.
The problem is fuelled by a shortfall in experienced social workers that is predicated
to continue until at least 2022.1
The South East Directors of Children’s Services Group commissioned SESLIP to set up
a Children’s Social Care Workforce Project2 in late 2014. This work is directed by
Rachael Wardell DCS (West Berkshire) and Caroline Budden ADCS (Surrey). The
broad aims of the project are:





Finding new ways of meeting the needs of staffing children’s services
Making the South East a more attractive area for children’s social care
workers
Reducing reliance upon agency workers
Reducing turnover of children’s social care staff
Improving the quality of children’s social care staff
As part of this work we have been investigating the feasibility of developing a South
East Region Memorandum of Cooperation for Managing the Demand and Supply of
Children’s Social Workers (MoC). MoCs have been developed in other regions to
foster an approach to the issue which seeks to increase collaboration and reduce
competition between local authorities.
1
Policy Exchange Jun 2013
Full Terms of Reference and more information available at:
http://seslip.co.uk/csc-workforce-project-landing-page
2
3
This report provides an overview of this work, a draft South East MoC and sets out a
proposed route map for implementing this approach.
2. Research and Consultation
2.1 Background
The idea of a MoC was first discussed at a meeting with workforce leads in
November 2014, this was followed by a survey of authorities considering the
desirability/do-ability of developing a South East MoC. SESLIP were then
commissioned to consult and produce a draft MoC (by the Assistant Directors
Safeguarding meeting in February 2015). The full timeline is set out in Appendix 1.
2.2 Benchmarking and Workforce Trends
Work undertaken by the SESLIP benchmarking project reveals that across a wide
range of measures the South East position in relation to the children’s social care
workforce is consistently more challenging than the national position, examples
include:
It also highlights worsening trends for the % of agency workers:
and also the turnover of permanent staff:
At the end of September 2014, 710 out of 3,300 social work posts in the South East
were vacant. The vacancy rate between authorities varied from 1.2% to 42% with
the average being 18%.
4
The map above illustrates the differential impact of this problem across the region.
Difficulties are particularly acute along the M4 corridor and in those authorities
bordering Greater London. Larger authorities have also told us that they have
significant variations within their boundaries that to some extent conceal the size of
the problem.
The increased reliance upon agency staffing is not only creating significant additional
financial pressure on local authorities, it is also acting to compromise the ability to
deliver good quality services. Our discussions with frontline managers highlight their
concerns about this issue. Many cite examples of agency workers leaving at short
notice with cases in poor order; they also highlight concerns about low quality
agency workers being recycled from authority to authority due to minimal
referencing.
2.3 Consultation and Qualitative Research in the South East
As part of our consultation process the concept of a South East MoC has been
discussed at the South East Workforce Leads meeting, South East Assistant Directors
(Safeguarding) Network, South East DCSs meeting and at two dedicated workshops
for frontline managers (attended by 27 staff from 14 local authorities). A separate
strand of work has also engaged HR leads from across the region.
The May 2015 meeting of the South East DCS group considered a paper advocating
immediate adoption of a MoC, they supported this action and tasked the AD group
with progressing implementation.
The conclusion of this work is that there is a broad consensus that a MoC would be
helpful in the South East context, but also some nervousness about adopting one in
isolation from neighbouring regions. Those representing authorities with borders
outside the South East expressed this view particularly strongly.
5
The East of England MoC (which has been fully operational since late 2014) was used
as the basis of much of our consultation. It was implemented in two phases, the first
in April and the second in September (2014). The first phase concentrated on
improving the quality of referencing, information sharing between authorities and
starting to influence the conduct of recruitment agencies (e.g. discouraging
aggressive headhunting), whilst the second phase focused on working towards
harmonising pay rates/employment packages for both agency and permanent
workers and a more joined up approach to workforce planning across the region.
In our consultation there was almost universal support for the content of the first
phase of the East of England MoC being adopted by the South East, but a view that
more work would be required before the second phase could be deployed.
2.4 Researching Best Practice from Other Regions
To assist in developing a potential MoC we have contacted other regions to identify
any learning that could be helpful to us in the South East. As referred to above the
East of England region have been particularly helpful.
The eleven local authorities in the East of England have agreed a MoC that focuses
on four key areas, they are:
•
•
•
•
Improved referencing and end of placement reviews for both agency and
permanent staff
Controlling the agency market (pay rates, headhunting etc.)
Greater harmonisation of pay, terms and conditions for permanent workers
Closer working together to develop supply of social workers/managers
The MoC is a combination of some binding agreements and other areas where there
are aspirations to work more closely together. Discussion with Louise Tibbert, the
architect of the East of England MoC, identified some key factors in developing a
successful approach.
6
Essential Elements to Support Successful Implementation of an MOC





DCS/AD leadership in all local authorities signed up to the MoC
Strong commitment to work collaboratively
Senior HR leadership in all local authorities signed up to the MoC
High quality benchmarked information on salaries, agency pay rate etc
Commitment to dialogue and working together when the MoC is breached
(this is inevitable at some point)
 Dedicated capacity within authorities and across the region to implement the
MoC
 Regular forum for those involved in governance of the MoC to review
progress
In addition to discussion with the East of England Region we have also held
discussions with London, East Midlands and West Midlands. All of whom indicated
that they would support a cross regional approach to this issue. In practice this
means they would commit to honouring elements of a South East MoC, providing
the agreement is reciprocal. This would include all authorities borders with the
exception of those who share boundaries with authorities in the South West region
(Hampshire, West Berks and Portsmouth).
The map below summarises the national position in relation to the development of
MoCs:
7
3. Conclusion and Recommendations
Work conducted to date highlights there are compelling reasons to change our
approach to the recruitment and retention of social workers. Escalating competition
and ever more creative retention packages developed by individual local authorities
will not resolve this issue. A MoC and increased collaboration does not represent a
panacea, but does offer a way to stop the issue spiraling further out of control and
offers a means to exert some controls over costs.
There are clearly strong arguments for developing a different approach to this issue,
and adopting a version of the East of England MoC provides a potential mechanism
for achieving this. However to deliver the benefits will require real commitment and
the allocation of time and resources.
In the East of England significant work has been completed to support the MoC, this
includes strong sponsorship from DCSs and HR Directors, extensive benchmarking of
pay rates, salaries and conditions, alongside considerable development work. This
has been underpinned by regional investment in additional dedicated capacity to
support implementation. No real sanctions exist for breaching the MoC, it relies
upon the commitment and sponsorship of the DCS group to work in a collaborative
way.
We think a similar approach would work for the South East. A phased approach
would be most appropriate, the first phase would involve moving quickly to adopt
the first part of the MoC, at the same time we would work to progress the second
part of the agreement by doing the work required to develop the aspirational
statements into more concrete commitments.
Employing this approach also leaves the option of further tailoring the content of
phase 2 to meet the needs of our region. The East of England MoC is particularly
wide in scope and far-reaching, other regions (e.g. West Midlands) have taken a
more focused approach on a smaller number of issues (primarily agency worker pay).
To develop and implement a SE MoC each local authority would need to identify
capacity. This would include a sponsor at AD level (or someone authorised to make
significant decisions) and a senior HR lead. Experience from the East of England
suggests these commitments should not be underestimated as part of the role
involves being available for discussion and dialogue prompted by the MoC (for
example if an authority does not comply with part of the agreement). The East of
England encouraged communication in the early stages to ensure it evolved in a
practical way, whilst still delivering the main objectives.
We are proposing that the South East Region should adopt the draft MoC contained
in Appendix 2. We are suggesting the first phase is adopted immediately and
commitment is made to develop and implement the second phase over the coming 6
months. Formal adoption of the first phase of the MoC and your commitment to
8
work with us to develop the 2nd phase can be indicated by signing and returning
appendix 3 to [email protected].
The table below describes the commitment authorities will need to invest to support
the MoC in the first 6 months.
Table A Commitment required from all Local Authorities joining the MOC
Who by
Estimated time Notes
commitment
Preparatory work for each local
AD with HR
1-3 days
Will be variable
authority. This will include:
support
dependent on existing
systems/processes in
 Agreeing LA position on each
place
clause of phase 2 of the MoC
 Collating information required
to finalise MoC (e.g. agency pay
rate, permanent staff pay rates,
terms and conditions)
 Working with recruiting
managers to prepare for
implementation
Work through draft MoC to ensure it
SESLIP with
1 day
Could be delegated for
complies with legislation & best practice Legal/HR
1 or 2 LAs to do on
requirements
support
behalf of all
One off meeting to work through MoC
AD & senior
3 hours +
This will be a critical
and finalise what will be included in the
HR lead from
preparation
task and will require
document. This will require a clause by
all LAs
and travel
all present to be able
clause review with decisions to
to make commitments
on behalf of their
 include
authority
 work towards (and agree time
frame)
 not include
6-8 Week review – meeting to consider
AD & senior
1.5 hours +
implementation and review how well
HR lead from
preparation
MoC is operating
all LAs
and travel
Identify performance measures and
SESLIP & AD’s 1-1.5 hours +
Could be included in
undertake quarterly review process.
preparation
existing AD meeting
When the MoC is established it will
and travel
require regular review
Driving forward longer term elements of AD/Service
Difficult to be
Some of this work is
MoC (e.g. work with universities and
Managers and precise,
already in place and
workforce planning)
HR/OD
estimate 4-5
the MoC could build
support
days per LA in
on it
first 6 months
of operation
Set up a local agency provider event to
SESLIP and
1-2 days
communicate changes to social work
representative
agencies
AD/Service
Managers and
HR/OD
support
Key Task
9
SESLIP will provide practical support to the project. This would include the following
key tasks:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Production of and finalising the MoC
Supporting sign off of the MOC by DCSs, ADs & HR Leads
Production of supporting materials (e.g. standardised end of placement
reviews, references etc)
Production of benchmarking information in relation to agency rates and
permanent staff salaries
Facilitating meetings to agree second phase of the MoC and review
progress
To link into the development of inter-regional MoC agreements
Provision of this support would go some way to delivering the essential elements
required for the successful development of a MoC identified earlier in this report.
3.1 Conclusion
In conclusion we are advocating the immediate adoption of phase 1 of the draft MoC
(Appendix 2) and all authorities in the South East to work towards agreement in
relation to phase 2 over the following 6 months. It is clear from our workforce
benchmarking and consultation that the South East is facing an acute shortage of
children’s social workers, which is being exacerbated by increasing churn and
turnover fuelled by competition between local authorities and other employers.
Developing a MoC, supported by a more collaborative approach, offers the
opportunity to start to address this issue.
3.2 Recommendations
1. All authorities to commit to phase 1 of the MoC by signing and returning
Appendix 3.
2. All authorities to commit to allocate the time and resources to agree phase 2
of the MoC within the next 6 months (as outlined in Table A).
3. SESLIP to be commissioned to support the development and implementation
of the MoC (as outlined in Table A).
10
Appendix 1 Memorandum of Cooperation Time Line
7th November 2014
•Discussed with workforce leads and agreement to survey all authorities on the viability
of a SE MoC being developed
•Survey looked at the do-ability and desirability of each of the 16 clauses in the East of
England MoC. Responses received from 9 of the 19 local authorities in the SE
December 2014
•MoC discussed at Safeguarding ADs group and agreement to consult more widely and
draft SE version for 19th June 2015 meeting
27th February 2015
15th April 2015
&
•Workshops attended by 27 Social Care Managers from 14 SE LAs consulted on potential
SE MoC
19th May 2015
19th June 2015
19th June -31st
July 2015
August -December
2015
•Scheduled to return to SE AD Safeguarding Group with report on consultation and draft
SE MoC
•Local Authorities in South East to commit to phase 1 of SE MoC and work to develop
phase 2
•Local Authorities and SESLIP to work to agree final wording for phase 2 of the SE MoC
•Implement phase 2 of SE MoC
January 2016
11
Appendix 2 Draft MoC
South East Region
Memorandum of
Cooperation for Managing
the Demand and Supply of
Children’s Social Workers
12
South East Region Memorandum of Cooperation for Managing the Demand and
Supply of Children’s Social Workers
Context
Nationally and regionally, each council is focused on attraction, recruitment and
retention to fill social worker vacancies and leadership roles. Success is mixed and much
depends on factors like pay and the employment package, as well as reputation,
development opportunities, case loads, quality of support and supervision, together
with leadership. Some LAs are experiencing severe service quality issues and their
increased recruitment and agency supply activities are affecting the whole supply
pipeline. The mis-match in requirements, i.e. over-demand and under-supply, is
affecting all local authorities.
To manage agency and permanent worker supply and demand, and the costs associated
with this, there is a need for a more collaborative and strategic approach. Just managing
the agency supply will not resolve the bigger challenge of securing a more stable
permanent workforce to deliver good quality local services for vulnerable children.
Equally, each LA is trying to address its own local challenges with limited success.
This Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) is an attempt to work more collaboratively
across the South East Region initially, and then with bordering councils, in order to
manage the demand and supply of children’s social workers.
Scope
The scope covers children’s social worker, assistant team manager and team manager
roles (or their equivalents) for both permanent and agency supply.
Effective Date of Implementation
The effective date for the initial protocols (1-6) will be 1 August 2015, although some of
these will need phasing-in via a co-ordinated delivery plan.
The effective dates for the remaining protocols (7-13) will be determined in discussion
with the Regional Assistant Director Group and will form an ongoing programme of
activity supported by a transparent and co-ordinated delivery plan.
Governance
At Phase 1, the Regional Assistant Directors (Safeguarding) of Children’s Services Group
will be accountable for ensuring that their Service Managers and Directors/Heads of HR
and agency suppliers adopt the protocols. Progress updates and, where necessary,
decisions will be presented to the Regional DCS Group at agreed intervals. Initially this is
expected to be quarterly.
13
Measuring Success
Key measures of success will be monitored and reported upon by the South East
Regional Benchmark Group.
All Local Authority signatories to the Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) agree to
adopt the following protocols as agreed in principle by the Regional DCS Group on
<Date to be agreed> and as amended following discussion and feedback:
1. Adopt a common minimum standard for referencing to help prevent ‘recycling’ of
poor quality permanent and agency workers.
2. Use end of placement reviews with adequate information passed back to the agency
workers and the agency supplier to determine any development requirements or to
cease placing the worker to help to address quality issues.
3. To work towards fully implementing the terms of this MoC via all their suppliers, i.e.
main contractor and any 2nd tier suppliers.
4. Proactively use their agency supply chain as a pipeline for the supply of permanent
workers, in addition to direct recruitment. All LAs acknowledge that working as an
interim helps to build experience and enhances productivity.
5. Ensure that permanent and agency workers are clear from the outset of the MoC and
how it is being adopted by all signatory LAs and their agency suppliers. LAs and suppliers
will provide standardised information on the MoC during recruitment and at induction.
6. LAs and all their suppliers (whether providing permanent or temporary supply of
workers) to refrain from aggressive ‘headhunting’ from within those LAs that have
adopted the MoC, unless for a promotional role. Some rules of engagement will be
developed in discussion with LAs for this purpose.
Within 6 months, the Regional AD Group has also agreed to consider the following
protocols with a view to finalising the second phase of the MoC
7. Investigate the viability of a transition to a ‘direct’ supply model for qualified social
workers (i.e. employed by the main supplier rather than 2nd tier agencies /
subcontractors) with a single or a few key suppliers. This will assist with reducing /
maintaining agency pay rates and margins to help address the quality and quantity of
workers in the supply chain, and to improve compliance issues, e.g. professional
registration, right to work, DBS and other checks. Those LAs that choose not to move to
a direct supply model or whose current agency contracts prevent this, are NOT
precluded from participating in the MoC and will be actively encouraged to remain part
of this collaborative approach.
8. Work towards more broadly comparable pay rates across the region for permanent
and agency social workers (this may mean that a few LAs will pay more depending on
geography, but most are already paying ‘market’ supplements to a similar overall level).
Some of the savings from reducing temp spend and converting market pay to base pay
14
could support increased pay rates to aid recruitment and retention.
9. Investigate the appetite to work towards greater consistency of employment
packages as far as possible across the LAs to reduce competition.
10. Consider working towards limiting agency worker tenure at the outset of each
placement so that expectations are managed, e.g. 12 weeks maximum. This will
discourage workers from leaving the security of permanent roles.
11. Consider and draft a ‘no recruitment’ or placement policy for temporary workers
who have joined agencies from the LAs who have adopted the Code, e.g. for 6 or 12
months from date of leaving. This could be included in employment contracts to try to
restrict workers from joining other LAs (i.e. those who are signatories to the MoC) within
this time frame unless for a promotional role. This would be difficult to enforce but is
used in other sectors. Some LAs have already adopted this approach with their agency
staffing provider.
12. Develop a joint approach to working with identified universities and colleges to offer
high quality training and qualifications for social workers, and use the combined
economies of scale from the LAs to help drive cost, quality and outcomes. The numbers
of places should be informed by strategic workforce planning.
13. Develop a regional approach to workforce planning for social workers to forecast
and then help to plan to meet future demand.
15
Appendix 3 MoC Sign Off Page
We, the undersigned, support and commit to the terms of the
South East Region Memorandum of Cooperation for Managing
the Demand and Supply of Children’s Social Workers.
Signed:
Name:
Director of Children’s Services
Local Authority:
Signed:
Name:
Assistant Director of Children’s Services (Safeguarding)
Local Authority:
Signed:
Name:
Head of HR
Local Authority:
Please sign, complete and return to [email protected]
All returns will be uploaded to the South East Improvement Programme
website (http://seslip.co.uk/) alongside the completed MoC.