Aspects of Social Work Practice That Make a Positive Difference for Children 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Children’s Workforce: Workforce Development
Literature Snapshot – July 2012
Prepared by Centre for Social Research and Evaluation
Prepared for Child, Youth and Family Policy
Contents
Literature Snapshots 1 Introduction 2 Aspects of social work practice that make a positive difference for children 2 Elements that make the most difference to child worker practice 3 Characteristics of the New Zealand social services workforce for children 10 Building a more effective children’s workforce 11 Differences in New Zealand’s approach to the social services workforce 14 References 16
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot Literature Snapshots
This literature snapshot is one of a number of time-limited research scans commissioned by Child, Family and Community Policy to inform the development of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children. The snapshot provides a narrative review of literature that focuses on a general topic of interest. It does not seek to weigh up a body of focused scholarship in order to make a definitive judgement about the strength of evidence in support of particular programmes and practices. The information in this snapshot is limited to a single literature search across reputable online information sources, government websites and other printed materials.
Parameters of the literature search The Ministry of Social Development’s Knowledge Services searched both peer reviewed literature and the Ministry’s document management system EDRMS for information about social work practice that has a positive impact on child outcomes. These questions were of particular interest: • What aspects of social worker practice does research suggest makes a positive difference for children, particularly children vulnerable to abuse and neglect? • To what extent does the New Zealand social services workforce for children have these characteristics? • Are there any significant differences in New Zealand’s approach to the social services workforce compared to similar countries?
Methodology The keywords for this search used in various combinations and fields were: social work, social workers, practice, child, protection, welfare, abuse, neglect, maltreatment, effective, success, best and works. The databases used were: Knowledge Services Database, the National Bibliographical Database, Index New Zealand, Social Care, EBSCOHost Research Databases, and the website of the Ministry of Social Development.
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 1 Introduction
This literature snapshot summarises literature relating to the development of the children’s workforce (ie a workforce of people who work with children). It focuses on the social worker workforce and draws mainly on literature from the UK, the US, Canada and Australia. Aspects of social work practice that make a positive difference for children
Well qualified staff and a supportive environment Capable, competent and well qualified staff with access to ongoing professional development and policy and organisational support can contribute to improved child outcomes in both preventative and child welfare work. Research1 suggests that while staff need appropriate qualifications to implement best practices in their workplace, they also need organisational support in the form of: • reasonable caseloads • accessible clinical supervision • time and a forum for reflective practice and a culture that promotes it • management decisions based on social work ethics • a shared view of child protection that enables agencies to work together • adequate, appropriate and accessible resources • a flexible and creative service system, which allows them to exercise their professional judgement.
A child-centred approach A child-centred approach is increasingly promoted as best practice (Miller, 2010; Munro, 2011; Scottish Executive, 2006). This approach is based on the relationships that practitioners develop with children and families that engage them in a process of change. Purposeful engagement takes skill, empathy and emotional intelligence to manage often conflicting agendas (Miller, 2010; Scottish Executive, 2006).
Understanding roles When social workers and their colleagues understand the range of tasks social workers carry out, outcomes for children can be improved. In some situations, such as where a child needs safeguarding from abuse, neglect or exploitation, a registered, experienced social worker should always be involved. Other tasks can be appropriately shared with or delegated to other social services staff. Where social workers work in multi-agency or interdisciplinary teams, they need to be clear about their roles and flexible in their responses to complex situations (General Social Care Council, 2008).
1 See Canadian Association of Social Workers Child Welfare Project, 2003; Department for Education and Skills, 2005; Harvard Family Research Project, 2008; Munro and Hubbard, 2011; Munro, 2011.
2 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot Elements that make the most difference to child worker practice
Qualifications, professional development and supervision Quality qualifications, ongoing learning and professional development and access to supervision from skilled supervisors help improve child worker practice. The children’s workforce is varied, ranging from medical and health professionals, teachers and social workers (who typically require a degree to enter their profession), to youth and community workers, untrained assistants and volunteers, some of whom will have no relevant qualifications (Department for Education and Skills, 2005). The literature2 agrees that workers not in specialist positions need training in: • basic knowledge and understanding of child development and cross-cultural child rearing practices • identifying child abuse indicators and how to report them • knowing their roles and obligations • understanding how to cooperate and collaborate with other agencies • improving skills at engaging and communicating with children and with their families.
Specialist child protection workers' training needs include: • expertise in assessment/investigation, critical analysis and decision-making • good knowledge and understanding of child development and cross-cultural child rearing practices • understanding how to cooperate and collaborate with other agencies • interdisciplinary working • expertise in engaging with children • high level skills in including families when working with children who are at risk.
For social workers and the agencies that employ them, the challenge is to make sure that social workers maintain a broad range of expertise, backed up by access to specialist expertise or consultancy, either locally or nationally (General Social Care Council, 2010; Scottish Executive, 2006).
Supervision that promotes and respects worker autonomy and competency while maintaining a consultative and supportive presence is among the organisational factors identified as contributing to good practice and employee retention (Zlotnik et al., 2009). Supervision, particularly for child protection workers, needs to focus on the needs of the worker and their clients rather than on compliance with agency requirements (Goddard & Hunt, 2011; Warman & Jackson, 2007). Managers may need training on how to provide professional supervision for their workers and create a culture of support (Schudrich, 2012).
Management and leadership
2 See Penter, Cant & Clare, 2005; Folaron & Hostetter, 2007; Scottish Executive, 2006; Brandon et al., 2011.
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 3 Effective management and leadership are essential to promote and facilitate excellence in the workforce, especially in the management of multi-disciplinary teams (Children’s Workforce Development Council, 2007a). New ways of working will require different leadership and management skills which will need to be reflected in training programmes.
Organisational design Much of the literature, particularly from the UK, favours integrated services, interdisciplinary teams and multi-agency settings as the best way to promote the welfare of children and protect them from abuse (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011; Department for Education, 2011; General Social Care Council, 2008). However, while the impacts of these characteristics on professionals are often cited and well evidenced (rewarding and stimulating work, increased knowledge and understanding of other agencies and improved relationships with other agencies), empirical evidence for impacts on service users is sparse. The main impacts for children appear to be their improved access to services, through speedier and more appropriate referral, and a greater focus on prevention and early intervention (Atkinson et al., 2007). The establishment of effective multi-agency working relationships depends on: • clarifying roles and responsibilities and valuing diversity • securing commitment at all levels (by having commitment at senior level, highlighting the benefits) • engendering trust and mutual respect (through sharing skills and expertise, equal resource distribution) • fostering understanding between agencies (through joint training and recognition of individual expertise) (Atkinson et al., 2007).
In contrast to the UK, specialisation of roles and services is the strongest and most comprehensive organisational trend in Swedish social work. Researchers found that an integrated or generic organisational model, which was the imperative of the 1970s, and still characterises the Swedish legislation today, seems to exist only in the small municipalities. Hence, almost all clients in the remaining parts of Sweden come into contact with highly specialised social work units (Bergmark & Lundström, 2007).
Organisational requirements Organisational requirements for working with vulnerable children centre on having policies and procedures in place, well trained staff and a commitment to action. The Children Matter East forum in the UK3 describes “safeguarding” as being about “ensuring that a relationship of trust is not compromised, preventing things from going wrong at an organisational level and having the right protocols and procedures in place to deal with the consequences of difficulties if and when they arise”. This includes ensuring that:
3 http://www.childrenmattereast.org.uk
4 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot • there are robust up-to-date procedures (including a whistle-blowing policy and recruitment checks) for avoiding and responding to actual or suspected abuse or neglect • staff are trained in recognising and responding appropriately to suspected abuse • there are procedures to prevent staff from gaining personal benefit when working with vulnerable people • the policies and procedures are fully understood by all staff (paid and voluntary workers) • staff are made aware of and understand their professional boundaries • service users are aware of the procedures for reporting abuse or neglect • prompt action is taken in response to individual complaints or concerns from staff or service users.
Similar requirements operate in Australia. The Community Door is a ‘one-stop shop’ providing information, tools and resources to support community-based organisations in Queensland. It notes that organisations need to implement procedures to ensure all services and responses to clients comply with duty of care and accepted standards of ethical behaviour. To achieve this, staff need clear guidelines for their work, which should be set out in the organisation’s policies and procedures. All workers should be introduced to them at their induction. Critical decision-making problems can be discussed and resolved at professional supervision. Most effective organisations have a clear process for supervising their staff and regular supervision sessions are scheduled into a worker’s timetable.4
Recruitment and retention The problem of high turnover rates in the children’s workforce is considered especially important compared to other sectors because of its bearing on continuity of care (Department for Education and Skills, 2005). Systematic reviews of research show that the following factors are significant in predicting turnover (Wagner et al., 2008; Zlotnik et al., 2009): • workers’ commitment to child welfare and the ability to cope with stress are important personal factors for staying • supervisory and co-worker support and salary and benefits are important organisational factors for retention • emotional exhaustion, stress and role conflict influence plans to leave • lack of supervisory and administrative support, opportunities for promotion and external client resources and organisational leadership • failure to recognise and reward staff • unmanageable workloads are significant factors in predicting turnover.
Suggestions for managing retention and reducing turnover include:
4 http://legacy.communitydoor.org.au
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 5 • extending career pathways and developing simplified and streamlined qualifications and development frameworks • developing reward systems to provide incentives to workers to enhance skills and performance and to progress their careers • reducing temporary staffing and promoting a lead professional approach to improve continuity of care • meeting the full cultural, professional induction and mentoring support needs of social care workers from other countries (Children’s Workforce Development Council, 2007).
Mandatory checks Mandatory safety checks for people working with children are one strategy for ensuring that appropriate people are recruited to the workforce. Issues relating to such checks include their scope, their practicality and cost, and their contribution to employers’ responsibilities to make their own checks.
Australia Several jurisdictions have mandatory safety checks for people working with children. Australian requirements are summarised in the table below:5
State/Territory Legal requirements
Australian Capital Under new rules in the ACT, people who work with children and vulnerable adults must register Territory with a Statutory Screening Unit. Under the Working with Vulnerable People (Background Checking) Bill 2010 it is expected that all employees and volunteers who provide regulated services to children will be checked in the first year of the new law’s operation.
New South Wales The NSW Commission for Children and Young People is responsible for the Working with Children Check which helps determine whether people are suitable to work in child-related employment.
This checklist aims to create workplaces where children are safe and protected, and where the people who work with children are appropriately screened.
Northern Territory In the NT the law was recently changed and from 1 March 2011 it was made mandatory for people who have contact or potential contact with children to hold a Working with Children Clearance Notice and an Ochre Card. SAFE NT administers the clearance procedure which involves an employment and criminal history check. People who have previously had a Criminal History Check to work with children will still be required to apply for the Working with Children Clearance if they work in certain specified areas of employment.
Queensland In Queensland people working or volunteering with children need to hold a Blue Card. The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian is responsible for administering and conducting criminal history checks on people who want to work with children to determine whether or not they are eligible to hold a Blue Card.
South Australia Under the Children's Protection Act (Section 8B) people in SA who work in jobs which require regular contact with children are required to obtain police clearance before they commence employment. A National Police Certificate application form is available from the SA Police Department.
Tasmania Currently there are no legal requirements for people working with children to undertake a police check in Tasmania, however, organisations which require employees and/or volunteers to work
5 http://www.careforkids.com.au/articlesv2/article.asp?ID=82
6 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot with children may have their own policies in this regard. In 2005 the Commissioner for Children Tasmania released a consultation paper discussing proposals for the Government to introduce screening procedures for Tasmanian organisations who want to employ people to work with children.
Victoria The Victorian Government has introduced the Working with Children Check which is compulsory for people who wish to work or volunteer with children. The check seeks to protect children from harm by requiring people to undertake a criminal history check before they start work in an organisation.
Western Australia In Western Australia a Working with Children Check is compulsory for people who carry out child-related work in Western Australia. The check aims to protect children by deterring people from working with children when they have criminal records that indicate they may harm children; and by preventing people with such records from gaining positions of trust in paid and voluntary work with children.
The Working with Children Check (WWCC) has been reviewed in Victoria and was found to be well implemented, with a comprehensive quality assurance framework and processes that enable adequate monitoring, management and reporting of operational costs and processes. However, the review noted that “the output measures specified are not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of the WWCC system” (Victorian Auditor-General, 2008). In Western Australia, three academics considered the value of the card as a child abuse prevention measure. They noted several limitations to the card’s effectiveness: exemptions from requiring a card; the inability to access criminal records internationally and from other Australian jurisdictions; screening not extending to the relevant records of people who do not have a criminal record; costs; duplication with the federal government’s National Police Certificate System; and a limited role for child protection expertise. They concluded that “given the lack of knowledge about the level of organisation-located child abuse, evaluating the card’s impact on protecting children might never be possible. If the card engenders a false sense of security and lessened vigilance, opportunities for child abuse might increase.” (Budiselik, Crawford & Squelch, 2009). An earlier report on Aboriginal Customary Laws (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2006) describes the process for obtaining a WWCC card and concludes that the identification requirements may be difficult for some Aboriginal people to meet. It notes that alternative methods of identification will be considered on a case by case basis. The paper also argues that checks should be provided at no cost to staff and volunteers of not-for-profit Aboriginal community organisations and initiatives.
United Kingdom The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) was introduced in the UK in 2006, although schemes of a similar nature have been in place since 1926. It was reviewed in 2009 to assess whether the Government had drawn the appropriate line in regard to the frequency of contact with children that should trigger the obligation to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). This review recommended that:
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 7 • mutually agreed and responsible arrangements made between parents and friends for the care of their children should not be affected by the VBS • where organisations such as schools, clubs or groups decide which adults should work with their children, the requirement to register should apply, subject to the frequent and intensive contact provisions • the frequent contact test would be met if the work with children takes place once a week or more. The intensive contact test would be met if the work takes place on 4 days in one month or more or overnight • individuals who go into different schools or similar settings to work with different groups of children should not be required to register unless their contact with the same children is frequent or intensive • the minimum age of registration for young people who engage in regulated activity as part of their continuing education should be reviewed (Singleton, 2009).
A further review in 2011 examined the fundamental principles behind the VBS in the overall context of wider responsibilities for safeguarding. This review found widespread support for a central barring regime with concerns centring on its scope and proportionality. The key changes proposed in the report were:
• maintaining a barring function, to cover only those who may have regular or close contact with vulnerable groups. It should include those working unsupervised or in regular close contact with children with barring continuing to apply to both paid and unpaid roles • automatic barring for serious offences which provide a clear and direct indication of risk • continued availability of criminal records disclosures to employers and voluntary bodies, with the addition of a system for continuous updating • abolishing registration and monitoring requirements • redefining the scope of 'regulated activities' • abolishing 'controlled activities' • making services relating to criminal disclosure and barring provisions self-financing (Home Office, 2011).
The review also recommended combining the Criminal Records Bureau and the ISA into a new single body.6 This recommendation has been adopted, and the new body, to be called the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) should be in place by November 2012. In the meantime the existing regulations that were introduced in October 2009 continue to apply: • the ISA will still make independent barring decisions and maintain two constantly updated lists (one for those barred from working with children, the other for those barred from working with vulnerable adults) • it will remain a criminal offence for a barred person to work with vulnerable people
6 http://www.isa.homeoffice.gov.uk/
8 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot • existing requirements for Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks will remain in place, and people entitled to these checks can still apply for them • employers are still legally obliged to inform the ISA if they have moved or removed an individual because they have harmed or pose a risk of harm to a member of a vulnerable group.
United States In the US, background check requirements vary greatly by state and type of employment. Information from a national child care site7 notes that according to the National Association of Child Care Resources and Agencies (NACCRA) thorough background check requirements are sorely lacking: • 21 states do not conduct fingerprint checks. • 43 states do not check the sex offender registry for child care staff. • 24 states do not conduct a fingerprint check for family child care providers.
Regulation Social work is increasingly moving towards professionalisation through registration for social workers. In the UK mandatory registration of social workers and legal protection of the title “social worker” came into effect on 1 April 2005 to ensure that only those who are properly qualified, registered and accountable for their work can describe themselves as social workers. In April 2009 the Scottish Government introduced regulations to make registration mandatory and has set target dates by which certain groups of workers must be registered by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) or another relevant regulatory body, eg the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In Canada, registration is a matter of provincial concern, leading to a variety of definitions of the social work title and practice standards across the country. In Australia, the registration debate is unresolved but the Australian Association of Social Workers has developed standards for accountable, ethical and professional practice, with an associated complaints process (Healy & Link, 2012).
Characteristics of the New Zealand social services workforce for children
Qualifications, professional development and supervision Fewer social workers have qualifications than other professions such as teachers and nurses. Census data shows that 14.6 per cent of social workers have a recognised social work qualification (NZQA level 6 or higher), nearly a fifth have a degree qualification or higher, and a third have a vocational qualification (NZQA level 4-5) but not necessarily in social work (Mansell, 2007).
7 http://childcare.about.com
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 9 Qualification levels among the Child, Youth and Family (CYF) workforce tend to be higher than among the social work workforce as a whole (Martin Jenkins and Associates, 2004). Māori social workers in CYF are just as likely to be qualified as CYF social workers of other ethnicities (Mansell, 2007). Social workers in schools are also well qualified, with almost two-thirds having a qualification in social work or a related field (Davidson, 2007). Government NGO Social Work study awards are available to NGO employees to get a qualification that will enable them to become registered. Over the six years the programme has been running, 478 awardees commenced study; 198 graduated with a recognised qualification in social work; 193 remain active within the programme and 87 have withdrawn before qualifying, most often because the student moved to “non- qualifying” employment.8 Little information is available on the qualifications of youth workers, whānau workers, community workers or caregivers, or on training provided by the NGO sector for its staff. No data is available on professional development undertaken by members of the social services workforce for children, and very little is available on the level and quality of professional supervision. Martin Jenkins and Associates (2004) found that almost half of CYF staff felt that professional supervision was not used appropriately. Only 30 per cent of staff had 30 or more hours supervision annually; the model did not involve reflective practice; supervisors had insufficient experience; workloads limited the time available and supervision tended to be about casework management rather than social work practice. Hutchings (2008) argues that the role and nature of supervision should be given more consideration by the Social Work Registration Board.
Management, leadership and organisational factors Many social workers in New Zealand work in multi-disciplinary or multi agency settings but relatively few services have been evaluated from a social worker perspective. An evaluation of the Social Workers in Schools initiative reported positive outcomes for children and whānau. While some social workers found that maintaining relationships with a large number of stakeholders was a challenge, good communication and role clarity led to positive partnerships (Davidson, 2007).
Recruitment and retention Little is known about retention and turnover among the children’s workforce or the factors that drive employment decisions. Data shows that within CYF, turnover of social workers dropped from 15.6 per cent in 2001 to 9.5 per cent in 2004; with a corresponding increase in the proportion of staff with over three years’ experience (Martin Jenkins and Associates, 2004).
Registration
8 http://www.familyservices.govt.nz
10 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot Voluntary registration for social workers was introduced in New Zealand in 2003. Currently around 2,800 registered social workers are active out of a potential workforce of 6,000 (Noble and Nash, 2012).
Mandatory checks In New Zealand safety checks are required for family/whänau care placements through CYF. Individual consent from the prospective family/whānau caregiver and others living in the home is obtained prior to accessing personal information for the purposes of completing a caregiver assessment. The following safety checks are required:9 • Police checks (including checks on family violence) of the prospective caregivers and household occupants 17 years and over. • CYRAS (Case Management System) and TRIM (document management system) checks of all household occupants. • A visit to the family/whānau member’s home to ensure it is safe, suitable and can meet the needs of the child or young person. Building a more effective children’s workforce
The most significant initiative to build a more effective children’s workforce has come from the UK. It is difficult to gather reliable information on the costs of particular initiatives but easier to assess the timescale for their implementation.
The Children’s Workforce Strategy – United Kingdom The programme of reform for the children’s workforce is estimated to take 15 to 20 years. Work began in 2003 leading to the publication of the Children’s Workforce Strategy in 2005. The Strategy has been regularly reviewed and updated (Department of Children, Schools and Families, 2008; 2010). The Children’s Workforce Development Council closed on 31 March 2012 with its key work transferring to the Teaching Agency and the Children's Improvement Board (CIB) which is leading a new initiative to help councils improve their performance in children's services. The CIB is a partnership between the Local Government Association (LGA), the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), supported by funding from the Department for Education (DfE). All partners on the Board are committed to supporting local government to take charge of its own performance and improvement in the interests of children and young people. While the CWDC was operating, all local authorities prepared Children’s Workforce Strategy plans to 2014. It is unclear whether this will continue under the CIB. In 2005, the Government invested nearly £73m over three years for a package of proposals to improve training, recruitment and professional development for social workers working with children and families. The initiatives were to:
9 www.cyf.govt.nz
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 11 • Pilot a fast-track work-based route into social work for mature professionals offering accelerated entry and progression. Offer scope for local areas to build on successful trainee schemes targeted towards high achieving graduates. • Run a national marketing and communications campaign to encourage more people from a wider range of professional backgrounds into social work. • Improve undergraduate and postgraduate training so all social workers have the qualifications, skills and knowledge they need to offer highly personalised support and services to children and families. Pay particular attention to reviewing the supply and quality of practice placements in social work, working with key partners. • Pilot a newly qualified social work status from September 2008 offering a year of supported induction for about 1,000 new social workers underpinned by appraisal against outcomes statements and protected caseloads. Pilots will offer supported early professional development for social workers as they move into their second and third year of employment and improvements in supervision. • Develop and pilot a framework for professional development for social workers, including those in specialist roles. This will set out the standards and competencies expected at different career stages, provide a coherent career pathway, and provide improved development planning and incentives for advanced social workers to remain on the front line. • Test approaches to remodel roles and practices through: targeted recruitment and retention approaches; peer support for middle managers; additional funding for local authorities to invest in ICT for social workers; and social work delivery pilots. Findings from this work will support pilots of the social work practices model in a small number of local authorities (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008).
Other initiatives included:
• The Children’s Workforce Network (CWN) which was established in 2004 to bring together Sector Skills Councils, workforce reform and regulatory bodies. It was responsible for developing an Integrated Qualifications Framework (IQF) for the children and young people’s workforce to be implemented in 2010. • The development of a set of values for integrated working with children and young people. This was undertaken by the General Social Care Council (GSCC), General Teaching Council for England and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008). • The development of the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge, which sets out the essential skills and knowledge needed to work with children and young people. It is now embedded in a broad range of initial qualification, training and induction standards across the workforce. Its status is unclear since the demise of CWDC in March 2012.
12 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot • The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act which was passed in 2007 to ensure that everyone who works with children or young people is safe to do so. The Independent Safeguarding Authority was created in January 2008.
In 2009, the UK Government accepted the recommendations of the Social Work Task Force review. These included establishing the Social Work Reform Board to drive reform and report to Ministers on progress. Other recommendations involved developing a regulatory framework, employer and supervision standards, a continuing professional development framework, selection criteria, a new curriculum and an enhanced career structure. An Implementation Plan was accompanied by a commitment to government investment of more than £200m in 2010 to 2011 (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010). The reform programme will be taken forward in three phases with reviews in 2011 and 2014. • Phase one – Transition (2010–11). • Phase two – System Reform (2011–2014). • Phase three – Embedding Improvement (2014 and beyond).
Grow Your Own initiatives – United Kingdom A local authority-funded ‘Grow Your Own’ (GYO) programme through which employers support students through their studies has been running in the UK since 1999. GYO activity can be broadly categorised into two main models: secondments and traineeships. The type and level of support offered to GYO students by their employer vary significantly between organisations and different models of GYO. They include supervision and mentoring, financial aspects and study leave. Findings from a GSCC study showed that GYO provided employers with newly qualified social workers able to take on full caseloads. This was due to familiarity with the employer and their working practices. Staff retention rates improved alongside those employers with commitments to continuing professional development as a result of good learning-based cultures (Harris et al., 2008).
Newly Qualified Social Worker Programme – United Kingdom The Newly Qualified Social Worker (NQSW) Programme was established in 2008 as a three-year project in which the Children’s Workforce Development Council worked with employers to deliver a comprehensive programme of support to newly qualified social workers. An evaluation found that the programme largely achieved its objectives, despite some implementation issues. These included lack of interest and support from managers and supervisors in some local authorities, and significant difficulties in many organisations in ensuring that newly qualified social workers had sufficient workload relief and time to undertake the programme. The programme will be replaced by the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) from September 2012. Newly qualified social workers will have to “pass” their ASYE to become fully licensed as social workers (Carpenter et al., 2010).
Achieve Boston – United States
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 13 Achieve Boston is an example of a smaller scale project, which developed a successful training system for youth workers (Barbosa et al., 2004). Lessons learned included: • the value of private-public collaborations • a focus on funding and sustainability • incorporation of existing training • engagement of higher education and development of training pathways. Differences in New Zealand’s approach to the social services workforce
New Zealand’s approach to developing an effective social services workforce has some similarities to overseas jurisdictions in its willingness to consider a broad approach. However, New Zealand does not have the equivalent of the Children’s Workforce Development Council or the Scottish Social Services Council to guide workforce development. New Zealand differs from other countries in its focus on biculturalism across the social services workforce, recognising the place of the Treaty of Waitangi. This has led to the development and use of indigenous models of practice (Noble and Nash, 2012). Munford and Sanders (2011) argue that in the Aotearoa New Zealand context, working with Māori cultural processes to identify the ways in which they contribute to and strengthen mainstream practice has created more effective approaches to providing family and whänau support. Within the social work profession New Zealand differs from other jurisdictions in the growing overlap and partnership between statutory agencies and non-governmental organisations (known as “the differential response”). Social workers are beginning to carry new responsibilities for assessment work in addition to the preventative and wrap- around work they currently do. Noble and Nash refer to the work with refugees and migrants and suggest that the curriculum and training of community workers, social workers and NGO volunteers should be developed to more effectively meet the needs of clients in new fields of practice (Noble and Nash, 2012).
14 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot References
Atkinson, M., Jones, M., and Lamont, E. (2007). Multi-agency Working and its Implications for Practice: A Review of the Literature. National Foundation for Educational Research: Slough. Barbosa, M., Gannett, E., Goldman, J., Wechsler, S. and Noam, G. (2004). Achieve Boston: A citywide innovation in professional development. New Directions for Youth Development. No.104, winter. Bergmark, A. and Lundström, T. (2007). Unitarian ideals and professional diversity in social work practice - the case of Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 10(1), 55- 72. Brandon, M., Sidebotham, P., Ellis, C., Bailey, S. and Belderson, P. (2011). Child and Family Practitioners’ Understanding of Child Development: Lessons Learnt From a Small Sample of Serious Case Reviews. Department for Education: London. Budiselik, W., Crawford, F. and Squelch, J. (2009). The limits of working with children cards in protecting children. Australian Social Work, 62(3), 339-352. Canadian Association of Social Workers Child Welfare Project (2003). Creating Conditions for Good Practice. CASW: Alberta. Carpenter, J., McLaughlin, H., Patsios, D., Blewett, J., Platt, D., Scholar, H., Tunstill, J., Wood, M. and Shardlow, S. (2010). Newly Qualified Social Worker Programme Evaluation Report on the First Year (September 2008 to September 2009). Children's Workforce Development Council: Leeds. Children’s Workforce Development Council (2007). Sector Skills Agreement, Stage 1 – A skills needs assessment for the children’s workforce. Children's Workforce Development Council: Leeds. Children’s Workforce Development Council (2007a). Sector Skills Agreement, Stage 2 – Understanding supply in the children’s workforce. Children's Workforce Development Council: Leeds. Davidson, S. (2007). Process Evaluation of Social Workers in Schools. Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, Ministry of Social Development: Unpublished. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008). Building Brighter Futures: Next Steps for the Children’s Workforce. DCFS: London. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010). Building a Safe and Confident Future: Implementing the recommendations of the Social Work Task Force DCSF: London. Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2011). Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children. DCYA: Dublin. Department for Education and Skills (2005). The Children's Workforce in England: A Review of the Evidence. Great Britain: London.
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 15 Department for Education (2011). Supporting Families in the Foundation Years. DFE: London. Folaron, G. and Hostetter, C. (2007). Is social work the best educational degree for child welfare practitioners? Journal of Public Child Welfare. 1(1), 65-83. General Social Care Council (2008). Social work at its best a statement of social work roles and tasks for the 21st century. GSCC: London. General Social Care Council (2010). Raising Standards: Social Work Education in England: 2008-09. GSCC: London. Goddard, C. and Hunt, S. (2011). The complexities of caring for child protection workers: the contexts of practice and supervision. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25(4), 413-432 Harris, J., Manthorpe, J. and Hussein, S. (2008). What Works in ‘Grow Your Own’ Initiatives in Social Work?: Research Report. General Social Care Council: London. Accessed from http://www.gscc.org.uk/cmsFiles/Publications/GSCC_Grow_Your_Own_Initiatives_Rese arch_Report_08.pdf Harvard Family Research Project (2008). Changing the Conversation about Workforce Development: Getting from Inputs to Outcomes. Cornerstone for Kids: The Human Services Workforce Initiative. Houston. Healy, L. and Link, R. (2012) Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Home Office (2011). Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling Review: Report and Recommendations. Home Office: London. Hutchings, J. (2008). Does social worker registration have implications for social work supervision? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review, Issue 1(2). Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2006). Aboriginal Customary Laws: Final Report: Perth. Mansell. A. (2007). Social Services Workforce Development Literature Review. Ministry of Social Development: Unpublished. Martin Jenkins and Associates (2004). Child, Youth and Family Workforce Capability Development Strategy. CYF: Wellington. Miller, R. (2010). Best Interests Case Practice Model: Summary Guide. Victoria. Dept. of Human Services: Melbourne. Munford, R. and Sanders, J. (2011). Embracing the diversity of practice: indigenous knowledge and mainstream social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice: Psychotherapeutic Approaches in Health, Welfare and the Community, 25(1), 63-77. Munro, E. (2011). The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report: A Child-centred System. Department for Education: London.
16 Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot Munro, E. and Hubbard, A. (2011). A Systems Approach to Evaluating Organisational Change in Children’s Social Care. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 726–743. Noble, C. and Nash, M. (2012). Social Work in Australia and New Zealand. Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Penter, C., Cant, R. and Clare, B. (2005). Child Protection Training: Project report for the Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection. Matrix Consulting Group: Perth. Schudrich, W. (2012). Factors impacting intention to leave in social workers and child care workers employed at voluntary agencies. Children and Youth Services Review. 34(1), 84-90. Scottish Executive (2006). Changing Lives: Report of the 21st Century Social Work Review. Scottish Executive: Edinburgh. Singleton, R. (2009). ‘Drawing the Line’: A report on the Government’s Vetting and Barring Scheme .Independent Safeguarding Authority: London. Victorian Auditor-General (2008). Working with Children Check. Melbourne. Wagner, D., Johnson, K. and Healy, T. (2008). Agency workforce estimation: a step toward more effective workload management. Protecting Children, 23(3), 6-19. Warman, A. and Jackson, E. (2007). Recruiting and retaining children and families' social workers: the potential of work discussion groups. Journal of Social Work Practice: Psychotherapeutic Approaches in Health, Welfare and the Community, 21(1), 35-48. Zlotnik, J., Strand, V., and Anderson, G. (2009). Achieving Positive Outcomes for Children and Families: Recruiting and Retaining a Competent Child Welfare Workforce. Child Welfare, 88(5), 7-21.
Workforce Development: Literature Snapshot 17