Agenda item

To present an overview of the current workforce practices, challenges and strategic responses relating to the recruitment and retention of social care professionals in Brent Council, including the specific and ongoing challenges for Brent, particularly in relation to recruitment and retention of regulated professionals, and a summary of the measures that have been implemented to address those issues, including planned initiatives for the next 12 months.

The Chair welcomed the joint report regarding the workforce challenges facing both adults and children’s social care and invited the lead cabinet members to introduce the item, drawing out any points they wanted to highlight.

Councillor Grahl (as Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) welcomed the opportunity to look critically at how the Council was addressing challenges in retention and recruitment. She highlighted that the report showed Children, Young People and Community Development had done sustained work in this area and some successful interventions had helped bring down the number of agency staff and retain good quality social workers for longer. As examples, she highlighted the generous package of incentives for new permanent staff, including a golden hello, co-operation with London boroughs through the London Pledge to fix agency wages and promote staff moving to permanent contracts, and offering individualised career support in social work teams to promote permanent contracts and bring placement stability to children and young people. She emphasised the importance of acknowledging that, whilst recruitment and retention was important for the Council to make it more economically viable and minimise risk, it was also important for young people to give them the stability they needed as their social worker could be one of the most important people in that person’s life, and having a high turnover of staff meant those crucial relationships were easily disrupted, potentially affecting their outcomes in life. 

Councillor Nerva (as Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health & Leisure) highlighted the longstanding parity of esteem issues between children and adults, which was not unique to Brent. He advised the Committee that work was being done in Adult Social Care to level out that parity. He highlighted that Brent operated and lived in a mixed economy in terms of social work, but he highlighted the range of social care support provided by workforces outside of the Council and the importance of training for those individuals. Going forward, training, retention and lifetime career opportunities would heavily feature in the tender approach for the new home care contract.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Members for their introductions and invited the Committee to ask questions of the officers, with the following points raised:

The Committee highlighted section 6.3 of the report which detailed the reasons social workers were leaving the profession, citing poor supervision and management as one of the reasons for 38% of respondents. The Committee felt the report did not address that specific point and at several points had quotes from staff highlighting good management, which they felt was contradictory to the finding and asked what was being done in relation to management supervision. Palvinder Kudhail (Director Early Help and Social Care, Brent Council) explained that the survey referred to in 6.3 had been a London-wide survey which Brent had then used the findings of in its own services. In the children’s service, the majority of social work managers were permanent, which she added was not meant to say that a permanent manager could not be a bad manager, but it did provide stability and less likelihood of turnover. That permanency helped with the retention of staff. The service had also recently introduced some specific guidance regarding management oversight on individual cases and case supervision which was prescriptive in terms of the support a frontline worker should receive from their supervisor or manager, and placed an expectation on managers to ensure supervision was taking place on a regular basis to provide oversight and case direction. Audit activity was then done to ensure that support was in place in order to ensure that staff felt supported in the work they did and casework risk was managed appropriately. The feedback from those audits and through 6-weekly open-door sessions with the Corporate Director Children, Young People and Community Development, Nigel Chapman, was that social workers trusted their direct line manager.

Another reason for attrition nationally, detailed in section 7.16 of the report, related to workload and burnout and members did recognise a persistent strain on frontline teams, and asked what was being done to support staff to avoid burnout. In terms of Adult Social Care, Evelyn Amedoda (Head of Safeguarding & Principal Social Worker, Brent Council) advised members that the average caseload for social workers was 13, working to an optimal caseload of around 20. As such, she highlighted there was capacity for social workers to undertake reflective practice, supervision and casework discussions. In Brent, the community was complex in relation to deprivation, complexity of need and entering Adult Social Care much later in life, which could lead to burnout, but caseload was managed well, and over the last 12 months no one had worked a caseload exceeding 20 cases.

Noting that average caseloads were below the maximum of 20 but that most other boroughs also had an average caseload of around 15, and the figures showing that people were leaving the profession due to burnout and workload, the Committee asked whether the target caseload of 20 was too high. In response, Evelyn Amedoda reiterated that the data in the report related to national data around burnout and the reasons for leaving the profession. Whilst Brent had seen attrition and turnover of staff, she did not see a caseload of 20 as too high. Acknowledging that the local community was complex, she highlighted that there were long term case holders but also short-term work around hospital discharge and reablement where there was a faster turnover of cases meaning some cases were held for only a short period. As the Principal Social Worker for Brent, she met regularly with London Principal Social Workers, and confirmed that a caseload of 20 was not an outlier across London, but added that most of Brent’s staff did not hold caseloads beyond 13.

From a children’s social work perspective, Palvinder Kudhail acknowledged the correlation between workload and social workers leaving the profession, but highlighted that workload was not the sole reason. The pandemic had changed things for people in terms of their worklife balance and people wanting to do something different, and casework and needs had become more complex following the pandemic. She highlighted that what formed a caseload was constantly considered, for example, a social worker might have only 9 cases but those 9 cases may all be complex, so the service would not want to assign them any more. As such, the service ensured caseloads were manageable. Managers also ensured they matched skills according to a particular case and situation and offered additional support or co-working opportunities.

In terms of burnout, the Committee asked what mental health provision was on offer to support staff. Rachel Crossley advised members that there was a good wellbeing offer for staff in the Council, and the Director for Adult Social Care held open door sessions for staff to speak about their concerns. Emotional support was made available for staff with difficult cases and work took place with CNWL around career pathways.

The Committee noted that the vacancy rate for adult social care in Brent was the third highest in London, and asked why that was. Rachel Crossley (Corporate Director Service Reform and Strategy, Brent Council) explained that the challenge in Adult Social Care was retention, the cost-of-living, and people moving around organisations to get more money. Through some of the service restructures that had taken place, the service had looked at the skills mix of teams where there were hard to recruit roles and put in place different types of roles, such as care assessors, to bring different skills mixes into the team. This, as well as retention payments, was seeing an improvement in the number of people converting from temporary to permanent. She added that she did not foresee vacancy rates immediately improving but there was a current recruitment drive taking place following restructure.

In response to a query on what other boroughs with lower vacancy rates were offering that Brent might not be, Rachel Crossley advised that they likely had retention bonuses for staff earlier than Brent had. The London weighting was also a factor. Where people were living, where they wanted to work and the willingness and capability of people to deal with complex cases also factored into people’s choices. She advised members that Brent had a complex landscape to work in and often found people underestimated that kind of working across multiple different communities.

The Committee noted the reference in the report to difficulties recruiting specialist therapists. Evelyn Amedoda responded that Brent Adult Social Care had done well for Occupational Therapy with 80-90% permanency in that workforce. Where the service was struggling, which was the case nationally, was for rehabilitation officers for visually impaired adults which was a piece of work being done across the NWL Academy.

In terms of the vacancy rate for children’s social care in Brent, Palvinder Kudhail highlighted that it was an improved picture with a significant increase in the permanent workforce, but she felt there was more to do. The data on agency workers converting to permanent contracts was increasing with more than 1 a month converting. Rolling ads were also being placed continually to recruit permanently. The service was now doing work on its PR and looking at what other local authorities were offering before putting some information out to attract more staff.

The Committee asked what was being done to improve retention, including training, cultural competence and incentives. Evelyn Amedoda responded that, from an Adult Social Care perspective, retention was a national issue, but locally Brent appreciated there was something that could be done to improve retention and had started that work. There was now focused attention on exit interviews to understand why people were leaving, and a strengthening of the induction process when people joined the workforce so they had a good experience in Brent. The terms of supervision and training offer were also being improved. She added that, as detailed in the report, staff spoke positively about training and supervision, which was affirmed with the external rating from CQC in terms of the learning and development offer. From a children’s perspective, Nigel Chapman highlighted the biggest factor in retaining staff was workload and balance of workload. He felt that the caseloads in London were generally manageable and Brent kept a close eye on caseloads and management of caseloads so that social workers felt able to do a good job. He felt that making staff feel that they had the ability to be autonomous, make a difference and could make informed decisions for their clients was especially important for retention. Councillor Grahl highlighted the broader context of recruitment in social care, feeling that the profession had been undervalued and underpaid, as well as being impacted by Brexit. There had also been changes to immigration legislation where residents from overseas did not have the right to bring partners or family to the UK unless they earned more than £30,000, which affected people starting out in their careers and may put people off going into social work. She highlighted the work being done in Brent to improve recruitment and retention, working with Trade Unions to make Brent a good place to work and ensuring the option to work flexibly for staff. The recent staff survey results had provided some interesting insights and had found that staff found Brent a good place to work.

In relation to national funding for Adult Social Care and the potential for the Council to receive less, the Committee asked how the Council would continually support investment in the workforce. Rachel Crossley advised members that the Market Sustainability Fund had 2 elements, one of which was workforce and one of which was for external care provision. The Council was hoping that the spending review would not see money taken away from local government but make it more consistent and long-term, so that some of the Market Sustainability workforce funding may become part of the Council’s base funding or come through the Better Care Fund (BCF). Brent had used that funding mainly for piloting different ways of working and bringing in extra resource to tackle waiting lists and test models or review safeguarding practice rather than use it towards the establishment so that it was not over reliant on that funding in case it did not continue. Not having that funding would mean the Council would not be able to deliver some of those additional pilots but there was resilience built in to ensure there was no cliff edge should that funding stop. In terms of what was being done to ensure it was possible to have the funding as part of the Council’s base funding, the Committee were advised that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) was lobbying in London and nationally for continuation of funding and the options around funding models, but there was no indication yet what the government would do. The Council was being proactive in that space around the BCF for all discharge and admission avoidance, working in an early intervention preventative social care space to ensure staff were doing reviews quicker to stop people moving into crisis.

The Committee asked whether there had been any discussions to create shared recruitment pools with neighbouring boroughs. In terms of children’s social care workforce, Nigel Chapman explained that London Social Work for Children was a shared recruitment platform website for each local authority to add their roles and which did a spotlight on particular areas. Each borough paid a small amount to be part of that platform and the site then helped drive traffic towards each local authority. He felt it had been helpful to build that platform together with other local authorities and there was now a spirit of collaboration instead of competition in London thanks to the London Pledge. The Council was also part of an international recruitment framework and intended to work with other boroughs to do joint recruitment from overseas. For Adult Social Care, Evelyn Amedoda advised members that work was underway with the NWL Social Care Academy, of which Brent was a part of, looking at international social work recruitment. There was an appetite to do more collaborative work amongst NWL local authorities in terms of regulated staff recruitment. 

The Committee asked what the Council was doing proactively to support staff through technology. Rachel Crossley informed members that Adult Social Care had piloted the use of Magic Notes and wanted to roll that out for frontline workers. The tech had been a positive in reducing admin burdens and allowing quality conversations and time spent with the client. Social workers were feeding back that they were having much better conversations with clients because they were not concerned with the notes they were taking. The service had also been a part of the Council’s Co-Pilot pilot and was looking for managers to start using that more in the next year. There were 3 business cases for tech enabled care to support friends and family to check in on people. Palvinder Kudhail advised members that children’s social care was looking to do some pilots through multi-agency work and needed to get partners on board with that, which needed careful consideration as some partners did not use AI or had taken a decision not to. The service was also looking at an assessment process redesign to streamline that to a single assessment and single plan that would follow the family around and reduce workload and assessments. The system Mosaic, which social work staff used, was also due for modernisation and a consultant was supporting that.

In terms of the financial challenges facing the Council, Nigel Chapman advised that in children’s social services the Council had prioritised a focus on frontline staff and social work services for the most in need, which meant difficult decisions had to be taken in relation to early intervention and early help services to ensure workloads continued to be manageable for frontline workers.

The Committee asked whether the Council did any grow your own schemes to reduce vacancy rates and support local residents into work. Evelyn Amedoda advised that Adult Social Care had a grow your own scheme which had benefited from the Department for Health and Social Care’s Apprenticeship Fund, and that scheme recruited only local Brent residents with social care experience so that they could earn while learning to get a Level 6 qualification. That scheme was in its second year. There was also an internal grow your own scheme where colleagues with social care experience could qualify for a degree. For Children’s social care, Nigel Chapman advised that students from local universities and living locally were recruited. There was also the Step Up to Social Work Programme which took local young people through social work programmes, and apprenticeships. Children’s services was focusing on recruiting locally as much as possible because those with local roots and connections were more likely to stay long term.

The Chair drew the item to a close and invited members to make recommendations with the following RESOLVED:

i)               For the Council to commit to a proactive approach in identifying staff pressure points and utilise technological solutions to support staff, including reducing admin tasks.

ii)              For a future paper to come to the Committee on this subject emphasising the co-ordination between adult's and children's social work and cross-working opportunities, including the recent joint work on transitional safeguarding.

The Committee also made an information request, recorded as follows:

i)               For the Committee to receive Brent specific reasons given by Social Care workers for leaving the organisation at their exit interviews.