Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services and the Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing on progress in addressing the recruitment and retention of children’s social workers.

Ms K Ray, Human Resources Business Partner, was in attendance for this item.

1.            Ms Ray introduced the report and summarised key areas of work since the previous report to the committee’s meeting on 23 September 2014.  In addition to the recruitment activity figures presented in the report, one team manager post had been offered, 50.5 FTE newly-qualified social workers had been recruited (some of whom had started work; some would start very shortly) and several more were being interviewed. The next wave of recruitment was expected in April and May 2015. Ms Ray responded to comments and questions from Members, as follows:-

a)    the newly-appointed social workers were of a good calibre and good feedback had been received about the new recruits.  Newly-qualified social workers were easier to recruit, but to encourage more experienced social workers to move to Kent from other local authorities was more of a challenge;

b)    the number of social workers that Kent needed to have to meet its needs was approximately 430, so the latest intake of 50.5 FTE represented a significant proportion of this total;

c)    newly-qualified social workers would work with a reduced caseload and would need more support and training than more experienced workers. There was currently a good number of newly-qualified social workers completing university courses and seeking employment and it was hoped that this would continue;

d)    research had been undertaken on how long experienced social workers tended to stay in any one post, and to identify common patterns of career moves. The County Council had made tangible changes to its retention package in an effort to keep experienced social workers for as long as possible;

e)    asked about the possibility of re-training existing staff, who may not have the exact social work qualifications required but could be supported to study for them, Ms Ray explained that a scheme to sponsor staff to undertake social work degree courses with the Open University had been in place for the last few years.  Mr Segurola added that the County Council also worked with colleges to offer training placements to social work students, who were then more likely to want to work for the Council when qualified. The benefit for the Council was that these newly-qualified staff would already be familiar with its work practices;

f)     asked about the apparent low success rate of only one appointment being made from 30 applications, set out in the recruitment activity in the report, Ms Ray explained that, although the Council advertised the requirements of a post very clearly, often applications were received from a number of candidates who did not have the required qualifications and were unsuitable to proceed to shortlisting and interview;

g)    there would always be some level of turnover of social workers, due to retirement and career moves, and the aim was to retain experienced social workers for as long as possible and to balance new recruitment with retention of existing staff;

h)   asked about continuous professional development for existing social workers, to allow the Council to ‘grow its own’ team managers, and how many such managers were needed, Ms Ray undertook to check the number of current team manager vacancies and supply the information outside the meeting. Some team manager posts had been offered but the successful applicants had not yet taken up post.  Most team managers were currently either employed by agencies or were existing staff who were acting up into the role.  Any internal applicant who had been unsuccessful in applying for a team manager post would be given supportive feedback;

i)     asked about the imbalance between east and west Kent, in terms of attracting new recruits, Ms Ray explained that, when research had been undertaken nationally to identify issues, the main issue for east Kent had been the distance that workers would have to travel to work there. This applied to both permanent appointments and agency workers. Promoting the benefits of living in east Kent would help address this;

j)        asked about the possibility of County Council employees moving to work for agencies to access better rates of pay, Ms Ray replied that a few staff had moved for this reason and some others had moved to achieve more flexible employment; and

k)      asked about the car premium offered as part of the recruitment and retention package to social workers in receipt of the market premium, Mr Ireland said that it was too early to identify any impact of this, although he expected that it would have a positive effect.  He added that recruitment and retention packages were targeted to address key stages in a social worker’s career, ie starting out and moving on, which research had shown tended to be after three or four years in any post.

2.                  The Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services, Mr Oakford, commented that the early results of the recruitment measures being put in place were encouraging, with the number of permanent social workers having increased by 6% and the number of agency workers having decreased by 2% since the issue was last reported to the committee in September.  He said that focus should now be directed towards retention of existing staff.  The issue was not one just of money but of maintaining staff’s interest in remaining in Kent, by minimising caseloads and offering continuous professional development.  He asked that a further report be made to the April meeting of the committee.

3.            RESOLVED that the information set out in the update report, and given in response to questions, be noted, and a further update report be made to the committee’s April meeting.