News

The social care workplace has changed dramatically in recent years. Problems in recruiting and retaining staff have left gaps in teams which are often filled by agency workers - to the point where in some teams agency staff are the longest-serving members. Yet other departments manage with a bare minimum of temporary cover staff, or have an outright ban on their use.

The latest social services workforce survey (compiled by the Employers' Organisation) estimates that about 13 per cent of posts in London social services departments are filled by agency locums. Every single authority in London, the North West and West Midlands that responded to the survey said it was using long-term agency staff. The survey estimates that, between 1 April and 30 September 2002, social services departments spent £114m on long-term agency staff compared with £71m in 2001.

Employing agency workers has been slammed as a temporary, expensive measure but increasing numbers of workers are choosing this as a career option and permanent positions are proving hard to fill. Is there a place for agency work in social care?

Dennis Rowe, who works through an agency, is currently an young people's outreach worker for a housing association. "I like being with the agency because of the variety it offers. I go to bed relaxed and wake up in the morning looking forward to work. This hasn't always been the case in my career. I take my work seriously and put in 100 per cent on every placement. That way I'm appreciated by employer and agency. I wish I'd started a lot sooner."

Rosemary Wright, permanent manager of a children and families fieldwork team: "We never know when agency staff will leave, either through choice or because the plug has been pulled on their funding, so I can't allocate court work to them, which skews the balance of work in the team. Most are newly qualified but we need experience. Some come from overseas and lack knowledge of the Children Act 1989. The only advantage I can see is that you can get rid of an incompetent worker, but even then you have to pick up the pieces afterwards. It is not a satisfactory way of staffing the team."

Colin Simms, an agency care manager for older people: "It is easier, faster and less stressful than filling out application forms and going to interviews. The agency also negotiates a good wage for me, better than permanent staff. There is some resentment, but I don't let that bother me. It's down to the organisation to recruit and keep permanent staff."

Field social worker, children and families (anonymous): "Agency workers have relieved some of the pressure when we've been short staffed. The only downside is they can leave quickly, which is disruptive for the clients. I enjoy working with people I know well: some of us have been together for years. But I do tend to get sucked into the work and have to fight it invading my private life. Agency workers seem to maintain a level of detachment, which has its downside, but is preferable to drowning."

Kirk Corbin co-owns two residential homes for children with challenging behaviour. "We've had some good agency workers, but some have been reluctant to get involved in challenging situations. If we find good agency staff we try to use them regularly. But ideally, we would rather be overstaffed than use agency workers as stop gaps. That way we have staff we have chosen, trained and we know will pull together. The needs of the young people are best served by a good, consistent staff team."

Juliet Marsh, social care director of Celsian agency for education, health and social care staff, argues that permanent staff have invisible costs attached. "A huge amount is spent on advertising for staff. If this results in securing good, permanent staff it is money well spent. If not, it is wasted. Applications and interviews aren't necessarily the best way of getting good staff and it can be more cost effective to recruit through an agency."

Colin Tucker, assistant director of children, families and schools at Brighton and Hove Council: "We want to minimise the need for agency staff by providing enough permanent staff to do their job properly, with increased salaries and increments."

Employment costs

Approximate costs to the organisation of employing staff, including national insurance contributions and pensions

Qualified social worker in a field work team:

1. Permanent (newly qualified): £750 a week. This includes paid annual leave, national insurance and pension contributions, training and sick pay. Recruitment incentives, market supplements and inducements may be pushing up this figure.

2. Agency: £1,000 a week. This includes the cost of Criminal Records Bureau checks, limited training, statutory sick pay and paid annual leave, national insurance and pension contributions.

Residential Social Worker

1. Permanent staff member: £12 an hour, plus £25 for each sleep-in. This includes sick pay, paid annual leave, national insurance contributions, training and induction.

2. Agency: £15 an hour, plus £50 for each sleep-in. This includes sick and holiday pay, national insurance, any pension contributions and training.

Hidden costs of agencies:

• Agency: One-off fee of 17 per cent of annual salary to employ an agency worker as a permanent member of staff (this varies between agencies and may increase significantly according to the seniority and salary of the post).
• Permanent: Recruitment of permanent staff. In 2002, the average social services department spent about £113,000 on recruitment advertising alone.

 Source:Social services workforce series, report 31, 09/03 available from www.lg-employers.org.uk

Agency staff 

Pros

Employee

• Flexible work and hours
• No long term commitment - can leave immediately if the going gets tough
• Choice of locations, jobs and departments
• Good for overseas workers on a temporary visa
• Plenty of work across all client groups and sectors
• Better pay
• Some agencies can make staff feel more valued than permanent employers

Employer

• Filling temporary gaps in a team
• May save on recruitment advertising costs
• Convenient for time-limited projects
• Can get rid of unsatisfactory staff at short notice

Cons

Employee

• May face some resentment from permanent staff
• Fewer training opportunities
• Fewer promotion opportunities
• May have to move for work
• Holiday entitlement and sick pay not as good
• Insecure

Employer

• Quality of staff cannot be guaranteed
• Lack of consistency for service users and clients
• Expensive
• May be difficult to allocate work or plan long term.
• May lack commitment
• Difficult to manage people who work irregularly

Permanent staff

Pros

Employee

• Seeing work through and building relationships with clients
• Being part of a permanent team and knowing your colleagues and your department
• Providing a consistent service
• More opportunities for promotion
• Pensions, annual leave and sick pay arrangements are generally better

Employer

• Can invest in training to increase the range of skills in the team
• Can build a strong team of people, who work well together
• Can be cheaper

Cons

Employee

• Pressure due to overwork and understaffing
• Work can intrude into private lives Employer
• Can be difficult to dismiss unsatisfactory staff

Want to work for an agency?

• Shop around - some are better than others in terms of training, staff benefits and reputation
• Supervision must always come from the workplace
• Think hard about whether this is the kind of work you want to do
• Be prepared to prove yourself among permanent staff some of whom may resent