Correction: The story originally stated that ‘inadequate’ councils were three times as reliant on agency staff than ‘outstanding’ authorities. We apologise for the error.
Children’s services rated outstanding by Ofsted use a quarter of the proportion of agency staff as those deemed ‘inadequate’ by the inspectorate.
Overall, the higher a service’s Ofsted rating, the lower its agency worker and vacancy rates, found a Community Care analysis of current Ofsted ratings and the Department for Education’s latest social work workforce data, dated September 2020.
There was a similar – but less significant – relationship between sickness absence rates and caseloads, as measured by the DfE.
On the back of the findings, Ofsted said that councils that did not create the conditions for good social work practice experienced higher workforce instability, contributing to low ratings. However, social work leaders argued that poor Ofsted ratings could demoralise a council’s current staff and detract potential employees while adding pressure on the authority to hire agency workers to reduce workloads.
Big divide on agency staff usage
Use of agency staff was the biggest divide between authorities with different Ofsted ratings.
Local authorities rated outstanding by Ofsted had an average agency usage per full-time equivalent staff of 6.4%; for ‘good’ councils the rate was 15.1%, for ‘requires improvement’ authorities it was 16.4% and for ‘inadequate’ ones 27%.
Vacancy rates (per full-time equivalent staff) were 9.2% for ‘outstanding’ councils, 14.3% for ‘good’ authorities, 16.8% for ‘requires improvement’ councils and 24.5% for ‘inadequate’ ones.
Overall, English local authorities had an average agency rate of 16% and a vacancy rate of 15.8%.
Average caseload and sickness absence per full-time employee, as calculated by the DfE, both decreased the better local authorities were rated, although not to as significant a degree.
‘Outstanding’ local authorities had an average caseload of 15.2, for ‘good’ councils it was 16.2, for ‘requires improvement’ authorities 16.5, and ‘inadequate’ ones 17.3. However, practitioners have criticised the DfE measure, which gave an average caseload of 16.3 last year, as a significant underestimate and the department has said the figure should be treated with caution.
Average sickness absence rates were 2.4% for ‘outstanding’ councils, 2.7% for ‘good’ authorities, 2.9% for ‘requires improvement’ councils and 3.2% for ‘inadequate’ ones. The average was 2.8%.
Average staff turnover generally increased the worse local authorities were rated by Ofsted, with ‘outstanding’, ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’ councils recording rates of 12.1%, 14.4% and 15.7%, respectively.
But ‘inadequate’ councils had a turnover rate of 13.4%, which was lower than the average for all local authorities of 14.5%.
Staff at ‘inadequate’ councils doing longer shifts
The findings are reflected in the third installment of the Department for Education (DfE)’s longitudinal study of local authority child and family social workers, published in July, which found that respondents were more likely to work long hours in a poorly rated council.
Social workers in local authorities that Ofsted rated as inadequate were more likely than those working in other authorities to report working more than 45 hours per week – 36%, compared with 24% among those in ‘outstanding’ councils, 22% in ‘good’ authorities and 26% in those rated requires improvement.
They were also more likely to state they were working above their contracted hours “all the time” – with 45% saying so, compared with 32% in councils rated as outstanding.
Social workers in ‘outstanding’ services were less likely than average to agree that they were asked to fulfil too many roles – 44% compared with 55% overall.
‘High caseloads have huge impact’
Eleanor Brazil, who has been a DfE-appointed commissioner at several councils after their children’s services were rated as ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, said it was simplistic to say high agency usage led to poorer quality of work but the two were related.
Brazil said high caseloads had a huge impact on local authorities’ quality of practice, making it harder for social workers to ‘do good direct work with children’.
And she said it was easier for some councils to recruit permanent staff than others, depending on their location.
“The London authorities, there’s huge amounts of competition to attract the social workers. That can have an impact,” she said. “The big counties in some of the rural areas, such as Devon where I worked recently, are very difficult to recruit to.”
Brazil said sometimes high agency usage was due to a sudden surge in demand. However, she said that an inadequate rating could lower morale at a council and make it harder for them to retain permanent staff and attract new recruits. “I’ve mostly worked in local authorities that have been judged as ‘inadequate’. People have given me terms like ‘feeling devastated’ [or ‘being] hugely disappointed’. People don’t set out to do a bad job, that’s for sure.”
But she said an inadequate rating affected local authorities differently depending on how they responded to it.
“Some authorities can ride through the immediate depression, if you like, of the judgment, if there’s some good communication with frontline staff around what is the reason for it, what is the authority doing about it,” she said.
She also said that long-term permanent staff were not always better social workers and that in some cases, local authorities’ lack of awareness of the quality of their staff led to poor practice.
“Sometimes the Ofsted judgment is a real wake-up call,” she said. “I always say to people they need to do some work to really know their workforce and really get a sense of the skills and abilities and experience of their workforce. Not every authority has that knowledge.”
Negative ratings ‘can pressure councils’
Rachael Wardell, chair of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services’ workforce development policy committee, said keeping turnover of staff low was “vital” in enabling social workers to build relationships with children and families.
But she said single-worded judgments, such as Ofsted’s, only tell a “partial story” and risk “weakening the very services the inspectorate seeks to improve”.
“All too often, a poor inspection outcome triggers a predictable chain of events, including some staff leaving the authority, leading to a greater reliance on agency workers, at least in the short term whilst improvement plans are drawn up,” she said.
“That said, some local authorities do succeed in maintaining or restoring stability, despite a negative inspection outcome and many staff will stay and play their part in bringing about positive change.”
Wardell said a national recruitment and retention campaign for social workers could help to reduce staff churn.
Maris Stratulis, director of the British Association of Social Workers England, said Ofsted ratings can create “additional expectations, scrutiny, competition and pressure on local authorities”.
“Wellbeing and duty of care to all social workers and social care staff in the work environment is critical and that includes manageable caseloads, good quality supervision and stability and consistency within work teams,” she said.
“Rather than focusing on performance ratings, it is vital we focus on giving social workers quality time to do their job and to explore in detail reasons for variation in staff sickness levels and what can be done to reduce stress levels and high staff turnover.”
Ofsted in ‘difficult position’
David Wilkins, senior lecturer in social work at Cardiff University, who has researched the factors driving Ofsted performance, said it was “obvious” that Ofsted ratings affected councils’ ability to recruit and retain staff.
“As such, Ofsted are in a difficult position, because they know this, but it obviously wouldn’t be right for them to inflate their ratings in order to help ‘struggling’ local authorities with their recruitment problems,” he said.
Wilkins suggested replacing the current inspection system with “regular, systematic feedback from children and families on the quality of service instead” and narrower inspections on “the extent to which the local authority is meeting its statutory duties”.
Ofsted’s national director for regulation and social care, Yvette Stanley, said the inspectorate does “appreciate the impact” its judgments have and that they are “not made lightly”.
“But it’s vital that the sector, government and wider public have a clear picture of what is happening for children, and our local authority reports provide just that,” she said.
“It’s no surprise that local authorities with lower inspection grades face issues recruiting and retaining staff – these issues are likely to have contributed to the negative inspection judgement in the first place. Lower-rated local authorities often fail to create the right environment for good social work practice to thrive, leading to higher caseloads and an unstable workforce.”
Link between deprivation and ratings
Other research has also shown that local authorities with higher economic deprivation generally receive lower Ofsted ratings.
Paul Bywaters and Calum Webb’s study in 2017 found that 41% of all low deprivation local authorities received a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ judgment, compared to 30% of mid deprivation local authorities and 11% of high deprivation councils.
They also found 21% of low deprivation local authorities were judged as ‘inadequate’, compared to 29% of high deprivation authorities.
Rick Hood, senior lecturer in social work at Kingston University who has studied the impact of Ofsted inspections on performance, said highly deprived local authorities, whose budgets had been cut disproportionately in recent years, were more likely to have higher caseloads because they had fewer staff and possibly higher demand.
Councils rewarded for reducing agency worker usage
Analysis of inspection reports shows Ofsted has commended councils for hiring more permanent staff and reducing their use of agency workers.
Sunderland recently became the first council to go from an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating to ‘outstanding’ in consecutive inspections. In 2018, when Ofsted rating the council as ‘inadequate’, agency workers made up 14.6% of its full-time equivalent staff, but by 2020, a year before the ‘outstanding’ inspection, this rate had fallen to 0.9%.
“Senior managers have focused on the right things,” the inspectorate said in its recent report. “They have been decisive in recruiting a permanent and excellent set of social workers to replace the short-term and agency staff that were previously in post.”
Telford and Wrekin, which Ofsted rated as ‘requires improvement’ in 2017 and ‘outstanding’ in 2020, also reduced its use of agency staff in that time, from 9.2% to 4.5%.
The inspectorate commended the council, in its 2020 inspection, for the stability of its workforce and the impact this had on children.
“Children benefit from a stable social work workforce, which is highly committed and experienced. Despite this, the local authority continues to strengthen its ability to retain and attract social workers with the implementation of a new career progression and pay structure for social workers. Most staff have manageable workloads, which enables them to do meaningful social work with children.”
East Riding of Yorkshire, in contrast, went from a ‘good’ Ofsted rating in 2016 to an ‘inadequate’ one in 2019, with its use of agency workers increasing from 0.7% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2019, then 7.2% in 2020.
Ofsted noted in the council’s last full inspection in 2019 that a third of the workforce had changed since its previous inspection, with an increase in the number of newly qualified social workers. It said though there was “little use of agency and short-term staffing”, in some services “there are insufficient staff to effectively address the levels of demand”.
In a focused visit this year, the inspectorate said sickness absence and vacancies had led to variations in workers’ caseloads and that “the recruitment and retention of experienced social workers [had] been challenging”.
Meanwhile, Devon, rated ‘inadequate’ last year, plans to invest £1.1m in recruiting 100 children’s social workers, which it hopes will help it to raise its rating to “‘good’ and beyond”. In a focused visit this year, Ofsted noted that workforce stability was “still a major problem” at the council, which aims to cut its 30% agency staff rate for full-time equivalent frontline roles.
Assistive technology and dementia: practice tips 
A trauma-informed approach to social work: practice tips 
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide 
Develop your social work career with Community Care’s Careers and Training Guide 
‘Dear Sajid Javid: please end the inappropriate detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities’
Ofsted calls for power to scrutinise children’s home groups
Seven in eight commissioners paying below ‘minimum rate for home care’
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Come on change the record .
The evaluation methodologies used here simply aren’t fit for purpose, any of them.
Agency staff are used to do the work permanent staff won’t or can’t do, . this is the only standard practice there is.
Let’s not forget that this goes back to the setting up of the Manpower Services Commission in the 80s.
And let’s not forget that it was agency social workers who actually lifted the lid in Rotherham.
And were previously wheeled in as a reaction to Climbe
Andhave since been scapegoated for untoward incidents and fatalities, especially in the North East.
Its a systemic answer to a simple problem.
Councils, as a whole, are now creating the conditions of harm and reputation management will win out at all and every cost.
Social Work moans about new managerialism in abstracted ways yet did very little to prevent cherry picking and off book contracting to favoured recruiters and consultancies. It is the contracting and procurement process that are fatally flawed not the social workers be they agency or not.
Councils, as a corporate body, do not want the responsibility for vulnerable groups. If done correctly the liabilities alone would bankrupt them.
There is a simple way to understand this. The Purpose of the System is What it Does. Blaming Agencies is a convenient cop out because there is a cat in hells chance of testing this in Court. In fact the contracting for children’s services is dependent on Secret Court mechanisms most of which are Ultra Vires, the potential issues of feasance especially malfeasance would be staggering.
*I was one of four people nationally to review the contracting and procurement of children’s services in 2007. At that time I was Alec Fraher FMIOCP, MIHM, AASW*
Alec – Couldn’t have put it better!
Alec, I completely agree with you. Having practiced in child protection for many years I feel so sorry for social workers entering social work today. The quality of direction, practice, management, commitment appears not to be the focus these day there is no pride in the role as it once appeared to have. I fear vulnerable children who need those social workers who are committed to providing the right support will no longer receive the support they need to survive in the current social work environment.
Pauline, I agree. Should anyone have the time and interest work undertaken by Bojan Radej and Mojca Golobic in Complex Society: In the Middle of Middle World goes some way to providing a critical and useful perspective as to how we have arrived at this sorry state. And, sorry for the late reply. I have grown accustomed to being ignored so hadn’t checked back in until last night
thank you Andrea, I am bound by a Court so can’t say more than it’s odd that a Council rated as “outstanding’ is largely because it can evade its ‘information holding’ duties is frankly ridiculous and makes a mockery of the evaluation…. more serious is the deliberate burial of critical incident reporting and unbelievably when those with the executive powers know so too… social workers, agency and perm, are failed and miserably so by senior management and elected members covering their historical arse… ask them why they failed to account for a £125K spend on drug counselling for their staff…. not to be sniffed at, eh!
Good supportive management leads to stable teams, stable teams lead to positive and supportive relationships and healthier work environments. These in turn lead to happy staff who want to stay. It is little surprise that these Local Authorities achieve outstanding. However Councils should not rest on their laurels because things can change awfully quickly and it only takes one or two extremely questionable appointments for the entire ethos of an authority to change and staff to start packing their coffee mugs and Sherwood Diaries. You can replace a worker, (theoretically) not so much the relationships, trust and supportive networks that underpin successful teams and interventions. Social Workers go to work for more than a salary, if you take away what’s meaningful it massively reduces the inclination to hang on in there. Newly crowned outstanding Authorities might like to give THAT some thought as they bask in all the adulation and awards!!
Focusing on the work and not being concerned with pleasing senior managers who are in turn concerned about pleasing ADs and Ds, who in their turn are only concerned with keeping their jobs by pleasing quasi politicians – councillors- who are concerned only with votes.
They need to stop messing with the profession and let us do the job.
Ofsted, surely it’s clear by now, are no longer fit for purpose , they’re playing their own game.
Cause or effect?
No to agency workers, yes to management consultants.
Yes to management consultants ?!?! Who drop in, fiddle, at great expense, then disappear while Rome burns…..
Really Annie..Get into the real world.
Most local authorities would not have a service without agency workers..
Management consultants (much like TM’s and so called senior management are usually ‘self appointed’; ‘Jobs for the middle class boys’ and often girls who, quite honestly are out of touch and don’t want to get their hands dirty!
Is irony is lost in social work now? Perhaps somone should upload a CPD about it.
Humour, nuance, self-deprecation? In social work? Anyone finds it, give us a heads up.
Don’t need management consultants we need more “hubs”……now they are definitely the way to go. Especially if run by a senior manager who is being paid the best part of £100K who watches in silence whilst an ‘outstanding’ authority haemorrhages experienced social workers due to the toxic atmosphere created by the very senior management. Come Back Ofsted and take a look NOW!!
Ah but did management consultants recommend “hubs” as the way to deliver “efficient”, “flexible”, “cost effective”, “improved” services? Once they pocketed their £500 a day fees?