Loading ...Black representation has risen among directors of children’s services (DCSs) in England but lags well behind that in the wider workforce, data has revealed.
As of autumn 2024, 5% of directors identified as black, up from 2% the previous year, with 88% white (down from 90% in 2023), revealed the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) annual report on the statutory leadership role. The rest were Asian or of mixed/multiple ethnicities, the proportions of which remained the same year on year.
While the proportion of black directors is broadly in line with the English population, as measured by the 2021 Census (4.2%), it is well below the level of black representation among children’s social workers in England’s councils and children’s trusts (15.2%).
Declining black representation at higher levels of workforce
The Department for Education has previously shown that black representation falls the further staff rise up the organisational hierarchy, from 20.5% among case-holding practitioners, to 13.1% among senior social workers and 10.2% for managers in 2024.
Among Asian and mixed-heritage staff, there is a similar, though smaller-scale, drop-off.
Asian staff accounted for 6.5% of the whole workforce, 6.9% of case holders, 6.3% of senior practitioners and 5.3% of managers, while mixed-heritage social workers were 3.6% of the workforce, 4% of case holders, 3.7% of senior practitioners and 3% of managers.
Concerns over DCSs’ lack of diversity
The lack of ethnic diversity among DCSs – relative to both their workforces and the population of families coming into contact with children’s social care – is a longstanding concern.
A 2023 report by leadership training body the Staff College warned that this was likely to reflect experiences of racism among staff from minority ethnic groups and said it needed to be tackled by targeted leadership development.
The ADCS’s autumn 2024 survey of directors also found that:
- 17% identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, up from 16% in 2023.
- 14% identified as having a health issue and/or disability, up from 11% in 2023.
- 21% were aged over 60, up from 17% in 2023.
- 48% professed to have no religion or belief, down from 51%.
More directors are women but representation lower than at front line
The ADCS’s annual report also showed that, as of 31 March 2025, 103 of the 153 directors (67%) were female, up from 102 in 2024.
However, this is also below the representation of women in the children’s social work workforce in England, which was 87.5% as of September 2024.
Commenting on the figures, ADCS president Rachael Wardell said: “Improving equality, diversity and inclusion within the association, and across children’s services, so that we can reflect and respond to the communities we serve is an ongoing priority in my presidential year.”
Rachael Wardell (photo supplied by ADCS)
She added: “While the DCS cohort is still not as diverse as we want it to be, this latest data shows that there was a slight increase in diversity of race/ethnicity amongst DCSs, continuing the upwards trend of the previous year, which is welcome.
“However, there is still more to do in terms of translating our words and commitment to improving diversity, in its widest sense, into actions that our workforce, and our communities, will recognise.”
Reduction in DCS turnover
The ADCS annual report also showed a year-on-year decline in the turnover of directors, with 51 changes of post in 2024-25, down from 62 in 2023-24, and in line with the annual average (49).
The changes took place across 39 councils, 25% of the total, though almost half (22) occurred in just 10 councils, largely due to short-term interim appointments.
There were 25 interim appointments in 2024-25, compared with 28 in 2023-24, but above the annual average of 19. While 15 of these appointees were still in post as of March 2025, the other 10 were not, with tenures ranging from one to six months.
Of the 18 permanent appointments made in 2024-25, 16 were given to serving assistant directors, most of whom (12) had moved authority in the process.
Among current DCSs, average time in post was 38 months, up from 33 months last year: 42 months for permanent appointees and seven months for interims.
Meanwhile, the number of DCSs who also held the statutory post of director of adult social services (DASS) fell to a record low of 11, down from 13 in 2024 and a high of 61 in 2015.
Additional support offered to help reduce churn in director role
Prior to this year, turnover of DCSs had increased for three consecutive years.
Reducing turnover was among the aims of an extension last year to a national training scheme for new directors, funded by the Department for Education and delivered by a consortium led by the Staff College.
New directors now receive a second year of coaching beyond an initial 12 months of training under the new directors’ programme.
Wardell added: “The role of DCS is both unique and challenging and we need to pay more attention to how we support current DCSs to ensure we retain valuable skills, expertise, and experience within the sector.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Embedding learning in social work teams through a multi-agency approach 
The family safeguarding approach: 5 years on 
Harnessing social work values to shape your career pathway 
Webinar: building a practice framework with the influence of practitioner voice 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Free CPD on Parkinson’s for health and social care staff 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Apologies, I find it hard to believe there is a rise in black Asian,and minority workers in senior positions representing the minority children,parents and young people we say we are here to safeguard and support. Can I ask where are they?
If you do not have representation of the workforce and service users how do you address those who have more of a voice to those who do not? Are we not going over the same issue time after time without any changes? No matter how much the wording changes nothing has changed why is this? Is it opportunities for some but not others.Is it familiarity,biases,discrimination some are only expected to reach a certain level no more.
How can anti -discrimination practice be addressed? Will the fear not be those who are less visible be the target? Anti- discriminatory practices and biases are emotive, in my view is a necessary part of the role social workers should acknowledge.Is it not worrying there is a clear lack of diversity in plain sight in such a profession.Is it not worrying how difficult it is for some to knowledge some are more visible than others?.
In my opinion anti-discriminatory practice is a fundamental requirement!! has is recognising compliance because it affects our decision making and how we treat others.How we address these important areas in our work is important is it not?
How does a manager who is not representative of the work force and or children and families we work with address anti-discriminatory practice and compliance.This area is emotive requiring sensitive communications,fair balanced approach in a safe environment where you are able to reflect,analyse,use critical thinking to inform one’s own thinking/ assessment all of which are relevant to understanding why we have reached a certain conclusion does it not?
Discussions on bias and critical thinking may lead to anxiety about our personal and professional mind set.Supervision in my opinion does not provide a safe place where you may feel safe for honest and open dialogue with managers. Conversations may expose our thoughts,our mistakes,questionable beliefs,biases and rationalisation. Supervision does not in my opinion provide time and space to explore, some will receive meaningful time and investment some will not.
That may result in compliance behaviour/learn the buzz word.
More referrals to fitness to practice for some.
Avoidance behaviour.
Ennis (2011)”Critical thinking is reasonable,reflective thinking that is founded on deciding what to belive or do”.As social workers we are subconsciously critically thinking.
Deweg (1910) suggest that Critical thinking requires reflection, honesty,humility in the end leads to the judicious and responsible use of power and not it’s abuse.
My point is how can you have a balance of fair management decision making for vulnerable children and the work force when there are imbalances of representation for some and not others.
These are my experiences based on my years of practice.Some may not relate because they may not have the same experiences.This does not mean these experiences do not exist.
I am able to expand further but will not do so.
Apologies, I find it hard to believe there is a rise in black Asian,and minority workers in senior positions representing the minority children,parents and young people we say we are here to safeguard and support. Can I ask where are they?
If you do not have representation of the workforce and service users how do you address those who have more of a voice to those who do not? Are we not going over the same issue time after time without any changes? No matter how much the wording changes nothing has changed why is this? Is it opportunities for some but not others.Is it familiarity,biases,discrimination some are only expected to reach a certain level no more.
How can anti -discrimination practice be addressed? Will the fear not be those who are less visible be the target? Anti- discriminatory practices and biases are emotive, in my view is a necessary part of the role social workers should acknowledge.Is it not worrying there is a clear lack of diversity in plain sight in such a profession.Is it not worrying how difficult it is for some to acknowledge some are more visible than others?.
In my opinion anti-discriminatory practice is a fundamental requirement!! has is recognising compliance because it affects our decision making and how we treat others.How we address these important areas in our work is important is it not?
How does a manager /senior manager who is not representative of the work force and or children and families we work with address anti-discriminatory practice and compliance.This area is emotive requiring sensitive communications,fair balanced approach in a safe environment where you are able to reflect,analyse,use critical thinking to inform one’s own thinking/ assessment all of which are relevant to understanding why we have reached a certain conclusion does it not?
Discussions on bias,reflective practice and critical thinking may lead to anxiety about our personal and professional mind set.Supervision in my opinion does not provide a safe place where you may feel safe for honest and open dialogue with managers. Conversations may expose our thoughts,our mistakes,questionable beliefs,biases and rationalisation yet it an important part of social work. Supervision does not in my opinion provide time and space to explore, some will receive meaningful time and investment some will not.
That may result in compliance behaviour/learn the buzz word.
More referrals to fitness to practice for some.
Avoidance behaviour.
Ennis (2011)”Critical thinking is reasonable,reflective thinking that is founded on deciding what to belive or do”.As social workers we are subconsciously critically thinking.
Deweg (1910) suggest that Critical thinking requires reflection, honesty,humility in the end leads to the judicious and responsible use of power and not it’s abuse.
My point is how can you have a balance of fair management decision making for vulnerable children and the work force when there are imbalances of representation for some and not others.
These are my experiences based on my years of practice.Some may not relate because they may not have the same experiences.This does not mean these experiences do not exist.
I am able to expand further but will not do so.