Government agency social work rules will not reduce councils’ reliance on locums in children’s services, say practitioners.
The rules, which will start to take effect at the end of this month, aim “to reduce the overreliance on and costs of agency child and family social workers” for English councils, says the Department for Education (DfE).
They will require authorities to agree regional pay caps for locums’ hourly rates and refrain from hiring early career practitioners, or staff who have recently left permanent roles in the same region, as agency workers.
Policy will have 'no impact' on locum use
However, most social workers (78%) believe the rules will have no impact on authorities' use of agency staff because of high vacancy levels, according to a Community Care poll that received 775 votes.Just 11% said the use of locums would fall “by a small amount”, with the same proportion saying it would “reduce significantly”.
As of September 2023, 18.9% of full-time equivalent social work posts in council children's services lay vacant.Pay cap 'will be breached'
In the related article, Andrew McKenzie won agreement from fellow readers in a detailed comment setting out why he thought the rules would have no impact.In relation to the pay caps, he said: "Some regional areas will achieve the implementation of an initial pay cap, as they have done so in the past, then acute need will drive permissible breaches of the cap (why do you think the guidance allows for breaches?), in areas where staff shortages become acute."
Mr Wong predicted the changes would be “short-lived” because of councils’ struggles to retain and recruit staff and questioned the legality of refusing to hire agency workers based on their recent departure from permanent positions.
Meanwhile, agency staff took to the comments, warning of their intentions to quit if their pay was cut.
“If my hourly rate changes I’m leaving the profession,” said one.
“I’ve been agency for 10 years and loved how ‘office politics’ no longer affected me as I go in and get the job done. I refuse to work for less pay. I’d rather just leave.”
Rules may 'adversely impact services'
Ohers claimed that the rules could be detrimental to services.“Children’s services are run by the unpaid goodwill and overtime work of social workers and, particularly, agency workers,” said J. Rahman.
“The changes may adversely impact services and have a ripple effect on the children and families who need support and protection.”
Agency workers used as 'scapegoats'
One practitioner raised concerns that locums were being blamed for wider sector issues.“Instead of looking at the workers who are plugging the gaps, why don’t we consider the private residential care at untold costs,” they said.
“If permanent workers were paid fairly, agency [wouldn’t be] enticing.”
Julie echoed this sentiment, criticising the "scapegoating" of agency workers, while another social worker, Hayley, said the changes ignored "the actual problems”.
“The sad fact is children’s services would fall [apart] without agency workers stepping in. [They] are broken and not fit for purpose.
Looking at the bigger picture
Several practitioners urged a deeper look at why permanent staff were leaving for agency roles in the first place.Pauline said: “Instead of pitching agency workers against permanent ones, why not look at why agency workers are employed in the first place? Why [can’t] a manager keep a team of social workers together? It is not merely about resources.
“If a worker feels safe, valued, supported and receives sound leadership, why would they want to leave? Where are the support systems, the unions, HR departments, and agency representatives to safeguard the interest and safety of the workers?”
Clair called for a change in how overworked staff were treated, to stop them being pushed to quit or join agencies.
“Let’s start paying our social workers for the hours they work, rather than 37 hours. Stop blaming agency workers and look at the issue of why we can’t retain staff.”
