'Over ambitious and risk laden': social workers share concerns about children's social care reforms

We read with great interest Professor Eileen Munro’s recent article in Community Care regarding the reforms to children’s social care currently being implemented in England.

As frontline practitioners, managers and leaders within children's services, we feel compelled to echo many of the concerns she raised.

What follows is a collective response from qualified social workers, children’s practitioners and senior professionals currently working in a high-performing local authority.

'Reforms are over ambitious and risk laden'

The scope and pace of these reforms are deeply troubling. The ambition to overhaul the system is understandable; our profession is under strain and innovation is necessary.

However, the changes being proposed appeared to be happening too fast and without significant consultation or piloting, or sufficient grounding in the realities of practice.

Implementing sweeping reforms of this magnitude, especially in a high-performing authority like ours, undermines the stability and consistency that vulnerable children and families need.

Concerns over alternatively qualified practitioners and role blurring

One of the most concerning aspects of the reform is the increasing reliance on “alternatively qualified” professionals to perform the work traditionally reserved for registered social workers.

Alternatively qualified staff bring an awful lot of support, often have significant experience in their own right and have worked beyond the scope of early help, alongside social workers. They are valued in these roles.

But whilst we acknowledge the valuable skills that practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds bring, they are not qualified social workers.

Statutory social work, particularly within child in need and child protection context, requires a level of training, accountability and professional registration that cannot be substituted.

The idea that non-social work qualified staff will be holding families raises serious ethical and professional concerns. It undermines principles of safe practice and accountability and calls into question the value of the professional registration that we as social workers are required to maintain with Social Work England.

If the distinction between statutory and non-statutory roles continues to blur, then many of us will ask why we continue to pay for our post-qualifying development when those without such responsibilities are performing identical roles, with less scrutiny and oversight.

For the most part, we answer to Social Work England; if our practice is poor we can be deregistered and not practise as a social worker again. Where is the accountability for those doing the same role who are not registered?

'Early help important but not a replacement'

We support early help. It is vital. But we are concerned that the reform agenda conflates early help with statutory safeguarding, stretching early help teams beyond their remit, often to the detriment of families who need robust social work led interventions.

Early help is not a substitute for statutory social work. Both have their place and both should be valued, but one should not be used to displace the other in a cost-saving exercise dressed up as transformation.

'Reform is necessary but must be evidence-based'

We believe reform is necessary. We believe in innovation. But reform needs to be grounded in evidence, respectful of professional expertise and phased in in a way that protects families, and does not expose them to risk.

As Eileen Munro so rightly pointed out, these changes, if left unchallenged, are unlikely to work. They risk doing more harm than good. That is something about which we cannot be silenced.

The authors are a group of social workers, other practitioners and managers working for a high-performing local authority in England