In February, the Department for Education (DfE) proposed national rules to regulate councils’ use of agency staff in children’s services, including price caps on what they could pay for locums.
The policy - part of the DfE’s response to the care review – is set to come into force in spring 2024, but is controversial in the sector, as evidenced by two recent Community Care articles.
Kate Shoesmith, deputy chief executive of agency body the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, said the rules would drive locums out of children’s services and not address issues like lack of flexibility, poor pay, caseloads, burnout and work culture.
However, in response, Rachael Wardell, chair of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services’ (ADCS) workforce policy committee, said the rules would help tackle the “unaffordable costs and unacceptable practices of some social work agencies while maintaining a sufficiently flexible agency market”.
Backing the DfE’s proposed price caps, Wardell said there was no justification for two social workers with similar experience and caseloads in the same local authority having very different pay.
How price caps will work
The caps are designed to ensure basic pay for locums is no more than the average for equivalent permanent posts, taking into account contractual differences.This means agency staff would still receive additional payments above basic pay to take account of the benefits that permanent colleagues receive, such as holiday pay and employer pension contributions.
The capped payment would also include the employer’s national insurance contribution and the agency fee.
The DfE’s view is that the policy will reduce the costs of agency work and the level of workforce instability within councils, by making being a locum a less attractive option.
It is based on the premise that agency staff, generally, earn more than permanent colleagues on a like-for-like basis.
There is some evidence for this. A DfE-commissioned report, published in 2020, estimated agency children and family social workers cost councils 53% more than permanent staff did, after taking into account the latter’s contractual benefits.
And wave five of DfE’s longitudinal survey of children’s practitioners, carried out last autumn, found that better pay was the primary reason why social workers switched to agency work, echoing previous research.
With the proposed rules and price caps being publicly debated by council and agency leaders, we wanted to gauge practitioners’ views.
A recent Community Care poll, which amassed 742 responses, showed opinion was divided on whether the caps would solve the pay gap between agency and council work.
Half of the respondents (51%) said that they wouldn’t work and 45% were supportive of the proposal.
Do agency staff really earn more?
However, comments sections under relevant articles have been flooded by social workers opposing the proposed price caps.
Under Wardell’s article, many challenged the idea that agency social workers earned more than permanent colleagues on a like-for-like basis, given their lack of benefits such as annual leave or sick pay.
“I have found that many permanent staff have the impression that agency workers are paid twice what they are. Whilst the hourly rate may suggest this, the reality is that take-home pay is not dramatically more,” said Mrs Raisin.
“If we were paid the same as permanent workers we would be substantially worse off than them. Give us the same benefits as well as the same pay and then maybe there might be more of an argument.”
John Gatling, who had previously worked with as a locum, said: “A lot of permanent staff fail to realise that pension, holiday pay, sick pay increase one’s pay by at least 30%. [Then there’s also] the psychological benefits of having relative job security.”
Another reader, George, also asserted that, after costs such as sick pay and annual leave have been calculated, agency practitioners aren’t left “much better off”.
“I have taken two weeks' leave in two years as an agency worker as I can’t afford the time off just in case I’m sick in the future.”
Steve echoed George’s story: “The biggest sacrifice as an agency social worker is the loss of sick pay. The authority I worked in would regularly have workers off sick for months at a time
“This isn’t a criticism - the reasons were legitimate and social workers should be provided with this safety net. But, as an agency worker, no such safety net existed. If I was exhausted or feeling physically unwell, not only would I lose my pay, I’d also potentially lose my position.”
Increasing pay for permanent social workers
While others accepted that agency staff earned more than permanent colleagues, they argued that the better solution was a pay rise for council staff rather than a cap for locums.
“The easiest option is for local authorities to pay permanent staff similar rates as agency staff. That way there will be no incentive for staff to go agency,” said Francis.
“Without a significant pay rise on a permanent position, we will lose more workforce,” claimed Mei Wong.
Deb added: “The only solution is for the government to treat all social care staff fairly and provide a good salary with fair pay rises to recognise the great work they do. That way local authorities would retain more staff and need to use less agency staff.”
The case for price caps
However, a few expressed support for the DfE’s proposal.“I am tired of seeing so-called interims getting £500 a day at middle manager level and £1,000 a day - yes, a day - at assistant director level,” said Jeanette.
“If the agency bill were not so high, councils might have the money to pay their permanent staff a decent wage, and certainly, the quality of some (not all) agency frontline workers leaves a very great deal to be desired.”
Her comments were echoed by Eleanor: “I know a lot of agency workers and it's hard listening to how much they earn for doing the same job as me. Many of them have been employed frontline for over two years, so there is job security there for those who want it.
“When I find it hard to pay for my heating and the worker next to me is talking about buying a holiday home because they earned so much last year, that is not motivating.”
Another reader, Linda, was pleased with the news of regulations addressing the “eye-watering cost” of employing agency workers.
“Maybe the money saved can help employ more permanent staff and this will help reduce caseloads. Ultimately this means better outcomes for the families and children we serve.”
Do you think price caps are the solution to the pay divide between locums and permanent staff? Tell us in the comments below!
