# Greater London Employment Forum Wednesday 21 July 2010 At 15.00 Approx (Or On The Rising Of The Sides)

 
London Councils' 59½ Southwark Street London SE1 OAL 
Employers' Side: 
Conference Suite, First Floor 
14.00 
Union Side: 
Room 3  , First Floor 
14.00 
Contact Officer: 
Ana Gradiska Telephone: 
020 7934 9702 Email: 
ana.gradiska@londoncouncils.gov.uk 
 

## Agenda Item

 

## 1 Apologies For Absence

 2 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2010/11 
The constitution provides that the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair should alternate between the two sides on an annual basis.  This year it is the turn of the Union Side to provide the Chair 
 

Attached 

 3 CONFIRMATION OF GLEF MEMBERSHIP 2010/11 

Attached 

 4 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING 
To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2009 5 MATTERS ARISING 
To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting 6 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN HACKNEY 
Caroline Anderson (Assistant Director of HR & OD) will make a presentation 7 CURRENT POSITION ON NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL PAY 
The Union Side wishes to discuss the current position on NJC pay 8 UPDATE ON SINGLE STATUS 
To share information on the latest position in London 
 

 
NJC WORKING PARTY ON RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND CAREER 
PROGRESSION OF SOCIAL WORKERS 
The Union Side wishes to discuss the work of the group and to identify what 
regional monitoring might be put in place to track progress in applying 
recommendations that emerge from the working party 
 

 

## 10 Agency Workers The Union Side Wishes To Discuss The Continuing High Level Of Use Of Agency Workers Within London Local Government

 11 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 
Wednesday 17 November 2010 at 3.00  (side meetings at 2.00)  

Simon Pannell 
Employers' Secretary 
59½  Southwark Street 
LONDON SE 1 OAL 

 
Vicky Easton 
Union Side Co-Secretary 
1st Floor, Congress House, Great Russell Street,  
LONDON WC1B 3LS 

 

## Employers' Side

|                      |                |         |
|----------------------|----------------|---------|
|                      |                |         |
| Borough              |                |         |
| Rep                  | Party          |         |
| Dep                  | Party          |         |
| Barking & Dagenham   |                |         |
| John White           | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Barnet               |                |         |
| Andrew Harper        | Con            |         |
| Darrel Yawitch       | Con            |         |
| Bexley               |                |         |
| Colin Tandy          | Con            |         |
| Linda Bailey         | Con            |         |
| Brent                |                |         |
| Lesley Jones         | Lab            |         |
| Patricia Harrison    | Lab            |         |
| Bromley              |                |         |
| Tony Owen            | Con            |         |
| Graham Arthur        | Con            |         |
| Camden               |                |         |
| Sarah Hayward        | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Croydon              |                |         |
| Sara Bashford        | Con            |         |
| Eddy Arram           | Con            |         |
| Ealing               |                |         |
| Yvonne Johnson       | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Enfield              |                |         |
| Andrew Stafford      | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Greenwich            |                |         |
| Peter Brooks         | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Hackney              |                |         |
| Karen Alcock         | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Hammersmith & Fulham | Alex Karmel    | Con     |
| Haringey             |                |         |
| Joe Goldberg         | Lab            |         |
| Claire Kober         | Lab            |         |
| Harrow               |                |         |
| Graham Henson        | Lab            |         |
| Nana Asante          | Lab            |         |
| Havering             |                |         |
| Roger Ramsey         | Con            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Hillingdon           |                |         |
| Scott Seaman-Digby   | Con            |         |
| Philip Corthorne     | Con            |         |
| Hounslow             |                |         |
| Ruth Cadbury         | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Islington            | Paul Convery   | Lab     |
| Kensington & Chelsea | Mark Daley     | Con     |
| Kingston upon Thames | Derek Osbourne | Lib Dem |
| Lambeth              |                |         |
| Jackie Meldrum       | Lab            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Lewisham             |                |         |
| Sir Steve Bullock    | Lab            |         |
| Paul Maslin          | Lab            |         |
| Merton               |                |         |
| Mark Allison         | Lab            |         |
| Nick Draper          | Lab            |         |
| Newham               |                |         |
| Sir Robin Wales      | Lab            |         |
| Alec Kellaway        | Lab            |         |
| Redbridge            |                |         |
| Keith Prince         | Con            |         |
| Nicholas Hayes       | Con            |         |
| Richmond upon Thames | Tony Arbour    | Con     |
| Southwark            |                |         |
| Richard Livingstone  | Lab            |         |
| Fiona Colley         | Lab            |         |
| Sutton               |                |         |
| John Drage           | Lib Dem        |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Tower Hamlets        |                |         |
| David Edgar          | Lab            |         |
| Joshua Peck          | Lab            |         |
| Waltham Forest       |                |         |
| Afzal Akram          | Lab            |         |
| Peter Barnett        | Lab            |         |
| Wandsworth           |                |         |
| Maurice Heaster      | Con            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| Westminster          |                |         |
| Angela Harvey        | Con            |         |
|                      |                |         |
| City of London       |                |         |
|                      |                |         |
|                      |                |         |


## Union Side Unison

April Ashley 
 
George Binette∗  
 
Phil Lewis∗
 
Brian Blake 
 
Louise Couling 
 
Jenny  
Densham+  
 
Rosemary Plummer+   
 
Jane Doolan 
 
Vicky Easton 
 
Sean Fox 
 
Margaret Greer × 
 
Rob Tasker × 
 
Gloria Hanson 
 
Sonya Howard 
 
Andy Knight 
 
Jackie Lewis 
 
Sue Plain 
 
Helen Steel 
 
3 vacancies 


Unite Ian Burgess 
 
Esther Rey 
 
Kevin Simmons 
 
Paul Travers 
 
Rachel Young 
 
Two vacancies 


GMB 
Jackie Nield 
 
Dave  
Powell 
 
Ted Purcell 
 
Tony Smith 
 
Eileen Theaker 
 
Vaughan West 
 
Anne Price 
 
Paul Levett 
∗ Job share 

Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2009 at London Councils' offices 
ATTENDANCE 
 
Employers 
Cllr Helena Hart  


Barnet 
Cllr Colin Tandy  


Bexley 
Cllr Tony Owen  


Bromley 
Cllr Sara Bashford   
 
 
Croydon 
Cllr Ian Potts  


Ealing 
Cllr Peter Brooks  


Greenwich 
Cllr Alex Karmel  


H & F 
Cllr Paul Osborn  


Harrow 
Cllr Eric Munday  


Havering 
Cllr Helen Klier  


Lewisham 
Cllr Samantha George 
 
 
Merton 
Cllr Christine Bowden 
 
 
Newham 
Cllr Sue Nolan  


Redbridge 
Cllr Stephen Knight  


Richmond 
Cllr Lorraine Zuleta   
 
 
Southwark 
Cllr Maurice Heaster  
 
 
Wandsworth 
Cllr Angela Harvey   
 
 
Westminster Union Side 
Vicky Easton  


Unison  
Rita Ash 


Unison  
April Ashley  


Unison  
Louise Couling 


Unison  
Sonya Howard 


Unison  
Sean Fox 


Unison  
Glenn Kelly  


Unison 
Rosemary Plummer  
 
 
Unison 
Helen Steel  


Unison 
Paul Travers  


Unite 
Kevin Simmons 


Unite  
Esther Ray  


Unite  
Dave Powell  


GMB  
Eileen Theaker  


GMB 
Vaughan West 


GMB 

 GUESTS 
Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive of LB Barking and Dagenham 
 
London Councils officers and Carol Lewis (Unison) were in attendance. 

1. Apologies for Absence 

Apologies were received from Cllrs Gavin Sneddon (Brent), Karen Alcock (Hackney), 
Ian Reid (Kingston), Jackie Meldrum (Lambeth), and John Drage (Sutton, Margaret 
Beck (Unison), Jackie Lewis (Unison) and Sue Plain (Unison) 
 
2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2009/10. 
 
Cllr Angela Harvey was elected as the Chair of GLEF, and Vaughan West was 
elected as the Vice Chair. 
 
The Unions said that there were currently some vacancies on the Union side, and 
that Employers would be notified as soon as those vacancies were filled. 
 
3. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2009 
 
The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting which took place on 
19 May 2009, with one proviso.  Under item 5 Cllr Harvey challenged that it was "a 
fact" that many boroughs had significantly increased members' allowances recently 
and no evidence had so far been produced.  The Union Side indicated that it would 
share the research findings relating to London with the Employers. 
 
4. Matters arising 
 
There were no matters arising. 
                                 

 
5. Presentation: Apprenticeships in London Local Government 
 
Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive of LB Barking and Dagenham gave a presentation 
on his authority's approach to apprenticeships and an overview of the issues for 
London local government: 
 

- The Government's aim was that by 2020, 1 in 5 16-18 year olds would be in 
apprenticeships. However, currently, only 1 in 20 Londoners in this age group were in apprenticeships, as employers in London tended to recruit graduates 
from Higher Education rather than school leavers.  
- London Local Authorities had committed to recruiting 2000 apprentices by 
2012, and the GLA family to 3000 (mainly in Crossrail). The intention was not only to provide short-term employment for young people, but to equip them with skills and experience that would enable them to get good jobs in the 
future.  
- LB Barking and Dagenham had provided apprenticeships in a variety of 
sectors, including Health and Social care, IT, and construction. In particular, 
they targeted NEETS, ex-young offenders, and women returning to the workplace. 
- Boroughs would be able to use their Section 106 agreements to ensure that 
regeneration projects employ local young people on construction sites.  
- Barking and Dagenham was encouraging private sector employers to take on 
apprentices, and providing them with help and incentives to do so.  

 
The Unions said they supported the apprenticeships, but were concerned that some 
employers would use apprentices as cheap labour, and that the scheme might lead 
to a reduction in 'real' jobs.  It was important that work was available at the end of 
the apprenticeship otherwise the skills acquired could be lost or diluted. 
 
The Employers said that they supported the development of apprenticeships and 
emphasised the need for apprenticeships to attract all people who had fallen out of 
the work place or had changed career, as opposed to only targeting school leavers. 
The regional Working Group would be developing guidance and offering support to 
authorities in taking forward their individual schemes. 
 
The Chair said that Westminster had set up the London Apprenticeships Company, 
which was based on an Australian model. The scheme provided apprenticeships in 
the private sector, with the local authority providing support and training.  
 
The presentation is available on request. 
 
The Union Side asked if it could have an extra place on the Apprenticeships Working 
Group. Simon Pannell said that the intention was to keep it as a small working group, 
but that it was sensible that a substitute be nominated for situations in which Jane 
Doolan was unable to attend. 
 
5. Single Status Update 
 
The Union Side expressed its disappointment that an offer had still not been made in 
Redbridge, 10 years after the initial national framework agreement.  At least three 
times in recent months the unions had been told that an offer would be made after 
the next Cabinet meeting, but this kept being repeated without an offer emerging. 
 
The Chair indicated that the employers shared the disappointment at the delay.  She 
introduced Cllr Sue Nolan from LB Redbridge to the unions, and said that 
negotiations on single status were continuing in Redbridge, and an offer to unions 
would be made shortly. The authority was keen to resolve the matter as soon as 
possible. 
 
Vicky Easton clarified the position with regard to Stefan Cross withdrawing his claims 
against Unison.   
 
6. Any other business 
 
Justin Bowden - It was noted that Justin Bowden would no longer be involved with 
GLEF, as he had moved on to a role at the GMB national headquarters. The 
Employers asked that their congratulations be passed on to Justin and that he be 
thanked for his significant contribution to the regional machinery in recent years. 

# The National Joint Council For Local Government Services Working Party On Recruitment, Retention And Career Progression Of Social Workers Interim Report And Recommendations March 2010

## Progress To Date And Next Steps

This interim report has been issued by the Working Party to demonstrate the progress that has been made so far. The report contains outline recommendations for the NJC to consider in due course. However, in the time available so far and in the absence of some further resources, the Working Party has not been able to begin any further work necessary to provide detailed proposals for the NJC to examine. The further work needed includes: 

- 
Examining existing initiatives in councils to identify good practice to 
include in advice on how to work with the proposed national career 
framework 
- 
Developing sample role profiles that illustrate how professional 
progression can take place, together with job evaluation of these 
benchmark roles  
- 
Further research on the job evaluation and grading outcomes of recent pay reviews  
- 
Obtaining legal advice on possible equal pay questions.  
The Working Party has therefore asked the NJC, through the Joint Secretaries to provide resources to take this work forward. Once this work is completed, the Working Party will issue a final report for consideration by the NJC. 

## Contents Page

1.    Introduction                                                               4 2.    Key Recommendations                                            4 
3.    Why this report?                                                         7 4.    A National Career Framework                                 8 5.    Job Evaluation                                                           10 6.    Allied Roles                                                                11 
7.    Equal Pay                                                                   12 8.    Market Supplements                                                 12 9.     Costs                                                                          13 10. 
Working Party Terms of Reference                         14 
11. 
Key Principles agreed by the Working Party        14 
12. 
Summaries of Key Evidence                                   17 
 

 
1. Introduction 
This report is the initial outcome of joint working by the partners to the 
National Joint Council for Local Government Services on the issue of 
improving the recruitment, retention and career progression of qualified 
social workers. The NJC is responsible for the national aspects of terms and 
conditions of some 1.2 million local government workers, including social 
workers in England and Wales. The NJC set up a working party to look at 
social work careers in response to the findings of the national Social Work Task 
Force that reported its findings in November 2009.  
 
The Task Force, which had a remit covering England only, identified some 
issues around the career structure and job evaluation of social workers that 
need to be addressed as part of wider moves to make sure that experienced 
social workers can be recruited and retained in front line practice. The 
recommendations of the Task Force were accepted by the Government. A 
national Social Work Reform Board has been set up to oversee the carrying 
out of the Task Force recommendations. The Reform Board has accepted the 
work of the NJC as one of the main ways of delivering changes in social work 
career structures. 
 
This work is important and extremely challenging. The Employers and Trade 
Unions as partners to the NJC recognise the urgent need to begin to address 
the key issues identified by the Task Force. However, they also recognise the 
need to introduce changes that make sense within the wider terms and 
conditions framework for local government workers. The NJC believes that 
there is much value in the unified single status approach to terms and 
conditions because it helps promote a common working ethos. The 
recommendations set out here are aimed at making a real difference whilst 
maintaining the important benefits of the local government pay framework. 
 
2. Key Recommendations  
 
1. Career Framework 
The group recommends that the NJC should consider producing a strong 
endorsement of the national career framework as set out in the Social Work 
Task Force report. This endorsement should make it clear that Councils should 

 

 

use the framework in assessing the fitness for purpose of their current local 
social work career pathways and grade structures and as a model for any 
changes that need to be made.  
 
In preparing advice and support to accompany the endorsement of the 
career framework, the group suggests that the NJC may be able to make 
use of material that is being developed by the national Social Work Reform 
Board.  
 
2. Role profiles 
In order to strengthen the development of new career frameworks, Councils 
need to ensure that they maintain robust job evaluation exercises that 
produce a consistent approach to grading.  
 
To this end the group recommends that the NJC should consider the 
production of a series of benchmark job profiles for a suitable range of jobs 
and provide suitably moderated job evaluation scores for these profiles. 
Scores will need to be provided using the main job evaluation schemes used 
in local government - i.e. the NJC, GLPC and Hay schemes. 
 
The group recommends that profiles and scores should be developed for the 
following jobs: 
 

- Assistant practitioner - Newly qualified social worker - Social worker - Senior social worker - Practice Educator/Teacher - Social Work Team Manager - Advanced social work practitioner 

The NJC will also need to examine the development of trainee social worker 
roles, although a benchmark profile may not be needed. 
 
As career frameworks for social work develop, the range of benchmark 
profiles required may change and expand. As part of regular monitoring of 
outcomes, the NJC will need to think about preparation of new benchmark 
profiles when needed. 
 
3. Qualified Social Workers  
There is a need to ensure that specific questions that have arisen about the 
job evaluation outcomes of qualified social workers are properly addressed, 
by ensuring roles provide a logical hierarchy, with career progression steps 
between them. The Working Party recommends that the NJC should consider 
promulgating a national agreement that requires councils that have 
completed job evaluation exercises for social workers to review roles against 

 

the national benchmark profiles and councils that have yet to evaluate social 
work jobs to use the national benchmarks when they do so.  
 
4. Allied roles 
The group believes that both the future supply of qualified social workers and 
the vital support for field social workers will be enhanced if people in closely 
allied roles are given clear pathways and opportunities to move into 
professional social work. Much of the work on this is being done by the Social 
Work Reform Board but the group recommends that the NJC should consider 
examining the role profiles and specifications of a number of roles allied to 
social work to ensure that they provide:  
 

- Scope for professional qualification and development 
- Core responsibilities that clearly support professional social workers 

 
In practice, because of the wide variation in job titles for allied roles, the NJC 
will need to take steps to clearly identify the jobs it is interested in. The group 
suggests that the best approach is to look at the tasks and responsibilities 
assigned to roles. The most relevant will include: 
 

- Doing assessments (initial and core) 
 
- Holding own caseload (albeit with often nominal 'under the direction 
of' arrangements) 
 
- Writing court reports 
 
- Child and adult safeguarding/protection investigations 
 
- Exercising statutory intervention powers 

 
Having examined these roles, the NJC will need to consider whether or not it 
needs to provide any additional advice to councils. 
 
5. Equal Pay 
It must always be remembered that social workers are employed on 
common terms and conditions with other Local Government Services 
employees and care must be taken to ensure that no inadvertent equal pay 
issues are created in pursuing recommendations 1-4. The Working Party 
recommends that the NJC should consider: 

- Obtaining legal advice to provide a proper risk assessment of the 
recommendations 
- Reissue its longstanding joint advice on pay reviews and equal pay 
having ensured that it is up to date in the light of recent litigation 

## 6. Market Supplements

The Working Party believes that development of more suitable career frameworks for social workers that allow for progression whilst continuing in front line practice and are well job evaluated should reduce the need to offer market supplements to aid recruitment. Nevertheless, some market supplements will be inevitable and the NJC should consider drawing attention to its own existing advice on the subject. 7. Implications for Wales  
The Task Force report and recommendations applied specifically to England. The NJC also covers Wales. The Working Party does not believe that recommendations 1-6 would contradict any devolved government initiatives in Wales but the NJC should of course ensure that this is the case when it considers the recommendations. 

 
8. Taking forward recommendations 1-7 
The Working Party recommends that a small joint consultative group be set up within the NJC to ensure that the continuing work programme is properly overseen. 

9. Councils outside the NJC 
A few upper-tier Councils have opted-out of the NJC, although they may still use NJC guidance. The Working Party assumes that the Reform Board expects career progression to improve and develop in all Councils and suggests that the NJC could ask the Reform Board to make this point clear. 

3. Why this report? 

The NJC responded to a number of the key findings of the national Social Work Task Force as set out in the following extract from the Task Force report: 
Extract from Social Work Task Group Report on Pay 
"Social worker pay has been raised in a number of ways with the Task Force, and the concerns we have heard were summarised in our interim report. 3.30  Pay for new social workers is comparable to other professions. 

However, there is evidence that a clearer career structure, with opportunities to progress to greater responsibility and higher pay, while continuing to work on the front line, will help recruitment, promote retention, and ultimately improve the quality of frontline services. 

 3.31  The Task Force has also seen evidence that suggests social workers 
have done badly in the job evaluation exercises carried out in some local authorities, which underrated their knowledge and skills. This has led to them being paid less than other professionals with comparable expertise and knowledge. 
3.32  We believe these issues need to be resolved by setting out clearly 
defined levels of skill, responsibility and role, which can be reflected in local authority grading structures in order to deliver pay progression. This would provide agreed and nationally recognised career progression, while leaving to local arrangements the structure and size 
of individual teams. 3.33  We also recommend that, as part of the standard for employers, 
employers should review their job evaluation of basic grade social workers to ensure that their knowledge and skills are being fairly rewarded. We are making recommendations founded on the current national agreement on local government pay, as both employers and unions have told us they are willing to act swiftly to make significant 
change a reality. However, if this turns out not be the case, we believe 
that the government should consider whether a national pay body is needed to ensure social workers are fairly rewarded." 

 
Although the task force did not produce a headline recommendation on 
pay, it is clear that they refrained because of an expectation that employers 
and unions would look closely at the issues involved and come forward with 
some solutions. The task force did however, produce a key recommendation 
about the career framework for social workers (recommendation 10), as 
follows: 
 
We are recommending a single, nationally recognised career structure. This 
new career structure would  

- map each of the main stages of a career in social work from degree 
course entrant onwards, making clear the expectations that should apply to social workers at each of these stages give shape to the more 
coherent and effective **national framework for the continuing** professional development of social workers which we are also 
recommending and which should incorporate the new Masters in 
Social Work Practice 
- guide individual employers in how the social work task is best organised 
in localities with the right mix of expertise within frontline teams and how they should configure their workforce to support progression 
- ensure that social workers are paid fairly, in line with their skills, 
knowledge and level of responsibility - with, in particular, progression routes available to high quality, specialist practitioners which do not remove them from frontline practice  

 
This key recommendation, along with the quite specific remarks about job 
evaluation, provides the focus for the recommendations that this working 
party is putting to the NJC. We turn first to the national career framework 
 

4. A National Career Framework The national Task Force has recommended that employers should use the pattern set out in the proposed national career framework in designing and refining their own career structures for social workers. The national framework is illustrated in figure 1 below. The Working Party has noted that the framework as it stands does not appear to sufficiently differentiate team leader roles as used in some Councils and hopes that the Reform Board can clarify this point. The framework is designed to produce a relationship between assessed standards and to demonstrate that social workers can progress in their careers without moving into management positions that take them away from frontline practice. The Task Force has some concerns that careers for social workers who do not move into management tend to stagnate compared with other professional groups. The Task Force illustrated this problem in figure 2 below. 

 

 The Working Party has noted this evidence of career stagnation from the Task Force report and has also taken into account the evidence from an IDS report prepared for Unison (see *Summaries of Key Evidence*). The IDS report shows that Councils have tended to make much less use of the senior social worker grade than might be expected. This can contribute to a bunching of 

staff in "standard" social worker roles with few routes to clear career 
progression. Furthermore, the LGE survey suggests that, on average, social 
workers can expect only about 8 incremental stages, in perhaps two linked 
grades before they need to look at moving into management in order to 
progress.  
 
Cost will always be a factor in the availability of posts and there will also be 
important considerations about the best design of teams and units, which are 
being looked at by the Reform Board. However, if there is a key policy priority 
to find ways to maximise the time people spend at the frontline, then there is 
a clear case for designing grading structures around the national career 
framework. The framework provides a progression pathway from graduate 
entry to possible advanced practitioner roles which, if used, need to be 
properly differentiated. 
 
The working party has begun making contact with councils and regional 
groups that have already begun to examine social work career structures. It is 
hoped that these contacts will help identify good practice that can be built 
into advice issued by the NJC. 
 
5. Job Evaluation 
Nobody who has been through the experience would argue that job 
evaluation (JE) is a perfect process. Minor differences will always emerge 
because the quality of the scoring outcome depends on the accuracy and 
completeness of the information provided on jobs. However, JE is the best 
process available for developing a ranking of jobs in an organisation and it is 
important to ensure that it is applied as consistently as possible. 
 
JE is rightly conducted by individual Councils because they are the 
employers. The scores produced in individual cases therefore depend on 
local job descriptions and specifications. There is no suggestion that uniform 
national job descriptions should be developed. However, national priority is 
being given to ensuring an adequate supply of properly and consistently 
qualified social workers and to giving the cohort every encouragement to 
remain at the frontline. A key aspect of this is the national career framework 
that has already been referred to. 
 
In order to help Councils develop their local grading structures in line with the 
national framework, it is important to provide clear and consistent examples 
of the sort of roles that are envisaged as part of the national framework - and 
how they might fit into a grading structure, and provide a logical hierarchy of 
roles with career progression steps between them. 
 
The group has begun to examine a number of examples of job descriptions 
and other relevant documents supplied by Councils and has noted that, 

 

 

while there is a good deal of consistency in the approaches adopted, there 
are some differences that could usefully be checked out, which can 
contribute to the bunching of post holders and lack of differentiation of jobs 
in a career pathway referred to earlier. 
 
For example, because of the weighted scoring structure, one of the key 
factors in all three of the main JE schemes used in local government (NJC, 
GLPC and Hay) is the "knowledge factor". The situation in the Hay scheme is 
admittedly more complicated than in the other two but the same issues 
apply. 
 
The most common level of knowledge score for social workers is level 6 under 
all three main schemes.  In the NJC Scheme, the level is described as 
"specialist professional jobs requiring extended previous formal training, to 
graduate or professional qualification level, or equivalent, plus training or 
experience in the application of the knowledge to the specific requirements 
of the job".  In the GLPC scheme, the level is described as "jobs requiring 
advanced/high level knowledge and skills in a specialist discipline".  In Hay, 
the level is described as "jobs requiring a high degree of proficiency in a 
specialised or technical field, involving a broad grasp of theoretical principles 
and concepts gained through extensive experience".  It is distinguished from 
the basic professional and is described as the seasoned professional.  
 
Most social worker posts provided as examples to the group are indeed 
scored at level 6 however in a small number of cases observed so far, the 
score has been set at level 5. The NJC will need to examine a more 
systematic sample as part of its ongoing work to assess the issue in more 
detail. There may also be a lack of sufficient differentiation in scoring for posts 
identified as "senior", which will need to be examined. 
 
Scoring for individual jobs reflect the descriptions and local circumstances so 
there is no sense in which scores can be seen as "wrong". However, in the 
context of ensuring that coherent career development is available on a 
consistent basis to the whole cohort of social workers, it does make sense for 
Councils to take a fresh look at roles and scoring to satisfy themselves that it 
meets their needs and makes sense. Although as has been mentioned the 
knowledge factor is highly weighted in the overall score, there may be other 
factors that make an important difference at the margins for some jobs. 
 
An exercise of this sort will be facilitated by developing a series of benchmark 
job profiles with evaluation scores. These would not be standard job profiles 
to be implemented everywhere but would act as sense-checks for local job 
profiles. The working party has begun the process of collecting job 
descriptions and other relevant information from a sample of Councils in 
order to conduct an analysis of job evaluation outcomes. This work is at an 

 

 

early stage but will provide the foundation for further work to be carried out 
under the auspices of the NJC. 
 
6. Allied Roles 
The research conducted for the LGA has identified how challenging it is to 
make caseloads more manageable and to deal with increased referrals in 
the wake of recent high-profile cases. The work that people do in close 
association with qualified social workers in teams is very important in 
providing sustainable solutions to these problems. 
 
One of the main challenges the group has found in developing any 
recommendations about allied roles is that there is a wide variety of job titles 
in use which are not particularly helpful. These include family support workers, 
assistant social workers, social work assistants, community care workers etc. 

However we believe it is much clearer when you look at tasks and 
responsibilities. 

These may include:  

- Doing assessments (initial and core) 
 
- Holding own caseload (albeit with often nominal 'under the direction 
of' arrangements) 
 
- Writing court reports 
 
- Child and adult safeguarding/protection investigations 
 
- Exercising statutory intervention powers 

 
Clearly these tasks are very important in ensuring that caseloads are 
managed efficiently and that social workers have the time they need to 
concentrate on cases. Importantly, these tasks are also a good proving 
ground for the basic skills and aptitudes needed to move into mainstream 
qualified social work. More attention needs to be paid to providing clear 
career pathways for people in these allied roles. 
 
7. Equal Pay 
The Working Party recognises the importance of dealing with equal pay issues 
but believes that, because there is no intention to create standard national 
jobs they should not raise undue equal pay risks and liabilities. The purpose of 
the benchmark role profiles is to act as a reference point for a local review of 
roles within the career framework. The NJC may wish to obtain legal advice 
to confirm that any equal pay risks are low. 
 

 

 

The NJC will also need to ensure that the advice it issues to Councils on equal 
pay issues is up-to-date. There has been a considerable development of 
case-law and experience since the 2004 agreement that required local pay 
reviews and advice needs to take account of this.  
 
8. Market Supplements 
Proper development of career frameworks referenced against job evaluation 
should help reduce the need for market supplements, though the need to 
ensure recruitment in variable jobs markets will mean that some use of market 
supplements is inevitable. The working party has noted that the NJC has 
longstanding guidance available on the correct use of market supplements 
and recommends that this guidance should be reiterated and highlighted as 
part of a package of support on social work issues. 
 
9. Costs 
The working party believes that two principle cost factors may emerge as 
social work career frameworks are developed and reviewed: 

- An increased number of social workers in senior and advanced grades, 
including practice educators 
- Potential re-grading of social workers in some Councils following a 
review of job roles and evaluation 

 
Given the need to produce interim recommendations quickly, the Working 
Party has not had time to begin any detailed work on potential costs. It is 
suggested that the NJC will need to take steps to understand and agree cost 
implications as it considers the main recommendations in this report. 
 
Based on the experience of general local pay reviews since 2004, it is difficult 
to envisage a situation in which changes to career and grading structures do 
not involve some increases in costs. However, as always, the potential costs 
for individual councils will vary according to local circumstances and are 
difficult to estimate.  
 
It can be argued reasonably that the cost impact of the proposals around 
career frameworks and job evaluation would not be as dramatic as it might 
have been had recent pay reviews not taken place. Jobs have been 
recently evaluated or are in the process of evaluation and many councils are 
already looking seriously at career frameworks, so the approach is not a 
dramatic and sudden one. Furthermore, the Working Party believes that over 
the longer term the development of better career frameworks will aid 
retention and reduce the need for use of agency staff, thus generating 
savings in recruitment costs and the premium paid for agency staff. 
 
However, it should be kept in mind that the overall aim is to help deliver an 
increase in the supply and skills of qualified social workers. The LGA has 

 

 

recently commissioned research from Loughborough University which 
conducted a survey and detailed panel research to gauge the costs of 
implementing the recommendations in the Laming report, which focused 
especially on problems in Children's social work in the wake of the Baby Peter 
case.  
 
This research looked in part at the need to ensure more manageable case 
loads in the light of increases in referrals and assessments. This is bound to 
involve an increase in numbers of experienced social workers - a supply that 
will be facilitated by a clearer career framework. The working party agrees 
with the national Task Force that career stagnation does not help in retaining 
social workers for long-term careers.  
 
The Loughborough research looked in part at recruitment and retention 
difficulties. The relevant section of the report is reproduced in the Summaries 
of Key Evidence. 
 
The question of how any increased costs should be funded must of course be 
dealt with elsewhere. The Working Party anticipates that the Social Work 
Reform Board will wish to address wider potential costs and the need for 
funding. 
 
10. Working Party Terms of Reference 
The terms of reference for the working party were agreed as follows: 
 
The parties to the NJC for LGS have agreed to establish a working party to 
examine how the recruitment, retention and career progression of Social 
Workers might be improved through initiatives based around the existing 
national pay framework set out in the Green Book. 
 
The working party will need to examine: 
 

- The availability and quality of data on pay and career progression for 
social workers 
- The experience of job evaluation and grading under local pay reviews - The need for, and outline content of, additional advice on career and 
grade structures 
- Any implications for allied roles 

 
The Working Party will meet as necessary with the aim of producing a report 
and recommendations by the end of March 2010 at the latest. The report will 
be presented to the NJC in the first instance, for discussions on how best to 
take forward the recommendations. 
 

 

 

The working party will comprise six members from each side. It will be for each 
side to make its own arrangements for additional support for its own 
delegation. 
 
The working party may wish to jointly commission expert advice to assist in this 
work. 
 
The responsibility for chairing the working party will alternate between the 
sides 
 
11. Key Principles agreed by the Working Party 
Early on in its deliberations, the working party agreed a number of key 
principles to guide its work and help give an overall focus to its final 
recommendations. It is helpful to reproduce them here as part of the context 
for the recommendations set out earlier in the report: 
 
The group agrees that it will operate by consensus as far as possible  
There will always be differences of both principle and emphasis between 
employer and union "sides". However it was agreed that in framing proposals 
for the NJC, the group should avoid a sides-based approach as much as 
possible. Issues should be discussed collectively in an attempt to produce 
unanimously supported proposals.  
 
The group agree that it will adopt an evidence-based approach where 
possible  
There are many assumptions that are made routinely about Social Work 
career issues. It is important wherever possible to examine clear evidence to 
avoid crude assumptions. The group recognised that the timetable for its 
work made it impossible to commission primary research. Therefore a sub-
group involving CWDC and Skills for Care to examine the best available data 
sources.  
 
The group agrees that, given the tight timescales, it will not be possible to 
produce fully developed proposals.  
Given the need to report to the NJC by the end of March to demonstrate 
that progress is being made, the group agreed that its recommendations are 
likely to include asking the NJC to carry out further work 
 
The group agrees that proposals put to the NJC should focus on the areas 
where it can make most impact. 
These are advice on job evaluation and career structures. There are other 
proposals from the national Task Force covering vital areas of skills 
development, assessment in practice and so forth which all have to form part 
of an integrated approach but they are being dealt with elsewhere. 
 

 

The group agrees that Social Workers should remain within the current Local 
Government Single Status pay framework.  
Single Status is a major building-block for the integrated and continuously 
improving provision of services to local communities. If different groups split 
away from the core workforce, we are much more likely to see a return to the 
silo mentality of separate services which was so damaging in the past.  
There are also considerable equal pay risks in setting up a new pay structure 
within a common employer. Separate pay arrangements are under 
development for school support staff in order to deal with the issues which 
arise from their being employed in different establishments, i.e. schools and 
from the delegated powers given to school governing bodies to individually 
determine grading for school support staff. These considerations do not apply 
in respect of social workers. Working within the national framework also allows 
for consideration of implications for other roles that are allied to social work. 
 
The group agrees that all proposals must apply equally to children's and 
adults social workers.  
Whilst it is true that the headline issues to date have been about problem 
cases and recruitment and retention difficulties in children's services, there 
are growing challenges in adult care, especially for the elderly. The 
development of integrated service thinking is vital in approaching these 
challenges, which are all about developing stronger communities and 
keeping people safe within them.  
 
The group agrees that there is a need to balance national consistency in 
approaches to Social Work jobs with the flexibility that councils need to 
recruit within their own labour markets.  
The 1997 Single Status agreement set a balance between consistency within 
a framework and local market flexibility and is especially important given that 
many Councils have just finished or are close to finishing the process of local 
pay reviews.  
 
The group agrees that the proposed national career framework in the Social 
Work Taskforce Report forms a useful working model for any proposals 
The basic career structure outlined has received significant general 
endorsement and is designed to provide coherence about the kind of career 
development that social workers can expect from any employer 

## The Group Agrees That There Will Be Funding And Affordability Implications Arising From Our Proposals In Order To Deliver On The Task Force Recommendations On A National Career Framework And Improving Reward And Progression For Social Workers In Line With Their Skills And Responsibilities, The Working Party Agreed That There Will Be

 
additional cost implications. The NJC will collectively need to ensure that clear representations are made about the funding arrangements needed to allow our proposals to be put into practice consistently. 12. Summaries of Key Evidence  
In the time available, the group examined a variety of available sources of evidence about the pay and career framework for social workers, including: 

- A report prepared by Incomes Data Services for Unison (Slow Progress) 
 
- An LGE report for the LGA Group prepared as part of action in 
response to the national Task Force 
 
- A report prepared by Loughborough University for the LGA on the costs 
of implementing the Laming proposals 
 The key findings from the various evidence sources used are summarised in extracts below. 

Incomes Data Services Report for Unison 
"UNISON commissioned Incomes Data Services (IDS) to undertake research on the market levels of pay for social workers compared to other major 
 
professional staff groups in the public sector. The purpose of the research is to look at the pay and progression arrangements in order to inform Unison's pay negotiations for this group. This report draws on sources of existing data, which will be supplemented at a later date with the results of a bespoke survey into the pay and progression arrangements for social work staff." Key findings from IDS 

- There is significant use of a mainstream social worker grade, often in 
place of a career‐grade structure 
 
- The bespoke survey shows that most social workers are concentrated 
at the mainstream social worker level 
 
- All other levels or grades of social worker make up a minority of the 
social worker workforce in comparison 
 
- The distribution of social workers suggests that progression 
arrangements are not functioning effectively 
 
- Significant variations between local authorities suggest that traditional 
social worker progression structures are being adapted to suit local circumstances 
 
- Salaries for senior social workers vary considerably between individual 
councils, indicating a lack of a defined structure or role definition at this level 
 
- There is significant variation in minimum salaries. This suggests that 
market pressures have forced some organisations to increase minimum or starter salaries 
 
- Progression within grades is by annual increments. In some cases, this 
appears to be the only form of progression available 
 
- Where a competency framework or career grade structure is in place, 
the disproportionate number of employees on mainstream social worker grades appears to show that these are not being used effectively 
 
- Salaries paid to newly‐qualified social workers are typically higher than 
those paid to teachers and health professionals. Only police officers are paid slightly higher 
 
- The relative position of social workers' salaries declines with length of 
service and seniority. At first they fall behind teachers at the main 
 



professional level, and then behind both teachers and health professionals at the senior professional level 
 
- An analysis of earnings data supports the view that only a small minority 
of social workers are progressing to the higher professional level. This stands in sharp contrast to school teachers where more than half of 
classroom teachers in England and Wales are now employed on the senior teachers' spine. 

 
The Social Work Career Structure - Analysis of LGE survey data  
LGE conducted a rapid analysis of data from a sample of councils in summer 
2009 and also drew together some material from existing wider surveys, to 
inform the policy debate on social workers within LGA Group. The main 
findings are summarised below. 
 
Median pay for LG SWs in 2008 is £28,770. Median pay for all SWs from the 
2008 ASHE survey is £27,779. However, the basic figure does not allow any real 
comparisons with pay rates specifically in the NHS and voluntary sector, for 
which detailed figures are not available. It might be possible to use the 
difference in pay between LG and non-LG SWs as an argument in favour of 
greater regulation of pay across different employers. Also, the figures do not 
produce any conclusions on whether or not pay rates are a strong factor in 
recruitment and retention difficulties.  
 
Recent LGE research into the career structures of SWs indicates that Councils 
have in practice adopted quite similar systems, with variations in actual pay 
levels probably explainable by regional labour market differences.  
 
Councils were asked to provide separate information, where applicable, on 
Children's and Adult's SWs. Generally, respondents indicated that there are 
no differences in salary and progression, though there are some differences in 
additions to basic pay, which can probably be explained by differences in 
responsibility. There are isolated cases where either Children's or Adult's SWs 
have higher earnings potential. There are occasional differences in actual 
earnings as well, linked probably to length of service of actual employees.  
 
Qualified SWs tend to progress through two grades in a career grade 
structure, with a median number of 8 incremental steps in total, before 
reaching the lowest managerial level. The median starting salary is £24,402 on 
average and the median maximum salary at the top of the two grades is 
£35,079. Additions, especially market supplements add about 5% to basic 
salary on average but some Councils do not offer significant additions. The 
average figure for additions is very similar to that identified for the whole 
workforce in the most recent LGE-LGAAR survey (5.3%).  
 

 

A basic analysis of the situation in Councils in London and SE, compared with 
the rest of the country has been carried out because there is insufficient data 
for a comprehensive regional analysis. Even this must be treated with caution, 
given the sample size but if does show variations in average salary etc that 
correspond logically with labour market situations. For example the average 
starting salary on London and SE is £25,506, compared with £23,726 for the 
rest.  
 

ƒ Average gross earnings in London and SE are £31,788, including 
additions to basic pay of 6% on average.  
ƒ Average gross earnings are £29,695 in the rest of the country, including 
4% additions to basic salary on average. 

 
One of the most interesting geographical contrasts is the highest salary that 
SWs can achieve before they need to take on a managerial role. The 
average in London and SE is £38,352, compared with £34,647 elsewhere. 
 
There is not much evidence available as yet to demonstrate the extent to 
which SWs have benefited from re-grading as a result of pay reviews. One 
Council offered some interesting information on its local pay review, which 
had generally resulted in pay improvements for SWs when assimilated to new 
grades. This did involve the removal of the previous career grade structure 
based on experience and qualifications however.  
 
The shortage of Social Workers applying to one Council, prompted the 
decision to recruit from the United States through an overseas recruitment 
agency in order to fill the vacancies. However, the difference in culture and 
working conditions meant that all bar one newly appointed American social 
worker resigned within the first twelve months of service. Variations in case 
law, the nature of cases they were working on and the lack of management 
and supervision were all factors leading to their departure, not pay. The 
council is now looking to train and nurture its existing staff in order to 'grow 
their own' social workers of the future and to make the field of social work 
more accessible for applicants. 
 
Extract from "Calculating the cost and capacity implications for local 
authorities implementing the Laming (2009) recommendations", Section 7. 
 
This report was prepared for the LGA by Centre for Child and Family 
Research, Loughborough University and includes a chapter that collates the 
unit cost implications of manageable case loads etc into a picture of overall 
national costs:  

 

## 7. Recommendation 24: Recruitment And Case-Loads

The Social Work Task Force should: 

e 
develop the basis for a national children's social worker supply strategy 
that will address recruitment and retention difficulties, to be 
implemented by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. 
This should have a particular emphasis on child protection social 
workers; 
e 
work with the Children's Workforce Development Council and other 
partners to implement, on a national basis, clear progression routes for 
children's social workers; 
e 
develop national guidelines setting out maximum case-loads of children 
in need and child protection cases, supported by a weighting 
mechanism to reflect the complexity of cases, that will help plan the 
workloads of children's social workers; and 
e 
develop a strategy for remodelling children's social work which delivers 
shared ownership of cases, administrative support and multidisciplinary support to be delivered nationally. 

## 7.1 Recruitment And Retention

7.1.1 Data from the national survey reveals that around two thirds (65%) of the authorities had vacancies within their intake and referral teams, although a third of these were being covered by agency staff. Figure 7 below shows the vacancy rates by authority type. 

It is evident from this data that the shire authorities were the most likely to have vacancies within their intake and referral teams. Interviews also revealed the challenges that some local authorities experienced recruiting and retaining staff with the necessary skills and experience. 

Issues concerning recruitment and retention were seen to be a symptom of the low status of social work, as well the specific demands of child protection work and the anxieties this provokes. 

7.1.2 Staff vacancies and the use of temporary, agency staff can limit opportunities to develop stable and supportive teams. Securing an appropriate balance between experienced and newly qualified workers within teams was problematic in a number of areas. 

LA G and LA H 
identified particular difficulties recruiting team managers, posts that were seen as critical to drive improvements in practice and support and direct teams. 

Senior managers were keen to try and avoid reliance on agency staff because this is an expensive solution. Questions were also raised about the quality and commitment of agency staff. 

This, alongside instability within teams could affect morale and effective team working. 

## 7.2 Workload Management And Case-Loads

7.2.1 The majority of local authorities reported that they did not have a formal workload management policy in place. 

However, 80% of authorities indicate that they weighted cases loads, most commonly against all three of the following criteria: Complexity of case; Case type (i.e. child protection, child in need); and Experience of worker (i.e. newly qualified, experienced). Seventytwo per cent also had systems in place to monitor case-loads over time in relation to changes in case complexity. 7.2.2 Data supplied on maximum case-loads indicated an average case load of 14 cases per child protection worker and 22 cases per child in need worker 
(range 12 -55). 

It should be noted that there were variations in definitions of cases, with some authorities providing case-load figures based on numbers of children, while other considered the number of families social workers were working with. 

7.2.3 Findings from the frontline social work survey also revealed that there were considerable variations in case-loads, ranging from 9 to 24 children or 4 
to 29 families per intake and referral team social worker. Analysis revealed that there was not a correlation between case-loads and number of years of post-qualifying experience. Newly qualified workers, with less than one year post-qualifying experience, reported both the lowest case-loads and some of the highest. 

7.2.4 The majority of frontline workers surveyed (63%) reported an increase in case-loads over the past six months. 

Of the 34 respondents, only four reported that their case-loads were always manageable. The majority of the workers reported that their case-loads were manageable, most or some of the time (41% and 38% respectively). While all the workers reported that they could manage their case-loads at least some of the time, the majority reported that they did have to prioritise tasks (26:76%). Of the 26 workers that reported the need to prioritise tasks, the majority (16:62%) indicated that direct work with children and their families would be prioritised before other tasks. The national data suggests that the majority of authorities 'occasionally' exceed maximum child protection and children in need case-loads. The reasons for this are outlined in Figure 8 below.

7.2.5 Frontline staff and managers in the focus groups emphasised that they cannot simply turn cases away because they have 'reached' capacity. 

Therefore, increases in the volume and/or complexity of workloads means that, without additional staffing, practitioners either have to work longer, or reduce the time they spend on other activities. The timeliness of service responses may also be affected; with workers reporting a tendency to prioritise assessments that needed to be completed within statutory timescales. There is, however, a risk of delay and drift on cases that on the basis of presenting information are low priority. 

'It's not unmanageable, but we are not getting through things as quickly as we would like to (LA A)." 
'It is always busy. A year ago it was busy, but manageable. Following Baby P, the numbers became, well a significant increase, in all referrals, but in terms of CP work, that rose dramatically. The knock on was that investigations went up, the number of people subject to investigations went up and out court work went up as well. Where as you get fluctuations like that in a day, or a report comes out for a team, the funding for a team like this is done on a yearly basis, so there hasn't been any additional resources as a result of it (LA D)."