Government gives social Work England six months to fix fitness to practise

Social Work England has been given six months to come up with an improvement plan to restore confidence in its fitness to practise process or face government intervention.

The regulator has also been told it must focus on its “core regulatory functions” and not seek to lead within the profession. 

The two messages were underlined in the government’s response which endorsed findings of a major review of Social Work England’s first five years published today.

Ministers also supported the reviews call for reform of standards and professional development and better use of data analysis to support workforce planning.

The report’s author Dame Annie Hudson acknowledged progress made by the regulator but stressed its effectiveness is “undermined by serious and persistent weaknesses in key areas”.

She added: “In particular, the fitness to practise system is not operating effectively. Delays are extensive, systemic and unacceptable, weakening public protection and eroding trust.”

The report noted timescales for decisions were the slowest among UK health and care regulators. In some cases social workers had waited more than eight years for a hearing to complete.

The findings echo longstanding concerns raised by BASW and the Social Workers Union.

The government’s response by minister for children and families Josh MacAlister and minister of state for care Stephen Kinnock warns: “If Social Work England does not meet this six-month deadline, or if reporting shows insufficient progress against the plan, the government will escalate intervention, including through governance, sponsorship and statutory levers available to the secretary of state.”

Social Work England accepted the recommendations but said some would require further consultation, “funding decisions” or legislative changes.

Fitness to practise concerns

The review does not hold back in its criticism of the fitness to practise process. It highlights “widespread concern by all key stakeholders” about the speed of decision-making and the regulator’s “failure” to fix this.

It also criticises how the regulator communicates with people under investigation, something often highlighted by BASW members.

The report notes the volume of referrals made to the regulator, with an average of 251 in the final quarter of 2025/26 – significantly above the 154 a month anticipated.

As a result, some social workers under investigation remain in the initial triage stage for up to three years.

A “bottleneck” in hearings has meant the median time taken to reach completion was more than three years in 2025/26. 

The report notes: “Four to five years in the system is the most common current duration of a case awaiting a hearing, with 26 per cent of cases having waited this long. Four cases have been waiting longer than eight years to be heard.”

Social workers described correspondence with the regulator as “infrequent, impersonal and difficult to navigate”, with delays in updates and lack of a named contact.

The report adds: “Several indicated that the process was particularly inaccessible for individuals experiencing trauma, disability or stress related to safeguarding or court proceedings.”

Employers and social workers expressed frustration at long periods of inactivity by the regulator followed by “urgent requests for information”.

The review also says more needs to be done to address “unequal outcomes” for social workers who are “male, over 40, Black, African, Caribbean and Black British”, both within fitness to practise and education.

Social Work England said: “We recognise that performance across fitness to practise has been unacceptable and the impact upon complainants, social workers and others involved in the process.

“In line with this recommendation, by October 2026, we will set out to our board an improvement strategy across all parts of the fitness to practise process.”

To lead, or not to lead

The review found a lack of a clear understanding of Social Work England’s purpose or a shared vision of what it should be.

This was blamed on a lack of a “strong and coherent narrative” of its purpose, with some within the sector believing it should have a leadership role.

This included expanding into professional development and advocating for the profession.

The report says there are “clear tensions” in expectations of the regulator, adding “such ambiguity” extends to government.

It points to Social Work England’s Change the Script campaign to improve public perception of the profession and the regulator activity around Social Work Week as forays into leadership and advocacy.

The report notes such activities risk “diluting focus on core functions” and undermine perceptions of independence from the profession regulated.

It says: “To paraphrase what one senior social worker said, Social Work England must ‘stay in its lane’, focusing on its core functions and roles.” 

The report adds: “This does not preclude Social Work England using its unique position to support improvements through the provision of data and intelligence, but it should not carry out improvement of advocacy activities.”

Professional standards confusion

A wide range of standards from different organisations defining what social workers do has led to an “untidy and at times muddled landscape”, says the report.

This creates confusion within the workforce and training providers. The report notes there is a difference between “formal standards” required for lawful practice, and guidance from other organisations, such as BASW’s Professional Capabilities Framework.

The “burdensome” and crowded landscape needs simplifying to reduce duplication. Hudson says: “I therefore recommend that government leads work to create one clear ‘standards map’ showing the purpose and status of different standards and guidance, how and where they operate and connect with one another, and whether they are mandatory or advisory.”

She adds that BASW “should be an important contributor to the work to rationalise and bring coherence to the standards landscape”.

In its response the government says: “DfE, and DHSC will work with Social Work England and relevant sector bodies to develop a clearer overarching standards framework.”

Education and training standards too broad

The ETA standards set by Social Work England outline what education and training providers need to deliver the social workers of tomorrow.

Social Work England is currently consulting on revising the standards and these and on new readiness for practice capabilities.

The review found some education providers felt the ETS were too broad and lacking in detail leading to confusion.

The review says Social Work England should strengthen the ETS and refine the knowledge, skills and behaviour statements stating what students need to qualify.

It should also take a stronger role in regulating the quality of placements and practice education. 

The ETS consultation document sets out an expectation for statutory placements to prepare students “for the realities of high-volume, high-risk work”.

It places greater emphasis on universities delivering newly qualified social workers who are “frontline ready”.

The government says: “Where the review recommends longer-term changes to post-qualifying standards and assurance, the Government will consider the appropriate route, timing and deliverability, including policy, legal, funding and capacity implications. The Government 8 agrees this should not distract from Social Work England’s existing core regulatory responsibilities.”

Data collection, transparency and equality

The report notes that: “One of the founding aspirations for Social Work England was that it should create richer, more social work-specific data.”

This corresponds with a “strong desire” from government for data to support policy and workforce planning.

The review found gaps in data collection and data quality. It says Social Work England should prioritise improvements in this area.

The government says: “This should support greater transparency on disproportionality, differential outcomes, proportionality in regulatory decision-making, and how bias and assumptions are identified and addressed by Social Work England, employers and others.”