Independent Review of Children's Social Care - BASW England full response

In May 2022 the publication of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care (and the National Safeguarding Review report) chartered a potentially new policy landscape for children’s services. Two months later, it is still unclear which of the 81 recommendations from the Review the Government accepts.

The Review, launched in early 2021, has been called a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the children’s social care system and provide children with loving, safe and stable families'.

BASW is the independent membership association for social workers, with over 22,000 members across the UK. We work on behalf of our members and with the government and other stakeholders to promote and support both social workers and the social work profession.

BASW England has been considering our response to the recommendations; consulting with members across a range of forums, analysing data from our members survey and from our engagement events.

There is much to be said about many of the issues and proposals in the Review. Our focus in this response, on behalf of our members, is on the implications for the social work profession, social workers, and on the potential impact on the children and families served by the profession.

BASW England wishes to acknowledge the enormous contribution that children and their families make to different parts of our children’s social care system. Their expertise and vital role in improving services and policy must be recognised and supported in the months and years ahead.

Introduction

We all want a system that is relentlessly focused on children and families. To achieve this, we need a political and economic model that prioritises people over profit. Social work is not responsible for the inequalities of our society. The persistence of high level of intervention in the poorest families has little to do with social work reform and much more to do with the current political economy amplified by a decade of austerity policies. The primary challenge for family support services over the last decade has not been their structure, but the lack of funding from central government for them.

BASW agrees with the Review that the central issue of poverty and its devasting impact on children and their families ‘must be comprehensively addressed’. [1] We also note that the report, having recognised poverty and deprivation, then sidelines these issues as contextual factors outside of scope - along with some of the main related drivers of demand, such as domestic abuse and substance misuse.

Resources will always be absorbed with helping children and families in serious and urgent need unless social policy is joined up to effectively deal with underlying and chronic problems. There is an obvious reluctance to address other structural injustices such as racism, which is barely mentioned. The Review also refuses to touch on issues of asylum-seeking children (including the new age assessment team run by the Home Office). Given that the majority of these children are Black and from the global majority, this is a significant gap in this 'once in a generation review'.

BASW welcomes the recognition in the Review that ‘the greatest strength of the children’s social care system lies in its workforce’. Indeed, children's services social care is only able to function due to the long hours that social workers and their managers work. This was unsustainable even before the pandemic.

The number of social workers leaving children’s posts in English councils is at its highest point since comparable data collection began.[2] Almost 5000 full-time equivalent children’s social workers left their roles in the year to September 2021.

The cost-of-living crisis, working conditions, negative and hostile media coverage and poor public understanding of social work are critical issues. In some parts of the country, the level of abuse and threats directed toward social workers has been shocking. This level of hostility and toxicity undermines the work needed to keep children safe and support families.

The Government has a central role in raising awareness and must consider how to improve public understanding of social work. This includes consideration of how the media covers serious cases and how it discusses children’s social care more widely. Our members are reporting increasing verbal and physical threats and unprecedented levels of hostility. Social work has a poor status in society. Families automatically view social workers with suspicion. This is unsurprising when as a profession, due to austerity policies, institutional racism and our current political and economic model, we have little to offer in terms of access to resources. These tensions are amplified in our work with children and families from Black, Asian, minoritized groups and global majority communities who are bearing the brunt of hostile and punitive Government policy. [3]  The co-opting of social work in the implementation of the new age assessment team run by the Home Office is a source of significant anger across our membership.  

The cost-of-living crisis is a crisis for social workers. We see the impact it has on the people we work with every day and social workers are increasingly personally affected. Practitioners who use their cars for work are absorbing the impact from the rising cost of fuel leaving them facing real term pay cuts. The rate set by the Government is 45p per mile, which has not been updated since 2011. We need a national review of regional and local Terms and Conditions of social workers, and this must include car mileage allowance.

Social work student bursaries have been frozen for an eighth year despite the spiralling cost of living. The grants for the 2022-3 academic year are the same as have been in place since 2014. The number of new bursaries will also remain capped, at 1,500 postgraduate and 2,500 undergraduate awards in the coming year, as it has been since 2013. This means not all relevant students receive a bursary. Many students are facing financial difficulties, including housing costs - and the seven-year freeze on bursaries is pushing students to quit courses, while others have resorted to food banks or are turning to family or friends for support.

To achieve and retain an effective workforce, we need to keep our skilled social work practitioners, and support experienced social care workers (who are not yet qualified social workers) to undertake training (through routes like Step Up and Apprenticeships). We must increase the number of well-motivated students in these programmes and on the mainstream university undergraduate and post-graduate programmes. The university route is the main route to qualification. Apprenticeships and the Step-Up programmes are both dependent on a healthy University social work sector (and it is here that student bursaries are critical).  We must support people who have had more challenging life journeys and complicated trajectories to qualify as social workers. These people have often developed the personal qualities and life skills that make them excellent social workers.

We are concerned that the Frontline project – a fast track programme - has promoted an unhelpful ethos, namely that only a certain kind of academically accredited and highly educated person can be the best social work practitioner. This downgrades everyone else and has taken resources away from the multiplicity of pathways into social work which are so necessary. We need a much more effective national retention and recruitment strategy, attracting and supporting a bigger, motivated pool of applicants to study and train in order to achieve this.

The proposals for regionalisation and the creation of regional care co-operatives are concerning given the impact of large-scale re-organisation on the workforce. Restructuring creates uncertainty and detracts from service delivery. We have a workforce that is chronically fatigued. Proposals are premised on the stated success of the adoption regionalisation programme. It is not possible on the evidence available to make that claim.

Proposals for regional care co-operatives are based on speculation. We have a real crisis of recruitment and retention of social workers and foster carers. BASW urges the Government to commission an independent cost/benefit analysis of these proposals considering the impact - in the short and long-term on - children and families, the workforce and relationships at all levels and across the system.

The Review has failed to reflect or capture the breadth and nuance of the social work role in society. The reductive equation of social work with child protection (rather than with the broad spectrum of social work specialisms in community based and looked after services) is a misrepresentation of the profession.

The Review’s proposals ignore the range of practice specialisms - which include but are not limited to social work and domestic violence, substance misuse, disability, adoption, hospital social work, foster care and work with unaccompanied teenagers. The social work profession does and should contribute to supportive and preventative services, which are specialist areas in their own right.

The Review recommends the creation of three new national bodies and a National Children’s Social Care Framework which will “set the objectives, goals and values and guide underpinning practice for all those delivering children’s social care, accompanied by a balanced scorecard to measure success”.[4]  The three proposed bodies are:

• National Reform Board – “to oversee implementation of the review’s recommendations and monitor system feedback”
• National Practice Group – “to take oversight of setting direction on questions of practice in children’s social care, including the voices of practice, evidence and lived experience”
• National Data and Technology Taskforce – “to coordinate local authority and national action to achieve progress on use of data and technology”

BASW, as the independent body for social work and social workers, is the voice of the workforce and we should have direct representation on these decision-making bodies, including the National Reform Board. Our strong social work voice is vital to ensure that the National Children’s Social Care Framework is based on a broader understanding of the remit, values, knowledge and skills for social work practice - and a broader understanding of research on outcomes than those referred to in the Review. The Review’s heavy reliance on the What Works Centre as the primary source of knowledge on practice is far too narrow and ignores the wider body of internationally reported peer-reviewed research from both UK and international perspectives.

The diversion of public funds and the marginalisation of social work and of social work expertise is well underway. These developments have significantly wider implications given the role the profession has in connecting the political sphere with the economically disenfranchised. The social work profession also functions as an advocate in policy for children and families, as well as intervener in practice. This vital function is completely lost in the Review. What is currently proposed is a very narrow child protection specialist career development.

BASW members are unequivocal in their opposition to the proposals to abolish the IRO role, independent child protection chairs and the regulation 44 independent person. Over three-quarters of our survey respondents strongly disagreed with these proposals. Professionalisation, a robust reviewing and regulatory system, do not undermine care, they support good care.[5]  BASW will continue to robustly challenge the removal of statutory protections for children and their families.

The following quotes from our member survey give an indication of the strength of feeling from social workers in respect of these proposals:

“As an independent Social Worker with many years experience within Children's services from support level to director level) who undertakes these roles I am angry, frustrated and upset that my professional acumen/ skills and expertise are just dismissed.”

“IRO’s provide an opportunity to support social workers in reflective practice, they provide an opportunity to challenge not only social care but other agencies when they are just not doing a good enough job for our children that we are responsible for. IRO's help to shape best practice whilst also providing an independent and critical overview of a child's care journey. IRO's have meaningful relationships with children in care - often being the only professional that remains consistent throughout their care journey.”

“I totally disagree with the idea of abolishing IRO's, independent chairs and Reg44 officers - these posts are important safeguards for children and young people and provide an oversight and independence thuat could not be replicated by the child's social worker or manager. They provide an important part of the quality control and challenge to poor practice which could not be achieved by advocates.”

“I'm utterly opposed to the proposed abolition of the IRO and Independent Conference Chair is an astonishing step to take. Where is the independent overview of practice and holding the local authority to account?”

Removing independent reviewing officers (IROs) from all children in care is dangerous. It goes against the evidence base and against the wishes of children and young people.  IROs are experienced social workers who scrutinise local authorities’ care and decision-making in respect of individual children and their families.

The role was introduced to make sure children and young people in care, and their families, have the protection of a powerful and effective reviewing service. The equating of the independent review role with the role of advocates demonstrates a dangerous misunderstanding of the two roles. We had hoped that a review conducted with the best interests of children at heart would be vociferous about children’s rights.

We note the Governments’ repeated attempts to remove the IRO role and the symbolism of this struggle. We also note the parallel process in practice and the significance of the role/remit of the IRO in upholding children’s rights. Our member consultations have highlighted the absence of attention to the needs of specific groups of highly vulnerable children (including migrant children and disabled children) in the Review. The Review fails to reference children with learning disabilities, disabled children and autistic children who are placed away from home in secure specialist provision due to lack of community-based provision and early help support locally. These placements are made as part of Education Health and Care Plans and family contact is not always facilitated or supported. In some cases, these arrangements are 52-week placements and therefore these children would be considered children in care. The IRO role has been critical in challenging poor care and maintaining oversight of arrangements which can involve seclusion, restraint and segregation.

Whilst advocating universal care standards from 2015, the Review maintains its support for the government’s current plan to introduce ‘care-less’ standards for accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds who are looked after. Over a third of 16- and 17-year-olds in care are living in accommodation where they do not receive any care. Twenty-nine children in care aged 16 and 17 have died while living in unregulated accommodation over the past five years.

A Revolution in Family Help

This chapter describes the need for a ‘fundamental shift’ in the way children’s social care responds to families who need help, arguing that identifying risks earlier and preventing problems from needlessly escalating will reduce the need for ‘less dignified and more costly intervention’ later.

BASW England welcomes the Review’s focus on early help and a dignified, respectful ‘front door’ to services. The Review sets out its ambition for services that are community-based, responsive, well-resourced, and welcoming. ‘Family Help’ multi-disciplinary neighbourhood teams are recommended to provide a wide range of support to families. We fully support the focus on the lived experiences of children and families as they encounter services. The central importance of relationships and continuity of support is aligned to our core values and the evidence base. We also welcome the renewed focus and dedicated investment in family support.

Social work should be part of a system of support for families. It is important to consider the impact, contribution and support of partner organisations including health, schools and the police.

The proposed ‘merging’ of targeted Early Help and Children in Need/Section 17 provision is, in some ways, simply recognising the situation on the ground. Early help has long been dealing with the type of complex needs that would have seen families receiving statutory services ten or twenty years ago. However, with the rebadging as ‘family help’ we are concerned to preserve the principle that this is an entitlement that families have under the law (under Section 17) and not an ‘if money permits’ contingent service that can be cut at a future date.

BASW England awaits details on the exact configuration of the merger. We are concerned that large-scale organisational upheaval will detract from service delivery - and that LAs may be encouraged, or obliged, to tender such functions out. The primary challenge for family support services over the last decade has not been their structure, but the lack of funding from central government for them.

A just and decisive child protection system

This chapter outlines the ways in which the Review believes child protection can be improved, including the use of Expert Child Protection Practitioners for cases where there is a risk of significant harm; clearer expectations on multi-agency capabilities; improving our response to extra-familial harm; improving data sharing and work to improve learning and family experience in the family courts.

BASW England welcomes the Review’s recognition and acknowledgement that a just and decisive child protection system depends on our ‘family help’ support and services, the workforce and supportive and functioning systems. This systemic focus is a welcome shift away from blaming individuals; we fully support the attention to leadership, collaboration, better use of data and organisational culture.

The Review recommends a huge expansion of data collection and sharing. BASW England is concerned that robust mechanisms are in place to protect data. We are alert to exploitation and profiteering, particularly at this time of political upheaval.

We support plans to improve information sharing between councils and their partners. Action is needed to overcome the persistent challenges to improvement, including ensuring that information teams have the capacity and skills to make the best use of data. Government support and a strong focus across agencies will be needed to deliver on these recommendations.

There are many promising ideas and recommendations in this chapter. However, the central proposal for 'expert’ (child protection) social workers is not one of them. The Review reduces social work to specialised child 'protection' rather than generalised child (and family) 'safeguarding'. Social work expertise is vital to the implementation of Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Children and families work is complex relational work - families need skilled, reflective, and well-supported practitioners to support them. Practitioners and the people they work with need access to resources and responsive services.

The counterposing of ‘family support’ against ‘child protection’ has been a recurring narrative and is amplified across the Review’s report (and the National Safeguarding Report). We note the systemic and long-standing issues at the heart of this circular debate. The under-resourcing of Section 17 and over-emphasis on Section 47 were highlighted in Messages from Research (1995). We agree that the structural problems in how children’s social care is funded must be addressed - but the first step is to adequately fund each local authority to provide adequate services for families in their communities and for children in care. Indeed, we regret that the Review appears not to have asked local authorities what funds they require to implement their current statutory obligations under the Children Act 1989 to children and their families.

Unlocking the potential of family networks

This chapter outlines the evidence for improving the use of kinship and ‘shared care’ (in which parents are supported by their family, wider networks, foster carers or children’s homes).

We are delighted that the Review has made far-reaching recommendations on kinship care. If implemented, these recommendations would provide many kinship carers with the financial, legal, and practical support that families need. We specifically welcome the recommendations for:

• A legal definition of kinship care
• A financial allowance for special guardians and kinship carers with child arrangement orders
• Extension of legal aid to many kinship carers or prospective kinship carers
• A new kinship leave entitlement – unlike new parents or adoptive families, kinship carers currently have no right to paid leave from work when the child comes to live with them

We also welcome proposals for peer support. But we are concerned that systems are in place to ensure statutory duties are exercised appropriately and services are evaluated as they develop. Kinship care arrangements can be complex and challenging for all involved, and the psychological complexities and contradictions present in families can be significant. Peer supporters are not equipped to work with complex family dynamics - kinship families should have access to skilled and responsive services and the expertise that social workers (as highly trained practitioners) have.

There is no attention given to the specific situations and needs of global majority communities, asylum-seeking young people or Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in relation to kinship care.

It is vital to ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are elicited and given due consideration when kinship care arrangements are considered. It is not clear whether the Review intends for all kinship care to move from the children’s care system. Where kinship carers are not approved foster carers, children will not have a social worker or the oversight that comes from the statutory reviewing process and the independent reviewing officer role, and they are unlikely to be able to access an independent advocate. It is vital to ensure that older children who approach children’s social care because they do not feel safe or secure within their families are not pushed into arrangements which exacerbate their isolation and unhappiness.

Transforming Care

This chapter outlines the Review’s perspective on the current challenges in ensuring that children in care are able to thrive in loving, caring homes - which it states include inflexibility in regulations, insufficient support for foster carers and a lack of coordination across the system.

BASW England welcomes the report’s recognition that foster care can make a transformational difference to the lives of children and young people. However, the Review uses the term 'broken' to describe the current system. We reject this term and are dismayed that it is being used. Foster care is an incredibly complex undertaking and carers look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society. We have a crisis of retention in foster care and any undermining of the role in the current context is a significant cause for concern.

The Review is looking to many more placements by ‘known adults’ (e.g. teachers) and suggests that other foster care will increasingly focus on longer-term arrangements and should move away from taking ‘child after child’ (thereby implicitly moving away from fostering as a career).

This is a highly speculative proposal with no evidence base. This recommendation should have been trialled by the Review. Supervising social workers, teachers, foster carers and care experienced adults have all raised concerns. The proposal shows no regard for the rights of children to have safe, healthy ‘boundaried’ care which does not simultaneously deprive them of, for example, a consistent and supportive educational experience.  If the home placement were to break down this would likely have a disruptive impact on the child’s school experience as well. This is not to say such arrangements should never happen, but we are disappointed that the Review has presented these proposals as a serious answer to the shortage of foster carers. It indicates a lack of understanding of detailed practice issues within the care system.

For carers, family is their work and their work is their family. Foster care is a highly complex undertaking, and the role of the Supervising Social Worker is key to supporting carers navigate these complexities. The Review ignores the importance of pay and conditions and allegations. These are key factors affecting carers and need to be considered.

Local support and strong relationships are key to foster care – making sure that the skills and experience of foster carers in a local area match the needs of children coming into care, so that children can stay within their local communities. Some local authorities and agencies (despite significant funding and overwhelming demand issues) have implemented successful recruitment and retention strategies in respect of foster care. Community practice type models have been highly successful, informed and shaped by local expertise and strong relationships between practitioners and carers. We need to support and strengthen these exemplars.

The proposals for the regionalisation of foster care are premised on the stated success of the adoption regionalisation programme - yet is not possible on the evidence available to make that claim. The initial evaluation has been positive, but we do not have long-term data available.

Although the Review’s report emphasises the importance of children in care remaining ‘close to their community’, the obvious risk of regionalisation is the loss of local knowledge and, crucially, of relationships. The Review does not acknowledge any potential risks to regionalisation which include:

• More children being cared for far from home
• The creation of larger bureaucracies,
• A more distant relationship with local authorities (at varying levels)
• The huge disruption involved in such a large reorganisation

Restructuring creates uncertainty and we have a workforce that is chronically fatigued. The supervising social worker role is highly skilled and crucial to the support of carers, children, and the relationships they have. We are concerned that any change process must take the impact on relationships into account. Regional structures can only enhance and improve local planning, commissioning, recruitment, and retention if they are staffed by a skilled and supported workforce. Indeed, the retention of foster carers and of their social workers is a crisis issue.

BASW England members have been unequivocal in their opposition to the proposals to weaken the independent reviewing service. The equating of the independent review role with the role of advocates demonstrates a misunderstanding of the two roles. Removing independent reviewing officers (IROs) from all children in care is dangerous. IROs are experienced social workers who scrutinise local authorities’ care and decision-making in respect of individual children and their families. The role was introduced to make sure children and young people in care and their families, have the protection of a powerful and effective reviewing service.

We are deeply disappointed that the unique role of independent advocates has been misunderstood and the Review’s proposals around independent advocacy focus only on children who are entitled to an IRO. Children and young people are legally entitled to advocacy in a multitude of other circumstances, including when they need help to express their views, wishes and feelings during child protection processes, when they are preparing to leave care, and when they are in need and considering making a representation (including a complaint) about any aspect of children’s social care.

The Care Experience

This section outlines five “missions” to ensure care leavers have loving relationships, education, secure housing, employment and good health into old age. It is obviously essential that government consults the care experienced community (and others) on these five proposed missions. 

We welcome the ambition to ensure young people leave care with strong relationships and a secure base. A whole series of policy changes, coupled with financial investment, will be necessary to achieve this, including the replacement of artificial, age-based decision-making with processes that focus on the young person’s needs and plans for the future. Extending corporate / community parenting may be an important step in ensuring that all partners are working towards improved outcomes, but there is a significant risk that this could ‘dilute’ the duty.

Staying Put is significantly underfunded and, alongside pressures on placement capacity, meaning many young people are not being adequately supported or cared for at a crucial time in their lives. We welcome the Review’s recommendation that young people can remain in these homes for longer however this will be reliant on a successful foster carer retention and recruitment strategy and sufficient funding. Moreover, it is imperative that the right to ‘stay put’ is extended to young people living in residential care.

We reject the Review’s endorsement of a two-tier system for young people in care approaching adulthood. The proposed extension (from 21 years) to 23 years, for both Staying Put and Staying Close, is not ambitious enough if this is to be seen truly as a ‘once-in-a-generation’ Review. A care system that emulates loving families would not impose artificial age conditions. 

Realising the potential of the workforce 

There are significant weaknesses in this part of the Review. These proposals in relation to the potential of the workforce do not reflect the breadth and nuance of the social work role in society. They are neither ambitious nor pragmatic and will, we fear, not encourage social workers to join or stay in the profession. The proposals inexplicably ignore many areas of social work, including social work with disabled children and their families, adoption, foster care, neighbourhood family social work career options, social work specialisms with hearing impaired people or work with unaccompanied teenagers. 

The social work profession also functions as an advocate in policy for children and families. This function is completely lost in the Review. What is currently proposed is very narrow child protection specialist career development. There have been repeated attempts over the past 40 years to address workforce challenges with the creation of new roles. They have failed to address the core fundamental issues of capacity and workforce stability. All qualified social workers are experts. We hope that the implementation of the Review is used as an opportunity for serious investment in the social work workforce and in post-qualifying education and development.

The knowledge and understanding that social work has – that a sensitive, compassionate and empathic stance is key to engaging families – is absent and disregarded at policy level. Social work must be understood as the complex and deeply emotional task it is. This requires leadership models (rooted in relational, reflective supervision) within the profession to reflect our ethics and value base. We cannot be reliant solely on compliance and corporate approaches; they do not do the work that is needed to support practice.

For social work to work we need emotional and reflective resources. We must prioritise the emotional wellbeing of the workforce as we move on with/from the pandemic. Organisational cultures need to be relational, reflective and respectful. The emotional impact of working during COVI-19 and supporting families with the impact of COVID-19 has been significant. Rising child and family poverty, the increased rates of children’s emotional and mental health difficulties and the lack of other services creates a perfect storm. We have a fatigued workforce having to manage and ‘hold’ intolerable levels of demand. Without an emotionally nourished workforce the quality of practice will be at risk of being poor and retention and recruitment challenges will persist. 

The Review’s avoidance of structural inequality inevitably undermines its aspirations to be anti-racist. We have significant concerns about the impact of structural racism on the workforce. The Fitness to Practice process is an area that needs urgent attention. There is an over-representation of Black and ethnic minority social workers in fitness to practise cases and disproportionately white adjudication panels. The delays in the process are unacceptable and are disproportionately affecting Black and minority ethnic social workers. We need to take swift and appropriate action in relation to known issues of inequality.

The narrow focus on child protection is reflected in the Review’s proposal for a 5-year early career pathway, which will culminate in work reaching “expert practitioner” status. We welcome a focus on post-qualifying education, but the plans appear undeveloped and there is no indication as to how such as framework would be funded. The only specific proposal is regard to child protection, but is it envisaged that there would be expert practitioners across children and families social work? It is also unclear as to what “expert” means and the Review does not, in our view, address the serious workforce issues currently in children’s social care.

A system that is relentlessly focused on children and families 

This section of the report considers the system that will underpin the recommendations made throughout. We all want a system that is relentlessly focused on children and families - but this can only be achieved with the support of a skilled and stable workforce. Social workers must be valued, supported, and recognised for the skilled work they do. Professionals need pay that reflects their skills and expertise, career opportunities, post-qualifying and continued professional development opportunities.

We would welcome improvements to the role of Ofsted. BASW England supports a shift towards a more helpful and less punitive system. We note that the framework, Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS) introduced in 2018 has made some positive efforts in this direction. However, the retention of the 4-point rating system still creates a huge amount of institutional anxiety around inspection.

BASW England supports the establishment of the National Data and Technology Taskforce to drive improvements in data management and information sharing. There is room for improvement, but any proposals must be generated through a robust consultative process with children and families and information users. Data protection rights and confidentiality must be central to this work.

BASW England recognises the need for national leadership and direction. Without robust leadership and oversight, the risks of fragmentation and duplication are significant. At present we have several significant reform programmes underway (including proposals and programmes in relation to schools, SEND, youth justice and the early years). We are also concerned about the NHS Long Term Plan which sets out the government’s plans for every part of England to have an Integrated Care System aligned with restructuring plans in children’s social care. NHS clinical commissioning groups, NHS providers and local authorities have been working collaboratively to develop new placed-based integrated models of care and outcomes-based contracting models. The pressure on sector leaders to manage significant change across multiple areas is unprecedented. Unless the staffing crisis in the NHS and across social care is addressed, aspirations will fail.

The Review’s aspirations and intended outcomes depend on joined-up thinking, on cross-Government commitment and on significant investment by the Treasury. Reform cannot happen without genuinely transformational investment and a functioning administration. We rightfully expect social workers and carers to work collaboratively and with authority to meet the needs of the children and their families. We need leaders who can work effectively with the sector and across Government departments to address the needs of children and families across all areas of their lives. BASW England will continue to engage with the Government and sector partners as we await the Government response to the Care Review. Unfortunately, there is as yet no timescale for this.

BASW England is alert to the risks associated with further consolidation of power to Westminster at a time of political upheaval. We will continue to robustly challenge the removal of statutory protections for children and their families. We will be advocating on behalf of our members (the workforce) for the following:

1. BASW representation on the proposed national decision-making bodies, including the National Reform Board. We expect clarity over the purpose, scope and accountability of these bodies and inclusive processes and transparency regarding membership. The expertise of children and families must be acknowledged and properly represented in these national bodies. 
2. A national review of regional and local Terms and Conditions of employment for social workers, and this must include consideration of the car mileage allowance.
3. A much more effective national retention and recruitment strategy, attracting and supporting a bigger and motivated pool of applicants to study and train to achieve this.
4. An increase and expansion to social work student bursaries to reflect the actual cost of living.
5. An independent cost/benefit analysis of proposals for structural change (including regional care co-operatives) considering the potential impact on children and families and the workforce, and on relationships at all levels and across the system.

[1] BASW, together with the Food is Care  campaign, are working to highlight the issue of food poverty experienced by children in care

[2] Children’s Services Statistics (2021) Children's social work workforce, Reporting Year 2021

[3] The criminal trespass offence introduced by the Police Act 2022 has the potential to further marginalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and their families

[4] These proposals are linked to those in the National Safeguarding Review report

[5] Schofield, et al., (2013) Professional foster carer and committed parent: Child and Family Social Work, 18(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12034