€¦ · web viewthe 2017 social work health check is an annual report undertaken by the...

Social Work Health Check 2017“You can’t grow roses in concrete”

Gloucestershire Children and Young People’s Service

Sarah Holtom & Rob TyrrellPrincipal Social Workers

&Bhav Patel

HR Business Partner, Children’s Services

September 2017

Introduction

The 2017 Social Work Health Check is an annual report undertaken by the Principal Social Workers (PSW’s) in Gloucestershire, in collaboration with GCC’s Project Team and Human Resources. Fair process has been adopted whereby all family support workers, social workers (including newly qualified social workers) and managers and heads of service have been engaged and invited to participate so as to hear and understand individual, team and organisational themes. Staff views and perspectives have been collated to provide explanation, context and a shared organisational understanding of what is the current experience of our staff in children’s social care and then an action plan is provided for organisational development and clarity with regards to expectations for the future.

The role of the PSW is to act as a bridge between front line workers, (including managers) and the leadership team. The Social Work Health Check is one way of ensuring the voice of practice is heard and actively listened to, which leads to a plan of what actions are needed.

Professor Eileen Munro explains in her Review of Child Protection (2011; 2016) how frontline social work practice is unable to flourish and “grow” in organisations where there is a focus upon process and compliance alone, where organisational environments are not supportive of a culture where critical reflection and thinking is promoted and engagement with families is prioritised. In fact such cultures are more likely to escalate pessimism and frustrations as workers are expected to work collaboratively with families, however the organisation remains “anxiety driven” with a preoccupation with “doing things right versus a concern for doing the right thing”.

Within this staff survey it is evident that the current climate reported by staff in Gloucestershire’s children’s social care is one where staff at all levels generally report low support and high criticism, with a focus upon compliance and process driven demands in an atmosphere which does not promote open and honest dialogue. The meaning therefore of not being able to “Grow Roses in Concrete” would suggest a genuine reflection of the current staff experience and working environments for our workforce that does not support conditions to enable people at all levels to be the best that they can be when working with children and families in Gloucestershire.

The 2017 questionnaire, focus groups and report have been re-designed with the aim of better understanding key issues affecting staff practice, performance and morale and enabling a more robust and transparent response to identified themes. The 2017 Report is able to specifically comment on themes identified from those managed under the Director for Safeguarding and Care. Limited data was received via the online survey and there was low attendance at Focus Groups for those staff managed under the Operations Director for Prospects, Over 11’s Service and so limited comparisons and comment can be made for this part of the service. Early Help Services will also not be considered within the remit of this staff survey.

This year’s Social Work Health Check coincided with an Ofsted Inspection of children’s social care (February -March 2017) and this may have impacted upon numbers completing the on-line survey. There has been a slight drop in those completing the on line questionnaire for 2017, with 204 responses completed (compared to 223 completed in 2016). 153 of which were completed by staff managed under the Director for Safeguarding

of 28

& Care and 16 under Operations Director, Over 11’s. (NB: the remainder consisting of those under the Director for Early Help).

There was a slight increase in focus groups attendance with 131 workers meeting the PSW’s under the Director for Safeguarding and Care and 5 attending for the Over 11’s service. This is compared to a total number of 135 in 2016.

Key themes for 2017: What do our people have to say?

The quantitative on line survey (please refer to Appendix 1) consisted of questions covering 3 areas of how staff feel valued and have a sense of accountability and fairness in the organisation.

The qualitative focus groups covered the same areas as outlined in the questionnaire in more depth and were locality based. The PSW’s convened focus groups by team and additionally by role, for example Head of Service, Senior Practitioner, Team Manager and Newly Qualified Workers.

There is a difference and some discrepancy in some themes identified within the on line survey and what was reported within the focus groups and there is an analysis of this later in the report.

The 2017 Social Work Health Check is organised into three parts; what is working well; what are we worried about and what we need to move forward as an organisation. In each of the 2 sections relating to staff feedback, key themes are identified with statistical data and comment added to illustrate these points.

What’s working well?

High support & camaraderie to one another in teams and when explored further, most staff report “it’s what keeps us at GCC”. It is a credit to all teams that relationships within teams and between workers are mainly described as supportive, with appropriate use of humour to keep spirits lifted and looking out for each other when things become difficult for team members. There were many examples given of kindness and empathy and going the extra mile for colleagues when team members showed signs of stress.

The team culture and ethos in some parts of the service was described as improving and shifting and this was linked to the implementation of practice models such as BASE, supportive heads of services who were often in teams and an increase in reflective supervision styles. “We have the balance right, it feels safe to say but can be challenging around practice when needed”. Teams describe learning and high support cultures, where open dialogue is promoted. “My manager is keen for me to learn and grow my practice; it feels good”

Supervision is seen as effective in some places and this is often linked to supervisor’s training and experience; supervisor/supervisee relationship; regularity and reflectivity, where staff report they have time to think, hypothesise and analyse their practice with children and families. Staff made comments in some teams about a noticeable shift from

of 28

task focused; process compliant supervision to a balanced approach whereby there is management oversight and guidance where needed, but case reflection is also a key element of some case discussions. The majority of staff completing the survey rate the supervision they receive in positive terms and indicate it is more reflective in nature.

When good practice is identified, staff value receiving compliments from their Head of Service. Staff during the focus groups gave examples of verbal and written feedback being given to them and how this celebration of practice was welcomed. “ they are visible, walks the floor and is interested in us and about our cases and we value them telling us when we have done a good job, it makes the difference some days”.

Innovative practice and the passion of workers – many reports were provided of staff undertaking additional duties, often outside of working hours, to promote relationships / good practice / to introduce new concepts or to share research and learning. Teams shared practice ideas via the focus groups including such as “tweak of the week” / celebration boxes / team development lunches.

Staff shared many examples of direct work that takes place across the service within the focus groups and the common theme was that all workers want to be able to work directly with children and families and are frustrated when the bureaucratic processes prevent them from doing so. Passion and creativity were seen in many focus groups when sharing interventions undertaken with families and there is a “service will” for this to be taking place more routinely as this would appear to be a main motivator for many social workers in GCC.

Staff in the survey (see appendix 1) and during the focus groups gave many positive comments about the range of training available to them, with particular mention of the whole service, multi-agency events and national speakers who have inspired them in their practice. Staff report there is an increased culture across the service of learning and development. Staff welcome a range of learning interventions. “there is good quality training available” ; “the master classes are excellent”

The support experienced by ASYE’s was generally rated as good and many positive

comments made about the support and supervision provided by the consultant social workers and the availability of training opportunities.

What are we worried about ?:

A culture across the organisation where staff report that they do not feel able to raise issues directly with managers / Heads of Service and some report feelings of being bullied or shamed and this can be through a range of mediums. One person said “ there are serious relationship difficulties within the organisation at the current time, which is really sad”.

Many reported that often people “pass the buck” and then “blame” each other and do this via email and are not able or willing to do this by talking face to face or over the phone. Staff gave examples of where they have seen or experienced other members of their team / part of the service being “scapegoated” when things go wrong as opposed to exploring what it is within the system that prevents discussion of these issues which need exploring and understanding via healthy debate.

of 28

Staff say they feel nervous when they see colleagues being treated in this way and many experienced social workers talked of how this would stop them from progressing further within the service as managers. Across the service there is a term which has been adopted to describe this as “the vanishings”, relating to unexplained and undiscussed absence and movement of more senior staff.

Staff of course understand the HR processes and confidentiality when such issues arise, but comment more upon the lack of acknowledgement and culture of secrecy and not being enabled to discuss the process or put meaning to what has happened and so “an elephant in the room” appears.

Staff also report that when performance issues need to addressed they are not often done so appropriately and examples were given of staff being moved to other parts of the service as opposed to tackling the development issues needed in a constructive manner with staff.

Within this culture, there is an added complexity of staff being “generally nice” to one another, where friendship cliques are apparent and within such environments it makes it more difficult to engage in healthy challenge with each other and there is risk of a “laissez-faire” attitude developing, which can result in drift and delay in the service.

Many staff report not feeling listened to by managers and that management oversight is often not clear, especially around what good practice looks like. Workers tend to generally report feeling they are being checked up upon and that there are hidden agendas between what is being asked and why and that often expectations around what can be achieved within timescales is unrealistic.

This would suggest a theme of mistrust among some worker/manager relationships, which is of concern given that the supervisory relationship should be built upon a firm foundation of trust and honest, transparent dialogue, where mistakes can be reflected upon in a non stigmatising manner. “You work your socks off, doing things in the evenings and at weekends and then I am still being criticised for not getting my paperwork done, what more can I do?”

Managers have high workloads which are predominately focused on administration tasks and not management oversight or practice development. There was a theme from workers that managers tend to spend more time at their computers and less time face to face with them. This is an interesting analysis from workers which can be identified throughout the system.

There is an increasing conflict in how time is spent with families building relationships and undertaking interventions versus time spent doing bureaucratic tasks and completing paperwork. “It feels like managers are pushed to do things, and they then push us to do things”.

Relationships between some staff and managers have become fractious and not open and honest, with many comments made such as “I do not feel appreciated”. When this theme is explored further with workers, it would appear that a culture of fear coupled with a lack of professional confidence lies at the heart of some manager/worker relationships and this is summed up by one saying “I can’t say how it really is and I can’t say no, because it will be a

of 28

mark against you. There is a lot of anxiety around and I notice how others get treated if they say no, despite being overwhelmed”.

Expectations on practice are not known and/or made explicit by managers. Managers often do not ‘know the answer’ (or encourage staff opportunity to consider possible answers via reflective dialogue) – and this may link to inexperience across the system. Examples of undertaking the SWET were given in the Over 11’s service around expertise and knowledge of court work and how this was impacting across the system as workers and managers, with one worker commenting “we all do not know what we are really doing”.

Workers and managers generally report low confidence levels in this area, and in the Over 11’s service this remains as an issue for the 2nd year running in the social work health check.

Relationships between some teams are not effective and / or valued, as one person wrote “the constant challenge from IRO’s and CP Chairs has damaged relationships. Challenge isn’t always fair and sometimes personal and when certain services are challenged back it becomes hostile”.

Staff commented in most focus groups on how disconnected the service has become, and that divides are apparent between teams, with ineffective communication and misunderstanding, whereby each others roles are not clear. The relationship between the Under and Over 11’s Services remains fractious and communication in this area is consistently described by workers as “not strong”.

Tensions also were noted from fostering and adoption colleagues and there is a disconnect apparent throughout the service which is often linked to lack of communication and /or understanding job roles “they think we sit around drinking tea all day”. Ineffective relationships between Early Help and Children’s Social Care was also notable in many R&A and C&F Focus Groups, where threshold themes of work being referred to each other’s part of the service and whether this was/ was not appropriate and then acted upon in a timely manner were consistently made by social workers in these teams.

Many social workers commented on how they viewed the link to re-referral rates on the inter-relationship between early help and children’s social care.

Multi-agency relationships were also commented on in some focus groups, with themes arising such as low attendance by partners at various meetings such as Strategy Discussions, Conference and Core Groups and the quality of GSCB multi-agency training for social workers was also raised on several occasions by experienced staff.

A senior leadership team which is sometimes able to listen to information but not act upon it in a timely or effective manner or with realistic expectations. Some staff reported how senior leaders / heads of service would visit, but at times these were not helpful and in fact demotivated staff as they were left feeling that they were not good enough and had even more tasks to undertake. “We are really trying our best, we are following the processes they said to do, we are not slacking, but it still isn’t good enough”.

Relationships with senior managers remain too variable across the service – there is some visibility, but generally it is reported that senior leaders / heads of service appear not to

of 28

know or want to get to know staff – evidence was given of high challenge and low support, particularly reported in the Children and Families Teams.

A theme of consistent low staff morale across the service and across teams, and staff reporting feeling overwhelmed, stressed and wanting to leave and this is passed on throughout the system. “Our leads are stressed, and they pass this stress on to us and we are already stressed, which makes us feel even more irritable and fed up”.

A discrepancy in what is being reported via the on-line health check questionnaire and said directly in the focus groups is apparent and understanding what this means about culture across the organisation is important. It is evident that within the staff online survey more positive comments were made in certain areas such as the senior leadership team and the culture of the organisation (see appendix 1). However, when explored further in the qualitative focus groups, this would appear to be the opposite staff view and this needs to be acknowledged when presenting a collective staff voice which is authentic and genuine.

Staff say there is not a fair process and that they are not consulted and are “done to” the majority of times. Staff also expressed a wish to hear more about how other parts of the service are progressing, such as feedback on models of practice within the PODS. “Evaluations are not fed back to us and so we don’t know”.

Staff say that the vision is not clear and can easily change depending on the latest “buzz word” or concept. Things change too much - Gloucestershire does not stick with things and embed practice priorities. A common thread and phrase being “ever changing priorities” The general view across the focus groups is that staff want clear direction, and for this then to be committed to, to ensure change happens and practice embeds.

The organisation is process driven and relies too heavily on bureaucratic processes. Staff are concerned about the amount of time they have to work directly with families and the quality of direct interventions as a result of this. This connects to the amount of paperwork that has to be completed, and how often there is unnecessary duplication.

A consistent theme from all parts of the service is that there remains an 80 / 20 split in terms of time spent undertaking largely administrative and bureaucratic tasks, as opposed to time spent working with families. “I spend 95% of my time doing admin”. Staff across all focus groups talked about having to write the same information many times, across many different forms.

This has led to a culture of “cut and pasting” within written work, as it is seen as unnecessary and a waste of a professional’s time to say the same thing “300 times in different way”. Workers at the front door and C&F teams raised constant issues around consistency of thresholds/ risk aversion and repeat work, whereby they are taking on work with families which is not needed or that work is stepped down to Early Help for support work to take place, which then returns as the work has not been done and concerns once again escalate.

There is an overriding theme of staff stating at all levels that they are “too busy” and there is insufficient opportunity to safely address how this impacts on their emotional resilience, ability to learn and ensuring a healthy work/life balance. Opportunities to effectively take

of 28

TOIL, which might mitigate this imbalance, are limited. Similarly, the opportunity for some staff to access and then utilise learning form training has been reduced.

The office environment and car parking for Quayside staff remains a constant issue for those working in teams in central Gloucester and this was raised by all focus groups in these areas as having an unacceptable impact on their working day. Many examples were given of staff having to disrupt meetings / take additional time out of their day to move their cars and to walk to and from the Quays Car Park. “how can GCC really value us and our work with this crazy parking situation”.

The impact of austerity & poverty on families in Gloucestershire was a new theme identified in focus groups whereby workers identified issues such as an increase in the number of families using food banks / children having a lack of access to computers to complete homework and the lack of locality based resources and services to support families experiencing poverty.

Social workers gave examples of cuts in provision via the voluntary and statutory sector (family centres), and the impact on parent’s ability to access preventative services, such as parenting groups. In a county such as Gloucestershire, in those outreach localities such as the Forest of Dean and Cirencester, workers shared case examples of parents not being able to engage in mental health and alcohol services due to closures of locality based groups, and a need for families to travel via public transport (with a limited service) to Gloucester or Cheltenham, for example GDAS.

When parents were then not able to attend such services, this was viewed negatively by professionals, and wider societal issues were not taken fully into account. Staff talked of families often being “set up to fail” due to the impact of such cuts to services, and the impact on their daily lives of living in poverty. (see Bywaters et al 2016; The relationship between poverty, child abuse and neglect; an evidence review Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

That training is not easily accessible as it is not locality based and due to workloads was often not prioritised by the worker or their manager. “Training is always in Gloucester, it takes 3 hours out of your day to attend” There were consistent staff comments around GSCB multi-agency training and that this was not pitched effectively or at the right level for social care and hence why many did not prioritise this training. Staff felt they did not take any additional learning points away, and were often looked on to provide information themselves from trainers.

The impact of Ofsted and how staff generally felt that the focus on their arrival had been building for months, as opposed to focusing upon working with children and families. One person described it as “chaotic hell, with a real build up of fear, where everyone knew it was going downhill for the last 12-18 months”. The direct experience of staff of the inspection was generally described as OK, however many comments were made during the focus groups about the lack of communication from the leadership team during the inspection and especially afterwards.

The turnover of staff and what this means to our collective team spirit - this theme is captured by a social worker’s description how “I am feeling fragile; I have had 5 different managers since October 2016 and don’t feel I have a sound base for exploring my

of 28

practice”. In certain parts of the service, workers commented on the high numbers of colleagues leaving, and how this makes them feel unsettled too and begin looking for other opportunities. “everyone is leaving in my team”.

Most staff in focus groups commented that supervision remains task focused and lengthy and opportunity for reflective supervision is seen as limited or superficial. Staff generally report that supervision does take place (only being cancelled for emergencies on cases or other meetings taking priority and it is generally re-booked), but “ there is not a lot of thinking time, it’s more about process and ticking the box – done!”.

Workers report they don’t have adequate technology to do the job and the lack of smart phones and devices to enable workers to make best use of their time and engage young people was a theme that ran through the focus groups consistently and is a recurrent theme from the last two years health checks, with staff reporting that little progress has been made in this area. Words such as “outdated”, “poor IT equipment”, “antiquated”, “isn’t up to par” and “unfit for purpose” provide a general flavour of staff views.

ASYE’s caseloads are too complex and too high, too soon: “The PSW’s said that our caseload should be a maximum of 18 and this is absolutely not the case and the complexities of the cases are not considered at all”. The current ASYE cohort have remarked that part of the GCC ASYE Programme attraction is the emphasis on ensuring a protected caseload, but in reality this is not the case. Time for reflection and thinking about practice development is not prioritised due to capacity demands.

Newly qualified social workers are also seen as receiving too much support, being “mollycoddled” and over protected, and are then not adequately prepared, supported or challenged for post ASYE practice. “ASYE’s appear to receive a Rolls Royce Service and the support is not shared evenly across the workforce, creating a them and us divide”. The general theme is that the Practice Learning Team focus their attention too heavily on the newly qualified workers and that more focus is needed on other more experienced workers in the system. Comments were also made within the on line survey that the PSW’s needed to be more visible in teams and ensure they consistently champion the voice of front line practice.

Staff do not feel valued in the work they do, or that career progression is prioritised. A robust system for appraisal is not actively and meaningfully used. Workers describe a mixed picture of their appraisals, with a general limited focus on mapping out career direction and progression. “We talk about my experience in my appraisal, but nothing ever goes anywhere; my 12 years experience is not recognised”.

Family Support Workers talked about wanting a clearer route for career progression, which is not linked to a social work career and how nothing had changed as the result of the review of their service.

Senior Practitioners describe an “energy” to their growing team of experienced practitioners, but do not feel enabled to develop their role, due to high caseloads preventing them from mentoring and coaching less experienced workers and promoting and leading upon learning and developing. “It feels like we are drowning sometimes as experienced practitioners”.

of 28

Analysis: What is the Impact on individuals and the organisation?

When Abraham Maslow created his Hierarchy of Needs, he argued that humans are motivated by five essential needs. Adaption of this pyramid of need can be useful when analysing how the workforce perceive their needs are being met on an individual, team and organisational level. To summarise:

Physiological needs – This includes having a place and space to work, regular monthly salary, comfortable working environment and essential facilities, such as adequate car parking

Safety needs – This includes workers views on how risks are managed and how personal safety is viewed across the organisation. This is also related to how psychologically safe a worker feels to be able to say things to colleagues and managers when practice is not deemed as OK and/or things have gone wrong.

Social needs – This includes how individuals within teams work together and also views on wider organisational cultures. Promoting group working across teams, departments and different levels, as well as encouraging team building through social activities can help satisfy these needs.

Self-esteem – At the self-esteem level respect for others and praise is important. Career progression, feedback and appraisal systems are important in how staff feel valued within teams and across the wider organisation

Self-actualisation – At the highest level personal development plans, training, secondments, mentoring, and the opportunity for promotion enable staff to be the very best they can be.

In Maslow’s theory, employees whose lowest level needs have not been met will make decisions based on compensation, safety, or stability concerns. So it is vital to ensure that these needs are fulfilled before others further up the pyramid. It is clear from feedback that

of 28

http://staffmotivationmatters.co.uk/maslows-hierarchy-needs-explained/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihn-LqybPWAhUMCcAKHfM7BP4QjRwIBw&url=http://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2017/04/meeting-millennials-needs-in-the-workplace.html&psig=AFQjCNHBfEgocf0uih-38EL4HxFotUbwSA&ust=1505990464018366

many staff do not have a sense of having their needs met at any level throughout our system and this is a deeply concerning situation for the organisation.

It is also worth noting that employees will default to their lowest level needs if their higher level needs are no longer being satisfied, for example, if a worker does not have a quiet space to write a report or to have supervision, they will tend to focus upon work conditions and pay before being able to consider team functioning and relationships. This is clearly evident from this year’s Health Check where many staff talked about the impact on their daily work of inadequate office space or car parking in Gloucester Teams and how this was often the biggest issue before anything else.

Maslow also introduced the idea that our needs constantly change: as one need is met then so we desire the level above it. For example, the recognition email celebrating good practice we received two years ago won’t satisfy our current needs for appreciation, and the training course we did three years ago won’t satisfy our need to be learning new skills and knowledge now. However, it is concerning that identified themes are recurring from previous social work health checks and therefore issues have not improved meaningfully for staff year on year. This would suggest the drive and pace of change has not been effective for the workforce in key areas such as working conditions, car parking, social work not paperwork and supervisory/managerial relationships between workers and managers.

It is helpful to use Maslow’s pyramid as a tool to identify themes across the workforce and as a tool to inform work with individuals and teams to map out the most effective development and improvement journey. This may be unique for each locality and team as well as the wider organisation

What do we need as an organisation and what needs to happen now?

We know that an organisation that satisfies Maslow’s principles can feature high employee satisfaction, excellent retention, cohesion in teams, and an organisational culture where high support and challenge are interconnected, difficult conversations are welcomed and a shared approach is both possible and expected throughout the system.

There is clear evidence from the 2017 Social Work Health Check that a compliant, often fearful and process-focused culture has become embedded across the system. It takes courage and strength to break out of this mind-set and considerable efforts are needed to realign our service so that we support and enable “workers to practice in a way that understands and accepts the complexity and uncertainty” of social work practice and social work management in Gloucestershire.

Re-aligning our system to practice with families is critical and this can be done by creating a culture whereby open and honest debate is the norm; emotional resilience is built and good practice is understood by the entire workforce and experienced by all of those whom need our help and protection.

The recommendation following the 2017 Health Check is therefore to prioritise 4 areas for 2017 – 2018 :

To develop a restorative whole team culture across children’s social care where workers & managers repair and re-build relationships and where staff are able to

of 28

raise issues with regard to individual practice and team relationships in an open and honest way.

For team and children’s social care cultures to be identified, redefined and strengthened to enable recognition, alignment and sustainment of good practice when working with each other and children and families.

For workers and managers to have manageable workloads, and to re-focus upon working with families to understand their lived experience and identify risk and resilience factors in a proportionate manner and with pace, so that plans and interventions are effective and outcome focused

To further develop a culture of continual learning and development which has relationship based practice at it’s heart and at all levels, where practice, knowledge and skills are developed so that all staff feel safe and confident in understanding and undertaking consistently good practice with children and families

Action Plan : What does this look like ?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has

Margaret Mead

Staff engagement is paramount. Consideration of a World Cafe Event to discuss the findings in the 2017 Social Work Health Check with all staff & to further map with workers and managers how this links to the Improvement Plan.

Social Work not Paperwork Project to have pace and ensure implementation of smart working devices is rolled out (date) and for Liquid Logic Advisory Group to feed into the duplication of paperwork

Establish Participation Groups, lead by the PSW’s, where all teams are represented to ensure an individual and collective voice is heard on a regular basis and feedback to Senior Leaders (September 2017). This would provide a further assurance that communication channels were robust and would feed into the QAF framework to ensure lessons from quality checks / learning and development / customer complaints and compliments and SCRs are effective and embedded in practice.

To ensure individual and team development is seen through staff appraisals and the evaluation of learning and development programme and this would impact on staff retention

To continue to work upon embedding an Effective Supervision Programme with Year 3 focusing upon supervision skills and management oversight (Programme to commence : date)

For managers to complete the Restorative Managers Programme and for this to be independently evaluated to ensure transfer of learning into management practice

of 28

To work with HR colleagues to ensure a robust career progression pathway is available for all staff across the service, regardless of role.

Heads of Service, acknowledging feedback from social workers gathered during the Health check have also committed to the following actions:

We will send regular updates to our teams including information about staffing, wider GCC issues, improvement updates, data etc

We will commit to being present in the teams depending on the level of support needed by teams at any given time.

We will meet new staff as part of their introductions to our teams.

We will regularly share information from OLT with managers to share with staff.

We will provide opportunities for social workers to shadow HoS as well as HoS shadowing social workers

of 28

Appendix 1:

Children’s Safeguarding Employee Health Check Questionnaire(2016 – 2017) Summary of responses

In total 204 responses received to the Health Check Questionnaire – a slight reduction on last year’s 223 responses. The visit from Ofsted is likely to have been the reason for the slight drop in participants. The questionnaire was not sent out to admin staff this year, last year only a few completed the questionnaire so minimal impact upon this years statistics by excluding admin responses.

This report contains the statistics for Children’s Safeguarding. A total of 153 responses were received from this area. Statistics from Youth Support Services or Families First Plus & Family Support teams are not included in this report.

The following table shows the overall summary of all responses and a brief comment on change if any since 2015/16 survey (last year’s statistics included all teams together so I am unable to compare actual numbers of responses against last year but instead will look at percentage increases/decreases in that sample and ratio’s to compare last years responses.

Question Youth SupportOverall 2016/17

YS Ratio Children’s Safeguarding - Overall 2016/17

CS Ratio

1. I work in: please indicate which team you are from

7 43.75% 11+ Chelt2 12.5% 11+ Glos North3 18.75%11+ Glos South3 18.75%11+ Stroud1 6.25% Other

1 in 2.281 in 81 in 5.31 in 5.31 in 16

15 9.80% Adoption17 11.11% C&F/R&A Chelt 178 5.23% C&F/R&A Cots12 7.84% C&F/R&A FOD7 4.58% C&F/R&A Stroud2 1.31% C&F/R&A Tewks5 3.27% Contact Team4 2.61% DC&YP2 1.31% Diversion4 2.61% EDT1 0.65% FF+ Tewks1 0.65% Family Group Conference11 7.19% Family Link & Family & Friends

4 2.61% Fostering Recruitment

1 in 10.21 in 91 in 19.121 in 12.751 in 21.851 in 76.51 in 30.61 in 38.251 in 76.51 in 38.251 in 1531 in 1531 in 13.91 in 38.25

14 9.15% Fostering Support2 1.31% Front Door17 11.11% Gloucester PODs2 1.31% Gloucester R&A3 1.96% IRO’s & CP Chairs8 5.23% Permanence Cic U 11’s7 4.58% Other

1 in 10.91 in 76.51 in 91 in 76.51 in 511 in 19.121 in 21.85

2. My Director is: 7.17% of the responses came from Youth SupportRatio 1:13.68

69.86% of the responses came from Children’s Safeguarding

3. I consider myself to have a disability

0 0.00% – Yes16 100% - No0 0.00% - No response

0 8 5.23% - Yes142 92.81% - No3 1.96% - No response

1 in 19.12

4. I regularly have the opportunity to meet my Director/Deputy Director

1 6.25% - Strongly Agree7 43.75% - Agree7 43.75% - Disagree1 6.25% - Strongly disagree0 0.00% - No response

1 in161in 2.281in 2.281in16


1 in 10.21 in 2.191 in 2.941 in 11.76

5. I regularly have the opportunity to meet my Service Lead


1 in 3.21 in 3.21 in 41 in 161 in 16


1 in 3.251 in 2.091 in 6.651 in 30.61 in 30.6

6. Individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation are clear to me


1 in 41 in 1.33

32 20.92% - Strongly Agree93 60.78% - Agree20 13.07% - Disagree3 1.96% - Strongly Disagree5 3.27% - No response

1 in 4.781 in 1.641 in 7.651 in 511 in 30.6

7. Communication between different service areas is effective

0 0.00% - Strongly Agree14 87.50% - Agree2 12.50% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly disagree

1 in 1.141 in 8

3 1.96% - Strongly Agree80 52.29% - Agree61 39.87% - Disagree5 3.27% - Strongly Disagree

1 in 511 in 1.911 in 2.501 in 30.6

of 28

0 0.00% - No response 4 2.61% - No response 1 in 38.258. I am confident I

know where to find relevant information to carry out my job effectively


1 in 81 in 1.14


1 in 4.91 in 1.451 in 15.31 in 1531 in 25.5

9. I have the tools to enable me to do my job effectively


1 in 161 in 1.231 in 8


1 in 12.751 in 1.561 in 4.371 in 511 in 30.6

10.

I feel I have access to research tools & resources to inform my practice


1 in 5.31 in 1.61 in 5.3


1 in 3.821 in 1.681 in 9.56

1 in 25.511.

Complements are acknowledged and celebrated by Senior Managers


1 in 5.31 in 1.71 in 4


1 in 4.51 in 1.731 in 6.651 in 5.11 in 30.6

12.

Complements are acknowledged and celebrated in my team


1 in 5.31 in 1.71 in 4


1 in 2.501 in 2.01 in 13.91 in 1531 in 38.25

13.

My practice is informed by service user feedback & learning from


1 in 161 in 1.71 in 3.21 in 8


1 in 5.11 in 1.591 in 6.951 in 76.51 in 51

of 28

complaints14.

My practice is informed by learning from serious case reviews


1 in 81 in 1.451 in 5.3


1 in 2.731 in 1.681 in 38.25

1 in 76.5

15.

I feel that the Principal Social Workers have had a positive impact


1 in 5.31 in 1.61 in 5.3


1 in 4.51 in 1.731 in 6.951 in 38.251 in 30.6

16.

I feel that the Principal Social Workers represent me


1 in 161 in 1.61 in 3.2


1 in 9.51 in 1.81 in 4.131 in 19.121 in 21.85

17.

I would describe the culture of the organisation as:(you may pick more than one)

4 25.00% - Positive8 50.00% - Learning8 50.00% -Supportive6 37.50% - Reflective2 12.50% - Progressive4 25.00% - Blame10 62.50% Overly Bureaucratic2 12.50% - Other0 0.00% - No response

1 in 41 in 21 in 21 in 2.61 in 81 in 41 in 1.61 in 8

57 13.26% - Positive81 18.84% - Learning81 18.84 % -Supportive65 15.12% - Reflective37 8.60% - Progressive29 6.74% - Blame68 15.81% Overly Bureaucratic9 2.09% - Other3 0.70% - No response

1 in 2.681 in 1.881 in 1.881 in 2.351 in 4.131 in 5.271 in 2.251 in 171 in 51

18.

I have worked for Gloucestershire County Council for:


1 in 161 in 81 in 81 in 1.45

29 18.95% - Under 1 year22 14.38% - 1-2 years18 11.76% - 2-4 years82 53.59% - Over 4 years2 1.31% - No response

1 in 19.11 in 1.511 in 4.51 in 30.61 in 30.6

of 28

19.

I feel informed about what is going on in the wider service


1 in 161 in 2.61 in 2

1 in 16


1 in 19.11 in 1.511 in 4.51 in 30.61 in 30.6

20.

I have confidence in the capability of the Senior Management Team


1 in 161 in 1.61 in 5.31 in 8


1 in 6.951 in 1.611 in 6.121 in 38.251 in 21.85

21.

I know what is expected of me at work


1 in 2.61 in 1.6


1 in 3.181 in 1.531 in 511 in 76.5

22.

I know the vision & values of our service


1 in 161 in 1.141 in 16


1 in 4.251 in 1.401 in 30.6

1 in 51

23.

I feel respected at work


1 in 81 in 1.61 in 4


1 in 4.781 in 1.531 in 91 in 76.51 in 76.5

24.

Information and knowledge are shared openly within the service


1 in 5.31 in 1.61 in 81 in 16


1 in 7.281 in 1.471 in 6.951 in 30.6

of 28

0 0.00% - No response 1 0.65% - No response 1 in 15325.

I feel I have sufficient opportunities to contribute new ideas


1 in 5.31 in 1.61 in 5.3


1 in 6.951 in 1.531 in 7.281 in 38.251 in 25.50

26.

When changes are made at work I am clear about how they will work out in practice


1 in 81 in 8


1 in 15.31 in 1.911 in 2.681 in 30.61 in 153

27.

I feel change is managed well


1 in 2.281 in 21 in 16


1 in 30.61 in 2.01 in 2.551 in 171 in 51

28.

I feel, when organisation-wide changes are made, all the relevant parties are involved at the right time


1 in 2.281 in 2

1 in 16


1 in 25.51 in 2.211 in 2.551 in 171 in 17

29.

I feel when changes are made they are for the right reasons


1 in 1.451 in 3.2


1 in 38.251 in 1.681 in 3.921 in 171 in 15.3

30.

I receive the training I need to do my job well

2 12.50% - Strongly Agree13 81.25% - Agree1 6.25% - Disagree

1 in 81 in 1.231 in 16

35 22.88% - Strongly Agree87 56.86% - Agree17 11.11% - Disagree

1 in 4.371 in 1.751 in 9

of 28

0 0.00% - Strongly disagree0 0.00% - No response

3 1.96% - Strongly Disagree11 7.19% - No response

1 in 511 in 13.9

31.

I have opportunities at work to learn and develop my role


1 in 161 in 1.231 in 161 in 16


1 in 4.631 in 1.751 in 8.051 in 25.51 in 19.12

32.

I feel my ideas for improvements are encouraged and considered


1 in 161 in 1.71 in 41 in 161 in 16


1 in 9.561 in 1.531 in 7.281 in 30.61 in 13.9

33.

In an average week I am required, by my manager, to cancel meetings with professionals or services users due to reprioritisation of work

0 0.00% - More than once a week10 62.50% - Once a week5 50.00% - Never0 31.25% - N/A1 6.25% - No response

1 in 1.61 in 3.2

1 in 16

7 4.58% - More than once a week44 28.76% - Once a week82 53.59% - Never14 9.15% - N/A6 3.92% - No response

1 in 21.851 in 3.471 in 1.861 in 10.921 in 25.5

34.

I have the opportunity to attend team meetings

3 18.75% - Once a week12 75.00% - Once a fortnight1 6.25% - Monthly0 0.00% - Less often than monthly0 0.00% - No response

1 in 5.31 in 1.31 in 16

16 10.46% - Once a week82 53.59% - Once a fortnight47 30.72% - Monthly5 3.27% - Less often than monthly3 1.96% - No response

1 in 9.561 in 1.861 in 3.251 in 30.61 in 51

35.

I feel that risks to my personal safety are managed within


1 in 81 in 1.61 in 4


1 in 5.881 in 1.531 in 6.121 in 76.5

of 28

the workplace 0 0.00% - No response 0 0.00% - No response36.

I feel safe whilst undertaking my job


1 in 81 in 1.31 in 8


1 in 4.781 in 1.451 in 11.76

1 in 5137.

I feel supported in my work by my colleagues


1 in 1.71 in 2.61 in 16


1 in 1.621 in 2.881 in 511 in 1531 in 76.5

38.

I feel supported in my work by other Partner Agency professionals


1 in 161 in 1.141 in 16


1 in 9.561 in 1.371 in 8.51 in 76.51 in 25.5

39.

I feel I have the skills & knowledge to manage casework risk appropriately


1 in 81 in 1.231 in 16


1 in 4.781 in 1.481 in 25.5

1 in 12.75

40.

I have appropriate office space and equipment to do my job well


1 in 1.31 in 161in 5.3


1 in 6.951 in 1.81 in 4.021 in 171 in 51

41.

I feel I have access to quiet space when required


1 in 161 in 1.61 in 41 in 16


1 in 91 in 1.981 in 3.641 in 10.921 in 51

of 28

42.

I have access to adequate parking


1 in 41 in 3.21 in 2.28


1 in 10.21 in 2.551 in 4.931 in 3.321 in 153

43.

I have positive team morale


1 in 41 in 2.61 in 3.21 in 16


1 in 3.551 in 1.911 in 6.371 in 76.51 in 38.25

44.

I am paid fairly for the work I do


1 in 1.31 in 5.31 in 16


1 in 171 in 2.251 in 3.121 in 6.651 in 38.25

45.

I feel appreciated for my contribution at work


1 in 5.31 in 1.71 in 5.31 in 16


1 in 6.951 in 1.51 in 7.651 in 511 in 25.5

46.

I receive regular constructive feedback, and praise for my work


1 in 81 in 21 in 2.6


1 in 7.281 in 1.751 in 4.51 in 25.51 in 30.6

47.

I expect to use all my annual leave before the end of the leave year


1 in 1.61 in 2.6


1 in 6.121 in 2.011 in 4.021 in 38.251 in 15.3

48 I am able to use 0 0.00% - Strongly Agree 13 8.50% - Strongly Agree 1 in 11.76 of 28

. all my TOIL before the end of the month in which I worked overtime

6 37.50% - Agree4 25.00% - Disagree6 37.50% - Strongly disagree0 0.00% - No response

1 in 2.61 in 41 in 2.6

53 34.64% - Agree52 33.99% - Disagree31 20.26% - Strongly Disagree4 2.61% - No response

1 in 2.881 in 2.941 in 4.931 in 38.25

49.

On average I work extra hours each week

2 12.50% - Disagree I work my hours7 43.75% - Agree 0-5 hours5 31.25% - Agree 6-10 hours2 12.50% - Agree 11 or more hours0 0.00% - No response

1 in 81 in 2.281 in 3.21 in 8

15 9.80% - Disagree I work my hours89 58.17% - Agree 0-5 hours32 20.92% - Agree 6-10 hours13 8.50% - Agree 11 or more hours4 2.61% - No response

1 in 10.21 in 1.711 in 4.781 in 11.761 in 38.25

50.

Poor performance is effectively addressed throughout the organisation


1 in 2.61 in 2.281 in 81 in 16


1 in 171 in 2.121 in 2.881 in 15.31 in 17

51.

I have some say over the way I work


1 in 161 in 1.141 in 16


1 in 6.651 in 1.331 in 11.76

1 in 76.552.

I feel my workload stretches me, but is manageable


1 in 161 in 2.281 in 5.331 in 3.2


1 in 11.761 in 1.821 in 3.41 in 171 in 76.5

53.

I am always treated fairly by my manager


1 in 2.281 in 2.281 in 8


1 in 2.781 in 1.931 in 11.761 in 76.51 in 38.25

of 28

54.

The days I want to come to work outnumber the days I don’t want to come to work


1 in 81 in 1.771 in 5.331 in 161 in 16


1 in 4.251 in 1.641 in 91 in 25.51 in 153

55.

I feel proud to tell people where I work


1 in 161 in 1.61 in 3.2


1 in 5.271 in 1.611 in 6.651 in 1531 in 30.6

56.

I enjoy the work I do


1 in 41 in 1.451 in 16


1 in 31 in 1.711 in 19.121 in 1531 in 38.25

57.

To have more impact on children in my role I need ………. Text only

More time with the children 10 62.5%Less paperwork 5 31.25%Lower loads 3 18.75%Efficient IT & other technology 1 6.25%Better/more resources 3 18.75%Realistic workload 2 12.50%Relevant training (specialist) 1 6.25%Effective leadership 1 6.25%More admin support 1 6.25%

1 in 1.61 in 3.21 in 5.31 in 161 in 5.31 in 81 in 161 in 161 in 16

More time with the children 38 24.00%Less paperwork 31 20.26%Lower case loads 28 18.30%Efficient IT & other tech. 12 7.80%Better/more resources 12 7.80%Better support & supervision 8 5.22%Relevant training (specialist) 7 4.50%Reflective & restorative service 6 3.90%More staff 5 3.26%Work effectively with outsideagencies & partners 5 3.26%More admin support 4 2.61%Better comm’s. between teams 4 2.61%Other 27 17.60%

1 in 4.021 in 4.931 in 5.461 in 12.751 in 12.751 in 19.121 in 21.851 in 25.501 in 30.60

1 in 30.601 in 38.251 in 38.251 in 5.66

58.

I am satisfied with the standard

4 25.00% - Strongly Agree7 43.75% - Agree

1 in 41 in 2.28


1 in 3.641 in 8

of 28

of the supervision I currently receive

5 31.25% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly disagree0 0.00% - No response

1 in 3.2 20 13.07% - Disagree5 3.27% - Strongly Disagree1 0.65% - No response

1 in 7.651 in 30.61 in 153

59.

I feel my supervision is reflective


1 in 41 in 2.281 in 41 in 16


1 in 4.931 in 1.911 in 4.931 in 21.851 in 38.25

60.

I feel the supervision training I have undertaken recently has had an impact on my practice


1 in 1.61 in 5.331 in 81 in 16


1 in 6.651 in 2.881 in 6.121 in 11.761 in 3.92

61.

My role is 11 68.75% SW Qualified role0 0.00% SW non qualified role3 18.75% Management role1 6.25% Service Lead1 6.25% Other0 0.00% No response

1 in 1.45

1 in 5.331 in 161 in 16

99 64.71% SW Qualified role17 11.11% SW non qualified role23 15.03% Management role1 0.66% Service Lead11 7.19% Other2 1.31% No response

1 in 1.541 in 91 in 6.651 in 1531 in 19.11 in 30.6

of 28

Team Managers/Deputy Team Managers additional questions

No. Question Youth Support Overall 2016/17 YS Ratio Children’s Safeguarding - Overall 16/17 CS Ratio62a I feel I receive the

right level of support from my Service leader


1 in 110 50.00% - Strongly Agree9 45.00% - Agree0 0.00% - Disagree1 5.00% - Strongly Disagree0 0.00% - No response

1 in 21 in 2.2

1 in 20

63a I feel I receive timely decision making from Service Leaders


1 in 110 50.00% - Strongly Agree7 35.00% - Agree0 0.00% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly Disagree3 15.00%. - No response

1 in 21 in 2.85

1 in 6.664a I feel I have

adequate skills & knowledge to undertake my role effectively


1 in 14 20.00% - Strongly Agree12 60.00% - Agree1 5.00% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly Disagree3 15.00% - No response

1 in 51 in 1.61 in 20

1 in 6.665a I feel my

supervision is reflective


1 in 1.51 in 3


1 in 6.661 in 2.21 in 5

1 in 566a I have adequate

clerical support for my role


1 in 1.51 in 3


1 in 6.661 in 2.851 in 41 in 101 in 6.66

67a The percentage of time within my working week spent on administrative tasks including

0 0.00% - Under 10%1 33.33% - 10% - 30%2 66.67% - 30% - 50%0 0.00% - 50% - 80%0 0.00% - Over - 80%0 0.00% - No Response

1 in 31 in 1.5

3 15.00% - Under 10%6 30.00% - 10% - 30%4 20.00% - 30% - 50%3 15.00% - 50% - 80%0 0.00% - Over - 80%4 20.00% - No Response

1 in 6.661 in 3.331 in 51 in 6.66

1 in 5

of 28

SAP is68a My team have

positive team morale


1 in 1


1 in 51 in 1.66

1 in 5

Service Leads Additional Questions

No. Question Youth Support Overall 2016/17 YS Ratio Children’s Safeguarding - Overall 16/17 CS Ratio62b I feel able to

support my Team Managers & front line teams in the way I would like



63b I feel I could be more effective in my role if….Text only

1 100.00%“If I had time to focus on specific tasks”

1 100%“If there were less meetings and more time to reflect and analyse performance”

64b I feel I have adequate skills & knowledge to undertake my role effectively



65b I feel supported to take risks



66b I give reflective supervision



of 28

0 0.00% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly Disagree0 0.00% - No response

0 0.00% - Disagree0 0.00% - Strongly Disagree0 0.00% - No response

67b My teams have positive team morale



of 28

€¦ · web viewthe 2017 social work health check is an annual report undertaken by the...

Documents