Archived decisions

Options proposals from Inclusion Social Workers Task Group

1 Main service improvements list

      · consistent placing of ISWs/IWs within SSD/Education system

    · consistent title (to include EBD social workers)

    · consistent management and supervision arrangements

    · co-ordinator and budget-holder at county level

      · admin support and resources, including access to specific training

      · clearly defined consistent business processes and recording

      · links to Education and SSD policy and strategy

      · agreed aims for the service (see page 9 of report)

2 Description of each option (as presented to stakeholders)

      Option A: 'virtual' team with separate line manager

      Staffing and management: tm for all 7 ISW posts and 3 EBD posts, line managed by county co-ordinator?

      Location: No change of location for workers, tm located centrally

      Funding: SSD- use ESS funding if Education take on these posts

      Cost- if fte cost including recruitment, training, travel, office expenses, IT costs + adding fte admin costs at SC3 = £46101-£49467

      Option B: joint team of ISWs with corporate management

      Staffing and management: tm for all posts as before (ISWs and EBD posts)- corporate line management Education/SSD of tm post- joint appointment by Education/SSD

      Location: workers placed in SSD R & A teams? (will this work with R & A preferred option?) with base in involved schools, or in BSTs if can work across primary/secondary schools. Tm located centrally- alongside one BST?

      Funding: tm post funded jointly by SSD/Education. SSD part- use ESS funding as above.

Cost- as above, shared by SSD and Education

      Option C: Corporate management of all joint Education/SSD workers including ISWs

      Staffing and management: line-managed by BST manager with professional supervision from dedicated team manager for all 7 ISW posts and 3 EBD posts

      Location: workers in BSTs plus base at involved schools. Tm post based at central area BST

      Funding: pooled budgets to include all posts currently funded by SSD and Education: EWS, ESS, corporate parenting team, BSTs- costs shared by SSD/Education

3 Key advantages and disadvantages of options (see notes from stakeholder event)

      Option A: advantages

        · could respond to local needs

        · team identity/budget

        · access to consistent management/supervision

      disadvantages

        · business processes may not improve- varying locations

        · would not improve county leadership

        · isolation of workers day to day

        · tensions around differences in teams in which workers based

        · would not deliver on accessibility

      Option B: advantages

        · consistency- eg job description, supervision

        · exciting new ways of working and will recruit staff

        · achievable in 2 years

        · strategic direction

        · clear line management

        · workers feel supported/valued/less isolated

        · standardise business process

      disadvantages

        · fit with EWS

        · efficiency

        · travel costs

      Option C: advantages

        · key message- need for early engagement with preventative services

        · could pilot option in 3-4 areas

        · provides more joined up services- 'one stop' for children

        · builds on BST model

      disadvantages

        · probably not possible within 2 years

        · set up costs

        · need to address issues of funding

        · need to manage change well to ensure local needs are met

      4 The case for the preferred option - B, on the way to C

        Measuring preferred option against stakeholder priorities: (bearing in mind that this would apply to all options to a greater or lesser extent)

        · accessibility: part of universal service (as part of BST)- better known identity in both SSD and Education will ensure appropriate referrals;

        · participation: involving children and families at an early stage;

        · partnerships: as above + working with other agency partners to deliver service;

        · common assessments: eventually, as part of BST;

        · communication and information: team identity will facilitate this;

        · efficiency: ISWs currently isolated- consistent management will help self esteem and associated benefits;

        · monitoring/evaluation and direction/leadership: option will improve both

Meeting requirements of Green Paper: accountability and integration; workforce reform as well as early intervention and protection

Feasibility: could be achieved in the next few months, especially as the task group see this as an interim stage before achieving Option C, and if tm post could be recruited to as a time-limited project post ( ie not advertised so that Penny Corsar, who has developed the FASST Team could be transferred to this from her post- finishing end of March 04- which has been funded by Education)

Risk of doing nothing: ISWs will leave (3 vacant posts at present) and it will be impossible to maintain the service. Option A would address to some extent but with no Education buy-in will not link smoothly with the Option C goal. Option 2 is an achievable step towards Option C which Stakeholders agreed was the preferred option.

Supporting evidence: service is highly valued at all levels/stakeholders in its existing form- if can be improved and developed as suggested- will give more value. Schemes in Herts and Luton not absolutely comparable, but the proposed interim option could develop the ISW role to include supervising family support workers/aides in schools (more comparable with Herts and Luton and shown to be successful there) along the lines of the FASST team so that it could all link up with the BSTs in future.