Nagalro has welcomed the Independent Review of Social Work Professional Regulation in England but argues that proposed reforms should go further when it comes to family procedure rules in courts.
The review by Dame Annie Hudson, published last week, notes the “unique challenges” faced by the sector but describes Social Work England as “too slow” and highlights the ways persistent delays have eroded confidence.
Social Work England was formed in 2019 and is the third regulator to oversee the profession since 2012.
Nagalro describes Dame Hudson’s review as “unflinching in its criticism of Social Work England’s performance when dealing with fitness to practice allegations made against social workers”.
The review calls for improvement to oversight,constructive challenge, and appropriate resourcing from government. It also highlights the difficulty faced by the regulator when information is required from family court proceedings.
Nagalro, the professional association for family court advisers, says it “has long had concerns about the inordinate delays faced by social workers who are subject to fitness to practice complaints”.
A spokesperson said: “These delays not only mean that those whose practices are deficient continue to work, but they also mean that practitioners who are subject to entirely unmeritorious complaints have the stress, anxiety and the significant financial consequences of being subject to an ongoing investigation.
“Nagalro has experience of supporting members, the investigation of whose case has lasted for three years, before they learned that there was no case to answer. Unlike local authority social workers, who will continue to receive a salary, independent social workers are usually self-employed and entirely dependent on receiving instructions to carry out specific tasks, such as court assessments.”
The review requires Social Work England to provide a strategic improvement plan within six months.
Nagalro raises concerns that, in spite of its support for the review’s findings, the government has provided no details about resourcing. “Without sufficient resources, those improvements may prove to be unattainable,” it said.
The review recommends changing the Family Procedure Rules to allow the regulator greater access to information from the court. Nagalro, however, argues that such reforms should go much further.
“Social workers who are giving evidence in family proceedings, and particularly those appointed as expert witnesses, are subject to cross-examination about their evidence and methods before a well-informed and highly experienced judge,” a spokesperson for Nagalro said.
“Expert witnesses are appointed by and fully answerable to the court for their work. Nagalro would propose that the number of unmeritorious fitness to practice complaints to Social Work England could be significantly reduced if it were the position that, in family court proceedings, if the court does not criticise the social worker’s practice, the complainant would have an initial burden of showing why the regulator should reconsider issues which either were, or could have been, raised with the court. The regulator should not, at public expense, be used as an alternative venue for appeal against an unfavourable court decision.”
It added: “The Social Work England website does, in fact, state that ‘we will usually only investigate concerns about a social worker’s involvement in a court case if the employer and/or the court has also raised concerns.’ In reality, however, our experience of supporting members has been that this is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and that months are often wasted whilst the regulator seeks information from the court.”
