Health Professions Council response to the Department of Health consultation on Reforming the Social Work Bursary

Transcription

1 20 July 2012 Health Professions Council response to the Department of Health consultation on Reforming the Social Work Bursary 1. Introduction 1.1 We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Department of Health s consultation on proposed reforms to the social work bursary. 1.2 The Health Professions Council is a statutory UK wide regulator of health and care professionals, governed by the Health Professions Order We regulate the members of 15 professions. We maintain a register of professionals, set standards for entry to our register, approve education and training programmes for registration and deal with concerns where a professional may not be fit to practise. Our main role is to protect the health and wellbeing of those who use or need to use our registrants services. 1.3 From 1 August 2012, we will become responsible for regulating social workers in England. At that time we will be renamed the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). 2. General comments 2.1 We support the proposed movement away from a demand-led model for funding social work training and the focus in the consultation document on how the bursary might be used to support quality. We consider this to be particularly important given concerns raised by the Social Work Task Force and elsewhere about the calibre of entrants to some social work programmes; the quality of the student learning experience; levels of attrition from programmes; and graduates ability to find employment as social workers. 2.2 The consultation document (chapter one) notes a number of different initiatives stemming from the Social Work Reform Board for improving the quality of social work education. In addition, our forthcoming role in quality assuring pre-registration social work education programmes against our standards of education and training will also be part of improving and assuring the quality of future social work education and training. 1

2 3. Question 1. Which options do you support and why? Please rank them in priority order. 3.1 We have outlined our views on each option below, in priority order. Option 3: Retain undergraduate bursary from the second year and current postgraduate scheme remains as now with a cap on the number of undergraduate and postgraduate who receive a bursary 3.2 We consider that this is the best option if the objectives of reform are to achieve value for money and to support the quality of entrants into the profession. As the appraisal of the options notes, this presents an opportunity to link the bursary to quality in that it will only become available once an undergraduate student has completed their first year prior to commencing practice placements. Although undergraduate and postgraduate students are treated differently, this seems fair given that undergraduate students are able to access other sources of financial support in their first year and beyond, support which is unavailable to postgraduate students. 3.3 The consultation document refers to passing a readiness for practice assessment at the end of the first year as the key decision point for subsequent award of the bursary. We consider that it may be more burdensome to administer the bursary if it were explicitly linked to a formal readiness for practice assessment rather than to successful completion of the first year of a social work programme. Linking the bursary to successful completion of the first year would incorporate not only readiness for practice assessments, but other quality indicators such as academic completion of year one modules, indicating the requisite commitment to the profession and academic ability. This would link the bursary to a clear decision about both academic and professional ability and progression to year two. 3.4 The cap on the number of students who receive a bursary entailed in this option may assist in ensuring that student numbers are not a barrier to all students receiving a high quality learning experience. 3.5 The assessment against the evaluation criteria included in the consultation document suggests that one consequence of this option might be education providers reducing the number of programmes at undergraduate level, leading to a reduction in the number of social work students graduating each year. This will be a small risk, assuming that the cap on student numbers is informed by robust evidence of demand and set at the appropriate level. More generally, we would expect the cap to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it is flexible and responsive to changes in supply and demand. 2

3 Option 1: Introduce a means-tested undergraduate and postgraduate bursary with a cap on the number of students who receive a bursary. 3.6 This is our second preferred option. This option is fair in that it provides more financial support to students from lower income backgrounds and applies to both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Although quality is not directly addressed, a cap on the number of students who receive a bursary may assist in ensuring that student numbers are not a barrier to all students receiving a high quality learning experience. Option 2: Only retain the postgraduate bursary with a cap on the number of students who receive a bursary. 3.7 This is not a preferred option as this does not ensure sufficient financial support for undergraduate students. 3.8 The appraisal of the options concludes that this might increase the number of students trained at postgraduate level, thereby increasing the quality of outcomes for service users. We do not agree that there is necessarily a clear link between postgraduate training and improved outcomes for service users compared to social workers trained to undergraduate level. It is crucial that on successful completion of programmes all social work students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, are fit to practise as qualified social workers. The contemporary threshold (or minimum ) expectation for social work training is an undergraduate degree with honours. We have now published standards of proficiency for social workers in England which describe the knowledge, understanding and skills expected of a social worker at entry to the HCPC register. Our approval process will ensure that these standards are successfully delivered in all pre-registration social work programmes. Option 5: Create a new scheme based on the successful completion of the assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) 3.9 We support the aims of the ASYE in providing additional training and support to newly qualified social workers during their first year in practice. The ASYE is in its infancy and has not yet had time to bed in so that any practical difficulties can be identified and overcome. As such, we have concluded that it would be inappropriate to implement this option at this time, but that this remains a potentially attractive option which may become viable over the longer term. 3

4 3.10 There are a number of practical difficulties and potential risks to this option being viable at this time. At the moment it is not clear what proportion of social work employers, across all sectors, will introduce the ASYE for new entrants to the workforce. Whilst we hope and expect that most employers will be supportive of the introduction of the ASYE, it is too early to know whether some employers may instead decide to recruit more experienced social workers. There needs to be reasonable certainty on this point for this option to achieve its aims and to be fair to all entrants to the profession. Further, there is a small risk that implementing this option at this stage might exacerbate the current concerns raised about the quality of practice placements and the effectiveness of partnership arrangements between employers, should employers choose to focus on the ASYE phase over their involvement in preregistration education and training. Option 4: End the social work bursary completely and reinvest in replacement schemes 3.11 This is our least preferred option The consultation document provides insufficient detail to allow us understand exactly what might be proposed here and therefore to assess the viability of this option fully. In principle we support investment in CPD, return to practice programmes and other initiatives to up-skill the existing workforce. However, on its own, this option appears to do little to improve the quality of preregistration education and training and therefore the quality of the workforce at entry to the profession. Further, this option would not manage issues around the supply and demand of social workers and, as the consultation document notes, could lead to a shortage of supply in the workforce. 4. Question 2. Which option would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of social work graduates and why? 4.1 Option 3. Please see our response to question Question 3. What do you think the impact of each option will be on supply of social workers, and why? 5.1 Option 3. Please see our response to question Questions We have no further comments to make on these questions. 4

5 7. Question 9. Do you think there are any other criteria that ought to be considered? If so which and why are they important? 7.1 We do not consider that there are any additional evaluation criteria that should be considered. However, we thought it worth raising an issue in relation to the criterion entitled Flexible. 7.2 This refers to the options being flexible enough to take into account planning for workforce changes such as the potential to focus the scheme on a particular location or specialism. 7.3 We agree that, as far as possible, the development of the scheme should bear in mind that workforce needs may change in the future. However, we thought it worth noting that the reference to specialism here appears to infer a scope for developing programmes which, at entry to the profession, produce social workers in a particular specialist area such as child, adult or mental health only. The question of whether in future social work training should be generic at entry or whether there should be specific pathways for adult social work or for social work with children and families was considered by the Social Work Task Force. The conclusion reached was that the degree should continue to remain generic. We have recently developed standards of proficiency for social workers in England which reflect this and therefore we could only approve programmes which delivered the full range of standards and produced a social worker able to work across both adult and children s services at entry to the Register. 5