"How Many Social Worker's Have You Had?"

I was talking with a colleague of mine a couple of days ago, who said that he had just been allocated a child who, within less than two years had, had fifteen social workers.

I don't know all of the reasons why the child had experienced so many changes of worker, but it was a desperately sad situation for the child.

It was also a source of embarrassment for my colleague, who understandably felt the need to apologise to the child.

The young person seemed to take it in their stride, possibly being so used to this continual 'revolving door of social workers' coming in and out of his life, that he no longer seemed affected by it.

I suspect however, that at least one of the significant ways the young person was affected concerned the relationship he felt able, or was willing to establish, with his social worker.

How much faith would you invest in a social worker who was likely to be around for maybe...only a month or two?

Continuity, consistency and trust are key factors in any relationship, and they take time to be developed and earned.

There really is no way around it, in any relationship there is no substitute for the length of time you remain involved with a child.

Of course, the quality of the quality of the relationship is important, but this also to some extent impacted by the length of the relationship.

As I stated earlier, my colleague felt the need to apologise to the young person he commenced working with. Whilst I understood and agreed with the reason he did so, I don't think it was solely his role or responsibility.

I think the local authority, or organisation has a significant role to play here, and I also consider the social work profession and what the government and society expects of social workers has an impact that needs to be aired and considered.

Some weeks ago I read an article focused primarily on the rising cost or financial burden local authorities were struggling to bear, due to the use of agency social workers.

Locum social workers, it seemed to me, were also being seen as largely responsible for the rapid turnover of social workers.

In response to the problems outlined the government intends to cap the amount agency staff can earn, and encourages less use of agency staff.

A predictable response, which in my view fails to deal with the real issues and is analogous to using a plaster to cover a gaping wound that is constantly haemorrhaging a substantial amount of blood.

Blaming agency social workers for the rising social care costs, capping the amount that they can earn and urging local authorities to restrict the use of agency staff, does not address the national issue of the scarcity of social workers.

The reality has to be grasped by those in positions of power - in other words, the local authorities would not be hiring agency staff, if they had sufficient employed social work staff to do the work required.

Local authorities are unable to retain suitably qualified and experienced staff for a variety of reasons, not least of which include the sheer, endless volume of work you're expected to complete, the failure to value and care for staff appropriately, and the highly stressful nature of the work.

The issue of remuneration, given the escalation in the cost of living, is yet one other reason why social workers may feel compelled to leave their posts.

Maintaining a reasonable level of health and or work/life balance is another reason/s why people move on from their jobs.

I have no doubt that you may be able to identify other reasons why people move on, but I think just a few moments thought on the matter, will highlight how ineffective the government's response is to the problem.

Rather than helping to address the issue, so that less children may have to face a perpetual catalogue of different social workers.

The response from those in positions of power, I think pretty much guarantee that the status quo will remain unchanged.