The Institute of Welfare is well placed to respond to the Government’s consultation document on the future of social care. At any one time some 1,500 students are in educational settings leading towards the qualification of Certificate or Diploma in Welfare Studies.

As chief executive Tom Dean points out: “Since 1945, we have provided training and qualification for people engaged in a welfare role in public and government services, in the armed services and elsewhere in commercial and charitable bodies. “We have a rigorous approach to quality of service delivery through demonstrable competence and ethical performance, supported by our processes of professional accreditation and commitment to lifelong learning.” Against this background, the Institute has submitted a number of practical ideas in response to the specific questions raised by the Department of Health in its formal consultation.

It is predominantly at middle and senior levels that the traditional reports, research data and best practice are taken on board.

However, it is at ground floor level that practice takes place, and we must not forget either the pressures which lead to individuals ignoring the written material which pours over them, or the innate cynicism with which such ‘help’ is viewed.

At top level, the enthusiasm for translation depends on skilled leadership, evangelism, and financial and local political commitment.

Change will neither last nor take place unless grassroots practitioners are given hands-on opportunities to put the results of research into practice and see the benefits, thus building evangelism from the ground up.

Some mechanism of work placements is required. It is a training and development issue that requires dedicated resources.

There are many levels of IT competence throughout the whole social care workforce. However, there are some basic truths which must be understood if any change is to take place:

(a) There is no overarching software programme available. Mistakes in the NHS, particularly in the
attempt to introduce computerisation in GP surgeries, only serve to point up the need for a clear lead and a single strategy for the country.

(b) Hardware and software development must be driven and resourced.

(c) Staff at all levels can learn to use input mechanisms and need daily time to fulfil this function. Downloading or output activities demand a higher level of learning, which should be made available to all who need it.

(d) Electronic information practice needs to be taught at every level. A rigid insistence on electronic
reporting will help bring it into use.

Whenever attempting to make changes across local government or the voluntary and commercial sectors, it is necessary to have legal ‘teeth’ and the power of sanctions. The Institute does not believe that a voluntary body will be effective unless all parties willingly subscribe to acceptance of its lead.

Whilst independence as a non-departmental body is to be valued, guaranteed funding, demonstrable authority and a clear mechanism for direct reporting to the Government will best meet the needs.

It is an appropriate approach but begs various questions:

(a) Will local councillors be properly trained (let alone motivated) and will there be a statutory requirement that the level of Standard Spending Assessment on Social Services will actually
be spent on Social Services?

Will councillors be able to call on expert ‘board level’ training and guidance in evaluation methods so as to be able to question their senior officers effectively?

(b) Whilst it is fine to give directors of social services responsibility for quality, will they be enabled – through powers similar to those of a finance director – to ‘blow the whistle’ when political
caucus decisions are damaging the quality of care or forcing expenditure below the local authority’s
Standard Spending Assessment?

Even with these powers, from where does the ‘normal’ local government official derive the courage to challenge the body politic?

There needs to be a training mechanism and security system to enable chief officers to develop the
confidence to push forward the agenda. Again, this must be resourced.

(c) A commitment to lifelong learning is needed, with an annual performance portfolio review and fully resourced training at all levels – from care worker through to director of social services.

The Institute of Welfare provides this facility, starting with 10-week introductory courses for those at entry to care worker (or unskilled) level, through to distance and on-line learning for all,
including directors and senior managers. This can open the way to graduate level qualifications if required.

(d) Local partnerships are the ‘holy grail’. They can be achieved, but there are pre-requisites. A study of the Bromley experiment (and others) in 1992/93 will show that local government (social
services, housing, environmental health, planning), the NHS (hospital, GP and community services)
and voluntary organisations can work constructively together when the traditional hurdles are overcome. Key ingredients are:

• evangelism for the outcomes;

• the commitment of chief executives on both sides;

• commitment at council leader, health authority chairman level;

• willingness to share the expenditure of funds;

• commitment to listen to voluntary organisations and enable local voices to come together in ways that will help them communicate with officialdom.

The Health Advisory Service mechanism is one possibility. With suitable revision, this could offer a means to scrutinise, evaluate and comment upon performance by standards and by client group.
The benefit of this approach will be that it has been around for a long time and is understood. With modification, it could become the local arm of the Social Care Institute for Excellence. There would need to be a local forum where all parties are present.

The recent report on CCETSW training points up most flaws. There is a real need to improve and to value APL. The Institute has a national curriculum which, on evaluation, will be seen to deal soundly with the problems made explicit in the report. Our training and qualifications are appropriate for, and delivered to, a far wider range of workers, including those from the private sector.

Centres of excellence should be encouraged, not just for education but also for practice.

Such participation normally occurs where an individual wishes to develop an academic approach. Sadly, it is not taken up by many true practitioners. Some mechanism to encourage such study by financial reward – without requiring the transition into management – is to be encouraged.

Post-qualification training might be more attractive if allied to secondments to centres of excellence, to the Social Care Institute for Excellence, to areas of good practice, and to problem-solving teams for under-performing health and social services authorities.

This would enable learnt skills to be used and should also count as a credit towards an annual ‘required portfolio of personal development’.

The primary move must be to ensure, say over five years, that all those who are currently employed in such settings are appropriately qualified for the work they do. The Institute of Welfare is willing to play its part in this.

Once they are qualified, individuals should undergo regular performance evaluation. This, too, means training for those who will carry out the task.

Additionally, the Social Care Institute for Excellence must evaluate the adequacy of real performance, as well as the methods of evaluation and reporting used by management.

Our experience is that there is no shortage of interest in training in these sectors. Indeed, many students come from these settings, mostly at their own expense. The key here is the level of fees able to be realised by private or voluntary units which will allow for staff training activity.

Often, employees are being remunerated at or below the minimum wage, and even the most determined employers find it hard to release resources for training. There must be earmarked funding available.

For charities, it may be that there should be a requirement on them to show how much money they have spent on training and the numbers of individuals trained in relation to the total numbers of staff and volunteers involved.

In the medium term, we believe that training for councillors and health board officials must become mandatory. The real long-term performance of partnership working and delivery lies with training together - care workers alongside nurses and nursing assistants, alongside social workers, alongside doctors, alongside senior managers and directors, alongside chief executives, alongside councillors.