Children’s services suffers 30% cut in social workers

CROYDON IN CRISIS: Concerns are growing at Fisher’s Folly that cutbacks on hiring agency workers, implemented since January this year, could adversely impact some of the borough’s most vulnerable. KEN LEE reports

Croydon Council’s children’s services department, which was given a “Good” grading by Ofsted only in March this year following nearly three years rated as “Inadequate”, has seen almost one-third of agency social workers leave their posts since April.

With fewer social workers, might Croydon’s children’s services spiral back to the standards which were criticised by Ofsted?

Similar agency social work positions in Croydon’s adult services have been halved in the same period, from April to August this year.

The figures have been obtained from Croydon through a Freedom of Information request which asked for the number of qualified social workers who were on temporary or agency contracts with Croydon.

The response provides a startling insight into the council’s reliance on agency staff, and confirms the worst fears of council workers and unions who have predicted that too wide-ranging cuts in social workers could see the borough’s children’s services department begin a downward spiral to the state it was in in 2017, when Ofsted inspectors declared that some children or young adults in the care of the local authority were at serious risk of harm.

Between 2017 and 2020, an extra £25million was spent on children’s services following the damning Ofsted report, which had suggested strongly that too many staff cuts had been made previously and that the “demoralised” and understaffed department’s social workers were overburdened with too much casework.

The cash-strapped council is currently undergoing an urgent budget review, with hundreds of jobs to be axed. Originally, this was to have been 15 per cent cuts, though an emergency budget to be presented at Monday’s cabinet meeting is now expected to recommend cuts of 20 per cent.

But nowhere has council leader Tony Newman nor his finance chief, Simon Hall, dared to admit in public that cuts as harsh as 30 per cent and 50 per cent were being made to the number of agency positions working among some of the borough’s most vulnerable residents.

Indeed, Newman has been juggling with figures, and excluding those positions which have been deliberately left vacant since January or agency jobs that have been cut, to try to disguise the full extent of the cuts being imposed at the Labour-run council. This week, Newman told Labour supporters only 50 jobs are to be cut. Union officials have estimated that a total of more than 400 jobs are to go.

Despite all the extra funding for children’s services, and even staff recruitment expeditions to South Africa, hiring staff social workers has remained a constant issue for Croydon. A heavy reliance on agency staff will have helped to fill some of the vacancies, though it will have been a costly way to achieve that goal. Agency staff invariably are more expensive to bring in than full-time staff appointees.

Simon Hall: been spending millions on agency staff

Back in 2016, and long before the critical Ofsted inspection, Hall told a council meeting that he had no choice but to splash the cash after spending more than £20million on hiring agency workers in the previous financial year. “That is the reality of the marketplace we are trying to deal with,” Hall said then.

Such an expensive way of delivering its services appears to have caught up with the council.

In one of her final briefings before leaving the council last month, Jo Negrini, the then chief executive, had revealed that the council had begun a process of weaning itself off agency staff in January this year, around the time that the borough’s accountants had given their latest warnings about the Croydon’s shaky finances.

The figures provided under the FoI show that in April this year there were a total of 216 qualified social workers in Croydon’s children’s services and adult services departments.

Of those, 164 – 76 per cent – were agency staff. After three years and £25million spent, the council’s recruitment drive had clearly failed.

In children’s services in April, there were 149 agency social workers. By August this year, according to the council, that had been reduced to 103, a reduction of 29 per cent.

In adults services, there were 15 agency social workers hired by Croydon in April.  Less than six months later, that number had been reduced to seven, a 53 per cent reduction.

Insiders at Fisher’s Folly say that by cutting back so many posts in these key areas are likely to see a rapid return to the kind of performance in children’s services which Ofsted inspectors found so troubling.

“Many council employees are raising significant concerns that staff who remain will be left with unmanageable workloads,” one social worker said.

Officials at Unison, the trades union, have described the job cuts as “irresponsible”.

They wrote to the council saying, “It is of profound concern to our members and to your constituents that a Labour-led council is embarking upon cuts of this scale.”


 

Advertisements

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email inside.croydon@btinternet.com
This entry was posted in Adult Social Care, Children's Services, Croydon Council, Jo Negrini, Simon Hall, Tony Newman and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Children’s services suffers 30% cut in social workers

  1. Sebastian Tillinger says:

    Children’s social workers help and safeguard children, young people and their families when they are going through difficult times. They work with parents, schools and the wider community to bring greater safety and stability to children’s lives – or if necessary – help find another home for the child.

    Is there a service provided by Croydon Council that’s more important than this?

    How did the mismanagement of budgets and organisation within the council by Tony Newman, his cabinet and Jo Negrini end up at the point where we are now failing to deliver our most important service?

    • Angry Momma Bear says:

      As a parent of three who’s youngest has unfortunately has had to become involved with “Croydon Social Services” (this is not due to the child’s undoing, unfortunately because it was the ONLY way the child could get the help they need, and still does not, many years later!).

      Through ALL my dealings with Croydon Social Services, I personally have only experienced respect and kindness from TWO Social Workers over a good few years. The rest, they certainly DONOT work with “Parents and Families.” They are bullies, patronising, arrogant, believe that they know better than the “professionals” (they do not, nor educated to the calibre they attempt to override), inaccurate reporting, happily lie in meetings with other professionals with such compliancy because they know they are NEVER brought to account for their actions!

      Having gone from “inadequate” to “good” in 2.5 years is laughable. I think Ofsted were too eager in their assessment, should review their findings, speak to families directly so have a more accurate understanding of why Croydon Social Services is a laughing stock, and its reputation is so bleak that the calibre of staff they attract; may not be employed elsewhere!

      Unfortunately, it is not just the workers themselves, upper management too are equally not fit for purpose, including who decided to “invest” millions in “training,” and now laying off 30% of its staff – we as residents have just paid for another borough’s training!

      I think questions which should be asked via Freedom of information,

      1. How many staff have been employed by Croydon Social Services, longer than for example the last 3 years?
      2. Why despite a “good” from Ofsted; some suggestions have not taken effect, and are staff even “implementing” them?
      3. What was the estimated £10m, allocated to social services, actually spent on?

      I think the most important questions should be who is actually running the Social Services Department currently?

      The Chief Executive of Croydon Council, Executive Director of Children and Education have both “left” and now Whitehall are yet again having to send in “another” to run (bail out) Croydon Council, just like they did, when had another borough “come in” to “teach Croydon social workers” how to do their jobs!

      I think it’s time that there is a new leader at the helm, as the current one is showing that he is not up for to the job, and how long will it be before Whitehall sends in “someone else” to run (bail out) Croydon Council?

  2. Whilst not wanting to make excuses for Croydon, “Social Services“ and Education make up such a large proportion of the staffing budget that cuts of 15/20% cannot be accommodated without significantly impacting on these critical areas. It would be preferable to have permanent staff as opposed to more costly Agency staff but, given the current circumstances at Croydon, attracting them is bound to be very difficult. Interest payments on huge loans, defaults on rents, slippage in Brick by Bricks delivery etc are all outside of Croydons direct control and must be reducing options for managing the revenue budget. For the sake of the residents we all wish there was an easy way forward but I cannot see it.

    • Sebastian Tillinger says:

      Essential social services constitute a large part of most local authority budgets – these are the times we live in.

      However, loans for buying shopping centres, hotels and bank-rolling an over-ambitious development company are things most local authorities have the sense not to get involved in.

      • Margaret says:

        There are hundreds of Newly qualified social workers still awaiting to undertake their ASYE programme, why are LA not offering them opportunities to develop their skills by employing them. That l believe will be cost effective and not relying on agency staff.

Leave a Reply