Social workers to net 'golden hello' from Herefordshire council

7:00am Thursday 7th March 2013 in News

PACKAGES of £10,000 are being offered to help fill vacancies in a Herefordshire Council department branded ‘inadequate’.

The council is offering the cash in “welcome payments” and “relocation packages” to entice employees to take up positions within its child protection service.

Eleven jobs with salaries ranging from £26,276 to £54,412 are currently advertised on the council’s website, while at the same time it faces a battle to save millions of pounds.

The council says the “welcome” offer will cut the use of costly agency staff to plug gaps.

Staff turnover and the use of agency staff were major concerns identified in October’s Ofsted report that found child protection practice in the county to be inadequate in all areas.

For more, see today's Hereford Times. 

Comments(26)

Herefordian07 says...
11:31am Thu 7 Mar 13

This takes the biscuit, first Stanhope is bunged £500,000 and now the Council is offering £10,000 for applicants as an "Ease in" to cosy jobs, the business's forced out of the OLM had no such help as the council and Hereford Futures said there was no money available so they had to fund their own move, funny how cash is now available for their own use, the hypocrisy gathers momentum "Choo-Choo" the gravy train rolls on!

Report this post »

William Rudd says...
1:01pm Thu 7 Mar 13

the business's forced out of the OLM had no such help as the council and Hereford Futures said there was no money available so they had to fund their own move

Bulls**t

Report this post »

Herefordian07 says...
1:04pm Thu 7 Mar 13

William, before you make such comments you should talk to the business's that were involved and perhaps you will retract your remark, because you are in error with this.

Report this post »

dippyhippy says...
2:51pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Hello Herefordian07! I agree with much of what you say,apart from the bit about social work being a "cosy"job! It ain't not by a long shot. Child protection being right at the forefront.There is nothing cosy about having to remove a child from a house where they are at significant risk.But 10 Grand is a lot.Social work should be a vocation.

Report this post »

Herefordian07 says...
3:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13

My apologies Dippyhippy, it was a sweeping statement at the council unfortunately and not aimed at child protection services which I agree is front line and difficult, best regards.

Report this post »

dippyhippy says...
3:18pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Oh thats alright Herefordian07! No worries!

Report this post »

WYSIATI says...
6:50pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Herefordian07 - since the story is only about trying to get staff into Children's services to address a known problem with getting staff to come to Herefordshire to do a tough but hopefully rewarding job dealing with increasing numbers of children entering the system it is a shame to start by saying it's a gravy train.

One factor that makes recruitment hard to these jobs is that people say that these are easy, cushy overpaid jobs. If they were then the council would be fighting off the applicants.

I hope, sincerely, that good applicants are found and jobs can be filled to deal with the increasing workload - and that we all pause before throwing the judgements about.

Report this post »

retrexs says...
6:57pm Thu 7 Mar 13

our councils is on par with haringey & birmingham childrens services appalling!!! they may aswell save pmoney and not bother let worcester take over again CLLR Jarvis will not stop best thing for him would be the Tower of London only then would he feel the pain hes caused for everyone

Report this post »

bobby47 says...
7:24pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Wysiati is right but its a bitter pill to swallow.
The problem is, will they recruit people that have once been made redundant and thus increase the abuse of the gravey train?
And what happens when a member of serving staff makes a complaint to Unison claiming they have been treated unfairly because they weren't given a wedge of money.
It will happen. It always does. Unison will run with it, the LA will object, solicitors will get a wedge of our money and then, after its dragged on for months, the LA will pay out to all those who claim they have been treated unfairly and avoid an Industrial Tribunal.
The conclusion to this scenario will be, this idea will cost you and I a lot more money than we thought it would.

Report this post »

GDJ says...
7:53pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The adverts are for several layers of managers as well a some real social workers. With someone sensible in charge it would be insisted that the real social workers are recruited and in place before extra managers are employed or there will be an even more top heavy structure.

Note also that no-one at senior level has been held accountable for the inadequate service. The director, Jo `Davidson` has not even made a statement on the council website in response to her department being found to be inadequate and it was left to the cabinet member to make public statements

If high staff turnover is a factor could it be due to the culture and management style of those in charge as well as heavy workloads?

And I suspect Bobby47 is correct that a good way to annoy your existing staff is to pay new people a large extra sum and then expect you to show them the ropes. We will get Worcester social workers coming to Hereford for the extra dosh, leaving vacancies in Worcester for our social workers to go to fill. Or else the ex-Gloucester gang running things will recruit more of their old mates.

Report this post »

dippyhippy says...
10:41pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I can't remember if I have said this before,but a few years back,a team were sent abroad in a recruitment drive!Make of that what you will.....
Front line social workers,do a really valuable job - BUT the management structure does need to be looked at. Its not much use emplying layers of managers when ther aren't enough out on the ground. Would also like to know if there is some sort of "tie-in" to this deal.Do they have to stay for a minimum time e.g 5 years? If they jump ship before then,will the money be repaid??

Report this post »

Biomech says...
12:57am Fri 8 Mar 13

Funny that, because I have a friend who works in the children support services and his entire department is on the line. Each week they meet to find out if they still have a job.

Personally, I'd take these jobs, take the 10k then resign.

Report this post »

mizza21 says...
11:30am Fri 8 Mar 13

Golden Hellos usually have a tie in clause, as does a relocation allowance.
I have never known a legally enforceable tie-in clause though unless you are dismissed under the terms of your contract, say for neglicence or misconduct.

It's quite expensive to move to Hereford though so a relocation bung is quite a sensible sweetener to a tough, not particularly well paid job with loads of responsibility.

I shall certainly go out and purchase the Hereford Times to "see more" as I am urged to do at the bottom of the article. For the measly sum of £1.60 it can only be described as excellent value.

Report this post »

Biomech says...
11:54am Fri 8 Mar 13

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't say £54,000/year (plus the £10k) is "not particularly well paid" :P

Report this post »

GDJ says...
2:09pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Another aspect is that child protection social workers tend to get involved in situations when problems have already arisen.
The agencies that can spot and tackle problems before they get too serious (children's centres, homestart, family support etc) are being cut.
Has the `peoples director' really looked at the balance of cost between early preventative work and later damage limitation work?

A big recruitment drive for people to deal with problems (and even more people to manage those people) seems a very simplistic solution to a complex problem.

Report this post »

Biomech says...
2:25pm Fri 8 Mar 13

I have a family member who also works in support, they go to the houses of convicted murderes, smackheads, rapists and repeat offenders - and they don't even make half of that.

Report this post »

mizza21 says...
3:02pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Biomech.
The social worker positions are not particularly well paid.
Managers always get they palm well crossed with silver for sitting behind a desk telling people what to do all day.

Good point GDJ

Report this post »

dippyhippy says...
10:24pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Thanks for the info about the tie-in Mizza.GDJ Is quite right,its the children/family centres that are being cut - front line again!

Report this post »

WYSIATI says...
11:51pm Fri 8 Mar 13

If I understand things (and I can't promise) the non-statutory stuff - early help, children's centres and the like which were a major new addition under the last Govt have ben cut because central Govt has decided that they do not need to be provided and the money has gone.

I am sure that everyone involved - and I mean everyone as I do not believe there are any working there who do not believe that doing the best by the children should be the aim - would love to be able to provide all the services. But the council has had the budgets cut by huge amounts. At the same time the number of children being taken into care has gone up enormously - for various reasons - one of which is probably the dire state of the economy and loss of jobs etc - so the demands on the child protection goes up.

You cannot magic up more money - when the prime minster said it yesterday he was being disingenuous as he gets the Bank of England to print the magic money (and buy his debt and pay him the interest - fabulous!) but he and his Govt have decided not to spend that on children and instead have consistently and deliberately cut the budgets.

Those manager jobs - yes they get paid some more - but then the responsibility goes up - a lot. It's easy to throw stones but I do not think there's a social worker out there who would not want a good, steady boss and who would deny that the managers and team leaders have a very tough and highly responsible job. I doubt you would find one who would seriously think the best way to fix the problems would be to take away the leaders. To do that and get paid less than a plumber and a 20th of the six hundred bankers at RBS (effectively state owned) and Barclays (effectively kept afloat with our taxpayer pounds) does not make them overpaid in my book I am afraid. There are private sector jobs in the same field paying far more, with less responsibility and no flack from the local press.

Report this post »

Biomech says...
1:05am Sat 9 Mar 13

We all agree high pay and bonuses are fine - AFTER you've done the work.

To be honest, you must run a really sh!tty outfit if you have to start paying people just to accept a job offer to work for you.

Report this post »

WYSIATI says...
7:49am Sat 9 Mar 13

Or maybe there's a national shortage of qualified staff and many many trained and experienced social workers and managers leave to do other jobs because they are less stressful, better paid and less likely to attract scorn and abuse.

Quick google search shows that there is a shortage - 1350 vacancies October 2012 - my guess is that's not because they are overpaid but I might be wrong.

Report this post »

GDJ says...
4:50pm Sat 9 Mar 13

WYSIATI wrote:
If I understand things (and I can't promise) the non-statutory stuff - early help, children's centres and the like which were a major new addition under the last Govt have ben cut because central Govt has decided that they do not need to be provided and the money has gone.

I am sure that everyone involved - and I mean everyone as I do not believe there are any working there who do not believe that doing the best by the children should be the aim - would love to be able to provide all the services. But the council has had the budgets cut by huge amounts. At the same time the number of children being taken into care has gone up enormously - for various reasons - one of which is probably the dire state of the economy and loss of jobs etc - so the demands on the child protection goes up.

You cannot magic up more money - when the prime minster said it yesterday he was being disingenuous as he gets the Bank of England to print the magic money (and buy his debt and pay him the interest - fabulous!) but he and his Govt have decided not to spend that on children and instead have consistently and deliberately cut the budgets.

Those manager jobs - yes they get paid some more - but then the responsibility goes up - a lot. It's easy to throw stones but I do not think there's a social worker out there who would not want a good, steady boss and who would deny that the managers and team leaders have a very tough and highly responsible job. I doubt you would find one who would seriously think the best way to fix the problems would be to take away the leaders. To do that and get paid less than a plumber and a 20th of the six hundred bankers at RBS (effectively state owned) and Barclays (effectively kept afloat with our taxpayer pounds) does not make them overpaid in my book I am afraid. There are private sector jobs in the same field paying far more, with less responsibility and no flack from the local press.
The last government gave the `surestart grant'. The new government blended this into the Early Intervention Grant but didn't actually reduce the amount for surestart. However it wasn't ringfenced and HCC, along with many but not all councils, decided to take some of the surestart proportion of the Early Intervention Grant to use for other things. The money wasn't `gone' until after it entered the HCC system.
This year is more complicated again as the Early Intervention Grant is now included in the Dedicated Schools Grant. It is getting harder to track what money is intended for what, and whether councils do what is intended or make their own decisions.

It is also unclear to me how the Early Years children are budgeted for. The council budget report states less than 1400 `pupils' in the under 5 age group and an appropriate budget allocated, when the council's own `sufficiency' report estimates about 8000 children in the age group. The trouble is there are so many aspects: childminders, private and voluntary nurseries, childrens centres etc that comparisons are very difficult.

Report this post »

WYSIATI says...
9:27pm Sat 9 Mar 13

GDJ - isn't that exactly the point - the central Govt has cut spending substantially overall, they remove ring fences and say that local politicians (note politicians) should make the decisions about what to do with less money.

That way they stay one step removed from having their name on the cuts. A decision to stop a particular service can always be blamed on the local choice.

Some might argue that this is disingenuous to say the least. I am guessing that what you get left with are the statutory services which you have to try to provide and not much besides as numbers keep growing - and especially somewhere like Hereford where adult social care costs rise with an ageing and more dependent population.

Long term I suspect we will regret taking help away from the very young - but by then it will be far too late to remember what happened.

Report this post »

GDJ says...
8:59pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Just noticed this in Jo Davidson's letter to potential applicants

" Our safeguarding inspection in September 2012 judged our child protection arrangements to be inadequate. We had already recognised the urgent need to put things right for children, and the inspection gave us the positive impetus we needed to really push improvements forward."

And this from the chair of the safeguarding board at the time of the OFSTED report

from the HT
"David McCallum, independent chair of the Herefordshire Safeguarding Children Board, has said the findings were a surprise.

But the board had to take responsibility for not "having a grip" on what was going on day-to-day, he said."

So Jo Davidson says she knew things were going wrong, but the panel giving independent oversight seems to have been kept in the dark. Who is responsible for this failure in communication?

Report this post »

WYSIATI says...
9:37am Tue 12 Mar 13

GDJ - I've not been back to the reports but when I read through the Ofsted I remember being struck by the many references to the management having recognised potential problems and where action was being taken to improve things.

I assume that a huge amount of work has been put in since then to improve performance as directed as well as auditing of the cases (HT reported the cost but not the outcome of that work if I remember).

This story was about an initiative to fill vacancies and get permanent staff to take up jobs instead of relying on agency staff - which was another recommendation.

Report this post »

GDJ says...
12:20pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Yes, I realise that, and I remember you making well researched points at the time.

I was trying to highlight the two spins here. One that the report came as a shock and disappointment and the other that they already knew there were problems.

I hope they manage to recruit some high quality people and I hope they change the culture and processes so those people can work effectively.

Your previous point about the govt passing on the cuts decisions to councils is true, but I worry that we have (not just in HCC) a public sector management brought up on ever increasing budgets and so without the skills and creative thinking to redesign rather than just shrink the council services.
This should have been started years ago (before the current directors took over) - it can't be done overnight.

And in terms of safeguarding, the govt has cancelled the common information holding system which would help agencies keep track of children, has encouraged schools to set up and operate outside the sphere of the local authority, is allowing childrens centres and youth services to be drastically cut (which increase vulnerability) and is cutting police budgets - if these segments of overall safeguarding are all diminished, then who is joining the dots and identifying the best available strategy? I doubt that all these cuts can be made good just by recruiting more social workers.

Dare I say that in the `Big Society' every single person has a role in safeguarding.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree