RECRUITING AND RETAINING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES' SOCIAL WORKERS: THE POTENTIAL OF WORK DISCUSSION GROUPS

Abstract

Current difficulties with the recruitment and retention of children and families' social workers have been formally acknowledged. However, although initiatives which focus on remuneration and career progression are clearly welcome, research and evidence from practice highlights how social workers themselves place high value on the availability of good quality supervision. Yet, questions remain about whether first‐line managers have the time or are even in the best position to offer this support. This article draws on the experience and evaluation of one particular model of supervision — ‘work discussion groups’ — and explores its impact with residential social work staff and teachers as well as the potential for further developments of this kind.

Keywords:

• supervision
• work discussion groups
• staff recruitment and retention
• morale, stress and absence
• professional development

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Earl of Listowel for his campaigning work to promote recognition of the needs of children in care and those who work with them, and for encouraging the authors of this article to work together.

Notes

1. In this article ‘teacher’ is used, for simplicity, as a generic term for any staff working within a school.

2. For example, in a recent mental health and staff training needs assessment carried out by the Brent Centre for Young People in 10 secondary schools, only 12 out of 145 teachers (6.9%) reported that they had ‘received sufficient training in adolescent development’ (Salavou et al., 2002).

3. These questions used a 6 point scale from ‐3 to +3. For example: “How supportive have you found the group?” where ‐3 indicated ‘very unsupportive’ while +3 indicated ‘very supportive’. For the purposes of this paper the author understood scores of +2 or +3 to indicate that participants found the group supportive.

4. Same as point 3 above

5. These questions used a 4 point scale from 0–3. For example: ‘To what extent has participation in the work discussion group helped you develop a deeper understanding about the meaning of behaviour?’ A score of ‘0’ indicated ‘not at all’ while a score of ‘3’ indicated ‘very much’. For the purposes of this paper, the author understood scores of 2 or 3 in this case to indicate that participants were helped to develop a deeper understanding about the meaning of behaviour.

6. Same as point 5 above

7. same as point 5 above

8. Although it cannot be said from this data that attendance at the work discussion group was, in itself, the cause of the reduced rates of absence, the school concerned found this compelling data and believed there to be a direct link. This data also concurred with other observations made by senior members of staff about the noticeable broader personal and professional development of staff attending the groups.