National Care Service: Justice Social Work research

7. Views on Justice Social Work and the National Care Service

Key points

• A key theme across interviews was a desire for more detail on the NCS in general, and the vision and plans for the potential inclusion of JSW specifically.
• Overall, participants raised more concerns than potential benefits in relation to the possible inclusion of JSW within the NCS. Many of participants’ reservations about the NCS and its likely impact on JSW reflected their views on other ‘nationalising’ programmes – particularly Police Scotland, Health and Social Care integration, and the Probation Service in England.
• When pushed, three main positions on the inclusion of JSW in the NCS were apparent: that there was insufficient information to come to an informed view; that the negatives outweigh any potential benefits; or that if other branches of social work are included within the NCS then JSW should also be part of it in the interests of “keeping the profession together”.
• Participants were concerned about a potential loss of social work values, identity and professional specialism in a service they expected would be dominated by Health. On the other hand, there was a perception that the focus on “care” might be beneficial in promoting recognition of the links between offending and underlying issues of health and trauma.
• There were many questions and concerns about resourcing within the NCS, including the overall level of resourcing, whether JSW ring-fencing will be maintained, how resources will be allocated between areas, and how services will be commissioned. There was concern that the resources required to set up a new national service would divert resource from frontline services at a time when they are already stretched.
• Participants recognised the potential for a national service to improve consistency but were sceptical about how likely this was without substantial additional resource. There was also a debate about whether a national service is the only or best route to achieving consistency and whether consistency of delivery should always be the goal.
• JSW professionals and their professional partners both expressed concerns about the potential impacts of joining the NCS on joint working with partners outwith the new national service, including housing, the courts, the police, education, and employability services. There was no consensus on whether the NCS was likely to help resolve, or would exacerbate, existing challenges around information sharing. Effective leadership, which represents the voice of JSW, was seen as essential to staff buy-in.

Introduction and context

As discussed in chapter 1, the National Care Service (NCS) (Scotland) Bill, introduced to the Scottish Parliament in June 2022, was a framework bill; the detail of how the NCS would be structured and funded in practice was intended to follow at a later date. The Bill included ministerial powers to transfer both JSW and Children and Families Social Work to the NCS. However, as yet the Scottish Government has made no recommendation on whether either service should be included.

The initial consultation on the NCS^[24] generated diverse views on the question of including JSW within the service. One criticism of the consultation was that it was so broad ranging (covering the NCS as a whole) that it did not allow for sufficiently full consideration of the range of issues associated with JSW specifically. A key aim of this research was to explore the views of justice social workers and their stakeholders in more depth, to inform further discussions and decisions about whether or not JSW should be included in the NCS.

The interviews on which this report is based took place between April and June 2023. As such, they pre-date the publication of the outcome of discussions between the Scottish Government and COSLA which provided further clarification on a number of issues relating to the NCS, including:

• That local government will retain staff and assets (like buildings) as part of the NCS
• That local government would retain responsibility for delivery of services
• That the Scottish Government, the NHS and local government would share legal accountability for services delivered via the NCS, and
• That new governance arrangements will be introduced to ensure consistently high levels of services across the country while allowing flexibility to meet varying community needs at a local level.^[25]

As the research took place prior to these features of the NCS being publicly agreed, it is not possible to establish the extent to which any concerns raised by participants may or may not have been allayed by this agreement. However, where relevant, this chapter reflects on where it may have implications.

More broadly, the perceptions of the NCS discussed in this chapter may or may not align with the Scottish Government’s current thinking about the NCS and how it may be operationalised. However, they highlight the issues and questions that the NCS raised for JSW professionals and their partners at the time the research was conducted, and which will need to be taken into account in developing further plans on JSW and how it will interact with the NCS, either as part of the new national service or as an external partner.

The literature review conducted for this research looked for evidence from Scotland and other countries on the impact of different structures on delivery and outcomes in JSW or equivalent services. The direct lessons that can be drawn from this evidence are limited; many of the publications identified were purely descriptive and included little evidence of impacts on outcomes. Moreover, there were no examples from other countries of services that were sufficiently similar in structure to either the current JSW model or that were operating within a model similar to the NCS. In fact, Scotland’s current model appears unique in terms of JSW being both within the social work profession and under local authority governance – in other countries, a single-agency delivery model predominated, though there were differences between countries in whether staff were qualified social workers and the role of the third sector agencies in delivery, for example.

However, one thing that was clear from the literature was that it is not only organisational arrangements or structure that drive outcomes for justice-involved people. How services are delivered in terms of governance and leadership, organisational culture, practice and partnerships, and, crucially, resources, as well as how these factors, in turn, are influenced by the political, policy and social contexts that shape and frame them, were all strongly associated with outcomes.

The remainder of this chapter summarises general attitudes to the potential inclusion of JSW in the NCS before discussing views of the implications of the NCS for JSW for different aspects of JSW identity, practice, operation and outcomes. Each section ends with a boxed summary of key questions raised by interviewees with respect to the implications of including JSW (or not) within the NCS. Boxed considerations for further reflection are also interwoven within the chapter, drawing on analysis of the implications of the issues raised for the possible inclusion of JSW within the NCS.

“In a word, detail”: general attitudes JSW and the NCS

A key theme, which cuts across most of the other themes discussed below and which featured in almost every interview, was that people wanted more detail on both the NCS in general, and on the vision and plans for the potential inclusion of JSW specifically. It was noted that the NCS had developed out of challenges around adult social care; there was a perception that much of the information provided so far was focused on this and was not obviously relevant to JSW, who were perceived to have been “an afterthought”. Participants wanted greater clarity on the “vision” for inclusion of JSW within the NCS and on the evidence to support this, particularly with respect to how it would improve outcomes for their clients. This was linked with a perception that the structure of JSW operates quite well at the moment, resourcing issues notwithstanding, so from this perspective any change would require particularly strong justification.

“There are a lot of good things just now so, my concern is, why are we not looking at the good parts of the system and trying to enhance that as opposed to completely breaking it apart and start again something absolutely new? … If we had funded our services appropriately right now we would see improvements.” (CJP interview 1)

Discussion of views on the NCS also highlighted a wide range of different understandings of what the ‘N’ in ‘NCS’ actually implied in practice, and what a ‘national’ service might mean for JSW, including:

• Centrally / nationally employed staff
• Staff based outwith the areas in which their clients live / required to travel to other areas
• Strict national standards for delivery, applied in the same way across all areas
• National management of JSW (generally seen as likely to be based in Glasgow or Edinburgh, and potentially by someone without a JSW background)
• National contracts for services currently delivered by JSW or their local partners (potentially open to tender to private providers)
• Central, national systems for sharing information about clients among services included in the NCS.

As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, the Scottish Government has now clarified that the first of these (centrally / nationally employed staff) would not apply. The NCS Bill and Policy Memorandum emphasise “Scottish Ministers and care boards working together” to deliver its objectives, while recent clarifications have further emphasised the intended model of national leadership and oversight underpinned by integrated planning at a regional level (via care boards). However, this still leaves the detail of how various aspects of how the National Service will be operationalised to be determined. The range of understandings expressed across interviews highlights the need to be as clear as possible about what it would mean for JSW to join a national service (or what it might mean for it to be outside one).

Issues for reflection: How will the division of responsibilities between Ministers, the NHS, care boards, and local authorities impact on JSW services specifically, if JSW is included in the NCS? What might be the implications of the NCS for how standards in JSW are developed, implemented and monitored? Will there be any change in how contracts for services are awarded (including the level – national, local, regional – and what organisations are able to bid)?

Overall, participants (across all professional groups and levels) raised far more negatives than positives about the inclusion of JSW within the NCS – it was clear that both JSW professionals and their professional partners have many concerns that will need to be addressed in the development of the NCS. However, when pushed on whether they felt, on balance and based on their knowledge at the time, JSW should be part of the NCS or sit outside it, three main positions were apparent. The first, linked to the perceived lack of detail discussed above, was that they simply did not have enough information about what this would look like to come to an informed view one way or another. A second group of participants were more negative – they either could not currently see any benefits to JSW from being part of the NCS, or they felt that the risks involved clearly outweighed any benefits. This was linked with concern that restructuring JSW in a period when resources were already under significant pressure would be risky for the service’s continuing ability to deliver for clients and the public:

“What it will do without question, no matter what happens next, is create a long period of change and distraction. The resources that will go into that and the energy as people try to manage the transition is going to create a great deal of potential risk”. (CJP interview 4)

A third group of participants, however, felt that if other branches of social work, including Children and Families, go into the NCS, then JSW would also need to be part of the same structure. “Keeping the profession together” was not necessarily expressed as a ‘benefit’, however, but as a necessity that would push them toward the NCS in spite of reservations about how well it would work for JSW or their clients. For those who felt this way, being part of the same organisation was seen as key to joint working and professional identity. However, another view was that joint working with other part of social work could continue even if they were in different structures, as long as appropriate strategies and processes were put in place to support this.

Parallel positions were apparent in terms of participants’ general attitudes to JSW not being included in the NCS. One group wanted more information on what this would mean in practice – for example, what would it mean for resources? Another had a strong preference for staying outside the NCS and could not see any significant downside to doing so – they essentially viewed this as business as usual, provided JSW funding remained ring-fenced. Finally, a third group – those who wanted to keep the profession together – were concerned about the impact on partnership working of being outside the NCS, particularly if Children and Families social work was within it.

Issues for reflection: Given the level of concern among JSW professionals around the inclusion of JSW in the NCS, if Ministers do decide to include it, what strategies will need to be in place to bring the profession along with this decision? If the NCS does not include all branches of social work, can other structures (for example, the proposed National Social Work Agency) help to ‘keep the profession together’ and support professional identity and joint working?

Participants’ questions

• What is the vision for / aim of including JSW in the NCS?
• How will the NCS lead to improvements for JSW, their clients and public protection?
• What is the evidence that the NCS will improve outcomes for JSW clients?

If all branches of social work are not included within the NCS, how will joint working and professional identity be maintained?

Values and identity

The potential impact of the NCS on ‘keeping the profession together’ was often discussed in the context of a broader discussion about values and identity and the NCS. Different views were expressed by JSW professionals on the likely ‘fit’ between justice social work values and the NCS. On the one hand, there was concern about the potential dominance of health in the NCS and impact of this in terms of loss of ‘social work values’. This was linked with concerns both about the relative small size of social work in general, and JSW specifically, within the NCS, and to questions about management structure and job roles. There was concern about JSWs potentially being managed by non-social workers who, it was felt, would not understand their ethos and role. There was also anxiety that any re-structuring might lead to either JSW services being delivered by “generic” social workers without a justice specialism, or to non-social workers taking on elements of social work roles, further diluting JSW values, identity and professionalism. JSW professionals were concerned to protect JSW as a specialism, emphasising both the specialist skills and clear professional boundaries they felt were required to support their clients effectively.

Issues for reflection: How might integration within a larger service impact on JSW’s sense of identity? How might different possible structures or ways of working at national and local level within the NCS exacerbate or ameliorate the concerns above about voice, identity and professionalism?

In terms of the alignment between the NCS and JSW values specifically, one view was that a ‘care service’ is not a good fit, as JSW is not only about care but also about public protection:

“[we provide] some level of care, and a level of control and public protection – in terms of getting colleagues to understand what we do, a care service isn’t a good fit” (Justice social workers interview 5)

On the other hand, it was suggested that a focus on care might actually be beneficial for JSW in terms of promoting recognition of the links between offending and underlying issues of health and trauma. Participants who saw this as a potential benefit of the NCS were keen to ensure that the ‘J’ in JSW was not over-emphasised – if JSW did remain outside the NCS, they were concerned that this did not lead to any moves towards a ‘correctional agency’ or a model similar to the probation service in England:

"I see myself as a social worker and I’d want to sit with my social work colleagues rather than being a probation service or a justice service." (Senior managers / team leaders interview 9)

Issues for reflection: The NCS principles, as set out in the Bill, state that NCS services will support the realisation of human rights and enable individuals and communities to thrive and flourish. If JSW is to be included in the NCS, is there a need to either reframe its remit, or explain how these principles can also incorporate the ‘dual function’ of JSW (for example, with reference to the importance of public protection to enabling communities to flourish)? What practical implications might the inclusion of JSW within an NCS (or its exclusion from it) have for the balance between ‘care’ and ‘control’ within JSW’s role – and what might this mean for both individual clients and the wider public?

Participants’ questions

• What would the implications of the NCS be for the identity / role / responsibilities of social workers / JSWs?

How will different services within the NCS maintain their professional independence?

Resources

As discussed in chapter 3, resourcing was seen as the central current challenge for JSW. Unsurprisingly, it was also an area that generated many questions with respect to the impact of the NCS. Underpinning many of these questions was an overarching concern that the NCS is primarily about saving money. Reducing spending is not mentioned in the stated aims of the NCS, which focus on improving access and consistency of social care across Scotland and ensuring the workforce flourishes. However, both JSW professionals and their professional partners expressed anxiety that the implementation of the NCS would lead to reduced budgets. This was often expressed in conjunction with observations about the implementation of Police Scotland (where cost saving was an explicit aim) and the development of the Probation Service in England, which was believed to have drastically reduced investment in social work support for justice-involved people.

Even where participants did not explicitly link the NCS with concerns about cost-cutting, there was a belief that the resources required to set up the new service would take resources from frontline services and that this was not the best use of money in the current financial context. Participants could not see how the NCS would help to resolve current resourcing issues without substantial additional funding. Moreover, there was concern that it risked exacerbating these challenges, if the changes associated with restructuring created additional pressures for an already “exhausted” workforce.

Participants raised questions about how resources would be allocated within the NCS. Whether JSW would continue to be ‘ring-fenced’ was a key issue – there was a strong view that resources for JSW need to be protected in order to be able to fulfil statutory responsibilities:

“That’s a huge fear, we’ll all go into one pot, half of us will lose our jobs, we won’t be guaranteed the resources we need to do our job but we’ll have the same responsibilities” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 4)

On the other hand, there was also some concern that, should JSW remain outside the NCS, it might miss out on future funding if the NCS became the main mechanism via which the Scottish Government made additional funds available.

Questions were also raised around how commissioning of services would work within the NCS. In particular, both JSW professionals and their partners, particularly in the third sector, wanted to know whether there would be greater scope for the private sector to bid to deliver JSW-related services. Anxiety about this possibility was commonly related to negative perceptions of the extent and impact of private sector involvement in delivering probation services in England.

In terms of allocation of resources between areas within the NCS, a possible benefit (particularly for smaller local authorities) was the greater potential to share resources across local boundaries. However, there were also questions and concerns about how the differences between areas would be accounted for in resourcing allocations within the NCS. Rural areas expressed anxiety that funding formulas would be based primarily on numbers of clients and would not take their specific delivery challenges into account effectively. More urban areas also questioned how their own local needs and challenges would be factored in. The question of whether the NCS would lead to uniform pay scales for JSW across Scotland was also raised – at present, each local authority sets its own pay scale. One view was that a national pay scale might help address perceived inequities between areas and could help with recruitment, particularly if it was combined with incentives to move to hard-to-recruit areas. However, it was also suggested that this could create new imbalances and could cause significant recruitment challenges for those areas that currently offer a higher level of pay:

“I think if we were to move to a national care service like the way the NHS is, they have bands across, so it doesn’t matter where you work you get paid the same whether you work in an affluent area or you work in an area of high deprivation, but ultimately your workload is going to be very, very, different … So, then there wouldn't be that recognition of the amount of, I suppose as well the kind of trauma that you have to deal with as well, because a lot of the people we deal with are very kind of high tariff cases." (Paraprofessionals interview 6)

Issues for reflection: The level of concern about resourcing emphasises the need for as much clarity about resourcing issues as possible, including addressing the specific questions JSW professionals have raised (see box below). An overarching question, given both the evidence of the literature review and the impacts of current resourcing pressures identified in chapter 3 of this report, is whether (and why) inclusion in the NCS is likely to lead to improvement in JSW outcomes without significant further resource being allocated. Although it might be argued that it is difficult to provide evidence on the impact of something that has not existed before, the weight of evidence internationally indicates that there is no clear link between structure per se and outcomes. At the same time, while the Feeley report made a case for restructuring to improve outcomes in adult social care, this case has yet to be made explicitly for JSW.

Participants’ questions

• How would the NCS be resourced?
• Would JSW remain ring-fenced?
• Would there be any more money for JSW – overall, or for specific geographic areas?
• How are the different levels of deprivation across LAs is going to be catered for when organising the NCS?
• Who decides on budget?
• How will budgets be allocated between areas within the NCS?
• How much autonomy would local managers have over budgets?
• How will any commissioning of services work?

Will there be greater private sector involvement in delivery or would it be guaranteed that it would be not-for-profit only?

Consistency, nationalism and localism

In addition to keeping JSW with their social work colleagues, the main potential benefit to being part of the NCS was the possibility that it might improve consistency of service provision for clients. It was suggested that greater consistency for clients might be achieved by:

• improving the consistency of criteria for accessing services (e.g. care packages) across Scotland
• providing clients with access to more services, if the NCS enabled them to access services outwith their local authority more easily
• helping ensure that every area actually has access to the same services for their clients, and
• improving understanding of the needs of specific groups of clients across Scotland via improved data gathering or better use of data from across areas, which could then be used to drive improvement of services for specific client groups (including those identified as potentially less well served in chapter 6).

Meanwhile, it was suggested that improvements for JSW professionals and their partners might be achieved if the NCS provided greater consistency of: templates and language used across areas; training provision; and opportunities for career progression.

However, while improved consistency was raised as a potential benefit of the NCS, there were many reservations about how likely this was to be achieved without substantial additional funding. Participants also felt that it was not obvious that being part of the NCS was either necessary or the best route to achieving greater consistency of JSW services across Scotland. Participants argued that there were already standards, structures and organisations in place to facilitate national consistency and cooperation where needed (albeit there were some gaps and a view that better use could be made of some of these structures, as discussed in previous chapters).

Beyond questioning whether the NCS is the best route to consistency, there was also some pushback on whether aiming for consistency of delivery is either possible or desirable. This was often strongly linked with views on localism versus nationalism as mechanisms for delivering outcomes for clients, discussed in the next section.

“It’s maybe not consistency that’s required, it’s maybe difference” (Justice social workers interview 5)

The question of whether consistency or quality of outcomes for clients are best achieved through a national level model or through local-level organisational structures was a recurrent theme in the existing evidence and literature reviewed for this research and was echoed across interviews for this research. In part, this reflected different understandings discussed above of what a ‘national’ service might look like, and the extent to which this would allow for local flexibility.

Rural local authorities were particularly concerned that national policies and initiatives would focus on the needs of urban areas and create expectations of uniform delivery that would be unfeasible for their areas to implement, exacerbating existing resourcing challenges, discussed in chapter 3. They expressed fears that rural areas – particularly remote rural areas – would be “forgotten about” within any national service. More urban or mixed local authorities also expressed anxieties about whether a national service would lead to a “one size fits all” approach that would not reflect their own unique challenges or client needs.

It was also suggested that nationalising services might risk loss of local innovation – several areas mentioned services they had developed locally that they did not think would have emerged in a national structure, as they thought national structures would be slower to respond and less likely to foster creativity. As discussed in chapter 6, however, a counterpoint to this was that although local innovation is extremely valuable, there was perceived to be a gap for a national innovation platform.

Issues for reflection: As with concerns about what a ‘national’ system might mean, the concerns discussed above indicate a need for greater clarity on the level and nature of ‘consistency’ between areas that will be expected within the NCS and how much local flexibility and innovation will be retained, at care board and local authority level. How, if at all, will expectations of JSW differ in practice from the current picture (where standards are set nationally and implemented locally)? Is it envisioned that consistency within the NCS will entail clients having access to the same services (from JSW and/or their partners) in every care board area? If so, how will this be achieved in practice, given the current variability of external resources across Scotland (as discussed in chapter 4)? Does it imply certain services are delivered in the same way in every area (and again, what are the resource implications of this, given differences in team size, geography, etc.)?

On the other hand, if JSW is not included in the NCS, there will still be a need for clarity on what level and type of ‘consistency’ of service is desirable and achievable, and how this can most effectively be secured, given the opportunities and challenges identified in the literature review and in chapters 2 to 6 of this report.

Participants’ anxieties about the potential impact of being part of a national service were often informed by their perceptions of other recent programmes of ‘nationalisation’ or ‘centralisation’ which they viewed as having had negative consequences for services and clients. In particular, the formation of the probation service in England, the merger of Scotland’s police forces into Police Scotland, and the establishment of Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs) were mentioned in this context.

The probation service in England was discussed in almost exclusively negative terms by JSW professionals and was perceived to have led to a deterioration in both services and professional identity and role, as well as being “a bureaucratic nightmare”.

Perceptions of Police Scotland focused primarily on the impact that the merger of Scottish forces was believed to have had on local policing and the quality of service provided to local communities. Participants cited examples of local stations closing, increased difficulties in involving police in local multidisciplinary schemes (although this did not include MAPPA, given its statutory footing), and general loss of community connection between the police and local areas.

As discussed in chapter 5, perceptions of the impact of HSCPs varied considerably between areas – as one JSW professional commented, the different ways in which local authorities have managed integration made it difficult for them to extrapolate clear lessons from integration. But concerns about health dominating the NCS were often linked to perceptions this had been the case within HSCPs.

Overall, there was a perception that the evidence from across various nationalising/centralising/restructuring programmes has not shown that they produce better outcomes. Participants would therefore require convincing as to why they should expect the NCS to be different.

“I have been there with restructure and everything else, and I don't know how many times … and can I tell you, none of them work." (Paraprofessionals interview 6)

Issues for reflection: As discussed above, the literature review did not identify a clear link between structure and outcomes. As discussed in chapter 5, there were also different experiences and views on the impact of health and social care integration to date on outcomes – both within JSW and for adult social work. Given existing evidence and professional scepticism about previous ‘centralising’ or ‘nationalising’ programmes, is there a need to more clearly articulate how and, importantly, why the NCS is expected to be different in terms of its impact on joint working and outcomes for JSW specifically?

Participants’ questions

• How would the NCS adapt to the complexities of each area?
• How specifically will it work for rural communities, their services and clients?
• What is the vision for maintaining creativity and innovation?
• What would it mean for existing specialist teams within areas? Would they be absorbed? Or organised more centrally?
• What has been learned from other recent programmes of bringing local services together (e.g. Police Scotland, HSCPs) and how has this informed plans for NCS?
• If NCS is structured around ‘Care Boards’, what would the geographic boundaries of these be? And how would they differ in practice from HSCPs?
• What is the timescale for implementing the NCS? (linked to a perception that other programmes of restructure have taken a long time to ‘bed-in’)

Leadership and governance

There was a perception that securing JSW staff “buy-in” to the NCS would be challenging, given the issues discussed elsewhere in this chapter. In this context, questions about who would lead JSW within the NCS became particularly important. There were also questions about the size and number of tiers of management, with no consensus on the appropriate balance between ensuring that local areas and JSW as a profession are well represented within NCS management on the one hand, and potentially diverting resource from frontline staff to management roles on the other. Developing a national leadership structure that reflected the needs and priorities of different local areas and professional groups was viewed as a challenge in general.

At the same time, it was suggested that the national management of JSW within the NCS might have some potential benefits in terms of governance and accountability. In particular, participants discussed areas where they felt the “boundaries” between services or areas became blurred at times – including examples where it was unclear if Adult Social Work or JSW should take responsibility for a decision, and disagreements between local authorities over case transfers between areas. Having a national structure might help provide clarity in these situations.

However, leaders in another local authority raised concerns about potential unintended consequences if responsibility for agreeing case transfers were taken away from the individual local authorities concerned. In particular, they were concerned that many more JSW clients could be moved away from the central belt to areas with more vacant properties. They argued that this would create unsustainable pressures on JSW teams in those areas and could put public safety at risk.

Issues for reflection: Getting leadership teams and structures right is key to the success of any new organisation. If JSW is included in the NCS, there is a clear need to consider how their specific professional voice can best be represented within national and regional/local leadership structures. And if JSW is not included within the NCS, there will be a need to re-consider the mechanisms required at national, regional and local level to enable JSW to feed into strategic and/or practical discussions of cross service issues, including issues that require cooperation with partners who have moved into the NCS.

Participants also questioned the potential impact of the NCS on local accountability for decisions. There was a strong belief that as support for and management of JSW clients happened locally, it needed to be linked to local accountability for those decisions (ultimately through local elections). It is possible that this concern may be addressed through the recent announcement that responsibility and accountability for delivery of the NCS will be shared between the Scottish Government, the NHS and local government.

Participants’ questions

• What would the exact management structure of the NCS be?
• What professional backgrounds would managers with responsibility for JSW come from?
• How will the NCS avoid JSW’s voice being ‘lost’ within a larger national organisation?
• What would be the implications of being in the NCS for cross-local authority transfers?
• What accountability mechanisms will there be for the NCS?

If JSW are outside the NCS, will the structure remain as it is at present?

Partnership working

As discussed above, perhaps the main perceived benefit for JSW professionals of being integrated within the NCS was the fact that it would keep JSW together with their colleagues in Adult and Children and Families social work. In addition to maintaining partnerships across social work, it was also suggested that being part of a bigger organisation could streamline other elements of partnership working – for example, there might be potential to simplify referrals within the NCS, or to reduce the number of times clients need to repeat their stories to multiple professionals. However, in general, participants’ reflections around partnership working and the NCS tended to focus on concerns about loss of links with key partner organisations that will not be included in the new national service, including: housing services; Police Scotland; the Courts; education; employability; and third sector partners.

Potential weakening of links between JSW and housing were a particular concern in one local authority, where JSW had built very close working relationships and protocols with their housing team to address the high level of homelessness among JSW clients:

“We are headed towards a NCS which is going to remove homelessness provision which will effectively have homelessness no longer sitting in a health and social care construct, it will be removed from that and that, I find really quite concerning. And, I think that that on its own right it is going to be a massive challenge given the level of homelessness need that exist in our more complex service users.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 13)

JSW’s professional partners also expressed concerns about potential loss of existing close relationships and lines of communication with JSW. A partner from SPS questioned whether JSW’s goals would continue to align with theirs if they were part of the NCS, while a local CJP lead wondered whether JSW would still be able to participate in the same multi-disciplinary groups once they joined the NCS. A third sector partner highlighted that the procurement structure in the NCS could have significant impacts – either negative or positive – for the extent and nature of their joint working with JSW.

Issues for reflection: ‘Professionals working together better across traditional boundaries’ is a core aim of the NCS, as set out in the Feeley review. However, in comparison with Adult Social Work at least, JSW arguably has a greater number of external partners that are not likely to be included within the NCS. This means that considering how effective relationships and joint working can be preserved and developed will be particularly important in ensuring that the positive aims of the NCS can be achieved for JSW. This will be the case whether JSW is in the NCS and some of its key partners (particularly in justice and housing) are outside it, or JSW is outside the NCS and some of its key social work and health partners are inside it.

Participants’ questions

• How will existing collaborations with orgs that are not going into the NCS be maintained?
• Will there still be the same expectations around engaging with CJPs?
• What resources will JSW have available to meet MAPPA responsibilities?

Where will teams be located? Will it mean relocation away from some of the (non-NCS) partners currently collocated with?

Information sharing between partners

As discussed in chapter 4, issues around information sharing and ICT can have a significant impact on partnership working. This was also a recurrent theme with respect to the potential impact of the NCS. However, there was no consensus on whether the NCS might help to resolve, or was likely to exacerbate, existing challenges around information sharing. The impact would depend on what information systems are implemented within the NCS, how many different systems are in place, and who has access them, both across Scotland and within local areas. While the NCS might help facilitate access to information between services within the NCS, there was potential for it to create new ‘information boundaries’ with key JSW partners outwith the NCS. There was also general anxiety about the resources and time that would be required to move to any new information systems that might be implemented as part of the NCS.

Issues for reflection: The NCS Bill allows for information sharing and information standards and is “intended to underpin the creation of the nationally-consistent, integrated and accessible electronic social care and health record.” If JSW is within the NCS, it will be important to consider how new systems and arrangements might impact not only on sharing within the NCS, but also on essential data sharing with JSW’s key partners outwith the service. Conversely, if JSW is not in the NCS, the new social care and health record is likely to contain much information relevant to the ability of JSW to offer and access effective support for their clients. Will appropriate data sharing and other arrangements be in place from the outset of any new system to facilitate this?

Participants’ questions

• What impact will the NCS have on data sharing?

How will NCS systems link with non-NCS systems (e.g. prisons)?

Impacts on terms, conditions and progression

In addition to discussing potential impacts on professional identity, values and responsibilities, JSW professionals also raised a number of practical questions about what joining the NCS might mean for their pay, pensions, employer, terms and conditions and career progression. Some of these questions may, in part, have been addressed by the announcement that NCS staff will remain as local authority employees. However, they are noted here as they were important issues that JSW professionals wanted clarity on.

Participants’ questions

• What will the NCS mean for JSW …
  • Salary scales?
  • Pensions?
  • Terms and conditions?

Career progression opportunities? Specifically, would a justice social worker be able to develop their career in a specific local area, or would they need to develop a national focus to progress?