National Care Service: Justice Social Work research

5. Leadership and governance

Key points

• There was limited discussion of local leadership. However, where it was discussed, JSW staff were – with some exceptions – generally positive about leadership quality. Staff valued “active” heads of service, with a social work background who spoke up for JSW.
• Different views on the optimum local management structure were expressed, particularly in terms of the number of tiers. Joint leadership for Children and Families and JSW was seen as important by some senior managers.
• There were mixed views on the impacts of local Community Justice Partnerships on JSW and a perception that understanding of roles and remits between JSW and CJPs could be improved.
• There was no consensus on the impact of integration within HSCPs where JSW had been delegated. Positive impacts included: facilitating closer partnership working; shared learning; and promoting shared organisational values. More negative views included a perception that health “dominates” HSCPs, to the detriment of the voice and (particularly with respect to adult social work) professional autonomy of social work. There was also a perception that Adult social work had been subsumed within health, weakening links across social work.
• There was a sense amongst professionals that JSW is “underrepresented” nationally and that the Scottish Government could provide more national leadership in terms of the direction of travel for the sector and challenging negative media portrayals of JSW.

There was a belief that Community Justice Scotland had not fully realised its national leadership potential, though its role in promoting client voice in community justice was recognised and valued.

Introduction and context

This chapter discusses participants’ views of JSW teams and wider professional partners on leadership and governance issues. It covers perceptions of the impact of local leadership and management structures (particularly whether JSW sits within or outwith a HSCP). It also discusses attitudes towards leadership of JSW at national level.

JSW has been under local authority control since 1968. It became a “distinct entity” within social work in the early 1990s when ring-fenced funding and national objectives and standards were introduced for the first time. Although JSW teams are still situated within local authorities, in practice there are a range of different specific local governance arrangements for JSW across Scotland. Responsibility for governance, planning and resourcing of JSW services has been delegated to the HSCP in 18 local authority areas^[21], while Highland operates a ‘lead agency’ model, in which the local authority leads on planning and delivery of JSW and Children and Families social work services, while the NHS is the lead agency covering Adult social work. HSCPs have representatives from a wide range of organisations and stakeholder groups, who are jointly responsible for the governance and planning of integrated services.

Social work services are led by a Chief Social Work Officer with strategic and operational responsibilities across the three social work strands. While some local authorities have a Head of Service with specific responsibility for JSW, other Heads of Service can have responsibilities across social work services.

In terms of wider governance arrangements underpinning JSW, under MAPPA relevant authorities (including the police, JSW, and NHS as relevant) are jointly responsible for risk assessment and management of those who pose a risk of serious harm. The Scottish Government has responsibility for policy design of the overall justice system, and the Care Inspectorate has responsibility for inspecting JSW services. Community Justice Scotland is the national leadership body for community justice in Scotland, with a statutory duty to monitor the performance of each local authority area in achieving community justice outcomes. At a local level, multi-agency Community Justice Partnerships (CJPs) are responsible for plans to reduce re-offending and supporting reintegration of those who have committed offences.

The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) is the regulator with responsibility for the social work workforce in Scotland. All social workers in JSW are required to be registered with the SSSC, who also set standards for practice, conduct, training and education.

In terms of professional membership bodies, Social Work Scotland represents Scottish social work leaders and has a Justice Standing Committee made up of Chief Social Work Officers, managers from JSW, academics, and those working in the private and voluntary sectors. It works to influence and shape relevant policy and legislation (although it does not have a specific statutory status). The Scottish Association of Social Workers (SASW) is the membership body for social workers at all levels.

Local leadership and governance

Discussions of local leadership within interviews and group discussions was sometimes limited, perhaps because participants did not always feel comfortable discussing their managers. However, where it was discussed JSW staff were generally positive about the quality of local leadership. Leadership and management characteristics particularly valued by social workers and paraprofessionals included: having an “open door policy”; allowing space for creativity; and being visible. On this last point, paraprofessionals in one area commented that their managers were helpful but were located in another office area and they would welcome more opportunities for face-to-face meetings.

Having “active” Heads of Service was also important to staff. The service manager in one area described their Head of Service as very involved in terms of information sharing and “bang[ing] the drum for justice”. Staff were also clear about the importance of having a Head of Service with a social work background in terms of effective professional leadership and understanding the pressures facing staff. A manager in one area reflected on the importance of professional background to effective leadership in the context of their own experience in a previous role in which they had managed health staff without having a health background:

“…you were managing health visiting services, paediatric health services, paediatric OTs, physiotherapists, maternity services, as well as Children and Families social work services. So you couldn’t really provide any professional leadership…health staff got quite frustrated when they were taking things up the chain, but actually we didn’t have the professional expertise or the knowledge to actually do anything about it…” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 5)

In terms of leadership and management structures, senior managers in two local authorities stressed the importance to them of having a joint Head of Service connecting JSW and Children and Families Social work. Strong connections between the two were seen as critical to public protection and prevention, recognising the degree of overlap in the families and individuals JSW and Children and Families support. This arrangement was contrasted with organisational structures in England which were felt to limit connections between justice and Children and Families:

“…we are most often involved with children because of issues with their parents…so that interface in terms of children and justice in terms of that broader public protection is absolutely critical. And when I look at other structures, particularly down south, where they have this very, very separate standalone probation service, I know there are huge challenges, (although) there will be positives as well.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 14)

It is worth noting, however, that staff on the ground did not always share the perception of more senior managers that joint leadership necessarily resulted in particularly strong connections between services.

There was some discussion about the appropriate structure for JSW in terms of number of tiers at local level. Although it was also recognised that this may need to vary depending on local authority size, one view was that fewer levels of management was better in terms of simplicity and ease of communication. However, it was also recognised that reducing the number of senior roles has an impact on promotion opportunities within a local area. There was some discussion about a need for an additional ‘senior social worker’ role sitting between team leaders/managers and social workers/paraprofessionals, in order to support professional development and help recognise their role in mentoring newer staff members.

In terms of innovations in local management and governance, one case study area had introduced a management position focussing on Quality Improvement in JSW, with responsibility for measuring outcomes, self-evaluation and auditing the service. This role was believed to have helped support innovation and improvement within the JSW team: staff across levels agreed that they are encouraged to share ideas for improvement with management.

“…recently we didn’t have a Service Manager for Quality Improvement and that for me has had a significant positive impact on the service and how we go forward. It’s the measuring, auditing, feeding back to staff around about what’s wrong and how to fix it and also what’s right and how good it is…” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 6)

In contrast, paraprofessionals in another area described their frustrations when what they perceived as “minor mistakes” were dealt with in a heavy-handed way by management, which was demoralising for staff already struggling with a heavy workload.

There were mixed views across areas on the impacts of local CJPs on JSW delivery and outcomes. For example, a senior manager in one area reflected that their CJP includes the local authority Chief Executive and HSCP Chief Officer, which they felt was helpful for raising the profile of JSW in their area. On the other hand, a senior manager in another area felt that their CJP was not as coordinated compared with other areas which meant partnership working was not as strong as it could be.

There was a sense that CJPs rely heavily on information provided by JSW for reporting and generating their plans. This can place a burden on JSW, when services are already stretched; something that was recognised by CJP leads, who highlighted the importance of strong relationships, open communication, and ensuring JSW staff feel valued within the partnership. The CJP lead in one area described how they had developed a “Community Justice Dashboard” which they felt helped with information sharing.

Another theme was a perception that understanding of roles and remits between JSW and CJPs could be improved. CJP leads discussed feeling that partners did not always understand their own role within the CJP or what the CJP is responsible for. To help address this CJS had supported some development work in one area, while in another there were plans to create an online learning resource for staff.

“A lot of people sometimes get confused [about] ‘what is community justice’ and ‘what is justice social work’…sometimes we have to remind partners within justice social work...that they’re a partner and [they shouldn't] see my role as somebody who contributes to their work.” (CJP interview 6)

Health and Social Care Partnerships

As discussed in chapter 1, the six case study areas included in this research included two where JSW sits outwith the HSCP and four where it sits within it. There was no consensus on the impact of integration on JSW, with differing views expressed both between and sometimes within case study areas – for example, managers expressing positive views while staff on the ground felt it had made little difference.

Where JSW professionals were most positive about the impacts of integration in their area, they focused on the contribution they believed it had made to: facilitating closer partnership working between services included in the HSCP; better supporting service improvements based on shared learning; promoting shared organisational values; and co-location of services, all of which were believed to have led to better service delivery.

In areas where JSW professionals were more negative about the impacts of integration for JSW, they described challenges relating to organisational size, culture, structure and systems. In particular, there was a perception that health “dominates” within HSCPs. One perceived consequence of this was that Adult social work services was seen to have been ‘subsumed’ within the NHS in some areas, weakening both the professional autonomy of Adult social work and links between JSW and their colleagues in Adult services:

"Looking into NHS-led social work practice, I think it's dubious at best...needs assessments in, for example, mental health social work and community care social work […] is compromised by health medical models. I don't think they have that autonomy in decision-making..." (Wider professional partner interview 8)

It was also suggested that the size of the HSCPs, and the dominance of health within them, has meant that social work, especially JSW as a smaller service, can end up feeling forgotten and find it harder to make their voice heard.

“…within the whole HSCP we’re such a small cog and social work in general within an HSCP is very much the forgotten people. It is very much health dominated. You go to the likes of clinical care governance meetings, they don’t really want to discuss any social work issues, it’s all health stuff.” (Senior manager / team leaders interview 5)

However, an alternative view was that working within the bigger HSCP structure can help JSW to have more “leverage” than it might on its own.

Participants highlighted that being part of a HSCP had not necessarily resulted in shared systems or common terms and conditions. For example, in one area senior management commented that contracts and HR systems still differ depending on whether staff are employed by the local authority or the NHS.

“We have a situation where we [have] people doing the same jobs, but if you're on an NHS contract you'll be paid a different rate to those on a council contract. You have different terms and conditions of service, you have different holiday entitlements, you have different pensions, different complaint handling systems, we have different recruitment systems...so whilst they're saying 'integration' it's actually not integration. […] Do I feel any benefits to being part of HSCP? No." (Senior managers / team leaders interview 5)

Social workers also noted that that the process for referrals (to services such as mental health) between HSCP partners was “not smooth” and staff did not get feedback on whether client referrals had been accepted by other HSCP services.

There was limited discussion of the impact of HSCPs amongst JSW staff in local authorities where JSW is not integrated, either because participants felt integration had not made a difference to them, were not aware of any impacts, or simply felt they could not comment.

National leadership

There was a general sense amongst JSW professionals that JSW is “underrepresented” nationally, in both government and public discourse. Indeed, some participants found it difficult to comment on who speaks or advocates for JSW at a national level. It was suggested that most of the current strengths in the delivery of JSW rely heavily on local strategic leadership, and that the Scottish Government could provide more national leadership in terms of the direction of travel for the sector.

"Somebody from government…needs to get that message out there to say ‘this is what happens in justice’. Folk in the street don’t know what we do…there’s a message nationally missing somewhere in relation to justice social work.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 12)

There was also discussion of the need for national leadership to inform and challenge public perceptions of JSW and their clients. Senior participants expressed frustration that there is no national strategy to counter the perceived negative portrayal of JSW in the media (discussed in chapter 2). While the focus of participants’ comments tended to be on the role national leadership could play in promoting a positive understanding of JSW, staff in one local authority also discussed ways in which their team had tried to tackle this at a more local level, including sharing positive messages about their service on social media and promoting the work of JSW with local elected members in order to improve perceptions.

In terms of other organisations that could provide leadership at a national level, while there was some praise for the role CJS had played in driving efforts to encourage ‘client voice’ and for their development work with a local CJP, it was also suggested that as an organisation it has not fully realised its potential in terms of national leadership:

“…the shortfall [in national leadership] reflects an expectation that was there for Community Justice Scotland when they came in to take this sort of mantle. I mean the original guidance talked about developing a commissioning strategy and we’ve yet to realise that.” (CJP interview 4)

CJS has developed a Strategic Commissioning Framework,^[22] but this comment may reflect the fact that the implementation of this is still in process, with the Scottish Government and CJS currently jointly working on a project to recommission throughcare services delivered by the Third Sector using this framework.

There was also a perception that CJS could improve the quality of its consultation with local areas – including local CJPs – before changing national strategies, and that it has a tendency to take a “standardised approach” in proposing changes which does not work for all local authority areas. Similar concern was expressed about the breadth of Scottish Government consultation with local areas on changes in national strategy – particularly with respect to the NCS, discussed in chapter 7.

In terms of wider professional leadership, it was felt that Social Work Scotland does provide leadership and a route for JSW to feed into national discussions via the Justice Standing Committee. However, it was also acknowledged that there were perhaps fewer routes for JSW professionals below senior level to have their voices heard in national conversations.

Suggestions for improvement

Suggestions from participants around improving leadership and governance included:

• Enhancing national leadership of JSW in general, including action to improve public understanding and media representations of the role of JSW, and
• Increasing understanding of the roles and responsibilities of CJPs (and of different partners within CJPs).

There was a perception that no one at the moment is speaking up for JSW, and that the Scottish Government in particular needed to do more to explain what it is and its value. While the focus of participants suggestions focused on national leadership to improve public understanding, as discussed above, there is also scope for local areas to play role in this.

As the Care Inspectorate noted in their 2021 report^[23], it is difficult to draw any conclusions around which local management or governance structures may produce the most positive outcomes, given the variety of specific arrangements in place across Scotland (and the diversity of views on these). However, many of the comments above around challenges and benefits of current structures were reflected in participants’ views on the potential impacts of the NCS for JSW, as discussed in chapter 7. Moreover, the different experiences across local authorities highlight the importance of finding opportunities to share learning between areas about the impacts of different approaches to management and leadership within existing structures – such as different ways of working with CJPs, the introduction of different management roles (e.g. Quality Improvement manager), or different approaches to working between partners within HSCPs.