Social services should invest in workforce development and training

And another follow-up: tweeting a comment on the Sunderland news item, (you remember, Texans being employed in Sunderland children's services) led to this Tweet from one who knows a bit more than I do:

444blackcat johntucker

 

@MalcolmPayne know sunderland fairly well been in trouble for years with its finances this will be to save money there arelots of nqsw

 

My comment is: it's clear Sudnerland thought this was financially advantageous, as John says, and indeed they said they could get lots of newly qualified social workers, but the commentators on the news item wondered (and I shared their questioning) why it was not possible to support newly qualified British people to become more experienced and avoid the need to recruit people from abroad. I think any local authority does better if it builds a loyal staff using training and staff development. That costs money. And it's never a good ploy to assume that vacancies are a temporary gap: that way, you end up employing (and possibly exaploiting) expensive agency staff, rather than spending enough money to build stability in your workforce.

It's tempting for a local authority to go for short-term options that are cheap at the time, without spending enough money on the long-term options that build a better department. And probably in a time of pressure on finances it's even more tempting.

 

My message is that local authorities that want good services have to avoid the temptation to go for cheap, quick solutions and invest in their future workforce for the longterm. Staff development and training every time.