Agenda item

Purpose of the report:Scrutiny of Services and Performance Management

This report provides Select Committee with:

i) An update on recruitment and retention, and the actions that have been taken to address workforce supply issues since November 2013, and responses to questions raised by the Select Committee on this work;

and

ii) An update on the development of the Adult Social Care Workforce Strategy and a recommendation further involving members in this work.

Witnesses:

 Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care

Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care

Steve Cosser, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The HR Relationship Manager provided an update on the challenges facing the Adult Social Care Directorate in recruiting and retaining front-line staff. It was highlighted that the high-cost of living in Surrey as well as restrictions on offering competitive salaries as a result of the existing corporate pay structure means that some difficulties have been experienced in recruiting and retaining staff to work in adult social care for the Council. The HR Relationship Manager indicated that a number of different strategies were being devised to make Surrey’s social care services a more attractive employer both in terms of recruiting new staff and retaining those who already work for Surrey. Avenues which were being explored included introducing a more flexible pay progression structure particularly in areas such as Social Work and the creation of a rewards structure for existing staff. It was advised that it would take 6 months to finalise this strategy.

2. The Committee expressed some serious concerns about  the staffing problems highlighted by the HR Relationship Manager and requested further clarification on the current number of vacancies in Surrey County Council’s Adult Social Care provision as well as information on the financial incentives offered by Surrey in comparison to other Local Authorities in the Southeast. The Chairman and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care confirmed that conversations have taken place with the Head of HR and Organisational Development in relation to the rigidity of the corporate pay structure and the adverse effects it is having on recruitment and retention strategies for adult social care services and so they were aware of these issues. The HR Relationship Manager advised that there were currently 95 vacancies across Adult SocialCare services. In relation to the financial incentives offered by Surrey in comparison to other Local Authorities, it was highlighted that Surrey’s recruitment and retention strategy lagged behind competitors due to the high cost of living in the County and that £7k was offered to for resettlement costs in line with the minimum government guidelines. The Committee were in agreement that the £7k resettlement allowance was not enough money to attract skilled and experienced workers to Surrey and suggested that this needs to be reconsidered. Members also queried whether the shortage in staff was impacting on the ability of the Adult Social Care Directorate to delivers its strategies for providing better care to Surrey’s vulnerable residents. The HR Relationship Manager reiterated that the vacancies were across the whole of the service and with the highest concentration being in residential care which is currently undergoing significant changes which was impacting on staff numbers. The shortages are not severe in any particular area such that the delivery of services would be affected.

3. The Committee further queried whether the pay allocations for frontline service providers in Surrey restricted the quality of staff that Surrey was able to attract to Adult Social Care and requested assurances that only the right people with the right skills would be hired to fill vacancies. It was stated by the Strategic Director that a tight grip was kept on recruitment to ensure that only staff with the correct skill-set were employed to maintain levels of quality right across the service. It was also highlighted that new initiatives were being developed to devolve staffing budgets to the localities to ensure that they were able to employ the right people with the rights skills for the needs of the residents in their local are a and to take account of regional differences.

4. The HR Relationship Manager stressed that financial incentives such as pay and moving benefits were not the only recruitment and retention strategies available to the Council and that the career opportunities and the chance to progress up the organisation are also factors which must be taken into consideration. Members suggested that the HR Relationship Manager’s recruitment and retention strategy should also consider ideas such as shared ownership schemes, talent-spotting for potential Social Workers as well other options that might help employees place down roots in Surrey and make them less likely to want to move to another County. Accordingly, the Council has an ongoing initiative to provide training to staff to help them improve their career prospects and develop their careers within Surrey although it was highlighted that the rising costs of training and providing the infrastructure for this training did mean that the opportunities that they were able to offer had decreased over the past couple of years.

5. Members also queried the possibility of hiring locums to cover key vacancies in frontline services. The HR Relationship Manager stressed that they wanted to avoid going down this avenue where possible due to the high cost of hiring locums which, on average, is in  the region of £70k a year once agency costs are factored in.

6. The Committee also queried the average time it took to recruit a new member of staff to the Adult Social Care team; in his introduction to the report the HR Relationship Manager indicated that it took, on average, 90 days to recruit for a vacant position which the Members felt to be a bit excessive. The HR Relationship Manager advised that he didn’t have information on the reasons why it took so long to hand as details of recruitment schedules were still being investigated but that the would apprise the Committee of these results at the next meeting.

7. Members also requested more information on retention strategies for Social Workers which has been identified nationally as having an average career span of just 7 years and wondered what was being done in Surrey to retain Social Workers as key frontline service providers. The HR Relationship Manager highlighted that the 7 year career span identified was more reflective of Social Workers employed in the Children’s Services sector than Adult Social Care. It was advised, however, that a board had been put together in order to explore the caseloads for Social Workers and developing ways in which to help them manage their workloads more effectively through a case work allocation model. The hope was that this would reduce the instances of Social Workers becoming disillusioned and help Surrey to retain their experienced, long term staff.

8. The Committee expressed concern that they had heard from residents that the application process for Social Workers applying for jobs in Surrey was overly complicated and put many people off applying for a job. The HR Relationship Manager indicated that he was concerned to hear that this was the perception of the Adult Social Car e recruitment process and that it was designed to be user friendly, it was advised that this would be looked into as a priority to ensure that it didn’t discourage any potential applicants.

Recommendations:

·         The Committee recommends that the leader of the Council and Cabinet concentrate on urgently finding ways to recruit the (currently) 95 key frontline vacancies that exist across the Adult Social Care Directorate.

·         The Committee supports the urgent creation of a separate, flexible HR policy for Adult Social Care to attract and retain skilled staff. The Committee will seek an update on this proposal in early 2015.

Action points/ further information to be provided

None

Committee next steps:

None