Consultation on new Common Induction Standards for Children’s Services

A response from research in practice

 The research in practice network

research in practice actively supports a network of over 100 public and voluntary sector agencies across England and Wales that are striving to use an evidence-informed approach to improve services and outcomes for vulnerable children and families. While our work initially developed within the Children’s social care sector, our inter-professional work is well established and our partnership continually diversifying.

We use the term evidence-informed practice to describe the combining of the best available research evidence with the practice expertise of professionals and the experience and preferences of service-users. Such an approach gives scope for critical thinking, creative thought and imaginative approaches- all assets that are required in improving recruitment, retention and the development of a world-class workforce for children and young people.

Introduction

We welcome these Common Induction Standards as a practical step forward in fulfilling the Every Child Matters agenda. We also believe that consulting with children and young people on the Standards, as well as other stakeholders, reinforces the positive, listening, ethos promoted by Every Child Matters.

We strongly support the general level of the Standards and the breadth of expertise and experience required to fulfill them because this reflects the complex responsibilities of working with children and young people. More detailed comments on the Standards are outlined below.

Methodology/ Response form

The structure of the feedback form asking for ‘strongly agree’ through to ‘strongly disagree’ will almost inevitably lead to an overwhelming majority of ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ responses given the expertise and knowledge that workers in this sector need.

The following comments refer to Sections of the Consultation Form:

Level and Standard of the Units (General Questions Section 4)

Without an indication of exactly how much detail and evidence is needed to achieve each standard, it is hard to assess whether 12 weeks is a realistic timescale. The number of standards and depth of each unit suggests that  covering them all in a 12 week period is optimistic. One Service Manager from a member of our network goes even further than that, commenting that the Standards are ‘far too ambitious for induction - virtually unworkable ..... something of this length and complexity is likely to get ignored.’

The amount of time demanded of both employee and employer/supervisor is significant. research in practice ’s work with social care agencies over a number of years has shown that time allotted for fixed meetings and training is often eroded or eliminated by unpredictable factors such as emergency callouts, court dates and cover for other staff.

Dividing the Standards into those which are essential for doing the job properly for the first 12 weeks and those where knowledge could be built up over a slightly longer timescale might make the induction documentation more feasible for both employee and employer/supervisor.

Guidance Documents (General Questions Section 6)

Point 11 of ‘Key Features’ in the introductory paperwork mentions an employer and employee guide which would include ‘an explanation of how they will be used, (and) examples of evidence required’. It is essential that there are comprehensive examples for each unit so that the employee and supervisor know exactly what they are aiming for, testing on and validating.

For example,

‘Standard 5.1c: Describe your understanding of babies’, children and young people’s development in relation to emotional, physical, intellectual, social, moral and character growth and how they can all affect one another’

could be answered in great detail with reference to publications and research material, or approached from personal experience of an individual’s own family. The proportions of theoretical, research and practice evidence required need to be made explicit.

It is unclear how these Standards will be integrated with the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge as there is a degree of overlap between the two frameworks. Whilst the former focuses more on knowledge and the latter more on skills, practitioners and line managers may not find this distinction all that helpful.

CDP/Lifelong Learning (Standard 7, Develop Yourself)

Standard 7.3 c, d & e should include specific comments on learning how to access and apply research evidence to everyday practice. Promoting an awareness of available resources (journals, internet, libraries) and how to use them to support Evidence-Informed Practice is a significant part of research in practice ’s outreach work with agencies through publications, learning events, launches and our website. In addition, an awareness of local governance arrangements covering the involvement of children in research should be added.

The professional development plan should include an agreed entitlement to training, reading time, possible sabbaticals and organisational support for personal, external learning. This would reinforce the learning culture encouraged by the requirements of, for example, the GSCC’s Post-Registration Training (15 days of study, training and/or teaching over three years) and the efforts of individual agencies to introduce this emphasis on workplace learning- for example the three days a year that Sheffield City Council Children and Families Service allocate to their practitioners for reading and reflecting on Evidence-Informed Practice.

Conclusion

We support the level that the Standards are pitched at, although more work needs to be done to clarify what is required of employees to meet them. It is vital that the Standards are not perceived as onerous or unattainable within the proposed timescale. How the achievement of each Standard can be proven is important, and the way that the process continues after the induction period should be made clear to both employee and employer.

Tim Hollinshead
research in practice
23 February 2006