A government-backed leadership training scheme has been launched for principal social workers (PSW), approved mental health professional (AMHP) leads and principal occupational therapists (POT) in adults’ services in English councils.
The adult social care leadership programme, which will mostly be delivered online, will also offer places to senior practitioners from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds who are aspiring towards PSW, AMHP lead or POT roles.
Funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the programme is designed to enable leaders to promote high-quality and reflective supervision, learning and continuing professional development within their organisations.
Online-focused leadership programme
Research in Practice, which is delivering the programme on behalf of the DHSC, said it would consist of:
- Five day-long online learning sessions delivered over three months, with some ‘homework’ between each.
- Two online mentoring sessions, at the beginning and end of the programme, respectively.
- Three online group-based learning sessions exploring race, disparity and allyship.
- Two online small-group sessions to enable participants to put their learning into practice.
- An in-person conference at the end of the programme.
Participation is through nomination by directors of adult social services or other senior leaders, who can select up to four nominees, two PSWs, AMHPs or POTs and two aspiring leaders from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (known as global majority aspirant leaders). Nominations should be made using this form, by 14 April 2024.
Research in Practice will deliver the scheme to three cohorts of 20 leaders between June and December 2024, and the DHSC has held open the possibility of the programme being extended for a further two years.
Disparity between children’s and adults’ services
The DHSC has allocated an estimated £100,000 to the programme, a sum which highlights the disparity in government-funded leadership development for staff between staff in adults’ services and those in children’s services.
In 2022, the Department for Education awarded Frontline £7m over two years to deliver leadership training and development to children’s services staff at four levels: practice supervisor, middle manager, heads of service and practice leaders (equivalent to assistant directors).
The DfE has also recently agreed a new contract with the Staff College, worth £2.15m over the next two years, to continue delivering Upon, its programme to develop aspiring directors of children’s services.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Webinar: building a practice framework with the influence of practitioner voice 
‘They don’t have to retell their story’: building long-lasting relationships with children and young people 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
How managers are inspiring social workers to progress in their careers 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
While it’s a positive step and a fantastic opportunity for a few BME practitioners who were likely to progress anyway. I’d be concerned that this positive discrimination will be felt as another set back by aspiring white practitioners who are struggling to progress in their careers, creating resentment and frustration that could be misinterpreted if expressed.
This reads like sour grapes to me.
And the DEI agenda as a whole doesn’t?
Erm… What? Make it make sense with more than 1 sentence.
Not at all. I did think someone may interpret it that way, but this wouldn’t actually affect me. The comment was meant as an acknowledgment of the negative impact that positive discrimination can sometimes have if not managed correctly. As a profession that prides itself on anti discrimination, positive discrimination shouldn’t be needed. Every professional should have the same opportunity for progression based on their skill level.
AMHP lead posts account for only 4% of AMHPs, and 23% of AMHPs are from BME backgrounds, so statistically speaking, 1% of AMHP leads should be from BME backgrounds. That is 38 posts in total. the proposal would equate to the equivalent of 100 aspiring leaders for AMHP lead posts from BME backgrounds for those 38 posts, not accounting for AMHPs leads who are already from BME backgrounds.
If LAs put forward 2 additional aspiring leaders from BME backgrounds, that would be 302 additional BME workers already trained for 456 lead posts Nationally, so the idea is that workers from BME backgrounds would replace the lead post currently being put forward for the training. This seems a disproportionate number in my view. A more proportionate approach would be to offer 2 posts for aspiring leaders, with at least 1 post ring fenced for workers from a BME background.
I’m just saying that these specific leadership roles are few and far between, and it would be better for the profession if everyone had the same opportunities to progress into them. If we’re concerned about the values of senior leadership blocking progression of BME workers within social work, let’s solve that, not limit progression of an already limited profession.
Only a ‘profession’ with no discernable leadership qualities would hail 5 online “learning sessions”, more than likely ‘informed’ by AI generated ‘knowledge’, as a “leadership training programme”. No doubt the “what I did on my holidays” rigour of the homework will add to the production of leaders capable of understanding, supervising, analysing, promoting social work and social workers and with the motivation and resilience to challenge some of the more lamentable not to add dangerous fads that pass as “essential qualities and knowledge” in current social work. When I qualified in 1980 and started my first job my team leader spent time with me looking at my experience and my learning needs and then structured supervision and training support to develop me into a competent social worker. There was an expectation, and and acceptance on my part, that I would need 3 years to build my skills, confidence and resilience. I would take that face to face real time real context support over this iteration of computer based social work anyday. We were encouraged to be self critical, question why we were social workers and think through what we thought our purpose was in the days of pen and paper social work. Dinosaurs versus Instagram, TikTok, Twitter/X social work. Picks your choice, picks your qualities. Dare our ‘Leaders’ ask users of services what they think?
I agree with most of what Tahin says. I also think that piecemeal strategies which in all likelihood aim to meet a ‘target’ can’t deliver the changes we need. If SWE was a half competent Regulator it would set out a long-term plan for what the profession should be in 5 years. It would be spelling out the stepping stones which LAs and other employers of social workers would be expected to embark on and met. It’s shameful that SWE hides behind the “we are not an employing body” excuse when the failings of and challenges to social work are profession wide, region wide and partners wide. Employers aren’t interested in quality social work when prioritising finance over delivery. SWE is a one trick pony that believes FtP is it’s main locus of its purpose. However much it prattles on about standards in training institutions.