Black, male and 40-plus social workers remain disproportionately represented in fitness to practise (FtP) cases, Social Work England data has confirmed.
The regulator has released an update on analysis it conducted last year on how different groups of practitioners were represented in the FtP process, which was based on referrals received from its inception in December 2019 to March 2023.
That found that the three groups were not only overrepresented in concerns referred to the regulator but also in cases that were subsequently investigated and those referred to a hearing, when a panel determines whether the social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired.
The latest analysis extends the dataset by a year, meaning it now runs from December 2019 to March 2024. Unsurprisingly, the overrepresentation of black and male social workers and those aged over 40 remains, at multiple points of the FtP process.
Disproportionate impact of fitness to practise (December 2019 to March 2024)
Social workers aged 40 and over:
- Accounted for 64% of registered social workers, 65% of fitness to practise referrals and 77% of cases referred to a hearing
- 41% of cases that were considered at triage progressed to investigation (under 40s: 34%)
- 33% of cases considered by case examiners progressed to a hearing (under 40s: 23%)
Male social workers
- Accounted for 16% of social workers, 22% of fitness to practise referrals and 33% of cases referred to a hearing
- 50% of cases considered at triage progressed to investigation (female social workers: 35%)
- 35% of cases considered by case examiners progressed to a hearing (female social workers: 28%)
Black, African, Caribbean or Black British social workers:
- Accounted for 17% of social workers, 19% of fitness to practice referrals and 24% of cases referred to a hearing
- 47% of cases considered at triage progressed to investigation (white social workers: 32%)
- 36% of cases considered by case examiners progressed to a hearing (white social workers: 18%)
Longstanding concerns about overrepresentation
There are longstanding concerns about overrepresentation in the fitness to practise system.
The then regulator, the General Social Care Council, identified disproportionate numbers of men, black practitioners, those aged 40-49 and disabled social workers in referrals that it received from 2004-11.
In July 2020, seven months after it took over the role, Social Work England reported that black and ethnic minority social workers were overrepresented in fitness to practise referrals it had received thus far.
At the time, it said investigating whether its processes were non-discriminatory was something that it was “absolutely committed to” working on but it needed to develop a system to do that.
Collecting diversity data on social work population
Its next step was encouraging social workers to submit data on their protected characteristics, under the Equality Act 2010, and demographic categories.
By 2023, it had this information for the vast majority of the registered population, which enabled it to carry out the analysis of fitness to practise data published last year.
Commenting on the 2023 data last year, Social Work England said: “We must take considerable care in drawing conclusions, because the apparent differences identified in this analysis do not necessarily indicate that differences in outcomes are caused by a social worker belonging to a group within a particular characteristic.”
In its latest analysis, Social Work England examined whether types of concern, regional differences or practitioners’ employment sector helped explain its findings. It found minimal differences depending on the social worker’s region and that the top three types of concern were the same for black, male and 40-plus social workers.
Children’s social workers appeared to be overrepresented in initial referrals compared with adults’ practitioners, but this did not explain the overrepresentation of black, male and 40-plus staff across the FtP process.
Further work to identify causes of disproportionality
Social Work England said it would now undertake a more detailed analysis of a sample of cases, including male and female and black and white practitioners, “to gain a deeper understanding of what causes overrepresentation, and understand potential actions to address this”.
It would combine this by repeating its broader analysis of fitness to practise and diversity data using “a more advanced method of statistical analysis” that would enable it to “consider multiple factors that may influence how a case progresses” through the FtP process.
The two pieces of work would help it design potential improvements to the FtP process and provide guidance to its decision makers. However, it cautioned that identifying and addressing the root causes of overrepresentation was “a challenging and complex area of work” that would take time.
The regulator’s executive director of professional practice and external engagement, Sarah Blackmore, said: “Equality, diversity and inclusion is integral to and embedded in all we do at Social Work England.
“We have always been committed to pursuing positive change in this area for both the profession and people who use social work services. We will continue our work to ensure that our processes and outcomes are fair, efficient, proportionate, and in the public interest.”
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
When it comes to SWE this article never gets old –
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/04/09/social-work-regulation-perpetuate-institutional-racism/
“A more advanced method of statistical analysis” needed must be the most cynical response to endemic racism in a self satisfied smug responsibility denying organisation ever. That an “Executive Director of Professional Practice and External Engagement”, a title that says all that needs to be said about the bureauctic mind, can say in the face of years of evidence to the contrary that “equality, diversity and inclusion integral to and embedded in all we do at Social Work England” sums up a tone deaf organisation incapable of self analysis let alone reflection. Ironically this very week we were graced in our team meeting with our PSW urging us to complete our registration as apparently this was only way to ensure SWE was responsive to and represetive of social workers. And of course ensuring diversity. Claiming this regurgitation of pals together thinking as a tragedy for a profession would over overstate it but seeing it as farce bordering on contempt doesn’t.
I’m not Black, but I came into Social Work after working in Ireland. For my Dip. SW I did what I thought was a decent bit of research into the experience of Irish people in the UK, and in particular Liverpool. I detailed the routine racism, the police surveilance and harrassment, the pub culture of poor, rootless men etc etc. (This was 25 years ago – the situation is a bit different now)
The result was I received the lowest mark of all my assignments. My White British, middle class supervisor said ‘Irish don’t experience racism as they are white’! This “it’s not racist because I said so” attitude pretty much shows the level many white Social Work managers are operating at. so I am not at all surprised by these figures.
Racism tends to be associated with ethnic origin or cultural background. As a black person, your skin colour/ tone is an obvious index of ethnicity and race. However, skin colour alone is not in my opinion definitive to the experiencing of racism.
You can be a “white” (Irish or otherwise) person and also experience racism. This is in both ethnically and/or reversed cultural social environments, as a minority. I’ve also read somewhere that racism, is associated with access to “power structures”. That is, the ability to influence and exercise decision making outcomes, over individuals, groups or communities based on “race” or other characteristics where otherwise, not equally available to the other.
Keeping to the article, SWE are appearing to saying there are continuing problems. In particular to the Ftp process affecting this group’ (male, black and 40+).The earlier post above by Chambers seems rooted and “timeless” with words to deeper structural issues.
Could there be another reason for this other than institutional racism I wonder? Pinning everything on unproven ‘institutional racism’ lets us all down and never investigates the real reasons for disparities.
Could it be that the more capable men from black African and Caribbean backgrounds don’t want to be social workers as the lack of status associated with our profession doesn’t make it attractive enough for men from these cultural backgrounds? Questions such as these are never explored by our narrow minded and dogmatic academic colleagues. Ultimately we all lose out, apart from those gaining from the EDI institutional racism agenda from this unscientific approach.
Does this reasoning also apply to white male social workers? Are those men in social social work because they are not as capable as other white men? Given social workers 40 and over make up 64% of registered social workers are 65% of those referred for fitness to practice concerns and make up 77% of cases referred to a hearing we should have an age bar for practicing as a social worker? Strangely enough “experienced social worker” seems to be a valued trait. Is this misplaced?
It seems navel-gazing might be counterproductive and misleading here…
Navelgazing perhaps but what of gazing at seafaring vessels?
Are we sure SWE have any staff capable of collating the right information, extrapolating relevant data and interpreting the figures to come up with credible conclusions? It may not be racism, it may not be vindictive referrals, it may not be poor management decisions. It may indeed be that every black male social worker who comes to the notice of SWE is incompetent with their practice potentially dangerous. Anyone capable of understanding basic statistical probabilities however will know that that just cannot be. Only if they are serious about a “scientific approach” that is.
Unproven?! 🙄😅😭🤬
Given its seemingly consistent poor performance in this context, shòuld SWE seek guidance from the Conservative Party regarding the effective application of the principles of EDI? And I know this an old chestnut but it’s directly referenced in the article: how can we encourage more men to consider social work as a career option?
“Black” – ageism, sexism, racism, competent-ism = discrimination.
I’m not sure the continuing figures requires further complex or more detailed statistical analyses. This is to arrive at the base conclusions so far. To seek to embark on this approach, is only likely to develop and create a more ‘scientific’ approach to perpetuate the current Ftp process and experiences.
A more productive approach may be for SWE to embrace the findings and consider ways to positively redress the people who are impacted by its own ‘undeniable’ research.
There are some uncomfortable truths here when only 16% of the workforce is male and 17% are Black, African or Caribbean however the bigger issue is that it isn’t just registrant referrals as it is our own employer investigations / disciplinaries themselves, where such individuals or groupings of people are disproportionately represented in workplace proceedings where I am not including within the voluntary or third sectors.
Other ethnic groupings are over-represented including those already highlighted and SW’s who are Asian or from Eastern Europeans or from other European countries. Also those of us on the Autistic spectrum or who experience other long term health conditions appear can be over-represented within both our employer and registrant fTp processes which can last for years.
This is a very difficult thing to say and it needs to be aired for consideration and appropriate reflection, where the reality is that within our statutory services these comprise predominantly of white women including those who’ve become middle class through achievement and education.
Such bastions of Social Work practice are held up as ‘Social Work Champions’ within our employers where the reality is that practicing within such organizations can be uncomfortably challenging for individuals who are confident enough to express any opinions never mind a contrasting one.
Individuals experience micro-management, bullying or overt/ covert discrimination due to otherism taking place within the workplace as well as localism. The impact that such ‘specific attention’ has upon individual practitioners, their lives outside SW and their own families can be very damaging and life changing.
Such an uncomfortable means that the Social Work profession within statutory sector can be a dangerous occupation for someone presenting with such ethic or individual differences within our all inclusive and diversity respectful employers.
The reality is that such matters are no further along with being addressed where similarly such issues are highlighted within nursing for example.
I think there can be significant communication issues within the workplace due to not only cultural differences in how individuals communicate / speak but also on how our own cultural educational experiences and learning has shaped us. This can be due to how different educational systems promote individuality and expression of ideas which are emphasised and developed as students which may not be equally valued within the educational system in England.
Unfortunately within such workplaces individual differences and diversity of opinions appear not valued to the point of censorship. Such closed cultures leads to continued nepotism, stifling of growth for sameness where the blending in appears to be the most important factor for us individuals and to keep safe in the workplace. Such appears light-years away from what we identified as unique and groundbreaking for ourselves individually when we started out.
Hi Bob,
I’ve read and noted your detailed comments. If given the opportunity what might your baseline recommendation(s) to the issue for positive change?
I think employer’s making inside the office (including via home working) a positive experience for everyone where individuals are not afraid to ask questions, raise ideas or thoughts or engage in discussion without fear of negative consequences. Real acceptance of individual differences within the workplace and appreciation of diversity including when it comes to recognising of talent. Transparent advancement processes. Improved worker conditions when it comes to flexitime and exploration of the 4 day week not depending on who one’s manager maybe. All for the greater good for our organizations when we are meant to be the most precious developed asset. All to provide increased and improved outcomes for everyone we work with and don’t within the general public and our equal partner’s goals and ourselves to have improved work / life balance and maintain our equilibruim.
Firmer adherence to personal relationships at work policies. Possibly improved inhouse safeguards to protect social care staff themselves raising concerns safely within the organization without fear. Positive action to guard against the unfortunate development of closed cultures and provide redress.
Elimination of grey areas when it comes to policies and procedures – within specific teams, services, social care as a whole within an organization and across agencies. All to help improve worker safety concerns, promote transparency and responsibility for every person / party.