Stakeholder views on institutional capacity for training

1. Stakeholder views on institutional capacity for training Helen Rainbird & Elspeth Leeson, Birmingham Business School, Anne Munro, Napier University, EdinburghPresentation to the SCWI, London, 18th November, 2008.

2. Institutional and organizational capacity for skill development Focus: The extent to which individuals, organizations and wider social institutions contribute to the development of the skills, knowledge and competence of workers in the care sector Policy context • Options for Excellence (2006) – vision for supervisors, managers, leaders; improving HRM practices; whole systems model; professional workforce; integration of service users’ views • Leitch Report (2006) need to increase adult skills, increasing employer engagement & investment in skills • Platt Report (2007) recommendations for raising status of social care workforce & services, proposal for a Skills Academy for the development of leadership, commissioning & management • The Future Regulation of Health & Adult Social Care: Response to consultation (2007) • Putting People First (2007) vision for personalised adult care system

3. Association of Care Training & Assessment Networks Assn of Directors of Social Services Birmingham City Council workforce development officer Commission for Social Care Inspection General Social Care Council Care Services Improvement Partnership Improvement and Development Agency Local Learning & Skills Council Local Government Assn National Care Association National Care Forum Registered Nursing Homes Assn Skills for Care Social Care Assn Social Care Institute for Excellence Stoke on Trent City Council UK Homecare Assn UNISON PLUS consultation with users Institutional and organizational capacity for skill development

4. The institutional framework Regulations concerning the provision of social care Regulatory agencies National Minimum Standards & individual registration Role of interest organisations Changes to the funding and delivery of social care Local authorities: shift from providers to commissioners of services > private & voluntary sectors Different markets: nursing & residential care, homecare Personalisation agenda The training system LSC > UKCES Workforce development planning – Skills for Care Availability of funding for different types of training from different sources 14-19 curriculum reforms, foundation degrees, apprenticeship Coordination at local level Extent of cooperation: agencies and employers Extent of cooperation: between employers

5. Stakeholder views Business & regulatory framework • Funding of social care, business viability, implications for wage bills & ability to invest in training • Employers’ use of resources will be influenced by performance assessment & regulatory targets • Compliance becomes more important than workforce development. Emphasis on outputs rather than inputs downgrades learning - need to maintain pressure on employers • Induction standards - problem of addressing ethos of care • Sanctions for failing to reach targets • Individual registration. Length of time between attainment of NVQ2 & need to reregister (6 years) – message about professional nature of workforce. • Changing date for introducing targets

6. Stakeholder views Assessment • Capacity of sector to provide NVQ assessment – City & Guilds reports high drop out rates of those training as assessors • Problem of emphasis on assessment rather than training & support for knowledgeable practice • Workers’ strategies for avoiding assessment Staff turnover • High staff turnover > disincentive for employers to invest in training (but if they do….?) Cause & effect • Service users want consistency and reliability Absence of career structure • Different markets for nursing care, residential care & domiciliary care services: implications for workforce planning • Absence of rewards for skill acquisition • Problem of creating career & learning progression pathways as an incentive

7. Stakeholder views Supporting learning & development • LSC resources for training are distributed through training providers rather than direct to employers or staff – this may encourage opportunism & discourage whole organisation approaches • Need to support reflexive practice through a holistic approach to learning, through supervision by knowledgeable practitioners rather than emphasis on assessment • Who can access infrastructural support through consortium arrangements • Different cultures & management styles in voluntary, public & private sectors. Significance for development of in-house capacity & ability to access resources – need to understand needs of small employers in particular.

8. Institutional framework • Key message: many aspects of institutional framework are changing – how do small home owners/managers keep pace with developments? Case studies of regional consortia arrangements suggest that sharing knowledge of changes in sector are significant in planning for, identifying & sharing resources to support change • Emphasis on compliance with regulations – concerns about promoting whole organisation approaches and collaboration between agencies & employers, scope for greater integration of services & the development of a more strategic approach to workforce planning • Concerns about who has strategic overview of the sector & where the boundaries are • Constraints of availability of funding – concerns relating to incentives and disincentives for skill development created by different funding regimes for services/for training

9. Institutional framework • Shift from employer compliance to worker registration: implications of workers becoming responsible for their own training and development, when employers are unable to comply. Who provides support for workers’ skill development? • Issues around the creation of a two tier workforce: regulated and unregulated. Already affects assistant roles in social care/health care. Implications of individualisation of services for shifts between regulated & unregulated sectors. Impact on quality of care. • Opportunities & threats to providers of services resulting from shift to personal budgets • Changes in some areas have a potentially negative impact on training and skills development & workers’ voice in the sector.