Since our post last week on changes to the Care Act Guidance, we have had quite a few requests asking what exactly has changed. A fair question. I can sympathise with the difficulty. It is very difficult to tell from the DoH website what has actually changed. So to help you out a bit, here are the changes to an obviously important chapter, Chapter 1: the well-being duty. If there are other areas of change to the Guidance which you’re wondering about, we’ll consider extending the service. As for chapter 1, there are two main changes –
The first concerns self-neglect. The following has been added to paragraph 1.12:
“… the concept of wellbeing is very important when responding to someone who self-neglects, where it will be crucial to work alongside the person, understanding how their past experiences influence current behaviour. The duty to promote wellbeing applies equally to those who, for a variety of reasons, may be difficult to engage”.
The other main change is to define the role of the designated Principal Social Worker. Five new paragraphs – paras 1.27 to 1.31 – have been added. These are available here.
These extra paragraphs do the following:
– paragraph 1.27 requires local authorities to make arrangements to have a “registered social work professional practice lead” (ie Principal Social Worker) in place to lead and oversee excellent social work practice and advance other similar objectives.
– paragraph 1.28 is particularly broad for statutory guidance of this type, requiring local authorities to “ensure principal social workers are given the credibility, authority and capacity to provide effective leadership” etc. Given that this guidance is subject to a legal “have regard” duty, one wonders what precise steps local authorities need to take to ensure they are complying with this duty. How does the local authority ensure the Principal Social Worker is given credibility? Pay her the same as the Principal Town Planner perhaps?
– paragraph 1.29 is similarly very broad for statutory guidance of this type, requiring Principal Social Workers to “maintain close contact with … frontline practitioners and engage in some direct practice … including direct casework, co-working … etc” (the “etc” is in the Guidance). Again, would a local authority be acting unlawfully if its Principal Social Worker is doing too little actual case-work? Judged by what standard? It is hard to see how this part of the Guidance would ever be enforceable.
– paragraph 1.31 requires Principal Social Workers to “have a broad knowledge base on safeguarding … and be confident in its application”, as well as knowing the legal options.
Right then, everyone knows what they need to do now …
Tags: Care Act, Care Act Statutory Guidance, Principal Social Worker, self-neglect, social workers, well-being