Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

Our findings - the experience of social workers working with guardianship and young people

We interviewed a total of 29 supervising officers and 11 responsible officers who were carrying out the role of guardian on behalf of the chief social work officer . The job titles of those interviewed were as follows:

• social worker (32)
• senior practitioner (4)
• senior social worker (2)
• team leader (1)
• practice team manager (1)

The workers' experience of undertaking guardianship responsibilities varied from up to one year to more than three years. However, most of those interviewed had more than three years experience.

Social workers' preparation and experience

Two-thirds of those interviewed had over two years experience of guardianship responsibilities. Respondents specified training or briefings as the main means of preparing them for the role. Written guidance, discussion with managers and other MHOs were mentioned as other types of assistance that helped them to undertake their duties.

The responses are broken down as follows:

• 10% of those interviewed reported that they received no preparation.
• 39% indicated that they had had input on the Adults with Incapacity Act (AWI) during their Mental Health Officer (MHO) training;
• 34% had attended briefings /training on AWI legislation;
• 27% received written guidance/procedures to assist them in undertaking the role;
• 10% had discussion with their manager about the role;
• 12% had informal discussions with MHO colleagues about the role;
• 10% received no preparation for taking on the role;
• 5% had obtained information on the internet.

Most workers told us that input on the AWI Act in the MHO training course did not specifically address the role of supervising officer/ responsible officer. Specific AWI training varied from half a day to two days in length.

Informal support from MHO colleagues, or a specialist MHO, team was valued. One Supervising officer had looked at how the role had been undertaken in another case that was similar and this had been helpful. In two cases the social worker had worked closely with a responsible officer in a guardianship case for two years before taking on the role and felt confident acting in that capacity thereafter. One worker stated that they had received no specific support and "it felt like it was an 'add-on' to our main workload".

Another supervising officer had been approached directly by the MHO to take the role on in addition to the care manager role.This had been agreed following discussion with their manager, but the supervisor indicated that no guidance on how to undertake this role was given.

Support in place to assist social workers in their role

We asked local authority supervising and responsible officers about the nature of the support they received in carrying out their functions under the act. These are the responses:

• all referred to supervision as a forum in which to discuss their role;
• 54% referred to informal support from MHO colleagues or to MHOs in a specialist team as another source of support;
• 15% referred to MHO meetings as also providing an opportunity to debate issues raised from acting in this capacity.

While supervision was identified by all the respondents as a forum in which to discuss their role, a range of other sources of support were identified including informal support from MHO colleagues and MHO meetings, the latter being considered a valued resource for raising issues about the role of supervising and responsible officers.

None of the respondents referred to the updated Code of Practice for Local Authorities Exercising Functions under the Act. Ten respondents reported having a copy of the Code of Practice. Most of the others reported they knew how to access it. Four of those who responded, however, neither had a copy of the Code of Practice nor knew how to access one.

A small number indicated that supervision alone provided an inadequate level of support. More responsible officers than supervising officers cited receiving their support from a variety of sources. 18% of responsible officers and 43% of supervising officers depended solely on supervision by a line manager for support.

One worker indicated that all pro-formas used for reviews are sent to the line manager to be countersigned. The content of the documentation was often used in supervision to discuss issues arising from the role. We would view this as sound and helpful governance. Another worker raised concern that due to lack of administrative support for recording the extant private guardianship cases which the council were required to supervise, workers were not aware of the service user's legal status prior to taking on a case.

Frequency of social work visits to private guardians and young people on guardianship orders

Regulations under the AWI Act require that local authorities must arrange for every adult subject to welfare guardianship and his or her guardian to be visited within three months of the order being granted and subsequently at intervals not exceeding six months. All of the responsible officers stated that they were meeting the statutory requirements for visits to the adult. Most of the supervising officers stated that they fulfilled the statutory requirement for visits to the guardian and to the adult. The responses were:

• 90% of those interviewed said they were visiting the adult/guardian within the statutory time scales;
• 7% said they were not visiting the adult within the timescales required by law;
• 3% did not know of the statutory requirements for visiting.

However, from analysis of the sets of notes submitted by social work staff, the statutory visits recorded by social work staff are significantly lower than that which was stated during interviews.

Of the responsible officers, 27% visited weekly in their care manager role. Of this group, two did not know what the law specified regarding frequency of contact and, when informed, said that they were meeting the statutory requirements. A small number said that they attended the person's six monthly care review and included this as a guardianship contact, whether or not the adult was present.

Two supervising officers stated that they did not meet the statutory requirements for minimum frequency of visits. One indicated that she liaised closely with the care manager about the person's progress and spoke by telephone to the guardian.

One supervising officer expressed concerns about the standard of supervision when the supervising officer is not the care manager.

Their view was that as care manager you were likely to be more involved in the case and could monitor progress and review how the guardian was exercising their powers more thoroughly than if the contact was irregular.

Delegation of statutory duties and powers

Supervising officers were much less likely to delegate statutory visiting responsibilities to someone else compared to responsible officers. A higher percentage of responsible officers (36%) than supervising officers (17%) reported that the care management tasks were undertaken by another worker.

All reported that they liaised with the care manager to whom they all had delegated care management tasks about reviews.

A greater percentage (27%) of responsible officers had delegated statutory responsibilities to someone else compared to 3% of supervising officers. This is the opposite of what we would have anticipated, as the responsibility to carry out the functions of guardian on behalf of the Chief Social Work Officer had already been delegated to that person. There is the potential that the role of responsible officer becomes less distinct, unless clear accountability is formally established and actions taken on behalf of the Chief Social Work Officer are properly recorded.

Where responsible officers reported that they had delegated some of their statutory responsibilities, in three quarters of the cases this was to support staff caring for the person in a residential unit. In such circumstances the responsibilities of support staff were agreed as part of the care planning undertaken prior to the person moving to residential care. These were subsequently reviewed at formal review meetings.

We did not explore in detail the nature of the information given to those to whom these functions were delegated to ensure they were aware of their statutory functions and recording processes. However, all supervising and responsible officers reported regular contact with staff about use of powers. In half of the cases the responsible officer reported that the care manager had also been given statutory responsibilities and there was regular contact with the care manager over the use of powers. In all cases where the Chief Social Work Officer was appointed guardian, any delegation of responsibility by the responsible officer appears to have been carried out on an informal basis.

Impact of social work involvement

A positive outcome with the adult/guardian was the most common response given by social work staff to the question of what effect the worker's involvement had with the adult/ guardian. A large number of respondents in their care management role viewed the identification of appropriate resources and assisting guardians with obtaining funding to access care as extremely important. This included identifying suitable day and respite care facilities and accommodation to promote independence. The importance of responding to the changing needs of the person was identified by a number of people.

time promoting the individual's independence.

One worker discussed how the input enabled the person to be moved from a residence that is a very restrictive to one that recognises the improvement in his cognitive abilities. Another stated that it keeps him safe and allows decisions to be made that promote his independence and minimise vulnerability to himself and others.

Log in / register to comment on this page.

Select Reports by Year: