Consultation response on our proposed adjudicator consensual disposal guidance

Introduction

On Monday 20 October 2025 we opened an 8-week consultation on the proposed guidance that would accompany our new adjudicator consensual disposal process, due to be implemented on 1 April 2026. The consultation closed on Wednesday 17 December 2025 at 5pm.

The consultation sought feedback on the clarity and accessibility of the guidance for the adjudicator consensual disposal process. We requested feedback to better understand the potential impact on people with protected characteristics. The following is an overview of the consultation, including a summary of our activity, who responded and the feedback we received.

What we consulted on

As the regulator of social workers in England, our overarching objective is to protect the public. One of the ways we do this is through our fitness to practise process.  When we say that a social worker is ‘fit to practise’ we mean that they have the skills, knowledge, character and health to hold registration and practise their profession safely and effectively without restriction.

If we receive a concern that raises doubts about whether a social worker should be allowed to continue to practise as a registered professional, we can investigate. If we decide that a social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired, it means that we have identified serious concerns about (either of the following):

• the suitability of their character
• their ability to practise safely and effectively

This may mean that we need to restrict a social worker’s right to practise or, in particularly serious cases, issue an order which removes a social worker’s right to practise. This could be for a short period, on a longer-term basis, or in the case of removal, indefinitely.

Our fitness to practise processes must be fair and proportionate. To help strengthen our approach, we reviewed our case resolution processes. As a result, we intend to introduce an adjudicator consensual disposal process for cases that have progressed to the final hearing stage. The adjudicator consensual disposal process will allow adjudicators and social workers, in suitable cases, to arrive at an agreed outcome without the need for a full final hearing [1].

[note 1] At a full fitness to practise final hearing, the adjudicators will be required to scrutinise all evidence, including live evidence from witnesses, hear submissions and make decisions on facts, grounds, impairment and, if necessary, sanction.

How we consulted

We are committed to making sure our work is informed by everyone who has an interest in social work. We believe in the power of collaboration and co-production, which is why we consult on proposals that may impact:

• those who use social work services
• the social work profession
• the wider social work sector

While the introduction of the adjudicator consensual disposal process does not require any amendments to our legislation, we launched this consultation to:

• seek feedback on the clarity and accessibility of the accompanying guidance
• better understand the impact it may have on groups with protected characteristics

We wanted to hear from those who might be impacted by the proposed guidance. We made information available on our website and promoted the consultation through our communication channels.

We asked respondents to provide their feedback on the guidance by either:

• completing a consultation survey made available on our website
• emailing our consultation email address

We recorded, read and analysed all responses to the consultation. We noted how many responses thought the proposed guidance was clear or unclear. We also recorded the themes in the free text responses and key suggestions made by respondents.

Who took part

We received 12 responses in total, including 1 written response:

• 8 were from individuals
• 4 were on behalf of organisations

Of the individual responses:

• 4 were from social workers or retired social workers
• 3 were from Social Work England adjudicators
• 1 respondent preferred not to say

We received 4 responses from the following organisations:

• British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
• the Open University ‘Witness to Harm’ Project
• Social Workers Union (SWU)
• UNISON

What you told us

Clarity of proposed guidance in outlining the process to stakeholder groups

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that several highlighted stakeholder groups would find the guidance clear in outlining the adjudicator consensual disposal process. They were asked to rate their agreement for each stakeholder group on a 5-point scale from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’.

Adjudicators

The majority of respondents (73%) felt the adjudicators would find that the guidance outlined the process clearly, with the remainder answering neutrally.

Social workers and witnesses

Just under half (45%) somewhat/strongly agreed social workers and witnesses would find the guidance clear.

36% of social workers and 27% of witnesses somewhat/strongly disagreed.

Members of the public

Sentiment was split almost equally (36% each way) between those who somewhat/strongly agreed and those who somewhat/strongly disagreed that the public would find the guidance clear.

Overall

Over a quarter (27%) neither agreed nor disagreed regarding the clarity of the guidance for members of the public, witnesses, and adjudicators, suggesting fairly high levels of uncertainty among respondents.

While all respondents acknowledged that this is a complex, technical document, several still felt it was well explained. Many noted that adjudicator consensual disposal is comparable with similar, established processes, “where there is an agreement to admit what is alleged in return for an agreed penalty [or] sanction”.

“[…] I think there is an good attempt to set out what processes mean and explain any complex terms.”

“It is clearly explained. I believe the public could be less familiar with such processes and procedures and so may not find it quite to so easy to follow.”

Where respondents disagreed, they pointed to the length of the guidance and what they described as “heavily legal [and] regulatory” language. They suggested that the guidance is too complex for social workers and witnesses, and risks further increasing anxiety and stress for those going through fitness to practise proceedings. BASW, UNISON and SWU, felt this would especially be the case for social workers without representation.

“The guidance would be unclear for social workers unless they have a representative. It is particularly important that clear, concise guidance is available for social workers as they will be directly affected by it. A high percentage of [social workers] are not represented through [fitness to practice] processes, and it is therefore vital that guidance for this cohort is easy to understand.”

Mitigations suggested by respondents for some of these risks, include:

• a simplified version of the guidance, that might be particularly useful to witnesses and the public
• a frequently asked questions (FAQs) document
• visualisations such as flow charts to show the process more clearly

Extent of agreement that the language in the guidance is appropriate and easy to understand

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that the language used in the guidance document is appropriate and easy to understand. Just under half (45%) of all responses somewhat/strongly agreed that the language used was appropriate and easy to understand. 36% somewhat or strongly disagreed.

Those that disagreed mentioned the:

• legalistic nature of the language
• lack of clarity in the wording
• perception that the guidance requires an understanding of the wider fitness to practise process in order to understand it

“A working knowledge and understanding of [fitness to practise] processes would be required to readily understand the guidance document itself and the basic premise of the [adjudicator consensual disposal] process.”

“The language is legal jargon specific to regulation. […] People not represented will be disadvantaged.”

A suggested mitigation was the creation of a shorter, simplified guidance document, possibly one tailored to lay audiences. The issue of social workers without representation struggling to understand the guidance was once again raised by the representative bodies who responded.

Other feedback

We also received feedback that didn’t directly respond to the survey questions, or which fell outside the scope of this consultation. Much of this feedback concerned the nature and potential impact of the adjudicator consensual disposal process more broadly, and not the guidance.

What we will do

Clarity of the document and appropriateness of the language

We read all the responses and carefully considered whether we should make any changes to our proposed guidance.

In response to the feedback received relating to clarity and language, we propose to make amendments to the guidance to improve the readability of the document. These changes will include:

• simplified language
• adjustments to the structure to improve readability and flow
• clearer references to other related fitness to practise guidance documents

To aid understanding of the process, and how it relates to the wider fitness to practise journey, we have also developed:

• a shorter and simplified version of the guidance
• a visual process flowchart

These will be published, alongside the full guidance, when the process comes into effect on 1 April 2026.

As highlighted above, we received feedback that fell outside of the scope of the consultation and did not relate to changes we could make to the guidance.  We will continue to work with the sector, including representative bodies, to ensure our fitness to practise processes are fair and efficient.

Equality Impact Assessment

We’re committed to monitoring the impact, and enhancing the accessibility and content, of all our services to meet our equality duties and objectives. We’ve reflected on the feedback from our consultation to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of our proposals. This equality impact assessment sits alongside our consultation response. It is a written record that shows how we’ve taken care to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination
• advance equality of opportunity
• foster good relations

Consultation responses

We asked respondents “Do you think that the proposed guidance could have a positive or negative impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics?”. Respondents could share views on each of the 9 protected characteristics. We then asked people to explain why they thought that was the case. 

The responses have helped us to understand which groups could be impacted and consider areas for change and improvement. This has also helped us to understand which groups respondents thought would be most impacted and consider areas for change and improvement.

What you said

When asked if the proposed guidance might have a positive or negative impact on people as a result of a protected characteristic, the most common response was ‘don’t know’.

Of the remaining responses, those characteristics that respondents thought would be most likely to be positively impacted were:

• age (3 respondents)
• disability (2 respondents)

Several respondents highlighted that those with disabilities, or those who are closer to retirement age, may wish to avoid a full hearing. They would therefore be positively impacted by this new process and guidance.

Those characteristics thought at most risk of being negatively impacted were:

• disability
• race
• age

33% of those who responded to the question suggested that the guidance could negatively impact people due to the characteristics of both disability and race.

25% indicated that people could be negatively impacted due to their age.

2 respondents (16.5%) suggested that people with disabilities such as neurodivergence, may find the guidance less accessible, due to its length and complexity.

25% of respondents also noted that those for whom English is an additional language may similarly find the guidance less accessible. They mentioned this is more likely to affect people from global majority backgrounds.

“The strong use of technical language may disadvantage individuals with cognitive difficulties (mild learning disabilities/ difficulties and or mental health conditions) and for registrants who do not use English as first language.”

What we will do

We will address these concerns by amending the guidance to improve its clarity and readability. To aid all stakeholders in understanding the adjudicator consensual disposal process, we will also publish:

• a simplified version of the guidance
• a visual process flowchart

Furthermore, anyone going through the adjudicator consensual disposal process will have access to the same mitigations and reasonable adjustments as those going through fitness to practise proceedings.

Hearing team members, as well as our external legal provider, will also be available to explain the process to social workers, as is currently offered with other hearing processes.

We believe that, as a mechanism for reducing the length of the hearing process, adjudicator consensual disposal will reduce anxiety and distress for social workers. This is likely to be particularly beneficial for people with disabilities, including those who are neurodivergent, as well as older or pregnant social workers, who may find a full hearing especially difficult. We will continue to monitor the fairness of process once it has been implemented, to ensure outcomes are as equitable as possible.

This equality impact assessment has been undertaken and signed off in accordance with Social Work England’s responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Name: Philip Hallam
Title: Executive Director - Regulation
Date approved: 17 February 2026

What happens next?

On 1 April 2026, we will implement the adjudicator consensual disposal process and publish the guidance and supporting documents.