Consultation response on proposals to make changes to our fees

• Introduction
• What we consulted on
• How we consulted
• Who responded
• What you said
• What we will do
• Changes to our rules
• Equality impact
• What happens next
• Frequently asked questions

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, and the wider social work sector. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 (Section 50(3)(a)) requires us to consult when we intend to change our fees. Our regulations also require us to consult when we make substantive amendments to our rules (Social Workers Regulations, regulation 3(5)).

In February 2025, we shared details of the changes we were proposing to make to our fees on our website, as well as why we were proposing these changes. This marked the launch of our public consultation, where we asked for everyone to provide their feedback on these proposals by either:

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

In addition to making the consultation available on our website, we:

• emailed everyone on the social work register to notify them that it was available
• emailed key priority stakeholders to notify them it was available, including professional bodies and networks, membership organisations, health and social care regulators, and directors of services at local authorities
• published a news article on our website and shared it with media outlets
• promoted it through our Social Work Now newsletter, which is sent to over 80,000 people including social workers who have signed up to receive it
• shared details of it on Social Work England’s social media accounts  
• shared details of it with our National Advisory Forum and Education and Training Advisory Forum and encouraged them to share it across their networks

We recorded, read and analysed all responses to the consultation. As well as producing data on how many respondents stated that they agreed or disagreed with the proposals, we recorded the themes in the free text responses and noted key suggestions made by respondents.

Who responded

We received 7,898 responses to the consultation survey, 151 of which were from organisations, including from the Social Workers Union (SWU) and UNISON. On closer analysis, many of the organisation responses appear to be from individuals who have incorrectly answered the question ‘are you responding on behalf of an organisation?’. However, it would not be appropriate to change the answers to any responses. 

Most individual respondents described themselves as adult or children’s social workers. Individual respondents by role in social work/social care:

• children's social care - social worker: 4,183
• adult social care - social worker: 2,609
• other or not stated: 287
• mental health services: 168
• charity or non-governmental organisation: 152
• prefer not to say: 97
• higher education institution/academia: 96
• supports the delivery of social services: 85
• social work student: 60

We also received 148 email responses, 8 of which were from organisations. These included the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (with a separate response received from their Diaspora Special Interest Group), the United Kingdom Malayali Social Workers Forum (UKMSW), the Principal Social Workers (PSW) Network, and the National Organisation of Practice Teaching England (NOPT). We also received responses from two NHS Trusts and a charity.

What you said

In the consultation survey, we asked people a number of questions, detailed below. Respondents could rank their level of agreement on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale helped us to understand the extent to which people supported our proposals. The survey also had space for respondents to write the reason for their views and any additional comments.

Below is an overview of the views shared by respondents. Those who provided feedback by email didn’t usually provide responses to the specific consultation questions set out in the consultation survey, but their feedback aligned to what was captured in the consultation survey responses and is therefore reflected in the overview below.

Views on the initial increase

Respondents were asked: “to what extent do you agree that the proposed initial increase to our fees in 2025 to 2026 are reasonable in balancing implications for taxpayers and social workers?”. Respondents could share views on each of the 4 fees.

Respondents generally disagreed with the proposals. When looking at the reasons given, it was apparent that most respondent’s scores were based on whether they considered the initial increases to be reasonable, rather than explicitly considering the public spending implications.

They felt most negative about an increase to the renewal fee, where 96% of survey respondents said they disagreed or strongly disagreed, compared to 90% who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an increase to the initial registration fee. 85% of survey responses disagreed or strongly disagreed with the initial increase to both the restoration and scrutiny fees. When asked to explain their reasons, the most common theme focused on the financial impact this would have on social workers that increasing fees in line with inflation is unfair because social worker pay has not increased in the same way. Many respondents, including key stakeholder organisations, felt the proposed increase was too high, that social workers are already struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis, and/or that this will negatively impact a profession that is already under a lot of pressure. 

The second most common theme was confusion or misunderstanding of our role and remit, including from some key stakeholders. This most often related to respondents feeling that there is a perceived lack of benefits or services for social workers in ex-change for their fee. Others shared that they felt they would be more likely to support an increase if the organisation did more for the profession, such as lobbying for better wages, advocating for the profession or raising the standing of the profession. 

Some respondents, including key stakeholder organisations, were concerned about the impact on recruitment and retention. A small number fed back that they would consider not renewing their registration if we raise fees. While we do not have specific figures, we know that a number of employers reimburse their employees’ registration and renewals fees. There were concerns by some, including key stakeholders, about the impact on organisations either through local authorities ceasing to reimburse fees, or social workers avoiding working for some employers in favour of those who reimburse their fee. However, concerns about potential impacts on employers’ willingness to reimburse fees were not shared in any organisation responses.

A few respondents shared that they thought the increase, or rationale for the increase, was reasonable, which was echoed by a few of the key stakeholder responses. Some shared that they felt that it is reasonable to increase fees, but that the initial increase is too much, or that it should be more spread out.  

A small number of respondents provided a mixture of views on whether it is reasonable to raise some of the fees and not others. Some felt that the initial registration fee should be higher than the renewal fee, as it is perceived to be a more costly process to administer, while others suggested lowering as those paying it are likely to be newly qualified and therefore on a lower wage. Some respondents felt that it would be reasonable to raise the scrutiny fee, due to the associated administrative burden, whereas others felt the proposed increases to scrutiny and restoration fees were too high.

Views on the incremental increase

Respondents were then asked: “to what extent do you agree that the proposed incremental increases to our fees from 2026 to 2029 are reasonable in giving clarity about future fees?”. Respondents could share views on each of the 4 fees.

Respondents generally disagreed with the proposals. As with the initial increase, most respondent’s scores were based on whether they agreed with the incremental increases themselves, rather than whether they provide clarity. However, some did highlight the usefulness of knowing how much extra they could pay each year until 2029.

Responses were mostly negative when thinking about the renewal fee, with 87% of survey responses disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. 84% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the incremental increases to the initial registration fee, 82% to the restoration fee and 81% to the scrutiny fee.

Written responses broadly aligned with the themes identified in the first question, though this was influenced by the fact that many respondents provided the same response to the second free text question, or said “see previous answer” or similar. When we looked at respondents who provided a different answer to the one they provided for the first question, responses were less negative. Many respondents also shared that they felt the incremental increases would be more reasonable than the initial increase, mainly because they are lower and more in line with increases in social worker salaries.

What we will do

We have listened to, and carefully considered, all the feedback received during the consultation, and maintain that it is still appropriate to proceed with the proposals as they were set out in the consultation. We understand that many people will not agree with the decision to increase our fees, and we appreciate all of the points raised by respondents. However, we consider that it continues to be the right decision.

As set out in the consultation, our fees have remained static for the last 10 years, while the contribution through grant-in-aid has increased every year since our establishment in recognition that our costs have been higher than expected. We have a much clearer picture now of how much it costs to regulate and support a growing register of over 103,000 social workers. These increases will ensure a more balanced and stable funding base aligned to our true cost of operation and to enable positive change in social work. Though we appreciate the feedback on the initial increase, this will ensure the fee level is kept in line with the average forecasted annual inflation rates into the future.

In this process, Social Work England’s board decides whether there should be any changes to our fees. This decision must then be approved by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 50(3)(b) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

The board carefully considered all of the feedback and analysis, and our recommendation to proceed with the proposals, to inform their decision. They were conscious of the current position of social workers and the financial constraints that they face, due to social worker pay not increasing in line with inflation. However, they acknowledged that the organisation is heavily subsidised by government and is the only health and care professional regulator in England to receive this support. As a result, we have lower fees compared to other health and care professional regulators in England.

To inform their decision, the board referred to the objectives of Social Work England as a regulator, which include protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the profession. They reflected that the fee level had not kept up with inflation, as per other regulators, and that this had led to an imbalance in terms of the relative contributions from fee income and grant-in-aid, which is not sustainable. While acknowledging that we had received just over 8,000 responses, the board noted that this was less than 8% of the register who had responded. In order to meet the objectives of Social Work England, including protection of the public and maintaining public confidence in the profession, it was the unanimous decision of the board to proceed with the proposed fee increase, as outlined in the consultation. The board acknowledged that we have made many efficiencies in our work to date, but that it would not be enough alone. The board did note, however, that this increase should be done in conjunction with ongoing work to identify further efficiencies within our organisation, building on existing work to date, to ensure we can fulfil our objectives to the best of our ability.

This decision was then recommended to the Secretary of State, who has approved the recommendation. We have therefore made appropriate amendments to our rules to reflect the changes, which will come into effect on 1 September 2025.

Our response to the feedback

Although we cannot address all points made, we have drawn out several themes that we can provide more detailed feedback on here.

Social worker pay has not increased in line with inflation

Many respondents felt it was not appropriate to raise fees in line with inflation as social worker pay has not risen in the same way. However, fees are charged to cover the cost of regulation, not to align with the wages of the profession we regulate, and any income must contribute to the cost of all of our regulation, not just the application in respect of which it was charged.

The cost of registration

We acknowledge the concerns about the increase, especially when considered against the rising cost of living, and wider pressures on the social work sector. To help manage the cost of registration, people applying to join the register, or registrants renewing their registration have the option to split the cost of the fee across the registration year by direct debit.

UK taxpayers can also claim tax relief on professional fees, if they must pay the fees to be able to do their jobs. This is available to social workers, and can be backdated for the 4 previous tax years. As per the figures in table 1, for initial registration and renewal, this equates to £96 (from £120) for a tax rate of 20%, for the 2025 to 2026 registration year.

For more information on the government's website on how to claim tax relief. Information is also available on our website and we will ensure that we continue to clearly communicate this through our registration and renewal processes.

Employer reimbursement

We are aware that some social work employers, including local authorities, offer reimbursement of initial registration and annual renewal fees as part of their recruitment and retention plans. We did not receive any direct feedback from employers that suggests they would not continue to do this if the fees were to increase.

Our role and remit

The feedback we received suggests there is confusion about our role and remit. As a professional regulator, our overarching objective is to protect the public. The fees that registrants pay enable them to practise under the protected title of social worker and enable us to ensure that all those on that register remain safe and fit to practise.

We know that some feel we should be doing more to advocate for the social work profession, including calls for us to lobby government on matters relating to social work. As a statutory body, lobbying government is not part of our role, nor part of our powers given by Parliament.  There are other bodies who carry out this role for the social work profession. 

We do believe that the higher the quality of social work, the better the public are protect-ed. While our statutory regulatory functions are an important contributor to that, we also seek to find other ways to support the quality of social work where appropriate. Examples of this include:

• Launching our ‘Change the Script’ campaign which aims to tackle negative perceptions of social workers by sharing the real story of social work.
• Holding annual events like Social Work Week to bring together social workers to educate, collaborate and share best practice.
• Engaging and working with key stakeholders whose role is to address some of the issues raised to support their work, and to consider wider approaches to social work issues.
• Commissioning external research to learn more about the social work profession and inform our ongoing work as the regulator.

We will continue to work with the profession and others in the sector to support improvements in social work, and use these opportunities to raise the understanding of our role and remit as the professional regulator for social workers in England.

A small proportion of the feedback related to our effectiveness as the regulator and transparency relating to our income. Information about how our income is spent can be found in our annual report and accounts and business plan 2025 to 2026. 

Changes to our rules

We have amended our fees rules 2019 (as amended) to reflect the new fee structure. As this involves changes over multiple years, each annual increase has been set out in a separate schedule of the fees, which will come into force each year on the relevant date, replacing the previous schedule.

Equality Impact

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 and foster good relations.

What you said

Respondents were asked: “Do you think that the proposed changes to the fees 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.

We asked this question in order to identify which groups may be disproportionately impacted by our proposals because of their protected characteristic(s). However, respondents were most likely to comment that they felt there would be a negative impact on all social workers, or that they didn’t understand why we had asked this question. 

Some respondents shared that they thought all people with protected characteristics would be negatively impacted, or that the proposals would further increase system inequalities. Very few respondents fed back that they thought there would be no impact on people with protected characteristics.

Maternity was the protected characteristic most frequently referenced as being potentially negatively impacted, as people on maternity leave will be more likely to be in receipt of less or no pay.

The second most highlighted protected characteristic was disability. Respondents, including some key stakeholders, shared that they thought those with a disability are more likely to work part time or have extra financial costs associated with managing their disabilities.

Respondents that provided feedback relating to gender reassignment highlighted concerns that those in this group may face financial instability due to additional healthcare costs relating to reassignment. Concerns were also raised that this group may face higher unemployment due to workplace discrimination.

Feedback relating to age, including from some key stakeholders, focused on both ends of the spectrum. Some felt that younger social workers are more likely to be newly qualified or early in their career and therefore either unemployed or on a lower wage when paying their fee. Others shared a belief that older social workers are more likely to be working part time or be retired and therefore on a lower wage.

When thinking about intersectional impacts, some respondents, including some key stakeholders, highlighted that women are more likely to take maternity leave, work part time, have caring responsibilities, or be single parents, and are therefore more likely to have a lower income.

Some respondents, including key stakeholders, shared that they thought overseas applicants might be more likely to be of a minority race and therefore be more likely to need to pay the scrutiny fee. 

Some respondents asked for us to consider raising some of the fees, but not others, or introducing a tiered structure that recognises individual circumstances like those set out above. No specific feedback relevant to this consultation was received relating to sexual orientation or marriage and civil partnership.

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.

As part of the equality impact assessment, we found that social workers from some protected characteristic groups could be negatively impacted. These impacts related to:

• The effect that absence due to maternity leave might have on a social worker’s ability to financially afford an increase in fees at a time where they may be in receipt of less, or no pay.
• The effect that an increase in fees might have on people with disabilities, or those undergoing gender reassignment due to other financial costs associated with their disability or gender reassignment process.
• The effect that an increase in fees might have on younger social workers due to them either being more likely to be in lower paid roles, or having other financial costs associated with their studies.
• The effect that an increase in fees might have on older social workers due to them being more likely to be working fewer hours, or part time as nearing retirement.
• The disproportionate effect that a rise in scrutiny fees might have on people from a racial minority to apply to join the social work register in England. 

In response to requests to raise some of the fees, but not others, or introducing a tiered structure that recognises individual circumstances, we do not consider these as viable options for September 2025, as they would require IT system development and a greater degree of administrative resource than we currently have. The introduction of a tiered structure would also require significant financial resource to develop and deliver.

More fundamentally, social workers are required to renew their registration with us on an annual basis to continue to use the protected title of social worker. All registrants must meet the same requirements, including maintaining the professional standards and submitting CPD each year, so that we may assure the public that all registered social workers are fit to practise.

In the case of initial registration fees for applicants and renewal fees for existing social workers, there are options available that could assist in reducing the financial impact of any increase to fees. As discussed above, UK taxpayers can claim tax relief on professional fees, if they must pay the fees to be able to do their jobs. This is available to applicants and social workers, and can be backdated for the 4 previous tax years. There is also the option to split the cost of initial registration and renewal fees and pay in two instalments across the registration year by direct debit. There may also be support available locally, for example through a social worker’s employer who may choose to reimburse an applicant or social worker’s fees.

In some exceptional circumstances, under our Fees rules (Fees Rule 7(3)) we may decide at our discretion that a fee is not chargeable, or we can consider waiving or reducing a fee payable, where we consider it fair and reasonable to do so given a social worker’s particular circumstances. Further information about this can be found within our fees guidance.

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: Sarah Blackmore 
Title: Executive Director (Strategy, Policy and Engagement)
Date approved: 23 July 2025

What happens next

The consultation closed on 13 May 2025. Following approval from the Secretary of State, the changes to our fees will come into effect from 1 September 2025. The amendments to our rules can be found on our website.

We will contact everyone on the social work register to make them aware of these changes and how they will affect them. We will also update all relevant information on our website, including our guidance and online portal.