Diversity data in our fitness to practise process: a report on our updated research and analysis

Context

In September 2023, we examined diversity data in our fitness to practise processes and published our findings on our website: initial analysis of the diversity of social workers in relation to our fitness to practise process. We found that some groups were overrepresented in the referrals we received and at key stages of our fitness to practise process, including from triage to investigation, and from case examination to hearing.

Overrepresented groups included:

• Age: those aged 40 and over

• Gender identity: males

• Ethnicity: people of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity

Throughout 2024 we took steps to expand our analysis. We examined an additional year of data to see whether the initial overrepresentations were still present. In October 2024 we published an update to our analysis of diversity data in our fitness to practise process, which showed overrepresentations for the above groups were still present in referrals and progression through the fitness to practise process.

Aims of our research and analysis

Our analysis builds on our previous work. We have used more sophisticated statistical analysis (logistic regression) in this analysis. This examines a range of factors at the same time and identifies which factors are associated with progression through the fitness to practise process once other relevant factors have been considered. The analysis included characteristics of:

• Social workers: age, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, sex same as at birth, and disability

• Employers of social workers: sector type, practice area, and geographical region

• Referrers: referral type

• Cases: concern type

This has allowed us to consider other factors in addition to EDI related factors, to explore how some factors drive progression compared to others.

Our analysis identifies factors associated with progression through the fitness to practise process. It does not explain why these associations occur. In our analysis we try to explain some of our findings alongside other evidence however more research is needed to understand the implications for EDI.

See our technical report for more detail on our approach, methods, and results.

Key findings

We received just under 7,000 fitness to practise referrals between the dates of 2 December 2019 and 31 March 2024. We analysed this data set to identify factors associated with case progression through the fitness to practise process. In particular, we examined whether previously observed patterns relating to ethnicity, gender identity, and age remained once other relevant factors were taken into account.

The analysis found that social workers’ personal characteristics were still associated with progression through the fitness to practise process but with some variation across the different stages and different characteristics. Personal characteristics were not associated with progression at the pre-triage stage. However, at the triage and case examiner stages, progression was associated with ethnicity. Case progression was associated with gender identity only at the triage stage, and age only at the case examiner stage.

Across the fitness to practise process, the factors most strongly and consistently associated with case progression were referral source and the nature of the concerns raised. At the same time, differences associated with ethnicity remained evident at the triage and case examiner stages even after taking account of these and other factors. Together, these findings provide a more complete understanding of the factors associated with progression and can inform our next steps understanding EDI within the fitness to practise process.

Pre-triage stage

Progression at the pre-triage stage was most strongly associated with the referral source and the nature of the concerns raised, and then by geographical region. Social worker characteristics were not associated with progression at this stage.

Pre-triage is the first decision point when cases are referred to Social Work England. Progression requires a decision-maker to confirm only that the case is about a social worker and relates to at least one statutory ground of impairment.

Social worker characteristics

Once other factors were taken into account, there were no differences in progression by age, gender identity or ethnicity at this stage of the fitness to practise process.

Other factors

Cases involving social workers employed in the regions of East of England, South East, and Yorkshire and Humber were between one-and-a-half times and twice as likely to progress than in the East Midlands region.

Cases referred by employers were more than 3-and-a-half-times as likely to progress than referrals from members if the public. Referrals from children and family services were also half more likely to progress than referrals from adult services.

Cases involving concerns about convictions were the most likely to progress, almost 5-and-a-half times as likely as cases involving poor or inappropriate communication. Cases involving record keeping and safeguarding concerns were also more likely to progress.

Triage stage

At the triage stage, progression was still most strongly associated with referral source and nature of concerns. Social worker ethnicity, gender, and religion were also associated with likelihood of progression at this stage.

Progressing through triage initiates a full investigation if a senior decision-maker determines there are 'reasonable grounds' to investigate whether a social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired.

Social worker characteristics

Differences by ethnicity, gender and religion emerged at the triage stage, but not by age. Cases involving male compared to female social workers, and cases involving non-Christian compared to Christian social workers were about a third more likely to progress. Cases involving Black social workers were almost one-and-a-half times as likely to progress than cases involving White social workers.

Other factors

Variation in social workers’ employment region observed at pre-triage disappeared at this stage. The source of referral became an even stronger predictor of progression at triage. Employer referrals were 19-and-a-half times as likely to progress than member of the public referrals. Referrals from other agencies and self-referrals were also more likely to progress.

The nature of concerns raised was strongly associated with progression. Cases involving convictions, sexual misconduct, safeguarding concerns, professional boundaries, record-keeping concerns and court proceedings were more likely to progress than cases involving poor or inappropriate communication.

Case examiner stage

At the case examiner stage, referral source continued to be the strongest predictor of progression, followed by region and concern type. Social worker ethnicity also continued to be associated with progression at this stage, but not religion. Age became associated with progression but only for some age groups.

At this stage, case examiners review the evidence gathered during the investigation and decide whether there is a realistic prospect that a social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired. They may refer the case to a hearing, propose an outcome without a hearing, or close the case.

Social worker characteristics

The difference by ethnicity became more pronounced at the case examiner stage. Cases involving Black social workers were around twice as likely to progress compared to cases involving White social workers, even after taking account of other case and participant characteristics.

Gender and religious differences observed at the triage stage were no longer evident. Age was not consistently associated with progression. However, cases involving social workers aged 40 to 49 were more likely to progress than cases involving social workers aged 30 to 39. No other significant age differences were identified.

Other factors

Variation in social workers’ employment region re-emerged at this stage. Cases from the North West, London, and the South East were between twice and 3 times as likely to progress than cases from the East Midlands.

Referrals from employers and other professional sources continued to be more likely to progress than referrals from members of the public. Employer referrals remained particularly likely to progress, 13-and-a-half-times as likely.

The pattern of concern types changed at this stage. Cases involving dishonesty were the most likely to progress, twice as likely compared to cases involving poor or inappropriate communication. In contrast, safeguarding concerns were less likely to progress, despite being associated with increased progression at earlier stages.

Possible explanations for these findings

The analysis identifies factors associated with progression through the fitness to practise process but does not explain why these associations occur. Some of the findings can, however, be considered alongside other evidence and research.

Social worker characteristics

The analysis found that cases involving Black social workers were more likely to progress at the triage and case examiner stages, even after taking account of a wide range of other factors. The reasons for this are not clear from the available data. Though discrimination, including unconscious bias, are potential explanations for these differences, there may be other reasons.

The analysis found weaker and less consistent evidence for differences by age and gender identity once other factors were taken into account. Only the 40 to 49 age group was more likely to progress than the 30 to 39 age group at the case examiner stage, while males were only more likely to progress than female social workers at the triage stage. This suggests that some of the differences identified in our earlier analysis may be linked to the types of cases being referred, rather than to age or gender identity alone.

Other factors

Cases referred by employers and other professional sources were consistently more likely to progress than referrals from members of the public. One possible explanation is that employers and other professionals are more familiar with the legal and regulatory framework governing fitness to practise. Employers therefore may be more likely to make referrals that meet the relevant thresholds and to provide evidence that enables decision-makers to assess the concerns being raised. This interpretation is consistent with the finding that referrals from professional sources become increasingly overrepresented as cases move through the fitness to practise process.

Cases involving convictions, safeguarding concerns, professional boundaries, sexual misconduct and dishonesty were more likely to progress than cases involving poor or inappropriate communication. Our earlier research into the role of seriousness in fitness to practise proceedings found broad agreement that these types of concerns are generally viewed as serious. Although the seriousness research also highlights that judgements about seriousness can be subjective and highly dependent on context.

The higher progression rates for record-keeping concerns may also reflect the seriousness of some of these cases, which may involve confidentiality breaches or inappropriate access to records. The recent research found broad agreement that such concerns are generally viewed as serious within fitness to practise proceedings. Further analysis would be needed to determine whether this explains the pattern observed here.

What have we done so far?

Our findings show that referrals are more likely to progress through our fitness to practise processes when they involve social workers with specific personal characteristics. While these findings identify patterns of disproportionality, they do not explain why those patterns exist. At this stage, we cannot determine whether the differences identified are the result of inequality, bias, broader workforce factors, or other drivers within the social work system. However, where the evidence highlights areas of potential concern, we believe it is important to take proportionate action now rather than wait for complete certainty. This includes reviewing our own processes, sharing data and insights, supporting more consistent referral decision making, and working with partners across the sector to promote fairness and reduce the risk of inequitable outcomes.

At the same time, we recognise that meaningful and sustainable change must be informed by a robust understanding of the underlying causes of disproportionality. We will therefore continue to invest in research, data analysis and stakeholder engagement. This will build our understanding of why some groups of social workers are over-represented in referrals and throughout the fitness to practise process. Our response will be iterative and evolving as new evidence emerges. We will continue to work collaboratively with other regulators, employers, representative bodies and the wider social work sector to identify and implement the actions most likely to have a positive impact.

Below are some of the activities that we have already undertaken in this area.

Professional Standards Authority - Standard 3

The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care’s (PSA) annual monitoring review of our performance in 2024 to 2025 had a focus on our EDI work. The PSA acknowledged the following improvements and positive practice:

• our efforts to improve board oversight of our work in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion

• the development of our fair referral principles

• workshops we have held with employers to encourage consideration of diversity data

• the ongoing support and training relation to equality, diversity and inclusion that we have provided to staff within our fitness to practise teams

Advancing Workforce Race Equity in Health and Social Care: Shared Principles Across Regulators

We have pledged our commitment to the ‘Advancing Workforce Race Equity in Health and Social Care: Shared Principles Across Regulators’. These 9 principles have been developed collaboratively by health and social care regulators to create aligned regulatory momentum in tackling racism experienced by the workforce. They align with our public sector duty obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and our broader duty to ensure fair, transparent, and inclusive regulation. It also reflects our published outcome 4 of the PSA’s Standard 3 evidence matrix, which states that "the regulator engages with and influences others to advance EDI issues and reduce unfair differential outcomes."

Strengthening workforce race equity supports improved workforce wellbeing and performance, which in turn benefits the public we serve. We are already meeting the expectations set out in the 9 shared principles through our existing EDI work, regulatory strategy, and organisational culture initiatives. This endorsement reflects our continued commitment to driving meaningful, lasting change in this area.

Social Care Workforce Race Equality Standard (SC-WRES)

The SC-WRES is intended to support organisations to make progress towards race equality by collecting and analysing workforce data across 9 key metrics, one of which includes fitness to practise. Organisations are supported to develop action plans that drive meaningful change and measurable improvement. We continue to collaborate and share our data and insights with Skills for Care to support the SC-WRES and to assist participating organisations to review their own data and support fair referrals.

Fair referral principles

As acknowledged by the PSA, we have published a set of fair referral principles, which are designed to help employers of social workers decide when to raise a fitness to practise concern with us. By encouraging employers to apply consistent, equitable principles when making referrals, the principles aim to reduce disproportionality in the system and ensure that referrals made to Social Work England are applied fairly across the social work workforce.

To help embed the principles, we have developed a programme of engagement with employers to focus on the consistent application of these principles. Further information about our engagement or application of the principles with employers can be sought by contacting our regional engagement leads.

Single Point of Contact network

Social Work England has a Single Point of Contact at every local authority in England and other organisations employing social workers. These contacts act as a central link between employers and Social Work England. We have developed and embedded the fair referral principles through ongoing work with employers and the Single Point of Contact network. They demonstrate how local decision makers can ensure the right referrals are made at the right time, in a fair and proportionate way. They also provide further support on how employers can address concerns locally where appropriate and maintain a clear and accessible route for concerns requiring regulatory intervention.

East Region pilot

We have delivered a joint pilot with the East Region to understand the lived experience of Black, male, social workers and leaders in relation to fitness to practise. The aim of this engagement is to support a reflection on our current regulatory processes and contribute towards early resolution.

During Social Work Week 2026, a session exploring the Eastern Region’s collective journey to embedding anti-racist practice was delivered which reflected on the impact of the pilot and key lessons learned. As this is a pilot, we have the ambition that these findings could be expanded further into other regions through the Principal Social Worker Networks.

Anti-racism training for decision makers

We are developing a dedicated training programme for all Social Work England staff and partners involved in fitness to practise processes. While anti-racism is a central focus, the programme recognises that people’s experiences are shaped by multiple, overlapping characteristics such as race, gender, and disability.

Independent Review of Social Work Professional Regulation

The Independent Review of Social Work Professional Regulation acknowledged our achievements and identified priority recommendations for Social Work England.

It welcomed our commitment to analysing and better understanding diversity data within fitness to practise referrals. It also supported our efforts to establish a data oversight group with other health and social care regulators which provides independent challenge and assurance on the analytical methods and conclusions being drawn.

While the review acknowledged key areas which require our improvement we continue to be confident in our decision making and there were no concerns about fitness to practise decision making identified in the review.

Next steps

Understanding patterns in fitness to practise case progression

Our analysis shows that there is overrepresentation of some groups in our fitness to practise processes. This latest research controlled the relationships between factors to confirm that some overrepresented groups remain more likely to progress through our fitness to practise processes, even when other factors are considered. A potential reason is that there is bias in our processes, but we need to carry out further research to explore and test alternative hypotheses. For example, we know that risk is a key driver in case progression, so we should explore whether case seriousness is part of the explanation for any of the overrepresented groups.

We will, therefore, carry out a qualitative piece of work to help us to learn more about the patterns of progression through our process, and the reasons. This would involve testing if any of the patterns can be explained by discrimination and understanding and testing alternative hypotheses.

Development of an EDI focused fitness to practise data report

We will create a new data report to regularly report on demographic trends across the register and fitness to practise process. This will include hearings data which we haven’t included to date due to there being too few outcomes to provide viable data. The report will improve visibility of our EDI data, support future analysis, track changes over time, and help identify emerging issues.

An internal review of fitness to practise processes and policies

While an initial, small-scale audit did not identify any evidence of bias within our processes, we acknowledge that the sample size was not large enough to allow us to make reliable assumptions. To be confident that our own processes are not contributing towards overrepresentation, we will undertake a comprehensive review of internal decision-making guidance and associated equality impact assessments. This review may help shape whether changes should be made in key areas.

Decision making guidance

We will review and strengthen our guidance on equality, diversity and inclusion for staff and decision makers involved in fitness to practise work, ensuring that relevant EDI considerations are appropriately reflected throughout the decision-making process.

Lord Mann review

We’re working with the Department for Health and Social Care and other regulators, including the Professional Standards Authority, to consider the findings from the Lord Mann review and what steps we could or should take to address them.

Decision review group

Social Work England holds a monthly decision review group, which is an internal quality-assurance body that:

• evaluates a sample of concluded fitness to practise decisions

• identifies broader operational trends

• drives organisational learning

Taking learning from our operation of the group to date, we have reviewed our approach and taken the decision to split the group to create:

1. A quality assurance group, which will review decisions made at different points in the fitness to practise process.

2. A thematic review group will explore themes identified by the quality assurance group and agree any actions to address them.

Conclusion

The analysis described in this report provides a more detailed understanding of the factors associated with progression through the fitness to practise process. It shows that referral source and the nature of the concerns raised are most strongly and consistently associated with progression through the process. Ethnicity, however, is still significantly associated with case progression, as are gender identity and age, although with less consistency.

It is important to remain cautious in drawing conclusions from this analysis. While it identifies factors associated with progression through the fitness to practise process, it does not explain why those associations occur. The findings should therefore not be interpreted as evidence of causation. However, the persistence of differences by ethnicity at later stages of the process warrants further exploration. We remain committed to improving our understanding of these findings and taking action where appropriate to support a fair, proportionate and inclusive fitness to practise process.

This work forms part of our wider programme of equality, diversity and inclusion activity in relation to fitness to practise detailed in the “what we have done so far” section of this report. This updated analysis strengthens the evidence base for that work by providing a more detailed understanding of where disparities may emerge and which factors appear to be most strongly associated with progression.

By improving our understanding of the factors associated with progression, we are better placed to identify where further work is needed. This insight will empower us to ensure the fitness to practise process is fair, proportionate and consistent with our commitment to EDI.