Perfunctory or purposeful? Reflecting on 20 years of justice social worker registration in Scotland

Abstract

In Scotland the role of the ‘probation officer’ must be undertaken by qualified social workers, called justice social workers. Here ‘social worker’ is a protected title and all social workers are required to register with the national regulatory body, the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). The principal aim of social work registration in Scotland is to protect the public. Registration requires that all social workers meet and maintain set standards of conduct and practice which, it is proposed, strengthens professionalism and promotes confidence in the sector. In this article, we map Scotland's journey to professional registration of justice social workers, the opportunities and challenges registration criteria presents for the workforce, and possible tensions between core aims of public protection, strengthening the workforce and public confidence. We highlight the lessons learnt from the two decades of professional registration in Scotland.

Introduction

Professional registration has long existed as a way to demarcate the knowledge and skills of some occupations from the general public and allow groups of skilled workers to gain greater occupational closure (Cree and Myers, 2008; Witz, 1992). As Clark (2006: 87) states, ‘Professional registration is quintessentially a process of identifying and certifying suitable persons to be employed as professionals, while barring others’. In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, probation services are regarded as social work services, named justice social work, and as such became subject to registration and regulation requirements for the social work profession introduced in the early 2000s. This divergence between Scotland and its closest neighbours is traceable from the 1960s. As Canton (2024) notes, in the 1960s consideration was given in England and Wales to including probation in a unified Social Services Department, based on recommendations of the Seebohm Report. However, this was not borne out. Though social work skills were still considered foundational to probation work – probation officers were required to have a social work qualification – by 1995, this requirement was removed (The Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995) and probation in England and Wales ‘formally renounced its parentage’ (Canton, 2024: 215). In Scotland, at that time, the passing of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, now heralded as a watershed moment in Scottish penal history, ‘placed social work at the heart of the criminal justice enterprise by abolishing the older specialist probation service and transferring its functions to newly created local authority social work departments’ (McAra, 2008: 489). Though this move was not universally welcomed (McCulloch et al., 2021), and there remain tensions about where justice social work should sit (Buchan and Morrison, 2018), the understanding that social work departments were to promote social welfare, and that people who commit crime are also people in need, has prevailed. As such, justice social work has been considered a registered profession, with protection of title, for more than 20 years.

To be registered as a social worker anywhere in the UK, you must hold an appropriate social work qualification and agree to follow codes of practice set out by the relevant regulatory body. Through setting standards for education and practice, registration is one arm of regulation of the profession, alongside other mechanisms such as dealing with misconduct (McLaughlin, 2007; Whyte, 2016). How the systems of regulation function, however, is state and context dependent (Worsley et al., 2020). In Scotland, the expressed aims of professional registration of social work are twofold: to protect the public through registration and regulation of the workforce, and to ensure a ‘trusted, skilled, confident and valued’ workforce (SSSC, 2025d). Proponents of registration argue it can achieve these aims through setting and maintaining improved standards and opportunities for education and training, and improved systems for dealing with misconduct in practice (McCurdy et al., 2020). However, several authors note dangers of registration, primarily related to the powers and reach of the regulatory body, such as how reports of misconduct are handled, how codes of practice are applied, and the unwitting erosion of professional confidence and public trust (McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016; Worsley et al., 2020).

In this article, we will discuss the journey to registration of social workers in Scotland, the tensions between registration and regulation for the workforce, its impact on justice social work today, and what lessons can be gleaned from the Scottish experience. The literature on professional registration of social work in Scotland is limited, and for justice social work almost negligible. As such, we draw on wider research into experiences of social work registration and regulation in the UK and beyond. We also include a reflection on the impact of registration on justice social work practice from a practising justice social worker, one of the authors of this article.

Journey to registration

Across the UK countries, social work was late to become a registered profession. Doctors were the first to be registered in 1858, under the General Medical Council, followed by Teachers in 1914 and Nurses in 1919. It was almost 150 years later, in the early 2000s, that social work joined the ranks. This may seem strange in Scotland where the momentum of the landmark 1968 Act unifying social work services could have triggered this rite of professional status. However, as in other parts of the UK, there was a feeling the diverse nature of social work made it difficult to define as a unified profession, and many held concerns that regulatory or professional bodies were elitist, poorly aligned with social work values and did not typically work in partnership with service users (Cree and Myers, 2008; Jones, 2020).

In the 1980s and 1990s, several interacting factors built the impetus for social work registration (Cree and Myers, 2008). On one hand there was a push to improve the standing of the profession. The gap between social workers and other trusted professionals, such as doctors, nurses and teachers, was becoming increasingly obvious, with practitioners, educators and professional bodies asking, ‘if doctors, teachers, health visitors and psychiatric nurses were registered, why not social workers?’ (Cree, 2009: 25). At the same time, service user lobbies were pushing for improvements in social work education and practice (Beresford and Croft, 2004). New membership of the European Union highlighted disparities between social work education across the member states, where the two-year diploma in the UK was out of step with the three-year degree in other parts of Europe. Also, increased freedom of movement meant a workforce with more diverse educational and cultural backgrounds, so employers needed to ensure a minimum standard of practice (Cree and Myers, 2008; Jones, 2020). All these factors increased pressure for social work's professional status to be standardised and accredited.

For justice social work, the political tussle around where it belonged (Buchan and Morrison, 2018) may have been another driver for professional recognition. From the 1968 Act onwards, justice social work was undertaken by practitioners in generic local authority social work teams, who also undertook adult and child welfare and protection work. Concerns soon emerged that justice social work in this context was not prioritised and lacked adequate knowledge and resource (Whyte, 2008). With problems of an increasing prison population and reported concerns around confidence in community-based sentences, the Scottish Executive introduced ringfenced funding and National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System in 1991 (Coyle and Tombs, 2018). However, these measures had little impact. Subsequent political proposals to merge justice social work with the prison service, and give more national Governmental control, threatened its sanctity. The outcome was the introduction of (largely unsuccessful) Community Justice Authorities (Buchan and Morrison, 2018), melding local and national controls, but ultimately leaving justice social work in the social work portfolio. In this context, the drive for professional registration may have helped anchor justice social work to the ideals of the 1968 Act and protect the role of social work in the justice system.

The other main driver related to public protection. Several high-profile tragedies across the UK called into question the competence of social services, alongside other agencies, resulting in calls for increased regulation (McLaughlin, 2007; Munro, 2011; Sinclair and Bullock, 2002). This included examining the effectiveness of justice social work in relation to child protection. There was a reported lack of public confidence in social work (Cornes et al., 2007; Hanley, 2024; McLaughlin, 2007) whereby social workers were seen by some as not only managing or assessing risk but ‘as being a risk’ to those they were working with, a risk to be managed through regulation (McLaughlin, 2007: 1266, emphasis in original). The wider climate at the time was one of increased preoccupation with risk and risk management in political and professional discourse, conceptualised at the time as the ‘risk society’ (Webb, 2006; McLaughlin, 2007). These latter factors served to centre the importance of public protection within social work, including justice social work, and have undoubtedly influenced the form and function of registration and regulation in Scotland, where public protection is at the fore.

In the early 2000s, the fruits of these pressures came to bear in the introduction of legislation across the UK nations calling for all qualifying social workers to be registered, e.g. the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. Four regulatory bodies were established with responsibility for the registration and regulation of the social work workforce in their home nation: the General Social Care Council (GSCC) ¹ in England; the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC); the Cyngor Gofal Cymru/Care Council for Wales (CGC/CCW) ² ; and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC). In Scotland, social workers were the first group to be invited to register with the SSSC from April 2003, including social workers working in justice settings, and in 2005 legislation to protect the title of ‘social worker’ was enacted. The protection of title gave increased weight to the role of registration.

Realities of registration and regulation of social work

The function of the SSSC, and by extension registration, is expressed primarily as protection of the public. Registration requires that social workers meet set standards of education, conduct and practice which are proposed to strengthen the professionalism of the workforce and promote confidence in the sector. In Scotland, these standards are expressed through The Codes of Practice for Social Services Workers and Employers (SSSC, 2024a), The Framework for Social Work Education (Scottish Executive, 2003), Standards in Social Work Education (SSSC, 2019) and Continuous Professional Learning Requirements (SSSC, 2004). These standards are ostensibly unproblematic and the introduction of registration, and its consequent increase in regulatory control over education and practice, happened with little critical examination (McLaughlin, 2007; Whyte, 2016). It may be with other matters at play in Scotland, including negotiating the new landscape of devolution, professional registration and regulation of social work simply did not attract due attention at the time. However, as we discuss, a number of difficulties have arisen since.

In January 2025 (SSSC, 2025a), there were 10,896 social workers registered with the SSSC, and 1846 social work students. Approximately 11% of registered social workers, employed by local authorities, work in justice settings (e.g. community teams, court, accommodation services) (SSSC, 2024g; 1174 social workers). This is a small proportion of the overall social work workforce. There is no further disaggregated information in relation to justice social work. The register also includes non-social work qualified workers in social care, and children and young people's services that are registered with the Care Inspectorate, including early years and residential childcare, adult day care and residential care, care at home and housing support services (SSSC, 2025b). At the time of writing, non-social work qualified staff working in justice settings, such as justice social work teams, do not fall under this umbrella and as such are not required to register, although their counterparts in adult and children's services are. This disparity may indicate justice social work is an anomaly or an after-thought. Consultations to expand the register to include these groups are underway (SSSC, 2025c).

The literature on the registration of social work in Scotland is sparse, and in relation to justice social work even more so. What does exist is often critical. Echoing responses elsewhere (Jones, 2020; Meleyal, 2011), the introduction of registration and regulation of social workers in Scotland was initially met with optimism, partly due to the promise of a new professional education and learning framework. Eccles and Taylor (2018: 23) noted social workers in Scotland supported the intention to develop a stronger professional identity and standing for social work in the public mind, with no desire to go back to ‘the perceived “wild west”’ of unregulated practice. However, this initial optimism quickly evaporated as the primary purpose and method of registration came to be understood, across the UK countries, as protection of the public through enhanced regulatory control. Rather than delivering on early promises of improved public confidence through an empowered and accountable workforce, the dual aims of professional registration came to be seen as oppositional rather than complementary, whereby as noted above, social workers were cast as a risk from whom the public need to be protected. More broadly, the framing and implementation of social work registration and regulation in Scotland, and the UK, has been criticised for eroding professional confidence and competence through tautological Codes of Practice that encourage uncritical adoption in practice, evoking a ‘tick-box’ approach to practice, and, perhaps most concerningly, a regulatory frame that has little constructive meaning and value for professionals (Clark, 2006; Eccles and Taylor, 2018; Grant et al., 2022; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016).

Early optimism: a skilled and confident workforce?

Some of the early optimism associated with registration relates to significant developments at the time in social work education. In 2001, responsibility for regulation of social work education passed from the UK-wide Central Council for Education and Training for Social Work to the newly established SSSC, enabling for the first time a distinctly Scottish approach. In 2003, the Scottish Executive, working closely with the SSSC, announced plans to introduce a new Honours' degree level qualification for social workers. The Framework for Social Work Education in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2003), published that year, set out the expectations of the new degree, the requirements education providers must meet and the professional standards registered student social workers must achieve. 2003 also saw the launch of the Scottish Institute for Excellence in Social Work Education (SISWE), a partnership-initiative between the, then, nine Scottish university providers and government ‘to ensure social workers are trained to meet the 21^st century demands of their profession’. These were hopeful times; the new framework and standards underscored the interdependence of academic and practice knowledge and skill, the value of critical and reflective practice, and the importance of ethical and moral reasoning in the ‘often fiercely debated’ environs of practice (Scottish Executive, 2003:19). In essence, they continued broader drives for the modernisation and improvement of social services while promoting and protecting what were felt to be key elements of good professional practice (Scottish Executive, 2003; Whan, 1986).

However, before the first cycle of the new flagship degree was complete, and, critically, in the wake of alleged high-profile child protection ‘failings’ (Laming, 2009), political leaders in England were again raising ‘serious doubts’ (Sellick, 2008) about the preparedness of graduates for practice and the quality of social work education (Narey, 2014). In Scotland, as across the UK, education returned as a ‘matter of concern’ (McCulloch et al., 2024) triggering a series of top-down reviews of social work education across the UK (SSSC, 2015; Narey, 2014; Croisdale-Appleby, 2014). In Scotland, following calls from the academic community for a more collaborative and evidence-led approach to reform, social work education emerged largely intact. The Review concluded social work education in Scotland was fit for purpose and the existing generic approach to qualifying education in Scotland was the right one. It highlighted however that qualifying education needs to be understood as foundational for professional learning rather than the completion of it. Accompanying recommendations called on the sector to address longstanding challenges associated with practice-based and post-qualifying learning and, critically, the infrastructure required to sustain this. Progress however has been slow. In part, this reflects the limited power of the SSSC, which has little reach or influence over employers, persisting fragmented governance arrangements for social work and post-qualifying learning in Scotland, and a socio-political landscape marked by crises (Cree and McCulloch, 2023). At the time of writing, there is a proposal to establish a new National Social Work Agency in Scotland to address some of same issues, raising new questions about the future role and relevance of the regulator in this space (Pringle, 2024).

Notably, the particular needs of justice social workers do not feature in the above developments. This reflects the mostly generic nature of social work education and workforce strategy in Scotland. As noted, where justice social work belongs has been bubbling since before the 1968 Act (Buchan and Morrison, 2018; Whyte, 2008), resulting in the development of two systems of professional guidance and development, one governed and controlled by the SSSC, through the frameworks outlined above, and the other by the Scottish Government, through the National Outcomes and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System (Scottish Government, 2010) and Community Justice Scotland, a devolved government body, responsible for post-qualifying training. This may reflect a targeted workforce development strategy, but it also suggests a professional regulator that has struggled to recognise and respond to the needs of a diverse professional workforce.

Codes of practice and a ‘tick-box’ approach

The SSSC Codes of Practice enshrine the pragmatic and moral standards of conduct which social workers in Scotland are expected to adhere to. They are the cornerstone of registration and regulation of the profession, encapsulating not only the standards of conduct but also the wider aims of social work, e.g. social justice. Their connection with the value base of social work practice is clear (BASW, 2014), which makes them ostensibly straightforward. However, as Orme and Rennie (2006: 340) argue, that they are Codes of Practice rather than Ethics is important, as it promotes a ‘technicist approach to the social work task that assumes a set of skills and expects behaviour that can be prescribed in concrete ways’. The reduction of the complexity and indeterminacy of social work to technical and procedural tasks is reported to prompt defensive and ‘tick-box’ practice as the messiness and complexity of the social work task is reduced to a technical one, concerned with procedural rather than moral regulation (Simpson et al., 2020). Of course, the relationship between technicality and professional autonomy is not necessarily inverse, or negative, in social work and probation practice, where technical tools and guidance can augment and enhance practice (Robinson, 2003). However, a consistent message about social work regulation across the UK is that practitioners' concerns about following the ‘rules’ and getting it right may be eroding good practice for fear of the consequences (Banks et al., 2020; Eccles and Taylor, 2018; McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016). This technicist approach foregrounds what is enforceable, what practice can be examined, measured, and, if necessary, punished rather than the opaquer aspects of social work such as moral judgements. In the English context, McLaughlin (2007) highlights defensive or ‘tick-box’ practice arises from fear, anxiety, and suspicion about being reported for professional misconduct and how the regulator will respond. Similarly, reflecting on one social worker's experience of fitness to practice investigation in Scotland, Whyte (2016) concludes social workers worry about taking risks, which may be in the best interests of their clients, afraid of misstepping and being harshly treated by the SSSC. Punitive and overly rule bound responses from regulatory bodies are thought to promote a culture of ‘covering your back’ rather than engaging in complex judgements (McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016). For Munro (2011), this kind of practice impedes thoughtful, critical, and considered decision making in complex and challenging circumstance.

A further concern regarding the Codes of Practice is their reach into practitioners' private lives. Clark (2006: 87) notes that attention to the moral character of social workers is nothing new, however he highlights how the process of registration and the Codes of Practice have ‘sharpened the focus on character (as opposed to principle and duty) in ways that have perhaps not been fully recognized’. This reach is evident in point 6.7 ‘I will not behave, while in or outside work, in a way that would bring my suitability to work in social services into question’ (SSSC, 2024a). The breadth and ambiguity of this, seemingly innocuous, statement leads to questions of what behaviours are unsuitable. Whilst most would recognise regulation has helped address clearly problematic behaviours, e.g. abuse of power, what about more obtuse situations where the boundaries of good professional character and conduct are disputed? e.g. in the navigation of professional boundaries? This reach of regulatory control goes beyond the professional bounds leading some to question if it is an uncurbed and unexamined intrusion on practitioners' private lives (McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016). The constitution, application and enforcement of Codes of Practice is not and cannot be neutral, although their ‘abstracted unreality’ lends to the illusion they are (Clark, 2006: 76). Instead, these Codes and their interpretation are shaped by the underlying social, cultural, and moral standards and values of the jurisdiction, organisation and individuals at that time (Clark, 2006; Orme and Rennie, 2006). In Scotland, this is reflected in the primary aim of the Codes being to inform the public of the standards of conduct they can expect (Orme and Rennie, 2006). The social, cultural and moral standards and values behind these standards are less transparent but influence judgements about practice and misconduct all the same.

Managing fitness to practice (FTP)

A primary function of any regulatory body is to identify and eradicate poor practice. There are two mechanisms for this, proactive and reactive. Proactively, by setting and governing standards and requirements for the level of education and development for social workers, as discussed above. Reactively, the regulator deals with concerns raised about an individual's practice or conduct through their Fitness to Practice (FTP) procedures. This latter mechanism has come under heavy criticism since its introduction.

Banks et al. (2020) recent examination of FTP cases in England found social workers are more likely to be reported by the public for FTP concerns than other health and social care professionals. They proposed this was due to the complex, relational and possibly conflictual nature of the social work task particularly around difficult decisions, e.g. removal of children and reduction of services, where dissatisfaction with outcomes may be conflated with dissatisfaction with social worker. They also highlighted local agency complaints procedures were not well known, so people initially approached the regulator. There is no similar comparison between professions in Scotland. The SSSC (2024e) most recent FTP information from April to October 2023 indicates 3.7% of the FTP referrals related to social workers (plus 0.5% regarding social work students). Care at Home service staff (30.3%) were the highest group referred and the lowest were Care Inspectorate Inspectors and residential school care accommodation staff (0.1%). So, in the context of those registered for working in the social care sector in Scotland, social work misconduct concerns are relatively low. The proportion of justice social workers is not reported.

There are three primary criticisms levied at the SSSC FTP process: the length of time for FTP issues to be dealt with, and the impact of this on practitioners; the locus of the investigation; and who makes the decisions. For length of time, the limited literature on social work registration in Scotland highlights the timeframe of FTP investigations is highly problematic, where this process can take years to reach a resolution (Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016). These lengthy processes can have negative implications for individual's financial, mental and physical wellbeing (Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016). Eccles and Taylor (2018) and the SSSC (2024e) data suggest the process is improving, as the average time to close a referral is 5.4 months. However, where cases progress to hearing this timeframe significantly increases, and can be up to and beyond 2 years. The SSSC is also reportedly being more supportive; in 2022 a wellbeing support line for registrants was launched and, counselling and support is now available to registrants going through FTP investigation (SSSC, 2024e). Despite this, and consistent with wider messages from the SSSC, these improvements are framed in relation to public protection:

Our main priority in 2023/24 is to maintain the number of open fitness to practise referrals at an acceptable level and that 95% will be less than three years old. This is important because processing cases promptly and efficiently makes sure that concerns are addressed and that action is taken where needed so that there is confidence that only the right people are on the SSSC Register (SSSC, 2024d:13)

This focus here on ‘right people’ is relevant to the second criticism, the locus of the investigation. The SSSC, and other bodies, come under criticism of not taking into account organisational responsibilities and failings, such as high caseloads, staff shortages, poor supervision, and the impact on individual's ability to do their job (McCurdy et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016; Worsley et al., 2020). Eccles and Taylor (2018) note improvements, with the SSSC reportedly holding employers to account more. However, the regulator has limited capacity here, given its remit is over the individual registrants (Simpson et al., 2020).

In terms of FTP investigations and proceedings, there are concerns about who is assessing reported misconduct, and their understanding of the nature and conditions of the social work task. The Chief Executive, the Director of Regulation and the majority of the SSSC council are not social work qualified. Mostly, these posts are held by people with backgrounds in Law or business, revealing this is not a peer-regulated profession as others are (e.g. medical). This organisational set up led Whyte (2016) to ask, ‘who is calling the shots?’ and Simpson et al. (2020: 1910) to conclude the result of SSSC registration and regulation is not ‘the self-regulating professionalism of more established professionals’ but a governmental exertion of control over the profession. Although there are issues related to self-regulation of professional groups (Manthorpe and Purcell, 2023), there may be a better balance to be struck between external, government and internal peer regulation.

A meaningless necessity?

Perhaps the most troubling criticism of registration, and regulation, of social work in Scotland is it amounts to no more than ‘box filling’ (Eccles and Taylor, 2018), achieving neither of the primary purposes – improved public protection or professional identity. For early career social workers in Scotland, Grant et al. (2022) found registration was considered the least important factor influencing professional identity, with autonomy, making complex judgments and application of professional values rated more highly. Interestingly, these aspects are arguably enshrined in the Codes of Practice, yet the connection between registration and what matters in professional identity is evidently not clear. Concerns have also been expressed regarding post-qualifying training requirements for newly qualified social workers (NQSWs), where this is seen by some as perfunctory rather than purposeful (Simpson et al., 2020). In practice, NQSWs report there is a lack of protected time for post-qualifying training and a lack of opportunities for specialised training (Grant, 2016; Grant et al., 2022). In justice social work, as further discipline specific training is mandated and standardised by Community Justice Scotland, rather than the SSSC, it is easy to see how the role of the regulator, and its relationship to professional identity, may be less prominent. Added to this, there has been widespread anger about increases to registration fees. In 2017 the annual fee to register as a qualified social worker rose from £30 to £80, with SSSC consulting on a further fee increase for 2025 (SSSC, 2024b; Unison, 2017). For some, registration has become another layer of top-down bureaucracy, experienced as perfunctory rather than purposeful.

Reflections from the front line

As highlighted, little is known about the experience and impact of registration and regulation specifically for justice social workers. As such, the second author, a practising justice social worker, offers below their reflections on registration and regulation. These reflections echo the findings from the wider literature whilst offering a unique insight into the nuances of justice social work and registration.

In my experience registration and the associated regulation is an accepted part of the context of justice social work practice in Scotland. Established before I began studying social work, it has been a constant presence throughout my journey, informing my education and training experiences as a student and later as a newly qualified and early career justice social worker. Based on discussions with colleagues, this is a common experience. Regulation is ubiquitous. So ubiquitous it feels like there is little to say. My experiences in justice social services though have raised three key areas of reflection: the requirements of post qualifying learning, who is being regulated in justice services, and the framing of registration and regulation.

Post-qualifying learning requirements have been part of the regulatory requirements since 2004 (SSSC, 2004). Previously NQSWs submitted evidence of their Post Registration Training and Learning at the end of their first qualified year. The SSSC recently updated this process, following a review of social work education in Scotland highlighting NQSWs required more support to consolidate and advance their knowledge of practising in complex situations, within their specialised areas of employment (SSSC, 2015). In 2024, the NQSW Supported Year launched as ‘part of the ambitious framework to create a strategic framework from qualifying education through to advanced practice for all social workers and social work employers’ (SSSC, 2024d). This supported year places mandatory requirements on employers and social workers. Employers are required to, for example, ensure caseloads, learning time and opportunities are protected, and NQSWs have adequate supervision. Both the previous and current systems require NQSWs complete specified amounts of training and professional development, and, importantly, evidence this (SSSC, 2024c). It is the form of this evidencing, rather than the requirement that causes frustration as the process has become increasingly prescriptive, not necessarily promoting discipline specific learning.

Qualifying and entering employment was exciting as I felt I had ‘made it’, had proved myself suitable. I was enthusiastic to develop my knowledge in this specific role. In line with the literature (Grant et al., 2022), my priority after qualifying was to pursue opportunities for professional socialisation to ensure I was thinking and doing like a justice social worker. I had a desire to understand the knowledge informing justice social work, undertake role specific training and read widely. My enthusiasm and engagement with further learning aligns with the Codes of Practice, in being accountable for my practice and learning (SSSC, 2024a: 5). Support during your first year in practice is vital in enabling this professional development, and I was fortunate my team could provide this. However, the systems of evidencing seemed perfunctory, and the current highly structured template places unnecessary demands on practitioners, especially alongside the range of role-specific, mandatory training delivered by Community Justice Scotland. The difficulty with these perfunctory demands is they reduce practitioners' capacity for self-directed critical reflection and discipline specific learning, areas that are essential for good and developing practice. In short, there is a clear need for support to avoid NQSWs being treated like experienced practitioners and to increase their confidence and competence. However, the SSSC's response to this need possibly exacerbates the problem as much as it addresses it, creating further bureaucratic hurdles which detract from the job. Furthermore, the increased prescription of the NQSW pathway of professional development raises questions about the SSSC's confidence in the social work education currently provided by universities and employers' commitment to support continuing professional development.

As noted above, the question of who is registered in justice services places this area at odds with its counterparts, adult services and children and families. The SSSC register has ten different parts covering social work, social care and childcare workers. A mixture of social work qualified, and non-social work qualified staff are employed in justice social work (e.g. Social Work Assistants, Criminal Justice Assistants, Justice Workers, Unpaid Work Supervisors). However, discussions with colleagues reveal, unlike in other areas of social care (SSSC, 2025b), these roles are not registered or regulated, despite these justice practitioners working with the same clients. Instead, there is a two-tiered workforce within JSW departments. It is unclear why this gap in the regulatory infrastructure exists, and recent moves may close this loophole (SSSC, 2025c). Perhaps the disparity is underpinned by the tensions on where justice services belong, social care or ‘offender’ management (Buchan and Morrison, 2018), or is an unwitting contradiction to the original ideals of penal welfarism where people who offend are not seen as part of the ‘public’ which registration and regulation serves to protect.

My final reflections concern how registration and regulation of social workers, including justice social workers, is framed in Scotland. The regulator highlights its public protection responsibilities, by identifying and certifying who is suitable through registration processes and restricting individuals who are unsuitable from the profession (whom it protects the public from). This is one way registration proposes to protect people from unethical practice, which brings the profession into disrepute. Undoubtedly, there is a need for regulation. However, as noted above, how regulation is framed in Scotland, implies a profession which the public need protecting from. It creates a constant need to prove your competence and hope you don't make a mistake. It can impact how we practice, in positive and negative ways, e.g. self-regulation or tick box practice, a feeling that resonates with prior literature (McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016; Worsley et al., 2020). To me, justice social workers are acutely aware of the potential negative consequences of their actions, continuously working to reduce the risks of serious harm, support individuals and protect the public. The requirement to hold a qualification and register with the SSSC reinforces the value of the justice social worker role. However, the SSSC could strive to promote a more positive conception of social work identity, articulating a vision of what practitioners do, how practitioners behave and how their work benefits the wider community, to celebrate the role publicly. A recent campaign to promote the work of the social care workforce more generally, as part of a drive for registration, has attempted this but with little obvious traction (#SSSCregistered; SSSC, 2024f). As McNeill (2019) highlights, such a task is difficult as the ideals of justice social work may not align with the public imagination and understanding of justice, so public promotion of this work as rehabilitative and restorative may further undermine public confidence. However, given the SSSC's success in communicating one part of its role in protecting the public from unsuitable practitioners, more can be done to effectively communicate the important contribution and impacts of justice social work to the wider public.

Conclusion

Justice social work comes under the canon of social work in Scotland and has been a registered profession for over 20 years. Despite this, little is known about what impact registration has had on the practice and professional identity of social workers, and even less for those working in justice social work. The primary aims of registration are to protect the public and improve professional confidence and standing. In Scotland, as across the UK, the former aim tends to overshadow the latter and the two are often positioned as oppositional rather than complementary (Eccles and Taylor, 2018; McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016; Worsley et al., 2020). Further, there is little evidence to suggest registration and regulation achieve either (Cornes et al., 2007; Meleyal, 2011). Relatedly, the benefits of professional registration are not immediately evident and difficult to quantify. Good practice rarely attracts attention, however the low numbers of social workers investigated for misconduct suggest good practice is standard practice (SSSC, 2024e). Developments in qualifying education have been broadly welcomed, within and beyond the profession, but post-qualifying learning remains significantly under-developed. Further, associated gains in terms of professional confidence and public trust remain at best fragile in a broader socio-political context of risk, professional territorialism and scapegoating (McCulloch et al., 2024). At the same time, critiques of current systems of registration and regulation highlight a negative impact on professional competence and confidence due to the rigidity of the systems and processes of reactive regulatory measures (McLaughlin, 2007; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016; Worsley et al., 2020). Notwithstanding the above, practitioners in Eccles and Taylor (2018) study, reflecting on social work in Scotland since the landmark 1968 Act, reported they did not want to return to the ‘wild west’ of unregulated practice, indicating, at least anecdotally, that regulation has had some positives. Significant tensions remain however in how social work registration and regulation has been framed and operationalised in Scotland, resulting for the most part in criticism and apathy (Eccles and Taylor, 2018; Simpson et al., 2020; Whyte, 2016).

While professional registration – and the regulation it permits – is often sold to the workforce on the promise of being a form of governance that is ‘of the people and for the people’, lessons from Scotland indicate this has been difficult to realise in a context where matters of public risk and protection, fiscal austerity and political short-termism dominate. From our analysis of the literature and practice reflections, we conclude by identifying four key lessons our English and Welsh counterparts may draw from the Scottish experience as they embark on their own professional registration journey.

The framing of registration and regulation matters. How professional registration is framed is contextually and culturally embedded (McCurdy et al., 2020; Orme and Rennie, 2006; Worsley et al., 2020). In the UK, including Scotland, the purposes of registration of social work have been positioned as improving public protection and increasing public confidence in the profession. While early messaging, particularly around the launch of the new degree qualification, promoted social work as skilled professional work, requiring reasonable levels of autonomy and trust and opportunities for reflection and development, recently some of this early ambition and confidence has been lost, reflecting perhaps the rise of managerial approaches to public sector reform and governance (Garrett, 2013). Relatedly, the problems which registration seeks to remedy are questionable. The often-reported ‘poor public perception’ is not evidenced in research, yet this ‘myth’ continues to be used to justify reforms which detract from other important sector challenges, e.g. working conditions (Hanley, 2024; McCulloch and Webb, 2020). The needs of the profession and the needs of the ‘public’ are frequently placed at odds, with the public positioned as needing to be protected from the profession. This framing has left professionals feeling demoralised about how registration, and the concomitant regulation, has been conceptualised. Given the context in which registration of probation is being introduced in England and Wales, following the fallout of the Transforming Rehabilitation project, there is a risk these measures will fall foul of similar issues. Careful consideration of how registration and regulation is framed and implemented, specifically elucidating the symbiotic relationship between improved professional practice, confidence and standing and protection of people using services, is needed.

Practitioners need to see and experience the relevance and benefits of registration. In Scotland registration and regulation seem to be seen as at best, a series of bureaucratic hoops, and at worst, an ominous shadow negatively impacting practice. For justice social work, the relevance of registration may seem subservient to the guidance and training offered specifically in relation to social work in the criminal justice system. The positive influence of registration and regulation on improving standards within the profession through, for example, standards of education and improved supports for NQSWs do not seem to be widely understood as related to registration and regulation. It is important for the regulating body to ensure practitioners understand how registration and regulation benefits them and the profession.

Responding to misconduct needs to be transparent, timely and fair. How FTP issues are dealt with matters. The SSSC have worked to improve their processes, the impact of which remains to be seen. The question of ‘who is calling the shots?’ stands (Whyte, 2016) and to what extent those doing so understand the complexity and tensions of social work practice. In the absence of this understanding, the complexity of justice social work risks being reduced to a simplified, technicist task which in turn has a demoralising effect on the workforce (McCulloch et al., 2024). Issues of misconduct also need to be investigated in the organisational and structural context in which they occur, so that individuals are not held accountable for issues beyond their control.

Registration is not a panacea for poor practice. As Clark (2006: 88) highlights ‘good professional practice is not sufficiently described either by technical competence or by grand ethical principle; it also subsists essentially in the moral character of the practitioner.’ There are requirements of registration to meet certain moral standards, as laid out in the Codes of Practice (SSSC, 2024a), however how these are interpreted are culturally and structurally dependent (Banks et al., 2020; Clark, 2006; Orme and Rennie, 2006). Relatedly, professional codes do not solve organisational or structural problems, such as poor working conditions, poor support and supervision, or lack of time and resource. The system and its practitioners need to be adequately resourced to enable best practice.

How registration and regulation of social work in Scotland and the UK is framed and implemented is heavily contingent on political and public sentiment, where social work education and practice is often positioned as a problem to be fixed (McCulloch et al., 2024), although it is not clear this problem exists (Hanley, 2024; McCulloch and Webb, 2020; SSSC, 2024e). Practitioners do not seem to see the benefits of registration and regulation for their developing professional identity and practice (Grant et al., 2022; Simpson et al., 2020), including with regard to their important public protection role. For justice social workers, the relevance of registration is perhaps further diluted by the development of two systems of governance and standardisation. Examined from Scotland, the success of professional registration appears to lie in its ambition, framing and felt benefits, which in turn appears to rest on a clear, complementary understanding of what and who registration is for – the benefit of the public and the profession.