Options and criteria
Long-list assessment
Initially, a long list of seven options was considered by partners.
The options were as follows:
- Option 1: business as usual (i.e. do not establish an NSWA)
- Option 2: executive agency
- Option 3: non-departmental public body (NDPB)
- Option 4: NSWA as a new directorate within Scottish Government
- Option 5: merge NSWA into the remit of another NDPB e.g. SSSC
- Option 6: partnership between SG / OCSWA and SWS Ltd
- Option 7: private company, owned and funded by central and local government
To assess the above options, a set of criteria and sub-criteria was developed by SWS and OCSWA. These were refined and agreed at a workshop with partners. The criteria were:
- professional advice
- power and authority
- influence on the profession
- deliverability
- shared accountability
- partnership
An initial workshop was held to make an opening assessment of options, and to reduce the long-list of options down to a shortlist.
Option 5 – merge NSWA into the remit of another NDPB (e.g. SSSC or Care Inspectorate) – was discounted as this would create a clear conflict with current regulator and inspectorate roles. Partners agreed that this would lead to a conflict of interest and potential lack of impartiality, and therefore is not in the best interest for the profession or the public.
Options 4, 6 and 7 were also discounted for failing to meet at least one of the agreed criteria.
Options 1, 2 and 3 were taken forward to the short-list stage. These options were shortlisted as they were assessed by partners as capable of meeting the agreed criteria and of providing a viable basis for a partnership model with shared accountability.
The table below has been extracted from the Outline Business Case to illustrate the model options appraisal.
Long-list appraisal key
- Fully meets criterion
- Partially meets criterion
- Fails to meet criterion
| Option | Professional advice | Power and authority | Influence on the profession | Deliverability | Shared accountability | Partnership |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do nothing (BAU) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
|
2. Executive agency |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3. Executive non-departmental body (NDPB) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 4. New directorate within SG | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 5. Merge remit into existing NDPB | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 6. Partnership between SG/OCSWA and SWS | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 7. Private company | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Short‑list assessment
Following the long‑list assessment, three options were taken forward for more detailed appraisal:
- Option 1: Business as usual (BAU)
- Option 2: Executive agency
- Option 3: Executive non‑departmental public body (NDPB)
The options were considered further at a second workshop. Participants were asked to rank the three shortlisted options (from best to worst; 1 = best, 3 = worst) against each sub-criteria and provide an explanation for those rankings.
Option 2 (executive agency model) ranked highest overall, as stakeholders ranked the option as best against all the agreed criteria. Qualitative feedback also supported this ranking. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using Monte Carlo analysis, which supported the conclusion.
| Option | Professional advice | Power and authority | Influence on the profession | Deliverability | Shared accountability | Partnership |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. No NSWA (BAU) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
|
2. Executive agency |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3. NDP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
These results are set out in the table above, and available in a radar diagram. This provides a visual representation of how the options ranked against the different criteria. The closer to the edge, the higher the ranking. For example, Option 2 is ranked first in ‘professional advice’, whilst Option 1 ranks third.
Contact admin@socialwork.gov.scot for a copy of the radar diagram.