Social work: Evolving organisations through different management

📜🔗LINK to the source

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

Paragraph 1 — A documented organisational crisis, not a diffuse malaise

The social and medico-social sector is experiencing a budgetary tightening coupled with increasing contractualisation — generalisation of CPOMs, project calls replacing grants — which increases the administrative burden to the detriment of direct support (p. 2). The "management by numbers" and the logic of active files render relational work invisible, including in departmental services and CCAS (p. 3). Governance bodies encroach on management functions, blurring the boundary between political steering and operational management; managers, urged to "do everything", supervise areas beyond the thresholds of qualitative supervision (p. 3). The internal survey of 1,137 managers highlights isolation: unrelated to the size of the structure, profile or qualification, it is strongly correlated with a lack of hierarchical support and the absence of peer exchange spaces (p. 31-32). Declared impact on well-being: 2.2/10 for the non-isolated compared to 7.5/10 for the "always isolated" (p. 32).

Paragraph 2 — A toolkit to redefine management

The report presents four operational levers. A conceptual framework first: the distinction between status / function / role / missions (p. 6), articulated with the unique document of delegations and job descriptions, to clarify the opacity of responsibilities. An acculturation device next, for managers coming from other sectors: immersion, mentoring, peer workshops, evaluation (p. 8, 17-19). A decisive semantic clarification: participation ≠ collaboration ≠ cooperation, the latter being the only one compatible with the social mission (p. 9). Finally, a directory of 14 proven practices — co-development, mentoring, cross-training for managers/administrators, regular immersions, elected workers' committee in ESAT, peer intervention, governance in SCOP (p. 10, 35-38). All of this is backed by precise financial engineering: FDVA, citizen engagement account, own funds, CNFPT/INET, with the obligation to separate training envelopes for administrators / employees (p. 11-12).

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. The isolation of managers is not an individual fragility: it is a measurable organisational symptom. Of 1,137 respondents, statistical tests show no significant link between isolation and establishment size, number of subordinates, age, gender, seniority, or qualification (CAFERUIS, CAFDES) — "academic competence does not neutralise the effects of context" (p. 31). In contrast, three strong correlations emerge: 62% of managers who are "always" isolated report a lack of support from their N+1, 72% a lack of understanding from their board of directors or general management, and the absence of formal spaces between peers (p. 31-32). Notable sectoral variation: 11% structural isolation in the for-profit private sector compared to 5% in the public and associative sectors (p. 32).

2. The most striking fact of the report can be summed up in one sentence: some executives, including management, never physically meet their teams over an entire calendar year (p. 3, reaffirmed p. 24). This distance reduces communication to a strictly top-down mode and closes off any space for co-construction. The report does not present this finding as anecdotal but as the culmination of a chain: limited resources → contracts and control → administrative burden → distance from the field → instability (diagram p. 3).

3. The distinction between status / function / role / missions constitutes the most directly transposable conceptual tool. Status defines the legal and contractual position; the function encompasses permanent structural responsibilities; the role embodies the expected posture in interactions (legal guarantee, guidance, advisory support, collective impetus); the missions describe the actions to be accomplished within a given time (p. 6). The report recommends dynamically articulating the unique document of delegations with job descriptions, and — in the public service — readjusting these dimensions during the annual review (p. 6).

4. Participation, collaboration, and cooperation are not synonymous — and the report draws operational consequences from this. Participation means taking part in an action proposed by a third party (information → opinion, committee, consultation). Collaboration means working together to maximise each person's interest (joint production, project group). Cooperation involves defining and working together in the general interest, with shared decision-making and interdependence (network, structured partnership) — only this is deemed consistent with the social mission (p. 9). This framework allows for an honest qualification of an existing participatory system.

5. The report dares to formulate the ethical question that the organisation avoids. "Can we really provide better support, with less, without degrading the support for individuals or the working conditions of professionals? At what point should management functions consider that an activity can no longer be maintained, when budgetary constraints lead to degraded support, which could constitute mistreatment of both the individuals being supported and the professionals?" (p. 13-14). It places this question within an ethical, legal, and political responsibility, and links it to the protection of employees against institutional mistreatment under the Labour Code.

3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Establish a co-development system or a group for analysing managerial practices. This is the most significant request from the survey: 65% of respondents seek groups for exchanging practices among managers (p. 33). The report provides the operational definition on p. 11 — sessions among peers based on a lived situation presented by a participant — and makes it a lever for preventing managerial isolation. Concrete path: include the APP of managers in the training plan on the same level as that of educational teams (p. 33).

2. Objectively assess the administrative burden before initiating any reorganisation. 57% of managers cite the overload of administrative work and 62% the lack of time as causes of their situation (p. 32). The report recommends engaging in reflection on the division of labour: 48% of managers express a need for administrative support or increased delegation (p. 33). Field translation: map what falls under reporting, what can be automated, what can fall under a dedicated support function.

3. Use the status/function/role/tasks grid (p. 6) as support for a collective clarification effort. To be cross-referenced with the unique document of delegations and the job descriptions. Objective: to move away from the unreadability of responsibilities and the absence of "shared rules of the game" identified on p. 3. This work can be conducted in an expanded management meeting and result in a document that is binding internally.

4. Build a formalised acculturation pathway for managers coming from other sectors. The sequence is given on p. 8: immersion → companionship/mentoring → peer exchange workshops → evaluation and adjustments, with short-term objectives (securing the assumption of office), medium-term (avoiding the divide between accounting vision / clinical dimension) and long-term (quality of support, respect for fundamental rights). The deployment is calibrated over a full year with quarterly evaluations (p. 19).

5. Secure the funding for the training of administrators, distinct from that of employees. The training expenses of volunteer or elected administrators do not, in principle, fall under the expenses chargeable to the obligation to finance the professional training of employees: they must be identified on specific budget lines (p. 11). Mobilisable resources listed p. 12: FDVA, citizen engagement account (CPA), own funds, support from network heads. For local authorities: CNFPT and INET, within the framework of mandatory statutory training (p. 12).

6. Filter the evaluation indicators through the lens of reality. The report proposes a usable set (p. 12-13): participation rate of stakeholders in training and decisions, evolution of autonomy and cohesion, number of projects updated in light of the associative project, monitoring of actual exchange times between management and teams, satisfaction of the individuals supported, level of breaking down silos between services. The fifth indicator is the most discriminating and the easiest to implement immediately. The report recommends integrating them into the quality evaluation processes of establishments (p. 13).

Unmet needs and necessary adaptations. The document does not set any quantified threshold for the supervision rate, while making it a condition (p. 11) — local adaptation remains entirely to be constructed. It does not propose a turnkey tool for budget transparency, only the principle of "explanatory diagrams" (p. 5). Finally, the vignettes mainly come from well-endowed departmental councils (Gironde, Morbihan, Ille-et-Vilaine): their transposition into small associative structures assumes a mutualisation that the report mentions without providing tools for (p. 12).

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the theme of social work ➡️🔗 https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/tag/travail-social-330

1. HCTS — "Training of social workers" (February 2026). Survey of over 1,900 respondents identifying the priority themes for continuing education (legal monitoring, mental health, practice analysis, AI, professional posture) and the conditions for local deployment. Direct complementarity: this report acknowledges that "few managers responded" and that a dedicated focus on training for managers still needs to be built — exactly the gap that the analysed document fills. 🔗 https://solidarites.gouv.fr/sites/solidarite/files/2026-06/Rapport-HCTS-%20Formation-des-travailleurs-sociaux-Fevrier-2026.pdf (Verified URL)

2. HCTS / CEDTS — "Ethical guidelines and deontological references in social work and social intervention" (December 2025). Cross-cutting reference text specifically addressing the dilemmas mentioned but not deployed in the analysed report: autonomy vs protection, confidentiality vs reporting, supporting vs controlling, inclusion vs budgetary constraints. It also details the institutional conditions for an ethical approach (deliberation spaces, referents, committees). To be used in support of section 6 of the report. 🔗 https://solidarites.gouv.fr/sites/solidarite/files/2026-01/Ethique-Deonto-HCTS-2025.pdf (Verified URL)

3. IGAS — "How to resolve recruitment tensions in the social field and increase its attractiveness?" (report 2024-069R, published on 6 February 2026). External and quantified counterpoint: IGAS attributes the attractiveness crisis primarily to the lack of trained and qualified professionals, and proposes a national HR management strategy. Useful for repositioning the managerial recommendations of HCTS within a structural constraint that no evolution of management will be able to lift alone. 🔗 https://www.igas.gouv.fr/comment-resoudre-les-tensions-de-recrutement-dans-le-champ-social-et-en-accroitre-lattractivite (Verified URL)

5. FAQ

1. Is this document a binding standard or a reflective text?

Neither in the strict sense: it is the report of a working group of the HCTS, an advisory body, produced within the framework of the 2024-2026 roadmap. It formulates "proposals and recommendations" (p. 14-16), without regulatory value. It does not commit the funders. Its interest is methodological and argumentative, not legal.

2. What is the number one factor in the isolation of managers?

The lack of hierarchical support: this is the most robust predictive factor. 62% of managers who are "always" isolated report not receiving support or understanding from their superior (p. 31). Next is the distance from governance: 72% report a lack of understanding from their board or general management (p. 32).

3. Is a CAFDES or a CAFERUIS required to manage an ESSMS?

The report specifies that a higher diploma in the social field (CAFDES, CAFERUIS, DEIS, specialised master's) constitutes a "widely expected" foundation in the non-profit private sector, but it is not mandatory in other contexts, particularly in the public service (p. 8). In any case, a cultural adaptation mechanism remains necessary. Note: the survey shows that holding the diploma does not have a statistically protective function against isolation (p. 31).

4. Can the training of volunteer administrators be funded from the employee training budget?

No, in principle. When the administrators are not salaried (volunteers, elected association members), the training expenses concerning them do not fall under the expenses chargeable to the obligation to finance the professional training of employees: they must be identified and financed from specific budget lines (p. 11). Mobilisable resources: FDVA, citizen engagement account, own funds, support from federations (p. 12).

5. What does "mission-driven company" mean here, and should we take inspiration from it?

The report explicitly distances itself: the reference can be understood as the valorisation of a model from the for-profit sector, whereas the associative model (law 1901) structurally relies on a purpose of general interest and non-profitability (box p. 4). The report specifies that the notion "does not constitute a model recommendation" and serves as a simple terminological reference on the formalisation of objectives and the structuring of governance. It also points out a risk of confusion in the public debate and a need for vigilance regarding the conditions of competition in calls for projects (p. 4).

6. What practices of participation of the supported individuals does the report document concretely?

Three, precisely located. At the ESAT "Les Ateliers de Jemappes" (Entraide Union), an elected workers' committee manages its own social budget, is consulted on training, and can assist a peer facing a sanction (p. 10, 36, 38). At the Henry Dunant centre (Red Cross, Amiens), people with disabilities run workshops on employment, health, or housing based on their experience (p. 10, 36). At the MAS "Le Hameau" (Hantay), residents participate in the recruitment and evaluation of staff — which requires from management an explicit "letting go", including the acceptance of being upset by a recruitment choice (p. 36, 38).

7. Does the report provide a quantified threshold for staffing ratios?

No. It states that "the definition of standards relating to staffing ratios must ensure sufficient proximity to the teams" (p. 11) and describes the current ratio of supervisors to supervised as "disproportionate" (p. 3), but does not set any ratio. This is one of the major operational limitations of the document: the principle is established, the threshold remains to be negotiated locally.

6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

What this report says

This report talks about social and medico-social work.

It talks about managers and directors.

They are also called "the managers".

The problem

The organisations have less money than before.

They have to fill out a lot of paperwork.

The managers spend their time on this paperwork.

They have less time for the teams.

They have less time for the people they support.

Some managers have too many services to oversee.

It's too much for one person.

Sometimes, a manager never sees their team for an entire year.

This creates distance.

People no longer know who does what.

Many managers feel lonely.

They lose the sense of their work.

Some leave. Some give up.

What the survey found

The report surveyed 1,137 managers.

Here is what the survey shows.

• The size of the structure makes no difference.
• The number of employees makes no difference.
• Age makes no difference.
• The degree makes no difference.

What really matters is something else:

• The manager's boss does not support them.
• Leaders do not understand their work.
• The manager has no time to talk with other managers.

Lonely managers are struggling.

They find it harder to decide.

They are less motivated to work.

The proposed solutions

The report proposes simple solutions.

1. Create groups among managers.
   Managers meet regularly.
   They talk about the problems they face.
   They seek solutions together.
   65 managers out of 100 request this.
2. Help managers with paperwork.
   Someone can do part of the administrative work.
   The manager then has more time for their team.
3. Clearly write who does what.
   Everyone must know their role.
   Every person must know their tasks.
4. Welcoming new managers.
   Some managers come from other professions.
   They do not know social work.
   They need to be introduced to the field.
   They need to be given an experienced guide.
5. Go into the field.
   The manager must come and see the teams.
   They must see the real work.
   This is the only way to understand.
6. Listen to the people being supported.
   They can give their opinion.
   They can participate in decisions.
   This already exists in some places.

An important question

The report raises a difficult question.

Can we support people well with less money?

If we support poorly, we can harm people.

We can also harm professionals.

The report states that we need to ask this question.

7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

Literacy. The report recommends explanatory diagrams making financial issues accessible to all (p. 5) and mentions graphic facilitation among the levers of CD 35 (p. 35), but it does not itself propose any support suitable for varying levels of understanding and does not include a plain language version.

Empowerment. Three concrete devices are documented: resident participation in recruitment (MAS Le Hameau), peer intervention (Pôle Henry Dunant), elected workers' committee managing its social budget (ESAT Jemappes) — p. 10, 36, 38; the "development of the power to act" in Gironde is an approach established since 2012 (p. 36).

Participation. The report explicitly distinguishes between participation, collaboration, and cooperation (p. 9) and proposes colleges of representatives of employees and supported individuals elected by direct and secret ballot (p. 5) — but these colleges remain a proposal, not a documented practice.

Community health. The collective dimension is present through the notion of a "learning institution", the reconstitution of work collectives, and the breaking down of inter-institutional barriers (p. 33-34, 38); however, the territorial anchoring in health and the articulation with health actors are not addressed.

Ethics. This is a strong point: ethical dilemmas, paradoxical injunctions, ethical suffering, ethical monitoring committees, internal referents, "organisation clinic" (p. 11); cultural biases are addressed from the perspective of the gap between professional cultures (p. 8), not from the perspective of social or racial biases affecting the public.

Human rights. The approach is based on the fundamental rights of the individuals received (art. L311-1 and L311-3 CASF, p. 17-18) and on the tension between protection and self-determination (p. 11); equity is addressed from the perspective of small structures that should not be excluded from information and training flows (p. 12).

Intersectorality. Recommended partnerships: action-research with institutions (p. 10), joint inter-institutional training in Morbihan (p. 36), CNFPT and INET for local authorities (p. 12), network heads and federations (p. 12).

Partnership. Formalised models exist: cross-training for managers/administrators (p. 10), formal regulatory bodies between governance and management (p. 26), shared governance between the director/president at the association l'Envol (p. 36), SCOP status with employees associated at MECS ACTEIIS (p. 36).

Fight against discrimination. The subject is addressed solely from the angle of parity — 80% women in the workforce, targets of 30% of each sex by 1st March 2026 and then 40% by 1st March 2029 (p. 5) — and by the feminine wording of the White paper. No other discrimination (origin, disability, age, sexual orientation) is addressed for professionals as well as for the individuals supported. Non-judgment appears indirectly through “kindness” and the “recognition of the legitimacy of each actor” (p. 7).

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance — average to good, with clear reservations

Strong points. Public institutional source, published by the ministry responsible for solidarity, based on a collective approach (HCTS, roadmap 2024-2026). Coherent academic bibliography (Laville & Sainsaulieu, de Gaulejac, Jaeger, Heichette). Accurate legal references overall (L. 311-1, L. 311-3, L. 312-8, L. 313-11 CASF; law 2002-2; law 2024-317 of 8 April 2024). The survey on isolation (p. 31-34) is the most rigorous section: it explicitly distinguishes between variables without effect and significant correlations, mentions significance thresholds (p < 0.01; p > 0.05) and refrains from concluding causality.

Reservations to be explicitly noted:

• ⚠️ Untraceable survey. The 1,137 responses are not accompanied by any information on the mode of dissemination, the collection period, the sample structure, the response rate or the sponsor. No publication reference is provided. The results can be used as a strong signal, not as generalisable evidence.
• ⚠️ Outdated governance data. The typology of the four models of associative governance (professionalised 35%, activist 28%, tightened 25%, outsourced 14%) is drawn from a study by the FDVA from December 2014 (p. 5, 28) — over ten years ago. It is presented in the present tense, without mention of its age.
• ⚠️ Internal inconsistency regarding the control of "mission-driven companies". The body of the report attributes the control of social compliance to the HAS (p. 5); the annex attributes it to the URSSAF (p. 28). Neither exercises this control: the mission-driven company regime relies on an independent third-party organisation (commercial code). Attribution to be dismissed.
• ⚠️ Dated legal formulation. The report mentions a "result security obligation" under Article L. 4121-1 of the Labour Code (p. 27). The case law of the Court of Cassation has replaced this qualification with a strengthened obligation of means since 2015. Do not reproduce the formula as is in an enforceable document.
• ⚠️ Unreferenced figures. The "80% women" in the sector's workforce (p. 5) and the "user satisfaction measured at 95%" for first reception (p. 38) are provided without source or method.
• ⚠️ Deadline exceeded. The objective of 30% of each gender in decision-making bodies is dated 1 March 2026 (p. 5) — prior to the reading date. To be updated if the document is cited in 2026.
• ⚠️ Incomplete reference. The URL of the Proximity Managers Club (Uriopss Occitanie) is truncated in the bibliography (p. 16) and therefore unusable as it stands.
• ⚠️ Document status. This is a "Version 21 February 2026" — a versioned document, published as is. The redundancies between the overall report and the annexes (the diagnosis is repeated almost word for word on p. 2-3 and p. 24), and a sentence clearly not proofread on p. 24 ("clarify the statutes, the roles and the functions and the roles"), indicate a text not editorially finalised.

Operational relevance — high

The document is immediately usable on several levels: the status/function/role/mission grid (p. 6), the four-stage acculturation sequence (p. 8), the distinction between participation/collaboration/cooperation (p. 9), the list of evaluation indicators (p. 12-13), the constraints × consultation matrix (p. 14), the summary table of proposals crossing recommendations and vignettes (p. 14-16) and the collection of 14 localized practices (p. 35-38). It is a working document for the management team and board of directors, rather than for field workers.

Usage limit: the report remains silent on what is actually blocking — no threshold for the supervision rate, no quantification of measures, no negotiation modalities with funders. It remarkably describes the problem and proposes levers that it acknowledges require "the alignment of allocated resources with the actual organisational needs" (p. 26). This dependency is structural and must be named if the document is to be used as an argument.

10. STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#healthpractices #SocialWork #ProximitySupervision #AssociativeGovernance #IsolationOfManagers #ESSMS #CoDevelopment #OrganisationalWellbeing