England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

McElroy v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 872(SW) (4 June 2007)

Karen Anne McElroy -v- The General Social Care Council [2007] 872.SW
Before: Mr John Reddish (Chairman) Mr Jeff Cohen Mrs Lydia Gladwin DECISION

Hearing date: 18 May 2007

Appeal

On 4 January 2007 the Applicant appealed, under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000, against the decision of the General Social Care Council, made on 30 October 2006, to refuse her application for inclusion on the register of social workers.

Representation

At the hearing the parties did not attend and were not represented because, the Applicant having indicated that she would prefer a "paper hearing" and the Respondent having raised no objection, on 19 March 2007 the President directed that the appeal should be determined on the basis of the bundle of documents submitted.


 


Preliminary matters

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's request for anonymity (made in her further information form dated 20 February 2007). The Tribunal formed the view that the reason given by the Applicant – that disclosure of her name might "affect future job applications" – was not sufficient to persuade them that it would be appropriate either to make a restricted reporting order under regulation 18 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 or to direct that the decision be published in an edited form under regulation 27. The Tribunal concluded that there was no need to safeguard the welfare of any child or vulnerable adult (since none is mentioned in the decision) and that any need to protect the private life of the Applicant was outweighed by the principle that decisions relating to a public register should be made openly.

The Tribunal decided to admit into evidence a second witness statement filed on behalf of the Respondent notwithstanding that there was no previous direction permitting it to be filed. The second statement corrected an obvious factual error contained in the earlier statement. If the parties had been heard, the witness would obviously have been at liberty to make the correction when giving evidence orally. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be unfair to consider the statement and that it would assist them in resolving an apparent, though probably immaterial, dispute as to the background facts.

Evidence

The Tribunal read two witness statements (dated 26 April 2007 and 14 May 2007) from Ms Cathrine Clarke, the Education Standards and Information Manager of the Social Work Education Group of the General Social Care Council and read the evidence of the Applicant contained in her witness statement dated 6 May 2007 and the documents referred to therein. The Tribunal also read the contents of the file opened and maintained by the Respondent following the Applicant's application for inclusion on the register, which was disclosed by the Respondent pursuant to the direction given by the President on 19 March 2007 and included in the bundle of documents.

Facts

The material facts found by the Tribunal were as follows:

1. The Applicant was born in New South Wales in July 1979 and is therefore 27 years old. She now lives in west London.
2. The Applicant holds an Associate Diploma of Social Science (Child Care) awarded by the Sydney Institute in 1999 and she is a Bachelor of Community Welfare. This degree was conferred upon her by the University of Western Sydney in April 2003, following a course of study undertaken from March 2000 to November 2002. During her degree course the Applicant undertook three supervised practical placements in the social care field, two with community organisations and one with the Department of Community Services in Bankstown, New South Wales.
3. From 24 November 2002 until 7 August 2003 the Applicant was employed as a Foster Care Caseworker for a private fostering agency in Penrith, New South Wales. From 6 August 2003 until 28 April 2006 the Applicant was employed by the Department of Community Services in Campbelltown, New South Wales as a Child Protection Caseworker.
4. On 4 November 2004 the Applicant successfully completed a "Caseworker Development Course". This was "entry-level training" designed to give the Applicant the skills and knowledge to perform the functions of a caseworker, undertaken on a part-time basis for a period of seven months.
5. On 8 March 2006 the Applicant submitted her application for inclusion on the register of social workers declaring that she held a degree in community welfare and setting out, in her personal statement, the "core competences" that she said that she had acquired during her university course and subsequent employment.
6. On 28 April 2006 Mr Greg Skelly, the Manager of the Campbelltown Community Services Centre, informed the Respondent that the Applicant was employed as a caseworker by the State government department with the authority to investigate and assess reports that children and/or young people are at risk and to provide support for children in the parental responsibility of the Minister for Community Services. Mr Skelly explained that the Applicant, in the normal course of her duties, had responsibility for statutory intervention into families at risk; for preparing affidavits and other court documents and for giving evidence before the courts where required.
7. In July 2006 the Respondent Council's International Recognition Service, in accordance with its usual practice, referred the Applicant's application to an external assessor for advice as to whether it demonstrated that the Applicant's qualifications and training were equivalent to the requirements of the UK Diploma in Social Work.
8. On 14 July 2006 an external assessor expressed the opinion that the Applicant had met the requirements of the UK Diploma in Social Work "on the basis of her qualifications, relevant training and work experience". She said that the Applicant's degree was equivalent to British ordinary degree standard and, although it was not a social work qualification, the course included many subject areas that would be found on social work courses. The assessor also referred to the Applicant's "thorough training in caseworker development" and her "impressive, well-organised application with an array of supporting documentary evidence".
9. On 18 July 2006, Ms Diane Smith, the Manager of the Council's International Recognition Service, despite having received a positive opinion, referred the Applicant's case for a second opinion because the Applicant had apparently not trained in social work and was not a member of any professional association in Australia.
10. On 20 July 2006 Mr Brett Wakeling, a Casework Manager with the Department of Community Services in Campbelltown, New South Wales and the Applicant's former line manager, reported that the Applicant had developed into a competent caseworker; that she had worked consistently with complex cases and that she had had developed variety of skills. He recommended the Applicant unhesitatingly to any prospective employer.
11. In September 2006 the second assessor delivered a report to the Respondent in which she rejected the opinion of the first assessor and expressed the view that the Applicant was not eligible for registration because her qualification was not accredited by the Australian Association of Social Workers or by the Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers and did not entitle her to practise as a social worker in Australia. Her fieldwork practice was not assessed and there was no testimony or independent statement of competence from a practice supervisor or employer. Further, the Applicant's work experience derived from a job which was open to holders of a social work qualification but also to holders of a qualification in social science, welfare or a related discipline. The second assessor concluded that, while the course undertaken by the Applicant included subject matter similar to the Diploma in Social Work and her training had been enhanced during her work experience, her qualifications and experience were limited to work with children whereas the Diploma is a generic qualification. The Applicant had produced no evidence of assessed practice as a student or in her employment. She relied upon her own assertions to evidence her competence and had no independent verification.
12. On 13 September 2006 Ms Smith recommended rejection of the Applicant's application on the basis that she did not have a professional qualification in social work recognised by the Australian Association of Social Workers; there was a "mis-match" between her professional activities and that of the Diploma in Social Work and that her practice as a Child Protection Caseworker did not "make up for this substantial gap".
13. On 19 September 2006 Ms Jane Hibbert, a Section Leader of the Respondent's Registration Team, warned the Applicant that her application would probably be refused on the ground that she did not meet the training criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000 and that that decision would be reviewed if, but only if, she were able to provide significant new factual evidence of competence in social work to add to the evidence she had already supplied or evidence that the information already supplied had been wrongly assessed. The Applicant did not, at this stage, supply any further evidence.
14. On 30 October 2006 Ms Hibbert informed the Applicant that the Respondent had decided to refuse her application on the grounds that she did not meet the qualification criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000. Ms Hibbert further informed the Applicant that it would be possible for her to re-apply for registration if she were able successfully to complete social work training in the UK.
15. On 4 January 2007 the Applicant lodged an Appeal Application in Form B with supporting documentation.
16. On 24 January 2007 the Respondent assessed the further information provided by the Applicant as part of her appeal. The Council concluded that the Applicant's degree was at a higher academic level than the UK Diploma in Social Work but was different in character. Further, the field studies undertaken by the Applicant related to general welfare rather than social work. The Respondent Council also concluded, by reference to information made available by the relevant authorities in Australia, that if the Applicant had been transferring from a community welfare course to a social work course in Australia, she would have been granted a credit of between 25% and 50% in respect of her earlier qualification.
17. On 30 January 2007 the Respondent filed its Response to the Appeal, submitting that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that her training was equivalent to the UK Diploma in Social Work.
18. On 26 April 2007 Ms Clarke made her first statement in which she recited the relevant provisions of the Act and the Registration Rules and said that, in considering whether a qualification gained abroad is of a sufficient standard to merit registration, the Respondent Council seeks to determine whether the training and experience is equivalent to the requirements of the UK Diploma in Social Work. In making its determination the Council relies upon its International Recognition Service. That Service in turn seeks expert assistance from the National Recognition Information Centre for the UK ("UK NARIC"), the national agency under contract to the Department for Education and Skills to provide information and advice on international education and training systems and overseas skills and qualifications. Ms Clarke described the procedure adopted by the Respondent in this case and said that, having reviewed the evidence, she agreed with the conclusion reached by Ms Smith. The Applicant had not trained as a social worker in Australia. Her qualifications, although related to social work, were not recognised by either of the two professional associations in Australia as being social work qualifications and, while the Applicant had significant post-qualification social welfare experience that correlated in part to the role of a social worker, that experience was insufficient to make up the shortfall in the nature of the qualification obtained.
19. On 6 May 2007 the Applicant made her witness statement. She acknowledged that she did not hold a Bachelor of Social Work degree but said that she relied upon her "qualifications and experience". She drew attention to her "valuable work experience in the social welfare field" and her ability to meet the same "six core competences" which had to be demonstrated by those who were granted the UK Diploma in Social Work. The Applicant also pointed out that, contrary to the assertion made by the second assessor (and apparently adopted by Ms Clarke in her statement) her degree is accredited by the Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers. Finally, the Applicant referred to the documentary evidence that she had submitted. This was, she pointed out, verified by her manager, as required by the Respondent.
20. On 14 May 2007 Ms Clarke made her second witness statement. She acknowledged that the Applicant's degree in Community Welfare is a qualification accredited by the Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers and that previous assertions to the contrary were based on a misunderstanding. However, this did not alter the position so far as the Respondent was concerned because the body responsible for recognising social work qualifications is the Australian Association of Social Workers not the Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers.
21. The guidance issued by the Respondent Council states that, where the qualification is in an aligned profession such as community work, applications will be treated on a case by case basis. The question posed is whether the applicant has met the requirements of the Diploma in Social Work either on the basis of his or her qualification alone or on the basis of his or her qualification and relevant training and work experience.

The law

22. Section 58(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that, if the Council is satisfied that the applicant is (a) of good character; (b) is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in that part of the register to which his or her application relates; and (c) satisfies certain conditions, it shall grant the application for registration, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. In any other case, the Council shall refuse the application.
23. The relevant conditions are set out in section 58(2) of the 2000 Act. In the case of an application for registration as a social worker, the applicant must either (i) have successfully completed a course for persons wishing to become social workers approved by the Council under section 63 of the 2000 Act; or (ii) satisfy the requirements of section 64 of the Act relating to overseas qualifications; or (iii) satisfy any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers. The applicant must also satisfy any requirements as to conduct and competence which the Council may by rules impose.
24. Section 64(1)(b) of the Act provides that an applicant for registration as a social worker will satisfy the requirements of the Act if he or she has, elsewhere than In England, undergone training in relevant social work and either (i) that training is recognised by the Council as being to a standard sufficient for registration; or (ii) it is not so recognised, but the applicant has undergone in England or elsewhere such additional training as the Council may require.

Issues

25. It was argued by the Applicant that:

(a) although she does not hold a degree in social work and is not registered with the Australian Association of Social Workers, she has significant work experience in the social welfare field;

(b) the roles of a Foster Care Caseworker and Child Protection Caseworker in Australia have the same professional status as social workers in the UK working in the field of child protection and foster care;

(c) her work as a Child Protection Caseworker was verified by the documentary evidence she produced which was, in turn, verified by her line manager; and

(d) she could therefore properly be accorded the same professional status as a qualified social worker.

26. It was argued on behalf of the Respondent Council that neither the information originally supplied nor the additional documentation supplied with the appeal was capable of satisfying the Respondent that the Applicant met the requirements of the Act because

(a) the Applicant did not study for a professional social work qualification recognised by the Australian Association of Social Workers;

(b) although her course showed some correlation with subjects expected to be found on a social work course, there were no supervised and assessed practice placements in a social work role; and

(c) the additional training undertaken by the Applicant was insufficient to bring her up to the standard required for registration as a social worker.

Conclusions with reasons

27. Social workers in the United Kingdom have, for many years, been required to train to high academic standards over a wide range of subject areas. It is plainly the intention of Parliament that those from overseas who wish to acquire similar status must show an equivalent standard of training.
28. The fact, conceded by the Applicant, that she is not registered as a social worker in Australia is highly significant. However, notwithstanding relevant considerations of reciprocity and comity, the absence of registration in Australia should not be regarded as conclusive, since the requirements for registration in that country and in England may not be the same. The effect of the admitted absence of a registration in the country where she was educated and trained was to place upon the Applicant the evidential burden of showing that the reasons why she would not be registered in Australia do not apply here. The Applicant failed to discharge this burden. Indeed, it appears that the reason why the Applicant would not be entitled to registration in Australia is the same as that put forward by the Respondent here i.e. that her academic qualifications are not in social work but in a related discipline and she has not completed sufficient additional or supplementary training to qualify for the title of "social worker".
29. There are no significant deficits in the academic training of the Applicant. Her degree is of a higher academic standard than the Diploma in Social Work. She has covered most if not all of the relevant subjects. The deficit in the Applicant's training is the supervised and assessed practice placements in a social work role which are, or were, essential features of the Diploma in Social Work. Holders of the Diploma were required to undertake a 50 day placement in the first year and an 80 day placement in the second year. These were substantial assessments involving the testing of knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in practice.
30. The Applicant undertook placements (amounting in total to 625 hours or about 90 days) during her degree course but there is no evidence of the appropriate supervision or assessment. The placements were not apparently designed to give the Applicant the opportunity to demonstrate her ability to apply the knowledge she had gained through study in an assessed placement in a social work role. The further training undertaken by the Applicant while working as a Child Protection Caseworker was, as the relevant Certificate reveals, assessed only in part. Successful completion of the "Building Relationships" and "Assessing Risk of Harm" modules was "dependant [sic] upon the successful completion of an assessment task". The training was, as the Applicant said, "entry-level training" designed to give her the skills and knowledge to perform the specific functions of a caseworker. It did not involve supervision by a "fieldwork teacher" and was relatively narrowly based.
31. The Applicant's case, though distinguishable on the specific facts, is very similar to those that gave rise to the dismissals of the appeals by the Tribunal in Bankole v. GSCC [2006] 715.SW and Voronin v. GSCC [2006] 822.SW. In those cases the applicants for inclusion on the register of social workers held, respectively, a BSc in Behavioural Science and a BSc in Sociology from universities in the USA and they both had substantial post-qualification work experience. The Tribunal was guided by the relevant observations made in those decisions.
32. The Applicant relied not only upon her training but also upon her work experience. As the tribunal in Convey v. GSCC [2006] 758.SW observed, section 64(1)(b)(ii) of the 2000 Act refers only to training and not also to experience. That is not to say that experience is irrelevant. It may imply training and will almost certainly imply learning. However, there is a distinction, recognised in section 58 of the Act, between training and competence. An applicant for inclusion on the register must be able to demonstrate both.
33. The Applicant's contention that the roles of a Foster Care Caseworker and Child Protection Caseworker in Australia have the same professional status as social workers in the UK working in the field of child protection and foster care may well be sound. However, the issue is not one of relative status. It is one of qualification and training. The "Position Description" of a Child Protection Caseworker issued by the New South Wales Department of Community Services reveals that the job is open to those who hold a "degree in Social Work, Social Science, Welfare or related discipline" and have "experience in the fields of child development and/or social welfare" gained "either as part of a relevant qualification or volunteer experience in a related field or organisation". It follows that some holders of the post will be properly described as "social workers" but others will not. That does not imply any failure to accord proper respect to their status. Those caseworkers not entitled to the description of "social worker" are presumably entitled to a different description. Their status as caseworkers remains unaffected.
34. The Applicant's contention that her work as a Child Protection Caseworker was verified by the documentary evidence she produced which was, in turn, verified by her line manager was sound but did not meet the point made against her. The validity of the documents produced was not in issue. The lack of assessment and verification referred to by the Respondent relates to the Applicant's training not to her experience or competence. Mr Wakeling was able to attest to the Applicant's competence and to the variety and complexity of her experience. He did not and did not purport to attest to the nature or extent of the Applicant's training.
35. The Tribunal therefore decided to dismiss the appeal.
36. The Tribunal was troubled by the way in which the Respondent formulated its decision and communicated it to the Applicant. The Applicant's application fell short of the requirements but not as far short of them as the Respondent's letter of refusal might have conveyed. The Applicant was, in effect, informed that she could re-apply for registration only if she completed the training required under section 58 of the 2000 Act i.e. a 3-year degree course in social work. The provisions of section 64(1)(b)(ii) imply that the Respondent will, in appropriate circumstances, require an applicant whose overseas training is not recognised as being to a sufficient standard, to undergo some further, supplementary training. This is confirmed by the form used by the Respondent (seen at page 168 of the bundle) when undertaking an "Equivalency Assessment". There is provision for four options; first, that the "applicant has met the requirements of the DipSW on the basis of their qualification alone"; secondly, that the "applicant has met the requirements of the DipSW on the basis of their qualifications and relevant training and work experience"; thirdly, that the "applicant has not immediately demonstrated that they have met the requirements of the DipSW and additional training is required" and, finally, that the "applicant has not met the requirements of the DipSW … and will need to undertake professional social work training in the UK". In this case, the option selected was the fourth and last. It appeared to the Tribunal that, on the facts, the option selected should have been the third. In that event, the Applicant could have been notified of the extent to which her training was deficient and of the Respondent's recommendations as to the nature and extent of the additional training required rather than being subjected, at least by implication, to the harsh and potentially inaccurate observation that her existing qualification and training would not be taken into account at all.
37. The Tribunal recognised that this matter was canvassed during the hearing of Convey v. GSCC (supra). In that case, Ms Clarke made the point that it would generally be a matter for the academic institution concerned whether a person should be admitted for part only of a degree course and that it would usually do so only if it took the view that the qualification obtained overseas justified exempting the student from the requirement to take particular parts of the course in order to gain the degree. The Council could therefore make a suggestion to an applicant that that might be possible but it would be a matter for the academic institution to make the decision. In that case, the Tribunal accepted Ms Clarke's argument that, in effect, the "additional" training envisaged by section 64(1)(b)(ii) must be training of a much more limited nature than taking a substantial part of a degree course because the latter would usually result in the student gaining a degree and satisfying the condition set out in section 58(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal went on to say that the correct approach for the Respondent was simply to refuse registration and leave the academic institution to find out whether exemption from part of the course should be given. The Tribunal took the view that that approach should not be followed in a case such as this and that the previous Tribunal should not be taken as suggesting that the approach they described should be applied universally. The Respondent cannot properly hand over its statutory duty to "require additional training" to others. The Tribunal took the view that where, as in this case, an applicant has undertaken training which would "match" a substantial part of the training that would have been required for an award of the Diploma in Social Work, the Respondent should, in accordance with the Act, identify the "shortfall" and impose an additional training requirement accordingly rather than simply inform the applicant that he or she has not met the requirements and must, in effect, start all over again.
38. The decision of the Tribunal was unanimous.

Order

The appeal shall be dismissed and the Respondent's decision is hereby confirmed.

John Reddish (Chairman)

Jeff Cohen

Lydia Gladwin

4 June 2007