England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Bootsmann v GSCC [2007] EWCST 968(SW) (17 July 2007)

HILDE BOOTSMANN

Appellant

-v-

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2007] 968.SW

Respondent

- Before -

Miss H Clarke (Nominated Chair)

Mr J Black

Mr T Greenacre

DECISION

Heard on June 29^th 2007 at the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Tribunal, Manor View House, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 6PA.

For the Appellant – the Appellant represented herself.

For the Respondent – Miss Eleanor Grey instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, solicitors.

Witnesses

For the Respondent- Miss Cathrine Clarke

1. Decision

This is an appeal by the Appellant under S68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the CSA 2000) against the decision of the Respondent to refuse to register the Appellant as a social worker on the register maintained under the CSA 2000 S 56.

The Respondent initially sent a notification letter to the Appellant on 16^th January 2007 (the notification letter) advising the Appellant that the application would be refused on the grounds that the training criteria set out in CSA 2000, S64 (1)(b) had not been satisfied. The final decision letter was sent to the Appellant on February 26^th 2007.

2. In addition to the tribunal bundle of papers (the tribunal bundle) which was prepared in advance of the hearing the following additional documents were considered by the Tribunal on the day of the hearing.

(i) A two page report by Costas Christodoulou dated November 22^nd 2006 (the external assessor's report).

(ii) A copy of the CST decision in Convey –v- the General Social Care Council [2006] 758.SW.

(iii) The EEC Directive 92/51/EEC.

3. The President of the CST His Honour Judge David Pearl held a directions hearing on May 23^rd 2007 and directed that the Tribunal hearing the case consider at the conclusion of the hearing whether the decision should be published in an edited form under Regulation 27 of The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 (the regulations). This Tribunal has considered the Appellant's request for anonymity and has reached the conclusion that there is no need to safeguard the welfare of any child or vulnerable adult since none are mentioned in this decision and that any need to protect the private life of the Appellant was outweighed by the principle that the decisions relating to a public register should be available wherever possible, therefore this decision will be published in full.
4. The Law

In the case of an application for registration as a social worker the CSA 2000 states that a applicant must satisfy the requirements of the CSA 2000 S58 (1) which requires the Council of the General Social Care Council ( the GSCC) to be 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 any part of the register to which his application relates and (c) satisfies the conditions set out in CSA 2000S58(2) which states that the applicant must satisfy two conditions:-

CSA 2000 S58 (2)

"–The first condition is that -

(a) in the case of an applicant for registration as a social worker -

(i) he has successfully completed a course approved by the Council under section 63 for persons wishing to become social workers;

(ii) he satisfies the requirements of section 64; or

(iii) he satisfies any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers.

(b) in the case of an applicant for registration as a social care worker of any other description, he satisfies any requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social care workers of that description.

(3) The second condition is that the applicant satisfies any requirements as to conduct and competence which the Council may by rules impose."

5. The CSA 2000, S 64 sets out specific requirements which have to be satisfied by applicants seeking registration as a social worker who trained in any EEA States other than the United Kingdom and for those who have trained elsewhere. The CSA 2000, S64 (1)(b) is relevant to this case, which provides that the requirement of the CSA 2000 S64 (b) are met if

"he has, elsewhere than in England, undergone training in relevant social work and either:-

(i) that training is recognised by the Council as being to the standard sufficient for such 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."

6. The Appellant has not completed any social work training in England and in her application for registration relied on her German qualifications and her training and work experience in Germany. The CSA 2000, S57 (1) provides that an application for registration must be made to the GSCC in accordance with the relevant rules which are set out in the GSCC registration rules 2005 (the rules). Under the terms of the rules an applicant who has obtained their qualifications and training abroad will be asked by the GSCC to complete a form on which they ask general information about themselves (the Part 1 form), and an additional form in which they are asked to provide information about their qualifications, education and experience (the Part 2 form).
7. The GSCC, when deciding whether a qualification gained abroad is of sufficient standard require it to be equivalent to the UK qualification which is currently a diploma in social work (DipSW), although this qualification is shortly to be superseded by a requirement to follow a three year BA Honours Degree Course in social work.

In deciding whether an applicant has undergone training in social work elsewhere other than in England which is equivalent to the requirements of the DipSW the GSCC relies on the GSCC's International Recognition Service (IRS) process which includes sending the applications to an external assessor for comment.

8. The onus is on the Appellant to demonstrate that she is a person who meets the requirements of the S58 of the CSA 2000.
9. History

The Appellants application to the GSCC to be registered as a social worker was received on 16^th August 2006. Correspondence then followed between the Appellant and the Respondent concerning the translation of documents from German into English, the certification of documents and other administrative issues concerning the application. When all these matters had been resolved the application was referred to the IRS who appointed an independent assessor Mr Costas Christodoulou (the external assessor) to examine the Appellant's Part 2 form.

The synopsis of the external assessor's report (Tribunal bundle pages204 (a) and 204 (b)) recommended rejection of the application on the basis that the Appellant had not been able to demonstrate that her stated qualifications, and her experience and training satisfied the core competencies in the Dip SW. The external assessor considered that the Appellant in her answers in the Part 2 form had relied heavily on her extensive experience in caring for the needs of people with severe symptoms of alcoholism both in a residential home and in a day centre. The external assessor was not satisfied that the type of work experience demonstrated that the DipSW core competences had been met in terms of social work practice.

10. The Appellant's application was then referred to Diane Smith, the IRS manager (Miss Smith) who on the 18^th December wrote a report recommending that the application be rejected as the Appellant had not met the requirements of the diploma in social work because there was a mis-match between the applicant's professional activities and "those required by the profession of social worker in the UK".
11. Issues raised by parties

It was submitted by the Appellant that:

(i) She had extensive experience in social work through her work as a manager of a residential unit called Hiram Hoff between 1990 and 2004 which was a home for people suffering from chronic alcoholism and other addictions.

(ii) She had also played a leading role in the creation and running of the Hiram Haus project in Berlin which provided advice, support and education for alcoholics and their families and that the experience gained in this work over a long period of time should be recognised.

(iii) That her qualification in Logotherapy had involved detailed study, case supervision and practical study over a four year period and that this qualification would be useful and relevant training for a social worker.

(iv) The Appellant also drew attention to the training and certificate she had completed through the IBAF Qualifizierungszentrum fur Fuhrung und Management Kiel in Germany (the IBAF) to become a registered manager of residential units for older people. The Appellant considered that the subjects that she had studied did include aspects of social work and therefore the certificate was relevant to her application.

(v) The Appellant submitted that she had worked in a social care setting since the age of 18. She considered that she had worked in a wide field including creating therapies, staff training, talking to families, external organisations and the medical profession and that she had gained experience over a long period of time. The Appellant submitted she had worked with other organisations and had covered virtually all aspects of social care work except those involving children.

12. It was submitted by the Respondent that the Appellant did not meet the requirements of the CSA 2000 S 64 (1)(b) because :-

(i) The Appellant was not recognised as a social worker in Germany nor had she undertaken any formal training to become a social worker in Germany.

(ii) The qualifications that she had obtained in Germany, namely the Logotherapy qualification and the IBAF certificate did not cover the core competences required under the DipSW. The psychological analysis in the Logotherapy course did not correspond to or equate with the theoretical teaching and assessment of different social work theories which would be required under a DipSW course.

(iii) Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the CSA 2000 S 64 (1)(b) refers to training rather than to experience, and that the experience that the Appellant has obtained over a considerable period of time was no substitute for the core qualifications required, and that experience could not be converted into a social work qualification.

13. Tribunal's Finding and Conclusions

The Appellant acknowledged in her evidence to the Tribunal that she was not registered as a social worker in Germany nor had she sought any training as a social worker in Germany. The Appellant had made her application to register as a social worker in England in the belief that her extensive work experience in a social care setting together with her qualifications in Logotherapy and her IBAF registration would be sufficient for her to be registered in England as a social worker.

14. The Appellant very fairly acknowledged in her evidence to the Tribunal that the Logotherapy diploma itself was "not a study to become a social worker" and the Tribunal agrees with this assessment.
15. The Appellant also relied on her qualification with the IBAF which related to her work as a registered manager/director of residential units for the elderly and the disabled.

Miss Cathrine Clarke in her evidence to the Tribunal accepted that part of the IBAF course was formally assessed but she also commented that the content of the course was "not evidence of social work." The Tribunal agrees with this analysis as although the IBAF qualification would undoubtedly be useful additional training for many social workers the topics studied largely relate to managing a residential unit and do not fit with the core elements required for social work which are set out in the social work competences contained in the DipSW .

16. The Appellant in completing her Part 2 form relied heavily on her extensive experience working in the Hiram Hoff and Hiram Haus setting where she was managing chronically alcohol dependent people.

Miss Cathrine Clarke accepted in her responses to cross-examination by the Appellant that the GSCC recognised the valuable experience that would have been gained by the Appellant in her residential care work but stressed that it could not be converted into relevant social work training or into a social work qualification.

17. Counsel for the Respondent referred the Tribunal to the decision of the CST in Convey -v- GSCC [2006] 758.SW including Para. 16 which discusses the distinction between training, which is specifically referred to in the CSA 2000 S 64(1) (b) and experience which is not specifically mentioned. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant's work experience whilst clearly valuable in demonstrating her practical experience in a care setting cannot be "converted" into the training referred to in the CST 2000 S64 (1)(b)(i).
18. Taking into account all the evidence produced by the Appellant both prior to and during the hearing the Tribunal has concluded that the Appellant has not demonstrated that she has been trained to a sufficient standard to meet the core competences required under the Diploma SW standard.
19. The CSA 2000 requires that anyone from outside the UK making an application to be registered as a social worker in England must demonstrate that they have an equivalent standard of training to that required of a social worker trained in England. The Appellant's extensive work experience in a limited area of social care together with her Logotherapy diploma and IBAF certificate cannot make up for her lack of a professional qualification in social work theory or other training which equates to the DipSW.
20. Therefore the Tribunal whilst accepting the genuine commitment of the Appellant to helping others is not satisfied that she has trained to the standard required under the CSA 2000 to be registered as a social worker in England.
21. This is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal.

ORDER

APPEAL DISMISSED

Miss H Clarke (Nominated Chair)

Mr J Black

Mr T Greenacre

17^th July 2007