First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

Burgesson v General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 11 (HESC) (04 February 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers - Refusal of registration

CATHERINE BURGESSON

-v-

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2008 1367.SW]

-Before-

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated Tribunal Judge)

Richard Beeden

(Specialist Member)

Jennifer Cross

(Specialist Member)

Decision

Heard on 30 January 2008

Care Standards Tribunal Service

18 Pocock Street

London SE1 0BW

Appeal

1. The Appellant appeals pursuant to Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against refusal of the Respondent to register her as a Social Worker on the Register maintained pursuant to Section 56 (1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.

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 in 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.

2. The Appellant is from Ghana. Section 64 of the 2002 Act relates to overseas qualifications.

Section 64 (1) (b) 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 the 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.

3. The parties requested that the case be determined on the papers. On 24 November 2008 the President directed that it should be determined on the basis of the bundle of document submitted.
4. The decision under appeal dated 6 June 2008 was to refuse the Appellant registration as a Social Worker, but identified that she could undergo 80 hours of supervised and assessed practice supervised by a qualified social worker within 2 years, to make good the gaps identified in the International Recognition Service (IRS) assessment.

The Evidence

5. We have read two-witness statement of Mrs Catherine Clarke, the Council's Senior Adviser Education Standards dated 7 January 2009 and 19 January 2009. We read the personal statement prepared by the Appellant where she sets out her experience and her case as to why she can meet the 6 core competencies required of a Social Worker. We also read her witness statement, dated 9 January 2009

The Facts

6. The Appellant graduated in June 1998 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Work with Sociology from the University of Ghana. The Appellant was issued with a letter of verification as to her BA degree by the GSCC dated July 2002. That letter was issued to individuals who requested it by the GSCC Registry prior to 30 April 2004 as evidence for particular employers to say that a named person had a social work qualification in the country in which it was obtained. It was not a certification that the award held was recognised as the equivalent of a social work qualification in the United Kingdom.
7. Between 21 July 1998 and 4 December 1998 the Appellant worked in Ghana as a Social Worker for the Islamic Council for Development and Humanitarian Services. She then came to the United Kingdom. Between 15 November 1999 and 7 August 2000 she was a full time volunteer for Community Service Volunteers. She then spent some time travelling. In November 2001 she became a nursing assistant and on 12 March 2001 commenced training to be a nurse, which she completed in April 2003. She immediately rose to being a Staff Nurse and worked in that capacity until 21 March 2005. On 10 February 2004 the Appellant undertook an MSc in a Mental Health Studies programme. It appears that she now wishes to work as a Mental Health Social Worker.

8. On 15 April 2008, an assessor in the International Recognition Service of the GSCC assessed the Appellant's application. It was accepted that many of the subject areas of the Appellant's degree course would have been found on a Dip SW course. However the Appellant's practice placements fell far short of the requirement of the Dip SW, which are a total of 130 days overall. In the first year a student undertakes a 50 day placement, in the second and final year the student undertakes an 80 day placement. The assessor noted there was no documentary evidence in relation to the Appellant's 350 hours of assessed practice placement. The records have been lost in a fire at the University of Ghana. There was no documentary evidence of her period of employment with the Islamic Council.

8. Whilst the GSCC appeared to have some doubts as to the Appellant's equivalency of a 50 day first placement, the condition attached was that she should undertake a further 80 days of training. The IRS manager upheld the initial assessor's view. The Appellant had to successfully complete 80 days supervised practice learning (full time equivalent) in the United Kingdom with a focus on direct social work practice, the integration of theory and values and the application of the legal framework in social work practice and could then apply for re-registration.
9. In response to the refusal the Appellant filed letters from Mr Abrefah, the Co-ordinator and Lecturer in the Department of Social Work, University of Ghana dated July 2008 and a letter from Sheikh Mustapha Ibrahim, Islamic Council for Development and Humanitarian Service dated 18 August 2008. In her appeal papers she referred to the fact that she had been working at the Metropolitan Support Trust, Hammersmith, as a tenancy support worker including support work, liasing with other agencies and advice involved in welfare benefits.
10. Mrs. Clarke considered this evidence. Whilst it was acknowledged that the Appellant had accumulated valuable experience in public service through her role as a mental health nurse, this didn't demonstrate how she had been assessed and supervised in a social work role, and applied her knowledge, skills and values in a social work professional context. Her experience as a tenancy support officer, showed achievement and commitment to public service provision but again was not evidence of post-qualifying social work experience. There was insufficient detail in the social work tasks carried out in post-qualifying employment with the Islamic Council for Development and Humanitarian Services to address the shortfalls.

Conclusions

11. In determining this appeal we have had regard to all the evidence. We have also applied our knowledge as a specialist Tribunal. In particular we have had regard to the fact that the purpose of an extended second year 80 day placement is not just a 'snapshot' but an in-depth evidence based assessment over an extended period of time. A trainee Social Worker carries a full case load and carries all the tasks of a qualified Social Worker and can be assessed against the 6 core competencies. It is our view that the discretion has been exercised in excusing the Appellant from the first 50 day placement, but that she does need to show that she can meet the standards of this tougher, second period of assessment.
12. The Appellant has put forward no substantial evidence to challenge the assessment of the IRS, upheld by the IRS manager. The assessor concluded that:

'The limited length, breadth and quality of the assessed practice placements during the applicant's social work training did not meet the Dip SW requirements. Since qualifying as a Social Worker in Ghana in 1998, the applicant has not had sufficient work experience in a social work setting to make up this gap, although she has ample experience as a mental health nurse. Assessed practice experience in a social work setting is required (core competencies 3-6) to meet Dip SW requirements

13. The Appellant holds a social work qualification, has subsequent experience as a registered professional with the Nursing and Midwifery Council in carrying out a role in mental health nursing. We agree with Mrs. Clarke's view this is clearly valuable public service experience with relevance to social care. However this is not the same as carrying out a role in social work and being appropriately prepared in practising within a social work legal policy and practice knowledge base and assessed on the social work not a medical model.
14. This is a baseline requirement for entry into the social work profession. We remind ourselves that Social Workers once qualified, can exercise draconian powers, such as in the mental health field depriving somebody of their liberty. That is the reason why the United Kingdom places a strong emphasis upon a supervised and assessed practice, whereby the student can show an integration of academic and practice competence.

Accordingly, our decision is to dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated First Tier Tribunal Judge)

Jennifer Cross

(Specialist Member)

Richard Beeden

(Specialist Member)

Date: 4 February 2009