Regarding A submission to the Parliamentary Social Services Select Committee: Inquiry into the operation of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003

Transcription

1 Regarding A submission to the Parliamentary Social Services Select Committee: Inquiry into the operation of the Social Workers Registration Act /06/2016 To the members of the Parliamentary Social Service Select Committee, In the submission process you will be looking for candid reasons why the SWRB is not operating effectively. You will be seeking qualified social workers experiential feedback of the gaps that the SWRB have in the way it operates and regulates. The submission process will need to reach professional social workers themselves to hear about potential options that will make the SWRB valuable to the social workers it engages with. The Select Committee are aware of the costs that are high for registration. The way in which fees are invested in social work as a profession, its regulation, education direction and the future face of social work, will be of key interest to the Select Committee. The health and allied social sector are aware of the lack of competence regulation for social work. The systemic failings of social work competence levels being maintained and the lack of investment in the future of the profession by SWRB are glaringly obvious. The lack of direction by SWRB and other factors are now experienced in health services, where roles that were aligned as best met by social workers, no longer seek social workers to fill them. The value of social work has eroded over time (with increasingly rapid erosion over the past 3 years). This is linked to the poor regulation and non visible investment in Continued Professional Development in this profession. There is no active, credible leadership and national voice for social work competency. My submission that follows is based on 10 years experience as a social worker, both nationally and internationally. I hold a Masters in Social Work (Social Science) and I have been registered with SWRB for 7 years. In my experience as a social worker I have worked in addictions, mental health and project management. I have been a member of the School of Social Work Advisory Group at the University of Auckland. The SWRB have been invisible to social work practice in the following ways. The body has provided little evidence of the way in which the registration fees have been invested, Communication is poor. Outside of annually sending a generated requiring fees by a nominal generic date and not providing a summary/ annual report of where the previous year s fees were invested There appears to be no E-News about the sector (adhoc Newsletters that came out once in once in 2015 that are not visible on the SWRB website without looking are notional),

2 no National conference, no Hui, no opportunity to engage with the SWRB on a regional, local or even national level The SWRB have a very crude competency process and re-registration process that I have experienced as based on form filling The calibre of social work education is unacceptable and is not of a level that can ensure competency of the profession The nursing board for example are engaged with nationallyu funded workforce development agencies (Te Pou) to advance nursing in the addictions field. Where is the SWRB placed in national CPD discussions Social work is inherently at risk of media scrutiny, as it works with people whose lives as often at the most high risk and crisis point levels. The SWRB does not appear to offer any indication of its support for the professional competence of the people it registers in this arena. The intention of this Submission is to highlight the failings of the SWRB to social workers at the coal face, who are working in multidisciplinary sectors trying to save the credibility of their profession. It is not the intention of the Submission to seek to be heard orally, however if it will support the credibility of my points, I am happy to do so.

3 A submission to the Parliamentary Social Services Select Committee: Inquiry into the operation of the Social Workers Registration Act Registration of social workers should it be mandatory? (Legal Issues Paper page 15-26) - Registration should, without exception be mandatory. There are a number of reasons for this: Creating a sense of a unified professionalised body that is an ambassador for social work as a profession Maintaining an accurate list of people who are practicing, in this country, as social workers, thereby precluding people who work in a socially conscious way but are not qualified as social workers identifying themselves as social workers Ensuring people who work in New Zealand but,who have completed their academic qualification internationally have a. Credibility to practice and confidence in their qualification (above what an NZQA assessment can confirm) b. Making sure that there is competency to practice Setting a bench mark for competence places an onus on education providers to meet a certain standard before they can call their courses social work courses Addressing unsafe, uninformed or dangerous social workers who are in the workplace Registration is best achieved by assessing a person s social work education. Therefore, the emphasis goes on what the education standards are and what social work as a profession expects people to know when they are practicing. Providing CPD options that would promote CPD attainment per annum would enhance the mana of social workers in knowing they are working in line with current national and international practices. This could be minimal 16 hours per year, social work specific CPD/ Conference. - Potential challenges and how might these be best addressed Identify what type of leadership and governance attributes the SWRB needs and develop a plan for what the SWRB can achieve. Look at the costing model and ascertain how to reduce costs/ or provide more in the fees, including conferences- decent publications, not merely asking someone to hand in a paper that is not of a high standard and then circulate- commission pieces of work, from social workers to grow the profession Require that all academic bodies be approved by the SWRB and review this annually. Provide hui for academic providers to look at what, how and with what level of monitoring they are offering.

4 - The scope of social work that requires registration could be prescribed in legislation or by the Board. Given the degeneration of the influence of the SWRB over the short period of time that it has been responsible for registration and associated professional aims, registration is best prescribed in legislation, not by the Board. - Student registration Student placement could be excluded from the scope of work for which registration is required. Surely this is within the scope of the academic provider to monitor and manage in collaboration with registered social workers oversight. - Other issues or options the Select Committee needs to be aware of The Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) is a Crown agency that provides public assurance that Registered Social Workers: meet professional standards of competent practice are accountable for the way in which they practise undertake ongoing professional development Source URL Retrieved 21/06/2016 In reference to the responsibility of the SWRB to meet professional standards of competent practice, the SWRB has wholly failed in its role to provide ongoing professional development. Or else, it has failed in its responsibility to communicate with its registered social workers opportunities for continued professional development as I have not seen any for years (more than 5 years). 2. Pre-requisites to Registration (Legal Issues Paper page 28-33) Issues raised in the Legal Issues Paper that you might like to consider here: - Are competence assessments required before a social worker can be registered? Or do you think competence can be presumed post qualification? Given the ad hoc and low levels of social work education at some Social work schools and indeed that social work training can be offered via correspondence, I support a one off competence assessment 12 months post qualification to ascertain registration. If the standard of education was more consistent and higher, I would not suggest that this is necessary.

5 - Should sufficient practical experience (section 13 applications) be retained as a basis for registration? If so, should there be a transitional period? This precludes social workers in upper management, social workers who have branched into workforce development, project management, education and non front line social work. Surely, we want to continue to engage these people in the profession. Therefore, I would think a portfolio for registration should consider what would constitute practice. - Cultural competence if competence is to be presumed post qualification, should an applicant have to prove they are also competent to practice with Maori and competent to practice with other ethnic or cultural groups? I would expect that should the board ensure that qualifications meet any competence standards that would be enough for registration - Communication skills should all applicants have to prove they have sufficient English to practice social work regardless as to whether they are overseas applicants or not? Yes. Even if a social worker is working with people who speak the same first language as them, which is not English, there should be a basic requirement of the worker that they are proficient at basic English language skills, given the principles of social work and what it means to work in a bio-psycho-social way. 3. Fitness to practice social work (Legal Issues Paper page 37-39) - Are the fitness to practice requirements in the current legislation adequate or should these be expanded as suggested on page 39 of the Legal Issues Paper? The requirements on page 39 of the Legal Issues Paper are totally required, how it could be conceived that would not be is a concern, given that they, as a minimum mitigate basic risks for organisations who send staff into people s homes, for clients to know that they are at least dealing with someone who will be able to provide them, at the most basic a decent service. 4. Oversight of Social Workers by the Board (Legal Issues Paper page 44-51) - Should the Board be able to review a social workers competence and be able to place conditions or suspend a person s registration or practising certificate; make a complaint about them; refer them to a Complaints Assessment Committee; or cancel their registration? Yes, I would expect that this happens, how else do we regulate social work - When the Board is notified of concerns about a social workers ability to practice social work, are the current options available to the Board adequate or should these be expanded to include those outlined on page 51?

6 I absolutely support the increased provisions of the Board as suggested on page 51 to be included as options when managing concerning practice. - Mandatory notification- do you think it should be compulsory for employers to report: Professional misconduct? Health concerns affecting practice? Issues of competence posing a risk to the public? Suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct or other relevant codes? Yes, if not we will see a hamster wheel sequence of bad/ dangerous practice occurring where a social worker goes from employer to employer, impacting badly on clients and colleagues, costing organisations large sums of time in HR and legal fees, only to go on and do it again. There is an onus to protect the safety of clients and surely organisations pay a registration fee to protect their services and have best practice in their social work employees. However, we need a credible registration body, who will act wisely, quickly and resourcefully to assess the notifications. 5. The Complaints Assessment Committee Process (Legal Issues Paper page 55-60) - Should the Board be responsible for the administration of complaints as opposed to the Tribunal? If not, why not? Yes, if the Board were to be staffed by effective people, with sufficient remit to make manage complaints, the board should, with legal representation (or HR advisory presence), expedite the complaints process. The timeframe must be prescriptive, or the risk will be the lag will make the complaint irrelevant, and undermine the process - Should all convictions, including all drink drive convictions be referred to a CAC or do you think that there should be some discretion given to the Board around this? All convictions should be referred for hearing Finish

7