Bourne v General Social Care Council [2008] EWCST 1216 (SW) (28 April 2008)

Nigel David Bourne

-v-

The General Social Care Council
[2008] 1216.SW

Before:
Mr John Reddish (Chairman)
Ms Caroline Joffe
Mr Jim Lim

Hearing date:  14 April 2008

DECISION

Appeal
On 7 January 2008 the Applicant appealed, under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000, against the decision of the General Social Care Council, made on 16 October 2007, to refuse his 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 he wanted a “paper hearing” and the Respondent having raised no objection, on 11 March 2008 the President directed that the appeal should be determined on the basis of the bundle of documents submitted.

Evidence
The Tribunal read the witness statement of Ms Cathrine Clarke, the Education Standards and Information Manager of the Social Work Education Group of the General Social Care Council dated 31 March 2008 and read the evidence of the Applicant contained in his letters dated 6 and 23 January 2008 and 26 February 2008 and the documents annexed thereto and the evidence of Ms Marty Ann Andrews and Ms Christine Smith, respectively the Senior Social Services Supervisor and the Program Manager of the County of Orange Social Services Agency contained in their letter dated 21 March 2008.  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 11 March 2008 and included in the bundle of documents.

Facts

The material facts found by the Tribunal were as follows:

1.	The Applicant was born in Herefordshire in May 1954 and is therefore 53 years old.  He was educated at Ipswich School (where he sat his Advanced Level General Certificate Examinations in 1972) and at Oxford Polytechnic (where, in 1978, he obtained a Diploma in Estate Management).

2.	The Applicant became an Associate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in October 1981.  He worked as a surveyor in London until September 1988 when he migrated to California.  From November 1988 until December 1990 the Applicant was employed as a package despatch worker and, in January 1991, he was appointed as the Assistant Retail Manager of a printing business in Corona Del Mar, California.  In 1993 the Applicant became the Operations Manager of a swimming pool company in Newport Beach, California and he worked there until his appointment as a “Senior Social Worker” with the County of Orange Social Services Agency in California.  He now lives in Santa Ana, California.

3.	The Applicant holds a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology. This degree was conferred upon him by the Azusa Pacific University of Azusa, California in July 2001, following a course of study undertaken between September 1999 and July 2001.  During his degree course the Applicant undertook a “therapy internship” at the Straight Talk Clinic in Cypress, California.

4.	From September 2001 to date the Applicant has been employed as a Senior Social Worker by the County of Orange Social Services Agency, first as a “case carrying” worker with the “Integrated Continuing Services” and latterly as an emergency worker in the “Emergency Response division”.

5.	In November 2001 the Applicant successfully completed a “Core Practice Course” at the Public Child Welfare Training Academy.  This was “entry-level training” designed to give the Applicant the skills and knowledge to perform his job as a Senior Social Worker.  The course was provided over a period of two months and involved 42 hours of instruction in a variety of areas including interviewing skills; preparing and presenting effective testimony and case planning and management.

6.	Between November 2001 and January 2002 the Applicant followed a “New Employee Orientation Schedule” which included some courses meeting the qualification for continuing education credits for Marriage and Family Therapists and Licensed Clinical Social Workers in California.

7.	During his first full year with the County of Orange Social Services Agency the Applicant “consistently demonstrated a very high level of competency” and “continued to demonstrate a very strong desire to learn”.  He “continued to avail himself of clinical supervision opportunities in order to earn a sufficient number of supervision hours to ultimately qualify for a Marriage and Family Therapy license” (earning approximately 150 hours during the year) and participated in four training sessions provided by the Public Child Welfare Training Academy (with credits amounting to 24 hours in total).

8.	In the year to March 2004 the Applicant remained “an exceptionally competent, skilled and dedicated worker”.  He “made great strides towards his goal of obtaining a license in Marriage and Family Therapy” (participating in approximately 1,200 hours of clinical supervision).

9.	In March 2004 the Applicant’s supervisor reported that “the amount of time Mr Bourne spent in clinical supervision combined with his heavy workload limited the opportunities for his participation in other kinds of training.”  The Applicant attended three training sessions (on personality disorders; separation grief and loss and relative reassessments).

10.	In the year to March 2005 the Applicant again attended three training sessions (on parenting the difficult child; ADHD and other neurological disorders and domestic violence assessment) and participated, as a trainer, in the programme for new workers in “Integrated Continuing Services”.  He worked independently; exceeded his performance objectives and again “demonstrated a high level of expertise in all significant areas of the ICS Senior Social Worker assignment”.  His “professional development remained of high importance to him” and he completed the full 3,000 hours of clinical supervision required for a license in Marriage and Family Therapy.

11.	In July 2005 the Applicant was assigned to the “Emergency Response division” of the County of Orange Social Services Agency.  He “adapted rapidly to his assignment” and quickly became “one of the most efficient of ER social workers”.  He was “highly organized” and “conscientious in meeting all compliance requirements”.  His supervisor described him as “a hard working and dedicated professional” who had “proven himself an asset to the Emergency Response division”.

12.	In January 2006 the Applicant submitted his application for inclusion on the register of social workers declaring that he held a degree in Clinical Psychology and setting out, in his personal statement, the “core competences” that he said that he had acquired during his university course and subsequent employment.  The Applicant said that, while he did not have a social work degree, he was submitting that the work experience he had as a Senior Social Worker together with his masters degree in Clinical Psychology qualified him to the level required or to a higher level.  The Applicant declared that he was fully committed to and motivated by his work as a social worker having made “something of a sideways move into social work” following his “graduate degree program” and his “initial intention to become a licensed therapist”.

13.	On 19 August 2006 Mr David Billhimer, a Senior Social Work Supervisor with the County of Orange Social Services Agency, endorsed the Applicant’s application; confirmed the accuracy of its contents and explained that Senior Social Workers under his supervision worked with families who had experienced child abuse and neglect, including those families who had come to the attention of the juvenile court.

14.	 In the year to June 2007 the Applicant “continued his efforts towards clinical licensure” and provided “exemplary service to his clients”.  He was seen to be “professional, empathetic and patient”.

15.	In January 2007 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.

16.	On 15 February 2007 the external assessor gave her opinion.  She said that the Applicant was not eligible for registration because he did not have a recognised social work qualification and had not undertaken sufficient supervised and assessed practice in a social work role.  Although the Applicant appeared to have committed himself to excelling in his job, he had not demonstrated that he met the requirements of the UK Diploma in Social Work and lacked much of the social work knowledge base.  His yearly appraisal reports were not, in the assessor’s view, “equivalent to fieldwork placement reports or PQ training assessments”.

17.	On 1 March 2007 Ms Diane Smith, the Manager of the Respondent Council’s International Recognition Service, recommended rejection of the Applicant’s application on the basis that he did not have a professional qualification in social work recognised by the American Council on Social Work Education; that during his university studies he did not receive any taught input on social work theory and methods or any teaching related to the social and policy context of social work and that he had not completed supervised and assessed practice placements in a social work role.

18.	On 30 August 2007 Ms Sue Pinkham, the Business Manager of the Respondent’s Registration Team, warned the Applicant that his application would probably be refused on the ground that he 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, he were able to provide significant new factual evidence of competence in social work to add to the evidence he 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.

19.	On 16 October 2007 Ms Pinkham informed the Applicant that the Respondent had decided to refuse his application on the grounds that he did not meet the qualification criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000.  Ms Pinkham further informed the Applicant that it would be possible for him to re-apply for registration if he were able successfully to complete social work training in the UK.

20.	On 7 January 2008 the Applicant lodged an Appeal Application in Form B with supporting documentation, including a statement of his case.

21.	On 13 February 2008 the Respondent filed its Response to the Appeal, submitting that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that his training was equivalent to the UK Diploma in Social Work.  

22.	On 31 March 2008 Ms Clarke made her 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 the United States of America.  His qualifications were not recognised by the professional association in the USA as being social work qualifications and, while the Applicant had significant post-qualification experience, that experience was insufficient to make up the shortfall in the nature of the qualification obtained.

23.	The guidance issued by the Respondent Council states that, where the qualification is in an aligned profession, 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 qualification alone or on the basis of his qualification and relevant training and work experience.

The law

24.	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.

25.	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.

26.	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

27.	It was argued by the Applicant that:
(a)	although he does not hold a degree in social work and is not able to call himself, or practise as, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of California, he has significant work experience as a social worker;
(b)	his employers in Orange County place a strong emphasis on “ongoing training” and have required him to attend several day courses throughout each year;
(c)	he has been trained and supervised to the same level as any experienced social worker with a master’s degree in social work;
(d)	he has consistently excelled  in the work; and
(e)	he could therefore properly be accorded the same professional status as a qualified social worker.

28.	It was argued on behalf of the Respondent Council that neither the information originally supplied nor the additional documentation supplied by the Applicant was capable of satisfying the Respondent that the Applicant met the requirements of the Act because 
(a)	he did not study for a professional social work qualification recognised by the American Council on Social Work Education; and
(b)	his various qualifications and his experience, though invaluable, did not qualify as relevant training for the purposes of registration with the Respondent Council.

Conclusions with reasons

29.	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.

30.	The fact, conceded by the Applicant, that he is not registered as a social worker in California is highly significant.  However, notwithstanding relevant considerations of reciprocity and comity, the absence of registration in the USA 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 he was educated and trained was to place upon the Applicant the evidential burden of showing that the reasons why he would not be registered in the USA 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 the USA is the same as that put forward by the Respondent here i.e. that his academic qualifications are not in social work but in a related discipline and he has not completed sufficient additional or supplementary training to qualify for the title of “Licensed Clinical Social Worker”.

31.	There are no significant deficits in the academic training of the Applicant.   His degree is of a higher academic standard than the Diploma in Social Work.  However, he has not covered many of the relevant subjects.  Further, there is a deficit in the Applicant’s training in that he has not undertaken 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.

32.	The Applicant undertook placements (amounting in total to more than 250 hours) during his degree course but this was as a trainee therapist.  The training undertaken by the Applicant in 2001 was “entry-level training” designed to give him 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.  The Applicant’s subsequent training was not extensive and was not assessed.

33.	The Applicant spent much of his time, while working as a Senior Social Worker, qualifying as a Marriage and Family Therapist.  He completed the full 3,000 hours of clinical supervision required for a license in Marriage and Family Therapy and passed the written examinations.  All of this is greatly to the Applicant’s credit.  It is not suggested that the Applicant’s qualifications and experience are in any way inferior.  They are simply different from those of a social worker.

34.	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; Voronin v. GSCC [2006] 822.SW and McElroy V GSCC [2007] 872.SW.  In those cases the applicants for inclusion on the register of social workers held, respectively, a BSc in Behavioural Science from Mercy College, USA; a BSc in Sociology from West Oregon State College, USA and a Bachelor of Community Welfare from the University of Western Sydney, Australia and they all had substantial post-qualification work experience.  The Tribunal was guided by the relevant observations made in those decisions.

35.	The Applicant relied not only upon his qualification and training but also upon his 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.

36.	The Applicant has demonstrated that he is highly competent but cannot show that his training in social work has been sufficient to merit his registration as a social worker.  That training has been very limited, not least because the Applicant spent many hours, both as a graduate student and as an employee of the Social Services Agency, training as a therapist.

37.	The fact that the Applicant has, for several years, worked as a “Senior Social Worker” in California is potentially misleading.  Applications for the post of “Senior Social Worker” in the County of Orange are accepted not only from those who have qualifications and experience in social work but also from those, like the Applicant, who hold a master’s degree in psychological counselling or a Marriage and Family Therapist license.

38.	The Applicant’s contention that he has been supervised in the same way as any experienced social worker with a master’s degree in social work may well be sound.  However, the issue is not one of relative status.  It is one of qualification and training.  The Applicant is highly qualified but in a different field.  He does not have the additional training in social work that the Respondent, with justification, requires before granting an application for registration.

39.	The Tribunal therefore decided to dismiss the appeal.

40.	The decision of the Tribunal was unanimous.

Order

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

John Reddish
Chairman
Caroline Joffe
Jim Lim

28 April 2008