[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Bankole v General Social Care Council Rev 1 [2006] EWCST 0715(SW) (9 October 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2006/0715(SW).html Cite as: [2006] EWCST 0715(SW), [2006] EWCST 715(SW)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Bankole v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 0715(SW) (9 October 2006)

Adebayo Oladipo Bankole

-v-

General Social Care Council

[2006] 0715.SW

Before

Miss M E Lewis

Nominated Chairman

Margaret Halstead

Caroline Joffe


DECISION

Hearing: 20 September 2006

The Appellant did not appear nor was he represented. Miss White of Counsel instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse represented the Respondents.

The Appeal

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

2. Section 58 (1) of the 2000 Act provides that the GSCC must be satisfied, that an applicant for registration is of good character and is physically and mentally fit to perform relevant work. That was not an issue in this case. However, the GSCC judged that the Appellant could not comply with specified conditions as to qualifications in particular the requirements of Section 64 (1) (b) of that Act applicable to qualifications gained outside England, namely: -.

   (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 such additional training in England or elsewhere as the Council may require.

3. At the commencement of the hearing, Miss White accepted that the Appellant had never been asked to undergo training by the Council. The sole issue was whether the Appellant had met the qualification criteria contained in Section 64 (1) (b) (i) of the 2000 Act.

4. The Appellant submitted an application for registration on 4 October 2005. He did not have a letter of verification issued by the GSCC's predecessor, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) or by the GSCC. In Part 1 of his application he stated that he had trained in Social Work in the United States. The Appellant has a Bachelor of Science degree from Mercy College in the United States. He did not claim that this was a Social Work qualification and subsequent enquiries by the GSCC to the relevant body in the USA established that it would not be recognised as a Social Work qualification.

5. The onus is on the Appellant or the Applicant before the Registration Committe to demonstrate that he is a person who meets the requirements of section 58 Care Standards Act 2000.

   The Hearing

6. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. We were satisfied that the hearing date had been set after consultation with the Appellant who had been reminded of the same by the Tribunal as recently as 25 August 2006. We caused a telephone call to be made to the Appellant at his place of employment, the London Borough of Harrow and our clerk was told that he was expected to return to work the following day but their understanding was that he was out of the country on leave. In a subsequent telephone call at 11.15 am the clerk was told that they were still trying to locate the Appellant. We therefore proceeded to hear the case having been given no reasonable explanation for the Appellant's absence and not being satisfied that even if we waited he would attend.

   The Facts

7. There was a bundle of documents and statement from Catherine Clarke, Education Standard and Information Manager, Social Work Education Group of the GSCC. We heard the evidence of Ms Clarke who adopted her statement. We were able to explore points raised by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal.

8. We have considered all the material with care. For the purposes of this appeal our analysis of the evidence and findings of fact are set out below.

9. The Appellant has not demonstrated nor has he sought to argue that his degree obtained in the United States is equivalent to a Diploma in Social Work. The Respondent's enquiries have established that it is of equal standard to a British Bachelors degree. The Appellant studied for a Bachelor of Science degree at Mercy College, USA from March 1996 to May 1998 and was awarded a BSc in Behavioural Science. The Appellant's degree is not comparable to a Diploma in Social Work. It is not recognised as a Social Work qualification in the USA.

   Overall it has significant deficits in the areas of social work theory, law and sociological perspectives. It does not address social work methods or provide adequate preparation to achieve professional competence in working therapeutically with individuals, families and communities, and managing risk. In particular there is no evidence of a substantial supervised and assessed social work placement. Whilst there are some course subjects, which are undoubtedly relevant, they are not taught in a social work context. A large number of the course subjects are not specifically applicable to social work.

10. During his degree the Appellant did not have an opportunity to demonstrate through assessed placements that he was able to apply knowledge learned. That is one of the key difference and reasons why the Appellant's degree cannot be seen as equivalent to a Diploma in Social Work. In the first year under the provisions of the Diploma in Social Work there would be a 50 day placement and in year 2, an 80 day placement. In our view that is a substantial assessment that would allow the Appellant and the person assessing him to test out his knowledge and whether he could apply that knowledge in practice.

11. This is a case where the Appellant has provided the fullest information. He has provided an academic transcript from Mercy College. We noted many of the subjects studied have no relevance to Social Work, such as an introduction to astronomy and an introduction to physics. Ms Clarke accepted that some of the subjects studied such as developmental psychology have a relevance to social work. She further accepted that if the Appellant undertook a Masters degree in this country, he might, subject to negotiation with the university, gain certain academic exemptions. However, such subjects had not been studied in the context of social work training. The Appellant had some valuable work experience but that was not sufficient to meet the criteria.

12. In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant stated that what he lacked in education he felt he had gained in experience working as a job opportunity counsellor/case manager. Ms Clarke accepted and we agree that the Appellant has work experience in the United States and in the United Kingdom relevant to social work. From 16 January 1999 to October 2004 Franklin County Job and Family Services employed him as a Total Case Manager. We noted a letter signed by the Executive Director of the Franklin County government who confirmed that the Appellant had worked as a case manager/social worker and did all that was required from a social worker. He was supervised for almost 6 months before getting authorisation, which was the ability to make decisions without a manager's approval. We noted that whilst at Franklin County, the Appellant was recognised as Employee of the Quarter in 2004. His work record and employment generally were regarded as excellent, and the only point on which he scored lower was a lack of training courses. Whilst we accept that this good record is to the Appellant's favour it does not of itself mean that he was doing the same work as a person trained in social work.

13. The Appellant had a similarly positive work record at his next employment. Between 8 October 2002 and October 2004 South-East INC employed him as Senior Residential Specialist working in crisis intervention. He also had mental health experience working between 23 January 1999 and April 2002 as a Social Work Assistant at Columbus Area Community Mental Health Inc, participating in residential admission assessment.

14. The Appellant was born in the United Kingdom and is a British citizen who returned to live and work in the United Kingdom. Since 8 June 2005, the London Borough of Harrow has employed the Appellant as an outreach support worker. We accept that he quickly showed that he had the potential and capability to do more and was soon moved to a supervised social work role within the Asylum Seekers Team, dealing with unaccompanied minors. He received a very positive reference from his team manager Mr. Ishola who endorsed his application for registration. The Appellant was responsible for day to day monitoring of the two outreach support staff within the team and co-ordinated between the social workers, support workers and other agencies in the private and voluntary sector. Mr Ishola stated that once registered, the Appellant would eventually be responsible for supervising the support team staff. In his view the Appellant had acquired the knowledge and aptitude skills necessary for the effective performance as a social worker. He had a working knowledge of relevant legislation and welfare benefits as well as the ability to apply, meet and maintain appropriate Council and departmental policies, legislation, codes of practice and protocols.

15. In his application for registration, the Appellant used these work experiences to provide evidence to the GSCC on how he believed he met the six core competences and practice requirements of the Diploma in Social Work. However, having taken account of all the information he has provided, the International Recognition Service decided that this did not make up for the fact that the Appellant had not trained as a professional qualified social worker, and advised the GSCC accordingly. In this appeal, the Appellant has provided no additional information to the tribunal to support his application for registration.

16. We accept that the GSCC has fully investigated this application. They referred it twice to the International Recognition Service (IRS) and the Appellant's application was scrutinised by two independent advisers.

17. Whilst the Appellant has taken a number of courses and provided documentation in support, we accept Ms. Clarke's evidence that these are about acquiring knowledge over one day or short courses. This does not equate to a lengthy social work assessment, which is far more rigorous.

    Findings

18. The Appellant holds a Bachelors degree equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in the United Kingdom. However, The Appellant has not undergone some of the key requirements of the Diploma of Social Work, namely he has not undergone a supervised assessed social work placement of significant duration. Whilst we accept that the Appellant has substantial and varied employment within a social welfare setting, he has not undertaken any professional social work training. Whilst he has attended many day courses as confirmed by a number of certificates, this is insufficient evidence of him extending his training and applying his acquired knowledge, equivalent to the level of the Diploma in Social Work. It is not the same as him being placed under what we know to be a rigorous assessment process in a social work placement lasting some weeks.

19. We would encourage the Appellant to seek a formal qualification. He may, and this of course is not a matter for us, be a suitable candidate to apply to a university and be given accreditation for prior learning.

20. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.

    Order

    The Appeal is dismissed.

    Miss M E Lewis - Chairman

    Margaret Halstead

    Caroline Joffe