JUC-SWEC and SWAP Suitability event 3 rd Nov 2008 ‘Some issues from the HEI perspective’ Cath Holmström University of Sussex BA SW Programme Director & BA/MA SW Admissions Tutor

2 Introductory comments Whose responsibility? At what cost do we ignore or act? Competing interests and competing rights and duties Professional Vs legal requirements and expectations Why are students deemed unsuitable? Become unsuitable when originally assessed as meeting suitability threshold? What type of issues crop up? Current context(s)

3 Frequent worries re addressing suitability issues Fear of legal action Individual liability – lack of certainty about this Making mistakes/procedural errors and implications Procedures - will they ‘hold up’? Institutional priorities/preferences/guidance and support – how secure is this? Time involved Reputation of individuals and departments Views of other students – impact upon cohorts/year groups Views of stakeholders Discrimination claims Impact on own career pathway?? Myth or reality?

4 Some of the realities It IS time consuming It IS complex and fraught with unknown outcomes Help and support IS available- we may want to identify it in advance of needing it. Assessing suitability is an ongoing and shared commitment Increasingly litigious environment Increasing emphasis upon student rights Desperate people ‘lash out’, especially when feeling ‘cornered’ We are NOT perfect, nor are our procedures perfect for every situation Procedural/technical errors will happen Student access to conduct hearing info etc can be mixed blessing – means we need it too.

5 What we can do to lessen anxieties Working closely and creatively with our Registries (re: existing and potential to amend procedures) That means us keeping them ‘in the loop’ re SW developments Also means them disseminating useful information/guidance Reviewing procedures in line with experiences near and far Talk to each other! Ensuring time is provided and these issues prioritised (easier said than done!) Set scene early on in course – build professional course culture around codes of practice; induction and re-induction as crucial Support for all involved in cases (including person presenting case against student as there may have been a need to create a communication barrier between them and their managers, depending upon who sits on the decision making Panel)

6 Competing interests and rights

7 Positive steps It is often suggested that we can learn from reviewing admissions procedures and reviewing admissions data for those students who have their training ended. We DO need to ensure our selection strategies are as robust as possible and comply with DH requirements. BUT that will not be enough ……. Research suggests that gate-keeping needs to be seen as a longer term process with regular points at which suitability is assessed Prevention better than cure as far as possible Increasing our own knowledge and confidence in this arena

8 A few suggestions Role of Registries Care Council inspectors and conduct team Policies and procedures – Codes as thresholds but interpretation varies Keeping in touch and sharing experiences in safe and supportive ways Educating ourselves – research and legal guidance Look at conduct reports and outcome of OIA cases and CST outcomes Legal support and advice Staff support and guidance

9 Suggestions/cont Sharing the load – working with employers and other stakeholders, including registries – are we clear with them about their involvement being needed in investigations? Seeing suitability as an ongoing assessment and duty – not necessarily a sign the admissions process has failed! Devise specific appeals processes if feasible? Not to return the issue to the Panel, but to deal separately to the standard academic appeals. Controversially, consider the appropriateness of SW educators being registered when they are qualified workers – is this always desirable or sensible? Recognising this as a professional duty akin to what we would do in practice with all the associated risks and challenges but also rewards and therefore one for which we are well qualified. This is a moral and ethical activity ripe with complexity and controversy, and so is familiar to us in our professional practice!

10 A few references Clark, C (2006) ‘Moral Character in Social Work’ in British Journal of Social Work, Vol 36, pp75-89 Cowburn, M & Nelson, P (2008) ‘ Safe Recruitment, Social Justice, and Ethical Practice: Should People Who Have criminal Convictions be Allowed to Train as Social Workers? In Social Work Education, Vol 27, No3, pp Currer, C & Atherton, K (2008) ‘Suitable to Remain a Student Social Worker? Decision making in Relation to Termination of Training’ in Social Work Education, Vol 23, No3 pp Holmstrom,C & Taylor,I (2008) ‘Mapping the Terrain of Selection for Social Work…..’ in Social Work Education Vol 27, No5, pp Holmstrom,C & Taylor,I (2008) ‘Researching Admissions: What Can We Learn about Selection of Applicants from Findings about Students in Difficulty on a Social Work Programme?’ in Social Work Education, Vol 27, No8 Moriarty, J, Manthorpe, J, Chauhan, B, Jones, G, Wenman H, Hussein, S (2008) ‘Hanging on a Little Thin Line: barriers to Progression and Retention in Social Work Education’ in Social Work Education, obtained via iFirst.