Competencies A Unifying Thread for Education, Practice and Public Protection

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the ongoing discourse about professional competencies, social work regulation, and social work education. In 2012, the Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators (CCSWR) developed an Entry-Level Competency Profile for the social work profession in response to the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), which ensured inter-provincial mobility for registered social workers. While the Entry-Level Competency profile was the culmination of a series of debates, panels, and roundtables the establishment of the competency profile by no means concluded the debate or dispelled the fears associated with a competency framework; particularly for social work educators. In this paper, I aim to continue to develop the conversation by forwarding a perspective that views entry-level competencies in social work practice as a natural extension of existing educational practices.

Regulation and Competency

In November 2012, the British Columbia College of Social Workers (BCCSW) accepted the CCSWR Canadian Competency profile and signalled to social work educators and the social work community three initiatives: the implementation of a mandatory continuing professional development program, the removal of health authority exemptions from the act, and the implementation of an entry to practice licensure exam. All of these strategies were predicated on a continuous learning, professional, and accountable paradigm. BC was not alone in its initiative to incorporate the concept of competency into professional, regulated practice. For example, in Alberta, the Standards of Practice now articulate that “a social worker is responsible to provide competent professional services to all clients” (Alberta College of Social Workers, 2013, B.2(c)).

Professional accountability occurs through legislation in virtually all health, and indeed, in many non-health professions. Regulatory legislation ensures the general public that service providers are members of the profession they purport to be, and further serves as a primary mechanism for service users to have a reasonable expectation of competency. However, in BC, social workers in exempt agencies, such as the Ministry of Children and Family Development and School Districts, may not be educated or registered as social workers. This means that while consumers can be assured nurses are nurses, teachers are teachers, and physiotherapists are physiotherapists, the same is not true in social work. For the consumer, there is no automatic complaint process or regulatory protection from unethical, incompetent, or sub-standard social work services.

Effective September 1, 2015, the BCCSW implemented a mandatory entry to practice exam. This initiative required extensive dialogue between the College and the universities, and for some academics has re-ignited the competency framework debate. In general, the arguments against the development of social work competency frameworks are that they are reductionist, mechanistic, and erode complex judgements; furthermore, they negate the social justice aspect of social work in which government policy is examined and critiqued (Aronson & Hemingway, 2011; Campbell, 2011; Rossiter & Heron, 2011). Rebuttal arguments in favour of competency frameworks are that competency models can provide transparent blueprints for what students can expect to learn and what practitioners have a responsibility to master (Bogo, Mishna, & Regehr, 2011) and ensure the delivery of high quality social work services to the public (Birnbaum & Silver, 2011).

Universities and Social Work Curriculum

Social work programs at universities in Canada are accredited through the Canadian Association for Social Work Education / Association canadienne pour la formation en travail social (CASWE-ACFTS). This process is mostly uncontested, and is an accepted and even revered aspect of providing social work education. In Canada, CASWE-ACFTS provides accreditation on educational policies, standards and procedures, and reviews standards in four domains: Program Mission and Goals; Program Governance, Structure and Resources; Program Content: Curriculum and Field Education; and Program Evaluation/Assessment. This approach is consistent with a quality management system paradigm, which suggests that through the adherence of specific policies and requirements, the likelihood that a good product being generated is increased. This model differs from accreditation models in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).

In the US, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) shifted, in 2008, from program objectives to a competency performance approach that demonstrates the integration and application of competencies in practice (Council on Social Work Education, 2008). In this model, the education program is an outcome model responsible for graduating students who are competent to enter practice.

In England, social work programs are accredited through the Health and Care Professional Council. While still ensuring required program management and resources, standards move beyond a competencies framework to a capability one. Educational accreditation looks at standards of proficiency, which stipulate what students should know, understand, and be able to do at the completion of their training (Health & Care Professions Council, 2012). The standards of proficiency are mapped to the professional capabilities framework which comprise the requirements for registration. In Scotland, universities and employers have been working in partnership to embed Key Capabilities in Child Care and Protection into degree programs since 2007 (Scottish Social Services Council, 2009). In this model the Standards in Social Work Education are aligned with the practice Key Capabilities (Scottish Executive, 2006). In both of these models, educational proficiency is explicitly linked to practice capability, or competency, and regulation. Neither the US nor Canadian models connect the educational and regulatory practice requirements.

Educational Objectives and Outcomes – Building to Competency

Back in Canada, the CASWE-ACFTS (2014) accreditation standard 3.1 states: “social work programs use learning objectives for students in designing and delivering their curricula and field education” (p. 9). The standards for accreditation do not use either of the terms “outcome” or “competency.” This begs the question: What is the difference between a learning objective, a learning outcome, and a competency?

A simplified differentiation is that learning objectives are usually described in measurable and behavioural statements, which describe “what the learner should be able to achieve at the end of a learning period” (School of Public Health, n.d., p.1). In contrast, learning outcomes can be defined as “statements that describe significant and essential learning that learners have achieved, and can reliably demonstrate at the end of a course of program” (University of Connecticut, n.d., p. 1). Objectives are the intended results whereas outcomes are the achieved results or consequences of what was learned (University of Connecticut, n.d.). Competencies, on the other hand, are defined as “applied skills and knowledge that enable people to successfully perform their work” (University of Connecticut, n.d., p. 1). In short, objectives say what we want the learners to know, outcomes are what learners do know and can demonstrate in the educational setting, and competencies are integrated and applied practices.

Figure 1

Learning to Competency

Preparing Social Work Students for Practice

The transformation of learning into practice has traditionally occurred in practicum. “Field education is a highly valued component of social work education” (Bogo, 2010, p. ix), is considered by many students and graduates as the most crucial component in practice preparation (Bogo, 2010), and is sometimes referred to as the “signature pedagogy” of social work education (Shulman, 2005; Wayne, Bogo, & Raskin, 2010). While Larrison & Korr (2013) dispute the characterization that field education is the signature pedagogy, and rather argue that the signature pedagogy of social work emerges in the classroom and is then further applied in field education, it is indisputable that field education is the site of applied practice learning, and the beginning of competency preparation and professional accountability. The integration of the shift from learning objectives/outcomes to competency is evidenced through the language of competency rubrics used by many universities to evaluate field education performance. The use of competency frameworks has shown utility in both micro and macro field education practice settings. Competencies include the acquisition of procedural skills and higher order meta or overarching qualities and values including characteristics such as self-awareness; compassion; motivation; and commitment to social justice (Bogo et al., 2011; Regehr, Bogo, Donovan, Anstice, & Lim, 2012). The concept of competency has evolved beyond a static set of attributes to mean an array of multi-dimensional, dynamic abilities that enhance creativity and transformation, are developmental and contextual in nature, related to the outcome, and connected to the demands of the workplace (Campbell, Silver, Sherbino, Ten Cate, & Holmboe, 2010; Frank et al., 2010; Kovacs, Hutchison, Collins, & Linde, 2013).

Conclusion

In the professional practice of social work, learning objectives and learning outcomes are the stepping stones to competency for entry-level practice. While schools of social work have autonomy in curriculum and program development, there is an additional responsibility to prepare learners for status as registered social workers with mobility across provincial jurisdictions and accountability to the public.

Social workers entering practice will be required to be transparent and accountable through current managerial processes. As trust in public institutions continues to erode, competencies are one way to provide credibility of the profession and accountability to the public. While discussion may still be required to ensure competencies include “modernist ideas of standardization and post-modern ideas of complexity and diversity” (Kovacs et al., 2013, p. 237); hopefully, the debate on the need for practice competency is complete.

Ultimately, the question underlying the debate on regulation and minimum competencies from the general public’s perspective is: “Can I be assured that a social worker that I am seeing is competent?”. The answer depends on how the profession views transparency and accountability and how it is envisioned that social workers become competent. Competence is a continuous and evolving process that is informed by practice context; and obviously, competency alone does not prevent poor practice from occurring. However, building public trust in social work services is important and I believe it is the role of social work education to prepare students for entry-level competency. It continues to be perplexing that schools of social work have embraced learning objectives through the accreditation process, and learning outcomes through the universities’ requirements but have trepidation about ensuring competency for entry-level practice.

I tend to support Larrison & Korr’s (2013) argument that students must think and perform like social workers throughout their professional development, and not just in the field education component of their education. Competency for practice shouldn’t be separated from learning outcomes, but rather it should be seen as the result of applying complex learning. Ultimately, this bifurcation of theory and practice, of learning outcomes, and applied competencies is an artificial dichotomy. Focusing on this tension between educators and regulators obfuscates the academic environment in which adult learners transition from their educational pathways into transparent and accountable social work practice as required by legislation.