|
Response by the Professional Board for Child and Youth Care Work to the SACSSP’s “Pronouncement on the Status of Child and Youth Care Registration Processes”
The first elected PBCYC has worked hard and consistently during the five years of its term of office to create a legal framework for the regulation of child and youth care workers. To this end it has created:
- A comprehensive set of ethics to guide child and youth care work.
- A full submission to Council on the proposed regulatory framework for child and youth care workers.
- A document outlining the scope of practice for child and youth care work.
- Proposed regulations – currently in their 16th draft.
- A legal opinion by a reputable advocate on the legality of regulation of child and youth care workers at auxiliary level only.
In addition, the PBCYC communicated the content of its proposed regulatory framework through a national consultation process, engaging child and youth care workers in every province. In this process consensus was reached with our constituents on the regulation of child and youth care workers on two levels, namely auxiliary and professional levels.
After the completion of this consultation process, Council undertook research entitled “Research into the Demarcation of Social Services”. Many child and youth care workers inputted into the research process, which pronounced child and youth care work to be a profession – albeit at a fledgling level. This research process had come as a surprise to members of the PBCYC, as it had understood that the establishment of the PBCYC had been done in response to the recognized professional status of the field. This research, and thereafter the requirement by Council that the scope of practice of child and youth care work be defined, delayed the process of Council examining the regulations set out as per the consultative process.
However, in December of 2007 the PBCYC submitted these regulations together with all other documentation required by Council. The regulations for professional level were rejected by Council. The reason given for this was Council’s rejection of the new NQF Level 7 qualification by Council. The PBCYC pointed out at the time that an existing four-year degree was already in place, and that many dedicated child and youth care workers had obtained this degree (or were working towards it), so there was no need to hold back regulation at the professional level whilst a new qualification was being refined. The PBCYC also distanced itself from Council’s decision in this regard – because it is aware that many South African child and youth care workers are functioning way beyond the scope of practice of auxiliary workers, and therefore would be compromised in their everyday work by this level of regulation.
It came as a further surprise when Council wrote to the constituency of the PBCYC in March 2008 indicating that regulation at auxiliary level only would take place.
This was followed by a series of meetings in March to July held by representatives and staff of Council in 6 provinces, piggy-backing on meetings for social workers. Those meetings were experienced by many child and youth care workers as very discouraging of the professionalizing process. PBCYC representatives heard constituents rejecting the notion of a dual regulation process – one for regulation at auxiliary level and then followed at some future unspecified date by the regulation for those having obtained a professional qualification in child and youth care work.
This was followed by the official suspension of the PBCYC by Council in 2008 – for reasons of lack of delivery on its mandate.
The PBCYC appealed to the National Department of Social Development (NDSD) for intervention into the situation and a meeting took place in September 2008. At this meeting a two-phased regulatory approach was mooted by the NDSD. Representatives of the PBCYC indicated clearly at this meeting that this suggestion was different from the consulted-upon process, and that constituents were expecting to be regulated at both levels. Representatives indicated clearly that they did not have a mandate at this meeting to agree to such a radical change, and would take it back to the full PBCYC for a decision.
However, a meeting of the full PBCYC was only convened by Council in December of 2008, and this meeting took the decision to seek legal opinion on the matter of regulating at auxiliary level only. This was sought as soon after the Festive season as possible, and submitted to the PBCYC at a meeting on 19 February 2009. Prior to this meeting a meeting of representatives of the SGBs for SW and CYCW met in February to review the proposed child and youth care work Level 7 qualification. This meeting was unanimous on the opinion that whilst some technical adjustments to the qualification were needed, the content of the qualification was clearly uniquely that of child and youth care work. The meeting resolved to re-submit the qualification to Council after the technical adjustments had been made, confident in the knowledge that the proposed qualification in child and youth care work at Level 7 can be registered – as previously recommended by SAQA.
Given this news, and given the nature of this legal opinion, the PBCYC was at the meeing of 19 February of the view that Council would be pleased to review its earlier opinion, and submitted all necessary documentation to Council along with the 16th draft of the regulations for consideration in the March Council meeting. However, the PBCYC was disappointed to hear that Council would not table the above documents at its meeting and has referred the PBCYC back to the NDSD.
The PBCYC wishes to bring to the attention of all stakeholders the fact that its term of office expires in July of 2009. Council has informed the PBCYC that given the fact that child and youth care workers are not yet able to register with the statutory body, Council will take over the regulatory function of the child and youth care field at that time. In the opinion of the PBCYC, the fact that 5 years of work have not yet resulted in the regulatory structure envisaged by the South African child and youth care field is most regrettable. It regrets that Council has not responded to the difficulties experienced by the PBCYC to further the interests of the sector.
The PBCYC has subsequently requested a further meeting with the NDSD to intervene in this impasse.
Read more:
1. NWF Resolution (Feb 2008)
2. Polokwane SSP Bill Workshop
3. Bloemfontein SSP Bill Workshop
|
