March/April 2008

Contents

• Editorial - NACCW National Executive Committee
• Why Are We Here? - Dennis W. Felty
• On courage and commitment- stories from Isibindi projects - Lucky Jacobs
• Financial Control and Accountability - Janet Shapiro
• Personality Profile - Irene Ngobeni
• Youth Focus - Francisco Cornelius
• Activities
• Effective People Development in a Non-Profit Organisation - Frank Julie
• Opening to the extraordinary in the ordinary - Learnings from the Isibindi disability project - Katrin Auf de Hyde
• Kululeka - grief support for children and youth
• Non-profit Organisations: Do you account for your social impact? - Marcus Coetzee and Rodger Stewart
• I Write What I Like... - Nkwapa D. Moloto
• Tried and Tested Approaches to Writing Assignments - Pat Heyman
• Accessing Skills Development Funds:more of the same - Sandra Oosthuizen
• Dear Doctor - Dr Michelle Meiring

Editorial : Confusion and outrage reign as SACSSP talks to child and youth care workers

Special Guest Editorial by the NACCW National Executive Committee

In the week of the 7th April child and youth care workers across the country began to receive copies of a letter from the Registrar of the South African Council for Social Service Professions outlining Council's recommendations to the Minister of Social Development on regulations to the Social Service Professions Act - that SACSSP suggests should regulate the child and youth care work profession. Reactions from child and youth care workers, and many social workers, have generally been ones of outrage and confusion.

The anger of child and youth care workers has been evoked by the decision of Council to proceed with the regulation of child and youth care workers at auxiliary level only - as per the letter addressed to the sector. Confusion has been expressed by many on the explanation for this position by SACSSP.Indeed this sense of confusion is understandable. In the very letter in which SACSSP indicates it has suggested to the Minister that child and youth care workers be registered at auxiliary level only, the letter also states "It should be noted that the SACSSP on no account took a decision not to register child and youth care workers at professional level." Having told the field in the letter that it is only recommending registration at auxiliary level, it then says it has not taken such a position! Very confusing indeed!

Other child and youth care workers expressed concern that the SACSSP had chosen to highlight the difference of opinion between the Professional Board for Child and Youth Care and Council on this matter - going so far as to imply possible irresponsibility on the part of the PBCYC.

The following is a summary of the concerns, opinions and questions expressed by child and youth care workers over the past weeks on the subject of this information:

• The recommendations for registration to the Minister are substantively different from those presented to the field in the consultation process, and therefore it would be true to say that these recommendations to the Minister have not been consulted on with the field of child and youth care work. In this era of democracy, how can a body as responsible as the SACSSP proceed with so important a process as making recommendations to the Minister - without consulting with the field on the nature of those recommendations.
• Has the SACSSP has acted in bad faith - by consulting on one set of regulations and submitting another to the Minister?
• The registration of child and youth care workers at auxiliary level only provides no career opportunities for people in the field - which seems at odds with the spirit of skills development in our country.
• Who will supervise child and youth care workers? Surely this can only mean that the field will be supervised by people outside of the field - social workers - whom child and youth care workers have consistently said do not have the necessary knowledge to be able to supervise them - which is precisely what led to the establishment of a professional board in the first instance.
• This lack of a supervisory structure does not support the organizational designs and organograms introduced by many residential care facilities - as far back as twenty-five years ago - that include professional levels of responsibility for child and youth care staff.  
• What happens to our Professional Board if we are no longer seen to be a profession? Is our functioning to be regulated by the Professional Board for Social Work?
• How will there be a council for social service professions if there is only one professional board under Council - for social work?
• If there is concern about the professional degree for child and youth care work, has this matter been referred to the SGB? Why has Council not ordered an assessment of the professional degree by neutral parties?
• Why has the Registrar chosen to create the impression that the PBCYC has acted irresponsibly, and effectively made public in this manner the extent of the lack of agreement between the bodies? Is this so that we should not trust this body whom we elected to serve the child and youth care work field - or so that it  is clear that Council rather than the PBCYC takes responsibility for the decision which is so likely to be very unpopular with the field? Either way, what is clear from this letter, is that the PBCYC has supported the field in the face of real conflict with Council!
• There are many people who have worked hard to obtain degrees and diplomas in the field - for the sake of the children they work with, for their own sakes, as well as the sake of the growing child and youth care field. These people are simply overlooked by these regulations as we will all be registered at auxiliary level - whether we have a 4-year degree or an FET Certificate. This seems…

• Unfair to those who have taken the initiative to study…

• To overlook the fact that there is currently a degree in child and youth care currently registered on the NQF… (The facts are that 373 people have graduated with the 3-year Diploma: Child and Youth Development - 28 of whom hold 4-year honours degrees in the field. These are the numbers of people who have graduated. But many hundreds more are in the process of completing their diplomas and degrees.)

• To overlook the fact that these people are in a position to supervise other child and youth care workers as a result of their professional training.

Most individuals wishing to express their concern have written to the SACSSP, the Minister and to his officials. Some child and youth care workers have received prompt responses to their letters from the Registrar. This response included a ten point justification for Council's decision… "not to currently have the professional category of registration". The information contained in this letter at least serves to answer some of the questions raised above as follows
"The PBCYC to provide evidence of the number of practicing professionals and their qualifications in the country as the principles for a professional board are clear; there should be a PROFESSIONAL AND AUXILLARY LEVEL for the board to be regarded as a professional board."

Judging now from the information provided in these two letters, the following circular logic can be traced:

• Council has rejected the professional degree presented to SAQA by the SGB for Child and Youth care Work.
• This rejection is based on the notion of too great a level of overlap between child and youth care work and social work degrees.
• The process of Council reaching this conclusion has not been made public but nevertheless has been strong enough to allow for the child and youth care work qualification to be halted with respect to the registration of the qualification on the NQF (it appears that Council has veto powers over the registration of qualifications in the social service arena).
• Then…because there is no professional qualification, there is no justification for the registration of child and youth care workers at professional level.
• If there is no regulation at professional level, there is no justification for the continued existence of the PBCYC.
• And will the next step be then to justify the regulation of matters relating to child and youth care work being taken over by the only other professional board that exists…that of social work?

Circular logic, and a circular process where those without access to power are denied any access to it. But this style very familiar to South Africans.

Steve Biko said that "the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed". Given all of these happenings that have shocked the child and youth care sector, the question remains as to whether in the days and months ahead the minds of child and youth care workers will remain their own, independent, confident and sure of their contribution, or will they be cowed into submission by a dominant mindset that at present looks set to keep the sector in a position subservient to a dominant perspective.