A Sustainable Future for ANZASW

Home Page Forums ANZASW Board: Private A Sustainable Future for ANZASW

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    • #980

      Board members are encouraged to discuss the issues raised in the briefing paper ANZASW Financial Position circulated Monday 28 September.

    • #992
      Karen Shepherd

      Thought I would give this new private forum a try since my work for this morning has been cancelled (oh the joys of self employment!)
      Just thinking through our financial predicament and see that our competency programme is one of our most expensive features. Never thought I would be the one to say this, but do we need to consider only making competency and recertification available to those who cannot do it through SWRB? I am loathe to ask this really, as I prefer our practice standards (finding them more pragmatic and applicable that the SWRB competencies, which I find more philosophical and ethereal personally) however it does appear that remaining in competency assessment is an expense (and luxury ?) we can no longer afford.
      Competency was established when there was not other way of assessing practice, particularly as membership was not defined by qualification. It was part of our ‘lobby’ and action while working towards registration as an association. We have now (for better or worse) achieved a registration process. Is OUR investment in competency still necessary? I am aware that a number of members believe not and believe that we should invest our association monies and energy into CPD and membership materials that are not available through the registering body.
      Personally I would always prefer to do my recertification through ANZASW however I acknowledge that my personal bias may not be valid in this current environment. Moving away from competency could/would save us a huge cost, and personnel time. It could potentially decrease confusion between us and SWRB also, (I field at least one enquiry a week on whether someone should become a ‘member’ of anzasw or of swrb, and am amazed at how much confusion is still out there). Would we relieve our financial situation and also then be able to focus more energy on what a professional body provide in a registration environment if we were not ‘competing’ for competency and recertification?
      Just putting that out there in preparation for tomorrow.
      Ma te wa

    • #1048
      Simon Lowe

      Hi Karen,

      I think this is a really difficult conversation and one we need to discuss carefully. Having been part of the Practice Standards (PS) review last year, one of the frustrations for me was having to keep an eye on the SWRB core competence standards, so that we could continue to assess competency on behalf of the registration board. This felt a bit restrictive, certainly in terms of having the freedom to develop the PS in a more aspirational way for our members.

      There are issues around being caught in this process and not being able to offer developmental pathways for our members. I struggle with being assessed against the same standards every five years….there is no real expectations of acknowledging developments of practice, specialisation etc.

      Yes competence was originally our baby…..maybe it is time after over 20 years to let this baby go?

      Worth a good discussion, especially around potential consequences of letting go…..

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.