Recruiting and nurturing social workers in Hong Kong and Australia

Introduction

To pursue high-quality social work services, it is vital to secure quality social work human resources (Kwan and Chui, 2018). Through the literature review, we compare the systems of social work education and training in Hong Kong and Australia using a three-stage framework to consolidate major factors that influence the quality of early career social workers. In addition to the documents published by the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) and the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), the literature review covers reports and studies that are related to the systems of social work education and training in the two places (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Major differences in entry requirements, training and monitoring systems for social workers between Hong Kong and Australia.

		Hong Kong	Australia
Entry requirements	Social work accreditation system	Mandatory	Non-mandatory
	Minimum educational requirement for registration	Sub-degree qualification	Bachelor’s degree
Quality of social work training	Training in research skills	Optional in sub-degree SWRB-accredited programmes	Compulsory for all AASW-accredited programmes
	Training in cultural sensitivity	Not emphasised	Regarded as a core training area
	Class size	Small classes are required for most courses	No class size requirement
	Requirement for teaching staff (those teaching social work courses)	Teaching staff required to have at least 5 years’ post-degree practice experience	No specific requirement in practice experience
Induction of early career social workers	CPD	Voluntary CPD scheme	Mandatory CPD scheme for AASW members
	Supervision requirement	Non-mandatory guidance supervision for early career social workers	Supervision is mandatory for accredited social workers

SWRB: Social Workers Registration Board; AASW: Australian Association of Social Workers; CPD: Continuing Professional Development.

Entry requirements

There is a mandatory social work accreditation system in Hong Kong. As such, any individual who intends to become a registered social worker must first obtain the recognised educational qualifications for social work. However, the effectiveness of this gatekeeping function ultimately depends on the minimum educational requirements as stipulated by SWRB, as well as the quality-control mechanism implemented by local social work training institutes. In comparison with other professions, the minimum educational requirement for entry into the social work profession is relatively low. Holders of sub-degrees in social work are eligible to become registered social workers. These represent approximately 33 percent of the total population of social workers in Hong Kong (SWRB, n.d.). Publicly funded social work training institutes can attract students with better academic performance, but this may not be the case for private tertiary institutes, which are the sole providers of sub-degree programmes in Hong Kong. As the total size of an institute’s student cohort also determines its revenue, there may be a temptation for private institutes to compromise various entry requirements. The Hong Kong Social Workers Association introduced a controversial proposal for the abolishment of sub-degree programmes in social work. It was also argued by opponents that setting higher minimum academic requirements for entry into social work degree programmes would hinder the participation of newcomers possessing ‘good’ personal qualities.

Despite remaining voluntary, social work accreditation in Australia (i.e. eligibility for AASW membership) is assessed based on relatively higher minimum educational requirements. To meet these requirements, the candidate must be a graduate of a bachelor’s-level social work programme that is accredited by the AASW (2020a). Most such programmes are offered by publicly funded universities with admission requirements that are consistent with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Minister for Education and Youth, 2015). All sub-degree training programmes were discontinued by 1974. Furthermore, to be eligible for AASW membership, all practitioners holding a pre-1974 sub-degree qualification have since been required to have years of social service experience (at least 50 percent of the time following the qualification).

Interestingly, in spite of different minimum educational requirements, the educational levels of social workers in both Hong Kong and Australia are largely similar. Over one-third of social workers in Australia were holders of degrees below the bachelor’s level during the same period (despite this being four decades after the elimination of sub-degree programmes).

Quality of social work training

The SWRB, which monitors the quality of all accredited social work programmes in Hong Kong, lists several required teaching components that social work training institutes have to comply with. Practice-related training and social work values and ethics are required to be included in the curriculum (SWRB, 2021). However, missing from the SWRB’s standards of practice is an emphasis on cultural response capacity. The curriculum content set by SWRB also appears to play down the topic of culture; it only includes ‘cultural sensitivity’ as one of the many subthemes under the training domain of ‘human behaviour and social environment’. This greatly overlooks the burgeoning multiculturalism in Hong Kong’s society. Moreover, the lack of attention given to cultural issues in training and standards of practice sharply contrasts increasing concerns among researchers over the maladaptation of social work concepts – which are rooted mostly in Anglophone-European cultures – into the Chinese context. Studies on the development of social work in Chinese communities show that training that lacks an appropriate focus on improving cultural reflexivity limits the capacity of social workers to accommodate local needs and expectations (He and Yang, 2019). In addition, although a basic knowledge of research skills and their applications is required to obtain a bachelor’s degree in social work, these topics are optional in sub-degree programmes.

Although the AASW is not a statutory body, it monitors the quality of its accredited social work programmes in Australia and thus serves a similar function to Hong Kong’s SWRB. Like the SWRB, the AASW sets the required curriculum content for its accredited programmes. However, unlike the required curriculum content set by the SWRB in Hong Kong, that set by the AASW (2013) repeatedly emphasises the ability to perform ‘culturally responsive and inclusive practice’ (p. 11) as a high-level component of profession-specific graduate attributes. Accordingly, content related to cultural constructs and culture – of either immigrants or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples – constitutes a substantial portion of social work training. The emphasis on research represents another difference in social work practice standards between the two settings. In the Practice Standards of Australian social workers (AASW, 2013: 13), understanding ‘the role of research and evaluation in obtaining and generating new knowledge for practice’ is considered an essential component that is required for effective social work practice. Accordingly, training in research methods is recognised as a core course in all AASW-accredited social work programmes.

Staffing requirements for social work education programmes in the two settings also differ in the emphasis they place on post-qualification social work experience. The SWRB requires faculty who teach social work-related subjects to be registered social workers and have at least 5 years’ post-degree experience in the practice. In contrast, the AASW sets no specific requirements regarding working experience for the teaching staff of professional courses, except that they have to be eligible for AASW membership. Acknowledging social work as a practice-based profession, education providers in Australia mainly rely on field training to prepare social work students for the evolving realities of practice. In this sense, the Hong Kong model, which assigns primacy to social work experience, may present better opportunities for incorporating practical wisdom into professional courses earlier and more frequently. Indeed, several Australian studies highlight concerns over the adjustment of newly qualified social workers in practice (Moorhead, 2019).

Nonetheless, any good intention to reinforce the practicality of social work education in Hong Kong may also backfire, especially given the contemporary ‘publish or perish’ culture that prevails in most publicly funded universities. To boost their positions in global rankings, universities have to look for staff with promising publication records. They also need to attract candidates with substantial social work experience to fulfil the requirements for programme accreditation. Increasingly, the recruitment of social work faculty members has become a challenge for such universities because few candidates simultaneously excel at research and practice. This situation appears to be worsening, given the retirement of many faculty members in some social work departments.

Specific requirements regarding staff-to-student ratios in social work programmes are set by the SWRB; the current standards are ‘not less than 1:25’ for sub-degree programmes and ‘not less than 1:15’ for bachelor’s degree programmes. Students are expected to gain more insights into practical skills through role-playing, as well as through demonstrating their skills in laboratories with smaller class sizes. Starting from September 2022, the SWRB’s student-to-staff ratio requirements will be replaced by limits on maximum class sizes. The upper limit on class size for bachelor’s degree courses is 15 students for the courses on ‘Social Work Theories and Practice’ and ‘Values and Ethics’ and 20 students for courses on core knowledge related to social work (SWRB, 2021). Although the benefits of a small class size are widely recognised, it may be challenging for Hong Kong’s training institutes to achieve this due to limitations in human resources (as mentioned). In contrast, there are no requirements on class sizes for social work degree programmes in Australia; class sizes can also vary considerably among different institutes.

Induction of early career social workers

In Hong Kong, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and supervision hours are a non-mandatory requirement for new or renewed registrations. Although the SWRB (n.d.) suggests that ‘recent graduates (with less than three years of full-time experience) should receive at least one uninterrupted hour of individual face-to-face supervision every month’ (p. 4), this is rarely implemented. Likewise, although a voluntary CPD scheme for registered social workers has been implemented, it has only received limited participation. Only 6.5 percent of social workers activated their user accounts of this scheme (SWRB, 2017).

In Australia, all AASW members are required to have a schedule for undertaking CPD; a core component of this is receiving regular practice-based supervision. A random sample of CPD records is also audited annually (AASW, 2020b). This means that organisations hiring practitioners with eligibility for AASW membership may have to offer opportunities and resources for their employees to fulfil these requirements. However, without a national statutory social work registration system in place, practitioners in Australia can identify as practising social workers without acquiring training from an accredited social work programme. This not only undermines the effectiveness of the national practice standards set by the AASW to monitor the quality of social work practice, but it also enables employers to stipulate the positions, titles and responsibilities of social workers in more flexible and unregulated ways. Many social work practitioners are now working under generic titles, such as ‘caseworker’ or ‘support worker’. The same roles and responsibilities prescribed to social workers under a variety of titles leads to confusion among the newly qualified regarding whether and how they can recognise their unique contributions and the value of social work.

Conclusion

This article shows that Hong Kong and Australia have unique strengths and limitations, which can guide recommendations for improving the quality of social work services in the other. The high quality of social work services as a whole ultimately depends on the dedication and professionalism of individual social workers. To this end, the importance of developing effective social work training, registration and monitoring systems for early career social workers cannot be understated.