Issue 52 (10/2023)

If a RSW has paid the penalty (including but not limited to contraventions like littering, illegal parking and smoking in public places etc.) according to the fixed penalty notice, as there is no charge involved, the RSW needs not report the fixed penalty to the Board. However, if the RSW does not pay the fixed penalty and does not institute legal proceedings to challenge the penalty notice, s/he will be first given a demand notice, followed by a summons. At the point of receiving summons, the RSW is charged of an offence, as a summons is a command or order by court in writing directed to an accused person, requiring him/her to attend before a magistrate to answer a charge at a time set out in the summons. For that, the RSW has to report the summons/charge to the Board as soon as reasonably practicable.

3. I have accumulated 12 years of professional practice experience after obtaining my social work diploma. I have also accumulated 4 years of full-time experience after obtaining my social work degree. If the university deems it suitable to hire me as a fieldwork supervisor, can there be flexibility in waiving the requirement of accumulating no less than 5 years of post-degree experience?

According to section 4.2.7(a) of the 8th edition of the Principles, Criteria and Standards for Recognising Qualifications in Social Work ("PCS") regarding the qualifications for fieldwork supervisors, "TIs should ensure that all Fieldwork Supervisors shall each satisfy the following requirements: (i) Shall be RSWs in Hong Kong; and is (ii) Possessing not less than 5 years’ full-time-equivalent Post-degree Professional Practising Experience". Based on these requirements, even though you have accumulated 12 years of social work practice experience before obtaining the recognized social work degree, as you have only accumulated 4 years of full-time experience after obtaining the degree, you still do not meet the requirements of the PCS. The Board considers  sub-degree and post-degree practising experience cannot be equated. Therefore, no flexibility can be allowed in this regard. 

 

Work Reports

1. Editing progress of the second series of Casebook of Disciplinary Inquiries

Background

Social Workers Registration Board (the "Board") earlier appointed a disciplinary committee to inquire into a complaint. After inquiry, the disciplinary committee ruled that one of the allegations against one of the complained social workers (Social Worker A) was established, and recommended that the Board issued a disciplinary order under section 30(1)(d) of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), i.e. the Chairperson of the Board to verbally admonish Social Worker A. The disciplinary committee also made an additional recommendation to excerpt this case in the Board's electronic newsletter for educational purposes without disclosing sensitive information and identities of the parties and agency involved in the complaint. The Board endorsed the recommendations of the disciplinary committee. Now with reference to the above requirements and the excerpt approach of case examples in Rethinking Social Work Professional Ethics - A Casebook of Disciplinary Inquiry Cases, the case with relevant sensitive information and identities hidden is excerpted below.

Case Summary

The complainant was a member of a certain social service center. One day, the complainant received a call that he believed was from the center, in which he was verbally abused and threatened with vulgar language ("Phone Call Incident"), making the complainant feeling harassed and threatened. The next day, the complainant contacted Social Worker A of the center to request checking the identity of the caller, and Social Worker A agreed to handle it but after the complainant chased multiple times over two to three months, there was still no response from Social Worker A. The complainant then contacted Social Worker B, Social Worker A's superior, for assistance. Social Worker B agreed to understand the incident at that time. But after about a month, the complainant still did not receive any response.

Therefore, the complainant felt that Social Worker A and Social Worker B disregarded service users and had committed misconduct or negligent in professional respect, so a complaint was made against them to the Social Workers Registration Board.

Details of the Complaint

This complaint alleged Social Worker A and Social Worker B of committing misconduct or neglect in professional respect, which if proven, may violate section 25(1)(a) of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance. The allegations of this case were briefly described below: 

Allegations against Social Worker A:

Allegation 1

On Date A, the complainant received a harassing phone call. The next day, Social Worker A accepted the complainant's request to check the center's CCTV records, saying it would be handled within 3 days, but the result was still not provided for about two to three months. The complainant chased up by phone afterwards but Social Worker A only responded that he would handle it but still did nothing. 

Allegation 2

On Date B, about 20 months after Date A, the complainant inquired Social Worker A again. Social Worker A at that time only repeated the previous response on the phone and told the complainant he would check the CCTV records. So the complainant notified Social Worker A that he would report to the police for help. When the police arrived at the center to understand the situation, the handling police officer informed the complainant that Social Worker A would explain to the complainant, yet the complainant still did not receive any substantial explanation from Social Worker A. 

Allegation against Social Worker B:

Allegation 3

On Date C, the complainant called Social Worker B to ask if he was aware of the complainant's case and if Social Worker A had reported to him. At that time, the complainant felt Social Worker B did not grasp the incident, and Social Worker B did not actually answer and only responded several times that he would follow up. The complainant fed up and hung up the phone.

The Consequences

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee

Allegations against Social Worker A:

Allegation 1

Although Social Worker A firmly denied promising the complainant to handle it within 3 days, and claimed that he had actively checked the CCTV records on the day after Date A and found out the caller's identity and handled it appropriately. However, both parties do not dispute that before Date B, Social Worker A never informed the complainant of the result of handling the Phone Call Incident. The disciplinary committee does not agree with Social Worker A's view that he did not need to communicate with the complainant about the investigation and handling of the incident. The disciplinary committee believes that as a service user of the center, the complainant sought help from Social Worker A regarding the Phone Call Incident and hoped he would investigate and handle it. As the phone call involved was dialed out from the center during its closure hours and targeted at the center's service user with vulgar language content, it was not a trivial matter. Under such circumstances, notifying the complainant of the investigation result should have been part of the handling work and also a very reasonable expectation of the complainant. But Social Worker A opted not to communicate with the complainant after investigating the incident and meeting the caller, but only responded after almost 20 months when the complainant actively asked. The disciplinary committee considers Social Worker A's conduct highly unusual.

More importantly, "saying nothing without being asked" is not a reasonable attitude for a social worker to handle a service user's request for help. Social workers deal with individuals, communication and engagement with the service users are crucial aspects. The disciplinary committee also believes whether the complainant's calls were regarded as a complaint or an opinion, was not decisive in the disciplinary committee's decision. Given the nature of the incident, the disciplinary committee believes that a reasonable handling by a social worker should involve further communication and explanation to the complainant. Therefore, the disciplinary committee ruled that this allegation was established. 

Allegation 2

The disciplinary committee unanimously ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation to its satisfaction, so ruled that the allegation was dismissed.

Allegation against Social Worker B:

Allegation 3

The disciplinary committee ruled that the complainant failed to satisfy the Disciplinary Committee about the alleged incident, so ruled that the allegation was dismissed.

After the mitigation hearing, the disciplinary committee recommended the Board to issue a disciplinary order to Social Worker A, that is “the chairperson of the Board admonish the social worker orally”, according to Section 30(1)(d) of the Ordinance. 

 

Decision of the Board

The Board accepted all the recommendations made by the Disciplinary Committee.

 

Discussion Issues

1. Social workers handling service users' complaints/opinions

At the inquiry, the complainant and the respondent had their own arguments. There seemed to be some misunderstandings between the two parties regarding the handling of the complaint/opinion. In daily operations, how should social workers avoid similar incidents from happening? 

2. The role of management of organizations

In this case, as the management of the organization, what measures should be formulated to prevent similar incidents from happening again?

 

Thoughts

1. Social workers handling service users' complaints/opinions

Social work is a human service profession. When handling disputes, social workers should prioritize the interests of service users, utilize professional skills to minimize misunderstandings, and build mutual trust in the process. 

In this case, it is understandable that the complainant, as a service user of the center, felt anxious about receiving harassing call from the center. As a social worker of the center, showing empathy towards the complainant's feelings and emotions, promising to investigate the facts promptly, and maintaining communication are appropriate attitudes. However, if Social Worker A did not inform the complainant that the issue was resolved, it could have kept the complainant worried. Therefore, when receiving complaints or opinions from service users, social workers should handle them prudently and fairly following established mechanisms. At the same time, they should also consider the interests and feelings of the complaining service users. Where possible, social workers should handle complaints with transparency, openness, empathy and patience, and update service users on investigation results promptly. 

 

2. The role of management of organizations

In this case, Social Worker A's defense was that if what the complainant raised was just an "opinion", there would be no deadline for response. Although this may be administratively appropriate according to the organization's regulations, from the social work professional perspective, communication between social workers and service users is crucial for building professional relationships. Where possible, the management could consider establishing mechanisms that facilitate mutual communication between social workers and service users. 

Statistics 

Total Number of RSWs： 28,044

Gender Distribution 

Male：8,821 (31%)
Female：19,223 (69%)