A Plea to the AASW

Mickey Skidmore, AMHSW, ACSW

While I support the efforts of the national organisation for the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW); today I will highlight some concerns as one of it’s members. I assure you that this criticism is intended to strengthen and enhance the organisation overall towards better serving their membership.

One of my biggest concerns of the organisation is its shift away from social, human interaction  overall towards more of an online focus and presence, although the AASW denies this observation in general. I will state at the outset, that having online options is a significant and valuable resource — and I do not advocate for it go away. However, despite AASW’s denials my fear is that the AASW is increasingly becoming an almost exclusively online endeavour.

During the COVID ordeal we were all challenged to embrace online pathways. Online teaching; tele-health therapy sessions; Zoom or Team meetings; online training just to name a few. I reconciled most of my misgivings with the rationale that while it may not be as effective as F2F, it was better than giving in or giving up altogether. In short, it may not have been ideal, but it was indeed better than nothing.

It has been well over a year now, and I am struck by how reluctant in many ways we are to returning to anything resembling what we used to think of as normal. I think one thing that has come out of the COVID experience, is that there may always be a faction of people who opt to receive future CPD training online. Recently the AASW announced the launching of it’s Online Health Symposium to take place in November 2023. So, I would ask you, when was the last time the AASW announced any F2F training courses? Take a look at their new web site, and of all the CPD professional training offered, how many of these events are not online?

Prior to COVID the AASW announced it’s decision to close the majority of it’s regional office sites across the country — again in favour of highlighting and emphasising an online presence. There was a noticeable marketing and advertising effort to “spin” this a wise, favourable and largely desirable outcome highlighting the fiscal advantages and how they could more strategically target this financial windfall to further enhance their online presence and experience for their members. Part of their justification today is that the AASW supports a range of practice groups that may opt to meet F2F (but how many actually do?).

Another, more recent concern includes the AASW’s move to retire (end) the Australian College of Social Workers by way of a constitutional vote within the national organisation. While it is true the College never lived up to its potential or expectations, there was never much of a concerted effort from within AASW leadership to bolster or solidify the original intensions of this effort either. The rationale and justification of this manoeuvre is based on the recently developed credentialing program, which the AASW now says is more reflective of it original intentions and design. 

Prior to my coming to Australia, it was a point of professional pride that I maintained the highest level of professional credentials in the USA. In May 2016 I was approached and invited to joint the Australian College of Social Workers. I did not seek out this distinction, but rather was approached to join them as an ambassador of sorts reflecting my years of expertise and experience. So I confess to taking this development a bit personally, and find the justification of their credentials system to be lacking.

Despite touting the new credentials system as a way to reflect specific expertise and leadership potential to employers; beyond the AMHSW credential I see very little practical value. Despite framing it as a way to ensure recognition, it ultimately is another source of revenue for the AASW.

To date there are several credentials offered by the ASSW including:

AMHSW (Accredited Mental Health Social Worker)

ACSW (Accredited Clinical Social Worker)

ACPSW (Accredited Child Protection Social Worker)

ADSW (Accredited Disability Social Worker)

AFVSW (Accredited Family Violence Social Worker)

Additionally, there are also credentials being developed for School Social Workers; Supervision; and potentially others.

The AMHSW is the only pragmatic credential offering anything tangible. This credential is also recognised by Medicare. This accreditation enables one to access the Medicare scheme which underscores many private practices in Australia. It is curious to me that while the requirement to obtain the ACSW credential is more stringent than the AMHSW credential, it is not recognised by Medicare, and offers no tangible, practical or pragmatic benefit to speak of.

Where is the AASW or the Unions in advocating for any of these credentials as part of any effort of professional development or advancement within professional organisations? Other than being eligible for AASW membership there is no mentioning of AASW, or credentials as part of advancement or promotion within any State Government organisations. Why is that? 

In fact, the only benefit for any of the other AASW credentials is once again targeted for the online presence of its members. For those who traffic in social media circles, these credentials are linked to online “badges” that one can post on their LinkedIn; Facebook; Twitter; Instagram; TikTok platforms. This appears to be the AASW’s vision for networking in the future.

It has been said that one of the primary features of the Social Work profession is advocacy. Given the discovery of the unethical and immoral algorithms that are aggressively utilised on these platforms (as well as within the operating systems of many of the devices we’ve become addicted to) it is highly disappointing and short-sighted in my view for the AASW to be embracing the use of these platforms and encouraging more of an online presence over direct human interaction. As an evidence based profession the research is clear that social media platforms underscored increased isolation and are adversely impacting the mental health of young people in particular. To support such practices in the face of compelling evidence would seem to be problematic at best and inappropriate and irresponsible at worst.

It is both shocking and disturbing that the obvious seems to have escaped notice from the AASW. The first word in our profession is “Social.” Online platforms are virtual. They are not equal to F2F engagement. They will never adequately replace or supplant human networking or direct social interaction. I acknowledge that much can be accomplished in virtual or online settings, and should remain an alternative for those who choose such approaches. However, there are some matters where virtual or online platforms are inadequate or may even be clinically inappropriate or ill-advised. Looking the other way, or otherwise pretending will not alter these facts.

In my view it is well past time to make more of an effort in attempting to return to some sense of what we used to call normal. It is time to try to come back out and seek to play well with others — again. In a time when the hospitality industry is hell bent on eradicating human interaction with machines and calling that “customer service”; when the banking industry goes out of its way to close down branch offices and force you to use ATM’s rather that speak with a person; when automation threatens to eliminate jobs, the profession of Social Work needs to find its backbone and take more of a stand against these trends rather than going further down this rabbit hole and walking away from direct social and human interaction.