TNAG-1527-FCO40-2091-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-general-1986 — Page 178

Research/Publications/Articles

-4-

December 1985

The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work's press release for its latest paper on Ethnic Minorities and Social Work Training shows how the percentage of successful applicants from 'ethnic minorities' has increased yearly since monitoring commenced from 7.9% in 1981 to 11.8% in 1984. This may sound quite encouraging until it is calculated that actual applications during this period rose by 32% in the ethnic majority group and by 72% in the ethnic minority group. The report itself points out that over the period an average of 29.9% of the majority ethnic group applicants were successful compared with 24.4% of minority group applicants. Regrettably CCETSW decided to adopt the CRE's ethnic origin classifications - African, Asian, Caribbean, European (British and Irish), European (Other) and Other (specified). These are confusing and CCETSW concedes the limitations of this approach which seems to muddle nationality with ethnicity. However, in almost the next breath it claims that the definition of minority ethnic groups - i.e. any group other than European (British/Irish) - is 'essentially similar to the groups labelled black in some Social Service Department ethnic monitoring data'. If this is so, great caution must be exercised in interpreting statistics coming from SSDs as well.

Since assuming that non British/Irish Europeans and Others (specified) are Black is unreliable, readers may be interested in the following table construed from CCETSW's main table and averaged over the four years covered by the report:

Classification

Successful applicants as a as a %age of total successful

:

Applicants as a %age of total

African

1.1

Caribbean

3.97

Asian

1.8

All three above groups

6.89

Ethnic minorities as

11.25

defined by CCETSW*

0.79

2.93

1.5

5.26

9.38

= Including non-British/Irish Europeans and Others

The report is particularly disturbing where it examines the comparative success rates of those of equivalent educational qualification or experience concluding that: 'where minority ethnic group applicants held similar qualifications to those of majority group applicants, the latter were more likely to be successful in gaining a place on a course'. And the same applied to those of similar previous paid social work experience. Given this state of affairs, it is curious that the author, Derek Gardiner, should conclude that the figures suggest 'the need to give further attention to the role of access courses and other alternative educational opportunities, as well as to develop ways of giving paid employment experience to those from minority ethnic groups before they apply for professional training...'.

Part II of the Report is concerned with CCETSWS progress since the ADSS/CRE report of 1978, (Multi-racial Britain; the Social Services response). This section is far too sparse to be of much greater use than stimulating further inquiry into what has actually happened. Although CCETSW is at pains to point out that it has no influence over how students are recruited onto the courses it validates, it has to be hoped that the evidence of discriminatory practice suggested by this monitoring exercise can be used to exert some pressure on colleges offering CQSWs.

Depite its drawbacks, the Report will provide useful pointers for those wishing to see a more equitable approach to social work recruitment and training. It is a timely tool for those wishing to exert pressure for changes in college curricula too and hopefully monitoring on this aspect is in the pipeline. (Available, price £3 including postage, from: CCETSW Central Office, Derbyshire House, St Chad's Street, London WCIH 8AD)