The process is specific. A recognized bachelor’s or master’s in social work. More than 350 hours of supervised fieldwork. Registration with a provincial regulatory body. Annual renewal. Professional liability insurance. Continuing education requirements that must be documented and submitted on schedules the regulatory bodies determine. In most provinces, certain activities are reserved exclusively for licensed practitioners, creating legal perimeters around forms of assessment and intervention that can only be practised by those the provincial order has recognized. The details differ by jurisdiction. The logic is the same across all of them.
The stated mandate of professional regulatory bodies is the protection of the public. The mechanism for that protection is the control of professional practice. Those two things are presented as the same project.
They are not the same project.
To require that care be delivered through a licensed practitioner is to require that it be delivered through a person the institution has recognized, trained, insured, and made accountable to the institution’s own standards. The supervised fieldwork hours are not hours of learning how to be in relation with people. They are hours during which the institution evaluates whether the candidate’s practice can be named in its terms. Regulatory bodies define supervision as a formal, continuous process of reflection that integrates the values of the profession. The profession’s values. Not the community’s. Not the client’s. Registration is not a recognition of competence. It is an entry into a register. The register is a list of people whose practice can be found, audited, disciplined, and withdrawn.
This is not bureaucracy failing to do what it promised. This is bureaucracy doing exactly what it was built to do.
To require that care be standardized, documented, and reproducible is to require that it be made available on institutional terms. The institution sets those terms in relation to its own interests, which are not the same as the interests of the people most likely to need care. The session note is not a record of what happened between two people. It is a translation of that encounter into language an insurer can evaluate, a court can subpoena, and a regulatory body can review in the event of a complaint. Every translation involves loss. The losses here are not random. What falls out of the session note is precisely what made the session matter: the quality of the silence, the shift that happened that neither person could have predicted, the particular texture of someone’s survival. What remains is the presenting problem, the intervention modality, the plan. The care gets documented. The care does not survive the documentation intact.
This conversion is the point. The credential is not incidental to it. The credential is the mechanism through which it happens.
Licensed practitioners gain access to something specific: legitimacy within systems that were not built for the people most likely to need care. The ability to bill insurers. To work within institutions. To produce assessments that carry weight with courts, hospitals, employers, child protection services. That weight is deputized. It flows from the same institutions whose ongoing function includes the surveillance, regulation, and management of the communities those assessments are most often used against. To enter those institutions as a credentialed participant is to enter on their terms. The terms of participation are established before anyone arrives, regardless of what they intended when they applied.
People still choose this. The choice is made, and the harms that follow from it belong to the people who enact them. The structure does not absorb individual accountability. What the structure does is make certain harms legible and defensible. It provides frameworks within which things can be done to clients that would, outside the professional context, be recognizable as violation. It provides language that converts those violations into documentation of professional practice. It provides discipline processes better designed to protect institutional authority than the person who was harmed. The credential is not incidental to this protection. It is how the protection works.
The work that happened in this practice was real. Something moved between people in those rooms that was not reducible to the structure surrounding it. The quality of attention that accumulates in sustained therapeutic work, the particular thing that becomes possible when someone knows they will not have to start over next week, when the person across from them has been paying attention long enough to notice what has shifted and what has not. That is real in the way that relation is real. It happened, and the fact that it happened inside a structure organized to convert it into auditable service does not unmake it.
What it does is make the contradiction sharp enough to become impossible to continue carrying.
The practice is closing because continuing it would mean continuing to agree, in practice if not in belief, to what the credential requires. To keep routing genuine care through a structure whose function is to make it legible on institutional terms. To keep producing documentation that serves systems organized against the people sitting across from this desk.
The care does not close with it. The obligation that came from being trusted with people’s survival does not dissolve when the annual registrations do. What those who were in those rooms carried here mattered, and it was received as mattering, fully, outside any framework the regulatory bodies provided for receiving it. That does not change. What ends is the agreement to deliver care through a mechanism that extracts something from it on the way, that requires it to pass through institutional translation before it can count as real.
That extraction was always happening. This is what it cost.
Leave a Reply