Two Critiques of the Proposed Social Work Licensure Compact

The Council of State Governments (CSG), Department of Defense (DoD), and the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) have partnered to draft an interstate licensure compact for social workers. The Compact is currently available in draft for public comment.

Many professions have interstate compacts allowing work and life to flow across State lines. Some large organizations (such as the VA) already accept out-of-State licenses. The proposal, as written, would undoubtedly make the practice of social work significantly easier for many social workers. However, the proposal does not meaningfully support new social workers or macro workers. It also fails to protect all social workers from the piling on of many (many) fees across States, but letting States squeeze underpaid social workers for cash is perhaps a requirement if we want something like the Compact.

The Compact enshrines examinations inappropriately.

It comes as no surprise to see examinations centered in the Compact. Aside from the ASWB — the organization that develops and maintains social work licensing exams — being a key partner, many states already primarily rely on examinations as the gatekeeper of the license. Advocates for making the profession more accessible have critiqued Social Work’s reliance on exams. Who does well on them? Who can afford to pay for them? Are the exams in any way valid to measure what they claim to measure? (They are under-researched at best.)

Some States have managed to move beyond the exams for some licenses, at least for now. In Illinois, the NASW-IL only recently accomplished the removal of an exam requirement for the Master’s level license (Licensed Social Worker). Section 3.A(2) of the Compact requires States to implement exams for all licenses. The Compact reaffirms this in Section 4.A(2) by requiring Regulated Social Workers (RSWs) to have Qualifying National Exam Numbers. It seems assured, then, that to participate in the Compact, Illinois would have to make the profession less accessible and curtail a recent victory. Those of us in the small gap of time when Illinois required no exam for the LSW may (but are not guaranteed to) receive an Interstate License (per Section 4.C(1)).

The enshrinement of the exam is not surprising, but it is distinctly unambitious for such a project. Our profession claims to help facilitate access by the most vulnerable to support systems. Yet, we consistently fail to advocate for access to our system or advocate for the most vulnerable in our membership.

Why does access to our profession require years of costly undergraduate and graduate education with (typically) unpaid internships? Why do we require years of (typically) underpaid work under supervision? Why do we require costly licensure exams (not to mention expensive study prep)? Finally, we require costly continuing education requirements - often only tangentially related to our practice areas. Does this make our profession accessible? Does it make us better?

I am not sure there is a helping profession as well suited towards an apprenticeship model of training as Social Work. Social Work trainees could save tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt and wage theft with such an approach. This Compact as-is adds another policy layer that impedes attempts to make the profession more accessible.

The Compact reinforces a false and damaging hierarchy within the Social Work profession.

Bachelor’s, Master’s, Clinical. Such is how States typically describe licenses in regulations, and it’s the same for the Compact. Our profession has come to view the Clinical license as terminal – it takes longer to get, but in an ideal world, you get paid more. Interestingly, employers often tie the clinical license to management and administration. However, there are not any skills assessed on the Clinical ASWB Exam linked to management or administration unique to that exam. 

For clinically-oriented settings, there are good reasons to have seasoned clinicians involved in management and administration. But take a look at the “Social Work” definition in the Compact (Section 2.Y, line 117):

“‘Social Work’ or ‘Social Work Services’ means the application of social work theory, knowledge, methods, ethics, and the professional use of self to restore or enhance social, psychosocial, or biopsychosocial functioning of individuals, couples, families, groups, organizations, and communities through the care and services provided by a Regulated Social Worker as set forth in the Member State’s statutes and regulations in the State where the services are being provided.” (Italics mine)

It’s not easy to imagine a broader definition of social work. My concern with the hierarchy created by placing the Clinical license as terminal is that it orients SWers to that license and clinical work. It ends up training SWers away from macro work with organizations and communities. Oddly, it orients many SWers away from working on systems change with organizations like the ones proposing this Compact.

It’s rare, but some states have a macro social work license (Ex: Michigan’s Licensed Master’s Social Worker – Macro Designation). If I cannot legally call myself a social worker unless I’m licensed in title-protected areas, I’d better have a license that speaks to my skill set and is not a joke to maintain (e.g., why would I take pricey CEUs on DBT if my practice is not therapeutic?).

I admit I am biased, but I think the profession’s continued slide towards the supremacy of clinical practice damages our ability to intervene in systems meaningfully. Let’s do more than first aid and recovery. The Compact does not seriously support that goal. Who can blame these entities for failing on this front? Our own national association barely thinks about macro work in our own Code of Ethics.

For interesting reading on SW licensure and macro SW practice, please see “Contemporary Social Work Licensure: Implications for Macro Social Work Practice and Education” by Donaldson, Hill, Ferguson, Fogel, and Erickson (2014).

Many Macro Social Workers do not see a need for macro work to be licensed. Indeed, one person once wrote to me that she was unsure what you would even license because the work is so broad. I can’t concede that, though. I think licensure is an important lender of credibility (whether it should be or not), and we should work towards ensuring our licenses are genuinely representing the full scope of the profession.