The Joint Committee on Higher Education heard competing views Friday on the Super Act, a package of bills (S.218 / H.1423) that would remove the ASWB master's licensure exam for initial LCSW licensure, create a state grant program to stipend MSW field placements and allow LICSWs to receive continuing-education credit for supervision. Advocates said the changes would expand a critically short behavioral health workforce; the Association of Social Work Boards warned removing the exam would undermine public protection and complicate interstate licensure.

Why it matters: Committee members heard that Massachusetts faces a shortage of licensed social workers while the state's need for behavioral-health services has increased. Supporters said unpaid internships and racial and linguistic disparities in pass rates for the ASWB exam block entry into the profession; opponents argued a national exam provides a uniform standard that states and the pending social work licensure compact rely on.

Supporters emphasized that field placements are often unpaid and that stipends would remove an economic barrier for students working multiple jobs. "Receiving a stipend for this work would provide a sense of financial security and stability for hardworking social work graduate students in the state of Massachusetts," MSW student Emily Armond told the committee. Multiple faculty and hospital social work leaders said the exam does not measure clinical competence developed through accredited coursework and supervised practice. Bridgewater State associate professor Taylor Hall told the committee, "There is no evidence that passing this exam makes someone a more effective social worker," and urged lawmakers to adopt alternative, practice-based licensing pathways.

Opponents principally included witnesses from the Association of Social Work Boards. ASWB CEO Stacy Arnie Chandler testified, "While ASWB supports efforts to recruit and retain qualified social workers, eliminating the examination requirement would have drastic implications for both the public and the profession." Jennifer Henkel, project director for ASWB's licensure portability grant, said a qualifying national exam is a key condition for many states to join the social work compact and argued that a bifurcated licensing track would be administratively complicated.

Hospital leaders described operational effects. Pamela Chamorro, senior director of social work at Boston Children's Hospital, said licensure bottlenecks produce staff shortages that delay discharges and increase burnout: "Delays in discharge for medically cleared patients, especially those with complex psychosocial needs, are due to shortages of licensed social workers." Colleagues asked lawmakers to preserve rigorous standards while removing what they called an inequitable gatekeeper.

Committee members asked several witnesses whether states can combine approaches: Rhode Island and Connecticut have paused use of the master's exam while maintaining pathways to multi-state licensure by allowing exam takers to qualify for the compact. ASWB witnesses said such bifurcated systems are possible but add administrative burden. Supporters said that, in practice, required supervised practice, accredited degrees and employer evaluations can serve as reliable alternatives to multiple-choice exams.

What the bill does and does not do: The Super Act as presented would (1) create a stipend program for MSW field placements, (2) eliminate the master's-level exam as an entry requirement for LCSW licensure in Massachusetts, and (3) allow licensed clinical social workers to earn continuing-education credit for supervising provisional clinicians. It does not remove graduate-degree requirements, remove supervised-practice hour requirements, or change standards for higher-level independent practice licensure except as specified by the bill text. Several witnesses emphasized the bill preserves accredited-degree and supervised-practice prerequisites.

Outlook: Lawmakers did not take a vote at the hearing. The committee heard detailed evidence from both proponents and the national exam sponsor; members pressed for data on compact participation, pass-rate disparities, and administrative impacts of a bifurcated licensure system. Multiple witnesses volunteered to provide more data and models from Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Ending note: The committee will decide whether to report the Super Act out favorably after receiving follow-up materials and fiscal analysis; in the meantime witnesses on both sides urged that any changes be coupled with investments in paid internships, supervision capacity and workforce supports.