Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Compact Social Work topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 345 to join interstate social‑work licensure compact; supporters cite workforce and military family benefits
Summary
Sponsor and social‑work organizations urged Maryland to join the Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact to increase license portability and expand access to behavioral‑health services; the committee did not take a vote and a technical amendment was requested.
Delegate Ken Kerr introduced House Bill 345 to align Maryland with the Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact, a multi‑state licensing arrangement administered through a compact commission coordinated by the Council of State Governments. “Approving this interstate social worker compact won’t completely solve the problem, but not joining the compact will certainly make it worse,” Del. Kerr said, citing a Maryland Health Care Commission workforce report that projects large shortfalls in behavioral health workers.
Carissa Proctor, executive director of the Maryland chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW‑MD), told the committee the compact would allow licensed social workers to obtain a multistate license to practice across member states without separate, duplicative licensure processes. Dan Martin of the Mental Health Association of Maryland and other witnesses pointed to workforce shortages, declining MSW program completions and the need to retain and recruit qualified social workers.
Supporters also highlighted benefits for military families: Christopher Arnold of the U.S. Department of Defense State Liaison Office said compacts reduce military‑spouse unemployment and ease frequent moves for service families. Several practicing social workers and provider organizations testified in favor and described continuity‑of‑care advantages when therapists and clients move across state lines.
A representative of the Council of State Governments asked for a small technical change to keep compact language consistent across adopting states; the sponsor characterized that amendment as friendly. The committee did not record a vote during the hearing.
Ending: Supporters urged a favorable report; members asked technical questions about how the compact interacts with Maryland’s single‑state licensing requirements and were told the compact does not change a state’s authority over single‑state licenses.
