Senate committee backs overhaul of social work licensure, forwards bills to rules committee

The Senate Committee on Health, Hospitals and Human Services voted to forward two companion bills—36‑0050 (repeal and reenact Title 27, Chapter 20) and 36‑0051 (establishing the Virgin Islands Board of Social Work Licensure)—to the Rules and Judiciary Committee after testimony from the bill sponsor, territorial regulators, the University of the Virgin Islands and the Association of Social Work Boards.

The bills update licensure categories and practice definitions that the witnesses said have not been modernized since the 1980s. "The Department of Human Services supports the intention behind this legislation and acknowledges the importance of revising and reenacting Chapter 20 of Title 27 of the Virgin Islands Code to better align our social work licensure laws with current standards of practice," said Avril George, Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services.

Committee chair Senator Ray Fonseca opened the block with readings of the three bills. Senator Novelle E. Francis Jr., sponsor of the social work measures, told the committee the goal is to align territory law with contemporary practice and create a clear pathway to licensure for University of the Virgin Islands graduates. "This bill recognizes the industry's shifts that have taken place since 1983 and creates a regulatory landscape that not only supports the industry's growth, but aligns with educational standards and best practices," Francis said.

Supporters included Yvonne I. Woods, PhD, Program Director and assistant professor of social work at the University of the Virgin Islands, and Kara Sanne from the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). ASWB told the committee the bills would align the territory with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions and position the Virgin Islands to join the Social Work Licensure Compact in the future.

Regulators and practitioners urged technical corrections. Avril George and Assistant Commissioner Carla Benjamin of the Department of Human Services recommended clarifying supervisory pathways so long‑serving staff who supervise others but lack a current MSW are not disqualified; Benjamin urged grandfathering or equivalency provisions so experienced, licensed supervisors can continue in supervisory roles. "We recommend...grandfather clauses [or] equivalency provisions should be added," Benjamin said. Juliette Millen, a member of the Board of Social Work Licensure, said the board can consider waivers for supervisors and encouraged collaboration to minimize operational disruption.

Natalie Hodge, Commissioner of the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, asked that degree initials (BSW, MSW) be handled carefully in the draft to avoid implying a ban on displaying academic degrees; legal counsel advised removing degree initials from the prohibition language because they are academic credentials rather than licensure titles. Testimony also requested clearer cross‑references to existing judicial review statutes, a required public registry of licensed social workers, and explicit repeal or amendment of superseded code sections so authority is codified in a single place.

Committee members pressed on workforce impacts. Assistant Commissioner Benjamin told senators that roughly three to four DHS supervisors could be affected by new credential-language and that the department wants a pathway for experienced practitioners to continue supervising while preserving standards for new entrants.

The committee voted to approve bill 36‑0050 and 36‑0051 in committee and to forward both measures to Rules and Judiciary. The clerk recorded the committee vote on bill 36‑0050 as 6 yes, 1 absent and on bill 36‑0051 as forwarded for further review. The committee did not adopt the Social Work Interstate Compact within this block; witnesses said compact participation would require separate enabling legislation.

Next steps and document fixes: testimony asked the sponsor and staff to (1) remove degree initials from prohibitions that refer to licensure titles, (2) add a registry requirement and public access to licensure status, (3) add explicit grandfather/waiver language or clear equivalency routes for long‑serving supervisors, and (4) cross‑reference existing administrative review statutes.

The committee record shows the bills will return to Rules and Judiciary for drafting of technical corrections and final consideration.

Ending: The sponsors, regulators and national experts present said they will continue working with the committee and the DLCA board to refine the bills before final floor action.