Committee weighs changing exam requirement for social work associates
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers and professional groups told the Senate committee a national, proctored exam required for the new licensed social work associate tier is too broad; the proposed fix would let the Board of Mental Health Practice set an appropriate exam standard by rule.
Representative Carol McGuire, sponsor of House Bill 271, told the Senate committee the licensed social work associate tier has produced very few licenses under the current requirement to pass a nationally proctored social work exam. She said the statute’s exam requirement is broader and more rigorous than needed for an associate-level practice and has resulted in only one licensed associate in the roughly 18 months since the tier was created.
The House amendment before the committee directs the Board of Mental Health Practice to determine, by rule, an appropriate exam for the associate level and requires associates to pass that exam. ‘‘The licensed social work associate is not an independent practitioner and typically does not pursue higher licensure,’’ Jackie Grotta (Rep., Rockingham 24) told the panel during the hearing. Grotta said the subcommittee amendment was intended to align the board and association positions and to clarify that supervision and scope remain unchanged.
Carina Bonilla of the National Association of Social Workers — New Hampshire chapter said NASW supports HB 271 as amended. Bonilla told the committee the board already has rulemaking authority in RSA 330-A:10 to set exam subjects, passing grades and examination procedures, and the bill aligns statute with existing board authority.
Committee members asked whether many other states still require the national exam for associates. Witnesses said only a minority of states have an associate licensure tier and that the associate credential is typically not a stepping stone to clinical licensure without further graduate education.
No formal action on HB 271 was recorded during the hearing. The committee closed the public testimony and indicated staff would do additional research on the question of other states’ practices.
Ending: The proposal would leave supervision and scope in place while moving the exam standard from statute into the board’s rulemaking authority; supporters said that change should increase licensure access for the intended associate population without altering supervision requirements.
