Board hears overview of Social Work Compact as AB 427 moves through process

The Board of Behavioral Sciences heard a presentation on March 14 about the interstate Social Work Licensure Compact and how it would affect California practitioners if the Legislature and the state join the compact.

The board heard from Caitlin Bison, policy analyst at the National Center for Interstate Compacts, who explained that the compact creates a single ‘‘multistate’’ license issued by an applicant’s home state that authorizes practice in all member states. Bison described shared data systems, cross‑state investigative cooperation and joint investigative tools as the main public‑safety mechanisms built into compact models. Bison noted that 22 states already have enacted the social work compact and that multistate licenses are not yet being issued while the compact commission builds the required information systems and rules.

Board members and public commenters asked about tradeoffs, including whether compact membership would reduce a state’s ability to require state‑specific coursework or continuing education. Bison said compact licensees would be required to comply with the laws of the state where the client is located, but continuing education requirements would be attached to the home‑state license; a licensee practicing into California under the compact would not be required to complete California‑specific CEs unless California makes them a condition for practice through other regulatory means. Several board members pressed how the compact would preserve California’s authority to require state‑specific law and ethics training; Bison said the compact does not replace state authority over single‑state licensure or scope of practice, but clarified that adopting a compact creates a uniform eligibility pathway for practitioners who choose to use it.

Board members also asked about workforce impacts and evidence supporting the compact as a fix for shortages. Bison pointed to early studies for other compacts and said robust, profession‑specific evidence is still limited because many compacts are newly implemented. Several members and public commenters urged the board to secure more data on patient safety, examination equity, and the compact’s administrative rules before supporting legislation.

Public comment included representatives from the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists and individual clinicians who urged caution regarding exam requirements, transparency of the compact commission, and California’s authority to require state‑specific qualifications.

The board treated the briefing as fact‑finding; no final action on AB 427 was taken at the meeting. Staff said the policy and advocacy committee will discuss the compact in more depth and the board will revisit the subject at future meetings.