New Hampshire subcommittee pauses bid to remove LSWA exam, asks boards to set criteria

The House Executive Departments and Administration subcommittee opened a hearing on House Bill 271, a proposal to remove the national licensure examination requirement for Licensed Social Work Associates (LSWA), and recessed the item after members asked licensing officials and stakeholders to provide additional data and specific rulemaking options.

The discussion focused on whether the LSWA exam — currently the same test used for the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) level — is appropriate for associates who may lack a formal social work degree. “I’m gonna open subcommittee hearing on house bill 2 71,” the chair said at the start of the item. Several representatives said it was too soon to repeal an exam requirement that was added recently and has limited local data on pass rates.

The bill would strike language that requires applicants for LSWA to “successfully complete the examination approved by the board.” Members noted that the LSWA tier was adopted only recently; testimony at the hearing cited the exam requirement began in 2021 and that, locally, only one person in New Hampshire currently holds an LSWA license. Karina Bonilla, representing Connor Blue Strategies and John DeJoy of NASW New Hampshire, told the committee, “there’s only 1 person in New Hampshire at the moment who has an LSWA,” and that there is little data on pass or fail rates for LSWA candidates. Bonilla also explained that LSWA candidates must complete 30 hours of required training plus significant supervised hours, and that some LSW candidates with a BSW still fail the LSW exam.

Representatives on both sides emphasized different priorities. Representative Grama and others said licensure should include a measurable demonstration of competency and requested data on exam pass rates and whether the national LSW exam content aligns with day-to-day LSWA duties. Representative Long asked whether an alternative assessment or a non-licensure credential might better fit the position and whether insurance reimbursement requirements drove the original creation of the tier. Representative Bailey framed the policy choice as balancing demonstrated competency versus formal education.

OPLC staff and committee members described options to resolve the tension without immediate repeal. Committee members discussed using statutory language that gives the board rulemaking authority to set criteria, or authorizing the board to develop or adopt an assessment appropriate to the associate level. OPLC staff said the statute already allows the board to “meet other criteria as established by the board” and noted there is no widely available national exam specifically for the LSWA level. The licensing staff reported that if the board determines an exam is not appropriate, they could implement a license without an exam under present statutory wording, but the committee asked the board to propose concrete criteria first.

After extended discussion the subcommittee recessed HB 271 and directed staff and the relevant licensing board to prepare rule or amendment options for the committee’s executive session. The chair summarized the planned next steps: obtain clarity from OPLC on existing rules and board authority, explore whether a tailored assessment or rulemaking process could satisfy compact and insurance requirements, and return with proposed language to the subcommittee or full committee for further action.

The subcommittee did not take a formal vote on HB 271 during the hearing; members instead recommended further work and possible amendment or retention for later consideration.

Looking ahead, committee members asked OPLC and the social work board to gather pass-rate data, document how supervised hours are tracked, and provide specific rule text or alternative assessment proposals before the committee’s executive session.