Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Maryland debate intensifies over new supervised‑practice path to social‑work licensure
Loading...
Summary
Sponsor says SB 18 will expand Maryland's social‑work workforce and address racial disparities tied to exam pass rates; the state board, NASW and many employers support a supervised practice option while ASWB and clinical societies warn removing or optionalizing the national exam could undermine public protections.
Senator Mary Washington told the Senate Finance Committee SB 18 would implement the work‑group recommendation to create an alternative practice‑based licensure pathway for BSW and MSW graduates to address workforce shortages and disparities in exam pass rates.
"This approach reflects both the input of advocates as well as the board," Washington said, describing an 18‑month work‑group report that recommended allowing supervised, competency‑based alternatives while preserving the licensing exam for clinical (independent) licensure.
Supporters — including the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), social‑service employers and numerous MSW graduates — said the bill would let Maryland retain locally trained graduates who now obtain licenses in neighboring jurisdictions. NASW legislative chair Dr. Daphne McClellan urged the committee to specify supervision standards, documentation rules and that the pathway exclude independent clinical licensure without further requirements.
Opponents led by the Association of Social Work Boards argued the national exam is the uniform baseline that facilitates interstate portability and public protection; ASWB representatives warned removing an exam requirement would complicate Maryland's participation in the social‑work licensure compact and could reduce defensibility and consistency of competency measurement.
Sponsors and the Board of Social Work Examiners said they support amendments to set detailed competency standards, retain a conditional license option for emergency circumstances, and ensure supervised hours count toward advanced credentials.
The hearing reflected a split between workforce and equity advocates pressing for alternate pathways and licensing authorities and some clinical groups urging caution to protect public safety. Panelists asked for follow‑up work to iron out supervision metrics, documentation and the board's authority to set standards.
