About ChoosEquity

We are a part of the National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (NADD), which is a volunteer membership organization working to promote excellence in social work education. NADD achieves this by enhancing the leadership of social work education programs. Our membership is comprised of deans and directors of graduate social work programs that are accredited or advanced to candidacy by the Council of Social Work Education Board of Accreditation. NADD supports deans and directors in their professional development and effectiveness as academic administrators. Read more For over 10+ years, NADD members noticed a trend of anecdotal data from our students on their difficulties in passing the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) exams – despite success in the classroom and applied settings with actual clients. With concern for the impact on students and communities, NADD established the Task Force to Reform Social Work Licensing (TFRL) to bring together thought leaders, stakeholders, and allies to study the issue of social work licensing using an equity and fairness lens. We are the representatives of TFRL. In 2022, the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) released the first public report of pass rate examination data, which reinforced our work.

We are committed to social work licensure which reflects our profession's values and ethics. As licensure varies by each state/jurisdiction (for all 50 U.S. states, social work licensure is determined and overseen at the state level), TFRL is calling for rapid action to address the noted disparities in the social work licensure exams. As each state varies, we learn with and from others committed reforming licensure where they live. We connect stakeholders, develop resources and tools, and advocate for change. Are you ready to generate or rejuvenate movement within your state/jurisdiction? We want to collaborate with you! TFRL members are available for free consultation to support stakeholders and allies seeking to guide social work licensure changes within their state/jurisdiction. Interested? Email Jayashree Nimmagadda (jnimmagadda@ric.edu) and/or Goutham Menon (gmenon@luc.edu). In addition, we have translated our experiences and expertise into resources to aid advocating for change in your respective states/jurisdictions. The Advocacy Toolkit (below) is one document that anyone can use to make a case with their legislators. The Advocacy Toolkit is intended to be tailored prior to use. Gray boxes of help text should be used and then deleted. The yellow highlighted areas should be modified by inserting data and information specific to your respective state/jurisdiction. For more information on opportunities for action, see FAQs, question: How can you get involved?

We unequivocally support social work licensure. We know social work licensure which reflects our profession's values and ethics is possible. We believe in equity, fairness, and racial justice. While an exam is currently required for social work licensure in most states (excluding those which have recently passed reformed legislation), licensure is not about an exam. Further, there is no evidence that passing a standardized test is an indication of the ability of a social worker. However, there is a bigger and more important context. Every state desperately needs a strong and diverse social work workforce. It is estimated that the majority of the clients and communities served by social workers are people and communities of color. It is also well documented that social workers who represent the lived experience of the people they serve are more effective in providing services in communities of color. Consequently, not only do the disparities in licensure impact the graduates who have spent time and money getting their degree (and who often have many years of experience in social services), but it has detrimental and longstanding effects on the clients and communities that need them. In effect, the very principle of licensure – to protect the public by ensuring that social workers are competent to practice – is being undercut by an exam that results in such great racial disparities.

As licensure varies by state, this map by ASWB provides a look at the different types of social work licenses in every state. Yes, there are 229 different types of social work licenses used across the United States! See the complete list organized by both state (with corresponding titles, minimum supervision hours, and accrual timelines) and title frequency (note: two tabs within the document). In reviewing the above data, you may notice much overlap between current requirements. We do, too. However, reciprocity (or the ability to transfer a license from one state/jurisdiction to another) remains challenging for social workers and inconsistent between jurisdictions. As a result, licensed social workers needing to shift or expand their practice (e.g., due to relocation, residing on a border, or offering virtual services) are met with additional license expenses for each state/jurisdiction, and potentially time-consuming pathways to similar licensure in other states/jurisdictions; this is in addition to the ongoing license renewal costs. However, our advocacy could result in maintaining high standards, eliminating redundancy, minimizing expenses, and strengthening the social work workforce - simultaneously as services increase via virtual delivery. State licensing boards have an opportunity to work together and remove redundant credentials. Support this call to action!

We unequivocally support social work licensing. We believe that gatekeeping should exist in our profession. In fact, social work programs across the United States (from Guam to Puerto Rico) have a major role to play in gatekeeping because they are required to review student grades in courses, and most importantly, evaluate how their students perform working with clients in actual agency settings in their internships. We urge all baccalaureate and master's social work programs to review and strengthen their gatekeeping policies. On the other hand, an exam – particularly one with data demonstrating racial disparities manifested for a minimum of a decade – is an unreliable instrument for assessing competent practice. For this same reason many standardized exams, including the SAT, are no longer being used as predictors of success, we have concerns about the reliance on an exam. One might argue that successful work history coupled with effective supervision would be a more nuanced approach to measuring competency, as an alternative pathway to the exam or until an exam without these disparities is developed.

While the data – both anecdotal from our graduates and exam result compilation – demonstrate disparities in both exams, we believe it is important to start with the first-level license exam to make change happen. As the entry level license is not a clinical license and requires practice with supervision, the threat to the public is lower than of those practicing independently. Yes, all levels of licensure should be addressed. Some states may elect to address both simultaneously. For example, Illinois made changes in both levels of licensure.

NADD STATEMENT ON ASWB RELEASE OF REPORT ON LICENSURE PASSAGE RATES (September 2, 2022) The issue is even more egregious than anticipated and reflects a crisis in the profession. NADD calls on social work State licensing boards and legislators to urgently act to immediately address the current exam and assessment process to effect rapid equity in the nation’s workforce. NASW: ASWB social work licensing exam pass rate data confirm concern over racial disparities (August 11, 2022) All social work institutions - including ASWB and licensing boards, NASW and other associations, and social work higher education programs - must openly confront systemic racism within our profession. We must all commit to work to ensure reforms are made to ensure the licensing process is equitable for all, protecting the public without unnecessary gatekeeping and discrimination. National Association of Black Social Workers Open Letter to Association of Social Work Board (ASWB), (December 15, 2022) NABSW stands firm in our collaboration with national, international, and other appropriate groups who assume the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of Black people and Black communities. Collectively we must address the profound injustices and historical practices integrated into the fabric of truth in disclosure. The ASWB data demonstrate that racial discrimination is prevalent in assuring equitable opportunities to achieve licensing warrants immediate action. Social Work and Hospice Care Network statement in response to the ASWB report (August 9, 2022) It is in this context that we express profound alarm and dismay at learning of the low pass rates of our Black colleagues on the licensure exams. We believe that this data is the product of the implicit racial bias embedded in the ASWB exam -- a bias that is pernicious and pervasive throughout the education and practice institutions of the United States. Immeasurable injury is exacted to our profession when the ASWB exams prescribe ideas of a "knowledge" that is steeped in dominant white cultural values and ways of knowing. NASW-Michigan's Statement on the Release of the 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis Report (August 9, 2022) All aspects of the social work community must now come together and propose meaningful changes on how licensure in this profession in Michigan is acquired. The road ahead specifically for Michigan social workers is not clear at this time, but it is unmistakable that we will need your help determining how we move forward as a state. NASW-IL Full Statement on ASWB Test Analysis (August 15, 2022, Updated Mar 5, 2023) The social work profession is one founded upon and guided by ethical principles and standards which help guide our practice as clinicians and fundamentally protect the people we serve. However, the licensing testing entity needs to be severely reproached for not upholding and practicing our ethical standards, which is proven by its egregious practice of bias and systemic racism in its testing practices. CADD and NASW-CA Statement on the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Data (August 31, 2023) We understand the need for the state to regulate ethics and practices involving independent clinical licensure, yet believe that the current ASWB test reinforces disparities that are not congruent with social work values. We support the development of alternatives, and strongly urge California leaders of our board and in state government to consider increasing evidence concerning the inefficacy of standardized testing in clinical exams and to begin important conversations about equitable pathways toward clinical licensure.

"Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2015 Our success is reliant on our collective action. As you have likely noted through exploring these FAQs, several states have successfully integrated alternative pathways to licensure. However, most states/jurisdictions have remaining opportunities for engagement and activism. In addition, we need to explore and shift options regarding the reciprocity of recognized licenses across states/jurisdictions. Here are some concrete action steps you can take: 1) Expand your knowledge base. Reviewing this website in full is a good start – including all FAQs, current licensing requirements, and the 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis. 2) Sign-up to stay informed! A registration form is available at the bottom of the homepage. Simply share your email address to receive updates as they become available. 3) Learn about your legislation. Explore the work happening within your state/jurisdiction by reviewing the map available within the FAQs (see question: Where can I find licensure requirements of my state?) and/or reaching out to others within your state/jurisdiction. Your state and local National Association of Social Workers (NASW) chapters are a good place to start. 4) Understand what is happening in other legislatures and by activist groups. If you are considering helping to inspire, expand, or rejuvenate an effort within your state/jurisdiction, learn what has been successful elsewhere. While not all knowledge and experiences are transferable, this can be a good starting point. Free consultation services are available through our TFRL (see FAQs, question: What do we do? How do we collaborate? [and the Advocacy Toolkit!]). We are excited to share our successes and moments of growth! 5) Write to your legislative representatives. Demonstrate your support to integrate alternative pathways to social work licensure, minimally at the first level of practice, by removing the exam from practice and supporting gateway practices to strengthen the social work profession across the state/jurisdiction. 6) Share your state’s story. TFRL is sensitive to that fact that some member schools are in states which are struggling to gather and catalyze stakeholders around these inequity concerns. If you reside in one of these states, please reach out to share struggles and concerns for support and ally-ship. Please contact Goutham Menon (gmenon@luc.edu) or Luis Torres-Hostos (luis.torreshostos@utrgv.edu). 7) Engage in training. Keep your eye out for the upcoming video tutorials/webinars. Make a commitment to viewing them and sharing them. One idea: when released, prioritize watching one per month. Then, share it with a colleague at another social work program, integrate it into a course, or mention it on social media. 8) Share your experience and/or expertise. Have you engaged in advocacy within your state regarding social work licensure reform? Are you willing to share your knowledge/expertise, your experience, and/or connect TFRL with others? TFRL would like to learn from those who have direct involvement with advocacy and integrate experiences of these individuals into resources. This includes test-takers who have been impacted by the current exam and would like to share their story. Please contact Judy Postmus (postmus@ssw.umaryland.edu) or Johanna Thomas (johannat@uark.edu). 9) Improve your advocacy knowledge. Review the Advocacy Toolkit and reach out to TFRL members for free consultation as needed (see FAQS, question: What do we do? How do we collaborate? (and the Advocacy Toolkit!). 10) Join a TFRL regional group. Sign up to lead or participate in a regional group. Regional groups are structured for states geographically located near one another to collaborate and advocate collectively.

Like other professions (such as nursing, law, medicine, physical therapy, education, etc.) licensing exists to protect the public from unsafe, incompetent, and unethical practice. In short, licensing is designed to protect clients from inadequate or incompetent social workers.

The Association of Social Work Boards – commonly known as ASWB – is a 501(c)(3) organization (its 2022 IRS 990 statement is here) that develops, constructs, tests, and administers a number of social work exams, including the LMSW and LCSW exams. While a few states have recently changed social work licensing legislation, most states/jurisdictions require the passing of an ASWB exam to obtain each level of social work licensure. Currently, ASWB has a monopoly on social work licensure as within all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and in some Canadian provinces,there is no other existing organization which offers an exam for social workers.

NADD TFRL represents and supports the United States, which includes all 50 states, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Therefore, terminology includes states and jurisdictions to reference every entity which oversees licensure. For all 50 states, licensure is determined by state legislation and overseen at the state level. The TFRL website also includes some information relevant to limited Canadian provinces which utilize the ASWB exam.

Every state/jurisdiction[1] has requirements and procedures for social work licensure. However, as licensing is determined by each state/jurisdiction, master’s-level educated social workers may have varied opportunities for licensure depending on the state(s)/jurisdiction(s) in which they practice. There are some common requirements most states/jurisdictions have utilized for licensing, including a standardized test. However, some states have changed requirements omitting a standardized test from one or multiple types of social work licensure. For social workers to clinically practice – and often to be referred to as social workers – all states require social work licensure, typically obtained in two levels. In addition, some states offer additional opportunities for licensure beyond clinical-related licenses, such as for master’s level social workers practicing generalist or macro social work. [1] NADD TFRL represents the entire the United States, which includes all 50 states, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Therefore, terminology includes states and jurisdictions to reference every entity which oversees licensure. For all 50 states, licensure is determined by state legislation and overseen at the state level.

Licensing requirements vary between each state and jurisdiction. Boards in each state/jurisdiction establish licensing titles and corresponding requirements for social workers in their state/jurisdiction. In many states/jurisdictions, in order for professionals to be referred to as social workers – regardless of their degree – they must be licensed as social workers. This initial social work license is what this guide refers to as the first-level social work license. Some social workers – regardless of their type of practice – elect to pursue this first level license. Some social workers elect to pursue this first-level license as a step towards achieving their second-level, independent clinical social work license. While labeled differently, all states/jurisdictions across the United States – including all fifty states from Guam to Puerto Rico – require the licensing of independent clinical social workers at the master’s social work level for clinical practice. In most states, the independent clinical social work license is a second-level license. One requirement of most state's first-level master’s social work license is passing the LMSW exam – which is constructed and administered by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). As referenced above, there is an additional level of master’s level social work licensure, the LCSW (in Rhode Island this is the LICSW), which licenses social workers for clinical, independent, psychotherapy practice. In most states, the first-level, master’s-level practice license must also be obtained prior to obtaining the second-level independent clinical master’s level license (LCSW/LICSW). Social work licensure across the States prioritizes an exam, despite increasing evidence-based shifts away from standardized testing.

Social work licensure requirements vary by state/jurisdiction, as each identifies the types of licensure and corresponding requirements (see FAQs, question: Is social work licensing the same throughout the United States? Are there different types of social work licensure?). Aside from an ASWB exam, there are often other requirements associated with obtaining licensure. Examples of common first-level social work license requirements: · graduate from a CSWE-accredited master’s social work program, · secure a supervisor with a/an second-level license; · complete (for example, 1,500-3,000) hours of practice under the above licensed supervisor; and · apply to the state/jurisdiction social work licensing body. Examples of common second-level social work license requirements: · graduate from a CSWE-accredited master’s social work program, · obtain a first-level social work license; · secure a supervisor with a/an second-level license; · complete a minimum number (averaging 1,500-3,000) of clinical practice hours; · complete a minimum number of hours of supervision with the above licensed supervisor for a minimum period of time (such as 2 years); and · apply to the state/jurisdiction social work licensing body.

For over a decade, social workers have suspected that social workers of color – particularly those who identify as Black and Latinx – are failing the licensing exam at disproportionate rates, impacting their ability to obtain social work licensure. Independently, various states began to gather data. In 2015, the New York State Education Department Office of the Professions released information to the New York master’s social work programs that allowed them to conduct a very basic assessment of their graduates: pass/fail rates of the ASWB LMSW and LCSW exams. The results indicated that all social workers of color – but especially Black and Latinx graduates – failed the exam at much higher rates. Over the years, social work master’s programs implemented a variety of preparation techniques to increase the exam pass rates of their graduates, but no efforts improved results. Beginning in 2014, working with the National Association of Social Work Deans and Directors (NADD), the New York State Deans of Social Work began to strongly request that ASWB release data on pass/fail rates by age and race. After eight (8) years, on August 5, 2022, ASWB published a trend analysis of data from 2011-2021.

The data showed significant disparities <Link to report> In 2022, the Association of Social Work Boards released 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis: Final Report. Highlights are included within this section. The data showed significant disparities between white graduates, and Black and Latinx graduates. Data Summary The following data is representative of national exam test-takers between 2018-2021. The total number of exam-takers (for both LMSW and LCSW exams) per year is unknown, including the division by race and ethnicity. The total number of first-attempt exam-takers is known and provided for the LMSW and LCSW exams. However, for individuals who utilized multiple attempts to eventually pass either exam, the total number of repeat exam-takers for between 2018-2021 is unknown. In addition, as a number of factors are unknown (such as total number of attempts, frequency of attempts, start year of first-attempt, etc.), the total number of exam-takers (for each exam, per year) – inclusive of both first-attempt exam-takers and repeat exam-takers – cannot be inferred. Further, the number of repeat exam-takers and total exam-takers for each race and ethnicity population is also unknown. ASBW LMSW Exam: First-attempt Pass Rate (2018-2021) Above chart in narrative form: Per ASWB (2022): When considering the Masters exam performance of test-takers by race/ethnicity, first-time pass rates have historically been highest for white test-takers, averaging 85.8 percent during the 2018–2021 time period, followed by multiracial (80 percent), Asian (71 percent), Native American/Indigenous peoples (64.4 percent), Hispanic/Latino (63 percent), and Black (44.5 percent) test-takers. ASBW LMSW Exam: Eventual Pass Rate (2018-2021) Above chart in highlighted narrative form: Eventual pass rates also showed disparities; while almost 91% of white graduates eventually passed the exam, only 51.9% of Black graduates and 71.2% of Latinx graduates did. ASBW LCSW Exam: First-attempt Pass Rate (2018-2021) Above chart in narrative form: Per ASWB (2022): When considering the Clinical exam performance of test-takers by race/ethnicity, first-time pass rates have historically been highest for white test-takers, averaging 83.9 percent during the 2018–2021 time period, followed by multiracial (79.9 percent), Asian (72 percent), Hispanic/Latino (65.1 percent), Native American/Indigenous peoples (62.9 percent), and Black (45 percent) test-takers. ASBW LCSW Exam: Eventual Pass Rate (2018-2021) Above chart in highlighted narrative form: Eventual pass rates also showed disparities; while almost 91% of white graduates eventually passed the exam, only 57% of Black graduates and 77% of Latinx graduates did. In addition, only 63% of LMSW exam-takers and 70% of LCSW exam-takers for whom English is not their first language pass the exam (the exam is only offered in English). There are also other populations in which data is publicly unknown, such as social workers of varying abilities as well as by areas (i.e., each separate state/jurisdiction) and population of institution (e.g., by groupings of institutions/programs based upon student representation of race/ethnicity and corresponding pass/fail rates). Consequently, slightly more than half of Black graduates and only two-thirds of Latinx graduates become licensed master’s level social workers. [1] For between 2018-2021, reported total of 73,409 LMSW exam first-time exam-takers. However, due to altered available options during the time period, individuals who selected Prefer not to say or filled in their own identifiers were excluded from analysis (ASWB, 2022). [2] Between 2018-2021, reported total of 70,687 LCSW exam first-time exam-takers. However, due to altered available options during the time period, individuals who selected Prefer not to say or filled in their own identifiers were excluded from analysis (ASWB, 2022).

The trend analysis of the national report reflects the inequities faced by Black, Hispanic, Older persons, and those whose first language is not English. This interactive map by ASWB provides this evidence. Check your state and the licensure level here: https://www.aswb.org/exam/contributing-to-the-conversation/aswb-exam-pass-rates-by-state-province/ You will also see these inequities if you look at the data by individual programs of social work. https://www.aswb.org/exam/contributing-to-the-conversation/exam-performance-reports-for-social-work-schools-and-programs/

When pass rates are compared to other professions (education, nursing) that are also licensed, they have much smaller disparities than social work (10-12% compared to social work's 37% disparity). Their national organizations have also done significant work to correct the inequities and diversify their workforce, including proposing alternative pathways, to licensing.