The Social Work Compact is an interstate compact, or a form of agreement between individual states. If adopted by enough states, it will allow social workers in participating states to apply for a single, multi-state license that would give them practice privileges in all other participating states. As of January 15, 2024, only Missouri has adopted the compact. Several other states will consider legislation to join the compact this year. They should choose not to do so.
The Social Work Compact creates a single, Multi-State License (MSL) that social workers in participating states will be able to apply for. When granted, the MSL gives the social worker practice privileges in all other participating states. That’s one of two reasons why states should proceed with caution.
No accountability for public safety
That MSL can initially appear to be a great benefit for social workers, who will not need to apply for practice privileges on a state-by-state basis. At the same time, that should make the Social Work Compact a harder sell to state legislators and licensing boards.
State policymakers use licensure to protect the public in their individual state. They do this by ensuring that social workers allowed to practice there know that state’s unique laws. Those state-specific laws are important, addressing issues like involuntary hospitalization, crisis response, child and elder abuse reporting, and more. That’s why many states have some form of jurisprudence exam or education requirement in state-specific law and ethics.
The multi-state license created by the Social Work Compact removes participating states’ ability to ensure that a social worker has state-specific legal knowledge before being allowed to practice there. While boards could still discipline MSL holders after a violation, they would not be allowed to put CE or other requirements into place that would hold social workers accountable for the necessary state-specific knowledge before being allowed to work with that state’s population.
This seems like a recipe for disaster. Social workers will be working with children in states where the social worker has no idea what that state’s rules are for reporting child abuse. Social workers will be working with adults in crisis in states where the social worker has no idea what that state’s rules are for involuntary hospitalization.
It’s true that responsible social workers will seek out this knowledge on their own before working in a new state. But one of the main functions of licensure is to ensure accountability for this kind of knowledge before someone is allowed to independently provide services to the public. Members of the public will hold a mistaken belief that a social worker practicing under an MSL will have proven their knowledge of state-specific law.
Requiring a broken clinical exam
In addition, the compact relies on the deeply problematic ASWB social work exams. By mandating that participating states use a “qualifying national exam” (only ASWB’s exams qualify), the compact will only further institutionalize racism in licensing.
The ASWB exam, like all clinical exams in mental health care, has never shown the ability to predict safety or effectiveness in practice. It is not developed in accordance with minimal industry standards for testing. The only thing it has been shown to do is keep older and non-white social workers out of licensure.
Two years ago, Illinois got rid of the ASWB exam for generalist (non-clinical) social workers. The result? Thousands more social workers were able to achieve licensure, without the racial and ethnic disparities imposed by the exam. There was reportedly no corresponding increase in public safety issues, suggesting that the exam hadn’t actually been protecting the public in any meaningful way.
The National Association of Social Workers ostensibly opposes the ASWB exams. However, by supporting a Social Work Compact that requires participating states to use those same exams, the NASW is an active participant in the institutional racism that the exams advance. States can and should do better.
The illusion of a workforce solution
Of course, the most powerful reason why states might support the compact is the critical shortage of mental health workers across the country. Social workers want the mobility and expansion opportunities that multistate licensure provides. States are understandably eager to provide those benefits.
But the mental health workforce shortage is a national issue, and allowing practitioners to practice across state lines is ultimately a zero-sum game. Suppose the compact comes into effect, and Missouri and Kentucky are two participating states. Then suppose a Missouri social worker, who had been working full-time with Missouri clients, gets an MSL. That social worker chooses to work half-time with Missouri clients and the other half of the time with Kentucky clients. In that scenario, Kentucky gains half of a social worker. But Missouri loses half of a social worker. This is reshuffling deck chairs, not solving a national work force shortage.
The best thing that states can do to immediately address their mental health workforce shortages is remove clinical exams.
A better model is available
As previously established here, I’m generally a fan of interstate compacts. I’m also concerned about license exams. The Social Work Compact in its present form is bad policy. The exam requirement is an important issue impacting public access to care, and the failure of public protection may result in direct client harm from social workers unfamiliar with state-specific law.
It would be better if social workers had followed the model set by the Counseling Compact. In that model, practice privileges are still awarded on a state-by-state basis, under a streamlined process that still allows each state to ensure that counselors practicing there know state-specific law. That model far better balances the efficiencies of a multistate compact with the responsibility of public protection. Better still would be a compact that doesn’t tie states’ hands when it comes to the exams they choose to use, or not use, as part of a fair and equitable licensing process.
Originally published February 6, 2024. Updated June 26, 2024.