Equality and equity are distinct concepts in the realm of social justice. While equality emphasizes the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and rights among all individuals, regardless of their background, equity goes a step further. Equity recognizes that individuals have diverse needs and circumstances, aiming to provide each person with the specific support required to attain an equal outcome. In essence, equality focuses on sameness, while equity prioritizes fairness by acknowledging and addressing inherent disparities.

Removing the exam might support equality by reducing the requirements for all people. It fails to address underlying systemic issues that contribute to inequities in the field. Equity involves recognizing and addressing the specific needs and challenges faced by different groups. Therefore, additional measures may be necessary to achieve equity in the social work profession, such as targeted support for underrepresented individuals and addressing systemic barriers to education and career advancement.

Efforts must be made at every level to address disparities and biases. Addressing institutional discrimination is a complex and ongoing process that involves both systemic and individual efforts.

• Address institutionalized racism in the American education systems at all levels, K-12 & University

• Create additional paths to licensure for students that demonstrate test-taking challenges, such as regulated standards of the provision of social work supervision

• Provide free / low-cost study materials

• Provide free / low-cost examination preparation courses

• Create a voucher program that assists with the cost of registering for the examination for lower income individuals

• Strengthen diverse recruitment practices to hire more BIPOC faculty members in Social Work programs at universities

• Encourage more BIPOC professionals to serve as item writers for the licensing examinations

• Critically evaluate the licensing examinations on a regular basis and make changes accordingly.

By implementing tiered licensing, we acknowledge the diverse skills and expertise within the social work profession, allowing for a more nuanced and specialized approach to addressing the complex needs of individuals and communities.

Tiered licensing standards recognize that social workers may have varying levels of education, training, and experience. This framework not only reflects the diversity of roles within the field but also enables professionals to decide whether or not they would like to pursue a professional social work license, an advanced license, and/or specialized areas of practice (such as clinical social work or macro-level social work).

Additionally, tiered licensing enhances public trust by clearly delineating the qualifications and competencies associated with each tier. This transparency provides clarity to both service users and stakeholders, reinforcing confidence in the profession's commitment to high standards of practice.

This approach recognizes the unique contributions of social workers across various domains. It promotes professional development and specialization without requiring them to pass licensing examinations that would not apply to their area of practice.

Without an examination, the responsibility for evaluating readiness for licensure would unofficially shift to course instructors, universities, and supervisors who carry their own biases, leading to continued discrimination within the assessment process.

University faculty do not assess an individual’s cumulative knowledge across the wide-ranging content areas of social work. Nor do Universities endorse an individual’s readiness for independent practice at the clinical level. Students are evaluated by faculty on a specific course’s content, which the individual faculty, with varied levels of practice experience, has taught. Often these course assessments use test banks developed by individual authors and publishers that can vary in validity and reliability and are likely to be more biased than the current ASWB examination.

The completion of required supervised practice is only affirmed through a signed form. The only current requirement for a social worker to provide clinical supervision in most states is to hold a full or clinical social work license. There are often no mandated additional educational or training prerequisites for clinical supervisors and there exists a lack of standardization in the field of clinical supervision. A formalized process for ensuring the quality and effectiveness of such supervision is absent. Consequently, there is a notable absence of mechanisms to guarantee that the clinical supervision being offered encompasses pertinent and comprehensive education and skill enhancement. With the elimination of the examination at the clinical level, there would be no mechanism for measuring the preparedness and competency for these social workers to serve as clinical supervisors.

The clinical licensing examination supports public health by requiring that clinical social workers have adequate knowledge about diagnosis, treatment planning, theoretical frameworks, de-escalation, crisis intervention, safety protocols, ethical decision-making, and more. While specifics vary by state, the licensing process for the other mental health professions, including psychologists, mental health counselors, marriage and family therapists, and professional counselors, require passing an examination.

The profession of social work may decide to improve the licensing examinations, to change the format of the licensing examinations, or even to implement another measure of competency. However, unless and until there is another adequate method of measuring competency, the examinations must remain.

Those calling for the removal of the examinations should be actively working towards establishing another competency measure that demonstrates reliability, promotes equity, and provides adequate oversight.

Making the standard lower for the licensees will not benefit them.

The new social worker is not going to be thankful that the process was easier for them when they are in the thick of it.

The license won’t do them much good when they are facing the terror and pressure of making a decision that they are ill prepared for, in which the outcome could be life and death.

By allowing underqualified professionals to practice out of their scope, they may lack necessary confidence, causing imposter syndrome and fear-based clinical choices. They may suffer from burnout or the trauma of accidentally doing harm.

First and foremost, our concern should be protecting the public.

Allowing social workers to engage in high-stakes tasks without demonstrating a minimum level of competency and knowledge jeopardizes the very foundation of public safety, particularly for vulnerable individuals and marginalized groups

To the public, a professional license serves as a tangible indication that a practitioner has the necessary qualifications, adheres to ethical standards, and is accountable for their actions. To protect the public, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized, it is essential that those entering the social work profession demonstrate a minimum level of competence and knowledge. It is dangerous and irresponsible to advocate for the removal of the only current measure of competency (licensing examinations) without having an established alternative.

One of the many risks to eliminating the examination requirement is that the profession of social work will be further devalued, undercompensated, and de-licensed. Many states require that, to issue a professional license, a licensing examination must be passed. Without an examination or other competency measures beyond the receipt of a college degree, social work may become a de-licensed profession. De-licensing results in a decrease in compensation. Eliminating the current measure of competency without offering a clear and less biased alternative may ultimately dismantle the profession of social work.