We have heard concerns about changes to the examination requirement for DC social work licensure. You can read the original bill language here, the relevant social work language is on page 9.  If you have more questions, please feel free to reach out to us!​

​

Does this legislation get rid of social work licensure?

No. Passing a licensing exam and holding a license are different.
Exams ≠ Licensure

​​​

​Won't this be detrimental to the public?

There is no evidence that there would be detrimental consequences to anyone by eliminating biased exams. The social work licensing exams have never been correlated with safety, competence, or public protection. Many states already do not have LGSW-level exams, with no evidence that these professionals are any less safe. There are currently many practicing social workers who were exempted (“grandfathered”) from taking the exam when it was new, but there is no evidence that they are less safe or competent.

​​​​

By eliminating an artificial barrier to licensure, we will have a more diverse body of social workers, and this will be a huge benefit for both social workers and the public. We will have more social workers of the global majority, more bilingual social workers, more older social workers with more life experience, and more Deaf social workers. This would be an incredibly positive step for the profession and the public, and it will result in clients seeking out social workers who reflect the diverse communities we serve.

​​

Illinois implemented this change and doubled its graduate-level workforce with no corresponding increase in sanctions. 

​​​​

Won't a non-exam path be detrimental to our profession?

There was a real history of social work not being taken seriously as a profession. This still exists to some degree depending on the practice environment, but that will not change with alternative paths at the supervised practice level.

​

There has never been consensus about the necessity of these exams. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) released a position statement in 1983 that opposed not just testing, but licensure overall. They stated, “…Licensing of social work is deceptive as it purports to protect the public and insure quality service, when in fact it merely serves to falsely legitimize professional status and assure qualification for third party reimbursement.”

​​​

Besides: if our definition of legitimacy keeps out talented BIPOC, older, multilingual, and Deaf social workers, then our definition of legitimacy needs to change.

​​​

Social work clients have a lot of needs. Won't exam removal put them at risk?

There is no evidence that ASWB exams are correlated with competence or public protection. Additionally, social work requires competence in many skills such as empathy, conflict resolution, and de-escalation which cannot be measured by a 150-question multiple choice exam. This exam has veto power over all other qualifications and skills a social worker has. Many fantastic social workers are unable to work solely due to discriminatory exams that have never been proven to measure social work skills, yet many of us know harmful social workers who have passed the licensing exams. Other qualifications, such as graduation from a CSWE-accredited school and a criminal background check, are enough to allow social workers to start supervised practice.

​

Other professions have licensing exams, shouldn't we?

Social work is currently the outlier - most similar professions have only one exam, while social work has up to four. Even lawyers only have one bar exam, and many doctors only take one post-graduate standardized exam. Having multiple exams is not what gives our profession value. It is our knowledge, skills, creativity, and ability to relate to a diverse range of people that gives our profession value.
 

How can you point to these exams as the cause of the social worker shortage? There are other reasons such as lack of respect, burnout, and high cost of living.

Obviously, the exam requirement is not the only reason for the social work shortage. But the exam requirement is a major contributing factor. DC alone would have an additional 474 social workers if every demographic passed at the same rate as white social workers. Situations such as burnout only compound as remaining social workers encounter overwork because of pressures from understaffing. Additionally, the 474 number is an undercount, as it does not include the many social workers who intentionally avoid licensure solely because of pass rate disparities (once known colloquially, now known with data). An alternative pathway for LGSW licensure is an incredibly positive step towards alleviating the social work shortage.

​

Won't this demoralize and offend social workers who have already passed the exam?

There are also many professional social workers who are demoralized and offended that ASWB, an organization that flagrantly violates the social justice and integrity components of our Code of Ethics, continues to hold outsized power over the social work profession. (Many of them signed our petition in 2022/2023!)

​

There are many wonderful BSWs and MSWs unable to work because of biased exams that discriminate against BIPOC, older, Deaf, and non-native English-speaking social workers. Their demoralization is of greater importance than social workers who are already licensed and, if employed by the DC or Federal Government, are frequently paid the top 10% of salaries for DC social workers.

​​​​

Social workers have a right to be offended that ASWB has had 40 years to eliminate bias but has not. Nor has ASWB taken this opportunity to examine their own test process. They accepted research proposals, but they only funded research that is based on “upstream factors,” not psychometric measurement concerns. Of note, their measurement techniques are alarming to several researchers and do not conform to current National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) standards.

​​​​​​​

Why didn't this change come from the DC Board of Social Work?

We attended their meetings to try to have a larger open discussion. Advocates came to both the September and October 2022 board meetings to discuss our concerns about the ASWB exams. We received a written response on November 15, placing the issue back in our hands and the hands of the ASWB, rather than the DC Board of Social Work taking any responsibility regarding the impact of these exams on this city.

​

As members of the ASWB, the DC Board of Social Work clearly demonstrates their bias. We were additionally told, “...At this time we will not be accepting any testimonies or conversations regarding the ASWB exams…”, effectively cutting off the issue for further discussion. ASWB was, however, given an hour during the March 2023 meeting, where they gave a presentation defending their exams. With no one willing to address the issue through policy, we needed legislation to make necessary changes. ​​

​

​Shouldn't we give the ASWB a chance to fix their exam? If they don't, then DC could make its own exams. 

If the ASWB had the desire to fix their exams in the past 40 years, they would have already. In fact, no mental health licensing exams are correlated with actual measurement of competence. This proposal would take years or even decades to implement and would therefore continue to harm DC social workers and residents for no benefit. Additionally, ASWB has yet to take any accountability for their bias, distributing a flyer to Virginia legislators in February 2024 (1.5 years after the data release) stating that their exams are not biased.

​​

More recently (April 2025), ASWB made unannounced changes to their exam administration format that raises strong ethical and legal concerns. This is not an organization that is worthy of the power it has in the social work profession.

​​​​​

This is such a big change, couldn't we do something smaller like provisional licenses for a year?

This suggestion only cements the lack of confidence in ASWB tests. If these tests truly measured competence, no one would propose this model. At best, the exams are expensive hoops to jump through, and at worst, they keep competent social workers from helping residents of our city. Additionally, this idea would certainly result in social workers, doing their jobs well, being fired if they cannot pass the exam. This already happened to many BSWs and MSWs in DC, predominantly BIPOC social workers, when DC tightened its definition of unlicensed social work.

​​​​

Shouldn't we find other ways to reduce barriers, such as scholarships for people wanting to get MSWs?

Yes! This is not an either/or, but a both/and proposition. 

​​​​

But if we remove exams, DC won't be able to join the Social Work Licensure Compact!

This is false. Per Compact rules, states are allowed to have their own licensure process for their own state (known as a single state license). The Compact license (known as a multistate license) will have its own standardized process which is allowed to be distinct from the single state licenses.

​​​

As the rules currently stand, Compact license holders will unfortunately require passing a "qualified national exam", which at this time is only the ASWB exam. We also think it is important to note that a social worker must live in a Compact state to obtain a Compact license. We know many DC-licensed social workers live in the suburbs. Both Maryland and Virginia have passed Compact legislation.

​​​

The Compact is not yet in effect and multistate licenses are not predicted to be available until early 2026. You can read more about the Compact by visiting their website here.

​​​​​​