Abstract
The recent release of the Association of Social Work Boards’ (ASWB) licensure examination pass rate data by demographic characteristics and academic program (ASWB, 2022a) confirms what most already suspected. Differentials in pass rates disadvantage those from oppressed and marginalized groups, such as those who are Black, older, non-native English speakers, and women. Issues of systemic inequities are not new, even within the social work profession. More than 35 years ago, Iversen (1987) questioned whether licensure was detrimental to women social workers. Morrow (1996) asserted that social work education programs perpetuated bias and discrimination in their curricula in the form of heterosexism. More recently, about a third of students with disabilities, impairments, or medical conditions report experiencing microaggressions in their social work courses, documenting the existence of ableism within these accredited settings (Kattari et al., 2020).
Examples of racial and other disparities on standardized testing are abundant, serving as the basis for reforms aimed at promoting diversity and equal access within higher education and other professional disciplines (Hill, 2019; Stewart & Haynes, 2016). Despite the well-known problem with standardized testing, in 1971 the National Association of Social Workers endorsed licensure as a way to improve professional behavior and client well-being (Swagler & Harris, 1977). The push for social workers to be licensed resulted from reactions to the Flexner report (Flexner, 1915/2001) and the early work of Mary Richmond (1917) that spurred social work to more closely align with medicine and psychiatry to focus on the functioning of individuals and families. This direction has been criticized as undermining social work's historical commitment to achieving social justice via macro-level practice and making needed social reforms to achieve its mission of economic justice (Daley & Pittman-Munke, 2021; Specht & Courtney, 1995).
Consistent with the racial awakening occurring nationally, social work appears to have a real interest in addressing issues of colonization within the profession. Recently-revised social work accreditation standards emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion across the curricula, requiring students to demonstrate more competency in promoting antiracist practices in order to graduate (CSWE, 2022). However, the apparent racial disparities in licensure pass rates should not be viewed in isolation. Social work cannot and should not do nothing but it must anticipate how decisions made today will shape the next 100 + years of the profession. Remedying the problems will require examining some important historical decisions and deconstructing systems that social workers themselves built and view as best practices to date.
ASWB states that a primary intent of releasing its pass rates is to have data-driven conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion. There is much already known within the profession that raises both questions and concerns about the disparate and unfair treatment of those wanting to enter and be employed in the social work workforce. The profession predominantly is comprised of women (85% of those with MSWs or above) and those who are White (73% of those with MSWs or above). Much of the White racial frame consists of myths concerning people of color, specifically those who are Black. These myths have been passed down for generations and can negatively impact professional preparation and client outcomes if not confronted. The ability of the profession to attract greater diversity and effectively ensure antiracist practice needs to be examined. Some examples of potential inequities in the education of social workers and their practice are as follows.
The proliferation of online education in social work has provided greater access to those wanting to enter the field. However, racial differences can be found in its utilization, with 22% of Black/African American graduates receiving their instruction online compared to 16.6% of the White MSW graduates (Salsberg et al., 2019). Questions have been raised about the efficacy of online programs given current assessment methods (Lee et al., 2019) so the profession needs to ensure that increased access does not result in decreased quality for persons of color or those who may require increased accessibility due to additional financial burdens. The decision of the profession to accredit practice doctorates has the potential to increase diversity within the profession as a larger proportion of Black/African American students can be found in DSW versus PhD programs (36% versus 22%, respectively) (Lee et al., 2021). However, data reveals many DSW programs are operated by private, for-profit entities with far less financial assistance for students than PhD programs. This finding compounds the already existing racial disparities in loan debt in social work education as Black/African American social work graduates have approximately $92,000 of outstanding responsibilities, compared to $57,000 by their White counterparts, respectively (Salsberg et al., 2020). The profession needs to ensure that its decision to accredit DSW programs does not result in predatory practices by for-profit institutions without adequate cost-benefit analyses of the economic gains of obtaining the DSW as a practice degree. The inadequate salaries and poor working conditions of many social workers are well documented (Burghardt, 2021). Workplace safety has also been a concern with social workers often working with individuals in crisis or with inadequate resources. Additionally, undergraduate social work students must complete at least 400 hours of field education and graduate students a minimum of 900 hours, both consisting of mostly unpaid work. In a profession compromised predominantly of women and those from other marginalized populations, the use of unpaid internships, low wages, and poor working conditions should be considered a profession-wide social justice issue, which has largely gone unaddressed. Interestingly, the profession has chosen to “blame the victim” by making social workers ethically responsible for their own self-care rather than organizing, setting salary standards, or mandating political action (NASW, 2021). The continued emphasis on social work practice which privileges “micro” over “macro” social work is also a concern. Of the 338,945 social workers who were licensed in the United States in 2014, approximately 201,368 (59%) were clinically licensed (Donaldson et al., 2014). In most states, a clinical license often requires a specific number of clinically-based courses, a minimum number of hours of supervised practice and successful passage of the ASWB Clinical exam. Corresponding parameters regulating social workers engaged in macro practice do not exist and the only ASWB exam that can be considered a test of macro practice knowledge and competency is the Advanced Generalist exam. The Advanced Generalist exam is used in only 19 states and administered to approximately 174 social workers on an annual basis (ASWB, 2022b). And yet, as Apgar (2020) shows, Black/African American social workers were more likely to specialize in macro practice social work at the graduate level. Once again, institutional supports to help social workers pursue this type of work are woefully inadequate and operate only at the margins.
Social work clearly has its own work to do to eradicate institutional structures that disadvantage and marginalize. Scholars in other disciplines have warned that any changes to licensure and educational standards can result in compromises of concerns for the profession, the consumer, and for professional livelihood (Danish & Smyer, 1981). As social work has prided itself on processes that ensure adequate discussion and representation of divergent viewpoints, the solutions will take time to craft. If ASWB wants to help advance sound reform, it should make the de-identified raw data widely available so social work researchers can employ multivariate techniques that will be able to isolate the effects of program attended, race, age, native language, and gender on pass rates. A recent workforce study indicates that the average income for Black/African American social workers is slightly higher than that of White social workers overall ($47,200 versus $46,500 respectively), but White and Black/African American women make virtually the same, with men making on average $2,900 more than women, regardless of race (Salsberg et al., 2020). Thus, the intersectionality of target characteristics must be considered when examining pass rates as there is likely a confluence of factors accounting for the reported disparities.
Finally seeing the disparate licensure exam pass rates helps remind the social work profession that it is not immune from the problems that exist in larger society. Practices and policies are likely to systematically disadvantage some, namely those who are underrepresented and have less power. Social work should use this data to not only examine regulation of the profession but educational policy and practice conditions that have created inequities for years. Without self-reflection and meaningful change, social work will be ill equipped and poised to do the important diversity, equity, and inclusion work with others that it espouses is essential for a just future.
