Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/05/1998 09:23 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 349
"An Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social
worker' without a license; relating to social workers,
licensure of social workers, and the Board of Clinical
Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR, presented the bill
to the committee, explaining that the legislation would
provide two additional levels of licensing for social
workers in the state. Currently, the law required the level
of Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners, which required
a doctorate degree in clinical social work. The two levels
added by HB 349 would be a bachelor's degree level and a
master's degree level of social work.
Representative James maintained that she had filed the
legislation because she believed some of the social workers
working for the state lacked credibility. She believed that
licensing would help avoid the lack. She thought social
workers made important decisions related to vulnerable
children and adults that could affect the individuals for
the rest of their lives and she wanted social workers to
have the qualifications to make those decisions.
Representative James referred to a handout indicating that
the state had 179 social-work positions; 70 of the
positions were filled by individuals with degrees in social
work. Some of the individuals in the positions had other
bachelor and graduate degrees and 18 had no degrees at all.
She noted that HB 349 would not become effective until July
1, 2000 because it was necessary to negotiate with all of
the affected parties in order to get a piece of legislation
without a huge fiscal note and that would cooperate with
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), which
housed most of the social-work positions. After the
effective date, all people currently working as social
workers in their original position would be exempted. The
person would not have to have a license until they changed
positions or employers. The bill also had a provision for
those with other bachelor's or graduate degrees; it would
allow two years for those people to prepare for and pass
the examination to get a license for social work.
Representative James concluded that the legislation was
important to protect the public and to make sure people
making decisions for vulnerable Alaskans were fully
qualified. In addition, consumers would have recourse in
case a mistake was made by a social worker who was either
not qualified or who behaved unethically. The license could
be challenged; without a license, the individual could no
longer do social work.
Senator Adams asked how the provision would apply in rural
Alaska, where there were people who qualified as social
workers, even though they had not received a degree in
social work. He believed such a person could be more
qualified than a person who had gone to college.
Representative James replied that there had been discussion
about the issue related to rural areas. She explained that
people currently doing social work would be exempted from
the law. However, the social worker's association was
planning to provide education in rural areas so that people
could be brought up to speed. She stressed that the bill
would only affect people who came into the field after July
2000. She added that DHSS had been setting up an academy
through the University of Alaska so that there would be
more training available. She agreed that workers could have
much insight and cultural knowledge, but she believed they
would welcome the opportunity for additional education and
licensing, which could provide pride in the job done as
well as additional credibility.
Senator Torgerson asked whether board meetings would
increase from one to two per year. Representative James
replied that the licensing board would extend the current
process for clinical social workers into the bachelor's and
master's degrees. The activity the board would cover would
be enlarged. She referred to changed licensing rates and
the fact that there would be less administration and the
need for one board.
Senator Torgerson pointed to page 3, lines 14 through 17.
He asked where in the state a person could get training for
professional ethics and cross-cultural education.
Representative James replied that the training was
currently being provided by the National Association of
Social Workers for licensed clinical social workers. The
training was available nationally as well as adapted for
local education. She stressed that the requirement for 45
hours of continuing education every two years to renew the
license was an important part of the licensing process. The
training was being organized and would be available through
long-distance learning as well as in classrooms.
Senator Torgerson referred to the top of page 3, related to
the board having the right to examine a person with
physical or mental problems to obtain credible evidence. He
questioned whether the provision would overstep the power
of a board. He wondered who would make the determination
regarding credible evidence. Representative James replied
that the professionals in the field could recognize whether
the evidence was credible. She reported that she had not
heard fears about the subject from anyone working in the
field, including those who were not licensed.
Senator Torgerson did not recall any other board having the
described powers. He believed the Department of Law (DOL)
would end up defending board actions against some claim
about a mental problem. He stated concerns about opening
the state to lawsuits through board actions. Representative
James replied that the issue had not brought up concerns
throughout all the negotiations conducted about the
subject. She referred to a representative from the
association of social workers who possibly had more
information.
Senator Adams stated concerns about the legislation, which
reminded him of a limited-entry permit system. He referred
to items related to social workers that were in the
operating budget in conference committee. He referred to
Section 33 of the bill and the 2000 effective date. He
asked whether people without licenses could be hired up
until the effective date. Representative James responded in
the affirmative. She detailed that the provision was in the
bill because DHSS was in the process of filling social-work
positions and did not have time to change the system and
job description until the proposed effective date. She
emphasized that the department would be working toward the
goal and she did not think there would be a problem.
Senator Adams asked whether a person without a degree and
without a license who was hired as a social worker would be
laid off on July 1, 2000. Representative James replied that
the person would not be laid off. She noted that she
supported limited entry when it came to the psyches of
vulnerable children and adults.
Senator Phillips pointed out that the bill had been around
since 1975 and that the issues had been raised before.
Representative James acknowledged that there had been
difficulties and that there had been times when she felt
the goal could not be reached. She stated that the bill was
crafted carefully to get all the interested parties to
agree and to keep the fiscal note low.
ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, ALASKA CHAPTER, testified that HB 349 was
about consumer protection, accountability, and public and
private social services. She explained that the people who
come into contact with social workers in the state
(primarily the clients of the Division of Family and Youth
Services [DFYS] in DHSS) did not have a choice about who
provided child protective services. She believed the bill
would ensure that social workers were well qualified to do
their job.
Ms. Salerno addressed confusions about provisions of HB
349, beginning with Senator Adams's concern about social
work in the rural areas, especially within tribal entities.
She maintained that the bill was a title-protection act,
not a practice-protection act; the bill would not define
what social work was and prevent a person from doing the
work without a license. The bill would stipulate that a
person could not call themselves a social worker unless
they had a license. In other words, those individuals
currently doing social work or social services without a
degree would not be impacted by the bill at all. Those
individuals could continue to doing their work if they
chose to practice under the title "social work." She
referred to Tlingit and Haida in Juneau as the sole example
of a tribal entity that used the title "social worker" as a
job title. Tlingit and Haida felt confident that it would
either hire professional social workers or change the job
title if necessary.
Ms. Salerno noted past confusions about exemption versus
"grandparenting" a measure in. She explained that no one
would automatically get a license. Individuals currently
working under the title who did not hold the degree would
be exempt and would never need to get the license, as long
as they remained at the job they were in. The individuals
would have the option to get the license if they had the
background, education, and experience to take the test.
Ms. Salerno referred to concerns about where the state
would get all the social workers it needed. She noted that
Representative James had mentioned the Child Welfare
Academy, a new partnership being developed between the
University of Alaska and DFYS. The program would create a
"career ladder" into social work with the assistance of
federal dollars that would allow the university to hire
faculty and develop curriculum to bring Child Protective
Services into the classroom and create the career ladder to
social work.
Ms. Salerno addressed questions asked by Senator Torgerson
related to increasing the number of board meetings. She
explained that part of the work that formed HB 349 was done
by a task force developed in response to an audit of
statutes related to social work, psychology, and marriage
and family therapy. One of the areas the auditors cited was
the need for additional board meetings. She noted that one
of the board meetings was often teleconferenced.
Ms. Salerno responded to concerns about where workers would
obtain continuing education in social work. She believed
that staying current through continuing education was a
very important part of being a professional. She stated
that there were many ways to have access to continuing
education in Alaska; opportunities were fewer in rural
areas, but still existed. The National Association of
Social Workers had begun to provide training statewide. She
highlighted distance education, including the use of video
and audio tapes. She did not think anyone in the state
would be barred from getting continuing education.
Ms. Salerno addressed concerns about the physical and
mental exam described at the top of page 3. She asserted
that two forces had brought the issue to the attention of
the task force working on the bill.
[SFC-98, Tape 157, Side B]
Senator Torgerson noted concerns that DOL would have to
become involved, resulting in a potentially high fiscal
impact. The individuals would be asked to pay $319 in fees,
which they were not currently paying, and to pay to have
tests done. Ms. Salerno responded that the Social Work
Board was charged to act in an ethical manner.
Senator Torgerson stated that he had not seen other boards
being subjected to the issue.
Senator Adams queried Sections 26 and 27 (related to
repealers). Ms. Salerno replied that Section 26 would
repeal permission to use the title "social worker" if an
individual was not licensed. When the current statute was
passed ten years prior to license clinical social workers,
nearly everyone was exempt; the section would repeal that
global exemption. Section 27 was a repealer related to
qualifications.
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(DCED), addressed concerns by Senator Torgerson related to
the involvement of the DOL because of an order to submit to
examination. She explained that DCED would be involved; the
Division of Occupational Licensing staff would initiate the
order, rather than the board. The division would go to DOL
and show credible evidence why the examination was
warranted. The procedure would be similar to filing an
accusation that someone had violated any licensing law; DOL
would review the evidence, and agree or disagree with going
forward with charging an individual. The Department of Law
would act as the check on the division's order for the
examination. She explained that the reason was partly
because DOL would have to defend the state if there was not
credible evidence. She stated that a person could possibly
refuse to submit to testing, and there could be legal
action on both sides.
Ms. Reardon detailed that the item was not reflected in the
fiscal note because the division had a reimbursable
services agreement (RSA) with DOL to provide a given amount
of legal services to the division; the fiscal note
anticipated that the necessary legal services would come
out of that.
Senator Torgerson was concerned that someone would claim
that an individual had a mental problem and then the
individual would have to have an examination. He had a
problem with the way the measure was worded. He asked
whether any other board had the authority to require a
mental examination for occupational licensing. Ms. Reardon
responded that there was at least one other board, a
medical board and perhaps another board. She stated that HB
349 would not be the first granting the described
authority.
Senator Torgerson asked whether she had a problem with the
provision in the bill. Ms. Reardon responded that she did
not have a problem with the provision, because it was
difficult to charge a person with incompetence and take
away their license if there was not a professional
assessment of the person. The section related to the
process of evidence-gathering necessary before taking away
a license. An incapacitated person might not submit to the
examination and the state could not prove its claim. She
acknowledged fear that the state could abuse the power, but
she felt that credible evidence would be gathered through
witnesses and other means before a person would be accused
of having a problem.
Senator Torgerson noted that the board made the decision.
He asked whether the board reported to the division. Ms.
Reardon replied that the function was listed as a duty of
the board. Her understanding was that generally it was the
duty of boards to investigate and take action. The board
delegated the investigation to the division staff because
the board had to ultimately sit in judgment in the cases.
The division rather than the board received and
investigated complaints against people. She anticipated
that the division would have to gather the credible
evidence, get it through the attorney general's office, and
bring it to the board. The division would only bring cases
before the board that met the legal test.
Senator Torgerson stated that he did not like the provision
and proposed an amendment to take it out. The amendment
would be to delete the top of page 3, lines 1 through 3. He
did not want the option to be available based on no
explanation of "credible evidence" or "reasonable physical
or mental examination."
Senator Torgerson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1:
Delete lines 1 through 3 on page 3.
There being no OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Senator Torgerson MOVED to REPORT SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SCS CSSSHB 349(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and fiscal note by the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|