HOUSE BILL NO. 318 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Foster indicated that there was 1 amendment before to committee. He invited the bill sponsor, Representative Sponholz, and her aide to the table. 1:42:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPONHOLZ, SPONSOR, introduced herself and indicated that her aide would introduce the bill. TED MADSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPONHOLZ, explained that the bill was a sunset extension for the Board of Social Work Examiners. It was currently scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2018. However, HB 318 would extend the sunset to June 30, 2026. The Board of Social Work examiners licenses about 783 social workers throughout the state as of March 2017. The board issued licenses to qualified applicants, established continuing education requirements and a code of professional ethics and standards, and adopted regulations as necessary. The Division of Legislative Audit reviewed the operations of the board and concluded that the board was serving the public's interest by running effectively. The legislative auditor was available in the room and Lara Theisen with the Board of Social Work Examiners to offer testimony. Co-Chair Foster invited Kris Curtis to the table to walk the committee through the sunset audit for the Board of Social Work Examiners. KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, suggested that members should have a copy of the audit dated October 2017. She reported that the division found that board was serving the public's interesting by effectively licensing and regulating social work examiners. The division found that board meetings were conducted in compliance with law, investigations were generally processed timely, and the board issued or changed regulations to improve the profession. The division was recommending the maximum 8-year extension. Ms. Curtis continued that scheduled licensing activities on page 6 was 783 licenses as of March 2017, which was a 41 percent increase compared to the prior 2009 sunset audit. It was a growing profession. A schedule of revenues and expenditure was on page 7. There was a surplus of about $95,000 at the end of FY 17. The schedule of license fees was on page 8. Ms. Curtis relayed that the division had 2 recommendations for improvements. The division recommended that the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) director improved procedures to ensure board-required documentation was obtained prior to licensure. Legislative Audit tested 25 licenses that were issued the audit period and found one error. The board had appropriately approved a license pending receipt of key documentation but found that DCBPL staff failed to obtain the documentation prior to issuing the license. Ms. Curtis reviewed Recommendation 2. Legislative Audit recommended that the Office of the Governor Boards and Commissions Director work with the board to help identify interested applicants to fill a vacant board position. There was a board position that was vacant March 2017 which was still vacant in October. It was one of the clinical social work positions. Statute required that 1 of 5 board member position could not be an employee of the federal government, the state government, the local government, or a non-profit agency. The Office of the Governor staff stated that these were stringent requirements that made it difficult to identify interested applicants. Responses to the audit began on page 19. The first response was from the Office of the Governor. In the response they reiterated the stringent requirements that made it difficult to find interested applicants. They agreed to work with the board to help fill the vacancy. Ms. Continued that the department's response was on page 21. The department agreed with both recommendations. In regard to the first recommendation concerning licensure documentation, they agreed that additional quality checks were needed to help insure that their administrative record was complete. They stated that additional supervisory resources were needed to help ensure that the standards were met. The board's response was on page 23. The board agreed with both recommendations. SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS, AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, indicated that the fiscal note was structured similarly to the previous extension just heard by the committee. She explained that the $21,400 would provide authority for the board to do its business including attending 4 board meetings per year, providing public notices for the board meetings, and providing stipends pertaining to the board. If the board were to sunset, the department would take over licensure. Representative Wilson asked about the difference between a private, non-profit organization that was exempt and a non- exempt non-profit organization. It sounded like some non- profit organizations would be allowed on the board currently. By allowing those that were exempt, she wondered what kind of organizations would be included to be on the board. Ms. Chambers thought Representative Wilson's question would be better addressed by the bill sponsor. She thought that making a wider pool available would be helpful. Representative Spohnholz responded that the vast majority of social workers either work for a government organization or a non-profit organization. There were very few social worker that practiced in private practice. Hence, there had been difficulty recruiting someone for the fifth position that was required to be licensed in social work but who did not serve in either a governmental capacity or a non-profit capacity. The amendment would allow for 1 member of the board to either be a private practice social worker or work for a non-profit organization. An example of the kinds of non-profits that hired social workers would be some of the tribal health organizations or Denali Family Services, a non-profit organization in Anchorage that hired social workers. 1:50:35 PM Representative Wilson was trying to understand the difference between exempt versus non-exempt. Representative Spohnholz replied that all non-profit organizations were exempt from federal taxes. 1:51:00 PM Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file): Page 1, line 1, following "Examiners;": Insert "relating to the composition of the Board of Social Work Examiners;" Page l, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 2. AS 08.95.010(a) is amended to read: (a)There is created the Board of Social Work Examiners composed of five members, as follows: one member licensed under this chapter as a baccalaureate social worker; one member licensed under this chapter as a master social worker; two members licensed under this chapter as clinical social workers; and one public member who has never been licensed under this chapter. At least one of the licensed members must be a person who is not an employee of a federal, state, or local government [OR OF A PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX]." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion. He wanted the auditor to come forward. Co-Chair Seaton asked if she thought the amendment would aid in filling the vacancies. Ms. Curtis replied that Legislative Audit did not conduct any work to learn what types of employers employed social workers. She could not comment on whether most of the social workers worked for non-profits. She could confirm that the specific stringent requirements and it not being one of the 4 groups was causing trouble in making sure they had full representation. Representative Kawasaki noted that there were 590 clinical social workers, 117 master social workers, and 47 baccalaureate social workers that looked active. He relayed that there were 1 out of 47 potential candidates and only 47 potential candidates. Under the master social workers there were 117 and under the clinical social were close to 600 between the 2. The amendment would delete the private non-profit organization. He understood it would open up the administration's ability to find someone to fill the vacancy. He challenged whether it was really that difficult to find a person to fill it. He knew it would be made easier by making the change. He did not know why the requirement was initially included. Typically, the legislature had clean board extensions. Mr. Madsen responded that in discussions with the Legislative Research they reviewed the law from 1988 which established the Board of Social Work Examiners. The discussion at the time was that the board was going to be regulating social workers who were in governmental practice, non-profit practice, and private practice. The idea was to have someone in private practice be able to regulate those who were also in private practice. However, over time it was found that the board vacancy had come up and was very difficult to fill because of the stringent requirement. He thought Ms. Theisen from the board would be able to testify as to whether the board was in support of the amendment. Representative Kawasaki relayed that the statute state that at least 1 of the 4 licensed members could not be an employee of the federal, state, or local government, or a private non-profit organization. It meant that the other 3 could be. He questions the difficulty in finding 1 person to qualify for the vacancy. If it was that difficult to find someone he was fine with it. He would like to hear from someone on the board. Mr. Madsen had discussions with the chair of the Board of Social Worker Examiners. From her discussions it seemed that Division of Boards and Commissions received a number of qualified applicants who would be otherwise qualified for the position. However, they were not able to fill the position because they worked for non-profits. 1:56:36 PM LAURA THEISEN, BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK EXAMINERS, GLENALLEN (via teleconference), reported that the board had looked for a significant amount of time to find an appropriate person to fill the position. It had been very difficult. She believed it would be positive for the board to be able to broaden the number of possible applicants. 1:57:07 PM Representative Guttenberg asked that with a change if the private sector would be properly represented. Ms. Theirsen asked Representative Guttenberg to repeat his question. Representative Guttenberg asked if it would be a problem not having someone in private practice on the board. He was concerned with social workers in private practice not being properly represented. He asked if it was more important to have a full board or everyone represented. Ms. Theirsen replied that it would be more important to have a full board. The goal of the board was public protection. She believed that the board had representation from the licensed social workers with 2 of them on the board. She did not believe there would be an issue. 1:58:44 PM Representative Wilson asked for the number of private social workers in the state. Mr. Madsen was looking for the information. However, on the website for the Board of Social Work Examiners did not have the number broken down. It was difficult to find somebody who was qualified through the private practice position to serve on the board. 1:59:13 PM Representative Wilson asked if the amendment would prevent anyone from applying from the private sector. Mr. Madsen responded, "That is correct." Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 318(FIN) out of Committee as amended with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. CSHB 318(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal impact note: FN1(CED). 2:00:57 PM AT EASE 2:01:19 PM RECONVENED