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.