INTRODUCTION

"Why is licensing required?"

Social workers are the largest professional group providing mental and social health services to the public. Their actions and decisions frequently have permanent, life-changing effects on individuals, families, and groups. The Texas Legislature determined the public should be protected from incompetent and unethical social work practices. -From "Common Questions Asked About Social Work Licensing," a pamphlet of the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners.

Legal regulation of social work practice serves two major purposes. First, it protects the public, specifically consumers of social work services, from harm. Second, it furthers the advancement and development of the profession. (Stewart, 1991; Thyer & Biggerstaff, 1989). The regulation of social workers in Texas in 1993 with the passage of SB 1426, the Texas Professional Social Work Act (herein referred to as "the Licensing Act," or "Act"). It is important for both social workers and the general public to understand the implications of this Act.

For social workers, the Licensing Act delineates the legal limits of the profession. While not a practice act, it sets standards for the profession and defines the consequences for misconduct. The Act also contributes to understanding the general political and legal context within which the profession works. The Act enables social workers to get 3rd party reimbursement, a financial necessity in the world of managed care (M. Doughty, Executive Director, Texas Board of Social Worker Examiners, personal communication, 11/14/95). Finally, the Licensure Act is an "upgrade" from the certification process (Bill Analysis, 1993), widely believed to raise the status of social work closer to other professions, like psychology and sociology. I believe it is important to understand what has been legislated that would raise the status of our profession.

For the consumers of social work services, the Licensing Act assures a minimum standard for professional competency. The grievance procedures provide a way to monitor the profession. Briefly, the grievance procedures enable a consumer or other professional to file a complaint against a social worker. This complaint is investigated by the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners (TSBSWE). The social worker under investigation is identified in the TSBSWE newsletter. If the grievance is substantiated the social worker can have her/his license suspended or revoked. All official acts are advertised in the TSBSWE newsletter. These are important in maintaining public trust in the profession.

I have divided the study of SB 1426 into two parts. In Part I, I define the types of credentials, provide an historical context within which to understand the bill, and review the major components of the legislation. In Part II, I identify the key players involved in the passage of the bill and analyze SB 1426 through the four dimensions outlined by Gilbert, Specht, and Terrell (1993): allocation, provision, delivery, and finance. I conclude with a look at the possible impact the Licensure Act will have on the social work profession in the next few years.

KEY TERMS

The 19th Encyclopedia of Social Work (1995) defines credentialing as "evidence that a practitioner has met minimum standards to provide services to the public...to assure that a practitioner has entry-level competence for safe practice" (Biggerstaff, p. 1617).

There are three forms of credentials. Registration is the weakest form. "It allows individuals to voluntarily place their names on a list maintained by the state" (DiNitto & McNeece, 1990, p. 38). The next is certification, which legally protects the titles related to social work, requires registration by those using the titles, but does not regulate the practice per se. (Stewart, 1991).

The third form is licensing. Thyer & Biggerstaff (1989) make the distinction between licensure as title protection, or practice act. The licensure bill analyzed in this paper is a title protection, meaning it protects the titles associated with social work in Texas. A practice act legally defines what can be considered "social work practice". There is one major difference between title protection by certification and by licensing. M. Doughty, noted that licensing enables 3rd party payment (insurance companies), and certification does not (personal communication, 11/15/1995).

HISTORY OF CREDENTIALING IN THE U.S.

The history of credentialing and regulation of social workers in the United States is relatively recent (Thyer and Biggerstaff, 1989). Arne (1952) notes that the first recorded attempt to introduce legislation for social work practice was an ill-fated 1929 bill in the California legislature. The first social work credentialing legislation was passed in Puerto Rico in 1934 followed by the California Registration Act of 1945. Fifteen years passed before credentialing was taken up by other states. In the 1960s, seven states passed credentialing statutes for social workers. By the end of the 1970s, fourteen more states had passed legislation to credential social workers. There was a major push for credentialing in the 1980s. Twenty-five states, including Texas, Washington D.C. and the U.S. Virgin Islands passed laws to regulate social workers. By 1993, all states and Washington D.C. had some form of legal regulation of social workers (Biggerstaff, 1995).

HISTORY OF CREDENTIALING IN TEXAS

Certification

The history of the 1981 Certification Act is important for a number of reasons. The bill that the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) originally introduced was actually a licensing bill. It was changed to certification as a political move to assure passage. The process used in formulating the language and concepts, and building coalitions for the 1981 bill was repeated in the 1991 push for licensure. Finally, the current licensing act differs mostly in language, not in content from the original.

The push for regulation of social workers in Texas started around 1967 (Stewart, 1991). This was in part a reaction to NASW adopting legal regulation as a national priority a few years earlier. Stewart (1991) notes that the years between 1967 and 1973 were "fragmented and fraught with failure" (p. 1). Social workers in Texas were not informed about certification or licensure, let alone the legislators who would need to pass such a law. These early years were a time of education and planning.

The next phase extended through 1973 and 1979 and is described by Stewart (1991) as "a phase of strengthened commitment, achieved consensus, and unified failure" (p. 2). In 1973 NASW adopted a model licensing law (Biggerstaff, 1995), and provided the groundwork for Texas to form the Licensing Bill Drafting Committee. Through the involvement of NASW chapters, minority social work organizations, the Clinical Society, and academicians, a bill was drafted and sent to the legislature. This consensus-building process eliminated any significant opposition to the proposed bills that might have arisen during the four attempts at passage. It is interesting to note that this process was successfully duplicated in the early 1990's in the push to change the certification act to a licensing act.

The last phase was between 1979 and 1981. This was the period of triumph for the regulation of social workers in Texas. All the accounts I have come across in my research (Stewart, 1991; S.Negreen, personal communication, 11/30/95; G. Herbert, personal communication, 11/15/95) convey the struggle and excitement that surrounded the passage of the 1981 bill. In each legislative session since 1975, the bill had succeeded in the Senate through sponsorship of Sen. Esteban and failed in the House because of opposition from Speaker Billy Clayton. In the 1981 legislative session, a small delegation "cornered the Speaker as he was on his way to his car" (G. Herbert, personal communication, 11/15/95), and was told that a licensure bill would never pass in this political climate. He added that if the bill were changed to a certification, then he would find a strong sponsor in the House and a favorable committee assignment. (Stewart, 1991). Since the push was not for a practice act, the delegation had few problems with changing the bill to a certification act. To the surprise of the social workers, the bill passed in the last days of the session.

Licensure

There were two compelling reasons to change the regulations of social workers in Texas from certification to licensure. The first was a 1990 lawsuit that exposed the inadequacies of the certification act. Second, the act was coming up for its 10 year sunset review. As S. Negreen, former Executive Director NASW, Texas Chapter, said, "It was a good opportunity because when you are up for sunset, everything is up for grabs" (personal communication, 11/30/95).

Legal Challenge to the Act

On May 3, 1990, the Council for Social Work Certification received a letter documenting that a Mrs. Sidwell, who was not a certified social worker, was practicing social work, and publicly using the ACSW (Academy of Certified Social Workers) credentials. On May 29, 1990, M. Doughty, Director of Social Work Certification notified Mrs. Sidwell that she was in violation of state law (specifically §50.010). On June 29, 1990, Mrs. Sidwell's lawyers responded that there did not appear to be a violation of the law. "The Council has no legal authority under the Act or otherwise to restrict the use of any credentials which it does not have authority to grant." With this statement, Ms. Sidwell's lawyers reminded the state of Texas that the Act not only regulated just titles, but only certain titles. S. Negreen described it as "the Council for Social Work Certification was enforcing the Certification act as if it were a practice act, not a title act" (personal communication, 11/30/95). In light of the new interpretation of the Act, the Council of Social Work Certification began a reevaluation of the power of regulation in Texas.

Sunset Legislation

In the 73rd legislature, Sen. Parker introduced SB 1066 which recommended merging the programs that regulate "psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and social workers and create a new agency to administer the programs" (Sunset recommendations, 1993, p. 108). According to Rep. Naishtat, "professionals went nuts and effectively killed Parker's bill [SB 1060]" (personal communication 11/20/95). The importance of the Sunset recommendation, according to S. Negreen, was that it encouraged all the helping professions to work together to develop strong coalitions and build consensus around legislation that would be in everybody's favor (personal communication 11/30/95). The mechanics of the coalition building will be discussed more in Part II.

According to S. Negreen, two pieces of legislation were introduced that attempted to regulate the practice of social work that were in reaction to the legal challenge, and in anticipation of the sunset review of the certification act (personal communication 11/30/95). In the 72nd Legislature, HB 2714, sponsored by Rep. Naishtat, and the corresponding Senate version, SB 1366 sponsored by Sen. Barrientos, died in committee 1. According to Rep. Naishtat, "HB 2714...never got out of committee in either house because it was a practice act" (personal communication 11/20/95). An Impact Statement (HB 2714, 1991) indicated that the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS) was also very opposed to the bill. The bill would have required a Bachelors in Social Work (BSW) to meet the minimum requirements for certification. DPRS argued that this would reduce the number of workers they could hire and negatively impact the caseloads of the eligible workers (HB 2714, Impact Statement, 1991).

The second legislation introduced was HB 2202, co-sponsored by Schecter and Naishtat, was a practice act. According to Rep. Naishtat, a lot of people were upset, eg. ministers, rabbis, psychologists, family therapists, state workers, etc., as it would have prohibited them from practicing "social work functions" (personal communication, 11/20/95). HB 2202 also asked that a stand-alone regulatory board be implemented. This was not a political reality, considering the Sunset Advisory Commission was concurrently calling for all health profession boards to be collapsed into one regulatory board. HB 2202 was stopped in committee. In the Health and Human Services sub-committee they came up with a committee substitute. This replaced Schecter's practice act with a title act. The substitute was filed as SB 1426 2. The final version of SB 1426 passed out of the House on May 21, 1993. The Senate concurred on May 25, 1993 and was signed by the governor on June 15, 1993 (Bill History, 1993).

CURRENT LEGISLATION

SB 1426 does not differ greatly from the Certification Act of 1981. The main differences are outlined below, and many of them are changes in the language that do not affect the practice of social work. The most important changes will be analyzed in Part II. The most distilled analysis of the bill would be that the bill would maintain the title protection act, but upgrade the certification process to a licensing one (Bill Analysis, 1993). For this reason, most of the major changes occurred in the "Titles" section (§50.001). The following information is a synthesis of SB 1426, the Baum Report for NASW (1993), and the Bill Analysis by Parker (1993). The Texas Professional Social Work Act:

Creates the titles, "Licensed Master Social Worker" (LMSW) to replace "Certified Social Worker" (CSW) (§50.001(b)(3), and "Licensed Social Worker" (LSW) to replace Social Worker" (SW) (§50.001(b)(4).

Amends the state insurance code to replace the title "Certified Social Worker-Advanced Clinical Practitioner" with the new title "Licensed Master Social Worker-Advanced Clinical Practitioner" (§50.001(b)(5).

Includes a new definition of "professional social work practice" to involve the "disciplined application of social work values, principles, and methods, including psychotherapy, marriage and family therapy, couples therapy, group therapy, counseling, assessment, and evaluation" (§50.001(b)(6))

Continues the title, "Social Work Associate" for those with a baccalaureate or associate degree in the behavioral sciences, and a reasonable number of years of actual and active social work experience. The bill eliminated high school education as a minimum educational standard for this category after August 31, 1993 (§50.001(b)(10).

Exempts from the law volunteers who deliver human services so long as they do not represent their services as social work services or represent themselves as social workers (§50.002).

Creates the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners and transfers the program to the TX Department of Health. The board, appointed by the Governor, has independent rule making authority (§50.004).

New terms were added relating to licensing and prohibits use of title(s) implying professional social work licensure. (§50.012).

The following provisions were Sunset Commission across-the-board recommendations for all professional licensing agencies: require that fees set by the board cover the cost of regulation; require that all licensing examinations be validated; require mandatory continuing ed. for all licensees; standardize the enforcement process of the board; require training for new members of the board; establish a standard approach for licensing out-of-state practitioners coming to Texas; authorize the board to establish a limit on the number of exam retakes, conditions to be met before retakes, and allows methods of competency testing.

PART II

KEY PLAYERS and ORGANIZATIONS

The passage of the licensure bill was a textbook illustration of the dictum "[p]olicy formulation... involves the efforts of many people" (Gilbert, et al., 1993, p. 20). The following discussion focuses on the efforts of key players and organizations which affected SB 1426.

Health Professionals

To prepare the licensure bill, The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) organized the Legal Regulation Work Group (LRWG). This organization was crucial in the passage of this bill, building consensus and coalitions within the social work communities. The group was comprised of social workers, social work academics and students, directors of hospital social work departments, practitioners in the public and private sector social work agencies, and clinical social workers, which participated in a series of full-day work sessions to discuss issues and build internal and external consensus about changes needed in the law (Baum, personal communication, 8/5/1992). According to S. Negreen, the process used in writing and passing the licensure bill was "a great example of consensus building and compromise. Nobody went home crying. It was a good, sound piece of legislation that met the needs of the profession" (personal communication, 11/30/95). This process mirrors the one that lead to the successful passage of the 1981 Certification act.

One of the members of the LRWG was Michael Doughty, then Director of the Council for Social Work Certification, currently the Executive Director of the Texas Board of Social Worker Examiners. He has been involved in regulating social work since the first act was passed in 1981 and contributed enormously to the most recent success (Baum, personal communication, 8/5/1993). He has also provided me with invaluable information for this paper. The importance of his connection with this issue is demonstrated by the fact that everyone I interviewed suggested that I talk with Mr. Doughty to really learn about licensure.

The Texas Medical Association and Texas Hospital Association were frequently referred to as invaluable allies in the quest for licensure (M. Doughty, personal communication, 11/14/95; Hooser, Final Report, 1993; S. Negreen, personal communication, 11/30/95). Two other groups worked for passage of the Act once their agendas were met. The Texas Health Care Association and the Department of Health and Human Services lobbied (successfully) to keep the SWA classification, arguing that there were a number of positions that were within the social work realm, but did not require either a B.S.W. or an M.S.W. S. Negreen stated that in her opinion, NASW did not have enough political clout to pass the bill without the support of these four organizations (personal communication, 11/30/95).

Sue Negreen and Marsha Baum were also identified as key players (Hooser, 1993). They worked as the Executive Director and Legislative Researcher. In my analysis, I have found the comments both to be very insightful and helpful in better understanding the process and the impact of SB 1426.

Legislature

Rep. Sue Schecter was key player in the legislature. While I could not reach her, the other house co-sponsor Rep. Naishtat told me that she was really the main Representative working on this bill (personal communication, 11/20/95). Hooser (1993), in his final report to NASW as their external lobbyist, comments that

Rep. Schecter and her staff worked very hard on our behalf, spending many hours in reviewing the legislation and background information, in meetings and negations with other interested parties, and forcefully advocating for passage of the bill (p. 5).

It is important to mention that Rep. Schecter's advocacy is all the more important because SB 1426 was a sunset bill.

The Sunset Commission was one of the catalysts in changing the bill. Hooser (1993) believes they might have successfully defeated the Act, had they not been so overwhelmed with the first-time review of the Alcohol and Beverage Commission.

As it turned out, one of the members of the Commission, Sen. Parker agreed sponsored the committee version of the licensing bill, which became SB 1426. According to Hooser (1993), Parker's sponsorship "assured we would get a good bill passed in the Senate" (p. 5).

Opposition

The nursing home industry and the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS) presented the biggest opposition to the Act (Hooser, 1993; M. Doughty, personal communication, 11/14/95). According to Hooser (1993), the nursing home industry was interested in "maintaining the status quo" (p. 7). I learned from M. Doughty that both groups worked to keep the Social Work Associate category (personal communication 11/14/95). It makes sense that issue presenting the biggest conflict would be supported by the main opposition groups.

Absent

The National Association of Black Social Workers was surprisingly absent from the debate. I was lead to believe that they would most likely have been a strong voice of opposition (M. Doughty, personal communication, 11/14/95; D. DiNitto, personal communication, 11/14/95). I could find no mention of that organization in any of the literature. Finally, T. Johnson informed me that the Texas chapter of the NABSW views licensure differently than the national office and do not categorically oppose it. The NABSW agrees with the title protection act and worked with the Legal Resources Work Group in the early stages of the process (personal communication, 11/28/95).

There was no media coverage with the exception of the NASW Newsletters. The absence of citations suggests that social work licensure was not of concern to the general public.

ALLOCATION

One of the questions that arises in analyzing the Licensure Act is who benefits from this legislation? Gilbert, et al. (1993) point out that the value of analyzing the allocation of services lies in the recognition that not every one can benefit from social welfare policies. Determining "those whose welfare is to be enhanced through policy implementation" (Gilbert et al, p. 44), will better inform us as to the social values that underscore the Licensure Act.

The direct beneficiaries of the licensure act are social workers. There is a selective criteria for determining who is a social worker (Gilbert et al., 1993, p. 71). According to the language of SB 1426, only individuals with baccalaureate or associate degrees in behavioral sciences, or a degree (either bachelors, masters, or doctorate) in social work can call themselves social workers (§50.001). This illustrates the value placed on formal education in becoming a social worker. Through this selection, the profession increases its status.

The indirect beneficiaries are the clients and consumers of social work practice. Michael Doughty pointed out that through regulation the general public has protection from harmful social work practice. The Act delineates regulation and enforcement (§50.006), revocation and suspension (§50.021), disciplinary proceedings (§50.022) and violations (§50.028). This knowledge is in the public domain. In the two newsletters of the Texas Board of Social Work Examiners that I looked at, they listed disciplinary actions against social workers in violation of the code.

One of the biggest allocation debates concerned the Social Work Associate (SWA) category. Until SB 1426, all previously proposed legislation (HB 2714 and HB 2202) did not include the SWA category. In their response to the Sunset Advisory Commission (1992), the Council for Social Work Certification made the following assertion about the SWA category.

We strongly recommend that the Social Work Associate category of certification be discontinued. This group of practitioners has not completed the educational requirement that is a critical component to their participation in the social work profession, and is the one that differentiates individuals trained to do a particular job from those educated to pursue a profession (p. 4).

This reveals a clear value judgment on the part of the profession with regards to the primacy of education in being able to be a competent social worker.

The reason the SWA remained in the bill was a result of major lobbying by nursing homes and DPRS. In the 1992 analysis, the Legal Regulation Workgroup calculated that the combination of those two groups and the approximately 1500 SWAs constituted enough of a constituency that no legislator would be willing to take actions to disenfranchise that many constituents.

PROVISION

The analysis of provision "refers to the kinds of benefits that are delivered" (Gilbert, et al., 1993, p. 44). Again, the dual perspective of the direct recipients (the profession) and the indirect recipients (the consumers) is useful in analyzing the provisions of the Licensure Act.

For the profession, the Act provides legal permission to practice social work. The Act also creates a Board through which grievances can be filed and self-regulation of the profession can occur. S. Bibles notes that the profession is filing more grievances, and believes this is an indication of stronger self-regulation (personal communication, 12/5/95). This is an intended outcome of regulation. According to G. Herbert, the profession was more interested in passing regulatory laws than were the legislators (personal communication, 11/14/95).

The kinds of benefits delivered to the consumers is more confusing. As a title protection act, SB 1426 fails to specify what services the public can expect only from social workers. Stewart (1991) points out that social work is more than... technologies, whether administration or management techniques or treatment procedures or policy analysis techniques; the exact same technology can be learned in many different academic or professional programs (p. 12).

What separates social work from other professions is the undergirding philosophy and practice orientation (Stewart, 1991; S. Negreen, personal communication, 11/30/95). Thus far it has proven impossible for social workers to legislate their practice philosophy.

Both the certification and the licensure act, have been criticized for failing to adequately delineate what the profession of social work provides. However, this is not for lack of trying. Both of the ill-fated practice acts (HB 2714 and HB 2202) attempted to define the practice of social work and died as a result. I asked if there was any chance that a practice act might be proposed in the future. M. Doughty informed me that such a campaign would be too costly and would most likely be lobbied against by other helping professions (personal communication, 11/14/95). It is the opinion of Sue Negreen that there is no need for a practice act. Although the academic literature indicates that a practice act is the most desirable credential for social work (Greenwood, 1957), the legislative reality is that a true practice act will never pass. "There is not a legislator in the world that was interested in a practice act, they just don't want people complaining" (S. Negreen, personal communication, 11/30/95).

Gilbert et al. (1993) note that one of the kinds of benefits that can be provided is power (p. 107). The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) has criticized licensing acts (in general) as a device for consolidating power by an elite group to the detriment of the consumers. Jordan (cited in DiNitto and McNeece, 1990, p. 39) states that "[licensing] is a bogus status-accruing device and will result in minority and low-income communities receiving inadequate service". With this criticism, the NABSW suggests that one of the underlying values of the licensure act, professional advancement, might be contrary to the practice value of serving the poor and disenfranchised. Cohen and Deri (1992) explain that "professionally trained social workers cannot be mandated to serve poor people" (p. 155). Despite the inherent contradiction, there no movement within social work or the legislature to address this situation (M. Doughty, personal communication, 11/14/95).

DELIVERY

The third dimension of analysis is how the provisions of the licensing act are delivered to those eligible to receive them (Gilbert, et al., 1993). The delivery system for the licensure act is comprised of the Department of Health and The Texas Board of Social Worker Examiners (SBSWE). These departments changed when regulation was upgraded to licensure, although there were no significant changes in delivery. SB 1426 delegates "broad rulemaking authority" to the SBSWE with administrative support from the Department of Health (Bill Analysis, 1993).

The SBSWE delivers the legal status of social worker through the licensure examinations. These have recently become more accessible; they are offered more frequently, the exam is taken on computers, and provides results instantly.

One criticism of the exam is that it is not intended to measure competency (M. Doughty, personal communication, 11/14/95), and is based off of questionnaires completed by licensed professionals in the field. This methodology for determining the knowledge base begs the question "Are these the best people to draw from?" My criticism of this method is that the exams will reflect the ideology of those who have been successful at taking the exams. This cycle leaves little room for marginal, but useful, concepts to enter the mainstream and therefore has the potential to reduce they comprehensiveness of the exam.

For the consumers, the Act delivers disciplinary action to those professionals who are in violation of the code. The Sunset Advisory Commission asked do the "number and/or nature of complaints about the profession justify licensure as opposed to a one-time certification?" (Response, 1992). In response, the Legal Resource Work Group wrote that while complaints against social workers were few in number, the nature of the complaints were very serious and included sexual exploitation of clients, violation of confidentiality, violation of trust, and insurance fraud (Response, 1992). The assumption is that licensing will improve accountability and remove social workers who act in an unethical manner.

Has this been successfully implemented? The number of complaints against social workers reached its highest level during the last fiscal year (9/1/94 -- 8/31/95), with 77 complaints and 9 disciplinary actions. S. Bibles noted that this could indicate either a failure of the Act to protect the public from harm, or an increase in the awareness of grievance procedures, clients rights and the profession's desire to self-regulate (personal communication, 12/5/95).

FINANCE

SB 1426 is self-financing. The bill requires "the board to establish fees that will produce sufficient revenue to cover the cost of administering the act" (SB 1426, Fiscal Note, 1993). Funds are collected through the following fees (§781.217) application ($20), license ($30), renewal ($30), late ($45/$90), replacement ($10), inactive status ($15).

The only issue I could find regarding finance was that the 74th legislature required all regulatory boards to cut their budgets. The SBSWE budget was cut 30%. The 1995 budget was approximately $309,000 (Fiscal Note, 1993), which means that the SBSWE has lost over $100,000 dollars to operate. As a result, the continuing education (CE) newsletter will be discontinued, newsletters will be reduced from 12 to 2 newsletters/year, and they will no longer produce an annual directory. The most recent newsletter (Vol. 3, November 1995) asks social workers what, if any, impact these cuts will have on their professional practice. It will be interesting to see how the profession responds. My personal feeling is that the CE newsletter is vital to maintaining the academic integrity of the profession because it is the only advertisement of all the possible CE opportunities. The issue of CE is discussed further in the Conclusion.

ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION

Although I interviewed no one that thought a practice act was realistic (M. Doughty, personal contact 11/14/95; E. Naishtat, personal contact, 11/20/95; S. Negreen, personal contact, 11/30/95), I find the comparison between what is and what might have been a useful analytic tool.

What would the practice of social work be like if Rep. Schecter's practice act have passed (HB 2202)? First of all there would be no more Social Work Associates. Nursing homes, DPRS, and other organizations that rely heavily on SWAs would be greatly affected. According to M. Doughty, SWAs provide organizations with low-cost labor for routine tasks that no trained social worker would do (personal communication, 11/14/95). According to the Impact Statement (1992), unless funding increased, DPRS would not be able to hire enough LSWs or LMSWs. As a result caseloads would increase for those who are qualified, and the quality of service would suffer (p.1).

Removal of the SWA could be beneficial to DPRS, which has increasingly been subject of child protective lawsuits across the country (Alexander & Alexander, 1995). The specific knowledge that is received from social work programs (BSW and MSW) could increase awareness of issues of liability and ethics. It has been noted that caseworkers are used as scapegoats because "the state dumps on the lowest person on the totem pole" (O'Connor, 1990, p. 2-3, cited in Alexander & Alexander, 1995). Removing the SWAs by necessity raises the standard of CPS workers to a licensed professional, making them more difficult to scapegoat. This has been successful in a number of states, including Mississippi and California, which require regulation of DPRS workers (Doughty, p.c. 11/14/95).

Licensed social workers would find themselves in a more privileged position. The profession would more clearly delineate what is social work practice, thereby restricting the number of people that could perform those functions. One possible outcome is that the average salary in the profession would increase. While the benefits are obvious (more economic comfort), it could lead to social workers abandoning the poor. Whenever a salary increases, the money must come from somewhere. With funding from government sources dwindling, the most likely scenario follows the NABSW criticism, and suggests that social workers would turn their backs on the lower-income clients who would be unable to afford their services and rely more on upper-income clients.

Finally, social workers would have a stand-alone board that would have autonomous control over the regulation of social work. The strength of this lies in increased financial control. This could manifest itself in more continuing education programs, or other services that the Board cannot afford now. The negative outcome is that fees could be raised to prohibitive levels.

CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, SB 1426 is a solid piece of legislation that has some substantial practical shortcomings and some questionable value assumptions. From the literature and interviews presented, it appears that the conflict between the quest for professional elitism and serving the poor will never be adequately resolved. The issue of professional advancement (through removal of the SWA category) does appear to have some practical benefits and precedent in other states. Education is an underlying value, yet it is not supported by the recent fiscal decisions of the legislature, nor in the practice of the act.

The issue of continuing competency will have the greatest impact on social workers in the near future. One of the Sunset Commission's across-the-board requirements was that continued competency be an integral part of all health professions. According to M. Doughty, the current continuing education (CE) requirements do not fulfill this mandate. "You can't require someone to sit in a [continuing education] lecture and logically assume that their competency will increase" (personal communication, 11/14/95).

If competence is, as Edwards and Green (1983) explain it, "demonstrated proficiency" (p. 43), then the question is how is competency demonstrated? Virginia, Florida and California require oral exams to become licensed. According to M. Doughty, this is a step closer to competency than the computer test in Texas, but annual oral competency exams are not a financial option, especially in light of the recent budget cuts (personal communication, 11/14/95). The SBSWE is in the process of working out methods of testing for continuing competency. According to M. Doughty, social workers should expect to see the first changes within 2 years (personal communication, 11/14/95).

Edwards and Green (1983) suggest the following guidelines for testing competency. First, social workers complete an annual self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. This will help clarify for the professional the areas that need work, as well as provide the profession of trends in areas of weaknesses. Second, social workers must be knowledgeable of the standards for competent practice. Third, before testing, practitioners complete an anonymous self-assessment. This will double as a learning experience and contribute to the continuing education of the practitioner. I would like to add that this type of self-assessment should be implemented in schools as a method of helping social workers think critically. Professors should require that part of the grade be self-administered, based on a rigorous criteria.

The final suggestion is more of a reality today than when it was made in 1983. Edwards and Green (1983) suggest the use of technology (e.g. computers) to provide interactive problem solving of real-life situations to demonstrate a professionals level of competency. I believe this could be a very important area of development in the future, with applications that extend beyond the realm of licensure.

Alexander, R., & Alexander, C.J. (1995). Criminal prosecution of child protective workers. Social Work, 40(6), p. 809-814.

American Association of State Social Work Boards. (August, 1989). Social work laws and board regulations. Chantilly, VA: Author

Arne, R.E. (1952). Protection of the public through licensing of social workers. Social Work Journal, 33(4), 184-190.

Baum, M. (1993). Report: 73rd legislative session. pp. 12-14.

Bibles, S. (12/5/95). Assistant Executive Director, Texas Board of Social Worker Examiners. Personal Communication.

Biggerstaff, M.A. (1995). Licensing, regulation, and certification. In The 19th encyclopedia of social work. (Vol. 2), pp. 1616-1624. Washington D.C.: NASW Press.

Cohen, M.B., & Deri, R. (1992). The dilemma of "grandparenting" in state licensure: confronting the training needs of nondegreed workers. Social Work, 37, 155-157.

Davenport, J., & Wodarski, J.S. (1989). Mandatory continuing education: Time for reevaluation. Social Work, 28, 43-47.

DiNitto, D.M. (11/14/95). Professor, School of Social Work, University of Texast at Austin. Personal Communication.

DiNitto, D.M., & McNeece, C.A. (1990). Social work: Issues and opportunities in a challenging profession. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Doughty, M. (November 14, 1995). Executive Director, Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners. Personal Communication.

Edwards, R.L, & Green, R.K. (1983). Mandatory continuing education: Time for reevaluation. Social Work, 28, p. 43-48.

Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2, 45-55. Herbert, B. (November 15, 1995). Professor, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin. Personal Communication.

Hooser, G.D. (1993). Final report to the national association of social workers -- Texas chapter. Unpublished report.

House Bill 2714. (Introduced Version). 72nd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

House Bill 2714. (Impact Statement). 72nd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

House Bill 2202. (Introduced Version). 73rd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Johnson, T. (November 29, 1995). Former President, National Association of Black Social Workers, Texas Chapter. Personal Communication.

Legal Regulation Work Group. (1993). Proposed changes in the social work certification law for review and discussion. Unpublished report.

Let us hear from you!. (November, 1995). Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners, 3, 7.

Naishtat, E. (November 20, 1995). Texas Representative, 49th District. Personal Communication.

Negreen, S. (November 30, 1995). Former Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Texas Chapter. Personal Communication.

Senate Bill 1426. (Enrolled Version). 73rd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Senate Bill 1426. (Bill Analysis). 73rd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Senate Bill 1060. (Introduced Version). 73rd Legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Stewart, R.P. (1991, September). The making of a profession: The past, present, and future of social work in Texas. Keynote address, tenth annual social work certification conference. Austin, TX.

Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. (March, 1993). Recommendations to the governor of Texas and members of the seventy-third legislature. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. (October, 1992). Staff evaluation: Health care licensing boards. Austin: Texas Legislative Council.

Thyer, B.A., & Biggerstaff, M.A. (1989). Professional social work credentialing and legal regulation: A review of critical issues and an annotated bibliography. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Vernon's annotated Code of the state of Texas. (1982). Ch. 50, pp. 228-246.