CALIFORNIA SOCIAL WORKERS
YOUR SOCIAL WORK CAREER IS IN JEOPARDY!!
IS THE INFORMATION NASW-CA HAS PROVIDED YOU WITH RE: SB-288 FACT OR FICTION?
Although NASW-CA has printed on
numerous occasions that Governor Wilson intends to veto SB-288 -- GOVERNOR
WILSON DOES NOT INTEND TO VETO SB-288!! At no time has governor Wilson
indicated that he will veto SB-288. We urge you to verify this information by
contacting his office yourself. You may contact the Governor at (916)
445-2841 or Email him at petewilson@ca.gov.
NASW-CA/BBS DIDN'T INFORM YOU THAT THE CURRENT AASSWB WRITTEN
EXAM (USED AND HONORED IN 49 STATES) WOULD BE ELIMINATED IN LESS THAN 1 YEAR AND REPLACED
WITH A "CALIFORNIA" WRITTEN EXAM WHICH WILL NOT BE HONORED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA UNTIL MANY MONTHS AFTER THEY OBTAINED THIS INFORMATION. WOULD NASW-CA
HAVE INFORMED YOU AT ALL IF NOT FOR THE NETWORK? Sherry Mehl, Executive
Officer of the BBS, has informed The Network that the BBS intends to eliminate the current
AASSWB written exam. NASW-CA in an email to a member stated that this change was
occuring because the BBS believes the "high" pass rate of 80% is evidence that
the exam is too easy. A "California" written exam will ensure a drastic
drop in the pass rates and, for those who pass, a credential which is useless outside the
State of California. Remember, SB-288 would prevent the BBS from
substituting any other written exam for the current AASSWB exam.
Rather than protecting the social work profession in CA, NASW-CA's opposition to SB-288 will lead to the "extinction" of the social work profession in CA. Controlling the LCSW "market" by instituting artificial barriers to licensure and keeping the pool of LCSWs artificially small undermines the ability of competent social workers to compete in the marketplace. According to the BBS, there are currently over 10,000 more MFCCs than LCSWs and nearly 6,000 more MFCC interns than Associate Social Workers. In many locations, LCSW positions go unfilled and are RECLASSIFIED to MFCC/LCSW positions which are more easily filled due to the greater availability of MFCCs.
In an article in the March 1998 issue of
NASW-CA News, Jonathan Lightman reported, "Despite having previously supported SB-288
the Sunset Review Committee Chair, Senator Leroy Greene, openly proclaimed his support for
continuation of the oral and portrayed it as a necessary part of the licensing
process." 
Contrary to Mr. Lightman's reporting , Senator Greene voted
to ELIMINATE the oral exam in the Sunset Review Committee hearing! In fact,
Senator Greene has voted in support of SB-288/elmination of the oral exam on several
occasions.
THE NASW-CA "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" MYTH. NASW-CA has stated it opposed SB-288 because it does not eliminate the oral exam for MFCCs and would eliminate a "level playing field" between the two professions. The truth is, NASW-CA opposed SB-288 even when the legislation would have eliminated the oral exam for LCSWs and MFCCs. NASW-CA has consistently held that without an oral exam for social workers we would be unable to compete with MFCCs although there are states which require an oral exam for MFCCs/MFTs but NOT social workers.
NASW-CA has written in reference to the
Sunset Review Committee that, "Should the BBS be unable to justify the existence of
an oral exam in any form, NASW is committed to re-examining its position on SB-288."
Since its introduction, three Senate committes as well as the full Senate, have
rejected the NASW-CA/BBS' repeated appeals to maintain the oral and have voted
overwhelmingly to pass SB-288. In light of the most recent March 17, 1998
vote in the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (5-1) to eliminate the oral exam,
will NASW-CA keep their word 
and re-examine its position on SB-288?
HAS NASW-CA INFORMED YOU THAT OVER 80% OF CALIFORNIA LCSWs HAVE NOT
PASSED THE CURRENT ORAL EXAM!! According to the BBS, in March of 1998 there
were a total of 13,741 LCSWs practicing in the state of California, of this number 11,051
were licensed prior to 1992 which was the year the "new, improved" oral exam was
implemented.
HAS NASW-CA INFORMED YOU OF A RECENT ARTICLE ON SB-288 IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO EXAMINER? in this article, Sherry Mehl, Executive Officer of the
BBS, made the following statements: (1) Described supporters of SB-288 as
"disgruntled people who can't pass an exam." Truth: Many LCSWs
support SB-288, including former examiners and a former chair of the BBS. (2)
Claimed that, "Right now, you could have all your experience in research and we'd
have to let you in." Truth: You must have 3,200 hours of CLINICAL
experience to be licensed in California. (3) Claimed that California is
"the safest state for psychotherapy." Truth: Ms. Mehl did not
furnish any data to substantiate her assertion. Ms. Mehl's counterpart in the State
of Virginia (the most recent state to eliminate the oral exam) stated in this same
article, "Our disciplinary caseload has stayed pretty much the same" [after
elimination of the oral exam]. (4) Claimed that "no disciplinary action
has been necessary against any social worker who passed the exam in its current form, in
place since 1992." What is the rate of disciplinary action for the 80% of
California LCSWs licensed prior to 1992? Also in this article, a former
chair of the BBS described the oral exam as "a fatally flawed personality
contest." (Contact The Network if you would like a copy of this article.)
HAS NASW-CA INFORMED YOU OF THE RALLY HELD BY THE NETWORK IN SUPPORT
OF SB-288 IN SAN DIEGO? Why not? The rally was covered by a San Diego
television station.
Members of the Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
Talking Points
with Legislators
Discussion of MFCC comparison and oral exam flaws
Get Involved with "The Network"
Members of the
Assembly Health Committee
NASW-CA's "PROGRESS" in working with the BBS to "fix" the oral exam