|
Social workers are required to have a Master's degree in social
work and a license from the state in which they practice. Is this
fair, or even necessary? What about people who have a natural
talent for helping others, but who lack opportunity to fulfill
the educational requirements? Are the counselling professions
losing some of the best potential workers because of educational
and licensing requirements?
Let's divide today's
topic into two discussion areas: (1) educational requirements, and
(2) licensing requirements. First of all, to the best of my
knowledge, there are still some states where you can practice
counselling without meeting any requirements. You might not be
able to call yourself a psychotherapist, but you can
market your craft as some sort of counselling service. Of course,
you are not eligible for insurance reimbursement and will have to
rely on a cash-paying clientele.
Social workers
should be held to high educational standards. Natural talent
cannot suffice. There are too many complexities in human behavior,
too many theories and therapeutic approaches, to be left to talent
alone. Anyone practicing any form of counselling also needs to
be educated in ethics, confidentiality, interpersonal boundaries,
and self-disclosure. Another advantage of formal education is
the opportunity to do fieldwork under the supervision of a
qualified professional. Having a good fieldwork experience is
invaluable preparation for the real world.
State licensure does
not guarantee social work effectiveness. Getting your state
license is generally a matter of completing graduate school,
taking the licensing exam, perhaps getting letters of
recommendation, and having a certain number of years of work
experience depending on the type of license you are seeking. Now,
anyone who has gone through college and graduate school can get a
minimal passing score on the licensing exam. Passing an exam,
however, does not mean you are a good person.
The advantage of
licensure seems to be in the area of consumer protection. It
enables patients to inquire about the status of or to file
complaints against any social worker. It enables the state
licensing board to track social workers and to take action
against malpractitioners.
Unfortunately, there
are social workers who are incompetent or who commit crimes such
as welfare fraud. My guess is that it is easier for the state
boards to intervene in cases of criminal conduct than in cases of
therapy malpractice. The former is obvious, while the latter can
be more subtle and difficult to prove. Nevertheless, patients
need an arena in which they can bring forth questions and
complaints.
Licensure, however,
can be costly and complicated. Perhaps you live in a state that
requires license renewal every two years. There are forms to fill
out. There is a renewal fee of, let's say, $250.00. There may be
a requirement to provide documentation of a certain number of
continuing education units. There may be requirements to get your
completed forms notarized and to submit a fingerprint clearance
card. Then, the only useful result of all this effort is that the
state can continue to track you. The social worker receives
absolutely no benefit from licensure (other than eligibility to
continue working).
There must be a
better way for the state to protect consumers. Licensure is
really unnecessary. A simple registration system would be
adequate. Social workers, and all other types of counsellors,
should be asked to voluntarily register with the state. It should
be a simple matter of keeping the state updated with your name
and address, educational accomplishments, and place of current
employment. This information should be posted as public record.
Registration should not cost more than $25.00 for processing.
Consumers could then
choose for themselves whether to hire your services. If you did
not voluntarily register with the state, that might indicate to
the patient that you have something to hide, or that you just
object to any government control over your profession. If you are
registered, the patient could check your qualifications and legal
status. Registered or not, the patient (or employer) makes an
informed decision about you and has a way to file a complaint if
necessary.
The state would not
have the right to determine the requirements for practicing
counselling. This means that those with limited or no college
education could proclaim themselves as therapists. If registered
with the state, however, the non-degree workers could be tracked.
The disadvantage is that incompetent non-degree workers could give
all professionals a bad name, but probably no worse than
incompetent licensed workers. The advantage is that consumers,
rather than the state, have the ultimate decision-making power.
Consumers are regarded as having enough intelligence to make the
best choice for themselves.
If all registration
information were kept updated and posted on the internet or
published annually in a booklet, then consumers and employers
could check on anyone practicing any variation of counselling.
The state would also be responsible for including any crimes or
malpractice committed by any practitioner. Crimes (such as fraud)
would be defined by law. Malpractice would be defined by the
employer. Private practitioners would be responsible for creating
and posting their own code of ethics in their office. Patients
would be given copies of these laws and codes to read and sign
before accepting treatment.
It could be argued
that state licensure gives the profession of social work more
political respect and clout. This assertion would be difficult to
prove. If true, then the profession has paid a high price to be
included in the ranks of doctors and attorneys: it has abdicated
its authority to state boards. Public respect for the profession
has always been a hindrance, but this is due to the stigma of
mental health problems and not to a lack of government approval.
My strong belief
is that anyone practicing psychotherapy should have a Master's
Degree in psychology or social work. It is education and
experience, not licensure, that qualifies social workers to help
others. But I think there should be an option, such as an
apprenticeship, for those who would incur extreme hardship by the
educational requirements.
There could be an
employment category of social worker assistant. These
workers would be required to have an Associates Degree. Any
motivated person can complete a total of two years of education at
a local community college. Then, these workers could obtain jobs
assisting Master's level professionals. Their job duties would
be similar to the fieldwork assignments which all social work
grad-students are required to do, except that they would continue
for an extended period of time. Let's say that after 12 years of
steady employment as social worker assistant, these workers would
be eligible to get jobs as professional social workers, equal in
status to M.S.W.'s.
An alternate
route to professionalism, apprenticeship in contrast to formal
education, could enrich the profession by inclusion of workers
from different economic and cultural backgrounds. Workplaces
would become like the 'teaching hospitals' in which training
and education is a part of the job and on the job. People with
talent would be given focus and supervision, while professionals
would necessarily have to keep their knowledge base updated in
order to be useful to both patients and social work assistants.
(Written 07/24/06)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
