Income Tax - Credit for Contributions, Volunteerism, and Employment Initiatives for At-Risk Youth
Summary
House Bill 1521 revises the regulation of social work licensure in Maryland. The bill repeals the examination requirement for applicants seeking bachelor social worker and master social worker licenses, while leaving in place the Board’s authority to require examinations for other license categories where applicable. It also updates the composition of the State Board of Social Work Examiners by increasing the board from 12 to 14 members and expanding the number of consumer members from 2 to 4.
The bill retains the existing education, experience, fee, and criminal history requirements for licensure, including the supervised practice requirements for certified social worker and certified social worker-clinical licenses. Its effective date is October 1, 2025, and it amends provisions in the Health Occupations Article governing social work practice and board membership.
Impact
HB1521 amends Maryland’s Health Occupations Article, specifically Title 19 governing social workers, by removing statutory exam requirements for bachelor and master social worker licenses and revising Board membership provisions. The practical effect is to reduce one licensure barrier for entry-level and mid-level social work applicants while preserving other qualification standards, and to broaden consumer representation on the State Board of Social Work Examiners.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislative process, as reflected by the committee report of favorable and House adoption. The recorded floor vote was 101 yeas to 36 nays on third reading, indicating majority support but not unanimity. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record suggests support outweighed opposition, though some members remained concerned enough to vote against final passage.
Contention
The main point of contention is the removal of examination requirements for bachelor and master social worker licenses. Supporters likely view this as a way to streamline licensure and address workforce access, while opponents may worry about lowering entry standards or weakening public protection. The increase in consumer members on the board may also have been discussed as a governance change, though the available record does not identify specific objections or speakers.