Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact
SB174 enters Maryland into the Social Work Licensure Compact, an interstate agreement that allows qualified social workers to obtain a multistate license and practice in other member states without securing a separate license in each one. The compact applies to clinical, master’s, and bachelor’s social work categories, and it sets out eligibility standards for applicants, including education, national exam requirements, supervised practice for clinical applicants, criminal history checks, and maintenance of an active, unencumbered home-state license.
The bill also creates the Social Work Licensure Compact Commission, a joint body made up of member states that can adopt rules, maintain a shared data system, collect fees, coordinate investigations, and manage compact administration. It establishes procedures for adverse actions, reissuance of licenses when a social worker changes home states, military family provisions, dispute resolution, withdrawal from the compact, and enforcement mechanisms. Maryland law is amended by adding a new subtitle to the Health Occupations Article, and the compact’s provisions supersede conflicting state laws to the extent of any conflict.
The bill adds Subtitle 3A to the Health Occupations Article and authorizes Maryland to participate in the interstate Social Work Licensure Compact. In practical terms, it changes Maryland licensure law by allowing eligible social workers licensed in Maryland to seek multistate authorization and by requiring Maryland to share licensure, disciplinary, and investigative information through the compact’s data system. It also obligates the state to follow compact rules on reporting adverse actions, criminal background checks, and recognition of multistate licenses, while preserving Maryland’s authority over single-state licenses and state disciplinary actions.
The recorded votes indicate strong bipartisan support and no visible opposition in the Senate, where the bill passed 46-0, and substantial support in the House, where it passed 126-7. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the overwhelming vote margins suggest the bill was generally viewed favorably as a workforce mobility and public access measure. The bill’s stated goals of improving access to services, reducing duplicative licensing burdens, and supporting military families align with that supportive sentiment.
The main policy tensions in the compact are between interstate portability and state regulatory control. The bill allows social workers to practice across member states, but it also preserves each state’s authority to regulate practice within its borders, take adverse action, and enforce its own standards for single-state licenses. Potential points of concern include the creation of a multi-state commission with rulemaking power, the sharing of investigative and disciplinary data, the use of fingerprint-based criminal history checks, and the extent to which compact rules may preempt conflicting state requirements. Another possible issue is that Maryland’s participation is contingent on six other states enacting substantially similar legislation, so implementation depends on broader interstate adoption.