setting up and maintaining an interjurisdictional registry troy elliott association of social work...

Setting Up and Maintaining an Interjurisdictional Registry

Troy ElliottAssociation of Social Work Boards

Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona


Who We Are

ASWB is the organization of the social work regulatory boards in 49 states, Washington, D.C., the Virgin Islands, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan

• Mission is consumer protection• Primary responsibility – social work licensing exams (about

25,000 administrations annually)• Other services include disciplinary databases, continuing

education provider approval, social work registry, licensure application processing


The problem

Individual regulatory board requirements make it difficult for social workers licensed in one jurisdiction to become licensed in another jurisdiction.

The public suffers when qualified social workers are not accessible

Support for regulation among the

professionals begins to suffer


Possible solutions

We weren’t altering the time-space continuum here. Lots of things have been/are being tried – plenty of models out there.

•Fast endorsement

•Compacts

•Reciprocity agreements

For us, endorsement model was the best fit.


The big idea

Establish a repository for primary source information relevant to social work licensure, and a create a verification acceptance process that will be quickly and easily adopted by member regulatory boards.

Then lunch.

After lunch—this whole Iraq thing.


What we had going for us

Some infrastructure in place:

•Database of examination candidates

•Disciplinary databank already in place

•Examination information already in place



A record of service to members

•Disciplinary databank and HIPDB reporting system in place

•Score transfer program in place

•Examination program widely used—high degree of satisfaction

•Continuing education provider approval program growing



Connection to potential customers

•Some visibility with candidates

•“Capture” of some data already happening (exam scores, disciplinary actions)


Challenges we anticipated – more or less

•Cost – programming, education, marketing, staff

•Social work’s “non binary” licensure structure (levels of licensure based on education, length of post degree experience, and type of experience)

•Slow growth

•Need for repository to (potentially) hold more than just primary-sourced, verifiable licensure-related information

•Resistance to change


What we didn’t count on

•The degree to which we didn’t understand board operations

•The degree to which some boards didn’t understand board operations

•Labor-intensiveness

•Degree of social worker familiarity with licensure process

•Resistance to change


Timeline, 2002

March – August 2002: Preliminary staff planning

Boards surveyed

Sample record summary developed

Software and hardware needs

Research other professions (FSMB, NCARB, etc.)

September 2002: Focus group with 9 board administrators

October 2002: Refinements based on focus group

November 2002: focus group with 5 board administrators

December 2002: continued research with FSMB credential program


Timeline, 2003

February 2003: Focus groups—12 MSW students VCU; 5 MSW students UNC Chapel Hill; 12 BSW students UNC Pembroke

March 2003: Focus group with 4 practicing licensed social workers

March – August 2003: Database development; cost analysis

September 2003: Registry director hired

October 2003: Pilot program begun in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, North Dakota

Marketing efforts begun—letters mailed to dept. heads in schools of social work in pilot states; passing candidates


Timeline, 2004

November 2003 – March 2004: Marketing continues – brochure developed, website content created, mailings to ASWB volunteers, schools of social work

March 15, 2004: Registry program debuts nationally


Where do we stand now?

As of August 1, 2005

•798 requests for applications received

•232 paid applications

•105 transfers (85 in/to MA)

•Annual Fees: $60; $35 students; $30 MA applicants


Is it a success?

Not yet.

“Buy in” from regulatory boards slow

“Critical mass” of registrants not yet reached

Chicken-and-egg - A large number of registrants, lots of transfers are needed to demonstrate benefits to boards and get buy-in; social workers are reluctant to pay for a service that doesn’t have broad participation from jurisdictions.


Board buy-in

What’s the problem?•Identifying the decision-makers

•Decision-makers “distance” from ASWB

•Varying interpretations of what is “required”

•Mechanism for dealing with summary document

•Suspicion


Registrant buy-in

What’s the problem?•Comfort with/knowledge of marketing

•Learning curve for new social workers – do they know they need us?

•Identifying our opportunities

•Harder to sell to longtime social workers – the ones who best understand how we could help


If we had to do it all again…

Would we? Probably. But with some changes.

•Pilot program kind of useless

•More investment in marketing; more involvement in marketing up front

•Earlier cost analyses

•Better understanding of individual board operations/personalities (personal

visits?)

•Contracts with regulatory boards


If we had to do it all again…

On the other hand, some things are working

•Database well-designed, integrates easily with existing resources

•Exam registration program a crucial link to customers

•Application review contracts very beneficial

•Pricing does not seem to be prohibitive

•Direct mail marketing returns acceptable

•Customer satisfaction high


Wanna try it yourself?

First, ask yourself a few questions

•Would the program support your core mission?

•Is there another organization better suited?

•How long can the program be subsidized? Is there an expectation that the program would break even/produce revenue over expenditures?

•What kind of exit strategy exists?

•Are there ways for the program to expand in the future?

•Do you have a clear understanding of member board workings?

•What kind of relationship do you have with your member boards currently? Would this program put those relationships at risk?

•How will document storage be handled?

•How many people will be needed to operate the system? Do you have the space?


PoliticalKnow board operations

Know decision-makers

“Well-educated” membership

High name recognition

Strong track record

Perceived need among members

Supportive organizational leadership

Funds to devote to outreach

TechnicalDatabase capabilities

Adequate hardware

Ability to handle credit card transactions

Reliable programmer

Document storage capabilities

Funds to devote to additional staff

CommercialComfort with marketing

Marketing capabilities

Knowledge of most promising markets

Name recognition

Perceived need

‘Well educated” potential customers

Multiple ways of accessing potential customers

Funds to devote to marketing

Next, take an honest look at your strengths and weaknesses in at least three core areas:

Do your strengths at least balance out your weaknesses?


If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

Finally, choose an inspirational quote. Print up t-shirts for your project team.

If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

-Attributed to Steven Wright


For more information

Troy Elliott, Communications Director

Association of Social Work Boards

(800) 225-6880

(540) 829-0142 (fax)

[email protected]

www.aswb.org

setting up and maintaining an interjurisdictional registry troy elliott association of social work...

Documents

clear annual conference

arizona slide

place slide

social work licensure

social work registry

social workers

arizona challenges

social work regulatory