BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 671
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Jim Beall Jr., Chair
AB 671 (Portantino) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
SUBJECT : Child welfare services: education and training
requirements
SUMMARY : Requires all county social work personnel newly hired
after January 1, 2012, and all county social work supervisors to
meet specified education and experience criteria, including the
requirement for a master's degree from a graduate school of
social work or specified master's degree from an accredited or
state-approved graduate school in addition to field practice and
coursework. Specifically, this bill :
1)Conditions employment as a county child welfare services
social work supervisor on the following education-related
criteria:
a) Possession of a master's degree from an accredited or
state approved graduate school in social work or social
welfare or equivalent education and experience as
determined by the Department of Social Services (DSS); or,
b) A master's degree from an accredited or state-approved
graduate school in any of the following areas or equivalent
education and experience as determined by DSS:
i) Marriage, family, and child counseling;
ii) Child psychology;
iii) Child development;
iv) Counseling psychology;
v) Social psychology;
vi) Clinical psychology;
vii) Educational psychology, consistent with the scope of
practice described in Section 4989.14 of the Business and
Professions Code; or,
AB 671
Page 2
viii) Education with an emphasis on counseling.
2)Requires, effective January 1, 2012, all newly hired county
social work personnel, to comply with the following education,
course work and field practice or experience:
a) Either of the following:
i) Possession of a master's degree from an accredited
or state approved graduate school in social work or
social welfare or equivalent education and experience as
determined by the Department of Social Services (DSS);
or,
ii) A master's degree from an accredited or
state-approved graduate school in any of the following
areas or equivalent education and experience as
determined by DSS:
(1) Marriage, family, and child counseling;
(2) Child psychology;
(3) Child development;
(4) Counseling psychology;
(5) Social psychology;
(6) Clinical psychology;
(7) Educational psychology, consistent with the
scope of practice described in Section 4989.14 of the
Business and Professions Code; or,
(8) Education with an emphasis on counseling.
b) At least four semester units of field practice at the
master's level or six months' full-time equivalent
experience in a county child welfare services agency
setting;
c) At least nine semester units of coursework related to
human development or human behavior, or two years of
AB 671
Page 3
experience working with children and families as a major
responsibility under the supervision of a supervising
social worker;
d) At least three semester units in working with minority
populations or six months of experience in working with
minority populations or training in cultural competency and
working with minority populations within the first six
months of employment as a condition of employment; and,
e) At least three semester units in child welfare or at
least two years of experience in a county child welfare
social services setting.
3)Provides that a person who does not meet the education and
experience criteria set forth in this bill may apply for an
exception as follows:
a) A person seeking an exception to the education and
experience requirements based on the completion of
equivalent education and experience shall apply to DSS
pursuant to the process established by DSS.
b) Requires DSS to complete the process for the exception
to minimum education and experience requirements within 30
days of receiving the exception application of a social
work supervisor from the county child welfare services
agency.
4)Conditions employment as a social work supervisor in a county
child welfare services setting on or after January 1, 2012,
upon the successful completion of the education and experience
criteria set forth in this bill.
5)Exempts a child welfare services social work supervisor
employed before January 1, 2012, from these requirements.
6)Specifies that course work and field practice or experience
completed to fulfill the degree requirements of this bill may
be used to satisfy the experience requirements as well.
7)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to improve outcomes
and increase consumer protection in child welfare services by
improving the educational standards of supervisors in child
welfare services to ensure that each supervisor has the
AB 671
Page 4
appropriate training, experience, and education.
EXISTING LAW
1)State regulations require that 100% of the social work
supervisors possess a master's degree in social work, or its
equivalent in education and/or experience as certified by the
State Personnel Board or a county civil service board. Title
22 California Code of Regulations (CCR), 31-070.
2)Requires social work personnel for a foster family agency
(FFA) to possess a master's degree from an accredited or state
approved graduate school in social work or social welfare.
3)Permits a person with a master's degree from an accredited or
state approved graduate school with a degree in any of the
following areas to be considered qualified to perform social
work activities in an FFA:
a) Marriage, family, and child counseling;
b) Child psychology;
c) Child development;
d) Counseling psychology;
e) Social psychology;
f) Clinical psychology;
g) Educational psychology, consistent with the scope of
practice described in the Business and Professions Code;
or,
h) Education with an emphasis on counseling.
4)Provides that DSS may determine equivalent education and
experience requirements as an alternative to the master's
level education requirements to allow a person to be
considered qualified to perform social work activities in an
FFA.
5)In addition to the degree specification set forth for FFA
social workers, requires the following coursework and field
AB 671
Page 5
practice or experience, as defined in DSS regulations, as a
requirement for all new hires in the position of social work
personnel after January 1, 1995:
a) At least three semester units of field practice at the
master's level or six months' full-time equivalent
experience in a public or private social service agency
setting;
b) At least nine semester units of coursework related to
human development or human behavior, or, within the first
year of employment, experience working with children and
families as a major responsibility under the supervision of
a supervising social worker;
c) At least three semester units in working with minority
populations or six months of experience in working with
minority populations or training in cultural competency and
working with minority populations within the first six
months of employment as a condition of employment; and,
d) At least three semester units in child welfare or at
least six months of experience in a public or private child
welfare social services setting for a nonsupervisory social
worker. A supervising social worker shall have two years'
experience in a public or private child welfare social
services setting.
6)Provides that individuals who do not meet the education and
coursework and field experience required for FFA social work
personnel may apply to DSS for an exception.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : As amended, this bill strikes the prior contents of
the bill on page 2, lines 6 through 30, inclusive and would
apply a new set of education and experience related conditions
on the employment of all "newly hired" county child welfare
social work personnel and all county child welfare social work
supervisors, effective January 1, 2012.
According to the author:
Currently there is no educational requirement for
supervisors in child welfare services. While counties
AB 671
Page 6
provide supervisor training, it is no substitute for a
master's level education in social work or in a
behavioral science.
Only with a combination of educational standards and
training, can supervisors effectively help child
welfare staff do their job in protecting children.
This measure will enhance consumer protection within
child welfare services by ensuring that supervisors
have the appropriate training, experience, and
education. Outcomes in child welfare cases should
improve with better trained supervisors and lead to
fewer cases of children left in abusive situations.
Under current law, standards for county child welfare social
workers and social work supervisors are set forth in the Title
22, Division 31 regulations. These regulations require all
social work supervisors to possess a master's degree in social
work or an equivalent education and experience as certified by
the State Personnel Board or a county civil service board.
According to the 2008 California Social Work Education Center
(CalSWEC) Public Child Welfare Workforce Study Report, close to
80% of county child welfare social work supervisors had a
master's degree in either social work or a related field. Among
those, between 44 and 55% possess a master's degree in social
work (MSW). Although CalSWEC has tracked the educational
attainment of the child welfare workforce since 1998, because of
a change in methodology during that time, it is difficult to do
an exact comparison of the change over that time. Despite the
limitations of these data, CalSWEC estimates a growth in the
percentage of case-carrying social workers with an MSW from
1998-2008.
Currently, there are 21 MSW accredited schools in California,
mostly concentrated within the California State University
system, with a few University of California and private
universities offering MSWs as well.
Aside from the requirements existing in state regulation that
half of all line social workers and all social work supervisors
have an MSW, the state has contracted with CalSWEC to create the
Regional Training Academy (RTA) Coordination Project which is a
statewide collaborative that delivers in-service training and
continuing professional education for public child welfare staff
AB 671
Page 7
through four regional training academies. The RTA Coordination
Project has coordinated the development and implementation of
statewide common core training for line workers and supervisors
as mandated by the federal Child and Federal Services Review.
In addition, they've worked to integrate best practices and
research into curricula and to integrate the BSW/MSW education
for county social workers with their in-service training.
CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW and BASW Programs: The state currently
provides incentives for existing county social workers and
social work supervisors to obtain bachelor's and master's
degrees in social work through the Title IV-E MSW and BASW
Programs. California has 20 Title IV-E MSW programs and six
Title IV-E BASW programs throughout the state. Paid for with a
combination of federal Title IV-E administrative funds and a
county matching funds, this program gives priority to existing
county social workers to facilitate their BASW or MSW education
by providing them with a stipend for their education in exchange
for the participant agreeing to spend two years working in a
county child welfare services agency upon graduation. BASW
students receive a $15,000 stipend for their final year of study
in the program, and current employees of a county or DSS are
eligible for part-time study with full tuition, fees and book
costs covered through the program. MSW students are eligible
for an $18,500 annual stipend for their two-year graduate
program, and current employees of a county or DSS are eligible
for part-time study with full tuition, fees and book costs
covered through the program.
This program, administered by CalSWEC, has been tracked for
graduate outcomes and employment. According to data collected
by CalSWEC on the participation in the Title IV-E MSW Programs,
a total of 4,773 students were accepted into the program from
1993 through 2009. Of those students, 4,033 graduated and 3,345
are working or have completed their work requirements and 254
graduates from 2009 are unemployed and looking for work.
Impact of the Child Welfare Services (CWS) Veto on County Social
Workers: In both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets former
Governor Schwarzenegger line-item vetoed $80 million General
Fund in the Child Welfare Services program, over the bipartisan
agreement in the Legislature to restore these funds in the
2010-11 budget. Because the cut resulted in a loss of $53
million in federal matching dollars, counties were hit with a
total $133 million cut to child welfare services in each year
AB 671
Page 8
the last two years
A survey of counties by the County Welfare Directors Association
of California (CWDA) found that more than 600 social workers
were cut statewide as a result of the 2009-10 child welfare
services veto. The result of these staffing cuts is that fewer
abused and neglected children and their families receive
services, and children are not receiving the attention they need
from social workers due to high workload and fewer staff. In
fact Sacramento County has cut 30% of its child welfare services
staff since May 2009, according to CWDA. Further, CWDA
estimates that California is in need of 1,817 additional social
workers to meet minimum recommended standards to serve abused
and neglected children, and 4,270 more social workers to ensure
positive outcomes for children.
Prior and Related Legislation:
AB 159 (Beall) of this session would extend the adjusted social
worker/supervisor ratio for FFAs until FFA rates are restored to
at least the level they were at before the 10% rate reduction.
AB 2474 (Beall) Chapter 43, Statutes of 2010 extended the change
in the social worker/supervisor ratio for FFAs from 1:6 to 1:8
for one additional year.
AB 445 (Vargas) of 2003 would have limited the use of the term
"social worker" to an individual with a degree in social work.
In opposition, the California Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists (CAMFT) writes with concerns about the ambiguity and
practical effects of this bill and questions who the bill is
meant to apply to, whether DSS-granted exceptions apply to all
or some of the criteria, and whether someone qualified to
perform "social work activities" under subsection (a)(2) and (b)
of the bill could be promoted to a supervisor position.
Writing with concerns, CWDA states:
As originally conceived, �this bill] would have
prohibited county child welfare agencies from
promoting to supervisor any staff who did not possess
either (1) a master's degree in social work (MSW) or
(2) another behavioral health master's degree plus
several layers of experience and training and a
recommendation with someone possessing an MSW.
AB 671
Page 9
Individuals without a master's degree in a behavioral
health field could not be promoted to supervisor.
CWDA opposed the original version of this bill, and we
have been working with the author's office and his
sponsor, the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) to resolve our concerns. It is a long-standing
CWDA position that a combination of education,
training and experience is appropriate to allow child
welfare staff to be hired and promoted. Following
these discussions, the author proposed to amend the
bill to provide for multiple paths to becoming a child
welfare supervisor, that combine education, training
and experience.
The proposed amendments are a valid attempt at
addressing our issues, and we appreciate the author's
responsiveness and willingness to work with us. We do
continue to have concerns with the process set forth
in the proposed amendments. Specifically, the language
is drawn almost verbatim from statute that governs
Foster Family Agencies (FFAs). This language sets
forth a number of requirements related to education,
training and experience for FFA staff. Exceptions
could be made to these requirements, which would be
administered by the California Department of Social
Services. We are concerned that the requirements for
FFA staff are not fully transferable to the child
welfare supervisor arena and hope to work through the
details on these requirements with the author and NASW
(as well as committee staff) as the bill moves
forward. Additionally, relying on CDSS to administer
and approve exceptions could be a cumbersome and time
consuming process that would delay our ability to fill
vacant supervisor positions; it would be better to
provide for exceptions and allow the counties to apply
those exceptions.
Questions and Concerns: The Committee is concerned that the
public will not have had sufficient time to consider and respond
to the substantial rewrite of this bill. As originally
introduced, this bill, sponsored by the National Association of
Social Workers (NASW) would have set forth education and other
criteria for social work supervisors, mirroring the standards
set by NASW's social worker certification process. While the
AB 671
Page 10
goal of ensuring an adequately educated, trained and prepared
social work supervisor workforce is one the Committee supports,
the original bill's requirements did not make sense as drafted
and did not provide counties with the option to make exceptions
for staff with equivalent education and experience.
In response to these concerns, the author amended the bill and
now proposes to recast the FFA social worker requirements to
apply to all "newly hired" county child welfare workers and
child welfare social work supervisors, effective January 1, 2012
with the possibility of exceptions which will be developed by
DSS upon enactment. Several questions arise related to the
applicability of the existing FFA requirements to county social
workers, and the framework of the proposed bill:
1)The bill as amended would apply to all "newly hired" county
social work personnel. Does it make sense to apply education
and experience criteria intended, according to the author, for
child welfare social workers to all county social workers? It
seems that county social workers who specialize in adult
populations, including the elderly or persons with
disabilities, would be better suited acquiring social work
degrees with related concentrations, rather than degrees
specific to child populations and needs.
In addition, the frame of "newly hired" is ambiguous and could
lead to confusion in implementation. For example, should a
county consider an employee of two weeks or two months "newly
hired"? Given that the education and experience criteria are
numerous and detailed, with potentially serious consequences
for the individual employee, such as creating a barrier to
hiring or a promotion, the author should consider better
defining the applicability of the new criteria as proposed in
the amended bill.
2)The requirement to limit hiring for all social workers to
those with a specified graduate degree under subdivision (a)
is also contradicted in subdivision (b), paragraph (1)(B)
because it implies that the prospective employee will have had
to work under a supervising social worker for two years before
he or she can become a line social worker.
3)It is unclear whether the author intentionally excluded MSWs
from the graduate degrees with which a social worker may
fulfill the education requirements. The bill as amended would
AB 671
Page 11
allow for a master's degree from an accredited or state
approved school in social work or social welfare, which likely
offers an MSW, but would also offer other degrees. Given the
original intent of the bill as introduced and amended on March
30th, in addition to the background materials submitted by the
author, this omission seems an oversight which the author may
wish to correct.
4)Experience criteria limit eligible candidates for child
welfare social work to individuals with either four semester
units of field practice under subdivision (b)(1)(A) or six
months' full-time equivalent experience in a county child
welfare services agency setting. This requirement, unlike the
equivalent FFA requirement, limits the experience criteria to
work in a public agency setting. FFAs allow for experience in
either a public or a private child welfare services setting.
Would it be too limiting for counties to have to hire only
those social workers who have already worked in an agency?
How would a new employee meet the social work criteria and
gain the requisite experience if they cannot be hired without
meeting these criteria or getting an exemption from DSS? The
author may wish to consider whether it is reasonable to limit
the required experience here to public agency experience.
5)It is unclear, also why the bill specifies an allowable
application of coursework and field practice acquired in a
graduate school of social work to satisfy the experience
requirements in this bill. Given the number of course
semester units and field practice requirements set forth in
the bill, it would seem reasonable to expect that a candidate
coming out of graduate school may only have the experience
they acquired while in their program. This clarification
therefore, begs the question of whether the other graduate
degree candidates will not be allowed to apply the courses and
field experience of their degree programs to meet the
specified experience criteria.
6)While the author's stated goal in this bill is to standardize
education and experience requirements for social workers, the
possibility of an exception is left up to DSS. While DSS
currently provides such exceptions for private FFAs, there are
considerably more county child welfare social workers who
would need to apply to DSS for these exceptions. In addition,
there is no clear sense of what those criteria would be.
AB 671
Page 12
7)DSS is also required, under subdivision (d), to process a
request for an exception to minimum education and experience
requirements within 30 days of receiving the application of a
social work supervisor from a county child welfare services
agency. This requirement is confusing as it is unclear
whether the author intends that the exception provided in this
bill would therefore be limited to social work supervisor
applicants, or that the bill requires a social work supervisor
to submit requests for exceptions to the education and
experience requirements. It seems that given the
administrative and human resource capacity of most counties,
and especially the larger ones, the latter possibility is
unnecessarily cumbersome on social work supervisors who
already have a significant workload. If it is the former,
this provision raises questions about the author's intent.
Perhaps the author intended for the application to be
submitted by the social work supervisor applicant?
8)Given that existing state law requires all social work
supervisors to have an MSW or equivalent work and education
requirements as set forth by DSS, why is this bill necessary?
9)Counties have recently suffered child welfare services funding
reductions, in addition to other local fiscal pressures which
have impacted county child welfare social worker caseload.
Given that county child welfare social workers and supervisors
are already under-staffed and under-resourced, does it make
sense to impose new education and training mandates at this
time?
10)The existing FFA requirements are about twenty years old.
Should the author consider a different combination of
educational and experience criteria that better align with the
needs of public child welfare agencies and current best
practices?
11)Has the author considered the potential impacts of the
proposed education and experience requirements on county
workforce diversity? According to the 2008 CalSWEC workforce
study report, 35 out of 58 counties need more bilingual
workers, with the primary need for Spanish-speaking, but other
counties citing a need for Punjabi speakers, Russian, Hmong,
Vietnamese and Laoatian. In addition, while the Title IV-E
BASW and MSW programs provide a pipeline to education for
county social workers, has the author considered how these
AB 671
Page 13
requirements might impact rural counties that are not close to
existing social work schools? Or the barriers faced by line
social workers who may wish to advance in their career, but
may not have the resources or ability, due, for example, to
their own parenting responsibilities, to pursue a
graduate-level education? The existing RTAs and Title IV-E
Programs have shown to be extremely effective in providing
county child welfare social workers with opportunities to
access higher level social work education, as well as standard
training and continuing professional development. It is
unclear from the background materials provided by the author
why or how this set of criteria would improve outcomes for
children in the child welfare system, and whether they would
be implementable by California's diverse 58 counties.
Staff recommends that the author make this a two-year bill and
continue to work with the sponsor, Committee staff, and social
work and county representatives to better align the author's
stated goals of establishing educational minimums and ensuring
consistency in the preparation of child welfare supervisor
qualifications. The Committee is especially concerned because
the bill revision was received during the Legislature's Spring
Recess and, therefore, in print and made public only a day
before the hearing. This is a bill with several groups
expressing concern or opposition, including the labor union
representing social workers, the Service Employees International
Union. Aside from inadequate review from concerned
stakeholders, the public has not been afforded an opportunity to
review and respond to this bill as amended.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT)
Analysis Prepared by : Michelle Doty Cabrera / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089
AB 671
Page 14