Deconstructing Social Work Exam Bias: Advocacy Practice Guidelines to Close the Gap

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The social work profession is in a precarious situation regarding licensure. Test takers of color are struggling to pass social work licensure exams at rates comparable to their White counterparts, per data released by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). As a nation, we are required to meet the needs of our increasingly diverse population. Yet the recruitment and retention of a diverse body of social workers is unlikely to be actualized if disparities persist in these exams. Given ASWB’s monopoly on social work exams and the likelihood that many states will continue to require the exams for licensure, we sought to explore public responses to the data released, using the National Association of Social Work (NASW) as our starting point. As the nation’s largest association of social workers, having local chapters within each state, NASW serves as an area of connection between social workers nationwide.

Methods

We utilized content analysis to explore emerging themes and conduct a review of the state chapter’s public responses to exam pass rate data.

Results

A variety of state chapter’s responses, with few states engaging in advocacy efforts or taking action to facilitate change.

Discussion

Advocacy efforts play a pivotal role in the restructuring of fragmented systems. This study revisits seemingly ignored disparities diverse test takers may face, while also serving as a call-to-action in advocacy engagement. We conclude with a set of advocacy practice guidelines for use in the promotion of equitable licensing opportunities for all test takers.

KEYWORDS:

• Minority
• licensure
• equity
• advocacy
• racial bias
• discrimination
• social work

Introduction

The Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), our nation’s sole administrator of social work licensure exams, recently released data surrounding the exam pass rates of applicants. And although the field has historically been cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from only the passing rates of graduates” (Marson et al., 2010, p. 98), the data revealed stark differences in the exam pass rates between White and racially diverse test takers, as well as differences by age (ASWB, 2022). While ASWB representatives have vaguely acknowledged the inability of some racial and ethnic minority test-takers successfully completing their exams (Alexander & Johnston, 2008; DeCarlo, 2022), particularly its most frequently administered post-MSW clinical exam, this newly released data suggests that test takers of color are continuing to experience challenges. Despite ASWBs claim that its exams are not racially biased (DeCarlo, 2022; Woodcock, 2016), a consistency in racial minority test takers being unable to pass the exams at rates comparable to White test takers, supports the validity of claims regarding racial bias existing in the test items, as well as the overall exam.

Our nation continues to become more diverse and increasing numbers of diverse students are entering into institutions of higher education to achieve college degrees (Estefan et al., 2023; Kearney & Levine, 2023). It is important for our nation, and perhaps more specifically the field of social work, to address the current barriers that are preventing diverse test-takers from entering the field. The current work serves as a call-to-action for stakeholders in the social work profession (and beyond) to engage in advocacy efforts to demand change. By examining state NASW chapters’ public responses to the exam data released by ASWB (e.g., formal statements, advocacy efforts, and action steps) and thus, becoming aware of current steps being taken to address exam disparities, stakeholders will be in a better position to engage in advocacy and related actions to address exam issues.

Rationale and purpose

Given the ethical responsibility of social workers to be informed and to seek transparency in the profession (National Association of Social Workers NASW, 2017), it would seem natural for ASWB, “established in 1979 to support regulation of safe, competent, and ethical practices,” to possess not only an intrinsic desire but an obligation to be open, honest, and transparent with, at the very least, its own social work community (Apgar, 2022, p. 336). However, it appears that the board’s annual profit of $6.8 million garnered from examination administration and study materials, takes priority over the past, present, and future sustainability, welfare, and well-being of the very profession it was established to protect (DeCarlo, 2022; Guidestar, n.d.).

Despite the lack of data transparency provided by ASWB for decades, it is likely that the demand for licensure will continue to grow, especially given the Council of State Government’s increasingly supportive stance on professional licensing requirements being maintained nationwide (Apgar, 2022; Association of Social Work Boards ASWB, 2021; Council on Social Work Education CSWE, 2020; Miller et al., 2022). Interestingly however, steps have been taken by some states (e.g., Illinois) to remove its licensure-requirement for social work applicants at the bachelor’s level (National Association of Social Workers-Illinois (NASW-IL), 2021; DeCarlo (2022)). Amidst these efforts taken by NASW-Illinois to reduce barriers for a portion of its licensure applicants, we decided to go further in our exploration by analyzing the public responses of all NASW state chapters, including each of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, and Virgin Islands.

Study aims

This study utilized a pragmatic approach to develop a preliminary understanding of steps being taken by NASW state chapters to address exam disparities. The public responses of each state chapter were used to begin the analysis. Thus, the aims of our study included:

1. Gathering and analyzing NASW state chapter’s publicly available responses, to learn more about what (if any) steps are being taken to address exam pass rate disparities.

2. Utilize this study as a call-to-action for stakeholders of the profession to become involved in advocacy and related efforts to facilitate change.

3. Create a set of advocacy practice guidelines through the adoption of social work’s structural approach, a framework designed to deconstruct inequitable systems, to be used by advocates in their efforts to facilitate change.

Background

The American system of higher education is grounded in classist and racist assumptions (Estefan et al., 2023). Among these assumptions is the belief that achieving a college degree will result in equitable opportunities to acquire a stable career, attain upward social mobility, and promote positive well-being (Brown et al., 2011; Chetty et al., 2020; Merolla, 2018). While this may indeed prove to be the case for some, it’s less likely the case for minority individuals (Hartney & Flavin, 2014), despite their levels of education, prominence, and/or social status, largely because we continue to live in a racist society where the color-line (Du Bois, 1903) “will continue to persist until systemic and individualized racism are eradicated” (Holmes, 2020, p. 807). And although the field of social work continues to be attractive to students as a career where they can both “do good” and mobilize in success, current trends in ASWB exam pass rates show that this may not be the case, particularly for minority individuals. Perhaps then, we must begin the process of cultivating desirable educational opportunities by deconstructing faulty systems, “acknowledging that social work does not currently possess and is unlikely to develop discipline-specific knowledge” and advocating for engagement in actions designed to facilitate the creation of equitable educational and societal structures for all (Thyer, 2002, p. 109).

The social work profession prides itself on being committed to social justice and change, continually proclaiming its commitment to leading by example when it comes to restructuring oppressive societal systems (NASW, 2017). However, given the current exam pass rate data we are forced to revisit these claims to consider whether we as a profession are doing more harm than good. Thus, racial minority students, as they increasingly enter into colleges and programs of social work, perhaps in an attempt to someday improve limiting societal conditions for themselves and others, are being forced to contend with oppressive obstacles (e.g., biased licensure exams) put into place by entities of the very profession they are seeking to become a part of.

Prior to the current claims of racial bias limiting racial minority students’ ability to successfully pass ASWB exams, it is important to note that the remnants of discrimination toward People-of-Color, dating back generations, are deeply rooted in almost all systems and structures in America, including but not limited to social work. For instance, scholars have highlighted the racial bias existing within the profession since its inception, proclaiming that the profession has, and continues to align with, “oppressive systems of injustice rooted in White supremacy, colonialism, and neoliberalism” (Tang Yan et al., 2022, 1670). Additionally, the attempts of social work’s own scholars to utilize their research and talents to add to the existing knowledge base, continue to be whitewashed; thwarted by suggestions and requests to “tone it down” (Wilson et al., 2023). And although there have been more concerted efforts in recent times to eliminate racial biases in the profession, these efforts have faced opposition as well; evidenced by the start of the Eliminate Racism Grand Challenge occurring 5 years after the birth of the other 12 grand challenges, due to the unsubstantiated belief that race and racism as topical areas would be infused throughout each of the other challenges (Teasley et al., 2021). Thus, this example while undoubtedly one of many, highlights the stark reality that we as a profession continue to have much work to do in our efforts to eliminate racism.

As we consider the role of ASWB in social work licensure regulation, and current efforts to eliminate racism (i.e., the creation of a new grand challenge), we are forced to contend with the fact that the current struggles are nothing new. When compared to their wealthy White counterparts, for decades “racially minoritized students have been historically denied the opportunities to develop skills and knowledge that are critical for college (and beyond)” (Estefan et al., 2023). And although some individuals do work harder than others to be successful, social work has been criticized for maintaining oppression and inequality via the adoption of bootstrap ideologies (Wood & Tully, 2006); assigning personal blame and the failure of individuals as the root causes of their own systemic and structural challenges (Adams et al., 2002; Mattsson, 2014; Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). Not only are these ideologies used to assess the personal and professional plights racial minority individuals encounter each day, they often extend to encompass educational experiences, including but not limited to the acquisition of professional licensure.

As an alternative to the adoption of bootstraps ideologies and other harmful stereotypical views which work to continually oppress our most vulnerable societal members, structural social work has been used to empower and promote a collective understanding of the struggles minority individuals continue to face in a racist society (Gillispie-Bell, 2021; Wood & Tully, 2006). Structural social work “is based on a critical analysis of the social, economic, and political context, and promotes a restructuring of the social structures that exploit and dehumanize people“ (Lundy, 2004, p. 67). For instance, a prime example of exploitative structures can be seen in studies of Black versus White students. Black students possessing higher levels of education (e.g., advanced degrees), have been found to achieve positive outcomes in various domains (e.g., academic and social) at rates much lower than their poorer, less educated, white counterparts (Avery et al., 2018; Holmes, 2020; Kang et al., 2016). While these occurrences could – and often are – seen as reduced levels of personal effort put forth by Black group members, the consistent reflection in positive correlations between one’s White race and positive outcomes in various domains, despite possessing fewer economic and educational resources, appears to be much more than happenstance, and for those who wish to do the math, simply does not “add-up.”

Revisiting ethical mandates

While structural social work calls upon scholars and leaders to examine, deconstruct, and reconstruct inequitable systems and structures, as social workers it is also our ethical duty to carry out each of the aforementioned tasks (Wood & Tully, 2006). Extending far beyond ASWB’s role as owner, creator, and sole controller of social work licensing exams, a structural social work approach requires us to intricately consider and explore the ways in which our own profession may actually be responsible for the oppression and traumatization of its own workforce. And although ASWB maintains its stance that exams are not biased, studies of its sample test did in fact identify “multiple instances of racial microaggressions in exam items such as assuming the social worker is White, specifying race unnecessarily for people who are not White, and relying on cultural stereotypes in assessing cultural competency” (DeCarlo, 2022, p. 255). These findings explicitly contradict ASWB’s claims of objectivity in exams. Perhaps inadvertently, requiring test takers of color to adopt self-deprecating, stereotypical, limiting views, albeit temporarily, to pass an ASWB licensure exam, is in direct violation of our ethical responsibilities to engage in culturally competent social work practice and to do no harm (NASW, 2017, 2021).

Furthermore, requiring test takers of color to intentionally engage in harmful practices for the purposes of an exam contradicts the antiracist stance adopted by the profession, as well as the larger goal of the Eliminate Racism Grand Challenge (Teasley et al., 2021). Thus, at a basic yet integral level, structural social work requires participants of the profession to critically reflect on the ethical standards that lay its foundation. Minimally then, this should encompass an eradication of “ASWB’s withholding of valuable information and data, at the expense of clients, exam-takers, and other stakeholders” (Woodcock, 2016, p. 18). Additionally, stakeholders of the profession must hold themselves accountable for ensuring ethical treatment is provided not only to those they serve as clients but also to the next generation of practitioners looking to them as role models for what they would also like to do, as well as who they would like to be. It is our hope then, that stakeholders of the profession will begin to take this role as advocates much more seriously.

Data discrepancies

Despite the release of data, there remains a clear lack of transparency in the published results. Although potential explanations for racial disparities in exam pass rates may identify structural issues as a root cause, it is likely that many more explanations will perhaps inadvertently, adopt seeming “bootstraps ideologies” in their conceptualization and explanations of the barriers preventing a more equitable acquisition of licensure in racially minoritized populations. Furthermore, studies claiming to utilize “nationally representative samples” to gather data and present claims (e.g., Kim, 2022) use data sets such as the Current Population Survey (CPS) which has traditionally excluded select groups of respondents from data collection, evidenced by the Department of Commerce and Census Bureau’s (2022) own admission and open comments concerning undercounts (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022), which ultimately then increases the likelihood that previous explanations and conclusions of problem areas are inaccurate. Thus, the use of inaccurate data sets to present claims in the field of social work and beyond, possesses the propensity to facilitate and maintain deleterious impacts on test-takers of color when considering the historic implications of census undercounts in communities of color and other groups. Furthermore, the “rather extreme” withholding of exam information (Woodcock, 2016, p. 12), including the refusal of ASWB to provide specific demographic data (e.g., geographic region, a disaggregation of data from within racial groups), hinders the profession’s collective ability to explore, and address, inherent challenges faced by test-takers of complex racial and other intersectional identities. Without increased data equity and transparency, the profession’s actions may appear race neutral. However, they possess the propensity to create harmful consequences on the workforce through perpetual moral injuries that may contribute to impairment of social workers, in direct contradiction to our ethical directive to “not present to work impaired” (NASW, 2017).

Relatedly, a variety of leaders in the social work profession, such as the AASWSW, have discussed the importance of open data access to ensuring data equity along with necessary protections and privacy safeguards, in the Grand Challenges for Social Work and Society (2018, 2022). Ultimately then, “ending racial disparities in social work licensure is only possible if ASWB collects, analyzes, and shares equity data with the community” (DeCarlo, 2022, p. 32). However, ASWB seems to be replicating and perpetuating the same harmful practices that the social work code of ethics aims to combat, and social work leaders consistently warn against. While the academy (American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare AASWSW, 2022) continues to move in the direction of working to create change, by publishing recent calls for proposals to “Go Grander,” the profession’s accrediting body seems to be working against our own codes, through furthering discriminatory practices that continue to create detrimental impacts on people-of-color attempting to enter and/or participate in social work’s [aging] workforce.

Literature review: barriers to licensure

Despite individuals’ best efforts to control most areas of their lives, unexpected interruptions in one’s environment maintain the potential to impact health, functioning, well-being, and overall quality of life, evidenced by Healthy People 2030 (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion ODPHP, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). These environmental conditions, referred to collectively as Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) are grouped into five domains: 1) economic stability, 2) education access and quality, 3) health-care access and quality, 4) neighborhood and built environment, and 5) social and community context. Given the racism, discrimination, and related harms minority individuals are forced to endure in multiple areas of their lives (Holmes, 2020; Holmes et al., 2016; Kessler et al., 1999; Mccluney et al., 2017; Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2014), we believe that the SDOH can be beneficial in assisting the social work profession in thoroughly understanding and exploring many of the obstacles faced by existing and emerging racial minority social workers.

Social determinants of health

SDOH #1: economic stability

A brief review of labor trends in America quickly reveals a startling trajectory of oppression and inhumane mobility shifts for Black workers. From: 1) enslaved individuals, 2) sharecroppers, 3) domestic laborers, and 4) industrial workers, to 5) non-industrial workers, an overwhelming majority of Blacks in America have had little real opportunity to advance in economic status individually, let alone be able to generate communal and/or generational wealth (Baker, 2022; Span, 2022; Trotter, 2007; Wood, 2022). Furthermore, mass incarceration, prison labor, and the governments continued profit off of the forced and uncompensated labor of Black and Brown bodies inhibits the mobility of families “on the inside” while those “on the outside” experience racism and discrimination even in the initial stages of application completion (e.g., algorithms removing “less qualified” candidates, ethnic-sounding names being less likely to receive a callback). To add insult to injury, some businesses continue to utilize background checks and other “screenings” to intentionally eliminate applicants of color from candidate pools, further hindering their efforts to achieve economic stability (Ahmed et al., 2023; Kim, 2022; Wood, 2022). Additionally, despite antiracist recommendations to enact masked-hiring practices to advance equitable hiring of racially diverse candidates, these processes continue to be used inconsistently at best (Kumar, 2018). Given these realities, it can be easy to understand why some individuals might choose to obtain a college degree to improve their economic outcomes.

While possessing a college degree has the potential to yield substantial economic benefit over the duration of one’s lifetime as compared to those having no college degree, students tend to be poorest during their college years (Abel & Deitz, 2019). Though some students come from economically stable families with an abundance of resources to go around, Black and Brown students possess an increased likelihood of being low-income, first-generation, and/or working-class, struggling to make ends meet (Estefan et al., 2023). This has myriad implications on their ability to successfully navigate social work programs and the licensure process. For instance, students with limited resources are less likely to afford the rising cost of living, which impacts their ability to attend school, forcing them to work while being students, to make ends meet. During students’ social work programs, they are required to work in field placements that are generally unpaid, in addition to the positions they may hold elsewhere to pay their bills. After their social work programs, post-MSW students seeking clinical licensure are forced to accrue thousands of hours of supervised clinical experience in order to fulfill licensure requirements (ASWB, 2021) which can be a great burden on all students but especially those that may 1) work full time, 2) have parental responsibilities, 3) lack transportation, or 4) be unable to locate a placement in their communities to complete the required hours.

Expanding upon licensure requirements and bearing in mind that a majority of students are poorest during the college years, the literal and figurative costs of a licensing examination can be daunting (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020). Furthermore, as emerging test takers become privy to the exam pass rates of Whites as compared to others, racial minority students may be less likely to embark upon taking such a large financial risk, rendering them unable to use their social work degree to obtain the career they have sacrificed so much to obtain. Thus, an inability of racial minority graduates to utilize their social work degree to secure a position in the field not only reduces their ability to participate in the U.S. workforce but it also places them in debt if they are unable to earn funds to payback student loans they may have acquired to fund their education, ultimately increasing their likelihood of needing federal and/or state assistance to make ends meet.

SDOH #2: education access & quality

Social work programs are generally less accessible to students of color, with many programs possessing fewer numbers of racial minority students, as compared to Whites (Beadlescomb, 2019). Furthermore, the presence of a criminal record may hinder students’ ability to enter programs, access field education sites, and/or become licensed, reducing an already lower population of racially diverse social work scholars. In the aftermath of COVID-19, increasing numbers of programs continue to be offered online. For online programs however, there remains disproportionate access to technology, with communities of color falling at the “less fortunate end” of the technological continuum. Our code of ethics and technology standards (1.05; NASW, 2021) emphasize the considerations of these gaps for clients, but there should also be professional considerations regarding intersectionality, bearing in mind the increased likelihood of racial minority students and professionals not only serving but also being a member of these vulnerable populations.

Social work programs generally require students to complete field placement hours pre-graduation. While recent changes have been enacted to allow more students to use their places of employment to fulfill their field placement obligations, this only applies to students who hold employment in a related role, requiring most students to meet field placement requirements at locations other than their place of employment, during hours outside of any paid positions they hold. Interestingly, a study gauging social work field supervisor perspectives on licensing revealed not only that supervisors could benefit from being provided additional information surrounding exam content but also a lack of respondents viewing the field experience as directly relevant to licensing requirements (Miller et al., 2017). And although field supervisors generally possess a social work license, scholars continue to highlight the reality that many faculty members of social work programs do not possess a social work license (Cherry et al., 1989; Miller et al., 2022). This, however, may be particularly problematic for racial minority test takers who are unable to obtain licensure exam preparation outside of support provided by program instructors who may themselves be unfamiliar with exam content.

Armed with all these barriers and potential obstacles in social work education and licensure, it may come as no surprise that a majority of minority social work students elect to obtain a macro specialization (Apgar, 2020). Perhaps, as Apgar suggests, these students not only see the structural inequalities impacting communities and students of color but also wish to be a part of helping create change (2020). However, while macrosocial work is necessary and vital for all social workers to embrace regardless of distinction, selecting the area as a specialization may prevent students from being able to acquire additional clinical skills, potentially hindering students’ efforts to become clinically licensed in the future.

SDOH #3: health care access & quality

An adequate workforce unburdened by its own professional regulatory agency is as important to the functioning of a healthy nation’s workforce as it is to social work’s own workforce. The workforce goal for Healthy People 2030 is to “strengthen the workforce by promoting health and well-being” (ODPHP, n.d.-b). As we consider the larger goals encapsulated within this social determinant of health, it is imperative that we also highlight the various ways test-takers may be impacted, including personal and professional implications. Personally, racial minority group members are forced to navigate racism and discrimination on a continual basis, increasing their risk of mental health issues (National Council for Mental Wellbeing, 2023). While mental health has increasingly become less stigmatized post-COVID onset, racial minority group members have historically held mistrust for health-care systems and related entities due to decades of medical exploitation and neglect (i.e., Tuskegee syphilis study and Henrietta Lacks) as compared to the ways Whites have historically been medically treated (Baker, 2011; Backus, et al., 1973; Baptiste et al., 2022; Boffa et al., 2021).

Mistrust of healthcare systems could potentially explain the reduced rates of minority social workers in the healthcare system (Salsberg et al., 2018). Furthermore, mistrust of healthcare systems could potentially: 1) reduce the numbers of minority students seeking placements in healthcare settings, 2) increase the numbers of students placed in government agencies and non-clinical settings, and 3) reduce the numbers of students interested in pursuing licensure, given their positionality and familiarity in non-clinical settings. Ultimately, racial minority students are in a vulnerable, complex, dual position as follows: 1) members of marginalized groups at increased risk of experiencing issues requiring healthcare, and 2) emerging professionals that may eventually become the providers of services to vulnerable populations in the healthcare setting.

SDOH #4: neighborhood & built environment

This social determinant of health encompasses multiple aspects of one’s environment. It can include 1) the racial composition of a community, 2) poverty levels, 3) perceived levels of safety and support, and 4) objective features such as enhancements to the built environment. The built environment of neighborhoods can vary, however disparities in health can be impacted by the objective features of one’s neighborhood (Sallis et al., 2009). For example, communities with high rates of poverty and/or limited resources typically have fewer sidewalks and safe walking trails coupled with higher rates of crime. This reduces the likelihood of residents engaging in physical activity outdoors, which places them at increased risk of obesity and other health issues. Similarly, communities with fewer resources often have higher rates of crime and generally have fewer business located in the area (a consequence of theft and/or sustainability), which impacts the food options in the community, again increasing the likelihood of obesity and other health issues. According to the World Health Organization, health refers to complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and is not defined solely by the absence of disease (Huber et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2019). Therefore, it is not just about the absence of negative issues but also the presence of positive conditions in this domain. Studies have also shown that subjective neighborhood supports (e.g., perceived safety and social networks) play a large role in mental health, while objective neighborhood supports (e.g., walking trails and bus lines) greatly impact physical and social health (Zhang et al., 2019).

Racial minority test takers reside in various geographic regions with each area possessing their own strengths and weaknesses. Those who identify as low-income and reside in communities with high need and limited resources are at increased risk of being negatively impacted by these challenges. Furthermore, their community and thus, its residents, are likely to experience distress. For instance, increased numbers of vulnerable and/or dependent members in a community generally reduce its levels of educational attainment. This results in decreased access to stable job opportunities, leading to increased rates of poverty. Housing issues, whether in the form of access or availability, also cause challenges. Declining infrastructure leads to increased levels of distress resulting in population declines and a shrinking tax base. A shrinking tax base can result in rising tax rates for residents as well as inadequate city services which again, leads to distress and higher rates of crime and other negative issues in the community. As shared, issues in this determinant tend to be highly contextual, yet cyclical and quite detrimental to a collective community and its individual residents.

SDOH #5: social & community context

It has been suggested that students choosing social work as a career come from families that have struggled with psychosocial trauma (Kim, 2022; Rompf & Royse, 1994). While this may be the case for some, we must remember that historical trauma has impacted communities of color for generations. Furthermore, increased rates of police brutality, evidenced by numerous murders of unarmed Black and Brown individuals, undoubtedly adds to the trauma faced by racial minority individuals, including test takers of color (Holmes, 2020). Thus, in addition to the challenges students face in completing their academic requirements, they must also contend with 1) racism, 2) discrimination, 3) murders of their unarmed friends, family, community, and/or group members, 4) familial responsibilities, 5) self-care, and 5) navigating unexpected challenges that might arise. All these responsibilities impact the ability of students to successfully fulfill the requirements of their degree programs and licensure requirements. Thus, it seems safe to assume that the social work profession as compared to all others, should be sensitive to the multidimensional struggles faced by our very own scholars and/or workforce.

Bringing the determinants together

Although the social determinants of health play large roles in the lives of all individuals (ODPHP, n.d.-b), the precise compilation or interplay of the five domains in an individual’s life can vary. While individual life circumstances and needs of test-takers of color may vary, the lack of data transparency provided by ASWB hinders our profession’s collective ability to support racially diverse test takers. In this next section, we highlight many of the complexities present both between – and within – groups of test-takers, all of which have the individual and intersectional ability to impact academic achievement.

An overview of intersectional theory

It has been suggested by scholars that mismatches between the views, values, and cultural norms of diverse students in comparison to the racist values of the American system of education, create structural disadvantages which hinder the ability of racial minority students to achieve positive outcomes (Estefan et al., 2023; Jack, 2019; Stuber, 2011). As a starting point in restructuring classist and racist systems and structures then, various fields including but not limited to social work, have adopted the use of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) “as an analytical approach … to understand both complex identities and how social structures affect people’s living conditions” (Mattsson, 2014, p. 10). Thus, the use of an intersectional lens to not only understand the multiple identities of diverse test takers but also explore the multiplicative structural inequalities expanding across various domains that impact their performance, is imperative (Davis, 2008; Mattsson, 2014; McCall, 2005).

While an intersectional analytical approach is used in social work and beyond, scholars have also identified additional types of approaches within intersectional analysis (e.g., inter-categorical, intra-categorical), which prove useful in facilitating a deeper exploration of differences within and between groups of people possessing intersectional identities (Mattsson, 2014; Mehrotra, 2010). For instance, the inter-categorical approach assists us in understanding the ways one’s social grouping is impacted by structural inequities as compared to other groups, while the intra-categorical approach focuses primarily on the diversity and multiple identities of individuals within groups (McCall, 2005). Given myriad challenges diverse students face, we utilize these intersectional analytical approaches to highlight and further explore these complexities.

Inter-categorical challenges between groups

Despite social work’s ethical obligations to challenge inequitable systems of oppression and enhance outcomes for our most vulnerable populations (NASW, 2017), scholars repeatedly challenge helping profession’s dedications to this goal (King et al., 2022; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Wood & Tully, 2006). For instance, the field of social work has been criticized for possessing an alternate dedication of upholding White privilege by continually diminishing the legitimacy and credibility of Black and Brown people, inequitably leveraging White scholars, and continually assigning “investment in whiteness” as a priority (Lauve-Moon et al., 2023; Mattsson, 2014; Wilson et al., 2023).

As previously discussed, racial minority individuals possessing higher levels of education have been shown to achieve lower outcomes (e.g., economic) than their poorer, less-educated, White counterparts. Furthermore, differences between groups of students have also been shown to impact their educational trajectories. For instance, a study exploring variations in college attendance trends by race, showed that Black students were more likely to enter into institutions of higher education and not finish, Hispanic students were less likely to enter institutions of higher education at all, and White students were more likely to enter, remain, and graduate from their respective degree programs (Merolla, 2018). Thus, racial groups possess differing circumstances, resources, and needs, all of which impact their ability to enter into college, remain enrolled in college, complete their degree programs, and take necessary steps post-degree (e.g., achieve licensure), to facilitate their continued success.

As highlighted, racially diverse test-takers possessed significantly lower pass rates on licensure examinations (ASWB, 2022). However, Black test-takers tended to have lower pass rates than individuals from all other races/ethnicities. While this data is quite alarming, the implications of racial bias hindering the achievements of students in the educational domain have the propensity to create challenges in multiple dimensions, not only the educational realm. Additionally, “persisting differences in educational outcomes between African American students and their White peers are important because they translate directly into social inequalities later in life, including future earnings, employment status, and incarceration rates” (Hartney & Flavin, 2014, p. 4). Thus, inequities in educational outcomes, including but not limited to licensure examinations and related program requirements, possess the ability to negatively impact not only test takers of color but their families, communities, and our entire society (Estefan et al., 2023).

Intra-categorical challenges within groups

Racial minority people, and the ways in which their identities and cultures have continually been commodified and expropriated, remains an area of contention in American society (Castile, 1996). While we recognize that the social construct of race has been adopted to classify individuals, it is important to highlight that the English conception of race, entangles the constructs of identity, ethnicity, and heritage (Schmidt, 2011).

Race, as it was defined by the English, clearly was perceived as differences in physical appearance (phenotypic variation) and had natural divisions within the human species. From this, arbitrary social meaning was applied to biophysical reality, and as such, was a reality created in the human mind with no actual connection to objective truth. Although fabricated as an existential reality out of a combination of recognizable physical differences, race came about through some incontrovertible social facts: the conquest of indigenous peoples, their domination and exploitation, and the importation of a controllable population from Africa to serve capitalistic needs of the dominant European society. (Schmidt, 2011, p. 2)

Nevertheless, ASWB has provided racial demographics of test takers in the exam pass rate data. Thus, we use the following section to highlight race-based challenges faced by racial minority test-takers.

Race

Black/African American

As previously stated, Black test takers possessed lower exam pass rates than all other groups. While Blacks are often viewed as a monolithic group, there are a variety of differences existing within this race. For instance, the Black bourgeoisie (Frazier, 1957) has been recognized as a distinct class of individuals possessing higher levels of income and education (Blackman, 2023). This group, as compared to Blacks of lower classes, have a very different set of experiences and thus, needs. Ultimately then, while Blacks from all classes and walks of life undoubtedly experience many of the same struggles (e.g., racism, discrimination), contextual realities of group members have the potential to vary among those identifying as Black/African American.

Hispanic/Latino

Similarly, the Hispanic/Latino population is also very diverse. It represents a multitude of cultural values, traditions, preferences, many of which are often taken for granted, and possess the ability to increase their likelihood of mental challenges and other quality-of-life issues (Mental Health America MHA, 2023b). Interestingly, the population of Hispanic Americans in the United States is currently so diverse that some health experts have suggested we “dismiss the accuracy of outcome data for Hispanic Americans, arguing that this population is too diverse to be analyzed as a single group” (Delgado, 2022, p. 504). Relatedly, the cultural norms of Hispanic test takers are likely so varied that a licensure exam designed to assess the competence of these individuals utilizing Westernized cultural standards is almost bound to result in biased exam scores.

Native Americans

Native American group members have been vehemently denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States. From their forced removal away from homelands, to attempts by the U.S. government to erase their culture, Native people continue to deal with the remnants of a stolen nation (Castile, 1996; Schmidt, 2011). For instance, “American Indians, unlike any other ethnic group, must continuously prove their identity” to gain protection, recognition, and governmental support (Schmidt, 2011, p. 1). Given the historical traumas and horrendous peril Native people have endured across generations, their increased likelihood of experiencing anxiety, depression, substance use, and suicide may come as no surprise (Mental Health America MHA, 2023c; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SAMHSA, 2019).

In addition to the mental health challenges faced by this population, they tend to achieve significantly lower educational outcomes as compared to other racial groups (Cech et al., 2017). Furthermore, while Native student’s hindered ability to achieve comparable educational outcomes may occur for myriad reasons, a primary challenge continues to be language barriers, with an excess of 300,000 Native people in the United States speaking a language other than English in their homes and other social settings at any given time (National Alliance on Mental Illness NAMI, 2023), and the American system of education being rooted in “the preeminence of English over other languages” (Estefan et al., 2023, p. 3). Amidst these challenges, and likely many others, completing a social work degree and attempting to become licensed may be quite difficult for this population.

Asians

Asian Americans represent a diverse group of scholars that must also be considered in our exploration of racially diverse populations. Despite the continued grouping of Asian individuals together (e.g., Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Bangladesh), they do not constitute a monolith, and must be respected for their vast differences (Yi et al., 2022). Each Asian group, and thus individual, presents a unique set of cultural norms, experiences, and needs. Additionally, Asian individuals are often labeled “model” minorities, given their increased likelihood of achieving higher than average academic outcomes as compared to those of other minority groups. Furthermore, Asian Americans have been falsely viewed as experiencing less discrimination and racism than other minority groups, placing them at risk for mental health and related challenges, particularly for those who are not able to live up to the societal stereotype that all Asians achieve higher-than-average levels of success (Mental Health America MHA, 2023a; Yi et al., 2022)

Gendered-race

As a reminder, Black test takers possessed lower exam pass rates than any other racial group, despite gender differences (ASWB, 2022). Furthermore, given that differences between genders more broadly are not new areas of contention and have the potential to vary significantly, we utilize the areas below to briefly highlight unique challenges faced by Black males and females, likely impacting their performance on licensure exams and beyond.

Black men

According to Davis et al. (2018), Black males are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated disproportionately (Paige, 2022), as compared to their White counterparts. Similar to intersectional theory (Crenshaw, 1989), Bush and Bush (2018), posit “race and racism coupled with classism and sexism have a profound impact on every aspect of the lives of African American boys and men” (2013, p.11) as one of six tenets of African American Male Theory. Additionally, beliefs regarding Black male privilege often become a point of contention when considering direct actions to decrease the enduring impacts of racism (Johnson, 2018). However, when examining issues surrounding material conditions, such as the intra-racial exam disparities, and college graduation rates, these same barriers seem to lack a strong, albeit necessary, presence.

Chetty et al. (2020) details the effects of place (i.e., built environment) on Black males, in comparison to other groups; whereby upward mobility from generation to generation occurs at lower rates and downward mobility occurs at rates much higher. For instance, when controlling for parental income, Black boys generally grow to become Black men possessing lower incomes than their White male counterparts, with this likelihood being reflected in 99% of census tracts (United States Census Bureau, 2019). Furthermore, although conventional rhetoric regarding downward mobility, and the Black-to-White income gap traditionally focuses on African Americans in general, it is important to note that this trend is “unique to Black males” as data reflected no differences in wages and employment rates between Black and White women (Chetty et al., 2020). Ultimately, the specific intersectional experiences of continued racism and discrimination against Black males are often misunderstood, yet highly detrimental to the successful progression of their lifelong mobility trajectories.

Black women

Black women, possessing intersectional identities, have historically been viewed as less valuable than their White counterparts (Crenshaw, 1989). For instance, White women have traditionally been seen as the norm, while women of color have been oppressed, marginalized, disrespected, discriminated against, and othered (Gerassi, 2020). Furthermore, Black women have been forced to play multiple roles and navigate various classifications placed upon them by external societal members, being rendered visible, invisible, and hyper-visible, all at the same time (Obasi, 2022).

Black women possess an amalgamation of historically oppressed identities, being part of the African American race, and identifying as female. Their bodies have been devalued for centuries, with gang rapes of Black women used as forms of “theatrical entertainment,” and their being viewed as “nothing more than chattel” in past and present times (Jalata, 2013; Robertson, 1996). They are typically seen as different, unordinary, and often become labeled masculine, difficult, or aggressive, particularly when resisting societal oppression, standing up for themselves, and utilizing their presence as power (Donnelly et al., 2005; Moody et al., 2023). Historically, Black women have been denied their right to womanhood, being labeled Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel, and other devaluing terms, designed to strip them of their sensuality and to perhaps, provide comfort for those seeking to violate and desecrate their minds, bodies, and souls (Robertson, 1996; Thomas et al., 2004).

As scholars, Black women are forced to navigate spaces where they may not always feel or be welcomed. They lack appropriate representation in institutions of higher education, as compared to their White counterparts, and remain in constant comparison to those around them. Black women are continually expected to overperform, while those around them are consistently allowed to [under]perform. Misconceptions that Black women have no issue with playing multiple, often strenuous roles (e.g., breadwinner and single parent) are stereotypically adopted and ascribed to Black women, increasing the pressure they already face as women and minorities in a racist society (Moody et al., 2023). Thus, all these realities can impact one’s life, and the lives of those around them, in myriad ways: This includes, but is not limited to, hindering their ability to pass a licensure examination.

LGBTQ

Individuals identifying as LGBTQ face myriad issues in multiple domains. From their increased risk and exposure to homophobic remarks, community violence, sexual assaults, hate crimes, etc., these group members experience increased rates of mental illness, leading to decreased rates of psychological safety and overall well-being (The Trevor Project, 2023). Enduring multiplicative hardships in various dimensions, LGBTQ individuals struggle to achieve educational outcomes, in comparison to other groups (The Mental Health Coalition, 2023; Truong et al., 2020). Possessing lower rates of college admission, reduced rates of retention, and a decreased likelihood of obtaining a college degree, these individuals are likely to struggle in achieving optimal outcomes before, during, and post-college, including during the process of licensure attainment (Truong et al., 2020).

Age

Age is an area of great vulnerability and potential challenge for the field of social work and beyond, as the workforce in all Western countries experiences an increasingly aging workforce, coupled with a declining population of young professionals entering a variety of fields (Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015; Lin et al., 2015; Toossi, 2012). Additionally, as the number of professionals entering fields with college degrees continues to rise, older workers, particularly those without college degrees, may be increasingly unable to obtain stable positions in the workforce without attending college (Brown et al., 2011). Furthermore, “the educational degrees that 30 years ago provided a stable position have lost their relative value as the overall educational level of the population has increased” (Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015, p. 84). According to ASWB data however, age appears to be negatively correlated with exam pass rates (ASWB, 2022). Furthermore, given ASWB’s seeming disinterest in exploring, and providing, additional demographical characteristics of aging test takers, it appears the profession more broadly may be satisfied with preventing emerging older (and younger) social work scholars from entering the field; a possibility which implicitly and explicitly contradicts our ethical responsibility to refrain from discrimination on the basis of age (NASW, 2017).

Intersectionality: concluding thoughts

Regardless of the categorical approach, a primary goal of utilizing an intersectional lens is to become aware of the complex interplay of identity experiences and needs of individuals from all walks of life. It is vital to consider these intersections, particularly within-group variations, when seeking to further understand the varied lived experiences of test-takers. Whether related to recruitment, schooling, exam preparation, or administration, it is integral to consider the ways in which these groups distinctions, identities, and demographical characteristics can potentially affect exam performance, and eventual licensure. Additionally, using an intersectional lens to reflect upon the inequalities that exist in the systems and structures of our society is a must. Thus, it remains integral to not only be intentional in creating space to acknowledge inequities that work to maintain an unjust societal hierarchy but to critically reflect upon precisely how ignoring and/or blatantly disregarding the tumultuous plights of individuals within each of the aforementioned groups works to continually privilege and prioritize the needs and experiences of White test takers over those of all others.

Materials and method

As previously stated, ASWB exam data were made publicly available as of Fall 2022. Given the role NASW plays in advancing the field of social work, creating professional standards, and furthering the growth and development of professionals nationwide, the association holds a unique position in “setting the tone” for the field. In addition to its national association, chapters exist in each of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, each of which are designed to advance the national mission while also addressing localized issues arising within their own jurisdictions. Being sensitive to the possibility that multiple, individualized jurisdictional responses might have existed, while also considering that responses would likely be succinct and extremely specific, it was vital to utilize a flexible data analysis method to conduct this qualitative study. Thus, we utilized content analysis, a flexible methodology used to “accommodate data that are, by nature, highly organized and contextualized” (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014, p. 341).

Data collection

Step (1) The NASW website was visited to obtain the national statement, prior to collecting state responses. A total of two statements were located, with posting dates of August 11, 2022, and February 3, 2023, respectively.

Step (2) Proceeding in alphabetical order, our search for state associations’ responses was initiated by visiting each state’s NASW chapters’ website in search of a response. Given the differences in states dashboards, it was necessary to utilize a variety of approaches to locate responses. Approaches included but were not limited to:

• Review of news stories, press releases, chapter highlights, advocacy tabs, directors’ notes, meeting minutes, newsletters (dated from August 2022 to June 2023).

• Utilizing sites’ search bars, entering the following keywords/phrases individually and collectively: ASWB exam, pass rates, racial bias, data release, licensing (broadly: filtered through licensure data to locate information specific to this issue).

If a response was located within the chapter site, the response was collected, and the state was marked as possessing a “chapter response.” If no response was located within the chapter site, the search proceeded to step 3.

Step (3) An Internet search was conducted individually for each state, utilizing the states’ name, along with the keywords (listed in step 2). Results were fielded, and unrelated content (e.g., advertisements and unofficial websites) was disregarded. If applicable content was obtained from official sources (e.g., state NASW chapters, regulatory boards), content was reviewed to locate responses. At this time, social media links were not visited. If responses were located, the response was collected. If responses were not located, the search proceeded to step 4.

Step (4) State associations’ official social media pages (i.e., Facebook & Twitter, respectively) were visited to locate a response. Posts dated from August 2022 to June 2023 were reviewed to locate responses. If a Facebook post was located, Twitter was not visited. However, Twitter was used to locate responses for states lacking a Facebook response. States with no responses collected at the completion of this step were marked as possessing “no response.” This concluded the data collection stage of our content analysis.

Data analysis

We began the process of data analysis by reviewing the national response posted by NASW, followed by a review of each state chapter’s response. To reiterate, responses that re-stated the national response were excluded from this process to avoid duplication. Responses were uploaded into LiGRE, a coding platform utilized for qualitative analysis. As responses were reviewed, memos were created by both authors individually to capture ideas, connections, and/or questions that emerged during the review process. Codes were created utilizing an inductive approach which included the use of open and axial coding techniques to analyze the data. Initial codes were agreed upon by both authors and used to code the first set (n = 5) of state responses, after which, existing codes were modified, and additional codes were created. Ultimately, a total of 24 codes were agreed upon by both authors and used to code the remaining 36 responses.

During the coding process, diagramming was used to capture relationships between codes and existing memos. Furthermore, both critical and iterative reflections were used throughout the analysis process to minimize the risk of personal biases influencing data analysis, thus enhancing the objectivity and validity of the findings (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014). Ultimately, state/locales’ responses were analyzed using inductive logic, rigorous coding techniques, memos, and diagrams, all of which assisted in bringing together ideas. Furthermore, the use of skilled reflection techniques served as an asset in helping process the data in a consistent, objective manner.

Results

Utilizing the data collection process described, state associations’ responses were gathered. Table 1 provides an overview of state associations’ responses.

Table 1. Overview of state responses.

Response Type:	Frequency (N = 54):	States:
Local NASW Chapters	n = 17	CA, DC, IL, IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, OH, RI, UT, VA, WA, WI
Facebook	n = 21	AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, KY, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WV
Twitter	n = 4	HI, LA, NM, NC
No response	n = 12	AL, DE, GA, Guam, ID, IA, MT, NE, OR, PR, Virgin Islands, WY

In the cases where states are reported to lack a response, it is important to note that a response may exist. However, the response was unable to be located using the data collection method described in this study. Furthermore, despite our inclusion of social media responses in the data collected, it is possible that these responses were not posted by authorized persons representing the organizations. While efforts have been made to utilize content created by state associations themselves, social media posts remain subject to interference by unauthorized parties.

In addition to the availability of state responses on social media platforms, we must be mindful of the limitations surrounding accessibility that social media posts present. For instance, students may not have the ability (e.g., time, familiarity, and resources) to locate responses that are not on the state associations’ websites. Thus, data that may indeed exist and be available, may not be transferable and/or available to those who need it most, which ultimately then, renders inaccessible data unavailable by some individuals. Nevertheless, despite the location from which data was obtained, there remained differences in types of responses (e.g., duplication of national statements, lack of responses altogether). Thus, a systematic process of review was used to sort responses into categories prior to further analysis. Table 2 provides a breakdown of response components.

Table 2. Breakdown of states responses.

Response Components:	Frequency (N = 42):	States:
Original statements -majority of statement (approx. 75%) is original content.	n = 17	CA, DC, IL, IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, NM, NC, OH, RI, TN, UT, VA, WI
Combined statements -majority of statement (approx. 75%) is adopted from national response.	n = 22	AL, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, HI, KY, LA, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NY, ND, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WV
Duplication of national response	n = 3*	NV, OK, WA

* Excluded from further data analysis to avoid duplication..

Despite the limited number of original state chapter’s responses, relationships between the codes/data were found to exist. The codes/groups listed in Table 3 emerge during the data analysis process, with explanations of associated codes following each description:

Table 3. Generalized response Codes/Groups.

Description of code groups:	Explanations of applicable codes:
Disparities in pass rates	Particular groups of test-takers (i.e., racially diverse, older, ESL) struggle with passing the ASWB exams.
A change in existing processes	Collaboration between entities (e.g., boards, associations) is needed to create change.
New approaches are needed	Innovative approaches are needed to reduce disparities.
NASW plays a role in protecting SWs	The association is responsible for the protection (e.g., reducing harm) of the field of SW, as well as professionals in the field.

It is important to note, however, that despite the identification of the above issues as being areas of concern, few states provided any recommendations and/or tentative action steps. Exceptions, however, were found to exist in the responses of some states/locales, as displayed in Table 4:

Table 4. State-specific response codes.

State:	Specific Codes:	Explanation of Code:
Illinois	Distinguishing men-of-color	Illinois explicitly acknowledges and addresses the barriers faced by men-of-color, a group which tends to be overlooked in conversations surrounding intersectional barriers.
Indiana	Individualizing approaches	Indiana highlights the importance of tailoring approaches, and ultimately solutions, to fit the unique needs of specific geographic locations, as well as populations. They remind us that one-size does not fit all!
Maryland	Addressing the digital divide	Maryland addresses, amongst several other things, the challenges faced by those possessing no/limited access to internet and/or technology. Given the [continued] existence of the digital divide, it is important to consider the large number of individuals that continue to lack accessibility to technology.
North Carolina	Failing to take ownership	North Carolina explicitly calls out ASWB for their lack of ownership and accountability for addressing barriers faced by particular groups of test-takers. They highlight ASWBs placing the blame for test performance on “marginalized communities” themselves.
District of Columbia	Incorporating individual insights	Washington- DC highlights the need to incorporate the unique voices, insights, and personalized experiences of those in the social work profession as we move forward in finding viable solutions.

Overall, state chapter’s responses were quite varied, with many states using a majority of the national associations’ statement(s) to create their responses (n = 22), some states crafting their own responses using a majority of original content (n = 17), a few states duplicating national responses verbatim (n = 3), and a number of states failing to respond altogether (n = 12). Thus, uniformity in state chapter’s responses is limited, and the collaboration between entities, called for within many statements, appears to be an area possessing vast opportunity for growth.

Limitations of this study

Given the issues test takers of color are facing in regard to passing ASWB exams, it would be useful to incorporate the voices and experiences of test takers into the findings of this study. However, our study does not obtain firsthand information from those impacted by the current issue. Thus, an inherent limitation of this study surrounds our use of publicly available responses posted by state associations. While a systematic process was used to locate state associations’ responses, it remains possible that some responses might be located in alternate areas, be inaccurate and/or posted by unaffiliated parties. Thus, responses utilized in the write-up of this study had to not only be available but accessible through publicly derived data.

Discussion

Perhaps now more than ever, the social work profession is at a crossroads. Although birth rates in the U.S. are decreasing (Kearney & Levine, 2023), the nation continues to grow in its population of racially diverse residents.

As the U.S. population becomes more socially diverse, the need for SWs will increase … The social work profession faces obstacles in preparing a sufficient workforce to meet this demand. (Lin et al., 2015, p. 7)

As the workforce ages, losing its members to death and/or retirement (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022), the number of social workers continues to shift. At the same time, ASWB licensure exams continue to hinder the ability of new [racially diverse] social work graduates to enter into the field (Apgar, 2022; Woodcock, 2016).

As state regulatory boards continue to be plagued by increasing numbers of racially diverse test-takers attempting to become licensed, and their efforts being consistently thwarted within their own jurisdictions, it is our hope that more states will act. Thus, the authors of this work have created a set of advocacy practice guidelines (see appendix), to assist in the precipitation of change efforts. Given the inconsistencies observed in states’ responses to the release of exam pass rate data, it is vital that states and other parties interested in helping to create change become involved in efforts designed to challenge oppressive systems. By advocating for scholars rendered invisible, or more specifically test takers of color, advocates can achieve multiple goals such as: 1) increasing public awareness regarding licensure issues and the supports needed by emerging clinicians desiring to become licensed, and participate in the profession, 2) increasing the ability of individuals and groups to support and encourage changes in existing licensure procedures, and 3) increase the ability of test takers to advocate for themselves, while simultaneously learning how to use advocacy as a tool for future work.

Recommendations for future research

Rather we base our assumptions on for instance, the evidence obtained through the conducting of this study, or simply rely on ASWB’s own data released, it is evident that the continuation of existing licensure protocols and procedures will consistently yield inequitable results for test takers of color. Furthermore, these impacts will continue to hinder not only test taker’s abilities to become licensed but potentially the profession’s ability to sustain itself in the future, as the demand for diverse social workers increasingly grows. Although a vast majority of NASW state chapters have both acknowledged the need for change and declared their intent to be part of that change, it remains the case that only a handful of states have acted on this desire. Future research should be conducted to explore whether or not any modifications made to the licensure processes and procedures in local jurisdictions are positively impacting test takers within those geographic regions. Additionally, advocating for – and with – test-takers serves as a foundational step that individuals and groups can become involved in, to assist in the enactment of change efforts. As advocates utilize tools such as the advocacy practice guidelines (appendix) to jump-start their own efforts, it will be beneficial for future studies to explore precisely how those with limited advocacy experience and exposure are contributing to this cause.

Given the multiplicative hardships faced by racially diverse individuals, including but not limited to test-takers of color, more must be done to assist them in their educational and professional pursuits. We call upon ASWB to abandon their business-as-usual stance as it relates to existing licensing examinations and procedures, in hopes that they will choose to play a role in salvaging the very future of the social work profession. As a preliminary step, perhaps ASWB should also follow recommendations suggested by the National Association of Deans and Directors (NADD) and consider reparations for test takers of color who fail the exam, including but not limited to reimbursement for testing fees paid to ASWB. With that being said however, lasting change will need to extend far beyond a reimbursement of fees and/or reparations and will instead require either extensive modifications to existing exams and/or eradication of utilizing racially biased exams altogether. Ultimately, a united effort between individuals, groups, NASW state chapters, and existing advocacy initiatives (e.g., #stopaswb) will be required to someday create the changes test takers of color need to succeed in the field of social work (and beyond).

Conclusion

As stated, this work provides stakeholders of the social work profession a preliminary glance into many of the issues currently surrounding exam disparities. While other efforts and/or organizations are likely working behind the scenes to address some of the issues highlighted in the current study, it proves difficult to highlight responses that are not available and accessible to the public. While NASW’s expansive reach undoubtedly increases its ability to enact change on a broader scale, it remains vital for those in the social work profession and beyond to engage in advocacy efforts regarding licensure and other issues impacting both the profession, and the overall health and wellbeing of our nation. This work serves as a call-to-action for each of us to use our own voices to become involved.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

Introduction to Advocacy Practice Guidelines

What is Advocacy?

Advocacy is described as active support for a specific cause or position: Advocates are individuals engaged in activities in support of- or acting on behalf of- another individual (Mosley et al., 2023; Scourfield, 2021). Advocacy influences the rule making of administrative agencies (Albert, 1983).

The purpose of the guidelines is to

• Provide an introductory understanding of advocacy and its use as a practice tool.

• Provide a basic level of awareness of the tasks involved in advocacy efforts.

• Introduce advocates to activities that can be used in advocacy efforts.

• Offer insights into the outcomes one might expect from engaging in advocacy tasks.

How to utilize this tool

Advocacy efforts should be created and implemented according to the specific needs and/or goals defined by advocates and directly impacted individuals. While no one tool can be created to meet the unique needs of each person/party engaging in advocacy efforts, these guidelines are intended to serve as a baseline to assist in the development of individualized advocacy approaches. Tasks associated with advocacy are generally divided into five categories, with each category having specific skills that accompany each task (Wood & Tully, 2006).

Categories include 1) identifying the problem, 2) identifying those impacted by the problem, 3) deconstructing the problem, 4) advising those affected, and 5) intervening. Thus, content originally produced by Wood and Tully (2006) has been adapted to create the Advocacy Practice Guidelines.

Advocacy Practice Guidelines

Advocacy tasks and related content originally produced by Wood and Tully (2006) have been adapted for use in creating these guidelines. The elucidation of advocacy tasks includes the following:

• Brief descriptions of each task;

• Guiding questions to facilitate deeper insights regarding each task;

• Examples of advocacy activities that correspond with the goals of each task;

• Outcomes that might follow successful engagement in activities of each task.

Task I: Identifying the problem. This skill involves examining patterns and concluding what the primary problem appears to be.

Note: While the differences in exam pass rates for test-takers of color are the overarching issue we tackle in this current work, the “problem” can be defined differently (e.g., exams should be eliminated, content should be modified, exams should be offered in various languages, test-time should be extended). Thus, each advocate protocol should tailor their approach to address their specific advocacy needs.

• Given my current understanding of the issue, what seems to be the problem at hand?

• Advocates can craft a problem-statement to develop their own definition of the issue.

• Accomplishing this task will result in better understanding of the problem and the ability to pivot your problem as more information becomes available.

Task II: Identifying those impacted. This skill involves surveying the problem landscape through the eyes of the impacted individuals and/or community.

Note: Before proceeding, it is important to distinguish your role and identify those you seek to support with your efforts. The following model can be used to guide you in this step:

Table

Quadrant A: I am a test-taker advocating on behalf of myself.	Quadrant B: I am a test-taker advocating on behalf of other test-takers.
Quadrant C: I am a social work leader/regulator advocating on behalf of test-takers.	Quadrant D: I am a leader or constituent outside of social work, advocating on behalf of test-takers.

• What is my relationship to those I seek to assist and what limitations might exist in the way I currently view the problem?

• Advocates can locate existing individual/groups (e.g., #stopaswb) to gain a better understanding of the issue, and how they support existing efforts?

• Accomplishing this task will assist the advocate in realizing their own positionality in relation to those most impacted. It will also assist in aligning with like-minded individuals and groups to strengthen collective advocacy efforts.

Task III: Deconstructing the problem. This skill involves examining narratives (e.g., personal stories/experiences of those impacted) in relation to the problem, while also considering who benefits from maintaining the status quo (i.e., keeping things the same).

• How is the problem understood by those I seek to assist?

• Advocates can connect with individuals personally affected by the problem to gain an intimate look inside the issue and its impacts.

• Accomplishing this task will assist in understanding different aspects of the problem that increase the complexity of the issue. It will also assist the advocate better understand what skills they already possess to assist in solving aspects of the problem.

Task IV: Advising those affected. This skill defines strategies for change, exploring possible outcomes, and checking for consent.

• What are the needs of those waiting for change?

• Advocates can reach out to existing groups (e.g., #stopawsb) to inquire about how they can support those they seeking to assist while no changes are happening?

• Accomplishing this task can result in a better rapport and greater alignment with impacted individuals and groups organized to address the problem.

Tasks V: Intervening. To engage in activity to prevent a cause of action from happening and/or getting worse. Intervening also includes various components:

a. Consciousness raising. Occurs through creating awareness of the issue(s).

• Who is currently aware of the problem, who does not seem to be aware of the problem, what information needs to be provided to these individuals, and why?

• Advocates can partner with existing groups to help spread the word regarding the current issue(s) and its impacts.

• This results in better informed stakeholders and increased awareness.

b. Arguing. A form of persuasion and hinges upon presenting evidence that counters the narratives of the opposing party. This method typically involves controlled confrontations and the use of logic.

• What is the opposing party’s stance on the issue, and what evidence do I have to contradict the validity of their stance?

• Advocates can become involved in the efforts of existing groups (e.g., #stopaswb) to communicate their stance to the opposing party.

• This results in increased knowledge and awareness of information that counters the preexisting dominant narrative.

c. Balancing power. Refers to ensuring underserved groups obtain power equal to the target group

• Who currently holds most of the authority (e.g., decision-making power) pertaining to this issue, and what is the ideal distribution of power?

• Advocates can become involved in the efforts of existing groups (e.g., #stopaswb) to fight for an equitable re-distribution of power?

• This results in a more equitable and diverse landscape.

d. Bargaining. Refers to negotiating to reach an agreement between parties

• What is the current state of the problem, and what is the desired outcome?

• Advocates can reach out to existing groups to learn more about (past/present) negotiations and bargaining tools that might be useful in rectifying the issue?

• This results in the possibility of operating on more common ground within the agreement.

e. Persuading/lobbying. Prompting those in power to make concessions based on the needs of underserved communities but also appeals to the values and interests of those in power

• Who holds the power to negotiate for change if the opposing party refuses to make adjustments/changes?

• Explore ways to contact local politicians in your own jurisdiction to express your views regarding the issues you seek to change.

  • Visit Commoncause.org and enter your address to find the contact information for your elected representatives from the federal down to the county level;

  • Visit your municipality/city website to learn more about your local government and obtain their contact information.

• Success here is through concessions, but there is also knowledge gained from the advocate gaining a better understanding of their oppositions’ values and interest that may be used in other advocacy efforts as well.