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

Figures & data

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

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..

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.

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.

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.