Setting Up and Maintaining an Interjurisdictional Registry Troy Elliott Association of Social Work Boards Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual Conference September 15-17 Phoenix,
Dec 22, 2015
Setting Up and Maintaining an Interjurisdictional Registry
Troy ElliottAssociation of Social Work Boards
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Who We Are
ASWB is the organization of the social work regulatory boards in 49 states, Washington, D.C., the Virgin Islands, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan
• Mission is consumer protection• Primary responsibility – social work licensing exams (about
25,000 administrations annually)• Other services include disciplinary databases, continuing
education provider approval, social work registry, licensure application processing
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
The problem
Individual regulatory board requirements make it difficult for social workers licensed in one jurisdiction to become licensed in another jurisdiction.
The public suffers when qualified social workers are not accessible
Support for regulation among the
professionals begins to suffer
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Possible solutions
We weren’t altering the time-space continuum here. Lots of things have been/are being tried – plenty of models out there.
•Fast endorsement
•Compacts
•Reciprocity agreements
For us, endorsement model was the best fit.
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
The big idea
Establish a repository for primary source information relevant to social work licensure, and a create a verification acceptance process that will be quickly and easily adopted by member regulatory boards.
Then lunch.
After lunch—this whole Iraq thing.
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
What we had going for us
Some infrastructure in place:
•Database of examination candidates
•Disciplinary databank already in place
•Examination information already in place
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
What we had going for us
A record of service to members
•Disciplinary databank and HIPDB reporting system in place
•Score transfer program in place
•Examination program widely used—high degree of satisfaction
•Continuing education provider approval program growing
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
What we had going for us
Connection to potential customers
•Some visibility with candidates
•“Capture” of some data already happening (exam scores, disciplinary actions)
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Challenges we anticipated – more or less
•Cost – programming, education, marketing, staff
•Social work’s “non binary” licensure structure (levels of licensure based on education, length of post degree experience, and type of experience)
•Slow growth
•Need for repository to (potentially) hold more than just primary-sourced, verifiable licensure-related information
•Resistance to change
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
What we didn’t count on
•The degree to which we didn’t understand board operations
•The degree to which some boards didn’t understand board operations
•Labor-intensiveness
•Degree of social worker familiarity with licensure process
•Resistance to change
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Timeline, 2002
March – August 2002: Preliminary staff planning
Boards surveyed
Sample record summary developed
Software and hardware needs
Research other professions (FSMB, NCARB, etc.)
September 2002: Focus group with 9 board administrators
October 2002: Refinements based on focus group
November 2002: focus group with 5 board administrators
December 2002: continued research with FSMB credential program
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Timeline, 2003
February 2003: Focus groups—12 MSW students VCU; 5 MSW students UNC Chapel Hill; 12 BSW students UNC Pembroke
March 2003: Focus group with 4 practicing licensed social workers
March – August 2003: Database development; cost analysis
September 2003: Registry director hired
October 2003: Pilot program begun in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, North Dakota
Marketing efforts begun—letters mailed to dept. heads in schools of social work in pilot states; passing candidates
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Timeline, 2004
November 2003 – March 2004: Marketing continues – brochure developed, website content created, mailings to ASWB volunteers, schools of social work
March 15, 2004: Registry program debuts nationally
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Where do we stand now?
As of August 1, 2005
•798 requests for applications received
•232 paid applications
•105 transfers (85 in/to MA)
•Annual Fees: $60; $35 students; $30 MA applicants
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Is it a success?
Not yet.
“Buy in” from regulatory boards slow
“Critical mass” of registrants not yet reached
Chicken-and-egg - A large number of registrants, lots of transfers are needed to demonstrate benefits to boards and get buy-in; social workers are reluctant to pay for a service that doesn’t have broad participation from jurisdictions.
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Board buy-in
What’s the problem?•Identifying the decision-makers
•Decision-makers “distance” from ASWB
•Varying interpretations of what is “required”
•Mechanism for dealing with summary document
•Suspicion
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Registrant buy-in
What’s the problem?•Comfort with/knowledge of marketing
•Learning curve for new social workers – do they know they need us?
•Identifying our opportunities
•Harder to sell to longtime social workers – the ones who best understand how we could help
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
If we had to do it all again…
Would we? Probably. But with some changes.
•Pilot program kind of useless
•More investment in marketing; more involvement in marketing up front
•Earlier cost analyses
•Better understanding of individual board operations/personalities (personal
visits?)
•Contracts with regulatory boards
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
If we had to do it all again…
On the other hand, some things are working
•Database well-designed, integrates easily with existing resources
•Exam registration program a crucial link to customers
•Application review contracts very beneficial
•Pricing does not seem to be prohibitive
•Direct mail marketing returns acceptable
•Customer satisfaction high
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
Wanna try it yourself?
First, ask yourself a few questions
•Would the program support your core mission?
•Is there another organization better suited?
•How long can the program be subsidized? Is there an expectation that the program would break even/produce revenue over expenditures?
•What kind of exit strategy exists?
•Are there ways for the program to expand in the future?
•Do you have a clear understanding of member board workings?
•What kind of relationship do you have with your member boards currently? Would this program put those relationships at risk?
•How will document storage be handled?
•How many people will be needed to operate the system? Do you have the space?
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
PoliticalKnow board operations
Know decision-makers
“Well-educated” membership
High name recognition
Strong track record
Perceived need among members
Supportive organizational leadership
Funds to devote to outreach
TechnicalDatabase capabilities
Adequate hardware
Ability to handle credit card transactions
Reliable programmer
Document storage capabilities
Funds to devote to additional staff
CommercialComfort with marketing
Marketing capabilities
Knowledge of most promising markets
Name recognition
Perceived need
‘Well educated” potential customers
Multiple ways of accessing potential customers
Funds to devote to marketing
Next, take an honest look at your strengths and weaknesses in at least three core areas:
Do your strengths at least balance out your weaknesses?
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
Finally, choose an inspirational quote. Print up t-shirts for your project team.
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
-Attributed to Steven Wright
Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 15-17 Phoenix, Arizona
For more information
Troy Elliott, Communications Director
Association of Social Work Boards
(800) 225-6880
(540) 829-0142 (fax)
www.aswb.org