Sanctioning Patterns of Social Work Licensing Boards, 2000–2009

Abstract

This article reports the results of a national study of social workers in the United States sanctioned by their state regulatory boards (N = 2,607) during the period [2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009]. The purpose of this study was to identify the most frequent types of unprofessional conduct and common sanctioning patterns across state licensing boards. The highest incidences were found for unprofessional conduct including licensing-related problems (e.g., continuing education, working on a lapsed license); dual relationships; crimes; basic practice (e.g., record keeping, informed consent, and confidentiality); professionals practicing while impaired (e.g., alcohol, drugs, mental illness); and services below the standards of care. Revocation and license surrender were the most frequent types of sanctions followed by suspensions, letters of warning, or admonishment. Relevancies to education, training, and supervision are made and directions for future research are suggested.Discussions about social work practice standards and risk management are incomplete unless they include information about the reasons that social workers are sanctioned by regulatory boards, which is vital to identifying practice-related challenges. Discussion regarding unprofessional behaviors of social workers and sanctioning patterns of state regulatory boards can serve to enrich and improve the educating and training of social workers, supervisors, and administrators. Practicerelated risk assessments are incomplete if research about ethics, malpractice, and licensing sanctions is not considered. In this article we review previous reports concerning regulation and sanctioning patterns in social work. Then research protocols and results from a national study examining a decade of sanctions against social workers are presented. Directions for future research are also discussed. LITERATURE REVIEWThe first social work licensing laws were passed in Puerto Rico in 1934, followed by California in 1945. By 1979, more than 20 jurisdictions (e.g., states) had some form of minimal regulation standards for the social work profession in place, although budgets were often insufficient to meet

Trends in Ethical Complaints Leading to Professional Counseling Licensing Boards Disciplinary Actions

“…The most frequently acted‐upon category was in CE hour violations. This matches recent analysis of trends with social work boards (Boland‐Prom, et al, 2015), in which failing to obtain the appropriate amount of CE hours was cited as one of the most frequently acted‐upon ethical complaints. Most states require counselors to actively accrue CE hours during the licensure renewal period (ACA, 2016); as such, this may be the most frequently occurring infraction because licensing boards are more likely to actively seek out violators of this category by randomly auditing licensees.…”

“…We developed an initial list of 11 a priori codes using information gained from previous studies on counseling ethical complaints (Boland‐Prom et al, 2015; Neukrug et al, 2001), the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014), and other sources of information regarding disciplinary and liability actions (HPSO, 2014; Wheeler & Bertram, 2015). These codes guided an initial review of data from 27 states.…”

“…These studies (Boland‐Prom et al, 2015; Herlihy et al, 1987; Neukrug et al, 1992, 2001) indicate that dual relationships (both sexual and nonsexual) are consistently one of the most frequent reasons the public files complaints that may result in disciplinary actions. Dual relationships with clients is a topic that is often given considerable focus in counselor training curricula and counseling textbooks (e.g., Herlihy & Corey, 2015a; Wheeler & Bertram, 2015), with some counseling ethics books devoted entirely to the topic (Herlihy & Corey, 2015b).…”

“…These previous studies (Boland‐Prom et al, 2015; Herlihy et al, 1987; Neukrug et al, 1992, 2001) provide an understanding of overall ethical trends; however, they all have some limitations. The earliest surveys (Herlihy et al, 1987; Neukrug et al, 1992) included nine categories of ethical complaints, which created a forced choice for the respondents.…”

“…The earliest surveys (Herlihy et al, 1987; Neukrug et al, 1992) included nine categories of ethical complaints, which created a forced choice for the respondents. When Boland‐Prom et al (2015) used qualitative coding to describe ethical complaints and sanctions within social work, the result was 34 distinct categories. Also, the existing studies analyzing counseling board trends (Herlihy et al, 1987; Neukrug et al, 1992, 2001) have only assessed the nature of ethical complaints in general.…”