|
 |
|
To find out who your legislator is call 202-224-3121. |
|
|
|
To find out who your legislator is call 202-224-3121. |
The Maryland Board of Social Work Examiner Funds
Recently there’s been a buzz about some excess funds at the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners (BSWE) being diverted from a planned refund to Maryland social workers. The money – something like $450,000 – had come from the pockets of Maryland social workers paying licensing fees. What we heard was that instead of the refund, the Governor would be taking the money to pay for a new special Department of Human Resources (DHR) project to develop what the Governor’s bill (HR148) referred to as a “social worker training academy” - presumably at the University of Maryland School of Social Work where much DHR training takes place.
Needless to say, we thought we should check this out! Here’s what we learned.
Why the fees went up
Several years ago, BSWE raised its bi-annual licensing fees significantly. (Different categories of social workers owe different amounts; an LCSW-C would have jumped from $125 due in 2001 to $200 in 2003.)
There were two reasons for this large increase, the first increase in tenyears. First, the BSWE is self-funded, and the only way to cover expenses and staff salaries is to match costs with licensing fee revenue. There had been two years of shortfall, some increase was needed.
The second reason was that the State had decided to develop and install a new electronic system to make on-line payments possible, with each agency to foot the cost of a pro rata portion of this installation. BSWE was asked to budget over a period of years for a one-time charge of up to an additional $800,000.What happened next?
A State personnel freeze resulted in some reduction in the staff expenses for BSWE. More dramatically, however, the State decided that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should absorb the entire cost of the new electronic payment system – thus freeing up several hundred thousand dollars at BSWE.
What happened to our refund?
There was never going to be a refund! Maryland State rules are clear that when there is excess money in an agency’s account at the end of the fiscal year, 25% can be kept by the agency for future needs, and the rest is to go to the State General Fund. Any talk of giving social workers their money back came from a hopeful misunderstanding of the rules; such talk did not originate at BSWE.
Here’s the good news: social work licensing fees at every level will be reduced by 30% starting with the next cycle (2005). Developing an effective fee structure is complex because of the unpredictable comings and goings of licensees (moving out of the state, retiring, beginning practice, etc). BSWE is hoping that the new fee structure will produce the revenue needed without overburdening its social workers licensees.
And the Academy?
Governor Erlich announced, through his proposed budget proposal, that the BSWE excess funds be designated for what appears to be a social work purpose. Perhaps we should be pleased, since as a general rule, excess funds are simply absorbed into the State’s General Fund at the end of the fiscal year, to be used without regard to their source. However, in large measure because the announcement came as such a surprise to us all (including BSWE), questions are being raised.
As of this writing, we know very little about the proposed Academy for Social Work Training beyond its name and the possibility that federal matching funds might be available. What has not happened is the kind of thorough fiscal and health policy review we ordinarily expect of our government as it makes budgetary decisions – an open process beginning with public discussion and hearings, a fiscal and health policy review, and a thoughtful determination of needs. Perhaps our concerns are ill-founded, but is it possible that the proposed training may not be for social workers, but rather a short-cut for certifying others to do “social work” for less pay? And in any case, is a DHR training academy what social workers would consider our most critical need in this time of budgetary distress?
These and other issues should have been discussed before an announcement was made. “Transparency” needs to be more just than a buzz-word: when an executive decision seems to bypass the established protective checks and balances, we may be left with confusion, feeling perhaps like victims of a political shell game.
And ultimately, what about the breach of trust?
Let us agree that the State does have the authority to take and spend these moneys at will. Still, does it not amount to a breach of trust when a single specific class of workers is asked to pay large fees ostensibly for covering costs for the monitoring of their profession, and then that money is taken from their Board and proposed to be used to fund a program for a statewide need? Social work licensees were significantly overcharged: are we not looking at the proverbial “slippery slope”? What a dangerous precedent to permit an overcharge to be arbitrarily made and then, in effect, confiscated and treated as a windfall by the executive branch!
By the time you read this, it is likely that decisions will have been made in Annapolis – perhaps in support of the Governor’s proposal, or perhaps in favor of more open consideration of the proposed Academy and, hopefully, how best to handle the BSWE fund. Meanwhile, your Legislative Council of Social Work Organizations (with representatives from GWSCSW, NASW-DC Metro, and Maryland SCSW) and lobbyist Alice Neily will be addressing our questions and concerns to DHR and to legislators.
We look forward to public discussion, and will keep members informed via the listserve and our website (http://www.gwscsw.org). If it appears that our members can influence the ultimate results, we will put that on the listserve, too.
Prepared by Margot Aronson, 2/11/05
UPDATE:
On March 1, 2005, the following letter was sent by the Maryland Legislative
Council of Social Work Organizations to House Appropriations Chairman Norman H
Conway, Senator Gloria G. Lawlah; Delegate John Bohanan Jr.; Delegate Salima
Siler Marriot; Delegate Melony Ghee Griffith; and Delegate Tiger Davis. Note
that the “social worker training academy” is now described as a Social Welfare
Training Academy.
| MD
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF SOCIAL WORK ORGANIZATIONS Advocating for Social Workers and Their Clients in Maryland and the District of Columbia Maryland Society for Clinical Social Work Greater Washington Society for Clinical Social Work National Association of Social Workers Metro Washington Re: HB 148, Governor’s Budget Reconciliation Bill Health Occupations Boards Budget D H R Operating Budget Dear Chairman Conway and Committee Members: As representatives of three Maryland professional social worker organizations, our Council is concerned about the Governor’s allocation of social Worker licensure funds to finance the DHR budget. We applaud the work and recommendations of the Family Welfare Research and Training Group Task Force, but take issue with the governor’s plan to fund a “social welfare training academy” with licensure fees paid in good faith for legislatively specified purposes by social workers across the state. As licensed social workers, we understand that our fees are legislated collected for us in regulating our own profession by ensuring safe practices by licensees. Section 10 (pp. 15-16) would divert $425,000 from our fund (which is required to be self-supporting) to cover a component of the executive branch (DHR), apparently inadequately funded by the Executive through normal channels. Section 10 reads: “AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED that, notwithstanding the provisions of 19-206 of the Health Occupations Article or any other provision of law, for fiscal year 2006, the State Board of Social Work Examiners Fund may be used to the costs of the social worker training academy within the Department of Human Resources.”. This action sets a dangerous precedent. We believe that the following concerns should be addressed and hope that you will consider them in your deliberations.
It is difficult to support a measure, however
well-intended, that is proposed in such a non-transparent fashion. We hope
you will act to remove Section 10 from the Budget Reconciliation Act. |