Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Health Professions
Board of Social Work
Regulations Governing the Practice of Social Work [18 VAC 140 ‑ 20]
Action Reduction in CE requirement for supervisors
Stage Fast-Track
Comment Period Ended on 7/24/2019
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
7/12/19  11:12 am
Commenter: Jeanette Ucci

Opposition to Proposed Changes in CEU Requirements for Professional Clinical Social Work Supervisors

I oppose the Board’s proposal to weaken the training requirements for Social Work Supervisors as put forth in the action: “Reduction of CE requirement for supervisors,” and urge that it be withdrawn. Reducing the required hours, eliminating the 5 year timeframe for training prior to initial registration, and eliminating the 5 year continuing education requirement for Social Work Supervisors would undermine the quality of supervision for countless new practitioners, not only harming their professional education and robbing them of needed capability, but putting the people they serve at risk. Social Work is a highly dynamic field; the knowledge base of the profession is continually expanding, and the population it serves is becoming more complex.


It is essential that new social workers be able bring the most current practices and insights to the challenging dynamics they face today. Without a continuing education requirement that is current, a significant subset of supervisors will fall behind the field and their outdated understandings will be carried forward by their supervisees. As is stringently required in professional training for psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and social workers in jurisdictions across the country, best supervision practices and current evidence-based knowledge are requisite for competence in professional practice.


The proposed changes to the Supervisor training requirements will undermine the profession in Virginia, hurting supervisees and their clients. Please support social work in our state by withdrawing this proposal.


Finally, I oppose the fast tracking process. This proposed regulatory change and initiative is a controversial proposal with the potential for some very real negative impact. Thus it should be subject to a full and thorough review process.


CommentID: 73518