Abstract
Keywords
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), social workers are part of the behavioral health workforce that addresses behavioral problems, including mental health and substance abuse conditions, stress-linked physical symptoms, patient activation, and health behaviors. As part of the behavioral health workforce, social workers work with other occupations, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, counselors, peer support specialists, and community health workers. The social work profession has varying education, training, and licensure requirements and works in many different settings, including inpatient hospitals, outpatient clinics, private offices, and schools (U.S. GAO, 2022). As monitoring the status of the healthcare workforce is very important for public health, various federal agencies, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), regularly make information about the workforce available, particularly about those involved in the delivery of behavioral health services (U.S. GAO, 2022).
However, profession-specific labor market information is typically collected and monitored by each profession. This is because emerging issues relevant to education, training, and the labor market are profession-specific and require an understanding of the profession. For this reason, many professions—such as nursing, occupational therapy, psychology, and marriage and family therapy—conduct their workforce studies regularly (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 2023; American Occupational Therapy Association, 2023; American Psychological Association, 2023; National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, 2023). The social work profession has also conducted at least five waves of national workforce studies over the past decades. However, as the first study of this series discussed, the previous studies have used inconsistent definitions and boundaries of the workforce, making it difficult to establish a national benchmark and historical trends. Moreover, the scale and scope of many previous workforce studies may not have been sufficient to provide a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the growing and diverse workforce (Williams & Vieyra, 2018).
Furthermore, few existing workforce studies have provided knowledge of how the practices and compensation of social workers vary by their education level, license status, and practice categories. There is much to learn about how social workers with social work degrees or licensure perform different functions and roles on their jobs and how they are compensated differently compared to those without such professional credentials. These knowledge gaps are crucial to the profession as many employers, particularly in healthcare and behavioral health settings, require social workers to be licensed as a condition of employment to ensure that they meet professional standards and can bill insurance for their services (Birkenmaier & Berg-Weger, 2017; Salsberg et al., 2020).
According to the Association of Social Work Boards (2023), there are the following five licensure and practice categories based on education level and training requirements:
■ The Associate category is for applicants who do not possess a social work degree. ■ The Bachelors category is for basic generalist practice of baccalaureate social work. ■ The Masters category is for the practice of master's social work, including the application of specialized knowledge and advanced practice skills. ■ The Advanced Generalist category is for the practice of advanced generalist social work in nonclinical settings, which may include macrolevel practice. This category requires 2 years of postgraduate supervised experience. ■ The Clinical category is for clinical social work, which requires the application of specialized clinical knowledge and advanced clinical skills. This category also requires two years of postgraduate clinical supervised experience.
As summarized in Table 1, 39 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) currently regulate social work practice at the Bachelors level, while 41 states and D.C. license the Masters category. The Masters Advanced Generalist category is regulated in only 16 states and D.C. In contrast, all states and D.C. license and regulate social work practice at the Clinical level.
Social Work License/Practice Categories and Regulating Jurisdictions.
Note. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands also regulate social work. However, the four jurisdictions were not included in this table because the empirical analyses in this study could not include them due to the small number of respondents from those territories.
Source: Author tabulation of the ASWB's Laws and regulations database (2025). https://www.aswb.org/regulation/laws-and-regulations-database/
The purpose of this study is to provide a national profile of the licensed social work workforce by education level and practice category. Such statistics can serve as a benchmark of the frontline social workforce in terms of who they are, what they do, where they work, and who they serve. By doing so, this study intends to provide professional stakeholders with updated knowledge about the licensed workforce and how their employment and practice are different from self-identified social workers discussed in the first study of this series. Such a knowledge base is intended to assist stakeholders with their missions for workforce development and professional advocacy. Furthermore, this study aims to provide aspiring social work candidates with knowledge about occupational outlooks, salaries, and compensation specific to practice categories. The study is designed to help policymakers, educators, and practitioners better understand the education and training needs of social workers. Identifying what is common and what is different among professional social workers across practice categories may facilitate future educational planning, policy development, and program design.
The Licensed Social Work Workforce
The literature indicates that social work was recognized as a profession for the first time in the U.S. Census of 1930 (Stuart, 2013). In the 1970s, the movement for licensure gained traction as a way to boost social workers’ professional status, obtain the privilege of third-party payments from insurance, and set uniform standards for independent practice (Stuart, 2013). According to Zajicek-Farber (2024), the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) administered its first licensing exam in 1983, with 464 social workers participating from New York, Virginia, and Oklahoma. Fast forward four decades, and in 2022, around 26,550 and 25,088 aspiring social workers took the Masters and Clinical licensing exams at least once, respectively (Kim & Joo, 2025), reflecting how the expectation of licensure has become ingrained in the professional workforce.
The field of social work has deep historical roots in two primary practice methods—micro and macro—as reflected in the two advanced licensure and practice categories of Advanced Generalist and Clinical. With only 16 states and D.C. offering Advanced Generalist licensure, it is relatively unknown how employers expect and require it from macropractitioners. Furthermore, it is also unclear how licensure is valued in positions to which macropractitioners apply. However, the expectation and requirement for Clinical licensure have been well-established for social workers involved in mental health and behavioral healthcare services because third-party payers (i.e., insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid) mandate that social workers hold clinical licenses before providing services (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2024) since the late 1980s. Today, social workers are recognized as vital providers in the behavioral healthcare industry, working in interdisciplinary teams to serve a diverse population with complex needs. Compared to other behavioral healthcare professions, such as counseling, clinical social work is considered a more desirable specialty due to its high access to licensure and independent practice, its ability to join insurance networks, and its potential for higher earnings (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019).
Although more than four decades have passed since the first national licensing exams in 1983, little information is available about the licensed social work workforce. As discussed in the first study in this series, there was only one national survey of 4,489 licensed social workers conducted in 2004 by the Center for Health Workforce Studies and the NASW Center for Workforce Studies. Data from the 2004 survey revealed that the licensed social work workforce was less diverse than the U.S. population in terms of race and ethnicity during that time. Specifically, 84.5% of licensed social workers identified as White, while 6.8% were African American, 4.3% Hispanic, and 1.4% Asian. In contrast, the racial and ethnic breakdown of the U.S. population at that time was 71% White, 12.2% African American, 12.1% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. It also reported that 8% of licensed social workers did not have a degree in social work, 12% had only a BSW, 78.6% had an MSW, and about 2% had a DSW or PhD. Only about 3% of licensed social workers were enrolled in a social work degree program, despite the fact that as many as 8% did not hold a social work degree (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006).
The 2004 survey data also indicated that mental health was the largest area of practice for licensed social workers, representing nearly 37% of all practitioners. Additionally, approximately 13% practiced in child welfare and family services, another 13% in healthcare, and 9% focused on aging services. It was reported that the most common role in which social workers spent “any time” was providing direct services to clients (96%), followed by consultation at 73% and administration or management at 69%. Licensed social workers were least likely to spend any time in research (19%), policy development (30%), and community organizing (34%). Importantly, few social workers devoted 20 hours a week to any roles other than direct client services, administration, or management (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006).
The findings from the 2004 survey revealed that advanced social work degrees and licensure were related to higher wages and salaries for social workers. In 2003, full-time working licensed social workers with a BSW earned a median wage/salary of $33,540 (approximately $57,000 in 2024 value) from their primary job. On the other hand, those with an MSW had a median wage/salary of $49,590 (about $85,000 in 2024 value) from their primary job. As for career plans, nearly 70% of licensed social workers expressed a plan to remain in their current position over the next 2 years. Some 7.4% indicated they would either retire or stop working, and another 4.7% indicated they would leave the social work field but continue to work. Data from the 2004 survey also revealed that the geographic density of the licensed workforce varied substantially across states. For example, in states like Maryland, there were 4.08 licensed social workers for every 1,000 people, but in others, such as New Hampshire, there were only 0.24 licensed social workers per 1,000 individuals (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006).
Knowledge Gaps and Research Questions
As stated earlier, the 2004 survey of the licensed workforce remains the only survey of licensed social workers in the past four decades since the introduction of the first national licensing exam. This means that our knowledge about the licensed workforce has not been updated for two decades. Furthermore, the 2004 survey did not collect data on the different license or practice categories for social workers, making it impossible to analyze how their characteristics may differ across these categories. As a result, the profession has little knowledge of the composition and characteristics of the licensed workforce by practice category, as well as how the workforce, particularly those with clinical licensure, is distributed across the country. For example, we do not know the proportion of licensed social workers in the Clinical category compared to those in the Advanced Generalist category. We also lack knowledge about how their employment and financial characteristics differ across practice categories. This information is not only crucial but also intriguing, especially since most states do not require a license for Advanced Generalist practice. However, all states have specific licensing requirements for clinical practice in behavioral healthcare. Unfortunately, the literature provides limited insights regarding the workforce's size and composition (e.g., Lombardi et al., 2024) as well as its demographic, employment, practice, and financial characteristics (e.g., Kang & Krysik, 2010; Yoon, 2012), and the geographical distribution of licensed professionals by practice category.
With these knowledge gaps in mind, this study seeks to address the following questions.
How was the licensed social work workforce composed across education and practice categories? What percentage was licensed across multiple jurisdictions? What were the key demographic characteristics of the licensed workforce, including age, gender, race and ethnicity, health conditions, immigration status, and language background? What were the educational backgrounds of licensed social workers in terms of their undergraduate degrees, enrollment status (full-time vs. part-time), type of program attended (online vs. in-person), and concentration in the MSW programs? What were the patterns of license holding and supervision experience? More specifically, what percentage of social workers was licensed across multiple jurisdictions? What percentage of clinical social workers had to pay for supervision? How did the employment characteristics of the licensed workforce vary by practice category in terms of the type of employers, self-employment, multiple job-holding, and the number of hours and weeks worked? Did social workers’ positions require social work degrees and licensure? Were there differences in degree and licensure requirements by practice category? How did the practice characteristics of the licensed workforce vary by practice category in terms of practice setting, function, role, client group, and use of electronic practice? What was the amount of student loan debt incurred by licensed social workers? How much did they earn from their primary job, and how did their earnings differ by practice category? What employer-provided benefits were available to licensed social workers? What career and education plans did licensed social workers have for the next 2 years, and did these plans vary by practice category? How were licensed social workers, particularly clinical social workers, distributed across the country? What was the geographic density of the licensed workforce, and how did states compare in terms of the density?
Method
Survey Instrument and Data Collection
The 2024 Social Work Workforce Survey instrument was developed through a collaborative process. The author drafted the survey instrument based on reviews of previous workforce studies and survey instruments in social work and other behavioral healthcare professions, such as marriage and family therapists, registered nurses, licensed professional counselors, and health service psychologists, to identify common and essential survey question items. Some crucial survey questions about demographic and employment characteristics were also adopted from the national household surveys by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (i.e., American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey). The draft instrument was then revised based on multiple rounds of discussions and comments from the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) and Social Work Workforce Coalition, which was composed of representatives from all major stakeholder organizations, to ensure that all inputs were considered. Some of the stakeholder organizations included in the Coalition were the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD), Latino Social Workers Organization (LSWO), National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (NADD), Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA), and Canadian social work organizations. The survey instrument will be available from the author upon request.
Additionally, based on the literature review and other professions’ workforce studies, much effort was made to include the minimum data elements recommended for a workforce survey, such as demographics, education, licensure (registration), employment, and practice characteristics of the workforce (Beck et al., 2016; Gerolamo et al., 2022; Healthcare Regulatory Research Institute, 2023). More specifically, the survey included questions about the following five topics:
■ Education: Degrees, the field of study and concentration, year of graduation, and current enrollment in degree programs. ■ Licensure: Licensure status, practice category, jurisdictions that issued the license, whether or not they paid for supervision if it was required for licensure or registration, and how they were satisfied with the supervision. ■ Employment: If their current or recent social work position required a social work degree and a license, number of years employed in social work, type of employer, size of employer, weekly hours and annual weeks of work, number of jobs, annual gross earnings from the primary job in 2023, employer-provided benefits offered, and future career and educational plans or goals. ■ Practice: Practice category, primary practice setting, function of the practice setting, client population group, primary role, and use of electronic practice. ■ Demographic: Year of birth, race and ethnicity, gender, state of residence, language used at home, health conditions, immigration and citizenship status, and parental status.
The instrument draft was piloted with a small number of social workers and finalized after addressing any potential concerns.
The finalized survey instrument was put on an online platform in three languages: English, French, and Spanish. Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) collected and housed the data on behalf of the Association of Social Work Boards. The Workforce Survey was part of the 2024 Social Work Census (swcensus.org), funded and launched by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB, 2024) between March 1 and June 30, 2024. The 2024 Social Work Census was the most comprehensive study in the history of the profession, targeting both U.S. and Canadian social workers and featuring two national surveys: (1) the Workforce Survey that collected data on social workers’ demographic, employment, and practice characteristics and (2) the Practice Analysis Survey necessary for building the blueprints of the next round of licensing exams. The data collection was done online, and survey participation was promoted by taking a comprehensive approach using digital, social, and face-to-face strategies. First, a series of email campaigns was launched using the email list of past ASWB examinees and exam registrants to reach more than 514,000 social workers. Subsequently, multiple rounds of targeted outreach efforts were made via social media posts, paid advertisements, and in-person engagements at professional conferences and workshops. Finally, ASWB also collaborated with state regulatory boards to increase survey participation among licensed social workers. Nearly 85,000 individuals participated in the Social Work Census, and 52,471 completed the Workforce Survey. Please note that since there was no sampling frame, a survey response rate could not be calculated.
Data Preparation and Analysis
To identify an analytic sample for this study, respondents who met the following criteria were chosen: (1) they had a social work degree—whether a BSW, MSW, DSW, or PhD in social work—and had a social work license, (2) they were employed or self-employed, and (3) they held a social work position. Respondents with missing or invalid demographic information (e.g., gender, age, state of residence, race and ethnicity, and education) were excluded from the analyses. In addition, a small number of respondents from the U.S. territories (N = 51) and those without a bachelor's degree or in the Associates practice category (N = 78) were also excluded from the data because their numbers were too small to form an independent category for analyses by state, education, or practice category. To verify the sample selection, various factors, including licensure status, licensure category, education level, and practice category, were cross-referenced to ensure that only eligible respondents were included in the analysis. Interestingly, a sizable group of the survey respondents with a social work degree or licensure (N = 2257) reported that they were working in nonsocial work positions, and nearly 85% of them were licensed. After removing those from the analytic sample, the final sample included a total of 39,456 U.S. licensed social workers with at least a bachelor's degree who were working at the time of the survey in a social work position. The sample of licensed social workers was then sorted into the following four groups by their practice category: (1) Clinical (N = 23,305), (2) Advanced Generalist (N = 1,748), (3) Master (N = 12,236), and (4) Bachelor (N = 2,167).
It was necessary to weight the survey data to ensure that the sample of 39,465 licensed social workers could represent the population of licensed social workers in the country. As indicated, the primary sampling frame of the Workforce Survey was the email list of past ASWB examinees or exam registrants, despite the fact that the outreach efforts targeted other social workers, including nonlicensed social workers. As more than 95% to 96% of the collected data were from licensed social workers, it was necessary to create a weight variable using the list of licensed social workers as the sampling frame. Unfortunately, ASWB's email list did not contain any demographic information to inform about the characteristics of the licensed workforce, presenting a major challenge in making the survey findings nationally representative. The two nationally representative household survey datasets from the U.S. Census Bureau—the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey analyzed in the first report of this series—would have been useful in identifying the basic demographic characteristics of licensed social workers. However, the analyses revealed that those household surveys were inappropriate as they represented self-identified social workers, including those who may not have a social work degree and licensure.
In the absence of an appropriate sampling frame, this study used the number of licenses for each license (education) category that state regulatory boards compiled in 2023 to perform simple post-stratification weighting (Kulas et al., 2018; Little, 1993; Royal, 2019). The only information about the licensed workforce available from the regulatory boards’ data was their numbers by state location and educational level. In addition, as some states had a very small number of bachelor's level survey respondents, post-stratification was possible by using the number of survey respondents from nine regional divisions for two education levels (bachelor's and master's), for a total of 18 (9 times 2) categories. A weight was calculated for each regional division and education level by dividing the estimated regional license count by the number of survey respondents for the corresponding category. This method ensured that the contribution of the 18 categories to the survey findings was proportional to the population of licensed social workers nationwide (Kulas et al., 2018; Little, 1993; Royal, 2019). However, it is important to note that because the data weighting was solely based on two known characteristics of the population of licensed social workers, it might not have fully addressed other potential sources of sample biases, such as race and ethnicity, resulting in less accurate and comprehensive data adjustment. Although all descriptive analyses presented below were weighted to make the findings nationally representative of the licensed workforce, readers should keep this data limitation in mind when interpreting the findings.
A series of descriptive analyses was conducted to examine the percentage distributions of the characteristics of the licensed social work workforce and the percentile amount of its annual gross earnings based on their primary jobs. A state-by-state geographic density of the licensed workforce was also examined, measuring the estimated number of licensed social workers for every 1000 individuals in each state. For the density analyses, microdata from the most recent 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) were used to estimate the population size of each state. The estimated number of licensed social workers for each state was based on their weighted number. Please note that the state population estimates were based on data from 2018 to 2022, while the estimates of licensed social workers were taken from the 2024 survey. This difference in data years may affect the accuracy of the analyses. However, the 2018–2022 ACS was the most recent data at the time of the analysis.
Results
Size and Composition of the Workforce
Table 2 presents a detailed number and breakdown of the licensed social workers who participated in the 2024 Social Work Workforce Survey. Table 2 also presents the number of social work licenses issued by state regulatory boards to compare the number to the estimated (weighted) number of licensed individuals. Each regulatory board compiles the number of licenses it has issued, but some social workers are licensed in multiple states. Because there is currently no national system for identifying how many social workers hold a certain category of license across multiple states, this comparison, albeit imperfect, provides valuable insight into the composition of the licensed social work workforce. Table 2 also answers part of the first research question that this study raised: How was the licensed social work workforce composed across education and practice categories? According to Table 2, the estimated size of the licensed social work workforce in 2024 was 463,112. Of those, nearly 59% were Clinical social workers, followed by about 30% who were Masters social workers. Advanced Generalists and Bachelors social workers comprised only about 4.53% and 6.45% of the licensed workforce, respectively.
The Estimated Size and Composition of the Licensed Social Work Workforce With at Least a Bachelor's Degree.
Note. State regulatory boards reported that about 4,354 licenses (about 0.8% of the total of 547,555 licenses) were issued for social workers without a social work degree. They were not included in the table.
It is worthwhile to compare these findings to those from the most recent 2018–2022 ACS and the 2023–2024 Current Population Survey-Basic Monthly Survey (CPS-BMS) presented in the first study of this series. The estimated size and educational composition of the licensed workforce suggest that there were more than 463,000 licensed social workers, and over 93% of them (N = 433,263) held master's degrees. The ACS-based estimate suggests that there were 356,311 self-identified social workers with at least a master's degree during the 2018–2022 period. This estimate was smaller than the Workforce Survey-based estimate of 433,263 licensed social workers with at least a master's degree, even considering that the estimates were from different years and that the licensed estimate would include some duplicates and inactive social workers. However, in theory, the ACS-based estimates should be much greater than the Workforce Survey-based estimates because not all master's level social workers are required to be licensed. This discrepancy indicates that the estimate based on the Workforce Survey is likely an overestimate, while the estimate from the ACS may considerably underestimate the size of the social work workforce. It is possible that some licensed social workers may not identify themselves as social workers in a national household survey.
Moreover, as Table 3 shows, the estimate based on the Basic Monthly Survey of the Current Population Survey (CPS-BMS), which was discussed in the first study of this series, suggests that there were 302,000 licensed social workers, and 74% of them (N = 223,800) had at least a Master's degree. This CPS-BMS estimate, again, is considerably smaller than the estimate of 433,263 derived from the 2024 Workforce Survey presented in Table 2. These comparisons reveal that data from the U.S. Census Bureau's national household surveys may not only significantly underestimate the size of the social work workforce, especially the licensed workforce, but also misrepresent the educational composition of the workforce. The discrepancies in these estimates demonstrate why the social work profession must conduct its workforce survey regularly and why it should establish a national unduplicated sampling frame for the active licensed workforce.
Estimated Size and Composition of the Self-Identified Social Work Workforce With at Least a Bachelor's Degree.
Note. Author's estimation using the 2023–2024 Current Population Survey-Basic Monthly Survey microdata.
Demographic Characteristics
Table 4 presents summary statistics from the 2024 Workforce Survey detailing the demographic profile of licensed social workers by their practice category. The numbers in Table 4 answer the second research question of this study: What are the key demographic characteristics of the licensed workforce, including age, gender, race and ethnicity, health conditions, immigration status, and language background? The mean age of Bachelor's social workers was nearly 40, with a median age of 39. The mean ages of Advanced Generalists and Clinical social workers were 40.51 and 42.57 years, with median ages of 38 and 40 years, respectively. While Clinical social workers were the oldest group, Masters social workers were the youngest group, with a mean age of 37.28 and a median age of 34 years.
Demographic Characteristics of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Licensed social workers were predominantly female across all practice categories. However, the percentage of women was the highest among Bachelors social workers at nearly 92% and lowest among Clinical social workers at almost 88%. In terms of the highest educational degree obtained, a master's degree (i.e., a Master in Social Work [MSW]) was the final degree for 96.24% of Clinical social workers. The remaining 3.76% of Clinical social workers reported having a PhD or a doctoral degree. Nearly 5% of Advanced Generalist social workers held a PhD or a doctoral degree, with 95.22% holding a master's degree as their final degree. About 16% of Bachelors social workers also reported having a master's degree.
In terms of race and ethnicity, the majority of licensed social workers were White. Bachelors social workers had the highest percentage of Whites (81.43%), and Masters social workers had the lowest percentage of Whites (70.59%). About 20% of Bachelors and 30% of Masters social workers within the licensed workforce were either Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, or people of other races and ethnicities. For example, within the Masters category, the proportions of Asian, Black, and Hispanic social workers were 3.23%, 14.56%, and 10.56%, respectively. Nearly 77% of Clinical social workers were White, with Asian, Black, and Hispanic social workers comprising 3.53%, 9.58%, and 8.88% of the Clinical workforce.
According to the 2004 National Survey of Licensed Social Workers by the Center for Health Workforce Studies and the National Association of Social Workers, 84.5% of licensed social workers were White, 6.8% were Black, 4.3% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006). This comparison of racial and ethnic breakdown suggests that the licensed social work workforce has become more diverse over the past two decades. However, recent U.S. Census data suggests that only 57.28% of adults aged 18 to 64 from 2020 to 2023 identified as White, followed by 19.95% Hispanic, 13.08% Black, and 6.72% Asian (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2024; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These national estimates indicate that the social work profession should strive for greater and faster racial and ethnic diversity to better mirror the demographics of the U.S. population.
With nearly 94% to 95% of Masters and Clinical social workers being native-born citizens, only around 5% to 6% of the licensed workforce was represented by immigrants. Within Bachelors social workers, native-born citizens comprised almost 97% of the group. Table 4 also reports findings about languages spoken at home. About 8% to 9% of Masters and Clinical social workers reported speaking Spanish at home. Less than 3% to 4% of them reported speaking French or a language other than English and Spanish at home.
The 2024 Workforce Survey also included questions about social workers’ physical, mental, and other health conditions and whether any of the conditions limit the type and amount of their work. As the bottom rows of Table 4 show, non-negligible percentages of social workers reported having various health conditions. For example, some 30% of Masters and Clinical social workers indicated having a mental health condition, and about 17% of Advanced Generalist and Clinical social workers reported having a physical health condition. Approximately 6% to 7% of Bachelors and Masters social workers indicated that their health conditions limited their work activities, while 7% to 8% of Advanced Generalist and Clinical social workers reported so. The high rate of reporting mental health conditions among Masters and Clinical social workers is consistent with the rates reported by Straussner et al. (2018). The authors reported that about 40% of licensed social workers who participated in their survey had experienced mental health problems before becoming social workers, about 50% experienced the problems during their social work careers, and 28% at the time of the survey.
Table 4 shows the distribution of licensed social workers across the country's nine geographical divisions. The highest concentration of licensed social workers was found in three regions: the Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and South Atlantic. Specifically, more than half of all Masters social workers were located in these areas, with the Middle Atlantic accounting for 26.65%, East North Central for 16.25%, and South Atlantic for 11.82%. Similarly, Clinical social workers were in the Middle Atlantic (18.63%), East North Central (16.34%), and South Atlantic (15.29%) regions.
Educational Characteristics
Table 5 presents findings about licensed social workers’ educational characteristics to answer the third research question of this study: What are the educational backgrounds of licensed social workers in terms of their undergraduate degrees, enrollment status (full-time versus part-time), type of program attended (online versus in-person), and concentration in the MSW programs? Within the licensed workforce, the majority of Bachelors social workers (73.94%) majored in social work for their undergraduate degrees while attending the program full-time (83.62%) and in-person (67.32%). About 15% of Bachelors social workers did not provide their undergraduate majors, and those who majored in psychology, criminal justice, and sociology comprised about 10% of them. Unfortunately, most of the respondents with a graduate degree did not answer the survey question about their undergraduate majors. Not surprisingly, nearly all licensed social workers in the Masters, Advanced Generalist, and Clinical categories majored in social work for their graduate degrees. About three-quarters of licensed social workers reported having attended MSW programs full-time, and 20% to 22% of them attended the programs part-time.
Educational Characteristics of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Note. 1. These were the percentages among those enrolled.
Table 5 shows that while most licensed social workers earned their highest degrees via an in-person program, a considerable share earned their degrees from online or hybrid programs. The percentage of earning a degree from an online and hybrid program was the highest among Masters social workers, at 19.03% and 22.72%, respectively. On the other hand, more than 73% of Clinical social workers completed their MSW through an in-person program, while 9.33% and 14.67% did so through an online and hybrid program, respectively.
Table 5 also presents findings regarding the concentration of licensed social workers in their MSW programs. Although a relatively high proportion of respondents did not answer the concentration question, the top five choices among those who answered were clinical or direct practice, children, youth, and families, mental health, health, and aging and gerontological practices. Nearly a quarter of Clinical social workers reported choosing a clinical or direct practice concentration in their MSW programs.
The bottom rows of Table 5 present findings about licensed social workers’ enrollment in a degree program. For example, more than 13% of Bachelors social workers reported being enrolled in a master's program, while 2.63% of Advanced Generalist social workers reported being enrolled in a doctoral or PhD program. About 2.2% to 2.4% of Masters and Clinical social workers reported being enrolled in a graduate program, although they already had an MSW degree. Among those enrolled in a graduate program, 70% to 75% were enrolled full-time. Only about 55% to 56% of them were enrolled in an in-person program, and nearly 43% were enrolled in either an online or a hybrid program. This indicates that the use of online and hybrid programs is more prevalent for a second graduate degree among licensed social workers.
License Holding and Supervision Experience
Table 6 reports results that address the fourth research question raised in this study: What are the patterns of license holding and experiences with supervision? More specifically, what percentage of social workers is licensed across multiple jurisdictions? What percentage of clinical social workers pay for supervision? An overwhelming majority of licensed social workers reported holding a license that qualified them to practice in their practice category. Specifically, 90% of Clinical social workers held a Clinical license, 87% of Masters social workers held a Masters license, and 93% of Bachelors social workers held a Bachelors license. Approximately 10% of Clinical social workers who reported not having a clinical license may be working under supervision while obtaining their independent clinical licensure. On the contrary, Table 6 shows that many Advanced Generalist social workers did not report holding the corresponding licensure. As expected by the limited number of jurisdictions that offer the category of licensure, only 48.11% of them held an Advanced Generalist license, while 50.3% indicated that they held a Masters license. Interestingly, 14.28% of Masters social workers and 23.36% of Advanced Generalist social workers answered that they held a clinical license. These results suggest that some licensed social workers hold a clinical license regardless of their practice or employment at the time of the survey.
License and Supervision-Related Experiences of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Note 1. Data on Advanced Generalist licensees were missing due to response errors.
2. About 7% and 3% of Clinical licensees were licensed across three and four jurisdictions.
Table 6 presents an important finding about the share of social workers licensed in multiple states. About 22% of Clinical social workers held a clinical license in at least two states. Additional analyses, although not presented in Table 6, revealed that about 7% and 3% of them were licensed in three and four states, respectively. Moreover, 3.9% of Clinical social workers held Masters licenses in at least two states. About 6.5% of Advanced Generalist social workers and nearly 9.5% of Masters social workers reported holding Masters licenses in more than one state. Slightly more than 4% of Bachelors social workers were also licensed in more than one state. It is important to note that these numbers were based on self-reports and were not validated by regulatory boards. However, the prevalence of multistate license-holding appears considerable, especially among Clinical social workers. These findings echo the potential value of the recently enacted Interstate Licensure Compact, which was designed to reduce barriers to multistate practice with a single license.
The 2024 Workforce Survey asked respondents about their experiences with social work supervision, such as whether they paid for supervision and how satisfied they were with it. Table 6 summarizes the findings for Clinical social workers who were required to have about 2 years of postgraduate clinical supervision to take the license exam. About 26% of Clinical social workers indicated that they paid for supervision, while around 69% said they did not. Most Clinical social workers were satisfied with their supervision experiences. Approximately 48.5% and 32.6% reported that they were very satisfied and moderately satisfied, respectively. In contrast, nearly 6% and 2.6% indicated that they were moderately dissatisfied and very dissatisfied with their supervision experiences. Additionally, the bottom row of Table 6 also shows that over 56% of clinical social workers reported being approved supervisors in their state of residence.
Employment Characteristics
Findings about licensed social workers’ employment characteristics draw special attention and are aimed at answering a series of questions raised by this study: How did the employment characteristics of the licensed workforce vary by practice category in terms of the type of employers, self-employment, multiple job-holding, and the number of hours and weeks worked? Did social workers’ positions require social work degrees and licensure? Were there differences in degree and licensure requirements by practice category? Table 7 presents detailed findings. More than 95% of Clinical social workers reported that their position required (85.33%) or preferred (10.17%) an MSW. About 78% of both Advanced Generalist and Masters social workers reported that their positions required an MSW, and 16% to 18% of them indicated that an MSW was preferred in their positions. A much lower percentage of Bachelors social workers (55.3%) reported that their positions required a BSW. Nevertheless, nearly 38% of them indicated that a BSW was preferred for their positions.
Employment Characteristics of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Table 7 shows how social work licensure was required or preferred for the positions held by licensed social workers. Similar to the findings above, nearly 96% of Clinical social workers answered that their jobs required or preferred a social work license, followed by more than 88% of Advanced Generalist social workers and Masters social workers. Notably, more than 85% of Clinical social workers reported that their positions required a social work degree as well as a license. While around 61% of Bachelors social workers indicated that a social work licensure was required, nearly 26% said it was preferred. These high rates of license requirements in the job market are consistent with the findings about recent social work graduates in the 2017–2019 National Workforce Study (Salsberg et al., 2020). Salsberg et al. (2020) reported that more than 76% of jobs available for social work graduates were in licensed positions and that nearly 80% of new MSW graduates intended to become licensed clinical social workers in the next 5 years.
Table 7 presents the types of employers that licensed social workers worked for. Licensed social workers were employed by a variety of employers, including private for-profit, nonprofit, federal, state, and local government agencies. The highest share of licensed social workers, across all practice categories, worked for private nonprofit employers. However, there were distinct differences in the type of employers by practice category. One of the most interesting findings is that as high as 26% of Clinical social workers were self-employed. Note that the 2004 study of licensed social workers reported that about 17.5% of overall licensed social workers were in private practice (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006). According to Table 7, 15.41% of Clinical social workers were in private sole practice, 5.64% were in group practice, and 4.74% worked as independent contractors.
On the other hand, a higher percentage of Bachelors social workers were employed by the state (24.89%) or local (12.40%) government. As the practice category moved from Bachelors, Masters, Advanced Generalist, to Clinical, the size of licensed social workers working for state and local government agencies steadily declined. However, compared to less than 1% of Bachelors social workers employed by the federal government, nearly 9% of Advanced Generalist and Clinical social workers worked for a federal government agency. This difference in the type of employer by practice category may be related to the size of employers that licensed social workers worked for. As Table 7 indicates, around 51% to 52% of (non-self-employed) Clinical and Advanced Generalist social workers reported working for a large employer with 1,000 or more employees. However, only 35% of Bachelors social workers reported the same. About 46% of Masters social workers indicated working for a large employer.
Another interesting finding about the employment characteristics was that a high percentage of licensed social workers, particularly Clinical social workers, reported holding more than one job simultaneously. As high as 30.62% of Clinical social workers indicated holding multiple jobs. In fact, the rate of multiple job-holding appeared to be high among both Advanced Generalist and Masters social workers at 27.24% and 24.66%, respectively. About 14% of Bachelors social workers reported having more than one job. As for a comparison, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that less than 6% of employed adult women held multiple jobs in 2023 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024a). While a direct comparison of these numbers may not be advisable given the difference between the Current Population Survey used in the BLS estimate and the 2024 Social Work Workforce Survey, the high percentages of multiple job-holding among licensed social workers are worth pointing out.
Findings about how much licensed social workers worked per week and year-round reveal other interesting differences by practice category. A higher percentage of Clinical social workers than other categories of social workers worked part-time (<35 h per week) and part-year (< 50 weeks per year). Nearly 24% of Clinical social workers reported working fewer than 35 h per week, and about 25% of them reported working only between 26 and 49 weeks per year. In comparison, about 12% of Masters social workers worked fewer than 35 h per week, and 20% of them worked between 26 and 49 weeks per year. The difference in the amount of work between Bachelors and Clinical social workers was even greater. While nearly 90% of Bachelors social workers reported working full-time hours (at least 35 h) weekly, 87% of Masters social workers, 85% of Advanced Generalist social workers, and only 75% of Clinical social workers indicated so. Similarly, compared to nearly 81% of Bachelors social workers working year-round, 69% of Clinical social workers did so. About 71% to 2% of Masters and Advanced Generalist social workers indicated working year-round. These findings suggest that Clinical social workers worked fewer hours than other categories of social workers.
The findings presented at the bottom of Table 7 suggest that Clinical social workers had more years of social work experience than any other category of social workers. The mean and median years of Clinical social workers were 14.85 years and 12 years, followed by 13.42 years and 11 years of Advanced Generalist social workers. While Bachelors social workers had similar mean and median years of social work experience, Masters social workers had the shortest years of social work experience, with a mean and a median of 10.21 and 7 years. These differences in work experience should be related to the differences in social workers’ ages discussed earlier.
Practice Characteristics
To answer the sixth research question about the practice characteristics of licensed social workers, Table 8 through 12 show detailed results of licensed social workers’ practice settings, functions, client groups, primary roles, and electronic practice by practice category. Table 8 summarizes licensed social workers’ practice settings by presenting the top five settings for all practice categories: (1) individual and family services agencies, (2) elementary or secondary schools, (3) outpatient care centers, (4) general or specialty hospitals, and (5) other healthcare agencies. Although all categories of licensed social workers worked in these five settings, the prevalence differed considerably by category. Overall, as the category moved from Bachelors, Masters, and Advanced Generalist to Clinical, the share of social workers in three healthcare settings—outpatient care centers, hospitals, and other health services agencies—increased gradually. Conversely, the share of social workers working in the first two settings—individual and family services agencies and schools—declined correspondingly. While the largest percentage of Bachelors social workers (31%) worked in individual and family services agencies, less than 22% of them worked in the three healthcare settings. On the other hand, only about 17% of Clinical social workers reported working in individual and family services agencies. However, nearly 41% of them worked in the three healthcare settings, the largest being outpatient care centers. Fewer percentages of both Advanced Generalist (8.91%) and Masters (9.41%) social workers, compared to Clinical social workers (17.04%), worked in outpatient care centers. However, a similar share of them worked in hospitals and other healthcare services agencies.
Practice Setting Among Licensed Social Work Employees, Excluding Self-Employees (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Table 9 shows findings about social workers’ practice function. The overall findings were, in general, in line with the findings about practice settings. Licensed social workers, regardless of practice category, provided multiple healthcare, children/family, and advocacy-related functions. However, as the social workers’ practice category moves from Bachelors to Clinical, the size of social workers providing family and children's services and advocacy services decreased, while the size of those fulfilling healthcare services functions increased. More specifically, more than 74% of Clinical social workers reported providing mental/behavioral health services, and 48% to 50% of Advanced Generalist and Masters social workers reported the same. However, less than 30% of Bachelors social workers indicated that they fulfilled such a function.
Practice Function of Licensed Social Workers, Check All That Apply (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Table 10 shows the main client groups that licensed social workers reported serving. As the 2024 Workforce Survey questions asked respondents to check all answers that applied to them, the answers totaled more than 100%. All licensed social workers, regardless of their practice categories, served clients of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and older adults. Nevertheless, the difference was that as the practice category moved from Bachelors, Masters, Advanced Generalists, and then to Clinical, the percentage of licensed social workers working with children reduced while the percentage serving adults increased. That is, Bachelors social workers had the highest share (43.06%) of those working with children, whereas Clinical social workers had the highest share (80.49%) of workers serving adults.
Main Client Groups of Licensed Social Workers, Check All That Apply (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Table 10 also shows that licensed social workers served diverse groups of clients, including racial and sexual minorities, immigrants and refugees, and those with limited incomes. The client group that the highest shares (between 38% and 45%) of licensed social workers worked with was people with limited incomes. Relatedly, between 31% and 37% of licensed social workers reported that they served individuals eligible for Medicaid. The notable difference by practice category was that relative to social workers in other practice categories, the lowest share of Clinical social workers worked with people with limited incomes (38.43% relative to about 43%–45%), but the highest share of them served sexual minorities (21.45% compared to around 13%–16% for Bachelors and Masters social workers). Licensed social workers also worked with clients from diverse language backgrounds. Between 2% and 3% of them had clients whose primary language was French, and 17% and 23% had clients who primarily spoke Spanish. Between 9% and 12% of licensed social workers reported working with clients whose primary language was neither English, French, nor Spanish.
Additionally, licensed social workers serve clients with various needs, including mental health disorders, substance use disorders, issues with child safety and wellbeing, and assistance with daily living activities. As suggested earlier, compared to social workers of other practice categories, the highest share of Bachelors social workers served people involved with child welfare issues (31%) and those in need of assistance with daily living activities (36%). The highest share of Clinical social workers served people with mental health and substance use disorders. The percentages of Masters and Advanced Generalist social workers working with those client groups fell between the percentages of Bachelors and Clinical social workers.
The 2024 Workforce Survey asked social workers what their primary roles were in their practice settings. Table 11 reveals a close relationship between social workers’ practice category and their roles. Over 65% of Clinical social workers identified as direct service providers, compared to 43% of Advanced Generalists and 48% of Masters social workers. Nearly 18% of Advanced Generalist social workers were case managers, and 13.21% of them were administrators or program managers. Similarly, approximately 21% and 9% of Masters social workers reported that their primary roles were case managers and program managers. For Bachelors social workers, just 13.34% indicated that they were direct service providers, whereas nearly 42% served as case managers. Slightly more than 8% of Bachelors social workers reported the primary roles as supervisors or service coordinators.
The Primary Role of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Interestingly, less than 1% of all categories of licensed social workers, including Advanced Generalist, reported that their primary roles were community organizers or evaluators/researchers. Only 1.1% of Advanced Generalist, 1.35% of Masters, and 2.75% of Bachelors social workers identified advocates as their primary roles. Combining the percentages of licensed social workers engaged in the seven macro roles—administrator or program manager, advocate, evaluator or researcher, community organizer, policy analyst, mediator, and community support—revealed an interesting finding. A total of 11.38% of Bachelors, 12.93% of Masters, 17.09% of Advanced Generalist, and 10.20% of Clinical social workers identified with macro-related roles. These findings suggest that macro-related roles are not very common primary roles for licensed social workers, even among Advanced Generalist social workers.
As electronic practice has become increasingly important in promoting client access to healthcare, the Workforce Survey included a question regarding its use. In the survey question, electronic practice was defined as providing services electronically using the internet, social media, online chat, text, email, smartphone, or other platforms. As shown in Table 12, only about 8% to 11% of licensed social workers reported that they have never engaged in electronic practice. In contrast, more than 14% of Clinical social workers reported engaging in electronic practice 100% of their practice time. Meanwhile, 8.56% of Advanced Generalist social workers and 6.68% Masters social workers reported so. Only about 5.5% of Bachelors social workers reported being engaged in electronic practice 100% of their practice time. In the 2024 Workforce Survey, respondents were also asked whether they worked primarily online. The results showed that about 26% of Clinical social workers reported doing so, followed by 19% of Advanced Generalists, 14% of Masters, and 12% of Bachelors social workers. Again, as the practice category advanced from Bachelors to Clinical, the percentage of those working primarily online increased steadily.
Use of Electronic Practice Among Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Financial Characteristics
Table 13 shows results aimed at addressing a series of seventh research questions on financial characteristics of the licensed workforce. Table 13 provides detailed estimates, such as the amount of student loan debts upon graduation with the highest degree, the current balance of the debts, annual gross earnings from the primary jobs, and percentages of those with various employer-provided benefits. It is known that the amount of student loan debt varies by education level. According to the Pew Research Center (2024), typical bachelor's degree holders who borrowed owe between $20,000 and $25,000, whereas those with a postgraduate degree owe between $40,000 and $45,000.
Financial Characteristics of Licensed Social Workers (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Table 13 shows that approximately 16% to 18% of licensed social workers reported having no student loan debt. Bachelors social workers had less debt than those in other practice categories that require an MSW. Nearly 46% of Bachelors social workers reported a loan debt between $10,000 and $50,000 upon graduation. Over 50% of Master's, Advanced Generalist, and Clinical social workers had graduated from their MSW programs with debt amounts exceeding $50,000. About 40% to 45% of these social workers still owed more than $50,000 in loan balance.
Table 13 reveals licensed social workers’ annual gross earnings from the primary job at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles by their practice category. The 50th percentile (median) earnings of licensed social workers increased steadily as their practice category moved from Bachelors ($57,680), Masters ($66,950), Advanced Generalist ($72,100), and to Clinical ($77,250). This gradual increase in annual gross earnings by practice category was also observed at each percentile of earnings. At the 75th percentile, earnings ranged from $67,980 for Bachelors, $79,310 for Masters, $87,550 for Advanced Generalist, and $95,790 for Clinical social workers. As Table 13 shows, the mean gross earnings were $59,920 for Bachelors, $69,828 for Masters, $76,334 for Advanced Generalist, and $82,537 for Clinical social workers.
Additionally, Table 13 also includes the gross earnings of licensed social workers who worked full-time (at least 35 h per week) and year-round (for at least 50 weeks per year). As expected, the median earnings of full-time, year-round working licensed social workers were higher than those of all licensed social workers. More specifically, full-time year-round working social workers’ median earnings were $58,710 for Bachelors, $67,980 for Masters, $76,220 for Advanced Generalist, and $82,400 for Clinical social workers. These median earnings were very similar to the mean earnings of all licensed social workers, including those working part-time and part-year.
The lower rows of Table 13 display the percentage of licensed social workers whose employers offered benefits such as health insurance, life insurance, retirement savings plans, and family and medical leave. The analyses excluded self-employed social workers. A high percentage of licensed social workers, across all practice categories, were offered various employment-based benefits by their employers. Around 94% to 95% were offered a health insurance plan, 81% to 82% a life insurance plan, 86% to 88% a retirement savings plan, and 75% to 79% a family and medical leave. Additionally, about 73% of Masters social workers and 78% of Clinical social workers reported that their employers contributed to their retirement savings plans. Approximately 91% to 92% of licensed social workers were also offered a dental insurance plan by their employers.
To provide context for these benefit offerings, Table 14 presents the percentages of civilian, private industry, and government workers whose employers offered similar benefits based on the National Compensation Survey (NCS) collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. BLS, 2024b). Direct comparisons of the percentages of workers offered benefits are neither possible nor accurate because of differences in the NCS and the 2024 Social Work Workforce Survey. Nevertheless, a general comparison of the figures in Tables 13 and 14 suggests that licensed social workers, in general, enjoyed better or comparable rates of access to health, dental, and life insurance plans, as well as retirement savings plans, compared to civilian, private, and government workers, with the exception of family and medical leave.
Percentage of U.S. Workers with Access to Employer-Provided Benefits, 2024.
Note. Adopted from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2024b). Employee benefits in the United States, March 2024 https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2024.htm
Career and Educational Plans
To answer a series of research questions about the career and education plans or goals for licensed social workers, the 2024 Workforce Survey asked social workers about their career and educational plans or goals for the next 2 years. Table 15 presents detailed findings by practice category. Note that respondents were allowed to choose multiple career plan options. Part of the findings suggest some social workers have career and educational plans that signal their satisfaction with the social work profession (although they may not be satisfied with their current jobs or employers). For example, more than 60% of licensed social workers, regardless of their practice categories, responded that they were planning to remain in their current position. The highest share of 69% of Clinical social workers reported such a plan, compared to 61% of master's social workers. Many licensed social workers were planning to seek new opportunities or promotions as social workers. The highest share of social workers with such a plan was found among Master's social workers at nearly 46%, and the smallest percentage was among Clinical social workers at 35%.
Career and Educational Plans or Goals of Licensed Social Workers, Check All That Apply (Weighted Percentage Distribution).
Furthermore, approximately 30% of Advanced Generalist and Masters social workers reported pursuing further training in social work, higher than 22% and 24% of Bachelors and Clinical social workers. Over 25% and 21% of Masters and Advanced Generalist social workers reported that they were pursuing social work licensure, probably clinical licensure or the same category of licenses in other states. Table 15 also indicated that over 12% of Bachelors social workers were planning to pursue a social work degree, perhaps an MSW. About 3% of Bachelors social workers and 6% of those in other practice categories reported planning to work longer hours as social workers. Overall, the findings suggest that most licensed social workers were planning to look for more opportunities, training, and promotions while remaining in their current positions for their career goals or plans.
Additionally, Table 15 shows the percentage of social workers with career and educational plans, signaling that they were dissatisfied with the social work profession. Nevertheless, the shares of licensed social workers who reported planning to decrease work hours, leave the social work field, or pursue a nonsocial work degree or license were relatively small. For example, about 4.78% of Bachelors and 4.26% of Advanced Generalist social workers reported that they planned to leave the social work field but continue to work, and 3% of Clinical and 3.31% of Masters social workers answered the same. These findings, overall, were consistent with the findings reported from the 2004 survey of the licensed social work workforce (Center for Health Workforce Studies & NASW Center for Workforce Studies, 2006).
Geographic Density
Table 16 provides results regarding the geographic distribution and density of all licensed social workers across the country. Table 16 answers the last research question of this study: How were licensed social workers, particularly clinical social workers, distributed across the country? What was the geographic density of the licensed workforce, and how did states compare in terms of the density? The analyses revealed that there were 1.40 licensed social workers per 1000 individuals nationally and that there was considerable state-by-state variation. Five states—Maine (3.56), Massachusetts (3.55), Kansas (3.30), Nevada (3.12), and Rhode Island (3.01)—had more than three licensed social workers per 1000 individuals (the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of social workers per 1000 individuals). In contrast, states like Arizona (0.72), Arkansas and Nebraska (0.71), California (0.59), Oklahoma (0.56), and Florida (0.41) had far fewer licensed social workers for every 1000 individuals than the national average.
Estimated Number of Licensed Social Workers and Clinical Social Workers per 1000 People.
Table 16 provides a detailed breakdown of the geographic density of Clinical social workers by state. The estimated number of Clinical social workers per 1000 individuals across the nation was 0.82. Some states in the Northeast region, such as Rhode Island (2.45), Massachusetts (2.29), New Hampshire (2.14), and Maine (2.1), had more than two Clinical social workers per 1000 people. However, some other states, such as Mississippi (0.38), Florida (0.35), Oklahoma (0.34), Texas (0.34), and Arizona (0.33), had fewer than 0.40 Clinical social workers per 1000 people (i.e., fewer than 40 Clinical social workers per 100,000 individuals), suggesting an uneven distribution of Clinical social workers nationally.
These findings were generally aligned with those by Lin et al. (2016), who projected state-by-state social work shortages based on supply and demand models of the social work workforce using personal health expenditure and the propensity to become a social worker. They projected that states in the South and the West would experience more shortages of social workers compared to the Midwest and the Northeast, and that states like Florida, California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia would have the most severe social worker shortages. As many complex factors affect the supply and demand of the social work workforce in a geographic area, these findings should never be conclusive. Nevertheless, the level of geographic density in the clinical social work workforce may deserve the attention of professional stakeholders.
Discussion and Application to Practice
This study presented findings about licensed social workers from the largest social work workforce survey in history. It pointed out that the U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook information about the social work workforce, which is often used to describe the profession, does not accurately represent the size and earnings of the workforce, as it excludes self-employed social workers, a sizable group of master's level social workers (in Masters and Clinical practice categories). Another important finding of this study was that the estimates based on the U.S. Census Bureau's household surveys may also underestimate the size of the licensed workforce and misrepresent its educational composition. As the household surveys are for self-identified social workers, including individuals without social work credentials, they also significantly underestimate the earnings profile of licensed social workers. These findings justify why the profession needs to conduct a national workforce survey to collect accurate and up-to-date workforce information. An accurate understanding of the workforce profile is critical for professional identity and public perception of the profession (Williams & Vieyra, 2018). Stakeholders also need such information for their professional advocacy and policy development efforts.
Unlike the nursing profession, the social work profession does not have a national data collection system for the licensed workforce that can serve as a sampling frame for a nationally representative sample of licensed social workers. According to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (2025), the regulatory boards of the nursing profession, together with the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, established a national database called Nursys, which contains information about nurses licensed in participating boards of nursing, including all states in the Nurse Licensure Compact. Every other year, nurses across the country are selected at random to participate in a workforce survey. The collected data become part of the national nursing workforce dataset, and findings from the analyses generate important knowledge about the supply and workforce planning of the nursing profession. Using the nursing profession as an example, the social work profession can build a similar national database and research infrastructure for regular workforce studies. Given the enactment and implementation of the Interstate Compact, such an effort can be timely and feasible if key stakeholders can work together.
The demographic characteristics of the licensed workforce suggest that the workforce needs to be diversified to include more immigrants and racial and ethnic groups. The demographic profile revealed that the majority of licensed social workers were U.S.-born White females in their early 40s. Although the workforce has become more racially and ethnically diverse compared to the past—down from 84.5% White two decades ago to over 70% White among Masters and 77% White among Clinical social workers—there remains a significant need to further diversify the workforce to reflect the overall U.S. population.
The findings of this study show the labor market value of social work degrees and licensure. The licensed social work workforce is largely concentrated in behavioral healthcare settings, where MSW degrees and licensure are required and valued by employers and their positions. The analyses showed that licensed social workers’ employment characteristics vary by practice category. Clinical social workers tend to work fewer hours and weeks, offering them greater job flexibility. Most licensed social workers, overall, enjoy basic employment benefits provided by their employers. Additionally, a significant share of Clinical workers is self-employed in private solo and group practice or as independent contractors. Surprisingly, approximately 31% of Clinical and 25% of Masters social workers hold multiple jobs, with part-time work being more prevalent among Clinical social workers than those in other practice categories. However, the high incidence of multiple job holdings raises concerns, as it may indicate that their primary positions provide insufficient earnings or career opportunities. Therefore, the prevalence of multiple job-holding warrants further exploration into the motivations and nature of the additional jobs.
Regarding licensure and supervision experience, as the licensed social workers’ practice category progressed, their focus on mental and behavioral health services increased, with over 74% of Clinical social workers providing such services. Similarly, the proportion of social workers primarily engaging in electronic practice increased from 12% at the Bachelor's level to 26% at the Clinical level. Additionally, around 22% of Clinical social workers were licensed in multiple states, indicating potential benefits from the newly adopted Interstate Licensure Compact. Most importantly, since more than a quarter (26%) of Clinical social workers reported paying for supervision, professional stakeholders should investigate whether the financial demands of obtaining clinical supervision present a barrier to Clinical licensure for those with limited incomes.
Although Clinical licensure is available in all states and the District of Columbia, the geographic density of Clinical social workers was found to be uneven across the country, indicating that public access to Clinical social work services would vary substantially by state. Some states, such as Mississippi (0.38), Florida (0.35), Oklahoma (0.34), Texas (0.34), and Arizona (0.33), appeared to have fewer than 40 Clinical social workers for every 100,000 individuals (as shown in the density indicator in parentheses). Due to uncertainty about what population-to-provider ratios should be considered a threshold for policy interventions, it is challenging to assess whether these low-density states require policy attention. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)'s National Center for Health Workforce Analysis once projected that there would be more than enough social workers to meet the behavioral health needs of the population from 2016 through 2030 (HRSA, 2018). However, the projection did not account for the educational and licensure requirements of social work positions that noncredentialed candidates may not be qualified to fill. That means HRSA's projection may misrepresent the supply of the professional social work workforce and potentially mislead the stakeholders and policymakers in their important policy decisions. Given that context, professional stakeholders need to take note of the variations in the density of licensed social workers across the country and consider monitoring and developing workforce development plans collectively (Lin et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2009). They must put together resources and expertise to create a system for collecting comprehensive and current data about the workforce to generate nationally representative workforce statistics, monitor important trends in the workforce, and inform both the workforce and the public.
Footnotes
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). However, the opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the author and may not reflect the ASWB's official position. Note that this manuscript is a modified version of the report released by ASWB on its website.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.