Clinical Social Experience Verification: Fill & Download for Free

The shortest answer: “pay”. That’s the difference between any profession & a volunteer. I am both: I’m a professional, licensed social worker who volunteers his services on a disaster mental health team. “Only licensed social work professionals may legally use the title Licensed Master Social Worker (LMSW) or Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) in New York State.” Other states’ laws may vary in different ways, though clinical social work is a licensed profession in all states. You can check whether someone in licensed in any profession in NYS here: NYS Professions - Online VerificationsHere in New York State, you might be describing these 5 groups of people:Licensed Clinical Social Worker - an LCSW who is licensed by New York State (the NYS Department of Education manages all licensed professions). An LCSW (a) has at least a Masters degree in Social Work (MSW - some have a DSW or PhD degree in Social Work), and (b) has at least 3 years of clinical experience (NYS DOE decides if your experience is clinical in nature), and (c) has passed a NYS licensing exam. An LCSW has the broadest “scope of practice” - the range of things they’re licensed to do. See “LMSW” below for details.Licensed Master Social Work - An LMSW (a) has a Masters degree in Social Work (MSW), and (b) has passed a licensing exam. According to Consumer Information, “The Licensed Clinical Social Worker may provide all social work services, including clinical services such as the diagnosis of mental, emotional, behavioral, developmental, and addictive disorders, the development of treatment plans, and the provision of psychotherapy. The Licensed Master Social Worker may provide these clinical services only under supervision of an LCSW, licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.”Again according to Consumer Information, “Social work services may also be provided by an unlicensed person with a Bachelor's in Social Work degree (BSW), under the supervision of an LMSW or LCSW, although non-licensees cannot diagnose or treat mental illness or hold themselves out as licensed.”Colloquially but *not* legally, people will sometimes refer to a secretary, an administrative assistant, or other worker as a “social worker” if they work in a social service agency. They sometimes perform functions that seem like social work to the general public, e.g., reject an application for services, based on incomplete or otherwise problematic paperwork. It is illegal for such persons to represent themselves as a social worker, but other folks sometimes still use the term to describe them. This was more common before social work became a licensed profession in NYS some years back.A volunteer is someone who donates their work. Anyone can volunteer, so calling someone a volunteer makes no representation at all about their education or their experience. Some volunteers are great at what they do, but you have to know that person; the title tells you nothing.

One is a social label without inherent medical connotations whereas the other is a social label which is inherently clinical in nature.Neither objectively or reliably describes a particular subset of thoughts, experiences, or behaviors. Indeed, such labels are for the benefit of the person doing the labeling rather than the persons being labeled and it may be that neither holds any meaning or constructive influence for the person who is being labeled.“Spirituality” is a vague and fairly inclusive scope of philosophizing and categorizing experiences. “Schizophrenia” is a non-falsifiable pseudoscientific psychiatric concept which pathologizes based on social preferences rather than medical status.Because of how loosely and contradictorily the labels are applied, someone can be labeled with one, both, or neither, and still have the same life, perspectives, and experiences. There is no limit to how much the two can overlap, as the boundaries are interpretive rather than accountable to some sort of external verification.

Here’s what really happened:Li was a junior Ophthalmologist at a Wuhan hospital. He had no training in virology or epidemiology.Li overheard a rumor that SARS had broken out again.Li did not inform China’s CDC who, unbeknownst to him, were already investigating it.Instead, Li used social media to repeat the rumor to family and friends and they told their friends….Li was wrong professionally: it was not SARS, as he asserted in his tweets.Li was wrong legally: spreading rumors Publicly that are likely to cause panic is illegal in China.Li was wrong procedurally. China’s CDC was already investigating it.Li was not convicted of anything. After an hour of questioning the police concluded that he had merely acted irresponsibly. He signed a statement attesting to his mistake and was allowed to return to work.The US, which had staged bio warfare on China in 1951, unleashed its media—the same media that lied about WMD.Most Western media ignored China’s CDC.Western media inaccurately reported Li’s encounter with the police.NO Western media told the public that, worldwide, the outbreak would kill fewer people than die of ‘flu (a Coronavirus) in one day.An analysis of the Dr. Li Wenliang incident, from friends in the State Security Ministry and translated by China author Jeff J. Brown:"Regarding major public-health events in the country's explosive infectious-virus outbreak, we must speak with a unified voice. After impeccable verification, the information should be released by the relevant specialized departments. The virus must be identified not only through clinical experience, but be corroborated by all tests available to humanity. That’s a basic mechanism for national governance."Dr. Li was an ophthalmologist and not a front-line infectious-disease or fever clinic doctor. Nor was he a doctor who conducted professional testing and screening of the virus. That is to say, the information he obtained came from a colleague or medical circle, not through his own professional analysis or that of an equivalent. Further, he did not go through the normal channels before crossing the red lines to release major information to medical circles. Given the circumstances and lacking clearance for information release, public security officials handled things correctly. Their disciplining of Dr. Li was also moderate; they did not apply excessive force or injure him."In this outbreak, there will of course be cases of weak response or dereliction of duty. But ordinary people are unable to obtain public information on whether the disaster is natural or externally manufactured. Nor is the state able to put certain information or evidence on the table. If it is a manufactured disaster, then the possibility that the relevant departments and officials responsible might have been impeded in their duties or misled into error is relatively large, and their culpability comparatively small. To judge from CCTV’s whitewashing of Hubei Province, the prospect of an externally made crisis seems larger."At present, the situation facing the country is extremely complex and severe. It has to deal not only with domestic pressure but also with foreign pressure, not only with the pressure of the epidemic but also with production, food, materials, public opinion, economy, finance, diplomacy, military pressures. These are comprehensive. If a weak link is breached, it could spark a serious chain reaction and a domino effect. The consequences can not be imagined!"National security is the people’s interests. There are no rights and wrongs that supersede state security. The handling of all matters is related to the chain reaction: actions that benefit the nation’s interests are right; those that do the opposite are wrong. The immediate priority is to overcome the outbreak and end it. Everything else can be handled later, by correction or through accountability."The world is not as peaceful and harmonious as it might seem to average folks. The greater the tensions within the country, the more furiously the rumors fly. That’s when external forces aim at public opinion and begin their precisely targeted attack. It’s like what we have seen in Hong Kong. Once the government loses its credibility and control of the narrative, it’s on an irreversible path to perdition!"Why did public opinion choose Dr. Li to focus on? Because he was young, handsome, progressive, kind-hearted. Pick him and you can readily get ordinary people to sympathize … the easier to incite public opinion. Given his youth and what’s known about the virus, Dr. Li’s death was a very low-probability event. Yet within an hour, even before his treatment began, public sentiment was boiling over and people were mourning him. Disinformation was circulating that his parents, wife and children had died as a result of the outbreak. What despicable, cold-blooded actions!"The rumors are no more than a bid to create a climate of terror and undermine internal unity. Hubei Province has been their breakthrough point. If Hubei falls, so would the whole country. So they zeroed in on Hubei. But if Hubei can pull together and tide itself over the difficulties, the country can turn to safety!"Even if the People's Daily or some VIPs intervened, it would not yet be possible to determine what’s true and what’s false. Whatever the case, the state has been obliged to make concessions to pacify public opinion. This only underscores the precariousness of the situation!"The discourse on the epidemic is now pointing fingers at the public security units — verbally and in writing. Medics aside, which police force isn’t fighting on the frontlines against the virus? If their morale and their ability to maintain order are undermined, the consequences can be easily imagined. That’s why the external forces are making precision attacks, replicating the Hong Kong model."This incident seems no simple matter. Whether it’s a natural or man-made disaster may never be answered, but its impact on China evidently is not just an epidemic. Heaven bless China!"